That’s pretty much the job of a spoiler candidate. It’s always fun to see where the money's coming from too.
Oh! Another tired old "spoiler" accusation—it's the anthem of those too frightened to face the truth of their crumbling duopoly.
You dismiss Stein as a mere spoiler, yet seems you guys cry at the thought of her rising in the polls, threatening the power of the status quo you so dearly cling to.
It’s no surprise you bring up money—it’s the lifeblood of the corrupt duopoly system you defend.
Keep watching, friend. The winds of change are blowing, and no amount of slander will stop it. People are growing tired of the duopoly.
The problem with your statement is stein will never rise in the polls enough to threaten the duopoly. The best they can do is distract. If they really wanted change they would ignore presidential races and push for different voting methods down ballot.
If Stein and others like her will never rise enough to threaten the duopoly, then why the fury over her running?
The very anger people have shows the fear that the two-headed monster feels when its grip is challenged, even if only by a small percentage.
As a socialist, I stand with her efforts because every voice that speaks out against the status quo helps crack the foundation of this corrupt system.
If the duopoly had done its job, there wouldn't be such a demand for alternatives. The fact that they haven't is exactly why we need voices like Stein's pushing back, whether it's in the presidential race or down ballot.
There’s no fury. Just occasional commentary. Stein is barely a footnote because she doesn’t do anything to fix the problems you’re bringing up.
The replies and responses to this article sure does suggest that some folks might be more scared than they’re willing to admit. People don’t get this worked up over something they truly believe is irrelevant.
No, people just disagree with you, chump. Not everything is a fucking conspiracy.
And I respect and support their right to disagree with me. As you respect and support my right to disagree with them, right?
Also, please refrain from personal name-calling and lets keep this civil. There are civility rules in this community for a reason. Do you really have to call someone negative names to get your point across?
Here we go again with the victimization
It's not victimization to let someone know that they don't have to resort to name-calling, friend. I'm not a mod here, I didn't come up with the civility rule. If you have a problem with that rule or the mods, feel free to reach out to them with your concerns.
There’s no fury. Just occasional commentary. Stein is barely a footnote because she doesn’t do anything to fix the problems you’re bringing up.
The replies and responses to this article sure does suggest that some folks might be more scared than they're willing to admit. People don’t get this worked up over something they truly believe is irrelevant.
These posts are doing a little more than providing your agitprop a space to die by a thousand cuts. Adults don't get "worked up" over taking out the trash.
If my posts are just "trash" to you, it's curious that you're making this effort trying to take them out—seems like the only thing dying by a thousand cuts is your own argument. Best of luck to you, friend.
So you're fine with Trump. Got it.
I'm dissatisfied with both.
So let me get this straight—you think a staunch socialist like me is somehow in bed with Trump? That’s laughable, and it just shows how deeply the duopoly has warped people's thinking.
I’m not even voting for Stein; I’m actually now casting my vote for a true socialist candidate.
But I still support Stein’s fight to break the stranglehold the Democrats and Republicans have on this country. It's amusing, really, how much people panic when someone dares to challenge the status quo.
The fact that you're so worked up proves just how terrified the establishment is of real change.
That's a lot of words to say you're fine with Trump winning and you're not planning on opposing him.
"You're fine with Trump winning"
No, I am not fine with either candidate winning
Well guess what. One of them will win.
OK cool then I don't need to bother
If you're not going to do anything, then your opinions don't matter.
Until they put "none of the above" on a ballot, inaction is my only option.
Lol you can't comprehended that I wouldn't want to vote for your stupid lame political party
The vast majority of us don’t either we just live in the real world, and understand that the only productive options are vote for the best chance to defeat outright christofascism and then try to fix things or violent direct action to remake society and prevent its decent into christofascim. Anything else is a pointless circlejerk given the timescale we have and circumstances we’re in.
By all means lead the way on direct action, I look forward to news of your fight
Oh, I think it's quite productive not to show up. I look forward to the day that a majority of eligible voters stay home.
Ah, the classic tactic of distorting words to fit your narrative.
Let me be clear: my opposition isn’t just to one man, but to the entire corrupt system that gives us this false choice between two heads of the same capitalist beast. I’m not “fine” with Trump or any other servant of the ruling class.
I’m fighting for a revolution, for real change that terrifies people like you who are so desperate to keep the duopoly intact that you’ll twist anything to defend it. You want to talk about “opposing” something? I’m opposing the whole damn rigged game, not just one of its rotten players.
It's not a false choice. It's reality. You can either choose to oppose Trump or you can decide it's fine.
To be clear, I'm in a red state that has been directly impacted by Trump's judicial picks and his MAGA extremism. I take personal offense against me and my family when people don't do the bare minimum to keep Trump out of power.
The classic Democrat argument: But that other guy!
No useful policy proposal for me to get excited about, no promise of material improvement in my life. Just "They're worse!"
You can take all the offense you want, but let me be clear: I’m not voting for Harris, and I sure as hell won’t be voting for Trump.
The real false choice here is being forced to pick between two faces of the same oppressive system.
And for the record, as I have said, I am not even voting for Jill Stein. I’ve shifted my support to a more socialist candidate, Rachele Fruit, because I refuse to be bullied into backing a duopoly that keeps the working class in chains.
If you think doing the bare minimum is enough to stop Trump, then you’ve already surrendered to the system that put him there.
If you're not doing the bare minimum, your opinion literally does not matter.
Also, nobody said bare minimum is enough. It's the bare minimum, by definition.
If you're content with doing just the bare minimum, then you're settling for a system that barely works for the people. Real change demands more than just the basics; it requires a fight, a push beyond what's convenient or easy.
Nobody said to ONLY do the bare minimum. I said you're doing less than the bare minimum.
I'm thinking you're being intentionally dense.
If pushing for real change beyond the bare minimum makes me "dense," then I'll wear that label proudly.
I voted for Stein in 2016. Yeah, I’ve learned my lesson.
I’ll vote for anyone but democrats or republicans in any election where they have a chance. I’m a leftist and I want change just short of taking up arms and making it happen. I know which elections I’m beaten though and I will vote for an undesirable option to hope that I avoid the absolute worst option.
I get where you’re coming from, and I respect your perspective. But for me, I don’t cast my vote out of fear of what the other party might do—I vote for the party that aligns with my values, even if it’s not the “safe” choice.
I believe in supporting candidates who push for the change I want to see, even if they face long odds. Compromise has its place, but I’d rather stand firm in my principles than settle for the lesser of two evils.
I feel the same but my morals won’t let me enjoy my loved ones being hurt by the greater of two evils.
Morals are for grassroots, organizing, etc. They’re not for waiting until a general election.
I respect your decision and understand where you're coming from, but I’m choosing to vote differently.
We each have to follow our own convictions when it comes to these things, friend.
I believe in supporting candidates who push for the change I want to see...
That will be a cool thing to tell everyone when donnie's goons are rounding people up for the "reeducation camps".
I'm not scared of Trump. And I'm not voting for him. And I'm not voting for your candidate either.
Your most telling comment yet. You're not scared of someone who has shown that he will destroy any bit of progress the United States has made in the past 50 years and will take any, and we do see any, measure to seize power, illegally or not, because he is a textbook fascist. You aren't afraid of Donald Trump, because you fully support and embrace his brand of fascism. This veneer of "socialism" you're lying about is razor thin. Zero people believe it. Maybe you'd have better luck with your canvassing on Facebook?
You accuse me of backing fascism, yet it’s you who defends a corrupt duopoly that keeps the people chained! I don’t fear Trump because I refuse to cower before the choices the ruling class hands us.
And it's not my job to convince you of anything. If you’re getting worked up over a news article I didn’t even write, that’s your problem.
I posted an article that's already widely available on a much bigger platform than Lemmy. I didn’t write it or create the content. It's already out there for anyone to see, so all I did was share it here for discussion. 'm under no obligation to prove anything to you. I’ll share my opinion, and you can take it or leave it. Either way, not my problem.
defends a corrupt duopoly that keeps the people chained
Ah yes abstract vagaries, which are so much more important than the real people you will kill and the lives you'll destroy if you elect trump.
Your desperation to throw around accusations just proves how terrified you are of any challenge to the duopoly. It’s becoming clear that you’re the one secretly pushing for Trump, hiding behind fear-mongering while trying to sow confusion and division.
trying to sow confusion and division.
Did you copy paste this from your CV?
I posted an article that's already widely available on a much bigger platform than Lemmy. I didn’t write it or create the content. It's already out there for anyone to see, so all I did was share it here for discussion. If you disagree with the article itself, that's fine, but calling for it to be censored or accusing me of pushing an agenda simply because it's not what you want to read is misguided and lazy. Open debate requires different perspectives, not shutting down content you don't like.
Stein is not ever going to win the presidency and her running is an active campaign for Trump, full stop. If the Green Party was a serious political entity they would be running down ballot candidates before just running one charlatan for president.
That being said; this is a Newsweek article so I question any validity to it. I have been asked to respond to a poll if I would be voting for Harris and I actively chose not to because I didn’t like the sassy bullshit language used in the text. Polls are useless bullshit.
I personally don't think that Jill Stein’s campaign is an endorsement of Trump at all; it’s a challenge to the status quo that’s kept working people down for far too long.
The Green Party’s efforts bother some people because they’re exposing the failures of a system that’s more interested in maintaining power than in real change. Dismissing her as a charlatan is just another way to silence dissent and keep the duopoly intact.
As for the polls, they might be flawed, but the frustration they reveal is very real, and it’s not going away just because you dismiss it.
She could run for a state house position, for congress, for governor. She is instead making a small amount of noise for a small amount of stupid people who think her candidacy means anything other than bleeding a small amount of votes from the candidate that actually has a chance to win in a race that is between the continuation of American democracy or its cessation.
Yes the two party system is a problem, but the presidential race is not where that problem is solved, local elections are; but there’s no way to grift people at a national level in small elections.
I agree that running for other offices could be a more impactful path. Many in the Green Party do just that and find success in local elections.
This is the reality.
Keep talking about stein being “labeled” while everyone else is talking about the reality of her actions…
She sits with Putin, she doesn’t get elected, and multiple times she only just spoils elections.
You want to attack a “duopoly” but what has Jill Stein done other than reenforce the worst half of that duopoly ? I mean that’s her legacy. Reinforcing the system and making it worse not moving anything in a better direction. So why keep backing that person?
