49

Here's the article

top 21 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] newthrowaway20@lemmy.world 84 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

To split the vote in hopes of helping Trump get into office so he can secure a cushy position with little responsibility and lots of pay.

What else would they talk about on the phone?

[-] PlantJam@lemmy.world 31 points 2 months ago

I was a little worried about him taking Biden votes before, but I'm not sure Harris is going to lose any votes to RFK.

[-] Coelacanth@feddit.nu 17 points 2 months ago

I don't know how recent his numbers were, but John Oliver did his latest show on RFK and the numbers were pretty alarming. Add Jill Stein to the mix too and it's a bit worrisome.

[-] vxx@lemmy.world 4 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Are we sure he's splitting votes from Harris instead of trump? He seems more appealing to the not completely insane Republicans to me.

[-] Coelacanth@feddit.nu 4 points 2 months ago

I see it more as appealing to independent/undecided voters. Disenfranchised, disillusioned and dissatisfied people who aren't satisfied with the two party system. If you're even considering voting Trump at this stage I don't see much changing your mind. I think a lot of these voters would have either voted Kamala or not voted at all given only 2 candidates, but Stein and RFK are giving them a black hole to toss their vote into instead.

[-] partial_accumen@lemmy.world 3 points 2 months ago

"Elsewhere, an April CNN poll showed Kennedy with a much higher favorable rating among Trump voters (42% favorable vs. 16% unfavorable) than among Biden voters (19% favorable vs. 53% unfavorable), while a Politico analysis revealed that Kennedy has raised about twice as much money from 2020 Trump donors than from 2020 Biden donors." (source from end of June).

So more Trump voters are looking at and donating to RFK than Biden (at the time) voters. I'd be interested to see new numbers with Harris as the candiate.

[-] dogsnest@lemmy.world 17 points 2 months ago

What else would they talk about on the phone?

Adderall and blow?

[-] vegeta@lemmy.world 28 points 2 months ago

Whatever the worms tell him

[-] MisterNeon@lemmy.world 21 points 2 months ago

Without reading the article I'm going to guess rancid meat.

[-] dogsnest@lemmy.world 12 points 2 months ago

I can't bear to reveal the answer.

[-] Atelopus-zeteki@kbin.run 3 points 2 months ago

It IS rancid meat, isn't it?

[-] Rapidcreek@lemmy.world 15 points 2 months ago

Trump just absolutely champing at the bit trying to get the news cycle back on him and then RFK jr. pops out of a cake screaming, “A DECADE AGO I STAGED THE MURDER OF A BEAR CUB IN CENTRAL PARK!!!”

[-] Hazzia@infosec.pub 6 points 2 months ago

Tfw Wormo-Man out-crazies your entirely-reliant-on-shock-value campaign

[-] mmcintyre@lemmy.world 13 points 2 months ago
[-] That_Devil_Girl@lemmy.ml 8 points 2 months ago
[-] cabron_offsets@lemmy.world 7 points 2 months ago

To undermine America.

[-] kikutwo@lemmy.world 6 points 2 months ago

To normalize his insanity.

[-] jprice@kbin.run 6 points 2 months ago

Brainworms is rich people speak for cocaine abuse.

[-] dethedrus@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 2 months ago

But in his case it damn well appears to be both, given his long history of drug abuse AND love for eating very questionable meat.

[-] sploosh@lemmy.world 4 points 2 months ago

The baby bear pelt circumstance robbed from him years ago?

[-] MediaBiasFactChecker@lemmy.world -2 points 2 months ago

New Yorker - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)Information for New Yorker:

MBFC: Left - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: High - United States of America
Wikipedia about this source

Search topics on Ground.Newshttps://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2024/08/12/robert-f-kennedy-jr-profile-presidential-campaign
Media Bias Fact Check | bot support

this post was submitted on 05 Aug 2024
49 points (93.0% liked)

politics

19107 readers
3527 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.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. 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.
  2. 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! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. 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.
  5. 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

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS