Tucker interviews Vivek
-
I'm not sure if I agree with everything he says, but his ability to express his views and articulate the logic behind them is pretty impressive.
Make America Great Again!No slogans...I'd be interested to hear what some of our left-leaning members thing about this interview.
-
@jon-nyc said in Tucker interviews Vivek:
The tension between gay and trans is talked about quite often by Andrew Sullivan.
A bit like blacks and hispanics?
I was only joking
-
@Renauda said in Tucker interviews Vivek:
His take on the Russia Ukraine war is just plain wrong. Clueless.
His views on that war all seem based on the notion that the US has little self-interest in the conflict.
Education is extremely important.
-
@jon-nyc said in Tucker interviews Vivek:
The tension between gay and trans is talked about quite often by Andrew Sullivan.
A bit like blacks and hispanics?
@Doctor-Phibes said in Tucker interviews Vivek:
A bit like blacks and hispanics?
But they aren't necessarily mental cases.
-
@Renauda said in Tucker interviews Vivek:
His take on the Russia Ukraine war is just plain wrong. Clueless.
His views on that war all seem based on the notion that the US has little self-interest in the conflict.
@Horace said in Tucker interviews Vivek:
@Renauda said in Tucker interviews Vivek:
His take on the Russia Ukraine war is just plain wrong. Clueless.
His views on that war all seem based on the notion that the US has little self-interest in the conflict.
Indeed and he is quite mistaken in holding to that notion.
-
@Renauda said in Tucker interviews Vivek:
His take on the Russia Ukraine war is just plain wrong. Clueless.
His views on that war all seem based on the notion that the US has little self-interest in the conflict.
@Horace said in Tucker interviews Vivek:
@Renauda said in Tucker interviews Vivek:
His take on the Russia Ukraine war is just plain wrong. Clueless.
His views on that war all seem based on the notion that the US has little self-interest in the conflict.
I’d like to see him own it then, in all its implications. Don’t just say “we don’t have an interest in Ukraine”, say “I don’t mind if Russia rebuilds its empire”.
-
@Horace said in Tucker interviews Vivek:
@Renauda said in Tucker interviews Vivek:
His take on the Russia Ukraine war is just plain wrong. Clueless.
His views on that war all seem based on the notion that the US has little self-interest in the conflict.
I’d like to see him own it then, in all its implications. Don’t just say “we don’t have an interest in Ukraine”, say “I don’t mind if Russia rebuilds its empire”.
@jon-nyc said in Tucker interviews Vivek:
I’d like to see him own it then, in all its implications. Don’t just say “we don’t have an interest in Ukraine”, say “I don’t mind if Russia rebuilds its empire”.
Well-put.
"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08
The saying, "Lite is just one damn thing after another," is a gross understatement. The damn things overlap.
-
He doesn't really talk like he'd just let Russia roll wherever it pleases. He starts talking about it at 30:00.
Link to video -
Listened to him from 30:00 until the yak about populism started. He proposes an armistice along the lines of Korea but takes NATO off the table as means of enforcing or guaranteeing the peace. He also has some naive notions about Russia agreeing to stop meddling in third countries and withdrawing nuclear weapons from the Kaliningrad enclave. I won’t even bother to comment on his thoughts about Sino-Russian relations and Taiwan.
He really needs to be briefed on the reality of the world beyond his corporate offices let alone the borders the USA.
Elbows up!
-
Listened to him from 30:00 until the yak about populism started. He proposes an armistice along the lines of Korea but takes NATO off the table as means of enforcing or guaranteeing the peace. He also has some naive notions about Russia agreeing to stop meddling in third countries and withdrawing nuclear weapons from the Kaliningrad enclave. I won’t even bother to comment on his thoughts about Sino-Russian relations and Taiwan.
He really needs to be briefed on the reality of the world beyond his corporate offices let alone the borders the USA.
@Renauda said in Tucker interviews Vivek:
Listened to him from 30:00 until the yak about populism started. He proposes an armistice along the lines of Korea but takes NATO off the table as means of enforcing or guaranteeing the peace. He also has some naive notions about Russia agreeing to stop meddling in third countries and withdrawing nuclear weapons from the Kaliningrad enclave. I won’t even bother to comment on his thoughts about Sino-Russian relations and Taiwan.
He really needs to be briefed on the reality of the world beyond his corporate offices let alone the borders the USA.
That is enough for me to reject him.
-
A bit of a lack of long term thinking, or not thinking along the decision tree of all the consequences. It is then that it is realized that the original idea was maybe not the correct one.
-
@jon-nyc said in Tucker interviews Vivek:
I’d like to see him own it then, in all its implications. Don’t just say “we don’t have an interest in Ukraine”, say “I don’t mind if Russia rebuilds its empire”.
Well-put.
@George-K said in Tucker interviews Vivek:
@jon-nyc said in Tucker interviews Vivek:
I’d like to see him own it then, in all its implications. Don’t just say “we don’t have an interest in Ukraine”, say “I don’t mind if Russia rebuilds its empire”.
Well-put.
Yes. And it's not just Russia and China. We need to build a world where the international costs of aggression far outweigh the potential rewards.
-
If Vivek is convinced any of that is in America's best interest, then he'd be in favor. Maybe he's just too dumb to see consequences, as TG guesses, or maybe he's not educated enough on the issues yet. In that same interview, he makes it clear that he's likely to change his mind on some things, if new information or further reflection indicates he should do so. I'm not going to hold him to a series of litmus tests about whether he's supportable as a candidate. That way lies a list of zero supportable candidates. Except maybe for career politicians who know to avoid saying things that fail litmus tests. And end up saying nothing at all.
-
No, in most cases I would not either. That said, a president's most important job is foreign policy. Sovereignty is a pretty important part of that, and the world needs the US to help lead the way there. If he indeed believes that rewarding Russian aggression does not harm US interests, that is a killer for me.
“I am fond of pigs. Dogs look up to us. Cats look down on us. Pigs treat us as equals.” ~Winston S. Churchill
-
Ramaswamy strikes me as a person who might be suited for an appointment along the lines of Secretary of Industry. I think with his technocratic background he could do well as such. I do not however see him to be suitable as POTUS or a role that calls for statesmanship and diplomacy.
-
No, in most cases I would not either. That said, a president's most important job is foreign policy. Sovereignty is a pretty important part of that, and the world needs the US to help lead the way there. If he indeed believes that rewarding Russian aggression does not harm US interests, that is a killer for me.
@Mik said in Tucker interviews Vivek:
No, in most cases I would not either. That said, a president's most important job is foreign policy. Sovereignty is a pretty important part of that, and the world needs the US to help lead the way there. If he indeed believes that rewarding Russian aggression does not harm US interests, that is a killer for me.
He does seem to be primarily concerned with domestic issues, and has firm opinions on those. The Presidency is really a different ball of fish when it comes to strategy, particularly if things start to go south internationally.
