https://www.salon.com/2018/03/03/why...olls-and-bots/
Printable View
Summing up the article:
Republicans are stupid.
Creationists are stupid.
There is an astonishing amount of liberal hoo-hey to be read here and a great deal of opinionism disguised as faux research. I do not recommend anyone take it seriously.
Meh, US is a stupid fucking country. I know it is unfair to say it since there are lots of intelligent Americans but look at your presidents: The dumbass George W Bush and now the mega-dumbass Donald Trump who makes George W. look like a genius. I don't want to get into the galactic hypocrisy of evangelicals who scream "FAMILEEEE VALUES!!!" yet vote for a sex-addict sex offender who boasts about his sex life, orgies, pays porn stars for sex, and dangles multiple affairs with a pregnant wife. LOL.
I would agree that the presidential selection is always lackluster without exception. At least since I've been eligible to vote. I'm not sure if there is a country who elects their leaders based on High IQ, Merit, and Moral Value, but I would love to meet them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xywalan
You have to have astounding funding to run. Regrettably, amassing wealth also generally involves amassing skeletons in your closet. It's very simple to say "Yea, I wouldn't be that kind of person if I had x-million dollars in the bank", but it is *REMARKABLY* difficult to keep general selfishness and self-importance in the backseat in life when you can have whatever you want, whenever you want. If only the super-rich get the chance to run..well yea, you're always going to get terrible choices for both parties. Sure..independents without massive funding run all the time, but they never get the exposure or any real chance, and when voting time comes, no-one even knows their names.
I do note that you removed all mention of democratic presidents from the list due to personal preference - but seriously, none of those presidents were any better. We could open discussions on Bill Clinton and Barrack Obama and the countless poor decisions they made, but you know them and you've heard them. TBH, I voted for Trump due to his policies, not his sexual exploits. If he continues to follow through with his policies (Unless there is another choice who presents those same policies), I intend on voting for him again. What he does in his own spare time is unfortunate and lets face it - asinine, but I'd much rather my family have a better future.
I kind of think the position of president should be done away with entirely and have the rest of the government structure fill in the gap...
Really.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xywalan
Denmark has immigration rules put in place that make Trump look like a saint - and I think he's a disaster. Want to seek asylum in Denmark? Great! Literally, give us all but $1450.00, you can keep that to live on.
The leaders of your DPP are some of the most horrific politicians I have ever heard of. Granted, Im not sure many people have even heard of your leaders.
Then we can move on to Lars Rasmussen and some of his insane, Trumplike, policies. Anti-immigration, anti-freedom, anti-Islam, anti-Judaism.
Every country has, from time to time, a bad leader or two. Denmark is no different - it is just infinitely less important to the world stage, so it draws far less attention.
:devil
Our current "Leadership Issues" along with nearly every other self proclaimed "Democratic" form of government in existence is that it is not, indeed, any form of Democracy.
The United States along with frankly every other Democratic power is a Plutocracy masquerading as a "Choice". You may choose Candidate A (Who is indebted to faction A, B, and C financially), or Candidate B (Who is indebted to faction D, E, and F financially). There is always a Candidate C (Who is still indebted to maybe only faction Z), but they never really have a serious chance. What is a Plutocracy? Well...that's when leadership has been purchased, which lends itself to an almost certain set course. From the most liberal atheist to the most zealous conservative, the same game is played.
Seeing as we do not have a truly reliable way to keep a Plutocracy from occurring in our current system, we are forced to choose between the less of two evils. It's unfortunate, but there are systems in place to keep this system to continue far into the future.
Going back to the article...
The article addresses the problem as an intellectual one. Well...kind of. We have doofus Republicans believing Fox News to be unerring truth, but on the other hand we have doofus Democrats believing CNN to be the unerring truth. To be intellectual means to accumulate knowledge. We have plenty of that. But most do not have the Wisdom to separate the good knowledge from the bad, and know how to correctly interpret said knowledge. We merely have two sets of individuals latching onto whatever media enforces their own (current) viewpoints, and absorbing that knowledge like a sponge. That's dangerous. That's how empires fall. PLENTY of intellect going on, granted it's selective and unwieldy.
The article goes on to state we are getting more stupid in comparison with other countries. Well...that's not so much the issue as much as underdeveloped countries are becoming more and more educated due to technology enabling them to do so. :) That's what we call a high class problem.
The article presents the following liberal sentiment: "We have some schools teaching creationist garbage". Bullcrap. I'm a software engineer who is surrounded by electrical engineers, physicists, and various other occupations who would take exception to being called stupid for believing in a higher power. I'm under the opinion that of the .00000001% of knowledge we currently have attained from the universe, the next .00000001% will only take us closer to God. Fearing knowledge is the mark of the ignorant. Wielding knowledge with arrogance and not accepting how little you know is not ignorant, but it is most definitely Unwise.
If we truly want what our country intends, which is a faultless Representative Democracy, then what we truly need is a system where:
1. The candidate for leadership is found and proved untied to any foundation for monetary support.
2. The candidate has to pass an actual intelligence test.
3. The candidate has to pass a background check and polygraph test similar to the current Top Secret Clearance process.
4. The candidate agrees to sell all businesses and stock in exchange for a presidential salary and benefits until death.
5. The candidate must answer a series of morally ambiguous questions to show their stance on hot topics such as torture, death penalty, abortion, etc...., and do so under a polygraph test.
The other option is to push away all leadership in its entirety and figure out some sort of "Direct Democracy" system where all citizens merely vote on issues which crop up. I doubt we'll ever get humanity to the point where that type of Utopia would ever work.
The problem isn't the intelligence of government. It's the reach of government.
Every single issue you stated (and I'm not going to debate whether I feel they are correct or not, moral or not, etc.) would be better solved not by a more stringent screening process, but rather by drastically limiting the authorities of government in our lives.
Scale government down to 1/10th it's size.
Government's involvement in people's lives should include "Protecting the rights of the individual against the whims and wishes of the masses, including against the government itself" and pretty much nothing else.
I generally agree with a lot (almost all, even) of what you said, Sier. I think it is worth making a distinction regarding this, however:
That is that I think it is worth separating 'believing in a higher power' from teaching Creationism in schools (if that actually happens in the states? I have no idea).Quote:
Originally Posted by Sier
If it does - teaching one specific religion's creation story as fact(?) would be problematic. Individual beliefs should not be a problem, but the state has a responsibility toward secularism, especially in education.
It's mostly a "Private School" phenomenon.Quote:
Originally Posted by Quilandros
Having gone to a public school, I haven't found it to be the case other than the occasional prayer at a sporting event or whatever (In the 90s).
Not intending to deny your anecdotal account, as I imagine it is accurate from your perspective, but my wife grew up in the Midwest and claims it is a very common occurrence there.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sier
As someone who follows the FFRF and their activities, I couldn't give you an exact count, but I've seen MANY articles about their campaign against religion being forced on the students in the public schools.
It is a common phenomenon.