Hold your horses! Let's break down what you said.
"I have no basis to your vague reply, other than personal digging into your profile, and all I have to say is...you know nothing, Jon Snow."
I was being intentionally vague, hoping to avoid a giant essay as a reply. I guess that went out the window. Oh, and who the heck is Jon Snow?
"You're 16. You have no basis of a presidential candidate other than Obama and whatever tail end of the George W. Bush years. To call Donald Trump's administration anything but frightening shows either a lot of naivety or a lot of immaturity on your part. Probably both."
To say that I don't know how politics work because I haven't lived long enough is naive and immature in and of itself. I was raised with common sense. I wanted to follow the election. Common sense told me that to follow an election you should prepare yourself with knowledge that concerns elections. Fast-forward to now, and I know a lot more about politics than I did when I was 14 or 15, and even then I had been curious about it. Calling Donald Trump's administration anything but frightening was something I did as a result of thinking and using my brain, not the other way around.
"And since you offer no real defense for Designated Survivor, other than complaining about the rest of us being nitpicky (which isn't a real defense), it's hard to take your callow advice seriously."
At the top of this post, I said this:
It's got an amazing balance between suspense and progression, every time I watch the show, it's like the conspiracy gets even bigger, wider, and deeper than before.
Now, I said this before the finale came out, and I can safely say that the finale felt in line with this assertion. Granted, that's an opinion, but it doesn't make it "callow." If anything, I'd call it an "educated opinion", because it was based on my actual reaction to the show versus someone trying to convince me it was good. And yes, you were nitpicking. That's your choice, but to quote the famous meme, "really n***? (sorry, it wouldn't post with that word in there)"
"For the record, it's a show I wanted to love, because of Keifer Sutherland's role reversal from his iconic "24" Jack Bauer role. The characters are mostly a likable bunch, and as I said before, it's a relief to see a more idealistic Washington operate after 120 or so days into Donald Trump's sodomized version."
You wanted to love it, but you were disappointed. That's it, story over. Oh wait, subtle Trump reference. I actually had to look up the meaning of "Sodomized", and I don't know where you're getting the idea that his presidency is like that in any way. It's not like Trump has 2 dancers hovering close to him at all times. He just goes about his business like any other president would. Granted, we could get into an argument about how the Trump mentioned "they let you do it" in that all-too-well known quote, thereby rendering the argument that he takes advantage of women useless, but let's just move past that.
"Unfortunately, the narrative is not very compelling. On the political side, it's a second rate West Wing at best. On the conspiracy thriller side, it's nowhere as gripping as "24". The last show that combined the styles well was Scandal in the first two seasons, but now, even that has run its course way off the cliff. DS is rarely awful, but it doesn't have the writing depth required to make the premise work. It's too often too boring to make a lasting impression."
I'm easily compelled. I can find something good in pretty much anything.
"If that's what you like, more power to you. I won't call you delusional for feeling that way (but the Trump stuff...yeah, you know goddamn nothing). For the rest of us, DS is wasted potential."
At least you don't think I'm crazy! (makes crazy face afterwards). Yeah, jokes aside, as I said before, I don't "know goddamn nothing" because even I have at least a single morsel of common sense. Can I say the same of you? Well, I guess that's for you to decide.
Anyways, hope you get back at me soon! I'd like to hear your defense this time.