Let take 2016 elections for example, your choices were; Hillary, responsible for a failed country right now and rigged primaries or Trump, the less said about him is better. If enough people voted for a different party, that would keep these two main parties in sort of a check as well, knowing they can't get away with whatever they want.
Hillary got more votes, and some DNC people were catty about Bernie over private email.
I even voted Bernie, I just can't stand seeing claims repeated without evidence. Put up or shut up.
This idea that candidates need to perfectly represent everyone's opinions is just absurd. I don't agree with everything that Hillary did or that Trump is doing. That doesn't mean everything they did was bad or good.
But to suggest Jill Stein as a viable alternative when she has some dubious backing doesn't really empower choosing the 3rd party, does it?
You really believe that the POTUS (notably Jill Stein and the Green Party) could be paid by Russia to enforce Russian policies to the detriment of US citizens ?
This idea is as crazy as the idea that China invented global warming to harm the USA economy.
From https://www.rte.ie/news/analysis-and-comment/2018/0111/93244...
Back in 2012, almost three years before he declared that he was going to run for the White House, Mr Trump tweeted: "The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive."
You really believe that nothing happened and there wasn't a concerted effort by Russia to significantly impact the election?
Whether or not the POTUS or candidates were complicit is one thing, but it's very clear that a significant impact on this election was made.