View Full Version : Third GOP Debate
My thought was that Cruz and Rubio put in the best performances of the evening.
The CNBC moderators seemed almost comically inept. In a debate supposedly on economic issues, they kept trying ridiculous gotcha questions and invitations for the candidates to attack one another. I seldom watch CNBC, but if last night was any indication of their quality, I haven't missed much. One commentator called the debate “an encyclopedic example of liberal media bias on stage.”
Ultralight
10-29-15, 9:19am
Wait... is Trump still running? Man... I hope he wins the presidency.
catherine
10-29-15, 9:56am
My thought was that Cruz and Rubio put in the best performances of the evening.
The CNBC moderators seemed almost comically inept. In a debate supposedly on economic issues, they kept trying ridiculous gotcha questions and invitations for the candidates to attack one another. I seldom watch CNBC, but if last night was any indication of their quality, I haven't missed much. One commentator called the debate “an encyclopedic example of liberal media bias on stage.”
Yes, that was something. The moderators were insulting from the first question "Is this a comic book presidency?".. and they had little control over the debaters. They were prodding and poking--when the audience boos the moderator, that's a bad sign.
It was liberal media bias, but I happen to believe that media bias cuts both ways (6 corporations rule all major media outlets, and you can't tell me that they are all liberal).
Donald Trump must have been just biting his tongue, as his air time was nothing like it was in other debates. I wanted Chris Christie to do well as he's my homie, and I think he edged up a tad. Kasich had a good point that three of the governors up there (Kasich, Christie, and Bush) all have done well managing their State budgets (or so they claim), yet the front runners have NO experience. But Kasich has no charisma or the political verve that makes a president. Rubio did pretty well, Fiorina is well-spoken but an ice princess, I actually like SOME of Huckabee's ideas, but he's not going anywhere, nor is Rand Paul, and I really don't like Ted Cruz.
But it was fun toggling between the debates and the World Series (BIL is a rabid Mets fan--I normally hate baseball, but I want the Mets to win for him).
I missed the early debate but was able to see the later one in its entirety. While I thought each candidate had their moments, I think there's just too many of them at this point for anything substantive to come out of a debate format, there simply isn't enough time for real debate with so many competing voices.
As for CNBC's format and moderators, I think Erick Erickson of Red State had the best quote so far:“CNBC could have saved themselves and the Republican Party a lot of money by hiring actual monkeys to fling their pooh at the candidates...”
To me, that sums it up perfectly.
I could not watch it and from what I could tell from the media summaries, there was no obvious winner. I guess the polls picked Rubio. If there would be a media bias I could pick on, it would be that anyone without cable CNBC could not educate themselves on the candidates. If I were a Republican, it would be a tough choice at this point.
Williamsmith
10-29-15, 2:47pm
I have watched the CNBC network enough to know that their bias stems from a close relationship with corporate America, the too big to fail banks, industry executives, techno geeks, dull boring market analysts, political cronies and hedge fund high rollers. None of what the middleclass wants to see happen is acceptable to them. That is Wall Street talking. Big bad Wall Street ....who create nothing but rake in profits hand over fist. Use their insider information to bail out before everyone else gets flushed down the drain.
That said, I'm looking at the Republican menu and I can't find anything to order that might satisfy my hunger period. I can't even see anything on the dessert menu.
Anyone know who the Libertarians, the Greens, or the Socialists are running?
rodeosweetheart
10-29-15, 3:27pm
I think Jill Stein is running again for the Greens.
It was the circus i expected it to be. My main problem with the moderators was that they didn't ask obvious follow up questions. For instance, most of them were wringing their hands about the poor middle class and how prices have increased and wages have stagnated (trying to blame Obama I guess), yet all of them who were in the position to do so voted AGAINST raising the minimum wage. That, to me, is an obvious follow up that no one was challenged on.
And the moderators were booed when one of them pointed out the uncomfortable truth that Carson was a shill for some snake oil vitamin company. He denied it, which was a complete and total lie. He made a video for them for heavens sake! (why oh why do these politicians pretend that phones, and video and the internet don't exist!) That wasn't a gotcha question. This man wants to be the most powerful leader of the free world and he's peddling some miracle cure!
Cruz was given a serious question and he proceeded to waste his time ragging on the so called liberal media. Fact was, he didn't want to answer the question, which was about his constant threats to shut down the government if he doesn't get his way. Again, not gotcha in any way.
And Fiorina...oh god! If this woman's lips are moving she's lying. Again, we can check these things. She's just counting on folks to take her word for it and not spend 5 minutes checking on some outlandish thing she's said.
There were a few goofy questions (it was 2 house after all) but for the most part, the questions were about substance. Things the public would ask. Not about their rehearsed policy speech (we can go to their web site after all and read it) but about things they said or did (or didn't do). And they pretty much went to the default of attacking the questioner when they didn't want to answer the question. Pretty standard stuff for all politicians I think.
They really can't complain about the questions though. When you run your campaign on shooting raspberries at everyone else, you gotta know the question will be "Is your tongue blue?"!Splat!
