The Politics Thread v2

[dman11235]

Black Lives Matter finally shows up to a Trump rally.  That gave us a chance to see if how he said he'd handle it actually held true.  And surprise!  He got beaten by Trump supporters and called racial slurs, while Trump told security to get rid of him.  Note: Trump's response to the beaten "Maybe he should have been roughed up".

[Libertad]

Black Lives Matter finally shows up to a Trump rally.  That gave us a chance to see if how he said he'd handle it actually held true.  And surprise!  He got beaten by Trump supporters and called racial slurs, while Trump told security to get rid of him.  Note: Trump's response to the beaten "Maybe he should have been roughed up".

To all my fellow Americans in my age group, who are totally for same-sex marriage, getting rid of the War on Drugs, protest our disastrous policies in the Middle East, but can't get off their ass to bother voting "because the system's broken anyway..."

Vote for the Socialist.  It's important.

[stanprollyright]

Black Lives Matter finally shows up to a Trump rally.  That gave us a chance to see if how he said he'd handle it actually held true.  And surprise!  He got beaten by Trump supporters and called racial slurs, while Trump told security to get rid of him.  Note: Trump's response to the beaten "Maybe he should have been roughed up".

Cracked.com article comparing Trump to Hitler's rise to power.  And this was published before he advocated the whole "Muslim database" thing.

To all my fellow Americans in my age group, who are totally for same-sex marriage, getting rid of the War on Drugs, protest our disastrous policies in the Middle East, but can't get off their ass to bother voting "because the system's broken anyway..."

Vote for the Socialist.  It's important.

^This * 9001

[MrWolfe]

Please excuse me whilst I find the sheer amount of irony in the above post hilarious.

Care to elaborate?

No True Scotsman/citing 19th century academia as essentially irrefutable.

That's an interesting take on it. Of course, even if that was the case, the word "irony" would not apply. That you misused the word irony in response to a post about people not using words correctly is rather ironic, however.

Words are not arbitrary noises that mean whatever we want them to. They have a precise definition and if you use a word in a way which contradicts that meaning you are using it incorrectly. That's how words, and language, work.

It's always interesting to see people throw logical fallacies around without seeming to understand the logic behind them. A logical fallacy is only a fallacy if it is wrong. Going back to my earlier comparison, if I say "No true arthropod would have a spine." Is that an example of the No True Scotsman fallacy? No. Because arthropods are, by definition, invertebrates. That's what the word means. "No True Scotsman..." is a fallacy when being a "Scotsman" has no bearing on the second condition.

"No true Scotsman would drive a kia," is a fallacy because the car you drive has no bearing on your citizenship status in Scotland.

"No true anarchist would engage in coercive violence," is not a fallacy because by definition an anarchist is someone who is opposed to coercive violence. It's like saying "No true pacifist would beat somebody to death with a crowbar." If you're beating someone to death with a crowbar, you're not exactly being a pacifist are you?

I'm honestly rather curious where "19th century academia" comes in.

Black Lives Matter finally shows up to a Trump rally.  That gave us a chance to see if how he said he'd handle it actually held true.  And surprise!  He got beaten by Trump supporters and called racial slurs, while Trump told security to get rid of him.  Note: Trump's response to the beaten "Maybe he should have been roughed up".

That's basically Trump's platform: Mind-Boggling Horribleness. The disturbing thing is that it seems to be garnering so much support.

To all my fellow Americans in my age group, who are totally for same-sex marriage, getting rid of the War on Drugs, protest our disastrous policies in the Middle East, but can't get off their ass to bother voting "because the system's broken anyway..."

Vote for the Socialist.  It's important.

A few questions there:

1) How would voting for a socialist president, or any president, address problems that stem from statism? Or have any real effect on those issues? Did you notice a whole lot of change after the last time we switched presidents?

2) Why is it in any way important who we vote for? It's not like the popular vote actually means anything, and even if it did, advertising, gerrymandering, and outright fraud have far more impact.

3) What makes you think the only options are voting or sitting on your ass, rather than pursuing more effective ways to bring about political change?

4) What is your age group, anyway?

Cracked.com article comparing Trump to Hitler's rise to power.  And this was published before he advocated the whole "Muslim database" thing.

It is quite disturbing. Thing is, this is just the tip of a trend that's been building for most of my lifetime, if not longer. Just like with Hitler, Trump would have been laughed out on his ass almost immediately if the political climate wasn't already primed to support someone so destructively, obviously, batshit insane.

