Vivek Ramaswamy Presidential candidate

[Anonymous]

Imagine dumping on Vivek for inexperience, yet holding up Volodymyr as the last best hope of democracy and freedom is the global order .

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Great, another Republican businessman with no experience in government - didn't we learn from our last mistake?

And for those who think this makes him somehow better than an experienced politician, it doesn't. The functions of government and the politics behind it require an experienced hand to navigate; government doesn't operate like a corporation, nor should it.

While this is all true, it starts to fall on deaf ears when you get "experienced" duds like Biden in. The reason a Reality TV star like Trump and a longtime DC outsider, non-entity like Sanders surged in 2016 is because people got fed up with what "experience" was serving up for them.

DP. I'm way more likely to vote for one of these "outsiders" than most of DCUM, but when people start telling me that the outsider candidates are Ivy League education millionaires and billionaires, it sets off /my bullshit meter.

I actually agree with you on this, but I also view it as an almost structural impediment in and indictment of our political system. Tough to see a truly grassroots candidate rise to that level and get enough traction to be on a debate stage without being similarly "credentialed". Yang barely scraped it, but he also fits the same profile. There is just way too much money in politics.

I think Yang is very precisely the analog to Ramaswamy here. Young, rich, no experience in government, and with a signature proposal that's never going to happen but grabs attention.

What's Vivek's signature proposal? The voting thing? Or affirmative action?

The forced birth thing?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Great, another Republican businessman with no experience in government - didn't we learn from our last mistake?

And for those who think this makes him somehow better than an experienced politician, it doesn't. The functions of government and the politics behind it require an experienced hand to navigate; government doesn't operate like a corporation, nor should it.

While this is all true, it starts to fall on deaf ears when you get "experienced" duds like Biden in. The reason a Reality TV star like Trump and a longtime DC outsider, non-entity like Sanders surged in 2016 is because people got fed up with what "experience" was serving up for them.

DP. I'm way more likely to vote for one of these "outsiders" than most of DCUM, but when people start telling me that the outsider candidates are Ivy League education millionaires and billionaires, it sets off /my bullshit meter.

I actually agree with you on this, but I also view it as an almost structural impediment in and indictment of our political system. Tough to see a truly grassroots candidate rise to that level and get enough traction to be on a debate stage without being similarly "credentialed". Yang barely scraped it, but he also fits the same profile. There is just way too much money in politics.

I think Yang is very precisely the analog to Ramaswamy here. Young, rich, no experience in government, and with a signature proposal that's never going to happen but grabs attention.

What's Vivek's signature proposal? The voting thing? Or affirmative action?

I was thinking of the proposal to change the voting age.

Ok gotcha. Yeah, not likely, but it is also a proxy and touch point for civic mindedness, national identity, "America first", pioneering spirit, "merit" and other themes that animate a number of other things that come out of his mouth.

Recall Ann Coulters quip about Trump "They like your ideas, but not you". But yeah inexperience is a big stick people will hit him with, along with being an elite, and probably his otherness (vegetarian, Hindu, etc.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Great, another Republican businessman with no experience in government - didn't we learn from our last mistake?

And for those who think this makes him somehow better than an experienced politician, it doesn't. The functions of government and the politics behind it require an experienced hand to navigate; government doesn't operate like a corporation, nor should it.

While this is all true, it starts to fall on deaf ears when you get "experienced" duds like Biden in. The reason a Reality TV star like Trump and a longtime DC outsider, non-entity like Sanders surged in 2016 is because people got fed up with what "experience" was serving up for them.

DP. I'm way more likely to vote for one of these "outsiders" than most of DCUM, but when people start telling me that the outsider candidates are Ivy League education millionaires and billionaires, it sets off /my bullshit meter.

I actually agree with you on this, but I also view it as an almost structural impediment in and indictment of our political system. Tough to see a truly grassroots candidate rise to that level and get enough traction to be on a debate stage without being similarly "credentialed". Yang barely scraped it, but he also fits the same profile. There is just way too much money in politics.

