aggie93 said:

---

The tweet references 2 articles on Vivek's quotes in regards to Taiwan and Israel and how his statements are being interpreted by two countries that are strong allies. Then here is the analysis:

Quote:

---

The thing that is most revealing about Vivek's pronouncements is that he hasn't spent any time actually understanding these issues. He just says what he thinks sounds good and he can sell.

How can you claim to want to prioritize America's interests if you don't understand how those interests would be affected by your proposals?

Does he understand the impact of publicly announcing he plans to abandon Taiwan once we are building enough of our own microchips? Does he understand the incentives that creates for Taiwan, China, and companies investing there? how that impacts deterrence capability in the near future?

Does he realize that we haven't provided Israel any economic aid in years? Does he know what we get in exchange for the current military aid? Has he considered the impact on his ability to secure more Abraham accords with such an announcement?

The answer to all of those things is clearly no. Now many voters don't care about FP specifics, but it's indicative of his approach across the board. It's a sales job without substance.

---

---

First, I think his Taiwan policy is spot on. If we remove our dependency on Taiwanese chips then what use do we have for the place that has long, long been part of China? See other thread on China on how this actually fits well with Xi's plan and likely keeps him appeased with little impact to us.

Can you help me understand the difference between billions of $$$ in economic aid vs billions of $$$ in military aid? Or is this like magical Ukraine military aid where we send them stuff that is obsolete or we are not going to use so it doesn't "cost" us anything. BTW...

Quote:

---

In March 2022, Congress approved the largest funding package for Israel in history. It included:

$1 billion in emergency Iron Dome funding.
$3.3 billion in security assistance.
$500 million in missile defense cooperation.
The Israel Relations Normalization Act to support and expand peace and normalization agreements between Israel and the UAE, Bahrain, Sudan, and Morocco.
$47.5 million for anti-tunneling technology.
$25 million to combat drone terrorism.
$4 million for U.S.-Israel healthcare cooperation.
$1 million for U.S.-Israel agriculture cooperation.
$6 million for U.S.-Israel energy cooperation.
$2 million for U.S.-Israel homeland security cooperation.
$2 million for U.S.-Israel international development cooperation.
$50 million for the Nita M. Lowey Middle East Partnership for Peace Act to foster economic cooperation and people-to-people peacebuilding programs between Israelis, Palestinians, and Americans.
$6 million for the Middle East Regional Cooperation program to facilitate research collaboration between Israel and other countries in the region.
$5 million for refugee resettlement in Israel.

---

Those articles aren't even linked, it's literally just the headlines. The long tweet asking questions about if he understands his positions first mischaracterizes or at least poorly states them. It then goes on to say the answer to the questions is clearly no without providing analysis or support for that conclusion.

I believe it's fair to ask those questions about whether he has thought through all of the ramifications of his policy positions. The follow up after asking them though should be to go check if he has addressed them in depth rather than just answering your own questions with a no.

Kozmozag said:

---

He needs more seasoning.

---

First thoughts yeah, but look at what the seasoning did to Trump. 38 is pretty young, but..

fka ftc said:

---

aggie93 said:

---

The tweet references 2 articles on Vivek's quotes in regards to Taiwan and Israel and how his statements are being interpreted by two countries that are strong allies. Then here is the analysis:

Quote:

---

The thing that is most revealing about Vivek's pronouncements is that he hasn't spent any time actually understanding these issues. He just says what he thinks sounds good and he can sell.

How can you claim to want to prioritize America's interests if you don't understand how those interests would be affected by your proposals?

Does he understand the impact of publicly announcing he plans to abandon Taiwan once we are building enough of our own microchips? Does he understand the incentives that creates for Taiwan, China, and companies investing there? how that impacts deterrence capability in the near future?

Does he realize that we haven't provided Israel any economic aid in years? Does he know what we get in exchange for the current military aid? Has he considered the impact on his ability to secure more Abraham accords with such an announcement?

