Peter

Ben Carson for President

Recommended Posts

It just occurred to me that Ben Carson, with his comment about not supporting a Muslim ever for USA president, did a classic case of Social Justice Warrior baiting.

Right on cue, the SJW's came out in droves in furious outrage, and right on cue, Carson supporters stepped up and smacked them right back. Carson even did the Trumpian twist, saying the PC culture got his meaning wrong.

He got more publicity out of that than any paid advertising could ever bring him.

Good on Ben Carson. He's a quick learner.

:smile:

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not much news about Ben Carson. He would make a good VP candidate too. From my inbox and the Sunday crossword puzzle.
Peter

What will today’s piney woods lecture be about? It will be on pines and needles.

Sentiment towards skeptics that is a bit extreme? Die agnostics!

President Barack Obama. When you rearrange the letters it reads: An Arab Backed Imposter.

What would a baby picture of a film star be called? Reese with her spoon.

My accomplishments as Secretary of State? Well, I'm glad you asked! My proudest accomplishment, in which I take the most pride, mostly because of the opposition it faced early on, you know… the remnants of prior situations and mindsets that were too narrowly focused in a manner whereby they may have overlooked the bigger picture and we didn't do that and I'm proud of that. Very proud. I would say that's a major accomplishment - Hillary Clinton 11 March 2014.


A liberal’s paradise would be a place where everybody has guaranteed employment, free comprehensive healthcare, free education, free food, free housing, free clothing, free utilities, and only law enforcement has guns. And believe it or not, such a place does indeed already exist: It's called Prison. Sheriff Joe Arpaio Maricopa County, Arizona

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What a class act...amongst some biting bitches that are at best, just flat out rude...

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While glancing through Ben Carson's new book "A More Perfect Union" at Costco today, I noticed he quotes Ayn Rand (pg. 39).

The quote stated, in effect, Ayn's view that one must speak up... that it's never too late to prevent a dictatorship.

-J

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While glancing through Ben Carson's new book "A More Perfect Union" at Costco today, I noticed he quotes Ayn Rand (pg. 39).

The quote stated, in effect, Ayn's view that one must speak up... that it's never too late to prevent a dictatorship.

-J

Thanks!

Well lookey here:

Instead, the woman recommends that Rand and Carson be taught in its place, in part because she says The Working Poor is too “sexually explicit” for a junior-level AP class, reported TheDallas Morning News. The mother specifically stated that the sexual abuse and abortion passages of the book paint women “as weak, pathetic, ignorant, sexual objects and incapable beings.”

Read more at http://www.inquisitr.com/1771030/ayn-rand-and-ben-carson-over-the-working-poor-texas-mom-demands-book-be-cut-from-cirriculum/#TJEy7V9mVw9ZXUX2.99

http://www.inquisitr.com/1771030/ayn-rand-and-ben-carson-over-the-working-poor-texas-mom-demands-book-be-cut-from-cirriculum/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Adam cites a Donald Prothero article in Skeptic on anthropogenic global warming, called How We Know Global Warming is Real and Human Caused -- as if this article obviates any points made in Prothero's other article about Ben Carson's beliefs about science, cosmology, evolution, homosexuality, and gods.

Is this passing citation the merest ad hominem fallacy of reasoning? Perhaps not (it seems more like poisoning the well), but let's put it in perspective: if Adam would like to dismiss any of my thoughts about Ben Carson's Adventist beliefs or his sureties about the nonsense or satanic roots of Darwinian theory (my thoughts as yet unexpressed) -- he need merely point to a post of mine defending the theory of anthropological global warming. If I wanted to dismiss Adam's opinions on any item, I might just point to his characterization of Finland as a suburb of the Soviet Union.
Does that do any intellectual work?
As for Prothero's 'agenda,' what is it, Adam?
Seriously, if one wants to disagree with Prothero's article on Ben Carson, I'd suggest reading and criticizing the article on Ben Carson. One can certainly agree with and strongly support Ben Carson's political programme vis-a-vis the dead hand of the state -- and set to one side his Adventist-rooted beliefs about science.
Edited by william.scherk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Adam cites a Donald Prothero article in Skeptic on anthropogenic global warming, called How We Know Global Warming is Real and Human Caused -- as if this article obviates any points made in Prothero's other article about Ben Carson's beliefs about science, cosmology, evolution, homosexuality, and gods.

