Why Are So Many Libertarians Suddenly Fond of RFK Jr.?
The anti-vax environmental lawyer is not worthy of the rehabilitation tour he's getting from pundits and podcasters.
HD DownloadChildren's Health Defense, a nonprofit that warns of the possible dangers posed by vaccines, used to receive a modest 119,000 monthly visits to its website. When COVID hit and public skepticism of the medical establishment exploded, the site's web traffic went wild, peaking at 5 million monthly visits.
Who's behind this group that warns of the alleged dangers of electromagnetic radiation and a "global cabal" attempting to ban meat? The group's chairman, chief legal counsel, and highest compensated officer is Robert F. Kennedy Jr. who recently launched a longshot bid to become president of the United States.
RFK Jr. is not worthy of the rehabilitation tour he's getting from various pundits, podcasters, and tech luminaries. He pushes tabloid-quality "reporting" and he wildly extrapolates from little grains of truth. His and his organization, Children's Health Defense, give opponents of vaccine mandates and government overreach—like me—a bad name by lumping us together with science-denying anti-vaxxers.
Take the 2022 piece "Polio: Why Vaccines Are to Blame for Rising Number of Cases," where Children's Health Defense claimed that "cases have been on the rise globally since 2016, and the resurgence is related to the use of vaccines."
Actually, global polio cases fell by 99 percent from 1988 and 2022 and we're extremely close to eradicating the disease, thanks to vaccines. Kennedy's claim is technically true but misleading: He was referring to polio spread through untreated sewage by a form of the vaccine that uses live virus. Not only has that version of the vaccine been retired, but it can cause an outbreak only in unvaccinated communities, such as some Hasidic neighborhoods of New York City and outlying areas. In one ultra-orthodox community in Rockland County, a voluntary vaccine drive mostly solved the problem.
For the last 18 years, Kennedy has been a leading figure in the anti-vax movement.
"My principal objective is that vaccines and childhood vaccines are immune from pre-licensing safety testing," he has said. "Pharmaceutical drugs are now the third biggest killer in America after heart attacks and cancer. So, no, I do not intend to make it easier to get drugs to market."
This is a rhetorical ploy to make his vaccine fearmongering sound reasonable. The Food and Drug Administration is, if anything, overly cautious with vaccine testing: Bringing a vaccine to market generally takes 10–15 years and costs several billion dollars.
It's ridiculous to argue vaccines are insufficiently tested, or that kids today are overvaccinated.
"When I was a kid, I got three vaccines. My children got 72 doses of six vaccines," Kennedy has said.
He is playing fast and loose with the numbers: About 30 doses are on the childhood immunization schedule, with fewer required to attend most states' public schools. The reason he didn't get vaccines that prevent measles and mumps when he was a kid is that they didn't yet exist, which is a shame because they've mostly eradicated those serious diseases in the U.S.
"Beginning in 1989, we experienced a chronic disease epidemic in this country, and it is unlike anything in human history. I mean neurological diseases that I never saw when I was a kid—ADD, ADHD, speech delay, language delay, tics, Tourette's syndrome, ASD, autism, narcolepsy," Kennedy has said. "All these suddenly appeared. Autism rates went from one in 10,000 to one in every 34."
A major reason autism rates have gone up over the years is because we've gotten a lot better at diagnosing it.
There's never been an objective test for autism, and the criteria have changed dramatically since the 1940s, when the diagnosis was first introduced.
"Peanut allergies suddenly appeared, food allergies, eczema suddenly appeared. Anaphylaxis and asthma, which had been around, exploded," RFK added.
Kennedy is correct that food allergy, asthma, and childhood obesity rates are increasing, but there's no evidence it's caused by vaccines. He is once again flubbing the particulars in order to pin blame on a single culprit.
Kennedy frequently mistakes correlation for causation, gets his numbers wrong, and portrays complex trends as simpler than they really are, with easily identifiable villains.
Last year, he produced the documentary Infertility: A Diabolical Agenda. It was directed by Andrew Wakefield, the British doctor who wrote a 1998 article in The Lancet arguing that vaccines cause autism.
Kennedy has frequently pointed to thimerosal, a preservative that's mercury-based and was removed from vaccines out of an abundance of caution back in 1999, as the main culprit for increasing autism rates. But thimerosal has been removed from many childhood vaccines since then, and we haven't seen autism rates trend downward.
A measles outbreak in 2014–2015 and another in 2019 were caused by a drop in vaccination rates, which Wakefield and Kennedy helped stoke.
As for the film that Kennedy and Wakefield collaborated on, it recycles long-debunked myths from the '90s that tetanus vaccines administered in Kenya were deliberately laced with a hormone blocker that caused infertility.
This, they say, was part of the World Health Organization's depopulation plot, but the Catholic bishops who are the source for that claim never presented conclusive evidence.
Libertarians who understand the incompetence of government entities should be more skeptical that the World Health Organization would be so effective at carrying out such a nefarious scheme.
Kennedy has chaired Children's Health Defense for the last eight years, speaking at events all over the country on its behalf. He used his famous last name to add the veneer of respectability to the anti-vax cause.
In fact, he's been focused on this single issue for decades now: In 2005, he first became obsessed with the preservatives in vaccines, writing an article for Salon on the danger of vaccine additives that needed five corrections appended to it and was later retracted.
He's not really a persecuted truth-teller—although recent attempts to go after Joe Rogan for having him on his podcast, or to cut him out of public debate in other ways, have fed that impression. The real issue is that RFK Jr.'s bold claims don't hold up to scrutiny, even when examined by people who don't have a dog in the fight.
So what would RFK Jr. be like as president?
Part of his appeal, to libertarians at least, is that he's staunchly anti-war and a huge critic of COVID lockdowns and mandates.
But he's fundamentally a big-government liberal. He supports Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's Green New Deal. He favors heavy-handed government intrusion in the realm of environmental policy. He's against nuclear energy. He favors massive wealth redistribution, saying: "I don't think huge disparities in wealth are healthy for our country or healthy for democracy."
He also wants pharmaceutical companies to burn in hell, and he seems to believe in an almost Alex Jones–esque concept of the deep state. He correctly points out that government and big business have an unholy alliance, but he doesn't understand that too much regulation is the root cause. He just thinks large companies are inherently bad.
He says he's concerned about government spending, and he throws out wild figures to make his point: "We spent $16 trillion on the lockdown we wasted. Got nothing for it. $8 trillion on the Ukraine war. That's $24 trillion that they had to print to pay for nothing."
But he's no better than any establishment Republican or Democrat in his unwillingness to scale back the eldercare entitlements that are driving the federal government into bankruptcy. "I would say it's a red line for me to touch Social Security or Medicare or Medicare," he once said.
What's surreal about libertarians now embracing RFK Jr. is that he's publicly fantasized about jailing his political opponents and cracking down on free speech for years. At the People's Climate March in 2014, Kennedy said this: "They should be in jail. I think they should be enjoying three hots and a cot at The Hague with all the other war criminals who are there. Do I think the Koch brothers should be prosecuted for reckless endangerment? Absolutely."
And, more recently, he told Reason's Nick Gillespie this: "The First Amendment does not protect that. The First Amendment does not protect fraudulent speech. If you say something that is fraudulent, you're not protected." To which Gillespie responded: "It just seems like that way madness lies, because the government will always come up with a pretext for saying your speech is not just wrong, it's criminal, and you need to be shut down."
"Well, I don't know, but I do believe that prosecutors and judges make decisions about what's fraud all the time," countered RFK Jr.
He's not a real free speech advocate, and he's not especially thoughtful about the principles or people he endorses. After all, this is a man who once heaped praise on Hugo Chávez, touting the socialist dictator's bogus literacy programs and alleged commitment to democracy.
Is it fair to hold 15-year-old soundbites against RFK Jr., as some of his fans that I've sparred with have claimed? One thing I'll say for him is that, unlike most politicians, he's been extraordinarily consistent in his views. He thinks the world is divided into heroes and villains, and he makes wild, unsupported claims that portray things as simpler than they are.
The difference is that he's no longer a widely ignored crackpot environmental lawyer. He's asking you to vote him into the White House.
Photo Credits:
Peter Foley/UPI/NewscomTodd Lee/ZUMAPRESS/Newscom; Christopher Peterson / SplashNews/Newscom; Robyn Stevens Brody/Sipa USA/Newscom; Normand Blouin/Polaris/Newscom; Sam Simmonds/Polaris/Newscom; Daniel Schwen, CC BY-SA 4.0, via Wikimedia Commons; Gage Skidmore from Peoria, AZ, United States of America, CC BY-SA 2.0, via Wikimedia Commons; diluvi.com Anna i Adria, CC BY 2.0, via Wikimedia Commons; Jimmy Baikovicius from Montevideo, Uruguay, CC BY-SA 2.0, via Wikimedia Commons; News Licensing / MEGA / Newscom; News Licensing / MEGA / Newscom; Johnny Louis/JL/Sipa USA/Newscom; Matthew Rodier/Sipa USA/Newscom; Bryan Olin Dozier/ZUMAPRESS/Newscom; PictureGroup/Sipa USA/Newscom; Bryan Smith/ZUMA Press/Newscom; Ringo Chiu/ZUMA Press/Newscom; JIM RUYMEN/UPI/Newscom; Photo Image Press/ZUMAPRESS/Newscom; Edna Leshowitz/ZUMAPRESS/Newscom; Gage Skidmore from Peoria, AZ, United States of America, CC BY-SA 2.0, via Wikimedia Commons; Valter Campanato/ABr, CC BY 3.0 BR , via Wikimedia Commons; Pool/ABACA/Newscom; Oliver Contreras/UPI/Newscom; Kenya Sumiyoshi/Jiji Press/Newscom
A9999 DB CDC James Gathany Deutsche Presse-Agentur/Newscom; Duarte Farrajota Ramos, CC BY-SA 3.0, via Wikimedia Commons; JAVIER ROJAS/ZUMAPRESS/Newscom; Bryan Olin Dozier/ZUMAPRESS/Newscom; Allison Bailey/ZUMAPRESS/Newscom; Bryan Olin Dozier/ZUMAPRESS/Newscom; Sam Simmonds/Polaris/Newscom; Photo Image Press/Splash News / SplashNews/Newscom; AdMedia AdMedia/Newscom; AXELLE WOUSSEN/Bauergriffin/Newscom; SMG/ZUMA Press/Newscom; JOHN ANGELILLO/UPI/Newscom; Pool/ABACA/Newscom; Pool/ABACA/Newscom; Stephen Shames/Polaris/Newscom; Alex Milan Tracy/Sipa USA/Newscom; Rodrigo Reyes Marin/ZUMAPRESS/Newscom; John Lamparski/ZUMAPRESS/Newscom; John Lamparski/ZUMAPRESS/Newscom; Tayfun Salci/ZUMAPRESS/Newscom; OHN ANGELILLO/UPI/Newscom; Anthony Behar/Sipa USA/Newscom; Michael Brochstein/Sipa USA/Newscom
Lev Radin/ZUMA Press/Newscom; DPST/Newscom; Erica Denhoff/Icon Sportswire ECS/Erica Denhoff/Icon Sportswire/Newscom; Lian Yi / Xinhua News Agency/Newscom; Sean P. Anderson from Dallas, TX, USA, CC BY 2.0, via Wikimedia Commons; DestinationFearFan, CC BY-SA 4.0, via Wikimedia Commons; Kike Calvo/agefotostock/Newscom; Kike Calvo/ZUMA Press/Newscom; South Bend Voice, CC BY-SA 2.0 , via Wikimedia Commons; Chen S, Xing Y, Kang J, CC BY 4.0, via Wikimedia Commons; Gzzz, CC BY-SA 4.0, via Wikimedia Commons; Mohammad2018, CC BY-SA 4.0, via Wikimedia Commons; Julien Harneis, CC BY-SA 2.0, via Wikimedia Commons; David Larsen Africapictures.net/Newscom; Kyodo/Newscom; Valerian Mazataud/Wostok Press/ZUMAPRESS/Newscom; Caroline Brehman/CQ Roll Call/Newscom; Difference engine, via Wikimedia Commons; Guilhem Vellut from Annecy, France, CC BY 2.0, via Wikimedia Commons; Kenndy24 website; Record Group 111, Records of the Office of the Chief Signal Officer (111-SC-578830), Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons; Tom Williams/CQ Roll Call/Newscom; Jaredlholt, CC BY-SA 4.0, via Wikimedia Commons; Billy Hathorn, CC BY-SA 3.0, via Wikimedia Commons; Carlos Sanchez/Polaris/Newscom; Stringer/dpa/picture-alliance/Newscom; Roman Camacho/ZUMA Press/Newscom; Katherine Cheng/ZUMAPRESS/Newscom; Tom Williams/CQ Roll Call/Newscom.
Music Credits: "Formational," by Lance Conrad via Artlist; "Flying Above the Sun," by Yehezkel Raz via Artlist.
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
Why Are So Many Libertarians Suddenly Fond of RFK Jr.?
Libertarians AREN'T 'suddenly so fond of RFK Jr.'.
Leftists who pretend to be libertarians are. They love him because he allows them to hide the fact that they're planning on voting for whatever Democrat they're told to vote for in the general.
Oh come on. All libertarians are closet leftists. I mean, they support personal liberty so they must be leftists. They're also closet conservatives for thinking people should be able to keep their own money and buy guns with it. Far right and far left at the same time. Pretty cool, eh? Like someone who thinks abortion up until the moment of birth is fine, who also thinks the 2A says Elon Musk should be able to buy nuclear weapons, would be a benign centrist after those extreme views cancel each other out.
Crawl back under your rock, pussy.
I think I got this.
Sarcasmic's a closet leftist
Sarcasmic claims to be libertarian
Ergo: "Oh come on. All libertarians are closet leftists."
Chumby did a great job of pointing out his biases in the Tucci thread.
He's not particularly closeted about it.
Great article, Mike. I appreciate your work, I’m now creating over $35,600 dollars each month simply by doing a simple job online! I do know You currently making a lot of greenbacks online from $28,600 dollars, its simple online operating jobs.
.
.
Just open the link————————————————>>> http://Www.OnlineCash1.Com
Sarcasmic is being well…. sarcastic. and besides, there is no liberty in the ideology of being a libertarian. My auto mechanic says he is a libertarian and believes in a Christian Nation.
"Leftists who pretend to be libertarians are"
I'm fond of RFK and I don't think any of the fifty-centers here would accuse me of being leftist. I support his largely anti-authoritarian stance. I think he's wrong on abortion and global warming but looks pretty good on everything else.
He is terrible on guns.
He's a cafeteria Kennedy, he has to abide by a few mandatory issues or they'll have someone pull his membership card, with extreme prejudice.
He doesn't seem to have uttered a peep about the War on Drugs.
Or does anybody even care about that?
Not as much as I care about the military industrial complex and government corruption
Decriminalizing federally weed and hallucinogens isn't enough for you? He's stated this on multiple recent interviews, btw, along with pardoning Snowden and Assange.
Nah, I've followed his time in the limelight for a while, and he's always been a fruitloop. His general political positions are bog-standard leftist, and the only reason there's any kind of rehab on him is because his long-time nutty anti-vax stance happened to settle in to a time period when the people in charge were trying to force everyone to get an experimental vaccine that had been rushed into production, with a liability shield for the inevitable vax injuries that have taken place.
His wife is still milfalicious as hell, even pushing 60 years old.
Listen to his Rogan interview. He isnt anti vax. Hr is against not safety testing and burying studies that do show some of the chemicals used like mercury are dangerous. He wants truly informed consent. And to utilize vaccines that are needed and not broad blast ones that serve very little purpose like Hep B for kids.
“because his long-time nutty anti-vax stance”
Like Jesse says, he isn’t anti vax, that’s just the narrative they’ve assigned him. He actually thinks vaccines themselves can be great.
Vaccine manufacturers sometimes add toxins like mercury to certain vaccines in order to provoke and enhance the body's reaction to the denatured proteins. This can heighten the vaccines efficacy and reduce the need for boosters.
It’s some of the toxins used to provoke the reactions that Kennedy has a problem with; and he suspects some companies have been hiding data on negative incidents to avoid lawsuits.
This is just the weekly smear piece on RFK from Reason magazine funded by billionaires. Of course they hate him.
Kennedy may be running as a democrat, but he’s a LOT further from being an establishment democrat than anyone at reason is from being a establishment lackey.
All of them got vaccinated and argued for their widespread use. NONE of them stood up to Muriel Bowser with any sort of conviction, or if they did risk anything by doing so. Robby Soave stood meekly by Rand Paul AFTER the Big Board closed down NONE OF THE OTHERS showed up.
This author even is either really stupid or thinks we are when she writes: “The Food and Drug Administration is, if anything, overly cautious with vaccine testing: Bringing a vaccine to market generally takes 10–15 years and costs several billion dollars.”
I mean holy memory hole batstupid! Did she miss the last three years, the bait and switch between EUA and Cominarty, the embarrassingly bad decisions the. FDA made, the sudden deaths, the now painfully obvious excess deaths, turbo cancers.
Voting is stupid. JFK cheated to get in. As did Reagan, Bush 1, Bush 2 twice probably Obama Round 2, and definitely Biden. It literally changes nothing.
Why do people like Kennedy? To paraphrase Louis Armstrong, If you really and truly don’t already, no one can explain it to you.
There is SO much more wrong with this and I don't know if she's lying or stupid, but probably both. And getting paid.
Here's Reason's Robbie Soave arguing for government coercion of vaccines:
"Rather than punishing the unvaccinated, the government could create an incentive for vaccination by lifting restrictions for the vaccinated."
Yes, the libertarian policy of gIvE tHeM thEiR FrEEdoMs BacK!
The rest of the opinion is just a cringe.
https://web.archive.org/web/20221127013737/https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/10/opinion/politics/biden-vaccine-mandate.html?smid=tw-share
He scares all the right people so I like to see him making the rounds, but I can’t stand listening to him talk. Petty, but I can’t get past it.
The best argument I’ve heard not to get behind him on any level is he’s just sucking air and donor money out of the populist bubble that’s arguably better spent on Trump.
That, and I think he’ll ultimately pull another Bernie. He makes kids and idealists think there’s potentially a DNC that listens to them and keeps them in The Party orbit. But he’ll just cave after offering him a place on some assassination or vaccine committee that then goes nowhere.
Bingo
You gave yourself away by spouting easily verifiable false information about RFK jr.
Shush, doofy.
I am sure RFK Jr is wrong on some things, likely including vaccines (though he may be correct that too many are pushed onto the population at too young an age).
But who is MORE wrong and farther from the truth: RFK or the public health authorities? Who profits and gains power MORE off of the disinformation they push, him or them?
If he's wrong on vaccines, then why can nobody refute his claims, which are all backed up by data showing vaccine injury spikes after certain schedules were introduced? Why will nobody from the virology community actually publicly debate RFK? If one's case is so weak you can defend your position publicly, what does that tell you? All RFK is saying btw is let's do the same safety test we do on non-vaccines, along with removing pharma's legal protection which only vaccines have... if they're so safe then why do they need that legal protection? IT's a FN money grab - like always - and without any way to hold them accountable, over time, it's just become a shitshow.
I would suggest RFK is anti-authoritarian to the extent that he is not in authority. What he says he would to do if given authority suggests he is quite fond of authoritarianism.
I support his largely anti-authoritarian stance.
He doesn't have one.
He has an anti- HIS authority stance.
HE wants to control your choices wrt climate change, HE wants to mandate legal abortion. HE wants to keep you from owning guns. HE want you heavily taxed, highly regulated and smothered in a cocoon of socialism.
And HE wants vaccines banned. All of them. Not just the covid ones. ALL of them--including those that work.
If you don't grasp that RFK Jr is just another power seeking authoritarian who, at the fringe, has wrong ideas that seem to appear to overlap good ideas, then you probably need to start looking at other beliefs you hold on to.
Yeah, it's possible to like someone and think they have some worthwhile things to say and also think they are wrong about a lot of things. The idea that you have to either fully endorse or fully denounce people is ridiculous. Libertarians like Kennedy because he is challenging some things that need to be challenged, not because they think he is a great libertarian.
RFK Jr's role is to bring saner democrats back into the fold and vote for whomever they prop up for the nomination
I guess vaccine injuries are no longer a thing.
RFK JR is an un-American, anti-democracy Russia tool. Pootin's propaganda team is actively quoting him on official Russian TV. He had to pull a campaign ad from twitter last week when it was pointed out that the street and shop signs in the background were in Cyrillic.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VVxCjxN2rYY
I love the “it’s Russian propaganda because RT will air it” angle. If the shit stands up on its own logic, it’s probably not created by a foreign entity. Like, anti-war libertarian stuff being used by Russians to show America is divided on Ukraine, isn’t the same thing as Russians creating an anti-war movement in America. Because libertarians are usually anti-war. It’s expensive, empowers central governments, and fucks up most free commerce.
He is anti corporate take over of government and the media. That is the biggest issue today. The elites have hijacked the country and many are desperate for anyone willing to speak to this issue.
Actually, I've seen some libertarians accuse the Reason writers of being leftists because they say bad things about RFK Jr.
"he seems to believe in an almost Alex Jones–esque concept of the deep state"
Hmmm. I wonder if he has any legitimate reasons to think that?
Haha, yeah, they say that like it's some sort of proof that there isn't anything there. Like always, it's a shell game of distraction, not any meaningful, fact-based responses. This is why Hotez won't debate him about vaccine safety, which is really the root of RFK's vax concerns.
Exactly.
Communists who think "libertarian" means the collective love this gun grabbing commie.
Gun Grabbing Commie
https://www.itemfix.com/v?t=o3f90s
Assuming you include most Reason writers in the pretend libertarian category, they don't seem to have any love for RFKj at all.
Also it's possible to be fond of someone without endorsing all of their political beliefs or their political candidacy.
Sure, but is it really a popularity contest? Whether I'd want to have a beer with someone has little to do with whether I'd consider voting for them.
It's not exactly surprising that someone on the left or the right with extreme views is "liked" by libertartians--given that libertarianism straddles both left and right in some respects, and libertarianism is quite "extreme" itself.
The relevant question is, which of those extremists' views do these (alleged) libertarians support? If they're supporting the extremists' authoritarian views, they ain't libertarians...
Who said anything about voting for him?
And, as far as I can see among those who I would consider libertarians, libertarians seem to like his "extreme" views shared by libertarians and oppose the authoritarian ones.
Could microplastic phobias and fear of Teflon & other PFA's be byproducts of success in expanding the definition , and hence the diagnosis of autism? An extra ten million patients is a hefty pharma windfall.
That blond woman's hit piece on RFK Jr. Banning meat is a conspiracy? You have signed your death warrant! She's a KLOWN!!
And you want my money? I'd sooner burn money than give it to this rag! I signed up just to say. SHE IS A JOKE! HOPEFULLY EVERYONE WHOEVER GAVE YOU VIEWS. LEAVES AND LAUGHS AT YOU FOR ETERNITY!
It's obvious you haven't actually listened to RFK at all, otherwise you would know he's 100% not what you just wrote.
Essentially, you're parroting the mainstream narrative that you've been subconsciously programmed to believe, making you into another sheep they've manipulated through endless headlines that created this false narrative about RFK that you believe. Sad.
Lex Fridman Podcast, Rogan, or even Peterson are all excellent, 2+ hour detailed convos; if you are really the 'free thinker' you think you are you might want to actually examine the facts and know what the man you are dismissing actually stands for.
It's being done in a hope to split the vote. This is a 101 political move. Hype the underdog to pull votes from the other shitbag.
If he’s the stalking horse, I can’t wait to see the anonymous 3rd party behind it. Kid Clinton, Harris, Mayor Pete? I need more popcorn.
He’s a Kennedy. These people have been entitled shitheads for well nearly 100 years now. It's not a surprise that he believes the Presidency is his birthright just because his dad lost his when he got shot.
His father was a carpetbagger US Senator who needed LBJ’s coat-tails to drag him into office (LBJ got 1.1 million more votes in New York than did RFK). Then in ’68, RFK let Clean Gene McCarthy be his stalking horse in the New Hampshire primary – and when McCarthy showed that LBJ was vulnerable, RFK jumped in, pushing McCarthy to the sidelines.
As for RFK Lite, I am reminded of the words of Ted Kennedy’s opponent in the 1962 Massachusetts Senate primary, who said (paraphrasing) that if his opponent’s name was Edward Moore and not Edward Moore Kennedy, nobody would have given him the time of day. Same with RFK Lite.
Part of his appeal, to libertarians at least, is that he's staunchly anti-war and a huge critic of COVID lockdowns and mandates.
Those sound pretty appealing, but ultimately his appeal to libertarians is the same as Trump’s: he aggravates and scares the shit out of the right people.
Who's behind this group that warns of…a "global cabal" attempting to ban meat?
Do you have any idea how fucking poorly that parenthetical is going to age?
She really doesn't.
Those sound pretty appealing, but ultimately his appeal to libertarians is the same as Trump’s: he aggravates and scares the shit out of the right people.
That might be true for some people, but when we've got a president who's literally pushing for WWIII, forced an experimental vaccine on hundreds of millions and locked them out of their jobs, RFK represents the opposition to that, and thus a more libertarian-ish solution, that is if you have any fealty to liberty.
Sure, you can be a perfect libertarian and vote for the BLM Pimping Big L-ibertarian candidate, but the big debate in the country is not marginal tax rates right now, stakes are a little bit higher.
Fuck the Libertarian party. Woke ass bitches.
They aren’t woke anymore.
That’s why reason hates them.
the big debate in the country is not marginal tax rates right now, stakes are a little bit higher.
It’s easy to let the perfect be the enemy of the good enough, especially when the perfect has zero chance of winning. If the only thing Trump did, and it was far from the only thing he did, was put together a Supreme Court that has made some of the most libertarian decisions in the post-modern era, then he is by far the good enough-est president in my lifetime, and I was in utero when RFK Jr.’s uncle was assassinated.
The part where Trump (or RFK Jr. for that matter) drives the establishment crazy is a bonus.
If the Ls had won in 2016 Bill Weld would be a heartbeat from the presidency. Let that sink in.
Trump did more for freedom and limited government in 4 years than the L party has done in 40.
If Trump did anything to limit the size and scope government I missed it. As for freedom he isn't a fan. Of the press, of speech, of movement, religion, all of it. He's an authoritarian PoS.
Nope.
Before I show you youre wrong do you know what the Impoundment Act is and what The Resistance is?
How dare you present a nuanced position!
I haven't found any source other than this article claiming that RFK Jr. warns of people who want to ban meat. Although I like this article for the most part, I think that claim is inaccurate.
If anything I think it would be RFK Jr. himself who would want to ban meat. That would seem to go hand in hand with wanting to imprison climate change "deniers".
Probably because no matter how bad he is, he's still 1000% better than any other potential Democrat nominee.
Exactly this. Can't do another 4 years of Biden--like he'd live that long. We're going to be saddled with Kameltoe Harris and her inane babbling.
You can almost hear the nervous laugh of hers trying to cover up the fact she's been caught out yet again.
I tell you though, if the Republicans nominate her, I'll vote for Kennedy for president. Generation MTV!
Why? because he follow the qanon theories that you follow? lmao
There will be people who claim to be libertarians because they're anti-vaxxers and in this one instance there's an overlap. I'd bet a high proportion of them are anti-GMOs as well.
Anti- GMO people tend to be leftists.
Anti- GMO people tend to be leftists.
Yes. But you're committing a statistical fallacy. It's not, given that someone is anti-GMO, what is the chance that they are leftists, but, given that someone is an anti-vaxxer, what is the probability that they're also anti-GMO.
Example - a community of 200 people split equally into right and left.
Of 100 right-wingers, 10 are anti-vaxxers, and they're the only ones who are anti-GMO;
Of 100 left-wingers, 5 are anti-vaxxers and those 5 and another 20 are anti-GMO,
So 100% of all anti-vaxxers in this example are anti-GMO. And more right-wingers are anti-vaxxers than left-wingers. Yet of 35 our of 200 who are anti-GMO, 25 are lefties.
