> In a sense, Americans deserve what they got. They chose to re-elect the same party (Democratic/Republican party, is there a difference really?) over and over again
Sure, there's a pretty big difference both practically and in terms of ideological PR (those two differences don't, of course, align perfectly; the former is largely, but not entirely, a subset of the latter.)
So, no, they didn't choose to re-elect the same party over and over again.
> when there is an alternative in the libertarian party which by the way, would most certainly not authorize or encourage what the NSA has been up to.
I'm not at all certain of that. Sure, the Libertarian Party ideological PR isn't that, but we really have no idea what the LP in practice would be like, and we certainly know that parties' ideological PR and actual actions in office are rarely universally consistent (and we know that from far more examples than just the US Democrats and Republicans, as its true of virtually every political party in existence.)
Further, I think its not all that true that the American people freely choose any party; each individual American voter makes a decision of how to maximize value out of a fixed game that is tilted in their favor, and where they have much less power to address the fundamental problems in the electoral structure than they have to choose to minimize the harms within the structure.
And, frankly, too many of the people who try to sell alternatives to the major parties aren't interested at all in exerting effort to get people behind measures that would actually fix the electoral structure to increase the potential for alternative parties to be viable. In addition to the fact that this makes it virtually impossible for them to succeed, since they aren't willing to highlight and correct the primary barrier to their success, it also makes me suspicious of both their honesty of purpose and their competence to follow through on their purpose if elected, since they either lack the former or have far too weak a grasp on the structure of the government they seek to run to have much of the latter.
> Regardless of your political inclinations, I would strongly suggest you consider voting for them if only to shake up the establishment.
For people who understand that political activity isn't limited to voting, there are a lot more effective means of shaking up the establishment than voting for a third party that you might agree with on only a very narrow range of issues for that purpose. In fact, of all the successful movements that shook up the establishment and shifted the ground of American politics, I can think of exactly zero for whom that was a central part of how they succeeded.