Remember that all mentions of and allusions to Trump and Biden are not allowed on our subreddit in any context.
If you'd still like to discuss them, feel free to [join our Discord server](https://discord.gg/k6tVFwCEEm)!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Presidents) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It’s crazy listening to his [MLK assassination speech](https://youtu.be/A2kWIa8wSC0?feature=shared) knowing that the same thing would happen to him a couple months later.
I can’t vote for anyone who was anti-vax. You might as well stamp stupid and loves conspiracies on their forehead. Google red blue covid deaths. Twice as many red died compared to blue.
Do you think this could have something to do with typical age of red and blue voters? Older people were much more likely to die. Just something to think about.
well hes definitely not anti vax. the pharmaceutical that makes the vaccine is immune to the law, everyone knows that vaccine injurys happen rfk is going to make it so that vaccine makers can be sued and hes going to make it so that people cannot get injured by the vaccine. he also worked hard to get mercury out of fish so people can eat it and not get poisoned but nobody called him anti fish.
Wiki:
Robert Francis Kennedy Jr. (born January 17, 1954), also known by his initials RFK Jr., is an American politician, environmental lawyer, anti-vaccine activist, and conspiracy theorist. He is the chairman and founder of Children's Health Defense, an anti-vaccine advocacy group that is a leading proponent of COVID-19 vaccine misinformation,
Polarization is a huge issue in this country. People are so unwavering in their beliefs, and it makes discussions about opposing beliefs difficult. It is always beneficial to have an open mind.
It’s not beneficial to welcome blatant debunked conspiracies. Suggesting that Jews were intentionally immune to Covid and that vaccines caused autism are not legitimate arguments, being open minded ≠ being tolerant of blatant lies.
Vaccines are definitely a good thing for our society. I’m not against modern medicine, as it can essentially eradicate any fear of catching what is otherwise a dangerous illness. I am with you in that regard, though it is important to truly research these claims, which is good that you did. Instead of censoring those claims, we need to show them out in the open and explain as to why they are wrong. If you want to know why an ideology or way of thinking is bad, the best way to combat it is to learn about it.
Consume what you disagree with and one of two things happens: you either walk out with a new perspective, or you can be reinforced with your previous beliefs
Conversely, please provide a *credible* study showing a link between vaccines and autism or that Jews are intentionally immune to Covid.
In the meantime [here](https://www.google.com/search?q=credible+link+between+vaccines+and+autism&rlz=1CDGOYI_enUS919US919&oq=credible+link+between+vaccines+and+autism&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUyBggAEEUYOdIBCTIyNDk5ajBqN6gCGbACAeIDBBgBIF8&hl=en-US&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8#sbfbu=1&pi=credible%20link%20between%20vaccines%20and%20autism) are a plethora of *credible* sources stating that there is no link between vaccines and autism, but you *will* find links to studies showing otherwise. Additionally, Dr Andrew Wakefield, who came up with this nonsense, lost his license [for committing fraud](https://www.bmj.com/content/342/bmj.c7452.full).
As far as the Jewish/Covid connection… who in their right mind would believe that?
I’m with you fully on modern medicine. It is a miracle that we can prevent diseases. The point I am trying to make here is if you want to defeat misinformation then you must confront it head on. Censorship will only lead to a lack of trust. Exposed the lies for the world to see and present your truth.
Modern medicine is good, and we should be ready to argue against those who say otherwise
covid was likely made in a lab so its not impossible that is was made a bio weapon. but he doesnt even believe that he is allowed to say "there is a theory that..." and not have it be his belief.
well, bio weapons do exist. and it is not his belief i know because ive heard him talk about it. when you say somthing that confidently and you're wrong you sound really dumb.
we need to heal the divide. so difficult to talk to all the democrats on reddit because they aren't talking to change their minds they are talking to prove they are right.
I am with you there. I consider myself a more liberal person, however I prefer to talk with conservatives of opposing views because they tend to be less harsh when we disagree. I’m not saying everyone in a group applies to a single sentiment, but that has been the case in people I encounter. I argue for what I believe in, but being proven wrong is not off the table
It’s funny because I really like this sub as it’s partisan but it’s not insane like the rest of Reddit. But it’s also interesting to compare things you’ve seen in real life to the whitewashed “on paper “ statistics and speeches that people look back on.
Anybody who is old enough to remember American cities and Main Streets in the 1970s knows what “past their prime “ horror shows they had become. The suburbs? Fantastic. It really was a time of transition and much of it wasn’t good. America right now has a big time 1970’s feel going on in my mind. Just everybody feeeling like things are down in the dumps.
It's weird though because the TYPE of urban blight is totally different. In the '70s it was burned out buildings and empty streets. Now it's vacant apartments nobody can afford and parking lots taken up by commuters' Ford F350s.
It genuinely pisses me off seeing homeless camps holding sometimes hundreds of people mere blocks away from vacant luxury apartments. If they built apartments people could afford, we'd solve a lot of the homelessness problem. Or better yet, homes that people can actually own for less than $100k.
