Hacker News Reader

Comment by NewJazz | Hacker News Reader

I posted this because I thought it both interesting and troubling to see the disconnect between RFK Jr's stated goals and values and his actions in practice. Like many out there, I connected with some of the underlying messages and values that his campaign put forward. However, the more I learn about him and his past, the more I question not just his methods and expertise, but his truthfulness and genuineness.

I would really like to see more policy (from whomever: local, state, federal, judiciary, legislative, executive, red, blue, green, black) that actually accomplishes some of the things that RFK Jr says that he wants to accomplish.

View on HN

For me, so many things he said were not rooted in any form of science or verifiable fact so it was always hard to fully accept and endorse his platform. He has always been a snake oil salesperson trading on his surname.

Yeah, it blows my mind how many people I encounter who say things like "I thought what So-and-So was saying when they were added to this administration seemed reasonable at face value, so I was shocked to later discover their actions were inconsistent with what they were saying."

Like... that's the whole MO of the administration. None of the "reasonable" positions are genuine; they only exist to entice leniency from the gullible. It's been that way since day 1.

I find it to be even worse. They’d say exactly what they were going to do and between the stupidity of voters and the sane-washing from the media, people simply did not believe them! And then you ask them now and they say they didn’t vote for this! Yes, you very literally did. Nothing about what ICE is doing was a secret or a surprise.

How many times did we have to hear "Oh, he's just joking. Of course that's not what he really means!" over the last 10 years?

How would we know he would start a war in Iran?

Maybe because he launched missiles at them last presidency?

I remember talking with my mom about Trump's immigration policies. They were saying they wanted to round up every undocumented immigrant. They were saying they wanted to go out and find them and do what they've done. I told her I had friends who, despite being citizens, were fearful for themselves being identified as "not white enough". My mom said "They're only going to go after the violent ones". Which is not at all what the campaign or his cabinet said. It was wishful thinking and lies said on the right-wing networks, mixed with problematic stories of the occasional undocumented immigrant who was a repeat offender let out by city processes.

It's a lot of things, but one thing this admin does is take a reasonable grievance that requires reasonable change, and amplify anger in order to take drastic measures for their own benefits and ideology.

How sure are you that it was wishful thinking and not just your mom avoiding a fight with you?

> one thing this admin does is take a reasonable grievance that requires reasonable change, and amplify anger in order to take drastic measures for their own benefits

Spot on! The people who actually care the most about the issues the regime champions should really be their loudest critics! Instead they seem to be content just "being heard" or "owning the libs"? They'd better be enjoying it while it lasts, because what it's actually doing is burning (arbitraging) all the political capital that these issues had accumulated.

Like despite being pretty ambivalent about it, I don't want to hear a peep about "immigration enforcement" for the next decade - its proponents had their moment, they had their mandate, and they mostly just squandered it on having an anti-Constitutional tantrum.

> ... and ideology

The only ideologies I've found to line up with the regime's actions are 1. self-enrichment, 2. anarcho-capitalism, 3. malevolent foreign influence, 4. religious fundamentalism. 2/3/4 are essentially all just aimed at destroying the government/society for different reasons.

For me I am not shocked at the behavior of this administration, and I know many other people had a shift in sentiment toward RFK Jr after he joined the Trump campaign in 2024.

He testified in court his brainworm had damaged his brain so much he could not reliably work and pay alimony to his ex wife. I don't think it's too much to say people who have had debilitating brainworn infections should not be in charge of public health.

Why blame brainworm? With all the drugs that he has taken as young his brain is guaranteed to be melted cheese by now.

What was the purpose of putting this man at charge if not punishing citizens? All this people are foreign agents.

"Today's mission is for you to go to the brain slug planet ... Just walk around not wearing a helmet"

To be fair, it's the same type of self-perpetuating destruction they've been playing with education the whole time.

Yes, this might be obvious to folks who know a lot. But many folks have limited time or energy to research health topics deeply, even though they care a great deal about outcomes. For me, I'd hear his campaign messaging and flip between tacit agreement and outright disagreement. But the core of the message -- that we deserve to live in a healthier world and be healthier -- deeply resonated.

Maybe if you care deeply about outcomes, you should expect to want to have a minimum level of familiarity with that topic before weighing in on it.

Maybe it should be generally accepted that to gain a minimum level of familiarity on a topic, you should prioritize hearing from scientists and experts in the field, rather than influencers and political actors.

A good heuristic for identifying a piece of shit might be: is he allied with an adjudicated rapist and convicted fraudster?

Even more informative in this case: did he sell his endorsement to said rapist/fraudster in exchange for a cabinet position?

You could know literally zero percent of anything about anything in the world and know that this is not a person to be trusted.

Shame on you. Glad you’re opening your eyes now, but it’s your shame to wear now too.

You could have read all their comments before posting that. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50035298

I definitely understand being angry, there is certainly blame to be had, and perhaps there is an argument to be made that supporting RFK Jr was a poor idea even before he joined up with the destructionist grifters. But save your vitriol for the ignorant ones who actually voted for Grump, and most especially for the unrepentant ones who are still cheering as our country's institutions burn.

There are more ways to be culpable for this administration than just having voted for them.

Yeah, so give people room to reflect on their actions rather than encouraging them dig their heels in.

This regime thrives on hate, including the hate for it.

I am giving them room to reflect on their actions. What do you think "shame" is if not reflection?

You do realize there is a large difference between being shamed, and feeling shame, right?

For example if I told you that you should be ashamed of your original comment, does this make you immediately feel shame? Or perhaps does it make it feel like I am personally attacking you?

In fact, I'd say that emphasizing and playing up this difference was a pretty successful campaign tactic for the destructionists. Remember how "deplorables" ended up backfiring so hard? The characterization was entirely technically correct! But yet with the way people work, it ended up doing the exact opposite from what one would naively hope.

(in general, I honestly don't even know if feeling shame from being shamed is a thing any more with the way impersonal online communities work. You can now easily find a different community that will validate whatever you did)

Common meme, but no, there's actually no evidence that "deplorables" ended up "backfiring so hard."

There's no evidence whatsoever that excusing and forgiving these people's credulity and contempt has done any good whatsoever.

If you fuck up, especially in a way that damages your country so deeply, then you need to feel bad, and you need to suck up the fact that your countrymen will criticize you for it. That's the downside of fucking up.

You don't get to say "okay I'll acknowledge that I fucked up as long as you guys be nice to me for doing so." No. A literal 3rd grader couldn't get away with such a position, and neither should any adult capable of having an opinion on any of this stuff.

And yet here you are, responding unashamedly and defiantly for me calling you out!

That's ego for you. It does not like frontal assaults! When someone is in the middle of realizing something for themselves, the last thing you want to do is interrupt them.

I personally saw someone in my family literally use the name "deplorable" for an online account in response to that kerfuffle. Not social media or anything like a public persona, just a web service they wanted to use. Look up sociological labeling theory. One small silver lining to their passing is that I didn't have to witness them spiral into full rabid social media dementia.

And reflexively reaching for this feel-good "no evidence whatsoever" research-assistant-with-a-deadline-quality proclamatory bullshit is one of the ways the Democratic party shares the blame for Grump. That is some "culpability for this administration" that you yourself would seem to share, and that you would say you should reflect on.

Go back and read my original comment. I most certainly would not have written my comment if you had been responding to someone still unapologetically supporting the destructionists! But no, you were taking your anger out on someone who didn't deserve it - exactly like all the maggots who continue to cheer on the performative cruelty.

Or just continue helping to throw gasoline on the corpo-manufactured divide-and-conquer "culture war" pyre! It has been working out so well so far, hasn't it?

> I personally saw someone in my family literally use the name "deplorable" for an online account in response to that kerfuffle

And? Were they a Clinton voter before that moment? Spoiler: No.

> [this] bullshit is exactly how the Democratic party shares the blame for Trump 2024

No, it's not. Clinton was one of the most disliked people in the entire country going into the election, and Harris came to a close second. Especially in an era of high inflation where incumbents were ousted in pretty much every single election in the entire world. The DNC put up truly horrible candidates and lost.

> It has been working out so well so far, hasn't it?

We have just as much evidence that your strategy of coddling the culpable is to blame. Arguing is easy if you just presume (without evidence) that you're correct, and then in fact dismiss the very idea of forming evidence-based beliefs as a problem in and of itself.

You keep missing the core of my point that the "culpability" of the actual person you were attacking is ancillary at best. And as I said: when someone is coming to their own realizations, the last thing you want to do is interrupt them.

Everyone agrees and wants a healthier world and for people to be healthier. What RFK has been spouting for as long as I can remember would be the opposite of that. His stance on vaccines has always been clearly crazy and not based on the best available evidence.

'A politician told me they'd do something good and i vigorously believed them despite the complete lack of evidence they knew wtf they were talking about'

I never said I believed them? Just that the message resonated.

Rfk cares a lot about money, during his confirmation hearings the only time he got hot under the collar was when his legal challenges to earn a payout against drug companies was talked about.

Not a public servant.

> RFK Jr's stated goals and values and his actions in practice.

His long term goals and opinions are 100% consistent with his current actions and decisions.

> would really like to see more policy (from whomever: local, state, federal, judiciary, legislative, executive, red, blue, green, black) that actually accomplishes some of the things that RFK Jr says that he wants to accomplish.

You are getting that and seeing that. Including measles and sick people dying more.

True, but recognize the spin. Pretend that in the last election you were skeptical of the reigning government medical establishment and you did buy into some of the conspiracies, or at least thought they had some element of truth. Assume you were wrong and that you have good enough presence of mind to now feel duped.

