What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

John McCain (1 Viewer)

Is it time to forgive John McCain? I'm starting to enjoy hearing from him again.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/dana-milbank-john-mccain-the-maverick-is-back/2013/07/22/eacdecc2-f30b-11e2-ae43-b31dc363c3bf_story.html?tid=pm_opinions_pop

The Senate was out of session Monday, but John McCain was on Capitol Hill, joking, as he often does, about “trying to do the Lord’s work here in the city of Satan.”

On this particular day, the Lord’s work involved a bit of bowel humor. “There was a poll recently on the favorability of everything in American life,” he told a gathering in the Russell Senate Office Building, upstairs from his office. “The favorability numbers of Congress ranked just below a colonoscopy. So we are trying to raise it at least above that.”

The Arizona Republican is certainly doing his part to raise his colleagues’ image above that of the intestinal probe. On Sunday, he appeared on CNN, praising President Obama’s speech on the George Zimmerman case and proposing a review of the “stand your ground” laws that came to attention because of the killing of Trayvon Martin.

Days earlier, McCain had brokered a deal averting a procedural meltdown in the Senate over the filibuster. Before that, he was a key figure in drafting the bipartisan immigration bill that cleared the Senate. Also this year, he has called some of his hard-line Republican colleagues “wacko birds” and has criticized them for blocking a budget resolution.

All of this is to say the Mac is Back. Again.

It has been a long wait. The maverick of 2000 and the thorn in George W. Bush’s side during the years that followed became a very different figure as he captured the 2008 Republican nomination, gave us Sarah Palin, fought against health-care reform and staved off a tea party challenger in 2010. He walked away from earlier positions on tax cuts, campaign finance reform, immigration, climate change, gays in the military and other issues. When he continued that course even after the 2010 election, I figured he had been lost to the right wing.

For 20 minutes Monday, I strolled with McCain in the Russell Building and sat in his office, getting his perspective on his retirement as maverick and subsequent reactivation. He acknowledged that he changed his emphasis on immigration in part “to be in tune with the people of Arizona,” and he said he thought it his duty as the party’s former nominee to wage “a bitter fight” against Obamacare.

But he argued that the bigger change was in the circumstances. During the early Bush years, when Republicans were firmly in control of government, he resisted his own party and voted against Bush’s early tax cuts. After Democrats took the reins, he turned his antagonism against them. Now power is divided, and McCain sees much of the problem coming from fellow Republicans.

“There’s a view,” he said, “that a reason for coming here is not to get something done but to prevent anything from getting done.” He cited the standoff on a budget resolution: Republicans beat up on Senate Democrats for years for failing to pass a budget, and now that the Senate has finally passed a budget, Republicans are objecting to the Senate naming conferees to negotiate a budget with the House.

He’s also got a problem with the roughly 15 isolationists in the Senate GOP caucus, a few of whom earned his famous “wacko birds” label. McCain claims he borrowed the phrase from the Wall Street Journal — “not that I disagreed with it.”

Many on the left won’t forgive McCain his trespasses in 2008 and 2010, and many on the right won’t forgive what he did before and since. But McCain has arguably turned himself into the most important legislator in a generation, at the center of the debate on war, terrorism, spending, corruption, health care and just about everything else. Last week, McCain met for two hours with Obama and Vice President Biden on security matters; Monday morning, he had a tete-a-tete with Secretary of State John Kerry.

When I caught up with him Monday afternoon, he was pitching legislation to replace the dollar bill with a coin; on Tuesday, he’s talking up legislation allowing people to order cable channels a la carte.

McCain laughed frequently during our meeting, and he seemed to relish his return to the indispensable-man role. “What else?” he kept asking me, after I had exhausted my list of questions. He claimed not to be discouraged by the colonoscopy-level state of Congress. “My strength and weakness is I enjoy being in the arena,” he said, quoting his hero, Teddy Roosevelt. “I like the fight.”

That’s good news. The important thing is not where McCain has been but that he’s back. He’s needed more than ever.

 
Praising Obama's Travyon Martin speech- check.

Helping to draft the immigration bill- check.

Slamming Rand Paul and the crazy isolationists- check

Distancing himself from the Tea Party- check

THIS is the McCain I always loved, who disappeared in 2008 because he wanted so badly to be President, and who sold his soul in 2010 in order to be re-elected. But now the real man is back- the guy who takes after Barry Goldwater as a great patriot and statesman. :thumbup:

 
Praising Obama's Travyon Martin speech- check.

