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.

Liz Wheeler discusses how Vivek was a democrat when he was younger and how he has now turned Republican.

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"

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.

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...