Does it seem like it was a good idea to let the elites choose your presidential nominee for you, as opposed to holding a primary like you did in 2020?
Does it seem like it was a good idea to let the elites choose your presidential nominee for you, as opposed to holding a primary like you d 2020?
It's the same for both parties.
The leader rises to to the top and you either support them or not.
Does it seem like it was a good idea to let the elites choose your presidential nominee for you, as opposed to holding a primary like you
did in 2020?
If you're fine with it, then welcome to the Trump Train. We welcome
you. If you're NOT fine with it, you need to complain to the DNC and
tell them that you want to have a primary in 2028, if that's ok with George.
It's the same for both parties.
The leader rises to to the top and you either support them or not.
No, it's not like that here. The parties hold what's called a "primary election" where voters get to choose who the presidential nominee shall be.
Except in 2024. The Democrats refused to hold a primary and they told voters who the nominee would be instead of asking them.
And Kamala is extremely far away from "the top." She was a candidate in the 2020 presidential primary election and she was the weakest candidate, who received the fewest votes.
There was no democratic reason for her to be up against Trump in the first place.
Except in 2024. The Democrats refused to hold a primary and they told voters who the nominee would be instead of asking them.
Does it seem like it was a good idea to let the elites choose your presidential nominee for you, as opposed to holding a primary like yo did in 2020?
If you're fine with it, then welcome to the Trump Train. We welcome you. If you're NOT fine with it, you need to complain to the DNC and tell them that you want to have a primary in 2028, if that's ok with George.
They did have a primary. They didn't really have time for a do-over primary. If they'd tried that, by the time the candidate was chosen, it would have been time for the general election and no time for that candidate to campaign.
Once Biden withdrew from the race it was an open contest to be decided
at the DNC. Harris Announced her campaign and was endorsed by Biden. The following day a majority of Bidens pledged deligates pledged their
support for Harris.
Most of (if not all of) Biden delegates went to Harris. She could have been challenged but she wasn't.
I don't think anybody saw that coming but there is nothing out of place
or undemocratic in any of the above.
Except in 2024. The Democrats refused to hold a primary and they told vo who the nominee would be instead of asking them.
They held a primary. The incumbent won, as they usually do. Then the incumbent debated Trump, afterwhich the Democrats had to finally admit that their choice was senile. There was no time for a "do-over."
Aaron Thomas wrote to Alan Ianson <=-
Except in 2024. The Democrats refused to hold a primary and they told voters who the nominee would be instead of asking them.
And Kamala is extremely far away from "the top." She was a candidate in the 2020 presidential primary election and she was the weakest
candidate, who received the fewest votes. There was no democratic
reason for her to be up against Trump in the first place.
And Kamala is extremely far away from "the top." She was a candidate the 2020 presidential primary election and she was the weakest candidate, who received the fewest votes. There was no democratic reason for her to be up against Trump in the first place.
Did you see the Babylon Bee headline - I'm paraphrasing from memory...
Candidate Doesn't Understand This 'Must Get Votes to be Selected' Process
"I didn't need any votes to become Vice President, and I didn't need any votes
to become the presidential nominee. Why do I suddenly need these 'vote' thingys?" LOL
Aaron Thomas wrote to Alan Ianson <=-
I guess I should lighten up on the "they never had a primary" talk, because it's more accurate to say "they had a primary but the voters
still didn't get to choose a candidate because Biden backed out of the race without sufficient notice."
Ron L. wrote to Aaron Thomas <=-
Or was all this just a show? The Elitists knew that they couldn't
succeed and that they overplayed their hand. So put all this circus
out there to hide the operatives going to ground and planting their
moles for the future when they would try again.
But no one wanted da Ho in the first place. She was the Dems' DEI hire and Joe's insurance against assassination (because, really, NO ONE
wanted the Ho in power).
It also didn't help with all the name calling on the Dems part during the election season.
Or was all this just a show? The Elitists knew that they couldn't
succeed and that they overplayed their hand. So put all this circus out there to hide the operatives going to ground and planting their moles
for the future when they would try again.
They did have a primary. They didn't really have time for a do-over primary. If they'd tried that, by the time the candidate was chosen, it would have been time for the general election and no time for that candidate to campaign.
I didn't know this. I was missing some facts. So they had a presidential primary this year, and Biden won it?
And then they told him to get lost?
They held a primary. The incumbent won, as they usually do. Then the incumbent debated Trump, afterwhich the Democrats had to finally admit that their choice was senile. There was no time for a "do-over."
Is that an acceptable solution though? Is there a policy that calls for this procedure in the event that a nominee backs out of the race?
Republicans wouldn't stand for it. I know I wouldn't. Crap like that would cause a rift between me and the Republican party. (Imagine them saying "Trump dropped out so the delegates have chosen Jeb Bush as a replacement!")
They did have a primary. They didn't really have time for a do-ove primary. If they'd tried that, by the time the candidate was chosen would have been time for the general election and no time for that candidate to campaign.
I didn't know this. I was missing some facts. So they had a presidential primary this year, and Biden won it?
And then they told him to get lost?
Oh yeah. Because he was the incumbent, there was not much fanfair about it but they did have one. Some guy I had not heard of finished a distant second but, IIRC, with more votes than Kamala had when she ran in 2020
that their choice was senile. There was no time for a "do-over."
Is that an acceptable solution though? Is there a policy that calls for procedure in the event that a nominee backs out of the race?
It was the only solution. I do not think either party has a policy in place for what happens if someone drops out. Google 1968 Democratic Presidential Primary (or Convention) and you can read about where this happened before -- when an incumbent dropped out, and another candidate was assassinated, after the primaries had started. 2024 is not the
first time votes cast for the sitting President were then pledged to the sitting VP.
