this post was submitted on 09 Aug 2024
681 points (97.1% liked)

politics

19159 readers
5938 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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] zephorah@lemm.ee 33 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Bizarre. I thought RFK Jr was being bank rolled by a repub to split the vote on the dem side. Last poll has him at 6% in Michigan. Remember, split votes gave MI to Trump in 2016, assuming the Stein and Harambe votes would’ve been Hillary instead.

RFK is a conspiracy nut too. Strange guy. I’ve never listened to Rogan. But if this splits the vote the other way, great.

[–] jonne@infosec.pub 30 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (2 children)

To be fair, if my uncle and dad were murdered by the CIA I'd be a conspiracy nut too. Although Republicans will probably regret elevating him now, as he seems to be peeling more people off Trump than democrats.

[–] almar_quigley@lemmy.world 35 points 2 months ago (2 children)

He’s not peeling any democrats off. Only libertarians and conservative conspiracy theorists. Aka Rogan fans. The idea that dems would just vote for a Kennedy is exactly the kind of strategy I expect from trump and his ilk.

[–] Contentedness@lemmy.nz 7 points 2 months ago (2 children)

I thought the idea was that his policies on the environment and affordable home ownership look good to liberal voters at first glance.

[–] almar_quigley@lemmy.world 12 points 2 months ago

If anyone gets passed the brain worms and the crazy conspiracies then maybe he’s earned it. But I doubt there’s any statistical chance he’s going to negatively impact the dem ticket.

[–] TexasDrunk@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

And his name.

ETA: That's the thought process, not how I feel. Last year there were literally conservatives saying "the left will vote for a Kennedy"

[–] Wrench@lemmy.world 3 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I agree for the most part, but he's also influential to dudebros, who could also be convinced to vote blue for drug legalization.

[–] almar_quigley@lemmy.world 6 points 2 months ago

The problem being those dude bros are too caught up in toxic masculinity and inceldom to ever be able to vote for a dem.

[–] zephorah@lemm.ee 3 points 2 months ago

He is a staunch anti vaxx guy.

[–] zarkanian@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

assuming the Stein and Harambe votes would’ve been Hillary instead.

Ah, yes, because Stein and Harambe had very similar platforms to Hillary.

[–] zephorah@lemm.ee 0 points 2 months ago

Maybe, maybe not. Had a couple friends who were Tulsi fans when she was running that went full bore irate at the two part system after Hillary was selected. Bernie people as well. Felt the DNC forced Hillary down our throats and then went and voted Stein out of spite. Or didn’t vote. Moderates who didn’t want either didn’t vote.

I don’t think it had anything to do with platform, more spite than anything.