In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!
NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
On October 12 2015 10:18 zlefin wrote: Given the extent to which criminal justice research has established the unreliability of human memory, he's probably misremembering something from earlier in his life or something.
Are you referring to Ben Carson's held-at-gunpoint story? I can't imagine a person would misremember such an incident... I think I'd be pretty scarred. He probably just embellished it.
On October 12 2015 09:24 LuckyFool wrote: The more I see the media mistreat Ben Carson, and take stuff he says out of context, and spew hate towards him, the more I like him.
I wasn't really a supporter in the past but I think he's my second favorite Republican now. I wondered how the media was going to try and bring him down, it's been as gloriously ugly as I've feared.
What quotes of his were taken out of context to look silly, which would seem perfectly reasonable in context? He's made so many ignorant and inappropriate comments about marijuana, homosexuality, vaccines, evolution, the Holocaust, Obama, his (fake?) Popeye's shooter experience, his hypothetical rush-the-shooter scenario, and everything else, that I think he deserves all the hate and ostracism that he gets.
Also, who's your favorite Republican candidate?
I can't address all of them right now but the two I can are the holocaust statement and the hypothetical rush-the-shooter scenario which have by far been the two worst/most overblown.
Holocaust- he never said it would have been "stopped" if the Jews were armed. But that became the biggest thing the media ran with. He said it would have (or could have) been "greatly diminished" if the Jews were armed. I see nothing controversial about that. The people arguing against this statement are saying it wouldn't have made a difference, the Nazi's were too strong etc. That's like saying to stop fighting for your life because things look bad. How much you want to interpret "greatly diminished" means is really up to you. Would it have diminished more than 50%? Maybe not. But who really knows. Also who knows how much guns we're talking about anyway, does arm the Jews mean give every single Jew a gun? There were 9.5 million Jews in Europe in the 1930's, 9.5 million people with guns is something. Nazi's would have burned out quickly if every single attic they checked for hidden Jews received a shot in the face. It would have changed everything about the dynamics of how the Nazi's even rounded the Jews up to begin with and would have made Ghettos almost impossible to control. Carsons bigger point anyway was about the larger issue of tyrannical governments first banning guns. Most media kinda glossed over that and instead spent most of the time talking about "historically inaccurate" his holocaust example was. How can a hypothetical statement even be "historically inaccurate" anyway.
Rush the shooter- He was asked what he would do if he was in the classroom, knowing that someone was systematically killing people based off their response to a question. He said he would tell everyone to try and rush the shooter. He was asked what HE would do. How his he supposed to respond? "Well I would do this, but since the victims didn't do that, I guess I'll just say I would sit there quietly and let myself get killed." Now obviously he could have said something like "With no disrespect to the victims etc" but even something like that makes it sound like he's trying to be all high and mighty. I wonder, how would you have liked him to respond to the question? What should he have said? When you just look at just the actual question and his answer, there is literally nothing controversial about it whatsoever.
and Rubio is my #1. he's going to win the nomination imo. Bush is fading/lacks excitement, plus has his name working against him. and I can't see the establishment fully getting behind any of the others near the top at the moment.
Why do you like Rubio? Guy seems like a choker to me, but maybe that is what we need.
Why does he seem like a choker? Young/inexperienced? Bush is the choker and is already doing so.
Rubio is the whole package. good debater, good policies, but more importantly brings the excitement that is dreadfully lacking from Bush. Rubio is the only one in the top 5 currently that I feel the GOP establishment could actually get behind in full.
On October 12 2015 09:24 LuckyFool wrote: The more I see the media mistreat Ben Carson, and take stuff he says out of context, and spew hate towards him, the more I like him.
I wasn't really a supporter in the past but I think he's my second favorite Republican now. I wondered how the media was going to try and bring him down, it's been as gloriously ugly as I've feared.
What quotes of his were taken out of context to look silly, which would seem perfectly reasonable in context? He's made so many ignorant and inappropriate comments about marijuana, homosexuality, vaccines, evolution, the Holocaust, Obama, his (fake?) Popeye's shooter experience, his hypothetical rush-the-shooter scenario, and everything else, that I think he deserves all the hate and ostracism that he gets.
