Even if you and I are right about this and she is wrong, that doesn't make her less than astute on many other issues. And she's right that DNC corruption makes running as a Democrat an uphill battle too.
I can see Bobby winning the Democrat primary nomination, only to have it denied to him by the Democratic machine who have ambushes built into the nomination process at every step of the way, as per the DNC Fraud lawsuit and the DNC rules (see link below). If he were denied the nomination, a coup or insurrection of sorts within the Democratic party would have to happen in order for the machine to relinquish it's control so that Bobby could officially capture the nomination. We're probably talking a fraud lawsuit all over again or some sort of serious disruption delays.
The above scenario would be completely impossible if Bobby runs as an independent or on some third party ticket. Ralph Nader third party issues were then. This is now. Someone of Bobby's stature, charisma, intellectual acumen, and extraordinary leadership doesn't need the Democratic machine for media eyeballs, debates, or endorsement -- or even campaign money.
Running from outside the Democratic machine means there is no way they can steal a presidential *candidacy* from him. The election, probably, but a *candidacy,* no. But it would mean ballot access (i.e., getting signatures from 50 states) would have to be a top priority. The Greens and the Libertarian parties have both been successful getting on the presidential ballot. But it will be virtually impossible in the election season to go independent if he waits until he is denied the primary nomination.
A possible option if he loses the Dem nomination is that he'd be invited on the ticket of one of the third parties. But is the presidential candidate of a given party really going to step aside as VP so that Bobby could commandeer the party to the White House? Not likely.
That's why I say starting an independent campaign now early on offers far less obstacles than running as a Democrat -- and is a less insurmountable route than people think. There's a groundswell of populist sentiment out there that RFK, Jr., as the finest 2024 candidate in the running, could very realistically ride to a White House victory.
That's a great idea, but I think more is needed than a promise of an open primary process. Between the realities of the DNC Fraud lawsuit and the many ambiguous slippery DNC rules (see link, especially #VI), a massive rewrite is in order for the process to be truly fair enough that it doesn't get ambushed at numerous junctures along the way to winning the nomination.
I listened to that interview. I didn't hear my concerns answered at all. In fact, when Kim asked RFK if he would endorse Biden, he specifically said, no, I will not answer that at this point. How could anyone possibly equivocate on that question? As I said, the answer is 1000% no. In what possible world could the opposing primary candidate endorsing someone like Biden not be sheepdogging?
That's the default position and the politically sane thing to say. Kennedy already has the hardcore anti-Biden votes. He need to make inroads into the great masses of wishy-washy undecideds who are polling for Biden now, but might change.
I doubt very much that Biden will say "I won't endorse RFK Jr. if he is the nominee" no matter how much he is prodded. (Not that he will be...) It's a crazy, extreme kind of thing to say, to outright reject the possibility of ever endorsing someone you're running against in the same party. Has anyone in history ever done that?!
So given political reality, RFK Jr.'s statement was about as resounding a no-confidence vote on Biden as could ever be expected.
I just spent a week with Charles Eisenstein, who believes that he can change the tone of American politics by being the spiritual conscience of the Kennedy campaign. Channeling Charles right now, I believe he would say it is important first not to demonize anyone or play into divisiveness, and he would also say that being transparent and sincere (as opposed to tactically positioning) is a no-regrets approach to transformational politics.
I support transformational politics! Sounds great to me. However, I don't think Mr. Kennedy needs Mr. Eisenstein to be the spiritual conscience of the Kennedy campaign. Mr. Kennedy IS the spiritual conscience of the campaign.
To me it's not "crazy, extreme" so say the obvious. It's simply in keeping with being a sincere truthteller -- which is very much a part of RFK's brand. But I'll concede, Kevin. Running a campaign also requires astute strategies, so yes, no need to say the truth if a reticent response will suffice.
This is the first time I have heard of Cat McGuire, whom you identified as (not quoting) an astute political observer. If this conversation is any indication, I miss the astute part. Weren't Ralph Nader's troubles sufficient to demonstrate how impossible it is for an independent candidate for president to get even a fair chance at campaigning? It's enough for me. I can't see anything astute about her arguments.
