In 2022 the GOP gained 9 seats in the Senate and now holds 50% of the seats. I think what is relevant to the Presidential Election is that both RFK jr and Donald Trump appeal to the same voters. I would suggest RFK jr would not win in the Republican primaries because he would be up against Donald Trump who was a successful President, - at least compared with Bill Clinton, G W Bush jr, B.O.B. and the Biden Administration whoever is in charge of that. I don't think he'll win in the Democrat Party either because it is so corrupt they won't want him. But it is better if he doesn't split the Republican vote.
That’s fine. I am not here to convince you to vote for Democrats. It makes sense to us, that’s why we vote Democrat.
They seem to like ideas such as unity. If, as you say: then you can expect the team you hate to get more and more of the ethnic minority vote.
I am touched by your desire to make Democrat a better party. Planning to change your party affiliation and became registered Democrat? If I would republican today, I would be running for the door too.
Good idea, though I have no interest in making any party 'better.' 'Better' would involve parties having less political influence overall. But if RFK makes it to the primaries and that's the only way I can vote for him in the primaries, I very likely will register as a 'D'. Tho I'd rather do that as an 'I', or even better, a 'U'.
You think the Washington Post is Facebook? “And by the way: If you made a list of major science retractions, controversies and embarrassing episodes in recent years, you'd see a full range of disciplines in the mix.” The Washington Post, Science, No, science’s reproducibility problem is not limited to psychology, By Joel Achenbach, August 28, 2015. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ibility-problem-is-not-limited-to-psychology/ How about The Guardian? Facebook? Fake Science + Fake New + Politics = Denial of Care = Mass Slaughter "The Lancet paper that halted global trials of hydroxychloroquine for Covid-19 because of fears of increased deaths has been retracted after a Guardian investigation found inconsistencies in the data. The lead author, Prof Mandeep Mehra, from the Brigham and Women’s hospital in Boston, decided to ask the Lancet for the retraction because he could no longer vouch for the data’s accuracy. Related: How were medical journals and WHO caught out over hydroxychloroquine? The journal’s editor, Richard Horton, said he was appalled by developments. “This is a shocking example of research misconduct in the middle of a global health emergency,” he told the Guardian." THE GUARDIAN, Covid-19: Lancet retracts paper that halted hydroxychloroquine trials, By Sarah Boseley Health editor, June 5, 2020. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...s-paper-that-halted-hydroxychloroquine-trials Lancet? Facebook? Do you actually trust scientists? Tell the truth.
There was a time when scientist thought the sun rotate around Earth and they had to retract that idea after 400 years. What is your point, just because scientific evidence is retracted often means we can’t trust them but trust some guy doing his “own research online”.
Well, he did go on to say he would sign a "assault weapons ban" into law if there was such bill. So, maybe the devil is in the details, when he comes to what he supports and what he does not support. Clearly he is not for all out ban of all guns. Having said that, I dont know much about his views, but if he is moderate, then good. Maybe he can even run with a moderate Republican like Kasich or Romney.
Well , if I were a republican, I would do the same and vote Democrat too. After all , all the dictator wanna be running in GOP primary, RFK looks much, much better candidate.
Republican likes RFK , but they don’t want him in their party. Republican want him to run as Democrat. As a Democrat, What else do I need to know about RFK?
I don’t trust anyone, that’s why I believe covid-19 is a hoax and I inject Lysol every day. I did my own research online.
There is very little evidence that either party is capable of actually getting "better". Given their history both parties are far more likely to keep getting worse.
I don't believe you, but if all the party boys and girls embraced your cure it would probably amount to real progressive reform.
On issues: https://www.isidewith.com/candidates/robert-kennedy-jr-2/policies/social Seems moderate, - some views are liberal and some libertarian and some conservative. Views on education are all liberal, - even supports the loan forgiveness idea
To me the big issue is whether a candidate takes bribes and has a suicidal tendency to start big serious wars or develop another pathogenic virus.
He really said he wouldn't stand in the way if such a bill bipartisanly made it through both houses of congress and landed on his desk. And, true, not exactly a sentiment that his 'We need a nation of Minutemen, ready to take up arms' uncle would be particularly proud of, but I think there was an air of (such a bill will not pass bipartisanly) to be read between the lines in his statement as well. He is, after all, trying to unite the disenfranchized fringes of the left and the right, and one of those groups has been feeding at the 'guns are the source of all our woes' trough for decades, so there's likely some pandering in there. 'Gun control won't fix the problem' is about as true of a statement as he could get away with making on the issue. Based on everything else he's been saying, I'm willing to make some assumptions on the rest.
So you think he would veto such bill if it was passed by Dem majority? He also said he would increase mental health and background checks, which is a stance supported by most gun owners regardless of party affiliation.