I think Yang is very precisely the analog to Ramaswamy here. Young, rich, no experience in government, and with a signature proposal that's never going to happen but grabs attention.

What's Vivek's signature proposal? The voting thing? Or affirmative action?

The forced birth thing?

What about it? Is he materially different that other Republicans on this to the point that it would be a defining proposal of his campaign?

Anyway, PP already clarified what proposal they were talking about.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Great, another Republican businessman with no experience in government - didn't we learn from our last mistake?

And for those who think this makes him somehow better than an experienced politician, it doesn't. The functions of government and the politics behind it require an experienced hand to navigate; government doesn't operate like a corporation, nor should it.

While this is all true, it starts to fall on deaf ears when you get "experienced" duds like Biden in. The reason a Reality TV star like Trump and a longtime DC outsider, non-entity like Sanders surged in 2016 is because people got fed up with what "experience" was serving up for them.

DP. I'm way more likely to vote for one of these "outsiders" than most of DCUM, but when people start telling me that the outsider candidates are Ivy League education millionaires and billionaires, it sets off /my bullshit meter.

I actually agree with you on this, but I also view it as an almost structural impediment in and indictment of our political system. Tough to see a truly grassroots candidate rise to that level and get enough traction to be on a debate stage without being similarly "credentialed". Yang barely scraped it, but he also fits the same profile. There is just way too much money in politics.

I think Yang is very precisely the analog to Ramaswamy here. Young, rich, no experience in government, and with a signature proposal that's never going to happen but grabs attention.

What's Vivek's signature proposal? The voting thing? Or affirmative action?

The forced birth thing?

And now the "I'll pardon Donald Trump" thing. So yeah, total pander-bear.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Great, another Republican businessman with no experience in government - didn't we learn from our last mistake?

And for those who think this makes him somehow better than an experienced politician, it doesn't. The functions of government and the politics behind it require an experienced hand to navigate; government doesn't operate like a corporation, nor should it.

While this is all true, it starts to fall on deaf ears when you get "experienced" duds like Biden in. The reason a Reality TV star like Trump and a longtime DC outsider, non-entity like Sanders surged in 2016 is because people got fed up with what "experience" was serving up for them.

DP. I'm way more likely to vote for one of these "outsiders" than most of DCUM, but when people start telling me that the outsider candidates are Ivy League education millionaires and billionaires, it sets off /my bullshit meter.

I actually agree with you on this, but I also view it as an almost structural impediment in and indictment of our political system. Tough to see a truly grassroots candidate rise to that level and get enough traction to be on a debate stage without being similarly "credentialed". Yang barely scraped it, but he also fits the same profile. There is just way too much money in politics.

I think Yang is very precisely the analog to Ramaswamy here. Young, rich, no experience in government, and with a signature proposal that's never going to happen but grabs attention.

What's Vivek's signature proposal? The voting thing? Or affirmative action?

The forced birth thing?

What about it? Is he materially different that other Republicans on this to the point that it would be a defining proposal of his campaign?

Anyway, PP already clarified what proposal they were talking about.

Of course it is a defining proposal. Abortion is one of the very top issues of the 2024 race.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Great, another Republican businessman with no experience in government - didn't we learn from our last mistake?

And for those who think this makes him somehow better than an experienced politician, it doesn't. The functions of government and the politics behind it require an experienced hand to navigate; government doesn't operate like a corporation, nor should it.

While this is all true, it starts to fall on deaf ears when you get "experienced" duds like Biden in. The reason a Reality TV star like Trump and a longtime DC outsider, non-entity like Sanders surged in 2016 is because people got fed up with what "experience" was serving up for them.

DP. I'm way more likely to vote for one of these "outsiders" than most of DCUM, but when people start telling me that the outsider candidates are Ivy League education millionaires and billionaires, it sets off /my bullshit meter.

