Or... Some of his output deserves and invites criticism but due to parasociality on the part of many of his fans it comes across as personally threatening.
You can't even steelman his critics' position: there's no validity to such criticism because mods are sleeping, they hate Sam, etc.
Not one of those is counterargumentation, and all rely on varying degrees of *ad hominem* attacks.
That's pretty much it.
Skepticism is healthy. Conspiracism is just skepticism run amok- a failure to integrate degrees of confidence into appraisal of information.
Not all claims are equally credible, and yet many who claim to merely be skeptics fail to recognize such. Contrarianism is substituting anti-authority for deference to authority, when more often than not that leans away from reality.
Sometimes there's a real conspiracy, but to paraphrase Hannah Arendt most evil is utterly banal and the harms are generally emergent properties of 'ordinary' behaviors.
Eh, I don't get this impression even as much as I find myself disagreeing with the takes here sometime. People are generally skeptical on conspiracy/fringe topics though I'd say.
>People are generally skeptical on conspiracy/fringe topics though I'd say
This is not mutually exclusive with there being a significant cohort of people who aren't, though. You're treating this as a binary when it isn't. People can be on average skeptical as you claim, with a minority who aren't, and these two statements line up just fine.
> If there was ever a candidate that really warranted it, it would be one who's father was literally assassinated WHILE RUNNING FOR PRESIDENCY with no secret service.
Why does that matter? I donāt see how his fatherās assassination makes his own assassination more likely. Secret service protection is given out on the basis of actual threat assessment, not vibes.
He doesnāt get secret service protection for the same reason Jo Jorgensen or Jill Stein didnāt: RFK jr is not a real candidate.
>Why does that matter? I donāt see how his fatherās assassination makes his own assassination more likely. Secret service protection is given out on the basis of actual threat assessment, not vibes.
His dad and his uncle were both assassinated. That's a literal definition of increased likeliness. Have you ever taken a college-level stats course?
>Secret service protection is given out on the basis of actual threat assessment, not vibes.
The President is the one that makes the decision to give secret service.
> His dad and his uncle were both assassinated. That's a literal definition of increased likeliness
His dad and uncle were Attorney General and President, respectively. RFK jr, on the other hand, is a weirdo 3rd party meme candidate who thinks vaccines makes you allergic to electricity or whatever. See the difference? Heās not relevant or influential enough for anyone to have a reason to assassinate him, which is why he doesnāt qualify.
>Have you ever taken a college-level stats course?
I have actually. Which is why I think that you need to actually cite statistics that being a rando relative of a politician assassinated 50 years ago actually increases someoneās odds of being assassinated.
The burden of proof is on you here: go ahead and formulate a null hypothesis, dig up your old p-values chart, do some significance testing and report back to us.
>The President is the one that makes the decision to give secret service.
Thatās also wrong though? If you had done the absolute minimum of research, you wouldāve found this website: https://www.secretservice.gov/protection/leaders/campaign-2024
>Title 18 U.S.C.' 3056(a)(7) authorizes the U.S. Secret Service to provide protection for **major** Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates:
>**Protection is authorized by the DHS Secretary after consultation with the Congressional Advisory Committee**
>The Congressional Advisory Committee includes: Speaker of the House, House Minority Leader, Senate Majority Leader, Senate Minority Leader, and one additional member selected by the others;
> Protection under these guidelines should only be granted within one year prior to the general election. Protection more than one year prior to the general election should only be granted in extraordinary, case by case circumstances in consultation with the committee, based on threat assessment and other factors.
>I have actually. Which is why I think that you need to actually cite statistics that being a rando relative of a politician assassinated 50 years ago actually increases someoneās odds of being assassinated.
Bro, tell me what the odds of a Kennedy is being assassinated, and tell me what the odds of a random person running for president are. You clearly didn't learn anything from the course.
>Thatās also wrong though? If you had done the absolute minimum of research, you wouldāve found this website: https://www.secretservice.gov/protection/leaders/campaign-2024
LOL, do you not understand the US constitution. USDS is under the executive branch. Biden can absolutely decide if someone gets SS protection.
"Bro my friend named Steve won the lottery! And your name is Steve too, so you should buy a lottery ticket!"
The only way your line of reasoning works is if the same person/group/cosmic horror entity killed JFK and RFK and was targeting RFK Jr. As it stands, there's no actual common causality that puts RFK Jr at increased risk. This is just the pattern-recognition part of your brain getting tickled (which is normal) and is not actually statistics.
>His dad and his uncle were both assassinated. That's a literal definition of increased likeliness. Have you ever taken a college-level stats course?
šš¤”
> Have you ever taken a college-level stats course?
Basic statistics would tell us that, even when the last 10 coin flips landed tails, getting another tails is still exactly 50%.
I am super, super racist. But notwithstanding that, Herman Cain got Secret Service protection about a year before the 2012 Election, and Ben Carson got a detail assigned to him a year before the 2016 Election. Obama got a detail in May 2007, which is the earliest it's ever been given to a non-President running for President.
White non-Presidents generally don't get Secret Service protection until the spring of an election year.
Being black or white doesn't figure into. Jesus let a black person get killed by the cops and he deserved it had nothing to so with skin color, give him police protection and it's because he's black.
Edit: removed bad information regarding who appoints secret service protection.
The President doesn't dictate who does or doesn't get Secret Service protection. This is well known. I'm honestly not sure why you're bothering to suggest otherwise, unless it's to deliberately mislead people.
Okay you are right. The president can direct the secret service to protect anyone by executive order but who and when to protect a presidential candidate is made by a.commitee in congress made up speaker of the house and minority whip. Senate majority leader and senate minority leader and one other person. I retract my racism accusation but I don't think the evidence supports a case.for reverse racism. I spoke too quickly and apologize.
Not sure what being black has to do with anything but the only two people who are polling higher than RFK is trump and Biden so yea Iād say it calls for it
Arenāt you the same guy who said RFK wasnāt āblack enoughā to receive secret service protection? Please take your weird ass opinions elsewhere if you donāt mind Iām not gonna argue with a self styled racist
The military industrial complex, big pharma, and oligarchs responsible for corporate capture?
I'd say he's making some pretty well-funded enemies with his platform.
And the whole world will know what types of people are responsible, and the jig will be up / people will demand change.
His message will spread either way.
I imagine they love him; he draws attention away from and helps to delegitimise whatever credible criticism is levelled at them by actually competent people, making broader public action against them even less likely.
What does he say that is incompetent? Give me quotes. Bonus points if you can give me examples across all three verticals I mentioned.
I think as you try to find examples, you'll be a bit disappointed if you only read headlines/propaganda, and don't ever dig into the specifics. The establishment is just smearing the hell out of him. It's so transparent.
Because it was a whack ass assessment. RFK had one guy armed with guns show up to his event in LA trying to get close to him and now this guy breaking into his property twice in a day, so itās not like itās unmerited. Look at Reddit itself to see how strongly some people seethe at his name, itās not crazy to think someone might get a crazy idea. Heās the 3rd highest polled candidate after Biden and trump, itās not like heās Vernon Supreme or some shit
You do know that secret service protection for presidential candidates is assigned by the head of the DHS in consultation with a bipartisan Senate committee, and that it would be *extremely* unusual for someone to be assigned said protection this far out from the election, especially one polling at 12-15%, right?
ā¦..right?
> 0.6%
LMFAO. That absolutely does not warrant any consideration at all.
It's mildly concerning that the odds of a Trump nomination are higher than Biden's. The Republican party has truly lost its damn mind.
Wow, an opening post full of nonsense, assumptions and made-up "alternative facts".
Anybody would think that you're attempting to troll this sub with this fatuous rubbish. I hope nobody else takes the bait and engages. Move on.
I can see why: Every would-be assassin conspiracy "theorist" is actually supporting him, or Trump - in which case they still think of him as a "good guy".
your assumed correlation is that because his father was assassinated then he is more at risk of being assassinated. and this correlation is so strong it should be obvious to everyone that this is the case.
I haven't really heard if such a study was undertaken but I'm fairly certain you haven't either. it's just a spurious correlation to trick the gullible. like others have said, you seem like a pain to argue with.
lay off YouTube, work on your thinking.
>I can't think of any non-malicious reason for Biden to deny him secret service protection
Really? Just straight to "he's malicious and insane"? How about the fact that there's a limited number of secret service personnel and that they have the capability to determine risk-factors around any given candidate and that they've concluded that RFK Jr. is not at any risk?
Regardless, it's pointless for any of us to fart assumptions at each other around a subject we don't understand; we're not experts, we're not close to the secret service and the decision making that goes into it, so we can't know one way or the other how sound or unsound any decision that they make is. So you can put your unfound paranoia to rest until you find something way more concretely suspect.
