Would Marylanders Support Dr. Ben Carson as a GOP Presidential Candidate in 2016? (California: law, vs.)

[HandsUpThumbsDown]

Carson didn't do much of a job delivering that one about gay marriage. Well, maybe you feel that he did, but ... heh, didn't work out so good, right? This view will get nobody elected, nationally, in the modern era. It's appeal is limited, and getting more limited by the day.

It's the message. Something about "lipstick on a pig" applies here...

[justtitans]

Originally Posted by HandsUpThumbsDown

Carson didn't do much of a job delivering that one about gay marriage. Well, maybe you feel that he did, but ... heh, didn't work out so good, right? This view will get nobody elected, nationally, in the modern era. It's appeal is limited, and getting more limited by the day.

It's the message. Something about "lipstick on a pig" applies here...

Prior to the 2008 election Obama sat in front of Rick Warren and said he believe marriage was between a man and woman, and of course he won by a landslide.


Rick Warren Asks Obama and McCain to Define Marriage - YouTube

Hmm....

[HandsUpThumbsDown]

Originally Posted by pgtvatitans

Prior to the 2008 election Obama sat in front of Rick Warren and said he believe marriage was between a man and woman, and of course he won by a landslide.
Hmm....

Fantastic ... I suggest you find a time machine for Carson to use. Obama then changed his stance on that, to great support. Then, his support helped MD pass its referendum. National opinion on this has changed extremely quickly in the last five years. Obama also didn't compare homosexuals to those who sexually abuse children or animals.

The reason you are pleased about this ancient video is not the reason you should be ... it shows the ability of Carson to gain popularity by allowing his opinions to "evolve," as Obama's did, as the nation's did. Carson has wayyyyyyyyyyy more votes to gain by embracing marriage equality than opposing it. The GOP does not have the luxury Dems did back in '08, in not addressing the issue, then coming out in support of it after elected.

Mark my words: Any GOPer who continues to make homophobic statements into 2015 will not make the ticket, and certainly not win the general election. The GOP is going to have to evolve into the 21st century before its third decade if it wishes to remain relevant.

The number of values voters is decreasing, not increasing, as the nation becomes more secular. That isn't hard to understand. Time to dump social conservatism from the platform and stick to economic conservatism.

[justtitans]

Originally Posted by HandsUpThumbsDown

Fantastic ... I suggest you find a time machine for Carson to use. Obama then changed his stance on that, to great support. Then, his support helped MD pass its referendum. National opinion on this has changed extremely quickly in the last five years.

The reason you are pleased about this ancient video is not the reason you should be ... it shows the ability of Carson to gain popularity by allowing his opinions to "evolve," as Obama's did, as the nation's did. Carson has wayyyyyyyyyyy more votes to gain by embracing marriage equality than opposing it. The GOP does not have the luxury Dems did back in '08, in not addressing the issue, then coming out in support of it after elected.

Mark my words: Any GOPer who continues to make homophobic statements into 2015 will not make the ticket, and certainly not win the general election. The GOP is going to have to evolve into the 21st century before its third decade if it wishes to remain relevant.

The number of values voters is decreasing, not increasing, as the nation becomes more secular. That isn't hard to understand. Time to dump social conservatism from the platform and stick to economic conservatism.

2008 is ancient and not considered the "modern era"?

As I remember it, his stance on gay marriage did little to hurt or harm him. Him winning the election the second time is probably more an indictment of how bad a candidate Romney was more so than Obama changing his stance. I mean after all Romney finished a lot closer than Cain so one could easily argue that it had a negative effect (but I think it was a summation of other things that lead to his decreased popularity).

As far as MD was concerned, it wouldn't have mattered if he supported MD or not. MD has become an extremely liberal state so it was only a matter of time, with or without Obama. That passing had more to do with Obama jr....umm....O'Malley supporting it.

Please explain what was homophobic about Carson's statement. Please educate me, because that word is thrown around as much as racism and is beginning to lose it's meaning (even though it is a misnomer in the first place).

[HandsUpThumbsDown]

Originally Posted by pgtvatitans

Please explain what was homophobic about Carson's statement. Please educate me, because that word is thrown around as much as racism and is beginning to lose it's meaning (even though it is a misnomer in the first place).

There's no point in discussing it really (see my note about the 2016 ticket, diminishing number of values voters, et al.), but this is what was said:

[hetero marriage is] “a well-established, fundamental pillar of society and no group, be they gays, be they NAMBLA, be they people who believe in bestiality — it doesn’t matter what they are. They don’t get to change the definition.”

No comment is needed really. It's beyond the pale.

