Election 2025

You Americans think you have democratic socialism, but it's really corporate feudalism. The insurance companies themselves literally wrote all 10k pages of the "Obama" bill and subsequent regulations, paid directly to them from the hands of your serfs. That's why your American parties operate as one with red and blue because together, they form royal purple. That's America today. What a laugh to see you guys negotiate with the royal purples to "lower my cost of living"

You are lucky to get cake at this point.

Because racism/bigotry has no positive construct to it whatsoever.

Yes, the 

Affordable Care Act (ACA), or "Obamacare," has saved millions of Americans by increasing health insurance coverage and providing financial protection. The number of uninsured Americans dropped significantly after the law's implementation, and protections against lifetime and annual limits on medical expenses prevented many from facing bankruptcy. 

Coders, I beg of you: Multilayered quoting would be a blessing. Thanks in advance, kings.

Democratic elections are a threat to democracy? You majored in Political Science at Trump University, didn't you?

Sidewalker, did I ever refer to you as Roosevelt's Sidepiece back on DART? If so, this would be why. Also, just gonna note right here that you missed my sarcasm.

No, but we did have the worst economic collapse since the great depression, a grossly mismanaged pandemic that resulted in the needless death of a million Americans, the greatest budget deficit in modern times, and an insurrection that tried to overthrow democracy..

You can't reverse a travel ban designed to prevent COVID (calling it racist) and then be shocked when COVID hits the US... and of course, preventing COVID from running its way through the population was impossible. There is not a single country where "shut everything down for 'two weeks to stop the spread'" actually worked. And of course, had the media not made a big deal of what was basically a new winter flu, the economy wouldn't have tanked in the first place.

The budget deficit is the one thing I will give you. Trump's stimulus spending was retarded. Yet, as a whole, the economic policy of his administration was superior to Biden's. Not a high bar, but he managed to clear it by being less braindead.

As for the so-called "insurrection?" Lol. We got the world's first unarmed insurrection, everyone. Lmao even.

I get it, you would rather have a dictator then diversity, but that is just who and what you are, it has nothing to do with who and what American is.

Yes, because diversity is more important to American culture than things like freedom, property rights, 1A and 2A, which immigrants, legal and illegal, routinely vote against. I'm not even arguing for no immigration; I'm arguing for higher standards and better enforcement. I would love a world with open borders, but that is only reasonable where total freedom of association exists, and when third-world Marxists can't vote my rights away.

Until then, I will continue to be a closed-borders libertarian. Yes, libertarian. My support of Trump over the years has gone from MAGA to "welp, he's not a democrat, so MAGA I guess."

And the claims of him being a dictator are laughable. I'll elaborate more in getting to Double_R:

Google the enabling act of 1933

Please tell me what Trump's enabling acts are.

If he is a dictator, every president prior with his powers is also one. The irony here is that every time you guys whine about something Trump does with presidential powers, you make a great case for the reduction of said powers, which I would support. But are you going to honestly advocate for such powers to be taken away for all presidents for good, or would it just be a grift to justify the next Democrat using said powers in greater frequency and to downplay when previous Democrats have used them?

Search within yourselves. When you are ready to honestly advocate for the reduction of the government as a whole, or at bare minimum, the presidential powers, you can come back to me on that one.

I would go through the spiel of how Trump in his first term surrounded himself with adults who believed in the constitution and how even he has said he won’t make that mistake again, but we’ve already lived through 10 months of an administration that looks absolutely nothing like the first.

Go ahead and hit me with your spiel. I suspect it's misquoting, either by omitting context or the rest of the quote, or both.

And you can keep claiming that Trump is oh so different this year, and that the Kristallnacht will surely happen this year all you want. Definition of insanity.

The funny thing is, if you even look at him on policy, he ends up being a boring, 90s moderate. There's a meme that Republicans are just Democrats 30 years prior... yeah, he's not gonna change that narrative any time soon.

At this point, your ignorance is a choice.

Well, the saying goes: "If you don't listen to the media, you're uninformed. If you listen to the media, you're misinformed."

I await your responses. See you boys Monday. Or Tuesday if I'm feeling lazy.

If you see a nation as a business first and culture+people second, you are a different type of right wing to the genuine conservatives. That is what I am telling you.