Helping to draft the immigration bill- check.

Slamming Rand Paul and the crazy isolationists- check

Distancing himself from the Tea Party- check

THIS is the McCain I always loved, who disappeared in 2008 because he wanted so badly to be President, and who sold his soul in 2010 in order to be re-elected. But now the real man is back- the guy who takes after Barry Goldwater as a great patriot and statesman. :thumbup:
Obama's Martin speech sucked

 
Praising Obama's Travyon Martin speech- check.

Helping to draft the immigration bill- check.

Slamming Rand Paul and the crazy isolationists- check

Distancing himself from the Tea Party- check

THIS is the McCain I always loved, who disappeared in 2008 because he wanted so badly to be President, and who sold his soul in 2010 in order to be re-elected. But now the real man is back- the guy who takes after Barry Goldwater as a great patriot and statesman. :thumbup:
What's that definition of "patriot" you're using again? Not that I'm saying McCain isn't one, but it seems your particular definition is "politician who agrees with me on my major issues".

 
Praising Obama's Travyon Martin speech- check.

Helping to draft the immigration bill- check.

Slamming Rand Paul and the crazy isolationists- check

Distancing himself from the Tea Party- check

THIS is the McCain I always loved, who disappeared in 2008 because he wanted so badly to be President, and who sold his soul in 2010 in order to be re-elected. But now the real man is back- the guy who takes after Barry Goldwater as a great patriot and statesman. :thumbup:
What's that definition of "patriot" you're using again? Not that I'm saying McCain isn't one, but it seems your particular definition is "politician who agrees with me on my major issues".
:P

Noticed that did you? I was being a little tongue in cheek there. I was channeling Sean Hannity- he does that all time, and goes on to imply that those who disagree with him are unpatriotic.

In all seriousness, John McCain is a great American hero and patriot for reasons which have nothing to do with his political views.

 
Praising Obama's Travyon Martin speech- check.

Helping to draft the immigration bill- check.

Slamming Rand Paul and the crazy isolationists- check

Distancing himself from the Tea Party- check

THIS is the McCain I always loved, who disappeared in 2008 because he wanted so badly to be President, and who sold his soul in 2010 in order to be re-elected. But now the real man is back- the guy who takes after Barry Goldwater as a great patriot and statesman. :thumbup:
What's that definition of "patriot" you're using again? Not that I'm saying McCain isn't one, but it seems your particular definition is "politician who agrees with me on my major issues".
:P

Noticed that did you? I was being a little tongue in cheek there. I was channeling Sean Hannity- he does that all time, and goes on to imply that those who disagree with him are unpatriotic.

In all seriousness, John McCain is a great American hero and patriot for reasons which have nothing to do with his political views.
Despite your best efforts recently, you're no Sean Hannity.

I won't say Hannity is a moron, since I believe that Hannity, Limbaugh, Olbermann, and most of the other trolls on both sides know exactly what they're doing and don't believe a word of what they spew on camera/microphone. They just know what generates ratings.

 
Just because he's beaten the odds so far doesn't mean he was a good bet in 2008. Besides, we don't want old people running the country.

 
Saw him and his daughter on Leno the other night. He's still alive. And his daughter has huge cans and I'm pretty sure she is proud of them.
She's not shy about showing them off.

Saw him and his daughter on Leno the other night. He's still alive. And his daughter has huge cans and I'm pretty sure she is proud of them.
"A famous man once said, 'The people have spoken........the bastards'"
And his daughter has huge cans and I'm pretty sure she is proud of them.
Oh yes she is.

 
I would have voted for McCain had he not chose Palin as his running mate. I am sure glad he did though cause McCain would have us fighting everywhere.

I swear the guy never met a war he didn't like.

 
John McCain - born 8/29/36 - age at running for president Nov. 2008 = 72

Hillary Clinton - born 4/27/47 - age at running for president Nov. 2016 = 69

 
Last edited by a moderator:
John McCain - born 8/29/36 - age at running for president Nov. 2008 = 72

Hillary Clinton - born 4/27/47 - age at running for president Nov. 2016 = 69
Now adjust for life expectancy by gender and you'll see why they're not at all alike.

