Vivek Ramaswamy’s 2024 POTUS campaign

[PAF]

All I can say after listening to this podcast is I haven't heard such a clear picture of what this country needs since Ron Paul ran for President. By the way, Vivek states why he was a libertarian and is now a conservative.

The desire is to graduate from conservative to libertarian, not the other way around. Still, it’s another flip-flop according to what he stated before: Vivek Ramaswamy: “I feel like I recoil when I see someone describe me as a conservative”.

2 hours long… I may take the time listen when I have more time. So far he’s a terrific historian which anyone can gather from a couple of books. It’s his “solutions” in the following interview that I have a huge problem with:

1. Vivek stated that he and his family never owned guns their entire lives. So the question is, did he buy a gun before, or after, he registered as a Republican and filed to run for POTUS?

2. Vivek stated that we have a mental health epidemic across America, and mentions banning social media from people under 15 or 16... instead of taking guns away.

3. Vivek mentions fentanyl, but failed to mention the failed and remarketed drugs that he pushed through the FDA (around the time the PREP Act was invoked?) and sold to human beings to make his fortune.

4. Vivek wants to shut down the FBI (<--I am all for it, but not for this-->) and replace it with a "Police Apparatus", so that said Police Apparatus can actually do the job of Background Checks.

5. Vivek wants to eliminate the FedDeptEd (<--I am all for it, but not for this-->) and use part of that money to put 3 LEO in every school.

 

[Swordsmyth]

OMG you're gonna source a douchbag article written by a douchbag over Harvard Law School and Cornell Law School? Who do you think the supreme court justices would consider the more authoritative source?

And the founders got it from Vattel... says who? the douchebag article? LOL

Seriously, that article is ridiculous.

It's really not a complicated issue. In fact it is so NOT complicated the founders didn't even think they needed to spell it out explicitly.

You are a natural born citizen if you were a citizen AT BIRTH and thus have no need to be naturalized.

Simple.

"If you can't explain it simply then you probably do not understand it well enough." --Albert Einstein

Pathetic.

Human legislation is not Nature.

 

[Swordsmyth]

...And not nature?

So, is the Constitution human legislation? Or did God decree slavery and valuing people as equal to two thirds of another person?

You think God decrees human government? When you need relief, do you spool up porn or just read Romans for inspiration?

God doesn't really like to be cursed because humans do stupid things. I haven't read every word of the Old Testament, but I read that much. Don't blame Him for Trump. Responsibility for that fiasco falls squarely on people just like you.

You are completely disconnected from what is going on.

I happen to believe that government as a concept is ordained by GOD.

The Constitution and the original BoR are human attempts to create a government aligned with our GOD given rights, the 14thA is a later piece of human legislation intended to resolve the citizenship of freed slaves but which was worded sloppily enough to naturalize those born here to legal residents.

Vattel (who was absolutely used as a legal scholar by the Founding Fathers and their predecessors) put in words how human nature (created by GOD) had granted citizenship to people born in a country to parents who where citizens of the country.
The Founding Fathers adopted his definition as a requirement for the highest office in the land.

Nature is natural, and no human legislation can alter nature.

Please try to stick to the facts and the discussion.

 

[PAF]

Stop editing my posts to remove the context.
Ramaswampy is a citizen, a 14thA citizen.
His parents were not citizens so he cannot be a Natural Born Citizen.
Only those born here to citizens are eligible.

Wonders never cease. We agree.

I have to give it to Swamy, he is one heck of a historian. Too bad his “solutions” are skewed, and he refuses to answer the basic question of when his parents became citizens. If it’s not an issue, why evade numerous times?