I actually agree with you on this, but I also view it as an almost structural impediment in and indictment of our political system. Tough to see a truly grassroots candidate rise to that level and get enough traction to be on a debate stage without being similarly "credentialed". Yang barely scraped it, but he also fits the same profile. There is just way too much money in politics.

I think Yang is very precisely the analog to Ramaswamy here. Young, rich, no experience in government, and with a signature proposal that's never going to happen but grabs attention.

What's Vivek's signature proposal? The voting thing? Or affirmative action?

The forced birth thing?

What about it? Is he materially different that other Republicans on this to the point that it would be a defining proposal of his campaign?

Anyway, PP already clarified what proposal they were talking about.

Of course it is a defining proposal. Abortion is one of the very top issues of the 2024 race.

That's not what PP was talking about. The question has been answered. You can have a seat.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Great, another Republican businessman with no experience in government - didn't we learn from our last mistake?

And for those who think this makes him somehow better than an experienced politician, it doesn't. The functions of government and the politics behind it require an experienced hand to navigate; government doesn't operate like a corporation, nor should it.

While this is all true, it starts to fall on deaf ears when you get "experienced" duds like Biden in. The reason a Reality TV star like Trump and a longtime DC outsider, non-entity like Sanders surged in 2016 is because people got fed up with what "experience" was serving up for them.

DP. I'm way more likely to vote for one of these "outsiders" than most of DCUM, but when people start telling me that the outsider candidates are Ivy League education millionaires and billionaires, it sets off /my bullshit meter.

I actually agree with you on this, but I also view it as an almost structural impediment in and indictment of our political system. Tough to see a truly grassroots candidate rise to that level and get enough traction to be on a debate stage without being similarly "credentialed". Yang barely scraped it, but he also fits the same profile. There is just way too much money in politics.

I think Yang is very precisely the analog to Ramaswamy here. Young, rich, no experience in government, and with a signature proposal that's never going to happen but grabs attention.

What's Vivek's signature proposal? The voting thing? Or affirmative action?

The forced birth thing?

What about it? Is he materially different that other Republicans on this to the point that it would be a defining proposal of his campaign?

Anyway, PP already clarified what proposal they were talking about.

Of course it is a defining proposal. Abortion is one of the very top issues of the 2024 race.

That's not what PP was talking about. The question has been answered. You can have a seat.

He may want voter age to be a defining issue but it is not his choice. The voters are pretty clear about what issues are motivating them and voter age is not it. I could sit, stand, or disappear entirely and that will still be the case.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Great, another Republican businessman with no experience in government - didn't we learn from our last mistake?

And for those who think this makes him somehow better than an experienced politician, it doesn't. The functions of government and the politics behind it require an experienced hand to navigate; government doesn't operate like a corporation, nor should it.

While this is all true, it starts to fall on deaf ears when you get "experienced" duds like Biden in. The reason a Reality TV star like Trump and a longtime DC outsider, non-entity like Sanders surged in 2016 is because people got fed up with what "experience" was serving up for them.

I don't see how anyone could objectively look at what Biden has accomplished - with an overtly hostile Congress, no less - and say he's been a "dud". Could he have done more? Maybe, and there are certainly some things I wish he had pursued more vigorously, but politics is the art of the possible, and with this Congress that's an impossibly narrow window.

Now consider how someone with *zero* experience would have absolutely floundered in such a toxic environment.

Biden is a dud and will not be remembered at all. It's giving Gerald Ford. His physical presence and comportment are national embarrassments.

Can you imagine him marshaling the bully pulpit, one of the greatest tool's at a President's disposal, to set a national vision/tone and....you know, lead? No chance in heaven. He's a straight up dud.

I don't have to imagine...he's done it. Remember the debt ceiling crisis?[/quote]

No. Nobody does. And if you need to invoke a "debt ceiling crisis" as an example of when the bully pulpit was used to set forth a national vision...I think it's not working.

We had a thread here (https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/1105226.page) that went 85 pages. So even if you don't remember it lots of people do. And I guarantee you that people would have remembered had we defaulted. But Biden pushed a solution through an antagonistic Congress. That's leadership.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Great, another Republican businessman with no experience in government - didn't we learn from our last mistake?

And for those who think this makes him somehow better than an experienced politician, it doesn't. The functions of government and the politics behind it require an experienced hand to navigate; government doesn't operate like a corporation, nor should it.

While this is all true, it starts to fall on deaf ears when you get "experienced" duds like Biden in. The reason a Reality TV star like Trump and a longtime DC outsider, non-entity like Sanders surged in 2016 is because people got fed up with what "experience" was serving up for them.

DP. I'm way more likely to vote for one of these "outsiders" than most of DCUM, but when people start telling me that the outsider candidates are Ivy League education millionaires and billionaires, it sets off /my bullshit meter.

I actually agree with you on this, but I also view it as an almost structural impediment in and indictment of our political system. Tough to see a truly grassroots candidate rise to that level and get enough traction to be on a debate stage without being similarly "credentialed". Yang barely scraped it, but he also fits the same profile. There is just way too much money in politics.

I think Yang is very precisely the analog to Ramaswamy here. Young, rich, no experience in government, and with a signature proposal that's never going to happen but grabs attention.

What's Vivek's signature proposal? The voting thing? Or affirmative action?

The forced birth thing?

What about it? Is he materially different that other Republicans on this to the point that it would be a defining proposal of his campaign?

Anyway, PP already clarified what proposal they were talking about.

Of course it is a defining proposal. Abortion is one of the very top issues of the 2024 race.

That's not what PP was talking about. The question has been answered. You can have a seat.

He may want voter age to be a defining issue but it is not his choice. The voters are pretty clear about what issues are motivating them and voter age is not it. I could sit, stand, or disappear entirely and that will still be the case.

You are all over the place and conflating various points. Sit this one out.

I simply asked what that poster meant and they clarified. As smart and right as you think you are, you cannot tell me what that other poster meant more accurately than they themselves can.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Great, another Republican businessman with no experience in government - didn't we learn from our last mistake?

And for those who think this makes him somehow better than an experienced politician, it doesn't. The functions of government and the politics behind it require an experienced hand to navigate; government doesn't operate like a corporation, nor should it.

While this is all true, it starts to fall on deaf ears when you get "experienced" duds like Biden in. The reason a Reality TV star like Trump and a longtime DC outsider, non-entity like Sanders surged in 2016 is because people got fed up with what "experience" was serving up for them.

DP. I'm way more likely to vote for one of these "outsiders" than most of DCUM, but when people start telling me that the outsider candidates are Ivy League education millionaires and billionaires, it sets off /my bullshit meter.

I actually agree with you on this, but I also view it as an almost structural impediment in and indictment of our political system. Tough to see a truly grassroots candidate rise to that level and get enough traction to be on a debate stage without being similarly "credentialed". Yang barely scraped it, but he also fits the same profile. There is just way too much money in politics.

I think Yang is very precisely the analog to Ramaswamy here. Young, rich, no experience in government, and with a signature proposal that's never going to happen but grabs attention.

What's Vivek's signature proposal? The voting thing? Or affirmative action?

The forced birth thing?

What about it? Is he materially different that other Republicans on this to the point that it would be a defining proposal of his campaign?

Anyway, PP already clarified what proposal they were talking about.

Of course it is a defining proposal. Abortion is one of the very top issues of the 2024 race.

That's not what PP was talking about. The question has been answered. You can have a seat.

He may want voter age to be a defining issue but it is not his choice. The voters are pretty clear about what issues are motivating them and voter age is not it. I could sit, stand, or disappear entirely and that will still be the case.

You are all over the place and conflating various points. Sit this one out.

