Is Robert F. Kennedy Jr. the answer?

[Natural_Born_Cynic]

Robert F Kennedy is our answer and a small Beacon of Hope. However, He doesn't seem to have lot of mainstream support and he is not the main focus on the mainstream media which is sad. He is just in the fringe . That Jessica Burbank women seems pretty. I would date her but not marry her. FOX news and lot of conservative women looks prettier than their liberal counterparts.

[Cornfed]

Robert F Kennedy is our answer and a small Beacon of Hope. However, He doesn't seem to have lot of mainstream support and he is not the main focus on the mainstream media which is sad. He is just in the fringe

What the hell is wrong with people? He is a limited hangout guy telling us some of what we want to hear to divert attention from real pro-freedom people. It is so pathetically easy for the elite to put up degenerate shitbags from their own number to fool people.

[Natural_Born_Cynic]

Robert F Kennedy is our answer and a small Beacon of Hope. However, He doesn't seem to have lot of mainstream support and he is not the main focus on the mainstream media which is sad. He is just in the fringe

What the hell is wrong with people? He is a limited hangout guy telling us some of what we want to hear to divert attention from real pro-freedom people. It is so pathetically easy for the elite to put up degenerate shitbags from their own number to fool people.

Another "controlled opposition" I suppose? I mean this old guy came out of nowhere and he did strike some right notes, but he have very little influence in grand scheme of things. He is the answer but controlled opposition.

[gsjackson]

He CANNOT run for president, and the 14th Amendment doesn't say or imply anything to the contrary.

Apparently the courts have ruled that the 14th amendment makes it illegal to distinguish between different groups of citizens and the FEC has ruled on that basis that people not born in the country can run for president. By your logic, would women be able to run for president? The constitution uses masculine pronouns at a time when the "generic he" was not universal, so it is reasonable to assume that the law at the time was that the president had to be a man, but most people would assume that subsequent changes would render that null.

There is specific language in the Constitution about who can run for president and the FEC is not the last word in interpreting it. SCOTUS is. The language is not gender specific. There is a controversy about whether someone born outside the US to American citizens can run, but the eligibility of someone born outside the US to non-citizen parents is a controversy only in the fantasies of Shiva the Swindler.

https://constitution.congress.gov/brows ... _00013692/

[Cornfed]

There is specific language in the Constitution about who can run for president and the FEC is not the last word in interpreting it. SCOTUS is.

There is specific language but the constitution is subject to change and SCOTUS has ruled that you can't have different categories of citizen under the 14th amendment. BTW, the meaning of the original language is questionable since the term "natural born citizen" has never been defined in law. SCOTUS has not specifically ruled on the issue, but when they do they will probably side with Shiva because of the 14th Amendment rulings and because agency deferral is a thing. Another issue not brought up is that old law changes with society. The interpretation of the 1st amendment has radically changed from when it was originally interpreted at a town level, for example. BTW, there is of course gender specific language, for example about HIS renumeration.

[Natural_Born_Cynic]

There is specific language in the Constitution about who can run for president and the FEC is not the last word in interpreting it. SCOTUS is.

There is specific language but the constitution is subject to change and SCOTUS has ruled that you can't have different categories of citizen under the 14th amendment. BTW, the meaning of the original language is questionable since the term "natural born citizen" has never been defined in law. SCOTUS has not specifically ruled on the issue, but when they do they will probably side with Shiva because of the 14th Amendment rulings and because agency deferral is a thing. Another issue not brought up is that old law changes with society. The interpretation of the 1st amendment has radically changed from when it was originally interpreted at a town level, for example. BTW, there is of course gender specific language, for example about HIS renumeration.

Come on people! Doesn't matter who wrote the constitution because it was a document from 300 years ago and our government has been occupied by the ZOG and the Jews control our banking system. Do you think the Jews at the top give a f*ck about whatever written on a 300 year old piece of paper?

[gsjackson]

There is specific language in the Constitution about who can run for president and the FEC is not the last word in interpreting it. SCOTUS is.

There is specific language but the constitution is subject to change and SCOTUS has ruled that you can't have different categories of citizen under the 14th amendment. BTW, the meaning of the original language is questionable since the term "natural born citizen" has never been defined in law. SCOTUS has not specifically ruled on the issue, but when they do they will probably side with Shiva because of the 14th Amendment rulings and because agency deferral is a thing. Another issue not brought up is that old law changes with society. The interpretation of the 1st amendment has radically changed from when it was originally interpreted at a town level, for example. BTW, there is of course gender specific language, for example about HIS renumeration.

So "natural born citizen" might include someone not born a citizen at all? However SCOTUS might want to interpret the 14th Amendment -- and we currently have a "conservative" court that is not given to expansive interpretations of that particular amendment -- they can't get around the explicit language of the document. And trust me, they won't defer to the FEC's decision on the matter.

I don't know what you're talking about re the 1st Amendment. It was applied only to the federal government until 1925, when the Gitlow v New York decision began the process of applying the Bill of Rights to state and local governments.

[MarcosZeitola]

Barring any unforseen circumstances, Biden will just get the nomination. He has the whole party apparatus in his pocket, anyway, and most of his voters would dismiss Kennedy as a Kremlin shill... and they may not be entirely wrong, there. Now with Trump's legal woes and DeSantis pussying out of his fight with woke Disney, I am expecting another Biden win in 2024. Unless of course there's some huge black swan event that comes out of nowhere and shakes things up at the last possible moment.

