Ben Carson Says Evolution is a Fairy Tale

[John Cuthber]

And probably neglect that even if we accept the narration as a historic fact, it would have happened almost 1000 years after the Pyramid of Giza was actually built.

Better yet, we could look at the historic fact that they were built as graves.

It's historical because they wrote it down at the time

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyramid_Texts

[Airbrush]

 

Eeeeh, let's not draw up that comparison. It is too much of a simplification to state that the respective leaders were delusional and randomly decided to plunge the world into war. There are many more causes and, with the existing ideologies and information present at that given time, for many the war was a rational decision.

 

Yes, in the minds of Hitler, Mussolini, and Tojo, plunging the world into war by invading your neighboring countries was a "rational decision". The problem is in hindsight they were delusional, confident in their decisions, because in totalitarian regimes everyone around you agrees with you out of fear for their lives.

 

There were probably multiples causes for WW2 but in totalitarian regimes the leaders are in total control. They alone initiated WW2. Ben Carson as president would not be in TOTAL control, but imagine how disfunctional our government could become when the branches of govt are constantly at war with each other, thanks to Dr. Ben's "Gifted Hands" and empty head.

 

"(Memo to the Donald: Please elaborate as to what exactly bothers you about Seventh-day Adventism! You say you’re a Presbyterian, but you show no signs of genuine faith-derangement syndrome. If you spoke up you would help turn evangelicals...against your [Adventist] rival and sink his electoral campaign."

 

http://www.salon.com/2015/11/08/you_know_ben_carson_is_crazy_right_lets_discuss_the_craziest_things_he_actually_believes/

Edited November 10, 2015 by Airbrush

[MigL]

Really, what about the fact that president Clinton, who we all agree was a decent president, seems to think its OK to lie under oath ?

Does that mean we should be wondering what else he lied about ?

Or should we just judge him on his performance as president ?

 

You guys seem to think that because Carson has wonky opinions about the pyramid's purpose, he intends to do all sorts of evil things. You have him 'convicted' already of the things you think he will do.

 

And Bells and Airbrush, I suggest you have a problem with reading comprehension. Re-read my posts s-l-o-w-l-y.

You must be a product of the education system Carson intends to ruin when he becomes president.

I suggested there were just causes for going to war AGAINST the Axis in WW2, 40 million people died, and not one single ALLIED war criminal.

Bells seems to think differently.

Maybe someday ( certainly not now ) it may be necessary to do the same against ISIS to protect our way of life, freedom and prosperity.

But maybe Bells thinks we would all be war criminals if we did.

We should just accept Sharia law, stone women and homosexuals who commit sexual 'improprieties' to death ( never mind giving them an education or letting them drive ), or even more brutal forms of capital punishment like beheadings and burnings, and outlaw all other religions.

 

Maybe that is the one thing that I agree with Carson about.

If after 9/11, the US had dropped leaflets ( instead of bombs ) over a mountanous area of Afghanistan, telling people to clear the area in one week, then gone ahead and dropped a large thermonuclear bomb on that area, levelling a mountain peak visible for 100 miles, I think all the militants in Afghanistan would have said "Holy sh*t, they can do that ?" and things would have quieted down.

Instead we`ve had 13 yrs of war and increasing instability ( it`ll get worse, not better ).

The idea started off just as a `fantasy`, but as more time goes by and the refugees and deaths pile up, you have to ask yourself just how far you`re willing to let things go, before doing nothing actually becomes worse than the nuclear option.

 

going back to the WW2 example, one nuclear weapon ( if they had been available ) at the time of the invasion of Austria, Checkoslovakia or Poland, would have spared the lives of 40 million people.

I think it wold have been worth it ( I must be a war criminal, Bells ).

Edited November 10, 2015 by MigL

[overtone]

You guys seem to think that because Carson has wonky opinions about the pyramid's purpose, he intends to do all sorts of evil things.

It's his incompetence, as much as his intentions, that concern. His delusions include matters that are very likely to be part of his job - the causes and consequences of famine, for example, or the proper governance of the city of Jerusalem.

 

If after 9/11, the US had dropped leaflets ( instead of bombs ) over a mountanous area of Afghanistan, telling people to clear the area in one week, then gone ahead and dropped a large thermonuclear bomb on that area, levelling a mountain peak visible for 100 miles, I think all the militants in Afghanistan would have said "Holy sh*t, they can do that ?" and things would have quieted down.

Very quiet, yes. While the world considered its options.

 

You do remember that Pakistan - the political and economic center of radical Islam in the region - has nuclear weapons, missile capability, and close connections with international terrorist organizations, right?

 

I certainly hope we can count on any US President keeping that kind of fact in mind. I'm not so sure Carson can, or will.

 

Speaking of radical options involving killing people, what would be the sane response of an American with a lick of sense to the prospect of their President actually, seriously, considering something like that as a realistic response to some act of terrorism?

Edited November 10, 2015 by overtone

[John Cuthber]

There is a difference between understanding that something is wrong, but doing it anyway and not even having the brains to understand that it's wrong.

The first in't great presidential material (though, in international relations, being two faced might be an advantage sometimes).

But the second can't be trusted with any sort of important decision.

[Ophiolite]

I suggested there were just causes for going to war AGAINST the Axis in WW2, 40 million people died, and not one single ALLIED war criminal.

Now, do you think that was because

a) There were no war crimes committed by Allied forces?

b) As the victors, the Allies got to define what constituted a war crime?

c) Standards were different then?

 

To take a single example: are you arguing that the fire bombing of Dresden was justified?

[Bells]

Really, what about the fact that president Clinton, who we all agree was a decent president, seems to think its OK to lie under oath ?

Does that mean we should be wondering what else he lied about ?

Or should we just judge him on his performance as president ?

 

 

Did Clinton govern as per his religious beliefs? Were his religious beliefs so important that he attempted to change laws and stack the Supreme Court with judges who would support his religious convictions? Carson has said that this is what he plans to do.

 

You guys seem to think that because Carson has wonky opinions about the pyramid's purpose, he intends to do all sorts of evil things. You have him 'convicted' already of the things you think he will do.

 

You miss the point entirely. It isn't so much about Carson's beliefs about the pyramids, it has more to do with the fact that those opinions will have an affect on how he governs and it will have a disastrous effect on foreign policy. I ask you once more, because you have dodged this several times now.. How well do you think Arabs in the Middle East are going to want to negotiate with a President who has attempted to white-wash their history in Egypt and who complains that the lack of killing hundreds of thousands of them was due to political correctness? Egypt is an ally of the US in the Middle East. A fairly important one.

And it isn't what we think he will do. Carson has already been very open about what he plans to do and it is based on his religious beliefs, from changing the tax system to one that he read about in the bible, to stacking the Supreme Court to support his religious ideology and beliefs.

On taxes, he borrows from Scripture for his 10% tax plan. His flat-tax plan would simplify the current tax code by basing it on tithing. As Christians are urged to tithe 10% of their income, taxpayers would pay 10% of their income.

"I want a system that's based on biblical principles, because it seems to me that God is pretty fair," he said in Phoenix in August.

At a guess, Ben Carson does not understand the concept of separation of Church and State.

And Bells and Airbrush, I suggest you have a problem with reading comprehension. Re-read my posts s-l-o-w-l-y.

You must be a product of the education system Carson intends to ruin when he becomes president.

I suggested there were just causes for going to war AGAINST the Axis in WW2, 40 million people died, and not one single ALLIED war criminal.

Bells seems to think differently.

 

Firstly, please do not be insulting and do not put words in my mouth.

Secondly, Allied forces war crimes are fairly well documented. And yes, some faced court-marshal as a result.

Maybe someday ( certainly not now ) it may be necessary to do the same against ISIS to protect our way of life, freedom and prosperity.

But maybe Bells thinks we would all be war criminals if we did.

 

Or perhaps we can abide by international laws and not bomb civilians to protect our freedoms and prosperity.

We should just accept Sharia law, stone women and homosexuals who commit sexual 'improprieties' to death ( never mind giving them an education or letting them drive ), or even more brutal forms of capital punishment like beheadings and burnings, and outlaw all other religions.

 

What in the world are you on about?

Who has said this is going to happen if we do not raze parts of the Middle East and civilians be damned?

And your comment is ironic considering that 3 Republican Presidential candidates just appeared on stage and shared the same stage with Kevin Swanson at the National Religious Liberties Conference. Kevin Swanson and the conference itself spent a large portion of its time discussing killing gays and even how to murder gays and whether it should be by stoning or pushing them off cliffs. You can watch it, the story about it is 6 minutes into the video. Kevin Swanson also advised at the conference that parents should drown their children before allowing them to read Harry Potter. He even describes how parents could drown their children. Three Presidential candidates were introduced to the stage at the conference by Kevin Swanson and interviewed by him. Makes for astonishing viewing because Pastor Kevin Swanson spent quite a bit of time "pointing out the gay time".