Our government doesn't even bother paying lip service to the constitution or the frigging Geneva conventions anymore, what makes you think it'll listen to us?

Americans have sat by and allowed--even supported--torture, widespread domestic spying, the detention of U.S. citizens without trial, cops brutalizing and murdering unarmed people on camera, a drone "assassination" program that basically amounts to robo-terrorism...

...it's a little late to stand up for freedom and sanity. Last call for that was over a decade ago.

[SolEiji]

...
Vote for the Socialist.  It's important.

...

To all my fellow Americans in my age group, who are totally for same-sex marriage, getting rid of the War on Drugs, protest our disastrous policies in the Middle East, but can't get off their ass to bother voting "because the system's broken anyway..."

Vote for the Socialist.  It's important.

^This * 9001

Oh oh oh, two more!  High fives for you!    Let's get as many as we can fighting in the primaries, take everyone, don't let them forget/don't forget to register if you need to!

[dman11235]

Please excuse me whilst I find the sheer amount of irony in the above post hilarious.

Care to elaborate?

No True Scotsman/citing 19th century academia as essentially irrefutable.

That's an interesting take on it. Of course, even if that was the case, the word "irony" would not apply. That you misused the word irony in response to a post about people not using words correctly is rather ironic, however.

Words are not arbitrary noises that mean whatever we want them to. They have a precise definition and if you use a word in a way which contradicts that meaning you are using it incorrectly. That's how words, and language, work.

It's always interesting to see people throw logical fallacies around without seeming to understand the logic behind them. A logical fallacy is only a fallacy if it is wrong. Going back to my earlier comparison, if I say "No true arthropod would have a spine." Is that an example of the No True Scotsman fallacy? No. Because arthropods are, by definition, invertebrates. That's what the word means. "No True Scotsman..." is a fallacy when being a "Scotsman" has no bearing on the second condition.

"No true Scotsman would drive a kia," is a fallacy because the car you drive has no bearing on your citizenship status in Scotland.

"No true anarchist would engage in coercive violence," is not a fallacy because by definition an anarchist is someone who is opposed to coercive violence. It's like saying "No true pacifist would beat somebody to death with a crowbar." If you're beating someone to death with a crowbar, you're not exactly being a pacifist are you?

I'm honestly rather curious where "19th century academia" comes in.

That whole "by definition" thing only applies when it's actually against the definition.  An anarchist by definition is someone who does not want government.  There's nothing about non-violence in there, as much as you like to pretend there is.  There are violent anarchists in the world.  And they are true anarchists.

[stanprollyright]

To all my fellow Americans in my age group, who are totally for same-sex marriage, getting rid of the War on Drugs, protest our disastrous policies in the Middle East, but can't get off their ass to bother voting "because the system's broken anyway..."

Vote for the Socialist.  It's important.

A few questions there:

1) How would voting for a socialist president, or any president, address problems that stem from statism? Or have any real effect on those issues? Did you notice a whole lot of change after the last time we switched presidents?

2) Why is it in any way important who we vote for? It's not like the popular vote actually means anything, and even if it did, advertising, gerrymandering, and outright fraud have far more impact.

3) What makes you think the only options are voting or sitting on your ass, rather than pursuing more effective ways to bring about political change?

4) What is your age group, anyway?

1. Not everyone believes that statism is bad, and yes I've noticed changes when presidents change.  And when congressional control changes.  And when my governor changes.  Take a look around: we're no longer at war with Iraq and Afghanistan, gay marriage is legal, weed is becoming legal, the economy is marginally better, and more people have health insurance.

2.  Since we have two diametrically opposed parties, if one uses underhanded tactics the other cries foul.  In a way, they cancel each other out.  Also, if voting doesn't matter, why would advertising and gerrymandering matter?  Those are both ways to get votes where you want them.  Ohio just passed an anti-gerrymandering law and will have its districts redrawn soon, and other states are doing the same.

3. Which more effective ways do you speak of?

4. I assume the 18-34 range, which consistently has the lowest voter turnout.

Cracked.com article comparing Trump to Hitler's rise to power.  And this was published before he advocated the whole "Muslim database" thing.

It is quite disturbing. Thing is, this is just the tip of a trend that's been building for most of my lifetime, if not longer. Just like with Hitler, Trump would have been laughed out on his ass almost immediately if the political climate wasn't already primed to support someone so destructively, obviously, batshit insane.

Our government doesn't even bother paying lip service to the constitution or the frigging Geneva conventions anymore, what makes you think it'll listen to us?

Americans have sat by and allowed--even supported--torture, widespread domestic spying, the detention of U.S. citizens without trial, cops brutalizing and murdering unarmed people on camera, a drone "assassination" program that basically amounts to robo-terrorism...

...it's a little late to stand up for freedom and sanity. Last call for that was over a decade ago.

I see lots of lip-service being paid to the constitution.  And I would argue that it's never too late, simply because the idea that it's too late is a self-fulfilling prophesy.

[Samwise]

And yet you never seem to detail what these special privileges are or who explicitly has asked for them

I've mentioned several. And then of course get informed that they don't qualify as special privileges "because".

No district returns 100%.  Even the highest turnout districts are generally 60% or less (usually less) of the eligible population.

http://www.philly.com/philly/news/politics/178742021.html

Then again, some of them do turn out 100% for a party.
And in big cities, those people are . . . minorities.

Actually, Wall Street, like Hollywood, and academia, is pretty reliably Democratic.

You can say it, but that doesn't change the reality.

I was actually referring to the current 'make america white again' campaign.

Referring to some agitprop projection doesn't constitute commentary on reality.

Thou art fibbing my little cow.  http://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/opa/press-releases/attachments/2015/03/04/ferguson_police_department_report.pdf

The fibbing is all from the government my little troll.

If I'm worse than him you'd have common snese enough to not feed me by replying.  Omnomnomnom

He was better in ability, not in banality.

You don't have to confess you are a bad troll - I already knew that.

You are a bad troll in that you are so easy to rebut, thereby supporting my points.

They need their votes regardless.  And the votes of the people who are beginning to realize they aren't the monsters evangelicals and republicans have portrayed them as.  Conservatives on the other hand need the votes of people who still want them demonized or killed.

You are truly baffled by the political layout of the country.

Then you are unaware of the phrases meaning or pretend not to be.

Could be. I only learned a couple of sneers in Yiddish - gae kacken afen yam.

I prefer Carlin.

You mean the guy who realized he had stopped being a comedian and was just being an obnoxious nag?
He acknowledged it and changed.

It's only screaming if it's in all caps 

Shrieking?
Whining?
Mewling?
Kvetching?

At no point have I called you a hypocrite.  A spineless, delusional asshole, and a fool yes.  A cow easily led to slaughter, a racist, and fraud certainly.  I believe at one point I have even quietly suggested you fuck pigeons, but at no point have I ever called you a hypocrite.

There you go projecting again.

They aren't targets anymore.  Went mainstream remember? The only christian denomination still seeing violence are maybe some of the splintered off mormon groups and the westboro baptists.  And lets be honest, the Westboro guys kind of invite people to commit violence upon them.

But they are still targets. Of all the special privileged former "minority" groups that you want to indulge.

You are the only person here I have ever treated this way.  Ask around.

You love that self delusion.

[Samwise]

So you acknowledge that government and taxation are theft then?

Nope. 
Certain forms of government and taxation are theft,  that is true.
But it is not a universal absolute.

I know anarchists aren't supposed to advocate violence, but how the hell has no one thrown a shoe at this douchebag yet?

Mostly because it is a media fraud.
I'm not fan of Trump, but he simply never said anything of the sort. He declined to answer the question, and that non-answer was twisted via media-telephone into a demand for such a database.

And kudos on catching the flaw in all that the Randian/Anarcho-Capitalist bs. Too many people these days seem to mistake plutocratic tyranny for freedom.

As an aside:
Objectivists (Randians) are not Anarcho-Capitalists (Rothbardians.
The differences are extremely technical to observers, particularly since both groups regularly associate as "libertarians", but calling them similar makes them plotz severely. (I know this from experience.)

Without delving too deep into the stupidity:
Objectivists are more technocratic feudalists who would engender the kind of plutocratic tyranny you suggest. They also suffer from severe inter-personal relationship issues, and moral absurdity due to the inherent Atheism of the ideology.
Anarcho-Capitalists believe in a warped pre-industrial paradise of yeoman farmers and home manufacturers, supported by bullion currency, with a non-government preventing accumulation of "dangerous" levels of capital while simultaneously not preventing people from keeping everything they "earn". They also have a proven tendency to endorse conspiracy theories and racism where expedient, as well as preferring to subvert existing political organizations rather than whine on the fringes about being ignored the way Objectivists do.

