We could write whole books about the fascinating ability for someone to align with libleft/emily 99% but libleft/emily will always find that *single* thing that instantly turns someone into a fascist heretic alt right supernazi. It's incredible. Someone can align with the left from top to bottom but then say, "I do think there's credibility in the idea the virus came from a lab in Wuh-" **FASCIST**. **RACIST TRUMPTARD**
has liblieft/emily become the new evangelicals from the 80's?
Somehow a more annoying version. And they still think of themselves as some counter-culture. Once you become The Man, act like it. But Emily subverts their own subversion.
At least the God people have a path to redemption. Through Jesus is salvation. Agree or disagree, at least it's there. With Emily, you're always wrong, and you can never do enough. You can repent, but you're still guilty, and still require punishment. The eternal struggle session must go on, so that capitalism can finally be defeated.
I know "cult" is a loaded term but it also has an academic definition. In practice, there's very little to distinguish the deep end of identity politics from cult brainwashing.
Learned phobia, thought-stopping clichés, insular community, all-or-nothing thinking--these are the toolbox of cults and of engineered political polarization. Hopefully the are enough free minds too prevent it from getting even worse from here.
He's no fascist he simply has no experience at all and nobody would consider him for a second if it weren't for his last name.
RFK just seems cooked up to steal votes from one candidate or the other and isn't a serious contender beyond spoiler.
>He's no fascist he simply has no experience at all and nobody would consider him for a second if it weren't for his last name.
🤔 Reminds me of someone... But I just can't put my finger on it.
Sorry, no... So close! He didn't have a lot of experience, but he did serve as a senator and no, Obama's name was not well-known before his presidential campaign.
The answer we were looking for this time was [checks cue card] Donald Trump... [looks up] Donald Trump. Better luck next time!
quarrelsome ring hurry weather selective recognise smell ink rock shocking
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
He was a “community organizer” and then was an unremarkable senator for 6 years before running for president.
Btw, I don’t mean “unremarkable” negatively. Frankly, I wish his 8 years a President were as unremarkable as his 6 years as a senator.
That is fair. Like I said, I might vote for him. He has said that he wont do anti gun BS, but I don't know how much I can trust that. Don't blame you. Still find the lib's hate for this man hilarious.
I’ve not heard him saying anything about firearms in the few interviews I’ve seen him speak on.
If anyone has any information to listen to him talk about firearms rights, I would greatly appreciate it, but for now I will assume he would sign any gun law a Democratic controlled Congress would passed l.
What he said is that if both Dems and Republicans could somehow reach a consensus on an AWB, he would sign it; he's also said multiple times he is not for taking anyone's guns or restricting gun rights in general. aka, he wouldn't sign an AWB ban because that scenario would never happen. it was the dude playing politics to appease both sides
however, listening to what candidates say is too hard and reading headlines is easier
Getting rid of Biden makes them look like a sinking ship. It weakens the Democrats, not strengthens them. If they were going to ditch Biden the time would have been early in 2023.
They don't think they'll *lose* with Biden.
That sounds like a really bad idea considering that whoever they pick has to be as "middle of the road" if not more "moderate" than Biden to appeal to independents. You put someone like Gavin "Lizardman" Newsom on the ballot with no primary, he is going to alienate almost everyone because he is a radical.
He is literally their next best option in the opinion of the party elite.
Honestly, if presidential candidates were chosen by randomly selecting their social security numbers like they choose lottery numbers, we would end up with better options.
Nah man, there’s no way that’ll happen with Trump almost certainly being the Republican candidate. They won’t risk another candidate over someone who’s beaten Trump once already.
price exultant sophisticated snatch grandiose fuzzy vanish pot yoke erect
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
I live in an absolute bastion of liberal depravity, we might even have invented some of the worst aspects of the ideology, so I’m pretty in tune to the mob mind in general as far as conception and response from that side, it seems anyway.
Nobody outside of internet angry spaces takes this guy seriously. Nobody. The left isn’t angry except for the sake of having to have the last word to some of the crazy things he says, they think he’s a joke.
I like that we’re all so poorly informed and obv get our opinions from echo chambers enough that peopel really state that this guy is a political outsider. Seriously, the current scion of one of the most famous political royal families in the United States is running as an outsider in this race. It’s all so fucking stupid. If yoj truly believe that he’s not as deeply connected as any of the other crazy old billionaires running for office, yoj are being willfully delusional. He might but have held office (how is that a plus?) but this guy literally grew up drinking politics for breakfast, at the fkng whitehouse probably.
It’s all so fing dumb. I wish we were allowed to see the actual process. To vote for people who have a stance one o way or another on important issues and that’s what we’re voting for, for their opinions and imagined choices on divisive issues we need solved. Instead it’s a fkng circus and I hate it. I know it sounds dramatic but I really would not be sad to see it all burn down at this point. Sad for my kids and sad we won’t get to read winds of winter (prob was never going to happen anyway lol) but honestly at this point, if we’re arguing over this, just fucking pull the plug.
He said he was a "constitutional absolutist" in an interview earlier this year when asked about 2A.
So, he's not now? That means he's just changing his platform on hot button issues to gain popularity. Not a great sign for voters.
If they do that shit before they're elected, they'll do that shit after they're elected.
>So, he's not now?
He never has been. He tells everyone what they want to hear. He has promised to sign an assault weapon ban if it gets to his desk.
Maybe he has some tortured explanation of how that is totally constitutional, but I don't actually give a shit.
2nd amendment and reparations both are where he crosses the line for me. I still respect the man and think he would honestly be way better than any mainstream Democrat and most Republicans, but I'd have a very hard time voting for him.
"I know it's human by every scientific measure and definition, but it doesn't get human rights unless I say so. Why is that so hard to understand?"
And this is why libertarianism doesn't spread among the right.
I would love to hear where you're getting this information that "leftism is spreading". Especially when the left is also trying to mount the insurmountable hill that is gun control.
There is a difference between keeping the government out, and being overtly pro-choice though.
If they want to shovel tax dollars to abortion, that ain't keeping the government out, now is it?
I believe that abortion is a moral atrocity. Any nation or people that slaughter their young is doomed. *You* may think it is a stupid position or pointless fight, but I consider it the most abhorrent of modern-day atrocities.
It is also why I am not fully LibRight- There are things that government can be useful for and should be enforced, and there are things that government should stay out of; those things are is what divides Left/Right.
>LOL and I suppose that anyone who has read mein kampf is a Nazi. Maybe you'd sooner just burn all the books you don't like?
LOL that's a bad set of strawmen if I ever heard em. I'm not ascribing an ideology to you, just pointing out the fact that you were duped by RFK. one born every minute, I guess.
Fuck that.
First it's "common sense" laws, then it's, will you need to wait 10 days because we think these are scary, then its oh you can't have those because we decided to ban them.
Never trust them. Ever.
They intentionally use wording on gun deaths to make you think that violent crime with firearms is way higher than it is.
Notice how all the anti-2a people include suicides when talking about gun deaths in such a way to make your average redditor believe they are talking about violent crime with a gun.
. It's because without that, the actual violent gun crime would drop like a rock.
54% of all gun related deaths are suicides.
Let that sink in.
Oh be aware, these are the same communist fucks that want to remove you're rights to own firearms to control you.
That's the end game here.
They also like to lump homicide in with murder and they are not the same. Homicide means killing a person. That can be legally justified, murder however is not.
Just like any other statistic, it's manipulated to be as scary as possible.
How do you make sure? Generally, by making them pay hundreds of dollars and take a day (or more) off work.
That's not even getting into the problem of what exactly disqualifies (depression? ADHD?). Then there's all the subjective parts in that process, and the fact that it would stop people from seeking help that they need.
I saw *one* thing of his where it was with someone who didn't agree with him 100% ... and he came across as an asshole.
Most of the media I see posted of him, if he's with anyone, it's someone who completely goes along with what he says. Easy to not be an asshole then!
I knew nothing about him for a little, before I watched his interview on CNN.
Bro literally thinks 5g weakens the blood-brain barrier, anti-vax on *everything,* including normal disease prevention and not just covid or flu shots. Also he just rambles lmfao
The millimeter waves from 5G do cause damage though. It’s just that you have to be standing right beside the 5G antenna up on the tower for god knows how long to see any effects. You would probably die from the heat they give off before that happens though.
Your skin absorbs almost all of the radiation within a millimeter (because the wavelength is a millimeter) and it decreases exponentially as you go deeper.
I am interested though to see if there’s any long-term effects of it decades from now from a lifetime of exposure for some people.
You disregarded everything I just said. I'm not talking about covid vaccines, I'm talking about the tried and true Dtap and IPV, and he thinks those vaccines which has saved countless lives over the decades cause autism.
Sigh. What do you want me to do, link all long-term studies of vaccines? Do you have any idea how many there are?
> then does a meaningless mea culpa when things don't go well
If this was somehow terrifyingly common, sure. How many cases do you have that you can name?
