Page 18 of 30 FirstFirst ... 8161718192028 ... LastLast
Results 171 to 180 of 297

Thread: Ben Carson forms presidential exploratory committee[W:175,246, 296]

  1. #171
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:47 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,033

    Re: Ben Carson forms presidential exploratory committee

    Quote Originally Posted by CanadaJohn View Post
    Oooooooooooh, now the tantrum - so precious. Your posts are so vivid - "I am too right" I can almost hear the little girl scream.
    translation: you are running fro the challenge because you cant back up the lie you posted
    thanks, thats what I thought
    facts win again

    please let us know when you can, thanks
    This space is currently owned by The Great Winchester, stay tuned for future messages!
    Make America Great Again!
    Pro-Equal Rights / Pro-Gun Rights / Pro-Human Rights / Pro-Choice

  2. #172
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,611

    Re: Ben Carson forms presidential exploratory committee

    Quote Originally Posted by tres borrachos View Post
    So just being a politician gives you experience to be President? Hmm....
    Simply being a politician? No. Being and serving as an elected official in a political/governmental role however is direct experience related to the job of the Presidency.

    As I've said repeatedly over the past 6+ years...

    It is almost universally held amongst political scientists that Executive Experience in government is by far the most direct and relevant experience for the Presidency. IE a Vice Presidency, Governorship, or to a lesser extend a Vice Governorship or Mayor of a substantially sized city (ala New York). This is because of the near direct 1:1 relationship between the two jobs, with it simply being a difference in magnitude.

    The one caveat between this and the next set of experience is a significantly high officer in the military during an election period where national defense is at a significant level of interest. Similar to being an executive in government being directly related to being the Chief Executive of the US, being a top tier military leader is directly related to being the Commander in Chief and is also viewed as absolute direct experience.

    The next teir to this is federal legislative experience. While this does not give you direct experience with the duties and responsabilities of an executive, it does provide you with a significant amount of experience with the governmental process on the national level, involves you with almost every policy issue that you're likely to be dealing with in the role as President, and depending on your committees may give you direct experience with various avenues of the Executives jobs such as foreign policy. In terms of legislative experience, Senatorial experience has historically been viewed as significantly more valuable than House experience when it comes to the Presdiency.

    Much like the a high ranking military commander is a pseudo "1b" to executive experience, high level cabinet positions fall in as a sort of "2c" behind Senate and House experience typically. Specifically speaking of a position like Secretary of State. This is something that's viewed as giving you some executive experience as well as general federal experience as well.

    Those are generally what's historically been viewed as your Primary and Secondary tier experience for the Presidency of the United States. The teriary level would be lower state offices (like a state Senator), lesser viewed cabinet positions (like Energy Secretary for example), or executive experience in the private sector for an exceedingly large organization/business.

    Never has a President ever been elected in this country who's levels of experience reside singularly in the teriary layer. I haven't fully done the research again recently, but I'd dare say no candidate for either of the two major political parties in this country in the past 75 years has had experience that resides singularly in the teriary layer either.

    Ben Carson does not even have anything that could reliably be described in this third layer of experience. The closest thing he could claim is being director of pediatric neurosurgery at John Hopkins...essentially the executive of a subset of a subset of a hospital. It is experience related to running the country like saying putting together legos is experience for creating a sky scraper.

    Now, is experience everything? Absolutely not. We've had greatly experienced individuals who have failed, we've had somewhat lacking experienced individuals do well. But in general, those who are more experienced have done better, and as it relates to electability....experience is almost always viewed as an important factor in the electorate.

    Experience was important to me in 2008, and it's important to me now. It's not something I'm going to simply ignore because someone speaks prettily about things that are in line with my ideology. If it was, then it'd show my issues with Obama's experience in 2008 was just utter and complete bull****, simply a fabrication created simply out of usefulness as a means of attacking him due to my ideological differences with him.
    #WhoDrewTheDicks

  3. #173
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,611

    Re: Ben Carson forms presidential exploratory committee

    I don't recall that the criticism of Obama's connection with Wright had anything to do with religion.
    Oh really? You can't recall television or radio personalities droning on about "black liberation theology" (which is a type of religious philosophy)? You didn't see things like this BLAZE article that brings back up many of the things from the campaign? Or how about this article from 2008 at the American Thinker tieing his churches religious beliefs to marxism? Or THIS one up on WND back in 2008.

    The issue was that Wright's RELIGIOUS beliefs and sermons were anti-american or dangerous or didn't seem "Christian" to some on the right. But it was still being critical and attacking the RELIGIOUS beliefs of Obama's church and pastor, and Obama himself as a byproduct.

    To attempt to say that it wasn't an attack based on religion against Obama is like saying that the attacks on Carson aren't attacks on religion but rather are people having an issue basd on his anti-scientific words.
    #WhoDrewTheDicks

  4. #174
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,611

    Re: Ben Carson forms presidential exploratory committee

    Quote Originally Posted by tres borrachos View Post
    You be sure to let me know when the President of the United States has declared marijuana legal in this country. Until then, we are no further along making marijuana legal than we were the day before yesterday, 2006, or 1942.
    This is just categorically untrue.

