2016 Presidential Race

[Salt USMC]

Last paragraph. You say there is no love lost, but ignore the "Hilldawg" (your words) refusal to honor subpoena and her attempts to destroy evidence. A good prosecutor doesn't quit when the subject destroys evidence or refuses to testify.

She's no different than Nixon (when it comes to destroying evidence) and her husband's whining is funny, because they are on the receiving end of the shit the slung at opponents during their many campaigns.

I agree, that's all very damning stuff, and now the FBI is taking the lead on it. I've previously stated that I now have absolutely no intention of voting for Hillary, even if she gets the nomination, so you can rest assured that I don't write this as someone who is in her corner. I fully believe that the Committee has reached its limit, has found what it can find (unrelated or only tangentially related to Benghazi) and should let the FBI do its thing.

 

[TLDR20]

You know what I hate. When people think they are clever by changing a letter or two in the President, or Hillary's name and acting as if it is cool, clever, or smart. Heads up guys, you look like goddamned fools. If the peak of your intellect is changing Obama to Nobama, quit trying to lick your own elbow, you aren't going to get there.

Hilldawg? Goddamn that might be the least creative, slowest one I've seen, and you are running in a race full of quad amputees.

 

[Brill]

You know what I hate. When people think they are clever by changing a letter or two in the President, or Hillary's name and acting as if it is cool, clever, or smart.

 

[Salt USMC]

This thread needed a little revival, and who better to do it than Dr. Ben Carson?

"I do not remember this level of scrutiny for President Barack Obama, when he was running"

Now, I really hate name-calling in politics. It's an ugly thing and unnecessary, quite frankly. But I really have to ask: does Ben Carson ever think before he speaks? Did he forget the ridiculous birther debacle? Did he forget that Obama was, and still is, the subject of ludicrous conspiracy theories, some of which were used as campaign slogans by members of Congress? I'm fairly certain that even though Dr. Carson may have fudged some of his personal stories, and may not have the best grasp of history, nobody in the media is calling him a "communist", "muslim", "homosexual", "foreign citizen", "traitor", or any of the other names to which Obama was referred.

To be fair to the good doctor, I think this recent West Point controversy is a bit overblown. It sounds as though Dr. Carson possibly did meet with Gen. Westmoreland years ago, and the General may have said some things that Carson interpreted as being favorable towards an acceptance at West Point. The comment about a "full ride scholarship", which West Point obviously does not offer, may have simply been a decision on behalf of the ghost writer to punch-up the story a little bit.

 

[Tbone]

This thread needed a little revival, and who better to do it than Dr. Ben Carson?

"I do not remember this level of scrutiny for President Barack Obama, when he was running"

Now, I really hate name-calling in politics. It's an ugly thing and unnecessary, quite frankly. But I really have to ask: does Ben Carson ever think before he speaks? Did he forget the ridiculous birther debacle? Did he forget that Obama, and still is, the subject of ludicrous conspiracy theories, some of which were used as campaign slogans by members of Congress? I'm fairly certain that even though Dr. Carson may have fudged some of his personal stories, and may not have the best grasp of history, I certainly don't hear anyone in the media referring to him as "communist", "muslim", "homosexual", "foreign citizen", "traitor", or any of the other names to which Obama was referred.

To be fair to the good doctor, I think this recent West Point controversy is a bit overblown. It sounds as though Dr. Carson possibly did meet with Gen. Westmoreland years ago, and the General may have said some things that Carson interpreted as being favorable towards an acceptance at West Point. The comment about a "full ride scholarship", which West Point obviously does not offer, may have simply been a decision on behalf of the ghost writer to punch-up the story a little bit.

Ssshhh......keep it down, you're being a little too reasonable don't ya think

 

[Brill]

Politician is synonymous with liar because they will say ANYTHING to get what they covet: power. You forgot Reid's BS about Romney not paying taxes. This thing about Carson is simply a distraction from the Democrat PACs to pull the focus away from Hillary's deepening crisis.

Did Ben sign an enforceable document (e.g a NDA) about his West Post "admission", the near stabbing of a relative, etc? Ben's story is all over the MSM but Hillary's NDA is only on Fox.

American MSM is no better than Pravda for "news". Personally, I get all my information from The American Spectator.

 

[TLDR20]

Ben Carson says some stupid ass shit.

 

[x SF med]

Ben Carson says some stupid ass shit.

this could be edited to: Any presidential candidate says some pretty stupid shit.

 

[AWP]

Even if you blame the MSM for "finding" quotes, they can't find something that doesn't exist. If Carson says some stupid shit and rises in the polls then he has to know (and this applies to every single candidate) someone will find and publish that nonsense. You can argue the timing, but is that part of a campaign to bring him down or "this will score ratings with our viewers?" Probably both, but any candidate blaming someone for publishing stupid but true quotes? Clownshoes.

Don't talk about WP storing grain or admittance to the pyramids and this isn't an issue.

 

[TLDR20]

this could be edited to: Any presidential candidate says some pretty stupid shit.

But most candidates don't say things about history and science that are demonstrably false.

Even if you blame the MSM for "finding" quotes, they can't find something that doesn't exist. If Carson says some stupid shit and rises in the polls then he has to know (and this applies to every single candidate) someone will find and publish that nonsense. You can argue the timing, but is that part of a campaign to bring him down or "this will score ratings with our viewers?" Probably both, but any candidate blaming someone for publishing stupid but true quotes? Clownshoes.

Don't talk about WP storing grain or admittance to the pyramids and this isn't an issue.

Or be a doctor questioning vaccine science... This guy may have been a good surgeon, but that does not a genius make him. He weighs in on things he has no business weighing in on, and people take him serious because he is a doctor. His comments on vaccines pissed me off, particularly after treating a child yesterday with a vaccine preventable disease that will likely take his life....

His comments about the pyramids are laughable, and the cognitive dissonance it must take to admit to the presence of lets say antibiotic resistant bacteria while saying evolution is bunk is beyond ridiculous to me.

 

[DA SWO]

But most candidates don't say things about history and science that are demonstrably false.


Or be a doctor questioning vaccine science... This guy may have been a good surgeon, but that does not a genius make him. He weighs in on things he has no business weighing in on, and people take him serious because he is a doctor. His comments on vaccines pissed me off, particularly after treating a child yesterday with a vaccine preventable disease that will likely take his life....

His comments about the pyramids are laughable, and the cognitive dissonance it must take to admit to the presence of lets say antibiotic resistant bacteria while saying evolution is bunk is beyond ridiculous to me.

Really no different than the current occupant.

 

[Devildoc]

But most candidates don't say things about history and science that are demonstrably false.


Or be a doctor questioning vaccine science... This guy may have been a good surgeon, but that does not a genius make him. He weighs in on things he has no business weighing in on, and people take him serious because he is a doctor. His comments on vaccines pissed me off, particularly after treating a child yesterday with a vaccine preventable disease that will likely take his life....

His comments about the pyramids are laughable, and the cognitive dissonance it must take to admit to the presence of lets say antibiotic resistant bacteria while saying evolution is bunk is beyond ridiculous to me.

No doubt he says some goofy stuff, but here's the thing. No one cares. His supporters aren't going to abandon him, and the way he is taking on the media may actually garner some supporters he did not have. The only people ANY of his comments are going to turn away are people who weren't going to vote for him to begin with.

Where a few months ago I may have been on the fence regarding him, he's def not my number 1, or number 2, guy.

 

[Diamondback 2/2]

I hate to say it, but Ben Carson is the only person I like in the GOP field, and I don't think he would be the best option. Maybe for VP, but I don't see him as the next President.

I really like Rick Perry, pretty sad to see him out of the race, and did think he had the best ability to run this country, post Obama.

At this point I'm not confident any of the candidates would make a good POTUS from either side. Think we need a good fiscal conservative, socially moderate, and strong foreign policy Independent candidate at this point.

$.02

 

[TH15]

At this point I'm not confident any of the candidates would make a good POTUS from either side. Think we need a good fiscal conservative, socially moderate, and strong foreign policy Independent candidate at this point.
/QUOTE]

I think Rand Paul fits your description.

 

[Diamondback 2/2]

I think Rand Paul fits your description.

I don't, I don't think he is anything close.

I have issues with Rand on his foreign policy's, much like his fathers. Although I agree in principle that we should stay out of other nations business and stop policing or molding the world. The reality is with the void of a solid foreign policy develops shit like ISIS, and allows other Nations to gain power and influence, who are odds with our own interests.

Rand would be great in getting the fiscal house in order, if he had the political backing of both sides. But he doesn't, and is viewed as an extremist by many on the left and right. Which means he will not have the backing in the house to rain in the government the way he would like, or at least as he would lead us to believe.

