CDZ Has it ever been that people want things that aren't in their best interests to want?

[JimBowie1958]

I don't want to discard democratic processes. I would like to see the context in which we execute those processes be changed so that stupid, disingenuous, and/or willfully ignorant people don't get to participate in it so as to force the rest of us to their will that accrues from their ill informed/advised choices.

I think that a voluntary democratic process tends to draw the participation of those interested in a subject and that tends to factor out the uninformed voter on most issues, but the democratic process as a whole brings in more than enough people to get a multi-dimensional set of perspectives on these issues, and as a policy fails to adapt to the changing circumstances and negatively impacts more people, the democratic process self corrects by bringing in more people who have ideas to correct it.

For example:

• Would you ask a mendicant how to make money? I wouldn't for that's the one thing they shown they don't know how to do. I would ask them what approaches all but ensure one won't make money because I know their failings at making money at least have taught them some of the approaches that don't work. Would I, based on their knowing what not to do, put a mendicant in charge of my financial portfolio and decisions? Hell no!

And yet monkeys have outperformed seasoned professional brokers in predicting stock market performance.

• Would you ask a dyed in the wool evangelical theist to make key decisions based on science and reason? I wouldn't.

Depends on how qualified they are and what profession. An evangelical physicist that believes in Theistic Evolution is just as good as any other physicist.

• Would you have someone who ignores basic economic principles to opine on the overall direction our economy takes? Again, I wouldn't.

Sometimes that is what is necessary when Old Guard ideologues refuse to yield to the Reality they are trying to force into their ideological pigeonholes. As their field of expertise, economics in this case, are usually not testable in a lab, they have to await events to support or disqualify their ideas, but they tend to rationalize those bad results when they occur. In a democratic process, the voters see the bad results, declare that the Emperor has no clothes, and votes the bastards out.

We have watched American jobs get exported and undermined with bullshit free trade agreements that are not in any way actually 'free trade' at all. These agreements have enforcement mechanisms that we Americans NEVER use to correct trade abuses from other nations like China and Japan, and we have hundreds of billions of US dollars in trade deficits, stagnant workers wages since 1970 and a vastly underperforming economy to show for it all.

Its' way past time to bring in the monkeys. If Donald Trump is that monkey so be it.

What I'm saying is that retaining the democratic process as it currently exists is a poor exculpation for the circumstance to which we have evolved: the "cognitively blind" having by their weight of numbers the ability to drive the rest of us into ruin. Quite simply, though they goofed on the specifics of implementing the concept of "majority rule," the founders never intended for "idiots" to actually have a vote. That's why landowners were the only people initially allowed to vote; landownership acted as a surrogate for one being reasonably sure that a person who could vote was also, for the time, highly educated and well informed.

And there was some success to that, but there was categorical disaster such as slavery, the Civil War, and the successes were while we had huge tariffs and free homestead laws. Those last two we need to return to in a more modern form.

The nation was right to discard the tangential measures of reasonable intellect, for those measures became instruments of social disdain and economic inefficiency, but the nation did so without replacing those measures with something that is both objective, neutral, relevant and that ensures "idiots" can't vote. Given the nation's social history, I'm hard pressed to say just what we can do now to correct that shortcoming, but that doesn't mean I think we should not look for that "something" and work toward being able to effect it. Majority rule is a wonderful thing provided majority also has well informed -- objectively speaking, not in terms of what others think or want to believe -- views of what they want and why. That's sadly not where we as a nation find ourselves today.

Yes, we need to edumakate our voters much more better.

But the beauty of democracy is that it is a vast feed-back machine that helps the leadership elite to do their jobs and lead, IF they listen to where the squawking is coming from and why it is there.

 

[ChrisL]

I think some people just want to get rid of the "status quo" and they see Trump as the ticket. I've actually talked to several people who are not 100% satisfied with Trump, but they see him as less "establishment" and not part of the cronyism of party politics.

 

[Wry Catcher]

I think some people just want to get rid of the "status quo" and they see Trump as the ticket. I've actually talked to several people who are not 100% satisfied with Trump, but they see him as less "establishment" and not part of the cronyism of party politics.

"This is the shortened form of the full idiom, 'better the devil you know than the devil you don't', and means that it is often better to deal with someone or something you are familiar with and know, even if they are not ideal, than take a risk with an unknown person or thing"

HRC is the better choice, over Bernie or Trump. Lies, half-truths, rumors, innuendos aside, the experience she brings to the table, including mistakes, makes her the most viable person alive to lead our nation at this time in our history.

My one misgiving, based on recent evidence is that when we elected a man of color, the racists came out in force; if we elect a woman, will the misogynists do the same.

 

[ChrisL]

I think some people just want to get rid of the "status quo" and they see Trump as the ticket. I've actually talked to several people who are not 100% satisfied with Trump, but they see him as less "establishment" and not part of the cronyism of party politics.

"This is the shortened form of the full idiom, 'better the devil you know than the devil you don't', and means that it is often better to deal with someone or something you are familiar with and know, even if they are not ideal, than take a risk with an unknown person or thing"

HRC is the better choice, over Bernie or Trump. Lies, half-truths, rumors, innuendos aside, the experience she brings to the table, including mistakes, makes her the most viable person alive to lead our nation at this time in our history.

My one misgiving, based on recent evidence is that when we elected a man of color, the racists came out in force; if we elect a woman, will the misogynists do the same.

Well, I'm certainly not a Trump supporter, but there is no way I would support Hilary either. Yeah, we know what we're getting with her alright, and it's not anything "good," IMO.

 

[ChrisL]

I think some people just want to get rid of the "status quo" and they see Trump as the ticket. I've actually talked to several people who are not 100% satisfied with Trump, but they see him as less "establishment" and not part of the cronyism of party politics.

"This is the shortened form of the full idiom, 'better the devil you know than the devil you don't', and means that it is often better to deal with someone or something you are familiar with and know, even if they are not ideal, than take a risk with an unknown person or thing"

HRC is the better choice, over Bernie or Trump. Lies, half-truths, rumors, innuendos aside, the experience she brings to the table, including mistakes, makes her the most viable person alive to lead our nation at this time in our history.

My one misgiving, based on recent evidence is that when we elected a man of color, the racists came out in force; if we elect a woman, will the misogynists do the same.

I wonder if you felt that way with Obama versus McCain (the unknown versus the known)???

 

[ChrisL]

All of the front runners were and are terrible choices, if you ask me. I wouldn't vote for any of them. I'd rather write in a candidate of MY choice.

 

[Dhara]

At least with Hillary, you know what you're getting. Trump is completely irrational.

 

[ChrisL]

At least with Hillary, you know what you're getting. Trump is completely irrational.

Yeah, you're getting more of the same crony capitalism and dishonesty.

 

[Wry Catcher]

I think some people just want to get rid of the "status quo" and they see Trump as the ticket. I've actually talked to several people who are not 100% satisfied with Trump, but they see him as less "establishment" and not part of the cronyism of party politics.

"This is the shortened form of the full idiom, 'better the devil you know than the devil you don't', and means that it is often better to deal with someone or something you are familiar with and know, even if they are not ideal, than take a risk with an unknown person or thing"

HRC is the better choice, over Bernie or Trump. Lies, half-truths, rumors, innuendos aside, the experience she brings to the table, including mistakes, makes her the most viable person alive to lead our nation at this time in our history.

My one misgiving, based on recent evidence is that when we elected a man of color, the racists came out in force; if we elect a woman, will the misogynists do the same.

I wonder if you felt that way with Obama versus McCain (the unknown versus the known)???

Which John McCain? In all due respect to his service, McCain flips and flops more than a trout tossed on the beach. However, the devil we knew was George W. Bush and I could have voted for Sen. McCain if there was not another choice. Obama wanted to end a war which had become a burden on our economy and of benefit only to grave diggers and casket makers.

 

[Wry Catcher]

At least with Hillary, you know what you're getting. Trump is completely irrational.

Yeah, you're getting more of the same crony capitalism and dishonesty.

and with Trump what do you believe you will get?

Q. How does bankruptcy impact the employees of a company or a corporation

A.

 

[ChrisL]

At least with Hillary, you know what you're getting. Trump is completely irrational.

Yeah, you're getting more of the same crony capitalism and dishonesty.

and with Trump what do you believe you will get?

Q. How does bankruptcy impact the employees of a company or a corporation

A.

I don't support Trumpster Dumpster either. That is why I said I would rather write in my own candidate.

 

[ChrisL]

I think some people just want to get rid of the "status quo" and they see Trump as the ticket. I've actually talked to several people who are not 100% satisfied with Trump, but they see him as less "establishment" and not part of the cronyism of party politics.

"This is the shortened form of the full idiom, 'better the devil you know than the devil you don't', and means that it is often better to deal with someone or something you are familiar with and know, even if they are not ideal, than take a risk with an unknown person or thing"

HRC is the better choice, over Bernie or Trump. Lies, half-truths, rumors, innuendos aside, the experience she brings to the table, including mistakes, makes her the most viable person alive to lead our nation at this time in our history.

My one misgiving, based on recent evidence is that when we elected a man of color, the racists came out in force; if we elect a woman, will the misogynists do the same.

I wonder if you felt that way with Obama versus McCain (the unknown versus the known)???

Which John McCain? In all due respect to his service, McCain flips and flops more than a trout tossed on the beach. However, the devil we knew was George W. Bush and I could have voted for Sen. McCain if there was not another choice. Obama wanted to end a war which had become a burden on our economy and of benefit only to grave diggers and casket makers.

