Ben Carson: Questions on background aren't 'real' scandals

[Ulysses G.]

So you believe he actually met with Westmoreland then?

Yep. He confused the date years later, which is not difficult.

You are very charitable when you know perfectly well there is no proof the meeting EVER happened, any place, any time. You take his word ... WHY?

There is no proof that it DIDN'T take place and I saw how the liberal media crucified Romney with dishonest smears. You are all ready to elect Hillary president and she is PROVEN LIAR who ignored national security and broke her own rules. What hypocrisy.

[Ulysses G.]

Well the legacy media is showing its double standards yet again.

ImageUploadedByThaivisa Connect1447050813.812013.jpg

Gimme a break. George W Bush also had his university records scrutinised. For instance, see here: http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/1999/11/08/dept-of-aptitude-walexandra-robbins and here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-dreier/how-george-w-bush-benefit_b_5814680.html. Then you had the dishonourable attacks on John Kerry's war record. Nothing special about Carson in all of this.

George W. Bush was a conservative. Of course the MSM attacked him. John Kerry was brought to task by his fellow soldiers, not the liberal media.

[SheungWan]

Republican supporters wanting to line up behind Ben Carson is a serious mistake. Dump him or go down with him

[Ulysses G.]

I don't support him because of his lack of government experience, but the liars in the MSM and their ilk are trying to railroad him for the most ridiculous of reasons. They should not be allowed to get away with it.

Edited November 9, 2015 by Ulysses G.

[bendejo]

When you go into politics, especially running for national office, anything out there is fair game for the opposition and the press. If he doesn't understand that then, well, political Darwinism takes its toll.

It's not like he's going to be elected president anyway.

[Berkshire]

When you go into politics, especially running for national office, anything out there is fair game for the opposition and the press. If he doesn't understand that then, well, political Darwinism takes its toll.

It's not like he's going to be elected president anyway.

The GOP would never nominate an African-American to be their presidential candidate. They like having a black guy around because it gives the false impression that they're inclusive. But at the end of the day, it'll never happen. The GOP base won't let that happen. And the Tea Party wing would go absolutely bonkers if that were to happen. No matter how crazy religious, anti-Obama the guy is, Carson is black and that trumps everything else....as far as the Republican party is concerned.

[Docno]

Well the legacy media is showing its double standards yet again.

ImageUploadedByThaivisa Connect1447050813.812013.jpg

Gimme a break. George W Bush also had his university records scrutinised. For instance, see here: http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/1999/11/08/dept-of-aptitude-walexandra-robbins and here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-dreier/how-george-w-bush-benefit_b_5814680.html. Then you had the dishonourable attacks on John Kerry's war record. Nothing special about Carson in all of this.

George W. Bush was a conservative. Of course the MSM attacked him. John Kerry was brought to task by his fellow soldiers, not the liberal media.

GWB's party affiliation is not the point - the suggestion was that Carson's academic record was being scrutisined because of his race.

The majority of the soldiers who actually served with Kerry backed him up ... the matter was very politicised. Here's probably the best summary of the issue:

This incident crystallizes the epistemological issue at play in the larger controversy: Whom does it make sense to believe, the men who served and fought in close company with Kerry and who back his Navy-certified record? Or the veterans who didn't actually serve under Kerry and who, admittedly angry over his subsequent antiwar activities, are now trying to discredit him? To ask that question is to answer it.

That highlights the major distinction between the two sides ... and their motives.

Finally, I will grant you that it will be harder to find instances of the media scrutinising the academic records of Democrat political candidates. That's because few Democrats demonstrate the questionable cognitive capacity of the likes of George W Bush, Sarah Palin, Sarah Bachmann, Dan Quail, Ronald Reagan, etc etc (wow, that's a too-easy list to compile).

[Pinot]

I love the wingnuts trying to defend the indefensible. Carson is nuts. I feel sorry for all the brain surgeons out there. They use to be looked up to.

A candidate essentially claims to be a maniac formerly, but now claims Jesus has calmed him, but he refuses to provide proof that he was a maniac, and wants you, America, to trust that he was a maniac.

He proudly tells stories of having been a violent hoodlum as a teenager and then whines when people try to verify it?

I'm still waiting for Fox News to start calling him a thug and showing pics of him 20 years ago flashing gang signs.

This election is the best. It's non-stop craziness. Everyday another amazingly stupid thing happens. Bush would kill baby Hitler? The painting of Jesus and Carson that hangs in his home? Everyone hates Trump on SNL? What's today's craziness going to be?

The lemmings marching off a cliff in double-time. The slow train wreck that is the end of the Republican party is fascinating.

[Ulysses G.]

Carson's mother confirmed the stabbing storyWAY back in 1997. How will the lying liberal media and their mindless minions spin this now?

http://www.mediaite.com/online/burden-of-truth-back-on-media-as-buzzfeed-finds-confirmation-from-carsons-mom-on-stabbing-incident/

Edited November 10, 2015 by Ulysses G.

[Jingthing]

Carson's mother confirmed the stabbing storyWAY back in 1997. How will the lying liberal media and their mindless minions spin this now?

http://www.mediaite.com/online/burden-of-truth-back-on-media-as-buzzfeed-finds-confirmation-from-carsons-mom-on-stabbing-incident/

You don't need to post the same thing in two threads, eh?

[Ulysses G.]

Sorry if it refutes the lies that some posters have been posting. The FACTS never stop them though.

Edited November 10, 2015 by Ulysses G.

[Chicog]

I don't support him because of his lack of government experience, but the liars in the MSM and their ilk are trying to railroad him for the most ridiculous of reasons. They should not be allowed to get away with it.

Yes, it's only permissible when the Right does it!

[Chicog]

Carson's mother confirmed the stabbing storyWAY back in 1997. How will the lying liberal media and their mindless minions spin this now?

http://www.mediaite.com/online/burden-of-truth-back-on-media-as-buzzfeed-finds-confirmation-from-carsons-mom-on-stabbing-incident/

You don't need to post the same thing in two threads, eh?

Yes but it's rubbish anyway.

It just confirms that he has told three different versions of the fairy story, including one to his mother.

[55Jay]

I don't support him because of his lack of government experience, but the liars in the MSM and their ilk are trying to railroad him for the most ridiculous of reasons. They should not be allowed to get away with it.

I couldn't care one way or the other about Carson, but the media isn't even trying to conceal their underhanded bulls**t anymore.

Politico's first smoking gun was that they checked with West Point, and Carson had never applied. The optics shifted unexpectedly, and they ended up looking foolish and stupid.

The Editor then re-calibrated the on-line story and dialed back the original, scathing headline that CARSON ADMITS LYING! Shoddy editorial work in the first place, yet they defiantly "stand behind the (revised) story". Other sources were trying to get in touch with the kid who wrote the original hit piece but he'd gone off the grid, non-responsive. Wonder why?

Politico then evolved to a smoking gun claim they checked General Westmoreland's Memorial Day schedule from1969, and he wasn't even in Detroit, which Carson's version of events relies upon. Oh SNAP! That's the money shot right there.

I'm fully prepared to believe Carson lied but due to Politico's amateurish lack of credibility, they need to produce the evidence they claim blows Carson's story out of the water. And why wouldn't they?

It appears the goal today is to distract from this Westmoreland schedule thing, with red herrings about what "scholarship" actually means, and how Carson is just a noob who doesn't understand the rules of the game.

Edited November 10, 2015 by 55Jay

[chuckd]

Well the legacy media is showing its double standards yet again.

ImageUploadedByThaivisa Connect1447050813.812013.jpg

Gimme a break. George W Bush also had his university records scrutinised. For instance, see here: http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/1999/11/08/dept-of-aptitude-walexandra-robbins and here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-dreier/how-george-w-bush-benefit_b_5814680.html. Then you had the dishonourable attacks on John Kerry's war record. Nothing special about Carson in all of this.

George W. Bush was a conservative. Of course the MSM attacked him. John Kerry was brought to task by his fellow soldiers, not the liberal media.

GWB's party affiliation is not the point - the suggestion was that Carson's academic record was being scrutisined because of his race.

The majority of the soldiers who actually served with Kerry backed him up ... the matter was very politicised. Here's probably the best summary of the issue:

This incident crystallizes the epistemological issue at play in the larger controversy: Whom does it make sense to believe, the men who served and fought in close company with Kerry and who back his Navy-certified record? Or the veterans who didn't actually serve under Kerry and who, admittedly angry over his subsequent antiwar activities, are now trying to discredit him? To ask that question is to answer it.

That highlights the major distinction between the two sides ... and their motives.

Finally, I will grant you that it will be harder to find instances of the media scrutinising the academic records of Democrat political candidates. That's because few Democrats demonstrate the questionable cognitive capacity of the likes of George W Bush, Sarah Palin, Sarah Bachmann, Dan Quail, Ronald Reagan, etc etc (wow, that's a too-easy list to compile).

How about a source link for this part of your post?

"This incident crystallizes the epistemological issue at play in the larger controversy: Whom does it make sense to believe, the men who served and fought in close company with Kerry and who back his Navy-certified record? Or the veterans who didn't actually serve under Kerry and who, admittedly angry over his subsequent antiwar activities, are now trying to discredit him? To ask that question is to answer it."

[up-country_sinclair]

Carson's mother confirmed the stabbing storyWAY back in 1997. How will the lying liberal media and their mindless minions spin this now?

http://www.mediaite.com/online/burden-of-truth-back-on-media-as-buzzfeed-finds-confirmation-from-carsons-mom-on-stabbing-incident/

How great is it that the Carson fanboys are screaming at the top of their lungs:

No, he really did attempt to stab someone!

No, he really did attack his mother with a hammer!

Keep in mind that we're talking about a presidential candidate.

Keep up the good work.

[chuckd]

When you go into politics, especially running for national office, anything out there is fair game for the opposition and the press. If he doesn't understand that then, well, political Darwinism takes its toll.

It's not like he's going to be elected president anyway.

The GOP would never nominate an African-American to be their presidential candidate. They like having a black guy around because it gives the false impression that they're inclusive. But at the end of the day, it'll never happen. The GOP base won't let that happen. And the Tea Party wing would go absolutely bonkers if that were to happen. No matter how crazy religious, anti-Obama the guy is, Carson is black and that trumps everything else....as far as the Republican party is concerned.

Now this is an interesting concept.

The secular progressive liberal community and the secular liberal main stream media are seriously in attack mode on the only black candidate from either party in this Presidential race.

IMHO the attacks are racist based and nothing more. They don't want to see a black candidate take any black votes away from the presumptive Democrat candidate. He is more of a threat to her than some of the other candidates and must be destroyed at all costs.

Now we have a poster that says the Republicans are racist if they don't nominate him as their candidate.

That's certainly an innovative way of turning the race issue on its head?

[Jingthing]

Of course they're not going to nominate him. And they shouldn't. He is HORRIBLE.

[gudtymchuk]

So why is the loony left media out to minimize Carson... It really is simple. Their only top tier candidates, a 68 year old habitual liar married to a man who cavorts around the world with a known pedophile and an 74 year old committed socialist.

If I was them I would be trashing my opponents any way possible too...

Edited November 10, 2015 by gudtymchuk

[puck2]

The election of an US president is an US issue. In general, but because the US is the world power #1 - and plays this role - I think it's not arrogant to say my opinion as a non US citizen.

For me it's not understandable why such nuts like Carson, Trump, Christie etc. get the chance to be a candidate.

It seems there ar 3 reasons for Carson's top ranking (at now !) - people think:

- he never had a political job; therefore not corrupted by lobbyists

- he plays the role of a religious, polite and calm man in the public area, although .... (you read it already)

- a career from poor to rich und famous, a typical American dream - that fits a US president.

Irritating is the fact that all candidates depend on supporters' money, maybe excluding Trump. Money makes heavily dependent in the case of being elected (give me my money back !!!). This undemocratic floodgate was opened by the highest US court , dominated by right wing judges when it allowed nearly unlimited party donations. That means giving more power and more influence to the rich. Some people call this style moneycratie and not democracy.

As proven by George Walker this kind of presidents are easier to be manupulated to do something in the interest of the rich/est; i.e. tax reduction, an advantage for the wealthy. Therefore it is understandable the the rep followers are not interested in highly intelligent candidates, but in Carson and suchlikes. Refusing answers concerning his own life's histrory seems to be a typical rep behaviour. They cannot stop molesting Mrs. Clinton because of Benghazi. Carson should know the name of this disease: schizophrenia.

But there is another problem in the US pr.-lection system besides money, a psycological one: distraction tactic. Suddenly it's more important that the man or the lady is or was very successful in his/her private job/life, what is to be translated as money-earning!! The other (main) qualifications for such a pr.job are not or merely scrutinised. If a man like Carson didn't lissen in the history lesson of his school and thinks pyramides have been buildt for grain silos (under Joseph) you can bet that such a would-be president can see China looking out of his window.

Being or having been successful in life or job - as Carson - doesn't mean that he is suited for the presidental job. A typical American mistake, because money is so important.

Edited November 10, 2015 by puck2

[SpokaneAl]

Yeah, we get it.

The temporary visibility of the Carson campaign which we all know is temporary is simply right wing political theater to continue their resentment that Obama ever became president.

Imagine the same JOKE of a candidate, with ZERO political experience, being in or near the lead for the republicans if he wasn't black.

It's all about the Obama reactionary game.

Trump has no political experience but his business empire is a credible substitute.

Carson has NO credible substitute.

Next ...

What experience did Obama have prior to becoming president, other than a bit over a single term as a senator, and oh yes, his time as a community organizer?

P.S. You make a great many non fact based conclusions here.

Edited November 10, 2015 by SpokaneAl

[SpokaneAl]

Yeah, we get it.

The temporary visibility of the Carson campaign which we all know is temporary is simply right wing political theater to continue their resentment that Obama ever became president.

