DominicanBarbie
Well-known member
Obama
Who will you Vote for 2008
- Thread starter SkylarV217
- Start date
ratmist
Well-known member
Quote:
I tend to think the same of Tony Blair. He downright looked like a kid in 1997 when he took over as Prime Minister of Britain. When he left office at 2007, he looked oooooold.
That's not to say that looking old equals being frail, unable to cope, etc (all the negative things we tend to associate about old age). It's superficial, I'm sure. On the other hand, you can't deny that physically, these jobs seem to wear on the person badly.
Originally Posted by Shimmer
Take a look at Clinton before his first term, then take a look at him at the start of his second, and the end of the two. Look at Bush the same. The office aged them visibly in a *very* short period of time. |
I tend to think the same of Tony Blair. He downright looked like a kid in 1997 when he took over as Prime Minister of Britain. When he left office at 2007, he looked oooooold.
That's not to say that looking old equals being frail, unable to cope, etc (all the negative things we tend to associate about old age). It's superficial, I'm sure. On the other hand, you can't deny that physically, these jobs seem to wear on the person badly.
ratmist
Well-known member
Quote:
I'm kinda half and half about this. I tend to get pissed off at people who refuse to vote unless they have a genuinely good reason for not voting. I know some people that have conscientiously objected to voting on the principle that they could not morally support anyone on the ballot. I can't really look down on someone for that, even if I think they should still vote because the principle of the matter is at stake. I mean, you get to vote! So many people in the world do not.
However, for others it seems more about not wanting to bother to register, taking the time to fill out the paperwork, not educating themselves about the candidates or issues, etc. Just blatant laziness. When it's clear I'm talking to someone who didn't bother to vote due to sheer blatant laziness, I get quite angry and tend to ignore every single thing they have to say about political topics, doubly so if they're complaining.
| Originally Posted by Shimmer
People who don't vote can complain, but their complaints aren't generally taken seriously. |
I'm kinda half and half about this. I tend to get pissed off at people who refuse to vote unless they have a genuinely good reason for not voting. I know some people that have conscientiously objected to voting on the principle that they could not morally support anyone on the ballot. I can't really look down on someone for that, even if I think they should still vote because the principle of the matter is at stake. I mean, you get to vote! So many people in the world do not.
However, for others it seems more about not wanting to bother to register, taking the time to fill out the paperwork, not educating themselves about the candidates or issues, etc. Just blatant laziness. When it's clear I'm talking to someone who didn't bother to vote due to sheer blatant laziness, I get quite angry and tend to ignore every single thing they have to say about political topics, doubly so if they're complaining.
Aprilrobin
Well-known member
Quote:
So, if no candidate represents me and I still take the time to go down to the polls and
A) write-in someone completely irrelevant, then my complaints are taken seriously? Because I spent my time doing THAT instead of say, hanging out with my dog?
B) I vote for the "lesser of two evils", then I am thereby being a good citizen by sanctioning positions I believe to be wrong, even though they're just a hair less wrong than the other guy?
Apparently, the right to vote has nothing to do with choice.
If they put an "i abstain" button in the polling box, then I'd have a slightly different opinion.
Quote:
I'm going to guess that if anyone knows anything about stress and endurance that its John McCain. Of course it's possible that he could drop dead, any president could drop dead for one reason or another at any given moment. Remember our youngest president?
That's why there's a an order of presidential succession. Currently, the President pro tempore is a 91 year old democrat.
So I dunno. Is this ageism really out of concern for the man's well-being? I doubt it. Sounds excusey to me.
| Originally Posted by Shimmer
Sure. And whoever listens to the complaint has the right to say that the complaint is unsubstantiated because you had the chance to voice your opinion in the most meaningful manner possible and didn't take it. At least people who vote can say "MAN, that guy sucks balls. You people who voted him in are fucking retarded." or "MAN! That guy really let me down! He talked a mad game and I fell for it, and he's not done ANYTHING like what he said he was going to do." People who don't vote can complain, but their complaints aren't generally taken seriously. |
So, if no candidate represents me and I still take the time to go down to the polls and
A) write-in someone completely irrelevant, then my complaints are taken seriously? Because I spent my time doing THAT instead of say, hanging out with my dog?
B) I vote for the "lesser of two evils", then I am thereby being a good citizen by sanctioning positions I believe to be wrong, even though they're just a hair less wrong than the other guy?
Apparently, the right to vote has nothing to do with choice.
If they put an "i abstain" button in the polling box, then I'd have a slightly different opinion.
Quote:
| Because, as Ratmist pointed out, it's one of the, if not THE, most stressful, mental and physical and emotionally demanding jobs on the planet? Take a look at Clinton before his first term, then take a look at him at the start of his second, and the end of the two. Look at Bush the same. The office aged them visibly in a *very* short period of time. |
I'm going to guess that if anyone knows anything about stress and endurance that its John McCain. Of course it's possible that he could drop dead, any president could drop dead for one reason or another at any given moment. Remember our youngest president?
That's why there's a an order of presidential succession. Currently, the President pro tempore is a 91 year old democrat.
So I dunno. Is this ageism really out of concern for the man's well-being? I doubt it. Sounds excusey to me.
Shimmer
Well-known member
Quote:
Yes, absolutely, because the time was taken and the privilege was exercised regardless of the system and its failures.
Quote:
For his wellbeing? No. For a country's? Yes, because his choice for vice president could make or break his campaign. There's a very solid chance the veep could take the office, given McCain's age.
There's a VAST difference between stress and endurance on a fairly young man, and stress and endurance on a man his age.
| Originally Posted by Aprilrobin
So, if no candidate represents me and I still take the time to go down to the polls and A) write-in someone completely irrelevant, then my complaints are taken seriously? Because I spent my time doing THAT instead of say, hanging out with my dog? B) I vote for the "lesser of two evils", then I am thereby being a good citizen by sanctioning positions I believe to be wrong, even though they're just a hair less wrong than the other guy? Apparently, the right to vote has nothing to do with choice. If they put an "i abstain" button in the polling box, then I'd have a slightly different opinion. |
Yes, absolutely, because the time was taken and the privilege was exercised regardless of the system and its failures.
Quote:
| I'm going to guess that if anyone knows anything about stress and endurance that its John McCain. Of course it's possible that he could drop dead, any president could drop dead for one reason or another at any given moment. Remember our youngest president? That's why there's a an order of presidential succession. Currently, the President pro tempore is a 91 year old democrat. So I dunno. Is this ageism really out of concern for the man's well-being? I doubt it. Sounds excusey to me. |
For his wellbeing? No. For a country's? Yes, because his choice for vice president could make or break his campaign. There's a very solid chance the veep could take the office, given McCain's age.
There's a VAST difference between stress and endurance on a fairly young man, and stress and endurance on a man his age.
ratmist
Well-known member
Quote:
If this is in response to his fine military record, he was a lot younger back then. And he's suffered long-term physical effects as a result of the POW camps. I'm not saying this is any reason to dismiss him as a candidate. I'm just saying it's worth thinking about his health and the impact the office would have on it - which is why he released his medical records around the Memorial Day weekend.
That being said, do you really think it's not strange that he had 1,173 pages of medical records for just the past 8 years? I'm not sure I have that many pages at the age of 26!
It's not concern for his well-being as much as it's concern for who is best suited for the office. The willingness to just assume he's all right because one doesn't want to appear ageist is well.... a bit naive, don't you think?
| Originally Posted by Aprilrobin
I'm going to guess that if anyone knows anything about stress and endurance that its John McCain. |
If this is in response to his fine military record, he was a lot younger back then. And he's suffered long-term physical effects as a result of the POW camps. I'm not saying this is any reason to dismiss him as a candidate. I'm just saying it's worth thinking about his health and the impact the office would have on it - which is why he released his medical records around the Memorial Day weekend.
That being said, do you really think it's not strange that he had 1,173 pages of medical records for just the past 8 years? I'm not sure I have that many pages at the age of 26!
Details of his health (from The Times Online):
Mr McCain is a gnarled Vietnam veteran who uses that conflict as a reference point for much of his political philosophy. His body carries the scars of being shot down over Hanoi in 1967 when he broke his arms and his right leg. He was twice stabbed by a bayonet, had his shoulder smashed by a rifle butt and was beaten by a mob.
Those injuries, as well as torture suffered during his five-year imprisonment, has left him unable to raise his arms above shoulder level. He also routinely wears a baseball cap and high factor sunscreen to protect himself from skin cancer, and sometimes appears physically frail in public after gruelling 16-hour days on the campaign trail.
The disclosures show that he takes regular medication for cholesterol and kidney stones, sometimes uses sleeping pills, suffers from degenerative arthritis and occasional dizzy spells.
