Ramaswamy 2024

[jamil]

I think a Governorship like Bug alluded to in the interim would be advantages for Vivek.

Uh, see #966? Bug thinks being a governor does not prepare one for the presidency.

 

[actaeon277]

I think being Governor is better prep than being in Congress.

 

[KG1]

He's a good administrator. He's done well in FL and has learned skills that are transferable. And he was a congressman in DC and learned a bit how that works. He sucks as a campaigner.

I think he worries too much about what people think of him. Most of the mistakes he's made has to do with the image he wants to project.

Just to name a couple, he had his surrogates do that stupid "god sent him" nonsense. Far be it for me as a non-believer, but it's an image he should probably actually earned, rather than just declaring himself God's right hand man.

The shoe thing really seals. If he's wearing something to make him look taller, says to me he thinks his height is a weakness, and is self-conscious about it. It's not a lot different from how Trump obsessed about his...uh..."hand size" early in his term. Also his crowd size at the inauguration. Obscessing over what people think about you, to the point you'll resort to deception, I think is a weakness. Wearing stuff to make you look taller is a deception. You short? Wear it. You bald? Wear it.

Wear it.

 

[KG1]

Uh, see #966? Bug thinks being a governor does not prepare one for the presidency.

Set you up for that one. Can I at least get an assist?

 

[jamil]

I think being Governor is better prep than being in Congress.

DeSantis has both. I dunno though. Maybe it doesn't matter that much as long as you've experienced a lot of different things as a leader, to give you some wisdom that transfers to POTUS.

 

[jwamplerusa]

This man fields questions like no other I have seen in politics. He also appears well grounded in his principles.

I was struck by how he said he would get term limits and other things done. Probably the only realistic way of moving such a thing forward.

x.com

twitter.com

Then add on this one for good measure.

 

[Ingomike]

This man fields questions like no other I have seen in politics. He also appears well grounded in his principles.

I was struck by how he said he would get term limits and other things done. Probably the only realistic way of moving such a thing forward.

x.com

twitter.com

He will not unless he is spearheading a constitutional amendment.

Conservatives are very concerned the left will hijack the amendment process and gut constitutional protections they value…

 

[jwamplerusa]

He will not unless he is spearheading a constitutional amendment.

Conservatives are very concerned the left will hijack the amendment process and gut constitutional protections they value…

Did you listen to the video?

He talked about grandfathering in the existing congress critters as a way to get them to vote for term limits (wouldn't apply to them). It was this proposal I was speaking of. He well understands the difficulty, but he knows how to get people to work toward something by NOT making it against their interest. It will only effect the "next guy".

Don't misunderstand, he is talking very confidently about some things which can ONLY be undertaken through the legislature. Often in the same breath as he speaks of things the Executive CAN DO unilaterally (e.g. sweeping EOs which prohibit an agency from enforcing rules not directly enumerated in law).

It won't matter if he doesn't get traction in Iowa. I am more supportive of him than anyone of the others, but realistically if he doesn't beat the polls by a wide margin then he probably will only stay in it another State or two.

 

[Ingomike]

Did you listen to the video?

He talked about grandfathering in the existing congress critters as a way to get them to vote for term limits (wouldn't apply to them). It was this proposal I was speaking of. He well understands the difficulty, but he knows how to get people to work toward something by NOT making it against their interest. It will only effect the "next guy".

Don't misunderstand, he is talking very confidently about some things which can ONLY be undertaken through the legislature. Often in the same breath as he speaks of things the Executive CAN DO unilaterally (e.g. sweeping EOs which prohibit an agency from enforcing rules not directly enumerated in law).

It won't matter if he doesn't get traction in Iowa. I am more supportive of him than anyone of the others, but realistically if he doesn't beat the polls by a wide margin then he probably will only stay in it another State or two.

Did not watch. Congress cannot vote in term limits. Heck, even with a strong president spearheading the effort a constitutional amendment would unlikely be done in a term. The requirements to be a congress critter are specified in the constitution…

 

[jamil]

Did you listen to the video?

He talked about grandfathering in the existing congress critters as a way to get them to vote for term limits (wouldn't apply to them). It was this proposal I was speaking of. He well understands the difficulty, but he knows how to get people to work toward something by NOT making it against their interest. It will only effect the "next guy".

Don't misunderstand, he is talking very confidently about some things which can ONLY be undertaken through the legislature. Often in the same breath as he speaks of things the Executive CAN DO unilaterally (e.g. sweeping EOs which prohibit an agency from enforcing rules not directly enumerated in law).

It won't matter if he doesn't get traction in Iowa. I am more supportive of him than anyone of the others, but realistically if he doesn't beat the polls by a wide margin then he probably will only stay in it another State or two.

