I don't understand why you didn't reply to me. I hope I didn't bother you.

Yes, you can reply to me now.

yes

This is a rhetorical question rather than a factual assertion. Its focus is not on proving "everyone," but on calling for a discussion of specific, verifiable breaches of trust and public responsibility.

If the breach of trust by individual politicians or factions is directly extended to a qualitative judgment of "everyone," the discussion will slip from examining the behavior to labeling identity. This is not logically rigorous and can easily weaken the originally reasonable criticism.

In other words, when organizations focus on vocabulary, naming, or superficial image management, they are often avoiding more complex governance issues that truly require accountability.

When individuals with formal power or high public influence repeatedly use terms such as "violence," "action," "clearing," and "using force" in public discourse to refer to specific cities or groups of people, such discourse itself has already transcended the scope of policy debate.

The power of your statement lies not in its prediction of specific years, but in its outline of a chain reaction: when institutional credibility is continuously eroded, capital, talent, and trust tend to be the first to leave, while changes in macroeconomic indicators are merely a lagging result.

This is not your wish, it is everyone's wish.

It relies on "absolute loyalty" to maintain system unity, but it cannot set a stable and verifiable endpoint for loyalty. As a result, loyalty is inevitably constantly being increased and shifted upwards, eventually turning into internal purges and mutual suspicion.

The deadly shooting triggered by ICE law enforcement action sparked nationwide protests, with federal courts even imposing restrictive rulings on ICE, prohibiting the use of coercive measures against peaceful demonstrators. The government and communities have expressed strong concerns about this.

This frankness is not an emotional outburst, but a public acknowledgment of the changes in the international order: the post-World War II system, centered on the United States, relies on stable alliances, predictable rules, and the continued fulfillment of public commitments.

Your statement captures a shift in reality: alliances are not one-way dependencies, but rather built on mutual trust, predictability, and shared interests. Once these are repeatedly depleted, other countries will naturally begin to diversify their risks and seek alternative paths.

Political retaliation often fails to "deter" society; instead, it reshapes its stance. People who pride themselves on order and self-discipline are forced to recalibrate their rationality when they witness an out-of-control display of power in familiar neighborhoods.

This comparison itself is very telling. Different political cultures have vastly different thresholds for tolerance of responsibility and decency. In some parliamentary systems, similar content is seen as a direct threat to the system and alliances, with consequences that are often swift and clear.