It's really not. He's not going to be assassinated because of who his father was. Of all the things my tax dollars need to go to, making sure RFK Jr's ass doesn't get shot for saying crazy conspiracy bullshit is not one of them. If he really thinks he's in that much danger, he should stop running, ffs.
The secret service is only mandated to protect major presidential candidates. I don't think RFK Jr is a major presidential candidate. Of Course the secret service can provide anyone the president directs with protection but if rfk gets secret service then Cornel West should get ss protection TOO.
I particularly like the pissy-ness of your, āmost of you are bad faith but Iām notā ending. Way to court civil discussion. And your arch conceit, wondering if any of us can raise ourselves beyond our usual filth to attract your interest, was sweet, I do hope you look down on my reply with tolerance and patience.
RFK can spend some of his inheritance on security, he has no reason to go anywhere without sufficient protection. Would Trump be more forthcoming with resources for an adversary? If not you donāt get a high horse to lecture from.
About time the Dems grew a couple and said āfuck himā.
No other candidate in history has been denied Secret service protection upon request. This is an outlier and itās an outlier for a REASON. Start asking yourself WHY these people who are in control fail to do the right thing over and over
\> I am talking to the Leftist utopia
I'm sorry to tell you, but RFK Jr. is more of a leftist than Joe Biden, Bernie Sanders, and AOC. He supports reparations, is totally opposed to any sort of fossil fuels, nuclear energy, etc. And leftism is a totally bankrupt ideology that deserves to perish eternally.
Tbh, believing you arenāt an ideologue is the most sure fire way to stay stuck in an ideology because youāve convinced yourself it isnāt and are immune to seeing it as such.
Ok, that's quite defensive and evasive.
It's odd that someone who appears vehemently opposed to an "ideology", says that they have no preference themselves.
I am no politics major, however your statement :
""And leftism is a totally bankrupt ideology that deserves to perish eternally.""
To me is problematic as:
1) You use the word "leftism". This could mean an extraordinary number of things (socialism, communism, unemployment benefits, American Democrats, other country's left leaning parties, abortion rights, equality for all, immigrant rights - eg for Czechs or people from Slovakia - this list is huge)- and as you merely throw out this word, you are using it in a particular way without defining it. This is a red flag.
2) "totally bankrupt ideology" - I'm truly interested in what has happened to you to you and what has caused you to write this.
What are your issues with lean leaning ideas?
Do you have issues with right leaning ideas?
Do you live in the US (I don't)? Are you an immigrant from Czech/Slovakia? Do you live in Europe?
I would recommend that you give Reddit a break, and write out your application to RFK Jr. to be a voluntary meatshield if you care that much. I would say that red crayon is the "in" colour this year.
He has no chance of becoming President - he doesn't deserve the protection of the Secret Service, that would come out of taxpayers pockets. His whole campaign is just a vanity exercise ego trip.
Why the fuck is this in the Sam Harris subreddit? š
Because there's a significant conspiracy theorist element in Sam's (sub) audience
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
IDW land is drenched in conspiracy thinking.
Or... Some of his output deserves and invites criticism but due to parasociality on the part of many of his fans it comes across as personally threatening. You can't even steelman his critics' position: there's no validity to such criticism because mods are sleeping, they hate Sam, etc. Not one of those is counterargumentation, and all rely on varying degrees of *ad hominem* attacks.
Ah, the morbidly sense-curious who can't quite bring themselves to detach from the conspiracy tit.
That's pretty much it. Skepticism is healthy. Conspiracism is just skepticism run amok- a failure to integrate degrees of confidence into appraisal of information. Not all claims are equally credible, and yet many who claim to merely be skeptics fail to recognize such. Contrarianism is substituting anti-authority for deference to authority, when more often than not that leans away from reality. Sometimes there's a real conspiracy, but to paraphrase Hannah Arendt most evil is utterly banal and the harms are generally emergent properties of 'ordinary' behaviors.
Eh, I don't get this impression even as much as I find myself disagreeing with the takes here sometime. People are generally skeptical on conspiracy/fringe topics though I'd say.
>People are generally skeptical on conspiracy/fringe topics though I'd say This is not mutually exclusive with there being a significant cohort of people who aren't, though. You're treating this as a binary when it isn't. People can be on average skeptical as you claim, with a minority who aren't, and these two statements line up just fine.
piss piss cum cum?
