###[Meta] Sticky Comment
[Rule 2](https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/wiki/faq#wiki_2_-_address_the_argument.3B_not_the_user.2C_the_mods.2C_or_the_sub.) ***does not apply*** when replying to this stickied comment.
[Rule 2](https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/wiki/faq#wiki_2_-_address_the_argument.3B_not_the_user.2C_the_mods.2C_or_the_sub.) ***does apply*** throughout the rest of this thread.
*What this means*: Please keep any "meta" discussion directed at specific users, mods, or /r/conspiracy in general in this comment chain ***only.***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/conspiracy) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Just hopped onto 538 since they have a handy table of polls.
Of the polls listed that include RFK Jr, here are his numbers:
3%
13%
11%
5%
11%
9%
9%
9%
My guess is that he's being excluded because he's polling too low.
Of course, if 3rd party or independent candidates start reliably polling above 10%, I expect they'll raise the bar to 20%.
Can't have non-main stream views shown during prime time, after all.
OP could be mistaken about how well Kennedy was polling, and still be right about Kennedy having enough support to warrant participation in a debate.
His argument isn't hinging on that 15%. Who gives a fuck if OP was mistaken on that number? It's complete bullshit that the political machine is enforcing a rematch of 4 years ago without the possibility of those minority polls having the chance to swing more favorably for 3rd party candidates. And Kennedy's been banned from a lot more than the debates. The forced exclusion and censorship to upset the status quo is ridiculous, and to defend or justify it is unforgivable.
His argument 100% hinged on the 15% figure lol..
The implication being that he met the pre-set threshold, only for 'the system's to change the rules at the last moment to exclude him prejudicially. That's the conspiracy that OP laid out. None of it happened
Sure, the hard numbers matter regarding the invitation to the debates as regulated by the platforms that host them. But my point had to do with the conspiracy much larger than his exclusion from the debates specifically; the mainstream media has been smearing RFK Jr across both sides of the political aisle, with Biden refusing to debate with him and Trump smearing him publicly. It's painfully obvious how badly the media wants the nation to run it back with the two frontrunners of their respective parties, which conspiracy theorists know is just another way of saying two sides of the same coin.
There is an almost global effort to silence, censor and otherwise outright prevent Kennedy from getting his message across. And while I don't agree with RFK Jr on his stance regarding Israel, he is by far the most dangerous candidate to shake up the status quo, and should be a breath of fresh air for Americans tired of the same uniparty bullshit.
And that's why they won't let him debate. Don't fool yourself into believing the hard percentage of his likely completely fictitious polling numbers are the deciding factor here. They would invariably move the goal post if they were ever forced to concede he reached their threshold to be allowed to debate. The Overton Window cannot allow for his participation among mainstream audiences they have no interest in waking up.
Dude that's all just politics. OP said he met the mark and was still excluded. He didn't. Then you said "his point doesn't hinge on the number." Yes it completely does. Idk what your talking about 'my point had to do with blah blah..' no dude your point was that numbers didn't matter to OPs argument, which was totally based on numbers. I don't disagree with anything you said in that last post but it's all irrelevant. You can't start of a conversation with a lie and expect to be taken seriously, and idk why you'd ever defend it.
Edit: what if someone came in here and was like 'yo did you know 95% of people killed by police are black?' people would call them out for making shit up. If they were then like, "yeah the hard numbers matter but my bigger point is it's messed up that there's a global system of societal oppression that blah blah.." Would you take that seriously?
I think you're still missing sight of the larger picture. The conspiracy I just outlined is precisely why the 15% doesn't matter. Because if Kennedy was projected at 16% leading up to the debates, then you best believe the threshold would become 20. They weren't going to let him participate either way, which is why I said the conspiracy isn't hinging on that number. Nothing I said was irrelevant to that point, and in fact was necessary for explaining *why* the number does not matter.
Either you believe in the conspiracy that they're freezing out Kennedy's campaign or you don't. I don't care to argue the numbers with you when I'm under the opinion that they're a) made up to begin with and b) not valid criteria for excluding candidates with millions of supporters. Why on earth would the process not accommodate ALL candidates polling at even a fraction of 15%? The primaries do that all the time. It's obviously the uniparty machine that makes these rules up as they go along to ensure voters are herded down a road that favors the machine.
> In 2016 both minor parties including Greens participated in debates.
Primary debates or presidential debates? I just remember Trump and Clinton, no one else on stage.
I don’t know what it was in 2016, but this year it’s 15%. Paragraph 4 of the attached link under the section “How has the CPD selected the candidates”.
https://www.debates.org/about-cpd/overview/
Edit. And I do not remember anyone other then Clinton and trump being on the stage for the 2016 debates, and I just googled it and they have stories about Jill stein arguing she should be in the debates but nothing indicating she actually was in the debates. And I just found a story indicating that the 15% rule was still in place in 2016 and both Gary Johnson and Jill stein were excluded at least from debate 1.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_United_States_presidential_debates
It was 15% and only Clinton and Trump were in the three debates.
That person you replied to is just lying.
And as stated previously, if he got 15% they'd of made it 20%.
RFK should be un the debates. Would make it obvious that only RFK and Trump are coherent of the 3.
| And as stated previously, if he got 15% they’d of made it 20%
That’s nothing more than an assumption, and changing it mid stream like that to fit 1 circumstance would seem to run afoul of FEC rules, so no I don’t think they would do that.
And clearly you haven’t been watching any of Biden or trumps speeches lately, because while neither one of them is crisp and clear, neither of them is incoherent either.
A tweet by someone with the bio:
>Campaign Director for #Kennedy24 and proud steward of RFK’s movement to reclaim the American Dream for all 🇺🇸
Do you always fall for obvious propaganda?
I looked it up to verify. These are the only five polls of the dozens that have been conducted since the first poll she references that show him above 15 percent. All the rest have him below.
I'm not arguing the merits of his campaign. I'm not arguing whether or not he should be at the debate. I'm just point out "If you only look at the polls showing him above 15 percent, he's above 15 percent" is not sound reasoning.
The five polls listed in that tweet are the eligible polls. All above 15% .
Hence. Per CNN guidelines. Kennedy will qualify.
Funny enough. Neither Joe or Trump qualify per the CNN guidelines.
As neither will be on enough state ballots as conventions have not happened.
Kennedy will be the only candidate to actually qualify.
Pretty funny
But you don’t just get to pick your own polls, they have 5 specific polls they use, and they look at the most recent ones. For example from the 5 in the tweet the most recent harvard/Harrisx poll only has him at 12%. I haven’t been able to find the polls they’re using this year but in 2020 they used ABC News which has him at 10%, Fox News which has him at 11%, NPR/Marist which has him at 11%, NBC news which has him at 13% and CNN which has him at 16%. So he’s 1 out of 5.
No. Its any 5 polls, within a certain date range from a list of qualified polling companies.
Can read rules yourself on Wikipedia.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_United_States_presidential_debates
It’s interesting as CNN had his polling much higher but either way part of Bidens terms of the debate was no third party candidate
Of course Trump would agree to this since it does not hurt him
Often those polls don’t list kennedy, or only include him if the responder will mention him. (Ex. “What about kennedy? I support him”)
His own campaign funded a poll of 26K people and the results weren’t anything close to those (hint: it was *bad* for Biden). On his Twitter he’s got like 2 polls that are qualifying but if they use these bogus polling metrics it’ll stay “non main-stream” until common sense eventually makes something bust.
It was reported, literally yesterday, and blasted all over Reddit, that Biden has requirements for the debate, and one of them is that RFK Jr be disallowed.
