2aHawaii
General Topics => Political Discussion => Topic started by: macsak on August 24, 2023, 10:31:08 AM
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vu2GLx6sJjs
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OwBC-s7Quis
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oalpJwOckeY
-
https://youtu.be/29k7d7RKBgw?si=jfBKzkASmWtMGyOV
Sent from my moto g power (2021) using Tapatalk
-
I need to find out more about him and his views before I comment but gotta admit he jumped up in the attention polls really fast, lol!
-
I have to learn more about Vivek, something about him I don't trust.
-
you're a racist...
quote author=changemyoil66 link=topic=50946.msg459308#msg459308 date=1692923447]
I have to learn more about Vivek, something about him I don't trust.
[/quote]
-
Bollywood films are pretty entertaining. Salman Khan. Shah Ruk Khan. Amitabh Bachavhan. Good actors
-
KHHHHHHHHHAAAAAAANNNNNNNNN!!!!!!!!!
Bollywood films are pretty entertaining. Salman Khan. Shah Ruk Khan. Amitabh Bachavhan. Good actors
-
you're a racist...
quote author=changemyoil66 link=topic=50946.msg459308#msg459308 date=1692923447]
I have to learn more about Vivek, something about him I don't trust.
Thank you................................................come again.
-
Question is if he will stab trump in the back as a VP. He talks a good game for sure,
-
At least he's young. Maybe too young. But better than having a Feinstein or a biden or a McConnell.
Or an old drunk like Nancy.
-
Question is if he will stab trump in the back as a VP. He talks a good game for sure,
This is why pence is not even on the radar.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
-
https://youtu.be/QPDUWa1qPek
-
I wish he would slow down when he talks. Reminds me of Ben Shapiro.
Maybe because as smart people they are thinking and processing thoughts a mile a minute and their thoughts and views are shooting out of their mouths like an M-60 machine gun out of control.
I love candidates that are anti-establishment and want to empower the people instead of enslaving them.
Right now what he says and thinks makes me smile. Especially when he makes people like Nikki Haley all bent out of shape and Chris Christie all flabbergasted and speechless. :rofl:
-
I believe one of the reasons Trump won was because he was not a "career politician".
With all their time in office,what makes them think they can fix the things their campaigning on if they haven't done it / couldn't do it already ? :wacko:
Vivek has the same thing going for him.
Don't know anybody, don't owe anybody. :thumbsup:
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9vJjoBrcayo
-
He is anti ukraine, thinks 911 was an inside job and other nut job conspiracies. At this point I hope Chris wins.
-
He is anti ukraine, thinks 911 was an inside job and other nut job conspiracies. At this point I hope Chris wins.
I’m so glad he’s anti Ukraine hopefully we stop giving money to Ukraine and it can be put to better use like say helping rebuild Lahaina.
Saying that the government lied about what happened in 9/11 does not mean he thinks it was an inside job.
The new Republican voter base is here to stay. Chrony establishment Republicans like every single candidate besides Vivek will not have a shot in hell at winning.
-
bruh...
He is anti ukraine, thinks 911 was an inside job and other nut job conspiracies. At this point I hope Chris wins.
-
He is anti ukraine, thinks 911 was an inside job and other nut job conspiracies. At this point I hope Chris wins.
Buildings just fall by themselves (WTC7).
-
He is anti ukraine, thinks 911 was an inside job and other nut job conspiracies. At this point I hope Chris wins.
You are waycist.
-
Buildings just fall by themselves (WTC7).
And that famous statement: "Pull it"........Not pull them or pull out. They mentioned that statement meant pull out the firefighters/first responders.
You don't say "Pull it" if you meant that. :wave:
https://www.austinchronicle.com/feedback/2007-07-06/499808/
-
He is anti ukraine, thinks 911 was an inside job and other nut job conspiracies. At this point I hope Chris wins.
Show me where he ever said he was "anti Ukraine."
Not giving them money to spend fighting Russia would be the same whether it is Ukraine or some other country not a part of NATO.
