All Episodes
Previous Next
July 26, 2023 - Ron Paul Liberty Report
29:12
RFK, Jr. CRUSHES Every Candidate On Favorability. Why?

A new Harvard/Harris poll out this week confirms last month's result from Economist/YouGov: RFK, Jr. continues to absolutely crush every opponent from either party when it comes to net favorability. After censorship and slurs, RFK manages to out-perform the MSM favorites. How does he do it and can he keep it up? Also today: Nurses dance to stop climate change and Germany blames Ukraine's losses on...Ukraine.

|

Time Text
Trump's Favorability Resonates 00:14:01
Hello, everybody, and thank you for tuning in to the Liberty Report.
With us today is Daniel McAdams, our co-host.
Daniel, good to see you.
Good morning, Dr. Paul.
How are you this morning?
Very well.
Thank you.
We're doing well.
A little politics today.
Yeah.
You know, I think I barely mentioned it yesterday because the story was just breaking about this poll.
But we have some more details on the poll that was done to find out to this consternation for some.
I was listening to a report by a liberal reporter when he said, and RFK does the best.
He was highest on the favorability.
He wasn't supposed to do that.
They're unified against him.
The Democrats don't want him because he points out that Democrats are deeply flawed.
And the Republicans only like him as a sounding board, you know, because the Republicans probably certainly wouldn't accept his foreign policy.
But it's interesting.
The poll showed that he did the very best and has a higher favorability rating than any other presidential candidate.
That's Republican and Democrat.
So I would say that that's pretty good.
And it wasn't done by some right-wing polling firm.
Maybe there was somebody called Harvard Harris.
So maybe they were objective on us.
Who knows?
Yeah.
Well, let's look at the article.
This is from the Epoch Times.
This is via Zero Hedge.
Thanks for that, guys.
RFK Jr. maintains highest favorability rating among presidential candidates in New Poll.
Keyword being maintains.
And people may think they're feeling deja vu because we did cover this, but we covered it last month in an economist YouGov poll that showed surprisingly for many people that he had the highest favorability.
Now here's a poll if you go to the next one.
This is a Harvard Harris poll.
This is the whole deal.
This is the size of the people they polled, et cetera, et cetera.
Now go to the next one.
Just look at a couple of the tabs here because, and we don't want to go too far into the weeds, but Kennedy, Musk, and DeSantis among the few political figures with net public approval.
And that means obviously that you have favorable or very favorable and that outranks your unfavorable and very unfavorable.
And so you see only those three that have that net positive.
Go to the next one now.
We'll see how it looks with that gap.
You have RFK Jr. 47% favorable and only 26% unfavorable.
You go to the next highest and that's Trump.
Yes, he has 45% favorable.
But then when you look, he has 49% unfavorable.
And Musk, of course, not running, but he's a public figure, political figure.
The rest are way down there.
Pence is way down there, of course, obviously so.
But that gap for Kennedy is 21 points.
That net favorable is 21 points.
And that is a significant number, I think.
Yes, and people will be watching this very closely.
So it will even intensify the interest in, I think it's August 23rd, when the great debate will occur.
Maybe it'll be great.
Maybe it'll be not.
I was mentioning to you a minute ago that, you know, is Trump going to do it or isn't he going to do it?
Because he wants to be star of the show.
But he is the star of the show.
Nobody's asking everybody else, are you coming or are you not coming?
Exactly.
He's made the whole story of whether or not he will attend.
And that might become secondary to him playing games with them.
But it'll be interesting to see what happens because a lot of people will be disappointed.
If he's in it, if he's in the debate, I think there'll be a higher viewership.
The ratings will be high.
I mean, what do you think?
Do you think you should go if you were advising him if he called you up?
Well, I wouldn't have a strong opinion.
I probably would lean toward it because I generally have had it rule that the other candidates are irrelevant.
Yeah, true.
You know, or talk about the issues and how maybe, you know, there's six or seven and I say, you know, I think that monetary policy is very important and the rest of the candidates generally still have strong support for the Federal Reserve.
Put them in a block, that's true, and not worry about the personality.
But the media loves the personality, and the politicians tend to as well.
And I think Kennedy, Robert Kennedy, tends to not want to go after personalities.
They invited him to do that, and he said he'd prefer not to do that.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
Should we go after Biden's health and that kind of thing?
Yeah, yeah, it's a smart move.
Well, our question when we did the title of the show was why, why has these high favorable ratings?
You know, part of it can be explained by the fact that the mainstream media does its level best to just ignore him.
They don't want him to exist.
But those people that do see him, which is why they want to ignore him, I think are impressed.
And I put together just a couple of clips from his recent appearance over the past maybe week or so.
Now, this first one is him appearing before the House on censorship.
And it's a, I don't think it's that long of a clip, but I think he is excellent when he talks about really what does it mean when you censor someone?
Let's go ahead and watch this.
30 seconds.
This is a great clip.
A government that can censor its critics has license for every atrocity.
It is the beginning of totalitarianism.
There's never been a time in history when we look back and the guys who were censoring people were the good guys.
All of us grew up reading Arthur Kessler, Robert Heinlein, Aldous Huxley, George Orwell, and they were all saying the same thing.
Once you start censoring, you're on your way to dystopia and totalitarianism.
You know, the greatest irony is the committee was there to investigate censorship.
So they proved that they were wrong by censoring him and begging and pleading, don't let this guy talk.
We don't want to hear from him.
He's dangerous.
But in a way, it's a similar treatment for Trump.
I mean, why are they worried about Trump?
They worry about his ideas or his political favoritism.
I mean, people, how favorable they look at Trump.
They have to destroy Trump.
And they're finding out what they're doing is they're missing the boat on understanding what the people are really thinking.
And that's why some of these demonstrations now are people who are fighting back and deciding, well, this boycott and this blockade and no more, no Budweiser for me.
And it looks like the corporate leaders aren't with it, and they don't quite understand it unless they have another alter motive.
That might be the case.
And I think the tide is turning.
I mean, after we've talked about it so many times, but after the Twitter files have been released and people know what's going on, people know that the government is colluding with business to censor and to destroy voices that they don't like that don't support the government narrative.
I think the tide is turning in our favor at turning against censorship because I think Americans, for all of our faults, we instinctively bristle when someone tells us we're not allowed to hold a thought or say a word.
I think that's in our DNA, and that's one of the great things about the country.
So I think that resonates what he says.
And the second clip I pulled up is a great clip.
And I think you may have watched him on Hannity, but this is where he talks about capitalism in America.
And you think, oh, he's a progressive Democrat.
He's going to say something we not really like.
No, this is actually, he nails it.
Let's listen to him here.
And it is.
I mean, we don't have free market capitalism in this country.
We have corporate crony capitalism.
We have a.
Wow.
We have a system of cushy socialism for the super rich.
And this brutal, a kind of brutal, savage, merciless capitalism for the poor.
And it's all designed to strip mine the middle class of this country of all of their equity, all of their assets, and move it to the upper echelons.
And, you know, the COVID lockdowns were the final straw.
COVID lockdowns.
We created a billionaire a day, and this was Trump and Biden.
Of 500 days of lockdowns, we created a billionaire a day.
We moved $4 trillion from the American middle class to the super rich.
The people who came into the lockdown with a billion dollars increased their wealth on average by 30%.
And we closed 3.3 million businesses.
In retrospect, and I give for a period of time in the early days, nobody knew what the hell they were dealing with.
Let's be fair.
I'm not going to be fair.
Nobody's talking that way at all.
Nobody's talking that way.
And he blasts Trump and Biden both for the lockdowns and the destruction.
But that sounded a lot like stuff that you say about this crony capitalism.
The applause was rather loud for this, too.
And this is why they can't stand them.
You know, the truth is just something they can't tolerate.
And they twisted it around.
And it's almost treasonous to talk this way.
And yet, he's closer to the Constitution and liberty than the rest of them.
You know, it's such a shame.
So he is, you know, we keep saying, well, we're not his champion on everything he does.
But you take the issue on vaccines and the strength of pharmaceuticals and the Department of Energy, Department of Education, as well as the military stuff, the military-industrial complex.
He's been just great on this stuff.
But they have to try to silence them.
And the more noise and the more names they call them to distract, it's because they just don't want a discussion to break out.
You know, they're not even talking about who actually is telling the truth and who's right.
No, you're not even allowed to consider it.
That's the only way we can win this argument.
Don't allow them to hear it.
So that's why cancellation of people's right to speak will continue.
And it's a tradition in an authoritarian society.
Yeah.
And that's, I mean, this clip is why I think that Trump would be the one to worry, should be the one to worry most about facing RFK Jr.
Because this is the constituency that Trump embraced in 2016, 2015, 2016.
The disaffected blue-collar rust belt people who had conservative views more or less, but they had been left behind by a Democratic Party that was more interested in social engineering in Hollywood and a Republican Party that's more interested in the military-industrial complex.
And Trump was able, I think, to appeal to this great middle.
