Carson would use Dept of Education to censor US colleges.

[Blackjack200]

bwwaaaa hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.. all those suckers looking to him to be 'their guy'
ffs.. what a fucking circus our electoral process has become.

Ben Carson has no real campaign infrastructure. He takes donations and spends the money on more fundraisers. His campaign is literally a pyramid scheme.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/10/where-is-ben-carsons-money-going/410839/

I mean, you can't make this shit up. He is lauging his ass off and taking conservatives' money.

 

[waggy]

Carson is not sincerely running. It's a high profile book tour.

http://www.cbsnews.com/videos/ben-carson-suspends-campaign-for-2-weeks/

well to be fair only 5 or so people have a shot.

DNC it's hillary and BS. with the bets going on Hillary.

GOP it's Trump and bush.

both parties have a bunch of people running with the only reason to either write a book or get better jobs in the government.

Carson has no chance of winning.

 

[pcgeek11]

So tell me, small government conservative, how government should tie funding to having the right political ideology.

It's pretty hilarious that we have on the same page the thread about the now-debunked IRS scandal where conservatives are freaking out about government supposedly withholding fiscal benefits (nonprofit status) over political ideology. Look at all the hysterical statements of tyranny there. When fiscal penalties would be applied to college liberals over ideology though? "Sounds good to me."

Pathetic. You guys LOVE authoritarianism so long as the right people are the target.

"for extreme political bias"

There is a big difference between teaching politics and biased political indoctrination or more aptly put brain washing.

I just pointed out that there is a huge difference between teaching politics and "extreme political bias ".

Do you think they should teach with an extreme political bias?

An honest yes or no will suffice.

I say no.

And just to make it clear I am not a Carson supporter.

 

[fskimospy]

I just pointed out that there is a huge difference between teaching politics and "extreme political bias ".

Do you think they should teach with an extreme political bias?

An honest yes or no will suffice.

I say no.

And just to make it clear I am not a Carson supporter.

Define the difference in a way that can be codified and acted on by the government. (You can't.)

People should not teach biased classes but as a society we could never agree on what is biased or not. As I mentioned before, conservatives would likely think that teaching the overwhelming scientific consensus on climate change was biased, despite it simply being factual information.

Not only would it likely be unconstitutional to do what Carson says, it's dumb.

 

[sportage]

What is going to happen is....
Iowa is probably going for Carson, or possible as a shocker, Jeb.
But if the Iowa religious right turn out and get their way, it will be Carson.
And after that, Carson will fade away.

Which once again just shows Iowa has no business leading the primary pack.
Iowa has gone for Huckabee, Santorum, and Pat Robertson for gods sake. Pat Robertson??? Really?
Terribly tragic all this attention is given to Iowa and to their long shot candidates they pick.

If Iowa does chose Carson in February and then Carson falls off the map in the falling primaries, I think that would be enough. Iowa then should have its first in line revoked.
Not only because they consistently chose the wrong guy, but way too much attention is given to that state for no practical reason.

 

[CitizenKain]

I just pointed out that there is a huge difference between teaching politics and "extreme political bias ".

Do you think they should teach with an extreme political bias?

An honest yes or no will suffice.

I say no.

And just to make it clear I am not a Carson supporter.

What qualifies as extreme?

 

[Victorian Gray]

What qualifies as extreme?

Anything he doesn't like.

 

[VRAMdemon]

Ben Carson, you silly man...the mechanism you use today to suppress speech you don't like will be used tomorrow to suppress speech you do like.

 

[Blackjack200]

What is going to happen is....
Iowa is probably going for Carson, or possible as a shocker, Jeb.
But if the Iowa religious right turn out and get their way, it will be Carson.
And after that, Carson will fade away.

Which once again just shows Iowa has no business leading the primary pack.
Iowa has gone for Huckabee, Santorum, and Pat Robertson for gods sake. Pat Robertson??? Really?
Terribly tragic all this attention is given to Iowa and to their long shot candidates they pick.

If Iowa does chose Carson in February and then Carson falls off the map in the falling primaries, I think that would be enough. Iowa then should have its first in line revoked.
Not only because they consistently chose the wrong guy, but way too much attention is given to that state for no practical reason.

You're right for sure. But I don't think anyone sincerely cares about Iowa, it's just something to talk about. Let the Iowans feel special for a few seconds and then the rest of the country can get back to the business of selecting candidates.

