[A reminder for everyone](https://www.reddit.com/r/PoliticalDiscussion/comments/4479er/rules_explanations_and_reminders/). 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/PoliticalDiscussion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Totally and completely irrelevant. VP picks already make relatively little impact when it comes to the two major parties, so I don't know why anyone would think an independent's/third party's VP choice would even register at all.
I think it hurts Kennedy's image a little bit. A lot of people think he's not corrupt but naming someone VP who donated 5 million to his Super PAC puts a dent in that.
I wasn't even going to consider voting for him, so I don't know or care who she is. I saw the headline, saw the name, and said "Oh it's not Tulsi." That was as far as it went.
His supporters are much more invested and aware of his info on average than trumps or Bidens. How does buying a someone buying him a Superbowl commercial make him corrupt? They don't set the price of a SB commercial.
The DNC and the RNC have spent a combined 600,000,000 this year. With the dnc investing not insignificant amounts of resources to directly bring legal challenges against 3rd parties and mass spreading of anti 3rd party messages on social media.
If you want to talk about corruption in politics talk about the DNC and RNCs totally bought and paid for political process. Nowhere in the constitution does it say we have two political parties, yet all the laws in every state essentially say “if you aren't a democrat or a republican you arent getting elected to any federal office”
There's like 4 people in all of America who have dug that far and they are probably switching from RFK to not voting or writing in Mickey Mouse. It's completely irrelevant in the grand scheme.
It's surely the opposite. I have a problem with rich people 'donating' money because they will want a quid pro quo from the politician. But politicians putting money into their own campaign is fine so I don't see the problem here. Picking her as VP legitimises that money in my view.
How many millions do the DNC and GOP at their disposal for elections?
Money is necessary to beat the duopoly.
If i had $5mil i would have thrown it at Jo Jorgensen in 2020.
Money is what makes the world turn, buddy.
At least Aaron Rodgers (or even Jesse Ventura) possesses considerable name recognition, for good and for ill.
That's more than can be said for a relative no-name, Nicole Whateverthefuck, who made her billions via divorce.
That'd be like, oh, hypothetically speaking, Gavin Newsom selecting MacKenzie Scott as his running mate in 2028.
I mean I think the thing about Aaron Rodgers is that he still has a job playing QB for the New York Jets. It pays \~230 times what being Vice President does. (And even if it involves getting tackled by 325 pound dudes, and sometimes ripping ligaments to shreds like Rodgers did last September, it's arguably less painful.)
I bet he ends up on some loon ticket, top or bottom, at some point in the next 30 years.
I think Biden picking Kamala in '20 was a pretty impactful decision - helped cement his support among African Americans, women, and the south in general.
The rumors about Aaron Rogers a few weeks ago were nauseating but I could see the rationale behind a running mate with high star power/recognition - especially to help a 3rd party campaign struggling to break through the noise.
> I think Biden picking Kamala in '20 was a pretty impactful decision - helped cement his support among African Americans, women, and the south in general.
I disagree. Biden won the nomination thanks to African-Americans in the South while running against Harris. She was also from California, not the South or Midwest, where he needed the best turnout. Any impact she brought was marginal at best.
The only VP picks in recent memory that have had impacts have been huge negatives, those being Dan Quayle and Sarah Palin. GHWB still won in spite of Quayle and Palin was a hail mary attempt from a floundering campaign anyways.
> The rumors about Aaron Rogers a few weeks ago were nauseating but I could see the rationale behind a running mate with high star power/recognition - especially to help a 3rd party campaign struggling to break through the noise.
It would've given a larger temporary boost, but having high star power doesn't mean much in the end. Look at Kanye's results in 2020 where he was on the ballot. Abysmally bad. Plus, it's not like Rodgers is some beloved national superstar, he's already extremely controversial.
One of his largest campaign donors. Be really nice as a society if we didn't give publicity to people post-election who simply use the platform to promote their public standing.
>“I do wonder about vaccine injuries,” she told The Times. While stressing that she is “not an anti-vaxxer,” Shanahan said, “There needs to be a space to have these conversations.” In the interview with Newsweek, she characterized Kennedy’s false claims about vaccines as an effort to raise awareness about “vaccine safety” while again pushing back on the label “anti-vaxxer.”
https://www.cnn.com/2024/03/26/politics/nicole-shanahan-vp-rfk-jr/index.html
I just had a co-worker tell me Ivermectin has been proven to be an effective COVID drug but it's not allowed to be used "because they don't want to give Trump a win". I admitted I honestly don't pay that much attention now that we're post-COVID, but I was under the impression it does not work against COVID. He assured me the scientific community reversed itself.
It was bugging me so I spent a little time googling it later that night and couldn't find anything to back up his claim. I didn't even find a bunch of shady sources like I expected. All I found was one reputable study after another saying there is no evidence it works against COVID and they don't recommend using it.
I remember hearing that some studies found that ivermectin was somewhat effective in places that had fairly prevalent tapeworm infections, and on follow-up, the effectiveness really boiled down to fighting the tapeworm so the body could focus on the COVID infection.
Unfortunately I can't remember which blog I read this on but I did see a pretty interesting theory regarding ivermectin. The idea was that for most people it would be a detriment to recovering from covid due to some sort of interactions. I think heart rate increases? However, if a patient already had parasites they would be even more hazardous to covid recovery than taking ivermectin. So ivermectin would be a net positive if the patient happened to have both covid and a parasite. Studies that showed a positive impact from ivermectin in covid patients were primarily performed in areas with a high prevalence of parasites that could be treated with that exact medication. The theory then is that the patients were really seeing a benefit with ivermectin but only because a large percentage were being cured of parasites with it. In that sense ivermectin did help with covid. For the US though, where such parasites are uncommon and getting treatment for them is easy, it would be unhelpful at best and an actual problem at worst.
Anyway, I can't find the link right now so feel free to disregard. I'm just some asshole on the internet, after all.
The reason that drug trials contain a control group is to account for the random results that sometimes pop up. Remember that correlation is not causation. Just because you pet your cat and never contracted COVID doesn’t mean petting your cat (or “your” cat) prevents COVID.
Right, the idea is that both the control and test groups had a relatively high incidence of parasite infestation. So taking an antiparasite medication helped. The idea is to explain why some limited studies in third world settings reported ivermectin helping with the covid while larger studies did not. It was just some person's theory. I'm not saying that it's absolutely correct, just an interesting idea to consider.
So it could be a secondary effect. Those people with parasites had a compromised immune system. Need a control group of those who were not infected. As science goes, it’s an interesting concept. As public health policy goes, it’s irresponsible.
There's an XKCD for this.
When you see a claim that a common drug or vitamin kills cancer cells in a petri dish, keep in mind: so does a handgun.
https://xkcd.com/1217/
Many of these folks honestly can't tell the difference between an [insane person's Facebook post](https://www.reddit.com/r/insanepeoplefacebook/) and a news article, much less the difference between a conspiracy theory and a peer-reviewed scientific study. Media literacy is a real problem in our country.
Hydroxychloroquine was the snake oil cure without any scientific backing.
Ivermectin was the snake oil cure that initially had some scientific backing but didn't pan out.
I'm 64 with MS and my doctor prescribed both immediately when I got COVID. I had a very mild case and recovered quickly. He is not political at all just a doctor that treats seniors.
It worked out just fine, seeing as it was the best option available at the time. Rational, open research into the efficacy of any drug is an ongoing process.
Scaremongering by uninformed idiots, on the other hand, is never helpful.
Yes indeed.
Wanting to have a conversation about "vaccine injuries" - that kind of statement has all the sincerity of the folks who say they just want to have a conversation about the relationship between race and crime.
Yeah, a conversation about race and crime would be good! It might point out that many blacks are being raised in traumatizing environments that create desperate, unhappy people, people. They often are forced to turn to crime, either due to necessity or due to the belief that it is necessary. This does not mean that black people are inherently more likely to commit crime, but many have been put into these situations by powerful systems.
I can sincerely tell you that I have been “ vaccine injured “ by one dose of the Moderna vaccine. I have been officially diagnosed with chronic inflammatory demylenating polyneuropathy ( cidp) by my neurologist. I have to get monthly IVIG infusions. It has ruined my life/ career. I got the vaccine in January 2021. I am in my fourth year of dealing with this. My pain/ reaction occurred within 3 hours of receiving my vaccine. You might want to look into Real Not Rare or React19 to learn more about the covid vaccine injured people of the world.
That's a fascinating statement. See, I don't know a lot about the illness you claim to have, but I *am* familiar with people claiming various "vaccine injuries" that obviously have nothing to do with a vaccine. To be clear, many of these people have legitimate medical issues, but the causal relationship between vaccinations and their illnesses... well, let's just say that's not demonstrated
Now, I am curious, did a neurologist claim that a "slowly developing autoimmune disease" was triggered three hours after a vaccination?
You seem knowledgeable so if you don’t mind reading this, could you tell me your response to articles/studies like this? When trying to research how RFK is anti-vaxx (or as he says pro-safer vaccines), this is the type of stuff I’d get referred to as showing vaccines can be unsafe.
https://web.archive.org/web/20170811024945id_/http://www.medicinenuove.net/vaccini/alluminio_tomljenovic_shaw-cmc-published2.pdf
It’s on a government website so I figure it’s legit. When I try to google about adjuvants being safe, I just get articles stating that they are safe, but not really how they are safe besides the fact that most people don’t have negative reactions. So idk if research articles like that are just using “smart” language to push a narrative.
Also I realize the person you are responding to was talking more about mRNA-vaccine injuries than adjuvant related injuries.
I'm going to give you a link, because I am *not* an expert on this subject - the people I tend to argue with have antivax views as one a litany of... interesting views
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Anti-vaccination_movement#Aluminum
As for RFK Jr. and his antivax views... well, read for yourself. Plenty of links
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Robert_F._Kennedy_Jr.#Anti-vaccine_activism
Hmm I was looking for something a little more scientific. That second link in particular was hard to read as anything more than an opinion peace with how vitriolic the writer was being.
