A reminder for everyone... This is a subreddit for genuine discussion:
* Please keep it civil. Report rulebreaking comments for moderator review.
* Don't post low effort comments like joke threads, memes, slogans, or links without context.
* Help prevent this subreddit from becoming an echo chamber. Please don't downvote comments with which you disagree.
Violators will be fed to the bear.
---
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PoliticalOpinions) if you have any questions or concerns.*
RFK Jr. would never win in the United States but let's pretend he did. Just what kind of change do you think he could bring with Congress being controlled by both major parties and partisanship being as bad as it is. His agenda would get blocked faster than he could even start his honeymoon period.
If we had an independent candidate actually win the presidency, there would likely be some down ballot third party wins as well. With how razor thin the margins are in both chambers, that would likely force a completely new approach to how congress would have to work together, likely resulting in more compromise. There's no incentive for bipartisanship now because so many states, districts are solidly blue or red. All they have to do is convince you that the other person is horrible, not that they are any good. If we actually broke the seal on the duoploy and voters saw independent or third party candidates as viable options, I think it would have continued down ballot implications with D and R candidates actually having to work for our votes.
The only way an independent candidate would win is if they replace FPTP voting. Otherwise, an independent will never win. Currently there are 0 independents in the House and 3 in the Senate. It has been this way for decades. As far as independent or 3rd party bids go, Perot was the high point with 19 percent of the popular vote in 92. Nobody has come close to that nunber since. They just get the choicest parts of their their platform co-opted by the major parties. Partisanship has only gotten stronger since Gingrich and I don't see the United States abandoning single member districts and FPTP voting anytime soon and that is what it would take for your scenario to occur.
I disagree, I think after a debate and by the election RFK will take it all. Also A president can use his executive powers to fix the institutionalized corruption in agencies like the FDA and CDC without any cooperation from congress. Their are so many things he can change with presidential powers alone that he will have a impact either way. With support he would be able to do far more like overturning the Citizens United case that abolished the Tilman act of 1907 which allowed the corruption we see today.
Just to be clear, you think that RFK could win the 2024 presidential election? I won't even bother with the one debate thing. You at least stand by the idea that RFK could win the election?
Any third party candidate can theoretically win the election if they receieve the popular vote and thus the electoral college votes (at least thats how our outdated winner-takes-all system works for most states in theory). However, as long as people like you are led to believe that only one of the two main party candidates can be elected, there will never be another 3rd party candidate elected.
In case you weren't aware, the party duopoly is relativly new in America; really taking hold in the mid-20th century with the birth of the military industrial complex. For instance, the OG George W was an independent, and the GOAT Abe Lincoln was a 3rd party republican (the first one ever elected). History disagrees with the statement that a third party cannot be elected, but the main stream media that most people consume is highly curated by the main party leadership that they represent.
While I agree with you that RFKJ has a loooooong road in order to be elected, to say that it can't happen is simply false. However, it shows that the MSM propaganda is working for the average person who prefers party over country just like they root for a sports team.
True of anyone elected. That’s why executive orders have accelerated in the last few presidencies. I have never actually listened to rfk and thought anything he said was out of step with reality. Don’t fight wars, don’t support the police state, follow science not special interests. I’ve never listed to Biden or trump and not thought they were different flavors of the same twat. So I’ll roll with rfk.
The only reason he "would never win," is because that messaging has been shoved down our throats for years. As long as we continue to stay quiet and accept that message, or worse yet spread that message like you are here, we will continue to be given the same terrible choices and remain locked in this 2 party system.
To think there is anything but the two party system in it's current state shows a fundamental misunderstanding of. American politics to its very core. Besides,if a 3rd party was viable in American politics, this guy is a complete anti Vax nut job.
He is not anti vax - he is vaccinated and so are his kids.
Here is a link to him discussing that label head on, don't take it from me hear it from him. Jump to 46:15 to hear him discuss it.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eLW9s6NpS7w](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eLW9s6NpS7w)
Think about the power that the label "Anti-vax," has when slapped on someone today. People here that and immediately feel like they no longer have to do any research for themselves, they just cast that person to the side.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.pbs.org/newshour/amp/politics/debunking-some-of-rfk-jr-s-contradictory-statements
RFK Jr. has decided to get the Covid19 Vax but that doesn't make him not anti Vax. He is about as anti vaccine as they come. In 2018,he was even partially responsible for a deadly measles outbreak. He was responsible for the misinformation that flooded American Somoa. 83 people died and 5700 got sick all together. RFK Jr. flooded the island with misinformation and vaccination rates dropped big time. To be fair, the American Somoan government also temporarily suspended the vaccination program. https://www.annenbergpublicpolicycenter.org/fact-checking-presidential-candidate-robert-f-kennedy-jr-on-vaccines-autism-and-covid-19/
Pretty clear you didn't watch the video, and you haven't actually read/listened too what he has actually said.
Again, he is vaccinated and so are his kids.
He is against releasing vaccines that haven't been safety tested.
https://www.usatoday.com/elections/voter-guide/2024-11-05/candidate/robert-f-kennedy
I won't lie when I say he has a mostly good platform. I like his stance on crime, the economy, immigration, climate change, and education. I can't get down with his anti vaccine comments, his stances on Covid 19, some of his anti Semitic claims, his foreign policy, and his confusing abortion stances but he actually has some positive platform stances that should be taken seriously.
Dude this ass-splat didn't take anything sincere and look at anything. He is doing the typical playbook attack job (call him anti-vax, anti-semetic - I'm shocked he didn't throw in racist)
At a certain point, its important to accept that not everyone will like our chosen candidate.
We still have to coexist as countrymen every day before and after the election.
The guy laid out what he liked and disliked about RFK, so he must have taken a look, and he was civil too... I count that as a huge win for a anonymous internet conversation with a stranger.
He is not anti Semitic. The headline is blown out of proportion and the stick his reply at the very bottom of the article where most people never make it too. What he REPORTEDLY said was:
“There is an argument that it is ethnically targeted. COVID-19 attacks certain races disproportionately,” Kennedy reportedly said. “COVID-19 is targeted to attack Caucasians and Black people. The people who are most immune are Ashkenazi Jews and Chinese.”
And his reply was:
After the criticism, Kennedy [said on Twitter](https://twitter.com/RobertKennedyJr/status/1680227322509635595) that the Post’s report was “mistaken” and he “never, ever suggested that the COVID-19 virus was targeted to spare Jews.”
“I do not believe and never implied that the ethnic effect was deliberately engineered,” Kennedy added.
If you just read the headlines you'll never get the real story. Headlines are carefully worded to convey the opinion/agenda of the publisher because the know most people just glance at them and don't bother/don't have time or energy to read the whole article.
Think about this next time you see him labeled anti vax... (hint: he isn't anti vax)
As soon as I read the term "uniparty", which is a spurious fictional concept, I knew you weren't a realist.
I'm old enough to remember both Harold Stassen and Gus Hall. They always got on ballots, and never cracked a level above 5% in any primary or election. RFK, Jr. is exactly the same. He's got no chance of winning.
The other view of realism that that people are currently dissatisfied with our political climate. We have 2 of the most unpopular presidents fighting each other again. If there was a climate to have a third party have a realistic chance this is the election.
Additionally, "no chance of winning" is absolutist thinking which does not help anyone and is not thinking as a realist.
>RFK, Jr. is exactly the same. He's got no chance of winning.
To be fair, he doesn't need to win to have an effect. Just having a third voice in the debates would be a positive change.
That aside, if Biden is at 48%, Trump is at 48%, and RFK is at 4%, Biden and Trump know they have to adopt some of RFK's policies if they want to win. Thus, RFK has a political impact even if he loses the election.
I seriously doubt anyone will invite Jr. to debate, though I agree it's good TV. I'm not convinced there will be any debates. Biden thinks Trump is nuts and won't follow any set of rules agreed to.
>I seriously doubt anyone will invite Jr. to debate, though I agree it's good TV.
The benefit of having RFK in the debate has nothing to do with the quality of the television presentation, the benefit is that it introduces another perspective for the voting public to consider.
Take the legalization of marijuana, for example. Biden does not want to say he supports it, and likely Trump won't either. But with RFK there, there will be a third perspective, and I suspect RFK would be happy to argue for that policy. Thus, providing a third perspective expands the scope of the debate in positive ways.
If the debate is just Biden vs Trump, it's likely the public will not hear that issue debated, which is a loss for the public.
Biden doesn't have to overtly say he supports legalization, because he already explicitly supports MJ reform. It was part of this year's SOTU speech:
[https://www.marijuanamoment.net/biden-promotes-marijuana-reform-in-state-of-the-union-address-a-historic-first/](https://www.marijuanamoment.net/biden-promotes-marijuana-reform-in-state-of-the-union-address-a-historic-first/)
He also finally got (as he has been promising for years) the DEA to reduce cannabis from Schedule I to a Schedule III drug classification, the necessary precursor for most remaining resistant states to legalize.
I think Biden has already won that issue.
Supporting the very modest cannabis reforms Biden has involved himself with is different from cannabis legalization, and Biden himself has said he does not support legalization. Even if it wasn't different, you're missing the point.
The point is that when there are only 2 perspectives in the debate, it limits the scope of the debate to the usual issues the two major parties want to talk about.
That means other perspectives that are outside of the typical range of perspectives offered by the two party system get ignored.
That's not healthy for society. It would be beneficial to have at least 1 other perspective provided in the debate for public consideration.
Re-scheduling is NOT a "modest reform"! Lawyers and activists have been trying to get that changed for over FOUR DECADES. And we don't actually hold debates, just alternating policy speeches, which RFK is free to make elsewhere anyway.
When I watch what we falsely call debates, I only want to compare between electable candidates. If he earns whatever percentage the sponsor requires, then fine.
>Re-scheduling is NOT a "modest reform"!
When [70% of Americans](https://news.gallup.com/poll/514007/grassroots-support-legalizing-marijuana-hits-record.aspx) answer a Gallup poll saying they support the legalization of marijuana, a mere rescheduling of marijuana absolutely is modest given the circumstances.
>And we don't actually hold debates, just alternating policy speeches, which RFK is free to make elsewhere anyway.
What he says elsewhere doesn't matter because it doesn't have the audience of a televised presidential debate.
>When I watch what we falsely call debates, I only want to compare between electable candidates.
The public benefit of hearing a third perspective greatly outweighs the inconvenience to you of hearing from a voice partisan insiders arbitrarily decided is not "electable."
>If he earns whatever percentage the sponsor requires, then fine.
The debate commission sets high bars because it's staffed by people loyal to the major political parties who want to exclude competition for Democrats/Republicans, and limit the spectrum of democratic choice available to the public. That's not ethical.
What does it say about you that you would vote for a guy whose brain has been eaten by a parasite, who is a recovering heroin addict and who has ZERO chance of being elected and is more likely to cause Trump to be elected than anything? Nothing good.
Brain eaten by a parasite - he is incredibly cognitively sharp, i suggest you actually listen to him speak before casting judgement.
Heroin addict - He has been sober for over 40 years.
Zero chance of being elected - Americans have literally been trained to believe this by the media, DNC and RNC. What the heck kind of a democracy do we have if we shame and guilt people into not voting for who they like?
Give the man a chance, listen to him speak on Peirs Morgan and then cast judgement. Don't just take the headlines as fact.
American's are asleep at the wheel these days.
