2015-2016 Republican Primary Season - Trump Courts the Conservatives

[mckerney]

Originally Posted by digamma

Carson seems to have some expectation that he's above reproach and shouldn't be vetted or researched. "Aw shucks, people asked me to run for President, so I guess I better."

Maybe he should be above reproach when he has already proven to be the most honest student in Perceptions 301.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/ben-cars...ons-1446861864

In his 1990 autobiography, “Gifted Hands,” Mr. Carson writes of a Yale psychology professor who told Mr. Carson, then a junior, and the other students in the class—identified by Mr. Carson as Perceptions 301—that their final exam papers had “inadvertently burned,” requiring all 150 students to retake it. The new exam, Mr. Carson recalled in the book, was much tougher. All the students but Mr. Carson walked out.

“The professor came toward me. With her was a photographer for the Yale Daily News who paused and snapped my picture,” Mr. Carson wrote. “ ‘A hoax,’ the teacher said. ‘We wanted to see who was the most honest student in the class.’ ” Mr. Carson wrote that the professor handed him a $10 bill.

No photo identifying Mr. Carson as a student ever ran, according to the Yale Daily News archives, and no stories from that era mention a class called Perceptions 301. Yale Librarian Claryn Spies said Friday there was no psychology course by that name or class number during any of Mr. Carson’s years at Yale.

I'm expecting Carson to tell us he's Marine Todd any day now.

[Dutch]

Where will Carson's points go once he's run out of town?

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

MyWay, oddly enough, announced today that they're shutting down the site in early December. I've used them as my homepage for more than a decade and I'm not looking forward to trying to replace them. It was simply organized headlines by category, virtually all from AP except for a couple of sections that faded out over the years.

For some reason I always thought of MyWay as some sort of curated right-wing site. Then recently I followed one of your links and it looked just like a basic aggregator site. Did they used to have more of a slant, or was I thinking of something else?

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

Carson's claim that the pyramids were used for food storage has been proven true:

Well, shit.

[Dutch]

Carson back on top! Thanks, NobodyHere.

[JPhillips]

I hear when he was in college Carson had a steamy relationship with Lennay Kekua.

[GrantDawg]

My hope right now on the GOP side is that Rubio continues to surge and wins the nomination. Of the real contenders, he is the most palatable to me. I would most likely vote Democrat, and sort of root the GOP would pick the worst chance to win candidate if it weren't for the fact that Hillary is probably going to walk into the nomination. I just can't see myself voting for her (as I said in the other thread), and I really could see her lose to anyone on the GOP side regardless of the current head-to-head polls (she would inspire very low turn outs in my opinion).

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

Your argument is that there is a 'cost' - ignoring that money is an artificial construct created by humans ... in reality there is no such thing.


That is partially my point - at present people are raised to feel guilty if they don't work ... its part of the indoctrination of society that the only way to be a 'good citizen' is to get a job, keep your head down and work hard.

If society taught things differently then people wouldn't feel guilty about not working.

You can see this in much of society elsewhere, for instance Gay people are (thankfully) being more accepted today and because of this they're less prone to feeling guilt and hiding their sexuality ... thats because they're no longer being indoctrinated into thinking they're doing something wrong.

(and yes 'Victimization' is a strong word - but what else would you call it when someone is punished for something which might be beyond their control ... today in some areas there simply isn't work available .. in the future those areas will be far larger and more encompassing to most people, that I in my 'niche' might be able to work doesn't mean I don't want the best situation for society as a whole and not just myself in my ivory tower)


I agree - people need to be directed far more towards self growth and also artistic and personal endeavors, things which profit in a way other than financial (which will hopefully be obsolete one day).



I think you could probably have just left it with saying 'finding meaning is difficult' .. as you age and grow as a person most people have challenges with meaning and happiness, regardless of their career success or position in life imho ... its not so much whether its a controlled existence, its more confronting your own mortality and limitations in a way that you don't when you're younger.

(and everyone has a 'controlled' existence - we exist in a world of laws and are controlled presently by financial restrictions and other societal structures ... many of these exist and are obeyed subconsciously without individuals realizing .. some people have strong enough personalities and opinions to buck against these ... but most don't even realize they live within these limitations)

Before there was money, people bartered goods or services. If we return to that system, then either people will have to produce something worthy of trade, or the government will have to be the middleman for all trades.

In the former, people have to produce, so getting rid of money makes no sense. So we go to the latter, where the government says you can take and produce whatever you want. Or take what you need and produce what you want. This is Marxism. Dictatorship of the proletariat. It's an age-old philosophy.

