• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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

Re: Ben Carson forms presidential exploratory committee

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.
 
Re: Ben Carson forms presidential exploratory committee

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.
 
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.
 
Re: Ben Carson forms presidential exploratory committee

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:
Re: Ben Carson forms presidential exploratory committee

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.
 
Re: Ben Carson forms presidential exploratory committee

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.

So Obama made marijuana legal in this country, the same as alcohol is legal for people over 21? When did that happen?
 
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.

I'm sure Dr. Carson would appreciate you reducing him to a "token". Why didn't you just call him "Uncle Tom" while you were at it?
 
Re: Ben Carson forms presidential exploratory committee

Apparently, he is against both gay marriage and legalizing pot plus he is a creationist.

In other words, he is a dinosaur.

NEXT!!!

... which means he believes dinosaurs were on Noah's Ark and Lions ate leaves in the Garden of Eden..... yeah, that'll sell.
 
Re: Ben Carson forms presidential exploratory committee

So Obama made marijuana legal in this country,

Nope, nobody said that. What is being questioned is your statement inferring that we're no further along. That's categorically false and ignores the reality of the legalization process. This statement:

Why is it that we don't seem to be any further along with making that happen?

Again, it has been pointed out to you by Zyphlin and myself that that is false because of the steps which states have taken to legalize it and decriminalize it. They are proof positive that we are in fact further along. The federal government's role in all this comes from it's willingness to enforce federal law. As it stands, the federal government hasn't gone after people in states where it has been legalized. That is yet another step which brings us far closer to complete legalization. So in short we have:

1. States that are legalizing and decriminalizing marijuana
2. Politicians creating co-sponsored bills seeking marijuana legalization
3. A federal government willing to abide by the states and not prosecute marijuana users/dealers in states that have decriminalized/legalized marijuana

This is definitely a step forward from what we started from which was complete prohibition. Look, if you want to argue that the federal government has lagged behind state governments in legalizing marijuana, sure - few people disagree with that. However saying "we're no further along" is utter nonsense that shows complete ignorance of marijuana's legal history in the US. It's uninformed at best and completely false at worse.
 
Re: Ben Carson forms presidential exploratory committee

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.

Funny, I don't remember stating that YOU personally made it an issue in 2008. I suggested "many on the right" did. Are you suggesting those at the American Thinker and those who read them aren't "the right"? Same for World net Daily? Same for Glenn Beck and company? How about Sean Hannity? I didn't realize that if Tres Borrachos doesn't directly read or think something than it is inherently non-existance amongst anyone in the right.

Also, I don't particuarly read World Net Daily or The Blaze. I will occasionally read the American Thinker. I can however use this crazy thing called "google" and I did post on political message boards in 2008 when other people DID read and talk about those things. I know, crazy...you can know about something without directly actively reading it yourself.

But nice deflection instead of actually addressing my counter to your insinuation that there weren't criticisms and attacks on obama regarding his religion.
 
Re: Ben Carson forms presidential exploratory committee

Funny, I don't remember stating that YOU personally made it an issue in 2008. I suggested "many on the right" did. Are you suggesting those at the American Thinker and those who read them aren't "the right"? Same for World net Daily? Same for Glenn Beck and company? How about Sean Hannity? I didn't realize that if Tres Borrachos doesn't directly read or think something than it is inherently non-existance amongst anyone in the right.

Also, I don't particuarly read World Net Daily or The Blaze. I will occasionally read the American Thinker. I can however use this crazy thing called "google" and I did post on political message boards in 2008 when other people DID read and talk about those things. I know, crazy...you can know about something without directly actively reading it yourself.

But nice deflection instead of actually addressing my counter to your insinuation that there weren't criticisms and attacks on obama regarding his religion.

Let's quote my original post again, shall we:

So just being a politician gives you experience to be President? Hmm....

I don't recall that the criticism of Obama's connection with Wright had anything to do with religion. If I recall correctly, the issue people had with his affiliation with Wright was based on Wright's devisive and bordering on anti-American words. What specifically was it about Wright's religion that "many on the right" considered to be an issue?

Now, let's see. I said that I don't recall, said that if I recall it correctly, and then asked you what it was specifically that "many on the right" considered to be an issue. Instead of answering my question, you made a condescending post, to which I replied that I don't read those publications. In response, you post an even more condescending post which was as uncalled for as your first one.

Lovely.
 
Re: Ben Carson forms presidential exploratory committee

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.

Again, just because you want to be sophmoric in this black and white notion doesn't mean everyone else has to ignore reality and walk that ridiculous path with you.

