I had a teacher in elementary school that taught us that when a flag falls on the floor, you’re supposed to kiss it.

Yes, seriously.

It was just part of the normal flag-worship we were ~~taught~~ brainwashed with.

And then berate them for thinking that the ideals espoused in that pledge are real in any way.

Nothing could be more American than that pledge: it was something that was first propagated by a flag company that was trying to sell more flags.

I think you’ve kinda missed the lede - religious fanatics. We’ve got plenty of those. Other western countries have quite a few religious people, but they aren’t often in-your-face cross wearing, “I’m a Christian”, openly judgy Karens like they are here.

I can explain this one. Growing up in America, you're constantly told that you're a patriot simply because you were born here—like just existing in the same country where Jefferson, Franklin, and Washington lived 250 years ago somehow makes you part of their legacy. It's pushed on you so early and so hard that you don't even question it. You just go to school, and the first thing you do is stand and pledge allegiance to the state—together, as a group. It’s ritualistic. It functions like a cult mechanism. That’s how it gets ingrained.

Most Americans do not have an understanding that they are being tread on.

Making houses out of wood.

This is fine. Lumber was historically plentiful in North America, and lumber houses last just as long as stone or brick.

Lumber has several advantages over stone/concrete/brick:

• Less CO2 impact from construction activities. Concrete production is a huge contributor to atmospheric CO2.
• Greater sustainability in general. Concrete is approaching a global sand shortage, because most sand in the world doesn't have the right qualities to be included in concrete.
• Better energy efficiency and insulation properties. Brick homes need double walls in order to compete with the insulation properties of a wood framed house that naturally has voids that can be filled with insulation.
• Better resilience against seismic events and vibrations (including nearby construction). The west coast has frequent earthquakes, and complying with seismic building code with stone/masonry requires it to be reinforced with steel. The state of Utah, where trees and lumber are not as plentiful as most other parts of North America, and where seismic activity happens, has been replacing unreinforced masonry for 50+ years now.
• Easier repair. If a concrete foundation cracks, that's easier to contain and mitigate in a wood-framed house than a building with load-bearing concrete or masonry.

Some Northern European and North American builders are developing large scale timber buildings, including timber skyscrapers. The structural engineers and safety engineers have mostly figured out how to engineer those buildings to be safe against fire and tornadoes.

It's not inherently better or worse. It's just different.

A brick home wouldn’t withstand a tornado either. Like if a tree hits a brick house it would do significant damage to the house. And most brick houses still have a timber roof under the roof tiles so even a small tornado could lift the roof off the house.

Here is a brick house hit by a small tornado in England

Reinforced concrete is a much better material for a hurricane and tornado resistant building. Also shape of the house is important. A dome would be the best.

A wood-framed house isn't necessarily weaker than a brick house.

Wood is pliable and doesn't suddenly crumble and collapse when it's stressed. And it weighs WAY less when it does fail.

If you're in a tornado or earthquake, would you rather be trapped beneath 120 pounds of sheetrock, insulation, and shingles or a 2 tons of broken, jagged rock?

Living here, I will tell you that the insistence on building houses in a neo-colonial style in tornado alley, hurricane prone areas, or in a middle of a yearly flood plane, baffles me. We should have completely different architectural styles adpated to withstand the elements at this point. You know, what housing is supposed to be for in the first place? /rant

1. Because first past the post electoral systems always result in a 2 party system due to defensive voting.

2. Because Americans didn't listen to George Washington, when during his farewell address he strongly cautioned against "alternate domination" of a 2 party system.

3. Because Americans are woefully uneducated, dis-interested, and preoccupied.

Because they don't do proportional voting like you Germans or we Austrians do, most of their elections (and all federal ones) have one winning candidate in a state or congressional district.

And there is mostly not even a requirement for 50% of the vote, but the candidate with most votes wins. That creates the two party system.

The parties in the US are much broader than in our countries, it's very common for different members of the same party to vote against each other.

It is actually 2 flavors of the same party. The USA is a one-party state, controlled by the capitalist party.

EDIT: lol you can downvote me while you decide whether you want to vote for the Israel-defending-capitalist-that-ran-on-"securing"-the-border or the other Israel-defending-capitalist-that-ran-on-"securing"-the-border 🤪

Google "Gerrymandering". It'll all come together.

"Winner takes it all" makes it inherent to the system. They really really need to change that. But that is hard, when it keeps the only two relevant partys in power.