Sir Thomas More wrote about this in Utopia. The essential problems with the Marxist philosophies are twofold. First, there's no incentive to do the unpleasant jobs. No one wants to clean the proverbial cat box.

And second, there's no reason to delay gratification to do the extraordinary, but necessary jobs. Over time, we'd lose our doctors and our researchers. Society would stagnate. We'd just be government pets and the government would allocate a shrinking number of resources no one wants to produce.

Ideally, we could be genetically engineered (Huxley provided a drug called Soma in Brave New World as well) into roles. Marxism was far more popular before World War II changed everyone's attitudes toward the possibility of a powerful and benevolent government. So Huxley and other writers made this a common theme.

We're a little more inclusive today, so the eugenics component of this vision is largely gone. Instead, we're supposed to feel this all-inclusive spirit of cooperation. Maybe we take turns running the garbage trucks and running the farms. Somehow, we alter human nature so that either we don't resent those who won't take their turn - or we alter human nature so that we all take our turn.

Somehow, we identify those who can be doctors or lawyers (well, in this ideal society we won't need those) and scientists and convince them to sacrifice those years when they're young and strong and free and unencumbered so that they can serve us in those professions. Of course, they don't get to consume more later as compensation. Professional sports are replaced by intramurals. This might be a good thing. The Kardashians are executed in the public square, along with the remnants of the royal family.

I don't know. Surely there's a better way to deal with a society that's producing far too many liberal arts majors. I don't think we can change human nature enough to fight the fundamental problem of this type of philosophy - power is always going to be a vacuum.

[JPhillips]

Only 40% of 18-24 year olds are in college. Too many liberal arts majors isn't the real problem. Too many unskilled workers is what we need to contend with.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

For some reason I always thought of MyWay as some sort of curated right-wing site. Then recently I followed one of your links and it looked just like a basic aggregator site. Did they used to have more of a slant, or was I thinking of something else?

Had to be something else. They've always been about as vanilla as it gets.

The closest thing I can recall them ever coming to anything like that -- and even this is a stretch -- is that maybe 5-10 years ago they had an option for something like "political commentary" as one of the headline sections & you could customize it to pull headlines from a variety of sources both left & right. Other than that I can't think of anything that wasn't simply straight from AP, Reuters or PRNewswire.

[Edward64]

I get this feeling there will be more Carson inaccuracies/exaggerations. Likely toast.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Edward64

I get this feeling there will be more Carson inaccuracies/exaggerations. Likely toast.

Or maybe not.

The overwhelming response I'm seeing from, let's call them 'HIGHLY likely Republican voters" has been that this is a net positive.

Probably running 10:1 interpretations of it being a hit piece rather than anything landing on Carson at all. If anything the story seems to have elevated his prospects with a rather large chunk of the electorate.

A conservative talkshow friend (well, long-ago acquaintance basically) has been dragged pillar to post for the past 24 hours since she had the audacity to point out that pounding on Hillary but giving Carson a free pass is sadly hypocritical. Within a couple of hours my friend had become the villian & Carson was being elevated to sainthood.

The sheer desperation I'm seeing to attempt to salvage anyone that even vaguely resembles a remotely viable candidate has been, frankly, downright embarrassing.

[flere-imsaho]

Ben Carson's become a meme. It's never good to become a meme.



Exception that proves the rule: Texts from Hillary

[NobodyHere]

So people want to boycott SNL this week because Trump is hosting. I think I'll watch the show for the first time in a very long time.

[wustin]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Ben Carson's become a meme. It's never good to become a meme.



Exception that proves the rule: Texts from Hillary

Clinton, Bernie, and Trump are memes already though.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by wustin

Clinton, Bernie, and Trump are memes already though.

I think that proves the point.

[Dutch]

In Ben Carson's defense...they blasted him by saying there was no such thing as a "full scholarship" to West Point where he said he was offered one...but here's a FACEBOOK image of an advertisement for West Point...note the highlighted "full government scholarship" in the wording. Damn, the media is quick to destroy but not quick to "un"-destroy.