They really can't complain about the questions though.
No, I think they can.
Mr. Andrew Lack
Chairman, NBC News
30 Rockefeller Plaza
New York, New York 10112
Dear Mr. Lack,
I write to inform you that pending further discussion between the Republican National Committee (RNC) and our presidential campaigns, we are suspending the partnership with NBC News for the Republican primary debate at the University of Houston on February 26, 2016. The RNC’s sole role in the primary debate process is to ensure that our candidates are given a full and fair opportunity to lay out their vision for America’s future. We simply cannot continue with NBC without full consultation with our campaigns.
The CNBC network is one of your media properties, and its handling of the debate was conducted in bad faith. We understand that NBC does not exercise full editorial control over CNBC’s journalistic approach. However, the network is an arm of your organization, and we need to ensure there is not a repeat performance.
CNBC billed the debate as one that would focus on “the key issues that matter to all voters—job growth, taxes, technology, retirement and the health of our national economy.” That was not the case. Before the debate, the candidates were promised an opening question on economic or financial matters. That was not the case. Candidates were promised that speaking time would be carefully monitored to ensure fairness. That was not the case. Questions were inaccurate or downright offensive. The first question directed to one of our candidates asked if he was running a comic book version of a presidential campaign, hardly in the spirit of how the debate was billed.
While debates are meant to include tough questions and contrast candidates’ visions and policies for the future of America, CNBC’s moderators engaged in a series of “gotcha” questions, petty and mean-spirited in tone, and designed to embarrass our candidates. What took place Wednesday night was not an attempt to give the American people a greater understanding of our candidates’ policies and ideas.
I have tremendous respect for the First Amendment and freedom of the press. However, I also expect the media to host a substantive debate on consequential issues important to Americans. CNBC did not.
While we are suspending our partnership with NBC News and its properties, we still fully intend to have a debate on that day, and will ensure that National Review remains part of it.
I will be working with our candidates to discuss how to move forward and will be in touch.
Sincerely,
Reince Priebus
Chairman, Republican National Committee
Ultralight
10-30-15, 2:15pm
What is so wrong with "gotcha" questions? Maybe they deserve to get got. ;)
What is so wrong with "gotcha" questions? Maybe they deserve to get got. ;)
It makes for better (as in more popular) television - I would think CNBC would act in a manner that best works in the interest of their investors. Or to put more simply, I expect they chose money over providing a fair, impartial and informative debate. If FOX had done the debate, I expect it would have been slanted toward their primary audience as well.
No, I think they can.
Yes Alan, I KNOW they are complaining, but this letter doesn't prove anything except that they are a bunch of whining crybabies who were asked some questions they would rather not answer. Nothing gotcha there. In fact, as ULA said, what's wrong with some gotcha questions? if they can't answer a few questions about their past actions and words, how are they going to expect to hold the most powerful position in the world.
I think this is what people are forgetting. This isn't some reality TV show or elections for school homecoming king/queen. This is serious business. If they are made uncomfortable, or 'embarrassed' by some simple questions from the press, questions about what THEY said or did, they should just quit. Now. But that is the problem isn't it. They aren't serious.
Not a one of them is ready for prime time, or even close to being capable for this position.
STark contrast...Democratic debate included what you would call 'gotcha' questions. The candidates tried to answer them. Not one complaint about the questions.
Republican debate....tough questions, and all they did was attack the questioner. They didn't want to answer the questions.
Other than that fantasy football question (and even there one could say it was a question about insider trading and online gambling) tell me which question was 'gotcha' without substance? Give me an example.
Other than that fantasy football question (and even there one could say it was a question about insider trading and online gambling) tell me which question was 'gotcha' without substance? Give me an example.
There were several, starting with the first question to Donald Trump asking if his campaign was a 'comic book' version, which pretty much set the tone for the remainder of the inquisition (it wasn't a debate). Another which immediately comes to mind was when John Harwood deliberately lied about Marco Rubio's tax plan. What made it remarkable was that Harwood had misrepresented it several weeks earlier and was forced to retract his earlier statements, although apparently forgetting as he made the same original claims again in the 'debate'.
Of course, CNBC probably did the nation a favor as future debates may actually be debates rather than partisan witch hunts.
rosarugosa
10-31-15, 5:15pm
Alan & Peggy are back in action - YAY! !pow!
Alan & Peggy are back in action - YAY! !pow!
:laff::laff: Things a little too quiet? :laff:
I'm still pretty busy, but i try to check in once in a while. But as long as Alan insists on toeing the party line...it isn't much fun. ;) He's too predictable.
Now williamsmith, here's a worthy adversary. Truth be told I've been busy with real world stuff, but from what i see, here is a guy who thinks. Not so predictable. (not that Alan can't be thoughtful, I just think he has fallen into a trap of ideology, incapable of independent thought right now. I would certainly welcome the old, thoughtful Alan of latter years...are you out there Alan?)
