Re: Vivek ramaswamy
Posted: Fri Aug 25, 2023 6:09 am
Why are YOU sharing this?
Why are YOU sharing this?
You missed my point entirely, but thanks for your input.Sparko wrote: ↑Thu Aug 24, 2023 10:31 pmPointing out the racism of the GOP is a fulltime job. Especially with your genius for ignoranceJKLivin wrote: ↑Thu Aug 24, 2023 5:59 pmExactly what I’be been saying.randylahey wrote: ↑Thu Aug 24, 2023 12:49 pm Wow fish and sparko. The "party of tolerance" is coming off a little racist through those comments lol
He likes the notion of a politician who isn't bought and paid for. The fact that they do not exist seems to be irrelevant.
I can't help but wonder if $1 would get me the same respect from Vivek as $6,660 or more would get me.twocoach wrote: ↑Fri Aug 25, 2023 8:51 amHe likes the notion of a politician who isn't bought and paid for. The fact that they do not exist seems to be irrelevant.
Whatever. I spent eight years being called a racist for pointing out the same things about Obama. It was axiomatic to you all: if you criticize the brown man, you're a racist. The standard has to apply to all of you now as well.
Usually the right doesn't want to acknowledge that race is intertwined with pretty much everything in American history and politics. You know, the "I don't see color" or "black, white, brown, purple, orange" thing.
Whatever. I spent eight years being called a racist for pointing out the same things about Obama. It was axiomatic to you all: if you criticize the brown man, you're a racist. The standard has to apply to all of you now as well.jfish26 wrote: ↑Fri Aug 25, 2023 9:46 amUsually the right doesn't want to acknowledge that race is intertwined with pretty much everything in American history and politics. You know, the "I don't see color" or "black, white, brown, purple, orange" thing.
Discussing race isn't racist.
Treating people as less-than based on their race, or mocking or belittling or acting superior to others based on their race, is.
The most charitable way to describe Trump, vis a vis race, is that he has done many racist things.
And yet, Vivek - who is eager to point out that he looks different from the rest of the field - adopts Trumpism as his platform, courts the lowest-common-denominator of Trump's supporters and has pledged to break his own (hypothetical) oath of office by pardoning Trump immediately upon election.
It's not my place to speak for Vivek's ethnic community/ies. There is a whole mess of issues (and extremely loaded terms) that arise from things like this, and I don't feel qualified to say how another person would or must feel on this point.
But I would understand if people who look, talk or worship like Vivek, or people who fit other minority categories and would ordinarily be heartened to see someone from an underrepresented community pursuing elected office, are saddened by Vivek making common cause with someone who has done many racist things.
I assume this is the post that resulted in your call of racism. : "Specifically, Vivek seems willing for his skin color and spirituality to be used by (and for the gain of) people who have otherwise shit all over people of his skin color and spirituality."
Ramaswamy brings Trumpian brazenness to denying the undeniable. When asked whether 9/11 was “an inside job” or happened as “the government tells us,” Ramaswamy said: “I don’t believe the government has told us the truth.” When asked by the Atlantic about saying we do not know “the truth” about Jan. 6, 2021, he recurred to skepticism about what the government has said about 9/11. When he claimed to have been misquoted, the Atlantic produced a recording of his words.
Ostentatiously confident, he advertised his intention to skip normal preparation for the first Republican debate. Then The Post informed him about a photo of him in a suit, standing at a lectern, flanked by two others, also at lecterns, which looked like normal prep. He said he “reluctantly” tried prep; his campaign spokeswoman said he “experimented with” prep.
He did not need to prepare for a question not posed to him on Wednesday: “You say Trump was ‘the greatest president of the 21st century.’ So why are you running against him?”
A biotech entrepreneur, Ramaswamy illustrates the difference between intelligence, which he has, abundantly, and judgment, which he lacks, utterly. It is not smart for smart people to pretend to be dumb, but perhaps he thinks he must regularly exhibit childishness to charm the GOP’s nominating electorate.
For example, he proposes amending the Constitution to raise the voting age to 25 — unless 18-year-olds are service members or first responders, or pass the civics exam required of immigrants. This lunge for attention is a purely performative gesture, flamboyant audacity that 38 states will not ratify.
Ramaswamy nevertheless insists that voters need to have some “civic experience.” So, should presidents have had some prior government experience? Ramaswamy would be the second president with no government experience, civilian or military. (The first was the most recent Republican.) Ramaswamy, who needs schooling, should read Harry McPherson’s memoir, “A Political Education” (1972).
McPherson recalled driving into Washington late on Jan. 31, 1956, to become an aide to Senate majority leader, and later president, Lyndon B. Johnson.
“In the mist beyond the Monument is the White House and General Eisenhower,” hitherto an object of McPherson’s condescension. That night, however, “surrounded by this city of power, he seems much more formidable. … Eisenhower belongs here.” It was one thing to mock President Eisenhower over schooners of Pearl beer back in Texas, but:
“It is another to confront this city with its mysteries of authority. Perhaps the presence of power begets ambiguity: in the years ahead I am to see a variety of angry convictions turned to doubt when confronted by power and responsibility.”
McPherson was 26 the night he drove across Memorial Bridge sensing that “the smell of power hangs over this city like cordite.” Ramaswamy, 38, is, comparatively, a child.
When talking about businessman Vivek Ramaswamy's performance at Wednesday night's debut Republican presidential primary, the adjectives that burbled up in both press and social media chatter were not what one would traditionally consider flattering: Annoying. Irritating. Glib. It was the consensus view among serious people that the guy is a jackass. It wasn't just liberals on MSNBC rolling their eyes at a man who was as smug as he was stupid. The other Republicans on the stage seemed genuinely miffed at his presence. This means that Ramaswamy had a banner night with the people he was trying to reach: The MAGA audience.
Obviously, he won't be replacing Donald Trump in their hearts, nor does he have any interest in trying, but for the redhat crowd, all that matters is "triggering the liberals," a group so widely defined it now encompasses not just Democrats but any Republican who still believes in quaint ideas like basic decency. We should be grateful that Ramaswamy's method was merely to act like an overcaffeinated version of Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Tex. In 2027, the attention-seeking trolls that worm their way on the debate stage may have to escalate to flashing their genitals and heiling Hitler to garner that sweet, sweet outrage that is the nectar MAGA feeds upon.
[…]
Of course, he contradicts himself constantly, saying one thing and then denying he said it the next minute. The Washington Post gently described all this as "contradictory image and statements." I would call it "contempt for reality." As the GOP debate Wednesday showed, Ramaswamy's tendency to couple fatuousness with supreme confidence makes it irresistible for people on both the left and right to use up some of their short, precious lives by "correcting" his many, many dumb statements. He even got yelled at by Republicans on the debate stage for talking out of his ass, and that's a crowd that has a strong tolerance for high arrogance/low information rhetoric.
But, as Ramaswamy's grinning during that debate suggested, there's nothing sincere about the performative moronics. Everything out of his mouth, from 9/11 conspiracy theories to Trump pardon talk, must be understood as bait. Like a cat throwing your stuff off a shelf, all that matters is getting a reaction. Every time he's "called out," Ramaswamy and his growing audience are high-fiving each other. They achieved the goal of getting under the skin of "elites," a group defined not by money or status — Ramaswamy has both — but mainly as people who read books.
That's why the only rejoinder during the debate that stung even a little was when former Gov. Chris Christie, R-N.J., called Ramaswamy "ChatGPT." Because yes, Ramaswamy's mile-a-minute right-wing nuttery sounds exactly what you'd get if you asked language learning software to recreate the comment section of Breitbart. It doesn't make sense and isn't meant to make sense. Trying to be coherent just gets in the way of the goal, which is trolling.
[…]
What decent people struggle to understand is that it's all by design when people like Ramaswamy thumb their noses at consistency, rationality, and factual reality. Good people respect these things, believing society works better if there's a shared respect for reason. But for trolls like Ramaswamy — and Trump — not making sense is the point. As never-Trump Republican pollster Sarah Longwell told "Pod Save America" after the debate, Ramaswamy is a "chaos agent" that appeals to the Trump base "that likes insane people."
[…]
Trump's mistake was in actually winning the nomination and presidency. Real power is dangerous for a sociopathic con man because, as we saw in the attempted coup, they get it into their head they can defraud the nation like they defraud their foolish followers. So far, Ramaswamy seems to have more modest goals, mainly being the next Ben Shapiro or Candace Owens, shameless hucksters who make a killing by selling validation to bigots.
Of course, that makes it also hard for everyone outside the MAGA bubble to get too upset by the right-wing propaganda scam. Who cares if some cynical demagogues part foolhardy bigots from their money? But the process is ramping up hatred and tearing at the fabric of democracy, so alas, we are forced to care. But we could do a little better at not taking the bait. Call out the game — the "ChatGPT" swipe was a good one for that — without getting mired into arguing over arguments the trolls themselves don't even believe in.
A review by NBC News of thousands of documents filed with the U.S. Department of Agriculture, however, shows very few purchases by Chinese buyers in the past year and a half — fewer than 1,400 acres in a country with 1.3 billion acres of agricultural land. In fact, the total amount of U.S. agricultural land owned by Chinese interests is less than three-hundredths of 1%.
Yeah, I don't think that statistic is all that revealing, given how easy (and beneficial) it is to organize purchases through LLCs etc.KUTradition wrote: ↑Fri Aug 25, 2023 4:25 pmA review by NBC News of thousands of documents filed with the U.S. Department of Agriculture, however, shows very few purchases by Chinese buyers in the past year and a half — fewer than 1,400 acres in a country with 1.3 billion acres of agricultural land. In fact, the total amount of U.S. agricultural land owned by Chinese interests is less than three-hundredths of 1%.
But the review also reveals a federal oversight system in which reporting of foreign ownership is lax and enforcement minimal.
no comment…just sharing
Racist!RainbowsandUnicorns wrote: ↑Sat Aug 26, 2023 6:58 am I choose to believe if randy was NOT a fan of VGR!, he would post this here. Amirght?