1. Bipartisan support for something isn't being "the same." I also take it that hundreds of thousands of dead Bosnians and millions of Kosovar refugees would have been a price worth paying for your virtue signaling.
2. That's what government does; it spends tax dollars. If you think they spend it like there's no tomorrow, why do we have infrastructure problems in parts of the country that are more akin to Brazil than they are to Belgium?
3. How, exactly, was Anwar al-Awlaki supposed to be brought to trial? Either a) at the potential cost of a large number of American lives in an operation that could end in him being inadvertently killed anyway, or b) by not pursuing people like al-Awlaki in the first place. In other words, a) is monumentally stupid and b) is tantamount at best to toleration of action aimed at destroying the country, at worst active collusion.
4. If Gitmo were illegal, the Supreme Court would have ordered its shutdown. In the United States, we have something called the rule of law. That means that if the Supreme Court rules that same-sex marriage is legal, we allow same-sex marriage and like it. The same applies when it doesn't shut down Gitmo. If you can't understand that, then you're not much different from Scott Lively.
5. I note that you haven't produced any evidence to back any of this up. In the United States, power is won by more people in more states voting for you than for your opponents. If you want to change things, you have to get into power. If you are too virtuous to have anything to do with the grubby system of politics because "the parties are the same," then don't complain when people have no healthcare, no public school system worth the name and no safety net for the sick and the homeless. After all, it seems that your self-regard is more important than less-than-perfect attempts by some, including this administration, to try and fix these problems; I sense you don't have to worry about them yourself.
6. There are a few large donors. There are also millions of small ones, even for candidates with big business support. Where are you going to fit them on the politicians' outfits? By the way, running for office in the United States is ludicrously expensive. If you actually gave a fuck, you would be working for an electable candidate who would try to change the system. But no; you're far happier preening your ideological purity to care about doing something to change a system that sucks.
7. Apparently you're not aware that the United States spends far less than most developed countries; US public expenditure gained from tax revenue as a proportion of GDP is comparable to that of Bolivia or South Africa. The UK, by comparison, has taxes that are 50% higher and they are still low by European standards. As to what pays for it, you also seem to be unaware that the United States has the world's second largest economy, the most foreign direct investment in the world and the world's most productive internal market. Small wonder we have the public services we have; you get what you pay for.
All in all, a collection of silly, facile clichés. If you're not happy with the rule of law, or engaging with reality, but prefer to sit back smugly and call the best hope we have of avoiding a theocrat securing the Supreme Court he wants a "fascist," then perhaps you'd feel better off where there is no Wall Street, no corporations, little taxation, no rule of law, nobody cares about killing Americans, and there really is only one party. Welcome to Eritrea.
Anyone coming across this thread would think FSTDT was a Ron/Rand Paul stronghold...
