This is my problem exactly. All this money, all these issues, and we're stuck with these clowns? Whatever happened to statesmen and women? Nope, we're stuck with politicians that act like pro wrestlers. We don't need to overthrow the government. We just need to overthrow the parties.

I had such high hopes for humanity with the emergence of the internet. With the all the world's knowledge at our fingertips, including detailed information about political fundraising, voting records, etc., it would be SO EASY to find and elect the "right" people.

I truly long for thoughtful discussions about real issues. I'm still holding out a little hope for the next great awakening.

With all the world's knowledge at our fingertips, including detailed information about political fundraising and voting records, people have increasingly realized that politics isn't the right place for thoughtful discussions about real issues. It's like going to Nike headquarters and asking why everyone's so focused on sportswear.

I strongly disagree with your Nike / sportswear comparison. Maybe I didn't communicate my point clearly here. I'm specifically talking about governance / political science vs. popcorn politics. There are plenty of real issues to be discussed in the world of political philosophy, public administration and government that don't involve stage shows and rabble rousing.

Starting with local politics first, then regional, THEN national - the question of who will govern us and set rules and make laws is of critical importance. What good does it do to solve the world's problems if our representatives are robbing the coffers and crashing the plane into the mountain?

Right, that’s the premise I don’t agree with. Politics is the art of stage shows and rabble rousing, and tackles larger issues only to the degree that they make a good show or easily rouse the rabble. Important questions usually aren’t and usually shouldn’t be solved through politics.

You go vote for someone else in the democratic primaries? He isn't the candidate

It's too bad more people don't realize the answer is to vote third party.

Voting for somebody you don't want to win is the definition of "throwing your vote away."

I have only ever voted third party. But they continue to not get any traction and I feel more and more that my time would be better spent almost literally anywhere besides trying to be involved in politics.

Bit of a chicken and egg issue. It's hard to convince people that this is a viable option until a third party receives a critical mass of votes at least once.

There were obvious and appreciable difference between the two candidates of those two teams, between their campaign promises and between their political and personal histories. Even if you didn't "like" either, you can still think about these differences and decide which one you think is more fit to serve as president.

Even if you're unwilling to do that, then practically speaking, there were more than 2 teams. If a party receives 5% of the popular vote, they qualify for federal funding in the next election. It might not necessarily get them on the debate stage, but we're talking about a lot of money to get their messages out there one way or another. Libertarians got 3.28% of the popular vote in 2016. It might be naive to think that they or the Green party could have reached 5%, but I'm not one to take the defeatist attitude that voting for a 3rd party is throwing your vote away.

Vote for the candidate who doesn't make you seriously question whether there will be another election in 4 years?

No one who is grounded in reality is seriously questioning that. You are just being hyperbolic.

You know a lot can be said about deficiencies in the democratic process in the U.S. but the crazy guy would just be removed. He'd need decisive support from the military to stay and ride out the fact that he lost all democratic legitimacy. I don't see a coup on the horizon. Do you?

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that Trump's actions that you imagine to be constitutional violations are probably actions that you personally disagree with, but are not actually constitutional violations.

Republicans as a group care deeply about the Constitution, and the Constitution is clear about when the term of the presidency ends. He would not have the support of the Republicans in the Senate if he chose to remain in office past the expiration of his term.

> Republicans as a group care deeply about the Constitution

Well, they say that a lot, I can't see any evidence that it's particularly true in general (it's definitely true that there are things that they care about that they cite their particular interpretation of the Constitution to support, though on issues like executive vs. legislative power their deeply held Constitutional beliefs seem to flip 180° when you flip which parties are in power in the respective branches; the Constitution seems to be more of an identity touchstone than a document whose actual content is of particular concern.)

> Republicans as a group care deeply about the Constitution

...you mean power. It’s just a means to an end.

The only thing that makes me question that is noting which candidates are trying to disarm every citizen who isn't on a police force.