It would seem as if concerns about RFK have flipped again...

[ThatRobGuy]

Will RFK Jr. and other third-party candidates help doom democracy?

It’s tough to break the partisan duopoly without empowering spoilers.

www.motherjones.com

Don’t Ask RFK Jr. About Being a Spoiler (Published 2024)

An interview with the independent candidate threatening to change the election’s course.

www.nytimes.com

Should we care about RFK Jr. and his new running mate?

The Kennedy conspiracy theorist, his VP pick Nicole Shanahan, and their potential to upend the 2024 presidential election, explained.

www.vox.com

Back when he first announced, the prevailing theory among Republicans was that he'd split the democratic vote.

Democrats, at that time, largely rejected/downplayed that notion, and suggested that due to his stances on Ukraine and vaccines, he'd pull more away from Republicans (and cited selectively chosen polls to support that theory)

It now appears that the script has flipped, and some left-leaning strategists and outlets, are now expressing concerns about RFK Jr. spoiling the election for Biden due to his selection of running mate.


Per the NY Times:
This week, the Democratic National Committee formed a unit to push back against third-party candidates and independents. At the same time, a number of Biden allies have formed a super PAC called Clear Choice, which plans to do the same, signaling the seriousness of the potential impact of an outsider candidate.

One such candidate, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., is polling above 10 percent in national surveys and is well known for his family lineage.

Per Vox:
Kennedy is currently averaging about 12 percent in the polls, according to RealClearPolling. Celinda Lake, a pollster for President Joe Biden’s 2020 campaign who continues to work with the Democratic National Committee, said that’s a worrying signal for Biden, based on polling and focus groups her firm has been conducting that suggest Kennedy will pull voters from Biden.

Democrats ramp up attacks on RFK Jr.: ‘He should be ashamed of himself’

Democrats are stepping up their criticism of Robert F. Kennedy Jr. after he announced his pick of Nicole Shanahan for vice president Tuesday, arguing the duo will benefit former President Trump.&nb…

thehill.com

And it would seem those concerns were amplified by his running mate selection. He picked a philanthropist, former Democratic donor, and wealthy activist who's focused on causes of women's reproductive rights, criminal justice reform, and environmentalism.

The fact that Biden's PAC and DNC operatives are forming task forces to squash independent candidates, and putting out websites to smear RFK, it doesn't sound like the DNC is quite as confident in their earlier assertion of "nothing to worry about, he'll pull more votes away from Trump"



I think my original theory still holds up...which was that the farther and farther removed we get from the covid pandemic, the less of a deal-breaker the anti-vaxxer aspect becomes, and at the end of the day, despite his vaccine attitudes, an anti-war, pro-gay rights, environmentalist is going to pull more votes from the left than from the right. (even more true now that he has a wealthy women's reproductive rights advocate at his side as his running mate during a time when abortion is quite the hot button issue)

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

Will RFK Jr. and other third-party candidates help doom democracy?

It’s tough to break the partisan duopoly without empowering spoilers.

www.motherjones.com

Don’t Ask RFK Jr. About Being a Spoiler (Published 2024)

An interview with the independent candidate threatening to change the election’s course.

www.nytimes.com

Should we care about RFK Jr. and his new running mate?

The Kennedy conspiracy theorist, his VP pick Nicole Shanahan, and their potential to upend the 2024 presidential election, explained.

www.vox.com

Back when he first announced, the prevailing theory among Republicans was that he'd split the democratic vote.

Democrats, at that time, largely rejected/downplayed that notion, and suggested that due to his stances on Ukraine and vaccines, he'd pull more away from Republicans (and cited selectively chosen polls to support that theory)

It now appears that the script has flipped, and some left-leaning strategists and outlets, are now expressing concerns about RFK Jr. spoiling the election for Biden due to his selection of running mate.


Per the NY Times:
This week, the Democratic National Committee formed a unit to push back against third-party candidates and independents. At the same time, a number of Biden allies have formed a super PAC called Clear Choice, which plans to do the same, signaling the seriousness of the potential impact of an outsider candidate.

One such candidate, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., is polling above 10 percent in national surveys and is well known for his family lineage.

Per Vox:
Kennedy is currently averaging about 12 percent in the polls, according to RealClearPolling. Celinda Lake, a pollster for President Joe Biden’s 2020 campaign who continues to work with the Democratic National Committee, said that’s a worrying signal for Biden, based on polling and focus groups her firm has been conducting that suggest Kennedy will pull voters from Biden.