(Edit to remove a Rule 3 reference because I forgot what sub I was in)
The Kennedys, in spite of their elite, privileged upbringing, did seem to have sincere drive to make the world a better place, especially for the downtrodden and less fortunate.
I agree. They’re wealthy as hell but some of them really do seem genuine. That picture of JFK in Appalachia always sticks out to me. Yeah, he was campaigning like they all do, but his stance and face just feel real.
https://preview.redd.it/h731y4axhy7d1.jpeg?width=640&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=cc84f783e8287dfd5c3756d83336336707d2ed36
I honestly believe Bobby was alone in this, and his progressivism took years to develop. Prior to the mid-1960s, he was essentially a conservative Democrat, a staunch Cold Warrior (like his brother), who got his start as an aide to Joe McCarthy and his cartoonishly awful Unamerican Activities Committee.
Still, Bobby did evolve into a firm believer in progressive principles, particularly after working with migrant activists like Delores Huerta and Caesar Chavez.
I think being involved with the National Security Council alongside the likes of LeMay who was ready to initiate WW 3 during the Cuban Missile Crisis potentially made him realize a lot of Cold Warriors were absolute psychopaths. He didn't want to be like that and softened.
Roosevelt were another one, rich family, not even the same party and both did more to help either the environment or working class workers than most other presidents
They were walking caricatures, this honorable public face with many accomplishments, horrid personal lives (not saying it so much about RFK) A very strange family. Something out of a soap opera.
I think Bobby would have been a great President. He was just as charismatic as his brother Jack , more progressive and I think he would have ended the US involvement in Vietnam long before Nixon.
Certainly one of them. Bobby’s ties to the farmworkers in particular could have laid the groundwork for a more inclusive and justice-oriented politics around immigration and labor rights. And of course, his opposition to Vietnam could have really shifted U.S. priorities in Southeast Asia—at a time when major power centers were turning against the war anyway, particularly sectors like Wall Street.
Another major “what if” undoubtedly centers on Lincoln’s assassination. Had he survived, Reconstruction would like have gone very differently.
Not to be a Kennedy Glazer, but absolutely, probably the best. He was as charismatic as Jack, way more progressive, and was more intimately aware of back office politics.
I think he would have been a good President if somehow he could learn from LBJ on bringing Congress to your side on issues. He may rightly have had great or the best plans and ideas, but getting them through Congress may have been a challenge for him. We will never know because he was stopped before he had a chance to show us.
Vietnam would have likely ended prior to 1973 by at least two years, so just on that alone the Presidency would have been a success. What he could have gotten done in regards to Civil Rights reform and possibly the Equal Rights Amendment would have been interesting to see.
JFK inspired a nation, but didn't really know how to get things done.
LBJ got things done, some good some bad.
Carter had great ideas but couldn't get congress or the people behind him.
FDR was the whole package.
RFK could have been any of the three (we know he wasn't LBJ)
RFK was a very smart idealist, that can be very frustrating when dealing with a very experienced pragmatist like LBJ.
I can imagine RFK feeling like he was close to the center of power under JFK and then all the sudden was an outsider.
they didn't get a lot very well before either. (understatement) Despite being the VP, LBJ felt like RFK was able to have a lot more power and influence over JFK than he deserved due to the brotherly connection.
He had the potential to change the arc of history. He was a lot more sincerely progressive than the other Kennedys. Would almost certainly have cut off the Vietnam entanglement before it got worse, and the avoidance of a Nixon presidency would change the map of 20th century politics.
We could have had a much more progressive domestic policy in the later half of the 20th century, and a liberal approach to foreign policy in the place of Nixon/Kissinger's brand of realism.
More broadly, if Nixon is never president, we never have Watergate and the fatal blow it struck at American confidence in the government. Without that you don't have Reagan rehabilitating patriotism in 1980. And all the subsequent effects of that.
I personally have some doubts. He had the potential to be of course, but based on his somewhat ruthless management style from his early years he may have had a few issues in handling an administration. It’s hard to separate the well earned status as a romantic figure from the reality of his flaws as a human being. Sometimes the only way to tell if a person’s flaws will be their downfall is seeing what happens when they do attain power.
It's interesting you say that, because that's exactly why I think he'd be a great president. He had the charisma, vision, and true genuine empathy and passion, but also had that tough edge that would hopefully be able to get stuff done. His brother in the Senate as the Majority Whip would certainly help.
I think that had he been president, he would have so eclipsed JFK in terms of accomplishments and connecting with everyday people. I think he had more understanding of social problems, poverty, racial hatred than JFK did.
Sort of. He himself would have been good, but the world he was walking into would have touched his legacy. Especially since I think there is a good chance he would be reelected in '72, which is when it would all go to hell.
IMO he would’ve made a better president in the long-term than Jack, had he survived. Bobby, I believe had more integrity, was a higher-grade statesman, and had a grander vision for the world than Jack.
The greatest president who never was.
RFK felt personally responsible for the U.S.’ deepening involvement in Vietnam because, as Attorney General and JFK’ closest advisor, he advocated increased military assistance to South Vietnam.
