this post was submitted on 03 Dec 2023
1182 points (89.3% liked)
Political Humor
3314 readers
1 users here now
Post politically charged comedy here, but be respectful!
Rules
- Keep this a humor community
- No NSFW content
- No bigotry, hate speech, advocacy or incitement of violence or crime, etc
- No harassment
- Extreme or offensive content are subject to removal at the mods' discretion
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
The 'viable' third party candidates in my lifetime so far have been Ross Perot, Ralph Nader and RFK, Jr. None of them had a real chance and all of them were one flavor or another of crazy.
So maybe a third party can fix things, but none of the ones that have ever had a chance within the past 46 years.
Ron Paul was viable but ran as a republican and got the establishment treatment despite insane support from the younger generations. His party prevented him from being a 2nd name on the ballot for Republicans. Then many years later, the exact same thing happened to Bernie who was fucked over from a 2nd spot on the ballot by a last second rule change vote at the democratic convention when the nays clearly outweighed the yays. Both times those respective parties lost those elections. Both times they would have won should they have gone with the people that would have brought about change to our political systems. The establishment doesn't care about losing. Only preserving itself.
The libertarian racist Ron Paul was not in any way viable. That's nonsense. You show me a single poll where it showed like he would have made it into the Oval Office if he had done things differently.
I know you Ron Paul fans think he's awesome, but he's a paeloconservative shitbag that would rather people die in the streets than tax the rich.
Once you're so far gone that you will only choose between "genocide guy" and "a little more genocide guy" it's Joever.
Okay. Name the candidate aside from Trump or Biden that has a good chance of winning in 2024. Go ahead. Because otherwise, as I keep suggesting, it looks to me like a vote for someone else is no better than no vote at all.
I keep asking what it achieves and I'm not getting an answer.
If all you care about achieving is "I feel good about myself," fine. But that doesn't seem like a reason to make the effort to vote.
What is your obsession with only voting for who you personally think can win?
My "obsession" is stopping Trump and Project 2025 so that I'll be able to vote again ever.
Well you better stop voting for the parties of Capital then. Your vote is already almost meaningless, so use it to make a better world before its too late!
How does not voting for Biden stop Trump? Please explain.
Trump isn't going to be president so no need to "stop" him. But if I assume you aren't as myopic as your question suggests, then stopping the collusion of Capital via the false choice of the parties of Capital is the long term goal. Limiting our actions to voting, you have very little power, but power that none-the-less should be exercised.
In a first past the post system, only 2 parties at a time can be front-runners. Those parties do not have to be the same for ever and ever. In the history of the US many parties have risen and fallen, and there is no reason the same can't occur for the Capitalist parties. In fact it is inevitable. The material interests of you (assuming you aren't a billionaire, or rent-seeking class) are currently not being addressed by either party. So it is your duty to vote for a party who DOES represent your material interests. If you vote either blue or red you are voting against your material interests and mine and 90% of the citizens of the US.
Can I borrow your crystal ball? I want to look at next week's lotto numbers.
Guess my charity re: your myopia was unwarranted. Alas.
Well it's true that I can't see into the future if that's what you mean by myopia.
You, apparently, can.
Whichever you want.
The Liberatian party seems like a decent alternative to the Dems so you could go for Jo Jorgensen. But anything that isn't Republican or Democrats is a requirement for a moral vote.
In what way are Libertarians an alternative to Democrats? Democrats want a strong social safety net and Libertarians want a government so small you could drown it in a bathtub.
You either know nothing about Libertarians or nothing about Democrats.
If you care about the cultural freedoms they're the same. Also the non intervention policies are a lot better than throwning all your money into the military industrial complex which you seem to call "Healthcare".
Else you got the Greens.
Unless of course you want everything the Democrats do including the genocide part. Then I can't help ya.
They're not even close to the same. I have never heard a libertarian say that taxes should be raised on the rich to pay for social services. Every libertarian I have ever talked to or read about is against all taxation and thinks everything should be privatized. They're as far apart politically as you can get.
As for healthcare, please do show me the libertarian that wants universal healthcare paid for by taxes.
I was looking through their comments to see if they were worth replying to, and this exchange here confirms it's absolutely not worth it. It's laughable how arrogant they are with how little they actually know about US politics.