freeman3 wrote:He got through the process--I am sure two more conservatives could give the right kind of answers to get through. Archduke called bs on the idea that a conservative opposing Roe v Wade could get through the nominating process. Alioto is a recent example .

I posted that link for a reason: I don't think his opinion on Roe is anywhere near what I would want.

freeman3 wrote:He got through the process--I am sure two more conservatives could give the right kind of answers to get through. Archduke called bs on the idea that a conservative opposing Roe v Wade could get through the nominating process. Alioto is a recent example .

Which makes it all the more likely that another one will not. That's first off. Second off is that I am not 100% sure that Alito would vote to over turn Roe. Alito seems to be predominately an doctrinalist which means he gives a lot of weight to the precedential value of Roe and it's successor laws.

One of the things that always gets me is the assignment of political ideologies to Judges. Having worked for a Judge and knowing a number of others, it has been my experience that they are studiously apolitical. What they do have is Judicial Philosophies. While these JP's tend to track a specific political ideology, i.e. Textualist/Conservativism & Living Constitution/Liberal, do not confuse a JP with a political ideology.

geojanes wrote:There used to be a strong New York City Republican party: they were called "silk stocking republicans," or "Rockefeller Republicans," but that whole movement is essentially dead, along with its ilk all through the Northeast, and it's dead because there is no room for people like that in the Republican party. For goodness sake, 2/5ths of the people running for the Democratic nomination were Republicans!

I would further point out the falsity on this argument by pointing to where Rockefeller Republicans were located. They were predominately Northeastern (PA, NY, NJ and New England) and California. The type of Republicans Geo laments still exist. The problem is those states have become more liberal so they can't get elected. So I would argue that the problem isn't that there is no room in the Republican Party for them because it has moved so far right but rather, they can't get elected because the electorate in their areas have moved so far to the left.

Check out this article as an example of what I am talking about above. It talks about how conservatives like Cruz and Carson probably won't win the nomination because of the unequal power of the moderate Republican vote in the Northeast and California.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the ... -and-cruz/

archduke

Check out this article as an example of what I am talking about above. It talks about how conservatives like Cruz and Carson probably won't win the nomination because of the unequal power of the moderate Republican vote in the Northeast and California

Is this a good thing for the party? (Weeding out the more extreme canddiates who can't compete nationally)

And is the party registration unequal in raw numbers? For instance only 28% of registered voters in California are republican. But that still means 5 million voters affiliated with the republican party.
If the GOP nominating process tries to be democratic, shouldn't these 5 million have an equal voice?

An equal voice would be a national primary, presumably run on some kind of AV system to allocate preferences until one winner emerged. The point of the article is that some districts with tiny numbers of Republican voters send the same number of delegates as districts where it's easier to weigh the Republican vote, which obviously gives those voters a disproportionate influence in the final candidate selection.

Of course, since the Presidential election is also done on a state by state basis then this is only sensible.

So is Carson imploding like Herman Cain?

Looks like it.
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2 ... t-not-care

Ben Carson admits fabricating West Point scholarship

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/11/b ... int-215598

rickyp wrote:So is Carson imploding like Herman Cain?

Looks like it.
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2 ... t-not-care

Ben Carson admits fabricating West Point scholarship

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/11/b ... int-215598

The story is false.

No one gets a "scholarship" to West Point. No one.

Everyone has to get an appointment. No one pays. They are obligated afterwards, which is why Carson never applied. He knew he wanted to be a doctor so he pursued that.

Change your underwear.

Btw, I don't support Carson. I do think this is a great example of the press wanting something so bad that they will misrepresent the facts and make something appear to be a "scandal" when it is nothing of the sort.

Even Politico has modified its headline as their understanding of this has "evolved."

Re Politico, check here: http://hotair.com/archives/2015/11/06/u ... cceptance/

The issue is not whether there is a full scholarship to the academy; the issue is whether Cardon said that he had received such an offer. Arguing that the story is false because there is no scholarship to the academy--you have to get an appointment--is not a valid argument. If Carson said--as Politico says he has been saying over the years--that he got a full scholarship from the academy as a way to burnish his credentials, that puffing reflects on his character. Period. Given that the statement is in his autobiography...pretty hard to explain.

freeman3 wrote:The issue is not whether there is a full scholarship to the academy; the issue is whether Cardon said that he had received such an offer. Arguing that the story is false because there is no scholarship to the academy--you have to get an appointment--is not a valid argument. If Carson said--as Politico says he has been saying over the years--that he got a full scholarship from the academy as a way to burnish his credentials, that puffing reflects on his character. Period. Given that the statement is in his autobiography...pretty hard to explain.

Nonsense.

It's not hard at all. An Army officer tells you West Point offers free tuition, free books, and free room and board. As a poor high school kid, how would you summarize it? I'd call it "a scholarship."

Did he apply to West Point? No. Can you get an appointment without applying? No.

Next.

Don't worry about it. I'm sure the press will now turn to other contemporary concerns--like: did Hillary really know what she was doing when she invested in cattle futures? What did Hillary mean when she said she landed in Bosnia and took sniper fire?

"Later I was offered a full scholarship to West Point. I didn't refuse the scholarship outright but I let them know that a military career was not where I saw myself going. As overjoyed as I felt to be offered such a scholarship I wasn't really tempted. The scholarship would have obligated me to spend four years in military service after I finished college..."

This is not really a debatable matter unless you are a card- carrying member of the flat earth society. The statement is not ambiguous. People tend to know when they have been offered something and when they have been informed about something.

I'd be more concerned about his belief that the pyramids were built by Joseph to store grain.

freeman3 wrote:"Later I was offered a full scholarship to West Point. I didn't refuse the scholarship outright but I let them know that a military career was not where I saw myself going. As overjoyed as I felt to be offered such a scholarship I wasn't really tempted. The scholarship would have obligated me to spend four years in military service after I finished college..."

This is not really a debatable matter unless you are a card- carrying member of the flat earth society. The statement is not ambiguous. People tend to know when they have been offered something and when they have been informed about something.

Sorry, I think you are flat-out wrong. If you took the same approach toward Hillary's statements, you'd be calling for her to be hung.

Sassenach wrote:I'd be more concerned about his belief that the pyramids were built by Joseph to store grain.

And, I agree.

This was from 1998, I believe. I'm not sure what his point was as I've only seen a clip. However, his religious views may play a part.

He confirmed the other day that it's still his belief. In a sense this is trivial of course, but it's also indicative of seriously flawed judgement and poor reasoning skills.