[jaldhar]

I want to touch on one more thing here. You said:

"Harris, which really means the bureaucratic group project that Harris would have continued"

Is that what we're voting for now? A completely interchangeable figurehead that just covers for a bureaucratic group project?

"Deep state" type conspiracy theories which would have been relegated to frothing Qanon types 20 years ago are prevalent amongst even progressive now. Perhaps this explains it. If so, nihilism is a rational response.

[mindslight]

I tuned into the deep state concept reading Moldbug (Yarvin) in his salad days. My take away was much different way than most people's, apparently.

As I said, I'm a libertarian. I've been criticizing bureaucratic authoritarianism for decades now. But I'll be damned if idly stand by while what we take for granted is replaced with autocratic authoritarianism.

So yes when you put those two options in front of me, I am going to vote for the system that at least tries to keep the authoritarian power constrained.

[xg15]

> Is that what we're voting for now? A completely interchangeable figurehead that just covers for a bureaucratic group project?

I mean, yes? Technically, you're not even electing a group, let alone a person, but a party.

I know politicians themselves love to turn this into a question of "personality" (with the press amply helping), but it seems more rational to look at which administration is elected and which groups/orgs/donors/etc are backing it, than debate which candidate can simulate the best smalltalk or do the most spectacular campaign rally.