Vivek Ramaswamy

[ccp]

I like Vivek a LOT better when he is going after the libs then Republicans.

I thought he was good with very good points.

He even handled the plants in the audience who claim to be Republican  such as the college professor who asks what are you going to do to preserve DEI?  (I don't believe a Republican would ask this question for a second)

Of course, he was set up about his comments that 1/6 was possibly entrapment or at least the point that it demonstrator plants contributed to it. Abby the DNC propagandist got what she hoped so the CNN "analysts" could spend all their time using this one piece to toast Vivek over the coals and ignore all his main messages.

I also noticed Kaitlen Collins [the Dylan Mulvany impersonator] immediately after the townhall was over completely ignored his main messages to comment only that he keeps lying and pushing conspiracy theories and bashed him up and down CNN style.

CNN anchors are such bastards.

I did think the Townhall that Ron DeSantis did was excellent format - much better at getting information than these dumb debates, and Ron was excellent.  And surprisingly Jake Tapper did good job was not particularly partisan in running it though as usual they have DAvid Axelrod and crew come on to minimize the value of anything he said and just tell us it was futile because Trump is so far ahead so lets move on folks.

[Crafty_Dog]

https://www.theepochtimes.com/opinion/advice-for-vivek-ramaswamy-even-if-he-doesnt-want-it-5554598?utm_source=News&src_src=News&utm_campaign=breaking-2023-12-29-1&src_cmp=breaking-2023-12-29-1&utm_medium=email&est=d4F6Ua4DwjLQ%2Fr74LE7L%2BJRYDa3HuY8W8553V7UvuJ1goJPD26FXxUXQHxPY4%2FxGSeCD

[ccp]

Roger Simon of PJ Media fame:

Vivake for '28 

[ccp]

https://pjmedia.com/matt-margolis/2024/01/03/ramaswamy-destroys-wapo-reporter-over-dumb-gotcha-question-about-white-supremacy-n4925193

BRAVO!

[Crafty_Dog]

I saw him in a one-on-one with some FOX host the other night and again was really impressed.   Though there may be some arrogant, glib hubristic snark there in abundance, there is also a lot of genuine substance.

[ccp]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/he-is-folding-like-a-tent-vivek-ramaswamy-mocked-as-he-drops-out-of-iowa-debate-saying-cnn-was-mean-to-him/ar-AA1moc0k?ocid=msedgntp&pc=DCTS&cvid=1e41a011fbeb47ba8c892a75c7384d37&ei=15

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/vivek-ramaswamy-touts-endorsement-of-white-supremacist-former-rep-steve-king/ar-AA1mpZKm

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/are-we-finally-done-with-vivek-ramaswamy/ar-AA1mqetF

Vivek's post rattled the Left Wing media bee hive and they send their little bees to swarm all over the airways to attack him in every way they can think of.

Dozens of stings trying to kill him.

[Crafty_Dog]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=92&v=DZ2d2F9xCd0&embeds_referring_euri=https%3A%2F%2F710wor.iheart.com%2F&source_ve_path=Mjg2NjY&feature=emb_logo

[ccp]

well I don't see him as DJT VP
but maybe he would , if interested, make a good WH Chief of Staff

or Press correspondent

he certainly has good messaging

and he has executive (CEO) experience

[Crafty_Dog]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zq2cP-qXrII

[ccp]

good rant

on second thought He might not be a good spokesperson for Trump such as WH correspondent or Chief of Staff since he wants to tell the truth  .  That would not work well with Trump.

[ccp]

Vivek for Press Secretary:

https://pjmedia.com/stephen-kruiser/2024/01/05/the-morning-briefing-ok-ive-got-the-perfect-gig-for-vivek-ramaswamy-n4925210

[Crafty_Dog]

Save the Constitution from Big Tech:
By Vivek Ramaswamy and Jed Rubenfeld
WSJ
Facebook and Twitter banned President Trump and numerous supporters after last week’s disgraceful Capitol riot, and Google, Apple and Amazon blocked Twitter alternative Parler—all based on claims of “incitement to violence” and “hate speech.” Silicon Valley titans cite their ever-changing “terms of service,” but their selective enforcement suggests political motives.

Conventional wisdom holds that technology companies are free to regulate content because they are private, and the First Amendment protects only against government censorship. That view is wrong: Google, Facebook and Twitter should be treated as state actors under existing legal doctrines. Using a combination of statutory inducements and regulatory threats, Congress has co-opted Silicon Valley to do through the back door what government cannot directly accomplish under the Constitution.

It is “axiomatic,” the Supreme Court held in Norwood v. Harrison (1973), that the government “may not induce, encourage or promote private persons to accomplish what it is constitutionally forbidden to accomplish.” That’s what Congress did by enacting Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act, which not only permits tech companies to censor constitutionally protected speech but immunizes them from liability if they do so.