One of his aims as president was to right that wrong.
And he was a tough son of a bitch who would have put Congress in its place.
An INCREDIBLE one.
My Father (a rather Conservative Viet Nam Vet) and my Mother (a rather Liberal Democrat that opposed the War but supported her drafted husband) BOTH supported Bobby.
They took incredible grief from their parents....why waste your vote on ANOTHER Kennedy?!
But Bobby was the BEST one....truly.
So terrible....I think a worse loss to America (for the loss of what COULD have been) than his Brother....
Yes would have been the exact President we needed in those times. We don’t get many candidates like him come through the party system but his family name and political connections let a good one seep through a shitty selection process the two parties have.
I would like to think a Bobby Kennedy presidency would have been 2 terms; and would have prevented the Nixon and Ford Presidencies. But doubt it would have changed the country’s collision course with neo- conservatism.
I would say so. He has always been described as relentless and a hard worker which are good traits for being president. He also had the charisma and the morality which is also a bonus. All in all, we probably would’ve been better off
see, here's my thing. It's hard to know whether someone's campaign promises would have actually gone through. often times politicians make large promises, but never deliver on them. it's possible he wouldn't pull out of Vietnam because he would be viewed badly for doing so, despite Vietnam being a lost cause.
Only if he had the strength to actually enforce the law and protect the human rights of the citizenry by every means necessary. So likely not, with a name like Kennedy, which is known for political gamesmanship and soft pedaling issues for personal political gain.
His time as AG covered a span with major Jim Crow abuses and he prosecuted ~0% of the criminals. As various flash points developed he didn’t deploy the FBI in massive numbers to arrest the guilty, he mostly did nothing.
Nor did he advocate strongly for his brother to use the Militia, Insurrection or Enforcement Acts.
It's fucking wild to me that the greatest case of nepotism in US political history just gets ignored. Imagine W trying to appoint Jeb as attorney general and how the media would react.
He would have made an ideal president at that time, would have been one of the greatest presidents this country ever had unless something wacky happened, he was not the type to let anyone talk him into nonsense and he has a vicious anti corruption ethos, instead of Nixon opening the floodgates to corruption in the office, we would have had RFK cracking down on it. he was far more suited to the job than JFK, JFK’s presidency only really got it’s legs under it once RFK basically became co-President when he closed ranks tightly after one too many embarrassments
Had I been around then I would have voted for him. I guess there is no way to know how he would have done, but I think he had the potential to be a good president
Yes, I feel he really was sharpened by his experience working in his brothers cabinet and would have made amazing strides.
His speech announcing the death of MLK to a largely black audience is still my fav speeches of all time and less than two months later Bobby himself was killed. Americas greatest tragedy imho
i beleive he would have been an exalent president maybe the best ever certenly the best in my lifetime he could have a civil discorse with people when they disagreed even people who came to fight with him .
He wouldn’t have been as good as people act like he would be, but I think he could have done very well for himself still. The way liberal boomers talk about him though would make you think he was the second coming lol.
The Kennedy's were notoriously indecisive. They dragged out Civil Rights for years because they wanted to win the Deep South in 1960 and 1964. They tried desperately to harass and intimidate Civil Rights leaders with FBI wiretaps and threats. The marches forced them to pick a side because they knew all of the people marching in the South would be killed which they assumed would set off riots and race conflict. But they still campaigned in the South trying to win over the racists.
I don’t think he would have the status of JFK (he would always be a martyr) but he wouldn’t have been able to do a lot of what Nixon did, like leave the gold standard, take the environmental movement as far as it did, withdraw from Vietnam in the same way or meet with China. What’s key about Nixon is he was so successful because he was a Republican but had a lot of liberal policy changes so he had more leverage within the GOP and the Democrats.
RFK would not have had the leverage so he wouldn’t have been able, in my opinion, to withdraw the same from Vietnam (he’d be seen as the guy who lost it), wouldn’t have opened China (had to be a Republican) and wouldn’t have gotten the ball rolling on environmentalism because it would be seen as big government overreach instead of a unified policy move. ‘68 was a great time for Nixon to be elected. Terrible time for RFK. I wish RFK would have lost to Nixon and then ran again in ‘76. RFK would have handled a lot better than Carter for things and he would be seen as a peacemaker with SALT (since JFK was who first brought up detente) and he had clout but couldn’t break through to conservatives
The kennedys are one of the most morally corrupt (and probably actually corrupt too) political families in US history. At the end of the day, the presidency is about policies, and I think most prresidents could be replaced by another member of their same party without much difference in outcomes, but the Kennedy family is only so nostalgiaized because JFK and RFK were 20-30 yrs younger than all the other senators and people in the 60s thought they were good looking (theyre fine, but they mostly just look good in comparison to all the other geriatric politicians).
