RFK is basically a massive child abuser and murderer, IMO. As for Shanahan, I don't know much about her. But from what I've read so far, the "IVF attack" on Shanahan seems taken out of context and unfair. From the limited stuff I've read, she's just not happy with what IVF offers and how expensive it is, so she's funding alternative methods. This comes from her own personal experience of being denied IVF due to a pre-existing condition, and later getting pregnant naturally.
Well this is bat **** crazy. RFK Jr believes talk of covid and vaccines is political speech ... versus scientific speech ... you know ... with facts and stuff. Politicians, RFK Jr believes, should be able to give medical advice like drinking bleach and inserting infra-red lights anally. [CNN] RFK Jr. argues that Biden is a bigger threat to democracy than Trump Independent presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. argued Monday that President Joe Biden is a greater threat to democracy than former President Donald Trump. His argument made on CNN’s “Erin Burnett OutFront” centered around being blocked on social media platforms during the Biden administration, which he labeled as an effort to “censor political speech” and undermine the First Amendment. “I can make the argument that President Biden is the much worse threat to democracy, and the reason for that is President Biden is the first candidate in history – the first president in history that has used the federal agencies to censor political speech, so to censor his opponent,” he said. Kennedy pointed to his removal from social media platforms, which he attributes to pressure from the Biden administration, as evidence of the president’s efforts to censor political speech. Kennedy’s Instagram account was suspended in 2021 “for repeatedly sharing debunked claims about the coronavirus or vaccines” but was reinstated last year shortly after he announced his presidential campaign. Meta, Instagram’s parent company, cited his White House bid as the reason for restoring Kennedy’s account in a statement. In December, the Supreme Court blocked Kennedy from joining a challenge to a case brought by the Missouri and Louisiana’s attorneys general concerning the Biden administration’s communications with social media companies about posts the government views as disinformation. Kennedy currently has a similar case pending in a lower court. Kennedy, who has made freedom of speech issues a central focus of his campaign, testified last year before the House Judiciary’s subcommittee on the weaponization of the federal government. Kennedy was invited by House Republicans to speak as part of their investigation into alleged censorship against conservatives at social media companies. Kennedy said that while he believes Biden and Trump are both ill-suited to be reelected in November, he does not believe rhetoric suggesting either candidate would “destroy democracy. He added that if he had to label one a greater threat to democracy than the other, he’d choose Biden because he feels the president has been “weaponizing the federal agencies” against his opponents.
So RFK's argument is that Biden is a bigger threat to Democracy because Mark Zuckerberg suspended his facebook account when he spread dangerous Covid misinformation that could get people killed. All the while Trump's literal attempt to overturn the results of an election is all fine and dandy. Tell me you are a Trump supporter without telling me you are a Trump supporter. He's one of these guys who knows he cannot say he's a Trump supporter in public because he knows how toxic Trump is to normal folks. But everyone knows via his arguments he makes that it's obvious he's a Trump supporter. However the more RFK's views are exposed, the more and more he'll pull from Trump. That's why Trump's campaign went out of their way the other day to try and paint RFK as a "radical liberal" when he's really more of a Rand Paul type of Libertarian hack. Libertarian meaning get the government out of the way for me to corrupt the way I want, use the government when I can against my enemies. Still there is a fear that he runs ads and has enough ignorant voters out there who vote for him because they are into health supplements, and all the other stuff he talks about on Joe Rogan's podcast, etc. If he's exposed, I think he pulls from Trump. If the media does what they have done the past 10 years then he'll probably hurt Biden... which is obviously what he's going for or he would have already dropped out.
I have paid zero attention to RFK lite but boy oh boy, did my Fox-News-watchin' mom have a lot to say about him when I recently visited her in TX! It's like she's been exposed to him non-stop for some reason! Golly.
Repeating GOP lies, RFK jr insists he is not a spoiler RFK Jr insists he isn't a Republican-funded spoiler and that Joe Biden is the greatest threat Democracy has ever known. An anti-Vax conspiracy theorist who happens to believe in the undeniable proof of climate change, RFKjr swears he isn't a spoiler. Mr. Kennedy also claims that Joe Biden is weaponizing the Justice system to silence his political opposition. Both of these are messages his Republican backers want you to hear. RFKjr's top donor is also a large Trump donor: "The heir to the Mellon Bank fortune, Timothy Mellon, was Donald Trump's top donor in 2020. In the 2024 election cycle, he has given more than $35 million combined to both Trump's and Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s super PACs." wrote USA Today.
If there was any doubt, it should be clear now that RFK is in it for Trump. The maniac who incited Jan 6, refuses to acknowledge he lost the election, said he will be a dictator on day 1, and said that the Constitution should be suspended… There isn’t any argument here, but RFK has always been an evil lawyer who lies for a buck, even over the deathbed of children, so this shouldn’t be a surprise.
I disagree with his asertion for sure, but I don't quite understand this point you're making. What is scientific speech, and why can't it be political speech? Then, why shouldn't politicians be able to give medical opinions/thoughts/advice, so as long they aren't impersonating doctors, or offering a practice for it in which they get paid and such without having a medical license. It doesn't mean we have to respect those opinions or advice, but why shouldn't they be able to have/give it? How many politicians or political figures have recommended eating healthy/exercising? This is also medical advice, just uncontroversial.
I don't quite understand the scientific vs political speech, but .... Why aren't politicians (or really anyone) able to give medical opinions/thoughts/advice as a doctor even if it's misleading or false? Or as someone who financially benefits from it, with or without a medical license?
The way this is worded is confusing me a bit so I'm going to break it up Unless politicians or "anyone" is a doctor, they can't. Impersonating a doctor is illegal. A doctor giving misleading or false information can get their medical license stripped (and more). An ordinary person saying misleading or false things is just an ordinary person saying misleading or false things. If you financially benefit from giving out false medical advice I believe that's a form of fraud and puts one at risk for legal consequences, with or without a medical license.
No offense taken... b/c I have no idea what point you're making. Srsly. World record of what? No, my moms watches all kinds of cable news (unfortunately), but I know it includes FOX and CNN and god knows what else. So she's not too far gone, but I def hear the occasional faux talking point. Have you not seen how completely consumed some oldsters are with Fox News? If not, I envy you. My mom is not near the top quartile.
Ah, thanks. Probably. B-Bob is 90, so his mom is, like, pushing 120. Har har. But still well within the GOP's target populace, especially b/c white, but ... well... woman, so a little tricky. Maybe if we make her fear people in cities enough, make them seem like another species, we can still squeeze a few more votes out of her. Also use word "socialism" a lot!
I totally get this; my retired parents watch nothing but the fox variety hour and base their views on what those clowns spew on the daily. My parents are well educated, grew up in Church and are very nice people.............how they got sucked into the rabbit hole is beyond me, but they live in a vacuum and in their world EVERYONE is out to get trump.
I'm playing around with the reasons why and how it became accepted, how it is not a cherished free speech right. Impersonating a licensed medical professional or giving out false medical (or product) information is always unethical, but at some point in our history, I'm pretty sure it wasn't illegal. It became illegal for a number of good reasons, but I think it boiled down to harm to individuals and public safety, incentivized by financial gain. There are others, such as an expectation of trust and expertise from licensing and dishonesty, but I think those are a bit more minor reasons. In this case, we didn't rely on the "free market / free speech" to self-correct - we don't wait for others to speak up against false medical information. That could have been one approach, but it was deemed that it would cause too much harm at the individual and public level. Today, we face a new challenge with the emergence of social media as a fundamental societal platform. It provides an easy avenue for spreading false information, incentivized by financial gain. Platforms like YouTube and Twitter reward "content creators" based on views, providing a breeding ground for harmful (false) content, as "extreme contents" tend to attracts views. These issues are still in their infancy, but they're already powerful, and they will be much more powerful and can do much more harm with AI, with its ability for perfect impersonation, unlimited scale (can be anywhere, anytime, always on), and deep understanding of human psychology (can manipulate humans). We have so far left this to the "free market" to self-correct, with solutions such as community notes and market choice based on platforms' reputations. To me, the harm here probably has already and can greatly exceed the harm done by someone impersonating a licensed medical professional (or any profession) and giving out false medical (or other type) information. So, why can't we devise a solution that balances expression with penalizing harmful actions (false information) for financial gain? This principle could apply broadly to AI, social media, and any platform that enables false information for profit. It's a thought I've been toying with, wondering if we could uphold freedom of expression while safeguarding public safety, as we've done in the past with legally penalizing fraud and false medical or product information for financial gain, which society has accepted.
My in-laws hold the fox news record. They are so into fox news that they record it all day. They can only record two shows at a time so they have fights over what the second show they record at any one time. I have no idea when they actually watch it... I try my best to avoid going over there.
Guess I’m surprised a bit but not really. A decade ago my grandparents used to read the newspaper and was never susceptible to this kind of propaganda may God rest their souls. Fox News has broken up more family relationships than probate court.
That’s a new one, never met folks who record the news. Honestly I don’t know anyone who “records” anything in 2024. Good luck to you with the in-laws…
Determining false information, and specifically fraud is often very difficult and quite literally requires a court case. What is false information without maliciousness or fraud? I don’t want algorithms as pseudo trials determining “false” and guilty. The field of health, nutrition, medical science is constantly changing due to how little we know right now. If we had social media since the 50’s how many times is calling eggs healthy or unhealthy getting flagged. Heart disease is our number one killer, is contributing to false information about dietary cholesterol or saturated fat not a significant public health threat.
