"Diversity is not our strength": Cincy's own Ramaswamy 2024!

[GMDino]

(08-29-2023, 02:38 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: 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?

No.  Its a case of Hannity going after someone who is rising in the gop polls...and is a republican.  That's rare unless they have turned on say 1135809 or are a "rino".

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(08-29-2023, 02:43 PM)Dill Wrote: 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

Smarmy and condescending.

(08-29-2023, 03:11 PM)Dill Wrote: 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. 

I'll wait and see if Dino attacks you for assuming what he thought, but I'm sure he'll just agree with you regardless.  The clip was framed as a gotcha moment, hence Dino's claim that his "words are out there forever".  This goes hand in hand with Dino's consistent negative posts regarding the man.  As you claim to desire, I actually provided the quote in question and much needed context, something you would applaud if it was done by someone that you don't dislike.  But, in sadly typical fashion, instead you decided to turn it into yet another predictable, and boring, reason to attack/lecture me.

Lastly, deliberately quoting someone out of context to make them look bad is absolutely character assassination.  Although I am aware of why you'd prefer to think otherwise.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(08-29-2023, 03:15 PM)GMDino Wrote: No.  Its a case of Hannity going after someone who is rising in the gop polls...and is a republican.  That's rare unless they have turned on say 1135809 or are a "rino".

Indeed it is, which would make a more inquisitive person wonder why it happened here.

[GMDino]

(08-29-2023, 03:43 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Indeed it is, which would make a more inquisitive person wonder why it happened here.

Maybe.  Or maybe one could just post about the gop eating their own without further comment.

As an aside if I could figure out why the likes Hannity do what/anything they do (other than for the money) I'd be on television and not a message board. 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(08-29-2023, 04:15 PM)GMDino Wrote: Maybe.  Or maybe one could just post about the gop eating their own without further comment.

Sure, if superficial quippery is your thing.

Quote:As an aside if I could figure out why the likes Hannity do what/anything they do (other than for the money) I'd be on television and not a message board. 

I actually give you credit for being smarter than this.  Hannity does what he does at the biding of the higher ups.  Carlson, whatever you think of him, was not that guy.  If Hannity is attacking you then Fox wants you attacked.  If Fox wants you attacked then the GOP establishment wants you attacked.  An inquisitive person, and certainly one who would prefer candidates that don't solely adhere to party dogma, would wonder what Vivek represents that they all of the sudden feel he needs to be taken down.


Which begs the question, why?

[Dill]

(08-29-2023, 04:28 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Sure, if superficial quippery is your thing.

I actually give you credit for being smarter than this.  Hannity does what he does at the biding of the higher ups.  Carlson, whatever you think of him, was not that guy.  If Hannity is attacking you then Fox wants you attacked.  If Fox wants you attacked then the GOP establishment wants you attacked.  An inquisitive person, and certainly one who would prefer candidates that don't solely adhere to party dogma, would wonder what Vivek represents that they all of the sudden feel he needs to be taken down.

Which begs the question, why?

Superficial quippery is often "not a good look," whoever engages in it. Some people in the forum are pretty funny though. Don't want them to stop. Difference may be in whether quip is also a dodge or an insult, or both. That's when I don't recommend them.

After Trump, perhaps even the far right is worried about putting another incompetent in the top seat. We know how both Hannity and Carlson REALLY felt about Trump. And that competence deficit may worry them about Vivek. Same thing that worries me. Just speculating.

If Hannity wants Vivek attacked because Fox does, and Fox does because the GOP establishment does, then the GOP establishment does because Trump wants him attacked. Or else the chain of command is looser than you are assuming here. I don't think Trump thinks much about either Israel or Vivek. Hannity does, though, and may be more independent than you assume. 

