Umm, no. Believing that evolution is the work of Satan has no place in the mind of the surgeon general.
Well, sure. I mean, we elected her predecessor with <4 years in the Senate and none in a Cabinet, and we elected his predecessor with <6 years as a Governor and none in a Cabinet, so it’s, like, the definition of reasonable.
Heh. Funny you should challenge me on that. Thanks to the e-mail scandal, and the e-mails that have been made public, we now know that Hillary Clinton (as Sec of State) knew almost immediately that it was a planned terrorist attack, and the protest was irrelevant, except as a cover. She could have set the record straight right then, instead of feigning ignorance and claiming it wasn’t important. That she didn’t speaks poorly to her character and judgement.
BTW, we can make a pretty good guess why she didn’t own up to this stuff. It’s because the Obama administration gave weapons to the Libyan rebels (via intermediaries in Dubai), and it was those very same rebels who staged the attack. Here’s where that :smack: goes.
Stop lying?
Or is that too much to ask?
Slee
I’d rather vote for someone besides Hillary, and I’m sure there are Democrats with better credentials, but she’s no slouch. I can’t see a valid criticism that she doesn’t have the needed experience. Two-term Senator plus SecState.
Only if the GOP agrees to do the same.
Is that too much to ask?
So, ok. Hillary Clinton, on paper, is qualified for the job. What hasn’t been answered here is what differentiates her from a standard paper pushing government bureaucrat who only does “the party line” in her decision making? Conventional wisdom isn’t always the right move. There are also numerous situations the President must encounter where there isn’t a clear correct choice, and his/her advisors may give conflicting advice. A good president, other than having “experience” filling offices, needs to be someone you can trust to reason it out and come up with a good decision.
SecState = paper pushing bureaucrat? She was 3rd in line to be president. Your objections don’t mesh with reality.
They’re all professional politicians so… fuck, yes, it’s too much to ask.
Money and preexisting popularity. What do you want, a group IQ test?
4th in line after the VP, the House Speaker, and the Senate president pro tem, innit?
Donald Trump had a wealthy father, but plenty of people have wealthy parents and don’t become household names. He completed many complicated building projects. And now gets paid millions of dollars for people to use his name because of how well he has built up the brand. That may not be qualifications to be president but it is very impressive and speaks to his intelligence, drive, hard work, and media savvy. Making crazy campaign promises is the way to get elected. The last guy who won promised to heal the planet.
Ben Carson does not strike me as angry at all. He is mild mannered and never seems to lose his cool. He overcome a horrible upbringing to become one of the best in the world at a very difficult profession. He is probably one of the most intelligent people to ever run for president since Herbert Hoover. Saying he has no understanding of the scientific method or rational thought is either willful delusion or crazy hyperbole.
He may understand it, but he doesn’t seem very interested in it.
Intellegent? He thinks the planet is 6,000 years old and that dinosaurs lived with people. My 6 year-old son could educate him.
One must hope it’s an act, calculated to attract the modern GOP electorate.
This is factually incorrect.
I get that this might just be casual hyperbole, but I haven’t the slightest idea what you base this assertion on.
He had a wealthy father who handed him a New York City real estate empire and he made some additional money in (surprise!) New York City real esteate; by many analyses, had he cashed out that inheritance and simply put it into an index fund he would be worth much, much more money today.
In other words, he is not a good businessman in any way.
Citation needed. You make like 3-4 pretty significant claims in here, and offer absolutely no citation. I’m not about to go dumpster-diving in the pit that the right-wing media has become to go looking for what you’re talking about.
Strictly speaking, in order to become a neurosurgeon, you have to :
- Get into college and pass a fairly difficult set of required premed courses with an A or B. Organic Chemistry being the toughest.
- Have an overall GPA from college of about 3.6 to 4.0, although the year you apply to medical school matters as the competition alternates in difficulty.
- Do well on a competitively ranked national exam called the MCATs. You don’t “pass” this exam : the score is statistical. The exam tests both knowledge of basic science, verbal ability, and to an extent, intelligence. This is because each section is timed and the time is short enough that most people have trouble finishing all of the mental tasks needed to solve each question within the time constraints. (none of the MCAT questions are particularly difficult, there’s a trick usually and they only require basic knowledge of the subjects covered to answer them - kind of like IQ test questions.)
To get into med school you need a score in the top 30% or so of everyone who takes it. Higher is better.
4. Get into medical school, where #1-3 will be scrutinized carefully
5. Do well in medical school, both with excellent grades during the academic portion and excellent marks when other doctors evaluate you.
6. Pass *another *difficult exam, called the USMLE Step 1, with a score that is statistically better than other medical students (like top 30% again)
7. Pass through a second winnowing process where your med school grades, step scores, and all kinds of recommendations get you that slot to train as a neurosurgeon
So, yes, his intelligence was carefully tested. Or was it. To be quite frank, he is a black man. During the era he trained, he may have benefited from affirmative action. Or, there was an era before affirmative action where blacks were actually had to do *better *than whites to, say, become a physician and a neurosurgeon. I don’t know which it was.
With all that said, all this is a series of institutional tests. You can obviously pass em all and still believe the earth is 6k years old, that god tells your preacher what to do, and that evolution is wrong.
You’re wrong about the timeline. It was initially thought that it was due to a film protest.
But some hours later, an Al Quaeda affiliate took credit. It was then that Hillary sent the emails saying it wasn’t due to the film.
Some hours after that, the Quaeda affiliate retracted their claim, so it was then again the assessment of the intelligence community that the attack was related to the film.
Please stop repeating this incorrect information that’s being promulgated by the RW media liars.