Carson: Prez shouldn't be Muslim; Muslim Congressmen might be ok...

[BmorePat87]

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/09/ben-carson-muslim-president-213851

Quote:The president of the United States should not be a Muslim, Republican presidential candidate Ben Carson declared during an interview airing Sunday morning.

Asked whether his faith or the faith of a president should matter, Carson said, "It depends on what that faith is... If it's inconsistent with the values and principles of America, then of course it should matter. But if it fits within the realm of America and consistent with the constitution, no problem," he explained,

Todd then asked Carson, whose rise in the polls has been powered in large part by Christian conservatives, if he believed that "Islam is consistent with the Constitution." "No, I don't, I do not," he responded, adding, "I would not advocate that we put a Muslim in charge of this nation. I absolutely would not agree with that."

But for Carson, the matter of voting for a Muslim for Congress "is a different story, but it depends on who that Muslim is and what their policies are, just as it depends on what anybody else says, you know."
"And, you know, if there's somebody who's of any faith, but they say things, and their life has been consistent with things that will elevate this nation and make it possible for everybody to succeed, and bring peace and harmony, then I'm with them," he went on to say.

Doesn't his last statement mean he would be ok with a Muslim President if "their life has been consistent with things that will elevate this nation and make it possible for everybody to succeed, and bring peace and harmony"?

Religion makes smart people say and do really stupid things...

[Rotobeast]

(09-20-2015, 12:18 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/09/ben-carson-muslim-president-213851


Doesn't his last statement mean he would be ok with a Muslim President if "their life has been consistent with things that will elevate this nation and make it possible for everybody to succeed, and bring peace and harmony"?

Religion makes smart people say and do really stupid things...

Yeah, he kind of went in a bit of a circle.
He'd been best served by sticking with the idea of not generalizing and insisting more focus be on the individual running for office.
I'm thinking the question caught him off guard.

[Benton]

His delivery isn't good, like 99% of what he says.

But I don't exactly disagree. The president should generally be representative of those who elected him. Christians historically are big voters. That shouldn't prevent or dissuade from having a Muslim president, but there would need to be a larger population of Muslims voting than there has been.

[GodHatesBengals]

How about a President who doesn't have an imaginary friend at all? That would be somethin'.

[Belsnickel]

(09-20-2015, 02:50 PM)GodHatesBengals Wrote: How about a President who doesn't have an imaginary friend at all? That would be somethin'.

Muslim is probably the only religious identification (of significant numbers in the U.S.) that is less electable than Atheist.

[Johnny Cupcakes]

I agree with him. The president shouldn't be a Muslim. The president shouldn't be Christian either, though. I'd rather have president be a secular person who doesn't attempt to make laws favoring one system of myths over another. I don't care if someone has their own religion...just make sure it doesn't effect your presidential skills.

[Johnny Cupcakes]

(09-20-2015, 03:33 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Muslim is probably the only religious identification (of significant numbers in the U.S.) that is less electable than Atheist.

According to this Gallup poll, more people would vote for a Muslim than an atheist.  The only group of people who are less well-received are socialists.

http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/47-percent-americans-would-vote-socialist-gallup-poll

It's sad that religious preference is something that matter with politics.  It shows how far we still have to go.

[Belsnickel]

Personally, I would rather we not give a shit about the faith of a candidate and instead focus on their actions. I have known outstanding Christians, Atheists, Muslims, etc. I have also known members of each segment that were truly terrible people. Faith doesn't make a bit of difference.

[Belsnickel]

(09-20-2015, 05:40 PM)Johnny Cupcakes Wrote: According to this Gallup poll, more people would vote for a Muslim than an atheist.  The only group of people who are less well-received are socialists.

http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/47-percent-americans-would-vote-socialist-gallup-poll

It's sad that religious preference is something that matter with politics.  It shows how far we still have to go.

The last time I had seen those numbers we were not as far removed from 9/11. I want to say this was leading into the 2008 election. Muslim came in last, then Atheist. I forget the rest, this was probably 8 years ago after all.

[Johnny Cupcakes]

(09-20-2015, 05:45 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: The last time I had seen those numbers we were not as far removed from 9/11. I want to say this was leading into the 2008 election. Muslim came in last, then Atheist. I forget the rest, this was probably 8 years ago after all.

Maryland, Mississippi, Arkansas, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas all have provisions in their state constitutions that forbid non-believers from holding public office.  Seriously.  That's how backward-minded people in the south are...you have to have an imaginary friend to be elected.  Insane.

With that said, I'm still a bit surprised that Muslims are more well-received Than non-believers by the simpletons of the country.

[GMDino]

Carson cares about one thing: Keeping his name out there so he can make some money.

He *might* be delusional enough to think he's qualified to be POTUS...but don't count on it.

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2015/09/18/ben-carson-threatens-his-own-fans-for-making-carson-for-president-shirts-he-doesnt-profit-from/

Quote:Republican presidential candidate Ben Carson’s lawyer has gone after popular merchandise creation site CafePress, because the campaign argues the pro-Ben Carson stuff being sold isn’t directly benefiting Carson. If threatening to sue your own supporters seems like a particularly stupid idea for a presidential candidate, perhaps it tells us more about just what kind of future Carson sees for himself.

Carson, a Tea Party favorite who has watched his poll numbers surge in recent months, may be tipping his hand over just exactly what his campaign has been about all along: Namely, Carson the brand. Like Donald Trump, it’s not hard to imagine Carson getting into the race with almost no hope of actually winning it. And like other candidates before him, it seems entirely possible that his entry was meant to give him media exposure, name recognition, and star power that could eventually be converted into a radio show, a future book deal, or – the Holy Grail of the Republican grift machine – a gig at Fox News.

To maximize his campaign’s profits, his super PAC (Ben Carson PAC) has sent a letter to CafePress demanding that all merchandise related to Carson be immediately pulled or else. On what grounds? According to Carson’s lawyer, just about everything: copyright, trademark, privacy rights. Unfortunately for Carson, none of those actually apply, as CafePress’s legal adviser, Paul Levy, hilariously pointed out in a response captured by Tech Dirt:

The notion that expressing views about Carson’s candidacy violates any of his rights is simply absurd. It is shocking that a lawyer whose web site touts his expertise in intellectual property law would sign his name to such a communication.



At most, the items display the phrase “Ben Carson for President 2016,” often appearing in the patriotic colors of red, white and blue. Many of them simply use Carson’s name, or just his given name or his profession. You cannot use trademark theories to ride roughshod over members of the American public who either share your clients’ views and favor Carson’s candidacy, or for that matter disagree with their views and oppose Carson’s candidacy.

In other words, you can’t sue people just because they like your candidate and want to wear a shirt saying so.

Perhaps anticipating that, Carson’s lawyer also claimed wearing a shirt saying something like “Ben Carson for President 2016” violated the candidate’s privacy. Apparently, Carson is under the impression that you can be a candidate for President of the United States and still expect nobody to talk about you. Rick Santorum’s campaign notwithstanding, public figures should not expect to be absolutely ignored by the people – that comes with the territory of being a public figure.

At issue here is, of course, money. While Carson’s campaign understandably feels that any supporter of Carson should be expected to help his super PAC profit, there are many ways one might see how that is not the case. For a variety of reasons, a person might want a “Carson for President” shirt, but still not feel comfortable actually donating to Carson’s campaign. Recently, for example, a conservative sting operation tried to suggest that a Canadian woman buying a Hillary Clinton campaign shirt meant that Clinton was committing election fraud. (The accusation was so ludicrous that reporters literally laughed in their faces when conservative activists took their “findings” to the press.)

But while that instance was proven to be monumentally idiotic, it is clear that issues over who can donate to a campaign abound. For those outside the United States, buying official merchandise might put you in murky legal waters. There are also just people who prefer to support candidates in other ways besides money. Given the scummy way campaigns often use that money, it’s hard to blame people who feel that way.

So what Carson’s camp really wants is control. They want to hold all power over Carson’s “brand” because when his presidential campaign inevitably peters out, they want to be able to effortlessly pivot to his profit-making schemes. Threatening to sue your own supporters for not handing over their dollars is certainly one way to expedite the process.

Feature image via Gage Skidmore/Flickr

[Rotobeast]

(09-20-2015, 06:04 PM)Johnny Cupcakes Wrote: Maryland, Mississippi, Arkansas, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas all have provisions in their state constitutions that forbid non-believers from holding public office.  Seriously.  That's how backward-minded people in the south are...you have to have an imaginary friend to be elected.  Insane.

With that said, I'm still a bit surprised that Muslims are more well-received Than non-believers by the simpletons of the country.

I suppose they may have been thinking that if the person did not "believe" then the oath of office would be meaningless.
Just a guess.
I don't really know.

[Belsnickel]

(09-20-2015, 07:06 PM)Rotobeast Wrote: I suppose they may have been thinking that if the person did not "believe" then the oath of office would be meaningless.
Just a guess.
I don't really know.

Which is interesting since the oath makes no mention of a god and swearing on a Bible, or anything for that matter, is not required.

[JustWinBaby]

Does Ben Carson even hear himself talk? I think this is a classic example of pandering by saying things you think certain voters want to hear, although he's so convincing that he may actually believe some of this garbage.

[Rotobeast]

(09-20-2015, 07:12 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Which is interesting since the oath makes no mention of a god and swearing on a Bible, or anything for that matter, is not required.

I was making the assumption that when the law was written, it was required.
Again, it was an uneducated guess.

[BmorePat87]

(09-20-2015, 03:33 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Muslim is probably the only religious identification (of significant numbers in the U.S.) that is less electable than Atheist.

Nah, I do a document based assignment about presidential electability for my executive branch unit. Atheist takes it. 

Edit: Johnny posted the study I use.

[GodHatesBengals]

BTW, this is the same freak who implied drone strikes on U.S. soil was a viable option in getting rid of illegal immigrants.

When you look at the front runners of the Republican race, it becomes clear that we have a serious mental health crisis in America.

[BmorePat87]

(09-20-2015, 09:09 PM)GodHatesBengals Wrote: BTW, this is the same freak who implied drone strikes on U.S. soil was a viable option in getting rid of illegal immigrants.

When you look at the front runners of the Republican race, it becomes clear that we have a serious mental health crisis in America.

Egh, Guiliani was the front runner in 2008 and Huckabee won Iowa. Perry was the front runner in 2012 (in a number of polls) and Santorum won Iowa. 

These clowns will fall off as the primaries actually get underway. 

[GodHatesBengals]

(09-20-2015, 09:16 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Egh, Guiliani was the front runner in 2008 and Huckabee won Iowa. Perry was the front runner in 2012 (in a number of polls) and Santorum won Iowa. 

These clowns will fall off as the primaries actually get underway. 

You think Donald isn't the real deal?

[djam]

You know, if Muslims could start treating people a little better and get control of their rough bunch, I suppose it could be ok to have them in government on some level (there probably already are some), but honestly they seem pretty oppressive towards a lot of people in general, and I see no place for that in American government at this point in time. I know there are some peaceful Muslims and all, but at the same time, they seem to have the biggest faction of batshit crazy people of any religion or group of any kind.