[gsjackson]

And by the way, WTF is Shiva talking about saying RFK didn't pass his law school exams? All 25 or so of them? He's almost certainly thinking of JFK Jr, who needed two or three cracks at the New York Bar exam. Bar exams have nothing to do with law school exams. Anyone who knows anything at all about the law can see that RFK is a perfectly competent attorney. This guy Shiva is so sloppy in his slurs that he's flirting with defamation when he says something like that. Even about a public figure.

[Cornfed]

So "natural born citizen" might include someone not born a citizen at all? However SCOTUS might want to interpret the 14th Amendment -- and we currently have a "conservative" court that is not given to expansive interpretations of that particular amendment -- they can't get around the explicit language of the document. And trust me, they won't defer to the FEC's decision on the matter.

I don't know what you're talking about re the 1st Amendment. It was applied only to the federal government until 1925, when the Gitlow v New York decision began the process of applying the Bill of Rights to state and local governments.

Apparently the New Jersey legislature declared Lafayette a natural born citizen, so their understanding was not literal. Why exactly would SCOTUS need to get around explicitly language even if we agree on the legally undefined meaning? The law was one thing and then it was changed by amendment. Simple.

On the 1st amendment, it used to apply at the town level. Freedom of speech and religion used to mean the Amish could preach Amishness in Amishville, the Catholics could preach Catholicism in Catholictown etc. You weren't necessarily free to preach Catholicism in Amishville.

[MrPeabody]

Robert F Kennedy is our answer and a small Beacon of Hope. However, He doesn't seem to have lot of mainstream support and he is not the main focus on the mainstream media which is sad. He is just in the fringe

What the hell is wrong with people? He is a limited hangout guy telling us some of what we want to hear to divert attention from real pro-freedom people. It is so pathetically easy for the elite to put up degenerate shitbags from their own number to fool people.

Another "controlled opposition" I suppose? I mean this old guy came out of nowhere and he did strike some right notes, but he have very little influence in grand scheme of things. He is the answer but controlled opposition.

Came out of nowhere? They don't teach history anymore. RFK, Jr. was listening to private conversations between his uncle, the president, and his father during the Bay of Pigs and Cuban Missle Crisis. There is no American politician who has a better understanding of what is really going on. And he knows that JFK was assasinated by the deep state. If he gets in he will release the files and expose the entire corrupt globalist scam. No he is not controlled opposition. That slur is too easily used now as another useless label.

[Natural_Born_Cynic]

Robert F Kennedy is our answer and a small Beacon of Hope. However, He doesn't seem to have lot of mainstream support and he is not the main focus on the mainstream media which is sad. He is just in the fringe

What the hell is wrong with people? He is a limited hangout guy telling us some of what we want to hear to divert attention from real pro-freedom people. It is so pathetically easy for the elite to put up degenerate shitbags from their own number to fool people.

Another "controlled opposition" I suppose? I mean this old guy came out of nowhere and he did strike some right notes, but he have very little influence in grand scheme of things. He is the answer but controlled opposition.

Came out of nowhere? They don't teach history anymore. RFK, Jr. was listening to private conversations between his uncle, the president, and his father during the Bay of Pigs and Cuban Missle Crisis. There is no American politician who has a better understanding of what is really going on. And he knows that JFK was assasinated by the deep state. If he gets in he will release the files and expose the entire corrupt globalist scam. No he is not controlled opposition. That slur is too easily used now as another useless label.

We'll just have to see... The Globalists wouldn't just let him become president and reveal all their dirty laundry.. They would have him shot like JFK, but we'll have to see.

[Cornfed]

And he knows that JFK was assasinated by the deep state. If he gets in he will release the files and expose the entire corrupt globalist scam. No he is not controlled opposition. That slur is too easily used now as another useless label.

Yes, JFK was a gangster scumbag rubbed out by other gangster scumbags as is the nature of gangster scumbags. Robert f'n Kennedy isn't any kind of opposition. He is just another loathsome degenerate scumbag.

[MrPeabody]

And he knows that JFK was assasinated by the deep state. If he gets in he will release the files and expose the entire corrupt globalist scam. No he is not controlled opposition. That slur is too easily used now as another useless label.

Yes, JFK was a gangster scumbag rubbed out by other gangster scumbags as is the nature of gangster scumbags. Robert f'n Kennedy isn't any kind of opposition. He is just another loathsome degenerate scumbag.

They killed him because he wouldn't follow orders and sell out the country. He had a charisma which gave him a power from the people so he couldn't be controlled. He was pulling the advisors out of Vietnam. After he was assisinated the whole country started going to hell, and one war after another.

[Winston]

Check out RFK Jr's new VP running mate. She's a good looking likable woman. Wow we actually have someone in politics that looks cute for once! She sounds intelligent too, which is refreshing. And I think she's part Chinese too. Wow.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rZ0sEDJ5GHQ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yBxwBwBreAo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r5EFlupRVLQ

I remember in the 80s the Democrats were about getting Reagan to stop spending money on nuclear weapons but instead spending it on the American people. That was a noble and honorable cause and why I supported them at the time. But today, it's turned into an Orwellian monster. WTF happened? I heard the Democratic party is not even truly liberal anymore, it's all about corporatism.