you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]AXXA🙏🏿[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (12 children)

"If we can get a consensus on it, if Republicans and Democrats agreed and it passed Congress, I would sign it."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eLW9s6NpS7w&t=3783s

[–]Maniak🥃😾 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (11 children)

Translation: "no way in hell will this ever happen, so I may just as well say the words"

[–]BlackhaloPurity Pony: Pусский бот 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I'd respect him more, if he stood up for 2nd amendment rights.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

It happened in 1994

[–]Maniak🥃😾 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

When democrats became republicans and started the descent into made-up tribalism to make sure that people at the bottom keep fighting among themselves on things like guns, abortion, pronouns and so on while the owner class controls both 'sides' and decides if and when there's a 'consensus' on anything?

Those are more empty words from RFK, that don't engage him to do anything. First because he's not winning the DNC primary, second because he wouldn't go against his party, third because this is about guns so if there was to be a consensus it'd be dictated by the NRA, so there won't be an assault weapons ban.

However, it's a nice talking point to trigger gun nuts and cater to shitlibs. As a democrat would do.

All for something that isn't happening, and even if it could happen, it's only about putting a superficial bandaid over a symptom and wouldn't help in the slightest. Remember the prohibition?

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

You seem to think the people owning firearms is some sort of problem.

“Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary” - Karl Marx

[–]MeganDelacroix🤡🌎 detainee 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

This is worth expanding on, because at least that section of the Address of the Central Committee to the Communist League (1850) could've been written by our Founding Fathers. Washington, who famously hated political parties, would have heartily applauded every word of this:

To be able forcefully and threateningly to oppose this party, whose betrayal of the workers will begin with the very first hour of victory, the workers must be armed and organized. The whole proletariat must be armed at once with muskets, rifles, cannon and ammunition, and the revival of the old-style citizens’ militia, directed against the workers, must be opposed. Where the formation of this militia cannot be prevented, the workers must try to organize themselves independently as a proletarian guard, with elected leaders and with their own elected general staff; they must try to place themselves not under the orders of the state authority but of the revolutionary local councils set up by the workers. Where the workers are employed by the state, they must arm and organize themselves into special corps with elected leaders, or as a part of the proletarian guard. Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary.

[–]Maniak🥃😾 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

"Gun nuts" is not a synonym for "people owning firearms".

I seem to think that gun nuts are gun nuts. I also happen to despise guns and think that they're the tools of cowards. None of which matters, and I would not argue to ban them anyway.

I mostly seem to think that in the context of politics, and especially in the US where being a gun nut is a generational/cultural thing, gun bans, gun control, gun laws, all the talking points related to this are bullshit distractions like so many others, because as with everything else, what the people want is of no consequence. They're not the ones making the decisions, and if they vote for politicians based on the words that were said on those topics, it's just them being gullible.

RFK following the party line and throwing out words and pledges he knows won't need to be kept because none of it will happen, that's not something that helps him in the "why trust him" column.

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

that's not something that helps him in the "why trust him" column.

Well I can agree with you on this. He's shown a lot of integrity on some issues, so I was hopeful that he was going to not engage in this kind of insincere politicking, but have been disappointed by a number of recent comments he has made.

[–]Maniak🥃😾 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

I was pretty sure that if he announced his run as being within the democratic party it'd be a sign that he'd be mostly following the party line, with just a few good takes to entice the anti-establishment-minded even though he isn't.

Haven't been proven wrong yet, though I'd have loved to be...

And you can bet that he will be supporting whomever the blue corporate whore ends up in the general election (which won't be him, and if Biden gets replaced it will give RFK an easy out for his already non-committal answers to "will you support Biden in the general?")

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

it'd be a sign that he'd be mostly following the party line, with just a few good takes to entice the anti-establishment-minded even though he isn't.

I think you are being a bit hyperbolic. His crusade against vaccines and other regulatory capture is decades long, this isn't a hot take. His opposition to the biggest DNC donor, Big Pharma doesnt stop there, he said SSRI's cause mass shooters and drugs in the water are turning kids trans. He has opposed censorship of all sorts, including supporting Assange. He's opposed the DNC agenda in Ukraine. No trans men in women's sports. There isn't one other Democrat who would take any of these stances (Tulsi did and promptly left the party), let alone all of them, and they have completely mobilized the liberal rags to smear him

[–]Maniak🥃😾 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I think you are being a bit hyperbolic.

I've been known to do that :)

I'm not picking away at his record on the topics on which he's good on. If his campaign serves to bring those topics to the mainstream discourse in a way that isn't the usual democrat culture war bullshit, great, go for it.

I'm picking at his political campaign. Your point about Tulsi is in line with my point: the democratic party wouldn't let any of its members do anything about any of those issues, and RFK isn't dumb. He knows this.

RFK isn't changing the party and he isn't winning the primary, but he could be using his campaign to push the topics he's good on.

Instead he's playing the DNC game, only mentioning his good topics when asked about them and otherwise following the party line, complete with way overblown support for zionists blowing up civilians while pledging to ban "assault weapons" (whatever that means) under conditions that won't happen.

I don't quite like the smell of this strategy, whether it comes from him or his advisors.

The only possible use for his campaign, given that he's not winning, is to push back against the establishment narrative on corporate media. Anything else is a waste of time at best, a distraction at worst.