Maybe that is the one thing that I agree with Carson about.

If after 9/11, the US had dropped leaflets ( instead of bombs ) over a mountanous area of Afghanistan, telling people to clear the area in one week, then gone ahead and dropped a large thermonuclear bomb on that area, levelling a mountain peak visible for 100 miles, I think all the militants in Afghanistan would have said "Holy sh*t, they can do that ?" and things would have quieted down.

Instead we`ve had 13 yrs of war and increasing instability ( it`ll get worse, not better ).

The idea started off just as a `fantasy`, but as more time goes by and the refugees and deaths pile up, you have to ask yourself just how far you`re willing to let things go, before doing nothing actually becomes worse than the nuclear option.

Any potential leader who has fantasies about committing war crimes or who complains that a refusal to commit a war crime is because of political correctness should be viewed with caution.

going back to the WW2 example, one nuclear weapon ( if they had been available ) at the time of the invasion of Austria, Checkoslovakia or Poland, would have spared the lives of 40 million people.

I think it wold have been worth it ( I must be a war criminal, Bells ).

 

 

 

So you would kill a few million people, innocent civilians, including millions of the "40 million" people, because it would have been worth it?

 

Does it make you a war criminal? You would be if you had been in a position of power and had done it. But considering it or believing it would be a good thing makes you something else and frankly, there are doctors that treat that.

[MigL]

B is my answer, Ophiolite.

( and that makes a and c moot )

 

Are religious fanatics the only kind you consider unsuited for presidential office, Bells ?

All other fanatics are OK ?

 

I've answered your question. I think Egyptians would be more offended if we thought the pyramids were burial tombs for God-Kings, whose construction involved the hardships and deaths of many slaves. I think they could care less if their tourist attractions were believed by some to be grain storage.

Now answer mine.

How well would they negotiate with a president who lies under oath to his own people, never mind foreigners ?

 

And while you're answering that one, tell me, exactly what is your position on WW2 ?

If you had been a leader of a country at the time, would you have gone to war to stop Hitler and his axis allies ?

And if yes, would you be appalled at the cost of 40 million lives to do so ?

And if you had a solution that would involve the death of only one million, would you use it ?

And would you consider yourself a war criminal for saving 39 million people ?

 

P.S. Sorry if I came across as insulting, but I felt that the lines of my posts you were quoting, were not being presented or answered in the proper context.

Edited November 11, 2015 by MigL

[CharonY]

Actually these questions are tricky as they are currently discussed with the perspective of hindsight and by applying today's viewpoints. However, if you are talking of the history it is relevant to add that the actors at that time had quite a different perspective.

For example the issue of stopping Hitler. Considering what he has done it is easy to construct a narrative of a murderous madman that was ultimately brought down by the forces of good. But why did the allies waged war? Was it do stop the atrocities, or wasn't it rather that they were afraid of a German European supremacy (similar to Japanese ambitions in Asia). What if Hitler had not pursued an aggressive foreign policy but instead "just" decided to eliminate and murder parts of its population. Do you think the allies would have declared war?

In other words, is the cause, that we perceive as just now, really the actual cause? If not, is the war justified or just justifiable?

There were probably multiples causes for WW2 but in totalitarian regimes the leaders are in total control. They alone initiated WW2.

 

No, sorry, that is bordering on revisionism. The early expansions of Japan up until the mid-30s are pretty much the same as other imperialistic powers, which does include the allies. The British, Germans and Americans were all carving pieces of Asia and China. One major issue was that Japan was not seen as an equal power. Especially America's policies towards Japanese immigrants fueled Japanese resentments and thus an increase in nationalism and the desire to become a world player. Together with many other factors this ultimately strengthened militarism in the population and the cabinet. It is not that one single totalitarian (and delusional) ruler suddenly decided to wage war against everyone but rather a process that permeated whole layers of politics and the population.

 

If hey had formed a cooperation with the British (the arguably most powerful player at that time), as was proposed (but never seriously pursued) by a number of politicians at that time, they could have taken part of China and avoided a war with Western powers. But really, their foreign policy was not significantly different to the Western powers. Again, reducing the whole historic context to it was solely the decision of totalitarian leaders does not even begin to touch on the issue. Especially as even in totalitarian systems it is usually leaders (plural) though some (including Mussolini, Stalin and Hitler) created a system where they were (mostly) surrounded by people loyal to them. In Japan the cabinet was quite a bit more complex and you would be hard-pressed to identify the singular entity who masterminded everything (not that I claim to be able to disentangle these complex political networks and factions, mind you).

 

But what should always taken into account is whether we are talking about allies or axis, the context is very different from the countries we know today. Foreign policy was imperialistic and as such was prone to external conflicts, regardless of player. This is not to say that the actions were equivalent (that would also be a form of revisionism) but rather that the thought of military conquest is not born from the delusions of individual leaders, but, especially in Asia a continuation of the accepted foreign policy played out by the major powers. For discussing Europe one has to go back to at least WWI to provide proper context but this post is already too long and still does not even begin to cover ground.

[overtone]

 

 

Are religious fanatics the only kind you consider unsuited for presidential office, Bells ?

All other fanatics are OK ?

The problem with Carson is that he appears to be delusional and incompetent. It is possible he is only sociopathic and self-serving - that would not reassure.

 

 

How well would they negotiate with a president who lies under oath to his own people, never mind foreigners ?

Nobody but wingnut Americans thinks the dishonest and bizarrely untrustworthy political entity in the Clinton impeachment trial was Bill Clinton.

 

Attempting to conceal philandering from one's political enemies does not seem to be evidence of delusion or incompetence at one's job, to sensible people. Your mileage may vary.

[Bells]

Are religious fanatics the only kind you consider unsuited for presidential office, Bells ?

All other fanatics are OK ?

 

 

I don't think anyone who shows any form of fanaticism should be placed in a position of power.

 

 

 

I've answered your question. I think Egyptians would be more offended if we thought the pyramids were burial tombs for God-Kings, whose construction involved the hardships and deaths of many slaves. I think they could care less if their tourist attractions were believed by some to be grain storage.

 

Well the construction and use of the pyramids are fairly well established fact. Why would they be offended if an American President believed they were used as tombs for their "god-kings"?

 

The response from Egyptian antiquities authorities towards Carson's comments has been one of mocking disdain.

 

Egyptian antiquities officials have scoffed at claims by the Republican presidential candidate Ben Carson that Egypt’s ancient pyramids were not built as pharaonic tombs but used to store grain.

“Does he even deserve a response? He doesn’t,” said the antiquities minister, Mamdouh el-Damaty, on the sidelines of a news conference about recent thermal scans of the pyramids that could reveal hidden tombs.

[...]

Mahmoud Afifi, Egypt’s head of ancient antiquities, said Carson’s comments were similar to other inaccurate theories about the pyramids, including that they were built by Atlanteans from a mythical lost continent.

“A lot of people are trying to prove that the pyramids weren’t built for burials,” said Afifi. “Maybe they’re comments used for publicity like that man who’s not an archaeologist and says they stored grain, and I don’t know what that was based on.”

 

 

Now answer mine.

How well would they negotiate with a president who lies under oath to his own people, never mind foreigners ?

 

They negotiated with Clinton quite well.

 

Military cooperation between the U.S. and Egypt is probably the strongest aspect of their strategic partnership. General Anthony Zinni, the former Commandant of the U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM), once said, "Egypt is the most important country in my area of responsibility because of the access it gives me to the region." Egypt was also described during the Clinton Administration as the most prominent player in the Arab world and a key U.S. ally in the Middle East. U.S. military assistance to Egypt was considered part of the administration's strategy to maintaining continued availability of Persian Gulf energy resources and to secure the Suez Canal, which serves both as an important international oil route and as critical route for U.S. warships transiting between the Mediterranean and either the Indian Ocean or the Persian Gulf.

 

 

In fact, the Clinton administration did quite well all things considered.

 

 

Then again, Clinton did not try to rewrite their history to suit his religious beliefs.

 

 

And while you're answering that one, tell me, exactly what is your position on WW2 ?

If you had been a leader of a country at the time, would you have gone to war to stop Hitler and his axis allies ?

 

What a bizarre question.

 

If I had been 'grand leader of all', I would have acted before it would have gotten to the point of war, at the point of Hitler's saber rattling and his threats of invasion and I would certainly have acted the moment word started to filter through of his actions on Jews and other minorities in Germany. The writing was well on the wall and the world sat and did nothing until Hitler waged war on Germany's neighbours by invading them.