[Samwise]

1. Not everyone believes that statism is bad, and yes I've noticed changes when presidents change.  And when congressional control changes.  And when my governor changes.  Take a look around: we're no longer at war with Iraq and Afghanistan, gay marriage is legal, weed is becoming legal, the economy is marginally better, and more people have health insurance.

We are very much at war with Iraq and Afghanistan - at least as much as we were at war with the before, which is to say "partly". We simply aren't actively or competently engaging in either war.
Weed legalization suffered some setbacks.
The economy is still miserable and will remain so for the foreseeable future.
More people have health insurance but they cannot afford to use it, and the exchanges are on the verge of collapse.

2.  Since we have two diametrically opposed parties, if one uses underhanded tactics the other cries foul.  In a way, they cancel each other out.  Also, if voting doesn't matter, why would advertising and gerrymandering matter?  Those are both ways to get votes where you want them.  Ohio just passed an anti-gerrymandering law and will have its districts redrawn soon, and other states are doing the same.

Well, we don't really have two diametrically opposed parties, at least not if you mean the Democrats and Republicans; the Conservatives and various "socialist" third parties, certainly, but the Democrats and Republicans manage to agree on "enough".

I see lots of lip-service being paid to the constitution.  And I would argue that it's never too late, simply because the idea that it's too late is a self-fulfilling prophesy.

That's what I tell a lot of the more extreme Tea Party types.
Of course it should be remembered that the Constitution was not written to support a socialist government.

Oh, and for MrWolfe:
Nobody ever gave more than lip service to the Geneva Conventions. Or the UN charter for that matter. As a result, both of them have been responsible for more oppression and suffering than they have prevented. We would be much better off if both were done away with and the world got back to its innate barbarism.

[awaken_D_M_golem]

Trump is out polling the others by > +30% on Economics and
by > +40% on Immigration, so the demagoguery is working.

The fact that he can take a foreign policy + military issue
(France getting bombed) and get the whole entire
Republican apparatus to go along with him, to turn
it into an Immigration Issue (his wheelhouse) ... wow.

  + 
They're doing his dirty work for him, and he got them to do that.
Don't underestimate this guy's talent.

[Libertad]

A few questions there:

1) How would voting for a socialist president, or any president, address problems that stem from statism? Or have any real effect on those issues? Did you notice a whole lot of change after the last time we switched presidents?

2) Why is it in any way important who we vote for? It's not like the popular vote actually means anything, and even if it did, advertising, gerrymandering, and outright fraud have far more impact.

3) What makes you think the only options are voting or sitting on your ass, rather than pursuing more effective ways to bring about political change?

4) What is your age group, anyway?

1.) Bernie Sanders' policies are overall the best as a Presidential candidate.  The question is whether or not he will live up to his policies, but he's a far shot better than Hillary.

2.) & 3.) Voting is but one way to do things, but it does matter in that it determines who's in office and who's setting policies.  And yes, if more US citizens did go out and vote for the change they want to see, we'd have a lot less Republicans in office.  And with that, less issues of gerrymandering and corporate advertising.  Lots of people are angry about unlimited SuperPAC funding, but don't bother voting for candidates who would promise to get rid of this.

4.) I'm 26.

[Raineh Daze]

... and who said that voting is mutually exclusive with doing other things? Defeatism, that.

[bhu]

I've mentioned several. And then of course get informed that they don't qualify as special privileges "because".

Humor me anyway.  What are they??

Then again, some of them do turn out 100% for a party.
And in big cities, those people are . . . minorities.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/ballot/2012fraud.asp

Referring to some agitprop projection doesn't constitute commentary on reality.[/uote]

I dunno if I'd cal Trump a communist.  Many other things yes, but not communist.

He was better in ability, not in banality.

And yet now that you've had a few days rest you're back to replying

You are a bad troll in that you are so easy to rebut, thereby supporting my points.

A rebuttal is merely a clain thast something is false.  If it's not backed up with proof it's not really more than harmless fibbling.  Note that proof must be acceptable to more people than those believing in the personal delusions of the provider.  Find some independents.

You are truly baffled by the political layout of the country.

No I just try not to be as blinded by ideology.  For example I dont shout communist or alinskyite at people for simply disagreeing with me.  Such are the actions of a child.

