Comments posted organically
SelectSmart.com Homepage
Display Order:

France is on the brink of a Revolution (read civil war)
Religion by oldedude     June 16, 2024 7:08 pm (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: oldedude (2 comments) [63 views]


pbGOP Lisa Murkowski on a rampage
President by HatetheSwamp     June 14, 2024 7:08 am (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: oldedude (14 comments) [135 views]


Curt, thanks for the RFKJ image
Media by HatetheSwamp     June 16, 2024 12:20 pm (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: Curt_Anderson (3 comments) [31 views]


The woke white world is paranoid about Charlie Kirk and TPUSA
Politics by HatetheSwamp     June 16, 2024 11:51 am (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: HatetheSwamp (10 comments) [104 views]


Violent crime is down and the US murder rate is plunging, FBI statistics show
Crime by Curt_Anderson     June 10, 2024 9:57 pm (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: HatetheSwamp (51 comments) [424 views]


UCR Crime Stats. Too Unreliable to Cite with Conviction
Government by oldedude     June 15, 2024 8:04 am (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: Indy! (13 comments) [85 views]


These Biden dementia videos will filter out...
Health by HatetheSwamp     June 16, 2024 12:17 pm (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: Indy! (5 comments) [48 views]


Sad. Trump confuses name of the doctor who gave him his cognitive test
Medical by Curt_Anderson     June 16, 2024 7:46 pm (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: Indy! (7 comments) [82 views]


A change of pace: 10 Best Linda Ronstadt Songs of All Time
Music by HatetheSwamp     June 15, 2024 5:26 pm (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: HatetheSwamp (7 comments) [116 views]


Two articles analyzing polls explain why Biden is likely to win: Real voters prefer Joe.
Politics by Curt_Anderson     June 15, 2024 3:35 pm (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: HatetheSwamp (3 comments) [63 views]


Politics selectors, pages, etc.
Kennedy blasts Biden, Trump over pandemic measures in pitch at Libertarian convention
By HatetheSwamp
May 25, 2024 3:59 am
Category: Politics

(0.0 from 0 votes)
Rules of the Post

SelectSmart.com SelectSmart.com SelectSmart.com


Rate this article
5 Stars
4 Stars
3 Stars
2 Stars
1 Star
0 Stars
(5=best, 0=poor)

Kennedy spoke at the Libertarian Party convention in Washington as he looks to grow his base of support among Americans disaffected with the Republican and Democratic parties. He’s formed alliances with minor parties spanning the ideological spectrum to gain access to the ballot in November and the debate stage next month.

“Maybe a brain worm ate that part of my memory, but I don’t recall any part of the United States Constitution where there’s an exemption for pandemics,” Kennedy said, referencing a New York Times report that he was diagnosed more than a decade ago with a parasite that lodged in his brain.

“Neither of them upheld the Constitution when it really counted,” he said of the current and former president.

Kennedy talked publicly about pursuing the Libertarian nomination as a way to secure ballot access, which sparked controversy in the party, where some members opposed supporting a candidate who is not always in step with their limited government views. His mere presence at the convention was controversial, with some delegates attempting to bar his speech. Kennedy was not on the list of nominees from which a Libertarian presidential candidate will be selected on Saturday.


Interestingly, RFKJ and Trump will speak to the Libertarians. The "dithering and diminished" Doddering Old Fool won't. Obviously, he's neither physically nor intellectually capable... and, it's not even Memorial Day.

Kennedy's line: Neither the Former Truck Driver nor Trump "upheld the Constitution" is crucial.

That's significantly why pb won't vote for either. Trump's been talking federalism, some, lately. His position on abortion is solid Tenth Amendment stuff. He's implying federalism on contraception. But, pb suspects that it's merely a political ploy.

RFKJ won't be nominated by the Libertarian Party but pb wishes he would be. He'd be on the ballot in every state... and might force his way into the debates.


Cited and related links:

  1. apnews.com

Comments Start Below


The views and claims expressed by contributors are their own and do not necessarily reflect the views and beliefs of SelectSmart.com. Not every statement made here can be assumed to be a fact.
Comments on "Kennedy blasts Biden, Trump over pandemic measures in pitch at Libertarian convention":

  1. by Indy! on May 25, 2024 11:03 am

    They'll never let RFK into the debates.


  2. by HatetheSwamp on May 25, 2024 11:18 am

    I'm sure you're right. I hope, though, that the whole uniparty is embarrassed by voters for that.


  3. by Curt_Anderson on May 25, 2024 11:54 am
    Good. RFK shouldn’t be in the debates. He is below any polling minimum of past presidential debates. He also doesn’t qualify because he isn’t on enough state ballots to feasibly win enough electoral votes.


  4. by Indy! on May 25, 2024 1:25 pm

    Classic D move - trying to silence the critics rather than doing the hard work of addressing the issues they bring to the table. Real debates would include any candidate with any support.


  5. by HatetheSwamp on May 25, 2024 1:31 pm

    Bingo, Indy. Dems are fighting furiously to keep RFKJ off the ballot in every state they can. I'm sure that is perfectly fine with our Good German.


