RFK jr. for president

@metal-brain said
RFK jr. is not an anti-vaxxer. Stop spreading misinformation.
He fought get mercury out of fish. Does that make him anti fish?

He will destroy ignorant people like you in the debates. He doesn't need the majority of democrats to win the primary. Republicans will cross over to vote for him in the states that allow political party crossover during the primary. All he ne ...[text shortened]... numbers. Biden has not even announced he is running for a second term. He would be wise to not run.

No kidding Republicans will vote for him. They don't want their guy going against Biden. Durrr.

@metal-brain said
Biden leads in democrat primary poll by a lot which is not surprising for a sitting POTUS. What is surprising is that RFKjr. is polling at 10%. This despite being demonized as a spreader of misinformation. WOW!

https://morningconsult.com/2023/04/11/robert-f-kennedy-jr-biden-polling-2024/

If Kennedy gets into the debates (and it looks like he will) I think he can ge ...[text shortened]... ou think the corrupt establishment will go through to prevent Kennedy from getting into the debates?

Here's a towel. You're drooling.

@suzianne said
We never ask for your source of information because we know it's whatever you read off the sidewalks or read in the tabloids.

Oh no, what's written on the subway walls and in the fabuloids would be sane, compared to what @metalbrain's Russian minders tell him to post here. The Russians would like nothing better than to see Trump face off against RFK Jr. in 2024 -- their purpose being to destroy the great experiment in universal suffrage through self-immolation. Auto-auto-da-fé , as it were.

@soothfast said
Actually this is exactly why MB has a boner for him.

You mean @metalbrain's minders .... but, yes, that is what they want.

@suzianne said
No kidding Republicans will vote for him. They don't want their guy going against Biden. Durrr.

I think many, perhaps most, Democrats would prefer that Biden step aside. Personally I'd love to see a younger, well-qualified progressive woman lead the party in 2024.

A crank like RFK, Jr. and a political neophyte like Williamson have no shot at getting the nomination.

@moonbus said
RFK jr is a documented antivaxxer, and a nut case who backs debunked false narratives and once compared the US govt to the Nazi regime. You do not want this man in the Oval Office.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/jan/24/robert-f-kennedy-jr-anti-vax-speech-anne-frank-auschwitz-memorial

Just like mental brain.

@no1marauder said
I think many, perhaps most, Democrats would prefer that Biden step aside. Personally I'd love to see a younger, well-qualified progressive woman lead the party in 2024.

A crank like RFK, Jr. and a political neophyte like Williamson have no shot at getting the nomination.

He's a disruptor, and the dims need a disruptor.

"Lockdown was the biggest shift in wealth in human history. And I blame President Trump for the lockdown.... President Trump gets blamed for a lot of things and he didn't do and he gets blamed for some things that he did do. But the worst thing that he did to this country, to our civil rights, to our economy, to the middle class in this country, was the lockdown.

Now, President Trump, in fairness, let me just make this point. He'll tell people, well, lockdown wasn't my idea. My bureaucrats sold me on it. I was saying we shouldn't do it. But that's not a good enough excuse. He was the president of the United States. As Harry Truman said, the buck stops here.

On May 2nd, 2020, 600 doctors wrote a signed a letter to President Trump begging him not to allow the lockdowns. Because at that time, all of the pandemic protocols anywhere in the world, the WHO, CDC, everywhere, the European Health Agency, all say you never do mass lockdowns. It causes much worse havoc and deaths and injuries. You do the standard protocol, which is you lock down the sick, you protect the vulnerable, and you let everybody else go back to work. Otherwise, you are going to wreak havoc.

I wrote about it on Instagram. I was writing every day. I was citing these economic studies that showed that with every point in unemployment, you get you get 37,000 excess deaths: from heart attack, suicides, plus imprisonment. And they dumped me from Instagram. They said that's misinformation. But it was not. But people were saying it. People knew it. It wasn't just me.

And we now know, of course, that it's true. There's now study after study and every comparison between the states and nations that locked down compared to those who didn't.... The more you locked down, the worse you got. Worse COVID deaths. Worse excess deaths.

Sweden's numbers came out this week. Sweden was the only country in Europe that didn't lock down. It had the lowest excess deaths in Europe....

The the IMF and Harvard study by Larry Summers says the cost of the lockdown to the United States was $16 trillion. 16 trillion for nothing. $16 trillion. We shifted $4 trillion from the middle class in this country to the super rich....

