|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On June 22 2023 06:02 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On June 22 2023 01:16 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 22 2023 01:05 KwarK wrote:On June 22 2023 00:54 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 22 2023 00:36 Taelshin wrote:On the topic of us politics RFK just gave a rousing speech not long after being on Joe Rogan's podcast. + Show Spoiler + I've sniped it to where his speech starts and its a good listen. Gotta say I'm pretty pumped to see a democrat saying what he's saying god damn its refreshing. Interested in what you all think. Democrats would sooner burn down the nomination process than let him win it so he's basically got no chance. On the other hand he got a pretty positive response from Rogan listeners so he actually has the crossover appeal Biden's more conservative choices are supposed to be rationalized by. If beating Trump/DeSantis (who are both beating Biden and Harris in the polls) is the most important thing, RFK Jr. might be Democrats best chance. Biden can beat Trump. We know because we’ve tried. Biden can absolutely beat Trump, even if the polls favor Trump on Election Day. As far as the rationale of "We know because we’ve tried" goes, what would your response be to a counterpoint that goes something like "Sure, Biden beat Trump last election, but a lot of things have changed since then, such as Biden noticeably slowing down cognitively, and it might be the case that some Democratic voters are unhappy with how Biden's presidency has turned out. Therefore, those disillusioned voters may stay home and not vote for him a second time (not everyone believes in the "lesser of two evils" voting philosophy). For these reasons, the fact that Biden beat Trump in the past doesn't mean he necessarily has a good chance of beating him in future." Thoughts? If we’re talking how events after the 2016 election has changed the public perception of them then I don’t see how Trump hasn’t been more harmed by his attempted coup and series of indictments. Because his supporters will still vote for him regardless.
I question if the group that were willing to vote for Trump in 2020 are actually really turned off by everything since.
|
On June 22 2023 06:02 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On June 22 2023 01:16 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 22 2023 01:05 KwarK wrote:On June 22 2023 00:54 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 22 2023 00:36 Taelshin wrote:On the topic of us politics RFK just gave a rousing speech not long after being on Joe Rogan's podcast. + Show Spoiler +https://youtu.be/z59vaHQ3zPE?t=2712 I've sniped it to where his speech starts and its a good listen. Gotta say I'm pretty pumped to see a democrat saying what he's saying god damn its refreshing. Interested in what you all think. Democrats would sooner burn down the nomination process than let him win it so he's basically got no chance. On the other hand he got a pretty positive response from Rogan listeners so he actually has the crossover appeal Biden's more conservative choices are supposed to be rationalized by. If beating Trump/DeSantis (who are both beating Biden and Harris in the polls) is the most important thing, RFK Jr. might be Democrats best chance. Biden can beat Trump. We know because we’ve tried. Biden can absolutely beat Trump, even if the polls favor Trump on Election Day. As far as the rationale of "We know because we’ve tried" goes, what would your response be to a counterpoint that goes something like "Sure, Biden beat Trump last election, but a lot of things have changed since then, such as Biden noticeably slowing down cognitively, and it might be the case that some Democratic voters are unhappy with how Biden's presidency has turned out. Therefore, those disillusioned voters may stay home and not vote for him a second time (not everyone believes in the "lesser of two evils" voting philosophy). For these reasons, the fact that Biden beat Trump in the past doesn't mean he necessarily has a good chance of beating him in future." Thoughts? If we’re talking how events after the 2016 election has changed the public perception of them then I don’t see how Trump hasn’t been more harmed by his attempted coup and series of indictments.
You could look at public polling. It's pretty clear Biden has lost a lot more support since the 2020 cycle than Trump has. Hell Biden's approval is lower than Trump's was at this point in his presidency.
|
On June 22 2023 06:13 Sadist wrote:Show nested quote +On June 22 2023 05:39 BlackJack wrote:On June 21 2023 23:02 Sadist wrote:On June 21 2023 22:52 Liquid`Drone wrote:
BJ wasn't actually complaining about the banning of gas stoves, he was complaining about ridiculing republicans for claiming that democrats were going to do it followed by doing it. It's very possible that he's also opposed, but the issue wasn't the policy.
And I agree with that. I mean, I haven't followed to what degree democrats have denied wanting to do that and then doing that, but I think there is a real issue with people not truthfully communicating what going carbon neutral will entail, although I also understand the logic because honest communication might lose you the votes you need to go carbon neutral and that's an urgent matter, but I can't deny that it'll also have long term costs in terms of trust in politicians. I also see the relation between this and covid-related communication, where some politicians/spokespeople thought they could get even more desirable behavior through not being perfectly honest, and while yes, that might be true, and there is a real benefit through doing so, there's a long term danger in further eroding trust in institutions/politicians. I think it's fair to think about this and conclude that you prefer the short term gain, but not to claim there is no potential long term harm. Drone, agree with everything you just typed about eroding trust. Thats not BJs point though. He 100% wants to show those smug virtue signaling liberals how dumb they really are or how they are hypocrits. All the snarky takes and pot shots show the true intentions. And you know what? Hes right. A lot of those people suck. But the fact of the matter is its really easy to sit on the sidelines and take potshots at people trying to fix things while never offering solutions to real problems yourself. Additionally, while I agree "if you know better you should do better" its never mentioned that one party/movement BY DESIGN erodes faith in Government and Institutions. Its literally been the US Republican calling card that all problems are caused by Govt. Govt sucks. They need to get out of our way. Etc. Isnt it funny how the party who says elect me because government sucks has an incentive to make it suck more so they can further their message and get elected again? This has been going in the US for well over 50 years. Maybe there needs to be a ceasefire of the snarky one liners, misconstrued statements, bad faith arguments on both sides of the discussion. But it takes two to Tango. If BJ would plainly say what he believes instead of beating around the bush it would help. Actually that was my point. Just look at the context of the argument to know my point. I was talking about labeling people as conspiracy theorists for believing in very plausible things. I'm sure we could argue all day about the semantics of whether "taking away your gas stove" means functionally removing your ability to own one or jackbooted thugs kicking in your door to steal it. Or how much of the "conspiracy theories" actually used the verbiage of "taking away your stove" vs "wanting to ban stoves." But what you did was argue the merits of whether we should ban gas stoves and try to hit carbon neutral. At that point we're just talking past each other because I'm not making any argument of whether or not we should ban gas stoves as a matter of policy. But the verbiage and words used actually do matter. Thats why this is frustrating. Anyone saying or having headlines about the government taking away your gas stoves is a big part of the problem. Thats not whats happening. Headlines like that conjure images of Ray Bradbury and some dystopian future. Why do you want to critique democrats on the subtleties of language but not hold republicans accountable for firing up their base with sensationalism? Im all for being honest with people about what a carbon neutral future looks like. The idea is frankly daunting and sweat enducing to think about when you realize the scale we are talking about. But its hard to have those honest conversations when anytime we try to fix a problem one party screams bloody murder, denies the problem exists, says we can do nothing about it, and misleads with sensationalist BS. They are not behaving like adults. Simply trying to change anything sends them into a rage.
The problem is most of the headlines are about banning gas stoves and not about the government coming into your home to take your stove. The sensationalism is when the MSM hones in and amplifies that small group that may think Big Brother is coming into your home to take your stove and conflating them with the larger group that is just worried about a ban on gas stoves. Then they get to use the same broad brush to paint them all as conspiracy theorists. It's an effective strategy. Amplify the fringe and try to paint them as the majority. Both sides are doing it. It just seems more pernicious coming from the left because when the Right does it it's basically just Rupert Murdoch's companies and the right-wing blogosphere. When the left does it it can be most of the MSM, social media, entertainment media.
