I’ll still stand on the immigration stats alone.
You’re answering the wrong question. Whether people want to emigrate here has nothing to do with whether we have the right to meddle in Grenada, expand west, nothing to do with why universal healthcare can’t work here.
America is, indeed, an exceptional country – it’s number one in a lot of things (not as many things as we think we are!). That has nothing to do with American Exceptionism.
I could care less about moral superiority. But you want to exclude the economic prosperity and say without that, the US has no claim to exceptionalism. All I’m saying is that you can’t exclude that.
There’s also the golden rule. He who has the gold, get’s to make the rules.
Yes, maybe you could drift even further off topic. I’d like to say it was a pleasure interacting with you briefly in this thread, but that would be a lie.
Besides we’re in the pit. I can answer any fucking question I want to you ####! 
True enough! Send me a PM if you decide to be back on topic and maybe I’ll re-engage, but probably not.
Firstly you have not acknowledged that several countries beat the US, by a lot, on immigration per capita.
Secondly, once again, lots of countries could admit 50 million people over decades if they wanted to. I’m very much pro immigration, but the extrapolation you’re taking from that data is completely flawed.
It’s not about excluding the economy, it’s about finding some metrics in which a country is currently the best is very different from the claims of American exceptionalism.
The latter is more like a religion of believing that the US is objectively “best” in all ways, that it will always be on top (with many believing “blessed by God”) and has nothing to learn from other countries.
The widespread belief that we have nothing to learn from others is the part of Exceptionalism that irks me the most.
Confirmed.
It’s a little insulting that no other nation, to my knowledge, has adopted an American style healthcare system. It has to be the best, right?
Right. That a country may be great at numerous things is just a statement of comparative performance. That does not require a doctrine about intrinsic superiority of said country or that we must not give a rat’s ass about what anyone else thinks or believes.
I mean, you have things like Senators asking appointment nominees “do you believe in American Exceptionalism” as if that were some sort of test of merit for the job. That tells us that the phrase has nothing to do with objective metrics. It’s some sort of Faith touchstone.
Same here.
A lot of countries have adopted or had imposed the US republican model of governance but most collapse into military coups disturbingly quickly. Only one has made it work … so far.
Cracks are showing in the system. The politicization of the judiciary is ramping up in the USA. Not so much in other countries that have an apolitical judiciary.
The common practice of gerrymandering causes harm to the process of democracy, yet is a fully accepted practice in the USA.
The shit show that was the recent speaker debacle would simply have not taken place in other countries; If a party lost confidence of the House on a budget measure, then an election is called and the people get to tell them to get their shit together.
There are a lot of flaws in the US systems, and I’m afraid the whole house of cards may come crashing down.
As a point of order, chasms are showing in the system.
The US is exceptional in that one of the parties in government believes there should not be a government.
And were it all to come crashing down (notwithstanding that being catastrophic), there would be an exceptional amount of schadenfreude within the USA … until the first round of cheques didn’t go out.
As an external view, gerrymander has a far more egregious impact than the Electoral College and is much simpler to correct.
Oh contraire, combine close (ie hung) election results and fixed terms and this scenario can can/has/will play out in any democracy.
In Canada at least, if a House vote fails on a budget motion (supply vote) (or other “confidence” motion) then the government is dissolved and a new election is called. This can happen if no single party has a majority of seats, and there is a coalition government. A government in power MUST pass a budget or they are essentially tossed. The small part of a coalition cannot hold the larger party hostage over the budget.
This seems to be what the Republicans have now - they are a coalition, with a rump of right wing whack jobs holding power.
That is a convention, not a statute and until you go through that constitutional crisis you don’t know how it will play out locally and what convention is established.
In the US context, they can deploy the option of a shutdown, which is not a convention of constitutional democracies. Her/His Majesties business must go on, but can sail close to the wind.
You might recall there was a variant in the 1970s in Australia called The Dismissal (where to outsiders we looked like yokels) when the Whitlam government couldn’t get the Supply Bills passed in the Senate. The Opposition didn’t vote down the Bills, they simply deferred passage of the legislation which remained in the Senate under Opposition control.
Government would have continued until the money ran out, which could have been for days possibly weeks away if Whitlam and Kerr hadn’t decided to act to near simultaneously. Post the Dismissal, the first action of the Opposition was to call a Senate vote and pass those Supply Bills.
Yep, as much as I’ve beaten up on the US in this thread, “embarrassing gridlock” is a thing which happens in all Democracies from time to time. Not speakership drama but some other drama.
Usually it is a catalyst for reforms, and I don’t think it’s impossible (though it is unlikely) that MAGA mania and the speaker debacle might lead to some productive change.