McCain: What the World Will Look Like in 2013

[Darius871]

Originally posted by Ramo
what McCain tries to communicate to electorate (i.e. not so subtly claiming that Obama is in bed with Hamas)

I don't concede that point to begin with. "Perceived by Hamas to be ultimately less dangerous to their interests" and "pro-Hamas" are two very different things, and you know it. Unless we know which was intended, then yes it is of minimal interest to me.

Originally posted by Ramo
(unless you actually think McCain's trying to point out Obama's supposed super badass diplomatic powers)

I can't begin to imagine where this one's coming from. Anyway, I've already put forth an alternate interpretation which is no less plausible in the absence of an actual substantive statement.

[Ramo]

No, you haven't. You're still trying to assert that McCain's point was purely academic. He, himself, pointed out it wasn't. Again, exactly how is the opinion of a member of Hamas on the US Presidential race of interest to the American voter?

[Darius871]

Originally posted by Ramo
No, you haven't.

"Perceived by Hamas to be ultimately less dangerous to their interests"

Originally posted by Ramo
You're still trying to assert that McCain's point was purely academic. He, himself, pointed out it wasn't. Again, exactly how is the opinion of a member of Hamas on the US Presidential race of interest to the American voter?

A) The reason I deleted the part of my post about the importance to voters was because McCain didn't say that exactly; it was merely the "indicative of how some of our enemies view America" line I mentioned later. See for yourself at 3:50:



In fact, he notably went on to say that in fact the movement of which Hamas is a part would continue to antagonize America regardless of what individual happens to occupy the White House. That statement seems to detract from your interpretation.

B) In any event, I wouldn't characterize it as "purely academic" by any means. Obviously there are many voters, especially Jewish voters, who may take Hamas' perception of its prospects as a relevant factor, especially considering that Hamas has a better vantage point from which to judge its prospects than we. Taking this factor into consideration doesn't necessarily require the premise that Obama is actually PRO-Hamas; it could just as easily mean that he'd be ever-so-slightly less hostile, or simply less involved, or both. It's a delicate issue that deserves more nuance than "pro-" or "anti-", which you of all people should understand.

[Ramo]

1. McCain's explaining his statement after the fact here to an audience and host that like Obama. I don't buy it for a minute. And again, it's contradicted by this:

But it's also a fact that a spokesperson from Hamas said that he approves of Obama's candidacy. I think that's of interest to the American people.

2. Obama and McCain have the same Hamas policies. In what respect is Obama "ever-so-slightly less hostile," etc.? You're saying that there's a difference ("Hamas has a better vantage point", etc.). What is it?

[Darius871]

Originally posted by Ramo
2. Obama and McCain have the same Hamas policies. In what respect is Obama "ever-so-slightly less hostile," etc.? You're saying that there's a difference ("Hamas has a better vantage point", etc.). What is it?

Something must have led Hamas to perceive a difference. Perception is all that matters.

Besides, regardless of what policies are purported on his website and in this or that speech, the mere fact that he hasn't used quite as much forceful rhetoric wrt Hamas may be enough to convince Hamas (and many American voters) that he would be ever-so-slightly less hostile than a GOP known hawk, or at the very least wouldn't be quite as involved in the conflict altogether. And of course, his 20-year attendance at an openly anti-Zionist (if not also anti-Semitic) church could understandably leave Hamas (and many American voters) questioning whether he might be ever-so-slightly less hostile or less involved than a GOP known hawk. Again, I fail to see how either inference, however misguided, requires the premise that he's PRO-Hamas.

[Ramo]

Let's deal with a hypothetical. A prominent member of AQ releases a statement that he wants McCain to be elected. Would it be fair game for Obama to say something like:

I think that the people should understand that I will be AQ’s worst nightmare.

I think it is very clear who AQ wants to be the next president of the United States. If Senator McCain is favored by AQ, I think people can make judgments accordingly.

?

[Ramo]

Something must have led Hamas to perceive a difference. Perception is all that matters.

If the only issue is perception, again, how is it of interest to the American public?

About "forceful rhetoric," how do you explain his comments to Rubin?

Again, I fail to see how either inference, however misguided, requires the premise that he's PRO-Hamas.

This is not an important distinction. Relatively pro-Hamas, if you will. They can have a lesser of two evils too. And McCain did say that "Senator Obama is favored by Hamas."

[Darius871]

Originally posted by Ramo
Let's deal with a hypothetical. A prominent member of AQ releases a statement that he wants McCain to be elected. Would it be fair game for Obama to say something like:

?

Sure, the caveat that "people can make judgments accordingly" is exactly why I'd have no problem with it. If certain voters happen to read more into it than what was actually intended, then that'd say more about the paranoid way they interpret the world around them than it would about any hypocrisy on Obama's part.

[Ramo]

If certain voters happen to read more into it than what was actually intended, then that'd say more about the paranoid way they interpret the world around them than it would about any hypocrisy on Obama's part.

You wouldn't say that Obama was unethically trying to get votes off of this paranoia? Because that exactly what he would be doing in this hypothetical...

[Darius871]

Originally posted by Ramo
If the only issue is perception, again, how is it of interest to the American public?

All I meant was that a voter, being aware that Hamas has been driven to that perception, would start to ask himself/herself "why?", and then Obama's actual vulnerabilities on the issue would come into play. Hamas must have had some reasons, and voters may adopt those reasons.

Originally posted by Ramo
About "forceful rhetoric," how do you explain his comments to Rubin?

The phrase "as much" should imply I'm talking moreso about quantity than quality. If he were banging this drum loudly enough and often enough, the common perception that he's "soft on Israel" (however misguided) shouldn't even exist.

That aside, Wright's shadow is something no amount of words can shake off. Few people will actually believe that a man as intelligent and articulate as Obama could sit through the same material weekly for two decades and not notice what was being said.

Originally posted by Ramo
This is not an important distinction. Relatively pro-Hamas, if you will. They can have a lesser of two evils too.

It is an important distinction. I'm not saying people would even find him "relatively pro-Hamas," or even "relatively less anti-Hamas"; rather it'd be along the lines of "anti-Hamas in word moreso than deed," i.e. relatively inactive in manifesting his belief. I can be "anti-pollution" but still not be active enough to actually picket or sue a violating factory.

Originally posted by Ramo
You wouldn't say that Obama was unethically trying to get votes off of this paranoia? Because that exactly what he would be doing in this hypothetical...

A) Automatically presuming his intention without any evidence is paranoid in itself. That's been my point from the beginning.
B) Even supposing hypothetically that it would be his intention, I don't find it a whole lot more unethical than exploiting an impressionable voter's sheer terror at the threats of foreclosure, medical bills, gas prices, etc. etc. etc. just to slither into office. I simply acknowledge that taking advantage of political capital, wherever it can be found, is an inevitable feature of any electoral process. It is for this very reason that I'm far more concerned about substantive policies that will be implemented during an actual term of office than about possible implications that may or may not have been intended by some politician's utterance to gain points in a campaign season. Hey come to think of it, I'm not concerned about the latter at all!

[Ramo]

All I meant was that a voter, being aware that Hamas has been driven to that perception, would start to ask himself/herself "why?", and then Obama's actual vulnerabilities on the issue would come into play. Hamas must have had some reasons, and voters may adopt those reasons.

WTF does that mean?

This is really simple. Presidential candidates who say that a terrorist group supports their opponents are bad people who practice foul politics. Those that say this when there's no substantive policy difference between the two on relations with this group, and when the candidate making the association has endorsed a softer line in a more private situation are lying hypocrites as well.

If he were banging this drum loudly enough and often enough, the common perception that he's "soft on Israel" (however misguided) shouldn't even exist.

He has been. His comments on Hamas are as hard lined and consistent as they come. They have to be because he's a black guy with Muslim grandparents running for President.

That aside, Wright's shadow is something no amount of words can shake off.

You're assuming that condemnations of Israel were a regular part of his sermons. No reason to think that's the case. And American diplomatic relations with Hamas is not a logical corollary to an opposition to Israeli settlement policy over the past few decades.

relatively inactive in manifesting his belief..

Where's the proof?

A) Automatically presuming his intention without any evidence is paranoid in itself. That's been my point from the beginning.

We can easily assume what his intention is. And from the way that the conversation has progressed, you know what that intention is too. That was my point from the beginning.

Even supposing hypothetically that it would be his intention, I don't find it a whole lot more unethical than exploiting an impressionable voter's sheer terror at the threats of foreclosure, medical bills, gas prices, etc. etc. etc. just to slither into office.

Fear-mongering based on terrorism (something that has recently traumatized this country) is ethically equivalent to fear-mongering based on whatever trivial domestic pander that you're talking about. Ok...

[Darius871]

Good lord, how to deconstruct why this conversation drifted so far...

1. Ramo: "[My personal interpretation of what McCain's unrelated statement was intended to implicitly suggest] =/= [what McCain is now explicitly stating]. Ergo, McCain must be a hypocrite."
2. Darius: "Why that's silly, hypocrisy requires two contradictory statements, but you've only quoted one and assumed the other. Or is there a second quote I'm not aware of?"
3. Ramo: [My personal interpretation of what McCain's unrelated statement was intended to implicitly suggest]
4. Darius: "That's not what I asked for. What's the bloody statement that completes the hypocrisy equation? Just give me that and I'll wholeheartedly agree."
5. Ramo: [My personal interpretation of what McCain's unrelated statement was intended to implicitly suggest]
6. Darius: [*sigh* Troll]
7. Ramo: [My personal interpretation of what McCain's unrelated statement was intended to implicitly suggest]
8. Darius: [Troll]
9. Ad infinitum...

Deep down my mind's still stuck at #2 and #4, but I'm guessing I won't get what I'm looking for...

[Ramo]

All I'd like to know is why McCain believes that the Hamas dude's opinion on the election should be germane to the American people's decision. You still haven't provided a half-way plausible explanation.

[DinoDoc]

Because he believes it can be made into an issue? Isn't that the reason why Obama said he'd go all the way back to the Keating 5 "scandal" to attack McCain with?

[Ramo]

Yes, the two are obviously comparable in import. Political corruption, some guy who's part of an organization that's a political pariah saying that he likes you. Same difference.