OP has given us no info about the candidates they’re considering other than RFK, who is a lunatic. There’s no merit to encouraging RFK’s views, so Biden should be OP’s choice.
The Tuskegee Experiment was not a conspiracy theory. So, in that sense you’re right.
Conspiracy theories and theorists are homogenous: the flawed thinking is inherent to the concept. Conspiracy theories are untrue by definition, and nothing to do with real conspiracies.
I think we’re talking past each other but agreeing on the fundamentals. I’m approaching it from the angle of all government positions - absolutely if a progressive candidate has a chance to win any office from dog catcher to president, get them in so they can influence policy. But if they have no chance of winning, it’s just damage control.
Please explain why it should be given to anyone else.
Because there are lots of other people who are not Trump.
Voting for candidates with more extreme policies shifts the political needle, even if they don’t win.
OP has given us no info about the candidates they’re considering other than RFK, who is a lunatic. There’s no merit to encouraging RFK’s views, so Biden should be OP’s choice.
RFK has significantly less lunacy than Trump, and is much more coherent than both Biden and Trump.
He still supports Israel though, so there is no anti genocide candidate.
RFK is less coherent than Biden politically and intellectually, which is what matters.
The way RFK makes (coherent) arguments in public is streets ahead of Biden and Trump, but so is almost any politician.
In terms of honesty, RFK is between Biden and Trump. Half truths and populism, rather than the full lies of Trump.
No, it isn’t. He’s a conspiracy theorist. Voting for him is endorsing conspiracy theorists.
The Tuskegee experiment is not the same as Flat Earth. Conspiracy theories are not a homogeneous and neither are conspiracy theorists.
The Tuskegee Experiment was not a conspiracy theory. So, in that sense you’re right.
Conspiracy theories and theorists are homogenous: the flawed thinking is inherent to the concept. Conspiracy theories are untrue by definition, and nothing to do with real conspiracies.
Voting for other candidates only shifts the needle if they win. If they can’t possibly win, nothing is accomplished by voting for them.
Incorrect. Bernie shifted the needle and didn’t win.
On Thursday he rolled out two new policy proposals:
"Senator Sanders and his supporters can take pride in their work in laying the groundwork for these ideas,
https://www.npr.org/2020/04/10/830853819/joe-biden-won-the-primary-now-hes-trying-to-win-over-progressive-groups
Didn’t win? Dude’s a congressman. He’s in.
Bernie didn’t win the presidency but still got some of his policies adopted by the president.
You don’t need to win to have influence.
I think we’re talking past each other but agreeing on the fundamentals. I’m approaching it from the angle of all government positions - absolutely if a progressive candidate has a chance to win any office from dog catcher to president, get them in so they can influence policy. But if they have no chance of winning, it’s just damage control.
Short term, yes. Long term losers can have more impact than you are crediting.
That’s fair.