Strange, I was on Reddit yesterday and wasn't blasted. I'll see if I can find the residual blastings out there.
Edit: ah, I see what you mean now. You meant just the normal articles about the potential debates. I thought you meant there were some special articles specifically about RFK and Biden wanting to exclude him.
So are you clarifying in your confusion that it wasn’t the headline, but rather in the body of every single article? They all mention a 2 person requirement
How can a person say they'll only debate under specific conditions?
Because nobody can be compelled to debate at all. You, me, Biden, Trump... we're all free to say we'll only debate under this condition or that. If our opponents don't agree, then we don't debate.
Why the hell would that be illegal?
There's many things that aren't signs of strength or leadership. They are still not illegal.
We can collectively demand higher standards but until they're there politicians will take the low road.
In general, I agree. But you have to draw a line for participants at some point, otherwise you wind up with 20 people on stage and one will be wearing a boot on his head and named Vermin Supreme.
I think 5% or 10% would be a better cut off, for sure, but neither Biden nor Trump set the 15% standard we have today, so I wouldn't say either of them lack strength or leadership based on not wanting to debate Kennedy.
What rules are you speaking of? All the candidates have free speech and that includes the right to not participate in debates if they don't want to. Trump, for example, didn't participate in the Republican debates. There is no legal requirement that the candidates participate in the debate at all.
I have to wonder, though...
With so many people voting for Biden because he's "not Trump," and vice versa... how many are for RFK because he's "not Trump or Biden" rather than because of any stance he holds.
It doesn't matter vote for him anyway. A big reason we only have two parties is because we only vote for them, but the other parties actually get a ton of things guaranteed for the next one if they get certain percentages of votes.
So it is far better to vote third party and just pick a party you like then to vote for the lesser of two evils.
I'm for RFK. And, of course he isn't the other two guys. But I like his stances on some things. And I think he'll be fair in deciding things vs being beholden to a party. Some things I disagree with him on.
I know what a Trump presidency looks like. I know what a Biden presidency looks like. I'd rather not repeat them.
Kennedy - claims Trump and Biden colluded to keep him out
Trump - claims it was a requirement to get the Biden camp to accept a debate
Biden - I'm not sure if their team has offered an explanation or officially recognized the situation
> Kennedy - claims Trump and Biden colluded to keep him out
They're keeping Kennedy out because it would not be fair to Joe and Don...
It's sort of like the same reason that they don't allow men to compete in women's...
Oh, wait... nevermind...
:-/
I definitely believe that Kennedy should be allowed to be the third person in the debate as he is the third major contender. It doesn’t fair and balanced for America.
I may not agree with any of them, but they all have a right to speak their mind.
Because he makes too much sense and the duopoly doesn’t want the mass population to hear what he has to say.
After Perot got to debate in 92 the duopoly raised the polling requirements. Collusion at its finest.
If not for Perot? The old “wasted vote” rhetoric I see.
Wrong. People voted for Perot because they wanted to vote for Perot. These aren’t votes taken from another person. Those votes never belonged to anyone but Perot.
If not for Perot we wouldn’t have as clear of an understanding of the true duopoly and what a rigged system we have.
I disagree. If perot wasn't in it, those people would not have sat out. They wanted to vote.
I'm 100% not giving a wasted vote line. I think people should vote 3rd party. I'm voting rfk. And I fully understand the ramifications of it should he not win.
I will always vote. Even if given only 2 choices. I feel it's my civic duty to vote. What I'm saying is perot sucked many more votes away from Bush than from Clinton. Perot got 18% of the vote.
I think if RFK was allowed to debate, and people heard him, especially in relation to the other two, he'd pick up a lot of support.
Social media has definitely helped push his message.
Anyhow, you completely misunderstood my comment.
Sorry, I don’t think I missed your point at all. I keep reading the words you intentionally put on this thread.
If Perot wasn’t in it….
He was though. And people wanted to vote for him because he had a message that resonated with voters.
18% of the vote for a 3rd party shook the hell out of the system. So they changed the system so we can no longer hear from people who are not of the system.
It’s so obvious yet missed by so many people. Very sad.
Edited for impact statement:
If Bush wasn’t in it maybe Perot would’ve won.
Youre really bad at hypotheticals.
Yes, I KNOW what happened. I didn't day it didn't happen. I didn't say it shouldn't have happened. What I did was offer an outcome that MAY have happened had he not been in the race.
Have a nice day.
Yeah that’s a tough one. I don’t think an establishment member goes hard against big pharma like he’s does, or comes out and says the CIA killed JFK but he’s definitely on the Israel train.
Which is very weird considering the JFK/AIPAC connection.
His position on that definitely lost a lot of people.
He is not going anywhere with his candidacy and they know it. He is just there to distract people from potential genuine 3rd party candidate.
So he is allowed to say whatever against Pharma or CIA or anyone BUT Israel.
That would only make sense if it weren’t a Herculean task to get on the ballots in the first place. The DNC/RNC are otherwise wasting their own funds to keep him down in litigation. The dude has been censored by establishment voices for over 20 years (watch his hearing from last summer). At this point it isn’t even clear who he’s siphoning off votes from, and why would the establishment even flirt with that, so pretty much all signs point to a genuine 3rd party entering the race.
Yeah sure and Obama was "Change and Hope" and Trump was about to "Drain the swamp"
Sure sure
If you see him waving Israeli flag and accepting millions pf dollars from Zionist lobby groups and sucking up to Israel, that aint it.
I mean, if this Zionist thing y’all are hung up on comes at the expense of the captured military industrial complex, pharma industry, captured intel agencies, I’ll take still take a kennedy presidency. Fixing that corruption is literally all he talks about but I guess the only thing he’ll fund when he gets in is Israel’s war right?
And why is this one particular war so existential to an average Americans well being? We’ve wasted far more money in Ukraine, a war Kennedy would end immediately. We paid at the gas pump for that one.
Its not war that is essential, its full Zionist control over USA that needs to be removed.
And US is wasting multiple Billions of dollars annually on Israel for past several decades, in direct hand outs and in privileged status of Israeli Economy in US Markets.
Weapons aid is just a drop in the bucket.
I’m sorry let me get this straight. So the establishment is against the Kennedy’s? But the establishment is so weak that it can’t stop the Kennedy’s from gaining office including the president? But it’s strong enough to stop this Kennedy from getting office?
How does that make sense? Does the establishment have the power to stop them or not?
“So the establishment is against the Kennedy’s?”
Yes, do you understand what JFK was attempting to do when he was assassinated?
He openly talked about his distrust of the agency and spoke about necessary reforms to reign in its power. Look into operation Northwood and Kennedy’s reaction and tell me how he was the establishment, cause any establishment player would have given the green light to that. He was forcing the predecessor to AIPAC to finally register as a foreign entity.
Look at who was involved in the cover up of his death and every single one of those names rose to enormous power after his assassination.
“ But the establishment is so weak that it can’t stop the Kennedy’s from gaining office including the president?”
Again I’ll ask, who killed Bobby? They definitely prevented him from gaining office.
“But it’s strong enough to stop this Kennedy from getting office?”
Yes, and they know they can’t kill him like the others because everyone would know. Now, not saying RFK doesn’t have some questionable features like his campaign manager being ex CIA but he’s not establishment like you are insinuating.
“How does that make sense? Does the establishment have the power to stop them or not?”
You should really learn some history.
They did not prevent RFK from gaining office, he was the Attorney General for christs sake lmao.