Capeesh?
Of the commenters on this board, 10 of them are leftists, and 100% of them are retarded. It's an odd correlation.
Unsurprisingly, not that odd.
Your not using anti vaxxer correctly. Nice try to conflate multiple issues in order to demonize one group though
The term "anti-vaxxer" predates COVID. GIYF
https://www.google.com/search?q=anti-vaxxer&rlz=1C1RXQR_enUS1013US1013&sxsrf=AB5stBi3gM_pv8zLkZnUgro60YQMxDnVZg%3A1689016031377&source=lnt&tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A%2Ccd_max%3A1%2F1%2F2018&tbm=
Yes, and being against forced vaccination, or even speaking out about an experimental drug that didn’t do any of the things people think of with traditional vaccines, doesn’t make you “anti-vax” and the fact that people keep trying to conflate the two makes them assholes.
RFK Jr. is against all vaccines. Including the vaccines that were actually considered vaccines under the pre-COVID definition. He's not just against the COVID vaccine.
This is false. Listen to any interview of his. Youre repeating a lie blindly.
He’s not anti-VAX. He just believes that the most commonly used vaccines, including polio, kill more people than they save. He believes that they cause autism. He believes the companies that make them should be forced out of business.
But he’s not anti-VAX. You’d have to be crazy to me that sort of claim.
How many of his interviews have you actually watched or read? He is pretty clear on his views. I’m guessing zero.
Of course it does, but that doesn't change the fact that you're not using the term correctly, and conflating multiple issues.
"So 100% of all anti-vaxxers in this example are anti-GMO. And more right-wingers are anti-vaxxers than left-wingers."
Left-wingers tend to be against traditional vaccines.
Right-wingers are specifically against the untested mRNA injections which didn't even meet the traditional definitions of vaccines:
-They weren't composed of related or denatured virons or denatured proteins.
-They didn't prevent transmission.
-They didn't prevent illness.
The excuse is given that they made the illness slightly more mild if you contracted it, but so does Tylenol.
Before COVID, the stereotype (whether correctly or not) was that “anti-vaxxers” were crunchy and/or “New Age” leftists. RFK Jr. fit that stereotype pretty well, as did Marianne Williamson. (Although the MSM has now forgotten that she was considered an “anti-vaxxer” in 2019.)
It’s kind of a mystery what’s happened to the left-wing “anti-vaxxers” since 2020. With the sole exception of RFK Jr., they all seem to at least claim to have stayed home during COVID lockdowns, probably worn a mask at all times in their house, left their house for the very first time to get their 95% effective COVID vaccine, and then gone back into lockdown right after getting their vaccine. Like all liberals, they all claim to have gotten their zillion boosters, including the Omicron booster that even the CDC admits has only 15% uptake. (Begging the question of how the Omicron booster could have such low uptake if all liberals were getting it.)
Cite?
LOL.
So no cite just more bald assertions? Cmon diet shrike. Back up your claims.
Diet Shrike: less filling; tastes turdy.
I think you're confusing me with Miller Lite - which is of course offensive to all right-thinking people: may I remind you of their gratuitously sexist wrestling commercial? It should be watched occasionally, to remind us of how low commercials can go - if necessary, with slo-mo and freeze-frame so we can be offended in greater detail. It may also be re-viewed for research purposes, and so that we may restate our continuing disdain.
NSFW nowadays - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q2Uf7gXduLk
Still not shrike, and you rarely if ever back up your own claims, you lying fuckwit.
And we all know enough about human nature to know that at least some people fall into that group, just as you know perfectly well that some people claim to be libertarian who aren't, without feeling the need to find a citation to prove it.
"Still not shrike,..."
You should be proud to be confused with turd; he's your better, obnoxiously arrogant POS.
I post citations all the time diet shrike. What are you smoking? Just like yesterday. Gave you what 4 or 5? To your bald assertions.
You generally don't post links. Yesterday you did in an attempt to rebut a comment of mine - which I then supported with my own citations, or did you forget? - and amusingly got them completely wrong, because you didn't read my original comment properly. I guess the wrong citations are better/worse than none (delete whichever is not applicable).
Lol. Go read any fucking roundup thread or virtually any other thread. If you’re gonna go full retard and lie for the small things then you lie about everything shrike.
You brought up false claims about Watts that I rebutted accurately with the studies he puts up. Who the fuck do you think falls for your lies except sarc?
Wow, I know that you guys probably make the generally safe assumption that nobody actually listens to the podcasts you guys put out, but some of us actually did listen to that one, so it's impressively bold to lie about the contents of one that hasn't even rolled off the front page yet.
An online way to earn money to work just 1 or 2 hours a day on your mobile or pc wherever you want and start earning more than $500 a day. receives hgt payments every week directly in your bank. no skills needed. it’s a wonderful job.
…
Go to this page now………………..>>> http://www.Richcash1.com
Reason shilling Big Pharma vaxes. Fuck off.
He also wants pharmaceutical companies to burn in hell, and he seems to believe in an almost Alex Jones–esque concept of the deep state. He correctly points out that government and big business have an unholy alliance, but he doesn't understand that too much regulation is the root cause.
It wasn't regulation that prompted Mark Zuckerberg to personally reach out to Anthony Fauci and ask, "how can we help?". It was what we call a "convergence of interest". It wasn't regulation that caused Jack Dorsey to ban Donald Trump (a move he now admits was a mistake). It was a convergence of interest.
Whats funny is he is very clear he isnt against the pharmaceutical industry. He is against their liability exemption and lack of safety tests for vaccines.
What lack of safety tests for vaccines? Most vaccines have been safety tested for nearly a decade before they are released.
The one exception is the emergency authorization for COVID vaccines, if you can even call them vaccines. Sane people understand the difference between this one and all the others that went through the normal approval process. JFK Jr was pushing conspiracy theories about all the others decades before COVID. He is NOT one of the sane people. And you're making it sound like you aren't, also.
If you listen to a single interview of his you will know you’re wrong and he has the HHS emails on his site to show it. But again, you leftists tend to prove narratives over information. Safety tests for children are not required or done since liability exemptions were given to pharmaceuticals in the 80s. Yes I have read the letter from HHS. You tell the same lie every journalist does and I bet you will be uncurious just like then.
A discussion of the lawsuit he won against HHS. Feel free to read the suit and the letters after he won.
https://www.worldhealth.net/news/rfk-jr-wins-case-against-government-vaccine-safety-violations/
A copy of his letter from the suit.
https://childrenshealthdefense.org/wp-content/uploads/hhs-response-january-29-2018.pdf
His interview discussing the issues with vaccines.
https://americanfaith.com/u-s-health-and-human-services-admits-no-childhood-vaccine-has-undergone-pre-licensing-safety-studies-robert-f-kenendy-jr-proves-watch/
Diet shrike, comment on the citations?
Whole lot of new fifty centers sent over for this article.
Coincidentally...
"The Trump administration pressured the Food and Drug Administration, including former FDA Commissioner Stephen Hahn, to authorize unproven treatments for Covid-19 and the first Covid-19 vaccines on an accelerated timeline, according to a report released Wednesday by Democrats on the House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Crisis.
Senior Trump administration officials fought for the reauthorization of hydroxychloroquine, a drug normally used to treat malaria and lupus, after the FDA revoked its emergency clearance of the drug because data showed it was ineffective against Covid-19 and could lead to potentially dangerous side effects, the report found. The Democrats’ investigation also documents potential influence from former White House officials regarding the FDA’s decision to authorize convalescent plasma, and White House attempts to block the FDA from collecting additional safety data on Covid-19 vaccines in order to get them to the public before the 2020 presidential election.
“The Select Subcommittee’s findings that Trump White House officials deliberately and repeatedly sought to bend FDA’s scientific work on coronavirus treatments and vaccines to the White House’s political will are yet another example of how the prior Administration prioritized politics over public health,” House Majority Whip Jim Clyburn (D-S.C.), who also chairs the subcommittee, said in a statement."
Speaking of Jack Dorsey, Dorsey has endorsed RFK Jr.
So much for the idea of RFK Jr. being anti-censorship. (As if that wasn't clear enough from RFK's desire to jail "climate deniers.")
He was against the covid powers of the state and against censorship. I know reason is confused by this, but that's why. And it is for those topics. They are against his gun control policies. Actual libertarians can separate out discussions and policies.
Why did some of the Reason editors vote for Biden?
“Reluctantly “
Because they supported every single policy that the man promoted.
Just like everyone who voted for Trump supported every single policy that he enacted.
Oh wait? You mean not all Trump supporters are blind followers? Could that mean people who voted for Biden didn't blindly support every single thing the man supports?
Oh fuck no. That's different. Trump supporters are nuanced, while the left is all hive groupthink.
Amirite?
I like how in this one post, you make a point and refute it, then proceed to disagree with the refutation. Such clear and concise comments are why I come to reason, and as always, you contribute so much to the discussion.
That's sarc all right.
It's called pointing out cognitive dissonance. You should try it sometime. Not actually embracing the holding of contradictory thoughts in your head, but pointing it out.
Thats not cognitive dissonance. But ironic you claim others do it when you and Mike are kings of it.
Several years ago, we broke sarc, and now this is a lot of what he posts. This, and insulting people then crying about people insulting him.
It's honestly really embarrassing at this point. He used to post a majority of meaningful comments, with the awkward sarcastic joke attempts here and there.
Now it's just pure butt-hurt posting.
You used to be interesting, and now you're just trying to get approval from the trolls. Sad.
He has never sought my approval. Assuming I'm one of your "trolls." We have spirited back and forth.
I disagree with who you call “trolls” a fair amount and never seek their approval, but we do have good debates. I used to have great conversations with you as well. But now all you do is try to piss off the “trolls” and then whine terribly when they respond in kind. I just don’t understand it.
Alright. Then let's have a conversation.
What do you want to talk about?
Are there Greek festivals in your neck of the woods? I go for the lamb cabobs and baklava.
Gone to any concerts lately?
QOTSA is playing in Portland. I got tickets.
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/vbt9O7sZz4E
Every time I see the world Portland I immediately go, ew, why would you want to go there, before realizing most people don’t mean the one in Oregon.
The idjits in Portland Maine are giving the west coast a run for the money. They just passed rent control and an absurdly high minimum wage. They won't be outdone.
Portland, OR was named after Portland, Northern Mass (ME).
You keep using that word. I do not think that word means what you think it means.
You're never going to get the respect of the trolls you admire so much with weak comments like that. You need to call me an alcoholic who diddles his own kid! You need to say I'm homeless and writing comments from the library! You need to call me a simping incel!
Dude... Stop being such a loser. Step up your game.
Nah, the simping incel is Jeffy.
You just seem to be looking for attention, and any attention, even the wrong kind, seems to do. Sober up, think, then post. Honestly, there are times you've had decent comments, and then you seem to go picking a fight.
The 24/7 "sober up" comments portray me as a constant drunk. Keep it up. Wouldn't want anyone to mistake me for a thoughtful person.
Don’t worry, they won’t.
Portray?
Tell the truth: you were smoking weed behind the bleachers on the day they taught reading comprehension, weren’t you?
That doesn’t really answer anything, and was a waste of time to read but did make me laugh.
That's what I think after reading your comments.
I thought Chumby's maine superpowers were making puns and eating lobster rolls.
Ayuh, caint get theyah from heeyah.
sarc likely lives in what is referred to as Northern Mass (south of the capital Disgusta).
I don’t like lobstah rolls but will sometimes make just lobstah. If you want a good recipe, get an extra one and steam it with the rest. Shell it and save the meat. Make mac & cheese (white chedder works better imo) and add the pulled meat. Top with some grated parmesan. One could add some minced chives too. I have tapped sugar maples on the property and made syrup but the setup I had consumed more wood that what I was willing to use.
One suggestion: next time you make mac'n'cheese, first stop by the deli and ask for their cheese ends.
Also, the best beer I ever made I used maple sap instead of water for everything from mash to sparge. IIRC I modeled the malt and hops after Newcastle, but used lager yeast. It was fucking fantastic.
Wait what is the sugar content of maple sap? How much are you adding to the bill? Hell, I don't really even know much about maple sugars...can yeast fully metabolize it?
Thinking about it, this isn't hugely different than Belgian beer styles that add various types of sugar to the boil. But a uniquely American spin, and a bit more creative than just popping open a jar of Aunt Jemima. If I had a reasonable source of maple sap, it might be worth trying.
Iirc, raw sap from a sugar maple is about 3% sugar. And sap from a birch tree is about 1% sugar.
Saint Jemima Quad.
I think maple sugar is mostly sucrose, so it should be fermentable.
I’m not sorry that I refuse to participate in your emotional dumpster fire infatuation with Trump supporters. Though I will say that it is much better than the infatuation that the child groping Biden (D) has with groping children.
The projection is strong in this one. Tell you what, I'll get back to you when I give a flying fuck about either of those fanboy clubs.
You can start holding your breath right.... now!
Are you that drunk you can't even remember what you posted in a thread from this morning?
Wouldn't surprise me in the least. The best way to nurse a hangover is to drink more.
You’re slacking. No accusations of child molestation? No comments about my ex wife sleeping with other people? You’re never going to get the respect of the trolls with weak comments like that.
Are you admitting she got tired of your small plastic bottle whiskey dick?
1. Why should I give two craps about an ex-wife?
2. You're not the pederast here (those would be Shrike, Tony, and Jeffy). Now, you do white knight them, but that's a different issue.
3. You keep using the term "trolls". I do not think it means what you think it means.
1. Because it makes JesseAz, Mother's Lament and Chucky hard when you say despicable things about my personal life.
2. You're not gaining any friends with that comment. And as far as me being a white knight goes, I just think shutting down debate by attacking people personally is low. But that's how you make friends here.
3. I use the term "trolls" to describe those who must include the word "you" in most every sentence of every comment because all of their arguments are against the person. Or asshats like Overt who use third person but are saying the same thing. They attack the person because they can't refute the person's argument.
You're well on your way to getting their stamp of approval.