Democrats ramp up attacks on RFK Jr.: ‘He should be ashamed of himself’

Democrats are stepping up their criticism of Robert F. Kennedy Jr. after he announced his pick of Nicole Shanahan for vice president Tuesday, arguing the duo will benefit former President Trump.&nb…

thehill.com

And it would seem those concerns were amplified by his running mate selection. He picked a philanthropist, former Democratic donor, and wealthy activist who's focused on causes of women's reproductive rights, criminal justice reform, and environmentalism.

The fact that Biden's PAC and DNC operatives are forming task forces to squash independent candidates, and putting out websites to smear RFK, it doesn't sound like the DNC is quite as confident in their earlier assertion of "nothing to worry about, he'll pull more votes away from Trump"



I think my original theory still holds up...which was that the farther and farther removed we get from the covid pandemic, the less of a deal-breaker the anti-vaxxer aspect becomes, and at the end of the day, despite his vaccine attitudes, an anti-war, pro-gay rights, environmentalist is going to pull more votes from the left than from the right. (even more true now that he has a wealthy women's reproductive rights advocate at his side as his running mate during a time when abortion is quite the hot button issue)

It didn't really flip. Democrats were always concerned about a well-known Democrat running against Biden. Or anyone running against Biden, actually.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

It didn't really flip. Democrats were always concerned about a well-known Democrat running against Biden. Or anyone running against Biden, actually.

By flip, I mean pundits kept insisting (at least publicly) that it was nothing to worry about it. It seems they're publicly acknowledging now what many folks suspected months ago.

 

[essentialsaltes]

RFK Jr. had a ‘visceral’ reaction to tear-downs of Confederate statues​

Independent presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said he had a “visceral reaction against” the removal of Confederate Gen. Robert E. Lee’s statue in Charlottesville.

Speaking to podcast host Tim Pool in a “Timcast IRL” episode Friday, Kennedy — who is mounting a long-shot bid for the White House — said he doesn’t think “it’s a good, healthy thing for any culture to erase history,” when asked for his thoughts on the removal of Confederate monuments around the country.

 

[Hans Blaster]

RFK Jr. had a ‘visceral’ reaction to tear-downs of Confederate statues​

Independent presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said he had a “visceral reaction against” the removal of Confederate Gen. Robert E. Lee’s statue in Charlottesville.

Speaking to podcast host Tim Pool in a “Timcast IRL” episode Friday, Kennedy — who is mounting a long-shot bid for the White House — said he doesn’t think “it’s a good, healthy thing for any culture to erase history,” when asked for his thoughts on the removal of Confederate monuments around the country.

Pim Tool and Robert E. Lee, sure sounds like a threat to the democrats, not.

But seriously, most voters are so uninformed that any resemblance could fool them. That's why the Dem leadership is taking ol' Brain Worms as a serious threat. There is a strong tendency to blame everything bad on the current president. Take that recent poll where a notable number of Democrats blamed Biden for the overturning of Roe v. Wade. Seriously. There is a lot of poorly informed voters and both sides will need to distinguish themselves from Kennedy to keep their potential voters from drifting to the anti-vaxxer with the famous name.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

But seriously, most voters are so uninformed that any resemblance could fool them. That's why the Dem leadership is taking ol' Brain Worms as a serious threat. There is a strong tendency to blame everything bad on the current president. Take that recent poll where a notable number of Democrats blamed Biden for the overturning of Roe v. Wade. Seriously. There is a lot of poorly informed voters and both sides will need to distinguish themselves from Kennedy to keep their potential voters from drifting to the anti-vaxxer with the famous name.

That's only half of the equation.

While many were quick to chalk it up to "it's just misleading to under-informed voters because he's Kennedy" (although, I have my doubts about if that's as strong a driver as some think it is, RFK Jr and his certain conspiracy theories have been well-known for a while)

For the sake of argument, let's say that was the entire draw "a bunch of people see that he's a Kennedy, and that could make them vote for him without knowing what he's about". That aspect, alone, is quite telling... because it's indicative of the fact that some people evidently prefer the "Kennedy-era" style of Democrat as opposed to what direction the party is heading in today.