I didn't say that. I said businesses are for making money, and that's ok because it creates jobs and wealth for a nation. But if a nation pushes businesses for giving more than they can, they will end up moving to another place. That's the way it is, either in the US or other place where there is capitalism.

Putting too much taxes to a company or any small business is to make them lose competitiveness in comparison to other businesses around the world, which means higher prices that the market will refuse to accept. As simple as that but the lefties are incapable of understanding it.

they form royal purple.

That's the color of the Vatican, or the Roman Empire. I don't know if it's coincidence or a true dat.

Where did you get that?

This is why Trump imposed tariffs on global trade to give America an edge.

I accidentally marked post #64 as offensive. Plz undo

Done.

Thx

Please tell me what Trump's enabling acts are.

So you didn't bother to Google it, noted.

The Enabling Act was the law Hitler was able to get passed that allowed him to take the powers he would then use to dismantle Germany's democracy, thereby paving the way for the holocaust.

The point was in direct refutation of your implied claim that because a president was elected and is doing what he said he would do that everything he does is definitionally democratic. That's just silly and contradicts the fundamental purpose of having a constitution.

If he is a dictator, every president prior with his powers is also one.

No one is claiming Trump *is* a dictator, we're saying he is a clear authoritarian who wants to be a dictator. And we're saying it because it's beyond obvious.

But are you going to honestly advocate for such powers to be taken away for all presidents for good

In some cases absolutely. I would love to see a constitutional amendment formally establishing the independence of the DOJ for example. It's absurd that the only thing stopping president's from directly interfering in criminal prosecutions and weaponizing the DOJ against anyone who crosses him is how's own personal restraint.

I'm not sure how many other measures I would take though, this is the problem; Presidents have to be able to act when necessary, but granting that authority to the wrong person opens the system up to flagrant abuse and the endangerment of our entire system of constitutional governance. This is why it matters who we put in that position, but unfortunately Americans demonstrated in 2024 that we're just not smart enough to make that choice. At the end of the day, we get the government we deserve.

And you can keep claiming that Trump is oh so different this year

I can claim? Are you seriously going to sit here and pretend Trump 2.0 is no different than Trump 1.0? A Fox News weekend host to be secretary of defense, a notorious vaccine conspiracy theorist to lead HHS, a couple of podcasters to run the FBI... Really?

So you didn't bother to Google it, noted.

The Enabling Act was the law Hitler was able to get passed that allowed him to take the powers he would then use to dismantle Germany's democracy, thereby paving the way for the holocaust.

The point was in direct refutation of your implied claim that because a president was elected and is doing what he said he would do that everything he does is definitionally democratic. That's just silly and contradicts the fundamental purpose of having a constitution.

I did Google it and I got your point.

Again, what are Trump's enabling acts? Is there anything you can point to that says Trump has an enabling act of some kind in place? Anything that currently exists is something other presidents have had access to, which is why I went into that subject.

But sure, I'll give that if a president somehow convinces the Senate and Court to pass and uphold an enabling act of some kind, he could be declared dictator.

In some cases absolutely. I would love to see a constitutional amendment formally establishing the independence of the DOJ for example. It's absurd that the only thing stopping president's from directly interfering in criminal prosecutions and weaponizing the DOJ against anyone who crosses him is how's own personal restraint.

Seems reasonable.

I'm not sure how many other measures I would take though, this is the problem; Presidents have to be able to act when necessary, but granting that authority to the wrong person opens the system up to flagrant abuse and the endangerment of our entire system of constitutional governance. This is why it matters who we put in that position, but unfortunately Americans demonstrated in 2024 that we're just not smart enough to make that choice. At the end of the day, we get the government we deserve.

If electing the wrong person can ruin the system, the system was in shambles long before the wrong person was elected. I'll admit I'm a little fuzzy on the details as well, but there's gotta be something more. I thionk greater restrictions via constitutional amendments on the authority of the government over the economy and private property would be good.

Outside of that, I'd love to privatize healthcare, education, and probably a few more things as well.

No one is claiming Trump *is* a dictator, we're saying he is a clear authoritarian who wants to be a dictator. And we're saying it because it's beyond obvious.

I've seen multiple people claim he is, but sure, if this is what you claim, we'll roll with it:

I can claim? Are you seriously going to sit here and pretend Trump 2.0 is no different than Trump 1.0? A Fox News weekend host to be secretary of defense, a notorious vaccine conspiracy theorist to lead HHS, a couple of podcasters to run the FBI... Really?

