The debate: Palin exceeded the low expectations she established for herself by botching interviews recently. Biden won the debate and made a stronger case against McCain-Palin and for the Obama-Biden ticket. In response to Palin’s repetitive reference to McCain as a maverick, Biden came back strong. “…let’s talk about the maverick John McCain is. And, again, I love him. He’s been a maverick on some issues, but he has been no maverick on the things that matter to people’s lives. He voted four out of five times for George Bush’s budget, which put us a half a trillion dollars in debt this year and over $3 trillion in debt since he’s got there. He has not been a maverick in providing health care for people. He has voted against – he voted including another 3.6 million children in coverage of the existing health care plan, when he voted in the United States Senate. He’s not been a maverick when it comes to education. He has not supported tax cuts and significant changes for people being able to send their kids to college. He’s not been a maverick on the war. He’s not been a maverick on virtually anything that genuinely affects the things that people really talk about around their kitchen table.” Palin refused to answer the questions asked, preferring to stay with the script her handlers have fed her.
“drill baby, drill”
i think she helped win the votes of the same people who voted for bush.
“fear”…
Right but those people, if they are going to vote, are going to vote for McCain-Palin anyway. Palin couldn’t identify a single area where she or John McCain would change Bush’s economic or foreign policy positions
We obviously watched different debates.
Well, someone who picks their candidate on the basis of perceived intelligence/academic background.
My point is that given what we actually expect politicians to do, and indeed what they actually always end up doing (with a few exceptions) has nothing to do with how intelligent they are. No one would vote for Sartre or Hemingway or Einstein or Crick or most other people widely considered to be very intelligent.
Look at Clinton - massive IQ, presided over a ludicrous farce of a presidency where a blowjob is remembered more significantly than WACO, the WTC bombing, Oklahoma City etc. etc. Though of course, if it weren’t for that blowjob, we’d never have seen Hillary fail so spectacularly.
Perhaps, but Lucifer wouldn’t run on either party’s platitudes. He’d be some sort of raving survivalist rightwinger.
Palin appeals because she’s good looking, has a relatively clean history (since the mainstream media is conveniently ignoring the stories about an affair and the whole billing rape victims for their own examination policy), is a woman (which will win more votes than it loses) and provides a convenient puppet when McCain croaks/retires on medical grounds within a year of becoming president. She’s a lighter, prettier image of the Republican party, something they could really do with after Cheney.
And a whole lot more besides.
I think electoral democracy is a sham (though I do vote, I vote entirely tactically based on local politics rather than party allegiance or anything similar). Lambasting Palin in particular strikes me as a poor way to go about things.
So she’s a Christian with some curious views. Let’s not forget that Jurassic Park was made 15 years ago. It’s not like we can actually verify our dating techniques, and the age of various things is in continual dispute.
After watching the debate, here are some thoughts.
She had her script and she never deviated from that script.
Any question she couldn’t answer (and there were a lot) she would
go back to the script. She went back to the energy well a lot.
I think she referenced her energy policies about a dozen times
even while answering questions that had nothing whatsoever to do with
energy. She never answered the question of how McCain would be different
then bush. She gave us the exact same answers bush gave us, lower taxes, drilling for oil,
and in broad general terms. She certainly didn’t give
us any specifics of kind for any answer.
Biden was specific, giving specific answers to specific questions.
He understood the question about Chaney unitary presidency and
gave a good answer, whereas she clearly didn’t even understand the question.
He understood what the exact role of the VP was, she was vague and general as per all her answers.
She was folksy but so what?
final verdict: she was better then I thought, but was so vague and talked in such generalities
she could have been talking about anything.
He understood the questions and answered them, with specifics details without
resorting like she did to reference the memorized talking points.
On every level, he connected with people and was able to answer the question.
He won the debate in a technical knockout.
Kropotkin
What do you then suggest we look at in a candidate, if not their mental aptitude?
Well, I don’t disagree with these playing some deciding factor in the minds of some voters, but I don’t think they play any role comparable to her having [R] next to her name. Take the fact that she’s running on the republican ticket away from the equation; how many votes would she get based on the factors you mentioned? Probably not a lot. Certainly not as many as she’ll get just because she’s republican. Think of that Simpsons episode with those two aliens who run for president on each of the two parties…you’re not saying the Simpsons are wrong in their social commentary, are you?
Well, that very much matters to me, and hopefully, with the rise of atheism in America (under the label agnostic) maybe it’ll matter to more people. Christians have some very odd ways of justifying their beliefs, and consequently their actions. I’d rather she used some non-religious means of justification for her public and foreign policies. Hopefully she’ll check with science as an alternative. It’s not perfect, but it’s the best source of information, and certainly the most reliable, we’ve got.
Are you saying you think she’s sufficiently justified in thinking dinosaurs and people co-existed? Are you saying that you’d feel OK with a leader justifying their beliefs and policies with information presented in the bible more so or even on the same level as a president who justifies their policies based on the latest scientific research? I know it’s easy to find some similarities between science and religion and consequently generalize some conclusion about them being the same…it’s easy because you say it just to seem like a non-conformist, or because it feels good to reduce some greatly respected institution down to size…basically because this belief is inconsequential to anything significant. But had you any actual stake in your beliefs, like for example, were you a diabetic, I’d bet the distinction between science and religion would seem pretty great.
Depends. If you sincerely think that an elected leader is worthwhile then their morals and degree of corruptibility is far more important than their intelligence.
Depends if she replaced with a democrat ticket.
The Simpsons is often wrong. But I don’t really get your point here.
The ‘rise of atheism’?
Jesus…
So do atheist democrats.
That isn’t a reason for other people not to vote for her.
Depends entirely on your manner of thinking. I find science lacking all the time.
I’m saying that of all the reasons not to vote for someone them having such a belief isn’t very high on the list.
I’d rank them roughly the same. The latest science is often unconfirmed twaddle spoken by people looking to make a name for themselves. And it contains just as many apocalyptic visions and commandments as the bible.
No generalising, they are born out of the same logic.
Nope.
Not ‘feels good’. ‘Feel politically necessary’.
Like hell it is.
How do you know if I’m diabetic or not? You don’t. Ergo, you can have no clue about how it would or wouldn’t affect my opinions.
As such, this is pataphysical bullshit of the most lazy-minded sort, and utterly contrary to your stated position of favouring science.
But feel free to believe a load of self-contradictory balderdash if you must. I’m just trying to get you to realise that despite your atheist dogma, there are very sound reasons why Palin is a good candidate, if your aim is to get McCain elected.
I agree. I don’t think intelligence can be the sole basis for deciding whether or not somebody would be a good POTUS. Stephen Hawking, despite his intelligence, might be a terrible leader, just as somebody with below average intelligence might be an excellent leader.
This is a bit misleading. Religious beliefs get a free pass in our society, especially Christian beliefs. As is pointed out over and over again, if any person in a position of power asked for people to pray to Zeus to have an oil pipeline completed, admitted that it was a mission from Zeus to invade Iraq, or justified their opposition to stem cell research by saying Zeus preaches that life begins at conception, they would be laughed off of the political stage. And yet, here we are in the early 21st century, and still people justify their political positions that affect everybody with beliefs that are just as absurd.
Here again is somebody who claims the latest science is “unconfirmed twaddle,” while simultaneously enjoying the fruits of scientific labor. Pray, do tell, was it the scientific community that claimed the end was coming when they turned on the new atom smasher? The only apocalyptic visions I know of that come from the scientific community are those that actually have a good chance of happening.
Negative.
There are no sound reasons that couldn’t also be applied to hundreds of thousands of other Americans, who would probably in fact be a better candidate than Palin, but have simply chosen not to enter public office. There are a lot of reasons I can think of that would put her much further down the list.
Sure, fine. Character matters, but so does mental aptitude; thinking quickly on one’s feet. Being able to come at the best possible position while under pressure and the given information.
No. It doesn’t. My point is that it doesn’t matter who the face of either party is. People are commited to voting for either party, or I should say against the opposite party, regardless of who they’re voting for.
See above.
Yes, the rise of atheism. As in more people are atheist today than 10 years ago, hence “the rise of atheism.” So…what about Jesus?
Sure, whatever. I’m not arguing in favor of democrats here. I’m arguing against Palin and all leaders who justify their beliefs and their policies via religious doctrine. That some atheist democrats justify their beliefs via some retarded atheistic way doesn’t say anything to my point. I’m in favor of leaders who justify their policies via information that has gone through the rigorous testing of science, because this is often times the best information to base one’s decisions on. It doesn’t matter if the leader isn’t atheist.
So…? I wasn’t trying to put forth reasons for other people not to vote for her. I’m saying ideally a leader ought to justify their policies via the best information available, and this often times means information arrived at through the scientific method.
That’s so unique. You’re unique SIATD.
This belief is indicative of the type of justification she uses for her beliefs. It’s a solid stepping stone for an assumption on how she’d justify other beliefs, and policy.
Blah blah blah. Bottom line is I’d have like Bush to have consulted social scientists about the middle east before going militarily into it, instead of his religious doctrines.
Whatever. Point is science offers pragmatically more reliable information, and that’s what a leader should have present on his desk, instead of religious dogma.
Well if you say so…
How so? How is it politically necessary to say that science and religion are on the same level? How is it politically necessary to say that a president that justifies policy on religious dogma is on the same par as a president that justifies his policies on scientifically arrived at information?
Cute, but my accusation still remains.
I didn’t say I was a scientist. Just that I favor it. And I’m pretty sure were you struck with an illness you’d go to a hospital instead of a church. Hospitals…you know, the place that uses methods and procedures validated through scientific research…You wouldn’t?..I call bullshit.
You haven’t shown a single sound reason why palin is a good candidate. You’ve barely shown that my standards for a good leader are flawed.
And some people make good leaders despite their intelligence.
So do atheist beliefs. And Christians tolerate a lot more ridicule than atheists do.
By atheist democrats. But they wouldn’t be on a stage in front of them if they believed that.
They’d be a on a stage in front of other people who believed that, or something roughly similar.
Just as absurd to you, not to them or the people voting for them. A lot of people believe things other than what you believe. Someone can be a good political candidate even if they believe something other than what you believe.
An oft-repeated and circular argument.
Not to mention a dogmatic one.
They said it was a possibility. Though it broke down pretty quickly. Thus showing that science can, and indeed is, found wanting.
Probability is nonsense unless you are aware of all possibilities. At no given point in time can science ever hope to calculate all future possibilities, and thus, the total probability of the universe. It’s part of the same ‘future will resemble past’ fallacy that has been discussed so often on this site. And this is what I mean by scientific dogma - when scientists and their disciples repeat the same thing over and over in defence of their beliefs then it is because they’ve been taught to think like that. It isn’t just a coincidence that I’ve had this same argument (with the same responses from the adherents to science) with several thousand people. They are taught ways of thinking, stock responses to criticism. It’s no different to the Catholic Church, ideologically speaking.
Again, a dogmatic attitude.
Very few people choose to enter public office. Most are chosen.
Care to share some of them? I mean, I’ve put some words on the board, and I don’t even think Palin is a good candidate. But I can see why she is a good candidate from the point of view of the people who chose her. That’s the difference - you fail to recognise that there are a lot of different people involved here, with a lot of different opinions. You only think about your own view of affairs and solely seek to argue the case for it.
‘The best possible position’ - now I know you’re not being serious with this whole ‘intelligence led’ politics. Intelligence is important for people in intellectual life. Beyond that, it’s of a limited use to everyone, but not politicians in particular.
You are overlooking the fact that some people change their minds from election to election. Not everyone is party born and bred.
As to ‘no, it doesn’t’ - see my response to dorkydood on dogma.
Firstly, have you any evidence to support this claim that more people are atheist now than in 1998?
Secondly, there are more people now than there were in 1998. So there probably are more in terms of a total number.
Thirdly, it’s only a ‘rise’ (as in Age of Empires, Rise of Rome expansion pack) if it affects the world somehow. America is the same country it was a decade ago.
It’s an expletive. At least, in the way I used it just then.
Sure, whatever. I’m not arguing in favor of democrats here. I’m arguing against Palin and all leaders who justify their beliefs and their policies via religious doctrine. That some atheist democrats justify their beliefs via some retarded atheistic way doesn’t say anything to my point.
[/quote]
It shows that singling out Palin and religious leaders is a partial and biased version of the actual situation.
Why science in particular, and how do you ascertain ‘the best’?
So…? I wasn’t trying to put forth reasons for other people not to vote for her.
[/quote]
You were saying she’s a terrible candidate because of it. Which amounts to the same thing.
Why science in particular? I’d like all politicians to have to pass a political philosophy exam before they took office, and a million other things (such as a test to determine how easy it would be to assassinate them should the need arise) but you keep pushing science and science alone.
That’s so unique. You’re unique SIATD.
[/quote]
Everything’s unique. Insult me with sarcasm again and I’ll take your balls off with broadband cable.
A solid stepping stone? For someone who insists on rigorous science you sure use weak metaphors instead of reason a lot of the time.
Thus speaketh the dogmatist who lacks the imagination to see other points of view. Beyond your own personal failings, there is actually a decent conversation to be had here.
Irrelevant, since it wasn’t Bush who made the decision.
Whatever.
[/quote]
Thus speaks the dogmatist who lacks the imagination to see other points of view.
Sure, so he can torture, enslave and murder people as efficiently as possible?
You said the same level.
Because both sets of beliefs are institutionalised dogma, and both presidents are weak for following.
Accuse all you like, it just makes you a hypocrite.
Hence ‘your stated position of favouring science’. Y’know, the last line before you responded.
Nowhere did I ‘accuse’ you of being a scientist. So this is just you trying to catch someone out, and lacking any good reason to do so just made some shit up.
You could, and it’d make you happier to do so, forget about this me-you, win-lose manner of discussion.
Again, you dressing speculation up as fact and using this as a basis for argument.
What did I say about them being born out of the same logic? Right here is a brilliant example. And it’s the same example lots of others have used, hence me calling it dogma.
Don’t patronise me. I’m much, much better at this game than you are, even though I don’t like playing it.
Hospitals are the institutions of medical science. More people die in them than almost anywhere else.
You seem to think this is the be all and end all of options available to the sick person. And using this imaginary limit as a justification for labelling some speculation you have about what I would or wouldn’t do.
Yet you think you’re in a position to denigrate other people’s beliefs, despite your own being so shoddily put together and so utterly ludicrous?
A terribly sad indictment of modern youth. Assuming you’re young.
You haven’t shown a single sound reason why palin is a good candidate. You’ve barely shown that my standards for a good leader are flawed.
[/quote]
If in doubt, declare victory. Well done. I’m out of this conversation now. I hope you’re happy with what you’ve contributed.
Sure, okay. Just as long as a president has a good set of morals, then we’re all set. He can have down syndrome, and that wouldn’t matter as long as he’s been taught his good from bad. 
Just admit that intelligence is an important thing to have so we can drop this point altogether, because the quote mountain is getting huge.
Point is that the face doesn’t matter. It’s the party that does. A third party member is not even considered. Jesus could run for any third party, and he’d get nothing.
No, and I’m not looking it up. It’s common knowledge nowadays.
There have been new people all the time…
Rise in number, and thus in influence. Religion is slowly creeping out of politics, or at least there’s a fight over it, which is just f*cking great imo.
It shows that singling out Palin and religious leaders is a partial and biased version of the actual situation.
[/quote]
What shows this?
Because scientifically arrived ideas have proven themselves very reliable. More reliable than any other method, hence they’re the best. If you can show me some non-scientific theory with which you can predict some event, then I’ll reconsider the “the best” comment.
You were saying she’s a terrible candidate because of it. Which amounts to the same thing.
[/quote]
It may, but not in this case. I’m not proselytizing my political beliefs here.
I told you why science in particular above. And what gave you the impression that I’m pushing for science and science alone?
Class.
Neat observation. Now onto my point…
Thus speaketh the poster who’s heard your side of the argument a million times.
From the pit of my personal failing, I see that you’re right about this.
Right…the illuminati.
You didn’t make another POV. You made a claim, and didn’t support it with anything. Were I to address it properly I’d have to do some guessing as to what you mean.
I didn’t negate morals, but I did negate your negation of intelligence.
I’ve been here a while, and we’ve had this conversation before. It’s where you were going.
In what way is any scientific principle dogma? Isn’t there a noble prize waiting for anyone who overturns any scientific principle?
