Or in his case as a practicing Hindu, all the Gods are real
This greedy hedge fund manager is so desperate to be president he’s willing to take a shit on his own religion.
Vivek Ramaswamy declares his 10 Commandments. Number 1 - God is real
Posts
Total:
56
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
Doesn't Trump prove that God is not real?
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
How is he shitting on his religion?
This is what Ramaswamy posted:
TRUTH. 1. God is real. 2. There are two genders. 3. Human flourishing requires fossil fuels. 4. Reverse racism is racism. 5. An open border is no border. 6. Parents determine the education of their children. 7. The nuclear family is the greatest form of governance known to mankind. 8. Capitalism lifts people up from poverty. 9. There are three branches of the U.S. government, not four. 10. The U.S. Constitution is the strongest guarantor of freedoms in history.
-->
@FLRW
Vivek, our lord and Savior.
1. God is real
I mean, this is objectively not the "truth". since no one can possibly know for sure, saying it is the truth is dumb.
2. There are two genders
This is just an objectively false statement.
3. Human flourishing requires fossil fuels.
Humans flourished before it, we will flourish after it. It's like being in the 1800's and saying human flourishing requires horses. I mean it did at the time, but is a very short sighted statement.
4. Reverse racism is racism.
there is no such thing as reverse racism. As a concept this is stupid. Racism is racism, period.
5. An open border is no border.
since literally no one has advocated an "open border", this is a stupid thing to say.
6. Parents determine the education of their children.
there are always limits. but this might be the least stupid of his points.
7. The nuclear family is the greatest form of governance known to mankind.
this doesn't even make sense. A family is not a form of governance.
8. Capitalism lifts people up from poverty.
it can, it can also shove people into poverty. For example, capitalism incentivizes companies to offshore jobs to cheaper places forcing people who used to have good jobs into poverty. So saying it this way is stupid.
9. There are three branches of the U.S. government, not four.
I'm not sure what the implication of this is.
10. The U.S. Constitution is the strongest guarantor of freedoms in history.
no. Because people also like to use it attack other people's rights. For example by saying your right to practice your religion can be used to infringe on other's people's rights to live.
-->
@FLRW
Just another typical republican with his list of truths. Also, he forgot to say which God actually exists. Why does he assume there is just one God?
-->
@cristo71
How is he shitting on his religion?
Hindus believe there are multiple Gods. He’s a Hindu.
But his statement to MAGA voters was God is real
-->
@HistoryBuff
So overall it was a stupid declaration
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
So overall it was a stupid declaration
For a normal person reading it, definitely. Any person who isn't really right wing would see many of those as stupid or nonsensical. But this declaration isn't aimed at people are aren't really right wing. It is aimed at right wing assholes. He needs to try to beat trump in a primary and the only way to do that is to outflank him on the right. If he somehow managed to do that, i'm sure he'd walk back some of this nonsense for a general election.
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
Hindus believe there are multiple Gods. He’s a Hindu.
Who says? That depends upon who/what you consider an authority on “true” Hinduism, doesn’t it?
-->
@cristo71
Who says? That depends upon who/what you consider an authority on “true” Hinduism, doesn’t it?
It all depends on what your definition of “is” is.
Are you one of those “listless vessels” that DeSantis was talking about?
-->
@HistoryBuff
since literally no one has advocated an "open border", this is a stupid thing to say.
“Literally no one”? Or do you mean “no one of import,” as in not “literally”? There are several think tanks and organizations which advocate for open or “loose” borders.
In any case, why not have open or loose borders?
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
Got nothing to substantiate your accusation, then?
-->
@cristo71
Hindus worship many gods and goddesses in addition to Brahman, who is believed to be the supreme God force present in all things.
Some of the most prominent deities include:
- Brahma: the god responsible for the creation of the world and all living things
- Vishnu: the god that preserves and protects the universe
- Shiva: the god that destroys the universe in order to recreate it
- Devi: the goddess that fights to restore dharma
- Krishna: the god of compassion, tenderness and love
- Lakshmi: the goddess of wealth and purity
- Saraswati: the goddess of learning
FYI, Hindus do not believe in the Christian God, you know, the one that impregnates 14 year old virgins.
-->
@FLRW
Yes. But if you read the article I provided, you can see this seemingly polytheistic belief summarized thusly:
“First and foremost, the central truth that you must now grasp at the very outset is that all these seemingly different deities are actually varied manifestations of that One Supreme Godhead.”
