Press "Enter" to skip to content

RFK Makes NY Ballot

Third Party Watch is privileged to report that, according to our reliable sources, the Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., Presidential campaign has obtained more than 100,000 signatures on New York States nominating papers, and can reasonably expect to be on the ballot in New York this November.

9 Comments

  1. Anonymous Anonymous May 11, 2024

    Oh my… NY Times:

    “Are R.F.K. Jr. Signature Gatherers Misleading New Yorkers for Ballot Access?”

    https://archive.ph/oUBEj

    “There is New York case law that invalidates petitions when the purpose of the petition has been fraudulently misrepresented.”

    Interesting.

    • Porcus Agricola Porcus Agricola May 13, 2024

      Apparently, it’s politically incorrect to point out that the NY timewarps takes normal petition pitches used on behalf of pretty much any candidate or party collecting autographs to qualify for ballot listing, by independent contractors, and makes it a “news” story with the transparent goal of election interference through yellow journalism. Specifically, to perhaps find a way to disqualify a candidacy that might split the support of the major party the Backwards Times editors and reporters favor. That not naming which independent candidates when not asked is not at all lying. But why?

      The black hole gravity field timehole is attempting to engineer artificial exclusion of an alternative to the duopoly, on behalf of the associated duopoly faction which is usually the most aggressive of the two in the pursuit of winning by limiting choices. The chosen method is pretending that normal course of independent contractor emphasis of the information fragments most likely to yield ink on paper with least discussions of details better suited for the campaign rather than qualification is directed by the campaign, or news of some sort, or intended to deceive. None of those things are true.

      Why would anyone other than a partisan of that faction want that reply to a fellow anonymous commenter who sees fire in the timeline jumble’s efforts to leave such a mistaken impression cancelled, leaving the uncontested impression here as well that ballot exclusion would be somehow justified because of this “news”?

      I may have misunderstood Third Party Watch to mean discussion of, not monitoring in case they grow and become more of a potential threat to the status quo power alignment. The latter seems more plausible in which comment was allowed and which one wasn’t.. That’s a shame, because a non hostile news and discussion forum about minor parties and independents could actually a fill a niche which, as far as I know, is largely empty. Something approaching free and open discussion of ideas beyond a very limited set could potentially be useful, not just doing gatekeeper guard duty for the imperial court assembly and official flatterers.

      • George Phillies George Phillies Post author | May 13, 2024

        No what was unacceptable here was your use of a vilificatory misspelling of the NY Times name in your comment that was rejected.

        • Porcus Agricola Porcus Agricola May 14, 2024

          I thought it was both accurately descriptive of their tactics, in this and many other cases, and widely used elsewhere, but I wouldn’t have minded an editorial correction on something so minor. Nevertheless, thank you for clearing that up and allowing the point to be made on the followup.

          I think the only thing I neglected to mention the second time around was what the fishwrap paper of the great northern cosmopolitan metropolis and its champagne and caviar illiberal progressive fascist elite presented as obscuring information may have been as innocent as a binder clip or something along those lines. Without a visual exemplar, its difficult to determine whether it’s likely there was any ill intent to hide candidate names or any other relevant information.

          Even if there was, it’s unlikely it was by the campaign or that they were even aware of it, much less approved, suggested or directed. Independent contractors just found it easier to say independent candidates generically rather than spend time discussing Kennedy views or biography while other potential signers walk by. There is no indication of how widespread the “problem” even was, although I don’t see a real problem unless anyone asked which candidates and did not receive an honest answer – even then, a widespread pattern would only then be a problem for the entire campaign rather than the individual contractors..

          While I have no faith at all in the honesty , fairness, or institutional benevolent intent of the havan…I mean, NY time’s running amok and other similar establishment gatekeeper publications, my faith that this is not one following in their bootsteps is at present restored. Thanks again for clarifying what the problem was so I can attempt not to do it again, despite my at this point reflexive habit of editorializing my views by stylizing the names of such institutions in a way that maintains their recognizability while conveying what I think of them. I’ll endeavor to self police that habit. I’m glad my suspicions of the reasons behind editorial rejection were in error.

  2. Root's Teeth Are Awesome Root's Teeth Are Awesome May 10, 2024

    It’s practically impossible — unless you have much money. Like RFK’s running mate or Ross Perot.

    This provides evidence to the claim that for an independent or third party candidate to have a chance, you either need a celebrity on the ticket or much money. Or both.

  3. Jim Jim May 10, 2024

    Seems like that would do a lot of harm to other 3rd party arguments that it’s practically impossible.

  4. Nolan's Duty Nolan's Duty May 9, 2024

    I wonder what news is coming out of NY that the RFK Jr campaign is trying to get ahead of by leaking this info to you.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *