Author Topic: 16 for '16: The Most Talked-About Potential GOP Presidential Candidates  (Read 180377 times)

RRKore

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 2628
Re: 16 for '16: The Most Talked-About Potential GOP Presidential Candidates
« Reply #225 on: July 28, 2014, 04:30:04 PM »
What a dishonest liberal you are, RRKore. 

There's no way a guy as dishonorable as you served in the military.  Not a full term, anyway. 

Unless it was during a time of war (Vietnam, Korea, and WW2 are all possibilities for you, I guess), they kick out people like you.

I think you are a big liar who justifies his lying (to himself only) by considering the board to be about entertainment only.

Probably, you're just happy for the attention.

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63566
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: 16 for '16: The Most Talked-About Potential GOP Presidential Candidates
« Reply #226 on: July 28, 2014, 04:32:50 PM »
There's no way a guy as dishonorable as you served in the military.  Not a full term, anyway. 

Unless it was during a time of war (Vietnam, Korea, and WW2 are all possibilities for you, I guess), they kick out people like you.

I think you are a big liar who justifies his lying (to himself only) by considering the board to be about entertainment only.

Probably, you're just happy for the attention.

This coming from the person who said Soldiers should be able to simply walk away during combat operations.  lol . . . .

You are someone who places way too much emphasis on things said on a message board, which tells me your priorities are whacked.  And you need a life. 

Get back to me when you have that information about Fox News endorsing Republican candidates. 

Skip8282

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 7004
Re: 16 for '16: The Most Talked-About Potential GOP Presidential Candidates
« Reply #227 on: July 28, 2014, 04:36:41 PM »
but if he's not supported by Fox News he won't stand a chance.


So Fox supported Obama...twice.  Interesting.  Probably why I don't care for them too much.


RRKore

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 2628
Re: 16 for '16: The Most Talked-About Potential GOP Presidential Candidates
« Reply #228 on: July 28, 2014, 04:42:18 PM »
This coming from the person who said Soldiers should be able to simply walk away during combat operations.  lol . . . .

You are someone who places way too much emphasis on things said on a message board, which tells me your priorities are whacked.  And you need a life. 

Get back to me when you have that information about Fox News endorsing Republican candidates.

#1. I never said that "Soldiers should be able to simply walk away during combat operations."  If you really think that, then nuanced adult conversations are beyond you.

#2. LOL at you writing that I'm "... someone who places too much emphasis on things said on a message board..." right after writing about inferences you'd make from someone who...wrote something on a message board.  Look at my thumb, gee you're ...

#3. You're gonna be waiting a long time because you don't want info about Fox News endorsing specific Repub candidates.  What you want is a confession from them that they're doing that which is much tougher to come by. 
But, I guess I shouldn't be surprised that you'll only believe what comes from Fox News, though, right?  LOL LOL LOL

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63566
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: 16 for '16: The Most Talked-About Potential GOP Presidential Candidates
« Reply #229 on: July 28, 2014, 04:45:19 PM »
#1. I never said that "Soldiers should be able to simply walk away during combat operations."  If you really think that, then nuanced adult conversations are beyond you.

#2. LOL at you writing that I'm "... someone who places too much emphasis on things said on a message board..." right after writing about inferences you'd make from someone who...wrote something on a message board.  Look at my thumb, gee you're ...

#3. You're gonna be waiting a long time because you don't want info about Fox News endorsing specific Repub candidates.  What you want is a confession from them that they're doing that which is much tougher to come by. 
But, I guess I shouldn't be surprised that you'll only believe what comes from Fox News, though, right?  LOL LOL LOL


Go to the gym Simpleton Simon.  It's obvious you spewed a liberal talking point and cannot support it. 

RRKore

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 2628
Re: 16 for '16: The Most Talked-About Potential GOP Presidential Candidates
« Reply #230 on: July 28, 2014, 05:14:18 PM »
Go to the gym Simpleton Simon.  It's obvious you spewed a liberal talking point and cannot support it. 

No comment about #1 or #2, eh? 

With regard to #3, you shifted the goal posts, mang.  And what a winning strategy for any liberal argument you've found here:  "Well, unless they say it's so on Fox News, then it didn't happen", ya kool-aid drinker.

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63566
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: 16 for '16: The Most Talked-About Potential GOP Presidential Candidates
« Reply #231 on: July 28, 2014, 05:21:14 PM »
No comment about #1 or #2, eh? 

With regard to #3, you shifted the goal posts, mang.  And what a winning strategy for any liberal argument you've found here:  "Well, unless they say it's so on Fox News, then it didn't happen", ya kool-aid drinker.


Good Lord.  What the heck are you talking about??  I asked for specific information about chadstallion's claim (which you co-signed) that Fox News endorses Republican candidates.  You obviously don't have that information. 

LurkerNoMore

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 30793
  • Dumb people think Trump is smart.
Re: 16 for '16: The Most Talked-About Potential GOP Presidential Candidates
« Reply #232 on: July 28, 2014, 07:02:32 PM »
There's no way a guy as dishonorable as you served in the military.  Not a full term, anyway. 

Unless it was during a time of war (Vietnam, Korea, and WW2 are all possibilities for you, I guess), they kick out people like you.

I think you are a big liar who justifies his lying (to himself only) by considering the board to be about entertainment only.

Probably, you're just happy for the attention.


HAHAHAHAHAHA.  He isn't the board's biggest hypocrite for nothing ya' know.

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63566
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: 16 for '16: The Most Talked-About Potential GOP Presidential Candidates
« Reply #233 on: July 28, 2014, 07:51:45 PM »
She would have to start small if she's going to run. 

Laura Ingraham, Tea Party Giant Killer, Eyes Her Next Scalp
By Toby Harnden - July 28, 2014


SHE has adopted a daughter from Guate­mala and was a speechwriter under President Reagan, who introduced an "amnesty" for three million illegal immigrants in the 1980s.

With her striking good looks and her status as the most listened-to woman on American radio talk programmes, she might have seemed the ideal person to deliver a softer Republican message, as the party hopes to appeal to Hispanic voters.

Laura Ingraham is having none of it, however. Instead, she is fast becoming the most powerful conser­vative voice denouncing any compromise on immigration and call­ing for the deportation of the Latin American children who are amassing on the southern border of the United  States.

At a raucous campaign event in Nashville last week, Ingraham accused President Barack Obama of "fomenting a crisis at our border that seeks to undermine the very fabric of American rule of law, our sovereignty, our national identity".

Her most withering contempt was aimed at her own party’s estab­lish­ment — the "good old boys" and "go along to get along Republican politicians doing backroom backslapping" with Democrats, being as eff­ective as "beige wallpaper".

Ingraham has already claimed the scalp of Representative Eric Cantor, the third most powerful Republican in the House of Representatives, by headlining a massive rally that helped to propel his obscure opponent to a shock victory in a party primary last month.

Her appearance in Nashville was on behalf of Joe Carr, a rough-edged candidate from Tennessee who has support from the grassroots Tea Party movement. He is standing on a "no amnesty" platform to oust Senator Lamar Alexander, a genteel deal-maker on Capitol Hill, in an August 7th primary.

A bluegrass band entertained the crowd with favourites such as "Proud to be an American" and "He’s in the Jailhouse Now" as well as a rendition of "Don’t Fence Me In" — maybe an allusion to conservative demands for a stronger border fence.

Alexander has backed a compromise deal on immigration that could grant a "path to citizenship" for the estimated 12m illegal immigrants in America. But hard-line conservatives such as Ingraham and Carr are advocating mass deportations.

The immigration issue, considered by Americans to be the most press­ing problem facing their country according to a recent Gallup poll, has been brought to the top of the political agenda by the presence of more than 50,000 children, mainly from El Salvador, Guate­mala and Honduras, gathering at the border.

Republicans argue that lax immigration policies by Obama have led to the flood of child refugees because their parents know they have a strong chance of being allowed to stay in the country.

Carr claimed that big business wanted a "constant supply of uneducated, illegal labour so they can keep wages low and perpetuate their attack on the American worker, our dreams and our way of life".

Obama was "a tyrant in the White House", he added, and "if you expect me to go to Washington DC and hold hands around the campfire, roast marshmallows and sing Kumbaya, you’re sending the wrong guy — I’m going up there to start a fight".

Ingraham, 50, has been branded a xenophobe because of the stand she has taken. The satirical comedian Stephen Colbert recently described her approach as "a tough love — or a very soft hate".

She said accusations of racism were a sign of panic among her opponents. "I stand a lot more for the suffering of the American people of every colour or background than they can ever claim to," she told The Sunday Times.

"Plus, the last time I checked, I had three children living in my home from pretty difficult backgrounds, one adopted from Guatemala and two from Russia. I don’t wear that on my sleeve but, OK, I don’t like Latino people? It’s ridi­culous. I cared enough about the region to rescue someone who was abandoned there."

Carr, who is lagging in the polls and is vastly outspent by Alexander, said Ingraham’s support could be crucial. "For us to get her endorsement is huge. It’s real important when you get somebody with a microphone that big. For crying out loud, her show’s on more than 300 stations," he said.

Matt Studd, 57, a car haulage driver and Tea Party activist who was wearing a shirt emblazoned with the Ameri­can flag and images of Iwo Jima and the US constitution, said that the intervention of Ingraham, a Catholic convert, had energised conservative voters: "She’s awesome. She stands for the traditional Christian core values that we know she holds dear."

Republican leaders support centrist incumbents such as Alexander because they believe it is the easiest way to regain control of the Senate in November’s mid-term elections. Candidates such as Carr, they fear, would alienate moderate voters.

Ingraham said this outlook was akin to living in the past, explaining that she sensed a profound shift in American politics with a new element — similar to Ukip in Britain — emerging on the right.

"There are Tea Party elements but it has kind of an independent, anti-corporatist streak, a populist strain running through it. There’s a younger sensibility too," she said.

Republican grandees were fool­ish to believe that allowing illegal immi­grants to stay was a way to attract new voters, she added: "You make real headway in the Latino, black and immigrant communities not by selling a policy that would lower their wages and burden their communities, but by econo­mic rejuvenation. You have to be unafraid to say these things. UKIP's done that pretty well in Britain."

Ingraham hinted that her forays into Republican primary races this year could be the foundation for a political career of her own. "I've been approached by various people to get involved," she said. "I'm keeping an open mind about running for office in the future."

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2014/07/28/laura_ingraham_tea_party_giant_killer_eyes_her_next_scalp_123477.html#ixzz38p1sG0lk

RRKore

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 2628
Re: 16 for '16: The Most Talked-About Potential GOP Presidential Candidates
« Reply #234 on: July 29, 2014, 12:31:18 AM »
She would have to start small if she's going to run. 

Laura Ingraham, Tea Party Giant Killer, Eyes Her Next Scalp
By Toby Harnden - July 28, 2014


SHE has adopted a daughter from Guate­mala and was a speechwriter under President Reagan, who introduced an "amnesty" for three million illegal immigrants in the 1980s.

With her striking good looks and her status as the most listened-to woman on American radio talk programmes, she might have seemed the ideal person to deliver a softer Republican message, as the party hopes to appeal to Hispanic voters.

Laura Ingraham is having none of it, however. Instead, she is fast becoming the most powerful conser­vative voice denouncing any compromise on immigration and call­ing for the deportation of the Latin American children who are amassing on the southern border of the United  States.

At a raucous campaign event in Nashville last week, Ingraham accused President Barack Obama of "fomenting a crisis at our border that seeks to undermine the very fabric of American rule of law, our sovereignty, our national identity".

Her most withering contempt was aimed at her own party’s estab­lish­ment — the "good old boys" and "go along to get along Republican politicians doing backroom backslapping" with Democrats, being as eff­ective as "beige wallpaper".

Ingraham has already claimed the scalp of Representative Eric Cantor, the third most powerful Republican in the House of Representatives, by headlining a massive rally that helped to propel his obscure opponent to a shock victory in a party primary last month.

Her appearance in Nashville was on behalf of Joe Carr, a rough-edged candidate from Tennessee who has support from the grassroots Tea Party movement. He is standing on a "no amnesty" platform to oust Senator Lamar Alexander, a genteel deal-maker on Capitol Hill, in an August 7th primary.

A bluegrass band entertained the crowd with favourites such as "Proud to be an American" and "He’s in the Jailhouse Now" as well as a rendition of "Don’t Fence Me In" — maybe an allusion to conservative demands for a stronger border fence.

Alexander has backed a compromise deal on immigration that could grant a "path to citizenship" for the estimated 12m illegal immigrants in America. But hard-line conservatives such as Ingraham and Carr are advocating mass deportations.

The immigration issue, considered by Americans to be the most press­ing problem facing their country according to a recent Gallup poll, has been brought to the top of the political agenda by the presence of more than 50,000 children, mainly from El Salvador, Guate­mala and Honduras, gathering at the border.

Republicans argue that lax immigration policies by Obama have led to the flood of child refugees because their parents know they have a strong chance of being allowed to stay in the country.

Carr claimed that big business wanted a "constant supply of uneducated, illegal labour so they can keep wages low and perpetuate their attack on the American worker, our dreams and our way of life".

Obama was "a tyrant in the White House", he added, and "if you expect me to go to Washington DC and hold hands around the campfire, roast marshmallows and sing Kumbaya, you’re sending the wrong guy — I’m going up there to start a fight".

Ingraham, 50, has been branded a xenophobe because of the stand she has taken. The satirical comedian Stephen Colbert recently described her approach as "a tough love — or a very soft hate".

She said accusations of racism were a sign of panic among her opponents. "I stand a lot more for the suffering of the American people of every colour or background than they can ever claim to," she told The Sunday Times.

"Plus, the last time I checked, I had three children living in my home from pretty difficult backgrounds, one adopted from Guatemala and two from Russia. I don’t wear that on my sleeve but, OK, I don’t like Latino people? It’s ridi­culous. I cared enough about the region to rescue someone who was abandoned there."

Carr, who is lagging in the polls and is vastly outspent by Alexander, said Ingraham’s support could be crucial. "For us to get her endorsement is huge. It’s real important when you get somebody with a microphone that big. For crying out loud, her show’s on more than 300 stations," he said.

Matt Studd, 57, a car haulage driver and Tea Party activist who was wearing a shirt emblazoned with the Ameri­can flag and images of Iwo Jima and the US constitution, said that the intervention of Ingraham, a Catholic convert, had energised conservative voters: "She’s awesome. She stands for the traditional Christian core values that we know she holds dear."

Republican leaders support centrist incumbents such as Alexander because they believe it is the easiest way to regain control of the Senate in November’s mid-term elections. Candidates such as Carr, they fear, would alienate moderate voters.

Ingraham said this outlook was akin to living in the past, explaining that she sensed a profound shift in American politics with a new element — similar to Ukip in Britain — emerging on the right.

"There are Tea Party elements but it has kind of an independent, anti-corporatist streak, a populist strain running through it. There’s a younger sensibility too," she said.

Republican grandees were fool­ish to believe that allowing illegal immi­grants to stay was a way to attract new voters, she added: "You make real headway in the Latino, black and immigrant communities not by selling a policy that would lower their wages and burden their communities, but by econo­mic rejuvenation. You have to be unafraid to say these things. UKIP's done that pretty well in Britain."

Ingraham hinted that her forays into Republican primary races this year could be the foundation for a political career of her own. "I've been approached by various people to get involved," she said. "I'm keeping an open mind about running for office in the future."

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2014/07/28/laura_ingraham_tea_party_giant_killer_eyes_her_next_scalp_123477.html#ixzz38p1sG0lk

Laura Ingraham elected to political office?  She's no dummy but were she to try to run for almost any office her opponents' negative ads would write themselves.  I've never seen her come off as likable.  I don't think she's gay (she's reportedly dated both Dinesh D'Souza and Keith Olbermann) but she acts like one of those lesbians who constantly acts like she has a chip on her shoulder and tries to too hard to be hard 100% of the time.   

Tell ya what, though, I'd pay at least $10- for a PPV with her vs Hillary in a bout of verbal fisticuffs "no-holds-barred-style" where they'd be allowed to swear and use personal insults.

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63566
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: 16 for '16: The Most Talked-About Potential GOP Presidential Candidates
« Reply #235 on: July 29, 2014, 01:05:26 PM »
Ben Carson on Running for President: 'It Is a Step Closer'
Monday, 28 Jul 2014
By Bill Hoffmann

Dr. Benjamin Carson, former Chief of Pediatric Neurosurgery at Johns Hopkins School of Medicine.

Dr. Ben Carson told Newsmax TV on Monday that he is getting closer to declaring himself a candidate for president in 2016.

"It is a step closer. I have to consider what's going on, and I have to consider the enormous crowds that I encounter every place I go, and the level of enthusiasm, and what I'm hearing,'' Carson told "The Steve Malzberg Show.''

Story continues below video.

"But I also have to see what happens in November. Is our nation going to indicate that they in fact are waking up and that they are ready to move forward again?

"Or are we going to continue this long, downward slide into a fundamental change? Depending on what they indicate, it will inform me a lot.''

Carson, former chief of pediatric neurosurgery at Johns Hopkins Children's Center and an outspoken conservative, said a GOP victory in the midterm elections will "absolutely'' be a factor in his decision.

If the renowned medical man, who is also a Newsmax contributor, throws his hat in the ring for the Republican nomination, it would be a dramatic about face from his stance in January.

It was then that Carson, asked by Malzberg whether he would seek the White House, answered: "Don't hold your breath … I have never intended to run."

Carson, a vocal critic of President Barack Obama, said he is weighing whether to support the calls of some GOP lawmakers for impeachment proceedings against the commander in chief.

"Certainly, it's a discussion that's worth having. It needs to be discussed in a very serious way with people on both sides of the argument,'' he said. "It's not something that should be [decided] in an emotional way, but we should ask ourselves has the Constitution been violated?"

If it "can be laid out in an unmistakable way, then absolutely it'll be appropriate to proceed.''

Carson said the nation has the ability to "put the cuffs'' on the Obama administration in November.

It would be with "an overwhelming showing and switching to a Senate majority leader who might, in fact, be willing to bring up the hundreds of bills that have been passed for the purpose of reinvigorating the economy,'' he said.

Carson believes that Obama's proposal to use executive action to grant additional rights to undocumented immigrants, without input from Congress,'' is "exactly why we have a divided government.''

And he believes Congress must take strong action to halt further alleged abuses.

"At some point, people are going to have to step up to the plate and say, you know, we are not going to take this and stop being worried about people are going to blame us. People are going to blame us if they don't do something,'' he said.

Obama "pretty much is doing whatever he wants to do because he's not meeting a great deal of resistance."

It's "kind of funny because [Russian President Vladimir] Putin's playing the same game with him. Putin's not getting a lot of resistance from him, so he's pretty much doing what he wants to do.''

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsmax-Tv/Ben-Carson-president-Obama/2014/07/28/id/585348#ixzz38tDtyGNS

avxo

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 5605
  • Iron Pumping University Math Professor
Re: 16 for '16: The Most Talked-About Potential GOP Presidential Candidates
« Reply #236 on: July 29, 2014, 05:23:27 PM »
Ben Carson on Running for President: 'It Is a Step Closer'

I like how he presents himself as a logical and rational man but then proceeds to act in completely irrational ways or how he plays up his scientific credentials to suggest that he can make decisions based on facts and empirical data then proceeds to make decisions based on anything but facts and empirical data.

Examples?

Despite overwhelming scientific evidence in favor of evolution, he overrides his rational side and supports creationism. Why? Well, for the very rational and fact-based reasaon that he can't imagine life emerging and evolving over millenia; so evidence and facts just go out the door. Similarly, without any evidence to support his position, he claims that without a creator there can be no morality and ethics are meaningless. Why? Because that's what he believes. Again, this refined ability to make decisions based on those facts and empirical data just, *poof*, evaporates when his beliefs come into play.

Yes, my fellow mass-monsters... truly Ben Carson is a rational man; a man who makes decisions based solely on facts and data alright... what a fucking joke.

Ben Carson's image is well-polished and media-friendly - he's the doctor who saved lives, the man of integrity who adheres to logic, the non-partisan patriot that wants to make a difference. You can see why some find him appealing.

But it's only skin-deep. Peel back the facade, and all that's left is just another ambitious, aggrandizing politician with a huge ego and oversized ambitions, who talks bullshit out of whichever side of his mouth better suits his purposes and cares about only one thing: power.

He's no different than any of the many politicians that came before him or the many that will come after him.

LurkerNoMore

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 30793
  • Dumb people think Trump is smart.
Re: 16 for '16: The Most Talked-About Potential GOP Presidential Candidates
« Reply #237 on: July 29, 2014, 05:49:54 PM »
I like how he presents himself as a logical and rational man but then proceeds to act in completely irrational ways or how he plays up his scientific credentials to suggest that he can make decisions based on facts and empirical data then proceeds to make decisions based on anything but facts and empirical data.

Examples?

Despite overwhelming scientific evidence in favor of evolution, he overrides his rational side and supports creationism. Why? Well, for the very rational and fact-based reasaon that he can't imagine life emerging and evolving over millenia; so evidence and facts just go out the door. Similarly, without any evidence to support his position, he claims that without a creator there can be no morality and ethics are meaningless. Why? Because that's what he believes. Again, this refined ability to make decisions based on those facts and empirical data just, *poof*, evaporates when his beliefs come into play.

Yes, my fellow mass-monsters... truly Ben Carson is a rational man; a man who makes decisions based solely on facts and data alright... what a fucking joke.

Ben Carson's image is well-polished and media-friendly - he's the doctor who saved lives, the man of integrity who adheres to logic, the non-partisan patriot that wants to make a difference. You can see why some find him appealing.

But it's only skin-deep. Peel back the facade, and all that's left is just another ambitious, aggrandizing politician with a huge ego and oversized ambitions, who talks bullshit out of whichever side of his mouth better suits his purposes and cares about only one thing: power.

He's no different than any of the many politicians that came before him or the many that will come after him.

This ground has already been covered.  For the delusional, there is no other excuse except blind acceptance when it comes to his laughable campaign.

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63566
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: 16 for '16: The Most Talked-About Potential GOP Presidential Candidates
« Reply #238 on: July 29, 2014, 06:39:35 PM »
I like how he presents himself as a logical and rational man but then proceeds to act in completely irrational ways or how he plays up his scientific credentials to suggest that he can make decisions based on facts and empirical data then proceeds to make decisions based on anything but facts and empirical data.

Examples?

Despite overwhelming scientific evidence in favor of evolution, he overrides his rational side and supports creationism. Why? Well, for the very rational and fact-based reasaon that he can't imagine life emerging and evolving over millenia; so evidence and facts just go out the door. Similarly, without any evidence to support his position, he claims that without a creator there can be no morality and ethics are meaningless. Why? Because that's what he believes. Again, this refined ability to make decisions based on those facts and empirical data just, *poof*, evaporates when his beliefs come into play.

Yes, my fellow mass-monsters... truly Ben Carson is a rational man; a man who makes decisions based solely on facts and data alright... what a fucking joke.

Ben Carson's image is well-polished and media-friendly - he's the doctor who saved lives, the man of integrity who adheres to logic, the non-partisan patriot that wants to make a difference. You can see why some find him appealing.

But it's only skin-deep. Peel back the facade, and all that's left is just another ambitious, aggrandizing politician with a huge ego and oversized ambitions, who talks bullshit out of whichever side of his mouth better suits his purposes and cares about only one thing: power.

He's no different than any of the many politicians that came before him or the many that will come after him.

He has a faith-based belief in how life began on earth.  At the end of the day, everyone who believes life started on earth in some fashion has a faith-based belief in how it all began.  Dismissing his entire life's work on this basis is pretty narrow-minded.  Not very rational either, considering that probably everyone running has pretty much the same belief system. 

In any event, he's not a politician.  If you're really interested in learning about him you should consider reading his book Gifted Hands.  You should also look at what he has done to improve not just education, but STEM education with America's kids.  He is a terrific American story. 

I don't know if he is running, or if I would vote for him if he does run, but I'm glad someone with his intellect, competence, business sense, integrity, and faith wants to get involved in public policy.  We need more people like him who are not career politicians. 

avxo

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 5605
  • Iron Pumping University Math Professor
Re: 16 for '16: The Most Talked-About Potential GOP Presidential Candidates
« Reply #239 on: July 29, 2014, 08:04:41 PM »
He has a faith-based belief in how life began on earth.  At the end of the day, everyone who believes life started on earth in some fashion has a faith-based belief in how it all began.  Dismissing his entire life's work on this basis is pretty narrow-minded.  Not very rational either, considering that probably everyone running has pretty much the same belief system.

I'm not dismissing his entire life's worth. I'm dismissing the foundation upon which his "appeal" as a politician rests. His whole schtick is how he is - and this is a direct quote - "trained to make decisions based on facts and empirical data" and how such people ought to "get involved in the political arena and help guide our country" because their ability to make decisions based on fact and empirical data will help move our country forward. And then he turns around and makes decisions ignoring facts and empirical simply because they conflict with his personal beliefs. So you will forgive me for calling bullshit.

You also say that it's irrational to levy this criticism when pretty much everyone else running has pretty much the same belief system. This is just plain nonsense. I am well-justified in criticizing every one of them (after all, why should I not criticize people who subsitute logic for faith and accept stories in lieu of evidence) but I am under no obligation to do so.


In any event, he's not a politician.  If you're really interested in learning about him you should consider reading his book Gifted Hands.  You should also look at what he has done to improve not just education, but STEM education with America's kids.  He is a terrific American story.

Of course he is - he might not have started out as one - after all, who does? - but he became one. This doesn't detract from his other accomplishments, but let's not hide behind our fingers, shall we?


I don't know if he is running, or if I would vote for him if he does run, but I'm glad someone with his intellect, competence, business sense, integrity, and faith wants to get involved in public policy.  We need more people like him who are not career politicians.

The problem that you have is that you think he is, somehow, different than career politicians because he hasn't officially launched his political career. You might be interested in this bridge I saw advertised on Craigslist...

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63566
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: 16 for '16: The Most Talked-About Potential GOP Presidential Candidates
« Reply #240 on: July 29, 2014, 08:21:01 PM »
I'm not dismissing his entire life's worth. I'm dismissing the foundation upon which his "appeal" as a politician rests. His whole schtick is how he is - and this is a direct quote - "trained to make decisions based on facts and empirical data" and how such people ought to "get involved in the political arena and help guide our country" because their ability to make decisions based on fact and empirical data will help move our country forward. And then he turns around and makes decisions ignoring facts and empirical simply because they conflict with his personal beliefs. So you will forgive me for calling bullshit.

You also say that it's irrational to levy this criticism when pretty much everyone else running has pretty much the same belief system. This is just plain nonsense. I am well-justified in criticizing every one of them (after all, why should I not criticize people who subsitute logic for faith and accept stories in lieu of evidence) but I am under no obligation to do so.


Of course he is - he might not have started out as one - after all, who does? - but he became one. This doesn't detract from his other accomplishments, but let's not hide behind our fingers, shall we?


The problem that you have is that you think he is, somehow, different than career politicians because he hasn't officially launched his political career. You might be interested in this bridge I saw advertised on Craigslist...

I'll concede your position is not irrational based on the example I gave, because if you truly believe something is wrong, then it shouldn't matter whether many others share that erroneous belief.  

But I stand by comments that your approach is narrow-minded.  The fact he believes in intelligent design does not mean he doesn't make other decisions based on facts and empirical data.  As a world renowned, pioneer neurosurgeon, of course he made fact-based decisions.

He also made a faith-based decision.  Everyone makes faith-based decisions in some way or another.  They are not incompatible.    

It sounds like you know nothing about the man.  I've read three of his books.  I like what I've read both from his books and from other sources.  I like what he is saying for the most part.  But if you want to form opinions about him based on . . . essentially nothing . . . you are of course free to do so.  

chadstallion

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 2854
Re: 16 for '16: The Most Talked-About Potential GOP Presidential Candidates
« Reply #241 on: July 30, 2014, 01:59:37 PM »
Yeah, there's ol "RRKore" having nothing of substance to add again. 
that's what so fun about this whole board.
w

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63566
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: 16 for '16: The Most Talked-About Potential GOP Presidential Candidates
« Reply #242 on: July 30, 2014, 02:12:50 PM »
that's what so fun about this whole board.

Yes, everyone has their role.   :)

avxo

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 5605
  • Iron Pumping University Math Professor
Re: 16 for '16: The Most Talked-About Potential GOP Presidential Candidates
« Reply #243 on: July 30, 2014, 02:47:07 PM »
But I stand by comments that your approach is narrow-minded.  The fact he believes in intelligent design does not mean he doesn't make other decisions based on facts and empirical data.  As a world renowned, pioneer neurosurgeon, of course he made fact-based decisions.

I'm sure that he made such decisions in his capacity as a doctor. In fact, I'm sure he has the mental acuity to make rational and fact-based decisions. The question (for me) is does he do so consistently? I ask this because logic and faith aren't compatible tools; they aren't even complementary.

He's entitled to adopt any position he wants he wants vis-à-vis evolution. But his position and the reasoning behind it, say something him.

 
He also made a faith-based decision.  Everyone makes faith-based decisions in some way or another.  They are not incompatible.

They are when the faith-based decision requires disregarding facts. I'll give you two examples involving the use of faith:

  • Believing that the universe was created by God: It may not necessarily be a position supported by logic and facts but can be supported on the basis of faith. Conclusion: we're cool.
  • Believing that the earth is fixed and the sun revolves around it: This position contradicts established facts and defies logic. No amount of faith will fix that. Conclusion: you're a doofus.

Long story short: using faith to justify something irrational and dismiss actual facts is bad.


It sounds like you know nothing about the man.  I've read three of his books.  I like what I've read both from his books and from other sources.  I like what he is saying for the most part.  But if you want to form opinions about him based on . . . essentially nothing . . . you are of course free to do so.

I form opinions on the only evidence available to me: his own statements. Is it possible that his statements paint him in an unflattering light? Sure. Is it possible that I am misinterpreting his statements? Sure. I remain open to being convinced that I am, actually, wrong and he is a great candidate. But so far, everything that I've seen is that he's no different than other politicians.

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63566
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: 16 for '16: The Most Talked-About Potential GOP Presidential Candidates
« Reply #244 on: July 30, 2014, 04:14:06 PM »
I'm sure that he made such decisions in his capacity as a doctor. In fact, I'm sure he has the mental acuity to make rational and fact-based decisions. The question (for me) is does he do so consistently? I ask this because logic and faith aren't compatible tools; they aren't even complementary.

He's entitled to adopt any position he wants he wants vis-à-vis evolution. But his position and the reasoning behind it, say something him.

 
They are when the faith-based decision requires disregarding facts. I'll give you two examples involving the use of faith:

  • Believing that the universe was created by God: It may not necessarily be a position supported by logic and facts but can be supported on the basis of faith. Conclusion: we're cool.
  • Believing that the earth is fixed and the sun revolves around it: This position contradicts established facts and defies logic. No amount of faith will fix that. Conclusion: you're a doofus.

Long story short: using faith to justify something irrational and dismiss actual facts is bad.


I form opinions on the only evidence available to me: his own statements. Is it possible that his statements paint him in an unflattering light? Sure. Is it possible that I am misinterpreting his statements? Sure. I remain open to being convinced that I am, actually, wrong and he is a great candidate. But so far, everything that I've seen is that he's no different than other politicians.

Faith and logic are different, but compatible.  It's simplistic to say that a person who makes faith-based decisions is unintelligent, or incapable of consistently making fact-based, logical decisions.  If that were not the case, you'd have to label a lot of highly intelligent people as "dumb," because they believe in God, believe in intelligent design, etc. 

Regarding the beginning of life on earth, you do not have a fact-based belief in how life began (whatever your belief is), because we don't know how life began on day one.  I've had a lengthy discussion about this on the Religion Board.  Cannot remember if you were a part of it?  But as much as people want to run from the "faith" label, having a belief in something that has not or cannot be proved is, at the end of the day, a faith-based belief.  Also, there are often provable facts supporting faith-based beliefs. 

I haven't seen anything about Dr. Carson so far that makes him like other politicians. 

avxo

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 5605
  • Iron Pumping University Math Professor
Re: 16 for '16: The Most Talked-About Potential GOP Presidential Candidates
« Reply #245 on: July 30, 2014, 04:52:50 PM »
Faith and logic are different, but compatible.

They are not compatible in any sense: Reason and logic are a tool of knowledge. Faith isn't. Faith involves blind acceptance, induced by feelings and in the absence of any (or worse still, contrary to) rational evidence or proof.


It's simplistic to say that a person who makes faith-based decisions is unintelligent, or incapable of consistently making fact-based, logical decisions.

Except that's not what I said. You ought to read my post more closely. It's perfectly possible to be quite intelligent and reach faith-based decisions. Repeating my earlier examples:

  • One can believe, on faith, that the Universe was created by a Supreme Being. This is fine and not necessarily irrational, although it certainly can be.
  • One can also believe, on faith, that the earth is fixed and the sun revolves around it. This is not fine and it is demonstrably irrational because it contradicts established and easily observable and verifiable facts.


If that were not the case, you'd have to label a lot of highly intelligent people as "dumb," because they believe in God, believe in intelligent design, etc.

I'm an equal-opportunity labeler and I will label anyone who allows faith to override reason and evidence as an idiot. It's entirely possible (although, I would hope, rare) that highly intelligent people would fall into that category.

Be careful to not misunderstand or misrepresent my position: I don't claim that believing in God or believing in intelligent design qualifies one as an idiot. It's possible that someone could have received evidence which convinced him of the existence of God via personal revelation. But personal revelations have meaning only to the person receiving them. So if someone was, indeed, convinced by a personal revelation that a particularly flavor of the Christian God is real, then more power to them. 


Regarding the beginning of life on earth, you do not have a fact-based belief in how life began (whatever your belief is), because we don't know how life began on day one.  I've had a lengthy discussion about this on the Religion Board.  Cannot remember if you were a part of it?  But as much as people want to run from the "faith" label, having a belief in something that has not or cannot be proved is, at the end of the day, a faith-based belief.  Also, there are often provable facts supporting faith-based beliefs.

Regarding the beginning on life on earth, my only position on the topic is one that can be supported by rational facts. Namely, that the building blocks of life can arise as the result of natural processes and our best evidence to date suggests that this is what happened. Generally speaking positing supernatural influences is irrational.

I'd be curious to know which faith-based beliefs you are referring to and what the "provable facts" are, since if there are provable facts the need for faith goes away.


I haven't seen anything about Dr. Carson so far that makes him like other politicians.

Look a little harder. It's like one of those puzzles where you have to squint to see the picture.

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63566
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: 16 for '16: The Most Talked-About Potential GOP Presidential Candidates
« Reply #246 on: July 30, 2014, 05:07:56 PM »
They are not compatible in any sense: Reason and logic are a tool of knowledge. Faith isn't. Faith involves blind acceptance, induced by feelings and in the absence of any (or worse still, contrary to) rational evidence or proof.


Except that's not what I said. You ought to read my post more closely. It's perfectly possible to be quite intelligent and reach faith-based decisions. Repeating my earlier examples:

  • One can believe, on faith, that the Universe was created by a Supreme Being. This is fine and not necessarily irrational, although it certainly can be.
  • One can also believe, on faith, that the earth is fixed and the sun revolves around it. This is not fine and it is demonstrably irrational because it contradicts established and easily observable and verifiable facts.


I'm an equal-opportunity labeler and I will label anyone who allows faith to override reason and evidence as an idiot. It's entirely possible (although, I would hope, rare) that highly intelligent people would fall into that category.

Be careful to not misunderstand or misrepresent my position: I don't claim that believing in God or believing in intelligent design qualifies one as an idiot. It's possible that someone could have received evidence which convinced him of the existence of God via personal revelation. But personal revelations have meaning only to the person receiving them. So if someone was, indeed, convinced by a personal revelation that a particularly flavor of the Christian God is real, then more power to them. 


Regarding the beginning on life on earth, my only position on the topic is one that can be supported by rational facts. Namely, that the building blocks of life can arise as the result of natural processes and our best evidence to date suggests that this is what happened. Generally speaking positing supernatural influences is irrational.

I'd be curious to know which faith-based beliefs you are referring to and what the "provable facts" are, since if there are provable facts the need for faith goes away.


Look a little harder. It's like one of those puzzles where you have to squint to see the picture.

You are overstating how faith works, at least with me and many people I know.  It's not about "blind acceptable" of irrational things.  It's about using reason and logic in conjunction with the unknown.  For example, most of my faith-based beliefs are rational (at least to me).  Things need to make sense.  For example, I believe in the Biblical principle of tithing.  Can I prove that you will be blessed if you tithe?  Not really.  I can only tell you what happens to me (and many other people who do it).  You can probably come up with a number of possible explanations for how or why I have been blessed with various things, but I link it directly to the challenge that if you return a tenth of what you earn, you will be blessed so much so that there will not be room enough to receive it.  Not everyone believes this, and not everyone needs too.

But tithing makes sense to me.  It teaches you to live on less than what you earn, and living below your means is one of the key factors in increasing your net worth.  It helps you appreciate giving.  It makes me feel good to give back.  That's the logic behind my faith-based belief.  I could give you numerous other examples like this.

That doesn't mean there are things that don't make sense.  For instance, I don't understand suffering.  I don't know why some good people die young and some corrupt people live a heck of a long time.  I just went to a funeral on the mainland last weekend for a high school classmate.  He was in what we call his "sweet spot."  He ran his own business.  Was making a lot of money.  Incredibly successful.  A terrific dude.  One of the nicest, most level-headed persons I've known.  Had just bought his dream house and dream cars.  Had a beautiful wife and kids.  Then he drowned in the middle of a thirty-day vacation in South America.  About 1,000 people at his funeral.  I don't get that.  I have ideas, but no answer. 

In any event, I will stop here, because I'm starting to make those absurdly long posts like you.  lol

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63566
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: 16 for '16: The Most Talked-About Potential GOP Presidential Candidates
« Reply #247 on: August 04, 2014, 02:19:33 PM »
Rubio defends his immigration plan, calls Obama's policy a 'lure' in Central America
Published August 03, 2014
FoxNews.com

FILE: Nov. 17, 2012: Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., speaks during Iowa Gov. Terry Branstad's annual birthday fundraiser in Altoona, Iowa.AP
Florida GOP Sen. Marco Rubio, a potential 2016 presidential candidate, pressed ahead Sunday with his multi-step immigration-reform plan, amid criticism that conservative voters have forced him to backtrack on comprehensive reform.

“I didn’t get elected to watch national poll numbers,” the first-term Republican senator said on “Fox News Sunday.”

Rubio said Washington has to address the “root causes” of the immigration issue, which has now turned into a crisis situation with tens of thousands of unaccompanied Central American youths coming into the United States illegally along the country’s southern border.

He said those problems include a 2008 law intended to protect children from non-bordering countries against human trafficking and President Obama’s 2012 executive memo that defers deportation to young people brought illegally to the U.S.

Rubio pointed out that Honduran President Juan Orlando Hernández has said the ambiguities in U.S. law have resulted in human traffickers persuading families to hire them to deliver their children from their violent neighborhoods.

“It’s serving as a lure,” he said.

Rubio also defended his plan by saying it remains comprehensive but has to be executed in the only way it will now pass in Congress.

"We will never have the votes necessary to pass one bill," he told Fox.

Rubio vaulted onto the national political scene in 2010, as one of the Tea Party-backed Republicans elected to Congress that year in the GOP wave that also took control of the House.

His profile, as a child of Cuban immigrant parents, positioned him to become a leading Republican in helping pass the Senate’s 2013 bipartisan, comprehensive immigration reform bill.

However, conservatives rallied to criticize the plan as “amnesty” for the roughly 11 million illegal immigrants now living in the U.S., which has effectively killed such a plan in the GOP-led House and caused Rubio to drop in polls.

The Democratic National Committee responded immediately to Rubio's comments.

"Rubio said he hasn’t flip flopped on immigration and that immigration reform is a priority for him," the group said. "If that’s the case, he has a pretty strange way of showing it. First he supported comprehensive reform and helped draft a bipartisan bill in the Senate, then he back tracked his support for his own bill. ...If that’s not flip flopping, then what is?"

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/08/03/rubio-defends-his-immigration-plan-calls-obama-policy-lure-in-central-america/

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63566
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: 16 for '16: The Most Talked-About Potential GOP Presidential Candidates
« Reply #248 on: August 04, 2014, 02:38:30 PM »
Ben Carson takes major step toward presidential campaign
Former neurosurgeon launches PAC, names national chairman
By John Solomon - The Washington Times - Friday, August 1, 2014

Ben Carson, the former neurosurgeon turned conservative sensation, is taking a major step toward a 2016 presidential bid by forming a political action committee and selecting the man who would run his campaign, The Washington Times has learned.

Emerging from two-days of meetings with supporters in Palm Beach, Fla., Dr. Carson told the Times on Friday morning he has selected Houston businessman Terry Giles to be his 2016 campaign chairman should he run and approved the formation of a PAC called One Nation.

