You're obviously entitled to hold any opinion you want, but you're not guaranteed civil discourse when you advocate for denying people their basic rights and ne

You're obviously entitled to hold any opinion you want, but you're not guaranteed civil discourse when you advocate for denying people their basic rights and needs. The reality in the world right now is that the warrantless, blanket financial surveillance you're advocating is causing ordinary Americans who live overseas to be denied bank accounts and other financial services. I know several people who have been placed in this position, including a charity worker in Thailand and a primary school teacher in rural France. The issue is that as an externality of your policies there are already people who can't cash their paychecks or pay their rent. If you want to advocate for these policies you have to address the harm that they're doing to people, you don't get to just "leave them an opening." You've advocated for harm. You've made yourself the bad guy here. Do you explicitly support these harms as a cost of governance? Are these individuals sacrifices for the greater good of prosecuting financial criminals? Or are you simply oblivious to this problem? So far you've dodged the issue, lectured us on how the democratic process works, and implied that if anyone doesn't like it they can renounce their citizenship, which is phenomenally condescending, believe me I understand these things very well so spare me those lectures.