Will Trump Save The Nation By Stopping The Unwise From Voting ?

[bodecea]

Well, that's an EDUCATED response.

The ONLY one deserving from possibly the dumbest f*ing question ever asked on this board.

Democrats LOVE stupid citizens.

Gruber REPEATEDLY bragged at how stupid their average voter base was and how they COUNTED ON that stupidity to get away with all the scandalous criminal crap and lies they do get away with.

To that end they have controlled and run failing schools, more interested in teaching kids how to masturbate, gat abortions, and apply for Unemployment / Welfare than actually become educated, have controlled the media who continues to put out fake news after fake news.

And you ask how knowing the most basic facts about our government - how even knowing who the current President and Vice President is - 'WOULD MAKE SOMEONE A MORE INFORMED VOTER'?


BWUHAHAHAHA......!



THANK YOU FOR THE GREAT DEMONSTRATION:

Finally a poster that could pass a logic ability test.

Easy. ???

Logic ability with experience of age is the most wise !!

Educated. Informed ?????

The logic ability places the solutions in priority order no one is truly informed correctly without the high logic ability

So min age of 35. And top 1% of a high logic ability passed is the answer

So...one should not be allowed to vote under the age of 35? Ok, but no expectations of service to this country one has no say in then.....until 35....including taxes. No taxation without representation.

 

[GreenAndBlue]

And the founders would not let the unwise to vote

Wise people seldom flunk basic GRAMMAR...

Einstein use to horse laugh out of the building about educators thinking they are wise

Read his quotes to understand his disgust of education and its leaders

Einstein had bad grades while he walking by the river and figuring out the laws of life

Remembering like a parrot is not true wisdom. Only the ones with the logic are truly wise

They then can predict success or failure

A logic test for voting will come and the nation that does that will have the wise fleeing there and together making great progress

 

[LaDexter]

Einstein use to horse laugh

When you find yourself in a hole, stop digging....

 

[GreenAndBlue]

Well, that's an EDUCATED response.

The ONLY one deserving from possibly the dumbest f*ing question ever asked on this board.

Democrats LOVE stupid citizens.

Gruber REPEATEDLY bragged at how stupid their average voter base was and how they COUNTED ON that stupidity to get away with all the scandalous criminal crap and lies they do get away with.

To that end they have controlled and run failing schools, more interested in teaching kids how to masturbate, gat abortions, and apply for Unemployment / Welfare than actually become educated, have controlled the media who continues to put out fake news after fake news.

And you ask how knowing the most basic facts about our government - how even knowing who the current President and Vice President is - 'WOULD MAKE SOMEONE A MORE INFORMED VOTER'?


BWUHAHAHAHA......!



THANK YOU FOR THE GREAT DEMONSTRATION:

Finally a poster that could pass a logic ability test.

Easy. ???

Logic ability with experience of age is the most wise !!

Educated. Informed ?????

The logic ability places the solutions in priority order no one is truly informed correctly without the high logic ability

So min age of 35. And top 1% of a high logic ability passed is the answer

So...one should not be allowed to vote under the age of 35? Ok, but no expectations of service to this country one has no say in then.....until 35....including taxes. No taxation without representation.

Our founders were wise enough to use abilities correctly

They used 16 yr old Boys to fight in their wars. Because many parts of s great army needs that energy of a 16 yr old

So the founders did not let the young soldier to vote ..so they made the min age of voters as 21

 

[GreenAndBlue]

Einstein use to horse laugh

Be wise and learn by reading the top wisdom Einstein

When you find yourself in a hole, stop digging....

 

[LaDexter]

Read his quotes

WHY DON;'T YOU????



Einstein Letter Warning Of
Zionist Fascism In Israel
Letter That Albert Einstein Sent to the New York Times
1948, Protesting the Visit of Menachem Begin
11-1-4

Letters to the Editor
New York Times
December 4, 1948
TO THE EDITORS OF THE NEW YORK TIMES:
Among the most disturbing political phenomena of our times is the emergence in the newly created state of Israel of the "Freedom Party" (Tnuat Haherut), a political party closely akin in its organization, methods, political philosophy and social appeal to the Nazi and Fascist parties. It was formed out of the membership and following of the former Irgun Zvai Leumi, a terrorist, right-wing, chauvinist organization in Palestine.