[wustin]

Originally Posted by Dutch

In Ben Carson's defense...they blasted him by saying there was no such thing as a "full scholarship" to West Point where he said he was offered one...but here's a FACEBOOK image of an advertisement for West Point...note the highlighted "full government scholarship" in the wording. Damn, the media is quick to destroy but not quick to "un"-destroy.

http://www.dailywire.com/news/960/no...ts-ben-shapiro

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by wustin

http://www.dailywire.com/news/960/no...ts-ben-shapiro

From the article:

But Carson never said he applied. He said he was extended a full scholarship offer. What’s more, West Point doesn’t offer scholarships: all admission is free contingent on serving in the military afterwards. It thus seems probable that Westmoreland or another military figure tried to recruit Carson, telling him that he wouldn’t have to pay for his education – and that Carson read that as a “full scholarship,” and never applied.

What's clear, when you read through everything is that:

1. Carson was clearly an accomplished ROTC cadet in Detroit.
2. Carson was encouraged by military officials, maybe including a general, to apply to West Point (because why wouldn't you want an accomplished ROTC cadet to apply).
3. West Point is free to all who are accepted, because you "pay" with military service.
4. Carson never applied, because he wanted to go into medicine, not the military.

This is what he says in his autobiography:

Later I was offered a full scholarship to West Point.

Paraphrasing for the sake of brevity, or misrepresentation for effect?

We report, you decide.

[Dutch]

To be clear, I'm *very* leery of Caron's credibility at this point, but I don't want to pile on when it's not necessary. And since he's on "my team", I figured it wouldn't be noted otherwise. I'm still fairly befuddled by the pyramid thing...so all in all, he's still fooked.

[JonInMiddleGA]

The rush to defend Carson continues on my social media, utterly befuddles me.

He was puffing himself up in the book. He wasn't simplifying for brevity, he was embellishing, plain & simple. Which is fine when you're doc writing a random book, hell I kind of expect some ego stuff like that.

It's not as though Carson had answered enough questions I had about the suitability of him as a candidate for my vote to be in play for him anyway (took about ten minutes for the excitement of his announcement to run to wear off, realized he was way better on paper than in reality) but the attempts to anoint him as some sort of saint now are still rather nauseating to me.

[Dutch]

He may not be a viable candidate for Prez anymore, but he's part of the "team". It's as simple as that.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Dutch

He may not be a viable candidate for Prez anymore, but he's part of the "team". It's as simple as that.

Oh I think it might be far more complicated than that. Given the reaction I'm seeing, he's had his candidacy enhanced considerably by this, 'cause know you've got likely voters that have suddenly plopped himself into the position of defender. In for a penny in for a pound might end up winning him the nomination if something doesn't break that run.

I thought I understood the sheer desperation for a candidate but I now believe I underestimated it by at least a couple of notches.

[Dutch]

Your social media reaches may be greater than mine. I'm on Facebook...only...

[cartman]

There is a not-insignificant number of people that will vote for him, just because "it pisses liberals off". Doesn't matter what policy views he might have, just the fact that they believe they will get one over on liberals is all the justification they need.

[Easy Mac]

My father-in-law is in love with Carson. He pretty much parroted all the talking points from the various conservative blogs in defending him.

I'm probably wrong, but I've tried to tell him that if he wants an actual chance to beat Hillary, Rubio is the only logical choice. He's the only one that even stands a chance against that machine. Granted, we live in SC, so it doesn't really matter who he votes for (I'll probably abstain since I dislike Hillary about as much as I dislike the policies on the Republican side).

Does anyone else see the benefit in letting Carson and Trump continue to do their thing for a few more months, just so the "real" candidates don't beat eachother up in the media long before they ever have to face Clinton?

[Dutch]

I personally am enjoying the attacks on Trump and Carson and expect the same for Rubio and Bush...nothing better than getting all the skeletons out of the closet now to avoid those last minute surprises.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by cartman

There is a not-insignificant number of people that will vote for him, just because "it pisses liberals off".

I'm fine with that (insert "no shit, really?" here) but there are several that can do that.

The whole backing him when he fucked up thing is really depressing to me.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

I'm fine with that (insert "no shit, really?" here) but there are several that can do that.

The whole backing him when he fucked up thing is really depressing to me.

That's because they think it will REALLY piss off liberals by voting for him, compared to the other candidates. That's what I was saying. It doesn't matter to this group what policy positions he has, they will vote for whoever they think will piss off the liberals the most.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by cartman

That's because they think it will REALLY piss off liberals by voting for him, compared to the other candidates. That's what I was saying. It doesn't matter to this group what policy positions he has, they will vote for whoever they think will piss off the liberals the most.

Eh, I don't think Carson even makes the top three for that criteria though.

[flere-imsaho]

As a liberal, I'm totally fine with people voting for him in the GOP Nomination.

