John McCain circa 2000 vs Hillary Clinton now

[Dominus Atheos]

Just out of curiosity. From what I understand, he actually had principles back then. He said things like the bush tax cuts offend his conscience, or that Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson were agents of intolerance, or "War is wretched beyond description, and only a fool or a fraud could sentimentalize its cruel reality." Of course, I was 12 in 2000, so I'm just going by what I find on Wikiquote. It may be he was pandering to the center when he said all those things, I don't know.

Hillary Clinton needs no introduction, we've all become painfully familiar with her and her beliefs over the past several months.

So who would you vote for in a general election? Who's less right-leaning? Who would you rather have at the reigns of power?

Of course since then, John McMain has done a complete 440 on all those issues (yes, I know what I said), just changing his message as needed to suit whatever audience he's speaking to at the time.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

It seems that McCain was much better than shitlery before he went senile.

[The Spartan]

McCain. I would have actually voted for him back then. I might have even voted for him in 2004 had that been a possibility.

This election? I wouldn't vote for him with a gun to my head and Stalin facing him on the ballot. Something has happened to him in the interim, I don't know what it is, but whatever it may have been has turned him into something... wrong.

[Ziggy Stardust]

Wait ... are you saying go back in time to 2000 to vote for McCain or vote in 2008 for a McCain that is the same as he was in 2000?

In 2000, McCain was a damned good candidate. However, despite this, even this November he suddenly jumped back to how he was, it still wouldn't be worth voting for him. This coming election is more than about the candidates, it is (sadly) about the parties. Even if the Republicans had a great candidate, it would be a mistake to vote for them. This election is about getting the crazy right-wingers out of the position on influence they have held for so long. The Republican party holds too much baggage.

[Patrick Degan]

Spending eight years being Bush and Rove's bitch did something to the man.

[Darth Wong]

You know, it's entirely possible that he's just not too bright, and he was influenced by complete immersion in Republican propaganda. The commonly accepted line is that he has no principles and adopted whatever beliefs he needed to adopt in order to win. But having watched him speak, I am not getting an impression of intelligence from the man. How do we know he didn't hear all of those incredibly fallacious Republican "talking points" and find them utterly convincing because he lacked the critical thinking skills to see their flaws?

[Admiral Valdemar]

You know, it's entirely possible that he's just not too bright, and he was influenced by complete immersion in Republican propaganda. The commonly accepted line is that he has no principles and adopted whatever beliefs he needed to adopt in order to win. But having watched him speak, I am not getting an impression of intelligence from the man. How do we know he didn't hear all of those incredibly fallacious Republican "talking points" and find them utterly convincing because he lacked the critical thinking skills to see their flaws?

He did come out and state he "doesn't understand the economy", which is a great thing to own up to when we're entering a recessionary period. So I imagine he really is more inclined to need advisers than even Bush, if he really is just not all there.

Could still just be senility, which is no better.

[SirNitram]

You know, it's entirely possible that he's just not too bright, and he was influenced by complete immersion in Republican propaganda. The commonly accepted line is that he has no principles and adopted whatever beliefs he needed to adopt in order to win. But having watched him speak, I am not getting an impression of intelligence from the man. How do we know he didn't hear all of those incredibly fallacious Republican "talking points" and find them utterly convincing because he lacked the critical thinking skills to see their flaws?

He did come out and state he "doesn't understand the economy", which is a great thing to own up to when we're entering a recessionary period. So I imagine he really is more inclined to need advisers than even Bush, if he really is just not all there.

Could still just be senility, which is no better.

The problem with this theory is that it ignores his constant touting against lobbyists, while employing so many. Hell, his 'Financial Advisor'.. Which Vald just mentioned would be needed.. Is Phil Graham, lobbyist of UBS, the one who inserted a section into a bill that basically forbid the CFTC or SEC from touching the 'New financial vehicles' that were springing up in the Bush Administration.

If he's so senile as to be decrying lobbyists while paying one of the worst, he's unfit for the damn job.

