The Abdicate President

[obsrvr524]

Not overly pleased about this, because there are actual forces at play here, against which "the US figurehead we got" has absolutely zero bearing for the vast majority.

Did you just say that the US President has "absolutely zero bearing on the majority" of the world?

[Silhouette]

Not overly pleased about this, because there are actual forces at play here, against which "the US figurehead we got" has absolutely zero bearing for the vast majority.

Did you just say that the US President has "absolutely zero bearing on the majority" of the world?

I hate to break it to you, but there are multitudes of people involved in presidency, from all the people at every level of government to the advisors to the speech writers/editors/teachers to the PR to the nth degree.

Together they have a significant bearing on the majority of the world, but to act like it's just that one guy who influences everything like some Hollywood hero demonstrates extreme naivety about not just the world of work, but the deluge of constraints on what's possible to achieve as a figurehead who is basically just the face of the marketing to superficially pretend there's a sense of purpose to "them" in particular heading the direction of government. If you think you can just waltz in there and overturn everything to bend the entire system to solely cater to your idealistic goals then you're a child.

You hear this all the time, first hand from the candidates who try to climb this ladder with any sense of human decency: it's a veritable jungle of requirements and customary barriers that inevitably result from human organisation at the overly complex levels that have to be in effect for any reasonably large institution to operate - whether public or private, it makes zero difference. Conservatives would seemingly sensibly have the whole operation decreased, resulting in its complete redundancy and ineffectualness. Liberals throw starry-eyed benevolents at it in the hopes that they might be able to steer it all towards a better tomorrow. In the end we just get Biden, because he trawled and grafted through to the upper echelons with all the humanity of a machine. Once in a while a retarded bulldozer like Trump catches everyone off guard and somehow lucks out, and still gets attributed to his name what anyone else would in his position. How's that wall coming along? How much of that swamp did we really drain? etc. etc. etc.

You think the one guy whose face you see on the news directs it all with the fluidity of a computer gaming prodigy?
No, he slowly learns the constraints and tries his best to force his will on an unyielding behemoth, and as a bi-product almost seems to have a marginal effect on the whole enterprise that could only be attributed to specifically them in the vaguest possible sense. Don't get me wrong, without this particular someone to figurehead it all, the whole project would crumble. Ideology needs its ritual pomp.

The degree to which the particular "US figurehead we got" actually influences things isn't non-existent, but sadly it's woefully overestimated. Welcome to reality.

[Urwrongx1000]

I always knew you were out-of-touch with reality, but wow, you just proved it.

You are seriously criticizing Trump for going against the Establishment, as-if you or any other prospect could have done better? Are you pro-establishment or not?! Don't answer, you're obviously a Democrat-Socialist-Communist, so you are Pro-Establishment whether you want to admit it or not. If you were Anti-Establishment, then you would be applauding Trump whether you personally like him and his attitude or not. And you want to claim "what has he done?" Have you been paying attention?!?! No, you haven't, your head is buried up your own ass. For those who have been paying attention, we've seen it all. Trump had the Main Stream Media lineup against him, one by one, ABC, CBS, NBC, MSN, CNN, NPR, and even FOX etc. Why do you think Trump said early on "MSM is the Enemy of the People"? (and they are) Because they are the basis of the Establishment.

Then you have the Deep State Swamp. The DOJ, NSA, FBI, CIA, DHS, all sat on their hands. Have you been paying attention?!?! No, again no, of course you haven't. If Trump can get a second-term, that is where he is most dangerous, because he doesn't have to worry about re-election. He can fire them all, and purge them all, at his heart's content. He should have done that from the start, but Trump is not a politician, and he did not know the extent and breadth of the Swamp. Now he does. He uncovered it. He spread the mist and shined light on the swamp. The US public has learned the following:

1. FBI and DOJ are corrupt, they hid and spiked Hunter Biden's involvement in Ukraine, Russia, and China. Biden takes direct cuts of bribes from foreign world leaders. Trump does not.

2. MSM is lined-up, combined with Big Tech, straight Censoring the tweets of the Commander in Chief of the USA. If I were President, I would have brought the military in early.

3. Widespread Voter Fraud that Changes the Election Outcome, this is the most damning and damaging development. Biden openly admitted to this, a "gaffe", but now everybody sees it clear as day.


Trump has done more against the Establishment and Deep State swamp than anybody ever dreamed of. The corruption is deep.