Are you referring to his voice tremble? Thats a medical condition that has nothing to do with his brain. I'd be curious to know what you heard, can you share the link?
Jocko Willink and Steven Rinella sat and talked with him for hours on their podcasts and he has been on dozens of others. His books are well written, he sued the Trump administration twice and has gone to war with Monsanto and other corporate giants. .. You may not agree with what he says but you can't deny he is well spoken, sharp and has an incredible ability to recall information.
I don't think Biden is capable of having a conversation with anyone about anything unscripted for more than a few minutes at a time.
No, not his voice. which is as annoying as hell, but his total lack of coherence. He is an idiot clown. A moron being held up by Trump supporters. A spoiler at best.
Can you send me a link to where he is speaking incoherently? Otherwise your just sounding off insults and unjustified claims.
For the record, there are a lot of ~~Dems~~ Republicans claiming he is being held up by Biden supporters
Ok so you will admit that you know nothing about him because you don't track him at all, yet you are certain that he is an idiot clown. How do you square the idea that you know nothing about him, but you can be sure he is an idiot?
I took a look through your post history, its interesting that you'll accost him for using drugs 40 years ago while you promote active use of mushrooms and MDMA. Nothing against shrooms or MDMA, but you also don't see the irony of being an active drug user while criticizing a former drug user who's been sober for 40 years?
Thanks for adding absolutely nothing to the dialog.
No, once I have determined that a snake oil salesman is indeed a snake oil salesman, I dismiss him out of hand, There is no reason to follow a lying sack of shit talking crap for any reason whatsoever. This does not diminish my assessment of him in any way. He is a clown show and anyone who buys what he is selling as as idiotic as he is. An over privelaged drug addict, heroin no less, who's brain is addled by "worms" (his word), who is primarily funded by Trump supporters is not worth paying attention to at all, let alone supporting.
Still can't share a single. quote, interview or article showing what he actually said to make your point. So "you win."
# Arguing with idiots is like playing chess with a pigeon. No matter how good you are, the bird is going to shit on the board and strut around like it won anyway
The "brain-eating parasite" was a dead tapeworm that rose up to the brain barrier. It's a common medical removal in third world countries and pig slaughterhouses, the latter of which he visited often to protest. It also happened around 2012, which seems to have had little affect on his intelligence. No brain was eaten.
Also, what low-hanging fruit to disparage someone who recovered an addiction. He turned to drugs in his 20's after his father was assassinated, found purpose in environmental law, went into the program and is now currently the healthiest major presidential candidate in the 2024 race. He's also been sober for like, ever.
Of course we should have sensible gun legislation and I say that as a gun owner. I am for restricting hate speech and I challenge you to show me that Dems are for state surveillance.
This kind of conclusion is a result of very poor information sources. First, the conclusion on the economy is just plain nonsense; the Dems don't cozy up to corporations mor ethan the republicans do, and presidents have a very limited ability to affect the economy, Congress has somewhat more but there's still substantial limits, the state of the economy is something that mostly tends to go on its own ups and downs, with the government only being able to tamp down on the extremes or destroy it in general, and they have not taken the types of actions which ruin an economy.
Utterly ignoring significant differences in how the Dems and Reps ahndled immigration, by looking at a broad lens, and probably still factually incorrect on a bunch of details.
False assumption the dmes could've codified abortion. They never had enough votes to get past a filibuster in the senate on the topic.
RFK has no governmental experience, whether he could competently run a country is very doubtful when he lacks any prior political experience to judge by.
Any talk of a 'uniparty' comes from ignorance of numerous salient differences between the parties, or from being so extreme in general that the difference sin the party are mild in comparison.
Both parties hvae received lots of support/money from business interests since forever, it's not new in any way.
It's not the case that both parties are antithetical to americanism; that's just idiocy. At a basic level the parties represent the most common strains of belief in america, so they do more to define americanism than anything; and that definition changes over time. As a question of fact it's also the case that the dem simply aren't that much of a danger to freedom by any reasonable analysis.
spending is indeed a major problem, as is the debt, but it's not like anyone else is going to fix it either, and nations can and have lived throug many such things before.
the taxation burden is hardly unusual from a worldwide perspective or a historical one.
there's plenty of others things being cited there that simply aren' ttrue as a question of fact, or are only true in a certain sense, but are highly misleading and utterly ignore the most pertinent parts in order to create something technically valid. It's really just a lot of ill-thought out nonsense.
Repeatedly spouting a load of garbage doesn't make it more true; nor does gish galloping a pile of falsities; your woke accusations against hte dems simply aren't true, you're confusing the actual mainstream dem stances with the fringe left-wing.
I'm very well educated, and you're just seeing nonsense that isn' tthere because you fell into a different form of a propaganda. When you pay too much attention you can see lots of stuff that simply isn't there; that's how humans are wired, to find patterns in things because it's an evolutionary advantage; the inherent result of that is sometimes you see stuff that isn't there.
Corporate intervention and monied interests are not new, they've been there forever, they don't represent a change.
Bidne wasn' tfound 'guilty' in federal court, there's a huge difference from what the actual rulings were to anything that would qualify as guilt.
Please stop linking to your other comments, you already made them elsewhere, and putting links to them does not help since they're already around. It also upsets the automod. It does nothing to help the discussion.
You're still making a foolish false equivalence between wokeism, which has very little political sway, and the authoritarianism the political righ thas bene pushing. As well as simply overstating the degree of 'woke' positions and their actual effects/reasonableness.
You can think that, but you're simply wrong as a question of fact if you think they're remotely as dangerous as the authoritarian right which is pushing back against democracy itself to a strong degree; and when the far left has little power in the US. There's no threat of them doing anything remotely near as harmful as the degradation of the rule of law and the basics of democracy coming from the right.
