Vivek Ramaswamy

JulesKorngold

Argument Topic: No Way

@MichaelElpers
Vivek Ramaswamy wants to stop all military aid to Ukraine.  That's a showstopper for a rational human voter..

MichaelElpers

@JulesKorngold

I dont understand why that is a show stopper or irrational?

JulesKorngold

Argument Topic: What's YOUR View?

MichaelElpers said:

@JulesKorngold

I dont understand why that is a show stopper or irrational?

Should we stop military aid to Ukraine and let Russia crush it?

MichaelElpers

@JulesKorngold

We have provided 75 billion dollars in assistance to Ukraine.
What is the benefit we are receiving?  Are we responsible for policing the world?

We move closer to a nuclear war.  Closer to Russia and China partnership.  And closer to China using the opportunity to invade Taiwan.

JulesKorngold

Argument Topic: Surrender?

MichaelElpers said:

@JulesKorngold

We have provided 75 billion dollars in assistance to Ukraine.
What is the benefit we are receiving?  Are we responsible for policing the world?

We move closer to a nuclear war.  Closer to Russia and China partnership.  And closer to China using the opportunity to invade Taiwan.

So we should let Russia crush and take over Ukraine in the name of "peace"?!  Did you ever hear about Neville Chamberlain?

JulesKorngold

Argument Topic: Another Vivek Ramaswamy Showstopper

Ramaswamy describes himself as pro-life, and has said, "I think abortion is murder."  He supports state-level six-week abortion bans.

JulesKorngold

Argument Topic: And Another Showstopper

Ramaswamy supports expanding presidential power, pledging to rule by executive fiat to a degree unprecedented among modern U.S. presidents. He supports abolishing the Department of Education, FBI, and IRS. He asserts that the president has the unilateral power to abolish these agencies by executive order although under the Constitution, Congress has the power.

In other words, he wants a dictatorship.

MichaelElpers

@JulesKorngold

I agree with his abortion stance and abolishment of many government institutions.

JulesKorngold

Argument Topic: What A Surprise

MichaelElpers said:

@JulesKorngold

I agree with his abortion stance and abolishment of many government institutions.

So vote for him.  At least he'll get one vote.  

John_C_87

@JulesKorngold
Ramaswamy supports expanding presidential power, pledging to rule by executive fiat to a degree unprecedented among modern U.S. presidents

You can't expand well on what is nonexistent the powers of an American President do not factual exist in a legal sense. There are questionable concerns of the legality of what is described as appropriate legislation by congress. This wording is repeated in several Constitutional Amendments and the repetitive nature of this form of legislation in American Constitution truly alarming. I understand why the idea of a women President might sound foolish as being illegal, but Article II clearly states a President as a "He" The appropriate legislation would have been to address the executive office as a position open to “He” or “She” in writing prior to electing potential candidates. Never done it is not a point of being a clerical mistake it is a point of legislative negligence. To guaranty no United States Constitution representation.  What is already known as fact is that voters can lose a right to vote by conviction of felony crimes, what is not described is why no conviction or charges are even ever filed in court. Somehow lawyers do not know perjury is a potential criminal charge.

JulesKorngold as for pregnancy abortion legislation it does not belong in any courts of law subject to Supreme court appeal the issue of grievance is over a form of life threating immigration as a United State Constitutional grievance In voting in America I found voting for MIA may be the legally safest vote to be made.

There are in truth no Presidential candidates due to American constitutional conflicts of interest created by legal prejudice on all levels of governing and justice Mr. Ramaswamy is a potential executive officer only.

John_C_87

So we should let Russia crush and take over Ukraine in the name of "peace"?!  Did you ever hear about Neville Chamberlain?

The issue though changed is that one foreign conception of what a President is had openly threatened the world with Chemical Warfare to use as alibi to invade. While another communist representative has also made the same threat of chemical warfare on the world. The direction of the type of weapons said to be engaged for use really includes all nations not just the one which might be said to be the intentional target. The problem is was the invasion motivated by investigations into the narcotic hub of Europe or not? 

On top of this there are Constitutional issues of Maritime law regarding space and how the mineral rights of planets is to be globally delegated as a whole. I think it is safe to assume that white house executive officers including 46 and 47 are incompetent in this matter of national security and constitutional right.

MayCaesar

As far as the Republican candidates go, in my view he is one of the best two (the other one being DeSantis). For once since 2012 the party has actually produced not just acceptable, but good and solid candidates who have a decent grasp of economics and respect individual liberties for the most part.

JulesKorngold said:

@MichaelElpers
Vivek Ramaswamy wants to stop all military aid to Ukraine.  That's a showstopper for a rational human voter..

The idea that a person's position on such a specific foreign policy issue utterly disqualifies him as a candidate for rational voters is ludicrous. I also believe that the US should not aid Ukraine at the taxpayers' expense - am I irrational just because of that?

JulesKorngold

Argument Topic: Irrational

@MayCaesar
Yes, the idea of cutting off military aid to Ukraine is irrational.