 

[Swordsmyth]

You ignored my post and called me a liberal because you lost the argument. It IS settled law.
The Constitution clarifies, for non-natural born citizens, to be "fourteen years a resident".
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...paign-Launch&p=7187367&viewfull=1#post7187367

The article you posted is ridiculous. Who cares whether the translation of the French "indigenes" from a 1758 work by de Vattel did not appear in English translation as "natural born" until after John Jay wrote to Washington, on July 25, 1787, “Permit me to hint, whether it would not be wise & seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government, and to declare expressly that the Command in chief of the american army shall not be given to, nor devolved on, any but a natural born Citizen.”, or that the pre-Constitutional Commonwealth of Massachusetts alternated between "natural born subjects" and "natural born citizens"?

Jay didn't want ADULT FOREIGNERS coming here to be elected POTUS. This was WHY the "Fourteen Years a Resident" stipulation was part of the Constitution. He wasn't thinking about babies being born on American soil in 1787, who 36 years later would be eligible for the presidency. Born here is NATURAL BORN. There are exceptions only (case below): "with the exceptions or qualifications (as old as the rule itself) of children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers, or born on foreign public ships, or of enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory, and with the single additional exception of children of members of the Indian tribes owing direct allegiance to their several tribes." (and that last one was removed in 1924).

This matter was settled in United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898). A Chinese anchor baby was deemed by the SCOTUS to be a "natural born citizen" with all rights accorded by the Constitution including Presidential Eligibility by a VERY conservative 19th century American bench in a 6-2 margin. The notion of "perpetual allegiance" was a British one, not American. And we all know what the Founders thought of that, don't we ???

Learn to read, that is not a definition of Natural Born Citizen, it is an additional requirement to prevent an NBC who travels abroad from returning and running for office without spending 14 years living here.

Jay and the others absolutely were thinking of future generations, that's why they made an exception for all living citizens at the time of adoption, including those not born here like Hamilton.

Citizen at birth doesn't equal Natural born, a piece of legislation could be adopted to make all citizens of France also have American citizenship at birth, it would not and could not make them natural born.

Wong was a citizen by birth due to the 14thA, he was not Natural Born and that case never even dealt with the NBC question.
Stop conflating citizenship by birth with Natural Born Citizenship.
Legislation in the form of an Amendment could be enacted to strip the right to citizenship from those born here to noncitizens, it could not do so to those born here to citizens.

The Founders kept most British Common Law, the Revolution was in defense of Common Law.

 

[Swordsmyth]

Social media has buzzed with GOP presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy’s apparent support of a massive inheritance tax.

Inheritance taxes, referred to as ‘death taxes,’ are taxes you pay when you receive money or property from the estate of a deceased man or woman.

“Unlike the federal estate tax, the beneficiary of the property is responsible for paying the tax, not the estate,” TurboTax writes.

“As of 2023, only six states impose an inheritance tax. And even if you live in one of those states, many beneficiaries are exempt from paying it.”

In Ramaswamy’s Nation of Victims: Identity Politics, the Death of Merit, and the Path Back to Excellence, he proposes the idea of a 59% minimum inheritance tax.

Ramaswamy draws the number from suggestions proposed by economists Thomas Piketty and Emmanuel Saez.

Piketty, an avowed socialist, authored Time for Socialism: Dispatches from a World on Fire, 2016-2021.

“Piketty argues that the time has come to support an inclusive and expansive conception of socialism as a counterweight against the hypercapitalism that defines our current economic ideology,” the book’s Amazon description reads.

Saez co-authored The Triumph of Injustice: How the Rich Dodge Taxes and How to Make Them Pay, which advocates a “form of capitalist reformism similar to that of Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren,” according to World Socialist Web Site.

“If anything, I’d take the figure Piketty and Saez arrive at as a minimum. We shouldn’t allow people to become billionaires just by having rich parents,” Ramaswamy wrote.

2024 Republicans on taxes: In his book, GOP prez candidate Vivek Ramaswamy said he favors a 59% inheritance tax rate at a minimum: “We shouldn’t allow people to become billionaires just by having rich parents”

Cites progressive economists Thomas Piketty and Emmanuel Saez pic.twitter.com/e7QswyxA0s

— Joseph Zeballos-Roig (@josephzeballos) August 22, 2023

In other words, it appears Ramaswamy supports stealing wealth you’ve earned from the fruits of your labor that you wish to pass down to your children.