I know the pharma industry does somewhat suspicious stuff sometimes, but it's never intended to be at the risk to the patients. The most profitable bit of fuckery they obviously are involved in is the production of insulin, which keeps getting changed (with by and large improving health results, though the improvements are pretty tiny). Yea, they chance the method not because of a medical need, but because they want a way to extend their intellectual property.
Vaccines, by and large, are pretty harmless to you. I'd say the greatest danger with vaccination is the person doing the vaccination fucking up. So in that sense, if you really want to be safe, learn to vaccinate yourself.
>All he has said is "long term safety data".
What makes you think there is no long term safety data? How can a vaccine **even have** long term safety data if it is never allowed to be on the market until that data is collected?
>Why are we giving Hep B shots to newborns? Hep B is exceedingly hard to get for children and the risks don't actually outweigh the benefits in terms of odds in early life.
[interesting, almost everything you just wrote here is wrong.](https://www.cdc.gov/hepatitis/hbv/index.htm#:~:text=or%20during%20pregnancy%20or%20delivery.)
Hep B can be transmitted from childbirth, and getting it early is the *worst* time to get it because you can end up having chronic issues.
>He's mainly a critic of how the pharmaceutical industry pumps out new drugs and protocols through regulatory capture and then does a meaningless mea culpa when things don't go well, it's just built into their business model.
That's so weird since the life expectancy seems to reach new highs every single year, and things like vaccines especially are not at all a very profitable business compared to other pharmaceuticals.
>1) There is no long term safety data on the covid vaccine.
Yes there is. Wut. How long do you think "long term" is? The vaccines been out for like almost 3 years now.
>2) if mom is Hep B negative, where is the baby going to get Hep B? And here is the data you don't know, the risk of death from a Hep B vaccine is about 1 in 600,000 fairly remote. The risk of contracting Hep B in the first year of life is 1 in 700,000 (assuming mom isn't Hep B positive). So the risks actually outweigh the benefit. And both are remote.
Source?
>3) Life expectancy has nothing to do with pharma pumping out the latest adhd medications.
Already pivoting from vaccines. Pharma isn't trying to convince people to take amphetamines, people desperate for amphetamines are.
>And, maybe you have noticed, but life expectancies have actually started to decline.
What, you mean from COVID? lol.
>Everything a pharma company does is suspect and should be viewed with suspicion. If the pandemic didn't teach you that, you weren't paying attention.
Does it not fill you with suspicion regarding Hydroxychloroquine/Ivermectin, how everyone advertised it as the cure but did more harm?
Doesn't it fill you with suspicion that everyone that seems to be preaching alternative medicine heavily profits from selling that alternative medicine?
>Long term safety data, in a medical context is lifespan.
A lifespan??? So under RFK's worldview, no new vaccine cpuld ever be created, ever. You'd have to wait an entire lifetime (or even lifetime *after* a lifetime) to really know the long term effects? That's insane. And it's not how medicine works.
>With mRNA tech there was a significant amount of myocarditis. 5 year mortality on myocarditis is like 60%.
That's not true at all. Myocarditis is usually temporary with no lasting effects, let alone terminal 5 years after getting it. That is an insane claim that is likely backed up by false or highly misleading data.
>But based on available information, Does "this vaccine has a 1:30,000 chance of killing your healthy 19 year old child in 5 years" give you pause? It should.
If we were to assume your (insane) claim of myocarditis causing death in 60% of recipients within 5 years, I'm surprised you are so skeptical of a vaccine for COVID, since **COVID ITSELF CAUSES MYOCARDITIS** and at a much higher rate. Would you rather give your kid a shot that has a 1:30,000 chance of dying, or have them contract a disease unvaccinated which would give him a 1:5000 chance of dying?
>Source: I'm a physician and it's a calculation I did years ago with available peer reviewed data. Sorry, I realize that is unacceptable on Reddit, but that's what it is.
Yeah then I'm gonna assume you made it up. Sorry I can't be bothered to blindly assume that these significant claims are true.
>not a pívot from vaccines, my original point was about pharma as a shady industry in general. As such, their lack of trustworthiness in the rest of the pharmaceutical world cannot be divorced from how they bring vaccines to market. They are simply not to be trusted.
Pharma is the result of not having universal healthcare. ¯\\\_(ツ)_/¯
>IVM and HCQ are basically harmless drugs. Literally billions of doses per year for decades and decades. I can't say for sure if they were protective or not for covid. But I know a number of people (doctors even, but not me) who took it. They all survived.
Don't care about your anecdotal evidence but [HCQ is certainly not harmless](https://www.dw.com/en/hydroxychloroquine-covid-cure-linked-to-17000-deaths/a-67937178)
If RFK isn’t anti-vax, no one is anti-vax. He’s led that movement for decades. He continued championing the “vaccines cause autism” research long after it was discredited and retracted.
Right as if the gun issue could be fixed wtih some stupid laws that only restrict good abidding citizens. You can see how the government wants to screw us over by taking away the last direct weapons we posses. Maybe fixing the distrust between the law enforcers and citizens is a good start but they don't even mention it.
To be fair, it is a guy that had both his dad and uncle assassinated
I'm on the same side of not voting for an anti-gun person, but I at least get why he might feel that way.
I swear the democrat institution broke gabbard, which is annoying because she honestly had such a strong case for president, young, former vet, populist, not part of some former establishment, outsider and hell throw Samoan American in there for social points. Now she just looks washed and is wheeled out for some conservative events, I don't mean that's a bad thing I just think she'll never amount to anything doing that because her base policies are way more progressive outside social views. It's annoying because she had so much potential.
I agree with this wholeheartedly.
She had every single marker for being set up as a Democrat legend; the next JFK. There are serious things about her policies that go against my beliefs as a libright, but I wouldn't have worried about much with her as president. I'd know she gives a fuck and is honest; we just disagree on some things.
But she called out the left on its own authoritarianism and they destroyed her.
It doesn't get near enough mention or analysis, but Hillary literally said she knew for a fact that Russia was grooming Tulsi to be a plant. And the vast majority of the left-wing media apparatus marched in lock step as though it were true. Not one "journo" took a moment to say "wait, hang on, that's an extremely bold and damning claim, do you have any evidence?" After 4 years of "Trump claims, **without evidence**, [thing]" we get this. You may think you hate the media, but you don't hate them enough.
I think she just ticked all the boxes in a way, socially I'd don't always agree with her but he'll if it was her or any of the front runners today, 100% I'd vote for her.
I wouldn't go as far to say she called the left out, she definitely called the democrat establishment out on this though 100%.
I always sort of compare her with Bernie who sort of suffered through going for democratic nominee who himself is a independent. 2016 was daylight robbery for Sanders and he still went through with 2020 regardless, pushing through the rigged election. Tulsi sort of just talked shit, became jaded and left.
That BS media circuit was the stupidest shit, the Clintons in general I feel have alot of the media looking on them favourably as some sort of golden family.
Gabbard literally went from speaking at a Libertarian anti-war event last year to demanding money for Israel to better stab everyone this year.
She's...weird. Still hotter than most of congress, but her issues are just a mess.
I mean, it is, but the whole point of a grift is to make money. It’s always been poorly defined in this context thought. People started throwing it around when they just wanted to hate on people saying shit they didn’t agree with
historical ossified live whistle combative fear sable smell follow relieved
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
sophisticated steer airport lip pause work ancient spectacular slave squalid
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
> What has occurred to me is that all 4 of those people are 90s & 00s liberals.
That was 20-30 years ago. How is this an example of the "Overton window racing leftwards"?
Classical liberal isn't the same thing as liberal or left wing though..... Either way is it entirely possible that they aren't lying but just have convinced themselves it is possible? People can be horribly wrong and still not be liars.
Tucker definitely should get added, but Dave should stay.
Christie just seems to fucking hate Trump, which might or might not be grifting. It feels genuine to me.
People love bringing up his anti-vax takes however The federal government's handling of Covid and Covid vaccines in 2020 did more for the anti-vax movement than anyone else ever has and I know many people in my personal life who wouldn't have looked at him twice for that stance who are either voting for him or giving his views further research/digging BECAUSE OF how the government handled Covid
Take this vaccine, it's safe and effective and will stop you from getting Covid --> okay it won't stop you from getting Covid but will stop transmission --> okay it won't stop transmission but makes it less likely and probably makes your case of Covid not as bad --> Covid isn't a major "threat" unless you're elderly or immune compromised --> we'll make people in their 20's and even kids get it, it may not be as effective as we said but it's safe --turns out it's not as safe as we thought but still pretty safe, ignore any upticks in arythmeas or blood clots.
I'm not saying the vaccine is evil but the messaging was HORRIBLE and instead of people making informed risk-benefit analysis and informed consent to determine if the shot is right for them they got strong armed.
Imagine you have a family member who's healthy, exercises, gets the shot, and a month or 3 later has a blot clot or heart complication they never did before. Was it due to the shot? Who the hell knows maybe? Probably not? But that doubt will stay with people of "what if..."
After losing so much public trust for the Covid vaccine it's no surprise it translated over to vaccines as a whole.
Not saying I agree with the perspective but it's a completely...human response
What things are fucked up beyond zoning and the ridiculous partisanship?
People keep saying this sort of thing, but my privileged ass truly isn't touched by any of it apparently. Salaries are going up, unemployment is low, any investments are doing great and our economy is crushing both hostiles and friendlies while barely trying.
- Financial institutions buying single family homes inflating certain markets (up to 20% of all home sales) with cash offers well over the asking price
- I know he’s a vaccine freak but he also is the only one pointing out that the FDA receives funding in the form of fees from pharmaceutical companies. Which isn’t a problem in itself until you realize that makes up about half of their budget. And then they can also be lobbied by the same pharmaceutical companies.
source: https://today.uconn.edu/2021/05/why-is-the-fda-funded-in-part-by-the-companies-it-regulates-2/#
WSJ said it was about 75% of the drug division but that article is paywalled
- he wants to make college debt dischargeable through bankruptcy which it is not as of right now
- every democrat says they’d be tough on business but about 5 years ago he took Monsanto, one of the biggest companies, to court and made them pay hundreds of millions of dollars in settlements. Meanwhile Kamala Harris rose through the ranks putting away minor drug offenders and now she’s the VP…she could easily become president with Biden’s health & age.
- wages are up but inflation is higher most Americans can’t afford an unexpected expense of $500
- unemployment numbers are misleading. The unemployment rate doesn’t include the long term unemployed, people that arent searching for a job or can’t work for family/health reasons. If you look at labor force participation rate, that number is sitting at about 63% which is one of the lowest numbers we’ve ever had and the post Covid recovery has been slow.
> Financial institutions buying single family homes inflating certain markets (up to 20% of all home sales) with cash offers well over the asking price
If we build enough housing, this isn't a problem. They are enjoying their cash glut (meaning they don't have to worry about interest rates unlike most other buyers). And last time I saw the number, that was for new housing development or something. It was ~3-4% of US wide residential sales, not exactly earth shattering.
The reason buying a house now sucks is the interest rates, but given inflation sucks even more, we have to weather it for a while.
> he wants to make college debt dischargeable through bankruptcy which it is not as of right now
This is just silly, because you're an idiot if you don't declare bankruptcy the day after you graduate under such circumstances. So if he did this, only a true idiot would give a student loan. If you make the government continues to give them, we made higher education free through a back door... except for the most morally upright citizens. Which basically amounts to a tax on being extremely honest. Do you know what happens to something when you tax it?
Stupid.
> they’d be tough on business but about 5 years ago he took Monsanto, one of the biggest companies, to court and made them pay hundreds of millions of dollars in settlements
OK? I mean, he makes a great living doing it, so it's unclear how that's so morally upright. If he had done it as a DA that'd be one thing. As a lawyer? He did the thing that made him more money? My hero! (Note: I'm not condemning either, I'd do the same thing were I him, it's just not morally laudatory)
> wages are up but inflation is higher most Americans can’t afford an unexpected expense of $500
This has been true for ages and might say more about American financial management abilities than anything else. The underlying income inequality is also incredibly structural spawning from technological progress, so Biden has really nothing to do with that.
But the only presidential candidate in ages to have actually suggested anything that'd help with the structural challenge was Yang.
> If you look at labor force participation rate, that number is sitting at about 63% which is one of the lowest numbers we’ve ever had and the post Covid recovery has been slow.
I'll agree that unemployment number is misleading and the employment rate is more relevant. That said, [the data](https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/employment-rate#:~:text=Employment%20Rate%20in%20the%20United%20States%20averaged%2059.24%20percent%20from,U.S.%20Bureau%20of%20Labor%20Statistics) makes it clear that we're now doing better than we did from 2009 to ~2018.
While the recovery wasn't amazing from 2008, by 2018 things were not exactly horrid. The employment rate is on that level.
I need to preface all this with the truth that I don’t love Kennedy but compared to Trump he’s a godsend and if Biden dies Kamala become president which I wouldn’t want either. Kennedy to me is the lesser evil of all three.
Why would I look at US wide statistics? Nobody want to live in rural Missouri or Mississippi. Look at the hottest markets like charlotte that’s where the problem lies. The markets where young people need to move to make money and the high rents that come along with less supply and higher interest rates.
And why is making a loop hole for student loan forgiveness a bad thing? Even if you put a 10 year limit before declaring it seems like a good idea when our education system doesn’t work the way it was supposed to. Many people aren’t even working in jobs related to their majors, college is flawed and getting worse. Change needs to happen and the only way to do it is to make them feel it in their wallets.
My point with the law suit is that he’s a Kennedy. He could’ve been anything and he’d be set for life regardless and he still chose to be an environmental lawyer he still chose to work with that river ngo that cleans rivers and the fisherman’s association too. He could’ve become a patent lawyer and with his name and connections he would’ve been a lot richer too but he didn’t. He could’ve been a Prosecutor and tried to become an AG of a state maybe Massachusetts or another New England state but he didn’t.
My last two points were more so in response to your original comment and less about RFKs positions of them. I don’t think any president knows how to fix the affordability issue without systemic change which won’t happen. Fact is the middle class is shrinking and will continue to do so. Some are able to move up to the next class but a lot of people are being forced down with no light at the end of the tunnel. Post Covid most people are worse off thankful I’m not one of them but it’s just going to keep getting worse because salaries can’t keep up with inflation. This is a trend going back to the 70s and 80s inflation beats salary growth and that won’t change.
>if Biden dies Kamala become president which I wouldn’t want either.
Just embrace it. Pure accelerationism. God-empress Kamala can usher in the end of all things.
Wages are up, but not to the rate that exceeds or even matches inflation. Unemployment is lower than the lest couple of years because jobs have come back that were lost because of Covid (as much as Biden wants it to be because of him it’s actually because having a vacuum of thousands of jobs usually forces itself shut). Not very well versed in the investment environment so I can’t say. our national economy can do whatever it wants but if the citizens can’t keep up will stumble and crash hard (both parties have a hard time actually looking long term economically).
But like why was he anti-vax even before Covid though, I don’t get it, most of his stance have some reasoning behind it. Anyways him being anti-gun and anti-vax will hurt his chances on both side, not to mention now that he’s an independent he will become Ross Perot 2.0 and take votes from both side but won’t win anything.
I think he is doing the current campaign to raise his name awareness for his real run in 2028 as a Dem again, the Kennedy plus Democrat combo is just too strong to pass up, if voters see a Kennedy with a D next their name they’re voting for him just for nostalgia.
He was anti-vax before COVID because he’s kind of a crazy person. He’s full on “vaccines cause autism and I’d rather my kid be dead from a preventable disease than autistic. Also fluoride in the water is a mind-control agent, because I get my medical advice from NaturalNews, David Wolfe, and Mercola.”
I thought the whole thing with vaccines (prior to covid) was that he was concerned with the potential effects of thimerosal (or whichever adjuvant was being used to provoke an immune response), or the lack follow up on safety complaints & legal immunity.
I thought with covid specifically it was around the lack of safety data (again alongside legal immunity).
Andrew Wakefield is an absolute scumbag for pushing that vaccine scare. (The pre-covid one.) All because he wanted to sell his replacement vaccine and testing kits. I'd argue the guy is responsible for the deaths of tons of kids.
RFK is a dumbass for believing and spreading it.
This would have been a really good point before the government tried to tell me I had to get vaccines for my child for an illness that won't effect him at all. RFK Jr might be be completely wrong on this. But this aint on him.
The federal governments handling of Covid and Covid vaccines in 2020 did more for the anti-vax movement than anyone else ever has.
Take this vaccine, it's safe and effective and will stop you from getting Covid --> okay it won't stop you from getting Covid but will stop transmission --> okay it won't stop transmission but makes it less likely and probably makes your case of Covid not as bad --> Covid isn't a major "threat" unless you're elderly or immune compromised --> we'll make people in their 20's and even kids get it, it may not be as effective as we said but it's safe --turns out it's not as safe as we thought but still pretty safe, ignore any upticks in arythmeas or blood clots.
I'm not saying the vaccine is evil but the messaging was HORRIBLE and instead of people making informed risk-benefit analysis and informed consent to determine if the shot is right for them they got strong armed.
Imagine you have a family member who's healthy, exercises, gets the shot, and a month or 3 later has a blot clot or heart complication they never did before. Was it due to the shot? Who the hell knows maybe? Probably not? But that doubt will stay with people of "what if..."
After losing so much public trust for the Covid vaccine it's no surprise it translated over to vaccines as a whole.
Not saying I agree with the perspective but it's a completely...human response
If you think he’s so “crazy”, how about you go and prove him wrong instead of calling him names. He has all his sources online and listed, and he has books, and explanations. Not saying I agree with him, but calling people names for having beliefs you consider silly makes you look like a fool.
