Silicon Valley money men are buzzing about Robert F. Kennedy Jr(wsj.com)
wsj.com
Silicon Valley money men are buzzing about Robert F. Kennedy Jr
https://www.wsj.com/articles/silicon-valley-money-men-are-buzzing-about-robert-f-kennedy-jr-3b5dea5e
102 comments
I liked Krugman using RFK as a reflecting glass from which we could observe & understand the rich. The Rich are Crazier than You And Me:
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/06/opinion/robert-kennedy-jr...
Krugman's emphasis on reflexive contrarianism in this writeup is a powerful illumination of an incredibly potent, present, & chaotic energy of our times.
Krugman spends more time talking about Tech Bro ideology than RFK, but I think it's pretty great & tells a real story about a sizable chunk of the world (by dollar value at least). For a much long writeup with much more RFK in it & with less laser targeted West Coast ideology focus, Michelle Goldberg's RFK and the Coalition of the Distrustful is another smash hit. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/30/opinion/robert-f-kennedy-...
Krugman's emphasis on reflexive contrarianism in this writeup is a powerful illumination of an incredibly potent, present, & chaotic energy of our times.
Krugman spends more time talking about Tech Bro ideology than RFK, but I think it's pretty great & tells a real story about a sizable chunk of the world (by dollar value at least). For a much long writeup with much more RFK in it & with less laser targeted West Coast ideology focus, Michelle Goldberg's RFK and the Coalition of the Distrustful is another smash hit. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/30/opinion/robert-f-kennedy-...
Krugman's analytical and predictive record leave much to be desired.
I've yet to find a single prediction he made that was accurate in hindsight. I do however, recall this brilliant prediction, among many others:
"The growth of the Internet will slow drastically, as the flaw in ‘Metcalfe’s law’—which states that the number of potential connections in a network is proportional to the square of the number of participants—becomes apparent: most people have nothing to say to each other! By 2005 or so, it will become clear that the Internet’s impact on the economy has been no greater than the fax machine’s."
I've yet to find a single prediction he made that was accurate in hindsight. I do however, recall this brilliant prediction, among many others:
"The growth of the Internet will slow drastically, as the flaw in ‘Metcalfe’s law’—which states that the number of potential connections in a network is proportional to the square of the number of participants—becomes apparent: most people have nothing to say to each other! By 2005 or so, it will become clear that the Internet’s impact on the economy has been no greater than the fax machine’s."
This probably makes me sound really bad, but does someone with the speech issues he has really stand a chance at the presidency?
I know his health isn't under his control, and it isn't cool to judge someone because of it...but, as humans, we do, and for someone whose job is to clearly communicate his ideas and inspire with words...he seems to fall short here.
I know his health isn't under his control, and it isn't cool to judge someone because of it...but, as humans, we do, and for someone whose job is to clearly communicate his ideas and inspire with words...he seems to fall short here.
He is currently polling at 20% amongst democrats and has a higher favorability rating than either Biden or Trump in some polls. All this while facing an unrelenting smear campaign by powerful media interests.
Despite his voice issues, his message seems to be resonating amongst Democrats, Independents and even Republicans. He is the only candidate who seems to be gaining support across the political spectrum.
I think his message of peace and diplomacy over endless interventionist wars and healing the divide are gaining traction.
Let's just hope the powers that be don't decide to give him lead poisoning like they did his uncle and his father.
Despite his voice issues, his message seems to be resonating amongst Democrats, Independents and even Republicans. He is the only candidate who seems to be gaining support across the political spectrum.
I think his message of peace and diplomacy over endless interventionist wars and healing the divide are gaining traction.
Let's just hope the powers that be don't decide to give him lead poisoning like they did his uncle and his father.
> I think his message of peace and diplomacy over endless interventionist wars and healing the divide are gaining traction.
It's the right message at the wrong time. It sure sounds noble, "peace". But as an ally to a defending party, it essentially means leaving Ukraine to fend for themselves against Russia's invasion - which would actually be expanding the war. I've made many attempts at following these arguments that Russia is somehow a reluctant party here, and they just never add up. They're always full of assertions hyperlinked to supporting posts that don't actually check out as being true. (But if you don't dig, I can see how they would be persuasive)
And just for reference, I was against the Iraq War even before the invasion. I routinely call the US an "empire". I've been generally against the casual US meddling in various foreign countries that is now characterized as the "forever war". But I also understand that it's fallacious to focus on the US as the only possible aggressor, and this situation seems like a straightforward case of Ukraine wanting to avoid being re-subjugated by the Russian empire by choosing to align with the looser business empire of the West. If anything, all of these narratives against helping Ukraine by echoing criticisms of the Iraq War just feel like more terrible consequences of that misadventure.
I am all for peace and ending the war in Ukraine. But this is not an American political issue, but rather a Russian one.
It's the right message at the wrong time. It sure sounds noble, "peace". But as an ally to a defending party, it essentially means leaving Ukraine to fend for themselves against Russia's invasion - which would actually be expanding the war. I've made many attempts at following these arguments that Russia is somehow a reluctant party here, and they just never add up. They're always full of assertions hyperlinked to supporting posts that don't actually check out as being true. (But if you don't dig, I can see how they would be persuasive)
And just for reference, I was against the Iraq War even before the invasion. I routinely call the US an "empire". I've been generally against the casual US meddling in various foreign countries that is now characterized as the "forever war". But I also understand that it's fallacious to focus on the US as the only possible aggressor, and this situation seems like a straightforward case of Ukraine wanting to avoid being re-subjugated by the Russian empire by choosing to align with the looser business empire of the West. If anything, all of these narratives against helping Ukraine by echoing criticisms of the Iraq War just feel like more terrible consequences of that misadventure.
I am all for peace and ending the war in Ukraine. But this is not an American political issue, but rather a Russian one.
"It's the right message at the wrong time."
I respect your position but I firmly disagree. This war was never about saving Ukraine. It is and has always been a proxy war between two super-powers - primarily focused on weakening Russia and seeking regime change. [0]
The US and NATO provide arms and funding while the young men of Ukraine are being killed at a rate of 7-1 vs Russia, with nothing to show for it but 300k dead Ukrainian young men.
"I am all for peace and ending the war in Ukraine. But this is not an American political issue, but rather a Russian one."
I am also for peace and ending the war in Ukraine - and I don't excuse the inexcusable actions of Putin.
However, we need to get past the comic book depictions of US/NATO = Good, Russia = evil, and look at the world from the perspective of our opponent if we are ever to end the vicious cycle of endless wars.
Russia repeatedly made it clear that bringing Ukraine into NATO was a red-line. Putting nuclear-capable US stinger missiles on Russia's border, 400 miles from Moscow able to decapitate their leadership in minutes was always a non-starter. It doesn't excuse Putin's invasion, but it does explain it somewhat. Imagine if Russia had nuclear capable missiles on the US border, say in Canada or Mexico. We would invade in a second.
There are no good guys in war, only lies and propaganda from both sides. I want to see an end to the bloodshed and that requires us to seek peace over escalation. The only winners in war are those who make the guns and bombs.
[0] https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2023/04/18/...
https://archive.is/0pGKh
I respect your position but I firmly disagree. This war was never about saving Ukraine. It is and has always been a proxy war between two super-powers - primarily focused on weakening Russia and seeking regime change. [0]
The US and NATO provide arms and funding while the young men of Ukraine are being killed at a rate of 7-1 vs Russia, with nothing to show for it but 300k dead Ukrainian young men.
"I am all for peace and ending the war in Ukraine. But this is not an American political issue, but rather a Russian one."
I am also for peace and ending the war in Ukraine - and I don't excuse the inexcusable actions of Putin.
However, we need to get past the comic book depictions of US/NATO = Good, Russia = evil, and look at the world from the perspective of our opponent if we are ever to end the vicious cycle of endless wars.
Russia repeatedly made it clear that bringing Ukraine into NATO was a red-line. Putting nuclear-capable US stinger missiles on Russia's border, 400 miles from Moscow able to decapitate their leadership in minutes was always a non-starter. It doesn't excuse Putin's invasion, but it does explain it somewhat. Imagine if Russia had nuclear capable missiles on the US border, say in Canada or Mexico. We would invade in a second.
There are no good guys in war, only lies and propaganda from both sides. I want to see an end to the bloodshed and that requires us to seek peace over escalation. The only winners in war are those who make the guns and bombs.
[0] https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2023/04/18/...
https://archive.is/0pGKh
The definition of "proxy war" hinges upon being instigated by another party. Every narrative I've seen about Russia being some reluctant participant is full of holes or based on innuendo. If missiles were the problem, then why not attack those military assets and leave it at that? Having lost so much influence with your neighbor that they're cozying up to another sphere of influence to protect themselves still doesn't create a justification to conquer them, regardless of whether you call yourself a super/great power or not.
Without the US instigating the war, heavy support (including intelligence sharing anyone with half a clue knew was going on) still does not constitute a proxy war. Like many narratives, "proxy war" falls apart under scrutiny. But it does sound edgy and contrarian if you don't examine it too closely.
I do agree that there are some terrible realpolitik incentives here. The US isn't doing this solely for freedom and democracy, just like it wasn't in Iraq, regardless of the advertising for both. But that doesn't mean that Ukraine itself cannot be benefiting. Based on experiences of people who fled the previous Russian ("Soviet") empire, I can certainly see why they would choose this despite the cost.
> seek peace over escalation
This is the complete wrong framing for the defensive side of a war. Deescalating defense means that Russia will escalate attacks. I too had been lured by the hope that military might was becoming less relevant. But now Russia's actions have demonstrated that the peace we had (and still have, for the most part) is a product of military might.
Without the US instigating the war, heavy support (including intelligence sharing anyone with half a clue knew was going on) still does not constitute a proxy war. Like many narratives, "proxy war" falls apart under scrutiny. But it does sound edgy and contrarian if you don't examine it too closely.
I do agree that there are some terrible realpolitik incentives here. The US isn't doing this solely for freedom and democracy, just like it wasn't in Iraq, regardless of the advertising for both. But that doesn't mean that Ukraine itself cannot be benefiting. Based on experiences of people who fled the previous Russian ("Soviet") empire, I can certainly see why they would choose this despite the cost.
> seek peace over escalation
This is the complete wrong framing for the defensive side of a war. Deescalating defense means that Russia will escalate attacks. I too had been lured by the hope that military might was becoming less relevant. But now Russia's actions have demonstrated that the peace we had (and still have, for the most part) is a product of military might.
The first casualty in war is the truth - and this applies to both sides.
I don't expect to convince you that you may have been mislead about the origins of this war, but I will nonetheless try.
The war didn't start in 2019, or even 2014, but in 2014 the US Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland, was recorded plotting the overthrow of the democratically elected leadership of Ukraine and deciding who would replace him as was reported by the BBC, Reuters, Washington Post, NPR and NBC. [0][1][2][3]
Before you respond with a counter-claim that Russia did something bad first thus justifiying the coup, I will concede that they may very well have done so, but this only proves my point that this is nothing more than an ongoing proxy war between these super-powers that has now gone from covert to kinetic.
I fail to see how anyone can claim this is anything but a proxy war.
[0] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26079957
[1] https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-usa-ukraine-tape/leaked-a...
https://archive.is/EMGcA
[2] https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/in-pu...
https://archive.is/WFmZJ
[3] https://www.nbcnews.com/video/audio-of-leaked-nuland-convers...
I don't expect to convince you that you may have been mislead about the origins of this war, but I will nonetheless try.
The war didn't start in 2019, or even 2014, but in 2014 the US Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland, was recorded plotting the overthrow of the democratically elected leadership of Ukraine and deciding who would replace him as was reported by the BBC, Reuters, Washington Post, NPR and NBC. [0][1][2][3]
Before you respond with a counter-claim that Russia did something bad first thus justifiying the coup, I will concede that they may very well have done so, but this only proves my point that this is nothing more than an ongoing proxy war between these super-powers that has now gone from covert to kinetic.
I fail to see how anyone can claim this is anything but a proxy war.
[0] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26079957
[1] https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-usa-ukraine-tape/leaked-a...
https://archive.is/EMGcA
[2] https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/in-pu...
https://archive.is/WFmZJ
[3] https://www.nbcnews.com/video/audio-of-leaked-nuland-convers...
> I fail to see how anyone can claim this is anything but a proxy war.
Russia themselves talks about unifying Russia and how "1991" was a tragedy (1991 being when Ukraine got its independence) in their victory article that they mistakenly posted shortly after the war started.
They don't mention a coup, or NATO or anything else.
But don't take my word for it, take theres.
https://web.archive.org/web/20220226051154/https://ria.ru/20...
>> Russia is restoring its unity - the tragedy of 1991, this terrible catastrophe of our history, its unnatural dislocation, have been overcome. Yes, at a high price, yes, through the tragic events of the virtual civil war, because now brothers separated by belonging to the Russian and Ukrainian armies are still shooting at each other - but Ukraine will no longer be anti-Russia. Russia is restoring its historical fullness by gathering the Russian world, the Russian people together - in its entirety of Great Russians, Belarusians and Little Russians. If we had abandoned this, allowed temporary division to gain a foothold for centuries, we would not only betray the memory of our ancestors, but would also be cursed by our descendants - for allowing the collapse of the Russian land.
Russia themselves talks about unifying Russia and how "1991" was a tragedy (1991 being when Ukraine got its independence) in their victory article that they mistakenly posted shortly after the war started.
They don't mention a coup, or NATO or anything else.
But don't take my word for it, take theres.
https://web.archive.org/web/20220226051154/https://ria.ru/20...
>> Russia is restoring its unity - the tragedy of 1991, this terrible catastrophe of our history, its unnatural dislocation, have been overcome. Yes, at a high price, yes, through the tragic events of the virtual civil war, because now brothers separated by belonging to the Russian and Ukrainian armies are still shooting at each other - but Ukraine will no longer be anti-Russia. Russia is restoring its historical fullness by gathering the Russian world, the Russian people together - in its entirety of Great Russians, Belarusians and Little Russians. If we had abandoned this, allowed temporary division to gain a foothold for centuries, we would not only betray the memory of our ancestors, but would also be cursed by our descendants - for allowing the collapse of the Russian land.
I can see that you have studied this subject so I'm sure you can agree the real reasons here are multiple, complex and nuanced. They didn't invade for a single reason. Reality is more complicated.
The Russians also went to the UN in 2022 with evidence claiming the US was funding multiple bioweapons labs across Ukraine - a claim that the west laughed off at the time but the US later begrudgingly admitted to having funded 46 such labs in Ukraine, over fears they would fall into Russian hands - calling them simply biolabs. RFK Jr actually alluded to this on video in the exchange that led to the NY Post and NY Times articles mentioned up thread. [0][1][2][3][4][5]
Again, the first casualty in war is the truth - applies to both sides
While Russia may have justified the invasion as restoring its unity, particularly regarding Russian-speaking Donbass and Crimea regions. It is clear that they also felt threatened by the prospect of hostile forces equipped with nuclear capable armaments and potential bio-weapons on their border only 450kms (280 miles) from their capital.
The simplistic US=100% Good, Russia=100% Evil rhetoric must stop. It is leading us towards WWIII. A negotiated peace and de-escalation plan is the only sane path forward for humanity. We need to stop feeding the war machine and start genuinely seeking diplomatic solutions.
[0] https://twitter.com/ANTlWEF/status/1680476815993741312?s=20
[1] https://twitter.com/i_Beth1/status/1671394045996974080?s=20
[2] https://global.chinadaily.com.cn/a/202304/14/WS6438b13ea3105...
[3] https://www.globalvillagespace.com/moscow-provides-more-evid...
[4] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QsZ9iv7VKIs
[5] https://twitter.com/DavidKnestrick/status/168137344186410600...
The Russians also went to the UN in 2022 with evidence claiming the US was funding multiple bioweapons labs across Ukraine - a claim that the west laughed off at the time but the US later begrudgingly admitted to having funded 46 such labs in Ukraine, over fears they would fall into Russian hands - calling them simply biolabs. RFK Jr actually alluded to this on video in the exchange that led to the NY Post and NY Times articles mentioned up thread. [0][1][2][3][4][5]
Again, the first casualty in war is the truth - applies to both sides
While Russia may have justified the invasion as restoring its unity, particularly regarding Russian-speaking Donbass and Crimea regions. It is clear that they also felt threatened by the prospect of hostile forces equipped with nuclear capable armaments and potential bio-weapons on their border only 450kms (280 miles) from their capital.
The simplistic US=100% Good, Russia=100% Evil rhetoric must stop. It is leading us towards WWIII. A negotiated peace and de-escalation plan is the only sane path forward for humanity. We need to stop feeding the war machine and start genuinely seeking diplomatic solutions.
[0] https://twitter.com/ANTlWEF/status/1680476815993741312?s=20
[1] https://twitter.com/i_Beth1/status/1671394045996974080?s=20
[2] https://global.chinadaily.com.cn/a/202304/14/WS6438b13ea3105...
[3] https://www.globalvillagespace.com/moscow-provides-more-evid...
[4] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QsZ9iv7VKIs
[5] https://twitter.com/DavidKnestrick/status/168137344186410600...
> RFK Jr actually alluded to this on video in the exchange that led to the NY Post and NY Times articles mentioned up thread.
Id stop mentioning RFK Jr he actually legitimately reduces the credibility of what you're trying to asert.
> While Russia may have justified the invasion as restoring its unity, particularly regarding Russian-speaking Donbass and Crimea regions. It is clear that they also felt threatened by the prospect of hostile forces equipped with nuclear capable armaments and potential bio-weapons on their border only 450kms (280 miles) from their capital.
So why is this never mentioned in their victory article? they only never mention the way worse justification or absorbing Ukraine into Russia as part of it.
> The simplistic US=100% Good, Russia=100% Evil rhetoric must stop. It is leading us towards WWIII. A negotiated peace and de-escalation plan is the only sane path forward for humanity. We need to stop feeding the war machine and start genuinely seeking diplomatic solutions.
A negotiated peace is possible and quite easy, Russia leaves all of Ukraine and retreats to its 1991 border and never comes back.
Here's the problem, Russia doesn't want peace they want to claim parts of Ukraine and conquer the country as whole.
Id stop mentioning RFK Jr he actually legitimately reduces the credibility of what you're trying to asert.
> While Russia may have justified the invasion as restoring its unity, particularly regarding Russian-speaking Donbass and Crimea regions. It is clear that they also felt threatened by the prospect of hostile forces equipped with nuclear capable armaments and potential bio-weapons on their border only 450kms (280 miles) from their capital.
So why is this never mentioned in their victory article? they only never mention the way worse justification or absorbing Ukraine into Russia as part of it.
> The simplistic US=100% Good, Russia=100% Evil rhetoric must stop. It is leading us towards WWIII. A negotiated peace and de-escalation plan is the only sane path forward for humanity. We need to stop feeding the war machine and start genuinely seeking diplomatic solutions.
A negotiated peace is possible and quite easy, Russia leaves all of Ukraine and retreats to its 1991 border and never comes back.
Here's the problem, Russia doesn't want peace they want to claim parts of Ukraine and conquer the country as whole.
(responding to the sister comment)
"Id stop mentioning RFK Jr he actually legitimately reduces the credibility of what you're trying to asert."
If it wasn't already clear, I support RFK Jr and hold his foreign policy in high regard. I also deeply respect his principled approach to telling American voters the truth. Uncomfortable truths are often unpopular at first, but being genuine is an important part of healing the divide. I hold those who are willing to speak uncomfortable truths in high regard and I suspect many others do as well.
"So why is this never mentioned in their victory article? they only never mention the way worse justification or absorbing Ukraine into Russia as part of it."
I can't speak for Russian leadership as I don't claim to know their motives or intent. Might it be possible, as is verifiably true in the case of the US funded bio-labs as well as the nuclear-capable Stinger missiles, that they did raise these issues, but our captured western media failed to report it? Have you read any Russian media accounts, or only what comes filtered through western media?
Notably, all Russian media was banned in the west at the start of this war. What we call Russian propaganda, they call news - and vice versa.
"A negotiated peace is possible and quite easy, Russia leaves all of Ukraine and retreats to its 1991 border and never comes back."
I notice that you didn't mention any concessions from either the Ukraine or NATO.
I don't see how Russia agreeing to the unilateral terms you outlined would satisfy their concerns over the potential of a NATO aligned state on their border so close to their capital. How do you see this negotiating strategy playing out? Why would Russia concede? Are they running out of ammunition? According to Biden, we certainly are or else we wouldn't be sending cluster munitions as a last resort.
"Here's the problem, Russia doesn't want peace they want to claim parts of Ukraine and conquer the country as whole."
It seems you believe you know their motivations better than I do. However, the best way to find out would be to call for a cease-fire and to get both sides back to the negotiating table so we can find a way forward via diplomacy instead of an endless unwinnable war.
"Id stop mentioning RFK Jr he actually legitimately reduces the credibility of what you're trying to asert."
If it wasn't already clear, I support RFK Jr and hold his foreign policy in high regard. I also deeply respect his principled approach to telling American voters the truth. Uncomfortable truths are often unpopular at first, but being genuine is an important part of healing the divide. I hold those who are willing to speak uncomfortable truths in high regard and I suspect many others do as well.
"So why is this never mentioned in their victory article? they only never mention the way worse justification or absorbing Ukraine into Russia as part of it."
I can't speak for Russian leadership as I don't claim to know their motives or intent. Might it be possible, as is verifiably true in the case of the US funded bio-labs as well as the nuclear-capable Stinger missiles, that they did raise these issues, but our captured western media failed to report it? Have you read any Russian media accounts, or only what comes filtered through western media?
Notably, all Russian media was banned in the west at the start of this war. What we call Russian propaganda, they call news - and vice versa.
"A negotiated peace is possible and quite easy, Russia leaves all of Ukraine and retreats to its 1991 border and never comes back."
I notice that you didn't mention any concessions from either the Ukraine or NATO.
I don't see how Russia agreeing to the unilateral terms you outlined would satisfy their concerns over the potential of a NATO aligned state on their border so close to their capital. How do you see this negotiating strategy playing out? Why would Russia concede? Are they running out of ammunition? According to Biden, we certainly are or else we wouldn't be sending cluster munitions as a last resort.
"Here's the problem, Russia doesn't want peace they want to claim parts of Ukraine and conquer the country as whole."
It seems you believe you know their motivations better than I do. However, the best way to find out would be to call for a cease-fire and to get both sides back to the negotiating table so we can find a way forward via diplomacy instead of an endless unwinnable war.
(Responding to the sister comment)
I suppose I shouldn't be surprised that when you run out of effective arguments you simply resort to ad-hominem attacks against RFK Jr and now me.
I'll have to agree to disagree with your assessment of us, as eloquent as it was.
Regarding the Stinger Missile Defense System the US provided Ukraine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FIM-92_Stinger, it is capable of carrying nuclear warheads that could hit Moscow in single digit minutes from the Ukrainian border. Tell me you would be ok with that if you were in Russia's shoes.
"Have you read anything that isn't just straight Russian propaganda?."
I don't speak Russian and I get my news almost exclusively from western sources. The difference between you and I is that I understand that everyone lies when it comes to war, even the "Good Guys(TM)" - so I dig deeper, question the official narrative (on both sides) and try to discern the truth as best I can through the fog of war.
"Why should Ukraine cede anything? they are slowing winning the war."
I'm sorry, you don't seem to grasp the reality that Ukraine is quickly running out of men willing to fight and die in this senseless trench war or the fact that per Biden's own admission, the US and NATO are out of ammunition which is why they are sending cluster bombs as a weapon of last resort.
Also, even the mainstream western media narrative is beginning to recognize that "Ukraine and the West are facing a devastating defeat" [0]
"Why do you reply in a way that makes it impossible to follow the conversation thread?."
I'm sorry. I try to be as clear and articulate as possible. Could it be that in a concerted effort not to try and understand my arguments which may conflict with your existing worldview, your reading comprehension and cognitive skills have been negatively impacted?
[0] https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/07/18/ukraine-and-the-...
https://archive.is/3r6GK
I suppose I shouldn't be surprised that when you run out of effective arguments you simply resort to ad-hominem attacks against RFK Jr and now me.
I'll have to agree to disagree with your assessment of us, as eloquent as it was.
Regarding the Stinger Missile Defense System the US provided Ukraine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FIM-92_Stinger, it is capable of carrying nuclear warheads that could hit Moscow in single digit minutes from the Ukrainian border. Tell me you would be ok with that if you were in Russia's shoes.
"Have you read anything that isn't just straight Russian propaganda?."
I don't speak Russian and I get my news almost exclusively from western sources. The difference between you and I is that I understand that everyone lies when it comes to war, even the "Good Guys(TM)" - so I dig deeper, question the official narrative (on both sides) and try to discern the truth as best I can through the fog of war.
"Why should Ukraine cede anything? they are slowing winning the war."
I'm sorry, you don't seem to grasp the reality that Ukraine is quickly running out of men willing to fight and die in this senseless trench war or the fact that per Biden's own admission, the US and NATO are out of ammunition which is why they are sending cluster bombs as a weapon of last resort.
Also, even the mainstream western media narrative is beginning to recognize that "Ukraine and the West are facing a devastating defeat" [0]
"Why do you reply in a way that makes it impossible to follow the conversation thread?."
I'm sorry. I try to be as clear and articulate as possible. Could it be that in a concerted effort not to try and understand my arguments which may conflict with your existing worldview, your reading comprehension and cognitive skills have been negatively impacted?
[0] https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/07/18/ukraine-and-the-...
https://archive.is/3r6GK
>> Regarding the Stinger Missile Defense System the US provided Ukraine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FIM-92_Stinger, it is capable of carrying nuclear warheads that could hit Moscow in single digit minutes from the Ukrainian border.
I see from your link that Stinger is a light shoulder-fired weapon that has a warhead of 3 kg and range of 8 km. How should that carry a nuclear warhead to Moscow?
I see from your link that Stinger is a light shoulder-fired weapon that has a warhead of 3 kg and range of 8 km. How should that carry a nuclear warhead to Moscow?
It doesn't. I was mistaken. Apologies, I'm not an expert on arms capabilities and I mixed up my arms in haste.
Ukraine does now have French SCALP cruise missiles that are nuclear capable, with a stated range of 160 miles (250kms) - not enough to decapitate Moscow, but close enough to be pretty threatening. [0]
[0] https://www.armscontrol.org/act/2005-05/ukraine-admits-missi...
Ukraine does now have French SCALP cruise missiles that are nuclear capable, with a stated range of 160 miles (250kms) - not enough to decapitate Moscow, but close enough to be pretty threatening. [0]
[0] https://www.armscontrol.org/act/2005-05/ukraine-admits-missi...
> If it wasn't already clear, I support RFK Jr and hold his foreign policy in high regard. I also deeply respect his principled approach to telling American voters the truth. Uncomfortable truths are often unpopular at first, but being genuine is an important part of healing the divide. I hold those who are willing to speak uncomfortable truths in high regard and I suspect many others do as well.
You can go ahead and support a raving lunatic if you want but it doesn't stop him being a raving lunatic and a non credible source.
He doesn't speak uncomfortable truths he is an idiot.
> I can't speak for Russian leadership as I don't claim to know their motives or intent. Might it be possible, as is verifiably true in the case of the US funded bio-labs as well as the nuclear-capable Stinger missiles, that they did raise these issues, but our captured western media failed to report it? Have you read any Russian media accounts, or only what comes filtered through western media?
I can't tell if you're purposely saying stuff that literally makes no sense or if you are trying to use it as a propaganda tactic.
What in christ is a nuclear stinger missile?.
> Have you read any Russian media accounts, or only what comes filtered through western media?
Have you read anything that isn't just straight Russian propaganda?.
> Notably, all Russian media was banned in the west at the start of this war. What we call Russian propaganda, they call news - and vice versa.
What we call propaganda is literally Russian propaganda never forget these "news" outlets are the same places that gave you following real headlines
"Why Russia won't invade Ukraine"
"Ukrainian black magic battalions"
"Ukrainian super soldier"
> I notice that you didn't mention any concessions from either the Ukraine or NATO. I don't see how Russia agreeing to the unilateral terms you outlined would satisfy their concerns over the potential of a NATO aligned state on their border so close to their capital. How do you see this negotiating strategy playing out? Why would Russia concede? Are they running out of ammunition? According to Biden, we certainly are or else we wouldn't be sending cluster munitions as a last resort.
Maybe they would negotiate stop things exploding in Russia and Crimea so often?, to stop losing soldiers?.
> It seems you believe you know their motivations better than I do. However, the best way to find out would be to call for a cease-fire and to get both sides back to the negotiating table so we can find a way forward via diplomacy instead of an endless unwinnable war.
Russia benefits from a cease-fire allowing them to rearm.
Russia has already agreed multiple times to respect the sovereignty of Ukraine and to withdraw their troops back to their own border, they never did.
The only negotiations that should take place are when Russia is back in Russia.
Why should Ukraine cede anything? they are slowing winning the war.
Why do you reply in a way that makes it impossible to follow the conversation thread?.
You can go ahead and support a raving lunatic if you want but it doesn't stop him being a raving lunatic and a non credible source.
He doesn't speak uncomfortable truths he is an idiot.
> I can't speak for Russian leadership as I don't claim to know their motives or intent. Might it be possible, as is verifiably true in the case of the US funded bio-labs as well as the nuclear-capable Stinger missiles, that they did raise these issues, but our captured western media failed to report it? Have you read any Russian media accounts, or only what comes filtered through western media?
I can't tell if you're purposely saying stuff that literally makes no sense or if you are trying to use it as a propaganda tactic.
What in christ is a nuclear stinger missile?.
> Have you read any Russian media accounts, or only what comes filtered through western media?
Have you read anything that isn't just straight Russian propaganda?.
> Notably, all Russian media was banned in the west at the start of this war. What we call Russian propaganda, they call news - and vice versa.
What we call propaganda is literally Russian propaganda never forget these "news" outlets are the same places that gave you following real headlines
"Why Russia won't invade Ukraine"
"Ukrainian black magic battalions"
"Ukrainian super soldier"
> I notice that you didn't mention any concessions from either the Ukraine or NATO. I don't see how Russia agreeing to the unilateral terms you outlined would satisfy their concerns over the potential of a NATO aligned state on their border so close to their capital. How do you see this negotiating strategy playing out? Why would Russia concede? Are they running out of ammunition? According to Biden, we certainly are or else we wouldn't be sending cluster munitions as a last resort.
Maybe they would negotiate stop things exploding in Russia and Crimea so often?, to stop losing soldiers?.
> It seems you believe you know their motivations better than I do. However, the best way to find out would be to call for a cease-fire and to get both sides back to the negotiating table so we can find a way forward via diplomacy instead of an endless unwinnable war.
Russia benefits from a cease-fire allowing them to rearm.
Russia has already agreed multiple times to respect the sovereignty of Ukraine and to withdraw their troops back to their own border, they never did.
The only negotiations that should take place are when Russia is back in Russia.
Why should Ukraine cede anything? they are slowing winning the war.
Why do you reply in a way that makes it impossible to follow the conversation thread?.
Responding to the sister comment by user lisasays
"The young men of Ukraine are being killed at a rate of 7-1 vs Russia, with nothing to show for it but 300k dead Ukrainian young men."
"You have this information from where, exactly?"
The 7 to 1 casualty rate came from the classified US military documents that were leaked in April 2023 [1] These documents were leaked to a Discord channel and have now been scrubbed from the internet.
The 300k casualty estimate was attributed to Scott Ritter, a former United Nations Special Commission weapons inspector for the US [1]
It should come as no surprise that these statistics are not being widely shared in the media but rather they have gone to great lengths to suppress this information. If more people knew what a meat-grinder this war is for Ukrainian solders, it might lead many to conclude that continuing to escalate the conflict is a misguided idea.
[0] https://apnews.com/article/leaked-documents-classified-russi...
[1] https://tass.com/world/1601683
"The young men of Ukraine are being killed at a rate of 7-1 vs Russia, with nothing to show for it but 300k dead Ukrainian young men."
"You have this information from where, exactly?"
The 7 to 1 casualty rate came from the classified US military documents that were leaked in April 2023 [1] These documents were leaked to a Discord channel and have now been scrubbed from the internet.
The 300k casualty estimate was attributed to Scott Ritter, a former United Nations Special Commission weapons inspector for the US [1]
It should come as no surprise that these statistics are not being widely shared in the media but rather they have gone to great lengths to suppress this information. If more people knew what a meat-grinder this war is for Ukrainian solders, it might lead many to conclude that continuing to escalate the conflict is a misguided idea.
[0] https://apnews.com/article/leaked-documents-classified-russi...
[1] https://tass.com/world/1601683
> The 7 to 1 casualty rate came from the classified US military documents that were leaked in April 2023 [1] These documents were leaked to a Discord channel and have now been scrubbed from the internet.
You are unfortunately quoting a fake numbered that originated from a poorly photoshopped version of the legitimate documents. The real numbers are as follows.
Russia 35.4k - 43.5k KIA
Ukraine 16.0k - 17.5k KIA
https://twitter.com/yarotrof/status/1644226867623280641
> The 300k casualty estimate was attributed to Scott Ritter, a former United Nations Special Commission weapons inspector for the US [1]
Scott Ritter is also a twice convicted pedophile and a pro Russian propagandist.
