RFK Jr. Champions Economic Populism: Protect American Workers with Tariffs

[jmdrake]

Video in the following article:




It is interesting disappointing how a single issue voter can cause so much havoc that it drowns out the myriad of other major and costly problems that have caused our country to tank, crumble and divide. Some on the “right” don’t trust him concerning the 2nd, some on the “left” don’t trust him either because they believe he might possibly/secretly support the 2nd.

Anyway, he still has my support, whether he “wins/loses” is inconsequential, unless and until the hearts and minds of the divided people learn and understand what freedom truly means - from within.

Thank you for posting this. My only disagreement is categorizing people who raise legitimate concerns as "single issue voters." Any candidate has to be looked at in his/her totality and that means looking at every single issue even if you aren't going to decide on one particular issue or another. And talking about the issues in some ways is more important than talking about the candidates themselves. I'm glad RFK Jr. at least is raising the profile of the link conservatives have been drawing between psych meds and mass shootings. (I think there's also a link between teen cell phone usage and mass shooting as well). Clearly all sane Americans want something done about mass shootings, the question is what. It's just like the trade issue. Here's a simply idea everyone should be able to agree on. TikTok was banned for federal employee use for national security reasons. The next logical step would be banning federal employees from using any foreign made communications devices for the very same reasons, national security. After all if software can spy on you and report your data back to the CCP, hardware most certainly can.

[Anti Federalist]

Video in the following article:




It is interesting disappointing how a single issue voter can cause so much havoc that it drowns out the myriad of other major and costly problems that have caused our country to tank, crumble and divide. Some on the “right” don’t trust him concerning the 2nd, some on the “left” don’t trust him either because they believe he might possibly/secretly support the 2nd.

Anyway, he still has my support, whether he “wins/loses” is inconsequential, unless and until the hearts and minds of the divided people learn and understand what freedom truly means - from within.

Again, it's not a "single issue" in the manner that many other issues are.

If you do not have the fundamental understanding that free men are armed and serfs or slaves are disarmed by government edict, then you lack the basic understanding of how free men and government should co-exist in a free society.

Full stop.

[PAF]

If you do not have the fundamental understanding that free men are armed and serfs or slaves are disarmed by government edict, then you lack the basic understanding of how free men

You're on the right track and half-way there, A/F.

"...is inconsequential, unless and until the hearts and minds of the divided people learn and understand what freedom truly means - from within."

free men and government should co-exist in a free society.

[Occam's Banana]

Back to the idea of Kennedy as a great pro-2A president. JFK was a lifetime member of the NRA, something that might cause heads to explode today, but was seen in a different light nearly sixty years ago. Kennedy was the only Democratic president with a lifetime membership. We’ve had eight Republicans that fit the bill including Nixon, Reagan, and George H.W. Bush. And yes, JFK’s reputation while in office tended to tilt toward supporting gun rights.

https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/gu...-2a-president/

TIL RFK Jr. thinks his uncle was a lifetime member of a "terror group".

I'm not sure what I'm meant to make of that. Is it supposed to be a mark in his favor?

Video in the following article:

Kennedy JR.: "The same is true, Mark, with all these shootings. Nobody is looking at the pharmaceutical contribution to that. Anecdotally, it appears that almost every one of these shooters were on SSRIs or some other psychiatric drug, and this is only happening in America, where all these people are taking these psychiatric drugs. We take four times as many as any other country in the west, average European country. And there's no time in history — I mean, we've always had guns in this country. Switzerland has more guns per capita than we do, and you don't see that happening there. And I'm not defending all the guns everywhere, but I'm just saying, something happened. Prior to the introduction of Prozac, these kind of — those shootings just were almost unknown. And now they're, you know, they're an everyday affair. But NIH will not study that because it will offend the pharmaceutical industry, and it's something that we ought to be studying."

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog...lications.html

It is interesting disappointing how a single issue voter can cause so much havoc that it drowns out the myriad of other major and costly problems that have caused our country to tank, crumble and divide. Some on the “right” don’t trust him concerning the 2nd, some on the “left” don’t trust him either because they believe he might possibly/secretly support the 2nd.

Anyway, he still has my support, whether he “wins/loses” is inconsequential, unless and until the hearts and minds of the divided people learn and understand what freedom truly means - from within.

The man demonized a gun-rights group (albeit a milquetoast, quisling one) as "terror[ists]", and promoted the idea of repealing the 2nd Amendment.

LMAO @ "he might possibly/secretly support the 2nd" - because SSRIs, and a long-dead kinsman? Really? We're rapidly approaching Trump-style "3D chess" excuse-making territory here. The man is a gun grabber. Period. Full stop. Why is it so hard to simply acknowledge that fact? It doesn't mean one can't still like and promote what he has to say on other important issues. ( @Swordsmyth and @dannno have had exactly the same problem when it comes to Trump's half-assed gun-grabbery.)