The answer to all of those things is clearly no. Now many voters don't care about FP specifics, but it's indicative of his approach across the board. It's a sales job without substance.

---

---

First, I think his Taiwan policy is spot on. If we remove our dependency on Taiwanese chips then what use do we have for the place that has long, long been part of China? See other thread on China on how this actually fits well with Xi's plan and likely keeps him appeased with little impact to us.

Can you help me understand the difference between billions of $$$ in economic aid vs billions of $$$ in military aid? Or is this like magical Ukraine military aid where we send them stuff that is obsolete or we are not going to use so it doesn't "cost" us anything. BTW...

Quote:

---

In March 2022, Congress approved the largest funding package for Israel in history. It included:

$1 billion in emergency Iron Dome funding.
$3.3 billion in security assistance.
$500 million in missile defense cooperation.
The Israel Relations Normalization Act to support and expand peace and normalization agreements between Israel and the UAE, Bahrain, Sudan, and Morocco.
$47.5 million for anti-tunneling technology.
$25 million to combat drone terrorism.
$4 million for U.S.-Israel healthcare cooperation.
$1 million for U.S.-Israel agriculture cooperation.
$6 million for U.S.-Israel energy cooperation.
$2 million for U.S.-Israel homeland security cooperation.
$2 million for U.S.-Israel international development cooperation.
$50 million for the Nita M. Lowey Middle East Partnership for Peace Act to foster economic cooperation and people-to-people peacebuilding programs between Israelis, Palestinians, and Americans.
$6 million for the Middle East Regional Cooperation program to facilitate research collaboration between Israel and other countries in the region.
$5 million for refugee resettlement in Israel.

---

---

Taiwan has always been our ally and done anything we asked of them, they also are paying for the arms we send them unlike Ukraine. It is definitely not in our interests to have China invade even if we don't need them for chips because of the larger security implications. Beyond the very unpredictable nature of such a war it would send a very dangerous message to our strong allies in Japan and South Korea as well as Australia.

Israel is our most critical ally in the ME and we have a lot of trade and business connections to them as well. We also have a large amount of dual citizens with Israel. They have been less reliable than Taiwan but we have also thrown them under the bus many times.

I'm fine with adjusting our policies towards either but implying we don't care if Taiwan is destroyed and the 40 million or so people there are either killed or enslaved is a mistake even if that wasn't what he meant (which is actually the point). The Israel comment was less egregious but also foolish. It's about the clumsiness of the words and how inexperience will lead to problems.

GE said:

---

Those articles aren't even linked, it's literally just the headlines. The long tweet asking questions about if he understands his positions first mischaracterizes or at least poorly states them. It then goes on to say the answer to the questions is clearly no without providing analysis or support for that conclusion.

I believe it's fair to ask those questions about whether he has thought through all of the ramifications of his policy positions. The follow up after asking them though should be to go check if he has addressed them in depth rather than just answering your own questions with a no.

---

You are arguing what he meant and not how it was perceived, that's actually the point.

aggie93 said:

---

Taiwan has always been our ally and done anything we asked of them, they also are paying for the arms we send them unlike Ukraine. It is definitely not in our interests to have China invade even if we don't need them for chips because of the larger security implications. Beyond the very unpredictable nature of such a war it would send a very dangerous message to our strong allies in Japan and South Korea as well as Australia.

Israel is our most critical ally in the ME and we have a lot of trade and business connections to them as well. We also have a large amount of dual citizens with Israel. They have been less reliable than Taiwan but we have also thrown them under the bus many times.

I'm fine with adjusting our policies towards either but implying we don't care if Taiwan is destroyed and the 40 million or so people there are either killed or enslaved is a mistake even if that wasn't what he meant (which is actually the point). The Israel comment was less egregious but also foolish. It's about the clumsiness of the words and how inexperience will lead to problems.

---

America First. Not Taiwan over Americans nor Israelis over Americans. Americans First.

