What does everyone think of Ben Carson?

[mudwhistle]

I can't believe that those who complained about Obama's lack of experience would think Carson will be any better.

At least he has a better resume than Obama, and he won't use violence to get what he wants, like Obama is doing in Ferguson. I don't think he has the type of managerial experience needed for the job.

 

[Votto]

I've asked this question before and didn't get any replies. So I think this is the perfect thread to ask the question again.
The following is Dr Carson's stance on healthcare insurance companies:
==================================================
Regulate insurance companies as non-profit services
Today, insurance companies call the shots on what they want to pay, to whom, and when. Consequently, even busy doctors operate with a very slim profit of margin.
This is an ideal place for the intervention of government regulators who, with the help of medical professionals, could establish fair and consistent remuneration. To accomplish this, essentially all of the insurance companies would have to become non-profit service organizations with standardized, regulated profit margins.

This is not the paradigm that I see for all businesses, [but] is uniquely appropriate for the health-insurance industry, which deals with people's lives and quality of existence. That may sound radical, but is it as radical as allowing a company to increase its profits by denying care to sick individuals? In the long run this would also be good for the insurance companies, who could then concentrate on providing good service, rather than focusing on undercutting their competitors and increasing their profit margin.
Ben Carson on Health Care
=====================================================
Do posters agree or disagree and why?
Personally, I agree.

That's just nuts; insurance companies are already heavily regulated within the states. Every state has an insurance commissioner.

No insurance company can just deny a claim if that claim falls within the coverage defined in the insurance contract, nor can an insured be dropped unless they fail to pay their premium or have submitted a fraudulent application to obtain insurance in the first place.

What he is proposing is making Health Insurers into public utilities meaning that the discipline provided by the review of services by the insurers will be on a par with Medicare.

Each month that goes by I see Explanation Of Benifit statements with costs for items i've been provided exorbitantly multiplied even hundreds of times to ultimately be reviewed and reduced by the insurance company to at least somewhat reasonable pricing albeit still too much in dollars.

I look at these EOBs and just wonder, yet I let them go without complaint because I'm getting what I need within my coverage but still I see a huge magnifying effect to these items to the free joys detriment of folks who are uninsured and must pay out of pocket.

It's the interference of government that has produced that cause and effect .

I bought my family's HI in the private market from 1965 til 2009 and never had a bad experience with several (five including surgeries) hospitalizations and only paid nominally for both the services and the insurance.

Now that both my spouse and I are on Medicare, of course we're getting good care (still not free) but we're seeing very problematic and unrealistic pricing for providers to get close to what they need to stay in business.

My insurance never screwed me, paid for births, surgeries, extended hospital stays, etc, at the agreed upon rate.

Now, with medicare, I have to go to one doc, just to get referred to the doc I really need to see.

Obama and the dims claim to have fixed health care. Are you suggesting otherwise?

I am saying on Medicare if have problems I did not have before.

I am not sure the hassles and paper work would have been any less without Obamacare.

I just happened to get on Medicare at the same time Obamacare started.

I paid into it for decades, and now, to have the same coverage I had before, I have to pay a Medicare premium and my old policy too, which is now my secondary insurance.

Now, BCBC raised my deductible from $300 to $1,000, and my copays 50% across the board.

I suppose that can be blamed on PPACA, which made Blue Cross accept pre-existing conditions from previously uninsured people.

I sure wish I could get some nice life insurance on my pre-existingly dead parents.

Just blame the evil insurance companies. It's all their fault.

Obama is our knight in shining armor. Why without him, we would all be dying in the streets without any health care.

 

[Votto]

I can't believe that those who complained about Obama's lack of experience would think Carson will be any better.

At least he has a better resume than Obama, and he won't use violence to get what he wants, like Obama is doing in Ferguson. I don't think he has the type of managerial experience needed for the job.

Sometimes, the best thing to do is to do nothing. Sometimes the best thing to do is say you don't have all the answers. Sometimes it is best to let the states govern themselves rather than making all their decisions for them.

But that is not possible for Progressives. That is because they favor a centralized system where one man runs the world. What is then needed is to find the most benevolent, qualified, intellectual dictator you can find.

I think that is why most frame conservatives as stupid. It is because they never try to assume that role.

 

[Votto]

I can't believe that those who complained about Obama's lack of experience would think Carson will be any better.

At least he has a better resume than Obama, and he won't use violence to get what he wants, like Obama is doing in Ferguson. I don't think he has the type of managerial experience needed for the job.

