Yesterday 6:09 am
A candidate is legitimate because theyCannonpointer » Yesterday, 8:18 pm » wrote: ↑ Who SAYS the demico-republicrat candidates are "legitimate? What legitimizes them?
They do the opposite of what they promise. You do not get what you vote for. How is that "legitimte"?
And your argument is for more of the same.
And you don't understand that this is precisely the problem? That WHICHEVER candidate we are allowed to vote for is in the tank for the MIC and the mega-corps that are poisoning us and stealing our republic, leaving each generation with more hours to work for less reward?
Little Marco. How humiliating for you.
qualified for ballot access...met filing deadlines...submitted required signatures...formed a real campaign committee...met FEC requirements....and appeared on ballots nationwide. That’s legitimacy. Not a vibe. Not a theory. Not a manifesto. You’re demanding lectures about ‘legitimacy’ from a voting lane that has never even come close to winning anything. A 3rd‑party candidate hasn’t won a single state in over 50 years, and most of them can’t even win a county. You’re talking about a party that has never scored in modern political history.
A 3rd‑party candidate has not
won a presidential election
won a single state since 1968
come close to 270 electoral votes
held a competitive national lead
The closest anyone got in the last half‑century
Ross Perot, 1992 — 19% popular vote, 0 states
Ross Perot, 1996 — 8%, 0 states
Gary Johnson, 2016 — 3%, 0 states
Get back to me when a 3rd party candidate can win even one "COUNTY" in an election. Just one "COUNTY".