Jump to content

RFK Picks his VP candidate


Recommended Posts

15 hours ago, ionel said:

And thus he did not move to the right on this issue.  

 

1 hour ago, ionel said:

Bet that wins a lot of legal cases. 

Prosecutor:  "I perceive that your client is guilty therefore case closed."  

I literally said in my post that he did not move on the issue, what do you think you're winning here?  He did move on gun control and abortion, two of the biggest issues on the left side of the aisle.

 

19 hours ago, ionel said:

I re-read the post i quoted, didn't see any reference to positions where RFK Jr moved right.  

You now mention national abortion ban, the Kennedys have always professed to be Catholic, the Catholic Church is against abortion so when did he move on this issue.

Against gun control, 2nd ammendment issue, when was he for gun control (against 2nd ammendment) but then moved to opposing gun control (supporting 2nd ammendment)?

Is he anti-vaxer or just against the covid required vaccination?  How is this a right vs left issue if its science based?  Is for science right wing?  But again when did his position change on vaccination?  

The right isn't pro Russian so how is this moving right to be for Russian?  I'd say is more crazy.

You can clearly see where I wrote "abortion plan".  Obviously a typo, but you're being disingenuous if you claim you didn't know what I meant.  As to gun control, yes, his positions are right wing.  Did they "move"?  I don't have the specific links, but I recall interviews where he said he would sign laws banning assault weapons, etc., and now his position is against that.  Either way, his position NOW is a right wing position.  You're attempting to debate semantics as opposed to substance, which is fine if you want to do that, but I'm not interested in this, a substance-based point I made, and debating the semantics.  I didn't even make an initial argument as to actual policy positions, just a discussion of the political strategy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, ionel said:

As far as any can tell (at least none have provided evidence) his party has moved further left, he has not changed.  

Covered that already.  People on here and in the article I posted believe he has whether he did or not.  And it’s right not left that people think he’s moved to. But you do you. 

Edited by JimmyBT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, VakAttack said:

I literally said in my post that he did not move on the issue, what do you think you're winning here? 

 

25 minutes ago, JimmyBT said:

Covered that already ... believe he has whether he did or not.  

Nevermind ... sounds like we all agree ... sorry for the confusion.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, VakAttack said:

Yup.  A rock on a board on top of another rock on top of a raft in the open ocean.

https://www.politico.com/news/2023/08/13/rfk-jr-backs-15-week-federal-ban-on-abortion-00111017

“Today, Mr. Kennedy misunderstood a question posed to him by a NBC reporter in a crowded, noisy exhibit hall at the Iowa State Fair,” 

Yep if you are old can't hear well, its noisy and you can't articulate your sentences it probably really means you've changed your political position and are now a far right crazy.  🙄

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, ionel said:

“Today, Mr. Kennedy misunderstood a question posed to him by a NBC reporter in a crowded, noisy exhibit hall at the Iowa State Fair,” 

Yep if you are old can't hear well, its noisy and you can't articulate your sentences it probably really means you've changed your political position and are now a far right crazy.  🙄

Now read the next two paragraphs.  Like literally, the next ones.

Quote

 

NBC reporter Ali Vitali posed a string of abortion questions to Kennedy, who answered “yes” to “So you would cap it at 15 weeks?” She followed up by asking “Or 21 weeks?” to which he said, “Yes, three months.” The exchange continued, and Vitali said: “I’m surprised to hear you say you’d cap it.”

Kennedy responded to that last statement by saying, “I think the states have a right to protect a child once the child becomes viable, and that right, it increases.”

 

And then, two paragraphs later:

Quote

In June in a town hall in New Hampshire, he called himself “pro-choice” and spoke in favor of legal abortion.

“I’m not going be in a position, put myself in a position, where I am going to tell a woman to bring a child to term,” he said at the time.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, VakAttack said:

Now read the next two paragraphs.  Like literally, the next ones.

And then, two paragraphs later:

 

campaign later said he “misunderstood” the question.