But you and your kind, Commie, are part of the filth. You should wake up and admit that to yourself.

[Urwrongx1000]

Censoring, "Fact-checking", Silencing the voice of the US President is one of the most corrupt and pivotal results of Trump's Presidency, a severe, flagrant violation of the US Constitution, First Amendment of the Bill of Rights.

Trump should have dropped literal bombs on Twitter, Dorsey, and any "Media" institution trying to silence him. US Presidency is still the most powerful office and institution in the world, although as he uncovered, the Deep State is trying to subvert this, and Social Media are on the spear's head of this assault, Anti-American to the core! Corrupt, Treasonous, you cannot violate the First Amendment.

[Mr Reasonable]

i just realized that you cited ny post, epoch times, sky news and national review and im dying over here lmfao u can't tell fact from fiction u are truly an epic dupe r u gonna cite the national enquirer next?

[Urwrongx1000]

lol wut do u reprsent, cnn clown network news? lol

[Mr Reasonable]

i dont watch cnn but come the fuck on man what are you gonna do cite ben shapiro, brietbart and mark levin next?

if you dont see that these people are propagandists then u are the dumbest fucker alive.

agree with them if you want. but dont be a fucking idiot. those people are not journalists and u have to know that.

[Mr Reasonable]

you gonna cite a study from the cato institute next that says welfare hurts the poor and that deregulation is the best way to grow the economy?

u are a legit sheep out here trained to call everyone else a sheep when the reality is that i dont watch cnn and u r out here citing the fucking epoch times really let that sink in bruh

[Urwrongx1000]

u dont need to list ur sources cuz im certain ur on the dnc teet, u have no claim to objective journalism

consider urself fact-checked, bich

[Mr Reasonable]

thank god people like you are no longer represented in govt

[Urwrongx1000]

u sound very short-sighted, do u not see whats cuming? i know u dont

[Mr Reasonable]

ill bet you 5 grand that you will never in your life go out into the streets and participate in anything like a civil war. you lost buddy. america doesnt want your view to be the prevailing one. you are in the minority. as the great philosopher devin nunes once said, "elections have consequences" and as the great philosopher ben shapiro so frequently says, "facts dont care about your feelings". now quit crying snowflake and go be self sufficient. no one wants to hear about how you think the world is going to be too tough for you.

[Urwrongx1000]

im not worried about me, im worried about u and the rest of the country, the "united" states of america is most likely coming to an end very shortly

[Mr Reasonable]

ill be fine bruh i dont count on the govt for shit

[obsrvr524]

You are seriously criticizing Trump for going against the Establishment, as-if you or any other prospect could have done better?

I think creating those kind of people was a serious campaign strategy (and they still lost )

Are you pro-establishment or not?! Don't answer, you're obviously a Democrat-Socialist-Communist, so you are Pro-Establishment whether you want to admit it or not.

I don't think he is even that much. He appears to be merely a dreg who got hypnotized into TDS because of his willingness, even wantingness, to hate something and get others to do the same. I don't think he would get off his ass to actually vote.

[Karpel Tunnel]

Perhaps this is off-topic obsv, but I still find this everything to the left of center is Communist muddying. If Biden is so weak that he can be moved anywhere on the left, as you assert, then this means, it seems to me 1) other candidates might not have been so weak and 2) they weren't communist but left. I understand from reading you elsewhere that you view many people on the left as supporting at least partly through ignorance candidates and policies that will lead to communism. I think there is something in that. But when any liberal position gets painted as communist, and any person who is left of center as Communist, I don't think the word has any meaning.

And any communist group would be a core enemy of Wall st. Just as communists have problems with capital, they are going to have even more problem with capital that does not produce. But Wall st. is driving both parties, both are beholden to it. The democrats do not fundamentally in any way shape or form want to mess with the power and profits of corporations. Which is why they are going to undermine someone like Bernie Sanders and no one like him ever gets close to the White House.

Where do Wall St. and the giant financial organizations fit in your schema? Are they communist? And if they bring in a communist state, how do they expect to keep their mansions, boats, etc.? Yes CP people did end up with these, but in transition to communism it was new people who ended up being in positions of power they could use to accumulate things.

