We believe in democracy, but the U.S. is a republic and not a democracy. The goal in a presidential election is to win states. Hillary didn't win enough of them.
A republic is a type of democracy. The idea is still there though, the people have a say in deciding who runs the country, not the states.
But is stagnation a bad thing? Japan is an incredibly wealthy country, isn't their GDP the second highest in the world or something like that? Japan is an OECD country. They've reached a good point and they can keep it. Even then that's not even what you're saying though is it? Japan is capitalist. A different type, but still a capitalist country. Want to try your original claim again?
Yes. Stagnation is a very bad thing for a nation. http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/11/25/6-facts-about-japans-downbeat-economy/
How does that make stagnation bad? The costs of living are decreasing. So if the costs are decreasing but the output is the same, that's not a bad thing. The country has reached equilibrium. That's a good thing. http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/11/25/6-facts-about-japans-downbeat-economy/
stagnation means people aren't reaching their full potential, and dependent on the socialist welfare state for survival. that is not good because dependency leads to complacency, and complacency leads compliance, and compliance leads to nazi germany.
Japan has had the welfare state since the end of WWII. They are still a stable democracy with one of the highest standards of living in the world to this day and knock off the Nazi comparison.
President Trump wants japan to arm itself because its people do not understand freedom, since they have never fought for it. they were always loyal to the state and still are, today they cannot defend themselves and depend on others. dependency of a people leads to complacency, complacency leads to compliance, and compliance leads to what happened in nazi germany. economic stagnation is dangerous, people must be allowed to reach their full potential.
they have no nuclear weapons, but even if everyone had a nuclear weapon the welfare state will give up its freedom to eat.
What? A military doesn't need to have nuclear weapons to be effective. And what does nuclear weapons have to do with this? France has nuclear weapons and they're a welfare state as well.
Right. Which minority group needs to be put in internment camps first? That was a great idea coming from DEMOCRAT President Roosevelt.
whether welfare states are nuclear powers or not, economic stagnation from socialism steals their liberty. the people who press the nuclear button are not the peasants, they are the rulers of the country. in capitalism that is not crony, the people share power with their rulers because individuals are allowed to create their own wealth. in socialism wealth creation belongs to the state under government ownership or coercive regulation, and the people then become dependent, complacent, compliant, and ultimately nazi germany happens when there are problems with money that cause wars.
nazi germany was a 'national socialist' country, they scapegoated minorities because they couldn't pay the bills for their welfare state. President Trump is the opposite of what you fear, if he's being honest about ethical capitalism and fair trade.