And I think in this clip, we see how RFK has been able to do it.
And now Trump may still try to do this, but I think he may have lost the trust of a lot of people who did trust him at the time and then were disappointed with this four years.
But the Democrats have a job to do because if they come back and try to catch Trump on a technicality on philosophy or a position or a principle, they're not credible either.
And that might be the reason somebody like Kennedy shoots to the top of favorability.
So, no, I think it's a good sign.
There's a lot of imperfections in the world, and there has to be direction.
And he's definitely talking about politics in a different direction.
And the people keep saying, you know, what we need is, most of them say bipartisanship, but most people said, now it's a no party, no party.
But, you know, you have to realize that no party is a designation anyway.
But he has more things to say.
What does it mean by a change?
And he takes on, and I guess the neat thing that I like about him, he just doesn't walk away from it.
You know, they make him accusations, and maybe it deserves a debate.
I think that's right.
When they catch him or anybody, that's where the debate ought to be.
And find out because the people who disagree with him, you should have a chance to convert him.
No, it's this cancel him.
First thing we do investigating, canceling people is cancel the guy that wants to talk about it.
So ridiculous.
Yeah.
Well, obviously we're not endorsing him, but we are pointing out.
I mean, there's some things that he's saying lately that I don't care for at all, but he's at least talking intelligently.
I mean, we looked at this at the Blaze TV Republican thing, Majig, and you saw people like Pence who couldn't get beyond a bumper sticker.
I mean, literally.
So that's why it's amazing to hear him with a facility for a broad variety of topics from vaccines to medicine to foreign policy.
You don't usually get this from a politician.
You know, it's very rare, and I think that's why some campaigns have resonated when you have a candidate like that.
But I have one other clip, and this is where now Hannity is awful on a lot of stuff.
Well, everything.
But here, I won't even play the part where he's talking, he's using bumper stickers himself.
Oh, this, oh, that, oh, that.
And Kennedy, excuse me, instead of being aggressive or nasty, he sits and he waits his turn, and then he calmly but definitively refutes what Hannity just said.
Intended Move NATO: Dismantling Promises 00:05:22
And I think he does it with such a plum, it's amazing.
Let's watch this.
This is a little longer than we usually watch, and I apologize, but I think it's worth listening to.
I don't think most of the European countries wanted the war either.
It's clear what happened, which is that, you know, from the beginning, we promised in 1992, the Russian leadership said, we will move.
This is what Gorbachev said when the Soviet Union, he was getting ready to dismantle the Soviet Union, and he said, we're going to allow you, we're going to withdraw 400,000 troops from East Germany.
And we're going to allow you to reunite Germany under NATO.
It was a hostile army.
That's a huge concession for them.
The one commitment we want, it's what the Russians said, is that you will not move NATO to the East.
James Baker, who was then Secretary of State under Bush, famously promised, we will not move NATO one inch to the East.
Well, since then, we've moved it 1,000 miles in 14 countries.
Now, when we started that plan in 1997, Bill Perry, who was the Secretary of Defense under Clinton, said to the Clinton administration, if you move NATO to the East, I'm resigning because you are forcing the Russians to come to war with us.
George Kennan, who's the most important diplomat in American history, the architect of the containment policy during World War II, said the same thing.
You do not need to make an enemy out of Russia.
Russia should be treated the way we won the Cold War.
Catch conflict.
Let me ask you.
You can see he just left Hannity speechless.
Yeah, and he went to the subject.
He's doing what the rest of them do in the Congress.
They immediately go to China.
Yeah, oh, it's not Russia, it's China.
He didn't even answer a word.
He just immediately started talking about China.
That is so sad that they're not willing to do it.
But that statement there is powerful.
You could almost make a campaign.
Of course, I remember somebody trying to make a whole campaign.
I mean, it was a very popular thing to talk about.
Bring the troops on.
Why are we in the Middle East?
And all of this thing.
So he does such a great job.
And I've been Bill O'Reilly's going nuts because Robert was using history.
No right to see him to use history.
You mean we promised that we wouldn't do this and we broke our promise.
But there's not 2% of the American people that know that.
And that is why, as far as the Democrats are concerned and Republicans, that's a dangerous man out there telling the truth.
And what if they find out it's all a fake war for other reasons?
And then they wonder why you don't win fake wars.
Well, you're not intended to win them.
They're intended to have another type of political system.
It's to perpetuate an empire, protect it, or enlarge it.
The fact that we didn't live up to our promises was to expand our empire.
So we go from Eastern Europe over to Western Europe over to the Eastern world, break all our promises, and then they say, oh, those Russians, they're the ones who started all this.