“Now is the time to start all of the appropriate exploration and investigation, and put down the structure that is necessary,” Dr. Carson said in a phone interview.

Asked about the likelihood he will run for president in 2016, Dr. Carson said: “I would say we are definitely a step or two closer than we were a year ago.”

He said the outcome of the 2014 elections in which Republicans are trying to seize control of the Senate would be a major factor, and that his new PAC would try to support candidates with similar viewpoints as his.

“Obviously we are very interested in what happens in November,” he said. “And if the people also continue to show strong desire for me to run, obviously that would be an important factor too.”

“In the meantime, we will focus our attention on helping those candidates who understand the change we need in our nation, and how to lead toward the healing our of nation,” he said.

Dr. Carson, a popular Washington Times columnist, huddled for two days with about two dozen prominent strategists, potential fund-raisers and supporters in Palm Beach to study all of the “ramifications of a run and make sure all of that is fully understood.”

Among those attending the private meetings were Mr. Giles, TV and radio personality Armstrong Williams, and political email and fund-raising strategist Mike Murray. During the strategy sessions, Dr. Carson asked Mr. Giles, a friend for over two deacdes, to serve as his campaign chairman if he runs.

“Basically if Dr. Carson decides to go forward, I’ve been asked to chair the campaign and make a full commitment during the period of time leading up to a decision and during the election cycle,” Mr. Giles told the Times.

Mr. Giles, who like Dr. Carson won the Horatio Algers award for rising from humble means to business success, said the new PAC would be used to “explore and analyze and engage in homework to determine what the political landscape would look like and how it might materialize for a Carson for President campaign.

“We’re going to continue to watch the political landscape and analyze what it might look like should Ben decide to run, and assuming it continues to look good, we’ll be making additional steps that bring him closer to being a candidate,” he added.

Dr. Carson, for decades one of the world’s premier pediatric neurosurgeons whose work was celebrated in a made-for-TV movie, burst onto the political scene about 18 months ago when he confronted President Obama at a national prayer breakfast ceremony.

Since then, he has fast become a conservative favorite, with a best-selling book, a popular Times column and speaking engagements from coast-to-coast. His speech at the Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington back in March drew standing ovations from thousands of activists, heightening talk of a possible presidential run.

Soft-spoken, yet impassioned about issues, Dr. Carson has stressed common sense policy solutions to the nation’s problems while eschewing political correctness and government dependence. In private, Dr. Carson has been testing many of his policy solutions in small meetings with columnists and activists.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/aug/1/ben-carson-takes-major-step-toward-presidential-ca/?utm_source=RSS_Feed&utm_medium=RSS#ixzz39SgZlLvo

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63566
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: 16 for '16: The Most Talked-About Potential GOP Presidential Candidates
« Reply #249 on: August 08, 2014, 09:36:57 AM »
George Pataki: I Haven't Ruled Out Running for President
Thursday, 07 Aug 2014
By Bill Hoffmann

Former three-term New York Gov. George Pataki refused to rule out a bid for the 2016 GOP presidential nomination during an appearance Thursday on Newsmax TV.

Asked by Newsmax's Steve Malzberg whether he would rule out a run for the White House, Pataki — who has flirted with the idea before — deftly tap-danced around the question.

"People have talked about it in 2001 and 2008, including me, because I did look at it. This time I don't want speculation,'' Pataki said.

Story continues below video.


"You don't dip your toe in and pretend. Either you're in or you're out. The one thing I will say is that Albany is broken, Washington is perhaps even worse….

"It's enormously disappointing and any of us, all of us who care about this country, have to get involved in some capacity. That doesn't mean as a candidate, but help fight to take our country back from those who believe government should dictate how we lead our lives.''

Malzberg then asked, "So you're definitively not running for president?''

"I am definitively saying nothing. It's still summer,'' Pataki said.

"So you're leaving open the door? You're not saying no?'' continued Malzberg.

"I have thought about it in the past and I don't want people speculating. There are probably a dozen candidates out there,'' Pataki said.

"But you are not saying no,'' Malzberg asked again.

"At this point, I'm spending time with my family and our farm in upstate New York,'' Pataki said.

The former leader of the Empire State from 1995-2006 went on to say those most mentioned as possible GOP candidates — New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, Sens. Rand Paul of Kentucky and Ted Cruz of Texas, and former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush — would all be a "dramatic improvement'' over President Barack Obama.

"And every one of them would be a dramatic improvement over [former Secretary of State] Hillary Clinton or, God forbid, [Massachusetts Sen.] Elizabeth Warren,'' said Pataki, 69.

"We just have seen the Democratic Party switch from being a liberal party with some conservatives to a leftist party with some liberals. We see that with Barack Obama, we see that with Elizabeth Warren, we see it here in New York City with … leftist mayor, Bill de Blasio, who goes to Cuba on his honeymoon.''

"The weakest of the Republican candidates in my view would be a dramatic improvement. This race to me is about not just who's going to be the president, Republicans or Democrats. It's about the nature of this country.''

He said Americans must not allow "a group of elites in Washington'' to dictate how they lead their lives.

While Pataki, chairman of the Pataki-Cahill Group, praised Christie, who is head of the Republican Governors Association, as a possible presidential candidate, he blasted his decision not to endorse Westchester County Executive Rob Astorino.

Astorino is running against incumbent New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo, who is now embroiled in a federal probe into whether he tampered with his own anti-corruption commission.

"Rob is a very good candidate. This is not somebody who we took out of some remote area. This is someone who for the last five years has been the county executive of Westchester County,'' Pataki said.

"This is a strong executive, a good candidate who can appeal across party lines…. For the head of the Republican Governors Association in July, [to say] it's a lost cause, it makes every other effort we make to try to get good people to run as Republicans that much harder.''

Asked if Christie should resign from chairing the association because of the Astorino snub, Pataki said: "That's for the Republican governors to decide.''

http://www.newsmax.com/Politics/george-pataki-president-new-york-republicans/2014/08/07/id/587569#ixzz39or0s1w6