Quote:Mr McCain is a gnarled Vietnam veteran who uses that conflict as a reference point for much of his political philosophy. His body carries the scars of being shot down over Hanoi in 1967 when he broke his arms and his right leg. He was twice stabbed by a bayonet, had his shoulder smashed by a rifle butt and was beaten by a mob.
Those injuries, as well as torture suffered during his five-year imprisonment, has left him unable to raise his arms above shoulder level. He also routinely wears a baseball cap and high factor sunscreen to protect himself from skin cancer, and sometimes appears physically frail in public after gruelling 16-hour days on the campaign trail.
The disclosures show that he takes regular medication for cholesterol and kidney stones, sometimes uses sleeping pills, suffers from degenerative arthritis and occasional dizzy spells.
| Originally Posted by Aprilrobin
So I dunno. Is this ageism really out of concern for the man's well-being? I doubt it. Sounds excusey to me. |
It's not concern for his well-being as much as it's concern for who is best suited for the office. The willingness to just assume he's all right because one doesn't want to appear ageist is well.... a bit naive, don't you think?
Hilly
Well-known member
Quote:
I believe we should vote for who we feel fits best for ours and our family's needs. Great example- Bush and Kerry. I did vote for the "lesser of two evils" but only because there was no other choice. I waited in line for FOUR hours to vote. I was making the point, "can't complain unless you vote". Well really- I was voting in a Red State (Indiana) with a Dem vote. Kind of a waste of time. ANd really did any one give a crap if I voted and complained? No. Complaining is inevitable.
In no way am I saying don't vote- but don't vote just for the reason to have a ticket to complain. Vote because you're excercising your right to vote for the person you feel could do the job.
I am definitely voting this year. GO DEMS!
| Originally Posted by Aprilrobin
So, if no candidate represents me and I still take the time to go down to the polls and A) write-in someone completely irrelevant, then my complaints are taken seriously? Because I spent my time doing THAT instead of say, hanging out with my dog? B) I vote for the "lesser of two evils", then I am thereby being a good citizen by sanctioning positions I believe to be wrong, even though they're just a hair less wrong than the other guy?. |
I believe we should vote for who we feel fits best for ours and our family's needs. Great example- Bush and Kerry. I did vote for the "lesser of two evils" but only because there was no other choice. I waited in line for FOUR hours to vote. I was making the point, "can't complain unless you vote". Well really- I was voting in a Red State (Indiana) with a Dem vote. Kind of a waste of time. ANd really did any one give a crap if I voted and complained? No. Complaining is inevitable.
In no way am I saying don't vote- but don't vote just for the reason to have a ticket to complain. Vote because you're excercising your right to vote for the person you feel could do the job.
I am definitely voting this year. GO DEMS!
ratmist
Well-known member
Quote:
There's also a vast amount of difference between someone who never went through what McCain has endured in his life, and someone like Hillary or Obama, who've never served in combat.
John McCain, cancer and PTSD | Salon News
The man is going to turn 72 in August. I remember my grandparents being in great condition at 72. My grandfather was still working full-time at a power plant and acting as Trade Union representative at that point in his life. He is also a veteran of WW2.
I think it's very possible McCain is as strong as my grandfather was at that time. But my grandfather wasn't under nearly the amount of pressure McCain would be under as president. In a nutshell, that's why I'm wary.
| Originally Posted by Shimmer
There's a VAST difference between stress and endurance on a fairly young man, and stress and endurance on a man his age. |
There's also a vast amount of difference between someone who never went through what McCain has endured in his life, and someone like Hillary or Obama, who've never served in combat.
John McCain, cancer and PTSD | Salon News
McCain has survived three plane crashes, four melanomas, and more than five years as a prisoner of war in North Vietnam, enduring torture and solitary confinement, though he tried to commit suicide twice during that time. A SAM missile knocked his A-4E Skyhawk out of the sky above Hanoi on Oct. 26, 1967.
By then, McCain had already survived three other harrowing incidents involving airplanes (not counting the time he snapped some power lines in Spain by flying too low). Soon after graduating from the Naval Academy in 1958, McCain's plane dove into the water near Texas. Knocked unconscious, he woke up as the aircraft settled on the bottom and he swam to the surface. McCain ejected from another plane near the Maryland coast in December 1965 when the engine died. McCain was also lucky to escape with his life on July 29, 1967. He was sitting in the cockpit of his A-4E Skyhawk on the deck of the USS Forrestal off Vietnam when a missile on another plane accidentally discharged, striking his plane. He dove out of the cockpit through flames. Fire engulfed the Forrestal, nearly sinking her, and killing 134 men. McCain was hit with shrapnel in the legs and chest, but recovered.