[Darth Wong]

If he's so senile as to be decrying lobbyists while paying one of the worst, he's unfit for the damn job.

Have you seen him speak? He reminds me of my deceased grandmother.

[SirNitram]

If he's so senile as to be decrying lobbyists while paying one of the worst, he's unfit for the damn job.

Have you seen him speak? He reminds me of my deceased grandmother.

Please, I'm trying to scrub the lime-green background of his Tuesday speech from my mind.

It was so honestly pathetic. 'Hey, let's steal Barack's stuff, that'll work.'

[Admiral Valdemar]

Please, I'm trying to scrub the lime-green background of his Tuesday speech from my mind.

It was so honestly pathetic. 'Hey, let's steal Barack's stuff, that'll work.'

I missed his speech. Wasn't it along the lines of "Let's go and campaign in Bumfuck, USA and block the lib-ah-rul media from recording us. Then, I may, just may, be able to wing it."?

Great game plan, I must say.

[CaptainZoidberg]

You know, it's entirely possible that he's just not too bright, and he was influenced by complete immersion in Republican propaganda. The commonly accepted line is that he has no principles and adopted whatever beliefs he needed to adopt in order to win. But having watched him speak, I am not getting an impression of intelligence from the man. How do we know he didn't hear all of those incredibly fallacious Republican "talking points" and find them utterly convincing because he lacked the critical thinking skills to see their flaws?

John McCain probably took the SATs to get into the service, and that test has a pretty solid correlation to IQ (.8, lower today due to addition of writing).

I can't find his scores though...

[General Zod]

John McCain probably took the SATs to get into the service, and that test has a pretty solid correlation to IQ (.8, lower today due to addition of writing).

I can't find his scores though...

IQ isn't really the best measurement of critical thinking ability. Someone who's otherwise smart can still fall for stuff like creationist propaganda or Republitard scare-tactics because they don't know how to distinguish a legitimate argument from baseless fear-mongering.

[Metatwaddle]

John McCain probably took the SATs to get into the service, and that test has a pretty solid correlation to IQ (.8, lower today due to addition of writing).

I can't find his scores though...

IQ isn't really the best measurement of critical thinking ability. Someone who's otherwise smart can still fall for stuff like creationist propaganda or Republitard scare-tactics because they don't know how to distinguish a legitimate argument from baseless fear-mongering.

^ This. I know a kid who's 14 and in college, IQ in the fucking stratosphere, a real child prodigy, but he's personally handed me a "How Science Confirms The Bible" Christian proselytizing card, and the logic was bad even for evangelical literature.

[CaptainZoidberg]

John McCain probably took the SATs to get into the service, and that test has a pretty solid correlation to IQ (.8, lower today due to addition of writing).

I can't find his scores though...

IQ isn't really the best measurement of critical thinking ability. Someone who's otherwise smart can still fall for stuff like creationist propaganda or Republitard scare-tactics because they don't know how to distinguish a legitimate argument from baseless fear-mongering.

At least when I took it (a year ago), the SAT's Critical Reading section had questions like:

"Based on the above passage, how do you think the author would react to reading X" or "Which would be the most effective response to the following argument?"

And the Math section tries to give problems that you aren't used to, so it requires you to think on your feet.

If John McCain really fell for the idiotic Republican talking points he probably would've bombed the SATs or he's ignorant/malicious.

[Admiral Valdemar]

^ This. I know a kid who's 14 and in college, IQ in the fucking stratosphere, a real child prodigy, but he's personally handed me a "How Science Confirms The Bible" Christian proselytizing card, and the logic was bad even for evangelical literature.

Intelligence cannot be gauged well by a mere IQ test. How you deduce your answers in life is more important than what answers you have. Critical, objective thought is far more useful than being able to recite useless trivia, or do sums quickly in your head.

There are a great many clearly obvious things to me that many, I dare say, smarter people I know fail to grasp. Religion and energy being two prime examples.

