[yonaguska]

It's not intellectually lazy, it's being intellectually tired.

Both parties only every get anything done in this country when it comes to voting to restrict our rights. Ideologically, I'm slightly right leaning. My primary value is individual rights are more important. But if I could, I would vote for Ron Wyden(D) despite the fact that I disagree with many of his positions, he's still one of the few that has a spine to oppose things like the federal spying apparatus.

I just don't see the point of investing myself in caring when 98 percent of our reps just really don't care and only focus on manufacturing outrage around wedge issues that they can't or won't actually address so that they can keep their jobs and continue to accrue massive amounts of wealth from lobbying and insider trading. We get Trump because the system is so thoroughly broken on both sides and enough people are frustrated the point that they are "protest" voting.

[js8]

I can understand it's tiring. But, as someone who was born in totalitarian regime - you still have plenty opportunities to change things in the U.S. Many U.S. states have direct democracy, which is unique in vast majority of the world. You still have free media. You can influence primaries of the two parties.

I don't think people are "protest" voting. You're the one protest voting - by not voting at all. You should ask yourself, why they bother, when you do not.

[iamnothere]

The system does not allow good candidates to make it through to a vote. (When it does, they are quickly either ejected or “brought in” to the system.)

There are other, more effective ways to vote than at the ballot box. Money, time, voice (depending on your reach), protest, direct action can all have a greater impact.

IMHO building parallel systems is the most important thing right now, as the primary political system is entering a period of crisis that it may not survive. Parallel systems, especially strong local systems, have a long and successful history.

[jibal]

> The system does not allow good candidates to make it through to a vote.

This simply isn't true. What is true is that there's a strong bias which makes it harder, but hyperbole is a form of lying.

> There are other, more effective ways to vote than at the ballot box. Money, time, voice (depending on your reach), protest, direct action can all have a greater impact.

False dichotomy/strawman ... no one said there aren't ... and many of these ways affect who wins elections.

I won't respond further.

[iamnothere]

You ignored the second part of my statement:

> (When it does, they are quickly either ejected or “brought in” to the system.)

As shown with Bernie (co-opted) and most recently with Massie (ejected). You’re not voting your way out of this.

[yonaguska]

Oh, I still vote. I feel that if I don't, then I have no right to complain. no matter how unhappy I am with the candidates.

[jibal]

> It's not intellectually lazy

Of course it is, naysayer.

> it's being intellectually tired.

Perhaps that's in part a cause of the former in your case ... but you aren't everyone and I was referring to bothsidesing generally.

> I just don't see the point of investing myself in caring when 98 percent of our reps just really don't care and only focus on manufacturing outrage around wedge issues that they can't or won't actually address so that they can keep their jobs and continue to accrue massive amounts of wealth from lobbying and insider trading.

More intellectual laziness, as well as intellectual dishonesty, offering ignorant simplistic but oh so handy explanations and excuses.

> We get Trump because the system is so thoroughly broken on both sides and enough people are frustrated the point that they are "protest" voting.

This is another fine example of such intellectual laziness. People who actually put in the effort to understand politics know how simplistic this is.

Since you're so tired and don't care, I won't respond further.