Sorry I don't buy your premise and I can probably speak for everyone on this board who doesn't think the ACA is complete garbage, when I say, no one thinks it's perfect in any way, shape, or form but it's certainly better than any alternative being presented!
But that doesn't fit your narrative so you will continue spouting BS from a starting point from which no one agrees with you.
Yes, I totally believe that it's pure coincidence that every objectionable thing inside the ACA must be voraciously defended and anyone pointing out any problems is merely raising another strawman. It does not mean that you insist it is perfect, merely that no one has yet discovered these imperfections.
Honestly, one would think you guys would be bright enough to come up with at least one more argument so that every point need not be answered with squeals of "strawman".
This was my first question to you on this matter:
You didn't actually answer either question (although you did say something like "The US being a superpower benefits Europe as much as it does the US"), so the premise that you are so critical of originated with yourself.
I answered the second question; find someone to explain it to you if that is still in question. I would think the first would be self-explanatory, but as it appears not, here goes my one attempt:
Every nation has interests both economic and cultural. Many nations have similar interests - for example, Western civilization has largely the same general economic system and largely the same moral background. Every individual also has rights, but the extent and nature of those rights vary greatly between cultures, religions, and nations. As these rights are inherently in conflict - for instance, Western nations believe in freedom of religion, whereas Islamic nations believe everyone should ultimately be forced into Islam - some mechanism must exist to protect those rights. With me so far?
There is a human tendency to want to exploit others for personal benefit as well as a human tendency to want to force others to live by our own preferred system. If one nation chooses to conquer another, for either reason, then either that nation succeeds or something successfully defends the invaded nation. Thus every person has a vested interest in their nation being strong enough to defend them, or in having a friend powerful enough and willing to do so. This should be undeniable, so obviously having a powerful nation has a great deal of benefit. To what extent does that extend to superpower status?
Prior to World War II, the modern world had no superpowers. The closest would be the British Empire, but its power had greatly waned. Thus if two or more powerful nations wanted to join together they could overmatch any one other nation and either take their land or enforce their will on the hapless victim. Many regional wars and two world wars resulted, with great loss of life and wasted wealth, because the possible gain was worth the risk.
After World War II, the world had two superpowers, the USA and the USSR. The USSR was in rapid expansion mode; any nation it occupied, even while nominally friendly and helping to throw out the invaders, it kept. Its system was antithetical to Western civilization's values. Without the other superpower opposing it, the USSR would have easily overrun the world in detail, imposing the bondage of Marxism on every human being. Again, these are things that every thinking human being knows, with nothing controversial or even arguable. Only after the fall of the USSR can there even be a question of whether there is any benefit to being a superpower.
I'd answer that in three parts. First, if there is no superpower then any powerful nation so inclined can capture enough other nations in detail to make itself a superpower. Without the USA's military might, there can be no doubt that Red China would include Taiwan, Japan, and the rest of Southeast Asia. While this might not directly benefit us, there is no doubt that eventually it would, so the USA's superpowers is benefiting our interests. Second, our superpower status discourages war between other, weaker nations, because they have to figure in the probability that America will step in to reverse their aggression. As Americans we have a vested interest in the world remaining friendly to our values, so our superpower status allows us to ensure that nations with largely antithetical views and values do not conquer nations with views and values more aligned to our own. This also allows both sides to buy our products rather than spending their industry on killing each other, and of course they can also manufacture products to sell to us. Third, our superpower status prevents two or more powerful nations from banding together and attacking us; our military might makes it a losing proposition. Thus we gain a measure of security and don't have to fear that, say, Mexico might invade to gain Texas. This is still a world ruled by the aggressive use of force, or at least its threat. Added up, our superpower status allows us to prevent the world from becoming a place less friendly to ourselves and our values and interests.
That's my honest attempt to explain to you what virtually everyone knows. Feel free to cleverly reply "strawman". Second verse, same as the first.