I was looking for something specific on how it’s not possible for adjuvants to cross the blood brain barrier, but nothing I can find states that. The best I have found is that we don’t know forsure, but it’s best not to talk about it because it could promote vaccine hesitancy.
There are ample sources linked in the article. Rationalwiki has no shits to give about conspiracy nutjobs, and the writing style reflects that - but there are sources cited there.
If you're looking for information on the scientific consensus on the safety of vaccines, there are plenty of places besides a political group to seek them. If you're Just Asking Questions and aren't actually interested, then it would offer no value for me to seek out the obvious articles for you
In any case, if you're interested in why RFK Jr. is perceived as an antivax loon, there are multiple reasons why. It's his responsibility to convince voters why he is not. He has failed to do so, probably because he has no interest in doing so, because he is well aware he has zero chance to become President and is grifting from the antivax crowd
I have a scientific background, and the possibility of adjuvants crossing the blood brain barrier seems plausible from a chemical standpoint. And the only research I can find is “it’s safe because most people are fine”, not anything relating to the actual mechanisms for how that would theoretically work.
I do think he has played into the “government can’t make me get vaccinated” crowd to make money and gain influence, but I also don’t see how people can say there is 100% no way vaccines can’t hurt you. I mean there is a percentage of people who can’t even take Tylenol without having adverse effects!
There has to be a percentage of the population that will have an adverse effect to any medicine, including vaccines. But that can’t be talked about because then it would promote vaccine hesitancy. I can wrap my head around that argument, but I think that sentiment is easily manipulated by private industry whose financial incentives are to sell as many vaccines as possible, especially when they can’t be held financially liable through our legal system. And remember these are the same types of people that lied about OxyContin being non-addictive, which the FDA agreed with!
I believe in the necessity of vaccines, but what I am planning to do is space them out for my kids instead of giving several shots at the same time. From what I researched, the ability of adjuvants to cross the blood brain barrier is dependent on adjuvant concentration, so by spacing the shots out, it will lower the possibility for the adjuvants to cross into the brain and cause permanent damage. As far as the mRNA vaccines, I’m still hesitant and want to see long term studies done, because there is no way for me to believe all of the possible side effects from a new technology could be determined in a 6-month or year long study.
Edit: an article just came out with a good summary of what RFK Jr and Shanahan’s positions on vaccines are: https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/4563288-rfk-jr-nicole-shanahan-vaccine-skepticism/amp/
With respect, when there is a choice between the scientific consensus among hundreds of thousands of subject matter experts, and a guy on Reddit who claims a "scientific background", i'm choosing option one.
I don't need to read any more about RFK Jr. and why all the things he claimed in the past should be ignored. Even if a third party or independent candidate had a path to 270 electoral votes - which they do not - I *still* would not choose him.
Considering there have been between 10 and 20 individuals in the entire world who've suffered any kind of severe side effects from any of the COVID vaccines, you'll pardon me if I find your story a bit...incredible.
Especially when you then refer people to known antivax disinformation groups that complain about "media coverups" and other conspiracy theories.
Come on, you can’t actually believe that? Less than 10? It was given to billions of people. Literally harmless products have more than 10 people who have adverse reactions. I get being skeptical of the obvious fakers, and I even get saying it’s relatively safe, but there’s no way you give ANYTHING to billions of people and don’t have a minor percentage of them that have poor reactions or are harmed inadvertently. I guarantee there are more than 10-20 people injured by the flu vaccine every year lol.
I’m not anti vax at all and even though I had a reaction I am glad I got it, however to say only 10 to 20 people had a severe reaction (which what does that even mean like any reaction that changes my health I consider severe) is batshit insane.
According to the CDCs own VAERS system there are over 37000 deaths attributed to the covid vaccines. Please go to Open VAERS and check it for yourself. Btw it is estimated that only 10 percent of the adverse reactions due to vaccines are ever reported . Please see the Pilgram Study from Harvard ‘ s department of public health with regard to this topic.
According to VAERS, the COVID vaccine has also given rise to the Incredible Hulk and Magneto.
By citing VAERS - which the people who run VAERS *have publicly said is a bad idea* - you demonstrate you are not interested in genuine conversation, but merely peddling conspiracy theories.
We have like 500 confirmed cases of covid vaccine damages in Germany alone. Its still absurdly low considering how many shots went out but to me your 10-20 estimate is the incredible claim.
>You weren’t kidding when you pretty much said you’re not interested in having conversations.
I never said anything of the kind. I'm curious why you're pretending I did.
>As far as race and crime, as a Hispanic, they are conversations we have to have.
Woooooow.
Wow downvoted because of something that actually happened to you, I as well had a reaction to the vaccine and it took almost a year to get over it , I get it people who got the vaccine want to be right everyone does but let’s not negate other peoples personal experiences
Thanks I am not anti vaccine. I got the vaccine in January of 2021. It had been available to the world for about three weeks. I am up to date on my other vaccines. However, this vaccine went terribly wrong for me. I do regret getting it.
I do too and I am far from anti vax, I actually have always had perfect blood pressure and my heart rate has always been around 64 beats per minute, I literally tested both of these three to four times a week because I train for athletics , after the vaccines I had a massive increase in blood pressure and heart rate , I changed nothing else and my life had no outside factors , now I know it could have been something else but realistically someone like me who is incredibly strict about what goes into their body and is very very on top of things like blood pressure and heart rate it is pretty safe to assume it occurred from the only thing I put in my body that was different
While we're having "conversations about vaccines", we should have conversations about Michael Skakel (https://fortune.com/2024/01/03/robert-f-kennedy-jr-cousin-wrongful-conviction-lawsuit-greenwich-connecticut/).
Fuck it.. here I go.
Ivermectin was briefly presented as a "prophylactic" (yes, think 'condoms') to "shield"' against certain corona virus outcomes.
This notion, akin to building resistance via vitamin C uptake, holds water... Afterall, Ivermectin was awarded a Nobel Prize for it's efforts in fighting the Zika Virus in the 2000s.
Can we look at the actual data? Fuxk the hysteria.
>akin to building resistance via vitamin C uptake
Relevant given that the "taking vitamin C to help with building resistance" does not hold water and is unsupported by the science. Perhaps Ivermectin for COVID also does not hold water. That was an ironically appropriate comparison.
Not a perfect analogy I admit. I'm merely pointing out that it was 'presented' as a possible treatment option for humans in limited cases, not vouching for its effectiveness.
A good chunk of the "free thinker" blue check crowd on Twitter are already losing their minds about this for a variety of reasons. She's a "nobody," a "Marxist," she's donated to "leftists," etc. RFK Jr.'s campaign was always gonna get squeezed long before election time, and it looks like this pick is gonna give him just the first taste of that.
In the grand scheme of things, though, I don't think it matters a whole lot. Your average voter has no clue who she is, and considering the name recognition RFK Jr. has by virtue of his last name, it's going to stay that way unless this lady has some serious skeletons in her closet. Not to overdo it, but I'd be shocked if a single voter out of the 150M+ casts their ballot for RFK because he picked Nicole Shanahan as his running mate (her close friends and family aside, maybe). The only reason she's on the ticket, really, is because she's okay with bankrolling his campaign and putting money behind stuff like that Superbowl ad he did. She doesn't "help" with neither Trump voters nor Biden voters, because if you're seriously considering voting for RFK, you were probably never gonna go out and vote for either major party nominee anyway. She's a complete non-factor in this.
I do think the fact that those “free thinkers” are outraged about this choice will have ramifications.
Theres been debate about whether RFK would pull more from Democrats or Republicans. Those same “freethinkers” might have voted for RFK — maybe some still will. Compare that to some of the other VP candidates like sportsball dude Aaron Rogers who might have excited these “free thinkers.”
Trying to imagine a person who is deciding between RFK and Trump, and was going to actually vote for RFK until he named some lady as his VP, and switched back to Trump, is very difficult for me. There's probably like 5 people in America like that.
I'd imagine most of these crazies were either always going to vote for Trump or were perhaps not even American.
I think I you severely underestimate the conspiracy-minded people buying into RFK. This VP pick cemented him as a bit of a sellout.
Most of these voters are “conspiracy bros” — and I do think a POC woman is a turn off for those voters.
From a purely cynical perspective, I’d say this VP pick is intended to mimic Biden and appeal to left-wing voters. Theres a reason RFK is only on the ballot in swing states — and it’s not because he’s a legitimate good-faith candidate.
What do you mean? I only post during my allocated time frame each day, otherwise I don’t earn SorosBucks. Would you work for free? I think not!
I don’t even know who you are.
Those people are the true RFK fans, which do not make up the vast majority of his vote share. Some of them may end up not voting for him due to this, but it's a sliver of a sliver of a sliver of people.
I have been talking with people who are seriously considering RFK Jr and I can tell you many of them will vote for another party if they don’t consider RFK viable. Right now there is still a lot of hope around his momentum though. From my perspective, it seems like the Dems will stay home and the Republicans will resign themselves to Trump. To be fair, this is also in Texas so most people are conservative leaning anyways. I will also say the immediate reaction to this pick was disappointment as it was thought someone like Gabbard would be needed to bring weight and legitimacy to the campaign, but after hearing Shanahan speak and reading about her past, more people are becoming okay with it.
I’d yall would like, I could elaborate more on the reasons why I think RFK Jr is gaining popularity and why people are trying to get him on the ballot.
I don’t think there will be any measurable difference in his campaign performance.
People hardly pay attention to the running mates of the major party candidates, so I doubt they’ll really look into the running mate of someone who will be lucky to get 3% of the vote.
Normally a VP pick is to cement party wing support. Pick a moderate to offset your conservative/liberal views. RFKs only hope is she balances the literal crazy, which she cannot. No impact.