Pretty sure the article is picking responses at different points in time, not necessarily in order, to try and sell their point.

I am quite fine agreeing the Mr. Kennedy is not very bright or articulate.  

 

PS:  I am also fine in saying the same for the other two candidates.  

Edited by ionel
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So he is pro choice, he is for a 15 or 21 week limit.  And he said, "I’m not going be in a position, put myself in a position, where I am going to tell a woman to bring a child to term."  

Is his statement complete as in, he would not oppose abortion at birth?   Or could it be said that his statement is his position before 15 or 21 weeks?   Does it have to be absolute as in the first, or can it be nuanced as in the second. 

Reading US polls, most adults are in favor of limited choice abortion.   That limit is around 15 weeks.  Now there are extremists on either side, but most US citizens support a 15 week abortion.   Most do not support a 2nd trimester abortion, and a vast majority do not support a 3rd trimester abortion.   I believe these refer to choice abortions, not to save the life of the mother.   Is it possible he is reading those tea leaves and falling in line with the majority?   I don't know him or his political leanings in the past or present.   I have no idea.   So is the above a change in his stance?   Is that a no no or is it smart politics to meet the US voters where they are?  

Next question is why is there a discussion of him in the first place.   He will not win, he picked a flaming progressive for VP so it seems clear where his positions are - left of center.  

mspart

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/2/2024 at 3:06 PM, mspart said:

So he is pro choice, he is for a 15 or 21 week limit.  And he said, "I’m not going be in a position, put myself in a position, where I am going to tell a woman to bring a child to term."  

Is his statement complete as in, he would not oppose abortion at birth?   Or could it be said that his statement is his position before 15 or 21 weeks?   Does it have to be absolute as in the first, or can it be nuanced as in the second. 

Reading US polls, most adults are in favor of limited choice abortion.   That limit is around 15 weeks.  Now there are extremists on either side, but most US citizens support a 15 week abortion.   Most do not support a 2nd trimester abortion, and a vast majority do not support a 3rd trimester abortion.   I believe these refer to choice abortions, not to save the life of the mother.   Is it possible he is reading those tea leaves and falling in line with the majority?   I don't know him or his political leanings in the past or present.   I have no idea.   So is the above a change in his stance?   Is that a no no or is it smart politics to meet the US voters where they are?  

Next question is why is there a discussion of him in the first place.   He will not win, he picked a flaming progressive for VP so it seems clear where his positions are - left of center.  

mspart

Would conservatives support a law that banned all states from performing abortions past 15-21 weeks (exceptions for life of mother/rape) but required all states to offer abortion access up to 15-21 weeks? Maybe a guarantee to IVF access could be included as well, which is hugely popular.

There were very few abortion clinics in a number of southern states due to regulation prior to Roe being overturned, so this type of law would likely greatly expand access to abortion compared to even the days pre-Roe, although it would end mid/late term abortion, which many find to be despicable. 

Edited by billyhoyle
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not for it, but pragmatically I will keep looking the other way.  There isn't a humane way to do it at 15 weeks... but better performed by professionals than DIY methods.  I'd pay whatever tax is needed to simplify birth control access.

I'm in this group of folks who see the mom and others as involved in a murder plot, and the doctor as the hired gun. No point in arguing about it though, we're not gonna change any minds. So let's just agree to disagree and move on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Latest Rankings

  • College Commitments

    Nick Sahakian

    St. John Bosco, California
    Class of 2025
    Committed to Michigan
    Projected Weight: 285

    Anthony Rinehart

    Crown Point, Indiana
    Class of 2025
    Committed to California Baptist
    Projected Weight: 165

    Luke Satriano

    Valley Central, New York
    Class of 2025
    Committed to West Virginia
    Projected Weight: 125, 133

    Evan Boblits

    St. Mary's Ryken, Maryland
    Class of 2025
    Committed to Navy
    Projected Weight: 149

    Gavin Jendreas

    Crown Point, Indiana
    Class of 2025
    Committed to Indiana
    Projected Weight: 125, 133
×
×
  • Create New...