I actually thought of this because of a line in The West Wing where the President is making a point about representation, then went off on a googling exploration to understand a bit whether it is a meaningful distinction - most of what I read seemed to reinforce the notion that the difference is important.
In day-to-day life it certainly doesn't matter - but when you are attempting to discuss the nature of that political system itself, I don't think it is at all unreasonable to call out the distinction and decide whether to discuss it further. No need for snide jabs.
I should really have said "elites, including those in antagonistic countries like Russia". My main point was more about the elites than where they are from.
I'm the OP - and it's more complicated than that. Foreign powers fermented the discord in American society (which was already there for sure, but could have been much less toxic without external influence), hence describing it as a proxy war and not a foreign-backed coup.
Do you believe the appeal of Trump to disaffected Americans would be enough to win him the election, if big business (Koch et al) turned against the Republican party? Genuine question, because I feel like that is where the lever really is.
Setting aside pedantry about the US being a republic and not a pure democracy, the fact is that wealthy elites decide election outcomes now. You ended up with Trump because elites in Russia wanted him elected more than elites in the US wanted Clinton. You got rid of him because elites in the US had woken up to the fact that they weren't the only player in that game anymore.
Culture wars are a proxy battlefield in much the same way that Ukraine is.
My reluctance to engage with the health service has led me to experiment with a few things like exercise, vitamin D and better sleep, which all had positive outcomes even if they didn't fix the problem.
Your description of ritalin is similar to what I found when I took my experiments further and tried modafinil for about 18 months. It was just about effective enough to justify the (legal but awkward) way of obtaining it. Speaking to a doctor would of course be the sensible next step if I wasn't so bloody stubborn.
Yeah I should have put quotes on "wrong"; I acknowledge (intellectually) that it is not a personal failing to have ADHD and would not think less of other people for it, but I apply a higher standard to myself for reasons passing understanding.
As an adult who feels like they identify with these characteristics, it is hard to know when to try to get help, or whether you are just seeing what you want to see and looking for an excuse.
I have always shied away from seeking an adult ADHD diagnosis, partly because of prideful denial (not wanting to acknowledge that there might be something wrong with me), and partly because I have no faith in the NHS giving a shit, since I am an otherwise health and successful 30-something.
In day-to-day life it certainly doesn't matter - but when you are attempting to discuss the nature of that political system itself, I don't think it is at all unreasonable to call out the distinction and decide whether to discuss it further. No need for snide jabs.