Just as I can walk and chew gum at the same time, I can like what RFK Jr. says about some things (such as militarism, corporatism, "Big Pharma" & SSRIs, etc.) while still not giving him a pass on the things for which he fully deserves to be criticized (such as gun rights). I haven't pulled those punches for Trump, and I'm not going to pull them for RFK Jr., either - so any allusion to "single issue" motivations should be reserved for those to whom it might actually apply:

I am glad [RFK Jr. is] running and giving voice to things no one else is saying, despite my disagreements with him on other things.

[Occam's Banana]

Also, what AF said:

Again, it's not a "single issue" in the manner that many other issues are.

If you do not have the fundamental understanding that free men are armed and serfs or slaves are disarmed by government edict, then you lack the basic understanding of how free men and government should co-exist in a free society.

Full stop.

[acptulsa]

Based on what he has publicly said on numerous other issues, I still say that if he is ever actually sworn in as president, he will have been schooled on why the Second is vital along the way.

In fact, he'll never attain the office without the Second, and by then he'll know why.

And if he's never sworn in as president, hopefully he'll open as many eyes as Ron Paul did.

[PAF]

TIL RFK Jr. thinks his uncle was a lifetime member of a "terrorist group".

I'm not sure what I'm meant to make of that. Is it supposed to be a mark in his favor?





The man demonized a gun-rights group (albeit a milquetoast, quisling one) as "terrorists", and promoted the idea of repealing the 2nd Amendment.

That would be quite the test, wouldn't it? In A/F's words "bring it on already"?

That's the problem with God/Natural-given Rights; too many people rely on politicians and legislation, rather than drawing a line in the sand and make it be known. "Permits", registration, CCW, how long have the pro-gunners supported those until recently? I never have. Not once. Ever. And the Pro-Gunners themselves used to tell me how right-wing-extremist I was.

Bush said it best "GD words on a piece of paper". Well, he's right, unless and until.

LMAO @ "he might possibly/secretly support the 2nd" - because SSRIs, and a long-dead kinsman? Really? We're rapidly approaching Trump-style "3D chess" excuse-making territory here. The man is a gun grabber. Period. Full stop. Why is it so hard to simply acknowledge that fact? It doesn't mean one can't still like and promote what he has to say on other important issues. ( @Swordsmyth and @dannno have had exactly the same problem when it comes to Trump's half-assed gun-grabbery.)

Sure, I acknowledge weaknesses in all people. Which is why at my core I am anarchist and don't want or need anybody telling me how to run my life. I'm just in this to wake people out of their stupor, trying to shed light on TPTB the people at the top who control it all.

I am sure that we both would agree that the D's will not even entertain Ron Paul, Massie or those solid on principles. What is the recourse? Continue the divide until the corporations-in-bed-with-government control every aspect of our lives, while the pharm complex pumps everybody with whatever they want mandate, free of prosecution, while they print print print endlessly? Poison the water that we drink, Let them Eat Insects and Synthetic Meat? I don't hear Trump, Biden or anybody else addressing those issues, certainly not to the degree that RFK is and has consistently.

Just as I can walk and chew gum at the same time, I can like what RFK Jr. says about some things while still not giving him a pass on the things for which he fully deserves to be criticized. I haven't pulled those punches for Trump, and I'm not going to pull them for RFK Jr., either - so any allusion to "single issue" motivations should be reserved for those to whom it might actually apply:

Very good. You keep your course, I'll keep mine.

As for passes... after all of the ruckus is over, I will hereby revoke my pass that I have given myself and go back, the best that I can, to living and enjoying what time I have left out in the world ;-)

[Occam's Banana]

Just because they like to invoke the phrase "free trade" in their rhetoric, or stick it into their euphemistically-titled edicts (such as the "North American Free Trade Act"), don't let them gaslight you into thinking that they in any way support or endorse (or have any interest at all in) actual, genuine free trade, or that their policies really have anything to do with it.

Their cynical and manipulative use of the term "free trade" is every bit as empty and bogus as their use of terms such as "affordable care" and "inflation reduction" (vis-à-vis the "Affordable Care Act" and the "Inflation Reduction Act", for example) - and for exactly the same reasons.

Whenever they say "free trade", what they actually mean is "[micro-]managed trade". [...]

There's even a name for it: "The Ron Paul Rule"

https://twitter.com/DanielLMcAdams/s...26742649356288

[Anti Federalist]

free men and government should co-exist in a free society.

Why is that met with incredulity?

That concept is the prime directive of the nation's founding document.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed

[CCTelander]

Why is that met with incredulity?

That concept is the prime directive of the nation's founding document.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed

“Government,” by it’s very nature MUST constantly violate those secured rights simply to continue to exist. A “free society” simply can’t co-exist with the state. The two are mutually exclusive.

[Anti Federalist]

“Government,” by it’s very nature MUST constantly violate those secured rights simply to continue to exist. A “free society” simply can’t co-exist with the state. The two are mutually exclusive.

After a great deal of thought and observation, I disagree.

A healthy, free society of similarly minded people would require no more government than that which is needed to protect the rights and property of it's citizens from wrong doers.

We're just starting to get a taste of anarcho-tyranny, which is much woorse.

[acptulsa]

We're just starting to get a taste of anarcho-tyranny, which is much woorse.

Well of course it is. It's designed to be. So? Anarcho-tyranny isn't a form of government. It's merely a technique used by governments to get people to beg to have their rights take away.

[CCTelander]

After a great deal of thought and observation, I disagree.

A healthy, free society of similarly minded people would require no more government than that which is needed to protect the rights and property of it's citizens from wrong doers.

We're just starting to get a taste of anarcho-tyranny, which is much woorse.

Then, with all due respect my brother, you’re simply wrong. A state is not necessary to protect free individuals from wrongdoers. In fact, it’s very existence provides the opportunity for those wrongdoers to multiply their influence and leave would-be free men with limited options to deal with the situation. The circumstances we find ourselves in right now came about BECAUSE of the cover and protection provided to those wrongdoers by the state, not in spite of it’s “protection” of fre individuals, which it never actually provides.

[Occam's Banana]

RFK Jr. - "Defender" of the Bill of Rights (except the most important one, upon which the defense of the others ultimately depends):

https://twitter.com/RobertKennedyJr/...19883528585217
[John Paul Stevens: Repeal the Second Amendment (archive link: https://archive.is/5aj9Z)]


RFK Jr.: "the NRA is a terror group".

(Actually, they're worse than that - they're Judas goats. Unfortunately, though, that's not why RFK Jr. hates them.)

https://twitter.com/MajToure999/stat...05521912619009

https://twitter.com/TheChiefNerd/sta...37198224785408

[PAF]

https://twitter.com/TheChiefNerd/sta...37198224785408

Folks didn't care about the 1st, 4th, 5th, etc. when Patriot, DHS, TSA, FISA, 702 and other anti-BoR were passed. Not to mention backroom deals with Pfizer, Gates, and other globalist agendas, with an increase of $8.18 Trillion added to the debt.


TheEpochTimes Article:

‘I Support the Constitution—That Includes the Second Amendment’: RFK Jr. on Gun Rights


Backpedal or not, he still gets my support ;-)

Someday, "republicans" are going to figure what God/Natural-Rights really mean (they are not granted by some politician/legislation). And if they don't, they're no better than the GD left.

[Anti Federalist]

Folks didn't care about the 1st, 4th, 5th, etc. when Patriot, DHS, TSA, FISA, 702 and other anti-BoR were passed. Not to mention backroom deals with Pfizer, Gates, and other globalist agendas, with an increase of $8.18 Trillion added to the debt.


TheEpochTimes Article:

‘I Support the Constitution—That Includes the Second Amendment’: RFK Jr. on Gun Rights


Backpedal or not, he still gets my support ;-)

Someday, "republicans" are going to figure what God/Natural-Rights really mean (they are not granted by some politician/legislation). And if they don't, they're no better than the GD left.

I see a wave of growing outrage at the ongoing attempts to squelch the 1st amendment.

Jus' wipin' the brow, Boss. We doin all we can.

[Occam's Banana]

Tariffs are just a particular kind of tax. Nothing more, nothing less, and nothing else. They have no magical properties that somehow exempt them from the consequences of being taxes. An economy can no more be tariffed into general prosperity than it can be taxed into it - and general prosperity can no more be protected by higher tariffs than it can be protected by increasing taxes.

Brazil "protecting" the bejeezus out of its "prosperity":

https://twitter.com/appariciojunior/...84210270445568

[CCTelander]

Brazil "protecting" the bejeezus out of its "prosperity":

https://twitter.com/appariciojunior/...84210270445568

Protectionism at work. +rep

[Occam's Banana]

Just because they like to invoke the phrase "free trade" in their rhetoric, or stick it into their euphemistically-titled edicts (such as the "North American Free Trade Act"), don't let them gaslight you into thinking that they in any way support or endorse (or have any interest at all in) actual, genuine free trade, or that their policies really have anything to do with it.

Their cynical and manipulative use of the term "free trade" is every bit as empty and bogus as their use of terms such as "affordable care" and "inflation reduction" (vis-à-vis the "Affordable Care Act" and the "Inflation Reduction Act", for example) - and for exactly the same reasons.

Whenever they say "free trade", what they actually mean is "[micro-]managed trade". [...]

There's even a name for it: "The Ron Paul Rule"

https://twitter.com/DanielLMcAdams/s...26742649356288

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1753269554816372839
[referenced link: https://www.britannica.com/topic/Com...-Public-Safety]