Why do we only have debates for candidates? I say quiz 'em about science, math, and language.

All debates do is give them a chance to talk about their ideas and their visions - which is fine. Those are good things to have. I want a president with ideas and a vision. Of course, the way the debates are run don't allow any details on those ideas and visions because never, in any debate I've seen, has the moderator stopped the debate and said, "I'm sorry - I need to have you actually offer an answer to the question. That was a fine tangent, but had nothing to do with what I asked".

But why don't we demand of our candidates that they sit down and answer other questions - test questions, SAT-like questions about math, science, language, reading comprehension; also questions to test their retained knowledge about cultural, historical, and scientific topics, as well as a HUGE bit of civics and constitutional knowledge; and problem solving ability, ala Odyssey of the Mind.

Knowing their ideas and visions is good. But not very important.

But above all, I want a president that I know can actually tackle a problem and solve it creatively, and that has a huge repository of knowledge from which to draw in solving those problems.

I want to see Hillary benchpress Kucinich.

Clinton tosses a forklift shot-put style.
Obama pulverizes pool balls with his bare hands.
Edwards bends a crowbar into a pretzel.
Kucinich pulls a phone book from a major metropolitan area from one of his pockets and tears it in half.
Gravel lifts a mini-van containing all seven of his supporters over his head.
Lee Mercer Jr. wins best two of three rounds of tug-of-war with an M1 tank as he pulls the rope attached to the tug-of-war with the M1 tank he is enforcing.

He will totally regulate the enforcement. :thumbsup:

I want to hear Obama complain that his dry-cleaner loses his shirts, and Clinton gripe about how she can't find an honest mechanic, and Kucinich moan about his dotty great-aunt and her descendants who ruin every Christmas.

or compete on MXC (Takeshi's Castle).

all the campaigns would fight about what goes on the test, and there would be big fights over whether to use factual test questions that require rote knowledge versus questions that require complex problem solving, and people would choose sides over whether to use New Math or Old Math or Hands On Math or No Math, and some would argue that there shouldn't be an essay section because the scoring of essays is too subjective, and there would be fights about which cultural and historical topics are relevant to include, and groups in Texas would try to get the test questions watered down to avoid any possible hint of bias against Christians or women or Muslims or vegetarians or gun owners, and then when the format was decided, the campaigns would start teaching to the test, and Kaplan and Princeton Review would start putting out test preparation booklets and charging outlandish prices, and candidates who couldn't afford the books would be at a disadvantage, and some would argue that tests are not the best measure of a President's preparedness to lead the country anyway, and so the testmakers would have to take into consideration other information, such as disadvantaged backgrounds or travel overseas, or volunteer experiences, or whether they play a musical instrument, and there would be battles about how to weight these factors, and battles over what day of the week the tests would be taken, and if they would be broadcast on television to the nation during or after the test, or never at all, in which case there will be accusations of fraud and computer manipulation of scores behind the scenes, and Bev Harris will step in and DU will get really upset, and people will start sending roses to the senators who support the tests they like and accusing Karl Rove of being behind the versions they hate, and everybody will get incredibly stressed about whether there should be a retake option.

Nevertheless, it sounds like a really good idea to me!

on the subject!

:rofl:

don't you find his use of Galois representations to be somewhat pretentious?

When I read Wiles' proof, I'm not reading a proof of Fermat so much as I am reading a man desperate for attention, crying out "Affirm my intellectual Zeitgeist!" which we all know is epistemologically bankrupt. Kafka, of course, would be laughing at the irony of it all, while Didera's reaction is to merely devolve himself into a leather shoe worn by a herpes-laden cancan dancer with an addiction to quinine and dime novels published in Serajevo in a bold political denial of the French monarchy's ultimately futile attempt to restrict self-determination.

:woohoo:

because clearly the alcoholic would win and the country would run smooth as butter, right? Seriously, I agree, there should be some sort of intellectual litmus test and maybe even a psych profile.

Clearly, the best litmus test is to vote for someone you could have a beer with and who would make you feel like the smarter person.

:rofl:

:thumbsup:

It seems to me that there are a lot of measures proposed in legislative forums to repeal the second law.

Though if the question came up, and that answer came up, we'd know immediately who's too goddamned stupid to run his own brain, to say nothing of a whole country.

I was too scared to look myself by I heard, so as to believe it, that some illiterate reporter asked the Repukes, "Who 'believes' in evolution."

I believe the entire Repuke field denied "believing" in evolution.

The love of wisdom is the greatest element lacking from modern politics - wisdom is too often assumed to be a part of knowledge.

When Bush said that his favourite philosopher was Our Lord it was obvious what sort of leader he would make.

I'm not actually that bothered about a president not having an array of knowledge - I'd much rather have somebody with the ability to take in and synthesise the (often conflicting) knowledge with which they are presented on a daily basis.

But I didn't spell it out at all - thanks for reminding me! I should have included wisdom specifically in my list of criteria.

And you are right - we've not had any interest in wisdom for quite some time.

"Do you want to be President enough to eat this giant Madagascar Hissing Cockroach? Alive?"

I would pay to see Mitt Romney do this! Unfortunately, anyone who was batshit crazy enough to take the dare would be the last person you'd want to see as the most powerful human on the planet...

I doubt any of them would pass a biology quiz. Considering we already saw some biological ignorance from at least ONE democrat (Richardson saying he wasn't sure if homosexuality was a choice) and a whole slew of repukes saying they don't think evolution exists....Well, I have no faith in them understanding science. Why should I? The average american is woefully ignorant of science.

Lets put it to you this way..A good friend of mine is going to law school and has a lobbyist friend in one of her classes. He lobbys on behave of colleges looking for scientific funding. He is considered having a science background...A chemistry class in high school. And he says that groups never want scientists to talk to Congress cause they would just either A) bore them with details or B) leave them confused with too much technical stuff.
All the candidates talk about the importance of science and math and how we are falling behind in this country, but there are very few, who have actually bothered to try to make themselves knowledgeable in those areas.Its easier just to get their info pre-packaged and pre-digested from others.

But it would expose how ignorant they are.

I'm not at all surprised that they don't want scientists coming in and talking - governments hate truth speakers.

and let them "win" their campaign funding...

No, seriously. It's an easy one.

Suppose that the square root of 2 is rational, i.e. it can be expressed as the ratio a/b, where we may assume (WLOG) that a and b are positive integers. Then you're an asshole--why would you assume that?! You should never assume! It makes an asshole out of me and you.
This contradiction establishes the irrationality of the square root of 2.

QED (Quit and Eat Dinner)

Chevy Chasae as Gerald Ford :rofl: