Well, I said I was being charitable. They refuse to reveal their list of donors which is ridiculous because it undermines their legitimacy when voters dont know who is supporting them (though we know one of them is a Republican donor who is tied to Clarence Thomas.) In my opinion, the only purpose of No Labels is to help Trump win...

It seems to me that Kennedy is going to have a major impact on this race to the detriment of Biden. Do others agree?

I believe so. Perhaps this is because Biden has sided with the Progressive wing of his party, and the moderates are looking for options.

I guess the POTUS made his choice.

I agree. I think he'll pull from otherwise Trump and Biden voters, but more Biden than Trump. Bad math for Biden.

Agreed. "Trump’s primary donor, Timothy Mellon, is also backing Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s independent presidential bid. Mellon has contributed $20 million to Kennedy’s super PAC, American Values 2024, formerly known as the People’s Pharma Movement."


https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/inv ... 118049007/

Needless to say...what RFK, Jr. is doing is shameful. I'm not sure what the motivation is--money, attention?--but it's to the detriment of the country.

No Labels will not field a candidate. Looks like you got your wish of less choices. Congratulations.

Perhaps you would like RFK Jr., Trump, Williamson, Stein and West to not run as well.

What does that remind me of? Oh yeah, Russia and China.

Surprise, Putin and Xi win again.

More choices are always better for democracy.

Here is a gift article to the NY Times article on Kennedy and who he will pull from:

https://www.nytimes.com/article/rfk-jr-explainer.html?unlocked_article_code=1.iE0.p-hN._L4vVkDXQyRy&smid=url-share

They seem to think he will pull evenly, or maybe even from more Trumpers.

bbauska wrote:Perhaps you would like RFK Jr., Trump, Williamson, Stein and West to not run as well.

What does that remind me of? Oh yeah, Russia and China.

Surprise, Putin and Xi win again.

More choices are always better for democracy.

It's a fair criticism.

No Labels dropped out presumably because they couldn't find a candidate who would help Trump win and their donors wanted to put their money elsewhere. We'll see about RFK, Jr. I'm sure we'll see some changes in positions if he's not pulling more Dem voters.

I would say in the past third-party candidates while having no chance of winning did sometimes have an impact (e.g., getting the major parties at least in the case of Perot to adjust their positions) and they're running was beneficial. Candidates like Perot/Anderson. But with polarizatIon and especially after Nader people became conscious that elections could be manipulated by running third-party candidates. And Stein, RFK, Jr and No Labels appear to be such attempts. They draw too little support to effect any influence (voting from them is essentially performative) and they are being used to manipulate the system and that is problematic, especially when a guy like Trump is running. But people can vote for who they want to.


I find it deeply ironic Brad would claim not having more options would make us more like Communist China. Trump: "If we don't win on November 5, I think our country is going to cease to exist. It could be the last election we ever have. I actually mean that."

Trump is the guy that would make us more like like Communist China, more autocratic. And third-party candidates designed to help him win, aide him in his autocratic goals. The Heritage Foundation has put together a plan--Project 2025--that will enable Trump to do that if he wins.

Perhaps a parliamentary system would be better by allowing more voices from different parts of the political spectrum real power. But our two-party system is still a real democracy (even after Citizen's United and the Republican Party's rightward turn under Trump). It's worth voting for...

Freeman seems to want no candidate running that would defeat his decrepit, mentally reduced candidate. That appears to be the agenda. I want MANY people to run, and America can pick who they feel would be best for the nation.

To be wanting candidates to not run because it affect your weakened candidate is selfish and acting out of fear. If the Democratic nominee is so great, and can beat all comers, why do you need to clear the field.

BTW, our political system is not a Democracy. It is a Republic.

I have said it before, I DO NOT LIKE TRUMP! However, people should have more options.

Also, I just looked up Project 2025 at the Heritage Foundation.

There was not 1 mention of Trump. Just conservatism.

Perhaps that is what is scary to you... A different viewpoint.

A democracy is "a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives."

The important point that each adult individual has a real say in government by having a meaningful vote. Obviously, a modern country cannot be run like ancient Athens. If that's your point, then ok. But it's really getting into semantics.

No one forced No Labels to shut down. The government is not shutting down third party candidates so what's the issue here? If a third party candidate cannot generate enough interest, then the fault is theirs. I'm not advocating preventing a third-party candidate from running. But I am certainly *still* free to express my opinion that certain candidates are shills for Trump.

As for Project 2025, Trump has never been shy about wanting more power and this provides a roadmap. Here is an article talking about Trump and Project 2025. From his rhetoric and the linkage between people who worked for him and Project 2025, it's reasonable to think he would adopt much of this plan.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/17/us/p ... -2025.html

The real scary part is if the Republican Party has gone off the deep end with Trump, that even when Trump leaves the political scene the Party will still have autocratic tendencies because of an inability to win elections, otherwise. Hopefully, not.

I do not refute that your "opinion" is allowed, but I do question your (and your party's) desire to eliminate any and all possible opponents. It is coming from a place of fear.

I want the best conservative running. Your motive seems to be remove everyone else, and then your ol' guy will be all that is left.

You make excuse after excuse for Biden.
He forgets leader's names.. (every one else does that also)
Robert Hur states his opinion and dementia in Biden (He is out of line, and that was inappropriate)
Biden appears old (Trump is old also, )
Classified docs were found in a box in an open garage (But Trump had classified docs in a safe, too)

There is always an excuse. Same as with the No Labels. You wanted to diminish and not even accept them as a possible alternative worthy of examination. The Democratic Party is doing the same thing. They are afraid that their guy would lose if any other viable alternative would be proffered. That is regardless of the fact that the American people should be be left to their own choices. The Democratic Party is not about choices. It is about them controlling the electorate. I find that sad.

My vote in Eastern Washington has not mattered for many electoral cycles. Not since my first election in 1984. After that the state became a Democratic bastion. My one vote is meaningless in a presidential election. You don't see me whining about changing the rules. You call that semantics. I don't. I try (and succeed sometimes in electing the people to represent me) to follow the rules in elections. I do not try to remove candidates from running in states. That seems to be what the Democratic party was doing with former President Trump.

Even Sage Steele (a sportscaster that I do not respect) reports that Biden needs the interview to be scripted, and deviation from that script results in confusion and verbal bumbling.

3 debates, not pre-released open topic questions from Anderson Cooper, Bret Baier and Tom Beavan (Left, Right, Center).

I don't think Biden can hack it. I am not a natural Trump voter. Prove me wrong, President Biden. Your handlers don't think you can hack it either. Otherwise you would be allowed to be having non-scripted interviews. You would have a Superbowl interview.

Sad...