The Vivek Ramaswamy Thread

[Cynllo]

As a matter of fact, if mobilized correctly, Hindus can be converted into a strong conservative voting block.

In this statement lies very big problems.

1) Allow foreign people into your country
2) Run by a regime who generally prefer them to you
3) The foreign people vote dramatically against your interests and hold many oppositional positions
4) If only you people are just even more accommodating to the foreign people, they might support you against the evisceration of your basically gone and conquered nation

This is very unusual and very unnatural. Who in the world would accept this as a proposition? In any normal country, it is the immigrants who have to bend to the will of the natives, heritage population.

This leads to the reality that ethnicity, race and religion are the most volatile aspects that you can throw into a nation. If you look at any past empires, you will find the deep issues stemming from the different groups within it. And when the empire falls, lines are very quickly drawn, not over ideals, freedoms, abortion rights - but ethnicity, race and/or religion. Fall of the Soviet Union lines still playing out, as well as Yugoslavia - not finished yet.

If your country is homogeneous, then you do not have this - the most volatile of all axes. Instead you can find all sorts of lesser not so volatile issues within the homogeneous group.

One solution to this is you put a lid on people being able to publicly discuss the issue, as is the case in Arab gulf countries, which are effectually race realists. But then, whenever that lid is removed, it reappears. Another solution is to have a preferential status for the natives of dominant group (Ottoman empire). Issue is there, even after 100s of years, the second class dhimis ended up rising up. Or you can take the Western/Jewish method of making natives second class and attempt to wipe them out through immigration.

What you propose doesn't exist, hasn't existed and can't exist. The immigrants don't want to and don't have to bend to the natives; and the natives don't have to be bent to, and many won't bend to the regime. There is no winning middle ground that you propose. What you and Vivek are proposing is an old version of the Democratic Party platform.

It's important to understand that to get where you are now, there was a process, you couldn't have just dropped 1920s US citizens into the current regime. They wouldn't have accepted it. Take the intellectual dark web-Bill Maher-types. They complain about the direct successor to their own potions. Modern leftism is a seamless continuation, using the same method as their old 90s lefty-ism. To get 18 year old girls making onlyfans content in their bedroom above their parents' living room, their first has to be flappers, and then Marylin Monroe, Playboy... This process has been continuing over every facet of society.

Clapping and voting for a spur-of-the-moment-Judeo-Christian secular pagan, who is just stickin' up for our boy Trump after spending years aligned against him, accepting a globalist scholarship when he was said to be have been wealthy is the exact same process of moving left. The conservative movement needs to be done away with completely. It critiques leftist, before incrementally accepting all of it. Leftism believes in its ceaseless advance. If you want to counter it, you can't ever move. It doesn't matter if that is losing political position. Virtually all political positions against leftistm have lost over all of our lifetimes. The only thing that matters is the preservation of pockets that can survive what is to come.

@Cobra your political position is non-viable. You can't get enough people to buy into it. A genuine right-wing political position is dead. All institutions are 90%+ leftist and are in abject decline. There is no shaking them out of the institutions, which are in their very fabric - left-leaning, built for manlets wearing mismatching socks in soft pastels. This system is creaking and falling over at home and abroad. The best solution is to accelerate this process and hope that something can be fashioned out of the ashes. Push leftists to become even more extreme and reckless in the implementation of their failed policies. Make paedophilia one of your biggest targets. They are going to have to defend it more overtly than they are now. Seeing a lot of zooaphile content is on the rise. And vote for the Orange, not in the hope that he will achieve much politically, but that he will accelerate the decline and desire for liberals to divorce what's left of the country and people they hate.

 

[bubs]

Back to the OP’s request:
- I think Vivek needs to learn to slow down his speaking if he wants to attract more voters. Fast talkers come across as untrustworthy to a lot of people so hopefully he has some people in his camp that can help him slow down his speaking (or less caffeine?).
- Some of his ideas seem to give a “I don’t care about individual American people” vibe. Reducing 50% of various bloated government agencies is great in concept, but he should also give a plan for all of those displaced American workers would find work (who are just doing a useless govt job to support their families/not part of the corrupt leadership). For instance a good plan would be a phased reduction in staff and budget as every 3 boomers retire only 1 will replace them (just as an example to minimize actual job cuts and unemployment). I think bringing in skilled labor from other countries sounds good on the surface but our country is based on open immigration. Should be a LEGAL process but not selective, only to highly skilled/hand picked individuals. That’s un-American values IMO. Would rather see a push to improving our internal work culture and improved skill sets vs importing them in.

But with all that said, he’s smart, has high energy and some good ideals so I’d be fine with him and at least 2-3 other candidates if they got elected as President.

 

[ed pluribus unum]

In this statement lies very big problems.

1) Allow foreign people into your country
2) Run by a regime who generally prefer them to you
3) The foreign people vote dramatically against your interests and hold many oppositional positions
4) If only you people are just even more accommodating to the foreign people, they might support you against the evisceration of your basically gone and conquered nation

Indeed. "Hindus as strong conservative voting bloc" sounds like the next step as American "conservatives" finally snap out of the idea that millions Hispanic migrants are "natural conservatives".

Here's a pretty good summary of reasons to be skeptical of the wunderkind Vivek:

edit: can't share Telegram post, but to sum it up:
New guy comes out of nowhere, says all the right things to impress the cons; 'self made' of a biotech company that has never successfully brought a product to market; company share price jumped just before he sold off a bunch of stock to make a $billion to fund his campaign; says he will bring BlackRock and Vanguard to heel but they were (and remain) shareholders in his company. And so on...

 

[Blade Runner]

The only thing that matters is the preservation of pockets that can survive what is to come.

Yes, this is the realization that all that America is now is an "Economic Zone." Funny enough, I heard that not too long ago in a podcast where Balaji was the guest being interviewed.

The best solution is to accelerate this process and hope that something can be fashioned out of the ashes.

I don't know where I stand at this point (I'm just cautious to be seen as "rooting" for what seems to be bad), but I've talked about the general personality on this forum, which goes hand in hand with understanding what's going on in Clown World™. That is, having the predisposition towards the wish of "just do it already" or "bring on the collapse" so that we can rebuild sooner than later, given the obvious irredeemable nature of the country or countries affected by this nonsense and sick elites. It is an interesting thing when you realize you can't argue with accelerationism, when you look at it that way. What's more, even if you do well in the USA, for example, but women and the culture (for your presumed kids) are so bad, you're probably already OK with leaving or entertaining trying to get away anyway - which also means you are shrugging your shoulders. If you ask yourself the question "Who wants this to persist?" and you quickly see that the answer is "Old people, the establishment, and the elites" it's very hard to not root for the demise. I am sad to report that, but I'm just being honest.

 

[DanielH]

In this statement lies very big problems.

1) Allow foreign people into your country
2) Run by a regime who generally prefer them to you
3) The foreign people vote dramatically against your interests and hold many oppositional positions
4) If only you people are just even more accommodating to the foreign people, they might support you against the evisceration of your basically gone and conquered nation

This is very unusual and very unnatural. Who in the world would accept this as a proposition? In any normal country, it is the immigrants who have to bend to the will of the natives, heritage population.

This leads to the reality that ethnicity, race and religion are the most volatile aspects that you can throw into a nation. If you look at any past empires, you will find the deep issues stemming from the different groups within it. And when the empire falls, lines are very quickly drawn, not over ideals, freedoms, abortion rights - but ethnicity, race and/or religion. Fall of the Soviet Union lines still playing out, as well as Yugoslavia - not finished yet.

If your country is homogeneous, then you do not have this - the most volatile of all axes. Instead you can find all sorts of lesser not so volatile issues within the homogeneous group.

One solution to this is you put a lid on people being able to publicly discuss the issue, as is the case in Arab gulf countries, which are effectually race realists. But then, whenever that lid is removed, it reappears. Another solution is to have a preferential status for the natives of dominant group (Ottoman empire). Issue is there, even after 100s of years, the second class dhimis ended up rising up. Or you can take the Western/Jewish method of making natives second class and attempt to wipe them out through immigration.

What you propose doesn't exist, hasn't existed and can't exist. The immigrants don't want to and don't have to bend to the natives; and the natives don't have to be bent to, and many won't bend to the regime. There is no winning middle ground that you propose. What you and Vivek are proposing is an old version of the Democratic Party platform.

It's important to understand that to get where you are now, there was a process, you couldn't have just dropped 1920s US citizens into the current regime. They wouldn't have accepted it. Take the intellectual dark web-Bill Maher-types. They complain about the direct successor to their own potions. Modern leftism is a seamless continuation, using the same method as their old 90s lefty-ism. To get 18 year old girls making onlyfans content in their bedroom above their parents' living room, their first has to be flappers, and then Marylin Monroe, Playboy... This process has been continuing over every facet of society.

Clapping and voting for a spur-of-the-moment-Judeo-Christian secular pagan, who is just stickin' up for our boy Trump after spending years aligned against him, accepting a globalist scholarship when he was said to be have been wealthy is the exact same process of moving left. The conservative movement needs to be done away with completely. It critiques leftist, before incrementally accepting all of it. Leftism believes in its ceaseless advance. If you want to counter it, you can't ever move. It doesn't matter if that is losing political position. Virtually all political positions against leftistm have lost over all of our lifetimes. The only thing that matters is the preservation of pockets that can survive what is to come.

@Cobra your political position is non-viable. You can't get enough people to buy into it. A genuine right-wing political position is dead. All institutions are 90%+ leftist and are in abject decline. There is no shaking them out of the institutions, which are in their very fabric - left-leaning, built for manlets wearing mismatching socks in soft pastels. This system is creaking and falling over at home and abroad. The best solution is to accelerate this process and hope that something can be fashioned out of the ashes. Push leftists to become even more extreme and reckless in the implementation of their failed policies. Make paedophilia one of your biggest targets. They are going to have to defend it more overtly than they are now. Seeing a lot of zooaphile content is on the rise. And vote for the Orange, not in the hope that he will achieve much politically, but that he will accelerate the decline and desire for liberals to divorce what's left of the country and people they hate.

Building on this, immigration has never been good for the natives of any country, ever. Aristotle wrote about this, that a diverse country, of necessity, can only be ruled by a dictator/despot, (or perhaps in the case of the United States, an endless unaccountable bureaucracy.)

The idea that Hindus are natural conservatives is just nonsensical, and as proof of that, here you have a non-Christian Indian on this forum advocating a Hindu Indian as president of the United States. They support their own, but normally they just vote Democrat in overwhelming numbers when there isn't a Hindu Indian as an option.

Hindus worship a plurality of demons, which explains why they have no problem voting for a party which mutilates the genitalia of children under transgender ideology. The idea that we shouldn't care about this issue is offensive, and basically comes across as "just lay down and die while we completely take over your country." There are a number of good Christian Indians, and many of them have been martyred and are persecuted to this day, in India, and even then it would be hard to make the argument that the immigration of that group would be good for America, as they are an insular group, which leads to another thing.

No immigrants truly assimilate into American culture, or if they do it requires generations of marrying other ethnicities, but even then remnants of the immigrant culture remain in holidays, culture, and food. The closest thing we saw to assimilation is whenever we are at war with the home culture of an immigrant group and America persecutes people of that corresponding ethnicity. Really quick a whole lot of German Americans did away with their culture and language. But some groups never assimilated. I married into a Ukrainian family that has been here for 3 generations, marrying other Ukrainians here in America. They didn't become American outside of flying some American flags. They still practice Ukrainian holidays and culture. There was no assimilation. Likewise in America, the Irish never assimilated, Boston and other places assimilated to them, with St. Patrick's Day becoming a major national holiday (in this case I have no problem with commemorating a saint.) I was raised in the Philadelphia area - the Italians who came here definitely did not assimilate. You know when you're in an Italian neighborhood, and Italian food is now synonymous with the remaining white parts of Philadelphia. And those aforementioned examples are all of white, Christian, Europeans. There is absolutely no overlap a heritage American has with a Hindu Indian. None whatsoever. They are two groups that will come into conflict, given time. Black Americans did the opposite of assimilating and now have their own ethnic ghettos all over the country and TWO federal holidays celebrating them rising up from the oppression of us white, heritage Americans.

Even Swedish Americans that have been here for generations vote Democrat (see Minnesota), in line with the socialist tendencies of Sweden.