Biden isn't pro Ukraine. He's pro Ukrainian president -- the guy that has the evidence that Biden and his son were involved in shady deals there.
-
You are waycist.
...
:rofl: I saw what you did :rofl:
-
At this point I hope Chris wins.
(https://media.tenor.com/u0MGnX1H0GsAAAAC/fat-boy.gif)
-
(https://media.tenor.com/u0MGnX1H0GsAAAAC/fat-boy.gif)
He keeps up these movements and at least he'll win the battle of the scale. Weight scale that is.... :thumbsup:
-
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20230826/5715ce89934ed1040654c65d77f20816.jpg)
Sent from my moto g power (2021) using Tapatalk
-
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20230826/5715ce89934ed1040654c65d77f20816.jpg)
Sent from my moto g power (2021) using Tapatalk
Democrats are stupid.
This sets a precedent.
The politicians are all dirty and fair game now,
$50 bounty for ears and scalps.
"Kill'em all and let God sort it out".
:thumbsup:
-
I’m so glad he’s anti Ukraine hopefully we stop giving money to Ukraine and it can be put to better use like say helping rebuild Lahaina.
Saying that the government lied about what happened in 9/11 does not mean he thinks it was an inside job.
The new Republican voter base is here to stay. Chrony establishment Republicans like every single candidate besides Vivek will not have a shot in hell at winning.
A defeated Russia is nothing but good news. It weakens China. Removes one of our main advisories. All for very little money. Far cheaper than any of our other recent wars. Most of the money for Ukraine remains in the USA providing countless jobs. No reason why we can't fund ukraine and fix Maui. Its not a either or choice.
If this is the new GOP. The USA will become one of democrats. I will never vote for a MAGA republican. There's a reason why biden won. It wasn't cause he was the best choice, he was the least worst option.
-
A defeated Russia is nothing but good news. It weakens China. Removes one of our main advisories. All for very little money. Far cheaper than any of our other recent wars. Most of the money for Ukraine remains in the USA providing countless jobs. No reason why we can't fund ukraine and fix Maui. Its not a either or choice.
If this is the new GOP. The USA will become one of democrats. I will never vote for a MAGA republican. There's a reason why biden won. It wasn't cause he was the best choice, he was the least worst option.
If you believe Ukraine will defeat Russia with or without our treasure and materials, you're delusional.
Russia is still a nuclear power. It will take a 3rd World War to defeat Russia. Most thought the break up of the Soviet Union was a defeat. Doesn't seem to be the case, does it?
Russia - 6,255 nuclear warheads
United States of America - 5,550 nuclear warheads
https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/countries-with-nuclear-weapons
Also, trying to destroy Russia won't stop China's global expansion. If Russia's on the ropes, China has the resources to back-stop their war effort, just like they did in Korea and Vietnam.
Why are you so pro-war? There are diplomatic and economic measures that have proven in the past to keep Russia from getting too aggressive. The #1 reason the Ukraine invasion happened when it did is it was under Biden's weak presidency -- one that caters to China -- and not under Trump. Trump proved in Syria that Russia doesn't intimidate him.
The war in Ukraine started 549 days ago. That's Feb 24, 2022, if you do the math. Not a difficult problem to understand why under this US administration. Nothing between Russia and Ukraine changed between the Trump and Biden tenures other than the name on the Oval Office door.
Russia started growing its military presence around Ukraine – including in
Belarus, a close Russia ally to the north of Ukraine – in late 2021 under
various pretenses while remaining vague on its intentions. By December of
that year, tens of thousands of Russian troops were hovering on the border,
virtually surrounding the country and stoking tensions that led to a call
between Putin and U.S. President Joe Biden.
Fears escalated in early 2022 as the number of Russian forces surrounding
Ukraine increased. Biden and Putin talked again, U.N. Security Council sessions
were called to address the crisis, and numerous leaders from NATO, the U.S.
and other countries called on Russia to de-escalate or face retaliation in some
form. The most recent estimates – prior to the invasion – put the number of
Russian troops on the border at close to 200,000.
A principal demand of Russia is to prevent Ukraine from joining NATO, a military
alliance between 28 European countries and two North American countries dedicated
to preserving peace and security in the North Atlantic area. Ukraine is one of just a
few countries in Eastern Europe that aren’t members of the alliance. The Kremlin in
general views NATO expansion as a “fundamental concern,” according to a translated
readout of a Jan. 28, 2022, call between Putin and French President Emmanuel Macron.
It’s noteworthy, however, that NATO likely has “no intention right now” to admit
Ukraine to the organization, says William Pomeranz, the acting director of the Kennan
Institute at the Wilson Center, a non-partisan policy forum for global issues.
“I think NATO, and the invitation for Ukraine to join NATO at some point in the future, is
simply just a pretext to potentially invade Ukraine,” he says, referring to Russia. “Ukraine
is not a member of NATO, it doesn't have any of the NATO guarantees, and so there is
no hint that Ukraine will become a member of NATO soon.”
https://www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/articles/2022-02-24/explainer-why-did-russia-invade-ukraine
Sounds like Putin cooled his jets (no pun intended) while Trump was in charge. As soon as Biden was on the job, he started his build up.
-
cool story, bro...
A defeated Russia is nothing but good news. It weakens China. Removes one of our main advisories. All for very little money. Far cheaper than any of our other recent wars. Most of the money for Ukraine remains in the USA providing countless jobs. No reason why we can't fund ukraine and fix Maui. Its not a either or choice.
If this is the new GOP. The USA will become one of democrats. I will never vote for a MAGA republican. There's a reason why biden won. It wasn't cause he was the best choice, he was the least worst option.
-
A defeated Russia is nothing but good news. It weakens China. Removes one of our main advisories. All for very little money. Far cheaper than any of our other recent wars. Most of the money for Ukraine remains in the USA providing countless jobs. No reason why we can't fund ukraine and fix Maui. Its not a either or choice.
If this is the new GOP. The USA will become one of democrats. I will never vote for a MAGA republican. There's a reason why biden won. It wasn't cause he was the best choice, he was the least worst option.
a very weak opinion without supporting information about a "weakened China" All of your arguments are just that. Emotive. Irrational.
-
A defeated Russia is nothing but good news. It weakens China. Removes one of our main advisories. All for very little money. Far cheaper than any of our other recent wars. Most of the money for Ukraine remains in the USA providing countless jobs. No reason why we can't fund ukraine and fix Maui. Its not a either or choice.
If this is the new GOP. The USA will become one of democrats. I will never vote for a MAGA republican. There's a reason why biden won. It wasn't cause he was the best choice, he was the least worst option.
Russia didn't enter this fray to one day back down. Yeah, go ahead and poke the bear but you gotta do it the right way. This isn't it. A Russia backed into a corner will use the nuclear option. If geographically it was the US instead of Russia, the US would have definitely done the same. For Russia it literally means the enemy are at the gates.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dSbgCeFilos
-
WHen i see him in interviews, he has some of the same energy that Bill Clinton had. He can energize younger people, I agree with the national identity philosophy, and the fact that he isn't an old guy is definitely a plus. However, as Chris Christy pointed out, He not only sounds like Obama, he used his words. If you watch enough interviews with him, you may get a feeling like he is a good talker, but not sure about him.
-
I had heard about him a little before the debate, that he was full of energy and a good talker. Wasn't that impressed in the debate. He has already been caught giving completely opposite statements on issues. He had some interesting stances in the debate but I kind of agree with one person who said he was like a snake oil salesman.
-
It takes a really superior intelligence to deliver an eloquent speech like that with no teleprompter.
I'm impressed. Remember that was when he was in high school, not a recent speech.
-
It takes a really superior intelligence to deliver an eloquent speech like that with no teleprompter.
I'm impressed. Remember that was when he was in high school, not a recent speech.
But, according to that gal on some vlog/podcast video that tried to question his qualifications, he was never student body or class president. So, he's not qualified for US President.