The current visit of Menachem Begin, leader of this party, to the United States is obviously calculated to give the impression of American support for his party in the coming Israeli elections, and to cement political ties with conservative Zionist elements in the United States. Several Americans of national repute have lent their names to welcome his visit. It is inconceivable that those who oppose fascism throughoutthe world, if correctly informed as to Mr. Begin's political record and perspectives, could add their names and support to the movement he represents.
Before irreparable damage is done by way of financial contributions, public manifestations in Begin's behalf, and the creation in Palestine of the impression that a large segment of America supports Fascist elements in Israel, the American public must be informed as to the record and objectives of Mr. Begin and his movement. The public avowals of Begin's party are no guide whatever to its actual character. Today they speak of freedom, democracy and anti-imperialism, whereas until recently they openly preached the doctrine of the Fascist state. It is in its actions that the terrorist party betrays its real character; from its past actions we can judge what it may be expected to do in the future.
Attack on Arab Village
A shocking example was their behavior in the Arab village of Deir Yassin. This village, off the main roads and surrounded by Jewish lands, had taken no part in the war, and had even fought off Arab bands who wanted to use the village as their base. On April 9 (THE NEW YORK TIMES), terrorist bands attacked this peaceful village, which was not a military objective in the fighting, killed most of its inhabitants ? 240men, women, and children - and kept a few of them alive to parade as captives through the streets of Jerusalem. Most of the Jewish community was horrified at the deed, and the Jewish Agency sent a telegram of apology to King Abdullah of Trans-Jordan. But the terrorists, far from being ashamed of their act, were proud of this massacre, publicized it widely, and invited all the foreign correspondents present in the country to view the heaped corpses and the general havoc at Deir Yassin. The Deir Yassin incident exemplifies the character and actions of the Freedom Party.
Within the Jewish community they have preached an admixture of ultranationalism, religious mysticism, and racial superiority. Like other Fascist parties they have been used to break strikes, and have themselves pressed for the destruction of free trade unions. In their stead they have proposed corporate unions on the Italian Fascist model. During the last years of sporadic anti-British violence, the IZL and Stern groups inaugurated a reign of terror in the Palestine Jewish community. Teachers were beaten up for speaking against them, adults were shot for not letting their children join them. By gangster methods, beatings, window-smashing, and wide-spread robberies, the terrorists intimidated the population and exacted a heavy tribute.
The people of the Freedom Party have had no part in the constructive achievements in Palestine. They have reclaimed no land, built no settlements, and only detracted from the Jewish defense activity. Their much-publicized immigration endeavors were minute, and devoted mainly to bringing in Fascist compatriots.
Discrepancies Seen
The discrepancies between the bold claims now being made by Begin and his party, and their record of past performance in Palestine bear the imprint of no ordinary political party. This is the unmistakable stamp of a Fascist party for whom terrorism (against Jews, Arabs, and British alike), and misrepresentation are means, and a "Leader State" is the goal.
In the light of the foregoing considerations, it is imperative that the truth about Mr. Begin and his movement be made known in this country. It is all the more tragic that the top leadership of American Zionism has refused to campaign against Begin's efforts, or even to expose to its own constituents the dangers to Israel from support to Begin.
The undersigned therefore take this means of publicly presenting a few salient facts concerning Begin and his party; and of urging all concerned not to support this latest manifestation of fascism.
ISIDORE ABRAMOWITZ
HANNAH ARENDT
ABRAHAM BRICK
RABBI JESSURUN CARDOZO
ALBERT EINSTEIN
HERMAN EISEN, M.D.
HAYIM FINEMAN
M. GALLEN, M.D.
H.H. HARRIS
ZELIG S. HARRIS
SIDNEY HOOK
FRED KARUSH
BRURIA KAUFMAN
IRMA L. LINDHEIM
NACHMAN MAISEL
SEYMOUR MELMAN
MYER D. MENDELSON
M.D., HARRY M. OSLINSKY
SAMUEL PITLICK
FRITZ ROHRLICH
LOUIS P. ROCKER
RUTH SAGIS
ITZHAK SANKOWSKY
I.J. SHOENBERG
SAMUEL SHUMAN
M. SINGER
IRMA WOLFE
STEFAN WOLF.
New York, Dec. 2, 1948

 

[Cecilie1200]

And the founders would not let the unwise to vote

Wise people seldom flunk basic GRAMMAR...

Einstein use to horse laugh out of the building about educators thinking they are wise

Read his quotes to understand his disgust of education and its leaders

Einstein had bad grades while he walking by the river and figuring out the laws of life

Remembering like a parrot is not true wisdom. Only the ones with the logic are truly wise

They then can predict success or failure

A logic test for voting will come and the nation that does that will have the wise fleeing there and together making great progress

My friend, allow me to be the first to point out that YOU are no Einstein.