...or it could be something in the theme of "JFK, to some people, represented a time in which Democrats weren't so far left on some of the social issues"

Either way, the fact that RFK is getting the amount of press coverage he is should cause some self-reflection in the two main parties.

Low-information voters aren't a new phenomenon.

Nor do I think the totality of RFK supporters are comprised of the aforementioned.

Either people want something different than what the two parties are giving them, or (and people don't want to seem to acknowledge this), his anti-vaxxer positions aren't deal breakers in the eyes of a lot of people, and they may prioritize other issues over that.

Keep in mind, RFK was on Obama's short list of potential candidates to be appointed to head up the EPA, so clearly his oddities in other realms weren't a deal breaker in that scenario.

Let's unpackage it:
He's pro-choice (but doesn't treat abortion like some beacon of empowerment, he more resembles Clinton's safe, legal, and rare stance from the 90's)
He's gay-friendly (but has a balanced position on transgender issues, more resembling where democrats were on the issue 12 years ago)
He's under 80 and doesn't give off the "low-energy doddering old man" vibe
He has a track record on environmental action that virtually no other democrat could hold a candle to
He's in favor of police reform
He's in favor of ending the war on drugs
He favors some additional gun control measures
He's in favor of ending proxy wars
He's in favor of a mandated living wage and strengthening labor unions

...but he's also and anti-vaxxer.


Obviously the famous name doesn't hurt, but if someone's not particularly fixated on that last bit, it's not hard to see how he's siphoning off some support from moderates giving the shockingly poor quality of the two main candidates.

For me personally, I'm well aware of his wacky conspiracies on certain topics and have been for a some time... I still think I'd prefer him over the other two.

 

[Hans Blaster]

That's only half of the equation.

While many were quick to chalk it up to "it's just misleading to under-informed voters because he's Kennedy" (although, I have my doubts about if that's as strong a driver as some think it is, RFK Jr and his certain conspiracy theories have been well-known for a while)

For the sake of argument, let's say that was the entire draw "a bunch of people see that he's a Kennedy, and that could make them vote for him without knowing what he's about". That aspect, alone, is quite telling... because it's indicative of the fact that some people evidently prefer the "Kennedy-era" style of Democrat as opposed to what direction the party is heading in today.

...or it could be something in the theme of "JFK, to some people, represented a time in which Democrats weren't so far left on some of the social issues"

Either way, the fact that RFK is getting the amount of press coverage he is should cause some self-reflection in the two main parties.

Low-information voters aren't a new phenomenon.

Nor do I think the totality of RFK supporters are comprised of the aforementioned.

Either people want something different than what the two parties are giving them, or (and people don't want to seem to acknowledge this), his anti-vaxxer positions aren't deal breakers in the eyes of a lot of people, and they may prioritize other issues over that.

Let's move on to the positions:

Keep in mind, RFK was on Obama's short list of potential candidates to be appointed to head up the EPA, so clearly his oddities in other realms weren't a deal breaker in that scenario.

A position he didn't get. Since these short lists often contain names that have no real chance and are put in to please one constituency or another, I don't know what we can take from that.

Let's unpackage it:

Away we go...

He's pro-choice (but doesn't treat abortion like some beacon of empowerment, he more resembles Clinton's safe, legal, and rare stance from the 90's)

In the last few months he's been all over the place, including agreeing to back a 15-week ban (and the retracting that).

He's gay-friendly (but has a balanced position on transgender issues, more resembling where democrats were on the issue 12 years ago)

More gay-friendly than the "Freedom Caucus", sure, but so is Donald Trump. (Personally, politically Trump has agreed to let the far right have whatever they want on these issues.) In my search to discover what Kennedy believes on these issues I ran into a claim about gay/trans being (partially?) caused by chemicals in the water. I also found this (admittedly partisan) item from the Ranking Democrat on the "Weaponization" committee. (I think the GOP had Kennedy testify.)

"Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. holds beliefs that are vile, disgusting, racist, bigoted, antisemitic, anti-gay, anti-science and riddled with conspiracy theories. In other words, he is the perfect Jim Jordan witness and has been welcomed with open arms by the Republican majority. By promoting Mr. Kennedy, Republicans are deliberately providing a platform to amplify hate speech."

The ending was a kicker:

"There is no doubt Republicans would enjoy several hours of Congressional testimony from RFK, Jr. It is like watching their own personalized YouTube algorithm, and they get some plausible deniability because RFK, Jr. claims to be a Democrat."

He's under 80 and doesn't give off the "low-energy doddering old man" vibe

He does seem less listless than Trump, but as for "doddering old man" not really any better than either of them.

He has a track record on environmental action that virtually no other democrat could hold a candle to

As a lawyer suing people. That is fine, but I'm more concerned about his recent activities as a disinformation spreader.

He's in favor of police reform
He's in favor of ending the war on drugs
He favors some additional gun control measures

On these he is no doubt better than Trump or any Republican.

He's in favor of ending proxy wars

We don't have any proxy wars to end.

He's in favor of a mandated living wage and strengthening labor unions

...but he's also and anti-vaxxer.

And a spreader of other conspiracies and anti-science. Trump's indifference, confusion, and willingness to ignore facts that he didn't like from science/medicine was bad enough during the pandemic. Kennedy is far, far worse.

Obviously the famous name doesn't hurt, but if someone's not particularly fixated on that last bit, it's not hard to see how he's siphoning off some support from moderates giving the shockingly poor quality of the two main candidates.

Given how far right the GOP is, any one semi-normal seems plausible, I get that.

For me personally, I'm well aware of his wacky conspiracies on certain topics and have been for a some time... I still think I'd prefer him over the other two.

Sigh.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Let's move on to the positions:

A position he didn't get. Since these short lists often contain names that have no real chance and are put in to please one constituency or another, I don't know what we can take from that.


Away we go...

In the last few months he's been all over the place, including agreeing to back a 15-week ban (and the retracting that).

More gay-friendly than the "Freedom Caucus", sure, but so is Donald Trump. (Personally, politically Trump has agreed to let the far right have whatever they want on these issues.) In my search to discover what Kennedy believes on these issues I ran into a claim about gay/trans being (partially?) caused by chemicals in the water. I also found this (admittedly partisan) item from the Ranking Democrat on the "Weaponization" committee. (I think the GOP had Kennedy testify.)

"Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. holds beliefs that are vile, disgusting, racist, bigoted, antisemitic, anti-gay, anti-science and riddled with conspiracy theories. In other words, he is the perfect Jim Jordan witness and has been welcomed with open arms by the Republican majority. By promoting Mr. Kennedy, Republicans are deliberately providing a platform to amplify hate speech."

The ending was a kicker:

"There is no doubt Republicans would enjoy several hours of Congressional testimony from RFK, Jr. It is like watching their own personalized YouTube algorithm, and they get some plausible deniability because RFK, Jr. claims to be a Democrat."



He does seem less listless than Trump, but as for "doddering old man" not really any better than either of them.

As a lawyer suing people. That is fine, but I'm more concerned about his recent activities as a disinformation spreader.

On these he is no doubt better than Trump or any Republican.

We don't have any proxy wars to end.

And a spreader of other conspiracies and anti-science. Trump's indifference, confusion, and willingness to ignore facts that he didn't like from science/medicine was bad enough during the pandemic. Kennedy is far, far worse.

Given how far right the GOP is, any one semi-normal seems plausible, I get that.

Sigh.

It seems like you're only focusing on the points in which he could take votes from Trump, and not the areas where he could take votes from Biden.

And this thing you quoted from Connolly:
"Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. holds beliefs that are vile, disgusting, racist, bigoted, antisemitic, anti-gay, anti-science and riddled with conspiracy theories."

...is a hatchet job apart from the very last item. (and even that one is split because I'd argue that he has a better track record than either of them on environmental issues)

PolitiFact | Gerry Connolly

PolitiFact is a fact-checking website that rates the accuracy of claims by elected officials and others on its Truth-O-Meter.

www.politifact.com

Even PolitiFact doesn't give him a glowing review. Simply tossing in buzz words like "racist, antisemitic"...etc etc... is what you'd call poisoning the well.


Here's a better list (with citations)

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. on the Issues

www.ontheissues.org

Or this one

Robert Kennedy Jr.’s Policies on Social Issues

A list of 29 political views and policies made by Robert Kennedy Jr. about social issues in 2025.

www.isidewith.com

Or this one

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. pitches himself to Gen Z and Black voters

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. spoke on mental health struggles, medical discrimination and environmental racism in the Black community. Will his appeal be enough to put him on the ballot this

www.laloyolan.com

To summarize... no RFK isn't racist, sexist, homophobic, anti-gay, etc... He has views that would be considered "Mainstream Democrat" circa 1988-2008, and has a few cooky conspiracies he entertains as baggage.