Also, who's your favorite Republican candidate?
I can't address all of them right now but the two I can are the holocaust statement and the hypothetical rush-the-shooter scenario which have by far been the two worst/most overblown.
Holocaust- he never said it would have been "stopped" if the Jews were armed. But that became the biggest thing the media ran with. He said it would have (or could have) been "greatly diminished" if the Jews were armed. I see nothing controversial about that. The people arguing against this statement are saying it wouldn't have made a difference, the Nazi's were too strong etc. That's like saying to stop fighting for your life because things look bad. How much you want to interpret "greatly diminished" means is really up to you. Would it have diminished more than 50%? Maybe not. But who really knows. Also who knows how much guns we're talking about anyway, does arm the Jews mean give every single Jew a gun? There were 9.5 million Jews in Europe in the 1930's, 9.5 million people with guns is something. Nazi's would have burned out quickly if every single attic they checked for hidden Jews received a shot in the face. It would have changed everything about the dynamics of how the Nazi's even rounded the Jews up to begin with and would have made Ghettos almost impossible to control. Carsons bigger point anyway was about the larger issue of tyrannical governments first banning guns. Most media kinda glossed over that and instead spent most of the time talking about "historically inaccurate" his holocaust example was. How can a hypothetical statement even be "historically inaccurate" anyway.
Rush the shooter- He was asked what he would do if he was in the classroom, knowing that someone was systematically killing people based off their response to a question. He said he would tell everyone to try and rush the shooter. He was asked what HE would do. How his he supposed to respond? "Well I would do this, but since the victims didn't do that, I guess I'll just say I would sit there quietly and let myself get killed." Now obviously he could have said something like "With no disrespect to the victims etc" but even something like that makes it sound like he's trying to be all high and mighty. I wonder, how would you have liked him to respond to the question? What should he have said? When you just look at just the actual question and his answer, there is literally nothing controversial about it whatsoever.
and Rubio is my #1. he's going to win the nomination imo. Bush is fading/lacks excitement, plus has his name working against him. and I can't see the establishment fully getting behind any of the others near the top at the moment.
In regards to the Holocaust issue, he was remarking about how gun control was the reason why the Holocaust was so successful, and paralleling it to Obama and American gun control, essentially likening Obama to Hitler. It was basically a (not so subtle) invoking of Godwin on why Democrats are evil, insinuating that they're as bad as Nazis. I think that's where the remarks about his "historical inaccuracy" come in to play... that what Obama is doing is not what Hitler did, both in regards to gun control and (obviously) in regards to the *reason* for that gun control.
As far as the "rush the shooter" comment was concerned, he literally said "I would not just stand there and let him shoot me. I would say, ‘Hey guys, everybody attack him. He may shoot me, but he can’t get us all.' " He said that he'd tell everyone to try and attack the shooter instead of scatter and run. And furthermore, this hypothetical comment directly contradicts what he supposedly actually did when there was a gun pointed at him at a Popeye's. He just stood there, which is what he expressly said he wouldn't do. So he's a hypocrite, trying to sound like a hero or something when in reality he doesn't do what he says he'd do.
As far as Rubio is concerned, I was actually really impressed with him during the second debate. When Trump and other candidates were floundering when asked straightforward "What's your plan on how to do X" questions, Rubio really had his shit together. He was like "There are three things I'd like to fix about immigration: X, Y, and Z, and here's how we do it." I happened to disagree with him on some (most?) of those issues, but he clearly had actual answers based on his platforms, which is more than pretty much anyone else on that stage could say (besides "Build a wall" x100). It wasn't a joke to him. So I give him major props for that.
That being said, I don't know if he could win the nomination
On October 12 2015 10:18 zlefin wrote: Given the extent to which criminal justice research has established the unreliability of human memory, he's probably misremembering something from earlier in his life or something.
Are you referring to Ben Carson's held-at-gunpoint story? I can't imagine a person would misremember such an incident... I think I'd be pretty scarred. He probably just embellished it.
I'm not sure, since there's really no way to know I'd imagine that he might misremember some small details (like what he said) but probably wouldn't mistake the entire incident (i.e., that he was held at gunpoint). It's all speculation though.