White Americans have been so beaten down and deracinated. What would the conservative Indians on this forum suggest white Americans do? Nothing? Completely ignore our own self-interest? Vote for the based Hindu "conservative" who doesn't have ties to this country beyond his life, who has a foreign and hostile religion to Christianity, who almost certainly will bring in millions more of his people to this country, who will then vote against white American interests and eventually get us embroiled in Indian conflicts on the other side of the planet? Is India going to become our new Israel, with us Americans going to invade Pakistan for some inexplicable reason? This country was 90% white in 1960, now whites are less than 50% of births, ~60 years later. By the time I die, at this rate, white births will be what? 20%? It's genocide. Where can I go as an American? What country would take me in and give me minority benefits?

Edit:

The closest thing we saw to assimilation is whenever we are at war with the home culture of an immigrant group and America persecutes people of that corresponding ethnicity. Really quick a whole lot of German Americans did away with their culture and language.

Just realized that this right here ^ disproves the idea that tolerance and acceptance leads to assimilation and integration. That has never happened, ironically it was intolerance that made the German Americans stop speaking German at home and in public, and try to embrace American culture.

 

[Blade Runner]

What country would take me in and give me minority benefits?

This is amusing to me because it's actually a valid question. The silence to it, or possible response I can see (confirming that silence) is usually along the lines of "you guys have done too well historically to get something like that". The real answer is more like "We can't support you like you support us in all those countries". LOL

 

[get2choppaaa]

Cant make it up.

 

[GuitarVH]

Cant make it up.

Good grief. He so just happens to get on national TV while presumably in college. How many of you have been on TV asking presidential candidates questions when you were younger?

What a psyop. This guy has been astroturfed for a long time. Slated for an important NWO role from the beginning.

 

[Cobra]

The idea that Hindus can be natural conservatives is just nonsensical, and as proof of that, here you have a non-Christian Indian on this forum advocating a Hindu Indian as president of the United States. They support their own, but normally they just vote Democrat in overwhelming numbers when there isn't a Hindu Indian as an option.

I hold your role as a moderator on the forum in high regard, but I would appreciate the chance to address your statement. My intention is not to support Vivek at this moment, and any support I may extend to his actions will not be influenced by his Hindu or Indian background. The remarks I've shared so far have been critical of him, and my aim is to address the various concerns surrounding his candidacy. This is especially important considering the potential that he might have hidden motives. I don't attribute any of these concerns to his Indian heritage or Hindu faith. Strangely, the majority of the criticism on this forum seems to stem from these aspects. What I've been consistently trying to convey, amid the overt identity politics, is that an individual like him could be a threat to the nation due to potential manipulation by powerful interests. While others are focused on his ethnicity or religious beliefs, my concern is the potential control exerted by the privileged class. The original intention of the thread was to foster a similar level of discussion as other threads, but it's evident that the conversation has veered off into a discussion about race. It should at least come across refreshing that I am in fact willing to criticize an Indian who is Hindu. As a matter of fact, as an immigrant, I am more Indian than he is.

By the way, having grown up in India and then experiencing the opportunities presented to me in the USA, I am filled with gratitude. During my time in the military, I genuinely made my allegiance to this country my foremost commitment. It may sound clichéd, but those who know me understand the sincerity of this sentiment. Again, I wasn't willing to accept citizenship until I served the country. So, when Vivek implies military service should be required for citizenship, I can certainly appreciate it.

 

[DanielH]

I hold your role as a moderator on the forum in high regard, but I would appreciate the chance to address your statement. My intention is not to support Vivek at this moment, and any support I may extend to his actions will not be influenced by his Hindu or Indian background. The remarks I've shared so far have been critical of him, and my aim is to address the various concerns surrounding his candidacy. This is especially important considering the potential that he might have hidden motives. I don't attribute any of these concerns to his Indian heritage or Hindu faith. Strangely, the majority of the criticism on this forum seems to stem from these aspects. What I've been consistently trying to convey, amid the overt identity politics, is that an individual like him could be a threat to the nation due to potential manipulation by powerful interests. While others are focused on his ethnicity or religious beliefs, my concern is the potential control exerted by the privileged class. The original intention of the thread was to foster a similar level of discussion as other threads, but it's evident that the conversation has veered off into a discussion about race. It should at least come across refreshing that I am in fact willing to criticize an Indian who is Hindu. As a matter of fact, as an immigrant, I am more Indian than he is.

By the way, having grown up in India and then experiencing the opportunities presented to me in the USA, I am filled with gratitude. During my time in the military, I genuinely made my allegiance to this country my foremost commitment. It may sound clichéd, but those who know me understand the sincerity of this sentiment. Again, I wasn't willing to accept citizenship until I served the country. So, when Vivek implies military service should be required for citizenship, I can certainly appreciate it.

I changed my statement from "can be" to "are," which I believe is more accurate, and accounts for exceptions to the rule (specifically that the vast majority of Hindus are Democrats in America), which you didn't address, nor did you answer any of my questions or provide a real rebuttal besides saying things about yourself, which is besides the point as you're one of many millions of Indian Americans.

Again, the only thing any conservative immigrant can say is "I feel for you, that must be rough, but know that I'm not like the overwhelming majority of people of my background who came to your country." You wouldn't press a button to stop all immigration in a second, at least you wouldn't if that meant your immediate family - your parents, siblings, grandparents, et cetera, couldn't also come here. So ultimately your response reads as "too bad, just be less racist and accept your people disappearing from the face of the earth."

Vivek was a pharmaceutical executive who was clearly not a populist conservative prior to running, indicating he will change his beliefs on a dime to get power. That plus the inherent sham of an electoral system we have is more than enough for me to never consider voting for him. Actually you could make the argument that his race or religion doesn't matter that much, because all of our recent white presidents apparently aren't Christians, or care in the slightest about the Christian faith, given their deference to Israel and "Judaism" and support for abortion or LGBT "rights." So then in light of that, what difference is there really between Vivek and any other candidate? You could make the argument, as some here have, that it's just more in your face with Vivek, a real humiliation, that the powers that be are done playing pretend with the American presidents. It would be like going from a puppet president to one that is directly representing the occupying forces, like if the USSR decided to put a Russian in charge of East Germany.

 

[GuitarVH]

I hold your role as a moderator on the forum in high regard, but I would appreciate the chance to address your statement. My intention is not to support Vivek at this moment, and any support I may extend to his actions will not be influenced by his Hindu or Indian background. The remarks I've shared so far have been critical of him, and my aim is to address the various concerns surrounding his candidacy. This is especially important considering the potential that he might have hidden motives. I don't attribute any of these concerns to his Indian heritage or Hindu faith. Strangely, the majority of the criticism on this forum seems to stem from these aspects. What I've been consistently trying to convey, amid the overt identity politics, is that an individual like him could be a threat to the nation due to potential manipulation by powerful interests. While others are focused on his ethnicity or religious beliefs, my concern is the potential control exerted by the privileged class. The original intention of the thread was to foster a similar level of discussion as other threads, but it's evident that the conversation has veered off into a discussion about race. It should at least come across refreshing that I am in fact willing to criticize an Indian who is Hindu. As a matter of fact, as an immigrant, I am more Indian than he is.

By the way, having grown up in India and then experiencing the opportunities presented to me in the USA, I am filled with gratitude. During my time in the military, I genuinely made my allegiance to this country my foremost commitment. It may sound clichéd, but those who know me understand the sincerity of this sentiment. Again, I wasn't willing to accept citizenship until I served the country. So, when Vivek implies military service should be required for citizenship, I can certainly appreciate it.

Actually, there has been a lot of criticism of Vivek solely because of his potential manipulation by powerful interests. His phony stance as a 9/11 truther, his possible fraudulent means of acquiring his fortune, his recent flip-flop on Israel and his chosen status from a young age as shown by the video 2 posts above, just to name a few.

As engineered by those powerful NWO manipulative forces, when we rightly point out these obvious issues, then we are accused of being focused on his ethnicity and religion. It's a tried and true formula perfected by the ruling tribe. The assertion is that we don't have a right to criticize this persecuted minority even if it's justified, because we are "racist" or "nationalistic".

This is exactly why people like Vivek are chosen by the NWO, similar to Barry Soetoro, who was raised as a muslim in Indonesia with the help of a transvestite nanny. Strange but easily verifiable fact.

You can't tell us to ignore important factors about someone's identity, especially when he was chosen by the NWO because of those reasons, in order that he could hide behind them when criticized. He and anyone else on the international stage can and will be criticized when they merit it. No one is above it for any reason. It is not a good situation to have a minority rule over a majority who built the country so his ethnicity and religion will continue to be huge considerations.

 

[Easy_C]

Actually, there has been a lot of criticism of Vivek solely because of his potential manipulation by powerful interests. His phony stance as a 9/11 truther, his possible fraudulent means of acquiring his fortune, his recent flip-flop on Israel and his chosen status from a young age as shown by the video 2 posts above, just to name a few.

I would argue that's the real concern. I'm waiting to hear what certain other well connected individuals have to say on the matter before I reach a conclusion. The only way we'll know is if someone with visibility into that can enlighten us and I believe there is such an individual who will do so.


Edit: Just looked up his company. I'm surprised I haven't met him in person, and that he didn't come across my radar. What he does is adjacent to a company I was involved with (this is the one that has one of the big foundations supporting it). I was even living near him at the time.

Business background seems to make sense. He reminds me a lot of some people I've worked with in similar entrepreneurial finance spaces.

 

[Max Roscoe]

Probably the most ridiculous thing this guy says is the "I am a billionaire, I have no reason to support the status quo" line.

I can't imagine anyone falls for that line.

Just see Kanye, Musk, etc. -- When you are a "billionaire" it specifically means you *are* controlled by the elite. No modern billionaire has anywhere near a billion dollars of real wealth. What they have is financial instruments, stocks, agreements, loans, etc. that have a paper value of billions, and can be taken away at a moments notice.

Much as I don't trust anyone above the level of Colonel in the military, I wouldn't trust any wealthy person above the "Millionaire Next Door" level as described in the 1996 book (basically just frugal people who worked hard, drive an old car, and dress in overalls). You can actually earn a couple of million dollars in a lifetime by working. You cannot become a billionaire through "work" and outside of ancient monarchs, who were merely just stewards of the national wealth, there has never been a benevolent billionaire.

Christ warned us about this: "easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than a rich man to enter Heaven" Matthew 19:24.

 

[Blade Runner]

Just see Kanye, Musk, etc. -- When you are a "billionaire" it specifically means you *are* controlled by the elite. No modern billionaire has anywhere near a billion dollars of real wealth. What they have is financial instruments, stocks, agreements, loans, etc. that have a paper value of billions, and can be taken away at a moments notice.

While this may be the case, or at least is highly likely to be true, it is problematic because it is almost unfalsifiable. That is, even if I gave you a few examples of such people, you'd probably not cop to their being good dudes, with the greater likelihood being that you can always find some people they've rubbed shoulders with (a good example would be Trump/Epstein).

You cannot become a billionaire through "work" and outside of ancient monarchs, who were merely just stewards of the national wealth, there has never been a benevolent billionaire.

I do agree with part 1, mostly because "billionaire" is in fact a ridiculous amount of money. I'm not sure about part 2, and again, see above, because it's a similar situation of us judging their actions or motivations.

 

[Blade Runner]

Forgetting the identity stuff for a second, perhaps it is more beneficial to have a discussion about how likely it is in fact that people are groomed or chosen, without their knowledge even, by the "deep state" or (you can insert) devious group X. It sounds like that's what this conversation is about.

I keep coming back to the fact that I don't think it really matters. In my view, no one is righting this sinking ship - not Trump, not Swamy, not RFK (he might have the best chance weirdly but likely would end up dead in any case), and certainly not anyone else I'm loathe to mention. It's funny, the real solution would never be anywhere near the "democratic process" which is sorta our point around these parts ...

 

[get2choppaaa]

Lets all be real... Vivek is a charlatan who's saying what he thinks will get him aligned with the MAGA crowd. He's doing a good job saying the right things.... but he's inauthentic from every angle I can see. At first I was willing to condisder some positive elements of him.

But as a heritage American Christain, I cannot ever vote for a Pagan Indian, nor can I for a second entertain that his version of America and my version of America are in any way aligned.

No offense against people born ethnically indian. One can't control one's upbringing or race or any of that. But I'd more likely believe that pigs fly than believe that indians are naturally conservative.

Yes there are outliers. Of course.... and military service usually makes people more conservative. BUT... the vast majority of indians I have met working in Houston Texas are very much NOT people whom share religions/cultural/political alliances with. I have one or two indian friends, whom got out of there as fast as possible, are not Hindu and are married to white women.... but other than them, the rest are touting the values of their own country just here in America.... Vivek would only exacerbate the great replacement by importing large volumes of H1B1 workers whom would take opportunity from my progeny.

This isnt to be hateful against Indians or any one group. I love all people, but I don't pretend that just because I can love them, I want them in my country or as my neighbor.

 

[Dr Mantis Toboggan]

I think he's a fraud but IMO you can make an argument having a president who is a Hindu (or any other non-Christian religion) and makes no bones about it is better than one who claims to be Christian yet deliberately makes a mockery of the faith on a daily basis.

 

[Cobra]

I changed my statement from "can be" to "are," which I believe is more accurate, and accounts for exceptions to the rule (specifically that the vast majority of Hindus are Democrats in America), which you didn't address, nor did you answer any of my questions or provide a real rebuttal besides saying things about yourself, which is besides the point as you're one of many millions of Indian Americans.

To be candid, the prevailing theme within all my messages has consistently been that his rise to candidacy likely possesses fewer connections to identity politics than what you or others continually presume. I also took the liberty to gently request that we avoid entangling ourselves in the realm of identity politics within this thread, solely based on identity alone. Nonetheless, you are currently encouraging me to engage with identity politics, as the conversation has unexpectedly veered in that direction, and this shift wasn't the result of my actions. I mentioned my own background because you had specifically singled me out for supporting a non-Christian candidate (I'm not), who also happens to be non-Christian, supposedly due to racial or religious factors. However, this assertion is inaccurate. What this implies is that there might be a certain correlation that really doesn't exist.

Additionally, I'd like to reiterate that I am not yet endorsing him. It's intriguing that despite my substantial criticism of him on substantive grounds, the color of my skin and my religious beliefs appear to be the basis for critiques against my arguments, rather than the actual content they present. There was a time when we had moved beyond this type of discussion on the forum, despite a more egregious debate, but I suspect that may no longer be the case. However, I'll digress at this point.

Again, the only thing any conservative immigrant can say is "I feel for you, that must be rough, but know that I'm not like the overwhelming majority of people of my background who came to your country." You wouldn't press a button to stop all immigration in a second, at least you wouldn't if that meant your immediate family - your parents, siblings, grandparents, et cetera, couldn't also come here. So ultimately your response reads as "too bad, just be less racist and accept your people disappearing from the face of the earth."

In actuality, my stance as a conservative immigrant differs from the implication you make. My perspective is more along the lines of "take action and stand up for your beliefs." Those acquainted with me are well aware of my proclivity for engaging in a fight when necessary. This approach comes naturally to me and there's more to delve into on this topic at a later point. Moreover, I don't feel compelled to showcase that I differ from "other Indian people" in my personal life. People truly see me for who I am, and if they find fault with that, they're well within their rights to move on.

Shifting focus, I would choose to press a button that halts extensive migration on a large scale, which I perceive as the core issue. I remain somewhat uncertain about the benefits of halting the movement of valuable skills, which we genuinely require, regardless of their origin. I would appreciate clarification on this matter from Vivek. I've encountered a myriad of individuals who have come to this country and contributed significantly, and this doesn't solely pertain to those from the Indian subcontinent. I don't subscribe to the notion of dismissing them based on a "your skin color is this, so you can't come" attitude. In fact, many individuals within my social circle fall into this category and hold reverence for the principles the USA upholds. Similarly, in my business affairs, I consciously steer clear of individuals, including Indians, who exhibit anything less than a courteous demeanor. Interestingly, a majority of my clients happen to be of White ethnicity. I don't identify much with the former notion.

Vivek was a pharmaceutical executive who was clearly not a populist conservative prior to running, indicating he will change his beliefs on a dime to get power. That plus the inherent sham of an electoral system we have is more than enough for me to never consider voting for him. Actually you could make the argument that his race or religion doesn't matter that much, because all of our recent white presidents apparently aren't Christians, or care in the slightest about the Christian faith, given their deference to Israel and "Judaism" and support for abortion or LGBT "rights." So then in light of that, what difference is there really between Vivek and any other candidate? You could make the argument, as some here have, that it's just more in your face with Vivek, a real humiliation, that the powers that be are done playing pretend with the American presidents. It would be like going from a puppet president to one that is directly representing the occupying forces, like if the USSR decided to put a Russian in charge of East Germany.

In truth, the essence I aimed to convey was that his religious fervor might not be as strong as it's generally believed to be, which aligns with your point. Let's face it, intense religious passion is a rarity in the Western context, irrespective of the specific faith. It's even plausible that he's employing his religious stance as a façade or exaggerating it. I'm simply uncertain how my comparison of this situation to past Christian presidents would lend support to anyone's argument. Once more, it appears as a form of identity politics devoid of substantial content. The focus of the thread pertains to the candidate, and the utilization of identity politics to obscure genuine concerns is precisely what those in positions of power desire. Reiterating, a plethora of apprehensions regarding a candidate of his nature exist that could be more detrimental than concerns related to faith, which he might not even practice as profusely as he claims. My personal experience with individuals akin to him has given me insights into this.

As far as your previous questions, I will give you the courtesy and answer them.

White Americans have been so beaten down and deracinated. What would the conservative Indians on this forum suggest white Americans do? Nothing? Completely ignore our own self-interest? Vote for the based Hindu "conservative" who doesn't have ties to this country beyond his life, who has a foreign and hostile religion to Christianity, who almost certainly will bring in millions more of his people to this country, who will then vote against white American interests and eventually get us embroiled in Indian conflicts on the other side of the planet? Is India going to become our new Israel, with us Americans going to invade Pakistan for some inexplicable reason? This country was 90% white in 1960, now whites are less than 50% of births, ~60 years later. By the time I die, at this rate, white births will be what? 20%? It's genocide. Where can I go as an American? What country would take me in and give me minority benefits?

Once again, I find myself uncertain about how you perceive Hinduism as antagonistic toward Christianity within the United States. While such occurrences might take place in certain parts of India due to political volatility, it's crucial to remember that this thread isn't centered around India, Hinduism, or even the shade of his tie. I also provided examples where individuals from both faiths coexist harmoniously, as observed in an entire state like Kerala. It's true, I've previously acknowledged my empathy for White Americans. Given my extensive involvement in local politics, I've formed alliances with many of them. However, there lies a challenge. Many among them voice grievances, yet when it comes to participating in protests or rallying behind initiatives such as those against masks or CRT, they often exhibit hesitation and continue to voice complaints rather than taking concrete action. Similar to the discussions on the forum, they appear to underestimate the value of activism or might be driven by fear. I've even taken the step to reprimand a few, directly questioning how they can allow such circumstances to persist when I've extended an opportunity for them to make a difference.

Here's where I am impartial - I've also conveyed the same message to Hindus who engage in constant complaining. As another participant mentioned, there's more similarity between these groups than one might initially perceive. I've also tackled this issue on the forum on multiple occasions in the past, although I would admit not as diplomatically as I am now. If White conservatives aim to challenge any of the numerous liberal institutions or policies, I'm prepared to stand beside them as I already have, and I could potentially rally some Hindus to join their cause given that parity. Rejecting this kind of alliance seems, at best, naive, and at worst, potentially harmful.

Look, I don't represent the majority of Indian-Americans in the USA, but I am sensitive enough to understand both ends to be able to have a dialogue. I don't mean any offense to any one by doing so.

 

[Psiman]

Presidential candidates front to get elected. Little about them matters beyond how the electorate responds to their prestige.

For instance, at the debate last week Ramaswamy distinguished himself by calling the climate change agenda a hoax. A decently performing under-forty candidate taking such a bold stance on this topic, supposedly the number one issue among young voters, has the potential to move the conversation on it.

 

[Sandalwood Peak]

I think he's a fraud but IMO you can make an argument having a president who is a Hindu (or any other non-Christian religion) and makes no bones about it is better than one who claims to be Christian yet deliberately makes a mockery of the faith on a daily basis.

Make the argument then.

People fight for sovereignty, you want to give it away. I would rather be ruled by the mentally challenged than have foreigners come tell me they’re establishing a “color blind meritocracy”. How is a multicultural meritocracy any different from what we have now?

I also noticed that Indians are getting a lot of top positions and even taking over industries. I’m sure there’s no funny business here, their identity clearly doesn’t matter. Must of been the meritocracy. Wait, am I racist for noticing?