 

[FireDragon76]

I don't see RFK's love of kooky conspiracy theories gaining much traction among Democrats and most Independents. It sounds more like the sort of thing that is found among the QAnon crowd.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I don't see RFK's love of kooky conspiracy theories gaining much traction among Democrats and most Independents. It sounds more like the sort of thing that is found among the QAnon crowd.

Then why is it that it's all left-leaning outlets going out of their way to do hit-pieces on him? If he threatened Trump's grasp on the GOP in any meaningful way, wouldn't we see Fox News going after him with the same vigor?

If he was going to steal more votes from Trump, I would imagine the left-leaning outlets would leave it alone.

Both parties have a vested interest in seeing their opponent's vote get split, it makes their job easier.

 

[Hans Blaster]

It seems like you're only focusing on the points in which he could take votes from Trump, and not the areas where he could take votes from Biden.

And this thing you quoted from Connolly:
"Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. holds beliefs that are vile, disgusting, racist, bigoted, antisemitic, anti-gay, anti-science and riddled with conspiracy theories."

...is a hatchet job apart from the very last item. (and even that one is split because I'd argue that he has a better track record than either of them on environmental issues)

I could tell it was a hatchet job and I just didn't care. Robert Kennedy is a questionable person at least on these issues and what one thinks of him likely depends on how you fall on the associated issues. I'm trying to remember what this thread is about and I doubt it is worth it for a dozen discussions I am not interested in having.

PolitiFact | Gerry Connolly

PolitiFact is a fact-checking website that rates the accuracy of claims by elected officials and others on its Truth-O-Meter.

www.politifact.com

Even PolitiFact doesn't give him a glowing review. Simply tossing in buzz words like "racist, antisemitic"...etc etc... is what you'd call poisoning the well.


Here's a better list (with citations)

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. on the Issues

www.ontheissues.org

That one had a few choice gems:

• Release Sirhan Sirhan; doesn't believe he shot RFK. (Jul 2023)
• JFK assassination and coverup with CIA involvement. (Jul 2023)

Then there is his putin apologetics:

• Supports Minsk accord: Independent Donbas & annexed Crimea. (Jul 2023)
• Russia's invasion of Ukraine is brutal; but not "unprovoked". (Jun 2023)

It is also a bit out of date. He has been asked tougher questions since declaring as a candidate and gives contradictory claims like the abortion ban one.

Or this one

Robert Kennedy Jr.’s Policies on Social Issues

A list of 29 political views and policies made by Robert Kennedy Jr. about social issues in 2025.

www.isidewith.com

Which was pretty useless.

Or this one

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. pitches himself to Gen Z and Black voters

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. spoke on mental health struggles, medical discrimination and environmental racism in the Black community. Will his appeal be enough to put him on the ballot this

www.laloyolan.com

A college paper fluff piece?

To summarize... no RFK isn't racist, sexist, homophobic, anti-gay, etc... He has views that would be considered "Mainstream Democrat" circa 1988-2008, and has a few cooky conspiracies he entertains as baggage.

His mind is seriously addled by his conspiracies and anti-science in ways I cannot tollerate. Separated from his minions as a free floating actor, Trump would be preferable to Kennedy. Of course, Trump comes with his X-Nat backers, but that is also the problem with Kennedy. Who are his allies? Who would be in government if he was elected?

I know who the Biden people are. They are OK. I know who the Trump associates are and they are not, but I have no clue who the allies and staffers would be for Kennedy administration. So far Kennedy has made *one* choice that can give us a clue and he chose a "autism mom" for VP. Her kid was diagnosed with autism (spectrum?) and she went down the "vaccines-cause-autism" rabbit hole. Not a good choice. (Admiral Stockdale was a better choice.)

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Then there is his putin apologetics:

• Supports Minsk accord: Independent Donbas & annexed Crimea. (Jul 2023)
• Russia's invasion of Ukraine is brutal; but not "unprovoked". (Jun 2023)

I wouldn't call that "Putin apologetics"

I would call the 2nd bullet point accurate. I know the narrative is "Russia helped Trump, so they're the ultimate bad guy in any endeavor", but it would seem progressives had no problem implementing similar rationales with regards to other conflicts. (both past and present)

Whether anyone wants to acknowledge it or not, NATO encroaching and moving closer and closer to Russian territory is a provocation.

