I appreciate your good faith response, despite the allegation that i somehow misunderstand. You've contradicted yourself with your last paragraph. This "wait this out and laugh about it" clearly doesn't apply only to "establishment dems" - it applies to the voting public who will probably come out in sufficient numbers next election to oust Trump abd replace him with the next pro-corporate, business as usual democrat.
bernie sanders is a sheepdog who has already rolled over to the DNC and endorsed Clinton. It won't be him. It'll be someone who, like all of them, continues business as usual.
It is also positively NOT true that there are "wild differences" between the two parties. They are hand puppets on either hands of the corporate establishment.
This is what I'm talking about - both parties suck because they are fundamentally interested in maintaining the status quo and bipartisan tribalism is an important element of keeping the system going. Many people have a growing sense of this so they support the chaotic charlatan that is Trump- they'll support even a lecherous cretin like Trump just because he seems to be throwing a wrench in the gears of a system that's been ignoring the average American for decades.
"Own the libs" speaks to this, and you're right this sort of acidic cynicism is largely associated with the right, but it's enough of a problem on "the left' (to the extent there even IS a political left in America) to still be a concern. Some are carrying water for the democrats, some are sardonic critics who, like many Trump supporters, are deeply resentful at a fundamentally broken system and want to see the whole thing burn, or are caught up in moral superiority - it feels deeply validating to point out how it's the other side who is doing this.
America just needs real, viable political options. It's possible, they exist in democracies around the world.
Not sure how I contradicted myself by saying "Establishment Dems" are waiting things out. You may need to clarify.
What, exactly, do you expect the voting public to do about this?
For the record, I am of the opinion that the founding fathers of the US were intensely concerned with the idea that common people could possibly disrupt their landed interests. They certainly wrote about the worry that "the people" could form a revolution and remove their aristocratic foundations. Therefore they made sure to build in protections that disarm the "voting populace" from actually doing anything that the aristocrats didn't approve of. This is the main reason why we are not a direct democracy.
Sure, people will point to the disadvantages of being a direct democracy, and I would even agree with some of them. One that is never touted, but that I believe in, is a direct democracy lends power to the lowest common denominator. I don't think Trump would've ever been elected if it weren't for the billionaire class bending the knee and kissing the ring - especially types like Zuckerberg who weild enormous influence. That, and the Democrats inability to offer a viable candidate (which, granted was nowhere near as awful as Trump, not even in the same universe), but at the time, people didn't relate to "more of the same" from the Democrats, which resulted in a lot of apathy.
And you are correct, whether people fall victim to the constant messaging about "the left", there is no "left" in America, at least politically - they are simply more to the left than the Republicans.
In this country, we have a right, and a center-right. Joe Biden was a FN moderate Republican for crying out loud. It's just the Fox noise machine, as they've done since Nixon, coddles their viewers by appealing to their emotions - whether that be commies, socialists, Muslims, gays, or now, transgenders.
I don't think are far off at all, and actually agree with each other. If I may have been a little awkward and confusing, for that I do apologize.