Hillary Clinton.
How about a little context. Who or what region did she say this about?
Sorry if it’s in this thread and I just can’t find it, but I can’t.
Apparently Hillary Clinton said it about Libya.
Here is an article about what’s going on currently:
So then, not a lie by Hillary at all?
Yeah, I looked that up after you mentioned it, and I’m not seeing the big scandal. Rand was board certified in the traditional way, and then he (along with 200 other board-certified Ophthamologists) quit in protest over what looks like a crony decision to allow a bunch of people to skip having to recertify every 10 years like others do. So he formed (along with the others) an alternate board, and now he’s not practicing so his certification lapsed. Big deal. It’s not like he has a pretend certification and a bogus degree or anything.
I am absolutely not informed on the matter. I found this article after doing a search on the quote and finding the context. I really don’t know how accurate the ICC investigation was.
I’m not sure what region is referred to there, but are you seriously saying that there is some region of the world where rape does not take place?
The list is laughable.
How’s Cruz gonna turn *that *around?
According to that poll, Paul Ryan has the best shot. But that poll is next to meaningless. The reason Clinton beats them all so handily is that she has much more name recognition than any of them, and so far the only time they’ve heard from Cruz or Paul is when they’re getting negative press. The only reason Ryan is in the lead is because people remember him from the last election.
We’re now going into that part of the election cycle when the bizarre dance begins. Candidates will be declared unelectable, then unbeatable. We’ll pontificate over the results of stupid straw polls and the election will probably be declared for someone two or three times along the way.
In the end, it’s the last few weeks that matter. What we’re going to learn in the early days are things like how strong their organizations are, whether they have enough money to make a full run, who the movers and shakers are leaning towards, and all that. That’s what gets sorted out in the primaries.
I’ll make a prediction: In the end, the next election will be close, and the lead will change at least once. The race will probably still be open going into the last week.
Plus, any of these candidates on both sides are capable of ‘breakout moments’, where some issue breaks their way or they make a particularly powerful speech or debate performance. Those are completely unpredictable.
That may occur. But it’s still a terrible prediction*, since we don’t have a clear idea about what the 2016 economy will be like. We do know that the nonincumbant party is weakly favored (IIRC) and we can say it’s probable that there will be no large war going on.
I predict that the Fair model will continue to hold. I would be tickled to see it collapse though. It could happen: Dukkakis was a terrible candidate/significant outlier.
- Except for “Lead changing at least once”. That’s a nice construction.
The CPAC poll tells us a little. Often the eventual Republican nominee comes in 2nd place. But this year the 2nd place finisher was Cruz, who won’t be nominated in 2016. So that just emphasizes how up in the air 2016 is. Let’s take a look at the 3 invisible primary candidates and tack on Christie. Then I’ll add the 2 straw polling percentages.
Jeb Bush: 0%, 2%
Scott Walker: 7, 7
Paul Ryan: 3, 2
Chris Christie: 0, 10
Jeez, does anybody have more official figures?
There are 2 races here. One is for a Fox News contract/Rubber chicken award. The other is the conciliation prize of the Republican nomination. On the conciliation level, Scott Walker is punching above his weight and Paul Ryan still has some work to do. In terms of the main event, Ted Cruz and Dr. Ben Carson are doing quite well. And the Paul family business is moving from success to success.
Strong maybe. Best, not on your life. I have been pretty disappointed and voted for him twice and would do so again.
He formed an alternate board and then certified himself. Yeah, sounds legit.
He was already board certified under the traditional method. And he didn’t ‘certify himself’, he worked with 200 other ophthalmologists to create a new certification board. And anyway, it would be totally legitimate to grant certification under a new board to people already certified under the existing regime. If I work with a bunch of engineers to create new certification for ‘control engineers’, and grandfather in anyone who already has a P.Eng, I’m not doing anything wrong.
As scandals go, this is incredibly weak tea.
He didn’t work with 200 other opthalmologists. He created the organization out of thin air. The “board” was made up of him, his non-physician wife, and his non-physician father-in-law. The NBO never told anyone who its “200” members were and never explained what its certification procedures entailed. It was a fiction.
I’m curious as to whom you feel was the best president in your lifetime.
It’s not much of a scandal in that there’s nothing illegal about it. After all, a speciality board is just a group of people who vouch for the professional credentials of an individual, and its legitimacy is based on nothing but getting hospital credentialing boards to accept it as legitimate. Paul’s dad being in Congress probably didn’t hurt that any, since political muscle pulls a lot of weight with hospital administrations.
But while it’s not scandalous, exactly, it does tell us a lot about Rand Paul.
The grandfather clause he was supposedly incensed about was a political compromise. The specialty “boards” are just that–boards of people who vote on issues like this. Nearly all of them enacted some sort of recertification process in the 80s and 90s; it became clear that vouching for someone 20 years out of residency whose only updates were going to Vegas every couple of years and sleeping through a few classes between hookers was not going to serve their profession well. Unfortunately, a lot of people on these boards believed that the boards existed to serve the members rather than the profession, and they weren’t about to vote for anything that made things harder on themselves. So the grandfather clause was a necessary compromise.
So rather than live with such a compromise, Paul’s response was to get all pissy and start his own board. It’s just not the response of a reasonable human being, IMO.
I also don’t buy for a second that this was a principled protest against the grandfathering in of the pre-'92 ophthos. Paul was pissed because he didn’t want to have to do the recertification. I don’t really blame him; my recert comes up next year, and I’m dreading the hell out of it. But I understand why I have to do it, and I recognize that sometimes I have to suck things up and deal with them to serve the greater good, neither of which appears to be true of Rand Paul.
That part–the question of whether this was a principled stand or just a hissy fit–could be settled with a simple question: what was his NBO’s policy on recertification? Did they also require it every ten years?
I know it makes me sound like one of the anti-Obama crazies to say it, but…this is a story that was way underreported. Or, more correctly, underinvestigated. I get why it was hard. You’d think that with 200 ophthos reportedly involved it wouldn’t be hard to find one, but I would expect a sort of inadvertent omerta among them, since in my experience surgeons (especially the well-paid ones like ophthos) are relentlessly mercenary about voting their pocketbooks, and it’s hard to see the downside of Senator Paul for any of them. Same goes for the hospital board in Bowling Green. Of course, up to this point such investigation has been a job for the Kentucky press, with its limited pull and resources; if Paul’s Presidential campaign ever becomes serious, we’ll get the whole story on this.
Then again, I don’t think his campaign will ever get serious, because Paul is an asshole and not the least bit personally likable. He’s a bomb thrower who the Republicans have wisely (though reluctantly) allowed to be inside the tent pissing out rather than outside the tent pissing in, but they’ll only support him so far and he doesn’t have the substance to go the distance despite them.
Also, the fact that we know so little about Paul’s board is a major problem with it. The board under which I’m certified has a web site where you can enter my name and verify my certification and when it expires. It also has a list of all of the board members as well as all the information about the requirements and process for board certification.
Paul’s NBO has none of that, mostly because it has only existed spottily–from 1997-2000, and briefly in 2005 when Paul’s “real” (ABO) certification ran out and he had to recertify. And this was Paul’s only active certification from 2005-2010, the last five years of his practice. If the process isn’t public, or at least the people signing off aren’t public, then it’s really meaningless.
If Paul wasn’t the only person certified by the NBO when it was resurrected in 2005, then there should be other eye docs out there who are NBO certified, even if they did have the standard 10-year recert cycle (which I highly doubt). So who are they?