No, the time for a 3rd party presidential run is after that third party already has local and state support/positions. Top-down attempts at creating a viable third party have virtually no chance at changing the status quo, and would likely make it worse as they’d be deadlocked with Congress and voted out after one term. Then we’ll have to hear forever about how this party was a terrible idea…
I’m really confused how you got that from my comment, and it seems from the downvotes, others thought similarly. I’m advocating for more, real action, and more third party candidates, instead of hollow longshot bids that, even if successful, would be deleterious (not to mention the many more poison pill candidates like RFK Jr. who were never acting in good faith to begin with).
It’s not the time for a presidential third party run… but it is the time for third parties to create bottom-up change. These aren’t mutually exclusive, but one is clearly the better option
Please, I’m begging you to re-read my comment. The time is after a grassroots bottom-up movement builds an actual framework for lasting change. I know people want quick change with just a single figurehead to lead the way, but that’s not how this works.
The time is after a grassroots bottom-up movement builds an actual framework for lasting change.
And both major parties will have slid us into fascism before then if environmental catastrophe hasn’t collapsed society.
I know people want quick change with just a single figurehead to lead the way, but that’s not how this works.
No, how it works is that people who don’t want change keep putting arbitrary conditions on anyone attempting to make change. Except change for the worse. That sails right through.
Okay, go back to the 90s and see how Perot or Nader turned out. After their (relatively successful) runs, the US collapsed back into the two party system immediately.
I’m really not trying to argue with you, but rather convince you that as much as I would love a third-party ticket, it just won’t work, unless you want that third party to rule authoritatively without consent from the legislative or judicial branches. I’m pretty sure we agree on almost all points otherwise; the two party system needs to be broken, and it needs to be broken yesterday. But, as someone who voted for Stein, please believe that I’m arguing from a place of not wanting but needing change, and just electing a woke president isn’t change.
Yes, it’s much harder to go bottom-up, but I’m really not seeing any arguments still as to how or why a third party ticket would actually affect that change.
I feel like you’re being obtuse here. You can’t get mad if you hit the gas and the car goes in the wrong direction, if you refuse to shift out of reverse first
No, the time for a 3rd party presidential run is after that third party already has local and state support/positions. Top-down attempts at creating a viable third party have virtually no chance at changing the status quo, and would likely make it worse as they’d be deadlocked with Congress and voted out after one term. Then we’ll have to hear forever about how this party was a terrible idea…
The time for advocating for third parties is always conveniently some other time.
I’m really confused how you got that from my comment, and it seems from the downvotes, others thought similarly. I’m advocating for more, real action, and more third party candidates, instead of hollow longshot bids that, even if successful, would be deleterious (not to mention the many more poison pill candidates like RFK Jr. who were never acting in good faith to begin with).
How did I get “it’s never the time” from “it’s not the time”? Easy. Been hearing “It’s not the time” for decades.
It’s not the time for a presidential third party run… but it is the time for third parties to create bottom-up change. These aren’t mutually exclusive, but one is clearly the better option
Conveniently never is and never will be.
Please, I’m begging you to re-read my comment. The time is after a grassroots bottom-up movement builds an actual framework for lasting change. I know people want quick change with just a single figurehead to lead the way, but that’s not how this works.
And both major parties will have slid us into fascism before then if environmental catastrophe hasn’t collapsed society.
No, how it works is that people who don’t want change keep putting arbitrary conditions on anyone attempting to make change. Except change for the worse. That sails right through.
Okay, go back to the 90s and see how Perot or Nader turned out. After their (relatively successful) runs, the US collapsed back into the two party system immediately.
I’m really not trying to argue with you, but rather convince you that as much as I would love a third-party ticket, it just won’t work, unless you want that third party to rule authoritatively without consent from the legislative or judicial branches. I’m pretty sure we agree on almost all points otherwise; the two party system needs to be broken, and it needs to be broken yesterday. But, as someone who voted for Stein, please believe that I’m arguing from a place of not wanting but needing change, and just electing a woke president isn’t change.
Yes, it’s much harder to go bottom-up, but I’m really not seeing any arguments still as to how or why a third party ticket would actually affect that change.
If you are serious, we have to start by getting rid of FPTP voting and then we can have this discussion
I feel like you’re being obtuse here. You can’t get mad if you hit the gas and the car goes in the wrong direction, if you refuse to shift out of reverse first
I feel like you don’t understand other people’s motivations and intent
See? Always conveniently some other time.
Just say you’re happy with the two party pro-genocide hegemony.
I’m not. But I don’t think another Trump presidency will improve our voting options afterwards. Do you think so?
Oh look, this fucking argument again. "If you’re unhappy at all with Biden, you must want Trump!’
Don’t worry. I’m voting for the pro-genocide candidate you want me to.
:(