Ben Carson

[J-man]

RP was on my short list but I just can't get excited over a candidate who, in reality, doesn't have a chance to win in the General Election. I agree with him on many issues but it doesn't matter if he can't win.

 

[cptlo]

Another hit piece on Carson.

Records show Ben Carson became Republican less than one year ago

This actually makes me like him more.

 

[lotstodo]

RP was on my short list but I just can't get excited over a candidate who, in reality, doesn't have a chance to win in the General Election. I agree with him on many issues but it doesn't matter if he can't win.

At the beginning of the campaign Rand Paul was the highest polling Republican candidate among Democrats and independents. He is still high on the independents list, and the independent vote will be a huge factor this year. Unfortunately his lack of charisma and the fact that the media has chosen to ignore him both on the campaign trail and in the debates has hurt his message. Were his message to get out as well as Trump's and Carson's, I believe that he would be the Republican's best shot at a win come November. In fact, his shot at a November win is probably much higher were he to be the nominee than his chance of actually becoming the nominee. Quite frankly, I don't see a Republican who could beat Biden right now, and only Carson and Fiorina seem to have a shot at Hillary. But remember, it is still a year away and things change. The "outsiders" tend to fade drastically as the actual election approaches.

If I had to really call it right now, I would say that November will see Biden vs. Rubio with Biden winning in all but the hard core red states. Should Biden choose not to run (I think he will run), Then Hillary will win but by a lesser margin. We will not have a Republican president in 2017 without some unforeseen problem with the democrat's campaign. The Republicans are quite frankly fighting to lose this election with the Trump and Carson candidacies taking the spotlight away from actual policy discussions. The Republicans are a circus act right now and monkeys don't become President.

 

[Boss 302]

Another hit piece on Carson.

Records show Ben Carson became Republican less than one year ago

This actually makes me like him more.

The date he signed the voter registration in Florida identifying as a Republican was October last year. This last paragraph from the "news" story, proves it is an attempted hatchet job:

“Six months prior to Dr. Carson’s announcement, his platform was void of top Republican primary issues including life, the second amendment, and God. It did, however, include sustainable development, social justice, and a 25% tax on all sporting events,” Pierson says, referring to the Independence Party of Florida.

Carson has been a guest many times on Fox expressing his deep conservative beliefs. Pierson is also assuming Carson agreed with every position of the Independence Party of Florida.

 

[Guard Dad]

I'm a fan of actual evidence, and Lotstodo brought actual evidence to the table. But, it is worth noting that even if you take the Social Security shenanigans off the table, under the Clinton administration, the federal deficit came within $18 billion of being eliminated. (deficit, not debt) Whether even this tiny victory would have happened without the Republican congress is open to question, but history does not bear out that Republicans are better at fiscal management.

https://www.cbo.gov/publication/41880?index=10871

Nevertheless, my main point stands: Republicans don't have a good record on fiscal restraint. Bush and Reagan couldn't manage it even with Republican control of the Senate (in Reagan's case), and Republican control of both houses (in Bush's case).

I actually assumed this happened because of the wars Bush was fighting. According to the US Department of the Treasury, though they were a big part of it, they were not the biggest part of it. This 2011 chart also includes the beginnings of the Obama Administration. (As a parenthetical, it also shows that CBO projections aren't that great.)

It is now 2015. Here is a simplified but telling article that compares recent presidents. Every one of them grew the debt. It also points out that, as GuardDad said, Clinton benefitted from a booming economy. But it also tells me that I shouldn't associate either party with fiscal restraint.

http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/rick-newman/2013/02/20/why-a-bill-clinton-style-budget-miracle-wont-happen-again

I'm not going to take a candidate seriously who says they will reduce the debt or the federal deficit until they put all the sacred cows on the table with specifics: military spending, Social Security, and raising taxes. It's fun talking about cutting spending or sacrifices in general, but people don't like it when politicians get specific.

Rand Paul has been quite specific on what he would cut and is the only candidate with a consistent record of fiscal responsibility. But your point is well taken. Neither party has been willing to do anything but kick the can down the road.

I agree. Of the Republicans, Rand Paul is the one I trust the most on fiscal matters. Sadly, his views are not popular among Republicans. I'm curious how he would have done without Trump entering the race.

Like his dad, he is quirky and has an annoying voice and demeanor. I suppose those things shouldn't matter, but they do.

