@georgeob1,
Quote:The Nordic model comprises the economic and social policies as well as typical cultural practices common to the Nordic countries (Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden).[1] This includes a comprehensive welfare state and multi-level collective bargaining,[2] with a high percentage of the workforce unionised and a large percentage of the population employed by the public sector (roughly 30% of the work force).[3] The Nordic model began to gain attention after World War II.[4][5]
The three Scandinavian countries are monarchies, while Finland and Iceland have been republics since the 20th century. Currently, the Nordic countries are described as being highly democratic and all have a unicameral form of governance and use proportional representation in their electoral systems. Although there are significant differences among the Nordic countries,[6] they all have some common traits. These include support for a universalist welfare state aimed specifically at enhancing individual autonomy and promoting social mobility; a corporatist system involving a tripartite arrangement where representatives of labour and employers negotiate wages and labour market policy mediated by the government;[7] and a commitment to private ownership (with some caveats) within a mixed economy.[8]
As of 2018, all of the Nordic countries rank highly on the inequality-adjusted HDI and the Global Peace Index. In 2019, all five of the Nordic countries ranked in the top 10 on the World Happiness Report.[9]
Your continuing claims that social democracies of that sort are bound to fail inevitably or that they manifest Stalinist tendencies of the sort we were speaking of arise as a consequence only of your ideology. The north of Norway isn't marked by a string of Gulags and crime rates are one of the lowest in the world. Educational institutions and healthcare systems in all those nations rank superior to what you have in the US. Levels of incarceration are far lower than in the US. Suggesting that these states are failing is a silliness you can't let go of because your ideology does not permit a different conclusion.
But let's return to the original point... My claim that Trump manifests behaviors which are profoundly redolent of Stalinist modes of "leadership".
I posted video clips of Trump encouraging his followers to kick the **** out of protesters.
I posted a clip of Trump bragging about how he will move to seek vengeance against anyone who he deems an enemy ("I'll get them back 15 times as hard")
There are thousands of examples now of Trump demonizing (and attempting to do damage to) any media entity which criticizes him. The 1st Amendment, to him, is un-American, and a free press are "the enemy". He encourages his fans to scream at reporters. He propagandizes all non-right wing media as purveyors of fake news and constantly encourages his base to think that true.
He is purging any and all individuals throughout government who do not support him unquestioningly.
He publicly slanders any court or court official or justice official who speak against something he's done and he is filling the JD with yes men.
He is ripping apart your intelligence communities so as to ensure that no one working in this sphere will produce any finding which he finds inconvenient for his electoral purposes.
He attacks any individual in any sphere using personal slanders and graceless insults where they contest him and he encourages his fans to behave accordingly.
He consistently demonstrates an affinity for the world's worst, most tyrannical and anti-democratic leaders. The leaders of democratic nations are the one's he has insults for unless they, like Johnson, manifest characteristics similar to his own set of pathologies.
He bullies everyone around him.
He's using his office to increase his personal wealth.
Not one of those things is true of Sanders. Not one.
Quote:[Sanders' proposals go] beyond anything that could be either enacted her or tolerated by the American people.
There's some truth in this. But most of it is a consequence of your party's ideology and the effective propaganda campaigns it has set to since the 70s. (By the way, there's a Netflix video "Get Me Roger Stone" which features an interview with his criminal buddy Paul Manafort where he mentions his involvement in (his words) "the new conservative movement" which began with Goldwater, so you might want to view that for educational purposes).
But as to what Americans will tolerate, policy-wise, I don't see evidence this is actually a particular concern of yours. Your certainties lie in what you deem as legitimate political ideas and policies. The popular will is not very important to you.