7 ms·

This guy's a nutter, but he has a point. His polling numbers make him a contender. Not providing protection is ridiculous.

keepamovin 3y ago
What makes you say he's a nutter?
- ZeroGravitas 3y ago
  Presumably the vaccine stuff: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_F._Kennedy_Jr.#Anti-vaccine_advocacy_and_conspiracy_theories_on_public_health https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_F._Kennedy_Jr.#Anti-vac...
  - keepamovin 3y ago
    Alt account? What about the vaccine stuff presumably? He has a few books on the subject. Seems scholarly and scientific in conversation with Joe Rogan and others. https://www.thriftbooks.com/a/robert-f-kennedy-jr/3558232/ https://www.thriftbooks.com/a/robert-f-kennedy-jr/3558232/
    - chad_c 3y ago
      "in conversation with Joe Rogan" Yikes.
      - keepamovin 3y ago
        Well, it's better than "in conversation" with you. Hahahahahaha! :) Yikes. Micro-comment. So you're suggesting that a conversation with Rogan is something you should be afraid of? Or not trusted? You do realize that Rogan doesn't affect the truth of falsity of what he's saying, right? Hahahaha! :)
    - dkarl 3y ago
      > Seems scholarly and scientific in conversation with Joe Rogan I doubt that's a hard thing to achieve for someone used to speaking in public. Joe Rogan is not known for challenging his guests intellectually.
      - keepamovin 3y ago
        Hahah! :) In this case it doesn't matter, because Rogan does not affect the truth or falsity of what he's saying. But regarding JR, do you have any evidence to support that about Rogan? You suggest that you can't tell whether he's rational in conversation with Rogan because Rogan doesn't challenge, but you don't need another to challenge, you merely need to listen to him talk and decide yourself. Rogan is merely helpfully providing a platform where the guy is talking. Hahaha! :)
    - vidarh 3y ago
      He has continued pushing long disproven stuff like the MMR autism link. That alone is sufficient to consider him a nutter. And given the size of his platform he is a wildly dangerous one causing immense harm.
      - andsoitis 3y ago
        > That alone is sufficient to consider him a nutter. This feels like an extreme position to me. Just because you have one or 10 nutty beliefs, that doesn’t make you a nutter. I don’t know where the threshold lie, but as an example, didn’t Newton believe in alchemy?
        krapp 3y ago
        Newton believed in alchemy during a time when the metaphysical assumptions behind alchemy were considered reasonable and axiomatic by everyone - the concept of a natural world being separate from a supernatural world simply did not exist. That's a lot less nutty, relatively speaking, than believing in something like adrenochrome harvesting or Jewish space lasers or flat earth or reptilians today. Or even alchemy.
        keepamovin 3y ago
        Right, and none of your "more nutty" examples have any overtures to JFK. I mean "Jewish space lasers" hahah where are you even getting this? Hahahah great material by the way. Can you upload a YT vid, I want to see your comedy bit! :) hahaah
        vidarh 3y ago
        When someone continues to push a disproven "theory" despite no evidence in favour of it and despite the extensive and long-standing harm the reduction in vaccinations, I consider it extreme to treat RFKjr as anything but a dangerous charlatan with psychopathic tendencies. Plenty can be said about Newton, but his belief in alchemy given the time was far more reasonable than RFKjr's insistence on continuing to do harm by pushing those false claims.
  - vasdae 3y ago
    Seems very unbiased!
  - cat_plus_plus 3y ago
    Well, RFK has his nutcasery, Republican and Democratic candidates have their own nutcasery (elections, 50 genders and so on). 2020 elections still managed to give us a president who may be a bit senile but is not super deranged. Provide protection to all viable candidates, hopefully citizens will do the right thing again.
    - keepamovin 3y ago
      I agree on the protection, but not on the nutcasery of JFK. Do you have any evidence to support that? It has not been conclusively proven. Instead he has the cojones to take on the big issues, and fight them. That shows bravery and a willingness to engage on the hard stuff. I'm not saying he's a good man or would make a great prez, but you can't dismiss it as "nutcasery"
- rsynnott 3y ago