Yes, there were some goofy questions. So were there in the democratic debate. Difference was, the democratic contenders tried to answer all questions, regardless. No complaints about the questions, cause perhaps they know that as president they will get an endless stream of goofy questions. Goes with the territory. Something the republican candidates don't seem to understand. There are many levels to being presidential. Unfortunately, the republican candidates just came off as petulant whiners. People notice this. They really do. I will freely admit i have voted Republican in the past, but it has been quite some time since i have been able to vote for anyone in that party. They have been hi-jacked by idiots and fear mongering and lies. I think republicans need to realize is that the republican ideal they hold dear to is simply not the reality of the republican party today. it just isn't. Read the platform sometime. the actual platform. it isn't what you think it is.
There is an old saying...you dress for the job you want. Well, you act as if you have the job you want. And until one of the republican contenders acts Presidential, no one will see them as Presidential. Take Hillary and the completely ridiculous Benghazi hearings. She went 11 hours with these witch hunters and didn't lose her cool once. That's presidential. The republicans could learn something from this. I don't think they will.
I'm still pretty busy, but i try to check in once in a while. But as long as Alan insists on toeing the party line...it isn't much fun. ;) He's too predictable.
Now williamsmith, here's a worthy adversary. Truth be told I've been busy with real world stuff, but from what i see, here is a guy who thinks. Not so predictable. (not that Alan can't be thoughtful, I just think he has fallen into a trap of ideology, incapable of independent thought right now. I would certainly welcome the old, thoughtful Alan of latter years...are you out there Alan?)
LOL, yep, I'm still here. I've simply realized over the years that the most effective response to any of your political posts is a simple phrase: Damned Republicans! :cool:
LOL, yep, I'm still here. I've simply realized over the years that the most effective response to any of your political posts is a simple phrase: Damned Republicans! :cool:
Thanks Obama.
Seriously though... As of now there isn't a republican candidate that I would consider supporting so I watched the debate hoping the cream would rise to the top. In a way it did because, IMO, the candidates with the most political experience earned the most brownie points. That would be Cruz and Rubio. I'm not a fan of Rubio and Cruz makes my skin crawl, but it wasn't a surprise. The candidates who have the least political experience did not fare as well. Nothing unexpected there, either. I do have to agree with with any commentator who acknowledged an utterly embarrassing performance by the moderators. I don't think inept is as good a description as laughable would be. I tuned in hoping to see serious questions posed to a group of people who are all striving to lead our country. What I got was a juvenile $#!+ show by the mod squad. It was an important opportunity wasted.
On a completely different note, why was the democratic debate available free from several online sources while the republican debate was only available to those with a cable subscription? Regardless of what conspiracy theory anyone wants to read into that there can't be much doubt that the result was higher viewership of the dems by the younger, connected in every way EXCEPT cable crowd. Do the reps not care about that demographic or are they hoping to limit exposure until they have a nominee? It seems risky in either case when you consider millennials now outnumber baby boomers.
rodeosweetheart
11-2-15, 11:39am
I've always felt Obama's destruction of analog tv was for the reason you are referencing, Alan.
No free, easily available press anymore.
I see the RNC has suspended the debate that would have been hosted by parent company NBC in partnership with National Review and Telemundo. There are several more debates scheduled with most of the other major networks, so we will have the opportunity to get heartily sick of political debates by next summer and the smart phone watchers won't be shut out. Hopefully as the herd is culled, they should become more in-depth.
I would have liked seeing some of my favorite National Review writers on TV. I hope something can be worked out.
I understand this was the single most watched and most profitable night in CNBC's history.
goldensmom
11-2-15, 11:48am
That was not a debate. I was in debate in high school and college and I'm not sure what to call it but it was not a debate. Party affiliation aside, it was pitiful and the moderators were clearly responsible for the stupidity factor.
On a completely different note, why was the democratic debate available free from several online sources while the republican debate was only available to those with a cable subscription? Regardless of what conspiracy theory anyone wants to read into that there can't be much doubt that the result was higher viewership of the dems by the younger, connected in every way EXCEPT cable crowd. Do the reps not care about that demographic or are they hoping to limit exposure until they have a nominee? It seems risky in either case when you consider millennials now outnumber baby boomers.
I understand this was the single most watched and most profitable night in CNBC's history.
Gregg, I believe LDAHL indirectly answered your question. The cable companies are businesses and they depend on ratings, diluting their product offering affects their bottom line. Even CNN which streamed both the Democratic and 2nd Republican debate did so only to promote their 'TV Everywhere' initiative.
Limiting real time viewing to only one source doesn't really bother me. We enjoy the highest level of media saturation the world has ever known and the complete contents of these live events is available from hundreds of sources after the fact. I'd be hard pressed to imagine anyone, anywhere not having the ability to view the debates in the days and weeks following.
Gregg, I believe LDAHL indirectly answered your question. The cable companies are businesses and they depend on ratings, diluting their product offering affects their bottom line. Even CNN which streamed both the Democratic and 2nd Republican debate did so only to promote their 'TV Everywhere' initiative.
Limiting real time viewing to only one source doesn't really bother me. We enjoy the highest level of media saturation the world has ever known and the complete contents of these live events is available from hundreds of sources after the fact. I'd be hard pressed to imagine anyone, anywhere not having the ability to view the debates in the days and weeks following.
I do understand the cable business model and their reason for wanting to limit any dilution of the broadcast through non-commercial or uncontrolled venues. Of course a feed over the internet could just as easily be broadcast with commercial messages as without meaning CNBC and its parent company could have potentially reached several million additional viewers and realized a corresponding, if not exactly linear, revenue bump. I suppose an argument could be made that they used the broadcast to drive up subscriptions, but to rely on a one time event to do that would amount to little more than throwing a dart into space. Capitalistically speaking, there just isn't a good reason for CNBC et al to do anything to limit viewership.
You are correct that the highlights are now available online from several sources. I watched at the neighbor's so haven't gone searching for the full debate, but would concede that its probably out there somewhere. I will say that in our instant gratification society anything that is not available in full for hours or even days after the fact is not going to attract that audience that it would as a live event. Ultimately the RNC owns the broadcast. My admittedly limited understanding of how that ownership and the corresponding broadcast rights work leads me to the conclusion that any distribution limitations of the live broadcast were put in place by the RNC. If that much is true then the only summary I can come up with is that the RNC is trying to limit the exposure of the circus atmosphere with 10 candidates on stage until such time as the field is whittled down to a more manageable 3 or 4. Considering the high level of cable subscription rates for white, Christian baby boomers the debate was still widely available live to the core constituency. But further considering the very low cable subscription rate of the millennial generation overall this distribution model would serve to limit their viewing. If there's truth to that and, after seeing the candidates interact with each other a few times (not to mention the mods) I think that might be a wise strategy.
I have a hard time believing the RNC censorship theory. If they were that interested in keeping the early debates "in the family" by "hiding" on basic cable, they wouldn't have chosen what appears to have been an ideologically hostile organization like CNBC. Surely they would have stayed in the friendly confines of Fox.
I have a hard time believing the RNC censorship theory.
As do I. As of today, there have been three Republican and one Democratic Debate. Two of those debates have been live-streamed to anyone with an internet connection (no cable subscriptions required), the one Democratic Debate and one Republican Debate. Both were hosted by CNN who had the infrastructure in place to monetize the live streams with ads.
Why would the RNC censor Fox and CNBC while allowing CNN to take a pass?
Occam's Razor suggests that the individual broadcast networks followed the available business model which best benefited themselves rather than some grand conspiracy to limit Republican debates to a favored demographic.
As so I. As of today, there have been three Republican and one Democratic Debate. Two of those debates have been live-streamed to anyone with an internet connection (no cable subscriptions required), the one Democratic Debate and one Republican Debate. Both were hosted by CNN who had the infrastructure in place to monetize the live streams with ads.
Why would the RNC censor Fox and CNBC while allowing CNN to take a pass?
Occam's Razor suggests that the individual broadcast networks followed the available business model which best benefited themselves rather than some grand conspiracy to limit Republican debates to a favored demographic.
If you look at the schedule, it looks like everyone short of the Food Network has a shot at sponsoring a debate (Although a Cupcake Wars format might have added an interesting dimension). It wouldn't require Wikileaks to make the information available. And even if we stipulate cable news is somehow the province of old white Christian people, surely the high points are quickly available to people who view the world through an iPhone 6s.
Iron Chef debates. That would rock!
Iron Chef debates. That would rock!
You have one hour to make a tax policy out of eels and sheep intestine.
You have one hour to make a tax policy out of eels and sheep intestine.
You'd probably end up with something that makes more sense than what we have now!
Williamsmith
11-5-15, 8:17am
I can hear it now, Mr. Carson is it true you were cooking a roast on the day you tried to stab your friend in the stomach and kill him? Never mind the victims name........how did the roast turn out?
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2015/11/06/ben-carson-caught-in-lie-admits-to-fully-fabricating-inspirational-west-point-story/
Well, another one bites the dust. I'm just surprised it took this long....however, I realize this report of his demise may be premature. Never underestimate the ignorance of base voters.>8) You have to admit the guy is entertaining. The stuff he pulls out of his backside is worthy of the National Inquirer.
Unfortunately, his popularity says more about the state of republican voters than his entertainment value.
They really need to whittle down to 3 or 4 clowns per debate so each can have all the time they need to hang themselves properly.;)
You have to admit the guy is entertaining. The stuff he pulls out of his backside is worthy of the National Inquirer.
Unfortunately, his popularity says more about the state of republican voters than his entertainment value.
I gave up trying to read the story due to all the click-bait pop-ups, though I'll assume you're talking about Ben Carson. Maybe next time he'll tell us about dodging sniper fire in Bosnia. That would really sink him and make Republicans look even more foolish, wouldn't it?
iris lilies
11-6-15, 7:25pm
I believe this is the case: Ben Carson never says in his books that he applied to West Point.
