“Hey, let’s vote for a candidate who literally cannot win from a party that hasn’t done the necessary work to become nationally viable because I don’t want to be part of the two party problem even though if we do so it will guarantee that a felon rapist who incited an insurrection, stripped women of a human right, and illegally attempted to overturn an election will win.” - Dipshit 3rd Party Voters
Just as stupid as Trump supporters, as far as I’m concerned.
Well, they got what we told them they’d be getting. Why aren’t they celebrating?
Point A. Mathematically, the third party voters did not cost you the election. Not in terms of the raw popular vote comparison, not in terms of the electoral college vote comparison.
Point B. No candidate is owed your vote. A “third party” candidate must be judged on the same merits as a “first”/“second” party candidate. The first and second party candidates are both complicit in genocide and/or genocidal incitement. They are literally war criminals. The only argument you can make for the preference of the first/second party candidates is not based on merit, but popularity alone. It’s circular logic to justify a population voting for a candidate on the basis of popularity - “we must vote for them because we’re voting for them”. This only appears to make sense when viewed in terms of an individual choice, but the logic completely breaks down when viewed in terms of group behavior. I cannot stress enough that this is an absolutely basic question in terms of civic engagement in a so-called “representative democracy”, and yet a staggering amount of you have not even thought about it.
Start from scratch on the logic. What is the ENTIRE framework we’re using to select candidates, as a population? When compared against other frameworks, how do we evaluate which framework is ideal, based on its long-term consequences for a society? If you have not already thoroughly answered this question for yourself, you are not qualified for this discussion in the first place.
All of that is fine and dandy except we live in reality.
Reality is a cold hearted bitch. The actual choices were between the status quo, with the occasional bone thrown out way, and billionaire backed fascism, where all of us will be actively fucked for at least the next four years, and likely longer because the fascists are unlikely to ever allow elections where they have a chance of losing.
Those were the only choices, not voting or voting third party was exactly the same as voting for the fascists. Congratulations, you did it, Trump won.
I saw these responses coming and worded my comment correspondingly. Read. More. Carefully.
Absolutely right on point A.
Point B: This is wrong and you’ve obscured the idea. " we ( potential third party voters ) must vote for them because we ( left voters as a whole ) are voting for them " It’s not circular logic, they are two different groups.
So as someone who wants the DNC ( and the GOP ) to disappear, here’s what I think are the important questions:
- At what point does a third party become viable?
- How do you build support for a third party when the spoiler effect is real and everyone knows it?
IMO a good idea would be a threshold system. So anyone can join the party and say, " I will vote if there are X commited voters ". If not, the party stands down. They get to build support without spoiling the vote.
This is all theoretical of course since the US may have just had it’s last election.
I have an answer for 1. and that answer is “Never”. a third party is never viable as long as we have First Past the Post voting.
As for 2, you don’t put any effort into third parties until after we fix the voting system. You work within the system and push for voting reform, or else it will never happen, and we’ll be stuck with First Past the Post forever.
The game plan is to push for one of two options, either Approval or STAR. Those two voting systems are the only Condorcet compliant systems that can fix our mess of an election system. There are some other fixes that come afterward, like ditching Primary elections (they’re not needed under Approval or STAR) and ditching the electoral college, but those can come after we fix the core problem.
To reiterate, you cannot solve anything of the problems of our system from outside it. You must hijack one of the two parties and use that to fix things. The same way the Evangelical racists hijacked the Republican Party in the 70s and 80s.
you cannot solve anything of the problems of our system from outside it.
So, so many people simply can’t grasp this. They want to use some imaginary cheat code to get what they want, immediately. That’s not how this, or a lot of things in life, work. Change in politics comes from lots and lots of effort from within the system to change the system. That or violent revolution. But the catch with violent revolution is that in the chaos that ensues, worse forces can fill the vacuum. Not to mention all the dead people.
I’d argue that violent revolution never results in something better. Those worse forces will Always move to seize power.
Violent protest is good, that coupled with people talking shit out like reasonable adults can result in something good, but there’s always that point where some unelected jackass comes in to murder the old guard, and then slaughter anyone who was working within the system to make things better.
Point B is not “wrong”, and you have not showed it is. The population as a whole is responsible for selecting the best candidate. These subdivisions, “right”, “left” and “really left” or however you want to depict them, are just cultural constructs (yes, like the election system itself) that affect people’s decision making on how to vote. Like any other idea.
How does a third party “become viable”? Define “viability”. Any party is “viable” in this system with a few votes on ballot petitions, associated paperwork, and the population voting for them. Again, this points to circular logic. It creates an impossible, circular dilemma if a population is deciding not to vote for a party because they think the population is deciding not to vote for a party. As long as they have that literally insane mentality, the third party is impossibly out of reach, like any other religious or irrational mentality, or any mentality in general, that successfully govern’s people’s behavior. What else do you want to hear? A “third party” becomes viable when they realize the insanity of that thinking and reject it.
How does a third party “become viable”? Define “viability”. Any party is “viable” in this system with a few votes on ballot petitions, associated paperwork, and the population voting for them.
Hmmm. I wonder how a population comes to vote for a 3rd party in significant enough numbers to win a national election. Hmmmm. This is a tough one. How could that possibly happen?
I’m going to spitball here. Maybe a 3rd party would have to start by supporting city/county/state 3rd party candidates across the country so that over time that 3rd party eventually has an actual presence, let’s say, in the House of Representatives, which boosts name recognition even more, so that one day maybe there’s even some in the Senate and then, holy shit, all of a sudden there’s an actual chance at winning a presidential election.
It’s comical to state that all the population has to do is vote for them, without grasping that all these other steps don’t need to happen first. I’m going to run the Barbie Party candidate in 2028 and when they don’t win, I’m going to blame the populace for not voting for them.
Uh-huh, and yet some of the population ARE aware of these candidates without being spoon-fed their “name recognition”. So if social and conventional news media filter out all candidates but those of a preferred uniparty, those should be ignored? Bullshit, wrong.
Start from scratch on the logic. What is the ENTIRE framework we’re using to select candidates, as a population? When compared against other frameworks, how do we evaluate which framework is ideal, based on its long-term consequences for a society? If you have not already thoroughly answered this question for yourself, you are not qualified for this discussion in the first place.
What does this have to do with the price of tea in China?
Point A. Mathematically, the third party voters did not cost you the election.
But they could have in any given election. I wasn’t wearing a seat belt, but I didn’t crash, so it didn’t affect me…this time. Well guess what? This time we crashed. It just didn’t happen to be their fault…this time. This time the seat belt was voters who didn’t vote.
Point B. No candidate is owed your vote.
It isn’t about owing. It’s about acknowleding that only two parties have the possibility of winning and adulting up and voting for the one CLOSEST to your ideals. The one whose voting history makes the most sense for whatever social/economic class you fall under. Not holding out for an impossibility or going bust with the option FURTHEST from your ideals.
The only argument you can make for the preference of the first/second party candidates is not based on merit, but popularity alone.
I guess we’re living in a reality where voting history doesn’t matter.
Oh, now it’s “could have”.
The “spoiler effect”, “lesser of two evils” logic is irrelevant. The population, under a “representative democracy” system, must follow a process by which they select the BEST candidate and elect them. That is the only rational course. Not splintering off by the millions, and then even an overwhelming majority, into the psychotic logic that you must vote for a politician based on whether or not their party affiliation won the previous election. THAT REMOVES ALL ACCOUNTABILITY FROM THE POLITICAL SYSTEM.
It isn’t about owing. It’s about acknowleding that only two parties have the possibility of winning and adulting up and voting for the one CLOSEST to your ideals.
That is not “adulting up”, that is compromising the fate of humanity to mass murderers. And you STILL have not addressed the issue that the entire population is fully capable of voting for ANYONE, specifically, PEOPLE WHO AREN’T MASS MURDERERS. That the best course of action, absolutely INDISPUTABLY, is to SELECT AND THEN VOTE FOR THE BEST CANDIDATE. Not the SECOND TO WORST CANDIDATE.
Just stop replying to me. This is absolutely disgusting and you’re flat out creeping me out at this point.
Removed by mod
A) The third party voters convinced a lot of people not to vote.
B) You owe it to yourself to vote for the better option. All that over complication you’re doing is meaningless. Third parties can’t win. In reality the choice was Trump or not-Trump.
Third parties can’t win.
It’s like talking to flat earthers man. They honest to God believe a 3rd party candidate for president can win at this point in American history.
How do you introduce common sense to a brick wall?
The only argument you can make for the preference of the first/second party candidates is not based on merit, but popularity alone.
I mean yeah, obviously. Anyone over the age of 22 should have been able to tell you that the only two candidates with a chance of winning in '24 were the Republican or the Democrat.
It’s circular logic to justify a population voting for a candidate on the basis of popularity - “we must vote for them because we’re voting for them”.
We (my peers) must vote for them because we (the rest of the country) are voting for them.
It seems like you don’t understand the simple fact that most americans genuinely like the Democrat or the Republican. They don’t get elected because everyone has deluded themselves into thinking everyone else is going to vote for them, they get elected because the average person sees Trump or Biden and says “I like that guy.”
I mean yeah, obviously. Anyone over the age of 22 should have been able to tell you that the only two candidates with a chance of winning in '24 were the Republican or the Democrat.
How is that “chance” determined?
We (my peers) must vote for them because we (the rest of the country) are voting for them.
Everyone is making this decision. Not just your peers. You cannot simply brush aside the fact that the entire population, for each individual in it, is making a voting decision based on some mental process they have.
It seems like you don’t understand the simple fact that most americans genuinely like the Democrat or the Republican. They don’t get elected because everyone has deluded themselves into thinking everyone else is going to vote for them, they get elected because the average person sees Trump or Biden and says “I like that guy.”
There’s certainly a large element of that. I would argue because, as Noam Chomsky said, “The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum.” They only view their candidate in the context of “the other” candidate, with a tightly controlled narrative around them. For the huge contingent of the population trapped in this bubble of idiocy, the topic, and the comparisons to non-genocidal politicians, must be forced. You cannot allow yourself to be kettled by this trick that they play, and forced into a decision where the parameters are manufactured for you. There is no escape from that.
Does their predisposition to falling for cult of personality, “politicians shaking hands and kissing babies despite the fact that they’re mass murderers” tactics, somehow release them of their civic responsibility? No. They have the same responsibility as all of us in a democracy. They have completely failed. So what is the path to fix this? Rehabilitate your thinking. Rehabilitate their thinking. Get us back to the level where people understand what it means to participate in a democracy and taking responsibility for what they have to do, instead of being cowed into choosing between preselected candidates complicit in genocide.
But you’re SUPPORTING GENOCIDE when you vote for the candidate most likely to get the fewest people killed! While the people of Palestine are about to be annihilated, my own right to marry is about to be taken away, and all of my trans friends are going to lose access to the drugs that keep them from killing themselves, I can rest easy knowing that I didn’t engage with the system at all
Removed by mod
Nope. Voting for the slightly less evil politician doesn’t mean you support genocide anymore than pulling the lever means you support innocent people being run over by trolleys.
Nope, voting for (supporting) a politician who commits genocide MEANS YOU SUPPORT GENOCIDE.
Close, but you fail to understand that a vote doesn’t necessarily mean I support them. It could be that the only alternative would be significantly worse. It’s actually a lot like the trolley problem, in that sometimes there is no good choice, only a least bad choice.
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
There were exactly two paths the trolley could go down as of November. You can pretend there weren’t, but the only option any individual had other than Harris or Trump was to assassinate one or both, and I’m not interested in getting iced by the SS
Unless you think there’s some magic number of comments you can make on the internet that will somehow convince enough voters to ditch the two main parties. Of course, you would have to be incredibly naive to believe in that magic number.
Edit: let’s update the trolley problem to be more in line with this election. Imagine instead of two tracks, there are three: the Red Track has 5,000,000 innocent people tied to it. The Blue Track meets back up with the Red Track down the line, but skips past 4,500,000 of those people. The Green Track doesn’t have anyone tied to it at all.
If the trolley goes down the Red Track, 5,000,000 people die. If the trolley goes down the Blue Track, only 500,000 of those people die. If the trolley goes down the Green Track, nobody dies. The choice is obvious, right? Pick the green track!
Except polling shows that 75 million people will be pulling the Red Lever, 75 million people will be pulling the Blue Lever, and less than 1 million people will be pulling the Green Lever. What Lever is most likely to save the most people?
It’s Blue, the answer is Blue, because not enough people give a shit about Green to pull it, and too many people are zealously in favor of Red to dissuade them. The only way to prevent any deaths is to help get the Blue lever pulled.
Removed by mod
Yes, I could have voted for anyone I wanted, and there were still only two people who could possibly have been elected. Any vote for anyone other than those two literally didn’t impact the election.
Unfortunately I couldn’t read this idiot’s replies before they got nuked, but I’m pretty sure I saw something along the lines of “and yet Harris didn’t win the election” in my notifications.