• Ukraine is fighting for its survival. Russia has invaded Ukraine and is engaged in a full-scale war. If Ukraine is defeated, it will have a profound impact on the security of Europe and the world.
• Military aid is helping Ukraine to defend itself. The United States and its allies have provided Ukraine with billions of dollars in military aid, including weapons, ammunition, and training. This aid has helped Ukraine to hold off the Russian advance and inflict heavy casualties on the Russian forces.
• Cutting off military aid would embolden Russia. If the United States and its allies were to cut off military aid to Ukraine, it would send a signal to Russia that it can continue its aggression with impunity. This would embolden Russia to further invade other countries in the region, such as Moldova or Georgia.
• Cutting off military aid would be a betrayal of our allies. Ukraine is a democracy that is fighting for its freedom. The United States has a moral obligation to help Ukraine defend itself. Cutting off military aid would be a betrayal of our allies and would send a message that we are not committed to their security.
• Cutting off military aid would send a message that the United States is not willing to stand up to aggression. This could embolden other countries to take similar actions, such as China in Taiwan or North Korea in South Korea.
• Cutting off military aid would make it more difficult for Ukraine to negotiate a peace settlement with Russia. If Ukraine is seen as weak, Russia will be less likely to make concessions.
• Cutting off military aid would lead to a humanitarian crisis in Ukraine. Millions of people have already been displaced by the war, and cutting off military aid would make it more difficult for them to get the help they need.

MichaelElpers

@JulesKorngold

Why does Ukraine being defeated greatly effect the security of Europe? It was not an main ally of western nations before now. And so no it is not a betrayal of allies.  Additionally many of our allies arent living up to the agreement. We were somehow criticized when Trump made that an issue.

Next you seem to understand that Ukraine is a potential strategic position for the U.S. but dont look at it from Russias perspective. They dont want more Western interests right on their border providing military and economic strategic positions.  Providing the ability to cut off transport of their main economic product (oil) is a big deal.
They view NATO creeping in on them as a threat and while i do not agree with the way things have been handled I understand the perspective.
What if Russia put allies and territory up in Canada, Mexico, or perhaps Cuba? How would the U.S. respond?

Next Id argue that being involved in the conflict is actually emboldening China to invade all the more.  While it does show, that we may back our allies it also creates a potential partnership between our 2 biggest adversaries.  China may think how willing are Americans willing to sacrafice for 2 nations overseas? How much is too much for Americans to take?

MayCaesar

JulesKorngold said:

@MayCaesar
Yes, the idea of cutting off military aid to Ukraine is irrational.

• Ukraine is fighting for its survival. Russia has invaded Ukraine and is engaged in a full-scale war. If Ukraine is defeated, it will have a profound impact on the security of Europe and the world.
• Military aid is helping Ukraine to defend itself. The United States and its allies have provided Ukraine with billions of dollars in military aid, including weapons, ammunition, and training. This aid has helped Ukraine to hold off the Russian advance and inflict heavy casualties on the Russian forces.
• Cutting off military aid would embolden Russia. If the United States and its allies were to cut off military aid to Ukraine, it would send a signal to Russia that it can continue its aggression with impunity. This would embolden Russia to further invade other countries in the region, such as Moldova or Georgia.
• Cutting off military aid would be a betrayal of our allies. Ukraine is a democracy that is fighting for its freedom. The United States has a moral obligation to help Ukraine defend itself. Cutting off military aid would be a betrayal of our allies and would send a message that we are not committed to their security.
• Cutting off military aid would send a message that the United States is not willing to stand up to aggression. This could embolden other countries to take similar actions, such as China in Taiwan or North Korea in South Korea.
• Cutting off military aid would make it more difficult for Ukraine to negotiate a peace settlement with Russia. If Ukraine is seen as weak, Russia will be less likely to make concessions.
• Cutting off military aid would lead to a humanitarian crisis in Ukraine. Millions of people have already been displaced by the war, and cutting off military aid would make it more difficult for them to get the help they need.

Okay, and how is accepting these consequences irrational? Every decision results in trade-offs, and a rational mind with a different set of values than yours may weight those trade-offs against each other differently than you.

As an American taxpayer, you have to convince me that spending my hard-earned money on helping a faraway country survive an invasion by another faraway country is better than spending it in alternative ways, such as, for instance, build a few new highways in my congested area. I have not seen a rational discussion of this kind, I have only seen a list of negative consequences of not helping Ukraine.

If you think that your argument is rational - think again. And for context, my father was sent in jail by Putin's regime, so I do not exactly harbor a lot of love for it. But I am also a man of principles, and I do not think that just because a particular dictator mistreated someone dear to me, I now should place more value on opposing that regime than on almost anything else.

JulesKorngold

Argument Topic: Let's Go All The Way

Demand Ukraine pay for all the aid and equipment we gave them.

Give those funds to Russia.

Kick Germany,  Poland, and France out of NATO and let Russia take them over.

Recommend Putin for the Nobel Peace Prize. 

MichaelElpers

@JulesKorngold

...So when you are presented with an opposing view you just radicalize the opposing position with things that werent stated.

 Step outside your bubble and make an effort to perform some actual research/rebuttal.

JulesKorngold

@MichaelElpers
Which of my suggestions is "radical"?

MichaelElpers

@JulesKorngold

At least the last 3. And again none of those things were ever remotely proposed.

So maybe now youll go back to an actual argument.

JulesKorngold

MichaelElpers said:

@JulesKorngold

At least the last 3. And again none of those things were ever remotely proposed.

So asking Ukraine to pay for all the aid and equipment is reasonable?

MichaelElpers

@JulesKorngold

It is reasonable to expect some level of compensation whether that be oil, steel, wheat.

MayCaesar

JulesKorngold said:

Demand Ukraine pay for all the aid and equipment we gave them.

Give those funds to Russia.

Kick Germany,  Poland, and France out of NATO and let Russia take them over.

Recommend Putin for the Nobel Peace Prize. 

It would make no sense to make such demands of Ukraine given that the aid given to it had no such strings attached. The government, as per assumption, misused public funds - what happened happened and it is time now to move forward, not to try to reverse the damage by violating all international norms and agreements. And in the future, hopefully, the public will put more pressure on the government to make sure that the expenses are ultimately recuperated.