I'm not sure who RFK Jr. will hurt more: his greatest appeal is to anti-vaxxers, and while they exist in both parties I think there are more in the GOP at this time. Then again, the blatant statement from RFK Jr.'s camp that they'd be happy if Trump won (which is no surprise since RFK Jr. pals around with Mike Flynn) may drive the Dem anti-vaxxers to vote Biden instead.
(Added after submission): Turns out RFK Jr.'s NY State campaign director is a long-time Trump supporter. She has been attending Trump rallies since 2016; went to Trump's speech on J6, but deleted any photos of that day from her social media accounts; has pictures with Sydney Powell; and appears to be a 2020 election denier.
And while not relevant to the article, something to consider: someone noted on the site formerly known as Twitter that of the three candidates (Biden, Trump, RFK Jr.), only one was not partying with Jeffrey Epstein and taking his Lolita Express - and that's Joe Biden.
It's possible he will be, but I wonder how much his statements and obvious aim at helping Trump will result in Dems not using him as a protest vote.
Then again, those on the left that aren't going to vote for Biden tend to not really be Democrats and were unlikely to vote for Biden (or likely not vote at all, like they typically do) anyway.
Thanks David, well written analysis and on point. You can always tell when a nerve is touched, the comments start flying. I expect by days end it will easily be double what it is now.
I'm right there with you SGman; "uniparty," really? Trump and Biden...two peas in a pod. Of course, they are both old so maybe that's the new definition of uniparty=old.
If RFK is not a threat to the uniparty system - why do Trump and Biden refuse to debate him? And why does the MSM refuse give RFK air time, and instead portray him as a wasted vote?
At SGman. If you have to ask you are not paying attention. Yes. FOX, CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC, GOOGLE. YAHOO, NYT, WP, ATLANTIC, etc, etc. They all qualify as controlled MSM. Sounds like you need to build a good alternative news feed. Begin with substack and rumble. Identify people and news feeds that the MSM has censored. Isolate facts and evidence versus opinions that are absent of evidence. Think for yourself. Good luck!
RFK Jr. is the best candidate by a wide mile, but so was Nader. Third party candidates will never win in this country, but living in NY I think I can safely cast a protest vote. We'll see.
#1) I cannot recall a time in my life where the Democratic and Republican parties have been more different than they are now. If you truly think it's a uniparty then you need to get out of your media bubble.
#2) The two-party system is a result of our first-past-the-post election system. If you want to encourage changes to the election systems to make other parties more viable - that's something we can talk about (ranked choice voting, proportional representation, etc...). However: those changes aren't going to happen in 2024, and will take a decent amount of effort and time to get rolled out to each state. It's something to work towards.
Enjoy your fairy tale two party system. Yet evidence reveals on the most important issues a uniparty exists. Just a coue of examples of evidence. 1 the magnitude of national debt added under Biden and Trump. 2. Examine their support of the covid fraud and the vax. Also examine how the whisleblowers are treated (Snowden, Assange). Examine their support of bloated military budget. There are many dozens of examples that reveal the uniparty. All you need to do is look.
Debt is a tool, and how you use it matters. Giving tax breaks to the wealthy is a poor use: using it to invest in our infrastructure and people that then pays dividends is a good use.
COVID is real, as is the vaccine.
Snowden was charged under the Espionage Act of 1917, and for stealing government property - and then fled to Russia rather than defend himself as a whistleblower.
Assange was originally arrested due to an extradition claim in Sweden related to charges of sexual abuse: he violated his bail and fled to Ecuador. The US has accused Assange of conspiring with Chelsea Manning to commit computer intrusion of US government systems.
There's a big difference between being a publisher that receives and publishes government information vs conspiring to commit crimes to steal information for publishing.
Frankly, I think you think that any agreement between the parties on any issue is somehow supposed to be anathema.
Everything you state is repeating the narrative promoted by the uniparty and the MSM. You might try examining the real world evidence and thinking for yourself. Good luck!
Look at his policies. He understands that the biggest problem in America is the corporate-government nexus in industries like finance, housing, healthcare, pharma, agriculture, tech, etc., with revolving doors between industry and regulators in every sector. He has real proposals to tackle corruption and self-dealing. He has plans to get investors out of the housing market and return homes to actual homeowners. He's opposed to the military-industrial complex and endless DOD spending. He understands that protecting the environment goes beyond climate change, and has real proposals for promoting regenerative agricultural practices, protecting threatened ecosystems, getting toxic compounds out of our food, air, and water, etc. I particularly love his expanded Americorps program, uniting young Americans around a service ethic and helping them build core competencies, instead of throwing them into crushing university debt before they're old enough to drink.
I could go on. Perhaps most importantly, he understands that the biggest threat facing Americans isn't "the other side," but rather our mutual antagonism. He understands that we have a lot more in common than either party will ever admit. He has the will and the charisma to unite, while his opponents busily create divisions where none exist.
Finally, RFK is (relatively) young, sharp, articulate, lucid, smart, informed: everything the two major candidates are not.
What are those proposals? How do those actually contrast with Democrats and Republicans? How much of it is just waving hands at a problem without being specific about how to resolve said issues?
RE: Housing - investors are a knock-on effect of our lack of supply, which is due to local zoning blocking building new units. Banning speculation will not increase our supply, and will not bring costs down.
Yes, we are on the same page about housing supply being the main issue. Kennedy's platform addresses this problem explicitly, from multiple directions. The following is copied from the Housing policy section of his website:
- Bring derelict land and buildings back online. Many cities have thousands of vacant lots and buildings that have been seized for tax arrears or other reasons. We will incentivize local governments to bring city-owned land and buildings back onto the market.
- We will encourage municipalities to change zoning laws to allow ancillary dwelling units (granny flats) on more properties, to make housing available, bring families together, and provide homeowners with rental income. More supply means lower prices.
- Small changes to the tax code can make corporate investments in single-family homes uneconomic. For example, we can change business depreciation rules and reform the “enterprise zones.”
I am not going to continue being a gopher between these comments and Kennedy's website, but you seem informed on the issues, so I encourage you to check out his platform yourself. It's not perfect, but it is MILES better than anything I've seen from the uniparty.
- Subsidized/public housing using government-seized properties, or selling said properties and allowing those to be developed (with the latter being the status quo)
- Encouraging changes to zoning, 'cause the Feds have zero ability to change zoning (so again, status quo - 'cause Biden has also focused on zoning changes, while Trump has just stated he's against it)
- Small changes to the tax code will not change speculation, as the only way to prevent said speculation is to lower house prices via expanded supply - making said investment a poor choice
So we'll have to disagree that RFK is the best, because he doesn't really have anything that would address said housing issue. We have to be honest about the problem, and that it is due to our local governments - and ultimately it is on the local or state governments to make those changes.
Lmao. You're just trying to find reasons to be right, which does not make a strong argument.
Basically, you're saying no candidate can really do anything because it's a state/local issue (true), but you expect him to be different somehow? Cool. Did you check out any of the other policy areas on his website? Of course not, because you're not here to have a discussion, you're just here to try and be right. It's weak, and I don't have time for it.
For whatever it's worth though, your first point is wrong. It says nothing about public housing, just helping municipal governments get properties out of tax purgatory and ONTO THE MARKET. So in addition to arguing to be right instead of arguing to seek truth, in addition to failing to do any of your own research and just responding to excerpts in a comment section, you are also failing to interpret basic information correctly.
You're entitled to your opinion, but arguing with your opinion as the endpoint is a waste of my time, and makes you look ignorant.
I'm not sure who RFK Jr. will hurt more: his greatest appeal is to anti-vaxxers, and while they exist in both parties I think there are more in the GOP at this time. Then again, the blatant statement from RFK Jr.'s camp that they'd be happy if Trump won (which is no surprise since RFK Jr. pals around with Mike Flynn) may drive the Dem anti-vaxxers to vote Biden instead.
(Added after submission): Turns out RFK Jr.'s NY State campaign director is a long-time Trump supporter. She has been attending Trump rallies since 2016; went to Trump's speech on J6, but deleted any photos of that day from her social media accounts; has pictures with Sydney Powell; and appears to be a 2020 election denier.
And while not relevant to the article, something to consider: someone noted on the site formerly known as Twitter that of the three candidates (Biden, Trump, RFK Jr.), only one was not partying with Jeffrey Epstein and taking his Lolita Express - and that's Joe Biden.
RFK Jr. appears to be a protest vote magnet for folks that will not vote Biden or Trump.
It's possible he will be, but I wonder how much his statements and obvious aim at helping Trump will result in Dems not using him as a protest vote.
Then again, those on the left that aren't going to vote for Biden tend to not really be Democrats and were unlikely to vote for Biden (or likely not vote at all, like they typically do) anyway.
Yes I agree. It is all about who stays home or casts protest votes.
Thanks David, well written analysis and on point. You can always tell when a nerve is touched, the comments start flying. I expect by days end it will easily be double what it is now.
I'm right there with you SGman; "uniparty," really? Trump and Biden...two peas in a pod. Of course, they are both old so maybe that's the new definition of uniparty=old.
Damn David, doubled it in an hour.
If RFK is not a threat to the uniparty system - why do Trump and Biden refuse to debate him? And why does the MSM refuse give RFK air time, and instead portray him as a wasted vote?
Lol, uniparty
My prediction:
MAGA - up and growing,
RINO's - down especially - Pence, Romney, McConnell and their ilk.
RFK - up, up, up, 25%+
Any other 3rd party - down or steady
Ethnic groups for Trump - up, up, what do they have to lose?
Ethnic Democrats - Loving their great inner cities?
Democrat Party loyal to Biden - 100% delusional and willing to cheat.
Electoral College - Trump 300+ subject to change up
My outside the norm VP Pick - Tulsi Gabbard
At SGman. If you have to ask you are not paying attention. Yes. FOX, CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC, GOOGLE. YAHOO, NYT, WP, ATLANTIC, etc, etc. They all qualify as controlled MSM. Sounds like you need to build a good alternative news feed. Begin with substack and rumble. Identify people and news feeds that the MSM has censored. Isolate facts and evidence versus opinions that are absent of evidence. Think for yourself. Good luck!
RFK Jr. is the best candidate by a wide mile, but so was Nader. Third party candidates will never win in this country, but living in NY I think I can safely cast a protest vote. We'll see.
You overlook the fact that it is a uniparty system. Repeating the fairy tale that it is a two party system traps you.
#1) I cannot recall a time in my life where the Democratic and Republican parties have been more different than they are now. If you truly think it's a uniparty then you need to get out of your media bubble.
#2) The two-party system is a result of our first-past-the-post election system. If you want to encourage changes to the election systems to make other parties more viable - that's something we can talk about (ranked choice voting, proportional representation, etc...). However: those changes aren't going to happen in 2024, and will take a decent amount of effort and time to get rolled out to each state. It's something to work towards.
Enjoy your fairy tale two party system. Yet evidence reveals on the most important issues a uniparty exists. Just a coue of examples of evidence. 1 the magnitude of national debt added under Biden and Trump. 2. Examine their support of the covid fraud and the vax. Also examine how the whisleblowers are treated (Snowden, Assange). Examine their support of bloated military budget. There are many dozens of examples that reveal the uniparty. All you need to do is look.
Debt is a tool, and how you use it matters. Giving tax breaks to the wealthy is a poor use: using it to invest in our infrastructure and people that then pays dividends is a good use.
COVID is real, as is the vaccine.
Snowden was charged under the Espionage Act of 1917, and for stealing government property - and then fled to Russia rather than defend himself as a whistleblower.
Assange was originally arrested due to an extradition claim in Sweden related to charges of sexual abuse: he violated his bail and fled to Ecuador. The US has accused Assange of conspiring with Chelsea Manning to commit computer intrusion of US government systems.
There's a big difference between being a publisher that receives and publishes government information vs conspiring to commit crimes to steal information for publishing.
Frankly, I think you think that any agreement between the parties on any issue is somehow supposed to be anathema.
Everything you state is repeating the narrative promoted by the uniparty and the MSM. You might try examining the real world evidence and thinking for yourself. Good luck!
Which mainstream media do you mean? The leading network, Fox News?
Haha, true...
Gonna have to provide examples of how RFK Jr is the best candidate: what are your measurements?
Look at his policies. He understands that the biggest problem in America is the corporate-government nexus in industries like finance, housing, healthcare, pharma, agriculture, tech, etc., with revolving doors between industry and regulators in every sector. He has real proposals to tackle corruption and self-dealing. He has plans to get investors out of the housing market and return homes to actual homeowners. He's opposed to the military-industrial complex and endless DOD spending. He understands that protecting the environment goes beyond climate change, and has real proposals for promoting regenerative agricultural practices, protecting threatened ecosystems, getting toxic compounds out of our food, air, and water, etc. I particularly love his expanded Americorps program, uniting young Americans around a service ethic and helping them build core competencies, instead of throwing them into crushing university debt before they're old enough to drink.
I could go on. Perhaps most importantly, he understands that the biggest threat facing Americans isn't "the other side," but rather our mutual antagonism. He understands that we have a lot more in common than either party will ever admit. He has the will and the charisma to unite, while his opponents busily create divisions where none exist.
Finally, RFK is (relatively) young, sharp, articulate, lucid, smart, informed: everything the two major candidates are not.
What are those proposals? How do those actually contrast with Democrats and Republicans? How much of it is just waving hands at a problem without being specific about how to resolve said issues?
RE: Housing - investors are a knock-on effect of our lack of supply, which is due to local zoning blocking building new units. Banning speculation will not increase our supply, and will not bring costs down.
Yes, we are on the same page about housing supply being the main issue. Kennedy's platform addresses this problem explicitly, from multiple directions. The following is copied from the Housing policy section of his website:
- Bring derelict land and buildings back online. Many cities have thousands of vacant lots and buildings that have been seized for tax arrears or other reasons. We will incentivize local governments to bring city-owned land and buildings back onto the market.
- We will encourage municipalities to change zoning laws to allow ancillary dwelling units (granny flats) on more properties, to make housing available, bring families together, and provide homeowners with rental income. More supply means lower prices.
- Small changes to the tax code can make corporate investments in single-family homes uneconomic. For example, we can change business depreciation rules and reform the “enterprise zones.”
I am not going to continue being a gopher between these comments and Kennedy's website, but you seem informed on the issues, so I encourage you to check out his platform yourself. It's not perfect, but it is MILES better than anything I've seen from the uniparty.
www.kennedy24.com
So:
- Subsidized/public housing using government-seized properties, or selling said properties and allowing those to be developed (with the latter being the status quo)
- Encouraging changes to zoning, 'cause the Feds have zero ability to change zoning (so again, status quo - 'cause Biden has also focused on zoning changes, while Trump has just stated he's against it)
- Small changes to the tax code will not change speculation, as the only way to prevent said speculation is to lower house prices via expanded supply - making said investment a poor choice
So we'll have to disagree that RFK is the best, because he doesn't really have anything that would address said housing issue. We have to be honest about the problem, and that it is due to our local governments - and ultimately it is on the local or state governments to make those changes.
Lmao. You're just trying to find reasons to be right, which does not make a strong argument.
Basically, you're saying no candidate can really do anything because it's a state/local issue (true), but you expect him to be different somehow? Cool. Did you check out any of the other policy areas on his website? Of course not, because you're not here to have a discussion, you're just here to try and be right. It's weak, and I don't have time for it.
For whatever it's worth though, your first point is wrong. It says nothing about public housing, just helping municipal governments get properties out of tax purgatory and ONTO THE MARKET. So in addition to arguing to be right instead of arguing to seek truth, in addition to failing to do any of your own research and just responding to excerpts in a comment section, you are also failing to interpret basic information correctly.
You're entitled to your opinion, but arguing with your opinion as the endpoint is a waste of my time, and makes you look ignorant.
"Biden is no radical socialist. In fact, he’s about as moderate as any national Democrat could possibly be and still get elected."
That alone is reason enough to vote him out of office.