I just want to remind everyone who poo-pooed my old posts about the influence of the Creationism and the "Obama is a Kenyan Muslim" crowds within the republican party, remember Carson is a Creationist and thinks the theory of evolution was "encouraged by the adversary [Satan].” and Trump was an open birther.
Donald Trump still leads in the new national poll with 27%, followed by Ben Carson at 21%, CBS News reports.
That's ~48% between them, with a favorable margin of error, that's the majority of the party. Meanwhile the Conservative champion Walker dropped out before people like Jindal, and Cruz is still losing to Bush in the single digits.
But I'm sure Introvert can explain how it is I'm the one who doesn't understand the Republican party
On October 12 2015 11:22 GreenHorizons wrote: I just want to remind everyone who poo-pooed my old posts about the influence of the Creationism and the "Obama is a Kenyan Muslim" crowds within the republican party, remember Carson is a Creationist and thinks the theory of evolution was "encouraged by the adversary [Satan].” and Trump was an open birther.
That's ~48% between them, with a favorable margin of error, that's the majority of the party. Meanwhile the Conservative champion Walker dropped out before people like Jindal, and Cruz is still losing to Bush in the single digits.
But I'm sure Introvert can explain how it is I'm the one who doesn't understand the Republican party
Are you implying that everyone who is for Trump is automatically a birther and everyone who is for Carson is automatically a creationist? You do realize that the vast majority of people do not agree with everything their candidate says right?
I mean hell, Obama is a Christian, so are all of his supporters creationists too?
I guess GreenHorizons feels like someone who is scientifically literate couldn't endorse someone they know to be scientifically illiterate for a position where they would be able to do a catastrophic amount of damage with their incompetence. The only explanation, is his eyes, would be that the supporter is unaware of the scientific incompetence of Carson because they share it.
Same reason that the only people who think homeopathy should be taken seriously are the homeopaths.
Obviously someone could agree so deeply with Carson's other opinions that they could forgive the fact that he is trying to redefine reality so it fits more closely with his favourite book. His argument is flawed. While I agree with GH that for me it does disqualify him it's not impossible that someone could understand the science, understand that Carson has no basic understanding of science and still like him for other reasons.
Carson isn't campaigning on creationism, and Trump dropped the birther thing. That latter tidbit seems to contradict GH's point, in fact.
And what's more, most of the time these subjects are brought up by the media, not the candidate. Trump hasn't talked about birtherism, except when explicitly asked. I doubt Carson has said anything substantive on evolution, unless asked.
It's ok GH, your ignorance of the Republican electorate is made obvious on a regular basis. Nowadays it speaks for itself.
The majority of R's aren't Mormons, either. But Romney won the nomination last time.
On October 12 2015 11:58 Introvert wrote: Carson isn't campaigning on creationism, and Trump dropped the birther thing. That latter tidbit seems to contradict GH's point, in fact.
And what's more, most of the time these subjects are brought up by the media, not the candidate. Trump hasn't talked about birtherism, except when explicitly asked. I doubt Carson has said anything substantive on evolution, unless asked.
It's ok GH, your ignorance of the Republican electorate is made obvious on a regular basis. Nowadays it speaks for itself.
The majority of R's aren't Mormons, either. But Romney won the nomination last time.
It seems there's a simple misunderstanding. Notice in my original comment I said "influence". Though I can't say there were polls like this with Republicans openly saying they were Mormon...
Fewer Republicans today (Dec 2013) than in 2009 believe in evolution, according to new analysis from the Pew Research Center.
A poll out Monday shows that less than half – 43 percent – of those who identify with the Republican Party say they believe humans have evolved over time, plunging from 54 percent four years ago. Forty-eight percent say they believe “humans and other living things have existed in their present form since the beginning of time,” up from 39 percent in 2009.
On October 12 2015 11:58 Introvert wrote: Carson isn't campaigning on creationism, and Trump dropped the birther thing. That latter tidbit seems to contradict GH's point, in fact.
And what's more, most of the time these subjects are brought up by the media, not the candidate. Trump hasn't talked about birtherism, except when explicitly asked. I doubt Carson has said anything substantive on evolution, unless asked.
