What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

timschochet's thread- Mods, please move this thread to the Politics Subforum, thank you (1 Viewer)

Gr00vus said:
At this point, all it tells me is that the 100 college educated adults either had families wealthy enough to sponsor them though to graduation, or they're saddled with some serious debt. Neither of those things indicates any particular level of intelligence to me.
Click to expand...
Everybody passes at American colleges?

That would explain some things, I suppose

 
timschochet said:
All right, good point. 

I am very concerned that there are a lot of stupid people voting in this election, especially for Donald Trump. I have no way of knowing if this is true or not but I suspect it is. Does anyone else share this concern? 
Click to expand...
I know that on my Facebook, the ones who outwardly support Trump are easily the bottom 25% of my friends, intellectually. In fact, I don't have one 'smart' friend who supports Trump. I'd guess that, nationally, their average IQ is well below average.

 
timschochet said:
I'm just going to write something here which may get me into trouble ...

A lot of voters on both sides are stupid. No I am not talking about uninformed (though most stupid people are uninformed as well), I'm talking about not very bright. ..

Because we have a democratic system (and I'm not in favor of any other kind, don't get me wrong) the stupid people have as much right to vote as anybody else. But I don't see why we need to encourage them to do so. I would prefer an oligarchy of smart people running things around here. 
Click to expand...
Ok then I'm going to try to make lemonade about this.

First of all - voters are not stupid, everyone has an equal right and justification to get what they want out of their electoral process. For some of us these can be matters of principle or ideology, for some of this these can be real benefits like entitlements or acquired rights like health care, whatever, we all have an equally justified right to demand what we demand. However both parties have been ignoring their own constituencies at their own peril. The Democrats IMO have been ignoring the reality of what has happened to American manufacturing, jobs, wages - look at the participation rate, a third of America is out of work, and the real inflation rate, which if you put back in the baskets like staples and that kind of thing it's much higher than stated; and if you look at the GOP there has been the constant engagement in failed wars of choice and the promotion of immigration for the sake of cheap labor. Now we can talk about the right and wrong of what has been done but some to many people have in fact been hurt or betrayed by these policies

Secondly, you totally do not believe in campaign finance reform. Anyone who believes as you do does not believe in government reform, transparency, or diffused power by democracy in any way. You may be a Democrat but you are not a democrat. IMO this second opinion of yours puts you very, very close to many a Donald voter. Aside from the racism/sexism issues, you're really on the wrong team TBH.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet said:
I'm just going to write something here which may get me into trouble but I truly believe it, it's a problem and I don't know what should be done about it:

A lot of voters on both sides are stupid. No I am not talking about uninformed (though most stupid people are uninformed as well), I'm talking about not very bright. There are stupid people voting for Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders: you know who they are because when they get interviewed they offer incredibly dumb reasons for doing so. 

And Donald Trump has the largest number of stupid people voting for him that we've had in some time. Normally most stupid people don't worry me too much because they don't vote. But a populist, exciting candidate like Trump brings out the dummies as if they were attending NASCAR or a monster truck show. Everything Trump says attracts these people because he dumbs down all issues, offers slogans and quick fixes rather than real solutions, and is belligerent which is something stupid people enjoy. 

Because we have a democratic system (and I'm not in favor of any other kind, don't get me wrong) the stupid people have as much right to vote as anybody else. But I don't see why we need to encourage them to do so. I would prefer an oligarchy of smart people running things around here. 
Click to expand...
I actually agree with your thoughts on this.  In theory, I would prefer a benevolent monarch to a democracy.  In practice, though, democracy is clearly better because monarchs don't tend to stay benevolent.  

Given that we're stuck with a constitutionally-limited (ha ha) democracy as the least bad option, I'd prefer less voter participation to more.  I've posted scores of times in our various voter ID threads that little hoops to jump through are fine if they screen out the shiftless and lazy.  This election is a little weird in that you have one candidate who openly appeals to stupidity.  I mean, practically all candidates rely on the stupid and uniformed to get them over the top, but that's Trump's core constituency.  

