• 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!

Would you consider voting for Dr. Ben Carson for president in 2016?

Would you vote for Dr Ben Carson for president in 2016?


  • Total voters
    63
'the Elites' hah
Thing is I actually believe you are being serious :(
 
Would Church attendance be mandatory during his administration?
Or would there be slaughter of Atheists?
Maybe mass deportations of Moslem's
 
No, it is fundamentally against my moral compass to vote for someone that wants to force his religion on others.
I'm taking this to mean his strong views on gay marriage and abortion. Why is it if someone holds those PERSONAL views somehow that equates to forcing their religion onto others? There are atheists making a secular argument against gay marriage. There are atheists that find abortion morally wrong. There are homosexuals against gay marriage. Not just Christians but Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims, Jews often hold the PERSONAL views that gay marriage and abortion to be immoral or against their social ethics. If a Buddhist was running for office and held the PERSONAL views that gay marriage and abortion to be against his/her social ethics would you consider that to be someone forcing their beliefs on you?

What a moral compass should be directing is to ask the question does Dr. Carlson believe the Federal government has no Constitutional right to define marriage and that Roe v Wade was bad law. That these issues should be resolved at the state level of government where the people decide what their own social ethics code will be within their local governments. In other words, is Dr. Carlson an advocate for states rights? If so, then you and a whole lot of people need to adjust their compasses. If he believes the Federal government has the right to define marriage and outlaw abortion nationally with a stroke of a pen, then that would be considered forcing one's beliefs onto another.
 
I'm taking this to mean his strong views on gay marriage and abortion. Why is it if someone holds those PERSONAL views somehow that equates to forcing their religion onto others? There are atheists making a secular argument against gay marriage. There are atheists that find abortion morally wrong. There are homosexuals against gay marriage. Not just Christians but Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims, Jews often hold the PERSONAL views that gay marriage and abortion to be immoral or against their social ethics. If a Buddhist was running for office and held the PERSONAL views that gay marriage and abortion to be against his/her social ethics would you consider that to be someone forcing their beliefs on you?

What a moral compass should be directing is to ask the question does Dr. Carlson believe the Federal government has no Constitutional right to define marriage and that Roe v Wade was bad law. That these issues should be resolved at the state level of government where the people decide what their own social ethics code will be within their local governments. In other words, is Dr. Carlson an advocate for states rights? If so, then you and a whole lot of people need to adjust their compasses. If he believes the Federal government has the right to define marriage and outlaw abortion nationally with a stroke of a pen, then that would be considered forcing one's beliefs onto another.

It doesn't matter what you believe. If the person in question isn't harming anybody in any way, you have absolutely zero right to use government force against him. Gay marriage does not effect christians in any way shape or form. It harms nobody.

All I hear is this pathetic whining about how it demeans their marriage, which is total BS. If your marriage is demeaned by two other strangers getting married, then your marriage is in really bad shape and you should work on it.

Simply put, christians believe homosexuality is wrong because their bible told them so. They then think that even though it harms nobody they need to force this biblical view on others. How about we just mind our own business if it isn't effecting you? If you had any respect for liberty whatsoever that's what you'd do.
 
hmmmmm .... Republicans won't like him because of things like this ...

“Happiness doesn't result from what we get, but from what we give.”
― Ben Carson

“Being a doctor at Johns Hopkins does not make me any better in God's sight than the individual who has not had the opportunity to gain such an education but who still works hard.”
― Ben Carson, Think Big: Unleashing Your Potential for Excellence


and I don't like him because of things like this ...

“Marriage is between a man and a woman. No group, be they gays, be they NAMBLA [the North American Man/Boy Love Association], be they people who believe in bestiality, it doesn’t matter what they are. They don’t get to change the definition.”

Without the Republican vote and mine, he has no chance ...

You have pretty much misrepresented the quotes and taken them out of context.

The quote about giving is reflecting on the happiness one feels when they give personally to another in need. Not forced giving where elites decide who deserves the money and steal it from your pockets.

Republicans wouldn't have a problem with the quote about a good work ethic either. It isn't what you do for a living that determines your self worth, but that you work hard at whatever and pay your own way.

The third one was a quote he gave in an interview expressing his personal beliefs on gay marriage and later apologized for his strong language. If the man thinks the federal government has the right to define marriage for all then I disagree with him just like I disagree with Obama supporting gay marriage as a national right. It's none of the damn business of the federal government period. And the special interests groups on both sides of the issue need to come to realize that one.
 
It doesn't matter what you believe. If the person in question isn't harming anybody in any way, you have absolutely zero right to use government force against him. Gay marriage does not effect christians in any way shape or form. It harms nobody.