You mean the guy who realized he had stopped being a comedian and was just being an obnoxious nag?
He acknowledged it and changed.

He has one quote I truly do believe in (though it'll prolly turn out to be fake the way most of them do.  It runs something to the effect of "die with no allegiances".  Not to planets, countries, political parties or ideologies, religions, etc.

But they are still targets. Of all the special privileged former "minority" groups that you want to indulge.

If you tell gays you hate them and want them to die, why wouldn't they respond in kind?

You love that self delusion.

No I was quite serious.  Ask the mods.  Ask anyone whose been in the forum a while.  You're the only person I've ever called out for being a racist asshole.  Or even been mean to.

[Samwise]

Humor me anyway.  What are they??

Nah, you just have to suffer now for not paying attention.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/ballot/2012fraud.asp

It is true that 59 voting divisions in Philadelphia recorded no votes for Mitt Romney, but given the voter composition of the Philadelphia area (and some Philadelphia wards in particular) and the number of voters in each division, that outcome was hardly a "mathematical and statistical impossibility."

I feel soooooo dissed.
Oh wait, no I don't.

I dunno if I'd cal Trump a communist.  Many other things yes, but not communist.

Because of course Trump has declared that part of his platform.
Oh wait, no he hasn't.

And yet now that you've had a few days rest you're back to replying

Well, your banality and bigotry is rather wearing.

A rebuttal is merely a clain thast something is false.  If it's not backed up with proof it's not really more than harmless fibbling.  Note that proof must be acceptable to more people than those believing in the personal delusions of the provider.  Find some independents.

No, a claim that something is false is a denial. A rebuttal requires actual content.
I'm not surprised you would get that wrong.

No I just try not to be as blinded by ideology.  For example I dont shout communist or alinskyite at people for simply disagreeing with me.  Such are the actions of a child.

Right, you just shout racist and such. You are clearly soooo much more mature than the average child.

He has one quote I truly do believe in (though it'll prolly turn out to be fake the way most of them do.  It runs something to the effect of "die with no allegiances".  Not to planets, countries, political parties or ideologies, religions, etc.

Meanwhile ignoring his whole confession to having become a whiny downer and killing his standing as a comedian.
Yeah, that would be too much self-awareness to expect from you.

If you tell gays you hate them and want them to die, why wouldn't they respond in kind?

Who has said that other than Democrats in the WBC?

No I was quite serious.  Ask the mods.  Ask anyone whose been in the forum a while.  You're the only person I've ever called out for being a racist asshole.  Or even been mean to.

That's okay, you are one of the few people I've called out for being a bigoted douche and a pathetic troll.
As for being mean, you'll have to work on that too. I'm from the Bronx. Your attempts at insults barely qualify you to be laughed at.

[Raineh Daze]

Humor me anyway.  What are they??

Nah, you just have to suffer now for not paying attention.

You've been asked the same question by multiple people as nobody else has any idea what the fuck you're referring to. It shouldn't take more than two sentences to clarify.

[bhu]

Nah, you just have to suffer now for not paying attention.

I am paying attention, you've just been evasive with everyone regarding these special privileges.  Is living without being beaten due to the vagaries of genetic heritage one of them?

I feel soooooo dissed.
Oh wait, no I don't.

Probably cause you didn't put any effort into fibbing.

Well, your banality and bigotry is rather wearing.

  Hell is repetition is a good troll offense, but it only works if your opponent doesn't know what you're doing.

No, a claim that something is false is a denial. A rebuttal requires actual content.
I'm not surprised you would get that wrong.

  Says the man who's provided no actual content but for a hoax that can be easily googled.

Right, you just shout racist and such. You are clearly soooo much more mature than the average child.

  I don't 'shout' racist.  I do however call people on their bullshit when they are being racist.  There's a fine difference.

He has one quote I truly do believe in (though it'll prolly turn out to be fake the way most of them do.  It runs something to the effect of "die with no allegiances".  Not to planets, countries, political parties or ideologies, religions, etc.

Meanwhile ignoring his whole confession to having become a whiny downer and killing his standing as a comedian.
Yeah, that would be too much self-awareness to expect from you.

  Can't ignore something I've never heard of.  Also you may wish to check the definition of self awareness, I don't quite think it means what you think it does.

Who has said that other than Democrats in the WBC?

  Because Phelps was a Dem at one point does not make all of them Dem.  As for who else do a quick google of right wing anti-gay pastor.