These lockdowns were a war on the poor and they were a war on American children. According to a Brown University study, toddlers lost 22 IQ points. A third of children throughout their school careers are going to need remedial education. Children all over the country have missed their milestones.

What is CDC's response? Here's CDC's response. The CDC five months ago revised its milestones so that now a child no longer is expected to walk at one year. They have it at 18 months. And a child now does not have to have 50 words at 24 months. It's 30 months. So instead of fixing the problem, they are trying to cover it up....

As soon as they knew they could censor us they then went after the other part of the First Amendment, freedom of worship. They closed every church in this country, without any scientific citation, for a year....

They told us we had to social distance. They went after our property rights, the Fifth Amendment. They closed 3.3 million businesses with no due process, no just compensation."

What sex the candidate is shouldn't even be on the list, except for the sexists.

@wajoma said
He's a disruptor, and the dims need a disruptor.

"Lockdown was the biggest shift in wealth in human history. And I blame President Trump for the lockdown.... President Trump gets blamed for a lot of things and he didn't do and he gets blamed for some things that he did do. But the worst thing that he did to this country, to our civil rights, to our economy, to the middle ...[text shortened]... mpensation."

What sex the candidate is shouldn't even be on the list, except for the sexists.

Having spent three years debunking all the untrue claims contained in that speech and many others by COVID deniers, I think I'll pass on wasting more time with such nonsense.

A woman President in the US would be symbolically significant and since there are many progressive women qualified for the job that would be my first preference.

@no1marauder said
Having spent three years debunking all the untrue claims contained in that speech and many others by COVID deniers, I think I'll pass on wasting more time with such nonsense.

A woman President in the US would be symbolically significant and since there are many progressive women qualified for the job that would be my first preference.

'symbolic' aka warm fuzzys.

Can't discriminate for without discriminating against something else. Discrimination based on sex = sexism.

@no1marauder said
I think many, perhaps most, Democrats would prefer that Biden step aside. Personally I'd love to see a younger, well-qualified progressive woman lead the party in 2024.

A crank like RFK, Jr. and a political neophyte like Williamson have no shot at getting the nomination.

We'd all love that, No1.

But run another woman, and the Repubs will do anything they can to derail that grand experiment. Caught between a demagogue and a woman in 2016, of course they chose the demagogue. That doesn't even matter who the nominee is. They'd choose Hitler over a woman.

@wajoma said
'symbolic' aka warm fuzzys.

Can't discriminate for without discriminating against something else. Discrimination based on sex = sexism.

Quick with the discriminate word, aren't you? And you're not even making sense.

Promoting something is not "discriminating" against something else. Good grief.

@wajoma said
He's a disruptor, and the dims need a disruptor.

"Lockdown was the biggest shift in wealth in human history. And I blame President Trump for the lockdown.... President Trump gets blamed for a lot of things and he didn't do and he gets blamed for some things that he did do. But the worst thing that he did to this country, to our civil rights, to our economy, to the middle ...[text shortened]... mpensation."

What sex the candidate is shouldn't even be on the list, except for the sexists.

"But I don't wanna be locked down!!! Please, please, please???"


Jesus, think of other people for once in your pathetic life.

We don't need a nut-job like this for president. We already tried a narcissist. How did that work out?

@suzianne said
We'd all love that, No1.

But run another woman, and the Repubs will do anything they can to derail that grand experiment. Caught between a demagogue and a woman in 2016, of course they chose the demagogue. That doesn't even matter who the nominee is. They'd choose Hitler over a woman.

HRC had a lot of baggage that other women don't. Her approval ratings were almost as bad as Trump's and haven't got much better.

@wajoma said
'symbolic' aka warm fuzzys.

Can't discriminate for without discriminating against something else. Discrimination based on sex = sexism.

Sexism, like racism, is an irrational belief that one sex/race is superior/inferior to another sex/race.

Since such a mindset is idiotic, your insistence that merely preferring a progressive woman for President as a partial karmic compensation for 235 years of actual sexism is ridiculous.

@no1marauder said
HRC had a lot of baggage that other women don't. Her approval ratings were almost as bad as Trump's and haven't got much better.

I must concede that this is true. I can't help but wonder though, how things might be different today had she been chosen over Trump.

All this being said, yes, I agree that "a younger, well-qualified progressive woman" would be a dream come true.