More at: https://wltreport.com/2023/08/22/vivek-ramaswamy-supports-massive-tax/

 

[PAF]

Social media has buzzed with GOP presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy’s apparent support of a massive inheritance tax.

Inheritance taxes, referred to as ‘death taxes,’ are taxes you pay when you receive money or property from the estate of a deceased man or woman.

“Unlike the federal estate tax, the beneficiary of the property is responsible for paying the tax, not the estate,” TurboTax writes.

“As of 2023, only six states impose an inheritance tax. And even if you live in one of those states, many beneficiaries are exempt from paying it.”

In Ramaswamy’s Nation of Victims: Identity Politics, the Death of Merit, and the Path Back to Excellence, he proposes the idea of a 59% minimum inheritance tax.

Ramaswamy draws the number from suggestions proposed by economists Thomas Piketty and Emmanuel Saez.

Piketty, an avowed socialist, authored Time for Socialism: Dispatches from a World on Fire, 2016-2021.

“Piketty argues that the time has come to support an inclusive and expansive conception of socialism as a counterweight against the hypercapitalism that defines our current economic ideology,” the book’s Amazon description reads.

Saez co-authored The Triumph of Injustice: How the Rich Dodge Taxes and How to Make Them Pay, which advocates a “form of capitalist reformism similar to that of Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren,” according to World Socialist Web Site.

“If anything, I’d take the figure Piketty and Saez arrive at as a minimum. We shouldn’t allow people to become billionaires just by having rich parents,” Ramaswamy wrote.

2024 Republicans on taxes: In his book, GOP prez candidate Vivek Ramaswamy said he favors a 59% inheritance tax rate at a minimum: “We shouldn’t allow people to become billionaires just by having rich parents”

Cites progressive economists Thomas Piketty and Emmanuel Saez pic.twitter.com/e7QswyxA0s

— Joseph Zeballos-Roig (@josephzeballos) August 22, 2023

In other words, it appears Ramaswamy supports stealing wealth you’ve earned from the fruits of your labor that you wish to pass down to your children.



More at: https://timelessauthors.com/viewtopic.php?f=141&t=9584&p=103616#p103616

My my my. How is he going to backpedal that one.

Vivek Ramaswamy On The Record has been updated.

 

[Intrepid]

1. Vivek stated that he and his family never owned guns their entire lives. So the question is, did he buy a gun before, or after, he registered as a Republican and filed to run for POTUS?

Please let us know when you find out. I hope it requires hours and hours of your time to get to the bottom of this.

2. Vivek stated that we have a mental health epidemic across America, and mentions banning social media from people under 15 or 16... instead of taking guns away.

Ban social media for kids? I'm thinking that might be a pretty good idea. Take guns away? Sounds like you're a gun-grabber? Why are you here exactly?

3. Vivek mentions fentanyl, but failed to mention the failed and remarketed drugs that he pushed through the FDA (around the time the PREP Act was invoked?) and sold to human beings to make his fortune.

I don't understand what point you're trying to make with this.... You say it frequently. Vivek succeeded where Big Pharma failed. And that's a bad thing why exactly?

4. Vivek wants to shut down the FBI (<--I am all for it, but not for this-->) and replace it with a "Police Apparatus", so that said Police Apparatus can actually do the job of Background Checks.

His point is that there is a need for a federal law enforcement agency, it just cannot be the FBI. They are too far gone. Scrap it and let's start anew. I tend to agree with this.

5. Vivek wants to eliminate the FedDeptEd (<--I am all for it, but not for this-->) and use part of that money to put 3 LEO in every school.

I'm Ok with this (3 LEO's in every school). Doesn't have to be permanent... But a good first step while we figure out how to fix it (mass shootings).