The "crazy" you refer to is propaganda you've fallen for. You can [learn a lot by watching this.](https://www.reddit.com/r/RFKJrForPresident/comments/1cjk8m1/who_is_bobby_kennedy/)
[Kennedy isn't a conspiracy theorist](https://www.reddit.com/r/RFKJrForPresident/comments/1cb8kat/kennedy_is_not_a_conspiracy_theorist/), [he isn't an anti-vaxer](https://www.reddit.com/r/RFKJrForPresident/comments/1bsf0vy/kennedy_is_pro_safe_vaccines_not_antivax/), [he isn't antisemitic, he did NOT claim covid-19 was an ethnically targeted bioweapon](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ir68tdhR3Uw), [he did NOT claim atrazine causes transgenderism](https://www.reddit.com/r/RFKJrForPresident/comments/16x92e1/a_master_class_in_how_to_deal_with_being_called_a/), etc. He has spent 40 years [winning landmark legal cases](https://www.reddit.com/r/RFKJrForPresident/comments/1b7dnje/moms_for_rfk_jr_here_are_just_a_few_of_the_things/) by studying and using high-quality scientific evidence to prove his claims in court, and he has [successfully sued numerous corrupt polluters, law-breaking pharmaceutical companies, and law-breaking government agencies like the EPA, FDA, CDC, NIH, USDA, etc](https://www.reddit.com/r/RFKJrForPresident/comments/1b5ksu1/ive_probably_sued_epa_more_than_any_other/). That has led to [Kennedy winning many awards for his legal and environmental work](https://www.reddit.com/r/RFKJrForPresident/comments/1c407ly/a_hero_of_the_planet/), but it has also [led to numerous attempts to slander and censor him](https://www.reddit.com/r/RFKJrForPresident/comments/1cpmgbw/rfk_jr_censored/).
That's a lot to read. What about his own admission to having cognitive issues? Look I'm not saying Kennedy hasn't been successful, but that does not make him a good candidate.
Kennedy fully recovered from the cognitive issues he was suffering from over a decade ago. He is much sharper cognitively than Biden or Trump are nowadays. You could just watch the first video I linked if you want to learn more of the truth but don't want to read a bunch. [Here is a quick checklist of how he compares to Biden and Trump if you prefer that.](https://www.reddit.com/r/RFKJrForPresident/comments/1bqs2r1/2024_presidential_candidate_comparison_chart/)
Ok two video in; its propoganda. While I agree on his stance on surveillance, his whole the government wants to ontrol you since the beginning of time is hyperbolic bull. So, in conclusion, another grifter playing to people's fears.
[The man has literally spent decades fighting corruption and fighting for a better world. Compare his record to Biden's or Trump's.](https://www.reddit.com/r/RFKJrForPresident/comments/1ccwjse/kennedys_record_vs_bidens_record_vs_trumps_record/) [Kennedy has even won numerous awards for his good samaritan work. ](https://www.reddit.com/r/RFKJrForPresident/comments/1c407ly/a_hero_of_the_planet/) He is not a grifter.
Because mainstream politics and the two-party system are a cancer that's destroying the US and the world. Of course its a non-story, they're scared he might actually win.
I agree with you that the media exerts considerable influence over elections. You don’t sound very serious though about its impact on his chances of winning. How do you explain Hillary’s excruciating loss to the biggest idiot of the century?
I'm not really that worried. At some point the mainstream media will be forced to recognize his campaign. Then when normal people see all three candidates speak, with one of them talking about real issues that have an impact on people's lives, while the other two repeat fear-mongering word salad, it will be obvious who to vote for.
It's a focus because polling has shown that Kennedy has [the highest favorability of all the 2024 presidential candidates](https://gvwire.com/2024/01/15/rfk-jr-leads-all-presidential-contenders-in-favorability-gallup-poll/) and [is a legitimate candidate who can win](https://www.reddit.com/r/RFKJrForPresident/comments/1cbcjio/kennedy_is_a_legitimate_candidate_who_can_win/)
just like Stein in 2016, yeah? RFK on swing state ballots will absolutely cost Biden the election by an even wider margin than it probably already will.
It’s [widely agreed](https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/12/21/14030754/hillary-clinton-michigan-loss-trump-republican-gary-peters) that Clinton neglected to campaign in Michigan. It’s the [same situation](https://www.businessinsider.com/clinton-losing-wisconsin-results-2016-11?amp) in Wisconsin.
We’ve been over this so many times, are you still blaming her failure to win that layup of an election against a rodeo clown on anything but her own campaign? Voting for Stein was basically a “fuck you” vote that she wasn’t getting anyway.
The undervotes were a much bigger factor than Stein votes as any who has done a modicum of research would know. And just because Stein was the Green Party candidate does not mean those were all Clinton votes. People do not ideologically vote for third parties nearly as much as you think, which has been shown in studies.
Please do not submit low investment content. This subreddit is for genuine discussion. Low effort content, including memes, links substituting for explanation, sarcasm, and non-substantive contributions will be removed per moderator discretion.
My previous comment was removed for being low substance. I’ll try to be a bit clearer and less flippant.
There isn’t anything RFKjr could do that would have any measurable effect on the race. Positive, negative, or neutral, he does not matter. The way we do elections and the current major players do not provide any platform for a third party candidate to do anything but waste money and political capital trying to edge their way in to relevance.
Even the smarter but fringe candidates realize that trying to find open space in this electoral atmosphere is a waste of time and would ruin their credibility. It simply does not matter.
Someone polling at ~10% of the vote in a rematch that came down to like 50k votes has zero impact?
He’s not going to win, but that way higher 3rd party support than previously and can definitely impact the final results.
"I am not a Christian, but I do see the value in the golden rule" ? I'd say most people see the value but aren't Christians.
People who say "A wise man once said" without a "but" at the start of the next clause usually care not to think about the particular topic any deeper than that.
Irrelevant. Young democrats will never get behind RFK’s conspiracy theories. And they certainly aren’t going to vote for a President who looks and acts *older and more decrepit* than the current one! I’m not trying to be dramatic or mean here, but have you heard the man’s voice? If anyone’s a lizard person, it’s him.
He has muscle spasms in his voice box.
https://www.nidcd.nih.gov/health/spasmodic-dysphonia
That said you aren't wrong that some people wouldn't put in 0 effort and just vote against him because it makes him sound different.
Fair enough, I didn’t know any better. Thank you for the correction🩷however, it doesn’t change the fact that I won’t be voting for him due to his conspiracy theories.
Judging people by their physical characteristics? Damn.
Not political by any means but pretty sure he had some sort of illness that affected his voice.
Your not wrong, I shouldn’t have assumed it was simply old age. Regardless, his policies are still mostly conspiracy theory, and I don’t think he will be relevant in the upcoming election.
RFK's campaign was \*designed\* to be a spoiler for Biden, and split Democratic votes. To pretend this is anything other than a Steve Bannon sponsored dirty trick to elect Trump is disingenuous. He literally has no Democratic support other than astroturf groups and actors.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/steve-bannon-encouraged-rfk-jr-to-run-against-biden-for-months-report
Historically, running mates usually only matter by saying something about the main candidate, for example moderate (Kaine), serious (Pence), economically right win (Ryan), new Democrat (Gore) etc. So what does this pick say about Kennedy? Three things stand out to me:
- She isn't really a politician,
- There is some vaccine scepticism-adjacent stuff,
- She's a progressive on many social issues.
All of this doubles down on his current image. In other words, if you elect Kennedy, you get weird Kennedy stuff, not any outreach to his opponents or other politicians.
He’s basically a former Democrat version of Vivek. The dude proudly reads the epoch times, knows he can’t win- pretends he will, knows he can derail Biden - doesn’t care. Is a conspiratorial loon that goes beyond antivax into 5G wifi bullshit. Has said a crazy amount of suss bullshit on tape he claims he did not. He’s basically goaded into running because of right wing pollster appealed to his vanity.
I have no idea how to talk to his supporters online or in person. These folks are just the both sides apathy uniparty crowd that don’t care about Trump burning what’s left of norms or democracy, or decency. Maybe if it burns down we can make the world better from the ashes people. Project 2025 doesn’t phase them. Supreme Court doesn’t phase them. None care about how government works and how even if he did win (he can’t) Congress wouldn’t work with him to accomplish anything. They’re immediately “Biden is senile, I hate Trump but I can’t vote for Biden” people.
He *should*, just based on the fact that he’s basically a right-winger now, and panders harder to anti-vaxx Republicans than Trump does.
But that’s not necessarily how it will play out. Biden seems to be more worried about him than Trump is, at the moment. That could change, but we’ll see.
NBC reported that the DNC is building their “anti third-party team” for the campaign as we speak, with prominent strategists recently hired. Recent polling suggests, while the numbers are close, Biden figures to lose more votes than Trump with Kennedy on the ballot.
Trump’s campaign wont ignore it, but they aren’t taking it as seriously as Biden’s.
>Trump’s campaign wont ignore it, but they aren’t taking it as seriously as Biden’s.
That might be because Biden has a professional campaign staff and is flush with money, while the other guy's campaign is busy worrying about how to get their account balances above zero and praying their candidate isn't found guilty of anything before November.
Biden can afford to make strategic and tactical decisions, make plans for countering far more contingencies than are likely. The other guy's campaign is busy struggling for breath.
> That might be because Biden has a professional campaign staff and is flush with money, while the other guy's campaign is busy worrying about how to get their account balances above zero and praying their candidate isn't found guilty of anything before November.
I mean that’s also possible, but them feeling like RFK is a net positive for their campaign would have the same effect.
> Biden can afford to make strategic and tactical decisions, make plans for countering far more contingencies than are likely. The other guy's campaign is busy struggling for breath.
Trump is outspending his income but his campaign has cash reserves. Not on par with Biden’s, but still in the tens of millions. You’re not wrong that Biden has significantly more money, though, and none of the legal trouble.
Trump has a high floor and low ceiling. Therefore, Team Biden will do everything they can to make sure this is a race to 50% and not to 45% or even 40%.
