You’re lecturing me for “defeatism” while you’ve said yourself:

Yeah the thousands of people who are going to die, be bankrupted, and or go homeless in the meantime probably don’t give a fuck about how it might change the elections in a year.

There was never a time in American history where checks and balances actually protected the rights of anyone. Nothing we are seeing today is new. This is how the system has always worked. Also hierarchical authority is incapable of fighting corruption.

So when you say it, it’s righteous outrage. When I say it, it’s “bootlicking”? That’s not conviction, that’s ego.

You’re not defending hope. You’re defending the sound of your own voice. If you can’t tell the difference between grief and complicity, that’s your literacy problem, not mine.

And coming from someone who lectures strangers about “polite forms of communication” while doing nothing but sneer and posture, you might want to sit this one out.

Yeah. I can look at post histories too. The difference is, I’ve offered concrete examples, a thing you are oddly reluctant to do, because any of my comments would fall directly under the explanation I already provided, one you’ve agreed with in your own words. One wonders what might motivate your dodging a challenge issued multiple times.