It seems reasonable to me that he was courted by a few places including the armed services and someone high up talked to him about a scholarship to West Point (because he was in ROTC) and he remembers that as an offer of a scholarship, which it may have turned into, you know, had he applied to and attended West Point, which he did not and did not claim to want to attend.
The article peggy links to is hilarious in its plodding description of how one gets a scholarship.
O-----Kay. Dude, I guarantee that some African American super students in the sciences today, especially if they are under privileged, get to skip over tedious application forms for special privileges because EVERYONE is courting them.
why is the leftist media so anxiously crazed to discredit Carson? He's not going to get the nomination. Relax, bozos.
http://gawker.com/why-wont-anyone-believe-ben-carson-when-he-says-he-trie-1740961023
Thing is, nothing this guy says is true.
How pathetic is it when you fabricate a story about STABBING a FRIEND and ATTACKING your own MOTHER with a hammer to IMPRESS people! But i guess he knew his audience. His numbers surged after this "confession". LOL
Curious IL, if one of your neighborhood hoodies did this, would you look at them and say "gee, I think he should run for President!" Aren't you constantly complaining about these kinds of thugs in your own neighborhood? Is the republican field so thin you need to excuse and pander to this guy?
By the way, appointment to West Point isn't easy. You don't 'skip' over tedious application or get special privileges. There are plenty of qualified African Americans who apply and are VETTED and offered a place at West Point. I guarantee you Ben Carson wasn't.
The fact that someone somewhere said 'you should apply to West Point' has about as much weight as someone telling me I could be a star. For me to then claim in numerous books and speeches that i was 'offered' a staring role on Broadway would be kinda misleading wouldn't it. In fact, you would probably call it a lie.;)
I gave up trying to read the story due to all the click-bait pop-ups, though I'll assume you're talking about Ben Carson. Maybe next time he'll tell us about dodging sniper fire in Bosnia. That would really sink him and make Republicans look even more foolish, wouldn't it?
First of all, we are talking about Carson, but good for you to try to change the subject. Second, we ALL called her out on that one. did i come here trying to defend her. No. No one did. That's the difference. This guy is a pathological liar, yet here you are defending him. If it was one lie, well, politician and all...2 lies and it gets sticky. But it would seem this guy can not tell the truth, at any time. Not only that but he has no idea how government works, or even what the duties, and limits of the President of the US are. He is clueless, on all fronts.
By the way, appointment to West Point isn't easy. You don't 'skip' over tedious application or get special privileges. There are plenty of qualified African Americans who apply and are VETTED and offered a place at West Point. I guarantee you Ben Carson wasn't.
How can you guarantee that? He was the top ROTC officer in Detroit at 17 years of age and his SAT scores were very high, enough to get him into Yale. What makes you think he couldn't have gotten into West Point?
TVRodriguez
11-6-15, 10:02pm
I believe this is the case: Ben Carson never says in his books that he applied to West Point.
It seems reasonable to me that he was courted by a few places including the armed services and someone high up talked to him about a scholarship to West Point (because he was in ROTC) and he remembers that as an offer of a scholarship, which it may have turned into, you know, had he applied to and attended West Point, which he did not and did not claim to want to attend.
The article peggy links to is hilarious in its plodding description of how one gets a scholarship.
O-----Kay. Dude, I guarantee that some African American super students in the sciences today, especially if they are under privileged, get to skip over tedious application forms for special privileges because EVERYONE is courting them.
why is the leftist media so anxiously crazed to discredit Carson? He's not going to get the nomination. Relax, bozos.
I tend to agree that that particular story is a non starter. If he honestly thought that someone was offering him a scholarship, meh, I don't care.
There are plenty of other ridiculous things that come from his mouth that I can't believe anyone really takes him seriously.
First of all, we are talking about Carson, but good for you to try to change the subject. Second, we ALL called her out on that one. did i come here trying to defend her. No. No one did. That's the difference. This guy is a pathological liar, yet here you are defending him. If it was one lie, well, politician and all...2 lies and it gets sticky. But it would seem this guy can not tell the truth, at any time. Not only that but he has no idea how government works, or even what the duties, and limits of the President of the US are. He is clueless, on all fronts.
I was talking about Carson too, and how silly it is for stupid Republicans to favor him over someone like Hillary. She's got the smart Democrat vote. The next thing you know, he'll probably tell us his mother named him after Ben Affleck. You just can't believe a thing he says. Stupid Republicans!
I believe this is the case: Ben Carson never says in his books that he applied to West Point.
It seems reasonable to me that he was courted by a few places including the armed services and someone high up talked to him about a scholarship to West Point (because he was in ROTC) and he remembers that as an offer of a scholarship, which it may have turned into, you know, had he applied to and attended West Point, which he did not and did not claim to want to attend.
The article peggy links to is hilarious in its plodding description of how one gets a scholarship.