Carlson doesn't do the bidding of "higher ups"? You mean TUCKER Carlson, right? The guy who hated Trump but platformed his election deniers and tried to get an honest journalist fired for fact checking Trump in real time, because that would affect Fox's stock? The Carlson trying to get back into the game with his Trump interview? He crafted an "independent" persona for his viewers, but I always assumed it was just part of his schtick, not evidence of some integrity I might recognize and respect.  

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(08-30-2023, 09:36 PM)Dill Wrote: Superficial quippery is often "not a good look," whoever engages in it. Some people in the forum are pretty funny though. Don't want them to stop. Difference may be in whether quip is also a dodge or an insult, or both. That's when I don't recommend them.

After Trump, perhaps even the far right is worried about putting another incompetent in the top seat. We know how both Hannity and Carlson REALLY felt about Trump. And that competence deficit may worry them about Vivek. Same thing that worries me. Just speculating.

If Hannity wants Vivek attacked because Fox does, and Fox does because the GOP establishment does, then the GOP establishment does because Trump wants him attacked. Or else the chain of command is looser than you are assuming here. I don't think Trump thinks much about either Israel or Vivek. Hannity does, though, and may be more independent than you assume. 

Carlson doesn't do the bidding of "higher ups"? You mean TUCKER Carlson, right? The guy who hated Trump but platformed his election deniers and tried to get an honest journalist fired for fact checking Trump in real time, because that would affect Fox's stock? The Carlson trying to get back into the game with his Trump interview? He crafted an "independent" persona for his viewers, but I always assumed it was just part of his schtick, not evidence of some integrity I might recognize and respect.  

My post was not directed to you.  Your response contains nothing of substance.  I'm no longer throwing the ball for the dog to retrieve, sorry.  Also, this post took you three attempts to get right?  

[Dill]

(08-30-2023, 10:09 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfannd Wrote: My post was not directed to you.  Your response contains nothing of substance.  I'm no longer throwing the ball for the dog to retrieve, sorry.  Also, this post took you three attempts to get right?  

Didn't realize there was a rule--respond only to posts directed at you. 

"Nothing of substance" = a challenge to your interpretation of Fox
hierarchy and defense of Tucker's integrity.

You responded to a previous post of mine which was not directed to you.

I'll return to that one, since it was directed at me. 

[Dill]

(08-29-2023, 03:42 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Smarmy and condescending.
I'll wait and see if Dino attacks you for assuming what he thought, but I'm sure he'll just agree with you regardless.  The clip was framed as a gotcha moment, hence Dino's claim that his "words are out there forever".  This goes hand in hand with Dino's consistent negative posts regarding the man.  As you claim to desire, I actually provided the quote in question and much needed context, something you would applaud if it was done by someone that you don't dislike.  But, in sadly typical fashion, instead you decided to turn it into yet another predictable, and boring, reason to attack/lecture me.
Lastly, deliberately quoting someone out of context to make them look bad is absolutely character assassination.  Although I am aware of why you'd prefer to think otherwise.

I was "condescending" to a presidential candidate. And you've been "consistently" against condescension in any form, right?

This one just puzzles me. You've "predictably" turned another discussion about a political issue into a personal attack on Dino, who is not as smart as you gave him credit for. He's not curious about why "odious" Hannity would challenge a Trump challenger. Meanwhile, YOU are actually the victim of an "attack" from me, though I said nothing to discredit your smarts.

And why "odious"? Hannity spins up manufactured grievance against "the blatantly lying and hypocritical left" every day. Why would you have a problem with that? 

My "attack" consisted in offering a good reason why the Hannity interview doesn't quite reach a "gotcha moment"--assuming that, if aid to Israel won't be "necessary," then it will be cut off, is hardly "character assassination by "taking a quote out of context," especially if V gets a chance to explain himself. Your "actual quote" doesn't fix this for Vivek. 

The whole "character assassination" thesis is just angry and over the top, especially when you fault others intellect and honesty when you cannot persuade them to share it. When you can't make it all really about Hannity with the spin up about "what the GOP wants," then it must be that Dino is ok with "odious" Hannity when he attacks someone Dino doesn't like. Dino's (and my) point about the impractical impossible goals of V's foreign policy are shunted aside by your wide distribution of beside-the-point attack and blame. 