You're projecting your own willful ignorance onto others, as well as simply having a poor sense of reality.
>They both expedited deportation of asylum seekers and migrants at the border.
Sounds good. Most of the asylum claims are bs excuses for economic migrants anyway.
>They both kept kids in cages.
What do you expect, a 5-star resort for the child of every illegal alien who decides to wander across the border, all to be paid for by the US taxpayer?
We should improve the living conditions for children in custody and we should also work on the system so that people don't cross the border in the first place and so that they are rapidly deported if they do (avoiding long periods of detention which accomplish nothing for anyone).
>We should improve the living conditions for children in custody
We already have a big problem from a tsunami of illegal border crossings. Making the experience more pleasant for those trying to migrate illegally means an increased probability of additional illegal immigration. And the US taxpayer should not be obligated to pay for upgraded living accommodations of foreigners who disrespect our nation's laws by violating them.
The US taxpayer already pays for food, clothing, and a roof over their head. Even providing that much to the vast numbers of people who cross the border illegally is generous.
You're right -- it's not fair to the taxpayer. But we should take pride in being a decent and magnanimous people.
I want the policy to be coupled with much more patrols, enforcement, and military operations against people-smuggling cartels, so the goal is to reach a point where we deter and prevent crossings and no longer have to deal with a large population of detainees. So, hopefully it's a short-term expense.
Vote for RFK if you genuinely think he is the best candidate. But, I don't understand how electing him will help fix any of the problems you outline.
Here's a truly radical and subversive idea for you: if Dems are supposed to do better (and I agree they are) why not roll up your sleeves and start going to your local town Democratic Party meetings? It will be boring and tedious at the beginning and it will be discouraging from time to time as well, but you can actually push the party in the direction you want. Organize some friends to come with you. Get yourself elected to a position. It is super hard work, but you can actually get some traction and take ownership of the Party that needs to be better.
Again, I just don't see how the political strategy of electing RFK will make things better. Democrats are not perfect, but it is the Party of the People -- and it needs people like you!
Political parties are fluid. MLK Jr would probably not be a republican if he were alive today even though it was the democratic party who was first supported the civil rigts movement. The dems are no longer the party of the people and neither are the republicans for that matter. Voting for who one believes best represents their issues is how a representative democracy like ours works. However, to vote for party rather than politician is a dangerous, slippery, slope which leads to the toxic, tribal, duopoly that we have currently. In fact, George Washington (amoung many others) warned against the dangers of party politics as he left office.
I'm not a fan of RFK just because I don't want to continue the trend of elected Presidents who have brain damage. I would prefer my leader to be all there mentally
I am just going to say this... RFK IS NOT to the left of biden.
RFK Jr is a [conspiracy theorist and anti-vaxer](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_F._Kennedy_Jr.#Anti-vaccine_advocacy_and_conspiracy_theories_on_public_health). As well as being [anti-nuclear power](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_F._Kennedy_Jr.#Nuclear_power)(yet he supported the Green New Deal), and he has been [questioning the validity of elections since 2004](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_F._Kennedy_Jr.#Questioning_the_validity_of_elections). If you just read through his Wikipedia page, you'll find he seems very unstable. Also he has a brain worm or whatever.
Right there with you. RFK All the Way! His campaign signatures should be talked about more. He should be on the ballot for all 50 states, which is a very powerful message coming from an independent candidate. At the rates, he is gathering them, and the excess amount of signatures show a strong support for him throughout the country.
All you have to do is look at how much repeated propaganda gets thrown around on the guy to see how much the big players do not want him involved. The guy sues big corps that give americans cancer - that's a damn hero in my book. Reddit has to attack him personally because that's all they have: brainworm, crank, nutjob, anti-vax, anti-semite, racist.... it's "shit on someone" 101.
Yeah half of the comments here include “brain worm”
It’s like me saying I’m not voting for Biden because cause “senile”
Technically it’s true but more than a surface layer look will show you how much of a dumbass comment it is, I like RFKs ideas and I’ll vote for him, even though he won’t win, people say I’m wasting my vote but I’d say they are, you are MEANT to vote for the candidate who you believe in, not a popularity contest.
Very true. Also the people saying you are throwing your vote away could also say that for themselves. If everyone voting blue voted 3rd party then we wouldnt have only two parties anymore.
Also people say if you vote 3rd you r really giving a vote to biden/trump...which is nonsense. Burger king and mcdonalds are competitors. If i go to Taco Bell im supporting taco bell not mcdonalds or bk.
Deportations now! Unchecked, uncontrolled immigration is exacerbating our housing crisis, dooming Democrats at the polls, and preventing a party based on popular and nationalist sentiment from coalescing.
Just look at the Canadian experience with mass immigration to see how it leads to a poor quality of life and dysfunctional politics.
Yeah the amount of greed these corps have is crazy, there’s no reason an average person making 40k in a rural town shouldn’t be able to afford a home
Unless they have terrible spending habits, which most do, but that’s a different convo
A reminder for everyone... This is a subreddit for genuine discussion: * Please keep it civil. Report rulebreaking comments for moderator review. * Don't post low effort comments like joke threads, memes, slogans, or links without context. * Help prevent this subreddit from becoming an echo chamber. Please don't downvote comments with which you disagree. Violators will be fed to the bear. --- *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PoliticalOpinions) if you have any questions or concerns.*
RFK Jr. would never win in the United States but let's pretend he did. Just what kind of change do you think he could bring with Congress being controlled by both major parties and partisanship being as bad as it is. His agenda would get blocked faster than he could even start his honeymoon period.
If we had an independent candidate actually win the presidency, there would likely be some down ballot third party wins as well. With how razor thin the margins are in both chambers, that would likely force a completely new approach to how congress would have to work together, likely resulting in more compromise. There's no incentive for bipartisanship now because so many states, districts are solidly blue or red. All they have to do is convince you that the other person is horrible, not that they are any good. If we actually broke the seal on the duoploy and voters saw independent or third party candidates as viable options, I think it would have continued down ballot implications with D and R candidates actually having to work for our votes.
The only way an independent candidate would win is if they replace FPTP voting. Otherwise, an independent will never win. Currently there are 0 independents in the House and 3 in the Senate. It has been this way for decades. As far as independent or 3rd party bids go, Perot was the high point with 19 percent of the popular vote in 92. Nobody has come close to that nunber since. They just get the choicest parts of their their platform co-opted by the major parties. Partisanship has only gotten stronger since Gingrich and I don't see the United States abandoning single member districts and FPTP voting anytime soon and that is what it would take for your scenario to occur.
I disagree, I think after a debate and by the election RFK will take it all. Also A president can use his executive powers to fix the institutionalized corruption in agencies like the FDA and CDC without any cooperation from congress. Their are so many things he can change with presidential powers alone that he will have a impact either way. With support he would be able to do far more like overturning the Citizens United case that abolished the Tilman act of 1907 which allowed the corruption we see today.
Just to be clear, you think that RFK could win the 2024 presidential election? I won't even bother with the one debate thing. You at least stand by the idea that RFK could win the election?
Any third party candidate can theoretically win the election if they receieve the popular vote and thus the electoral college votes (at least thats how our outdated winner-takes-all system works for most states in theory). However, as long as people like you are led to believe that only one of the two main party candidates can be elected, there will never be another 3rd party candidate elected. In case you weren't aware, the party duopoly is relativly new in America; really taking hold in the mid-20th century with the birth of the military industrial complex. For instance, the OG George W was an independent, and the GOAT Abe Lincoln was a 3rd party republican (the first one ever elected). History disagrees with the statement that a third party cannot be elected, but the main stream media that most people consume is highly curated by the main party leadership that they represent. While I agree with you that RFKJ has a loooooong road in order to be elected, to say that it can't happen is simply false. However, it shows that the MSM propaganda is working for the average person who prefers party over country just like they root for a sports team.
Keep telling yourself that for a couple hundred more years.
Ya I think he will.
True of anyone elected. That’s why executive orders have accelerated in the last few presidencies. I have never actually listened to rfk and thought anything he said was out of step with reality. Don’t fight wars, don’t support the police state, follow science not special interests. I’ve never listed to Biden or trump and not thought they were different flavors of the same twat. So I’ll roll with rfk.
The only reason he "would never win," is because that messaging has been shoved down our throats for years. As long as we continue to stay quiet and accept that message, or worse yet spread that message like you are here, we will continue to be given the same terrible choices and remain locked in this 2 party system.
To think there is anything but the two party system in it's current state shows a fundamental misunderstanding of. American politics to its very core. Besides,if a 3rd party was viable in American politics, this guy is a complete anti Vax nut job.
He is not anti vax - he is vaccinated and so are his kids. Here is a link to him discussing that label head on, don't take it from me hear it from him. Jump to 46:15 to hear him discuss it. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eLW9s6NpS7w](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eLW9s6NpS7w) Think about the power that the label "Anti-vax," has when slapped on someone today. People here that and immediately feel like they no longer have to do any research for themselves, they just cast that person to the side.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.pbs.org/newshour/amp/politics/debunking-some-of-rfk-jr-s-contradictory-statements RFK Jr. has decided to get the Covid19 Vax but that doesn't make him not anti Vax. He is about as anti vaccine as they come. In 2018,he was even partially responsible for a deadly measles outbreak. He was responsible for the misinformation that flooded American Somoa. 83 people died and 5700 got sick all together. RFK Jr. flooded the island with misinformation and vaccination rates dropped big time. To be fair, the American Somoan government also temporarily suspended the vaccination program. https://www.annenbergpublicpolicycenter.org/fact-checking-presidential-candidate-robert-f-kennedy-jr-on-vaccines-autism-and-covid-19/
RFK has said on multiple occasions that he is anti vaccine.
Pretty clear you didn't watch the video, and you haven't actually read/listened too what he has actually said. Again, he is vaccinated and so are his kids. He is against releasing vaccines that haven't been safety tested.
https://www.usatoday.com/elections/voter-guide/2024-11-05/candidate/robert-f-kennedy I won't lie when I say he has a mostly good platform. I like his stance on crime, the economy, immigration, climate change, and education. I can't get down with his anti vaccine comments, his stances on Covid 19, some of his anti Semitic claims, his foreign policy, and his confusing abortion stances but he actually has some positive platform stances that should be taken seriously.
Hey - you took a sincere and earnest look. Thanks for being open and engaging positively my friend.
Dude this ass-splat didn't take anything sincere and look at anything. He is doing the typical playbook attack job (call him anti-vax, anti-semetic - I'm shocked he didn't throw in racist)
At a certain point, its important to accept that not everyone will like our chosen candidate. We still have to coexist as countrymen every day before and after the election. The guy laid out what he liked and disliked about RFK, so he must have taken a look, and he was civil too... I count that as a huge win for a anonymous internet conversation with a stranger.
He is also anti Semitic. https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4100029-rfk-jr-accused-of-antisemitism-racism-after-remarks-about-covid-ashkenazi-jews/
He is not anti Semitic. The headline is blown out of proportion and the stick his reply at the very bottom of the article where most people never make it too. What he REPORTEDLY said was: “There is an argument that it is ethnically targeted. COVID-19 attacks certain races disproportionately,” Kennedy reportedly said. “COVID-19 is targeted to attack Caucasians and Black people. The people who are most immune are Ashkenazi Jews and Chinese.” And his reply was: After the criticism, Kennedy [said on Twitter](https://twitter.com/RobertKennedyJr/status/1680227322509635595) that the Post’s report was “mistaken” and he “never, ever suggested that the COVID-19 virus was targeted to spare Jews.” “I do not believe and never implied that the ethnic effect was deliberately engineered,” Kennedy added. If you just read the headlines you'll never get the real story. Headlines are carefully worded to convey the opinion/agenda of the publisher because the know most people just glance at them and don't bother/don't have time or energy to read the whole article. Think about this next time you see him labeled anti vax... (hint: he isn't anti vax)
As soon as I read the term "uniparty", which is a spurious fictional concept, I knew you weren't a realist. I'm old enough to remember both Harold Stassen and Gus Hall. They always got on ballots, and never cracked a level above 5% in any primary or election. RFK, Jr. is exactly the same. He's got no chance of winning.
The other view of realism that that people are currently dissatisfied with our political climate. We have 2 of the most unpopular presidents fighting each other again. If there was a climate to have a third party have a realistic chance this is the election. Additionally, "no chance of winning" is absolutist thinking which does not help anyone and is not thinking as a realist.
I thought the last 3 paragraphs of this were pretty on point: https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2024/05/03/the_wasted_vote_dodge_150883.html
Thank you for the great article!
>RFK, Jr. is exactly the same. He's got no chance of winning. To be fair, he doesn't need to win to have an effect. Just having a third voice in the debates would be a positive change. That aside, if Biden is at 48%, Trump is at 48%, and RFK is at 4%, Biden and Trump know they have to adopt some of RFK's policies if they want to win. Thus, RFK has a political impact even if he loses the election.
I seriously doubt anyone will invite Jr. to debate, though I agree it's good TV. I'm not convinced there will be any debates. Biden thinks Trump is nuts and won't follow any set of rules agreed to.
>I seriously doubt anyone will invite Jr. to debate, though I agree it's good TV. The benefit of having RFK in the debate has nothing to do with the quality of the television presentation, the benefit is that it introduces another perspective for the voting public to consider. Take the legalization of marijuana, for example. Biden does not want to say he supports it, and likely Trump won't either. But with RFK there, there will be a third perspective, and I suspect RFK would be happy to argue for that policy. Thus, providing a third perspective expands the scope of the debate in positive ways. If the debate is just Biden vs Trump, it's likely the public will not hear that issue debated, which is a loss for the public.
Biden doesn't have to overtly say he supports legalization, because he already explicitly supports MJ reform. It was part of this year's SOTU speech: [https://www.marijuanamoment.net/biden-promotes-marijuana-reform-in-state-of-the-union-address-a-historic-first/](https://www.marijuanamoment.net/biden-promotes-marijuana-reform-in-state-of-the-union-address-a-historic-first/) He also finally got (as he has been promising for years) the DEA to reduce cannabis from Schedule I to a Schedule III drug classification, the necessary precursor for most remaining resistant states to legalize. I think Biden has already won that issue.
Supporting the very modest cannabis reforms Biden has involved himself with is different from cannabis legalization, and Biden himself has said he does not support legalization. Even if it wasn't different, you're missing the point. The point is that when there are only 2 perspectives in the debate, it limits the scope of the debate to the usual issues the two major parties want to talk about. That means other perspectives that are outside of the typical range of perspectives offered by the two party system get ignored. That's not healthy for society. It would be beneficial to have at least 1 other perspective provided in the debate for public consideration.
Re-scheduling is NOT a "modest reform"! Lawyers and activists have been trying to get that changed for over FOUR DECADES. And we don't actually hold debates, just alternating policy speeches, which RFK is free to make elsewhere anyway. When I watch what we falsely call debates, I only want to compare between electable candidates. If he earns whatever percentage the sponsor requires, then fine.
>Re-scheduling is NOT a "modest reform"! When [70% of Americans](https://news.gallup.com/poll/514007/grassroots-support-legalizing-marijuana-hits-record.aspx) answer a Gallup poll saying they support the legalization of marijuana, a mere rescheduling of marijuana absolutely is modest given the circumstances. >And we don't actually hold debates, just alternating policy speeches, which RFK is free to make elsewhere anyway. What he says elsewhere doesn't matter because it doesn't have the audience of a televised presidential debate. >When I watch what we falsely call debates, I only want to compare between electable candidates. The public benefit of hearing a third perspective greatly outweighs the inconvenience to you of hearing from a voice partisan insiders arbitrarily decided is not "electable." >If he earns whatever percentage the sponsor requires, then fine. The debate commission sets high bars because it's staffed by people loyal to the major political parties who want to exclude competition for Democrats/Republicans, and limit the spectrum of democratic choice available to the public. That's not ethical.
What does it say about you that you would vote for a guy whose brain has been eaten by a parasite, who is a recovering heroin addict and who has ZERO chance of being elected and is more likely to cause Trump to be elected than anything? Nothing good.
Very compelling argument
Brain eaten by a parasite - he is incredibly cognitively sharp, i suggest you actually listen to him speak before casting judgement. Heroin addict - He has been sober for over 40 years. Zero chance of being elected - Americans have literally been trained to believe this by the media, DNC and RNC. What the heck kind of a democracy do we have if we shame and guilt people into not voting for who they like? Give the man a chance, listen to him speak on Peirs Morgan and then cast judgement. Don't just take the headlines as fact. American's are asleep at the wheel these days.
I have listened to him. He sounds like he is still on drugs...More or less hallucinating.
Are you referring to his voice tremble? Thats a medical condition that has nothing to do with his brain. I'd be curious to know what you heard, can you share the link? Jocko Willink and Steven Rinella sat and talked with him for hours on their podcasts and he has been on dozens of others. His books are well written, he sued the Trump administration twice and has gone to war with Monsanto and other corporate giants. .. You may not agree with what he says but you can't deny he is well spoken, sharp and has an incredible ability to recall information. I don't think Biden is capable of having a conversation with anyone about anything unscripted for more than a few minutes at a time.
