Politics

26 readers

1 users here now

@politics on kbin.social is a magazine to share and discuss current events news, opinion/analysis, videos, or other informative content related to politicians, politics, or policy-making at all levels of governance (federal, state, local), both domestic and international. Members of all political perspectives are welcome here, though we run a tight ship. Community guidelines and submission rules were co-created between the Mod Team and early members of @politics. Please read all community guidelines and submission rules carefully before engaging our magazine.

founded 2 years ago

Analysis: Democrats put RFK Jr. on blast in change of strategy (thehill.com)

submitted 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) by JonEFive@kbin.social to c/politics@kbin.social

12 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Democrats are no longer trying to ignore Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and have taken to calling him out in public after a week of controversies.

top 10 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] JonEFive@kbin.social 5 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

National party leaders for the first time acknowledged Kennedy’s disruptive presidential bid with sharp criticism...

It’s a notable change from their previous approach, in which Democratic leaders and party officials hoped Kennedy would simply fade away on his own.

I don't know why they would think ignoring him was ever the way to go. Have they learned nothing? I understand the inclination to avoid giving him any extra attention, but ignoring the problem does not make it go away. We've seen how radical speech gets attention nowadays.

Then again, nothing democrats say will change the trajectory of his campaign. His followers do not care whether or not what he says is true or anti-semetic so long as it agrees with their world view.

I grieve for our country.

[–] Unaware7013@kbin.social 4 points 2 years ago

I think the aim is less at changing the minds of the people who have already fallen for this spoiler and help prevent more people for falling down that conspiracy rabbit hole, which could affect the trajectory of his campaign.

[–] HandsHurtLoL@kbin.social 2 points 2 years ago (2 children)

Hi @JonEFive! Thanks for submitting. We just recently added rules in our sidebar around submission titles that I encourage you to read. Thank you!

[–] JonEFive@kbin.social 3 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

Assuming you meant the part about adding a label. Sorry, I missed that one. Updated the title to what I think should comply.

[–] HandsHurtLoL@kbin.social 3 points 2 years ago

Thanks for adding a label. We are encouraging people to use them because it was a stated goal when the magazine was solicited for input on community guidelines and rules, but we won't be like, coming in behind anyone to fact check whether the correct label was applied.

However, you may find this short glossary helpful:

Glossary of terms: Editorials have author bylines that denote a collection of people within a
news organization, such as candidate endorsements from a newspaper’s staff. Opinions have
author bylines from a single (maybe two) writer(s). Analysis is when an author starts with
factually verified current events and reports then explains deeper significance or motivation,
predicts future outcomes, or makes a policy recommendation based on the starting data.

Thanks for editing the title!

[–] ripcord@kbin.social 2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Specific details on what was wrong would probably help.

[–] Drusas@kbin.social 2 points 2 years ago

The biggest change the new rules involve is that everyone should add a label (news, editorial, opinion, or analysis) at the beginning of their submission's title.

[–] demesisx 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Ooh, I can get mainstream CNN neoliberal bullshit on the fediverse too! What’s next a Rachel Maddow community where we talk about how great Hillary Clinton and Neera Tanden are?

[–] JonEFive@kbin.social 2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

This comment has nothing to do with the content of the article. You're posing in a community to discuss politics in general. If you have an issue with any particular point the article makes, feel free to explain.

I personally agree with the perspective that we shouldn't elect people who make claims about infectious disease which are easily refuted by science.

Kennedy this week drew backlash for asserting without evidence that COVID-19 was “ethnically targeted” — a claim infectious disease and ethics experts refuted. Kennedy was caught on video by a reporter saying Chinese people and Ashkenazi Jews were not targeted as much as other races, including Black and white people.

[–] demesisx 1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

You're right, though, my comment has a lot to do with the neoliberal content of the article. Actual leftists never took RFK Jr. seriously in the first place and laugh at tribalist content like this. However, I guess it's necessary so we can get Joe "never seen a MBNA bribe or corporate handout he didn't like" Biden to narrowly defeat the orange criminal and give us four more years of driving our Chevy Suburban to a Starbucks drive-through on the way to the house we're currently flipping while our kids can't afford their student loans and rent (but should probably cut back on avocado toast and grind more) and the world chokes to death on pollution.

I found the perfect community for people that upvoted this article: https://lemmy.world/c/boomertime

load more comments