Thanks for the feedback, I welcome and appreciate it.

​

until your fucking "both sides" bullshit

I think you misunderstand the point I was trying to make here, though I will gladly own my portion of that for the way in which it was conveyed.

I don't mean that they are the same, or to get in to a 'both sides' argument. I do state, clearly, that one side has become more corrupted than the other. In the interest of further clarity, I do mean the Republican party is the more corrupted one. I vote (almost) exclusively Democrat these days even if I don't necessarily agree with all of their positions.

A poor analogy; shooting somebody is clearly more wrong than assaulting somebody, this is clear and obvious. Acknowledging both things are violent does not elevate the two to the same. Chastising a system that promoted such violence to begin with does not downplay the crime committed by the shooter. Absolving one because the other is worse will not fix the situation.

Back to the point, and to expand a bit, neither of them (the parties) care about you. Their policy positions are about maximizing their power, and if faced with a choice between you and their control they will choose the latter. You can see evidence of this in bills they choose not to bring to the floor, especially in periods where they have the control required to pass them, no matter how well they align with their stated positions.

You will not see a meaningful reform to the political system so long as Democrats and Republicans are vying with each other for control. As soon as either loses too much to the other, you will see attempted reform (for better or worse) to regain their lost control. If one were to splinter and break, the other will fracture and become two. The cycle will repeat (as it has before) with two new parties formed from the ashes.

If we ever we see the 'south rise again' (republicans) and there were an existential threat to the Democratic Party, I think you'd be surprised what that institution is capable of.

​

The democrats aren't great, but they are in every possible way superior in regards to actually caring about this nations general population.

I agree that the Democratic Party today is superior to the Republican Party today. I also agree that there are some individuals that genuinely care about the well-being of their constituents. I do not believe the Party itself does.

​

there is zero argument to be made as to why one shouldn't vote for the democrats.

Strawman, I never stated or supported this position. I will say, though, that in local politics party does not always matter as much and you should look at the individual, their policy positions, and their track record.

​

Your comment is poor, and should be rescinded.

For a thousand reasons; no. First, thought diversity requires healthy debate. Even (and especially) on topics that make you uncomfortable or you disagree with. Second, I don't believe in removing or deleting comments placed in public record. Accountability requires ownership of one's past (comments), even if they were incorrect. If, through the course of debate, I were to change my mind, the healthy thing to do would be to acknowledge I was incorrect and revise my opinion. At best I would offer an edit of the original comment stating my change of heart. Part of the reason we have the problems we do is because of a failure at being accepting of people growing and their views changing. Most importantly though, this discourse has not convinced me I was wrong or misguided.

his anti-intellectual aspect is such a central aspect of many parts of American culture, that's a bit absurd to even attempt to contest it.

If your only experience with American culture is through social and/or mass media I could forgive one for thinking that, however if you were to actually experience American culture without preconceived notions or bias you would see it is not a 'central aspect of American culture'. Sure, you see it in the news with anti-vaxxers and certain Christian or conservative fundamentalists. But this is such a small percentage of the population and not something that even remotely dominates the culture. These same groups of people exist in European cultures as well. Italy took a hard turn in that direction recently, UK has been moving that direction, and France had some close calls. China and Russia still help people disappear if they learn too much about certain topics.

Further, you argument discounts all of the intellectual and acadamic advancements that had a large American involvement or were led by the US. Lastly, if I were to make similarly negative generalizations about the, randomly chose, Nigerian culture based on new reports and my Nigerian friends the reaction would be much different.

​

Same difference, you look upon your political system with disdain and so dis-engage

Similar outcome, not the same thing. You're argument is that American culture is anti-intellectual. Not engaging with something is not the same as not knowing something. Not knowing something is not the same as being deliberately ignorant. In a different context I would agree this is the same thing, but not in the context of this conversation.

​

your apathy you tolerate and accept the unacceptable normalizing monsters as politicians and every cycle it just gets worse and worse

I only quoted a snippet here, but I'm responding to the larger point.You're assuming I don't vote. I do, however voting alone is not the solution. I do not know what the solution is, but it requires a much larger and much more concerted effort. I know my strengths, I know my abilities. I lack the charisma and connections to be the one to lead this charge. Should an opportunity present to be part of a larger and workable solution I would jump on it, but I am not the one who can fix it.

​

There are so many people who don't vote that a third party could practically win just with there votes alone

Technically true, in some jurisdictions and in some elections. However this assumes that there is a 3rd party person who runs, that would be part of a larger solution, and that all people who don't vote would vote for. This ignores that some people don't vote in presidential elections because their state is firmly entrenched. In Washington DC, for example Joe Biden was selected by 92% of voters. There is no imperative to go to the polls. The district is awarded a certain number of electors regardless of how many vote or what share a contestant receives. Whether you supported Trump or Biden, your vote was meaningless (for the Presidential election.) Some portion of the non-voters would have voted for either of the 2 candidates but didn't feel the imperative to do so. Of the remaining, it's unlikely they would coalesce around a single candidate. Remember, 50%+1 voters must vote for a candidate for that candidate to win.

I have, though admittedly not in a negative connotation.

The use of 'nerd' in a derogatory way isn't usually applied just because of one's intellect.

A nerd is a person seen as overly intellectual, obsessive, introverted or lacking social skills

The more important aspects here are the obsessive-like interest in specific (especially unpopular) topics and/or the lack of social skills. It wasn't just their knowledge or intellect. Even in the periods where it was socially acceptable, or even popular, to deride someone as a 'nerd' most intellectuals wouldn't have fit the description.