Great question. RFK has tremendous credibility in the eyes of Pharma skeptics and has consistently polled at 20% just by declaring his candidacy, so he certainly has legitimacy to be "platformed." If Vinay is so confident that RFK's information is debunkable "anti-vax" dis/mis information, it seems the most potent way to take him down in…
Great question. RFK has tremendous credibility in the eyes of Pharma skeptics and has consistently polled at 20% just by declaring his candidacy, so he certainly has legitimacy to be "platformed." If Vinay is so confident that RFK's information is debunkable "anti-vax" dis/mis information, it seems the most potent way to take him down in front of his supporters is to take him on directly—have a f2f debate in which he demolishes the "disinformation." So why doesn't he? What does he have to lose—other than the debate itself?
Great question. RFK has tremendous credibility in the eyes of Pharma skeptics and has consistently polled at 20% just by declaring his candidacy, so he certainly has legitimacy to be "platformed." If Vinay is so confident that RFK's information is debunkable "anti-vax" dis/mis information, it seems the most potent way to take him down in front of his supporters is to take him on directly—have a f2f debate in which he demolishes the "disinformation." So why doesn't he? What does he have to lose—other than the debate itself?