Sarc, you say terrible things about your life on your own retard.
"Because it makes JesseAz, Mother’s Lament and Chucky hard when you say despicable things about my personal life."
Nobody said anything about you that you haven't said.
You're the one who's always boasting how much drugs and alcohol you consume.
You're the one who said your parents didn't want you.
You're the one who said you were homeless.
You're the one who said you were investigated by Child Protective Services for “Laying hands on my child in a concerning way”.
You're the one who said your ex-wife accused you of beating her.
You're the one who said your daughter didn't want anything to do with you.
Maybe learn to keep your mouth shut if you don't want everyone thinking you're a piece of shit, and stop blaming others for your own big mouth.
He’s also the one that said his daughter got caught keying someone’s car, and appeared amused by it.
Sarc: Stop attacking the person, and deal with the argument.
Also Sarc: Imma attack all these people as trolls and generalize their arguments so that I don't have to deal with them.
smh.
You care enough about the child groping Biden (D) to logical fallacy reply to criticism of the child groping Biden (D). This includes but is potentially not limited to strawman, either-or, tu quoque, and chaff-redirect.
Because, OrangeManBad.
#ImmigrationAboveAll
Why did some of the Reason editors vote for Biden?
Because Fatass Donnie is worse.
Worst four year GDP of any POTUS since Hoover at 1.6%.
Worst jobs record since Hoover.
Green-lit Iran’s nuclear weapons program
Increased deficit from half a trillion to $2.9 trillion
Increased spending more on a per cent basis than any President post ww2.
Failed on his signature campaign promise – a border wall
Inflamed tension with NATO allies
Hopped in bed with Putin, Little Kim and other dictators
Empowered Christian Fascists, Proud Boys, Neo-Nazis and other crazies.
Folded to labor on his anti-free trade Mexico-Canada pact
bungled pandemic response driving up stimulus costs
crushed the Republican Party – losing Congress and White House.
turd, the ass-clown of the commentariat, lies; it’s all he ever does. turd is a kiddie diddler, and a pathological liar, entirely too stupid to remember which lies he posted even minutes ago, and also too stupid to understand we all know he’s a liar.
If anything he posts isn’t a lie, it’s totally accidental.
turd lies; it’s what he does. turd is a TDS-addled lying pile of lefty shit.
Why was your original account banned from Reason?
Because it posted links to cp content.
Oh, are you another one of the "clickers"? I shall add you to the list.
Basically, his anti-vaxx stance appeals to the Contrarian. He goes against the grain. He goes against the prevailing narrative. As such he appeals to those who are Contrarian.
Contrarians are distinct from Libertarians, but there is a large overlap because the non-mainstream nature of Libertarians appeals to Contrarians.
My own local LP meeting lost a LOT of members to Trump, because all the contrarians bailed because appealed more to contrarians. Not one libertarian stance in his playbook other than an indifference (not opposition) to foreign intervention.
And RFK Jr is appealing to these people. I think it's just a blip because his economic views are solidly mainstream Leftist. So who knows.
“My own local LP meeting lost a LOT of members to Trump, because all the contrarians bailed because appealed more to contrarians. Not one libertarian stance in his playbook other than an indifference (not opposition) to foreign intervention.”
Luckily the LP was perfect during 2020 and didn’t lose any contrarian voters to the culture war because of any actions it did.
Edit: It definitely didn't shoot itself in the foot in 2016 either.
LP was taken over by the alt-right Mises Caucus, which caused a huge drop in membership. Will they correct that error next year? Only time will tell.
As opposed to the alt-left democrats?
These people are absurd rewriters of history.
In the year since the MC captured the vote (5/22 - End of April/23), membership in the LP has fallen 10%. Compare that to the prior year, (5/21 - 5/22) when membership had fallen by nearly 18%. Brandy of course doesn't want to talk about that, because Brandy has strongly held feelings on the subject.
What Brandy doesn't want you to know is that his favored crew destroyed the brand. The huge drop happened in 2020, when Jo Jorgensen oversaw the catastrophic and embarrassing collapse of Libertarian support, earning 58% fewer votes than the previous election. This was in a year with 16% higher turnout. In a year where 22 Million *more* voters went to the polls, the LP managed to lose 1.7. That was then followed by an 18% loss of members.
Let us note, then, that the MC has reduced the hemorrhaging. And let us also note, that this is in the face of a major data migration snafu last year that damaged their membership data, and in a year where LP ballot access will be severely challenged precisely because of the total collapse of support that Jo Jorgensen affected in 2020. These are problems not created by the Mises party, but instead inherited from the old guard, that Brandy has nothing but nice things to say about.
Why do you use contrarian to mean anyone you disagree with? Is it your belief LP members should blindly accept false narratives?
The fact you say trump didn't have one libertarian take shows your own bias dumdum.
Because brandyshit is a TDS addled, adolescent asshole. Simple.
His anti-vaxx stance and approach appeals to the conspiracy-minded. And that is a strain of 'libertarian' - and esp paleo - that dates back to at least the John Birch Society. That crowd was pervasive among Ron Paul supporters in 2008 and now among the Rockwell/Rothbard Caucus. Though I'm sure RJKJr can also pull in the LaRouchies and the Chombots and the NewAge WooWoo crowd.
There are legitimate concerns about the sheer number of vaccines scheduled for kids if they are in any way made to be mandatory. Not so much imo because the vaccines are likely harmful - but because the diseases often aren't and certainly aren't endemic.
The anti-vaxxers don't address anything legitimate because they are living in their own reality. But they take full advantage of the reduced trust/credibility to peddle their shit.
CONSPIRACY!!! that turned out to be right unlike you chicken little. But keep defending medical authoritarianism.
Thirty years ago my old LP group from my old county played footsie with the JBS. Years later I went to look them up, and discovered they were nearly all full blown Birchers and 911 Troofers and Birtherites. Such a waste of energy.
Quite frankly, this is why the libertarian movement can't have nice things. They scare away regular folk with their conspiracy mongering. The problem with conspiracy thinking is that it asserts that the problem is not government, or even big government, but government run by shadowy insiders. But libertarians should be working to reduce the size and scope of government REGARDLESS of secret insiders pulling strings. THere's so much bad stuff happening in front of our faces that we don't need to be imagining shit like secret lizard bases under Denver. Gawd almighty.
WTF told you about the lizard bases. You're one of them aren't you.
"...My own local LP meeting lost a LOT of members to Trump, because all the contrarians bailed because appealed more to contrarians..."
No, you TDS-addled pile of shit, they left because Trump did more for freedom and limited government than the L party ever did.
But partisan TD-addled piles of shit like you are blind to actions; personality is all that matters.
Grow up or fuck off and die, asshole.
"What's surreal about libertarians now embracing RFK Jr. is that he's publicly fantasized about jailing his political opponents and cracking down on free speech for years."
Who? Who are the libertarians embracing RFK Jr? I have now seen 3 of these types of articles on Reason, and in none of those articles has the author ponied up a single piece of evidence that anyone has "embraced" them. Surely we can find an outspoken libertarian to quote? A tweet, maybe?
Once again, this is how bad the editing is at Reason. This is the job of an editor- when your author submits an article that begins with a controversial premise- that libertarians are selling out their principles to "embrace" a politician that isn't libertarian- your editorial responsibility is to challenge them for some proof. These people may be out there, but because the editor failed so completely on this article, we are left with no evidence.
This is amateur-hour bullshit. Forget whether they are following odd political narratives, instead of focusing on the mission of libertarian advocacy- these are editorial table stakes that Reason cannot bother to provide. Until the editorial staff gets even a basic shake up, I will not support this magazine or the foundation any further.
Gee, I thought you had been here longer than that - - - - - - - - -
No, the editing has only gotten dreadful over the last couple years- reaching a complete low in the last 12 months or so as it appears that KMW has just given free reign. Articles are spaced out- they are posted in short bursts with nothing in between. The Headlines are often misleading if not outright wrong. Basic typos are common, and sentences are poorly worded.
Previously, even if they ponied up illogical responses, or clear clickbait, I could still engage with the article. I could look at provided evidence, point out poor logic. But now I can't even do that. This article is a big stawman.
The reason it is poignant here is that I am pretty sure that what Mrs Wolfe (whom I normally think is a decent writer), et al, are complaining about is not libertarians "embracing" RFK Jr, but instead agreeing with very specific statements that he has made. Whether we like it or not, RFK Jr is a public figure who is going to get a lot of air-time in the next year. And some of what he is saying deserves a +1. Not his autism bullshit, but certainly his strident pushback against the COVID state- a pushback that we frankly could have used here at Reason.
Unfortunately, such piss poor editing seems to be the norm across media these days. They don't seem to care what exactly is printed as long as they hit their targets and their fanbois all nod in agreement. I notice the crappy editing even in newspapers and magazines that have been around a while and formerly had a reputation for editing well.
I'm sorry this is happening to you
The writers here are lying shills and propagandists for the establishment leftists. Sure RFK has good positions to support and bad positions to criticize but that doesn't translate into embracing him except as a better alternative to the shitstorm that is Biden and his policies.
Precisely. Who says they are even Libertarians? Never-Trump Demunists alleged journalists? How many weeks did they have to scour the country to find a couple of these fakes?
Good point. Being critical of Trump is a dead giveaway that someone is a leftist. True libertarians would never oppose him in any way.
You misread his point. Put the 40 down and reread it.
"Put the 40 down"
We all know that's not going to happen.
You made your fellow trolls moist with that one!
Dude, they just laugh because we all know you drunk post here.
You didn't call me a homeless drunk living in a cardboard box, posting from the library. No one will every take your trolling seriously if you don't step it up a notch.
YOU called YOURSELF a homeless drunk. Don't blame people for remembering.
sarcasmic
January.17.2022 at 10:11 am
I was homeless for a half a year.
sarcasmic
January.22.2022 at 9:05 am
Nothing says liberty like sucking down a scorpion bowl or two while driving home from getting takeout.
Thats what's so funny. All the insults we make are based on his own fucking posts.
I mean, I'm not gonna give Sarc a load of crap for having been homeless. I've been there. Fuck, I've been there twice in the last three years. It's been a crappy while. I was living with a friend for a while and during the pandemic, I ran out of cash, he said he couldn't float me anymore, so I moved out, despite the stupid "no evictions" bullshit, and then fortunately I found a gig driving a truck.
Did that for a while, after about a year a friend called me up and offered me a slot doing computer shit for a startup he was at, so I dropped driving and went back to computers, but the place was... based out of Ukraine, and eventually I ended up without a gig again. Looking at the numbers, it made more sense to go live out of my car than continue paying rent, and fortunately now I have a position that seems pretty stable.
It's not "being homeless" that's a cause for shame, it's doing nothing to get back on your feet that is. Fuck, I'd be vastly more ashamed of telling my buddy he had to keep sheltering me because there was some bullshit CDC order.
Hey, I drunk post here, I just don't sloppy drunk post here...
I mean really moist! Talk of 40s really gets them wet. If you want to make them tremble as well throw in something about Mad Dog 20/20. And if you want their knees to go weak, accuse me of molesting my kid. They love that.
Obviously your goal is to impress the trolls. Just trying to help you out.
We can't all have coworkers who totally exist to call over and tell us how amazing our posts are like you.
Remember when he totally had a bunch of secret supporters here who never ever posted but somehow all thought he was great?
"sarcasmic
September.28.2021 at 7:08 pm
But please keep projecting. My lurker friends get a good laugh out of it.
Everyone you call a trump cultist has criticized trump. Far more than you've criticized Biden. You seem ignorant to reality.
Everyone you call a trump cultist has criticized trump
"Trump was right to say the election was stolen, he was right to prefer Putin's claims to US intelligence reports, he was right to pardon Roger Stone, he was right to stir up the crowd before 1/6, but he needs to relax in his follow-through...you see, I can criticize (sic) Trump!"
That’s about it. Sure he’ll say he’s capable of critical thinking, and when pressed he’ll dig up some tiny particular about some obscure policy nobody cares about. Then he’ll say “See! I’m just as critical as the next guy! What? How dare you dispute claims of election fraud! How dare you criticize trade wars! How dare you say Jan 6 was anything other than peaceful tourism! Leftist! You’re a leftist! You’re a left-handed leftist leftist from the left side of Leftville! Aaauuughhh!”
Obnoxiously arrogant piece of shit, was that intended to make sense. Or are you drunk?
He is trying to adopt sarc.
Do you have a citation for your quotes diet shrike?
Imagine being so desperate to look smart you adopt a drunken lap dog like sarc. Lol.
I can point you to many examples diet shrike. But we know you prefer lies and bald assertions.
Do you have a citation for your quotes diet shrike?
LOL – you don’t need citations when you’re making a rhetorical point. But do you think Trump was wrong when he said the election was stolen?
I don't ask Sarc to comment - and indeed, I don't ask anyone to comment on my own posts.
JesseAz is a true believer. He will cite all kinds of lack of evidence as evidence. He will claim that all cases dropped for lack of standing would have been decided in his team's favor. He has been run out of Volokh for being an ignorant dumbass. He will keep on keeping on and nobody believes him other than his fellow trolls.
In short, he's a tool who is best muted.
And now sarc is claiming to have cites. Post one sarc. Just one. I post all of yours you lie about.
See diet shrike. The only person your lies work on is this drunk retard. Lol.
You used quotes you retarded fuck. Do you know what quotations mean? And you're now admitting your post was a rhetorical strawman since you can never make a factual argument. Lol.
Yes, they can mean you're using someone else's words, but they can also be used to make a rhetorical point.
Did you really think he was quoting someone?
Better would be a poll showing that Kennedy supporters are disproportionately libertarian, or that libertarians are disproportionately supporters. But yeah, a few personal anecdotes would be nice.
Pretty sure any actual libertarians only support RFK insofar as him having a handful of positions that overlap and him being better than the other options the Democrats are pushing/floating. Between RFK and Biden I'll take RFK right now (and hate a lot of the other things he wants to do.) Similarly, I would have liked Tulsi Gabbard over anyone else running for the Democrats last time. Regardless, I don't see anyone on the Democrat side I could actively support.