Imagine the same JOKE of a candidate, with ZERO political experience, being in or near the lead for the republicans if he wasn't black.

It's all about the Obama reactionary game.

Trump has no political experience but his business empire is a credible substitute.

Carson has NO credible substitute.

Next ...

What experience did Obama have prior to becoming president, other than a bit over a single term as a senator, and oh yes, his time as a community organizer?

P.S. You make a great many non fact based conclusions here.

And speaking of candidates with no experience, I suspect that you'll not be impressed with Harry Truman or Dwight D. Eisenhower, not to mention Lincoln who came into office with almost no experience.

[Docno]

George W. Bush was a conservative. Of course the MSM attacked him. John Kerry was brought to task by his fellow soldiers, not the liberal media.

GWB's party affiliation is not the point - the suggestion was that Carson's academic record was being scrutisined because of his race.

The majority of the soldiers who actually served with Kerry backed him up ... the matter was very politicised. Here's probably the best summary of the issue:

This incident crystallizes the epistemological issue at play in the larger controversy: Whom does it make sense to believe, the men who served and fought in close company with Kerry and who back his Navy-certified record? Or the veterans who didn't actually serve under Kerry and who, admittedly angry over his subsequent antiwar activities, are now trying to discredit him? To ask that question is to answer it.

That highlights the major distinction between the two sides ... and their motives.

Finally, I will grant you that it will be harder to find instances of the media scrutinising the academic records of Democrat political candidates. That's because few Democrats demonstrate the questionable cognitive capacity of the likes of George W Bush, Sarah Palin, Sarah Bachmann, Dan Quail, Ronald Reagan, etc etc (wow, that's a too-easy list to compile).

How about a source link for this part of your post?

"This incident crystallizes the epistemological issue at play in the larger controversy: Whom does it make sense to believe, the men who served and fought in close company with Kerry and who back his Navy-certified record? Or the veterans who didn't actually serve under Kerry and who, admittedly angry over his subsequent antiwar activities, are now trying to discredit him? To ask that question is to answer it."

Your wish is my command: http://www.boston.com/news/politics/president/kerry/articles/2004/08/20/kerry_comrades_have_credibility_on_their_side/

Boston Globe.

But let's not stop there. Give this a read: http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/documents/letter_to_pickens_062008.pdf

It's a testamonial from the men who actually served alongside Kerry .. not others pushing a politcal agenda on the basis of hearsay.

Cheers

[Jingthing]

Does anyone believe the BIZARRE Popeye's chicken "organization" story? Especially considering he's supposed to be some kind of vegetarian.

Edited November 10, 2015 by Jingthing

[chuckd]

Does anyone believe the BIZARRE Popeye's chicken "organization" story? Especially considering he's supposed to be some kind of vegetarian.

<snip>

That's about as funny as a broken leg. I trust he has better material stored up somewhere or it's back to old blighty for him.

Edited November 10, 2015 by chuckd

[slerickson]

A bit shameless the liberal slanted media has to go all the way back to Carson's youth to drag up any thing that might remotely resemble a scandal but only have to look at the present day to find several juicy ones on their girl Hildabeast which they completely ignore... Keep digging, gotta be something there.

I think it was "back" to the bullshit in his book.

[gudtymchuk]

Does anyone believe the BIZARRE Popeye's chicken "organization" story? Especially considering he's supposed to be some kind of vegetarian.

<snip>

That's about as funny as a broken leg. I trust he has better material stored up somewhere or it's back to old blighty for him.

And find a seat next to the other "Blighty" stooge Pierce Morgan......

[slerickson]

Yeah, we get it.

The temporary visibility of the Carson campaign which we all know is temporary is simply right wing political theater to continue their resentment that Obama ever became president.

Imagine the same JOKE of a candidate, with ZERO political experience, being in or near the lead for the republicans if he wasn't black.

It's all about the Obama reactionary game.

Trump has no political experience but his business empire is a credible substitute.

Carson has NO credible substitute.

Next ...

What experience did Obama have prior to becoming president, other than a bit over a single term as a senator, and oh yes, his time as a community organizer?

P.S. You make a great many non fact based conclusions here.

And speaking of candidates with no experience, I suspect that you'll not be impressed with Harry Truman or Dwight D. Eisenhower, not to mention Lincoln who came into office with almost no experience.

What difference does it make. Presidents are there to provide the charade of government by and for the people. Doesn't matter too much they are all piss poor candidates outside of Sanders who's somewhat progressive.

[Jingthing]

True Trevor is no Jon Stewart but he's not from blighty either.

[chuckd]

True Trevor is no Jon Stewart but he's not from blighty either.

You are correct. South blighty it is.