Quote:
Originally Posted by Rococo
I think this is a completely ass backwards analogy and a terrible way of thinking about government. I would sooner analogize to a guy shooting a high powered rifle at a dam. You may be seduced into believing that each individual shot does minimal damage to the dam. But little by little, the dam weakens. If you fire enough shots, eventually the dam will fail. Rebuilding the dam is a fraught activity, and even if you can rebuild, that is cold comfort to the people who were harmed when the dam failed. That's why it is better to avoid firing rounds at the dam like it is some kind of game.
I like your way of writing more than I should probably.
You evidently look like an exceptionally intelligent person (no matter if I can disagree with you on this or that).
So I feel compelled more than usual to answer any take of yours, I hope you excuse me for that.
I don't believe western society is built upon frail pillars though. I think the core essence is extremely resilient, and the USA has the most resilient system in the west (yes I am biased).
I think more often than not, people describe events they don't like, trends they don't like, as violation of their idea of democracy. I think they are mostly wrong: they simply dislike the developments politically, but they lose no threat to actual democracy.
I understand very intelligent people consider Trump a threat to democracy. I don't but I am ready to listen to proper descriptions of what exactly, is being threatened.
But even if I buy the idea Trump actually is a threat, I think he is a toothless one because the american military isn't even close to agree with him about any constitutional violation