It's interesting that LA Times was running pieces like this prior to Trump's election

Op-Ed: Russia's got a point: The U.S. broke a NATO promise

Moscow solidified its hold on Crimea in April, outlawing the Tatar legislature that had opposed Russia’s annexation of the region since 2014.

www.latimes.com

And clearly the West's involvement in Middle East affairs was chalked up as "provocation" in numerous instances.

What's different about this one? (apart from the fact that "Putin help orange man, and orange man bad")

Which was pretty useless.

His list of social policies are useless?

Aren't policies one of the key indicators for why someone would or wouldn't vote for someone?

The conversation was centered around why someone would support RFK, his positions on social issues are worthwhile when considering why that may be.

A college paper fluff piece?

As fluffy as the piece may be, his statements at that gathering negate what Connelly was claiming. (which was a claim that RFK Jr was a racist)

Statements in the vein of "the criminal justice system and the war on drugs was designed to disproportionately incarcerate black people, and every black person in jail for a non-violent drug offense should be pardoned" isn't the type of thing a "vile racist" (to use Connelly's words) would say or promote.

His mind is seriously addled by his conspiracies and anti-science in ways I cannot tollerate. Separated from his minions as a free floating actor, Trump would be preferable to Kennedy. Of course, Trump comes with his X-Nat backers, but that is also the problem with Kennedy. Who are his allies? Who would be in government if he was elected?

I know who the Biden people are. They are OK. I know who the Trump associates are and they are not, but I have no clue who the allies and staffers would be for Kennedy administration. So far Kennedy has made *one* choice that can give us a clue and he chose a "autism mom" for VP. Her kid was diagnosed with autism (spectrum?) and she went down the "vaccines-cause-autism" rabbit hole. Not a good choice. (Admiral Stockdale was a better choice.)

Which particular things do you find intolerable? Is it just the vaccine thing? His conspiracy theories about sirhan sirhan are of little consequence, so hopefully it's not that.

If someone was aligned with you on 90% of the issues, but opposed vaccines, that would be a "red line issue" in your eyes?


My point was that not everyone sees that as a "red line issue"... Covid made people "stray from the norm" in that regard. Prior to covid, anti-vaxxer attitudes were somewhat evenly split between right and left, and nobody saw it as an absolute dealbreaker when factored in with the rest of their policy positions.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Which particular things do you find intolerable? Is it just the vaccine thing? His conspiracy theories about sirhan sirhan are of little consequence, so hopefully it's not that.

His conspiracy mindedness reflects a deficient intellect. Not worth of the office.

If someone was aligned with you on 90% of the issues, but opposed vaccines, that would be a "red line issue" in your eyes?

Yep. Next man up. Leave the brain worms behind.

My point was that not everyone sees that as a "red line issue"... Covid made people "stray from the norm" in that regard. Prior to covid, anti-vaxxer attitudes were somewhat evenly split between right and left, and nobody saw it as an absolute dealbreaker when factored in with the rest of their policy positions.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

His conspiracy mindedness reflects a deficient intellect. Not worth of the office.

Actually, that topic has been studied to a degree, and as it turns out, there's no correlation between someone's overall intellect or their overall intelligence and their propensity for believing certain conspiracy theories.

Intelligence doesn’t make you immune to conspiracy theories – it’s more about thinking style

Being smart won’t protect you from falling down conspiracy rabbit holes.

theconversation.com

Yep. Next man up. Leave the brain worms behind.

You and I have had this conversation before.

Hunter Biden faces 17 years in prison after spending millions on lavish hard-partying lifestyle while dodging taxes: special counsel

You could replace "republicans" with "democrats", "Biden" with "Bush", "stole an election" with "was in on a terrorist attack", "InfoWars" with "Fahrenheit 911", and "Hunter" with "Jenna", and we're basically back in 2005. Um, to my recollection most if not all of the 9/11 conspiracy stuff...

www.christianforums.com

Hunter Biden faces 17 years in prison after spending millions on lavish hard-partying lifestyle while dodging taxes: special counsel

You could replace "republicans" with "democrats", "Biden" with "Bush", "stole an election" with "was in on a terrorist attack", "InfoWars" with "Fahrenheit 911", and "Hunter" with "Jenna", and we're basically back in 2005. Um, to my recollection most if not all of the 9/11 conspiracy stuff...

www.christianforums.com

...it was in a thread about something to do with Hunter Biden, but we got on the topic of various conspiracy theories.