 

[Waski_the_Squirrel]

I'm a fan of actual evidence, and Lotstodo brought actual evidence to the table. But, it is worth noting that even if you take the Social Security shenanigans off the table, under the Clinton administration, the federal deficit came within $18 billion of being eliminated. (deficit, not debt) Whether even this tiny victory would have happened without the Republican congress is open to question, but history does not bear out that Republicans are better at fiscal management.

https://www.cbo.gov/publication/41880?index=10871

Nevertheless, my main point stands: Republicans don't have a good record on fiscal restraint. Bush and Reagan couldn't manage it even with Republican control of the Senate (in Reagan's case), and Republican control of both houses (in Bush's case).

I actually assumed this happened because of the wars Bush was fighting. According to the US Department of the Treasury, though they were a big part of it, they were not the biggest part of it. This 2011 chart also includes the beginnings of the Obama Administration. (As a parenthetical, it also shows that CBO projections aren't that great.)

It is now 2015. Here is a simplified but telling article that compares recent presidents. Every one of them grew the debt. It also points out that, as GuardDad said, Clinton benefitted from a booming economy. But it also tells me that I shouldn't associate either party with fiscal restraint.

http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/rick-newman/2013/02/20/why-a-bill-clinton-style-budget-miracle-wont-happen-again

I'm not going to take a candidate seriously who says they will reduce the debt or the federal deficit until they put all the sacred cows on the table with specifics: military spending, Social Security, and raising taxes. It's fun talking about cutting spending or sacrifices in general, but people don't like it when politicians get specific.

Rand Paul has been quite specific on what he would cut and is the only candidate with a consistent record of fiscal responsibility. But your point is well taken. Neither party has been willing to do anything but kick the can down the road.

I agree. Of the Republicans, Rand Paul is the one I trust the most on fiscal matters. Sadly, his views are not popular among Republicans. I'm curious how he would have done without Trump entering the race.

Like his dad, he is quirky and has an annoying voice and demeanor. I suppose those things shouldn't matter, but they do.

Sad commentary on voters, but it's true. Style wins over substance.

 

[Waski_the_Squirrel]

17 years ago, Ben Carson explained that the pyramids in Egypt were built by Joseph as giant granaries to use during the 7-year famine. He recently reiterated that claim (specifically on November 4 of this year).

The claim was originally made in a commencement speech in the large context of showing how big dreams can allow a person to overcome anything. The Biblical figure of Joseph (if he existed) certainly overcame a lot. He went from being spoiled youngest child to having brothers who wanted to murder him but sold him into slavery instead. Through many trials as slave, he eventually became prime minister of Egypt. So, yes, his is an appropriate story, especially at a Christian college.

However, Ben Carson made this ridiculous claim, which casually dismisses archeology. And he also went on to critique science. Again, he just makes me worry that he'll ignore evidence whenever it conflicts with his feelings. The first article is the most thorough and balanced and provides the video of the speech to put it in context. The last one reports on his modern claim.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/11/05/ben-carson-believes-joseph-built-egypts-pyramids-to-store-grain-and-it-just-may-get-him-some-votes/

http://www.theatlantic.com/notes/2015/11/aliens-pyramids-and-granaries-what-on-earth-was-ben-carson-thinking/414301/

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/ben-carsons-unusual-theory-about-pyramids/

 

[J-man]

It's ok for a President to have personal opinions too, they're still Americans. I'm sure each candidate (from every party) and even past Presidents have or have had some doozy personal beliefs, we just may not be privy to them.

 

[Waski_the_Squirrel]

It's ok for a President to have personal opinions too, they're still Americans. I'm sure each candidate (from every party) and even past Presidents have or have had some doozy personal beliefs, we just may not be privy to them.

Wacky beliefs don't bother me. What worries me are the beliefs held contrary to actual evidence. That is faulty reasoning. Atheist, Christian, Muslim, Zoroastrian don't worry me much. But, allowing one's beliefs to contradict evidence shows a mental deficit.

I can only imagine a president, for example, making decisions about the Middle East based on their interpretation of Biblical verses about the end times. Yipe!

 

[Guard Dad]

Sorry brother squirrel, but I think you're reaching a bit there. I don't see how this could affect his performance as president in any way.

 

[cptlo]

I"m more concerned with what a candidate will do with taxes, the economy, terrorism, govt spending, etc. than I am about what he/she thinks about pyramids.

 

[Waski_the_Squirrel]

I"m more concerned with what a candidate will do with taxes, the economy, terrorism, govt spending, etc. than I am about what he/she thinks about pyramids.

Since he has clearly shown that evidence is not important to him, aren't you curious about how many of these things he will do are based on evidence and how many are due to his wacky beliefs?

 

[cptlo]

I"m more concerned with what a candidate will do with taxes, the economy, terrorism, govt spending, etc. than I am about what he/she thinks about pyramids.

Since he has clearly shown that evidence is not important to him, aren't you curious about how many of these things he will do are based on evidence and how many are due to his wacky beliefs?

