Posted on 11/06/2015 11:58:15 PM PST by Cincinatus' Wife
RedState's own Leon Wolf did a great job exposing the Politico story about Ben Carson and West Point as a lie. Washington Post reporter Dave Weigel is also churning out great information on Twitter regarding the story.
I want to focus on what Donald Trump is doing with the story, however.
Yesterday, November 5, Donald Trump had this to say about Politico:
Look, Politico is so dishonest in so many different things. This Politico website or whatever the hell they call it, I mean, they write about me. We don't deal with them anymore because the level of dishonesty is incredible.
Today, November 6, Donald Trump is spreading the false Politico story about Ben Carson. Below is one of the several Trump Tweets citing the Politico piece.
What an incredible turnaround. It appears Trump is willing to do whatever it takes to destroy Carson, who is poised to disrupt his position as GOP frontrunner.
Yesterday, Trump seized on the silly CNN investigation of Carson's childhood. According to Trump, Carson's childhood might be a "total fabrication.?
Ironically, much of Trump's support is due to the perception that he tells the truth and shuns the mainstream media. It is now clear that he will abandon that notion when it suits him politically.
What the hell is Trump thinking?
“Appeal” might not be the right word. “Fascination” may be more like the attention showered upon The Donald, a unique force of nature, in that many are following him in anticipation of what he comes up with next. The unpredictability factor is entertaining, a facet of his character that has been honed and sharpened for a couple of decades now, and he is riding an admittedly ego-driven wave right now.
Now, a person has to have a pretty large ego to even contemplate filling the basic drive to even want such a job, but for some, the ego is the leading edge of a skill set that is clearly not at all equal among those who seek the office. The Donald, in addition to this cutting-edge ego, has a lot of practical experience, and more importantly, the acumen to apply that experience in sometimes highly innovative ways, and with sufficient drive to make these ideas both plausible and possible.
The Donald’s crowning accomplishment is that he is an excellent negotiator, and has parlayed a rather good sized fortune into what is clearly well into the very top range of only a very small percentile of the level of incomes in this country, or the world.
Lying about Ben Carson? What, pay tell, did I lie about?
You are so full of it. You must be knee deep in your own BS by now.
Trump asked a rhetoric questions. If by Monday he still push the media Carson lie, then he will lose my support
Trump was referring to the lies about him made by Politico. What is wrong with Trump attacking a competitor in the Primary? Happens all the time, it’s called politics.
Besides, Red State is virulently anti Trump.
You guys that pile on to CW threads are wasting your time. This person only wants attention, big time, and despises Trump. Stop feeding the trolls. This particular one is fat enough, in fact, Yuuuuuuge! Go Trump! Go Trump Go all the way to the White House!
It’s not over for Carson. The media is asking a laundry list of questions.
- - -
“Ben Carson’s Past Faces Deeper Questions
Wall Street Journal “
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3357384/posts
You stated, within this thread, I think, in reference to Dr. Carson, “The Mannatech thing is clearly a lie.”
No, it is not.
Carson said, “I have no involvement with them.” Then in the next breath, he says, “I was paid for some speeches by them.”
If I were a lawyer who received this testimony on the stand from a sworn witness, I would not say the witness is lying. If I were a prosecutor, I wouldn’t call it prtjury. If I were a judge, I would throw out any perjury charges on the basis of those staements. They are, at most, confused.
The underlying facts are that Dr. Carson, like others, trades off his celebrity the form of paid speeches. Whether one thinks that is good, bad, or indifferent, the paid speaker, even if he uses products of the company paying for the speech, may have a de minimis involvement with the company for which he speaks, but not more. This is especially true for speakers booked through a speaker’s bureau, as is the case here.
Thus, the statement must be understood in the context in which it’s made. The context here is that Dr. Carson is denying substantive involvement even while admitting he served as a paid spokesman. No lie there. Now, if you can find that he was a founder, an employee, a major shareholder, a formally-appointed director, on a board of advisers, or in a similar relationship, then he would have a substantive relationship, and, given the context of hiding remarks, might be lying.
But it is beyond unreasonable to call this a “lie” when the next thing he says is that he was paid for some speeches for the company.
Do you really believe that the late Sen. Thompson was “involved” in reverse mortgages because he extolled their benefits for large sums of money? If so, then perhaps you didn’t knowingly tell a falsehood in this case (a “lie”) but rather, just merely have the naivete of a newborn.
If you take a step back and look at the narrative about Ben (from his own book), there is a lot of the Washington “I cannot tell a lie” aspect to it. It seems romanticized and exaggerated a bit.
As far as the West Point thing goes. He was in JROTC, the smartest guy there. And we are supposed to believe he did not know how the appointment process worked? Come on. Of course he knew. The scholarship offer has no other purpose but to make him look good to us.
What I am starting to realize is that Dr. Carson is not humble at all. He’s extremely arrogant and the closer “they” get to the truth about his past, that it is in large part exaggerated, the more you will see Ben’s true nature come out. Frankly, I doubt the offer was made in the way we are supposed to believe it did, and the inclusion of an historical figure reminds me of the Forrest Gump story. “And then, for no particular reason, General Westmoreland asked me to come to West Point and play ping pong for the Army”
The dustup with CNN was also character revealing to me. How dare you question me!
There is something very not right about Ben Carson. JMO. Feel free to have your own opinion and whatnot.
Here's the full statement:
"Well, that’s easy to answer. I didn’t have an involvement with them. That is total propaganda, and this is what happens in our society. Total propaganda. I did a couple of speeches for them, I do speeches for other people. They were paid speeches. It is absolutely absurd to say that I had any kind of a relationship with them. Do I take the product? Yes. I think it’s a good product.â€
So he denies he had a relationship with then; then asserts that he did paid speeches for them (a relationship); then denies again that he had any kind of a relationship with them.
The hell does any of that mean? Here he is in a press conference giving more info:
"I don’t have any formal relations with Mannatech. They [moderators] can easily find out that any videos I did with them [Mannatech] were not paid for, were things I truly believed. That would be easy to do. If they had another agenda, they could investigate and say, "See, there's nothing there!' But if they have a gotcha agenda, they conveniently ignore all the facts and try to influence public opinion."
OK, so it sounds as if Carson is saying he was never paid for a direct endorsement of Mannatech. Yet he's doing speeches for Mannatech where he talks about how he toyed with relying on Glyconutrients to cure his cancer, and Mannatech is paying money into Carson charities and also to him? Then Carson is doing "unpaid" videos touting Mannatech?
And Carson is still saying he had "no relationship" with them? So what IS a relationship?
The underlying facts are that Dr. Carson, like others, trades off his celebrity the form of paid speeches.
Exactly! So how do you trade off your celebrity and then claim that you had no "formal" relationship? How do you even add the two statements together, "I did paid speeches" and "I had no relationship with them", into the same sentence?
Shades of the Clinton Foundation. Smaller scale, perhaps, but along the same lines.
W did absolutely nothing to secure our borders. W was the worse republican president ever. Anyone that defends W is a fool.
It is interesting how Trump supporters can ignore the fact that he is a major proponent for the result of the Kelo decision which is anti-Constitution and is for Big Government even when unconstitutional if it profits him. This is showing strong principles right???? Ben Carson is an honorable man that understands that it is supposed to be for, of and by the PEOPLE! Thank you for the post.
As to the word “offer”. My granddaughter was looking at a number of boarding prep schools. She focused her attention on those schools who “offered” the most scholarships she was likely to be eligible for. She then applied for those scholarships, was “offered” several and “accepted” the ones of her choosing.
For man of Dr. Carson's academic and profession
accomplishments, this incident probably doesn't hold much consequences. For all you know an editor chose the word when the book was written. Regardless it was well within normal and we'll understood usage You insistence that it is a lie reeks of something g else.
As to the word “offer”. My granddaughter was looking at a number of boarding prep schools. She focused her attention on those schools who “offered” the most scholarships she was likely to be eligible for. She then applied for those scholarships, was “offered” several and “accepted” the ones of her choosing.
For man of Dr. Carson's academic and profession
accomplishments, this incident probably doesn't hold much consequences. For all you know an editor chose the word when the book was written. Regardless it was well within normal and we'll understood usage You insistence that it is a lie reeks of something g else.
You know what amazes me? The idea anyone could believe this incident would change the mind of anyone previously inclined to vote for either of these 2 candidates or that it would cause an as yet undecided individual to reject them.
Truth be told, besides us here on FR and on other sites the vast majority of the population is not at all engaged, nor will they be until around the time of the Conventions.
As I said, in the context of saying both things at once, one is forced to interpret the meaning as no substantive or meaningful relationship.
I think it’s actually kind of refreshing that he really uses the products in good faith. He’s not merely collecting a paycheck.
But I like Dial soap.
And even if they paid me a bunch of money (and a whole lot of free soap), that wouldn’t make me “involved” with the Dial Corporation in any meaningful way.
I guess my perspective comes from knowing paid speakers up close and personal. One of my teachers was a nationally-renowned coach. I saw him “write” books, and give speeches, and make product endorsements. All the kids on the team got free Nike stuff. But I didn’t think he was “invokved” with the Lustine auto group, even if they did give him a new Chevy every year.
Uh, yes it would if you're giving them speeches, appearing in videos, and telling everybody you love the product, while they pump money into your charities. Not even "10 years ago," but as recently as 2013.
Carson has apparently also published a whole bunch of books published within the year, all coming out strategically as soon as he entered national discourse, well, he and his wife, and is sitting on profits from paid speeches/appearances somewhere between 8 million and 30 million dollars alone.
Now this sounds like someone who knows how to make money by selling celebrity. But we're supposed to believe that he's just giving speeches out of the goodness of his own heart? He really believes Glyconutrients could have cured his cancer, but he just decided to get the operation because he was afraid that people-- less diligent than he in taking the nutrients regularly-- might risk their lives? Come on. How gullible do you have to be?
How the hell are you defining "involved" by the way? Totally going over my head here. What is the definition of "involved" and "not involved"?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.