 

Does that answer your question sufficiently? Or do you wish to rewrite history some more?

 

 

 

And if yes, would you be appalled at the cost of 40 million lives to do so ?

And if you had a solution that would involve the death of only one million, would you use it ?

And would you consider yourself a war criminal for saving 39 million people ?

 

Would I murder one million people? No, I would not.

 

Would it be a war crime to slaughter one million innocent civilians? Yes it is.

 

 

 

P.S. Sorry if I came across as insulting, but I felt that the lines of my posts you were quoting, were not being presented or answered in the proper context.

 

Then perhaps you should read what you write before you post it so that you do not come across that way.

[moth]

I don't understand how somebody could think lying about something as inconsequential to the world as a blowjob is in the same realm of charactor flaws as a guy that doesn't care there is a real world out there, the one in his head is just great.
And all the instructions for solving problems in his world are in his iconic little book.

 

That his (Carson's) views are being expressed on a stage with the next republicant candidate for president is bazaaro.

[iNow]

More bizarro IMO is that he and his trivially false beliefs appeal to a sizable enough number of Americans so as to be currently polling in first/second place within the GOP primary.

[moth]

More bizarro IMO is that he and his trivially false beliefs appeal to a sizable enough number of Americans so as to be currently polling in first/second place within the GOP primary.

 

Some of my Neighbors no doubt.

I hope he's just there to make Trump look worldly.

I'd rather vote for Clint's empty chair.

[Bells]

More bizarro IMO is that he and his trivially false beliefs appeal to a sizable enough number of Americans so as to be currently polling in first/second place within the GOP primary.

 

He is preaching to the already converted far right evangelicals. And they make up a fair chunk of the voting base for Republicans, don't they?

 

He is not a politician, he is deeply religious and he is telling them the talking points they want to hear. In that sense, it is expected that he will poll well.

 

If you notice, he isn't bothering much with anyone else, a few token efforts here and there. He views anyone who questions him as being "secular progressives".

[overtone]

 

 

If you notice, he isn't bothering much with anyone else, a few token efforts here and there.

He's on a book tour, at the moment - he will be returning to his campaign for President in a little while.

 

This country elected Ronald Reagan twice, HW and his VP Dan Quale once, and W the Inimitable one and a half times.

 

They all said stuff as goofy as Carson's quotes, and got elected anyway. (HW was his son's father - the only reason he didn't get a quote book in the humor section of the bookstore, as Reagan did and W did, was that his VP Dan Quale stole the goofyquote spotlight https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Dan_Quayle.

 

sample: "Mars is essentially in the same orbit. … Mars is somewhat the same distance from the Sun, which is very important. We have seen pictures where there are canals, we believe, and water. If there is water, that means there is oxygen. If oxygen, that means we can breathe. "

 

Since Reagan and HW ran as malaprop pals in chief (and won), the only Republican White House team without at least one goofy-quote generator on stage was the Bob Dole/Jack Kemp dynamic duo. There's nothing new here, except maybe the internet. Starting with Reagan, it's become almost standard for any Republican running for Pres or Veep to get a book of their quotes - straight quotes, not edited or put into new contexts or anything, just their own words transcribed - shelved in the "Humor" section of bookstores and libraries everywhere.

 

It comes from trying to square the necessary Republican rhetoric with public reality, I think. Although in the Bush family some kind of hereditary factor seems to be involved.

 

And it isn't in itself fatal, for a Republican. As Dan Quale put it:

• "This is what I say about the scorn of the media elite: I wear their scorn as a badge of honor" .
  • Speech to the Southern Baptist Convention in Indianapolis (9 June 1992) "

Edited November 11, 2015 by overtone

[MigL]

Well, since you don't seem to accept apologies gracefully Bells, I retract my apology.

In fact you're still doing what I accused you of. Picking lines of my posts at random and giving non-sensical answers.

The question was...

If you could have stopped the slaughter of 40 million people during WW2 by an act that would have killed only 1 million, would you have done it ?

 

I've been sort of steering this discussion with regards to WW2 since you first brought up war crimes.

Today in Canada, it is Rememberance Day, when we pay our respects to those that have given all to protect our freedom and safeguard our way of life.

It would have been much better if 40 million of them didn't have to die.

 

But, as we're way off topic now, I'll give it a rest since Carson will never get elected anyway, and neither will Trump ( my prediction ).

Contrary to what Overtone thinks, neither of these guys is even close to a R. Reagan.

[Bells]

Well, since you don't seem to accept apologies gracefully Bells, I retract my apology.

 

Err okay...

 

 

 

 

In fact you're still doing what I accused you of. Picking lines of my posts at random and giving non-sensical answers.

 

And you have repeatedly failed to address the issues raised by myself and others about Carson's policies and have instead resorted to asking questions like this:

 

 

The question was...

If you could have stopped the slaughter of 40 million people during WW2 by an act that would have killed only 1 million, would you have done it ?

 

Which I answered.

 

Quite effectively. What part of it do you have issues understanding?

 

 

 

I've been sort of steering this discussion with regards to WW2 since you first brought up war crimes.

 

You mean you have attempted to avoid responding to questions about Carson and his very own comments about his policies and you instead, prefer to take this thread more off topic?

 

 

Today in Canada, it is Rememberance Day, when we pay our respects to those that have given all to protect our freedom and safeguard our way of life.

It would have been much better if 40 million of them didn't have to die.

 

And in your opinion, you would be fine with slaughtering 1 million of your fellow Canadians to save the 40 million? Or is this your way of telling us that Canada has somehow started WWIII and 40 million of your citizens face imminent death?

 

Because your argument in this vein is nonsense. You might as well ask me if I was Queen of the world, who would I get to fly me into space to watch the sunset.

 

Unless of course you just want to discuss the prospect of committing mass murder of 1 million people in some action movie bad script type scenario to apparently save 40 million.

 

 

But, as we're way off topic now, I'll give it a rest since Carson will never get elected anyway, and neither will Trump ( my prediction ).

Contrary to what Overtone thinks, neither of these guys is even close to a R. Reagan.

 

Both appeal to the right. And I think it would be silly to dismiss them both.

[overtone]

 

 

Contrary to what Overtone thinks, neither of these guys is even close to a R. Reagan.

They don't have to be. Reagan broke some new ground (OK, Nixon, but Reagan had to redo some of the work). These guys have a couple of decades of ground preparation to begin with. The media's all set up to take them seriously, give them respect as one of the "both sides", and all that. The core voting base has been isolated from information for a generation now.

 

And it's a mistake to overestimate Reagan's personal governing talents, or underestimate the bizarre nature of some of the stuff he said, or forget that he was as much of a joke as Trump or Carson when he began his campaigns - he was incompetent, his economic policies were nonsense and their execution disastrous, his foreign policies were juvenile Hollywood, he surrounded himself with wingnuts and screwballs and criminals and the kinds of people one found operating used car dealerships and running real estate development scams in southern California, and he was - essentially, at bottom, in every sense of the word - mean.

 

The sheer pettyness of the Reagan administration , the meanness, the degradation he brought via these small time small minded short horizoned perps he had scurrying back and forth from K Street (a Reagan administration innovation) and running around in the White House basement with their rodent paws on the power levers of the United States, was his operational legacy - and we still live in the Reagan Era. We had his Ayn Rand acolyte in charge of the Federal Reserve until quite recently, for example. The hog trough model of financial regulation and military contracting established on Reagan's watch (HW's Defense Secretary was Dick Cheney, following execrable Reagan appointee Frank Carlucci) is the one we've been shoveling our tax dollars into ever since.

 

People think Trump and Carson and Cruz and Rubio and Jeb aren't Reagan because they aren't somehow regal or dignified or grand enough - neither was Reagan, at the time. Dignity will be granted by appropriate media efforts, as needed, retrospective if necessary.

[Nouveau]

Well Carson either really is madder than a box of frogs or, he's gone all out Pinocchio to catch Trump and is going to end up backpedaling like crazy towards that rapidly disappearing horizon of the center ground, should he actually get the nomination, by contrast Trump just wants to get elected so he build his big wall and stuff it with condos. Jeb's campaign looks like a deflated hot air balloon and Cruz appears like he would be lucky to get into double digits from an IQ test. Rubio seems articulate but may prove a little to conservative. None of them are future Reagans.

[overtone]

None of them are future Reagans.

Why not?

 

They aren't senile enough? Trump's wall is not as obviously a chuckleheaded corruption magnet as Star Wars? Rubio and Cruz aren't tall enough or divorced enough, their wives are too young and pretty? Jeb's family connections aren't enough evidence of mental deficiency, and his Miami anti-Castro mob ties don't provide the gravitas and clout inference of Reagan's union and California real estate mogul connections?

