A Lewis and Clark County District Court judge will have to decide whether or not there should be a Green Party U.S. Senate candidate on Montana’s November ballot after hearing arguments Friday morning from lawyers for the Democratic Party, which is trying to keep the candidate off the ballot, and attorneys for the state who […]
The Democrats’ attempt to keep the Green Party off the ballot is yet another example of their fear of real competition.
They know the duopoly is under threat, and they’ll do whatever it takes to maintain their stranglehold on the political process, even if it means silencing voices that dare to challenge the status quo.
This isn’t about election laws—it’s about power, plain and simple.
The duopoly fears the rise of third parties because they represent a genuine threat to the status quo, and they’ll do anything—whether it’s the Democrats today or the Republicans tomorrow—to silence those who dare to challenge their corrupt, capitalist machine. Same snake, different heads.
Cool story…how long did we have to hear about Obama not being a citizen. I guarantee there will be a lawsuit soon that says Kamala isn’t a citizen.
If the green party stood by its ideals, it’d drop out of this one. But, it’s money, lots and lots of money…not about being a better nation.
Why? So we can keep the duopoly in place and continue playing their rigged game?
The Green Party stands by its ideals by staying in the fight, refusing to bow down to a system that’s designed to silence any voice that challenges the status quo.
Dropping out would only serve to strengthen the stranglehold of the two-headed beast that has failed workers time and time again.
If you want real change, you don’t step aside—you step up and demand it.
And I am. And I’m proudly voting third party this election.
Lol…nice…I’ve voted green every once in a while…that’s a hard pass from here on out. Now I know.
(Temporarily removed to make a point. Here’s the original comment, now restored:)
The Democrats’ etc etc is yet another example of their fear of things that will lose them elections in the FPTP system. What do you want them to do, try to lose, instead? Say “yes split the vote so the other people will win and start shooting everyone’s pets on sight if they look Mexican or whatever our opponents want to do?”
Reform the voting system
If only some of the supporters of that reform were Democrats, it might be gaining traction in some places
Oh wait
The issue isn’t just about who wins or loses under the FPTP system; it’s about how the system is rigged to keep the same two parties in power, limiting real choices for voters.
What do I want the Democrats to do? How about stop sabotaging third parties and start fighting for the kind of voting reform that would actually reflect the will of the people?
And as for supporting voting reform—if the Democrats really cared about it, they’d be leading the charge, not just paying lip service when it suits them.
So yeah, let’s talk about reforming the voting system, but let’s not pretend the Democrats are blameless in keeping the status quo alive. The fact that the Democrats are working so hard to keep the Green Party off the ticket is proof that they refuse to accept change and are terrified of anything that threatens their stranglehold on power.
Instead of blaming third parties, they should be leading the charge to reform the system, but their actions show they’re more interested in maintaining the status quo than in true democracy.
Hmm fascinating
So, I just now edited to take away my comment that you were responding to. Can you tell me what my comment said before I edited it? I.e. what parts of it you were responding to when you typed your response?
This is spectacular.
Not that spectacular. Guy was trying to imply he had a great “gotcha!” by comment then deleting his post, then asking me what it said. BS like that may be against the communities rules since they aren’t posting in good faith. It getting very close to trolling territory.
Reply to a link to a big list of Democrats who are actively reforming the voting system with “What do I want the Democrats to do? How about stop sabotaging third parties and start fighting for the kind of voting reform that would actually reflect the will of the people?”: A OK
Highlight that the person who did that reply is not addressing important elements of the message they are replying to: BAD FAITH ARGBLBLBLB
Good luck with that, I guess. I’m perfectly open to input from mods or anybody if I am the asshole here, but in my mind the first is worse than the second.
Says the guys who posts comments and posts every nineteen minutes.
Wait, hold up. So you just replied to my article. Then you deleted it. And now you are asking what you said?
So is this all a big scenario to try to prove I am a bot? Or what is your point. Because no, I don’t believe you suddenly forgot that you posted some bs about how republicans want to shoot Mexicans and their dogs and crazy stuff like that.
I don’t think you are a bot, no. I think you forgot what I said, and what you replied with had absolutely no bearing on any point that I made or the link I included. You just kinda had something you wanted to say, and didn’t notice the relationship that existed between the points that I had made and the things you were typing “in response” to them, just kind of went ahead with typing your talking points as if I hadn’t said something that related to them in a pretty direct way.
So… what was it? I mean, you made a reply to me, so presumably you were responding in some sense to what I wrote down, so you should be able to skim your reply and recall what I linked to and remember your thought process when you were typing it up in response to the reply that you definitely read and understood. Right? Or not?