 
IvanKaramazov said:
I actually agree with your thoughts on this.  In theory, I would prefer a benevolent monarch to a democracy.  In practice, though, democracy is clearly better because monarchs don't tend to stay benevolent.  

Given that we're stuck with a constitutionally-limited (ha ha) democracy as the least bad option, I'd prefer less voter participation to more.  I've posted scores of times in our various voter ID threads that little hoops to jump through are fine if they screen out the shiftless and lazy.  This election is a little weird in that you have one candidate who openly appeals to stupidity.  I mean, practically all candidates rely on the stupid and uniformed to get them over the top, but that's Trump's core constituency.  
Click to expand...
High participation occurs in times of crisis or when people feel a need to show up when they ordinarily do not. Parties can either manufacture crisis or the crisis can be real, but right now the high turnouts are a sign that things are not well here.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
SaintsInDome2006 said:
High participation occurs in times of crisis or when people feel a need to show up when they ordinarily do not. Parties can either manufacture crisis or the crisis can be real, but right now the high turnouts are a sign that things are not well here.
Click to expand...
That's probably true.  Then again, the fact that a guy like Trump can actually be this close to winning his party's nomination is a prima facie sign that things are not well.  I won't speak for tim, but that's kind of my point.  Ideally we would have strong checks against democracy when people are inclined to do something dumb, like vote for Donald Trump.

 
timschochet said:
I'm just going to write something here which may get me into trouble but I truly believe it, it's a problem and I don't know what should be done about it:

A lot of voters on both sides are stupid. No I am not talking about uninformed (though most stupid people are uninformed as well), I'm talking about not very bright. There are stupid people voting for Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders: you know who they are because when they get interviewed they offer incredibly dumb reasons for doing so. 

And Donald Trump has the largest number of stupid people voting for him that we've had in some time. Normally most stupid people don't worry me too much because they don't vote. But a populist, exciting candidate like Trump brings out the dummies as if they were attending NASCAR or a monster truck show. Everything Trump says attracts these people because he dumbs down all issues, offers slogans and quick fixes rather than real solutions, and is belligerent which is something stupid people enjoy. 

Because we have a democratic system (and I'm not in favor of any other kind, don't get me wrong) the stupid people have as much right to vote as anybody else. But I don't see why we need to encourage them to do so. I would prefer an oligarchy of smart people running things around here. 
Click to expand...
As long as you're the oligarch.  That's the catch.

 
timschochet said:
I'm just going to write something here which may get me into trouble but I truly believe it, it's a problem and I don't know what should be done about it:

A lot of voters on both sides are stupid. No I am not talking about uninformed (though most stupid people are uninformed as well), I'm talking about not very bright. There are stupid people voting for Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders: you know who they are because when they get interviewed they offer incredibly dumb reasons for doing so. 

And Donald Trump has the largest number of stupid people voting for him that we've had in some time. Normally most stupid people don't worry me too much because they don't vote. But a populist, exciting candidate like Trump brings out the dummies as if they were attending NASCAR or a monster truck show. Everything Trump says attracts these people because he dumbs down all issues, offers slogans and quick fixes rather than real solutions, and is belligerent which is something stupid people enjoy. 

Because we have a democratic system (and I'm not in favor of any other kind, don't get me wrong) the stupid people have as much right to vote as anybody else. But I don't see why we need to encourage them to do so. I would prefer an oligarchy of smart people running things around here. 
Click to expand...
Understand the sentiment but logistically the challenge is stupid and smart aren't clearly definable. 

 
timschochet said:
Rich I haven't offered a specific proposal because I'm not sure what would be best. I'm not adverse to your idea, but I don't think that by itself it would have too much of an impact. How many voters would actually take the time to go on a website and look? Those that would are probably pretty well-informed anyhow. 
Click to expand...
That's kind of my point.  You say that we need campaign finance reform, but you aren't offering a proposal.

 
JuniorNB said:
Random said:
Pick my candidate

Social issues - pro choice, support gay marriage (in other words let people make their own decisions).

