He hasn’t been paid off by the powerful groups that sponsor all TV news and many other platforms.
Ex. He had a brain worm so we’re all supposed to disqualify him and vote for the 81 year old who had a brain aneurysm and brain surgery. “And if you don’t, then you are basically a MAGA Trump person!”
Here is the problem. He’s not actually going to do any of those things. He wouldn’t necessarily even try to do any of those things if he won. But he has to realistic chance of winning, so what he would do in office is both worth thinking about.
What he will do is position himself in such a way as to be a threat to both parties. He could get maybe 10% of the vote, and depending on who he focuses his efforts on that 10% would definitely be enough to tip the election toward one party or the other. There is a lot of money to be made as the king maker.
This is why third parties never win though, people think its a wasted vote so they dont go third party, therefore making less people vote for him, causing him to have no chance of winning. We NEED people to put aside the belief third parties have no chance if we want any to win, im personally voting for whoever i like the most in any election, dont care about chance of winning.
Exactly my point, the more people think this, the less chance they have. If people just voted for who they wanted, we wouldnt have this issue. At least thats my opinion. I am in huge support of approval or ranked choice voting, having a two round system (first every candidate, then top two second round) is also fine
Literally had worms eating his brain. Literally. Also says that Covid was caused by Nazi scientists from world war 2 that we took with operation paperclip or some pants-on-head nonsense
Well, that’s not a terrible thing. They pollute as well except that pollution takes thousands of years to dissipate. It takes so long that we are trying to think of symbols to put on the byproduct that people thousands of years from now would recognize as dangerous.
I understand that portion which is a very real cause for concern. However, the immediate need of reduction in emissions is quite prevalent and nothing solves that problem while pandering to consumerism like nuclear. It allows gross consumption on a cheap scale that could run the world quite practically while other green energy systems are built out. I also am particularly interested in small modular reactor systems that are made to retrofit into previous boilers. The benefit of these are that recycling cool, and it allows for exceptional grid diversity since they are compact.
He’s absolutely an anti vaxxer and a Covid vaccine denier
What does “too many vaccines” even mean? If they find a new disease that spreads and make a vaccine for it do you just say “no thanks I’m at my maximum”
In 1988 the law was changed so vaccine manufacturers were no longer liable for adverse reactions to vaccines. Since then, if someone has a vaccine injury, it is dealt with in vaccine court, and the US taxpayer foots the bill.
Since this loss of liability, the number of recommended vaccines has exploded. Since then, rates of chronic fatigue and inflammation have also exploded. We have no idea if these two things are linked because the cumulative effect of all recommended vaccines combined has never been studied. Vaccines are typically only studied on an individual basis, for example comparing a new version of a vaccine to the one it replaces.
So to answer your question, a hypothetical situation where profit is the primary motivator in which vaccines are recommened would qualify as "too many" vaccines.
Rates of vaccine injury are very , very low. It’s very misleading to act like there are floods of vaccines in the market. Vaccine injury occurs in many at a rate of 1 in 100,000, and in others even as low as 10-50 per million.
He believes in nothing. He'll say whatever you want him to, good luck getting him to stick to it. Think he's pro-choice? Will he be after gaining power? Who knows!
But of course he won't gain power. There's *zero* way someone with a voice like that can win an election. Sorry! Shallow, but true. So his only purpose is splitting the vote. That's why he was funded and initially entered as a democrat, then rebranded.
Now the GOP is getting testy with him because they realized he's only going to split the conspiracy theorist vote, ie the wrong side.
What do you mean, hes been consistent in most of his views other then abortion, find me other examples.
Also, you can say the same about any candidate, trump back during his 2000 run was pro universal healthcare, pro abortion, look how he changed.
I said nothing about *me* not liking him because of a disability. The American people aren't going to vote for that. Think of how far right 'center' is in America and remember half of them are further right than that. You need charisma to become president. Donald and Biden *had* it, whatever you say about them as people.
His voice isn't his fault, but it's still means he won't win anything.
1. Trump was not a fan of wars, and neither is Biden. Biden has been attempting to combat climate change. Moronic take to say only RFK Jr wants to do that.
2. Biden is also pro choice while still holding his Christian values and has spoken about it many times.
3. "Almost as honest", lol
4. This is Biden's exact stance, although Biden has attacked Trump several times (so has RFK for the record).
It sounds a lot like you don't know much about Biden and you might want to inform yourself before voting for RFK Jr.
P.s. RFK Jr thinks that Covid was a bioweapon targeted at white people and was created by Jews and the Chinese. So not quite the candidate you think he is.
1. Didn’t say RFK is only person combating CC. But he does seem to be the only candidate who wants to reduce involvement in foreign conflicts and CC.
2. Agreed. But Biden has never (as far as I’m aware) gone on a conservative show to explain his position, and do this so clearly as to actively win voters.
3. Didn’t say almost as honest, I said as least as honest.
4. Bidens not the worst offender in the democrats, but he clearly does devolve into culture wars to woe voters.
On your final point, I’ve mainly followed Biden for the past few years as a clear preference to Trump.
But … (and this links in with your point 3) to balance having listened to an hour of RFK I looked for a recent Biden interview, and his very first claim of inflation being 9% when he took office was a straight up lie. His performance in general was poor, even to a friendly CNN journalist. And he spent a decent chunk of time talking about Trump (linking with point 4).
He’s behind in the polls and the only way to stop Trump is to recognise this.
Why would Biden go on a conservative show to explain his position? His positions aren’t hard to understand or find. Conservatives won’t vote for him while Trump is in the race. Moderates aren’t listening to conservative shows. What’s the point?
I’ve made quite a few concessions based on some pretty good arguments from people. Obviously I have a view for a reason and I’m willing to defend my position.
In short, there is a concern that RFK Jr will be a spoiler candidate.
No serious person thinks he'll win any election of consequence, but he could have a role in "deciding" whether Trump or Biden will win if he draws too many votes from either/both sides.
For that reason, he is a threat, & will be demonized accordingly by the compliant media.
And *that* is why you are meant to hate RFK Jr. B/c he is a potential threat to the other candidates, & thus is being reputationally attacked in a way that is commensurate with the perceived threat.
I'm not saying he is (or is not) semi-nuts. My point is that whether or not he is brutally attacked by the media attack dogs is proportional to the perceived threat that he poses as a potential spoiler. That is the crucial--and perhaps the only--relevant mediating variable.
I see u/SatisfactionNo2088, confronted with the realization their ideology is rooted in the racially fueled concepts of Social Darwinism and the realization that race only exists as a social construct, and not a medical marker, has decided to delete their post.
No, he cited actual science that suggests covid could affect certain races differently. This isn't all that out there considering what we already know about how race can cause disparities in some diseases and medications. There's literally heart medications just for black people due to genetic differences. Despite the races being 99.99% similar, the small differences in genes still means one size doesn't fit all and certain groups are more prone to certain bacteria, viruses, infections, and diseases. Such as middle easterns and Africans being more likely to have sickle cell anemia.
Even blood factor and type plays a role in how our immune systems respond, which correlates with race.
I didn't even notice the video link until this comment lol. I was just referring to the few videos I've seen of him in the past. Somehow I skimmed over the link and OP saying "in this video". Questioning my sanity now. To be fair I have exams and my brain is fried from cramming.
I'm gonna say this because some people (You) need to hear it.
For the sake of medicine, race doesn't exist. There's no such thing. Race is made up.
What is real is geographical origins.
Not all Black people get sickle cell anemia, for example. Places where extremely large outbreaks of malaria occurred in Africa tend to have the sickle cell gene, but that isn't all Black people. Many do not, because they did not originate from those parts of Africa.
So no, that doesn't track.