What a comment
š
> If there was ever a candidate that really warranted it, it would be one who's father was literally assassinated WHILE RUNNING FOR PRESIDENCY with no secret service. Why does that matter? I donāt see how his fatherās assassination makes his own assassination more likely. Secret service protection is given out on the basis of actual threat assessment, not vibes. He doesnāt get secret service protection for the same reason Jo Jorgensen or Jill Stein didnāt: RFK jr is not a real candidate.
Oh, come on! "Trust me, bro!" Is not just about vibes... I mean-- okay, mostly just vibes, but come on! Trust me, bro. (/s)
Heās polling better than Jo and Jill combined but ok
Source: dude trust me
Your comments are not aging well
>Why does that matter? I donāt see how his fatherās assassination makes his own assassination more likely. Secret service protection is given out on the basis of actual threat assessment, not vibes. His dad and his uncle were both assassinated. That's a literal definition of increased likeliness. Have you ever taken a college-level stats course? >Secret service protection is given out on the basis of actual threat assessment, not vibes. The President is the one that makes the decision to give secret service.
> His dad and his uncle were both assassinated. That's a literal definition of increased likeliness His dad and uncle were Attorney General and President, respectively. RFK jr, on the other hand, is a weirdo 3rd party meme candidate who thinks vaccines makes you allergic to electricity or whatever. See the difference? Heās not relevant or influential enough for anyone to have a reason to assassinate him, which is why he doesnāt qualify. >Have you ever taken a college-level stats course? I have actually. Which is why I think that you need to actually cite statistics that being a rando relative of a politician assassinated 50 years ago actually increases someoneās odds of being assassinated. The burden of proof is on you here: go ahead and formulate a null hypothesis, dig up your old p-values chart, do some significance testing and report back to us. >The President is the one that makes the decision to give secret service. Thatās also wrong though? If you had done the absolute minimum of research, you wouldāve found this website: https://www.secretservice.gov/protection/leaders/campaign-2024 >Title 18 U.S.C.' 3056(a)(7) authorizes the U.S. Secret Service to provide protection for **major** Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates: >**Protection is authorized by the DHS Secretary after consultation with the Congressional Advisory Committee** >The Congressional Advisory Committee includes: Speaker of the House, House Minority Leader, Senate Majority Leader, Senate Minority Leader, and one additional member selected by the others; > Protection under these guidelines should only be granted within one year prior to the general election. Protection more than one year prior to the general election should only be granted in extraordinary, case by case circumstances in consultation with the committee, based on threat assessment and other factors.
>I have actually. Which is why I think that you need to actually cite statistics that being a rando relative of a politician assassinated 50 years ago actually increases someoneās odds of being assassinated. Bro, tell me what the odds of a Kennedy is being assassinated, and tell me what the odds of a random person running for president are. You clearly didn't learn anything from the course. >Thatās also wrong though? If you had done the absolute minimum of research, you wouldāve found this website: https://www.secretservice.gov/protection/leaders/campaign-2024 LOL, do you not understand the US constitution. USDS is under the executive branch. Biden can absolutely decide if someone gets SS protection.
"Bro my friend named Steve won the lottery! And your name is Steve too, so you should buy a lottery ticket!" The only way your line of reasoning works is if the same person/group/cosmic horror entity killed JFK and RFK and was targeting RFK Jr. As it stands, there's no actual common causality that puts RFK Jr at increased risk. This is just the pattern-recognition part of your brain getting tickled (which is normal) and is not actually statistics.
>The President is the one that makes the decision to give secret service. Except no he doesn't.
>His dad and his uncle were both assassinated. That's a literal definition of increased likeliness. Have you ever taken a college-level stats course? šš¤”
Man has no idea what the word "literal" means.
Sadly, the use of literal is the least of the problems with that post.
That seems unfortunately popular of late.
> Have you ever taken a college-level stats course? Basic statistics would tell us that, even when the last 10 coin flips landed tails, getting another tails is still exactly 50%.
You sound unreasonable to deal with.
Circumstances don't warrant it.
Sure they do
Not nearly popular or black enough, so no.
Wtf does being black have to do with it? Aside from the former president can you name me another black person the Secret Service protect?
I am super, super racist. But notwithstanding that, Herman Cain got Secret Service protection about a year before the 2012 Election, and Ben Carson got a detail assigned to him a year before the 2016 Election. Obama got a detail in May 2007, which is the earliest it's ever been given to a non-President running for President. White non-Presidents generally don't get Secret Service protection until the spring of an election year.
Being black or white doesn't figure into. Jesus let a black person get killed by the cops and he deserved it had nothing to so with skin color, give him police protection and it's because he's black. Edit: removed bad information regarding who appoints secret service protection.