The Obama Administration chose to not block the legalization by Colorado and Washington so long as they were regulated reasonably. Leading to the Justice Department allowing them to go into effect without judicial challenge. He's directed federal law enforcement to forgo targetting recreational weed users in those states despite the federal laws that are technically still being violated.

By his actions as the chief executive, giving direction to the department of justice and various federal law enforcement entities, the President has allowed the legalization in two of the 50 states of this Union to continue deterred by federal action, creating a defacto legalization across the board in those states (effecitvely regulating many federal marijuana laws in those states to a similar level of a blue law. One that is on the books but not enforced).

Is that a total legalization? Absolutely not. But it's significantly more of this country being legally allowed to buy, sell, and use marijuana than in "2006" as you put it without any federal action against such things. And it is instances like that which one could reasonably assume would not be taken by someone who takes an aggressive stance regarding the necessity of criminalization of marijuana.

So no, while a Preisdent can not by fiat make marijuana legal, they can take a vast amount of action to essentially support or allow for it's use in a way that does not cause one to run afoul of the law.
 
Re: Ben Carson forms presidential exploratory committee

Has Ben Carson hijacked the Republican party? :shock:

I disagree with Dr. Carson's words completely. I, however, don't attribute his words to the entire GOP. And yes, the current GOP is too moderate. They don't believe in small government and low spending. Not everyone associates a party with what someone who self-identifies with them thinks about peoples' sexual preferences.

Fiscally moderate? The GOP, including the TP, are just as spend happy as the Dems. So I can agree with that. But socially? You're being dishonest if you think the current GOP is moderate on social issues. Which, BTW, is what is being talked about now concerning Mr. Carson. Drugs. Gays. education. Etc.

Also it is confusing seeing so many conservatives here say that they don't agree with his views, but they defend him.
 
Re: Ben Carson forms presidential exploratory committee

Now, let's see. I said that I don't recall

And my original post, highlighting multiple right wing sources showing otherwise, was to indicate that your recollection was incorrect regarding reality.
 
Re: Ben Carson forms presidential exploratory committee

He a perfect republican. A conservative hack who plays to the right wing nut jobs. He thinks gay is a choice. So too is president. He won't be chosen.

Lets find out together. And if he does not-it will largely be because of lefty smear tactics. The left will take rhetoric over competence any day. :cool:
 
Re: Ben Carson forms presidential exploratory committee

Nope, nobody said that. What is being questioned is your statement inferring that we're no further along. That's categorically false and ignores the reality of the legalization process. This statement:



Again, it has been pointed out to you by Zyphlin and myself that that is false because of the steps which states have taken to legalize it and decriminalize it. They are proof positive that we are in fact further along. The federal government's role in all this comes from it's willingness to enforce federal law. As it stands, the federal government hasn't gone after people in states where it has been legalized. That is yet another step which brings us far closer to complete legalization. So in short we have:

1. States that are legalizing and decriminalizing marijuana
2. Politicians creating co-sponsored bills seeking marijuana legalization
3. A federal government willing to abide by the states and not prosecute marijuana users/dealers in states that have decriminalized/legalized marijuana

This is definitely a step forward from what we started from which was complete prohibition. Look, if you want to argue that the federal government has lagged behind state governments in legalizing marijuana, sure - few people disagree with that. However saying "we're no further along" is utter nonsense that shows complete ignorance of marijuana's legal history in the US. It's uninformed at best and completely false at worse.

Fascinating. And since none of it has to do with the actions of the President of the United States, and it isn't relevant to Ben Carson, just as his opinion on the legalization of marijuana has nothing to do with anything because the President of the United States that we have now - as well as all of his predecessors - also didn't legalize marijuana, it's also not relevant - and not what I'm posting about. This thread is about Dr. Ben Carson, not how some of the states are legalizing marijuana.

Hope that helps.
 
Re: Ben Carson forms presidential exploratory committee

And my original post, highlighting multiple right wing sources showing otherwise, was to indicate that your recollection was incorrect regarding reality.

And it would have been worth reading had you not posted your condescending, obnoxious, paranoid post berating me for asking you a question.
 
Re: Ben Carson forms presidential exploratory committee

Has Ben Carson hijacked the Republican party? :shock:

I disagree with Dr. Carson's words completely. I, however, don't attribute his words to the entire GOP. And yes, the current GOP is too moderate. They don't believe in small government and low spending. Not everyone associates a party with what someone who self-identifies with them thinks about peoples' sexual preferences.

The left see's the presidency as a means to advance social agendas primarily, not to run the nation.

The GOP is too moderate, if the choice come down to democrat or democrat light, the dem will win.
 
Re: Ben Carson forms presidential exploratory committee

Fiscally moderate? The GOP, including the TP, are just as spend happy as the Dems. So I can agree with that. But socially? You're being dishonest if you think the current GOP is moderate on social issues. Which, BTW, is what is being talked about now concerning Mr. Carson. Drugs. Gays. education. Etc.

Also it is confusing seeing so many conservatives here say that they don't agree with his views, but they defend him.

I didn't say the GOP was fiscally moderate. They aren't. I didn't say anything about the GOP being socially anything. I said they don't believe in small government and low spending.
 
Re: Ben Carson forms presidential exploratory committee

The left see's the presidency as a means to advance social agendas primarily, not to run the nation.

The GOP is too moderate, if the choice come down to democrat or democrat light, the dem will win.

I would vote for a fiscally conservative, gun friendly Democrat 5000 times before I would cast one vote for a fiscally Liberal, anti-gun Republican any day.

I honestly don't pay attention and never have to the candidates "social positions". I don't care about a candidates' religion, sexual preferences, college one night stands, and so on. I don't want their opinions on my views. As long as the candidate doesn't want to put me in a gulag because I smoke pot occasionally, I don't care what he thinks or does.
 
Re: Ben Carson forms presidential exploratory committee

I didn't say the GOP was fiscally moderate. They aren't. I didn't say anything about the GOP being socially anything. I said they don't believe in small government and low spending.

I know, I was agreeing with your point about the GOP not being fiscally moderate.

Maybe I wasn't being clear.
 
Re: Ben Carson forms presidential exploratory committee

I know, I was agreeing with your point about the GOP not being fiscally moderate.

Maybe I wasn't being clear.

Yes, it was unclear why you said I was being dishonest when I said the GOP was socially moderate, especially considering I never said any such thing.
 
Re: Ben Carson forms presidential exploratory committee

I'm sure Dr. Carson would appreciate you reducing him to a "token". Why didn't you just call him "Uncle Tom" while you were at it?

Because I'm not really criticizing him. I'm criticizing the Republican party and how they view him and others like him. Proclaiming that they have black friends or gay friends doesn't change the actual results of their policies.
 
Re: Ben Carson forms presidential exploratory committee

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.

I definitely misspelled the word. That was my error. It was tertiary.

It seems my mistakingly leaving out the second "t" in tertiary, in a post where I had previously used the words "primary" and "secondary" in describing the first two of three things, caused you to be completely and utterly unable to gleam what word I was meaning via contextual clues and thus unable to comprehend the entire post I made.

As such, now that I've explained what the word was (tertiary, meaning "third in order), you can better understand what my previous post said. Or if you'd like I'll try a bit more basic summary of it below.

Holding elected office is experience related to being President, an elected office.

In terms of direct experience related to the Presidency...ie the Chief Executive and the Commander in Chief of the United States...there are generally three teirs of experience in my opinion, which is backed by the general broad thought process within the Political Science community and by history itself.

Category 1 (Best Experience)
1a. Executive experience in government (VP, Governor, perhaps to a lesser degree a mayor of a large city or lt. governor)
1b. High ranking military command, typically when an election is during a time of war or heightened concerns on national security

Category 2 (Lesser Experience)
2a. Part of the US Senate
2b. Part of the US House
2c. A highly regarded executive cabinet member (like Secretary of State)

Category 3 (Least Exeprience)
3a. State legislature experience
3b. Lower to mid ranking military experience
3c. Executive experience in the private sector in a large capacity (large corporation, non-profit, big event like the olympics)

While other types of experience may prove useful in various fashions...like being a Doctor as it relates to issues of health policy, or being a constitutional scholar...they are less direct primary experience to the job of the Presidency and are more, for lack of a better term, resume fillers.

The vast majority of our Presidents in history have had category 1 experience (can't remember the exact percent, but I believe it was over 90% prior to Obama coming into power and I haven't recalculated since). 100% of our Presidents in history have had AT LEAST Category 2 experience. We have never elected a President who at best had Category 3 direct experience, let alone someone without ANY direct experience. I can't think of a major party nominee that would fit that bill either, though admittedly I know those off the top of my head less than I do the Presidents.

Ben Carson does not even have experience that would merit a legitimate claim for falling within Category 3. He would be abjectly and unquestionably the least qualified President we would ever have, and would quite possibly...if he made the republican ticket...be the least Qualified major party presidentical candidate in at least the past 75 years.
 
Back
Top Bottom