Environmental - Governments should make regulations to protect the planet.

Economic - Get a job (if you are physically and mentally able).  Let the free market decide your wages.  If you want/need welfare, you should be drug tested.  Fair tax or the closest thing to it.

Domestic - guns kill people and there should be more restrictions on buying one.

Healthcare - I don't hate Obamacare.

Foreign policy - we could probably decrease military spending.  Terrorists should be waterboarded.

Pro space travel.

TIA.
Click to expand...
If you can get this list to Trump or Clinton and somehow arrange that he/she is speaking only to you, he/she will agree with you on 100% of this.
Click to expand...
Fixed your post.

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
Good question, my first thought is the Bush brand approval rating may have been much higher among the donor class than among the general populace. Anyone could see (I believe) that throwing the name "Bush" into this climate last summer was just gas on the fire.
Click to expand...
He failed to make the case for the Bush brand.  He bungled the Iraq quesyion a half dozen times when he had eiht years to come up with an answer.  He committed major gaffes and came out sd not ready. 

 
bananafish said:
I believe the "stupid voter problem" was a concern even at the founding of our republic and was one of the reasons many other countries thought we were crazy for going with a representative democracy. It was a gamble that somehow we would get it right anyways.

I'm sure YankeeFan could address this much more cogently than I, but I have a vague memory of it being brought up in "The Federalist Papers" and whatnot. I am pretty sure Tocqueville brought it up as well in "Democracy in America".

I think what Tim wants is akin to the philosopher king in Plato's Republic. As was already stated, the hard part is figuring out who is "gold" or just how golden they are. One of the reasons The Republic would be a horrible model for a state.

In any event it's a symptom with no feasible cure as far as I can tell. We've been doing alright for awhile now.
Click to expand...
Yes, this is pretty close.  The Federalist Papers make a big deal out of how the constitutional system was designed to stymie "factions."  By that, the authors really meant regional interests, but populist movements like Trump's would qualify too.  

 
Well personally I find Tim to be fairly constrained in his comments to others. I don't agree with him on a lot of things but he is no more dismissive or insulting of others opinions(and probably less so) than I am. I just happen to.be right so that makes a difference.

 
timschochet said:
I'm just going to write something here which may get me into trouble but I truly believe it, it's a problem and I don't know what should be done about it:

A lot of voters on both sides are stupid. No I am not talking about uninformed (though most stupid people are uninformed as well), I'm talking about not very bright. There are stupid people voting for Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders: you know who they are because when they get interviewed they offer incredibly dumb reasons for doing so. 

And Donald Trump has the largest number of stupid people voting for him that we've had in some time. Normally most stupid people don't worry me too much because they don't vote. But a populist, exciting candidate like Trump brings out the dummies as if they were attending NASCAR or a monster truck show. Everything Trump says attracts these people because he dumbs down all issues, offers slogans and quick fixes rather than real solutions, and is belligerent which is something stupid people enjoy. 

Because we have a democratic system (and I'm not in favor of any other kind, don't get me wrong) the stupid people have as much right to vote as anybody else. But I don't see why we need to encourage them to do so. I would prefer an oligarchy of smart people running things around here. 
Click to expand...
You understate the problem.

It's not just stupid or uninformed people who are ill-equipped to be astute voters in today's elections. It's nearly everybody.

The problem is that the policy issues that dominate today's debates are complicated. Take campaign finance reform as an example. You are neither stupid nor uninformed, but you can't carry on a conversation about any specific proposals for reform that might be appropriate. The specifics of health care reform are also really complicated. Trade policy. Labor relations. What's going on in Libya. NGDP targeting. Criminal sentencing guidelines. A new Glass-Steagall? Something about loopholes for hedge-fund managers? The effect of energy policy on climate change? Subprime mortgages and credit-default swaps? Farm subsidies...