The only problem with his story is that, unless I am mistaken, nobody pays to go to West Point, or any of the military academies. In that case it seems unlikely that anyone, General Westmoreland or otherwise, offered him a scholarship, which sort of makes Carson's whole story seem dubious.
iris lilies
11-7-15, 12:06am
The only problem with his story is that, unless I am mistaken, nobody pays to go to West Point, or any of the military academies. In that case it seems unlikely that anyone, General Westmoreland or otherwise, offered him a scholarship, which sort of makes Carson's whole story seem dubious.
ok, right, the military academies are free tuition. So let's say the big Army Poohbah said something like "you are a special young man and we would love to have you at West Point. I could arrange a trip for you to talk with the dean, no cost to you, I'll take care of that, and we would make sure you have some pocket money and money to get home to see your mother at Christmastime" which all sounds like free stuff and special accommodations to a 17 year old, much like a scholarship.
This is a lot of to-do about nothing, but carry on.
ok, right, the military academies are free tuition.
Ya. Dear Daughter gave Annapolis some serious consideration partially because of that feature.
This is a lot of to-do about nothing.
True. There's enough other wackadoo about this candidate that he has no chance of actually getting elected, so it's kind of pointless to argue about whether he misremembered or outright lied.
Williamsmith
11-7-15, 10:17am
I applied to the Air Force Academy. At that time it required a Congressional Nomination. Just to be clear, in case I ever run for President.....I didn't get an "appointment" (no such thing as a scholarship) but I was later offered a place in officer candidate school which I declined. I once swung a baseball bat at my brothers head but I wasn't trying to kill him. Although he thought I was and promptly broke my leg in self defense. I talked to him about this and he said if I ever run for President, it would be okay if I claimed I had a terrible temper and used this story to add drama to the fact that I was later baptized and delivered from the evil spirit by my faith in God. It will make me seem even more special and also might sell a few books.
Nobody really thought the Republican Establishment was going to nominate an African American for President? Did they?
How can you guarantee that? He was the top ROTC officer in Detroit at 17 years of age and his SAT scores were very high, enough to get him into Yale. What makes you think he couldn't have gotten into West Point?
I can guarantee you, Alan, that he wasn't offered anything at West Point because West Point DOESN'T offer ANYTHING until you have applied and been vetted, thoroughly. Then they keep a record of it. That's why.
I never said he couldn't have gotten in. I just said no one offered him a position there. Certainly not Westmorland, who wasn't even there when Carson said he was. And he was pretty specific about 'how' it happened in his books. It just didn't happen.
ok, right, the military academies are free tuition. So let's say the big Army Poohbah said something like "you are a special young man and we would love to have you at West Point. I could arrange a trip for you to talk with the dean, no cost to you, I'll take care of that, and we would make sure you have some pocket money and money to get home to see your mother at Christmastime" which all sounds like free stuff and special accommodations to a 17 year old, much like a scholarship.
This is a lot of to-do about nothing, but carry on.
Except the big Poohbah wasn't even there to offer him anything. See that's the problem with lying. You need to make sure each part of your elaborate lie can stand up to scrutiny. General Westmorland wasn't there, no one is 'offered' anything to West Point until after some extensive vetting and application, and West Point keeps pretty good records. Plus, a place like West Point doesn't take to kindly to being used as a prop in some huge and elaborate lie.
As far as his violent childhood goes, even his own brother won't come out and corroborate his stories. They seem to be unable to find any childhood friends who will back him up. And I'm guessing he was pretty much a disliked blowhard even as a kid since they can't even find a few 'friends' to (pay) convince to step forward and lie for him either.
And now it seems he is claiming to have been voted 'most honest' in some collage course that apparently didn't even exist (as if THAT would shut up the critics! "Oh, he says he was voted most honest? Well then we must all be wrong")...oh the irony.
http://www.businessinsider.com/wall-street-journal-says-ben-carson-lied-about-being-most-honest-student-while-at-yale-2015-11
And the reason all this IS important? He is the front runner in the republican party for PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. yeah, pretty important, wouldn't you say?
This says the majority of republicans think he would be a pretty good president. You know, Leader of the Free World.
Now this guy has no political experience. He has never run for, or held public office. He has NO tract record of any public service, administration, or really a simple working knowledge of how government works. He lacks this.
So what are his qualifications? He may be a nice guy, I don't know. My gardener is a pretty nice guy, but that doesn't qualify him to be president.
The guy is RUNNING on his biography. That's all he has. Period. That, and his statement that he's make a pretty good president.(if he has any other qualifications please let me know) Adding an Amen to it doesn't make him qualified either.
So, the fact that the guy is a pathological liar is a VERY BIG DEAL.
So, the fact that the guy is a pathological liar is a VERY BIG DEAL.
Just out of curiosity, would it be a big deal if he were the Democratic front runner?
Just out of curiosity, would it be a big deal if he were the Democratic front runner?
It would be to me. Fortunately for her being married to a pathological liar is a lot different that being one yourself.
It would be to me. Fortunately for her being married to a pathological liar is a lot different that being one yourself.
I don't know. Her story about taking sniper fire in Bosnia was pretty impressive.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2008/03/26/us-usa-politics-clinton-idUSN2540811420080326#Aeq1HY2CgEgoJjQT.97
The lie about her immigrant grandparents was also pretty good.
http://nypost.com/2015/04/16/hillary-fudges-the-truth-about-her-immigrant-grandparents/
Ultralight
11-9-15, 3:26pm
Just out of curiosity, would it be a big deal if he were the Democratic front runner?
I assume that anyone who wants to be president is a pathological liar.
Bernie: always the outlier.
Ultralight
11-9-15, 4:03pm
Bernie: always the outlier.
I think Bernie is a good guy.
Just out of curiosity, would it be a big deal if he were the Democratic front runner?
Yes it would. Sure Hill has said some pretty out there stuff. But I wouldn't consider her pathological in her embellishments. For one thing, she doesn't lie at EVERY turn. For the most part, what she says about her life is true.
But when someone tells a lie when the truth would work fine or be better, that's pathological. Carson has told lies that make him look bad, when by all true accounts he was a pretty good kid. Studious and all. But he wants us to believe he attacked all these people, including his own mother! You know, that's the kind of crap a 16 year old says to make himself look tough. Not a grown man who is trying to be Leader of the Free World.
Plus, Hill does have a pretty good record of accomplishments and public service to recommend her. Did she exaggerate about being shot at? Sure, but she didn't then say she grabbed the gun and shot back. Or wrestled anyone to the ground.
I can't believe you're defending him...or maybe I can. (sigh)
I think Bernie is a good guy.
I like Bernie. He's a good guy.
Yes it would. Sure Hill has said some pretty out there stuff. But I wouldn't consider her pathological in her embellishments. For one thing, she doesn't lie at EVERY turn. For the most part, what she says about her life is true.
But when someone tells a lie when the truth would work fine or be better, that's pathological. Carson has told lies that make him look bad, when by all true accounts he was a pretty good kid. Studious and all. But he wants us to believe he attacked all these people, including his own mother! You know, that's the kind of crap a 16 year old says to make himself look tough. Not a grown man who is trying to be Leader of the Free World.
Plus, Hill does have a pretty good record of accomplishments and public service to recommend her. Did she exaggerate about being shot at? Sure, but she didn't then say she grabbed the gun and shot back. Or wrestled anyone to the ground.
I can't believe you're defending him...or maybe I can. (sigh)I think you're confusing an expectation of equal treatment with defense. I understand the desire to diminish those who threaten your world view, especially if they are a conservative minority who's life doesn't conform to the preferred narrative. They can seem extremely threatening.
I also understand the media's desire to produce inflammatory content to get clicks/viewers/listeners/whatever, although I find it disconcerting that once someone like Politico makes an outrageous claim, then later edits their original reporting due to inaccuracies, readers choose to stick with the original narrative.
Anyone who can argue that Bill Clinton "didn't have sex with that woman" and yet guarantee me that Ben Carson never had the opportunity to attend West Point is using something other than reason to form their opinions. If you consider that a defense of Ben Carson, well, so be it.
By the way, I love your posts! This upcoming election is going to be fun. ;)
Carson has told lies that make him look bad, when by all true accounts he was a pretty good kid. Studious and all. But he wants us to believe he attacked all these people, including his own mother! You know, that's the kind of crap a 16 year old says to make himself look tough. Not a grown man who is trying to be Leader of the Free World.
I'd have a whole heck of a lot less trouble considering him as a qualified candidate if he *had* presented himself truthfully as a good, studious kid who never laid a violent hand on anyone than this whole tough guy thing, even if it were true. I'd still have problems with his views on some issues, but at least I could respect him as a person.
As it is now, I wouldn't even trust him as a good surgeon.
I think Bernie is a good guy.
Me too. And as far as I know, he's been stalwart and honest in his dealings, without embellishment.
Ultralight
11-9-15, 7:43pm
Me too. And as far as I know, he's been stalwart and honest in his dealings, without embellishment.
He doesn't stand a chance! :(
I like Bernie. He's a good guy.
He's definitely the closest to a good one I've seen out there. At least a bit of deviation :-) The two parties are like rails on a railroad track - they never intersect, but they never stray away from other party, either. And regardless of which one you pick you're going to end up in the same place.
He doesn't stand a chance! :(
If everyone wanting to vote for him would actually vote for him rather than voting establishment, or refusing to vote because "he doesn't stand a chance", then he would stand a chance. A darn good one. Conservatives have a big advantage when it comes to elections, not necessarily because most of the country agrees with their views, but because they actually get out and vote, regularly...in droves, and not just in the major elections.