  6. by oldedude on May 25, 2024 2:21 pm
    And the really interesting thing is the sheep still refuse to adopt science into their thinking! It's still maskmaskmask! and remember to vax every few weeks just to be safe! And don't forget. Fauchi is our Lord!


  7. by Curt_Anderson on May 25, 2024 5:59 pm
    So what arbitrary line would you guys draw for debate inclusion that would be fair to Kennedy, Cornel West, Jill Stein and all the other also rans?

    When there is a championship match there are just two boxers who earned their shot at the title in the ring. Tag teaming with fighting midgets is not allowed.


  8. by HatetheSwamp on May 26, 2024 5:02 am

    Arbitrary?

    EFFINarbitrary!!!!!?

    "That" "dithering and diminished" "feckless dementia-ridden piece of crap" has done a deal with "the Orange Turd" to scuttle the Commission on Presidential Debates to make up their own rules and to steal, from the most serious third-party candidate for President since Ross Perot, a chance to state his case before voters.

    That's 100% Swamp... with all of its dysfunction and corruption intact. You, of course, are on board.

    Big duh there, eh.

    What EFFINartibrary line would pb draw? He'd have all candidates submit to the authority of, and the rules and regulations of, the Commission... one way or t'other.

    Both of the major party candidates are corrupt, lyin bozos... as are you for supporting what they've done to STEAL the election from voters.

    Bad on you.


  9. by Curt_Anderson on May 26, 2024 8:53 am
    “ What EFFINartibrary line would pb draw? He'd have all candidates submit to the authority of, and the rules and regulations of, the Commission... one way or t'other.”. —HtS

    So you wouldn’t have allowed Robert F Kennedy, Jr. into the debate either. The commission would not have permitted Kennedy in the debate based on at least two criteria which he has not met.


  10. by oldedude on May 26, 2024 9:06 am
    So what arbitrary line would you guys draw for debate inclusion that would be fair to Kennedy, Cornel West, Jill Stein and all the other also rans?

    First, like Lead, I just "assume" that all the rules are nothing more than lines in the sand written by the swampsters. I start with that idea, so when that occurs, I'm not shocked. I am always disappointed though. Swampsters will never give time to any of those you mentioned. They're not being allowed to gain that much of a vote from any side (if there is more than one) of the swamp. That's just the truth of it.

    What we know is there are folks that will support all of the "also rans." Do they make a difference if they're at the debate? Not sure. Are we going to find out? No. Simple as that.


  11. by Curt_Anderson on May 26, 2024 9:57 am
    Interesting opinions, OD and HtS. I would have expected you two to be against affirmative action by allowing also-ran candidates who don’t come close to meeting the standards achieved by the two major candidates, who both have a realistic shot of winning the election.


  12. by oldedude on May 26, 2024 10:21 am
    I'm not seeing where affirmative action fits legally into this. At all. Considering it's an elected position. Nor do I think it's a good use of my time to listen to them. What I'm interested in regarding the presidency, I've already looked up and seen where I'm going to make my choices since I don't fully agree with anyone running. So it's a choice about what I'm willing give up on, and where I won't.

    Again, I know there are those adamantly supporting folks in the entire range. The last time I voted for someone to give someone I disliked a "no" vote, or any other "throwaway," I was a dem.


  13. by HatetheSwamp on May 26, 2024 10:54 am

    Curt,

    What I'm opposed to is the candidates of the two major parties making a smoke-filled room deal to prevent any other candidate from participating in the campaign conversation... if they have a legitimate claim to be able to participate.

    Corrupt. Dysfunctional. I.e., the Swamp.

    HatetheSwamp


  14. by Indy! on May 26, 2024 11:17 am
    When there is a championship match there are just two boxers who earned their shot at the title in the ring. Tag teaming with fighting midgets is not allowed.


    Good lord. First off, we're not boxing. Secondly, all the candidates who can get on the state ballots ARE included in the "championship match" - aka the "general election". 🙄


  15. by Curt_Anderson on May 26, 2024 12:11 pm
    all the candidates who can get on the state ballots ARE included in the "championship match" ---Indy

    But only if they are on enough state ballots to win 270 electoral votes. They also need to show up in more than one legitimate poll at 15% or above. Those have been the minimum standards set by the Commission on Presidential Debates for years.
    wiley.law


  16. by HatetheSwamp on May 26, 2024 12:19 pm

    Not any more, Curt. Thanks to the smoke-filled room deal.


  17. by Curt_Anderson on May 26, 2024 1:11 pm
    Really, HtS? Who is not included that appears on enough state ballots to possibly collect 270 electoral votes and is at 15% or above in more than one poll? The also-rans combined won't collect more than 95% of the popular vote. If anybody is interested in Cornel West's, Jill Stein's or Junior's proposals and promises, they can go to their websites.

    Anyway, what is so democratic about how RFK Jr., Jill Stein, Cornel West became presidential candidates? I don't remember having a chance to vote for or against them in the primaries or at a convention.


