Vivek Ramaswamy on Juneteenth Holiday

[PAF]

Vivek Ramaswamy: That’s How We Honor Juneteenth Today




Less than 2 months later...


Vivek Ramaswamy Calls Juneteenth A 'Useless' Holiday




Can he ever not flip-flop any position???

[Brian4Liberty]

...
Can he ever not flip-flop any position???

No, he’s terrible. It should be the primary goal of the liberty movement to discredit and smear Vivek Ramaswamy every day. He says such terrible things. It really should be our first priority to attack him every day.

We will soon change the name of the forum to the anti-Vivek forum, where our primary purpose will be to oppose and smear Vivek Ramaswamy every time he opens his mouth. He is the greatest threat to liberty. Only in this way will liberty be victorious.

[Intrepid]

Do you even read/watch/listen to your own posts? LOL

[Brian4Liberty]

Do you even read/watch/listen to your own posts? LOL

Not sure what you mean. Vivek Ramaswamy is literally Hitler. He must be defeated at all costs.

[Intrepid]

Not sure what you mean. Vivek Ramaswamy is literally Hitler. He must be defeated at all costs.

That was aimed at PAF, not you Brian.

What I am saying to PAF is that there is no flip-flop. In the 1st video, Vivek explains that instead of self-flagellation for what a sinful nation we are, what we should be celebrating is how much progress we've made as a nation.

In the 2nd video, a reporter asks "Do you think Juneteenth is useless?" and Vivek replies, "Yes, basically." which dovetails with his thoughts in the 1st video.

How Many Black Holidays Are Celebrated in the United States?

PAF is getting lazy.... Not even reading his posts before hitting Submit.

[TheCount]

What I am saying to PAF is that there is no flip-flop. In the 1st video, Vivek explains that instead of self-flagellation for what a sinful nation we are, what we should be celebrating is how much progress we've made as a nation.

Wouldn't Juneteenth be more celebrating progress than self flagellation?

[PAF]

No, he’s terrible. It should be the primary goal of the liberty movement to discredit and smear Vivek Ramaswamy every day. He says such terrible things. It really should be our first priority to attack him every day.

We will soon change the name of the forum to the anti-Vivek forum, where our primary purpose will be to oppose and smear Vivek Ramaswamy every time he opens his mouth. He is the greatest threat to liberty. Only in this way will liberty be victorious.

Americans’ Struggles With Truth, Accuracy and Accountability

Even though I don't vote, I think it is important to know who is grounded in their positions and when speaking to audiences, especially in areas when/where/how money is being spent.

I would just not be happy knowing everything about a 'soaring in the polls' candidate and keeping it to myself, while others believe that he is the second coming of Christ. Don't you remember Trump was "Sent by God"?

Referencing a well-know quote, and putting my 2 cents into it: When Fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the American flag [OWS Trump] and carrying a cross [Big Pharm Vivek].

HR Tip of the Week - Juneteenth Holiday: What Employers Need to Know (Senate Bill 475)

... many employers joined the list of companies that have made a practice of observing Juneteenth as a paid holiday, and more employers are likely to join them now that it's a federal holiday.

... However, there are exceptions in some states where some employers may be required to provide premium pay regardless of how many hours the employee worked. For example, Massachusetts requires retail establishments with seven or more employees (including the owner) to pay a premium of 1.2 times the employee's regular rate for work on Juneteenth and certain other legal holidays in 2021 (this premium-pay requirement is being phased out in subsequent years). Absent a state requirement, some employers choose to offer premium pay to employees as an incentive to work on a holiday.

... Check your state law, which may have restrictions. For example, Massachusetts prohibits certain employers from requiring employees to work on Juneteenth (and certain other holidays).

If June 19 is a Saturday, the federal government will observe Juneteenth on the preceding Friday. If June 19 is a Sunday, the federal government will observe Juneteenth on the following Monday. Many employers will follow the same practice.

Make sure you understand the rules that apply to your business and clearly communicate, and consistently apply, your policy on holiday pay.

https://sbshrs.adpinfo.com/blog/june...s-need-to-know

[Snowball]

going nowhere faster than a speeding bullet.

[69360]

I've noticed so far that he has no real positions and just says what he thinks the people he is speaking to want to hear. I don't consider him a serious candidate.

[Occam's Banana]

Meh.

Suppose:
(1) we grant all of his alleged "flip-flops" (real or imagined), and
(2) he won, and
(3) he then ended up doing the wrong side of every one of those "flip-flops".

In that case, he would still just be a par-for-course Republican.

So it's all upside (on the chance that (3) doesn't hold, and he does the right side of any of those "flip-flops").

/devil's-advocate

[jct74]

I've noticed so far that he has no real positions and just says what he thinks the people he is speaking to want to hear. I don't consider him a serious candidate.

That's kind of been my impression of him from the beginning but I'm probably still going to vote for him in the primary because he's the only GOP candidate supporting weed legalization. There are a few other things I like about him too, he is extremely articulate in pushing back against woke nonsense and I appreciate the different perspective when it comes to foreign policy. I definitely think he is more libertarian-minded than any of the other candidates, even though yeah it is hard to tell what he truly believes.

[PAF]

Meh.

Suppose:
(1) we grant all of his alleged "flip-flops" (real or imagined), and
(2) he won, and
(3) he then ended up doing the wrong side of every one of those "flip-flops".

In that case, he would still just be a par-for-course Republican.

So it's all upside (on the chance that (3) doesn't hold, and he does the right side of any of those "flip-flops").

/devil's-advocate

Americans’ Struggles With Truth, Accuracy and Accountability

Of course, voting for a good politician, even if said politician flip-flops, may possibly do a couple/few good things up in the White House, we all know that typically more than not, politicians/government is the creation of everything bad.

It comes down to the actual people. Because if The People are willing to overlook mixed messages, inconsistencies, give passes, which eventually will lead to bad policies, how could they ever hold anybody accountable?

While some may feel that Vivek has some good messages, I believe [without trying to sound condescending] that people should be more critical, especially when forfeiting their rights over to others. Who really wins?

[Occam's Banana]

Americans’ Struggles With Truth, Accuracy and Accountability

Of course, voting for a good politician, even if said politician flip-flops, may possibly do a couple/few good things up in the White House, we all know that typically more than not, politicians/government is the creation of everything bad.

It comes down to the actual people. Because if The People are willing to overlook mixed messages, inconsistencies, give passes, which eventually will lead to bad policies, how could they ever hold anybody accountable?

"The People" are inert ballast who have always been (effectively) "willing to overlook mixed messages, inconsistencies, [and] give passes" - and they always will be. There is nothing you or I or anyone else can do or say that is ever going to change that. (That's exactly why politicians and bureaucrats are so fond of "our democracy".)

If things change significantly (whether for better or for worse), it will not be due to "The People" - it will be due (as it always has been) to a relatively quite small fraction of people.

So complain as much as you like about "Flip Flop" 'Swamy (or Mitt, or this one, or that one, or the other one). As true as it might be, it won't make any difference [1]. If your hope for change is contingent upon the mass of "The People" finally waking up (so to speak) and "hold[ing] anybody accountable", then you have doomed yourself to eternal disappointment.

While some may feel that Vivek has some good messages, I believe [without trying to sound condescending] that people should be more critical, especially when forfeiting their rights over to others. Who really wins?

One should always support, promote, and defend good messages, regardless of from whom they come.

One should always oppose, expose, and criticize bad messages, regardless of from whom they come.

If you make the "whom" the issue, then you are indulging a cult of personality (regardless of whether the "whom" is Trump, or Ramaswamy, or RFK Jr., or anyone else - and regardless of whether you are "for" or "against" that "whom").



[1] To put things in terms of "facts" vis-à-vis theories or "narratives" (per my discussion in another thread), Ramaswamy's supporters will simply adapt his alleged "flip-flops" to fit their preferred narrative, as needed. For example, they will deny that an alleged "flip-flop" is actually any such thing (perhaps correctly, in some cases), or they will explain it as an evolution of his thoughts (also perhaps correctly, since people do sometimes change their minds about things), or they will excuse it as a to-be-expected political necessity, or some other thing (such as the "devil's advocacy" I offered in my previous post). You are not going to dissuade anyone from supporting him that way unless their support was tentative (or non-existent) to begin with - and those you do manage to dissuade will simply get behind some other candidate (who is apt to be objectionable for the same or other reasons, but from whom that support will not be so easily peeled).

[PAF]

"The People" are inert ballast who have always been (effectively) "willing to overlook mixed messages, inconsistencies, [and] give passes" - and they always will be. There is nothing you or I or anyone else can do or say that is ever going to change that. (That's exactly why politicians and bureaucrats are so fond of "our democracy".)

No disagreement on that obvious point.

If things change significantly (whether for better or for worse), it will not be due to "The People" - it will be due (as it always has been) to a relatively quite small fraction of people.

No disagreement on that obvious point.