All I hear is this pathetic whining about how it demeans their marriage, which is total BS. If your marriage is demeaned by two other strangers getting married, then your marriage is in really bad shape and you should work on it.

Simply put, christians believe homosexuality is wrong because their bible told them so. They then think that even though it harms nobody they need to force this biblical view on others. How about we just mind our own business if it isn't effecting you? If you had any respect for liberty whatsoever that's what you'd do.
Not everyone who finds homosexuality to be wrong is a Christian.
It is not up to the federal government to define marriage.
This battle should be left in the states. This way each side is not forced to accept one or the other.
Those who do not want to recognize gay marriage by the vote of the people have that right in their state and it should be upheld in the courts.
Those who do recognize gay marriage by the vote of the people have that right in their state as well and it should be upheld in the courts.
This way both have the FREEDOM to move to any state that supports their views and no one is denied.
This whole issue needs to be removed from review of the Federal government period.
 
You have pretty much misrepresented the quotes and taken them out of context.

The quote about giving is reflecting on the happiness one feels when they give personally to another in need. Not forced giving where elites decide who deserves the money and steal it from your pockets.

Republicans wouldn't have a problem with the quote about a good work ethic either. It isn't what you do for a living that determines your self worth, but that you work hard at whatever and pay your own way.

The third one was a quote he gave in an interview expressing his personal beliefs on gay marriage and later apologized for his strong language. If the man thinks the federal government has the right to define marriage for all then I disagree with him just like I disagree with Obama supporting gay marriage as a national right. It's none of the damn business of the federal government period. And the special interests groups on both sides of the issue need to come to realize that one.

I was joking about the first two, to a degree ... statements like that will be quoted time and time again out of context (e.g. remember "you didn't build that?") and suggesting everyone does not have the same opportunities will lose you teabaggers in a heartbeat ... (plus, I'm not sure the GOP is ready for another one of "them" as president...)

I'm not big on saying what you believe and then apologizing ... in any event, as you said, he apologized for the language, not his belief ... on gay marriage I prefer to focus on if the gov't is in the business of marriage, then gay marriages should be recognized too ...
 
Not everyone who finds homosexuality to be wrong is a Christian.
It is not up to the federal government to define marriage.
This battle should be left in the states. This way each side is not forced to accept one or the other.
Those who do not want to recognize gay marriage by the vote of the people have that right in their state and it should be upheld in the courts.
Those who do recognize gay marriage by the vote of the people have that right in their state as well and it should be upheld in the courts.
This way both have the FREEDOM to move to any state that supports their views and no one is denied.
This whole issue needs to be removed from review of the Federal government period.

I already explained, it doesn't matter what your reason is, religion or just plain flat out hate. The only thing that matters is that you want to enforce your will against people who haven't hurt anybody.

The government shouldn't be defining marriage at all, that's not their business.

Gays getting married doesn't hurt you, so stop crying about it.
 
I already explained, it doesn't matter what your reason is, religion or just plain flat out hate. The only thing that matters is that you want to enforce your will against people who haven't hurt anybody.

The government shouldn't be defining marriage at all, that's not their business.

Gays getting married doesn't hurt you, so stop crying about it.
The Federal government has no right to define marriage but states surely do. And the vote of the people in every individual state should be honored whether you approve of it or not.
This has nothing to do about hate but everything to do about FREEDOM and making sure an individual's vote does count.
 
Thank goodness that choice is not up to me and so I haven't voted on this, but I seriously doubt that a man who thinks that homosexuality is in the same "group" as child molesters and people who practice beastiality is not suitable for the highest office of the US.
 
He should run on a third party and hopefully garner some five million votes that would have gone to the GOP.
 
That is how H. Ross Perot gave us eight LONG years of Clinton eh?
 
I was joking about the first two, to a degree ... statements like that will be quoted time and time again out of context (e.g. remember "you didn't build that?") and suggesting everyone does not have the same opportunities will lose you teabaggers in a heartbeat ... (plus, I'm not sure the GOP is ready for another one of "them" as president...)

I'm not big on saying what you believe and then apologizing ... in any event, as you said, he apologized for the language, not his belief ... on gay marriage I prefer to focus on if the gov't is in the business of marriage, then gay marriages should be recognized too ...

You know I was so liking your post until you called me a teabagger.:) I have a whole list of things that I find the Federal government should not be in the business of and today we are all living the consequences for the overstepping of constitutional powers.
 
