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

[320 Years of History]

Today, Trump's message to Speaker Ryan is "This is what the people want." What an absurd remark. It really doesn't matter that a Trump presidency is what some people want. What matters is whether there's any reason (or several) to believe (or disbelieve):

• What they think they well get from a Trump Presidency is indeed what they will get.
• Whether what they want and what they need are even in alignment.
• Whether "the people," including Trump, have a keen enough understanding of the nature of the challenges that face the U.S., and that will in the lustrum ahead, to know what to want as solution approaches for dealing with those challenges.

I submit that most folks don't have a clue about what they should want, much less whether what they do want will be a good thing or not. Consider the great many posts one can read on USMB wherein folks undertake to engage in debate about economics, sociology, religion, or science, yet based on the remarks posted, anyone with with the barest bit of formal training in any one of those areas can immediately discern that most commenters haven't a clue, even though they have loud, strong and generally wrong assessments of the situation, never mind whether their conclusions based on those assessments are valid. (And, yes, there are in some instances valid, but opposing, or somewhat opposing, conclusions on a host of topics.)

Who are the folks who have no clue? They are the folks who are quick to tell you what is wrong, or who can tell you what's wrong with your solution, but who are silent when it comes to specifying a solution, even if the logical solution given their views is to do nothing. They won't take a stand and say even that much. There's a word for folks who do that: demagogues. And that's all Trump is.

Note:
Trump is mentioned to illustrate a point. He is not the subject of the thread. The thread topics are:

• whether the majority of American people truly want, politically, what is in their best interests, and
• whether the majority of the American polity has any business attesting, by vote, what they want, thereby making the whole nation acquiesce to their will.

It'd be nice if Trump could qualify to be the subject of the discussion; however, as he's put forth so very few specific and substantive policy solutions, he cannot be. For this thread, I don't care if he's right or wrong on the the few he's put forth. The people and what they are qualified to judge/assess is the topic.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

I think it's safe to say that the vast majority of Americans don't have the slightest clue as to what is in their best interests, at least on political or macro scale.

 

[numan]

I think it's safe to say that the vast majority of Americans don't have the slightest clue as to what is in their best interests, at least on political or macro scale.

That is redundant. You could have just let off at, "I think it's safe to say that the vast majority of Americans don't have the slightest clue...." ...

 

[william the wie]

That same criticism is also true of effectively all politicians. I saw this thread and double checked yields. Most blue state voters don't realize and their politicians especially seem not to realize that the blue wall pays tax exempt bond yields 2-3 times greater than the taxable yields paid on 30 year treasuries. In simple terms blue state tax flight and default is quite likely by the end of the next presidential term. Also affordability in the housing market is worse than 2005 in most blue districts.

Yet certifiable mental midgets rejoice in the fact that their Ds will probably win the White House or bemoan that their Rs will need a miracle to win. Ds will need an even bigger miracle to win the house so they can mitigate their upcoming disaster. As a Libertarian I find this highly amusing.

 

[MarathonMike]

Did Obama pass your criterion for substantive policy solutions? Did Obama grasp all the nuances of the challenges before him? By your measure he was eminently "qualified" what with his Harvard education and and alleged command of Constitutional law. So what happened? Well apparently all of those impressive qualifications didn't amount to a hill of beans. The reason for that was he is an imposter who at heart is an anti-American Racist and THAT is what has defined his Presidency.

I don't pay much attention to political promises anymore because what I have seen over the years is that Presidents ultimately govern based on WHO THEY ARE not on WHAT THEY KNOW. Nixon was brilliant at foreign policy but he was a paranoid kook and that is what defined him. Obama is reasonably intelligent and knowledgeable but he is ruled by who he is and that has damaged America and destroyed the Middle East.
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. He will actually listen to the foreign policy experts, security experts and monetary policy experts and make judgements to benefit America and Americans. That is what a President needs to do. Lord knows we haven't had that in a long time. That is what all of us unqualified Americans want.

 

[Never3ndr]

Do I think that giving people "what they want" is in their best interest? No. As this website serves as valid proof, there are many Americans that simply lack the education base, intellect, or objectivity (sometimes all of the above) to really know what is best and want what is best for the collective.