It's ok GH, your ignorance of the Republican electorate is made obvious on a regular basis. Nowadays it speaks for itself.
The majority of R's aren't Mormons, either. But Romney won the nomination last time.
It seems there's a simple misunderstanding. Notice in my original comment I said "influence". Though I can't say there were polls like this with Republicans openly saying they were Mormon...
Fewer Republicans today (Dec 2013) than in 2009 believe in evolution, according to new analysis from the Pew Research Center.
A poll out Monday shows that less than half – 43 percent – of those who identify with the Republican Party say they believe humans have evolved over time, plunging from 54 percent four years ago. Forty-eight percent say they believe “humans and other living things have existed in their present form since the beginning of time,” up from 39 percent in 2009.
So you were being intentionally vague? I always said it didn't matter. Are you really trying to claim that you meant "some-maybe-very-little-but-some" influence? For a time you consistently posted about how important it was to Republican voters. Why post so much if it wasn't really that big of a deal? What type of influence did you have in mind?
Carson was a neurosurgeon. He is not an idiot. He knows what the science is. He is lying because it suits him that way. Which doesn't make him any better, it makes him worse.
On October 12 2015 13:37 gobbledydook wrote: Carson was a neurosurgeon. He is not an idiot. He knows what the science is. He is lying because it suits him that way. Which doesn't make him any better, it makes him worse.
Religion can make intelligent people believe really stupid things. There's no guarantee Carson doesn't believe what he claims to. The point of faith is that you believe something that you have no evidence for, you take it on faith. You don't get any faith points for believing what you can see, that doesn't count. The more ridiculous the belief, the more powerful the faith.
On October 12 2015 09:24 LuckyFool wrote: The more I see the media mistreat Ben Carson, and take stuff he says out of context, and spew hate towards him, the more I like him.
I wasn't really a supporter in the past but I think he's my second favorite Republican now. I wondered how the media was going to try and bring him down, it's been as gloriously ugly as I've feared.
What quotes of his were taken out of context to look silly, which would seem perfectly reasonable in context? He's made so many ignorant and inappropriate comments about marijuana, homosexuality, vaccines, evolution, the Holocaust, Obama, his (fake?) Popeye's shooter experience, his hypothetical rush-the-shooter scenario, and everything else, that I think he deserves all the hate and ostracism that he gets.
Also, who's your favorite Republican candidate?
I can't address all of them right now but the two I can are the holocaust statement and the hypothetical rush-the-shooter scenario which have by far been the two worst/most overblown.
Holocaust- he never said it would have been "stopped" if the Jews were armed. But that became the biggest thing the media ran with. He said it would have (or could have) been "greatly diminished" if the Jews were armed. I see nothing controversial about that. The people arguing against this statement are saying it wouldn't have made a difference, the Nazi's were too strong etc. That's like saying to stop fighting for your life because things look bad. How much you want to interpret "greatly diminished" means is really up to you. Would it have diminished more than 50%? Maybe not. But who really knows. Also who knows how much guns we're talking about anyway, does arm the Jews mean give every single Jew a gun? There were 9.5 million Jews in Europe in the 1930's, 9.5 million people with guns is something. Nazi's would have burned out quickly if every single attic they checked for hidden Jews received a shot in the face. It would have changed everything about the dynamics of how the Nazi's even rounded the Jews up to begin with and would have made Ghettos almost impossible to control. Carsons bigger point anyway was about the larger issue of tyrannical governments first banning guns. Most media kinda glossed over that and instead spent most of the time talking about "historically inaccurate" his holocaust example was. How can a hypothetical statement even be "historically inaccurate" anyway.
Rush the shooter- He was asked what he would do if he was in the classroom, knowing that someone was systematically killing people based off their response to a question. He said he would tell everyone to try and rush the shooter. He was asked what HE would do. How his he supposed to respond? "Well I would do this, but since the victims didn't do that, I guess I'll just say I would sit there quietly and let myself get killed." Now obviously he could have said something like "With no disrespect to the victims etc" but even something like that makes it sound like he's trying to be all high and mighty. I wonder, how would you have liked him to respond to the question? What should he have said? When you just look at just the actual question and his answer, there is literally nothing controversial about it whatsoever.
and Rubio is my #1. he's going to win the nomination imo. Bush is fading/lacks excitement, plus has his name working against him. and I can't see the establishment fully getting behind any of the others near the top at the moment.
Why do you like Rubio? Guy seems like a choker to me, but maybe that is what we need.
Why does he seem like a choker? Young/inexperienced? Bush is the choker and is already doing so.
Rubio is the whole package. good debater, good policies, but more importantly brings the excitement that is dreadfully lacking from Bush. Rubio is the only one in the top 5 currently that I feel the GOP establishment could actually get behind in full.
Excitement and debater, yes. You might call his policies good if you buy the repentant shtick about his prior support for that immigration bill in 2013. His line is that he got burned by the electorate and now he knows amnesty before a secure border is a bad idea. Immigration policy is huge with how Trump gives visibility to the issue, and Rubio's blundered too recently on it if you ask me.
Still, it is true what you say about rallying support for a GOP establishment ticket. He has a true rags to riches story. He's backed conservative positions on nearly every issue aside from the big one, which boosts his electability with the base. He's vibrant in debates and levelheaded in interviews, easily beating every other establishment candidate in both (admittedly not saying much, considering the competition). He is a well rounded guy to secure the big donor dollars.
On October 12 2015 11:58 Introvert wrote: Carson isn't campaigning on creationism, and Trump dropped the birther thing. That latter tidbit seems to contradict GH's point, in fact.
And what's more, most of the time these subjects are brought up by the media, not the candidate. Trump hasn't talked about birtherism, except when explicitly asked. I doubt Carson has said anything substantive on evolution, unless asked.
It's ok GH, your ignorance of the Republican electorate is made obvious on a regular basis. Nowadays it speaks for itself.
The majority of R's aren't Mormons, either. But Romney won the nomination last time.
It seems there's a simple misunderstanding. Notice in my original comment I said "influence". Though I can't say there were polls like this with Republicans openly saying they were Mormon...
Fewer Republicans today (Dec 2013) than in 2009 believe in evolution, according to new analysis from the Pew Research Center.
A poll out Monday shows that less than half – 43 percent – of those who identify with the Republican Party say they believe humans have evolved over time, plunging from 54 percent four years ago. Forty-eight percent say they believe “humans and other living things have existed in their present form since the beginning of time,” up from 39 percent in 2009.
So you were being intentionally vague? I always said it didn't matter. Are you really trying to claim that you meant "some-maybe-very-little-but-some" influence? For a time you consistently posted about how important it was to Republican voters. Why post so much if it wasn't really that big of a deal? What type of influence did you have in mind?
No, they are the majority of the party, and people holding those views are dominating the nomination process. So I'm saying it's a lot of influence. More than your Mormon or 9/11 truther comparisons have implied.
On October 12 2015 11:58 Introvert wrote: Carson isn't campaigning on creationism, and Trump dropped the birther thing. That latter tidbit seems to contradict GH's point, in fact.
And what's more, most of the time these subjects are brought up by the media, not the candidate. Trump hasn't talked about birtherism, except when explicitly asked. I doubt Carson has said anything substantive on evolution, unless asked.
It's ok GH, your ignorance of the Republican electorate is made obvious on a regular basis. Nowadays it speaks for itself.
The majority of R's aren't Mormons, either. But Romney won the nomination last time.
It seems there's a simple misunderstanding. Notice in my original comment I said "influence". Though I can't say there were polls like this with Republicans openly saying they were Mormon...
Fewer Republicans today (Dec 2013) than in 2009 believe in evolution, according to new analysis from the Pew Research Center.
A poll out Monday shows that less than half – 43 percent – of those who identify with the Republican Party say they believe humans have evolved over time, plunging from 54 percent four years ago. Forty-eight percent say they believe “humans and other living things have existed in their present form since the beginning of time,” up from 39 percent in 2009.
So you were being intentionally vague? I always said it didn't matter. Are you really trying to claim that you meant "some-maybe-very-little-but-some" influence? For a time you consistently posted about how important it was to Republican voters. Why post so much if it wasn't really that big of a deal? What type of influence did you have in mind?
