Narlyhorn's Link
Wrong time? Maybe we needed more leaders like that a hundred years ago, so you may be right, although for the wrong reason.
Like to hear more why you say wrong guy, wrong time. You are one of the guys whose opinion I take seriously. Not so much the neocons who attempt to dominate the forum with status quo supportive thinking.
God bless, Steve
"He is a kind, gentleman"
Which means that the Clinton machine most likely will make hamburger of him. Nice guys McCain, and Romney had their butts handed to them, because they couldn't bring themselves to point out the lies, hypocrisy, and outright fraud of the democrats and Obama.
To say a nice guy is unelectable in our country is a bit of a strawman. We can elect a Ben Carson because he IS a nice guy and appeals to a much more broad swath of voters by believing in smaller more effective government. He will tear the Clinton team to pieces if given the opportunity. He can do so with a demeanor not representative of the failures exhibited by either McCain or Romney.
Candidates with no executive experience do not make effective presidents.
We called Romney a flip flopper but Carson has "integrity and changes his mind when he is wrong." Really?
Glad he loves guns now because it wasn't long ago he didn't support the Constitution in that regard.
Everything he says is conservative talking points and what people want to hear.
Maybe if he ran for Governor or gets a cabinet seat in the future.
Right now he is just not a viable candidate and taking the time to write this was 5 minutes wasted.
To name Ben Carson a flip flopper is simply attacking a man with enough integrity to admit he was wrong about something. It says more about the person calling the name than the person that changes his or her mind. It is also an accusation of the man being named because it is an attack on his genuine changing of the mind and accusing an ulterior motive which you have ascrfibed to Carson as political. I say on the other hand that the man is honest (my opinion) and genuinely saw his wrongness and adjusted his stance accordingly. It was not actually much of a change because he was never against the 2 amendment to start with. He just did not understand the reason for it which was a well organized and armed militia. It had nothing to do with hunting ect. Once Ben Carson became cognizant of that he realized the need and changed his position. I love that. On the other hand you would denigrate him and cast dispersion on him as a flipper. I believe that is why we have a first amendment. Its your right but I also have the right to disagree. I will not call a man with impeccable background of honesty and integrity a liar.
God bless, Steve
We need a person with the right positions, the ability to get elected, and the ability to get their agenda through, and the political skills to keep the American people cooperating once elected.
TRUTH!!!!
It's like having a football team that is going to play in the Superbowl and the coach dies, so you go and hire a coach who's not only not ever coached a team before, but who's never even played the game, but just watched one on TV a few times.
In Obama's case this was exactly what has happened except for he's trying to change it to a soccer game!
Politicians were never intended to be career jobs. We need to get back to how the Republic was intended to be governed, by the people, regular people like Carson, not a bunch of hooligan lawyers, bankers and corporate cronies. Someone who believes in restoring the balance of power to benefit the governed, not the government.
Too many people parrot, believe and echo talking head political pundits. Too bad. They may talk a good game and get their chosen ones elected, all the while America swirls deeper and deeper down the toilet bowl.
I think he has demonstrated the ability to not get rattled. He's getting better all the time as I watch him learn to control the narrative.
Admitting your wrong when you decide to run for president is flip flopping for personal gain.
If he would have had his epiphany before the famous prayer breakfast that is his sole "Qualification" I would feel differently.
Him wanting to ban assualt weapons only in the city let me know he doesn't believe in equal rights for all. The Constitution only applies if it is convenient and fits his parameters.
"Too many people parrot, believe and echo talking head political pundits."
I agree and am amazed that many on this thread consider him viable. Must be white guilt or people hoping for morality laws applied unequally according to whether you live in the city or not.
"He's getting better all the time as I watch him learn to control the narrative."
That is why he needs to run for Governor so he can gain some experience and maybe learn that the Bill of Rights applies to everyone.
I am honestly amazed that he has this amount of support here among people who are more educated in politics.
Thanks for the facts.
That has improved his credibility a little bit in my book.
Still not good enough for POTUS.....
You should actually read his comments on reforming these programs.
“So what would be much more empowering, would be to use our intellect and our resources to give those people a way up and out.”
