I am a person who's had two systems encounter must-revert-Jessie-to-Wheezy problems and another which will get reverted or BSDed when I can afford the office downtime.
That's what prompted me to stop by and argue with your "that don't actually happen" problem. And then I read your "despite numerous complaints (and valid concerns), is causing all so rts of headaches and isn't perfect".
How are you reconciling those two statements in your head?
I've heard heaps of "constructive input" - like, go back to text logs, don't hook everything directly into systemd, keep the separate functionalities like firewalling and su out of systemd.
I get the impression that a lot of your post, like most of the people who say systemd is great and the haters are just haters, just doesn't make a lot of sense.
I get that you're trying to unite the people and constructively move forward, likening the entire situation to a political issue (I am from a country unaffected by Obamacare). But the problems so far are that a) you're devaluing the experienced people who are having really big problems with systemd and b) suggesting that we choke down those issues and keep moving forward. WITH systemd.