RFK jr having a 21-minute crash out
Dana Bash on CNN calling the BS out
Syndicated from the fediverse. Read and engage on the original instance.
View original on discuss.onlineView original on discuss.online
Syndicated from the fediverse. Read and engage on the original instance.
View original on discuss.onlineDana Bash on CNN calling the BS out
136 replies
Can we get a link to the video clip of this?
This is a classic example of that "protests too much" Shakespeare line.
Yeah but like, what that mean tho?
"Every accusation is a confession" is a close parallel
no one know what it means, but it's provocative
Eh.
Republicans crash out 24/7/365. Doesn't matter. Our system is too flawed to hold them accountable and our populace is too stupid to prevent them from having power.
What does crashing out matter if you still get to run the show? I guess eventually the show collapses. But then we're all fucked because the system crashes.
I've been watching Republicans crash out my entire life. Doesn't matter when the populace is this braindead stupid.
Exactly. Nothing is fucking happening to any of these people that demonstrate how unfit for office they are every time they open their mouths. It creates a feeling of helplessness and a fury that will not subside without accountability.
You know what would really make Republicans crash out?
Democrats winning an election and not making a pithy response.
It's really super neat the way the radical right vilifies smart people while desperately pretending to be them. Very cool and stable worldview that will bring nothing but good things.
At their core they don't believe in merit. They believe in birthright.
The astounding progress humanity has made in the past few centuries doesn't happen without oppurtunity being, in some way, distributed based on merit. No country on Earth is a true meritocracy but the standard until very recently was feudalism where you're either born lucky or you're not.
For some right wing folk, there's not a lot to offer on the basis of merit so they'd rather move back to the coinflip model being lucky even if they have little to offer.
Look at RFK - does he really have anything to offer besides his name?
"you're not a scientist with all your "research" and "peer reviewed studies" and stupid "evidence"! You're not even wearing a lab coat! I've got a lab coat! You've got to respect me because my lab coat and my name tag says I'm a scientist! This guy doesn't even have a name tag c'mon."
/s hopefully obviously
"You think learning the specifics and intricacies and dedicating a chunk of your life to furthering your understanding of complex systems and decades navigating the rigors of academic study makes you a scientist or something?"
Also super neat that the non-radical right is just the Democratic leadership and the dead-fucking center get called the radical left and the actually slightly left are the Red Menace.
i feel like the "Center" is more center right than not.
Sort of a tangent, but yeah. That checks out.
Though, if you're looking for someone to blame, look no further than liberals and leftists.
Liberals, because in the 90s their big plan was to become indistinguishable from republicans. Well, in a two party system the two choices have to be different in some way shape of form, and the Clintonistas really only gave the GOP one direction to move. They KNEW this would happen and assumed it meant the GOP would become unelectable (see: Clinton 2016 campaign) instead of systematically destroying the USA. WHOOPS!
The left because we pre-compromising and always presenting the reasonable option first which leaves no room for negotiation other than to veer away from reasonable. If one side of the table is saying "tax the rich fairly" and the others is saying "hunt the poor for sport", the outcome is going to be somewhere in the middle.
Same mistake twice, really.
It sounds like you think the Left has a giant majority.
Mamdani ran as a 'democratic socialist' and barely got 51% of the vote in the Bluest city in america. He was running against a scandal ridden Centrist and a Mid-Right shock jock.
Harris got 65% of the vote. Mamdani did worse in both actual numbers of votes and percentages.
based on?
He doesn't even believe in germ theory of disease. It's hard to think of a less qualified person to be secretary of health.
He was hired to take revenge on the medical industry because Covid embarrassed Trump and probably caused him to lose the election.
I was so worried that covid would be the ultimate excuse for him to rally people over his failing policies and crashing economy (we were heading to depression / crash before covid!) Then he fucked up the easiest handout of public good and caused millions to needlessly die.
Well you see he thought people in "blue cities" would be the ones to die and was 100% ok with that.
Yup. He was hired to take orders, not do good.
Which is crazy because for any sane president, covid amounted to serving up the election on a silver platter.
"Follow the guidance of the scientists and we'll all get through this together." would have gotten him north of 65% of the total votes, and probably near the Reagan/Mondale level of electoral college victory.
Yep, early on Trump said he was like a war time president because of covid. If he had kept that mentality and rallied to fight covid, he would have easily won that election.
He has also said that the cause of AIDS is poppers, not HIV:
https://www.advocate.com/politics/robert-f-kennedy-jr-poppers
Good fucking luck Americans.
So prove us wrong RFK, and take an injection of HIV.
Yeah, he can do that, and I'll take poppers. The first one to contract AIDS will get $500,000 from Mr. Beast!
In the early HIV days, despite the identification of the virus, a clown at NIH destroyed his entire lab and reputation insisting HIV1 was not the cause, for years. I forgot his name because it should be forgotten.
Wait if he doesn't believe in germ theory, what the other fuck theory is there to believe in? Don't tell me he's a bloody miasmatist?
he is a miasmatist...
bad choice with Trump...
well he's clearly dead inside
I think that he believes that people get sick because of [ insert alternative medicine here ], and then the microbes follow. So basically he inverts the arrow of causality, because as the interviewer points out, he is not a scientist.
Flatearther
wormeater
He can believe or not believe however the fuck much he wants. I still don't know why "belief" is used so interchangeably with understanding, by basically everyone. When this angonizing hemorrhoid says "I don't believe in germ theory" what he really is saying is "I don't understand germ theory". Germs are there whether he believes or not.
Relevant XKCD
They're not using the word believe as in having a religious belief. Their using it in the very common, normal usage in which saying "I don't believe X" is synonymous with saying "I don't believe in the accuracy of X."
Which, when faced with an absolute mountain of evidence, is still tantamount to "I don't believe it". You can say "I don't think that's accurate" but when the entire community of people responsible for checking accuracy tells you that it is accurate, that's not disbelief, that's denial in clown shoes.
I'm not saying they're not idiots, but very few people if any can be said to understand most medical realities other than the most simple completely. There are plenty of people in the world that don't understand germ theory who don't say that they don't believe it.
That reminds me of Terrance Howard Math! The basics are so completely wrong that anything after it is already wrong.
There's so many snacks to eat and cute people to talk to and games to play and kittens to pet in this world.
Hydrate, go to bed, get up tomorriw eat a bananna take a walk outside. Things will get better.
It's not your fault there's so much stupid shit everywhere. Hang in there man and keep the comments flowing
Him: You’re not a scientist
Her: NEITHER ARE YOU ^(emphasis added)^
And then he continues to barf up the same conspiracy theories and lies on repeat that have been swilling around (disproven/unproven) for the last 15 years
The only sane thing ive heard him say is, exercise is healthy and you should eat non processed foods.
But this is a pretty well established fact..
The ret of the shit he says is just weird
The rest of the shit he says is actively dangerous to your health and mental wellbeing.
There's gotta be a word for when people say baseline obvious shit like eat healthy and exercise before going off the deep end with pseudoscience bullshit. It's like they go, "I'm normal, but also [thing a nornal person wouldn't say.]"
Motte and bailey. Make wild claim, retreat to safe claim when challenged, go back to wild claim.
Jordan Peterson is the master of it.
Correct and correct. Only commenting to add a wiki link.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motte-and-bailey_fallacy
When it feels like someone is spouting impenetrable bullshit look for this connection.
That's how religion works. "Be nice to each other! Otherwise the guy who is his own dad but also a ghost and still only one person will be mad at you!"
all I’m hearing is that Jesus’s pronouns are they/them as the holy trinity.
The Christian god is a plural system
Its basically a variant of "As a black man...."
Pipelining? Rabbit-holing? Trojan horsing?
I appreciate the type of person that corrects a typo when quoting someone. It requires being in a very narrow band on the spectrum.
Pasteurization is a process.
That alone has prevented countless deaths.
Yeah I always felt that "Proccessed" foods have a bad reputation for no good reason. The fact that something might have enough sugar, salt and so on to kill a cow is what makes it unhealthy not the fact that it was "processed".
Cooking is a process. Hell, cleaning, peeling, and slicing are all processes. Clearly there's a level of processing that's OK. But they never actually talk specifics, so it's impossible to tell where they draw the line. Is canned food okay? Salted nuts? Cheese? Discussions about UPF are different; those people usually define what they're talking about. But the MAHA people are incoherent.
It's kinda true... But less than you'd think. I get that it can be a convenient shorthand, but even the scientific field of nutrition can't agree on a good definition of processed foods, let alone ultra processed foods. As soon as you break it down to "you should eat a lot of vegetables, legumes, and whole grains, and not too much sugar, meat, salt, or saturated fats" you actually remove any predictive power that the "ultra processed" label has, so we can understand this concept much better in terms of the basic nutritional guidelines which have changed very little over the last 50 years except for some better understanding of the role of unsaturated fats. Meanwhile, on the contrary, totally unprocessed raw milk, minimally processed beef fat etc., which are favourites of the MAHA crowd, are extremely unhealthy. So even there his advice is quite dangerous if you actually look in to it.
"Processed foods" has the same energy to me as when people say food is bad because it has "chemicals" in it.
When following a recipe I start with ingredients and I end up with a prepared meal that I processed. We need to identify and specify the processes that causes problems in food instead of giving that food a label that could be applied to any meal you create.
Imma remove the "toxins" through my feet with this sticker for whatever the fuck reason.
It changed color, that's how you know it's working!
Preservatives and high sodium is probably the better term(s), because that's what people usually mean when they say processed foods. Like have a butcher cut instead of Oscar Maier salami slice
I feel the same way when someone says a certain food is 'organic'... well, yeah, pretty much everything we eat is organic. Even the main ingredient in Roundup is organic.
I get the need to be able to market 'clean' food in a way to differentiate it from everything else, but using a term that is scientifically incorrect is poor marketing.
You're being overly literal. That you made it yourself with real ingredients is a good rule of thumb for not ultra-processed. You're unlikely to have partially hydrogenated vegetable oil, mono and diglycerides of fatty acids or high fructose corn syrup lying around, and you won't test your recipe repeatedly until humans want more of it than any of the competing products on the supermarket shelves.
Yeah, everything's a chemical, but that's not what people mean when they say there's chemicals in the food. They mean there are edible non-food ingredients whose only purpose is to cheaply make it last longer on the shelf or be more moreish or reduce costs.
There's a significant correlation between proportion of ultra-processed foods in diet and all-causes mortality. Don't pretend there isn't.
No, sweetie, they're not being "overly literal", they're just telling the truth.
We don't even have a consistent definition of what "ultra-processed" should mean.
People using words like chemicals wrong is a problem with them.
Correlation doesn't imply causation, and we still need to agree on a definition for "ultra-processed" to conduct any meaningful science.
There’s a significant correlation between proportion of ultra-processed foods in diet and all-causes mortality. Don’t pretend there isn’t.
It's also very difficult statistically to remove the co-morbidity factors:
populations that eat more "processed" foods !especially in the US! are poor, in toxic environs, stressed, over-policed, incarcerated, discriminated, unstable housing healthcare employment, using "coping" mechanisms, in a food desert, multigenerational defecit of various "health skills", no "free" time for cooking and exercise, etc etc etc
If they had healthcare, housing and union jobs ... stats wouldn't be near so bad for them
Tangent.
This is why I hate when people feel they have to call themselves 'Socialists' in political arguments. Instead of dealing with the actual issues, you end up talking about what Trotsky had for lunch at the Fist International.
That sandwich was a sign of problems to come dammit!
You see? According to the Third Volume of the Soviet Approved autobiography of Rosa Luxembourg it wasn't a sandwich at all, but a knish!
Now we must debate the point, or be accused of revisionism
First we must define the limits of various traits to firmly understand exactly what counts as a knish. I will take the anarchic position as I had to look up what a knish is and now I'd like to engage in some conquest for that bread
The really sad thing is that I've heard worse unironically
No, this is crap.
"Scientists can't agree therefore it's not true" has been bogus through smoking and lung cancer, fossil fuels and climate change, and now ultra-processed food (UPF) and all-causes mortality and obesity.
A good rule of thumb is that if you made it in your home from real ingredients it's probably much healthier than if some company did food science on it until it human testers said "yeah I'd love more of that one". It's not a coincidence, it's not even malice, it's just they're selecting for overeating.
The malice is when the food industry tries to get you to believe that their products are healthy, that there's nothing to see or be concerned about with UPF, and the malice is also when they're lobbying and suing governments the world over that tell you to avoid UPF.
Yeah, unpasteurised milk and other crap is bonkers anti-science nonsense, but so is dismissing the correlation between larger quantities of ultra-processed food and all-causes mortality. It's real. Don't spread their lies that it's not.
That's right, and exactly what I said. It's a good rule of thumb. It's not, however, a well defined scientific category. The reason the rule of thumb works is that if you cook something yourself from ingredients it's probably got more fiber, more vitamins, less sugar, and less fat, than the commercial alternative. Not because it has fewer processing steps done to it.
It's not the processing, it's the preservatives and other edible non-food junk they put in to make it last longer and keep customers coming back for more and more and more.
It's called food science, and it works. It works very well indeed. Way too well for our health. You test for moreishness and you manufacture the ones the panel loves and wants more of. Result? Food that people really want more of. Its not magic and it's not deliberately bad, it's just that the inevitable result is the obesity epidemic.
You know that food science shows that there isn't nearly as much of a problem as you claim, right, sparky?
I don't think you know what food science is.
Food science is about testing and developing new products. It's not longitudinal or population health and disease studies. It doesn't show anything about the correlation between ultra processed foods and all causes mortality because it simply doesn't study mortality in any way whatsoever.
I'm sorry you don't understand science, kiddo. Scientists not agreeing just means that there isn't an answer yet, no matter how emotionally charged the issue makes you.
Claiming that the science is contentious is a standard industry tactic for dismissing it. Its what vaccine skeptics and climate change deniers do, and it's what the tobacco industry did over lung cancer.
Uh... It's pretty well defined.
If you alter natural food, it's processed. Dairy products other than raw milk, bread, etc, are processed foods. Unless you're eating raw fruits, veggies, and meat most food is going to be processed in some way.
Ultra processed foods are foods made with industrial chemical ingredients either extracted from food or synthesized.
When you actually look in to the details of papers on this topic you'll find that it's actually not defined consistently across the literature.
What are industrial chemical ingredients? For example, is sodium hydrogen carbonate one? It's a chemical, produced industrially. Is food made with it in a shop different to food made with baking soda at home? Why?
When you dig into the reason why any specific "ultra processed" food is bad it boils down to:
And if you control for those things (which we have known for a long time and are standard nutritional guidelines) then the effects of food processing on health outcomes basically disappear.
So Diet Coke is the same as water in terms of health? No calories, no fat, no sugar. I still count it as processed crap in my diet and don't drink it instead of water.
This is such anti-science crap, and it's exactly what various industries said all along about climate change and lung cancer studies.
No, no when you dig into the reason why ultra processed food is bad, it boils down to all-cause mortality. As in earlier death and shorter healthy lifespan.
Here is a good, scientifically informed overview of one popular ultra processed food categorization system and why it excludes good foods and includes poor ones: https://www.eatrightpro.org/news-center/practice-trends/examining-the-nova-food-classification-system-and-healthfulness-of-ultra-processed-foods
The same kind of thing applies to the other popular systems for defining it. It's just not a good scientific category, we already know about all the components it's a mediocre shorthand for.
They concede that the actual scientists found that
And dismissed it all because there's not a randomised controlled trail for ultra processed vs home cooked from ingredients foods, but their counterpoint to that, their main gotcha from that article, is it a randomised controlled trial? Does it measure obesity, heart disease and type 2 diabetes? No! Let's see what it tests:
So if you use one set of guidelines to make a diet plan (no one actually eats it) and you deliberately pick foods that are processed but reasonably healthy according to those very same guidelines, you achieve a great score on what basis? Long term health outcomes? No. Short term health outcomes? No. What basis? Oh, the very same guidelines you used to cherry pick the foods? Why isn't it 100%?! What an absurdly vacuous claim.
In their enlightenment and dismissing all the science, they've replaced it by calculating some points of disagreement with some older healthy eating advice? That's IT!?!
You have swallowed a bunch of pseudoscience. You're as bad as RFK.
It's a fucking industry funded pseudoscience pseudoprogessional pseudoeducation body. Did you even think about where they're coming from?
https://www.eatrightpro.org/about-us/who-we-are/advertising-and-sponsorship/meet-our-sponsors
Some highlights for you:
Danone North America
Eli Lilly and Company (weight loss drugs)
Gatorade Sports Science Institute
National Confectioners Association
National Dairy Council
National Honey Board
National Cattlemen's Beef Association
Nestle Health Sciences
Quebec Maple Syrup Producers
Sodexo
Splenda®
Wonderful Pistachios
No wonder they're dismissing all the science associating ultra processed food with all-causes mortality with a single diet plan!
Why on earth do you fall for this crap?
You have it backwards, sweaty. The garbage you're spewing is anti-science crap.
Even the industry funded group the other guy quoted me admitted that the larger scale scientific studies found that
It's nowhere near as well defined as you claim, buttercup. You don't even understand that bread is literally a processed food.
