RFK Jr: the first Permie President of the United States?

I'm not usually one to look at politics because the media and political parties are so deeply corrupt.  But this appears to be something refreshing.

Many people don't know much about RFK Jr, or know that he's polling above 20% nationwide, and beats both Trump and Biden among voters under 45 in the battleground states.  He could become president.  See his positions on issues at www.kennedy24.com/policies.  His latest speech from today is here.
His first policy position on the environment will strike a chord with us here:

www.kennedy24.com/environment wrote:We will shift agricultural subsidies so as to encourage regenerative practices. Today, a new generation of farmers and ranchers is building soil, replenishing groundwater, and detoxifying land, all while producing just as much food as conventional farmers and earning a decent livelihood.

The corporate-controlled media barely mention him other than to slander him, because his positions seriously threaten corporate profits.  I think it's a good thing for more people to hear him speak because his message is one of healing.

A good place to start I think is this conversation where he talks about what motivates him to fight for healthy rivers and landscapes.  (Note, his voice has improved since this conversation as he recently had surgery for his speech condition.)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52W-R5wnuZw

Here he speaks with Joel Salatin on regenerative ag:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tPnOe6aeO9Y

More conversations with RFK Jr on a variety of topics:
https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/rfk-jr-podcast

I disagree with him on some things.  However, on most of the major issues, such as ecology, war, pharma, civil liberties, corporate capture of agencies, etc, I agree with RFK and he stands in opposition to both the democrats and republicans.

The biggest political issue to me is ecology.  Our health depends on the health of the land and water and all the other species.  RFK Jr is the most deeply pro-ecology presidential candidate I've seen.

Pros:
- Spent his career fighting polluters and toxic chemicals.  He's the lawyer who won the recent glyphosate lawsuit against Monsanto.
- Supports regenerative agriculture in opposition to chemical ag.
- Opposes corporate capture of all the regulatory agencies.
- Opposes war and the military industrial complex, specifically talks about how they have instigated all of these entirely unnecessary wars for profit.
- Opposes big pharma, specifically talks about the chronic disease epidemic (60% of americans have chronic disease now, compared to 6% when he was young) and possible causes.
- He's really intelligent and able to speak with knowledge and nuance about a huge variety of topics.
- He says he goes to multiple 12 step meetings a week and seems to be spiritually grounded.
- The white house specifically told the tech companies to censor him, and were caught doing so.

The major points against him that I hear the most:

1. That he's a "conspiracy theorist".
While there are loads of conspiracy theories that lack evidence, there are also plenty of conspiracies where we know that powerful people collaborated to do something bad and lied about it.  That's all a conspiracy is.  Monsanto knew roundup would likely cause cancer and they sold it anyway for a huge profit.  They lied about it, and now [later] we have the proof and Monsanto is paying billions in damages thanks to RFK Jr.  So I am not surprised that he believes that corporations are doing bad things and lying to us.  I guess I am a conspiracy theorist too.

2. That he's "anti vaccine".
This isn't accurate.  His argument about vaccines is that corporations making billions selling them should be liable if they cause harm (currently they are not), and that they should be required to safety test them.  He argues there should be long term studies on how they impact health.  As president he could make that happen.  And he argues that there should be informed consent, i.e. people shouldn't be forced to take whatever new injection big pharma creates.

3. That he'll steal votes from Trump or Biden.
I also often hear from people whether they're left or right, that RFK will steal votes from their candidate.  He will legitimately take votes from both, but we don't know which he'll hurt more.  This is not a good reason to not listen to him.

4. That he can't possibly win.
He could win.  He's running as an independent candidate, so the DNC can't shut him down like they did Bernie.  Most people I've talked with, who actually listened to him speak in a longer conversation and didn't just dismiss him based on what they heard from the media, have told me they're going to vote for him.  For the first time in US history more people identify as independents rather than belonging to either party.  It's just a matter of enough people hearing him and telling their friends about it.

It's not like he can fix everything, but there's a whole lot that an actual good president could do that would be radically different than the two flavors of status quo that the two-party system offers.  Even if he gets in there and "they" threaten him and say he can't do most of what he wants, there does appear to be some leeway allowed the president, for example Trump was able to undo a lot of environmental protections, some of which Biden has reinstated.

Also, an appeal to the many left leaning folks I know who read the NY Times.  The NY Times has a political agenda: it beat the drum for war in Iraq, and it constantly tore down Bernie when it looked like he had a chance.  It's a defender of the status quo, and not a good source for unbiased reporting.  Nor are pretty much all the rest of the big media corporations.  Even Wikipedia.. while it's a good place to find sources cited, do recognize that whenever a page is controversial, it is typically controlled by the establishment and thus biased in its presentation and in what information and sources it chooses to include.

And finally, I'd welcome any compelling argument against him or his positions.  I still hold some skepticism.  I have listened to many hours of conversations with him, but I may well be missing things and I'd like to learn.

I like a lot of what Kennedy says and if he weren't burdened by the seeming inability to either determine or tell the truth (I'm not sure which), I think he'd be a great candidate. I'd invite anyone on the fence to follow the citations out of his Wikipedia article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_F._Kennedy_Jr.#Anti-vaccine_advocacy_and_conspiracy_theories_on_public_health) and read up.

My largest worries with RFK Jr. is that his positions sometimes appear to be contradictory?

He has stated in the past that he would support an abortion ban after the first trimester but then walked it back.

He believes health insurers should be able to exclude people with pre-existing conditions but supports a Medicare for all plan along with government regulation of drug pricing.

I'm intrigued by his assertion that hate speech should be protected speech because he doesn't trust the government to define what is hate speech. I haven't chewed on this one long enough to form my own opinion on his stance.

He supports reforming the supreme court but only with adding term limits.

Supports banning the usage of "sanctuary cities".

Supports requiring ID for voting. Also supports having to pass a basic test demonstrating basic understanding of politics.

I don't know. Something is off for me and that is what keeps me wary of voting for RFK.

Timothy Norton wrote:He has stated in the past that he would support an abortion ban after the first trimester but then walked it back.

I looked this up, it comes from one brief conversation with a reporter (clip).  He walked it back in the same conversation 20 seconds later saying he doesn't think the federal government should prevent the states from regulating that, and also that very few abortions happen after 21 weeks. (around 6000 a year according to pew).  Later that day his campaign clarified that "it is always the woman's right to choose. He does not support legislation banning abortion."   It is off-putting that he did not have clarity on his stance in that conversation from the beginning.  But, I wouldn't put too much weight on one thing he said and then immediately took back.

Timothy Norton wrote:He believes health insurers should be able to exclude people with pre-existing conditions but supports a Medicare for all plan along with government regulation of drug pricing.

That sounded odd to me.  I looked up the source for this, it looks like you found it here on isidewith.com, and they say it comes from this spot in this interview: https://youtu.be/hjqDoPD7AXM?si=_eVP5TbYra_QIVo9&t=860, but I watched the interview and couldn't find him say anything about pre-existing conditions.  So.. I dunno.

I'm intrigued by his assertion that hate speech should be protected speech because he doesn't trust the government to define what is hate speech. I haven't chewed on this one long enough to form my own opinion on his stance.

I tend to agree with him on this - I think the less power the government has to control speech the better, exactly because I don't trust them to decide what should be allowed and what censored.  

Supports banning the usage of "sanctuary cities".

Supports requiring ID for voting. Also supports having to pass a basic test demonstrating basic understanding of politics.

I can't find any source for these other than the isidewith.com website.  They say this didn't come from RFK himself but rather from a poll of ~1000 people who say they support him, so I don't think it means much.

Here he talks about his stance on border and immigration: https://www.youtube.com/live/yXlun2EYFvk?t=3081  What he says sounds reasonable, but I am not sure what to think - I don't know enough.

I should state that I have not done a deep dive into RFK Jr. or his viability as a candidate yet but not actually having a conversation with someone I might look deeper.

I think he could use a better campaign publicity campaign, he does have the Kennedy last name but you don't hear him talked about a lot. He had a burst of radio/TV time from traditionally conservative sources when it appeared that RFK Jr. could split Bidens votes but then there was worry that RFK Jr. could split Trump's votes and he wasn't treated so kindly. He does still bring in campaign dollars from groups that have supported the other two candidates at the past, but I don't have those numbers.

