If you want your voice heard, you should probably vote for the person who you align with best.
I think people should vote for the person who most closely fits their worldview who actually has a prayer of getting into office. Voting for a third party candidate who might get 2% of the vote is a waste of time. It just is. If it makes you feel good I won't quibble as long as you understand that it will accomplish nothing of value. If you actually want your voice heard then you should actually get involved in politics directly. There are far better ways to make yourself heard than through a protest vote for a fringe candidate.
Voting third party is only a waste of time when you constantly use short-term thinking. That's the problem here. Everyone is so obsessed with only considering the next four years that they never even try to think about the next 20 years. Voting for parties outside the two main parties is how they gain sufficient support to become viable in the long-term.
The two-party lock-in is pure rhetorical garbage. I can't in good conscience vote for a completely unqualified demagogue or someone who is the closest thing to a living embodiment of the establishment.
I'll agree that the two party thing is annoying but it definitely is not "rhetorical" in nature. It's an inevitable function of how our voting system is set up.
No, it's an inevitable function of a society that only believes it can vote for a potential winner in the immediate term. It is a function of large parts of our society succumbing to the false dichotomy.