Your definition of ultra processed is also faulty because it assumes that being synthesized or extracted is bad from the start.
I literally mentioned bread being a processed food in my comment, "sweaty."
I also am not saying or even implying it's good or bad. I just stated how the phrases are fucking defined. 🙄
Yes, that's part of the problem, sunshine. You give bread a pass because you decided that it's something you like.
You're ignoring that people aren't entitled to this own definitions for words, kiddo.
You also need to learn your place and stop talking about issues you clearly don't understand. You're no better than RFK Jr.
My god, how fucking illiterate are you? You need to go back to primary school and learn how to read and write, for real.
in heads of these morons, this equals to unpasteurized milk :D
It's fun when you see the morons figure out that if they boil their unpasteurized milk, the risk of consumption goes down... absolutely zero awareness.
the big pasteur hate this one simple trick... 😆
Dangerous
Until we get large cases all suing him direct for his harm he won't stop. A single large case will sink him, no one cares about him. Trump and Co are only with him because he needed the votes and Harris wouldn't allow him to join. Get a judge to rule it, bankruptcy can't get out of it and poof... He would be so dead broke the entire U.S. billionaires would say wait? A Kennedy can't afford a room?
(If you don't think so, look at the state of the Giuliani family.. and that's when his side won)
How can you share something this juicy and not provide the video?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MPP5exb-2rw
15:45
I have to say that until I went looking for this video I had never heard him speak.. What the heck is with his voice?
He developed spasmodic dysphonia (involuntary larynx contractions) in 1996 at age 42.
It was caused by eating tainted hippopotamus meat. He had hit the hippo while driving a mack truck near Pablo Escobar's compound in the middle of the night, pursued by paramilitary forces. He returned 2 days later under cover of darkness to eat its liver and testicles, which an alternative health guru told him contained antioxidants and hormones that could prevent aging. He wound up about a week later in an El Salvadoran prison after rampaging through various towns in Colombia, Panama, and El Salvador causing property damage to several farmers' vegetable stalls, soiling himself repeatedly, and accosting locals. Eye witnesses report that he had the voice at the time of these incidents. The US had him extradited soon after agreeing that they'd try him, but they dropped the charges on administrative grounds almost immediately.
That's probably not true - no one really knows why spasmodic dysphonia happens. Seems to be something to do with your Basal Ganglia.
great yarn there lol
they really had me going there!
Sounded like a McAfee story for a bit. Nicely done.
You really had me going! Close enough to the truth I guess. Not why he has spasmodic dysphonia, but plenty of similar shit he pulled.
Very good lol
classic RFK, of course he would get an infection/parasite that causes his voice. he will eat any animals he sees. do you ever wonder if he would eat crows, vultures or a raven? he was in a manic phase looking for exotic animal meat.
hippos are dangerous dead or alive it seems.
I mentioned to an acquaintance that this guy seems like an avatar of plague, and he was like “It’s funny, most of his ideas are good.” then went on to list some absolutely crazy bad takes. Clearly this guy is not the one to take health advice from.
he looks like worms using skin suit.
Supraphysiologic dosing of testosterone will do that. That and really really really tiny balls.
Clearly Hegseth is war. Who's famine and death? Maybe Brooke Rollins for famine.
wouldnt it be conquest/ or pollution.
I'd say Miller is death.
hes an apostate, of anti-crhist(thiel)
Which one is responsible for (de)regulating the fossil fuel industry causing crops to die from climate change?
What a cringe fest.
I hate watching these idiots. His entire repertoire is classic pseudo science grift.
He allegedly has a medical condition. But these people lie all the time.
holy shit, how did we get from JFK to this douchenozzle.
Holy crap the comment section is ROUGH
Wow you weren't kidding. It's like they invaded it lol. I wonder who sent them all there.
"Beagles were used for research. Under fauci"
What do you mean? He's he picture of health
Man, that hype campaign for the new toxic avenger movie is getting out of hand.
The top comments on that YouTube video are insane
How many do you think are people?
Eleventy
That a lot of people
Big if true
But he plays one
on TVin government!Every time he talks it sounds like a boomer reading SaRcAsTiC TeXt
ThE WoRm StrUgGlEs To ConTrOl HiS VoCal CoRds
He sounds like a blown out speaker inside a Ford.
JAFFA KREE!
He's the anti-scientist for Christ's sake!
rare Dana Fasch W