Back in time, the Conventions didn't even guarantee that the primary/caucus winner would be the nominee. It has only been in very recent times... the last 50-60 years, I think... that this has changed.
Jeb Bush wasn't running and wasn't VP. Not sure who the GOP might have chosen... although we came close to finding out... but it likely would have been his running mate (Vance) or whoever finished second to Trump
in the primaries.
Google 1952 Republican Presidential Primary (or Convention) to see a previous instance of one Republican (Taft) actually winning more primary votes (over 740,000 more, if my math is correct) but ultimately losing
the nomination to another candidate (Eisenhower) who didn't even participate in every state's primary.
Oh yeah. Because he was the incumbent, there was not much fanfair about it but they did have one. Some guy I had not heard of finished a distant
second but, IIRC, with more votes than Kamala had when she ran in 2020
So it sounds to me like the elite were trying to be fair with Kamala since she
had been so loyal to them this whole time. She's a parasite that they can trus
to maintain all the Biden side hussles (and more.)
It should serve as a warning to us all that out of all Democrats, we should trust Kamala the least. Anyone but her, when/if there's a choice. Because they
tried like crazy to install her. We need to remember this if they try that puppet out again in 2028.
In reality this is a side-effect from them having Biden's old and corrupt ass in the white house. But as Ron always says: the elite are ignorant. This time they kept Kamala hiding too long, so they made their decision way too late for
the media to "build" the public's trust of this new puppet.
Back in time, the Conventions didn't even guarantee that the primary/caucus winner would be the nominee. It has only been in very recent times... the last 50-60 years, I think... that this has changed.
If the Republicans would be more talkative about how undemocratic the Democrat
are, we wouldn't have to sweat the elections so much.
Jeb Bush wasn't running and wasn't VP. Not sure who the GOP might have chosen... although we came close to finding out... but it likely would have been his running mate (Vance) or whoever finished second to Trump in the primaries.
I was just using Jeb Bush as a worst-case scenario. Vance might be ok, but I still would have been mad as hell if it happened.
Lyndon Johnson - isn't he the one who said "We'll get those n-words voting Democrat?" If so, then him and Biden have quite a few things in common.
jimmylogan wrote to Dr. What <=-
Or was all this just a show? The Elitists knew that they couldn't
succeed and that they overplayed their hand. So put all this circus
out there to hide the operatives going to ground and planting their
moles for the future when they would try again.
Diversion? I've thought that too...
Maybe they were working on something behind the scenes to keep things going regardless?
Aaron Thomas wrote to Dr. What <=-
I was just talking with claw on sp00knet about all this. He and I both have noticed that the Dems sabotaged themselves. It goes far beyond
"they didn't try very hard."
I strongly suspect that the globalists are planning another population-reducing attack on us, but for the sake of protecting the Democrat party, they have to carry out the attack with a Republican president in office, otherwise Dems would be blamed for it.
Hopefully I'm wrong about that, and hopefully it's just what you said: they're planting moles for their future.
Ron L. wrote to Aaron Thomas <=-
The "flaw" in that is assuming that the people we can see are the
people who are actually in charge. They aren't. The Bidens, Osamas, Pelosis, etc. are just patsies and will be used by their masters until they are useless, then discarded like the trash they are.
Honestly, at that point, I think she was the only one they had left. My understanding is that all of the campaign money raised by the
Biden/Harris campaign could legally only go to Harris, since she was on the ticket that raised it.
Biden endorsing her was also something that made it almost impossible to go with anyone else. I honestly wonder if he didn't do that out of
spite for the party pulling him out of the race.
The mistake they made that they had time to correct was going with Biden to begin with. I don't buy that they didn't know he was in decline.
They just hoped they could keep him going enough until he could get elected again.
Lyndon Johnson - isn't he the one who said "We'll get those n-words voti Democrat?" If so, then him and Biden have quite a few things in common.
No that quote was attributed to him by a questionable source and there
was no evidence he ever said it.
Democrat party, they have to carry out the attack with a Republican president in office, otherwise Dems would be blamed for it.
Oooo.... That's a dark thought. Something that I didn't think of.
The "flaw" in that is assuming that the people we can see are the people who are actually in charge. They aren't. The Bidens, Osamas, Pelosis, etc. are just patsies and will be used by their masters until they are useless, then discarded like the trash they are.
Biden endorsing her was also something that made it almost impossible to go with anyone else. I honestly wonder if he didn't do that out of spite for the party pulling him out of the race.
But it also seems like he'd have no choice but to endorse his VP. Endorsing anyone else would have been an admission of his administration's failure.
But did anyone ever admit that he's in decline? I know he looks funny wanderin
off ("I see dead people") but he doesn't seem any different from 2020 Joe Bide
to me.
Lyndon Johnson - isn't he the one who said "We'll get those n-words vot
Democrat?" If so, then him and Biden have quite a few things in common.
No that quote was attributed to him by a questionable source and there was no evidence he ever said it.
Maybe I'm crazy or dreaming, but I think I saw video footage of him saying those words.
Ron L. wrote to Aaron Thomas <=-
The "flaw" in that is assuming that the people we can see are the
people who are actually in charge. They aren't. The Bidens, Osamas, Pelosis, etc. are just patsies and will be used by their masters until they are useless, then discarded like the trash they are.
| Sysop: | deepend |
|---|---|
| Location: | Calgary, Alberta |
| Users: | 253 |
| Nodes: | 10 (0 / 10) |
| Uptime: | 14:45:57 |
| Calls: | 1,646 |
| Files: | 3,994 |
| Messages: | 387,903 |