I simply asked what that poster meant and they clarified. As smart and right as you think you are, you cannot tell me what that other poster meant more accurately than they themselves can.

Fair enough. Have at it discussing the issue of voter age. That is a great use of your time and energy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Great, another Republican businessman with no experience in government - didn't we learn from our last mistake?

And for those who think this makes him somehow better than an experienced politician, it doesn't. The functions of government and the politics behind it require an experienced hand to navigate; government doesn't operate like a corporation, nor should it.

While this is all true, it starts to fall on deaf ears when you get "experienced" duds like Biden in. The reason a Reality TV star like Trump and a longtime DC outsider, non-entity like Sanders surged in 2016 is because people got fed up with what "experience" was serving up for them.

I don't see how anyone could objectively look at what Biden has accomplished - with an overtly hostile Congress, no less - and say he's been a "dud". Could he have done more? Maybe, and there are certainly some things I wish he had pursued more vigorously, but politics is the art of the possible, and with this Congress that's an impossibly narrow window.

Now consider how someone with *zero* experience would have absolutely floundered in such a toxic environment.

Biden is a dud and will not be remembered at all. It's giving Gerald Ford. His physical presence and comportment are national embarrassments.

Can you imagine him marshaling the bully pulpit, one of the greatest tool's at a President's disposal, to set a national vision/tone and....you know, lead? No chance in heaven. He's a straight up dud.

I don't have to imagine...he's done it. Remember the debt ceiling crisis?[/quote]

No. Nobody does. And if you need to invoke a "debt ceiling crisis" as an example of when the bully pulpit was used to set forth a national vision...I think it's not working.

We had a thread here (https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/1105226.page) that went 85 pages. So even if you don't remember it lots of people do. And I guarantee you that people would have remembered had we defaulted. But Biden pushed a solution through an antagonistic Congress. That's leadership.

I'm sure his campaign will be full of clips and imagery of his brilliant leadership and oratory from the debt ceiling fight .

Give it a rest.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Great, another Republican businessman with no experience in government - didn't we learn from our last mistake?

And for those who think this makes him somehow better than an experienced politician, it doesn't. The functions of government and the politics behind it require an experienced hand to navigate; government doesn't operate like a corporation, nor should it.

While this is all true, it starts to fall on deaf ears when you get "experienced" duds like Biden in. The reason a Reality TV star like Trump and a longtime DC outsider, non-entity like Sanders surged in 2016 is because people got fed up with what "experience" was serving up for them.

DP. I'm way more likely to vote for one of these "outsiders" than most of DCUM, but when people start telling me that the outsider candidates are Ivy League education millionaires and billionaires, it sets off /my bullshit meter.

I actually agree with you on this, but I also view it as an almost structural impediment in and indictment of our political system. Tough to see a truly grassroots candidate rise to that level and get enough traction to be on a debate stage without being similarly "credentialed". Yang barely scraped it, but he also fits the same profile. There is just way too much money in politics.

I think Yang is very precisely the analog to Ramaswamy here. Young, rich, no experience in government, and with a signature proposal that's never going to happen but grabs attention.

What's Vivek's signature proposal? The voting thing? Or affirmative action?

The forced birth thing?

What about it? Is he materially different that other Republicans on this to the point that it would be a defining proposal of his campaign?

Anyway, PP already clarified what proposal they were talking about.

Of course it is a defining proposal. Abortion is one of the very top issues of the 2024 race.

That's not what PP was talking about. The question has been answered. You can have a seat.

He may want voter age to be a defining issue but it is not his choice. The voters are pretty clear about what issues are motivating them and voter age is not it. I could sit, stand, or disappear entirely and that will still be the case.

You are all over the place and conflating various points. Sit this one out.

I simply asked what that poster meant and they clarified. As smart and right as you think you are, you cannot tell me what that other poster meant more accurately than they themselves can.

