Comments by "wvu05" (@wvu05) on "Vivek Ramaswamy RETURNS, CONFRONTED about Trump cognitive decline" video.

He definitely knew what to expect this time.
3
@ModerateMiddle Of course, you can have an opinion. My point is that if you want to hold a federal office, and you believe that the federal government has no role whatsoever on an issue (any issue), then your personal opinion is irrelevant to the question at hand. I ran for state legislature in 2006, and I didn't talk about my opinions about Defense spending.
3
@ModerateMiddle Oh, and Joe Manchin encouraged Jim Justice to run for governor as a Democrat leading up to 2016. A friend of mine from road races got recruited to run for office (he ultimately declined a run for Congress due to family illness, but he did run for state legislative and county commission races). Sherrod Brown started his career being recruited for a state legislative race as a sacrificial lamb candidate, but he surprised everyone and won.
3
@michaelparmetersr.9018 True, but why is someone running for President talking about things that he wants to change in the Constitution?
2
@ModerateMiddle He's not running for governor. His opinion is irrelevant on the issue. If he was truly a "Tenth Amendment absolutist," that's what he would say.
2
@ModerateMiddle You are aware that Jim Justice had never run for office before 2016, right? His claim to fame at the time was being the only billionaire in West Virginia. There are plenty of people who are known for one thing or another (and The Rock had previously dangled the idea of running for President), and various political insiders think that person might have a shot at winning office. Why do you find such things strange or conspiratorial? People recruit for jobs all the time. Or did you just not understand the basic nuts and bolts of how political parties work?
2
@ModerateMiddle It always comes to the age of consent with a certain crowd in American politics. In regards to your question, unless a candidate is advocating a nationwide age of consent, his/her opinions on the issue are irrelevant. Nikki Haley didn't go into the minutiae because she argues that it will be resolved at the state level. Tim Scott did bring it up because he supported a nationwide 15-week ban. In answer to your other query, I did support Roe, and when I ran, I was clear that it was the settled law of the land (at least it was in 2006 when I ran), so any notion of banning abortion was a waste of time and taxpayer dollars.
2
@ModerateMiddle I'm saying that there is a certain group, often on the libertarian right, that feels a need to bring up age of consent laws. Usernames notwithstanding, given that you are defending a candidate who has positioned himself on that portion of the right, I wasn't too terribly surprised that that's the example you've gone to. But since you keep wanting to hang your hat on that as the big example, when is the last time you saw a Presidential candidate (or a Congressional candidate, for that matter, of either House) discuss age of consent laws?
2
@ModerateMiddle "I am pro-choice, but I also understand why it [was] overturned to allow the issue to go back to the states." Then, you're not pro-choice, unless you use the logic of hiding behind states' rights to take away individual rights, but I've seen this movie before, and it never ends well. If you really do support reproductive rights, why are you fine with the Supreme Court taking them away for tens of millions of women?
2
@ModerateMiddle If you don't want someone to wonder about your intent, don't obviously twist someone's words to mean the opposite of what that person said. I'll go through this as simply as possible, you at one point defended Vivek on abortion by saying that he is "a Tenth Amendment absolutist" on the issue. I responded that if this is really the case, he shouldn't be focusing on an issue where he believes that he has no role in influencing policy. You countered with age of consent. Then, I asked when the last time was you saw a national candidate weigh in on that issue. Now, you're saying that I am somehow saying the opposite, but my argument has been consistent: a candidate's position on an issue that is different from the level than he/she is seeking. Therefore, if no federal candidate discusses a state issue, that reinforces my argument.
2
@ModerateMiddle But it is up to him. He could say that it's a state issue, but the only way that he really is "a Tenth Amendment absolutist" on the issue is if he wouldn't sign a national ban if it came to his desk. If he is willing to sign it, then he isn't taking a firm states' rights position after all. Therefore, it sounds like he almost certainly isn't advocating the position you are implying that he has. If he said that he wouldn't sign it because it's a state issue, the hard right would almost certainly get mad because they want a national ban.
2
 @tbone8839 Ask President Mondale, President Dole, President Dean, President Kerry, President Romney, or two-term President Poppy Bush how much polls a year out mean.
1
@michaelparmetersr.9018 As far as Trump goes, if Vivek says that he is "the greatest President of the 20th century," then he clearly sees Trump as a model. If he says that he will pardon Trump, that leads to questions about the rule of law and whether certain people really are above the law. Until the Republican Party figures out how to deal with Trump, he is completely unavoidable as an interview topic with those running against him.
1
"The fact that Trump is cognitively impaired." Freudian slip, Vivek?
1
@ModerateMiddle If he is such a "Tenth Amendment absolutist on the issue," why was he so lamenting when the people decided in a way he didn't like? And his "we needed to give a positive alternative" shows ignorance on the issue, because anti-abortion activists did put "positive amendments" on the ballot in other states, and those failed. It was buzzwords and word salad.
1
 @ModerateMiddle He also refused to answer the questions about "who's really running things" and making Biden run for President. Empty conspiracy rhetoric.
1
@ModerateMiddle Well, he didn't lead with "donor class." If he would have talked about the people writing the checks, fair enough, but he instead alluded to a conspiracy that is forcing Biden to run against his will. But he didn't lead with donors, and he didn't get to them until much later. And such a conspiracy is a combination of sour grapes (because he is clearly falling out of favor and crashing and burning) and ignorance of how things work. because there is no conspiracy forcing people to run. The money people can withhold to screw over a candidate, but they can't get someone in the race.
1
@ModerateMiddle Re: The Rock, candidates get recruited all the time. Saying "I think that you might be a good candidate for office" is far different from "if you don't run for office, we'll dig up dirt on you, because you're our puppet now."
1
@ModerateMiddle Elizabeth Warren. There are plenty of others, but she's the first one that came to mind.
1
@ModerateMiddle Yes, the Democrats will run with Biden. There is no credible alternative running, and it is far too late to build the operation necessary to run a national campaign for the primary, so barring a stroke or something, Biden will be the nominee.
1
@ModerateMiddle I don't know who asked him to run, and I don't care. It is not some shadowy conspiracy like you are trying to consider it. By that logic, Michael Moore is in on the conspiracy because he was trying to get Oprah to run in 2004. Do you honestly believe that potential candidates wake up one day saying "I want to go to Iowa or New Hampshire today" without some reason to believe that there might be a path to victory? Not everyone who runs gets recruited, but some do.
1
@ModerateMiddle Well, like it or not, some things that aren't a priority to you get to your desk as President. If you think "he'd sign it if there was a consensus," then he is obviously not a "Tenth Amendment absolutist" on the issue. And not having a coalition has never stopped Republicans before. While McConnell won't, there is no doubt in my mind that a Republican Senate Majority Leader who was obsessed with the issue the way McConnell is obsessed with judges would get rid of the filibuster for anything dealing with reproductive rights. Vivek can say that he wants to build consensus all he wants, but you don't do that by making your signature proposal taking away the right of people to vote with a modern-day literacy test for the age group most likely to vote against you.,
1
@kriskquinn.68 If he didn't want to name a specific person, he could have mentioned an organization or type of person. Instead he used a lot of words but didn't actually say anything, the Vivek Special.
1
@kriskquinn.68 Re: "declining acumen," he clearly had a bad night that spooked people, but considering the fact that he got the longshoreman's strike resolved without invoking Taft-Hartley, it looks to me like he's doing just fine.
1
@ModerateMiddle Oh, and someone else responded, so I realized there was something I missed as I scrolled down, namely the incredibly dishonest argument that the Supreme Court didn't take away anyone's reproductive rights. Even if you want to say that they didn't directly take them away when they left it to the states, there were several states that had "trigger laws" on the books ready to go the instant the Supreme Court did what they wanted, so they did just that. Then again, with a username like yours and advocating a right-wing position, I have to ask why there are so many on the right who like to do that. Is it an Overton Window thing? If you're on the right, just admit it.
1
@ModerateMiddle So, you are "radically pro-choice," but you are glad that tens of millions of women lost their right to choose? You are clearly using the Tim Pool definition of "pro-choice." It doesn't matter what you call yourself if everything else you say immediately undercuts it.
1
@ModerateMiddle "The trigger laws were simply outdated positions for most of those states." It didn't change the fact that they went into effect unless a judge, a referendum, or the legislature canceled it. They knew what the effects would be, and to pretend that wasn't is fundamentally dishonest.
1
@ModerateMiddle And if you hate the left/right spectrum so much, nobody forced you to pick "ModerateMiddle" as a username.
1
@kriskquinn.68 Yes, the nefarious "they" who are really doing everything. And just like all conspiracists, complete with a fail-safe out to make sure that your hypothesis can never be disproven.
1
@ModerateMiddle Someone replied on this thread that I had forgotten about long ago, and I realized that I missed one of your questions, so I apologize for the very lengthy delay. The part about seeing this movie before refers to using states' rights as an argument against federal civil rights laws.
1
@roddas26 How pathetic are you in victory going to a year-old video to gloat?
1
@roddas26 Going to a year-old video to concern troll isn't gloating to you? Either you're lying to me, or you've so surrounded yourself with other coarse people with nothing better to do that you've lost all sense of proportion.
1
@roddas26 If that helps you sleep at night.
1
@roddas26 How should I know? I'm not the one stalking year-old videos and offering nothing productive to the conversation.
1
@roddas26 You still don't have anything to contribute, do ya?
1
@roddas26 Sure you did. And I will win the next Olympic marathon.
1
@ModerateMiddle The Fourteenth Amendment has never been interpreted by courts to refer to a fetus. That's why you see such abhorrent nonsense as claiming that women are having abortions after giving birth. By definition, it is no longer an abortion after birth. And do you know what would make things easier for women in those situations? Not making them travel thousands of miles to get the care they need.
1