2016 Presidential Candidate

[milesdividendmd]

"Low energy" is a trumpism. He's an insult politician. That's what he does. And as with all insult artists, he preys on actual weakness. Jeb is boring and clumsy. But he would probably be a competent president (for a republican,) as would Kasich.

[Bob W]

"Low energy" is a trumpism. He's an insult politician. That's what he does. And as with all insult artists, he preys on actual weakness. Jeb is boring and clumsy. But he would probably be a competent president (for a republican,) as would Kasich.

Kasich would be and absolutely great president!  Probably the best in our lifetime.  Unfortunately he is running for VP against Rubio and won't win the P spot.  He actually could do some very good work there.  Perhaps more so than if he were President.     

 "boring, clumsy and probably competent" doesn't really resonate like "low energy"

Jeb may never overcome that hanging around his neck.  Did you see him and Trump in the debate?  Trump totally owned him like a pet dog.  Sad really.    Is low energy an insult if it is both obvious and true?   

[zoltani]

Just thought I'd drop this very good interview with Bernie, worth the 1.5 hours to watch/listen.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MVKx_1F7mdI

[milesdividendmd]

"Low energy" is a trumpism. He's an insult politician. That's what he does. And as with all insult artists, he preys on actual weakness. Jeb is boring and clumsy. But he would probably be a competent president (for a republican,) as would Kasich.

Kasich would be and absolutely great president!  Probably the best in our lifetime.  Unfortunately he is running for VP against Rubio and won't win the P spot.  He actually could do some very good work there.  Perhaps more so than if he were President.     

 "boring, clumsy and probably competent" doesn't really resonate like "low energy"

Jeb may never overcome that hanging around his neck.  Did you see him and Trump in the debate?  Trump totally owned him like a pet dog.  Sad really.    Is low energy an insult if it is both obvious and true?

As I said in my original comment, it's an insult and it's true.

[sunday]

I'm a democrat voter and I do like Kasich. He sounds pramatic. Except for all the Planned Parenthood crap.

[dramaman]

Considering there won't be any actual caucuses or primaries until February, I question how much any of this matters for someone like Bush who has the backing to stay in the race for the long term. In five months, I predict the field will be reduced to Bush, Trump and a handful of others. Eventually it will come down to an establishment candidate (likely Bush) and Trump. At that point, the anybody-but-Trump vote will outnumber the Trump vote.

[Mississippi Mudstache]

Jeb Bush wins Florida without even trying which is currently the largest swing state. Jeb Bush is the best chance for the Republicans to win. The current polls are based on majority vote, which don't really matter. If Ted Cruz gets 90% of the Texas vote his overall numbers will be inflated with numbers that don't matter.

You miss the point that JB is trying extremely hard and just registered as 2% in the debate.  He is so low energy that he barely registers. 

http://www.saintpetersblog.com/archives/240243

It appears that Trump is kicking Jeb's butt in Florida polls --- and yeah,  Trump is really,  really, realy not trying in Florida.    Rubio should tie up that state nicely as the VP.   

John Kasich will tie up Ohio nicely as the Secretary of State or whatever else he wants.   

Biden will kick HRC butt in Florida.

I still think low energy Bush has a better chance of getting the nomination than Trump

Since when did "low-energy" become an insult? We're not discussing race horses, tennis players, or even atomic electron orbitals. We're discussing presidential candidates.

I guess only because low-energy candidates get less talking time during debates than they could otherwise, but idk. I was just resaying what Bob said. Trump oftenly uses it as an insult so maybe ask him

Yeah, I'm aware of the origin of the insult (Trump), and I didn't mean to imply that you were the one parrotting it - I just happened to quote your quote of Bob W. I'm just surprised that Trump's "low energy" comment has gained quite the traction that it has.

[zataks]

Considering there won't be any actual caucuses or primaries until February, I question how much any of this matters for someone like Bush who has the backing to stay in the race for the long term. In five months, I predict the field will be reduced to Bush, Trump and a handful of others. Eventually it will come down to an establishment candidate (likely Bush) and Trump. At that point, the anybody-but-Trump vote will outnumber the Trump vote.

This exactly. 

I think we're looking at a Bush-Clinton election year again.  Unless Biden gets cray out there.  But I don't think it would be totally impossible that Clinton could be Biden's VP.  But who knows.

[Malaysia41]

Just thought I'd drop this very good interview with Bernie, worth the 1.5 hours to watch/listen.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MVKx_1F7mdI

Thanks for the link Zoltani. Way more interesting than the recent cnn debate/circus.

[clarkfan1979]

If Jeb Bush gets the nomination, Florida will not be as close as in the past. According to wiki, Obama won by 2.82% in 2008 and 0.88% in 2012. JB will win Florida by at least 10%. However, I think he will lose the election to Hillary. I wish Americans were more original, but like most people we favor things that are familiar. Get ready for another Clinton vs. Bush election. 

