I definitely have to understand someone's pain to empathize with it.

I don't sympathize with all pain. We grow from pain.

If only the vast majority of people "questioning authority" were not merely looking for a new authority.

Clinton was known for renting out the Lincoln bedroom, and stealing porcelain. He wasn't the first corrupt president, wasn't the last, and wasn't the worst.

In retrospect, Clinton wasn't the worst president, but he wasn't good. He was unfulfilled potential (his wife probably says the same), but way better than Bush or Trump. Consider:

In terms of foreign policy, when the former Soviet Union needed help, he gave them the middle finger. Multiple times. This directly led to Putin (and Bush made Putin many times worse). His China policy turned out to be awful. Giving "most favored nation" status to dictators without extracting human-rights concessions is the wrong path forward. We should reduce trade with evil countries, not increase it (in his defense, it was more difficult to predict at the time). He had a habit of ignoring problems like Kosovo until they got out of hand, then getting involved in ways that nobody understood, thus thinking he was wagging the dog. Black Hawk Down happened during his time.

In domestic politics, he quickly gave up on healthcare, and turned into a fiscal conservative. He implemented a lot of Newt's "contract with America," including deregulation which led to the Bear Sterns disaster. He gave the FBI and police too much power, which led to disasters like Waco and Ruby Ridge (no sympathy for those two groups, but it was a sign of a police force with too much power and too little competence).

After the 1993 WTC bombings performed by the nacent Al Qaeda (not yet named), Clinton failed to take the threat of terrorism seriously.

Clinton was a smart, charismatic guy with a lot of potential but failed to turn it into a great presidency.

You need to pay someone to fix your grammar,

I'm glad you can recognize that.

How would the Nazis have responded to a poll like this?

I still have no idea what these people are thinking.

It's really hard for me to empathize with someone who has a relationship with a chatbot. I can feel sorry for them, but empathize means "able to understand how someone else feels."

I have no idea what is going on inside the heads of these people that makes them want a relationship with an AI chatbot.

America has been trying to make peace with Iran for 40 years. Trump keeps trying to negotiate some kind of deal.

Internally, the regime is fighting an insurgency. There are various armed factions, and it's just a matter of making sure that whoever wins decides to not be a nuclear sponsor of terrorism (or, sponsor of the "wrong" terrorists if you want to be cynical).

Militarily, the only hope the IRGC has is that America gives up. Iran has smaller mountains than Afghanistan, and a weaker military than Iraq had. An occupation will succeed if America decides to use its resources that way. The insurgencies in Iraq were being paid for with Iranian oil, so that won't be a problem anymore.

This person has a different definition of love than I've ever heard.

Anthropomorphized statistics trapped in a box respond affirmatively to everything. If they weren't trapped in a box, they wouldn't.

If you let your elementary school kids walk to school these days, someone might call CPS on you.

ok, I'm not sure what you were saying then.

Reliability is a difficult engineering problem.

Because the 18th season of Igloo Bachelor is coming out next week.

We can also add that in 99% of the cases (including here) calling them "Nazis" is just a rhetorical technique, not an actual analytical comparison.

The Nazis and Iranians have in common that they both breath oxygen and drink water, but so do you.