Posts: 10,950
Threads: 59
Reputation:
43367
Joined: May 2015
Mood: None
(08-10-2023, 06:46 PM)Dill Wrote: LOL "Us" again. Your quote below, from post #60, was the occasion for my use of your term "common experience."
"As SSF puts it," followed ONLY by the two words singled out, just means that I am appropriating your TERM as I state one can determine WHETHER spitting was a common experience. I did not say "as SSF claims" it is, as I would have if that is what I meant. And even if I had, the appropriate response would have been a simple, "No that's not what I'm saying," rather than stridently accusing me of lying and linking me, by misconstructed analogy, to Holocaust denial.* That sort of hyper-emotional and unjustified personal attack, while you are revealing MY character, shuts down threads as well as debate.
In any case, based on the case I've referred to in previous posts--books and polls of vets and documentary evidence from the period--being spit on was not a common experience. Not even close. So why are you "avoiding my points," as you frequently put it?
The flipside now--Dill has not been "arguing that it never happened." And you just responded to a post which states that plainly.
So why isn't the misrepresentation bolded above a "flat out lie," as you put it?
My posts are not about "invalidating the experiences of some of the men returning home from Vietnam";
They are about invalidating the MYTH that this was a common and representative experience.
And I've given the reasons why so many Vietnam Vets agree with me on this point--it's really THEIR argument, after all--e.g. it deflects criticism FROM the people and policies who created the Vietnam mess and deflects it TO the people who criticized that war and will likely be criticizing future wars as well. But you are not interested in THAT evidence. It's "anecdotal" coming from vets whose experiences you don't mind invalidating to keep your private grievances against "the left" going.
You cannot refute that argument, so you once again make it personal, framing the issue as "personal invalidation," ignoring that I specifically acknowledged how a vet who actually was spit on might feel. You claim to put forward your father's testimony, then make any further contextualization of it a personal insult to him if it does not support your narrative. That closes any further possibility of open discussion and assessment of the factual record of this issue in veteran history, but leaves you in your preferred position of strident, personal moral condemnation of anyone who disagrees with you. Not the first time.
I'm not going to trade accusations of "ingenuousness" with you. And you are not going to respond to my evidence-based argument as an evidence-based argument. So "we" probably don't require any further revelation of my character.
*Holocaust denial does not start with people trying to verify historical facts, but with denying facts to create an alternative history based emotional appeal and predetermined political goals, not the historical record. Have you even bothered actually reading such denials? Have you forgotten your recent complaint about people who argue by linking opponents to the worst people? Why do you always except yourself from the rules you want others to follow?
Just wanted to quickly revisit your blatant lies here. You directly said the following.
(08-09-2023, 10:17 PM)Dill Wrote: Could very well be. The question of whether such things happened is often raised in college history courses on the '60s.
Quote:As far as the myth of the spitting protestors, it seems to have emerged in the '90s.
Hmm, what is the definition of the word myth?
myth
noun
- 1.
a traditional story, especially one concerning the early history of a people or explaining some natural or social phenomenon, and typically involving supernatural beings or events.
Nah, that doesn't sound like what you meant
- 2.
a widely held but false belief or idea.
That sounds like exactly what you're saying.
Quote:https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/13/opinion/myth-spitting-vietnam-protester.html
“So where do these stories come from?”
The reporter was asking about accounts that soldiers returning from Vietnam had been spat on by antiwar activists. I had told her the stories were not true.
Is "not true" analogous to myth or a lie? By god, methinks it is!
Quote:The Los Angeles Times editorialized that it was a mythical image—an edifying myth, said editor Michael McGough, but still a myth.
There's that "myth" word again. You think they mean " a traditional story, especially one concerning the early history of a people or explaining some natural or social phenomenon, and typically involving supernatural beings or events."
Again, methinks not.
Quote:There is no evidence that Vietnam veterans were spat on. Nor could they have been,
Except for first hand eyewitness accounts of those spit on, you mean? Yet another myth?
Quote:Legend of the spat-upon Vietnam veteran
https://www.seattletimes.com/opinion/legend-of-the-spat-upon-vietnam-veteran/
What does legend mean? I think anyone else reading this gets the point.
Quote:In his exhaustive book entitled “The Spitting Image,” Vietnam vet and Holy Cross professor Jerry Lembcke documents veterans who claim they were spat on by anti-war protesters, but he found no physical evidence (photographs, news reports, etc.) that these transgressions actually occurred. His findings are supported by surveys of his fellow Vietnam veterans as they came home.
Wait, he found no evidence they occurred, other than first hand accounts, and this is refuted by other first hand accounts? You have hit the absolute motherlode of proof here.
Quote:For instance, Lembcke notes that “a U.S. Senate study, based on data collected in August 1971 by Harris Associates, found that 75 percent of Vietnam-era veterans polled disagreed with the statement,
So what about the 25% who agreed? Are they all liars, or are they mythical?
Quote:Meanwhile, the Veterans’ World Project at Southern Illinois University found that many Vietnam vets supported the anti-war protest, with researchers finding almost no veterans “finish(ing) their service in Vietnam believing that what the United States has done there has served to forward our nation’s purposes.”
The fact that some veterans joined protests against the way has zero bearing on the validity of whether some veterans were spat upon by your ilk.
Quote:In the face of such data, why would the current president nonetheless repeat the apocryphal myth about spat-on Vietnam veterans? Because — facts be damned — it serves a purpose: to suppress protest and perpetuate the ideology of militarism.
Hmm, what does apocryphal mean?
a·poc·ry·phal
adjective
(of a story or statement) of doubtful authenticity, although widely circulated as being true.
What's another word for "doubtful authenticity?" Again, I'll let the audience answer that one individually.
Quote:This objective is achieved through the narrative’s preposterous assumptions. Metaphorically, if not explicitly, the mythology equates anti-war activism with dishonoring the troops; implies that such protest is kryptonite to the Pentagon’s Superman; and therefore insinuates that America loses wars not when policies are wrong, but when dissent is tolerated.
In summation, you are being dishonest in the extreme here. You not only lied about what you claimed you didn't lie about, but you lied about claiming my father and his friends are liars. In short you have absolutely zero credibility. You'll probably report this as a personal attack, but I don't believe that pointing out when someone is obviously being dishonest, using their own words to illustrate that, is a personal attack. Unless you want to claim you've been personally attacking Trump about the 2020 elections instead of justifiably calling out his falsehoods. And apologies to the mods, but someone claiming my father, who spent two years plus in that war, and his friends are lying about their experiences is just not something I'm going to tolerate. If you think this is too much, then I sincerely apologize, but I would ask you to honestly read this post and then tell me what I'm claiming is false.
Posts: 38,478
Threads: 1,699
Reputation:
55330
Joined: May 2015
Location: SW PA
Mood:
1) Really wants that youth vote that he wants to stop from voting.
2) Is Eminem that big in Iowa...at the state fair?
![[Image: giphy.gif]](https://media0.giphy.com/media/1kwsTjL8BNqlszNtnCE/giphy.gif)
Warning: Reading signatures may hurt your feelings.
Posts: 3,685
Threads: 20
Reputation:
22229
Joined: Jun 2015
Mood: None
(08-12-2023, 04:32 PM)GMDino Wrote: 1) Really wants that youth vote that he wants to stop from voting.
2) Is Eminem that big in Iowa...at the state fair?
My  culture is not your costume!
SMDH
Posts: 11,769
Threads: 131
Reputation:
32538
Joined: May 2015
Mood: None
(08-11-2023, 07:14 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: In summation, you are being dishonest in the extreme here. You not only lied about what you claimed you didn't lie about, but you lied about claiming my father and his friends are liars. In short you have absolutely zero credibility. You'll probably report this as a personal attack, but I don't believe that pointing out when someone is obviously being dishonest, using their own words to illustrate that, is a personal attack. Unless you want to claim you've been personally attacking Trump about the 2020 elections instead of justifiably calling out his falsehoods. And apologies to the mods, but someone claiming my father, who spent two years plus in that war, and his friends are lying about their experiences is just not something I'm going to tolerate. If you think this is too much, then I sincerely apologize, but I would ask you to honestly read this post and then tell me what I'm claiming is false.
If you put your recollection of something your father said out there as "proof" of some political or historical thesis, then it is just another bit of data and fair game for questioning. Don't expect to squelch debate over a topic you find uncomfortable by thereafter accusing people of attacking your father if they disagree with your take on that topic. In any case, it is not your father's credibility on the line here but yours. And in a free and open forum, you do have to "tolerate" others' opinions. If this issue makes you so emotional, perhaps you should drop it, and in the future refrain from leveraging beloved family members into political/historical arguments.
I certainly have no objection to juxtaposing quotations to demonstrate conflicts or contradictions between a poster's statements. I do that to you all the time, right? But then I let the juxtaposition speak for itself. I don't call fellow posters "blatant liars" or "hypocrites," even if on occasion I think they are. I also allow that people make mistakes and may reword badly worded points. Good faith in philosophical debate/argument means trying to understand the other guy's reasoning first. If you are going to call me a "blatant liar," then "methinks" you ought to at least clearly represent MY argument--what I think it is--not your angry reaction to disjointed statements, some not even mine.
You create a straw man when you substitute your own definition of "myth" for the one my source uses, and present a statement drawn from him as simply my own. And also when you ignore statements which don't fit your misconstruction, like " No one is willing to say 'no soldier was ever spit on,'" and " No one can determine for certain that no vet was EVER spat upon on returning home."
In short, I'm willing to continue rational discussion of the question of whether vets were commonly spit on and, more importantly, the current political uses of that claim. That's a conversation that could encourage interest and participation of others.
But I'm not willing to argue over whether your father is "a liar," as that's no discussion at all, and unlikely to interest others.
Ball's in your court.
Posts: 11,769
Threads: 131
Reputation:
32538
Joined: May 2015
Mood: None
(08-11-2023, 07:14 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: In summation, you are being dishonest in the extreme here. You not only lied about what you claimed you didn't lie about, but you lied about claiming my father and his friends are liars. In short you have absolutely zero credibility. You'll probably report this as a personal attack, but I don't believe that pointing out when someone is obviously being dishonest, using their own words to illustrate that, is a personal attack. Unless you want to claim you've been personally attacking Trump about the 2020 elections instead of justifiably calling out his falsehoods. And apologies to the mods, but someone claiming my father, who spent two years plus in that war, and his friends are lying about their experiences is just not something I'm going to tolerate. If you think this is too much, then I sincerely apologize, but I would ask you to honestly read this post and then tell me what I'm claiming is false.
Couple notes on what appears a PUBLIC request that the moderators to "understand" why you are violating the CoC, again, and to allow a special exception in your case.
1. In the past I've told two moderators, PRIVATELY, that I'd prefer they NOT suspend or otherwise discipline you for personal attacks on me, though they never indicated whether they would honor that preference. When you violated the CoC with a thread addressed to me, someone asked the moderators to take it down--but I asked them not to, PUBLICLY. Because they left the thread, I had a chance to articulate a decent social-science rationale for the comparing 1st and 3rd world conservatisms. Your violation did not prevent discussion of a topic you didn't want discussed; it furthered it. People should not have to walk on eggshells around you and avoid topics you don't want clarified or discussed. Verbal abuse (not just of me) should not be leveraged into default censorship.
2. There's something here you still don't get-- YOUR personal attacks do not make ME look bad.
I don't have "absolutely zero credibility" simply because you associate me to ANTIFA, MS-13, ISIS, racists (soft and hard), and holocaust deniers, while scattershot raging at my "blatant lying." All that's a resource. e.g., when you warn the forum of "ideologues" who think in black and white terms and of "hyper partisan people [who] see failure to completely agree with them as support for their opposites." Definitely a pattern there, but it is not my pattern, not my "brand." Why should I want to "report" such inconsistency, when it continually undermines your own efforts, usually in service to right wing ideology, to call out "leftist" hypocrites and cowards and others whose ideas "disgust" you? I shouldn't. I don't.
Posts: 38,478
Threads: 1,699
Reputation:
55330
Joined: May 2015
Location: SW PA
Mood:
And now another one from the private sector who thinks he can run the entire US government as if he owns it.
Not that there shouldn't be some weeding out I' sure, but you don't GO IN saying you will just fire 3/4 of the entire government because you THINK they aren't doing the job the way your think it should be done.
We would be looking at four more years of a guy who doesn't know how to do things that the POTUS has to do and no guidance just yes men.
Warning: Reading signatures may hurt your feelings.
Posts: 13,072
Threads: 1,972
Reputation:
76040
Joined: May 2015
Mood:
(08-20-2023, 05:49 PM)GMDino Wrote: And now another one from the private sector who thinks he can run the entire US government as if he owns it.
Not that there shouldn't be some weeding out I' sure, but you don't GO IN saying you will just fire 3/4 of the entire government because you THINK they aren't doing the job the way your think it should be done.
We would be looking at four more years of a guy who doesn't know how to do things that the POTUS has to do and no guidance just yes men.
He's the same guy who says he's going to change federal employment to a max of 8 years. Just imagine 12.5% of the entire civil service turning over every year. No one knows what they are doing in management because they are fired just when they become experts. Just imagine the VA system with no experience physicians or nurses, air traffic control with no experienced controllers, and intelligence services with undercover agents being fired in the middle of an operation.
Vivek talks a lot but applies no common sense to his rhetoric
Fueled by the pursuit of greatness.
Posts: 38,478
Threads: 1,699
Reputation:
55330
Joined: May 2015
Location: SW PA
Mood:
Yeah, no.
Warning: Reading signatures may hurt your feelings.
Posts: 18,035
Threads: 212
Reputation:
166543
Joined: May 2015
Mood:
(03-22-2023, 11:14 AM)Dill Wrote: He doesn't seem to understand how government works, or much about foreign policy, but he knows what most of the GOP audience wants to hear.
You could say the same about Obama. He was pretty wet behind the ears. He was a great speaker though.
Posts: 5,707
Threads: 57
Reputation:
36218
Joined: May 2015
Mood: None
I'm surprised at how many people I hear saying positive things about him. IMO, if not for Trump, he could have a shot. He makes the rest of the field look like a bunch of old heads.
I think that even in his mind, this campaign is a dry run for a more serious bid in 2028. Gotta be careful, though. If the iron gets hot, this year could be the best shot he has at it. A lot of bad shit can happen in 4 years and he won't be able to avoid scrutiny if he becomes a darling of the right. Lots of shoe-in candidates look great on paper the fall flat when primaries arrive. Ask Ron DeSantis, Rudy Guiliani.
Posts: 38,478
Threads: 1,699
Reputation:
55330
Joined: May 2015
Location: SW PA
Mood:
(08-25-2023, 08:24 PM)samhain Wrote: I'm surprised at how many people I hear saying positive things about him. IMO, if not for Trump, he could have a shot. He makes the rest of the field look like a bunch of old heads.
I think that even in his mind, this campaign is a dry run for a more serious bid in 2028. Gotta be careful, though. If the iron gets hot, this year could be the best shot he has at it. A lot of bad shit can happen in 4 years and he won't be able to avoid scrutiny if he becomes a darling of the right. Lots of shoe-in candidates look great on paper the fall flat when primaries arrive. Ask Ron DeSantis, Rudy Guiliani.
I've read a good many on the right don't like him because he took money from Soros.
People on the left feel he has too many deep ties to the right.
And he's trying to use the rags to riches story to define his life.
But...
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/ramaswamys-claims-came-no-money-clash-prep-school-upbringing
Quote:FIRST ON FOX: Republican presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy frequently touts a rags-to-riches story on the campaign trail, declaring during Wednesday night’s debate that his parents immigrated to the U.S. with nothing, but public records and Ramaswamy’s past writings paint a more nuanced picture about his upbringing.
"I'm not a politician," Ramaswamy said during his opening remarks at the Fox News-hosted debate in Milwaukee. "I'm an entrepreneur. My parents came to this country with no money 40 years ago. I have gone on to found multibillion dollar companies."
Later in the debate, while discussing his support for school choice, Ramaswamy said he "didn’t grow up in money."