[depogrig]

I was impressed with his ability to answer tough questions in this clip
http://youtu.be/EujLpZKJ15k


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[forummm]

The problem is the italicized portion of his quotation which is quite simply factually incorrect. Period.

I'm guessing you are referring to the second part of what was quoted, as the whole quote is italicized.  Do you agree with "we have extremely well-documented proof that there’s no autism associated with vaccinations"?

As for the "way too many in too short a period of time" (that's what you find objectionable, correct?) - I'd like to hear whether he means "wait a week" vs. "wait a decade".  Has there been any clarification?

Regardless, the advice is not scientifically based. Each time a new vaccine is approved by the FDA it has to be tested for safety in its own right. And then it also has to be tested in combination with all the other vaccines already on the ACIP vaccine schedule for safety as a part of the routine vaccination schedule. So the testing is conducted in rigorous clinical trials as the vaccines would be delivered in the real world. For Carson to suggest that somehow individual pediatricians would be able to figure out for their anecdotal caseload that there was a systematic problem is completely unscientific. Vaccines are probably the best thing medicine and public health have done in the last 65 years.

[forummm]

"Low energy" is a trumpism. He's an insult politician. That's what he does. And as with all insult artists, he preys on actual weakness. Jeb is boring and clumsy. But he would probably be a competent president (for a republican,) as would Kasich.

He's Trump the Insult Comic Politician

[MDM]

As for the "way too many in too short a period of time" (that's what you find objectionable, correct?) - I'd like to hear whether he means "wait a week" vs. "wait a decade".  Has there been any clarification?

Regardless, ....

Eh, seems a tempest in a teapot - Carson hit the main nail square on the head with the "vaccines don't cause autism" comment.  If however he is suggesting "wait a decade" then I'll rethink.  Seems more like he's concentrating on the end goal of getting kids vaccinated and if that requires providing some parents the option to go a few weeks in between shots, that's better than going for all or nothing and getting nothing.

Again, I'd like to know his operating definition of "too many in too short...".  Without knowing that, we can all speculate and assume all we want....

[KarefulKactus15]

25 pages later... Im a right liberal, now I know. 33.3% Right, 22.2% Liberal

[dramaman]

As for the "way too many in too short a period of time" (that's what you find objectionable, correct?) - I'd like to hear whether he means "wait a week" vs. "wait a decade".  Has there been any clarification?

Regardless, ....

Eh, seems a tempest in a teapot - Carson hit the main nail square on the head with the "vaccines don't cause autism" comment.  If however he is suggesting "wait a decade" then I'll rethink.  Seems more like he's concentrating on the end goal of getting kids vaccinated and if that requires providing some parents the option to go a few weeks in between shots, that's better than going for all or nothing and getting nothing.

Again, I'd like to know his operating definition of "too many in too short...".  Without knowing that, we can all speculate and assume all we want....

And again, one doesn't need to speculate or assume what he meant because no matter how you interpret it, Carson was wrong.

Now WHY he was wrong is worthy of speculation, as either he is ignorant about the science of vaccination schedules or he is simply too cowardly to totally repudiate the vaccination paranoia folks. Either way, he doesn't look good for a man whose chief distinction is being a brilliant doctor.

[milesdividendmd]

As an aside, I find Carson's cadence very distracting.

I know he was a stud neurosurgeon from Hopkins. But the real studs die on the job. They don't quit their professorships and join the politics clown car.

And the way he talks. It's like he has psychomotor retardation. He seems to move at a glacial pace.

He's got this Forrest Gump like affect. And it's just so distracting.

[MDM]

And again, one doesn't need to speculate or assume what he meant because no matter how you interpret it, Carson was wrong.

It does increase the degree of difficulty of the dive/debate if one allows any assumption, e.g., "no matter how you interpret" - are you sure you want to go that far?

...as either he is ignorant about the science of vaccination schedules or he is simply too cowardly to totally repudiate the vaccination paranoia folks.

No other possible explanation?

[depogrig]

And the way he talks. It's like he has psychomotor retardation. He seems to move at a glacial pace.

He's got this Forrest Gump like affect. And it's just so distracting.

That's funny, I thought the same thing watching him.  He kept rolling his eyes up and taking long pauses. Even when he did finally commit to what he wanted to say he would take forever getting it out.  After all that suspense I would expect poetry but it would just be a so-so response.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Gin1984]

And again, one doesn't need to speculate or assume what he meant because no matter how you interpret it, Carson was wrong.

It does increase the degree of difficulty of the dive/debate if one allows any assumption, e.g., "no matter how you interpret" - are you sure you want to go that far?

