Ben Carson

[MoValley John]

I guess I'll throw my hands up and agree that Ben Carson is unfit to serve. He gave some speeches for a suppliment company, which has exposed him as a no good, untrustworthy liar. Since we all agree that this type of nefarious behavior disqualifies a candidate, could somebody point out one, just one, of the remaining candidates that has a cleaner record.

[im4wsu]

I guess I'll throw my hands up and agree that Ben Carson is unfit to serve. He gave some speeches for a suppliment company, which has exposed him as a no good, untrustworthy liar. Since we all agree that this type of nefarious behavior disqualifies a candidate, could somebody point out one, just one, of the remaining candidates that has a cleaner record.

Ding Ding Ding. Winner! We'll elect nobody and be much the better off for it!

[Play Angry]

I guess I'll throw my hands up and agree that Ben Carson is unfit to serve. He gave some speeches for a suppliment company, which has exposed him as a no good, untrustworthy liar. Since we all agree that this type of nefarious behavior disqualifies a candidate, could somebody point out one, just one, of the remaining candidates that has a cleaner record.

*bookmarks page for reference next time someone says strawmen and obfuscation are liberal argument tactics*

Nobody in this thread is asserting the things you're pretending they are.

[Kung Wu]

Do you really think the question was aimed at asserting Carson wrongfully avoided vicarious liability of the suit through alleged control of the company?

Or do you think it was intended to ask why he continued to endorse the products and receive speaking fees following an expensive legal battle where the company was culpable of various degrees of wrongdoing?

Was this intended for me, someone else, or other posters in general? I don't remember anybody in the thread implying anything like that. If it was intended for me, I think you misread what I posted.

[Play Angry]

One of the three criteria for involvement in your illustration was vicarious liability in case of a lawsuit, and another was having control over business operations - that is where I took it from.

A question regarding involvement (under your definition, which I would disagree with) in the context of the referenced lawsuit would seem to follow my first question rather than the second.

I definitely may have misunderstood you though.

[Kung Wu]

One of the three criteria for involvement in your illustration was vicarious liability in case of a lawsuit, and another was having control over business operations - that is where I took it from.

A question regarding involvement (under your definition, which I would disagree with) in the context of the referenced lawsuit would seem to follow my first question rather than the second.

I definitely may have misunderstood you though.

I think you might have.

I was responding to MoJohn and JH4P's exchange about "involvement".

Even though @_kai_ gets a kickback from Sports Time Fan Shop, we wouldn't say he's involved with them unless:

a) he's one of their decision making employees, or
b) he has influence over their owner (deep friendship, relative, etc), or
c) he has some say about how their shop operates (e.g., board member, shareholder, advisor, etc), or
d) he would likely also be named on a lawsuit if their shop were the primary target of a lawsuit

Certainly there are other criteria where we might say that @_kai_: is involved with Sports Time Fan Shop, but if at least one of the above isn't true, then implying that @_kai_: is "involved" with Sports Time Fan Shop simply because he endorses them seems like a stretch to me.

[Play Angry]

I hate to keep arguing over something as silly as what "involved" means, but do you think yours is a good analogy? It appears to be a slight misrepresentation of the business relationship to compare it directly to a banner ad.

What if kai had also been retained and paid large sums to speak on a semi-frequent basis at Sports Time employee retreats and shareholder meetings?

What if there were lengthy videos of kai advocating the quality of their products featured prominently on Sport Time's website?

What if kai had also done commercials and appeared at commercial speaking engagements while advocating for Sports Time's interests?


Would you attack someone, to their face, who interpreted those facts as "involvement" by saying they are not only wrong but spreading propaganda? Even under this strangely narrowed definition that has been concocted on the last two pages, that sort of response seems either poorly stated or intellectually insincere. I think it was more poorly stated than anything.

[Kung Wu]

I hate to keep arguing over something as silly as what "involved" means, but do you think yours is a good analogy?

I'm totally okay with it.

[MoValley John]

I liken what Carson did to what Fran Tarkenton did after his days with the Vikings, Bradshaw after the Steelers and Tom Bosley after Happy Days.

[MoValley John]

Ben Carson is now the frontrunner. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...-average-lead/
This is backed up in several polls. Carson is now 10 points ahead of Clinton in a head to head race. I guess giving a few speeches isn't a death knell afterall.

[Kung Wu]

Ben Carson is now the frontrunner. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...-average-lead/
This is backed up in several polls. Carson is now 10 points ahead of Clinton in a head to head race. I guess giving a few speeches isn't a death knell afterall.

Not sure he will be able to fend off Rubio. This is going to get interesting. Either way, the Republican ticket is going to be good.

[SHOXJOCK]

Ben Carson is now the frontrunner. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...-average-lead/
This is backed up in several polls. Carson is now 10 points ahead of Clinton in a head to head race. I guess giving a few speeches isn't a death knell afterall.

A Carson / Rubio ticket and Clinton will be down 25 points.

[ShockBand]

I think a Carson/Rubio or Rubio/Carson ticket could get a lot of traction. And probably the best pair to have a shot in the general election. If that were the pair, which do any of you think would do better, with Carson at the top or Rubio at the top?

[ShockBand]

I know Rubio is classified as "establishment", but I really like his demeanor even when others are taking shots at him.

[Kung Wu]

I think a Carson/Rubio or Rubio/Carson ticket could get a lot of traction. And probably the best pair to have a shot in the general election. If that were the pair, which do any of you think would do better, with Carson at the top or Rubio at the top?

I'd go with Rubio on top, with Carson getting his feet wet in U.S. government politics as veep for 8 years. That relationship would be stunningly symbiotic. I think Rubio would benefit from Carson's wisdom, while Carson would benefit from Rubio's experience navigating Washington D.C.