If the 40 million want to remain "independent" then that's on them. Also, official US policy does not recognize Taiwan as independent of China. So not sure how much of an ally they really are when we say they need to obey their Beijing masters.

Israel can stand on its own. Its of no particular strategic importance to the US and there is ZERO reason to be sending them money and weapons. Smarter move would be to strengthen the Abraham Accords.

Tibbers said:

---

The 23rd

---

Awesome..I don't think I've ever watched one in its entirety. I bet the "kid" shines.

I do recall watching the Trump/Hillary one, or at least parts of it think. Soon in to it I thought my gosh, the moderator here is a better candidate LOL. So here we are now. I think Chris Wallace was that guy.

Who else is on the line-up card?

Sadly Christie, pence and a couple others, Haley? I don't know, they don't really stand a chance. Anyway, should be a fun debate. I'm sure the knives will be out from those with little to gain but to tear folks down like Christie. I'm excited to see the responses from all.

Tibbers said:

---

Sadly Christie, pence and a couple others, Haley? I don't know, they don't really stand a chance. Anyway, should be a fun debate. I'm sure the knives will be out from those with little to gain but to tear folks down like Christie. I'm excited to see the responses from all.

---

thanks

Is there a guy..representative or such from S Carolina? It's been a while back, but seems I heard him speaking and maybe he has thrown his name into the mix.

Pence or Christie is not what we need IMO. New blood..fresh start...

fka ftc said:

---

aggie93 said:

---

Taiwan has always been our ally and done anything we asked of them, they also are paying for the arms we send them unlike Ukraine. It is definitely not in our interests to have China invade even if we don't need them for chips because of the larger security implications. Beyond the very unpredictable nature of such a war it would send a very dangerous message to our strong allies in Japan and South Korea as well as Australia.

Israel is our most critical ally in the ME and we have a lot of trade and business connections to them as well. We also have a large amount of dual citizens with Israel. They have been less reliable than Taiwan but we have also thrown them under the bus many times.

I'm fine with adjusting our policies towards either but implying we don't care if Taiwan is destroyed and the 40 million or so people there are either killed or enslaved is a mistake even if that wasn't what he meant (which is actually the point). The Israel comment was less egregious but also foolish. It's about the clumsiness of the words and how inexperience will lead to problems.

---

America First. Not Taiwan over Americans nor Israelis over Americans. Americans First.

If the 40 million want to remain "independent" then that's on them. Also, official US policy does not recognize Taiwan as independent of China. So not sure how much of an ally they really are when we say they need to obey their Beijing masters.

Israel can stand on its own. Its of no particular strategic importance to the US and there is ZERO reason to be sending them money and weapons. Smarter move would be to strengthen the Abraham Accords.

---

Once again you are arguing the larger policy and I am talking about the delivery and how words have meaning in foreign policy. Taiwan and Israel are very, very complicated and both have US interests involved even if you are damn near isolationist. It's rarely a good idea to alienate allies off hand though.

aggie93 said:

---

fka ftc said:

---

aggie93 said:

---

Taiwan has always been our ally and done anything we asked of them, they also are paying for the arms we send them unlike Ukraine. It is definitely not in our interests to have China invade even if we don't need them for chips because of the larger security implications. Beyond the very unpredictable nature of such a war it would send a very dangerous message to our strong allies in Japan and South Korea as well as Australia.

Israel is our most critical ally in the ME and we have a lot of trade and business connections to them as well. We also have a large amount of dual citizens with Israel. They have been less reliable than Taiwan but we have also thrown them under the bus many times.

I'm fine with adjusting our policies towards either but implying we don't care if Taiwan is destroyed and the 40 million or so people there are either killed or enslaved is a mistake even if that wasn't what he meant (which is actually the point). The Israel comment was less egregious but also foolish. It's about the clumsiness of the words and how inexperience will lead to problems.