...as either he is ignorant about the science of vaccination schedules or he is simply too cowardly to totally repudiate the vaccination paranoia folks.

No other possible explanation?

I can't think of any, can you think you?  I mean that honestly, not sarcastically.

[Bob W]

Sanders goes to Christian university just to remind them he isn't one of them, that he disagrees on every issue and that his people killed Jesus.   Yesterday Trump held up his tatered bible at a faith rally and said I'm one of you.  Can you pick out the idiot here?   Regarding Carson's cadence,   autism comes to mind.

[milesdividendmd]

Sanders goes to Christian university just to remind them he isn't one of them, that he disagrees on every issue and that his people killed Jesus.   Yesterday Trump held up his tatered bible at a faith rally and said I'm one of you.  Can you pick out the idiot here?   Regarding Carson's cadence,   autism comes to mind.

Bob,

This is why the right gets painted with the broad brush of racism (antisemitism). Because it is true.

[depogrig]

Watched a video clip the other day talking about how trump would have done bette investing entirely in index funds than he did through all his ventures


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[MDM]

And again, one doesn't need to speculate or assume what he meant because no matter how you interpret it, Carson was wrong.

It does increase the degree of difficulty of the dive/debate if one allows any assumption, e.g., "no matter how you interpret" - are you sure you want to go that far?

...as either he is ignorant about the science of vaccination schedules or he is simply too cowardly to totally repudiate the vaccination paranoia folks.

No other possible explanation?

I can't think of any, can you think you?  I mean that honestly, not sarcastically.

One that came to mind: he recognizes that, despite the evidence of no autism, etc. link to vaccinations, some people still are afraid to vaccinate their children.  Rather than choosing an offensive (e.g., "you ignorant POS, vaccinate your kids now!") approach that may feel good to say but is unlikely to achieve its desired result, he's saying "ok, spread 'em out a few weeks or so rather than all together" under the presumption that vaccinations in some reasonably short time are far better than no vaccinations at all.

This would be somewhat analogous to the "lump sum vs. dollar cost average (DCA) vs. never" approach to investing.  Statistically, lump sum is best.  But DCA isn't far behind lump sum and is much better than never investing.  So it's best to advise people to do lump sum, but not fight about it if they prefer DCA.

Note that this may not be what Carson has in mind.  Or maybe it is - we really can't tell from a 1 or 2 sentence ambiguous sound bite.

[forummm]

Sanders goes to Christian university just to remind them he isn't one of them, that he disagrees on every issue and that his people killed Jesus.   

Sanders is Roman?

[forummm]

And again, one doesn't need to speculate or assume what he meant because no matter how you interpret it, Carson was wrong.

It does increase the degree of difficulty of the dive/debate if one allows any assumption, e.g., "no matter how you interpret" - are you sure you want to go that far?

...as either he is ignorant about the science of vaccination schedules or he is simply too cowardly to totally repudiate the vaccination paranoia folks.

No other possible explanation?

I can't think of any, can you think you?  I mean that honestly, not sarcastically.

One that came to mind: he recognizes that, despite the evidence of no autism, etc. link to vaccinations, some people still are afraid to vaccinate their children.  Rather than choosing an offensive (e.g., "you ignorant POS, vaccinate your kids now!") approach that may feel good to say but is unlikely to achieve its desired result, he's saying "ok, spread 'em out a few weeks or so rather than all together" under the presumption that vaccinations in some reasonably short time are far better than no vaccinations at all.

This would be somewhat analogous to the "lump sum vs. dollar cost average (DCA) vs. never" approach to investing.  Statistically, lump sum is best.  But DCA isn't far behind lump sum and is much better than never investing.  So it's best to advise people to do lump sum, but not fight about it if they prefer DCA.

Note that this may not be what Carson has in mind.  Or maybe it is - we really can't tell from a 1 or 2 sentence ambiguous sound bite.

I don't know what his intent was, but that's not reflective of what he said:

CARSON: But it is true that we are probably giving way too many in too short a period of time.  And a lot of pediatricians now recognize that, and, I think, are cutting down on the number and the proximity in which those are done, and I think that’s appropriate.

He's implying or allowing people to infer that there is scientific evidence we are giving too many and that it could harm your baby. If he wanted to say what you are suggesting he could have said something like. "There is absolutely no medical evidence that giving certain vaccinations at the same time as called for in the standard vaccine schedule is at all harmful. No evidence whatsoever. Certainly parents can ask their pediatrician to stretch out the vaccinations overtime, and I think most pediatricians will reluctantly comply. However, parents should be aware that delaying vaccination places your child and other people's children at risk of getting sick. The recent measles outbreak at Disneyland occurred because people did not get vaccinated. Vaccines were created because these diseases are deadly."

