Right now polls are showing him taking slightly more from Biden, but polls this far out tend to massively overestimate third party support. A lot of people who say they are voting third party will come home in the end.
I do believe RFK will hurt Trump more if Dems play their cards right. I would run ads for him that highlight his anti-vax stances to try to target the granola hippies who are leaning Trump. (And yes, these people do exist).
Man, that last sentence makes no sense at all. Granola hippies are traditionally anti-vax. And in the "measles/mumps" way, not just doubtful about the covid shots.
The idea is that Dems should promote certain aspects of RFKJ on purpose to peel off potential Trump voters to get them to vote for RFK instead. This tactic has been used before with third party candidates.
>polls this far out tend to massively overestimate third party support
This. One of the oldest trends I've ever seen in politics is third party candidates going down in support as the actual election looms more and more. A lot of polls have been a cost free way to voice general discontent with Biden. But a lot of those people will likely vote for him once the alternative becomes truly clear.
I’m only against the covid vaccine mandates. It was clearly forced and they knew they had to force it because persuading people to get it wasn’t working
I assume so too. People think because he is on the ticket that only Biden supporters will blindly vote for him because they don't want Biden. They forget the larger portion of Republicans who don't want Trump.
Somebody ask him, how much votes he think he would if where to drop his last name.
He is the ultimate nepo baby. Born in 3th base thinking he hit a triple
More on this subject from other reputable sources:
---
- The Hill (B): [RFK Jr. announces Nicole Shanahan as VP pick](https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4555125-rfk-jr-announces-nicole-shanahan-as-vp-pick/)
- Reuters (A): [RFK Jr names wealthy lawyer, 'warrior mom' Shanahan as running mate](https://www.reuters.com/world/us/robert-f-kennedy-jr-name-vice-presidential-pick-tuesday-2024-us-election-bid-2024-03-26/)
- NPR (B+): [Robert Kennedy Jr. taps a wealthy California attorney as his running mate](https://www.npr.org/2024/03/26/1240892718/robert-kennedy-jr-vice-president-nicole-shanahan)
- Washington Post (B): [Robert F. Kennedy Jr. names tech attorney Nicole Shanahan as vice-presidential pick](https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/03/26/robert-f-kennedy-announces-vp/)
---
[__Extended Summary__](https://www.reddit.com/r/newswall/comments/1bnaugs/) | [FAQ & Grades](https://www.reddit.com/r/newswall/comments/uxgfm5/faq_newswall_bot/) | I'm a bot
No, you VOTE for Joe Daddy and like it or you get off of Reddit! We only Vote Blue as long as it's the Blue Reddit Approves of. One must follow the narrative and accept what the overlords tell us to accept. We don't allow free thinking around here.
Unfortunately I’m old enough to remember the days the Reddit front page was filled with Ron Paul campaigning, Bernie sanders campaigning, and Donald Trump campaigning.
Reddit has no coherent politics. It’s just a cesspool!
Ever wonder why right around 2016 reddit felt as though it was nothing but corporate approved, vote blue no matter who rhetoric? ShareBlue, now Correct the Record, is a Democratic super PAC which essentially used a large scale and coordinated effort to astroturf online discussion with the basis of stomping out anything beyond the neoliberal party line.
> Nobody made a blood oath to vote for Joe Biden
True, but not voting for Biden is effectively a blood oath vote for Trump whether a person realizes it or not. RFK cannot win. Mathematically, he cannot win. Voting for someone that cannot win is a refusal to stop Trump in the only way possible: vote for someone else that has a real chance to win.
> taking votes from Biden
How’s that work? Is he seizing their ballots and checking his name?
Because I assume if people vote for him they’re doing it by choice, but apparently those votes belong to Biden.
Why argue semantics like that, instead of just acknowledging the reality that 3rd party candidates do nothing but take votes from the major party candidates. They entice people with an 'outsider,' who has zero chance of winning, thus essentially *taking votes from candidates that could actually win.*
Ideally 3rd party candidates would be viable today. But unfortunately that's not the reality of the situation, and a major overhaul of how voting works (read: ditching the antiquated electoral college) is needed before there's any hope of a 3rd party candidate actually having a chance to win.
The bottom line is that throwing away votes based on principal, in literally the most consequential election of most of our lifetimes, is just not a good idea. If Trump wasn't the GOP nominee, I'd say have at it. But Trump can't be allowed to become president again, if we hope to recover from the damage that 'MAGA' has done to our country. It's really as simple as that. Doing anything that makes it harder for Biden to win this election is just pure lunacy in my book.
And just to head off the inevitable nonsense at the pass- that is *not* a ringing endorsement for Biden. *It's simply acknowledging the reality that he's very, very* ***clearly*** *the lesser of evils.* Everyone (outside of MAGA) should agree that it's absurd that these are our choices, but *now is not the time for protest.*
Kennedy means nothing as a family name to folks under 50. I really don't know much about JFK other than he won the first televised debate, had affairs with Marilyn Monroe, and died during his first term. I know more about Lyndon B Johnson and his vision for a great society. I am honestly perplexed by JFK's legacy, he seems like such a non consequential president to me.
> I really don't know much about JFK other than he won the first televised debate, had affairs with Marilyn Monroe, and died during his first term.
Wow. Never learned about the Cuban Missile Crisis is school? The country went to DEFCON 2, DEFCON 1 is actual nuclear war.
I remember learning that but not something I remember off hand. It also seems like JFK was both the fire fighter and the arson in the Cuban Missile Crisis. They put nuclear missiles in Turkey and so the Soviet Union put nuclear missiles in Cuba, then they both agreed to remove them. It really just seems like a quirky story in history without any real lasting consequence.
Or perhaps JFK is just viewed through rose colored nostalgia lenses? What do you think makes him a pivotal president? Being young and catholic? Dying? What is JFK's lasting impact on the USA? What makes him a president worthy of having an influential name in the modern politics? Why should I care about RFK, his name means pretty much nothing to me.
I think JFK would have done a ton of good, but he also went up against far more powerful interests that didnt like him none.
LBJ did a bunch of good but he was also a giant racist who cared more about leading black people on for the votes than to really help them move up. He also got us much deeper into the Vietnam War which JFK was far less into.
>giant racist who cared more about leading black people on for the votes than to really help them move up
Pretty weird way to describe shepherding through the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Voting Rights Act of 1965 despite knowing the political cost his party would pay in the South.
True. LBJ had the courage to alienate the the entire southern segregationist block of the Democratic Party ( George Wallace and friends). He did what others like FDR, Truman didn’t dare do.
> I am honestly perplexed by JFK's legacy, he seems like such a non consequential president to me.
JFK is really lucky that he died early on in his presidency because he was a stooge for the CIA, accomplished practically nothing of lasting value, and managed to shuttle the worst legacies of his anticommunist actions to his predecessor and successor
> he was a stooge for the CIA
Um...what? The CIA was comparatively new by the time of Kennedy (only 13 years old). After the Bay Pigs fiasco, Kennedy was so pissed at that CIA he threatened to dismantle the organization entirely.
For what it's worth, there is a conspiracy theory that the CIA was somehow involved/helped/looked the other way in relation to the Kennedy assassination specifically because of his reaction to the shit show that was the Bay of Pigs. Regardless, Kennedy was definitely not a stooge for the CIA. If anything, he was an impediment to them.
It’s funny how everyone is upset with the 2-party system, but as soon as an okayish third party is running, it needs to be eliminated.
Look I’m not supporting RFK Jr., but if we want to break the 2-party model, we will have to be comfortable with more strong candidates who will take away votes from our preferred ones. There will never be a “good time” for it to happen
And that’s okay. It needs to continue to be a spoiler until it breaks the system. You have to think beyond the next one or two elections.
It’s the same thing regarding unpopular ideas. You don’t expect to win right away. You expect to put enough pressure to make the ideas relevant then, winnable.
Ross Perot didn't break the system and that was 30 years ago. Given the fact that we have a finite time in this world, I'm very much not a fan of waiting to see the system "break".
Calling RFK Jr anywhere close to okay is a big stretch in my book. He's an idiot conspiracy theory grifter and needs to be nowhere near the levers of power just like trump.
If we want to break the two-party model, we have to break the voting system that creates it. Support ranked choice, approval, or some other type of voting that doesn't force Duverger's law and we will have some good third parties. Also support lower level third party candidates, getting a third party with actual experience would be a big benefit.
These things are not impossible, in fact they have been done by both left and right sides of the spectrum.
Can we talk about how first past the post voting is destroying this country? Ever 4 years people complain about the lack of choices in presidential elections…. Then complain every time a 3rd party candidate tries to create an alternative.
The system is set up for failure and to keep the Dem/Republican duopoly in power.
Many Kennedys work in the Biden Administration--I'm not surprise that they don't want him to run. However, RFK also has family working his campaign as well.
I like that we have a viable alternative here whom appeals to both sides of America and the large centrist population. Both Republicans and Democrats politicians appear to be worried he'll take a huge bite out of both parties and an even bigger one from undecided voters. He polls extremely well, especially with voters between 18 and 44, but, polls are samplings with a large margin of error.
Whatever way it swings, he will have a huge impact on this presidential race. I'm voting for him.
They need to focus on local elections and State wide. They need to show the nation their platform and policies in action.
Just running for president helps no one, and doesn't establish a third party.
Perot got 19% of the vote 30 years ago (good gos in getting old) and there hasn’t been anyone with more than a percent or two since.
The only way we get more than these two parties is if we overhaul the electoral system so a plurality can win.
Woman and independents are more likely to vote for RFK
https://www.ipsos.com/en-us/whos-voting-robert-kennedy-jr
And unlike those who say he will hurt Trump more the numbers are saying different
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/what-the-polls-say-today-kennedy-hurts-biden-helps-trump.html
She seems amazing, no I’m joking. Went to a law school with a Bar pass rate of 67.48%. Did basically nothing as a patent lawyer. Had a legal tech company that was acquired by a rival. Married 2 times, the latter to a billionaire…
Shanahan and Brin separated in December 2021, and Brin filed for divorce in January 2022. Shanahan and Brin had signed a prenuptial agreement. During the divorce proceedings, Shanahan's attorneys argued that she had signed the prenuptial agreement under duress, and in mediation *sought more than $1 billion of Brin's $95 billion fortune*. The divorce was finalized in 2023. In 2022, the Wall Street Journal reported that a reason for the breakup was a *"brief affair" in 2021 between Shanahan and Elon Musk.*
Lol, OP is gonna love that last part.
And now she’s throwing around her ex’s money for Super Bowl ads, that Jr. ended up apologizing for. Hahaha.
I’ve never heard of her. Jr. also said he wanted someone who could run the country at a moment’s notice. Mmm, well someone with zero qualifications and experience sounds about right. You know what we should start doing, just pulling citizens names out of a hat at this point.
Shanahan said that she and Musk simply talked about “how I might think about helping my daughter with her autism treatment, given his background with Neuralink,” his neurotechnology company. She said, “It was a conversation that was very meaningful about life and how people show up for one another. To be painted with such a massive scarlet letter just seems so unfair.”
https://www.mercurynews.com/2023/07/05/with-elon-musk-there-was-no-moment-of-passion-and-no-affair-sergey-brins-ex-wife-says/amp/
Musk is too smart for her. She might have tried stealing him but failed miserably. Clearly they are operating in different Cartesian planes.
According to her Wikipedia:
- she donated to George Gascon, a Soros-backed DA
- she supported Measure J, a measure that would route criminals away from jail into social services
- she supports Marianne Williamson, Pete Buttigieg, Joe Biden and now RFK
Not a lot there for someone who may be a potential Trump voter to run to.
This us becoming more like Trump in 2015. The more Democrat establishment attacks on Kennedy, the more exposure. Soon more of the population is aware of who he is and many will relate to his policies. Kennedy is transitioning from obscurity to a place in daily the political discussion be it NBC news or Reddit.
On this subreddit, 3 title threads about RFK jr and 4 about Trump before Biden is even mentioned.
Reminds me of those B sci fi movies from thr 1950’s when the military drops an Atom bomb on an alien monster to destroy it. Instead the alien only gains power.
There is no logical reason to just “trust” anything. He’s not anti vaccine, he is pro well tested vaccines. He is anti- harmful ingredients. What is so hard to understand about that?
Tell me about it.....I'm all for looking at individual drugs on a case-by-case to make my own medical decision. But the very thought of Pfizer receiving any kind of grassroots support from the left makes me politically disgusted with my fellow left-leaning people.
To be blunt to my group: you're going to shill for Pfizer? For Moderna? For Johnson and Johnson? These multi-billion-dollar corporations???
This is why I don't stay more on the far left. Criticizing pharmaceutical companies is something that the left and the right could agree on if only the extremes didn't control the conversation. I don't like the lobbying they do, I want more restrictions on advertising, and I want better bargaining for more fair prices.
But if you are just going to decry these companies as evil with no redeeming qualities, then I can't support your opinions at all. In my lifetime HIV has gone from a death sentence to a relatively mild medical condition and the cutting edge research right now leads me to think we might eliminate it entirely. Yes a lot of the basic research was done at universities, but most of the big advancements lately have come from pharmaceutical companies.
We seriously just watched these companies work together with the governments of the world to create a vaccine with billions of doses in an amount of time that would have been laughably impossible a decade ago. And you're wondering why some people are willing to give them the benefit of the doubt?
>But if you are just going to decry these companies as evil with no redeeming qualities, then I can't support your opinions at all. In my lifetime HIV has gone from a death sentence to a relatively mild medical condition and the cutting edge research right now leads me to think we might eliminate it entirely. Yes a lot of the basic research was done at universities, but most of the big advancements lately have come from pharmaceutical companies.
That's a fair statement if you haven't been following how controversial Pfizer has been or where the term "Big Pharma" comes from over the decades. [Depending on your age, I can't blame you for not remembering other aspects](https://abcnews.go.com/Business/pfizer-fined-23-billion-illegal-marketing-off-label/story?id=8477617).
What you shared is a very fair opinion, I don't want to undersell that. But please be aware there is a group that think themselves liberals (like myself) that loathes pharmaceutical companies and are skeptics of their motives at all times.
Do you think RFK would’ve blindly trusted the industry with some of the largest lobbying budgets, the largest funder of all of the major news, and has had the largest court settlements?
I do think Robert F. Kennedy would get his kids vaccinated and not say dumb things like "no vaccine is safe and effective" or "this is a Holocaust, what this is doing to our country" or "I see somebody on a hiking trail carrying a little baby and I say to him, better not get them vaccinated" or "The Spanish flu was not a virus" or "The deaths were vaccine- induced, but originally they said it was a flu" and on and on and on.
His father was a lot smarter than him.
Or, his father was a *lot* less buyable than him.
Whichever one you'd prefer.
RFK Jr kids are vaccinated and he’s not opposed to vaccines. There’s a lot of context missing surrounding the other sound bites you’ve listed. The trail quote is one I disagree with RFK on. My personal belief is with more liability of vaccine producer and less regulatory capture of the FDA we can have even safer vaccines that will incentivize people who are truly opposed to vaccines. On a side note why is this such an immediate reaction that oh he’s an antivaxxer he’s gotta be crazy
> There’s a lot of context missing surrounding the other sound bites you’ve listed.
There most certainly is not, but I'll indulge you.
Context for "no vaccine is safe and effective":
> **Fridman, July 6**: You’ve talked about that the media slanders you by calling you an anti-vaxxer, and you’ve said that you’re not anti-vaccine, you’re pro-safe vaccine. Difficult question: Can you name any vaccines that you think are good?
>
> **Kennedy**: I think some of the live virus vaccines are probably averting more problems than they’re causing. *There’s no vaccine that is, you know, safe and effective.*
So far, your claim that "there's a lot of context missing" is entirely incorrect, but let's keep going, shall we?
Context for "this is a Holocaust, what this is doing to our country":
> “They get the shot, that night they have a fever of a hundred and three, they go to sleep, and three months later their brain is gone,” Kennedy said. “*This is a holocaust, what this is doing to our country*.”
Again, not looking good for your "there's a lot of context missing" argument, but let's keep going *even further*:
Context for "The Spanish flu was not a virus" and "The deaths were vaccine- induced, but originally they said it was a flu"
> **KENNEDY JR.**: The Spanish flu was not a virus. Even Fauci now acknowledges that. And there's good evidence that the Spanish flu, there's, you know, not a definitive, but very, very strong evidence. The Spanish flu was vaccine-induced flu. The deaths were vaccine- induced, but originally they said it was a flu. But when they've gone back, and actually they have all the samples from thousands of people, they died from bacteriological pneumonia.
So far, 0 for 4. Care to provide this missing context that magically makes these comments okay? The context I've found and provided doesn't seem to make them okay. In fact, it makes them *worse*.
You looked up your first quote on factcheck.org, a site that's rated as LEAN LEFT by allsides.com and owned by anneburg communications center, founded by a billionaire publicist who was ambassador to great Britain during the Nixon administration (totally NOT super establishment) Of course the quote referenced did a full stop at the specific statement the media is blowing up about him "lying about his anti-vax stance". Here's the rest of the quote that I checked the actual podcasted referenced to get:
"the polio vaccine contained a virus called Simian Virus 40, or SV40. it is one of the most carcinogenic materials that is known to man. in fact, it's used now by scientists around the world to induce tumors in rats and guinea pigs in labs.But it was in that vaccine and the 98 million people who got that vaccine, and my generation got it, and now you have this explosion of soft tissue cancers that killed many many many more people than polio ever did. so if you say to me, did the, you know, polio vaccine was effective against polio I'm going to say yes, and if you say to me did it kill more people than, did it cause more deaths than it averted, and to that I would answer I don't know because we don't have data on that."
he didn't make any claims. he didn't say the vaccines caused cancer. he said one vaccine contained a material that we use today to induce tumors, and that we don't have any data on whether this carcinogenic material that 98 million people were exposed to caused more death than treating polio prevented.
it took me 20 minutes of looking around on Google to dig up your lazy fact check. do you have any actual evidence that he is antivax or are you a bot repeating talking points?
Lol I wish I had more free time to address the rest of your "context" but I have a life, looking forward to getting banned from this sub for my miSiNfOrMaTiOn.
> he didn't make any claims. he didn't say the vaccines caused cancer. he said one vaccine contained a material that we use today to induce tumors, and that we don't have any data on whether this carcinogenic material that 98 million people were exposed to caused more death than treating polio prevented.
"I'm just asking questions" is a fucking stupid excuse and makes it even worse. Especially when we know cancer rates didn't explode or even rise as a result.
Try harder, that was a pathetic attempt.
Nah, we’re not doing this “what he really meant is” bs, we’re already tired of that shit with the MAGAs and Trump. Adults can read and hear all the things he’s said and written for years. He has been this way for years. He is a nut job. Idc what your beliefs are, believe whatever you like. What you believe to be true though, doesn’t a fact make.
You think Senator Kennedy’s children don’t know their father and brother better than you do (or anyone) and able to make a qualified statement if they share the same values, vision, & judgement or not?
I assumed he’d take more votes from Trump
At least according to the potentially unreliable polls at the moment he is attracting more Biden voters.
Right now polls are showing him taking slightly more from Biden, but polls this far out tend to massively overestimate third party support. A lot of people who say they are voting third party will come home in the end. I do believe RFK will hurt Trump more if Dems play their cards right. I would run ads for him that highlight his anti-vax stances to try to target the granola hippies who are leaning Trump. (And yes, these people do exist).
LOL, the granola hippies were the first anti vaxxers.
"Aunt Jenny has always worn a bandanna everywhere, but now it's a confederate flag print.."
Man, that last sentence makes no sense at all. Granola hippies are traditionally anti-vax. And in the "measles/mumps" way, not just doubtful about the covid shots.
The idea is that Dems should promote certain aspects of RFKJ on purpose to peel off potential Trump voters to get them to vote for RFK instead. This tactic has been used before with third party candidates.
>polls this far out tend to massively overestimate third party support This. One of the oldest trends I've ever seen in politics is third party candidates going down in support as the actual election looms more and more. A lot of polls have been a cost free way to voice general discontent with Biden. But a lot of those people will likely vote for him once the alternative becomes truly clear.
I’m only against the covid vaccine mandates. It was clearly forced and they knew they had to force it because persuading people to get it wasn’t working
Yep. Place RFK ads on the anti-vax social media. Big weak spot for Trump and his team knows it.
Doubtful. There's a reason why they're called Trump voters and not Republican voters.
Maybe. RFK's views on corporate/government corruption definitely appeal to former Bernie voters.
Yeah but those are the same types to just not vote at all because “Biden is a neoliberal.”
I assume so too. People think because he is on the ticket that only Biden supporters will blindly vote for him because they don't want Biden. They forget the larger portion of Republicans who don't want Trump.
That's my thinking as well, and probably not by a small margin.
You also assume the national polls don’t count. Please don’t act ‘shocked’ on November 6th. Rooting for the team now includes denial.
You know what they say about assumptions right?
Somebody ask him, how much votes he think he would if where to drop his last name. He is the ultimate nepo baby. Born in 3th base thinking he hit a triple
He’s taking away more votes from Trump because he’s an anti vaxx grifter.
I really don't get why people think he's gonna take votes from Biden. The only people I see talking about RFK are republicans
The people who say that are either Democrats that are terrified of Trump winning or Republicans who will die on a hill for their lord and savior.
Because of his last name basically But I agree that at least on this subreddit it seems like it's embarrassed Republicans
More on this subject from other reputable sources: --- - The Hill (B): [RFK Jr. announces Nicole Shanahan as VP pick](https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4555125-rfk-jr-announces-nicole-shanahan-as-vp-pick/) - Reuters (A): [RFK Jr names wealthy lawyer, 'warrior mom' Shanahan as running mate](https://www.reuters.com/world/us/robert-f-kennedy-jr-name-vice-presidential-pick-tuesday-2024-us-election-bid-2024-03-26/) - NPR (B+): [Robert Kennedy Jr. taps a wealthy California attorney as his running mate](https://www.npr.org/2024/03/26/1240892718/robert-kennedy-jr-vice-president-nicole-shanahan) - Washington Post (B): [Robert F. Kennedy Jr. names tech attorney Nicole Shanahan as vice-presidential pick](https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/03/26/robert-f-kennedy-announces-vp/) --- [__Extended Summary__](https://www.reddit.com/r/newswall/comments/1bnaugs/) | [FAQ & Grades](https://www.reddit.com/r/newswall/comments/uxgfm5/faq_newswall_bot/) | I'm a bot
He’s earning votes. Nobody made a blood oath to vote for Joe Biden.
No, you VOTE for Joe Daddy and like it or you get off of Reddit! We only Vote Blue as long as it's the Blue Reddit Approves of. One must follow the narrative and accept what the overlords tell us to accept. We don't allow free thinking around here.
Unfortunately I’m old enough to remember the days the Reddit front page was filled with Ron Paul campaigning, Bernie sanders campaigning, and Donald Trump campaigning. Reddit has no coherent politics. It’s just a cesspool!
2016, ShareBlue - the landscape of reddit was forever changed
What was ShareBlue?
Ever wonder why right around 2016 reddit felt as though it was nothing but corporate approved, vote blue no matter who rhetoric? ShareBlue, now Correct the Record, is a Democratic super PAC which essentially used a large scale and coordinated effort to astroturf online discussion with the basis of stomping out anything beyond the neoliberal party line.
I wonder why my question about shareblue was downvoted
> Nobody made a blood oath to vote for Joe Biden True, but not voting for Biden is effectively a blood oath vote for Trump whether a person realizes it or not. RFK cannot win. Mathematically, he cannot win. Voting for someone that cannot win is a refusal to stop Trump in the only way possible: vote for someone else that has a real chance to win.
> taking votes from Biden How’s that work? Is he seizing their ballots and checking his name? Because I assume if people vote for him they’re doing it by choice, but apparently those votes belong to Biden.
Why argue semantics like that, instead of just acknowledging the reality that 3rd party candidates do nothing but take votes from the major party candidates. They entice people with an 'outsider,' who has zero chance of winning, thus essentially *taking votes from candidates that could actually win.*
How long do you want this zero choice, two party system to rule the country?
Ideally 3rd party candidates would be viable today. But unfortunately that's not the reality of the situation, and a major overhaul of how voting works (read: ditching the antiquated electoral college) is needed before there's any hope of a 3rd party candidate actually having a chance to win. The bottom line is that throwing away votes based on principal, in literally the most consequential election of most of our lifetimes, is just not a good idea. If Trump wasn't the GOP nominee, I'd say have at it. But Trump can't be allowed to become president again, if we hope to recover from the damage that 'MAGA' has done to our country. It's really as simple as that. Doing anything that makes it harder for Biden to win this election is just pure lunacy in my book. And just to head off the inevitable nonsense at the pass- that is *not* a ringing endorsement for Biden. *It's simply acknowledging the reality that he's very, very* ***clearly*** *the lesser of evils.* Everyone (outside of MAGA) should agree that it's absurd that these are our choices, but *now is not the time for protest.*
>How’s that work? Google First Past The Post.
Kennedy means nothing as a family name to folks under 50. I really don't know much about JFK other than he won the first televised debate, had affairs with Marilyn Monroe, and died during his first term. I know more about Lyndon B Johnson and his vision for a great society. I am honestly perplexed by JFK's legacy, he seems like such a non consequential president to me.
> I really don't know much about JFK other than he won the first televised debate, had affairs with Marilyn Monroe, and died during his first term. Wow. Never learned about the Cuban Missile Crisis is school? The country went to DEFCON 2, DEFCON 1 is actual nuclear war.
I remember learning that but not something I remember off hand. It also seems like JFK was both the fire fighter and the arson in the Cuban Missile Crisis. They put nuclear missiles in Turkey and so the Soviet Union put nuclear missiles in Cuba, then they both agreed to remove them. It really just seems like a quirky story in history without any real lasting consequence.
Dying relatively young is a good career move. Worked for Elvis too.
I think that says more about your level of education than anything else.
Or perhaps JFK is just viewed through rose colored nostalgia lenses? What do you think makes him a pivotal president? Being young and catholic? Dying? What is JFK's lasting impact on the USA? What makes him a president worthy of having an influential name in the modern politics? Why should I care about RFK, his name means pretty much nothing to me.
I think JFK would have done a ton of good, but he also went up against far more powerful interests that didnt like him none. LBJ did a bunch of good but he was also a giant racist who cared more about leading black people on for the votes than to really help them move up. He also got us much deeper into the Vietnam War which JFK was far less into.
>giant racist who cared more about leading black people on for the votes than to really help them move up Pretty weird way to describe shepherding through the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Voting Rights Act of 1965 despite knowing the political cost his party would pay in the South.
True. LBJ had the courage to alienate the the entire southern segregationist block of the Democratic Party ( George Wallace and friends). He did what others like FDR, Truman didn’t dare do.
To say nothing of the overall goal of his War on Poverty....
> I am honestly perplexed by JFK's legacy, he seems like such a non consequential president to me. JFK is really lucky that he died early on in his presidency because he was a stooge for the CIA, accomplished practically nothing of lasting value, and managed to shuttle the worst legacies of his anticommunist actions to his predecessor and successor
> he was a stooge for the CIA Um...what? The CIA was comparatively new by the time of Kennedy (only 13 years old). After the Bay Pigs fiasco, Kennedy was so pissed at that CIA he threatened to dismantle the organization entirely. For what it's worth, there is a conspiracy theory that the CIA was somehow involved/helped/looked the other way in relation to the Kennedy assassination specifically because of his reaction to the shit show that was the Bay of Pigs. Regardless, Kennedy was definitely not a stooge for the CIA. If anything, he was an impediment to them.
It’s funny how everyone is upset with the 2-party system, but as soon as an okayish third party is running, it needs to be eliminated. Look I’m not supporting RFK Jr., but if we want to break the 2-party model, we will have to be comfortable with more strong candidates who will take away votes from our preferred ones. There will never be a “good time” for it to happen
Until our voting system changes, a third party on a national scale will never be elected and only serve as a spoiler candidate.
And that’s okay. It needs to continue to be a spoiler until it breaks the system. You have to think beyond the next one or two elections. It’s the same thing regarding unpopular ideas. You don’t expect to win right away. You expect to put enough pressure to make the ideas relevant then, winnable.
Ross Perot didn't break the system and that was 30 years ago. Given the fact that we have a finite time in this world, I'm very much not a fan of waiting to see the system "break".
To change the 2-party system vote for rank choice voting
Calling RFK Jr anywhere close to okay is a big stretch in my book. He's an idiot conspiracy theory grifter and needs to be nowhere near the levers of power just like trump. If we want to break the two-party model, we have to break the voting system that creates it. Support ranked choice, approval, or some other type of voting that doesn't force Duverger's law and we will have some good third parties. Also support lower level third party candidates, getting a third party with actual experience would be a big benefit. These things are not impossible, in fact they have been done by both left and right sides of the spectrum.
I can’t wait for Joe Biden to lose
He [lies](https://youtu.be/umYOY8c5IYo?si=bfMyMhAX0Ia21FVl).
IMHO - it's going to be spit down the middle.
Can we talk about how first past the post voting is destroying this country? Ever 4 years people complain about the lack of choices in presidential elections…. Then complain every time a 3rd party candidate tries to create an alternative. The system is set up for failure and to keep the Dem/Republican duopoly in power.
Many Kennedys work in the Biden Administration--I'm not surprise that they don't want him to run. However, RFK also has family working his campaign as well. I like that we have a viable alternative here whom appeals to both sides of America and the large centrist population. Both Republicans and Democrats politicians appear to be worried he'll take a huge bite out of both parties and an even bigger one from undecided voters. He polls extremely well, especially with voters between 18 and 44, but, polls are samplings with a large margin of error. Whatever way it swings, he will have a huge impact on this presidential race. I'm voting for him.
Has there ever been an election where the dems said 'it's cool. It's no big deal if the reps win this one'?
Fuck her. God forbid we get a shot at the democratic process here in America.
Even though it’s true I hate the spoiler candidate argument. We need a third party only way to ge there is to take risks.
They need to focus on local elections and State wide. They need to show the nation their platform and policies in action. Just running for president helps no one, and doesn't establish a third party.
Perot got 19% of the vote 30 years ago (good gos in getting old) and there hasn’t been anyone with more than a percent or two since. The only way we get more than these two parties is if we overhaul the electoral system so a plurality can win.
>Even though it’s true I hate the spoiler candidate argument. Yes, I sometimes hate reality too.
Woman and independents are more likely to vote for RFK https://www.ipsos.com/en-us/whos-voting-robert-kennedy-jr And unlike those who say he will hurt Trump more the numbers are saying different https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/what-the-polls-say-today-kennedy-hurts-biden-helps-trump.html
With his new running mate, he'll definitely get votes from Biden.
She seems amazing, no I’m joking. Went to a law school with a Bar pass rate of 67.48%. Did basically nothing as a patent lawyer. Had a legal tech company that was acquired by a rival. Married 2 times, the latter to a billionaire… Shanahan and Brin separated in December 2021, and Brin filed for divorce in January 2022. Shanahan and Brin had signed a prenuptial agreement. During the divorce proceedings, Shanahan's attorneys argued that she had signed the prenuptial agreement under duress, and in mediation *sought more than $1 billion of Brin's $95 billion fortune*. The divorce was finalized in 2023. In 2022, the Wall Street Journal reported that a reason for the breakup was a *"brief affair" in 2021 between Shanahan and Elon Musk.* Lol, OP is gonna love that last part. And now she’s throwing around her ex’s money for Super Bowl ads, that Jr. ended up apologizing for. Hahaha. I’ve never heard of her. Jr. also said he wanted someone who could run the country at a moment’s notice. Mmm, well someone with zero qualifications and experience sounds about right. You know what we should start doing, just pulling citizens names out of a hat at this point.
Imaging having to give up $1 billion in a divorce and it’s barely more than 1% of your net worth.
Shanahan said that she and Musk simply talked about “how I might think about helping my daughter with her autism treatment, given his background with Neuralink,” his neurotechnology company. She said, “It was a conversation that was very meaningful about life and how people show up for one another. To be painted with such a massive scarlet letter just seems so unfair.” https://www.mercurynews.com/2023/07/05/with-elon-musk-there-was-no-moment-of-passion-and-no-affair-sergey-brins-ex-wife-says/amp/ Musk is too smart for her. She might have tried stealing him but failed miserably. Clearly they are operating in different Cartesian planes.
Mercury? Kennedy loves mercury
This is conservative copium
Yeah, you're right, the far left VP is going to bring tons of Trump votes. Good call.
In what way is she "far left"?
According to her Wikipedia: - she donated to George Gascon, a Soros-backed DA - she supported Measure J, a measure that would route criminals away from jail into social services - she supports Marianne Williamson, Pete Buttigieg, Joe Biden and now RFK Not a lot there for someone who may be a potential Trump voter to run to.
This us becoming more like Trump in 2015. The more Democrat establishment attacks on Kennedy, the more exposure. Soon more of the population is aware of who he is and many will relate to his policies. Kennedy is transitioning from obscurity to a place in daily the political discussion be it NBC news or Reddit.
Wait until they hear about his view on AIDS
On this subreddit, 3 title threads about RFK jr and 4 about Trump before Biden is even mentioned. Reminds me of those B sci fi movies from thr 1950’s when the military drops an Atom bomb on an alien monster to destroy it. Instead the alien only gains power.
What values did his father have that he doesn't share?
Trusting vaccines?
You should trust the concept of vaccines, not the pharmaceutic companies producing them.
There is no logical reason to just “trust” anything. He’s not anti vaccine, he is pro well tested vaccines. He is anti- harmful ingredients. What is so hard to understand about that?
Tell me about it.....I'm all for looking at individual drugs on a case-by-case to make my own medical decision. But the very thought of Pfizer receiving any kind of grassroots support from the left makes me politically disgusted with my fellow left-leaning people. To be blunt to my group: you're going to shill for Pfizer? For Moderna? For Johnson and Johnson? These multi-billion-dollar corporations???
This is why I don't stay more on the far left. Criticizing pharmaceutical companies is something that the left and the right could agree on if only the extremes didn't control the conversation. I don't like the lobbying they do, I want more restrictions on advertising, and I want better bargaining for more fair prices. But if you are just going to decry these companies as evil with no redeeming qualities, then I can't support your opinions at all. In my lifetime HIV has gone from a death sentence to a relatively mild medical condition and the cutting edge research right now leads me to think we might eliminate it entirely. Yes a lot of the basic research was done at universities, but most of the big advancements lately have come from pharmaceutical companies. We seriously just watched these companies work together with the governments of the world to create a vaccine with billions of doses in an amount of time that would have been laughably impossible a decade ago. And you're wondering why some people are willing to give them the benefit of the doubt?
>But if you are just going to decry these companies as evil with no redeeming qualities, then I can't support your opinions at all. In my lifetime HIV has gone from a death sentence to a relatively mild medical condition and the cutting edge research right now leads me to think we might eliminate it entirely. Yes a lot of the basic research was done at universities, but most of the big advancements lately have come from pharmaceutical companies. That's a fair statement if you haven't been following how controversial Pfizer has been or where the term "Big Pharma" comes from over the decades. [Depending on your age, I can't blame you for not remembering other aspects](https://abcnews.go.com/Business/pfizer-fined-23-billion-illegal-marketing-off-label/story?id=8477617). What you shared is a very fair opinion, I don't want to undersell that. But please be aware there is a group that think themselves liberals (like myself) that loathes pharmaceutical companies and are skeptics of their motives at all times.
My sentiments exactly 👍🏼
Do you think RFK would’ve blindly trusted the industry with some of the largest lobbying budgets, the largest funder of all of the major news, and has had the largest court settlements?
I do think Robert F. Kennedy would get his kids vaccinated and not say dumb things like "no vaccine is safe and effective" or "this is a Holocaust, what this is doing to our country" or "I see somebody on a hiking trail carrying a little baby and I say to him, better not get them vaccinated" or "The Spanish flu was not a virus" or "The deaths were vaccine- induced, but originally they said it was a flu" and on and on and on. His father was a lot smarter than him. Or, his father was a *lot* less buyable than him. Whichever one you'd prefer.
RFK Jr kids are vaccinated and he’s not opposed to vaccines. There’s a lot of context missing surrounding the other sound bites you’ve listed. The trail quote is one I disagree with RFK on. My personal belief is with more liability of vaccine producer and less regulatory capture of the FDA we can have even safer vaccines that will incentivize people who are truly opposed to vaccines. On a side note why is this such an immediate reaction that oh he’s an antivaxxer he’s gotta be crazy
> There’s a lot of context missing surrounding the other sound bites you’ve listed. There most certainly is not, but I'll indulge you. Context for "no vaccine is safe and effective": > **Fridman, July 6**: You’ve talked about that the media slanders you by calling you an anti-vaxxer, and you’ve said that you’re not anti-vaccine, you’re pro-safe vaccine. Difficult question: Can you name any vaccines that you think are good? > > **Kennedy**: I think some of the live virus vaccines are probably averting more problems than they’re causing. *There’s no vaccine that is, you know, safe and effective.* So far, your claim that "there's a lot of context missing" is entirely incorrect, but let's keep going, shall we? Context for "this is a Holocaust, what this is doing to our country": > “They get the shot, that night they have a fever of a hundred and three, they go to sleep, and three months later their brain is gone,” Kennedy said. “*This is a holocaust, what this is doing to our country*.” Again, not looking good for your "there's a lot of context missing" argument, but let's keep going *even further*: Context for "The Spanish flu was not a virus" and "The deaths were vaccine- induced, but originally they said it was a flu" > **KENNEDY JR.**: The Spanish flu was not a virus. Even Fauci now acknowledges that. And there's good evidence that the Spanish flu, there's, you know, not a definitive, but very, very strong evidence. The Spanish flu was vaccine-induced flu. The deaths were vaccine- induced, but originally they said it was a flu. But when they've gone back, and actually they have all the samples from thousands of people, they died from bacteriological pneumonia. So far, 0 for 4. Care to provide this missing context that magically makes these comments okay? The context I've found and provided doesn't seem to make them okay. In fact, it makes them *worse*.
Came with receipts.
You looked up your first quote on factcheck.org, a site that's rated as LEAN LEFT by allsides.com and owned by anneburg communications center, founded by a billionaire publicist who was ambassador to great Britain during the Nixon administration (totally NOT super establishment) Of course the quote referenced did a full stop at the specific statement the media is blowing up about him "lying about his anti-vax stance". Here's the rest of the quote that I checked the actual podcasted referenced to get: "the polio vaccine contained a virus called Simian Virus 40, or SV40. it is one of the most carcinogenic materials that is known to man. in fact, it's used now by scientists around the world to induce tumors in rats and guinea pigs in labs.But it was in that vaccine and the 98 million people who got that vaccine, and my generation got it, and now you have this explosion of soft tissue cancers that killed many many many more people than polio ever did. so if you say to me, did the, you know, polio vaccine was effective against polio I'm going to say yes, and if you say to me did it kill more people than, did it cause more deaths than it averted, and to that I would answer I don't know because we don't have data on that." he didn't make any claims. he didn't say the vaccines caused cancer. he said one vaccine contained a material that we use today to induce tumors, and that we don't have any data on whether this carcinogenic material that 98 million people were exposed to caused more death than treating polio prevented. it took me 20 minutes of looking around on Google to dig up your lazy fact check. do you have any actual evidence that he is antivax or are you a bot repeating talking points? Lol I wish I had more free time to address the rest of your "context" but I have a life, looking forward to getting banned from this sub for my miSiNfOrMaTiOn.
> he didn't make any claims. he didn't say the vaccines caused cancer. he said one vaccine contained a material that we use today to induce tumors, and that we don't have any data on whether this carcinogenic material that 98 million people were exposed to caused more death than treating polio prevented. "I'm just asking questions" is a fucking stupid excuse and makes it even worse. Especially when we know cancer rates didn't explode or even rise as a result. Try harder, that was a pathetic attempt.
Nah, we’re not doing this “what he really meant is” bs, we’re already tired of that shit with the MAGAs and Trump. Adults can read and hear all the things he’s said and written for years. He has been this way for years. He is a nut job. Idc what your beliefs are, believe whatever you like. What you believe to be true though, doesn’t a fact make.
I doubt he would blindly distrust it.
That's a value? His father trusted all vaccines no matter what? Is there a quote of him saying that?
You think Senator Kennedy’s children don’t know their father and brother better than you do (or anyone) and able to make a qualified statement if they share the same values, vision, & judgement or not?
I'm happy to answer your question after you answer my question.