---

America First. Not Taiwan over Americans nor Israelis over Americans. Americans First.

If the 40 million want to remain "independent" then that's on them. Also, official US policy does not recognize Taiwan as independent of China. So not sure how much of an ally they really are when we say they need to obey their Beijing masters.

Israel can stand on its own. Its of no particular strategic importance to the US and there is ZERO reason to be sending them money and weapons. Smarter move would be to strengthen the Abraham Accords.

---

Once again you are arguing the larger policy and I am talking about the delivery and how words have meaning in foreign policy. Taiwan and Israel are very, very complicated and both have US interests involved even if you are damn near isolationist. It's rarely a good idea to alienate allies off hand though.

---

Yes, decorum and nice, polite tweets. Particularly because other countries off the same to us.

Larger policy is what matters, delivery is the piddly *****

fka ftc said:

---

aggie93 said:

---

fka ftc said:

---

aggie93 said:

---

Taiwan has always been our ally and done anything we asked of them, they also are paying for the arms we send them unlike Ukraine. It is definitely not in our interests to have China invade even if we don't need them for chips because of the larger security implications. Beyond the very unpredictable nature of such a war it would send a very dangerous message to our strong allies in Japan and South Korea as well as Australia.

Israel is our most critical ally in the ME and we have a lot of trade and business connections to them as well. We also have a large amount of dual citizens with Israel. They have been less reliable than Taiwan but we have also thrown them under the bus many times.

I'm fine with adjusting our policies towards either but implying we don't care if Taiwan is destroyed and the 40 million or so people there are either killed or enslaved is a mistake even if that wasn't what he meant (which is actually the point). The Israel comment was less egregious but also foolish. It's about the clumsiness of the words and how inexperience will lead to problems.

---

America First. Not Taiwan over Americans nor Israelis over Americans. Americans First.

If the 40 million want to remain "independent" then that's on them. Also, official US policy does not recognize Taiwan as independent of China. So not sure how much of an ally they really are when we say they need to obey their Beijing masters.

Israel can stand on its own. Its of no particular strategic importance to the US and there is ZERO reason to be sending them money and weapons. Smarter move would be to strengthen the Abraham Accords.

---

Once again you are arguing the larger policy and I am talking about the delivery and how words have meaning in foreign policy. Taiwan and Israel are very, very complicated and both have US interests involved even if you are damn near isolationist. It's rarely a good idea to alienate allies off hand though.

---

Yes, decorum and nice, polite tweets. Particularly because other countries off the same to us.

Larger policy is what matters, delivery is the piddly *****

---

I still remember when Biden said that it might not be that big of a deal if Putin just had a "minor incursion" into Ukraine and not long after they invaded.

aggie93 said:

---

fka ftc said:

---

Yes, decorum and nice, polite tweets. Particularly because other countries off the same to us.

Larger policy is what matters, delivery is the piddly *****

---

I still remember when Biden said that it might not be that big of a deal if Putin just had a "minor incursion" into Ukraine and not long after they invaded.

---

No kidding. Thing is, I don't care that Biden urged Putin to invade Ukraine and I do not care if a remark by Vivek bolsters Xi to one day invade. America's interest FIRST. And continuing to move the chip manufacturing back onshore is happening and we can saber rattle to keep Xi at bay until we are ready to let One China policy be fulfilled.

I'm not going to claim to be a foreign policy or China expert, but there is a serious security element to just letting China take over Taiwan and fully control more of the air and seas in that geographic area. That's China's end goal, control of the shipping lanes plus extending their ability to defend and launch attacks when the inevitable conflict between China and the West happens.

Vivek skin deep simplistic-for-a-quick-news-bite approach to foreign policy shows just how naive and not ready for primetime his mindset is.

aggie93 said:

---

fka ftc said:

---

aggie93 said:

---

Taiwan has always been our ally and done anything we asked of them, they also are paying for the arms we send them unlike Ukraine. It is definitely not in our interests to have China invade even if we don't need them for chips because of the larger security implications. Beyond the very unpredictable nature of such a war it would send a very dangerous message to our strong allies in Japan and South Korea as well as Australia.

Israel is our most critical ally in the ME and we have a lot of trade and business connections to them as well. We also have a large amount of dual citizens with Israel. They have been less reliable than Taiwan but we have also thrown them under the bus many times.

I'm fine with adjusting our policies towards either but implying we don't care if Taiwan is destroyed and the 40 million or so people there are either killed or enslaved is a mistake even if that wasn't what he meant (which is actually the point). The Israel comment was less egregious but also foolish. It's about the clumsiness of the words and how inexperience will lead to problems.

---

America First. Not Taiwan over Americans nor Israelis over Americans. Americans First.

If the 40 million want to remain "independent" then that's on them. Also, official US policy does not recognize Taiwan as independent of China. So not sure how much of an ally they really are when we say they need to obey their Beijing masters.

Israel can stand on its own. Its of no particular strategic importance to the US and there is ZERO reason to be sending them money and weapons. Smarter move would be to strengthen the Abraham Accords.

---

Once again you are arguing the larger policy and I am talking about the delivery and how words have meaning in foreign policy. Taiwan and Israel are very, very complicated and both have US interests involved even if you are damn near isolationist. It's rarely a good idea to alienate allies off hand though.

---

Which statement of his was bad delivery and which words of his had meaning that you're referring to? As of now it's a tweet with two headlines, neither of which is a quote.

TriAg2010 said:

---

I don't think the polling counts for much this far out from any of the debates or primaries. We can look at past primaries and see plenty of candidates who were the flavor of the month.

And I'll clarify that I'm not saying press secretary is the job Vivek wants, rather it's a job he's qualified to hold.

---

With all due respect, the guy has started an run a successful business. Don't confused excellent communication skills with pigeonholing into a Press Secretary role.

Your hate is getting the better of you here.

Vivek Ramaswamy wants to impose a massive death tax on every American, cites avowed socialist Thomas Piketty to make the case for government stealing the fruits of your life's work.

You don't want this guy anywhere near your Cabinet. https://t.co/dwwcrvHC8i pic.twitter.com/87Q1CtoogS

— Jordan Schachtel @ dossier.today (@JordanSchachtel) August 21, 2023

Now that's genuine criticism. Yeah I'm not a fan of raising the death tax. I'm actually in favor of removing it entirely. The money earned has already been taxed. No need to tax it again upon death.

Tibbers said:

---

Now that's genuine criticism. Yeah I'm not a fan of raising the death tax. I'm actually in favor of removing it entirely. The money earned has already been taxed. No need to tax it again upon death.

---

Agreed

TRM said:

---

Vivek Ramaswamy wants to impose a massive death tax on every American, cites avowed socialist Thomas Piketty to make the case for government stealing the fruits of your life's work.

You don't want this guy anywhere near your Cabinet. https://t.co/dwwcrvHC8i pic.twitter.com/87Q1CtoogS

— Jordan Schachtel @ dossier.today (@JordanSchachtel) August 21, 2023

---

Ramaswamy has said some things I agree with yet he's always given off that fake "say whatever it takes to win you over" vibe so I've never warmed to him.
But if that tweet is legit then that seals it. Screw him. I guarantee you that if he managed to implement this (and he'd have every other progressive socialist lawmaker on his side) he'd still find someway to pass down all of his wealth to his kids.

Edit to say I'm glad to hear one of the Vivek supporters chime in on this and honestly critique it. Good for you Tibbers.

Much like every other attack though, Vivek will respond and I'll hold judgement until I hear his answer. I'm still in favor of removing the death tax as it only serves to keep people down not build them up.

Every dollar is taxed multiple times in our government pyramid scheme already, from being taxed on earning it, to being taxed on spending it, to being taxed on gains if you invested it wisely, and then finally being taxed again on leaving it behind to your kids or grandkids when you die.

If you read the next couple paragraphs after what's highlighted in the tweet, Ramaswamy is arguing that by not rewarding spoiled rich kids and punitively taxing the estate, it motivates people to give back so there isn't much for the government to tax and proves the "merit" system works.

I hate the death tax. Getting rid of it would be preferable to me, but I see the argument here, if the reciprocal of a big hike on estate taxes was big reductions on income and capital gains taxes.

Quote:

---

We shouldn't allow people to become billionaires just by having rich parents."
To which I ask, why not? His answer: A very high inheritance tax is "a way of redistributing duty." Those who become rich "owe it to everyone else to preserve meritocracy so others have the chance to do the same." Two points here. First, their success should be proof that the system is, in fact, working. If they can make money through merit, others can, too. Second, people have moral duties apart from those that should be enforced by the state. Americans shouldn't eat, smoke, and drink as much as they do. But few Americans want the government to restrict our consumption of these things. Similarly, the question isn't whether those who make money should give generously to others but whether justice requires the state to appropriate people's holdings involuntarily for the sake of meritocracy. Someone can have the moral duty to give without the state having the legal obligation to make him do it.

---

Keller6Ag91 said:

---

TriAg2010 said:

---

I don't think the polling counts for much this far out from any of the debates or primaries. We can look at past primaries and see plenty of candidates who were the flavor of the month.

And I'll clarify that I'm not saying press secretary is the job Vivek wants, rather it's a job he's qualified to hold.

---

With all due respect, the guy has started an run a successful business. Don't confused excellent communication skills with pigeonholing into a Press Secretary role.

Your hate is getting the better of you here.

---

That is not remotely qualifying experience for the presidency. He hasn't led against an opposing political party, he hasn't led through natural disasters, he hasn't confronted foreign powers, he hasn't deployed the national guard, or been deployed in uniform himself. We have our choice of Republicans with track records in these domains. It's totally unserious to pick the guy - even a very smart guy - with no such experience and hope he can learn on the job.

That comes from no place of hate. I said in my first post that Vivek should run for a lesser office and build that experience.

Tibbers said:

---

Much like every other attack though, Vivek will respond and I'll hold judgement until I hear his answer. I'm still in favor of removing the death tax as it only serves to keep people down not build them up.

---

Agreed on the death tax, and that's what would make this extremely disappointing if this is truly something he's advocated for. I'll hold any further judgement until this is confirmed. But if this is true and he doesn't seriously backtrack and say he's done a complete 180 on it then this is a serious red flag. You can't take a stance like this without holding some serious socialist stances in other areas.

Well not every position is going to perfectly align with everyone. Let's not kid ourselves though, your mind was already made up.

TriAg2010 said:

---

Keller6Ag91 said:

---

TriAg2010 said:

---

I don't think the polling counts for much this far out from any of the debates or primaries. We can look at past primaries and see plenty of candidates who were the flavor of the month.

And I'll clarify that I'm not saying press secretary is the job Vivek wants, rather it's a job he's qualified to hold.

---

With all due respect, the guy has started an run a successful business. Don't confused excellent communication skills with pigeonholing into a Press Secretary role.

Your hate is getting the better of you here.

---

That is not remotely qualifying experience for the presidency. He hasn't led against an opposing political party, he hasn't led through natural disasters, he hasn't confronted foreign powers, he hasn't deployed the national guard, or been deployed in uniform himself. We have our choice of Republicans with track records in these domains. It's totally unserious to pick the guy - even a very smart guy - with no such experience and hope he can learn on the job.

That comes from no place of hate. I said in my first post that Vivek should run for a lesser office and build that experience.

---

Please, you thought he should "run" for press secretary. Lol

The Desantis dogs are out tonight. The desperation before the debate. Can't wait for Wednesday.

