this post was submitted on 18 Nov 2024
497 points (86.6% liked)

politics

19148 readers
1930 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] SulaymanF@lemmy.world 4 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (2 children)

The problem is:

  • RFK wants to ban legal medications and his multiple other statements make it clear he thinks organic food can replace them. That’s creating clear harms for people.
  • He may envision this as a voluntary commune but in reality once he has government backing these could be something non consensual. We already have NYPD forcing people into homeless shelters involuntarily. It’s worrisome coming from an openly authoritarian administration.
[–] yarr@feddit.nl 0 points 1 week ago

RFK wants to ban legal medications and his multiple other statements make it clear he thinks organic food can replace them. That’s creating clear harms for people.

Can you provide a source for this? I have seen RFK claim vaccines are harmful, but the above seems inaccurately broad. RFK's criticism of vaccines seems to stem from a misguided goal of "proving" they are safe. I suspect his definition of "safe" does not match the FDA's. For example, aspirin causes many deaths and injuries each year (aka "not safe"), but I haven't seen RFK moving to ban aspirin.

The belief that proposed government funded "wellness farms" would mutate into prison camps where citizens would be confined seems needlessly paranoid to me, but you can be as scared as you want. If there was a prediction market available on whether RFK would involuntary confine American citizens to prison camps in the next 4 years, I would gladly bet against that eventuality.

[–] Ajen@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 week ago

I don't disagree with either of those points, I just don't think they're supported in the article. That's why it's rage bait.