In other words, what Ramaswamy proposes does not constitute a violation of, or “shitting upon,” Hindu belief. Whatever the case may be, I tend to view countless religious claims as unprovable and unfalsifiable.
-->
@cristo71
“Literally no one”? Or do you mean “no one of import,” as in not “literally”? There are several think tanks and organizations which advocate for open or “loose” borders.
a loose border is not an open border. I mean, i suppose there are people out there who murder and eat people. So I guess you could find people who believe almost anything. But there is virtually no one who advocates for an open border.
In any case, why not have open or loose borders?
there are certainly arguments for a loose border. But that is a very vague term that could mean almost anything. An open border is 100% just a political term. It's something rightwing assholes say that means whatever they want it to mean. Like saying someone is "woke". It's just a term used to attack people without saying anything substantive.
-->
@HistoryBuff
But there is virtually no one who advocates for an open border.
Here’s one organization which you apparently don’t believe exists:
there are certainly arguments for a loose border. But that is a very vague term that could mean almost anything. An open border is 100% just a political term. It's something rightwing assholes say that means whatever they want it to mean. Like saying someone is "woke". It's just a term used to attack people without saying anything substantive.
You think the above cited organization is a right wing asshole organization? It uses the term “open borders.”
Seeing as how you don’t like the words I used in my previous question, I’ll rephrase it: why have border security?
-->
@cristo71
Got nothing to substantiate your accusation, then?
poor grammar. No comma needed.
-->
@cristo71
Here’s one organization which you apparently don’t believe exists:
you successfully located a tiny fringe group that few people have ever heard of who advocates an extreme view. Congratulations.
You think the above cited organization is a right wing asshole organization? It uses the term “open borders.”
no, I think they are a ridiculously tiny fringe group who speak for almost no one. I think 99.9% of people who use the term "open borders" are rightwing assholes. And they use it in an incredibly disingenuous way. for example, by saying biden is for open borders when his border policy is extremely similar to trump's. It's just a meaningless phrase they use to attack people.
Seeing as how you don’t like the words I used in my previous question, I’ll rephrase it: why have border security?
every country in the world has border security. It is a requirement for basic safety, trade etc. The right uses "border security" to fear monger and try to paint immigration as a bad thing and immigrants as some sort of boogey man.
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
You know who had excellent grammar? Hitler. Which is why he founded the elite SS:
-->
@HistoryBuff
It is a requirement for basic safety, trade etc.
People who threaten “basic safety” are getting into the country now. Do we need more effective border security? How is border security a requirement for trade? Some think tanks want looser borders (I know you don’t care for that phrase, but I simply don’t know what terms you will respect on this subject) to invigorate trade.
-->
@cristo71
People who threaten “basic safety” are getting into the country now. Do we need more effective border security?
this is a common argument for disingenuous people. they point some of sort of problem, sometimes it's made up, sometimes it's wildly exaggerated, sometimes it's even legitimate. But usually they don't make a legitimate argument for addressing that problem. Take trump, he drummed up fear of evil convoys that were invading america. This was wildly exaggerated, almost to the point of being made up. But his solution, building a wall in the middle of nowhere, was stupid. It wouldn't actually address the issue, and the issue itself was wildly overblown just to make people afraid.
Do we need more effective border security?
I think there are some security measures that would make sense. But I also think that people that loudly argue more security is needed are almost entirely political shysters who are just looking to make people afraid to profit themselves.
How is border security a requirement for trade?
you need to be able to control what goods flow into and out of your country. For example, China uses government money to subsidize specific industries. This is harmful for other countries. So establishing tariffs to try to balance this out is helpful. If you don't know what goods are coming into your country then these tariffs cannot be enforced.
Some think tanks want looser borders (I know you don’t care for that phrase, but I simply don’t know what terms you will respect on this subject) to invigorate trade.
what does looser borders mean to you? for most right wing people it is a meaningless term to attack people. Do you use this to mean higher legal immigration numbers? Do you mean less enforcement on illegal immigrants? Do you mean reduced border checks on goods? Do you mean lower or non existent tariffs on incoming goods?
