penningtron wrote: Tue Sep 17, 2024 9:57 am Classic tantrum voter, can't answer a simple question how their zero-chance candidate would accomplish that either.

Certainly if someone sensible WITHOUT party allegiances was able to be elected to the highest office they could shake things up substantially. Commander in Chief has a considerable amount of power militarily, and as far as healthcare, if nothing else speak directly to the public for 4 entire years about how WE can get crazy ideas to happen. There would be no corporate skullduggery interfering at the Presidential level. Can you imagine what a difference that would make?

But that will of course never happen because you doofuses are slut-shaming anybody who doesn't "vote tactically" for the anointed parties and perpetuate the awesomeness we have today.

The recently-deceased Tito Jackson is a better pick than Jill Stein. C'mon, Brainworm Kennedy was going to pull in far more votes than the Green Party.

why don't you write in dick cheney, seems your party is proud to have his support

losthighway wrote: Tue Sep 17, 2024 11:03 am

dumbass wrote: Tue Sep 17, 2024 10:02 am classic liberal. shames voters for having convictions

penningtron wrote: Tue Sep 17, 2024 9:57 am Classic tantrum voter, can't answer a simple question how their zero-chance candidate would accomplish that either.

I'm going to encourage you to have more conviction than a Stein vote. Write in candidate: the resurrection of Cesar Chavez ghost.

Pros: Not a white person. Better labor and civil rights credentials.

Cons: Not living, but really it's a draw here as he has equal chances to Stein of being elected.

All said, Cesar Chavez is a better pick than Jill Stein.

zorg wrote: Tue Sep 17, 2024 11:41 am

penningtron wrote: Tue Sep 17, 2024 9:57 am Classic tantrum voter, can't answer a simple question how their zero-chance candidate would accomplish that either.

Certainly if someone sensible WITHOUT party allegiances was able to be elected to the highest office they could shake things up substantially. Commander in Chief has a considerable amount of power militarily, and as far as healthcare, if nothing else speak directly to the public for 4 entire years about how WE can get crazy ideas to happen. There would be no corporate skullduggery interfering at the Presidential level. Can you imagine what a difference that would make?

Right, 3rd party candidates have zero agendas and are perfectly reasonable by default, even if/especially if they offer zero platform. What a true progressive Ralph Nader turned out to be.

It's weird when some of y'all are like "how can you support the rich elites" and then offer other rich people as an alternative.

Imagine shaming a Muslim for voting for the anti war candidate

Krev wrote: Tue Sep 17, 2024 11:44 am The recently-deceased Tito Jackson is a better pick than Jill Stein. C'mon, Brainworm Kennedy was going to pull in far more votes than the Green Party.

penningtron wrote: Tue Sep 17, 2024 12:04 pm

zorg wrote: Tue Sep 17, 2024 11:41 am

penningtron wrote: Tue Sep 17, 2024 9:57 am Classic tantrum voter, can't answer a simple question how their zero-chance candidate would accomplish that either.

Certainly if someone sensible WITHOUT party allegiances was able to be elected to the highest office they could shake things up substantially. Commander in Chief has a considerable amount of power militarily, and as far as healthcare, if nothing else speak directly to the public for 4 entire years about how WE can get crazy ideas to happen. There would be no corporate skullduggery interfering at the Presidential level. Can you imagine what a difference that would make?

Right, 3rd party candidates have zero agendas and are perfectly reasonable by default, even if/especially if they offer zero platform. What a true progressive Ralph Nader turned out to be.

It's weird when some of y'all are like "how can you support the rich elites" and then offer other rich people as an alternative.

Fair enough, I’m not promoting an actual candidate myself. I was only pointing out that putting a total outlier into office would shake things up regardless of whether they could manage any kind of coalition.

zorg wrote: Tue Sep 17, 2024 11:41 am

penningtron wrote: Tue Sep 17, 2024 9:57 am Classic tantrum voter, can't answer a simple question how their zero-chance candidate would accomplish that either.

But that will of course never happen because you doofuses are slut-shaming anybody who doesn't "vote tactically" for the anointed parties and perpetuate the awesomeness we have today.

This is a disjointed appropriation of a specific piece of feminist rhetoric. Has one of the voters in this conversation been victimized by rhetoric?

Also, like on page two hundred and something, and one hundred and somethingy seven of this thread:

You don't disrupt a two party system with a vote for a candidate.

It would require a popular legislative reform for our procedures and candidate funding. But people who complain about a two party system don't invest work in that, because it's difficult and boring. They self righteously vote once every four years for someone they know will never win while the women of the world hang on tight to see if they'll come out of it with their rights in tact.

"I can lose every time. My candidate will always be perfect because they'll never be sullied by the messy task of governing. They'll be a dream. An unfinished demo of a song that was going to be amazing. I'm beautiful when I lose."

It was a very similar situation to the UK with Corbyn and Bernie. Except Corbyn came within something like 30,000 votes distributed across electorates of actually winning. Which was an absolute miracle considering the entire establishment apparatus mobilising against him, including the right of his own party and supposedly left wing papers like the Guardian.

But despite strongly supporting Corbyn, including joining the party and doing some actual activism. You know, stuff that’s not arguing with strangers online, I was and remain deeply pessimistic. It’s hard to fathom the strength of this “cube” we’ve accidentally built that is late stage capitalism. But I still believe that mass politics is the umbrella answer, otherwise it’s hundreds of tiny unconnected fights. Mass politics is fucking hard. It’s not the instant gratification of bickering online, it’s trench warfare that few people have the energy or patience for.

The case for someone like Stein is ridiculous. There is zero point in voting Green in the US, you might as well vote MBLA for the good you’re doing. The UK has similar depositories for people that want to feel like they voted but didn’t, or worse just enable the greater of the two evils in. A vote for the Green Party in the US first past the post electoral college system is a vote for Trump.

Forgive me, but it seems like third party voting is a contradictory mix of cynicism and idealism.

"This whole system is total bullshit and needs to be burned down because no one is brave enough to take tiny baby steps down an impossibly long road towards a bright electoral future where we will be able to vote for wonderful candidates. If only more people would vote for ideal candidates in our currently rotten, broken, useless democracy."

Like, which one is it?
If the first part is what you really believe in, then start stockpiling arms and food or something.
That would at least make sense.

Or just stay home, that also makes sense. Don't participate in the bullshit system and put your efforts elsewhere.

do whatever you want

who cares

the only thing dumber than throwing your vote away in an absolutely binary election between not-so-great and abysmal is talking about it like anyone should give a shit that you're doing it