So what should be done about Ferguson? What should Ben be doing about it? What should Obama be doing about it?

 

[American Horse]

I've asked this question before and didn't get any replies. So I think this is the perfect thread to ask the question again.
The following is Dr Carson's stance on healthcare insurance companies:
==================================================
Regulate insurance companies as non-profit services
Today, insurance companies call the shots on what they want to pay, to whom, and when. Consequently, even busy doctors operate with a very slim profit of margin.
This is an ideal place for the intervention of government regulators who, with the help of medical professionals, could establish fair and consistent remuneration. To accomplish this, essentially all of the insurance companies would have to become non-profit service organizations with standardized, regulated profit margins.

This is not the paradigm that I see for all businesses, [but] is uniquely appropriate for the health-insurance industry, which deals with people's lives and quality of existence. That may sound radical, but is it as radical as allowing a company to increase its profits by denying care to sick individuals? In the long run this would also be good for the insurance companies, who could then concentrate on providing good service, rather than focusing on undercutting their competitors and increasing their profit margin.
Ben Carson on Health Care
=====================================================
Do posters agree or disagree and why?
Personally, I agree.

That's just nuts; insurance companies are already heavily regulated within the states. Every state has an insurance commissioner.

No insurance company can just deny a claim if that claim falls within the coverage defined in the insurance contract, nor can an insured be dropped unless they fail to pay their premium or have submitted a fraudulent application to obtain insurance in the first place.

What he is proposing is making Health Insurers into public utilities meaning that the discipline provided by the review of services by the insurers will be on a par with Medicare.

Each month that goes by I see Explanation Of Benifit statements with costs for items i've been provided exorbitantly multiplied even hundreds of times to ultimately be reviewed and reduced by the insurance company to at least somewhat reasonable pricing albeit still too much in dollars.

I look at these EOBs and just wonder, yet I let them go without complaint because I'm getting what I need within my coverage but still I see a huge magnifying effect to these items to the free joys detriment of folks who are uninsured and must pay out of pocket.

It's the interference of government that has produced that cause and effect .

I bought my family's HI in the private market from 1965 til 2009 and never had a bad experience with several (five including surgeries) hospitalizations and only paid nominally for both the services and the insurance.

Now that both my spouse and I are on Medicare, of course we're getting good care (still not free) but we're seeing very problematic and unrealistic pricing for providers to get close to what they need to stay in business.

My insurance never screwed me, paid for births, surgeries, extended hospital stays, etc, at the agreed upon rate.

Now, with medicare, I have to go to one doc, just to get referred to the doc I really need to see.

Obama and the dims claim to have fixed health care. Are you suggesting otherwise?

In 49 years I never had to opt for a deductible more than $1000 and a monthly premium more than a few hundred - even when I was 63 (in '04) my premium was only $200/m.

Now deductibles for folks are commonly $8,000 or even $12k and monthly premiums a thousand and higher.

They claim the cost curve has been bent down which is probably true since people have to be discouraged from seeking medical care until their conditions become chronic rather than make pay-outs as large as are now standard fare.

 

[American Horse]

I've asked this question before and didn't get any replies. So I think this is the perfect thread to ask the question again.
The following is Dr Carson's stance on healthcare insurance companies:
==================================================
Regulate insurance companies as non-profit services
Today, insurance companies call the shots on what they want to pay, to whom, and when. Consequently, even busy doctors operate with a very slim profit of margin.
This is an ideal place for the intervention of government regulators who, with the help of medical professionals, could establish fair and consistent remuneration. To accomplish this, essentially all of the insurance companies would have to become non-profit service organizations with standardized, regulated profit margins.

This is not the paradigm that I see for all businesses, [but] is uniquely appropriate for the health-insurance industry, which deals with people's lives and quality of existence. That may sound radical, but is it as radical as allowing a company to increase its profits by denying care to sick individuals? In the long run this would also be good for the insurance companies, who could then concentrate on providing good service, rather than focusing on undercutting their competitors and increasing their profit margin.
Ben Carson on Health Care
=====================================================
Do posters agree or disagree and why?
Personally, I agree.

That's just nuts; insurance companies are already heavily regulated within the states. Every state has an insurance commissioner.

No insurance company can just deny a claim if that claim falls within the coverage defined in the insurance contract, nor can an insured be dropped unless they fail to pay their premium or have submitted a fraudulent application to obtain insurance in the first place.

What he is proposing is making Health Insurers into public utilities meaning that the discipline provided by the review of services by the insurers will be on a par with Medicare.