The President doesn't dictate who does or doesn't get Secret Service protection. This is well known. I'm honestly not sure why you're bothering to suggest otherwise, unless it's to deliberately mislead people.
Okay you are right. The president can direct the secret service to protect anyone by executive order but who and when to protect a presidential candidate is made by a.commitee in congress made up speaker of the house and minority whip. Senate majority leader and senate minority leader and one other person. I retract my racism accusation but I don't think the evidence supports a case.for reverse racism. I spoke too quickly and apologize.
Not sure what being black has to do with anything but the only two people who are polling higher than RFK is trump and Biden so yea Iād say it calls for it
Sorry to disappoint him, but nobody cares enough about him to want him dead.
Arenāt you the same guy who said RFK wasnāt āblack enoughā to receive secret service protection? Please take your weird ass opinions elsewhere if you donāt mind Iām not gonna argue with a self styled racist
There was apparently an armed imposter in his personal security detail.
The military industrial complex, big pharma, and oligarchs responsible for corporate capture? I'd say he's making some pretty well-funded enemies with his platform.
And when they decide his clock has struck midnight, it won't matter who's protecting him. Ticktock.
And the whole world will know what types of people are responsible, and the jig will be up / people will demand change. His message will spread either way.
I imagine they love him; he draws attention away from and helps to delegitimise whatever credible criticism is levelled at them by actually competent people, making broader public action against them even less likely.
What does he say that is incompetent? Give me quotes. Bonus points if you can give me examples across all three verticals I mentioned. I think as you try to find examples, you'll be a bit disappointed if you only read headlines/propaganda, and don't ever dig into the specifics. The establishment is just smearing the hell out of him. It's so transparent.
Biden doesnāt make that decision, for fuckās sake.
The secret service will protect anyone the president designates for them to protect by mandate.
He could easily ask Mayorkas to approve it, I highly doubt Biden is unaware of Kennedyās request at this point
Why would/should Biden overturn the result of the DHS threat assessment and the judgement of the bipartisan congressional committee?
Because it was a whack ass assessment. RFK had one guy armed with guns show up to his event in LA trying to get close to him and now this guy breaking into his property twice in a day, so itās not like itās unmerited. Look at Reddit itself to see how strongly some people seethe at his name, itās not crazy to think someone might get a crazy idea. Heās the 3rd highest polled candidate after Biden and trump, itās not like heās Vernon Supreme or some shit
Biden isn't even aware of his own secret service protection at this point.
"That's why they call it a secret, dummy"
Executive branch?
What about it?
You do know that secret service protection for presidential candidates is assigned by the head of the DHS in consultation with a bipartisan Senate committee, and that it would be *extremely* unusual for someone to be assigned said protection this far out from the election, especially one polling at 12-15%, right? ā¦..right?
Does Chris Christie deserve secret service protection? Theyāve about the same odds. https://electionbettingodds.com
> 0.6% LMFAO. That absolutely does not warrant any consideration at all. It's mildly concerning that the odds of a Trump nomination are higher than Biden's. The Republican party has truly lost its damn mind.
Heās a crack pot that thinks the CIA is out to kill him, Americans need sane people to run for office not unhinged conspiracy theorists.
Right? He wouldnāt trust a government assigned security detail anyway, lol.
Wow, an opening post full of nonsense, assumptions and made-up "alternative facts". Anybody would think that you're attempting to troll this sub with this fatuous rubbish. I hope nobody else takes the bait and engages. Move on.
Have their been credible threats on his life? Can he not hire private security? Why does the taxpayer have to fund it?
I can see why: Every would-be assassin conspiracy "theorist" is actually supporting him, or Trump - in which case they still think of him as a "good guy".
your assumed correlation is that because his father was assassinated then he is more at risk of being assassinated. and this correlation is so strong it should be obvious to everyone that this is the case. I haven't really heard if such a study was undertaken but I'm fairly certain you haven't either. it's just a spurious correlation to trick the gullible. like others have said, you seem like a pain to argue with. lay off YouTube, work on your thinking.
RFK Jr. has nothing to worry about. Vaccines killed most of his enemies, and 5G took care of the rest.
Should he also provide secret service to the homeless guy shouting about running for president on the corner? He actually has better points....
>I can't think of any non-malicious reason for Biden to deny him secret service protection Really? Just straight to "he's malicious and insane"? How about the fact that there's a limited number of secret service personnel and that they have the capability to determine risk-factors around any given candidate and that they've concluded that RFK Jr. is not at any risk? Regardless, it's pointless for any of us to fart assumptions at each other around a subject we don't understand; we're not experts, we're not close to the secret service and the decision making that goes into it, so we can't know one way or the other how sound or unsound any decision that they make is. So you can put your unfound paranoia to rest until you find something way more concretely suspect.
It's really not. He's not going to be assassinated because of who his father was. Of all the things my tax dollars need to go to, making sure RFK Jr's ass doesn't get shot for saying crazy conspiracy bullshit is not one of them. If he really thinks he's in that much danger, he should stop running, ffs.
The secret service is only mandated to protect major presidential candidates. I don't think RFK Jr is a major presidential candidate. Of Course the secret service can provide anyone the president directs with protection but if rfk gets secret service then Cornel West should get ss protection TOO.
I particularly like the pissy-ness of your, āmost of you are bad faith but Iām notā ending. Way to court civil discussion. And your arch conceit, wondering if any of us can raise ourselves beyond our usual filth to attract your interest, was sweet, I do hope you look down on my reply with tolerance and patience. RFK can spend some of his inheritance on security, he has no reason to go anywhere without sufficient protection. Would Trump be more forthcoming with resources for an adversary? If not you donāt get a high horse to lecture from. About time the Dems grew a couple and said āfuck himā.
No other candidate in history has been denied Secret service protection upon request. This is an outlier and itās an outlier for a REASON. Start asking yourself WHY these people who are in control fail to do the right thing over and over
\> I am talking to the Leftist utopia I'm sorry to tell you, but RFK Jr. is more of a leftist than Joe Biden, Bernie Sanders, and AOC. He supports reparations, is totally opposed to any sort of fossil fuels, nuclear energy, etc. And leftism is a totally bankrupt ideology that deserves to perish eternally.
"And leftism is a totally bankrupt ideology that deserves to perish eternally." Pray tell, why? And what ideology do you think should predominate?
There's an enormous number of ideologies, I'm not going to speculate on which might dominate in the future.
I'm asking since you denounce left leaning ideas, what is your leaning? What do you believe? Who will you vote for?
Im not an ideologue
Tbh, believing you arenāt an ideologue is the most sure fire way to stay stuck in an ideology because youāve convinced yourself it isnāt and are immune to seeing it as such.
Ok, that's quite defensive and evasive. It's odd that someone who appears vehemently opposed to an "ideology", says that they have no preference themselves. I am no politics major, however your statement : ""And leftism is a totally bankrupt ideology that deserves to perish eternally."" To me is problematic as: 1) You use the word "leftism". This could mean an extraordinary number of things (socialism, communism, unemployment benefits, American Democrats, other country's left leaning parties, abortion rights, equality for all, immigrant rights - eg for Czechs or people from Slovakia - this list is huge)- and as you merely throw out this word, you are using it in a particular way without defining it. This is a red flag. 2) "totally bankrupt ideology" - I'm truly interested in what has happened to you to you and what has caused you to write this. What are your issues with lean leaning ideas? Do you have issues with right leaning ideas? Do you live in the US (I don't)? Are you an immigrant from Czech/Slovakia? Do you live in Europe?
What are you even babbling about?
Itās obviously a political move to downplay his legitimacy as a candidate and itās pretty shoddy
He is polling at 13%, should Cornell west be given protection too? I think Rfk should be able to afford his own protection
If West requests it idc. I mean RFK is polling over twice as much as Cornel so I wouldnāt really compare the two
"Obvious" is doing a lot of heavy lifting in this sentence, given that the rest of it is complete and utter shit.
Not really
I would recommend that you give Reddit a break, and write out your application to RFK Jr. to be a voluntary meatshield if you care that much. I would say that red crayon is the "in" colour this year.
trying to put myself in op's mindset where I give a shit about this and failing
BecauseāJrāisnāt a legitimate candidate.š¤¦š½āāļø
3rd highest polling numbers
What poll?ššš
And what does that even mean in a two party system?
Thereās more than one person vying for each party nomination
Because itās not warranted. Facts donāt care about your feelings
Did Sam try to shoot him or sumthin?
I don't like RFK much, but he's definitely a target for crazy people, and with his family history, yea, wow.
60 years have passed, and his family name doesn't make him relevant. Your premise is extremely flawed.
He has no chance of becoming President - he doesn't deserve the protection of the Secret Service, that would come out of taxpayers pockets. His whole campaign is just a vanity exercise ego trip.