Tibbers said:

---

Well not every position is going to perfectly align with everyone. Let's not kid ourselves though, your mind was already made up.

---

Oh hey, yeah, he's not going to do anything at this point to change my mind. Regardless this should be a red flag to anybody - hater and supporter.

@Tibbers - explain this:

https://freebeacon.com/national-security/ramaswamy-cut-off-aid-to-israel-after-2028/

BharatAg said:

---

@Tibbers - explain this:

https://freebeacon.com/national-security/ramaswamy-cut-off-aid-to-israel-after-2028/

---

Quote:

---

This week, he told the Washington Free Beacon that he supports ending the military funding once the current package passed by Congress expires in 2028, arguing that the aid will be unnecessary after he successfully negotiates new peace treaties between Israel and its Arab neighbors during the first year of his presidency......

Ramaswamy has acknowledged that he is a newcomer to some of these foreign policy debates. He noted that he "didn't know much of this six months ago," in an interview with radio host Hugh Hewitt about Taiwan this month, adding that the "only difference between me and the other candidates is I'm the only one actually willing to admit that."

---

The arrogance is what's such a huge turnoff.

"Hey, I had no clue about foreign affairs until about 6 months ago, but then I read a couple of things on the internet and yeah, I feel like I've got it under control. I'll solve the that whole pesky Middle East thing in my first year in office. It'll be easy for a genius like me. And oh yeah, all the other candidates? The ones who've served in Congress and in cabinet positions? Yeah, obviously there's no way they could know something that I don't".

Experience in Washington seems to broadly consist of learning how to scam, steal and sell out the American people.

There is no magic to foreign policy. Trump showed that. We are the biggest dick in the room, we need more like Trump and Vivek who know how to swing it.

Modern version of Big Stick diplomacy… I call it Big Swinging Dick diplomacy.

When Vivek says America first, he means it. And when you look at establishment republican and democrat views on foreign policy particularly in the Middle East, you end up with proxy war over proxy war. While that's good for the military industrial complex, I don't think it's good for peace. As Trump showed, it's possible to navigate those waters without war.

It's almost as if an outsider viewpoint, divorced from our intelligence community assessments, yields better results. I'm sure countries on the other end would greatly respond, as they did with Trump, to another outsider. It doesn't take experience to know how to win people over and persuade folks logically especially when you hold all the cards.

Or are you more of a fan of wars fought in other countries based on manufactured evidence like the war in Iraq under Bush? Rather, steering clear of war like Trump successfully did in Syria while also maintaining pressure by taking out Solemani? Tell me, what's the difference between Desantis and Biden when it comes to Ukraine?

Vivek is a useful idiot to Trump. Soon enough he will be "Vivek the imposter" or "vividiot " some such nonsense.

There are some team DeSantis people and never trumpers that have been on full 'attack trump' mode for a while, but I think Vivek's success at penetrating the social media sphere and preventing DeSantis from winning over as much of the maga crowd as they expected or hoped has led to some quick attacks at Vivek and Vivek continues to respond to every attack brilliantly.

I still doubt some of Vivek's grandiose ideas for disbanding the deep state. Totally getting rid of certain bureaucracies is unrealistic. And I still think DeSantis, with his experience, deserves to be #1, yet I continue finding myself defending some of the attacks on Vivek.

Let's see how these guys handle themselves at the first debate on Wednesday.

I think we are closer to "Robot Ron" than whatever you are spewing. Wednesday will be a good test. A juxtaposition between Vivek and Desantis. Can't wait to see it. I just wish it was only those two on the debate stage.

Tibbers said:

---

I think we are closer to "Robot Ron" than whatever you are spewing. Wednesday will be a good test. A juxtaposition between Vivek and Desantis. Can't wait to see it. I just wish it was only those two on the debate stage.

---

Not sure what you mean by "robot Ron". I too wish it was only Vivek and RD. Seems like a win/win though the jury's still out on VR.