Each month that goes by I see Explanation Of Benifit statements with costs for items i've been provided exorbitantly multiplied even hundreds of times to ultimately be reviewed and reduced by the insurance company to at least somewhat reasonable pricing albeit still too much in dollars.

I look at these EOBs and just wonder, yet I let them go without complaint because I'm getting what I need within my coverage but still I see a huge magnifying effect to these items to the free joys detriment of folks who are uninsured and must pay out of pocket.

It's the interference of government that has produced that cause and effect .

I bought my family's HI in the private market from 1965 til 2009 and never had a bad experience with several (five including surgeries) hospitalizations and only paid nominally for both the services and the insurance.
Now that both my spouse and I are on Medicare, of course we're getting good care (still not free) but we're seeing very problematic and unrealistic pricing for providers to get close to what they need to stay in business.

My insurance never screwed me, paid for births, surgeries, extended hospital stays, etc, at the agreed upon rate.

Now, with medicare, I have to go to one doc, just to get referred to the doc I really need to see.

Obama and the dims claim to have fixed health care. Are you suggesting otherwise?

I am saying on Medicare if have problems I did not have before.

I am not sure the hassles and paper work would have been any less without Obamacare.

I just happened to get on Medicare at the same time Obamacare started.

I paid into it for decades, and now, to have the same coverage I had before, I have to pay a Medicare premium and my old policy too, which is now my secondary insurance.

Now, BCBC raised my deductible from $300 to $1,000, and my copays 50% across the board.

I suppose that can be blamed on PPACA, which made Blue Cross accept pre-existing conditions from previously uninsured people.

I sure wish I could get some nice life insurance on my pre-existingly dead parents.

But keep in mind that Medicare is relatively unchanged; for now. The $500b ($700b?) taken out of Medicare - a pre existing program - will have to show up as reduced services or options in the future.

Remember,those of us who now qualify have paid for that since the sixties ...

 

[Roadrunner]

I've asked this question before and didn't get any replies. So I think this is the perfect thread to ask the question again.
The following is Dr Carson's stance on healthcare insurance companies:
==================================================
Regulate insurance companies as non-profit services
Today, insurance companies call the shots on what they want to pay, to whom, and when. Consequently, even busy doctors operate with a very slim profit of margin.
This is an ideal place for the intervention of government regulators who, with the help of medical professionals, could establish fair and consistent remuneration. To accomplish this, essentially all of the insurance companies would have to become non-profit service organizations with standardized, regulated profit margins.

This is not the paradigm that I see for all businesses, [but] is uniquely appropriate for the health-insurance industry, which deals with people's lives and quality of existence. That may sound radical, but is it as radical as allowing a company to increase its profits by denying care to sick individuals? In the long run this would also be good for the insurance companies, who could then concentrate on providing good service, rather than focusing on undercutting their competitors and increasing their profit margin.
Ben Carson on Health Care
=====================================================
Do posters agree or disagree and why?
Personally, I agree.

That's just nuts; insurance companies are already heavily regulated within the states. Every state has an insurance commissioner.

No insurance company can just deny a claim if that claim falls within the coverage defined in the insurance contract, nor can an insured be dropped unless they fail to pay their premium or have submitted a fraudulent application to obtain insurance in the first place.

What he is proposing is making Health Insurers into public utilities meaning that the discipline provided by the review of services by the insurers will be on a par with Medicare.

Each month that goes by I see Explanation Of Benifit statements with costs for items i've been provided exorbitantly multiplied even hundreds of times to ultimately be reviewed and reduced by the insurance company to at least somewhat reasonable pricing albeit still too much in dollars.

I look at these EOBs and just wonder, yet I let them go without complaint because I'm getting what I need within my coverage but still I see a huge magnifying effect to these items to the free joys detriment of folks who are uninsured and must pay out of pocket.

It's the interference of government that has produced that cause and effect .

I bought my family's HI in the private market from 1965 til 2009 and never had a bad experience with several (five including surgeries) hospitalizations and only paid nominally for both the services and the insurance.

Now that both my spouse and I are on Medicare, of course we're getting good care (still not free) but we're seeing very problematic and unrealistic pricing for providers to get close to what they need to stay in business.

My insurance never screwed me, paid for births, surgeries, extended hospital stays, etc, at the agreed upon rate.

Now, with medicare, I have to go to one doc, just to get referred to the doc I really need to see.

Obama and the dims claim to have fixed health care. Are you suggesting otherwise?

I am saying on Medicare if have problems I did not have before.

