It can go the other way too, with Democrats and independents voting in the Republican primary in open states. Bill Weld is sure hoping they do.
It can go the other way too, with Democrats and independents voting in the Republican primary in open states. Bill Weld is sure hoping they do.
Ours is closed.
I don't think anyone would have a clue who a non-viable candidate even is. Biden comes closest to a non-viable candidate, as I don't think he'd do well debating Trump. So if one wants to vote for Biden to ensure 4 more years of Trump, knock yourself out I guess (wow does that sound uninspiring). Maybe Castro. Even with Biden it's not certain who would win, because while he's a weak uninspiring candidate, the country may be getting real sick of Trump, and he has some base among African-Americans as well.
I suspect some long shot candidates might be quite viable if they actually won the primary which is not going to happen (the country might vote for a Gabbard or a Yang if it was the choice against Trump. Why? They have actual pluses that's why, against a Trump they'd come across as principled and articulate etc., they have real negatives too, but ...). The whole idea of choosing a viable candidate CEASED TO EXIST after Trump. If anyone should by all calculations not be a viable candidate, it's the person who is the sitting President of the U.S.
Trees don't grow on money
in CA only the Dems allow open primaries, not the Republicans. But I'd register R (and there is yet time here) if I thought Bill Weld had a chance in heck, but I just don't think he does. But it wouldn't be about picking a non-viable candidate so much as wanting someone halfway decent in there even if Republicans win, playing to limit losses really.It can go the other way too, with Democrats and independents voting in the Republican primary in open states. Bill Weld is sure hoping they do.
Trees don't grow on money
I actually am totally undecided who I will vote for but would like to see all the candidates at the top stay in.
That "suicide" is highly questionable. It wouldn't surprise me if Epstein weren't silenced to prevent Trump's association with him (and alleged child rape) to be fully revealed.Originally Posted by Alan
(I'm old-fashioned; I give consenting adults having sex a pass, always. So I'm sorry Katie Hill was intimidated into quitting. I hope her ex and Republicans involved are prosecuted under revenge porn laws, if any exist where she's from.)
Doesn’t the House have rules pertaining to having sex with people who depend on you for a paycheck? Is “giving a pass” to people who violate such rules a legal option? How can “consent” be assumed when people leverage sexual relationships out of power relationships?
There are rules against congresspeople having sex with staffers but none against having sex with campaign staffers, which is what Katie apparently did.
In any case, slut shaming her is not appropriate and revenge porning her is potentially illegal. Hopefully she can sue Red State out of existence.
That's the one she admitted to, knowing the other would result in immediate expulsion and a recall of her victim card, she denied the one with her staff member despite evidence to the contrary.
This case makes me think the MeToo movement was sexist because it's proponents have no interest in cases of women abusing their positions.
"Things should be made as simple as possible, but not one bit simpler." ~ Albert Einstein
Were you in her bedroom keeping track of her sex life? It’s interesting how you’re quick to accept hearsay when it involves a democrat but not when it involves a republican.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote