Why McCain would be a mediocre president

[Len_A]

Meth,

 

Congratulaions on writing the single most prejudiced post I have ever read on this forum.

 

 

 

So it is okay to be prejudiced against old people? You feel good about that? What if you changed old to Jewish, or Black, and kept the rest of your statement the same? What if you changed it to young people? Fill in the blanks:

 

 

I work with (women, Jews, Blacks, the elderly, UAW members) ___________ in my profession at times, and I know something about their cognitive abilities, and while I have great respect and admiration for many of those people, I WOULD NOT WANT ANY OF THOSE TO BE PRESIDENT!! I don't give a damn if that is not PC, but it's just the reality of their plight; they process information slower, FACT.

 

Republican's when faced with the issue of (gender, religion,race, age, union membership) ___________ like to cite past example such as (pick some one who proves the stereotype untrue) ________________. I am fairly well read on _________________, and (pick your candidate) ___________ is neither that man nor nothing like him. Sure, there are examples of great (women, Jews, Blacks, the elderly, UAW members)______________ that excelled, but for every one of those, there are hundreds of examples to the contrary. Like I said, it might not be PC, but its reality.

 

The bottom line is that from what I've read, and know, the cognitive status of (pick your candidate)______________is questionable. The reports are mixed via cognitive scientists. I feel (women, Jews, Blacks, the elderly, UAW members) ___________ are impaired or at the very least (pick your candidate)________________will be during his first term, so why in the hell would I want this guy as president? Some cognitive scientists have suggested he undergo a mental fitness examination to determine his current status. I agree, personally, I would feel better. I hope, but seriously doubt he ever allows it. If anyone knows of any links to the contrary please post one.

 

 

For McCain to be defeated because of prejudice is just as wrong as it would be for Obama to be defeated because of prejudice.

 

I am very proud of a country that has not only over looked race for the most part, but actually is affirming that diversity is strength. One of the reasons I am for Obama is that he does bring a different view to the table. I am not in agreement with everything he says, but I think we need to hear new ideas. It is the lack of diversity of IDEAS that has us stuck in this rut.

I don't know, based on my late mother-in-law, my parents now, who are younger than McCain, and several other people I know in that age bracket, I'd like to be nonprejudicial, but the age thing makes me nervous. I think that, for his age, McCain's OK. That's it, just "OK".

 

• The flub between Sunni and Shite in Iraq twice this past spring
  
• Insisting that Iraq and Pakistan share a common border (Iraq and Pakistan do not share a border. Afghanistan and Pakistan do.)
  
• Confused "Somalia" with "Sudan" (As recounted in a reporter's pool report from McCain's campaign bus on June 30, the senator said while discussing Darfur, a region of Sudan: "How can we bring pressure on the government of Somalia?", Senior adviser Mark Salter corrected him: "Sudan.")
  
• This spring, McCain said troops in Iraq were "down to pre-surge levels" when in fact there were 20,000 more troops than when the surge policy began.
  
• Confused "Germany" for "Russia": A YouTube clip from last year memorializes McCain referring to Vladimir Putin of Russia — following a trip to Germany — as "President Putin of Germany."
  
• In Phoenix this past July, McCain referred to Czechoslovakia, which has been divided since Jan. 1, 1993, into the Czech Republic and Slovakia. He also referred to Czechoslovakia during a debate in November and a radio show in April.
  

It's just piling on, and it makes me very nervous. One more reason I'm voting for Obama.

 

Furthermore, methos makes an excellent point, that builds on the editorial I orginally linked to at the begining of this thread: "Do we want a guy that has graduated magna cum laude at Harvard or a guy that graduated at the bottom of Annapolis?" A valid question indeed!!

[methos]

Meth,

 

Congratulaions on writing the single most prejudiced post I have ever read on this forum.

 

 

 

So it is okay to be prejudiced against old people? You feel good about that? What if you changed old to Jewish, or Black, and kept the rest of your statement the same? What if you changed it to young people? Fill in the blanks:

 

 

I work with (women, Jews, Blacks, the elderly, UAW members) ___________ in my profession at times, and I know something about their cognitive abilities, and while I have great respect and admiration for many of those people, I WOULD NOT WANT ANY OF THOSE TO BE PRESIDENT!! I don’t give a damn if that is not PC, but it’s just the reality of their plight; they process information slower, FACT.

 

Republican's when faced with the issue of (gender, religion,race, age, union membership) ___________ like to cite past example such as (pick some one who proves the stereotype untrue) ________________. I am fairly well read on _________________, and (pick your candidate) ___________ is neither that man nor nothing like him. Sure, there are examples of great (women, Jews, Blacks, the elderly, UAW members)______________ that excelled, but for every one of those, there are hundreds of examples to the contrary. Like I said, it might not be PC, but its reality.

 

The bottom line is that from what I’ve read, and know, the cognitive status of (pick your candidate)______________is questionable. The reports are mixed via cognitive scientists. I feel (women, Jews, Blacks, the elderly, UAW members) ___________ are impaired or at the very least (pick your candidate)________________will be during his first term, so why in the hell would I want this guy as president? Some cognitive scientists have suggested he undergo a mental fitness examination to determine his current status. I agree, personally, I would feel better. I hope, but seriously doubt he ever allows it. If anyone knows of any links to the contrary please post one.

 

 

For McCain to be defeated because of prejudice is just as wrong as it would be for Obama to be defeated because of prejudice.

 

I am very proud of a country that has not only over looked race for the most part, but actually is affirming that diversity is strength. One of the reasons I am for Obama is that he does bring a different view to the table. I am not in agreement with everything he says, but I think we need to hear new ideas. It is the lack of diversity of IDEAS that has us stuck in this rut.

 

Cognitive decline in the elderly is a foregone conclusion. They have done MANY longtitudal studies on ageing and it's a given. I am not being insulting, nor prejudiced, just factual. It's so conclusive, I am not aware of any ongoing studies of it occurring. The studies now focus on to what degree and treatments; pharmacological and otherwise in slowing the process. Best case and I mean the BEST POSSIBLE scenario is that he retains most of his cognitive functions but is just a little slower in processing it.

 

Just as we age on the outside, we age on the inside as well, and that includes our nervous system - the primary mover towards our memories, gait, motor functions, etc...This premise is so basic; we age and finally die. It's not just our exterior that ages, but EVERYTHING. Every cell, tissue, organ, and finally system slowly deteriorates. Is it predjudice to acknowlege this, for cripes sake, of course not.

 

It's antidotal, but we all know MANY elderly individuals, and I think with few exceptions, there is a decline in all their functions to some degree.

 

Feel free to object, but I don't think you could produce one published article that would dispute what I have written. If you did manage, I could find ten to the contrary. The point is moot. Here is just one of MANY, MANY examples.

 

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m245...v25/ai_18388695

 

[The decline in memory and other cognitive abilities during ageing is well documented [e.g. 1, 2]. However, the diagnostic classifications aimed to characterize elderly individuals with different degrees of cognitive decline.

Edited August 17, 2008 by methos

[Imawhosure]

Supporters of the side of the aisle who wrote all this PC nonsense, now want to acknowledge exactly that............it is all bullshit nonsense, lolol. You can't discriminate because of age, sexual orientation, blah, blah, blah, or blah, blah, blah.

 

I am appalled, lololol. There is no shame in politics, or line that even PC people won't cross to get a socialist elected. Oh my!!!!

[RangerM]

In one of the McCain videos to the left (associated links), a moderator had asked McCain if he thought Bernanke was cutting rates too aggressively; McCain responded that he didn't have that sort of expertise to comment, WOW!! I was floored. The Feds role in the economy is pretty significant and to not know something as basic as that was rather stark, to say the least.

 

In every administration, the President has advisors, even economic advisors. I'd bet you wouldn't be able to formulate an answer without consultation.

 

Wise men speak when they have something to say. Fools speak when they have to say something. - Plato

 

McCain does have significant experience, but only in foreign policy. He has no experience in economics, as the above clearly shows and he readily admits as much. So, how can that be good for us? He makes jokes about bombing Iran, but then again, HE'S NOT JOKING. This guy would love to succeed Bush as Mr. War President Part II. Like Bush, economic issues are uncomfortable for him and he relishes war.

 

What really is reprehensible is that Iran requests to negotiate in 2003 were rebuffed by Bush. If we had negotiated then, from a position of strength, we likely would not even be in this predicament now.

 

He was singing, "Bomb-Bomb-Bomb......Bomb-Bomb, Iran" Somehow, I don't see the Joint Chiefs seeing that as a serious order. Of all persons, I don't believe McCain relishes war.

 

You don't think our current (back door) negotiations with Iran AREN'T from a position of strength? How many soldiers and what kind of hardware are on Iran's doorstep?

 

Any negotiations that would not be from a position of strength in the immediate future, would be those engaged in while we are in withdrawal.

 

Meanwhile, regardless of your position on the wars, the last seven years have been disastrous for us economically. Doubling the National Debt, and nearly a six hundred billion dollar deficit; in other words, Bush states he makes the hard choices, but if you ask me, he took the easy way out and left the really hard ones for his successor. Do we really want a Bush like president for another 4-8 years?

 

No real disagreement from me on that. I have been disappointed with the lack of fiscal constraint myself. But, for me to believe that Obama + Democratic Congress will be a paragon of fiscal constraint is to believe that {pick your preferred oxymoron here}.

 

Do we want a guy that has graduated magna cum laude at Harvard or a guy that graduated at the bottom of Annapolis?

 

If the choice were unlimited, I'll take a guy who never graduated from college rather than Obama.

 

Neither Abraham Lincoln or Harry Truman received a college degree.

 

Does that prove anything? No. Neither does your statement.

 

I want someone smart enough that will look at it from both sides and has enough intellect and reason to make good choices. The bottom line is that the president, whoever that might be is going to face a multitude of choices and issues he knows little or nothing about. I work with the elderly in my profession at times, and I know something about their cognitive abilities, and while I have great respect and admiration for many of those people, I WOULD NOT WANT ANY OF THOSE TO BE PRESIDENT!! I don’t give a damn if that is not PC, but it’s just the reality of their plight. You get older but you don't necessarily grow wiser, and they process information slower, FACT.

 

Republican's when faced with the issue of age like to cite past example such as Winston Churchill. I am fairly well read on Churchill, and McCain is neither that man nor nothing like him. Sure, there are examples of great men/women that excelled in their senior years, but for every one of those, there are hundreds of examples to the contrary. Like I said, it might not be PC, but its reality.

You espouse wisdom, yet you disregard what it takes to acquire it. That being experience.

 

Fact is, I wouldn't want MOST people, old or young, to be President.

The bottom line is that from what I’ve read, and know, his cognitive status is questionable. The reports are mixed via cognitive scientists. I feel he is impaired or at the very least will be during his first term, so why in the hell would I want this guy as president? Some cognitive scientists have suggested he undergo a mental fitness examination to determine his current status. I agree, personally, I would feel better. I hope, but seriously doubt he ever allows it. If anyone knows of any links to the contrary please post one.

You weren't watching last night's forum then. If you had, you would have likely seen a guy (McCain) who was quick to respond to questions not known prior, and the fortitude to answer them confidently.

 

With Obama, I saw someone formulating the answer, before answering. Given the nature of the questions, that they were essentially dealing with the basic beliefs of the recipient, that is not a good thing. A person who wants to become President should know himself best.

 

How would you feel better if McCain undergo a mental fitness examination? It's not like you are going to change your mind anyway.

 

BUT, since you want one, how about considering the fact that the Republican primary, and the General Election is a cognitive examination in itself?

I disliked Clinton personally, but I liked how he made his decisions. He really did look at both sides of an issue and he had some pretty good people under him. With Bush, we’ve had too much corruption and no one looking out for us; too many bills favoring corporate America, but none favoring the citizenry; for example, the Medicare prescription bill.

All Presidents have advisors. They make decisions based their and others' knowledge and experience.

 

Just because you don't agree with a decision, doesn't mean there was no thought or consideration behind it.

They say it’s no longer the American Century. We have some tough choices to make, and are facing some tough global competition. Our future has always been based on our economic strength, as well as our military. Without the former, we don’t have the latter. If we don’t get someone in there who is capable, economically speaking, then this country has no future.

 

What are you saying here? Do you think that a President should have all the answers, economically speaking?

 

Our current course is not viable. If we want to excel in this century it’s going to require drastic changes, many of them technological. Do we want a president so awkward, technologically, that is not even internet savvy? We need to streamline government and maintain and create jobs at home. Both of which government plays a huge role via trade agreements and tax incentives; frankly, given the circumstances, it’s amazing that McCain is even close in the polls, go figure?

 

Maybe it has do to with (the weakness of) the Democratic nominee?

 

I don't like making generalizations, but you seem to fill a (Liberal) stereotype perfectly. You apparently place knowledge/status as the most important of all attributes.

 

You should consider the Presidency of Jimmy Carter. A good and honorable man, and met nearly all of your Presidential ideals (except the part about the internet), but virtually a flop as a President.

[Floyd Lawson]

I don't know, based on my late mother-in-law, my parents now, who are younger than McCain, and several other people I know in that age bracket, I'd like to be nonprejudicial, but the age thing makes me nervous. I think that, for his age, McCain's OK. That's it, just "OK".

 

• The flub between Sunni and Shite in Iraq twice this past spring
  
• Insisting that Iraq and Pakistan share a common border (Iraq and Pakistan do not share a border. Afghanistan and Pakistan do.)
  
• Confused "Somalia" with "Sudan" (As recounted in a reporter's pool report from McCain's campaign bus on June 30, the senator said while discussing Darfur, a region of Sudan: "How can we bring pressure on the government of Somalia?", Senior adviser Mark Salter corrected him: "Sudan.")
  
• This spring, McCain said troops in Iraq were "down to pre-surge levels" when in fact there were 20,000 more troops than when the surge policy began.
  
• Confused "Germany" for "Russia": A YouTube clip from last year memorializes McCain referring to Vladimir Putin of Russia — following a trip to Germany — as "President Putin of Germany."
  
• In Phoenix this past July, McCain referred to Czechoslovakia, which has been divided since Jan. 1, 1993, into the Czech Republic and Slovakia. He also referred to Czechoslovakia during a debate in November and a radio show in April.
  

It's just piling on, and it makes me very nervous. One more reason I'm voting for Obama.

 

Furthermore, methos makes an excellent point, that builds on the editorial I orginally linked to at the begining of this thread: "Do we want a guy that has graduated magna cum laude at Harvard or a guy that graduated at the bottom of Annapolis?" A valid question indeed!!

If we follow your logic on the level of education of each candidate then maybe you guys should take a look at Ted Kaczynski, after all he also earned an advanced degree from Havard.

 

In a year when a Democrat was supposed to be a sure thing, the race is a toss-up, that must worry the hell out of you Dems. Because you know that Obama is a weak candidate at best, especially when it comes to foreign policy. The Russian-Georgia spat has even given McCain a small bump in the polls, that's because people don't have any confidence that Obama has what it takes to handle a serious world situation. When asked earlier this week what the U.S. should do, his response was to go the the U.N. security council for a resolution condeming Russia. Then someone had to remind him that Russia holds a seat on the secuirty council and therefore holds the power to veto any resolution.

You were quick to note several gaffs made by McCain and you and Meth attribute those to his age. How do you expalin Obama saying there are 57 states or that there's more than one President on the dollar bill? After all he did you to Havard.

[methos]

In every administration, the President has advisors, even economic advisors. I'd bet you wouldn't be able to formulate an answer without consultation.

 

Wise men speak when they have something to say. Fools speak when they have to say something. - Plato

 

It's a bit ironic that you quote plato to excuse McCains ignorance. The very man that espoused vigourous education and true knowledge before a man is truly fit to rule.

 

Whether I can answer it is irrelevant, I am not running.

 

He was singing, "Bomb-Bomb-Bomb......Bomb-Bomb, Iran" Somehow, I don't see the Joint Chiefs seeing that as a serious order. Of all persons, I don't believe McCain relishes war.

 

You don't think our current (back door) negotiations with Iran AREN'T from a position of strength? How many soldiers and what kind of hardware are on Iran's doorstep?

 

Any negotiations that would not be from a position of strength in the immediate future, would be those engaged in while we are in withdrawal.

 

No, they are not from a position of strength, the negotiations that is. Find me one general that states we could attack Iran successfully and I will find you five that state it would be madness to do so. In 2003, they had a chance, but their philosophy was negotiations were useless and weak, but of course, now they are negotiating with everyone. Iran knows the Bush term is nearly over and if we attacked, which is hardly possible right now. For, we would face a severe economic retaliation, something we could ill-afford right now.

 

In addition, even leaving the economics aside, the military is stretched thin. They cannot even properly reinforce Afghanistan, let alone begin a major offensive against a country much more formidable than Iraq. How would the Shia react in Iraq? We would have no safe place to launch the attack from, and Iran knows there is almost no chance of a ground invasion. They also know that any attack from the U.S. would stir the Iraqi population and erase our gains. That is why Israel is talking tough. It's up to them to do it; we can't.

 

 

 

No real disagreement from me on that. I have been disappointed with the lack of fiscal constraint myself. But, for me to believe that Obama + Democratic Congress will be a paragon of fiscal constraint is to believe that {pick your preferred oxymoron here}.

 

I agree with you here. Both parties have been a big disappointment.

 

If the choice were unlimited, I'll take a guy who never graduated from college rather than Obama.

 

Neither Abraham Lincoln or Harry Truman received a college degree.

 

Does that prove anything? No. Neither does your statement.

 

 

You espouse wisdom, yet you disregard what it takes to acquire it. That being experience.

 

Fact is, I wouldn't want MOST people, old or young, to be President.

 

I didn't say the elderly were useless, to the contrary, I agree they have a lot to offer. It's one thing reading a history book, quite another talking to someone that lived it. Yes, life experiences do mean a great deal, but this is one of the toughest jobs there is, I would much rather have elder statesmen as advisors, not rulers. I voted for McCain in 2000, the primary that is. Even if he had switched parties, I would not vote for him now. It's not partisan politics; he's just too damn old. Life experience is one thing, but the president is confronted or assaulted is probably the more appropriate word with hundreds of issues on a weekly basis. It's a strain on any man, let alone someone suffering from diminished cognitive abilities.

 

 

You weren't watching last night's forum then. If you had, you would have likely seen a guy (McCain) who was quick to respond to questions not known prior, and the fortitude to answer them confidently.

 

With Obama, I saw someone formulating the answer, before answering. Given the nature of the questions, that they were essentially dealing with the basic beliefs of the recipient, that is not a good thing. A person who wants to become President should know himself best.

 

McCain has faced many of those same type of questions in the primaries. After all, Christians are a big part of their base, so answering similar questions has become second hand nature to him. In other words, the response is canned; there is no need to formulate an answer that he has not answered many times before.

 

On the other hand, liberals don't give a shit about your faith, they are more interested in your ability to lead, not what name you give your god.

 

How would you feel better if McCain undergo a mental fitness examination? It's not like you are going to change your mind anyway.

 

BUT, since you want one, how about considering the fact that the Republican primary, and the General Election is a cognitive examination in itself?

 

All Presidents have advisors. They make decisions based their and others' knowledge and experience.

 

Just because you don't agree with a decision, doesn't mean there was no thought or consideration behind it.

 

 

What are you saying here? Do you think that a President should have all the answers, economically speaking?

 

 

 

Maybe it has do to with (the weakness of) the Democratic nominee?

 

I don't like making generalizations, but you seem to fill a (Liberal) stereotype perfectly. You apparently place knowledge/status as the most important of all attributes.

 

You should consider the Presidency of Jimmy Carter. A good and honorable man, and met nearly all of your Presidential ideals (except the part about the internet), but virtually a flop as a President.

 

Guilty as charged, as far as placing a high regard on knowledge; however, I don't give a shit about status. I realize that they have advisors, and if you look above at my earlier post, I stated that both men will face issues that they know little of, and it will be up to them and their cognitive abilities, experience, and wisdom to discern what course to follow. My only point was, in that regard, McCain has two ( if not all three) strikes against him on an issue that is not only paramount to me, but I think most, the economy.

 

No, I don't think a president should have all the answers. It takes years to develop expertise, in one field, let alone several, it's impossible, but is it to much to ask for that he have some knowledge on something so basic as interest rates?

 

I don't expect either to know it all, but I do expect an open mind and an intellect capable of grasping all the information presented.

[RangerM]

It's a bit ironic that you quote plato to excuse McCains ignorance. The very man that espoused vigourous education and true knowledge before a man is truly fit to rule.

 

Whether I can answer it is irrelevant, I am not running.

 

I think you mistook my quotation of Plato as McCain's excuse. I wasn't excusing McCain. I was pointing out that he is wise enough to know when not to say anything. Wise enough to know, when he doesn't know something.

 

No, they are not from a position of strength, the negotiations that is. Find me one general that states we could attack Iran successfully and I will find you five that state it would be madness to do so. In 2003, they had a chance, but their philosophy was negotiations were useless and weak, but of course, now they are negotiating with everyone. Iran knows the Bush term is nearly over and if we attacked, which is hardly possible right now. For, we would face a severe economic retaliation, something we could ill-afford right now.

 

In addition, even leaving the economics aside, the military is stretched thin. They cannot even properly reinforce Afghanistan, let alone begin a major offensive against a country much more formidable than Iraq. How would the Shia react in Iraq? We would have no safe place to launch the attack from, and Iran knows there is almost no chance of a ground invasion. They also know that any attack from the U.S. would stir the Iraqi population and erase our gains. That is why Israel is talking tough. It's up to them to do it; we can't.

 

I can't prove it, but I think the true power of our military is much greater than you or I know.

 

I agree with you here. Both parties have been a big disappointment.

 

It's nice to find right-left common ground. :pig:

 

I didn't say the elderly were useless, to the contrary, I agree they have a lot to offer. It's one thing reading a history book, quite another talking to someone that lived it. Yes, life experiences do mean a great deal, but this is one of the toughest jobs there is, I would much rather have elder statesmen as advisors, not rulers. I voted for McCain in 2000, the primary that is. Even if he had switched parties, I would not vote for him now. It's not partisan politics; he's just too damn old. Life experience is one thing, but the president is confronted or assaulted is probably the more appropriate word with hundreds of issues on a weekly basis. It's a strain on any man, let alone someone suffering from diminished cognitive abilities.

 

I understand where you are coming from, but I just think you are too easily making a blanket statement. IMO, each candidate should be evaluated on his/her merit, on a case-by-case basis.

 

I don't count the occasional gaffe as evidence of diminished cognitive abilities. As far as being wrong on a fact, it's just a matter of being wrong, not necessarily evidence of impaired judgement.

 

McCain has faced many of those same type of questions in the primaries. After all, Christians are a big part of their base, so answering similar questions has become second hand nature to him. In other words, the response is canned; there is no need to formulate an answer that he has not answered many times before.

 

On the other hand, liberals don't give a shit about your faith, they are more interested in your ability to lead, not what name you give your god.

 

I'll agree that a good portion of McCain's base could be considered the Christian right, but he still had to answer nonetheless. I suppose one could look at the whole forum as being predetermined to be in McCain's favor, if one were cynical.

 

But since both candidates knew who was asking the questions, and who the audience was, one would think that Obama would have a fairly good idea of what the questions would be.

 

In any case, per my previous point, if Obama doesn't know what his own basic beliefs are (even on the fly), then how does he know of Americans' needs? How do you define someone who cannot elucidate his own beliefs as being qualfied to lead?

 

You may consider the question of "when does life begin" as just another bullshit question from the religious right. It only requires one of three answers: Conception, Birth, or some point in between. (NOTE: I will not get into the abortion issue any deeper than that)

 

Do you consider answering that question above the President's paygrade as Obama said? What higher paygrade is there?

 

What other questions about a candidate's beliefs are not acceptable?

Guilty as charged, as far as placing a high regard on knowledge; however, I don't give a shit about status.

 

Are you sure about that?

 

When you imply that a person who graduates from Harvard is more qualified than one who graduates (near the bottom of his class) from Annapolis, this sure seems to indicate you do. If you weren't invoking a measure of status, then the reference to Harvard and Annapolis don't matter.

 

I realize that they have advisors, and if you look above at my earlier post, I stated that both men will face issues that they know little of, and it will be up to them and their cognitive abilities, experience, and wisdom to discern what course to follow. My only point was, in that regard, McCain has two ( if not all three) strikes against him on an issue that is not only paramount to me, but I think most, the economy.

1 cognitive abilities

2 experience

3 wisdom

 

I've read your opinion of McCain's qualifications regarding 1. Which of the other two do you also see him lacking?

 

I find Obama lacking in 2 and 3.

 

No, I don't think a president should have all the answers. It takes years to develop expertise, in one field, let alone several, it's impossible, but is it to much to ask for that he have some knowledge on something so basic as interest rates?

 

I don't expect either to know it all, but I do expect an open mind and an intellect capable of grasping all the information presented.

 

It's one thing to understand interest rates. It's quite another to understand Macroeconomics. I think you expect too much of McCain. I wouldn't hold Obama to the same standard.

 

I have no reason to believe that either McCain or Obama lack the intellectual prowess to handle the job, but I think Obama needs more than a couple of years in the Senate before he is qualified. I'd see Hillary as more qualified for the job (believe it or not), although I would no sooner vote for her.

 

I prefer former State Governors as Presidents. Neither candidate is my preference this year, therefore I must pick the lesser of two evils.

[methos]

I think you mistook my quotation of Plato as McCain's excuse. I wasn't excusing McCain. I was pointing out that he is wise enough to know when not to say anything. Wise enough to know, when he doesn't know something.

 

 

 

I can't prove it, but I think the true power of our military is much greater than you or I know.

 

 

 

It's nice to find right-left common ground. :pig:

 

 

 

I understand where you are coming from, but I just think you are too easily making a blanket statement. IMO, each candidate should be evaluated on his/her merit, on a case-by-case basis.

 

I don't count the occasional gaffe as evidence of diminished cognitive abilities. As far as being wrong on a fact, it's just a matter of being wrong, not necessarily evidence of impaired judgement.

 

 

 

I'll agree that a good portion of McCain's base could be considered the Christian right, but he still had to answer nonetheless. I suppose one could look at the whole forum as being predetermined to be in McCain's favor, if one were cynical.

 

But since both candidates knew who was asking the questions, and who the audience was, one would think that Obama would have a fairly good idea of what the questions would be.

 

In any case, per my previous point, if Obama doesn't know what his own basic beliefs are (even on the fly), then how does he know of Americans' needs? How do you define someone who cannot elucidate his own beliefs as being qualfied to lead?

 

You may consider the question of "when does life begin" as just another bullshit question from the religious right. It only requires one of three answers: Conception, Birth, or some point in between. (NOTE: I will not get into the abortion issue any deeper than that)

 

Do you consider answering that question above the President's paygrade as Obama said? What higher paygrade is there?

 

What other questions about a candidate's beliefs are not acceptable?

 

 

Are you sure about that?

 

When you imply that a person who graduates from Harvard is more qualified than one who graduates (near the bottom of his class) from Annapolis, this sure seems to indicate you do. If you weren't invoking a measure of status, then the reference to Harvard and Annapolis don't matter.

 

 

1 cognitive abilities

2 experience

3 wisdom

 

I've read your opinion of McCain's qualifications regarding 1. Which of the other two do you also see him lacking?

 

I find Obama lacking in 2 and 3.

 

 

 

It's one thing to understand interest rates. It's quite another to understand Macroeconomics. I think you expect too much of McCain. I wouldn't hold Obama to the same standard.

 

I have no reason to believe that either McCain or Obama lack the intellectual prowess to handle the job, but I think Obama needs more than a couple of years in the Senate before he is qualified. I'd see Hillary as more qualified for the job (believe it or not), although I would no sooner vote for her.

 

I prefer former State Governors as Presidents. Neither candidate is my preference this year, therefore I must pick the lesser of two evils.

 

Most of this is rather subjective. We have different expectations and beliefs as to what qualifies a candidate for office, and no amount of debate is going to change that.

 

That said, there is a couple of points that I would like to clarify. First, I am not judging either candidate by the institution they graduated from, so you can discard the status comment as irrelevant. My only intent was on the ranking e.g. one at the bottom, the other at the top.

 

Second, as far as his cognitive status; he has made some rather stark errors - enough where it warrants the question on his fitness. Given what we know of aging, it's hard not to draw some correlation and the fact that it's only going to get worse.

 

The problem with elections is this; it's not a very thorough process. Most of the speeches are canned and coached. We never really know who we are really getting until after the fact. Sure, we have the press, to weed out some of the inconsistencies and weaknesses, but both candidates have reward/punish type merit systems in defining access to the candidate. In other words, if a reporter speaks/writes ill of their candidate, they no longer have access, and the lack of such access, depending upon the status of the reporter risks his/her job or at best warrants a transfer to another posting.

 

Third, as far as McCain's qualifications or that it's not fair that he understand some rather basic economics i.e. interest rates is absurd, at least for my expectations. I am a rather ignorant wretch, but I could at least hold my own in any conversation of macroeconomics, why would I expect anything less of my president. Especially since this issue is paramount to me.

 

In other words, from McCain’s own mouth his experience lies with foreign policy not economics. That's great he has that type of experience, but it's not what I am looking for.

 

Perhaps, that is why he is going to continue the same failed policies of Bush.

 

Finally, I don’t judge a person on one debate or one appearance or statement. I judge a person on the whole, and from what I have seen thus far, there is no question as to who my candidate is.

 

 

<grrr> A cpu timeout and the original post is lost.

[RangerM]

Most of this is rather subjective. We have different expectations and beliefs as to what qualifies a candidate for office, and no amount of debate is going to change that.

 

That said, there is a couple of points that I would like to clarify. First, I am not judging either candidate by the institution they graduated from, so you can discard the status comment as irrelevant. My only intent was on the ranking e.g. one at the bottom, the other at the top.

I'd be more inclined to agree with you if we were hiring recent graduates for a job.

 

Second, as far as his cognitive status; he has made some rather stark errors - enough where it warrants the question on his fitness. Given what we know of aging, it's hard not to draw some correlation and the fact that it's only going to get worse.

 

The problem with elections is this; it's not a very thorough process. Most of the speeches are canned and coached. We never really know who we are really getting until after the fact. Sure, we have the press, to weed out some of the inconsistencies and weaknesses, but both candidates have reward/punish type merit systems in defining access to the candidate. In other words, if a reporter speaks/writes ill of their candidate, they no longer have access, and the lack of such access, depending upon the status of the reporter risks his/her job or at best warrants a transfer to another posting.

 

I don't know the inner workings of how reporters are assigned, although I definitely agree that many candidate appearances are graded on just that...appearance. Often, so little substance is said that it is difficult to thresh the wheat from the chaff. This is where I believe Obama is a master. McCain less so.

 

Third, as far as McCain's qualifications or that it's not fair that he understand some rather basic economics i.e. interest rates is absurd, at least for my expectations. I am a rather ignorant wretch, but I could at least hold my own in any conversation of macroeconomics, why would I expect anything less of my president. Especially since this issue is paramount to me.

 

In other words, from McCain’s own mouth his experience lies with foreign policy not economics. That's great he has that type of experience, but it's not what I am looking for.

 

Perhaps, that is why he is going to continue the same failed policies of Bush.

 

Your expectations are yours, and you are certainly free to use them when judging a candidate, however I don't see how you use them to arrive at that last statement (which strikes me as more of a talking point)

 

Finally, I don’t judge a person on one debate or one appearance or statement. I judge a person on the whole, and from what I have seen thus far, there is no question as to who my candidate is.

 

 

<grrr> A cpu timeout and the original post is lost.

 

I feel your pain. Same thing happened to me.

[Len_A]

If we follow your logic on the level of education of each candidate then maybe you guys should take a look at Ted Kaczynski, after all he also earned an advanced degree from Havard.

 

In a year when a Democrat was supposed to be a sure thing, the race is a toss-up, that must worry the hell out of you Dems. Because you know that Obama is a weak candidate at best, especially when it comes to foreign policy. The Russian-Georgia spat has even given McCain a small bump in the polls, that's because people don't have any confidence that Obama has what it takes to handle a serious world situation. When asked earlier this week what the U.S. should do, his response was to go the the U.N. security council for a resolution condeming Russia. Then someone had to remind him that Russia holds a seat on the secuirty council and therefore holds the power to veto any resolution.

You were quick to note several gaffs made by McCain and you and Meth attribute those to his age. How do you expalin Obama saying there are 57 states or that there's more than one President on the dollar bill? After all he did you to Havard.

Obama screwed up on the state count, that's how I explain it. Let's face it, after all the time on the road, there's bound to be gaffes. The dollar billS comment is conservative pundints taking one comment, then misquoting to try and make a political point. Obama said "doesn't look like all those other presidents on the dollar bills.", PLURAL, from the quote I read, it is clear he's talking about bills, plural. As is the 1, 5, 20, 50 etc. Hardly a gaffe, even when some of the other currency portraits aren't presidents.

 

If you want to try and make a comparison between those, and mix ups on Sunni verses Shite, insisting that Iraq and Pakistan share a common border when they don't, confusing Somalia with Sudan, all when McCain makes the case his foreign policy experience is one of his greatest strengths, then go ahead and try. What you succeed in doing is making your preferred candidate look as foolish as he's doing on his won.

[methos]

You weren't watching last night's forum then. If you had, you would have likely seen a guy (McCain) who was quick to respond to questions not known prior, and the fortitude to answer them confidently.

 

With Obama, I saw someone formulating the answer, before answering. Given the nature of the questions, that they were essentially dealing with the basic beliefs of the recipient, that is not a good thing. A person who wants to become President should know himself best.

 

Andrea Mitchell of NBC reported yesterday on "Meet the Press" that McCain was not in the "cone of silence" for the duration. Since Obama went first, and the same questions are asked, McCain was supposed to be placed in the "cone of silence" (a soundproof room) so as he would not have an unfair advantage and not hear the questions before hand. Warren, the preacher and moderator assured the audience that McCain was in the soundproof room, when in fact he was not.

 

Of course Davis, his staffer forcefully denied that accusation; however, another reporter from the NYT then substantiated Mitchell's account then McCain’s staff recanted and said he was in the motorcade in route when Obama was being questioned, later sequestered in the green room, supposedly without a live feed, but where it could be heard, nonetheless. In addition, the broadcast was live; it could have been picked up via a TV in the motorcade or via Blackberry's, which most have in the campaign.

 

 

Even if McCain did not knowingly cheat, his aides fed him the information. It's all such bullshit. Believing anything else would be completely naive. These guys/gals would sell their soul to win. I don't blame McCain for cheating, Warren should have delayed or that the least informed his audience that McCain was not in fact properly sequestered, and had access to the questions. He should have changed the questions, or at least come clean.

 

It’s no wonder you were so impressed with McCain’s sureness, he f’n cheated, the bastage.

 

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/18/us/polit...amp;oref=slogin

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/08/18/n...w_n_119476.html

[RangerM]

The NY Times article is preventing me from reading without a login.

 

At what point in time during Obama's hour did McCain arrive and presumably was sequestered?

[methos]

The NY Times article is preventing me from reading without a login.

 

At what point in time during Obama's hour did McCain arrive and presumably was sequestered?

 

 

When Obama began at 8:00 pm, and Warren stated McCain was sequesterd in the soundproof room, McCain was a half-hour away at his hotel. When he did arrive, initially, he went to the green room, where you could hear Obama speak. It was not until the very end of Obama's turn that McCain actually went into the "Cone of Silence".

 

Warren, was surprised to hear of this. I'll take the man at his word, but he has a lot to learn about forum's. He later asked McCain about it, and of course he denied it, but it's like I said. These guy's would sell their soul to win. He f'n cheated.

 

EDIT: Warren states on CNN that while he was not in the "cone of silence" he was in the "cone of the secret service protection" and that means he wasn't watching it live on TV, bullshit. He knew the rules, and the rules were he was supposed to be properly sequestered!!

 

Warren might take his word, but I won’t. Even if the man is honest, which I doubt, his handlers are not. He got the info, knowingly or not, and that is a fact, as far as I am concerned.

Edited August 18, 2008 by methos

[Len_A]

The NY Times article is preventing me from reading without a login.

 

At what point in time during Obama's hour did McCain arrive and presumably was sequestered?

RangerM, here's a PDF copy of the New York Times article.

Despite_Assurances__McCain_Wasn_t_in_a__Cone_of_Silence____NY...pdf

[xr7g428]

There you go again...

 

This should be a contest of ideas, but some people are determined to reduce it too the lowest possible level. Accusations of cheating, trying to paint Obama as a closet Muslim, depicting McCain as mentally incapacitated, making flag pins a measure of patriotism, all serve to steal the real value of the election form us all.

 

So enough already...

 

So which is it? Is McCain sly as a fox, or a doddering old man? Was McCain speaking to his base, comfortable in all of his positions, reading from the script, or was he winging it, using information he just picked up? Is there any doubt that both campaigns had a pretty good idea of the nature of the questions?

 

We all know the questions that need to be asked... There has been almost no discuss of the merits of their answers; only this crap...

 

The real question should be whether the substance of the answers would in any way be changed by what the other candidate said. Let's hope not.

 

I think it is enlightening that YOU would believe that the answers to the questions would depend on the circumstances of where the questions were asked.

 

I think that Obama did very well with his responses. The venue is admittedly a bit less than his cup of tea, but I think he responded in accordance with his own beliefs. I think that McCain did the same. If you think that life starts at conception, well then McCain pretty much nailed it. If you aren't so sure, then perhaps Obama did as well. Do you believe that either of these responses would have changed in a different venue.

 

Situational ethics allows some things some of the time. And for some people that's okay. For others, if a thing wrong some of the time, it is wrong all of the time. Answers to questions of belief and policy should not be allowed to fall into the "situational" category.

 

If this campaign is won or lost over the trivial, as a country we all lose.

 

The magic of America is that we can try new ideas. If they work, we keep them, and if they fail, we throw them out. Although I do not agree with Obama on many of his ideas, but we need to try some new things. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing, but expecting different results. We need to try some new things. Some people believe that McCain will bring change, I believe that we need to shake things up a bit more. I think we all benefit when there is a constant battle of ideas. I suspect that the voters have an intuitive feel for this and will counter balance anything Obama does that is too outrageous with a more conservative congress.

[methos]

There you go again...

 

This should be a contest of ideas, but some people are determined to reduce it too the lowest possible level. Accusations of cheating, trying to paint Obama as a closet Muslim, depicting McCain as mentally incapacitated, making flag pins a measure of patriotism, all serve to steal the real value of the election form us all.

 

So enough already...

 

So which is it? Is McCain sly as a fox, or a doddering old man? Was McCain speaking to his base, comfortable in all of his positions, reading from the script, or was he winging it, using information he just picked up? Is there any doubt that both campaigns had a pretty good idea of the nature of the questions?

 

We all know the questions that need to be asked... There has been almost no discuss of the merits of their answers; only this crap...

 

The real question should be whether the substance of the answers would in any way be changed by what the other candidate said. Let's hope not.

 

I think it is enlightening that YOU would believe that the answers to the questions would depend on the circumstances of where the questions were asked.

 

I think that Obama did very well with his responses. The venue is admittedly a bit less than his cup of tea, but I think he responded in accordance with his own beliefs. I think that McCain did the same. If you think that life starts at conception, well then McCain pretty much nailed it. If you aren't so sure, then perhaps Obama did as well. Do you believe that either of these responses would have changed in a different venue.

 

Situational ethics allows some things some of the time. And for some people that's okay. For others, if a thing wrong some of the time, it is wrong all of the time. Answers to questions of belief and policy should not be allowed to fall into the "situational" category.

 

If this campaign is won or lost over the trivial, as a country we all lose.

 

The magic of America is that we can try new ideas. If they work, we keep them, and if they fail, we throw them out. Although I do not agree with Obama on many of his ideas, but we need to try some new things. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing, but expecting different results. We need to try some new things. Some people believe that McCain will bring change, I believe that we need to shake things up a bit more. I think we all benefit when there is a constant battle of ideas. I suspect that the voters have an intuitive feel for this and will counter balance anything Obama does that is too outrageous with a more conservative congress.

 

 

Nonsense! While I do agree this isn't going to change the election, this does warrant mention. It does mean something, for example, one of the posters used it as an example of his sureness. Of course he was sure; he had access to the questions - beforehand.

 

Does it mean he's sly, or suffering from impairment? How can I answer that? I can't. The point in mentioning the circumstances is that no one can, at least not from this forum.

[RangerM]

When Obama began at 8:00 pm, and Warren stated McCain was sequesterd in the soundproof room, McCain was a half-hour away at his hotel. When he did arrive, initially, he went to the green room, where you could hear Obama speak. It was not until the very end of Obama's turn that McCain actually went into the "Cone of Silence".

 

Warren, was surprised to hear of this. I'll take the man at his word, but he has a lot to learn about forum's. He later asked McCain about it, and of course he denied it, but it's like I said. These guy's would sell their soul to win. He f'n cheated.

 

EDIT: Warren states on CNN that while he was not in the "cone of silence" he was in the "cone of the secret service protection" and that means he wasn't watching it live on TV, bullshit. He knew the rules, and the rules were he was supposed to be properly sequestered!!

 

Warren might take his word, but I won’t. Even if the man is honest, which I doubt, his handlers are not. He got the info, knowingly or not, and that is a fact, as far as I am concerned.

 

RangerM, here's a PDF copy of the New York Times article.

 

Thanks, Len.

 

While I would choose to give McCain the benefit of the doubt, I can understand how the opposition could be suspicious. It isn't clear what (if anything) McCain heard and when. I don't find fault with Warren. If there was some (intentional) funny business, it'll come out eventually.

 

Perhaps the debates, or any future townhall forums, will be more revealing. As it is, I thought the differences demonstrated between the candidates were pretty stark.

[Len_A]

Thanks, Len.

 

While I would choose to give McCain the benefit of the doubt, I can understand how the opposition could be suspicious. It isn't clear what (if anything) McCain heard and when. I don't find fault with Warren. If there was some (intentional) funny business, it'll come out eventually.

 

Perhaps the debates, or any future townhall forums, will be more revealing. As it is, I thought the differences demonstrated between the candidates were pretty stark.

It will be interesting to see them in a side-by-side debate. You have to believe they're both going to be prepped like hell by their staff.

[xr7g428]

Nonsense! While I do agree this isn't going to change the election, this does warrant mention. It does mean something, for example, one of the posters used it as an example of his sureness. Of course he was sure; he had access to the questions - beforehand.

 

Does it mean he's sly, or suffering from impairment? How can I answer that? I can't. The point in mentioning the circumstances is that no one can, at least not from this forum.

 

But was the substance of the answers to the questions any different?

 

It sounds like you think style trumps substance in every case...

 

Let's say he heard every word, would that change his position in anyway?

 

Was there anything McCain said in the interview that would lead you to believe that he was responding to something that Obama had never said before?

 

Conversely, what would Obama have changed in the substance had he heard McCain? Hopefully, NOTHING.

[methos]

But was the substance of the answers to the questions any different?

 

It sounds like you think style trumps substance in every case...

 

Let's say he heard every word, would that change his position in anyway?

 

Was there anything McCain said in the interview that would lead you to believe that he was responding to something that Obama had never said before?

 

Conversely, what would Obama have changed in the substance had he heard McCain? Hopefully, NOTHING.

 

 

I think you're missing the point, which is in his assertiveness, as Ranger stated, and the fact that he answered the questions without pause. I don't think he would have changed his answers, but, since he likely knew the questions, it gave him more time for reflection.

 

That was the whole point of being sequestered; it's important. If I started asking you questions on stage, would you do better if you knew exactly what I was going to be asking and had time to reflect on the answer beforehand or would you do better not knowing and just winging it? The vast majority of people are going to do far better in both substance and conviction if they know what is going to be asked, and have rehearsed what they are going to say.

[Edstock]

If you think that life starts at conception,

Life does start at conception, whether you are a garden slug or a Republican.

 

That's why it's called "conception".

 

Now, whether a single fertilized egg, the starter diploid cell with its new combination of DNA from both parents, has a human "soul" at that point, is something entirely different. Does it? Nobody knows.

[xr7g428]

Meth... Okay style points count heavily for you. I am a bit more interested in content than style, but it is your choice.

 

Edstock, Define life, soul, and start. For me life probably didn't start till I was about 16. Good luck with soul. The good news is that each of these definitions is truly your own.

[retro-man]

I remember having some sort of a Catholic guide around our house in the early 60's (I was exposed to both Catholic and Protestant teachings in my upbringing), and reading that (at that time) Catholics believed a human didn't have a soul for 3 days after birth. I think I remember reading somewhere that this was a response to the high rate of infant mortality in the old times. So many babies died at and immediately after birth.

[methos]

Meth... Okay style points count heavily for you. I am a bit more interested in content than style, but it is your choice.

 

To the contrary, style means almost nothing to me; however, for the general electorate, it means everything.

[Len_A]

I remember having some sort of a Catholic guide around our house in the early 60's (I was exposed to both Catholic and Protestant teachings in my upbringing), and reading that (at that time) Catholics believed a human didn't have a soul for 3 days after birth. I think I remember reading somewhere that this was a response to the high rate of infant mortality in the old times. So many babies died at and immediately after birth.

Saint Thomas Aquinas had a theory that a fetus didn't receive a "rational soul" - full personhood - until well after the first ninety days of pregnancy. That was well before modern medicine had perfected the procedure.