So given that nearly 50% of democrats at the time were entertaining 9/11 conspiracy theories about Bush (and 25% still do)

And several prominent Democrats (including the DNC chair at the time, as well a Clinton WH secretary, and several prominent elected democrats) were helping to promote and attending an event dedicated to screening Michael Moore's movie.

...they're all disqualified from holding office by your standard, then?

 

[durangodawood]

Actually, that topic has been studied to a degree, and as it turns out, there's no correlation between someone's overall intellect or their overall intelligence and their propensity for believing certain conspiracy theories......

Wisdom is the issue, not mental computing power. I see this in one of the quotes you post:

"Being smart won’t protect you from falling down conspiracy rabbit holes."

Sure. But having wisdom, aka good judgement, will. RFK clearly lacks that.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Actually, that topic has been studied to a degree, and as it turns out, there's no correlation between someone's overall intellect or their overall intelligence and their propensity for believing certain conspiracy theories.

Intelligence doesn’t make you immune to conspiracy theories – it’s more about thinking style

Being smart won’t protect you from falling down conspiracy rabbit holes.

theconversation.com

I didn't say he was a moron, I said he had addled thinking due to his conspiracy brain worms. (The metaphorical kind)

You and I have had this conversation before.

Hunter Biden faces 17 years in prison after spending millions on lavish hard-partying lifestyle while dodging taxes: special counsel

You could replace "republicans" with "democrats", "Biden" with "Bush", "stole an election" with "was in on a terrorist attack", "InfoWars" with "Fahrenheit 911", and "Hunter" with "Jenna", and we're basically back in 2005. Um, to my recollection most if not all of the 9/11 conspiracy stuff...

www.christianforums.com

Hunter Biden faces 17 years in prison after spending millions on lavish hard-partying lifestyle while dodging taxes: special counsel

You could replace "republicans" with "democrats", "Biden" with "Bush", "stole an election" with "was in on a terrorist attack", "InfoWars" with "Fahrenheit 911", and "Hunter" with "Jenna", and we're basically back in 2005. Um, to my recollection most if not all of the 9/11 conspiracy stuff...

www.christianforums.com

...it was in a thread about something to do with Hunter Biden, but we got on the topic of various conspiracy theories.

I'm not going to go back and review those threads. It's not worth my time.

So given that nearly 50% of democrats at the time were entertaining 9/11 conspiracy theories about Bush (and 25% still do)

And several prominent Democrats (including the DNC chair at the time, as well a Clinton WH secretary, and several prominent elected democrats) were helping to promote and attending an event dedicated to screening Michael Moore's movie.

...they're all disqualified from holding office by your standard, then?

Is any one believing in a 9/11 conspiracy running for president? (Well, except Kennedy, he might, I don't know if he does or not).

And frankly I wouldn't vote for or put them in any positions of power if they espouse 9/11 (or QAnon) conspiracies. If they privately have some doubts how are we to know. If they toyed with the idea, but now dismiss it that is not nearly as big a deal as someone who contrary to all evidence and reasoning promotes such idea.

Robert Kennedy is one such person who espouses and promotes debunked and non-sensical conspiracies. I would never vote for him. For anything.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Wisdom is the issue, not mental computing power. I see this in one of the quotes you post:

Sure. But having wisdom, aka good judgement, will. RFK clearly lacks that.

But if the lack of "good judgement" is the factor in question, then why (in a practical sense) does that line get drawn at "harbors specific conspiracy theories" as far as "judgement lapses that can't be tolerated'?

I think we could point to a number of bad policy decisions over the past 2 decades throughout the political arena that are the result of people having bad judgement, and in ways that have much worse externalities than someone believing that Sirhan Sirhan was a patsy or having some false beliefs about certain vaccines.

Anyone who's voted has, at some point, had to grit their teeth and vote for a candidate that they thought had some judgement imperfections. Most of the people I know who voted for Biden in 2020 (myself included) had some serious issues with some of his policies and questioned his judgement on certain issues.


For example:

If "Candidate Bob Smith" didn't believe any conspiracy theories, but thought policies like "warrantless wiretapping" or "gutting the department of agriculture" were good ideas, that would concern me more than someone believing "Grassy Knoll" theories about the JFK assassination or cooky stuff about Area 51 provided their stances on the issues I care about more were more in-line with my own.