The justices have long held that the provision of such immunity can turn private action into state action. In Railway Employees’ Department v. Hanson (1956), they found state action in private union-employer closed-shop agreements—which force all employees to join the union—because Congress had passed a statute immunizing such agreements from liability under state law. In Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives Association(1989), the court again found state action in private-party conduct—drug tests for company employees—because federal regulations immunized railroads from liability if they conducted those tests. In both cases, as with Section 230, the federal government didn’t mandate anything; it merely pre-empted state law, protecting certain private parties from lawsuits if they engaged in the conduct Congress was promoting.

Section 230 is the carrot, and there’s also a stick: Congressional Democrats have repeatedly made explicit threats to social-media giants if they failed to censor speech those lawmakers disfavored. In April 2019, Louisiana Rep. Cedric Richmond warned Facebook and Google that they had “better” restrict what he and his colleagues saw as harmful content or face regulation: “We’re going to make it swift, we’re going to make it strong, and we’re going to hold them very accountable.” New York Rep. Jerrold Nadler added: “Let’s see what happens by just pressuring them.”

Such threats have worked. In September 2019, the day before another congressional grilling was to begin, Facebook announced important new restrictions on “hate speech.” It’s no accident that big tech took its most aggressive steps against Mr. Trump just as Democrats were poised to take control of the White House and Senate. Prominent Democrats promptly voiced approval of big tech’s actions, which Connecticut Sen. Richard Blumenthal expressly attributed to “a shift in the political winds.”

For more than half a century, courts have held that governmental threats can turn private conduct into state action. In Bantam Books v. Sullivan (1963), the Supreme Court found a First Amendment violation when a private bookseller stopped selling works state officials deemed “objectionable” after they sent him a veiled threat of prosecution. In Carlin Communications v. Mountain States Telephone & Telegraph Co. (1987), the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found state action when an official induced a telephone company to stop carrying offensive content, again by threat of prosecution.

As the Second Circuit held in Hammerhead Enterprises v. Brezenoff (1983), the test is whether “comments of a government official can reasonably be interpreted as intimating that some form of punishment or adverse regulatory action will follow the failure to accede to the official’s request.” Mr. Richmond’s comments, along with many others, easily meet that test. Notably, the Ninth Circuit held it didn’t matter whether the threats were the “real motivating force” behind the private party’s conduct; state action exists even if he “would have acted as he did independently.”

Either Section 230 or congressional pressure alone might be sufficient to create state action. The combination surely is. Suppose a Republican Congress enacted a statute giving legal immunity to any private party that obstructs access to abortion clinics. Suppose further that Republican congressmen explicitly threatened private companies with punitive laws if they fail to act against abortion clinics. If those companies did as Congress demands, then got an attaboy from lawmakers, progressives would see the constitutional problem.
Republicans including Mr. Trump have called for Section 230’s repeal. That misses the point: The damage has already been done.
Facebook and Twitter probably wouldn’t have become behemoths without Section 230, but repealing the statute now may simply further empower those companies, which are better able than smaller competitors to withstand liability. The right answer is for courts to recognize what lawmakers did: suck the air out of the Constitution by dispatching big tech to do what they can’t. Now it’s up to judges to fill the vacuum, with sound legal precedents in hand.

Liberals should worry too. If big tech can shut down the president, what stops them from doing the same to Joe Biden if he backs antitrust suits against social-media companies? Our Framers deeply understood the need for checks and balances in government. They couldn’t anticipate the rise of a new Leviathan with unchecked power to make extraconstitutional political judgments under the mantle of private enterprise.

American democracy is under siege from Silicon Valley’s political plutocracy. Next week Mr. Trump will be a private citizen without a Twitter account. Our new class of corporate monarchs will still control whether and how Americans can hear from the president—or anyone else. We have devolved from a three-branch federal government to one with a branch office in Silicon Valley. But there’s no democratic accountability for Jack Dorsey and Mark Zuckerberg.

Hard cases make bad law, and Mr. Trump presented America with a hard case last week. The breach of the Capitol is a stain on American history, and Silicon Valley seized on the attack to do what Congress couldn’t by suppressing the kind of political speech the First Amendment was designed to protect.

There’s more at stake than free speech. Suppression of dissent breeds terror. The answer to last week’s horror should be to open more channels of dialogue, not to close them off. If disaffected Americans no longer have an outlet to be heard, the siege of Capitol Hill will look like a friendly parley compared with what’s to come.

Ordinary Americans understand the First Amendment better than the elites do. Users who say Facebook, Twitter and Google are violating their constitutional rights are right. Aggrieved plaintiffs should sue these companies now to protect the voice of every American—and our constitutional democracy.

Mr. Ramaswamy is founder and CEO of Roivant Sciences and author of the forthcoming book “Woke Inc.” Mr. Rubenfeld, a constitutional scholar, has advised parties who are litigating or may litigate against Google and Facebook.

[Crafty_Dog]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DZh5H-neBkE

[Crafty_Dog]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LTqXK4XTR7o&t=171s

[Crafty_Dog]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/ann-coulter-s-bluntly-racist-admission-to-vivek-ramaswamy-is-jaw-dropping/ar-BB1m5LIf?ocid=msedgntp&pc=HCTS&cvid=982893d4a3ca471aa55b5f69c281fa98&ei=31

[Body-by-Guinness]

Vivek on fire:

BREAKING: Vivek Ramaswamy (@VivekGRamaswamy)
EXPLODES, outside Trump's courtroom in New York, says, "This is a politicized persecution that is nakedly apparent."

"What I want to do is dive a little bit deeper into what we actually learned today in that courtroom. What do we see in there?"

"First of all, I learned a lot from being in there in person."

"It is one of the most depressing places I have been in my life. But it is fitting, because the only thing more depressing than the environment of that courtroom is what's actually happening in there. It's straight out of a Kafka novel."

"The prosecution's main strategy appears to be to bore the jurors into submission. And if you look in that direction, sadly, it may appear to actually be working."

"Now, I would like for anybody, anybody here in the press, anybody at home, anybody at MSNBC or the media afterwards to clearly state what exactly is the crime that Donald Trump committed? Oh, wait. We have not heard a good answer to that question. It has been vague until today."

"You heard Michael Cohen's testimony, after which I would say it is less clear than ever what that crime actually was. They'll say falsifying business records. Well, let's look at who did we learn falsified business records today. Get what hour, 2 hours. Felt like it could have been 7 hours of Michael Cohen talking about how he falsified business records."

"Okay, so you have a guy who has been a perjurer in the past that is now saying he falsified business records. What is the crime that Donald Trump committed now? It appears to be what they might allege is some sort of bookkeeping error or whatever."

"The real bookkeeping that we need. Accounting of Judge, merchants own family member collecting millions of dollars as a democratic operative, using the existence of this trial as a fundraising ploy for democrats. This is unconscionable."

"Imagine if the same shoe fit the other foot. Imagine if it was Joe Biden that was on trial. You had a republican judge whose son was collecting millions of dollars as a republican operative, what would you all be saying? This would not be justice. This is injustice at its worst."

"So let's, let's go even a layer deeper. Right, because let's go. Let's go even a layer deeper."

"Actually, the alleged crime here is supposedly, they try to point to this every day, that he does not actually use campaign funds, that he used personal funds. Well, let's get this straight. Suppose Donald Trump had used campaign funds to make a personal expense. They'd be going after him for that."

"So if they're going to get him going or they're going to get him coming, that is the best proof that this is a politicized sham. Let's go through it piece by piece."

"If you tell somebody to go buy you a suit and you want to look good on television because that'll affect the voters, the way voters vote for you, you know what? They prosecute politicians if they use campaign funds to buy a suit."

"If they say, go get a haircut, if you use campaign funds to get a haircut because you want to look good to the voters, they will actually prosecute you for using campaign funds for a personal expense."

"Yet the entire legal theory of this, in case, the whole case that Alvin Bragg has brought, depends on one premise for them to charge this as a felony, is that Donald Trump somehow should have used campaign funds to make an allegedly personal payment."

"Yet if he had done that, their case against him would be even stronger. This is garbage. That is the best proof that you have that if they're going to get him, Cohen or get him coming, it's damned if you do, damned if you don't. This is a sham. This is not the United States of America. This is some third rate banana republic."

"If this were happening in another country, we would be laughing at them as a sham democracy. I am ashamed as an American citizen to sit here in a courtroom watching the former leader of the free world, and let's be honest, likely next leader of the free world sitting with the indigenous dignity in this dingy, third rate courtroom with fourth rate prosecutors and a fifth rate lawyer on the stand as a witness who actually is violating attorney client privilege left and right. Nobody's even talking about that."

"So this is a shame. Shame on the spirit in our country's history. But we will get through it and be stronger, because you know, who ultimately actually cast the vote on this case, it's not just the jurors in that jury box. It's every one of you at home. It's every American who votes this November to say no to the weaponization of justice."

"And if you're at home, you may say, you know what? I don't agree with everything Donald Trump's ever said. You know what, I may not agree with some of his policies, even though they were great policies for four years, but you do agree, whether you are Democrat or Republican or black or white or gay or straight or man or woman, that our justice system should be blind to politics."

"That regardless of whether your last name is Biden or Trump, regardless of whether you've been a politician or not, you get a fair shake in our own legal system."

"And when you have a prosecutor who campaigned on the pledge of going after Trump and then keeps his campaign pledge, when you have a judge whose kids are collecting money from democratic operatives by fundraising off the very trial that that judge is presiding over, and then telling the US president that he's subject to a gag order, that he can't talk about it, that is not justice. That is a bastardization of what this country was founded on."

"And I'm here, and all of us are here as friends of Donald Trump, supporting him in our personal capacity, sharing our opinions. That's why we're here today. But I hope every American at home who isn't able to be in that courtroom is able to see what's actually happening there."

"And when you do, we will have a landslide of historic proportion this November. If every American understands the injustice that's playing out in that courtroom today, so may God bless our country. I pray for our future, and let's pray for our country being stronger on the other side of this disgusting sham politician."

https://x.com/simonateba/status/1790419793662595261?s=12

[ccp]

well said