2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumSanders is "blasting" the media for calling out Carson for his lies about his life.
He believes the media should only be considering Carson's policies, not his lies.
I disagree. Much of Carson's biography is made up crap, and that is very relevant to his qualifications to being President of the United States. It isn't only about policy.
The book containing all the lies is recent -- not 30 or 40 years ago. And it says something significant about the man. So does the ridiculous temple to himself that he lives in.
And why does Sanders now say that the Hillary email situation reflects on her character -- but he doesn't appear to care about what Carson's lies say about HIS character?
ON EDIT:
Sanders thinks everything should be focused on policy , but voters instinctively understand that character is just as important. When a President is elected, no one can predict all the events that can happen in the next four years -- or what policies or policy changes might prove to be necessary. We have to rely on having a President who is trustworthy. Carson is NOT such a man and no one should help him pretend that he might be, including Sanders. It isn't all about Carson's policies. It's also about who he is as a human being.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/bernie-sanders-ben-carson-story_563fafaee4b0411d307169b6
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) called out the media on Sunday for scrutinizing GOP presidential candidate Ben Carson's personal story, thereby diverting attention away from his policy positions.
I think it might be a better idea, I know it's a crazy idea, but maybe we focus on the issues impacting the American people and what candidates are saying, rather than just spending so much time exploring their lives of 30 or 40 years ago, Sanders, who is running for the Democratic presidential nomination, said on NBCs Meet the Press. And I think the reason that so many people are turned off to the political process has a lot to do with the fact that we're not talking about the real issues impacting real people.
JackInGreen
(2,975 posts)leftofcool
(19,460 posts)pnwmom
(108,976 posts)DURHAM D
(32,609 posts)http://www.mediaite.com/tv/bernie-sanders-media-scrutiny-of-ben-carson-is-why-people-hate-politics/
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Bernie is issues driven, he always has been.
I guess this is the latest poutrage but it too shall pass.
In case you have amnesia about how Bernie feels about the media:
Autumn
(45,056 posts)If the media would focus on the issues then the character of the politicians becomes clear. Another day another poutrage.
arcane1
(38,613 posts)Clear as day.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Anything to avoid discussing the issues.
cascadiance
(19,537 posts)... which I believe was an INTENTIONAL tactic on the corporate media's part to distract us from the more valid criticism of a question as to WHY Hillary Clinton (and for that matter so many Republicans as well) feel they need to PRIVATIZE the emails they do in service of our country. It takes away accountability for us all to know what is going on, and puts at risk any security issues that might have been "privatized" in the process, which may or may not have happened (and Republicans are trying to make that Bengazi BS fit in to that picture).
If a high level manager in the corporate world directed their staff to have their business email rerouted to a home-based server they had to escape management scrutiny of what they were talking about in their jobs of a corporation, you know they would be FIRED for doing such a thing.
The question is why do we have people in government not feeling accountable for that decision. I think we are at least owed an explanation for why that was done. I could think of many reasons that a well thinking politician might feel that this was needed if they knew of security breaches, etc. in government run infrastructure to do their job effectively and allow those that might want to work against them doing their jobs to have access to mail content they shouldn't. If that was the motivation for what she did, she I think even now would be better served by offering that explanation to the public, and what she did to try and get our email infrastructure fixed to deal with such problems. But we aren't hearing that, so some other explanation perhaps she doesn't want us to hear is what so many speculate were her motivations for doing so.
By the corporate media focusing on the Bengazi side of the emails, if nothing wrong is found happening there (which is likely given the Republicans itch to stir up a pot that has a lot of BS in it), they basically had two outcomes as potentially happen. That Clinton gets sunk and Republicans get empowered if they were right, or Hilary Clinton gets empowered if they were wrong (and not any populist serving outcomes happening with that focus).
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)By focusing on fake scandals we are not addressing the very real problems with our system.
After what the media did to Hillary you'd think that her supporters would understand what Bernie is saying but nope, they're just playing the part of "useful idiot" by using this non-issue to attack him.
leftofcool
(19,460 posts)There are days when I don't blame him. On the other hand, he can't complain about exposure for himself if he is constantly mad at the media.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)This isn't about Bernie, it's about how the media turns every election into a circus.
