You never answered my question Re his policies that don’t align with the Democratic Party. He’s pro vaccine safety. Re the blood brain barrier, perhaps it’s not that crazy. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19345073/
he thinks that vaccines cause autism, brother! pro vaccine safety is a clear dogwhistle. you don't need to be pro safety on something that is near-universally safe. if you describe yourself as "pro armchair safety", that means that somebody's putting spikes on the chairs. the tactic of hiding behind "I'm just asking questions, further research is needed into the issue" is cowardly and is made without evidence on the actual position being taken. there is no evidence that vaccines cause or are linked to autism, but RFK JR has been saying it for decades. now he's repeating the canard that endocrine disruptors in the water are causing feminization and transgender-ization. there's no evidence that this is the case. why is he suggesting that "research should be done?" to seed the ground for calling transness artificial, man-made, and a medical illness. if i come out on stage and suggest that being molested as a child actually has hidden health benefits and that further research should be done, i don't get to say that I'm just asking questions. it would be obvious that i am a pedophile trying to drum up support. but it's easy to see that pedophilia is wrong, and apparently much harder to see that when it's about autists and trannies
This conversation started with someone asking why I thought Kennedy is a dem. I see no reason to think he isn’t based on his policy proposals. Anti war, anti surveillance state, pro free speach etc. Re vaccination, he’s admitted to being fully vaccinated and having vaccinated his children. From one of his town halls: He’s not wrong Re the FDA/Pharma revolving door.I’ve never been anti-vaccine, and I’ve said that hundreds and hundreds of times but it doesn’t matter,” Kennedy told NewsNation host Elizabeth Vargas in a town hall Wednesday. “Because that is a way of silencing me. Using a pejorative to describe me is a way of silencing me or marginalizing me.”
He continued: “We have a corrupt federal agency. It’s lying to the AMA, to you, to all of those agencies and all of the doctors. They believe them. Those agencies are controlled by pharma. That is the problem and that’s what I’m trying to end as president.”
if he's fully vaccinated and so are his kids, and he also believes vaccines are unsafe and cause autism, etc, doesn't that make him both a hypocrite and an idiot? using a pejorative to describe somebody? it's just what he continually and publically espouses. it's not a pejorative, it's a descriptor. if you think it makes you marginalized to have what you say be described, then that should tell you something about what you're saying
Because every other Democrat thinks that parroting insane conspiracy theories is disqualifying. And asking honestly, even if Kennedy's other policies were standard Democrat fare, what about him is better than Biden ?? How is this less baggage ??
A great example of conspiracy theories being disqualifying for dems is how nobody took Marianne Williamson seriously once all the "healing crystals" stuff hit the fan. And afaik, that was the only conspiracy-adjacent thing she espoused. For the republican party, believing in conspiracy is a requirement. The crazier, the better. I had to look up RFK's policies, because he never talks about them. They're relatively democrat-centrist, from what I can find. Some even sound progressive. But all he talks about are conspiracies. THAT is republican. And so is being "anti-war" while also advocating to bomb and/or invade Mexico. I'd love to hear RFK Jr. be asked that question. I can add legit source links to this thread all day. We can't just watch the candidates lie to us in debates or interviews and trust everyone on the basis of how charismatic they are.
I interviewed Henry Lai for an hour once. I needed information for a screenplay on how, exactly, one would communicate with the brain via non-invasive methods. He was, at the time, the guy to talk to about cell phone radiation. Might still be, I dunno; it was 20-odd years ago. And 20-odd years ago, it was an uncontested fact that radiation had an impact on the brain. What kind of impact? Inconclusive. Dude brought up a dozen studies for me, some saying it made you stupider, some saying it made you smarter. Some saying it caused headaches, some saying it cured them. Lai's spitball take was that heating up a muscle increases blood flow, heating up the brain increases blood flow, increased blood flow is a catalyst, not a reactant. Here's some science. Cell phone radiation is advertised as SAR - Specific Absorption Rate. That's a "how bright is your lightbulb" measurement; the amount of light/heat that falls on your body is a function of how far away you are. In the US, a cell phone must put out no more power than 1.6W/kg - as in, holding the phone up to your head, the whole of your brain, all 1300g of it, can absorb no more than 2W. On the other hand, your wifi router puts out about 100mW. It, of course, is subject to spherical decay and the inverse square law. Most emission is given in terms of 1w/1m and then given in dB; any given conventional loudspeaker will lose 6dB per doubling of distance. So a 120dB Marshall stack from 3 feet away? is 114dB at 6 feet, 108dB at 12 feet, etc. 3dB is a doubling of power; a 6dB loss reflects a power level 25% as strong. Of your 500W Marshall stack, 125W is there at 6 feet, 31W is there at 12 feet, 8W is there at 24 feet, etc. I am currently six feet from a Unifi hot-spot. It's prosumer/B2B shit; it puts out 200mW. Sitting here typing I am receiving 0.05 watts off it. Should my phone ring? And I hold it up to my head? I will be receiving about 1.5W. This is just algebra. It doesn't require much in the way of specialist knowledge; a little googling goes a long way. Now, you tell me - does RFK have a cell phone?