Democracy is supposedly the theoretical underpinning of socialist thinking. Majority rules, etc, etc. Yet, it's no secret that socialist/marxist/"progressive" thinking is very far out of synch with the American main stream. Even the most deranged "progressive" wouldn't try to claim that their philosophy was widely popular in the USA. After all, even the notion of Obamacare was not supported by the majority of Americans. Yet I can never get any of them to address the oxymoronic contradiction which is the theoretical construction of their own thinking, right... ? Since their ideas and philosophies aren't supported by the majority, they shouldn't be implemented, according to their doctrine. Even if their beliefs are ideal to them, they shouldn't be executed because they lack majority support. Yet, in practice that's not the case. Why? In practice they appear to want to impose their beliefs on the nation despite the fact that the vast majority of the nation doesn't support or agree with them. This flies in the face of the democratic ideal which they cite as a guiding principal. Further, why do they chose to expend their efforts trying to revolutionize the USA when many other nations on Earth have policies and governments which are far closer to what they view as ideal? Why not emmigrate to one of those nations, where such ideas are popular and presumably supported by the majority? Why stick around in a nation which you are ideologically and philisophically out of synch with, only to try to impose your ideas on the masses which disagree with you? Any of you progressives out there care to address the philisophical paradox and answer the question?