I’m not weighing in on the merits of any particular proposal (yet), but it seems a tad bit chippy to complain about this one thing when (apparently) the candidate is overall of high quality.

https://redstate.com/bonchie/2023/02/22/we-need-to-talk-about-the-right-wing-attacks-on-2024-candidate-vivek-ramaswamy-n706973

So, is Ramaswamy actually a shill for the WEF despite having positioned himself as a nationalist, anti-woke crusader during his career? There’s no actual evidence of that, and citing the fact that he was part of the organization’s Young Global Leaders list shows a profound misunderstanding or purposeful misrepresentation of what that means.

Ramaswamy did not sign up to be on that list. As far as I can tell, he never endorsed his joining it either. Rather, anyone can nominate anyone to be chosen, and the list itself is, at least ostensibly, non-political, being populated by business leaders and those who make a name doing charity work. For example, Tulsi Gabbard has made the list despite spending her time in the public eye fighting foreign interventions and the prospect of global governance.

Then there’s the clear insinuation that Ramaswamy is actually being pushed by George Soros. (tweet by Jack Posobiec)
In the wake of that, the internet lit up with claims Ramaswamy is actually a Soros plant. Is that true? Again, the answer is no. Rather, Ramaswamy was given a scholarship by the Paul and Daisey Soros Foundation back in 2011. Those scholarships are not political and are given to first and second-generation immigrants (Ramaswamy’s parents came from India). Ramaswamy would go on to earn his law degree with that money.

The obvious retort would be that somehow Ramaswamy is beholden to George Soros given he received a scholarship from his brother’s foundation. But that makes little sense given the presidential candidate is now worth $500 million. Somehow, I doubt a scholarship over a decade ago has any influence over him.

Finally, I’d like to point out how hypocritical this is. Donald Trump (and this isn’t a critique but an observation) was deeply embedded in elite circles before he ran for president. He donated to Kamala Harris, went to Chelsea Clinton’s wedding, and had many associations that were no better than those being alleged about Ramaswamy. The right should have consistent standards instead of picking and choosing when to apply these purity tests.

I don’t know much about Ramaswamy except that I think his candidacy is pointless, so I didn’t write this to boost him. I simply felt compelled to lay out the facts because some of the attacks being levied from certain parts of the right are dishonest. We should be better than that. If one doesn’t like Ramaswamy, they should point out the policies he promotes that they disagree with. This conspiratorial game of insinuation being played is garbage.

DeSantis could run and yet lose to Trump in the Rep primaries – which can be big damage (tho maybe far less now, after Biden’s losses). The better Vivek is, the harder for DeSantis to beat Trump.

I really like Vivek’s 8 year term limit on bureaucrats; I’ve long been favoring a 10 year Fed term limit on bureaucrats. I also now follow & like Sarah H. Sanders, who’s putting in Universal school choice as governor of Arkansas.

Point made. Thanks.

I’m not defending nor opposing Smith’s viewpoints here. My only point is the MSM’s clout is waning. One day, perhaps in the upcoming election, the old form of televised debates will collapse.

Why does something called the “Commission on Presidential Debates” in conjunction with one of the television news networks get to determine when and how we hear from the candidates? The CPD didn’t sponsor a debate until 1988 and last April the Republican National Committee passed a unanimous amendment prohibiting Republican Presidential candidates from participation in CPD sponsored debates.

For the past several election cycles Presidents have sat for long-form interviews with Youtubers and that is only more likely now. The MSM will not be able to keep non-DNC or GOP candidates from getting their message out and Dave Smith is custom made for getting attention in the Internet age. I think he stands a strong chance of getting an hour or two on stage with the two other candidates and if that happens it has potential for disruption.

Look how disruptive Trump was; a man who has spent decades in the limelight and on television and is a quick wit and has good, comedic timing. The big difference between Trump and Smith is Trump was trying to win. Yet Trump still destroyed the RNC debates. Imagine the affect a glib and well informed candidate could have if he were not trying to win?

Because Smith will appeal greatly to Bernie Bros., Antifa types and Occupy Wall Street’ers. He is an actual, real Libertarian. Not a politician. He’s very well read and up to speed on the issues. He thinks Trump and Obama should be prosecuted for war crimes and has the data to back up his claims.

Full disclosure; I like what I know of Dave Smith, and I agree with much of what he says. But he is really, really disgusted by the state of political affairs and makes no attempts to color his discourse with politically correct speech. He is a firebrand. He wants the U.S. military off of foreign soil. He wants the Federal Reserve audited, then dismantled, then disemboweled. He wants all the unelected bureaucrats of the alphabet agencies defunded. He wants defense budgets slashed. He thinks the U.S. prison system is a travesty.

Everyone, including him, knows he has no chance of winning. Republicans who dread another Democrat will vote Republican. But if he gets any reasonable amount of time to participate in an actual debate he will force a lot of difficult issues into the fore and he will help open some people’s eyes to the fallacy of the system; just like Trump, Bernie Sanders and Ron Paul did for many. He has spent most of the past several decades as a working, stand-up comic; so he’s good at public speaking, quick on his feet and a good communicator.

IMO, that position opens us up to nuclear blackmail.

Smith seems basically to be anti-U.S. foreign policy of the last 30 years. I know mistakes were made, but cutting our military budget at a time when China and Russia are teaming up to end the U.S. as a world power, that doesn’t make much sense.

He’s also a fan of LtCol Douglas McGregor, who has been wrong at every turn in his predictions about the Ukraine War. Not my cup of tea.

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?&q=Dave+Smith+Joe+Rogan&view=detail&mid=F99EB9AB60EDD9E6B811F99EB9AB60EDD9E6B811&FORM=VDQVAP&rvsmid=07A09CE687EEBD59190D07A09CE687EEBD59190D&ajaxhist=0

Yeah, I wasn’t vouching for the claims, just putting them out there. I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt that he’s seen the light unless he proves otherwise. Many of us here have “changed” and not looked back.