mangodrunk

Hear, hear. It would be good for more people to travel abroad and experience firsthand how much better we have it in the US than most other places. The concern is that we actually have it better than most yet too many actually want to replace our current system with something else that has a horrible track record.

If many of our welfare programs actually helped their intended recipients we would be able to help those in need get to being self sufficient instead of the fraudsters stealing all that money.

You think the biggest difference is Candy Crush? Have you forgotten about clean drinking water, plumbing, abundance of food, air conditioning, medicine, healthcare, etc?

This is an important perspective that is unfortunately lost on too many. Too many think we need a drastic overhaul of our current system not taking into account that our system is better than most and that even the bottom 5% are far better off in the USA than most everywhere else, not to mention for the other 95% as well.

Obviously that isn’t to say there is isn’t room for improvement or that we shouldn’t try, but the current system has worked incredibly well.

Buddy, I think you would benefit from getting your news from other sources.

The mental gymnastics on display here by so many is quite impressive. Many are now saying term limits are bad. They want the government to control media outlets. They take on face value vague accusations against META doing something wrong.

Unfortunately those on the left seem to have fascist tendencies.

Or,

The left: let’s do empty gestures and those who are supposed to help just commit fraud instead. Let’s support genocide but be “sad” about it online.

The right: let’s make sure that people aren’t hindered in leading the lives that they want and everyone benefits from this.

The center: the left claims to do nice things and the right doesn’t seem friendly.

By non-partisan, it is meant that a person will apply reasoning instead of blindly following the partisan narrative.

It is incredible how little critical thinking is being applied on the Brazilian election. Too many are taking at face value that somehow META is responsible for something nefarious without any direct evidence and accusations.

I have enjoyed our many threads we have had. I appreciate you keeping this civil. Feel free to have the last word, I do enjoy the push back and your perspective.

A variety of sources, some more frequently than others depending on current events and interests and some subscriptions have lapsed (the new york times, npr, foxnews, the wall street journal, national review, al jazeera, the guardian, the telegraph). I would recommend you and others do the same.

Ilhan Omar’s alleged corruption and immigration fraud and the rampant fraud in Minnesota are good examples where the left leaning media has ignored but others have not.

Iran was going through a humanitarian crisis after the Iranian regime killed tens of thousands of civilians, not to mention the nearly 50 years of oppression and suffering that the IRGC has inflicted. The approach of appeasement was disastrous and gave the Iranian regime a lot of money.

So you want constant war in Ukraine? What did Obama do when Russia took Crimea? What did Biden do during the Russia-Ukraine war that improved the situation?

He’s a narcissist, but so are all of them but Trump is probably more tactless about it than most.

Sure, you are free to care about naming things when there are humanitarian crises throughout the world.

I had similar concerns about Obama and would add his appeasement strategy with Iran as disastrous. I voted for him twice and think overall he was pretty decent.

You are exaggerating what ICE has done, they of course will make mistakes but overall they have done a good job.

You are very misinformed on the Russia hoax, it was fabricated by the DNC.

Last I checked, he conceded the presidency to Biden in 2020. Certainly the claims of massive fraud are unsubstantiated and those that stormed the Capitol should be prosecuted. Though, there does seem to be some amount of fraud going on and the democrats not wanting to pursue that is misguided.

Perhaps making less than ideal choices is necessary to stop an even worse war?

I think that is a reasonable critique. Though I don’t think that it will lead to a dictatorship. If that is your concern I can certainly see why you are so against it. Though we already have the president’s cabinet needing senate approval similar to these other appointments. So I see that as being the checks and balances of this power.

I have similar reservations, though some balance between these options is probably the most reasonable.

That’s a great question. I would think doing something unconstitutional ruled by the court after the ruling.

It’s a hoax that was fabricated by the DNC, look it up.

You’re repeating misinformation. The democrats fabricated this link that was unfounded.

I think you should read up on the latest findings, and consider other sources.

The people claiming to care about democracy don’t seem to care at all about it and are just attacking the other side. Similar to tea party people who went crazy when Obama was president.

Do you not consider it damning that so many shouldn’t be on the voter rolls?

Ilhan Omar certainly seems to have very concerning immigration records and given that a judge has signed the search warrant.

I think you have gone into conspiracy theory territory that I’m not familiar with.

Naming stuff after himself is certainly a good demonstration of his narcissistic tendencies and is tactless. I do think the criticism over this is fair but I don’t consider it that high on my list of priorities given it doesn’t materially affect anyone. We should probably have limits, and a good demonstration of that is the failure to rename the Kennedy Center.

I do agree that the ads should be criticized, but there is precedent for previous presidents having done something similar, not that it makes it above scrutiny but rather not so bad.

Do you see benefit in giving more power to those elected by the people than the people who aren't elected? This actually seems like the more democratic approach. Though I think to handle too much sudden change, some limits should be imposed, but not sure what that limit should be.

They of course are bounded by the constitution and haven't claimed otherwise. The court decides if something is unconstitutional and I do think impeachment is certainly a venue for accountability as well

I do think there's a problem and certainly agree with the general sentiment. I also do think we probably have it better than most other countries. So, perhaps we can deal with the oligarchy and fraud within our system. I do think that is what led many to vote for Trump, in that they feel failed by both parties and Trump was an outsider, similar to Bernie's ascendance.

What about the Russian Hoax to discredit Trump's first presidency?

What about the repeated attempts by left wing fanatics and the rhetoric that supports such actions, like claims of being a king or a fascist?

Yes, they (some democrats and No Kings protesters) seem to want to do some very undemocratic things.

I am very concerned with much of the rhetoric on the left. I used to be more concerned with the right.

From the other perspective, they think they have the legal right to do so and that they are wanting to limit wasteful spending. This is still very much inline with working within the constitution. How do you think this is king-like behavior?

Here are some things Obama did that were unprecedented or very concerning regarding the press:

* Obama extensively used the Espionage Act to uncover government sources used by the press and also against the press directly

* Obama secretly subpoenaed the phone calls of AP reporters

* Obama didn't allow or severely restricted photojournalists

I don't think that it is good to ban the media from the White House, and I do think the much of the criticism is fair, but to then claim that this is undemocratic is wrong.

I think because you agree with the sentiment, you think that it has been done, and that vague claims are counted as substantial.

I don't necessarily see this about whataboutism if the people making claims support another person or party that has the same faults that they are claiming.

That is a rather misguided and hyperbolic view of unitary executive theory. The president would still be elected and bounded by the constitution.