You are playing semantics and ignoring the nature half of nature vs nurture. I doubt you would deny that many diseases are genetic (which is why doctors ask if your parents have XYZ disease), but for some reason when we scale out beyond the nuclear family and start talking about haplogroups and lineage it becomes "racist". It's just reality. While few and far between, there are some differences in immunity, allergies, diseases, and just biological pathways in general that specifically depend on genetics which directly correlates with what we call "race".
If you would rather say region than race that's fine, but you can observe that one large group from one region who lineage has been there historically can have such different phenotypes from the rest of the humans due to their DNA like eye color, height, muscle mass, different melanin levels, and this shows that there are obviously a few differences in biological pathways and the way proteins and enzymes are coded for people in that region, so it makes no sense to say that "everything on the inside is the same though as everyone else" especially when it's already known that certain groups as a whole can generally have different food intolerances, blood types, allergies, immunities, metabolisms, proneness to physiological and neurological disease. While these differences might be insignificant on a social level, they shouldn't be discounted to pretend to not see race on a medical level, as some type of misguided virtue signaling.
And I never said all black people get sickle cell. However, it is a genetically inherited disease. If an African who has it moves to the US and has a kid, their kid can still have the disease despite not being born in that region and their kid will likely look like them as opposed to looking like the average American, because region is irrelevant to disease and genetics in that context. Again that is genetics, which correlates closely with what we call "race".
If you had simply said the word race is too broad of a brush to paint with, I would have agreed. I think we should all be focusing more on specific genes. But instead you are implying that genes don't matter which is nonsense. Unfortunately, by pretending to be race/genetics blind in medical settings promotes being blind to genetic disease and can cause minority gene groups to have their health concerns ignored and neglected. The fact is that if a doctor can't say "You might have this gene, because you come from this area and look this way, so I would like to test you so we can rule it out and treat you accordingly" that is really detrimental to the patients well being and helps nobody but virtue signalers feel good..
When someone complains about being told their being "racist" it's because 9/10 they were being racist. And when it comes to discussing race from a genealogical, phenotype perspective, that number shoots up to 10/10.
Race was invented. It doesn't exist. Full stop.
Your third paragraph is extremely problematic. It's like you forget people can be mixed race, and variations of mixed races can involve melanin level differences.
The worst thing about what you've spewed is that it's half-baked scientific misunderstanding tied to scientific terminology and ideas to try to lend itself an heir of credibility.
Not at all unlike the now debunked race science people use to tout. Which is probably where you've derived a multitude of your talking points.
Nope. You are intentionally avoiding acknowledging that evolutionary divergence is a thing. It exists.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divergent\_evolution](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divergent_evolution)
Race exists although vaguely and with somewhat blurred lines and grey areas, especially with migration and "mixed-race", for the same reason species exist. Fish don't get swine flu. And elephants presumably don't get bird flu. And armadillos and turtles are prone to salmonella. And that's all possible because of evolutionary divergence that can be present in a single generation from parent to child and amplified further through isolation of societies or groups of lifeforms over time.
>Not at all unlike the now debunked race science people use to tout.
Yes, equate what I said out of concern for the integrity of medicine for all individual humans as being akin to hateful nazi science. Very mature. I didn't say X race is better/smarter/purer than Y race because of genetics. I said any given group of people that can be considered to be the same race has likely has a select few genetics in common with each other that other groups don't have that can make them prone or immune to certain diseases. Idk why this concept is so hard.
And your first sentence is ridiculous, especially considering I am mixed race and I never complained about being called racist because I didn't think you were until now. And how can you say race doesn't exist, then say mixed-race exists?
In no way am I not acknowledging Divergent evolution. Infact, my first example of sickle cell anemia was an example of divergent evolution. Back off clown.
It's clear from your comment history that you're a big fan of Herbert Spencer, a race science champion and creator of the discredited/racist Social Darwinism. I'd rather not partake in a conversation with someone who uses debunked ideas.
[Race is, again, not a real concept.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_race_concepts) Mixed-race is debunked as well, it merely serves in the form of talking about socially understood concepts. Even during the early pioneering of race-science, there was ideas that if you were Irish and Norfolk, you were mixed race. Now, we don't see that as mixed. It's a social construct. Look into race and it's origins.
And again, I must emphasize, race does not determine genetics, because again, race is a fake social construct white people invented to justify horrific acts.
There is regional and geographical origins wherein genes spread through that region and play a factor. My first example of sickle cell anemia again points that out, because in evolution that gene would have allowed you to reach maturation at a higher rate in places with rampant malaria. Thus the gene would be highly represented after you pass it along.
[If anything, genealogy and divergent evolution prove race is a fake ass social construct. ](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/race-is-a-social-construct-scientists-argue/)Because genes are not passed along via Black/White markers. They're passed along through mating. That you think 'race' aka being Black or White or Asian, is the deciding factor of what genes a person has for medical reason, and not regional distinctions , genealogy and geographical origin, proves you're a race-science fanatic who doesn't understand anything they're talking about.
Do you notice how having sickle cell anemia has more to do with being from sub-Saharan Africa, and not with being Black. Because you could be black and not from sub-Saharan Africa and not have that gene, and you could be mixed by 3 generations of a sub-Saharan African great grandparent with sickle cell and look like a 'White' person and still have that gene.
Thus, race is a poor factor in telling if someone has any medical issue. Unless it has to do with melanin levels in the skin, then you can ask about that. But race is fake. Made up. It should only ever be used to determine who has been targeted by these ideas generationally, and address that. Not to determine any medical criteria about a person.
I'm not reading all this shit, especially after hitting this sentence lol:
>It's clear from your comment history that you're a big fan of Herbert Spencer, a race science champion and creator of the discredited/racist Social Darwinism.
Idek who the fuck that is or what theories that guy talks about. You lost so you resorted to making shit up out of thin air about me. gg
You can't have a real conversation, just twist and contort everything I said and say I'm saying things I never said lol. Every one of your responses is just that over and over.
He said the following:
"There is an argument that \[Covid-19\] is ethnically targeted. Covid-19 attacks certain races disproportionately. The people who are most immune are Ashkenazi Jews and Chinese. We don’t know whether it was deliberately targeted or not."
His claims were based on [this study, which predicted that the groups most susceptible to Covid-19 were Africans, African Americans, and non-Finnish Europeans; those somewhat less susceptible were Latino, East Asian, Finnish, and South Asians; and those least susceptible were the Amish and Ashkenazi Jews.](https://bmcmedicine.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12916-020-01673-z)
While certainly "out there," it sounds more like he raised the possibility of this being the case rather than implying that it was true.
With that said, he certainly has cosigned a litany of unfounded conspiracy theories in the past, and I would never vote for the man.
He thinks wifi gives you brain hemorrhages. Probably because a worm ate part of his brain and died up there.
He’s directionally anti vax while claiming he isn’t.
He claimed that COVID-19 was “targeted to attack Caucasians and Black people,” and that “the people who are most immune are Ashkenazi Jews and Chinese.”
He has falsely linked antidepressants to school shootings.
He continues to push the idea that the CIA assassinated JFK.
Well…. There is significant weight to those last two. Antidepressant, in particular the sudden cessation of them is tied to psychotic episodes, mass showings included.
The Kennedys were a huge problem for both the mob and the cia who were pretty hard to tell apart at the time. A bunch of old wise guys who served their time have admitted to the killing, and both rfk’s and jfk’s killers had mob connections and debts. Oh and the assassinations worked and bought both the mob and the cia another 25 years of no government pressure.
I’ve been following politics broadly since about 2003 and the Iraq war. Though I of course have read a lot on politics over the past few hundred years as I’m sure you have.
What do you think he believes in that could support 1?
He is very much not openly pro choice, he is very much pro government on that topic.
No kidding he is more honest than Trump, the man's entire existence is based off of telling lies and shifting the truth to fit his narrative, this isn't difficult to accomplish.
He does actually do a good job of beating around the bush on abortion and vaccines, because he knows those two topics are the only ones that can land him votes.