 

I think you underestimate the Reagan-creating abilities of the powers that be. Your assessment of Cruz'z IQ based on the debate, for example, was strong evidence of progress in that direction - his major problem has always been his off-putting presentation of intelligence and elite education, his lack of the common touch. If he can learn to dumb it down a bit, temper his delivery with some folksy charm, his lack of height and dangerously capable wife can be overcome with cute kid pictures, cookie recipes, low camera angles, homily-competent speechwriting - - and voilà.

Edited November 11, 2015 by overtone

[Nouveau]

Why not?

 

They aren't senile enough? Trump's wall is not as obviously a chuckleheaded corruption magnet as Star Wars? Rubio and Cruz aren't tall enough or divorced enough, their wives are too young and pretty? Jeb's family connections aren't enough evidence of mental deficiency, and his Miami anti-Castro mob ties don't provide the gravitas and clout inference of Reagan's union and California real estate mogul connections?

 

I think you underestimate the Reagan-creating abilities of the powers that be. Your assessment of Cruz'z IQ based on the debate, for example, was strong evidence of progress in that direction - his major problem has always been his off-putting presentation of intelligence and elite education, his lack of the common touch. If he can learn to dumb it down a bit, temper his delivery with some folksy charm, his lack of height and dangerously capable wife can be overcome with cute kid pictures, cookie recipes, low camera angles, homily-competent speechwriting - - and voilà.

 

Perhaps it might somehow be that the optimism of the 1980's is offering a rose-tinted vision of Reagan. It was after all a very defining era when everything appeared much more clear cut, we were the good guys, it was the West vs the USSR and I suppose in some ways that feeling that we won. It makes it much easier to look back into the past for the answers because they're already there, kind of takes all the guess work out of it.

 

In fairness though everything you have said seems both reasonable and logical, perhaps my dislikes are just somewhat irrational, I can't honestly say for sure. But also I'm not American, so in this respect my opinions don't really hold much weight anyway given that I'm not someone who will be voting in the election, that is of course not to say though that the decisions taken in D.C. don't affect my country or that we don't have a vested interest in having a strong and successful American President.

 

Edited November 12, 2015 by Nouveau

[overtone]

It was after all a very defining era when everything appeared much more clear cut, we were the good guys, it was the West vs the USSR and I suppose in some ways that feeling that we won.

To the informed and liberal inside the US it appeared to be a disaster, a rolling vandalism and corruption and degradation of the US, a black comedy whose only good aspect was that the blame for the consequences would be clear.

 

And then even that failed. The lie was not only sold as a projection - "Morning in America" - but in retrospect as history, as if it had happened, as if that swinefest of an administration had been the beginning of something good.

 

And so it seems clear that if Reagan could be sold as "Reagan", almost anybody could be. Certainly Carson, with his equable demeanor and intellectual credentials, can be lipsticked into a fair Reagan. And Cruz is almost there - just needs to relax his face and voice, reassure rather than harangue, publicly and repeatedly and with gentle humor forgive the media for their obvious liberal bias and poor grasp of his meaning, get his wife to dress pretty and gaze adoringly, and build a lift into his dress shoes.

Edited November 12, 2015 by overtone

[overtone]

This showed up in my reminderum box, and one particular quote struck me: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/time-for-gop-panic-establishment-worried-carson-and-trump-might-win/2015/11/12/38ea88a6-895b-11e5-be8b-1ae2e4f50f76_story.html

 

Here's the quote:

 

The apprehension among some party elites goes beyond electability, according to one Republican strategist who spoke on the condition of anonymity to talk candidly about the worries.

“We’re potentially careening down this road of nominating somebody who frankly isn’t fit to be president in terms of the basic ability and temperament to do the job,” this strategist said. “It’s not just that it could be somebody Hillary could destroy electorally, but what if Hillary hits a banana peel and this person becomes president?”

Forty years after Reagan won their hearts and then actually served as President for eight long years, they may be finally getting a clue. Too late for the country, of course.

[MigL]

Neat article Overtone.

My opinion has always been that neither Trump nor Carson will get elected ( I just don't see the relevance of his beliefs about the purpose of the pyramids ), and if either gets the nomination, the Republicans will be committing suicide at the polls.

 

I see Democrats backing H. Clinton, and if either Trump or Carson gets the nod, most Republicans will be backing H. Clinton also.

 

Of course there is always the 'banana peel' factor.