That's okay, you are one of the few people I've called out for being a bigoted douche and a pathetic troll.
As for being mean, you'll have to work on that too. I'm from the Bronx. Your attempts at insults barely qualify you to be laughed at.

  Funny, I can't even remember you having been polite to anyone yet....  Obviously I'm a good troll or you wouldn't keep replying.  That's what trolling is: getting someone to reply.  Especially if you've openly told them that's what you're doing and they blindly forge ahead anyway.  So your proud of living in a geographical location?  Goddamn your momma must be proud of your lack of accomplishments.  Be proud for something you've done, not accidents of birth or where you got stuck living.

[Samwise]

I am paying attention, you've just been evasive with everyone regarding these special privileges.  Is living without being beaten due to the vagaries of genetic heritage one of them?

I've been quite direct. I have no idea if your intellectual corruption is a result of genetic defect or not.

Probably cause you didn't put any effort into fibbing.

I put no effort into fibbing as, unlike you, I have no need to.

Hell is repetition is a good troll offense, but it only works if your opponent doesn't know what you're doing.

You are barely cognizant of what you're doing; how could you be cognizant of what I'm doing?

Says the man who's provided no actual content but for a hoax that can be easily googled.

Says the fool who thinks his anecdotes constitute data.

I don't 'shout' racist.  I do however call people on their bullshit when they are being racist.  There's a fine difference.

Yes there is. And you are a drone shouting racist because you have nothing else to say to sustain your position.

Can't ignore something I've never heard of.  Also you may wish to check the definition of self awareness, I don't quite think it means what you think it does.

Your ignorance is not my responsibility, something that applies to pretty much every bit of stupidity you've blathered.

Because Phelps was a Dem at one point does not make all of them Dem.  As for who else do a quick google of right wing anti-gay pastor.

No, just most of them.
As for a search of a term as corrupted by "progressives" as "right wing", of what use would it be? I'm sure it would include someone like Father Coughlin, a proud "progressive" and racist.

Funny, I can't even remember you having been polite to anyone yet....

That's because your idea of civility is participation in the echo chamber. Since I actually believe in something antithetical to your exclusionary and dehumanizing ideology, you naturally define any such expressions as being impolite, no matter how civil they actually are.
As with your ignorance, I am also not responsible for your bigotry.

[Raineh Daze]

I am paying attention, you've just been evasive with everyone regarding these special privileges.  Is living without being beaten due to the vagaries of genetic heritage one of them?

I've been quite direct. I have no idea if your intellectual corruption is a result of genetic defect or not.

Are you just ignoring other people to try and work in insults now? I know this is a politics thread, but you don't need to put that much effort into avoiding the question. Posts that consist entirely of broken-up quotes with a sentence between them are not a clear resource to try and work out the hell these special privileges are. Insulting everyone else for not being able to find it doesn't cover for the mess this style of posting leaves.

[MrWolfe]

That whole "by definition" thing only applies when it's actually against the definition.  An anarchist by definition is someone who does not want government.  There's nothing about non-violence in there, as much as you like to pretend there is.  There are violent anarchists in the world.  And they are true anarchists.

And where, praytell, did you gain this superior understanding of anarchism?

Anarchy is opposed to rulers, it's right there in the root of the word. Whether they rule through force, economic power, or perceived authority is immaterial.

1. Not everyone believes that statism is bad, and yes I've noticed changes when presidents change.  And when congressional control changes.  And when my governor changes.  Take a look around: we're no longer at war with Iraq and Afghanistan, gay marriage is legal, weed is becoming legal, the economy is marginally better, and more people have health insurance.

Not everyone believes the earth is round either.

And thank you for making my point: Who sits in the Oval Office has very little impact on policy if the rest of the political apparatus, from senators and congressmen on down to cops and file clerks, does not change. As other people have already pointed out, those issues you mention are not nearly as resolved as you seem to think they are. Honestly, who gets to be president is probably one of the least important things you could vote for.

2.  Since we have two diametrically opposed parties, if one uses underhanded tactics the other cries foul.  In a way, they cancel each other out.  Also, if voting doesn't matter, why would advertising and gerrymandering matter?  Those are both ways to get votes where you want them.  Ohio just passed an anti-gerrymandering law and will have its districts redrawn soon, and other states are doing the same.

Someone already tackled that "diametrically opposed parties" bit, so I'll let it slide.

Advertising and gerrymandering are part of why voting doesn't matter. Even if you try to vote, most people's opinions are more heavily influenced by the campaigns and their party affiliation, rather than actual fact. And for that rare voter who actually took the time to sort through all the BS and develop an informed opinion on the issue, their voice will likely be drowned out anyway--whether by the masses who didn't bother to think for themselves or simply by the way their district lines have been drawn.

3. Which more effective ways do you speak of?

Education, for a start.

4. I assume the 18-34 range, which consistently has the lowest voter turnout.

So I keep hearing. Be interesting to see if that changes as generations age.

I see lots of lip-service being paid to the constitution.  And I would argue that it's never too late, simply because the idea that it's too late is a self-fulfilling prophesy.

There's a time to fight against a rising tide. When you're already drowning is not it. Better to start swimming.

So you acknowledge that government and taxation are theft then?

Nope. 
Certain forms of government and taxation are theft,  that is true.
But it is not a universal absolute.

Eh, it's a start.

I know anarchists aren't supposed to advocate violence, but how the hell has no one thrown a shoe at this douchebag yet?

Mostly because it is a media fraud.
I'm not fan of Trump, but he simply never said anything of the sort. He declined to answer the question, and that non-answer was twisted via media-telephone into a demand for such a database.

Really? Got some evidence to support that?

I wouldn't be overly surprised considering how absolutely full of shit the media is, but if you're gonna' cry conspiracy you'd better have something to back it up.

And kudos on catching the flaw in all that the Randian/Anarcho-Capitalist bs. Too many people these days seem to mistake plutocratic tyranny for freedom.

As an aside:
Objectivists (Randians) are not Anarcho-Capitalists (Rothbardians.
The differences are extremely technical to observers, particularly since both groups regularly associate as "libertarians", but calling them similar makes them plotz severely. (I know this from experience.)

That's why I separated the two terms by a slash. I was categorizing, not equating. Call it lazy typing.

Without delving too deep into the stupidity:
Objectivists are more technocratic feudalists who would engender the kind of plutocratic tyranny you suggest. They also suffer from severe inter-personal relationship issues, and moral absurdity due to the inherent Atheism of the ideology.
Anarcho-Capitalists believe in a warped pre-industrial paradise of yeoman farmers and home manufacturers, supported by bullion currency, with a non-government preventing accumulation of "dangerous" levels of capital while simultaneously not preventing people from keeping everything they "earn". They also have a proven tendency to endorse conspiracy theories and racism where expedient, as well as preferring to subvert existing political organizations rather than whine on the fringes about being ignored the way Objectivists do.

While we're dropping knowlege: the term "Libertarian" was originally a synonym for "Anarchist", but has been co-opted more recently by the modern "Libertarian" party to mean something rather different.

A few questions there:

1) How would voting for a socialist president, or any president, address problems that stem from statism? Or have any real effect on those issues? Did you notice a whole lot of change after the last time we switched presidents?

2) Why is it in any way important who we vote for? It's not like the popular vote actually means anything, and even if it did, advertising, gerrymandering, and outright fraud have far more impact.

3) What makes you think the only options are voting or sitting on your ass, rather than pursuing more effective ways to bring about political change?

4) What is your age group, anyway?

1.) Bernie Sanders' policies are overall the best as a Presidential candidate.  The question is whether or not he will live up to his policies, but he's a far shot better than Hillary.

Spoiler alert: He won't. They never do, partly because a president does not have the authority to enact whatever changes they feel like, and partly because most candidates lie out their ass to get the job and then cease to give a fuck.

2.) & 3.) Voting is but one way to do things, but it does matter in that it determines who's in office and who's setting policies.  And yes, if more US citizens did go out and vote for the change they want to see, we'd have a lot less Republicans in office.  And with that, less issues of gerrymandering and corporate advertising.  Lots of people are angry about unlimited SuperPAC funding, but don't bother voting for candidates who would promise to get rid of this.

There's a recent study you might find interesting.

4.) I'm 26.

Well, that explains some of our differences in perspective. Age doesn't necessarily correlate to outlook or personal experience, but I did have much more faith in the system when I was your age. Took a lot of hard lessons to peel back all that dogma we get indoctrinated with.

... and who said that voting is mutually exclusive with doing other things? Defeatism, that.

It's not, but there's only so much time in the day. Why waste it doing something pointless?

...is what I try to remind myself every time I get the urge to post something here.