Vivek Ramaswamy - US Presidential candidate.

[ravishingravi]

My bet is at some point Tucker Carlson will be presidential candidate. And if he is one, he will be hard to beat. It's interesting to see the transition of this man who was goofball partisan hack hammered by Jon Stewart on CNN. 20 years later he is the most decisive and strongest voice in the country. It's incredible how much influence he has and maybe that's why he had to be taken off. Such n influential voice cannot take anti big pharma and anti establishment positions. 

 

 

Edited July 16, 2023 by ravishingravi

[Vijy]

58 minutes ago, ravishingravi said:

My bet is at some point Tucker Carlson will be presidential candidate. And if he is one, he will be hard to beat. It's interesting to see the transition of this man who was goofball partisan hack hammered by Jon Stewart on CNN. 20 years later he is the most decisive and strongest voice in the country. It's incredible how much influence he has and maybe that's why he had to be taken off. Such n influential voice cannot take anti big pharma and anti establishment positions. 

 

 

Yes, I would not rule out tucky from future runs. likewise, as the democrats continue to shift toward the left, I would not be surprised if more extreme voices make deep runs (even if they don't win) in the presidential candidate elections - voices like AOC

[BacktoCricaddict]

1 hour ago, ravishingravi said:

My bet is at some point Tucker Carlson will be presidential candidate. And if he is one, he will be hard to beat. It's interesting to see the transition of this man who was goofball partisan hack hammered by Jon Stewart on CNN. 20 years later he is the most decisive and strongest voice in the country. It's incredible how much influence he has and maybe that's why he had to be taken off. Such n influential voice cannot take anti big pharma and anti establishment positions. 

 

 

 

 

Bipartisan ticket - Tucker C and RFK Jr. - the Raging Lunatics Party that will officially usher in post-truth era in America.

[ravishingravi]

54 minutes ago, BacktoCricaddict said:

 

 

Bipartisan ticket - Tucker C and RFK Jr. - the Raging Lunatics Party that will officially usher in post-truth era in America.

 

I would argue these two are products of the post truth. Atleast Tuckers rise is mainly driven by distrust of mainstream. 

[coffee_rules]

4 hours ago, Vijy said:

Yes, I would not rule out tucky from future runs. likewise, as the democrats continue to shift toward the left, I would not be surprised if more extreme voices make deep runs (even if they don't win) in the presidential candidate elections - voices like AOC

That would be a joke if he runs. After 2016, anything is possible in Amayrka 

[Vijy]

1 hour ago, coffee_rules said:

That would be a joke if he runs. After 2016, anything is possible in Amayrka 

I wouldn't rule most things out in the US now

[Khota]

On 7/15/2023 at 2:28 PM, Vijy said:

what about her looks (in the past, at least) ? ;) [just to be clear, this is a tongue-in-cheek remark]

I like her looks too. She is a fine looking lady.

[Khota]

On 7/15/2023 at 4:28 PM, ravishingravi said:

 

Seems very complex. And how did you calculate empathy ?

Anyone who wants to dilute the young vote has Empathy = 0.

[Khota]

Youth not young.

[Vijy]

2 hours ago, Khota said:

I like her looks too. She is a fine looking lady.

I like that Indira-like white streak (not that I was/am a fan of indira)

[Khota]

6 hours ago, Vijy said:

I like that Indira-like white streak (not that I was/am a fan of indira)

[Khota]

That would be a fine-looking lady in a swimsuit.

[BacktoCricaddict]

14 hours ago, ravishingravi said:

 

I would argue these two are products of the post truth. Atleast Tuckers rise is mainly driven by distrust of mainstream. 

Your first sentence is correct. Carlson and RFK winning or making deep runs in the Presidential election process would only cement in the post-truth era and elevate it from a media phenomenon to the mainstream way of life.

 

I understand distrust of mainstream; there is enough good reason for it. But, one must be discerning and honest, especially in matters of science where there are well-researched, rigorous standards of evidence that must be followed. While the "establishment" is highly suspect on some issues such as agri-biotechnology, toxicology, nuclear power and SARS CoV2 origins, they have been (serendipitous-ly?) on the correct side of scientific evidence in terms of CoViD treatments and vaccines, and vaccines in general. 

 

It is the responsibility of leaders and potential leaders to distinguish the message from the messenger. But, that is not as "sexy" as confidently spewing nonsense like Carlson and RFK Jr. do.

 

In his zest for propagating "anti-mainstream" views, Tucker Carlson has peddled dangerous pseudoscience. It is not that he is anti-big-pharma, he is pro-stupidity with regard to science and medicine. While funny on some level, it is extremely irresponsible and dangerous.

 

The softening of men, Carlson suggested, will lead to the collapse of society and a hardening is in order. This apparently involves blasting away at bottles with a machine gun, chopping down trees with a giant ax, flipping truck tires, guzzling raw eggs, immersing oneself in cold water, milking cows, grilling meat and grappling with others. All of this apparently has to be done naked from the waist up. And then there was the “toasting of testicles,” his actual phrase. This requires the shedding of all clothing and exposing the family jewels to red light with the claim that this will increase testosterone production, making men manlier, more “resourceful, making them strong enough to survive,” supposedly in face of a feminizing liberal onslaught. There is no scientific evidence for red light boosting testosterone production.

