At least we successfully prevented the justice department from having the appearance of pursuing partisan goals. That would have been the worst possible outcome.
You presented your opinion and then contrasted it with that of middle school children spending their parents money. If you don't think that comes off as you saying anyone who disagrees with you has the perspective of a middle schooler then you aren't a very good communicator.
Maybe some people just don't like grinding for hours and hours to replace stuff they already acquired in a video game. I'm not sure why you have to present your opinion as if it's the only valid option and everyone who disagrees is an immature child.
I think you're wrong about that. As someone who left I can say with some amount of certainty that most of the smart ones do leave and that's part of why it remains shitty.
To be clear I'm referring to smart people I know who grew up there. The vast majority don't live there anymore. This isn't just a roundabout way of calling myself smart.
You're making an awful lot of assumptions about me and how I live my life. That's fine, but I'm not all that interested in being a sounding board for your frustrations with my country.
I have the means and the desire to do what you're suggesting but when it comes down to it my desire to protect my family outweighs my desire to protect my country. At least for now that seems the wiser choice for me personally, and I suspect that is true for a lot of others as well.
The problem is that there's no clear line to delineate what that decision should hinge on. If you asked me 10 years ago where the line is I probably would have said somewhere well behind us now. Still, I know what will happen to me and my family if I'm the one to act first and that familial preservation instinct is difficult to overcome. Choosing to be first through the breach, so to speak, is a heavy burden to bear.
I think that dilemma is what prevents most who are predisposed to act from choosing to act, more so than a lack of knowledge about the situation.
While there are certainly flaws in the American system of government, this is not the result of one man simply being above the law. There are plenty of existing ways to stop this from happening but half of the government is actively supporting his efforts. There is no system of government that can survive when the people who are charged with enforcing the rules collectively decide not to enforce them. At that point the specifics don't matter.
I mean, who wants to make a deal with an admin, when every 4 years it can go back on its word?
This certainly isn't unique to the US. It may be more pronounced here at this moment in time but that wouldn't have been true 20 years ago. The system hasn't changed in that time. The same can happen anywhere else with the right conditions.
You guys keep bringing this up as if the day when those non-voters start voting for Democrats is right around the corner. The percentage of people who don't vote hasn't changed much in 100 years. Quit wasting words on people who will never matter in this context.
You can't infringe on the freedoms of others even if doing so would save other people's lives. That's un-American.
Unrelated, but I heard there's a trans cross country runner a few states over who's winning most of the regional track meets. We have to put a stop to that at all costs.
Well statistically about 30% of people worldwide don't mind fascism so that's hundreds of millions of people too. I'm not sure I'd be willing to say a lack of loving relationships is the primary cause of that but I doubt solving that problem would hurt.
He also said he's not sure if we need to uphold due process in all situations. I'm willing to concede the point in his case if it means we can hang him tomorrow.
At least we successfully prevented the justice department from having the appearance of pursuing partisan goals. That would have been the worst possible outcome.