If you're not angry too you're not paying attention.
brush
(53,764 posts)Carson's lies?
What do we care if the poll-leading repug candicate is exposed as a self-serving, egregious liar?
That happens to be the duty of the press, and it's one less right winger to worry about if you ask me.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)brush
(53,764 posts)But I'm in the camp of letting repug candidates self-destruct as their lies are exposed to voters by the press.
Hello! It's not . . . a-h-h-h-h, it's right on the tip of my tongue, it's not brain surgery.
Oh, the irony of that cliche.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)brush
(53,764 posts)If you have a point put it in writing instead of using someone else's cartoon.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Maybe you should read it again.
brush
(53,764 posts)Put it in writing so people know for sure what side of the issue you are on.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)brush
(53,764 posts)I've been through this before with you and your favorite phrase.
No thanks.
Oilwellian
(12,647 posts)Hmmm...what other candidate was polled as being untrustworthy by a majority of the country?
brush
(53,764 posts)but the OP is about whether Bernie, or any Dem for that matter, should inject himself/herself into a situation where a potential general election candidate from the other party is being exposed as a liar to the voters.
Being a "good guy" here is not called for. Carson is the opposition.
Just steer clear and let that sh_t happen.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)I love the double standard, when Bernie was defending Hillary from the media they were all like HELL YEAH!!!
But this attempt to focus on the issues means he's defending Carson's lies.
brush
(53,764 posts)KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Bernie is consistent, maybe you should give it a try.
djean111
(14,255 posts)years. Cognitive dissonance at its finest.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)pnwmom
(108,976 posts)But apparently it's not okay to do this to Carson -- according to both Carson and Sanders.
djean111
(14,255 posts)pnwmom
(108,976 posts)But apparently it's not okay to discuss issues of character for Carson.
How come?
boston bean
(36,221 posts)Oh come on if Hillary was out in the press giving that fool cover, you'd be all over it!
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)Vetted for years and now more enters into the campaign they will need this also. If Carson had made up so many tales and now he is pissed the stories are being checked out. Sorry Bubba, its your book. There will be more stories coming out about Sanders. It is all a part of the game.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)I seem to recall one about coming under sniper fire...
Walk away
(9,494 posts)That's a good one!!!!
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)She wanted to deny lgbt people their rights for their own good and said that Saddam was helping Al Qaeda.
I wish I could laugh over those lies but they're not funny.
Walk away
(9,494 posts)But no one else seems to remember him doing very much (although, working hard for Bernie might be sitting around the Senate taking credit for other people's work)
[link:http://www.buzzfeed.com/evanmcsan/the-obama-campaign-remembers-2012-very-differently-from-bern#.sobmJ22BD|
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)And you're comparing it to something you can't remember?
Jesus Christ.
Historic NY
(37,449 posts)they been after her since she was first lady.........Hell the Republicans have pretty much "vetted" her .
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)but Bernie doesn't fling poop.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Cha
(297,154 posts)Last edited Sun Nov 8, 2015, 06:22 PM - Edit history (1)
Thank you, pnwmom.
Edit: to say "that is the issue."
oasis
(49,376 posts)Cha
(297,154 posts)now saying on national tv that he "campaigned very hard for Obama"?
Bernie Sanders Says It Would Be A Good Idea To Primary President Obama
"Let me just suggest this. I think there are millions of Americans who are deeply disappointed in the president; who believe that, with regard to Social Security and a number of other issues.. "
http://thinkprogress.org/special/2011/07/22/277124/bernie-sanders-primary-obama/
"Confronted with his support for a progressive challenge to Obama in 2011, Sanders said Saturday he campaigned very hard for Obama in 2008 and 2012"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/110725870#post11
TheObamaDiary.com ?@TheObamaDiary
Martin OMalley: When PBO was running for re-election I was glad to stand up & support him - unlike Sen Sanders who wanted to primary him 👍🏼
3:33 PM - 6 Nov 2015 68 68 Retweets
58 58 likes
http://theobamadiary.com/2015/11/06/the-presidents-day-76/#comments
Thank you, Gov O'Malley for pointing that our.
oasis
(49,376 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)ZOMGWTFBBQ???
