Heaven forbid the Dems ever act like they needed to earn anyone's votes, or show any real fight against the Repubs, instead of their usual arrogant mode of just assuming people will vote for them as the default choice of not being THE LYIN' KING or the Repubs. It doesn't work anymore, because people have caught onto their con, not just THE LYIN' KING's con... As the old saying goes, you can't beat something with nothing... I also thought it was useless and bull💩 for the Dems to just sit there, almost all the time, and silently watch THE LYIN' KING looking sad or concerned, instead of vocally confronting him. On camera, it looked weak and pathetic. Also, what was the point of having all the Erpstein survivors there, and not using them to actively confront THE LYIN' KING, and dare him to have them thrown out of the room?

I know you can never shame the Repubs or THE LYIN' KING effectively, but it would have been very powerful for the survivors to have confronted him and shouted him down, and then been thrown out in front of the nation on camera. Finally, why the hell were the Dems not confronting THE LYIN' KING, on his Cadet Bone Spurs draft dodging, when he spent so much of the time hypocritically showing off law enforcement and military heroes? Same with shouting him down about his pardoning of J6rs after they beat up the Capital Police cops then? You need to show people some strong confronting of his hypocrisy, to his 🍆>🐱ing face on camera, if you want to look strong and get the respect of working class people, as all they respect is strength and courage, not moral superiority or seeming smarter than your opposition..

I skipped the Prez' State of the Union malarkey and the Democrats' rebuttal. According to Democracy Now, there were vocal protests by some congressional Democrats. Some Democratic congresspersons also attended and participated in the People's State of the Union rally. Pennsylvania Representative Summer Lee also delivered the Working Families Party response to DJT's SOTU address.

The Working Families Party appeals to me, and -- for now -- I intend to support WFP candidates.

I disdainfully scoff at the circular logic and self-fulfilling defeatism of "Third party candidates can't win in America because the majority of Americans don't vote for them. And the majority of Americans don't vote for third-party candidates because they can't win."

Americans who aren't at least willing to research and consider third parties get the American government they deserve, as far as I'm concerned. To those voters who see American government and political parties in only binary terms and who faithfully cling to the status quo . . .

Well said. Third parties can win, despite the opposition of the major parties and the corporate media, but only if the majority of eligible voters are willing to trust each other enough, research the third parties, instead of just accepting the propaganda and conventional wisdom, etc., of those self-serving groups. There is nothing in the law or election rules to prevent tens of millions of Americans electing third party candidates from winning fed elections. So I agree, that the majority of voters, who stay locked within the duopoly, get the fed govt. they deserve. I long ago got fed up with both major parties at the fed level, once they both had become sold out to corporate donors beginning in the early 90s. Since then, I have only voted for major party candidates in fed elections as a lesser evil, after voting for my real hopes and candidates that might actually represent me, in primaries. But most voters won't even bother to get informed and participate in primaries, so they only vote in general elections, after all the major party candidates are already pre-selected by the corporate donor class, not the voters..

If you stay within just voting for the major parties in general elections, you will be limited to only voting on culture war issues and identity politics, since those are the only things the major parties really differ on much these days. Those things do matter, but economic issues, foreign policy, war, civil liberties, and climate change also matter, even more than culture war stuff.

5 hours ago, BobDylan said:

...Third parties can win...

odds. 1%
iow, it's not impossible
but maga is proof it's even less possible now than it was a hundred years ago

it takes voting for the best Primary candidate
then the best candidate that gives this country a real shot at changing what's wrong with the election system
so we can actually get rid of the 2-party system

for example. even if Nader won in 2000 he wouldn't have gotten much done
and we'd still have a corrupt 2 party system today

the framework has to change

and it never will if the messaging is
damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead, even if they blow off your nose, to spite your face

6 hours ago, macphysto said:

...the majority of Americans don't vote for third-party candidates because they can't win."

some, yes. but unfortunately, the majority of Americans don't vote for third-party candidates because they prefer one of the 2-party candidates. i venture to say there has never been a 3rd party candidate that the majority of voters actually preferred. in actual votes, only 8 in 200 years got at least 10% of the vote.