Some personnel changes from the first term don't make for an attempt at a dictatorship. Even the policy changes that would correspond with the new personnel wouldn't prove he's a dictator in the making. I was looking to hear that Trump was in the process of getting his enabling act in place, and all I got was this. His favorite tie changed from what it was in 2017; he's clearly a different person who's become ready to start a dictatorship.

But sure, I'll give that if a president somehow convinces the Senate and Court to pass and uphold an enabling act of some kind, he could be declared dictator.

*congress and senate

Is there anything you can point to that says Trump has an enabling act of some kind in place?

The point wasn’t that Trump passed an enabling act of his own, the point is the fact that Trump was elected democratically doesn’t make his actions democratic.

Examples of anti democratic things he has done include staffing the government with loyalists over public servants, passing executive orders that blatantly violate the constitution, violating due process rights for undocumented immigrants, overtly weaponizing the DOJ and FCC, using the power of the state to punish those that do not abide by him including threats to blue states for supporting democrats, etc.

If electing the wrong person can ruin the system, the system was in shambles long before the wrong person was elected.

Every system is vulnerable so long as there is a person at the top of it, and I hate to tell you, but we haven’t figured out how to not have systems run by people.

Ensuring the right people are in charge is and will always be central to whether any country remains a legitimate democracy, that’s not avoidable.

I've seen multiple people claim he is

Probably randos on Twitter. Regardless, no serious person would make this claim. Almost certainly, if you’ve heard anyone say it they were being hyperbolic or describing his mentality, not literally saying the US is a dictatorship.

Some personnel changes from the first term don't make for an attempt at a dictatorship.

Typical MAGA intellectual dishonesty. No one is claiming “personnel changes” makes a dictatorship. The point of highlighting the personnel decisions he has made is to demonstrate that this isn’t a man who cares about serving the people who elected him, otherwise he would install people who know how to do that. Instead he’s installing people whose sole qualification is that they’re a Trump sycophant. That is just one of the many things Trump has done that we’ve seen in authoritarian regimes many times before.

I was looking to hear that Trump was in the process of getting his enabling act in place, and all I got was this. His favorite tie changed from what it was in 2017; he's clearly a different person who's become ready to start a dictatorship.

It’s all you’re going to get because it’s all you want. you like to do what every MAGA cultist does; you compartmentalize everything he does so that you can claim each thing fails on its own to prove the point, then dismiss them all claiming there’s no evidence of it. That’s brazenly dishonest, logic doesn’t work that way. The way you prove a case is by laying out the dots and then connecting them. The connecting is not something I can do for you.

Trump has total immunity from criminal persecution while performing his duties as president.

I didn’t ask, but thanks for that I guess

Ensuring the right people are in charge is and will always be central to whether any country remains a legitimate democracy, that’s not avoidable

This is the most undemocratic claim in the entire list. How do you ensure that short of subverting the will of the people? The moment you start talking about ensuring the “right people” are in charge, you’re implying the existence of some unelected authority above the voters who decides what “right” means. That’s inherently anti-democratic. If your people vote for Trump, and the American people want to change the American constitution, that's democracy in action, not unconstitutional acts; otherwise, every American president ever elected who changed the constitution by the will of the voters would be labeled an "unconstitutional" president. Labeling those outcomes “unconstitutional” or “illegitimate” just because they upset the establishment narrative is how republics quietly slip into oligarchies. It succks to be in the minority, but that is your democratic system.

Arguments Against Changing the Constitution

1. Stability and Protection from Short-Sighted Changes: A key purpose of a constitution is to provide a stable, foundational framework of government. It should be protected from short-sighted, partisan, or temporary popular passion amendments.
2. Maintaining Original Principles: The difficult amendment process was intentionally designed by the framers to protect the compromises made during its creation from being easily undone.
3. Risk of Unintended Consequences: An open-ended process, such as a constitutional convention, could potentially lead to an entire revision of the Constitution with unpredictable outcomes, as there are no defined rules for how such a convention would operate.
4. Safeguarding Minority Rights: Constitutions often contain provisions (like the Bill of Rights in the U.S. or protections for aboriginal people in Canada) that safeguard minority rights from the will of the majority; making the document too easy to change could put these rights at risk. 