It's a conspiracy!!1!
Armstead
(47,803 posts)He basally called him nasty and crazy because of his policies.
Has the media told you what Carson's real policies are? Not just that he's a conservative.
No they tell you eitehr the warm and fuzzy stuff or alternately some white liees he told about himself.
Ya know once in a while a candidate you don't support might actually be making a good point.
Snotcicles
(9,089 posts)riversedge
(70,187 posts)Response to riversedge (Reply #14)
Name removed Message auto-removed
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Rule nunber one....if you opponent is committing suicide....dont try to stop them
Response to VanillaRhapsody (Reply #27)
Name removed Message auto-removed
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Will he defend Trump next?
Response to VanillaRhapsody (Reply #42)
Name removed Message auto-removed
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)That's rich...
okasha
(11,573 posts)ColesCountyDem
(6,943 posts)Fortunately for DU, MIRT didn't agree.
riversedge
(70,187 posts)foolish. Second, politically Sanders should be concerned about the opposition and the type of people they have running for President.
Response to riversedge (Reply #48)
Name removed Message auto-removed
riversedge
(70,187 posts)okasha
(11,573 posts)is that he can evade MIRT for more than a couple hours.
pnwmom
(108,976 posts)in landslides, DESPITE his very public promises to end Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.
People voted for nice-guy Ronnie anyway, apparently trusting Congress to rein him in.
Well, the current Congress won't rein a President/Doctor Ben Carson in.
Sanders has apparently forgotten that voters will vote for a perceived nice guy no matter what his policies are. I don't understand how Sanders could have forgotten this, but apparently he has. So we should remind Sanders: it's not all about issues. If it were, Reagan would NEVER have been elected.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)Policy is for wimps! Gotta fling that poo poo!
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)It's that simple.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Did Hillary do this?
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)YOU are decrying Sanders for not running a dirty campaign, AKA having integrity.
Thus it is safe to assume you apply the same standard to Hillary.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)And can I quote you the next time you talk smack anout HRC?
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)You are not a serious person. Have a good day.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)I can't quote you then...that's what I thought!
brush
(53,764 posts)Why wouldn't he want this lying narcissist exposed?
cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
pnwmom
(108,976 posts)cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
pnwmom
(108,976 posts)the finer points of issues. That's how someone like Ronald Reagan could get elected, even though he rode in on an unpopular platform of ending Social Security and Medicare.
Ronald Reagan wasn't popular because of his policies but because the majority of voters thought he was a nice guy.
I'm glad the media is exposing the fact that soft-spoken, mild-mannered, good-looking Carson is not a nice guy.
cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
pnwmom
(108,976 posts)His plan to end Medicare and Social Security got nowhere, but he got elected twice.
cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
Dr Hobbitstein
(6,568 posts)Or that his Medicare and Social Security policies failed?
If you see the world differently from that, then you live on Bullshit Mountain.
cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
JackInGreen
(2,975 posts)But why just go for the cheap shot when there's a much better shot to take?
left lowrider
(97 posts)Bernie says over and over that
1) the media needs to focus less on sensationalism
AND
2) focus more on issues
The media and Clinton supporters ignore the second half . . . because they don't want to focus on issues.
It's done on purpose and its silly on the order of "I know you are but what am I?"
I like that Bernie applies the same ethos to Carson and Clinton- Their personal issues are not irrelevant but there are ALSO more important issues facing our country . . .
and they both Carson and Clinton will lose if we vote based on issues.
scscholar
(2,902 posts)Control-Z
(15,682 posts)This, exactly. Starting with those lost years of his.
InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,122 posts)boston bean
(36,221 posts)djean111
(14,255 posts)talking about, at all. But y'all know that.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Poor political skill.
riversedge
(70,187 posts)VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Bernie is naive politically
Rosa Luxemburg
(28,627 posts)sometimes you want them to stay there where they can be further barbecued.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)pnwmom
(108,976 posts)issue of "character" and yet he also says it isn't right to discuss issues related to Carson's character?
DURHAM D
(32,609 posts)boston bean
(36,221 posts)LOL the depths to which some go......
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)I predict he drops at least five points in the polls within two weeks after this blunder.
treestar
(82,383 posts)And Bernie had best be prepared to deal with the attacks the Rs will do on himself.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)about the others full time, that's what you think is better? Saying it's better to talk about policy is blasting the press?
Here's the thing. Interview me about me, ask me about him or her and I'm going to say 'I'm sick of talking about it, what matters is policy' because that way my time remains about me and my ideas not about him, her, and their cray-cray.
You are used to snippy, gossipy politicians who grab at any bait offered them.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)They cannot comprehend the value of integrity? Wow.
tularetom
(23,664 posts)He made a comment that the media should focus on policy rather than background, which is the truth.
How you ever manage to twist such a statement into an attack on Hillary Clinton is something I can't quite wrap my mind around. She should be very happy for the media to focus on her policies rather than her background, because there is a huge amount of nasty crap in there to be exploited by anyone who looks.
Her policies? Hard to attack them, they vary from day to day.
pnwmom
(108,976 posts)Which you obviously didn't read.
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)That doesn't seem fair. Bernie would like the media to stick only to issues. He's been consistent about that. It's really a reach to hate on him for this. You're trying too hard.
pnwmom
(108,976 posts)that the email situation should be investigated and that it's an issue of character.
But he thinks we should ignore Carson's character. This isn't consistent at all.
MrWendel
(1,881 posts)I get the standard "Focus on the issues" thing but Carson is beyond the pale. I member was trying to fight with me so much on it I forgot if he was defending Carson or not.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)And how was "he" defending Carson?
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)We need to know if a politician finds a theocracy to be fine and dandy. We need to know if a politician creates creds to glean votes via lies.
Cheese Sandwich
(9,086 posts)He criticized the media for failing to report that Ben Carson wants to abolish Medicare, among other reactionary policies.
He said the other stories will also be reported.
pnwmom
(108,976 posts)and he got elected twice.
He was elected in landslides simply because people liked HIM. They trusted Congress to rein him in on the policy issues, if they ever listened to that at all.
Focusing on the issues, as Bernie wants, isn't enough. Too many voters make choices based on their surface impression of a candidate, and that is why this looney-tune is doing so well -- he's good looking, soft-spoken, and has an MD beside his name.
I'm glad the media is putting a spotlight on his lying character. Otherwise, I'm afraid we're looking at an African American Ronald Reagan.
Cheese Sandwich
(9,086 posts)Sanders did not "blast" the media for talking about those things.
He blasted them for ignoring other serious policy issues.
pnwmom
(108,976 posts)and he got elected in landslides.
Sanders, unlike many DUers, is old enough to remember that. How can he say that it isn't important to discuss Carson's despicable character along with his policies?
Hyping the fact that Carson is against Social Security and Medicare won't harm him much in the general election. Too many voters don't vote based on issues. They vote based on character, and general impressions, and they trust that no President will change things "too much."
But Carson could, if he lands in office with a GOP-controlled Congress.
Cheese Sandwich
(9,086 posts)That's not what I just learned in 30 seconds of googling.
pnwmom
(108,976 posts)I didnt need to google because I was alive and paying attention during the Reagan years, and he had his own radio show and what he was saying was widely reported. But my 30 seconds of googling produced this:
http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a1962reaganama
During a campaign debate between President Jimmy Carter (D-GA) and his Republican challenger, Governor Ronald Reagan (R-CA), Carter lambasts Reagan for his decades-long opposition to Medicare (see 1962). Governor Reagan, as a matter of fact, began his political career campaigning around this nation against Medicare, Carter says. Reagan counters with what author Larry DeWitt calls a deft quip and a blatant denial. He says, There you go again. When the laughter subsides, Reagan continues: When I opposed Medicare, there was another piece of legislation meeting the same problem before the Congress. I happened to favor the other piece of legislation and thought it would be better for the senior citizens and provide better care than the one that was finally passed. I was not opposing the principle of providing care for them. I was opposing one piece of legislation versus another. Reagan is referring to a Republican alternative called Bettercare that was little more than a voluntary insurance program funded by Social Security. Carter also states that Reagan had, in his career, advocated making Social Security a voluntary program, which as Carter notes, would, in effect, very quickly bankrupt it. Reagan had frequently advocated such a position while supporting Senator Barry Goldwaters 1964 presidential campaign, and as recently as 1975 during his unsuccessful primary campaign for the presidency, but Reagan now denies taking such a stance: Now, again this statement that somehow I wanted to destroy it, and I just changed my tune, that I am for voluntary social security, which would mean the ruin of it, Mr. President, the voluntary thing that I suggested many years ago was that a young man, orphaned and raised by an aunt who died, his aunt was ineligible for Social Security insurance, because she was not his mother. And I suggested that if this was an insurance program, certainly the person whos paying in should be able to name his own beneficiaries. And thats the closest Ive ever come to anything voluntary with Social Security. Though Reagans claims are at odds with his previous positions, his denials go virtually unchallenged in the media.
DCBob
(24,689 posts)Its fair game.
McCamy Taylor
(19,240 posts)Makes me feel like I live in a sensible country.
pnwmom
(108,976 posts)he advocated getting rid of Medicare and Social Security.
So focusing on those issues alone isn't likely to spare us from the horror of a Ben Carson presidency.
http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a1962reaganama
During a campaign debate between President Jimmy Carter (D-GA) and his Republican challenger, Governor Ronald Reagan (R-CA), Carter lambasts Reagan for his decades-long opposition to Medicare (see 1962). Governor Reagan, as a matter of fact, began his political career campaigning around this nation against Medicare, Carter says. Reagan counters with what author Larry DeWitt calls a deft quip and a blatant denial. He says, There you go again. When the laughter subsides, Reagan continues: When I opposed Medicare, there was another piece of legislation meeting the same problem before the Congress. I happened to favor the other piece of legislation and thought it would be better for the senior citizens and provide better care than the one that was finally passed. I was not opposing the principle of providing care for them. I was opposing one piece of legislation versus another. Reagan is referring to a Republican alternative called Bettercare that was little more than a voluntary insurance program funded by Social Security. Carter also states that Reagan had, in his career, advocated making Social Security a voluntary program, which as Carter notes, would, in effect, very quickly bankrupt it. Reagan had frequently advocated such a position while supporting Senator Barry Goldwaters 1964 presidential campaign, and as recently as 1975 during his unsuccessful primary campaign for the presidency, but Reagan now denies taking such a stance: Now, again this statement that somehow I wanted to destroy it, and I just changed my tune, that I am for voluntary social security, which would mean the ruin of it, Mr. President, the voluntary thing that I suggested many years ago was that a young man, orphaned and raised by an aunt who died, his aunt was ineligible for Social Security insurance, because she was not his mother. And I suggested that if this was an insurance program, certainly the person whos paying in should be able to name his own beneficiaries. And thats the closest Ive ever come to anything voluntary with Social Security. Though Reagans claims are at odds with his previous positions, his denials go virtually unchallenged in the media.
azmom
(5,208 posts)HassleCat
(6,409 posts)Sanders is a wild man!
Cha
(297,154 posts)Oh boofuckinghoo.. the birther shite was not true but carson's Lies? Another story. Freaking dangerous sociopath.
Birther story 'not even close' to media scrutiny he faces
snip//
Ben Carson says the investigation and rumors into President Obamas birth certificate are not even close to the media scrutiny that his GOP presidential campaign has faced.
I have not seen that with anyone else, Carson said in an interview broadcast on NBCs Meet the Press on Sunday. If you can show me where thats happened with someone else, I will take that statement back.
He then dismissed notions that Obama or President Bill Clinton faced comparable vetting in their respective campaigns.
Carson said the biased media are trying to take him down because he poses a threat to the secular progressive movement.
Im a very big threat because you know they can look at the polling data, they can tell that Im the candidate whos most likely to beat Hillary Clinton, he said. They see that and they worry.
More..
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/259494-carson-birther-story-not-even-close-to-media-scrutiny-he
bullshite, he'll take it back If you can show me where thats happened with someone else, I will take that statement back.
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)"Hillary Clinton is a liar. A shameless liar. And she thinks you are stupid. Hillary Clinton is a liar. A shameless liar. And she thinks you are stupid. Hillary Clinton is a liar. A shameless liar. And she thinks you are stupid. Hillary Clinton is a liar. A shameless liar. And she thinks you are stupid. Hillary Clinton is a liar. A shameless liar. And she thinks you are stupid.
Hillary Clinton is a liar. A shameless liar. And she thinks you are stupid.
Hillary Clinton is a liar. A shameless liar. And she thinks you are stupid. Hillary Clinton is a liar. A shameless liar. And she thinks you are stupid. Hillary Clinton is a liar. A shameless liar. And she thinks you are stupid. Hillary Clinton is a liar. A shameless liar. And she thinks you are stupid.
Hillary Clinton is a liar. A shameless liar. And she thinks you are stupid. Hillary Clinton is a liar. A shameless liar. And she thinks you are stupid. Hillary Clinton is a liar. A shameless liar. And she thinks you are stupid. Hillary Clinton is a liar. A shameless liar. And she thinks you are stupid. Hillary Clinton is a liar. A shameless liar. And she thinks you are stupid."
I don't know why that happens. Do you know why that happens when I read your posts? I can read every word slowly, S-L-O-W-L-Y, and in my head it comes out like that, and always in Gilligan's voice. Why does that happen? Do you know why that happens? Odd. I don't know why it happens. You never posted anything like that did you? Maybe I read it and it made such an impression that now you're like Bob Denver to me... typecast into a role you'll never quite make it out of.
Binkie The Clown
(7,911 posts)I support Sanders, but to point out that a presidential candidate is a pathological liar IS the job of investigative journalism.
loyalsister
(13,390 posts)But the fact that he is so strenuously trying to put a narrative together after he has written a book that was made into a movie about his life, is a red flag. He deserves criticism and questioning.
I'm with Bernie 100% on Hillary's emails. I don't care what is in them, but the fact that she did not follow the standard protocol to the letter reveals a character flaw. I see it as the kind of thumb your nose at the rules arrogance that led to us having to go through an impeachment with her husband.
kelliekat44
(7,759 posts)pnwmom
(108,976 posts)system for non-classified materials. Non classified materials weren't allowed on the classified system; and the .gov system couldn't handle emails when she was traveling.
Sanders' point about Carson is inconsistent with his point this week about Hillary. For some reason he thinks it's fine to cast aspersions on her character, but not on Carson's. The only way to make sense of that is to realize he's just a typical politician, like everyone else.
Cha
(297,154 posts)politics.. because too many politicians lie their fucking heads off.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)And he's absolutely right.
Cha
(297,154 posts)Cha
(297,154 posts)treestar
(82,383 posts)Cha
(297,154 posts)LoveIsNow
(356 posts)it would be no better if he were the most honest man in the world. The fact that he wants to abolish Medicare should be enough to reject him.
Would you rather have a man who could be absolutely trusted and vowed to dismantle out country as our president?
gwheezie
(3,580 posts)I would never vote for him anyway so it doesn't matter in my decision making but....one main factor I use when choosing who to vote for is what will they do when the thing happens that no one expects. It happens to almost every president. You have your agenda, all set to push forward and then bam!
I am going to vote for the person who I think is least likely to do something nuts. I want someone who grasps complex issues, puts their own prejudices and agenda aside and handle it to keep the country going.
So Carson having such a distorted sense of himself and reality comes into play. He's too unbalanced to be able to adjust his thinking to the situation, he distorts the situation to adjust to his perception of what is true and real. It's as valid a campaign issue as his policies.
Hekate
(90,645 posts)treestar
(82,383 posts)the Rs are going to go into everything about you. You'll only look like you are whining.
Carson is the most unqualified person to run for POTUS. Even Palin had been elected governor of a state.
riversedge
(70,187 posts)self-adoring house.