With that said, I firmly believe that it is in the nation's best interest to give people what they generally want. The general idea (no matter how convoluted the execution of that idea is / has been) that our nation was founded upon was for the ability to allow the general population to vote for their next leader. The idea that every perosn matters, is important, and should have say. Our culture is not one that would take to the idea of blatantly removing the "vote" or heavily restricting the ability to "vote" lightly. In order for such an event to happen and be acceptable we would have to change our very value system as Americans...something that would bring, in my mind, more harm than good.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Clarify the term best interest ?


Financial? employment? Freedom?



.

 

[Stephanie]

oh brother, as if Obama was the best interest for our country. As if Hillary will be.

Years ago when more people were engaged in our government you might have had a point. they (the voters) cared more for the best interest of everyone. TODAY forget it. they only care that their PARTY wins AND the hell with anything else. And that goes for these snake politicians especially in that progressive/democrat party

 

[Stephanie]

Now these people will get to feel how millions of the people felt when they stuck in some nobody Junior Senator that came out of the most Corrupted State Governments and voted him for running as the President.

sucks doesn't it to have the shoe on the other foot?

 

[Skull Pilot]

I think it's safe to say that the vast majority of Americans don't have the slightest clue as to what is in their best interests, at least on political or macro scale.

I think most people know that if they were just left alone to live their lives as they see fit that they would all be better off

 

[320 Years of History]

Clarify the term best interest ?

Financial? employment? Freedom?
.

If you need that clarified, you probably should not participate in this thread.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Today, Trump's message to Speaker Ryan is "This is what the people want." What an absurd remark. It really doesn't matter that a Trump presidency is what some people want. What matters is whether there's any reason (or several) to believe (or disbelieve):

• What they think they well get from a Trump Presidency is indeed what they will get.
• Whether what they want and what they need are even in alignment.
• Whether "the people," including Trump, have a keen enough understanding of the nature of the challenges that face the U.S., and that will in the lustrum ahead, to know what to want as solution approaches for dealing with those challenges.

I submit that most folks don't have a clue about what they should want, much less whether what they do want will be a good thing or not. Consider the great many posts one can read on USMB wherein folks undertake to engage in debate about economics, sociology, religion, or science, yet based on the remarks posted, anyone with with the barest bit of formal training in any one of those areas can immediately discern that most commenters haven't a clue, even though they have loud, strong and generally wrong assessments of the situation, never mind whether their conclusions based on those assessments are valid. (And, yes, there are in some instances valid, but opposing, or somewhat opposing, conclusions on a host of topics.)

Who are the folks who have no clue? They are the folks who are quick to tell you what is wrong, or who can tell you what's wrong with your solution, but who are silent when it comes to specifying a solution, even if the logical solution given their views is to do nothing. They won't take a stand and say even that much. There's a word for folks who do that: demagogues. And that's all Trump is.

Note:
Trump is mentioned to illustrate a point. He is not the subject of the thread. The thread topics are:

• whether the majority of American people truly want, politically, what is in their best interests, and
• whether the majority of the American polity has any business attesting, by vote, what they want, thereby making the whole nation acquiesce to their will.

It'd be nice if Trump could qualify to be the subject of the discussion; however, as he's put forth so very few specific and substantive policy solutions, he cannot be. For this thread, I don't care if he's right or wrong on the the few he's put forth. The people and what they are qualified to judge/assess is the topic.

So you want to just toss our democratic processes into the historical ash bin?

 

[320 Years of History]

Today, Trump's message to Speaker Ryan is "This is what the people want." What an absurd remark. It really doesn't matter that a Trump presidency is what some people want. What matters is whether there's any reason (or several) to believe (or disbelieve):

• What they think they well get from a Trump Presidency is indeed what they will get.
• Whether what they want and what they need are even in alignment.
• Whether "the people," including Trump, have a keen enough understanding of the nature of the challenges that face the U.S., and that will in the lustrum ahead, to know what to want as solution approaches for dealing with those challenges.

I submit that most folks don't have a clue about what they should want, much less whether what they do want will be a good thing or not. Consider the great many posts one can read on USMB wherein folks undertake to engage in debate about economics, sociology, religion, or science, yet based on the remarks posted, anyone with with the barest bit of formal training in any one of those areas can immediately discern that most commenters haven't a clue, even though they have loud, strong and generally wrong assessments of the situation, never mind whether their conclusions based on those assessments are valid. (And, yes, there are in some instances valid, but opposing, or somewhat opposing, conclusions on a host of topics.)