Isn't the elite actually moving towards a hybrid totalitarianism that has aspect of both fascism and communism? Enormous corporations, Stasi like control, social movement control, Big brother type monitoring and surveillance, moral code control, very strong police and secret police. One might even view it as a feudalism where the royalty have modern technology to monitor and control us that kings and lords would have drooled over.

But I don't see this as communism alone, it has aspect of both extremes. Which is why the Neo cons (for example the power around the BUSH 2 admin) happily move forward the agendas in that direction also. They know they are going to keep their corporations. They know they are going to continue to play deities in the Third World.

If you feel this is straying from the topic which it is, I can move it to another thread. But I think actually the labeling so many things communist actually inhibits getting the ideas and insights further and it contributes to party like squabbles which help the powers that be. We're not communists, we're not fascists or whatever. So, these insult matches continue with less ability to in unison track the abuse of power. Of course I do not think that droppnig this word use will make things suddenly go smoothly. But I think it makes it even less likely people will listen, not simply because they are insulted, but because it is as if the Republicans have not done wonders for the big brother agenda. It is as if Wall st. is not happy with the trends and shaping them. It is as if power corporations are not down with and shaping the agenda. The monied elites are not committing seppuku.

[obsrvr524]

I think that no matter what words I use because we are living through a time of mass deceit aimed at global effect, they will be to a degree inaccurate, to a degree misleading, and to a degree insulting. Words and labels have become intentionally so because confusion or obfuscation is a big part of deception and control (the other part apparently being "extortion").

In order to help communicate as clearly as possible, I think it is important to simplify as much as possible. People do that by labeling groups in generalized often crude terms. I just try to use the words in the simplest form that gets the message across. And that tends to be in the form of a dichotomy (which is rarely completely accurate).

We have very many words to classify many persuasions. When people start applying those words connotations get attached. The designated classification words change their meaning to different people at different times. Sometimes the words end up meaning the opposite of what they originally meant (such as "Democrat" which now means "Socialist" even though those are opposite meanings).

To help simplify I do my reductionist thing and focus on where the persuasion leads regardless of what the label currently means to many people. So I associate "Left" with "authoritarian communist" (not idealized communism). I know that most leftists do not want authoritarianism but what they push leads to it. I don't disagree with much of what they intend but looking at where it leads, even they wouldn't want to be associated with it. They just don't know that yet (and actually it is really only my guess). So by me saying "Left = Authoritarianism" I force a degree of focus on how the person distinguishes himself from that authoritarianism by his first reaction to say, "that's not me" and hopefully followed by, "because all I want is..."

But I'm not hard set on any particular usage. No matter what I say it will be misconstrued and objected to. So you tell me -

When I want to express the distinction between constitutionalism and authoritarianism and the only people involved are not calling each other by those names but instead - "socialist, right wing, left wing, liberal, libertarian, centrist, communist, marxist, conservative, extremist,..." and usually avoid identifying themselves as anything, exactly which few simple labels would you suggest?

[Karpel Tunnel]

But I'm not hard set on any particular usage. No matter what I say it will be misconstrued and objected to. So you tell me -

When I want to express the distinction between constitutionalism and authoritarianism and the only people involved are not calling each other by those names but instead - "socialist, right wing, left wing, liberal, libertarian, centrist, communist, marxist, conservative, extremist,..." and usually avoid identifying themselves as anything, exactly which few simple labels would you suggest?

You could do a couple of things. This is off the top of my head: 1) focus on the problems with any specific policy or law or what is put forward as moral. If as you say earlier democrat choices lead to reduced democracy, point that out. You con't have to label them communists, you can focus on what they are doing, the problems it will lead to (especially any where you might have common ground), the faulty thinking/evidence/arguments that they support this with, and so on. 2) at the wholistic level, iow when you are referring to them in general, I don't, I guess I focus more on what I see their thinking as being like. Things like the way they dismiss things without knowing anything about it: essentially appeals to incredulity - what how could there possibly be a conspiracy? No way they could keep that secret. So, I guess for me patterns of poor research, poor thinking, poor intuition, poor memory. For example when the Left attacked Trump for being willing to appoint Surpreme court justices late in his term. Well, some of their presidents did that. Of course, that issue cuts both ways, since when Dems appointed or wanted to late in term, then the republicans objected. No memory on either side, or hypocrisy on either side.

I can see an in group use for labeling the enemy or opposed camp. I think that can give one strength and sometimes things just need to be said. But when interacting with others, I am not sure hit helps anyone or anything.

I also see for example both the republicans and dems as being in the hands of the puppeteers. So if we call dems communists and are silent about republicans, I think that is misleading. I'm guessing you, from what I have read, that you are critical of republicans also. But if the dems are communists, well, the republicans are communists but not quite as committed. Though they are more committed to drug wars and the like (though right now the dems are more hawkish than Trump) and, I think, naive about the communism/fascism of corporations. Here we might disagree, perhaps regarding degree. But I think it makes more sense to be specific when attacking people's behavior and arguments and thinking. If you want to label them, then by the patterns of their idiocy, rather than labeling them as in that camp B and the only other camp is my Camp A, the good guys.

And this is not because I want us to be nice. I am not a particularly nice poster as you've probably noticed. It's not so we can all hold hands and stand in a circle together.

I just think the labels are actually misleading. I mean God knows what kind of society the religious right would create if they were the Right and they got power. I would likely be a weird combination of communism and fascism. The neo cons supposedly on the right are not interested in rights to bear arms, rights to private, rights to assembly, freedom of the press, and love corporate subsidy via wars, corporate welfare, bailouts and do not believe in one law for all. The are not democrats, though of course someone like Hilary is a neocon.

I think labeling people communists when they would never identify that way shuts the discussion down, because it becomes the focus. If you say to them, you may not intend this but it leads to communism, that's a different approach. It keeps the focus on the policy or argument.

And then I think it presents a false image of the situation.

I appreciate your explanation. It was clear and its not like I think is all situations simple global labels are wrong to use. I think there are discussions when whipping it out might be useful or at least, there is no reason for you to hold it back. But in general here, I have noticed a trend and it seems to both misrepresent and mislead AND head more quickly to shut down.

Anyway, maybe we should take this to another thread. I think issues like the ones in this thread you raise are important. One really has to wonder what the point of Biden is. I mean, both Obama and Man Clinton, whatever one thinks of their politics, were very smart on their feet and charismatic, even if it was a negative charisma for people who hated them. These were talented people as politicians. Biden is a strange gray blob. Even if you love the policies (if he is even clear about these) this is really the best the dems could pull out of their team?

Harris does seem to be on the Left end of the Dems - oooh. Just read that she is a hawk.

https://jacobinmag.com/2019/09/foreign- ... rea-russia

But this campaign branding doesn’t mean Harris has no “foreign policy.” Just looking at war (without getting into other critical foreign policy issues, from climate to trade agreements to covert operations), Harris has discernable stances. A close look at her record shows that, to the extent she has taken positions, they are defined by her close relationship with the right-wing lobby outfit American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), bellicose rhetoric toward North Korea and Russia, and reluctance to cosponsor key pieces of legislation aimed at preventing war with Venezuela and North Korea. On issues of militarism, she’s squarely in line with — and sometimes to the right of — a hawkish Democratic establishment.

This is just the sort of shit that gets glossed over even more nowadays. The old left would have been worried about this. And damn well would have made noises. They know the neocons want more war and want to use war to shuffle more power to corporations and government. Hilary was definintely in place to do that. And a black woman calling for war undermines a good chunk of left criticism.

Yes, she might move things domestically in directions what might be problematic, but this is first thing that stands out to me. A facade of outward liberal left care and policies, trojan horsing in more war at taxpayer expense, shuttling more money to neocon Haliburton type corps, more power to the intelligence community, more enemies abroad leading to more terrorism, more war on terror to go with the drug war and war on the 'sick'.....

[obsrvr524]

exactly which few simple labels would you suggest?

I didn't ask about what to discuss to try to straighten them out. I'm not sure that is even possible. But my point revolves around the fact that whatever is to be said must be stated in just a very few sentences (1-3) else it takes too much thinking which people really don't like to do. So labels have to be almost the entirety of the sentences along with few short adjectives, verbs, and objects.

Longer posts such as the ones we have just displayed get read by very few around here. And even then they don't seem to digest them because they involve multiple trains of linear thoughts. More than one or two concepts is just a waste. There are other more reputable boards for that sort of thing.

[Karpel Tunnel]

exactly which few simple labels would you suggest?

Right, I guess I don't see the value in it when in discussion with someone not in your camp who you are trying to convince of things. I don't think the labels help.

I didn't ask about what to discuss to try to straighten them out. I'm not sure that is even possible. But my point revolves around the fact that whatever is to be said must be stated in just a very few sentences (1-3) else it takes too much thinking which people really don't like to do. So labels have to be almost the entirety of the sentences along with few short adjectives, verbs, and objects.

Right, I just don't think you need these kinds of labels and I think they have a negative effect.

Longer posts such as the ones we have just displayed get read by very few around here. And even then they don't seem to digest them because they involve multiple trains of linear thoughts. More than one or two concepts is just a waste. There are other more reputable boards for that sort of thing.

[/quote]I agree. (oh, and I added a little bit of on-topic thoughts to the end you might have missed). But here's the thing. If we are dealing with people who are not thinking, then throwing them a trigger label can only reduce that, it seems to me.

Yes, a short response. But keep the short response on the issue, on the argument. Skip the label. When talking to those you agree with, label away.

[obsrvr524]

OK then it's settled -

• us, we, our
• you, them, those other blokes

Except sometimes I'm not talking about me rather just about the two groups. So maybe also -

• you, yours
• them, theirs

• party of the first part
• party of the second part

Let them figure it out.

[d0rkyd00d]

I think that no matter what words I use because we are living through a time of mass deceit aimed at global effect, they will be to a degree inaccurate, to a degree misleading, and to a degree insulting. Words and labels have become intentionally so because confusion or obfuscation is a big part of deception and control (the other part apparently being "extortion").

In order to help communicate as clearly as possible, I think it is important to simplify as much as possible. People do that by labeling groups in generalized often crude terms. I just try to use the words in the simplest form that gets the message across. And that tends to be in the form of a dichotomy (which is rarely completely accurate).

To help simplify I do my reductionist thing and focus on where the persuasion leads regardless of what the label currently means to many people. So I associate "Left" with "authoritarian communist" (not idealized communism). I know that most leftists do not want authoritarianism but what they push leads to it. I don't disagree with much of what they intend but looking at where it leads, even they wouldn't want to be associated with it. They just don't know that yet (and actually it is really only my guess). So by me saying "Left = Authoritarianism" I force a degree of focus on how the person distinguishes himself from that authoritarianism by his first reaction to say, "that's not me" and hopefully followed by, "because all I want is..."[/b]

There is a common theme I hear from most of the Trump supporters I am close to: that it is impossible now to decipher truth from fiction, that one cannot cut through the "confusion or obfuscation." While I agree that most are not familiar with rhetorical devices and logical fallacies to a degree that would allow them to cut through the nonsense, this is not true of everybody. It seems you dismiss anybody who disagrees with the Trump narrative is one of the sheep who is lost in the sea of manipulative confusion, and then therefore ignore any argumentation to the contrary as invalid.

By narrowing issues down to a dichotomy which you admit is not accurate, would you not also be guilty of employing manipulations to further your agenda?

[obsrvr524]

There is a common theme I hear from most of the Trump supporters I am close to: that it is impossible now to decipher truth from fiction, that one cannot cut through the "confusion or obfuscation." While I agree that most are not familiar with rhetorical devices and logical fallacies to a degree that would allow them to cut through the nonsense, this is not true of everybody. It seems you dismiss anybody who disagrees with the Trump narrative is one of the sheep who is lost in the sea of manipulative confusion, and then therefore ignore any argumentation to the contrary as invalid.

By narrowing issues down to a dichotomy which you admit is not accurate, would you not also be guilty of employing manipulations to further your agenda?

This is getting into a deep discussion off topic so let me move this over to your "Reduce the Gap" thread if you don't mind.

[Meno_]

Just a brief comment before You move on, I don't see an impending tour.d'fodce either way, what I see in any possible case is the afurtueri necessity of bringing to light the real reason for Trump's mandate-less run, to bring to fruition the proto synthetic possibility of a hidden motive:

The neo-Kantianism will categorically sew up party differences , so as to fruitlessly avoid the NWO's inescapable need to take over the reigns of world government, so as to resist a Washington-Wilson type of debachle from reoccurring with catastrophic outcome.

All this can be done by January, almost with an impercievably unnoticed efficiency; with foundation within international security.

[Silhouette]

You are seriously criticizing Trump for going against the Establishment, as-if you or any other prospect could have done better?

I think creating those kind of people was a serious campaign strategy (and they still lost )

Are you pro-establishment or not?! Don't answer, you're obviously a Democrat-Socialist-Communist, so you are Pro-Establishment whether you want to admit it or not.

I don't think he is even that much. He appears to be merely a dreg who got hypnotized into TDS because of his willingness, even wantingness, to hate something and get others to do the same. I don't think he would get off his ass to actually vote.

There's so much wrong here, it's hard to tell who this could possibly apply to. Certainly not me, but from process of elimination I guess it was intended to?
I'm quite obviously against the Establishment, not being pro-Biden for one, being against Social Authoritarianism for another, and being heavily critical of the Neo-liberalism economics at the core of today's West - I don't know how I could be less pro-Establishment, but god knows what kind of mental gymnastics would have to be performed to convince oneself that I am...

I have no idea how anyone could twist that I'm "critising Trump for going against the Establishment" from what I said.
I quite clearly said that going against the Establishment is excedingly difficult, and those who try have myriad hoops to jump through and countless obstacles to negotiate, such that what comes out at the end is barely recognisable from the intentions going in, and that it's barely clear which of the many people involved was more responsible than any other. Not that it's wrong to try.

I quite clearly said that this is necessarily the case for any large organisation, whether private or public, This is because when so many people are involved it's hard enough to find the right person to talk to in the first place, for them to coordinate so many other people and persuade them to fit new things into their already busy schedules, to individually do their part as intended, which is often lost through Chinese Whispers and a lack of understanding of the details between different departmental processes and responsibilities, and for the right people to remain in the institution long enough to see the project through to the end, and all this is especially the case when the intention is to reconstruct all the infrastucture, communication channels and complex laws, so as to "go against the Establishment" etc. etc. etc.
And this is just on the operational side, never mind getting politicians to change their attitudes and behaviours when all they're doing is taking the most logical steps to further the success of their own political allies in accordance with the First Past The Post voting system. I've heard Tulsi go on at length about this. And naturally, Game Theory necessitates all of this, even though the end result is painfully suboptimal...
Anyone with any real work experience to speak of will be aware of these issues - and again, none of this is close to saying that it's wrong to try.

It's ironic to be accused of not paying attention by people who haven't paid attention in the slightest to what I just said, and somehow managed to get the exact opposite impression...
And then others agree with this exactly wrong interpretation?

If a crusty sock raced against Biden in a US election, I wouldn't be pro-establishment to be against the sock. I'm also against barely coherent textbook narcissists who are embarrassing to witness - however anti-establishment they claim to be, I'm not touching that sock. I want that smell the hell away from me. As I quite clearly said in my post, I want an anti-establishment candidate to head the democrat side of the ridiculous and archaic FPTP duopoly that the US still uses as its voting system. So do countless leftists, who all want change away from the depressing inertia of the establishment where nothing improves and the same old problems plague all our lives to our mutual detriment. But we don't have to support a crusty sock if that's the only other option.

If anything, Trump epitomises being in favour of neo-Liberal, capitalist economics, which is the underlying basis of all the established hierarchies that define what the left have significant doubts about. That doesn't represent the left, and the left don't want the economic establishment of state-supported crony capitalism to be reinforced any more than the right. We want any state support to go to financial equal opportunity to stop poverty spirals preventing people from being able to take control of their lives, and to stop unnecessarily punishing those who are unable to get back on top of things by allowing them to remain in a poverty spiral. We aren't after money for ourselves, we don't want to inconvenience the rich, but unfortunately that's where all the money is that needs to go towards equal financial opportunity. We tend to find it distasteful that the rich don't do anywhere near as much as they could on their own devices, and it doesn't feel good to have to resort to law/force/tax etc. We'd simply prefer for the rich to be more humble and less entitled - by all means let them enjoy more than the average person for their successes, but beyond a certain point inequality is just disgraceful. It's easy to live independently on a normal income, so why can't they? What's so awful about enabling those who can't afford one from affording one? Y'know, just regular empathy. Trump is not about that, so he does not represent the left, in addition to being unable to endure as a person, so we reject the sock. Doesn't make us pro-establishment. None of the above does. Doesn't diagnose us with "TDS" - we despised narcissists and were anti-neo-liberal long before he briefly got into power...

And FYI, I always vote, I'm a member of my country's Social Democrat party and used to be a member of the Socialist Party, I've even been to rallies and meetings before, though admittedly I don't have to get off my ass to vote by post.
So yeah, basically none of the above was remotely applicable.
I don't know how you do it.