RFK's running mate

Post Reply New Topic

I threw this on to hear Eric Weinstein interviewed and found out that the host (Nicole Shanahan) is Robert F Kennedy Jr's running mate. It's a trip because he's talking GameB on systems, also threw me for a loop bringing up Rudolph Steiner so it sounds like she's got a pretty wide net. If Andrew Yang runs again in 2028 he should keep her in mind for VP if she's not running for President herself.

No,No,No

Conspiracy thinking about autism drives anti-vaxxer presidential candidate RFK Jr.’s pick for vice president

That sucks. Sounds like she's got some Terrence Howard in her too.

Nobody's perfect, and last time I went to his site they've definitely downplayed that. Considering that our options amount to two corrupt shills that aren't going to do anything about the swamp, I'd rather have an anti-vaxxer that would actually drain the swamp. But, that's just me.

They can downplay it all they want but fellow anti-vaxxers understand this is a campaign tactic they are their allies.

If they ever get actual power they very well could be an existential threat to autistic people. Many anti-vaxxers think of autistic people as formally cute children who are now horrible mutants because of poisoning for profit by big pharma. With that mentality, any type of quack cure that might "recover" that cute child trapped inside is worth the risk. Some of these "cures" do no more harm than give parents false hope, others do physical damage. Now peddlers of quack cures are prosecuted if they violate the law. Under a Kennedy-Shannon administration, they would be encouraged. Beyond the possible physical harm having parents that think that way about their children is psychologically harmful. Under a Kennedy-Shannon administration, they would have every reason to believe the authorities have their back and since they were voted in that most of the public agrees with them.

There are many valid reasons to believe that what I wrote above is hyperbole. I have no desire to play with that fire.

To an extent I get that, but by the same token, I'm not sure that 2 candidates that represent existential threats to democracy are any better. Whatever JFKJR wants to do would be tempered by what the legislature is willing to go along with. They aren't going to have the same degree of support as if either Trump or Harris is ultimately elected.

Also, since when do people take anti-vaxxers seriously? There was a bit of an uptick during the pandemic because the government got repeatedly caught lying about it, but there's a lot that state and local governments can do with respect to the specific rules about vaccination.

Agreed that our options seem almost artificially miserable, and have been since 2016. With AI, Russia / Ukraine, etc. - Eric said it well in the interview that for the Trump voters, that he's a 'wild card' - that's not a great option. Similarly in the Democratic Party there's allegiance to the idea of CBDC's (central bank digital currencies), I'm kind of hoping that issue dovetails with crypto in a way where to be pro-crypto is anti-CBDC (Ro Khanna, Ritchie Torrez, etc.) and that they put it - also hopefully Elizabeth Warren and Gary Gensler - to rest albeit they'd probably still try some more covert way to get desired results because there's a certain kind of elite that can't handle emergent order refreshing things.

The entire system at the federal level has been corrupted to the point that just having a 3rd party candidate coming within striking distance of the presidency could have an impact. But regardless of outcome, there's going to be a lot of protesting and arm twisting if we want any improvement.

The only issues that really matter right now are campaign finance and SCOTUS. Without those being addressed nothing else is likely to be possible. And I don't see either major party candidate fighting in the right side of those issues.

I do think we need a third party candidate but not Kennedy

Chevron repeal was a big step in the right direction at least.

For improvement though I'm less sure that protesting would do a lot. I think it has to be either political pendulum shift or natural collapse of the sort that prohibits the kind of behavior that we're seeing right now from even working. I say that last part because we live in a forest of misaligned and negative incentives, it's Darwinian game theory which means that any niche that can be exploited will be exploited because that's the optimal gain for the least loss for people who are strictly self-oriented (which sadly is a lot of people). We'd need a shift of cultural ethos and more unifications again for practical purposes but IMHO that only comes about if we hit rock bottom first because there's no person or party that I think could have that much influence.

Only a Democrat can nominate decent people for SCOTUS. A moderate or left-leaning third party candidate can only enable the Republican to win, thereby further entrenching an even more right wing Supreme Court.

Given how American elections work, third party or independent candidates can only be spoilers for whichever party they are most similar to.

To have substantial reforms, what's necessary is massive non-party organizing to put pressure on one or both of the major parties.

Both major political parties need the support of a wide range of issue-focused activist groups, lobbying groups, PACs, etc. These activist groups, lobbying groups, PACS, etc. are upstream of the political parties in terms of deciding what policies each party tends to advocate.

I've watched more of her interviews - both her 'Council of the Cancelled' roundtable with Eric Weinstein, Mike Benz, and Jay Bhattacharya and also her interview with Tom Bilyeu where she was talking about some of the ways that the DNC applied the same tactics to her and RFK Jr. that it pulled on Trump.

I still like the idea of her and RFK Jr. getting cabinet positions, and it's mostly because she still reeks of GameB and I'd really want some geeky policy wonk whose familiar with Daniel Schmachtenberger, Nora Bateson, Samo Burja, and all of them and their ideas - in fact I'd really love to see Schmachtenberger called up by DC a lot more.

Also for as annoying as antivax can be - we have a candidate who was Border Tsar for the last two or three years in the US, I'm not entirely sure I'd want to hire her at a McDonalds, add to that Warren would be running the monetary policy which would most likely be CBDC's, capital controls, banning of crypto custody and on / off ramps, all of the fun of living in Venezuela or Argentina. Compared to that level of harm or China style control we're back to barking dog vs. zombie apocalypse where I'll take the barking dog rather than social and economic liberalism getting replaced with something much worse.

technically bad news for Kamala. trump basically getting free votes from Libertarians who support RFK. Previously they might have abstained from voting if RFK dropped out quietly.

As of right now I'm getting a vibe. That vibe is that this is turning into 'the blob' puppeting the DNC on one side (could be Kamala or anyone else doesn't matter) and pretty much everyone else whose not of the same mindset as 'the blob' about America's future and how our lives will be, how our information ecology will be, etc., RFK lead the charge for anyone who can't relate to what the Democratic party's become. I saw a short interview a few days ago where he said that at this point, even as a life-long Democrat and Democrat voter, he believes the DNC situation is so corrupt that he would rather vote Trump to make sure it can't go on like this another election cycle. I'm less optimistic even if Trump wins with the best of intentions they really would have needed to kick the crap out of this machine so hard (legally) that it was permanently out of the way rather than stopping them at every turn.

^^^ It seems trump is willing to open the files on his assassinated father and uncle
https://www.news.com.au/world/north-ame ... d85ec56b25