Dr. Ben Carson Endorses Trump. . . but Why?

[Steve B]

Dr. Carson was always my first choice (as many of you know).  Trump was always my second choice.  Cruz is my third choice.  So I found it heart-warming that Carson would endorse Trump for the exact same reasons that Trump is my second choice.

Look.  I'm mad at Trump for some of the things he did to Carson.  But hey. . . American politics, throughout its entire history, has always been a nasty business.  Pardon my french, but you either swim in the shit or you drown in it.  Welcome to the reality of fallen human nature.  I always admired Carson because he refused to swim in it.  But if you look at the founder of the Republican party, Lincoln, he swam in it in order to get the abolition of slavery passed.  Carson explains why he endorses Trump, he sees the "bigger picture" that goes beyond Trump himself.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m_O3byRy7xQ

[Harvey]

It's called a self-serving Chris Christie move to be part of the next American administration. Cruz and Rubio don't (at the moment, at least) look like they have much of a chance.

[GotTheGift]

Look.  I'm mad at Trump for some of the things he did to Carson.  But hey. . . American politics, throughout its entire history, has always been a nasty business.

Comparing someone to a child molester nasty? I don't think so.

Carson will be offered the US Secretary of Education position if DT wins. Wonder what the chapter on evolution will look like in our public school's biology textbooks under his leadership?

I am being playful. of course. Kinda.

[Bertuzzi]

How can Trump be anyone's second choice (let alone a choice at all)?

[Steve B]

The OP is about the "bigger picture" of America.  The Supreme Court.  Trade.  Jobs.  Religious freedoms.  Freedom of speech.  The rule of law.

That is why Carson endorsed Trump-- he sees the "bigger picture."  Even though Trump wounded Carson, and even though Carson is the only candidate who ever surpassed Trump in the polls, he's not about "bitter apples."  He sees the special interest groups trying to assault candidates that they can not control.

The media did the hit job on Carson.  Now they are trying to do it on Trump.  Why?  Partly for ratings.  But mainly because the special interest groups can not control either of these men.

[GotTheGift]

The OP is about the "bigger picture" of America.  The Supreme Court.  Trade.  Jobs.  Religious freedoms.  Freedom of speech.  The rule of law.

That is why Carson endorsed Trump-- he sees the "bigger picture."  Even though Trump wounded Carson, and even though Carson is the only candidate who ever surpassed Trump in the polls, he's not about "bitter apples."  He sees the special interest groups trying to assault candidates that they can not control.

The media did the hit job on Carson.  Now they are trying to do it on Trump.  Why?  Partly for ratings.  But mainly because the special interest groups can not control either of these men.

There is no "bigger picture". Trump made Carson a deal. That is all this is.

[Steve B]

There is no "bigger picture". Trump made Carson a deal. That is all this is.

*sigh*  what do you base this claim on?  It's just yet another of a long list of baseless claims in a political season.  You are, basically, calling Carson a liar as to his inner motives for backing Trump.

Carson has never given the American people any reason to believe that he is concerned with anything other than its well-being.  He has taken the hippocratic oath to "first, do no harm." And he has kept that oath his entire life as a Doctor.  Why would he break from that oath now when it matters most?

And I would say the same thing about Bernie Sanders. . . even though I fundamentally disagree with his political views, I'm not about to demonize him by questioning Mr. Sanders' motives.  That, simply, would not be right.  And it would stifle sincere discussion if I did that.

There is a bigger picture. . . the Supreme Court.  If we don't see that. . . we risk losing it.

Kasich and Rubio need to drop out.  This should be a two man race between Trump and Cruz.  The Supreme Court is at stake here.  And Carson clearly understands this.  That's his true motive for backing Trump.

[GotTheGift]

There is no "bigger picture". Trump made Carson a deal. That is all this is.

*sigh*  what do you base this claim on?  It's just yet another of a long list of baseless claims that prey on our personal prejudices.

But if you look closely. . . that's all it is.  A baseless claim among literally hundreds in a political season-- it's nothing more than yet another baseless claim meant to blunt the political force of Carson's honesty and sincerity.

And I would say the same thing about Bernie Sanders. . . even though I fundamentally disagree with him.

I think you are reading too much into my comment, Steve. Really, DT just made a deal, you say that is what he does best and one of the qualities you like about him, so there should be no surprise with the Carson nod. Politicians do it all the time in these races. Obama picked Clinton for Secretary of State, Joe Biden as VP even after some spirited debates.

There has been no Divine Intervention with the Carson endorsement, imo. Maybe you see it that way, but it is just more of the same old, same old.

The two "non-politicians" have officially been promoted to full-fledged Politicians.

Carson has never given the American people any reason to believe that he is concerned with anything other than its well-being.

Except, when he should have dropped out before Super Tuesday. Carson knew he was going to have a terrible showing, but stayed in to split the votes. Votes that would have went to Rubio or Cruz, most likely.

[Pragmatic]

Honestly, I think Trump is paying him.

[Steve B]

These are two men whose campaigns are defined by not taking favors from special interest groups.

I'm as cynical as the next guy. . . but I'm cynical because I identify the cause of my cynicism: big money.   I'm not just generally cynical about people's motives whenever their views disagree with mine.

And should we really be surprised that Trump/Carson ended up in the same camp?  They are both trying to turn over the table of the money-changers in the temple, they just have very different ways of going about it.  Regardless of who you are. . . you don't want the people that you vote for to be divided in their loyalty between your vote and special interest groups.

Donald Trump, Ben Carson, and Bernie Sanders, are all fundamentally defined by not being controlled by big money.

So Carson's endorsement of Trump should, really, come as no big surprise.

But more than this, Carson sees the "big picture."  We have a Supreme Court that is at stake.  We can not sacrifice the Supreme Court just because special interest groups prefer a candidate that they can control.

If you must be cynical about motives. . . be cynical about special interest groups trying to control the candidates that you vote for.

[Soren]

These are two men whose campaigns are defined by not taking favors from special interest groups.

I'm as cynical as the next guy. . . but I'm cynical because I identify the cause of my cynicism: big money.   I'm not just generally cynical about people's motives whenever their views disagree with mine.

And should we really be surprised that Trump/Carson ended up in the same camp?  They are both trying to turn over the table of the money-changers in the temple, they just have very different ways of going about it.  Regardless of who you are. . . you don't want the people that you vote for to be divided in their loyalty between your vote and special interest groups.

Donald Trump, Ben Carson, and Bernie Sanders, are all fundamentally defined by not being controlled by big money.

So Carson's endorsement of Trump should, really, come as no big surprise.

But more than this, Carson sees the "big picture."  We have a Supreme Court that is at stake.  We can not sacrifice the Supreme Court just because special interest groups prefer a candidate that they can control.

If you must be cynical about motives. . . be cynical about special interest groups trying to control the candidates that you vote for.

If you think Trump is not part of the big money that has outsize influence in politics then you are being naive.

[Steve B]

If you think Trump is not part of the big money that has outsize influence in politics then you are being naive.

Don't hate the player, hate the game.  And if you hate the game, then love the player who wants to change the rules of the game (even if he has played by them thus far).

For example.  I don't hold it against Cruz for taking money from Big Oil.  After all, you have to fund your campaign somehow.  He's from Texas, he represents Texas, and so (for him) there is no conflict of interest in taking money from Big Oil.

Cruz is "playing by the rules."  And I can't count this against him.  But Trump is playing against the rules. . . he represents insurrection to "the system." And I can only credit him for this.  We need a president who is beholden to the voter, and not beholden to the special interest groups.

[GotTheGift]

Ok, say DT gets the presidency, and at best he will be in office 8 years. You think he is going to change the rules of the game when he is going to have to go back out in the bussiness world and have to play by those rules and have to make deals with the very bussiness people he may have adversely affected?

[Soren]

If you think Trump is not part of the big money that has outsize influence in politics then you are being naive.

Don't hate the player, hate the game.  And if you hate the game, then love the player who wants to change the rules of the game (even if he has played by them thus far).

For example.  I don't hold it against Cruz for taking money from Big Oil.  After all, you have to fund your campaign somehow.  He's from Texas, he represents Texas, and so (for him) there is no conflict of interest in taking money from Big Oil.

Cruz is "playing by the rules."  And I can't count this against him.  But Trump is playing against the rules. . . he represents insurrection to "the system." And I can only credit him for this.  We need a president who is beholden to the voter, and not beholden to the special interest groups.

But Trump hasn't made any cogent proposals to actually change the rules. It's just, "Elect me, I'm rich and I self-fund." If you want changed rules, vote for Bernie Sanders who has actually made proposals to change how elections are funded. (Or vote for Hillary who has made similar proposals.)

If you vote for Trump because he doesn't take money (and he actually does, by the way), you are just voting for a system where only billionaires can run. You are voting to import the sort of "big man" politics into the US that has elsewhere produced the likes of Hugo Chavez, Putin, and Thaksin.

[Steve B]

Ok, say DT gets the presidency, and at best he will be in office 8 years. You think he is going to change the rules of the game when he is going to have to go back out in the bussiness world and have to play by those rules and have to make deals with the very bussiness people he may have adversely affected?

It's muddled.  But I think I understand your question.  Here is Trump's answer:

https://youtu.be/Rksd80-FCAw