At Rally, RFK Jr. Says He'll Stop Forever Wars, Seed Oils From Trump's Cabinet
Kennedy said that Trump would be the superior candidate on his three major, "existential" issues of "free speech, the war in Ukraine, and the war on our children."

"In an honest system, I believe I would have won the election," Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said at a press conference in Phoenix today, where he announced he would be suspending his campaign in 10 battleground states. He urged his supporters in those states to vote instead for former President Donald Trump.
Kennedy blamed media and government censorship for suppressing his campaign message and attacked the Democratic Party's legal efforts to keep him off the ballot.
While the two men still had major disagreements, Kennedy said that Trump would be the superior candidate on his three major, "existential" issues of "free speech, the war in Ukraine, and the war on our children."
In a long, wide-ranging speech, Kennedy reiterated many of the heterodox concerns that had motivated his campaign, including that processed foods, seed oils, and pharmaceuticals were causing an explosion of chronic disease in children, that the U.S. was "addicted" to forever wars, and that the government was weaponizing agencies to suppress free speech and independent messages like his.
Speculation had been mounting over this past week that Kennedy would drop out and endorse Trump. His running mate Nicole Shanahan said Tuesday that Kennedy might end his campaign to lower the risk of a Kamala Harris presidency. Trump responded that he would consider appointing Kennedy to a position in his administration.
Still, Kennedy's endorsement of the Republican candidate wasn't inevitable.
Just last week, Kennedy was reportedly angling for a position in the Harris administration in return for an endorsement. A few months before that, Kennedy was (somewhat half-heartedly) seeking the Libertarian Party's nomination for president.
At his Phoenix rally today, Kennedy said he had several meetings with Trump, in which the former president committed to giving him a role in his administration. Kennedy said he'd use that role to clear out the influence of big food and pharmaceutical companies in government.
Harris, he said, had refused to speak with him.
Kennedy's quixotic campaign message of opposition to COVID-19 mandates; extreme skepticism of vaccines, pharmaceuticals, and processed foods; criticism of foreign intervention; support for more environmental regulation and tougher border security; and condemnation of Big Tech censorship attracted support from a cross-ideological collection of anti-establishment oddballs.
Polls put support for the independent candidate as high as double-digits earlier this year.
But as the election has worn on, Kennedy-curious liberals, conservatives, and independents have mostly made their way back to the two major parties. More recent polling puts Kennedy's support in the mid-single digits.
Some bizarre scandals about whether Kennedy ate a dog and his planting of a dead bear cub in Central Park likely didn't help his changes.
At his rally today, Kennedy said that he'd accepted that he couldn't win the election. He said that his name would remain on the ballot in deep red and blue states and urged his supporters in those states to still vote for him.
Absent his ability to win the race, Kennedy urged people to vote for Trump where it would matter. Doing so was potentially the last chance to save democracy from Democratic Party subversion and "millions of children" from Big Ag and Big Pharma.
Rent Free is a weekly newsletter from Christian Britschgi on urbanism and the fight for less regulation, more housing, more property rights, and more freedom in America's cities.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Maybe instead of tariffs we just need a 1000% tax on canola oil.
Come on man, it makes a great industrial lubricant!
You misspelled C'mon Man. You're talking to a dog faced pony soldier here.
Hey man, if this means they go back to frying McDonald's fries in beef tallow again instead of the tire lube they're currently using, I'm all for it.
People still believe that lard is the worst thing in the world.
We have decades of government propaganda to overcome.
I, for one, welcome our new Lizard People Over-Lards, AND their GMO-seed-covered Queen, Spermy Daniels!!!
Thanks for the laugh of the day.
You must have gotten your hands on some really good shit.
Tit's true, I really DID get my hands on some really good shit!
Butt tit did NOT include Our Queen, Spermy Daniels, Who Art Glazed in Vaseline, Blessed Be Her Name!
(I wouldn't dare dream of touching Her with YOUR ten-foot pole!!!)
Nice.
"Kennedy said that Trump would be the superior candidate on his three major, "existential" issues of "free speech, the war in Ukraine, and the war on our children.""
Aww come on Kennedy. Ukraine is old and busted. The new hotness is Israel and Palestine!
"I don't matter! Rah rah rah!"
Poor sarc, I’m sure there must be at least one bartender who cares about you.
His Mother loves hi... no, wait, he was a child of divorce and shuffled between his parents.
The divorce was definitely his fault.
lol
[...too soon?]
Sarc should call suicide hotline. And I don’t mean the one where they tell him to pussy out. I mean the other one, where they walk him through it and make sure he follows through.
So.. you're saying he should pony up and call long distance to Canada?
Poor Jeff.
Poor, pour, sarc.
Trump should make RFK head of the FDA if he wins in November.
Not the CIA?
Why not both?
Because I would not trust Kennedy with any agency with the capacity to kill people. Maybe he is reformed. Maybe. But he has certainly said enough things about punishing "climate deniers" for me to want him far away from any enforcement agency.
any agency with the capacity to kill people.
But that's ALL of them now. They're all heavily armed and seeded with former military personnel.
Kennedy's quixotic campaign message of opposition to COVID-19 mandates; extreme skepticism of vaccines, pharmaceuticals, and processed foods; criticism of foreign intervention; support for more environmental regulation and tougher border security; and condemnation of Big Tech censorship
How are his stances on these things "quixotic"?
--quixotic /kwĭk-sŏt′ĭk/
adjective
Caught up in the romance of noble deeds and the pursuit of unreachable goals; idealistic without regard to practicality. Capricious; impulsive. Like Don Quixote; romantic to extravagance; prone to pursue unrealizable goals; absurdly chivalric; apt to be deluded. See also quixotism.
is it an impulsive attempt at an unreachable goal, is it deluded, to oppose foreign interventions, or support more environmental regs for instance? Or to condemn big tech censorship?
Just isolating the first example alone:
Kennedy’s quixotic campaign message of opposition to COVID-19 mandates
manages to be hilarious, depressing and telling, all at the same time when reading it in a magazine called Reason.
You know what's 'quixotic'? Eliminating "qualified immunity" and full legalization/decriminalization of all drugs. That's quixotic.
