Thank you for the opportunity to teach.

If my grandmother had wheels she’d be a tea trolley.

Minimization.

Right now the reality is the Donald Trump is going to take office because a lot of people didn’t vote for the alternative.

Red herring.

All the ‘what if…?’ games in the world isn’t going to change that.

Minimization.

This is a bit better than typical nonsense because there’s two tactics in a sandwich. Next is usually ad hominem. But, this one may have another trick up their sleeve.

The false assumption that most make is that one cycle doesn’t effect the next.

However, if a third party garners just 5% of the general election vote for POTUS then their platform and higher quality candidate will be on every ballot in the next cycle.

If there’s a third choice on every ballot then the the third party platform places tremendous and immediate pressure upon the platforms of the two major parties. The third party doesn’t actually win unless the other refuse to compromise. Long term, the continued threat is of greater value than a subsequent victory.

But, the electoral scheme doesn’t work unless leftists trust leftists to determine the collective risk of voting third party for the states they reside in. Even Jacobin failed to trust twice.

Things are pretty fucked. Electoral means are slow. I tend to advocate for boycott, strike, and riot (encompassing a wide scope of wisely breaking laws).

OK, what else do you suggest?

Not many ask.

Because of idealism, they seem to ask for something that doesn’t exist and not accept anything else.

This is my issue with almost everyone. They believe they already know what others think, that no one could possibly have an alternative that they’ve not already considered.

My suggestions are as follows: Consider that your scope of evaluation is only one cycle. As a consequence there may be nuance in system function that you’d not considered. Then ask the same question but in good faith.

Ah yes, so the best option is to not vote and let them succeed unimpeded.

Your very first lines are a false dichotomy.

Accelerationism is more ethical than neoliberal denial. By voting for the bigger evil you’ve made yourself the lesser evil.

The core issue is that you only have 2 real options in america, third parties may as well not exist.

There’s false assumptions necessary to reach this conclusion. Typically the false assumption is that the role of a third party is to win. The root cause of making this assumption is often that the scope of evaluation has been limited to one term or cycle.

If 5% of the general election popular vote for POTUS, knowing that the candidate cannot win, still voted for the Green Party platform then what effect would that have upon the Democratic Party platform?

On a five point difficulty scale this is a two. The test gets way harder than this.

I’m not sure what response you expect to ad hominem. This’ll have to suffice.

It’s a tactic of the propaganda machine to redefine and demonize our semantic.

That’s the sound of da beast.

They’re mask-on anarcho-capitalists.

One might also note that in that context “What is Caesar’s” could be responded to with “nothing.”

The New Testament is mostly Jesus then Paul repeatedly telling everyone with increasing amounts of frustration,

Reason from principles to situation for yourselves.

I held on tightly to my principles, reasoned it out, and voted for a platform that represents my best interests.

Did you vote for a platform that represents your best interests?

I think we define “tankie” differently.

I’ll appeal to urban dictionary as the authority to say that no hard-line Stalinist wants Trump except as a means of acceleration towards capitalism’s downfall.

Have you asked them why or did you make shallow assumptions of their intent?

They’re just accelerationists.

Be them authoritarian or not, no communist wants him.

That’s never worked before. Why will it work now?