No, I replied to what you said with my points. And the whole “Hey bro, I deleted my post, can you tell me what it said?” is creeping very very close to trolling territory.
I read your reply. I responded. You can choose to accept it or not.
Just because I may have not broke it down point by point, doesn’t invalidate what I am saying. But playing weird “post then delete and say 'gotcha!” is weird.
You didn’t, though. I said that there are quite a few Democrats who are supporting ranked choice voting, I.e. the effective form of the exact reform to the voting system that is the genuine solution to the duopoly. And that having the Democrats split the vote with a third party and lose isn’t any kind of step towards reform of anything, and that to accuse the Democrats of blocking reform because they don’t want that to happen, when the actual reform is something they are making happen, is silly.
Then you sent me back a big message all about what a travesty it is that the Democrats are blocking reform.
I get it if you feel like the method I chose to use to address that was a little convoluted and condescending. I mean, it was. But surely you can see how I could get a little startled on my side by the discontinuity and want to address and highlight it. No?
Sorry I didn’t give any respect to your implication that repubs want to shoot Mexicans and dogs. That’s because I don’t respect that opinion and I think it’s in very very poor taste. And I don’t even like the republican stances on things!
Oh and just so we can show everyone you aren’t so clever in trying to prove that I’m a bot, you were talking about FPTP and asked if I wanted dems to lose instead. Then you talked about how repubs actually want to shoot Mexicans (?!) and dogs or something bizarre like that.
So nah, not quite as clever as you thought. I thought you were replying in good faith, so I responded in kind. But you weren’t.
Incorrect
Want I said was “What do you want them to do, try to lose, instead?”
Can you compare and contrast those two statements and why they are radically different?
There was also a pretty central point I made towards the end of the message, which you seem to have missed. I’ll give a hint: It was that quite a lot of Democrats have been s_ppor_ing efforts to reform the voting system so that third parties could have a decent chance of winning
And I had a link which listed quite a lot of them by name
Can you fill in the missing two letters in my fill in the blank? I’m tryin to make it easy to recall my argument here, which you seem to have missed in a particular ironic fashion hence the whole runaround of asking you what I had said.
And when you asked me what you said, I replied that “you asked if I wanted the Dems to lose instead.” You think that is a completely different statement?! Because I forgot to put in “Try”?!
You deleted your fucking comment, then asked me that it said. Sorry I couldn’t remember it verbatim.
I’m not playing your little game, bruh. I’m not gonna “fill in the blanks” and try to remember your posts verbatim. I’m reading and posting and moving on.
You know, you could have just said something like, “Hey, I think you missed something. I actually had a link to info…” or something.
But your whole “I deleted my comment, you remember what it said?! Gotcha!!!” bs was uncool. Did you think that was gonna really inspire me to listen to your side and your opinions? Think about that.
Now I’m not actually certain you’re arguing in good faith or if you are just trying to belittle me.
I don’t feel like playing “fill in the blanks” and “Yo bro! I deleted my comment, but stay on point hee hee” games. It’s just not worth my time. Next time, maybe just disagree and point it out.
So I’m done responding to you and I’ve blocked you.
Oh, and implying that republicans want to get into power to shoot Mexicans and dogs is low and uncalled for. Even for democrats.
Fuckin’ hell, I typed a long comment and Firefox crashed and I lost it. I’ll keep it short:
Idk why you are bent out of shape about me pointing out your bad faith. I originally posted a direct and polite response to your argument, and you ignored a big part of it and went on a long strawman tirade. THEN, I started “belittling” I guess, but it was still in service of making the point of how you were approaching the conversation. Maybe I shouldn’t do that but I felt like it was a creative way to make the point. If you wanted to have a factual exchange instead, great! But I started that way and it wasn’t reciprocated.
If you don’t want to talk any more, that is obviously okay. The fill in the blank answer was “supporting.” A lot of Democrats are “supporting” ranked choice voting which is a more realistic answer to the duopoly. Here’s the list I sent you previously
Looks like he doesn’t have a comeback. Well done. Not a lot of people have the patience and persistence to manage to corner him.
The DNC has zero interest in reforming systems that work to their advantage. If given a true choice in electoral politics no one in their right mind would support Democrats or Republicans.
A-fcuking-men, brother! And what’s so funny, is now I am responding to people who like to post, then delete their comments, then ask me what they said, trying to belittle people like me and you who refuse to bow down to their viewpoints. (Hi @mozz@mbin.grits.dev !)
They just can’t accept that plenty of people aren’t following their duopoly worship. lol
Must be so hard being you. Such victimization.
Nope, not hard at all. I’m pretty happy to stand up to bullies who try to belittle others just because they are voting a different way.