And then 1992, that he mentions what about 2014?
It climaxed in a coup of a Russian, a government that was wanting to be friendly with Russia.
But that is just absent from the debate, unfortunately.
And all Hannity could say was, well, but Putin's a monster.
I hope he dies.
And RFK said, okay, yeah, maybe that's true.
But here are the other facts that are also important to know.
You know, he's like, okay, maybe that's it.
Well, anyway, let's close down with this one because I just, this one sentence really struck me.
If we can go ahead to one where it starts, the censorship continues.
Go ahead one more on this.
This is RFK.
He said, the censorship continues today.
When I made my campaign, my announcement speech on April 19th in Boston, YouTube took it down after five minutes.
I never mentioned vaccines.
I never mentioned anything.
So you talk about A, interference in elections.
They took down his announcement speech.
But we know this because we had an experience when we had Kennedy on our show, and we know that it was taken down right away as well.
So they do not want you to know much about him.
They're not looking for the truth.
They're looking for angles on how you cancel truth.
And that's their goal in life.
And unfortunately, they have a lot of ammunition, a lot of people, but those numbers don't scare me one bit because that's not the way the world works.
The world works with people telling the truth.
And here's an example of you have all those candidates and all that fibbing.
You have the media.
You have the pharmaceutical industry and the military industry.
Who pops up and is the most credible?
Robert Kennedy.
So the numbers are important long-term to convince people.
But in the meantime, when you're trying to sort it out, it's the person that's telling the truth that ultimately wins the argument.
Yeah, absolutely.
Well, let's do a quickie on this next one.
You noticed it this morning.
I noticed it too from our friends at Zero Hedge.
I put that next one up.
Dancing Nurses Switched Tactics 00:02:17
Dancing COVID nurses that supported draconian mandates switched to climate change.
Everyone remembers this.
We were told that the hospitals are overrun.
You couldn't get your cancer treatment.
Sorry, come back later.
You couldn't get normal medical procedures.
The hospitals were overrun.
And then you started seeing videos of nurses dancing in unison, singing stupid songs.
And people were wondering, you know, what the heck is going on here?
Well, now we're seeing the same thing happening, these same nurses.
And I looked at the video, and I was going to put it up, Dr. Paul, but it was literally so stupid.
I lost a few IQ points watching three seconds of it, so I did it.
But these same nurses are now doing the same dumb dances, but now they're doing them for climate change.
They're dancing in unison to warn us about the dangers of climate change.
I was asked which one is worse, this distortion about the mandates for COVID or the climate change people.
Which one has been accomplished more and widely different?
That sort of thing.
They're exactly the same thing.
It's manipulation of public opinion to try to convince people that you better be scared because you need us.
You need the real science.
Oh, no, no, you don't need a real science.
Science doesn't work.
We have to give up on science.
So we have to do the other things.
But you do need help.
People have to be scared first.
I still hear it from people that you think should be intelligent enough that there's something fishy going on here.
But no, they'll do it.
They'll say, maybe they are not perfect, but somebody has to protect us against these viruses and do all these things.
And they're protecting us against all the enemies around the world as we manufacture the enemies.
We create the enemies.
We're protecting ourselves from the Chinese.
One bad group of people is the claim.
And of course, they're miles apart from where we are.
But what are we doing?
How many ships do we have over there in the South China Sea trying to provoke some activity there that will accelerate the fighting and the killing?
Ukraine's Weapon Crisis 00:05:38
And that is a real problem.
But the people who are warning us of the problem are saying, that's why we have to do more.
We need more weapons, more money.
And we have to scare the American people.
Chinese are guilty of everything.
But just like Robert pointed out, that it's not like we as Americans have been totally innocent and the Russians were at fault for the whole war.
I mean, that's a stretch.
And just like people finally woke up over COVID, they're going to wake up over this foreign policy as well.
I think they've essentially woke up over the lies told against us in the Middle East.
So far, Bush isn't going down in history as one of our great presidents.
And he wanted to be a war president because he thought that was the road to greatness.
Yeah, yeah, what a creep.
Well, the Hedge article just points out if they lied about the ineffectiveness of mandates, why should we listen to them about climate change?
And we would say, here, here to that.
Well, the last one we want to touch on is something we're going to see a lot more of.
We've talked about the shift in the Ukraine narrative over the last few days.
You're starting to see it being blamed on Ukraine now that they're obviously not doing well.
The counteroffensive is obviously not going as planned.
And you're seeing an absolute destruction of men and materiel.
Just tons and tons of things blown up.
Go to this next one.
Our friend Dave DeCamp wrote up a piece.
So there was a memo inside the German Defense Department, the German Defense Ministry, about what's going on on the front.
And it was leaked to the German newspaper BILD.
And it says, German army says Ukraine is wasting its NATO training.
According to a leaked German military report, Berlin's armed forces think Ukraine's commanders and battle-hardened troops are not using their Western training.
U.S. officials have made similar complaints in comments to the media saying Ukraine isn't using combined arms tactics, which integrate armor, infantry, and artillery.
To which, Dr. Paul, the military experts that we know would say that is how they started the counteroffensive.
And we've all seen those photos of 10 or 15 Bradleys and Leopards all blown up.
They tried to use it, but instead, and this is what's, I think, my prediction and many others as well, when things continue to go badly, it's going to be all Ukraine's fault.
Even though they were promised, we'll give you everything you need to win this war.
Oh, you're starting to lose?
Hey, it's all your fault.
You know, you wonder why did they do it?
Why did the Ukrainians go along with this and get involved by being pushed by outsiders?
But maybe it isn't just their ineptness in not following what they've been instructed and they weren't good students and they're not using the weapons properly.
Maybe they are obeying the higher-ups.
Maybe there's people who are pulling the strings that the purpose wasn't to have Ukraine other than a cesspool of fighting and killing between East and West and keep the precipitation of this going.
But it's the starting of this.
How did they go?
How did NATO manage to do that?
Well, they had to get a lot of people saying, oh, yeah, well, I don't know how they get them because it already exists, the fighting between Ukrainians and Russia and all that.
But the people get scared.
Oh, I guess NATO will have to help us.
But then there's sometimes when it gets so long, it's so stupid.
It's hard for me that people would be that dumb to keep how long, I mean, right now, not only have they run out of weapons, we're running out of money.
And we're going to run out of soldiers.
Matter of fact, that's why we worried the other day about, are we going to need a draft?
Because nobody wants to join this army that participates in this.
Yeah, well, what's happening, the panic is happening now.
The panic is happening because it's now obvious that the weapons are not very good.
The Bradleys aren't doing well.
The Leopards aren't doing well.
All of the Wonder Weapons are not achieving what they were supposed to achieve.
And now the tactics aren't working well.
The way they've been trained, NATO trained them is not working well.
And at the beginning of this conflict, our friend Colonel Doug McGregor said, he predicted this is going to actually be the end of NATO, the death of NATO, because they're getting into something that they simply can't win.
And everyone thought he was nuts.
I think every day that passes, more and more looks like Colonel McGregor is right.
And in fact, I'm going to close with that thought because that reminds me to remind you that Colonel McGregor will be at our conference.
And won't you want a chance to listen to what he has to say now that he's been proven right, to say hello to him, to hear his speech.
The conference is Which Way America, Colonel McGregor, will be joining Dr. Paul, myself, and many others to speak on where are we headed.
And it's not just military, it's our domestic policy, our civil liberties.
I do have a link in the comments and in the description for you to get your tickets and join us September 2nd near Dulles Airport in the Washington DC area.
Over to you, Dr. Paul.
Very good.
And I too agree with McGregor about what would happen to NATO.
And it is happening as it goes along.
My point is it's going to take a long time and it takes a bit of a calamity for that to happen.
Maybe a lot more violence and killing and then NATO gives up on it.
Cost Of Bad Policy Cut 00:01:36
Sort of like on economic policy, we know the right things to do.
You cut spending, you have sound money and all these things.
But it doesn't happen.
Can get back to that because there's a lot of people who still believe in it.
But it's not going to happen gracefully.
So I think the breakdown of NATO is going to happen and there will be realignments, but how much pain and suffering and cost will there be?
That is really it, because these unstable conditions that we have generated, especially in these last 10 years, where we had an opportunity to get some benefits from the end of the Cold War, that it's going to get rough before it gets better.
But the most important thing we do is to recognize that, expect to have problems, define those problems, and also tell people we know exactly what to do to prevent war, essentially, you know, at least a lot less war, and also to make the economies around the world a lot better off.
Now, it just really hit me the other day about, you know, we think about the economy in the United States, but the economies of the world, because they have accepted and they've been working under the fiat dollar, and the dollar has been printed at will by us, that bubble that is bursting right now is bigger than anybody anticipates.
So that is that cost that has to be paid when you have bad policy, but it's still important to point out the people who predict it would happen and also to warn that the cost was unnecessary and there are better ways to achieve peace and prosperity.
Export Selection