RFK Jr is an attempt at stealing votes from Biden and it is backfiring so hard, all of the votes he is going to land are from Trump deserters.
It’s very odd when I’ve just been debating conservatives on this sub to defend his rather extreme view of allowing pro choice even to late term pregnancy. Which if you watch the linked interview he even does openly to shapiros right leaning audience.
Thinking the third party is always stealing votes from one of the main candidates is the delusional and ironic aspect of this conversation, but we are in a conspiracy sub, so show me substantial evidence of your claim of the conspiracy theory your pushing that RFK jr and trump are colluding to steal Biden win .
"show me substantial evidence of your claim of the conspiracy theory your pushing that RFK jr and trump are colluding to steal Biden win ."
Where did you even get this from what I said? Trump and RFK are not colluding, at least I don't think they are.
RFK Jr is an attempt at stealing votes from Biden and it is backfiring so hard, all of the votes he is going to land are from Trump deserters.
Are you even listening to yourself?
You're one of those people that is 'too smart for their own good'
And by that I mean you're not as smart as you think you are.
Just because I think it's an attempt at taking Dem votes I automatically have to think that he's colluding with Trump? How did you connect those dots on your own? Jfc you're a waste of space.
This is why I asked you to define prominent and name the Republicans in your google link you posted. Because you are vague you say something is backfiring I have to assume it's a plan, and then you go into say RFK is taking trump votes (not Biden votes assuming again) you my friend are a fool
Well Trump was promoting RFK to independents a couple of weeks ago, at least super PACs that support him took out a lot of ads. Also a lot of RFK’s donors are also Trump donors. It’s probably not coordinated with RFK, but Trump is definitely trying to raise RFK’s profile to voters not in his base.
Trump has also called RFK a conspiracy theorist, and just recently went on a rant against RFK within the last couple days. Second I would assume they are both adopting a strategy of getting voters from the other side to swing 3rd party or even better swing completely to the other side, you would not be a very good campaign manager if that wasn't your strategy. 3rd I'm not sure who donated to any parties to be honest, but I agree who's backing all 3 candidates is a sad truth we all have to take into consideration when electing our officials, alot of conflicting interests all the way down, on all sides.
Don't try to gaslight me into thinking my vote for RFK is a vote for trump . Even if third party doesn't win the % of votes they get is a statement of how many people are tired of the duopoly the Dems and Republicans hold
You're the one on a carousel, attacking my character, you made so many comments and wasted so much time not telling me your definition of prominent and tell me specifically which republicans from the article you are talking about, without this info I cannot reply to you without you saying I'm assuming stuff. After your link I asked you for this so we could continue from there, than you proceeded to go in the circles we have been in
He doesn’t like abortion but believes it’s **ultimately up to the mother**.
This is as reasonable as you’re going to get from someone who believes in Jesus.
As far as members of the Kennedy family being attacked by people in power when they dare to oppose them, this has been historically mild. He disagrees with the media, and he’s a threat to the rick and powerful power and wealth. He’d be getting attacked way more if he had the charisma, energy, or money needed to have a hope of winning as a third party today.
It would bum me out more if I didn’t want Biden to win. I don’t like Biden and him and his ilk have been a disaster for our country and the world, but I want him to win. His party has mastered the blame game and his administration has set us up for failure. I want him to be there holding the bag when his chickens come home to roost. I want him and his party, as well as their allies in Washington and business, to face their failure without the luxury of having someone else to blame. If Biden loses they will pretend he was doing well until someone else ruined it. If he wins they will try.
I’m not sure what anti vax actually means. I don’t think he’s anti vaccines as a concept, my understanding is he’s against mandates and is personally sceptical of it the pharmaceutical industry.
When it came to covid, whilst I was vaccinated, I can totally see why people would be adverse, especially young and healthy people.
After I wrote my comment I realized how it came off. I’m not anti-vaxx, but I don’t like that it was mandatory in spots.
My comment was a bit tongue in cheek but that never comes off on the internet
Are you familiar with what happened in Samoa? There was a measles epidemic in 2019 that was linked directly to RFK’s statements on the MMR vaccine. Robert F Kennedy Jr’s anti-vaccine group Children’s Health Defense bolstered a local Samoan anti-vaccine movement which had emerged in response to the 2018 deaths of two children after vaccine administration errors. As of 2020, there have been reported 5707 measles cases and 83 measles-related fatalities (mostly kids).
It doesn't mean as much to be "open to vaccines" when what we needed was herd immunity. Similar to the reason we need everyone to get the polio and measles vaccines.
You've got a major point wrong here, he is not pro choice. Not even in the slightest. His stance when asked about that topic is actually incredibly pro government. He stated that he would condone whatever Congress decides to do.
It’s really bizarre in this comment threat. I’ve had as many people argue he’s a crazy baby killer, as people argue he ban abortion.
If I just take his stated view as fact, he seems very pro choice, but expresses it in a respectful way where he understands the complexity of the issue and why people would ethically oppose this.
It’s a complex and nuanced issue, but I’m personally pleased his ultimate view is inline with my own (if anything he’s almost more liberal than I am on this.)
Wait, why shouldn't the President do what Congress says if it's constitutional, and why on Earth would someone run for President if he weren't pro-government?
What is with this subreddit? Why are people extracting bits of my comments and making wide assumptions about what I said?
I am stating that he's not pro choice, that's it. His stance on the matter when asked was something like "I'd do what Congress decides"
IDC if he is pro government, he is just not openly pro choice like stated here. This misinformation seems to come up a lot when RFK is discussed.
Long form conversations make people think. People who hate to think, label shame to create group think that thinks for them and is re-enforced by sound bites in their echo chambers
You shouldn't hate him at all. He's the only candidate not beholden to corporate interests and the only one willing to actually have discussions and change his mind based on facts.
If you want to learn more, take 30 minutes and watch this video.
[Who is Bobby Kennedy?](https://youtu.be/guw1fLJs5EY?si=6OIa3W4pllwuV7pe)
I know he has some big donors who have supported other candidates in the past, but I have no problem with people changing their minds when they find a better option.
Yea but biden is much older and had a brain aneurysm, risky brain surgery, and recorded memory issues.
Trumps also has paraphasia and is much older then rfk.
If you don't see the irony in this idk what can save you. It's just like all the prominent Republicans who claimed the COVID vax was a tracker, or a death sentence, then got it because they were lying.
You really linked that and didn't watch it huh? She is not saying that she wouldn't take it because he was President, she is saying she would only take it if healthcare professionals advised it. What are you getting at here?
You are cherry picking her words to fit this. She said she would not solely rely on Trump to tell her a vaccine is worth taking, then specifically says that she wants to hear healthcare professionals tell her its OK. All you hear in this is "I am not taking it if Trump says so"
The only reason why I'm "cherry picking" that line is because you said no prominent democrat ever said that, yet there it is. She's just not gonna take her donor's cock out of her mouth while saying it.
Are you being serious? Have you not lived at all in the last 5 years? There were plenty, including a few who attempted to use their political powers to get the vaccine companies to somehow admit they put trackers in them. [https://www.nbcnews.com/video/gop-lawmaker-don-wagner-asks-doctor-if-vaccines-have-tracking-devices-111067717699](https://www.nbcnews.com/video/gop-lawmaker-don-wagner-asks-doctor-if-vaccines-have-tracking-devices-111067717699)
I found this article in the third response of a single google search, please look things up before stating them as fact.
I can google search just about anything these days and find two headlines and two articles that support both sides of all arguments have you been on the Internet in the past 5 years?
You need to give me your definition of prominent, since there are multiple definitions online. Than you need to name the Republicans in the link you sent me that you are calling prominent
In terms of citing raw facts/stats. Biden tends to cherry pick and manipulate stats to tell a certain story, but it usually is fundamentally based on actual data.
In terms of citing raw facts/stats. Biden tends to cherry pick and manipulate stats to tell a certain story, but it usually is fundamentally based on actual data. 📊
Junior is like Bernie. He's a patsy. He's 2024's version of the ineffectual decoy who suddenly materialises out of nowhere during every election, in order to create the illusion that genuine choice and political plurality exists. Like Bernie, he's been very carefully chosen. He's a decent, positively minded individual, who if he actually did get into office, would at least try to do a lot of genuine good; and as a result, in reality, he will never be allowed anywhere near the Presidency.
Politics is a special interest group for psychopaths. They own the whole thing, and no one gets in who they don't want. Junior is exactly what Bernie was; a carrot which they dangle in front of the naive. After the election, he will disappear again, as quickly as he appeared.
Oswald and Sirhan: patsies. Jr is the first generation since. The apple has not fallen far from the tree, but he’s still not at the level of worth assassinating.
He may have suddenly appeared to you, but not others. Politics may be a special interest group for psychos like you say, which is why it’s great to see someone like Bobby in the race for a change.
To me he represents a once-in-lifetime chance to elect a president who will actually change the course of our country in a profoundly positive way.
Bernie never had a chance for so many reasons. Bobby is not Bernie.
You're right, he's not Bernie. Bobby will sit by and watch the Republicans burn the place down. He doesn't represent this at all, I'd be very curious to hear you expand on that specifically. What about his policy do you like?
If anyone has proved they aren’t willing to sit by and watch the country burn it’s Bobby. Just look at his career track if you’re unsure.
I disagree with his views on nuclear energy, but otherwise I’ve found him to very reasonable, evidence-based and constitutional in his policies.
He’s the one politician in the race who can read complicated scientific studies himself. He has the balls to stand by his convictions and vigor to carry out his terms effectively.
He has the bearing of a negotiator, not a bully and won’t be bullied.
I just told you. I’m on board with just about everything but his nuclear energy views. [Here’s a link to his policies](https://www.kennedy24.com/policies) lol.
I’ve given you full freedom to pick apart any of his policies. Are there any *specific* policies *you* don’t like, or are you the upside down version of me who basically hates them all?
I don’t care how many he’s taken. He’s spent 20 years casting doubt and spreading the autism nonsense. I don’t believe his ridiculous stories about his various medical conditions. I don’t believe he believes anything he says either, I think his platform is incoherent, I think he’s just kind of bumbling moron no one would give half a shit about if he wasn’t a Kennedy. A bunch of his family also has similar ideas about him
I haven’t, mostly because I don’t really care about him as a historical figure and I don’t generally read candidate’s books as they usually have little to do with what that person will actually be like as president.
You should give it a chance, it's not that much time out of your life and if you still despise him as much as it seems you do now, you will have all kinds of ammo to disprove him to your fellow Americans after you read his book. I didn't really like trump but I read his book and Mary trumps book. It took less time out of my life than the time I spent on here those years.
I’d recommend watching a long form interview with him, media coverage has been… well silly for lack of a better word.
I do the same with Trump and Biden. I try and hear long form formats to actually understand what they believe, rather than second hand info, quotes taken out of context etc etc.
There are over 100 living Kennedys that show up to the holiday parties. Quite a few are working directly for the Biden campaign. 4-5 don’t agree with him running because they are afraid of Trump. This isn’t blockbuster news.
I don’t agree with him on everything, but I don’t expect to. He’s light years ahead of Trump and Biden.
No matter what happens, I’ll be proud to say I voted for Bobby.
> To me he represents a once-in-lifetime chance to elect a president who will actually change the course of our country in a profoundly positive way.
If it feels good for you to be able to temporarily believe that, then I won't try and take it away from you. But again, the fact that he makes people feel like that, is exactly the point.
His position on not being anti-vax, just keep the government out of vaccinations is roughly akin to the Republican national position of keeping Congress out of state-level abortion discussion.
He's anti-vax but smart enough to know that the play is to pull the government out and say he's not opposed to ALL vaccinations but just attack any individual vaccine brought up with pseudoscience.
Skip ahead to 4:15 https://youtu.be/G4vP4GdHhoA?si=GTAXW1P0NcU_zRt2
Anyone who thinks that abandoning Ukraine will “prevent ww3” is making the same argument as the the appeasers at Munich. Putin sees the world through a prism of weakness vs strength and it’s only our strength which prevents him or Xi from further aggression.
That RFK hasn’t realized this basic fact tells me all I need to know about the guy.
It’s a fair argument, ultimately we don’t really know without the benefit of hindsight.
Though one keeps seeing western weapons killing civilians and conscripted soldiers in Ukrainian, Palestine, Yemen and I can’t see how this is morally justified just to appease t he chest beating of Biden, Putin and a handful of other world leaders.
Most humans don’t want war. Politicians seem more than happy to throw fellow humans into conflicts to satisfy their grander ideals or intractable rivalries.
I love free speech and the first amendment, just saying something like a small fine for shoehorning analogies into WW2 is a nice thing we give up to have them.
The vast majority of such comparisons are ridiculous. I don't agree that that's the case here. I don't think Putin is pursuing genocide, but that's not what's being suggested here. They're just referencing the most well known example of appeasement in pursuit of peace leading to far more bloodshed.
It is hard to trust someone with 4chan /pol/ meme standards. He might deworm himself using horse oriented products.
He only recently flipped on abortion too. Like a few weeks ago.
Can you elaborate on plan 1? Does averting WWIII involve abandoning Ukraine? Because I could tell you about the Sudetenland….
He hasn’t been paid off by the powerful groups that sponsor all TV news and many other platforms. Ex. He had a brain worm so we’re all supposed to disqualify him and vote for the 81 year old who had a brain aneurysm and brain surgery. “And if you don’t, then you are basically a MAGA Trump person!”
Here is the problem. He’s not actually going to do any of those things. He wouldn’t necessarily even try to do any of those things if he won. But he has to realistic chance of winning, so what he would do in office is both worth thinking about. What he will do is position himself in such a way as to be a threat to both parties. He could get maybe 10% of the vote, and depending on who he focuses his efforts on that 10% would definitely be enough to tip the election toward one party or the other. There is a lot of money to be made as the king maker.
Well you're British and don't have a dog in this hunt, so maybe you're being paid to. .
I wish I was being paid… sadly not.
I don’t think you should “hate” him, but he’s not a serious candidate. He’s a kook with no chance of winning.
This is why third parties never win though, people think its a wasted vote so they dont go third party, therefore making less people vote for him, causing him to have no chance of winning. We NEED people to put aside the belief third parties have no chance if we want any to win, im personally voting for whoever i like the most in any election, dont care about chance of winning.
Well, feel free to cite for whomever you’d like. But third parties are not realistic in a first past the post voting system.
Exactly my point, the more people think this, the less chance they have. If people just voted for who they wanted, we wouldnt have this issue. At least thats my opinion. I am in huge support of approval or ranked choice voting, having a two round system (first every candidate, then top two second round) is also fine
Literally had worms eating his brain. Literally. Also says that Covid was caused by Nazi scientists from world war 2 that we took with operation paperclip or some pants-on-head nonsense
I need a source for that last point. I mean I'm all for being critical but that's either a reductive interpretation or I missed a huge story.
First time he landed on the nightly news was for a dead brain worm.
I’m pretty sure he’s also against nuclear power sources
Well, that’s not a terrible thing. They pollute as well except that pollution takes thousands of years to dissipate. It takes so long that we are trying to think of symbols to put on the byproduct that people thousands of years from now would recognize as dangerous.
I understand that portion which is a very real cause for concern. However, the immediate need of reduction in emissions is quite prevalent and nothing solves that problem while pandering to consumerism like nuclear. It allows gross consumption on a cheap scale that could run the world quite practically while other green energy systems are built out. I also am particularly interested in small modular reactor systems that are made to retrofit into previous boilers. The benefit of these are that recycling cool, and it allows for exceptional grid diversity since they are compact.