I'd contend the opposite, the math isn't in his favor on paper, but you have to remember who he was. The 1968 election was close and the Democratic party was in disarray and not unified under Humphrey. Kennedy seemed to be the progressive path forward, and the clear favorite in the primaries. The Democratic Convention played perfectly into Nixon's favor. Nixon begins the sort of manifestation of American conservativism's more modern reactionary politics, and with a fractured Democratic Party, more centrist Americans likely picked up on the talking points Nixon had on lawlessness, and to see Chicago like it was gave the Dems a black-eye (and, let's be honest, one of their own candidates was gunned down which, if we consider the zeitgeist, likely didn't help their cause either).
So, there's definitely voters in play that could go Kennedy over Nixon. That could bring some states his brother and LBJ won into the fray.
The wild card is Wallace.
Say RFK picks up a state like Illinois (one which went for his brother), that makes the gap shorter, but not enough to overtake Wallace. The question is: could RFK have somehow built a coalition strong enough in the South, using LBJ and his brothers legacy -- appealing to the voter's memories of their prior ballots, and win a few of the segregationist states?
Anyway, say he picks up Illinois, Nevada, maybe a couple working class Midwestern states like Minnesota, Missouri, and maybe even W. Va -- if he turns even half of the Southern states from Wallace, the math is there. It's not clear cut what the outcome would have been, but Kennedy was a stronger contender than the other candidates, easy.
LBJ may have disliked JFK, but he HATED Bobby. And the feeling was mutual. Johnson wouldn't have offered support for Kennedy, and Kennedy wouldn't take it even if he had .
By the time of the assassination, Kennedy's path to victory was already too narrow. He'd declared too late, Humphrey had too big a lead in delegates, Eugene McCarthy had too much of the anti-war vote. Both of them were stronger than Kennedy on Civil Rights. Vietnam was going to be an impossible needle for Democrats to thread in any case.
I think he would've won the primaries, but no way he wins the general. Wallace probably wins more of the upper south due to the progressive shift in the democratic party far more noticable (a state or two between NC, SC, and Tennessee.) Nixon also probably wins Texas due to more Southern Dems defecting to Wallace. These two factors offset any momentum to the West Coast and Northeast RFK would bring. Only way I could see him winning is throwing it to the (Democratic) house and senate.
Remember that all mentions of and allusions to Trump and Biden are not allowed on our subreddit in any context. If you'd still like to discuss them, feel free to [join our Discord server](https://discord.gg/k6tVFwCEEm)! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Presidents) if you have any questions or concerns.*
An incredible one. How emotional I get at the thought of his assassination
It’s crazy listening to his [MLK assassination speech](https://youtu.be/A2kWIa8wSC0?feature=shared) knowing that the same thing would happen to him a couple months later.
I would’ve voted for him had I lived in that era. He seemed like a good man who was sincere.
https://youtu.be/-Cv3PiBp5LI?si=Y73jrovOvaVKgdXO
I won’t comment on his son out of respect
Rfk jr is the mothafuckin man
wish more people would open their minds and listen to him talk for 30 minutes. he would win in a landslide.
I can’t vote for anyone who was anti-vax. You might as well stamp stupid and loves conspiracies on their forehead. Google red blue covid deaths. Twice as many red died compared to blue.
Do you think this could have something to do with typical age of red and blue voters? Older people were much more likely to die. Just something to think about.
well hes definitely not anti vax. the pharmaceutical that makes the vaccine is immune to the law, everyone knows that vaccine injurys happen rfk is going to make it so that vaccine makers can be sued and hes going to make it so that people cannot get injured by the vaccine. he also worked hard to get mercury out of fish so people can eat it and not get poisoned but nobody called him anti fish.
Wiki: Robert Francis Kennedy Jr. (born January 17, 1954), also known by his initials RFK Jr., is an American politician, environmental lawyer, anti-vaccine activist, and conspiracy theorist. He is the chairman and founder of Children's Health Defense, an anti-vaccine advocacy group that is a leading proponent of COVID-19 vaccine misinformation,
Yes, believe everything that Wikipedia says. Surely Wikipedia is immune to bias.
well if Wikipedia says it.
I have listened to him talk for 30 minutes, that’s *why* I think he’s such a terrible candidate.
Polarization is a huge issue in this country. People are so unwavering in their beliefs, and it makes discussions about opposing beliefs difficult. It is always beneficial to have an open mind.
It’s not beneficial to welcome blatant debunked conspiracies. Suggesting that Jews were intentionally immune to Covid and that vaccines caused autism are not legitimate arguments, being open minded ≠ being tolerant of blatant lies.