-->
@HistoryBuff
this is a common argument for disingenuous people. they point some of sort of problem, sometimes it's made up, sometimes it's wildly exaggerated, sometimes it's even legitimate. But usually they don't make a legitimate argument for addressing that problem. Take trump, he drummed up fear of evil convoys that were invading america. This was wildly exaggerated, almost to the point of being made up. But his solution, building a wall in the middle of nowhere, was stupid. It wouldn't actually address the issue, and the issue itself was wildly overblown just to make people afraid.
I am simply trying to ascertain what it is you believe about border security devoid of the partisan hackery, so you needn’t waste the keystrokes on my account. If you simply need to shake your fist rhetorically and often, then by all means…
I think there are some security measures that would make sense.
Such as?
If you don't know what goods are coming into your country then these tariffs cannot be enforced.
Tariffs are not required for trade. To the contrary, they are intended to be a restriction on trade.
what does looser borders mean to you?
Token security, if any, outside of ports of entry;
Do you use this to mean higher legal immigration numbers? Do you mean less enforcement on illegal immigrants? Do you mean reduced border checks on goods? Do you mean lower or non existent tariffs on incoming goods?
Pretty much. Just so you don’t get the wrong idea— I’m not advocating on behalf of said think tanks. I’m just letting you know they exist and that they… think about these things.
To go back a bit:
every country in the world has border security
Which nations have nearly the ideal level of border security in your view, and is it possible and desirable to be emulated by the US?
Hindus believe in 1 god essence named Brahman.
All the others are demigods, manifesting the god essence in personas.
Brahman is the only real god level thing and it has no consciousness, it is raw energy and is the source which all souls stem from and gravitate towards when meditating.
Vishnu, Shiva, Brahma (different to Brahman) so on and so forth are all demigods, not gods.
There is something Westerners like IWRA should know before spewing this stuff, it was British Colonists who coined the term Hinduism and fused the storylines to try and fail to unite India under one religion.
South Indians and some Sri Lankans of the Tamil ethnicity believed in Saivism, pronounced similar to sshaivism and they worship Siva, pronounced sshiva. In order for peace between South India and Central India, the Saivists were more willing to fuse their storyline and scripture stemming from way way back as ancient as Judaism, with the Vaisnavism of Central India that worshipped Vishnu.
It was Vaishnavists who had the idea of the 4 armed blue or purple (yes lilac) guy etc. Shiva was 2 armed and pale as fuck almost white, originally. On the other hand, Central India through to North India had many Pagan statues and worshipped different beings such as an elephant statue etc.
The British took these different ideologies and encouraged them to unite under Induism, which later had an H added as the Indians did not want to impose onto the Muslims (they cared less about tge Sikhs and Jains) that it was the only religion of India.
After leaving India suddenly, the Hindus left in power were rather corrupt and hate crimes towards Muslims and Sikhs escalated, with courts of law siding with the Hindus either way around (retaliation, self defence or sheer aggression).
This is part of why Sikhs, one of the Pagan ones that refused to fuse with Hinduism and located primarily in the Northwest of India, adopted carrying swords in their turbans and is part of why they hated the Gandhis.
So many Indians themselves still see the Vishnu or Shiva as their demigod prophet of sorts. The 'main' demigod they see as the one to pray to. Similar to Jesus, except Shiva and Vishnu are not human even in appearance.
-->
@cristo71
I am simply trying to ascertain what it is you believe about border security devoid of the partisan hackery, so you needn’t waste the keystrokes on my account. If you simply need to shake your fist rhetorically and often, then by all means…
It is a very large issue with alot of nuance. I think there should be border checkpoints. I think fencing in certain areas makes sense. I think there should be checks on goods passing through the border. You will need to be more specific on your question.
Tariffs are not required for trade. To the contrary, they are intended to be a restriction on trade.
ok. And all countries have tariffs and/or trade restrictions. There isn't a single country on the planet that allows unrestricted trade. So yeah, they are a requirement.
Token security, if any, outside of ports of entry;
The US has miles and miles of border fencing, border patrols etc. That is hardly "token security".
Which nations have nearly the ideal level of border security in your view, and is it possible and desirable to be emulated by the US?
there is no answer to that. Switzerland's situation is very different to the US'. Mexico's situation is very different to Canada. Trying to boil it down to "which country has the right amount of security" is not going to work. No two countries have the same situation.
what is the level of security you think is correct? what specific policies do you think would achieve that?