But didn't. Lol. The war was not ended, and Gitmo is still open.

 

[Wry Catcher]

I think some people just want to get rid of the "status quo" and they see Trump as the ticket. I've actually talked to several people who are not 100% satisfied with Trump, but they see him as less "establishment" and not part of the cronyism of party politics.

"This is the shortened form of the full idiom, 'better the devil you know than the devil you don't', and means that it is often better to deal with someone or something you are familiar with and know, even if they are not ideal, than take a risk with an unknown person or thing"

HRC is the better choice, over Bernie or Trump. Lies, half-truths, rumors, innuendos aside, the experience she brings to the table, including mistakes, makes her the most viable person alive to lead our nation at this time in our history.

My one misgiving, based on recent evidence is that when we elected a man of color, the racists came out in force; if we elect a woman, will the misogynists do the same.

I wonder if you felt that way with Obama versus McCain (the unknown versus the known)???

Which John McCain? In all due respect to his service, McCain flips and flops more than a trout tossed on the beach. However, the devil we knew was George W. Bush and I could have voted for Sen. McCain if there was not another choice. Obama wanted to end a war which had become a burden on our economy and of benefit only to grave diggers and casket makers.

But didn't. Lol. The war was not ended, and Gitmo is still open.

The number of service personnel killed or seriously wounded has been vastly reduced, we no longer are spending a billion dollars a week, and keeping Gitmo open is the desire of the Republicans in Congress. They refuse to do what is in the best interest of America, solely for political reasons. They do so by playing the fear card, and continue to violate not only COTUS but the nearly thousand year old Magna Carta. Not only is that evil, it is also a recruiting tool for all of our foes and an embarrassment to all of our friends.

 

[320 Years of History]

that kind of irrationality is the price of living in a word dominated by normal folks, but the music that comes from them more than makes up for it.

Yeah, well, you and I are going to have to agree to disagree on that. I haven't spent much time considering what might make up for willful or circumstantial ignorance and the irrationality that accrues from it once it's been exhibited, but maybe something does. Having considered your remarks in the post quoted here, I am sure the "music" issuing from those two behaviors isn't among the things I think can make up for it.

 

[JimBowie1958]

and with Trump what do you believe you will get?

Q. How does bankruptcy impact the employees of a company or a corporation

A.

Answer; it depends on the restructurring, but it does not necessarily mean the employees lose their jobs.

And how many business ventures has Trump had total? I count at least 30 and all of them successes until outside forces intervened and the four bankruptcies he used to restructure his debt. That isnt a failure, that is smart business.

Lets compare that to our wonderous foreign policy success in Syria, Libya, Egypt and Iraq, roflmao.

 

[JimBowie1958]

The number of service personnel killed or seriously wounded has been vastly reduced, we no longer are spending a billion dollars a week, ...

Of course, that what happens when you abandon your allies and walk away from a conflict you started.

 

[JimBowie1958]

that kind of irrationality is the price of living in a word dominated by normal folks, but the music that comes from them more than makes up for it.

Yeah, well, you and I are going to have to agree to disagree on that. I haven't spent much time considering what might make up for willful or circumstantial ignorance and the irrationality that accrues from it once it's been exhibited, but maybe something does. Having considered your remarks in the post quoted here, I am sure the "music" issuing from those two behaviors isn't among the things I think can make up for it.

Well, as an Aspie, I have finally come to accept the weirdness of normal people as long as I get to listen to their music, like Joplin, ACDC, George Straight, and more.

Without the musical creativity, I would have no need of human normality at all; in fact it is vastly over rated.

 

[numan]

Trump will govern like the CEO he is and like the true American that he is. He will actually listen to the council of the Joint Chiefs and not ignore their advice.

In 1962, if Kennedy had listened to the advice of the Joint Chiefs, we would have had World War III, and the United States today would be a radioactive wasteland.

Luckily, JFK had read Barbara Tuchman's The Guns of August, and understood how unwise it is to trust military advice.

Trump understands nothing but his big, ugly ego.

WAR IS TOO IMPORTANT TO BE LEFT TO THE GENERALS

 

[MarathonMike]

Who gets to define "stupid" in the context of stupid voters? What makes a voter stupid? Because they don't agree with you? What about stupid people who vote as you do, but for the "wrong" reasons? Do you want to disallow their vote because they don't pass your criterion for intelligence?
We aren't proving a mathematical theorem here. This is a vote and since we have gone away from the land owner requirement, every American citizen gets a vote. What is the alternative? We already have Liberals squealing about "voter suppression" because people are actually required to provide proof of who the hell they are. Would you add a voter IQ test? Oh man that would be priceless!

 

[numan]

McCain flips and flops more than a trout tossed on the beach. However, the devil we knew was George W. Bush....

That is unfair to the devil.

Next to Bush, it would be better to have Satan as President.