Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
So he made a typo. He fixed it.
"(Update: After this fact check appeared, Carson’s Facebook post was edited to read “no federal elected office experience.” There was, of course, no “federal” government at the time.)"
Oh, my goodness. What a warped, misleading OP. George Washington never held elected office before the Constitutional Convention. Nor did Alexander Hamilton. Nor did Rufus King.
Nearly all of the "elected office experience" that you cite (1) was brief and limited in nature, (2) was in colonial assemblies, (3) was in congresses/conventions that the British did not recognize, and (4) that usually involved a narrow range of issues.
By your own count, 24 of the DOI signers had never held elective office.
"Ben Carson’s absurd notion that the Founding Fathers had ‘no elected office experience’"
Carson's ignorance is as comprehensive as it is troubling.
I'm not asking to operate on your brain, nor am I claiming I am qualified to operate on your brain. So try again, dumbass.Ben Carson has heard you and he edited his Facebook post four hours ago. He added the word "federal" to his sentence.
It just makes him sound dumber. Carson still does not have the level of elected experience any of them had.
Can you do brain surgery, and are you the tops in that field? What a fucking loser, you are, along with your moronic leftist, and BIGOTED friends!
Maybe Carson should operate on you to give you more IQ points.
Says the far left drone who's brain has no mass..
Washington did not want the job, he reluctantly took it seeing it as an duty.This guy is starting to sound like he's doing satire,
of himself.
“Every signer of the Declaration of Independence had no elected office experience.”
— Dr. Ben Carson, in a Facebook post, Nov. 4, 2015
Carson, a political novice running for the GOP presidential nomination, made this observation in a late-night Facebook post defending his lack of political experience. As he put it:
“You are absolutely right — I have no political experience. The current Members of Congress have a combined 8,700 years of political experience. Are we sure political experience is what we need. Every signer of the Declaration of Independence had no elected office experience. What they had was a deep belief that freedom is a gift from God. They had a determination to rise up against a tyrannical King.”
...
The Facts
Let’s start with Thomas Jefferson, the primary writer of the Declaration of Independence. Years earlier, he had been a student at the College of William & Mary in Williamsburg. As luck would have it, the House of Burgesses met there, and so Jefferson as a student was able to witness legislative debates.
The House of Burgesses was the first European-style legislative assembly in the Americas, having first been formed in 1619. And in 1769, seven years before penning the Declaration, Jefferson was elected to the House of Burgesses. As an online biography of the signers said: “It was there that his involvement in revolutionary politics began. He was never a very vocal member, but his writing, his quiet work in committee, and his ability to distill large volumes of information to essence, made him an invaluable member in any deliberative body.”
Now let’s look at the other members of the drafting committee: John Adams (Mass.) was elected to the Massachusetts Assembly in 1770, Benjamin Franklin (Pa.) had been elected to the Pennsylvania Assembly in 1751 and served as speaker in 1764, and Roger Sherman (Conn.) had been elected to the Connecticut General Assembly in 1755. Only Robert R. Livingston (N.Y.) had minimal political experience.
Of the other 51 signers of the Declaration, we count at least 27 as having at least some elected office experience, primarily in Colonial assemblies.
John Hancock, president of the Continental Congress, had been elected to the Boston Assembly and had participated in the Stamp Act Congress, a gathering of elected representatives (from Colonial assemblies) to craft a response to new British tax laws. Some states sent delegations with little political experience, but every member of the seven-person delegation from Virginia had been elected to the Houses of Burgesses."
Please.
Ben Carson’s absurd notion that the Founding Fathers had ‘no elected office experience’
Like a soldier, not an career politician.
That is why he was the best president we've ever had, no blueprint to go by the first to try...
I never said anything about Carson, just there is no need for a career politician...Washington did not want the job, he reluctantly took it seeing it as an duty.This guy is starting to sound like he's doing satire,
of himself.
“Every signer of the Declaration of Independence had no elected office experience.”