Is this passing citation the merest ad hominem fallacy of reasoning? Perhaps not (it seems more like poisoning the well), but let's put it in perspective: if Adam would like to dismiss any of my thoughts about Ben Carson's Adventist beliefs or his sureties about the nonsense or satanic roots of Darwinian theory (my thoughts as yet unexpressed) -- he need merely point to a post of mine defending the theory of anthropological global warming. If I wanted to dismiss Adam's opinions on any item, I might just point to his characterization of Finland as a suburb of the Soviet Union.
Does that do any intellectual work?
As for Prothero's 'agenda,' what is it, Adam?
Seriously, if one wants to disagree with Prothero's article on Ben Carson, I'd suggest reading and criticizing the article on Ben Carson. One can certainly agree with and strongly support Ben Carson's political programme vis-a-vis the dead hand of the state -- and set to one side his Adventist-rooted beliefs about science.

I suggest you stop infusing your attitudes into a post unless that person who made the post expresses one.

Also, you, as well as others, misuse the ad hominem concept consistently.

A...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While glancing through Ben Carson's new book "A More Perfect Union" at Costco today, I noticed he quotes Ayn Rand (pg. 39).

The quote stated, in effect, Ayn's view that one must speak up... that it's never too late to prevent a dictatorship.

-J

In Bernanke's new book, The Courage to Act: A Memoir of a Crisis and Its Aftermath,

he mentions Ayn Rand, briefly & twice (see "Rand" in the index).

He wrote AR was Greenspan's guru.

He also stated he's not a pure libertarian...he believes in social programs.

-J

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I DO have a problem with a candidate's religion if it posits mythical demons, mystical godly powers, prophesies, the denial of science, etc. I do think Paul, Carson, Rubio, or Cruz can compartmentalize their mysticism and I felt the same about Romney. Interestingly, Trump and Carly are not perceived as "religious." Perhaps religion could be viewed as other perceived aberrations are, like Big Foot, Nessie, UFO's and aliens. You are a bit kooky if you think those are real but it might not affect your judgment as potus.

Peter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that both The Donald and Carly believe, as they should, that their religion is personal and private and between themselves and their God, as they define God.

Additionally, for New Testament fans, we have that render section which is pretty clear...

A...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Was not aware of this.

Carson plans to take a deliberately gentle approach to his flamboyant foe, said Armstrong Williams, Carson’s confidant and business manager.

“Think about it: Parents, children, employees — they don’t want a boss or a president who is going to fly off the handle and throw insults at people,” Williams said. “People expect you to have a certain level of class and dignity. Wealth does not give you class; it does not give you temperament or discipline.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Monmouth University poll has Carson moving to 32% and The Donald at 18%.

Only 19 percent of likely Iowa Republican caucus-goers said they have made up their minds on whom to support, giving hope to lower polling candidates.

Rounding out the field are Sens. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), at 10 percent each, and Jeb Bush at 8 percent.

Businesswoman Carly Fiorina take 5 percent support in the poll. Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) is at 3 percent, while Mike Huckabee, Bobby Jindal and John Kasich each take 2 percent support.

Outsider candidates such as Trump and Carson, though, appear to have the advantage based on the deep anti-establishment sentiment among likely caucus-goers. Fifty-seven percent said the Republican Party has done a bad job representing their views.

Very interesting. I need to find out whether the percents in the poll are from this specific group of likely folks who attend the caucuses.

The bolded 19%.

A...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Was not aware of this.

Carson plans to take a deliberately gentle approach to his flamboyant foe, said Armstrong Williams, Carson’s confidant and business manager.