|
On June 22 2023 06:02 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On June 22 2023 01:16 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 22 2023 01:05 KwarK wrote:On June 22 2023 00:54 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 22 2023 00:36 Taelshin wrote:On the topic of us politics RFK just gave a rousing speech not long after being on Joe Rogan's podcast. + Show Spoiler +https://youtu.be/z59vaHQ3zPE?t=2712 I've sniped it to where his speech starts and its a good listen. Gotta say I'm pretty pumped to see a democrat saying what he's saying god damn its refreshing. Interested in what you all think. Democrats would sooner burn down the nomination process than let him win it so he's basically got no chance. On the other hand he got a pretty positive response from Rogan listeners so he actually has the crossover appeal Biden's more conservative choices are supposed to be rationalized by. If beating Trump/DeSantis (who are both beating Biden and Harris in the polls) is the most important thing, RFK Jr. might be Democrats best chance. Biden can beat Trump. We know because we’ve tried. Biden can absolutely beat Trump, even if the polls favor Trump on Election Day. As far as the rationale of "We know because we’ve tried" goes, what would your response be to a counterpoint that goes something like "Sure, Biden beat Trump last election, but a lot of things have changed since then, such as Biden noticeably slowing down cognitively, and it might be the case that some Democratic voters are unhappy with how Biden's presidency has turned out. Therefore, those disillusioned voters may stay home and not vote for him a second time (not everyone believes in the "lesser of two evils" voting philosophy). For these reasons, the fact that Biden beat Trump in the past doesn't mean he necessarily has a good chance of beating him in future." Thoughts? If we’re talking how events after the 2016 election has changed the public perception of them then I don’t see how Trump hasn’t been more harmed by his attempted coup and series of indictments.
The main difference here is that the Republican candidate has the benefit of being the guy that emerges from a serious primary competition and are guaranteed to be the most popular candidate among the base which should translate into more voter turnout among the base. Biden on the other hand may not be the most desired candidate among the Democrats which may translate to worse turnout among the base.
|
On June 22 2023 05:39 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2023 23:02 Sadist wrote:On June 21 2023 22:52 Liquid`Drone wrote:
BJ wasn't actually complaining about the banning of gas stoves, he was complaining about ridiculing republicans for claiming that democrats were going to do it followed by doing it. It's very possible that he's also opposed, but the issue wasn't the policy.
And I agree with that. I mean, I haven't followed to what degree democrats have denied wanting to do that and then doing that, but I think there is a real issue with people not truthfully communicating what going carbon neutral will entail, although I also understand the logic because honest communication might lose you the votes you need to go carbon neutral and that's an urgent matter, but I can't deny that it'll also have long term costs in terms of trust in politicians. I also see the relation between this and covid-related communication, where some politicians/spokespeople thought they could get even more desirable behavior through not being perfectly honest, and while yes, that might be true, and there is a real benefit through doing so, there's a long term danger in further eroding trust in institutions/politicians. I think it's fair to think about this and conclude that you prefer the short term gain, but not to claim there is no potential long term harm. Drone, agree with everything you just typed about eroding trust. Thats not BJs point though. He 100% wants to show those smug virtue signaling liberals how dumb they really are or how they are hypocrits. All the snarky takes and pot shots show the true intentions. And you know what? Hes right. A lot of those people suck. But the fact of the matter is its really easy to sit on the sidelines and take potshots at people trying to fix things while never offering solutions to real problems yourself. Additionally, while I agree "if you know better you should do better" its never mentioned that one party/movement BY DESIGN erodes faith in Government and Institutions. Its literally been the US Republican calling card that all problems are caused by Govt. Govt sucks. They need to get out of our way. Etc. Isnt it funny how the party who says elect me because government sucks has an incentive to make it suck more so they can further their message and get elected again? This has been going in the US for well over 50 years. Maybe there needs to be a ceasefire of the snarky one liners, misconstrued statements, bad faith arguments on both sides of the discussion. But it takes two to Tango. If BJ would plainly say what he believes instead of beating around the bush it would help. Actually that was my point. Just look at the context of the argument to know my point. I was talking about labeling people as conspiracy theorists for believing in very plausible things. I'm sure we could argue all day about the semantics of whether "taking away your gas stove" means functionally removing your ability to own one or jackbooted thugs kicking in your door to steal it. Or how much of the "conspiracy theories" actually used the verbiage of "taking away your stove" vs "wanting to ban stoves." But what you did was argue the merits of whether we should ban gas stoves and try to hit carbon neutral. At that point we're just talking past each other because I'm not making any argument of whether or not we should ban gas stoves as a matter of policy.
I have to ask. Why do you think the inability to buy a gas stove in a new construction or a reform of your kitchen is bad? Do you also lament the ability to not use a wood stove in your kitchen? I used to be a huge fan of cooking on gas, but we moved into a house that was all electric in 2016 and induction is just... better. It is cheaper, the heat is equally easy to regulate, and you don't risk setting your house on fire if you forget to switch it off (or it is damaged and leaks). Since then I became a home owner and actually installing induction is considerably more expensive than gas, so we're waiting until we have to reform the whole kitchen anyway, but for a new installation, the expense is roughly similar: the device is more expensive, but you save on having to put gas pipes in the wall. So why do you have a problem if natural gas stoves are phased out in favour of electric cooking?