 

[dannno]

Social media has buzzed with GOP presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy’s apparent support of a massive inheritance tax.

Inheritance taxes, referred to as ‘death taxes,’ are taxes you pay when you receive money or property from the estate of a deceased man or woman.

“Unlike the federal estate tax, the beneficiary of the property is responsible for paying the tax, not the estate,” TurboTax writes.

“As of 2023, only six states impose an inheritance tax. And even if you live in one of those states, many beneficiaries are exempt from paying it.”

In Ramaswamy’s Nation of Victims: Identity Politics, the Death of Merit, and the Path Back to Excellence, he proposes the idea of a 59% minimum inheritance tax.

Ramaswamy draws the number from suggestions proposed by economists Thomas Piketty and Emmanuel Saez.

Piketty, an avowed socialist, authored Time for Socialism: Dispatches from a World on Fire, 2016-2021.

“Piketty argues that the time has come to support an inclusive and expansive conception of socialism as a counterweight against the hypercapitalism that defines our current economic ideology,” the book’s Amazon description reads.

Saez co-authored The Triumph of Injustice: How the Rich Dodge Taxes and How to Make Them Pay, which advocates a “form of capitalist reformism similar to that of Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren,” according to World Socialist Web Site.

“If anything, I’d take the figure Piketty and Saez arrive at as a minimum. We shouldn’t allow people to become billionaires just by having rich parents,” Ramaswamy wrote.

2024 Republicans on taxes: In his book, GOP prez candidate Vivek Ramaswamy said he favors a 59% inheritance tax rate at a minimum: “We shouldn’t allow people to become billionaires just by having rich parents”

Cites progressive economists Thomas Piketty and Emmanuel Saez pic.twitter.com/e7QswyxA0s

— Joseph Zeballos-Roig (@josephzeballos) August 22, 2023

In other words, it appears Ramaswamy supports stealing wealth you’ve earned from the fruits of your labor that you wish to pass down to your children.



More at: https://timelessauthors.com/viewtopic.php?f=141&t=9584&p=103616#p103616

Did you watch the video? It doesn't say what the article says.

Are you saying you wouldn't trade a significant cut in income taxes (or complete abolition) for a slight increase in the inheritance tax?

Of course you want neither, that's not the "thought experiment" he described in the video.

The government would still get less money, but we would allow people greater upward mobility with virtually no income tax. There is already a very large inheritance tax, this would just increase it slightly.

This isn't even a proposal he wants to carry out, it is literally just a thought experiment.

 

[Intrepid]

Vattel (who was absolutely used as a legal scholar by the Founding Fathers and their predecessors) put in words how human nature (created by GOD) had granted citizenship to people born in a country to parents who where citizens of the country. The Founding Fathers adopted his definition as a requirement for the highest office in the land.

You're dropping facts out of your a$$ faster than Amber Heard. Point to something that supports this claim.

I'm kinda blown away by the fact that the Supreme Court apparently has never made a definitive ruling on this:

The natural-born-citizen clause has been mentioned in passing in several decisions of the United States Supreme Court, and by some lower courts that have addressed eligibility challenges, but the Supreme Court has never directly addressed the question of a specific presidential or vice-presidential candidate's eligibility as a natural-born citizen. Many eligibility lawsuits from the 2008, 2012, and 2016 election cycles were dismissed in lower courts due to the challengers' difficulty in showing that they had standing to raise legal objections. Additionally, some experts have suggested that the precise meaning of the natural-born-citizen clause may never be decided by the courts because, in the end, presidential eligibility may be determined to be a non-justiciable political question that can be decided only by Congress rather than by the judicial branch of government.[8][9]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural-born-citizen_clause_(United_States)

 

[GlennwaldSnowdenAssanged]

Thought experiment? If one person inherits $1 billion and another person inherits zero, how does that equate to everyone starting out in the same place?

This would never happen. The government wants to get paid and taking it from you everyday that you are alive is a sure thing. Taking it from you after you have died is questionable at best.

 

[Intrepid]

My my my. How is he going to backpedal that one.

Easy:

"I want an even playing field.... If we could all have a low to non-existent flat tax rate over the course of our lives, but trade that off so that each generation starts in the same place.... I would absolutely take that trade in an instant."

 

[Snowball]

You're dropping facts out of your a$$ faster than Amber Heard. Point to something that supports this claim.

I'm kinda blown away by the fact that the Supreme Court apparently has never made a definitive ruling on this:

Yes they did. Now, if someone wants to bring a NEW case then SCOTUS may or may not hear it, but it was established that anchor babies
are natural born citizens. I posted all the info.
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...paign-Launch&p=7187495&viewfull=1#post7187495

 

[Intrepid]

Yes they did. Now, if someone wants to bring a NEW case then SCOTUS may or may not hear it, but it was established that anchor babies
are natural born citizens. I posted all the info.
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...paign-Launch&p=7187495&viewfull=1#post7187495

Ahhh... Thanks for that.

 

[acptulsa]

You are completely disconnected from what is going on.

In your head? Damned right I am, thank God.

I happen to believe that government as a concept is ordained by GOD.

"Give unto Caesar what is of Caesar," said Jesus, "and give unto God what is of God."

And the arrogant fundie said, "Um, excuse me, Teacher, but that can't be right because God says Caesar is of God..."

*highly localized thunder and lightning*

 

[PAF]

Please let us know when you find out. I hope it requires hours and hours of your time to get to the bottom of this.

I'm not spending much time on it, but if I come across anything...

Ban social media for kids? I'm thinking that might be a pretty good idea. Take guns away? Sounds like you're a gun-grabber? Why are you here exactly?

You sound like Fed.gov, deciding what parents should decide. Nope, not a gun-grabber, my offspring learned how to shoot well before the age of 18.

I don't understand what point you're trying to make with this.... You say it frequently. Vivek succeeded where Big Pharma failed. And that's a bad thing why exactly?

I don't have a problem with getting rich at all. But if a car salesman dumps 4 quarts of oil-thickening-additives into an engine to hide the knocking and sells it to me, you can bet your ass I'm not going to be happy about it. Selling failed, remarketed drugs is the same thing. Sounds like you support the Prep Act and Operation Warp Speed. You disapprove of accountability.

His point is that there is a need for a federal law enforcement agency, it just cannot be the FBI. They are too far gone. Scrap it and let's start anew. I tend to agree with this.

Taken from the socialists handbook, if communism doesn't work, try, try again. I also remember when Obamacare passed... the republicans didn't want to eliminate it - they wanted "repeal and replace".

I'm Ok with this (3 LEO's in every school). Doesn't have to be permanent... But a good first step while we figure out how to fix it (mass shootings).

True colors. You support the Police State. "Good intention always lead to bad consequences." I believe Ron Paul said that more than several times. My solution is to have every teacher who wants to be armed, be armed, and forget Federal everything. As to how to fix the mass shootings? Stop prescribing psych drugs to kids that the Pharm Complex is passing out like candy and start raising children responsibly.


Oh, and as far as that "thought experiment" goes?

How about actually cut spending, eliminate 3-letter agencies such as the FBI and don't replace it with Police Apparatus anything, and reduce/eliminate taxes, instead of rolling FedDeptEd money over to 3 LEO in every school.

 

[acptulsa]

I'm Ok with this (3 LEO's in every school). Doesn't have to be permanent... But a good first step while we figure out how to fix it (mass shootings).

How about actually cut spending, eliminate 3-letter agencies such as the FBI and don't replace it with Police Apparatus anything, and reduce/eliminate taxes, instead of rolling FedDeptEd money over to 3 LEO in every school.

