"V.3
. . . It will include me telling me what i should do, as well as you, voters and politicians.

On 1/17/2026 at 3:58 PM, macphysto said:

Well, I, for one, am keenly interested in knowing how that modus vivendi works out for you, Cap'n. Has it actually been successful?

no.

well, actually, it does work pretty well on myself

i don't like childish name games, but considering his yelling at female reporters, President Grump might be appropriate?

or considering his incontinence, as well as his temperament, President Dump?

5 hours ago, BobDylan said:

...Third parties can win...

it's not impossible but 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 only because they don't think they can't win."

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...

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

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, the Dem Party and Nader voters.
all 3 happen can share some blame

like the Republicans, you're both treating this like a team sport, but, as is, there's only 2 sides in this football game. 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 put up a 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.

reality check:
BD and i 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's 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. They might benefit from this kind of 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.

1 hour ago, macphysto said:

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.

the effect is thumbing your nose, because it's never remotely been a viable strategy for actually seating someone with the ideals you believe in. Quite the opposite.

1 hour ago, macphysto said:

Have you read the platforms of the Green Party and the Working Families Party, V.3? If you have, what do you object to about them?

here's the REST of my quote from the "who would you vote for thread" that you left out. iow, my #1 preference has always been the green party, but i'd never throw my vote away and, in reality, not just theory, hurt my fellow citizens to make a point.

On 10/8/2025 at 12:45 AM, V.3 said:

I like Green credentials, but I'd never consider a Green Party candidate in the current 2-Party System. Like many, i believe in voting for the best representative of my priorities for America in the Primaries. But if asked who i'd like to see competing in the general election, i'd consider compromising a little in consideration of elect-ability.

I agree with both of those, and election reform should include Ranked Choice voting, which would eliminate the two party stranglehold, but the major parties would never allow it..