https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Gladio

Operation gladio was against an entirely different nation state, not two political parties competing against a third. This is a ridiculous comparison.

You are comparing living in a country and being forced to pay taxes to voluntarily choosing to be part of a party that support and endorse a genocide

I’m comparing a choice of affiliation. Progressive candidates could leave the democratic party for a third party, but it would prevent their ability to win office. You could choose to immigrate to a new country, it would just be difficult.

For the same reason they don’t want a third party to win over red and blue

Lol, so you are admitting that Abdul is an anti Israel anti fascist candidate of the Democratic party? You do realize he won the primary as a Democrat, right?

are making these stupid arguments there are kids being murdered in gaza in a genocide perpetrated by the israel government with the full support of the red and blue party.

Again… Dodging the question. Why not simply choose to end your affiliations with the countries doing that genocide?

Also, it’s not the full support. There are over 20 house Democrats that have cospinsored a genocide resolution bill and over 100 Democrats that have voted to restrict weapon sales and military aid.

Even if a third party candidate beat the odds and one a seat, they would still be working with those Democrats to stop the genocide.

not voting for a party is doing evil it’s propaganda at it’s finest.

Splitting the vot in a close election between a progressive Democrat and a fascist is supporting evil.

In elections you are not supposed to vote for the party more likely to win, you are supposed to vote for the party you agree with.

According to who? You have the naivety of a middle schooler.

expect the voting population of the Democrat party to less likely choose a candidate that isn’t aligned with the party capitalistic and authoritarian policies

Less likely compared to the Republicans?

case where a good democrat lose against a bad democrat in primaries all the party resources gets redirected to the latest, which is what keeps happening over and over.

Have you been following the latest primaries…?

With the tools established by red and blue administrations

Ahh yes, the numbers are biased against reality… Sure bud.

We indeed have a lot of data on people voting out and fighting government and that’s why authorities are spending billions and trillions to keep their grip on power and control the public.

Lol, we’ve spent trillions of dollars fighting …the green party?

According to logic

The thing you don’t understand?

If you affiliate with, endorse, support and run for a party you are doing major work for it

You affiliate with your country, pay taxes for its wars, choose to live within its borders, so that means you like genocide? Why don’t you move to a country that doesn’t support genocide? Because it’s difficult? People immigrate with less resources than you every day. Why choose to support genocide? Why choose to stay and try and change an evil country instead of just moving to a country that doesn’t slaughter children?

Abdul it means they didn’t want him to win and that they could fight him off putting the money where they did

So… Why did they not want Abdul to win? Come on you are so close to making a logical deduction.

Yes i do care about innocent children getting murdered with the help of the government, what about you?

Again, according to your logic it doesn’t seem like you do. Why continue to support a government that does genocide when you could simply choose to move to a different country?

My claims do not support guilt by association, I think voting for candidates who have an actual chance at winning and are anti Israel is how we stop the genocide.

again that’s your assumption rooted in propaganda that if you don’t vote for “the party” the enemy win.

Math is propaganda… Something tells me you didn’t do very well in school.

Governments are spending billions in propaganda and mass surveillance because the chances they get vote out and replaced are realistic

What evidence do you have to support the claim that it is realistic that a third party is likely to elect enough representatives to Congress to have an influence on a genocide happening right now? None… You have no evidence.

Will bet money that conservatives will start slow walking the idea of mass “strategic” bombing with traditional dumb munitions soon.

So people who were running around when leaded gas was a thing, didn’t just get it early, they’re getting it harder now.

Baby boomers were not exposed to that much leaded gas when they were younger, that didn’t become a huge problem until the 60s and peaked in the early 70s. Genx is actually the generation with the highest amount of **led exposure.

The whole lead brained baby boomer thing is pop theory** that attempts to explain the reason why baby boomers are so shitty, in reality it’s more likely socio economics rather than physiology.

A lot of baby boomers were raised by a society that was experimenting with replacing the idea of communal upbringing with the nuclear family. Sacrificing the stability of a community for the economic advantage of being able to move away from a larger family structure for economic advantage.

If you had loving parents who worked to socialize you in your new surroundings, it’s not so bad. If your dad is an alcoholic suffering from undiagnosed PTSD from the war… You’re probably not going to learn a lot about the importance of empathy.

also means that if most of members of the party are criminals who support a genocide that becomes the party’s stance.

Which is a great reason why as many of those members who hold those beliefs should be voted out of office. The fastest and most likely way to achieve that is to primary them.

the theory claims that you can predict people vote then it’s a wrong theory because you cannot do that

You can build models to predict the way populations vote with varying degrees of accuracy. The more data you have to plug into those models, the more accurate it will be. For something like the likelihood of the average American voter choosing a third party candidate… We have a lot of data.

People vote is a variable that can change according to a number so high of parameters that makes it “impossible” to predict.

According to who?

The democratic party is an anti fascist platform?

It includes people who won primaries running on an anti fascist platform…

The same platform supporting corporations, mass surveillance, authoritarian regimes and a genocide where kids are being murdered?