No, they are the majority of the party, and people holding those views are dominating the nomination process. So I'm saying it's a lot of influence. More than your Mormon or 9/11 truther comparisons have implied.
So people who hold those views have influence. That's hardly debatable, and that's not your usual claim.
On October 12 2015 11:58 Introvert wrote: Carson isn't campaigning on creationism, and Trump dropped the birther thing. That latter tidbit seems to contradict GH's point, in fact.
And what's more, most of the time these subjects are brought up by the media, not the candidate. Trump hasn't talked about birtherism, except when explicitly asked. I doubt Carson has said anything substantive on evolution, unless asked.
It's ok GH, your ignorance of the Republican electorate is made obvious on a regular basis. Nowadays it speaks for itself.
The majority of R's aren't Mormons, either. But Romney won the nomination last time.
It seems there's a simple misunderstanding. Notice in my original comment I said "influence". Though I can't say there were polls like this with Republicans openly saying they were Mormon...
Fewer Republicans today (Dec 2013) than in 2009 believe in evolution, according to new analysis from the Pew Research Center.
A poll out Monday shows that less than half – 43 percent – of those who identify with the Republican Party say they believe humans have evolved over time, plunging from 54 percent four years ago. Forty-eight percent say they believe “humans and other living things have existed in their present form since the beginning of time,” up from 39 percent in 2009.
So you were being intentionally vague? I always said it didn't matter. Are you really trying to claim that you meant "some-maybe-very-little-but-some" influence? For a time you consistently posted about how important it was to Republican voters. Why post so much if it wasn't really that big of a deal? What type of influence did you have in mind?
No, they are the majority of the party, and people holding those views are dominating the nomination process. So I'm saying it's a lot of influence. More than your Mormon or 9/11 truther comparisons have implied.
So people who hold those views have influence. That's hardly debatable, and that's not your usual claim.
I'm saying more than that, but what do you suppose is my usual claim?
On October 12 2015 14:15 Introvert wrote: Faith and "blind faith" are not the same thing. Still, I agree he most likely believes it.
On October 12 2015 14:00 GreenHorizons wrote:
On October 12 2015 12:59 Introvert wrote:
On October 12 2015 12:45 GreenHorizons wrote:
On October 12 2015 11:58 Introvert wrote: Carson isn't campaigning on creationism, and Trump dropped the birther thing. That latter tidbit seems to contradict GH's point, in fact.
And what's more, most of the time these subjects are brought up by the media, not the candidate. Trump hasn't talked about birtherism, except when explicitly asked. I doubt Carson has said anything substantive on evolution, unless asked.
It's ok GH, your ignorance of the Republican electorate is made obvious on a regular basis. Nowadays it speaks for itself.
The majority of R's aren't Mormons, either. But Romney won the nomination last time.
It seems there's a simple misunderstanding. Notice in my original comment I said "influence". Though I can't say there were polls like this with Republicans openly saying they were Mormon...
Fewer Republicans today (Dec 2013) than in 2009 believe in evolution, according to new analysis from the Pew Research Center.
A poll out Monday shows that less than half – 43 percent – of those who identify with the Republican Party say they believe humans have evolved over time, plunging from 54 percent four years ago. Forty-eight percent say they believe “humans and other living things have existed in their present form since the beginning of time,” up from 39 percent in 2009.
So you were being intentionally vague? I always said it didn't matter. Are you really trying to claim that you meant "some-maybe-very-little-but-some" influence? For a time you consistently posted about how important it was to Republican voters. Why post so much if it wasn't really that big of a deal? What type of influence did you have in mind?
No, they are the majority of the party, and people holding those views are dominating the nomination process. So I'm saying it's a lot of influence. More than your Mormon or 9/11 truther comparisons have implied.
So people who hold those views have influence. That's hardly debatable, and that's not your usual claim.
I'm saying more than that, but what do you suppose is my usual claim?
Are you being real? You constantly rail about how creationim is causing this or that. people don't like common Core because of Creationism, it's creationist beliefs that have caused a breakdown of debate, etc.
I'm not going to go down this road again, but you are constantly laying all sorts of things at the feet of creationists.