“Think about it: Parents, children, employees — they don’t want a boss or a president who is going to fly off the handle and throw insults at people,” Williams said. “People expect you to have a certain level of class and dignity. Wealth does not give you class; it does not give you temperament or discipline.”

The excerpts are from the Washington Post's Carson and Trump are dominating, but their chummy rapport turns cool, by Philip Rucker and Robert Costa.

The Monmouth University poll has Carson moving to 32% and The Donald at 18%.

Excerpts from The Hill's Ballot Box blog, Poll: Carson opens up 14-point lead over Trump in Iowa, By Jonathan Easley. The Monmouth University poll details are published here. It is said that the pool of respondents were 400 persons likely to attend GOP caucuses next year.

This table caught my eye:

gop_Poll_Oct25.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, do these percentages represent only the 19-20% of folks who are going to vote in the caucuses?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Monmouth University poll has Carson moving to 32% and The Donald at 18%.

Only 19 percent of likely Iowa Republican caucus-goers said they have made up their minds on whom to support, giving hope to lower polling candidates.

Very interesting. I need to find out whether the percents in the poll are from this specific group of likely folks who attend the caucuses.

The bolded 19%.

So, do these percentages represent only the 19-20% of folks who are going to vote in the caucuses?

Do you mean that of the larger set -- likely registered Iowa GOP voters as a whole -- only one-in-five GOP voters turns up to caucus?

Here's a couple of paragraphs from Monmouth:

Just 1-in-5 (19%) Iowa GOP caucusgoers say they are completely set on their choice, although
this is up from 12% two months ago. Another 43% say they have a strong preference right now, 19%
have a slight preference, and 18% are really undecided. Three-in-ten voters say they would be either very
unhappy (11%) or a little unhappy (19%) if their chosen candidate did not win the Republican
nomination, but most (52%) would be okay if someone else was the GOP standard bearer. There are few
significant differences in these findings by candidate support.
The Monmouth University Poll was conducted by telephone from October 22 to 25, 2015 with
400 Iowa voters likely to attend the Republican presidential caucuses in February 2016. This sample has a
margin of error of +4.9 percent. The poll was conducted by the Monmouth University Polling Institute in
West Long Branch, NJ.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you mean that of the larger set -- likely registered Iowa GOP voters as a whole -- only one-in-five GOP voters turns up to caucus?

Here's a couple of paragraphs from Monmouth:

Just 1-in-5 (19%) Iowa GOP caucusgoers say they are completely set on their choice, although
this is up from 12% two months ago. Another 43% say they have a strong preference right now, 19%
have a slight preference, and 18% are really undecided. Three-in-ten voters say they would be either very
unhappy (11%) or a little unhappy (19%) if their chosen candidate did not win the Republican
nomination, but most (52%) would be okay if someone else was the GOP standard bearer. There are few
significant differences in these findings by candidate support.

Are the 19% roughly the same people that caucused in 2012?

My perception is that the Trump voter has not been a regular primary participant...also, I damn well assume that Trump's field organization is making sure that every one of the folks attending any of his rallies are being registered and they will be prompted and confirmed repeatedly to turn out in Iowa.

Not sure if the Trump voter:

1) allows themselves to be polled; and

2) tells the poll person the truth.

There is a clandestine aspect of the Trump campaign that is quite attractive to the massive amount of angry voters out there.

A...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Adam,

I suspect there is a monkeywrench in the Iowa polls, too, (hello Club for Growth...) but, ultimately, I have concluded that it's better to let the thing run like it looks. If we're right, it will be one more snafu to rub in the noses of anti-Trump folks (as we mockingly ask, "When will you guys ever learn?" :smile: ).

If we are wrong, we will have faced reality correctly in public.