Nobody can be  an expert on all of those things -- very few people are experts on even one of them -- and yet they are complicated enough that competently evaluating specific policy-proposals on any of those topics does require some expertise. They are subjects that cannot be covered fruitfully in oral debates. Candidates could publish heavily footnoted (and ghostwritten) white papers on them, but few voters would have the capacity to read and understand them even if they wanted to, and pretty much nobody would want to.

The result is that political campaigns are not really about the issues, at least not in meaningful depth, and really cannot be, because we are pretty much all too stupid or uninformed for that to work. Instead of debating the merits of individual provisions of the TPP, we tend to get vague statements about how free trade is good or unfair trade is bad.

We muddle on in the hope that the wisdom of even an uninformed crowd can get more things right than a despot or a dartboard. But the problems you identify would not disappear, or even perhaps be much diminished, if only we could mute the influence of stupid people. The problems run much deeper than that.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Maurile Tremblay said:
You understate the problem.

It's not just stupid or uninformed people who are ill equipped to be astute voters in today's elections. It's nearly everybody.

The problem is that the policy issues that dominate today's debates are complicated. Take campaign finance reform as an example. You are neither stupid nor uninformed, but you can't carry on a conversation about any specific proposals for reform that might be appropriate. The specifics of health care reform are also really complicated. Trade policy. Labor relations. What's going on in Libya. NGDP targeting. Criminal sentencing guidelines. A new Glass-Steagall? Something about loopholes for hedge-fund managers? The effect of energy policy on climate change? Subprime mortgages and credit-default swaps? Farm subsidies...

Nobody can be  an expert on all of those things -- very few people are experts on even one of them -- and yet they are complicated enough that competently evaluating specific policy-proposals on any of those topics does require expertise. They are subjects that cannot be covered fruitfully in oral debates. Candidates could publish heavily footnoted (and ghostwritten) white papers on them, but few voters would have the capacity to read and understand them even if they wanted to, and pretty much nobody would want to.

The result is that political campaigns are not really about the issues, at least not in meaningful depth, and really cannot be, because we are pretty much all too stupid or uninformed for that to work. Instead of debating the merits of individual provisions of the TPP, we tend to get vague statements about how free trade is good or unfair trade is bad.

We muddle on in the hope that the wisdom of even an uninformed crowd can get more things right than a despot or a dartboard. But the problems you identify would not disappear, or even perhaps be much diminished, if only we could mute the influence of stupid people. The problems run much deeper than that.
Click to expand...
Skynet 2016

 
I have wondered if, instead of voting for a candidate, you just pick a stance on issues.  something like those 'who do you side with' questionnaires.  you actually don't know who you voted for until the end.  I'm sure there are a ton of possible problems with this but it'd help with low info voters and those who vote just by the letter after the name.

 
tonydead said:
We've found a gigantic flaw in our system that we've been pimping and even forcing onto other countries?
Click to expand...
"Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time." - Winston Churchill

 
While we are quoting Churchill

The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.

Winston Churchill
 
Click to expand...
Unfortunately 50% of the voters are stupider than the average one. Trump has tapped into them and been open about it.

 
Maurile Tremblay said:
You understate the problem.

It's not just stupid or uninformed people who are ill-equipped to be astute voters in today's elections. It's nearly everybody.

The problem is that the policy issues that dominate today's debates are complicated. Take campaign finance reform as an example. You are neither stupid nor uninformed, but you can't carry on a conversation about any specific proposals for reform that might be appropriate. The specifics of health care reform are also really complicated. Trade policy. Labor relations. What's going on in Libya. NGDP targeting. Criminal sentencing guidelines. A new Glass-Steagall? Something about loopholes for hedge-fund managers? The effect of energy policy on climate change? Subprime mortgages and credit-default swaps? Farm subsidies...

Nobody can be  an expert on all of those things -- very few people are experts on even one of them -- and yet they are complicated enough that competently evaluating specific policy-proposals on any of those topics does require some expertise. They are subjects that cannot be covered fruitfully in oral debates. Candidates could publish heavily footnoted (and ghostwritten) white papers on them, but few voters would have the capacity to read and understand them even if they wanted to, and pretty much nobody would want to.

The result is that political campaigns are not really about the issues, at least not in meaningful depth, and really cannot be, because we are pretty much all too stupid or uninformed for that to work. Instead of debating the merits of individual provisions of the TPP, we tend to get vague statements about how free trade is good or unfair trade is bad.

We muddle on in the hope that the wisdom of even an uninformed crowd can get more things right than a despot or a dartboard. But the problems you identify would not disappear, or even perhaps be much diminished, if only we could mute the influence of stupid people. The problems run much deeper than that.
Click to expand...
I need to piggyback off of this at some point because it is the start of a very interesting discussion about the nature of our government.  Good post.

 
timschochet said:
I'm just going to write something here which may get me into trouble but I truly believe it, it's a problem and I don't know what should be done about it:

A lot of voters on both sides are stupid. No I am not talking about uninformed (though most stupid people are uninformed as well), I'm talking about not very bright. There are stupid people voting for Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders: you know who they are because when they get interviewed they offer incredibly dumb reasons for doing so. 

And Donald Trump has the largest number of stupid people voting for him that we've had in some time. Normally most stupid people don't worry me too much because they don't vote. But a populist, exciting candidate like Trump brings out the dummies as if they were attending NASCAR or a monster truck show. Everything Trump says attracts these people because he dumbs down all issues, offers slogans and quick fixes rather than real solutions, and is belligerent which is something stupid people enjoy. 

Because we have a democratic system (and I'm not in favor of any other kind, don't get me wrong) the stupid people have as much right to vote as anybody else. But I don't see why we need to encourage them to do so. I would prefer an oligarchy of smart people running things around here. 
Click to expand...
Wow, wow,and more wow...  Your favorability rating with me just went from very high to very low in a couple of sentences.

Who gets to decide if someone is stupid or not Tim?  And how exactly is that done?  A standardized test?  Whether or not they support Donald Trump?  I mean seriously - you are way too smart a person not to understand the obvious pitfalls of this.  When Albert Einstein started elementary school one of his teachers thought he was mentally ######ed (sorry PC policy).  Other teachers later described him as "dull-witted".  I can't believe this actually needs to be said, but there are all sorts of different types of intelligence, tim.  I've known people who have gotten 1600 on their SAT's who I wouldn't trust running a lemonade stand, nevermind a business, school, or government.

I've read some crazy stuff in here the past 3 months, some real intolerant garbage, but this just about takes the cake. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Higgs said:
Wow, wow,and more wow...  Your favorability rating with me just went from very high to very low in a couple of sentences.

Who gets to decide if someone is stupid or not Tim?  And how exactly is that done?  A standardized test?  Whether or not they support Donald Trump?  I mean seriously - you are way too smart a person not to understand the obvious pitfalls of this.  When Albert Einstein started elementary school one of his teachers thought he was mentally ######ed (sorry PC policy).  Other teachers later described him as "dull-witted".  I can't believe this actually needs to be said, but there are all sorts of different types of intelligence, tim.  I've known people who have gotten 1600 on their SAT's who I wouldn't trust running a lemonade stand, nevermind a business, school, or government.

I've read some crazy stuff in here the past 3 months, some real intolerant garbage, but this just about takes the cake. 
Click to expand...
It's pretty bigoted but at this moment southern rednecks are the one group of people that you can still make fun of with no repercussions.

 
Higgs said:
Wow, wow,and more wow...  Your favorability rating with me just went from very high to very low in a couple of sentences.

Who gets to decide if someone is stupid or not Tim?  And how exactly is that done?  A standardized test?  Whether or not they support Donald Trump?  I mean seriously - you are way too smart a person not to understand the obvious pitfalls of this.  When Albert Einstein started elementary school one of his teachers thought he was mentally ######ed (sorry PC policy).  Other teachers later described him as "dull-witted".  I can't believe this actually needs to be said, but there are all sorts of different types of intelligence, tim.  I've known people who have gotten 1600 on their SAT's who I wouldn't trust running a lemonade stand, nevermind a business, school, or government.

I've read some crazy stuff in here the past 3 months, some real intolerant garbage, but this just about takes the cake. 
Click to expand...
I want you to understand this, because you're one a few people who has misinterpreted me (which very well be my fault.) So let me clarify: 

There iis NO better form of government that I can come up with than the one we have: a democratic republic with a constitution that ensures rights respected by all. To me, this is the best human beings have been able to come up with. When I wrote that I wish we were governed by an oligarchy of smart people, that means I wish that our system of government allows us to choose such people. Most of the time it does. That does NOT mean that I want such people to take over and rule in some kind of dictatorial or authoritarian manner. 

So to answer your question, nobody gets to "decide" who's smart and who isn't. The public will elect it's leaders; I just hope that the cream rises to the top. My concern, in the case of Donald Trump, is that it will not do so. 

 
Maurile Tremblay said:
You understate the problem.

It's not just stupid or uninformed people who are ill-equipped to be astute voters in today's elections. It's nearly everybody.

The problem is that the policy issues that dominate today's debates are complicated. Take campaign finance reform as an example. You are neither stupid nor uninformed, but you can't carry on a conversation about any specific proposals for reform that might be appropriate. The specifics of health care reform are also really complicated. Trade policy. Labor relations. What's going on in Libya. NGDP targeting. Criminal sentencing guidelines. A new Glass-Steagall? Something about loopholes for hedge-fund managers? The effect of energy policy on climate change? Subprime mortgages and credit-default swaps? Farm subsidies...

Nobody can be  an expert on all of those things -- very few people are experts on even one of them -- and yet they are complicated enough that competently evaluating specific policy-proposals on any of those topics does require some expertise. They are subjects that cannot be covered fruitfully in oral debates. Candidates could publish heavily footnoted (and ghostwritten) white papers on them, but few voters would have the capacity to read and understand them even if they wanted to, and pretty much nobody would want to.

The result is that political campaigns are not really about the issues, at least not in meaningful depth, and really cannot be, because we are pretty much all too stupid or uninformed for that to work. Instead of debating the merits of individual provisions of the TPP, we tend to get vague statements about how free trade is good or unfair trade is bad.

We muddle on in the hope that the wisdom of even an uninformed crowd can get more things right than a despot or a dartboard. But the problems you identify would not disappear, or even perhaps be much diminished, if only we could mute the influence of stupid people. The problems run much deeper than that.
Click to expand...
This is an incredibly awesome post, and I'm going to quote it to my friends and discuss it further. It's fascinating. 

 
Then again, I may be overly pessimistic. Lots of analogies have been made for Donald Trump: to Hitler, to Mussolini, to Joe McCarthy, to George Wallace. 

But perhaps he is simply the latest version of Andrew Jackson. Jackson was the first President who ran on populist themes and had the support of rednecks and uneducated people all over the place. And most historians consider him one of our better Presidents (not me, but I have a problem with the native American thing.) So perhaps Trump is only acting in the best American traditions? I doubt it, but I wanted at least to offer this possibility. 

 
Now I need to do some housekeeping: 

In posting the list of my top 100 novels, I have been re-reading several of them, and I have discovered that at least 5 of the novels I've already posted are not as good as I thought the first time I read them. I've also discovered that there are a few novels that are absolute favorites that I left off my list entirely. Therefore, I am removing 5 novels from my list. Those novels are: 

#98 11/22/63 by Stephen King

#97 The Rosie Project by Graeme Simsion

#95 Under the Dome by  Stephen King

#92 The Fourth Estate by Jeffrey Archer

#83 The Far Pavilions by M.M. Kaye

All good novels; just not good enough. They will all be replaced by novels which I forgot to add previously.

