Strictly speaking Carson was wrong. The point he was making was not helped by his wrongness. In fact the examples of the signers of the Declaration of Independence completely 100% contradicts the point he was trying to make. The Declaration wasn't signed by a group of men with no political experience who had never held office. It was signed by a group of men who believed in government, sought office, held office, and were interested in governing still. They were in no way novices to the political game. Carson was wrong in what he said, wrong in hoping that it would illustrate his point, and their example contradicts his own point, and stated philosophy. But I do think you for showing me how some supporters will twist and rationalize in their mind a way to ignore Carson's lack of understanding, and ignorance. I'm still curious why someone would try to go such lengths to claim that even though Carson was wrong on every person he referenced in his ignorant statement that you would say "what he implied was pretty spot on". It's a strange world when someone will say that a person who was completely 100% wrong was pretty spot on.
I actually don't think it was that deeply thought out. I believe he was aware of people questioning his lack of experience, and wanted to turn that around and use it as a strength. He probably also thought since the rabid tea party types out there were so anti-government that he would build up his support with those guys. I don't think he's gone that deep into it.
Well done, sir! You've completely ignored and/or twisted everything I said... I said that Carson was "wrong" "strictly speaking." I looked through that document and many of those signers had held but one elected office and that in the nascent Continental Congress just two years earlier You're making a mountain out of a molehill because he said "all" instead of "many." BIG WHOOP. And you chide others for being character assassins! How many states was that again, Mr. President? Did you say "57?" IMPEACH THE EMBICILE! :grin:
No, he was just wrong. Not sure why this is a story, he has been wrong or lost on just about everything.
Except he wasn't spot-on. He wasn't arguing that a Rubio or Obama was qualified with just a few years in political office. He was arguing that having NO political experience was a strength. And he said none of the signers had ANY political experience. In fact, EVERY one of them did. And many had more than 2 years of it - the list only included their most recent office held, not their entire history. His whole point was simply wrong. He made up facts to fit the story he wanted to tell - something you often do as well, as you are doing here.
A lot of people think that having no political experience IS a strength. Which political officials have high approval ratings? Why are Trump and Carson polling so high and in most instances beating Hilary, too. He overstated his case. Big deal. Men were elected to the Continental Congress. Two months later, they rode by horseback to gather. Then they probably spent a month figuring out what their powers and organization was. Then they went home to check on things for a few months. Came back some weeks/months later to figure out what to do next. Wrote down a few things. Sent a guy on horseback to Kinkos to make a copy for everybody. Ooops... NOT OPEN YET. I'm not disparaging those Patriots. I'm ridiculing those of you who are making a big deal out of this gaffe by Carson to destroy the man's character. I have a black friend. His name is Ben Carson. :grin: Or would it be better to say that i have no black friends
Which has nothing to do with his comments. Actually, he completely made up his case. Well, at least we've confirmed your knowledge of history is about as strong as Carson's. I can see why ignorance appeals to you so much.
I'm not sure what you're talking about. It wasn't many that had no political experience. They all had held elected office. Most held office in their particular colony, and not just the newly created Continental Congress. Every single person Carson talked about held political office and had been elected. Yet Carson tried to show that him having zero political experience was a good thing, and used an example that showed the exact opposite. Him making the mistake isn't the big deal or the "mountain". What I find interesting is that his supporters don't seem to be put off by yet another of his out there completely incorrect presumptions that he puts out there as facts. Also in reference to the 57 thing, that was a mistake. People did make a big deal out of it. But a mistake is different that taking the time to write something that is 100% factually inaccurate and not merely misspeaking. It's interesting that you forgive Carson for this, and even say that practically speaking he was pretty much spot on. I guess there are some things we'll never understand. But I am trying.
