One of the worst aspects of the CNN Republican debate on Thursday night was the discussion about the supposed dangers of vaccinations for children, which many uninformed people and conspiracy theorists think causes autism.
Nothing could be further from the truth, but when Donald Trump, a non doctor, makes it an issue in the debate, gullible people tend to take it as gospel!
And when Dr. Benjamin Carson, a pediatric neurologist, and Dr. Rand Paul, an ophthalmologist, say that vaccinations could be dangerous and are unwise to some extent, that is alarming, as the spread of serious diseases that were once overcome by vaccinations in the past 50 years, now become a danger to public health!
If some children are not vaccinated properly and on a schedule, that can lead to an epidemic, as happened with measles in California, recently.
What is it about the Republican Party that they reject medical knowledge widely accepted, with even medical doctors who are candidates for the Presidency, acting like quacks?
And then add the rejection of science—refusal to believe in evolution, and denial of global warming and climate change—and we are back to medieval views of medicine and science in the 21st century!
Some correction about what Ben Carson said in the debate. He said there have been numerous studies and they have not demonstrated that there is any correlation between vaccinations and autism.
CNN fact checked that what he said is true. http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/16/politics/republican-debate-fact-check/
Thanks for the correction, but the whole discussion among Carson, Paul, and Trump was counterproductive, in that conspiracy theorists were emboldened by the discussion that vaccinations MIGHT cause autism!
That’s right. Even though Carson hedged on the issue, he at least mentioned about the studies. Of course, the conspiracy theorists will always be conspiracy theorists.
About the debate in general CNN’s format was awful. The entire effort was intended to instigate fights between and among the candidates. They wanted a brawl. The early part of the debate was the worst — right out of the box, piling on Donald Trump. Like Trump or not, this is a Republican debate not a media debate. When will the RNC stop turning over the GOP debates to the media? I find these debate formats demeaning of the candidates and not particularly informative. Tapper repeatedly sought a fight between Jeb Bush and Trump, which is why they wound up using more time than most of the other candidates. Did we learn anything from most of it? No.
I believe the establishment media were poised to declare Carly Fiorina a victor over Trump and most of the field as she has become one of the establishment favorites. The indications were everywhere. In fact, most of the same voices and writers who opposed Trump and before him Cruz are singing her praises today. They are no longer concerned about lack of governing background of an outsider or flip-flopping, etc. I remember in the 2010 GOP Senate primary race in California she staked out the moderate Republican position against State Representative Chuck DeVore. She didn’t sound like a traditional, Reagan conservative back then. And her response to the birthright citizenship questions were wrong and jumbled. In fact, Trump has a superior understanding of the issue. Rand Paul reluctantly had to agreed. And in that Senate campaign, Fiorina mocked Barbara Boxer’s looks (understandable), a fact ignored by Tapper last night. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8XtPMq9xxOY ) Why? The audio is public. Finally, her record as a corporate CEO is mixed. But do not expect it to be scrutinized by her cheerleaders in and out of the media. But the Democrats won’t ignore it.
From a conservative perspective this is how the debate went. Twice now Ted Cruz was treated as a third-tier candidate. He received very little time and was rarely called on. Moreover, when he tried to speak as a”skeptic” during the discussion about global warming – where Marco Rubio, Scott Walker, and Chris Christie apparently accepted the supposed “science” of global warming — Jake Tapper rudely cut him off. When Cruz had about 60 uninterrupted seconds or so to address the Iran deal debacle, he was superb. Same with the Supreme Court. There appears to be a pattern in these debate to marginalize him. Unfortunately, given the nature of these debates, he needs to become a bit more aggressive in pushing his way into the discussions. Chris Christie did pretty well. He’s a good debater. But the problem is that his record belies much of his more recent conservative rhetoric and positions. Mike Huckabee always scores some solid points but, again, his record is shoddy (e.g., he supported virtually every GOP establishment candidate in recent Senate primary races). I remain perplexed as to why John Kasich belatedly jumped into the race. He has become more liberal than GOP primary voters and there were already a number of establishment candidates in the race. I like Ben Carson very much; however, his position on the minimum wage was not particularly strong. And his delivery is, sadly, problematic. There’s a middle ground between loudly provocative and speaking in such quiet tones. That said, I personally like him very much. Rand Paul did much better this time around in staking out his more libertarian views. But, again, his attack-dog tactics against Trump don’t help him. Scott Walker is a solid conservative with a record to prove it. He did better in this debate but he doesn’t shine in these debate formats. Conversely, Marco Rubio does well in these debate formats. And he is solid on a number of issues. However, for many it is difficult to get past his varying positions on immigration, which is an overriding issue for many conservatives. Jeb Bush did better in this debate as well, but he is still under-performing. In fact, many in the establishment media who were touting Bush are today cheerleaders for Fiorina. Had Bush scored well they’d be touting him. If his name was not Bush, he would have been in the earlier debate yesterday. Finally, Trump came under an early withering assault, which was the game plan of both CNN and several of the other candidates. For the most part, he withstood the attacks. I may be in the minority but I thought he bested Fiorina on their back-and-forth about business acumen and birthright citizenship. In any event, he did no harm. And for a front runner, at least for now, that’s a good enough night. This is how the debate came down from a conservative point of view.
The ratings dropped for the second debate.
http://www.politicususa.com/2015/09/17/cnns-trump-hysteria-backfires-republican-debate-ratings-drop.html
Like that says, the Trump novelty is probably wearing off and the other Republican candidates don’t make good TV.
Biggest winner of the CNN debate was Bernie’s social media comments. 🙂
http://www.politicususa.com/2015/09/16/biggest-winner-cnn-republican-debate-bernie-sanders.html
Speaking of climate change, a few have broken rank recently and admitted that it’s real. http://www.forwardprogressives.com/group-house-republicans-admits-climate-change-real-ahead-popes-visit/
Rustbelt Democrat, it is good to see SOME intelligence and acceptance of science among some Republicans, but most still refuse to accept science and let religion and mythology rule their brains!
Cool. Now, they just need to break ranks on Norquistian economics, shrill misogynistic anti-Planned Parenthood mania, NRA-pandering . . .
Gives me hope that at least some Republicans are seeing the dire straits that this planet is in and that it is better to be honest and take a stand rather than take the money from big business to preserve the myth that humans are playing no part in climate change.
Obama and Trump the A Team. Who ever thinks Trump is a conservative is insane. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ex2xA2LZU-g
Soooo not amused.
Fiorina’s the flavor of the week because the establishment media thinks she can take out Trump. It’s not that they like her. This is the mistake some Republicans are making. It’s not that they like Fiorina. For example, they never liked McCain. They just made him think they did and everybody else. They don’t like any Republican. This is something very important that Republicans have got to understand once and for all. And the reason is very, very important, because this is how they choose Republican nominees for them. This is how they choose Republican candidates, by making Republicans think they like them.
There are way too many Republicans who are still dreaming of the day when the mainstream media takes their side. And so when the media comes out now and start acting like they love Fiorina, “Ah, there’s our ticket!” just like they did with McCain. After this performance they’re hyping Fiorina, for a whole host of reasons, primarily to get rid of Trump. But the media is not ever going to like any Republican nominees, and they’re never going to support any of them in a presidential election. So it’s important for Republicans to understand, especially conservatives when they watch this, it’s not that they love Carly Fiorina. They love what supporting her now might enable to them to accomplish, and that is get rid of a Republican who can win. Meaning any conservative who can win. And let’s remember that Fiorina was the moderate establishment runner during the California primary against conservative candidate State Representative Chuck DeVore. The mainstream media, is never going to support a Republican, much less a conservative Republican, and if Republicans continue to define political success as the media supporting them and not supporting a Democrat, they’re never gonna be happy, because that’s never going to happen. And if that remains their measure of success, then they’re gonna get fooled each and every time. Because after Fiorina they’ll come up with somebody else that they like all of a sudden, or make it look like they like. That’s what’s going on here. Not hard to see.
LOL! None of those far right candidates in the clown car is going to win because they are too extreme for the middle of the road voters.
Hateful rhetoric like this is why the Teabags will not be president. http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/ben-carson-does-not-believe-muslim-should-be-president
Talking about doctors I came upon this inspiring news report. While in America some support the slaughter of un-born babies (aka fetus, aka blob of cells) by “doctors” in the harvesting organs business called Planned Parenthood, in other parts of the world real doctors who find themselves in the middle of death and destruction manage to save the life of an un-born baby that was injured with shrapnel while in the mothers womb. It’s just a blob of cells pro-abortionist would say, correct?. Does this child look like a god-damned blob of cells? ( http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-09-19/doctors-save-syrian-baby-wounded-in-utero-by-shrapnel/6788528 ) It’s clearly a third trimester “fetus” which would qualify here to be a late term abortion. Now I wonder which politician is “pro-choice” even if its a later term abortion , that is during the third trimester?( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8YEvBTwDqBY ) I wonder which politician opposes a ban on late term abortion? ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1iV2Ln1EEww) Oh yes , our dear leader, President Obama. He is such a humanitarian. Like I always say, some save lives, like Dr. Carson while others don’t give a damn.
We’re still unamused by Ariel the troll.
The Pope is going to be speaking to Congress. Teabags don’t want him to talk about important issues.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/21/politics/pope-francis-congress-republicans-politics/index.html
Abortion is going to happen, whether it’s legal or illegal. I believe that clean, sterile environments should be an option rather than a back alley where so many in the past have been done.
I don’t believe the government should be in charge of my body and/or my decision.
I’m pro-choice because the idea of one size fits all medical care for women absolutely infuriates me. It’s not always as simple as “just have the baby†because some women may die if their pregnancy is not terminated. And if those women have other children, a choice of a baby brother or sister vs. a mother–because a pregnancy can be a do or die situation–shouldn’t be the decision of a lawmaker who far too often is male and just plain doesn’t “get itâ€. So I’m pro-choice. Always have been. Likely always will be.
All people I know ( including me) are pro-life.
No person has ever said: “Yes, let’s rejoice in abortionâ€.
The difference is, some of us who are pro-life, mean all life, and also believe, that women must have the choice when it comes to giving birth to another human being. That is truly pro-life, because the life of a potential mother is, every bit as sacred as the life of a potential baby.
Women who suffer abortions have many reasons for their decision. None of those reasons are petty, or without merit.
Whether women’s reasons are financial, they have been raped, they have had all the children they can take good care of, the fetus is not viable, whether they feel they are too old or too young, or a myriad of other reasons too numerous to describe.
There must ALWAYS be legal, medically safe, and financially available means for women to decide for themselves
as to the choices for their bodies and their lives.
Well said ladies!
Southern LIberal, I agree with what you have said one hundred percent, and no man should tell a woman what she must do, anymore than a woman telling a man to have a vasectomy!
Planned Parenthood is more than just abortions. Most of their services is providing affordable general healthcare for women, such as important cancer screenings.
Exactly Rustbelt! The Teabags stupidly don’t think about such things when they talk about defunding Planned Parenthood.
Oh boy, I seem to have touch a nerve. What a reaction! But it is clear that none of you read my post correctly. I was clearly talking about LATE TERM ABORTION, that is after 18-20 weeks. Nowhere did I write I would ban abortion in its entirety. I was simply referring to those people who oppose banning late term abortion and are pro-choice all the way up to 9 months and even support post-partum abortion and then dismiss those who oppose late term abortion on the grounds that the “fetus” is just a “cluster of cells”. This is all I am talking about. And in the video they asked Obama clearly when he replied he is pro-choice..”Even in cases of late term abortion?” and he reiterated “I am pro-choice.” So just to be clear: a) I wasn’t talking about the “day after pill”. b) I wasn’t talking about contraceptives. c) I wasn’t talking about the first trimester abortion and d) I was not excluding exceptions (even in late term abortions) such as when the option is clear cut between the life of the mother and the life of the child, or in cases of rape. I was just talking about later term abortion, post 18-20 weeks, on demand and for whatever reason. And before some of you go off on the legal argument and say it is constitutional, first) I am not making an legal argument (though post Roe case law has limited late term abortion) but an ethical/moral humanistic argument (not even a religious argument) against late term abortion. My ethical/moral humanistic argument is based on the question on whether that human being in fetal stage of development has value or not? Those who say no, then of course would ethically and morally support late term abortion on demand for whatever reason. Thus as a consequence would vote against a ban on late term abortion, as Obama did. And I was also contrasting doctors who did and do everything to save the life of the child in the womb, like Dr. Carson (who operated on fetuses while in the womb to save their lives) and these Syrian doctors, with those “doctors” that perform abortions up to 20 and even more weeks. That is all I am saying.
LOL! Spin, spin, spin!
Late term abortions make up about 1% of total abortions. Many of them are due to health issues, not only of the mother, but the fetus/baby as well.
Some patients don’t know they’re pregnant. This can sound like the stuff of reality shows, but it’s actually not uncommon. For many people, no symptoms of pregnancy are experienced, so it can take a while to learn that they’re pregnant. Sometimes it’s because they were on birth control and don’t get normal periods, sometimes they’re dealing with other physical problems and don’t notice the signs.
For others, there can be an element of denial. “If I don’t act on this, it will just go away.” Terrified to tell their parents and deal with the pregnancy, many young people who become pregnant fall into this category. This state of denial can also come from a paralysis of coping mechanisms, which is often experienced by those who have been victims of past trauma.
There are many patients who cannot afford their abortion earlier in the pregnancy, and end up “chasing the price.†Once the procedure goes past 12 weeks, the price often goes up hundreds by the week, and this can leave many struggling to get the money as each week the price goes up even higher.
But it is NOT because of selfish reasons, such as wanting to fit into a prom dress or swimsuit, as the GOTea likes to mythologize.
Thank you for that excellent post Pragmatic. Those ethical/moral humanistic examples are why I am pro-choice, even late in the pregnancy.
Same with me Southern Liberal.
I think it’s hypocritical that the GOTea is “pro-life” before the child is born but not “pro-life” after the child is born by ensuring that the child does not have access to quality healthcare, education, etc.
Agreed. They want an electorate that is poor, unhealthy, and uneducated.
One percent is approximately 15,000 late term abortions per year. So let me be clear, those of you who want no restriction whatsoever on late term abortions agree that a woman for whatever reason can abort even if she is 8.9 months pregnant? In other words lets say just one of the 15,000 late term abortion was because of a ‘state of denial” as Pragmatic Progressive states, then you all agree that the woman who was in denial of her pregnancy can abort even past the 8 months? Correct? Let’s say 1 of the 15,000 late term abortion is because of that reason. Then the 8 and half month baby/fetus (have anyone of you ever asked a pregnant friend “How is the fetus coming along”?) has no value whatsoever and thus can be aborted/killed if the “mother” chooses to? Correct? That would be your position as well as Obama’s, right? Just wanting to be sure I understood.
Ariel – The ladies here (Pragmatic, Princess Leia, Southern Liberal) already gave their answers about that. I side with them as well.
Ariel – I have a friend who had a late term abortion when she was 18. It wasn’t an easy decision for her to make.
Ariel’s comments about it show a lack of empathy. It’s not an “on demand” thing. It’s a very tough and emotional choice for women to make.
Pragmatic: On demand simply means “for whatever reason no questions asked by authorities”. And that is exactly what most of you here are in favor of. So I suggest you quit sugar coating the issue. Or do you not agree that a woman has a right to abort “for whatever reason no questions asked” at whatever stage of the pregnancy, whether it be 1 day or 9 months, without intervention form authorities to protect the unborn child? Be brave and admit it just like it is.
This sums up what we believe:
Unless we want to go back to the Middle Ages, women should have the right to make their own choices regarding their bodies and their lives in general. Someone else’s beliefs about life and God should not be imposed on them. The government should absolutely not intervene in this decision-making process. If a woman is a firm believer in God and considers abortion a crime, she probably will not choose to have one. But it would be her own choice, not somebody else’s.
It’s exactly as Southern Liberal summed up. We’re not “sugar coating” anything.
Teabags plan for women: Barefoot, pregnant, and economically dependent.
http://www.politicususa.com/2013/07/22/republican-plan-women-barefoot-pregnant-economically-dependant.html
Thanks for that excellent article! They know we’re a threat to them as voters so it’s all about trying to exert control over us!
Are you saying that limiting abortion after 20 weeks is somehow taking us back to the middle ages? So for example Sweden that has an 18 months gestational limit on abortion is living in the middle ages? Interesting…
Ladies,
Once again the GOTea is hypocritical. They whine about less government involvement yet they are trying to push what they whine about.
Rustbelt: Wrong again. Abortion is a state issue, not a federal government issue. The federal government has no authority , no jurisdiction to regulate abortion. As always liberals confuse supporting the separation of powers and a constitutional federal government that is limited to its constitutional jurisdiction with wanting less government in general.
Exactly right Rustbelt!
Some food for thought for the hypocritical Teabags. http://www.thenation.com/article/when-it-comes-womans-right-choose-texas-really-better-europe/
I agree with Southern Liberal, and abortion should NOT be a state issue, but rather a federal government issue, so that women do not have to cross state lines.
And Princess Leia says perfectly what the Tea Party reactionaries want women to be!
Well Ronald, if you want it to be a state issue then propose an amendment and convince your fellow citizens.
It should NOT be a state issue, as women’s rights in all areas should be universal, not based on state machinations.
And the Supreme Court ruled on abortions in 1973, and there should be no change in that basic right of women!
I remind you that the court ruled “Gonzales v. Carhart” in 2007. I respectfully suggest you read it so you as to bring yourself up to date. http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2006/2006_05_380/
I am aware, but the Court,while it must be obeyed, is not always correct in its judgments.