USA Presidential Politics Kennedy Campaign

[Neighbor]

See the Shanahan interview posted at Videos general. It is way long BUT is segmented into smaller bites. The state of the RFK Jr.  campaign information begins at  the 40 minute mark.

Could be a game changer.

[Sower]

9 hours ago, Neighbor said:

Could be a game changer.

 

RFK Slams the Harris/Walz Ticket

Trouble in paradise?

 

 

Mark Alexander, The Patriot Post

More Essays

Robert F. Kennedy unloaded on the Harris/Walz regime in what could best be described as a final divorce decree.

Recall that RFK declared earlier this year that the Biden/Harris administration was a “much worse threat to democracy” than Donald Trump.

In a bridge-burning rebuke of Kamala Harris, he announced he has “no plans to endorse Kamala Harris for President” and that Harris’s Democrat Party “would be unrecognizable to my father and uncle and I cannot reconcile it with my values.”

According to Kennedy:

The Democratic Party of RFK and JFK was the party of civil liberties and free speech. VP Harris’s is the party of censorship, lockdowns, and medical coercion. Kennedy Democrats were anti-war. Kamalas is riddled with neocon warmongers.

The RFK/JFK dems were allies of Main Street, cops, firefighters, and working people. VP Harris’s is the Party of Big Tech, Big Pharma and Wall Street. My dad and uncle’s party was the champion of voting rights and fair elections. VP Harris’s is the party of lawfare, disenfranchisement, and the coronation of its candidates by corporate donors and party elites.

I’ve used our nation’s courts to prosecute corporations who hurt Black Americans. VP Harris used our nation’s courts to mercilessly prosecute Black Americans and exploit them for their labor.

My father and uncle prided themselves on their skills at debate and their ability to articulate a coherent vision for our country. VP Harris is scared to debate and can’t survive an unscripted interview. Instead of outlining a vision, she relies on middle school tactics — memes, forged headlines, infantile slogans (Joy!) and name calling (“Republicans are weird.”)

I’ve spent years battling government corruption and lies. VP Harris spent years gaslighting Americans about the health of our Commander in Chief.

I have no plans to endorse Kamala Harris for President. I do have a plan to defeat her.

Harris’s Leftmedia defenders at The New York Times insist that RFK is mad because he wanted a cabinet position in exchange for dropping out and endorsing Harris. Kennedy did say: “We’ve reached out repeatedly through the highest level intermediaries. We’ve been told that they have no interest in talking with me.”

Additionally, according to Kennedy: “I’ve always argued that we should be willing to talk with each other across party lines. I’m willing to meet with leaders of both parties to discuss the possibility of a unity government.”

Obviously, Harris/Walz, as was the case with Biden/Harris, depend on hatred and division to keep their constituents in line, so the prospect of reaching across a party line is anathema to Harris.

It is not clear what impact RFK will have on the upcoming election, but now that the Leftmedia is trying to bury him to protect Harris, it is not likely that he will have enough traction to make much difference — other than with his true believers.

Last week, a state court in New York ruled that Kennedy could not appear on New York’s presidential ballot, a ruling that will give other states cause to remove Kennedy from their ballots.

[Dennis1209]

9 hours ago, Sower said:

It is not clear what impact RFK will have on the upcoming election, but now that the Leftmedia is trying to bury him to protect Harris, it is not likely that he will have enough traction to make much difference — other than with his true believers

This is the only thing I take exception to, provided there is no outrageous voter fraud and tampering again; I assume there will still be a few close swing states that will decide the presidency. If Kennedy gets even 5% of the vote, will it impact Harris or Trump the most? In other words, and in my opinion, the majority of those votes would have been taken away from Trump had Kennedy’s name not been on the ballot. Ross Perot 2.0.

[Vine Abider]

And now reports that Kennedy is considering throwing in with Trump, in order to defeat Harris. 

[Jedi4Yahweh]

On 8/21/2024 at 9:13 AM, Dennis1209 said:

This is the only thing I take exception to, provided there is no outrageous voter fraud and tampering again; I assume there will still be a few close swing states that will decide the presidency. If Kennedy gets even 5% of the vote, will it impact Harris or Trump the most? In other words, and in my opinion, the majority of those votes would have been taken away from Trump had Kennedy’s name not been on the ballot. Ross Perot 2.0.

I dislike this whole key state shenanigans.  I don't think our founding fathers ever intended for certain key states to  be the deciding factor on who becomes president.  It seems the original intent was that every state have an equal say so in who becomes president and you would have to win over the majority of states to become president not just key states with the most delegates.  Now we have Presidents that only campaign in key states that have the most delegates instead of trying to appeal to all states.

[AnOrangeCat]

15 minutes ago, Jedi4Yahweh said:

I dislike this whole key state shenanigans.  I don't think our founding fathers ever intended for certain key states to  be the deciding factor on who becomes president.  It seems the original intent was that every state have an equal say so in who becomes president and you would have to win over the majority of states to become president not just key states with the most delegates.  Now we have Presidents that only campaign in key states that have the most delegates instead of trying to appeal to all states.

I agree. Literacy wasn't great and news didn't travel fast back then. I can see the merit of the system as the delegates were more able to be educated and informed. These days? We have television and the internet. If someone isn't informed about the candidates and their policies these days then it's their own fault in most cases. I don't think we really need delegates anymore.

[Jayne]

55 minutes ago, Jedi4Yahweh said:

I dislike this whole key state shenanigans.  I don't think our founding fathers ever intended for certain key states to  be the deciding factor on who becomes president.  It seems the original intent was that every state have an equal say so in who becomes president and you would have to win over the majority of states to become president not just key states with the most delegates.  Now we have Presidents that only campaign in key states that have the most delegates instead of trying to appeal to all states.

To me, it's not the key states like California and my state, Louisiana.

Everybody knows that California is going to vote for Harris and Louisiana for Trump.  Texas for Trump and Minnesota for Harris.  No need to do a lot of campaigning there.

It's the swing states.  The ones that we usually can't predict how they will vote.  Nevada, Arizona, Georgia, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin.  That's where Trump/Vance and Harris/Walz are spending their time.

Whoever wins is going to HAVE to take Pennsylvania [19], Georgia [16], North Carolina [16], Michigan [15], and Arizona [11].

Oh, if Trump wants to win - he is going to need Ohio.  No Republican has ever won the presidency without Ohio.  Some have lost with Ohio as he did in 2020, but none have won without it.

Edited August 24, 2024 by Jayne

[peacemaker 324]

On 8/20/2024 at 2:44 PM, Neighbor said:

See the Shanahan interview posted at Videos general. It is way long BUT is segmented into smaller bites. The state of the RFK Jr.  campaign information begins at  the 40 minute mark.

Could be a game changer.

I doubt it very seriously I think kamela will win 

[Dennis1209]

1 hour ago, Jedi4Yahweh said:

I dislike this whole key state shenanigans.  I don't think our founding fathers ever intended for certain key states to  be the deciding factor on who becomes president.  It seems the original intent was that every state have an equal say so in who becomes president and you would have to win over the majority of states to become president not just key states with the most delegates.  Now we have Presidents that only campaign in key states that have the most delegates instead of trying to appeal to all states.

I fully understand flyover states. But it makes sense that the population's number determines the electoral vote; the founders designed it for a good purpose. Of which my memory is failing me presently.  To even the playing field somewhat, each state has two Senators. Trust me, in this day and age, we do not want any constitutional amendments or tinkering, including the number of people on the Supreme Court.

[Neighbor]

13 minutes ago, peacemaker 324 said:

I doubt it very seriously I think kamela will win 

Hi, I once doubted that  Johnson could win over Goldwater. I watched a shoe in George H. W.  Bush just up 'n lose interest  in the middle of a campaign and fail to get re-elected.  

In the past couple decades I have seen some really weird stuff including;  winning candidate coming up with fewer popular votes than the loser Trump's win  over Rodham-Clinton, and a State recount ended by Florida State Attorney General Bondi ( W. Bush over Gore).

I have seen ballots changed by review with the explanation that no one would intentionally vote that way, and so  ballots were changed by reviewers of them. Mine likely being one that would have been changed by reviewers  in the hanging chad election year. Talk about feeling robbed!

Never know what is coming next. As Senator Alan Simpson (Wyoming) used to say;  "Politics  isn't bean bag!" Fortunately USA politics is but vapors of the moment too. Our hope is always certain, when placed in the faith of Jesus, win or lose in politics of the moment.