#Technically there is probably a valid strategy where Trump is elected but I don't recommend it

[botaniqueer]

Even though I always vote blue as a concession (and also because I'm easily guilted while also absolutely despising the democrats), I'm understanding of folks voting third party and I'm chill with people voting for whoever as long as it's not Trump or RFK, but a criticism I do have of third party voters is that a lot of them still have the problem the main two parties have where they come across as thinking we can vote our way out of this without some of of meta-strategy after the voting is done, and they also get attached to their candidates.

Absolutely all presidents are bad for the same reason all cops are, in that the occupation itself is structurally harmful, and the attributes of the job override whatever personal attributes the person occupying it has– the most personally nice cop in the world still is obligated to remove a homeless person from a bench while protecting capital, otherwise they lose that cop position. This applies to Jill Stein, Bernie Sanders, etc. An except to this is if the incumbent fully intends to dismantle the position, but it's exceedingly hard to gain the position with this goal, and keeping the job longer enough to successfully execute it without the job changing or compromising the person first.

As mentioned in other posts, the absolute minimum job of the US president is to maintain the suppression of a collection of 500+ ethnic groups, and prevent them from having true agency or full access to the land. If this isn't maintained, the United States literally can't keep existing in a meaningful way and ends up evaporating. This will become Jill Stein or Cornell West's job if they are elected, same as when Bush or Biden have the job.

Actually using electoralism as a strategy requires good organizing for after the candidate is elected, and specifically not getting attached to them and thinking of them purely as a means to an end. Liberation and the position of the presidency are inherently at odds, so there will be times you will need to fight against your own candidate. The Democrats are notorious for getting attached despite using the "you're not marrying them!" refrain, shushing people for saying anything vaguely critical.

The metaphor I think of is dungeon crawling roguelike games, or any other game where you choose branching paths in that you're choosing the challenges you think you're best equipped to deal with, but you do still have to deal with them. You can't do what the democrats do and lay down arms immediately after choosing the more favorable path, just being it's better than Trump, and I expect the same from third party voters as well as to not be like the DNC. In the unlikely case in which a third party candidate gets elected, there still has to be a struggle, otherwise the United States and other settler nations will continue to persist and hurt others, even if things are better for most settlers, and there will always be the likelihood of things ending up back where we are now if we don't follow through.