Less than two months later, McCain was shot down during a mission over Hanoi. He ejected from the cockpit, breaking his right knee and both arms. Dragged from a lake by an angry crowd, he was bayoneted in the ankle and groin. Today McCain suffers from arthritis in his shoulders and knee, his records show, and he may need joint replacement surgery.
During the five and a half years of captivity that followed, McCain was held in solitary confinement for two years straight, inflicting psychological strain the senator has described as worse than a beating.
What were perhaps McCain's darkest hours came in the summer of 1968, during three days of nearly continuous beatings and torture with ropes that left him in an interrogation cell with a broken arm, cracked ribs, broken teeth and lying in a puddle of his own blood and waste. He gathered enough strength to stand on a waste bucket and try, twice, to hang himself with his shirt. Both times guards disrupted his suicide attempts.
We don't know if he was ever diagnosed with post traumatic stress disorder because PTSD wasn't in use until at least seven years after he was released from captivity. 1500 pages of his medical files including pyschiatric and mental health reports were shown to select journalists for viewing only in 1999, and his new release of health data (1173 pages alone for the past 8 years) in the past month was for a selected number of journalists only as well. It was also a timed release, over a public holiday, for a weekend when no one would really want to go through the paperwork. By then, McCain had already survived three other harrowing incidents involving airplanes (not counting the time he snapped some power lines in Spain by flying too low). Soon after graduating from the Naval Academy in 1958, McCain's plane dove into the water near Texas. Knocked unconscious, he woke up as the aircraft settled on the bottom and he swam to the surface. McCain ejected from another plane near the Maryland coast in December 1965 when the engine died. McCain was also lucky to escape with his life on July 29, 1967. He was sitting in the cockpit of his A-4E Skyhawk on the deck of the USS Forrestal off Vietnam when a missile on another plane accidentally discharged, striking his plane. He dove out of the cockpit through flames. Fire engulfed the Forrestal, nearly sinking her, and killing 134 men. McCain was hit with shrapnel in the legs and chest, but recovered.
Less than two months later, McCain was shot down during a mission over Hanoi. He ejected from the cockpit, breaking his right knee and both arms. Dragged from a lake by an angry crowd, he was bayoneted in the ankle and groin. Today McCain suffers from arthritis in his shoulders and knee, his records show, and he may need joint replacement surgery.
During the five and a half years of captivity that followed, McCain was held in solitary confinement for two years straight, inflicting psychological strain the senator has described as worse than a beating.
What were perhaps McCain's darkest hours came in the summer of 1968, during three days of nearly continuous beatings and torture with ropes that left him in an interrogation cell with a broken arm, cracked ribs, broken teeth and lying in a puddle of his own blood and waste. He gathered enough strength to stand on a waste bucket and try, twice, to hang himself with his shirt. Both times guards disrupted his suicide attempts.
The man is going to turn 72 in August. I remember my grandparents being in great condition at 72. My grandfather was still working full-time at a power plant and acting as Trade Union representative at that point in his life. He is also a veteran of WW2.
I think it's very possible McCain is as strong as my grandfather was at that time. But my grandfather wasn't under nearly the amount of pressure McCain would be under as president. In a nutshell, that's why I'm wary.
Aprilrobin
Well-known member
Quote:
I'll keep that in mind when I go down to the polls and try and figure out if I should vote for socialism or war.
Some people have a conscience and like to exercise that instead of some misguided idea that a right is a duty.
People that vote for the "lesser of two evils" need to realize that they condoning ideas they don't agree with.
Congressmen and Senators have the privilege to abstain every day, I'd like it too.
Quote:
I guess we shouldn't vote for a women president because she could become pregnant and it would be too stressful.
| Originally Posted by Shimmer
Yes, absolutely, because the time was taken and the privilege was exercised regardless of the system and its failures. |
I'll keep that in mind when I go down to the polls and try and figure out if I should vote for socialism or war.
Some people have a conscience and like to exercise that instead of some misguided idea that a right is a duty.
People that vote for the "lesser of two evils" need to realize that they condoning ideas they don't agree with.
Congressmen and Senators have the privilege to abstain every day, I'd like it too.
Quote:
| Originally Posted by Shimmer
For his wellbeing? No. For a country's? Yes, because his choice for vice president could make or break his campaign. There's a very solid chance the veep could take the office, given McCain's age. There's a VAST difference between stress and endurance on a fairly young man, and stress and endurance on a man his age. |
I guess we shouldn't vote for a women president because she could become pregnant and it would be too stressful.
Shimmer
Well-known member
Quote:
That's very true. Hillary wouldn't be allowed to serve in combat arms MOSs anyway, but my respect for either politician is severely diminished due to their lack of any kind of military service record.
| Originally Posted by ratmist
There's also a vast amount of difference between someone who never went through what McCain has endured in his life, and someone like Hillary or Obama, who've never served in combat. |
That's very true. Hillary wouldn't be allowed to serve in combat arms MOSs anyway, but my respect for either politician is severely diminished due to their lack of any kind of military service record.
ratmist
Well-known member
Quote:
See, I disagree with that. I don't think you have to serve in the military to be a good president.
EDIT: I don't disagree with the validity of your feelings. I disagree with the logic (as I perceive it through your post) behind them. Just thought I'd make that clear - you're obviously free to feel however you want.
| Originally Posted by Shimmer
That's very true. Hillary wouldn't be allowed to serve in combat arms MOSs anyway, but my respect for either politician is severely diminished due to their lack of any kind of military service record. |
See, I disagree with that. I don't think you have to serve in the military to be a good president.
EDIT: I don't disagree with the validity of your feelings. I disagree with the logic (as I perceive it through your post) behind them. Just thought I'd make that clear - you're obviously free to feel however you want.
Aprilrobin
Well-known member
Quote:
No, exactly the opposite of naive. Naive would be basing a man's ability to be president based on his assumed physical ability to withstand stress.
To a small degree I can agree with the sentiment. I wouldn't elect somebody on his/her death bed. I don't think being 74 is death-bed criteria.
So, should each president's ability lie on his/her physical well-being and what might happen?
Obama was a smoker. What if he gets lung cancer?
JFK had a dabilitating disease.
I said it already, but what if we elected a female president and she became pregnant? Could the job be too stressful?
It's also naive to not consider that the presidency is more than just one man at a desk. The president appoints his cabinet and supreme court judges, etc.
| Originally Posted by ratmist
It's not concern for his well-being as much as it's concern for who is best suited for the office. The willingness to just assume he's all right because one doesn't want to appear ageist is well.... a bit naive, don't you think? |
No, exactly the opposite of naive. Naive would be basing a man's ability to be president based on his assumed physical ability to withstand stress.
To a small degree I can agree with the sentiment. I wouldn't elect somebody on his/her death bed. I don't think being 74 is death-bed criteria.
So, should each president's ability lie on his/her physical well-being and what might happen?
Obama was a smoker. What if he gets lung cancer?
JFK had a dabilitating disease.
I said it already, but what if we elected a female president and she became pregnant? Could the job be too stressful?
It's also naive to not consider that the presidency is more than just one man at a desk. The president appoints his cabinet and supreme court judges, etc.
ratmist
Well-known member
Quote:
Well, first of all, McCain is 71. He'll be 72 in August.
Secondly, while I see that McCain's health isn't a problem for you, the fact that it is of concern to others doesn't mean it's fair for you to call that ageism.
Thirdly, the failure of JFK and his administration to be open and forthcoming about Addison's Disease lead to the 25th Amendment, providing for two mechanisms to cover inability or impairment of Presidential faculties: one for a President to step down temporarily, the other to be removed by the Vice President and Cabinet.
Yes, voting for anyone is voting for everyone that comes with them. However, history has shown us that it is extremely rare for the Vice-President to actually become President. Therefore, it's entirely appropriate to focus on the actual candidate and his/her ability to do the job, rather than assume that the rest of the cabinet and the VP will sort it out in the event of poor health.
| Originally Posted by Aprilrobin
No, exactly the opposite of naive. Naive would be basing a man's ability to be president based on his assumed physical ability to withstand stress. To a small degree I can agree with the sentiment. I wouldn't elect somebody on his/her death bed. I don't think being 74 is death-bed criteria. So, should each president's ability lie on his/her physical well-being and what might happen? Obama was a smoker. What if he gets lung cancer? JFK had a dabilitating disease. I said it already, but what if we elected a female president and she became pregnant? Could the job be too stressful? It's also naive to not consider that the presidency is more than just one man at a desk. The president appoints his cabinet and supreme court judges, etc. |
Well, first of all, McCain is 71. He'll be 72 in August.
