RugbyRebels

morepork wrote:Stupidity appears endemic to these types. Meet Dr. Ben Carson, Ex-Republican presidential contender and the thickest mother fucker to be awarded an MD. Sweet baby jesus...

I couldn't bear to watch all of that. I especially love the way he just talked over the women but stopped when the man spoke. Have they checked whether he's really a doctor because of you can be that stupid and still be a doctor then we need to drop the qualifications necessary.

morepork wrote:Stupidity appears endemic to these types. Meet Dr. Ben Carson, Ex-Republican presidential contender and the thickest mother fucker to be awarded an MD. Sweet baby jesus...

Is that the one where he asks for the female interviewers mic be turned off because she kept asking a
question he didn't like/wouldn't answer?

That's the bugger. He is a veritable gold mine of stupid. Unbelieveably, he was directer of pediatric neurosurgery at Johns Hopkins up until 2013. There is clearly a part of his brain clouded by Jebus. Some of his pearlers include:

""I think the likelihood of Hitler being able to accomplish his goals would have been greatly diminished if the people had been armed," Carson said in an interview with CNN's Wolf Blitzer on Thursday. "I'm telling you, there is a reason these dictatorial people take the guns first."

"There is no doubt that this senseless violence is breathtaking -- but I never saw a body with bullet holes that was more devastating than taking the right to arm ourselves away,"

"My own personal theory is that Joseph built the pyramids to store grain. Now all the archaeologists think that they were made for the pharaohs’ graves. But, you know, it would have to be something awfully big if you stop and think about it. And I don’t think it’d just disappear over the course of time to store that much grain," he told students, according to the video posted.

Carson defended his beliefs on Thursday, telling reporters in Miami that “some people believe in the Bible, like I do, and don’t find that to be silly at all and believe that God created the Earth and don’t find that to be silly at all."

"The secular progressives try to ridicule it anytime it comes up, and they’re welcome to do that," he added.



Kids: God rots your brain.

morepork wrote: Unbelieveably, he was directer of pediatric neurosurgery at Johns Hopkins up until 2013.

That is depressing. Mind you, he does have lovely pianists fingers.
I suppose that we should take comfort in the knowledge that being a dumb apologist for the vested interests that pay your salary isn't just restricted to slimy, fleshy, white guys in suits.

.

The sweaty orange womble is in full drum up all your racist stereotype mode. What a fucking legume.

morepork wrote:The sweaty orange womble is in full drum up all your racist stereotype mode. What a fucking legume.

Harsh on The Vegetables.

kk67 wrote:

morepork wrote:The sweaty orange womble is in full drum up all your racist stereotype mode. What a fucking legume.

Harsh on The Vegetables.

Lettuce remember that he has bean trying to squash the stereotyping.

Mange tout, Donald, mange tout

Nothing surprising in here - https://storify.com/clair3/kurt-eichenw ... dings-from

Though it does again show Clinton isn't a strong candidate not to have wiped the floor with such a deplorable person.

There is an article in the Times today which claims insider sources from the Trump team (so make of that what you will). It alleges that Trump has been focused on what acts of retaliation he will enact on his enemies if he is elected. Now to be fair this could all be complete crap, highlighted by an embittered former staffer. On the other hand, Trump really doesn't come across as the most emotionally mature person in the world so anything is possible.

I'll also echo Digby's comments about Clinton. In what felt like a coronation, the Democrats probably overlooked a lot of Hillary's personal baggage, which has left them without the commanding lead that a less controversial candidate would almost certainly have given them. Perhaps Saunders would have crushed Trump, perhaps not. Perhaps Hillary will emerge to be a superb president; but frankly the inability to maintain clear blue water in the opinion pools suggests that she is merely seen as the least worst option.

I find it hard to tell what any of you make of Clinton beyond the anti-whatever-Rowan-is-saying slant. Trump is a cartoon, but Clinton is mental though, right?

I find it hard to believe anyone actually believes Trump is really a politician.

Mikey Brown wrote:I find it hard to tell what any of you make of Clinton beyond the anti-whatever-Rowan-is-saying slant. Trump is a cartoon, but Clinton is mental though, right?

You could argue that Clinton is "just another US politician", but her list of morally (if not legally) corrupt actions makes her an extreme example of everything that is wrong with politics.

Mikey Brown wrote:I find it hard to tell what any of you make of Clinton beyond the anti-whatever-Rowan-is-saying slant. Trump is a cartoon, but Clinton is mental though, right?

I think she's a decent enough politician, hard working which is important in executive roles to take on the amount of information and think that through into actual policies (whatever the political bias), and she's got a decent enough history on such as advancing the lamentably poor health service in the US. But rightly or wrongly she's seen as the insider's insider in Washington in a way that just plays very badly for a lot of US voters, and she's not an especially good speaker who's able to shift away from that image.

That said she's up against a total loon, and one whose idea of who to put onto the supreme court I'd find worrying in the extreme. So it's no contest for me given who she's up against, I'd vote Hillary every day of the week.

rowan wrote:I find it hard to believe anyone actually believes Trump is really a politician.

You'd contend Trump hasn't been engaged in party politics in having sought the Republican nomination, and that having done that he's not engaged in seeking votes on a national level in a fairly significant election?

I'd also note one of the common descriptions given for a politician is: a person primarily interested in political office for selfish or other narrow usually short-sighted reasons

He might not be a good politician (so he can add it to a list of things he's not good at), he's certainly not a career politician, but he is for the time being at least a politician.