![[Image: GettyImages-1619654364.jpg?ve=1&tl=1]](https://a57.foxnews.com/static.foxnews.com/foxnews.com/content/uploads/2023/08/640/320/GettyImages-1619654364.jpg?ve=1&tl=1)
Vivek Ramaswamy, left, and Nikki Haley during the Republican primary presidential debate hosted by Fox News in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, US, on Wednesday, Aug. 23, 2023. (Al Drago/Bloomberg via Getty Images)
RAMASWAMY WAS ALREADY MILLIONAIRE WHEN HE ACCEPTED SOROS AWARD HE SAID HE NEEDED TO PAY FOR LAW SCHOOL
It’s a narrative the multimillionaire millennial often uses to connect with voters on the campaign trail, while also attempting to differentiate himself from former President Donald Trump.
Before the debate Wednesday, Ramaswamy sat down with ABC News and said that unlike Trump, he "actually built the companies from scratch."
"I didn't inherit anything," he said. "I built the companies from zero to nothing. My parents came to this country with no money."
![[Image: ramaswamy-nixon-pose.jpg?ve=1&tl=1]](https://a57.foxnews.com/static.foxnews.com/foxnews.com/content/uploads/2023/08/640/320/ramaswamy-nixon-pose.jpg?ve=1&tl=1)
GOP presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy speaks at the Nixon Library on Thursday, Aug. 17, 2023, in Yorba Linda, CA. (Francine Orr / Los Angeles Times via Getty Images)
Ramaswamy, 38, was born in 1985 in Cincinnati to V. Ganapathy Ramaswamy and Geetha Ramaswamy, who were upper-caste Tamil Brahmin in India. Both parents were highly educated professionals in India before they moved to the U.S. and started a family.
Ramaswamy's father held a graduate degree in engineering from the National Institute of Technology, Calicut, when he immigrated to the U.S. in the 1970s.
In his 2022 book "Nation of Victims," Ramaswamy wrote that when he was in sixth grade, or about 11 years old, his father had been working as an engineer at General Electric for the past 20 years, or since about 1976.
Two years after their marriage, Ramaswamy’s father earned his Ph.D. from the University of Cincinnati while still working at General Electric in 1985, according to details in his father's dissertation. That same year, Ramaswamy’s mother immigrated to America, and Vivek was born that August, followed by his younger brother Shankar.
Ramaswamy’s mother already held a medical degree in geriatric psychiatry from Mysore Medical College & Research Institute in India by the time she arrived in the U.S. in 1985. She obtained her license to practice in Oklahoma less than six months after coming to the U.S., according to state records, though it is unclear why in Oklahoma. That license expired in 2014.
Ramaswamy’s mother obtained her Ohio medical license less than two years after her arrival in the U.S., in February 1987, which is still active, according to public records, and she worked as a geriatric psychiatrist and medical director at a private practice in Cincinnati from the time Vivek was 4 years old until he was in college, according to her LinkedIn profile.
![[Image: GettyImages-1632693593.jpg?ve=1&tl=1]](https://a57.foxnews.com/static.foxnews.com/foxnews.com/content/uploads/2023/08/640/320/GettyImages-1632693593.jpg?ve=1&tl=1)
Republican presidential candidate businessman Vivek Ramaswamy greets guests following a small rally outside of the Fiserv Forum on August 22, 2023 in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. (Scott Olson/Getty Images)
In "Nation of Victims," Ramaswamy wrote that when he was in the sixth grade, he belonged to a "comfortably middle-class family with two incomes," but the threat of layoffs still loomed.
By 2000, during Ramaswamy’s high school years, his father was working as a patent attorney at General Electric.
Ramaswamy attended an elite private high school in Cincinnati where tuition today costs over $16,000 per year.
His parents also apparently established a stock portfolio for him that was bringing in hundreds of dollars in dividends before he graduated high school and thousands by the time he attended Harvard, according to his 2002-2004 tax returns, which he released in June.
Ramaswamy's campaign did not respond to Fox News Digital's request for comment.
Questions about Ramaswamy's past have been ramping up in recent months after he quickly rose in the polls to third place behind front-runner Donald Trump and Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis.
Fox News Digital reported earlier this week that Ramaswamy had already become a millionaire by the time he accepted a Soros-family scholarship he previously said he needed in order to pay for law school.