I am not sure the hassles and paper work would have been any less without Obamacare.

I just happened to get on Medicare at the same time Obamacare started.

I paid into it for decades, and now, to have the same coverage I had before, I have to pay a Medicare premium and my old policy too, which is now my secondary insurance.

Now, BCBC raised my deductible from $300 to $1,000, and my copays 50% across the board.

I suppose that can be blamed on PPACA, which made Blue Cross accept pre-existing conditions from previously uninsured people.

I sure wish I could get some nice life insurance on my pre-existingly dead parents.

But keep in mind that Medicare is relatively unchanged; for now. The $500b ($700b?) taken out of Medicare - a pre existing program - will have to show up as reduced services or options.

I get the feeling it is hurry up and die insurance.

If they gave a shit about older people, they would cover dental.

I am healthy as can be, but, going broke over dental.

 

[American Horse]

That's just nuts; insurance companies are already heavily regulated within the states. Every state has an insurance commissioner.

No insurance company can just deny a claim if that claim falls within the coverage defined in the insurance contract, nor can an insured be dropped unless they fail to pay their premium or have submitted a fraudulent application to obtain insurance in the first place.

What he is proposing is making Health Insurers into public utilities meaning that the discipline provided by the review of services by the insurers will be on a par with Medicare.

Each month that goes by I see Explanation Of Benifit statements with costs for items i've been provided exorbitantly multiplied even hundreds of times to ultimately be reviewed and reduced by the insurance company to at least somewhat reasonable pricing albeit still too much in dollars.

I look at these EOBs and just wonder, yet I let them go without complaint because I'm getting what I need within my coverage but still I see a huge magnifying effect to these items to the free joys detriment of folks who are uninsured and must pay out of pocket.

It's the interference of government that has produced that cause and effect .

I bought my family's HI in the private market from 1965 til 2009 and never had a bad experience with several (five including surgeries) hospitalizations and only paid nominally for both the services and the insurance.

Now that both my spouse and I are on Medicare, of course we're getting good care (still not free) but we're seeing very problematic and unrealistic pricing for providers to get close to what they need to stay in business.

My insurance never screwed me, paid for births, surgeries, extended hospital stays, etc, at the agreed upon rate.

Now, with medicare, I have to go to one doc, just to get referred to the doc I really need to see.

Obama and the dims claim to have fixed health care. Are you suggesting otherwise?

I am saying on Medicare if have problems I did not have before.

I am not sure the hassles and paper work would have been any less without Obamacare.

I just happened to get on Medicare at the same time Obamacare started.

I paid into it for decades, and now, to have the same coverage I had before, I have to pay a Medicare premium and my old policy too, which is now my secondary insurance.

Now, BCBC raised my deductible from $300 to $1,000, and my copays 50% across the board.

I suppose that can be blamed on PPACA, which made Blue Cross accept pre-existing conditions from previously uninsured people.

I sure wish I could get some nice life insurance on my pre-existingly dead parents.

But keep in mind that Medicare is relatively unchanged; for now. The $500b ($700b?) taken out of Medicare - a pre existing program - will have to show up as reduced services or options.

I get the feeling it is hurry up and die insurance.

If they gave a shit about older people, they would cover dental.

I am healthy as can be, but, going broke over dental.

I can sympathize. I'm paying more than I ever did to keep what I still have. Sometimes the best option is to have them all removed and get dental plates.

That can can have the side benefit of removing the risk of heart damage from gingivitis and probably from being overweight since food will become much less enjoyable to eat with plates.

 

[Roadrunner]

My insurance never screwed me, paid for births, surgeries, extended hospital stays, etc, at the agreed upon rate.

Now, with medicare, I have to go to one doc, just to get referred to the doc I really need to see.

Obama and the dims claim to have fixed health care. Are you suggesting otherwise?

I am saying on Medicare if have problems I did not have before.

I am not sure the hassles and paper work would have been any less without Obamacare.

I just happened to get on Medicare at the same time Obamacare started.

I paid into it for decades, and now, to have the same coverage I had before, I have to pay a Medicare premium and my old policy too, which is now my secondary insurance.

Now, BCBC raised my deductible from $300 to $1,000, and my copays 50% across the board.

I suppose that can be blamed on PPACA, which made Blue Cross accept pre-existing conditions from previously uninsured people.

I sure wish I could get some nice life insurance on my pre-existingly dead parents.

But keep in mind that Medicare is relatively unchanged; for now. The $500b ($700b?) taken out of Medicare - a pre existing program - will have to show up as reduced services or options.