Secondly, while I see that McCain's health isn't a problem for you, the fact that it is of concern to others doesn't mean it's fair for you to call that ageism.
Thirdly, the failure of JFK and his administration to be open and forthcoming about Addison's Disease lead to the 25th Amendment, providing for two mechanisms to cover inability or impairment of Presidential faculties: one for a President to step down temporarily, the other to be removed by the Vice President and Cabinet.
Yes, voting for anyone is voting for everyone that comes with them. However, history has shown us that it is extremely rare for the Vice-President to actually become President. Therefore, it's entirely appropriate to focus on the actual candidate and his/her ability to do the job, rather than assume that the rest of the cabinet and the VP will sort it out in the event of poor health.
Shimmer
Well-known member
Quote:
It's not the be all and end all of my criteria for who receives my vote, by any stretch, but someone who is going to be in the position to command millions of people without having EVER been in their shoes? It's a recipe for disaster, IMO. Does it make them a better president if they've served? Possibly, possibly not, but it certainly does give them a perspective of the lives they impact *very* directly, perhaps even more than the average American's life.
| Originally Posted by ratmist
See, I disagree with that. I don't think you have to serve in the military to be a good president. EDIT: I don't disagree with the validity of your feelings. I disagree with the logic (as I perceive it through your post) behind them. Just thought I'd make that clear - you're obviously free to feel however you want. |
It's not the be all and end all of my criteria for who receives my vote, by any stretch, but someone who is going to be in the position to command millions of people without having EVER been in their shoes? It's a recipe for disaster, IMO. Does it make them a better president if they've served? Possibly, possibly not, but it certainly does give them a perspective of the lives they impact *very* directly, perhaps even more than the average American's life.
*Stargazer*
Well-known member
Quote:
I have been wondering lately if it rankles the Dems that they can't play the "Your candidate ducked military service and doesn't have any family members directly impacted by Iraq and Afgahnistan" this time around. Not that it worked too well for them before.
I'm with you AprilRobin, we need an "I abstain because the candidates are all douchebags whom I can't support" option on the ballot.
| Originally Posted by Shimmer
It's not the be all and end all of my criteria for who receives my vote, by any stretch, but someone who is going to be in the position to command millions of people without having EVER been in their shoes? It's a recipe for disaster, IMO. Does it make them a better president if they've served? Possibly, possibly not, but it certainly does give them a perspective of the lives they impact *very* directly, perhaps even more than the average American's life. |
I have been wondering lately if it rankles the Dems that they can't play the "Your candidate ducked military service and doesn't have any family members directly impacted by Iraq and Afgahnistan" this time around. Not that it worked too well for them before.
I'm with you AprilRobin, we need an "I abstain because the candidates are all douchebags whom I can't support" option on the ballot.
Aprilrobin
Well-known member
Quote:
Yep, you're right. My bad.
Quote:
Well, he doesn't really seem to be in any sort of ill health, so no it isn't a concern. But, the assumption that it is problematic due to his age is the definition of ageism, so its more than fair. Just calling a spade a spade. My question was regarding why people are OK with ageism.[/quote]
Quote:
Hmm. not so rare. 8 of our 42 presidents were not elected.
| Originally Posted by ratmist
Well, first of all, McCain is 71. He'll be 72 in August. |
Yep, you're right. My bad.
Quote:
| Originally Posted by ratmist
Secondly, while I see that McCain's health isn't a problem for you, the fact that it is of concern to others doesn't mean it's fair for you to call that ageism. |
Well, he doesn't really seem to be in any sort of ill health, so no it isn't a concern. But, the assumption that it is problematic due to his age is the definition of ageism, so its more than fair. Just calling a spade a spade. My question was regarding why people are OK with ageism.[/quote]
Quote:
| Originally Posted by ratmist
Thirdly, the failure of JFK and his administration to be open and forthcoming about Addison's Disease lead to the 25th Amendment, providing for two mechanisms to cover inability or impairment of Presidential faculties: one for a President to step down temporarily, the other to be removed by the Vice President and Cabinet. Yes, voting for anyone is voting for everyone that comes with them. However, history has shown us that it is extremely rare for the Vice-President to actually become President. Therefore, it's entirely appropriate to focus on the actual candidate and his/her ability to do the job, rather than assume that the rest of the cabinet and the VP will sort it out in the event of poor health. |
Hmm. not so rare. 8 of our 42 presidents were not elected.
ratmist
Well-known member
Quote:
Can't argue that military service gives a President a better perspective, but the President is still going to rely on the Joint Chiefs of Staff more than his/her personal experiences. To me, they outweigh any personal experiences the President may or may not have, because chances are, the President will never have served long enough to accrue the kind of experience needed to do without the help and guidance of the Joint Chiefs.