"Many of these people suffer from the same entitlement mentality seen in poor people who are always looking for a government handout. These Wall Street moguls and corporate executives actually think that what they do is worth hundreds of millions of dollars a year, even though in many cases they are simply moving money around, producing nothing."
From his 2014 book One Nation....
"Agreement on who should be treated and who should not be treated would require an extensive national discussion that could hopefully result in some helpful basic guidelines. Obviously any such guidelines should allow for flexibility and choice. And decisions should be based not merely on age but on the viability of the patient."
From his 1999 book....
Some of his proposals: nationalized catastrophic care, essentially replacing Medicaid with health care food stamps, and “national guidelines” about when the elderly and terminally ill should receive care.
I'm still hoping for a Walker presidency.
Narlyhorn's Link
See his attached views on healthcare. Best in class in my view.
He once proposed a government run catastrophic care program for the elderly via tax on insurance company profits of 10-15% to pay for managed care operations.
This was in 1996, way before implementation of O'care.
In Carson's book, he spoke of the dignity of dying at home vs. being poked and prodded at great expense in an intensive care unit when terminally ill. He wrote about how Americans haven't come to terms with that kind of option. It is my opinion that he was speaking of the terminal patient as opposed to one with a catastrophic illness in need of intensive care. BIG difference. I would be interested in how his positions have changed or evolved from those nearly 20 years ago.
His comments about national healthcare in the form of O'care are summed up by his most recent quotes, "Obamacare is really, I think, the worst thing that has happened in this nation since slavery. And it was never about health care, it was about control." That's the one that PiZzes off liberals as it attacks their crowning achievement of government run healthcare.
His solution for healthcare includes giving HSA's to children at birth, to which money can be contributed pre-tax from the time of birth until the time of death. His quote " If you die you can pass it on to your family members...., and no one is talking about death panels.
The beauty of Carson's argument exceeds its simplicity, particularly as even economist Paul Krugman now concedes that something like death panels are inevitable if we stay on our current path. Taxpayers, the rich, or charities can contribute extra money to the accounts of the poor (with everyone's account seeded at birth), but at the same time, Carson says, the poor will "have some control over their own health care. And very quickly they're going to learn how to be responsible."
His comments on intercity violence and gun control echo some of that same thinking when he once advocated for gun control in that arena. It echoes some of my own, specifically, if you use firearms in a crime, you lose your right to bear. You use a firearm in a reckless or unsafe manner, you are severely corrected and punished accordingly. I think this entirely acceptable and within the confines of the 2A. And very quickly they're going to learn how to be responsible.
His intellect and thinking ability make him a great candidate, right now, imo. He's tied for second on my list with Cruz and rising, very quickly.
Not Constitutional in my book.
I did not think you would support socialized medicine.
The way I read him, he is making the case for heavy handed government regulation of the health care insurance industry, not government run socialized medicine. Let's be clear on definition of terms to avoid confusion. This doesn't force a product on an individual who decides he doesn't need or want it by enforcement of government.
I don't like government regulatory agencies. Mostly because they trend toward outright defensive institutions of the industries they were intended to regulate. Regulatory capture if you will. Unfortunately, some businesses have earned the regulations rained upon them, others, not so much. Regulations rarely, if ever, need be as complex in nature as government special interests and the regulatory agencies themselves make them. Legislators consent to it, largely for plausible deniability, if you ask me.
I don't support socialized medicine as a policy matter and not Constitutional in my book either. I do support forms of socialized medicine in private voluntary or charitable fashion.
I also support pragmatic solutions like the HSA accounts from birth concept he proposes and most other forms of free market ideas.
I would prefer we limit the Feds to the role enumerated to them. All other matters forwarded to the states and their constituencies for resolution within US Constitutional boundaries.
This does allow for numerous things I don't like but it is the foundation of our Republic. If followed, we can vote with our feet.
certain rights are available for use by certain people
by default, you are now the racist
My opinion is he makes a great moderate Democrat...
Take over of insurance companies rubs me the wrong way. If a states constituents wanted to set up their own insurance cooperatives to compete with private insurers and do so as a competing entity, I would like to hear more from a pragmatic perspective.
We could walk thru the Constitutional barriers as they arise. So long as that's observed, I don't see the harm.
Your opinion is noted, not ignored. I just see it differently.