[Kris]

Carson is trying to have it both ways.  It's disingenuous and basically lacking in principles. 

Typical politician.

[MDM]

Note that this may not be what Carson has in mind.  Or maybe it is - we really can't tell from a 1 or 2 sentence ambiguous sound bite.

...he could have said something like. "There is absolutely no medical evidence that giving certain vaccinations at the same time as called for in the standard vaccine schedule is at all harmful. No evidence whatsoever. Certainly parents can ask their pediatrician to stretch out the vaccinations overtime, and I think most pediatricians will reluctantly comply. However, parents should be aware that delaying vaccination places your child and other people's children at risk of getting sick. The recent measles outbreak at Disneyland occurred because people did not get vaccinated. Vaccines were created because these diseases are deadly."

Yes, that would indeed be much less ambiguous.  Would that all politicians took care to be so clear on all subjects.  And this subject seems to cut across the political spectrum, with both the far left and far right (from what little polling has been done) being most opposed to vaccinations.  Of course, as Kris notes, if they were clear about everything they probably wouldn't be successful politicians....

Still seems unfair to paint Carson and Trump with the same brush on the whole vaccination issue, given Carson's unequivocal comment on autism.  Don't know about the timing, etc. part.  Fortunately there is a lot of time for this (and other issues besides) before both parties pick candidates - let alone until Nov. 2106.

[Bob W]

Sanders goes to Christian university just to remind them he isn't one of them, that he disagrees on every issue and that his people killed Jesus.   Yesterday Trump held up his tatered bible at a faith rally and said I'm one of you.  Can you pick out the idiot here?   Regarding Carson's cadence,   autism comes to mind.

Bob,

This is why the right gets painted with the broad brush of racism (antisemitism). Because it is true.

.    It appears you are doing the painting here.   Goodwins law in action.      My point was simply that Sanders had nothing to gain and in fact probably lost 10s of thousands of votes by appearing at liberty while Trump undoubtedly picked up thousands of Iowa votes by holding his bible up at a christian event.  It is often inferred that Trump is intellectually challenged yet in this contrast he obviously made a much wiser choice than BS.     

[Bob W]

Sanders goes to Christian university just to remind them he isn't one of them, that he disagrees on every issue and that his people killed Jesus.   

Sanders is Roman?

No idea,  I was talking about socialists.

[forummm]

Note that this may not be what Carson has in mind.  Or maybe it is - we really can't tell from a 1 or 2 sentence ambiguous sound bite.

...he could have said something like. "There is absolutely no medical evidence that giving certain vaccinations at the same time as called for in the standard vaccine schedule is at all harmful. No evidence whatsoever. Certainly parents can ask their pediatrician to stretch out the vaccinations overtime, and I think most pediatricians will reluctantly comply. However, parents should be aware that delaying vaccination places your child and other people's children at risk of getting sick. The recent measles outbreak at Disneyland occurred because people did not get vaccinated. Vaccines were created because these diseases are deadly."

Yes, that would indeed be much less ambiguous.  Would that all politicians took care to be so clear on all subjects.  And this subject seems to cut across the political spectrum, with both the far left and far right (from what little polling has been done) being most opposed to vaccinations.  Of course, as Kris notes, if they were clear about everything they probably wouldn't be successful politicians....

Still seems unfair to paint Carson and Trump with the same brush on the whole vaccination issue, given Carson's unequivocal comment on autism.  Don't know about the timing, etc. part.  Fortunately there is a lot of time for this (and other issues besides) before both parties pick candidates - let alone until Nov. 2106.

I don't think I said Carson and Trump were the same on this issue. Trump was absolutely wrong and irresponsible. Clearly Carson was less bad, but still wrong and irresponsible. However, Carson is a physician and has a special responsibility to provide accurate and educational medical information. He must be held to a higher standard because of his profession and the greater credence given to his words on the subject. Any semi-aware person should know that Trump is a buffoon (although sadly not enough do). But a physician, and a renowned physician at that, is more likely to be believed.

Unfortunately this isn't the first time Carson has been disingenuous about medical issues. For example, he came down hard on Planned Parenthood over their collection of fetal tissue donated for medical research. However Carson has personally done medical research with fetal tissue from aborted fetuses! He even claimed--in writing--that he had never done fetal tissue research. But he published a paper stating that he did just that!
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/08/13/ben-carsons-tortured-defense-of-his-research-with-fetal-tissue/
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/ben-carson-distances-himself-fetal-tissue-research
http://www.redstate.com/2015/08/14/dr-ben-carson-fetal-tissue-research-dimwitted-slander/

[Malaysia41]

Sanders goes to Christian university just to remind them he isn't one of them, that he disagrees on every issue and that his people killed Jesus.   Yesterday Trump held up his tatered bible at a faith rally and said I'm one of you.  Can you pick out the idiot here?   Regarding Carson's cadence,   autism comes to mind.