They're supporters are voters who feel comfortable with things they can understand at a reptilian level?
https://history.state.gov/milestones/1776-1783/continental-congress In sum: 1. The Continental Congress first met on Sept 5, 1774 2 On OCT 20 the adopted their Articles of Association (45 days later) 3. On OCT 26 they wrote a letter to King George imploring his sympathy; they did not address the British Parliament who had charged them with the Intolerable Acts as they wanted to capture instead King George's support (6 days later) 4. The Continental Congress re-convened on May 10 (more than 200 days later) and after the British military had come here. In sum sum: In almost a full year, the Continental Congress managed to organize themselves, write a letter to King George, and incite the British Parliament to rain troops down on the American colonies. Tell us again, how much I don't and you do know about American history?
It's not about destroying Carson's character. Carson was wrong, that's fact easily provable. He didn't overstate, he didn't exaggerate, he simply he used something made up to prove a point. The fact that it's made up contradicts his point. The people who signed the Declaration of Independence were almost all elected to hold office in their respective colonies. They didn't just join the continental congress. They were elected officials before they served on the Continental congress. You should stop denying their experience. Jefferson had served in Virginia's House of Burgesses. Just for the record here is some of what Franklin did as a politician. It started 25 years before the Declaration of Independence. His is typical of the experience others who signed had. "Franklin filled many public offices. He was a clerk of the Pennsylvania Assembly from 1736 to 1751 and a member of the Assembly from 1751 to 1764. From 1737 to 1753 he served as deputy postmaster of Philadelphia." http://history-world.org/benjamin_franklin.htm Now, you can either trust me on the others or look them up yourself. The people who signed the Declaration of Independence were all well experienced politicians and people who had served in government. My only question is why when the facts are evident and present for all to see rather than call Carson out, you'd tie yourself to the ignorance and double down. It isn't a matter of opinion. It's all a matter of record.
I don't know whether you know little of American history, or whether you are just stuck on the idea that the people who signed the Declaration of Independence only served in the Continental Congress and had no other political experience or elected offices on their resume. The Continental Congress isn't really an issue here at all, since these guys had held elected office and served as politicians in positions other than just the Continental Congress. So tell us again about how much you do know about American History, and how Carson's point was spot on.
No political experience is a strength? Mr. Carson is running for President of the United States, the most powerful country on the planet. Please tell me the last President with no political experience? No, he either lied of is ignorant. In either case he was WRONG. It isn't debatable, he was simply wrong. Had he put that answer on a high school American History test, he would have gotten it wrong. No, you are coming across and stubborn and ignorant. I have befriended a fetus, his name is Milos and maybe he will be a child some day. He is on 2 months old and my secretary is not sure she will abort or keep him... her..... well either way I call him Milos.
Because the general election is still a year away and the Clinton Machine hasn't even started campaigning yet. This "outsider" shtick ain't gonna fly in the general. Mark my words.
Happily. Many of those people in the Continental Congress had political experience before the Continental Congress. Ergo, they had political backgrounds. In other words, Ben Carson completely made up his claims. Like you, it's not an isolated incident. He has a long history of making stuff up. Today's revelation: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/11/ben-carson-west-point-215598 Ben Carson admits fabricating West Point scholarship Carson's campaign on Friday admitted that a central point in his inspirational personal story was fabricated. Ben Carson’s campaign on Friday admitted, in a response to an inquiry from POLITICO, that a central point in his inspirational personal story was fabricated: his application and acceptance into the U.S. Military Academy at West Point. The academy has occupied a central place in Carson’s tale for years. According to a story told in Carson’s book, “Gifted Hands,” the then-17 year old was introduced in 1969 to Gen. William Westmoreland, who had just ended his command of U.S. forces in Vietnam, and the two dined together. That meeting, according to Carson’s telling, was followed by a “full scholarship” to the military academy. West Point, however, has no record of Carson applying, much less being extended admission. ...
WOW! Is there anything this guy has a grasp of reality with? Politics? history? economics? HIS OWN LIFE????
It seems like the light is beginning to shine on Carson, and the wheels are coming off the bus. I would predict that his time in the lead will be short-lived, but like I've been saying, the strangest isn't that he's lying and/or ignorant, it's that the voters being polled don't seem to be bothered by it, or perhaps like giddy they are making up excuses and trying to change history to match the lies/mistakes told by Carson which is a very strange phenomenon.
