GOP Presidential Nomination

GodIsSalvation · Sep 21, 2015

Seen on the news Kasich trying to clean up his stance on the Iran deal. So I figured I'd post this here seeing as I opined after the last debate that Kasich's answer really rubbed me the wrong way. Kudos to Kasich though for at least addressing the gripe and trying to fix his stance. A lesson some other candidates that have been avoiding certain issues might be sage to consider.

Kasich: Invoke 'nuclear option' to stop Iran deal - CNNPolitics.com

Kasich actually has a good idea here that the Senate GOP could and should put it to vote needing only 51 votes instead of 60, which would give America a good chance of defeating this woeful "deal". With the current terribad conditions of this proposal being as they are, and with how the regime in Iran even openly mocks Obama for it, there is no way this should be agreed to.

crossnote · Sep 21, 2015

CrossRant Ahead...

This bru ha ha over Carson's comment about a Muslim not being a good pick for the Presidency...I agree.

A good Muslim would eventually want Sharia Law as the dominate law of the land...totally against the Constitution.

Ben Carson: A Muslim Shouldn't Be US President

crossnote · Sep 21, 2015

Rumor has it Walker to drop out by the end of the day.

GodIsSalvation · Sep 21, 2015

crossnote said:

I seen the media making a big deal about this. I actually agree with Carson on this regard, kudo points for him just saying it bluntly.

Still would like to see Carson address his involvement in the abortion system though. He should take a leaf out of Kasich's book and just address the issue instead of try to ignore it.

The irony is not lost on me that people are calling for Carson to step down simply for not wanting islam to infect the government, but for his involvement in the abortion system and the trade thereof, hardly a word is said. Really a prime display of how far modern America has gone down the ideological gutter.

GodIsSalvation · Sep 21, 2015

crossnote said:

Looks like you got that right.

Scott Walker drops out of 2016 race - CNNPolitics.com

Lol who would have thought it? Oh yea, post #400 on this topic. #WambaPolitics.

crossnote · Sep 21, 2015

GodIsSalvation said:

I seen the media making a big deal about this. I actually agree with Carson on this regard, kudo points for him just saying it bluntly.

Still would like to see Carson address his involvement in the abortion system though. He should take a leaf out of Kasich's book and just address the issue instead of try to ignore it.

The irony is not lost on me that people are calling for Carson to step down simply for not wanting islam to infect the government, but for his involvement in the abortion system and the trade thereof, hardly a word is said. Really a prime display of how far modern America has gone down the ideological gutter.

has Carson given any explanation/apology concerning his involvement with abortion industry?

GodIsSalvation · Sep 21, 2015

crossnote said:

Yes, he said it "be foolish not to". Not an answer I am willing to accept, but I'll let him have a second chance to try to explain. Won't let the issue drop though. If Carson is serious about being nominated, this issue must be addressed. If he's not serious though, let him keep his silence and drop out as soon as possible.

Viligant_Warrior · Sep 22, 2015

GodIsSalvation said:

Brother, you've been whining about this long enough. He wrote a paper, along with several other doctors, in 1992 in which the examined "human choroid plexus ependyma and nasal mucosa" from aborted fetal tissue. Can you define either term?

I can. Human choroid plexus ependyma is, from Greek khorion "membrane enclosing the fetus," nothing more than the remnants of the amniotic fluid sac, the placenta, and other material that is normally described as "afterbirth." It is not part of the child.

Nasal mucosa is a type of tissue that lines the nasal cavity. Mucous membranes are usually moist tissues that are bathed by secretions such as in the nose. It can be acquired by simply scraping the inside of the nasal cavity of a live child, without permanent, nor much temporary, harm. You are raising Cain about absolutely nothing.

Desdichado · Sep 22, 2015

GodIsSalvation said:

I have to give credit where credit's due. Solid prediction.

This was definitely Walker's idea. The recent glut of staff and tough talk from his campaign must have been their way of trying to stay relevant in Walker's eyes.

A lesson: DO NOT HIRE RNC STAFF FOR A CAMPAIGN.

Desdichado · Sep 22, 2015

Interesting results for RCP Average.

RealClearPolitics - Election 2016 - 2016 Republican Presidential Nomination

Trump and Carson are both taking a dip. Fiorina and Rubio tick upward. Jeb Remains in the doldrums.

GodIsSalvation · Sep 22, 2015

Desdichado said:

Lol thank you, but it's not predictions. More like analyses from a higher vantage point... or would it be a lower vantage point?

I'll let you in on my little secret on how to analyze US politics. Think of it like the election itself is a box. The candidates and parties and their supporters all are inside the box, and none of them can get past the box. By not supporting any individual candidate or any party we put ourselves outside of the box. By being outside the box, we can look into the box from an ultimate perspective.

As for staffers, I enjoy your insights and analyses of that facet of the story indeed. Lol we have a word for staffers and people that work for campaigns, we call them shills. Shills are a fun part of the game, and all the candidates got shills, and they indeed serve a function. Shills are no guarantee to a presidential victory though. It's all about the candidates themselves. Bush is probably the best example of this as he has access to the cream of the crop for GOP advisors, donors, staffers, etc. and yet he isn't doing all that well.

GodIsSalvation · Sep 22, 2015

Viligant_Warrior said:

I will indeed bring this up for as long as he is in the race and does not answer this. At least I am forthright with you. The liberals will hold their silence on it or even agree with Carson for now so that they can pounce on him later. I'd rather get it out of the way now.

Lol I expect you to defend Carson because you're part of his campaign. It's fair therefore for you to defend your boss. However, this is not what Carson himself said, he himself said "it be foolish not to." Since you have Carson's ear though, tell him to address this issue. There's three main questions he needs to answer for.

What is the extent of his involvement in this system?
What is his current stance on abortion and the system of trade thereof?
How did his involvement in the abortion and trade system shape his current views?

These are not questions you can answer. I want Carson himself to answer this from his own mouth. You have his ear, so go tell him.

It may be that his involvement in the system is what turned him against the abortion system, like that goodly young lady in the PP videos whom felt remorse. Or like how he himself said he was a young democrat back in the day, but had a change of heart due to Ronald Reagan's running. So I accept the possibility that he can have a change of heart, and in fact I rather hope he does. However by his last word on the issue and how callous it was, it would seem not so. Which is why he needs to address this for clarity and to show he is serious about seeking the nomination from the party that is supposedly pro-life.

Viligant_Warrior · Sep 22, 2015

GodIsSalvation said:

It is difficult to see how you can claim forthrightness when you have accused him of using "aborted fetal material" when the truth is something very different.

GodIsSalvation said:

Doubtful. Even though they do agree, they will point to the inconsistency. And he will answer just as he did before. It isn't fetal material. It is afterbirth - "un-alive" -- and the same thing, essentially, as skin. So the claim of "aborted fetal material" is an epic fail. Yes, it came from an abortion procedure, but it didn't have to come from there. It could have come from a live baby, happy, breathing, and smiling. The material was readily available, so they used it. It is not what you have attempted to make of it.

GodIsSalvation said:

The fact what I said is the truth has a great deal to do with it, too. The truth is the only valid defense.

GodIsSalvation said:

He has nothing to answer for, beyond what he's already said.

Carson:“To willfully ignore evidence that you have for some ideological reason is wrong. If you’re killing babies and taking the tissue, that’s a very different thing than taking a dead specimen and keeping a record of it.”

You're failing to grasp that the "dead specimen" does not describe a dead fetus, but material that was never "alive" to the extent of being sentient, thinking, acquired through no other means than ending that life. It is material that is available after every birth, premature or full-term, or through a nasal exam by a pediatrician. For you to pretend otherwise is somewhat disingenuous.

GodIsSalvation said:

I beg to differ, because I am simply stating what he has already said. You have willfully ignored what he said, or failed to research the circumstances described in the paper sufficiently to know what you're talking about -- and I mean no offense by that.

GodIsSalvation · Sep 22, 2015

Viligant_Warrior said:

You are willfully ignorant that Carson indeed did do experiments on the remains of aborted fetuses. This has been acknowledged in the media and he himself has even acknowledged this. So as much as you wish he didn't, and I wish the same, the fact is he did.

Ben Carson defends his research on aborted fetuses - CNNPolitics.com

Now since he himself acknowledged this, it gives him a little room here to not be cast aside immediately, but to have another opportunity to address the issue and clarify his stance. If he does not though, then his last words on it are an insult against all people that are against abortion by calling them the f word.

Again, go tell him to answer for this. I want to hear him answer this, not shills and pundits that either have an agenda of being against him or being blindly for him. I want it straight from the horse's mouth.

crossnote · Sep 22, 2015

It seems Carson was clear...

"Killing babies and harvesting tissue for sale is very different than taking a dead specimen and keeping a record of it, which is exactly the source of the tissue used in our research."

GIS, maybe your issue is, 'was it ethical of Carson to do what he was doing with already dead fetuses as a pro lifer? Was that consistent with his profession?

GodIsSalvation · Sep 22, 2015

crossnote said:

The question to ask is; how did the fetus die?