Bob,

This is why the right gets painted with the broad brush of racism (antisemitism). Because it is true.

.    It appears you are doing the painting here.   Goodwins law in action.      My point was simply that Sanders had nothing to gain and in fact probably lost 10s of thousands of votes by appearing at liberty while Trump undoubtedly picked up thousands of Iowa votes by holding his bible up at a christian event.  It is often inferred that Trump is intellectually challenged yet in this contrast he obviously made a much wiser choice than BS.     

BS did great at Liberty U.  The audience cheered him on - a few even applauded during the discussion about babies in the womb. He didn't pander to the crowd, nor did he insult them.  I don't see how his talk at Liberty hurt him at all.  In fact, he may have picked up a few votes.  I got the feeling the students liked him for the most part.

It's an odd feeling being a Republican who likes the social democratic best.

Trump - ugh - Bible thumping in Iowa - repulsive.  I suppose pandering works on some folks, but I would give Iowans more credit.   He's such a shameless PUA.  His hypnotism worked magic on Bush and Carson in the GOP debate, I'll give him that - it was freaky.  I give him credit for taking these PUA tricks as far as he has.  It just goes to show you how effective they are, even if juvenile. I would prefer a thoughtful statesman be president, however.  I am doubtful Trump's PUA tricks will work as well on the international level.

[milesdividendmd]

Sanders goes to Christian university just to remind them he isn't one of them, that he disagrees on every issue and that his people killed Jesus.   Yesterday Trump held up his tatered bible at a faith rally and said I'm one of you.  Can you pick out the idiot here?   Regarding Carson's cadence,   autism comes to mind.

Bob,

This is why the right gets painted with the broad brush of racism (antisemitism). Because it is true.

.    It appears you are doing the painting here.   Goodwins law in action.      My point was simply that Sanders had nothing to gain and in fact probably lost 10s of thousands of votes by appearing at liberty while Trump undoubtedly picked up thousands of Iowa votes by holding his bible up at a christian event.  It is often inferred that Trump is intellectually challenged yet in this contrast he obviously made a much wiser choice than BS.     

You are an anti Semite. Anti Semites are not worthy of debate.

[MDM]

I don't think I said Carson and Trump were the same on this issue.

You probably didn't.  I was referring to 50-some posts back when I replied to (emphasis added): "Carson, on the other hand lost any credibility as a doctor when he went along with trump on the immunization conspiracy garbage."

Unfortunately this isn't the first time Carson has been disingenuous about medical issues. For example, he came down hard on Planned Parenthood over their collection of fetal tissue donated for medical research. However Carson has personally done medical research with fetal tissue from aborted fetuses! He even claimed--in writing--that he had never done fetal tissue research. But he published a paper stating that he did just that!
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/08/13/ben-carsons-tortured-defense-of-his-research-with-fetal-tissue/
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/ben-carson-distances-himself-fetal-tissue-research
http://www.redstate.com/2015/08/14/dr-ben-carson-fetal-tissue-research-dimwitted-slander/

Eh, that seems very tenuous.  From what I could glean from those articles (and Carson's facebook statement), if anything he might be subject to a charge of having his name on a paper when he contributed little to the work.  That charge, however, would resonate only within the halls of academia and diminish quickly when reaching the general population.

If his statement "There were four doctors' names on the study. One was mine. ...My only involvement in this study was supplying tumors that I had removed from my patients" is correct, this is much ado about nothing.  If he is lying now, then it's a case of the coverup being worse than the act.

If there is anything new put forward on this (seems there hasn't been since the initial flurry in mid-August), we could revisit.  Otherwise it seems a false accusation against Carson.

[milesdividendmd]

I don't think I said Carson and Trump were the same on this issue.

You probably didn't.  I was referring to 50-some posts back when I replied to (emphasis added): "Carson, on the other hand lost any credibility as a doctor when he went along with trump on the immunization conspiracy garbage."

Unfortunately this isn't the first time Carson has been disingenuous about medical issues. For example, he came down hard on Planned Parenthood over their collection of fetal tissue donated for medical research. However Carson has personally done medical research with fetal tissue from aborted fetuses! He even claimed--in writing--that he had never done fetal tissue research. But he published a paper stating that he did just that!
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/08/13/ben-carsons-tortured-defense-of-his-research-with-fetal-tissue/
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/ben-carson-distances-himself-fetal-tissue-research
http://www.redstate.com/2015/08/14/dr-ben-carson-fetal-tissue-research-dimwitted-slander/
Eh, that seems very tenuous.  From what I could glean from those articles (and Carson's facebook statement), if anything he might be subject to a charge of having his name on a paper when he contributed little to the work.  That charge, however, would resonate only within the halls of academia and diminish quickly when reaching the general population.

