Warning: Some posts on this platform may contain adult material intended for mature audiences only. Viewer discretion is advised. By clicking ‘Continue’, you confirm that you are 18 years or older and consent to viewing explicit content.
To be blunt, do you genuinely believe that the population of the US is capable of agreeing on better candidates?
If so, again to be blunt, how many people would it take to sway this decision, and why can’t this number of people strategically ensure that their candidate is chosen?
Admittedly, I’m old enough to remember when Digg tried to make Ron Paul a thing, and when that went hilariously wrong, they shifted to Obama and made out that he was their candidate all along. I’m not saying that it’s easy, but mainly trying to say that I imagine that it’s actually quite difficult to get 300m people to agree on anything that isn’t an incredible compromise.
To be blunt, do you genuinely believe that the population of the US is capable of agreeing on better candidates?
If so, again to be blunt, how many people would it take to sway this decision, and why can’t this number of people strategically ensure that their candidate is chosen?
Admittedly, I’m old enough to remember when Digg tried to make Ron Paul a thing, and when that went hilariously wrong, they shifted to Obama and made out that he was their candidate all along. I’m not saying that it’s easy, but mainly trying to say that I imagine that it’s actually quite difficult to get 300m people to agree on anything that isn’t an incredible compromise.