  I mean, fill your boots: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Robert_F._Kennedy_Jr https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Robert_F._Kennedy_Jr. He's into a wide variety of nonsense, though he's certainly best-known for anti vax nonsense (he was into it since before it was cool; on the whole MMR conspiracy theory train and so on).
  - keepamovin 3y ago
    Um, well I guess yer boots are "empty" then because you know that page you linked to is, quite literally, empty. It even says, "There is currently no text in this page." Hahahah! :) I think you're making my point for me.
jncfhnb 3y ago
He can hire a bodyguard. He does not need the secret service specifically. Edit: I take it back. His request seems pretty reasonable given the context His pandering to his family legacy is annoying here but whatever
gjsman-1000 3y ago
Can we get past the stupid tendency to just slap “nutter” or other epithets on perspectives we don’t agree with? If I had a nickel for every time someone around me said something “nutter” that later turned out to have something to it… I’d have a lot of nickels. Imagine if just 3 years ago I said anything of the following. “Nutter!” - Russia will invade Ukraine. Sanctions and stupidity be darned. - Silicon Valley Bank will go insolvent from overexposure to one of the safest investments on earth. - There is a real, but small, connection between myocarditis and vaccination in young men. Etc.
- baggachipz 3y ago
  The guy's based his platform on Covid vaccine pseudo-science. He claims conspiracy bullshit by "big pharma" and that the vaccine isn't safe despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. He's a nutter.
  - bonzaidrinkingb 3y ago
    MRNA vaccine is not safe nor effective. Safety data (from final trial) only available in 2024, so we can just guess and track adversarial reactions. These vaccines are only safe and effective from a collective public health perspective, which necessitated emergency release.
  - gjsman-1000 3y ago
    Yes. However, I’m not stupid either because science does change. There was “overwhelming evidence” that Thalidomide was safe around pregnant mothers; and only just now are we realizing that the “overwhelming evidence” that it’s completely safe to use antibiotics for everything with reckless abandon wasn’t the full story. Imagine if we had found the people who had found the truth “nutters” in these and other cases. I’d prefer “extreme disagreement” over that. Ultimately, it comes down to humility over the claim “we’ve got it right this time, for sure, and you can’t question it now!” There are no shortage of scientist quotes saying that in the 90s. And 80s. And 70s. And 60s. And 50s. And 1850s. And 1840s. And 1740s. And so on.
- rsynnott 3y ago
dkarl 3y ago
The Secret Service's criteria[0] make it arguable either way. For example, the polling criteria would argue against him (though I think he's been close): "Whether, during and within an active and competitive major party primary, the most recent average of established national polls, as reflected by the Real Clear Politics National Average or similar mechanism, the candidate is polling at 15% or more for 30 consecutive days." Based on the video, I think he would argue his strongest case is based on the threat assessment criteria: "A threat assessment conducted by the Secret Service of general or specific threats directed towards the candidate (for these purposes, “threats” should be defined as explicit threats of bodily harm to the candidate or indications of inappropriate behavior towards the candidate suggesting potential bodily harm)." Either way, a nutter who hopefully falls off the charts early in the primaries. [0] https://www.secretservice.gov/protection/leaders/campaign-2024 https://www.secretservice.gov/protection/leaders/campaign-20...
NoMoreNicksLeft 3y ago
Independents aren't allowed to be contenders. He won't even be allowed in the debates.
- AnimalMuppet 3y ago
  Perot was allowed in the debates. All you need is sufficient support.
bena 3y ago
This is one of those things that's true but not necessarily applicable. One could also say that you can't have a functioning democracy when elections aren't secure. And yes, that's technically true, but the implication hidden in that statement is that elections aren't safe. RFKJr is trying to imply he is not safe without directly saying so.
AnimalMuppet 3y ago
This guy also has some family history pushing him toward wanting protection...

keepamovin 3y ago

What makes you say he's a nutter?

ZeroGravitas 3y ago
Presumably the vaccine stuff: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_F._Kennedy_Jr.#Anti-vaccine_advocacy_and_conspiracy_theories_on_public_health https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_F._Kennedy_Jr.#Anti-vac...
- keepamovin 3y ago
  Alt account? What about the vaccine stuff presumably? He has a few books on the subject. Seems scholarly and scientific in conversation with Joe Rogan and others. https://www.thriftbooks.com/a/robert-f-kennedy-jr/3558232/ https://www.thriftbooks.com/a/robert-f-kennedy-jr/3558232/
  - chad_c 3y ago
    "in conversation with Joe Rogan" Yikes.
    - keepamovin 3y ago
      Well, it's better than "in conversation" with you. Hahahahahaha! :) Yikes. Micro-comment. So you're suggesting that a conversation with Rogan is something you should be afraid of? Or not trusted? You do realize that Rogan doesn't affect the truth of falsity of what he's saying, right? Hahahaha! :)
  - dkarl 3y ago
    > Seems scholarly and scientific in conversation with Joe Rogan I doubt that's a hard thing to achieve for someone used to speaking in public. Joe Rogan is not known for challenging his guests intellectually.
    - keepamovin 3y ago
      Hahah! :) In this case it doesn't matter, because Rogan does not affect the truth or falsity of what he's saying. But regarding JR, do you have any evidence to support that about Rogan? You suggest that you can't tell whether he's rational in conversation with Rogan because Rogan doesn't challenge, but you don't need another to challenge, you merely need to listen to him talk and decide yourself. Rogan is merely helpfully providing a platform where the guy is talking. Hahaha! :)
  - vidarh 3y ago
    He has continued pushing long disproven stuff like the MMR autism link. That alone is sufficient to consider him a nutter. And given the size of his platform he is a wildly dangerous one causing immense harm.
    - andsoitis 3y ago
      > That alone is sufficient to consider him a nutter. This feels like an extreme position to me. Just because you have one or 10 nutty beliefs, that doesn’t make you a nutter. I don’t know where the threshold lie, but as an example, didn’t Newton believe in alchemy?
      - krapp 3y ago
        Newton believed in alchemy during a time when the metaphysical assumptions behind alchemy were considered reasonable and axiomatic by everyone - the concept of a natural world being separate from a supernatural world simply did not exist. That's a lot less nutty, relatively speaking, than believing in something like adrenochrome harvesting or Jewish space lasers or flat earth or reptilians today. Or even alchemy.
        keepamovin 3y ago
        Right, and none of your "more nutty" examples have any overtures to JFK. I mean "Jewish space lasers" hahah where are you even getting this? Hahahah great material by the way. Can you upload a YT vid, I want to see your comedy bit! :) hahaah
      - vidarh 3y ago
        When someone continues to push a disproven "theory" despite no evidence in favour of it and despite the extensive and long-standing harm the reduction in vaccinations, I consider it extreme to treat RFKjr as anything but a dangerous charlatan with psychopathic tendencies. Plenty can be said about Newton, but his belief in alchemy given the time was far more reasonable than RFKjr's insistence on continuing to do harm by pushing those false claims.
- vasdae 3y ago
  Seems very unbiased!
- cat_plus_plus 3y ago
  Well, RFK has his nutcasery, Republican and Democratic candidates have their own nutcasery (elections, 50 genders and so on). 2020 elections still managed to give us a president who may be a bit senile but is not super deranged. Provide protection to all viable candidates, hopefully citizens will do the right thing again.
  - keepamovin 3y ago
    I agree on the protection, but not on the nutcasery of JFK. Do you have any evidence to support that? It has not been conclusively proven. Instead he has the cojones to take on the big issues, and fight them. That shows bravery and a willingness to engage on the hard stuff. I'm not saying he's a good man or would make a great prez, but you can't dismiss it as "nutcasery"
rsynnott 3y ago
I mean, fill your boots: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Robert_F._Kennedy_Jr https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Robert_F._Kennedy_Jr. He's into a wide variety of nonsense, though he's certainly best-known for anti vax nonsense (he was into it since before it was cool; on the whole MMR conspiracy theory train and so on).
- keepamovin 3y ago
  Um, well I guess yer boots are "empty" then because you know that page you linked to is, quite literally, empty. It even says, "There is currently no text in this page." Hahahah! :) I think you're making my point for me.

jncfhnb 3y ago

He can hire a bodyguard. He does not need the secret service specifically. Edit: I take it back. His request seems pretty reasonable given the context His pandering to his family legacy is annoying here but whatever

gjsman-1000 3y ago

Can we get past the stupid tendency to just slap “nutter” or other epithets on perspectives we don’t agree with? If I had a nickel for every time someone around me said something “nutter” that later turned out to have something to it… I’d have a lot of nickels. Imagine if just 3 years ago I said anything of the following. “Nutter!” - Russia will invade Ukraine. Sanctions and stupidity be darned. - Silicon Valley Bank will go insolvent from overexposure to one of the safest investments on earth. - There is a real, but small, connection between myocarditis and vaccination in young men. Etc.

baggachipz 3y ago
The guy's based his platform on Covid vaccine pseudo-science. He claims conspiracy bullshit by "big pharma" and that the vaccine isn't safe despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. He's a nutter.
- bonzaidrinkingb 3y ago
  MRNA vaccine is not safe nor effective. Safety data (from final trial) only available in 2024, so we can just guess and track adversarial reactions. These vaccines are only safe and effective from a collective public health perspective, which necessitated emergency release.
- gjsman-1000 3y ago
  Yes. However, I’m not stupid either because science does change. There was “overwhelming evidence” that Thalidomide was safe around pregnant mothers; and only just now are we realizing that the “overwhelming evidence” that it’s completely safe to use antibiotics for everything with reckless abandon wasn’t the full story. Imagine if we had found the people who had found the truth “nutters” in these and other cases. I’d prefer “extreme disagreement” over that. Ultimately, it comes down to humility over the claim “we’ve got it right this time, for sure, and you can’t question it now!” There are no shortage of scientist quotes saying that in the 90s. And 80s. And 70s. And 60s. And 50s. And 1850s. And 1840s. And 1740s. And so on.
rsynnott 3y ago

dkarl 3y ago

The Secret Service's criteria[0] make it arguable either way. For example, the polling criteria would argue against him (though I think he's been close): "Whether, during and within an active and competitive major party primary, the most recent average of established national polls, as reflected by the Real Clear Politics National Average or similar mechanism, the candidate is polling at 15% or more for 30 consecutive days." Based on the video, I think he would argue his strongest case is based on the threat assessment criteria: "A threat assessment conducted by the Secret Service of general or specific threats directed towards the candidate (for these purposes, “threats” should be defined as explicit threats of bodily harm to the candidate or indications of inappropriate behavior towards the candidate suggesting potential bodily harm)." Either way, a nutter who hopefully falls off the charts early in the primaries. [0] https://www.secretservice.gov/protection/leaders/campaign-2024 https://www.secretservice.gov/protection/leaders/campaign-20...

NoMoreNicksLeft 3y ago

Independents aren't allowed to be contenders. He won't even be allowed in the debates.

AnimalMuppet 3y ago
Perot was allowed in the debates. All you need is sufficient support.

bena 3y ago

This is one of those things that's true but not necessarily applicable. One could also say that you can't have a functioning democracy when elections aren't secure. And yes, that's technically true, but the implication hidden in that statement is that elections aren't safe. RFKJr is trying to imply he is not safe without directly saying so.

AnimalMuppet 3y ago

This guy also has some family history pushing him toward wanting protection...