Absolutely, anyone who thinks that Trump is in this for the benefit of the common man is having a laugh. He has his own agenda, some of which, if the accusation has any truth in it, lies with Obama taking the piss out of him for his conspiracy theory beliefs back in 2011. I suspect his reasons for running were partly vengeance based and party with an eye to what commercial benefit he could gain by rallying his core fan base to his side.

Looking like a comfortable win for Hillary at this point. Early days of course. Real competition is for the Senate, which looks to be in the balance. The house will probably remain in Republican hands, though be it with gains for the Democrats.

Digby wrote:

Mikey Brown wrote:I find it hard to tell what any of you make of Clinton beyond the anti-whatever-Rowan-is-saying slant. Trump is a cartoon, but Clinton is mental though, right?

I think she's a decent enough politician, hard working which is important in executive roles to take on the amount of information and think that through into actual policies (whatever the political bias), and she's got a decent enough history on such as advancing the lamentably poor health service in the US. But rightly or wrongly she's seen as the insider's insider in Washington in a way that just plays very badly for a lot of US voters, and she's not an especially good speaker who's able to shift away from that image.

That said she's up against a total loon, and one whose idea of who to put onto the supreme court I'd find worrying in the extreme. So it's no contest for me given who she's up against, I'd vote Hillary every day of the week.

Trump is a shocker and will hopefully fuck right off, but what as sad day it is when Hillary is considered a "decent enough politician" with a "decent history"

jared_7 wrote:

Digby wrote:

Mikey Brown wrote:I find it hard to tell what any of you make of Clinton beyond the anti-whatever-Rowan-is-saying slant. Trump is a cartoon, but Clinton is mental though, right?

I think she's a decent enough politician, hard working which is important in executive roles to take on the amount of information and think that through into actual policies (whatever the political bias), and she's got a decent enough history on such as advancing the lamentably poor health service in the US. But rightly or wrongly she's seen as the insider's insider in Washington in a way that just plays very badly for a lot of US voters, and she's not an especially good speaker who's able to shift away from that image.

That said she's up against a total loon, and one whose idea of who to put onto the supreme court I'd find worrying in the extreme. So it's no contest for me given who she's up against, I'd vote Hillary every day of the week.

Trump is a shocker and will hopefully fuck right off, but what as sad day it is when Hillary is considered a "decent enough politician" with a "decent history"

I've noted the various complaints on Clinton being a crock, being a war criminal, being for Wallstreet... none of which especially alarms me as to some extent how does one avoid being labelled as on the inside after her career, and too a lot of the complaints and complainers are bat shit crazy

Digby wrote:

jared_7 wrote:

Digby wrote:

I think she's a decent enough politician, hard working which is important in executive roles to take on the amount of information and think that through into actual policies (whatever the political bias), and she's got a decent enough history on such as advancing the lamentably poor health service in the US. But rightly or wrongly she's seen as the insider's insider in Washington in a way that just plays very badly for a lot of US voters, and she's not an especially good speaker who's able to shift away from that image.

That said she's up against a total loon, and one whose idea of who to put onto the supreme court I'd find worrying in the extreme. So it's no contest for me given who she's up against, I'd vote Hillary every day of the week.

Trump is a shocker and will hopefully fuck right off, but what as sad day it is when Hillary is considered a "decent enough politician" with a "decent history"

I've noted the various complaints on Clinton being a crock, being a war criminal, being for Wallstreet... none of which especially alarms me as to some extent how does one avoid being labelled as on the inside after her career, and too a lot of the complaints and complainers are bat shit crazy

Exactly. Its a sad day when our standards are so low that a woman who has been caught on tape suggesting an overseas election be rigged, been condemned by the UN for staging a coup in a foreign country, been found admitting her charitable foundation has accepted money for political favours as well as accepting money from sources that fund terrorism, I could go on... - is considered part and parcel of a "standard" political career.

Accepting moral corruption as OK almost guarantees nothing will ever be done about it.

What's clear here is that no one is particularly interested in foreign policy, whereas for me it's about the only aspect of the election that I am interested in. Not only is Clinton already complicit in a number of war crimes, most notably her crucial support for the bombing of Libya while Secretary of State, but she has pledged to follow a particularly aggressive and dangerous path in the Middle East with the customary American arrogance. This includes establishing a no-fly zone in Syria and removing that country's elected leader. That's insanity. While both she and Trump are 100% behind Israel, naturally, so there's really no shred of democracy involved in this respect.

I quite like the way P.J O'Rourke puts it.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2 ... -know.html

jared_7 wrote:
Accepting moral corruption as OK almost guarantees nothing will ever be done about it.

Thing with this is I wouldn't accept Clinton is morally corrupt. I don't especially take to her, I'd agree with her on some things and disagree on others, but I don't have concerns that by the standard of those who want their finger on the button that she's a reasonable person.

Digby wrote:

jared_7 wrote:
Accepting moral corruption as OK almost guarantees nothing will ever be done about it.

Thing with this is I wouldn't accept Clinton is morally corrupt. I don't especially take to her, I'd agree with her on some things and disagree on others, but I don't have concerns that by the standard of those who want their finger on the button that she's a reasonable person.

83% of Americans polled believed Clinton was corrupt. But Digby doesn't. Ooookay....

http://www.dailywire.com/news/10609/pol ... el-qazvini#