I think Roger is overestimating the intelligence of the American voter and underestimating the ability of the Clinton machine (aided by the media) to demonize anyone who gets in their way. By the time Hillary gets through with Dr. Carson, the low-information voters will think that he is worse than Hitler.
That’s pretty heavy delusions Simon is suffering from!
Hillary would win.
Black president. Been there. Done that. Hasn’t work out so well.
Many of those who voted for the first black president did so to ‘be a part of history.’ Those same mentalities would vote for the first female president, again to ‘be a part of history.’
Trump has been on top for four months, and the media can't do what this guy is willing to do after two polls that show Carson ahead in one state on one day.
What if Carson could pull it off?
That's a refreshing view from a member of the media who (most likely) couldn't think of Trump actually pulling it off after 100 days at the top.
This guy buys off on the Carson poll without a single critical thought. LOL
There have been months of critical thoughts about Trump's efforts. One has to work real hard to find any commentary that isn't a "critical thought" gold mine.
Carson is perfect if you are looking for a soft spoken politician who supports amnesty, but not the 2nd amendment.
Think how effective his soft style will be with Congress.
The only Carson’s in my experience were both entertainers. They passed away. Who is this guy? A replacement of sorts?
If Clinton is on the ballot I will vote against her if I have to crawl on my hands and knees to the voting place, dragging my bloody stumps to cast my vote against her.
Wont ever happen. Carson wont be the nom.
Actually I was wondering if in the end we would be able to tell the difference.
Hillary Clinton is the antithesis. Deep down, everyone knows it.
Ben Carson has most likely been abroad, but there have been no reports of his soliciting, or belonging to any organization which solicited, anything from any foreign government.Hillary, OTOH, has - while Secretary of State, no less - been an officer of an organization (the Clinton Foundation) which did exactly that. Not only so, but she was partner (by marriage) with someone who, on multiple occasions, received six-figure honoraria from foreign governments for speeches.
Speaker of the House Jim Wright was forced to resign for selling books for large sums to entities from which he was not legally entitled to take gifts. The US Constitution provides that:
The question the article raises is whether the country is so corrupt that it would elect Hillary in preference to Ben.
- Article 1 Section 9:
- No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States: and no person holding any office of profit or trust under them, shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state
I propose that the governments of the states should each pass a law to enforce the constitutional stricture cited above. A constitutional amendment would be ideal, of course - but is not necessary. All it would take is for a critical mass of states to pass a simple ordinance, and that would suffice to enforce the prohibition of corruption cited.
It is only necessary that some (“purple” and/or “blue”) states make it illegal for an Elector pledged to a violator of Article I Section 9 to be placed on the ballot. And to define a “violation" to include (as the Constitution’s expansive language justifies) knowing acceptance of contributions/honoraria from creatures of foreign governments, define “violator” to include officer or principal in any organization which committed a violation.
Article II Section 1 provides that "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress.” SCOTUS has noted that this grants “plenary power” to each state over the selection of its own Electors. Although by custom and agreement among the states a popular vote is conducted for POTUS and VP, the constitutional language is that the Electors are actually not themselves elected, but “appointed.” Indeed, in Nebraska only two (rather than all) Electors are chosen according to statewide plurality. The others are chosen by the plurality within each CD in the state. In the hair’s breadth election of 2000, I believe that it was reported that a game of chance was the prescribed method in Nevada to determine the winner in the event of an outright tie.I would note that there could be some controversy over the Nobel Peace Prize (the committee is a creature of the Norwegian government), the Red Cross, and the International Olympics Committee.SCOTUS has found against the use of ballot access to impose term limits for Congressmen - but that is a very different case. Article I Section 2 provides that "The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.” Thus, even though IMHO they strained at gnats to do it, SCOTUS could say with a straight face that a long-time incumbent had a right as a citizen to be on the ballot on equal terms as anyone else.
Note that SCOTUS has, in times past, accepted “
Campaign Finance Reform” outright censorship of the press on the pretext that preventing corrupt influence of campaign donors was more important than the First Amendment. Anyone who has any respect at all for that position (and had any shred of decency) would be humiliated to try to argue against enforcing an existing provision of the Constitution by the mildest means conceivable. To be affected by the law at all you have to think your election to the presidency is of paramount importance, and you have to be on the take from foreign governments.