I’m not voting for Stein—I’ve shifted my support to Rachele Fruit of the Socialist Workers Party, who aligns more closely with my socialist convictions.
But I still stand by Stein's efforts to shatter the stranglehold of this corrupt two-party system.
You see, the fear you harbor of someone disrupting your precious status quo speaks volumes. Stein may not have won anything major yet, but she’s rattled the cages of power, and that’s more than most are willing to do.
The legacy of fighting against the duopoly, of challenging the complacency that keeps the rich in power and the workers down, is one I’ll always support, whether it’s through Stein or anyone else who dares to defy the system.
Nah I don’t have any worries about a precious system or who or whatever glass jawed bullshit you are clinging to.
I am asking straight out, do you see her shattering anything by running in that system?
What has she done to build a ranked choice coalition? Sounds more like she just happily participates in the very system you claim she “shattered”? Jill Stein reinforces the duopoly by participating in it alongside Putin and not offering any other suggestions.
You are taking the biggest shill for the system and claiming them as a saint.
It’s curious how someone supposedly so harmless can provoke such a strong reaction. If she’s truly just a shill for the system, why do her efforts to challenge it draw so much anger?
Brother, again, I'm not personally voting for Stein. But I still support her aim to disrupt the duopoly—something that clearly has some folks rattled, despite their denials. And I have never claimed she is a saint. I'm voting socialist this year.
And let’s be clear: breaking the system isn’t about instant success but about sowing the seeds of real change, which terrifies those who cling to the status quo.
She does not. This fanaticism does. This is moronic cosplay that is so on-its-face logically flawed that it’s frankly kinda funny to explore and to just frankly keep asking you to keep talking…
So this is how we “break the system”???
By all means continue…
Your desperate attempts to dismiss genuine struggle as "moronic cosplay" only reveal your fear of real change—keep laughing while we keep trying dismantle the duopoly you cling to. I'm still not voting for your candidate. :)
Def a “struggle” is present here.
I don't know what that means. But ok, I guess?
You literally posted an article about Stein being a spoiler candidate. That's the entire point of the article, that her and the libertarian candidate could cost Harris the election. That's "spoiling" the election.
In order for a third party to win and dethrone the shitty reality of a 2 party system, that third party has to have the infrastructure of members in the house and senate so that if they win, people will work with them, and the party has to have people rally behind them. The problem right now is that there aren't third parties currently in the house or senate, Independents don't count cause there is no Independent party. And there isn't a third party candidate people are trying to rally behind. It's Jill Stein, or Cornell West, or Claudia de la Cruz, or Jasmine Sherman or others. It's never one singular candidate. In order for a third party to win, it has to be 1 candidate. And people who advocate to vote for a third party need to decide on who that 1 candidate should be. Because otherwise you're splitting your vote between multiple candidates, cutting your chances of winning significantly.
If you think a third party should rise, fine. That's understandable, the current parties have significant problems, what with one being nazis and the other not being as left as the populace would want. But unless you pick someone to advocate for and rally behind, your point is moot. You will never win.
Let me make one thing clear—I am supporting Rachele Fruit of the Socialist Workers Party because she truly aligns with my values. But I post about third parties too, because it's interesting. It's political news and this is a political news community.
But let's get something straight about Stein and others who dare to challenge the duopoly: it's not about spoiling an election, it's about pushing the boundaries of what's possible in a system designed to keep the status quo in place.
The fact that there isn’t a singular third-party candidate to rally behind is a symptom of the very problem we’re fighting against—a rigged system that stifles real alternatives.
But dismissing the efforts of multiple candidates who refuse to toe the line of the two-party stranglehold only serves to protect the very power structure that continues to fail working people.
lol you’re so insecure
lol you’re so insecure
Because I stand up for myself and defend my values?! Um, ok... lol
You don’t have values. You have copy paste rage.
I'm not angry at all though. And I've stated my values.
And I totally respect and support your right to disagree with them. Just like you support and respect my right to disagree with you, right?
You’re in it for the gotcha. This isn’t about policy, it’s about being right and trying your hardest to convince others that you are right.
Strange thing to say, coming from someone determined to protect the status quo at all costs. This isn’t about “gotcha” moments for me—it’s about exposing the truth, challenging the system, and pushing for real change.
If that makes you uncomfortable, then maybe it’s time to ask yourself why.
And this conversation has come to its expected conclusion.
Guy uses the same talking points and buzz words in each and every thread he posts. Then, he doubles down on victimizing himself and refuses to listen to anyone else's opinions. Dude is unhinged and thinks everyone is out to get him.
I'm gonna draft some bingo cards to go along with his posts.
Guy uses the same talking points and buzz words in each and every thread he posts
Because I keep getting the same questions and accusations.
Then, he doubles down on victimizing himself and refuses to listen to anyone else’s opinions.
Says the guy who has had several replies in this community removed for civility. So....
And I'm not going anywhere. This sub allows and promotes diversity of thought.
Oh look, it’s the Russian troll UM again. Go plant 🌻🌻🌻
One, I'm not even voting for Jill Stein. Two, it's against this community's guidelines and rules to call me a troll. Please stay civil if you'd like to engage in conversation with me. Thank you!
Trolling is against this community’s rules
Trolling is against this community’s rules
Yes, it is. And if you see trolling, be sure to report it. The mods here are very good about that. In fact, here's the public modlog so you can see how they do it and what they ban. Take a look: https://lemmy.world/modlog/1252
I’m sure your not voting for Jill Stein because you’re probably not a US citizen. 2) all you post are anti-Democrat posts. Odd that none of your wise criticism falls on the Republicans. Then again, posting online is much easier than being sent to the front lines! 🌻🌻🌻
I’m sure your not voting for Jill Stein
Correct. Though I support her efforts, I’ve shifted my support to Rachele Fruit of the Socialist Workers Party, who aligns more closely with my socialist convictions.
Isn’t it funny how quick you are to question my citizenship and motives while conveniently ignoring the fact that I’ve been upfront about my stance?
Sounds like you’ve got your own agenda to protect the duopoly.
I’m starting to think you’re the one backing the GOP from the shadows, desperately trying to maintain the status quo while I’m out here fighting for real change.
I see what you're trying to do. You're not fooling me at all. Comrade.
I mean that is their official website and I would have to assume Rachele Fruit is in support of this kind of anti-Palestinian, anti-human rights rhetoric for it to be on their front-page today? Supporting a Russian stooge like Stein was bad enough, but this… wow, this is something else.
That is their website, yes. And I am aware that is their front page, because I also subscribe to the paper they put out.
Though I don't entirely support all of her viewpoints on the Palestinian conflict, I support the other parts of her campaign enough to support her. Just as many democrats don't necessarily love all of the democratic party's view on the conflict, yet still support her.
I support the majority of her views and think she is the candidate that best aligns with my views, and as of now, she is getting my vote. But I also like Socialist presidential candidate Claudia De la Cruz, so I am reading more and more of her stuff. So I may switch to her before the election. So I actually support both of the socialist parties. As more news and information comes out, I may jump over to De la Cruz or stick with Fruit.
Interesting - so you hadn’t been posting in previous weeks that Democrats should abandon Harris over Gaza? Only to jump from a Russian stooge to someone who is significantly far more antagonistic towards the Palestinian people and their right to exist? And your response is essentially “well, of course I don’t support ALL of the SWP’s beliefs.”
Bravo, my friend. That’s quite the political pretzel you’ve turned yourself into.
Interesting - so you hadn’t been posting in previous weeks that Democrats should abandon Harris over Gaza?
Have I ever personally said that? Many articles say that, but I didn't write the articles. Many posters say that, and I may agree with them or support and respect their right to that opinion, but have I ever said people should abandon Harris "just because of Gaza?"
And I also support De la Cruz who is very very adamant about the Palestinian conflict.
I update my opinions as I learn more things. As most educated people do. And even tho I am no longer voting for Jill Stein, I still support and respect her efforts and I don't think she is a russian stooge.
Bruh, I posted a political news article to this political news community. I am interested in third parties, and have posted news about several different third parties in here and other communities. I have never hid that fact. Ever.
In fact, I created and mod a community called "Third Party News."
And I created and mod a community called "Green Party."
And I created and mod a community called "Socialist."
What "political pretzel" do you think I have created?! lol
I mean yes, either directly or indirectly. From just two days ago you said that Harris’ approach was no different than Trump’s desire to nuke Gaza.
“both indifferent to the real suffering they cause”
And here you are now supporting someone actually worse than both Trump and Harris on the issue you were so passionate about two days ago.
And that was just after 10 seconds spent searching. We both know there’s lots more out there.
And I still haven't changed my opinion on that point, and I said I don't agree with Fruit's view on that particular subject. So I still am not seeing what point you're trying to make.
So Dems should abandon Harris because of her stance on Gaza…in order to back a candidate like Fruit who has a much worse stance on Gaza? Do you not see the disconnect?
That article is from 2020. I have not heard her comments on that.
And I interpret the article as author asserting that these initiatives distract from the true history of class struggle in the U.S., where Black and white workers need to unite to fight for civil rights and economic justice. The article implies that the ruling class uses these programs to maintain power and suppress potential working-class unity, which is essential for challenging capitalist exploitation and achieving true social change. The article supports Black rights, but it does so from a class-based perspective.
It emphasizes that true progress for Black people, as well as for all working-class people, comes from unity and solidarity in class struggle rather than from programs that emphasize racial divisions.
The Socialist Workers Party (SWP) has a history of supporting Black rights and advocating for racial equality as part of its broader struggle for socialism and workers' rights. The SWP has consistently emphasized the importance of solidarity between Black workers and the broader working class, seeing the fight against racism as integral to the fight against capitalism.
Historically, the SWP has been involved in civil rights movements and has supported efforts to combat racial discrimination and segregation. The party was active in supporting the civil rights movement in the 1960s, including working with leaders like Malcolm X and supporting initiatives like the Freedom Rides and the March on Washington.
The SWP has always viewed racism as a tool used by the capitalist class to divide workers and weaken their collective power. Therefore, the party advocates for the unity of workers across racial lines and believes that the liberation of Black people is crucial to the liberation of all workers. This perspective aligns with their broader goal of overthrowing capitalism and establishing a socialist society where all forms of exploitation and oppression are eradicated.
Friend, you can go through every single back issue of that magazine trying to prove some point, but I am literally reading the "Malcom X, Black LIberation, and the Road to Workers Power" book by Jack Barnes on my break from yardwork today. It was published by the Socialist Workers Party publishing arm, Pathfinder Press. And I bought the book from the SWP website. I got it in the mail yesterday with another book I ordered from them. lol
I know it doesn't fit the narrative you have of me.
You hated me for voting for Jill Stein. Now you'll hate me for voting Socialist. I have a feeling, nothing is gonna change your mind. And why? Because I'm not voting for your candidate.
And guess what, I'm STILL not gonna vote for you candidate. Your "Gotcha!" moment isn't happening.
I have also posted information about Fruit and MANY articles from the website you are talking about in my socialist community: https://lemmy.world/c/socialist
I haven't hidden any of my views. They are all right there.
When the left most available candidate isn't perfect:
📣📣📣📣
when the christiofascist nationalist compromised felon is in office:
🦗🦗🦗🦗
I hate to break it to you, there will always be threats like Trump and never a time good enough for liberals to vote third party.
Absolutely not. If trump was someone like mitt Romney or John McCain, half the issues about him disappear. ( Being compromised by Russia, being a felon, being an insurrectionist) mind, I'm not a republican and still wouldn't be happy about those candidates.
That said, the point of my comment is that green party voters smell funny, as if they have more interest in kneecapping a Democrat rather than avoiding a republican. I wonder why.
They aren't kneecapping Dems. Dems do it themselves, not delivering for working class/poor people. I don't see it as Dems losing out on votes. They never had those votes to begin with. Greens would just not vote at all. Idk where the idea of so much overlap comes from.
If you're more concerned with shutting down third-party voices than holding the system accountable, then maybe it's time to ask yourself who you're really fighting for.
In 2024, in this election, I am exclusively seeking to keep trump out of the Whitehouse. Any viable, competitive candidate that is not trump is an acceptable alternative.
Emphasis on competitive. If the candidate is more interesting, but less competitive than Harris, then they're out, as their discussion only risks trump.
Rejection of the duopoly is academically interesting, but cannot be brought about in a presidential election. It requires campaign finance reform, voting reform (no more FPTP), and judicial reform. None of those are available to stein or Harris between now and November.
Edit third party enjoyers would do well to focus their efforts on bringing about proportional representation, or similar, as a vehicle to platform their candidates such that they can effectively act on their positions.
I get where you're coming from, and I respect your decision to vote for whoever you want.
But I won't be voting for Harris or Trump.
For me, rejecting the duopoly isn't just academically interesting—it's a necessary step toward real change, even if it's not the popular choice in this election.
It's not the popularity I take issue with, it's the viability.
To use an abstract example:
Ballot: reduce the reliance on cars for transport.
"Academic": teleporter research.
"Pragmatic/viable": more bus.
Sure, teleporters would be great, but in November of 2024 it's not realistic.
Further, focusing on teleporters may allow the opposite of the goal of the ballot initiative to occur, and an increasing reliance on cars may be brought about by opponents.
To head this off because we've done this before:
I'm aware teleporters aren't real. I'm aware this thread isn't about transit. This is a hypothetical example to discuss the point using a different medium.
Edit To put a point on it: a third party vote does 0% to impact the duopoly. It is irrelevant to the situation, which is actually changed via the topics I mentioned in an earlier comment. It can only distort which of the duo parties succeed.
If we never push for bold change, we’ll be stuck with the same tired solutions that maintain the status quo.
Completely agree.
A presidential ballot is not the place for that though. It's like wishing you had a different airplane, when you're already coming in for landing. You're already committed.
But if we don’t push for bold change now, we’ll never get off the ground in the first place. Settling for what’s already in motion only ensures that the landing strip stays the same, election after election.
The point is to make changes before takeoff, to continue the example.
Grassroots positions. Down ballot posts. Judicial reform. Be planning for elections in the 2030's.
The effort to establish viable 3rd party candidates now, started years ago. It unfortunately failed. Those candidates did not achieve viability in 2024, and therefore don't exist, for practical purposes. To circle back, they especially don't exist if the goal is to keep trump out of office, which I stated was mine.
I can't understand how others don't share that goal, due to his wild, right wing plans that are an order of magnitude worse than harris' positions. Especially for disenfranchised minority groups, not even starting on the basics of governmental integrity.
If 3rd party groups spent their energy deplatforming conservatives then we would all have greater harmony, and third party platforms would find more space for their voice. Instead they make primary enemies with democrats, their nearest neighbors, and then wonder why the DNC and popular democrats shun them at every opportunity.
I agree that building a viable third party should start from the ground up, focusing on grassroots positions and down-ballot posts. However, the reality is that change isn't linear and doesn't always follow a neat timeline. While the efforts to establish viable third-party candidates for 2024 may not have achieved widespread success, it doesn't mean the push for alternatives should be abandoned or ridiculed.
Regarding Trump, I don’t deny the dangers his return poses, particularly to disenfranchised groups. However, this isn't just about Trump; it’s about the systemic issues that allow figures like him to gain power in the first place.
If third-party efforts only focused on deplatforming conservatives, they would risk becoming just another arm of the duopoly, which itself has consistently failed to bring about meaningful change for working people. The real challenge is not just to oppose one party or candidate but to break the cycle that leaves voters feeling trapped between two unsatisfactory choices.
This is incredibly naiive and counterproductive.
Listen to these people.
Listen to these people.
Nah, I won’t be taking advice from those who are desperate to keep the capitalist duopoly in power.
Their insistence on maintaining the status quo only proves how threatened they are by the real change we’re fighting for.
You're deeply misrepresenting the position. We're not desperate to keep the duopoly. We're desperate to keep it from collapsing into a dictatorship, and you're over there trying to kick its legs off.
If the system is so fragile that it risks collapsing into a dictatorship, then it's already broken beyond repair. So I refuse to help the duopoly even more.
Nonsense. If you work outside of the system that exists, you won't ever make meaningful change on that system. You'll only ever make it harder for the people who have accepted reality and are working from within the system to change it. You can't do that from the outside short of a full catastrophic collapse, no matter how much noise you make.
The real nonsense is believing that change can only come from within a corrupt and broken system.
History shows us that real progress has often come from those who challenged the system from the outside, refusing to accept the crumbs offered by those in power.
I’m not here to wait for “catastrophic collapse” but to push for the kind of meaningful change that the establishment fears.
If working from within has been so effective, why are we still stuck with the same old problems?
How is voting third party going to change the two major parties or defeat the duopoly? At best one of the parties will move slightly more toward your positions, but they won't move so far that they lose voters who support them precariously but think your positions stink.
They also have to factor in that no matter how much they bend you will vote third party anyway because they didn't match what you're looking for exactly.
Voting third party is about more than just influencing the two major parties; it's about breaking free from the stranglehold they have on our democracy.
If we never support alternatives, we’re only reinforcing the status quo, ensuring that real change never has a chance to take root.
The duopoly thrives on the idea that they’re the only options—by voting third party, we challenge that narrative and lay the groundwork for a more diverse and representative political landscape.
Idealism kills.
Complacency kills more.
Well then, you are part of the problem. It's a cliche, but it's no less true in this case.
If challenging the status quo and fighting for real change makes me part of the problem, then I proudly accept that label. I'd rather be a "problem" for the establishment than blindly follow a system that perpetuates injustice.
Change for Presidential elections won't come from who you vote for President, it comes from the down-ballot voting for the Congressional and lower positions that could do these changes. That's where you should put more diversity into where you want your issues to change dramatically. Voting for a third party for President while the system only supports two parties is a waste of effort for the cause, especially if those votes help the one side that would crush any change from the more progressive Congress you try to get in. You have to work within the constraints your given, even if they are too tight sometimes.
The idea that change only happens down-ballot is the same old excuse that keeps the stranglehold of the two-party system unchallenged. Sure, down-ballot voting matters, but don’t be fooled into thinking that’s where our fight ends. Voting for a third-party candidate, especially at the top, is a bold declaration that we’re done being shackled by a system rigged for just two parties. If we keep playing by their rules, we’ll stay trapped in their game. This isn’t about wasting our energy; it’s about breaking the chains and demanding a political system that represents all of us, not just the interests of the powerful few.
I'm saying the election system process itself can't be changed by the President, but by Congress. A Democrat/Progressive heavy Congress with a Republican President, especially someone who is trying to change things to be more dictatorship, won't be able to do shit. Likewise, any President of any party who wants things to change won't be able to do it without a functional Congress.
I want more variety in the choices too, but that mathematically won't happen with a FPTP system. No matter how often it's tried. Repeating things over and over expecting different results with the same mechanics is a definition of something...
We have different opinions. I'm proudly voting third party.
In this case it's not who you're fighting for. It's what arena you're fighting in. We're fighting in reality. You're fighting in an imaginary storybook world.
If fighting for a better future and challenging a broken system is "imaginary," then maybe it's time we all start reimagining what's possible. Reality changes when enough people refuse to accept the status quo.
What's the goal for Jill Stein? Climate change initiatives? Liberals are fighting in the trenches to make change while she's giving lipservice.
Policy making isn't easy, democracy is slow. Holding the Democratic Party hostage to force them to do something they already want just hurts the cause.
Her goal is to advance Putin’s interests, of course. OP knows this. He’s just fucking about because that’s his job.
How is that my "job"? I didn't write the article. You know that, right?
Your reading comprehension is quite poor, Ivan.
It's actually Karl, thanks.
I actually lean more socialist than green, but I think the goal for Jill Stein is to push for more urgent and comprehensive action on issues like climate change, healthcare, and social justice—things that many feel aren't being addressed quickly or effectively enough by the Democratic Party.
I agree that policy-making is slow and democracy can be messy, supporting third-party candidates is about pushing the conversation further and holding all parties accountable to the people.
The duopoly has had countless chances with both Democrats and Republicans taking turns in power, yet they haven’t made the necessary changes. It’s not about hurting the cause; it’s about ending the cycle of inaction and ensuring the issues we care about don’t get sidelined.
Well, Republicans are actively opposed to those things. And Democrats need enough support to enact those things.
It's frustrating for Dems too. And it's more frustrating when people like Jill Stein make it harder. She should join the party instead of fighting it. But I guess this makes her feel better. She can dislike the system, but things are going to get worse if Republicans win. Just like things got worse in 2016.
It’s easy to see why it’s frustrating, but frustration isn’t a reason to surrender to a broken system.
Jill Stein, like many of us, refuses to be another cog in a machine that perpetuates inequality and injustice. Joining a party that continually lets down the very people it claims to represent isn’t the solution—it’s the problem.
Things got worse in 2016 because the Democrats failed to inspire real change, and repeating the same failed strategy won’t protect us from the Republicans or bring about the progress we desperately need.
Frustration isn't a reason to give in to a fantasy.
You want a party that will support those initiatives? You have one. It's the Democratic Party. If they don't have enough support now to get that shit done, they're definitely not going to when Republicans take over.
You may not like it, but Dems (specifically liberals and progressives) need more power to enact real change. If you're working against that, you're working against your own goals to make yourself feel better.
The Democratic Party has had its chances, time and time again, and what do we have to show for it? More of the same—a system that props up the wealthy, ignores the working class, and perpetuates endless wars.
If you think more power to the Democrats is the answer, you’re clinging to a fantasy of your own.
Real change doesn’t come from begging the duopoly for scraps; it comes from breaking their stranglehold and fighting for a system that truly represents the people.
The duopoly does represent the people. People suck sometimes. The Democratic Party is the method for people like her to push change. The Democratic Party gives her cause MORE power by consolidating efforts
If there was overwhelming support, even just among liberals, Bernie would have won in 2016 or 2020.
The duopoly only represents the people as long as it keeps them divided and powerless. Consolidating efforts under the Democratic Party has proven time and again to dilute true progressive change, not empower it.
If there was overwhelming support for the establishment, Bernie wouldn’t have faced the massive resistance from within his own party that he did in 2016 and 2020.
And for the record, I liked Bernie and was prepared to vote for him.
That’s the plan, of course.
As long as the duopoly is scared and angry, then an impact is being made.
Seems to me the useful idiots are the ones who are scared and angry.
Well, I certainly agree that there are many idiots who are scared and angry. Some useful. Some not.
He's talking about you, dingus.
He’s talking about you, dingus.
Getting personal and directly calling people names is against the civility rule of this sub. Rule number 3. Please keep your comments civil, so that we can keep this community awesome.
Relax. It's not even an insult.
Oh so you totally meant it as a compliment then? Totally not belitting me or my comments, right? You were just being friendly. Right?
Right?!
🙄
Keep victimizing yourself. This is why no one takes you seriously here.
I’ve never claimed to be a victim, nor have I implied it. My focus is on challenging the status quo, not playing into your narrative.
Chase Oliver is getting some of the lowest poll numbers of any recent Libertarian nominees and that's saying something.
If Chase Oliver costs anyone an election, that campaign fucked up severely.
If he costs someone the election, it means the election was very close. That's all.
Agreed!
OP ain't beating the allegations with this thread... Never seen so much blue in the replies. Seems their primary goal is baiting people into bans. Major hallway monitor energy.
Yes, it does seem clear that there are folks here just trying to bait me, but I’m not biting. I’ll keep standing up for what I believe in, even if it’s unpopular. :)
I feel like you've got a lot in common with Terrence Howard. Confidence galore without the basic math skills to know you're objectively misguided. Insulting people doesn't change any minds, but neither does coddling them, pretending they have a point.
nsulting people doesn’t change any minds, but neither does coddling them, pretending they have a point.
Are you implying that I have insulted someone? If so, please let me know or show me a sample. I, on the other hand, get insulted and called names on here daily. But I haven't called anyone names. So I'm not sure what you mean.
It was a description of how calling you names won't change your mind, but neither does pretending that you have a point. You've clearly turtled up because people insult you on here, but consider how else someone is supposed to get through to you when the answer of why you're wrong is incredibly simple? You're completely walled off from reality.
You’ve clearly turtled up because people insult you on here
Nah, I don't mind the insults, but it was really just the same comments and insults over and over with many of the same people. So those people know my reasoning by now.
Funny you mention the insults tho, because when I mention I get insulted on here, I get lots of comments and variations of, "Oh you are just crying victim. No one is insulting you." Um....
I mean, how many responses can I possibly have for "So you want Trump to win! Admit it!" or "You're not even American, you're russian. Admit it!!" lol Tho to be honest, as much as I argue with those guys, you'd think they'd realize that if I wanted Trump to win, I'd happily admit it on here. That would drive them crazy!
And why do I get all this hate? Because I post an article—just an article—from widely-read sites that get way more traffic than Lemmy. I didn’t write it, edit it, or produce it. Yet suddenly, I’m labeled a Trump supporter. Think about that logic for a second. Think about the level of censorship people are pushing for here. They don’t want certain news articles to be seen. Seriously, let that sink in.
You’re completely walled off from reality.
Why? Because i am still voting for third party?! I mean, it's not really that deep. I'm voting for my values, and I'm not scared of Trump. I won't vote out of fear. As I said many times, I respect and support your right to vote how you wish. I deserve that same respect.
Half of the entire country is not voting for Harris. Does that mean that every single one of them is "walled off from reality"? Is every single person that's not voting for Harris a fascist?! Is every single person that's not voting for Harris just clueless? All those millions of people are just ignorant and insane?
Nearly all of my critics here on Lemmy would answer "yes" to those questions. The Democrats on this platform have become just as self-righteous, if not more so, than the very Republicans they accuse of the same behavior.
So no, I'm not "walled off from reality" and I'm not Terrance Howard. I simply am voting for who I want to, and not voting for how I don't want to. Yes, it's really that simple. I don't like Harris. I don't like Trump. So I'm not voting for either one of them. I don't care how ignorant you think I am or walled from reality I am, etc.
I've been alive for longer than most Lemmys have been able to vote. I've seen what can be done, and what ISN'T being done. By both parties. And guess what? So have many others.
You all can keep voting out of fear. It's totally within your rights. I won't.
"I'm voting for my values, and I'm not scared of Trump. I won't vote out of fear." This is the epitome of privilege, and why people dislike you. I think that warrants more introspection.
[Pause for introspection]
Do other people have things to fear about his idealogy? How precisely do you suggest that they deal with that risk? If you don't fear him and what he'll do to you, and you don't care what he'll do to other people who don't deserve it enough to lift a finger, or put your purity politics aside, then you are selfish and idiologically unfit for the 2 party system that we currently live in. A based person with your ideals would vote for what's better based on the system we have rather than the system they want, and then lobby, call, donate, and canvas for system that they want.
So we arrive at two options, either you are a sociopath who doesn't understand why letting bad things happen to other people is bad, or you're incredibly uninformed about the ramnifications of your actions whether purposefully or unintentionally... or you're an AI bot wasting everyone's time being fed prompts by some shithead Jimmy Dore type. It doesn't really matter because the explanation has been given to you dozens of times and you some how read enough to respond to it all and then completely miss the point about other people being important, not just yourself. Anti-social bellyaching isn't going to get you any praise online in largely progressive circles.
This is the epitome of privilege, and why people dislike you
Because I don't live my life in fear?!
either you are a sociopath
You realize almost half of the country is voting for him, right? Are they ALL sociopaths?!
Anti-social bellyaching isn’t going to get you any praise online in largely progressive circles.
I'm not anti-social, I actually have a very full life. And I'm not looking for praise online. Dude, i posted a news article. I didn't write it. So do you think this community should censor/remove articles that are about third parties?! If so, message the mods.
"Living in fear" is very different from the reality of what you argue for, which is "being apathetic to those who will suffer from the consequences of my actions"
You quoted me saying either and then didn't include the other possibility lol... Yes, Trump voters all fit into one of those two categories, making you not much different.
Never said you didn't live a full life, wanted praise, that you wrote the article, or that the community should censor you. Being selfish is antisocial, and you spend your whole time in here complaining that you get downvoted, dismissed wholehearted, ridiculed, interspersed with missing everyone's points about why something is empathetic to do, and why what you spread isn't. I don't think you do any of that for praise, I think you either don't have fully functional empathy or you're too into weeds to find your way out through logic. I don't believe you can logic anyone out of a belief if they didn't logic their way into it and so the way they lurch back to their original nonsense is always more telling than the nonsense itself.
being apathetic to those who will suffer from the consequences of my actions”
I said I am not afraid of Trump. I stand by what I said.
Yes, Trump voters all fit into one of those two categories, making you not much different.
If you feel half the entire country are sociopaths, well...good luck.
I think you either don’t have fully functional empathy or you’re too into weeds to find your way out through logic.
Or maybe, just maybe, I don't agree with you. Could just be that simple.
I support and respect your right to vote for who you wish, please respect mine. Thank you!
Your post history is damning. It doesn't absolve you of anything at all.
You're pathetically apathetic, not fearful, congrats.
That's not what I said. You ironically refuse the existence of the other category, lol. Freudian inspiration for that?
Your post history shows exactly what I said.
That was obvious from the get-go, but now that you've demonstrated evidence for why you act the way you do, it's no longer interesting.
You’re pathetically apathetic, not fearful, congrats.
That's exactly what the duopoly wants you to think. They want you to be afraid of the "other side." You're free to feel that way. I don't.
Your post history shows exactly what I said.
That I post mostly socialist articles to the socialist communities? I don't remember you saying that, but if you did, then yay!
That was obvious from the get-go, but now that you’ve demonstrated evidence for why you act the way you do, it’s no longer interesting.
K, and if you are really annoyed by me, feel free to block me too. Thank you!
All Harris needs to do is show just one lousy photon of daylight between her and Biden on this. She won't. Netanyahu dictates US foreign policy.
How do we interfere in Israeli elections? It seems that the easiest way to bring about change in the US is to change our politicians' owners.
Oh, great. So taking that all the way through, our punishment shall be the destruction of the US by the psychopath convicted felon? Not on my watch buddy.
The real punishment is continuing to prop up a broken system that fails the people, only to keep out one monster while letting another thrive.
If you truly want to prevent the rise of a psychopath, start by dismantling the structures that allow them to exist in the first place. Ignoring the rot at the core will only bring more destruction in the long run.
Accepting and voting for the Duopoly you seem to worship so much? Not on my watch, buddy.
::: spoiler Newsweek - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)
Information for Newsweek:
MBFC: Right-Center - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: Mostly Factual - United States of America Wikipedia about this source
:::
She should lean harder into supporting the genocide. That'll help.
How much harder can Stein lean into supporting it? She's doing everything she can to get Trump elected.
She’s doing everything she can to get Trump elected.
It's ironic you accuse Stein of working to elect Trump when it's the very establishment you defend that paved the way for him in the first place.
If you're so worried about Trump, maybe it's time to look in the mirror and ask why the so-called "opposition" has failed to inspire real hope and unity among the people.
That’s pretty much the job of a spoiler candidate. It’s always fun to see where the money's coming from too.
Oh! Another tired old "spoiler" accusation—it's the anthem of those too frightened to face the truth of their crumbling duopoly.
You dismiss Stein as a mere spoiler, yet seems you guys cry at the thought of her rising in the polls, threatening the power of the status quo you so dearly cling to.
It’s no surprise you bring up money—it’s the lifeblood of the corrupt duopoly system you defend.
Keep watching, friend. The winds of change are blowing, and no amount of slander will stop it. People are growing tired of the duopoly.
The problem with your statement is stein will never rise in the polls enough to threaten the duopoly. The best they can do is distract. If they really wanted change they would ignore presidential races and push for different voting methods down ballot.
If Stein and others like her will never rise enough to threaten the duopoly, then why the fury over her running?
The very anger people have shows the fear that the two-headed monster feels when its grip is challenged, even if only by a small percentage.
As a socialist, I stand with her efforts because every voice that speaks out against the status quo helps crack the foundation of this corrupt system.
If the duopoly had done its job, there wouldn't be such a demand for alternatives. The fact that they haven't is exactly why we need voices like Stein's pushing back, whether it's in the presidential race or down ballot.
There’s no fury. Just occasional commentary. Stein is barely a footnote because she doesn’t do anything to fix the problems you’re bringing up.
The replies and responses to this article sure does suggest that some folks might be more scared than they’re willing to admit. People don’t get this worked up over something they truly believe is irrelevant.
No, people just disagree with you, chump. Not everything is a fucking conspiracy.
And I respect and support their right to disagree with me. As you respect and support my right to disagree with them, right?
Also, please refrain from personal name-calling and lets keep this civil. There are civility rules in this community for a reason. Do you really have to call someone negative names to get your point across?
Here we go again with the victimization
It's not victimization to let someone know that they don't have to resort to name-calling, friend. I'm not a mod here, I didn't come up with the civility rule. If you have a problem with that rule or the mods, feel free to reach out to them with your concerns.
There’s no fury. Just occasional commentary. Stein is barely a footnote because she doesn’t do anything to fix the problems you’re bringing up.
The replies and responses to this article sure does suggest that some folks might be more scared than they're willing to admit. People don’t get this worked up over something they truly believe is irrelevant.
These posts are doing a little more than providing your agitprop a space to die by a thousand cuts. Adults don't get "worked up" over taking out the trash.
If my posts are just "trash" to you, it's curious that you're making this effort trying to take them out—seems like the only thing dying by a thousand cuts is your own argument. Best of luck to you, friend.
So you're fine with Trump. Got it.
I'm dissatisfied with both.
So let me get this straight—you think a staunch socialist like me is somehow in bed with Trump? That’s laughable, and it just shows how deeply the duopoly has warped people's thinking.
I’m not even voting for Stein; I’m actually now casting my vote for a true socialist candidate.
But I still support Stein’s fight to break the stranglehold the Democrats and Republicans have on this country. It's amusing, really, how much people panic when someone dares to challenge the status quo.
The fact that you're so worked up proves just how terrified the establishment is of real change.
That's a lot of words to say you're fine with Trump winning and you're not planning on opposing him.
"You're fine with Trump winning"
No, I am not fine with either candidate winning
Well guess what. One of them will win.
OK cool then I don't need to bother
If you're not going to do anything, then your opinions don't matter.
Until they put "none of the above" on a ballot, inaction is my only option.
Lol you can't comprehended that I wouldn't want to vote for your stupid lame political party
The vast majority of us don’t either we just live in the real world, and understand that the only productive options are vote for the best chance to defeat outright christofascism and then try to fix things or violent direct action to remake society and prevent its decent into christofascim. Anything else is a pointless circlejerk given the timescale we have and circumstances we’re in.
By all means lead the way on direct action, I look forward to news of your fight
Oh, I think it's quite productive not to show up. I look forward to the day that a majority of eligible voters stay home.
Ah, the classic tactic of distorting words to fit your narrative.
Let me be clear: my opposition isn’t just to one man, but to the entire corrupt system that gives us this false choice between two heads of the same capitalist beast. I’m not “fine” with Trump or any other servant of the ruling class.
I’m fighting for a revolution, for real change that terrifies people like you who are so desperate to keep the duopoly intact that you’ll twist anything to defend it. You want to talk about “opposing” something? I’m opposing the whole damn rigged game, not just one of its rotten players.
It's not a false choice. It's reality. You can either choose to oppose Trump or you can decide it's fine.
To be clear, I'm in a red state that has been directly impacted by Trump's judicial picks and his MAGA extremism. I take personal offense against me and my family when people don't do the bare minimum to keep Trump out of power.
The classic Democrat argument: But that other guy!
No useful policy proposal for me to get excited about, no promise of material improvement in my life. Just "They're worse!"
You can take all the offense you want, but let me be clear: I’m not voting for Harris, and I sure as hell won’t be voting for Trump.
The real false choice here is being forced to pick between two faces of the same oppressive system.
And for the record, as I have said, I am not even voting for Jill Stein. I’ve shifted my support to a more socialist candidate, Rachele Fruit, because I refuse to be bullied into backing a duopoly that keeps the working class in chains.
If you think doing the bare minimum is enough to stop Trump, then you’ve already surrendered to the system that put him there.
If you're not doing the bare minimum, your opinion literally does not matter.
Also, nobody said bare minimum is enough. It's the bare minimum, by definition.
If you're content with doing just the bare minimum, then you're settling for a system that barely works for the people. Real change demands more than just the basics; it requires a fight, a push beyond what's convenient or easy.
Nobody said to ONLY do the bare minimum. I said you're doing less than the bare minimum.
I'm thinking you're being intentionally dense.
If pushing for real change beyond the bare minimum makes me "dense," then I'll wear that label proudly.
I voted for Stein in 2016. Yeah, I’ve learned my lesson.
I’ll vote for anyone but democrats or republicans in any election where they have a chance. I’m a leftist and I want change just short of taking up arms and making it happen. I know which elections I’m beaten though and I will vote for an undesirable option to hope that I avoid the absolute worst option.
I get where you’re coming from, and I respect your perspective. But for me, I don’t cast my vote out of fear of what the other party might do—I vote for the party that aligns with my values, even if it’s not the “safe” choice.
I believe in supporting candidates who push for the change I want to see, even if they face long odds. Compromise has its place, but I’d rather stand firm in my principles than settle for the lesser of two evils.
I feel the same but my morals won’t let me enjoy my loved ones being hurt by the greater of two evils. Morals are for grassroots, organizing, etc. They’re not for waiting until a general election.
I respect your decision and understand where you're coming from, but I’m choosing to vote differently.
We each have to follow our own convictions when it comes to these things, friend.
That will be a cool thing to tell everyone when donnie's goons are rounding people up for the "reeducation camps".
I'm not scared of Trump. And I'm not voting for him. And I'm not voting for your candidate either.
Your most telling comment yet. You're not scared of someone who has shown that he will destroy any bit of progress the United States has made in the past 50 years and will take any, and we do see any, measure to seize power, illegally or not, because he is a textbook fascist. You aren't afraid of Donald Trump, because you fully support and embrace his brand of fascism. This veneer of "socialism" you're lying about is razor thin. Zero people believe it. Maybe you'd have better luck with your canvassing on Facebook?
You accuse me of backing fascism, yet it’s you who defends a corrupt duopoly that keeps the people chained! I don’t fear Trump because I refuse to cower before the choices the ruling class hands us.
And it's not my job to convince you of anything. If you’re getting worked up over a news article I didn’t even write, that’s your problem.
I posted an article that's already widely available on a much bigger platform than Lemmy. I didn’t write it or create the content. It's already out there for anyone to see, so all I did was share it here for discussion. 'm under no obligation to prove anything to you. I’ll share my opinion, and you can take it or leave it. Either way, not my problem.
Ah yes abstract vagaries, which are so much more important than the real people you will kill and the lives you'll destroy if you elect trump.
Your desperation to throw around accusations just proves how terrified you are of any challenge to the duopoly. It’s becoming clear that you’re the one secretly pushing for Trump, hiding behind fear-mongering while trying to sow confusion and division.
Did you copy paste this from your CV?
I posted an article that's already widely available on a much bigger platform than Lemmy. I didn’t write it or create the content. It's already out there for anyone to see, so all I did was share it here for discussion. If you disagree with the article itself, that's fine, but calling for it to be censored or accusing me of pushing an agenda simply because it's not what you want to read is misguided and lazy. Open debate requires different perspectives, not shutting down content you don't like.
Stein is not ever going to win the presidency and her running is an active campaign for Trump, full stop. If the Green Party was a serious political entity they would be running down ballot candidates before just running one charlatan for president.
That being said; this is a Newsweek article so I question any validity to it. I have been asked to respond to a poll if I would be voting for Harris and I actively chose not to because I didn’t like the sassy bullshit language used in the text. Polls are useless bullshit.
I personally don't think that Jill Stein’s campaign is an endorsement of Trump at all; it’s a challenge to the status quo that’s kept working people down for far too long.
The Green Party’s efforts bother some people because they’re exposing the failures of a system that’s more interested in maintaining power than in real change. Dismissing her as a charlatan is just another way to silence dissent and keep the duopoly intact.
As for the polls, they might be flawed, but the frustration they reveal is very real, and it’s not going away just because you dismiss it.
She could run for a state house position, for congress, for governor. She is instead making a small amount of noise for a small amount of stupid people who think her candidacy means anything other than bleeding a small amount of votes from the candidate that actually has a chance to win in a race that is between the continuation of American democracy or its cessation.
Yes the two party system is a problem, but the presidential race is not where that problem is solved, local elections are; but there’s no way to grift people at a national level in small elections.
I agree that running for other offices could be a more impactful path. Many in the Green Party do just that and find success in local elections.
This is the reality.
Keep talking about stein being “labeled” while everyone else is talking about the reality of her actions…
She sits with Putin, she doesn’t get elected, and multiple times she only just spoils elections.
You want to attack a “duopoly” but what has Jill Stein done other than reenforce the worst half of that duopoly ? I mean that’s her legacy. Reinforcing the system and making it worse not moving anything in a better direction. So why keep backing that person?
I’m not voting for Stein—I’ve shifted my support to Rachele Fruit of the Socialist Workers Party, who aligns more closely with my socialist convictions.
But I still stand by Stein's efforts to shatter the stranglehold of this corrupt two-party system.
You see, the fear you harbor of someone disrupting your precious status quo speaks volumes. Stein may not have won anything major yet, but she’s rattled the cages of power, and that’s more than most are willing to do.
The legacy of fighting against the duopoly, of challenging the complacency that keeps the rich in power and the workers down, is one I’ll always support, whether it’s through Stein or anyone else who dares to defy the system.
Nah I don’t have any worries about a precious system or who or whatever glass jawed bullshit you are clinging to.
I am asking straight out, do you see her shattering anything by running in that system?
What has she done to build a ranked choice coalition? Sounds more like she just happily participates in the very system you claim she “shattered”? Jill Stein reinforces the duopoly by participating in it alongside Putin and not offering any other suggestions.
You are taking the biggest shill for the system and claiming them as a saint.
It’s curious how someone supposedly so harmless can provoke such a strong reaction. If she’s truly just a shill for the system, why do her efforts to challenge it draw so much anger?
Brother, again, I'm not personally voting for Stein. But I still support her aim to disrupt the duopoly—something that clearly has some folks rattled, despite their denials. And I have never claimed she is a saint. I'm voting socialist this year.
And let’s be clear: breaking the system isn’t about instant success but about sowing the seeds of real change, which terrifies those who cling to the status quo.
She does not. This fanaticism does. This is moronic cosplay that is so on-its-face logically flawed that it’s frankly kinda funny to explore and to just frankly keep asking you to keep talking…
So this is how we “break the system”???
By all means continue…
Your desperate attempts to dismiss genuine struggle as "moronic cosplay" only reveal your fear of real change—keep laughing while we keep trying dismantle the duopoly you cling to. I'm still not voting for your candidate. :)
Def a “struggle” is present here.
I don't know what that means. But ok, I guess?
You literally posted an article about Stein being a spoiler candidate. That's the entire point of the article, that her and the libertarian candidate could cost Harris the election. That's "spoiling" the election.
In order for a third party to win and dethrone the shitty reality of a 2 party system, that third party has to have the infrastructure of members in the house and senate so that if they win, people will work with them, and the party has to have people rally behind them. The problem right now is that there aren't third parties currently in the house or senate, Independents don't count cause there is no Independent party. And there isn't a third party candidate people are trying to rally behind. It's Jill Stein, or Cornell West, or Claudia de la Cruz, or Jasmine Sherman or others. It's never one singular candidate. In order for a third party to win, it has to be 1 candidate. And people who advocate to vote for a third party need to decide on who that 1 candidate should be. Because otherwise you're splitting your vote between multiple candidates, cutting your chances of winning significantly.
If you think a third party should rise, fine. That's understandable, the current parties have significant problems, what with one being nazis and the other not being as left as the populace would want. But unless you pick someone to advocate for and rally behind, your point is moot. You will never win.
Let me make one thing clear—I am supporting Rachele Fruit of the Socialist Workers Party because she truly aligns with my values. But I post about third parties too, because it's interesting. It's political news and this is a political news community.
But let's get something straight about Stein and others who dare to challenge the duopoly: it's not about spoiling an election, it's about pushing the boundaries of what's possible in a system designed to keep the status quo in place.
The fact that there isn’t a singular third-party candidate to rally behind is a symptom of the very problem we’re fighting against—a rigged system that stifles real alternatives.
But dismissing the efforts of multiple candidates who refuse to toe the line of the two-party stranglehold only serves to protect the very power structure that continues to fail working people.
lol you’re so insecure
Because I stand up for myself and defend my values?! Um, ok... lol
You don’t have values. You have copy paste rage.
I'm not angry at all though. And I've stated my values.
And I totally respect and support your right to disagree with them. Just like you support and respect my right to disagree with you, right?
You’re in it for the gotcha. This isn’t about policy, it’s about being right and trying your hardest to convince others that you are right.
Strange thing to say, coming from someone determined to protect the status quo at all costs. This isn’t about “gotcha” moments for me—it’s about exposing the truth, challenging the system, and pushing for real change.
If that makes you uncomfortable, then maybe it’s time to ask yourself why.
And this conversation has come to its expected conclusion.
Guy uses the same talking points and buzz words in each and every thread he posts. Then, he doubles down on victimizing himself and refuses to listen to anyone else's opinions. Dude is unhinged and thinks everyone is out to get him.
I'm gonna draft some bingo cards to go along with his posts.
Because I keep getting the same questions and accusations.
Says the guy who has had several replies in this community removed for civility. So....
And I'm not going anywhere. This sub allows and promotes diversity of thought.
As long as it's civil, of course.
Ok, take care. Bye!
Oh look, it’s the Russian troll UM again. Go plant 🌻🌻🌻
One, I'm not even voting for Jill Stein. Two, it's against this community's guidelines and rules to call me a troll. Please stay civil if you'd like to engage in conversation with me. Thank you!
Trolling is against this community’s rules
Yes, it is. And if you see trolling, be sure to report it. The mods here are very good about that. In fact, here's the public modlog so you can see how they do it and what they ban. Take a look: https://lemmy.world/modlog/1252
Correct. Though I support her efforts, I’ve shifted my support to Rachele Fruit of the Socialist Workers Party, who aligns more closely with my socialist convictions.
Nope. Weird that you said that without actually looking at my post history. Let me help you: https://lemmy.world/u/UniversalMonk?page=1&sort=New&view=Posts
Isn’t it funny how quick you are to question my citizenship and motives while conveniently ignoring the fact that I’ve been upfront about my stance?
Sounds like you’ve got your own agenda to protect the duopoly.
I’m starting to think you’re the one backing the GOP from the shadows, desperately trying to maintain the status quo while I’m out here fighting for real change.
I see what you're trying to do. You're not fooling me at all. Comrade.
This Socialist Worker Party? https://themilitant.com/2024/08/24/war-on-hamas-defends-israelis-from-jew-hatred-deadly-pogroms/
I mean that is their official website and I would have to assume Rachele Fruit is in support of this kind of anti-Palestinian, anti-human rights rhetoric for it to be on their front-page today? Supporting a Russian stooge like Stein was bad enough, but this… wow, this is something else.
That is their website, yes. And I am aware that is their front page, because I also subscribe to the paper they put out.
Though I don't entirely support all of her viewpoints on the Palestinian conflict, I support the other parts of her campaign enough to support her. Just as many democrats don't necessarily love all of the democratic party's view on the conflict, yet still support her.
I support the majority of her views and think she is the candidate that best aligns with my views, and as of now, she is getting my vote. But I also like Socialist presidential candidate Claudia De la Cruz, so I am reading more and more of her stuff. So I may switch to her before the election. So I actually support both of the socialist parties. As more news and information comes out, I may jump over to De la Cruz or stick with Fruit.
Interesting - so you hadn’t been posting in previous weeks that Democrats should abandon Harris over Gaza? Only to jump from a Russian stooge to someone who is significantly far more antagonistic towards the Palestinian people and their right to exist? And your response is essentially “well, of course I don’t support ALL of the SWP’s beliefs.”
Bravo, my friend. That’s quite the political pretzel you’ve turned yourself into.
Have I ever personally said that? Many articles say that, but I didn't write the articles. Many posters say that, and I may agree with them or support and respect their right to that opinion, but have I ever said people should abandon Harris "just because of Gaza?"
And I also support De la Cruz who is very very adamant about the Palestinian conflict.
I update my opinions as I learn more things. As most educated people do. And even tho I am no longer voting for Jill Stein, I still support and respect her efforts and I don't think she is a russian stooge.
Bruh, I posted a political news article to this political news community. I am interested in third parties, and have posted news about several different third parties in here and other communities. I have never hid that fact. Ever.
In fact, I created and mod a community called "Third Party News."
And I created and mod a community called "Green Party."
And I created and mod a community called "Socialist."
What "political pretzel" do you think I have created?! lol
I mean yes, either directly or indirectly. From just two days ago you said that Harris’ approach was no different than Trump’s desire to nuke Gaza.
https://lemmy.world/comment/12085582
“both indifferent to the real suffering they cause”
And here you are now supporting someone actually worse than both Trump and Harris on the issue you were so passionate about two days ago.
And that was just after 10 seconds spent searching. We both know there’s lots more out there.
And I still haven't changed my opinion on that point, and I said I don't agree with Fruit's view on that particular subject. So I still am not seeing what point you're trying to make.
So Dems should abandon Harris because of her stance on Gaza…in order to back a candidate like Fruit who has a much worse stance on Gaza? Do you not see the disconnect?
Or perhaps you agree with the SWP’s stance on DEI programs? They seem to say that teaching about systemic racism is putting down workers? https://themilitant.com/2020/10/17/rulers-use-racial-sensitivity-programs-to-attack-working-class/
Do you line up with Fruit on that one?
That article is from 2020. I have not heard her comments on that.
And I interpret the article as author asserting that these initiatives distract from the true history of class struggle in the U.S., where Black and white workers need to unite to fight for civil rights and economic justice. The article implies that the ruling class uses these programs to maintain power and suppress potential working-class unity, which is essential for challenging capitalist exploitation and achieving true social change. The article supports Black rights, but it does so from a class-based perspective.
It emphasizes that true progress for Black people, as well as for all working-class people, comes from unity and solidarity in class struggle rather than from programs that emphasize racial divisions.
The Socialist Workers Party (SWP) has a history of supporting Black rights and advocating for racial equality as part of its broader struggle for socialism and workers' rights. The SWP has consistently emphasized the importance of solidarity between Black workers and the broader working class, seeing the fight against racism as integral to the fight against capitalism.
Historically, the SWP has been involved in civil rights movements and has supported efforts to combat racial discrimination and segregation. The party was active in supporting the civil rights movement in the 1960s, including working with leaders like Malcolm X and supporting initiatives like the Freedom Rides and the March on Washington.
