Francee89 wrote: ↑Sun Apr 14, 2024 4:54 pm“The Biden campaign” had nothing to do with the Colorado Supreme Court’s decision to remove Trump from the primary ballot, a decision that was later overturned by the Supreme Court, who didn’t find that “being held accountable in a court of law and being found guilty would need to happen first”, but rather that states cannot disqualify federal candidates. It was a novel legal question due to the unprecedented nature of Trump’s 2020 actions.Slimshandy wrote: ↑Sun Apr 14, 2024 1:34 pm The answer is no… you haven’t.
In order for any of those reasons to be valid, being held accountable in a court of law and being found guilty would need to happen first.
It didn’t.
Now the Biden campaign is trying to keep both trump and rfk’s names off the ballot, in essence, attempting to take choice away from the population. A dictator move, as they suggest the other people will be dictators if they get in…
So it shouldn’t matter who the population “wants” to vote for.
He’s not amplifying his own voice, his party is working to amplify their own voices because Biden isn’t mentally capable of holding a debate anymore… so his handlers will take care of it for him…
It’s wrong.Francee89 wrote: ↑Fri Apr 12, 2024 7:14 am
We’ve never lived through an American election like 2020, where the loser attempted to overturn the results in multiple ways, including pressuring state officials, putting together slates of fake electors and trying to have his VP/Congressional allies refuse to certify an election. The Colorado Supreme Court, a Maine elected official and an Illinois judge (none of whom are Biden, as RFK alleges), thought those actions fit the definition of insurrection and disqualified that candidate. The Supreme Court (appointees of both parties) disagreed with their rationale, and he’ll appear.
In terms of him, it appears the DNC made a complaint to the FEC about his signature gathering being conducted by an outside PAC, which seems very likely to be a violation of campaign finance laws. That’s not attempting to keep him off the ballot, that’s saying he should have to follow the same rules everyone else does to get on it.
And the idea that Biden isn’t using his campaign money on ads to amplify his voice is ridiculous and proven wrong by a simple Google search:
https://www.politico.com/news/2024/03/0 ... t-00146028
https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/arizon ... paign-ads/
https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2024/03/29/poli ... digital-ad
The DNC (again, not the Biden campaign) asking the FEC to weigh in on the legality of the RFK campaign’s use of a PAC to collect signatures to appear on the ballot isn’t taking a choice away from anyone. If the population wants RFK on the ballot, there’s nothing stopping his campaign from collecting signatures in an above board fashion that doesn’t violate campaign finance regulations.
RFK said “he’s not gonna use that money to amplify his voice” - the tens of millions of dollars being spent by his campaign on ads already refute that entirely. It doesn’t take millions of dollars to engage in a debate, so if that dig was supposed to imply “Biden isn’t capable of debating”, it was a pretty silly way to attempt to make that point.
HIS VOICE meaning him being the one to speak…
That’s what debates were for.
If he can’t have a debate because he no longer possesses the mental capacity to do so, buying more commercials doesn’t cut it…