We'd also eventually have to compare the stupidity of the respective vice presidential nominees who would replace them, but obviously that won't happen for another two years. Seriously doubt they come within shouting distance of McCain's choice, though.

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
John McCain - born 8/29/36 - age at running for president Nov. 2008 = 72

Hillary Clinton - born 4/27/47 - age at running for president Nov. 2016 = 69
Now adjust for life expectancy by gender and you'll see why they're not at all alike.

We'd also eventually have to compare the stupidity of the respective vice presidential nominees who would replace them, but obviously that won't happen for another two years. Seriously doubt they come within shouting distance of McCain's choice, though.
Wait, it's based on life expectancy? Please. - ETA She old.

The VP thing is totally far afield, but once you get past Palin and into the realm of "real" politicians few come as gaffe laden as Joltin' Joe.
Srsly, why would life expectancy come into play when discussing a candidate's age and choice of running mate?

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
John McCain - born 8/29/36 - age at running for president Nov. 2008 = 72

Hillary Clinton - born 4/27/47 - age at running for president Nov. 2016 = 69
Now adjust for life expectancy by gender and you'll see why they're not at all alike.

We'd also eventually have to compare the stupidity of the respective vice presidential nominees who would replace them, but obviously that won't happen for another two years. Seriously doubt they come within shouting distance of McCain's choice, though.
Wait, it's based on life expectancy? Please. - ETA She old.

The VP thing is totally far afield, but once you get past Palin and into the realm of "real" politicians few come as gaffe laden as Joltin' Joe.
What's "it"? I assumed "it" was the chance that their health would falter in office, which is obviously based on life expectancy and since they'd be replaced by the VP not sure why that's far afield. Part of the reason that McCain's age was such a big concern was that if he died he would have been replaced by an absolute moron. That's the reason the OP started this thread- to continue to point out that if we had rolled the dice on McCain six years ago our nation so far would have been spared a Palin presidency.

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
John McCain - born 8/29/36 - age at running for president Nov. 2008 = 72

Hillary Clinton - born 4/27/47 - age at running for president Nov. 2016 = 69
Now adjust for life expectancy by gender and you'll see why they're not at all alike.

We'd also eventually have to compare the stupidity of the respective vice presidential nominees who would replace them, but obviously that won't happen for another two years. Seriously doubt they come within shouting distance of McCain's choice, though.
Wait, it's based on life expectancy? Please. - ETA She old.

The VP thing is totally far afield, but once you get past Palin and into the realm of "real" politicians few come as gaffe laden as Joltin' Joe.
It wasn't just age with McCain. He also had a history of recurring skin cancer.

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
John McCain - born 8/29/36 - age at running for president Nov. 2008 = 72

Hillary Clinton - born 4/27/47 - age at running for president Nov. 2016 = 69
Now adjust for life expectancy by gender and you'll see why they're not at all alike.

We'd also eventually have to compare the stupidity of the respective vice presidential nominees who would replace them, but obviously that won't happen for another two years. Seriously doubt they come within shouting distance of McCain's choice, though.
Wait, it's based on life expectancy? Please. - ETA She old.

The VP thing is totally far afield, but once you get past Palin and into the realm of "real" politicians few come as gaffe laden as Joltin' Joe.
Srsly, why would life expectancy come into play when discussing a candidate's age and choice of running mate?
I don't think health expectancy has anything to do with it but I do think age is a legitimate factor, it was for McCain. That he has done so well doesn't mitigate that it was a concern back then. But then it should be a concern for Hillary as well. No VP is ever going to be as legit or desired as the president, really you are voting for the man. If you think he may not make it because of age or get a little daffy then that's an issue.

As part of that we should ask for complete medical histories for all candidates, but I also think we should be getting everything about them, HS & college transcripts, driving and criminal records, you name it, it should be public.

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
John McCain - born 8/29/36 - age at running for president Nov. 2008 = 72

Hillary Clinton - born 4/27/47 - age at running for president Nov. 2016 = 69
Now adjust for life expectancy by gender and you'll see why they're not at all alike.

We'd also eventually have to compare the stupidity of the respective vice presidential nominees who would replace them, but obviously that won't happen for another two years. Seriously doubt they come within shouting distance of McCain's choice, though.
Wait, it's based on life expectancy? Please. - ETA She old.

The VP thing is totally far afield, but once you get past Palin and into the realm of "real" politicians few come as gaffe laden as Joltin' Joe.
What's "it"? I assumed "it" was the chance that their health would falter in office, which is obviously based on life expectancy and since they'd be replaced by the VP not sure why that's far afield. Part of the reason that McCain's age was such a big concern was that if he died he would have been replaced by an absolute moron. That's the reason the OP started this thread- to continue to point out that if we had rolled the dice on McCain six years ago our nation so far would have been spared a Palin presidency.
Look Palin didn't belong in the WH as VP, period. But that's a whole other issue. It's interesting (and nice) that McCain is doing so well but then the stress of the presidency is much greater. The age factor wasn't such a big deal, I do think we have a right to examine a candidate's health to the hilt though, even younger ones. Kennedy was a perfect example, we elected a guy with Addison's disease and a happy pill habit, the people had a right to know that.

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
John McCain - born 8/29/36 - age at running for president Nov. 2008 = 72

Hillary Clinton - born 4/27/47 - age at running for president Nov. 2016 = 69
Now adjust for life expectancy by gender and you'll see why they're not at all alike.

We'd also eventually have to compare the stupidity of the respective vice presidential nominees who would replace them, but obviously that won't happen for another two years. Seriously doubt they come within shouting distance of McCain's choice, though.
Wait, it's based on life expectancy? Please. - ETA She old.

The VP thing is totally far afield, but once you get past Palin and into the realm of "real" politicians few come as gaffe laden as Joltin' Joe.
Srsly, why would life expectancy come into play when discussing a candidate's age and choice of running mate?
I don't think health expectancy has anything to do with it but I do think age is a legitimate factor, it was for McCain. That he has done so well doesn't mitigate that it was a concern back then. But then it should be a concern for Hillary as well. No VP is ever going to be as legit or desired as the president, really you are voting for the man. If you think he may not make it because of age or get a little daffy then that's an issue.

As part of that we should ask for complete medical histories for all candidates, but I also think we should be getting everything about them, HS & college transcripts, driving and criminal records, you name it, it should be public.
I'm not sure why you seem not to be grasping this very simple, indisputable point: a 69 year old woman is, on average, much further from death than a 72 year old man. All other factors being equal they're a full decade apart. That's why you can't compare the two on equal footing and say if it's a concern for the 72 year old man it's an equal concern for a 69 year old woman. It's not.

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
John McCain - born 8/29/36 - age at running for president Nov. 2008 = 72

Hillary Clinton - born 4/27/47 - age at running for president Nov. 2016 = 69
Now adjust for life expectancy by gender and you'll see why they're not at all alike.

We'd also eventually have to compare the stupidity of the respective vice presidential nominees who would replace them, but obviously that won't happen for another two years. Seriously doubt they come within shouting distance of McCain's choice, though.
Wait, it's based on life expectancy? Please. - ETA She old.

The VP thing is totally far afield, but once you get past Palin and into the realm of "real" politicians few come as gaffe laden as Joltin' Joe.
Srsly, why would life expectancy come into play when discussing a candidate's age and choice of running mate?
I don't think health expectancy has anything to do with it but I do think age is a legitimate factor, it was for McCain. That he has done so well doesn't mitigate that it was a concern back then. But then it should be a concern for Hillary as well. No VP is ever going to be as legit or desired as the president, really you are voting for the man. If you think he may not make it because of age or get a little daffy then that's an issue.

As part of that we should ask for complete medical histories for all candidates, but I also think we should be getting everything about them, HS & college transcripts, driving and criminal records, you name it, it should be public.
I'm not sure why you seem not to be grasping this very simple, indisputable point: a 69 year old woman is, on average, much further from death than a 72 year old man. All other factors being equal they're a full decade apart. That's why you can't compare the two on equal footing and say if it's a concern for the 72 year old man it's an equal concern for a 69 year old woman. It's not.
And someone who is 50 can be in worse health than a 70 year old. - See JFK.

A 69 year old woman can be in worse shape than a 72 year old man.

My point was solely that people who were concerned about McCain just because of his age should have the same concern about Hillary, life expectancy is meaningless because it's all about the person's health.

Reagan was 76 when he wrapped up in Jan. 89, Hillary will be older than that at the end of a 2nd term.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
SaintsInDome2006 said:
John McCain - born 8/29/36 - age at running for president Nov. 2008 = 72

Hillary Clinton - born 4/27/47 - age at running for president Nov. 2016 = 69
Now adjust for life expectancy by gender and you'll see why they're not at all alike.

We'd also eventually have to compare the stupidity of the respective vice presidential nominees who would replace them, but obviously that won't happen for another two years. Seriously doubt they come within shouting distance of McCain's choice, though.
Wait, it's based on life expectancy? Please. - ETA She old.

The VP thing is totally far afield, but once you get past Palin and into the realm of "real" politicians few come as gaffe laden as Joltin' Joe.
Srsly, why would life expectancy come into play when discussing a candidate's age and choice of running mate?
I don't think health expectancy has anything to do with it but I do think age is a legitimate factor, it was for McCain. That he has done so well doesn't mitigate that it was a concern back then. But then it should be a concern for Hillary as well. No VP is ever going to be as legit or desired as the president, really you are voting for the man. If you think he may not make it because of age or get a little daffy then that's an issue.

As part of that we should ask for complete medical histories for all candidates, but I also think we should be getting everything about them, HS & college transcripts, driving and criminal records, you name it, it should be public.
I'm not sure why you seem not to be grasping this very simple, indisputable point: a 69 year old woman is, on average, much further from death than a 72 year old man. All other factors being equal they're a full decade apart. That's why you can't compare the two on equal footing and say if it's a concern for the 72 year old man it's an equal concern for a 69 year old woman. It's not.
And someone who is 50 can be in worse health than a 70 year old.

A 69 year old woman can be in worse shape than a 72 year old man.

My point was solely that people who were concerned about McCain just because of his age should have the same concern about Hillary, life expectancy is meaningless because it's all about the person's health.

Reagan was 76 when he wrapped up in Jan. 89, Hillary will be older than that at the end of a 2nd term.
Reagan could barely remember his name when he checked out of the White House.

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
John McCain - born 8/29/36 - age at running for president Nov. 2008 = 72

Hillary Clinton - born 4/27/47 - age at running for president Nov. 2016 = 69
Now adjust for life expectancy by gender and you'll see why they're not at all alike.

We'd also eventually have to compare the stupidity of the respective vice presidential nominees who would replace them, but obviously that won't happen for another two years. Seriously doubt they come within shouting distance of McCain's choice, though.
Wait, it's based on life expectancy? Please. - ETA She old.

The VP thing is totally far afield, but once you get past Palin and into the realm of "real" politicians few come as gaffe laden as Joltin' Joe.
Srsly, why would life expectancy come into play when discussing a candidate's age and choice of running mate?
I don't think health expectancy has anything to do with it but I do think age is a legitimate factor, it was for McCain. That he has done so well doesn't mitigate that it was a concern back then. But then it should be a concern for Hillary as well. No VP is ever going to be as legit or desired as the president, really you are voting for the man. If you think he may not make it because of age or get a little daffy then that's an issue.

As part of that we should ask for complete medical histories for all candidates, but I also think we should be getting everything about them, HS & college transcripts, driving and criminal records, you name it, it should be public.
I'm not sure why you seem not to be grasping this very simple, indisputable point: a 69 year old woman is, on average, much further from death than a 72 year old man. All other factors being equal they're a full decade apart. That's why you can't compare the two on equal footing and say if it's a concern for the 72 year old man it's an equal concern for a 69 year old woman. It's not.
And someone who is 50 can be in worse health than a 70 year old.

A 69 year old woman can be in worse shape than a 72 year old man.

My point was solely that people who were concerned about McCain just because of his age should have the same concern about Hillary, life expectancy is meaningless because it's all about the person's health.

Reagan was 76 when he wrapped up in Jan. 89, Hillary will be older than that at the end of a 2nd term.
Reagan could barely remember his name when he checked out of the White House.
Right. Yes, for example. And Kennedy could at times barely walk and was occasionally high on pain pills. - So health is an issue. But when it comes to the older ages it becomes more relevant.

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
John McCain - born 8/29/36 - age at running for president Nov. 2008 = 72

Hillary Clinton - born 4/27/47 - age at running for president Nov. 2016 = 69
Now adjust for life expectancy by gender and you'll see why they're not at all alike.