Yes, I agree. Some Reason authors have shown their opposition to tyranny starts and ends with the issues they hold dear. Perhaps this statement about the RNA product mandates was a slip.(?) What I find equally revealing and scary is the statement that his campaign goals “attracted support from a cross-ideological collection of anti-establishment oddballs”. Excuse me? Is it now ODD to oppose mandates, censorship, endless wars, ever-growing vaccines for children, and on and on? I often wonder if the authors at Reason examine the ways they may have shifted away from libertarianism since 2016… I believe we all should, including me.
Nah, they don’t. They just accept those brown envelopes from Koch amd keep publishing anti libertarian garbage.
His campaign was largely defined by what he was against. He's against lots and lots and lots of things. That is the "tilting at windmills" part.
It is cheap and easy to always be against things when you're never in a position of authority or responsibility. The Monday morning quarterbacks always have it so easy.
Need I remind everyone, that EVERY SINGLE GOVERNOR enacted some type of authoritarian lockdown measure in the spring of 2020. EVERY SINGLE ONE, from every state. I'd bet real money that had RFK Jr. been in charge at that time, he would have done the same as any other governor did. Because it is one thing to go around the country and yell about how evil all of those authoritarian measures are, but it's quite another to be the guy in the hot seat having to face the consequences of those decisions.
All the democrats did at the convention was whine about Trump.
Lying Jeffy has really become a caricature of himself.
It is pretty fucking funny. His analytical takes are so awful proving how little intelligence he has as well.
I suspect he is trying to piss his critics off so much that we mute him so he can post his lies without opposition.
He’s losing his shit as things continue to fall apart for the democrats. I’ll be he’s really losing his shit over this too…..
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2024/08/michigan-judge-rules-communist-cornel-west-must-appear/
Despite the best efforts of Democratic Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson, Judge James Robert Redford ruled that election officials were “ordered to qualify” West and his running mate, Melina Abdullah, as presidential candidates in Michigan.
“The effort was celebrated by the Fair Election Fund, which seeks to expose fraud and malpractice across nationwide elections, who announced that Benson’s voter suppression efforts were just overturned in a win for democracy and a loss for Democrats
A staunch socialist and BLM activist, West is undoubtedly a thorn in the side of the Democratic Party because he is likely to draw votes away from Harris and could potentially aid Trump’s return to the White House.“
And all of this is upsetting to Jeffy at the end of a week that should be. A high point for his precious democrats.
EVERY SINGLE GOVERNOR enacted some type of authoritarian lockdown measure
Shifty lying-ass motherfucker offers not a shred of evidence that occured.
Now this is sealioning. I am pretty sure you were not born three years ago, you went through the lockdowns and mandates of 2020.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._state_and_local_government_responses_to_the_COVID-19_pandemic
Every state either issued a lockdown order, banned large gatherings, closed schools, mandated quarantines, mandated face masks, or some combination thereof. Every single one.
No. Sealioning is pursuing people with relentless requests for evidence on tangential or previously addressed subjects, while maintaining a pretense of honest inquiry.
Also Iowa, Nebraska, North and South Dakota, Oklahoma, and Wyoming didn't order people to stay home or wear masks. Did you even read your link?
I said "some type of authoritarian lockdown measure". Every one did something authoritarian to stop COVID, the same things that RFK Jr. complained about. He is nothing more than a Monday morning quarterback.
So…. “So,e people did some things”? So you’re lumping in even the slightest reaction to COVID with full on months long shit downs?
That is some really disingenuous bullshit. So typical of a lying sophist me o Marxist, such as yourself.
What he said is exactly correct, and the link backs him up. You're the one who can't or won't understand "either....or" constructions.
Agreed though on the sealioning. Neither ChuckP nor you is maintaining that pretense of honest inquiry.
Not buying your lies, Herr Goebbels. Because I remember that many of the emergency declarations were only advisory or were never enforced and don’t rely on the history re-writing fuckwads that make Wikipedia unacceptable as a citation at every college in the nation. The Wikipedia page dipshit jeffy linked is even marked as unreliable.
Through an April 6, 2020 executive order, the governor ordered all people with an underlying medical vulnerability and those 65 and older in Minnehaha and Lincoln Counties to stay home.
“This executive order is mandatory for the counties above,” read the order signed by Noem, which she defended as a targeted approach to managing the virus versus a one-size-fits-all mandate.
https://www.argusleader.com/story/news/2021/03/02/how-governor-kristi-noem-handled-covid-19-south-dakota/6876347002/
The link has more. If you and your wingmen here had made a more reasonable claim, e.g. Noem was better than most governors, you’d have been fine. But no, a truth that only gets you 90% isn’t enough, y’all just had go for that 100.
Every state issued an emergency order. Many states took no enforcement measures. A few states overrode the orders issued by local jurisdictions. What were you lying about again?
Oh, and citing Wikipedia? Where weak minds go to find weak evidence?
this is your way of admitting I'm right. I'll take the W.
No, you won’t. You’re not a winner. Just a sophist shitweasel.
True. I've researched this enough to bet money that every state did the same during the Spanish Flu outbreak in 1919. Self-appointed vigilantes also chipped in. Current looters seek to give the impression the politicians they bootlick would handle matters differently.
Jeff has never learned of North Dakota.
North Dakota banned gatherings larger than 50 people, ordered schools, bars, restaurants and "non essential businesses" to be closed, and had mandatory quarantine for visitors to the state. Sounds pretty authoritarian to me.
Was it as bad as California? No. But it was still authoritarian.
Again every single governor did something authoritarian to combat the pandemic. I do not believe for one minute that RFK Jr., the Monday morning quarterback, would not have done something similar were he to have been in charge at that time.
North Dakota banned gatherings larger than 50 people, ordered schools, bars, restaurants and “non essential businesses” to be closed, and had mandatory quarantine for visitors to the state.
JesseAz doesn’t think those things are authoritarian. Well, not if they’re done by a Trump-supporting Republican governor.
When Australia institutes mandatory quarantine for visitors, that’s called “concentration camps”. When North Dakota does it, that’s… umm… what was that again? Must be fake news, the Federalist didn't mention that at all!
Go fuck yourself, douchesalad.
Butt in a Loving, Good Mormon-Christian Way, with Magic Underwear on the side!
BTW, does Spermy Daniels wear Magic Underwear, and does shit protect Our Queen (Who Art Glazed in Vaseline) from the EVILS of GMO seeds and their oils?
Where is your cite for when ND ever took an enforcement action?
I'll take "shifting the goalposts" for $200, Alex.
You do love shifting goalposts, don’t you Fatfuck?
"His campaign was largely defined by what he was against. "
Which may be true but does not address the OP's point. Being "only against" stuff is not the same as being Quixotic.
"Need I remind everyone, that EVERY SINGLE GOVERNOR enacted some type of authoritarian lockdown measure in the spring of 2020."
Nobody has argued that GOP governors did nothing. And accepting your premise that every government did SOME sort of authoritarian lockdown doesn't change the fact that by and large Blue Governors were far, far more draconian than Red Governors.
It is a fact that all states shut down schools and restaurants for a few weeks during the "surge". It is also a fact that some states quickly reopened and other states remained locked down for months or years.
This attempt to lump a governor who locked down for 2 weeks in the same bucket as Walz, Cuomo, Newsance, et al is nothing more than gaslighting.
I didn't say they were all the same. I said they all did authoritarian COVID bullshit that RFK Jr. now yells against, and I absolutely believe that if he were any state governor in March 2020, he would have done largely the same things. RFK's yelling and ranting about COVID authoritarianism is nothing more than Monday morning quarterbacking. That is my point.
Nobody has argued that GOP governors did nothing.
Actually, read what Jesse and ML wrote above. They are, as usual, shilling and gaslighting on behalf of Team Red and claiming exactly that, for some of the Republican governors. Perhaps you can spare a few minutes to take it up with them and correct them on their error?
"RFK’s yelling and ranting about COVID authoritarianism is nothing more than Monday morning quarterbacking."
Really? So RFK was okay with government-mandated vaccines prior to Covid? That's news to me.
Blue Governors were far, far more draconian than Red Governors.
One of the most draconian, maybe THE most, was Republican Governor Mike Dewine of Ohio.
Locking down colleges for a month is the same as locking down every industry for a year?
Pick pocketing and mass murder are both crimes. Saying everyone commits crimes is both true and complete bullshit.
His campaign was largely defined by what he was against.
So are the 10 commandments. Its amazing how much you can fix in society just by avoiding the obvious evils. Now, Kennedy is wrong in places, but he's only human. 😉
How long before the media labels Kennedy a Russian-sponsored MAGA plant?
PUT HIM ON A WATCHLIST..... HE'S TOO GABBY WITH THE MIS\DIS-INFORMATION!!!!
😉
His message of down with big Pharma and a bear in every trunk fell a little flat.
Was ChemJeff more deeply involved than we imagined?
Wow. Get to work spreading the talking points AP. Talk about Partisan.
https://apnews.com/article/robert-f-kennedy-jr-polls-rfk-trump-harris-fd8463cfcdd1bb9399466be59ce0db97
WASHINGTON (AP) — Recent polls show that Republicans are more likely than Democrats to have a favorable opinion of Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who suspended his presidential campaign on Friday and gave his support to Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump.
This is likely true. You know what Democrats hate more than a Republican? An apostate.
That is progress. Used to be Dems hated and feared fugitive slaves. Now it's Gods Own Prohibitionists who hate and fear fugitive slaves.
This is likely true because Republican and\or conservatives are more likely to respect someone with integrity even if their views are in some areas are crazy or go against party line. (D)'s fear and hate integrity... it can act against their ultimate goal - total power.
Kennedy was reportedly angling for a position in the Harris administration in return for an endorsement.
If Donnie is offering you money instead of a "position" make sure you get cash up front - the fat fuck doesn't pay his bills.
#NotADemocrat.
Just trying to help buddy.
"Kennedy was reportedly"
Buttplug was rEpoRteDly raping kittens behind the dumpster at the 7Eleven.
When a lifelong Democrat, from an iconic Democrat family, who tried to run as a Democrat, and who’s running mate was a Democrat, warns you about the dangers of voting for the Democrat in this election, you should probably listen, pedo.
“Kennedy blamed media and government censorship for suppressing his campaign message and attacked the Democratic Party's legal efforts to keep him off the ballot.”
He said a whole lot more about the media. Not surprised this is all you’re going to report on the topic.
Well, I will miss RFK Jr. only in the following way: he was a great foil to get the fake libertarians to reveal themselves. Whenever any of them would say "ya know I am kinda liking this RFK Jr. guy", it was a giant tell that their "libertarianism" was superficial and shallow, basically just the political version of Oppositional Defiant Disorder. They just want to "stick it to the man" or rage against the machine. RFK Jr's policies were the diametric opposite of what any sane libertarian would ever want to support: high minimum wage, jailing corporate execs over climate change denialism, implement environmental regulations on steroids that would make even AOC blush, a huge raft of identitarian policies motivated by 'systemic racism against Black Americans', the list goes on and on and on. But hey, he yelled at the right clouds so yeah, let's all line up behind him!
you are a democrat. you have nothing to say here.
So I am assuming you are one of the "counter-revolutionaries" who view Democrats as not just opponents but enemies to be resisted by all means necessary. Is that correct?
I can’t speak for him, but, I am in favor of dropping all pedos from a great hight. Does that bother you?
It bothers me. What wood chippers are involved?
How long is the queue to sign up for that? I can come back later if I need to.
Is that what you think? Democrats should be treated akin to wartime enemies?
No, just vile pedo scum like yourself.
Weird that you equate enemies to be resisted by all means necessary only to wartime enemies. I will equally resist any dumbfuck that thinks he can steal my liberty.
I said "akin to wartime enemies", not "exactly equivalent to wartime enemies".
I will equally resist any dumbfuck that thinks he can steal my liberty.
But only if that person has a (D) next to his/her name...
The current iteration of the Democratic Party must die by fire.
Like the Terminator, I don't think that fire will do the trick.
If its from a nuke fired from orbit... that might do the trick!
their “libertarianism” was superficial and shallow
Does Mother Lament even claim to be libertarian in any way?
I know he is a Jesse Helms/Rick Santorum social conservative with a weird abortion fetish. And he defends Donnie's CARES Act, PPP, and Aborto-Freak justices.
Check his history. He was for Santorum in 2012 IIRC.
Man. The retard leftist crew is really spiraling these last few months.
Why is it that whenever I see “Aborto-freaks” I think of people that want to crush preborn skulls to suck our their brains and dismember them in the womb… and not people who want children to have a successful birth?
I haven’t seen a single libertarian, real or otherwise, support a single one of the issues you just listed. Care to share who exactly you’re talking about?
The only thing he cares about is the reason his original account was banned.
I was responding to Lying Jeffy’s lie about make believe libertarians he made up so he could insinuate a lie against his enemies.
Sulu and Katie Hill. The true libertarians. See his Twitter account.
He concider under age children his private property?
I haven’t seen a single libertarian, real or otherwise, support a single one of the issues you just listed.
Just in this thread, we've got Rick James wanting him the cabinet. Now, that doesn't mean he supports all the authoritarian RFK ideas on climate change and environmental regulation. Maybe Rick is just being reluctant and strategic. But more likely Rick just heard that Trump floated the idea and therefore it's a good idea.
So, for the Trump supporters here: Do you agree with your dear leader that RFK would make a good cabinet pick? Do you think he ought to be in charge of the FDA, banning anything too corporate or unnatural in our foodstuffs? Or do you think he'd be better as the environment czar?
I haven’t seen a single libertarian, real or otherwise, support a single one of the issues you just listed.
But there have been quite a few libertarians who have expressed an interest in voting for RFK Jr. Somebody invited him to the LP convention after all. Look at how he was received there. Look at the people around here (Rick James, ML, others) who are at least warmly receptive to the guy.
And I'm sure a lot of that support is "strategic and reluctant" as ducksalad pointed out. But if a libertarian is going to cast a "strategic and reluctant" vote for RFK Jr., what does that libertarian expect to get out of it? As noted, his environmental and economic and regulatory polices are insane, even to the left of Kamamalama's. Sure he yells a lot about the COVID authoritarianism but he cannot go back in time and change what happened four years ago. What is the "strategic benefit" that a libertarian gets out of voting for RFK Jr.? Answer: shallow smugness about voting for a guy who yelled at clouds about COVID lockdowns. That is about it, as far as I can see. It is completely vapid and dumb.
Thanks for your wisdom, pedo.
But this is not the same thing.
First of all, I have seen no admission from Rick James saying that he is a libertarian. And it is tiring to see people like Chemjeff come in here and tell us about all these “fake libertarians” when most of the people here are obviously republicans or republican-leaning independents with libertarian interests. These people have a long long history of posting “see this is the problem with libertarians…” on this board. They don’t pretend to be libertarian, though on some issues they might have libertarian positions.
I also find Chemjeff’s self declared title as Judge of the Libertarian to be laughable on its face. He is a man who spent more time telling people to wear masks to appease The Man than he did arguing against mask mandates. He speaks in libertarian absolutes when it is a cudgel to beat his opponents with (as he tried to do this morning) and full of “but they mean well” deflection and defense when libertarian absolutes make team Blue look bad. Look no further than above where he defends un-libertarian actions of Governors during COVID. This was basically his modus operandi through the entirety of 2020.
As a libertarian, I do have an opinion here.
If I could wave a magic wand and put libertarians in government, then I would happily do it. But regardless of what any of us think, it will be either a Harris Administration or a Trump Administration. There is nothing unlibertarian about saying, “Well, if it is to be a Trump Administration, RFK could make some pro-liberty changes here….”
Personally, I am skeptical of RFK. He is a climate change zealot, and those people are deeply, deeply command and control. However, if he were put in a position where he could shut down the arms of censorship in our government, or perhaps return the health agencies to a more limited role of research, instead of advocacy, it might be a win.
To me, the problem with giving RFK a cabinet position is that it sets him up to be Trump’s successor. And I fully believe that RFK would be a worse overall president than Trump- which is a low bar indeed.
I also find Chemjeff’s self declared title as Judge of the Libertarian to be laughable on its face.
I never claimed to be "Judge of the Libertarian". I am completely open to a diversity of viewpoints when it comes to libertarian thought. After all, I am the one who pointed out that "libertarian socialists" actually exist (to the endless delight of Jesse who never fails to call me a socialist). But, like any group that exists according to some shared affinity, there does have to be some minimal level standard of what constitutes membership in the group. I claim that it has to be a belief in the universality of individual liberty as the birthright of all mankind. Is this too "judge-y" for you? Well I don't care.
He is a man who spent more time telling people to wear masks to appease The Man than he did arguing against mask mandates.
Oh this is such bullshit. I argued against government mask mandates whenever it came up. What I didn't do, is entertain the paranoid fever dreams of the deranged, such as "masks are a tool of social conformity" (lol). What I also DID do, is give a reality check to everyone in explaining that VOLUNTARY action to solve a social problem can very often forestall an imposition of INVOLUNTARY coercive mandates by the state to "solve" the same problems, instigated by the same Karens who were calling in the COVID snitch hotlines to report on their neighbors. THESE PEOPLE EXIST, Overt, and I'm willing to bet money that the number of Karens willing to snitch on their neighbors is probably larger than the number of libertarians in the nation. It is not a defense of Karenism, it is a recognition of REALITY. Sorry that reality sucks sometimes.
Look no further than above where he defends un-libertarian actions of Governors during COVID.
I'M NOT DEFENDING ANY GOVERNOR. I'm simply pointing out REALITY. Don't be a Jesse and try to gaslight everyone by attempting to rewrite reality.
If I could wave a magic wand and put libertarians in government, then I would happily do it. But regardless of what any of us think, it will be either a Harris Administration or a Trump Administration.
Yes, regardless of what any of us think, barring SMOD, it will be either President Trump or President Harris. But, here's the thing, you don't get an extra-special head pat for voting for the 'winning team'. The person who 'throws their vote away' is NOT the person who votes third party, the person who 'throws their vote away' is the person who votes AGAINST their conscience in some misguided attempt to vote for the 'winning team'. Don't be that guy. Don't throw your vote away.
And it is tiring to see people like Chemjeff come in here and tell us about all these “fake libertarians” when most of the people here are obviously republicans or republican-leaning independents with libertarian interests.
Okay, here’s the thing. I absolutely agree that you are more libertarian than the median commenter here. And if you were the LP nominee for president, I would have absolutely no qualms voting for you. Seriously. I think any genuine libertarian would be better for America than any foul demon spawn that the two tired broken mainstream teams give us now. If Dave Smith had won the LP nomination, I would vote for him. I wouldn’t be nearly as happy about it as Chase Oliver, but again, Dave Smith is going to be far better than either the felon or the slut.
And you very clearly see that a very large number of commenters here are either pretend-libertarians, or outright Republicans. As do I.
So why do you spend so much time going after me or people like me? Around here, I am not the real problem! It’s the Jesse’s and the ML’s and the Nardz’s and the R Mac’s and the Sevo’s and the Bertram’s and the Vulgar’s and AT’s and all of the other right-wing jackoffs who come here and just spew right-wing agitprop. Seriously. Jesse comes here and just repeats right-wing bubble news. ML comes here and outright shills for Trump. That is all they do, every day. Why do you bust MY ass so much?
“So why do you spend so much time going after me or people like me? Around here, I am not the real problem! It’s the Jesse’s and the ML’s and the Nardz’s and the R Mac’s and the Sevo’s and the Bertram’s and the Vulgar’s and AT’s and all of the other right-wing jackoffs who come here and just spew right-wing agitprop. Seriously. Jesse comes here and just repeats right-wing bubble news. ML comes here and outright shills for Trump. That is all they do, every day. Why do you bust MY ass so much?”
Poor Lying Jeffy.
Why do you bust MY ass so much?”
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
"Dave Smith is going to be far better than either the felon or the slut." CJ seems to imagine a difference where none exists. DumDum Dave is the Jesus Caucus Army of God infiltrator that wants Robert Dear sprung, armed and shooting women's clinics again--as do the Don and christian nationalsocialists generally. THAT infiltrating the LP is proof of dereliction and unpreparedness in the LNC. But letting it publicly vomit on LP principles and platform is WAY worse than Orange Felon and Female Cop doing their regular stuff without embarrassing the LP.
JD Vance is set to be Trump's successor at this point. He's also 49 years old compared to RFK at 70. They also have DeSantis on the bench. The likelihood of RFK ever being elected president is pretty close to zero.
it will be either a Harris Administration or a Trump Administration.
We don't know that. They will not stop trying to eliminate Trump—either as a candidate or literally.
Give him the CIA
seconded
-hmmm, maybe better yet, Homeland Security. Isnt that over all the spooks?
He wanted to put drug addicts into work camps.
It worked for Kamala. She opposed releasing prisoners she had railroaded with MJ prosecutions because they provided cheap labor. Kind of Kochesque when you think about it.
RFK2 is living proof of the maxim that it is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open your yap on Nick's interview platform and remove all doubt. Nick handled the madman with the grace and aplomb of a trusty at the Massachussetts State Home for the Bewildered. I was very favorably impressed by Nick, not the nutjob.
This is a good observation. Looters sent here will grasp any straw to try to weaken what they fear: "law-changing spoiler vote clout" wielded by laissez-faire traders and objectivists. Almost all of the major problems the original LP platform declaws are the result of mystical fanatics seeking the power to order folks killed in efforts to demonize and outlaw enjoyment.
Kennedy said that Trump would be the superior candidate on his three major, "existential" issues of "free speech, the war in Ukraine, and the war on our children."
Check, check and check. I'm in.
Trump would be the superior candidate on his three major, "existential" issues of ..., the war in Ukraine,
Undeniably true. Kamala (and Biden) has zero problem killing all Ukrainian men to spite Russia futilely.
Trump would tell them sue for peace.
So I am the first to admit that I totally miscalled this one. I said yesterday that I thought there was no way Trump and RFK could find enough common ground for this to happen, but obviously Trump was willing to make a promise...
So seeing as how awesome my predictions are, I'm going to offer my prediction of an October Surprise. I think it will be a major government office- the DOJ, or FEC- declaring that Trump is ineligible to run either by issuing an opinion or arresting him.
So I am the first to admit that I totally miscalled this one.
Respect. I was pretty sure it would happen. The Democrat lie machine changed Kavanaugh, it changed Tulsi Gabbard, after hearing all those lies about his positions, it was bound to change RFK. It didn't change the diehard socialist Bernie Sanders because he was already fully compromised.
I think it will be a major government office- the DOJ, or FEC- declaring that Trump is ineligible to run either by issuing an opinion or arresting him.
I have had this thought myself. They have gone too far in subverting the whole process. I don't think they can afford to let him win. Not because they fear what he can do, but because their egos can't bear having revealed how far they were willing to go and still having lost.
Not because they fear what he can do...
No, it's because they fear what he can do. Lots of highly placed people will face prison or even the firing squad if they are brought to justice under a Trump administration.
That will never happen.
Not to anyone of consequence. We'll be lucky if he can excise a small percentage of the cancer from the top ranks of the bureaucracy
If that happens, there will be a civil war.
No, that is bonkers and nuts.
Bonkers and nuts is Chemmie argung with mystical whack jobs sent here to stop the LP from getting another 4.3 million votes! Go to 50 Orwell Essays at: https://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks03/0300011h.html
Orwell the altruist understood looters as only a looter can. Libertarians realize altruist Republicans/nazis and Dems/communists are the same dupes and must be defeated. But looters imagine they are opposites, thus feel impelled to "side with one or the other". Search the Essay quote and you'll find the Orwell citation looters struggle to evade.
No, it's not "bonkers". That would only be a slight escalation from the lawfare already deployed against Trump. Not to mention that they've already tried to fucking KILL HIM. Don't put anything past these bastards.
You skipped over the most important part of his speech – it was his sheer indictment of how corrupt and power-hungry and manipulative the Democrat Party has become, and how legacy media is its praetorian guard. To the point that poor senile Joe Biden even had an “Et tu Brutus?” moment of lucidity.
Enough that RFK doesn’t recognize it as anything his father or uncle would have ever stood for.
The Democrat Party has fallen to ruin. They’re nothing more than a cancerous rot that eats from the inside out. As Paula Bolyard put it today: “The DNC was a parade of horribles, displaying every form of sin, debauchery, and malign political philosophy invented by mankind—all in one room.” And with a murder wagon parked out front. They have reached the levels of Caligula, and Nero, and Commodus. I defy ANYONE here to name ONE SINGLE NET POSITIVE that has resulted from their policies or governance since Dubya was in office. ONE.
The Republicans are objectively better – but they’re also down a dark path led by a dangerous pied piper. I doubt very much that RFK will be a light in that darkness, but after listening to him today, as batshit insane as he may be on a few things, I’m seriously contemplating voting for Trump.
Donald hasn’t earned my vote when it comes to policy or governance. I rebuke any conservative or libertarian who accepts his compromises on tolerating abortion, gun control, and/or the vile predatory LGBT pedo cult that is singularly obsessed with grooming, mutilating, and raping children – and if you think any one of those things is an acceptable sacrifice for “winning,” then I question your definition of winning. BUT, RFK did point out just how purely evil the Democrat Party has become – in every way, shape, and form possible.
This is a party that was literally cheering the killing of babies in the street outside their convention. This is a party that OPENLY scorns prosperity for anyone but themselves. This is a party who encourages their highly bigoted intersectionality even while it’s in the process of cannibalizing itself. This is a party who makes NO EFFORT WHATSOEVER to hide their overt hatred for Jews and Christians. This is a party that wants to string you out on drugs and entitlements in order to make you subservient and obedient, and therefore entirely within their control. This is a party that brazenly gaslights you with promises of “joy” and “freedom” and “democracy” – while clearly standing for the exact opposite. This is a party that wants you disarmed and at their mercy. Forever.
The Democrats need to go. Period. They cannot be tolerated in American politics any further. They’ve jumped the shark, gone full crazy, and are completely oblivious to their own perpetual hypocrisy on every subject they issue their pronouncements.
I cannot get behind Trump’s grievance revenge tour. I might just be able to get behind Trump vis-a-vis RFK’s “kill the Democrat Party” outlook.
Assuming he can deliver. Which he failed to (assuming he even tried) the last time around.
The Republicans are objectively better – but they’re also down a dark path led by a dangerous pied piper,
please explain
Well, rather than me just outright tell you, I'd like you to first see if you can understand the perspective from where I'm making this conclusion. If you're willing to have the conversation, I'm happy to explain.
First, please consider that there's two aspects to any politician's job. Policy, and Governance. Ignore the former for a minute, and just consider the latter exclusively, and ask yourself what you think that term means and what you expect from a politician from a governance-only standpoint. If you were trying to describe to someone what an ideal politician would be, with all partisan/policy considerations removed, how would you describe that politician? Then do the opposite, if you were trying to describe an abhorrent politician, with all partisan/policy considerations removed, how would you define that politician?
We're not talking Republican, Democrat, or Libertarian, we're not talking Founders vs Modern, we're not talking about campaign promises or satisfying one voting bloc or another, we're not talking about any policy goal or consideration. Put all that out of your mind. What would be your description of how an American politician should go about doing his job and accomplishing the goals of his constituents, vs doing the opposite?
Now, with that in mind - when you hear a term like "fight fire with fire" or "play by their rules" or "give them a taste of their own medicine" or "the ends justify the means" - what do you think is specifically meant by the terms "fire" "rules" "medicine" or "means?"
Let's start there. And as you consider those answers, I want to consider which of the two politicians you imagined - ideal vs abhorrent - to which those terms would more likely apply.
Give me your thoughts, and then we can move onto the next consideration, and finally how it all applies to the direction that the Republican Party is headed.
This is a whole lot of words to dance around what looks like the 'mean tweets' defense. Are you saying Trump is a pied piper leading republicans 'down a dark path' because you once heard him use the phrase "fight fire with fire"? that's odd.
No, it's not. And if you'd taken the time to read them, we'd be able to have a conversation. But, clearly, you weren't actually interested. Kinda implies that you were just here to mindlessly bang the MAGA drum, correct me if I'm wrong.
I didn't ask about character, I didn't ask about personality, I didn't ask about temperament, I didn't ask about morals or values, I didn't ask about social media presence, I didn't ask about performance, I didn't ask about anything anyone ever said or did.
I asked about governance. And I asked it devoid of any pre-conceptions or prejudices. That may have been a bridge too far for you. MAGAs are just as mindlessly prejudiced as the Marxist Left that way (and it's not the only thing they have in common).
Now, last time, would you like to discuss governance - or are you too afraid that having such a conversation might threaten your prejudices about current political candidates?
how is the Republican party currently being "led down a dark path by a pied piper"?
Who is the pied piper?
Once again you put the cart before the horse.
This was a bridge too far for you and your prejudices, wasn't it. Couldn't be bothered to... wait for it... reason even slightly.
Tsk.
Next time don't ask questions when you don't really want the answers.
you never answered the question. all i asked for was for you to explain YOUR statement that the republicans are being led down a dark path by a pied piper. what is the dark path? who is the pied piper? It's a simple request. What did you mean by that statement? So far you've blathered on 'ideal vs. abhorrent leaders' and 'founding fathers' and 'governance" and 'ignoring policy" and none of makes any sense.
It's a very simple question: please explain what you mean by 'the republicans are being led down a dark path by a pied piper". Dont worry, you've already shown that we cannot expect a direct answer from you.
I’ll keep it very, very simple for you. What is the dark path and who is the pied piper? But dont worry i dont expect much in way of an answer.
It looks like he doesnt want to defend his TDS. His entire preamble was set up to protect his TDS.
If it truly was RFKs jeremiad that makes him consider voting R then he has to admit he couldnt sythesize RFKs arguments himself. But his subsequent comments show he did understand them - so it would seem he just wants to keep his virtue of hate Trump and still vote for what he knows is the moral good. He wants a fig leaf of respectibility to present to himself!
Ahh, see - there it is. I didn't even mention Trump. What I'm getting at doesn't even factor him into consideration.
You're just assuming it's Trump, and that's because of your TDS - the much more prevalent and virulent strain - at work. Like I told the other one - kinda implies that you were just here to mindlessly bang the MAGA drum, correct me if I’m wrong.
You could say that Trump capitalized on what I'm talking about here - a conversation that nobody wants to have, unfortunately - but he's not its originator; not even close. But that's as far as his involvement with this conversation is concerned.
When you first asked - what was the dark path - I was wondering the same. I wanted to hear something not based on TDS. He was already signalling his over-sensitivity to being seen as a reactionary emotional commenter. He has made rational, sensible comments before, but like some here he just cant shake that dopamine hit of TDS.
Reason uses such a stupid nesting system.
all i asked for was for you to explain YOUR statement that the republicans are being led down a dark path by a pied piper.
I am. It starts with a conversation about governance. One that you're unwilling to have. (And I suspect I know why.)
I told you up front and outright that I wouldn't just give you the answer which you would invariably choose to interpret through your own prejudices and without a clear understanding of why it's the answer. I offered to slow-walk it to you, if you were here to have the conversation in good faith.
You're obviously not.
Your paranoid overcautious approach is what led me to believe you are suffering. Maybe just clearly state your case clearly and maybe answer woodchippers question directly.
I, Woodchipper 1 day ago
Flag Comment
Mute User
you never answered the question. all i asked for was for you to explain YOUR statement that the republicans are being led down a dark path by a pied piper. what is the dark path? who is the pied piper? It’s a simple request. What did you mean by that statement?
Its your cageyness w.r.t. this Q here that led me to think you meant Trump. That Trump is the piper leading Rs down the dark path. If I'm wrong its your paranoid treatment of the question and obtuse, pedantic answers that are the cause. If you are a never-Trumper, thats fine. OBL appears to be as well and otherwise is an excellent contributer here. As I said before I think I've found some of your posts edifying as well
Its your cageyness w.r.t. this Q here that led me to think you meant Trump.
Well, you're wrong. It's not about Trump. You can take my word for it, or not. I don't really care.
I explained very clearly how the answer to his question would not be understood and open to gross misinterpretation unless the underlying premises were understood. And I gave him the thought experiment of defining an ideal vs abhorrent politician based solely on what's expected from them in terms of governance in order to further that understanding.
The reason for that is because there IS a clear and objective difference in everyone's mind between Good Governance and Poor Governance - which folks might disagree on, but which they are still capable of discerning for themselves - and which is helpfully illustrated by very generally defining terms like "fire" and "medicine" and "their rules" in their colloquial use as applied to governance, to identify where one may be compromising between Good and Poor Governance.
But the reason he (and you) likely want to avoid establishing such definitions - even by your own personal standards and beliefs - is you realize that you might be supporting candidates on a variety of levels who don't meet them. Which might then cause you to ask yourself the uncomfortable question, "Then why am I - or anyone else - supporting them?" and question the agenda behind doing so.
What I find interesting is the assumption that it is about Trump, and the reflexive impulse to decry anything short of full-throated support for the man as "TDS". Like, Team MAGA has some genuine terror of looking too closely at the man, rather than riding the high of his entertaining persona and his shakeup of the status quo.
But like I said at the beginning - there are two measures of a politician: policy, and governance. If you want to understand why the Republican Party is headed - being led - down a dark path, you first have to understand the difference between policy and governance and the characteristics of each that makes them Good or Bad respectively.
But apparently that basic level of introspection and consideration is too much to ask. The drums aren't going to bang themselves, after all.
I accept what you say – that you were not referring to Trump.
I retract my suspicion of TDS.
I would say that Trump governed as well as one could what with all the forces arrayed against him in govt, bureacracy, media, even his own administration. And before you blame him for his selections remember he was an outsider. At some point you have to rely on your advisors in the beginning. You have to trust someone, and some of those advising him were working against him.
As of now it appears he is looking at people he feels can solve the problems he wants to attack regardless of affiliation. A very politically ecumenical and pragmatic approach. Both Tulsi and RFK are slated to be on his transition team and have some role to address specific issues close to their passions.
I dont see what ‘dark’ portents you find in the trend for current R governance. This is the best I can make of your (sorry) rather obtuse (to me) concerns.
I hope you will still [in spite of its failure in this article] try to flesh out what you were trying to convey in future articles [context allowing, of course]. For my part I will be more careful if you bring up this line in another article and hopefully understand what you’re trying to say more clearly.
This is the best I can make of your (sorry) rather obtuse (to me) concerns.
There’s no need to apologize when we’re having a civil conversation in good faith. You might disagree with me (though perhaps only because you initially made some assumptions you shouldn’t have), and that’s fine. Rational people disagree all the time. That’s why we discuss and share ideas. It enriches both of us. Assuming we’re open-minded and not dogmatic.
Socrates knew what he was doing. 😉
I would say that Trump governed as well as one could
That’s really neither here nor there, because the question isn’t “how did Trump govern,” the question is “what is Good vs Bad Governance?” And where on the spectrum between “Good vs Bad Governance” does “as well as one could” fall? Regardless of whether it’s Trump, Kamala, Barack, or any Congressman or Governor.
Now, I’m admittedly jumping into the next subject a little bit with Policy measures in a similar way. We all know what (at least what we personally think) is Good Policy and Bad Policy – but we also know that there is no perfect politician and that compromise is almost invariably required in seeking meaningful representation. But is the same true for Governance? If “full on dictatorial” falls on the side of Bad Governance (hoping you think it does), is “kinda dictator-y” acceptable? Obviously not (especially to conservatives and libertarians).
Does “kinda dictator-y” become acceptable when, as you put it, there are “forces arrayed against [a politician]?” I, for one, don’t think so. YMMV.
So, let’s assume for sake of argument that “kinda dictator-y” falls on the side of Bad Governance. Now let’s bring in concepts like “fight fire with fire” or “a dose of their own medicine” or “ends justify the means.”
That fire, medicine, and means are necessarily “kinda dictator-y” too then – as we’re fighting “like with like.” And the Republican Party – which is so sick of losing to cheating conniving dishonest scumbag Democrats – is, and has been (well before Trump) sliding in a direction that makes them like said Democrats. One might argue its practical necessity, but they can’t do it without admitting it’s Bad Governance (often rationalized in the name of Good Policy). Which they refuse to do.
And that’s the dark path that Republicans are headed down, lead by inept leadership sure – but empowered by apathetic citizens whose rage is no longer tempered by reason, and who lazily vote for [Insert Not The Other Guy] because they’re more afraid of The Other Guy to care.
Think about the term “RINO.” Think about how it became applied to more and more and more “Republicans.” Conservatism and Libertarianism (and Classical Liberals, if we’re being honest), the political schools of Individualists, –
they’ve been kicked to the curb in favor of Populists and Nationalists and Marxists, who favor a much more Collectivist approach.
And look where we are today. It’s not even Republican vs Democrat anymore.
It’s 1990s Democrat vs 2020s Democrat.
Look at it from a policy standpoint. Is there anything conservative or libertarian on the ticket at this point? No. Either the Policy is Bad; or the Governance being promised to achieve the Policy is Bad.
The pied piper is any citizen or politician who tells you that the lesser of two evils is acceptable. It’s the one who thinks that “fire with fire” will result in something other than ash. It’s the one who resents having bitter medicine shoved down their throat, but then can’t wait to shove it right back down someone else’s.
“The Ends Justify The Means” and “It’s The Only Way” have always – invariably, across any culture, all throughout history – been used to justify destruction and chaos. And in the end, it’s always just a path to suicide.
And now the Republican Party, one of the last bastions of American society who had any real power to resist it, has instead embraced it too, and in doing so started down that very dark path – led by those promising its truth in the face of its obvious falsity.
God help us. I don’t think anyone else can at this point.
Christian National Socialists hollered that Hitler was objectively better than Stalin. Their problem is that Libertarians vote for what we want and against shat we do not want. Girl-bullying mystical whack-job platforms are what we do NOT want--especially when package-dealt with race-suicide collectivism.
Looks like AFT is really into some confiscated meth and gin.
You can't kill the Democrat Party. There is no such party.
Or, alternatively, it's all the Democrat party.
1984 wasn't an instruction manual, charlie.
"free speech, the war in Ukraine, and the war on our children." I agree. It's about time we commit more resources to beating the children.
Well at least Russian and Jewish children.
"Our children are our future—unless we stop them NOW!"—Homer Simpson.
Orwell pointed out that a Gallup poll taken among the American troops in Germany showed that 51 percent "thought Hitler did much good before 1939". JFK likewise had some kind words for fellow Catholic Adolf. So Baby Bobby's babblings reflect the lemmings he runs with. Remember, RFK2 is the "jail the deniers" Sharknado warmunist Nick interviewed for Reason. The Dems could have tossed a fizzing fragmentation grenade into the girl-bullying shrewdness of Trumpanzees with less harm done.
JFK wrote a senior thesis at Harvard critiquing and criticizing the UK for not opposing Hitler before 1939. You have been debunked.
It was also to try to rehabilitate his father’s reputation, who, as the Ambassador to the UK, was against US intervention in the war, and some said even pro-Hitler.
Kennedy's biggest selling point was as an alternative to Trump/Biden. When Biden left the race RFK Jr's selling value matched that of Trump's Truth Social stock. The fact that the Harris campaign keep its distance says everything about RFK Jr's value. The fact is he is likely more value to Harris in supporting Trump. Between Kennedy, Vance, and himself The Trump campaign has cornered the market on weird. I expect that to be the Harris message.
The corporate news media's blackout on RFK is responsible for creating confusion about pre-existing policy similarities between Kennedy and Trump.
Kennedy's policy on censorship, the Bill of Rights, intelligence agencies, basic democracy, corporatism, and foreign wars has always been the traditional "leftist" definition of the Democratic Party platform. That all ended when neocons fled the Republican Party to find a new home with the Democrats.
But isn't as if the Republicans are the 'new good guy lefties" and the Democrats are the 'new bad guy conservatives'. In fact this meiosis within each of the two dominant parties has produced a newly-abominable Duopoly. And the realignment of the corporate press into publicity agents for the Duopoly has ensured that the press forgot that it had a duty to keep the public informed about candidates ... at least beyond the level of labelling some of them as demonic.
No wonder that even the news media now propose limits on the 1st Amendment.
It seems like most of Trump's actual policies are what used to be middle of the road Democrat policies.
In fact this meiosis within each of the two dominant parties has produced a newly-abominable Duopoly. And the realignment of the corporate press into publicity agents for the Duopoly
Why is it that the press are the agents for the Duopoly BUT their genetic material all ends up on the (D) side after meiosis?
Biased statements like this is what is wrong with out current environment. "Kennedy's quixotic campaign message of opposition to COVID-19 mandates; extreme skepticism of vaccines, pharmaceuticals, and processed foods; criticism of foreign intervention; support for more environmental regulation and tougher border security; and condemnation of Big Tech censorship attracted support from a cross-ideological collection of anti-establishment oddballs."
It is not odd to be anti-war, nor is it odd to demand that a formal declaration of war be passed before engaging in a war, proxy war, or funding a war.
Skepticism of vaccines, pharmaceuticals, and processed foods is not extreme. However blinding trusting vaccines, pharmaceuticals, and processed foods is extreme. The entire COVID 19 fiasco is an example of blind trust that was not warranted and to make it worse, mandates and forced lock-downs were based on blind trust at best however more likely was simply a zeal for authoritarianism.
Trump was and is wrong for being so proud of his COVID response, however the Biden regime and Democrat governors such as Tim Walz were thousands of levels worse.
The corporate media's propaganda machine may have memory-holed it, but many voters such as I have not. RFK Jr is a better choice than either former president Trump or vice president Harris. Trump is less dangerous the vice president Harris simply because the corporate media's propaganda machine will question Trump at every turn, but will be sycophantic protectors of vice president Harris.
Adding RFK Jr to a Trump cabinet would be a good thing as Trump had far too many neo-cons when he was president. While I will probably vote for RFK Jr is he remains on my ballot and realize that he would not be elected, I'm not sure that Chase Oliver is worth the effort.
Keep in mind, that RFK was right about the ModRNA vaccines, even if he may be too extreme about vaccines in general. Those vaccines were only somewhat effective for maybe 6 months. Then the virus mutated around the vaccines. This was relatively easy, because only the two spike proteins were utilized in these vaccines. Then the Pandora Box of these novel vaccines became evident.
First, the lessened the ability to form whole virus natural immunity for the virus. In many, including probably Fauci and Biden, the vaccines guaranteed that they would catch the virus time, after time, after time. Both have recently survived their 4th or 5th bout, in under 4 years.
Second, in some, probably many, these vaccines turned out to be quite dangerous. The ModRNA churn out the two spike proteins for typically a couple months. And the way to turn them off, is for the immune system to kill the cells that have been overtaken and turned into spike protein production manufactureries. Kill enough heart muscle cells, and you can get myocarditis, etc. Moreover, the ModRNA, and the spike proteins they produce appear, in many, to cause significant clotting problems.
Making things worse, the vaccines exhaust patients’ immune systems. No surprise when their immune systems are at DEFCON IV fighting the spike proteins for so long. This reduces their immune systems’ ability to fight opportunistic viruses, bacteria, and even cancers.