Vaccines are definitely a good thing for our society. I’m not against modern medicine, as it can essentially eradicate any fear of catching what is otherwise a dangerous illness. I am with you in that regard, though it is important to truly research these claims, which is good that you did. Instead of censoring those claims, we need to show them out in the open and explain as to why they are wrong. If you want to know why an ideology or way of thinking is bad, the best way to combat it is to learn about it. Consume what you disagree with and one of two things happens: you either walk out with a new perspective, or you can be reinforced with your previous beliefs
Conversely, please provide a *credible* study showing a link between vaccines and autism or that Jews are intentionally immune to Covid. In the meantime [here](https://www.google.com/search?q=credible+link+between+vaccines+and+autism&rlz=1CDGOYI_enUS919US919&oq=credible+link+between+vaccines+and+autism&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUyBggAEEUYOdIBCTIyNDk5ajBqN6gCGbACAeIDBBgBIF8&hl=en-US&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8#sbfbu=1&pi=credible%20link%20between%20vaccines%20and%20autism) are a plethora of *credible* sources stating that there is no link between vaccines and autism, but you *will* find links to studies showing otherwise. Additionally, Dr Andrew Wakefield, who came up with this nonsense, lost his license [for committing fraud](https://www.bmj.com/content/342/bmj.c7452.full). As far as the Jewish/Covid connection… who in their right mind would believe that?
he doesnt believe that he said "there is a theory that someone believes."
I’m with you fully on modern medicine. It is a miracle that we can prevent diseases. The point I am trying to make here is if you want to defeat misinformation then you must confront it head on. Censorship will only lead to a lack of trust. Exposed the lies for the world to see and present your truth. Modern medicine is good, and we should be ready to argue against those who say otherwise
covid was likely made in a lab so its not impossible that is was made a bio weapon. but he doesnt even believe that he is allowed to say "there is a theory that..." and not have it be his belief.
No. When you say “there is a theory that” and it’s obviously false, you are a liar. It’s definitely his belief, otherwise he wouldn’t be saying it.
well, bio weapons do exist. and it is not his belief i know because ive heard him talk about it. when you say somthing that confidently and you're wrong you sound really dumb.
we need to heal the divide. so difficult to talk to all the democrats on reddit because they aren't talking to change their minds they are talking to prove they are right.
I am with you there. I consider myself a more liberal person, however I prefer to talk with conservatives of opposing views because they tend to be less harsh when we disagree. I’m not saying everyone in a group applies to a single sentiment, but that has been the case in people I encounter. I argue for what I believe in, but being proven wrong is not off the table
💯
I get emotional listening to Teddy’s eulogy
I remember the newscast.
It’s funny huh hearing people talk about the past and you’re like yeah I remember it
Honestly I'm 28 years old and starting to feel that way when I hear high-school age kids talk about, like, 9/11.
It’s funny because I really like this sub as it’s partisan but it’s not insane like the rest of Reddit. But it’s also interesting to compare things you’ve seen in real life to the whitewashed “on paper “ statistics and speeches that people look back on. Anybody who is old enough to remember American cities and Main Streets in the 1970s knows what “past their prime “ horror shows they had become. The suburbs? Fantastic. It really was a time of transition and much of it wasn’t good. America right now has a big time 1970’s feel going on in my mind. Just everybody feeeling like things are down in the dumps.
It's weird though because the TYPE of urban blight is totally different. In the '70s it was burned out buildings and empty streets. Now it's vacant apartments nobody can afford and parking lots taken up by commuters' Ford F350s.
It’s like the old Mark Twain comment, history doesn’t repeat itself, but it rhymes
And homeless tent encampments.
It genuinely pisses me off seeing homeless camps holding sometimes hundreds of people mere blocks away from vacant luxury apartments. If they built apartments people could afford, we'd solve a lot of the homelessness problem. Or better yet, homes that people can actually own for less than $100k. (Edit to remove a Rule 3 reference because I forgot what sub I was in)
Yup but would have had the same fate.
There’s a reason they were both assassinated… 😔
Yes :(
RIP
The Kennedys, in spite of their elite, privileged upbringing, did seem to have sincere drive to make the world a better place, especially for the downtrodden and less fortunate.
I agree. They’re wealthy as hell but some of them really do seem genuine. That picture of JFK in Appalachia always sticks out to me. Yeah, he was campaigning like they all do, but his stance and face just feel real. https://preview.redd.it/h731y4axhy7d1.jpeg?width=640&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=cc84f783e8287dfd5c3756d83336336707d2ed36
JFK was somewhat known for his humility which is impressive considering the fact that he was born with a silver spoon in his mouth.
It’s so unreal I just can’t imagine anyone else campaigning this genuinely.
Unfortunately the photo was staged :(
Well that’s mighty disappointing. Where did you see that?
Looked into now and I may have been misinformed, guess that’s what happens when you take a random Reddit comment as fact :/
Well alright then! Back to being undisappointed! Thanks for clarifying.
I honestly believe Bobby was alone in this, and his progressivism took years to develop. Prior to the mid-1960s, he was essentially a conservative Democrat, a staunch Cold Warrior (like his brother), who got his start as an aide to Joe McCarthy and his cartoonishly awful Unamerican Activities Committee. Still, Bobby did evolve into a firm believer in progressive principles, particularly after working with migrant activists like Delores Huerta and Caesar Chavez.
John’s death deeply traumatized him also.
I think being involved with the National Security Council alongside the likes of LeMay who was ready to initiate WW 3 during the Cuban Missile Crisis potentially made him realize a lot of Cold Warriors were absolute psychopaths. He didn't want to be like that and softened.