So complain as much as you like about "Flip Flop" 'Swamy (or Mitt, or this one, or that one, or the other one). As true as it might be, it won't make any difference [1]. If your hope for change is contingent upon the mass of "The People" finally waking up (so to speak) and "hold[ing] anybody accountable", then you have doomed yourself to eternal disappointment.

You miss the entire point here. What I do is provide information. Unless the data/information is incorrect, and I would hope that somebody would point that out to me so that I could make the correction, there is nothing to debate. To change the mass of "The People", or half, I have no such expectation. To imply that I complain... I have no clue as to where you even got that idea. Care to share?

Tell me, why do you take the time to read/listen to, and post on the forum, Michael Malice, Dave Smith, and others? I would tend to believe that it is because they hit home to you, and they provide information/insight that you wish to share with others. Should I claim that you are complaining, that few people will even care, and that it will be you who will be doomed and ultimately be disappointed?

As you are well aware, and I will repeat myself, I am an Agorist who on a day to day basis tries to circumvent the strangle-hold of government, whenever and wherever possible. I certainly am not looking for any politician, or government, to forfeit my rights to, or believe that they are coming to save me.

One should always support, promote, and defend good messages, regardless of from whom they come.

When some Big Pharm guy paid to have records wiped before an election, thought experiments on the likes of Piketty are raised (in his own book no less), formal letters written “to drive diversity as a top priority”, wants to expand background checks at the Federal level, stated that he is the only candidate who has committed, as president, to “militarily defending Taiwan” against China, states that "we should aim to vaccinate everybody...", I am not going to promote him or any of his messages. Because absent consistency, a debate or On the Record, others may blindly follow him just because 1 or 2 issues sound good to them. I would rather promote somebody who is in-line and very consistent to my libertarian principles. And if you state "this just makes the contrarian in me like him even more.", that will not cause me to practice Agorism any more or less than I already do.

One should always oppose, expose, and criticize bad messages, regardless of from whom they come.

I seem to typically get hell for doing such things

If you make the "whom" the issue, then you are indulging a cult of personality (regardless of whether the "whom" is Trump, or Ramaswamy, or RFK Jr., or anyone else - and regardless of whether you are "for" or "against" that "whom").

Outside of my circle of friends and family, I do not concern myself with external personalities. If I did, I would honestly say that aside from his abhorrently abysmal record, I am certain that Trump and I would get along fantastically well and have one hell-u-va time hitting the town ;-)

[1] To put things in terms of "facts" vis-à-vis theories or "narratives" (per my discussion in another thread), Ramaswamy's supporters will simply adapt his alleged "flip-flops" to fit their preferred narrative, as needed. For example, they will deny that an alleged "flip-flop" is actually any such thing (perhaps correctly, in some cases), or they will explain it as an evolution of his thoughts (also perhaps correctly, since people do sometimes change their minds about things), or they will excuse it as a to-be-expected political necessity, or some other thing (such as the "devil's advocacy" I offered in my previous post). You are not going to dissuade anyone from supporting him that way unless their support was tentative (or non-existent) to begin with - and those you do manage to dissuade will simply get behind some other candidate (who is apt to be objectionable for the same or other reasons, but from whom that support will not be so easily peeled).

I provide information. What people do, or don't do, that is on them, not on me. And if they don't like it, well, there is plenty of other material to read which may better suit them.


But I will share something positive: My liberty group has been around for many years. At times we can get anywhere from 5-10, 15-25, depending on the time of year, upward to 150 or so visitors during election season. Most are too far gone, but there are some who are actually interested in the material that we present, and some occasionally return. Every so often, a person who is actually looking for answers, comes to the eventual realization that it is up to him/her, not politicians/government, and we get another want-to-be Agorist on board (that alone is a drastic change and does take time). The On the Records partly assist in that effort, showing that no person can truly/fully represent another. And then the question is posed: "Who Owns You?". That is why I do what I do. And to clarify, other members of our group have their own unique ways of reaching others, which is why we make such a great team ;-)

[dannno]

I've noticed so far that he has no real positions and just says what he thinks the people he is speaking to want to hear. I don't consider him a serious candidate.

What does that have to do with this bull$#@! thread?

There was no flip flop... both videos were 100% consistent with each other.

I also disagree with what you said, a lot of his positions are NOT popular positions, but he holds them and speaks about them anyway in order to try and make them popular positions because he is a persuasive individual.

A lot of his positions ARE popular positions with people here on this website, this website representing a tiny minority of the population.

[69360]

What does that have to do with this bull$#@! thread?

There was no flip flop... both videos were 100% consistent with each other.

I also disagree with what you said, a lot of his positions are NOT popular positions, but he holds them and speaks about them anyway in order to try and make them popular positions because he is a persuasive individual.

A lot of his positions ARE popular positions with people here on this website, this website representing a tiny minority of the population.

He seems to have taken both sides of many positions. I have no idea what the guy would do if elected. I'm not a fan. He has no political experience and is running for our highest office? That didn't work out so well last time. I don't think he has any chance at all of winning the primary and I would not vote for him in it. I suppose if he did win it I could vote for him in the general, it's better than Biden.

[dannno]

He seems to have taken both sides of many positions.

Many? Do you have an example?

Specifically, one where he has taken both sides of the same position in the last year.

If it was three years ago, for example, maybe he changed his mind? That isn't taking both sides of a position, that's adjusting your position based on new information that has come out.

[tebowlives]

"Ramaswamy’s views on Jan. 6 and Donald Trump’s role in it have evolved since 2021. The presidential candidate once called Trump’s actions on the day “downright abhorrent” and criticized “stolen election” claims in his second book, “Nation of Victims.”


"It was a dark day for democracy. The loser of the last election refused to concede the race, claimed the election was stolen, raised hundreds of millions of dollars from loyal supporters, and is considering running for executive office again,” he wrote in the book. "I'm referring, of course, to Donald Trump."

this now

"Ramaswamy, who has said that he would have made different decisions than Trump on Jan. 6 but does not consider Trump’s actions criminal, told ABC News that his comments condemning Trump in the days after the riot were about how he handled Jan. 6.


"What I would have done? ... Starting that day under the same circumstances, I would have said, as soon as there are people violently approaching the Capitol, 'Stand down,’” he said in an interview with ABC News.


"Standing by while protesters turned violent, I think, was a bad mistake of leadership," he added while reiterating, "I don't think Donald Trump was the cause of Jan. 6."


https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/vive...or%20democracy.

First part is a bit harsh. I especially agree with the last part. Maybe not a 180 but a 120.

Ramaswamy has been handling reporters with their half quotes and ignoring his answers while trying to put their spin on it.

[GlennwaldSnowdenAssanged]

What does that have to do with this bull$#@! thread?

There was no flip flop... both videos were 100% consistent with each other.

I also disagree with what you said, a lot of his positions are NOT popular positions, but he holds them and speaks about them anyway in order to try and make them popular positions because he is a persuasive individual.

A lot of his positions ARE popular positions with people here on this website, this website representing a tiny minority of the population.

I don't think people here agree on anything. My guess is no one is a good enough candidate for some.

[dannno]

"Ramaswamy’s views on Jan. 6 and Donald Trump’s role in it have evolved since 2021. The presidential candidate once called Trump’s actions on the day “downright abhorrent” and criticized “stolen election” claims in his second book, “Nation of Victims.”


"It was a dark day for democracy. The loser of the last election refused to concede the race, claimed the election was stolen, raised hundreds of millions of dollars from loyal supporters, and is considering running for executive office again,” he wrote in the book. "I'm referring, of course, to Donald Trump."

this now

"Ramaswamy, who has said that he would have made different decisions than Trump on Jan. 6 but does not consider Trump’s actions criminal, told ABC News that his comments condemning Trump in the days after the riot were about how he handled Jan. 6.


"What I would have done? ... Starting that day under the same circumstances, I would have said, as soon as there are people violently approaching the Capitol, 'Stand down,’” he said in an interview with ABC News.


"Standing by while protesters turned violent, I think, was a bad mistake of leadership," he added while reiterating, "I don't think Donald Trump was the cause of Jan. 6."


https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/vive...or%20democracy.

First part is a bit harsh. I especially agree with the last part. Maybe not a 180 but a 120.

Ramaswamy has been handling reporters with their half quotes and ignoring his answers while trying to put their spin on it.

Do you have a response for my post by any chance?

Many? Do you have an example?

Specifically, one where he has taken both sides of the same position in the last year.

If it was three years ago, for example, maybe he changed his mind? That isn't taking both sides of a position, that's adjusting your position based on new information that has come out.

[acptulsa]

Specifically, one where he has taken both sides of the same position in the last year.

It's important that it all be in the last year. Two years ago is just a flip flop, you see. He spent decades being a power monger, but now that he has seen the light ya just gotta believe he's suddenly a good libertarian, now that we have made it somewhat more popular.

You know you're being lied to when you get contradictory tweets in the same week. You know. Like Trump in '16.

[PAF]

It's important that it all be in the last year. Two years ago is just a flip flop, you see. He spent decades being a power monger, but now that he has seen the light ya just gotta believe he's suddenly a good libertarian, now that we have made it somewhat more popular.

