saved Vs. smart

Discussion in 'Politics' started by billwald, Jan 10, 2006.

  1. billwald

    billwald
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2000
    Messages:
    11,414
    Likes Received:
    0
    The thread about GWB misses the point. If the choice was between a genuine born again but stupid Christian and a wise Moslem, Hindu, or athiest, Other things being equal, I would choose the wise Moslem, Hindu, or athiest for president.
     
  2. hillclimber

    hillclimber
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2005
    Messages:
    2,075
    Likes Received:
    0
    I sure wouldn't. In the first place a stupid christian wouldn't be elected. And no GWB is not stupid, but is not a great communicator, unless it's scripted.
     
  3. billwald

    billwald
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2000
    Messages:
    11,414
    Likes Received:
    0
    Scripted = told what to say?
     
  4. hillclimber

    hillclimber
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2005
    Messages:
    2,075
    Likes Received:
    0
    no I mean when his speaches are written down to read, rather than speaking off the cuff. He's not a great communicator as were Reagan and Clinton, even though better educated.
     
  5. billwald

    billwald
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2000
    Messages:
    11,414
    Likes Received:
    0
    You gots to be kidding. Clinton was probably the best educated person to ever hold the job and also had common sense.
     
  6. emeraldctyangel

    emeraldctyangel
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2005
    Messages:
    737
    Likes Received:
    0
    hmmm so why would he say "I. never. had. sex. with. that. woman." if he had all that common sense?

    Anyway, you are correct with the comment on President Bush speaking off the cuff. For people who do a lot of public speaking or write speeches, some of the things he says make you cringe. But some people like it...they say it shows he is just a real person, not a talking head. I actually overheard that on a train in DC. I agree.
     
  7. StraightAndNarrow

    StraightAndNarrow
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2003
    Messages:
    2,508
    Likes Received:
    3
    I think that in order to run for president we should require every candidate to list all the sexual affairs they've had in their entire life. Then we could insure ourselves against another situation like we had with Clinton.

    In addition, I think we should make this a requirement for all current elected federal officials. Think that would do the trick? I'd like to hear GW's stories about when he used to get drunk and "fraternize" with the sorority girls at Texas.
     
  8. Hope of Glory

    Hope of Glory
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2005
    Messages:
    4,807
    Likes Received:
    0
    I think we should give a basic skills test, including political knowledge, in order to vote.
     
  9. Baptist in Richmond

    Baptist in Richmond
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2003
    Messages:
    5,075
    Likes Received:
    4
  10. Filmproducer

    Filmproducer
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    A very elitist notion. The voting population would be cut by 75% or more. Would said political knowledge test be only on basic government, or an in depth knowledge of the constitution, state constitution, amendments, bills, and those in office currently. (Not to mention the candidates)
     
  11. Terry_Herrington

    Terry_Herrington
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2002
    Messages:
    4,455
    Likes Received:
    1
    [​IMG] [​IMG] [​IMG]
     
  12. Hope of Glory

    Hope of Glory
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2005
    Messages:
    4,807
    Likes Received:
    0
    At least basic government and current events.

    I think Asimov may have had the right idea: Every citizen is permitted one vote. You can get more votes by showing knowledge on basic government, knowledge of the Constitution, education, etc., with a maximum of x number of votes.

    He was as liberal as they come, and he felt that this would hurt liberal views, as, in his opinion, most intelligent people vote conservatively, but at least that way you don't have the lowest common denominator deciding the next president, senator, etc. The fear factor ("He wants your mother to eat dog food!") would not play as big a role, and it would be much more difficult to buy votes.
     
  13. Filmproducer

    Filmproducer
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    ...but at least that way you don't have the lowest common denominator deciding the next president, senator, etc. The fear factor ("He wants your mother to eat dog food!") would not play as big a role, and it would be much more difficult to buy votes.

    True, although I don't agree with it, in that more knowledge equals more votes. Also, his views on intelligence and conservatism are interesting. Higher education tends to have a liberalizing effect in political awareness, according to the majority of studies I have seen. That is not to say someone must have some form of higher education to be politically educated. One thing is certain, regardless of the political behavior of the politically educated, the "masses" were never highly thought of. Otherwise we would not have the electoral college. If I had a quarter for every time one of my professors used the term "the masses are ...", (I think you get the point), I would be extremely wealthy.
     
  14. Hope of Glory

    Hope of Glory
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2005
    Messages:
    4,807
    Likes Received:
    0
    He said "intelligent" people, not "educated". Most studies do show that more education liberalizes. However, not all educated people are more intelligent; they are more knowledgable. Look at the studies based on intelligence. (I haven't looked at any myself in about a decade, so things might have changed.)

    I would also prefer that a majority be required to win any election, instead of a plurality as we have it now.

    I also don't think the states should be all-or-nothing when it comes to the EC.
     
  15. Filmproducer

    Filmproducer
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    He said "intelligent" people, not "educated". Most studies do show that more education liberalizes. However, not all educated people are more intelligent; they are more knowledgable.

    I agree, that is why I qualified that "politically educated", does not necessarily mean "higher educated". I was acknowledging the difference, albeit not very clearly, in retrospect. ;)

    I would also prefer that a majority be required to win any election, instead of a plurality as we have it now.

    I also don't think the states should be all-or-nothing when it comes to the EC.


    Again, I agree with you. Personally, I would like to get rid of the EC altogether. I am still a firm believer in "one person, one vote", though. I am more inclined to change the way politics is covered in the media, especially TV news coverage, as this is where voters tend to receive the majority of their "political" knowledge. James Fiskin's The Voice of the People: Public Opinion & Democracy, is an excellent read. His theories on adapting small group democracy to the nation-state are quite interesting. His idea for the National Issues Convention is quite intriguing, also.
     
  16. Daisy

    Daisy
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2003
    Messages:
    7,751
    Likes Received:
    0
    It is tempting to exclude stupid, ignorant people from voting - but don't they/we deserve representation, too?
     
  17. Hope of Glory

    Hope of Glory
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2005
    Messages:
    4,807
    Likes Received:
    0
    I think the states should always be one person one vote (unless there is a scaled system as I mentioned earlier), but because of population centers, I think the founding fathers were wise in the representative form of government and the EC. If not for that, the 5 most populous cities in the US would control national elections and national politics.
     
  18. emeraldctyangel

    emeraldctyangel
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2005
    Messages:
    737
    Likes Received:
    0
    ABSOLUTELY.

    Stupid and ignorant might be just a matter of perception.
     
  19. billreber

    billreber
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2005
    Messages:
    461
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hope of Glory said:

    "I think the states should always be one person one vote (unless there is a scaled system as I mentioned earlier), but because of population centers, I think the founding fathers were wise in the representative form of government and the EC. If not for that, the 5 most populous cities in the US would control national elections and national politics."

    Just look at what happened in Washington State last governor election -- King County (call that Seattle) elected Gregoire as governor. Or look at US Senator Cantwell -- 38 of 39 counties voted against her, but King County elected her! I, too, am glad for the EC. I think we should have one at the state level, too!

    Bill
     
  20. rsr

    rsr
    Expand Collapse
    <b> 7,000 posts club</b>
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2001
    Messages:
    10,071
    Likes Received:
    101
    That's up to the states. Maine and Nebraska have a proportional system. However, a proportional system wouldn't keep a person from winning the presidency with the second-largest number of votes.
     

Share This Page

Loading...