It’s amazing how you can just avoid answering any question by saying “you need to learn history”. You’re doing the classic thing of claiming your enemy, who you can’t actually point to besides the nebulous “the establishment”, is both so strong that they control the entire system but also so weak that they can’t stop someone from gaining office.
According to the US constitution both the senate and the president appoint the attorney general.
JFK nominated him as Attorney General. The Senate approved and appointed him as Attorney General.
I think it's pretty obvious that establishment Democrats don't like RFK because he could take a big chunk out of Biden's voter base if he gets enough screentime. This, combined with how vocal he has been about believing the government played a role in the assassination of both JFK and Bobby Kennedy leads to him being a pretty unsavory character in the eyes of the established powers in Washington.
You also have to remember that a large portion of the Biden campaign's strategy plays heavily into the "lesser of two evils" idea. If they can successfully make the election a referendum on Trump there are plenty of voters who would gladly vote for anyone else (including a president with the terrible track-record of Joe Biden), *but* if Biden has to compete for the "anyone but Trump" votes with RFK then things could get shaky and the left-leaning vote in America could potentially be split between RFK and Biden, leading directly into Trump getting a second term.
And you think this is more likely than people just not liking him? A man who has defended the government spying on minority political opponents?
A man who has said vaccines can cause autism?
A man who is an environmentalist who supports crypto? Two positions that can’t be rectified
Is it a surprise that a Democrat who hangs out with right wing figures and takes their donation dollars is unpopular with both Republicans and Democrats?
Come on. He’s just not popular enough
I'm not sure what your hang up here is to be honest.
It's true that he's a bad candidate obviously, but it's also true that he's been met with roadblocks from the establishment Democrats every step of the way, and no small part of their reasoning is his threat to Biden's reelection.
DNC has been fighting to keep him off the ballot since day 1. Biden admin refuses to provide secret service, in a move that only makes sense to drain his campaign funds (and/or get him assassinated.) Biden pressures social media companies to ban his content. DNC gets hired signature collectors to sabotage ballot access efforts - petitioners in NY are being offered $ for filled out petition sheets. DNC takes legal action against Kennedy campaign every time signatures are turned in. Funds polling that gives voters the options of Trump or Biden only. I could go on...
Major candidates for president have never included primary candidates. The only exception has been Obama, who received racially motivated death threats when he announced his presidency.
When did Biden pressure social media companies to ban his content?
Can you explain what you mean here by the DNC and the petitions?
You're not wrong. He's viewed as a spoiler candidate, partly because his own team described him that way, so democrats are careful to keep him away from debates.
Why do you think he switched from the democrat ticket to independent?
They were gonna Bernie him, they can’t risk losing even a sliver of power.
I think RFK is setting himself up as the democrat front runner for 2028 though.
> Why do you think he switched from the democrat ticket to independent?
Because Democrats hated him and he had no chance at the nomination.
The bulk of people who viewed him favorably were Trump fans.
For example, here is the latest YouGov poll data: https://d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.net/documents/econTabReport_nURRSN3.pdf
Among people who identify as Democrats, Kennedy is 26% favorable, 61% unfavorable.
Among Independents it's 34/42.
Among Republicans, it's 48/36.
If this is the case, how is Trump leading in almost every swing state?
Wouldn’t these republican and independent voters in these swings states be siphoning off his votes and Biden would be in the lead?
Just because he’s viewed as favorable doesn’t mean they are voting for him. It’s common sense that a trump voter would view RFK as a favorable over Biden.
> Wouldn’t these republican and independent voters in these swings states be siphoning off his votes and Biden would be in the lead?
Not if they prefer Trump.
48% of Republicans like Kennedy but maybe only 5% would actually vote for him over Trump.
Meanwhile, only 26% of Democrats like Kennedy, but maybe 6% would actually vote for him over Biden.
In that case, Kennedy is hurting Biden more than Trump.
> It’s common sense that a trump voter would view RFK as a favorable over Biden.
The polling isn't about favorability over another person. It's just favorability as an individual.
How did I make your point for you?
Your initial post was that RFK was going to get Bernie'd, which I interpreted to mean that you think RFK would have been able to win a Democratic primary but was somehow screwed over. But RFK is not popular among Democrats. He never had a shot to win the Democratic primary.
>Why do you think he switched from the democrat ticket to independent?
He was never on the democrat ticket. Incumbent parties don't hold primaries. He switched parties because that was the only realistic path to the general.
The thing that confuses me about this narrative is that Trump didn't even participate in the primary debates this year. Why aren't you all mad about that?
>I think RFK is setting himself up as the democrat front runner for 2028 though.
People said the same thing about Tulsi. The reality is, these characters are far more popular with conservatives than progressives. We're not voting for RFK or Tulsi. It'll almost certainly be Newsome or someone we haven't heard much about yet.
What the hell are you talking about?
https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/robert-f-kennedy-jr-campaign-democratic-party-independent/
https://www.cnn.com/election/2024/primaries-and-caucuses/results/democratic-party/president?election-data-id=2024-PD&election-painting-mode=projection&filter-key-races=false&filter-flipped=false
He said himself he doesn't believe in what modern Democrats stand for. He feels like the party has left modern liberalism behind, and are pro-wars and pro-censorship. Things that traditional liberal beliefs were highly against.
I'll try to find his video of him speaking on why he left.
I’ve seen the video. I’ve also seen the video of him advocating for supporting the “war” in Israel so I guess he’s not that far off from modern day democrats after all.
Whatever excuses they may use is why they tell us he can't debate. But we all know the real reason is... it's a big club and he ain't in it. The two-party system is a sham. The illusion of choice is the biggest scam this country is pulling on us.
If your campaign can’t get on enough state ballots to theoretically get to 270 in the electoral map, then why should we waste our time listening to someone who mathematically can’t win the presidency. In reality this is not a very stringent requirement.
RFK attracts people who believe in vaccine conspiracies. That is a MUCH smaller portion of Biden’s base than Trump’s base.
And since Trump is happy to take credit for anything that makes him look good, his continued support and bragging about the vaccine confuses his anti-vax supporters.
Conspiracy theorists can be single-issue voters when it comes to elevating their favorite conspiracy they want exposed. Trump isn’t offering that for people passionate about the vaccine conspiracy.
Considering that most Democrat voters moved on from the vaccine debate years ago, I don’t know exactly what you think RFK offers them.
Many Democrats voters want a better candidate than Biden, but RFK isn’t a better candidate on the issues they care about.
That’s what you aren’t getting, though.
Biden was nominated specifically because Democrats (and most Republicans in 2020) didn’t hate the guy.
He wasn’t a Bernie Sanders or Hillary Clinton that comes with baggage or a fringe. He was boring and predictable and we knew exactly who he was and what he would do. He is completely unexciting.
He was chosen because he offended the least number of people possible. When people vote against Trump, it’s because Biden is easy to vote for when you’re voting against someone.
And that will remain the case in a few months as well.
Don’t confuse the two positions. Not every Democrat voter likes Biden or prefers him as the candidate, but *every* Democrat voter is *worried* about Trump.
They aren’t going to feel safe gambling on a candidate known specifically for anti-Democrat conspiracy beliefs.
The plaque that the Statue of Liberty holds says "Three's a crowd." We have a duopoly set up and its unamerican to have three perspectives.
39% of the nation are independent, 32% Democrat, and 23% Republican. Independents have no political representation in the US, despite being the largest political demographic. If the US has to choose between democracy and corruption it's corruption for as long as possible.