Dumb strawman article and a strange attack on RFK from a very establishment perspective.
I’m assuming, when they say podcasters, they’re referring to Dave Smith. But his support is very specifically about two topics: vaccine mandates and warmongering with Russia.
Ironically (or hypocritically?) two topics that Reason has been pretty lacking from a libertarian perspective.
Well, if that is their angle then it is pretty weak tea. I've watched like 2 of Smith's podcasts, and have found them to be pretty chaotic, rambling, digression-filled bullshit sessions. There is nothing wrong with that. Podcasts are long-form discussions suited for exploring topics or reacting to news, not generally well-thought out, over-produced, fully edited position pieces designed to advocate for a specific outcome.
Again, since Wolfe provides no cite for her work, we are left to speculate what she means by "embrace". Did Smith (or whomever) say they'd vote for RFK Jr? Did they suggest he run for the Libertarian Party? Or did they merely agree with a statement he made?
For fucks sake, The Jacket interviewed him....Is that embracing RFK Jr?
Because there are no Cites, we don't know what Wolfe is complaining about. She says we shouldn't embrace this icky guy. Ok. But can we agree with him when he talks about the injustice of war and Vax Mandates? Or is it really better to have article after article complaining about the messenger? Maybe Reason wouldn't need to be so pre-occupied with the Messenger, if Reason would- you know- actually make a credible try at being the Messenger.
And that makes me wonder if that isn't what this is REALLY about. From the Mises Caucus, to RFK Jr, to even DeSantis, Reason sure spends a lot of time telling us not to listen to those other messengers. Maybe it is a bit of insecurity that people are spending less time listening to Reason and more time listening to others who are setting the agenda and the message.
Don't get me wrong- I think there are plenty of things about RFK Jr and DeSantis to object to. But if Reason is merely going to snipe at them, without spending MORE energy articulating an actual message, they shouldn't be surprised that others are "embracing" alternative messengers, even if that embracing isn't really an embrace.
Smith has been very clear he won't vote for RFK. He just supports him in the two topics he discusses. And even with the vaccinations piece, he says he needs to do more research, but it is mostly focused on the Covid and Fauci push back. Smith has also commented on the areas RFK is bad, such as his gun policy.
Reason attacks anything that strays from bugman orthodoxy. The more popular, the more frequent and shrill the attacks.
Vax skepticism and questioning crusades for "democracy" abroad threaten bugman orthodoxy, thus must be decried.
"For fucks sake, The Jacket interviewed him….Is that embracing RFK Jr?"
That was a fucking mess. They tried to bait him with a bunch of charts they printed off from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, and got pissy when RFK asked them what they were pulling.
Gillespie: "5G and Wi-Fi are controlling, you know, controlling our mind. The government, you know, aspects of the government that are supposed to be in favor of trying to help people, actually hurting them. AIDS is not, you know, primarily caused by HIV or HIV is not involved in AIDS. Atrazine is changing frog sexuality and by implication, human sexuality. Your cousin is not, your cousin Michael Skakel is not guilty of the murder of Martha Moxley that he was found guilty of.
You know, the 2004 election in Ohio was stolen. It kind of goes on and on. Do you how do you answer people who say, you know, like this is the sign of somebody whose thinking is fundamentally conspiracy-minded rather than kind of dealing with brute reality? You know, that is difficult and, you know, and terrible, but is not what you seem to be making of it.
Kennedy asked Gillespie to “show me where I get it wrong,” and offered to go through each example point by point, but Emo Fonzie didn't want to.
Kennedy: “You did something that is very unfair. Which is, you made a series of characterizations of my beliefs that you read in the newspapers. Many of which are just wrong,”.
Gillespie: "Harumpf, Humpf"
Who? Who are the libertarians embracing RFK Jr?
Well golly. Here's an article on TODAY'S lewrockwell.com - by their house quack 'Dr' Mercola - about an interview of RFKJr. Wasn't difficult to find at all since it is on their front page. Who is this 'libertarian' 'Lew Rockwell'? Why he's the head/founder of the Mises Institute which is as you know very much related to the reason the Mises Caucus is called what it is.
Wait, if an article about an interview constitutes an "embrace" then what about an actual interview?
Would that be an embrace?
There are half a dozen articles about RFK Jr in the last week or two on Rockwell. From different authors too.
Obsession = embracing
So reason is embracing Ron DeSantis?
Or embracing Trump for that matter. For a while, they were quite obsessed with the man.
Well Golly, maybe you should apply to be an editor at Reason, because you seem capable of finding cites.
Well Golly, maybe not. I just read the article, and nothing in it embraces RFK Jr. It merely embraces the Anti-Vax message that RFK is also selling.
Yes, but you see, Jfree is an insufferable asshole.
This is a true fact.
Care to point out specifically what your complaint is with this article, or the Mises caucus?
re Mises Caucus . Yeah I've got specific issues with Mises Caucus. But I don't think you're serious about the question. And that's problem 1.
Well that’s convincing.
Is your problem with them that you're an insufferable asshole who can't stand the fact that some people have actual principles when it comes to libertarianism, and you're a pussy bitch who thought it would be acceptable for the government to kidnap people for not wearing a face diaper or taking the jab?
Or is it something else?
They don’t bend over and take whatever good people like Jfree tell them to? Oh, and they’re a bunch of edgelords.
Have you read the comments on the RFK Jr. articles? (This article less than the other RFK articles.)
There's always some huge amount of commenters who seriously like RFK, and accuse the author of being a leftist for opposing him. The comments on the RFK articles always show the need to write more RFK articles.
I note no specific examples. Even in this thread. Can you post one?
"Why Are So Many Libertarians Suddenly Fond of RFK Jr.?"
He's not Trump or Biden?
He thinks the CIA assassinated JFK?
He's not Jo Jorgensen?
"Why Are So Many Libertarians Suddenly Fond of RFK Jr.?"
Because they don't know what (D) means?
I suspect that whatever appeal he might have amongst libertarians is that he’s a non-mainstream Democrat. The problem with that is that Donald Trump was a non-mainstream Republican and we all know how that turned out. As I’ve said before, the only way liberty and free markets have any chance at all now would be if we can implement Proportional Representation in every state legislature of the union and in Congress. Then it wouldn’t matter so much who is occupying the White House.
Nobody likes you
Says the guy who sparks a flurry of betting on whether or not his posts will stop whenever some Q-Anon nutter goes to jail or some pasty whitebread motherfucker is shot after going on a shooting rampage.
Fuck you, TDS-addled shit pile. Only twitter-shits like you.
"Only twitter-shits like you."
?
Maybe try complete sentences next time, sqrlvo.
Why does that strike me as delusional -
I would expect that with prop rep we'd get a pizza parliament style majority of lefty parasites and constitution haters.
You may say that if rep pop yields lefty majorities thats fine - and maybe i'd agree if they also didnt want to destroy the constitution as well.
Who?
Some guy whose family name gives him an air of legitimacy.
Why Are So Many Libertarians Suddenly Fond of RFK Jr.?
Probably because, unlike some prominent regime libertarian sources, he offered full-throated opposition to the COVID regime and today offers full-throated opposition to the U.S. embroiling itself in a war halfway around the world over which lot of gangsters rules over the Crimea and Donbas. That's sort of the downside for libertarian publications ignoring what were the two big libertarian issues of the day in favor of talking about food trucks and public acceptance of sex workers.
I'm afraid a large part of the problem is libertarians thinking they can't have much effect on the big issues of the day, and therefore dwelling on some minor ones they think they might be able to affect.
Existential apathy and purposelessness plague modern man, not just libertarians. The focus on tinkering at the small stuff is a result of the culture. The advocates of freedom like Reason should be radical and bold, since we have a radically authoritarian government. There's always hope! (And voting libertarian)
Sorry, but the learned helplessness argument seems sort of a copout. Plenty of people did take a libertarian stand on those issues. Yes, including a good number of Republicans.
I think it’s something that has been alluded to by a couple of the writers. The Reason staff thinks of themselves as part of the managerial-technocratic class. Their sensibilities are rooted in its doctrines and presumptions. Sure, they want a nice layer of liberty to smooth out the kinks in centralized control. But, they think, at the end of the day, the demands and dictates of the managerial-technocratic regime are what people should do and want.
If their conception of liberty is so constrained, their relative priorities make sense.
If faced with a choice of liberty under a bunch of rednecks or authoritarianism administered by a cultured, sophisticated, enlightened elite, I’m not sure they’d side with the former.
I'm 100% certain they'd side with totalitarianism.
"If faced with a choice of liberty under a bunch of rednecks "
When was the last time we were given such a choice? DeSantis went to Yale AND Harvard. Is that your idea of a redneck? Trump was also Ivy league educated and was born into multi-generational wealth. If they've managed to convince you they are rednecks, especially 'pro liberty' rednecks, that speaks to their efforts at marketing and propagandizing more than their cultural roots.
mtrueman|8.30.17 @ 1:42PM|#
"Spouting nonsense is an end in itself."
The smug and stupid trueman is here in the hopes someone makes a mistake and clicks on his name, doubling the monthly count of visitors to his blog.
trueman is an asshole.
Did I say either Trump or DeSantis were? No? Okay, then resume humping your strawman.
My point, for anyone else reading this, is to suggest that Reason's cultural loyalties (to the managerial-technocratic class) may have outpaced their ideological loyalties (to liberty). Or at least may have become a serious competitor to their ideological loyalties. Whether Trump or DeSantis are rednecks or not is largely irrelevant. Rednecks and others outside the managerial-technocratic consensus have proven the prime audience for the candidates and their agendas. And Reason seems to be able to generate, at best, ambivalence about the policy proposals, even when they are entirely consistent with libertarian principle.
Who are the pro liberty rednecks you'd like to see Reason support? It seems to me that anyone who gets within shouting distance of the presidency is going to come from the elite. The last redneck to get to the Whitehouse was Bill Clinton.
He’s not talking about the politicians you colossal boob.
He is talking about politicians. He tells us:
"If faced with a choice of liberty under a bunch of rednecks or authoritarianism administered by a cultured, sophisticated, enlightened elite, I’m not sure they’d [Reason staff] side with the former."
I wonder who this liberty loving redneck politicians Bill Dalasio has in mind.
Bill is completely correct that Reason's priority is promotion of the professional managerial class, and he did a fine job describing their perspective.
But that's the point. When plenty of people are already taking a stand on either or both sides of an issue, that says there's not much hope of little old you/us affecting it further. Doesn't matter whether it's winning or losing, if it's major, it's unmovable except by unfathomable forces and numbers.
Sniping at the people who happen to be making the "right" statements just because they aren't pure enough is also not the right tactic.
"an article for Salon on the danger of vaccine additives that needed five corrections appended to it and was later retracted"
Yikes that's embarrassing.
Good thing we have other liberal rags like Rolling Stone and Jezebel that would never screw up so badly.
Anyway RFK Jr. deserves some credit for making antiwar statements even when a Democrat is in the White House. But there's no reason (except a health scare) to think he's a serious challenger to Biden for the (D) nomination. In fact he wouldn't be an appealing choice to throw my vote away on a third party like I did in 2016.
"But there’s no reason (except a health scare) to think he’s a serious challenger to Biden for the (D) nomination."
Biden is a deeply uninspiring figure. Little more than a place holder and corporate shill. I think you overestimate his hold on the party, especially the grassroots.
mtrueman|8.30.17 @ 1:42PM|#
“Spouting nonsense is an end in itself.”
The smug and stupid trueman is here in the hopes someone makes a mistake and clicks on his name, doubling the monthly count of visitors to his blog.
trueman is an ignorant asshole.
I admit Biden is a below average politician, subpar President, and (based on the granddaughter whose existence he denies) gross human being.
But if the plan is to prevent an incumbent President from running again, isn't the VP the obvious next in line? Letting RFK shove Harris aside would look ridiculous from the party that wants to see #BlackWomenLead. Especially when that party is currently complaining about a Supreme Court affirmative action decision.
(Letting Newsom step over Harris would also look bad, but at least he's a real politician unlike Mr. Anti-Vax.)
Y’know, I heard that Gavin Newsome had some real dirt on the Clintons and was planning on going public with it. It’d be a darn shame if he happened to commit suicide next week.
"isn’t the VP the obvious next in line? "
I think the Dems think they can win the next election. But not with a woman. Especially not an unpopular woman. They got burned with Hilary Clinton and aren't likely to repeat that. If the Dems decide to give Biden the heave ho, which I think is likely, they will find a way to give Kennedy the same treatment they gave to Bernie, another candidate with grassroots appeal who offended the establishment. I don't know the field well but Newsome looks like a possibility. Young, telegenic, establishment, proven record at winning elections with even a recall under his belt.
Biden elevated black women to the supreme court, his press secretary, and his VP. I think that's about as far as he's going to go, even if black women are a key demographic for the Democrats.
Of course Biden isn't good, and polling makes it clear that even Democrats don't think he should run again.
But RFK Jr. is hardly the person who would be able to beat Biden in the party primary. Some guy with no political experience who was known as the world's leading anti-vaccine activist long before COVID? Heck, his opposition to COVID measures, which is the only good thing about RFK, would also be considered a minus in the Democratic primary.
Democrats will vote for whomever the Party tells them to vote for.
There is no competition, only selection.
The closest they came to having any significant dissent was Clinton vs Bernie, and the Bernie backers fell in line easily (though a small portion switched allegiances to Trump, but those tended to be the ones who reflected more deeply upon, then changed, some beliefs).
Charles Koch: "This RFK fucker is stealing votes away from our establishment boys, Biden AND Pence. I want a tabloid-quality article, where one of you brown-envelope fuck's wildly extrapolate from little grains of truth to smear him, good and hard.
Liz Wolfe: "YES SIR!"
Later: "RFK Jr. is not worthy of the rehabilitation tour he's getting from various pundits, podcasters, and tech luminaries. He pushes tabloid-quality "reporting" and he wildly extrapolates from little grains of truth..."
Sure seems that way. It isn't hard for individuals who value freedom to see why RFK Jr. is appealing compared to other options. Maybe an article wondering how anyone could vote for Biden as a libertarian would be a better topic. The taint of beltway analysis clouds the waters here at Reason.
There's no need to write an article on why libertarians shouldn't vote for Biden because they aren't any libertarians who will vote for Biden. (Except for maybe the ACLU types that nobody except for themselves considers to be libertarian.)
But there are some libertarians, such as you, who like RFK Jr., even though he's at least as bad as Biden. These articles about RFK Jr. need to be written precisely because of people like you.
I see you’re not familiar with some of the staff here. Oh, you said libertarian. Carry on then.
5-6 Reason writers voted for Biden in 2020.
I could swear they used to do those articles right before elections. A devil's advocate endorsement of each candidate from a libertarian perspective. I have a hard time imagining any of the current writers doing one for Trump, but I also don't know that they'd be able to do one for Biden on libertarian grounds
They tried.
Here's Slade, Dahlmia, Boehm Riggs, Ciaramella, Weissmueller and Welch’s 2020 posts on who they were voting for.
“I will cast my ballot for Joe Biden in Michigan, a swing state, because there is no bigger libertarian cause right now”
“Who do you plan to vote for this year? Joe Biden. The nationalists said the libertarian-conservative consensus is dead, and I take them at their word. Also, Stephen Miller is a white nationalist.”
“I will vote strategically… for Biden.”
“I will cast my first ever vote for president for Joe Biden in the battleground state of Pennsylvania.”
“I’ve been vacillating between sitting out this election, as I did in 2016, or voting for Joe Biden. The strongest argument for the latter choice is that it’s an opportunity to support the repudiation of both Trumpism and AOC” (lol)
“I’ll be voting for Joe Biden, primarily for three reasons: (1) A feeble president Biden seems like an opportunity to erode the power and glamour of the dangerous cult of the presidency and also push socialists, nationalists, and identitarians back to the margins, creating space for a more libertarian-friendly coalition to emerge.”
“If it was going to be close in my state, I might have considered holding my nose and voting for the person most likely to supplant the eminently fireable incumbent.”
I believe there is a chance that Joe Biden will somehow fail to win Virginia, in which case I will vote strategically and reluctantly for Biden.
Mean Tweets were apparently far worse than the fascist mess America is now.
“I will cast my ballot for Joe Biden in Michigan, a swing state, because there is no bigger libertarian cause right now”
It’s totes the conservatarians that have blinders on.
Everybody has blinders on.
It's so fucking weird. Trump isn't any kind of libertarian, but "no bigger libertarian cause right now" is beyond absurd. What the fuck did people think Trump was going to do if reelected?
Reason will attack anybody who strays from "proper" ideology.
Their job is to prevent or discredit all ideas outside neolibcon progressive orthodoxy.
"... to prevent or discredit all ideas outside neolibcon progressive orthodoxy."
Well, in fairness this is the net functional effect of libertarianism. Any and all expressions or statements of principles notwithstanding.
Good point
In case JesseAZ is still confused, this ^^ is another example of quotation marks NOT being used to indicate the actual words spoken by others...
(Happy to help!)
Why Are So Many Libertarians Suddenly Fond of RFK Jr.?
I haven't met a single libertarian who's planning to vote for him. The libertarians I've seen that have been talking about him (Dave Smith among them) have basically said there's a lot he gets wrong, but his opposition for war and forced vaccination regimes are commendable.
Indeed, I'm no fan of RFK Jr. He told on himself pretty severely after the SCOTUS rulings on affirmative action and the massive wealth transfer attempt known as Biden's student debt forgiveness plan. He's views on guns are mediocre too. All of these faults against him, he's still orders of magnitude better than the current Democrat in office, and Maryanne Williamson and a good number of Republicans currently running.
But yes, Reason, it does baffle the mind why libertarians might want Democrats (the largest party in America) to start embracing candidates that don't favor foreign wars or forced vaccinations. Big mystery.
The appeal of RFK Jr. is easy to get. He is speaks to the point and is a straight shooter. Do I trust his political philosophy? Heck no. But he is a democrat that doesn't buy into the party line crap. Those nuts appear to be running an incompetent, senile fool a second time. Basically, like Joe Manchin, RFK is a democrat that isn't completely full of crap. Even though I can't see myself voting for him, I get it.
Why do some Libertarians like the guy? Well, he is far from Libertarian. But then, when was the last time the Libertarians had a national candidate that wasn't a complete joke? Jo Jorgensen had seem decent ideas, but had zero chance of even being competitive. Gary Johnson wasn't so bad, but chose the worse running mate as a VP that was ever chosen. Well, until Joe chose Kamala. And yes, I'm including Crazy Sarah in that list.
The GOP still seems dumb enough to choose Donald once again. So RFK Jr. doesn't seem so bad does he?
"Gary Johnson wasn’t so bad, but chose the worse running mate as a VP that was ever chosen. "
A bad running mate is a good running mate. By choosing a bad running mate, Biden made himself look good in comparison. Good enough to win the presidency.
"The appeal of RFK Jr. is easy to get. He is speaks to the point and is a straight shooter..."
The fact that he's an ignoramus doesn't bother this twit at all.
Piss off.
Joe Biden is not worthy of the rehabilitation tour he's been getting at Reason since 2015.
++
+1
word
YOu stupid Libertarians have handed so many elections to liberal fools maybe you are wising up as in Colorado
Colorado Libertarians ink pact with state Republicans to stand down next year in crucial races
Third-party candidates didn’t win any state or federal offices in Colorado, but they may have kept others from winning.
Half a dozen state races were decided by a plurality of voters with Libertarian or other third-party candidates splitting the difference.
But Polis is so dreamy.
He's made a few unfortunate mistakes on gun control, censorship and free speech, but he's totally not banning Disney and food trucks.
Ouch, Reason!
That's enough to make him Governor McDreamy at Reason.
Colorado Libertarians ink pact with state Republicans to stand down next year in crucial races
That's more of an indication that Colorado has gone completely off the deep end with its coastal wannabe-ism, being run now by a bunch of Current Year Gen-X and Millennial shitheads, slack-jaws, and status-chasers. Denver is basically East Portland now, and not even a guy like Bill Owens could bring it back, more due to the fact that the suburbs are stuffed full of these idiots who came here to follow the tech and pot booms.
An online way to earn money to work just 1 or 2 hours a day on your mobile or pc wherever you want and start earning more than $500 a day. receives hgt payments every week directly in your bank. no skills needed. it’s a wonderful job.
…
Go to this page now………………..>>> http://www.Richcash1.com
"Part of his appeal, to libertarians at least, is that he's staunchly anti-war "
That should be enough for anyone to support him. What more can you ask of a president, the one with his finger on the button? Unlike vaccines, it's an issue within the responsibilities of the office. I don't see any of RFK's rivals being better on the issue. I could be wrong, I'll have to wait until Reason sees fit to interview the Green Party's Cornel West.
Whether or not Libertarians support him is not important. They are lucky to attract 1% of those who bother to vote. His strength lies in attracting the independents, those who voted for Obama, switched to Trump and switched again to Biden. If RFK can win the Dem nomination, he should easily win the presidency.
mtrueman|8.30.17 @ 1:42PM|#
“Spouting nonsense is an end in itself.”
The smug and stupid trueman is here in the hopes someone makes a mistake and clicks on his name, doubling the monthly count of visitors to his blog.
Don't make that mistake.
I truly pity anybody who doesn't enjoy the hell out of this guy and hated his presidency
https://twitter.com/_johnnymaga/status/1678452981446975489?t=qvADRyXgeR6jnxMnVYNbxA&s=19
[Pic of Trump post]
I truel;y pity TDS-addled shit like nardz. Grow up, asshole.
Wtf???
Lol
I think that anybody who claims not to enjoy Trump is a liar. Love him or hate him (I mostly hated him, as all Libertarians should), he provided entertainment each and every day.
RFK Jr is anti-globalist.
"Globalist" is a stupid person's term for someone who supports free-trade and non-Nuke peace treaties like the one Fatass Donnie cancelled with Iran.
turd lies. turd lies when he knows he’s lying. turd lies when we know he’s lying. turd lies when he knows that we know he’s lying.
turd lies. turd is a lying pile of lefty shit and a pederast besides.
I note that RFKjr was invited to speak at Porcfest, held by the Free State Project: https://porcfest.com/about/speakers/
I note that the obnoxiously arrogant piece of shit attempts blame-by-inference; always the mark of an asshole.
Fact check: Liz writes: "About 30 doses are on the childhood immunization schedule"-
This statement is false. 43 doses are recommended by age 6:
https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/parents/downloads/parent-ver-sch-0-6yrs.pdf
Fact check: Liz writes "Andrew Wakefield, the British doctor who wrote a 1998 article in The Lancet arguing that vaccines cause autism"
This statement is false. There were a total of 13 authors on Lancet 1998 Retracted. No where in the article is it stated "vaccines cause autism"
The retracted article does state: "We did not prove an association between measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine and the syndrome described."
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736%2897%2911096-0/fulltext
Thus, Liz is either ignorant regarding the subject about which she is opining, or she is lying.
JAM
Annapolis, Md
The evidence for the fond embrace of RFK Jr. is not explicit. It's implied. It's what the commenters here don't say about him that speaks volumes. The most damning accusations that can be leveled at a Democrat today: groomer and pedophile. Nobody has charged RFK Jr. with any of that.
From some of the comments on this page:
"He is speaks to the point and is a straight shooter."
"his opposition for war and forced vaccination regimes are commendable."
"he’s a non-mainstream Democrat"
"he aggravates and scares the shit out of the right people."
"I support his largely anti-authoritarian stance."
Granted these above statements are usually followed by a BUT.... and a list of qualifications. For a democrat, though, it seems as close to an embrace as we're likely to get. I've checked out opinions of the radical left regarding RFK Jr. The results are interesting and similar to here. He's praised for his personal integrity and COVID and antiwar stances. The big BUT... with the radical left is his pro-zionist stance, something which Reason doesn't even mention as an issue.
It sounds like how a lot of Republicans spoke about Trump circa 2015. "Sure, I don't agree with a lot of his policy stuff, but he is emotionally appealing to me..."
This is where they begin to rationalize their emotions with half-baked arguments justifying his terrible policies.
I look forward to "the libertarian case for socialized medicine" to be presented here in the comments by an RFK fanboi.
I look forward to “the libertarian case for socialized medicine”
It'll be as entertaining as your months-long crusade for "the libertarian case for CRT in public schools."
Might be as entertaining as his "bears in trunks".
I don't know if that will ever be topped, not even bears went extinct.
🙂
Suderman has you covered every time he touches the subject
"but he is emotionally appealing to me…”
Let's not underestimate that. The rest of the field seem so uninspiring. I mean DeSantis? Biden? You see any emotional appeal there? Kennedy's appeal comes in part from the murder of his uncle and father. He blames the state very directly, while the rest seem content to give it a free pass. I respond to courage and a commitment to the truth.
"with half-baked arguments justifying his terrible policies."
I agree with his stand on antiwar. I don't care about his ideas on vaccinations. If he's to become president, I'll still be able to get a vaccine, or not.
Based on the trajectory of the blog posts, it won’t be the commenters making that case. Except maybe Jfree.
https://twitter.com/joerogan/status/1678479642880012292?t=LbuqumKgWR_L-r4aYMza3g&s=19
Being healthy is “far right.” Holy fuck.
[Link]
Easy. Because they're all actually Republicans who think they can split the Democratic vote with this non-starter kook of a candidate.
Gretchen, stop trying to make RFK Jr. happen. RFK Jr. is not going to happen.
Who is their target audience? If the goal is to split D's, then the target audience is Ds
But these are all preaching to the choir types. People who are incapable of all social interaction with anyone who isn't a true believer.
I don't think the goal is really about RFKJr. It's about reinforcing the important parts of the libertarian sermon.
In the glaring light of the enemy at the gates, the things that divide the citizens fade to dim and they are united behind defeating the enemy. The need for a president who can take on the enemy outweighs my many disagreements with RFK. Most of our candidates are on the enemies side.
RFK has 0% chance of being elected president.
Slim chance of being named VP and ascending via death of the POTUS.
But I like his presence for the most part now even though I don't think it will amount to anything good.
Provides just a little more to gnaw at leftists' psyche.
People of FAITH love to think that their FAITH in anything, e.g. the baby Jesus, Adolph Hitler, the Communist Manifesto, solves all life's problems. All they have to do is have FAITH. By denying reality, facts, science, and logical, they prove that they have FAITH. If they admit that their decisions are on factual analysis, then FAITH becomes meaningless. Thus, acting contrary to science and logic prove that they are relying on FAITH. That makes them feel special; they feel superior as they know the TRUTH; they feel good inside. When their kid dies of a disease, they find a way to prove that it was the vax that did it, or the Jews do it, or Capitalism. The only way to combat these evils is to have more FAITH.
If one can corner thm intellectually so that they have to admit that their FAITH is totally wrong, then they cling to their FAITH as it is "mystery." Thus, the fact that their belief is proven wrong merely proves that it is a mystery and hence more FAITH.
Is there any remedy? En Zit im kopf was my mother's solution. Yiddish for Hit Up Side the Head for being so stupid.
That could work...
“Eldercare ENTITLEMENTS?” NOT “entitlements.” I worked 60 years, contributing to these “entitlements.” Are you aware of how many seniors are struggling? Are you not aware that aging and declining health go hand-in-hand? Would you rather poor houses be reinstated?
RFK Jr is not "anti-vax". that is a distortion. he is concerned about Big Pharma and the process used to approve vaccines. He is concerned that vaccines are approved without evaluating risks coupled with the liability protection that Big Pharma receives.
Who could have done such a reprehensible thing?
"The Trump administration pressured the Food and Drug Administration, including former FDA Commissioner Stephen Hahn, to authorize unproven treatments for Covid-19 and the first Covid-19 vaccines on an accelerated timeline, according to a report released Wednesday by Democrats on the House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Crisis.
Senior Trump administration officials fought for the reauthorization of hydroxychloroquine, a drug normally used to treat malaria and lupus, after the FDA revoked its emergency clearance of the drug because data showed it was ineffective against Covid-19 and could lead to potentially dangerous side effects, the report found. The Democrats’ investigation also documents potential influence from former White House officials regarding the FDA’s decision to authorize convalescent plasma, and White House attempts to block the FDA from collecting additional safety data on Covid-19 vaccines in order to get them to the public before the 2020 presidential election.
“The Select Subcommittee’s findings that Trump White House officials deliberately and repeatedly sought to bend FDA’s scientific work on coronavirus treatments and vaccines to the White House’s political will are yet another example of how the prior Administration prioritized politics over public health,” House Majority Whip Jim Clyburn (D-S.C.), who also chairs the subcommittee, said in a statement."
The Qanon crazies sure love him. They act like he is some Republican, call people RINOS then swoon over a socialist. Amazing.
QAnons are an odd bunch.
Not many left
Good on the Qanon folks shrinking, Now if we can just get rid of the cultural marxists and trotskites as well...and America will be in a better place..
Just so long as it doesn’t leave the cultural fascists and putinites lording it over us.
He also wants pharmaceutical companies to burn in hell, and he seems to believe in an almost Alex Jones–esque concept of the deep state.
Events have shown that, if anything, Alex Jones is fairly mild in his description of the nature of the deep state.
Agree. I'm not sure is possible to go to far in any description of the current corrupt government we have. Deep state or otherwise
https://twitter.com/TheLastRefuge2/status/1678563458139275265?t=qXPF_FTo0s8BIGm6TVYTEw&s=19
"But while content moderation can limit the distribution ... it doesn't go far enough... these big platforms need to subject to... regulation."
- Obama, hosted by Stanford Internet Observatory, praising virality circuit-breakers & European-style "disinformation" speech laws
[Video]
https://twitter.com/TheLastRefuge2/status/1678561079142543360?t=PhPG-L1gnrklXF2O1_WsNQ&s=19
Biden DOJ Announces Criminal Charges Against Whistleblower Who Provided FBI Evidence Against Joe and Hunter Biden
[Link]
I'll tell you why I'm enthusiastic about him: Because he (sadly) is the least worst Democrat.
^this
out of all the members in the parade of idiots and monsters, he is the least awful because he's at least right about a couple things.
He's mostly wrong, terribly, terribly, wrong.
But he's not as bad as, for example, Kamala
parade of *democrat* idiots and monsters.
The republicans have much better, albeit still flawed, options.
When I was in school, no one got vaccinations for measles, mumps, German measles. You simply got them, had a fever and a rash or a swollen face, and were over it in a few days.
Now I believe children get vaccines for all these things.
When I was a student there were almost no autistic children in schools. We had kids who started fights, We had kids who were slow. We may have even had kids who were weird. We didn’t have huge numbers of special ed students.
Now I substitute teach fairly often. Every school seems to have an entire class of special ed students. In junior high they are often marching as a class through the hall, screeching and bellowing. Sometimes they are in the room next door, screaming and slamming against the wall.
many children died from measles. let's not get crazy here.
Many children? Perhaps worldwide, but I grew up before there was a measles vaccine and no one I knew died or got seriously ill from measles. No one I knew ever mentioned any child dying from measles. The percentage of kids of European descent dying or having permanent effects from measles must have been very, very small.
I did hear of one adult nearly dying of measles, but that was a quite exceptional case - because very nearly every child got the measles and then was permanently immune. It was well-known that the very few that somehow avoided measles as a child would be in for a bad time if the first time they were exposes was as an adult.
And I knew one severe reaction to mumps: My Dad, who somehow never caught them until he was in his forties. He was extremely sick for several weeks, but finally recovered - although looking back at it, I suspect that this adult case of the mumps reduced him from one working testicle to zero. (A mule kick took out the other one a long time before.) He had already decided 3 children was enough and had his tubes tied, so it wasn't important.
However, measles and mumps were not "a fever and a rash or a swollen face, and were over it in a few days". Measles was two weeks of unbearable itching, and a week to regain my strength after the virus was cleared. With mumps, I was too young to remember - or I blocked the horrible memories - but it certainly was more than a few days. We've got 99.9% safe vaccines against these diseases now, and I'm very glad my kids and grandkids could get a poke in the arm and avoid these experiences.
A very small percentage. Like a similar small percentage to how many die from the common cold. No one feared measles until the measles vaccine was invented. Same goes for mumps and chicken pox. 99% of the time, the immune system fights these viruses with ease. Is it worth it to protect the 1% who have complications from these mild illnesses in exchange for chronic diseases, autoimmune diseases, and autism which affect 1 in 40 children?
I had measles vaccine. Got mumps the old fashioned way - with earnosethroat problems for the rest of my childhood. Still worth it for the ice cream.
That said - the regimen of childhood vaccines back then - smallpox, polio, DTP, measles (or what is now MMR) did not create much antivax backlash. Saved lots of lives. And that was the regimen from WW2 until 1990 or so.
There were other vaccines earlier - I had yellow fever and cholera vaccines because of where we lived. But none of that was either mandatory or had anything to do with schools.
The vaccines that jumped the shark (for different reasons) were the HepA, Hib, and chicken pox. And then the whole fraud re autism.
RFK JR is an un-American, anti-democracy Russia tool. Pootin's propaganda team is actively quoting him on official Russian TV. He had to pull a campaign ad from twitter last week when it was pointed out that the street and shop signs in the background were in Cyrillic.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VVxCjxN2rYY
Thank you for repeating this, bot.
Ahmmm you realize the US helped overthrow a democratically but not neocon tool President of Ukraine in 2014 right? JC, the US doesn't exist to right some wrongs the neocons/neolibs are obsessed with (sorry about what the Czar did 120 years ago...sorry Trotsky lost to Stalin..sorry Kruschev...well you get the point). The USSR was an enemy of liberty and a threat.Russia? please how are they a threat to American security? Russian tanks crossing the Oder anytime soon on their way to Berlin. The threat is domestically..woke cultural marxists running most federal agencies, the media and academia. Sorry but we won the cold war, it was time to come home and allow Europe to sort out their normal ethnic issues..
That's a good take on RFK. He isn't the right person for the job but I applaud that he is bashing away. I always wish people would be more honest but that is, sadly, wishful thinking. RFK is the norm these days. What I would really like to see in the WH is a normal person. RFK, as this article shows, is a bit off. Trump is waaaaaay off. Biden is senile.
He is a candidate that will talk about how corporations have captured govt and the media and are screwing over the avg person. A real libertarian believes in freedom and competition. Corporate America does not, and reason magazine has their nose too far up corporate americas butt to think straight.
Liz Wolfe should be commended for her detailed article, but whoever wrote the headline "Why Are So Many Libertarians Suddenly Fond of RFK Jr.?" should be ashamed of offering click bait rather than describing what the article is about. The percent of the article that provides information about why some libertarians are fond of RFK Jr. is close to zero. It mentions no one who unequivocally supports RFK Jr. etc.
Not the central part of the article, I know, but autism rates have not increased with better diagnostic procedures. They've increased because of diagnostic inflation and Obamacare making it covered broadly by insurances. The headbanging type of autism that RFK Jr. mentions has been around for at least 150 years and perhaps more, so it is not likely to be vaccine caused. There were likely no autistic children in schools because they were placed in "hospitals" and special "schools" to receive "treatment" and were sequestered away from the general population for their whole lives.
Until the 1970's or 1980's, only the most severe forms of autism ("headbanging") were diagnosed as such, and then only if there happened to be a doctor that understood autism wasn't quite the same as severe retardation. So autism diagnoses have increased quite a lot because half of the most severe cases and all of the mild cases were not being diagnosed.
https://twitter.com/ScottAdamsSays/status/1678495111876055041?t=uyl0hl9zxPrdIRdFJQ8QjQ&s=19
In 2023, a conspiracy theorist is more credible than the government he criticizes. The public did not create that situation. The government and the media colluded to bring us to this point.
If they don't like the world they created, they can debate RFK Jr. or shut the fuck up.
You don't get the win without the game. No more of that.
[Link to Reason video]
They're as out of touch with reality as he is ?????
Rehabilitation? I didn’t realize he was a drug addict or something. Progressives are freaking out about RFK Jr. because, regardless if agree with his positions or not, he isn’t a senile, corrupt career politician who insists that your kids belong to the state. Compared to Biden, how bad could he be?
The folks running our foreign policy are scared of him...having actual Americans and not globalists who worship Trotsky and hate liberty in the White house is their deepest fair..that and stopping deficit spending and the Fed..
Maybe it's just that I've gotten older, but the writers at Reason seem arrogant, pretentious, uninformed, out of touch, and really not very libertarian at all. I personally like much about RFK, Jr. for none of the reasons that Liz Wolfe imagines. It seems that she didn't actually interview any of his libertarian supporters for this article - she just thought about raising a question, did some cursory "research", and wrote a sneering, immature opinion piece that tries to smear CHD and RFK, Jr. and doesn't answer her own question at all. Full disclosure: In the first year of COVID, I stopped donating to Reason and started donating to CHD the following year. I have no regrets about that decision.
Okay, there's one!
I would never vote for R-Junior--or Biden, or Trump, or any of the shellshocked mystic Mises-Anschluss usurpers. But when it comes down to comparisons feature by feature, the guy is a standard "ban-energy" looter required by the Dem platform. He is slightly less grotesque and revolting than Biden-Trump-Smif-Alex Jones Giant Douches and Turd Sandwiches. That's basically it. The LP still had the best platform and still attracts non-nazi candidates worth supporting. The others are distinguishable only by levels of revulsion and disgust.
OMG, Kennedy is a vax denier? OH the inhumanity....now good Reason types don't care about the debt (Kennedy at least talked about debasing your currency via a central bank is not just immoral but leads to economic inequality and eventually economic decline), foreign wars (Zelinsky is the modern equivelent of Trotsky, the neocon and Reason hero....), the MIC, the Educational Complex, media censorship directed from the Federal Govt, hell the guy was at Porcfest..did Obama or Biden or Romney or Bush go there?
Sure his ideas are from progressive days of the 1960s but he at least calls out race grifters and doesn't give BLM and other movements spreading bs ("white supremacy is systematic") a pass like the media and Reason do. The crony corporate state/deep state need to be scared and maybe he can do it.
Compared to Trump, DeSantis, and the rest of the neocon puppets controlled by the neocon globalists, he recognizes the true threat...and it is internal not Russia or China..but the crazy ass cultural marxists who have infected ever institution.
Because most of them are unprincipled trend-hoppers who will jump on any train that challenges Democrats, no matter how hare-brained?
Where are these so called libertarians that have said more than they agree with him on not locking down and that pharmaceutical companies should be held liable for bad products they shit out?
Without a critical review of him, such as found in this article, he seems less crazy/incompetent than Biden or Trump - that's why the less critical individuals, let's say, "weekend libertarians", like him. Hell, before I studied him, he looked interesting. After studying him, he looks dangerous.
Compared to Biden? Harris? Newsome?
Seriously how is he a bigger threat than this idiot in the White House today printing money like mad, creating massive economic bubbles, and doing what the founders warned us about, getting into useless European conflicts?
But he is anti-vax you say. The corporate media/Dems are pushing grifter "climate change", pushing racial discrimination through DIE, debasing our currency, destroying the middle class, enriching the well connected who product nothing (academia, wall street, big tech)...and honestly some of the "vaccines" marketing is questionable..the cervical "cancer" vaccine for boys (and the vax only works for certain viruses caught through sex not an actual cancer vaccine)? And the pharma made billions. Most flu shots have low efficacy by their very nature. Hell Biden thinks gender dysphoria can be cured through surgery or drugs and it isn't a mental illness which it is and "white supremacy" is a threat (without defining what it is...).
Liz Wolfe, you lost your journalistic intent the moment you wrote
"Science-denying anti-vaxxers". Now you are just a narrative.
Journalists like you are the Reason I no longer pledge money to Reason (no pun intended).
I'm not saying I love RFK Jr, but he's WAAAAAY better than the Biden scum.
I prefer Ramaswamy first, Trump second, RFK third. Other than Kim Jong Un, Biden is the worse human being to walk this planet.
Point of order, does Biden technically walk anymore?
Actually, I'd vote for him because, even taking into account all you say, I say the two other big choices are worse. Biden is edging us toward nuclear war. His administration behaved horribly during the pandemic. RFK gets those two issues right.
I like that he’s starting from “it’s all fake” instead of “it’s all real”. I don’t mind that the institutions have to explain their way out. It’s not a waste of time. The hand-waving has gone on too long.
A secret court where the public doesn’t get to know what transpired? That’s unamerican. I don’t believe it has to be this way to get people to use vaccines. If you need tort reform so be it but don’t give just this one sliver of commerce their own special secret court. Further, their data is confidential and the regulators can’t see it. They just have to trust them. They’ve been caught lying several times. On an on.
He may not be perfect or right but at least he’s trying to do something.
We must do something!
Giving RFKJr. Supreme Executive Power is something!
Therefore, Give RFKJr. Supreme Executive Power!
It only seems like a valid syllogism, but it's not. The emotionalism of the initial premise is the giveaway as to why.
Because libertarians love liberal statist? Probably not.
The top funder of Reason is Searle Freedom Trust (Pharma giant GD Searle).
"Searle Freedom Trust "
There's just not enough MAGA in that name. How about 'Searle Freedom Trust Rednecks?'
On June 28 ...
A friend of mine asked me, simply, 'Why do you think of RFK Jr.'?
I'm still a devout libertarian, but I live in the real, imperfect world where the people in charge are petty tyrants, creeps and assholes, not in the ideal, perfect, make-believe free world I'd like to see.
My answer, streamed off the top of my head and as fast as I could type:
"Large fan. He's right on the big and important issues -- the idiocy of our meddling/subverting in Ukraine for 10 years as a way to get Putin out of power; the horrible war on covid and the damage Washington (i.e., Trump and Biden and Fauci; the Axis of Evil) did to people and country while in bed with Big Pharma; the hideous CIA/FBI security/surveillance state.