Harris got 48.4% of the votes, Trump got 48.9% of the votes, and no one else got even close to 1%. If you don’t understand how Harris had a solid chance and Stein doesn’t, I can only assume you’re either a child who’s never interacted with an election before, or a troll from a foreign country trying desperately to sow discord in America, because I do not believe that an adult can genuinely be that stupid.
Name an American politician that has committed genocide.
Andrew Jackson.
Fair point!
What did Hitler do? Spew rhetoric, tour around, and orchestrate/direct resources into genocide. That is precisely what the U.S. president and Congress have done. You may want to pretend the imaginary national line between Netanyahu and Biden somehow means Biden’s hands are clean, but he has funded, armed, rhetorically supported, militarily supported, and blocked nearly every ceasefire effort at the UN Security Council against the genocide. It is a U.S. genocide, and everyone following it is completely aware of that. Why is it that you think State Department officials are resigning, and Aaron Bushnell lit himself on fire? It would be far quicker to name the U.S. politicians who aren’t complicit in the genocide. Between Congress and the presidency, depending on how strict you want to be, that’s between 1 and maybe 30 (Rashida Tlaib, Ilhan Omar, etc.)
Not even addressing that historically you don’t even need to dispel that national boundary. Not even under George W. Bush. Yet alone the genocide of the Native Americans.
bUt hITLeR!!!
So…. You can’t name one. Thanks for playing.
Removed by mod
Try again.
And you’re done because you have nothing. Listen dude… You swung, you missed. You’re not exempt from being called out, or being made to own your shit.
Removed by mod
I simply voted for the person opposed to genocide. This isn’t actually a democracy, so it’s not like my vote mattered anyways.
Who’d you vote for?
I voted PSL. I’m in a state where it was completely inconsequential.
Excellent
So instead of the most reasonable candidate that has a chance of winning, you voted for someone else who had no chance of winning?
Thanks for making everything worse.I simply voted for the person opposed to genocide.
Single issue voters = duuuuuuuumb.
This isn’t actually a democracy, so it’s not like my vote mattered anyways.
People who say “voting doesn’t matter” = duuuuuuuuumb.
Genocide trumps all other “issues”. If you are willing to sacrifice hundreds of thousands to millions of innocents to annihilation, your “stances” on every other issue are hollow rhetoric meant for your own advancement, and the difference of having you in power over anyone else is microscopic. Not understanding that genocide means a politician is pure evil is the fucking pinnacle of “dumb”.
I am willing to sacrifice hundreds of thousands to save millions. You’re willing to sacrifice millions to say you kept your hands clean. Don’t act like you’re the morally correct one.
Well said.
I am not willing to sacrifice anyone. Were it not for people like you, no one would be sacrificed at all. You have no vision for a way out of perpetual war and subjugation, rather, you condemn the rest of us to it.
I am not willing to sacrifice anyone.
But you did anyway when you threw away your vote.
Were it not for people like me, Trump would still have been elected. Were it not for people like you, an alternative may have had a chance.
How compelling.
Removed by mod
The election is over, did you expect them to keep telling you to vote 3rd party when there is no election to vote for them in? Perhaps you noticed that all the “Vote Harris” commercials stopped too?
If they’re legitimate users, I expected them to continue to exist, occasionally commenting on memes and cat pictures and whatnot like the rest of us.
But they’re entirely gone instead, almost as if they stopped working once they stopped getting paid.
I’ve been around, commenting on stuff! Which specific users are you talking about disappearing? I’d love to see actual evidence for this conspiracy theory!
The one(s?) that got permabanned for posting about third parties, apparently.
Name one.
Linkerbaan was mentioned, which I was referencing.
They weren’t banned for posting about third parties. Try again.
Were they not permabanned or something? My comment is based on a thread comment, but you’re apparently in-the-know or doing research on this.
I do like how the other user who commented on mine got banned in the middle of this. How quaint.
Do you have all these usernames memorized or something? How can you be so certain they are “entirely gone”
I still point out once a week. Republicans and Democrats are the problem. Entirely ditch both parties and grab a third party that’s actually terrified of happening to them, what just happened to the Republican’s and Democrats and taking our country back from the damn thieves.
But I guess with eye sight like that, you would have trouble seeing what’s right in front of you.
You know it’s funny, but I’ve NEVER seen a comment or a post from you guys saying “BOTH SIDES ARE THE SAME, HERE ARE 10 EXAMPLES THAT PROVE IT”
But I have seen plenty of comments and posts listing example after example of just how different the progressive party is from the conservatives.
All I ever see from Team BSS is the same generic “both sides same lol because thats how I FEEL” type of answer. Never any receipts to backup those feels, I wonder why?
It’s really not hard to see why bss. It’s plastered everywhere at this point. Both parties are corrupt and cater to corporate interests. They take legal bribes and hurt the working class as a result.
If you’re truly not a bot or paid state actor, you’ve gotta be real hardheaded to stick to this take.
We don’t need a third party. We need ranked choice voting.
How can you have ranked choice voting with only two parties?
Ranked choice voting still works with two parties by letting voters rank multiple candidates within those parties or include third-party/independent options. It helps ensure the winner has broader support, reduces “lesser of two evils” voting, and encourages more positive campaigning, especially in primaries.
So, in the federal election without a third party under ranked choice; my options would be 1. Harris, 2. Trump.
Ranked choice voting is designed to reduce the spoiler effect and allow voters to support third-party and independent candidates without fear of “wasting” their vote. While it doesn’t automatically create new parties, it can encourage their growth by making the political system more accessible. By implementing RCV first, the political environment becomes more open to alternative parties gaining traction and competing more fairly over time.
I’m short, by it’s nature, RCV creates alternatives.
I.E., we need a third party.
My bad for not being more clear. I didn’t mean to imply that more parties are automatically a good thing. What I meant is that ranked choice voting actually incentivizes candidates to adopt broader, more inclusive positions that reflect the unique views of voters in their district or state. It encourages collaboration and reduces division because candidates need to appeal beyond their base to win second- and third-choice votes. Just adding a third party alone doesn’t fix anything, but RCV actively reshapes how campaigns are run and how candidates engage with voters. That’s something only RCV can accomplish.
Some more info on this.
First past the post is the real problem here.
And the parties are never gonna give it up voluntarily.
They have that in common with Rick Astley.
I think the real problem was those that stayed home. Turnout wasn’t great.
The real problem is the Democratic party has stopped any good candidate from advancing. It’s a party problem, nothing else
The problem is the actual voting system. First Past the Post actively punishes Third Party voters. Which leaves us with a choice between the status quo and a party that wants to make shit worse.
Now, the status quo isn’t all that good, but is distinctly better than the alternative. But that’s it.
To get something actually better, we need to change the voting system itself. Ordinal voting systems always result in some form of two party dominance. So we need something different. A Cardinal voting system.
There are two main choices. Approval, which has been used off and on in real world elections for at least a thousand years. Most notably for the election of the Pope for several centuries before the process was corrupted by wealth and nepotism.
The other option is STAR, a voting system designed in 2014 meant to address the problems with other voting systems.
Ofc it was, but that having a foot in reality is not needed when hunting for scapegoats.
The Harris and Trump promoters also suddenly went quiet the day after the election.
What did you expect? The election cycle do be like that.
Trump promoters also suddenly went quiet the day after the election.
I wish
I wish the Trump supporters would go silent.
If those “green voters” actually gave a shit about getting their candidate elected, you’d hear from them for more than 2 months every 4 years.
But no, that was never the goal. Their goal was for Trump to win
Green/PSL voters are literally posting in this thread. Maybe you have confirmation bias.
Yeah man, like 3 people on lemmy are the ones who TURN THE TIDES on elections
My god, the insanity is real.
How about Jill Stein herself who shows up on the same timeline?
Yeah her 30k voters turned the tides of the election lolz 😂
She got 782,528 votes or about 0.5% of the popular vote.
You’re misrepresenting her votes by about 26 times less.
Why is that?
Wow, it’s almost like the goal wasn’t to get her elected, it was to make sure Harris didn’t get elected.
Lolz!
Man I want to know what you are on, to be so deluded into thinking that 30k people can literally swing an election lmao 🤣
You realize elections have come down to a relatively small number of votes, correct? Especially if those votes are in the right locations.
https://www.britannica.com/list/5-remarkably-close-us-presidential-elections
Still on the 30k votes again huh? No mention of the low turnout for Democrat voters? Or the crowd pushing for people not to vote?
Oh, I thought that was because I blocked Trump and Musk in my keywords. It’s been a peaceful time and I expect I shan’t ever go back.
Nor I.
Trump promoters also suddenly went quiet the day after the election.
Show me a conservative with their mouth closed and I’ll show you an America where everyone is treated equally.
I don’t know about the Trump promoters, but a lot of the people vocally supporting Harris are very much still here, commenting about other topics. A few (but only a few) of the third-party supporters are still here too, for that matter (notable example: @givesomefucks).