I get the feeling it is hurry up and die insurance.

If they gave a shit about older people, they would cover dental.

I am healthy as can be, but, going broke over dental.

I can sympathize. I'm paying more than I ever did to keep what I still have. Sometimes the bet option is to have them all removed and get plates.

That can remove the risk of heart damage from gingivitis and probably from being overweight since food will become much less enjoyable to eat with plates.

I am going with implants.

Most of my problems are from having a shitty dentist my ex picked because she was a woman.

I never realized how brutal the bitch was, until after 20 years, I had to go to another dentist out of town, when one of her crowns came off.

He said he had never seen so much crap dental work, and where an injection from her felt like a bayonet being wiggled around in my flesh, I never felt his shots.

I am hoping within the year to get a few implants, and get back to eating right.

Eating way too much prepared food lately, but, still have no weight problem.

Well, today will put on some, I went all out for the kids.

Turkey, wild rice pecan stuffing, homemade cranberry sauce, traditional greenbeans my oldest likes, sweet potatoes, and of course, being in LA, rice and gravy.

Pie and ice cream too.

 

[Moonglow]

I've been reading a book of his and I'm liking what I'm hearing.

Although I don't think Ben has a shot at political office in such a corrupt and incestuous political system as the US has now, I think he would be an excellent President.

What say you?

Who the fuck cares????? Who is Ben Carson?? Who the fuck cares!!!!

 

[Votto]

That's just nuts; insurance companies are already heavily regulated within the states. Every state has an insurance commissioner.

No insurance company can just deny a claim if that claim falls within the coverage defined in the insurance contract, nor can an insured be dropped unless they fail to pay their premium or have submitted a fraudulent application to obtain insurance in the first place.

What he is proposing is making Health Insurers into public utilities meaning that the discipline provided by the review of services by the insurers will be on a par with Medicare.

Each month that goes by I see Explanation Of Benifit statements with costs for items i've been provided exorbitantly multiplied even hundreds of times to ultimately be reviewed and reduced by the insurance company to at least somewhat reasonable pricing albeit still too much in dollars.

I look at these EOBs and just wonder, yet I let them go without complaint because I'm getting what I need within my coverage but still I see a huge magnifying effect to these items to the free joys detriment of folks who are uninsured and must pay out of pocket.

It's the interference of government that has produced that cause and effect .

I bought my family's HI in the private market from 1965 til 2009 and never had a bad experience with several (five including surgeries) hospitalizations and only paid nominally for both the services and the insurance.

Now that both my spouse and I are on Medicare, of course we're getting good care (still not free) but we're seeing very problematic and unrealistic pricing for providers to get close to what they need to stay in business.

My insurance never screwed me, paid for births, surgeries, extended hospital stays, etc, at the agreed upon rate.

Now, with medicare, I have to go to one doc, just to get referred to the doc I really need to see.

Obama and the dims claim to have fixed health care. Are you suggesting otherwise?

I am saying on Medicare if have problems I did not have before.

I am not sure the hassles and paper work would have been any less without Obamacare.

I just happened to get on Medicare at the same time Obamacare started.

I paid into it for decades, and now, to have the same coverage I had before, I have to pay a Medicare premium and my old policy too, which is now my secondary insurance.

Now, BCBC raised my deductible from $300 to $1,000, and my copays 50% across the board.

I suppose that can be blamed on PPACA, which made Blue Cross accept pre-existing conditions from previously uninsured people.

I sure wish I could get some nice life insurance on my pre-existingly dead parents.

But keep in mind that Medicare is relatively unchanged; for now. The $500b ($700b?) taken out of Medicare - a pre existing program - will have to show up as reduced services or options.

I get the feeling it is hurry up and die insurance.

If they gave a shit about older people, they would cover dental.

I am healthy as can be, but, going broke over dental.

It is interesting to hear Progressives whine about spending when it comes to health care. In fact, cutting costs was one of the selling points of Obamacare, even though we all know in the end it will be to expensive.

It's the only time they seem to care about spending, when it comes to our health.

 

[Votto]

I

What say you?

Who the fuck cares????? Who is Ben Carson?? Who the fuck cares!!!!

Back

What does it matter?

 

[Moonglow]

I

What say you?

Who the fuck cares????? Who is Ben Carson?? Who the fuck cares!!!!

Back
Next

She can afford a dentist.....a little whitener wouldn't hurt......

 

[Votto]

I

What say you?

Who the fuck cares????? Who is Ben Carson?? Who the fuck cares!!!!

• Next

What does it matter?

 

[rightwinger]

Politically,No more than Sarah Palin has a brain
Carson is not engaging in original thought. He is throwing meat to the far right telling them what they expect to hear
Gays are the same as pedophiles and bestiality

Face it Carson will take his seat in the Clown Car with others who have no chance of winning but want to have their time in the spot light

Don't disrespect the clown car! After all, the clown won the last two presidential elections.

Far from it

Obama was the most dynamic and influential figure in the 2008 election. Members of the clown car have no chance of winning......Obama won by a 2:1 margin

Comparing Obama to clowns like McCain and Romney?

Pfft.

What I'm saying is stop bringing in the clowns.

You have already stated your admiration for Ben, admiration that none of us have for the likes of Romney and McCain.......or was that just some white guilt talking?

McCain and Romney were first rank political figures capable of winning the presidency
Candidates like Backmann, Santorum, Paul and Perry occupied the Clown Car

First rate political figures? What does that mean? To me that means they are rich, politically powerful, and part of the elite Progressive movement.

Is that what you mean?

No, what it means is they have a political position that is broad enough to build a constituency capable of winning an election
It transfers into an ability to get political backing and actually win primaries
Those in the clown car can't

 

[Votto]

Don't disrespect the clown car! After all, the clown won the last two presidential elections.

Far from it

Obama was the most dynamic and influential figure in the 2008 election. Members of the clown car have no chance of winning......Obama won by a 2:1 margin

Comparing Obama to clowns like McCain and Romney?

Pfft.

What I'm saying is stop bringing in the clowns.

You have already stated your admiration for Ben, admiration that none of us have for the likes of Romney and McCain.......or was that just some white guilt talking?

McCain and Romney were first rank political figures capable of winning the presidency
Candidates like Backmann, Santorum, Paul and Perry occupied the Clown Car

First rate political figures? What does that mean? To me that means they are rich, politically powerful, and part of the elite Progressive movement.

Is that what you mean?

No, what it means is they have a political position that is broad enough to build a constituency capable of winning an election
It transfers into an ability to get political backing and actually win primaries
Those in the clown car can't

In other words, people like McCain and Romney have enough corporate and political backing to win an election?

I don't deny that, but what does winning elections have to do with being a good leader?

Nothing, that's what.

 

[Votto]

The Federal government is a collectivist utopia. That is why those who dare stand up to it, whether talking about balancing budgets or restraining military power abroad, are always taken behind a shack and beaten senseless.

As I've said, I don't think Ben can overcome the system in order to get elected, but that does not mean he is not the best man for the job.

 

[Freewill]

I've been reading a book of his and I'm liking what I'm hearing.

Although I don't think Ben has a shot at political office in such a corrupt and incestuous political system as the US has now, I think he would be an excellent President.

What say you?

Seems intelligent and obviously is.

Seems to have some good ideas and morals.

Not enough experience to be POTUS

 

[Votto]

I've been reading a book of his and I'm liking what I'm hearing.

Although I don't think Ben has a shot at political office in such a corrupt and incestuous political system as the US has now, I think he would be an excellent President.

What say you?

Seems intelligent and obviously is.

Seems to have some good ideas and morals.

Not enough experience to be POTUS

Our political leaders used to be average men and women from society at large, but now it seems that is no longer possible.

Now they must be career politicians. They must be men and women who have sold out to various political parties and have chosen a lavish retirement package rather than being a short time public servant and then going back into the world you have created.

 

[rightwinger]

Far from it

Obama was the most dynamic and influential figure in the 2008 election. Members of the clown car have no chance of winning......Obama won by a 2:1 margin

Comparing Obama to clowns like McCain and Romney?

Pfft.

What I'm saying is stop bringing in the clowns.

You have already stated your admiration for Ben, admiration that none of us have for the likes of Romney and McCain.......or was that just some white guilt talking?

McCain and Romney were first rank political figures capable of winning the presidency
Candidates like Backmann, Santorum, Paul and Perry occupied the Clown Car

First rate political figures? What does that mean? To me that means they are rich, politically powerful, and part of the elite Progressive movement.

Is that what you mean?

No, what it means is they have a political position that is broad enough to build a constituency capable of winning an election
It transfers into an ability to get political backing and actually win primaries
Those in the clown car can't

In other words, people like McCain and Romney have enough corporate and political backing to win an election?

I don't deny that, but what does winning elections have to do with being a good leader?

Nothing, that's what.

We are talking about Ben Carson's prospects for the presidency
Right now, he is not a leader by any measure