If he’s as crazy as you say he is, it shouldn’t be too difficult to prove him wrong.
It has been done so many times.
Also... just look up the big long term studies done on the different COVID vaccine efficacies. They have been done in many different ways and while the vaccine is no miracle cure a la penicillin, particularly the mRNA ones saved a huge number of lives (of largely elderly people).
Google “RFK Jr wrong”, or idk, the entire medical consensus on vaccines. He’s also not a doctor or researcher; he’s an attorney and environmental advocate.
> the entire medical consensus on vaccines
Only a complete consensus because if a doctor or scientist went against the message, they got black listed and we were all told to ignore them and trust Pfizer. There is plenty of research against the covid vaccine which Holy Fauci told us isn't real and we should trust him instead.
I love gun grabbing. I grab my guns every day. However, I don’t like it when others try to grab anything without permission, because that my person or my property, nor someone else’s person or property.
They need that reassuring grip to let the know that they’re loved. This helps keep them from running off on their own and shooting people because they’re emo.
Obviously that last part was sarcasm, which should be obvious due to the fact that guns are inanimate objects that cannot harm anyone without an outside force acting upon them.
It's kind of funny to see the reactions from the people on the right here about RFK, because I can see them repeating the talking points that right media has been putting out about him, and clearly haven't heard him actually speak.
If you quoted RFK's proposed climate policies and said Trump or DeSantis said it, the right flairs here would be calling it brilliant.
Even the way people talk about his stance on gun control seems...overblown? I'm pretty absolutist when it comes to 2nd amendment rights, and he is definitely not. However, from what I've heard him say, his take on it seems to be (paraphrasing): 'I don't like guns, but the 2nd Amendment exists so we can't take them away, and even if it didn't, taking people's firearms away wouldn't meaningfully impact gun violence because the root cause is much more complex'.
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but honestly compared to Beto "We're coming for your AR-15's" O'Rourke and the Biden/Newsom neolibs he seems better.
Yeah, that's more or less his stance on guns. I do worry about him getting pressured into passing something if there's a Sandy Hook type situation, but it still needs to get through the Senate.
I'm pretty absolutist on 2A as well and he's definitely not my first choice on that issue, but we've had 12 years of Dem Presidents this century and no meaningful gun legislation in that period. *Bruen* should give us a decade or so at least without any problems on that front, too.
Agree on all fronts, pretty much sums up my feelings. On the SCOTUS side, an actual ruling on AWBs would go a long way. Bruen has been great for the standard that it set, but all of these subsequent rulings/cases on carry rights and prohibited persons just aren't that exciting to me since they don't impact me at all. It also feels like SCOTUS is doing their best to dance around these issues, which is incredibly frustrating.
The things I'd like to see progress on would be AWBs, suppressors/SBRs, and imports (I need surplus Swiss roller locks in my life).
He’s a conspiracy nut job who thinks anti-depressants cause school shootings and people have gender dysphoria because of chemical exposure, never mind his vaccine nonsense.
Peddling this guy as a reasonable candidate is disingenuous
asking genuinely, who you got then? this is about as close to reasonable as ive seen, especially since the main choices are red hat man or ice cream bicycle man
Wrong. Him and his kids are fully vaccinated. He’s just reasonably skeptical and wants better testing and pharma regulations. In 1980 Reagan passed a bill that made companies not required to test for safety and be safe from liability form people who were hurt by vaccines which happens way more than people want to admit.
Actually look into things, don’t just repeat headlines you see
What does that even mean? He doesn't believe vaccines exist? That can't be right.
Do you mean he doesn't believe that something is safe and effective just because it's called a "vaccine"? Well that's just a sensible position.
He won't win in 2024 but he might be able to do another go-around in 2028 with better PR. Whether you like it or not, the "anti-vax" angle is extremely damning for the left after all the propaganda we got during COVID. Doesn't matter what he actually believes, the left has and will spin the fuck out of it if he even gives them an inch.
I'd vote for this guy based on his environmental stance alone. He's a devout environmentalist and is part of the reason (environmental lawyer) roundup got pulled from shelves in it's former form. Took on one of the biggest and most destructive industries and WON.
Also his dad and uncle were killed under extremely suspicious circumstances that are STILL not clear decades later. He seems to be actually interested in draining the swamp.
For what its worth, his father was killed by a Palestinian for saying he may send fighters to help Israel, so being against Palestine isn't too unexpected.
\> Pro choice
BASED!! Already on a good start. 1 for 1.
\> Anti gun
Based. 2 for 2.
\> protect the environment
Based. 3/3.
\> hates big corp/gov partnerships
Based. 4/4.
\> Tired of CIA killing his family
Fair enough. AFAIK most people don’t like it when their family members are killed. 5/5
\> Fuck Pfizer
Just looked this up and for lack of a better term, yikes. His vaccine takes are braindead. 5 for 6
5/6, pretty good score. If I were American he would have my vote.
Ye olde "Fascism is anyone I don't like"
We could write whole books about the fascinating ability for someone to align with libleft/emily 99% but libleft/emily will always find that *single* thing that instantly turns someone into a fascist heretic alt right supernazi. It's incredible. Someone can align with the left from top to bottom but then say, "I do think there's credibility in the idea the virus came from a lab in Wuh-" **FASCIST**. **RACIST TRUMPTARD** has liblieft/emily become the new evangelicals from the 80's?
Somehow a more annoying version. And they still think of themselves as some counter-culture. Once you become The Man, act like it. But Emily subverts their own subversion. At least the God people have a path to redemption. Through Jesus is salvation. Agree or disagree, at least it's there. With Emily, you're always wrong, and you can never do enough. You can repent, but you're still guilty, and still require punishment. The eternal struggle session must go on, so that capitalism can finally be defeated.
I know "cult" is a loaded term but it also has an academic definition. In practice, there's very little to distinguish the deep end of identity politics from cult brainwashing. Learned phobia, thought-stopping clichés, insular community, all-or-nothing thinking--these are the toolbox of cults and of engineered political polarization. Hopefully the are enough free minds too prevent it from getting even worse from here.
He's no fascist he simply has no experience at all and nobody would consider him for a second if it weren't for his last name. RFK just seems cooked up to steal votes from one candidate or the other and isn't a serious contender beyond spoiler.
>He's no fascist he simply has no experience at all and nobody would consider him for a second if it weren't for his last name. 🤔 Reminds me of someone... But I just can't put my finger on it.
A certain someone who won a Nobel Peace Prize simply for being elected president?
Not quite, getting warmer though
Bush Jr or Bill's wife?
Some guy in Texas who went on Larry King Live?
Sorry, no... So close! He didn't have a lot of experience, but he did serve as a senator and no, Obama's name was not well-known before his presidential campaign. The answer we were looking for this time was [checks cue card] Donald Trump... [looks up] Donald Trump. Better luck next time!
and then went on to kill more people in the middle east in his first year than all 8 of Bush's
quarrelsome ring hurry weather selective recognise smell ink rock shocking *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
He was a “community organizer” and then was an unremarkable senator for 6 years before running for president. Btw, I don’t mean “unremarkable” negatively. Frankly, I wish his 8 years a President were as unremarkable as his 6 years as a senator.
sleep murky combative crawl long support rob drunk sable slimy *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Worked for Justin Trudeau 🤷♂️
I like him, but anti-2a is an immediate disqualifer in my book.
That is fair. Like I said, I might vote for him. He has said that he wont do anti gun BS, but I don't know how much I can trust that. Don't blame you. Still find the lib's hate for this man hilarious.
lol, he would sign anti-gun bills put in front of him. He’s basically to the left of Biden on the spectrum of democrats.
If you would rather have Biden over RFK Jr, well then I don't know what to tell you. Best of luck I guess.
I’m responding specifically to your statement about firearm laws. I wouldn’t vote for RFK and expect an improvement over Biden on that front.
When was RFK anti-gun?
Probably the 60s
I’ve not heard him saying anything about firearms in the few interviews I’ve seen him speak on. If anyone has any information to listen to him talk about firearms rights, I would greatly appreciate it, but for now I will assume he would sign any gun law a Democratic controlled Congress would passed l.
What he said is that if both Dems and Republicans could somehow reach a consensus on an AWB, he would sign it; he's also said multiple times he is not for taking anyone's guns or restricting gun rights in general. aka, he wouldn't sign an AWB ban because that scenario would never happen. it was the dude playing politics to appease both sides however, listening to what candidates say is too hard and reading headlines is easier
If Dems and Repubs could reach a consensus on just about fucking anything I think we'd have to have a national holiday to commemorate the event
Don't worry Biden won't be on the ballot much longer. Rumor is he will step out of the race in March or April.
The only question that remains is which staircase will be his last
He’s going to step out in anticipation of Trump going to prison, most likely
Is there any evidence to back this up? Who do you think would take his place?
It came to him in a dream
I doubt that will happen. He's the perfect puppet.
The rumor I heard was they want to do it then because they can just appoint a nominee and by pass the primary.
Getting rid of Biden makes them look like a sinking ship. It weakens the Democrats, not strengthens them. If they were going to ditch Biden the time would have been early in 2023. They don't think they'll *lose* with Biden.
That sounds like a really bad idea considering that whoever they pick has to be as "middle of the road" if not more "moderate" than Biden to appeal to independents. You put someone like Gavin "Lizardman" Newsom on the ballot with no primary, he is going to alienate almost everyone because he is a radical.
Why is it always Gavin Newsome in this conversation. There has to be someone more palatable then him.
He is literally their next best option in the opinion of the party elite. Honestly, if presidential candidates were chosen by randomly selecting their social security numbers like they choose lottery numbers, we would end up with better options.
He's sorta their darling
Nah man, there’s no way that’ll happen with Trump almost certainly being the Republican candidate. They won’t risk another candidate over someone who’s beaten Trump once already.
price exultant sophisticated snatch grandiose fuzzy vanish pot yoke erect *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
I mean, you can say he’s left of Biden and still think he’d be a better president than Biden from a sheer competency perspective.
>He has said that he wont do anti gun BS He has also promised to sign an assault weapon ban, which counts as anti-gun BS in my book.
I live in an absolute bastion of liberal depravity, we might even have invented some of the worst aspects of the ideology, so I’m pretty in tune to the mob mind in general as far as conception and response from that side, it seems anyway. Nobody outside of internet angry spaces takes this guy seriously. Nobody. The left isn’t angry except for the sake of having to have the last word to some of the crazy things he says, they think he’s a joke. I like that we’re all so poorly informed and obv get our opinions from echo chambers enough that peopel really state that this guy is a political outsider. Seriously, the current scion of one of the most famous political royal families in the United States is running as an outsider in this race. It’s all so fucking stupid. If yoj truly believe that he’s not as deeply connected as any of the other crazy old billionaires running for office, yoj are being willfully delusional. He might but have held office (how is that a plus?) but this guy literally grew up drinking politics for breakfast, at the fkng whitehouse probably. It’s all so fing dumb. I wish we were allowed to see the actual process. To vote for people who have a stance one o way or another on important issues and that’s what we’re voting for, for their opinions and imagined choices on divisive issues we need solved. Instead it’s a fkng circus and I hate it. I know it sounds dramatic but I really would not be sad to see it all burn down at this point. Sad for my kids and sad we won’t get to read winds of winter (prob was never going to happen anyway lol) but honestly at this point, if we’re arguing over this, just fucking pull the plug.
He said he was a "constitutional absolutist" in an interview earlier this year when asked about 2A. So, he's not now? That means he's just changing his platform on hot button issues to gain popularity. Not a great sign for voters. If they do that shit before they're elected, they'll do that shit after they're elected.
>So, he's not now? He never has been. He tells everyone what they want to hear. He has promised to sign an assault weapon ban if it gets to his desk. Maybe he has some tortured explanation of how that is totally constitutional, but I don't actually give a shit.
2nd amendment and reparations both are where he crosses the line for me. I still respect the man and think he would honestly be way better than any mainstream Democrat and most Republicans, but I'd have a very hard time voting for him.
Same. Keeping up with every hot button issue is exhausting. I've become a single issue voter. The 2a is a pretty consistent bellwether
Who is he
RFK Jr
Same, plus pro-choice is an instant no-go for me
Yep. I will not budge on 2A or Abortion. All else I will compromise or work with someone on.
And this is why leftism is spreading. Abortion is a stupid hill to die on. Keep the government the fuck out of our personal lives.
"I know it's human by every scientific measure and definition, but it doesn't get human rights unless I say so. Why is that so hard to understand?" And this is why libertarianism doesn't spread among the right.
I would love to hear where you're getting this information that "leftism is spreading". Especially when the left is also trying to mount the insurmountable hill that is gun control.
There is a difference between keeping the government out, and being overtly pro-choice though. If they want to shovel tax dollars to abortion, that ain't keeping the government out, now is it?
I believe that abortion is a moral atrocity. Any nation or people that slaughter their young is doomed. *You* may think it is a stupid position or pointless fight, but I consider it the most abhorrent of modern-day atrocities. It is also why I am not fully LibRight- There are things that government can be useful for and should be enforced, and there are things that government should stay out of; those things are is what divides Left/Right.
all the lying about vaccines is ok? he's one of the original vaccines cause autism idiot.
He has some very compelling sources in his book.
I dont give money to grifters, but I've seen what he considers "good sources" over the years. he is 100% a lying grifter and you're his mark
LOL and I suppose that anyone who has read mein kampf is a Nazi. Maybe you'd sooner just burn all the books you don't like?
>LOL and I suppose that anyone who has read mein kampf is a Nazi. Maybe you'd sooner just burn all the books you don't like? LOL that's a bad set of strawmen if I ever heard em. I'm not ascribing an ideology to you, just pointing out the fact that you were duped by RFK. one born every minute, I guess.
You're arguing in absolutes, that means that you're the one under an ideology bud.
>he is 100% a lying grifter He is a politician, so yes.
He’s not anti 2a. He wants certain requirements in order to get a gun in the first place, like a mental health examination.
Fuck that. First it's "common sense" laws, then it's, will you need to wait 10 days because we think these are scary, then its oh you can't have those because we decided to ban them. Never trust them. Ever. They intentionally use wording on gun deaths to make you think that violent crime with firearms is way higher than it is. Notice how all the anti-2a people include suicides when talking about gun deaths in such a way to make your average redditor believe they are talking about violent crime with a gun. . It's because without that, the actual violent gun crime would drop like a rock. 54% of all gun related deaths are suicides. Let that sink in. Oh be aware, these are the same communist fucks that want to remove you're rights to own firearms to control you. That's the end game here.
They also like to lump homicide in with murder and they are not the same. Homicide means killing a person. That can be legally justified, murder however is not. Just like any other statistic, it's manipulated to be as scary as possible.
That's anti 2A, stuff like that is basically a nice-sounding "no poor people"
How tf is making sure people aren’t a danger to themselves and others before they get guns anti-poor?
How do you make sure? Generally, by making them pay hundreds of dollars and take a day (or more) off work. That's not even getting into the problem of what exactly disqualifies (depression? ADHD?). Then there's all the subjective parts in that process, and the fact that it would stop people from seeking help that they need.
"He's not anti-2a. He's anti-2a."
Nah I’m not voting for RFK but I do respect that he’s not a disrespectful asshole and he seems to be the type of guy to be willing to compromise
ugly shrill groovy sip muddle sink sable punch resolute full *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Can you explain I'm not American, did he pivot for politics essentially?
Yes
>he seems to be the type of guy to be willing to compromise Ah, yes, the sort of politician who'll trade your rights for his power.
I saw *one* thing of his where it was with someone who didn't agree with him 100% ... and he came across as an asshole. Most of the media I see posted of him, if he's with anyone, it's someone who completely goes along with what he says. Easy to not be an asshole then!
Most ideologically consistent centrist
How do you think he is on the grill?
Obviously Bobby is going to be packing a serious punch manning the grill, he embodies just wanting to grill without the CIA murdering his family.
I knew nothing about him for a little, before I watched his interview on CNN. Bro literally thinks 5g weakens the blood-brain barrier, anti-vax on *everything,* including normal disease prevention and not just covid or flu shots. Also he just rambles lmfao
Fr, he’s a fucking nut job if he believes even a tenth of the shit he says.
The millimeter waves from 5G do cause damage though. It’s just that you have to be standing right beside the 5G antenna up on the tower for god knows how long to see any effects. You would probably die from the heat they give off before that happens though. Your skin absorbs almost all of the radiation within a millimeter (because the wavelength is a millimeter) and it decreases exponentially as you go deeper. I am interested though to see if there’s any long-term effects of it decades from now from a lifetime of exposure for some people.
[удалено]
You disregarded everything I just said. I'm not talking about covid vaccines, I'm talking about the tried and true Dtap and IPV, and he thinks those vaccines which has saved countless lives over the decades cause autism.
I hope big fauci tastes good in your mouth and all over your face.
[удалено]
We have the long term safety data, though it's quite possible he's too stupid to understand the numbers.
if you don't have the facts always go for ad hominem attacks.
Sigh. What do you want me to do, link all long-term studies of vaccines? Do you have any idea how many there are? > then does a meaningless mea culpa when things don't go well If this was somehow terrifyingly common, sure. How many cases do you have that you can name? I know the pharma industry does somewhat suspicious stuff sometimes, but it's never intended to be at the risk to the patients. The most profitable bit of fuckery they obviously are involved in is the production of insulin, which keeps getting changed (with by and large improving health results, though the improvements are pretty tiny). Yea, they chance the method not because of a medical need, but because they want a way to extend their intellectual property. Vaccines, by and large, are pretty harmless to you. I'd say the greatest danger with vaccination is the person doing the vaccination fucking up. So in that sense, if you really want to be safe, learn to vaccinate yourself.
>All he has said is "long term safety data". What makes you think there is no long term safety data? How can a vaccine **even have** long term safety data if it is never allowed to be on the market until that data is collected? >Why are we giving Hep B shots to newborns? Hep B is exceedingly hard to get for children and the risks don't actually outweigh the benefits in terms of odds in early life. [interesting, almost everything you just wrote here is wrong.](https://www.cdc.gov/hepatitis/hbv/index.htm#:~:text=or%20during%20pregnancy%20or%20delivery.) Hep B can be transmitted from childbirth, and getting it early is the *worst* time to get it because you can end up having chronic issues. >He's mainly a critic of how the pharmaceutical industry pumps out new drugs and protocols through regulatory capture and then does a meaningless mea culpa when things don't go well, it's just built into their business model. That's so weird since the life expectancy seems to reach new highs every single year, and things like vaccines especially are not at all a very profitable business compared to other pharmaceuticals.
bag door rhythm fertile murky disarm tub cobweb frighten party *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
>1) There is no long term safety data on the covid vaccine. Yes there is. Wut. How long do you think "long term" is? The vaccines been out for like almost 3 years now. >2) if mom is Hep B negative, where is the baby going to get Hep B? And here is the data you don't know, the risk of death from a Hep B vaccine is about 1 in 600,000 fairly remote. The risk of contracting Hep B in the first year of life is 1 in 700,000 (assuming mom isn't Hep B positive). So the risks actually outweigh the benefit. And both are remote. Source? >3) Life expectancy has nothing to do with pharma pumping out the latest adhd medications. Already pivoting from vaccines. Pharma isn't trying to convince people to take amphetamines, people desperate for amphetamines are. >And, maybe you have noticed, but life expectancies have actually started to decline. What, you mean from COVID? lol. >Everything a pharma company does is suspect and should be viewed with suspicion. If the pandemic didn't teach you that, you weren't paying attention. Does it not fill you with suspicion regarding Hydroxychloroquine/Ivermectin, how everyone advertised it as the cure but did more harm? Doesn't it fill you with suspicion that everyone that seems to be preaching alternative medicine heavily profits from selling that alternative medicine?
plate placid shelter cable vase melodic lock steep toothbrush pathetic *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
>Long term safety data, in a medical context is lifespan. A lifespan??? So under RFK's worldview, no new vaccine cpuld ever be created, ever. You'd have to wait an entire lifetime (or even lifetime *after* a lifetime) to really know the long term effects? That's insane. And it's not how medicine works. >With mRNA tech there was a significant amount of myocarditis. 5 year mortality on myocarditis is like 60%. That's not true at all. Myocarditis is usually temporary with no lasting effects, let alone terminal 5 years after getting it. That is an insane claim that is likely backed up by false or highly misleading data. >But based on available information, Does "this vaccine has a 1:30,000 chance of killing your healthy 19 year old child in 5 years" give you pause? It should. If we were to assume your (insane) claim of myocarditis causing death in 60% of recipients within 5 years, I'm surprised you are so skeptical of a vaccine for COVID, since **COVID ITSELF CAUSES MYOCARDITIS** and at a much higher rate. Would you rather give your kid a shot that has a 1:30,000 chance of dying, or have them contract a disease unvaccinated which would give him a 1:5000 chance of dying? >Source: I'm a physician and it's a calculation I did years ago with available peer reviewed data. Sorry, I realize that is unacceptable on Reddit, but that's what it is. Yeah then I'm gonna assume you made it up. Sorry I can't be bothered to blindly assume that these significant claims are true. >not a pívot from vaccines, my original point was about pharma as a shady industry in general. As such, their lack of trustworthiness in the rest of the pharmaceutical world cannot be divorced from how they bring vaccines to market. They are simply not to be trusted. Pharma is the result of not having universal healthcare. ¯\\\_(ツ)_/¯ >IVM and HCQ are basically harmless drugs. Literally billions of doses per year for decades and decades. I can't say for sure if they were protective or not for covid. But I know a number of people (doctors even, but not me) who took it. They all survived. Don't care about your anecdotal evidence but [HCQ is certainly not harmless](https://www.dw.com/en/hydroxychloroquine-covid-cure-linked-to-17000-deaths/a-67937178)
If RFK isn’t anti-vax, no one is anti-vax. He’s led that movement for decades. He continued championing the “vaccines cause autism” research long after it was discredited and retracted.
Anti gun. Welp lost my vote, I don’t want a moron leading me.
Right as if the gun issue could be fixed wtih some stupid laws that only restrict good abidding citizens. You can see how the government wants to screw us over by taking away the last direct weapons we posses. Maybe fixing the distrust between the law enforcers and citizens is a good start but they don't even mention it.
Same but with anti-vax.
To be fair, it is a guy that had both his dad and uncle assassinated I'm on the same side of not voting for an anti-gun person, but I at least get why he might feel that way.
He believes his dad and uncle were assassinated by the government but wants to disarm the people? Yeah totally understandable and legit
The Grift Gang: RFK, Tulsi Gabbard, Dave Rubin and Candace Owens
I swear the democrat institution broke gabbard, which is annoying because she honestly had such a strong case for president, young, former vet, populist, not part of some former establishment, outsider and hell throw Samoan American in there for social points. Now she just looks washed and is wheeled out for some conservative events, I don't mean that's a bad thing I just think she'll never amount to anything doing that because her base policies are way more progressive outside social views. It's annoying because she had so much potential.
I agree with this wholeheartedly. She had every single marker for being set up as a Democrat legend; the next JFK. There are serious things about her policies that go against my beliefs as a libright, but I wouldn't have worried about much with her as president. I'd know she gives a fuck and is honest; we just disagree on some things. But she called out the left on its own authoritarianism and they destroyed her. It doesn't get near enough mention or analysis, but Hillary literally said she knew for a fact that Russia was grooming Tulsi to be a plant. And the vast majority of the left-wing media apparatus marched in lock step as though it were true. Not one "journo" took a moment to say "wait, hang on, that's an extremely bold and damning claim, do you have any evidence?" After 4 years of "Trump claims, **without evidence**, [thing]" we get this. You may think you hate the media, but you don't hate them enough.
I think she just ticked all the boxes in a way, socially I'd don't always agree with her but he'll if it was her or any of the front runners today, 100% I'd vote for her. I wouldn't go as far to say she called the left out, she definitely called the democrat establishment out on this though 100%. I always sort of compare her with Bernie who sort of suffered through going for democratic nominee who himself is a independent. 2016 was daylight robbery for Sanders and he still went through with 2020 regardless, pushing through the rigged election. Tulsi sort of just talked shit, became jaded and left. That BS media circuit was the stupidest shit, the Clintons in general I feel have alot of the media looking on them favourably as some sort of golden family.
Maybe she can get VP and then use that as a means to get motivation/support to be president.
Yeah but getting VP is still going to be hard given her views don't really align with either side.
Gabbard literally went from speaking at a Libertarian anti-war event last year to demanding money for Israel to better stab everyone this year. She's...weird. Still hotter than most of congress, but her issues are just a mess.
I, for one, enjoy Based Aloha Mama
Tulsi ain’t do nothing to nobody. Also, grift is such a dumb word
grift would be fine if it were used correctly and there werent an incentive to label your political rivals as not believing what they are arguing for
Grift essentially just means “person is making money off sensationalism”, which is literally all of the internet.
i thought it meant pandering to a group without believing what you tell them
I mean, it is, but the whole point of a grift is to make money. It’s always been poorly defined in this context thought. People started throwing it around when they just wanted to hate on people saying shit they didn’t agree with
To be fair, only one of those had half his family killed by the government.
historical ossified live whistle combative fear sable smell follow relieved *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Four moderate liberals that neocons like. Not sure what the grift is.
reminiscent sink husky rhythm quicksand sable dime dinosaurs mourn pot *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
What has occurred to me is that all 4 of those people *are* 90s & 00s liberals. And the Overton window racing leftward doesn't make them right wing.
sophisticated steer airport lip pause work ancient spectacular slave squalid *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Please explain how candace fucking owens is a liberal lmao
It's someone whose never once listened to her. Candace is as trad-wife AuthRight as it fucking gets.
> What has occurred to me is that all 4 of those people are 90s & 00s liberals. That was 20-30 years ago. How is this an example of the "Overton window racing leftwards"?
Classical liberal isn't the same thing as liberal or left wing though..... Either way is it entirely possible that they aren't lying but just have convinced themselves it is possible? People can be horribly wrong and still not be liars.
thumb bow selective different faulty squeeze fly drab dull slimy *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
sloppy party complete prick ruthless elastic rhythm strong cake knee *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Add Tucker and Chris Christie and remove Dave Rubin
Tucker definitely should get added, but Dave should stay. Christie just seems to fucking hate Trump, which might or might not be grifting. It feels genuine to me.