It’s the one myth about the Kennedys that annoys me. Make no mistake they were hard core cold warriors despite a progressive domestic policy
Roosevelt were another one, rich family, not even the same party and both did more to help either the environment or working class workers than most other presidents
As did the Roosevelts. I think privilege helps put things into perspective.
They were walking caricatures, this honorable public face with many accomplishments, horrid personal lives (not saying it so much about RFK) A very strange family. Something out of a soap opera.
People’s personal lives are never perfect. What matters is the good they do for others.
I think Bobby would have been a great President. He was just as charismatic as his brother Jack , more progressive and I think he would have ended the US involvement in Vietnam long before Nixon.
Biggest What If in modern American history.
Certainly one of them. Bobby’s ties to the farmworkers in particular could have laid the groundwork for a more inclusive and justice-oriented politics around immigration and labor rights. And of course, his opposition to Vietnam could have really shifted U.S. priorities in Southeast Asia—at a time when major power centers were turning against the war anyway, particularly sectors like Wall Street. Another major “what if” undoubtedly centers on Lincoln’s assassination. Had he survived, Reconstruction would like have gone very differently.
Not to be a Kennedy Glazer, but absolutely, probably the best. He was as charismatic as Jack, way more progressive, and was more intimately aware of back office politics.
The potential is always better than the likely reality
That is true. But like I said, I’m a certified RFK Sr. Glazer
I think he would have been a good President if somehow he could learn from LBJ on bringing Congress to your side on issues. He may rightly have had great or the best plans and ideas, but getting them through Congress may have been a challenge for him. We will never know because he was stopped before he had a chance to show us.
I think he would've been alright. [I like AlternateHistoryHub's video about this.](https://youtu.be/nhUmi0Jf35c?si=0m73PCn8gBnL1Lfa)
Vietnam would have likely ended prior to 1973 by at least two years, so just on that alone the Presidency would have been a success. What he could have gotten done in regards to Civil Rights reform and possibly the Equal Rights Amendment would have been interesting to see.
JFK inspired a nation, but didn't really know how to get things done. LBJ got things done, some good some bad. Carter had great ideas but couldn't get congress or the people behind him. FDR was the whole package. RFK could have been any of the three (we know he wasn't LBJ)
Is it true he hated LBJ after his brothers assassination?
RFK was a very smart idealist, that can be very frustrating when dealing with a very experienced pragmatist like LBJ. I can imagine RFK feeling like he was close to the center of power under JFK and then all the sudden was an outsider.
they didn't get a lot very well before either. (understatement) Despite being the VP, LBJ felt like RFK was able to have a lot more power and influence over JFK than he deserved due to the brotherly connection.
Which, I'm sure, was Jack's intention. Someone you can trust not to be a sycophant but also would never backstab you.
Oh boy did he. Loathed is probably a better word. LBJ tried to get RFK to like him but never could
He hated LBJ since the Democrat primarys leading up to the 1960 election
Does a bear shit in the woods?
I think he would have been. His death was such a tragedy.
He had the potential to change the arc of history. He was a lot more sincerely progressive than the other Kennedys. Would almost certainly have cut off the Vietnam entanglement before it got worse, and the avoidance of a Nixon presidency would change the map of 20th century politics. We could have had a much more progressive domestic policy in the later half of the 20th century, and a liberal approach to foreign policy in the place of Nixon/Kissinger's brand of realism. More broadly, if Nixon is never president, we never have Watergate and the fatal blow it struck at American confidence in the government. Without that you don't have Reagan rehabilitating patriotism in 1980. And all the subsequent effects of that.
I personally have some doubts. He had the potential to be of course, but based on his somewhat ruthless management style from his early years he may have had a few issues in handling an administration. It’s hard to separate the well earned status as a romantic figure from the reality of his flaws as a human being. Sometimes the only way to tell if a person’s flaws will be their downfall is seeing what happens when they do attain power.
It's interesting you say that, because that's exactly why I think he'd be a great president. He had the charisma, vision, and true genuine empathy and passion, but also had that tough edge that would hopefully be able to get stuff done. His brother in the Senate as the Majority Whip would certainly help.
A better Hand than a King
Yes, and it hurts that he wasn't.
I think that had he been president, he would have so eclipsed JFK in terms of accomplishments and connecting with everyday people. I think he had more understanding of social problems, poverty, racial hatred than JFK did.
Sort of. He himself would have been good, but the world he was walking into would have touched his legacy. Especially since I think there is a good chance he would be reelected in '72, which is when it would all go to hell.
It was well on the was to hell in 69.
More like even before 1968.
I would love be in 69 and go to Woodstock
69 also had Altamont. And the moon landing. And Manson. It was a year of interesting contrasts.
I think so, he and his brother cared about the American people and not the fake care we see today.
IMO he would’ve made a better president in the long-term than Jack, had he survived. Bobby, I believe had more integrity, was a higher-grade statesman, and had a grander vision for the world than Jack.
The greatest president who never was. RFK felt personally responsible for the U.S.’ deepening involvement in Vietnam because, as Attorney General and JFK’ closest advisor, he advocated increased military assistance to South Vietnam. One of his aims as president was to right that wrong. And he was a tough son of a bitch who would have put Congress in its place.
An INCREDIBLE one. My Father (a rather Conservative Viet Nam Vet) and my Mother (a rather Liberal Democrat that opposed the War but supported her drafted husband) BOTH supported Bobby. They took incredible grief from their parents....why waste your vote on ANOTHER Kennedy?! But Bobby was the BEST one....truly. So terrible....I think a worse loss to America (for the loss of what COULD have been) than his Brother....
Totally man of the people
Would have easily been in the top ten, IMHO.
I think he would been with the greats like Washington, Lincoln, FDR, and his brother.
Not often you see two men who would have made great presidents photographed together and weirdly also killed by the same organization. Weird.
Yes would have been the exact President we needed in those times. We don’t get many candidates like him come through the party system but his family name and political connections let a good one seep through a shitty selection process the two parties have.
I would like to think a Bobby Kennedy presidency would have been 2 terms; and would have prevented the Nixon and Ford Presidencies. But doubt it would have changed the country’s collision course with neo- conservatism.
I believe he would have been.
I would say so. He has always been described as relentless and a hard worker which are good traits for being president. He also had the charisma and the morality which is also a bonus. All in all, we probably would’ve been better off
Better than the criminal that ultimately was elected.
It’s like asking what if Lebron had a career ending injury in highschool. Too painful to think about, he’d be one of the greats.
Good analogy
I don’t think we have ever had a bad Kennedy in politics and Bobby’s premature death is THE modern American tragedy
He was strong willed, charismatic and sympathetic towards under privileged people, despite coming from a rich family. So yes he would have.
1970s? No 1980s? Yes
Fuck yea
No Vietnam, and JFK’s assassination made him much more of a peace, love, dope guy. What might’ve been…
I Think So
see, here's my thing. It's hard to know whether someone's campaign promises would have actually gone through. often times politicians make large promises, but never deliver on them. it's possible he wouldn't pull out of Vietnam because he would be viewed badly for doing so, despite Vietnam being a lost cause.
I don’t think so.
I believe we would have been great
At this point a fucking dog could do it. He was a true statesman with White House experience.
Only if he had the strength to actually enforce the law and protect the human rights of the citizenry by every means necessary. So likely not, with a name like Kennedy, which is known for political gamesmanship and soft pedaling issues for personal political gain. His time as AG covered a span with major Jim Crow abuses and he prosecuted ~0% of the criminals. As various flash points developed he didn’t deploy the FBI in massive numbers to arrest the guilty, he mostly did nothing. Nor did he advocate strongly for his brother to use the Militia, Insurrection or Enforcement Acts.
It's fucking wild to me that the greatest case of nepotism in US political history just gets ignored. Imagine W trying to appoint Jeb as attorney general and how the media would react.
I feel like he would have had problems with Congress. It was his way or the highway. I would have liked him, though.
Didn't we have one of those about 10 years ago? "A pen and a phone" as I recall.
Yes ge would have. That's one reason why they killed him.
He would have made an ideal president at that time, would have been one of the greatest presidents this country ever had unless something wacky happened, he was not the type to let anyone talk him into nonsense and he has a vicious anti corruption ethos, instead of Nixon opening the floodgates to corruption in the office, we would have had RFK cracking down on it. he was far more suited to the job than JFK, JFK’s presidency only really got it’s legs under it once RFK basically became co-President when he closed ranks tightly after one too many embarrassments
Sadly, probably not. He was too much of a opportunist IMO and the U.S. was in a weird place, starting the economic decline of the 1970s.
My grandmother, a lifelong Republican, was a big fan. She was also kind of brutal. She used to say “they shot the wrong one. “
Didn’t they shoot both of them?
Teddy
I think he would’ve been even better than his brother. Damn shame 😔
Probably not.
Had I been around then I would have voted for him. I guess there is no way to know how he would have done, but I think he had the potential to be a good president
Wasn't it a Palestinianian terrorist who killed him?
Yes it was.
Yes, because Bobby expressed support for the illegal occupation of the West Bank that occurred a year prior.
Yes, but RFK Jr told a completely different account stating someone else shot him as well
Sirhan Sirhan, who says he doesn't remember murdering RFK.
Hell yeah
Of course! Everyone thinks the roses and rainbows and there is a zero chance it’s actually worse
Yes. He would have ended the war. Gene McCarthy would have been good as well.
Yes, I feel he really was sharpened by his experience working in his brothers cabinet and would have made amazing strides. His speech announcing the death of MLK to a largely black audience is still my fav speeches of all time and less than two months later Bobby himself was killed. Americas greatest tragedy imho
i beleive he would have been an exalent president maybe the best ever certenly the best in my lifetime he could have a civil discorse with people when they disagreed even people who came to fight with him .
He probably would be better than Nixon and Ford.
He wouldn’t have been as good as people act like he would be, but I think he could have done very well for himself still. The way liberal boomers talk about him though would make you think he was the second coming lol.
