CDZ Spectacle Society

[Elvis Obama]

"Trump is popular because Americans have become a boorish, superficial, celebrity worshiping society."

No, Trump is popular with about a third of republicans who are boorish, superficial, celebrity worshiping nitwits.

You say that with a conviction I wish I shared. It is also just the Republican primary electorate, which is considerably smaller than the whole party, but still, I'm a little tired of people claiming they know what Trump's "ceiling" is. We haven't found it yet, and I have zero faith in an electorate which voted twice for GWB.

Then a majority of republicans are are boorish, superficial, celebrity worshiping nitwits, and they'll nominate Trump, and lose in the GE.

They can't say they weren't warned.

Again, I envy your certitude. The GE is decided by an absurdly narrow band of the American electorate. Our binary party system provides a built-in fatigue factor, and Hillary and Bernie both have a lot of vulnerabilities. We are flirting with disaster.

The majority of Americans are are boorish, superficial, celebrity worshiping nitwits. They're the problem, not Trump.

Unfortunately, I'm certain there's no way we could formulate an equitable means of requiring and confirming one's "non-nitwit" status prior to allowing one to vote in a political election.

I would settle for ANYONE, whether politician or media figure, who will address the problem of low-information voters. Someone who will demand that we put this problem front and center, instead of pretending it doesn't exist. Someone who will kick America's butt instead of kissing it.

All this earnest analysis of what the vagaries of the American electorate "means". Ignorance doesn't "mean" anything, and there is no purpose to analyzing it. There is a great deal of purpose to fighting ignorance, to condemning our education system but not thoughtlessly as we currently do, to condemning our "get out the vote" efforts. Anyone who is stupid enough that they need to be told to vote should be told the opposite. To shaming people for their lack of knowledge. Unfortunately our PC madness suggests that we do the opposite. That we consider mentally ill people to be an important voting block whose enfranchisement should be protected. That women should be encouraged to vote for women candidates simply because they are women, or blacks to vote for black candidates.

 

[320 Years of History]

"Trump is popular because Americans have become a boorish, superficial, celebrity worshiping society."

No, Trump is popular with about a third of republicans who are boorish, superficial, celebrity worshiping nitwits.

You say that with a conviction I wish I shared. It is also just the Republican primary electorate, which is considerably smaller than the whole party, but still, I'm a little tired of people claiming they know what Trump's "ceiling" is. We haven't found it yet, and I have zero faith in an electorate which voted twice for GWB.

Then a majority of republicans are are boorish, superficial, celebrity worshiping nitwits, and they'll nominate Trump, and lose in the GE.

They can't say they weren't warned.

Again, I envy your certitude. The GE is decided by an absurdly narrow band of the American electorate. Our binary party system provides a built-in fatigue factor, and Hillary and Bernie both have a lot of vulnerabilities. We are flirting with disaster.

The majority of Americans are are boorish, superficial, celebrity worshiping nitwits. They're the problem, not Trump.

Unfortunately, I'm certain there's no way we could formulate an equitable means of requiring and confirming one's "non-nitwit" status prior to allowing one to vote in a political election.

I would settle for ANYONE, whether politician or media figure, who will address the problem of low-information voters. Someone who will demand that we put this problem front and center, instead of pretending it doesn't exist. Someone who will kick America's butt instead of kissing it.

All this earnest analysis of what the vagaries of the American electorate "means". Ignorance doesn't "mean" anything, and there is no purpose to analyzing it. There is a great deal of purpose to fighting ignorance, to condemning our education system but not thoughtlessly as we currently do, to condemning our "get out the vote" efforts. Anyone who is stupid enough that they need to be told to vote should be told the opposite. To shaming people for their lack of knowledge. Unfortunately our PC madness suggests that we do the opposite. That we consider mentally ill people to be an important voting block whose enfranchisement should be protected. That women should be encouraged to vote for women candidates simply because they are women, or blacks to vote for black candidates.

Red:
Maybe a prominent media figure would take on the challenge of addressing the matter. I'm nearly certain no political figure will. What have politicians to gain from a better informed, more critically thinking, and intellectually advanced electorate? The last thing any politician wants, at least during an election, is a less manipulatable, more difficult to sway, electorate.

 

[Elvis Obama]

You say that with a conviction I wish I shared. It is also just the Republican primary electorate, which is considerably smaller than the whole party, but still, I'm a little tired of people claiming they know what Trump's "ceiling" is. We haven't found it yet, and I have zero faith in an electorate which voted twice for GWB.

Then a majority of republicans are are boorish, superficial, celebrity worshiping nitwits, and they'll nominate Trump, and lose in the GE.

They can't say they weren't warned.

Again, I envy your certitude. The GE is decided by an absurdly narrow band of the American electorate. Our binary party system provides a built-in fatigue factor, and Hillary and Bernie both have a lot of vulnerabilities. We are flirting with disaster.

The majority of Americans are are boorish, superficial, celebrity worshiping nitwits. They're the problem, not Trump.

Unfortunately, I'm certain there's no way we could formulate an equitable means of requiring and confirming one's "non-nitwit" status prior to allowing one to vote in a political election.

I would settle for ANYONE, whether politician or media figure, who will address the problem of low-information voters. Someone who will demand that we put this problem front and center, instead of pretending it doesn't exist. Someone who will kick America's butt instead of kissing it.