Also, last time I checked, Bush's 'military credentials' were pretty pitiful, and he still sent us to war more than once. When he did, he was on the highest public approval rating of his presidency. Just goes to show, whether the President was in the military or not, it's down to the administration of the military more than just the role played by the Commander in Chief.
| Originally Posted by Shimmer
It's not the be all and end all of my criteria for who receives my vote, by any stretch, but someone who is going to be in the position to command millions of people without having EVER been in their shoes? It's a recipe for disaster, IMO. Does it make them a better president if they've served? Possibly, possibly not, but it certainly does give them a perspective of the lives they impact *very* directly, perhaps even more than the average American's life. |
Can't argue that military service gives a President a better perspective, but the President is still going to rely on the Joint Chiefs of Staff more than his/her personal experiences. To me, they outweigh any personal experiences the President may or may not have, because chances are, the President will never have served long enough to accrue the kind of experience needed to do without the help and guidance of the Joint Chiefs.
Also, last time I checked, Bush's 'military credentials' were pretty pitiful, and he still sent us to war more than once. When he did, he was on the highest public approval rating of his presidency. Just goes to show, whether the President was in the military or not, it's down to the administration of the military more than just the role played by the Commander in Chief.
Shimmer
Well-known member
Quote:
Very very true.
| Originally Posted by ratmist
Can't argue that military service gives a President a better perspective, but the President is still going to rely on the Joint Chiefs of Staff more than his/her personal experiences. To me, they outweigh any personal experiences the President may or may not have, because chances are, the President will never have served long enough to accrue the kind of experience needed to do without the help and guidance of the Joint Chiefs. Also, last time I checked, Bush's 'military credentials' were pretty pitiful, and he still sent us to war more than once. When he did, he was on the highest public approval rating of his presidency. Just goes to show, whether the President was in the military or not, it's down to the administration of the military more than just the role played by the Commander in Chief. |
Very very true.
ratmist
Well-known member
Quote:
The question you pose is a bit of a straw man, so I'm going to avoid it for now. The assumption that with old age comes variable health concerns is a medical fact, not an opinion. If that's ageism, then we're all going to be quite offended with our doctors when we get older.
As far as giving birth, if a female President wanted to do that, that'd be her choice. But there is an age limit to even running for president at 35, but it's highly unlikely someone of that age would be elected, whether female or not. Even at the age of the youngest candidate right now - Obama, who turns 47 in August - a woman of 47 would most likely be too old to get pregnant without medical assistance, and even with medical assistance would most likely fail to conceive, let alone bring to term. The youngest ever president was 42 (Teddy Roosevelt) but he was a governor and VP before he became President by succession, so I'm just going to ignore your pregnancy argument as a parallel for legitimate ageism.
Quote:
Actually it's 9 out of 43, including the current President.
1. John Tyler - took over in 1841 when Harrison died of pneumonia. That would almost certainly not kill a president today.
2. Millard Fillmore - Took over in 1850 after Zachary Taylor died from gastroenteritis or heat stroke. That would not kill a 21st century president in all likelihood.
3. Andrew Johnson - 1865, following the assassination of Lincoln. Lincoln had poor health but that isn't what allowed Johnson to take over. Took a bullet to do that.
4. Chester A Arthur - took over when James A Garfield was assassinated in 1881. Assassination isn't ill health, so the point is moot.
5. Theodore Roosevelt - 1901, after McKinley was shot. Again, not ill health.
6. Calvin Coolidge - took over in 1923 when Warren Harding developed pneumonia during a cross-country tour and died of a heart attack or stroke a week later. It's iffy whether a modern president would have died. Surely the pneumonia would've madea 21st century Harding stop touring, at least long enough to recover. So that's 1 for ill health, but I still think a 21st century president may have been able to recover.
7. Harry S Truman - 1945. This is the only one where I think it's fair to say the VP became President as a result of the President's ill health. FDR had a huge list of health problems, but he really died as a result of all of them.
8. Lyndon B Johnson - 1963, took over when JFK was shot.
9. Gerald R Ford - 1973, and really doesn't count because he took over when Nixon resigned. Ill health of the incumbent had nothing to do with it... unless you count the fact that Nixon was a nutbag.
----
In total, I'd say 1 as a result of ill health of the incumbent, 4 if you count diseases that wouldn't kill a sitting President today unless the numerous staff members, doctors and family members didn't watch his/her health closely - like that's possible, given the situation. That's a 2.32% to 9.3% chance of succession, and I'd weight that statistic closer to the bottom number than the top, given medical science.
So. Yes, I think it's fair to think about whether someone can physically handle the job, and not really focus too much on the VP or the cabinet. The cabinet can be replaced fairly easily, after all. And the VP? Well, it's important to be happy with whoever the VP is, but at the end of the day, you're really voting in the candidate, not his/her buddy.
| Originally Posted by Aprilrobin
Well, he doesn't really seem to be in any sort of ill health, so no it isn't a concern. But, the assumption that it is problematic due to his age is the definition of ageism, so its more than fair. Just calling a spade a spade. My question was regarding why people are OK with ageism. |
The question you pose is a bit of a straw man, so I'm going to avoid it for now. The assumption that with old age comes variable health concerns is a medical fact, not an opinion. If that's ageism, then we're all going to be quite offended with our doctors when we get older.
As far as giving birth, if a female President wanted to do that, that'd be her choice. But there is an age limit to even running for president at 35, but it's highly unlikely someone of that age would be elected, whether female or not. Even at the age of the youngest candidate right now - Obama, who turns 47 in August - a woman of 47 would most likely be too old to get pregnant without medical assistance, and even with medical assistance would most likely fail to conceive, let alone bring to term. The youngest ever president was 42 (Teddy Roosevelt) but he was a governor and VP before he became President by succession, so I'm just going to ignore your pregnancy argument as a parallel for legitimate ageism.
Quote:
| Originally Posted by Aprilrobin
Hmm. not so rare. 8 of our 42 presidents were not elected. |
Actually it's 9 out of 43, including the current President.
1. John Tyler - took over in 1841 when Harrison died of pneumonia. That would almost certainly not kill a president today.
2. Millard Fillmore - Took over in 1850 after Zachary Taylor died from gastroenteritis or heat stroke. That would not kill a 21st century president in all likelihood.
3. Andrew Johnson - 1865, following the assassination of Lincoln. Lincoln had poor health but that isn't what allowed Johnson to take over. Took a bullet to do that.
4. Chester A Arthur - took over when James A Garfield was assassinated in 1881. Assassination isn't ill health, so the point is moot.
5. Theodore Roosevelt - 1901, after McKinley was shot. Again, not ill health.
6. Calvin Coolidge - took over in 1923 when Warren Harding developed pneumonia during a cross-country tour and died of a heart attack or stroke a week later. It's iffy whether a modern president would have died. Surely the pneumonia would've madea 21st century Harding stop touring, at least long enough to recover. So that's 1 for ill health, but I still think a 21st century president may have been able to recover.
7. Harry S Truman - 1945. This is the only one where I think it's fair to say the VP became President as a result of the President's ill health. FDR had a huge list of health problems, but he really died as a result of all of them.
8. Lyndon B Johnson - 1963, took over when JFK was shot.
9. Gerald R Ford - 1973, and really doesn't count because he took over when Nixon resigned. Ill health of the incumbent had nothing to do with it... unless you count the fact that Nixon was a nutbag.
----
In total, I'd say 1 as a result of ill health of the incumbent, 4 if you count diseases that wouldn't kill a sitting President today unless the numerous staff members, doctors and family members didn't watch his/her health closely - like that's possible, given the situation. That's a 2.32% to 9.3% chance of succession, and I'd weight that statistic closer to the bottom number than the top, given medical science.
So. Yes, I think it's fair to think about whether someone can physically handle the job, and not really focus too much on the VP or the cabinet. The cabinet can be replaced fairly easily, after all. And the VP? Well, it's important to be happy with whoever the VP is, but at the end of the day, you're really voting in the candidate, not his/her buddy.
thehannahband
Active member
I'm writing in Ron Paul