It's time for us boomers to get out of the way. Bobby's run is not realistic. He's taunting death as we all are. We are going to have to face the reality that Bill Clinton, Bushcheney, and Joe Biden are going to be the legacy we leave. AAAAAAAGGGHHHHH!
I've always assumed that there is a contract which coerces an endorsement of the eventual candidate--the DNC being a private entity. Makes practical/ tribal sense--if we had a fair and open process, which we obviously do not.
This opens the whole 3rd Party question- perhaps the 'pivot' RFK mentioned in the Iverson interview. A true can of worms.
This is the first time I have heard of Cat McGuire, whom you identified as (not quoting) an astute political observer. If this conversation is any indication, I miss the astute part. Weren't Ralph Nader's troubles sufficient to demonstrate how impossible it is for an independent candidate for president to get even a fair chance at campaigning? It's enough for me. I can't see anything astute about her arguments.
Michelle is wildly popular among democrats, who are transfixed with all things PC. For them, as "Michael" an Obama candidacy would continue to be wildly popular.
Thanks for the response. I think a large number of women (who might admire Michelle for being a woman) and men (who aren't gay but must vote Democrat) will defect on discovering the story. Men are already pretty disgusted with the trans agenda, and I can't believe women's allegiance will transfer to the "brave trans woman" trope wholesale.
Plus, everyone's going to be pretty pissed with the Democrats for the whole "Biden" charade.
Let's hope so, but when a slew of companies are going whole hog in support of the trans agenda -- Anheiser Busch, Target, North Face, etc., etc. -- it's hard to believe there is not some substantial support behind it from the liberal left.
Although personally, I think these poor companies can't do a thing about it. The diktat from BlackRock to go woke supersedes any self-determination they may have for their companies to not go broke. They complied on command when told to donate millions to the shakedown grift known as BLM.
But wait, you just said the commandments are coming from Blackrock, etc (something of a red herring - Blackrock works for the WEF), not from any political group or organ. The trans agenda is a mass conditioning operation to de-sexualize (sterilize) everyone. I don't think you'll find any "substantial support" from any near-liberals; they're as exasperated and flummoxed by the deluge of rainbows as anyone else. It's very inorganic. No gay guy would be caught dead in the *heinously* ugly rainbow Ford truck, for instance.
No, the WEF is run by the likes of BlackRock, not the other way around. Study the Board of Trustees. WEF/Klaus Schwab are just glorified, front-facing factotums. The real power lies with the banksters who sit at the top of the great reset food chain.
I hope you're right that even most liberals are aghast at the trans agenda. Here in New York City, I see quite a bit of support for trans as an agenda (versus individual authentically organically trans people who are very few and far between and who merit civil rights.)
I'll tweak the statement by saying Blackrock is a member of the WEF, and effectively both organizations are working for a higher unit that remains offstage.
I tend to think the fund companies' importance is overstated in these discussions. They aren't banks; their "biggest shareholder in xyx" status is a record-keeping artifact of holding other people's retirement money. I'm not sure if they can legally vote their custodial shares against a company's managment. That said, they can move the money itself around, and underwrite and sell securities for and to their friends, which gives them another kind of influence.
I still don't think influence goes from Larry Fink to Klaus Schwab or Jamie Dimon. Fink gets to make up ESG scores and flog corporations with them, but they're not his idea; they're coming from the Agenda and the Agenda speaks through the WEF (and its "members").
I don't doubt that the banking establishment is behind much of the current "reset" operation, but there are programmed cultural forces at work that bankers alone (Larry Fink??) would not have the means to create.
Even if you and I are right about this and she is wrong, that doesn't make her less than astute on many other issues. And she's right that DNC corruption makes running as a Democrat an uphill battle too.