If his statement "There were four doctors' names on the study. One was mine. ...My only involvement in this study was supplying tumors that I had removed from my patients" is correct, this is much ado about nothing.  If he is lying now, then it's a case of the coverup being worse than the act.

If there is anything new put forward on this (seems there hasn't been since the initial flurry in mid-August), we could revisit.  Otherwise it seems a false accusation against Carson.

If you watched the debate then you would know that trump said that he was pro immunization in general but that immunizations given too quickly and too close together caused autism.

That is nonsense is precisely what Carson went along with.

I stand by my original quote and would suggest that you need to rewatch the debate.

[MDM]

If you watched the debate then you would know that trump said that he was pro immunization in general but that immunizations given too quickly and too close together caused autism.

That is nonsense is precisely what Carson went along with.

I stand by my original quote and would suggest that you need to rewatch the debate.

The relevant part of the debate transcript, from http://time.com/4037239/second-republican-debate-transcript-cnn/, is below.  People can read and form their own conclusions.

TAPPER: …I’m turning to another — I’m turning to another issue right now. Senator Cruz. Well, I think we’ve heard from several this evening.

A backlash against vaccines was blamed for a measles outbreak here in California. Dr. Carson, Donald Trump has publicly and repeatedly linked vaccines, childhood vaccines, to autism, which, as you know, the medical community adamantly disputes.

You’re a pediatric neurosurgeon. Should Mr. Trump stop saying this?

CARSON: Well, let me put it this way, there has — there have been numerous studies, and they have not demonstrated that there is any correlation between vaccinations and autism.

This was something that was spread widely 15 or 20 years ago, and it has not been adequately, you know, revealed to the public what’s actually going on. Vaccines are very important. Certain ones. The ones that would prevent death or crippling.

There are others, there are a multitude of vaccines which probably don’t fit in that category, and there should be some discretion in those cases. But, you know, a lot of this is — is — is pushed by big government.

And I think that’s one of the things that people so vehemently want to get rid of, big government. You know, we have 4.1 million federal employees. Six hundred and fifty federal agencies and department (sic).

That’s why they have to take so much of our taxes. TAPPER: Should he stop saying it? Should he stop saying that vaccines cause autism?

CARSON: Well, you know, I’ve just explained it to him. He can read about it if he wants to. I think he’s an intelligent man and will make the correct decision after getting the real facts.

TAPPER: Mr. Trump, as president, you would…

TRUMP: Well, I — I — I’d like to respond.

TAPPER: I’m going right to you.

TRUMP: I’d like to respond.

TAPPER: Mr. Trump, as president, you would be in charge of the Centers for Disease Control and the National Institutes of Health, both of which say you are wrong. How would you handle this as president?

TRUMP: Autism has become an epidemic. Twenty-five years ago, 35 years ago, you look at the statistics, not even close. It has gotten totally out of control.

I am totally in favor of vaccines. But I want smaller doses over a longer period of time. Because you take a baby in — and I’ve seen it — and I’ve seen it, and I had my children taken care of over a long period of time, over a two or three year period of time.

Same exact amount, but you take this little beautiful baby, and you pump — I mean, it looks just like it’s meant for a horse, not for a child, and we’ve had so many instances, people that work for me.

Just the other day, two years old, two and a half years old, a child, a beautiful child went to have the vaccine, and came back, and a week later got a tremendous fever, got very, very sick, now is autistic.

I only say it’s not — I’m in favor of vaccines, do them over a longer period of time, same amount.

TAPPER: Thank you.

TRUMP: But just in — in little sections.

TAPPER: Dr. — Dr. Carson?

TRUMP: I think — and I think you’re going to have — I think you’re going to see a big impact on autism.

TAPPER: Dr. Carson, you just heard his medical take.

(LAUGHTER)

CARSON: He’s an OK doctor.

(LAUGHTER)

(APPLAUSE)

CARSON: But, you know, the fact of the matter is, we have extremely well-documented proof that there’s no autism associated with vaccinations. But it is true that we are probably giving way too many in too short a period of time.

And a lot of pediatricians now recognize that, and, I think, are cutting down on the number and the proximity in which those are done, and I think that’s appropriate.

TRUMP: And that’s all I’m saying, Jake. That’s all I’m saying.

TAPPER: Dr. Paul? Dr. Paul, I’d like to bring you in.

PAUL: A second opinion?

(LAUGHTER)

One of the greatest — one of the greatest medical discoveries of all times was — were the vaccines, particularly for smallpox. And if you want to read a story, it’s called The Speckled Monster, it’s an amazing story, it was all done voluntary.

But people came in by the droves. George Washington wouldn’t let his wife visit until she got vaccinated. So I’m all for vaccines. But I’m also for freedom.

I’m also a little concerned about how they’re bunched up. My kids had all of their vaccines, and even if the science doesn’t say bunching them up is a problem, I ought to have the right to spread out my vaccines out a little bit at the very least.

[Glenstache]

Walker is out. I can't say I'm sorry to see him go.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/09/21/scott-walker-suspends-presidential-campaign/

[infogoon]

Walker is out. I can't say I'm sorry to see him go.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/09/21/scott-walker-suspends-presidential-campaign/

Was he ever really in? He's been polling at Patakish numbers all along.

[milesdividendmd]

Koch's really have their pulse on the heartbeat of America, don't they?

[Glenstache]

Koch's really have their pulse on the heartbeat of America, don't they?

Apparently (humor)
http://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report/kochs-demand-walker-return-nine-hundred-million-dollars?intcid=mod-latest

[milesdividendmd]

Koch's really have their pulse on the heartbeat of America, don't they?

Apparently (humor)
http://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report/kochs-demand-walker-return-nine-hundred-million-dollars?intcid=mod-latest

I'm proud to have shared an idea with Borowitz. He's hilarious.

[dramaman]

Borowitz takes a swipe at Carson as well...

http://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report/ben-carson-shattering-stereotype-about-brain-surgeons-being-smart

[Mississippi Mudstache]

Borowitz takes a swipe at Carson as well...

http://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report/ben-carson-shattering-stereotype-about-brain-surgeons-being-smart

As long as we're talking about humor and presidential candidates, I figured I would slip this in here: Bad Lip-Reading Republican Debate. Fair warning, Ben Carson's lip-reading had me stifling guffaws in my cubicle :)

[milesdividendmd]

Walker is out. I can't say I'm sorry to see him go.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/09/21/scott-walker-suspends-presidential-campaign/

Was he ever really in? He's been polling at Patakish numbers all along.

He had good poll numbers the first quarter of 2015 and again in July.  While he would have made a solid president, I'm glad he can redirect his full attention to continue making Wisconsin a great place to live, reducing property taxes, etc.

Well, he did have Koch's backing, and he was a front runner so you're not entirely inaccurate.

But when it comes to making Wisconsin a great place to live, he did cut taxes, but the economy has been an epic failure....

http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/presidential-campaign/247539-a-closer-look-at-wisconsins-economy-under-gov-scott

It's as if he and Sam Brownback are trying to put the final nails in the coffin of the supply side economics myth. Trickle down doesn't work, and it never did.

[dramaman]

It's as if he and Sam Brownback are trying to put the final nails in the coffin of the supply side economics myth. Trickle down doesn't work, and it never did.

Ah, but one must have faith! Verily, I tell you, Brownback and Walker have been to the grave and lo it was empty. One just needs to be baptized in the waters of cutting taxes, proclaim Reagan as Lord and Savior, and your economy will be saved!

[sol]

Trickle down doesn't work, and it never did.

Personally, I never understood why the answer to "how do we give more money to poor people" was supposed to be "we should give more money to rich people."  That logic seemed flawed from the start, but we gave it a good 30 year trial run just to make sure.

If they just wanted to give money to rich people, that's fine but they should just say so.  It's the deceptive window dressing behind the whole thing that most bothered me.  Don't pretend you're trying to help the poor by giving tax breaks to the rich, just admit you're trying to help the rich because you think they're more important.  That's an easier argument to defend, but instead they felt they had to come up with this convoluted cover story about trickle-down.  Were they just worried about votes?  Maybe things were more democratic back then, but these days you don't need public opinion on your side as long as you have enough money, and the surest way to get lots of money is to give a bunch of money to rich people who don't need it, and can give it back to your campaign.

[milesdividendmd]

Sol, it's not a logic exercise.

It's a political game.

The mainstream Republican Party has really been about one thing since 1980. Regressive taxation. That is the redistribution of wealth from down to up.

That's not a winning formula for electoral success.

So what to do?

1.  Harness the resentments of racists and social conservatives.

2. Pretend that tax breaks for the rich are not really for the rich.

On a pocketbook level republican economics makes sense for the 1% (like me) and really for no one else.

This is why conservatives are uniformly anti campaign finance reform, and anti voter turnout.

[Gin1984]

Walker is out. I can't say I'm sorry to see him go.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/09/21/scott-walker-suspends-presidential-campaign/

Was he ever really in? He's been polling at Patakish numbers all along.

He had good poll numbers the first quarter of 2015 and again in July.  While he would have made a solid president, I'm glad he can redirect his full attention to continue making Wisconsin a great place to live, reducing property taxes, etc.

Well, he did have Koch's backing, and he was a front runner so you're not entirely inaccurate.

But when it comes to making Wisconsin a great place to live, he did cut taxes, but the economy has been an epic failure....

http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/presidential-campaign/247539-a-closer-look-at-wisconsins-economy-under-gov-scott

I call BS on your 'epic failure.'  Is that an article or just a rehashing of DNC talking points?  So basically because Walker didn't cave to anti-business practices (like raising min wage) he made the state worse? Fascinating logic that may play well on the left coast, but not here.

But sadly Gov. Walker is out of the race.  But take heart!  There are still plenty of republicans in the race for mustashians to complain about!

How about that Carly Fiorina?  She's now 2nd behind Trump.  Didn't know much about her before, but I'm impressed by her debate performance and follow-up interviews.  Wouldn't mind seeing her in the White House.

First, the states that increased minimum wage saw faster job growth than those who did not increase it.  Raising the minimum wage is not anti-business especially when it is not indexed to inflation.  Second he has attempted to destroy Wisconsin's environment: "In his 2015–17 budget, released in February, he proposed eliminating a third of the DNR’s 58 scientist positions and 60 percent of its 18 environmental educator positions. (The cuts were approved by the state legislature’s budget committee in May, and the budget is currently making its way through the legislature.) Walker also attempted to convert the citizen board that sets policy for the DNR to a purely advisory body and proposed a 13-year freeze on the state’s popular land conservation fund—both changes that lawmakers rejected in the face of intense public objections." and "One of the biggest environmental controversies to mark Walker’s tenure came in 2013, when he signed a law paving the way for Gogebic Taconite, a mining company later revealed to be a major political donor, to build a 6.5-kilometer-long open-pit mine in the Penokee Hills region in the Lake Superior watershed. Citing a 2011 study funded by Gogebic, Walker argued the mine would bring thousands of jobs to the struggling region. Gogebic helped write the new law, which allows companies to dump mine waste into nearby wetlands, streams and lakes; doubles the area around a mine that a company can pollute; allows the DNR to exempt any company from any part of the law; and strips citizens of the right to sue mining companies for illegal environmental damage."  This included trying to silence those who disagreed with him. 
There is no redeeming value in that Governor, and he has damaged his state in so many ways it would take me hours to post and cite each of them.  Pointing that out is not cheap shot.

[milesdividendmd]

Walker is out. I can't say I'm sorry to see him go.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/09/21/scott-walker-suspends-presidential-campaign/

Was he ever really in? He's been polling at Patakish numbers all along.

He had good poll numbers the first quarter of 2015 and again in July.  While he would have made a solid president, I'm glad he can redirect his full attention to continue making Wisconsin a great place to live, reducing property taxes, etc.

Well, he did have Koch's backing, and he was a front runner so you're not entirely inaccurate.

But when it comes to making Wisconsin a great place to live, he did cut taxes, but the economy has been an epic failure....

http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/presidential-campaign/247539-a-closer-look-at-wisconsins-economy-under-gov-scott

I call BS on your 'epic failure.'  Is that an article or just a rehashing of DNC talking points?  So basically because Walker didn't cave to anti-business practices (like raising min wage) he made the state worse?  Fascinating logic that may play well on the left coast, but not here.

But sadly Gov. Walker is out of the race.  But take heart!  There are still plenty of republicans in the race for mustashians to complain about!

How about that Carly Fiorina?  She's now 2nd behind Trump.  Didn't know much about her before, but I'm impressed by her debate performance and follow-up interviews.  Wouldn't mind seeing her in the White House.

If cutting jobs, running a profitable company into the ground and failing CEO golden parachutes are your things, then she just might be the one for you. Oh and lying. She's very good at that that too.

Ruining a Fortune 500 company is not as big of an accomplishment as ruining a Whole states economy, of course, but you can't have it all.

[MDM]

But when it comes to making Wisconsin a great place to live, he did cut taxes, but the economy has been an epic failure....
http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/presidential-campaign/247539-a-closer-look-at-wisconsins-economy-under-gov-scott

Is there a typo (or Freudian slip) in that article, or am I just missing something about the relationship between pay and the cost of doing business?  Emphasis added:

In Wisconsin, Walker refuses to raise the minimum wage and equal pay legislation, rejected federal funds to expand Medicaid, and attacked Wisconsin workers with right to work legislation and anti-collective bargaining policies. As a result, the cost of doing business in Wisconsin is higher than the national average...

I get that the part that continues

...and median household income in Wisconsin is thousands of dollars less...

is at least consistent to a first approximation with lower pay, but the part above...?