Many voted for Clinton primarily to stop Trump from winning, and believe it or not, vice-versa. Their support fed on each other, which is the exact race-to-the-bottom degeneracy you'd expect with a captive audience that feels required to vote.

I've got some respect for those who voted for Johnson, Stein, etc, as they still resisted the siren song of choreographed panic. I just personally think that if one of the current third parties became one of the two parties, it would be quickly invaded by the same status quo shills (see: the Tea Party).

The actual brokenness resides in all of our heads - the fundamental idea that any matter should be subject to possible focus and mass scrutiny, with everyone judging from afar to form some for-or-against opinion. This setup is great for those who mediate the focus (eg media, which is why it's gotten so popular), but only contributes to the disempowering helplessness we all feel.

Black Mirror's "Fifteen Million Merits" reminded me a great deal of what modern democracy has become. Turning my back on the homeopathic lever helps me to avoid being misled by it.

That freshman level philosophy stuff sounds great in theory but most of us have to live in the real world with real problems and real consequences.

That's an oddly inconsistent response. Which perspective do you actually intend to take - that you're well traveled in philosophy and what I am saying is only freshman level, or that you don't see the value of applying basic abstract concepts to your concrete situation?

FWIW what "real consequences" are you referencing here? A lack of psychological comfort from the ballot box?

I'm clearly addressing a very real problem of people being simultaneously more fed up yet supporting ever shittier politicians. I'm sorry that my analysis recognizes symmetry and thus doesn't admit the tired approach of proselytizing for one team even harder.

I am saying that you are debating theory that has no place outside of debate of theory. It rings of privilege and naivete to the way the world actually works. Just search Twitter for "dead without Obamacare" and you will find plenty of "real consequences".

Ah, so the ad hominem of "freshman philosophy" fails, so you try the more fashionable ad hominem of "privilege".

Talking about "dead without Obamacare" is fallacious emotional appeal as well [0]. My entire point is to resist making decisions based on short term concerns being dangled in front of us, especially when the choices come bundled with consequences that just hurt a different group. You can stick your head in the sand and call it "theory", but this rejection of bigger picture analysis only primes the pump by setting up the next "dead without ..." situation.

But hey, "they will only drag you down to their level and beat you with experience". I guess I've been beaten.

[0] nevermind the fact that it's more appropriately called Romneycare

You are really complaining about ad hominem arguments and being dragged down to my level when in the first sentence of your first comment you called the two big parties "republicraps or democants"?

Yes. My labeling is counter marketing against the Party (see, I just did it again), which does not reflect on you. Whereas you were actually derailing the argument being presented, first by monkeysphere bullying and then by shrinking the scope to a base emotional appeal. The mirror of "dead without Obamacare" is "death panels" - neither one makes for intelligent discussion.

Here's why it's "freshman philosophy":

Nobody cares that you can define terms, point out fallacies, or use labels - any schoolchild can do that stuff. Simply, the arguments you've made are bloodless rhetoric without illustrations, emotions or lived experiences to draw from.

Instead of developing one argument, you tend to follow a pattern of "conclusion followed by hypothesis", peppering the post with one conclusion per paragraph. There's nothing much to engage with on a theoretical level when you do that, nothing to pick at or explore further. It gives a hostile tone of "I don't have to do my homework". Yes, you do. Nobody wants to engage with lazy thinking.

I only "pointed out fallacies" in direct response to OP's attempt to switch the argument from one of ideas to one of social rank-pulling. And now you're continuing to do that ("bloodless rhetoric without illustrations, emotions or lived experiences"). It might just be that my lived experiences are different from yours, and have caused me to seek a resolution between these two opposing tribes.

This necessarily involves leaving out my immediate concerns and biases, and admitting that the tribe I identify with less is still coming from their own honest viewpoint. To me, that's a much saner position than to assume that 63 xor 66 million people are personally mortally wrong.

I am speaking in a world in which neither you or I have the power to drastically change the US political system. You might try "to seek a resolution between these two opposing tribes." However we all knew that resolution was impossible in the 2016 election and I imagine we can all agree it isn't happening anytime soon. I am coming to this debate with that as an established premise and it appears you are not. You are trying to have an ideological debate about "democratic totalitarianism". I am pointing out the pragmatic problems with throwing your vote away in the name of that ideology. Regardless of whether I agree with your underlying beliefs, in my opinion, people with your mindset are putting their viewpoints above the actual results of our political system and the people that are already being victimized by a Trump presidency.

> I am speaking in a world in which neither you or I have the power to drastically change the US political system

On this point, we agree.

> However we all knew that resolution was impossible in the 2016 election

I'm not talking about a resolution between the tribes themselves, but a synthesis of their viewpoints. In my observation, each tribe is pissed off over a lack of control and feeling powerless. Rather than advocate solutions that reduce centralized control over both tribes' lives, the politicians attack caricatures of the other tribe and implement more controls over them (generally because some donor stands to make a buck off of it). The winning tribe cheers, while the losing tribe builds resentment and we end up with eg Trump.

> I am pointing out the pragmatic problems with throwing your vote away in the name of that ideology

As far as I'm concerned, every vote is a "throw away". But I refuse the Faustian bargain of blessing one evildoer because they're subjectively slightly less evil. Clinton would not be setting off the mass panic we're seeing [0], but still starting empire wars in distant lands and furthering domestic totalitarianism.

But note that I wasn't talking about the societal results of a (non) vote! The real point I am making is that once you cast off this idea that you have some actual say in the actions of the government, your own perspective becomes much more clear. I'm personally not sitting here in shock thinking something like "OMFG how could this happen. I needed to campaign harder, I'd better start working on electing opposition for the midterms", just like I wasn't thinking "well I voted for Obama so I know he's a good guy and he must be having to compromise".

While Trump's actions do alarm my personal biases harder, I'm thinking the same thing today as I did two years ago - the only way this government is going to stop doing evil shit is when it is no longer able to.

[0] Which would be insidious on its own. IMHO one of the great things about Trump's election is the blowback happening. People should feel mortally worried about the surveillance state we're building.