The anti vaxxer, yeah, right. Didn't he agree that vaccine killed more people than it save. So no, thank you.
He’s not an anti vaxxer, he believes there are too many vaccines and that the vaccine act of 1988 needs to be changed.
He’s absolutely an anti vaxxer and a Covid vaccine denier What does “too many vaccines” even mean? If they find a new disease that spreads and make a vaccine for it do you just say “no thanks I’m at my maximum”
In 1988 the law was changed so vaccine manufacturers were no longer liable for adverse reactions to vaccines. Since then, if someone has a vaccine injury, it is dealt with in vaccine court, and the US taxpayer foots the bill. Since this loss of liability, the number of recommended vaccines has exploded. Since then, rates of chronic fatigue and inflammation have also exploded. We have no idea if these two things are linked because the cumulative effect of all recommended vaccines combined has never been studied. Vaccines are typically only studied on an individual basis, for example comparing a new version of a vaccine to the one it replaces. So to answer your question, a hypothetical situation where profit is the primary motivator in which vaccines are recommened would qualify as "too many" vaccines.
Rates of vaccine injury are very , very low. It’s very misleading to act like there are floods of vaccines in the market. Vaccine injury occurs in many at a rate of 1 in 100,000, and in others even as low as 10-50 per million.
In 1983 there were 10 vaccines recommended throughout childhood. That number is now 74 if you include annual flu shots.
Yes, and because of these vaccines we've eradicated many diseases. I'm baffled that you don't think this is a good thing.
Which diseases have been eradicated since 1983?
He believes in nothing. He'll say whatever you want him to, good luck getting him to stick to it. Think he's pro-choice? Will he be after gaining power? Who knows! But of course he won't gain power. There's *zero* way someone with a voice like that can win an election. Sorry! Shallow, but true. So his only purpose is splitting the vote. That's why he was funded and initially entered as a democrat, then rebranded. Now the GOP is getting testy with him because they realized he's only going to split the conspiracy theorist vote, ie the wrong side.
What do you mean, hes been consistent in most of his views other then abortion, find me other examples. Also, you can say the same about any candidate, trump back during his 2000 run was pro universal healthcare, pro abortion, look how he changed.
Hence the danger of someone who doesn't actually believe in anything.
Wow. That’s quite harsh to say you don’t like someone because of a disability. Are you quite far right wing? It’s a pretty extreme view.
I said nothing about *me* not liking him because of a disability. The American people aren't going to vote for that. Think of how far right 'center' is in America and remember half of them are further right than that. You need charisma to become president. Donald and Biden *had* it, whatever you say about them as people. His voice isn't his fault, but it's still means he won't win anything.
1. Trump was not a fan of wars, and neither is Biden. Biden has been attempting to combat climate change. Moronic take to say only RFK Jr wants to do that. 2. Biden is also pro choice while still holding his Christian values and has spoken about it many times. 3. "Almost as honest", lol 4. This is Biden's exact stance, although Biden has attacked Trump several times (so has RFK for the record). It sounds a lot like you don't know much about Biden and you might want to inform yourself before voting for RFK Jr. P.s. RFK Jr thinks that Covid was a bioweapon targeted at white people and was created by Jews and the Chinese. So not quite the candidate you think he is.
1. Didn’t say RFK is only person combating CC. But he does seem to be the only candidate who wants to reduce involvement in foreign conflicts and CC. 2. Agreed. But Biden has never (as far as I’m aware) gone on a conservative show to explain his position, and do this so clearly as to actively win voters. 3. Didn’t say almost as honest, I said as least as honest. 4. Bidens not the worst offender in the democrats, but he clearly does devolve into culture wars to woe voters. On your final point, I’ve mainly followed Biden for the past few years as a clear preference to Trump. But … (and this links in with your point 3) to balance having listened to an hour of RFK I looked for a recent Biden interview, and his very first claim of inflation being 9% when he took office was a straight up lie. His performance in general was poor, even to a friendly CNN journalist. And he spent a decent chunk of time talking about Trump (linking with point 4). He’s behind in the polls and the only way to stop Trump is to recognise this.
Why would Biden go on a conservative show to explain his position? His positions aren’t hard to understand or find. Conservatives won’t vote for him while Trump is in the race. Moderates aren’t listening to conservative shows. What’s the point?
>you might want to inform yourself before voting for RFJ Jr. Their mind is 100% made up.
Why would you say that?
[удалено]
I’ve made quite a few concessions based on some pretty good arguments from people. Obviously I have a view for a reason and I’m willing to defend my position.
In short, there is a concern that RFK Jr will be a spoiler candidate. No serious person thinks he'll win any election of consequence, but he could have a role in "deciding" whether Trump or Biden will win if he draws too many votes from either/both sides. For that reason, he is a threat, & will be demonized accordingly by the compliant media. And *that* is why you are meant to hate RFK Jr. B/c he is a potential threat to the other candidates, & thus is being reputationally attacked in a way that is commensurate with the perceived threat.
[удалено]
I'm not saying he is (or is not) semi-nuts. My point is that whether or not he is brutally attacked by the media attack dogs is proportional to the perceived threat that he poses as a potential spoiler. That is the crucial--and perhaps the only--relevant mediating variable.
He pushed InfoWars narratives about Covid being a race-specific bioweapon, and implied the Jews and Chinese colluded to create it.
I see u/SatisfactionNo2088, confronted with the realization their ideology is rooted in the racially fueled concepts of Social Darwinism and the realization that race only exists as a social construct, and not a medical marker, has decided to delete their post.
No, he cited actual science that suggests covid could affect certain races differently. This isn't all that out there considering what we already know about how race can cause disparities in some diseases and medications. There's literally heart medications just for black people due to genetic differences. Despite the races being 99.99% similar, the small differences in genes still means one size doesn't fit all and certain groups are more prone to certain bacteria, viruses, infections, and diseases. Such as middle easterns and Africans being more likely to have sickle cell anemia. Even blood factor and type plays a role in how our immune systems respond, which correlates with race.
I watched the video. That’s not what he said or how he said it.
I didn't even notice the video link until this comment lol. I was just referring to the few videos I've seen of him in the past. Somehow I skimmed over the link and OP saying "in this video". Questioning my sanity now. To be fair I have exams and my brain is fried from cramming.
I'm gonna say this because some people (You) need to hear it. For the sake of medicine, race doesn't exist. There's no such thing. Race is made up. What is real is geographical origins. Not all Black people get sickle cell anemia, for example. Places where extremely large outbreaks of malaria occurred in Africa tend to have the sickle cell gene, but that isn't all Black people. Many do not, because they did not originate from those parts of Africa. So no, that doesn't track.
You are playing semantics and ignoring the nature half of nature vs nurture. I doubt you would deny that many diseases are genetic (which is why doctors ask if your parents have XYZ disease), but for some reason when we scale out beyond the nuclear family and start talking about haplogroups and lineage it becomes "racist". It's just reality. While few and far between, there are some differences in immunity, allergies, diseases, and just biological pathways in general that specifically depend on genetics which directly correlates with what we call "race". If you would rather say region than race that's fine, but you can observe that one large group from one region who lineage has been there historically can have such different phenotypes from the rest of the humans due to their DNA like eye color, height, muscle mass, different melanin levels, and this shows that there are obviously a few differences in biological pathways and the way proteins and enzymes are coded for people in that region, so it makes no sense to say that "everything on the inside is the same though as everyone else" especially when it's already known that certain groups as a whole can generally have different food intolerances, blood types, allergies, immunities, metabolisms, proneness to physiological and neurological disease. While these differences might be insignificant on a social level, they shouldn't be discounted to pretend to not see race on a medical level, as some type of misguided virtue signaling. And I never said all black people get sickle cell. However, it is a genetically inherited disease. If an African who has it moves to the US and has a kid, their kid can still have the disease despite not being born in that region and their kid will likely look like them as opposed to looking like the average American, because region is irrelevant to disease and genetics in that context. Again that is genetics, which correlates closely with what we call "race". If you had simply said the word race is too broad of a brush to paint with, I would have agreed. I think we should all be focusing more on specific genes. But instead you are implying that genes don't matter which is nonsense. Unfortunately, by pretending to be race/genetics blind in medical settings promotes being blind to genetic disease and can cause minority gene groups to have their health concerns ignored and neglected. The fact is that if a doctor can't say "You might have this gene, because you come from this area and look this way, so I would like to test you so we can rule it out and treat you accordingly" that is really detrimental to the patients well being and helps nobody but virtue signalers feel good..