You are the only one puzzled as to "why" Vivek would be challenged by Hannity--and Haley and virtually every other Republican commentator and candidate. I can only assume that's because Vivek's ideas don't seem especially "out there" to you; they are "substantive" perhaps and deserve a serious hearing.

[GMDino]

(08-29-2023, 03:42 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Smarmy and condescending.


I'll wait and see if Dino attacks you for assuming what he thought, but I'm sure he'll just agree with you regardless.  The clip was framed as a gotcha moment, hence Dino's claim that his "words are out there forever".  This goes hand in hand with Dino's consistent negative posts regarding the man.  As you claim to desire, I actually provided the quote in question and much needed context, something you would applaud if it was done by someone that you don't dislike.  But, in sadly typical fashion, instead you decided to turn it into yet another predictable, and boring, reason to attack/lecture me.

Lastly, deliberately quoting someone out of context to make them look bad is absolutely character assassination.  Although I am aware of why you'd prefer to think otherwise.

Any chance you could continue a conversation with Dill without using my name in that regard?  What is going on between you two is no longer my concern.

So I'm asking that you don't, as you said, "turn it into yet another predictable, and boring, reason to attack/lecture me."  Thank you.


It wasn't a "gotcha" it was Ramaswamy saying he didn't say something he said...again.  He did it on a Sunday show too.  He's learning that unless you are the leader or a favorite those things will come back to you and you can either explain yourself or get caught when you say "I never said that".  If posting that is perceived as "negative" then so be it.  I disagree with many of his proposals and do not think he would make a good President.

[Dill]

(08-31-2023, 09:12 AM)GMDino Wrote: It wasn't a "gotcha" it was Ramaswamy saying he didn't say something he said...again.  He did it on a Sunday show too.  He's learning that unless you are the leader or a favorite those things will come back to you and you can either explain yourself or get caught when you say "I never said that".  If posting that is perceived as "negative" then so be it.  I disagree with many of his proposals and do not think he would make a good President.

OOPs, he did it again . . . .

Ramaswamy's climate change answer at Republican debate irks young conservative groups | CNN Politics

During this week’s Republican primary debate on Fox News, a young voter notably asked about the climate crisis: How would these presidential candidates assuage concerns that the Republican Party “doesn’t care” about the issue?

The question was all but unavoidable after weeks of extreme, deadly weather. Global temperature records have been shattered, extreme heat has soared off-the-charts in the US and the Maui wildfire death toll continues to climb.

What followed the question was one of the night’s most chaotic exchanges, demonstrating the challenge some conservatives face in getting climate policy on the 2024 GOP agenda, even as extreme weather takes its toll on millions of people across the country....

Then 38-year-old Vivek Ramaswamy – notably the youngest candidate on stage – called the “climate change agenda” a “hoax,” an answer that elicited intense boos from the audience....

After the debate, a prominent conservative climate group said Ramaswamy tried to clarify his position.
“He came to our after-party and he blatantly told us that he believes climate change is real,” Benji Backer, founder of the American Conservation Coalition, told CNN. “So, he changed his position again.”
Asked by CNN on Friday whether he believes climate change is real, Ramaswamy responded, “Climate change has existed as long as the Earth has existed. Manmade climate change has existed as long as man has existed on the earth.” In an email, Ramaswamy’s campaign spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin told CNN the candidate does believe climate change is real, but policies to address it “have little to do with climate change and more to do with penalizing the West as a way to achieve global ‘equity.’”

Can't imagine Hannity challenging V on climate change, though.

[HarleyDog]

(08-31-2023, 11:00 AM)Dill Wrote: OOPs, he did it again . . . .

Calm down Britney. 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(08-31-2023, 11:03 AM)HarleyDog Wrote: Calm down Britney. 

It is nice to see two people so enjoy each others company.  

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(08-31-2023, 09:12 AM)GMDino Wrote: Any chance you could continue a conversation with Dill without using my name in that regard?  What is going on between you two is no longer my concern.

So I'm asking that you don't, as you said, "turn it into yet another predictable, and boring, reason to attack/lecture me."  Thank you.

I don't believe I did.  Did I?  Looking at my responses to you I see no attack or lecture.

Quote:It wasn't a "gotcha" it was Ramaswamy saying he didn't say something he said...again.  He did it on a Sunday show too.  He's learning that unless you are the leader or a favorite those things will come back to you and you can either explain yourself or get caught when you say "I never said that".  If posting that is perceived as "negative" then so be it.  I disagree with many of his proposals and do not think he would make a good President.

Well, first off your posting about him has been consistently negative.  Additionally, your initial post on this was not framed in a way that easily leant itself to that interpretation.  As to your actual point, he said he didn't say something because, wait for it, he didn't say something.  In both instances they took a quote of his out of context, clearly deliberately, in order to make it seem like he said something he did not say.  Should he not defend himself by pointing out what he actually said?  Taking a quote out of context can dramatically change the meaning of what was said.  In both instances you cited that was exactly the case.

Now with the train wreck host on CNN, this kind of underhanded attack is predictable for a GOP candidate.  When the slimy Hannity does it to a GOP candidate, especially one who is rising in popularity, one has to wonder why.  I asked you why you thought Hannity would do so, as he's clearly a mouthpiece for the GOP, yet you did not answer.  Is your intent not to actually discuss things, or is it simply to post tweets and video clips and then peace out?  

[Dill]

(08-31-2023, 11:03 AM)HarleyDog Wrote: Calm down Britney. 

Now H-dog, you know I’m NOT THAT innocent.

[StoneTheCrow]

(08-31-2023, 11:03 AM)HarleyDog Wrote: Calm down Britney. 

(08-31-2023, 12:35 PM)Dill Wrote: Now H-dog, you know I’m NOT THAT innocent.

[Dill]

(08-31-2023, 09:12 AM)GMDino Wrote: It wasn't a "gotcha" it was Ramaswamy saying he didn't say something he said...again.  He did it on a Sunday show too.  He's learning that unless you are the leader or a favorite those things will come back to you and you can either explain yourself or get caught when you say "I never said that".  If posting that is perceived as "negative" then so be it.  I disagree with many of his proposals and do not think he would make a good President.

It was v defending his claim aid to Israel would no longer be “necessary.” Of course the right—most every commentator and candidate—is going to hear that as interest in ending aid to Israel, because that’s what it is.

V’s “clarification” was more unsettling than the claim supposedly “out of context.” He never had a realistic grasp of the obstacles to Israeli/regional security.

Add this to the strange walkback-sort-of on climate change and this is starting to look like a pattern. Toss out global policy proposals that sound great around the water cooler, then stutter and shift ground as real experts weigh in. He is deep right, though. E.g. Climate change policy is really about “global equity.”

My interest from here on out is the level of support he gets. I doubt trump sees him as VP material right now. He’d have to really NEED him to even show interest.

[Dill]

(08-10-2023, 11:13 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I never said it was a "common experience", so your putting it in quotes is a flat out lie.  I also want to thank you for the insight into your character that was that post.  You've always been disingenuous, and is this case are flat out lying about what I said, but your attempts to invalidate the lived experiences of some of the men returning home from Vietnam is just flat out odious.  You also gave us a very interesting look into how something like holocaust denial starts.  I suppose when all of the poor men who had the experience under discussion have passed on more people like you can claim they lied about what happened to them and label it a myth.
That post really revealed a lot about your character, and not a bit of it was good.

So just to recap our exchange on the "Trump Mug Shot" thread, and return it to this thread where it belongs--.

This was the claim: "you got caught claiming my father's friend lied, you literally stated several times it never happened and you're now try to wriggle out of it because almost everyone is appalled by your initial argument.  You could be a grown man and apologize for your statements, but we all know you won't."

And this was the challenge: "If . . . I 'got caught claiming [your] father's friend lied,' and 'literally stated several times it never happened,' then you ought to be able to quote at least two such statements and post #s, right?  Not something like 'the question is raised in college courses,' or 'The myth of the spitting protestors seems to have emerged in the 90s,' all of which sound like someone pursuing a historical discussion about the 'myth' that spitting was a common experience, and not at all interested in your father or his friend. And you can't quote something from a source and attribute it to me unless I have singled out that quote to agree with."

In response, you quote my entire post #52 (above on this thread), but underline only one statement as the "proof" which bears all this dramatic accusation: "As far as the myth of the spitting protestors, it seems to have emerged in the '90s."

But as already foreshadowed, this "proof" just looks like historical discussion, not a claim your father or his friend "lied." He/they are nowhere directly addressed. You are just "proving" I used the word myth, without establishing what the myth refers to in my or my sources discussion--namely the claim that spitting was commonly experienced by soldiers returning from Vietnam.

You do refer to my sources as well, which I quoted to indicate what the public debate was about (hint: not your father's friend); one said "There is no evidence that Vietnam veterans were spat on. Nor could they have been, at least not in the manner described in the most often told stories. Those stories tell of landing at San Francisco Airport and being met by groups of spitters, often hippies. But flights from Vietnam landed at military airbases like Travis outside San Francisco; protesters could not have gotten on the airbase, much less near deplaning troops."

I didn't endorse the bolded, but on reflection it seems a reasonable point with the additional qualifications. 

And another said: "In the face of such data, why would the current president [Bush I] 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.
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."

To construct your "lie" accusation, you have to claim the "myth" is not about the political construction and use of the spitting image to further right wing politics, but about whether anyone was ever spit on even once, substituting your definition for ours (mine and the sources), and then continuing to insist that's that I/we really said/meant. When I take the time to explain what is false in the right wing myth, restating my/our original point, you just call it wriggling out of a lie. And demand a "manly" apology. To whom? Your father's friend. All Vietnam vets--including the ones who don't believe the spitting stories? Or maybe just you, for the tremendous stress I put you through by, once again, discussing a valid research track.

This tactic reminds me a lot of Hannity, e.g., when he had the families of the Benghazi victims on his show and demanded that Hilary apologize to them. His goal was not clarity, but drama and accusation to shut down discussion and, in your case, the goal is to drown out criticism of revisionist history. Second time on this thread, as you were also demanding an apology for my claim that "liberals supported/directed the Vietnam War." That's unfortunate because there are a lot of interesting vetting issues bound up with the topic, not least how to sort real veteran homecoming testimony from false. But we'll never get to good public discussion of it; you haven't shown yourself capable and other posters don't want the drama.  

[LSUfaninTN]

(03-22-2023, 05:21 PM)Nately120 Wrote: Soros is just an overarching catch-all political boogieman that I'm legimately curious what will take his place when he's finally dead...unless they'll say he faked his death and is now extra-secretly pulling the strings.

It's also possible that "just saying" that someone is Soros-funded is so automatic and overplayed that it becomes meaningless, but I doubt it.  

Is it a coincidence that DA’s Soros gets involved with are incredibly soft on crime? There’s a reason the dude was run out of Hungary. 

Also, his son is taking his place. He’s even worse.

[*Nately120*]

(09-08-2023, 12:09 AM)LSUfaninTN Wrote: Is it a coincidence that DA’s Soros gets involved with are incredibly soft on crime? There’s a reason the dude was run out of Hungary. 

Also, his son is taking his place. He’s even worse.

Hell if I know.  I do know Vivek has a financial connection to Soros, so I assume the guy is sunk.