Ben Carson, famed neurosurgeon, running for president

Washington Post ^ | 05/03/2015 | Steve Peoples

[GIdget2004]

Ben Carson, retired neurosurgeon turned conservative star, has confirmed that he will seek the Republican presidential nomination in 2016.

Carson, who has never run for public office, is expected to be the only high-profile African-American to enter the GOP’s presidential primary as he tries to parlay his success as an author and speaker into a competitive campaign against established politicians.

“I’m willing to be part of the equation and therefore, I’m announcing my candidacy for president of the United States of America,” he said in an interview aired Sunday night by Ohio’s WKRC television station.

He is set to make a more formal announcement during a speech from his native Detroit on Monday.

[RKBA Democrat]

The time for feeling one’s oats on fairly basic issues is not when running for the presidency. While I wish that the presidency had far less power so we could pay less attention to it, the reality is that presidents have almost dictatorial power. This is not an internship.

Dr. Carson has no elected record to look at. He does not have any significant administrative record that I’m aware of. All we have is what he has said in public and what he has written to judge him on.

Given the record of “highly experienced” presidents that we’ve had in the last 30 years, I’d be more willing than most to give a nonpolitician a shot. But this guy can’t seem to get even the basics right. So I see no point in doing anything more than saying NO to his presidential ambitions. There are better candidates running already.

[trebb]

I consider myself a principled Christian before a principled conservative. And I think this country is headed down a very ugly road at a very rapid speed and the number one reason is disregard for basic Christian principles such as marriage between a man and a woman as one of the pillars upon which our country is built.. If the candidate doesn't seem to get that and shows signs that he would eventually capitulate to the normalizing homosexual agenda going on right now, I will not vote for them. You may not agree with me on this, but be clear, I am not alone by a long shot. So best to push the candidate who is clear on such issues. Right now that is clearly Ted Cruz.

100% agree that Cruz is the best choice and his unabashed love of Jesus is an added appeal.

While I agree that we shouldn't cater to the homosexual (and all other sorts of "sexuals" it would seem), I will discern between one who has opinions I don't agree with and one who will use every possible way to actively push it. Some on the Right are tolerant and even have opinions I don't agree with and that's fine. It's the ones who will go lawless and make them a special class that are the threat. Those on the Left will rabidly push to criminalize those who disagree with them - to refuse to vote against them is to allow the greater evil to assume power (look at Obama for the best example).

I guess the question is, is it more moral to not vote for someone who dislikes Jews and thereby allow a Hitler to assume the reins? One way you get someone whose fault is he dislikes Jews and may make bad comments or poor decisions and the other way you get someone who will actively pursue genocide - how is allowing the truly evil guy in a positive for Christianity?

That's how my mind works - I won't fault you for having a different view, but I would expect that you would allow that your eyes are open and that you realize the end consequences for some potential votes/non-votes and don't claim that it doesn't happen that way.

[bramps]

I appreciate your thoughtful response and I clearly see your point which I am aware of. One goal I would be striving for by not voting for someone whom I felt ultimately would back liberal social issues is to send a message, hopefully with many others, that we are done simply heading in the wrong direction at a slower speed than a radical liberal would get us there. Either candidate is still taking us to the same place, just at a different speed.

I convinced myself that Romney was sincere on abortion and gay marriage and I voted for him, but if my life was on the line as to whether or not he was sincere, I would've been very nervous.

I wonder how it would have affected the stands of future Republican candidates if, instead of 5% of voters not showing up for Romney, the number was 30%.

I'm no biblical scholar and am not in a position to be standing holier than anyone, but I often think about God's challenge to Abraham to simply find 10 righteous men in Sodom and God would not destroy the city. 10 righteous men could not be found. Sodom was destroyed. Are we so principally barren that we can't come up with one righteous candidate and then stand up for him or her?

[trebb]

Are we so principally barren that we can't come up with one righteous candidate and then stand up for him or her?

Reminds me of Judges where it was said: In those days there was no king in Israel, but every man did that which was right in his own eyes.

Despite God being our true King, we all too often still rely on what our human minds tell us and we are every bit as apt to be wrong as right - despite our insistence and belief that we are following God's Will.

The Human condition is a tough nut to crack and that is why He had to die on the cross for us and why He will have to return to set thing right once we finish making His prophesy to us come true.

I voted Romney, even though I wished someone else was our candidate, because, he stated that his opinions were his opinions and that it wasn't the government's job to make those decisions - it was the people/organizations involved. He also stated that while Romney Care was legal to impose on Massachusetts, Obama Care, at the National level, was unconstitutional. I don't believe he would have gone lawless to impose his opinions on us.

Sometimes, slowing the train down a bit can prevent the eventual crash despite it still being headed in the wrong direction - time can be our friend.

I told my wife I would follow Cruz into battle - he's the first in a long time (since Reagan) that I feel that way about.