Social media isn\u2019t the place to delve into politics if you aren\u2019t ready to stand behind your posts. Recently, my brother posted a photo asserting he and others who cast a vote for a third-party candidate are sending a message of protest to the two parties dominating our American political landscape. Folks, I don\u2019t care who anyone votes for \u2026 If \u2026 they can back it up. Now, I didn\u2019t question who he was voting for. In fact, I couldn\u2019t care less. I just was hoping that as publicly as he shared this little photo he\u2019d share his reasoning. Replying to his post, I noted the history of third-party candidates isn\u2019t what anyone would label successful in the rationale of sending that message, considering Ralph Nader, Ross Perot, or my personal favorite, Pat Paulsen. I plainly laid out if those other parties want to be taken seriously by voters, they have to bring more to the table than candidates who aren\u2019t serious about their candidacy \u2014 supporting theories of government involvement in 9\/11 or someone who doesn\u2019t know where or what Aleppo is. I suggested the first step for those who feel empowered to vocally express how much they are disenfranchised by the political system is to wipe off those boo-boos and do something rather than just complain about being an oppressed victim. One option is voters actually showing up to every election. I mean, our presidential primary in March had a smidgen more than 34 percent voter turnout statewide. Frankly, that\u2019s pathetic and embarrassing. I also noted a voter\u2019s voice should not only be heard on Election Day. If you want to spark change, you have to work together with like-minded people for your own communities before you can set your sights any higher. My brother quickly replied, noting how the Founding Fathers were not in favor of two parties dominating politics as they are today; my charming cynicism about third-party candidates is part of the problem; how the system is rigged against \u201creal\u201d voters; and it was his opinion and he won\u2019t change it and he didn\u2019t need to defend his stance. The gloves came off, folks. Not because I\u2019m a cynical contrarian, but his inability to defend his public stance was hypocritical of the post itself \u2014 to send a message of protest. I don\u2019t care who you vote for. I absolutely relish the secret ballot and believe in the system. However, if you\u2019re going to take a position on something, you better back it up with rational, fact-driven discussion and not cherry-picked rhetoric. As I told him in my final reply \u2014 despite him carrying on \u2014 that posting something and not expecting to be challenged, questioned or asked to defend the very basic reasoning to the public support of said candidate, is absolutely presumptuous. And by spouting off \u201cthat\u2019s my opinion and you can\u2019t make me change it\u201d isn\u2019t a very successful, reassuring endorsement of said candidate \u2014 it\u2019s actually the complete opposite. I\u2019ll be much happier when this election is over, folks. I\u2019ll take babies walking, cat videos and inappropriate jokes any day on Facebook \u2014 even a \u201cYour Mama\u201d joke would suffice right about now. However, I am a realist, and I know there are folks who will never be happy if they aren\u2019t complaining. I\u2019ll probably complain. The difference is, it\u2019s going to be my opinion, but if you present a rational, reasonable rebuttal free from whiny, irrational, irresponsible rhetoric, then the least I can do is listen. I\u2019ll gladly welcome any civilized discussion with folks I may not always see eye-to-eye with on certain issues. However, it is through discussion, that understanding could ultimately lead to compromise.