Yeah: go back to the nineties and the man arguably most responsible for the hyper-partisanship in modern politics was also a rep in Georgia...Newt Filthypigfucker Gingrich

Thank you for explaining what your point was, but it's absolutely a non sequitur. My original point was about the validity of criticizing something because it's happening by more than one bad actor. Not quibbling about whether an small part of my statement ("little influence") is 100% correct or not. My point wasn't about litigating whether or not the US is a democracy, so: it was a non sequitur.

That said, it's clearly a waste of time to engage with you, because if you're going to be bent out of shape for being "accused" of a non sequitur and then start calling me "a schlub that lives in a fascist empire", then you don't have the temperament to actually fight a fascist empire. Some of us do more than vote and complain online.

We saw the uniforms go mostly black in DS9, so I think it is meant to show how the Federation isn't totally recovered from the Dominion war...I wish they had pushed than angle harder re: the struggle to help the Romulans, the Synths, etc. At least by Lower Decks they're back to the more colorful uniforms!

This isn't far from the logic put forth in Kill The Poor by the Dead Kennedys. https://genius.com/Dead-kennedys-kill-the-poor-lyrics

Thanks for inspiring me to take a crack at it myself! If I actually wind up starting a tank, I'll try to remember to send you a message

Oh agreed: I just thought the meta-nature of the players themselves being unsure of the veracity of character information might make things weird for folks uncomfortable with gossip. In any case I think it sounds like a fun idea!

No, I just didn't think the second part negated the first part. I read it as the defense being to some degree legitimate, but that he was doing so out of self-interest. I was trying to underscore how absurd his so-called defense was.

In other words, my apologies! I didn't intend for my attempt at an explanation as criticism of you, or start some pointless quibbling internet argument (because I imagine we're all tired of those). Take care out there.

Ah, so when you said the "rest of the world", you are excluding Latin America. Where is your high horse located, and what do you think the rest of the world includes?

You're making a pretty big assumption! I've lived most of the last fifteen years in South America, so I actually do have a good hold on how folks in other nations view capitalism, and the USA's economic and political systems. My job for years was in a biological research institute that was part of the Uruguayan government, and before that for a decade I worked in small towns across the Amazon, in Peru and Colombia.

So my point from the start is that it seems inevitable that capitalists would levy their economic power to gain political power. The laissez-faire ideal sounds good (for those with capital, anyway), but without institutional protections against it, those with the most money would be dumb not to levy that money so they can rig the system.

So we're quibbling over different thresholds at which government intervention means it's no longer "Pure Capitalism", but from my perspective Regulatory Capture is kind of inevitable, without protections against that happening. So that's why I think it's just part of Modern Capitalism in most places, and an "Oligarchy with a Capitalist Facade" is just a different life-stage of Capitalism. I'm all in favor of the institutional controls against corporate takeover/influence of governmental bodies. Corporate lobbying is a cancer, because it's drowning out the public's voice in politics.

Reminds me of a great pair of line from a Warren Zevon song: "I can saw a woman in two, but you won't want to look in the box when I'm through."