This means that my last posted novel, #53 The Charm School by Nelson De Mille, is now #58.  Sorry about the confusion. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet said:
I want you to understand this, because you're one a few people who has misinterpreted me (which very well be my fault.) So let me clarify: 

There iis NO better form of government that I can come up with than the one we have: a democratic republic with a constitution that ensures rights respected by all. To me, this is the best human beings have been able to come up with. When I wrote that I wish we were governed by an oligarchy of smart people, that means I wish that our system of government allows us to choose such people. Most of the time it does. That does NOT mean that I want such people to take over and rule in some kind of dictatorial or authoritarian manner. 

So to answer your question, nobody gets to "decide" who's smart and who isn't. The public will elect it's leaders; I just hope that the cream rises to the top. My concern, in the case of Donald Trump, is that it will not do so. 
Click to expand...
Don't you find it a little ironic that Donald Trump is one of the "smart" people?

 
timschochet said:
This is an incredibly awesome post, and I'm going to quote it to my friends and discuss it further. It's fascinating. 
Click to expand...
To take it a step further, the person we elect as president likely doesn't understand the nuance of all these topics, so you are really just voting for the person you think will bring in the best experts to explain it to him/her so they can make an informed decision.

 
timschochet said:
Then again, I may be overly pessimistic. Lots of analogies have been made for Donald Trump: to Hitler, to Mussolini, to Joe McCarthy, to George Wallace. 

But perhaps he is simply the latest version of Andrew Jackson. Jackson was the first President who ran on populist themes and had the support of rednecks and uneducated people all over the place. And most historians consider him one of our better Presidents (not me, but I have a problem with the native American thing.) So perhaps Trump is only acting in the best American traditions? I doubt it, but I wanted at least to offer this possibility. 
Click to expand...
Andrew Jackson is the comparison I always make when talking about Trump.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
lakerstan said:
To take it a step further, the person we elect as president likely doesn't understand the nuance of all these topics, so you are really just voting for the person you think will bring in the best experts to explain it to him/her so they can make an informed decision.
Click to expand...
I'd take it a step further.  The Civil Service does the lion share of the work.  The government is like the Titanic.  Course corrections are gradual and take a long time to make.

 
timschochet said:
Now I need to do some housekeeping: 

In posting the list of my top 100 novels, I have been re-reading several of them, and I have discovered that at least 5 of the novels I've already posted are not as good as I thought the first time I read them. I've also discovered that there are a few novels that are absolute favorites that I left off my list entirely. Therefore, I am removing 5 novels from my list. Those novels are: 

#98 11/22/63 by Stephen King

#97 The Rosie Project by Graeme Simsion

#95 Under the Dome by  Stephen King

#92 The Fourth Estate by Jeffrey Archer

#83 The Far Pavilions by M.M. Kaye

All good novels; just not good enough. They will all be replaced by novels which I forgot to add previously.

This means that my last posted novel, #53 The Charm School by Nelson De Mille, is now #57. Sorry about the confusion. 
Click to expand...
Yet you leave in Gerald's Game. Pffft

 
Apparently lots of Democrats voting in the Republican primary in Ohio. If they are voting for Trump it could be a cause of concern for November. But nobody knows how they're voting. 

 
lod01 said:
Sure we do. ;)  You got a big surprise coming.
Click to expand...
Most of the Democrats going for Kasich, per MSNBC. 

Looks like you're the one surprised. And I admit, it's a sigh of relief for me. The Dems are voting Republican in Ohio not to join Trump but to beat him. That bodes very well for November. 

 
How much actual "work" did you do today tim? An hour? Less than an hour? I swear on all that's holy I'm not making fun but just generally curious (and, to be honest, jealous). You've been putting 18 hour days in here lately. Can you get me a job?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Pip's Invitation
The THIRD 100 from 1971. #1: Echoes
5 6 7
Replies
310
Views
18K
BobbyLayne
BobbyLayne
Pip's Invitation
The Next 100 Songs from 1975, aka Sanbornpalooza. #1: Black Friday
9 10 11
Replies
527
Views
32K
Pip's Invitation
Pip's Invitation
krista4
In this thread I rank my favorite Beatles songs: 204-1.
138 139 140
Replies
7K
Views
254K
rockaction
rockaction

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top