> [1] https://tass.com/world/1601683
A yes it makes sense now your source is literally just Russian Propaganda.
You are unfortunately quoting a fake numbered that originated from a poorly photoshopped version of the legitimate documents. The real numbers are as follows.
Russia 35.4k - 43.5k KIA
Ukraine 16.0k - 17.5k KIA
https://twitter.com/yarotrof/status/1644226867623280641
> The 300k casualty estimate was attributed to Scott Ritter, a former United Nations Special Commission weapons inspector for the US [1]
Scott Ritter is also a twice convicted pedophile and a pro Russian propagandist.
> [1] https://tass.com/world/1601683
A yes it makes sense now your source is literally just Russian Propaganda.
As I've said repeatedly, the first casualty of war is the truth - applies to both sides.
"You are unfortunately quoting a fake numbered that originated from a poorly photoshopped version of the legitimate documents."
I have no doubt that spokespeople from the US may have made this unsubstantiated claim, but unless they share the legitimate documents publicly how can we confirm they are telling the truth? If the truth were as they claim, it would add significantly to their credibility to share this with the media.
However, the fact that none of the media who did see the leaks ever shared the details of those leaks, and actively dissuaded anyone from looking for themselves, lends me to believe there were inconvenient facts in those leaks that the US did not want to be shared with the public.
"Scott Ritter is also a twice convicted pedophile and a pro Russian propagandist."
I don't know if the claim that he is a twice convicted pedophile is true or not - but I'll tell you about another convicted pedophile who definitely didn't kill himself. His name was Jeffrey Epstein and he was also convicted of trafficking underage girls to a bunch of anonymous rich dudes who have never been charged, but I'm sure they will be any day now because our legal system is honest and true and they would never lie to you
"A yes it makes sense now your source is literally just Russian Propaganda."
In war it's all propaganda, on both sides. Just for the record, the US is better at propaganda than the Russians. We have Hollywood which convinced us all that the CIA never does wrong, never spies on Americans (except that Snowden thing) and never overthrows democratically elected leaders (only dictators like Saddam Hussein - who we funded and armed to fight Iran, whose democratically elected government we also overthrew. See also, most of Latin America)
"You are unfortunately quoting a fake numbered that originated from a poorly photoshopped version of the legitimate documents."
I have no doubt that spokespeople from the US may have made this unsubstantiated claim, but unless they share the legitimate documents publicly how can we confirm they are telling the truth? If the truth were as they claim, it would add significantly to their credibility to share this with the media.
However, the fact that none of the media who did see the leaks ever shared the details of those leaks, and actively dissuaded anyone from looking for themselves, lends me to believe there were inconvenient facts in those leaks that the US did not want to be shared with the public.
"Scott Ritter is also a twice convicted pedophile and a pro Russian propagandist."
I don't know if the claim that he is a twice convicted pedophile is true or not - but I'll tell you about another convicted pedophile who definitely didn't kill himself. His name was Jeffrey Epstein and he was also convicted of trafficking underage girls to a bunch of anonymous rich dudes who have never been charged, but I'm sure they will be any day now because our legal system is honest and true and they would never lie to you
"A yes it makes sense now your source is literally just Russian Propaganda."
In war it's all propaganda, on both sides. Just for the record, the US is better at propaganda than the Russians. We have Hollywood which convinced us all that the CIA never does wrong, never spies on Americans (except that Snowden thing) and never overthrows democratically elected leaders (only dictators like Saddam Hussein - who we funded and armed to fight Iran, whose democratically elected government we also overthrew. See also, most of Latin America)
> As I've said repeatedly, the first casualty of war is the truth - applies to both sides.
You keep repeating this buts its meaningless, you won't even accept you got duped by Russian propaganda.
I literally posted a link to the obviously photoshopped number and the original side by side.
The only person trying to make the truth a causality is you.
> I have no doubt that spokespeople from the US may have made this unsubstantiated claim, but unless they share the legitimate documents publicly how can we confirm they are telling the truth? If the truth were as they claim, it would add significantly to their credibility to share this with the media.
You seemed to be very certain about the authenticity of your claim, which in reality only exists in a poorly photoshopped low resolution copy of the original document.
if you look at both those images side by side and seriously believe the Russian propaganda document is the original then I you don't exist in reality.
Its so obvious a toddler could spot it.
> However, the fact that none of the media who did see the leaks ever shared the details of those leaks, and actively dissuaded anyone from looking for themselves, lends me to believe there were inconvenient facts in those leaks that the US did not want to be shared with the public.
What are you on about?, Ive seen many articles and references to the documents all over the place.
You're now trying to deflect after your complete rubbish 7:1 claim was proven to just be straight up Russian propaganda (funny how lots of your views mirror the Kremlins).
The inconvenient truth is that Ukraine has lost a lot of people and vehicles but the Russians have lost a lot more.
It never was taken down from the internet, now you either intentionally lied or were not capable of finding a copy of course which took me less then five minutes.
> I don't know if the claim that he is a twice convicted pedophile is true or not.
It is.
You keep repeating this buts its meaningless, you won't even accept you got duped by Russian propaganda.
I literally posted a link to the obviously photoshopped number and the original side by side.
The only person trying to make the truth a causality is you.
> I have no doubt that spokespeople from the US may have made this unsubstantiated claim, but unless they share the legitimate documents publicly how can we confirm they are telling the truth? If the truth were as they claim, it would add significantly to their credibility to share this with the media.
You seemed to be very certain about the authenticity of your claim, which in reality only exists in a poorly photoshopped low resolution copy of the original document.
if you look at both those images side by side and seriously believe the Russian propaganda document is the original then I you don't exist in reality.
Its so obvious a toddler could spot it.
> However, the fact that none of the media who did see the leaks ever shared the details of those leaks, and actively dissuaded anyone from looking for themselves, lends me to believe there were inconvenient facts in those leaks that the US did not want to be shared with the public.
What are you on about?, Ive seen many articles and references to the documents all over the place.
You're now trying to deflect after your complete rubbish 7:1 claim was proven to just be straight up Russian propaganda (funny how lots of your views mirror the Kremlins).
The inconvenient truth is that Ukraine has lost a lot of people and vehicles but the Russians have lost a lot more.
It never was taken down from the internet, now you either intentionally lied or were not capable of finding a copy of course which took me less then five minutes.
> I don't know if the claim that he is a twice convicted pedophile is true or not.
It is.
> This war was never about saving Ukraine. It is and has always been a proxy war between two super-powers
Well that's a blatant False Dichotomy
It's not one or the other, it can be, and in fact almost certainly is, Both.
Well that's a blatant False Dichotomy
It's not one or the other, it can be, and in fact almost certainly is, Both.
The young men of Ukraine are being killed at a rate of 7-1 vs Russia, with nothing to show for it but 300k dead Ukrainian young men.
You have this information from where, exactly?
You have this information from where, exactly?
His source is literally a Russian propaganda photoshop of a legitimate leak. You can see both versions at the following link.
https://twitter.com/yarotrof/status/1644226867623280641
He claims its been wiped from the net but thats not anywhere near true, it very much exists and is very obviously photoshop.
https://twitter.com/yarotrof/status/1644226867623280641
He claims its been wiped from the net but thats not anywhere near true, it very much exists and is very obviously photoshop.
Thanks - it pretty much had to be something like that.
I was waiting for a conspiracy theory to be woven in there, and you didn’t disappoint.
Please share, what is the conspiracy theory you reference?
Did you know the term "conspiracy theory" was literally invented by the CIA to smear anyone who dared to question the official narrative about the JFK assassination?
There is ample evidence in recently released documents on the JFK assassination that Lee Harvey Oswald was working with the CIA before the assassination. [1][2]
Does anyone honestly believe that Oswald acted alone? Do you still believe that we invaded Iraq because they had WMD?
[1] https://theintercept.com/2022/12/19/lee-harvey-oswald-cia-ls...
[2] https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/16/us/politics/biden-jfk-ass...
Did you know the term "conspiracy theory" was literally invented by the CIA to smear anyone who dared to question the official narrative about the JFK assassination?
There is ample evidence in recently released documents on the JFK assassination that Lee Harvey Oswald was working with the CIA before the assassination. [1][2]
Does anyone honestly believe that Oswald acted alone? Do you still believe that we invaded Iraq because they had WMD?
