for display only
Big Blue Interactive The Corner Forum  
Back to the Corner

Archived Thread

NFT: Iowa Polls - Trump, Carson, Sanders doing well

Ira : 8/31/2015 7:14 am
These polls were conducted by Bloomberg and the Des Moines Register. The Republican poll shows Trump leading at 23% followed by a surprising showing by Carson at 18%. All the rest have single digits.

In the Democratic poll, Hillary still leads with 37% with Sanders getting close with 30% and the unannounced Biden at 14%.
Link - ( New Window )
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 <<Prev | Show All |  Next>>
RE: So all those countries engaged in cyber spying  
giants#1 : 9/3/2015 9:39 am : link
In comment 12450473 Headhunter said:
Quote:
get all their information from HRC's private server. I learn something new every day


All their info? I highly doubt it. But I'm sure it was a far easier target then most USG systems. And a pretty prominent politician as well.
I exaggerate  
Headhunter : 9/3/2015 9:41 am : link
probably it's closer to .000000000001% of their cyber theivery
RE: I exaggerate  
Bill L : 9/3/2015 9:45 am : link
In comment 12450482 Headhunter said:
Quote:
probably it's closer to .000000000001% of their cyber theivery

I'm not sure why percentages matter. It's not like SoS material and Ashley Madison accounts are equivalent.

I couls be wrong, of course, depending on who the AM clients are.
I wonder if the Chinese hack BBI?  
Headhunter : 9/3/2015 9:47 am : link
if they do, I wonder what they make of it?
RE: I exaggerate  
giants#1 : 9/3/2015 9:47 am : link
In comment 12450482 Headhunter said:
Quote:
probably it's closer to .000000000001% of their cyber theivery


In terms of # of pages probably. In terms of useful info, doubtful considering she was SoS. Unless you think she was just a useless figurehead?

...  
Eric from BBI : Admin : 9/3/2015 9:54 am : link
Where is Reb8thVA in this discussion? I'm pretty sure he has a high-level security clearance too and doesn't have a political ax to grind. I'd be curious to know if he thinks what I'm saying in terms of the security rules and regulations specifics is accurate or not. Reb8thVA?


*****************

xmeadowlander.... I'll probably be dead wrong, but I think Bush and HRC are both toast. I don't think it is about the money this time.
RE: RE: Eric  
Deej : 9/3/2015 10:05 am : link
In comment 12450390 njm said:
Quote:
Once again, here's the conundrum based on yesterday's WaPo article. She WROTE and SENT e-mails from her private server that were later classified as Top Secret. There was no opportunity nor process to vet those communications before transmission. You seem to be saying there's carte blanche to end run the system if you complete the transmission before the safeguards have a chance to kick in.


That is an easy conundrum to deal with. If she knew her emails contained classified info then it was improper to send them. However, if she knew info that was not classified, and then 5 years down the road someone said "well based on current developments it should now be classified" then it is not a rules violation. My understanding is that there is an aweful lot of after the fact designation of stuff that wasnt confidential (and a lot of variation among reviewers as to what should be confidential).

Quote:
My understanding is that she DID NOT turn over approximately 30,000 e-mails that she and her representative, not any independent reviewer, deemed personal.


She also didnt turn over her taxes, her car insurance forms, and a half eaten birthday cake that said Hap- Bir- Bi- on it. What is your point?

Think of it this way. Lets say she used a state.gov email address for usual work emails. Would she have to turn over 30k emails on a private server that were not work related? Under what authority? The Federal Records Act speaks to records, not receptacles. Im a litigator. I sue some company about a deal gone wrong; do I get all their emails about that bad deal, or do I get all their emails about any topic at all?
Deej, just understand this...  
EricJ : 9/3/2015 10:14 am : link
She is often the one who decides what is classified info. On occasion, she may receive that e-mail first to make that determination. So, the fact that ALL of her e-mails are passing through an insecure server puts that information at risk.

She was not using the state department server. So, no matter how you spin it, there MUST HAVE been sensitive info that was exposed.

Regarding her personal e-mails. IMO, once she essentially setup a state department server in her house, than ALL e-mails flowing through that server should be made available for review.

Finally, the individual who setup the server in her house has just exercised his right to not speak under protection of the 5th amendment. WHY?
.  
Headhunter : 9/3/2015 10:20 am : link
Finally, the individual who setup the server in her house has just exercised his right to not speak under protection of the 5th amendment. WHY?

Because if you were an IT schmuck who had NOTHING to with the government would YOU want YOUR life to become a circus in front of Congress and the American public? I'd be taking the 5th so many times people would be throwing rocks at me, but at least I go back to my life and everyone forgets I existed
EricJ  
Deej : 9/3/2015 10:34 am : link
Why is your opinion about what emails should be available for review relevant? Can we also make her Federal Records Act obligations subject to your feelings? Whims?

As for the first part of your post, I think you're ignoring the part in the process where, when she wants to talk about things that she thinks are classified, she doesnt send an email. She communicates securely. You're just getting at what Eric from BBI said, which is that effectively all her communications are inherently classified (a position that is simply irreconcilable with the fact that they just publicly released like 98-99% of that batch of 7000 emails).
RE: EricJ  
EricJ : 9/3/2015 10:39 am : link
In comment 12450639 Deej said:
Quote:
Why is your opinion about what emails should be available for review relevant? Can we also make her Federal Records Act obligations subject to your feelings? Whims?

As for the first part of your post, I think you're ignoring the part in the process where, when she wants to talk about things that she thinks are classified, she doesnt send an email. She communicates securely. You're just getting at what Eric from BBI said, which is that effectively all her communications are inherently classified (a position that is simply irreconcilable with the fact that they just publicly released like 98-99% of that batch of 7000 emails).



and why is the person who installed the server pleading the 5th? Because he fears he may end up dead if he speaks? What is the purpose of there was nothing wrong?
RE: RE: RE: regardless of what turns up in the EMails  
njm : 9/3/2015 10:43 am : link
In comment 12450395 njm said:
Quote:
In comment 12450357 Deej said:


Quote:

She turned over the emails per the FOIA request pursuant to the Records Act.



My understanding is that she DID NOT turn over approximately 30,000 e-mails that she and her representative, not any independent reviewer, deemed personal.


Deej - To your 10:05. My point is that she did NOT turn over all her email pursuant to the request. There were roughly 30,000 that were NOT turned over.
EricJ  
Headhunter : 9/3/2015 10:44 am : link
are you serious or do you play a part on BBI? What is wrong with you? Seriously what is your major malfunction?
RE: RE: RE: Eric  
Bill L : 9/3/2015 10:49 am : link
In comment 12450545 Deej said:
Quote:
In comment 12450390 njm said:


Quote:


Once again, here's the conundrum based on yesterday's WaPo article. She WROTE and SENT e-mails from her private server that were later classified as Top Secret. There was no opportunity nor process to vet those communications before transmission. You seem to be saying there's carte blanche to end run the system if you complete the transmission before the safeguards have a chance to kick in.



That is an easy conundrum to deal with. If she knew her emails contained classified info then it was improper to send them. However, if she knew info that was not classified, and then 5 years down the road someone said "well based on current developments it should now be classified" then it is not a rules violation. My understanding is that there is an aweful lot of after the fact designation of stuff that wasnt confidential (and a lot of variation among reviewers as to what should be confidential).



Quote:


My understanding is that she DID NOT turn over approximately 30,000 e-mails that she and her representative, not any independent reviewer, deemed personal.



She also didnt turn over her taxes, her car insurance forms, and a half eaten birthday cake that said Hap- Bir- Bi- on it. What is your point?

Think of it this way. Lets say she used a state.gov email address for usual work emails. Would she have to turn over 30k emails on a private server that were not work related? Under what authority? The Federal Records Act speaks to records, not receptacles. Im a litigator. I sue some company about a deal gone wrong; do I get all their emails about that bad deal, or do I get all their emails about any topic at all?
it probably goes back to the Senate confirmation committee who did not do their job when they confirmed someone who had no capacity to recognize classified material or distinguish it among heterogeneous information. That's on them.

On the other part, when you litigate this stuff, do you allow the person you want emails from to decide what to give you and what not? Assuming there is work and maybe some non-work material on their work computer? Is that person really the only one who makes the decision what to turn over and you have to accept that? I'm not a lawyer so I don't know. But as a lay person that seems dangerous. In HRC case, it's already been shown that some work emails contain a bit of personal "so how's the kids.." Did she include those as personal or work? And if she is turning stuff over under duress and then combing it first, would a reasonable person expect that she would not try to protect herself?
If you worked for the Geek Squad atBest Buy and installed a server  
Headhunter : 9/3/2015 11:06 am : link
On a client call you would testify in front of Congress? I would tell them to fuck off just the way this guy did and good for him
I got a hundred bucks that says if Congress subpoenas you  
Bill L : 9/3/2015 11:08 am : link
And asks you about your job, you don't take the 5th.

We need to test this,
RE: EricJ  
EricJ : 9/3/2015 11:08 am : link
In comment 12450689 Headhunter said:
Quote:
are you serious or do you play a part on BBI? What is wrong with you? Seriously what is your major malfunction?


I am not sure why you are asking that. My comment about someone ending up dead was of course sarcastic (because I did not think that BBI was a serious place) but the rest of it is absolutely possibility. Why is it so hard to believe that she may have been exchanging delicate information on an unsecured server?

Her own comments about this whole thing since the beginning has been inconsistent as well.

I am just waiting for Bernie Sanders to begin chiming in. My feeling is that the Democratic party (who is far more competent politically than the GOP) has instructed him to leave her alone.
RE: RE: RE: RE: regardless of what turns up in the EMails  
Deej : 9/3/2015 11:11 am : link
In comment 12450686 njm said:
Quote:

Deej - To your 10:05. My point is that she did NOT turn over all her email pursuant to the request. There were roughly 30,000 that were NOT turned over.


That's an assertion of fact, not a point. I believe it is correct. Maybe Im dense, but what is my takeaway supposed to be from that fact?
On pleading the 5th  
Deej : 9/3/2015 11:19 am : link
I think Pat Leahy got it right when Bush WH attorney Monica Goodling refused to testify in 2007 (remember that?):

Quote:
"It is disappointing that Ms. Goodling has decided to withhold her important testimony from the committee as it pursues its investigation into this matter, but everybody has the constitutional right not to incriminate themselves with regard to criminal conduct," Leahy said in a written statement. "The American people are left to wonder what conduct is at the base of Ms. Goodling's concern that she may incriminate herself in connection with criminal charges if she appears before the committee under oath."


Same here. Maybe it's the lawyer in me. I try not to read anything into people pleading the 5th. I wouldnt hold it against a criminal suspect who didnt testify.

Though remember that pleading the 5th is often just temporary. If this is just a geek who set up a server, then he cant get in trouble. I suspect DOJ is calling him, and they'll give him immunity.
Link - ( New Window )
I thought people on the Right feel the government is too involved in  
Headhunter : 9/3/2015 11:21 am : link
our lives. This guy who works for a living installs a server to a famous client and now you want him to testify before Congress and be the focus of the 24 hour cable feeding frenzy? This guy gets a tip of my hat for telling them to fuck off, I would do the exact same thing. You want to play politics? Fine, but you ain't doing it at my expense if I have 0 to do with it other than doing my job. I don't have to prove anything.
RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: regardless of what turns up in the EMails  
njm : 9/3/2015 11:23 am : link
In comment 12450790 Deej said:
Quote:
In comment 12450686 njm said:


Quote:



Deej - To your 10:05. My point is that she did NOT turn over all her email pursuant to the request. There were roughly 30,000 that were NOT turned over.



That's an assertion of fact, not a point. I believe it is correct. Maybe Im dense, but what is my takeaway supposed to be from that fact?


That she didn't turn over 100% of he e-mails.
Just when you think you figured out Trump  
Headhunter : 9/3/2015 1:19 pm : link
he fools you
Link - ( New Window )
RE: Just when you think you figured out Trump  
njm : 9/3/2015 1:30 pm : link
In comment 12451143 Headhunter said:
Quote:
he fools you Link - ( New Window )


And when he runs as a 3rd party candidate he'll say: "When I signed that they were being nice to me and treating me fairly. Since they stopped doing that they can take their pledge and shove it. I'm going to run a separate campaign. And it will be great. Not low energy like all these stupid people I'm running against."
I hope  
Headhunter : 9/3/2015 1:31 pm : link
so
RE: I hope  
njm : 9/3/2015 1:34 pm : link
In comment 12451189 Headhunter said:
Quote:
so


You hope so? Now what kind of lame statement is that? Really low energy and stupid. Now when I support someone I do it in a magnificent way. World class. Not low energy like that. By the way, what's your cell phone number?
Boy I get the idea behind the pledge  
Deej : 9/3/2015 1:40 pm : link
and Im sympathetic to the idea that if you want to party's support they should expect your support, but it's really troubling.

It's troubling because your loyalty should be to country before party. On a more practical level, it makes no sense. Every republican candidate is saying that every other republican candidate, including the ones who havent declared, is fit to be president? Ben Carson is legit nuts. Christie and Paul are screaming at eachother over national security. People have dynastic concerns over Bush (how many here have said as much). Rick Perry is under indictment. But none of that matters -- they'll all lock in right now to support the GOP nominee?
Well they want a big  
buford : 9/3/2015 1:57 pm : link
tent, remember?
The pledge  
Deej : 9/3/2015 2:16 pm : link
Quote:
“I [name] affirm that if I do not win the 2016 Republican nomination for president of the United States I will endorse the 2016 Republican presidential nominee regardless of who it is,” the pledge reads. “I further pledge that I will not seek to run as an independent or write-in candidate nor will I seek or accept the nomination for president of any other party.”


That's a powerful endorsement right there. A blanket endorsement of any of the 16 candidates (and more could still join) made in September 2015. Real considered and heartfelt. Like the End User License Agreement of endorsements.
Link - ( New Window )
Phew! I was afraid  
Headhunter : 9/3/2015 2:45 pm : link
Bobby Jindal & George Pataki were going to break away and form a 3rd party. I know this was specifically to stop them from upsetting the apple cart
the beef comment he made in his press conference today  
GMAN4LIFE : 9/3/2015 2:46 pm : link
still has me laughing...hahahah
RE: Boy I get the idea behind the pledge  
njm : 9/3/2015 3:21 pm : link
In comment 12451233 Deej said:
Quote:
Rick Perry is under indictment.


I am NOT a Rick Perry fan, but please. That indictment is nothing more than a testament to the wisdom and veracity of Frank Hogan.
So the staffer who is taking the 5th...  
Dunedin81 : 9/5/2015 8:35 am : link
was paid directly by the Clintons before and during his time at the State Department.
Link - ( New Window )
Hillary  
Big Al : 9/5/2015 8:50 am : link
is sorry that you stupid right wingers are confused about her emails.
hmmmm  
giantfan2000 : 9/5/2015 10:04 am : link
Quote:
It's troubling because your loyalty should be to country before party. On a more practical level, it makes no sense.


i guess you don't remember the hastert rule which was that if a majority of republicans did not support a bill in the house it would never come up for a vote.

New polling from Marist out this morning  
MarshallOnMontana : 9/6/2015 9:40 am : link
trump up 7 pts on Carson in Iowa (no close 3rd). Trump up huge in New Hampshire with Kasich running 2nd (28% to 12%).

People can say its early all they want, I think Jeb is done. All the money in the world and the backing of the establishment still cant make up for the fact that Donald Trump has been utterly emasculating him daily. Thats a bigger problem than the Bush last name. He looks like Donald Trumps bitch and i dont know that he can come back from that.
RE: New polling from Marist out this morning  
Sean : 9/6/2015 9:53 am : link
In comment 12457360 MarshallOnMontana said:
Quote:
trump up 7 pts on Carson in Iowa (no close 3rd). Trump up huge in New Hampshire with Kasich running 2nd (28% to 12%).

People can say its early all they want, I think Jeb is done. All the money in the world and the backing of the establishment still cant make up for the fact that Donald Trump has been utterly emasculating him daily. Thats a bigger problem than the Bush last name. He looks like Donald Trumps bitch and i dont know that he can come back from that.


At what point do we start to get scared of the prospect of a Trump presidency? When you look beyond the entertainment, it's a scary prospect.
He's also ahead of Hillary in one poll  
buford : 9/6/2015 10:13 am : link
Can you say President Donald Trump???


And I agree about Jeb. And for that, I am grateful to Donald Trump.
Im more worried about a Carson presidency  
Deej : 9/6/2015 10:15 am : link
I dont know how anyone could hear what that man says and think that he has two feet firmly planted in reality. And unlike Trump, Carson doesnt have have high negatives in the GOP electorate (although interestingly Trump's negatives are going down).
RE: Im more worried about a Carson presidency  
section125 : 9/6/2015 10:22 am : link
In comment 12457408 Deej said:
Quote:
I dont know how anyone could hear what that man says and think that he has two feet firmly planted in reality. And unlike Trump, Carson doesnt have have high negatives in the GOP electorate (although interestingly Trump's negatives are going down).


He just doesn't have his feet planted in YOUR reality. But it is a reality for his people.

Just like I cannot for the life of me understand what anybody sees in Hillary, you cannot see what Carson brings to the table because what he stands for is not what you want. I thought Hillary was strong enough to be SoS and that she was a good choice by Obama. She was for the most part. However her constant lies and coverups just leave me cold. I think these vastly out weigh her positives.
People like Carson because he has a  
buford : 9/6/2015 10:49 am : link
consistent positive message. And the fact that he's an outsider. I don't know if I would vote for him as President. But I don't see him as not living in reality. He's different, but then there are many people in the country that feel similar to they way he thinks than the way you think.
Ben Carson's reality  
Deej : 9/6/2015 11:11 am : link
Ben Carson believes that Obamacare is the worst thing that has happened in America since slavery: “You know Obamacare is really I think the worst thing that has happened in this nation since slavery. And it is in a way, it is slavery in a way, because it is making all of us subservient to the government, and it was never about health care. It was about control.”

Ben Carson on why Obamacare is worse than 9/11: “Because 9/11 is an isolated incident. Things that are isolated issues as opposed to things that fundamentally change the United Sates of America and shift power from the people to the government. That is a huge shift. You have to take a long-term look at something that fundamentally changes the power structure of America.”

Ben Carson on the VA crisis: “I think what’s happening with the veterans is a gift from God to show us what happens when you take layers and layers of bureaucracy and place them between the patients and the health care provider. And if we can’t get it right, with the relatively small num¬ber of veterans, how in the world are you going to do it with the entire population?”

Ben Carson on Obama: When a colleague said the president “looks clean. Shirt’s white. The tie. He looks elegant,” Carson responded: “Like most psychopaths. That’s why they’re successful. That’s the way they look. They all look great.”

Ben Carson groups in gays with people who have sex with children and animals as groups that just need to STFU about marriage rights: “Well, my thoughts are that marriage is between a man and a woman. It’s a well-established, fundamental pillar of society and no group, be they gays, be they NAMBLA, be they people who believe in bestiality. It doesn’t matter what they are. They don’t get to change the definition.”

Ben Carson’s reasoning on why being gay is a choice: “Be­cause a lot of people who go in­to pris­on go in­to pris­on straight and when they come out, they’re gay. So, did something hap­pen while they were in there? Ask your­self that ques­tion.” [after hearing this, Glenn Beck dubbed Carson a “lunatic” unfit for the presidency]

Ben Carson also sees Nazi Germany everywhere:

On progressives and the PC culture: “I mean, [our so­ci­ety is] very much like Nazi Ger­many. And I know you’re not sup­posed to say ‘Nazi Ger­many,’ but I don’t care about polit­ic­al cor­rect­ness. You know, you had a gov­ern­ment us­ing its tools to in­tim­id­ate the pop­u­la­tion. We now live in a so­ci­ety where people are afraid to say what they ac­tu­ally believe.”

On the IRS: “You know, we live in a Gestapo age, people don’t realize it.”

Ben Carson on the AP US History curriculum: “I think most people, when they finish that course, they’d be ready to go sign up for ISIS.”

Before the 2014 midterms, Carson said that if the GOP lost he couldn’t be sure “there will even be an election in 2016”. That is, he was warning that the Democrats would cancel the 2016 elections. When pressed, he explained: “Certainly there’s the potential because you have to recognize that we have a rapidly increasing national debt, a very unstable financial foundation, and you have all these things going on like the ISIS crisis that could very rapidly change things that are going on in our nation. And unless we begin to deal with these things in a comprehensive way and in a logical way there is no telling what could happen in just a couple of years.”

Ben Carson does not believe in the laws of war or war crime prosecutions, because of this stunning logic: “If you’re gonna have rules for war, you should just have a rule that says no war,” he said. “Other than that, we have to win.”

Ben Carson on Ray Rice’s wife: “Let’s not all jump on the bandwagon of demonizing this guy. He obviously has some real problems. And his wife obviously knows that because she subsequently married him. So they both need some help.”

So you're right section. Ben Carson's reality is not my reality.
Damn  
MarshallOnMontana : 9/6/2015 11:19 am : link
I was aware of some of that already but a few are new to me. Hes definitely a bit batshit. Hes clearly brilliant based on what he has done, but a lot of brilliant people have screws loose, part of what makes them different manifests itself in ways both desirable and not so much.

I dont see the appeal, and ill just come out and say i think a lot of it is the fact that republicans love black people who play respectability politics because it makes them feel justified about a lot of their own sentiments. If that milwaukee sherrif they put on fox news every 2 minutes got in this race he would have his moments too. Carson going after black lives matter has won him many fans
RE: Ben Carson's reality  
section125 : 9/6/2015 11:28 am : link
In comment 12457507 Deej said:
Quote:
Ben Carson believes that Obamacare is the worst thing that has happened in America since slavery: “You know Obamacare is really I think the worst thing that has happened in this nation since slavery. And it is in a way, it is slavery in a way, because it is making all of us subservient to the government, and it was never about health care. It was about control.”

Ben Carson on why Obamacare is worse than 9/11: “Because 9/11 is an isolated incident. Things that are isolated issues as opposed to things that fundamentally change the United Sates of America and shift power from the people to the government. That is a huge shift. You have to take a long-term look at something that fundamentally changes the power structure of America.”

Ben Carson on the VA crisis: “I think what’s happening with the veterans is a gift from God to show us what happens when you take layers and layers of bureaucracy and place them between the patients and the health care provider. And if we can’t get it right, with the relatively small num¬ber of veterans, how in the world are you going to do it with the entire population?”

Ben Carson on Obama: When a colleague said the president “looks clean. Shirt’s white. The tie. He looks elegant,” Carson responded: “Like most psychopaths. That’s why they’re successful. That’s the way they look. They all look great.”

Ben Carson groups in gays with people who have sex with children and animals as groups that just need to STFU about marriage rights: “Well, my thoughts are that marriage is between a man and a woman. It’s a well-established, fundamental pillar of society and no group, be they gays, be they NAMBLA, be they people who believe in bestiality. It doesn’t matter what they are. They don’t get to change the definition.”

Ben Carson’s reasoning on why being gay is a choice: “Be­cause a lot of people who go in­to pris­on go in­to pris­on straight and when they come out, they’re gay. So, did something hap­pen while they were in there? Ask your­self that ques­tion.” [after hearing this, Glenn Beck dubbed Carson a “lunatic” unfit for the presidency]

Ben Carson also sees Nazi Germany everywhere:

On progressives and the PC culture: “I mean, [our so­ci­ety is] very much like Nazi Ger­many. And I know you’re not sup­posed to say ‘Nazi Ger­many,’ but I don’t care about polit­ic­al cor­rect­ness. You know, you had a gov­ern­ment us­ing its tools to in­tim­id­ate the pop­u­la­tion. We now live in a so­ci­ety where people are afraid to say what they ac­tu­ally believe.”

On the IRS: “You know, we live in a Gestapo age, people don’t realize it.”

Ben Carson on the AP US History curriculum: “I think most people, when they finish that course, they’d be ready to go sign up for ISIS.”

Before the 2014 midterms, Carson said that if the GOP lost he couldn’t be sure “there will even be an election in 2016”. That is, he was warning that the Democrats would cancel the 2016 elections. When pressed, he explained: “Certainly there’s the potential because you have to recognize that we have a rapidly increasing national debt, a very unstable financial foundation, and you have all these things going on like the ISIS crisis that could very rapidly change things that are going on in our nation. And unless we begin to deal with these things in a comprehensive way and in a logical way there is no telling what could happen in just a couple of years.”

Ben Carson does not believe in the laws of war or war crime prosecutions, because of this stunning logic: “If you’re gonna have rules for war, you should just have a rule that says no war,” he said. “Other than that, we have to win.”

Ben Carson on Ray Rice’s wife: “Let’s not all jump on the bandwagon of demonizing this guy. He obviously has some real problems. And his wife obviously knows that because she subsequently married him. So they both need some help.”

So you're right section. Ben Carson's reality is not my reality.


There are some quotes in there that are nuts and there are some that while looking nuts are true.
You think the IRS isn't "gestapo."? Listen to anybody that deals with them.
What was wrong with the quote on Ray Rice. He does have a problem and his wife did stay with him.

What is wrong with the war quote. You don't like ending wars?

Have you seen the AP course curriculum to comment on it? I haven't, but I would bet it contains a lot of revisionist history and the whacky leftist view on the evils of the western world.

You are right on the gay quotes - absurd in this day and age and reality. And he does have some views that are head scratching.

But again, you are a liberal and some of his views which are realistic to half the country are incredulous to you.

BTW, I'm not a Ben Carson fan.

Oh, and didn't Obama just say he would win a third term if he ran (could run).. Didn't Rudy Giuliani try to change the law to run for a third term as mayor in NYC; didn't Bloomberg succeed?

There is some merit to some of his whacky comments, even if they are not credible.
Ok section  
Deej : 9/6/2015 11:52 am : link
I wont debate his comments. I think they speak for themselves. You say:

Quote:

But again, you are a liberal and some of his views which are realistic to half the country are incredulous to you.


Mostly correct. Im liberal on most "social" issues (I consider myself moderate on economic issues). I think if you look at my postings Im understanding of right wing positions that I sympathize with, even if I ultimately disagree with them. So I dont think it's just that all right wing positions are crazy to me. Look at what I've said about abortion, immigration (Im pro-enforcement and anti-amnesty), the Kim Davis situation (where Im more sympathetic than most conservatives on BBI), and the unfreezing of Iranian funds.

My problem with Walker, Rubio, Bush etc. is their policies. My problem with Carson is that he's fucking nuts. I stayed out of the weeds that would have required more explanation. Basically, he's a conspiracy nut of the highest order. To Carson, every Dem policy is not an attempt to pass an incremental improvement in this country. Rather, every Dem policy/bill is a secret plot to totally change the fundamental nature of America.
Thinking he can use Nazi Germany  
Headhunter : 9/6/2015 11:52 am : link
And the Gestapo because of political correctness. Well I'd like to smack him with a 2x4 across his mouth for trivializing Nazi Germany and the Gestapo.
RE: Thinking he can use Nazi Germany  
section125 : 9/6/2015 12:01 pm : link
In comment 12457557 Headhunter said:
Quote:
And the Gestapo because of political correctness. Well I'd like to smack him with a 2x4 across his mouth for trivializing Nazi Germany and the Gestapo.


Gestapo and the Nazi's are easily identified as hateful entities. Everybody but white supremacists see this. I take it as that. It isn't the first time nor will it be the last time somebody calls a despised group by either of the two names. Heavy handed description, yes. It is not the only time somebody has said the same thing about the IRS.
In a nutshell Carson's appeal  
MarshallOnMontana : 9/6/2015 12:05 pm : link
Quote:
Respectability politics or the politics of respectability refers to attempts by marginalized groups to police their own members and show their social values as being continuous and compatible with mainstream values rather than challenging the mainstream for its failure to accept difference.


Anytime hes asked about race he pivots to black on black crime talking points, never a challenging word to say about anything else at play. Points to himself and success as definitive evidence that any talk about inequities are just noise. Republicans love hearing this from a black guy because it legitimizes (in their view) a lot of what part of the party thinks. Also here is this black guy destroying all the accomplishments of the first black president, calling obama care worse than slavery itself. Instant hard ons for a piece of the party. His place in the polls is very much based on respectability politics in my view, thats his appeal on the right
RE: Ok section  
section125 : 9/6/2015 12:05 pm : link
In comment 12457556 Deej said:
Quote:
To Carson, every Dem policy is not an attempt to pass an incremental improvement in this country. Rather, every Dem policy/bill is a secret plot to totally change the fundamental nature of America.


I can see your point and to the Evangelical crowd that is their viewpoint. A big reason I don't like that particular group and cannot fathom pandering to (to me anyway) a bunch of nutjobs.
section  
Deej : 9/6/2015 12:16 pm : link
To me Carson goes well beyond the fears of evangelicals. He's in Glenn Beck territory. He made a point of name-checking the "Alinsky Model" at the first debate. Writing at the National Review, John Fund says:

Quote:
The award so far in this Republican debate for dog-whistle rhetoric goes to Ben Carson. He answered a a question about Hillary Clinton by referring to her belief in “the Alinsky model,” a topic of great interest in the conservative blogosphere.

Named after Saul Alinksy, the late comunity organizer who inspired both Hillary and Barack Obama, the model calls for destabilizing the existing system from the inside and paving the way for radical social change.

Despite his mild manner and soft voice, it may be that Ben Carson is the candidate on tonight’s stage who is privately the most deeply ideological.


To Carson, the Dems want to destabilize the existing America and fundamentally remake it as a purely secular nation where religious people are persecuted. CRAZY.
Link - ( New Window )
RE: section  
section125 : 9/6/2015 12:47 pm : link
In comment 12457579 Deej said:
Quote:
To me Carson goes well beyond the fears of evangelicals. He's in Glenn Beck territory. He made a point of name-checking the "Alinsky Model" at the first debate. Writing at the National Review, John Fund says:



Quote:
To Carson, the Dems want to destabilize the existing America and fundamentally remake it as a purely secular nation where religious people are persecuted. CRAZY. Link - ( New Window )



Ok I get it, you hate Carson.

Again, I'm not a Carson fan, but the Dems do want to fundamentally change America. It was in Obama's platform. But I guess that depends on the observer's view on what fundamentally is. They do want a more socialistic country. However, I don't believe that they want to persecute religions at all. Hell Joe Biden is Catholic ( you know what stigma that carries with it).
I'm even for ACA and its expansion (single payer) because it is cheaper to have the un-wealthy (not just poor) have access to healthcare then have them show up in ERs for expensive limited care. The problem with ACA is it hits the very people it is supposed to help more than any other group because it doesn't go far enough.

For whatever the reason, Carson is popular with the religious right.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 <<Prev | Show All |  Next>>
Back to the Corner