Did Russians successfully manipulate or change American votes?

Five inaugural facts

There are less than 24 hours until Donald Trump is inaugurated as the 45th president of the United States!!!

Here are five facinating historical facts about the presidential inauguration:
5 facts you didn't know about past presidential inaugurations | unRavel

 

It's always welcome top work with clear definitions. So let's see now: under your definition, Sanders is not socialist, and certainly neither are Obama and Clinton. When exactly did "American citizens" have "seizing and redistributing all wealth" on the ballot (not that such absurd notion would pass, of course)?

 

Repeal Obamacare!

That old article is outdated and is from three years ago in the year 2014. As it stand now, Obama is the first president to not achieve a 3% GDP (and Obama will be lucky if it reaches a paltry 1.5%). Obama's socialist tendencies have:
- economically hurt more Americans
- and destroyed more American businesses
- than were helped.

Prior to the implementation of Obamacare, part-time workers could work as many hours as they wanted, thus enriching themselves economically. However, Obamacare mandated that anyone working 30 hours or more had to be provided healthcare insurance by the employer. To get around Obama's healthcare mandate:
- employers prohibited part-time workers from working more than 29 hours
- AND employers hired more part-time employees to ensure work-coverage
- thus more part-time jobs were created.

An unintended consequence of post-Obamacare implementation is that workers ended up holding multiple part-time jobs to survive economically. In that context:
- Obamacare caused employers to hire MORE part-time workers to work fewer hours, thus creating more part-time jobs.

It's called the law of unintended consequences, which is a major byproduct of socialism/communism. The only viable alternative to Obamacare is to repeal it. Thank goodness Obamacare is going to be repealed!!! Hallelujah!!!

 

It taste good and it's a blessing to the nation.

 

Normally and from a historical perspective, you are correct. However, Obamacare was unprecedented and was not normal -- and it had a tremendous impact on the economy, in conjunction with excessive presidential executive orders that stifled economic growth. Also, unfair trade agreements (NAFTA, WTO, etc.) that span several presidencies and houses of Congress have been chasing American corporations, industries and factories out of the United States for many years now.

 

That was an intentional mirror of me again.

OTOH, I do believe they should strive for taking the House, the Senate, and the Oval Office. I also think Dems will work towards these goals and could conceivably move farther if Trump fails hard enough and there's a blowback. Not all the way, in all likelihood; not right away. As to regulating Wall Street, people working on repealing Dodd-Frank certainly think it is a regulation on financial industry. I said "regulate" not "burn down" the Wall Street. I think it's important to ease on demonizing legal field of industry, even if a couple of those guys (including Mnuchin) would look good in orange.

 

Obamacare was as moderate as it gets, regulating a hopelessly FUBAR industry that is not a free market anyhow. Someone should have abolished it all and just implemented the only rational alternative, which is government-run single payer system. Some have good things to say about full-on government-run healthcare like in Japan or Great Britain, but I'm not so sure about that. Evidently, Obama was not "socialist" enough to even push for a lousy public option. If Trump enrages people enough to spark an actual upraising, maybe Comandante Bernie will do it once and for all. (for people who cannot tell: last sentence was sarcasm. The one before it is only partially serious.)

 

Keep the government out of healthcare provision.

 

Perhaps you could enlighten us about the evils of government in "healthcare provision". Especially, you know, me, the guy who had it both ways.

BTW, I am covered by a provincial plan (Ontario Health Insurance Program) as my primary insurance, and by Public Service Health Care Plan as my secondary. Please do not get the government out of MY insurance; that is the one thing about Canada that is genuinely superior (as opposed to customary pretend superiority). Oh yeah, I am also a member of a public sector union (the PIPSC), so you could bash these if you like. To make it even easier, I take advantage of the one thing that infuriates some both on the Right and the Left: a fully tax-funded Catholic school board, an artefact of Ontario constitutional history. So there. What else? The school parent committee? I'm a member of that as well.

 

The less government is involved, the better off citizens will be. The founding fathers of the United States never intended for the federal government to provide healthcare, welfare, social security, pensions, and other financial benefits. Leave it to the States to decide for themselves.

In the beginning, the federal government was primarily responsible for maintaining the military and border security -- and for about the first 150 years of the nation, the federal government only used about one to three percent of the GDP (with exceptions, such as the Civil War, WW1, etc.).

Now the federal government is responsible for maintaining too many things, which should be left to the States to decide -- and since WWII to now, the federal government gobbles up between 30 to 50+ percent of the GDP. That's outrageous.

