Or, an ICE agent, police officer, border agent, private security guard, etc. etc.
"Third-world" doesn't mean what you think it means. Switzerland is a third-world country.
A citation would be nice. Also, what countries would be second-world with that definition?
EDIT: Note that I asked what countries would be SECOND-world with this definition. Not third-world.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_World
>Also, what countries would be second-world with that definition?
In present-day English, the Third World is "the developing countries of Europe, Asia, Latin America, and Africa".[1] Third world countries in Europe, Latin America, Asia, and Africa include Russia, Albania, Nigeria, India, Pakistan, Indonesia, Dominican Republic, Cuba, South Africa, and Armenia. The term usually suggests poverty and low level of industrial development and thus it is the opposite of the term developed nations. This usage is considered by some to be offensive.
About the origin of those terms see [2].
The Second World term was seldom used in Europe even during the 70s as far as I can remember. There is no more second world now. We jump straight from first to third world. It feels sadly right if we agree that the gap is widening.
By the way, nobody in Europe would think Russia is a third world country. It's first world.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_World
[2] http://www.nationsonline.org/oneworld/third_world_countries....
First, second and third world is now drastically more commonly used as a reference to the level of development.
Oh and BTW, understanding that “1, 2, 3rd world” are not a success scale enshrining the winner position to one’s own moral system does help a lot in not coming through as an arrogant fool.
This is the thing where I am not sure of, and this is the problem. You remember "Lock her up"? Who can guarantee that Trump is not going to follow through on this promise? Who can guarantee that Trump will not again cooperate with the Russians in order to get reelected? Or for what its worth who can guarantee that Trump won't pardon himself (or fire Mueller) when the fire of the Mueller investigations grows too hot - and then, who can guarantee that the Republicans will grow the spine to impeach him?
The perspective of a possibility of change in three years is growing slimmer and slimmer by the day, with each moderate Republican getting replaced by an alt-righter. And you better hope no other Supreme Court justice dies or retires as long as Trump is in power - because then nothing that challenges gerrymandering will pass the SC.
1) He hasn't in over a year of office.
2) He can't do anything that overrides the judicial and legislative branches. Which is why ALL of his major plans go no where. No Muslim ban. No reproductive rights changes. Nothing.
3) If she commits crimes, why should she be above jail time? Shouldn't everyone who major commits crimes be in jail? Trump, Hillary, what's the difference? A crime is a crime--regardless of whether you like that candidate.
And back to #2. That is why your worldview is both insane, and dangerous. Even when you have a "Bad president" the rest of the country keeps ticking along fine because the other branches are designed from the ground up to prevent dictators of all types.
So you basically just want to burn the country to the ground because "your candidate" didn't win. And that's a horrific reason to plunge a country into chaos. You're basically arguing to plunge the country into the very chaos you claim we're already in.
Dragging bodies through the streets? Burning down buildings, and neighborhoods? Smoke bombs? Throwing bottles of piss at veterans? Does that sound like something that brings freedom and liberty and peace? Does utopia come from evil? And how in the world can you be sure "your vision" of utopia is going to be the one that comes when you pull a revolution? You think when you destabilize the most powerful country in the world, that nobody else in the world is going to try and swoop into that power vacuum?
Only if you've been drinking the coolaid.
So let me end with a quote from Bill Clinton:
They need to be for something specific
and not just against something because
if you’re just against something,
somebody else will fill the vacuum
you create.”https://www.guttmacher.org/article/2017/07/laws-affecting-re...
There have been plenty of changes. They may not have occurred on the Federal level, but at the state level, plenty of things have changed. Both of which are empowered in both positive and negative directions (I leave it as an exercise to the reader to determine which is which) by this administration.
For now, they hold. Trump has (more or less) silently nominated huge numbers of federal judges (http://www.businessinsider.de/trump-judges-attorneys-nominat...). Once these go through, or a SC judge dies/retires, these are lifetime positions and will shape US justice for decades.
> 3) If she commits crimes, why should she be above jail time? Shoudln't everyone who major commits crimes be in jail? Trump, Hillary, what's the difference? A crime is a crime--regardless of whether you like that candidate.
"Three felonies a day" and "selective enforcement" are the key points here. Of course it's fine if Hillary really did commit a crime by mishandling her emails - but if his inner circle gets off free for the same offense (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/25/us/politics/private-email...), it's not fair any more.
> Even when you have a "Bad president" the rest of the country keeps ticking along fine because the other branches are designed from the ground up to prevent dictators of all types.
The Electoral College was designed to keep a unfit person from office, and Trump with his many failures (from bankruptcies over countless accusations of sexual misconduct, some even confessed by himself, to being in collusion with the Russians and the simple fact that many professionals regard him as mentally unfit) still passed. I do not place trust in a system that has been rotting since decades.
> So you basically just want to burn the country to the ground because "your candidate" didn't win.
Burning the country to the ground is what Trump and his destructionist friends (the Bannon circle) are right in the middle of doing! By defunding critical parts of the state, they're eroding public service and thus the trust of the population in the government!
> You think when you destabilize the most powerful country in the world, that nobody else in the world is going to try and swoop into that power vacuum?
This is the thing that scares me: A President obviously unfit for office and chaos across the world - including, to come back to the original topic, Romania and many other Eastern European countries. A competent president would be literally doing everything to keep the US in influence and the Russians in check - Trump is embroiled in so many scandals that Putin, Xi and Kim Jong-Un have free rein.
And, maybe a bit funny because I identify as far-left, but what Putin has been doing in (Eastern) Europe (not just invading Ukraine, but also supporting right-wing and pro-Russian parties in France, Germany, Poland or Hungary) is really scaring me. Putin is dangerous, Europe is way too far split to be any kind of opposition and the US cannot be relied upon any more. Not really nice prospects.
That is the difference between a first world country and a second or third. Some people may hate trump but they also know in a few years people will have the option of voting for someone else.
When you change leaders by dragging them down a street you get the types of leaders who will drag you down the street if need be.