Seemed like she was more interested in finding something to make herself sound more qualified to run than listening to what he had to say.
:popcorn:
-
If you believe Ukraine will defeat Russia with or without our treasure and materials, you're delusional.
Russia is still a nuclear power. It will take a 3rd World War to defeat Russia. Most thought the break up of the Soviet Union was a defeat. Doesn't seem to be the case, does it?
https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/countries-with-nuclear-weapons
Also, trying to destroy Russia won't stop China's global expansion. If Russia's on the ropes, China has the resources to back-stop their war effort, just like they did in Korea and Vietnam.
Why are you so pro-war? There are diplomatic and economic measures that have proven in the past to keep Russia from getting too aggressive. The #1 reason the Ukraine invasion happened when it did is it was under Biden's weak presidency -- one that caters to China -- and not under Trump. Trump proved in Syria that Russia doesn't intimidate him.
The war in Ukraine started 549 days ago. That's Feb 24, 2022, if you do the math. Not a difficult problem to understand why under this US administration. Nothing between Russia and Ukraine changed between the Trump and Biden tenures other than the name on the Oval Office door.
https://www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/articles/2022-02-24/explainer-why-did-russia-invade-ukraine
Sounds like Putin cooled his jets (no pun intended) while Trump was in charge. As soon as Biden was on the job, he started his build up.
Treasures? It's military equipment, not some mythical objects.... we pay ourselves to make more and we give them our old stuff. Refreshing our inventory and making us stronger. We can soon have manufacturering back to proper levels. I'm not pro all war, I'm pro democracy and freedom. And sometimes you need war to protect those ideals.
-
Not a deal breaker but there are 2 things that makes me wary about vivek:
1) He talks too fast
2) He talks too much
3) He tries to talk over you not to you
Did I say 2 things? Ok. There was 3.
Ever listened to a multi level marketing pitch? Or a timeshare presentation?
That's the impression I get from vivek.
-
Treasures? It's military equipment, not some mythical objects.... we pay ourselves to make more and we give them our old stuff.
Thats sounds what a supporter of the Congressional-Military-Industrial Complex would say.
Refreshing our inventory and making us stronger. We can soon have manufacturering back to proper levels.
The US empire's military budget has been the largest on this planet for decades. If the current level of expenditures is still not sufficient, adding more does not make any sense in light of the many other facets that money could be used to benefit its citizenry domestically.
I'm not pro all war, I'm pro democracy and freedom. And sometimes you need war to protect those ideals.
That sounds like the 21st century rendition justifying the imperial wars of aggression that the US empire has partaken since WWII.
In the words of Major General Smedley Darlington Butler, “There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights.” Since WWII, none of the conflicts partaken by the US imperial military had anything to do with the national defense or the preservation of the Bill of Rights.
-
Treasures? It's military equipment, not some mythical objects.... we pay ourselves to make more and we give them our old stuff. Refreshing our inventory and making us stronger. We can soon have manufacturering back to proper levels. I'm not pro all war, I'm pro democracy and freedom. And sometimes you need war to protect those ideals.
Treasure is a noun -- it means something of wealth. Is the US Treasury a myth, too?
If we send cash to Ukraine, that's treasure.
If we send them free or discounted military, agricultural or technological goods which were paid for from the treasury, it's no different than sending cash -- same source of payment.
Have you never heard the phrase "blood and treasure" with regard to war and other military operations? There's a cost to those efforts, and it's usually measured in human life, life-changing injuries, and taxes being sent to fight enemies -- declared or not -- on foreign soil.
If you think we only send old military supplies and equipment while replenishing with new, you're delusional. The topic of military logistics and funding for ongoing operations is a liitle more complicated than you seem to believe. Let's just say that we expended more than we could ever produce during the decades in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria and all the foreign missions and operations we have going on in allied countries.
Our military just doesn't have all their stuff in warehouses waiting for war. Training and exercises, both ours and with allied forces, use that equipment and supplies every single year.
Apparently you've never been in the military. Even the lowest of ranks is familiar with the constant consumption, replacement and acquisition of new gear and supplies, as well as the number of ways the government has to recycle, dispose of and offer to the public, and yes give to some foreign allies, things they no longer need.
Do you really think Ukraine is fighting a nuclear super power using our hand-me-downs? :rofl:
-
I don't know much about Viveks past, but I'm wary of people like him that rely on charisma and speeches vs past history and policies.
At least Trump had a long history of success in the business world and the tough guy attitude, and he brought that to the Presidency.
-
Charisma is important. Take a note of that.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FfFk0Y4zfrM
-
I don't know much about Viveks past, but I'm wary of people like him that rely on charisma and speeches vs past history and policies.
At least Trump had a long history of success in the business world and the tough guy attitude, and he brought that to the Presidency.
Trump was criticized for claiming he will run the country like he ran his businesses. The swamp critters who were terrified of him said it would never work.
Well, it wasn't a perfect presidency but a lot of people liked the direction it was heading. In my opinion better than the disaster we are in now.
I loved it when he told the NATO pukes that they better start paying their fair share of this Alliance. And how he stood up to rocket man and rocket man blinked. Then they became besties, lol!
The powers that be are afraid of him. And rightfully so.
-
https://youtu.be/fcihweIYgiE
This Vivek interview is interesting beyond the title put by MSNBC about Vivek calling Trump a “sore loser”. I have not yet read the book, but the title of this video seems pretty misleading. But what can you expect from MSNBC?
-
The powers that be are afraid of him. And rightfully so.
Your statement is a little misleading.
The US empire's oligarchs and ultrawealthy that really control America are not that afraid of him as they can give Trump the Kennedy solution anytime, they want, if he deviates from their plans to subjugate the rest of the World by any means necessary via their non-stop printing of US imperial toilet paper.
Sovereign countries like and Russia and China are not afraid of Trump either as they cautiously suspected and now know that Trump was/is not an imperialist looking to militarily dominate the planet but continue to pursue his nation's interest by economic and non-military means. Both Putin and Xi can live with an America that is not afraid of being part of a multipolar World that Trump would gladly be invited to partake.
-
I had heard about him a little before the debate, that he was full of energy and a good talker. Wasn't that impressed in the debate. He has already been caught giving completely opposite statements on issues. He had some interesting stances in the debate but I kind of agree with one person who said he was like a snake oil salesman.
Where has he been caught giving completely opposite statements on issues?
-
Where has he been caught giving completely opposite statements on issues?
Let me go look it up, I heard it on the radio so I don't know the exact source.
Found this clip, he says climate change agenda is a hoax in the debate but a few months ago he said climate change is real and in part due to human activity in an interview.
https://twitter.com/NvrBackDown24/status/1694526028276809823?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1694526028276809823%7Ctwgr%5Ef9ed62d351473bf70bf8ac2470b1336252e43da8%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.snopes.com%2Fnews%2F2023%2F08%2F24%2Fvivek-ramaswamy-climate-change%2F
-
Let me go look it up, I heard it on the radio so I don't know the exact source.
Found this clip, he says climate change agenda is a hoax in the debate but a few months ago he said climate change is real and in part due to human activity in an interview.
https://twitter.com/NvrBackDown24/status/1694526028276809823?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1694526028276809823%7Ctwgr%5Ef9ed62d351473bf70bf8ac2470b1336252e43da8%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.snopes.com%2Fnews%2F2023%2F08%2F24%2Fvivek-ramaswamy-climate-change%2F
That was an odd thing I noticed in the debate. He says I'm the only one .on the stage that isn't bought or paid for so I can say climate change is a hoax.
I dunno what he means by that cause no one on the stage is pushing climate change. And I doubt any of the green companies are endorsing them either.
It's stuff like this that makes me leary of him. Saying stuff that sounds good.
-
He reminds me of the 1971 Hit Song "Smiling Faces Sometimes" by the Temptations.
The song discusses that sometimes a smiling face does not always tell the truth.
This guy better watch out. He can fall just as fast in the polls as he rose.
