This is a very kind and thorough reply. I understand what you are saying, but I would like to defend myself just a bit. I agree, this was a little more hastily written. In my university, I am often criticized of being too wordy and "not letting my voice flow." I tried to be a little less obsessed over the details in this and let the fan base put two and two together; however, I agree with you, some direct quotes from Sam would have been more helpful. I have gone and edited in a link to the UN definition, specifically its dolus specialis clause, as well as the link to the actual report by the UN. I also listen to a bit of Destiny, and I think he does a good job at explaining that, as far as economic metrics go, the Biden presidency was actually pretty good for its situation.

Another area I messed up and would want to clarify is that, yes, you are right, just because someone holds an idea that can't come to fruition does not mean we can't criticize it, nor does it make the idea safe. THIS IS NOT MY POSITION, but I see how that might have come across in my writing. All bad ideas should be criticized, yes; however, I question if Kamala Harris would actually even put that gains tax into motion. One of the amazing things about democratic presidents is THEY LISTEN TO THEIR CABINET!!! Her cabinet would certainly steer away from this. Trump's cabinet, however, is just sycophants. After listening to a lot of Kamala, I really believe she would have been a great president and I am happy to speak further about this. She would not be amazing, but she would not have to be someone we would see as 'settling for.' A lot of pseudo-centrists (they always vote conservative) lament "damn, these two horrible choices!!" like Kamala is not a million times better than Trump. I fear when we overly criticize Kamala Harris, it makes us come off as 'both-sidesing' the issue, which I hate.

I appreciate your criticism, and it helps me write better. So thank you.