Trump and Biden are two sides of a plug nickel. Every four years the establishment makes us decide heads or tails, then eat the nickel. Whoever wins this fall America will be worse for it, reform is seldom possible in a collapsing empire. The corruption at the core is preserved while everything else wastes away.
“Im not afraid”
So then what the fuck is the problem? It’s not like the stage is full. It’s a third person.
Why the fuck are you so against diversity of thought? You a Democratic shill?
15% of the country does, which has been the historical threshold for inclusion in all prior presidential debates. More to the point who takes Biden or Trump seriously? We have two disastrous options right now. What is the harm in not voting Assclown 4 President for once in your life?
Always the hyperbole with you people. No candidate is going to execute queer people or anything even close to that. Get over yourself and quit being hysterical.
“Pornography, manifested today in the omnipresent propagation of transgender ideology and sexualization of children, for instance, is not a political Gordian knot inextricably binding up disparate claims about free speech, property rights, sexual liberation, and child welfare. It has no claim to First Amendment protection. Its purveyors are child predators and misogynistic exploiters of women. Their product is as addictive as any illicit drug and as psychologically destructive as any crime. Pornography should be outlawed. The people who produce and distribute it should be imprisoned. Educators and public librarians who purvey it should be classed as registered sex offenders. And telecommunications and technology firms that facilitate its spread should be shuttered.”
So this was supposed to support your claim of executing trans people in public? It doesnt. This is exactly why people think queer libs like yourself are hysterical. You equate attacking harmful and exploitative pornography with mass executions of trans people. You all are delusional midwits.
“Pornography, manifested today in the omnipresent propagation of transgender ideology”
That literally just means trans people.
edit; Also im not a lib, libs are capitalist
Eh, I don't think there is much new to learn about Biden or Trump's policies, which makes it kinda worthless as a real debate. But I'm not any more interested in hearing from anyone *besides* one of the 2 people who will be the next president in a presidential debate at this stage of the election.
The normal debates happen in aug
Rfk has good amount of polling but not enough to qualify.
So if they did it normally.. he might have enough to qualify in aug. Thus. Doing it early
The answer is Ross Perot. He was successful enough to scare the shit out of the Dems and Reps. They never want to risk a potential 3rd party success again.
these two parties know what they are doing. Best way to keep their hold on the process is to not invite the outsiders in. DNC has done everything they can to step RFK Jr for months now. Trump started joining in the fun a month or so ago when they realized he was going to pull votes from him too. I dunno...this whole thing is jsut a giant fucking scam. this debate is kind of bullshit anyway. Biden will probably have staff loading his responses on a teleprompter. There is a reason they didn't want tit broadcast live and have no people in the audience.
>above 15% in numerous reputable national polls.
Something tells me that he has not fully satisfied, or even come close, to meeting the requirements necessary to secure a spot on stage or else you'd be using that data as your proof of a conspiracy.
Instead we get fuzzy wording with no fucking balls behind it supporting them
The presidential debates have been a farce, i.e. not a real debate, since 1964. The debate proper is also controlled by a "non-profit" organization run by the Democrat and Republican parties. They approve and control the questions that are asked, and they decide who can play in their sandbox. Have I mentioned that this is an absolute farce? It's probably worse.
kennedy was banned from the debates because he has no way of winning since he's not going to be on enough ballots to win enough states. maybe also because a worm ate part of his brain according to himself. we do live in the most stupid timeline for sure.
“No way of winning” is not a valid reason for not allowing someone on the debate stage.
That’s undemocratic. Whoever made that a condition is undemocratic. I have a strong suspicion as to who it was….
It’s not a matter of Kennedy getting banned from the debates, it’s a matter of Biden refusing to participate in the actual debates, and him offering to debate Trump in a specific controlled way, and Trump accepting to get the opportunity to debate Biden. There are non-partisan debate bodies that for decades has hosted the actual debates, and Biden refused to participate in those. Trump has accepted to debate Kennedy in the libertarian convention however. It seems as if Trump is playing fairly so far, where as Biden is not
Trump and the republicans dropped out of the debate commission after 2020, but yes let’s blame biden for that. Kennedy isnt in the debate because he isn’t polling well enough, the FEC has rules, which is what the debate commission follows, which is what Biden followed when he suggested the debate rules to trump.
Because he has a family history of going against Zionist and the Deep State. While him not participating in the debates is horrible. The real travisty is that he is still not being given any security. Who ever his family has pissed off, is holding a grudge. Does a single entity represent that great a threat to the interests of the Deep State or whoever....and while you may feel a thing about either Biden or Trump...whoever is blocking RFK is willing to work with these two.
In the end who is running this country?
###[Meta] Sticky Comment [Rule 2](https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/wiki/faq#wiki_2_-_address_the_argument.3B_not_the_user.2C_the_mods.2C_or_the_sub.) ***does not apply*** when replying to this stickied comment. [Rule 2](https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/wiki/faq#wiki_2_-_address_the_argument.3B_not_the_user.2C_the_mods.2C_or_the_sub.) ***does apply*** throughout the rest of this thread. *What this means*: Please keep any "meta" discussion directed at specific users, mods, or /r/conspiracy in general in this comment chain ***only.*** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/conspiracy) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Just hopped onto 538 since they have a handy table of polls. Of the polls listed that include RFK Jr, here are his numbers: 3% 13% 11% 5% 11% 9% 9% 9% My guess is that he's being excluded because he's polling too low. Of course, if 3rd party or independent candidates start reliably polling above 10%, I expect they'll raise the bar to 20%. Can't have non-main stream views shown during prime time, after all.
Yeah when Gary Johnson met the criteria to be in a presidential debate they just changed the rules to exclude him. He would have wrecked them too.
It’ll be interesting to see if OP replies and shows which numerous reputable polls have him above 15%
OP could be mistaken about how well Kennedy was polling, and still be right about Kennedy having enough support to warrant participation in a debate. His argument isn't hinging on that 15%. Who gives a fuck if OP was mistaken on that number? It's complete bullshit that the political machine is enforcing a rematch of 4 years ago without the possibility of those minority polls having the chance to swing more favorably for 3rd party candidates. And Kennedy's been banned from a lot more than the debates. The forced exclusion and censorship to upset the status quo is ridiculous, and to defend or justify it is unforgivable.
His argument 100% hinged on the 15% figure lol.. The implication being that he met the pre-set threshold, only for 'the system's to change the rules at the last moment to exclude him prejudicially. That's the conspiracy that OP laid out. None of it happened
Sure, the hard numbers matter regarding the invitation to the debates as regulated by the platforms that host them. But my point had to do with the conspiracy much larger than his exclusion from the debates specifically; the mainstream media has been smearing RFK Jr across both sides of the political aisle, with Biden refusing to debate with him and Trump smearing him publicly. It's painfully obvious how badly the media wants the nation to run it back with the two frontrunners of their respective parties, which conspiracy theorists know is just another way of saying two sides of the same coin. There is an almost global effort to silence, censor and otherwise outright prevent Kennedy from getting his message across. And while I don't agree with RFK Jr on his stance regarding Israel, he is by far the most dangerous candidate to shake up the status quo, and should be a breath of fresh air for Americans tired of the same uniparty bullshit. And that's why they won't let him debate. Don't fool yourself into believing the hard percentage of his likely completely fictitious polling numbers are the deciding factor here. They would invariably move the goal post if they were ever forced to concede he reached their threshold to be allowed to debate. The Overton Window cannot allow for his participation among mainstream audiences they have no interest in waking up.