Comrade teacher, you have not been telling classes that Stalin and Mao are the Heroes of the Twentieth Century, nor have you talked any children into being genitally mutilated. *gunshots*

 

[PAF]

All I can say after listening to this podcast is I haven't heard such a clear picture of what this country needs since Ron Paul ran for President. By the way, Vivek states why he was a libertarian and is now a conservative.

Very good interview, I enjoyed watching it. I agree with Vivek about all of the mentioned problems, and even agree with him on some of the solutions. But there are still things that he says that I can't get on board with:


27m - Eliminate FBI, but wants to keep 15,000 FBI employees and move them to agencies such as the DEA.

32m - Trump failed to "Repeal and Replace" Obamacare.

35:30m - Vivek wants to work with a team of people from the business world, the investment world, the world of psychology, the world of organizational behavior, to put together screening for government employees.

38m - What I believe he said: Legislative is too cumbersome, Vivek doesn't want the permission or forgiveness of Congress.

40m - Vivek stated that his plan will "work in favor of congressmen and senators getting re-elected".

48m - Federal bureaucrats work 8 years in a position....... and then leave.

54m - The next administration won't have their hands tied.

1:02 - No longer libertarian, now a conservative... libertarians are an "unintended consequence".

1:49 - Wants to give Mexico an amount of aid to solve their problem. Wants to send intelligence into Mexico... intelligence is key but isn't there yet.

2:02 - Glen Beck is one of the greatest patriots in this country??? LOL


I might tune in tonight to see if/how his positions change. I am still not voting for him, or for anybody else.

 

[LatinsforPaul]

Very good interview, I enjoyed watching it. I agree with Vivek about all of the mentioned problems, and even agree with him on some of the solutions. But there are still things that he says that I can't get on board with:


27m - Eliminate FBI, but wants to keep 15,000 FBI employees and move them to agencies such as the DEA.

32m - Trump failed to "Repeal and Replace" Obamacare.

35:30m - Vivek wants to work with a team of people from the business world, the investment world, the world of psychology, the world of organizational behavior, to put together screening for government employees.

38m - What I believe he said: Legislative is too cumbersome, Vivek doesn't want the permission or forgiveness of Congress.

40m - Vivek stated that his plan will "work in favor of congressmen and senators getting re-elected".

48m - Federal bureaucrats work 8 years in a position....... and then leave.

54m - The next administration won't have their hands tied.

1:02 - No longer libertarian, now a conservative... libertarians are an "unintended consequence".

1:49 - Wants to give Mexico an amount of aid to solve their problem. Wants to send intelligence into Mexico... intelligence is key but isn't there yet.

2:02 - Glen Beck is one of the greatest patriots in this country??? LOL


I might tune in tonight to see if/how his positions change. I am still not voting for him, or for anybody else.

Thank you for your honest assessment. Do you agree that this interview is one of the best ones to know Vivek and what he's thinking that's out there currently?

 

[PAF]

Thank you for your honest assessment. Do you agree that this interview is one of the best ones to know Vivek and what he's thinking that's out there currently?

Yes, because it was more in depth.

I still do not like or appreciate politicians flip-flopping, which he seems to do. As I stated before, he extremely intelligent and very well-spoken. I am sure that some of what he proposes will help reign some things in, but in reality, it is the multi-national corporations, and the People especially, who determine where this country goes.

I don't mean any disrespect. I am an Agorist, deep down an anarchist, who believes that voting/politicians/government are acts of aggression toward others. If you have not followed me over the years, the reason that I provide "On the Records" is to show that it is not the little bones and some good policies that make the difference, but rather the bad policies that have caused this nation to deteriorate - and that is because the people have lost grounded principles and allow themselves as individuals to be represented by others [a topic for another conversation].

I will also add, it is important for the populace to hear the truth and ideas such as Vivek's and RFK Jr.'s. But it is equally important to use critical thinking, take personal responsibility and act as individuals. Politicians, no matter how good they sound, and government will never be the answer. Even Ron Paul himself understands that ;-)