+ Show Spoiler [foody stuff] +
Really there's only one thing I can think of that induction is truly inferior and that is anything that requires an open flame or a localized source of intense heat. You can generally replace that type of cooking with an oven or an air fryer, and the only thing I cook that really is inferior on induction than on gas is cooking paella, which you just cannot get a good socarrat on with induction. I'm sure there are other super specific types of cooking that work better on gas than induction, but I doubt you're lamenting the ability to get good socarrats on your paellas when you complain about the gradual disappearance of gas cooking. If it is, you'll be happy to know that you can get an even better socarrat with a wood grill!
|
|
|
On June 22 2023 06:54 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On June 22 2023 05:39 BlackJack wrote:On June 21 2023 23:02 Sadist wrote:On June 21 2023 22:52 Liquid`Drone wrote:
BJ wasn't actually complaining about the banning of gas stoves, he was complaining about ridiculing republicans for claiming that democrats were going to do it followed by doing it. It's very possible that he's also opposed, but the issue wasn't the policy.
And I agree with that. I mean, I haven't followed to what degree democrats have denied wanting to do that and then doing that, but I think there is a real issue with people not truthfully communicating what going carbon neutral will entail, although I also understand the logic because honest communication might lose you the votes you need to go carbon neutral and that's an urgent matter, but I can't deny that it'll also have long term costs in terms of trust in politicians. I also see the relation between this and covid-related communication, where some politicians/spokespeople thought they could get even more desirable behavior through not being perfectly honest, and while yes, that might be true, and there is a real benefit through doing so, there's a long term danger in further eroding trust in institutions/politicians. I think it's fair to think about this and conclude that you prefer the short term gain, but not to claim there is no potential long term harm. Drone, agree with everything you just typed about eroding trust. Thats not BJs point though. He 100% wants to show those smug virtue signaling liberals how dumb they really are or how they are hypocrits. All the snarky takes and pot shots show the true intentions. And you know what? Hes right. A lot of those people suck. But the fact of the matter is its really easy to sit on the sidelines and take potshots at people trying to fix things while never offering solutions to real problems yourself. Additionally, while I agree "if you know better you should do better" its never mentioned that one party/movement BY DESIGN erodes faith in Government and Institutions. Its literally been the US Republican calling card that all problems are caused by Govt. Govt sucks. They need to get out of our way. Etc. Isnt it funny how the party who says elect me because government sucks has an incentive to make it suck more so they can further their message and get elected again? This has been going in the US for well over 50 years. Maybe there needs to be a ceasefire of the snarky one liners, misconstrued statements, bad faith arguments on both sides of the discussion. But it takes two to Tango. If BJ would plainly say what he believes instead of beating around the bush it would help. Actually that was my point. Just look at the context of the argument to know my point. I was talking about labeling people as conspiracy theorists for believing in very plausible things. I'm sure we could argue all day about the semantics of whether "taking away your gas stove" means functionally removing your ability to own one or jackbooted thugs kicking in your door to steal it. Or how much of the "conspiracy theories" actually used the verbiage of "taking away your stove" vs "wanting to ban stoves." But what you did was argue the merits of whether we should ban gas stoves and try to hit carbon neutral. At that point we're just talking past each other because I'm not making any argument of whether or not we should ban gas stoves as a matter of policy. I have to ask. Why do you think the inability to buy a gas stove in a new construction or a reform of your kitchen is bad? Do you also lament the ability to not use a wood stove in your kitchen? I used to be a huge fan of cooking on gas, but we moved into a house that was all electric in 2016 and induction is just... better. It is cheaper, the heat is equally easy to regulate, and you don't risk setting your house on fire if you forget to switch it off (or it is damaged and leaks). Since then I became a home owner and actually installing induction is considerably more expensive than gas, so we're waiting until we have to reform the whole kitchen anyway, but for a new installation, the expense is roughly similar: the device is more expensive, but you save on having to put gas pipes in the wall. So why do you have a problem if natural gas stoves are phased out in favour of electric cooking? + Show Spoiler [foody stuff] +
Really there's only one thing I can think of that induction is truly inferior and that is anything that requires an open flame or a localized source of intense heat. You can generally replace that type of cooking with an oven or an air fryer, and the only thing I cook that really is inferior on induction than on gas is cooking paella, which you just cannot get a good socarrat on with induction. I'm sure there are other super specific types of cooking that work better on gas than induction, but I doubt you're lamenting the ability to get good socarrats on your paellas when you complain about the gradual disappearance of gas cooking. If it is, you'll be happy to know that you can get an even better socarrat with a wood grill!
Are you trolling me?
|
United States24562 Posts
I've been following this news item for a while: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/plan-to-discharge-water-into-hudson-river-from-closed-indian-point-nuclear-plant-sparks-uproar (URL is pretty decent summary)
I thought about it when the thread mentioned earlier how academia tends to lean left. For this issue, it's the republicans who care at all about science... or they are just pretending. Probably a combination.
edit: To meet the minimum threshold: Company wants to process and discharge water from commercial nuclear power plant in accordance with applicable regulations as has occurred in the past. Public decides they suddenly have no appetite and NYS attempts to block it using a new law.
|
|
|
@Sadist don't ever forget, the people you disagree with, They are all the same person.
Sasdist "The "Conservatives" on TL just muck up the politics thread and the covid thread. Theres always a rotating group of you, its like you tag each in/out for a while. It would appear you are all a smurf of a single person or something.
Wish I could add some spooky music to that one lol.
@DPB and to everyone that is true you need to make an account that was an over sight by me trust me I'm not getting a kick back from Spotify for linking it. My fault but yeah I understand its def not gonna be up your alley or like Sermo's taste but if you maybe are interested in the man it might help you form a more concrete opinion.
|
On June 22 2023 07:20 micronesia wrote:I've been following this news item for a while: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/plan-to-discharge-water-into-hudson-river-from-closed-indian-point-nuclear-plant-sparks-uproar (URL is pretty decent summary) I thought about it when the thread mentioned earlier how academia tends to lean left. For this issue, it's the republicans who care at all about science... or they are just pretending. Probably a combination. edit: To meet the minimum threshold: Company wants to process and discharge water from commercial nuclear power plant in accordance with applicable regulations as has occurred in the past. Public decides they suddenly have no appetite and NYS attempts to block it using a new law.
There's no shortage of "anti-science" positions you can find on the left. Before COVID the face of the anti-vax movement was Jenny McCarthy and husband Jim Carey and was most popular in liberal circles in California. The same kinds of people that shun GMOs, conventional pesticides, favor things like homeopathy and other alternative medicines, etc. Now you get into the more extreme and in the name of progressing social justice almost anything can be believed. One of my favorite examples of this is the things people will buy into in the name of "fat acceptance." There's plenty of people now that are rejecting the laws of thermodynamics and insisting that you can gain weight while burning more calories than you consume. Not just the quacks on the dark web - here's a Harvard doctor on a Biden advisory panel arguing that obesity can't be treated with diet and exercise
https://www.msn.com/en-ca/health/wellness/doctor-on-advisory-committee-says-obesity-cant-be-treated-with-diet-exercise/ar-AA16Mh0k
“That means if you are born to parents that have obesity, you have a 50% to 85% likelihood of having the disease yourself. Even with optimal diet, exercise, sleep management, stress management.”
Even with perfect diet and exercise and sleep and stress management you still have an up to 85% chance of being obese. C'mon now. She also happens to be getting paid thousands by the pharma company that makes Ozempic so it might be safe to say she has a little bit of a motive to peddle her bullshit.
|
|
|
On June 22 2023 09:52 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On June 22 2023 07:20 micronesia wrote:I've been following this news item for a while: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/plan-to-discharge-water-into-hudson-river-from-closed-indian-point-nuclear-plant-sparks-uproar (URL is pretty decent summary) I thought about it when the thread mentioned earlier how academia tends to lean left. For this issue, it's the republicans who care at all about science... or they are just pretending. Probably a combination. edit: To meet the minimum threshold: Company wants to process and discharge water from commercial nuclear power plant in accordance with applicable regulations as has occurred in the past. Public decides they suddenly have no appetite and NYS attempts to block it using a new law. There's no shortage of "anti-science" positions you can find on the left. Before COVID the face of the anti-vax movement was Jenny McCarthy and husband Jim Carey and was most popular in liberal circles in California. The same kinds of people that shun GMOs, conventional pesticides, favor things like homeopathy and other alternative medicines, etc. Now you get into the more extreme and in the name of progressing social justice almost anything can be believed. One of my favorite examples of this is the things people will buy into in the name of "fat acceptance." There's plenty of people now that are rejecting the laws of thermodynamics and insisting that you can gain weight while burning more calories than you consume. Not just the quacks on the dark web - here's a Harvard doctor on a Biden advisory panel arguing that obesity can't be treated with diet and exercise https://www.msn.com/en-ca/health/wellness/doctor-on-advisory-committee-says-obesity-cant-be-treated-with-diet-exercise/ar-AA16Mh0kShow nested quote +“That means if you are born to parents that have obesity, you have a 50% to 85% likelihood of having the disease yourself. Even with optimal diet, exercise, sleep management, stress management.” Even with perfect diet and exercise and sleep and stress management you still have an up to 85% chance of being obese. C'mon now. She also happens to be getting paid thousands by the pharma company that makes Ozempic so it might be safe to say she has a little bit of a motive to peddle her bullshit.
While every medical source I can find does clearly state that there is a genetic factor that can contribute to chances of obesity, I'm seeing a variety of percentages or impact. It does seem to be the case that diet and exercise can probably overcome most situations, even with a genetic predisposition to obesity. Here are three different sources showing how varied the takes are:
This medical study seems to mostly agree with the doctor you quoted:
"Genetic and environmental factors interact to regulate body weight. Overall, the heritability of obesity is estimated at 40% to 70%."
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2787002/
This Harvard source offers a very large range of impact, with only the upper half of that range matching the doctor you quoted:
"The strength of the genetic influence on weight disorders varies quite a bit from person to person. Research suggests that for some people, genes account for just 25% of the predisposition to be overweight, while for others the genetic influence is as high as 70% to 80%."
https://www.health.harvard.edu/staying-healthy/why-people-become-overweight
The CDC's stance seems to be a little more in line with your skepticism:
"Genetics can directly cause obesity in specific disorders such as Bardet-Biedl syndrome and Prader-Willi syndrome. However genes do not always predict future health. In some cases, multiple genes may increase susceptibility for obesity, but obesity does not occur without excess food or too little physical activity."
https://www.cdc.gov/healthyweight/calories/index.html?CDC_AA_refVal=https://www.cdc.gov/healthyweight/calories/other_factors.html
|
Huh. I’ve never binned homeopathy as either a left-wing or a right-wing kind of thing. I just figured that buying it probably correlates negatively with education level and the sellers are, well, horrible. What makes you perceive a belief in homeopathy as a primarily left-wing thing?
|
|
|
I would say the homeopath thing seemed more new age left wing slanted early on (Jenny McCarthy was definitely a loud voice in the early antivax movement). With all the essential oils and covid vaccine skepticism it seems more evenly distributed now.
|
I was unable to find actual data on which demographics (political affiliation, sex, ethnicity, religion, etc.) are more likely to use homeopathy. Anyone else have better luck?
|
|
|
Vaccine skepticism was also all over the map, but the new age tree huggers were (are still?) pretty adamant about the debunked "vaccines cause autism" nonsense.
But, at least here in Europe, the measles outbreaks happened in very conservative religious communities who are anti-vaccines on religious grounds.
Anti-scientific points of view are by no means limited to just the political right. However, I don't think we were discussing the voting base, but rather the politicians themselves. And it's safe to say anti-scientific stances have been embraced, promoted, and weaponized by right-wing populists, with Trump at their head.
I don't know enough about RFK Jr., but the criticism leveled against the Democratic Party is that he is being deplatformed and ostracized, which sounds to me like exactly the right thing to do with anti-scientific populists...
|
Don't pay attention to RFK I watch some joe every now and then and rfk thinks wifi signals cause cancer and destroy the blood brain barrier causing toxins to enter your brain. He's not a serious person and has no policy just grievance and grif. If he didn't have the last name of a Kennedy he wouldn't have gotten a second of air time.
Odd callout but joe is my taste I find his long term decent into dumber and dumber things he believes and doesn't challenge to be hilarious. He's long from poisoning his mind with supplements and drugs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
