And the Dems dicked with RFK to get him to run independent instead of possibly getting a Democratic delegate. Both parties will do whatever necessary to make sure the two-party system is maintained and outsiders don’t threaten their control. What else is new?
Rfk is not a dem. He should never have run dem. He’s a republican or libertarian, and also a plant just like Jill to steal votes from dems. Gtfo with that both sides shit.
Yep. Only in his case, he was so obviously bonkers that he only appealed to Republicans who wanted a slightly different flavor of insanity from Trump, so pushing him was something of a foot-bullet.
I got my absentee ballot for MI and RFK Jr is listed as Natural Law party. I had to look up what that even is. The Libertarian candidate is Chase Oliver. The ballot has 8(!) choices for president: Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Green, Natural Law, and 2 unaffiliated.
Then the Dems would have nothing to fear by letting him run in the primary, right? Oh wait…if he got even 1 delegate, they couldn’t have just handed the nomination to Harris. There might have been a debate or a vote? The party that’s “defending democracy” can’t have that, I guess.
And in some instances, both sides actually do the same shit. Can you really not see that since at least Perot, if not McGovern, they’ve both been doing whatever possible to exclude third parties when they’re a threat, or support them when it’s convenient?
I bet you think professional wrestling is real too…
Who cares who got RFK to run? Let the candidates debate, and let the citizens vote. Why are so many people scared of that concept that no one is talking about the fact that the DNC rigged three consecutive primaries?
I do believe that just about every major issue that this country/world is facing deserves a more nuanced discussion than just the ® and (D) party platforms. Life is rarely that simple. Wouldn’t you like to have had a better idea of where Harris stands on everything and maybe have been questioned and challenged a bit before the convention? Or are you just happy to have a not-Trump candidate that isn’t senile?
It would be nice to have a nuanced discussion, but before that can happen going to have to convince the opposition to stop sending some crazy guy that screams lies about people eating dogs and cats to debate with.
If RFK (or Williamson, or Phillips) had some delegates they would’ve still been able to appoint Harris. Uncommitted got 37 delegates and they were just ignored.
And the Dems dicked with RFK to get him to run independent instead of possibly getting a Democratic delegate. Both parties will do whatever necessary to make sure the two-party system is maintained and outsiders don’t threaten their control. What else is new?
Rfk is not a dem. He should never have run dem. He’s a republican or libertarian, and also a plant just like Jill to steal votes from dems. Gtfo with that both sides shit.
Yep. Only in his case, he was so obviously bonkers that he only appealed to Republicans who wanted a slightly different flavor of insanity from Trump, so pushing him was something of a foot-bullet.
I got my absentee ballot for MI and RFK Jr is listed as Natural Law party. I had to look up what that even is. The Libertarian candidate is Chase Oliver. The ballot has 8(!) choices for president: Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Green, Natural Law, and 2 unaffiliated.
Then the Dems would have nothing to fear by letting him run in the primary, right? Oh wait…if he got even 1 delegate, they couldn’t have just handed the nomination to Harris. There might have been a debate or a vote? The party that’s “defending democracy” can’t have that, I guess.
And in some instances, both sides actually do the same shit. Can you really not see that since at least Perot, if not McGovern, they’ve both been doing whatever possible to exclude third parties when they’re a threat, or support them when it’s convenient?
I bet you think professional wrestling is real too…
If you think rfk was ever a real candidate and not a prop from the right wing to disrupt the democrat turnout then I mostly just feel sorry for you.
I’m guessing you’re the kind of person that would wanna hear “both sides” on topics like was the holocaust actually a good thing or not.
Who cares who got RFK to run? Let the candidates debate, and let the citizens vote. Why are so many people scared of that concept that no one is talking about the fact that the DNC rigged three consecutive primaries?
I do believe that just about every major issue that this country/world is facing deserves a more nuanced discussion than just the ® and (D) party platforms. Life is rarely that simple. Wouldn’t you like to have had a better idea of where Harris stands on everything and maybe have been questioned and challenged a bit before the convention? Or are you just happy to have a not-Trump candidate that isn’t senile?
It would be nice to have a nuanced discussion, but before that can happen going to have to convince the opposition to stop sending some crazy guy that screams lies about people eating dogs and cats to debate with.
That’ll only happen if the crazy guy loses.
Trump wasn’t in the Democratic primary.
Hi friend! I appreciate your work. Keep on fighting the good fight, and maybe Trump will win this one. Thank you!
And what the fuck does the holocaust have to do with anything?
If RFK (or Williamson, or Phillips) had some delegates they would’ve still been able to appoint Harris. Uncommitted got 37 delegates and they were just ignored.
That’s nice dear, but he’s a moderate dem like manchin, pelosi, or that guy that hated video games.
Ok honey! I’ll take your word for it.
deleted by creator
Yep!!
Hi friend! I appreciate your work. Keep on fighting the good fight, and maybe Trump will win this one against the duopoly. Thank you!