 

[durangodawood]

But if the lack of "good judgement" is the factor in question, then why (in a practical sense) does that line get drawn at "harbors specific conspiracy theories" as far as "judgement lapses that can't be tolerated'?

I think we could point to a number of bad policy decisions over the past 2 decades throughout the political arena that are the result of people having bad judgement, and in ways that have much worse externalities than someone believing that Sirhan Sirhan was a patsy or having some false beliefs about certain vaccines.

Anyone who's voted has, at some point, had to grit their teeth and vote for a candidate that they thought had some judgement imperfections. Most of the people I know who voted for Biden in 2020 (myself included) had some serious issues with some of his policies and questioned his judgement on certain issues.


For example:

If "Candidate Bob Smith" didn't believe any conspiracy theories, but thought policies like "warrantless wiretapping" or "gutting the department of agriculture" were good ideas, that would concern me more than someone believing "Grassy Knoll" theories about the JFK assassination or cooky stuff about Area 51 provided their stances on the issues I care about more were more in-line with my own.

I understand that people naturally disagree on how to prioritize various values. This is how we get the right/left dichotomy. Theres nothing essentially wrong with this.

But clinging to fantasy epistemology, thats too far. And increasingly too common.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I understand that people naturally disagree on how to prioritize various values. This is how we get the right/left dichotomy. Theres nothing essentially wrong with this.

But clinging to fantasy epistemology, thats too far. And increasingly too common.

Can you clarify a little more what you mean by "fantasy epistemology"?

In a practical sense, certain other ideologies (that are considered mainstream political issues and non-controversial in their respective camps) could check some of the same boxes as conspiracy theories in that many are speculative, non-falsifiable in the eyes of the adherents, and can't be definitively proven or disproven through hard facts and data.

Certain economic ideologies come to mind in that regard. And there's even a little bit of the "there's these shadowy power brokers pulling the strings" mentalities for the various economic ideologies as well (which is one of the hallmarks of what we'd call "conspiracy theories")

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

That's only half of the equation.

While many were quick to chalk it up to "it's just misleading to under-informed voters because he's Kennedy" (although, I have my doubts about if that's as strong a driver as some think it is, RFK Jr and his certain conspiracy theories have been well-known for a while)

For the sake of argument, let's say that was the entire draw "a bunch of people see that he's a Kennedy, and that could make them vote for him without knowing what he's about". That aspect, alone, is quite telling... because it's indicative of the fact that some people evidently prefer the "Kennedy-era" style of Democrat as opposed to what direction the party is heading in today.

...or it could be something in the theme of "JFK, to some people, represented a time in which Democrats weren't so far left on some of the social issues"

Either way, the fact that RFK is getting the amount of press coverage he is should cause some self-reflection in the two main parties.

Low-information voters aren't a new phenomenon.

Nor do I think the totality of RFK supporters are comprised of the aforementioned.

Either people want something different than what the two parties are giving them, or (and people don't want to seem to acknowledge this), his anti-vaxxer positions aren't deal breakers in the eyes of a lot of people, and they may prioritize other issues over that.

Keep in mind, RFK was on Obama's short list of potential candidates to be appointed to head up the EPA, so clearly his oddities in other realms weren't a deal breaker in that scenario.

Let's unpackage it:
He's pro-choice (but doesn't treat abortion like some beacon of empowerment, he more resembles Clinton's safe, legal, and rare stance from the 90's)
He's gay-friendly (but has a balanced position on transgender issues, more resembling where democrats were on the issue 12 years ago)
He's under 80 and doesn't give off the "low-energy doddering old man" vibe
He has a track record on environmental action that virtually no other democrat could hold a candle to
He's in favor of police reform
He's in favor of ending the war on drugs
He favors some additional gun control measures
He's in favor of ending proxy wars
He's in favor of a mandated living wage and strengthening labor unions

...but he's also and anti-vaxxer.


Obviously the famous name doesn't hurt, but if someone's not particularly fixated on that last bit, it's not hard to see how he's siphoning off some support from moderates giving the shockingly poor quality of the two main candidates.

For me personally, I'm well aware of his wacky conspiracies on certain topics and have been for a some time... I still think I'd prefer him over the other two.

All of this. Excellent analysis.