Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
When one distills liberal policy down to its main purpose and reasons for implementation, one is led to the conclusion that such policies are designed to bring the downfall of the US as a sovereign nation, creating national suicide.
Liberals have a perverted sense of "right and wrong" in that actions which any rational person would characterize as evil or immoral are embraced as "acceptable means" to achieve what they perceive (quite wrongly) as a better end.
The "means" and the "ends" are inseparable and rarely, if ever, does a rational and altruistic entity employ elements of subjugation and evil to achieve its goals. Liberals have been culled into believing the opposite and thus fully embrace any actions, no matter how eggregious, to achieve their marxist goals. Those "goals", however, bring only misery and servitude to the masses, not the utopia they envision. If the average liberal would read history, they would understand this.
I suppose that might be true of some leftists, where their quest for this utopian world of equality and fairness might blind them to the negative consequences of such thinking, however, I suspect it’s more endemic of Marxist ideology and it’s methods that attract those of an authoritarian mindset that define the greater majority.
I have reached this conclusion simply by observing how the left seem to relish imposing their will upon others, not just on larger more important issues, but on every issue, no matter how insignificant. There is simply no willingness to engage honest debate on any subject, large or small. These people demand 100% compliance across the board, else you are deemed the “enemy” and subject to their wrath. And they will employ any means necessary to destroy those who don’t go along, lockstep. Even the slightest step over the imposed line is unacceptable, even among those within their own ranks.
Further proof of this exists in the left’s contradictory positions. These many contradictions indicate that there is no real “philosophical principle” involved in forming their opinions, unlike rational, well meaning people whose opinions follow a certain pattern of consistency in philosophy.
For example, the left’s supposed embrace of LGBTQ community is in direct, unambiguous opposition to their decision to also embrace the cause of Islam, who represent the greatest enemy to homosexuals that exist. For the rational minded, this seems to be an unreconcilable conflict philosophically, but it’s actually consistent with the hidden, undeclared philosophy. What is the unrecognized connection? Authoritarianism. The LGBTQ folks are just another pawn the left uses to impose its authoritarianism will upon the masses, just like they use “minorities” as a means to an end. They don’t give a rats ass about Gay people, Black people, Women, etc. And if one looks close enough, you see proof of that EVERYWHERE.
Women are perhaps the most profoundly obvious example of this that we have right now, as we see how the left defend these transgender males posing as women, who aren’t just destroying women in women’s sports, but competing (and winning) beauty pageants, posing as women in advertising campaigns, etc., and this goes as far as pursuing an agenda to deny women the basic privacy of female only spaces, like restrooms and changing rooms. This is nothing short of an all out war waged on women, using mentally ill males as the weapon, yet these same leftists claim to be the champions for women? There is not one female in this country who should identify as a democrat, even though a majority still do, for some bizarre reason.
These apparent philosophical conflicts like wanting to ban fire arms for the “sake of the children” while supporting on demand abortion, and the outrageous mutilation of children under the guise of “gender affirming care” is also quite obvious that it has no basis in actual concern for children ... the kids are also just pawns used to advance their authoritarian agendas.
So, I’m no longer willing to relegate the left’s endless misadventures and misdeeds as a consequence of unsound reasoning or ignorance, and see it as proof of their lust for exercising and imposing power over others, as the primary driving factor. I believe the evidence for this is now overwhelming.
Last edited by GuyNTexas; 10-16-2023 at 10:57 AM..
"Sparsely populated counties" shouldn't elect presidents. Florida shouldn't elect presidents. New York or California either. Individuals, with their votes, should elect the President. I haven't seen one good argument here for keeping the EC.
I can give you the only reason any rational person would require to look unfavorably at “popular vote” being the determining factor .... IQ.
The average IQ in the United States is now shockingly .... 98. That’s the average. That means that 50% fall somewhere at or below 98, which is terrifying to consider the possibility that we could wind up with the bottom 50.1 % deciding the course for the rest of us.
If you require a more compelling reason for keeping the EC, I don’t think I can help you on that.
"People like you"? I guess you mean uneducated. I have a PhD, you can call schools liberal but please tell me, then, what you consider well educated.
The electoral college was invented to placate slave states. That's the historical background you're championing. No thank you.
No it wasn't. The 3/5 Compromise, yes. The Electoral College mechanism itself was always on the board.
The smaller states didn't trust the larger ones, a couple of which weren't slave states (Pennsylvania, New York, Massachusetts. All three had minimal number of slaves but weren't in the same league as Virginia).
The 3/5 came about as a compromise between counting slaves as 1:1 (what the slave states wanted) and not counting them (what the non-slave states wanted).
To convince each other that the rigged game of thrones has some sort of participatory legitimacy, which is clearly untrue. It's more of an opiate for the masses than religion, this absurd belief that any vote matters. The oligarchy appoints winners and losers and uses the election circus as cover and distraction.
Second, not only is your vote meaningless from any sort of participation standpoint, it makes you complicit in your own oppression via your explicit sanction of tyranny, having taken part in it and thus legitimizing it. People say "well, you didn't vote, so you have no right to complain" and I think it's the opposite. If you vote, no matter who you voted for, you voted for someone to hold a monopoly on force and violence and involuntary power over you. That is a simple fact of involuntary government. Thus, you explicitly asked for whatever it is the political class does to you, giving you no right to then come around and claim unwilling victim status. Cannot rape the willing.