Hypocrisy isn’t a fallacy.
What’s the implicative duty of someone favoring science in your eyes? And in failing this duty, does that mean that the thing they favor is illogical?
How do you know what would make me happy. This is pataphysical bullshit of the most lazy-minded sort! Blah blah. You can opt out if you want, but that would make me sad.
I not dressing speculation up as fact. I dressing up speculation as a good assumption.
Nothing really. You didn’t say anything about it. Just that they are apparently born of the same logic.
I don’t see the hence comment meaning anything. I still don’t know what you mean by born of the same logic.
That’s funny. The image this invokes in my mind, that is. Get over yourself buddy.
Yea…because people go there when they’re seriously ill.
Right…I do actually. 
Yep. I think It’s an honest assumption, too.
One need not be in any position to denigrate other people’s beliefs. For example, it doesn’t matter that you’re full of it. You still denigrate my beliefs. And not only my beliefs, me as well. But your comments are too British to take any offense.
I’m 21. I guess you’re 5 or 6 years older. It’s not appropriate to look upon me as a member of a different generation. You’re not old enough to shake your head pessimistically at the new generation. As a rule, you’d have to be at least 40 to be able to do that.
[/quote]
Honestly, where have you shown a single sound reason to vote for palin? The whole point of your argument here has been to show that science is as shitty of a source for justification as religion. Even if anyone were to grant you that, this wouldn’t be a sound reason for Palin being a good candidate. And no, you’re not out of this conversation. Your ego is not healthy enough or it.
Hey Sarah… :-"
You know that feeling you get at the pit of your stomach whenever you hear Bush speak; that feeling of pity, sympathy, and disgust that makes you turn the channel as fast as you squat a mosquito that’s just bitten you? That’s what I get from Palin whenever she speaks.
LOL, thanks Pandora. I was wondering what she was looking down at on the podium during the debate!
I think she must be considered a lousy choice from the perspective of the Republicans, seeing as how she’s turned out not to boost the ticket as they’d hoped. Yah, you betcha she’s brought the Creationists into the fold, but that’s not goin’ to be enough, ya know. And it’s pretty bad that she can’t be let out in front of reporters alone, McCain has to go along to hold her hand, maybe kick her in the shin when she goes all ubermaverick. Or turns into Miss South Carolina and blows the pageant question.
This whole debacle makes me want to wring McCain’s neck, btw. And I never intended to vote for him in the first place. But his neck still wants wringing, just because of the Palin business. There were any number of Repub female leaders out there that aren’t bats**t crazy. I mean besides Katherine Harris and Phyllis Schafly.
How in the world is it that anyone thinks that simple people can process and handle complex problems? The choice of Palin reflects the high degree of cynicism coming from the McCain campaign, I think. Neither political party is all that great, but if this all they can do, then the Republicans must be imploding.
How in the world is it that people so ignorant they believe the presidential election might have some impact on the direction of the country think themselves smart enough to put down candidates on the basis of their lack of intelligence?
No question of policy. No question of moral character.
Just 'the Reps are so dumb, how could anyone vote for them?!?!?!??
My thoughts exactly.
After reading that article about McCain, I can’t see why anybody would vote for him…his character is absolute crap, his reputation is one he’s fabricated for himself, and he only acts in his own best interest.
Make-a-me sad.
And if the Democrats lose this election, it’ll be because of thinking like that.
People get the politicians they deserve. If this is the quality of American political discussion (and I’m not saying it is any better in my country), then you can’t expect better candidates.
First off, welcome back, and I freaking knew it. Secondly, gtfo with that bull. Anybody not sharing your opinion as to how the government runs is not warranted to think of themselves as an intelligent person, ie. they’re dumb? Seriously, if that’s your stand, gtfo. It’s boring, and offensive, and this topic can do without it.
Maybe in another thread. In this one I’m focusing on Palin’s mental aptitude. I know you won’t cede this point about intelligence because you’re too proud, but pride makes for boring conversation.
Yes. In this case the republicans running for prez are dumb[er] and because they are dumb[er] than the dems, leaving out moral character for a second or for another topic altogether, people who value intelligence do with some good reason come to the conclusion “How could anyone vote for them?!!?!?!?!?!.”