How did Tucker Carlson get connected to red light therapy? It seems to have come from his introduction to “bromeopathy,” a new term for me. Don’t trust mainstream science, instead trust your “bro,” those muscular tree-chopping, machine gun-toting, testicle tanning examples of manliness who are set to teach the testosterone-deprived weaklings what they can do to save society. Of course, I don’t think Tucker actually believes in “bromeopathy,” but it is a catchy term, playing upon “homeopathy,” the absurd “alternative” therapy that is often embraced by Fox viewers who grip anything that opposes mainstream.

 

https://www.mcgill.ca/oss/article/critical-thinking-pseudoscience/outfoxed

 

 

[nevada]

18 hours ago, ravishingravi said:

My bet is at some point Tucker Carlson will be presidential candidate. And if he is one, he will be hard to beat. It's interesting to see the transition of this man who was goofball partisan hack hammered by Jon Stewart on CNN. 20 years later he is the most decisive and strongest voice in the country. It's incredible how much influence he has and maybe that's why he had to be taken off. Such n influential voice cannot take anti big pharma and anti establishment positions. 

 

 

Yeah, he used to wear a bow tie and look like a clueless prep schoolboy back then. More than his rise to an influential position, what is more notable is the lowering of the collective IQ which led to his ascent. 

 

[ravishingravi]

5 hours ago, coffee_rules said:

That would be a joke if he runs. After 2016, anything is possible in Amayrka 

 

But why would it be a joke ? He seems to have the pulse of his party. 

[coffee_rules]

1 hour ago, ravishingravi said:

 

But why would it be a joke ? He seems to have the pulse of his party. 

Tucker is who we are talking about! what  next Tucker-Hannity ticket?

[BacktoCricaddict]

12 minutes ago, coffee_rules said:

Tucker is who we are talking about! what  next Tucker-Hannity ticket?

[ravishingravi]

4 hours ago, BacktoCricaddict said:

Your first sentence is correct. Carlson and RFK winning or making deep runs in the Presidential election process would only cement in the post-truth era and elevate it from a media phenomenon to the mainstream way of life.

 

I understand distrust of mainstream; there is enough good reason for it. But, one must be discerning and honest, especially in matters of science where there are well-researched, rigorous standards of evidence that must be followed. While the "establishment" is highly suspect on some issues such as agri-biotechnology, toxicology, nuclear power and SARS CoV2 origins, they have been (serendipitous-ly?) on the correct side of scientific evidence in terms of CoViD treatments and vaccines, and vaccines in general. 

 

It is the responsibility of leaders and potential leaders to distinguish the message from the messenger. But, that is not as "sexy" as confidently spewing nonsense like Carlson and RFK Jr. do.

 

In his zest for propagating "anti-mainstream" views, Tucker Carlson has peddled dangerous pseudoscience. It is not that he is anti-big-pharma, he is pro-stupidity with regard to science and medicine. While funny on some level, it is extremely irresponsible and dangerous.

 

The softening of men, Carlson suggested, will lead to the collapse of society and a hardening is in order. This apparently involves blasting away at bottles with a machine gun, chopping down trees with a giant ax, flipping truck tires, guzzling raw eggs, immersing oneself in cold water, milking cows, grilling meat and grappling with others. All of this apparently has to be done naked from the waist up. And then there was the “toasting of testicles,” his actual phrase. This requires the shedding of all clothing and exposing the family jewels to red light with the claim that this will increase testosterone production, making men manlier, more “resourceful, making them strong enough to survive,” supposedly in face of a feminizing liberal onslaught. There is no scientific evidence for red light boosting testosterone production.

How did Tucker Carlson get connected to red light therapy? It seems to have come from his introduction to “bromeopathy,” a new term for me. Don’t trust mainstream science, instead trust your “bro,” those muscular tree-chopping, machine gun-toting, testicle tanning examples of manliness who are set to teach the testosterone-deprived weaklings what they can do to save society. Of course, I don’t think Tucker actually believes in “bromeopathy,” but it is a catchy term, playing upon “homeopathy,” the absurd “alternative” therapy that is often embraced by Fox viewers who grip anything that opposes mainstream.

 

https://www.mcgill.ca/oss/article/critical-thinking-pseudoscience/outfoxed

 

 

 

I am no defender of Tucker. As an Indian, I dont really care. But I dont think everyone has to be put through rigour of scientifc community and come out clean to prove they have scientific temper. The day these science fact checker folks begin to take on how men can be women and men can be be pregnant, I could atleast concede that everyone is being put through the same rigour. Unfortunately academia is too compromised and can only pick and choose what they can or cannot take on.

 

So, I would rather just guage the rhetoric and talking points which is also just fluff. But I can take it on its face value for whatever its worth.

[ravishingravi]

1 hour ago, coffee_rules said:

Tucker is who we are talking about! what  next Tucker-Hannity ticket?

 

In 2015, when Trump came down the escalator, many held this view. Perhaps we have still not come to accept the world we live in.

[ravishingravi]