You are generalizing. He stated his belief about pyramids. That doesn't mean "that evidence is not important to him". I trust Carson more than any of the democrats running and will vote for him if he is the republican nominee. I couldn't care less about his thoughts on pyramids.

 

[Waski_the_Squirrel]

I don't much care if a politician (of any party) is good at shutting down members of the media. Obama has done it, and I still don't like him. Bernie Sanders has been doing it and, though I have a soft spot for him, that doesn't make me want to vote for him.

I care about the policies they plan to implement and their general worldview.

Meanwhile, I was a little concerned in this clip that Ben Carson did not seem to know the difference between the debt ceiling and a balanced budget. What really got me was that the reporter tried several times to get Carson to correct his error and he didn't.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/ben-carson-debt-ceiling

By the way: the last Republican to have a balanced budget was Dwight Eisenhower. The last President to pull it off was Bill Clinton. That does not mean Democrats are better at balancing the budget, but it does mean that the Republican label doesn't mean anything about balancing the budget.

It was a Republican majority Congress that forced the balanced budget.

Do you mean the balanced budget which others here have pointed out is the result of sneaky, nefarious bookkeeping?

 

[Waski_the_Squirrel]

I"m more concerned with what a candidate will do with taxes, the economy, terrorism, govt spending, etc. than I am about what he/she thinks about pyramids.

Since he has clearly shown that evidence is not important to him, aren't you curious about how many of these things he will do are based on evidence and how many are due to his wacky beliefs?

You are generalizing. He stated his belief about pyramids. That doesn't mean "that evidence is not important to him". I trust Carson more than any of the democrats running and will vote for him if he is the republican nominee. I couldn't care less about his thoughts on pyramids.

How do I determine when he is making decisions based on his wacky superstitions and when he is making decisions based on clear evidence?

 

[cptlo]

I"m more concerned with what a candidate will do with taxes, the economy, terrorism, govt spending, etc. than I am about what he/she thinks about pyramids.

Since he has clearly shown that evidence is not important to him, aren't you curious about how many of these things he will do are based on evidence and how many are due to his wacky beliefs?

You are generalizing. He stated his belief about pyramids. That doesn't mean "that evidence is not important to him". I trust Carson more than any of the democrats running and will vote for him if he is the republican nominee. I couldn't care less about his thoughts on pyramids.

How do I determine when he is making decisions based on his wacky superstitions and when he is making decisions based on clear evidence?

Not sure...that's up to you to figure out. What you call "wacky superstitions" is part of his religious beliefs.

 

[J-man]

Just as any past President he would likely rely on input from his closest advisers of whom I have no doubt would be a much more reliable group of people than the ones our current decision maker relies upon.

 

[Waski_the_Squirrel]

I"m more concerned with what a candidate will do with taxes, the economy, terrorism, govt spending, etc. than I am about what he/she thinks about pyramids.

Since he has clearly shown that evidence is not important to him, aren't you curious about how many of these things he will do are based on evidence and how many are due to his wacky beliefs?

You are generalizing. He stated his belief about pyramids. That doesn't mean "that evidence is not important to him". I trust Carson more than any of the democrats running and will vote for him if he is the republican nominee. I couldn't care less about his thoughts on pyramids.

How do I determine when he is making decisions based on his wacky superstitions and when he is making decisions based on clear evidence?

Not sure...that's up to you to figure out. What you call "wacky superstitions" is part of his religious beliefs.

I don't give people a pass because they throw the "religious beliefs" flag. Should I give someone a pass because of their religious belief in 72 virgins? What if someone makes a decision about the Middle East (which is a powderkeg) based on those religious beliefs? People may like to pretend Evolution and the Big Bang don't matter, but they're merely symptoms of a mindset.

I prefer candidates who evaluate actual evidence rather than what they were brainwashed to believe. At least if they believe in evidence, they are open to new evidence. Not so they guy who prefers his wacky superstitions.

 

[Waski_the_Squirrel]

Just as any past President he would likely rely on input from his closest advisers of whom I have no doubt would be a much more reliable group of people than the ones our current decision maker relies upon.

Would he? Or would he pick advisors who echo his wacky beliefs that humanity was created in 6 literal days, there was no Big Bang, we'll ignore the other creation stories in the Bible, we'll ignore the other religions' creation stories, and we'll pretend that the pyramids are giant granaries, evidence be damned?

I don't know about you, but I prefer candidates who live in the real world.

I have no love for Mr. Obama, but that doesn't mean I default to "Republican Christian is good."

 

[Guard Dad]

The polls indicate that Carson is the best candidate to beat Hillary.

Are we shooting ourselves in the foot here?