> So what is different? Why do we repeatedly allow this to happen? It's not so much an "allow" as it is a "what's the alternative?" The problem at this point i

> So what is different? Why do we repeatedly allow this to happen? It's not so much an "allow" as it is a "what's the alternative?" The problem at this point is so deeply rooted (in the form of life-long politicians and bureaucrats), the only solution is a full-blown reset. Unfortunately, there's no way to do that without violent revolution. Considering the scale and diversity of thought in the U.S., doing that effectively with the least amount of damage is next to impossible (too many loose cannons with mental issues). It also requires violence, which, if you take a non-aggression stance on problem solving (my own POV) then it's a stalemate. At this point, the only "fix" seems to be atrophy and circumvention. Atrophy in the sense that you just let it all run its course and meet its eventual demise (anticipating pain and suffering as the system collapses) and circumvention in the sense that you look for ways to excuse yourself from it. Earlier revolutions happened as part of much smaller civilizations (exactly why the American Revolution was possible—far less variables and far more homogenous thinking among the dissenting class). In a country of 300M+ people, any "revolution" is likely to dissolve into chaos no matter how well-organized or how principled its ideology.