We'd also eventually have to compare the stupidity of the respective vice presidential nominees who would replace them, but obviously that won't happen for another two years. Seriously doubt they come within shouting distance of McCain's choice, though.
Wait, it's based on life expectancy? Please. - ETA She old.

The VP thing is totally far afield, but once you get past Palin and into the realm of "real" politicians few come as gaffe laden as Joltin' Joe.
Srsly, why would life expectancy come into play when discussing a candidate's age and choice of running mate?
I don't think health expectancy has anything to do with it but I do think age is a legitimate factor, it was for McCain. That he has done so well doesn't mitigate that it was a concern back then. But then it should be a concern for Hillary as well. No VP is ever going to be as legit or desired as the president, really you are voting for the man. If you think he may not make it because of age or get a little daffy then that's an issue.

As part of that we should ask for complete medical histories for all candidates, but I also think we should be getting everything about them, HS & college transcripts, driving and criminal records, you name it, it should be public.
I'm not sure why you seem not to be grasping this very simple, indisputable point: a 69 year old woman is, on average, much further from death than a 72 year old man. All other factors being equal they're a full decade apart. That's why you can't compare the two on equal footing and say if it's a concern for the 72 year old man it's an equal concern for a 69 year old woman. It's not.
And someone who is 50 can be in worse health than a 70 year old. - See JFK.

A 69 year old woman can be in worse shape than a 72 year old man.

My point was solely that people who were concerned about McCain just because of his age should have the same concern about Hillary, life expectancy is meaningless because it's all about the person's health.

Reagan was 76 when he wrapped up in Jan. 89, Hillary will be older than that at the end of a 2nd term.
Your first post in this conversation was literally just their respective ages when they had taken/do take office. If life expectancy is meaningless and it's all about a person's health than there's no reason to cite their ages to begin with. You're arguing in circles, first saying age matters and then saying it doesn't when confronted with the differences between a 70ish year old man an a 70ish year old woman.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
We have a minimum age to be president...So lets add a maximum...I'd rather have a less wise young person than an Alzheimer stricken old person running this ship.

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
John McCain - born 8/29/36 - age at running for president Nov. 2008 = 72

Hillary Clinton - born 4/27/47 - age at running for president Nov. 2016 = 69
Now adjust for life expectancy by gender and you'll see why they're not at all alike.

We'd also eventually have to compare the stupidity of the respective vice presidential nominees who would replace them, but obviously that won't happen for another two years. Seriously doubt they come within shouting distance of McCain's choice, though.
Wait, it's based on life expectancy? Please. - ETA She old.

The VP thing is totally far afield, but once you get past Palin and into the realm of "real" politicians few come as gaffe laden as Joltin' Joe.
Srsly, why would life expectancy come into play when discussing a candidate's age and choice of running mate?
I don't think health expectancy has anything to do with it but I do think age is a legitimate factor, it was for McCain. That he has done so well doesn't mitigate that it was a concern back then. But then it should be a concern for Hillary as well. No VP is ever going to be as legit or desired as the president, really you are voting for the man. If you think he may not make it because of age or get a little daffy then that's an issue.

As part of that we should ask for complete medical histories for all candidates, but I also think we should be getting everything about them, HS & college transcripts, driving and criminal records, you name it, it should be public.
I'm not sure why you seem not to be grasping this very simple, indisputable point: a 69 year old woman is, on average, much further from death than a 72 year old man. All other factors being equal they're a full decade apart. That's why you can't compare the two on equal footing and say if it's a concern for the 72 year old man it's an equal concern for a 69 year old woman. It's not.
And someone who is 50 can be in worse health than a 70 year old. - See JFK.

A 69 year old woman can be in worse shape than a 72 year old man.

My point was solely that people who were concerned about McCain just because of his age should have the same concern about Hillary, life expectancy is meaningless because it's all about the person's health.

Reagan was 76 when he wrapped up in Jan. 89, Hillary will be older than that at the end of a 2nd term.
Your first post in this conversation was literally just their respective ages when they had taken/do take office. If life expectancy is meaningless and it's all about a person's health than there's no reason to cite their ages to begin with. You're arguing in circles, first saying age matters and then saying it doesn't when confronted with the differences between a 70ish year old man an a 70ish year old woman.
I was saying if it mattered to other people with McCain then it should matter with HC. That is not my view however.

