What have third parties done, other than fail at every goal?
The Populist Party in the late 19th century pushed for direct election of senators, which later became the 17th Amendment.
The Socialist Party of America, under leaders like Eugene V. Debs, advocated for policies like the eight-hour workday, child labor laws, and social security—many of which were eventually implemented by the major parties.
More recently, the Green Party has kept issues like climate change, electoral reform, and corporate influence in politics at the forefront of national discourse.
Third parties may not always win elections, but they succeed in driving important issues into the national conversation and pushing the political landscape toward real change.
And hey, if third parties don’t accomplish anything, then why is the Duopoly always trying to get them removed from the ballots?! I mean, if they don’t do anything, then you guys have no reason to fear them or be angry with them. Right?
The idea that third-party candidates are responsible for the failures of the duopoly is a desperate lie spun by those who refuse to hold their own parties accountable.
Blaming Nader for Bush’s rise is a convenient way to avoid facing the deeper rot within a system that constantly fails the people, choosing corporate interests over the lives and safety of everyday citizens.
Sub out the term “affect”.
Sub out damn near anything… “Change” should matter more than your BS rhetoric. Where can you point to change?
What change have you affected? What’s your accomplishment?
What have third parties done, other than fail at every goal?
The Populist Party in the late 19th century pushed for direct election of senators, which later became the 17th Amendment.
The Socialist Party of America, under leaders like Eugene V. Debs, advocated for policies like the eight-hour workday, child labor laws, and social security—many of which were eventually implemented by the major parties.
More recently, the Green Party has kept issues like climate change, electoral reform, and corporate influence in politics at the forefront of national discourse.
Third parties may not always win elections, but they succeed in driving important issues into the national conversation and pushing the political landscape toward real change.
And hey, if third parties don’t accomplish anything, then why is the Duopoly always trying to get them removed from the ballots?! I mean, if they don’t do anything, then you guys have no reason to fear them or be angry with them. Right?
Yea and Nader brought in seat belts yet also specifically gave us GWB.
Can we please have the seatbelts without the conservative mass murderer or is it a package deal?
Is there no nuance or do you want to force GWB on the entire world just to feel your point?
The idea that third-party candidates are responsible for the failures of the duopoly is a desperate lie spun by those who refuse to hold their own parties accountable.
Blaming Nader for Bush’s rise is a convenient way to avoid facing the deeper rot within a system that constantly fails the people, choosing corporate interests over the lives and safety of everyday citizens.
Blaming Nader is a recognition that WITHIN this system you either work for change or admit defeat.
You get out of the hole before telling everyone how shitty they are for being in the hole.
Or you make enemies and tell everyone they are shitty cause the hole is full of shit. You’re doing a good job with the latter.
Blaming Nader is just a convenient excuse for not facing the real enemies—those who keep digging the hole deeper while pretending to lift us out.
We can’t stay silent about the rot at the top just to make people feel comfortable in the mess they’ve created.
If people are uncomfortable with what I have to say, we have a great blocking system here on Lemmy that they can use.
So how do you actually deal with that?
Just blame everyone? Cause the “top” isn’t so different from the “bottom”? Just say “rot” “rot” “rot” until you get your way?
Or “block” “block” “block”?
Dude, I made my viewpoints known. And you disagree. That’s ok. It’s ok to disagree.
But I’ve let you know where I stand. I’m not voting for Harris. Just accept it and move on. Thanks.