[JPhillips]

Carson speaks far-right better than any other candidate. His Alinsky, secular progressive, political correctness stuff plays extremely well with the talk radio crowd.

[QuikSand]

The psychology test in Ben Carson's Yale story was a prank.

I disagree with the conclusion that it's reprehensible, but I think the walk-through is basically on target. His candidacy is becoming more interesting with every near miss.

[Dutch]

If I could have a top 10 list of news articles I wouldn't want written about me while running for President..."Ben Carson Has a Brian Williams Problem" would've easily made it on that list.

[NobodyHere]

So Jeb! is getting some flak for saying he would kill baby Hitler.

What is the correct answer to that question?

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

So Jeb! is getting some flak for saying he would kill baby Hitler.

What is the correct answer to that question?

Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal

[nol]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

The psychology test in Ben Carson's Yale story was a prank.

I disagree with the conclusion that it's reprehensible, but I think the walk-through is basically on target. His candidacy is becoming more interesting with every near miss.

Or with the fact that he has this painting in his house.

[BillJasper]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

So Jeb! is getting some flak for saying he would kill baby Hitler.

What is the correct answer to that question?

I don't think he should get flak for speaking his mind, but it is a useless question. You let Hitler live, millions of Jews die. You kill baby/teenage Hitler, you're killing someone seen as defenseless and millions of Jews may die anyway.

Neither answer is particularly good. Best answer: I'll let you know when someone invents a time machine.

[Dutch]

What kind of dumbass question is that??? And why is Jeb answering it???

[ISiddiqui]

Yeah, he basically needed to refuse to answer that question. Just because its on Facebook doesn't mean someone running for President has to jump in.

[Dutch]

Oh wait, it was on Facebook? Then it's legit.

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Oh wait, it was on Facebook? Then it's legit.

Well he answered it verbally as well

Jeb Bush On Whether He'd Kill Baby Hitler: 'Hell Yeah, I Would!'

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

Well he answered it verbally as well

Jeb Bush On Whether He'd Kill Baby Hitler: 'Hell Yeah, I Would!'

So you're saying he had time to think about it and still thought it should be answered....ugh....

[wustin]

Haven't seen it anywhere here yet but the GOP debate hosted by Fox Business is tonight. The undercard debate starts at 7 est, the main is at 9.

Fox Business | Business News & Stock Quotes - Saving & Investing

[molson]

It's so weird hearing Donald Trump taking a firm stand on the Starbucks thing. I don't recall Trump ever being some huge Christian or proclaiming conservative Christian values. It's all part of his candidate character. I'm curious to see how quickly he goes back to his Hollywood celebrity character after all this.

[bhlloy]

Originally Posted by Dutch

So you're saying he had time to think about it and still thought it should be answered....ugh....

Why stop there? I want to hear from each candidate on both sides which historical babies they would kill. Maybe they can do a live draft

[molson]

I'm going to go on record that I would kill baby Hitler. That would probably end up making the world worse in the long-run for some reason I couldn't foresee, but I don't know, when you have a chance to kill Hitler you kind of have to do it.

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by Dutch

So you're saying he had time to think about it and still thought it should be answered....ugh....

ADVISOR: "Mr. Bush, why did you take that baby Hitler question seriously?"

BUSH: "Well, I thought the whole Donald Trump thing was a joke, but y'all told me I had to take him seriously. You can see how it's kind of confusing.

"So, do you think tonight's debate will give me a chance to lay out my strategy for engagement with Iran, the details are a bit complicated, but I think that we can manage to strike a balance between . . . "

ADVISOR: "No, sir, I don't think that you will have a chance to do that. Our sources tell us that the debate will mainly focus on Ben Carson's new theory that the Statue of Liberty's torch was the nesting place for the dove that Noah freed from the Ark. Our team has some zingers for you to use regarding that."

BUSH: [silently weeps]

[bhlloy]

Originally Posted by molson

I'm going to go on record that I would kill baby Hitler. That would probably end up making the world worse in the long-run for some reason I couldn't foresee, but I don't know, when you have a chance to kill Hitler you kind of have to do it.

That's a fascinating historical what if that has absolutely no place in this thread, but the world would very likely be a completely different place

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by bhlloy

Why stop there? I want to hear from each candidate on both sides which historical babies they would kill. Maybe they can do a live draft

I know the topic of our next FOFC draft!

[Radii]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

I know the topic of our next FOFC draft!

I'm in and I'm taking Shia LaBeouf first.