What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Is Not Knowing Who The President Of Mexico Is A Deal-Breaker? (1 Viewer)

Is Knowing the President of Mexico A Requirement For President?

  • Yes

    Votes: 15 23.8%

  • No

    Votes: 48 76.2%
  • Total voters
    63
Given the Dems weak field of candidates no.   Amy still seem the most level headed and the one I would vote for. 

 
msommer said:
Was not knowing what/where Aleppo was a deal breaker?
Click to expand...
I came in here to post something along the lines of "No, of course this isn't a deal breaker.  But boy is there ever a double standard when it comes to this sort of thing -- just ask George W. Bush and Gary Johnson."  

 
Da Guru said:
Given the Dems weak field of candidates no.   Amy still seem the most level headed and the one I would vote for. 
Click to expand...
Her executive experience is running a County Attorney's Office of what, 100 persons.  Her senate committees are not exactly overwhelming though I have great respect for both forestry and for rulemaking in the senate.  Her legislative accomplishments, once one looks past the numbers she touts, are quite minimal.  She has done more than I, but is not a compelling candidate as far as I can see.  Maybe if she governed her state for a term or two.   Of course I have this doubt about most Senators who have not governed before.  Others, maybe you, think philosophical bent, political positions and direction are more important.  I can't say you are wrong, I just have my doubts about testing someone's administrative and executive skills the first time out of the box on maybe the World's toughest management job.

 
OK, I just realized that I didn't know myself; I thought it was still Pena Nieto. So with that, I would like to announce that I am suspending my campaign for the Democratic nomination. I'm sure you all will be relieved to not have to see my TV ads blanketing your airwaves.

It's worth pointing out that both Bush and Obama had similar moments in their first presidential campaigns. Bush failed a "pop quiz" where he didn't know the leaders of Taiwan, Pakistan, India or Chechnya. Obama was in a debate with Hillary where neither of them seemed to know the name of Russian president Dimitry Medvedev.

 
zftcg said:
OK, I just realized that I didn't know myself; I thought it was still Pena Nieto. So with that, I would like to announce that I am suspending my campaign for the Democratic nomination. I'm sure you all will be relieved to not have to see my TV ads blanketing your airwaves.

It's worth pointing out that both Bush and Obama had similar moments in their first presidential campaigns. Bush failed a "pop quiz" where he didn't know the leaders of Taiwan, Pakistan, India or Chechnya. Obama was in a debate with Hillary where neither of them seemed to know the name of Russian president Dimitry Medvedev.
Click to expand...
Knowing the names of world leaders is to International Relations what knowing the precise dates of famous battles is to History.  More generally, it's the contrast of stuff you can look up on Wikipedia versus an understanding of theory.

 
IvanKaramazov said:
Knowing the names of world leaders is to International Relations what knowing the precise dates of famous battles is to History.  More generally, it's the contrast of stuff you can look up on Wikipedia versus an understanding of theory.
Click to expand...
As a history major, I heartily endorse this post.

 
rockaction said:
In all seriousness, I get your main point, and in addition to your point, I don't like the "gotcha" style of questioning from a sit-down reporter. It's sort of like what Katie Couric did to Palin and then insisted on upon her journo credentials in the aftermath.

There's a lot that went into it. But not to know who Obrador is when immigration will be front-and-center of the campaign seems stunning. 
Click to expand...
Fwiw I actually would like to see more of those questions. I don't have a problem with them. I think it's only good to test a candidate's basic knowledge. About Palin I'd grant that when that question was asked she was flying backstage during some campaign event, it wasn't really a time to be able to think and reflect. I know, Palin, but I'm sure if given a moment in a normal sit down she could have done better than stammering and uhuhhuhhh. That to me is fair to call that gotcha/unfair, even if the question was fine the situation was inappropriate.

But this was not unfair. AK was in a sitdown, she knew it would be with Telemundo (!) and she's a Senator. If you watch the interview you can see AK giving the ol' okiedoke expecting the interviewer to just let her do politicianspeak but he didn't play along. And if you watch some Euro/UK interviewers they're very much like this. I realize Telemundo is US but was definitely not a US style interview. I'll add that AK was on two different US Sunday talk shows this weekend and she was not asked about this in either that I recall.

And I think some basic testing of candidates' knowledge is good. In 2016 Hugh Hewitt had Trump on the ropes in a debate about the nuclear triad. But unlike the Telemundo interviewer he let Trump off the hook and explained what the triad was. But the terrible thing with Hewitt is he knew Trump was ignorant on the subject. Earlier in an interview on his radio show with Trump he had asked Trump about Al Quds. Trump had no clue what it was, no idea. Cut to 4 years later and Trump is spouting claims to justify his attack on the commander of Al Quds, putting us on the brink of war, and as it turned out a good deal of his justification for that attack was bogus (not the past terrorist acts part, but the imminent threat aspects).

In another well known incident in Louisiana David Duke was exposed in a much watched debate with Edwin Edwards when he was absolutely drilled into the ground on live tv about his lack of knowledge of LA's biggest industries. It ended up being a very important moment in our state's history. The man was an urbane shell of a fraud and that was visibly revealed.

For me it's always been about character, qualifications and experience. It's really disappointing that someone like Klobuchar couldn't even do the minimal prep for this interview, but I do think that these questions are good and useful.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
SaintsInDome2006 said:
Fwiw I actually would like to see more of those questions. I don't have a problem with them. I think it's only good to test a candidate's basic knowledge.
Click to expand...
I think this was the essence of your post, which was a good one, in my opinion.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Also, I only read the poll without knowing the accompanying context. Such knowledge is an expected requirement of serving as President, but not being elected as President.

 
rockaction said:
Somebody just told me if that's the deal-breaker my mind was never open.

i'd say that it's a symptom of completely not dealing with the immigration issue.

What say you, or is there a middle ground? 
Click to expand...
Your pathetic opinion caught cement shoes by a 4:1 margin.

Go away, now.

 
Juxtatarot said:
To be fair, she did seem to know who he was. Just not his name.  I’ve forgotten enough names on the spot to be forgiving to others.
Click to expand...
That’s the opposite of my impression. In the clip I saw, she wasn’t even asked his name; she was just asked if she knew anything about him. Her response was no: she knew that the President of Mexico was the President of Mexico and would be important to work with once she took office, but couldn’t say anything else about him including his name.

 
Ilov80s said:
Ok gotcha. I haven’t seen that thread and his post seemed out of the blue. 
Click to expand...
Yeah, I called her performance "pathetic" said her campaign had "cement shoes" and I was "gone" from potentially giving her my vote.

That might be why. But thanks for going with decorum; makes the place have a better look and feel to it. 

 
rockaction said:
Yeah, I called her performance "pathetic" said her campaign had "cement shoes" and I was "gone" from potentially giving her my vote.

That might be why. But thanks for going with decorum; makes the place have a better look and feel to it. 
Click to expand...
Oh well I agree with your assessment. That lack of preparation and unwillingness to admit it was quite bad.

 
Ilov80s said:
Oh well I agree with your assessment. That lack of preparation and unwillingness to admit it was quite bad.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I sort of have to say I didn't personalize those words toward another poster nor was I fulminating, mind you. I was using them as descriptors. I fear our GB Phantom JB got nicked here for not doing the same.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Maurile Tremblay said:
That’s the opposite of my impression. In the clip I saw, she wasn’t even asked his name; she was just asked if she knew anything about him. Her response was no: she knew that the President of Mexico was the President of Mexico and would be important to work with once she took office, but couldn’t say anything else about him including his name.
Click to expand...
I can't find a transcript and I can't watch the video at work.  I thought there was a sentence about USMCA and his election that made me think she knew who he was.  Perhaps I'm being a little generous.

 
Ilov80s said:
Wasn’t that just him misspeaking? He knows how many States there are. 
Click to expand...
This is exactly right IMO.  When you spend that much time on the campaign trail in what has to be a constant state of mental fatigue, it's inevitable that you occasionally slip up and say something that sounds dumb when ripped out of context.  We should cut people lots of slack over this sort of thing.

 
i said it once, and i'll say it again.  Trump is literally one of the dumbest people in the USA.  There is no deal breakers when compared to what is already in the oval office.  

 
My conclusion is that managing to get elected to a statewide or federal office is not necessarily a good qualification for higher office or even a cabinet position.  Sure people will vote for the lesser of two evils in the finals and hope that the lesser evil will be able to guide policy of their choice based on advice of the folks who actually know things, but in the semis it may be best to re-evaluate what we consider to be a valid resume.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Sam Quentin said:
My conclusion is that managing to get elected to a statewide or federal office is not necessarily a good qualification for higher office or even a cabinet position.  Sure people will vote for the lesser of two evils in the finals and hope that the lesser evil will be able to guide policy of their choice based on advice of the folks who actually know things, but in the semis it may be best to re-evaluate what we consider to be a valid resume.
Click to expand...
I don’t think it’s the getting elected part that we should stress but the work they have done after being elected. My question is:

A. Do you think we’ve done a poor job electing Presidents in our history?

B. Times have changed to warrant different qualifications?

The biggest difference I see in modern times is that military service/background doesn’t seem to be as important as it once was. 3 of the last 4 had no military background. The only other time we’ve seen that is the during the teens-20s with Wilson, Harding and Coolidge. 

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

GordonGekko
Operation Fast & Furious Scandal: Obama Administration's ATF Sent Guns To Drug Cartels (5/27/22 20:22 PST)
Replies
7
Views
536
Max Power
Max Power
Max Power
Every branch of the U.S. military is struggling to meet its 2022 recruiting goals
3 4 5
Replies
203
Views
6K
Max Power
Max Power
GordonGekko
(Baby Formula Shortage): Biden ADMITS He Knew Of Crisis In Early April (4/27/22 23:53 PST)
8 9 10
Replies
494
Views
12K
GordonGekko
GordonGekko

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Top