I wonder if he could put out strong, solid statements of his positions, if he would poll better? He needs to find his footing and be clear when he speaks.

Christopher Weeks wrote:I like a lot of what Kennedy says and if he weren't burdened by the seeming inability to either determine or tell the truth (I'm not sure which), I think he'd be a great candidate. I'd invite anyone on the fence to follow the citations out of his Wikipedia article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_F._Kennedy_Jr.#Anti-vaccine_advocacy_and_conspiracy_theories_on_public_health) and read up.

Yes, do follow the citations, but go farther than just what the media (including wikipedia, which is a very biased source) says.

wikipedia wrote:[RFK's] group alleges a large proportion of American children are suffering from conditions as diverse as autism, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, food allergies, cancer, and autoimmune diseases due to exposure to certain chemicals and radiation. Children's Health Defense has blamed and campaigned against vaccines, fluoridation of drinking water, paracetamol (acetaminophen), aluminum, wireless communications, among others.

We know that the rates of these chronic diseases have exploded in the last few decades.  We don't know exactly which [combinations] of toxins are responsible for which diseases, but I think it's pretty likely that most of these diseases are due to the plethora of toxic stuff that became pervasive in the last few decades.  Vaccines are one of many possible causes, many did and some still do contain mercury.  We don't know the degree to which they're a cause.  Studies funded by pharma generally say vaccines are safe, and maybe that's true, and, there are many studies independent of pharma funding that show various kinds of negative health outcomes from various vaccines.  But any such study showing negative impacts from vaccines appears to immediately be labeled as debunked by the establishment (pharma, government agencies, media, wikipedia).  I don't trust these authorities anymore to tell me what is safe, though.  These same entities said roundup and ddt were safe, for example.


I don't trust big pharma.  And it is big pharma that created all the vaccines, both childhood vaccines and covid vaccines, knowing that they are immune from liability if they cause harm, and can make hundreds of billions off of them with basically no risk.  They have in the past created drugs that were dangerous, marketed them, killed thousands of people, and then paid billions in fines for it - but never more than they profited from the drugs.  With the vaccines they have even less incentive to be careful.  So, I don't know enough yet but I'm skeptical.  It's something I'll have to look into a lot more if I have kids.  But some things really don't make sense to me, like giving babies vaccinations for things they are exceedingly unlikely to be hurt by, like hepatitis B or covid.

Timothy Norton wrote:you don't hear him talked about a lot.

You're right, he isn't talked about a lot in the media.  But clearly more and more people are hearing about him as his polling keeps getting better.  That's why I posted here, because I think most of us at permies will choose him at least over trump or biden, once we look at his policies and hear him speak.

Timothy Norton wrote:I wonder if he could put out strong, solid statements of his positions, if he would poll better? He needs to find his footing and be clear when he speaks.

I just looked at his website www.kennedy24.com/policies and it looks like it has clear descriptions of his positions on each issue.  It's hard to cover all of the positions in hour long interviews, where interviewers are often trying to focus on some particular hot button issue[s].  

For example, on environment:

kennedy24.com wrote:We will shift agricultural subsidies so as to encourage regenerative practices. Today, a new generation of farmers and ranchers is building soil, replenishing groundwater, and detoxifying land, all while producing just as much food as conventional farmers and earning a decent livelihood.
We will incentivize the transition of industry to zero-waste cycles and clean energy sources, and forge agreements with other countries to implement these policies throughout the global supply chain. These first two policies will vastly reduce the toxic waste, industrial poisons, and pesticides that make people and ecosystems sick.
We will protect wild lands from further development, by curbing mining, logging, oil drilling, and suburban sprawl. We will become a global advocate for rainforest preservation and marine restoration. We will rethink development policies that promised economic growth while ignoring ecological sustainability, and ended up delivering neither.
We will restore the USDA and the EPA to their proper role of protecting health and the environment. Today, corporate influence has severely compromised these agencies, resulting in a proliferation of highly toxic chemicals in our food, soil, air, and water. It’s time to clean it up!

You won't see the democrats or republicans saying those things.

Philip McGarvey wrote:We know that the rates of these chronic diseases [autism, ADHD, food allergies, cancer, etc] have exploded in the last few decades.  We don't know exactly which [combinations] of toxins are responsible for which diseases, but I think it's pretty likely that most of these diseases are due to the plethora of toxic stuff that became pervasive in the last few decades.

Novel and prevalent toxins certainly might be partially to blame. However, the people who have dedicated their lives to studying the issues mostly don't seem to think so. Autism and ADHD mostly seem to be down to diagnostic changes and social acceptance -- what's probably rising is diagnoses, not incidence. Allergies and cancer do both appear to be experiencing a rise in incidence, but it seems to mostly be down to processed foods (which might include the introduction of toxins, for sure, but I bet mostly has to do with removing vital nutrients for purposes of shelf-stability), with sleep deprivation and other social factors carrying some of the weight.

And like, I'm just guessing. I don't have a medical degree and while I'm educated and interested in this topic, I'm not an expert. I also don't think that big pharma is motivated out of the goodness of their hearts to take care of us, but most university researchers are trying to do what's right. And exactly because I'm just guessing, I'm not going to stoke the flames of conspiracy with my relatively uneducated guesses. For me to do that would feel deeply irresponsible.

Christopher Weeks wrote:Novel and prevalent toxins certainly might be partially to blame. However, the people who have dedicated their lives to studying the issues mostly don't seem to think so. Autism and ADHD mostly seem to be down to diagnostic changes and social acceptance -- what's probably rising is diagnoses, not incidence. Allergies and cancer do both appear to be experiencing a rise in incidence, but it seems to mostly be down to processed foods (which might include the introduction of toxins, for sure, but I bet mostly has to do with removing vital nutrients for purposes of shelf-stability), with sleep deprivation and other social factors carrying some of the weight.

Yes, many things have changed, toxins and poisons are just one of many possible culprits, that likely act in combination.

Christopher Weeks wrote:And like, I'm just guessing. I don't have a medical degree and while I'm educated and interested in this topic, I'm not an expert. I also don't think that big pharma is motivated out of the goodness of their hearts to take care of us, but most university researchers are trying to do what's right. And exactly because I'm just guessing, I'm not going to stoke the flames of conspiracy with my relatively uneducated guesses. For me to do that would feel deeply irresponsible.

That's fair.

I also imagine most researchers are generally trying to do what's right, I think most people generally are.  And, I think there's a system of perverse incentives (i.e. profit), as well as a culture of conformity that makes it rare for people to notice what's wrong and if they do, makes it scary to speak up about it.  I'm sure this is colored by my own experiences.  First in big tech, where profits were to be made by keeping people addicted to their screens, and the story was that we're just giving them what they want so it's a good thing.  Second having government agency employees tell me they fear for their jobs if they tried to actually enforce certain environmental laws, as much as they'd like to.

I notice fear come up in myself to talk about this kind of thing publicly.  That if I do, I'll end up alone because people will be afraid to associate with me.  I have to reckon with that.  I believe that most people hold some skepticism but are afraid to talk about it publicly.  That's definitely been my experience.  So I think it's good to normalize talking about these things.  I just had the thought that maybe it's similar to the MeToo movement, tons of people have stories to tell but lone whistleblowers tend to be punished severely, so they won't feel safe sharing these stories until there's a critical mass of people doing so.

I think Kennedy will be a refreshing change from the bought public agents of the FDA, CDC, and others, we suffered.

On matters of poisonous oils and things put into the food supply, he would impose some harsh changes, and they would be good, if not left wholly to his own devices (e.g., not able to combine his executive branch functions with legislative branch functions by adding to or taking from the law).

I thought banning smoking in federal buildings was harsh, but never opposed it, knowing it was fair to others who, unlike me, at the time (over twenty years ago), did not smoke. I suspect I'd find myself in the same position were he to strike against certain oils (e.g., Canola oil, cottonseed and soybean oil), margarine and other hydrogenated, heavy in the omega 6, artery clogging garbage, corn syrup, cactus sugars and so on, all known by the more sincere of the food industry to be harmful to our health.

I would hope he'd remember, or learn, people are different. Merely that someone is fat doesn't mean they want to be. And mere education is, as often as not, nowhere near enough to help them change. That is because change starts with how we think. After all, an entire industry [riddled with charlatans and incompetents] was built around thinking.

To the end of helping people change, I would hope he would look into EFT, hypnosis, positive thinking techniques and so on. Including by promoting making them part of the medical system, as they should be.

THEN there is that I do not want to see him anywhere near my rights set out in the article one, section twenty-four of the Washington constitution, or, for D.C. residents, the 2nd amendment.

Kelly Craig wrote:I think Kennedy will be a refreshing change from the bought public agents of the FDA, CDC, and others, we suffered.

On matters of poisonous oils and things put into the food supply, he would impose some harsh changes, and they would be good, if left to his own devices (e.g., not able to combine his executive branch functions with legislative branch functions by adding to or taking from the law).

I thought banning smoking in federal buildings was harsh, but never opposed it, knowing it was fair to others who, unlike me, at the time (over twenty years ago), did not smoke. I suspect I'd find myself in the same position were he to strike against certain oils (e.g., Canola oil, cottonseed and soybean oil), margarine and other hydrogenated, heavy in the omega 6, artery clogging garbage, corn syrup, cactus sugars and so on, all known by the more sincere of the food industry to be harmful to our health.

I would hope he'd remember, or learn, people are different. Merely that someone is fat doesn't mean they want to be.

I've been thinking this thread was in dire need of bumping. I've followed politics for decades but I've never seen anyone who presented a glimmer of hope that they would do something to actually improve our government until hearing about RFK's aspirations. Given the level of obvious bias by mainstream commentators, it isn't exactly easy to get an objective idea of him through the smokescreen. But when the people who told us, among other 'things', that the covid vaccine would stop transmission call him a "crank", it sounds like the highest endorsement to be found.

I don't follow mainstream media anymore except through retrospective clips by analysts, so haven't seen the latest. From listening to others it sounds like they have stepped up the smear campaign on him as would be expected. I'm wondering if you are responding to statements he has made about his plans, or 'conjecture' from some corporate media outlet?

From conversations by those associated with RFK jr, I've gathered he is primarily about giving the public reliable, objective information about health related issues. Seems like he would not try to ban items from the market, but make sure safety testing and nutritional information is offered by objective agents not in the pay of the corporations selling the products. If you were not aware, there is essentially a revolving door between the Federal regulatory agencies and the now trillion dollar multinational corporations they "regulate". The only thing resembling an actual check on the corporations are other nations that have something resembling integrity in their regulatory system, mostly around the EU as far as I know. I did hear something about him endorsing a ban on advertising for products, which gets into 1st amendment issues, but also is well established as a practice in recent US history.

The one bit of recent news I did catch that I actually believed was that the stocks for all of the pharmaceutical companies took a dive when Trump officially proposed RFK for the position. While I'm incredibly interested in what could be done simply with an honest person in charge of HHS promoting common sense policies, I'm definitely sceptical it would be allowed to happen with so much of our society benefiting materialisticly from this specific theatre of corruption. The public will be hit with a continuation of vaccine disinformation from celebrities, along side pressure being brought to bear on most of congress by lobbyists that were just handed the first trillion dollar product in history a few years ago. They seem to have had a sizeable advertising budget even before that...

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cze391y17z7o


The bbc article was helpful for me to learn about his position and challenges.  I don't normally pay attention to foreign politics,  but canada often follows the usa when it comes to food safety policy.

I might have to keep an eye out and see where this goes.

I am not taking a position on sanctuary cities, or enforcing RFK Jr., or his opponents.  However, I will point out one conundrum that might present itself with regards to sanctuary cities.

As I understand things, a sanctuary city is a city that chooses to not enforce federal immigration law.  If I have misunderstood or mischaracterized that, please clarify for me as it could affect the following.

In the United States Constitution, there is a section called the Supremacy clause that sets out a hierarchy of laws.  The hierarchy goes like this


The Constitution of The United States

Treaties with other nations

Federal Laws

State Laws

Municipal Laws

Basically any level of government is free to make any law it wishes so long as it does not conflict with a higher law.  Typically, the Constitution and Treaties don’t cause much trouble as they are usually obvious.  But state and municipal laws somewhat often conflict with state and federal laws (there are just so many, this is easier than it looks).  When there is a conflict, the higher law has priority.

