Ben Carson was raised as someone potentially worthy of support for the GOP candidacy for the Presidency. That required a bit of review as who is this guy. (Wiki: Ben Carson)
One thing immediately apparent is he's considerably more intelligent than the others in the field and is highly-accomplished in his field of medicine.
One thing immediately confusing is why he would be a Republican pick. He has conservative views on various things but his view of insurance companies is essentially the same as mine: 'the first thing we need to do is get rid of for-profit insurance companies.'
He will unload the Affordable Care Act alright ... in the same way I would do it as I've said for some while it didn't do that much because it was the same crooked insurance companies handling medical insurance after the law as before it. How medical coverage would be funded was unclear but the traditional GOP, it seems to me, will harshly oppose eliminating the insurance companies.
He also doesn't to give an open deal to gun owners as he wants to restrict semi-automatic weapons, etc. That has some merit for me as I don't particularly care about assault rifles because a handgun with 12-13 rounds can be considerably more deadly.
With each item I read, he seemed less likely to be acceptable to neocons.
His dedication to Christianity looks sincere and it's not my job to judge him but if I were picking between he and Creflo Dollar for spiritual integrity, I don't think it would take very long. This makes me wonder if he has the moral strength to resist Koch Brothers money, etc. Conceivably he's a Republican with the principles of the Goldwater era and I mean that as a high compliment.
Clinton I find not at all trustworthy whereas Carson is a whole different person. Without further review, in the voting booth I would be more likely to support Carson than Clinton and the thinking is that he is vastly less likely to go square dancing around principles. His seem to be carved deep.
As to his thinking about evolution, it's troubling but it doesn't matter much to me. I didn't have the feeling he wants to alter science programs to force that teaching and that's important as I would object strongly to that.
Unknown if he is electable but, in my view, he is worthy whereas I don't believe that of anyone else in the GOP field ... or the Democrat field either, for that matter. Elizabeth McGovern said again today she will not run and she's a smart woman so she must know she's already blown a significant swelling of support which may be difficult to recover. I believe her that she won't run and it's unfortunate as she proclaims a nearly-perfect representation of the Democrat platform in contrast to Clinton who gives us the corporate-tainted version.
One thing immediately apparent is he's considerably more intelligent than the others in the field and is highly-accomplished in his field of medicine.
One thing immediately confusing is why he would be a Republican pick. He has conservative views on various things but his view of insurance companies is essentially the same as mine: 'the first thing we need to do is get rid of for-profit insurance companies.'
He will unload the Affordable Care Act alright ... in the same way I would do it as I've said for some while it didn't do that much because it was the same crooked insurance companies handling medical insurance after the law as before it. How medical coverage would be funded was unclear but the traditional GOP, it seems to me, will harshly oppose eliminating the insurance companies.
He also doesn't to give an open deal to gun owners as he wants to restrict semi-automatic weapons, etc. That has some merit for me as I don't particularly care about assault rifles because a handgun with 12-13 rounds can be considerably more deadly.
With each item I read, he seemed less likely to be acceptable to neocons.
His dedication to Christianity looks sincere and it's not my job to judge him but if I were picking between he and Creflo Dollar for spiritual integrity, I don't think it would take very long. This makes me wonder if he has the moral strength to resist Koch Brothers money, etc. Conceivably he's a Republican with the principles of the Goldwater era and I mean that as a high compliment.
Clinton I find not at all trustworthy whereas Carson is a whole different person. Without further review, in the voting booth I would be more likely to support Carson than Clinton and the thinking is that he is vastly less likely to go square dancing around principles. His seem to be carved deep.
As to his thinking about evolution, it's troubling but it doesn't matter much to me. I didn't have the feeling he wants to alter science programs to force that teaching and that's important as I would object strongly to that.
Unknown if he is electable but, in my view, he is worthy whereas I don't believe that of anyone else in the GOP field ... or the Democrat field either, for that matter. Elizabeth McGovern said again today she will not run and she's a smart woman so she must know she's already blown a significant swelling of support which may be difficult to recover. I believe her that she won't run and it's unfortunate as she proclaims a nearly-perfect representation of the Democrat platform in contrast to Clinton who gives us the corporate-tainted version.
No comments:
Post a Comment