"He's still nutty on climate change and like a good Dem, he's a good union man. But he's sensible, brave, real and really smart. He's smoothing over some of his more radical claims and patching up his anti-vax talk to appeal to moderates, who have been buried by the woke/pride bullshit. Not sure where he is on the border issue, but he's not afraid to call himself a capitalist or praise the market and even guns.
"No one politician in the history of Earth is perfect. If I can agree with 75 or 80 percent of what a candidate or pundit says, I'll be happy. My heroes these days are the honest journalists -- all six of them -- like Greenwald, Taibbi, Schellenberg (sp) and other former anti-war leftists like Scott Horton, plus the great Scot, Neil Oliver, plus all those good honest docs like McCullough and John Campbell, Ivor Cummings of Ireland and Scott Atlas, who Trump brought in too late to end the lockdowns. Even Naomi Wolf has wised up.
"Kiddingly, I've said I'd like to see Tulsi Gabbard and RFK Jr. as a team. A new set of heroes emerged for me during the covid medical tyranny/stupidity and the evil lockdowns. The libertarians -- who should have been leading protests against lockdowns, Big Tech censorship and the proxy war in Ukraine -- have been useless and almost invisible pussies.
" I like Jr. and after watching a Netflix doc on his rascally dad a few years ago, I decided RFK and Uncle Jack -- both of whom feared the CIA, wanted to smother or kill it, and were probably killed by it -- were much better than I knew.
"The madness of the last few years is in the process of being reversed by normal, sane people, and I like RFK Jr. because he'd continue that reversal. Whether he can cut government spending back, shrink the DOD and prevent the dollar from becoming worthless, is asking for miracles -- and no politician is good at miracles."
I stand by my June 28 rant. And I'm disappointed that my friends, supporters and ideological allies who run Reason okayed Wolfe's embarrassingly shallow, uninformed, lopsided and snotty hit piece.
"“The madness of the last few years is in the process of being reversed by normal, sane people, and I like RFK Jr. because he’d continue that reversal. "
The madness is not being reversed by normal people or otherwise. And we can't look to Kennedy or any other politician to continue reversing something that isn't reversing. The best he can do for the country is to unify it, something he has a better chance at than any other candidate or potential candidate in the field. A unified country with a shared vision of itself is a good place for sane and normal people to live, work and raise families.
this article is pretty funny - like we even needed to see it! How do you think the Koch Brothers feel about a man who's dedicated his whole life to suing the oligarchs that are destroying the biosphere with toxic pollution?
Yeah Reason, we know you don't like him....suggest you go back to cashing checks from your corporate overlords & save the bandwidth
Whatever you think about RFK jr on vaccines or war, he is definitely not a libertarian in any meaningful sense. In case anyone has any misconceptions about what his actual policy positions are, these are some direct quotes from his website showing he's basically a run of the mill democrat:
On industrial policy and welfare:
"Government assistance to the nation’s most vulnerable is a high priority, but even more important is to reverse the policies that have led to such poverty in the first place. We will rebuild the industrial infrastructure, ruined by forty years of off-shoring and misguided 'free trade' schemes. We will enact policies that favor small and medium businesses, which are the nation’s real job creators and the dynamos of American enterprise. We will support labor in reclaiming its fair share of American prosperity. We will break up 'too-big-to-fail' banks and monopolies, and when crisis strikes, bail out the homeowners, debtors, and small business owners instead."
On healthcare:
"A Kennedy administration will go beyond making existing modalities available to all, to include low-cost alternative and holistic therapies that have been marginalized in a pharma-dominated system."
On environmental policy: "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.
Finally, we will protect wild lands from further development, by curbing mining, logging, oil drilling, and suburban sprawl."
He's appealing to two aspects of libertarian thought (anti-coercion regarding vaccines and anti-war), but that doesn't make him a libertarian.
Because he is for medical freedom, and unlike almost all democrats, he isn’t “woke” and pandering to minorities and the LGBT and pushing communism. He has his own mind and isn’t afraid to speak it. He isn’t in the race for the money or the power. He truly believes in fixing America’s problems. Whether or not you agree with all his solutions is another story. But the man has integrity. Trump was attractive for the same reason; he says what he really believes, instead of being politically correct and conforming to whatever he thinks every other party member believes. Authenticity is admirable.
I'm a long time Ron Paul libertarian and I'm so fucking done with reason that I don't believe anyone there is truly libertarian at this point. Fuck all you mother fuckers right in the ass.
RFK Jr is better than Biden by a long shot, but he is still a leftist and although I agree with some of his positions I disagree how he came to these positions.
Trump is better than RFK jr, but I similarly have issues with Trump.
DeSantis is better than Trump, but still there are items than make him questionable.
With all three, I like that they shift the Overton window.
“Vaccines Are Unavoidably Unsafe”
Don’t take my word for it. These are the words of Justice Scalia in Bruesewitz v. Wyeth, LLC in a Supreme Court decision in 2011. Unfortunately, due to the protections afforded the vaccine maker in the National Childhood Vaccine Act of 1986, the Court ruled against a vaccine injured plaintiff in the case. How?
In the 1980s, children were having adverse reactions to the DTP (diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis) vaccine. Lots of lawsuits were being filed against docs and vaccine manufacturers. This caused the pharmaceutical industry to threaten pulling out of the vaccine market, and the alarm bells rang that the nation’s health and safety were at risk. Why were vaccine manufacturers getting ready to take their ball and go home? Because vaccines fall into a class of products considered “unavoidably unsafe.” I am not kidding you. This “unavoidable” word comes from the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act itself “products which, in the present state of human knowledge, are quite incapable of being made safe.”
In 1986, Congress decided on a way to compensate folks for these avoidable injuries and death. It is called the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. From 2001 until 2011 the program has compensated about 2500 families a total of $2 billion. There has been close to $4 billion paid to date since inception. But, that represents only a small fraction of those who actually brought claims to the Vaccine Court. You see, there is a 36 month window to bring the claim. There is no “tolling” granted for minors, unlike all the Civil Courts in the U.S. Guess what? Neurological injuries may not present in infants for long after 36 months. Furthermore, who knows how many cases were never brought by attorneys on behalf of a vaccine injured child, because the statute of limitations ran out?
Don’t let anyone tell you that vaccines don’t cause injury. They have, they do and they will do so in the future. For years, Thimerosal was used as a preservative in multi-dose vials. While still proclaiming it “safe”, vaccine makers “voluntarily” removed Thimerosal. It is still present in trace amounts and in flu vaccine. Thimerosal was never approved by the FDA, as the patents predated the establishment of said regulations. Worried?
With nearly 6,000 cases, some 20 years ago, pending, the USCFC held the “Omnibus Autism Hearings.” They decided not to make “autism” a “table injury.” How convenient. Since there would never be enough money to pay for all who claim an “autism” injury. But, there have been many cases compensated for “encephalopathy” as a diagnosis with reference to autism. You can read it for yourself:
http://digitalcommons.pace.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1681&context=...
For the record, I am not “anti-vaccine.” Both of my children were fully vaccinated. Unfortunately for us, our son was neurologically disabled by vaccines. It is indisputable, yet the government and the vaccine makers still think that there is a “greater good” to be served. They may be right. But, let’s not fool ourselves. Vaccines can be made safer. It is about money.
"The Food and Drug Administration is, if anything, overly cautious with vaccine testing: Bringing a vaccine to market generally takes 10–15 years and costs several billion dollars. It's ridiculous to argue vaccines are insufficiently tested, or that kids today are overvaccinated."
Did the SARS-CoV-2 synthetic mRNA vaccine testing begin 10-15 years before COVID-19? Very little reason is needed to see through the logical fallacy of Reason's argument. In fact, to any thinking person, Reason made RFK Jr.'s case for him.
For sound economic perspective please go to https://honesteconomics.substack.com/
We do it to annoy the Democrats. End of story.
I only joined this site just to call Liz Wolfe a snowflake tool.
I would bet that most people who are against RFK Jr never heard him speak at length about anything. I would vote for him after listening to his ideas while being interviewed by Tucker Carlson Joe Rogan and Jorden Peterson to name a few . He did help clean up the Hudson river . He’s skeptical of corporations and rich individuals when money might skew their motives as it should be . You mentioned mercury in your article. Why are we trying to remove it from the atmosphere and caution people not to eat certain things that contain trace amounts but were willing to inject it into children? How would he be any worse that Biden Trump etc . He won’t be king and he need’s congress to get anything passed . I think he makes the establishment upset exactly because he goes against the status quo . That is sometime a good thing .
Bring anti-war and wanting to smash the spy and federal police apparatus of the US government are pretty important issues for libertarians for good reason. Libertarians can’t even agree on other libertarians and whether they deserve support so clearly we’re not going to agree with a candidate 100% or even way less than that. Reason should treat this issue with a little more respect for those who find RFK Jr worthy of attention. Reason should do that instead of writing about RFK Jr with this type of sneering rejection attitude.
Hear! Hear, old chap!
/face palm.
This website is called Reason? Not a single fact is cited, no evidence is given, no sources offered for any of the claims made here. You can take this lady's avalanche of unsubstantiated smears at face value, but then, you wouldn't be thinking very critically.
Watch Joe Rogan's interview to see RFK actually reason and go throug a long list of history and facts that substantiate his principled positions. RFK is pro-environmental defense, pro-precautionary principle and testing for new drugs, wants to reduce/eliminate the influence of massive corporations that many of the most prestigious universities in America have already studied extensively and concluded that, when it comes to the policies that are adopted, lobby money is far more consequential than votes. RFK is absolutely correct that American democracy is very corrupt, that's been proven, America IS a functional plutocracy.
It really does seem like this lady is just incredibly ignorant, or just irredeemebly credulous when it comes to corporate propaganda. "Regulatory capture," are words incomprehensible to this person, who has about the historical/political/economic knowledge of a 5-day old child. This is truly pitiful from Reason. You guys have laid out a land mine and stepped on it yourselves. It's not possible to take this site seriously after this.
Wow Liz, I legit lost track of how many lies you told and personal attacks you made. Where you cited data in opposition to RFK’s claims, you cited different data from an entirely different time period.
That you managed to say "[t]he Food and Drug Administration is, if anything, overly cautious with vaccine testing," with a straight face ... wow, that's some Big-Pharma dishonesty there, girl.
I'd say you have no integrity, but that would be an insult to people who have none.
The question posed - Why Are So Many Libertarians Suddenly Fond of RFK Jr.? The answer written - what he says is "technically true" but, (unlike other politicians), he "wildly extrapolates," "he's staunchly anti-war and a huge critic of COVID lockdowns and mandates." That would be a reasonable answer to the question.
But the point of the remaining diatribe is to assert that "he's not worthy" of support. Why? "His and his organization, Children's Health Defense, give opponents of vaccine mandates and government overreach—like me (the author) —a bad name by lumping us together with science-denying anti-vaxxers."
This, obviously, is an ad hominem attack on him, but it also doesn't make any sense. Where/when has he lumped you together with anyone? Which science has he denied and how did you get implicated?
The first, last, and most-repeated criticism of him is that he is an "anti-vaxxer" Assuming arguendo that he is "anti-vaxx," whatever that now means, is there some evidence that he is less honest than other politicians? Is he more prone to impose mandates, shut-downs, and other restrictions? Or is he more likely to support freedom of choice?
RFK Jr successfully litigated to force companies to bear the cost of their pollution. You know, avoid the tragedy of the commons. One might disagree about this as a matter of principle or policy, but referring to him as a "crackpot environmental lawyer" does nothing to address the merits of how free-market capitalism can be modified to avoid horrifying externalities.
I'm not claiming he's a libertarian ideal or even that he's "worthy" of libertarian support. But we're "worthy" of a good-faith consideration of the issues he raises rather than yet another hit-piece.
Jimmy Dore totally destroys this video. LOL https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pk0SE4BSEIU
I'm an anesthesiologist, so infectious diseases are not my specialty. However, I have extensive knowledge of infectious diseases as I also have a PhD (ABD) in health sciences and a bachelor's in biology. This is the most disingenuous, anti-science, ratioed hit piece in the history of reason. And that's a low bar to cross. I used to read reason daily, but now it's more like only when it shows up in my Twitter feed for some dumb shit they've said.
Semaglutide and Mounjaro are very effective you can rapidly lose weight on them if you are in need you can quickly navigate to http://www.premuimpharmacy.com
Because they aren't actually libertarians, they're closet MAGAs (aka don't really think for themselves). RFKJ is straight up an EPA lawyer there is no reason a libertarian would vote for him, only those caught up in the Qanon covid conspiracies fall in behind him.
Jimmy Dore’s critique of this smear job is correct: it’s laughable. You play fast and loose with the facts, contradict yourself constantly, and give no real evidence or even an argument. Your ‘take-down’ really comes off as satire.
Ms. Wolfe,
I hope you have taken the time to read this piece below that critiques your article. Lest you feel singled out, I note that a few Reason writers recently shift from journalism to politics on specific subjects. Perhaps the team should collaborate a bit more to look for these blind spots before publication.
https://timcast.com/news/opinion-a-libertarian-response-to-reasons-rfk-jr-takedown/
Wow, I just read this article and thought maybe I had mistakenly jumped into the NY Times or Washington Post or any other mainstream propaganda rag. I am extremely disappointed that Reason gave this print space. It's just recycled propaganda with no critical thinking, or research. Please get your facts straight or at least take a medium dive into why RFK believes it to be true. He has actual research to substantiate his views, not your tired recycled propaganda. I'm going to guess you never even read one of the studies on either side. That's just lazy.
As for many of the above comments, I don't think there is one way of being libertarian and that is what is great about this party and the fact that to be one means you have to grow up and accept that no one is going to believe exactly what you believe. If we could say one thing that unites all libertarians, would it be belief in the constitution, civil liberties? I like RFK and deeply respect his commitment to government by the people not corporations. He is the only one who is brave enough to expose the underdealings of our corprotocracy. Calling him a crackpot is really beneath this platform.
Working on the web pays me more than $190 to $225 per hour. I learned about this activity three months ago, and since then I have earned around $23k without having any online working skills. Copy the webpage below to test it….
.
.
For Details►———————————————➤ https://Www.Topearn7.Com