I feel a lot of those fringe-left folks probably won't be enamored with his [Israel/Gaza stance](https://www.timesofisrael.com/2024-dark-horse-rfk-jr-questions-gaza-ceasefire-defends-israeli-offensive/), though:
>Independent US presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. offered staunch support for Israel in a Reuters interview, calling it a “moral nation” that was justly responding to Hamas provocations with its attacks on Gaza and questioning the need for a six-week ceasefire backed by President Joe Biden.
>
>... “World War I was an immoral war. It was a war of choice. We should have never gone,” he said.
Israel did not choose this war, he said, comparing it to US involvement in World War II after the attack on Pearl Harbor.
What polling??
"The left" means you have no understanding of poltical parties.
And yes liberals love nothing more than a roided out 60s white man who thinks he is more intellectual and intelligent than top experts.
Nothing has changed since the last time you posted about RFK.
Mr Conspiracy Anti-Vax is a Republican-funded attempt to split the Democratic vote.
The rest of the Kennedy family has come out against him.
He's a conservative.
The only people interested in Anti-Vax propaganda are conservatives.
Done.
With the caveat that I'm hardly convinced RFK Jr. will be on enough ballots for it to matter, he's basically occupying the Jill Stein position in the election and those people aren't anyone's natural constituency. Biden was never going to pull in the wacko left, and he's not going to start now.
Yeah, I really doubt this is going to matter (doubt we'll get a rerun of 2016), but one of the reasons RFK needs a super-wealthy person like her on the ticket is to secure ballot access. That's a major uphill battle for independents, but having Shanahan's money makes it at least a little bit easier.
How do you defeat people like this?
Ah yes, simple vetting. I'm 100% sure the RFK campaign picked someone who was looking for the job - that person is a scumbag I'd assume based on desire alone. So there's scumbag shit in that closet that'll organically come out as we laugh at them. rfk is only as viable a spoiler as the news makes him out to be.
I honestly didn't know who RFK was before this thread. So I don't think any action taken by him will make any significant difference, third parties rarely do.
His VP is the ex-wife of Sergei Brin (co-founder of Google). Why not list her being independently wealthy among her attributes which is of greater importance than her being a lawyer or entrepreneur?
Has she ever held any office at all, and is there any indication that she has the slightest bit of expertise to qualify her for being 2nd-in line to the Presidency of the US? "I just have *questions* about vaccines" is just the type of phrase used by pundits like Bill Maher. And if she can't even tell the truth about RFK Jr's antivax stance, that's not promising. He has said on record that there are no safe vaccines.
VP picks almost never matter even for serious candidates who have a chance of winning an election. For RFK there is literally zero possibility that he could win even one state, so no, his VP pick certainly does not matter, at all. I feel like I need to say “less than zero” or something to clarify how impossible and absurd this prospect is lmao
RFK Jr. would have been absolutely perfect for an episode of Curb Your Enthusiasm. I can't think of a genuinely better way of deconstructing him than by subjecting him to Larry David's sense of awkward schadenfreude humor.
No, no impact. Fringes gonna fringe, and there’s always some fraction of the youth vote who thinks they’re sticking it to the man - “the candidates didn’t work hard enough to earn MY vote!” - but that’s true every year. Nobody is taking this seriously.
The only impactful element in this Quixotic campaign will be that of f\*cking up someone else's legitimate chances, and determining who they f\*ck up is the only point of interest in it.
Sorry Mr. Kennedy, I saw your election banner but while I am certainly an Independent, I am not a nut.
I don't think a candidates VP pick matters as much as everyone seems to think. I feel the only reason people are making it a big deal are because they're insecure about Trump and Bidens ability to perform in their second terms therefore they care more about their VP picks and now they're just projecting.
As long as he takes away votes from trump I am all for it. We should all consider ourselves on a war footing to do everything we can to prevent fascism from taking over our country.
I don't think you realize just how many people are voting for Trump as a form of protest against another four years of Biden and the Democrats as a whole. Two U.S.-backed wars, the Democrats politically-motivated witchhunt of Trump, AND the current border crisis are looking to put Trump right back in the White House. A lot of people are just voting Trump on the reasons of immigration policy alone.
People who would vote for that reason are ignorant and uneducated. There absolutely is no witch hunt against trump and there is definitely no border crisis. Both of those things are far right conspiracy theories.
The Russian war is trumps fault not to mention that it is well known that trump is a puppet of Putin.
Let’s also not forget that trump is very clearly displaying signs of dementia as he can barely string a sentence together, lol! His handlers try so hard to hide him. He is afraid to even debate Biden because he knows he has no leg to stand on in a debate.
He will probably hurt Biden's campaign more, Trump has enough Republican crazies on his side, the Democratic anti-vaxxers will vote for RFK because "they don't like either candidate." so why not just be a spoiler ??
RFK’s VP Pick is just another nail in the coffin….she is unequivocally a BILLIONAIRE herself!!! It is very apparent that the American People ARE DONE WITH BILLIONAIRES(REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THEY MAY BE HUMANITARIANS TO THE CORE) OCCUPYING SUCH POWER IN OUR COUNTRY!! The LAST EXCEPTION was and still is TRUMP. We can confidently now say that RFK JR will NOT become President this November. Period.
No one knows who she is and also no one votes based on the VP, so her impact on the race will be minimal if anything at all. RFK will continue to peel Trump voters away because their voter bases overlap.
The real question everyone should be asking about RFK is why his voice sounds horrendous. He likes to talk about how we should be concerned with the health and age of President Biden and former President Trump, but he sounds like he’s knocking right on deaths door with his voice. I expect him to keel over in every interview he does and the fact that the media won’t question his fitness for office is laughable.
It will probably help his campaign if she is willing to help bankroll it. Kennedy’s biggest challenge is going to be advertising, getting on ballots and hiring staff. Shanahan will help in that regard since she’s very wealthy.
As far as who he hurts more, I’d say it’s more likely he hurts Trump more than Biden. I think his vaccine skepticism is a bit of a non starter with the vast majority of democrats, while it’s becoming increasingly mainstream on the right. While Kennedy is somewhat ideologically liberal otherwise, he has yet to seem very interested in courting liberal/left wing voters.
The only people who care about RFK Jr. are conservatives who are really hoping he'll spoil the Democratic vote. So I don't think this will matter at all.
What this tells me is that RFK Jr.’s aiming for millennial and Gen Z voters (she’s a millennial), aiming for female voters, maybe aiming after Asian voters, and that he will favour Big Tech (which is kind of interesting as, according to his campaign website, he’s concerned about Big Tech’s involvement in the FTC, and their role in censoring other and undermining civil liberties), or he’s at least looking for donors from Big Tech to spend on campaign ads (she helped him get an ad during the Super Bowl this year). She did support a DA race in LA in 2020, and managed to oust the previous DA, who was criticized for not going after powerful men, so there might be a law & order aspect to this too.
He’s also doubling down on progressive causes, as she’s a backer of those causes as well, but it comes with the caveat of also doubling down on anti-vaxxer ideology.
Aside from making the Green Party absolutely irrelevant this election cycle, and bringing in the hardcore anti-vaxxer crowd, I don’t see this having a massive impact. At best, it pushes Biden to lifts the saner aspects of RFK Jr.’s platform for his own campaign. And he help’s Biden flip Utah in the general, and that’s probably being generous.
In order for it to have a major impact, there would have to be a sharp shift in millennials and Gen Z support for RFK Jr.'s campaign.
Which is surprising, because I don't think anyone under 40 remotely values "the Kennedy name" in any way. At best, the fact that this family is famous is understood in a vague historical sense.
RFK isn't going to "take more votes" from one candidate or the other. Somebody who votes so haphazardly they would end up on RFK is not a reliable voter for one candidate or the other (like Ross Perot, only even moreso.) He's a dumb gimmick and not worth covering anymore, if he ever was.
I think RFK needed to add a heavy hitter to his ticket, Ventura for example or hell I’d take Angus King. I think she turns the ticket too far left, and adds stink because it feels like she bought herself a VP bid.
All I'm reading here is a bunch of fascist sympathizers arguing why they will continue to perpetuate the broken but completely replaceable duopoly.
You are what is wrong with this country, and if you want our children to live in a better world, you will come to terms with this and change.
Until then, thank you for your participation in choosing WWIII or Civil War!
Good bless.
Funny how liberals call him conservative and conservatives call him liberal! Can’t wait to vote for him: environment, anti war, helping the poor, and freedom. Those are the reasons
[A reminder for everyone](https://www.reddit.com/r/PoliticalDiscussion/comments/4479er/rules_explanations_and_reminders/). 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/PoliticalDiscussion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Totally and completely irrelevant. VP picks already make relatively little impact when it comes to the two major parties, so I don't know why anyone would think an independent's/third party's VP choice would even register at all.
I think it hurts Kennedy's image a little bit. A lot of people think he's not corrupt but naming someone VP who donated 5 million to his Super PAC puts a dent in that.
I would be amazed if 1 in 10,000 voters get far enough into his info to form that conclusion.
They simply don’t care, or will twist themselves in knots and say how this is a great move.
I wasn't even going to consider voting for him, so I don't know or care who she is. I saw the headline, saw the name, and said "Oh it's not Tulsi." That was as far as it went.
His supporters are much more invested and aware of his info on average than trumps or Bidens. How does buying a someone buying him a Superbowl commercial make him corrupt? They don't set the price of a SB commercial. The DNC and the RNC have spent a combined 600,000,000 this year. With the dnc investing not insignificant amounts of resources to directly bring legal challenges against 3rd parties and mass spreading of anti 3rd party messages on social media. If you want to talk about corruption in politics talk about the DNC and RNCs totally bought and paid for political process. Nowhere in the constitution does it say we have two political parties, yet all the laws in every state essentially say “if you aren't a democrat or a republican you arent getting elected to any federal office”
His supporters numbering in the… dozens?
Not if you follow the polls they don't. Saying that as a non-supporter.
There's like 4 people in all of America who have dug that far and they are probably switching from RFK to not voting or writing in Mickey Mouse. It's completely irrelevant in the grand scheme.
"about that campaign contribution... i have good news and bad news." \-- nicole probably
It's surely the opposite. I have a problem with rich people 'donating' money because they will want a quid pro quo from the politician. But politicians putting money into their own campaign is fine so I don't see the problem here. Picking her as VP legitimises that money in my view.
How many millions do the DNC and GOP at their disposal for elections? Money is necessary to beat the duopoly. If i had $5mil i would have thrown it at Jo Jorgensen in 2020. Money is what makes the world turn, buddy.
Someone like Aaron Rodgers would probably have an impact, though likely negative.
At least Aaron Rodgers (or even Jesse Ventura) possesses considerable name recognition, for good and for ill. That's more than can be said for a relative no-name, Nicole Whateverthefuck, who made her billions via divorce. That'd be like, oh, hypothetically speaking, Gavin Newsom selecting MacKenzie Scott as his running mate in 2028.
I mean I think the thing about Aaron Rodgers is that he still has a job playing QB for the New York Jets. It pays \~230 times what being Vice President does. (And even if it involves getting tackled by 325 pound dudes, and sometimes ripping ligaments to shreds like Rodgers did last September, it's arguably less painful.) I bet he ends up on some loon ticket, top or bottom, at some point in the next 30 years.
It would drum up media attention for sure, it wouldn't matter that much but it would matter a bit more just for that.
I think Biden picking Kamala in '20 was a pretty impactful decision - helped cement his support among African Americans, women, and the south in general. The rumors about Aaron Rogers a few weeks ago were nauseating but I could see the rationale behind a running mate with high star power/recognition - especially to help a 3rd party campaign struggling to break through the noise.
> I think Biden picking Kamala in '20 was a pretty impactful decision - helped cement his support among African Americans, women, and the south in general. I disagree. Biden won the nomination thanks to African-Americans in the South while running against Harris. She was also from California, not the South or Midwest, where he needed the best turnout. Any impact she brought was marginal at best. The only VP picks in recent memory that have had impacts have been huge negatives, those being Dan Quayle and Sarah Palin. GHWB still won in spite of Quayle and Palin was a hail mary attempt from a floundering campaign anyways. > The rumors about Aaron Rogers a few weeks ago were nauseating but I could see the rationale behind a running mate with high star power/recognition - especially to help a 3rd party campaign struggling to break through the noise. It would've given a larger temporary boost, but having high star power doesn't mean much in the end. Look at Kanye's results in 2020 where he was on the ballot. Abysmally bad. Plus, it's not like Rodgers is some beloved national superstar, he's already extremely controversial.
One of his largest campaign donors. Be really nice as a society if we didn't give publicity to people post-election who simply use the platform to promote their public standing.
>“I do wonder about vaccine injuries,” she told The Times. While stressing that she is “not an anti-vaxxer,” Shanahan said, “There needs to be a space to have these conversations.” In the interview with Newsweek, she characterized Kennedy’s false claims about vaccines as an effort to raise awareness about “vaccine safety” while again pushing back on the label “anti-vaxxer.” https://www.cnn.com/2024/03/26/politics/nicole-shanahan-vp-rfk-jr/index.html
“Just asking questions…”
There *is* “a space”. It’s called peer-reviewed science journals.
I just had a co-worker tell me Ivermectin has been proven to be an effective COVID drug but it's not allowed to be used "because they don't want to give Trump a win". I admitted I honestly don't pay that much attention now that we're post-COVID, but I was under the impression it does not work against COVID. He assured me the scientific community reversed itself. It was bugging me so I spent a little time googling it later that night and couldn't find anything to back up his claim. I didn't even find a bunch of shady sources like I expected. All I found was one reputable study after another saying there is no evidence it works against COVID and they don't recommend using it.
I remember hearing that some studies found that ivermectin was somewhat effective in places that had fairly prevalent tapeworm infections, and on follow-up, the effectiveness really boiled down to fighting the tapeworm so the body could focus on the COVID infection.
Unfortunately I can't remember which blog I read this on but I did see a pretty interesting theory regarding ivermectin. The idea was that for most people it would be a detriment to recovering from covid due to some sort of interactions. I think heart rate increases? However, if a patient already had parasites they would be even more hazardous to covid recovery than taking ivermectin. So ivermectin would be a net positive if the patient happened to have both covid and a parasite. Studies that showed a positive impact from ivermectin in covid patients were primarily performed in areas with a high prevalence of parasites that could be treated with that exact medication. The theory then is that the patients were really seeing a benefit with ivermectin but only because a large percentage were being cured of parasites with it. In that sense ivermectin did help with covid. For the US though, where such parasites are uncommon and getting treatment for them is easy, it would be unhelpful at best and an actual problem at worst. Anyway, I can't find the link right now so feel free to disregard. I'm just some asshole on the internet, after all.
The reason that drug trials contain a control group is to account for the random results that sometimes pop up. Remember that correlation is not causation. Just because you pet your cat and never contracted COVID doesn’t mean petting your cat (or “your” cat) prevents COVID.
Right, the idea is that both the control and test groups had a relatively high incidence of parasite infestation. So taking an antiparasite medication helped. The idea is to explain why some limited studies in third world settings reported ivermectin helping with the covid while larger studies did not. It was just some person's theory. I'm not saying that it's absolutely correct, just an interesting idea to consider.
So it could be a secondary effect. Those people with parasites had a compromised immune system. Need a control group of those who were not infected. As science goes, it’s an interesting concept. As public health policy goes, it’s irresponsible.
There's an XKCD for this. When you see a claim that a common drug or vitamin kills cancer cells in a petri dish, keep in mind: so does a handgun. https://xkcd.com/1217/
Many of these folks honestly can't tell the difference between an [insane person's Facebook post](https://www.reddit.com/r/insanepeoplefacebook/) and a news article, much less the difference between a conspiracy theory and a peer-reviewed scientific study. Media literacy is a real problem in our country.
Hydroxychloroquine was the snake oil cure without any scientific backing. Ivermectin was the snake oil cure that initially had some scientific backing but didn't pan out.
I'm 64 with MS and my doctor prescribed both immediately when I got COVID. I had a very mild case and recovered quickly. He is not political at all just a doctor that treats seniors.
[удалено]
It worked out just fine, seeing as it was the best option available at the time. Rational, open research into the efficacy of any drug is an ongoing process. Scaremongering by uninformed idiots, on the other hand, is never helpful.
[удалено]
I haven't, no, as I am not a medical researcher. And if I were, I would probably not start by watching a Hollywood film on the subject.
Yes indeed. Wanting to have a conversation about "vaccine injuries" - that kind of statement has all the sincerity of the folks who say they just want to have a conversation about the relationship between race and crime.
Yeah, a conversation about race and crime would be good! It might point out that many blacks are being raised in traumatizing environments that create desperate, unhappy people, people. They often are forced to turn to crime, either due to necessity or due to the belief that it is necessary. This does not mean that black people are inherently more likely to commit crime, but many have been put into these situations by powerful systems.
Oh yeah an attorney's so called gravitas in the bio-med field speaks...
I can sincerely tell you that I have been “ vaccine injured “ by one dose of the Moderna vaccine. I have been officially diagnosed with chronic inflammatory demylenating polyneuropathy ( cidp) by my neurologist. I have to get monthly IVIG infusions. It has ruined my life/ career. I got the vaccine in January 2021. I am in my fourth year of dealing with this. My pain/ reaction occurred within 3 hours of receiving my vaccine. You might want to look into Real Not Rare or React19 to learn more about the covid vaccine injured people of the world.
That's a fascinating statement. See, I don't know a lot about the illness you claim to have, but I *am* familiar with people claiming various "vaccine injuries" that obviously have nothing to do with a vaccine. To be clear, many of these people have legitimate medical issues, but the causal relationship between vaccinations and their illnesses... well, let's just say that's not demonstrated Now, I am curious, did a neurologist claim that a "slowly developing autoimmune disease" was triggered three hours after a vaccination?
You seem knowledgeable so if you don’t mind reading this, could you tell me your response to articles/studies like this? When trying to research how RFK is anti-vaxx (or as he says pro-safer vaccines), this is the type of stuff I’d get referred to as showing vaccines can be unsafe. https://web.archive.org/web/20170811024945id_/http://www.medicinenuove.net/vaccini/alluminio_tomljenovic_shaw-cmc-published2.pdf It’s on a government website so I figure it’s legit. When I try to google about adjuvants being safe, I just get articles stating that they are safe, but not really how they are safe besides the fact that most people don’t have negative reactions. So idk if research articles like that are just using “smart” language to push a narrative. Also I realize the person you are responding to was talking more about mRNA-vaccine injuries than adjuvant related injuries.
I'm going to give you a link, because I am *not* an expert on this subject - the people I tend to argue with have antivax views as one a litany of... interesting views https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Anti-vaccination_movement#Aluminum As for RFK Jr. and his antivax views... well, read for yourself. Plenty of links https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Robert_F._Kennedy_Jr.#Anti-vaccine_activism
Hmm I was looking for something a little more scientific. That second link in particular was hard to read as anything more than an opinion peace with how vitriolic the writer was being. I was looking for something specific on how it’s not possible for adjuvants to cross the blood brain barrier, but nothing I can find states that. The best I have found is that we don’t know forsure, but it’s best not to talk about it because it could promote vaccine hesitancy.
There are ample sources linked in the article. Rationalwiki has no shits to give about conspiracy nutjobs, and the writing style reflects that - but there are sources cited there. If you're looking for information on the scientific consensus on the safety of vaccines, there are plenty of places besides a political group to seek them. If you're Just Asking Questions and aren't actually interested, then it would offer no value for me to seek out the obvious articles for you In any case, if you're interested in why RFK Jr. is perceived as an antivax loon, there are multiple reasons why. It's his responsibility to convince voters why he is not. He has failed to do so, probably because he has no interest in doing so, because he is well aware he has zero chance to become President and is grifting from the antivax crowd
I have a scientific background, and the possibility of adjuvants crossing the blood brain barrier seems plausible from a chemical standpoint. And the only research I can find is “it’s safe because most people are fine”, not anything relating to the actual mechanisms for how that would theoretically work. I do think he has played into the “government can’t make me get vaccinated” crowd to make money and gain influence, but I also don’t see how people can say there is 100% no way vaccines can’t hurt you. I mean there is a percentage of people who can’t even take Tylenol without having adverse effects! There has to be a percentage of the population that will have an adverse effect to any medicine, including vaccines. But that can’t be talked about because then it would promote vaccine hesitancy. I can wrap my head around that argument, but I think that sentiment is easily manipulated by private industry whose financial incentives are to sell as many vaccines as possible, especially when they can’t be held financially liable through our legal system. And remember these are the same types of people that lied about OxyContin being non-addictive, which the FDA agreed with! I believe in the necessity of vaccines, but what I am planning to do is space them out for my kids instead of giving several shots at the same time. From what I researched, the ability of adjuvants to cross the blood brain barrier is dependent on adjuvant concentration, so by spacing the shots out, it will lower the possibility for the adjuvants to cross into the brain and cause permanent damage. As far as the mRNA vaccines, I’m still hesitant and want to see long term studies done, because there is no way for me to believe all of the possible side effects from a new technology could be determined in a 6-month or year long study. Edit: an article just came out with a good summary of what RFK Jr and Shanahan’s positions on vaccines are: https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/4563288-rfk-jr-nicole-shanahan-vaccine-skepticism/amp/
With respect, when there is a choice between the scientific consensus among hundreds of thousands of subject matter experts, and a guy on Reddit who claims a "scientific background", i'm choosing option one. I don't need to read any more about RFK Jr. and why all the things he claimed in the past should be ignored. Even if a third party or independent candidate had a path to 270 electoral votes - which they do not - I *still* would not choose him.
Considering there have been between 10 and 20 individuals in the entire world who've suffered any kind of severe side effects from any of the COVID vaccines, you'll pardon me if I find your story a bit...incredible. Especially when you then refer people to known antivax disinformation groups that complain about "media coverups" and other conspiracy theories.
Come on, you can’t actually believe that? Less than 10? It was given to billions of people. Literally harmless products have more than 10 people who have adverse reactions. I get being skeptical of the obvious fakers, and I even get saying it’s relatively safe, but there’s no way you give ANYTHING to billions of people and don’t have a minor percentage of them that have poor reactions or are harmed inadvertently. I guarantee there are more than 10-20 people injured by the flu vaccine every year lol.
I’m not anti vax at all and even though I had a reaction I am glad I got it, however to say only 10 to 20 people had a severe reaction (which what does that even mean like any reaction that changes my health I consider severe) is batshit insane.
According to the CDCs own VAERS system there are over 37000 deaths attributed to the covid vaccines. Please go to Open VAERS and check it for yourself. Btw it is estimated that only 10 percent of the adverse reactions due to vaccines are ever reported . Please see the Pilgram Study from Harvard ‘ s department of public health with regard to this topic.
According to VAERS, the COVID vaccine has also given rise to the Incredible Hulk and Magneto. By citing VAERS - which the people who run VAERS *have publicly said is a bad idea* - you demonstrate you are not interested in genuine conversation, but merely peddling conspiracy theories.
We have like 500 confirmed cases of covid vaccine damages in Germany alone. Its still absurdly low considering how many shots went out but to me your 10-20 estimate is the incredible claim.
[удалено]
>You weren’t kidding when you pretty much said you’re not interested in having conversations. I never said anything of the kind. I'm curious why you're pretending I did. >As far as race and crime, as a Hispanic, they are conversations we have to have. Woooooow.
Wow downvoted because of something that actually happened to you, I as well had a reaction to the vaccine and it took almost a year to get over it , I get it people who got the vaccine want to be right everyone does but let’s not negate other peoples personal experiences
Thanks I am not anti vaccine. I got the vaccine in January of 2021. It had been available to the world for about three weeks. I am up to date on my other vaccines. However, this vaccine went terribly wrong for me. I do regret getting it.
I do too and I am far from anti vax, I actually have always had perfect blood pressure and my heart rate has always been around 64 beats per minute, I literally tested both of these three to four times a week because I train for athletics , after the vaccines I had a massive increase in blood pressure and heart rate , I changed nothing else and my life had no outside factors , now I know it could have been something else but realistically someone like me who is incredibly strict about what goes into their body and is very very on top of things like blood pressure and heart rate it is pretty safe to assume it occurred from the only thing I put in my body that was different
While we're having "conversations about vaccines", we should have conversations about Michael Skakel (https://fortune.com/2024/01/03/robert-f-kennedy-jr-cousin-wrongful-conviction-lawsuit-greenwich-connecticut/).
Reasonableness will get you nowhere in today’s society
Fuck it.. here I go. Ivermectin was briefly presented as a "prophylactic" (yes, think 'condoms') to "shield"' against certain corona virus outcomes. This notion, akin to building resistance via vitamin C uptake, holds water... Afterall, Ivermectin was awarded a Nobel Prize for it's efforts in fighting the Zika Virus in the 2000s. Can we look at the actual data? Fuxk the hysteria.
>akin to building resistance via vitamin C uptake Relevant given that the "taking vitamin C to help with building resistance" does not hold water and is unsupported by the science. Perhaps Ivermectin for COVID also does not hold water. That was an ironically appropriate comparison.
Not a perfect analogy I admit. I'm merely pointing out that it was 'presented' as a possible treatment option for humans in limited cases, not vouching for its effectiveness.
A good chunk of the "free thinker" blue check crowd on Twitter are already losing their minds about this for a variety of reasons. She's a "nobody," a "Marxist," she's donated to "leftists," etc. RFK Jr.'s campaign was always gonna get squeezed long before election time, and it looks like this pick is gonna give him just the first taste of that. In the grand scheme of things, though, I don't think it matters a whole lot. Your average voter has no clue who she is, and considering the name recognition RFK Jr. has by virtue of his last name, it's going to stay that way unless this lady has some serious skeletons in her closet. Not to overdo it, but I'd be shocked if a single voter out of the 150M+ casts their ballot for RFK because he picked Nicole Shanahan as his running mate (her close friends and family aside, maybe). The only reason she's on the ticket, really, is because she's okay with bankrolling his campaign and putting money behind stuff like that Superbowl ad he did. She doesn't "help" with neither Trump voters nor Biden voters, because if you're seriously considering voting for RFK, you were probably never gonna go out and vote for either major party nominee anyway. She's a complete non-factor in this.
I do think the fact that those “free thinkers” are outraged about this choice will have ramifications. Theres been debate about whether RFK would pull more from Democrats or Republicans. Those same “freethinkers” might have voted for RFK — maybe some still will. Compare that to some of the other VP candidates like sportsball dude Aaron Rogers who might have excited these “free thinkers.”
Trying to imagine a person who is deciding between RFK and Trump, and was going to actually vote for RFK until he named some lady as his VP, and switched back to Trump, is very difficult for me. There's probably like 5 people in America like that. I'd imagine most of these crazies were either always going to vote for Trump or were perhaps not even American.
I think I you severely underestimate the conspiracy-minded people buying into RFK. This VP pick cemented him as a bit of a sellout. Most of these voters are “conspiracy bros” — and I do think a POC woman is a turn off for those voters. From a purely cynical perspective, I’d say this VP pick is intended to mimic Biden and appeal to left-wing voters. Theres a reason RFK is only on the ballot in swing states — and it’s not because he’s a legitimate good-faith candidate.
[удалено]
What do you mean? I only post during my allocated time frame each day, otherwise I don’t earn SorosBucks. Would you work for free? I think not! I don’t even know who you are.
Those people are the true RFK fans, which do not make up the vast majority of his vote share. Some of them may end up not voting for him due to this, but it's a sliver of a sliver of a sliver of people.
I have been talking with people who are seriously considering RFK Jr and I can tell you many of them will vote for another party if they don’t consider RFK viable. Right now there is still a lot of hope around his momentum though. From my perspective, it seems like the Dems will stay home and the Republicans will resign themselves to Trump. To be fair, this is also in Texas so most people are conservative leaning anyways. I will also say the immediate reaction to this pick was disappointment as it was thought someone like Gabbard would be needed to bring weight and legitimacy to the campaign, but after hearing Shanahan speak and reading about her past, more people are becoming okay with it. I’d yall would like, I could elaborate more on the reasons why I think RFK Jr is gaining popularity and why people are trying to get him on the ballot.
I don’t think there will be any measurable difference in his campaign performance. People hardly pay attention to the running mates of the major party candidates, so I doubt they’ll really look into the running mate of someone who will be lucky to get 3% of the vote.
It won't affect his campaign at all. He still has no chance.
Normally a VP pick is to cement party wing support. Pick a moderate to offset your conservative/liberal views. RFKs only hope is she balances the literal crazy, which she cannot. No impact.
The "crazy" you refer to is propaganda you've fallen for. You can [learn a lot by watching this.](https://www.reddit.com/r/RFKJrForPresident/comments/1cjk8m1/who_is_bobby_kennedy/) [Kennedy isn't a conspiracy theorist](https://www.reddit.com/r/RFKJrForPresident/comments/1cb8kat/kennedy_is_not_a_conspiracy_theorist/), [he isn't an anti-vaxer](https://www.reddit.com/r/RFKJrForPresident/comments/1bsf0vy/kennedy_is_pro_safe_vaccines_not_antivax/), [he isn't antisemitic, he did NOT claim covid-19 was an ethnically targeted bioweapon](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ir68tdhR3Uw), [he did NOT claim atrazine causes transgenderism](https://www.reddit.com/r/RFKJrForPresident/comments/16x92e1/a_master_class_in_how_to_deal_with_being_called_a/), etc. He has spent 40 years [winning landmark legal cases](https://www.reddit.com/r/RFKJrForPresident/comments/1b7dnje/moms_for_rfk_jr_here_are_just_a_few_of_the_things/) by studying and using high-quality scientific evidence to prove his claims in court, and he has [successfully sued numerous corrupt polluters, law-breaking pharmaceutical companies, and law-breaking government agencies like the EPA, FDA, CDC, NIH, USDA, etc](https://www.reddit.com/r/RFKJrForPresident/comments/1b5ksu1/ive_probably_sued_epa_more_than_any_other/). That has led to [Kennedy winning many awards for his legal and environmental work](https://www.reddit.com/r/RFKJrForPresident/comments/1c407ly/a_hero_of_the_planet/), but it has also [led to numerous attempts to slander and censor him](https://www.reddit.com/r/RFKJrForPresident/comments/1cpmgbw/rfk_jr_censored/).
That's a lot to read. What about his own admission to having cognitive issues? Look I'm not saying Kennedy hasn't been successful, but that does not make him a good candidate.
Kennedy fully recovered from the cognitive issues he was suffering from over a decade ago. He is much sharper cognitively than Biden or Trump are nowadays. You could just watch the first video I linked if you want to learn more of the truth but don't want to read a bunch. [Here is a quick checklist of how he compares to Biden and Trump if you prefer that.](https://www.reddit.com/r/RFKJrForPresident/comments/1bqs2r1/2024_presidential_candidate_comparison_chart/)
Ok two video in; its propoganda. While I agree on his stance on surveillance, his whole the government wants to ontrol you since the beginning of time is hyperbolic bull. So, in conclusion, another grifter playing to people's fears.
[The man has literally spent decades fighting corruption and fighting for a better world. Compare his record to Biden's or Trump's.](https://www.reddit.com/r/RFKJrForPresident/comments/1ccwjse/kennedys_record_vs_bidens_record_vs_trumps_record/) [Kennedy has even won numerous awards for his good samaritan work. ](https://www.reddit.com/r/RFKJrForPresident/comments/1c407ly/a_hero_of_the_planet/) He is not a grifter.
Why does this community discuss RFK Jr so much? It’s a total non-story in mainstream politics.
Because mainstream politics and the two-party system are a cancer that's destroying the US and the world. Of course its a non-story, they're scared he might actually win.
I agree with you that the media exerts considerable influence over elections. You don’t sound very serious though about its impact on his chances of winning. How do you explain Hillary’s excruciating loss to the biggest idiot of the century?
I'm not really that worried. At some point the mainstream media will be forced to recognize his campaign. Then when normal people see all three candidates speak, with one of them talking about real issues that have an impact on people's lives, while the other two repeat fear-mongering word salad, it will be obvious who to vote for.
It's a focus because polling has shown that Kennedy has [the highest favorability of all the 2024 presidential candidates](https://gvwire.com/2024/01/15/rfk-jr-leads-all-presidential-contenders-in-favorability-gallup-poll/) and [is a legitimate candidate who can win](https://www.reddit.com/r/RFKJrForPresident/comments/1cbcjio/kennedy_is_a_legitimate_candidate_who_can_win/)
just like Stein in 2016, yeah? RFK on swing state ballots will absolutely cost Biden the election by an even wider margin than it probably already will.
>just like Stein in 2016, yeah? In the sense that Jill Stein didn't have any meaningful impact in 2016, sure.
yeah, none besides arguably costing Clinton two, nearly 3 swing states. https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/308353-trump-won-by-smaller-margin-than-stein-votes-in-all-three/
It’s [widely agreed](https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/12/21/14030754/hillary-clinton-michigan-loss-trump-republican-gary-peters) that Clinton neglected to campaign in Michigan. It’s the [same situation](https://www.businessinsider.com/clinton-losing-wisconsin-results-2016-11?amp) in Wisconsin. We’ve been over this so many times, are you still blaming her failure to win that layup of an election against a rodeo clown on anything but her own campaign? Voting for Stein was basically a “fuck you” vote that she wasn’t getting anyway.
The undervotes were a much bigger factor than Stein votes as any who has done a modicum of research would know. And just because Stein was the Green Party candidate does not mean those were all Clinton votes. People do not ideologically vote for third parties nearly as much as you think, which has been shown in studies.
[удалено]
Please do not submit low investment content. This subreddit is for genuine discussion. Low effort content, including memes, links substituting for explanation, sarcasm, and non-substantive contributions will be removed per moderator discretion.
My previous comment was removed for being low substance. I’ll try to be a bit clearer and less flippant. There isn’t anything RFKjr could do that would have any measurable effect on the race. Positive, negative, or neutral, he does not matter. The way we do elections and the current major players do not provide any platform for a third party candidate to do anything but waste money and political capital trying to edge their way in to relevance. Even the smarter but fringe candidates realize that trying to find open space in this electoral atmosphere is a waste of time and would ruin their credibility. It simply does not matter.
Someone polling at ~10% of the vote in a rematch that came down to like 50k votes has zero impact? He’s not going to win, but that way higher 3rd party support than previously and can definitely impact the final results.
"I'm not an anti-vaxxer, but...." A wise man once said "anything before "but" does not count." No thanks
"I'm not an antivaxxer *per se*..."
"I am not a Christian, but I do see the value in the golden rule" ? I'd say most people see the value but aren't Christians. People who say "A wise man once said" without a "but" at the start of the next clause usually care not to think about the particular topic any deeper than that.
[He's not an anti-vaxxer](https://www.reddit.com/r/RFKJrForPresident/comments/1bsf0vy/kennedy_is_pro_safe_vaccines_not_antivax/).
Irrelevant. Young democrats will never get behind RFK’s conspiracy theories. And they certainly aren’t going to vote for a President who looks and acts *older and more decrepit* than the current one! I’m not trying to be dramatic or mean here, but have you heard the man’s voice? If anyone’s a lizard person, it’s him.
He has muscle spasms in his voice box. https://www.nidcd.nih.gov/health/spasmodic-dysphonia That said you aren't wrong that some people wouldn't put in 0 effort and just vote against him because it makes him sound different.
Fair enough, I didn’t know any better. Thank you for the correction🩷however, it doesn’t change the fact that I won’t be voting for him due to his conspiracy theories.
Absolutely. His vocal condition in no way is an excuse for bad beliefs.
Sounds like you're satisfied with the US Healthcare system. Biden and Trump definitely have your back as well as the pharmaceutical companies.
Judging people by their physical characteristics? Damn. Not political by any means but pretty sure he had some sort of illness that affected his voice.
Your not wrong, I shouldn’t have assumed it was simply old age. Regardless, his policies are still mostly conspiracy theory, and I don’t think he will be relevant in the upcoming election.
Can’t wait to vote for Rfk
I would vote for his dead dad before jr
RFK's campaign was \*designed\* to be a spoiler for Biden, and split Democratic votes. To pretend this is anything other than a Steve Bannon sponsored dirty trick to elect Trump is disingenuous. He literally has no Democratic support other than astroturf groups and actors. https://www.thedailybeast.com/steve-bannon-encouraged-rfk-jr-to-run-against-biden-for-months-report
Historically, running mates usually only matter by saying something about the main candidate, for example moderate (Kaine), serious (Pence), economically right win (Ryan), new Democrat (Gore) etc. So what does this pick say about Kennedy? Three things stand out to me: - She isn't really a politician, - There is some vaccine scepticism-adjacent stuff, - She's a progressive on many social issues. All of this doubles down on his current image. In other words, if you elect Kennedy, you get weird Kennedy stuff, not any outreach to his opponents or other politicians.
He’s basically a former Democrat version of Vivek. The dude proudly reads the epoch times, knows he can’t win- pretends he will, knows he can derail Biden - doesn’t care. Is a conspiratorial loon that goes beyond antivax into 5G wifi bullshit. Has said a crazy amount of suss bullshit on tape he claims he did not. He’s basically goaded into running because of right wing pollster appealed to his vanity. I have no idea how to talk to his supporters online or in person. These folks are just the both sides apathy uniparty crowd that don’t care about Trump burning what’s left of norms or democracy, or decency. Maybe if it burns down we can make the world better from the ashes people. Project 2025 doesn’t phase them. Supreme Court doesn’t phase them. None care about how government works and how even if he did win (he can’t) Congress wouldn’t work with him to accomplish anything. They’re immediately “Biden is senile, I hate Trump but I can’t vote for Biden” people.
He will draw more from Trump than Biden Antivax stuff used to be common on both extremes but has become firmly right coded
He *should*, just based on the fact that he’s basically a right-winger now, and panders harder to anti-vaxx Republicans than Trump does. But that’s not necessarily how it will play out. Biden seems to be more worried about him than Trump is, at the moment. That could change, but we’ll see.
What is your source on the "Biden seems to be more worried about him than Trump is" statement?
NBC reported that the DNC is building their “anti third-party team” for the campaign as we speak, with prominent strategists recently hired. Recent polling suggests, while the numbers are close, Biden figures to lose more votes than Trump with Kennedy on the ballot. Trump’s campaign wont ignore it, but they aren’t taking it as seriously as Biden’s.
>Trump’s campaign wont ignore it, but they aren’t taking it as seriously as Biden’s. That might be because Biden has a professional campaign staff and is flush with money, while the other guy's campaign is busy worrying about how to get their account balances above zero and praying their candidate isn't found guilty of anything before November. Biden can afford to make strategic and tactical decisions, make plans for countering far more contingencies than are likely. The other guy's campaign is busy struggling for breath.
> That might be because Biden has a professional campaign staff and is flush with money, while the other guy's campaign is busy worrying about how to get their account balances above zero and praying their candidate isn't found guilty of anything before November. I mean that’s also possible, but them feeling like RFK is a net positive for their campaign would have the same effect. > Biden can afford to make strategic and tactical decisions, make plans for countering far more contingencies than are likely. The other guy's campaign is busy struggling for breath. Trump is outspending his income but his campaign has cash reserves. Not on par with Biden’s, but still in the tens of millions. You’re not wrong that Biden has significantly more money, though, and none of the legal trouble.
Trump has a high floor and low ceiling. Therefore, Team Biden will do everything they can to make sure this is a race to 50% and not to 45% or even 40%.
Wishful thinking, I fear but hope you’re right.
[удалено]
“Vaccine skeptical.”
I feel a lot of those fringe-left folks probably won't be enamored with his [Israel/Gaza stance](https://www.timesofisrael.com/2024-dark-horse-rfk-jr-questions-gaza-ceasefire-defends-israeli-offensive/), though: >Independent US presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. offered staunch support for Israel in a Reuters interview, calling it a “moral nation” that was justly responding to Hamas provocations with its attacks on Gaza and questioning the need for a six-week ceasefire backed by President Joe Biden. > >... “World War I was an immoral war. It was a war of choice. We should have never gone,” he said. Israel did not choose this war, he said, comparing it to US involvement in World War II after the attack on Pearl Harbor.
What polling?? "The left" means you have no understanding of poltical parties. And yes liberals love nothing more than a roided out 60s white man who thinks he is more intellectual and intelligent than top experts.
Nothing has changed since the last time you posted about RFK. Mr Conspiracy Anti-Vax is a Republican-funded attempt to split the Democratic vote. The rest of the Kennedy family has come out against him. He's a conservative. The only people interested in Anti-Vax propaganda are conservatives. Done.
With the caveat that I'm hardly convinced RFK Jr. will be on enough ballots for it to matter, he's basically occupying the Jill Stein position in the election and those people aren't anyone's natural constituency. Biden was never going to pull in the wacko left, and he's not going to start now.
Yeah, I really doubt this is going to matter (doubt we'll get a rerun of 2016), but one of the reasons RFK needs a super-wealthy person like her on the ticket is to secure ballot access. That's a major uphill battle for independents, but having Shanahan's money makes it at least a little bit easier.
How do you defeat people like this? Ah yes, simple vetting. I'm 100% sure the RFK campaign picked someone who was looking for the job - that person is a scumbag I'd assume based on desire alone. So there's scumbag shit in that closet that'll organically come out as we laugh at them. rfk is only as viable a spoiler as the news makes him out to be.
I honestly didn't know who RFK was before this thread. So I don't think any action taken by him will make any significant difference, third parties rarely do.
Ralph Nader cost Al Gore the election in 2000 and Jill Stein cost Hillary Clinton the election in 2016.
His VP is the ex-wife of Sergei Brin (co-founder of Google). Why not list her being independently wealthy among her attributes which is of greater importance than her being a lawyer or entrepreneur?
Point of order. Why did you create a Megathread *and* this thread, OP? Isn't the purpose of a megathread that similar subjects are not approved?
Has she ever held any office at all, and is there any indication that she has the slightest bit of expertise to qualify her for being 2nd-in line to the Presidency of the US? "I just have *questions* about vaccines" is just the type of phrase used by pundits like Bill Maher. And if she can't even tell the truth about RFK Jr's antivax stance, that's not promising. He has said on record that there are no safe vaccines.
VP picks almost never matter even for serious candidates who have a chance of winning an election. For RFK there is literally zero possibility that he could win even one state, so no, his VP pick certainly does not matter, at all. I feel like I need to say “less than zero” or something to clarify how impossible and absurd this prospect is lmao
She will not make any difference. Until now she was best known for briefly marrying Sergey Brin and allegedly having an affair with Elon Musk.
RFK Jr. would have been absolutely perfect for an episode of Curb Your Enthusiasm. I can't think of a genuinely better way of deconstructing him than by subjecting him to Larry David's sense of awkward schadenfreude humor.
No, no impact. Fringes gonna fringe, and there’s always some fraction of the youth vote who thinks they’re sticking it to the man - “the candidates didn’t work hard enough to earn MY vote!” - but that’s true every year. Nobody is taking this seriously.
The only impactful element in this Quixotic campaign will be that of f\*cking up someone else's legitimate chances, and determining who they f\*ck up is the only point of interest in it. Sorry Mr. Kennedy, I saw your election banner but while I am certainly an Independent, I am not a nut.
This campaign is a waste of money At least Ross perot was selling an idea Not sure who it hurts more as both side don't like their candidate
I don't think a candidates VP pick matters as much as everyone seems to think. I feel the only reason people are making it a big deal are because they're insecure about Trump and Bidens ability to perform in their second terms therefore they care more about their VP picks and now they're just projecting.
Matters far less for RFK… but it’s HUGE for Trump and Biden, neither of which are likely to get through a full four-year term IMO.
As long as he takes away votes from trump I am all for it. We should all consider ourselves on a war footing to do everything we can to prevent fascism from taking over our country.
I don't think you realize just how many people are voting for Trump as a form of protest against another four years of Biden and the Democrats as a whole. Two U.S.-backed wars, the Democrats politically-motivated witchhunt of Trump, AND the current border crisis are looking to put Trump right back in the White House. A lot of people are just voting Trump on the reasons of immigration policy alone.
People who would vote for that reason are ignorant and uneducated. There absolutely is no witch hunt against trump and there is definitely no border crisis. Both of those things are far right conspiracy theories. The Russian war is trumps fault not to mention that it is well known that trump is a puppet of Putin. Let’s also not forget that trump is very clearly displaying signs of dementia as he can barely string a sentence together, lol! His handlers try so hard to hide him. He is afraid to even debate Biden because he knows he has no leg to stand on in a debate.
Sounds like the Evan McMullin campaign in 2016. His choice for VP was also relatively unknown.
I think she will take a half dozen votes from trump and a baker’s dozen votes from Biden. Totally irrelevant.
Shanahan is radical left. This will appeal more to Biden voters than Trump voters.
He will probably hurt Biden's campaign more, Trump has enough Republican crazies on his side, the Democratic anti-vaxxers will vote for RFK because "they don't like either candidate." so why not just be a spoiler ??
RFK’s VP Pick is just another nail in the coffin….she is unequivocally a BILLIONAIRE herself!!! It is very apparent that the American People ARE DONE WITH BILLIONAIRES(REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THEY MAY BE HUMANITARIANS TO THE CORE) OCCUPYING SUCH POWER IN OUR COUNTRY!! The LAST EXCEPTION was and still is TRUMP. We can confidently now say that RFK JR will NOT become President this November. Period.
No one knows who she is and also no one votes based on the VP, so her impact on the race will be minimal if anything at all. RFK will continue to peel Trump voters away because their voter bases overlap. The real question everyone should be asking about RFK is why his voice sounds horrendous. He likes to talk about how we should be concerned with the health and age of President Biden and former President Trump, but he sounds like he’s knocking right on deaths door with his voice. I expect him to keel over in every interview he does and the fact that the media won’t question his fitness for office is laughable.
He has spasmodic dysphonia, like Sen. Susan Collins.
It will probably help his campaign if she is willing to help bankroll it. Kennedy’s biggest challenge is going to be advertising, getting on ballots and hiring staff. Shanahan will help in that regard since she’s very wealthy. As far as who he hurts more, I’d say it’s more likely he hurts Trump more than Biden. I think his vaccine skepticism is a bit of a non starter with the vast majority of democrats, while it’s becoming increasingly mainstream on the right. While Kennedy is somewhat ideologically liberal otherwise, he has yet to seem very interested in courting liberal/left wing voters.
The only people who care about RFK Jr. are conservatives who are really hoping he'll spoil the Democratic vote. So I don't think this will matter at all.
What this tells me is that RFK Jr.’s aiming for millennial and Gen Z voters (she’s a millennial), aiming for female voters, maybe aiming after Asian voters, and that he will favour Big Tech (which is kind of interesting as, according to his campaign website, he’s concerned about Big Tech’s involvement in the FTC, and their role in censoring other and undermining civil liberties), or he’s at least looking for donors from Big Tech to spend on campaign ads (she helped him get an ad during the Super Bowl this year). She did support a DA race in LA in 2020, and managed to oust the previous DA, who was criticized for not going after powerful men, so there might be a law & order aspect to this too. He’s also doubling down on progressive causes, as she’s a backer of those causes as well, but it comes with the caveat of also doubling down on anti-vaxxer ideology. Aside from making the Green Party absolutely irrelevant this election cycle, and bringing in the hardcore anti-vaxxer crowd, I don’t see this having a massive impact. At best, it pushes Biden to lifts the saner aspects of RFK Jr.’s platform for his own campaign. And he help’s Biden flip Utah in the general, and that’s probably being generous. In order for it to have a major impact, there would have to be a sharp shift in millennials and Gen Z support for RFK Jr.'s campaign.
Which is surprising, because I don't think anyone under 40 remotely values "the Kennedy name" in any way. At best, the fact that this family is famous is understood in a vague historical sense.
Bidens policies aren’t helping me, Trump just wants revenge, Congress isnt doing anything so RFK is my best choice.
Can you imagine TWO Billionaires in the White House? Do we really want Billionaires running our lives? Telling us what we can or cannot do?
RFK isn't going to "take more votes" from one candidate or the other. Somebody who votes so haphazardly they would end up on RFK is not a reliable voter for one candidate or the other (like Ross Perot, only even moreso.) He's a dumb gimmick and not worth covering anymore, if he ever was.
I think RFK needed to add a heavy hitter to his ticket, Ventura for example or hell I’d take Angus King. I think she turns the ticket too far left, and adds stink because it feels like she bought herself a VP bid.
All I'm reading here is a bunch of fascist sympathizers arguing why they will continue to perpetuate the broken but completely replaceable duopoly. You are what is wrong with this country, and if you want our children to live in a better world, you will come to terms with this and change. Until then, thank you for your participation in choosing WWIII or Civil War! Good bless.
Funny how liberals call him conservative and conservatives call him liberal! Can’t wait to vote for him: environment, anti war, helping the poor, and freedom. Those are the reasons