It requires a constitutional amendment. Congress can vote on that. It takes a 2/3 majority to pass the amendment, then it takes 3/4 of the states to ratify.

The other way is to convene a constitutional convention which is what @Ingomike referred to. The fear is that a constitutional convention could theoretically scrap the whole thing. Or, to get their term limits, could negotiate away other rights, like the 2nd amendment. Of course that won't necessarily happen. And it still requires 3/4 of the states to ratify. But it's a fear that's out there.

The chances of getting term limits passed with either method is pretty well nil. If he's claiming he can get it done, let's just say I'm quite skeptical. He's not going to get it done simply by grandfathering current congressmen. Because solving that issue isn't even the biggest hurdle.

 

[jamil]

Did not watch. Congress cannot vote in term limits. Heck, even with a strong president spearheading the effort a constitutional amendment would unlikely be done in a term. The requirements to be a congress critter are specified in the constitution…

It can take years for the states to ratify.

 

[jwamplerusa]

It requires a constitutional amendment. Congress can vote on that. It takes a 2/3 majority to pass the amendment, then it takes 3/4 of the states to ratify.

The other way is to convene a constitutional convention which is what @Ingomike referred to. The fear is that a constitutional convention could theoretically scrap the whole thing. Or, to get their term limits, could negotiate away other rights, like the 2nd amendment. Of course that won't necessarily happen. And it still requires 3/4 of the states to ratify. But it's a fear that's out there.

The chances of getting term limits passed with either method is pretty well nil. If he's claiming he can get it done, let's just say I'm quite skeptical. He's not going to get it done simply by grandfathering current congressmen. Because solving that issue isn't even the biggest hurdle.

Gentlemen, I'm well aware term limits would require a constitutional amendment.

My only reference was to Ramaswamy's carrot approach to get such a thing getting initiated. In other words grandfather the existing legislators so they are not affected. To me that shows his business background and his practical approach to getting things done.

No changes will occur however if the same subversives and Communists get elected back to Congress and the executive branch.

A congressional turnover will not occur in 2024. Under the most optimistic scenario I can envision the next president does a Javier Miele, locks a bunch of the administrative State out of their offices and then starts the fight through the courts. Only then with a positive outcome and constant presidential leadership calling for new legislators not affiliated with the reduced administrative state might you have a chance at turning over some of Congress.

Personally I give any chance of positive change in 2024 less than a 5% chance. My wife however says I'm a pessimist so maybe it's 10%. Regardless I cannot give up.

 

[KG1]

How Vivek Plans To Win Trump Supporters

#shorts How Does Vivek Plan To Win Trump Supporters?

www.youtube.com

 

[jamil]

How Vivek Plans To Win Trump Supporters

#shorts How Does Vivek Plan To Win Trump Supporters?

www.youtube.com

Interesting. Die hard Trump supporters are also die hard America supporters. I think that’s true. I think Ramaswamy has to, not only convince them that he’s a better America-first candidate. He has to cut into that impenetrable belief in Trump himself.

 

[KG1]

Interesting. Die hard Trump supporters are also die hard America supporters. I think that’s true. I think Ramaswamy has to, not only convince them that he’s a better America-first candidate. He has to cut into that impenetrable belief in Trump himself.

Says he's a "George Washington AF Conservative". Maybe he needs to explain what that means.

 

[jamil]

Here’s an interesting video of Ramaswamy talking to an atheist.



My personal opinion as an agnostic, c’mon dude. Christian nationalists are a scant minority. You have way more to fear from the Left Wing social justice cult than Christian nationalists. Plus, we have a 1st Amendment that guarantees our right to freedom of religion. That includes freedom not to be religious. Maybe calm down.

 

[KG1]

Says he's a "George Washington AF Conservative". Maybe he needs to explain what that means.

Now IDK if by calling himself "George Washington AF" isn't just another way of saying that AF doesn't belong to one man. He's already been trying to make the case that what the AF agenda needs is fresh legs to move forward with.

I've once read this said about Washington.

Washington knew that no republic could survive if it depended on the leadership of one man. He was deeply committed to republican virtues, ready to serve his country and equally determined not to become a king.

Perhaps what Vivek means is that when it comes to AF no movement can survive if it is dependent on one man. He is deeply committed to AF conservative virtues, ready to serve his country and equally determined not to become a king.

This would be my takeaway based on listening to some of the things that he's been saying.

 

[Route 45]

"A Nation of Insurgents"

 

[KG1]

I think he’s saying he’s GW as ****.

I'm GW F*** Yeah!

 

[KG1]

Interesting. Die hard Trump supporters are also die hard America supporters. I think that’s true. I think Ramaswamy has to, not only convince them that he’s a better America-first candidate. He has to cut into that impenetrable belief in Trump himself.

I think he's been trying to convince them that he has fresh legs and that's what AF needs to progress as a movement.