5 ms·

What makes you think he is a "nut job"? And how do you justify making baseless ad-hominem attacks instead of coherent arguments against his proposed policies or

by lowkey 3y ago

What makes you think he is a "nut job"? And how do you justify making baseless ad-hominem attacks instead of coherent arguments against his proposed policies or positions. Isn't that kind of smear better suited to Reddit? It is certainly against the Guidelines of this site. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

_kbh_ 3y ago
> What makes you think he is a "nut job"? And how do you justify making baseless ad-hominem attacks instead of coherent arguments against his proposed policies or positions. Isn't that kind of smear better suited to Reddit? It is certainly against the Guidelines of this site. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html He thinks wifi causes cancer and leaky brains. He doesn't think AIDs is caused by HIV .
- lowkey 3y ago
  Unlike other controversial topics he has espoused an opinion on, I personally haven’t researched either of those topics so I can be honest with myself and say that I don’t have an informed opinion on either. I can say on other topics he discusses where I am well informed, his positions have always turned out to be well researched, genuine, and logically articulated. This is true even on topics where I disagree with his positions. While we may disagree, I can understand why he may hold his differing views and they alway seem genuine, logical and well reasoned. Unlike many other politicians, he doesn’t make policy decisions based on opinion polls or by parroting the talking points of wealthy donors. His views are genuinely his own, come from a good place and are always well thought out. That is why I am willing to give this man the benefit of the doubt and actively listen to his point of view in his own words - even when what he says doesn’t fit my current worldview. I often learn something new about the issue by listening to him with an open mind. I like that in a candidate and a leader. While I haven’t yet read his book about AIDS and HIV, I do have it on my shelf and fully intend to read it. The book is a best seller, despite getting virtually zero press coverage or reviews from the mainstream media. Also, the book in question, “The Real Anthony Fauci: Bill Gates, Big Pharma and the Global War on Democracy and Public Health” literally calls out Fauci - a notable figure, Bill Gates - a billionaire also a notable figure, and Big Pharma - a notoriously well-funded and litigious group, all in the title. I understand the book makes numerous seemingly outrageous and disparaging claims against all these people and groups. I find it particularly notable that he has never been sued for slander over any of the claims in his book by any of them. Why do you think that is? Could it be that the reason for this is that one can only sue for slander in the US if the claims can be proven to be false? Perhaps none of these parties want to take the chance of suing and losing to Kennedy due to the negative attention they would receive if their lawsuits failed for lack of evidence to support a slander suit? It certainly isn’t due to a lack of access to lawyers. In the case of Gates and Big Pharma I would wager they would love to sue him even if it cost them millions just to bankrupt the man in years of litigation. The fact that they haven’t lends me to believe they have absolutely no case because all his claims are well-researched and easily verifiable as true - and so they are unwilling to take him on even if they do outgun him monetarily by 1000 to 1 or more. Because of these reasons, I am willing to be open-minded in the case of seemingly outlandish claims made by a person who has repeatedly demonstrated exceptional courage, integrity and intelligence. No other candidate meets that high bar which is why, as unlikely as it may appear, I am also unwilling to rule out the possibility of Robert F. Kennedy becoming America’s next and best president. You may call me a dreamer, but I’m not the only one. I hope someday that RFK Jr sits in the Oval Office - and the world will be as one. #HealTheDivide
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - howinteresting 3y ago
    https://twitter.com/patriottakes/status/1671161500495646724 https://twitter.com/patriottakes/status/1671161500495646724 There is no excuse for this, and there is no excuse for making excuses for this.
- ifyoubuildit 3y ago
  Why does everybody do this? RFK talks about some study or the results of some lawsuit, and then people convert that into "he thinks/believes xyz, what a kook". None of the things that people claim he believes (as far as I've seen anyway) are things that he just dreamed up in his head. They always tie back to something that somebody else published. That doesn't mean the claim in question is correct of course, but it does mean that you're being pretty sloppy when you say things like "He thinks wifi causes cancer and leaky brains. He doesn't think AIDs is caused by HIV ." It wouldn't bother me if people said "he repeats things from studies that I dont believe, what a kook" or "he misinterprets studies, what a kook". Saying "he thinks/believes xyz" is weak sauce imho.
  - ifyoubuildit 3y ago
    I'm taking some downvotes for this one, but honestly, for the folks that really don't like RFK, you're doing yourselves a disservice by lobbing out shallow critiques like this. It ends up having the opposite effect when someone goes and sees his long form interviews and they realize that his positions don't match up with these little dismissals. If you're not going to be a better critic of the guy, I think you risk helping his cause.
midoridensha 3y ago
Promoting the idea that vaccines cause autism is more that sufficient to be a nut-job. This isn't a "baseless ad-hominem attack", this is well-known about this fruitcake. And that's just one of the insane conspiracy theories he pushes.
- pauldenton 3y ago
  He didn't seek them out. RFK is a big name in his fights against big pharma, and a group of mothers petitioned their case to him. He was skeptical, but based on the evidence presented before him and their lived experience, he turned those concerned mother's into a voting base he represents. Everyone deserves political representation, including mother's with autistic children

by lowkey 3y ago

_kbh_ 3y ago

> What makes you think he is a "nut job"? And how do you justify making baseless ad-hominem attacks instead of coherent arguments against his proposed policies or positions. Isn't that kind of smear better suited to Reddit? It is certainly against the Guidelines of this site. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html He thinks wifi causes cancer and leaky brains. He doesn't think AIDs is caused by HIV .

