I wanted to take some time to give a more carefully thought-out reply to this, because your accusation (implied in "being sanctimonious") is totally fair, and one that I level at others sometimes.

I don't think it's wrong to express strong disapproval of political issues even if I'm not currently politically involved, because the fact is, I spent most of my twenties thinking about how to effect (big) change in the world, and the answer I came up with was that, first, I had to become wealthy. I concluded that the political process itself was badly broken, that there were serious social issues stretching back many decades, and that while working as a teacher or a politician might have some impact, it would ultimately almost certainly be less effective than accumulating a huge amount of resources and then putting those resources into play in ways that I think would be beneficial to the world. That doesn't mean that I don't spend any time at all on other endeavors -- one of the first things I hope to do after opening up a local shop is host mechatronics classes for kids, because I think it's important for technologists and others to teach their craft to the young. However, politics in general -- whether at the local, state, or national level -- requires disproportionate amounts of attention, with few benefits. It is a huge distraction from my primary goals, so I'm not inclined to get involved with it. Not completely disinclined though: I did apply and interview for a local planning commission position, I have attended city council meetings in two local towns, I have been the tech guy for a California wanna-be governor's campaign a couple of years ago.

But in the end, spending much effort on organizing rallies or protesting with signs, for me, is self-defeating ... at least to some extent.

I also don't think that the President is above reproach just because the job is difficult. I have a tremendous amount of respect for just how difficult the job is; it's obvious to anyone that watches how quickly various Presidents age while in office. It is a physically debilitating position to have. That said, the President is (supposed to be) elected to deal with issues like this. I do not think that "they gave it an honest shot" is a reasonable way to accept failure on certain issues. I also think that, as a candidate who ran on platform issues like transparency in government and workers' rights, the President has disenchanted many of his most ardent supporters, which is really a rather big problem because many of these people became politically active for the first time in nearly a decade in order to get him into office. His supporters did not want to elect a "lesser evil", they wanted to elect change. To what degree any change has occurred is a matter of perspective, but I think it's hard to argue that it has fallen far short of expectations and promises.

So, yes, I speak out on political issues that I think are important. I hold the President of the United States -- whoever he is -- to a very high standard, because I believe that it is necessary for the health of our country to do so. However, I don't do any of that to impress anyone, because impressing people won't help change anything.

I do it because people having more conversations like this one is, I think, the first step towards fixing some of the social and political problems in our country.

Thanks for the thought-out response. I'd only counter that a president alone can't change everything when we have a congress, lobbying and media environment like we have now. "Trying to change things" vs "Trying to make sure they don't change" is a bigger difference than simply "lesser evil", even if the daily frustrations sometimes get to you.