Just Curious... Is it okay to let RFK Jr. have a thread?

[Sandy Larsen]

21 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

I have no objection to forum members beating a dead horse, but how many times do people need to repeat the same trope?

 

I feel the same way William. But the moderators don't interrupt threads just because participants repeatedly go over old ground. (Unless it is just one person doing it excessively , in which case we would treat it as spam.)

What I really want to know is if members think it's unfair for the RFK2 thread to be on the main board, and if so, why... considering that RFK is a member of the WC critical community and has been in Oliver Stone's documentary.

Others, like Jim D. and Ben like to point out that, in addition, RFK2 might come to be in a position to release the JFKA files. But I just don't see him possibly winning the election. On the other hand, maybe that remote possibility bolsters the case for his bid for presidency being relevant to the JFKA forum.

 

[Bill Fite]

34 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

But I just don't see him possibly winning the election. On the other hand, maybe that remote possibility bolsters the case for his bid for presidency being relevant to the JFKA forum.

I'm not so sure about that.

I assume that both of the traditional parties have about 20% or so intransigent supporters who are the minority of the party that control the nominations.

Given the ages of the assumed nominees from this 40% of the population and other considerations - it wouldn't be surprising for the younger voters and those wanting a change in the 60% to reject the trad 2.

In addition to winning outright there's one other scenario that would elect a 3rd party candidate - if I remember correctly.

Once a 3rd candidate wins at least a couple electoral votes that would deadlock the EC and force the election to the Congress - that candidate might be able to work a deal before the EC vote -  with the minority party by state where they would have their electors vote for the 3rd party candidate since they would lose if the election goes to Congress and is voted on by state.

Although it's illegal for unfaithful electors to vote for another candidate, none have ever been prosecuted and the status of their votes would have to be decided.

So - path 1:  RFKjr wins enough electoral votes  - there might be 40-60% of the voting population who are unhappy with both candidates

path2:

* RFKjr wins a couple EC votes & no candidate gets the 270 necessary to win

* Party A controls 26 or more state votes in Congress for the Presidential election if the election goes to Congress

* RFKjr refuses to instruct his couple of EC members to vote for A or B

* Party B then instructs all its EC members to vote for RFKjr to prevent the party A candidate from winning -> RFKjr EC votes + Party B votes >= 270.

Then chaos ensues w legal challenges etc.....

 

Edited November 7, 2023 by Bill Fite

[Benjamin Cole]

Man, I gotta say, making predictions about who will win the 2024 election...you might as well ask an astrologer. 

This one is up for grabs. 

The two major parties are (likely) running the weakest candidates of the postwar era (I am talking about since WWII). 

Increasingly, voters are unsatisfied with the major parties, for not producing results---higher pay, safer streets. Housing is unaffordable in large swaths of the country. 

In fact, no President can fix easily these problems (there are long-term fixes, but neither major party will do it), but the problems are making the population angry. 

RFK2 polled at 22%, and that is after every salvo possible has been thrown at him. If RFK2 picks a sensible running mate, possibly a conservative-ish African American....

Ross Perot won 19% of the vote back in 1992. Hard to say, but he seems much less viable to me than RFK2. Perot ran an odd campaign and even dropped out for a while, citing a strange reason regarding his daughter.

If the reason to censor the lone remaining RFK2 thread is that he cannot win the Presideny...I wonder about that. Maybe RFK2 will fade. I thought he was...and then he popped up to 22%. 

And really---how does RFK2 stack up against Biden or Trump, in terms of coherent conversation?  

Side note: Too bad about RFK2's frog voice. No, not important, but in a debate I think RFK2 would flatten Biden and Trump, but RFK2  sounds terrible. If he had his father's or uncle's voice, much more appealing. 

 

[Sandy Larsen]

1 hour ago, Bill Fite said:

I'm not so sure about that.

I assume that both of the traditional parties have about 20% or so intransigent supporters who are the minority of the party that control the nominations.

Given the ages of the assumed nominees from this 40% of the population and other considerations - it wouldn't be surprising for the younger voters and those wanting a change in the 60% to reject the trad 2.

In addition to winning outright there's one other scenario that would elect a 3rd party candidate - if I remember correctly.

Once a 3rd candidate wins at least a couple electoral votes that would deadlock the EC and force the election to the Congress - that candidate might be able to work a deal before the EC vote -  with the minority party by state where they would have their electors vote for the 3rd party candidate since they would lose if the election goes to Congress and is voted on by state.

Although it's illegal for unfaithful electors to vote for another candidate, none have ever been prosecuted and the status of their votes would have to be decided.

So - path 1:  RFKjr wins enough electoral votes  - there might be 40-60% of the voting population who are unhappy with both candidates

path2:

* RFKjr wins a couple EC votes & no candidate gets the 270 necessary to win

* Party A controls 26 or more state votes in Congress for the Presidential election if the election goes to Congress

* RFKjr refuses to instruct his couple of EC members to vote for A or B

* Party B then instructs all its EC members to vote for RFKjr to prevent the party A candidate from winning -> RFKjr EC votes + Party B votes >= 270.

Then chaos ensues w legal challenges etc.....

 

 

You may be right Bill.

But the fact remains that no third-party candidate has ever won the presidency.

Of course, there are often "first times."

 

[Bill Fite]

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

You may be right Bill.

But the fact remains that no third-party candidate has ever won the presidency.

Of course, there are often "first times."

 

And these are the strangest of times!