— Dr. Ben Carson, in a Facebook post, Nov. 4, 2015
Carson, a political novice running for the GOP presidential nomination, made this observation in a late-night Facebook post defending his lack of political experience. As he put it:
“You are absolutely right — I have no political experience. The current Members of Congress have a combined 8,700 years of political experience. Are we sure political experience is what we need. Every signer of the Declaration of Independence had no elected office experience. What they had was a deep belief that freedom is a gift from God. They had a determination to rise up against a tyrannical King.”
...
The Facts
Let’s start with Thomas Jefferson, the primary writer of the Declaration of Independence. Years earlier, he had been a student at the College of William & Mary in Williamsburg. As luck would have it, the House of Burgesses met there, and so Jefferson as a student was able to witness legislative debates.
The House of Burgesses was the first European-style legislative assembly in the Americas, having first been formed in 1619. And in 1769, seven years before penning the Declaration, Jefferson was elected to the House of Burgesses. As an online biography of the signers said: “It was there that his involvement in revolutionary politics began. He was never a very vocal member, but his writing, his quiet work in committee, and his ability to distill large volumes of information to essence, made him an invaluable member in any deliberative body.”
Now let’s look at the other members of the drafting committee: John Adams (Mass.) was elected to the Massachusetts Assembly in 1770, Benjamin Franklin (Pa.) had been elected to the Pennsylvania Assembly in 1751 and served as speaker in 1764, and Roger Sherman (Conn.) had been elected to the Connecticut General Assembly in 1755. Only Robert R. Livingston (N.Y.) had minimal political experience.
Of the other 51 signers of the Declaration, we count at least 27 as having at least some elected office experience, primarily in Colonial assemblies.
John Hancock, president of the Continental Congress, had been elected to the Boston Assembly and had participated in the Stamp Act Congress, a gathering of elected representatives (from Colonial assemblies) to craft a response to new British tax laws. Some states sent delegations with little political experience, but every member of the seven-person delegation from Virginia had been elected to the Houses of Burgesses."
Please.
Ben Carson’s absurd notion that the Founding Fathers had ‘no elected office experience’
Like a soldier, not an career politician.
That is why he was the best president we've ever had, no blueprint to go by the first to try...
So now that there is a blueprint that no one can ignore, it's impossible for Carson to be a great president?
I think you're mentally retarded.
Carson is a very stupid man. There's no question about it. Yet, these loserterian assholes think they understand our founders and constitution so fucking much?
God help this nation if a carson, cruz or Rand get into office.
Apparently you don't understand the difference between STATE and FEDERAL elected positions.... but don't let a little thing like that get in the way of a "Hillaryous" left wingnut rant!
Apparently you don't understand the difference between STATE and FEDERAL elected positions.... but don't let a little thing like that get in the way of a "Hillaryous" left wingnut rant!
Oh, my goodness. What a warped, misleading OP. George Washington never held elected office before the Constitutional Convention. Nor did Alexander Hamilton. Nor did Rufus King.
Nearly all of the "elected office experience" that you cite (1) was brief and limited in nature, (2) was in colonial assemblies, (3) was in congresses/conventions that the British did not recognize, and (4) that usually involved a narrow range of issues.
By your own count, 24 of the DOI signers had never held elective office.
Let's use some common sense and honesty in assessing Carson's statement about the political inexperience of the DOI signers. The context was that he was discussing career Washington politicians and was contrasting their years of experience with his lack of political experience.
So it seems fairly obvious that he was thinking of national-level experience along the lines of the career politicians that we now have, not state and local legislative experience. And in that sense, his point is perfectly valid.
What's more, if you look at the DOI signers who had held elected office, most of them had been elected to those offices in the fairly recent past, while some others had not held elected office for several years.
And, of course, back then there was no such thing as the kind of national-level experience that one gets as a U.S. senator or representative. The possibility for such experience simply did not exist yet.
The few Continental Congresses that were held were intermittent and only dealt with a narrow range of issues (mainly in relation to responding to various British laws).
Furthermore, nearly half of the DOI signers had never held elected office up to that time.
Was Carson's comment technically in error? Yes, since a little over half of the DOI signers had some elected political experience by that time.
But the thrust, the main idea, behind Carson's comment was correct, i.e., the idea that the DOI signers would be viewed as inexperienced and unqualified for the presidency by many people in our day. And, again, I think Carson was thinking of federal/national-level experience, not state and local experience.
Let's use some common sense and honesty in assessing Carson's statement about the political inexperience of the DOI signers. The context was that he was discussing career Washington politicians and was contrasting their years of experience with his lack of political experience.
So it seems fairly obvious that he was thinking of national-level experience along the lines of the career politicians that we now have, not state and local legislative experience. And in that sense, his point is perfectly valid.
What's more, if you look at the DOI signers who had held elected office, most of them had been elected to those offices in the fairly recent past, while some others had not held elected office for several years.
And, of course, back then there was no such thing as the kind of national-level experience that one gets as a U.S. senator or representative. The possibility for such experience simply did not exist yet.
The few Continental Congresses that were held were intermittent and only dealt with a narrow range of issues (mainly in relation to responding to various British laws).
Furthermore, nearly half of the DOI signers had never held elected office up to that time.
Was Carson's comment technically in error? Yes, since a little over half of the DOI signers had some elected political experience by that time.
But the thrust, the main idea, behind Carson's comment was correct, i.e., the idea that the DOI signers would be viewed as inexperienced and unqualified for the presidency by many people in our day. And, again, I think Carson was thinking of federal/national-level experience, not state and local experience.
Ridiculous.
Let's use some common sense and honesty in assessing Carson's statement about the political inexperience of the DOI signers. The context was that he was discussing career Washington politicians and was contrasting their years of experience with his lack of political experience.
So it seems fairly obvious that he was thinking of national-level experience along the lines of the career politicians that we now have, not state and local legislative experience. And in that sense, his point is perfectly valid.
What's more, if you look at the DOI signers who had held elected office, most of them had been elected to those offices in the fairly recent past, while some others had not held elected office for several years.
And, of course, back then there was no such thing as the kind of national-level experience that one gets as a U.S. senator or representative. The possibility for such experience simply did not exist yet.
The few Continental Congresses that were held were intermittent and only dealt with a narrow range of issues (mainly in relation to responding to various British laws).
Furthermore, nearly half of the DOI signers had never held elected office up to that time.
Was Carson's comment technically in error? Yes, since a little over half of the DOI signers had some elected political experience by that time.
But the thrust, the main idea, behind Carson's comment was correct, i.e., the idea that the DOI signers would be viewed as inexperienced and unqualified for the presidency by many people in our day. And, again, I think Carson was thinking of federal/national-level experience, not state and local experience.
Ridiculous.
Just like all the far left drone posts on this board?
Let's use some common sense and honesty in assessing Carson's statement about the political inexperience of the DOI signers. The context was that he was discussing career Washington politicians and was contrasting their years of experience with his lack of political experience.
So it seems fairly obvious that he was thinking of national-level experience along the lines of the career politicians that we now have, not state and local legislative experience. And in that sense, his point is perfectly valid.
What's more, if you look at the DOI signers who had held elected office, most of them had been elected to those offices in the fairly recent past, while some others had not held elected office for several years.
And, of course, back then there was no such thing as the kind of national-level experience that one gets as a U.S. senator or representative. The possibility for such experience simply did not exist yet.
The few Continental Congresses that were held were intermittent and only dealt with a narrow range of issues (mainly in relation to responding to various British laws).
Furthermore, nearly half of the DOI signers had never held elected office up to that time.
Was Carson's comment technically in error? Yes, since a little over half of the DOI signers had some elected political experience by that time.
But the thrust, the main idea, behind Carson's comment was correct, i.e., the idea that the DOI signers would be viewed as inexperienced and unqualified for the presidency by many people in our day. And, again, I think Carson was thinking of federal/national-level experience, not state and local experience.
But the thrust, the main idea, behind Carson's comment was correct, i.e., the idea that the DOI signers would be viewed as inexperienced and unqualified for the presidency by many people in our day. And, again, I think Carson was thinking of federal/national-level experience, not state and local experience.