Again, you are falsely conflating an entire party with an individual candidate.

you decide to affiliate with and to be under a leader who support a genocide because it gives you more popularity and votes you are not a good person. If a candidate was actually bad for israel government they would spend 60 millions to assasinate them.

Lol, can’t answer the question.

Not paying taxes has direct repercussions such as going to jail,

Ahh, so it’s cool for you to support genocide because you don’t want to face any repercussions? Sounds like you really care about the children of Palestine.

there aren’t any of such repercussions in choosing a different party to run with.

It would allow the democratic candidate who wins to be an actual genocide supporter.

That’s your assumption based on the propaganda

It’s just a reality… If there was even a slim chance don’t you think out of the 535 representatives there would be at least one person who didn’t caucus with Democrats or Republicans?

Note this point in my original post, *which was directly quoted by you in your response

Which is still an arbitrary date when evaluating trends…

gold has just broken out, as Russia’s selling is no longer suppressing the price

The price of gold wasn’t being affected by Russia selling gold, it was because the market determined interest rates were going to raise or remain flat. That and there was a couple spike in treasury bond yields.

My model leads me to expect to see gold make a new all time high above $5600/oz before year end, about a 30% rise from where it is at today, and to top $15K/oz before the end of 2027, though the actual peak in this time frame may well be in the $20k-25K/oz range.

My dude… The knowledge that you would need to make a working model would also prevent you from long term investing in a leveraged etf.

I just hope you aren’t trading on margin. Good luck in your endeavors, but please try to not get other people roped in on your gambit.

Yeah, but it’s a weird one. Unlike most other psychedelics it’s not an alkaloid and it doesn’t interact with your serotonin receptors. Instead it has a high affinity for the k-opioid receptor and disrupts the release of dopamine in certain parts of your brain.

Sounds like the salvia may have unmasked/worsened a latent mental ailment…

Remember kids, be cautious around psychedelics if your family has a history of mental illness.

Ahh, it’s her turn to be the “good” Republican. Her and Collins take turns passing the moderate Republican title back and forth on close decisions.

It usually comes down to Republicans needing one more vote… Either her or collins will have a change of heart after getting a deal for their state and having a one on one with the nominee where the nominee pinky promises to behave themselves.

If he hates windmills why not invest in other green tech.

Same reason the US gov has always destroyed any energy sector competing with fossil fuels… Political bribes have a huge return on investment.

Eh… I would be more concerned than anything. America is just the proving ground for corporations. We get to be the lab rats before the corporations export their practices to the rest of the world. There’s a reason why most liberal democracies been sliding further and further right.

I think the largest red city in Texas is Lubbock, which is in fact a complete shit hole. You are more than x2 as likely to be a victim of a violent crime in Lubbock than in Austin.

What would motivate a progressive canditate to enroll in an evil party that support a genocide?

Because it is the most progressive party that has a chance at winning elections and they want to change it to become even more progressive.

Again, a party’s stance on any given policy is dictated by the members of the party. Which means that the voters can force the party to adopt a new position if they vote for candidates who want change.

prediction on what people will vote for is no evidence to prove that a third party can’t win.

That’s literally what the theory and paper supporting it is about… Just because you refuse to accept what it claims does not mean it’s not supporting evidence.

It’s easy to understand why, you cannot predict the outcome of the vote.

That’s not what the theory or paper is claiming to do… I think you might have issues with your reading comprehension.

the scenario where you are voting for the lesser evil fascist you are voting for fascists

Voting for people who run on an anti fascist platform is fascist…sure.

A vote for someone who is part of the democratic party is a vote for someone in a party that supports a genocide.

Again, that’s a hasty generalization made with the intent to avoid context and any iota of nuance. Especially considering that the vast majority of voters have no independent or third party voters on their ballots.

In a hypothetical situation where the only options for a candidate is a person like Abdul El-Sayed (dnc) or a person like Mike Rogers (rnc). Your claim would suggest that both candidates are just as bad because the leaders of their respective parties have both endorsed Israel? Even though Israel spent 60 million dollars in against Abdul’s primary election?

I’ve never advocated for evil, I’ve always advocated to do the correct thing

Which is why I said I unwittingly…

not support criminals with blood on their hands, don’t you realize how twisted your logic is?

So they are guilty by association? By that logic why are you supporting the genocide of Palestinians?

You are tax paying citizen of a western nation supporting the genocide of Palestinians. Why would you associate yourself with a country that bombs children? Why not just move to a nation that has nothing to do with genocide?

I’ve been here advocating against an ongoing genocide in every post how the hell i’m happy to let them do that?

Yeah, but according to your own argument advocating against genocide doesn’t mean anything. Your decisions still aid a party and a country that supports genocide.

Instead of trusting prospects made by the government try to think with your mind.

My mind is telling me that out of the 535 seats that make up the house and Senate there are currently three 3rd party members.

1 representative in the house, who was a Republican until his district was redrawn in 2026 so he chose to switch to independent. He still caucuses with the Republican party.

2 representatives in the Senate both of which cuacus with the Democratic party.

So even if you ignore the fact that these independent representative are Republican or Democrat in everyway except name… That’s a .56% success rate for third party candidates.

don’t attack people who are trying to do that.

If you see education as a personal attack …it might explain some of your difficulties with comprehension.

Same goes for the republicans

Yes, and we have seen them radicalize even farther right very recently .

why don’t blue canditates run for red to change it and make it good

Because the voting population of the Republican party would be less likely to choose a progressive candidate. What would motivate a progressive candidate to enroll in a conservative party?

that is not possible" is your assumption

I have backed my assumption with actual evidence… What evidence do you have to support your theory?

voting for lesser evil fascists is a vote for fascists.

Says who? There are candidates that just won there primary as Democrats who have disavowed Israel and are democratic socialist. How is voting for them a vot for fascists?

To me it sound like that’s something you are projecting on others,

Ahh yes, because you are the expert who can’t understand political science taught at a highschool level.

advocating for the lesser evil it’s doing exactly

Which is better than advocating for the greater of the two evil… Which is what you are unwittingly doing.

rest of the world that pay the most for what the US government is doing.

And you seem more than happy to let them do that so long as you can waste your vote on a prospect that has zero chance of winning.

person vote is a constant only if you assume that people will always vote in a certain way like voting for the party that has more chances of winning rather than voting for the party they identify with. That’s an assumption that generalize how people vote.

The constants I was talking about were the first past the post style over elections and single member districts.

There are more than two parties or we wouldn’t be talking about third parties.

“two-party system is a political setup where two major parties win nearly all elections and hold almost all power in government.”

Each election is different from another and has different parties running which means that each time the variables are different

The variables that matter are a constant… It doesn’t matter what parties run so long as the system in which they run is the same.

I argue that unless you can read the future you cannot prove mathematically what people are going to vote for.

This does not attempt to vision what party will win, just that one of the main two parties in a two party system will win.

You are taking this law for granted and building another of your own on top of it.

Lol, how so?

This theory looks mainly based on observation of previous elections, it’s

I mean it uses previous elections as evidence to support a theory based on a logical deduction. Your claim is like saying the laws around gravity are only based on previous observations of how gravity functions. That every step you take “changes the data”.

educate yourself on how math works if you want to school others on anything scientific.

Someone has already done the Math… You don’t have to trust my opinion.

“Thomas R. Palfrey argued Duverger’s law can be proven mathematically at the limit when the number of voters approaches infinity for one single-winner district and where the probability distribution of votes is known, rational strategic voting forces a single-winner plurality system to collapse into a two-party competition.”

Meaning in this model as the number of voters approaches infinity, the vote share of any third or minor candidate shrinks toward zero in equilibrium.

In a democratic election each party has the same changes of winning

What does that even mean without context? The chances of winning are determined by the locality of the voters. A Democrat does not have the same chance of winning a seat in California as they do in Oklahoma, what are you talking about?

the world is divided into two factions that will never vote for anything that isn’t red or blue.

We’re talking about America…not the world. And yes, America is a two party system. The chances of a third party loosing isnt an absolute, but it’s as close to a guarantee as you could make in politics.

If the party you are trying to improve is evil and corrupted as fuck you have more chances to improve humanity not associating yourself with them. Your argument is like trying to improve nazism within the nazi party.

The party is a human construct, it’s the people in the party who make it evil. If you change the people it is a different party in all but name.

like trying to improve nazism within the nazi party.

The Nazi party ceased to be subject to the democratic process and thus had to be destroyed and not changed.

what someone endorsing a genocide where thousand of kids died would have done.

Yes…based on all information we know about the party and the person. You know, the only way you can judge people.

you actually want to fight fascists you want to promote something better than voting for the lesser evil fascist

Voting for the lesser evil is better than voting for something that is not possible…which is the same as supporting the fascist.

You’re just ineffectually virtue signaling to make yourself feel better and at the same time making everything worse for the rest of the world.

What twisted logic are you on? Third parties can run on their own and not be affiliated with the red and blue party

Duverger’s law

Like I said… You need to better educate yourself about civics and political science.

This is propaganda the government spreads around to keep all the votes on red and blue and never lose their duopoly in power.

No, it’s just political science and the result of having single member districts and first past the post voting. It has been a known quantity since the 50s.

If red and blue want to win elections they try to get the votes on themself, why would they want promote third parties that their own supporters could vote for?

Because in a close red vs blue election, if the red can create a schism in the blues party that drives some of their voters towards a different party with more progressive views, then they can win without having to gain more voters.

Every couple of months a brand new movie comes out and millions of people go to watch it because they hear about it on ads. It takes less than a month to make something popular among the public.

That’s not a metric on how to measure how democratic a government is…?

Democracy is measured by how much access the average citizen has to influence how the nation is run. Compared to a direct democracy, the average American is pretty separated from the levers of powers. We are a democratic Republic, meaning that we do not directly vote for every law, but instead vote on representatives to vote on those laws.

How these representatives are elected, how much power they have, and how they can operate in regards to their constituent’s will are all ways that we are moved further away from the democratic process.