this post was submitted on 31 Oct 2024
382 points (99.5% liked)

politics

19159 readers
5182 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

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

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Per anti-vax conspiracy theorist RFK, Jr., Trump promised him control of our public Health agencies in deal for him to drop out and endorse Trump.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] leadore 33 points 3 days ago (2 children)

Some excerpts:

The co-chair of Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump’s transition team promoted the debunked theory that vaccines cause autism in a CNN interview Wednesday. He also said Trump ally Robert F. Kennedy Jr., hopes to get “data” through a Trump administration to have vaccines pulled “off the market.”

Kennedy told supporters earlier this week that Trump had promised to give him “control” over key public health agencies like the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

“The key that I think I’m — you know, that President Trump has promised me is — is control of the public health agencies,” Kennedy said in a livestream, video of which CNN obtained. He cited the Department of Health and Human Services, the Food and Drug Administration and the National Institutes of Health, among others."

[–] lemmy_user_838586 46 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

Even the normal stuff they say isn't normal. No CEO comes into a company and is like "hey, I heard I was promised to have total control of this company!" They say "I'm hoping to be effective leader and hope together we can, blah, blah, blah"

No sane person comes into a position like that and says the quiet part out loud "day 1, I was promised total control of public health agencies!"

Very weird indeed.

[–] [email protected] 18 points 3 days ago (1 children)

There an Ezra Klein interview with Maggie Haberman, who has followed trump closely from the start in which she says leading the American people is not what he’s interested in. The constitution and rule of law is not what he’s interested in. It’s power. He’s not keen to dive into those other two things.

He’s also way more erratic and impulsive since getting shot at.

[–] lemmy_user_838586 10 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

Lol yah, its clear they all want to be dictators, ya know who says, "I was promised total control?" Dictators.

I was just leaning into the 'weird' framing, since they seem to fucking hate it.

[–] [email protected] 20 points 3 days ago (2 children)

Also, have we talked yet about how RFK appears to have nearly - if not fully - admitted to illegal corruption?

Sorry to link to a PDF, but see p.8 of this government summary of corruption law: https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R44447/9

While supporting a candidate is not illegal, and nor is offering financially valuable support if within limits or through a super PAC, providing value in exchange for a government position - quid pro quo - is illegal. RFK's exchange of value is not merely supporting Trump, but actively trying to remove himself from the ballot in swing states to materially alter the election. Not illegal except it appears RFK has just admitted he was promised a position in Trump's administration.

So how do we know it's quid pro quo? We know leaks before RFK's endorsement were that he was shopping himself to the Harris and Trump campaigns. He didn't explicitly say "in exchange for," but it's almost certain that's what happened, and that there are witnesses to it who could testify or be subpoenaed.

[–] jaybone 5 points 3 days ago (1 children)

That’s what Trump publicly promised Musk, a position. So if it’s really illegal no one is doing shit about it.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 3 days ago

That's an excellent point, and since we know Musk has spent over $100 million so far trying to get Trump elected, it's a lot easier case to make (if there really was a quid pro quo promise made).

[–] g0nz0li0 1 points 3 days ago

Yeah but these guys are above the law, so it won't matter.