[CaptainZoidberg]

Intelligence cannot be gauged well by a mere IQ test. How you deduce your answers in life is more important than what answers you have. Critical, objective thought is far more useful than being able to recite useless trivia, or do sums quickly in your head.

IQ tests and standardized tests don't include useless trivia or doing sums quickly.

This is what a modern critical reading SAT question looks like, if you're curious:

http://apps.collegeboard.com/qotd/question.do

IQ tests generally focus on things like finding patterns in shapes or numbers. Almost none of them force you to add anything, or memorize anything (I remember taking WISC while a child, and being asked how shadows worked. That's the only piece of "data" that I've really seen tested on an IQ test).

[Admiral Valdemar]

IQ tests and standardized tests don't include useless trivia or doing sums quickly.

This is what a modern critical reading SAT question looks like, if you're curious:

http://apps.collegeboard.com/qotd/question.do

IQ tests generally focus on things like finding patterns in shapes or numbers. Almost none of them force you to add anything, or memorize anything (I remember taking WISC while a child, and being asked how shadows worked. That's the only piece of "data" that I've really seen tested on an IQ test).

All of which I'm well aware of, having done a couple at school and college myself (and prelim entry exams for the military). Doesn't alter the fact that they are a very poor assessment of a uniquely vague trait within humans.

[Rogue 9]

As I've acknowledged before on this board, I wrote in McCain in 2004.

Now? Fuck no, I'm not voting for him. He's either surrendered his principles or he's gone senile; either way he's unfit for the Presidency.

[SirNitram]

Please, I'm trying to scrub the lime-green background of his Tuesday speech from my mind.

It was so honestly pathetic. 'Hey, let's steal Barack's stuff, that'll work.'

I missed his speech. Wasn't it along the lines of "Let's go and campaign in Bumfuck, USA and block the lib-ah-rul media from recording us. Then, I may, just may, be able to wing it."?

Great game plan, I must say.

His speech was in New Orleans, that place he keeps refusing to help at all, either the city or the refugees. It was Republi-version Obama. 'The RIGHT KIND of change. By which I mean I will give no real policy direction right now.' Signs said 'A Leader We Can Believe In'. 'That's not change we can believe in!'.

It was literally him stamping his feet and going 'No! No no no!' at Obama's message. All in front of a lime green background. Which naturally invited people to green-screen him into various ridiculousness.

[irishmick79]

McCain 2000, no question. McCain was actually a credible maverick reformer in 2000, and Hillary was and still is one of the most dangerously self-absorbed politicians in washington. Clinton frightens me with her completely self-serving political ambitions, and I would not vote for her to be President under any circumstances.

[Shroom Man 777]

So... when did McCain "break"?

[Patrick Degan]

You know, it's entirely possible that he's just not too bright, and he was influenced by complete immersion in Republican propaganda. The commonly accepted line is that he has no principles and adopted whatever beliefs he needed to adopt in order to win. But having watched him speak, I am not getting an impression of intelligence from the man. How do we know he didn't hear all of those incredibly fallacious Republican "talking points" and find them utterly convincing because he lacked the critical thinking skills to see their flaws?

Which lends some support to my theory that the modern GOP is actually a mind-control cult. It seems organised far more like a church than a political organ. It's members certainly act like cultists: they take in only their own internal propaganda, have rejected all outside information, and the way they react when confronted with reality is very much akin to cultists who've been drilled never to distrust the Sun Father.

The Gimp has had to swim in that toxic stew for eight long years now to preserve his own waning chances for the presidency, had at the start to embrace the very people who slandered and slimed him in South Carolina back in 2000. So it would be little surprise if he ended up completely remoulded. Once the will is broken, the mind becomes very malleable.

[Master of Cards]

So... when did McCain "break"?

2004-6 I stated hearing how he was buddying up to the Fundies and that speech at Liberty U.

[Vaporous]

He completely lost me in 2006 when he voted for the Military Comissions Act.