51
submitted 1 week ago by jeffw@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world
top 21 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 88 points 1 week ago

When one side is obviously right and the other side is obviously crazy…. “Not taking sides” says the crazy side has the same merit as the obviously correct side.

He is absolutely taking a side.

[-] CaptainSpaceman@lemmy.world 8 points 1 week ago

"Fine people on both sides"

[-] paf0@lemmy.world 53 points 1 week ago
[-] III@lemmy.world 17 points 1 week ago

I mean, at this point, is the worm a more viable candidate for President than RFK?

[-] paf0@lemmy.world 21 points 1 week ago

WORM 2024: IT TAKES BRAINS

[-] ccunning@lemmy.world 45 points 1 week ago
[-] foggy@lemmy.world 32 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Listen folks, 9/11 was 👐 terrible, okay? It was terrible... But the woke dems, 🤷‍♂️, they spin it like it was all about the US and the Saudis, 🙄 something to do with oil, who knows? You wanna hear the real story? 🤨

There were some good folks 👐 on both sides 👐, believe me. Maybe we were just too free for them, I don't know 🤷‍♂️

And these woke politicians, they certainly didn't help, that's for sure 😏

Honestly, people 👐, there was a lot of good on both sides that nobody talks about.

👁️👄👁️

[-] tonytins@pawb.social 28 points 1 week ago

By claiming to not take a side, he took a side.

[-] neclimdul@lemmy.world 19 points 1 week ago

"If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice"

[-] TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world 21 points 1 week ago

This guy..

I've watched maybe 6-8 hr+ interviews of his. Like, if he could have just abandoned the nutjob schtick after getting to 10% in the polls, he easily could be contending for the office right now when both candidates are as deeply unpopular as they are. But its like a bad penny he just can't give up. Like he just won't stop doubling down on some absolutely wackadoodle positions.

This was probably the "best case scenario" year for a third party run of all time with how bad the two current options are. If he could just shut the fuck up, he would probably be polling at 30+ percent.

[-] bolexforsoup@lemmy.blahaj.zone 35 points 1 week ago

He’s an anti-vax piece of shit. No amount of white washing his history or tightening up his talking points for public events would ever convince me to even consider for one second voting for that monster. If he ever polls at even 20% this country is so beyond fucked. Tinfoil hats are our #1 export at this point I swear.

[-] TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world 11 points 1 week ago

Oh 100%. I'm just making points from a purely Machiavellian/ real politik point of view.

I think he could have used the idiot/ anti-vax crowd to get to 10%, then abandoned them to move from 10 % to 25-30% by shifting/ reforming his positions. Instead he just doubled down on the nutjob shit. That nutjob shit will get you to 10% but it wont get you past that.

[-] III@lemmy.world 4 points 1 week ago

Man, if only we were exporting them. I feel they are here to stay.

[-] fluxion@lemmy.world 4 points 1 week ago

None of that sounds nearly as unnerving as the insurrectionist convicted felon that Putin and other fascist nationalist organizations want to place into power who's polling around 45%

[-] bolexforsoup@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Trump apparatus/leeches would rush to Kennedy’s “aid” the moment he took office and he’d gladly work with them. He has no idea what he’s doing.

[-] just_another_person@lemmy.world 5 points 1 week ago

He's an Asspenny

[-] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 11 points 1 week ago

“My take on 9/11: It’s hard to tell what is a conspiracy theory and what isn’t. But conspiracy theories flourish when the government routinely lies to the public,” Kennedy wrote on Friday in a post on X in reference to the deadliest terrorist attack ever aimed at the US. “As president I won’t take sides on 9/11 or any of the other debates.

“But I can promise … that I will open the files and usher in a new era of transparency.”

I don't know if it would be more or less crazy if he latched onto JFK conspiracies instead.

[-] bolexforsoup@lemmy.blahaj.zone 9 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Way less. JFK’s assassination is actually wild enough at face value that to not think something conspiratorial happened would be ridiculous. All attempts at explanation have been pretty poor. Now anyone who claims they know what happened is a conspiracy theorist. That’s also true lol.

9/11 the facts are pretty clear cut overall.

[-] evidences@lemmy.world 8 points 1 week ago

Ehh the JFK assassination is pretty easy to take at face value, the only weird part to me is Jack Ruby going after Lee Harvey Oswald but after watching the trump cult for the last 8 years someone being devoted enough to a president to go after their killer is an easy follow.

[-] bolexforsoup@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 1 week ago

I think it’s most likely it was a weird but reasonable scenario ultimately but I get why people don’t I guess is more my point.

[-] evidences@lemmy.world 4 points 1 week ago

I'm almost 100% certain he's hard into the JFK conspiracies. NPR did an interview with him with in the last couple years and I'm pretty sure he said he had proof the CIA killed his uncle because he didn't provide air support for the bay of pigs invasion.

this post was submitted on 06 Jul 2024
51 points (84.9% liked)

politics

18114 readers
4473 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
  2. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  3. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect!
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  6. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS