How so? Because he was Black or because of the job he has done?

Because of the Dems and Obama himself constantly throwing the race card out there every time there was any disagreement from the Republicans. At the same time, America, and most of world, is filled with racism to begin with and no one race is more dominate than the other in that. I honestly feel like the way he handled himself at times along with his party (and lets not forget the media) served more to divide than unite. Same can be said for a some of his detractors. I think he and the Dems had a golden opportunity, I think they failed in capitalizing on it. I know those on the liberal side are going to point the finger at the conservatives, but they weren't president, Obama has failed in any leadership role, but I feel he failed miserably where race relations are concerned. His being black has zero to do with his job performance.

Because of the Dems and Obama himself constantly throwing the race card out there every time there was any disagreement from the Republicans. At the same time, America, and most of world, is filled with racism to begin with and no one race is more dominate than the other in that. I honestly feel like the way he handled himself at times along with his party (and lets not forget the media) served more to divide than unite. Same can be said for a some of his detractors. I think he and the Dems had a golden opportunity, I think they failed in capitalizing on it. I know those on the liberal side are going to point the finger at the conservatives, but they weren't president, Obama has failed in any leadership role, but I feel he failed miserably where race relations are concerned. His being black has zero to do with his job performance.

 

But you proved his point with your post saying another black president would not be elected because of Obama.

 

Which I disagree with.

Because of the Dems and Obama himself constantly throwing the race card out there every time there was any disagreement from the Republicans. At the same time, America, and most of world, is filled with racism to begin with and no one race is more dominate than the other in that. I honestly feel like the way he handled himself at times along with his party (and lets not forget the media) served more to divide than unite. Same can be said for a some of his detractors. I think he and the Dems had a golden opportunity, I think they failed in capitalizing on it. I know those on the liberal side are going to point the finger at the conservatives, but they weren't president, Obama has failed in any leadership role, but I feel he failed miserably where race relations are concerned. His being black has zero to do with his job performance.

 

Race has zero to do with his job performance. I do think race has some to do with some of his criticism but I also feel like his job performance has to do with most of his criticism when the criticism has validity. There is a lot of criticism that is just silly and there is some with validity. When we have race relations like we do in America right now we all lose and we don't progress. We simply aren't ready as a country to have a legitimate conversation about race and move forward. Until that day comes we will continue to have confusion from both races when race is discussed.

:lol:

 

What did I say that was funny?

What did I say that was funny?

 

I believe RTS finds it ironic that you believe Dr. Carson does not have the experience but that Pres. Obama did.

He doesn't. At least Obama was a Senator and had multitudes of other political-related jobs under his belt.

What did I say that was funny?

It would be quicker to list what you've said that wasn't funny.

He doesn't. At least Obama was a Senator and had multitudes of other political-related jobs under his belt.

The presidency is not a union position. Having spent almost no time working in the private sector does not qualify a person to be president any more than seniority makes a union worker the most qualified for a particular job. Otherwise, John Conyers, John Dingel, and Strom Thurmond would have already served as president.

Lots to tackle here. Just now reading it, and this has been an intriguing thread.

 

FWIW No politician EVER tells how they are going to do anything they say they are planning on doing it...so you can't hold that against him here. Also he may have expanded on what he was trying to say if Whoopi and the other lady didn't keep trying to interrupt him. I agree that we let politicians off of the hook when they lay out their ideas and don't give a plan on how to achieve them.

 

He may not be "Exciting" but I'd rather have a leader with substance than one with "Flash"

 

One of the major failings of politics in the US. It's now trickled down to the local level, which is even more disappointing. Candidates, please provide some honesty.

 

Ben Carson is not just any doctor - he is a retired neurosurgeon who rose from a life of poverty in Detroit to the pinnacle of his profession. He was named the Director of Pediatric Surgery at Johns Hopkins at age 33. Dr. Carson retired as one of the top neurosurgeons in the world. If he decides to run for president, no candidate, no member of Congress, and nobody currently in the White House will be more qualified to analyze and propose fixes to the train wreck that is Obamacare.

 

Jimmy Carter was a nuclear physicist and was one of the worst presidents in history.

 

I heard him talk about HSA's on TV, HSA's are just a part of the fix not the entire thing. HSA's allow you to set money aside for later use...in theory the healthy could pay smaller premiums and place more in HSA's to use as needed.

 

I have a friend who probably 15+ years ago did something similar, he started setting money aside to pay his day to day medical expenses and bought a major health policy for any issues that would cost him over $10,000 he has since raised that to $20K then $50 has his personal health account grew due to yearly contributions and he and his wife being fairly healthy. I assume HSA's would work similar under his plan.

 

That's great stuff. Doesn't apply to everyone.

 

Well, in the past decades, Americans are often polled by several organizations if they feel the country is on the right track. Even in the best of times (to each his/her own opinion how to define that), you will always have some who say the US is on the wrong track but if I am not mistaking, the past several years (last decade or less I guess), the response that we are not on the right track is the highest it has ever been. Most analysts say the lingering depression, international unrest (Taliban still poking around, Syria, Crimean Peninsula), the appearance that China has or will soon pass up the US as the world's economic super power, many nations feeling Putin has taken the role from the president as the most powerful person on the planet, etc. as reasons for this high percentage of those who feel the US is not on track.

 

As far as how to define when people feel the country is on track. I guess you could poll numbers are back to or even better than what the are now. If you want to avoid polls and actually what the country looks like when it is on track. I think many would say when the economy returns to a state where unemployment is at or better than historical averages, when the rest of the world looks to the US as being an international leader again (at least to the point we used to be), etc..

 

I bet a lot of those in this country who think the USA is "off track" would change their mind as soon as a white man is back in the Oval Office. I have deep issues with the whole "take back America" chorus because it usually implies a return to 1950s values, when women, blacks, and everybody else who is not a WASP knew their place.

 

For me this means that people take responsibility for their selves and do not want a handout from the government, unless it is an act of necessity. More rugged individualism, it is still possible in this modern world. It also means that America restores its position as a leader in the world. Some believe that America has been pushy over the years. While we have not been perfect, where would the world be if the US had not been there to help win WWI, WWII and the Cold War? Where would many people be without US aid?

 

This sentiment is all fine and dandy, but where does it lead? Should we be more pushy and invade anywhere at the drop of a hat? Does "restoring America's dominance" mean that we meddle in everybody else's affairs across the globe? Hasn't worked very well in Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan and Iraq II. Just wondering what price are we willing to pay to see the US be the world's Big Brother. And by "price," I mean "taxes." The current wars have been waged without tax increases, and we are struggling economically because of it.

 

Dr. Carson has been a well known commodity since the 1980s. He has written six books and many columns. Carson is far from a flash in the pan, so your "8 minutes" argument does not hold water.

 

Obama is only relevant to the discussion because he was a much bigger unknown and totally lacked any background that would cause a reasonable man or woman to suspect that he could "fix" the world's greatest healthcare system. Yet, many of you still defend Obamacare as if it just needs a few small tweaks. It is, in fact, a disaster that will only get worse when Democrats stop delaying some of its most onerous "features."

 

I pride myself on being very aware of the larger world beyond my little utopia in the Bourbon City. Despite your claims that Carson has "been a well known commodity since the 1980s," I'm gonna have to cry foul. Almost nobody — take some of that, HB20 — knows, or has ever known, heard or concerned themselves with who this guy is. Never heard of him before this thread popped up. I'm betting most of BGP hasn't either.

 

I found this article on Dr Carson. Gives a little more detail as to his plan for health care plus his view on public education which I think many will find interesting.

 

Who Is Dr. Ben Carson? - POLITICO Magazine

 

"If you happen to be in an affluent community, there’s a lot more money for the schools, better facilities, everything. All that does is perpetuate the situation,” he told me. “Wouldn’t it make more sense to put the money in a pot and redistribute it throughout the country so that public schools are equal, whether you’re in a poor area or a wealthy area?”

 

Sounds awfully socialist to me.

 

By that I assume you're talking about what he said to Glen Beck about not liking the idea of semi-autos in urban areas and being okay in rural areas.

 

He has now said he would "never advocate anything to interfere with Second Amendment rights," affirming that "law-abiding American citizens absolutely should have gun rights." He also says he is opposed to gun registration, saying he "used to think they needed to be registered, but if you register them, they just come and find you and take your guns." Sounds like he's learning to be a politician. :lol2:

 

I believe that's called "waffling" in popular political circles.

 

As always when someone we don't know well hits the political stage we will start hearing past quotes, legal issues, divorces, etc. I would imagine there is a group already in place doing research on Dr Carson.

 

For example, Dr Carson once advocated for limiting "for profit" health are companies to routine care and the govt being responsible for catastrophic care.

 

A Candid Interview With Dr. Ben S. Carson, M.D: An American Icon

 

The entire concept of for profits for the insurance companies makes absolutely no sense. “I deny that you need care and I will make more money”. This is totally ridiculous. The first thing we need to do is get rid of for profit insurance companies. We have a lack of policies and we need to make the government responsible for catastrophic health care.

 

Again, sounds awfully socialist to me.

 

I would see him more as a third party candidate who could probably get a lot of support.

 

Translation: He has zero chance.

 

So you are implying that whites wouldn't vote for a black? You are equating immigration issues and belief in following existing laws with a lack of diversity? IMO that is not a lack of diversity it is evidence to me that the democratic party is a coalition of self-interested groups with the welfare of the country on the back plate to their own personal interests.

 

Isn't that what Ky Democrats stated when they overwhelmingly supported Hillary Clinton in 2008? Many exit polls quoted Ky voters as stating exactly that. Hard to believe that Kentucky is more racist than the rest of the country, right?

 

Keyes was a single issue candidate who never really made an effort to win primaries. Much of Cain's support was among the Christian right and a sex scandal took the wind out of his sails.

 

I agree with your comments about Perry and Bush, but Sarah Palin is a very effective and persuasive communicator (even without a teleprompter), whether you like her or not and she more than held her own in her debate with Biden.

 

Wow. Just, wow.

 

Clinton-Booker? Why would Democrats not want an honest running mate on the ticket to balance Hillary?

 

You are probably right, though. A large number of women will vote for Hillary despite her record of failure and corruption and with Booker on the ticket, that would virtually ensure 90 percent of the African-American vote. I hope that Americans have had their fill of corruption and incompetence in the White House and will put the country on the path to recovery.

 

This country has a fantastic record of supporting incompetence at the voting booth. Just look at our presidential choices over the past few decades. Forgive me if I don't see that changing any time soon, especially given how national political campaigns are now operated, as well as the nomination process.

 

She will find it VERY difficult to tap the voting blocs. She's not black so she'll get closer to the traditional black vote without the added numbers Obama generated. She's also not young so will have a tough time there also. She'll get added votes from women though.

 

Please. Hillary's got Bill to take care of the of the black vote. And even if she didn't, she still doesn't have to worry about that codlock.

But you proved his point with your post saying another black president would not be elected because of Obama.

 

Which I disagree with.

Hardly. What I proved is that far too many people aren't ready for a black president if they have to use their race as a buffer for questioning their weaknesses.

Race has zero to do with his job performance. I do think race has some to do with some of his criticism but I also feel like his job performance has to do with most of his criticism when the criticism has validity. There is a lot of criticism that is just silly and there is some with validity. When we have race relations like we do in America right now we all lose and we don't progress. We simply aren't ready as a country to have a legitimate conversation about race and move forward. Until that day comes we will continue to have confusion from both races when race is discussed.

Pick any president and you can say there is a lot of criticism that is just silly.

I agree that neither side is ready to have a legitimate conversation about race and move forward.

What did I say that was funny?

Like Bert said, that you think Obama was worthy while Carson isn't. Obama was no more experienced than Carson is.

Jim, Jimmy Carter was not a nuclear physicist, took some classes in it.

 

Also, Bill Clinton will NOT generate any more of the black vote and turnout for Hillary than is standard for a democrat. That ship sailed with Obama.

Also, Bill Clinton will NOT generate any more of the black vote and turnout for Hillary than is standard for a democrat. That ship sailed with Obama.

 

I believe Bill is still considered very popular among black Americans.

I bet a lot of those in this country who think the USA is "off track" would change their mind as soon as a white man is back in the Oval Office.

 

A white man was in office when many believe the US started getting off track, that being W.