Need a refresher on how Parties work.

They send representatives to the Convention to vote.

At the convention, anything can be decided. They are NOT the government. They are more like private clubs with their own bylaws.

But, you seem to be getting a little frothy around the mouth. So, maybe try breathing in slowly, breath out slowly, focus on the breath. Examine where the anger is coming from.

> He’s called a “threat to democracy” and that’s laughable considering the Democrat nominee won not a single primary

He's called that not because of anything leading up to the upcoming election, but because of what he keeps saying he'll do after it.

> Remember COVID, the lockdowns, the suppression of dissent?

This occurred under Trump during his first attempt to "poke the establishment in the eye."

> How about the left that used to be opposed to war yet now seem to support continual escalation of the Ukraine conflict?

Because 1) we're bound by treaties to do so (we promised to protect them if they dismantled their nuclear arsenal, which they did). 2) The Ukraine is, according to pretty much everybody with knowledge on European politics, acting as the first line of defense against Russia. It's why so many European countries are also supporting the Ukraine.

> The danger of Russia is directly proportional to how much money can be made from it.

The danger of Russia is there's a dying megalomaniac with nuclear codes and a desire to conquer Europe no matter the cost to Russia.

> I’m not voting for the party that supported school closures, coerced “vaccinations,” and funding endless wars.

So, you're not voting for trump? Again, all of these happened under his watch as president, and many were backed up by his executive orders.

> anyone that has faced two assassination attempts

By his own party, by people who voted for him in the past.

> This election is a simple choice — do we want more of the Snowden-revealed evil of the establishment or do we want to poke the establishment in the eye?

I agree this election is a simple choice, but not the one you proposed. It's the choice between electing someone to power that we can be fairly confident will release that power when the time comes and someone who is, by his own admissions and actions, an aspirational autocrat envious of and enamored with despicable world leaders like Putin.

As for the other issues you raise, as long as democracy survives, we have a chance of addressing them. When we start electing non-democratic leaders to fix our democracy, we have, by definition, lost.