[justtitans]

Originally Posted by HandsUpThumbsDown

There's no point in discussing it really (see my note about the 2016 ticket, diminishing number of values voters, et al.), but this is what was said:

[hetero marriage is] “a well-established, fundamental pillar of society and no group, be they gays, be they NAMBLA, be they people who believe in bestiality — it doesn’t matter what they are. They don’t get to change the definition.”

No comment is needed really. It's beyond the pale.

Sure you may be offended by that, but if those groups don't change the definition of marriage as being between a man and woman, then who else would? Who would changing the definition apply to, if not them? What other groups would fit that category that might want to be married by don't fit the traditional definition of marriage?

[mcleanexec]

Marco Rubio will get the GOP nomination and defeat Hillary. If the most of the Hispanics vote for Rubio along with conservatives then Rubio should win very easily.

[rfp]

Marco (where's my water bottle?) Boobio, the boy-child candidate pushed to the front by the desperate GOP? The Republicans may never again win a Presidential election. Sure, they may linger around a bit in the gerrymandered Congressional legislature, but the next census in 2020 should wipe them away. All the GOP presidential candidates in 2012 were complete dunces.

I am no fan-boy of Obama (the most disappointing president in my lifetime), but I have faith that American voters eventually will see the way forward.

[westsideboy]

Originally Posted by HandsUpThumbsDown

Fantastic ... I suggest you find a time machine for Carson to use. Obama then changed his stance on that, to great support. Then, his support helped MD pass its referendum. National opinion on this has changed extremely quickly in the last five years. Obama also didn't compare homosexuals to those who sexually abuse children or animals.

The reason you are pleased about this ancient video is not the reason you should be ... it shows the ability of Carson to gain popularity by allowing his opinions to "evolve," as Obama's did, as the nation's did. Carson has wayyyyyyyyyyy more votes to gain by embracing marriage equality than opposing it. The GOP does not have the luxury Dems did back in '08, in not addressing the issue, then coming out in support of it after elected.

Mark my words: Any GOPer who continues to make homophobic statements into 2015 will not make the ticket, and certainly not win the general election. The GOP is going to have to evolve into the 21st century before its third decade if it wishes to remain relevant.

The number of values voters is decreasing, not increasing, as the nation becomes more secular. That isn't hard to understand. Time to dump social conservatism from the platform and stick to economic conservatism.

If you truly believe the President's opinion on gay marriage "changed" from 2008 to 2012, I have some ocean front property on Iron's Mountain you may be interested in.

He "changed" his opinion as soon as the majority opinion of Americans flopped to the other side of the issue. He is a politiican, aka, a professional liar. I suspect he was lying in 2008 to help his chances of getting elected and is telling the truth about how he feels now.

BTW, still waiting from GITMO to close, that was a promise too, one of the few he made I was looking forward to seeing happen.

[HandsUpThumbsDown]

Originally Posted by westsideboy

If you truly believe the President's opinion on gay marriage "changed" from 2008 to 2012, I have some ocean front property on Iron's Mountain you may be interested in.

He "changed" his opinion as soon as the majority opinion of Americans flopped to the other side of the issue. He is a politiican, aka, a professional liar. I suspect he was lying in 2008 to help his chances of getting elected and is telling the truth about how he feels now.

Absolutely right! I have no illusions about this. As I said, Dems really didn't have to take a position on this in the '08 election. By giving half answers and feel-good quotes, they put themselves in great position to take the national position as it shifted.

Some GOP members have as well (but not til after the '12 election), as we've seen in recent months ("coming out" in support of gay marriage). My point is that the days in which a candidate can equate homosexuals to child molestors and animal rapists is wayyyy over. He didn't really leave himself a ledge from which he can evolve, as opportunist dems did.

By the way, all us pro gay types were damn sure back in '08 that he'd get there. Let's go back to '08 for a moment. If a gay rights supporter is trying to pick a candidate, and it's between a guy who says a whole bunch of nice things about gays and is generally supports their rights, and McCain/that ingnorant person from Alaska (she worse than he) - who would the supporter choose?

Now let's look at '16. Let's say it's ANY Dem (they all will support gay marriage by '16) vs. Carson. We have 100% support vs. 100% opposition. With the national opinion what it is (and growing stronger in support of gay marriage, btw), how would Carson stand a chance?

Gay rights is no longer a tertiary issue. A candidate can no longer say, "hey don't worry about that, just listen to my economic plan." The GOP will have to find a moderate who has some grasp of the nation's will and who has similarly "evolved" if it wants ANY chance of victory in '16. Huntsman comes to mind.

Politics is a game of opportunists, and while there may be some who find the fact that Ben Carson has indicated he will never evolve on gay marriage admirable and "honest," there are a greater number of people who will find his position reprehensible, old-fashioned, and vile.