You know I was so liking your post until you called me a teabagger.:) I have a whole list of things that I find the Federal government should not be in the business of and today we are all living the consequences for the overstepping of constitutional powers.

I did not call you a teabagger. I was actually starting to like your posts until you said I was calling you a teabagger. :naughty I, too, don't like the government involved in some stuff, but it has to get involved in others, especially to protect minorities against the tyranny of the majority from time to time ...
 
Would you vote for him for president....Why or why not?

I have absolutely no idea. It depends on a lot of factors I'm need to learn. The only things I know about him is he's black, one of the leading brain surgeons in the world who work for John Hopkins, I think was raised by a single mom and was disadvantaged, worked hard in school and did something great with his life, was invited by the Whitehouse to speak at a faith-based breakfast where he shared his compelling story of coming from a difficult upbringing and encouraged political cooperation in Washington. After that speech pundits on the right fell in love with him. Other than that, I'm clueless. I don't even know which party he supports. I could support him from POTUS but I'd need to learn a lot more.

Without knowing anything else I definitely would support him for Surgeon General, Secretary of Health and Human Services, Secretary of Education, FDA Director, UN Ambassador or Vice-President.
 
The Federal government has no right to define marriage but states surely do. And the vote of the people in every individual state should be honored whether you approve of it or not.
This has nothing to do about hate but everything to do about FREEDOM and making sure an individual's vote does count.

states should have the right to deny some people freedoms, is that right? what if a state wants to define marriage a a union only between members of the same race? what if a state wants to allow a restaurant owner the right to deny service to blacks simply because they're black? it's a fairly common libertarian position ... you O.K. with it?

gotta head to work ... catch you later ...
 
After knowing very little about him, I just scanned over his Wikipedia article. Ben Carson - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I like him a lot. If he ran he'd be on my list of serious contenders for my vote, maybe the leading contender. I'm in no way saying I'm worthy to be compared to him but based on this article I can't think of very many people I see as representing my values. Again, this is all up front impressions so who knows? Certainly and American icon.
 
Not everyone who finds homosexuality to be wrong is a Christian.
It is not up to the federal government to define marriage.
This battle should be left in the states. This way each side is not forced to accept one or the other.
Those who do not want to recognize gay marriage by the vote of the people have that right in their state and it should be upheld in the courts.
Those who do recognize gay marriage by the vote of the people have that right in their state as well and it should be upheld in the courts.
This way both have the FREEDOM to move to any state that supports their views and no one is denied.
This whole issue needs to be removed from review of the Federal government period.

the governments job is to protect rights and thats what it is doing, grant equal rights isnt denying anybody anything, its the ultimate freedom, sorry people should not be allowed to violate others rights by vote if that was the case there would probably be states where women and minorities would still not be equal. No thanks thats no country i want to be a part of and thankfully thats not america.

If people dont like equal rights they are in the wrong country
 
like i said earlier he could never get my vote, not only for lack of experience but for these three strikes

doesnt just have anti-abortion beliefs, he wants laws that ban abortion: NO strike 1
doesnt just have anti-gay beliefs, he wants laws that discriminating and infringe on the rights and equality of gay Americans: NO (not to mention he is a bigot) strike 2
doesnt just have the belief, he doesn't want people to own semi-automatic guns if they are around other people (towns/cities): NO strike 3 he's out

three strikes he is out and those are big strikes because he wants laws to enforce them

while he does have ideas i like :Ben Carson on the Issues

i cant vote for anybody that wants to make the above law, they simply dont understand america, what it is and how it works
 
The Federal government has no right to define marriage but states surely do. And the vote of the people in every individual state should be honored whether you approve of it or not.
This has nothing to do about hate but everything to do about FREEDOM and making sure an individual's vote does count.

While we're on the topic of freedom, why do you feel it is your right to use the government to take away freedoms from homosexuals that you readily enjoy? Do you feel that they're subhuman and less deserving of the rights you have?

In America, 51% can not vote away the rights of a group of people. We all have equal rights under the law and the supreme court has affirmed 14 times over the course of 150 years that marriage is a fundamental human right. So why does your hate run so deep that you want to deny someone basic human rights?
 
Oh except for the Conservative part someone like Obama?:confused:

You have a point Navy Pride. I personally wouldn't vote for him because his views obviously contradicts with mine. He is the right wing version of Obama. With that being said, would it be hypocritical of anyone on the right to say they would vote for Carson considering that he has even less political experience than the guy you all ridicule for not having enough experience? Don't get me wrong, I believe that guy is extremely gifted but at this point he will not make it out of the primaries.
 
well then vote Billary in 2016!!!!!
 
Back
Top Bottom