Fair enough. Have at it discussing the issue of voter age. That is a great use of your time and energy.

Stop trying to police what other people discuss. Goodness, the ego on you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Great, another Republican businessman with no experience in government - didn't we learn from our last mistake?

And for those who think this makes him somehow better than an experienced politician, it doesn't. The functions of government and the politics behind it require an experienced hand to navigate; government doesn't operate like a corporation, nor should it.

While this is all true, it starts to fall on deaf ears when you get "experienced" duds like Biden in. The reason a Reality TV star like Trump and a longtime DC outsider, non-entity like Sanders surged in 2016 is because people got fed up with what "experience" was serving up for them.

DP. I'm way more likely to vote for one of these "outsiders" than most of DCUM, but when people start telling me that the outsider candidates are Ivy League education millionaires and billionaires, it sets off /my bullshit meter.

I actually agree with you on this, but I also view it as an almost structural impediment in and indictment of our political system. Tough to see a truly grassroots candidate rise to that level and get enough traction to be on a debate stage without being similarly "credentialed". Yang barely scraped it, but he also fits the same profile. There is just way too much money in politics.

I think Yang is very precisely the analog to Ramaswamy here. Young, rich, no experience in government, and with a signature proposal that's never going to happen but grabs attention.

What's Vivek's signature proposal? The voting thing? Or affirmative action?

The forced birth thing?

What about it? Is he materially different that other Republicans on this to the point that it would be a defining proposal of his campaign?

Anyway, PP already clarified what proposal they were talking about.

Of course it is a defining proposal. Abortion is one of the very top issues of the 2024 race.

That's not what PP was talking about. The question has been answered. You can have a seat.

He may want voter age to be a defining issue but it is not his choice. The voters are pretty clear about what issues are motivating them and voter age is not it. I could sit, stand, or disappear entirely and that will still be the case.

You are all over the place and conflating various points. Sit this one out.

I simply asked what that poster meant and they clarified. As smart and right as you think you are, you cannot tell me what that other poster meant more accurately than they themselves can.

Fair enough. Have at it discussing the issue of voter age. That is a great use of your time and energy.

Stop trying to police what other people discuss. Goodness, the ego on you.

Put lots of effort into making voter age a thing. IMO it is waste of time and energy and this is a forum where folks give opinions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This guy is mowing down every interviewer he takes on. Laura Coates did a decent job, but even she could not withstand his force of intellect.

Lol. Talking quickly is not the same thing as “force of intellect”. If you disagree, please cite or link to a few comments or papers from Ramaswamy that you think clearly highlight his “force of intellect” — so the ready of us can be appropriately dazzled.

Show me an interview where he in intellectually outmatched. Shouldn't be too hard if he is such a dummy, as people claim here.

Smh at you thinking "papers" are what demonstrate intellect. You might be the problem.

Some of his ideas are still wrong, but these interviewers are gonna have to work for their gotcha moments!

Lol shake your head as much as you like. “Papers” can — like any form of communication— demonstrate intellect. So can speech. I — generously — gave you multiple options to use prove your completely unsupported point. Shifting the onus onto me to show you an interview doesn’t prove your point either. You seem to think that Ramaswamy exhibits some sort of “force of intellect” — yet you seem completely unable to support your point.

If this is your best — it’s sadly wanting.

You can — generously — watch any of his interviews and see that he is levels above his interlocutors. It's not that hard. Don't be lazy.

Just say you couldn't find an interview where he was intellectually outmatched and keep it moving. I can find several where this happens to Obama and you all act like he's a genius around here.

I’ve watched, I’ve listened, and I’m not favorably impressed. Despite calling me “lazy”, you’re both unable to suggest a specific interview or two that you’re impressed with to bolster your point. Trying to sidetrack your inability to support your assertion by throwing in a generalization about Obama is not relevant to whether or not Ramaswamy is “a force of intellect”.
So: whatever. Have a lovely day.