WelcomeUser Guide
ToSPrivacyCanary
DonateBugsLicense

©2025 Poal.co

totally unrelated random pictures from internet https://pic8.co/sh/7Ed5BI.jpg https://pic8.co/sh/dCXk8N.jpg

totally unrelated random pictures from internet https://pic8.co/sh/7Ed5BI.jpg https://pic8.co/sh/dCXk8N.jpg

(post is archived)

[–] 1 pt

Which third party would you ideally support?

[–] 0 pt (edited )

Which third party would you ideally support?

It doesn't really matter.

We need roughly 688-794 new parties nationally, spread out based on population for this program to succeed. It's a numbers game. Microparties would be the structure, two or three large issues, and neutrality on all the other large issues, so they can be joined or split as necessary to cause maximum confusion against federal programs otherwise designed to breakup/suppress political movements.

Just for example, 1 in 8 americans live in california, so they would have 74-83 new microparties.

Issues would be:

Foreign funding Military expenditure/new wars Abortions Gun rights Immigrants Voting rights Prisons and prison rights Education/Teachers unions Marriage Religion in government/schools Welfare Social Security Corporate Regulations Taxes

etc

And the parties can fall to either side of these issues, it really doesn't matter.

What matters is vote splitting and raising the cost, first locally, then state level, then regionally, and finally federally--raising the cost of controlling elections and raising the cost of keeping people invested in the illusion, until the two-party front is forced to cooperate further further, out in the open.

This will lead, either in a short-sighted bid, to a doubling down of political suppression, or to the civic nationalism program and deescalation (the opposite of accelerationism) in the short term. Both of which we can exploit to drive the wedge further.

The parties must not be allowed to escape their crimes, what they have done to the american public over the last 20-30 years, economically, socially, or politically. They must be removed from power, along with the million+ people in the bureaucracy and federal agencies.

This is preferable to a civil war, and thus if we wish to avoid that, the above must be what happens. Of course those two outcomes aren't mutually exclusive, and one carries the risk of the other. But to allow the current national configuration to continue as is, would and is leading to worse being done to the american public, and without our say so or ability to stop it if it continues.

[–] 0 pt

Now you're talking my language. I completely support this.