Its not special treatment if you look back in History. Obama got it polling at 5% There is a long list of folks that received it polling worse than RFK

From what ive heard 15% polling its automatic otherwise its up to the President

Heck Ben Carson got it

The man has received tons of death threats and I know of two instances of intruders in his home

rfk is a nutjob who is trading on qanon's odd attachment to his deceased relatives in order to gain attention

he is not a serious candidate and should not be treated as such



both Obama and Carson were considered frontrunners among their parties for presidential candidacy long before any of them launched any campaigns - their polling did not reflect internal party approval that would launch them forward as candidates

Luckily you do not get to decide which candidate is a nut job . The man as an independent candidate that is polling higher than 15% and deserves to be protected

i didn't say that, perhaps i should have clairified



as much as he is a clown, he does deserve secret service protection

welcome to the the 2 party duopoly that's rigged against anyone else

It's just a guideline, but for independent candidates the threshold is 20% of the RealClear national average for 30 consecutive days. He doesn't have that. Additionally, a threat assessment by the Secret Service is used.


And Biden doesn't get to decide. It's the Secretary of Homeland Security. I guess you could argue that goes up to Biden, but I just don't think this is high on his list of things to worry about.

Mayorkas is he even on the job ? He is polling over 20% I thought .

He's polling high enough to deserve it

"He's not a serious candidate " sounds vaguely familiar

not even the unstoppable wave that was trump in 2016 could have won the election as an independent

honestly, i'd love for 4 years of a wacko rfk in the oval office if it meant shattering the duopoly

With the dem partys recent success of denying things we all saw them do*, do you think biden claimed trump was the current president to the lay the framework of being able to claim everything that went wrong over these last 4 years did in occur, but trump has been the president for the last 8 years now?

I think dems know with bidens super low approval rating the only way he has a shot is get out the old playbook they've been using over the last 4 years and just convince their base that everything they know occurred didn't actually occur.

*that they supported reducing the number of police officers across the US, drastically increase the size and scope of government during covid, encourage schools and businesses to shut down for way too long post-covid, claim that trump was an illegitimated president, encourage their base to question a vax that was produced when trump was the president and encourage political violence

*hardly any democrats did any of these

I live in Portland, one of the most liberal cities, where they actually did reduce the size of the police force, but it didn't come from the party leaders, it came from the populace (or at least the noisiest members). I never heard the president or any national party leaders call for this.

I never heard anyone call for increase in the size and scope of government due to covid, nor did I notice that happening.

I never heard anyone questioning the 2016 election results or calling Trump an illegitimate president. Claiming that there were improper outside influences on some voters does not imply either of those.

I never heard of anyone questioning the vaccine because of the Trump administration until one poster brought up one instance of it here, which was not significant to any voters. Democrats supported people getting the "Trump vaccine" more than any Republicans did, including Trump himself.

I definitely never heard any democratic leaders, local or national, call for violence.

The only actual thing I agree with is that democrats generally advocated for longer shutdowns, but I only saw local leaders do that, not Biden or other national figures.

In case it isn't clear, Fauci was not a democratic figure - he was appointed by a republican president and given the medal of freedom by another republican president. Trump could have removed him at any time, but he was either too cowardly to do so, or liked having someone else to take the blame for actions that he supported.

Both Hilary Clinton and Hakeem Jeffries did

I do believe Hilary said she wouldnt trust a Donald Trump Vaccine

Joy Reid said it so eloquently

There is a difference between thinking a president unfit and actually thinking the election process was flawed or corrupt.

sure man, you didn't hear it in Portland in your circle so it never happened

is this a joke?

minute 1:03 , please stop denying reality

https://youtu.be/XQesfLIycJw?si=hiGTajuKiX0NsY5q

Cant watch but anyway , u saying democrats said the election of 2016 was fraud ?
Votes counting were not correctly distributed ?

Yup Justin Trudeau blocks you from seeing the truth . Only state approved media like CBC are allowed

The left always thinks their feces don't stink

I am saying, Clinton went on air in 2019 saying "Trump knows he is an illegitimate president"

That’s incredibly different with election fraud .

sure man, I answered to someone claiming verbatim that "democrats don't call Trump election illegitimate" but please go on

So now the posting strategy is to just make things up?

she literally goes further and says outright that it was, you're applying your own bias and thereby giving the benefit of doubt that it was taken out of context when you should instead just watch the video yourself

Wow, so the person who lost the presidency despite winning the popular vote, said that? Shocking!

Hilary Clinton is not a democratic office holder or even a political figure at all anymore, she certainly doesn't count.