I can see Bobby winning the Democrat primary nomination, only to have it denied to him by the Democratic machine who have ambushes built into the nomination process at every step of the way, as per the DNC Fraud lawsuit and the DNC rules (see link below). If he were denied the nomination, a coup or insurrection of sorts within the Democratic party would have to happen in order for the machine to relinquish it's control so that Bobby could officially capture the nomination. We're probably talking a fraud lawsuit all over again or some sort of serious disruption delays.
https://www.thegreenpapers.com/P24/2023-03-24-2024-Call-for-Convention.pdf
The above scenario would be completely impossible if Bobby runs as an independent or on some third party ticket. Ralph Nader third party issues were then. This is now. Someone of Bobby's stature, charisma, intellectual acumen, and extraordinary leadership doesn't need the Democratic machine for media eyeballs, debates, or endorsement -- or even campaign money.
Running from outside the Democratic machine means there is no way they can steal a presidential *candidacy* from him. The election, probably, but a *candidacy,* no. But it would mean ballot access (i.e., getting signatures from 50 states) would have to be a top priority. The Greens and the Libertarian parties have both been successful getting on the presidential ballot. But it will be virtually impossible in the election season to go independent if he waits until he is denied the primary nomination.
A possible option if he loses the Dem nomination is that he'd be invited on the ticket of one of the third parties. But is the presidential candidate of a given party really going to step aside as VP so that Bobby could commandeer the party to the White House? Not likely.
That's why I say starting an independent campaign now early on offers far less obstacles than running as a Democrat -- and is a less insurmountable route than people think. There's a groundswell of populist sentiment out there that RFK, Jr., as the finest 2024 candidate in the running, could very realistically ride to a White House victory.
If I were Bobby, I would offer that pledge of party loyalty in exchange for a promise of an open primary process with public debates.
That's a great idea, but I think more is needed than a promise of an open primary process. Between the realities of the DNC Fraud lawsuit and the many ambiguous slippery DNC rules (see link, especially #VI), a massive rewrite is in order for the process to be truly fair enough that it doesn't get ambushed at numerous junctures along the way to winning the nomination.
https://www.thegreenpapers.com/P24/2023-03-24-2024-Call-for-Convention.pdf
Excellent idea! (Fat chance Biden would ever accept that.)
Wait wait. All good questions ANSWERED BY RFK Jr. In recent Kim Iverson interview!
I listened to that interview. I didn't hear my concerns answered at all. In fact, when Kim asked RFK if he would endorse Biden, he specifically said, no, I will not answer that at this point. How could anyone possibly equivocate on that question? As I said, the answer is 1000% no. In what possible world could the opposing primary candidate endorsing someone like Biden not be sheepdogging?
That's the default position and the politically sane thing to say. Kennedy already has the hardcore anti-Biden votes. He need to make inroads into the great masses of wishy-washy undecideds who are polling for Biden now, but might change.
I doubt very much that Biden will say "I won't endorse RFK Jr. if he is the nominee" no matter how much he is prodded. (Not that he will be...) It's a crazy, extreme kind of thing to say, to outright reject the possibility of ever endorsing someone you're running against in the same party. Has anyone in history ever done that?!
So given political reality, RFK Jr.'s statement was about as resounding a no-confidence vote on Biden as could ever be expected.
I just spent a week with Charles Eisenstein, who believes that he can change the tone of American politics by being the spiritual conscience of the Kennedy campaign. Channeling Charles right now, I believe he would say it is important first not to demonize anyone or play into divisiveness, and he would also say that being transparent and sincere (as opposed to tactically positioning) is a no-regrets approach to transformational politics.
I support transformational politics! Sounds great to me. However, I don't think Mr. Kennedy needs Mr. Eisenstein to be the spiritual conscience of the Kennedy campaign. Mr. Kennedy IS the spiritual conscience of the campaign.
To me it's not "crazy, extreme" so say the obvious. It's simply in keeping with being a sincere truthteller -- which is very much a part of RFK's brand. But I'll concede, Kevin. Running a campaign also requires astute strategies, so yes, no need to say the truth if a reticent response will suffice.
This is the first time I have heard of Cat McGuire, whom you identified as (not quoting) an astute political observer. If this conversation is any indication, I miss the astute part. Weren't Ralph Nader's troubles sufficient to demonstrate how impossible it is for an independent candidate for president to get even a fair chance at campaigning? It's enough for me. I can't see anything astute about her arguments.
It's time for us boomers to get out of the way. Bobby's run is not realistic. He's taunting death as we all are. We are going to have to face the reality that Bill Clinton, Bushcheney, and Joe Biden are going to be the legacy we leave. AAAAAAAGGGHHHHH!
I've always assumed that there is a contract which coerces an endorsement of the eventual candidate--the DNC being a private entity. Makes practical/ tribal sense--if we had a fair and open process, which we obviously do not.
This opens the whole 3rd Party question- perhaps the 'pivot' RFK mentioned in the Iverson interview. A true can of worms.
This is the first time I have heard of Cat McGuire, whom you identified as (not quoting) an astute political observer. If this conversation is any indication, I miss the astute part. Weren't Ralph Nader's troubles sufficient to demonstrate how impossible it is for an independent candidate for president to get even a fair chance at campaigning? It's enough for me. I can't see anything astute about her arguments.
"Biden" will not be a candidate in 2024; he's a literal imposter, and the deception can't last that long.
"Michelle" won't be a candidate either - she's still a man. (May explain the trans-push though).
Everything will be different by year-end. I have to assume RFKJr knows *everything* (or will find out what he doesn't once in office.)
Michelle is wildly popular among democrats, who are transfixed with all things PC. For them, as "Michael" an Obama candidacy would continue to be wildly popular.
Thanks for the response. I think a large number of women (who might admire Michelle for being a woman) and men (who aren't gay but must vote Democrat) will defect on discovering the story. Men are already pretty disgusted with the trans agenda, and I can't believe women's allegiance will transfer to the "brave trans woman" trope wholesale.
Plus, everyone's going to be pretty pissed with the Democrats for the whole "Biden" charade.
Let's hope so, but when a slew of companies are going whole hog in support of the trans agenda -- Anheiser Busch, Target, North Face, etc., etc. -- it's hard to believe there is not some substantial support behind it from the liberal left.
Although personally, I think these poor companies can't do a thing about it. The diktat from BlackRock to go woke supersedes any self-determination they may have for their companies to not go broke. They complied on command when told to donate millions to the shakedown grift known as BLM.
But wait, you just said the commandments are coming from Blackrock, etc (something of a red herring - Blackrock works for the WEF), not from any political group or organ. The trans agenda is a mass conditioning operation to de-sexualize (sterilize) everyone. I don't think you'll find any "substantial support" from any near-liberals; they're as exasperated and flummoxed by the deluge of rainbows as anyone else. It's very inorganic. No gay guy would be caught dead in the *heinously* ugly rainbow Ford truck, for instance.
No, the WEF is run by the likes of BlackRock, not the other way around. Study the Board of Trustees. WEF/Klaus Schwab are just glorified, front-facing factotums. The real power lies with the banksters who sit at the top of the great reset food chain.
I hope you're right that even most liberals are aghast at the trans agenda. Here in New York City, I see quite a bit of support for trans as an agenda (versus individual authentically organically trans people who are very few and far between and who merit civil rights.)
I'll tweak the statement by saying Blackrock is a member of the WEF, and effectively both organizations are working for a higher unit that remains offstage.
I tend to think the fund companies' importance is overstated in these discussions. They aren't banks; their "biggest shareholder in xyx" status is a record-keeping artifact of holding other people's retirement money. I'm not sure if they can legally vote their custodial shares against a company's managment. That said, they can move the money itself around, and underwrite and sell securities for and to their friends, which gives them another kind of influence.
I still don't think influence goes from Larry Fink to Klaus Schwab or Jamie Dimon. Fink gets to make up ESG scores and flog corporations with them, but they're not his idea; they're coming from the Agenda and the Agenda speaks through the WEF (and its "members").
I don't doubt that the banking establishment is behind much of the current "reset" operation, but there are programmed cultural forces at work that bankers alone (Larry Fink??) would not have the means to create.
I'll stop here.