The SWP has always viewed racism as a tool used by the capitalist class to divide workers and weaken their collective power. Therefore, the party advocates for the unity of workers across racial lines and believes that the liberation of Black people is crucial to the liberation of all workers. This perspective aligns with their broader goal of overthrowing capitalism and establishing a socialist society where all forms of exploitation and oppression are eradicated.
Friend, you can go through every single back issue of that magazine trying to prove some point, but I am literally reading the "Malcom X, Black LIberation, and the Road to Workers Power" book by Jack Barnes on my break from yardwork today. It was published by the Socialist Workers Party publishing arm, Pathfinder Press. And I bought the book from the SWP website. I got it in the mail yesterday with another book I ordered from them. lol
I know it doesn't fit the narrative you have of me.
You hated me for voting for Jill Stein. Now you'll hate me for voting Socialist. I have a feeling, nothing is gonna change your mind. And why? Because I'm not voting for your candidate.
And guess what, I'm STILL not gonna vote for you candidate. Your "Gotcha!" moment isn't happening.
I have also posted information about Fruit and MANY articles from the website you are talking about in my socialist community: https://lemmy.world/c/socialist
I haven't hidden any of my views. They are all right there.
3rd party voters existing in a duopoly...
When the left most available candidate isn't perfect:
📣📣📣📣
when the christiofascist nationalist compromised felon is in office:
🦗🦗🦗🦗
I hate to break it to you, there will always be threats like Trump and never a time good enough for liberals to vote third party.
Absolutely not. If trump was someone like mitt Romney or John McCain, half the issues about him disappear. ( Being compromised by Russia, being a felon, being an insurrectionist) mind, I'm not a republican and still wouldn't be happy about those candidates.
That said, the point of my comment is that green party voters smell funny, as if they have more interest in kneecapping a Democrat rather than avoiding a republican. I wonder why.
They aren't kneecapping Dems. Dems do it themselves, not delivering for working class/poor people. I don't see it as Dems losing out on votes. They never had those votes to begin with. Greens would just not vote at all. Idk where the idea of so much overlap comes from.
If you're more concerned with shutting down third-party voices than holding the system accountable, then maybe it's time to ask yourself who you're really fighting for.
In 2024, in this election, I am exclusively seeking to keep trump out of the Whitehouse. Any viable, competitive candidate that is not trump is an acceptable alternative.
Emphasis on competitive. If the candidate is more interesting, but less competitive than Harris, then they're out, as their discussion only risks trump.
Rejection of the duopoly is academically interesting, but cannot be brought about in a presidential election. It requires campaign finance reform, voting reform (no more FPTP), and judicial reform. None of those are available to stein or Harris between now and November.
Edit third party enjoyers would do well to focus their efforts on bringing about proportional representation, or similar, as a vehicle to platform their candidates such that they can effectively act on their positions.
I get where you're coming from, and I respect your decision to vote for whoever you want.
But I won't be voting for Harris or Trump.
For me, rejecting the duopoly isn't just academically interesting—it's a necessary step toward real change, even if it's not the popular choice in this election.
It's not the popularity I take issue with, it's the viability.
To use an abstract example:
Ballot: reduce the reliance on cars for transport.
"Academic": teleporter research.
"Pragmatic/viable": more bus.
Sure, teleporters would be great, but in November of 2024 it's not realistic.
Further, focusing on teleporters may allow the opposite of the goal of the ballot initiative to occur, and an increasing reliance on cars may be brought about by opponents.
To head this off because we've done this before:
I'm aware teleporters aren't real. I'm aware this thread isn't about transit. This is a hypothetical example to discuss the point using a different medium.
Edit To put a point on it: a third party vote does 0% to impact the duopoly. It is irrelevant to the situation, which is actually changed via the topics I mentioned in an earlier comment. It can only distort which of the duo parties succeed.
If we never push for bold change, we’ll be stuck with the same tired solutions that maintain the status quo.
Completely agree.
A presidential ballot is not the place for that though. It's like wishing you had a different airplane, when you're already coming in for landing. You're already committed.
But if we don’t push for bold change now, we’ll never get off the ground in the first place. Settling for what’s already in motion only ensures that the landing strip stays the same, election after election.
The point is to make changes before takeoff, to continue the example.
Grassroots positions. Down ballot posts. Judicial reform. Be planning for elections in the 2030's.
The effort to establish viable 3rd party candidates now, started years ago. It unfortunately failed. Those candidates did not achieve viability in 2024, and therefore don't exist, for practical purposes. To circle back, they especially don't exist if the goal is to keep trump out of office, which I stated was mine.
I can't understand how others don't share that goal, due to his wild, right wing plans that are an order of magnitude worse than harris' positions. Especially for disenfranchised minority groups, not even starting on the basics of governmental integrity.
If 3rd party groups spent their energy deplatforming conservatives then we would all have greater harmony, and third party platforms would find more space for their voice. Instead they make primary enemies with democrats, their nearest neighbors, and then wonder why the DNC and popular democrats shun them at every opportunity.
I agree that building a viable third party should start from the ground up, focusing on grassroots positions and down-ballot posts. However, the reality is that change isn't linear and doesn't always follow a neat timeline. While the efforts to establish viable third-party candidates for 2024 may not have achieved widespread success, it doesn't mean the push for alternatives should be abandoned or ridiculed.
Regarding Trump, I don’t deny the dangers his return poses, particularly to disenfranchised groups. However, this isn't just about Trump; it’s about the systemic issues that allow figures like him to gain power in the first place.
If third-party efforts only focused on deplatforming conservatives, they would risk becoming just another arm of the duopoly, which itself has consistently failed to bring about meaningful change for working people. The real challenge is not just to oppose one party or candidate but to break the cycle that leaves voters feeling trapped between two unsatisfactory choices.
This is incredibly naiive and counterproductive.
Listen to these people.
Nah, I won’t be taking advice from those who are desperate to keep the capitalist duopoly in power.
Their insistence on maintaining the status quo only proves how threatened they are by the real change we’re fighting for.
Uh huh.
Glad you agree. Thank you!
You're deeply misrepresenting the position. We're not desperate to keep the duopoly. We're desperate to keep it from collapsing into a dictatorship, and you're over there trying to kick its legs off.
If the system is so fragile that it risks collapsing into a dictatorship, then it's already broken beyond repair. So I refuse to help the duopoly even more.
Nonsense. If you work outside of the system that exists, you won't ever make meaningful change on that system. You'll only ever make it harder for the people who have accepted reality and are working from within the system to change it. You can't do that from the outside short of a full catastrophic collapse, no matter how much noise you make.
The real nonsense is believing that change can only come from within a corrupt and broken system.
History shows us that real progress has often come from those who challenged the system from the outside, refusing to accept the crumbs offered by those in power.
I’m not here to wait for “catastrophic collapse” but to push for the kind of meaningful change that the establishment fears.
If working from within has been so effective, why are we still stuck with the same old problems?
How is voting third party going to change the two major parties or defeat the duopoly? At best one of the parties will move slightly more toward your positions, but they won't move so far that they lose voters who support them precariously but think your positions stink.
They also have to factor in that no matter how much they bend you will vote third party anyway because they didn't match what you're looking for exactly.
Voting third party is about more than just influencing the two major parties; it's about breaking free from the stranglehold they have on our democracy.
If we never support alternatives, we’re only reinforcing the status quo, ensuring that real change never has a chance to take root.
The duopoly thrives on the idea that they’re the only options—by voting third party, we challenge that narrative and lay the groundwork for a more diverse and representative political landscape.
Idealism kills.
Complacency kills more.
Well then, you are part of the problem. It's a cliche, but it's no less true in this case.
If challenging the status quo and fighting for real change makes me part of the problem, then I proudly accept that label. I'd rather be a "problem" for the establishment than blindly follow a system that perpetuates injustice.
Change for Presidential elections won't come from who you vote for President, it comes from the down-ballot voting for the Congressional and lower positions that could do these changes. That's where you should put more diversity into where you want your issues to change dramatically. Voting for a third party for President while the system only supports two parties is a waste of effort for the cause, especially if those votes help the one side that would crush any change from the more progressive Congress you try to get in. You have to work within the constraints your given, even if they are too tight sometimes.
The idea that change only happens down-ballot is the same old excuse that keeps the stranglehold of the two-party system unchallenged. Sure, down-ballot voting matters, but don’t be fooled into thinking that’s where our fight ends. Voting for a third-party candidate, especially at the top, is a bold declaration that we’re done being shackled by a system rigged for just two parties. If we keep playing by their rules, we’ll stay trapped in their game. This isn’t about wasting our energy; it’s about breaking the chains and demanding a political system that represents all of us, not just the interests of the powerful few.
I'm saying the election system process itself can't be changed by the President, but by Congress. A Democrat/Progressive heavy Congress with a Republican President, especially someone who is trying to change things to be more dictatorship, won't be able to do shit. Likewise, any President of any party who wants things to change won't be able to do it without a functional Congress.
I want more variety in the choices too, but that mathematically won't happen with a FPTP system. No matter how often it's tried. Repeating things over and over expecting different results with the same mechanics is a definition of something...
We have different opinions. I'm proudly voting third party.
In this case it's not who you're fighting for. It's what arena you're fighting in. We're fighting in reality. You're fighting in an imaginary storybook world.
If fighting for a better future and challenging a broken system is "imaginary," then maybe it's time we all start reimagining what's possible. Reality changes when enough people refuse to accept the status quo.
What's the goal for Jill Stein? Climate change initiatives? Liberals are fighting in the trenches to make change while she's giving lipservice.
Policy making isn't easy, democracy is slow. Holding the Democratic Party hostage to force them to do something they already want just hurts the cause.
Her goal is to advance Putin’s interests, of course. OP knows this. He’s just fucking about because that’s his job.
How is that my "job"? I didn't write the article. You know that, right?
Your reading comprehension is quite poor, Ivan.
It's actually Karl, thanks.
I actually lean more socialist than green, but I think the goal for Jill Stein is to push for more urgent and comprehensive action on issues like climate change, healthcare, and social justice—things that many feel aren't being addressed quickly or effectively enough by the Democratic Party.
I agree that policy-making is slow and democracy can be messy, supporting third-party candidates is about pushing the conversation further and holding all parties accountable to the people.
The duopoly has had countless chances with both Democrats and Republicans taking turns in power, yet they haven’t made the necessary changes. It’s not about hurting the cause; it’s about ending the cycle of inaction and ensuring the issues we care about don’t get sidelined.
Well, Republicans are actively opposed to those things. And Democrats need enough support to enact those things.
It's frustrating for Dems too. And it's more frustrating when people like Jill Stein make it harder. She should join the party instead of fighting it. But I guess this makes her feel better. She can dislike the system, but things are going to get worse if Republicans win. Just like things got worse in 2016.
It’s easy to see why it’s frustrating, but frustration isn’t a reason to surrender to a broken system.
Jill Stein, like many of us, refuses to be another cog in a machine that perpetuates inequality and injustice. Joining a party that continually lets down the very people it claims to represent isn’t the solution—it’s the problem.
Things got worse in 2016 because the Democrats failed to inspire real change, and repeating the same failed strategy won’t protect us from the Republicans or bring about the progress we desperately need.
Frustration isn't a reason to give in to a fantasy.
You want a party that will support those initiatives? You have one. It's the Democratic Party. If they don't have enough support now to get that shit done, they're definitely not going to when Republicans take over.
You may not like it, but Dems (specifically liberals and progressives) need more power to enact real change. If you're working against that, you're working against your own goals to make yourself feel better.
The Democratic Party has had its chances, time and time again, and what do we have to show for it? More of the same—a system that props up the wealthy, ignores the working class, and perpetuates endless wars.
If you think more power to the Democrats is the answer, you’re clinging to a fantasy of your own.
Real change doesn’t come from begging the duopoly for scraps; it comes from breaking their stranglehold and fighting for a system that truly represents the people.
The duopoly does represent the people. People suck sometimes. The Democratic Party is the method for people like her to push change. The Democratic Party gives her cause MORE power by consolidating efforts
If there was overwhelming support, even just among liberals, Bernie would have won in 2016 or 2020.
The duopoly only represents the people as long as it keeps them divided and powerless. Consolidating efforts under the Democratic Party has proven time and again to dilute true progressive change, not empower it.
If there was overwhelming support for the establishment, Bernie wouldn’t have faced the massive resistance from within his own party that he did in 2016 and 2020.
And for the record, I liked Bernie and was prepared to vote for him.
That’s the plan, of course.
As long as the duopoly is scared and angry, then an impact is being made.
Seems to me the useful idiots are the ones who are scared and angry.
Well, I certainly agree that there are many idiots who are scared and angry. Some useful. Some not.
He's talking about you, dingus.
Getting personal and directly calling people names is against the civility rule of this sub. Rule number 3. Please keep your comments civil, so that we can keep this community awesome.
Relax. It's not even an insult.
Oh so you totally meant it as a compliment then? Totally not belitting me or my comments, right? You were just being friendly. Right?
Right?!
🙄
Keep victimizing yourself. This is why no one takes you seriously here.
I’ve never claimed to be a victim, nor have I implied it. My focus is on challenging the status quo, not playing into your narrative.
Chase Oliver is getting some of the lowest poll numbers of any recent Libertarian nominees and that's saying something.
If Chase Oliver costs anyone an election, that campaign fucked up severely.
If he costs someone the election, it means the election was very close. That's all.
Agreed!
OP ain't beating the allegations with this thread... Never seen so much blue in the replies. Seems their primary goal is baiting people into bans. Major hallway monitor energy.
Yes, it does seem clear that there are folks here just trying to bait me, but I’m not biting. I’ll keep standing up for what I believe in, even if it’s unpopular. :)
I feel like you've got a lot in common with Terrence Howard. Confidence galore without the basic math skills to know you're objectively misguided. Insulting people doesn't change any minds, but neither does coddling them, pretending they have a point.
Are you implying that I have insulted someone? If so, please let me know or show me a sample. I, on the other hand, get insulted and called names on here daily. But I haven't called anyone names. So I'm not sure what you mean.
It was a description of how calling you names won't change your mind, but neither does pretending that you have a point. You've clearly turtled up because people insult you on here, but consider how else someone is supposed to get through to you when the answer of why you're wrong is incredibly simple? You're completely walled off from reality.
Nah, I don't mind the insults, but it was really just the same comments and insults over and over with many of the same people. So those people know my reasoning by now.
Funny you mention the insults tho, because when I mention I get insulted on here, I get lots of comments and variations of, "Oh you are just crying victim. No one is insulting you." Um....
I mean, how many responses can I possibly have for "So you want Trump to win! Admit it!" or "You're not even American, you're russian. Admit it!!" lol Tho to be honest, as much as I argue with those guys, you'd think they'd realize that if I wanted Trump to win, I'd happily admit it on here. That would drive them crazy!
And why do I get all this hate? Because I post an article—just an article—from widely-read sites that get way more traffic than Lemmy. I didn’t write it, edit it, or produce it. Yet suddenly, I’m labeled a Trump supporter. Think about that logic for a second. Think about the level of censorship people are pushing for here. They don’t want certain news articles to be seen. Seriously, let that sink in.
Why? Because i am still voting for third party?! I mean, it's not really that deep. I'm voting for my values, and I'm not scared of Trump. I won't vote out of fear. As I said many times, I respect and support your right to vote how you wish. I deserve that same respect.
Half of the entire country is not voting for Harris. Does that mean that every single one of them is "walled off from reality"? Is every single person that's not voting for Harris a fascist?! Is every single person that's not voting for Harris just clueless? All those millions of people are just ignorant and insane?
Nearly all of my critics here on Lemmy would answer "yes" to those questions. The Democrats on this platform have become just as self-righteous, if not more so, than the very Republicans they accuse of the same behavior.
So no, I'm not "walled off from reality" and I'm not Terrance Howard. I simply am voting for who I want to, and not voting for how I don't want to. Yes, it's really that simple. I don't like Harris. I don't like Trump. So I'm not voting for either one of them. I don't care how ignorant you think I am or walled from reality I am, etc.
I've been alive for longer than most Lemmys have been able to vote. I've seen what can be done, and what ISN'T being done. By both parties. And guess what? So have many others.
You all can keep voting out of fear. It's totally within your rights. I won't.
"I'm voting for my values, and I'm not scared of Trump. I won't vote out of fear." This is the epitome of privilege, and why people dislike you. I think that warrants more introspection.
[Pause for introspection]
Do other people have things to fear about his idealogy? How precisely do you suggest that they deal with that risk? If you don't fear him and what he'll do to you, and you don't care what he'll do to other people who don't deserve it enough to lift a finger, or put your purity politics aside, then you are selfish and idiologically unfit for the 2 party system that we currently live in. A based person with your ideals would vote for what's better based on the system we have rather than the system they want, and then lobby, call, donate, and canvas for system that they want.
So we arrive at two options, either you are a sociopath who doesn't understand why letting bad things happen to other people is bad, or you're incredibly uninformed about the ramnifications of your actions whether purposefully or unintentionally... or you're an AI bot wasting everyone's time being fed prompts by some shithead Jimmy Dore type. It doesn't really matter because the explanation has been given to you dozens of times and you some how read enough to respond to it all and then completely miss the point about other people being important, not just yourself. Anti-social bellyaching isn't going to get you any praise online in largely progressive circles.
Because I don't live my life in fear?!
You realize almost half of the country is voting for him, right? Are they ALL sociopaths?!
I'm not anti-social, I actually have a very full life. And I'm not looking for praise online. Dude, i posted a news article. I didn't write it. So do you think this community should censor/remove articles that are about third parties?! If so, message the mods.
"Living in fear" is very different from the reality of what you argue for, which is "being apathetic to those who will suffer from the consequences of my actions"
You quoted me saying either and then didn't include the other possibility lol... Yes, Trump voters all fit into one of those two categories, making you not much different.
Never said you didn't live a full life, wanted praise, that you wrote the article, or that the community should censor you. Being selfish is antisocial, and you spend your whole time in here complaining that you get downvoted, dismissed wholehearted, ridiculed, interspersed with missing everyone's points about why something is empathetic to do, and why what you spread isn't. I don't think you do any of that for praise, I think you either don't have fully functional empathy or you're too into weeds to find your way out through logic. I don't believe you can logic anyone out of a belief if they didn't logic their way into it and so the way they lurch back to their original nonsense is always more telling than the nonsense itself.
I said I am not afraid of Trump. I stand by what I said.
If you feel half the entire country are sociopaths, well...good luck.
Nope. My post history: https://lemmy.world/u/UniversalMonk?page=1&sort=New&view=Posts
Or maybe, just maybe, I don't agree with you. Could just be that simple.
I support and respect your right to vote for who you wish, please respect mine. Thank you!
Your post history is damning. It doesn't absolve you of anything at all.
You're pathetically apathetic, not fearful, congrats.
That's not what I said. You ironically refuse the existence of the other category, lol. Freudian inspiration for that?
Your post history shows exactly what I said.
That was obvious from the get-go, but now that you've demonstrated evidence for why you act the way you do, it's no longer interesting.
That's exactly what the duopoly wants you to think. They want you to be afraid of the "other side." You're free to feel that way. I don't.
That I post mostly socialist articles to the socialist communities? I don't remember you saying that, but if you did, then yay!
K, and if you are really annoyed by me, feel free to block me too. Thank you!
All Harris needs to do is show just one lousy photon of daylight between her and Biden on this. She won't. Netanyahu dictates US foreign policy.
How do we interfere in Israeli elections? It seems that the easiest way to bring about change in the US is to change our politicians' owners.
Oh, great. So taking that all the way through, our punishment shall be the destruction of the US by the psychopath convicted felon? Not on my watch buddy.
The real punishment is continuing to prop up a broken system that fails the people, only to keep out one monster while letting another thrive.
If you truly want to prevent the rise of a psychopath, start by dismantling the structures that allow them to exist in the first place. Ignoring the rot at the core will only bring more destruction in the long run.
Accepting and voting for the Duopoly you seem to worship so much? Not on my watch, buddy.
::: spoiler Newsweek - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report) Information for Newsweek:
::: spoiler Search topics on Ground.News https://www.newsweek.com/kamala-harris-polling-third-party-pennslyvania-1947589 ::: Media Bias Fact Check | bot support
She should lean harder into supporting the genocide. That'll help.
How much harder can Stein lean into supporting it? She's doing everything she can to get Trump elected.
It's ironic you accuse Stein of working to elect Trump when it's the very establishment you defend that paved the way for him in the first place.
If you're so worried about Trump, maybe it's time to look in the mirror and ask why the so-called "opposition" has failed to inspire real hope and unity among the people.
Agreed.