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
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.
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.
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.