I was always team "RFK Jr clearly bad," but to be honest I didn't put much work into forming that opinion.

What are the positive things he wanted to accomplish?

Note that I am French so this question is because over here he has always been seen as a conman

> I posted this because I thought it both interesting and troubling to see the disconnect between RFK Jr's stated goals and values and his actions in practice.

What exactly are you expecting someone who doesn't think germ theory is true?

* https://www.npr.org/sections/shots-health-news/2025/06/14/nx...

* https://archive.is/https://www.theatlantic.com/health/2025/1...

It's complicated in that the fed gov agencies are so big and the top down bossing-around they are trying to do isn't very effective.

It's better to focus on the simple facts about RFKJR, he cares about celebs and cocktail parties, he doesn't really care about leadership or running a health agency.

No matter how genuine and truthful he may or may not be, it was all over the moment they made him eat the McDonald's burger on airforce one for that photo op.

Humiliation ritual

Over for whom?

Denial is truly sad to see

Moral Foundations Theory [1] asserts that socially conservative people particularly value concepts of sanctity and purity - particularly when associated with their own bodies. Hence vaccine refusal, mask refusal and belief in conspiracy theories during the pandemic, etc.

I've long suspected the RFK jr's role is simply to exploit that for his, and his political owner's, benefit. Thata all. The man has no redeeming qualities.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_foundations_theory

I rather like the MAHA messaging, particularly when they claim that Europe has safer food standards and we have to catch. It disappoints me that RFK Jr might just be either corrupt or a useful idiot to chemical companies.

Might I suggest you listen to scientists and food safety experts rather than members of a political movement just because you like their messaging?

What you are seeing today is the inevitable and wholly consistent outcome of putting the messaging of MAHA into practice.

The person you are responded to is offering a very reasonable line of thought that you yourself might not disagree with (seeing as you didn’t even respond to the point): “EU has better regulations, we should follow those”.

And you’re response, like many others here, is basically “you’re dumb”

That type of bad faith divisiveness will keep us locked into a political tension that continues to allow charlatans to gain power by taking advantage of desperate people.

Most people are good, and most people want the same basic things (good economy, fair pay, peace, good outcomes for their family and children). It would be wonderful for people to focus more on these commonalities and the divisive bullshit media feeds us to keep us angry.

It’s wonderful that people are generally good and want good things, but it would be better if people gave more deference to the opinions of scientists and experts in the field, rather than politicians and influencers with no relevant experience but who say things that agree with what they already want to believe.

I too want good things, and I am perpetually frustrated by those who actively work against those outcomes. You don’t get a gold star for good intentions when you actively contribute to the opposite.

When GP directly got what they asked for—even when they didn’t realize it—they immediately assumed that the answer must simply be that RFK is corrupt and in the pockets of evil people rather than the more straightforward but uncomfortable answer that would require self reflection.

Listen, I agree with you. But brow beating people and making them feel like idiot is how you build an angry group of reactionaries that end up voting Trump or some other corrosive figure into office.

Basically people just ought to be nicer to eachother and understand that, anyone of us or them can be misinformed. Very get people are actively trying to lie or knowingly do the wrong thing. So giving people a little grace and not making them feel like idiots is the way.

But yes, I know that’s can be exhausting as fuck after over a decade of madness. But that’s to only way out, the make the country stop hating eachother.

Any one of us can be misinformed. But learning that you backed the wrong horse needs to be an opportunity for self-reflection and reassessment rather than “it couldn’t be me that was wrong, the horse must have been corrupt”.

If you voted for a candidate and you realize afterward it was a mistake—regardless of the reason—the path forward is to figure out why your picker was wrong, not to write it off as the fault of the guy you picked.

Being wrong is human. Being wrong and using that to self-correct is noble. Being wrong and digging your heels in or looking for others to blame is shameful.

The holier than though convinces no one. Ever.

You’re right that acknowledging a mistake and correcting is the right and noble path, but my approach of compassion, understanding, and common ground is the only way that leads to that outcome. When instead you brow beat them and call them dumb, they always double down. Then points of difference turn into anger, which turns into hatred.

At some point each of us have to take the personally responsibility to stop getting high off the fumes of our own self righteousness.

To be clear, I never called them dumb or brow-beated. I suggested prioritizing the opinions of scientists and field experts over those of politicians with convincing messaging and I noted that what we’re seeing today is the expected outcome of putting cranks like RFK into positions of power.

What I said might have been firm and to the point, but it was certainly gentle.

I’m not sure what exactly you expect someone to say if “Why don’t you try X instead of Y, if you are surprised and disappointed by the outcome of Y?” is considered too hard for someone to handle.

You voted for Homer, for exactly the reasons Homer got elected in the episode.

“I’m so excited for the anti-regulation, anti-healthcare party to ummm… somehow ummm… improve our food supply regulations and healthcare…?”

Reply on news.ycombinator.com