Ultimately, a good constitution needs to find the right balance: it should not be too easy or too hard to change. The debate continues on whether the current procedures in various nations (like the U.S. or Canada) achieve this necessary balance. For information on the specific procedures for the U.S. Constitution, one can refer to Article V of the U.S. Constitution resources from the Library of Congress. 

one can refer to Article V of the U.S. Constitution resources from the Library of Congress. 

why only there?

The point wasn’t that Trump passed an enabling act of his own, the point is the fact that Trump was elected democratically doesn’t make his actions democratic.

Which I conceded... however, the logical question to ask from there is, "has he done such a thing?" And the answer is no.

But you do have other arguments, surrounding "undemocratic behavior":

But I think I've given you too much already... so allow me to rectify that: It's subtle, but we are not a complete democracy; we are a democratic republic. The distinction is that we are built so that, in times when the masses are wrong, the representatives and other elected officials do what is wise.

Is this good in practice? No, not really. But it is superior to pure democracy. Both really aren't that great. Universal suffrage has not helped; if you're going to aggress on others with a vote, it would've been wiser to ensure said voters are the best of the best.

I digress. Anyway, this is relevant because you need to keep in mind that we voted him in, knowing we wouldn't like or agree with everything he did. The point of this is not to justify, but rather to note that our democratic-republic is not going to die because of Trump.

Examples of anti democratic things he has done include staffing the government with loyalists over public servants

We knew he was going to elect a different cabinet and that he was going to restaff the government. It was obvious when you consider how many people he hired and fired during his first term, and he campaigned on some of the things he is doing here. And while Project 2025 was not his official policy, overlap was to be expected, given that many of the people behind it had worked under Trump at some point.

Question: If you are a president, why hire/appoint "public servants" who won't easily go along with your policies? Why keep them on your staff? If you want to do your job as efficiently as possible, you will want your subordinates to be loyal. You can call them Trump psychophants, but they do make for greater efficiency, as far as policy is concerned.

I have no problem with this, nor would I have had a problem if Biden had done it. The bigger question is "what are the policies in question?"

passing executive orders that blatantly violate the constitution,

Curious about your examples.

Anyway, here is an example of him doing something that every president with executive orders has done. Thankfully, the courts are a good check, although, as we've previously discussed, things could be better.

violating due process rights for undocumented immigrants,

Citation needed. Let's just say I have a feeling about these claims. I am open-minded. It is possible the few deportations that were claimed to be hasty really were.

overtly weaponizing the DOJ and FCC

The DOJ usage is a clapback for the bogus case(s) that the intelligence community c.2017-2019 came at him with. I have no problem with charges against the Spygate perps.

As for the usage of the FCC to pull the plug on Jimmy Kimmel's show, this is a place where I will join you in condemning Trump. While I wish Kimmel had been pulled off the air long ago, the specific way it happened is something I will never approve of. I will ask, however: Do you condemn the Biden administration for pressuring Twitter and Facebook to censor conservative viewpoints? This is another example of something that no president should have the ability to do. I would love for FCC and all related bureaucracy to be canned, with all necessary functions being privatized.

, using the power of the state to punish those that do not abide by him including threats to blue states for supporting democrats, etc.

Again, citation needed.

Every system is vulnerable so long as there is a person at the top of it, and I hate to tell you, but we haven’t figured out how to not have systems run by people.

Ensuring the right people are in charge is and will always be central to whether any country remains a legitimate democracy, that’s not avoidable.

We have, however, figured out that decentralized authority is harder to abuse and that a more limited government will cause less damage when abused. We've known this since our country's founding. Our government is involved in many corners of American life that the founders would not have dared touch. Like I said, privatization, and amendments protecting privatization + limiting govt even further would be beneficial.

Probably randos on Twitter. Regardless, no serious person would make this claim. Almost certainly, if you’ve heard anyone say it they were being hyperbolic or describing his mentality, not literally saying the US is a dictatorship.

The def weren't hyperbolic, but sure, I'll drop this since you aren't of the group that makes the claim.

Typical MAGA intellectual dishonesty. No one is claiming “personnel changes” makes a dictatorship.

I noted that you were claiming it makes for an ATTEMPT at one...

The point of highlighting the personnel decisions he has made is to demonstrate that this isn’t a man who cares about serving the people who elected him, otherwise he would install people who know how to do that. Instead he’s installing people whose sole qualification is that they’re a Trump sycophant. That is just one of the many things Trump has done that we’ve seen in authoritarian regimes many times before.

