"You can run any setting or game in 5e, the DM just has to do a rules overhaul!" This is why your friend goes on social media and complains about being a forever DM.
“You'd like Freedom, Truth, and Justice, wouldn't you, Comrade Sergeant?' said Reg encouragingly.
'I'd like a hard-boiled egg,' said Vimes, shaking the match out.
There was some nervous laughter, but Reg looked offended.
'In the circumstances, Sergeant, I think we should set our sights a little higher--'
'Well, yes, we could,' said Vimes, coming down the steps. He glanced at the sheets of papers in front of Reg. The man cared. He really did. And he was serious. He really was. 'But...well, Reg, tomorrow the sun will come up again, and I'm pretty sure that whatever happens we won't have found Freedom, and there won't be a whole lot of Justice, and I'm damn sure we won't have found Truth. But it's just possible that I might get a hard-boiled egg.”
I hit a pothole (a Michigan pothole so basically a sinkhole) today and my check engine light came on. I don’t have one of those computer plugins to reset the light and I knew it was just a sensor that got knocked so I was just like “well let’s see if this works” and on the way home I swerved and hit the pothole again and the check engine light turned off
"You haven't smiled since you were four, and I'm pretty sure that was gas." NEVER FORGET THAT JON KENT CAN BE A REAL SHIT WHEN HE WANTS TO BE, HE'S THE BEST.
I'm not making this a reblog because there have been a lot of posts this applies to and I'm sure there will be more.
But if you ever do find that perfectly pure candidate that you feel can vote for without morally compromising yourself--that person with a completely stainless career and no blood on their hands--they will still step into the morass created by all their predecessors. They will have blood on their hands from the moment they take office. The blood comes with the office. There is no way to avoid that.
If they want to not execute the evil and unjust laws which they have just sworn to faithfully execute, they will have the choice of flouting the law or changing it. Both of these are difficult, take time, and cannot be done by one person's fiat.
Laws are made by Congress; changing a law--even the worst one on the books! even that one!--means getting a majority of both houses on board. This is drastically easier if the president's party has a majority in both houses, but still requires coordinating literally hundreds of people to do what you want; if the president's party does not have that trifecta, it may simply be impossible until after the next elections.
Flouting the law--just deciding to ignore it--sets a worrisome precedent: In general, we would like the executive branch to follow the laws of the country! But beyond that, it is also difficult and also requires coordinating with hundreds of other people. The administrative state is designed to run on rails. The administration can hand down guidance on the interpretation of laws--which often as not gets challenged legally and needs to be resolved by the courts, which is a whole other level of complication and, currently, a whole other level of fucked up--but ordering federal agencies to violate the law wholesale is usually going to be a non-starter. Even when the law is bad. Until the law is actually changed, which, see above, sometimes the most that can be done is harm reduction--delay implementation, narrow the scope, tie it up in red tape.
And. Look. I want you to find that perfect candidate. I long for the day that someone can make it all the way into the highest office without ever compromising their morals. But if they do, they will become complicit with all the horrors their predecessors left to us. There is no way to dismantle those horrors without taking on some degree of complicity.
When the machine is covered so thickly with blood, pulling the off switch still gets blood on your hands.