Let me guess. You’re between 18 and 25 years old?

No. I'm not defending Trump, I'm just lamenting upon how boring this whole thing is. Trump is like the pushy foreman from a Hollywood film made by people who were later brought before the House Committee on Un-American Activities. He's just kind of stubborn and agressive. There's not a lot to the guy. I wish that there was something more to analyze.

I am actually older than 25. I'm just sort of lazy with my posts. Most people fall out of Anarchism in their 20s because it's kind of tough rap that doesn't really reward you with very much. Being at all idealistic is often equated with being naive which I find to be rather distasteful.

I don't wish that Trump was more sinister, I just wish that he was more interesting.

No. I'm not defending Trump, I'm just lamenting upon how boring this whole thing is. Trump is like the pushy foreman from a Hollywood film made by people who were later brought before the House Committee on Un-American Activities. He's just kind of stubborn and agressive. There's not a lot to the guy. I wish that there was something more to analyze. — thewonder

I’m glad you find fault with him for his lack of entertainment value, but for people in the US who value American values as pronounced in the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights, the situation couldn’t be more serious. I’m glad you think this is a joke. I wish I could see it as a joke. Or not.

I am actually older than 25. — thewonder

And I have a 13-inch penis.

I don't really think that it's a joke, though. Nothing is falling apart. It's tragic to experience the Trump presidency as American democracy falling apart, but his presidency only reveals what has already been going on. I just wish that it was more poetic. I would have assumed that it would have taken someone who was more charismatic to reveal to the world what the lofty democratic project was actually like. Don't get me wrong, what is lofty of the democratic project is laudable. Trump certainly poses a threat in so far that he bastardizes the concept of democracy which should be held as a somewhat inviolable ideal, but that he does so is just simply a continuation of politics as such. Empire has always treated the concept in such a manner.

Well, I'm 29. Like I said, I'm just lazy.

It's always been like this, it's just never been so emphatically obvious. The manner in which it is obvious is banal. All that I have to take at Trump are what will be percieved as cheap shots. The situation is already reduced to the absurd. I think that people should actively disengage from such a state of affairs, but that is just my personal opinion. Any argument levelled at the current manifestation of the American Right will necessarily be an appeal. In order not to concede, the only thing that a person can do is to actively disengage.

By engaging in debate, you concede to their terms. Their terms are that such a presidency is legitimate. I'm not contesting that Trump won the election. I simply contest that his presidency can at all be considered to be what "legitimate" connotes.

In order not to concede, the only thing that a person can do is to actively disengage. — thewonder

That’s from the viewpoint of an anarchist, though. What about someone who wants to improve upon the system? There are many good things about America from which to build on.

"What to do with a mentally ill commander in chief?"

Involuntary commitment; locked cell on a locked floor; thorazine, electro-shock therapy ("Here, let me set the voltage on that dial!"); long term custodial care. And perhaps there would be an unfortunate accident, so round-the-clock security (no Secret Service; just regular hospital psychopaths).

Something along those lines; make One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest look like enlightened care.

I am suggesting that that Trump is in office is evidence of that the system can not be meaningfully reformed in so far that such things are allowed. To radically, that is to say, meaningfully, reform the American state, you would still need to actively disengage from politics as such. Everyone needs to wage a personal strike.

Everyone needs to wage a personal strike. — thewonder

That’s the case already with half of the electorate. Total informed engagement is the solution imo.

What is being informed? It's just a compulsive addiction to a 24-hour news cycle. A person's capacity to witness a slow train wreck does not correlate to their capacity to change the world for the better. I live in PA and didn't vote in protest of the cult behavior exhibited by the Democratic Party leading up to the election. I would have voted for Hilary or Sanders given the chance to. I partially lost the election for the Democratic Party. This places me in a unique position. I am now who the Democratic Party panders to. I have decided to exploit this. I am going to vote party line in the local elections of 2019, but will vote for the Democratic Socialists of America's candidate in 2020. If they don't put forth a candidate, then I will vote Green. I already registered Green in protest of that the Democratic Party routinely turns into a cult every two years or so. My vote is in good faith as I do believe that political parties should be more like the Democratic Socialists of America, but I do have an ulterior motive. I am voting as such, in part, because the Democratic Party will consider for that to be a vote that they lost. I know that the Democratic Socialists of America have no chance of winning the election. I also know that the Green Party has no chance of winning the election. I want for the Democratic Party to consider why they have lost a vote. Perhaps this will change the world for the better. I only care so much either way.

What is being informed? It's just a compulsive addiction to a 24-hour news cycle. A person's capacity to witness a slow train wreck does not correlate to their capacity to change the world for the better. I live in PA and didn't vote in protest of the cult behavior exhibited by the Democratic Party leading up to the election. I would have voted for Hilary or Sanders given the chance to. I partially lost the election for the Democratic Party. This places me in a unique position. I am now who the Democratic Party panders to. I have decided to exploit this. I am going to vote party line in the local elections of 2019, but will vote for the Democratic Socialists of America's candidate in 2020. If they don't put forth a candidate, then I will vote Green. I already registered Green in protest of that the Democratic Party routinely turns into a cult every two years or so. My vote is in good faith as I do believe that political parties should be more like the Democratic Socialists of America, but I do have an ulterior motive. I am voting as such, in part, because the Democratic Party will consider for that to be a vote that they lost. I know that the Democratic Socialists of America have no chance of winning the election. I also know that the Green Party has no chance of winning the election. I want for the Democratic Party to consider why they have lost a vote. Perhaps this will change the world for the better. I only — thewonder

Do you believe things wouldn’t be as bad or better given a dichotomous choice? I agree that winner take all elections are a problem in this country.