The answer is they were aborted. Excerpt from CNN article:

Jen Gunter, an obstetrician-gynecologist, wrote on her blog that Carson had co-authored an academic paper published in Hum Pathol, in which he described working with material "from two fetuses aborted in the ninth and 17th week of gestation."

Carson himself has likened the abortion system to human sacrifice. I agree with his analogy. The problem is that he has been involved in the system himself. Now that is not so much a problem as my friend pointed out that perhaps that is what shaped his views against abortion. The problem is his callous remark saying it be foolish not to and him ducking and dodging the issue.

That alone would kill people's nominations. I remember in 2012 the same conservatives that fawn over Ben Carson raked Ron Paul through the fires for saying he'd give an abortion shot to a woman that was raped if she came into his office. Carson's involvement is much more serious, and these same so-called conservatives give him a free pass. I will not accept that. If it was fair for Ron Paul to be questioned on that issue and his involvement then it is fair to question Carson on this issue and his involvement.

GodIsSalvation · Oct 28, 2015

Well Sir Desdichado and my fellow observers of GOP politics, it's time for another resurrection of this topic as the debate approaches tonight. JV team debate is at 6 PM and the main stage will be at 8 PM. Pretty much same set up as the previous debates.

Much has changed since our last meeting and analysis of the GOP primary. Scott Walker has dropped out. The Democrats had their first debate, and it was actually quite a strong debate, so the the GOP must outdo that. Trump continues his lead with Carson closing in on him. There is some hint from Trump that we may finally get to see him take Carson's free pass token away. Jeb Bush has been sinking rapidly, so he has to come out much more strongly tonight also, and his campaign is promising he will be more forceful tonight. Rubio benefitted the most from the last debate, but can he capitalize off of it tonight? As for many of the other candidates tonight's debate may well determine whom drops out next.

Also been keeping my eye of course on my servant Kasich, the obviously best candidate going by record of prosperity. He's in the hot chair tonight unfortunately though. After a pretty weak performance from him last debate, really looking for him to bring the fire tonight. Might not be disappointed either. He kinda has to at this point just to survive to the next debate. According to CNN my servant Kasich has become feisty lately and hints that he may try to pick up the sword for a strong joust tonight.

Kasich on rival candidates: 'I've about had it with these people' - CNNPolitics.com

Desdichado · Oct 28, 2015

I'm just glad my instincts in regards to the second debate bore out in the short term. It did little in the way of re-shuffling the Republican deck beyond a brief love (and justified) affair with Carly.

This one will probably do little to turn the needle unless Trump and Carson candidly admit that their respective candidacies are built on an agreement that kittens must be stomped upon, rainbows must be turned black, and Hillary Clinton would make a great psychiatrist.

The last couple debates have proven that the general dynamics of both the Republican and Democratic primaries are not susceptible to change as a result of the debates. Clinton got a preview of her coronation, but Sanders controlled the ideological tone and policy orientation of the Democratic party going forward.

As for the GOP, the general voter mood is anti-establishment. People will, again, talk about how good Rubio looks. They will say Fiorina is a fresh voice. Ted Cruz, if allowed to speak, will be praised for his intelligence. Rand Paul will be a non-factor. Jeb Bush says he will look mean, but that such statements are designed to shape public perception, not reflect reality. All of that talk may make changes that last for maybe two weeks, but they will be aberrations not unlike the summer of love with Gingrich and Cain of 2011 and 2012.

I'm not saying the dynamic cannot be changed. It can. There are factors that previous office holders can manipulate. I just don't think they will. Staffing is important. Who coaches you is important. Staffers rarely change their mind and, as a result, candidates rarely change what they do. Especially, at the Presidential level, because what they have done has worked for years and gotten them strong statewide followings.

Desdichado · Oct 28, 2015

I cannot stress strongly enough that there are factors at play right now that we do not know about either. Our known unknowns and unknown unknowns as Rumsfeld would say.

Debates, as with debates in previous cycles, do not seem as important as these things and overall campaign strategy.

But hey, stay tuned. Politics is kind of like sports. Sometimes the puck just bounces the right (or wrong) way.

Desdichado · Oct 28, 2015

Hey GIS, I like how you sequentially revive this thread, by the way. I wouldn't. It would seem self-serving

Take it easy.

GOP Presidential Nomination

Banned

Senior Member

Senior Member

Banned

Banned

Senior Member

Banned

Viligant_Warrior

Guest

Senior Member

Senior Member

Banned

Banned

Viligant_Warrior

Guest

Banned

Senior Member

Banned

Banned

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member