All this earnest analysis of what the vagaries of the American electorate "means". Ignorance doesn't "mean" anything, and there is no purpose to analyzing it. There is a great deal of purpose to fighting ignorance, to condemning our education system but not thoughtlessly as we currently do, to condemning our "get out the vote" efforts. Anyone who is stupid enough that they need to be told to vote should be told the opposite. To shaming people for their lack of knowledge. Unfortunately our PC madness suggests that we do the opposite. That we consider mentally ill people to be an important voting block whose enfranchisement should be protected. That women should be encouraged to vote for women candidates simply because they are women, or blacks to vote for black candidates.

Red:
Maybe a prominent media figure would take on the challenge of addressing the matter. I'm nearly certain no political figure will. What have politicians to gain from a better informed, more critically thinking, and intellectually advanced electorate? The last thing any politician wants, at least during an election, is a less manipulatable, more difficult to sway, electorate.

Hence Obama's statement that Washington can' be fixed from the inside. This is not a Hollywood movie where the corrupt politician breaks down under the pressure of their own guilt and confesses publicly and dramatically. In the real world these guys "keep the con" going.

So what hope is there for improvement? I can't say. Anger is a powerful force, but if anger causes people to turn to Trump, then it is being wasted. Same with Bernie. We don't need vague, unrealistic pandering, whether designed for the left or right. You can't win office with the truth, unfortunately.

So, who will save us? A billionaire with a conscience? A coalition of intelligent citizens? Someone better, because nothing else is important. Otherwise we'll never have a choice in our elections except the lesser of two evils. Whoever will slow down the deterioration, not reverse it.

 

[oldsoul]

"Trump is popular because Americans have become a boorish, superficial, celebrity worshiping society."

No, Trump is popular with about a third of republicans who are boorish, superficial, celebrity worshiping nitwits.

You say that with a conviction I wish I shared. It is also just the Republican primary electorate, which is considerably smaller than the whole party, but still, I'm a little tired of people claiming they know what Trump's "ceiling" is. We haven't found it yet, and I have zero faith in an electorate which voted twice for GWB.

Then a majority of republicans are are boorish, superficial, celebrity worshiping nitwits, and they'll nominate Trump, and lose in the GE.

They can't say they weren't warned.

Except that Trump, sadly, crushes both of the top contenders for the Dems. Wake up.

 

[oldsoul]

"Trump is popular because Americans have become a boorish, superficial, celebrity worshiping society."

No, Trump is popular with about a third of republicans who are boorish, superficial, celebrity worshiping nitwits.

You say that with a conviction I wish I shared. It is also just the Republican primary electorate, which is considerably smaller than the whole party, but still, I'm a little tired of people claiming they know what Trump's "ceiling" is. We haven't found it yet, and I have zero faith in an electorate which voted twice for GWB.

Last I checked Trump is crushing it in NYC. Isn't that a Democrat strong hold?

 

[oldsoul]

Then a majority of republicans are are boorish, superficial, celebrity worshiping nitwits, and they'll nominate Trump, and lose in the GE.

They can't say they weren't warned.

Again, I envy your certitude. The GE is decided by an absurdly narrow band of the American electorate. Our binary party system provides a built-in fatigue factor, and Hillary and Bernie both have a lot of vulnerabilities. We are flirting with disaster.

The majority of Americans are are boorish, superficial, celebrity worshiping nitwits. They're the problem, not Trump.

Unfortunately, I'm certain there's no way we could formulate an equitable means of requiring and confirming one's "non-nitwit" status prior to allowing one to vote in a political election.

I would settle for ANYONE, whether politician or media figure, who will address the problem of low-information voters. Someone who will demand that we put this problem front and center, instead of pretending it doesn't exist. Someone who will kick America's butt instead of kissing it.

All this earnest analysis of what the vagaries of the American electorate "means". Ignorance doesn't "mean" anything, and there is no purpose to analyzing it. There is a great deal of purpose to fighting ignorance, to condemning our education system but not thoughtlessly as we currently do, to condemning our "get out the vote" efforts. Anyone who is stupid enough that they need to be told to vote should be told the opposite. To shaming people for their lack of knowledge. Unfortunately our PC madness suggests that we do the opposite. That we consider mentally ill people to be an important voting block whose enfranchisement should be protected. That women should be encouraged to vote for women candidates simply because they are women, or blacks to vote for black candidates.

Red:
Maybe a prominent media figure would take on the challenge of addressing the matter. I'm nearly certain no political figure will. What have politicians to gain from a better informed, more critically thinking, and intellectually advanced electorate? The last thing any politician wants, at least during an election, is a less manipulatable, more difficult to sway, electorate.

Hence Obama's statement that Washington can' be fixed from the inside. This is not a Hollywood movie where the corrupt politician breaks down under the pressure of their own guilt and confesses publicly and dramatically. In the real world these guys "keep the con" going.

So what hope is there for improvement? I can't say. Anger is a powerful force, but if anger causes people to turn to Trump, then it is being wasted. Same with Bernie. We don't need vague, unrealistic pandering, whether designed for the left or right. You can't win office with the truth, unfortunately.

So, who will save us? A billionaire with a conscience? A coalition of intelligent citizens? Someone better, because nothing else is important. Otherwise we'll never have a choice in our elections except the lesser of two evils. Whoever will slow down the deterioration, not reverse it.

There is still hope for you. Obviouly you can still see the truth, and you still have some common sense.