I think this is why they moved some of the other primaries up.

 

[Bowfinger]

[ ... ]
Iowa has gone for Huckabee, Santorum, and Pat Robertson for gods sake. Pat Robertson??? Really?

No, not really. Iowa went for Bob Dole that year, not Pat Robertson.

Also, Santorum and Romney effectively tied, with each getting 25% of the vote. Santorum did edge out Romney on a recount, barely.

Terribly tragic all this attention is given to Iowa and to their long shot candidates they pick. ...

Get your facts straight. For the last ten cycles, Iowa Republicans picked the eventual GOP nominee six out of ten times (not counting the near-tie with Santorum and Romney). Besides Huckabee and Santorum, the other two times Iowa Republicans missed they instead picked Bob Dole (again), and George H. W. Bush. Those are hardly long-shot candidates.

Not only because they consistently chose the wrong guy, but way too much attention is given to that state for no practical reason.

On the contrary, the very practical reason Iowa and New Hampshire go first is money. The two states are small enough that good candidates without deep pockets still have a viable shot at making their case to voters. Candidates can literally go door to door, and can meet voters in small, intimate, and inexpensive settings like schools, churches, and coffee shops. They can gain exposure and build a campaign without spending millions of dollars on ads.

If we started with California or Florida instead, for example, only the two or three establishment candidates with big war chests would have any chance at all. It wouldn't be practical to meet any significant percentage of voters in person. Instead, it would be a battle of expensive advertising campaigns.

 

[shady28]

Ben Carson, you silly man...the mechanism you use today to suppress speech you don't like will be used tomorrow to suppress speech you do like.

Have you ever looked at FIRE's website?

Many universities have a well documented "above the law" attitude towards free speech. Just a few years ago FIRE determined over 65% of universities were breaking well established laws regarding free speech.

They have a long unbroken record of lawsuits against universities for that type of behavior, but by and large Universities still flout the law and the free speech rights of their students. If you look at the lawsuits, generally speaking the political bias is evident. This is what Carson is talking about.

 

[woolfe9998]

Aside from the comment which has been discussed, did anyone notice these gems:

Carson also said he would "intensify" the war on drugs and send a "stabilizing" military force back into Iraq if elected.

Yikes. Ground troops in Iraq and doubling down on failed drug prohibition?

Honestly Carson seems like a nice guy by demeanor, but he is way out of touch with reality. He might well be worse than Trump.

 

[disappoint]

I sensor a disturbance in the force.

Luke I am your...

Goebbels! You're like fucking Goebbels!!

 

[disappoint]

Ben Carson, you silly man...the mechanism you use today to suppress speech you don't like will be used tomorrow to suppress speech you do like.

Carsonfilm...Carsonfilm (sung to the tune of Girls on Film)

Carsonfilm needs to find a Neurosurgeon stat!

Now where can he find a good one...

 

[Sonikku]

Aside from the comment which has been discussed, did anyone notice these gems:



Yikes. Ground troops in Iraq and doubling down on failed drug prohibition?

Honestly Carson seems like a nice guy by demeanor, but he is way out of touch with reality. He might well be worse than Trump.

He's not an idiot. These things put a lot of money into the pockets of certain people and the GoP knows what side their bread is buttered on. I think there are many among the GoP that would would rail against this, but they don't get the funding they would need to be viable against those that do, leaving us with a Republican majority in power that all double down on failed policies time and time again.

 

[CountZero]

Have you ever looked at FIRE's website?

Many universities have a well documented "above the law" attitude towards free speech. Just a few years ago FIRE determined over 65% of universities were breaking well established laws regarding free speech.

They have a long unbroken record of lawsuits against universities for that type of behavior, but by and large Universities still flout the law and the free speech rights of their students. If you look at the lawsuits, generally speaking the political bias is evident. This is what Carson is talking about.

And yet using federal funding to stop "extreme political bias" is an extremely stupid idea. Plus, given Carson has stated it would have exceptions for his political bias, it might as well be stated as using federal funds to stop "liberal political bias" which is an insane thing to support.

FIRE and ACLU can take cases to the courts on behalf of people and those courts can hand down decisions based on the law and constitution. This is how you affect change, not some new government body dedicated to "extreme political bias" a term that has no consistent meaning person to person.