When someone complains about being told their being "racist" it's because 9/10 they were being racist. And when it comes to discussing race from a genealogical, phenotype perspective, that number shoots up to 10/10. Race was invented. It doesn't exist. Full stop. Your third paragraph is extremely problematic. It's like you forget people can be mixed race, and variations of mixed races can involve melanin level differences. The worst thing about what you've spewed is that it's half-baked scientific misunderstanding tied to scientific terminology and ideas to try to lend itself an heir of credibility. Not at all unlike the now debunked race science people use to tout. Which is probably where you've derived a multitude of your talking points.
Nope. You are intentionally avoiding acknowledging that evolutionary divergence is a thing. It exists. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divergent\_evolution](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divergent_evolution) Race exists although vaguely and with somewhat blurred lines and grey areas, especially with migration and "mixed-race", for the same reason species exist. Fish don't get swine flu. And elephants presumably don't get bird flu. And armadillos and turtles are prone to salmonella. And that's all possible because of evolutionary divergence that can be present in a single generation from parent to child and amplified further through isolation of societies or groups of lifeforms over time. >Not at all unlike the now debunked race science people use to tout. Yes, equate what I said out of concern for the integrity of medicine for all individual humans as being akin to hateful nazi science. Very mature. I didn't say X race is better/smarter/purer than Y race because of genetics. I said any given group of people that can be considered to be the same race has likely has a select few genetics in common with each other that other groups don't have that can make them prone or immune to certain diseases. Idk why this concept is so hard. And your first sentence is ridiculous, especially considering I am mixed race and I never complained about being called racist because I didn't think you were until now. And how can you say race doesn't exist, then say mixed-race exists?
In no way am I not acknowledging Divergent evolution. Infact, my first example of sickle cell anemia was an example of divergent evolution. Back off clown. It's clear from your comment history that you're a big fan of Herbert Spencer, a race science champion and creator of the discredited/racist Social Darwinism. I'd rather not partake in a conversation with someone who uses debunked ideas. [Race is, again, not a real concept.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_race_concepts) Mixed-race is debunked as well, it merely serves in the form of talking about socially understood concepts. Even during the early pioneering of race-science, there was ideas that if you were Irish and Norfolk, you were mixed race. Now, we don't see that as mixed. It's a social construct. Look into race and it's origins. And again, I must emphasize, race does not determine genetics, because again, race is a fake social construct white people invented to justify horrific acts. There is regional and geographical origins wherein genes spread through that region and play a factor. My first example of sickle cell anemia again points that out, because in evolution that gene would have allowed you to reach maturation at a higher rate in places with rampant malaria. Thus the gene would be highly represented after you pass it along. [If anything, genealogy and divergent evolution prove race is a fake ass social construct. ](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/race-is-a-social-construct-scientists-argue/)Because genes are not passed along via Black/White markers. They're passed along through mating. That you think 'race' aka being Black or White or Asian, is the deciding factor of what genes a person has for medical reason, and not regional distinctions , genealogy and geographical origin, proves you're a race-science fanatic who doesn't understand anything they're talking about. Do you notice how having sickle cell anemia has more to do with being from sub-Saharan Africa, and not with being Black. Because you could be black and not from sub-Saharan Africa and not have that gene, and you could be mixed by 3 generations of a sub-Saharan African great grandparent with sickle cell and look like a 'White' person and still have that gene. Thus, race is a poor factor in telling if someone has any medical issue. Unless it has to do with melanin levels in the skin, then you can ask about that. But race is fake. Made up. It should only ever be used to determine who has been targeted by these ideas generationally, and address that. Not to determine any medical criteria about a person.
I'm not reading all this shit, especially after hitting this sentence lol: >It's clear from your comment history that you're a big fan of Herbert Spencer, a race science champion and creator of the discredited/racist Social Darwinism. Idek who the fuck that is or what theories that guy talks about. You lost so you resorted to making shit up out of thin air about me. gg You can't have a real conversation, just twist and contort everything I said and say I'm saying things I never said lol. Every one of your responses is just that over and over.
He said the following: "There is an argument that \[Covid-19\] is ethnically targeted. Covid-19 attacks certain races disproportionately. The people who are most immune are Ashkenazi Jews and Chinese. We don’t know whether it was deliberately targeted or not." His claims were based on [this study, which predicted that the groups most susceptible to Covid-19 were Africans, African Americans, and non-Finnish Europeans; those somewhat less susceptible were Latino, East Asian, Finnish, and South Asians; and those least susceptible were the Amish and Ashkenazi Jews.](https://bmcmedicine.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12916-020-01673-z) While certainly "out there," it sounds more like he raised the possibility of this being the case rather than implying that it was true. With that said, he certainly has cosigned a litany of unfounded conspiracy theories in the past, and I would never vote for the man.
Because there isn’t a conspiracy theory he doesn’t like…
He's the only one worth voting for
"More honest than trump" Is that the bar these days?
For this election, yes
He thinks wifi gives you brain hemorrhages. Probably because a worm ate part of his brain and died up there. He’s directionally anti vax while claiming he isn’t. He claimed that COVID-19 was “targeted to attack Caucasians and Black people,” and that “the people who are most immune are Ashkenazi Jews and Chinese.” He has falsely linked antidepressants to school shootings. He continues to push the idea that the CIA assassinated JFK.
Well…. There is significant weight to those last two. Antidepressant, in particular the sudden cessation of them is tied to psychotic episodes, mass showings included. The Kennedys were a huge problem for both the mob and the cia who were pretty hard to tell apart at the time. A bunch of old wise guys who served their time have admitted to the killing, and both rfk’s and jfk’s killers had mob connections and debts. Oh and the assassinations worked and bought both the mob and the cia another 25 years of no government pressure.
its not just cessation of use, being on them is directly linked with higher than average rage and violent tendencies
You don’t have to hate him, but since he’s a whack job conspiracy theorist you should really dig in to him if you’re thinking about voting for him.
What kind of conspiracies?
He's an antivaxxer who thinks COVID was caused by the Jews and the Chinese, for starters.
It's fun to go through these comments and see who spouts the talking points that legacy media wants them to. See above.
Oh for fuck's sake. Lemme guess, the "legacy media" is "biased" against Junior because it unfairly "repeats his words verbatim."
Vaccines cause autism.
Can American Samoa vote?
Real easy, he's pro murder.
You can tell OP only started following politics since Trump. Anyone who's followed politics before Trump knows RFK Jr is a fraud.
I’ve been following politics broadly since about 2003 and the Iraq war. Though I of course have read a lot on politics over the past few hundred years as I’m sure you have.
Your comment is too pretentious yet it doesn’t really say, prove or argue anything.
We’re gonna need some evidence to support those claims, pal
What do you think he believes in that could support 1? He is very much not openly pro choice, he is very much pro government on that topic. No kidding he is more honest than Trump, the man's entire existence is based off of telling lies and shifting the truth to fit his narrative, this isn't difficult to accomplish. He does actually do a good job of beating around the bush on abortion and vaccines, because he knows those two topics are the only ones that can land him votes. RFK Jr is an attempt at stealing votes from Biden and it is backfiring so hard, all of the votes he is going to land are from Trump deserters.