 

[TH15]

I don't, I don't think he is anything close.

I have issues with Rand on his foreign policy's, much like his fathers. Although I agree in principle that we should stay out of other nations business and stop policing or molding the world. The reality is with the void of a solid foreign policy develops shit like ISIS, and allows other Nations to gain power and influence, who are odds with our own interests.

Rand would be great in getting the fiscal house in order, if he had the political backing of both sides. But he doesn't, and is viewed as an extremist by many on the left and right. Which means he will not have the backing in the house to rain in the government the way he would like, or at least as he would lead us to believe.

At this point, I'm not sure there's even a coherent US foreign policy. I think one could also make the argument that our foreign policy in the last decade or so has created the power vacuum we are currently experiencing in the Middle East/North Africa, etc that has allowed pieces of shit like ISIS to take hold. Having someone with a different mindset on foreign policy may be beneficial for the country, who knows.

I think Paul is the only true fiscal conservative on the GOP stage at this point. From auditing the Fed, literally throwing out the tax code and replacing it with a flat tax, and eliminating entire government departments such as the Dept. of Education, there's really no one else that comes close. Yes, I agree, he probably doesn't have the backing of the establishment, but the GOP desperately needs someone to espouse conservative principles and at least try to get our fiscal house in order instead of pretending to.

He's not the perfect candidate, but I think he's what the GOP needs at this point.

 

[Diamondback 2/2]

At this point, I'm not sure there's even a coherent US foreign policy. I think one could also make the argument that our foreign policy in the last decade or so has created the power vacuum we are currently experiencing in the Middle East/North Africa, etc that has allowed pieces of shit like ISIS to take hold. Having someone with a different mindset on foreign policy may be beneficial for the country, who knows.

I think Paul is the only true fiscal conservative on the GOP stage at this point. From auditing the Fed, literally throwing out the tax code and replacing it with a flat tax, and eliminating entire government departments such as the Dept. of Education, there's really no one else that comes close. Yes, I agree, he probably doesn't have the backing of the establishment, but the GOP desperately needs someone to espouse conservative principles and at least try to get our fiscal house in order instead of pretending to.

He's not the perfect candidate, but I think he's what the GOP needs at this point.

I agree with a lot of what you're saying. I think the GOP at this point is too dysfunctional to recover. There needs to be a complete policy and political shift, business as usual doesn't work, wont work and most conservative voters are tired of the bullshit.

I still think if they put a no confidence "none of the above" vote on the ballot, there wouldn't be another POTUS.

 

[TLDR20]

At this point I'm not confident any of the candidates would make a good POTUS from either side. Think we need a good fiscal conservative, socially moderate, and strong foreign policy Independent candidate at this point.

$.02

I used to say this too, but I don't think you can be socially moderate and fiscally conservative. It takes money to enact good social policies.

 

[Diamondback 2/2]

I used to say this too, but I don't think you can be socially moderate and fiscally conservative. It takes money to enact good social policies.

I think it can be done, especially in areas of health care, education and social services. The problem is not that conservatives don't want these programs, they just don't want wasteful programs that don't work, or programs filled with pork barrel projects hidden within a good program. I think everyone agrees with social security, however many disagree with it being robbed blind by other programs and or shifting founds away from it to pay for other programs. I don't think most American are against a base line government health care for poor people who cannot afford health care. However they don't want it filled with bullshit programs that wont work, or a one model for all, or a fine for poor people, or effectively destroying low wage low skill full time employment.

I don't know how anyone can justify giving benefits paid for by tax payers to illegal immigrants or refugees, while American citizens are going without and on top of that being fined.

Moderate social programs are a must, even conservatism understands that fact, however, the difference between jumping in blind and going full retard (social progressive) and having a balanced plan with smart regulation and controls (social moderate) is night and day from even being a social conservative. IMO

 

[TH15]

I agree with @JAB that conservatives generally want moderate social programs. The problem is the US is running massive deficits, an $18+ trillion debt (not counting unfunded liabilities), so a robust and generous social program isn't financially feasible right now. Any politician who doesn't acknowledge that fact is a moron.

Also, perhaps a topic for a different thread, but Social Security is basically a Ponzi scheme. It was never meant to fund someone's 20-30 year retirement. Politicians can try to say they can "reform" it, but I think they're just pushing the can down the road... again. I'm pretty much of the opinion that my generation ("millennials" :-") will not be receiving Social Security when we retire.