I do agree there is a wildcard that anti-Trump people don't take into account when evaluating public impressions. A large chunk of Trump supporters are not folks who normally get involved in politics. Here is a recent Wapo article that focuses on one:

Inside the world of Donald Trump’s super fans

In my mind, there are plenty of these kinds of people in Iowa. And, since the most recent Iowa poll was conducted among "Iowa voters likely to attend the Republican presidential caucuses in 2016," which means people who attended in previous years, it might be the case that a true sample of Trump supporters was not made--that is, these Trump supporters did not fall within the sample of people polled because they never participated in caucuses before.

But I say let those who predict Trump's demise have their fun right now.

Trump is behind in several Iowa polls.

There. I said it.

I'm still voting for him.

:smile:

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Correct.

As one may remember, the folks who swept Santorum to victory and I believe Huckaby the prior cycle in 2008 is predominantly evangelical Christian and that vote has primarily been in Carson's pocket since square one.

A...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Correct.

As one may remember, the folks who swept Santorum to victory and I believe Huckaby the prior cycle in 2008 is predominantly evangelical Christian and that vote has primarily been in Carson's pocket since square one.

A...

Which suggests Iowa is irrelevant and stupid.

rick-perry-california.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Correct.

As one may remember, the folks who swept Santorum to victory and I believe Huckaby the prior cycle in 2008 is predominantly evangelical Christian and that vote has primarily been in Carson's pocket since square one.

A...

Which suggests Iowa is irrelevant and stupid.

Fair enough, as far as your perception goes.

However, the evangelical base of the Republican "prime voter" is extensive.

Calling a third of your base "irrelevant" and "stupid" is another reason that Ayn's torchbearers will keep us as a footnote in electoral history.

It is an electoral and political fact and it is reality.

I do not avoid reality in politics.

A...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just like a great surgeon would be:

Ben Carson had a quick answer for Obama’s latest mockery of the candidates. During an interview with Brietbart’s News Daily on SiriusXM, Carson responded, “That wouldn’t happen to be the same President Obama who was afraid to go on Fox, would it…Must be a different guy…That’s just ridiculous.”

Surgical strike to the naked Prince's jugular, metaphorically.

animaatjes-dokter-71816.gif

A...

The Pussy Ploy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Correct.

As one may remember, the folks who swept Santorum to victory and I believe Huckaby the prior cycle in 2008 is predominantly evangelical Christian and that vote has primarily been in Carson's pocket since square one.

A...

Which suggests Iowa is irrelevant and stupid.

Fair enough, as far as your perception goes.

However, the evangelical base of the Republican "prime voter" is extensive.

Calling a third of your base "irrelevant" and "stupid" is another reason that Ayn's torchbearers will keep us as a footnote in electoral history.

It is an electoral and political fact and it is reality.

I do not avoid reality in politics.

A...

I can understand "stupid" in American politics; it's practically an axiom. Not "irrelevant." Irrelevant to what? If it's to stupidity it's irrelevant to irrelevant. If American politics are stupid it's irrelevant to stupidity. (I can't quite make sense of what I just said [last two sentences], but I'm leaving it up for the fun of it.)

--Brant

waiting for a Republican candidate to shove corn down Iowa's throat--in dread, but it's not gonna happen until principles happen in politics

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Calling a third of your base "irrelevant" and "stupid" is another reason that Ayn's torchbearers will keep us as a footnote in electoral history.

It is an electoral and political fact and it is reality.

I do not avoid reality in politics.

A...

I can understand "stupid" in American politics; it's practically an axiom. Not "irrelevant." Irrelevant to what? If it's to stupidity it's irrelevant to irrelevant. If American politics are stupid it's irrelevant to stupidity. (I can't quite make sense of what I just said [last two sentences], but I'm leaving it up for the fun of it.)

--Brant

waiting for a Republican candidate to shove corn down Iowa's throat--in dread, but it's not gonna happen until principles happen in politics

Now that is an interesting question...

What is The Donald's position on ethanol subsidies?

I would believe he has one.

Mine would be that we are reducing the subsidies by 50% immediately and completely eliminate them by the following year.

I would also consider eliminating them immediately.

A...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...