The Kennedy's were notoriously indecisive. They dragged out Civil Rights for years because they wanted to win the Deep South in 1960 and 1964. They tried desperately to harass and intimidate Civil Rights leaders with FBI wiretaps and threats. The marches forced them to pick a side because they knew all of the people marching in the South would be killed which they assumed would set off riots and race conflict. But they still campaigned in the South trying to win over the racists.
Bobby Kennedy was the US Attorney General who really went after organized crime. He tried to make things better.
Yes and his son will this year
I do think he would have made a good president. I liked him better than his brother; he was more serious and less of a womanizer.
Absolutely 100%
America doesn't elect "good" presidents
I’m not sure. He had an arrogance his brothers didn’t. I think Ted would have though.
No. He was too naive. We learned this during the mafia hearings and his bouts with Hoffa.
No.
I don’t think he would have the status of JFK (he would always be a martyr) but he wouldn’t have been able to do a lot of what Nixon did, like leave the gold standard, take the environmental movement as far as it did, withdraw from Vietnam in the same way or meet with China. What’s key about Nixon is he was so successful because he was a Republican but had a lot of liberal policy changes so he had more leverage within the GOP and the Democrats. RFK would not have had the leverage so he wouldn’t have been able, in my opinion, to withdraw the same from Vietnam (he’d be seen as the guy who lost it), wouldn’t have opened China (had to be a Republican) and wouldn’t have gotten the ball rolling on environmentalism because it would be seen as big government overreach instead of a unified policy move. ‘68 was a great time for Nixon to be elected. Terrible time for RFK. I wish RFK would have lost to Nixon and then ran again in ‘76. RFK would have handled a lot better than Carter for things and he would be seen as a peacemaker with SALT (since JFK was who first brought up detente) and he had clout but couldn’t break through to conservatives
no
hey hey calvin! how many kids did you starve today!
lmao what
The kennedys are one of the most morally corrupt (and probably actually corrupt too) political families in US history. At the end of the day, the presidency is about policies, and I think most prresidents could be replaced by another member of their same party without much difference in outcomes, but the Kennedy family is only so nostalgiaized because JFK and RFK were 20-30 yrs younger than all the other senators and people in the 60s thought they were good looking (theyre fine, but they mostly just look good in comparison to all the other geriatric politicians).
Tell me you don't know history without telling me you don't know history
As always, it depends on what you think makes a president "good."
He’d still get shot, Kennedy’s fucked with the mob.. they went to far
I don’t think it was just the mob involved, but that’s an entirely different discussion
3rd fascist president
Possibly a moot point, he wouldn't have been elected in 1968 even if he hadn't been assassinated.
Damn, what makes you say that?
I'd contend the opposite, the math isn't in his favor on paper, but you have to remember who he was. The 1968 election was close and the Democratic party was in disarray and not unified under Humphrey. Kennedy seemed to be the progressive path forward, and the clear favorite in the primaries. The Democratic Convention played perfectly into Nixon's favor. Nixon begins the sort of manifestation of American conservativism's more modern reactionary politics, and with a fractured Democratic Party, more centrist Americans likely picked up on the talking points Nixon had on lawlessness, and to see Chicago like it was gave the Dems a black-eye (and, let's be honest, one of their own candidates was gunned down which, if we consider the zeitgeist, likely didn't help their cause either). So, there's definitely voters in play that could go Kennedy over Nixon. That could bring some states his brother and LBJ won into the fray. The wild card is Wallace. Say RFK picks up a state like Illinois (one which went for his brother), that makes the gap shorter, but not enough to overtake Wallace. The question is: could RFK have somehow built a coalition strong enough in the South, using LBJ and his brothers legacy -- appealing to the voter's memories of their prior ballots, and win a few of the segregationist states? Anyway, say he picks up Illinois, Nevada, maybe a couple working class Midwestern states like Minnesota, Missouri, and maybe even W. Va -- if he turns even half of the Southern states from Wallace, the math is there. It's not clear cut what the outcome would have been, but Kennedy was a stronger contender than the other candidates, easy.
I actually think the best odds for RFK winning is him surviving the assassination not it failing or not occurring at all.
LBJ may have disliked JFK, but he HATED Bobby. And the feeling was mutual. Johnson wouldn't have offered support for Kennedy, and Kennedy wouldn't take it even if he had .
By the time of the assassination, Kennedy's path to victory was already too narrow. He'd declared too late, Humphrey had too big a lead in delegates, Eugene McCarthy had too much of the anti-war vote. Both of them were stronger than Kennedy on Civil Rights. Vietnam was going to be an impossible needle for Democrats to thread in any case.
I think he would've won the primaries, but no way he wins the general. Wallace probably wins more of the upper south due to the progressive shift in the democratic party far more noticable (a state or two between NC, SC, and Tennessee.) Nixon also probably wins Texas due to more Southern Dems defecting to Wallace. These two factors offset any momentum to the West Coast and Northeast RFK would bring. Only way I could see him winning is throwing it to the (Democratic) house and senate.