Who are the folks who have no clue? They are the folks who are quick to tell you what is wrong, or who can tell you what's wrong with your solution, but who are silent when it comes to specifying a solution, even if the logical solution given their views is to do nothing. They won't take a stand and say even that much. There's a word for folks who do that: demagogues. And that's all Trump is.

Note:
Trump is mentioned to illustrate a point. He is not the subject of the thread. The thread topics are:

• whether the majority of American people truly want, politically, what is in their best interests, and
• whether the majority of the American polity has any business attesting, by vote, what they want, thereby making the whole nation acquiesce to their will.

It'd be nice if Trump could qualify to be the subject of the discussion; however, as he's put forth so very few specific and substantive policy solutions, he cannot be. For this thread, I don't care if he's right or wrong on the the few he's put forth. The people and what they are qualified to judge/assess is the topic.

So you want to just toss our democratic processes into the historical ash bin?

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. 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!
• Would you ask a dyed in the wool evangelical theist to make key decisions based on science and reason? I wouldn't.
• Would you have someone who ignores basic economic principles to opine on the overall direction our economy takes? Again, I wouldn't.

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.

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.

 

[CityBoy]

Today, Trump's message to Speaker Ryan is "This is what the people want." What an absurd remark. It really doesn't matter that a Trump presidency is what some people want. What matters is whether there's any reason (or several) to believe (or disbelieve):

• What they think they well get from a Trump Presidency is indeed what they will get.
• Whether what they want and what they need are even in alignment.
• Whether "the people," including Trump, have a keen enough understanding of the nature of the challenges that face the U.S., and that will in the lustrum ahead, to know what to want as solution approaches for dealing with those challenges.

I submit that most folks don't have a clue about what they should want, much less whether what they do want will be a good thing or not. Consider the great many posts one can read on USMB wherein folks undertake to engage in debate about economics, sociology, religion, or science, yet based on the remarks posted, anyone with with the barest bit of formal training in any one of those areas can immediately discern that most commenters haven't a clue, even though they have loud, strong and generally wrong assessments of the situation, never mind whether their conclusions based on those assessments are valid. (And, yes, there are in some instances valid, but opposing, or somewhat opposing, conclusions on a host of topics.)

Who are the folks who have no clue? They are the folks who are quick to tell you what is wrong, or who can tell you what's wrong with your solution, but who are silent when it comes to specifying a solution, even if the logical solution given their views is to do nothing. They won't take a stand and say even that much. There's a word for folks who do that: demagogues. And that's all Trump is.

Note:
Trump is mentioned to illustrate a point. He is not the subject of the thread. The thread topics are:

• whether the majority of American people truly want, politically, what is in their best interests, and
• whether the majority of the American polity has any business attesting, by vote, what they want, thereby making the whole nation acquiesce to their will.

It'd be nice if Trump could qualify to be the subject of the discussion; however, as he's put forth so very few specific and substantive policy solutions, he cannot be. For this thread, I don't care if he's right or wrong on the the few he's put forth. The people and what they are qualified to judge/assess is the topic.

Of course they do.....all the time..........and even pray to God to get them....Go figure?

 

[320 Years of History]

To offer an example from history of just how stupid the American people can be...before Reagan got shot, his approval rating was ~46%. After he got shot, it was ~66%. What had he done in the interim? Laid in a hospital bed, yet for the majority of the American electorate, that was enough them to perceive his performance as being better than it was before he got shot. Really? Reagan's job performance and the nation's feeling sympathy for his having been shot bear no rational relationship to one another.

 

[320 Years of History]

Not always. But who's business is it of yours? Who do you think you are?

If you are asking me, the business of it that is mine is that those "moron's" votes have the potential to affect my life.

 

[TNHarley]

Not always. But who's business is it of yours? Who do you think you are?

If you are asking me, the business of it that is mine is that those "moron's" votes have the potential to affect my life.

