Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

News John Edwards Admits to Affair

  1. Aug 8, 2008 #1
  2. jcsd
  3. Aug 8, 2008 #2
    I actually was rooting for him in the primary and was sorry he lost to Obama and Hillary. Of course, now I am glad, as it likely would have come out during the campaign or something. I think it's unfortunate so many people are concerned with superficialities.
  4. Aug 8, 2008 #3
    Yeah how could he think that would not surface if he was the candidate. It would be game over before it started.
  5. Aug 8, 2008 #4


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Who gives a crap about what a politician does with his genitals? Find something more relevant to worry about.

    - Warren
  6. Aug 8, 2008 #5


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    I feel sorry for his wife. She has had the attention of more than a few people on health-care issues, and this is really going to derail her work.
  7. Aug 8, 2008 #6
    It's not what he did with his genitals, but what he did to his family of 5. I would not trust a man for president who cheats on his wife and betrays his children, do you?

    Do don't see a problem with that chroot? That he could have been candidate for president?
  8. Aug 8, 2008 #7
    Thank you.
  9. Aug 8, 2008 #8
    Today is the day that the Beijing Olympic organizers humiliated every western, blond-haired, blue-eyed, English-speaking Olympic host city with their opening ceremonies. Maybe that's the reason the US media opted to focus on Edwards' personal life today.
  10. Aug 8, 2008 #9
    Truth is : it sells tabloids. There is nothing more to it, people don't like to think too hard about complicated political arguments.
    Oh, the bad guy cheated on his wife is a simple argument understood even (especially) in Texas.

    Disclaimer : I have absolutely nothing to back up this opinion.
  11. Aug 8, 2008 #10
    I'm not much on trusting politicians regardless, but I think Thomas Jefferson did a respectable job with the office despite his infidelities.
  12. Aug 8, 2008 #11
    I don't personally care about this frivolous issue, but I am very disappointed with John Edwards for endangering and damaging the democratic party with this nonsense. He, and Bill Clinton in 1998, were more concerned with themselves then they were with advancing the democratic agenda (I don't say that because they wasted time having extramarital sex, I say it because they knew their actions had a high probability of hurting the party in future elections but they couldn't stop themselves).

    On the other hand, democrats likely wouldn't mind if bedroom issues become central to the campaign, since Obama has a much cleaner history as a husband and father then does John Mccain.
  13. Aug 8, 2008 #12
    That we know of.
  14. Aug 8, 2008 #13


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    A lot of people will be voting for McCain.
  15. Aug 8, 2008 #14
    That is hardly worth saying, since we have no reason to doubt the public account of Obama's life. It would likewise be wrong to follow the statement "John McCain has not ever been a pedophile" with your "that we know of." The reason that it is absurd to say things like this is that we do not doubt things without a reason, since otherwise we could doubt everything everyone ever says. In other words, cautioning that Obama may have hidden affairs in his past, without any evidence for this, is simply fear mongering.
  16. Aug 8, 2008 #15
    It's more likely that someone has had an extra-marital affair than that they are a pedophile.

    You can say "McCain has never had an affair that we know of." but saying anything about pedophilia is a bit far.
  17. Aug 8, 2008 #16


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Really? It doesn't surprise me at all! :tongue:
  18. Aug 8, 2008 #17


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    This is interesting - this is almost exactly the same as how McCain's went down (difference is he married the woman). Is Edwards' name still being kicked-around as a VP candidate? This could kill him because I suspect the Dems are holding this issue in reserve for Sep/Oct.
  19. Aug 8, 2008 #18
    So exactly how likely does something have to be in order to arouse your suspicion? Would it be correct to follow "John McCain has never used illegal drugs" with "that we know of?" I chose this example because most statistics put the rate of illegal drug use beyond the rates of affairs, although you can find statistics that disagree with this.

    More directly, I think that applying frequentist logic to human behavior is a flawed way to derive conclusions. Not only do humans have free will, which allows them to break frequentist patterns a priori, but also in practice the frequentist misapply there own system by comparing two situations that are essentially different. You might counter this by saying that frequentist reasoning works well "in practice", but I would argue that this is not a scientific claim because it cannot be falsified.
    You can say it, but then you would be contradicting public facts e.g. McCain's biography that was linked to by Gokul above:


    "McCain has admitted to having extramarital affairs. "

    McCain wrote: "But my marriage's collapse was attributable to my own selfishness and immaturity more than it was to Vietnam, and I cannot escape blame by pointing a finger at the war. The blame was entirely mine."

    Ex-wife Carol wrote: "The breakup of our marriage was not caused by my accident or Vietnam or any of those things. I don't know that it might not have happened if John had never been gone. I attribute it more to John turning 40 and wanting to be 25 again than I do to anything else."

    "McCain was generous with Carol, the mother of their daughter Sidney and two sons, whom McCain had adopted."

    Again, what standard are you applying? At what point does a societal pathology become statistically large enough for you to suspect all people of possessing it without any direct evidence?
  20. Aug 8, 2008 #19
    http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/06/20/ap-edwards-makes-obamas-vp-list/" [Broken]

    I agree, I think he hardly had a chance to begin with and now he is very unlikely.

    This might be true, but you should also consider that the democrats might be ignoring McCain's infidelity because it is frivolous and irrelevant. Only time will tell, but I hope that the democrats take the high road.
    Last edited by a moderator: May 3, 2017
  21. Aug 8, 2008 #20
    My point was saying "XXX never had an extra-marital affair... that we know of" is low, but saying "XXX is not a pedophile... that we know of." is just stupid.
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook