Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
Somebody is counting his chickens before they've hatched.
The brainworms have definitely hatched though
I wouldn't be surprised though if Trump just ignores him and appoints a drug company lobbyist instead. RFK Jr. forgot Rule #1 when dealing with Trump: get paid up front.
Awesome, we are in a situation where I am openly hoping for the corrupt commercial outcome....
Also that he demands absolute loyality but gives none.
I always imagined him as the guy at the end of Road House where Patrick Swayze ripped his throat out and round-housed him into the pond. But he survived, left the redneckville and turns out half of his vocal cords was left intact.
Whewww them political spoils be spoiling
If you stayed home because of Gaza, this is your fault.
While they didn't help, I suspect their numbers were small enough to not matter in the scheme of what happened.
The answer is likely mundane. My guess is overall turnout was lower because things didn't feel as 'crisis' like as 2020. The needle for people barely aware of politics even as they vote stayed at the same place as it was in 2020: Things aren't great, kick whoever is in office out in hopes the alternative does better. Last time they came out for Biden because Trump was at the wheel. Now they show up for Trump because the president was a democrat.
This segment of the electorate is not particularly politically aware, let alone active, and likely has little to no opinion about the broader world. The relative likelihood of them turning up at all depends on how badly things are going (less likely to show up this time compared to the unprecedented mess of 2020), and to the extent they show up they just vote against whoever is in charge that day.
However, those people are generally quiet, and so we turn our focus instead to the loudest folks proclaiming a refusal to vote for Harris.
If it was close, I would agree. It wasn't even close by such a huge margin the more mundane factors I think are the only ones big enough to explain things.
My guess is overall turnout was lower because things didn't feel as 'crisis' like as 2020.
What an insane take...
For the politically disengaged? It is an accurate take.
In 2020, you had massive unemployment. People personally were stuck at home with nowhere they could go. Many of them saw a loved one suffer death at the hands of a pandemic, or personally get very sick. That is a direct and visceral experience of "things are bad". They didn't need to follow any news, study any charts, read any policy, they knew that their direct subjective experience was bad.
In 2024, things for people are largely normal, but a lot of bills are high. Grading on a curve, this is much further from a personal crisis for most folks. In fact, the grocery bills eased a bit so some people might be seeing a natural 'light at the end of the tunnel'.
The biggest discused crisis factors in forums like this are only being considered by the politically engaged, and that's just not most people. Whether it should be or not...
His brain worms plan on ensuring antihelmintic drugs do not get advanced.
While RFK Jr is the same worm man, let's please remember all the cries about drugs being expensive and regulators stifling competition there, and that (from what I've read, I've never been to US) what can be put into food is already not very well regulated in your country.
Those agencies are problematic. Just like actions aimed at something good may have negative side effects, often outweighing the effect in the intended direction, similarly it is here.
And after typing the previous I've read the article and that's what he's saying, mentioning Canada as the good example. Unfortunately by analogy this would mean that for drug regulation he'd go the same way, only with his antivaxxer views. Also talking about kids being healthier is cringe.
The agencies are problematic because they generally aren't allowed or don't have the budget to properly regulate things. Eliminating departments isn't going to help anything, and I really don't think the guy that picks up roadkill for a snack will improve the overall quality of food in the country.