    In 2006 we did not have two states making the sell and use of marijuana legal, with extremely little honest challenge by the federal government in terms of the judicial system or via enforcement of federal laws. The amount and intensity in which the executive branch pursues offenders of federal marijuana laws absolutely is something that can alter. How fervently the justice department challenges states medical marijuana laws, decriminalization efforts, or actual legalization is another example where the executive absolutely has a hand in the legality of it's usage and sale. Not to mention the very notion of the bully pulpit that the Veto pen allows one to exert over a congress even if they are more inclined to attempt to pass legislation that loosens or removes regulations on it.

    There is quite a lot that the President can do as it relates to marijuana, it's use in this country, and the laws regarding it. The President...as has been demonstrated by this President and is likely to be carried on by whoever takes over regardles of party...has a fair amount of leeway in the manner in which he wishes to enforce the laws and where to focus efforts. They have control over the Justice Department and can help set the agenda of what laws and issues they wish to pursue more seriously and which they want to just give a token effort to. Amongst other means.

    While a President can not by fiat legalize marijuana, there are a vast amount of things he can do to affect it's legal status in a variety of fashions.

    This is such an amazingly sophmoric and basic view that it's almost laughable. To think that the only impact on the legalization, either official or defacto, of marijuana on this country is singularly whether or not the federal government legalizes it or not is absolutely ridiculous. The amount a
    #WhoDrewTheDicks

  5. #175
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,611

    Re: Ben Carson forms presidential exploratory committee

    Moderator's Warning:
    Ben Carson forms presidential exploratory committee[W:175,246, 296]CJ and AJ, take your slap fight to the basement or knock it off. I don't care which one. But if you two keep going back and forth in this baiting way that is just aimed at enflaming the other as opposed to actually engaging in debate on this topic you're going to get hit with points and booted.
    #WhoDrewTheDicks

  6. #176
    Kinky
    tres borrachos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    New England
    Last Seen
    05-02-17 @ 05:59 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    38,180

    Re: Ben Carson forms presidential exploratory committee

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    Oh really? You can't recall television or radio personalities droning on about "black liberation theology" (which is a type of religious philosophy)? You didn't see things like this BLAZE article that brings back up many of the things from the campaign? Or how about this article from 2008 at the American Thinker tieing his churches religious beliefs to marxism? Or THIS one up on WND back in 2008.

    The issue was that Wright's RELIGIOUS beliefs and sermons were anti-american or dangerous or didn't seem "Christian" to some on the right. But it was still being critical and attacking the RELIGIOUS beliefs of Obama's church and pastor, and Obama himself as a byproduct.

    To attempt to say that it wasn't an attack based on religion against Obama is like saying that the attacks on Carson aren't attacks on religion but rather are people having an issue basd on his anti-scientific words.
    No, I don't read American Thinker, WND or Blaze. You apparently do. I assume most Americans are mainstream and don't read partisan information.
    Horse sense is the thing a horse has which keeps it from betting on people. ~W.C. Fields

  7. #177
    Kinky
    tres borrachos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    New England
    Last Seen
    05-02-17 @ 05:59 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    38,180

    Re: Ben Carson forms presidential exploratory committee

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    This is just categorically untrue.

    In 2006 we did not have two states making the sell and use of marijuana legal, with extremely little honest challenge by the federal government in terms of the judicial system or via enforcement of federal laws. The amount and intensity in which the executive branch pursues offenders of federal marijuana laws absolutely is something that can alter. How fervently the justice department challenges states medical marijuana laws, decriminalization efforts, or actual legalization is another example where the executive absolutely has a hand in the legality of it's usage and sale. Not to mention the very notion of the bully pulpit that the Veto pen allows one to exert over a congress even if they are more inclined to attempt to pass legislation that loosens or removes regulations on it.

    There is quite a lot that the President can do as it relates to marijuana, it's use in this country, and the laws regarding it. The President...as has been demonstrated by this President and is likely to be carried on by whoever takes over regardles of party...has a fair amount of leeway in the manner in which he wishes to enforce the laws and where to focus efforts. They have control over the Justice Department and can help set the agenda of what laws and issues they wish to pursue more seriously and which they want to just give a token effort to. Amongst other means.

    While a President can not by fiat legalize marijuana, there are a vast amount of things he can do to affect it's legal status in a variety of fashions.

    This is such an amazingly sophmoric and basic view that it's almost laughable. To think that the only impact on the legalization, either official or defacto, of marijuana on this country is singularly whether or not the federal government legalizes it or not is absolutely ridiculous. The amount a
    So what has Obama done to make marijuana legal in this country? Nothing. What would Ben Carson's opinion on marijuana do to the legalization of marijuana in this country? Nothing.

    Which was my point.
    Horse sense is the thing a horse has which keeps it from betting on people. ~W.C. Fields

  8. #178
    Uncanny
    Paschendale's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    New York City
    Last Seen
    03-31-16 @ 03:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    12,510

    Re: Ben Carson forms presidential exploratory committee

    Nobody is really fooled when the party of old white men has a few token candidates who aren't part of their preferred demographic. The policies the party supports are still detrimental to most women, most non-whites, most non-Christians, most gays, most poor people, and most of the middle class. Trotting out their couple of rich black friends, bible thumping women, or rich gays, all of whom are willing to take lesser rights in order to get more money or more religion in government, doesn't change the fact that the things they say and the ides they espouse are bad for most people in this country.

