3 ms·
This is a particularly tricky year to argue voting, particularly for the president, is the right level of public oversight. We were offered two candidates with
by _heimdall 2y ago
This is a particularly tricky year to argue voting, particularly for the president, is the right level of public oversight. We were offered two candidates with comparatively little say or visibility (compared to the last few decades) during the primaries.
Trump effectively sat out of the primary season, though primary voters did overwhelmingly support him they did so without ever having the chance to hear him pressed during a debate or contentious interview. There is at least a case with Trump to argue voters already knew they wanted him and simply didn't need a primary, the democrats don't have that argument to make.
The democrats didn't even bother to have a primary and went out of their way to pressure debate organizers to block Kennedy entirely before swapping out their candidate last minute.
- pfdietz 2y agoWhether it's the "right" level of oversight is another question entirely.
- lazide 2y agoLocal BLM offices are some of the most corrupt federal institutions in existence, IMO. More often than not, whoever is in charge seems to get compromised and ends up aiding and abetting all sorts of weird land stuff. No one higher up ever gets any visibility unless it goes really sideways.