quote:

Originally posted by pedropcola:
Ok, he was 19.

First off I will say that I will give pretty much anyone slack about what they say when they just graduated from high school.

My point is I don't think a freshman in college should be held to every word he uttered. I said a lot of dumb shit in college. I just don't think it is germane to his candidacy nearly 20 years later. If that is the case then nobody could every change their mind, there would be no point.

Things he has actually said are worth examining. Perhaps not things he said in high school (more or less).

Since you didn't actually watch the video, I'll point out that the issue is not anything he said - it's the obvious political activity despite claiming no political activity.

I also pointed out other things that he said, and then contradicted, and those are far more recent - and you apparently just glossed over them. You can find many more if you take the time to look.

I swear I am getting trolled. lol I watched your video. He asked "why should I vote for the least experienced candidate". Wow. You are right, he is a crazy leftist nutbag.

He stood there while Al Sharpton answered the question and never said another word. I have to tell you that you and I have a very different definition of "political activity" if that is your proof.

He was on an episode of Hardball, which is entertainment like Hannity or Tucker. You act like he ran for a seat in the state assembly. Give me a break. Now if he did actually run for political office and pretends like he didn't then that would be fair evidence of him lying.

He asked Al Sharpton a question right out of high school and he doesn’t eat meat? Holy fuck, this guy is hiding something! I don’t trust him!! It just doesn’t add up!!!


Am I doing this right? Oh wait, forgot something:

SOROS SCHOLARSHIP!!!!

quote:

Originally posted by pedropcola:
I swear I am getting trolled. lol I watched your video. He asked "why should I vote for the least experienced candidate". Wow. You are right, he is a crazy leftist nutbag.

He stood there while Al Sharpton answered the question and never said another word. I have to tell you that you and I have a very different definition of "political activity" if that is your proof.

He was on an episode of Hardball, which is entertainment like Hannity or Tucker. You act like he ran for a seat in the state assembly. Give me a break. Now if he did actually run for political office and pretends like he didn't then that would be fair evidence of him lying.

Once again you deliberately avoid the point. I'm starting to think you're all just trolling us asking about him and then rejecting every answer by avoiding the point.

I wouldn't have even thought to be on an MSNBC program right out of high school. Especially repeatedly, or at least paying attention repeatedly as evidenced by his question.

And again you completely ignore the other things more recently that he's said, lied about saying, and said differently.

quote:

Originally posted by pedropcola:
I swear I am getting trolled.

Maybe. Maybe you might want to consider decaf.

I like what I’ve heard from him in multiple long form interviews. I hope that he turns out to walk his talk. That said, when others raise questions I don’t flip out because they’re more suspicious of him or see him differently than I do. I guess I’ve been disappointed by enough politicians that when I see one that appears good I take a cautiously optimistic approach and keep gathering data.

Yeah, he’s a politician. Other politicians and those whose ox stands to be gored by him or his policies can be expected to throw absolutely as much shade on him as they can. I’m not going to take any negative comments about him at face value without considering the source and the motivation. At the same time, I’m not going to assume that he is *the* golden boy and anything negative said about him is obviously a mean-spirited lie.

I’m sorry that you are so bothered by other folks having different opinions.

Ramaswamy is definitely interesting. I'm not completely sold yet, but I'm liking what I'm hearing. I'd definitely like to know if there are any legit skeletons in his closet, but I haven't seen anything of substance to date.

The Soros thing is stupid, and I'm not going to hold him to political views that he expressed when he was 19. I would like to know more about his business history, how his companies performed, and the experiences of those who worked with him though.

The shallow mid-slinging that I am seeing only makes me more inclined to believe what he's saying, because he's clearly hit a nerve with both sides of the establishment aisle. So far he's been consistent in this campaign, he's articulate, and he's willing to engage in off-the-cuff in-depth discourse about his platform (not just parroting talking points), which isn't something I've seen out of any other politician in a long time.

I don’t flip out because others have differing opinions about him. I flip out because no other candidate other than Trump has so many outright lies being spread about him. Which was the point of my OP which many here either didn’t read or ignored.

If there are legitimate reasons to crush his campaign why do so many of them start with a huge lie. We all have heard the Soros one, the BlackRock one, he’s a Deep State operative, these attacks are getting repeated over and over.

The only thing that approaches being truthful is it sounds like he is changing his position on some issues because between his books, speeches, and his current campaign there have been repositions. That sounds like a factual reasonable place to question him, to attack his platform even.

Yet that isn’t what is happening. Most attacks are that he is a mole when in fact it sounds like he is unfortunately gelling his opinions during an election campaign which is a bad time to do that.

Keep bringing the facts. Keep the stupid “he’s been politically active because he asked a question on tv at 19” stuff to yourself. I want to be able to write this guy off if he’s a bad player.

So we got he is flip flopping from previous positions. Ok. What else do we have?

I remember someone not long ago who came out of no where, had no real experience and considered well spoken.
just for a little added thought:
https://twitter.com/i/status/1696997415893553278

quote:

Originally posted by P220 Smudge:
He asked Al Sharpton a question right out of high school and he doesn’t eat meat? Holy fuck, this guy is hiding something! I don’t trust him!! It just doesn’t add up!!!


Am I doing this right? Oh wait, forgot something:

SOROS SCHOLARSHIP!!!!

ROFL

quote:

Originally posted by Fly-Sig:

quote:

Originally posted by pedropcola:

Why though? Is this guy that scary?
.
So why does it appear that both liberals AND conservatives are trying to stop his campaign before it even begins?

If he is dirty or a shill I want to know. What I don’t want is a smear media campaign with no evidence to back it up. Haven’t we seen all that already watching what has been done to President Trump?

