Please, Rigoberta Menchu (that worked to denounce the abuses for the then supported by the USA Guatemalan military) was crucified in the right wing media for her auto-biography because she was creative with some facts of her past *, try again.
The main critic of Menchu had to say in the end that the human rights abuses by the Guatemalan government were very real, and the executions mentioned by her happened whether Rigoberta actually witnessed them or not.
Try again too for this one, as I pointed before the suspiciously specific denial of Carson is not the only problem with his West Point meeting.
Given how long ago it happened, I’m not sure what anyone is trying to prove there. Carson will always have plausible deniability given that he told the story from memory.
If true, perhaps that’s because most candidates have a record of elective office to criticize. Carson has nothing but his biography, and his biography goes to great lengths to say how honest and genuine he is.
It now appears that he is a pathological liar. The West Point thing, by itself, would have gotten a pass even from me. A kid can mishear, or misunderstand. But there’s no way he can plead youthful ignorance for the several different versions of his physical attacks on friends, or saving people during riots (and O’Reilly may sue him for stealing that one), or the absolutely ridiculous story about his Yale psych class.
But I still say that in any sane country, the pyramid thing would be all anyone should need to see that he’s not fit to lead a barbershop quartet.
Is saying you landed under sniper fire and that all your grandparents were immigrants also a sign of pathological lying?
Unlike Carson’s supposed lie, those can’t be chalked up to forgetfulness. Carson’s stories seem more akin to Liz Warren claiming that her family has Cherokee blood, something has not been corroborated, which obviously makes her unfit for office.
And I pointed before that I do not care much for that, the important thing I got from this is that Carson showed a lack of judgment about who he pointed as the persons that were with him in the past. It is also how Carson reacts to contradictory information that tell us how he will act as president. So far the buck does not stop with him as the media is the scapegoat. And I do not think that everything what he did during the protests against the Vietnam war has been revealed.
And Carson is a quack too (bad Manna), that cannot be put under the plausible deniability rug.
If Ben Carson’s a quack, then Johns Hopkins has quite a scandal on their hands.
You really have not paid attention, (indeed this is what a low information voter is all about)** in fact most quacks out there do become experts and get fame in one field and then jump to woo woo when they realize that jumping to be spokespersons of miracle cures gives them more money.** (And it does not need to be a cure related to their former career, many people are indeed very gullible as soon as they see that a real doctor is peddling a quack cure)
Neither can the Yale story. And at least Hillary’s claim didn’t make you laugh out loud before you even started checking it.
But once again, if someone with a 20-year public policy record is caught lying, it’s something you weigh against her accomplishments. If someone with nothing but his reputation for honesty is caught lying, and also makes it clear that he is a loon, then he has nothing left.
He has his biography. He did in fact grow up poor and did in fact become the country’s most renowned neurosurgeon.
And therefore he should know better, but he showed that he did not with Mannatech.
He’s not a bum, he’s a jerk!
He isn’t a failure in life. Nobody’s saying he is. He is, however, deeply dishonest and utterly irrational on important issues. Not misinformed: Irrational. He was misinformed at the beginning of the campaign, but now that he’s had time to remedy that lack of information and has chosen not to, he’s proven himself to be irrational. We can’t tolerate someone like that in the White House.
All that plus the fact he’s a scammer means he’s unfit to lead.
And the answer to the question Carson asks:"So, you know, I would say to the people of America — do you think I’m a pathological liar like CNN does? Or do you think I’m an honest person? I’m going to leave that up to the American people to make that decision.”?
Well let’s see. You state things that are untrue. If not a liar then very delusional … personally I’d give that latter option some very serious consideration. They are not lies if you believe the delusions I guess.
Think of the ad possibility though! “Ben Carson. So much an outsider he doesn’t even share the same reality!”
Like he said, the people will judge. I do agree that he took a bit of a hit, but how much is unclear given that everyone has plausible deniability when relating stories from their youth. The Mannatech thing is more damaging than anything the media was unable to corroborate about his youth.
Al Gore, 2000. Love Story, Love Canal, all that. And the media made it look like he’d been making up stuff, even though it turned out that all the stories were true.
So we can dispense with the notion that this sort of examination of what a candidate has said about his own past has never happened before. It damned well has, and it happened to a much better man than this fruit loop.
Yeah, but if he’s down to that basic fact, and it turns out he’s been fabricating large chunks of the rest of his personal history to make a better story, then as you pointed out, "Carson’s appeal is his honesty. Call that into question and there’s nothing else there."
Well, it’s not just being called into question, it’s starting to look as solid as a house of cards.
QFT.
First they have to demonstrate that he actually lied about something. And Clinton defenders have to use the same standard of proof that they expect of her critics.
I’m sorry, what’s been going on in the last few pages of this thread?
Other than Mannatech, I’ve seen nothing. The Politico story about West Point was just total garbage since Carson never claimed he applied, and the childhood stuff hasn’t been debunked because it’s unfalsifiable.If we’re going by Clinton standards, there isn’t even a lie in Mannatech, since he lawyered the issue by narrowly defining what “involvement” means. Clinton fans would have accepted such an explanation without objection.
He said, “I was offered a full scholarship to West Point.” That is a verbatim quote, recorded only one month ago, and it is flatly, objectively, untrue.
It’s not a lie, because as a young man that’s what he thought he heard from Westmoreland. IT’s a claim made of ignorance, especially since Carson didn’t know that West Point doesn’t have scholarships since they don’t charge tuition.