    Having a bit of diversity in Republican candidates doesn't mean much until there's diversity in their policies.
    Liberté. Égalité. Fraternité.

  9. #179
    Sage
    Hatuey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Last Seen
    10-20-17 @ 11:27 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    41,666

    Re: Ben Carson forms presidential exploratory committee

    Quote Originally Posted by tres borrachos View Post
    You be sure to let me know when the President of the United States has declared marijuana legal in this country. Until then, we are no further along making marijuana legal than we were the day before yesterday, 2006, or 1942.
    Utter nonsense. If marijuana has been widely decriminalized and even legalized across various states than we are closer than we were when it was completely illegal. Your statement simply does not match up to legal reality. It would be like saying we were no closer to gay marriage in 1940 than we were in 2010 when DOMA was first challenged. It's like saying we were no closer to equal civil rights in 1901 than we were in 1966. It completely ignores the fact that the federal government and proximity to legalization are not one and the same. If you had asked someone who smokes weed if they thought it'd be legalized in the 1980s, they'd say no because of Nancy Reagan's crusade against drugs. If you ask somebody today and you take into consideration the legal challenges and legalization across various states? It's more than evident that we're definitely closer than we were 30 years ago.
    Last edited by Hatuey; 03-04-15 at 01:50 PM.
    I refuse to accept the view that mankind is so tragically bound to the starless midnight of racism and war that the bright daybreak of peace and brotherhood can never become a reality. - MLK

  10. #180
    Kinky
    tres borrachos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    New England
    Last Seen
    05-02-17 @ 05:59 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    38,180

    Re: Ben Carson forms presidential exploratory committee

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    Simply being a politician? No. Being and serving as an elected official in a political/governmental role however is direct experience related to the job of the Presidency.

    As I've said repeatedly over the past 6+ years...

    It is almost universally held amongst political scientists that Executive Experience in government is by far the most direct and relevant experience for the Presidency. IE a Vice Presidency, Governorship, or to a lesser extend a Vice Governorship or Mayor of a substantially sized city (ala New York). This is because of the near direct 1:1 relationship between the two jobs, with it simply being a difference in magnitude.

    The one caveat between this and the next set of experience is a significantly high officer in the military during an election period where national defense is at a significant level of interest. Similar to being an executive in government being directly related to being the Chief Executive of the US, being a top tier military leader is directly related to being the Commander in Chief and is also viewed as absolute direct experience.

    The next teir to this is federal legislative experience. While this does not give you direct experience with the duties and responsabilities of an executive, it does provide you with a significant amount of experience with the governmental process on the national level, involves you with almost every policy issue that you're likely to be dealing with in the role as President, and depending on your committees may give you direct experience with various avenues of the Executives jobs such as foreign policy. In terms of legislative experience, Senatorial experience has historically been viewed as significantly more valuable than House experience when it comes to the Presdiency.

    Much like the a high ranking military commander is a pseudo "1b" to executive experience, high level cabinet positions fall in as a sort of "2c" behind Senate and House experience typically. Specifically speaking of a position like Secretary of State. This is something that's viewed as giving you some executive experience as well as general federal experience as well.

    Those are generally what's historically been viewed as your Primary and Secondary tier experience for the Presidency of the United States. The teriary level would be lower state offices (like a state Senator), lesser viewed cabinet positions (like Energy Secretary for example), or executive experience in the private sector for an exceedingly large organization/business.

    Never has a President ever been elected in this country who's levels of experience reside singularly in the teriary layer. I haven't fully done the research again recently, but I'd dare say no candidate for either of the two major political parties in this country in the past 75 years has had experience that resides singularly in the teriary layer either.

    Ben Carson does not even have anything that could reliably be described in this third layer of experience. The closest thing he could claim is being director of pediatric neurosurgery at John Hopkins...essentially the executive of a subset of a subset of a hospital. It is experience related to running the country like saying putting together legos is experience for creating a sky scraper.

    Now, is experience everything? Absolutely not. We've had greatly experienced individuals who have failed, we've had somewhat lacking experienced individuals do well. But in general, those who are more experienced have done better, and as it relates to electability....experience is almost always viewed as an important factor in the electorate.

    Experience was important to me in 2008, and it's important to me now. It's not something I'm going to simply ignore because someone speaks prettily about things that are in line with my ideology. If it was, then it'd show my issues with Obama's experience in 2008 was just utter and complete bull****, simply a fabrication created simply out of usefulness as a means of attacking him due to my ideological differences with him.
    By the way, this made no sense to me. You kept repeating "teriary level". I have no idea what a "teriary level" is. There is no such word that I'm aware of.
    Horse sense is the thing a horse has which keeps it from betting on people. ~W.C. Fields

Page 18 of 30 FirstFirst ... 8161718192028 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •