Ben Carson to endorse Trump tomorrow. Holy Toledo.

[SmokeALib]

These guys know Trump has the nomination all but sewed up. Either republicans support Trump, or they're supporting Pantsuit.

If they support Trump, they are guaranteeing there will be a pantsuit in the oval office.

You're either really stupid, or suffering from wishful thinking.

I know rush told you that Hillary would be in jail by now, but he lies a lot. Trump as her opponent and she probably wouldn't even have to campaign.

Please continue to underestimate Trump. It's really worked out great so far.

Really? He's done well with right wingers, but that doesn't mean he will do well with sane people.

Leftists are hardly sane. Buttfucked, marxist, dependent morons is the leftist mantra.

 

[TemplarKormac]

And he loses my respect overnight.

What?

If your respect hinged only on who he endorsed for president, then with all due respect, you have taken a petty, childish attitude.

Thus goes the divisiveness in party politics

 

[Eaglewings]

Good on Dr Carson.

He is a decent man and I've always liked him.

Always.

Cruz stabbed him in the back, he is a very intelligent, honorable man who probably saw a lot of nasty stuff going on in the back round.


.

 

[eagle1462010]

Heard him on Hannity while driving home....................said that he thought that Trump had the best chance for the GOP in this election..........specifically on Dem jumping ship to vote for him..........................Pretty much that was an endorsement days ago........

Carson was my favorite out of the bunch...............I actually wish he was the candidate............but given Cruz's tactics, his Tax plan.............I couldn't go that route................Finally deciding on Trump..................

I'm not surprised by this.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Isn't that racist?

Only if he is actually qualified.

 

[Skylar]

Title says it all. I'm shocked and stunned that he would endorse Trump of all people.


Ben Carson plans to endorse Trump

I'm finding the soothing of cognitive dissonance among republicans to be rather educational. Its interesting to see not only who they will support.....but what kind of batshit Trump can get them to convince themselves they actually believe.

Banning Muslims from entering the US, bombing the families of terrorists, changing libel laws to make it easier for him to sue the press.....

Trump would be a disaster as president. But the greater damage to our republic would be what he could convince conservatives to excuse.

 

[SmokeALib]

All these POS sexually perverted assholes can take a long walk on a short plank.

 

[TemplarKormac]

I'm finding the soothing of cognitive dissonance among republicans to be rather educational.

It's not just Republicans. It's everyone. I facepalmed when Carson endorsed Trump. I facepalm each time I hear Hillary speak.

Cognitive dissonance is when people blindly support someone, be it Hillary or Trump, without even considering their flaws or the negative potential impacts they may have as president; "oh they'll be great!" they say. No. Please. Stop. Spare me.

This phenomenon occurs on both sides. And I was stupid enough to get caught up in it.

 

[JimBowie1958]

I'm finding the soothing of cognitive dissonance among republicans to be rather educational.

It's not just Republicans. It's everyone. I facepalmed when Carson endorsed Trump. I facepalm each time I hear Hillary speak.

Cognitive dissonance is when people blindly support someone, be it Hillary or Trump, without even considering their flaws or the negative potential impacts they may have as president. "oh they'll be great!" they say. No. Please. Spare me.

This phenomenon occurs on both sides. And I was stupid enough to get caught up in it.

That is not cognitive dissonance unless there is a complete contradiction with no reason that ties the two apparently opposite concepts together.

For example, I like Trump and Sanders, though I like Trump more.

But the thing that prevents that from being cognitive dissonance is because I have good reason that they both share; honesty, hard working, and have a deep commitment to the American people. They are not sell outs to the Political establishment.

Thus no cognitive dissonance engaged whatsoever.

 

[TemplarKormac]

But the thing that prevents that from being cognitive dissonance is because I have good reason that they both share; honesty, hard working, and have a deep commitment to the American people. They are not sell outs to the Political establishment.

That's not cognitive dissonance then. You give it due consideration.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Then that's not cognitive dissonance then. You give it due consideration.

Yes, due consideration is needed but also some rational results that explain the contradiction.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Banning Muslims from entering the US, bombing the families of terrorists, changing libel laws to make it easier for him to sue the press

Let me be as honest as I can:

1) Banning Muslims from entering the US. I heard him say a number of times "temporarily." This is no different than me asking a stranger who knocks on my door, "who are you, and what do you want?"

2) Bombing the families of terrorists. This can be risky, and if you're wrong, you're a murderer. However, should we take the risk that these families may also be providing material support to the terrorist too?

3) Lastly, the libel laws. If I as a member of the press, or a news agency, say or publish something that I, my editors or anyone involved with my publication know to be patently false in an attempt to damage damage your reputation or smear your character, then you should be able to sue me under applicable tort law. Such tort laws should be applied to members of the press, too.

 

[Skylar]

Banning Muslims from entering the US, bombing the families of terrorists, changing libel laws to make it easier for him to sue the press

Let me be as honest as I can:

1) Banning Muslims from entering the US. I heard him say a number of times "temporarily." This is no different than me asking a stranger who knocks on my door, "who are you, and what do you want?"

Banning an entire religion from entering the US? That's awful.

2) Bombing the families of terrorists. This can be risky, and if you're wrong, you're a murderer. However, should we take the risk that these families may also be providing material support to the terrorist too?

No, its a war crime. And he didn't claim they should be killed if they were were giving the terrorist 'material support'. He said they should be killed because terrorists care about their families.

Again, that's fucking awful. As a nation we are *so* much better than that.

3) Lastly, the libel laws. If I as a member of the press, or a news agency, say or publish something that I, my editors or anyone involved with my publication know to be patently false in an attempt to damage damage your reputation or smear your character, then you should be able to sue me under applicable tort law. Such tort laws should be applied to members of the press, too.

You can under current libel laws. Trump wants to change them to make it easier for him to 'sue and win'.

With Trump having sued for something as trivial as claims on his net worth. A net worth with fluctuated -according to Trump- with his MOOD.

I don't want anyone that wildly oversensitive, petulantly arbitrary and willing to abuse the law to punish critics getting anywhere near our libel laws.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Trump would be a disaster as president. But the greater damage to our republic would be what he could convince conservatives to excuse.

Once again, that damage was also done by Obama, convincing liberals to excuse his behavior while he flouted the law in some cases. To be honest, it's happened before with Obama, with Bush, with Clinton and so on and so forth.

I know, I'm a conservative, and I will no doubt be told how wrong I am. But consider the idea that Obama may have indeed broken the law, and that anyone defending his behavior may have already been convinced in the manner you describe. This can be applied to any person of any political inclination.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Banning an entire religion from entering the US? That's awful.

You're assuming he wants to permanently ban all Muslims from entering America. To that extent, I think people have forgotten what the word "temporary" means. Show me an instance where he said "I want to ban all Muslims from entering America, permanently."

No, its a war crime. And he didn't claim they should be killed if they were were giving the terrorist 'material support'. He said they should be killed because terrorists care about their families.

If terrorists "cared" about their families, they wouldn't put them in constant danger. They wouldn't send their children out with suicide vests into crowds of people killing scores of innocents. That's a flaw in Trump's reasoning. Terrorists don't care about their families, at least from my standpoint.

Also, the "material support" line is something I injected as a concern of mine, not as a quote from Trump.

 

[AVG-JOE]

"Ben Carson to endorse Trump"

One crazy person endorsing another – makes sense.

Isn't that racist?

Nope. It's mentalist.

 

[ninja007]

oh hi guys, member me?

Trump/Carson 16.

I have inside info nobody else has.....

 

[Searcher44]

*cough* (Surgeon General appointment)

Damn, never crossed my mind, nice catch.

 

[Mac1958]

Title says it all. I'm shocked and stunned that he would endorse Trump of all people. Ben Carson plans to endorse Trump

This just gets more and more bizarre.

Further into uncharted territory we go!
.

 

[mikegriffith1]

I'm not surprised. Carson has not fallen for the smears and lies about Trump.