lowkey 3y ago
Unlike other controversial topics he has espoused an opinion on, I personally haven’t researched either of those topics so I can be honest with myself and say that I don’t have an informed opinion on either. I can say on other topics he discusses where I am well informed, his positions have always turned out to be well researched, genuine, and logically articulated. This is true even on topics where I disagree with his positions. While we may disagree, I can understand why he may hold his differing views and they alway seem genuine, logical and well reasoned. Unlike many other politicians, he doesn’t make policy decisions based on opinion polls or by parroting the talking points of wealthy donors. His views are genuinely his own, come from a good place and are always well thought out. That is why I am willing to give this man the benefit of the doubt and actively listen to his point of view in his own words - even when what he says doesn’t fit my current worldview. I often learn something new about the issue by listening to him with an open mind. I like that in a candidate and a leader. While I haven’t yet read his book about AIDS and HIV, I do have it on my shelf and fully intend to read it. The book is a best seller, despite getting virtually zero press coverage or reviews from the mainstream media. Also, the book in question, “The Real Anthony Fauci: Bill Gates, Big Pharma and the Global War on Democracy and Public Health” literally calls out Fauci - a notable figure, Bill Gates - a billionaire also a notable figure, and Big Pharma - a notoriously well-funded and litigious group, all in the title. I understand the book makes numerous seemingly outrageous and disparaging claims against all these people and groups. I find it particularly notable that he has never been sued for slander over any of the claims in his book by any of them. Why do you think that is? Could it be that the reason for this is that one can only sue for slander in the US if the claims can be proven to be false? Perhaps none of these parties want to take the chance of suing and losing to Kennedy due to the negative attention they would receive if their lawsuits failed for lack of evidence to support a slander suit? It certainly isn’t due to a lack of access to lawyers. In the case of Gates and Big Pharma I would wager they would love to sue him even if it cost them millions just to bankrupt the man in years of litigation. The fact that they haven’t lends me to believe they have absolutely no case because all his claims are well-researched and easily verifiable as true - and so they are unwilling to take him on even if they do outgun him monetarily by 1000 to 1 or more. Because of these reasons, I am willing to be open-minded in the case of seemingly outlandish claims made by a person who has repeatedly demonstrated exceptional courage, integrity and intelligence. No other candidate meets that high bar which is why, as unlikely as it may appear, I am also unwilling to rule out the possibility of Robert F. Kennedy becoming America’s next and best president. You may call me a dreamer, but I’m not the only one. I hope someday that RFK Jr sits in the Oval Office - and the world will be as one. #HealTheDivide
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- howinteresting 3y ago
  https://twitter.com/patriottakes/status/1671161500495646724 https://twitter.com/patriottakes/status/1671161500495646724 There is no excuse for this, and there is no excuse for making excuses for this.
ifyoubuildit 3y ago
Why does everybody do this? RFK talks about some study or the results of some lawsuit, and then people convert that into "he thinks/believes xyz, what a kook". None of the things that people claim he believes (as far as I've seen anyway) are things that he just dreamed up in his head. They always tie back to something that somebody else published. That doesn't mean the claim in question is correct of course, but it does mean that you're being pretty sloppy when you say things like "He thinks wifi causes cancer and leaky brains. He doesn't think AIDs is caused by HIV ." It wouldn't bother me if people said "he repeats things from studies that I dont believe, what a kook" or "he misinterprets studies, what a kook". Saying "he thinks/believes xyz" is weak sauce imho.
- ifyoubuildit 3y ago
  I'm taking some downvotes for this one, but honestly, for the folks that really don't like RFK, you're doing yourselves a disservice by lobbing out shallow critiques like this. It ends up having the opposite effect when someone goes and sees his long form interviews and they realize that his positions don't match up with these little dismissals. If you're not going to be a better critic of the guy, I think you risk helping his cause.

midoridensha 3y ago

Promoting the idea that vaccines cause autism is more that sufficient to be a nut-job. This isn't a "baseless ad-hominem attack", this is well-known about this fruitcake. And that's just one of the insane conspiracy theories he pushes.

pauldenton 3y ago
He didn't seek them out. RFK is a big name in his fights against big pharma, and a group of mothers petitioned their case to him. He was skeptical, but based on the evidence presented before him and their lived experience, he turned those concerned mother's into a voting base he represents. Everyone deserves political representation, including mother's with autistic children