“I’m wondering if they ‘needed’ a Joe in order to create a desperation scenario in which the Dems would accept a candidate they’d otherwise reject.
This debate fiasco seems planned, to ‘help’ the Obama regime replace Joe. No one believed he could debate Trump.
So maybe it’s Michele, but if so she was generally so unlikable, this was their only strategy to shoe-horn her in?”
It’s RFK.
In the General/Chat forum, on a thread titled Q ~ Trust Trump's Plan ~ 06/13/2024 Vol.494, Q Day 2421, Farcesensitive wrote: “I’m wondering if they ‘needed’ a Joe in order to create a desperation scenario in which the Dems would accept a candidate they’d otherwise reject.
This debate fiasco seems planned, to ‘help’ the Obama regime replace Joe. No one believed he could debate Trump.
So maybe it’s Michele, but if so she was generally so unlikable, this was their only strategy to shoe-horn her in?”
It’s RFK.
I think you're right. But that suggests a very long game being played. When JFK came out against the Covid 'vaccines', his family said (paraphrasing), "We love him, but he is wrong.' I suppose they could give him a cross platform battle to fight (Covid 'vaccines') to gain him popularity where he would otherwise not have it. But he's vigorously favoring late term abortion, which is not a means by which to get voters to cross the aisle. But I like your idea better than Michele. Besides, they expect to steal the election again - all they are worried about is optics.
So Michele becomes my #2 choice. It seems though, Michele would gain the 'first black woman' vote to provide optics - a fake explanation why an election clearly going to Trump 'suddenly' turns on its head. I don't see her winning a debate with Trump, although she might be more likely to remember lines. Many black voters now support Trump; she might be a potential attempt to bring them back into the Dem fold. The black American voters I've seen interviewed seem 'done' with the DNC, and Michele never represented them in the first place.