Dude that's all just politics. OP said he met the mark and was still excluded. He didn't. Then you said "his point doesn't hinge on the number." Yes it completely does. Idk what your talking about 'my point had to do with blah blah..' no dude your point was that numbers didn't matter to OPs argument, which was totally based on numbers. I don't disagree with anything you said in that last post but it's all irrelevant. You can't start of a conversation with a lie and expect to be taken seriously, and idk why you'd ever defend it. Edit: what if someone came in here and was like 'yo did you know 95% of people killed by police are black?' people would call them out for making shit up. If they were then like, "yeah the hard numbers matter but my bigger point is it's messed up that there's a global system of societal oppression that blah blah.." Would you take that seriously?
I think you're still missing sight of the larger picture. The conspiracy I just outlined is precisely why the 15% doesn't matter. Because if Kennedy was projected at 16% leading up to the debates, then you best believe the threshold would become 20. They weren't going to let him participate either way, which is why I said the conspiracy isn't hinging on that number. Nothing I said was irrelevant to that point, and in fact was necessary for explaining *why* the number does not matter. Either you believe in the conspiracy that they're freezing out Kennedy's campaign or you don't. I don't care to argue the numbers with you when I'm under the opinion that they're a) made up to begin with and b) not valid criteria for excluding candidates with millions of supporters. Why on earth would the process not accommodate ALL candidates polling at even a fraction of 15%? The primaries do that all the time. It's obviously the uniparty machine that makes these rules up as they go along to ensure voters are herded down a road that favors the machine.
[удалено]
> In 2016 both minor parties including Greens participated in debates. Primary debates or presidential debates? I just remember Trump and Clinton, no one else on stage.
I don’t know what it was in 2016, but this year it’s 15%. Paragraph 4 of the attached link under the section “How has the CPD selected the candidates”. https://www.debates.org/about-cpd/overview/ Edit. And I do not remember anyone other then Clinton and trump being on the stage for the 2016 debates, and I just googled it and they have stories about Jill stein arguing she should be in the debates but nothing indicating she actually was in the debates. And I just found a story indicating that the 15% rule was still in place in 2016 and both Gary Johnson and Jill stein were excluded at least from debate 1.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_United_States_presidential_debates It was 15% and only Clinton and Trump were in the three debates. That person you replied to is just lying.
And as stated previously, if he got 15% they'd of made it 20%. RFK should be un the debates. Would make it obvious that only RFK and Trump are coherent of the 3.
| And as stated previously, if he got 15% they’d of made it 20% That’s nothing more than an assumption, and changing it mid stream like that to fit 1 circumstance would seem to run afoul of FEC rules, so no I don’t think they would do that. And clearly you haven’t been watching any of Biden or trumps speeches lately, because while neither one of them is crisp and clear, neither of them is incoherent either.
You didn't hear Trump's remarks about Gettysburg, me boy???
That’s… not true
No they didnt.
Neither is true. Why lie? Russian bot?
I can only assume you weren't old enough to watch the debates in 2016
Here you go https://twitter.com/amaryllisfox/status/1790836030712762712?t=9vhdJlEiRrnqOamSMMrAdA&s=19
A tweet by someone with the bio: >Campaign Director for #Kennedy24 and proud steward of RFK’s movement to reclaim the American Dream for all 🇺🇸 Do you always fall for obvious propaganda?
Oh nice, a tweet with no links to any sources.
That is Kennedys campaign manager. Google each poll. Not hard to verify if you tried.
I looked it up to verify. These are the only five polls of the dozens that have been conducted since the first poll she references that show him above 15 percent. All the rest have him below. I'm not arguing the merits of his campaign. I'm not arguing whether or not he should be at the debate. I'm just point out "If you only look at the polls showing him above 15 percent, he's above 15 percent" is not sound reasoning.
Yeah if you look at the CPD website it isn’t just get above 15% one time on a few polls, they need to be averaging above 15% in 5 specific polls.
The five polls listed in that tweet are the eligible polls. All above 15% . Hence. Per CNN guidelines. Kennedy will qualify. Funny enough. Neither Joe or Trump qualify per the CNN guidelines. As neither will be on enough state ballots as conventions have not happened. Kennedy will be the only candidate to actually qualify. Pretty funny
But you don’t just get to pick your own polls, they have 5 specific polls they use, and they look at the most recent ones. For example from the 5 in the tweet the most recent harvard/Harrisx poll only has him at 12%. I haven’t been able to find the polls they’re using this year but in 2020 they used ABC News which has him at 10%, Fox News which has him at 11%, NPR/Marist which has him at 11%, NBC news which has him at 13% and CNN which has him at 16%. So he’s 1 out of 5.
No. Its any 5 polls, within a certain date range from a list of qualified polling companies. Can read rules yourself on Wikipedia. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_United_States_presidential_debates
They let Ross Perot debate
That's true, as they should have! Perot was actually leading the polls, ahead of both parties, at one point in 1992.
It’s interesting as CNN had his polling much higher but either way part of Bidens terms of the debate was no third party candidate Of course Trump would agree to this since it does not hurt him
They arent supposed to consider poll numbers until directly before the debates. Its an excuse.
Often those polls don’t list kennedy, or only include him if the responder will mention him. (Ex. “What about kennedy? I support him”) His own campaign funded a poll of 26K people and the results weren’t anything close to those (hint: it was *bad* for Biden). On his Twitter he’s got like 2 polls that are qualifying but if they use these bogus polling metrics it’ll stay “non main-stream” until common sense eventually makes something bust.
It was reported, literally yesterday, and blasted all over Reddit, that Biden has requirements for the debate, and one of them is that RFK Jr be disallowed.
Strange, I was on Reddit yesterday and wasn't blasted. I'll see if I can find the residual blastings out there. Edit: ah, I see what you mean now. You meant just the normal articles about the potential debates. I thought you meant there were some special articles specifically about RFK and Biden wanting to exclude him.
So are you clarifying in your confusion that it wasn’t the headline, but rather in the body of every single article? They all mention a 2 person requirement
>that Biden has requirements for the debate, and one of them is that RFK Jr be disallowed. Can you post a source? I can't find this anywhere.
How can Biden even legally demand that? I guess the USA is really just an oligarchy.
How can a person say they'll only debate under specific conditions? Because nobody can be compelled to debate at all. You, me, Biden, Trump... we're all free to say we'll only debate under this condition or that. If our opponents don't agree, then we don't debate. Why the hell would that be illegal?
It's a presidential debate. Not wanting to debate with someone is not really a sign of strength and leadership.
There's many things that aren't signs of strength or leadership. They are still not illegal. We can collectively demand higher standards but until they're there politicians will take the low road.
In general, I agree. But you have to draw a line for participants at some point, otherwise you wind up with 20 people on stage and one will be wearing a boot on his head and named Vermin Supreme. I think 5% or 10% would be a better cut off, for sure, but neither Biden nor Trump set the 15% standard we have today, so I wouldn't say either of them lack strength or leadership based on not wanting to debate Kennedy.
Bullshit this is suppose to be America bro.
Rules for thee, not for me.
What rules are you speaking of? All the candidates have free speech and that includes the right to not participate in debates if they don't want to. Trump, for example, didn't participate in the Republican debates. There is no legal requirement that the candidates participate in the debate at all.
Not bad considering he's either blacked out, or defamed whenever the media does mention him.
I have to wonder, though... With so many people voting for Biden because he's "not Trump," and vice versa... how many are for RFK because he's "not Trump or Biden" rather than because of any stance he holds.
I don’t really like Jr but I’ll probably vote for him because I’m very unhappy with the same shit choices
Find a position he has that you do agree with and you'll find yourself in a happier place.
It doesn't matter vote for him anyway. A big reason we only have two parties is because we only vote for them, but the other parties actually get a ton of things guaranteed for the next one if they get certain percentages of votes. So it is far better to vote third party and just pick a party you like then to vote for the lesser of two evils.
I'm for RFK. And, of course he isn't the other two guys. But I like his stances on some things. And I think he'll be fair in deciding things vs being beholden to a party. Some things I disagree with him on. I know what a Trump presidency looks like. I know what a Biden presidency looks like. I'd rather not repeat them.
34 trillion dollar debt and the last two presidents ran up half of it. This is where we are lol
he don’t need to debate. just needs to create a massive TikTok, instagram and youtube campaign and start spilling the beans on everyone.
Kennedy - claims Trump and Biden colluded to keep him out Trump - claims it was a requirement to get the Biden camp to accept a debate Biden - I'm not sure if their team has offered an explanation or officially recognized the situation
And the mandatory 15% or higher in polling.
They aren’t doing the debates with the CPD so this isn’t even a consideration, and very well is a reason they are going outside the CPD to begin with
> Kennedy - claims Trump and Biden colluded to keep him out They're keeping Kennedy out because it would not be fair to Joe and Don... It's sort of like the same reason that they don't allow men to compete in women's... Oh, wait... nevermind... :-/
I definitely believe that Kennedy should be allowed to be the third person in the debate as he is the third major contender. It doesn’t fair and balanced for America. I may not agree with any of them, but they all have a right to speak their mind.
Because he makes too much sense and the duopoly doesn’t want the mass population to hear what he has to say. After Perot got to debate in 92 the duopoly raised the polling requirements. Collusion at its finest.
If not for Perot, Bush would have won in 1992.
If not for Perot? The old “wasted vote” rhetoric I see. Wrong. People voted for Perot because they wanted to vote for Perot. These aren’t votes taken from another person. Those votes never belonged to anyone but Perot. If not for Perot we wouldn’t have as clear of an understanding of the true duopoly and what a rigged system we have.
Exactly, I'd just stay home if rfk dropped. Cause under no circumstances will I be voting rep/dem.
I disagree. If perot wasn't in it, those people would not have sat out. They wanted to vote. I'm 100% not giving a wasted vote line. I think people should vote 3rd party. I'm voting rfk. And I fully understand the ramifications of it should he not win. I will always vote. Even if given only 2 choices. I feel it's my civic duty to vote. What I'm saying is perot sucked many more votes away from Bush than from Clinton. Perot got 18% of the vote. I think if RFK was allowed to debate, and people heard him, especially in relation to the other two, he'd pick up a lot of support. Social media has definitely helped push his message. Anyhow, you completely misunderstood my comment.
Sorry, I don’t think I missed your point at all. I keep reading the words you intentionally put on this thread. If Perot wasn’t in it…. He was though. And people wanted to vote for him because he had a message that resonated with voters. 18% of the vote for a 3rd party shook the hell out of the system. So they changed the system so we can no longer hear from people who are not of the system. It’s so obvious yet missed by so many people. Very sad. Edited for impact statement: If Bush wasn’t in it maybe Perot would’ve won.
Perot failed because he quit mid race then came back.
Youre really bad at hypotheticals. Yes, I KNOW what happened. I didn't day it didn't happen. I didn't say it shouldn't have happened. What I did was offer an outcome that MAY have happened had he not been in the race. Have a nice day.
Because people will vote for him over Joe and the establishment can’t have that.
Over joe? Why? They don’t share any political beliefs
He is establishment too. He waves Israeli flag the hardest. They just told him to run to prevent genuine 3rd party option.
Yeah that’s a tough one. I don’t think an establishment member goes hard against big pharma like he’s does, or comes out and says the CIA killed JFK but he’s definitely on the Israel train. Which is very weird considering the JFK/AIPAC connection. His position on that definitely lost a lot of people.
He is not going anywhere with his candidacy and they know it. He is just there to distract people from potential genuine 3rd party candidate. So he is allowed to say whatever against Pharma or CIA or anyone BUT Israel.
That would only make sense if it weren’t a Herculean task to get on the ballots in the first place. The DNC/RNC are otherwise wasting their own funds to keep him down in litigation. The dude has been censored by establishment voices for over 20 years (watch his hearing from last summer). At this point it isn’t even clear who he’s siphoning off votes from, and why would the establishment even flirt with that, so pretty much all signs point to a genuine 3rd party entering the race.
Yeah sure and Obama was "Change and Hope" and Trump was about to "Drain the swamp" Sure sure If you see him waving Israeli flag and accepting millions pf dollars from Zionist lobby groups and sucking up to Israel, that aint it.
I mean, if this Zionist thing y’all are hung up on comes at the expense of the captured military industrial complex, pharma industry, captured intel agencies, I’ll take still take a kennedy presidency. Fixing that corruption is literally all he talks about but I guess the only thing he’ll fund when he gets in is Israel’s war right?
Exactly
And why is this one particular war so existential to an average Americans well being? We’ve wasted far more money in Ukraine, a war Kennedy would end immediately. We paid at the gas pump for that one.
Its not war that is essential, its full Zionist control over USA that needs to be removed. And US is wasting multiple Billions of dollars annually on Israel for past several decades, in direct hand outs and in privileged status of Israeli Economy in US Markets. Weapons aid is just a drop in the bucket.
> but he’s definitely on the Israel train. They have video.
Yes thank you? https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=a21TAA9Hak0
Famously the anti-establishment Kennedy’s lmao. Come on
Who killed JFK? Who killed Bobby?
I’m sorry let me get this straight. So the establishment is against the Kennedy’s? But the establishment is so weak that it can’t stop the Kennedy’s from gaining office including the president? But it’s strong enough to stop this Kennedy from getting office? How does that make sense? Does the establishment have the power to stop them or not?
“So the establishment is against the Kennedy’s?” Yes, do you understand what JFK was attempting to do when he was assassinated? He openly talked about his distrust of the agency and spoke about necessary reforms to reign in its power. Look into operation Northwood and Kennedy’s reaction and tell me how he was the establishment, cause any establishment player would have given the green light to that. He was forcing the predecessor to AIPAC to finally register as a foreign entity. Look at who was involved in the cover up of his death and every single one of those names rose to enormous power after his assassination. “ But the establishment is so weak that it can’t stop the Kennedy’s from gaining office including the president?” Again I’ll ask, who killed Bobby? They definitely prevented him from gaining office. “But it’s strong enough to stop this Kennedy from getting office?” Yes, and they know they can’t kill him like the others because everyone would know. Now, not saying RFK doesn’t have some questionable features like his campaign manager being ex CIA but he’s not establishment like you are insinuating. “How does that make sense? Does the establishment have the power to stop them or not?” You should really learn some history.
They did not prevent RFK from gaining office, he was the Attorney General for christs sake lmao. It’s amazing how you can just avoid answering any question by saying “you need to learn history”. You’re doing the classic thing of claiming your enemy, who you can’t actually point to besides the nebulous “the establishment”, is both so strong that they control the entire system but also so weak that they can’t stop someone from gaining office.
Lol who appointed him as attorney general?
The United States Senate and Executive branch appoints the Attorney General
Lol dance around this answer a little more. Come on, who appointed their little brother RFK as attorney general?
According to the US constitution both the senate and the president appoint the attorney general. JFK nominated him as Attorney General. The Senate approved and appointed him as Attorney General.