It is impossible for the federal government to maintain its current level of growth and "entitlements provisions" to the people without:
- increasing taxes and/or
- increasing the debt level of the federal government and/or
- printing too many paper dollars (which devalues fiat currency)

Any trained monkey can pinpoint the above looming problems, which will increasingly be manifested over the next 50 to 100 years (if not sooner). However, finding answers is elusive. Eventually the nation is going to pay the grim consequences for promising too many entitlements that cannot be indefinitely sustained under the current financial and economic infrastructure.

“When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.” - Benjamin Franklin

 

The founding fathers also did not envisage women suffrage, vaccinations, and many other things. You'd really need to find better arguments.

Status quo ante obamacarum was a horrible mess, with government already deeply involved (as is unavoidable if you want to license providers; and I for one do not want unrestricted quackery), and premiums skyrocketing. ACA proposed a model that bans the worst abuses and compensates the industry through combination of mandates and subsidies, while providing a whole bunch of measures aimed at containing costs. This is ridiculously non-radical, certainly not "socialism", and has government involvement set at lowest among the developed nations. In contrast, Canadian federal law requires provinces to provide a single payer system covering most procedures and was initially pushed by the NDP (a party that openly described itself as "socialist" until I believe 2007). Thirty years later, the system is not just popular but a national monument rivalling maple syrup, hockey, and the Charter of Rights (often coming up ON TOP of these in polls about top national symbols). Most of these 30 years the country had balanced budgets. Similar situation is in Britain where the NHS is actually a government-run healthcare system, or in Japan that mandates universal access and BANS for-profit healthcare, and where you can get an MRI for 90 bucks (it's 1500 on average in US). The latter country has Constitution written by American victors after WWII.

(hilariously, Trump now promises healthcare system that'll cover "everyone" and for lower cost and with low deductibles; so he's either liar or bigger commie than Obama. Your pick really.)

 

Vaccinations are not a Constitutional issue, although they are a healthcare issue. Anyway...

The framers created the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The 18th Amendment was subsequently ratified and added to the Constitution to cover womens' suffrage -- exactly as the framers intended. Subsequently, the Constitution remains robust and relevant.

The SCOTUS ruling on legalized feticide definitely needs to be revisited. Hopefully, President Trump will appoint SCOTUS justices who are against feticide, euthanasia and other forms of human extermination where the victims have not been convicted of any capital crimes.

 

Constitution also gives Congress power to make laws. Like, you know, the Affordable Care Act of 2010.
BTW, do you think health insurance market would be harder for the Framers to imagine than women and Negroes having the vote? American revolutionaries pushed the boundary on things like freedom of religion and checks and balances, but they were children of their time.

Oh, we're on abortions now? I feel Gish Galloped .

You know, if the ideology that simultaneously calls for forcing women to carry every pregnancy and opposes giving people healthcare, education, and childcare for that matter, is consistent in something, it's not protection of life. What is your side offering to do to bring true equality for women?

 

Feticides and infanticides are disordered aberrations

Feticide does not bring true equality, especially to those who are exterminated by it.

Nazi researchers, to include Dr. Josef Mengele, practiced feticide and infanticide in experiments in concentration camps to learn how multiple births can be achieved to increase the numbers of an alleged superior race. When fetuses and newborn infants were of no more use to Dr. Mengele, he injected chloroform into them to exterminate them.

The DNC platform of pushing for "the right to feticides" is evil. Feticide and infanticide are disordered aberrations. The humans that are exterminated are made in the image of God. What gives you or anyone else the right to exterminate them?

 

So you have nothing to offer women? Thought so.
Look, I am not comfortable with "choice" being made cornerstone of feminism; too often it's no choice at all. But I do not dare to dictate what women can or cannot do to their bodies until I know more about the issue or have some solutions. You know, something like hillaryclinton.com - Women’s rights and opportunity. THEN you talk about how to protect life. And, oh, people who die because of the flawed helthcare provisioning system? ALSO images of God.

On this note, we salute the outgoing POTUS: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fk7lX6TqV7s

 

That was the 19th Amendment. The 18th was first needed to sober them up. Neither ended well. ;-)

 

Human Extermination

The bigger issue is not what women do to their bodies:
- The larger issue is the human extermination of those who are not convicted of capital crimes.
- The issue is feticide.

 

Oh sure. You would know.
That's how you guys end up sounding like misogynist fanatics.
The bigger issue is, half the population (actually more, with variety of kinds of bigotry) are treated second-class, in many subtle and not-so-subtle ways. I freely admit I benefit from it in my life in many ways (not least by the fact women are pushed out of STEM, even more so when I got into it than now. Did you ever hear the "guinea pig" joke, or is it Russian thing? Anihow, there are American brogrammer equivalents).