You can't have a functioning democracy when candidates aren't safe

This feels like an extreme position to me. Just because you have one or 10 nutty beliefs, that doesn’t make you a nutter. I don’t know where the threshold lie, but as an example, didn’t Newton believe in alchemy?

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2023/11/mitt-ro...

From the article:

> "Some of the reluctance to hold Trump accountable was a function of the same old perverse political incentives—elected Republicans feared a political backlash from their base. But after January 6, a new, more existential brand of cowardice had emerged. One Republican congressman confided to Romney that he wanted to vote for Trump’s second impeachment, but chose not to out of fear for his family’s safety. The congressman reasoned that Trump would be impeached by House Democrats with or without him—why put his wife and children at risk if it wouldn’t change the outcome? Later, during the Senate trial, Romney heard the same calculation while talking with a small group of Republican colleagues. When one senator, a member of leadership, said he was leaning toward voting to convict, the others urged him to reconsider. You can’t do that, Romney recalled someone saying. Think of your personal safety, said another. Think of your children. The senator eventually decided they were right."

Look into the indirect connection between vaccines causing gastro-intestinal problems, and autists with gut/biome problems.

You can not scientifically state "there is no connection between autism and vaccines". Not even legally (look at vaccine court cases). Only from a "public health" and big pharma perspective is such a statement defensible.

For example, the polling criteria would argue against him (though I think he's been close): "Whether, during and within an active and competitive major party primary, the most recent average of established national polls, as reflected by the Real Clear Politics National Average or similar mechanism, the candidate is polling at 15% or more for 30 consecutive days."

Based on the video, I think he would argue his strongest case is based on the threat assessment criteria: "A threat assessment conducted by the Secret Service of general or specific threats directed towards the candidate (for these purposes, “threats” should be defined as explicit threats of bodily harm to the candidate or indications of inappropriate behavior towards the candidate suggesting potential bodily harm)."

Either way, a nutter who hopefully falls off the charts early in the primaries.

[0] https://www.secretservice.gov/protection/leaders/campaign-20...

Safety data (from final trial) only available in 2024, so we can just guess and track adversarial reactions.

These vaccines are only safe and effective from a collective public health perspective, which necessitated emergency release.