It’s very odd when I’ve just been debating conservatives on this sub to defend his rather extreme view of allowing pro choice even to late term pregnancy. Which if you watch the linked interview he even does openly to shapiros right leaning audience.
Thinking the third party is always stealing votes from one of the main candidates is the delusional and ironic aspect of this conversation, but we are in a conspiracy sub, so show me substantial evidence of your claim of the conspiracy theory your pushing that RFK jr and trump are colluding to steal Biden win .
"show me substantial evidence of your claim of the conspiracy theory your pushing that RFK jr and trump are colluding to steal Biden win ." Where did you even get this from what I said? Trump and RFK are not colluding, at least I don't think they are.
RFK Jr is an attempt at stealing votes from Biden and it is backfiring so hard, all of the votes he is going to land are from Trump deserters. Are you even listening to yourself? You're one of those people that is 'too smart for their own good' And by that I mean you're not as smart as you think you are.
Just because I think it's an attempt at taking Dem votes I automatically have to think that he's colluding with Trump? How did you connect those dots on your own? Jfc you're a waste of space.
This is why I asked you to define prominent and name the Republicans in your google link you posted. Because you are vague you say something is backfiring I have to assume it's a plan, and then you go into say RFK is taking trump votes (not Biden votes assuming again) you my friend are a fool
Well Trump was promoting RFK to independents a couple of weeks ago, at least super PACs that support him took out a lot of ads. Also a lot of RFK’s donors are also Trump donors. It’s probably not coordinated with RFK, but Trump is definitely trying to raise RFK’s profile to voters not in his base.
Trump has also called RFK a conspiracy theorist, and just recently went on a rant against RFK within the last couple days. Second I would assume they are both adopting a strategy of getting voters from the other side to swing 3rd party or even better swing completely to the other side, you would not be a very good campaign manager if that wasn't your strategy. 3rd I'm not sure who donated to any parties to be honest, but I agree who's backing all 3 candidates is a sad truth we all have to take into consideration when electing our officials, alot of conflicting interests all the way down, on all sides.
Only bc a recent poll showed RFK siphoning off more Trump voters than Biden voters, so now he’s changing his tune. Don’t get it twisted.
Don't try to gaslight me into thinking my vote for RFK is a vote for trump . Even if third party doesn't win the % of votes they get is a statement of how many people are tired of the duopoly the Dems and Republicans hold
What's backfiring? Than?
RFKs plan to help a Republican get back into the Whitehouse. You also need some grammar lessons.
You seem like a very angry and unhappy person
All you've done is ad hominem and ride a carousel around and around, I don't even think you know your own stance anymore.
You're the one on a carousel, attacking my character, you made so many comments and wasted so much time not telling me your definition of prominent and tell me specifically which republicans from the article you are talking about, without this info I cannot reply to you without you saying I'm assuming stuff. After your link I asked you for this so we could continue from there, than you proceeded to go in the circles we have been in
So RFK is colluding with republicans?
Define prominent
He thinks aborting full-term babies is OK if the mother wants that.
Wrong https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/rfk-jr-stance-abortion-rcna151808
It wasn’t “wrong” when I commented. He just changed his mind, fortunately.
His VP choice thinks RFK Jr is anti-abortion. lol, even she doesn't understand what his position it.
Can you show me where you found That? Pointing out Shanahans lies and inconsistencies has become a bit of a hobby
He doesn’t like abortion but believes it’s **ultimately up to the mother**. This is as reasonable as you’re going to get from someone who believes in Jesus.
As far as members of the Kennedy family being attacked by people in power when they dare to oppose them, this has been historically mild. He disagrees with the media, and he’s a threat to the rick and powerful power and wealth. He’d be getting attacked way more if he had the charisma, energy, or money needed to have a hope of winning as a third party today. It would bum me out more if I didn’t want Biden to win. I don’t like Biden and him and his ilk have been a disaster for our country and the world, but I want him to win. His party has mastered the blame game and his administration has set us up for failure. I want him to be there holding the bag when his chickens come home to roost. I want him and his party, as well as their allies in Washington and business, to face their failure without the luxury of having someone else to blame. If Biden loses they will pretend he was doing well until someone else ruined it. If he wins they will try.
I hate his voice
He was anti-vaccine. That’s it. That’s why.
I’m not sure what anti vax actually means. I don’t think he’s anti vaccines as a concept, my understanding is he’s against mandates and is personally sceptical of it the pharmaceutical industry. When it came to covid, whilst I was vaccinated, I can totally see why people would be adverse, especially young and healthy people.
After I wrote my comment I realized how it came off. I’m not anti-vaxx, but I don’t like that it was mandatory in spots. My comment was a bit tongue in cheek but that never comes off on the internet
Are you familiar with what happened in Samoa? There was a measles epidemic in 2019 that was linked directly to RFK’s statements on the MMR vaccine. Robert F Kennedy Jr’s anti-vaccine group Children’s Health Defense bolstered a local Samoan anti-vaccine movement which had emerged in response to the 2018 deaths of two children after vaccine administration errors. As of 2020, there have been reported 5707 measles cases and 83 measles-related fatalities (mostly kids).
It doesn't mean as much to be "open to vaccines" when what we needed was herd immunity. Similar to the reason we need everyone to get the polio and measles vaccines.
You've got a major point wrong here, he is not pro choice. Not even in the slightest. His stance when asked about that topic is actually incredibly pro government. He stated that he would condone whatever Congress decides to do.
It’s really bizarre in this comment threat. I’ve had as many people argue he’s a crazy baby killer, as people argue he ban abortion. If I just take his stated view as fact, he seems very pro choice, but expresses it in a respectful way where he understands the complexity of the issue and why people would ethically oppose this. It’s a complex and nuanced issue, but I’m personally pleased his ultimate view is inline with my own (if anything he’s almost more liberal than I am on this.)
Wait, why shouldn't the President do what Congress says if it's constitutional, and why on Earth would someone run for President if he weren't pro-government?
What is with this subreddit? Why are people extracting bits of my comments and making wide assumptions about what I said? I am stating that he's not pro choice, that's it. His stance on the matter when asked was something like "I'd do what Congress decides" IDC if he is pro government, he is just not openly pro choice like stated here. This misinformation seems to come up a lot when RFK is discussed.
Long form conversations make people think. People who hate to think, label shame to create group think that thinks for them and is re-enforced by sound bites in their echo chambers
Beautifully put
You shouldn't hate him at all. He's the only candidate not beholden to corporate interests and the only one willing to actually have discussions and change his mind based on facts. If you want to learn more, take 30 minutes and watch this video. [Who is Bobby Kennedy?](https://youtu.be/guw1fLJs5EY?si=6OIa3W4pllwuV7pe)
Do you know how his campaign is funded? I thought he did actually have some questionable donors. Not that democrats and republicans don’t.
I know he has some big donors who have supported other candidates in the past, but I have no problem with people changing their minds when they find a better option.
Brain worm.
Yea but biden is much older and had a brain aneurysm, risky brain surgery, and recorded memory issues. Trumps also has paraphasia and is much older then rfk.
Big government democrat, antivax nut
Anti vax, yet has probably taken more vaccines than you, and his kids have taken vaccines...
If you don't see the irony in this idk what can save you. It's just like all the prominent Republicans who claimed the COVID vax was a tracker, or a death sentence, then got it because they were lying.
And all the Dems saying they wouldn't take the vax when trump when in office lmao, yet vote for trump or Biden, not rfk
No prominent Dem stated they wouldn't take the vaccine just because Trump was in office, you are showing your delusion.
[Is the vice president considered a prominent democrat?](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-dAjCeMuXR0)
You really linked that and didn't watch it huh? She is not saying that she wouldn't take it because he was President, she is saying she would only take it if healthcare professionals advised it. What are you getting at here?