ApatheticNoMore
11-9-15, 8:15pm
If everyone wanting to vote for him would actually vote for him rather than voting establishment, or refusing to vote because "he doesn't stand a chance", then he would stand a chance. A darn good one.
if the party leaders wish it ... They've got super-delegates for one thing.
gimmethesimplelife
11-10-15, 12:11am
I will admit I did not watch this debate. But now with the disgracement of Mr. Carson, should he continue to the next debate, I will watch. My husband would say to watch to know your enemies, but I see it differerently than that. Should Mr.Carson appear at the next debate, we will learn much about the character of the othet GOP hopefuls by the way they treat Mr. Carson. Rob
if the party leaders wish it ... They've got super-delegates for one thing.
That only works up to a point, HRC had most of them "committed" to her in 2008, but they began deserting her for the Chosen One when the polls turned against her. Otherwise (especially for the Dems) I agree they represent a nice little bulwark against democracy.
Ultralight
11-10-15, 9:56am
LDAHL:
Is there any political issue on which you lean left? Just curious...
LDAHL:
Is there any political issue on which you lean left? Just curious...
I'm against the death penalty and not particularly fanatical on the subject of drugs.
Ultralight
11-10-15, 10:24am
I'm against the death penalty and not particularly fanatical on the subject of drugs.
The first one makes sense. I would not have guessed the second one though.
I am not particularly fanatical on the subject of gun control.
But I am not entirely against the death penalty though.
The first one makes sense. I would not have guessed the second one though.
I am not particularly fanatical on the subject of gun control.
But I am not entirely against the death penalty though.
My beef with the death penalty is that you can't fix your mistakes. As to drugs, I have no problem with individuals making themselves stupid, sick and irrational as long as they're held accountable for their actions.
iris lilies
11-10-15, 10:42am
My beef with the death penalty is that you can't fix your mistakes. As to drugs, I have no problem with individuals making themselves stupid, sick and irrational as long as they're held accountable for their actions.
...and I don't have to pay for it, the stupidity et al.
JaneV2.0
11-10-15, 12:11pm
The death penalty is so capriciously and unevenly applied as to be cruel and unusual, IMO.
There are individuals so depraved and vicious that no one would miss them should they be exterminated and they're a menace to everyone who comes in contact with them, but they're often not the people who are killed by the state. It's more often a person of color who kills someone in a robbery.
As far as recreational drugs go, I'm a fan...(My sibling uses cannabis in a salve on her knees--she swears it works. So far, it hasn't rendered her stupid...) I would love to revisit psilocybin, should it ever be legalized. I don't see a bit of difference between judiciously used psychedelics and say, wine.
Ultralight
11-10-15, 12:17pm
I think the death penalty should be an option. Like a convict could do 10 years or elect to have the death penalty. Something like that...
...and I don't have to pay for it, the stupidity et al.
You're certainly paying for it now. It costs far more to put a person in prison for a year than they could get in various government benefits that they may qualify for.
iris lilies
11-10-15, 12:23pm
You're certainly paying for it now. It costs far more to put a person in prison for a year than they could get in various government benefits that they may qualify for.
sure, theoretically I am all for de-regulating about anything for adults, but keep in mind that a one position is to move those funds from prison support to drug rehab treatment centers.
nope, I want to see a significant reduction in costs for the drug problem. I think that would come with far fewer law enforcement resources going into the drug war, ignoring the prison/treatment center issue.
But on a practical level I want you, jp, to assure me that in my 'hood that is surrounded by heroin drug wars expressed in daily gunshots and gang murders, I will be significantly safer.
One would think that deregulating of the heroin trade would give everyone less to fight over, but the unintended consequences of these social engineering experiments worry me.
Ultralight
11-10-15, 12:24pm
Watch the movie Let's Go To Prison
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SvLfSSULpEI
sure, theoretically I am all for de-regulating about anything for adults, but keep in mind that a one position is to move those funds from prison support to drug rehab treatment centers.
nope, I want to see a significant reduction in costs for the drug problem. I think that would come with far fewer law enforcement resources going into the drug war, ignoring the prison/treatment center issue.
But on a practical level I want you, jp, to assure me that in my 'hood that is surrounded by heroin drug wars expressed in daily gunshots and gang murders, I will be significantly safer.
One would think that deregulating of the heroin trade would give everyone less to fight over, but the unintended consequences of these social engineering experiments worry me.
A hundred years ago the alcohol business involved lots of guns and violence. Repeal of prohibition solved that problem. If the heroin dealers had access to the legal system to settle disputes there wouldn't be any more violent rival drug gangs. And tax the crap enough to pay for rehab programs, or at least methadone chewing gum.
Ultralight
11-10-15, 1:49pm
LDAHL spoke of something earlier that he referred to a "sickness of the soul" (or something like that). I don't know that prisons or rehab or chewing gum will fix that root problem that makes people think taking a drug like heroin is an okay life option.
LDAHL spoke of something earlier that he referred to a "sickness of the soul" (or something like that). I don't know that prisons or rehab or chewing gum will fix that root problem that makes people think taking a drug like heroin is an okay life option.
Is it perhaps a cultural/spiritual problem more than a political/governance problem?
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.