Finally, nothing changes regardless of which team (red or blue) is holding the lead at any point in their game of thrones. Debt goes up, oppression/intrusion/cost increases, people are less free all the way around, and no matter what the partisans for either team claim, their team cannot and will not change any direction they find troubling.
So add it up.
Your vote elects nobody, powerbrokers with $billions appoint them.
Your vote is your complicity and sanction of everything the political class does to you
Your vote changes nothing because no matter who wins at what level, nothing changes.
Back to your highlighted query...yeah, why do people need to vote at all?
GREAT POST.
Trump was the only politician who at least tried a new way, and of course he was combatted at every turn by both parties. Voting is pretty much meaningless.
"People like you"? I guess you mean uneducated. I have a PhD, you can call schools liberal but please tell me, then, what you consider well educated.
The electoral college was invented to placate slave states. That's the historical background you're championing. No thank you.
Lots of people confuse education with intelligence, and that’s particularly true among the “well educated”. But the reality is, your PhD is nothing more than evidence that you ...
1) have decent enough memory retention (or cheating skills) to pass several years of tests, examinations, and written exercises ....
2) you had the support resources available that allowed you to spend an extraordinary amount of your early adult life as an advanced high school student
3) your lack of actual life experience shields you from having to reconcile taught theory in conflict with reality, or even notice when the two conflict, (which happens more often than not),
4) you are politically savvy enough to keep any conservative values you may personally embrace, a well guarded secret
5) you must be willing to abandon independent thinking when in conflict with the leftist orthodoxy, in order to appease those who will ultimately decide whether or not to allow your entry into the PhD club.
As for this idea that the EC was instituted to “placate” slave States is absurd at face value, and indicates a lacking of effective and honest education.
The foundation of the electoral collage links back to the Catholic Church’s College of Cardinals, and under the premise of having the most knowledgeable and informed individuals choosing leadership, such as President and Vice President, based on merit, rather than on political party or State of origin, and understanding that the choice was important enough to the health and welfare of the Union and it’s citizenry to ensure that the choice was made by those best qualified to make such decisions.
Ending the electoral college will be great for states that allow illegals to vote.
The electoral college was already benefiting the sanctuary states, because of apportionment.
When we conduct the US Census, the raw population count, which includes illegal aliens, is used when apportioning state seats to the U.S. House of Representatives and for votes in the Electoral College. But this advantage is not enough.
The dems realize that densely populated cities routinely vote overwhelmingly for the Democrats. They want one or two large cities in a state to eclipse the votes from every other district and precinct throughout the rest of the state. They want one giant blue city to wipe out the votes from entire states made irrelevant in the voting process. Despite the fact that almost have that now.
Then demand your state allocate their electors based on the popular vote internal to their state.
Each state is weighted at their max influence. And it's their decision how it's allocated. It's one the main vestiges of state's rights. Without this last vestige (because the 10th amendment is completely gone), the country will immediately break up because people in north dakota aren't going to be ruled by Californians rigging their elections, turnouts and population numbers.
I will agree, we overall do need a dramatically simpler government. This ain't the late 1770s anymore. People are fuuuccckkiinnnggg reetttarrddddedd now.
Lots of people confuse education with intelligence, and that’s particularly true among the “well educated”. But the reality is, your PhD is nothing more than evidence that you ...
1) have decent enough memory retention (or cheating skills) to pass several years of tests, examinations, and written exercises ....
2) you had the support resources available that allowed you to spend an extraordinary amount of your early adult life as an advanced high school student
3) your lack of actual life experience shields you from having to reconcile taught theory in conflict with reality, or even notice when the two conflict, (which happens more often than not),
4) you are politically savvy enough to keep any conservative values you may personally embrace, a well guarded secret
5) you must be willing to abandon independent thinking when in conflict with the leftist orthodoxy, in order to appease those who will ultimately decide whether or not to allow your entry into the PhD club.
Intelligence test scores and educational duration are positively correlated. This correlation could be interpreted in two ways: Students with greater propensity for intelligence go on to complete more education, or a longer education increases intelligence. We meta-analyzed three categories of quasiexperimental studies of educational effects on intelligence: those estimating education-intelligence associations after controlling for earlier intelligence, those using compulsory schooling policy changes as instrumental variables, and those using regression-discontinuity designs on school-entry age cutoffs. Across 142 effect sizes from 42 data sets involving over 600,000 participants, we found consistent evidence for beneficial effects of education on cognitive abilities of approximately 1 to 5 IQ points for an additional year of education. Moderator analyses indicated that the effects persisted across the life span and were present on all broad categories of cognitive ability studied. Education appears to be the most consistent, robust, and durable method yet to be identified for raising intelligence.
The lesser educated try to tell themselves that having more education does not make you smarter because it would be an admission they are not as smart as those with more education than them. Furthermore, since they are lesser educated and, thus, tend to have lower IQ's, they are incapable of understanding how education can actually make one smarter.
Of course, such people aren't going to understand the analysis at the link anyway, but be that as it may.
IQ tests are very good at measuring certain mental faculties, he says, including logic, abstract reasoning, learning ability and working-memory capacity - how much information you can hold in mind.
But the tests fall down when it comes to measuring those abilities crucial to making good judgements in real-life situations. That's because they are unable to assess things such as a person's ability to critically weigh up information, or whether an individual can override the intuitive cognitive biases that can lead us astray.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