You ain't telling me anything. I wish it was still just land owners that voted. But it isn't and people have a right to be a dumbass. Not to mention, being a dumbass is subjective

 

[Wry Catcher]

Today, Trump's message to Speaker Ryan is "This is what the people want." What an absurd remark. It really doesn't matter that a Trump presidency is what some people want. What matters is whether there's any reason (or several) to believe (or disbelieve):

• What they think they well get from a Trump Presidency is indeed what they will get.
• Whether what they want and what they need are even in alignment.
• Whether "the people," including Trump, have a keen enough understanding of the nature of the challenges that face the U.S., and that will in the lustrum ahead, to know what to want as solution approaches for dealing with those challenges.

I submit that most folks don't have a clue about what they should want, much less whether what they do want will be a good thing or not. Consider the great many posts one can read on USMB wherein folks undertake to engage in debate about economics, sociology, religion, or science, yet based on the remarks posted, anyone with with the barest bit of formal training in any one of those areas can immediately discern that most commenters haven't a clue, even though they have loud, strong and generally wrong assessments of the situation, never mind whether their conclusions based on those assessments are valid. (And, yes, there are in some instances valid, but opposing, or somewhat opposing, conclusions on a host of topics.)

Who are the folks who have no clue? They are the folks who are quick to tell you what is wrong, or who can tell you what's wrong with your solution, but who are silent when it comes to specifying a solution, even if the logical solution given their views is to do nothing. They won't take a stand and say even that much. There's a word for folks who do that: demagogues. And that's all Trump is.

Note:
Trump is mentioned to illustrate a point. He is not the subject of the thread. The thread topics are:

• whether the majority of American people truly want, politically, what is in their best interests, and
• whether the majority of the American polity has any business attesting, by vote, what they want, thereby making the whole nation acquiesce to their will.

It'd be nice if Trump could qualify to be the subject of the discussion; however, as he's put forth so very few specific and substantive policy solutions, he cannot be. For this thread, I don't care if he's right or wrong on the the few he's put forth. The people and what they are qualified to judge/assess is the topic.

So you want to just toss our democratic processes into the historical ash bin?

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. 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!
• Would you ask a dyed in the wool evangelical theist to make key decisions based on science and reason? I wouldn't.
• Would you have someone who ignores basic economic principles to opine on the overall direction our economy takes? Again, I wouldn't.

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.

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.

The voter is born free and is everywhere in chains, chains applied by the media, the demagogues, charlatans and produced and sold by power elites who control the conversation with the money and power they possess. The voter is inundated by the false pathos from all of the above, and lies told over and over echoed by those above are accepted as truths by and echoed by the biddable.

Two things need to be understood by the voter, IMO:

• Money needs to be outed from the political game
• The Preamble to COTUS and Art. I, sec 8, clause 1 need to be understood textually.

The first requires the repeal of CU & McCutcheon and strong new legislation outlawing all methods of bribery of elected / appointed officials, on all levels of government; the second requires every American understand the Preamble in terms of the vision of the law of the land.

The litmus test for a job working for We the People ought not to be on the basis of how they fall on wedge issues, or instill fear and anger in the people, but framed on the essential elements government can provide to "establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity"

 

[JimBowie1958]

To offer an example from history of just how stupid the American people can be...before Reagan got shot, his approval rating was ~46%. After he got shot, it was ~66%. What had he done in the interim? Laid in a hospital bed, yet for the majority of the American electorate, that was enough them to perceive his performance as being better than it was before he got shot. Really? Reagan's job performance and the nation's feeling sympathy for his having been shot bear no rational relationship to one another.

That is because people are emotional creatures and prior to the shooting, many had negative impressions of him that were erased with the sympathy from the shooting.

But normal people are that way about so many things, like this prejudice against double dipping in group sauces at parties and lunches.

People consume far more bacteria from microscopic deposits of fecal matter when they eat with unwashed hands than they could ever get by dipping their chips into a bowl some other person dipped their chip into a second time.

But 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.

 

[there4eyeM]

To offer an example from history of just how stupid the American people can be...before Reagan got shot, his approval rating was ~46%. After he got shot, it was ~66%. What had he done in the interim? Laid in a hospital bed, yet for the majority of the American electorate, that was enough them to perceive his performance as being better than it was before he got shot. Really? Reagan's job performance and the nation's feeling sympathy for his having been shot bear no rational relationship to one another.

Actually, that makes sense. America was better off when R.R. was inactive, and especially when he was out of office.