 

[bodecea]

And the founders would not let the unwise to vote

Wise people seldom flunk basic GRAMMAR...

Einstein use to horse laugh out of the building about educators thinking they are wise

Read his quotes to understand his disgust of education and its leaders

Einstein had bad grades while he walking by the river and figuring out the laws of life

Remembering like a parrot is not true wisdom. Only the ones with the logic are truly wise

They then can predict success or failure

A logic test for voting will come and the nation that does that will have the wise fleeing there and together making great progress

My friend, allow me to be the first to point out that YOU are no Einstein.

Winner! Winner! Chicken Dinner!

 

[basquebromance]

the unwise ought not vote, my friends.

personally, i listen to political interviews, speeches, audiobooks all day and follow every single US politician and pundit and everything they say. that should be a requirement for voting. everyone should be like me...then we'd have a REAL debate!

 

[LaDexter]

i listen to political interviews, speeches, audiobooks all day and follow every single US politician and pundit and everything they say.

and then basque does this....

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Although illegal, I often wish voters would have to take and pass a reasonable 'IQ test'.
- What are the 3 Branches of Government?
- Which Branch Controls The Budget / Spending?
- Who is the current President?
- Who is the current Vice President?
- The powers of the US govt / each Branch and our judicial system / our freedoms are based on what document?

All too often we see the infamous 'man on the street' segments on TV and are amazed at how stupid the average American walking around truly is about their government.

Jonathon Gruber repeatedly declared over and over how the Democrats not only consider their average voting base to be stupid but also declared they COUNT ON how stupid they are to get away with what they get away with.

Former FBI Director James Comey, however, revealed that it is NOT JUST the average citizen who is stupid but also just how stupid Democrat Leaders / Politicians are WHEN HE PUBLICLY DECLARED HILLARY HAD BROKEN LAWS BUT WAS TOO STUPID TO KNOW SHE WAS DOING IT.

Then you have other examples like Barak Obama who declared he had visited all 57 STATES, like D-Hank Johnson who warned if the US put any more troops on Guam THE ISLAND WOULD TIP OVER, and newly elected D-A.O-Cortez who attacked Hillary over continuing to build settlements in PALESTINE...before admitting she was no rocket surgeon and has no geopolitical knowledge / experience.

So, if we actually had a 'reasonable' IQ test requiring passage to vote we might be able to weed out stupid would-be politicians as well as would-be stupid voters...which would NOT be a bad thing.

Do you think those "man on the street" interviews are showing the average American?

If you work with people and at times discuss politics, unfortunately, yes, many are like those in the videos.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The President has no control over who votes or what their "qualifications" are.

Philosophically, it makes great sense to pre-qualify voters in any number of ways. Are they intelligent enough to understand the issues, the positions they are voting for, the positions of the candidates on the major issues of the day? Surely, these are relevant questions. Do they pay any taxes? What organization allows decisions to be made by people who don't pay their dues?

Are they biased? In this most recent election, millions and millions of women voted for candidates merely because they were women. Blacks usually support black candidates by at least 95%, unless it's a Republican. Jews vote for jews. Muslims vote for Muslims. Catholics used to vote for Catholics. Are these rational, valuable votes? Hardly.

There is a reason why the Founding Fathers left basically NOTHING to the popular vote. The state legislatures elected senators. The Electoral College elected the President. The only thing the People could vote for was their representative in the HR, and THAT REPRESENTATIVE cast all the meaningful votes on government actions.

Starting with the elimination of "literacy tests" in the South because they often prevented "Negros" from voting, the ACLU and its subversive fellow travelers have eliminated just about every voter qualification imaginable, so that idiots, fools, dullards, slackers, know-nothings, and human lemmings carry the same power as voters as the most educated or accomplished person in the country. Motor-voter, same day registration, and other such initiatives promote the same mindless objectives - getting ignorant, gullible people to the poles.

A local radio station here in Pittsburgh used to conduct "man in the street" interviews regularly before every election, with results that were tragic-comical - every time. The people interviewed at random were almost always uninformed, stupid, and inarticulate, and yet most of them were determined to vote. Their perception of the issues was usually factually incorrect, their perception of the positions of the candidates was often 180 degrees out of touch with reality, and their knowledge of exactly what powers the elected officials had was always incorrect. And I'm not talking about political opinions; I'm talking about knowledge of, for example, what a President's powers or a legislator's powers were.

It is a travesty.

In my opinion, the worst campaigns in the world are "get out the vote" campaigns. These efforts induce people at the margins who otherwise wouldn't bother, to vote. Again, it is getting the most gullible people to the polls. It is a disgrace, and it ALWAYS favors Democrats.

No matter how ill informed, the laws in this country affect them as much as you or me. That is the whole purpose of how our government was established. No action without representation. Their voices need to be heard, too.
If you are concerned they don't know enough, maybe you should actively try to get the word out to them. Support the Junior League or work on a campaign.

You can't teach somebody about something they don't care about. The problem with our "ill-informed" is they get to vote for representatives that promise to take money from other people to give to them. That's the problem with our voting system.

It would be like if everybody here got to vote to take your money away. Where is the equity in that? I want free college, I want free trade school, I want free healthcare, and I won't pay a dime into any of these things because I don't have the money. I'm voting for somebody else to pay for these things.

"Everybody?"
The Republicans/conservatives WON in 2016. House, Senate and White House under Republican control for two solid years, Supreme Court now with a conservative majority. And still you folks are bitching and moaning about the Democrats. They lost. What in hell else do you want?

Does that mean the Democrats went away? Of course not. They are still here, and like the wall funding, they still have the ability as a minority to stop a lot of things. For things they can't stop, they get some leftist activist judge to stop it for them.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I feel like we need more democracy, and not less of it.

Outside of Presidential elections, what's not democracy in our system? Majority votes in Congressional leaders, the majority votes in Senators, the majority votes in Governorships and various other smaller offices.

The only place democracy lags is in lifelong appointed judges and bureaucracies. I would love to see that changed.

I wasn't thinking of it as a binary (democracy vs. not democracy), but when I said "more democracy" I had in mind things like

- Participation. Certainly with voting (We have ~50% voter turnout) but also just in terms of people being better educated, more informed, more engaged, and so on. I think our democracy would be improved if citizens were more engaged.

- Quirks in the geographic structuring of our representational system which favors small states and rural districts, so for example one representative may represent either 500k people or nearly a million. That's merely a consequence of the expansion of house seats not keeping up with population growth. The Senate and Electoral College have similar effects. In general, I think that this property of the US system has some desirable benefits, it acts to bias representation in a way that favors geographic diversity over pure majority rule, and I think that's useful in a large country. But I think the size of the effect has gotten larger than is probably desirable. One thing that would help is increasing the size of the House of Representatives.

- The former issue is exacerbated by intentional gerrymandering, so you end up with situations like that in WI where one party wins 54% of the vote but ends up with 36% of state assembly seats. That's an extreme case but certainly illustrative of a lack of democracy. I think we need more judicial oversight of this problem.

- The inflexibility of first-past-the-post voting and the two party system. Because we vote for representatives one at a time and you can only select one option in a given election, there is a natural pressure towards a two-party system (see Duverger's Law). The entrenchment of the two parties certainly limits the range of political views and policies which are practically feasible. Especially given how large the country is, I think a voting system which made more diverse parties viable would be good, and I think increased competition from more parties would put pressure on the existing parties to be more responsive to their constituents. There are a lot of ways this could be done, from proportional representation systems to instant run-off voting.

We already have third and even fourth parties in this country. But the problem is nobody votes for them. Most people understand that voting for anything besides Republican or Democrat is simply throwing your vote away.

In most cases, we are not voting somebody in, we are voting to keep the other person out. That can't be accomplished by voting for anybody but the most likely person to stop the other one.

I didn't vote for Trump, I voted against Hillary.
I didn't vote for Romney, I voted against Obama.
I didn't vote for McCain, I voted to keep Obama out.

That's the way it is in this country, and only the voters can change that.

 

[well named]

Most people understand that voting for anything besides Republican or Democrat is simply throwing your vote away.

Sure, that's the entire reason for suggesting the need for reforms which would make more parties viable. Other voting systems don't have this same problem.

 

[Lesh]

I didn't vote for Trump, I voted against Hillary.

Well you GOT Trump...and we're all the worse for it

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Most people understand that voting for anything besides Republican or Democrat is simply throwing your vote away.

Sure, that's the entire reason for suggesting the need for reforms which would make more parties viable. Other voting systems don't have this same problem.

By doing what exactly? The candidates are out there and it's your choice on who to vote for. You can't say that X group must vote Green or Libertarian. They are out there and you can vote for any party you desire.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I didn't vote for Trump, I voted against Hillary.

Well you GOT Trump...and we're all the worse for it

You may be the worse for it, but working Americans and people who invest are having the time of their life.

 

[well named]

By doing what exactly? The candidates are out there and it's your choice on who to vote for. You can't say that X group must vote Green or Libertarian. They are out there and you can vote for any party you desire.

I think you missed that I mentioned changes to the voting system. I mentioned instant runoff voting and proportional representation

So, for example, Maine implemented instant runoff voting in 2016. Instead of placing a single vote for your top choice, you are able to vote for multiple candidates, indicating an order of preference. If some candidate gets a majority of voters' first preference votes, then they win the election. If no candidate gets a majority, then voters' 2nd and 3rd choices (and so on) are taken into consideration. This allows voters to cast their primary votes for candidates from smaller parties without thinking they are throwing their vote away, so it removes some of the structural pressure against candidates from new parties. That's the point.

Proportional representation goes further but has similar consequences, although it can only really work for legislature seats and not singular positions like governor. Instead of voting for a single candidate, you vote for a party. Imagine there are 10 seats open in the legislature, and 5 parties are running. If Party A gets 40% of the vote, they get 4 (40%) of the seats. If Party D gets 10% of the vote, they get 1 seat. Again the effect I'm interested in is that it makes voting for minority parties more viable, and making them more viable will lead to more of them existing.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

By doing what exactly? The candidates are out there and it's your choice on who to vote for. You can't say that X group must vote Green or Libertarian. They are out there and you can vote for any party you desire.

I think you missed that I mentioned changes to the voting system. I mentioned instant runoff voting and proportional representation

So, for example, Maine implemented instant runoff voting in 2016. Instead of placing a single vote for your top choice, you are able to vote for multiple candidates, indicating an order of preference. If some candidate gets a majority of voters' first preference votes, then they win the election. If no candidate gets a majority, then voters' 2nd and 3rd choices (and so on) are taken into consideration. This allows voters to cast their primary votes for candidates from smaller parties without thinking they are throwing their vote away, so it removes some of the structural pressure against candidates from new parties. That's the point.

Proportional representation goes further but has similar consequences, although it can only really work for legislature seats and not singular positions like governor. Instead of voting for a single candidate, you vote for a party. Imagine there are 10 seats open in the legislature, and 5 parties are running. If Party A gets 40% of the vote, they get 4 (40%) of the seats. If Party D gets 10% of the vote, they get 1 seat. Again the effect I'm interested in is that it makes voting for minority parties more viable, and making them more viable will lead to more of them existing.

I really don't see how that would change anything in our system of voting. Plus you would probably need a Constitutional amendment.

And how in the world would a person not get a majority of votes? By majority, are you saying one candidate gets more votes than all the others combined? Talk about defeating Democracy.

The only way we will ever get the confidence of voters to vote in a different party candidate is if both majority parties piss off their constituents at the same time. I do see steps taken in that direction with Donald Trump. He beat out all the other candidates especially those in the establishment. On the left, Sanders, an admitted Socialist, probably would have won their primary if the party didn't F with the votes.

 

[well named]

I really don't see how that would change anything in our system of voting. Plus you would probably need a Constitutional amendment.

I don't want to belabor the point too much, but I think it should be clear if you think about the comparison between instant-runoff voting and our current system as far as incentives and disincentives for voting a third party. In the current system -- assuming you know your preferred candidate is unlikely to win -- you are heavily disincentivized from casting that vote. In an IRV system you are not, because your vote for a second preference still counts. Removing the disincentive is the point. Given that Maine has implemented IRV, I don't think it requires an amendment, at least not nationally. Proportional representation I'm not sure about, but it may be the case that states could implement it individually for their own house seats.

And how in the world would a person not get a majority of votes? By majority, are you saying one candidate gets more votes than all the others combined? Talk about defeating Democracy.

I think you are confusing "plurality" and "majority". To win a plurality of votes means to get more votes than anyone else. Someone always gets a plurality. Majority means to win more than 50% of all votes cast. When there are more than two candidates, it becomes more likely that neither wins a majority (although someone does win a plurality). In an instant runoff election secondary preferences are counted no one wins more than 50% of the vote (see also here; I thought I linked this before but apparently pasted the wrong link). So, if one candidate gets a strict majority, they just win. If no candidate gets a majority, then secondary preferences are considered until someone has a majority. The link does a better job explaining.