I would prefer a multi-party system, or some other democratic process, but would still probably have qualms with those things. I'm in favor of participatory democracy, whatever that means.

Yes, but given that we really only have a dichotomous choice, is one side clearly worse than the other in your view?

Hyperbole is a common figure of speech. — NOS4A2

It is a common feature of your speech. Why is that? You’re clearly not trying to persuade, so you must be attempting to provoke. For entertainment?

You would be more entertaining if you offered challenging provocations. Regurgitating the typical dimwited talking points we’ve been hearing for the last few years from the far-right is... unimaginative.

Sort of. The parties have changed over the years, but there's little left of the abolitionist past of the Republican Party. The Democratic Party is just usually preferable. They're not really all that great. It's just a general inclination. I would vote for the Left Party or Feminist Initiative if I lived in Sweden. I am partisan.

I may consider voting for a decent Libertarian candidate if they were against war, in favor of some sort of environmental intitiatives, and of some sort of socially liberal persuasion.

I generally suspect that the only good that will come of politics will come from the Left in spite of that I don't really like the Left all that much. I am of the far-Left. It's all rather tennuous, but I won't be shifting positions any time soon.

Edit: To better answer your question, currently the Democratic Party can more or less be considered to be always preferable to the Republican Party in spite of that they really aren't all that great. This has not always historically been the case.

Sure, but do you feel comfortable throwing away your vote? Suppose only two parties have a real chance of winning but there are four parties to choose from. One of the parties that could win want to feed you broccoli every meal and you don’t like broccoli. The other party that could win wants to make leisure time illegal, and you love leisure time. You choose to vote for a third party that wants to give everyone $1 million, but they will never win. See the problem?

I am very comfortable with that the Democratic Party will have to continue to pander to me. I will only exploit this so much, however.

Voting isn't everything that has everything to do with politics. I am comfortable with voting for the Democratic Socialists of America because, if they put forth a candidate, it will be the first time that I can cast a vote in good faith. If no one decides to be sincere then nothing will change.

That’s fair. I happen to like the Democratic Party myself.

But you see how not voting then causes an ignorance of the electorate on the part of the politicians, right?

I feel that this is a massive over generalization of the conservative population. We should address people on an individual basis.

You've referred to Trump as narcissistic, he is. However is that wrong? Before Trump was president he actually advocated for hispanics and blacks to be allowed into country/golf clubs and won the Ellis Island award. He's respected globally unlike Canadas Prime Minister. Not only this but he has broken many records for collective society, including: Lowest unemployment of hispanic and black communities ever - record highs within the stock market - he has implemented tax incentives so that people with invest into poor neighbourhoods (Opportunity zones). While his ego may be massive and shadow many others, he has undoubtedly helped many many many people.

Trump will win the 2020 election undoubtedly, the Democratic Party is much to obsessed with obscenities and economic hindrances. They puppet black and hispanic people about. This was shown very clearly when they wished for open borders however when Trump promised to have them brought to democratic strong holds, Nancy refused. I think everyone conservative, liberal, far left, far right all need to step back and start addressing each other as human beings. Its extremely disheartening to see each other being torn apart and not addressed as simple factions such as left-right.

Yes and no. There are plenty of reasons not to vote. That's not really what I mean by active disengagement, though. I don't really care who votes or doesn't vote. The electorate are right to retain a certain degree of ignorance. Nothing is really all that meaningfully engaging. I don't think that people should concede anything that this is valid out of some sort of percieved practicality. You can choose to be of any position that you like. If it is a good position then it shouldn't be sacrificed to that you can make marginal gains by conceding certain things. I think that people should vote in general. I'm not terribly enthusiastic about it. I think that it's just sort of a minimal democratic offering. Some people choose not to vote out of protest. That effects some change as well. I don't really agree with Anarchist lines against voting, however. You shouldn't not be allowed to vote. That's not too common of an Anarchist position, but it is common enough to be of note.

I think that you might assume too much by assuming that the American Right is just simply ignorant. A lot of them know all too well precisely what it is that they are voting for. It's more of a problem with the American mindset then it is with the dissemination of information. Almost everyone has access to Wikipedia. The problem is more psychological. Who knows what can be done about that?

I don't see any reason why civic engagement should be compulsory. Not everyone cares to invest their time in politics.

I guess I don't quite know what you mean. I assume that that's a bit of a rhetorical question. Am I not aware of the importance of voting? I don't know. I only think that it's so important.

But @RobertMetz, you must know that while ingratiating minorities is not as good as actually satisfying minorities, meeting the diversity quota is better than not meeting it. Having there be actual black people who support the Democratic Party is better than having there be, like, a black person who supports the Republican Party.

Why is it the duty of anyone to satisfy anyone else? Do you lack volition to better yourself and create the world you'd like to see around you or in this case the "minorities"? Why is it wrong for anyone of any colour to choose to support the party of their choice?

Oh, they can choose whatever they want to. I'm just saying that it does still seem to be the case that the Republican Party doesn't have all that much to offer people of color. I'm also quite skeptical of "economic development" in "opportunity zones". That sounds a lot like gentrification.

Lets say that man is the idea of himself. When we do this we come to the republican side in which "we are responsible and everyone is capable of their own personal success" (To the degree of what each individual is capable of varies)
While the Democratic Party smears and says that the 'Minorities' are at a disadvantage and incapable without the pandering government parental figure.
If you believe in the economic developments or not, it is not of your opinion but fact. Recorded in time for all history.

Everyone is capable of a lot of things, but some people are more advantaged than others. I'm just trying to figure out how to leech off of the State until I can sustain myself as a left-wing philosopher.

What service do you provide your fellow man by doing this? Provide me your definition of "Left-Wing"?