You tried to link creationism and birtherism to the rise of Trump and Carson. It failed. That's all, really.
On October 12 2015 09:24 LuckyFool wrote: The more I see the media mistreat Ben Carson, and take stuff he says out of context, and spew hate towards him, the more I like him.
I wasn't really a supporter in the past but I think he's my second favorite Republican now. I wondered how the media was going to try and bring him down, it's been as gloriously ugly as I've feared.
What quotes of his were taken out of context to look silly, which would seem perfectly reasonable in context? He's made so many ignorant and inappropriate comments about marijuana, homosexuality, vaccines, evolution, the Holocaust, Obama, his (fake?) Popeye's shooter experience, his hypothetical rush-the-shooter scenario, and everything else, that I think he deserves all the hate and ostracism that he gets.
Also, who's your favorite Republican candidate?
I can't address all of them right now but the two I can are the holocaust statement and the hypothetical rush-the-shooter scenario which have by far been the two worst/most overblown.
Holocaust- he never said it would have been "stopped" if the Jews were armed. But that became the biggest thing the media ran with. He said it would have (or could have) been "greatly diminished" if the Jews were armed. I see nothing controversial about that. The people arguing against this statement are saying it wouldn't have made a difference, the Nazi's were too strong etc. That's like saying to stop fighting for your life because things look bad. How much you want to interpret "greatly diminished" means is really up to you. Would it have diminished more than 50%? Maybe not. But who really knows. Also who knows how much guns we're talking about anyway, does arm the Jews mean give every single Jew a gun? There were 9.5 million Jews in Europe in the 1930's, 9.5 million people with guns is something. Nazi's would have burned out quickly if every single attic they checked for hidden Jews received a shot in the face. It would have changed everything about the dynamics of how the Nazi's even rounded the Jews up to begin with and would have made Ghettos almost impossible to control. Carsons bigger point anyway was about the larger issue of tyrannical governments first banning guns. Most media kinda glossed over that and instead spent most of the time talking about "historically inaccurate" his holocaust example was. How can a hypothetical statement even be "historically inaccurate" anyway.
Rush the shooter- He was asked what he would do if he was in the classroom, knowing that someone was systematically killing people based off their response to a question. He said he would tell everyone to try and rush the shooter. He was asked what HE would do. How his he supposed to respond? "Well I would do this, but since the victims didn't do that, I guess I'll just say I would sit there quietly and let myself get killed." Now obviously he could have said something like "With no disrespect to the victims etc" but even something like that makes it sound like he's trying to be all high and mighty. I wonder, how would you have liked him to respond to the question? What should he have said? When you just look at just the actual question and his answer, there is literally nothing controversial about it whatsoever.
and Rubio is my #1. he's going to win the nomination imo. Bush is fading/lacks excitement, plus has his name working against him. and I can't see the establishment fully getting behind any of the others near the top at the moment.
In regards to the Holocaust issue, he was remarking about how gun control was the reason why the Holocaust was so successful, and paralleling it to Obama and American gun control, essentially likening Obama to Hitler. It was basically a (not so subtle) invoking of Godwin on why Democrats are evil, insinuating that they're as bad as Nazis. I think that's where the remarks about his "historical inaccuracy" come in to play... that what Obama is doing is not what Hitler did, both in regards to gun control and (obviously) in regards to the *reason* for that gun control.
As far as the "rush the shooter" comment was concerned, he literally said "I would not just stand there and let him shoot me. I would say, ‘Hey guys, everybody attack him. He may shoot me, but he can’t get us all.' " He said that he'd tell everyone to try and attack the shooter instead of scatter and run. And furthermore, this hypothetical comment directly contradicts what he supposedly actually did when there was a gun pointed at him at a Popeye's. He just stood there, which is what he expressly said he wouldn't do. So he's a hypocrite, trying to sound like a hero or something when in reality he doesn't do what he says he'd do.
As far as Rubio is concerned, I was actually really impressed with him during the second debate. When Trump and other candidates were floundering when asked straightforward "What's your plan on how to do X" questions, Rubio really had his shit together. He was like "There are three things I'd like to fix about immigration: X, Y, and Z, and here's how we do it." I happened to disagree with him on some (most?) of those issues, but he clearly had actual answers based on his platforms, which is more than pretty much anyone else on that stage could say (besides "Build a wall" x100). It wasn't a joke to him. So I give him major props for that.
That being said, I don't know if he could win the nomination
I see what you're saying. I would still argue that alot of the controversy over his statements comes into what is being read into his statements and not what he actually said verbatim. "Essentially likening Obama to Hitler" is a leap that you have to make and not actually something he explicitly said. Obviously that could be exactly what he's implying, gun control -> Obama -> tyrannical dictator. But his comments are inflated to the extreme and are called ridiculous based off that, and not what he actually said about the holocaust or tyrannical dictators (which is true, tyrannical dictators do take away guns from people)
With Popeye's, somebody shoved a gun in his back 35 years ago. The 1980 Ben Carson might have reacted differently to a shooting situation than the 2015 Ben Carson. Comparing the two situations to label him as a hypocrite seems like a stretch, considering with Oregon he was asked what he would do if he had time to plan some sort of defense and know you have other people around you to help. We know nothing about Popeye's and honestly don't even have proof it even happened considering they apparently couldn't find a police report or anything on it. (which I have a big problem with if he's actually lying about this, I doubt he would lie about something like that though)
On October 12 2015 14:15 Introvert wrote: Faith and "blind faith" are not the same thing. Still, I agree he most likely believes it.
On October 12 2015 14:00 GreenHorizons wrote:
On October 12 2015 12:59 Introvert wrote:
On October 12 2015 12:45 GreenHorizons wrote:
On October 12 2015 11:58 Introvert wrote: Carson isn't campaigning on creationism, and Trump dropped the birther thing. That latter tidbit seems to contradict GH's point, in fact.
And what's more, most of the time these subjects are brought up by the media, not the candidate. Trump hasn't talked about birtherism, except when explicitly asked. I doubt Carson has said anything substantive on evolution, unless asked.
It's ok GH, your ignorance of the Republican electorate is made obvious on a regular basis. Nowadays it speaks for itself.
The majority of R's aren't Mormons, either. But Romney won the nomination last time.
It seems there's a simple misunderstanding. Notice in my original comment I said "influence". Though I can't say there were polls like this with Republicans openly saying they were Mormon...
Fewer Republicans today (Dec 2013) than in 2009 believe in evolution, according to new analysis from the Pew Research Center.
A poll out Monday shows that less than half – 43 percent – of those who identify with the Republican Party say they believe humans have evolved over time, plunging from 54 percent four years ago. Forty-eight percent say they believe “humans and other living things have existed in their present form since the beginning of time,” up from 39 percent in 2009.
So you were being intentionally vague? I always said it didn't matter. Are you really trying to claim that you meant "some-maybe-very-little-but-some" influence? For a time you consistently posted about how important it was to Republican voters. Why post so much if it wasn't really that big of a deal? What type of influence did you have in mind?
No, they are the majority of the party, and people holding those views are dominating the nomination process. So I'm saying it's a lot of influence. More than your Mormon or 9/11 truther comparisons have implied.
So people who hold those views have influence. That's hardly debatable, and that's not your usual claim.
I'm saying more than that, but what do you suppose is my usual claim?
Are you being real? You constantly rail about how creationim is causing this or that. people don't like common Core because of Creationism, it's creationist beliefs that have caused a breakdown of debate, etc.
I'm not going to go down this road again, but you are constantly laying all sorts of things at the feet of creationists.
You tried to link creationism and birtherism to the rise of Trump and Carson. It failed. That's all, really.
lol. As much as you try to make it seem as though I ascribe everything to them you seem to deny their real and significant influence.
As if there hasn't been a clear and deliberate shift, remember all the way back to the 08 republican primary.
Jeb is the only candidate to openly admit they believe in evolution.
If you think that's because of anything else besides the influence of the people who answer "no", within the Republican party, you are simply deluding yourself.
EPT
I'd imagine that he might misremember some small details (like what he said) but probably wouldn't mistake the entire incident (i.e., that he was held at gunpoint). It's all speculation though. 