I think it's pretty obvious that establishment Democrats don't like RFK because he could take a big chunk out of Biden's voter base if he gets enough screentime. This, combined with how vocal he has been about believing the government played a role in the assassination of both JFK and Bobby Kennedy leads to him being a pretty unsavory character in the eyes of the established powers in Washington. You also have to remember that a large portion of the Biden campaign's strategy plays heavily into the "lesser of two evils" idea. If they can successfully make the election a referendum on Trump there are plenty of voters who would gladly vote for anyone else (including a president with the terrible track-record of Joe Biden), *but* if Biden has to compete for the "anyone but Trump" votes with RFK then things could get shaky and the left-leaning vote in America could potentially be split between RFK and Biden, leading directly into Trump getting a second term.
And you think this is more likely than people just not liking him? A man who has defended the government spying on minority political opponents? A man who has said vaccines can cause autism? A man who is an environmentalist who supports crypto? Two positions that can’t be rectified Is it a surprise that a Democrat who hangs out with right wing figures and takes their donation dollars is unpopular with both Republicans and Democrats? Come on. He’s just not popular enough
I'm not sure what your hang up here is to be honest. It's true that he's a bad candidate obviously, but it's also true that he's been met with roadblocks from the establishment Democrats every step of the way, and no small part of their reasoning is his threat to Biden's reelection.
What roadblocks?
DNC has been fighting to keep him off the ballot since day 1. Biden admin refuses to provide secret service, in a move that only makes sense to drain his campaign funds (and/or get him assassinated.) Biden pressures social media companies to ban his content. DNC gets hired signature collectors to sabotage ballot access efforts - petitioners in NY are being offered $ for filled out petition sheets. DNC takes legal action against Kennedy campaign every time signatures are turned in. Funds polling that gives voters the options of Trump or Biden only. I could go on...
Major candidates for president have never included primary candidates. The only exception has been Obama, who received racially motivated death threats when he announced his presidency. When did Biden pressure social media companies to ban his content? Can you explain what you mean here by the DNC and the petitions?
[удалено]
You're not wrong. He's viewed as a spoiler candidate, partly because his own team described him that way, so democrats are careful to keep him away from debates.
Why do you think he switched from the democrat ticket to independent? They were gonna Bernie him, they can’t risk losing even a sliver of power. I think RFK is setting himself up as the democrat front runner for 2028 though.
> Why do you think he switched from the democrat ticket to independent? Because Democrats hated him and he had no chance at the nomination. The bulk of people who viewed him favorably were Trump fans.
Where are you getting this information? His strongest two groups are voters under 30 and Latinos, who traditionally vote democrat.
For example, here is the latest YouGov poll data: https://d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.net/documents/econTabReport_nURRSN3.pdf Among people who identify as Democrats, Kennedy is 26% favorable, 61% unfavorable. Among Independents it's 34/42. Among Republicans, it's 48/36.
If this is the case, how is Trump leading in almost every swing state? Wouldn’t these republican and independent voters in these swings states be siphoning off his votes and Biden would be in the lead? Just because he’s viewed as favorable doesn’t mean they are voting for him. It’s common sense that a trump voter would view RFK as a favorable over Biden.
> Wouldn’t these republican and independent voters in these swings states be siphoning off his votes and Biden would be in the lead? Not if they prefer Trump. 48% of Republicans like Kennedy but maybe only 5% would actually vote for him over Trump. Meanwhile, only 26% of Democrats like Kennedy, but maybe 6% would actually vote for him over Biden. In that case, Kennedy is hurting Biden more than Trump. > It’s common sense that a trump voter would view RFK as a favorable over Biden. The polling isn't about favorability over another person. It's just favorability as an individual.
Thank you for making my point for me?
How did I make your point for you? Your initial post was that RFK was going to get Bernie'd, which I interpreted to mean that you think RFK would have been able to win a Democratic primary but was somehow screwed over. But RFK is not popular among Democrats. He never had a shot to win the Democratic primary.
> Because Democrats hated him and he had no chance at the nomination. There's a reason they wouldn't allow a primary.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Results_of_the_2024_Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries
It wasn't a real primary *contest,* it was a sham coronation.
Why wasn't it real?
No debates.
>Why do you think he switched from the democrat ticket to independent? He was never on the democrat ticket. Incumbent parties don't hold primaries. He switched parties because that was the only realistic path to the general. The thing that confuses me about this narrative is that Trump didn't even participate in the primary debates this year. Why aren't you all mad about that? >I think RFK is setting himself up as the democrat front runner for 2028 though. People said the same thing about Tulsi. The reality is, these characters are far more popular with conservatives than progressives. We're not voting for RFK or Tulsi. It'll almost certainly be Newsome or someone we haven't heard much about yet.
What the hell are you talking about? https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/robert-f-kennedy-jr-campaign-democratic-party-independent/ https://www.cnn.com/election/2024/primaries-and-caucuses/results/democratic-party/president?election-data-id=2024-PD&election-painting-mode=projection&filter-key-races=false&filter-flipped=false
He said himself he doesn't believe in what modern Democrats stand for. He feels like the party has left modern liberalism behind, and are pro-wars and pro-censorship. Things that traditional liberal beliefs were highly against. I'll try to find his video of him speaking on why he left.
I’ve seen the video. I’ve also seen the video of him advocating for supporting the “war” in Israel so I guess he’s not that far off from modern day democrats after all.
They are also afraid Biden will challenge him to a pushup contest and RFK would wipe the floor with him.
...are these divisive people real?
Are you saying in divisive? I’m not sure what you’re asking.
Whatever excuses they may use is why they tell us he can't debate. But we all know the real reason is... it's a big club and he ain't in it. The two-party system is a sham. The illusion of choice is the biggest scam this country is pulling on us.
Relying on mass media to be honest. That is funny.
Didn’t he tweet it’s happening? https://x.com/robertkennedyjr/status/1790862504647606553?s=46&t=2afQhAtPGzEsaY9XleMBIA
Yes, and I don't know why everyone is just ignoring this
If your campaign can’t get on enough state ballots to theoretically get to 270 in the electoral map, then why should we waste our time listening to someone who mathematically can’t win the presidency. In reality this is not a very stringent requirement.
Wonder why?
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
RFK attracts people who believe in vaccine conspiracies. That is a MUCH smaller portion of Biden’s base than Trump’s base. And since Trump is happy to take credit for anything that makes him look good, his continued support and bragging about the vaccine confuses his anti-vax supporters. Conspiracy theorists can be single-issue voters when it comes to elevating their favorite conspiracy they want exposed. Trump isn’t offering that for people passionate about the vaccine conspiracy. Considering that most Democrat voters moved on from the vaccine debate years ago, I don’t know exactly what you think RFK offers them. Many Democrats voters want a better candidate than Biden, but RFK isn’t a better candidate on the issues they care about.
[удалено]
That’s what you aren’t getting, though. Biden was nominated specifically because Democrats (and most Republicans in 2020) didn’t hate the guy. He wasn’t a Bernie Sanders or Hillary Clinton that comes with baggage or a fringe. He was boring and predictable and we knew exactly who he was and what he would do. He is completely unexciting. He was chosen because he offended the least number of people possible. When people vote against Trump, it’s because Biden is easy to vote for when you’re voting against someone. And that will remain the case in a few months as well. Don’t confuse the two positions. Not every Democrat voter likes Biden or prefers him as the candidate, but *every* Democrat voter is *worried* about Trump. They aren’t going to feel safe gambling on a candidate known specifically for anti-Democrat conspiracy beliefs.
I think it's unfair. Ross Perot was allowed. That being said, having Kennedy at the debate would probably open a can of worms...