That’s how you can tell they’re real users, rather than shills being paid to push an agenda: they didn’t go away when the job ended.
This thread is not about people’s appetite for political discussion, or whether they’re misguided enough to only pay attention to the Presidential election instead of building their party from local offices on up. It’s about whether they were ever legitimate at all to begin with.
What? Lol? What universe do you live in? Sounds nice
Now’s the exact time to promote third parties.
If there actually were any. The only reason we hear about them ever is to promote spoiler candidates. Most are entirely funded by the GOP.
Yeah, like the brainworm anti-vax guy that’s now going to be in charge of our health as restitution for siphoning voters from Dems.
Yeah. On a local/state level. For a long, long time before one can even stand a snowball’s chance in hell of winning a presidential election.
“Yes, but as a strategic move, give up on controlling the most important single office in the country.”
Perot won 19% in 1992. Why has the trend inverted?
Someone expresses disdain for the democratic party in community
Get comments removed/banned for this
Don’t interact with the community anymore
oMg WhErE dId ThEy gO???
Banned for not aligning with the Democratic party?? Not on my good lemmy.world!!
The best solution to the two parties excluding the left isn’t a third party, it’s for the left to register as Republicans and conduct a hostile takeover of the GOP in the primaries.
This can easily succeed in blue states/cities to start out.
I’ve been thinking about this a lot lately. The Democrats are very good at controlling the outcomes of their primaries, but the Republicans don’t seem as capable. They threw everything they had at stopping Trump in 2016, came up short, and then allowed him to completely restructure the party. I wonder if it might be easier for a progressive to run in an open Republican primary in a district the broader GOP isn’t trying to compete in, then try and take out the Democrat in the general. It might be more effective than primarying Democrats directly.
It’s weird that that doesn’t sound ludicrous
Still advocating for state level electoral reform so people can vote outside the two party system with no spoiler effect.
Why are you okay with people being unrepresented with their options in the voting booth? Don’t you support democracy?
In fact no. These are the very same people that prefer a dictator to take de facto power over the will of the people( see Venezuela) just because the will of the people doesn’t align with their ideology this time
So yeah
You just perfectly described the ‘leftists’ who sat home instead of voting for Harris.
You mean liberals, there’s no legitimate lefty there
No I mean leftists.
No you mean Liberals
Liberals liked Harris but the self-described leftists like Trump.
I assure you that I know what I mean.
The only way to create a viable third party is to vote for them. America needs a third choice.
Wrong, you create a viable third choice through effective, bold, and charismatic leadership and an incredibly strong marketing campaign. Our third parties seem happy to pull the outliers and disillusioned voting population, but you won’t win an election with that.
The only way we’re getting an actual third choice is by making something that’s equal to or bigger in presence to our primary parties in terms of media representation and spectacle. None of the ones that exist today are pulling that off any time soon.
Our third parties seem happy to pull the outliers and disillusioned voting population, but you won’t win an election with that.
What was Trump’s campaign again? The entire population is disillusioned. They’re just also brainwashed into blaming the other party in a fake partisan system instead of the oppressive system itself.
We’ve got so many elections between each presidency like multiple a year, theres probably one in the next few months wherever you are. For some reason though, the majority of third party advocates only decide to advocate once every 4 years.
Yea I did what Bernie did… vote for Democrats in the election because it was the opinion closer to my own beliefs. I’m a registered NPA at this point because I find the DNC embarrassing to be affiliated with.
For the most part I’m a democratic socialist. I’ll be supporting those types of candidates get elected as just regular Democrats, because (for the people in the back) THE USA CURRENTLY HAS A TWO PARTY SYSTEM!
I did what Bernie did… vote for Democrats in the election because it was the opinion closer to my own beliefs.
So you behaved like a responsible adult?
Thank you.
They still pop up now and again when they want to justify why Trump being elected was better than the filthy LIBERAL getting into office.
Which, itself, is a bit funny considering that third parties didn’t have much influence on that.
Don’t forget, liberals are Nazi’s and America is committing genocide.
Also “fall of the empire(america)” is a good thing even though that would most certainly result in war crimes and a probable american genocide.
America is committing genocide, but also, liberals are just fearmongering when they say a Trump regime will lead to genocide.
I hate this timeline.
They still pop up now and again when they want to justify why Trump being elected was better than the filthy LIBERAL getting into office.
I’ll take “shit nobody actually said” for 500 Alex
I don’t remember third party proponents. I remember the depression and realization that both parties continue to work hard to make this country suck more.