I hear you on the life expectancy thing, I respect your view if that's how you see it. But to me it's purely a health issue - regardless of candidate age - and and I think we have a right to full information on someone's health status, and not just a report or summary from a physician.

Kennedy and Bush Jr. are two good examples of this, because of their past habits. I think McCain and HC both equally are also deserving of examination because of age.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
SaintsInDome2006 said:
John McCain - born 8/29/36 - age at running for president Nov. 2008 = 72

Hillary Clinton - born 4/27/47 - age at running for president Nov. 2016 = 69
Now adjust for life expectancy by gender and you'll see why they're not at all alike.

We'd also eventually have to compare the stupidity of the respective vice presidential nominees who would replace them, but obviously that won't happen for another two years. Seriously doubt they come within shouting distance of McCain's choice, though.
Wait, it's based on life expectancy? Please. - ETA She old.

The VP thing is totally far afield, but once you get past Palin and into the realm of "real" politicians few come as gaffe laden as Joltin' Joe.
Srsly, why would life expectancy come into play when discussing a candidate's age and choice of running mate?
I don't think health expectancy has anything to do with it but I do think age is a legitimate factor, it was for McCain. That he has done so well doesn't mitigate that it was a concern back then. But then it should be a concern for Hillary as well. No VP is ever going to be as legit or desired as the president, really you are voting for the man. If you think he may not make it because of age or get a little daffy then that's an issue.

As part of that we should ask for complete medical histories for all candidates, but I also think we should be getting everything about them, HS & college transcripts, driving and criminal records, you name it, it should be public.
I'm not sure why you seem not to be grasping this very simple, indisputable point: a 69 year old woman is, on average, much further from death than a 72 year old man. All other factors being equal they're a full decade apart. That's why you can't compare the two on equal footing and say if it's a concern for the 72 year old man it's an equal concern for a 69 year old woman. It's not.
And someone who is 50 can be in worse health than a 70 year old. - See JFK.

A 69 year old woman can be in worse shape than a 72 year old man.

My point was solely that people who were concerned about McCain just because of his age should have the same concern about Hillary, life expectancy is meaningless because it's all about the person's health.

Reagan was 76 when he wrapped up in Jan. 89, Hillary will be older than that at the end of a 2nd term.
Your first post in this conversation was literally just their respective ages when they had taken/do take office. If life expectancy is meaningless and it's all about a person's health than there's no reason to cite their ages to begin with. You're arguing in circles, first saying age matters and then saying it doesn't when confronted with the differences between a 70ish year old man an a 70ish year old woman.
I was saying if it mattered to other people with McCain then it should matter with HC. That is not my view however.

I hear you on the life expectancy thing, I respect your view if that's how you see it. But to me it's purely a health issue - regardless of candidate age - and and I think we have a right to full information on someone's health status, and not just a report or summary from a physician.

Kennedy and Bush Jr. are two good examples of this, because of their past habits. I think McCain and HC both equally are also deserving of examination because of age.
Right, this is what you were saying. And it was wrong. Although there's only three years separating their ages they are effectively a decade apart and thus not really comparable.

I appreciate that you think it's more complicated than comparing age and we should look deeper at the candidates' health, and I agree. But I wasn't arguing that point.

 
McCain's health was an issue. He was a POW for Pete's sake and had bouts with skin cancer. Dude couldn't even lift his arm above his shoulder and looked like he was made out of plastic in HD.

I'm no fan of Hillary, but she is not even close to the same health risk as McCain was.

 
McCain's health was an issue. He was a POW for Pete's sake and had bouts with skin cancer. Dude couldn't even lift his arm above his shoulder and looked like he was made out of plastic in HD.

I'm no fan of Hillary, but she is not even close to the same health risk as McCain was.
When Hillary becomes president, the main health risk will lie with the citizens of the world who are the target of her bombs, drones and endless war.

 
McCain's health was an issue. He was a POW for Pete's sake and had bouts with skin cancer. Dude couldn't even lift his arm above his shoulder and looked like he was made out of plastic in HD.

I'm no fan of Hillary, but she is not even close to the same health risk as McCain was.
When Hillary becomes president, the main health risk will lie with the citizens of the world who are the target of her bombs, drones and endless war.
You seem like such an angry young lad. I will pray for you.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top