I think that one's believe in a global flood has a lot to do with whether that person has the kind of critical thinking skills needed to make tough decisions as President. Today we know without a shadow of a doubt, through hoards and reams and mountains of physical evidence, that the Flood of Noah described in Genesis, as a global flood, did not happen. For someone to overlook all of that information and evidence and decide that it in fact did happen, tells me a lot about the way this person's epistemology. We've already had one president willing to shape the intelligence coming in and make assumptions about it based on faith and not facts, I don't think we need another. And I voted for this guy twice. But I wouldn't do it again, and I wouldn't vote for a guy who thinks the Flood happened either.
You're intellectual credibility continues to deteriorate. What a shame.
Your claims, regarding Bush, that he did "shape the intelligence coming in and make assumptions about it based on faith and not facts" is
long discredited MoveOn.org and NY Times hokum and in bringing this up, you have fairly discredited yourself as a critical thinker-precisely what you have attempted to do to anyone who holds religious beliefs, or concepts based on faith in lieu of positive proof. You have just exposed yourself to be a bit of a hypocrite. Now, we all know that you are perfectly capable of engaging in critical thought-until you, as a human being, swimming in subjective subjective perceptual, psychological, and intellectual bias like the rest of us, encounter certain issues or ideas. At that point, critical thought may meet its relative match.
Richard Dawkins is cock sure there is no God, a belief, given the actual evidence within nature that can easily and logically by interpreted to imply ythe contrary, just as indicative of a mind bereft of critical reasoning abilities as one might ascribe to Jerry Falwell. There are different biases and assumptions among human beings for which 'critical reason" is not the beginning and end of all possible forms of justification. But of course, human thought, including critical thought, is not a simple liner process of logical cogitation that proceeds in a mental compartment sealed from other dynamics. Human psychology is far more complex and plastic than your apparent model of critical thought in which critical thought is itself not a human created methodology but some kind of external software program that can be plugged into the human mind and run independently of other psychological, perceptual, and intellectual variables.
You have failed to show why a belief in a global flood would have anything to do with a President's ability to do his job, including promote legislation, engage in foreign policy, and function as Commander in Chief. John F. Kennedy functioned in these capacities while believing in Transubstantiation, the Virgin Birth, and the mystery of the Mass.
Practical policy matters do not seem to me to be analogous to ultimate questions of human existence or ancient events taken on faith for which there may not be scientific proof, especially as with the idea of the Flood, there is no conceivable policy ramifications to believing or not believing it. Hillary Clinton believes in socialized medicine, a concept that has been long discredited empirically everywhere it has ever been tried. Yet, she believes in it still. Critical reason is not an oracle; it is a tool, and it can never be utilized an a "pure" manner by human beings.