JonEFive

No, that's not what I'm saying at all. The situation is that you will realistically have two choices for president. Voting for anything other than one of those two choices is effectively pointless as it will have no impact on the outcome except to withhold a vote from one of the two candidates that are going to win.

Anything else that you choose is symbolic at best but effectively meaningless.

I assume you meant Zionist, but columnist is pretty funny given the surrounding context.

Wait... you need more than that to demand a recount?

But then how are news sources going to make otherwise mundane events sound noteworthy?

BTW, 100% of person making this reply voted Democrat, therefore everyone in the country will also vote democrat.

Well yeah, but that's a pretty broad spectrum. Giving up by not participating at all is a higher degree of apathy than "giving up" by realistically evaluating your situation and recognizing that participating in a deeply flawed system will still have a chance of moving the needle in the direction you want it to go, or at least stopping it from moving the other direction.

Even though you preemptively asked people not to provide a counterpoint, I feel the need to highlight a problem with your analogy that you seen to already be aware of.

Your position of "I don't want to go camping anymore" is a fantasy. The only way to achieve that is to emigrate to another country. The real situation is: you're going to sleep outside. Do you want a leaky tent or a ragged old tarp? Those are your only two choices. If you do not make a choice, then you are leaving the choice up to everyone else.

If you're okay with that, then sobeit. It is your right to opt out of participating in the political process, but that doesn't change which tent you're going to end up sleeping in. If you're an American, you're along for the ride whether you like it or not. Your choice to opt out does not change the outcome, it merely cedes control to everyone else.

I tend to agree with your main point though. I'm pretty exhausted with everyone around me selecting the same deteriorated tents that we've been using for the last 50 years because "that's the only way enough people will select it over the moldy tarp" instead of considering a new one that actually works, or at least has fewer leaks.

It's a brain malfunction where cognitive dissonance apparently feels good.

This is a reference that I'm afraid not enough people understand.

As long as they're peaceful, then pretty much, yes. A state university where the land is publicly owned (government "owned" property), it sounds like they were exercising their rights to assemble, speak, and petition the government...

Hey now, this court case is about the presidential ability to assassinate rivals, not the presidential ability to use the armed forces against American citizens on American soil. We would need the national guard for that.

I'm still convinced that he's actively and intentionally trying to destroy Twitter.

Well, let's talk about when Twitter was founded...