United States | News & Politics

Your argument was that fascists can destroy a lot of incremental change in a short while. I'm agreeing with you.

Although your assertion that it doesn't apply to politics is tenuous. I would say there's plenty of evidence against it from the dawn of civilisation: Ur, the Aztecs, Babylon, Ancient Greece, Persia, the Nordic countries, China, Enlightenment France, the Roman Empire, the Empire of Japan, the Austro-Hungarian Empire. All rode to ages of political dominance on the backs of stability, even the ones who resorted to genocide or purging opposition.

Cuba, Poland, Iraq, the EU and Australia have all also had immense growth and development in the last century in tandem with stability. In contrast to Afghanistan, ISIS, Palestine or the African warlord regions who haven't had as much.

So my point still stands, in the US, at least one party has spent decades tearing down, and from the looks of it one of them never tried to build anything up.

Yet, the population continues to vote this way. It's hard not to see it as voluntary; In that much time, accessing as much free information and thought as the US has, you can't really claim to be ignorant of differing information, other than willfully.

If both ruling parties are that obviously corrupt, why is there no action? It's been done in the country before, as well as in many other places, including in the last decade (Arab spring, South Korean president, BLM).

The argument points toward willfull acceptance if not outright choice.

If you disagree, give me evidence, not just your feelings.

If you don't, but don't accept the consequence - get out there and do something about it.