-
That was an odd thing I noticed in the debate. He says I'm the only one .on the stage that isn't bought or paid for so I can say climate change is a hoax.
I dunno what he means by that cause no one on the stage is pushing climate change. And I doubt any of the green companies are endorsing them either.
It's stuff like this that makes me leary of him. Saying stuff that sounds good.
THe vids that I have seen, he says stuff that I can 100% agree with. This makes me very suspicious. Also cause I never bothered to look into his background at all. Like Trump, everyone knows he's a business man doing business.
-
Hubris is what is fueling climate change. Humans think they are bigger than the world around them.
-
This interview with Jordan Peterson is very interesting concerning his candidacy and views.
He talks about climate change agenda and ESGs quite thoroughly in this interview, as well as his background of where he came from.
https://youtu.be/JX9B5tnj-xI
-
That was an odd thing I noticed in the debate. He says I'm the only one .on the stage that isn't bought or paid for so I can say climate change is a hoax.
I dunno what he means by that cause no one on the stage is pushing climate change. And I doubt any of the green companies are endorsing them either.
It's stuff like this that makes me leary of him. Saying stuff that sounds good.
Agreed.
Plus it is a pretty personal attack, to basically say that all your opponents are corrupt.
-
This interview with Jordan Peterson is very interesting concerning his candidacy and views.
He talks about climate change agenda and ESGs quite thoroughly in this interview, as well as his background of where he came from.
https://youtu.be/JX9B5tnj-xI
I listened to this and nothing really stood out to me positive or negative. It was a little refreshing because it is long form and Jordan Peterson tends to ask questions differently, goes to areas that normal political interviews don't usually venture.
-
Let me go look it up, I heard it on the radio so I don't know the exact source.
Found this clip, he says climate change agenda is a hoax in the debate but a few months ago he said climate change is real and in part due to human activity in an interview.
https://twitter.com/NvrBackDown24/status/1694526028276809823?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1694526028276809823%7Ctwgr%5Ef9ed62d351473bf70bf8ac2470b1336252e43da8%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.snopes.com%2Fnews%2F2023%2F08%2F24%2Fvivek-ramaswamy-climate-change%2F
Climate change agenda and climate change are 2 different things. Both can be true at the same time. We can recognize that the climate is changing and also recognize that the policies to fight climate change is a hoax to grab power and regulate certain industries.
-
Climate change agenda and climate change are 2 different things. Both can be true at the same time. We can recognize that the climate is changing and also recognize that the policies to fight climate change is a hoax to grab power and regulate certain industries.
I was thinking about whether that is what he meant or not. In the debate he really didn't go into the weeds at all to explain that subtle distinction though. At this level though it seems like a distinction without a difference. The climate change agenda (whatever that means?) would cover a very wide range of things. Energy consumption reduction, alternative energies, carbon capture, carbon offset, etc etc etc. To simply say that climate change agenda is a hoax with not explanation implies that none of it is true. So for him to say climate change is real and in part due to human activity but then say any attempts to fight it are lies doesn't really jive.
Maybe he will address it later to explain what he meant or try to walk back some of it.
-
I was thinking about whether that is what he meant or not. In the debate he really didn't go into the weeds at all to explain that subtle distinction though. At this level though it seems like a distinction without a difference. The climate change agenda (whatever that means?) would cover a very wide range of things. Energy consumption reduction, alternative energies, carbon capture, carbon offset, etc etc etc. To simply say that climate change agenda is a hoax with not explanation implies that none of it is true. So for him to say climate change is real and in part due to human activity but then say any attempts to fight it are lies doesn't really jive.
Maybe he will address it later to explain what he meant or try to walk back some of it.
So You were wrong when you said he got caught giving opposite statements.
-
I’ll admit that I am suspicious of Vivek. I seem to agree with him a little too much. I went all in on Dan Crenshaw and then it turned out he was an absolute swamp creature and so I’m hesitant to place trust in Vivek in that same way. I would say the difference is Vivek goes into prettt good detail specifically about how he would take down l/ reform the alphabet agencies and administrative state. Also no billionaire super pacs funding his campaign.
-
I guess Vivek could be meaning something else, that since he's not connected to industry, he has the credibility to say climate change is a hoax. If another candidate supports coal burning, they'd have an incentive to be against climate change agenda.
-
Liz Wheeler discusses how Vivek was a democrat when he was younger and how he has now turned Republican.
https://youtu.be/-MymdPyoaG8
-
Liz Wheeler discusses how Vivek was a democrat when he was younger and how he has now turned Republican.
https://youtu.be/-MymdPyoaG8
People change. When I participated in youth legislature in Hawaii - I voted along left/liberal lines
-
So You were wrong when you said he got caught giving opposite statements.
No, I don't think so. With a lot of nuance he could tease out a distinction but the statements as they are, are contradictory in my opinion. Maybe he just gave a poorly worded statement asnd is trying to clarify or maybe he is trying to walk back his statement a little by giving a longer explanation, who knows.
-
No, I don't think so. With a lot of nuance he could tease out a distinction but the statements as they are, are contradictory in my opinion. Maybe he just gave a poorly worded statement asnd is trying to clarify or maybe he is trying to walk back his statement a little by giving a longer explanation, who knows.
I was thinking about whether that is what he meant or not. In the debate he really didn't go into the weeds at all to explain that subtle distinction though. At this level though it seems like a distinction without a difference. The climate change agenda (whatever that means?) would cover a very wide range of things. Energy consumption reduction, alternative energies, carbon capture, carbon offset, etc etc etc. To simply say that climate change agenda is a hoax with not explanation implies that none of it is true. So for him to say climate change is real and in part due to human activity but then say any attempts to fight it are lies doesn't really jive.
Maybe he will address it later to explain what he meant or try to walk back some of it.
Maybe you haven't watched many debates, but the candidates have time limits, and the issues and questions are not their choice.
If you want to judge them for not "going into the weeds" about all of their positions, maybe you need to find other sources that help fill in the blanks.
-
No, I don't think so. With a lot of nuance he could tease out a distinction but the statements as they are, are contradictory in my opinion. Maybe he just gave a poorly worded statement asnd is trying to clarify or maybe he is trying to walk back his statement a little by giving a longer explanation, who knows.
So because you don’t know what he meant that gives you the go ahead to make the claim that he got caught giving opposite statements?
-
If Trump announces Ramaswamy as running mate and then the deep state assassinates Trump, that's pretty much a shoe in for Vivek
Assuming they fly in separate planes and other security measures, of course.
https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/trump-open-ramaswamy-vice-president-i-think-hes-great
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/tucker-warns-trump-assassination-hot-war-russia
-
Vivek would actually make a good insurance policy.
He's marketing himself as more Trump than Trump and there's not enough time for a full scale legal assault.
Trump should make a public statement "If anything happens to me vote for the India guy"
(https://i0.wp.com/stonetoss.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/prigozhin-trump-stonetoss-comic.png?fit=1000%2C500&ssl=1)
-
Maybe you haven't watched many debates, but the candidates have time limits, and the issues and questions are not their choice.
It isn't the listener's fault if the speaker fails to adequately convey a message to listeners in the given format. If listeners walk away concluding that Ramaswamay contradicted himself then he failed as a speaker (or actually contradicted himself)
-
So because you don’t know what he meant that gives you the go ahead to make the claim that he got caught giving opposite statements?
1. That was the takeaway of a lot of listeners, not just me.
2. If I tell you that I hate nuts but and then you saw me eat peanuts, would you consider that contradictory? I could explain later that peanuts are not nuts but legumes but absent such an explanation, my statement/action would appear contradictory. No one can read my mind so it would be on me for failing to communicate that to a listener.
-
1. That was the takeaway of a lot of listeners, not just me.
2. If I tell you that I hate nuts but and then you saw me eat peanuts, would you consider that contradictory? I could explain later that peanuts are not nuts but legumes but absent such an explanation, my statement/action would appear contradictory. No one can read my mind so it would be on me for failing to communicate that to a listener.