truth is. if more people acted like you, we'd keep getting the wrong candidate elected and humans would be on an irreversible path to extinction before a winnable candidate emerged

truth is. if no one thought like you, we might get incremental progress instead of further regression. the path i suggest only requires 5% or 10% more voters to get off their ass and vote, period

your route requires about 45% more voters to vote specifically for the 3rd party candidate next election

tic toc

Americans who aren't at least willing to research and consider third parties get the American government they deserve

they might say you got what you deserve
and you'd both be wrong
we all deserve better

If Nader had won in 2000, I'm certain we would at least not have had the Iraq War or the war in Afghanistan, both of which were costly in money, lives, and with soldiers suffering permanent PTSD and brain injuries. Those things in themselves, count for more than "not getting much done".... And our national deficit would also be much smaller. We also would have gotten something better than the ACA...

14 hours ago, V.3 said:

"truth is. if more people acted like you, we'd keep getting the wrong candidate elected . . .

truth is. if no one thought like you, we might get incremental progress instead of further regression . . ."

"Truth is": Because more people act like you, America is mired in the nightmare that it is currently in.

"Truth is": If no one thought like you, who knows what America would look like? I don't know and you definitely don't know. What we do know is that neither of us is happy about and satisfied with America 2026 ... and that we have very different ideas about the remedial course of action to take. I want action that is radical, bold, STRONG -- Revolutionary! You? "You've got no Brooklyn in you whatsoever." I don't have the time or the patience for "incremental progress." You don't have the stomach ("fire in the belly") for revolution.

For me (and, I'll wager, many other discontented Americans) incremental progress (baby steps) is a too mild, too timid (too chicken-hearted) strategy to combat and overthrow the criminal, fascist tyrants and myrmidons currently in command. Too many Americans are being ignored, bullied, conned, cheated, robbed, exploited, starved, jailed, killed for them to be tolerant and passively and resignedly rely on the courts and elections for "justice" and deliverance from their suffering and oppression.

If you can't or won't join the revolution -- stand aside, sit down, be quiet, and stay out of the way.

we all deserve better

For Americans to deserve better, they must want better. And they must not just want better. They must FIGHT for better. Liberation and justice doesn't happen by sharing Facebook posts and consulting an AI "superior intelligence." More effort is required.

Last night on MS NOW, Gavin Newsom stated that the majority of Americans whom he's met told him that they want a candidate who is a fighter. They want "someone who's going to stand up and have their back . . . I'm not in any crowds that are looking for timidity," he told host Jen Psaki.

A fighter: that is certainly who I want.

I don't really see Newsom as a fighter, just someone who's good at trolling THE LYIN' KING and saying the right things at times, and I sure as hell don't trust him to be president. But on the rest of your comment, I agree 100%. Most Americans, unfortunately, lost their revolutionary spirit at least a few generations ago... I don't see us ever voting our way out of the structural problems our system has, and I also have zero confidence the Repubs will allow free and fair elections in Nov.. A civil war is likely coming, as the only way we resolve the current divide. People had best be prepared for violence, whether they participate in it or not..

Gavin Newsom is more of a fighter than you might think he is, BD. He has done more than just troll Trum p. He proposed and pushed Proposition 50 (California's countermeasure to Republicans' gerrymandering in Texas) to victory in California, for one thing.

Newsom is not my first choice as a presidential candidate (I don't have a first choice right now). He's too much of a corporate Dem and not progressive enough for my taste. He's trying to "rebrand" himself as a moderate Democrat. He's opposed to a proposed, one-time five percent tax on California billionaires.

Given a Hobson's choice between only Gavin and JD Vance, I'd back Newsom. Given a more preferable choice between Newsom and a Working Families candidate vs. a GOP candidate, he wouldn't get my vote.

I agree with you completely about Newsom being a corporate centrist Dem, who will always favor the rich and corporations over the masses, and of course I would vote for him over Vance, or any Repub prez candidate. I was aware of his support of Prop 50, but that is mere partisanship, not a position with our side in the class war. Even tho it's so clear that this country needs democratic socialism to solve our structural problems and restore our middle class, as well as get the working class to stop being drawn to fascism, you can always bet your ass that the Dem Party's leaders will never allow that to happen, no matter what most voters may want or most Dem Party supporters would want..

On 2/26/2026 at 2:16 PM, BobDylan said:

If Nader had won in 2000, I'm certain we would at least not have had the Iraq War or the war in Afghanistan

that's a good point BD,
but it also makes my point
if Gore won in 2000, I believe we would at least not had those wars
so, it was not people like me voting for Gore that lead to that
it was people like the Nader voters and people like you who support the protest voters
like i said. regardless of any other talking points on this topic...

there never was, and still isn't enough public support for a 3rd party progressive
IF EVERY VOTER WHO WOULD HAVE PREFERRED NADER HAD VOTED NADER, WE STILL WOULD HAVE GOTTEN BUSH
but if 1% more Nader voters voted Gore we would have likely not had 2 bloody, costly, unproductive wars
AND climate policies that could have SAVED THE FRIGGING WORLD 26 years ago!

we can't even get people to stop supporting a pedo lunatic
and you think we can get real progressives elected by splitting the progressive vote?
all we need is another trifecta of the 3 branches and we could get real election reform that would pave the way for a ranked voting system that would make your daydreams a reality

3rd parties have been trying to send a message to the Dems all our lives
and they've gotten no where. no where!
you know the definition of insanity. repeating the same behaviors and expecting a different outcome

Don't blame the Nader voters for W. becoming president. He was appointed by the SC, after they stopped the election recount in FL, and that is well known, that Gore would have won if the recount had continued. So there... I'm so tired of the vote shaming of third party voters and the continued myth-spreading about the 2000 election and Nader being blamed for W.'s appointment by the SC... Way past time for Dem Party supporters and loyalists to give up that 💩, and admit the corruption and faults within their party...

4 hours ago, BobDylan said:

"Don't blame the Nader voters for W. becoming president . . ."

What he wrote. 💯

9 hours ago, BobDylan said:

Way past time for Dem Party supporters and loyalists to give up that 💩, and admit the corruption and faults within their party...

yes. blame the SC. yes, blame the Dem Party. yes, blame the Nader voters
all 3 happen can and are true

like the Republicans, you're both treating this like a team sport, but there's only 2 sides in this football game, as is. Focus on getting the ball over the goal line until we can change the rules.

the ONLY way a 3rd Party candidate gets in is if it's someone with enough star power to compete, up against the 2-Party's connections and cash advantages. Then, for example, either the Green Party or the Dem Party needs to concede and throw their voters to the other before the election.

strategy. execution. not rhetoric and purity tests

the time for all idealists, like myself, to fight, is during the Primaries, and independents like Bernie and progressives like the Green Party should participate. But if you sit on your hands while the Republicans close ranks, you ARE part of the problem.

And that is exactly the strategy and argument the Dem Party uses to first use and then ignore their progressive voters each election cycle. Give us your unearned votes, your volunteering, and even some campaign cash, so that after the election, we can duly ignore you and your desired policy requests, until the next election comes around. And you wonder why a third of eligible voters have simply tuned out and checked out of politics in America, becoming our largest voting bloc, the non voters.... I'm not saying I'm like them, as I always vote each time, even if it's only against someone or for a lesser evil candidate, but in a presidential election, when I know I'm living in a non swing state, and my vote will not affect the outcome, I will gladly vote for a third party candidate, even if it's just going to be a protest vote or a vote to help that party achieve party status for the next election cycle, as the Greens have done a few times in my state, by getting the threshold % of the vote.

"Portrait of three men who have entirely
too much time on their hands . . ."

14 hours ago, V.3 said:

. . . like the Republicans . . .

Because I have even less time and less patience for engaging in futile debates that have no resolution* than I have for "incremental progress," I'm bowing out of this circus.

*	And with a participant who seems to be a schizophrenic . . .
	"[Democrats] once again playing it like politics business as usual" (Democrats are conventional ) ". . . but I'd never consider a Green Party candidate in the current 2-Party System." (But keep supporting them . . .)
	. . . who also has zero self-awareness . . .
	". . . if we can't elect the lesser of 2 evils in a 2-party system we will never be in a position to change [the voting system]" (so let's just keep on doing what we've been doing . . . which is, umm, "you know the definition of insanity. repeating the same behaviors and expecting a different outcome").

I must admit mac, you are a deeper thinker than me, and have a keener insight to the whole picture on this dilemma....

1 minute ago, BobDylan said:

I must admit mac, you are a deeper thinker than me, and have a keener insight to the whole picture on this dilemma....

Don't sell yourself short, BD. I stand in awe of your astute, well articulated rebuttals in this debate, in particular, and elsewhere.

Aw shucks, now you're really embarrassing me, mac. It's rare that a man makes me blush, it's almost always women, who are able to do that easily to me, lol.... Good thing I'm a man so secure in my masculinity, that I can wear pink, lol, tho I do that rarely....

reality check:
BD and V3 talk a different talk, but walk the same walk -- vote the same way, for the same reason. Neither is remotely satisfied with the Dem Party.

The 3rd active participant in this debate, feels the same way about the Dem Party, and that the Republican Party is worse, but is willing to risk losing to the Republican Party to thumb his nose at the system, despite that never showing any sign of working. There was never a poll in any stage of an election that indicated enough voters support the Green Party, the Libertarian Party, or those kinds of fringe ideologies

THAT is pissing in the wind. At least the BDs and V3s got Obama and Biden elected, and would have gotten Gore elected, and, likely, Hillary too, instead of THE LYIN' KING, McCain, and the Mormon who believes in magic underpants.

at least the BD's and V3's got some healthcare reform and emission regulations, etc (aka incremental change) instead of downright regression back to the tyranny of being ruled by a King

and, btw, though this might be a "portrait of 3 men who have too much time on their hands" -- it's a discussion that needs to take place among 300 million Americans. Though the case could be made, that none of the 3 might change their tune, regardless of the evidence submitted, there are potential readers who have had less time on their hands to contemplate such issues. They might benefit from the deliberation.

but i concede this conversation has started to loop and is becoming repetitive

Gotta get the corporate Dems out of the leadership, they’re just controlled opposition, they both take money from MIC, Corporations, and Israel.

Welcome to the camp, as The Who said in Tommy, Corey, and thanks for participating in the forums. I'm glad to see another lefty like me, esp. someone younger like you.

On 3/1/2026 at 6:35 PM, V.3 said:

". . . The 3rd active participant in this debate, feels the same way about the Dem Party, and that the Republican Party is worse, but is willing to risk losing to the Republican Party to thumb his nose at the system . . ."

Wrong! I don't vote for third parties to "thumb [my] nose at the system." I vote for third parties because I believe in and support their charters and platforms. I want the America that they want.

Have you read the platforms of the Green Party and the Working Families Party, V.3? If you have, what in them do you find objectionable? If you haven't . . .

For Your Cognizance and Edification

Green Party Platform

The Peoples Charter

2025-2027 Platform of the Young Democrats of America

Working Families Party Bets on 2026 as the Right Time for a Third US Party After a Wave of Wins

In general elections, I never vote in a way that risks losing to the Repubs, and I also never encourage fellow progressives to vote third party, if they live in a state where doing so is going to make a diff in the results, as far as whether the Dem candidate loses to a Repub. It's called strategic voting or voting lesser evil, whichever you choose to label it, in general elections. It doesn't take much effort to keep up on the polling and know when the race between a Dem and a Repub is going to be close or not, and thus whether or not it's safe to vote third party in such a race...

And if other voters choose to ignore that, not keep up on how close a race they are voting in is projected to be, or choose to vote third party in a general election, regardless of how it may affect the result between a Dem and a Repub, that's on them, not me, and I won't be shamed about it by anybody, esp. Dem Party loyalists who may refuse to recognize or admit any faults in their party's leaders or candidates... and to be clear, I'm not saying that anybody in this discussion is guilty of that, but I do get sick of that in general, on internet forums and social media..