Ramaswamy defended himself last month for accepting a $90,000 award from the Paul & Daisy Soros Fellowship for New Americans, which was founded by Daisy and Paul Soros, the late older brother of liberal billionaire financier George Soros.
Ramaswamy said that after graduating from Harvard, he "didn’t have the money" to afford Yale Law School.
"There was a separate scholarship that I won at the age of 24-25, when I was going to law school in my mid-20s, in my early 20s, when I didn't have the money and it was a merit scholarship that hundreds of kids win, that was partially funded, not by George Soros, but by Paul Soros a relative, his brother," Ramaswamy said.
"And to be perfectly honest with you, I would have had to be a fool to turn down that scholarship at the age of 24," he added.
![[Image: GettyImages-1593630997-e1691934012252.jpg?ve=1&tl=1]](https://a57.foxnews.com/static.foxnews.com/foxnews.com/content/uploads/2023/08/640/320/GettyImages-1593630997-e1691934012252.jpg?ve=1&tl=1)
Vivek Ramaswamy, chairman and co-founder of Strive Asset Management and 2024 Republican presidential candidate, raps to Eminem during a Fair-Side Chat with Iowa Governor Kim Reynolds at the Iowa State Fair in Des Moines, Iowa, US, on Saturday, Aug. 12, 2023. (Photographer: Rachel Mummey/Bloomberg via Getty Images)
When Ramaswamy accepted the award in 2011, he was a first-year law student at Yale and had been working for several years as an investment analyst at the hedge fund QVT Financial.
In 2011, the same year he accepted the award, Ramaswamy reported $2,252,209 in total income, according to his tax returns. He reported a total of $1,173,690 in income in the three years prior.
RAMASWAMY CHANGES TUNE FROM PREVIOUS COMMENTS ON TRUMP AHEAD OF GOP DEBATE: ‘NOT THE SAME DONALD TRUMP’
"Vivek won a generic scholarship that hundreds of students win to attend graduate school," his campaign’s spokesperson, Tricia McLaughlin, told Fox News Digital on Monday. "It was funded by a relative of George Soros who is long dead."
"Vivek would have been a fool to turn down that scholarship – Anyone who would have shouldn’t get anywhere near the White House doing trade deals," she continued. "In fact, there’s only one candidate that will be on stage Wednesday night whom George Soros has said he wants to win this primary – and it’s not Vivek."
Shades of Romney's "We were so poor we had to sell off some of our stocks just to make ends meet".
Warning: Reading signatures may hurt your feelings.
Posts: 11,769
Threads: 131
Reputation:
32538
Joined: May 2015
Mood: None
(08-25-2023, 07:49 PM)HarleyDog Wrote: Dill WroteHe doesn't seem to understand how government works, or much about foreign policy, but he knows what most of the GOP audience wants to hear.
You could say the same about Obama. He was pretty wet behind the ears. He was a great speaker though.
Obama was a constitutional law professor, and a (young) Senator. So he knew how government worked in theory and practice.
He had less experience than I'd normally want for a president, though.
Both of Obama's Republican opponents were more "seasoned" than he, and knew very well how gov. works too.
That's the kind of choice we had back then.
Posts: 11,769
Threads: 131
Reputation:
32538
Joined: May 2015
Mood: None
(08-25-2023, 12:01 PM)GMDino Wrote: Yeah, no.
LOL Love the incredulous expression on Kilmeades' face. V's proposal got me wondering though--
Ok so we let Russia have 20% of Ukraine, or however much it wants.
Then Russia will be eager to trade with us? Maybe to have sanctions lifted?
And they will break off or back off relations with China to get that?
Would they stop sending oil to China for that?
More importantly, how would we know what we got for leaving an ally on the butcher's block?
Mightn't Putin just say "thanks for Ukraine and lifting sanctions. We welcome Exxon drilling
technology back to Siberia, and all the benefits of full entry back into international trade."
And then just do what he wants with China anyway? Sell all this to his country as something
he "got over" on the US?
Meantime Europe and our NATO allies are thinking what?
"For two years the US pressures us to contribute to Ukraine to stop Russia,
and we are all on the same page. We sold this to our people and tightened our belts.