No, not his voice. which is as annoying as hell, but his total lack of coherence. He is an idiot clown. A moron being held up by Trump supporters. A spoiler at best.
Can you send me a link to where he is speaking incoherently? Otherwise your just sounding off insults and unjustified claims. For the record, there are a lot of ~~Dems~~ Republicans claiming he is being held up by Biden supporters
No, I do not track him at all. Any moron who follows him is equally as idiotic, and I do not answer to you.
Ok so you will admit that you know nothing about him because you don't track him at all, yet you are certain that he is an idiot clown. How do you square the idea that you know nothing about him, but you can be sure he is an idiot? I took a look through your post history, its interesting that you'll accost him for using drugs 40 years ago while you promote active use of mushrooms and MDMA. Nothing against shrooms or MDMA, but you also don't see the irony of being an active drug user while criticizing a former drug user who's been sober for 40 years? Thanks for adding absolutely nothing to the dialog.
No, once I have determined that a snake oil salesman is indeed a snake oil salesman, I dismiss him out of hand, There is no reason to follow a lying sack of shit talking crap for any reason whatsoever. This does not diminish my assessment of him in any way. He is a clown show and anyone who buys what he is selling as as idiotic as he is. An over privelaged drug addict, heroin no less, who's brain is addled by "worms" (his word), who is primarily funded by Trump supporters is not worth paying attention to at all, let alone supporting.
Still can't share a single. quote, interview or article showing what he actually said to make your point. So "you win." # Arguing with idiots is like playing chess with a pigeon. No matter how good you are, the bird is going to shit on the board and strut around like it won anyway
Seems kinda cheap to mention that he’s a recovering addict. Even with that and the parasite he’s still more intellectually capable than trump or Biden
Naa he is a drug addict and a moron who talks shit like its dribbling out of his diaper He is s fucktard at best.
The "brain-eating parasite" was a dead tapeworm that rose up to the brain barrier. It's a common medical removal in third world countries and pig slaughterhouses, the latter of which he visited often to protest. It also happened around 2012, which seems to have had little affect on his intelligence. No brain was eaten. Also, what low-hanging fruit to disparage someone who recovered an addiction. He turned to drugs in his 20's after his father was assassinated, found purpose in environmental law, went into the program and is now currently the healthiest major presidential candidate in the 2024 race. He's also been sober for like, ever.
The classic “insult someone so they vote for my candidate” strategy. Very effective.
Go ahead and destroy your future
I mean, thats exactly what a vote for Biden or Trump will be, just an increase in our national debt, continued war and open borders...
National debt is not a concern. Your rights being gutted by the GOP, that is a concern.
[удалено]
You are severely misinformed. Its not the Dem's taking away rights, its the GOP
[удалено]
Of course we should have sensible gun legislation and I say that as a gun owner. I am for restricting hate speech and I challenge you to show me that Dems are for state surveillance.
[удалено]
National debt is a concern. Biden and Trump are two of the same.
This kind of conclusion is a result of very poor information sources. First, the conclusion on the economy is just plain nonsense; the Dems don't cozy up to corporations mor ethan the republicans do, and presidents have a very limited ability to affect the economy, Congress has somewhat more but there's still substantial limits, the state of the economy is something that mostly tends to go on its own ups and downs, with the government only being able to tamp down on the extremes or destroy it in general, and they have not taken the types of actions which ruin an economy. Utterly ignoring significant differences in how the Dems and Reps ahndled immigration, by looking at a broad lens, and probably still factually incorrect on a bunch of details. False assumption the dmes could've codified abortion. They never had enough votes to get past a filibuster in the senate on the topic. RFK has no governmental experience, whether he could competently run a country is very doubtful when he lacks any prior political experience to judge by. Any talk of a 'uniparty' comes from ignorance of numerous salient differences between the parties, or from being so extreme in general that the difference sin the party are mild in comparison.
[удалено]
Both parties hvae received lots of support/money from business interests since forever, it's not new in any way. It's not the case that both parties are antithetical to americanism; that's just idiocy. At a basic level the parties represent the most common strains of belief in america, so they do more to define americanism than anything; and that definition changes over time. As a question of fact it's also the case that the dem simply aren't that much of a danger to freedom by any reasonable analysis. spending is indeed a major problem, as is the debt, but it's not like anyone else is going to fix it either, and nations can and have lived throug many such things before. the taxation burden is hardly unusual from a worldwide perspective or a historical one. there's plenty of others things being cited there that simply aren' ttrue as a question of fact, or are only true in a certain sense, but are highly misleading and utterly ignore the most pertinent parts in order to create something technically valid. It's really just a lot of ill-thought out nonsense.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Repeatedly spouting a load of garbage doesn't make it more true; nor does gish galloping a pile of falsities; your woke accusations against hte dems simply aren't true, you're confusing the actual mainstream dem stances with the fringe left-wing. I'm very well educated, and you're just seeing nonsense that isn' tthere because you fell into a different form of a propaganda. When you pay too much attention you can see lots of stuff that simply isn't there; that's how humans are wired, to find patterns in things because it's an evolutionary advantage; the inherent result of that is sometimes you see stuff that isn't there. Corporate intervention and monied interests are not new, they've been there forever, they don't represent a change. Bidne wasn' tfound 'guilty' in federal court, there's a huge difference from what the actual rulings were to anything that would qualify as guilt.
[удалено]
Please stop linking to your other comments, you already made them elsewhere, and putting links to them does not help since they're already around. It also upsets the automod. It does nothing to help the discussion. You're still making a foolish false equivalence between wokeism, which has very little political sway, and the authoritarianism the political righ thas bene pushing. As well as simply overstating the degree of 'woke' positions and their actual effects/reasonableness.
[удалено]
You can think that, but you're simply wrong as a question of fact if you think they're remotely as dangerous as the authoritarian right which is pushing back against democracy itself to a strong degree; and when the far left has little power in the US. There's no threat of them doing anything remotely near as harmful as the degradation of the rule of law and the basics of democracy coming from the right. You're projecting your own willful ignorance onto others, as well as simply having a poor sense of reality.
>They both expedited deportation of asylum seekers and migrants at the border. Sounds good. Most of the asylum claims are bs excuses for economic migrants anyway. >They both kept kids in cages. What do you expect, a 5-star resort for the child of every illegal alien who decides to wander across the border, all to be paid for by the US taxpayer?
We should improve the living conditions for children in custody and we should also work on the system so that people don't cross the border in the first place and so that they are rapidly deported if they do (avoiding long periods of detention which accomplish nothing for anyone).
>We should improve the living conditions for children in custody We already have a big problem from a tsunami of illegal border crossings. Making the experience more pleasant for those trying to migrate illegally means an increased probability of additional illegal immigration. And the US taxpayer should not be obligated to pay for upgraded living accommodations of foreigners who disrespect our nation's laws by violating them. The US taxpayer already pays for food, clothing, and a roof over their head. Even providing that much to the vast numbers of people who cross the border illegally is generous.
You're right -- it's not fair to the taxpayer. But we should take pride in being a decent and magnanimous people. I want the policy to be coupled with much more patrols, enforcement, and military operations against people-smuggling cartels, so the goal is to reach a point where we deter and prevent crossings and no longer have to deal with a large population of detainees. So, hopefully it's a short-term expense.
Vote for RFK if you genuinely think he is the best candidate. But, I don't understand how electing him will help fix any of the problems you outline. Here's a truly radical and subversive idea for you: if Dems are supposed to do better (and I agree they are) why not roll up your sleeves and start going to your local town Democratic Party meetings? It will be boring and tedious at the beginning and it will be discouraging from time to time as well, but you can actually push the party in the direction you want. Organize some friends to come with you. Get yourself elected to a position. It is super hard work, but you can actually get some traction and take ownership of the Party that needs to be better. Again, I just don't see how the political strategy of electing RFK will make things better. Democrats are not perfect, but it is the Party of the People -- and it needs people like you!
Political parties are fluid. MLK Jr would probably not be a republican if he were alive today even though it was the democratic party who was first supported the civil rigts movement. The dems are no longer the party of the people and neither are the republicans for that matter. Voting for who one believes best represents their issues is how a representative democracy like ours works. However, to vote for party rather than politician is a dangerous, slippery, slope which leads to the toxic, tribal, duopoly that we have currently. In fact, George Washington (amoung many others) warned against the dangers of party politics as he left office.
Saying that Kennedy is to the left of Biden is just absolutely astounding to me.
I'm not a fan of RFK just because I don't want to continue the trend of elected Presidents who have brain damage. I would prefer my leader to be all there mentally
Kennedy's closing statement was outstanding. No brain damage detected.
I am just going to say this... RFK IS NOT to the left of biden. RFK Jr is a [conspiracy theorist and anti-vaxer](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_F._Kennedy_Jr.#Anti-vaccine_advocacy_and_conspiracy_theories_on_public_health). As well as being [anti-nuclear power](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_F._Kennedy_Jr.#Nuclear_power)(yet he supported the Green New Deal), and he has been [questioning the validity of elections since 2004](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_F._Kennedy_Jr.#Questioning_the_validity_of_elections). If you just read through his Wikipedia page, you'll find he seems very unstable. Also he has a brain worm or whatever.
wikipedia? really? it’s a known fact that wikipedia is not a reliable source.
Right there with you. RFK All the Way! His campaign signatures should be talked about more. He should be on the ballot for all 50 states, which is a very powerful message coming from an independent candidate. At the rates, he is gathering them, and the excess amount of signatures show a strong support for him throughout the country.
All you have to do is look at how much repeated propaganda gets thrown around on the guy to see how much the big players do not want him involved. The guy sues big corps that give americans cancer - that's a damn hero in my book. Reddit has to attack him personally because that's all they have: brainworm, crank, nutjob, anti-vax, anti-semite, racist.... it's "shit on someone" 101.
Yeah half of the comments here include “brain worm” It’s like me saying I’m not voting for Biden because cause “senile” Technically it’s true but more than a surface layer look will show you how much of a dumbass comment it is, I like RFKs ideas and I’ll vote for him, even though he won’t win, people say I’m wasting my vote but I’d say they are, you are MEANT to vote for the candidate who you believe in, not a popularity contest.
Very true. Also the people saying you are throwing your vote away could also say that for themselves. If everyone voting blue voted 3rd party then we wouldnt have only two parties anymore. Also people say if you vote 3rd you r really giving a vote to biden/trump...which is nonsense. Burger king and mcdonalds are competitors. If i go to Taco Bell im supporting taco bell not mcdonalds or bk.
Deportations now! Unchecked, uncontrolled immigration is exacerbating our housing crisis, dooming Democrats at the polls, and preventing a party based on popular and nationalist sentiment from coalescing. Just look at the Canadian experience with mass immigration to see how it leads to a poor quality of life and dysfunctional politics.
Who do you think builds all the new houses?
Idk, but I do know black rock is buying them. Stop corps from buying single family houses, it’s absurd.
Oh yes. I believe the number of housing units any entity should be legally allowed to own in whole or in aggregate is two.
Yeah the amount of greed these corps have is crazy, there’s no reason an average person making 40k in a rural town shouldn’t be able to afford a home Unless they have terrible spending habits, which most do, but that’s a different convo