You know you're being lied to when you get contradictory tweets in the same week. You know. Like Trump in '16.

He's too much, isn't he?

If only Swamy's face could be superimposed onto this:

"The People" are inert ballast who have always been (effectively) "willing to overlook mixed messages, inconsistencies, [and] give passes" - and they always will be. There is nothing you or I or anyone else can do or say that is ever going to change that. (That's exactly why politicians and bureaucrats are so fond of "our democracy".)

That about sums it up.


@dannno , I will leave you with this:

When some Big Pharm guy paid to have records wiped before an election, thought experiments on the likes of Piketty are raised (in his own book no less), formal letters written “to drive diversity as a top priority”, wants to expand background checks at the Federal level, stated that he is the only candidate who has committed, as president, to “militarily defending Taiwan” against China, states that "we should aim to vaccinate everybody..."

[acptulsa]

He's too much, isn't he?

If only Swamy's face could be superimposed onto this:







That about sums it up.

Just change the skin tone. It'll be close enough for government work.

[Invisible Man]

B4L makes a good point.

Trump is far and away the favorite to win the Republican nomination, and stands a good chance of being reelected president.

We should concentrate our efforts more on opposing Trump, rather than worrying about Ramaswamy. If Ramaswamy gets more primary support, that will just help whittle down Trump's lead, which would be a positive.

Obviously Ramaswamy is a phony. That's a given. He's a politician.

[acptulsa]

Obviously Ramaswamy is a phony. That's a given. He's a politician.

Like Trump, he only just became a politician when he launched this campaign. And I don't know what to make of him, to tell you the truth. I like that people are talking about him, both because of the libertarian noises he's making and because I think it's funny that a significant portion of the "racist party" is swooning over someone who looks like he's here on an H1b.

Nothing's saving DeSantis at this point. These early risers never go the distance against the favorite. I've seen it many times. And besides, the "street cred" they gave Trump by indicting him is gifting him this nom just like the unending publicity gifted him the nom in '16.

[PAF]

B4L makes a good point.

Trump is far and away the favorite to win the Republican nomination, and stands a good chance of being reelected president.

We should concentrate our efforts more on opposing Trump, rather than worrying about Ramaswamy. If Ramaswamy gets more primary support, that will just help whittle down Trump's lead, which would be a positive.

Obviously Ramaswamy is a phony. That's a given. He's a politician.

You and B4L both make good points. But it doesn't matter who the president is. My goal is expose all of them, whether that effort is good, bad or indifferent. TPTB will never allow Ron Paul, Tom Massie or the likes anywhere near the ballot. People are sheep, and whether left or right, they all want their handouts.

I would, however, love to see debates between RFK Jr and other. That would be epic and cause me to chuckle ;-)

Lew wrote an article today Ron Paul for President! which is a really nice read.

[tebowlives]

Do you have a response for my post by any chance?

I just did on the post you quoted. Vivek changed the narrative. He's sharp. I just have my doubts.

and

In 2020, he called a bill "sensible" from Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) that would provide people taxpayer-backed masks during the COVID-19 pandemic. But on Aug. 1, 2023, Ramaswamy replied, "No," when asked if he "ever supported 'Masks for All' legislation by Bernie Sanders," records show.

New info on the masks made him change his mind? Dunno pretty obvious those garbage cheap masks were worthless imo

[PAF]

I just did

and

In 2020, he called a bill "sensible" from Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) that would provide people taxpayer-backed masks during the COVID-19 pandemic. But on Aug. 1, 2023, Ramaswamy replied, "No," when asked if he "ever supported 'Masks for All' legislation by Bernie Sanders," records show.

New info on the masks made him change his mind? Dunno pretty obvious those garbage cheap masks were worthless imo

Oh that cracks me up

Not only that, but he wants to eliminate the FBI, but then transfer 15,000 FBI Agents to the DEA of, all agencies.... so that they can do the job of Federal Gun Background Checks

What a way to reduce the size/scope of government

[Anti Globalist]

I've never cared at all for Juneteeth.

[dannno]

It's important that it all be in the last year. Two years ago is just a flip flop, you see. He spent decades being a power monger, but now that he has seen the light ya just gotta believe he's suddenly a good libertarian, now that we have made it somewhat more popular.

You know you're being lied to when you get contradictory tweets in the same week. You know. Like Trump in '16.

I never said he was a libertarian.. He has A LOT of libertarian policies, and a lot of people who aren't libertarians also liked Ron Paul.