Posted on 08/26/2023 5:52:24 AM PDT by old school
Video only
The company had a public offering. Nothing like a sole proprietorship.
https://www.morningstar.com/stocks/xnas/roiv/financials
https://www.morningstar.com/stocks/xnas/roiv/ownership
https://www.morningstar.com/stocks/xnas/roiv/performance
It’s just as well that thread was pulled The gaglinre is a glutton for ridicule.
But he knows what he’s getting into.
Ramaswamy received the grant in 2011. Roivant went public in 2021.
Listen, beta Ronlim manbitch, wherever he goes, you're going with him.
I’m sorry, What is your point? You speculated about a sole proprietorship. Since his biotech involvement started with investors that is not possible.
Vivek graduated from Harvard College in 2007 and worked for several years before law school at the hedge fund QVT Financial from 2007 to 2014. He was a partner and co-managed the firm’s biotech portfolio. Again no sole proprietorship. He was already worth <$1M when he matriculated.
https://rajneetug2022.in/vivek-ramaswamy-net-worth/
Is that what you think what the law should be, or what it is?
If it's the latter, what is your basis?
No. Trump all the way.
Beware of a meteoric rise of a unknown personality.
My point was that you chose to respond to me with financial information about a company that did not even exist until 3 years after the date in question and did not go public until 10 years later. That’s all.
I was trying to be helpful. Your original post was ambiguous. Have a pleasant evening.
Thank you for providing information that showed me that my original supposition was in error.
Trust no one.
Absolutely NO. I don’t trust ol’ Vivek in the slightest bit.
If that is so, I have another concern. I wonder about the lack of success of his biotechnology company. If he’s being touted as a successful businessman, that is a concern for me.
I remember that from when people were arguing about John McCain and Ted Cruz, but its never been clear what people think it means when they cite it.
Is the idea that Minor is dispositive that birthright citizenship is separate and distinct from the Natural Born Citizen mentioned, but not defined in the Constitution? Has it simply been ignored and misapplied? Or is the idea that it could be read to support legislation or a new case before SCOTUS to clarify the matter?
The problem with this line of argument is always that the way the courts and election officials have addressed this is that, at present, a person who is a citizen at birth is a “Natural Born Citizen” for the purposes of eligibility. The corrective for that would have to be legislation, SCOTUS wouldn’t touch it with a 10 foot pole, IMHO.
The other problem that comes up is that there seems to be no agreement among the critics of the currently enforced legal standard is the exact qualifications that should be included in the NBC definition.
How about a person who is the child of two US citizens, but born outside of the US? For sure he’s a citizen at birth, but is he an NBC? Why or why not?
How about an anchor baby born in the US to illegal immigrant parents? Under current law, and a fairly robust reading of the 14th amendment, he’s a US citizen at birth, and aandan NBC. Many, including me, have argued that neither should be the case, but realistically, it would probably take another constitutional amendment to change that. Is there another path that has heretofore been missed?
These are not frivolous matters, and it’s worth trying to understand what needs to change, and how that change could be effected.
JustiaGate: US Supreme Court Cases Tampered With To Cover For Obama 4:29
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.