So if a city decides that it is not going to enforce a federal law, potentially that is a violation of the Supremacy clause right there.  These conflicts cropped up a few times early in the history of the republic and every time it was found that a lower law contradicting a higher law was unconstitutional and unenforceable.  So with that precedent, I would think that a court would decide that the locality had to enforce federal law, making the idea of a sanctuary city a moot issue.

Now I am not a lawyer, nor a legal scholar but if sanctuary cities were to be pressed on the issue, I don’t know if they would have much to stand on.

And again, I am not supporting any political side, with politics feeling rather yucky to me right now.  All I am doing is point out this legal/constitutional quirk.  I honestly don’t know how it would play out.

Eric

Eric, as too often occurs, a step is missing from your  hierarchy list - state constitutions.

Just as with the federal constitution, states' laws cannot be repugnant to the state's constitutions, or they are null and void from the get go.  Accordingly, it comes before state laws.

Then there are a few critical elaborations that need to be made:

(1) Our laws operate, somewhat, under a paradox.  Just as many documents are at the forefront of the establishment of something, but fall to the wayside when the establishment is accomplished, the federal constitution falls to the way side with regard to all powers not granted the United States by the several, united states. This fact is set out in the 10th amendment, which makes clear the several, united states AND the citizens have greater powers than the federal government in matters for which authority was not specifically granted the federal government.

(2) The United States exits at the pleasure of the states. Its sole purpose to exist is to serve those states.

(3) Those other fifty constitutions are not mere window dressing. They represent another set of checks and balances to bind down government and are no less important than the prohibition against combining two or more branches. Though seldom spoken of, they represent the checks and balances between states' powers and federal powers.

(4) In the end, it remains we have thousands of governments found across the land of the several states and D.C., and the federal government is not the end all authority in the People's business.

It's a bit like with the courts. A decision out of a  district court may be appealed to a superior court, then to an appellate court, then to a supreme court, any of the latter which could overrule lower court decisions. That power is finite though. Original jurisdiction in certain matters rests with the lower courts and the higher courts cannot reach out and take origianal jurisdiction, except where law, specifically, grants that authority.

Then there is that though a higher court may have authority to overrule a lower court's decision, the ability to do so is controlled by various laws and rules.

I'm kinda confused how sanctuary cities relates to RFK Jr at this point, did I miss a weird news story?

Here's a great example of the news stories that are coming from the hospice ward of legacy media via the NY Times:
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/11/09/well/eat/seed-oil-effects.html

We are informed how this dangerous crank RFK Jr is trying to kill Americans by convincing them to eat such toxic crap as lard, tallow and butter. He is demonizing modern miracles of health like the canola and safflower oils who's rise in consumption in the last half century have correlated so well with the unprecedented levels of health now enjoyed universally among the American population. This irresponsible terrorist is trying to trick people into eating the same poisonous things that have been ending the human species for millennia.

To find someone to write this highly informative piece, they drug out someone with a PHD in nutrition. In addition to using the words "science" and "experts" to present her bullet proof thesis, she included this gem:
"Technically, not all of the “hateful eight” oils — which also include cottonseed, soybean, safflower, grapeseed and rice bran oils — are made from seeds. Soybean oil, for example, is made from a bean."

In response to the dozens of commentators that apparently know more about edible plants than someone with a PHD in nutrition from UC Davis, they issued this "correction":
"A correction was made on Nov. 12, 2024: An earlier version of this article misstated how soybean oil is made. It is made from the soybean, which is considered both a bean and a seed — not just a bean. The article also referred incorrectly to the “hateful eight” seed oils. They are all technically derived from seeds."

Wow. that second sentence reads like the writer still does not understand that a bean is a type of seed. Time to pick up the National Enquirer for some more coherent and fact based news stories...

BTW, I've been following this "fringe" nutrition stuff off and on since reading Omnivore's Dilemma almost 20 year ago, and particularly the seed oils in recent years, but "hateful eight"? Has anyone heard this one before?