[1] https://theintercept.com/2022/12/19/lee-harvey-oswald-cia-ls...
[2] https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/16/us/politics/biden-jfk-ass...
> The earliest known usage was by the American author Charles Astor Bristed, in a letter to the editor published in The New York Times on January 11, 1863. He used it to refer to claims that British aristocrats were intentionally weakening the United States during the American Civil War in order to advance their financial interests.
Those damn CIA time travelers.
Those damn CIA time travelers.
Just because someone used a phrase earlier doesn’t mean todays usage traces back to then.
It is possible it was used in the 1860s and fell out of use and was popularized by the CIA at the time of JFKs assassination
It is possible it was used in the 1860s and fell out of use and was popularized by the CIA at the time of JFKs assassination
I stand corrected on the origin of the term but I stand by the claim that it was weaponized by the CIA to counter those who questioned the official JFK assassination narrative.
Here is the 1967 CIA dispatch on the Warren Commission with details:
https://steemit.com/history/@thelastheretik/cia-coined-and-w...
Here is the 1967 CIA dispatch on the Warren Commission with details:
https://steemit.com/history/@thelastheretik/cia-coined-and-w...
Popularized.
That distinction hamstrings hundreds of otherwise valid conversations on the topic.
That distinction hamstrings hundreds of otherwise valid conversations on the topic.
A lot of people regularly bash Trump and Biden for being old so I'd imagine they won't have issues with RFK.
"the rich SV people I so desperately admire are excited about RFKJr so I will be too" is exactly the hackernews take I expected and got, especially from that lowkey bootlicker.
To be fair, I went down the RFK Jr rabbit hole before he went on the All-in podcast - so thought leader? It’s no secret I am a huge fan of him, not so much the rich VC schmucks tho.
A candidate unredeemable except as a pass-around-rube for billionaires and hostile nations, cool.
The he's clearly the wrong candidate for the everyday men.
I listened to him on Lex and Joe Rogan podcasts. I went from from one end of the spectrum on him to the other in the span of one episode. I started expecting him to be a total crackpot and was surprised at how sensible his ideas were and how clearly he articulated them. I would totally vote for this guy, seems way better than Biden or Trump.
I recommend just listening to him with an open mind, seems pretty nice.
I recommend just listening to him with an open mind, seems pretty nice.
This guy? Are you sure? https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2023/07/rfk-jr-covid-ethnica...
I read his response, seemed pretty reasonable to me.
https://twitter.com/RobertKennedyJr/status/16802273225096355...
>I have never, ever suggested that the COVID-19 virus was targeted to spare Jews. I accurately pointed out — during an off-the-record conversation — that the U.S. and other governments are developing ethnically targeted bioweapons and that a 2021 study of the COVID-19 virus shows that COVID-19 appears to disproportionately affect certain races since the furin cleave docking site is most compatible with Blacks and Caucasians and least compatible with ethnic Chinese, Finns, and Ashkenazi Jews.
https://twitter.com/RobertKennedyJr/status/16802273225096355...
>I have never, ever suggested that the COVID-19 virus was targeted to spare Jews. I accurately pointed out — during an off-the-record conversation — that the U.S. and other governments are developing ethnically targeted bioweapons and that a 2021 study of the COVID-19 virus shows that COVID-19 appears to disproportionately affect certain races since the furin cleave docking site is most compatible with Blacks and Caucasians and least compatible with ethnic Chinese, Finns, and Ashkenazi Jews.
C'mon, that's disingenuous bullshit.
> I have never, ever suggested that the COVID-19 virus was targeted to spare Jews.
You can't say (and these are his own words from the video) "COVID-19 is targeted to attack Caucasians and black people. The people who are most immune are Ashkenazi Jews and Chinese." and then claim the second sentence has no link to the first.
> I have never, ever suggested that the COVID-19 virus was targeted to spare Jews.
You can't say (and these are his own words from the video) "COVID-19 is targeted to attack Caucasians and black people. The people who are most immune are Ashkenazi Jews and Chinese." and then claim the second sentence has no link to the first.
On the video [0] you can clearly hear him say that he knows a lot about bioweapons because he has been writing a book on the subject for the past 2.5 years.
I will assume good faith on your part and therefore infer that you missed the line at 0:30 seconds into the video, immediately before your quote begins where he says "There is an argument that .."
There is a huge difference between saying "He claims ..." and saying "He claims there is an argument that ..."
It also appears you missed the rest of what he said after you ended your quote, specifically,
"We don't know if it was deliberately targeted or not but there are papers out there that show the racial and ethnic differential - and the impact of that. We do know that the Chinese are investing hundreds of millions of dollars to develop bioweapons and that we are investing hundreds of millions of dollars developing bioweapons. That's what all those labs in the Ukraine are about. They are collecting Russian DNA. They are collecting Chinese DNA so we can target people by race."
The full quote is therefore, (adding the missing context in italics)
"There is an argument that COVID-19 is ethnically targeted. It attacks certain races disproportionately. The races that are most immune to COVID-19 are, because of the genetic differentials among different races of the receptors - of the ACE-2 receptor, COVID-19 is targeted to attack Caucasians and Black people. The people who are most immune are Ashkenazi Jews and Chinese - but we don't know if it was deliberately targeted or not but there are papers out there that show the racial and ethnic differential - and the impact of that. We do know that the Chinese are investing hundreds of millions of dollars to develop bioweapons and that we are investing hundreds of millions of dollars developing bioweapons. That's what all those labs in the Ukraine are about. They are collecting Russian DNA. They are collecting Chinese DNA so we can target people by race. "
Reading the full quote in context, it is clear he is citing this study [1] which backs up his claims about the differential impact of COVID-19 by race. He also makes it clear in the full quote that "we don't know if it was done intentionally or not"
He was clearly mis-quoted out of context in the article. Reading the full quote in context, it is not at all the damning statement you believe it to be.
[0] https://twitter.com/ANTlWEF/status/1680476815993741312?s=20
[1] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32664879/
I will assume good faith on your part and therefore infer that you missed the line at 0:30 seconds into the video, immediately before your quote begins where he says "There is an argument that .."
There is a huge difference between saying "He claims ..." and saying "He claims there is an argument that ..."
It also appears you missed the rest of what he said after you ended your quote, specifically,
"We don't know if it was deliberately targeted or not but there are papers out there that show the racial and ethnic differential - and the impact of that. We do know that the Chinese are investing hundreds of millions of dollars to develop bioweapons and that we are investing hundreds of millions of dollars developing bioweapons. That's what all those labs in the Ukraine are about. They are collecting Russian DNA. They are collecting Chinese DNA so we can target people by race."
The full quote is therefore, (adding the missing context in italics)
"There is an argument that COVID-19 is ethnically targeted. It attacks certain races disproportionately. The races that are most immune to COVID-19 are, because of the genetic differentials among different races of the receptors - of the ACE-2 receptor, COVID-19 is targeted to attack Caucasians and Black people. The people who are most immune are Ashkenazi Jews and Chinese - but we don't know if it was deliberately targeted or not but there are papers out there that show the racial and ethnic differential - and the impact of that. We do know that the Chinese are investing hundreds of millions of dollars to develop bioweapons and that we are investing hundreds of millions of dollars developing bioweapons. That's what all those labs in the Ukraine are about. They are collecting Russian DNA. They are collecting Chinese DNA so we can target people by race. "
Reading the full quote in context, it is clear he is citing this study [1] which backs up his claims about the differential impact of COVID-19 by race. He also makes it clear in the full quote that "we don't know if it was done intentionally or not"
He was clearly mis-quoted out of context in the article. Reading the full quote in context, it is not at all the damning statement you believe it to be.
[0] https://twitter.com/ANTlWEF/status/1680476815993741312?s=20
[1] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32664879/
"but we don't know if it was deliberately targeted or not [...] They are collecting Chinese DNA so we can target people by race"
He is very clearly doing the "wink to audience" dance in this paragraph. Yes, it gives him plausible deniability because he hasn't come out and explicitly said that C19 is ethnically targeted but he's following the Tucker Carlson and Glenn Beck "just asking questions and pointing things out and look, if the audience take something more away from that WINKS TO AUDIENCE what can I do?" bullshit.
He is very clearly doing the "wink to audience" dance in this paragraph. Yes, it gives him plausible deniability because he hasn't come out and explicitly said that C19 is ethnically targeted but he's following the Tucker Carlson and Glenn Beck "just asking questions and pointing things out and look, if the audience take something more away from that WINKS TO AUDIENCE what can I do?" bullshit.