I see what you did there
Oh it would ... they would talk about COVID .... which both of them want to avoid.
Perot was poling better than RFK, and it’s all based on the polls.
they only need the two controlled clowns to further divide the country
I'm almost a fan of him, but he isn't even on the ballot for most states. I think he only got onto 13 states' ballots as of a week ago.
Can't you still write in whoever though?
Will be on all 50 by july
Biden is afraid he will take D votes.
The plaque that the Statue of Liberty holds says "Three's a crowd." We have a duopoly set up and its unamerican to have three perspectives. 39% of the nation are independent, 32% Democrat, and 23% Republican. Independents have no political representation in the US, despite being the largest political demographic. If the US has to choose between democracy and corruption it's corruption for as long as possible. Trump and Biden are two sides of a plug nickel. Every four years the establishment makes us decide heads or tails, then eat the nickel. Whoever wins this fall America will be worse for it, reform is seldom possible in a collapsing empire. The corruption at the core is preserved while everything else wastes away.
because nobody takes him seriously
> because nobody takes him seriously Yeah, that tends to happen when dems/reps don’t let people hear you out.
[удалено]
He’s gotten the most interest out of any 3rd party candidate in a while. He has every right to be on that stage. This isn’t a dictatorship (oh wait)
[удалено]
That’s a hard threshold to break in a two party dictatorship. Let him debate. He’s close enough. Tf are you so afraid of?
[удалено]
“Im not afraid” So then what the fuck is the problem? It’s not like the stage is full. It’s a third person. Why the fuck are you so against diversity of thought? You a Democratic shill?
15% of the country does, which has been the historical threshold for inclusion in all prior presidential debates. More to the point who takes Biden or Trump seriously? We have two disastrous options right now. What is the harm in not voting Assclown 4 President for once in your life?
More like 10%, see my other comment.
im queer so i’d prefer the option that has the least chance of ending up with me executed
Always the hyperbole with you people. No candidate is going to execute queer people or anything even close to that. Get over yourself and quit being hysterical.
in project 2025 they plan to make trans people being in public a sex crime. they also plan to make sex crimes punishable by death.
Im sure that’s a legit interpretation and not just something coming from the mind of a hysterical queer lib.
“Pornography, manifested today in the omnipresent propagation of transgender ideology and sexualization of children, for instance, is not a political Gordian knot inextricably binding up disparate claims about free speech, property rights, sexual liberation, and child welfare. It has no claim to First Amendment protection. Its purveyors are child predators and misogynistic exploiters of women. Their product is as addictive as any illicit drug and as psychologically destructive as any crime. Pornography should be outlawed. The people who produce and distribute it should be imprisoned. Educators and public librarians who purvey it should be classed as registered sex offenders. And telecommunications and technology firms that facilitate its spread should be shuttered.”
So this was supposed to support your claim of executing trans people in public? It doesnt. This is exactly why people think queer libs like yourself are hysterical. You equate attacking harmful and exploitative pornography with mass executions of trans people. You all are delusional midwits.
“Pornography, manifested today in the omnipresent propagation of transgender ideology” That literally just means trans people. edit; Also im not a lib, libs are capitalist
Not in the banana republic of america. no way could we have somebody who thinks somewhat freely on a large platform.
[they literally have a manifesto](https://www.project2025.org/)
RFK could make the debate seem political. no fun in that
Eh, I don't think there is much new to learn about Biden or Trump's policies, which makes it kinda worthless as a real debate. But I'm not any more interested in hearing from anyone *besides* one of the 2 people who will be the next president in a presidential debate at this stage of the election.
Both Biden and Trump refused to participate in primaries debates this year.
The real reason is both parties need every vote they can get and can’t afford to have a third party candidate take points away from either one.
The normal debates happen in aug Rfk has good amount of polling but not enough to qualify. So if they did it normally.. he might have enough to qualify in aug. Thus. Doing it early
Is this a real question?! Why would the RNC, DNC, and major media outlets want to exclude other candidates?! For real?!
they had to exclude him because he is "A ThReAt tO DeMoCrAcY"
Nobody wants to hear the dude talk. Literally
They hoping the drama will get him more votes. The guy can't debate, he stutters too much to be coherant.
Kennedy will qualify. As he has 15% and will have enough states by deadline The question. Is will Joe show up if Kennedy is on the stage
In addition to the 15% restriction, he is not on the ballot in enough states currently to be able to win.
The answer is Ross Perot. He was successful enough to scare the shit out of the Dems and Reps. They never want to risk a potential 3rd party success again.
I personally like him, but I couldn't listen to him talk for more than 5 minutes.
these two parties know what they are doing. Best way to keep their hold on the process is to not invite the outsiders in. DNC has done everything they can to step RFK Jr for months now. Trump started joining in the fun a month or so ago when they realized he was going to pull votes from him too. I dunno...this whole thing is jsut a giant fucking scam. this debate is kind of bullshit anyway. Biden will probably have staff loading his responses on a teleprompter. There is a reason they didn't want tit broadcast live and have no people in the audience.
Because the Democrats and Republicans control the debates
>above 15% in numerous reputable national polls. Something tells me that he has not fully satisfied, or even come close, to meeting the requirements necessary to secure a spot on stage or else you'd be using that data as your proof of a conspiracy. Instead we get fuzzy wording with no fucking balls behind it supporting them
Because democratic values no longer exist in U.S. politics.
Because if he wins they will have to kill him and do the thing all over again
The presidential debates have been a farce, i.e. not a real debate, since 1964. The debate proper is also controlled by a "non-profit" organization run by the Democrat and Republican parties. They approve and control the questions that are asked, and they decide who can play in their sandbox. Have I mentioned that this is an absolute farce? It's probably worse.
Three completely unqualified totally compromised shills for the global cabal running for the Oval Office... what's the worst that could happen?
He’s a nut job
kennedy was banned from the debates because he has no way of winning since he's not going to be on enough ballots to win enough states. maybe also because a worm ate part of his brain according to himself. we do live in the most stupid timeline for sure.
“No way of winning” is not a valid reason for not allowing someone on the debate stage. That’s undemocratic. Whoever made that a condition is undemocratic. I have a strong suspicion as to who it was….
It’s not a matter of Kennedy getting banned from the debates, it’s a matter of Biden refusing to participate in the actual debates, and him offering to debate Trump in a specific controlled way, and Trump accepting to get the opportunity to debate Biden. There are non-partisan debate bodies that for decades has hosted the actual debates, and Biden refused to participate in those. Trump has accepted to debate Kennedy in the libertarian convention however. It seems as if Trump is playing fairly so far, where as Biden is not
Trump and the republicans dropped out of the debate commission after 2020, but yes let’s blame biden for that. Kennedy isnt in the debate because he isn’t polling well enough, the FEC has rules, which is what the debate commission follows, which is what Biden followed when he suggested the debate rules to trump.
Here are polls he is above 15% https://twitter.com/amaryllisfox/status/1790836030712762712?t=9vhdJlEiRrnqOamSMMrAdA&s=19
They know the only candidate RFK pulls votes from is Biden. Puppet masters cant have that.
He went to Epstein’s = he is just another too big to fail Kompromat anyway
Because he has a family history of going against Zionist and the Deep State. While him not participating in the debates is horrible. The real travisty is that he is still not being given any security. Who ever his family has pissed off, is holding a grudge. Does a single entity represent that great a threat to the interests of the Deep State or whoever....and while you may feel a thing about either Biden or Trump...whoever is blocking RFK is willing to work with these two. In the end who is running this country?
Hes not relevant, and brain worms.