Now suddenly the US unilaterally decides Russia is our friend?
Well, maybe we'll get cheap gas. But something to think about the next time the US
wants our cooperation on some international crusade. This is as bad as pulling out of the Iran deal,
just as our manufacturers were setting up factories there, after sweet talking us for two years to join it."
I think our NATO allies Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania would he a bit more than shocked,
as they certainly could not withstand a bull rush of Russian tanks 5 years from now, when
Russia's economy and military are replenished.
Were Vivek elected and had the backing to turn our foreign policy on a dime again, as
Trump did, our allies would be feeling that alliance with the US was like riding the tilt a whirl
at an American State Fair. Trump got them planning ways to make their way in the world
with weaker or no US alliance. This would push them over the edge. We are not reliabel.
Posts: 13,072
Threads: 1,972
Reputation:
76040
Joined: May 2015
Mood:
I think a more apt comparison than Barack Obama might be Pete Buttigieg who was 37 when he ran for President. Both smart Harvard grads. The big difference is Pete worked in politics and wasn’t a total unknown to those in political circles. I think the other major difference is that Pete does his homework. He has put intellectual thought into his beliefs. He wasn’t afraid to explain the WHY behind his responses. And he was going to provide answers in a manner everyone understood even if they didn’t agree. If you ask him about Ukraine, he knows the long history between Ukraine and Russia. He understands the Ukrainian economy and it’s place in the world. And he has studied Putin and understands his goals and desires. Vivek, comes across as someone whose political beliefs will change based on the polling. He talks in well scripted sound bites but tends to flail when confronted with questions that require more nuanced or more in depth answers.
Vivek has no idea how he is ever going to implement the ideas he is putting out there. It’s great to have plans but with no action steps behind them you will have abject failure. His personal expertise is in investing. Obviously he is very good at that but nothing in his background indicates he would be successful at dealing with the behemoth that is the US federal government and implementing policy via legislation.
We shall see if things change as his campaign moves forward
Fueled by the pursuit of greatness.
Posts: 38,478
Threads: 1,699
Reputation:
55330
Joined: May 2015
Location: SW PA
Mood:
This gentleman wants people to pass a civics test in order to able to vote.
Warning: Reading signatures may hurt your feelings.
Posts: 13,072
Threads: 1,972
Reputation:
76040
Joined: May 2015
Mood:
(08-27-2023, 07:20 PM)GMDino Wrote: This gentleman wants people to pass a civics test in order to able to vote.
I wonder if not being able to pass that test is why Vivek has failed to vote in most of the elections of his adult life. He voted in the 2004 and 2020 presidential general elections only. He did not vote in the Ohio 2022 or 2023 May electons. He did vote in the Aug 2023 special election. He says he didn't vote because he was "jaded" He does love to use adjectives that convey nothing
I don't know, I was 17 when I was first eligible to vote in a primary election, as I would be 18 for the general, I haven't missed ANY elections since and we're talking over 40 years now. I know any number of Vivek's generation and younger and they all seem to be able to vote too.
The man goes from being disinterested to thinking he can run the place. Typical to want to leapfrog over doing the hard work of learning to being the boss
Fueled by the pursuit of greatness.
Posts: 38,478
Threads: 1,699
Reputation:
55330
Joined: May 2015
Location: SW PA
Mood:
A guy this smart should know his words are out there forever.
AND if you lose Hannity/FOX you're done.
Warning: Reading signatures may hurt your feelings.
Posts: 10,950
Threads: 59
Reputation:
43367
Joined: May 2015
Mood: None
(08-29-2023, 01:59 PM)GMDino Wrote: A guy this smart should know his words are out there forever.
AND if you lose Hannity/FOX you're done.
How did he lose? The quote wasn't even brought up in the clip you provided. I looked it up because I wanted to know exactly what he said. I did find this source;
https://www.timesofisrael.com/6-jewish-facts-about-gop-hopeful-vivek-ramaswamy-who-proposed-cut-to-israel-funding/
"He has floated ending US aid to Israel
In June, while campaigning in New Hampshire, Ramaswamy suggested that he would be open to ending aid to Israel as “part of a broader disengagement with the Middle East.” He later walked back those comments. But last week, he told actor and podcaster Russell Brand that he does, in fact, want to end US aid to Israel in 2028, the year when the current US commitment to provide $3.8 billion annually to Israel expires.
Ramaswamy said that decision would come as Israel receives recognition from more countries in the Middle East. Israel has signed normalization deals with several states in the region in recent years, a framework called the Abraham Accords, and is now pursuing a treaty with Saudi Arabia. Ramaswamy told the Jewish News Syndicate that he’d also like to spearhead Israeli accords with Indonesia and Oman.
“Come 2028, that additional aid won’t be necessary in order to still have the kind of stability that we’d actually have in the Middle East by having Israel more integrated in with its partners,” he said on a show Brand hosts on the video platform Rumble."
The underlined is a rather key point, and not at all in line with what Hannity, and via your post, you are claiming. It's rather odd, as this kind of character assassination by a man as odious as Sean Hannity would normally be attacked by you. Is it a case of it being ok if his target is someone you don't like?
Posts: 11,769
Threads: 131
Reputation:
32538
Joined: May 2015
Mood: None
(08-29-2023, 01:59 PM)GMDino Wrote: A guy this smart should know his words are out there forever.
AND if you lose Hannity/FOX you're done.
You are totally misunderstanding Vivek, Dino.
https://freebeacon.com/elections/in-latest-reversal-vivek-ramaswamy-says-he-wont-cut-israel-aid-without-jerusalems-approval/
He would have negotiated a peace between Israel and Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Oman,
and Israel's neighbor Indonesia by 2028, right after he separated Russia from China,
so Israel would not need our aid. See?
No one's ever tried that before and he's bringing new ideas.
Or maybe Iran, Lebanon, and the Palestinians would still be there and the plan would not work,
So what he means is that he would ASK Jerusalem before cutting the aid. Then they could
say "Yes we still want it" and the aid would continue. So see, if you quote what he said
last week you'd be misrepresenting him.
The point is he is creating a dynamic Middle East policy which will send clear
signals of U.S. intent to all countries in the region, friend and foe alike. It will be
part of a "comprehensive strategy" to prop up countries from whom we'll be divesting.
Like Saudi Arabia. No mention yet of Egypt, whom we pay a billion a year NOT to attack Israel.
But all the countries there will be able to stand on their own two feet and be better friends to us.
Other Republicans who see Vivek as a threat are trying to make this sound muddled.
Same for his climate change policy. There are more green plants now than there were
before and they eat carbon dioxide. There are more practical ways to address the hoax.
No surprise that his popularity has surged since the debate'
https://www.livemint.com/news/world/us-polls-2024-vivek-ramaswamys-popularity-surges-raises-more-than-450-000-in-first-hour-post-debate-11692949510553.html
Posts: 11,769
Threads: 131
Reputation:
32538
Joined: May 2015
Mood: None
(08-29-2023, 02:38 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: “Come 2028, that additional aid won’t be necessary in order to still have the kind of stability that we’d actually have in the Middle East by having Israel more integrated in with its partners,” he said on a show Brand hosts on the video platform Rumble."
The underlined is a rather key point, and not at all in line with what Hannity, and via your post, you are claiming. It's rather odd, as this kind of character assassination by a man as odious as Sean Hannity would normally be attacked by you. Is it a case of it being ok if his target is someone you don't like?
Character assassination is bad when Hannity does it. But Dino would probably say it's bad when anyone does it.
At least I've not heard him approve of other Hannity character assassinations, only now making an exception for Vivek.
In any case, here is what Hannity said.
You know you said, aid to Israel, our No. 1 ally, only democracy in the region, should end in 2028, and that they should be integrated with their neighbors
So Vivek says "additional aid won't be necessary" and Hannity assumes the aid will "end" if it's not necessary. Then allowed Vivek to explain.
That seems a bit short of character assassination. Maybe that's why Dino didn't attack Hannity for character assassination.
I thought Dino's main point was that Vivek had lost Hannity as a supporter. But you think he should have "attacked" Hannity.
|
![[Image: 4CV0TeR.png]](https://i.imgur.com/4CV0TeR.png)