The only people I see with that same "take away" are VOX, CNN, TYT, and all the other far left anti-Conservative, anti-GOP Liberals.
In fact, VOX had in an article saying what you posted almost verbatim.
Hmmmmmm.
-
1. That was the takeaway of a lot of listeners, not just me.
2. If I tell you that I hate nuts but and then you saw me eat peanuts, would you consider that contradictory? I could explain later that peanuts are not nuts but legumes but absent such an explanation, my statement/action would appear contradictory. No one can read my mind so it would be on me for failing to communicate that to a listener.
1. Sounds to me like it was a takeaway that people wanted to hear because they are trying to find ways to discredit him. No one that I listen to has said anything of the sort.
2. I would question why you’re eating peanuts and not jump to the conclusion that you gave an opposite statement like any reasonable person would. Seems to me this is still an issue of you misunderstanding him, not that he gave an opposite or contradictory statement.
-
1. That was the takeaway of a lot of listeners, not just me.
2. If I tell you that I hate nuts but and then you saw me eat peanuts, would you consider that contradictory? I could explain later that peanuts are not nuts but legumes but absent such an explanation, my statement/action would appear contradictory. No one can read my mind so it would be on me for failing to communicate that to a listener.
Bill Clinton is like this. And he does it on purpose.
-
The only people I see with that same "take away" are VOX, CNN, TYT, and all the other far left anti-Conservative, anti-GOP Liberals.
In fact, VOX had in an article saying what you posted almost verbatim.
Hmmmmmm.
Sean Hannity is a far left anti conservative? (he took issue with conflicting statements by Vivek over Israel)
I first heard it on the radio from a fairly libertarian radio show host, definitely not liberals
-
1. Sounds to me like it was a takeaway that people wanted to hear because they are trying to find ways to discredit him. No one that I listen to has said anything of the sort.
2. I would question why you’re eating peanuts and not jump to the conclusion that you gave an opposite statement like any reasonable person would. Seems to me this is still an issue of you misunderstanding him, not that he gave an opposite or contradictory statement.
Understandable, if 1000 people listen to a speech they aren't going to walk away with the exact same understanding sometimes however if people walk away thinking the speaker gave conflicting information then the speaker did something wrong and needs to improve.
Consider also that the takeaway that there was nothing contradictory could be from people who are trying to find ways to make him more credible, biases work both ways. Just saying. I don't personally have a position on him yet. Wouldn't be the first time a politician said something contradictory, won't be the last.
-
https://youtu.be/t5Vz-09JxnQ
-
Sean Hannity is a far left anti conservative? (he took issue with conflicting statements by Vivek over Israel)
I first heard it on the radio from a fairly libertarian radio show host, definitely not liberals
Why are you posting a reply to a comment i made almost 5 months ago?
Run out of more recent posts to troll?
And as for someone who "takes issue" with something someone says publicly, how does that even matter? It's not like he called Vivek out for lying, slandering or any number of other negative acts the Liberals routinely commit.
"Took issue"? Oooohhhhh. Fight! Fight! LOL!!!!
After 5 months, that's all you could muster?
Pathetic.
-
Why are you posting a reply to a comment i made almost 5 months ago?
Run out of more recent posts to troll?
And as for someone who "takes issue" with something someone says publicly, how does that even matter? It's not like he called Vivek out for lying, slandering or any number of other negative acts the Liberals routinely commit.
"Took issue"? Oooohhhhh. Fight! Fight! LOL!!!!
After 5 months, that's all you could muster?
Pathetic.
My calendar must be broken because mine shows August 30, 2023 is WAY les than 5 months from September 1, 2023.
You have gone from smart ass to dumb ass...
-
LOL!
Made you look ... & reply! :rofl: :geekdanc:
-
LOL!
Made you look ... & reply! :rofl: :geekdanc:
Yet he doesnt use facial recognition on kit.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
-
Viveks not going to be VP.
(https://i.imgur.com/qo1UEI1.jpeg)