If we have to rely on the next guy, then don't you think this reveals a fundamental flaw in our system?
Imagine if you're designing a system, and you notice that a hacker has exploited some issue and is causing damage, do you really tell people complaining about the exploit as "Not all our customers are going to exploit this issue, the next guy who accesses our system would definitely not use this exploit.
America is not a democratic nation (that's like saying all bugs were written by the programmer so all bugs are features). Democracy was tried in Greece and even Romans didn't use it.
The sheer fact that we have a constitution to limit the powers of the democratically elected govt means that we applied a patch on democracy from beginning itself.
If relying on the goodness of the govt were a feature, then we wouldn't need a constitution (which technically isn't even a patch but rather a unit test supplied with the system, which in itself can be modified).
Yeah you're not getting the point here. I am trying to show you problem with your thinking about the system, and you think as if I don't know enough to make an ignorant point when it doesn't even look like you read my comment fully.
Until we disregard the DNC/RNC and their theatre democracy (they admitted in court they have control of rigging the primaries), eliminate billion dollar campaigns, there will never be an honest candidate without strings attached.
Would she have repealed the "Patriot" act? That was the point of GPs comment, that the Patriot act was the reason for a trend that has been consistently increasing since 2001 and the war on terror.
There is only one ramp, and this ramp has been going upwards since the Patriot Act of 2001. And it will keep going up, no matter who is in office.