I may be wrong here, and you are certainly entitled to your own opinion. In my mind he isn't doing a nefarious "wink to audience" or as some might say a "dog whistle."
Instead he is genuinely saying that we don't know one way or the other but we should be open to the possibility of either option. One could, of course take a more cynical view and maybe that is the right course of action in a potentially adversarial situation such as this.
To be fair, the same argument could be made of the US and their 46 recently acknowledged biolabs in the Ukraine alone. We have many others around the world. I'm not an expert in adversarial bio-warfare or geopolitics so I can't say for sure what the right course of action.
I do however, love a statement he made in response to a question he was once asked by a reporter on how he would handle the potential of China invading Taiwan under his presidency.
His response was: "Strategic Ambiguity" in other words recognize the threat, prepare for the threat, but don't show your hand too early so as to keep your opponent on it's toes.
On a related note, RFK Jr. has, in my opinion, a truly novel view on how to engage with China in general. In his view, China is not interested in taking on the US in either a hot or cold war, and would prefer to compete with us on an economic rather than a military theater of engagement. In his view, and in mine, how you engage with your 'enemy' can have an enormous impact on how they choose to respond.
If the US under RFK Jr. were to signal that we also have no interest in engaging militarily against China but instead that we wish to compete with them for economic dominance - well then we might just teach each other how to be good free market competitors, competing on the basis of hard work, productivity and innovation.
As we look to compete with our rivals in AI, the next likely competitive threat - I would hope that this sort of framing would lend itself better to a China-US and even a global alignment on a policy framework that prevents an AI apocalypse.
Instead he is genuinely saying that we don't know one way or the other but we should be open to the possibility of either option. One could, of course take a more cynical view and maybe that is the right course of action in a potentially adversarial situation such as this.
To be fair, the same argument could be made of the US and their 46 recently acknowledged biolabs in the Ukraine alone. We have many others around the world. I'm not an expert in adversarial bio-warfare or geopolitics so I can't say for sure what the right course of action.
I do however, love a statement he made in response to a question he was once asked by a reporter on how he would handle the potential of China invading Taiwan under his presidency.
His response was: "Strategic Ambiguity" in other words recognize the threat, prepare for the threat, but don't show your hand too early so as to keep your opponent on it's toes.
On a related note, RFK Jr. has, in my opinion, a truly novel view on how to engage with China in general. In his view, China is not interested in taking on the US in either a hot or cold war, and would prefer to compete with us on an economic rather than a military theater of engagement. In his view, and in mine, how you engage with your 'enemy' can have an enormous impact on how they choose to respond.
If the US under RFK Jr. were to signal that we also have no interest in engaging militarily against China but instead that we wish to compete with them for economic dominance - well then we might just teach each other how to be good free market competitors, competing on the basis of hard work, productivity and innovation.
As we look to compete with our rivals in AI, the next likely competitive threat - I would hope that this sort of framing would lend itself better to a China-US and even a global alignment on a policy framework that prevents an AI apocalypse.
I'm pretty OK not being open to the possibility that COVID-19 was deliberately developed as a weapon against certain races, in the same way that I'm OK not being open to the possibility that the world is flat.
We don't actually have to give all possible opinions even footing.
We don't actually have to give all possible opinions even footing.
Can you expand on what it is you think his goal is in your scenario? Cause I can't think of one that makes any sense.
> Can you expand on what it is you think his goal is in your scenario?
Fund raising for his vanity campaign. Attracting votes from Trump-adjacent voters who may have buyer's remorse from 2016 but still want a lunatic conspiracy candidate. The same goals as anyone spouting this kind of dog whistling nonsense.
Fund raising for his vanity campaign. Attracting votes from Trump-adjacent voters who may have buyer's remorse from 2016 but still want a lunatic conspiracy candidate. The same goals as anyone spouting this kind of dog whistling nonsense.
Ok so in your mind he's courting the anti-semite vote by using coded language to claim that what, the jews and chinese are in cahoots against white and black people? In an off the record discussion, why not just come out and say that if it was actually his point?
He put out a public response with someone that is very pro Israel right after, which seems like it would torpedo his chances with the anti-semites.
One of the thing's that's going to hurt him in the polls the most I think is actually his very pro Israel stance. It's funny to see people try to paint him as an anti semite at the same time.
He put out a public response with someone that is very pro Israel right after, which seems like it would torpedo his chances with the anti-semites.
One of the thing's that's going to hurt him in the polls the most I think is actually his very pro Israel stance. It's funny to see people try to paint him as an anti semite at the same time.
This is an extremely cynical take IMO. Coupled with an ad-hominem "lunatic conspiracy candidate" reference. It's a low-value comment, not worthy of HN.
gloryjulio(1)
I have spoken here today about India's race with Red China. We want India to win that race. We want India to be a free and thriving leader of a free and thriving Asia. But if our interest appears to be purely selfish, anti-Communist and part of the Cold War – if it appears to the Indian people that our motives are purely political – then we shall play into the hands of Communist and neutralist propagandists, cruelly distort America's image abroad, and undo much of the psychological effect that we expect from our generosity. - JFK
For a foreigner like me, Robert F Kennedy's political ideas does seem like a breath of fresh air among the current crop of stale US politicians and their stunted political values. He seems to be the only one who recognizes that the US needs to fix its fractured polity and reach some semblance of political understanding with the opposition (unlike others who think it is "unfixable") and end the "us" vs "them" narration that both major party's now increasingly depend on. His subscription to JFK's political vision and values and his pragmatic pacifist-leaning ideas are obviously welcome in a world increasingly divided. As JFK noted:
The Free World cannot shame Russia and China into freedom – but it can inspire democracy to enrich its own freedoms. Freedom's banner will be vindicated or lost not by the test of military strength alone – but by the purity and passion of our commitment to democracy, by our dedication to the advancing hopes of new nations, and by our determination to prove that freedom can lift the haggard burden of poverty from desolate lands. We have not yet conquered the frontiers of fear. But neither have we yet fully explored the horizons of hope. - JFK
(JFK source - https://www.jfklibrary.org/archives/other-resources/john-f-k... ).
If this nutjob gets the DNC nomination, Trump is going to look like the better choice, even if he has to carry out his term in a prison cell.
America is really going off the deep end.
America is really going off the deep end.
What makes you think he is a "nut job"? And how do you justify making baseless ad-hominem attacks instead of coherent arguments against his proposed policies or positions. Isn't that kind of smear better suited to Reddit? It is certainly against the Guidelines of this site. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Promoting the idea that vaccines cause autism is more that sufficient to be a nut-job. This isn't a "baseless ad-hominem attack", this is well-known about this fruitcake. And that's just one of the insane conspiracy theories he pushes.
He didn't seek them out. RFK is a big name in his fights against big pharma, and a group of mothers petitioned their case to him. He was skeptical, but based on the evidence presented before him and their lived experience, he turned those concerned mother's into a voting base he represents.
Everyone deserves political representation, including mother's with autistic children
> What makes you think he is a "nut job"? And how do you justify making baseless ad-hominem attacks instead of coherent arguments against his proposed policies or positions. Isn't that kind of smear better suited to Reddit? It is certainly against the Guidelines of this site. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
He thinks wifi causes cancer and leaky brains. He doesn't think AIDs is caused by HIV .
He thinks wifi causes cancer and leaky brains. He doesn't think AIDs is caused by HIV .
Unlike other controversial topics he has espoused an opinion on, I personally haven’t researched either of those topics so I can be honest with myself and say that I don’t have an informed opinion on either.
I can say on other topics he discusses where I am well informed, his positions have always turned out to be well researched, genuine, and logically articulated.
This is true even on topics where I disagree with his positions. While we may disagree, I can understand why he may hold his differing views and they alway seem genuine, logical and well reasoned.
Unlike many other politicians, he doesn’t make policy decisions based on opinion polls or by parroting the talking points of wealthy donors. His views are genuinely his own, come from a good place and are always well thought out.
That is why I am willing to give this man the benefit of the doubt and actively listen to his point of view in his own words - even when what he says doesn’t fit my current worldview.
I often learn something new about the issue by listening to him with an open mind. I like that in a candidate and a leader.
While I haven’t yet read his book about AIDS and HIV, I do have it on my shelf and fully intend to read it. The book is a best seller, despite getting virtually zero press coverage or reviews from the mainstream media.
Also, the book in question, “The Real Anthony Fauci: Bill Gates, Big Pharma and the Global War on Democracy and Public Health” literally calls out Fauci - a notable figure, Bill Gates - a billionaire also a notable figure, and Big Pharma - a notoriously well-funded and litigious group, all in the title.
I understand the book makes numerous seemingly outrageous and disparaging claims against all these people and groups. I find it particularly notable that he has never been sued for slander over any of the claims in his book by any of them.
Why do you think that is? Could it be that the reason for this is that one can only sue for slander in the US if the claims can be proven to be false?
Perhaps none of these parties want to take the chance of suing and losing to Kennedy due to the negative attention they would receive if their lawsuits failed for lack of evidence to support a slander suit?
It certainly isn’t due to a lack of access to lawyers. In the case of Gates and Big Pharma I would wager they would love to sue him even if it cost them millions just to bankrupt the man in years of litigation. The fact that they haven’t lends me to believe they have absolutely no case because all his claims are well-researched and easily verifiable as true - and so they are unwilling to take him on even if they do outgun him monetarily by 1000 to 1 or more.
Because of these reasons, I am willing to be open-minded in the case of seemingly outlandish claims made by a person who has repeatedly demonstrated exceptional courage, integrity and intelligence.
No other candidate meets that high bar which is why, as unlikely as it may appear, I am also unwilling to rule out the possibility of Robert F. Kennedy becoming America’s next and best president.
You may call me a dreamer, but I’m not the only one. I hope someday that RFK Jr sits in the Oval Office - and the world will be as one.
#HealTheDivide
I can say on other topics he discusses where I am well informed, his positions have always turned out to be well researched, genuine, and logically articulated.
This is true even on topics where I disagree with his positions. While we may disagree, I can understand why he may hold his differing views and they alway seem genuine, logical and well reasoned.
Unlike many other politicians, he doesn’t make policy decisions based on opinion polls or by parroting the talking points of wealthy donors. His views are genuinely his own, come from a good place and are always well thought out.
That is why I am willing to give this man the benefit of the doubt and actively listen to his point of view in his own words - even when what he says doesn’t fit my current worldview.
I often learn something new about the issue by listening to him with an open mind. I like that in a candidate and a leader.
While I haven’t yet read his book about AIDS and HIV, I do have it on my shelf and fully intend to read it. The book is a best seller, despite getting virtually zero press coverage or reviews from the mainstream media.
Also, the book in question, “The Real Anthony Fauci: Bill Gates, Big Pharma and the Global War on Democracy and Public Health” literally calls out Fauci - a notable figure, Bill Gates - a billionaire also a notable figure, and Big Pharma - a notoriously well-funded and litigious group, all in the title.
I understand the book makes numerous seemingly outrageous and disparaging claims against all these people and groups. I find it particularly notable that he has never been sued for slander over any of the claims in his book by any of them.
Why do you think that is? Could it be that the reason for this is that one can only sue for slander in the US if the claims can be proven to be false?
Perhaps none of these parties want to take the chance of suing and losing to Kennedy due to the negative attention they would receive if their lawsuits failed for lack of evidence to support a slander suit?
It certainly isn’t due to a lack of access to lawyers. In the case of Gates and Big Pharma I would wager they would love to sue him even if it cost them millions just to bankrupt the man in years of litigation. The fact that they haven’t lends me to believe they have absolutely no case because all his claims are well-researched and easily verifiable as true - and so they are unwilling to take him on even if they do outgun him monetarily by 1000 to 1 or more.
Because of these reasons, I am willing to be open-minded in the case of seemingly outlandish claims made by a person who has repeatedly demonstrated exceptional courage, integrity and intelligence.
No other candidate meets that high bar which is why, as unlikely as it may appear, I am also unwilling to rule out the possibility of Robert F. Kennedy becoming America’s next and best president.
You may call me a dreamer, but I’m not the only one. I hope someday that RFK Jr sits in the Oval Office - and the world will be as one.
#HealTheDivide
https://twitter.com/patriottakes/status/1671161500495646724
There is no excuse for this, and there is no excuse for making excuses for this.
There is no excuse for this, and there is no excuse for making excuses for this.
[deleted]
[deleted]
Why does everybody do this? RFK talks about some study or the results of some lawsuit, and then people convert that into "he thinks/believes xyz, what a kook".
None of the things that people claim he believes (as far as I've seen anyway) are things that he just dreamed up in his head. They always tie back to something that somebody else published. That doesn't mean the claim in question is correct of course, but it does mean that you're being pretty sloppy when you say things like "He thinks wifi causes cancer and leaky brains. He doesn't think AIDs is caused by HIV ."
It wouldn't bother me if people said "he repeats things from studies that I dont believe, what a kook" or "he misinterprets studies, what a kook". Saying "he thinks/believes xyz" is weak sauce imho.
None of the things that people claim he believes (as far as I've seen anyway) are things that he just dreamed up in his head. They always tie back to something that somebody else published. That doesn't mean the claim in question is correct of course, but it does mean that you're being pretty sloppy when you say things like "He thinks wifi causes cancer and leaky brains. He doesn't think AIDs is caused by HIV ."
It wouldn't bother me if people said "he repeats things from studies that I dont believe, what a kook" or "he misinterprets studies, what a kook". Saying "he thinks/believes xyz" is weak sauce imho.
I'm taking some downvotes for this one, but honestly, for the folks that really don't like RFK, you're doing yourselves a disservice by lobbing out shallow critiques like this.
It ends up having the opposite effect when someone goes and sees his long form interviews and they realize that his positions don't match up with these little dismissals. If you're not going to be a better critic of the guy, I think you risk helping his cause.
It ends up having the opposite effect when someone goes and sees his long form interviews and they realize that his positions don't match up with these little dismissals. If you're not going to be a better critic of the guy, I think you risk helping his cause.
nubinetwork(1)
After hearing the man in his own words, instead of listening to what the media tells us to think, I am convinced that Robert F. Kennedy Jr is the most authentic candidate to run in recent history.
His strong stance against the endless interventionist wars. His incredible track record of accomplishments for the environment and his plans to reform the corruption and revolving doors between our federal institutions such as the FDA and Big Pharma have created powerful enemies amongst the richest corporate elites.
Unlike other politicians who only regurgitate talking points fed to them by mega-donors, he has opened the Overton window and finally made it possible for us to openly discuss many of the root causes behind our country's deepest problems.
His strong stance against the endless interventionist wars. His incredible track record of accomplishments for the environment and his plans to reform the corruption and revolving doors between our federal institutions such as the FDA and Big Pharma have created powerful enemies amongst the richest corporate elites.
Unlike other politicians who only regurgitate talking points fed to them by mega-donors, he has opened the Overton window and finally made it possible for us to openly discuss many of the root causes behind our country's deepest problems.
I'm not going to comment on the downvotes as that would be boring. Instead, I would like to ask for feedback on my comment above.
What specifically do people disagree with?
What specifically do people disagree with?
[deleted]
You should apply for his campaign.
We hear this every election cycle.
You know what’s changed history?
Public non-compliance.
That’s it; the only effort that’s ever output a rethought social contract.
Any President will be hamstrung by helicopter parents in Congress and in SCOTUS who of course no what’s best for their stock portfol… public freedom of agency.
Joe Manchin was carrying on about preserving American heritage; these dudes all collide out of view to ask their handlers what sound bites play best.
The whole thing is a behavioral economics scheme. Make all the elite landlords walk the plank or feel there’s a serious risk of that about to happen and only then will things change from top to bottom.
I’m cool with an obligation to “United States.” Not to any specific elites and politicians.
We hear this every election cycle.
You know what’s changed history?
Public non-compliance.
That’s it; the only effort that’s ever output a rethought social contract.
Any President will be hamstrung by helicopter parents in Congress and in SCOTUS who of course no what’s best for their stock portfol… public freedom of agency.
Joe Manchin was carrying on about preserving American heritage; these dudes all collide out of view to ask their handlers what sound bites play best.
The whole thing is a behavioral economics scheme. Make all the elite landlords walk the plank or feel there’s a serious risk of that about to happen and only then will things change from top to bottom.
I’m cool with an obligation to “United States.” Not to any specific elites and politicians.
If you're going to post, please review the site guidelines at https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html, and if you can't participate in the intended spirit, please wait until you can.
If other commenters break the site guidelines, the tools to use are downvotes, flags, and (in egregious cases) [email protected]. Please don't react by breaking the site guidelines yourself; that only makes everything worse.