1) The left has a long history of meddling in the selection of Republican candidates. They actively work to get the least electable person nominated, and they actively torpedo the better candidates.

2) Politics has become entirely about the party. Destroying the opposition is the goal. Except for...

3) Washington is all about keeping their club intact. Yes, this is exactly what we saw with DJT in 2016, where the establishment would rather have an insider who will play ball even if that person is from the other party, than have an outsider who intends to destroy the gravy train.

Idk much about Vivek, and like many voters I am interested to hear more from him. Ditto actually RFK Jr, who I find has an interesting message. The establishment is trying to destroy both of them.

Instead of just typing it myself, ^^^ THIS ^^^ pretty much in a nutshell says it all. Destroy the most likely opposition candidate by supporting the least likely opposition candidate.

quote:

Originally posted by downeastnc1:
I remember someone not long ago who came out of no where, had no real experience and considered well spoken.

Except he was spouting left-wing horseshit and running as a Democrat. There were no surprises there.

quote:

Originally posted by chellim1:
OK, in my opinion, the jury is still out on Vivek Ramaswamy. I like what he has to say, but he doesn't have much experience or a track record.

I have similar sentiments.

I was a bit bullish on Ramaswarmy back in June in the DeSantis thread, but have cooled my jets on him a bit. I still like him and like most of the things he says, but I also have one suspicious eye on him as well. He will not be the nominee, but out of all of the candidates running against Trump in the primary, Vivek seems to be the logical choice as a VP candidate, but I can think of better choices Trump may consider, Kristi Noem my top choice.

The two things I like about Ramaswarmy- 1) To my knowledge, he is not an Establishment stooge and 2) He seems to be very loyal to Trump, though that isn't really tested yet. All of the other stuff; even though he says so, I don't know if it is so.

Loyal to Trump, while ostensibly running against Trump, yet claiming he doesn't want to be VP, but clearly not trying to overtake Trump, and no one else finds that combination odd?

quote:

Originally posted by bobtheelf:
Loyal to Trump, while ostensibly running against Trump, yet claiming he doesn't want to be VP, but clearly not trying to overtake Trump, and no one else finds that combination odd?

No, I don't. It's how primaries go, dude. Nobody outright says they're running to be VP, they have to say they want to be president or nobody is going to take them seriously. Kamala attacked Biden until the powers behind the throne gave him the nomination, and then she was happy to be his VP. This is just how it works. Vivek is being smart and acting as a distraction for the others without saying something that's going to piss off Trump. Barring some sort of Black Swan event, Trump will be the nominee and he'll tap Vivek for the VP spot. Vivek will say "I really don't work well as the number two guy, but I'm willing to go to DC to fight for the people. I'll have Trump's back covered better than that clown Pence ever did" in so many words, and that's that.

Some of you guys are suspicious to a degree I can't rightly fathom, and I'm the one people have always thought was wearing a goddamn tinfoil hat.

quote:

Nobody outright says they're running to be VP, they have to say they want to be president or nobody is going to take them seriously.

That's right.

quote:

Trump will be the nominee and he'll tap Vivek for the VP spot. Vivek will say "I really don't work well as the number two guy, but I'm willing to go to DC to fight for the people. I'll have Trump's back covered better than that clown Pence ever did" in so many words, and that's that.

That may, or may not happen. I do think Vivek is doing all he can to set up the possibility.
But I doubt that even Trump knows yet whom he will pick. Vivek is certainly on the list... but so are lots of others.

I think Vivek suffers from the same shortcomings that the electorate dealt with in Candidate Donald Trump, in that Trump said a lot of things but didn't really have a track record to demonstrate his knowledge or experience. His qualities as a candidate (not being a "experienced" politician) were also his shortcomings as a candidate (not being an "experienced" politician). After he was elected, PRESIDENT Trump made some excellent choices that benefited the country and some horrible choices that harmed his legacy as well as the country.

The question about Vivek's candidacy is this: Do we take another chance on another unknown quality or choose the imperfect former president (Trump) that we now have a track record to examine? I'll go with the later.

quote:

Originally posted by P220 Smudge:

quote:

Originally posted by bobtheelf:
Loyal to Trump, while ostensibly running against Trump, yet claiming he doesn't want to be VP, but clearly not trying to overtake Trump, and no one else finds that combination odd?

Some of you guys are suspicious to a degree I can't rightly fathom, and I'm the one people have always thought was wearing a goddamn tinfoil hat.

Yes, I'm suspicious of a guy who comes out of nowhere after a dubious history in pharma who lies about his past, lies about what he's saying now, has radically changed his position on nearly everything - including on what Pence should have done on Jan 6, since you brought him up - and I don't understand why everyone else isn't suspicious as well. Because he says things you want to hear?

quote:

Originally posted by pulicords:
Do we take another chance on another unknown quality or choose the imperfect former president (Trump) that we now have a track record to examine? I'll go with the later.

Oh, this for me all over.

quote:

Originally posted by bobtheelf:
Yes, I'm suspicious of a guy who comes out of nowhere after a dubious history in pharma who lies about his past, lies about what he's saying now, has radically changed his position on nearly everything - including on what Pence should have done on Jan 6, since you brought him up - and I don't understand why everyone else isn't suspicious as well. Because he says things you want to hear?

People said all the exact same shit about Trump.

Given Trumps performance I’m willing to roll the dice. Trump did what he said he would more often than not to the best of his abilities.

As someone who was/is a bit of a political junkie I would ask those of you who disagree to watch Trumps interactions with Pelosi and Schumer. You’ll see what he was up against.

As far as Vivek…if he means what he says he is my ideal candidate. That’s not just because he wants to demolish the FBI, I want to see him take the same sledgehammer towards progressivism. (They get the little “p” because fuck them and their retarded ideology)