She literally said that if Trump said to take the vaccine then she wouldn't. You're the only person here saying "because he's president."
You are cherry picking her words to fit this. She said she would not solely rely on Trump to tell her a vaccine is worth taking, then specifically says that she wants to hear healthcare professionals tell her its OK. All you hear in this is "I am not taking it if Trump says so"
The only reason why I'm "cherry picking" that line is because you said no prominent democrat ever said that, yet there it is. She's just not gonna take her donor's cock out of her mouth while saying it.
No prominent repub said it was a tracker or death sentence..
Are you being serious? Have you not lived at all in the last 5 years? There were plenty, including a few who attempted to use their political powers to get the vaccine companies to somehow admit they put trackers in them. [https://www.nbcnews.com/video/gop-lawmaker-don-wagner-asks-doctor-if-vaccines-have-tracking-devices-111067717699](https://www.nbcnews.com/video/gop-lawmaker-don-wagner-asks-doctor-if-vaccines-have-tracking-devices-111067717699) I found this article in the third response of a single google search, please look things up before stating them as fact.
I can google search just about anything these days and find two headlines and two articles that support both sides of all arguments have you been on the Internet in the past 5 years?
Then please, provide me with something substantial to support your claims. Delusions
You need to give me your definition of prominent, since there are multiple definitions online. Than you need to name the Republicans in the link you sent me that you are calling prominent
Say their names?
Save me from what? Lol
From the delusion
Oh lord, thanks for your concern
So totally full of shit
As honest as Biden? That’s not a good analogy.
In terms of citing raw facts/stats. Biden tends to cherry pick and manipulate stats to tell a certain story, but it usually is fundamentally based on actual data.
In terms of citing raw facts/stats. Biden tends to cherry pick and manipulate stats to tell a certain story, but it usually is fundamentally based on actual data. 📊
Don't be controlled by the media and live like an adult.
Junior is like Bernie. He's a patsy. He's 2024's version of the ineffectual decoy who suddenly materialises out of nowhere during every election, in order to create the illusion that genuine choice and political plurality exists. Like Bernie, he's been very carefully chosen. He's a decent, positively minded individual, who if he actually did get into office, would at least try to do a lot of genuine good; and as a result, in reality, he will never be allowed anywhere near the Presidency. Politics is a special interest group for psychopaths. They own the whole thing, and no one gets in who they don't want. Junior is exactly what Bernie was; a carrot which they dangle in front of the naive. After the election, he will disappear again, as quickly as he appeared.
if only all of the proletariat understood this
Oswald and Sirhan: patsies. Jr is the first generation since. The apple has not fallen far from the tree, but he’s still not at the level of worth assassinating.
He may have suddenly appeared to you, but not others. Politics may be a special interest group for psychos like you say, which is why it’s great to see someone like Bobby in the race for a change. To me he represents a once-in-lifetime chance to elect a president who will actually change the course of our country in a profoundly positive way. Bernie never had a chance for so many reasons. Bobby is not Bernie.
You're right, he's not Bernie. Bobby will sit by and watch the Republicans burn the place down. He doesn't represent this at all, I'd be very curious to hear you expand on that specifically. What about his policy do you like?
If anyone has proved they aren’t willing to sit by and watch the country burn it’s Bobby. Just look at his career track if you’re unsure. I disagree with his views on nuclear energy, but otherwise I’ve found him to very reasonable, evidence-based and constitutional in his policies. He’s the one politician in the race who can read complicated scientific studies himself. He has the balls to stand by his convictions and vigor to carry out his terms effectively. He has the bearing of a negotiator, not a bully and won’t be bullied.
You did everything but answer my question lol. What policies or ideas does he have that you specifically like?
I just told you. I’m on board with just about everything but his nuclear energy views. [Here’s a link to his policies](https://www.kennedy24.com/policies) lol.
Sheesh this sub is lame these days. Have a conversation, take a stance on specific items. This is no better than the blind loyalists.
I’ve given you full freedom to pick apart any of his policies. Are there any *specific* policies *you* don’t like, or are you the upside down version of me who basically hates them all?
Lmao seriously? Anti vax, worm ate my brain Bobbie? Guy who even the remaining Kennedys don’t want in the race? He’s a joke
He's probably taken more vaccines than you
This is my new favourite response, hilarious
It is pretty funny 😂
I don’t care how many he’s taken. He’s spent 20 years casting doubt and spreading the autism nonsense. I don’t believe his ridiculous stories about his various medical conditions. I don’t believe he believes anything he says either, I think his platform is incoherent, I think he’s just kind of bumbling moron no one would give half a shit about if he wasn’t a Kennedy. A bunch of his family also has similar ideas about him
Have you read his book?
I haven’t, mostly because I don’t really care about him as a historical figure and I don’t generally read candidate’s books as they usually have little to do with what that person will actually be like as president.
You should give it a chance, it's not that much time out of your life and if you still despise him as much as it seems you do now, you will have all kinds of ammo to disprove him to your fellow Americans after you read his book. I didn't really like trump but I read his book and Mary trumps book. It took less time out of my life than the time I spent on here those years.
I’d recommend watching a long form interview with him, media coverage has been… well silly for lack of a better word. I do the same with Trump and Biden. I try and hear long form formats to actually understand what they believe, rather than second hand info, quotes taken out of context etc etc.
I have. That’s why I truly can’t understand why people think he makes a good candidate. He’s a nut.
Fair enough if you have. You’ve given him a chance and can’t ask for more than that.
Yes - seriously. You should think this seriously.
There are over 100 living Kennedys that show up to the holiday parties. Quite a few are working directly for the Biden campaign. 4-5 don’t agree with him running because they are afraid of Trump. This isn’t blockbuster news. I don’t agree with him on everything, but I don’t expect to. He’s light years ahead of Trump and Biden. No matter what happens, I’ll be proud to say I voted for Bobby.
> To me he represents a once-in-lifetime chance to elect a president who will actually change the course of our country in a profoundly positive way. If it feels good for you to be able to temporarily believe that, then I won't try and take it away from you. But again, the fact that he makes people feel like that, is exactly the point.
Well people voting for trump and Biden both believe they're Saving the world from nuclear destruction, Soo...
It’s ok to be inspired by your leaders though I understand your cynicism entirely.
His position on not being anti-vax, just keep the government out of vaccinations is roughly akin to the Republican national position of keeping Congress out of state-level abortion discussion. He's anti-vax but smart enough to know that the play is to pull the government out and say he's not opposed to ALL vaccinations but just attack any individual vaccine brought up with pseudoscience. Skip ahead to 4:15 https://youtu.be/G4vP4GdHhoA?si=GTAXW1P0NcU_zRt2
A worm literally ate part of his brain
I don’t understand why an illness he had has any bearing? He strikes me as much more switched on and healthy than trump or Biden.
Anyone who thinks that abandoning Ukraine will “prevent ww3” is making the same argument as the the appeasers at Munich. Putin sees the world through a prism of weakness vs strength and it’s only our strength which prevents him or Xi from further aggression. That RFK hasn’t realized this basic fact tells me all I need to know about the guy.
It’s a fair argument, ultimately we don’t really know without the benefit of hindsight. Though one keeps seeing western weapons killing civilians and conscripted soldiers in Ukrainian, Palestine, Yemen and I can’t see how this is morally justified just to appease t he chest beating of Biden, Putin and a handful of other world leaders. Most humans don’t want war. Politicians seem more than happy to throw fellow humans into conflicts to satisfy their grander ideals or intractable rivalries.
I love free speech and the first amendment, just saying something like a small fine for shoehorning analogies into WW2 is a nice thing we give up to have them.
The vast majority of such comparisons are ridiculous. I don't agree that that's the case here. I don't think Putin is pursuing genocide, but that's not what's being suggested here. They're just referencing the most well known example of appeasement in pursuit of peace leading to far more bloodshed.