...and here you double down on it. Rewording your argument doesn't change it. At the end of the day, the argument is that Trump's personnel changes indicate he is trying to form a dictatorship. I refuted this above.

It’s all you’re going to get because it’s all you want. you like to do what every MAGA cultist does; you compartmentalize everything he does so that you can claim each thing fails on its own to prove the point, then dismiss them all claiming there’s no evidence of it. That’s brazenly dishonest, logic doesn’t work that way. The way you prove a case is by laying out the dots and then connecting them. The connecting is not something I can do for you.

Gee, the bar for "MAGA cultist" sure seems low...

A case... lol. The problem here is that we're not dealing with murder; we're dealing with what is, at best, speculation into his mind. You are not a mind reader. Even all of these, in totality, do not prove a thing, because the fact that he can do all of these without dismantling the system remains. Presidents on both sides have done everything you have alleged, without dismantling the system. The only exception I can see being the government restaffing... which still fails to prove your point, given that there is a good reason to do so.

And at worst?

"Laying out the dots"... If no pillar is strong enough to stand on its own, how can they hold a roof? They can't. You're asking me to accept the validity of arguments based on the number of them. You don't even realize you're arguing in favor of what is essentially Gish gallop. And then you have the gall to call me intellectually dishonest... (seriously, what in the Innuendo Studios is this bullshit? This sounds like an argument he'd make.)

What's the point of everything I have said? If there's one takeaway from this argument, what should it be?

Your most reasonable argument against Trump here is that all presidents (and other politicians!), while not dictators, are closer to being a dictator than they should be. This is an argument from a higher level of understanding that says the system is being dismantled slowly by our politicians, including the presidents, using what was granted by the system itself... one that I have and you don't, since you have too much faith in the current system. So you can't even make this argument without contradicting your viewpoint, because the natural solution is to change the system in a way that severely kneecaps the government's authority by privatizing and decentralizing power, which you mostly oppose.

We should not grant the power to the government that it currently has, and democracy in America is a god that has failed. However, if we must have our current system, it comes with the reality of battles over who wields it, and the reasonable person will (and just did) pick the president who violates fewer liberties.

If my choice is between:

-The Democratic Party, which wants greater censorship, greater firearm restrictions, the subsidizing of ESG firms that sustain woke ideology, wealth redistribution, greater taxation, and the unrestricted migration that enables said party by vote.

-The Republican Party, which opposes the Democrats somewhat (but not really enough, since they engage in some of the faults of the Democratic Party to a lesser extent), slaps ridiculous tariffs on stuff, and maybe deports some immigrants before they should.

My choice is always going to be the Republican Party, until the Libertarian Party gets its shit together.

Imagine typing all that in one neat post, just to forget to ping the guy.

D'oh!

According to the Institute for Policy Integrity, Trump’s administration has failed nearly 93% of the time when its agency actions have been challenged in court — typically for violations of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).

You forgot that the Republicans in your country regard biological women as more deserving of women's rights than trans women.

That's definitely a tyrannical dictatorship, comrade.

I'm glad Trump was elected President. It shows to the Universe that there is no intelligent life on this small planet.

The Tories will restore the glory of your empire. Trust me bro.

You forgot that the Republicans in your country regard biological women as more deserving of women's rights than trans women.

Yeah there's another reason to vote red over blue.

ping

Because not granting special rights over the considerations of biological women is the equivalent of erasing someone.

I'm steelmanning DoubleR. Trust me bro.

ok lol

"Laying out the dots"... If no pillar is strong enough to stand on its own, how can they hold a roof? They can't. You're asking me to accept the validity of arguments based on the number of them.

Starting here because this is fundamental. This is a classic logical fallacy where you set an impossible standard that each pillar must prove the argument on its own, then claim because because none of them meet that impossible standard they are all illegitimate and must all be discarded. That’s not how logic works.

Even all of these, in totality, do not prove a thing, because the fact that he can do all of these without dismantling the system remains.

Here you’re appealing to possibility, not probability. Anything is possible, that does nothing to help us understand what is likely correct (which is where Occam’s razor comes in). It’s just another rhetorical throw away.

The problem here is that we're not dealing with murder; we're dealing with what is, at best, speculation into his mind. You are not a mind reader.

Another classic. We’re talking about the man’s intent, which is inferred through his actions. You do not need to be a mind reader to know that when someone jump’s off a building that they didn’t want to live.

This retort is one I find especially baffling, not only because it’s one of the most basic skills that we use every single day of our lives, but because the people saying this never seem to have a problem inferring intent when it’s a Democrat. From “the Biden crime family” to “Kamala hates America” to whatever, when it’s someone you don’t like I’m quite sure you would have no problem “reading their mind”.

we are built so that, in times when the masses are wrong, the representatives and other elected officials do what is wise.

Correct, which is exactly the problem I am raising with Trump. But I’ll get back to that, for now this is yet another attempt by you to muddy the waters so that nothing Trump could ever do would be a problem for you. Under this framing, what’s “wise” is whatever the dear leader says it is, because he’s the one we elected to tell us so.

The point of this is not to justify, but rather to note that our democratic-republic is not going to die because of Trump.

Whether it will or will not die under him is kind of besides the point. He’s the president of the United States. He, more than anyone else on earth, is supposed to be the primary protector of our constitutional republic. To defend his ascension to the office is like defending the bank robber who was just hired to be head of security at your jewelry store. Sure, there’s other security guards there, sure there’s a system in place to stop him if he tries to steal, and maybe it all turned out ok in the end… it’s still a really f$&@ing stupid decision.

If you are a president, why hire/appoint "public servants" who won't easily go along with your policies? Why keep them on your staff?

You continue to deflect from the conversation. No one is claiming Trump is wrong because he hired his own people, that’s just stupid. Every president does that. We’re talking about the quality of people, what’s different about this particular group, why they were hired, what this tells us about Trump, and why it is ultimately very dangerous.

Let’s use Pete Hegseth as an example. A weekend Fox News host who has no senior leadership of any kind to be the secretary of defense. Of all the qualified people Trump could have chosen he chose this guy? Why? Military strength? No, that’s absurd. He chose him because he wanted someone who would do whatever he said, because he learned in his first term that experienced professionals who know better will push back.

So when Trump told them to shoot protesters in the leg? These guys will do it. When Trump decided to launch illegal military strikes? These guys will not push back. When Trump tells them to cease voting machines in swing states that voted for a democrat? These guys will do it.

We're not talking about differences in opinion - should we arm Ukraine or not? We’re talking about whether the people he hires are there to serve the American people, or to serve him. The latter cannot be excused away by arguing we voted for it. No, we certainly did not.

At the end of the day, the argument is that Trump's personnel changes indicate he is trying to form a dictatorship.

Let me clarify this, again. The argument is that the personnel decisions he’s made demonstrate a mentality at odds with the fundamental values of democracy. It’s not a single point that proves he’s trying to “form a dictatorship”, it’s an example that fits into a very clear pattern of behavior which, when considered in totality, make it clear he is trying to steer the US government in the direction where he has total say. Why? Because that’s the through line of nearly every major decision he’s made since January 20th.

Curious about your examples.

Start with birth right citizenship.

Again, citation needed.

Examples of using state power to punish those who defy him: going after law firms who represented adversarial clients, Harvard, signing executive orders to strip funding from “sanctuary cities”, threatening to withhold disaster aid from California, threatening to withhold funding from New York if they voted for Mamdani… there’s more, you want me to continue?

I will ask, however: Do you condemn the Biden administration for pressuring Twitter and Facebook to censor conservative viewpoints?

No. What the Biden administration did is at worst inadvisable, and honestly that’s only because of what bad faith republicans would try to make out of it.

What the Biden admin did was that they tried to pressure social media companies into censoring certain posts containing what they deemed COVID misinformation. These allegations involve questionable persuasion; the Trump allegations involve actual government censorship using the FCC.

But far worse is why. Even if we accept the worst about Biden allegations, they were acting in response to a health pandemic by trying to fight back against misinformation that would cost American lives. That’s not in the same ballpark as Trump’s FCC using state power to punish people because they had the nerve to criticize Trump. Biden even at worst was serving the American people, Trump was using state power to serve himself.

Not comparable.

democracy in America is a god that has failed.

I wouldn’t put that in past tense just yet, but to the extent it has failed I attribute that to the fact that for the past 45 years half of our government has been controlled by a party is that is effectively anti government. Turns out that lawmakers whose political ethos is that government can’t solve problems because government is the problem, are not very good at using government to solve our problems. Who knew?