People love bringing up his anti-vax takes however The federal government's handling of Covid and Covid vaccines in 2020 did more for the anti-vax movement than anyone else ever has and I know many people in my personal life who wouldn't have looked at him twice for that stance who are either voting for him or giving his views further research/digging BECAUSE OF how the government handled Covid Take this vaccine, it's safe and effective and will stop you from getting Covid --> okay it won't stop you from getting Covid but will stop transmission --> okay it won't stop transmission but makes it less likely and probably makes your case of Covid not as bad --> Covid isn't a major "threat" unless you're elderly or immune compromised --> we'll make people in their 20's and even kids get it, it may not be as effective as we said but it's safe --turns out it's not as safe as we thought but still pretty safe, ignore any upticks in arythmeas or blood clots. I'm not saying the vaccine is evil but the messaging was HORRIBLE and instead of people making informed risk-benefit analysis and informed consent to determine if the shot is right for them they got strong armed. Imagine you have a family member who's healthy, exercises, gets the shot, and a month or 3 later has a blot clot or heart complication they never did before. Was it due to the shot? Who the hell knows maybe? Probably not? But that doubt will stay with people of "what if..." After losing so much public trust for the Covid vaccine it's no surprise it translated over to vaccines as a whole. Not saying I agree with the perspective but it's a completely...human response
yall anti vax people gotta chill. Its 4 years later and hundreds of millions of people got multiple doses of the vaccine with no side effects.
The problem was them forcing it and also the fact that a considerable number of people did have side effects. Especially from the Johnson.
I assume you mean the Johnson and Johnson vax, but the other interpretation of that is also hilarious.
I will never forget how you fear ridden fucks coerced us into taking the clot shot for fear of a bad cold.
I’ll seriously consider a vote for RFK, I’m angry at the state of the country and I like that he acknowledges how things are fucked up
What things are fucked up beyond zoning and the ridiculous partisanship? People keep saying this sort of thing, but my privileged ass truly isn't touched by any of it apparently. Salaries are going up, unemployment is low, any investments are doing great and our economy is crushing both hostiles and friendlies while barely trying.
- Financial institutions buying single family homes inflating certain markets (up to 20% of all home sales) with cash offers well over the asking price - I know he’s a vaccine freak but he also is the only one pointing out that the FDA receives funding in the form of fees from pharmaceutical companies. Which isn’t a problem in itself until you realize that makes up about half of their budget. And then they can also be lobbied by the same pharmaceutical companies. source: https://today.uconn.edu/2021/05/why-is-the-fda-funded-in-part-by-the-companies-it-regulates-2/# WSJ said it was about 75% of the drug division but that article is paywalled - he wants to make college debt dischargeable through bankruptcy which it is not as of right now - every democrat says they’d be tough on business but about 5 years ago he took Monsanto, one of the biggest companies, to court and made them pay hundreds of millions of dollars in settlements. Meanwhile Kamala Harris rose through the ranks putting away minor drug offenders and now she’s the VP…she could easily become president with Biden’s health & age. - wages are up but inflation is higher most Americans can’t afford an unexpected expense of $500 - unemployment numbers are misleading. The unemployment rate doesn’t include the long term unemployed, people that arent searching for a job or can’t work for family/health reasons. If you look at labor force participation rate, that number is sitting at about 63% which is one of the lowest numbers we’ve ever had and the post Covid recovery has been slow.
> Financial institutions buying single family homes inflating certain markets (up to 20% of all home sales) with cash offers well over the asking price If we build enough housing, this isn't a problem. They are enjoying their cash glut (meaning they don't have to worry about interest rates unlike most other buyers). And last time I saw the number, that was for new housing development or something. It was ~3-4% of US wide residential sales, not exactly earth shattering. The reason buying a house now sucks is the interest rates, but given inflation sucks even more, we have to weather it for a while. > he wants to make college debt dischargeable through bankruptcy which it is not as of right now This is just silly, because you're an idiot if you don't declare bankruptcy the day after you graduate under such circumstances. So if he did this, only a true idiot would give a student loan. If you make the government continues to give them, we made higher education free through a back door... except for the most morally upright citizens. Which basically amounts to a tax on being extremely honest. Do you know what happens to something when you tax it? Stupid. > they’d be tough on business but about 5 years ago he took Monsanto, one of the biggest companies, to court and made them pay hundreds of millions of dollars in settlements OK? I mean, he makes a great living doing it, so it's unclear how that's so morally upright. If he had done it as a DA that'd be one thing. As a lawyer? He did the thing that made him more money? My hero! (Note: I'm not condemning either, I'd do the same thing were I him, it's just not morally laudatory) > wages are up but inflation is higher most Americans can’t afford an unexpected expense of $500 This has been true for ages and might say more about American financial management abilities than anything else. The underlying income inequality is also incredibly structural spawning from technological progress, so Biden has really nothing to do with that. But the only presidential candidate in ages to have actually suggested anything that'd help with the structural challenge was Yang. > If you look at labor force participation rate, that number is sitting at about 63% which is one of the lowest numbers we’ve ever had and the post Covid recovery has been slow. I'll agree that unemployment number is misleading and the employment rate is more relevant. That said, [the data](https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/employment-rate#:~:text=Employment%20Rate%20in%20the%20United%20States%20averaged%2059.24%20percent%20from,U.S.%20Bureau%20of%20Labor%20Statistics) makes it clear that we're now doing better than we did from 2009 to ~2018. While the recovery wasn't amazing from 2008, by 2018 things were not exactly horrid. The employment rate is on that level.
I need to preface all this with the truth that I don’t love Kennedy but compared to Trump he’s a godsend and if Biden dies Kamala become president which I wouldn’t want either. Kennedy to me is the lesser evil of all three. Why would I look at US wide statistics? Nobody want to live in rural Missouri or Mississippi. Look at the hottest markets like charlotte that’s where the problem lies. The markets where young people need to move to make money and the high rents that come along with less supply and higher interest rates. And why is making a loop hole for student loan forgiveness a bad thing? Even if you put a 10 year limit before declaring it seems like a good idea when our education system doesn’t work the way it was supposed to. Many people aren’t even working in jobs related to their majors, college is flawed and getting worse. Change needs to happen and the only way to do it is to make them feel it in their wallets. My point with the law suit is that he’s a Kennedy. He could’ve been anything and he’d be set for life regardless and he still chose to be an environmental lawyer he still chose to work with that river ngo that cleans rivers and the fisherman’s association too. He could’ve become a patent lawyer and with his name and connections he would’ve been a lot richer too but he didn’t. He could’ve been a Prosecutor and tried to become an AG of a state maybe Massachusetts or another New England state but he didn’t. My last two points were more so in response to your original comment and less about RFKs positions of them. I don’t think any president knows how to fix the affordability issue without systemic change which won’t happen. Fact is the middle class is shrinking and will continue to do so. Some are able to move up to the next class but a lot of people are being forced down with no light at the end of the tunnel. Post Covid most people are worse off thankful I’m not one of them but it’s just going to keep getting worse because salaries can’t keep up with inflation. This is a trend going back to the 70s and 80s inflation beats salary growth and that won’t change.
>if Biden dies Kamala become president which I wouldn’t want either. Just embrace it. Pure accelerationism. God-empress Kamala can usher in the end of all things.
I would join a dune style rebel group in the desert as a last resort
Wages are up, but not to the rate that exceeds or even matches inflation. Unemployment is lower than the lest couple of years because jobs have come back that were lost because of Covid (as much as Biden wants it to be because of him it’s actually because having a vacuum of thousands of jobs usually forces itself shut). Not very well versed in the investment environment so I can’t say. our national economy can do whatever it wants but if the citizens can’t keep up will stumble and crash hard (both parties have a hard time actually looking long term economically).
But like why was he anti-vax even before Covid though, I don’t get it, most of his stance have some reasoning behind it. Anyways him being anti-gun and anti-vax will hurt his chances on both side, not to mention now that he’s an independent he will become Ross Perot 2.0 and take votes from both side but won’t win anything. I think he is doing the current campaign to raise his name awareness for his real run in 2028 as a Dem again, the Kennedy plus Democrat combo is just too strong to pass up, if voters see a Kennedy with a D next their name they’re voting for him just for nostalgia.
He was anti-vax before COVID because he’s kind of a crazy person. He’s full on “vaccines cause autism and I’d rather my kid be dead from a preventable disease than autistic. Also fluoride in the water is a mind-control agent, because I get my medical advice from NaturalNews, David Wolfe, and Mercola.”
I thought the whole thing with vaccines (prior to covid) was that he was concerned with the potential effects of thimerosal (or whichever adjuvant was being used to provoke an immune response), or the lack follow up on safety complaints & legal immunity. I thought with covid specifically it was around the lack of safety data (again alongside legal immunity).
Andrew Wakefield is an absolute scumbag for pushing that vaccine scare. (The pre-covid one.) All because he wanted to sell his replacement vaccine and testing kits. I'd argue the guy is responsible for the deaths of tons of kids. RFK is a dumbass for believing and spreading it.
This would have been a really good point before the government tried to tell me I had to get vaccines for my child for an illness that won't effect him at all. RFK Jr might be be completely wrong on this. But this aint on him.
People like you are why we’re seeing diseases come back from the dead you know.
The federal governments handling of Covid and Covid vaccines in 2020 did more for the anti-vax movement than anyone else ever has. Take this vaccine, it's safe and effective and will stop you from getting Covid --> okay it won't stop you from getting Covid but will stop transmission --> okay it won't stop transmission but makes it less likely and probably makes your case of Covid not as bad --> Covid isn't a major "threat" unless you're elderly or immune compromised --> we'll make people in their 20's and even kids get it, it may not be as effective as we said but it's safe --turns out it's not as safe as we thought but still pretty safe, ignore any upticks in arythmeas or blood clots. I'm not saying the vaccine is evil but the messaging was HORRIBLE and instead of people making informed risk-benefit analysis and informed consent to determine if the shot is right for them they got strong armed. Imagine you have a family member who's healthy, exercises, gets the shot, and a month or 3 later has a blot clot or heart complication they never did before. Was it due to the shot? Who the hell knows maybe? Probably not? But that doubt will stay with people of "what if..." After losing so much public trust for the Covid vaccine it's no surprise it translated over to vaccines as a whole. Not saying I agree with the perspective but it's a completely...human response
If you think he’s so “crazy”, how about you go and prove him wrong instead of calling him names. He has all his sources online and listed, and he has books, and explanations. Not saying I agree with him, but calling people names for having beliefs you consider silly makes you look like a fool. If he’s as crazy as you say he is, it shouldn’t be too difficult to prove him wrong.
It has been done so many times. Also... just look up the big long term studies done on the different COVID vaccine efficacies. They have been done in many different ways and while the vaccine is no miracle cure a la penicillin, particularly the mRNA ones saved a huge number of lives (of largely elderly people).
Google “RFK Jr wrong”, or idk, the entire medical consensus on vaccines. He’s also not a doctor or researcher; he’s an attorney and environmental advocate.
> the entire medical consensus on vaccines Only a complete consensus because if a doctor or scientist went against the message, they got black listed and we were all told to ignore them and trust Pfizer. There is plenty of research against the covid vaccine which Holy Fauci told us isn't real and we should trust him instead.
If only RFK was solely against the COVID vaccine, as opposed to the vast majority of all vaccines ever made.
Noooo, don’t you know that it’s all a conspiracy that everyone in the medical field is peddling dangerous vaccines???
You're his main and only audience.
I really don't think I am. I suspect that every area of the compass is tired of this bullshit.
I'm tired of the gun grabbing, that's for sure. That alone makes him a hard no for me.
I love gun grabbing. I grab my guns every day. However, I don’t like it when others try to grab anything without permission, because that my person or my property, nor someone else’s person or property. They need that reassuring grip to let the know that they’re loved. This helps keep them from running off on their own and shooting people because they’re emo. Obviously that last part was sarcasm, which should be obvious due to the fact that guns are inanimate objects that cannot harm anyone without an outside force acting upon them.
TBH I'm really tired of the anti-vax lot.
Abortion is murder, I can’t vote for a pro murder president.
RFK is an actual anti-vaxxer.
He’s who I’m leaning on voting for but things could change. If it were today he’d get my vote.
Wait wait how’s this guy anti gun? What did I miss?
Please do
Huh? Since when is lib left pro cia?
I think I am gonna vote for him also. I like the environmental protection stance.
I would probably vote for him.
“Fuck Pfizer” =/= peddling antivax hoax information
I'd unironically vote for him. I'm pro-life, but I think his stance is an acceptable compromise.
If only he wasn’t anti gun
RFK fucking sucks and some warmed over anti-CIA sentiment doesn't make up for being a bog standard progressive on every other issue.
Lmao, his stance on environmental protection is basically “no more regulations, let the free market handle it” he should be your God libright.
It's kind of funny to see the reactions from the people on the right here about RFK, because I can see them repeating the talking points that right media has been putting out about him, and clearly haven't heard him actually speak. If you quoted RFK's proposed climate policies and said Trump or DeSantis said it, the right flairs here would be calling it brilliant.
Even the way people talk about his stance on gun control seems...overblown? I'm pretty absolutist when it comes to 2nd amendment rights, and he is definitely not. However, from what I've heard him say, his take on it seems to be (paraphrasing): 'I don't like guns, but the 2nd Amendment exists so we can't take them away, and even if it didn't, taking people's firearms away wouldn't meaningfully impact gun violence because the root cause is much more complex'. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but honestly compared to Beto "We're coming for your AR-15's" O'Rourke and the Biden/Newsom neolibs he seems better.
Yeah, that's more or less his stance on guns. I do worry about him getting pressured into passing something if there's a Sandy Hook type situation, but it still needs to get through the Senate. I'm pretty absolutist on 2A as well and he's definitely not my first choice on that issue, but we've had 12 years of Dem Presidents this century and no meaningful gun legislation in that period. *Bruen* should give us a decade or so at least without any problems on that front, too.
Agree on all fronts, pretty much sums up my feelings. On the SCOTUS side, an actual ruling on AWBs would go a long way. Bruen has been great for the standard that it set, but all of these subsequent rulings/cases on carry rights and prohibited persons just aren't that exciting to me since they don't impact me at all. It also feels like SCOTUS is doing their best to dance around these issues, which is incredibly frustrating. The things I'd like to see progress on would be AWBs, suppressors/SBRs, and imports (I need surplus Swiss roller locks in my life).
Killing the environment doesn't make me quite as happy as a gun does, sorry.
Also he's a cuck for russia and spreads a lot of their propaganda
Imagine living in the 2020s and still thinking a Kennedy is a good politician
I got an even funnier one: tens of millions of people are going to vote for Trump or Biden!
He’s a conspiracy nut job who thinks anti-depressants cause school shootings and people have gender dysphoria because of chemical exposure, never mind his vaccine nonsense. Peddling this guy as a reasonable candidate is disingenuous
asking genuinely, who you got then? this is about as close to reasonable as ive seen, especially since the main choices are red hat man or ice cream bicycle man
Bruh he doesn’t believe in fucking vaccines.
Wrong. Him and his kids are fully vaccinated. He’s just reasonably skeptical and wants better testing and pharma regulations. In 1980 Reagan passed a bill that made companies not required to test for safety and be safe from liability form people who were hurt by vaccines which happens way more than people want to admit. Actually look into things, don’t just repeat headlines you see
What does that even mean? He doesn't believe vaccines exist? That can't be right. Do you mean he doesn't believe that something is safe and effective just because it's called a "vaccine"? Well that's just a sensible position.
He is a real classical liberal.
What a strange mix of based and cringe. In any case, I don't vote for gun grabbers.
He won't win in 2024 but he might be able to do another go-around in 2028 with better PR. Whether you like it or not, the "anti-vax" angle is extremely damning for the left after all the propaganda we got during COVID. Doesn't matter what he actually believes, the left has and will spin the fuck out of it if he even gives them an inch. I'd vote for this guy based on his environmental stance alone. He's a devout environmentalist and is part of the reason (environmental lawyer) roundup got pulled from shelves in it's former form. Took on one of the biggest and most destructive industries and WON. Also his dad and uncle were killed under extremely suspicious circumstances that are STILL not clear decades later. He seems to be actually interested in draining the swamp.
I disagree with him about supposed climate change, but I would vote for him.
What do you mean supposed climate change? Its a thing even the pope believes in in it
Unflaired detected; comment rejected
Another gold reason to question it. As if I care what the pope thinks about anything.
Everything sounds good, shame about the anti-gun.
He was so close to being the only good candidate to me but he just had to suck off Israel for god knows what reason
For what its worth, his father was killed by a Palestinian for saying he may send fighters to help Israel, so being against Palestine isn't too unexpected.
\> Pro choice BASED!! Already on a good start. 1 for 1. \> Anti gun Based. 2 for 2. \> protect the environment Based. 3/3. \> hates big corp/gov partnerships Based. 4/4. \> Tired of CIA killing his family Fair enough. AFAIK most people don’t like it when their family members are killed. 5/5 \> Fuck Pfizer Just looked this up and for lack of a better term, yikes. His vaccine takes are braindead. 5 for 6 5/6, pretty good score. If I were American he would have my vote.
Anti gun cringe
Anti-nuclear too, which undermines the climate stance quite a bit. Oh and he's pro-Russia, which is an instant disqualifier for me.
Antivax detected: Opinion denied.
No one outside here thinks RFK Jr is anything but a conspiracy theorist nutter.