  18. by HatetheSwamp on May 26, 2024 1:24 pm

    The RFKJ campaign claims to be on track to be on ballots of states with at least 340 electoral votes... and would be well ahead of their current pace were it not for the opposition of both parties, particularly the Dems.

    The Swamp is EFFINfilthy!


  19. by Curt_Anderson on May 26, 2024 2:01 pm
    “claims to be on track”.

    😁 🤣 lol!


  20. by HatetheSwamp on May 27, 2024 3:44 am

    As of the June debate, he'll be on more ballots than "the Orange Turd" and the Doddering Old Fool.


  21. by Indy! on May 27, 2024 11:15 am

    The Two Color Party created those "standards" simply to keep everyone except their corrupt uniparty out of the debates. The same way they gave the debates to the MSM instead of the League of Women Voters so they wouldn't be asked any tough questions (or expected to answer the softballs they get now).

    Why do you continue throwing out the standard fake bullshit we've discredited years ago? You got the same audience every time, Curt. 🙄


  22. by Curt_Anderson on May 27, 2024 11:38 am
    A lot of whining but nobody can answer my question and come up with fairer standard for debate inclusion:
    So what arbitrary line would you guys draw for debate inclusion that would be fair to Kennedy, Cornel West, Jill Stein and all the other also rans?


  23. by HatetheSwamp on May 27, 2024 11:50 am

    I reject your question but I absolutely did provide an answer.


  24. by Curt_Anderson on May 27, 2024 1:22 pm
    HtS,
    You whined about the “Duopoly” and “The swamp”. You said they should abide by the debate commission rules, which would not have allowed RFK Junior into the debates. In Other words, you don’t have a better solution or a fairer system than Having the two major party candidates debate without a collection of also Rans on the stage


  25. by HatetheSwamp on May 27, 2024 2:08 pm

    What I criticized is "the Orange Turd" and "that feckless dementia-ridden piece of crap's" string-pullers subverting the prerogative of the Commission on Presidential Debates.

    Here's a quote from HatetheSwamp, "What EFFINartibrary line would pb draw? He'd have all candidates submit to the authority of, and the rules and regulations of, the Commission... one way or t'other."

    One way or t'other, baby!


  26. by oldedude on May 27, 2024 3:53 pm
    One of the things is to know, or understand what battles is worth fighting, and what isn't and what about a small skirmish? There are no absolutes in political life. I would say that fighting for the big rules in the major debates are useless. And they'd waste your time and the little money that you have. It's worth more of your money to do ads in states you need. Unlike trumpster, you're not going to win in the Bible belt as a libertarian. They will vote for mainstream while complaining about the swamp. Trumpster could go to the bodega in NYC and that got him votes. If the Libertarians would do that, no one would got to it and they'd lose money.


  27. by oldedude on May 28, 2024 5:43 am
    sorry, the post above was an "answer" to curt's post.


  28. by Indy! on May 28, 2024 9:14 am

    There should be no standard other than the candidate is running for president. Asking for 15% of the vote is absoulutely a ludicrous standard - the same as saying "we only take Ds & Rs". The simple logistics tell that story (so it might be hard for Curt to grasp)...

    2020 voting...
    Biden:
    Trump: 74M+ votes
    Biden: 81M+ votes

    Add it up - 155M votes. Let's call it 150M for convenience sake...

    150M x .15 = 22.5M voters would have to be in RFK's corner DURING THE EARLY PRIMARIES - to get into the debates.

    Might as well say only 3 candidates are eligible... A D, an R and a unicorn.


  29. by Curt_Anderson on May 29, 2024 4:52 pm
    Indy,
    There are about two dozen people who filed papers to run for president in 2024. It’s ridiculous to have a “debate” with all the candidates. Ross Perot and John Anderson surpassed the 15% level and appeared in the debates, so it is doable.


  30. by oldedude on May 29, 2024 5:15 pm
    Curt- an example of that was that when the GOP had, I dunno, like 55 people running? What a fiasco. Everyone demanded their 15 minutes of fame, and honestly it wasn't worth looking at. I think voters have a pretty good idea of what they want. If they're going to shop, they'll shop. I think there ought to be a minimum so we don't have to listen to Fritz the cat speak about his kibbles.


  31. by Indy! on May 29, 2024 5:42 pm

    The only thing this conversation does is expose how afraid Ds and Rs are when it comes to an actual debate. Who can blame you guys when everyone knows if there were a real debate for all the parties putting up candidates (not "everyone who runs" 🙄) the Ds and Rs would finish dead last in the public's mind every 4 years. They have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to offer the country.


Go To Top

Comment on: "Kennedy blasts Biden, Trump over pandemic measures in pitch at Libertarian convention"


* Anonymous comments are subject to approval before they appear. Cookies Consent Policy & Privacy Statement. All Rights Reserved. SelectSmart® is a registered trademark. | Contact SelectSmart.com | Advertise on SelectSmart.com | This site is for sale!

Find old posts & articles

Articles by category:

SelectSmart.com
Report spam & abuse
SelectSmart.com home page