My Brilliant Idea to Save America

[DigitalPigSnuggler]

Friends, and Fellow Americans;

These are troubled times, and I would not speak to you now if this were not a matter of grave national import, and by inference, grave import to ALL mankind, since the USA is the only country that matters (hey, just take a look around, you San Francisco Bay area residents, it's blindly obvious that the Indians, Chinese, etc. don't want to live in those places either).

There's few things that nearly all Americans can agree on. And so when we DO agree overwhelmingly about something, it's worth our time to think very carefully about the implications.

What Americans can agree on, overwhelmingly, is that stupid people are fucking up the process of electing the best candidate for President. Whether you support a Republican or a Democrat in an election, the phrase "How can anyone be so stupid as to vote for [insert name of other candidate] for President?" is virtually certain to have crossed your mind, your lips, or your keyboard.

Evidence of the stupidity of the voting public abounds. A representative news article in Yahoo, from 2008, reads in relevant part:

"The survey, conducted between April 30 and June 1 by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, measured the political knowledge of 3,612 U.S. adults. Participants were asked to name the controlling party of the U.S. House of Representatives, the U.S. secretary of state and Great Britain's prime minister.

Overall, just 18 percent of participants answered all three questions correctly.

More than 50 percent of Americans knew that the Democrats have a majority in the House, while 42 percent could identify the secretary of state (Condoleezza Rice). Less than 30 percent could name the prime minister of Great Britain (Gordon Brown)."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/20081015/sc_livescience/americansflunksimple3questionpoliticalsurvey

That's right, my friends, a typical voter is no more likely to ID the majority party in Congress than you would get by flipping a coin. And 3 out of 5 of them had no idea who is that trim, attractive black woman who was who always seemed to be hanging around Dubya Bush and other world leaders.

How 'bout those undecided voters, eh? I mean, you have to admire someone who is objective enough to not make a choice after about two years of campaigning, in which the candidates and their positions have had the widest possible exposure.

What's that you say? You think someone who is still undecided, and who bases his choice on the information that comes out during the last few weeks of the campaign, when both sides utterly abandon any pretense at honor or ethics and simply hurl shit at each other, is a stupid fucking asshole? I have but one response to that: WORD!!

The typical American voter is no better qualified to participate in selecting a President than is a house plant.

The stupid people -- and with the use of that term I mean both retards and the willfully ignorant -- have no business participating in the selection of a President. Unfortunately, they represent something approaching half of the electorate.  If we eliminated them from the process, all Americans would benefit.

This in and of itself is not a novel idea. The goddamn Founding Fathers realized that stupid people should be excluded from the process.  It always bangs up against the same problem, though: any screening method (a knowledge test that qualifies one to vote, say) is subject to abuse. It can be used to wrongfully exclude based on factors other than being too stupid to participate.

I got stuck on this point too. While I was pondering it, my thoughts turned to those who vote for 3rd party candidates. Take the Libertarians, for example. They are comprised of nothing more than retards, and the willfully ignorant.

And then it struck me...these people don't matter. Why? Because by their choice of candidates, they have removed themselves from the selection process. Their candidate will never win. And the beauty part is, we got them out of the game without preventing them from voting!

And thus we come to the core of my brilliant idea: stupid people (as defined by their inability to pass a simple test like in the Yahoo article) will be barred from voting for either the Democratic or the Republican candidate. They can still vote for anyone else, just not either of those two candidates (this can be administrated by distributing one of two ballots at the voting station; the stupid people's ballot will not have the D or R candidate on the list).

Just look at the benefits:

1) It won't cost a billion dollars to run a Presidential campaign anymore. Just honk your policies and positions into a web site for the smart people to read. It's all the commercials and related bullshit that must be used to capture the infinitesimal attention-span of stupid people that eats up all that cash. No need to kowtow to special interests anymore, or give handjobs to lobbyists to get donations.

2) Third party candidacies are still relevant. The stupid people will be voting for them, of course, and if they are joined by enough smart people, they can even win.

3) We get a decent, qualified candidate who doesn't have to flush his honor and dignity down the john like McCain did in 2008.  We don't end up with a chimp in the White House who is there because he wants to impress his Daddy (hi Dubya!).

4) It's what the Framers intended in the first place. 

There's some downsides, of course. One is that fucking Constitution. I'm sure some sleazy lawyer types will start wheeling out all sorts of loopholes like the Fifteenth, Nineteenth, and Twenty-sixth Amendments or some other fine print and claim that implies that voting has evolved into fundamental right.  But fuck them.  Earl has his guns and will give us military cover.

The other potential downside is that we could get a "looks good on paper" candidate like Jimmy Carter. Fortunately, the Internet is full of thoughtful, objective citizens to check that danger through their logical, well-reasoned commentary.

My work here is done. I'm just the idea guy, it's up to the rest of you to take it from here.  Get to work.

[eeieeyeoh]

DPS, now that you've given your effort of perverting American politics, is there anything else that you would like this forum to know other than you are a hidden participant?

[FightTheFuture]

There exists no fundamental  right to vote in a Presidential election.

In fact,  were the Founding Fathers to be reanimated, they would probably be a bit perplexed that so many nimrods are being herded into  ballot booths to cast their completely uninformed vote.

I have been in favor of some sort of means testing for many years. When less than 50 percent of the voting populous can name the Vice-President  and the Speaker of the House, we have a major crisis, in MY ever so humble opinion.

[Yorkshire pud]

If you re-wrote things now, you'd not have founding fathers. You'd have founding mothers and fathers. I would bet all my hair things would be very different to now. Oh, and the terminally stupid would be excluded.

[PB the Deplorable]

If you re-wrote things now, you'd not have founding fathers. You'd have founding mothers and fathers. I would bet all my hair things would be very different to now. Oh, and the terminally stupid would be excluded.

If we re-wrote things now, it wouldn't go anywhere.  A super majority of the states would not agree to anything coming out of today's Washington DC.

When the Constitution was written and agreed to over 200 yeas ago, had a different set of Founders produced your 'very different' document, that also would not have been ratified.  The only thing that would have been ratified by a supermajority of the colonies was exactly what we got - a small Federal government, with specific powers delegated to it, separation of powers between the executive, legislative, and judiciary, and the real political power left to the various states.  It's a shame that's nearly completely ignored and gone now.

As far as the first 10 Amendments, they might be somewhat different, but probably not much.  One thing sure - the 2nd Amendment would have been in there.  Our colonial women and frontier women knew how to shoot and knew the wisdom of keeping and bearing arms.  It's only some modern Liberals today who don't understand it.

[Yorkshire pud]

  One thing sure - the 2nd Amendment would have been in there.  Our colonial women and frontier women knew how to shoot and knew the wisdom of keeping and bearing arms.  It's only some modern Liberals today who don't understand it.

Yeah, because you never know when the opportunity will come along to overthrow the government.. Tips should be gleaned from Quick Karl on strategy, formation, execution and post revolution and post apocalyptic scenario. He understands it, cos he's got his finger on the pulse. He's also a poor deluded, misogynist, racist sad fuck, but no matter. He knows.

[analog kid]

Only 15% of the country is willing to state emphatically that they believe in evolution. Our problems run a lot deeper than being informed on political issues. Burrr.

[b_dubb]

I can't believe it took him 2500 words to say the stupid and the uninformed should be barred from voting. DPS? Turn in your voter registration card at the front desk!

[Yorkshire pud]

I can't believe it took him 2500 words to say the stupid and the uninformed should be barred from voting. DPS? Turn in your voter registration card at the front desk!

This might say more; Maybe.


http://youtu.be/q49NOyJ8fNA

[eeieeyeoh]

This might say more; Maybe.


http://youtu.be/q49NOyJ8fNA

I disagree with the claim made that "The first step in solving any problem is recognizing there is one." It seems more true to me that the first step and most difficult step in solving any problem is thoroughly defining the problem.

What do religion, politics, psychology, and other pseudo-sciences have in common? Selfish greed.
What is the solution to solving selfish greed? Thoroughly defining the technologies used to plant, cultivate, grow, and harvest it. Full public disclosure of payments made and winnings received from legal gambling businesses including insurance, stocks, campaign contributions, and others would also help. Full public disclosure of every government tax money collected and what it was spent on would help too.

Secrecy in Countries developing weapons of mass destruction for selfish reasons should have ended at the end of the Cold War in ~ 1990 when all National Standards Labs agreed on the same definition and numbers of what a scientific Standard is. Although the universe we all live in can be unpredictable at times like the dinosaurs found out, something stable about life is it needs food and water to survive. It also seems all food nutritious for humans was alive too. Although there may never be a proven way known to divert an extinction causing asteroid on direct collision with Earth, steps in developing tools to get the earliest warning of such an event and powers to alter that event should be developed by Scientists internationally. I vote that the leaders of Israel, Palestine, and all the other Arab countries should be included in that effort.

[DigitalPigSnuggler]

I can't believe it took him 2500 words to say the stupid and the uninformed should be barred from voting.

Here, ladies and gentlemen, is an example of someone who would be supplied with a Stupid Person ballot.  The kind of person for whom reading any political piece longer than a bumper sticker is an onerous task.  The kind of person who can't understand something even if he reads it.*  The kind who, despite these fetters to thought and reason, feels compelled to issue dismissive, embellished** commentary that the author is an idiot because the stupid person can't understand him.  The kind who prefers his politics served up as Simple Truths pre-chewed by intellectual giants such as Rush, Beck, Palin, and Ru Paul.  Sorry, I meant Rand Paul.  Always get those two mixed up for some reason.

* I didn't say anyone should be barred from voting.  Try again.  Sound out the words slowly if you need to.
** That would be a bit over 1000 words, not 2500 words.  I forgive you for not having that many fingers and toes.

[wr250]

Here, ladies and gentlemen, is an example of someone who would be supplied with a Stupid Person ballot.  The kind of person for whom reading any political piece longer than a bumper sticker is an onerous task.  The kind of person who can't understand something even if he reads it.*  The kind who, despite these fetters to thought and reason, feels compelled to issue dismissive, embellished** commentary that the author is an idiot because the stupid person can't understand him.  The kind who prefers his politics served up as Simple Truths pre-chewed by intellectual giants such as Rush, Beck, Palin,bush, clinton (either),kerry,gore,bush 1,obama (either)or anyone on  this forum   and Ru Paul.  Sorry, I meant Rand Paul.  Always get those two mixed up for some reason.

* I didn't say anyone should be barred from voting.  Try again.  Sound out the words slowly if you need to.
** That would be a bit over 1000 words, not 2500 words.  I forgive you for not having that many fingers and toes.

fixed it for you.and yes i include myself in that list under "anyone on this forum" as we all know each of us are intellectual giants, at least in our own minds.

[DigitalPigSnuggler]

fixed it for you.and yes i include myself in that list under "anyone on this forum" as we all know each of us are intellectual giants, at least in our own minds.

Okay, but what about Ru Paul?

[wr250]

Okay, but what about Ru Paul?

you mean the sweet transvestite, from Transsexual Transylvania, or the politician ? (and is there really a difference between them?)

[DigitalPigSnuggler]

(and is there really a difference between them?)

Ru Paul has better hair.  And is a better public speaker.

[b_dubb]

If we eliminated them from the process, all Americans would benefit.

* I didn't say anyone should be barred from voting.  Try again.  Sound out the words slowly if you need to.

Your cognitive impairment/disability definitely disqualifies you from voting in your dystopia.  Idiocracy.  Whatever.

[DigitalPigSnuggler]

Your cognitive impairment/disability definitely disqualifies you from voting in your dystopia.  Idiocracy.  Whatever.

I'm sorry that complex thought processes leave you in the dust, a slobbering drooling Stupid Person who is always wondering what's going on.

I'll try one last time, and then after that you'll just have to be content with wallowing in your own loose-boweled ignorance.  While I was describing the process and possible solutions, I said this:

"If we eliminated them from the process, all Americans would benefit."

Then I went on to explain why that wasn't necessarily possible or desirable:

"It always bangs up against the same problem, though: any screening method (a knowledge test that qualifies one to vote, say) is subject to abuse. It can be used to wrongfully exclude based on factors other than being too stupid to participate."

What to do about this dilemma?  Here was where I got my inspiration:

"Their candidate will never win. And the beauty part is, we got them out of the game without preventing them from voting!"

Read that part in bold type for a hundred years, until it begins to sink in.  When and if it does, maybe you can begin to see why you're a Stupid Person.

[don't read this next part until after a hundred years]

What, STILL can't figure it out?  Try this part:

"And thus we come to the core of my brilliant idea: stupid people (as defined by their inability to pass a simple test like in the Yahoo article) will be barred from voting for either the Democratic or the Republican candidate. They can still vote for anyone else, just not either of those two candidates"

Okay, NOW can you see why you're being such a goddamn dumbshit for claiming that I said they "should be barred from voting"?  No?  I thought not.

[analog kid]

They shouldn't be barred from voting, but they should be quarantined and unable to vote for whom they want to vote for.

I can see why your point is too nuanced for people to grasp.

[DigitalPigSnuggler]

They shouldn't be barred from voting, but they should be quarantined and unable to vote for whom they want to vote for.

They shouldn't be barred from voting, but they should be quarantined and unable to vote for whom they want to vote for.

[shrug] And college students who fail to achieve a minimum level of academic competency should be quarantined and unable to work for whom they want to work for. 

Haters gonna hate.  I'm trying to do something positive here.

Take a break from your hateration to consider this: As a registered Republican, I was not permitted to vote for Obama during the primaries in 2008, even though I worked for his campaign.  Unlike my fabulous plan, there is no way to raise yourself out of that situation by becoming more capable of making an informed choice.

[b_dubb]

This might say more; Maybe.


http://youtu.be/q49NOyJ8fNA

Fucking excellent. Thanks you limey bastard

I disagree with the claim made that "The first step in solving any problem is recognizing there is one." I

You're wrong. Next question.

[DigitalPigSnuggler]

You're wrong. Next question.

"We're going to solve the problems before we know we have them."  Brilliant.

[Yorkshire pud]

"We're going to solve the problems before we know we have them."  Brilliant.

It's semantics.. knowing you have a problem is the same as recognising there is one. Means the same thing. E.G....my leg is broken, I know it's broken, and a problem. I also recognise it's broken and is a problem.

[Yorkshire pud]

Fucking excellent. Thanks you limey bastard

That's Mr Limey Bastard to you Dubbman. 

[eeieeyeoh]

You're wrong. Next question.

What do you believe is the first step in solving a problem?

Are you a part of the American media that hides or changes problems using words, emotions, and "half-truth" videos/audios/publications?

Do you believe the American statistics in relation to other Countries mentioned by the person in the vid posted who said the "solving a problem" claim was correct?

Do you know how to define the word "problem" and also define all the words used in doing so?

[DigitalPigSnuggler]

It's semantics.. knowing you have a problem is the same as recognising there is one. Means the same thing. E.G....my leg is broken, I know it's broken, and a problem. I also recognise it's broken and is a problem.

It's risky to assume an understand about anything eeiii is talking about, but I don't think it's a matter of semantics.  The video has people saying that America is the greatest country in the world.  A character disagrees, and forcefully makes a reasoned argument citing statistics.  He ties it up by saying the phrase in question: that the first step in solving a problem is recognizing that there is one (feel free to substitute "knowing" for "recognizing").  His point is that few people are acting because they don't see it.  Maybe a form of denial.

Eeeiii might be alluding to this little speech, saying that the newscaster is defining the problem for everyone, which is the first step for solving it.  If so, he's still wrong.  The newscaster KNOWS there is a problem.  He makes his speech so that others will KNOW there is a problem.  If they disagree with him, then all that defining didn't start the fixing process at all.  It starts when people recognize (or know) that there is one, and action is required.

Imma cupping b_dubb's balls on this one.  Eeeiii is wrong.  Or incorrect, if you prefer.

[Yorkshire pud]

Imma cupping b_dubb's balls on this one.  Eeeiii is wrong.  Or incorrect, if you prefer.

I blame old Mc Donald.

[eeieeyeoh]

It's risky to assume an understand about anything eeiii is talking about, but I don't think it's a matter of semantics.  The video has people saying that America is the greatest country in the world.  A character disagrees, and forcefully makes a reasoned argument citing statistics.  He ties it up by saying the phrase in question: that the first step in solving a problem is recognizing that there is one (feel free to substitute "knowing" for "recognizing").  His point is that few people are acting because they don't see it.  Maybe a form of denial.

Eeeiii might be alluding to this little speech, saying that the newscaster is defining the problem for everyone, which is the first step for solving it.  If so, he's still wrong.  The newscaster KNOWS there is a problem.  He makes his speech so that others will KNOW there is a problem.  If they disagree with him, then all that defining didn't start the fixing process at all.  It starts when people recognize (or know) that there is one, and action is required.

Imma cupping b_dubb's balls on this one.  Eeeiii is wrong.  Or incorrect, if you prefer.

First, I'd like it be known that I'm called E5 in another forum.

In my opinion, the vid clearly shows a black wavy haired male Israeli National, beautiful brunette "liberal" American, and neutral American journalists on stage during a College level Professor's conducted class forum that must have been a subject related to journalism.

You claimed I'm wrong. Do you know what the definition of the word "wrong" is and what is your evidence?

Are you claiming America is the greatest Country on Earth?

I'm trying to prove America isn't now a very great Country, along with the reasons why. It's been overthrow by a religion that has tax-exempt Synagogues to train their following that has a leader that's been hidden for > 2K years. Evolving events till now causing death and destruction of America as defined in real-time takes a leader to make those decisions to cause them. Perhaps the problem is leaders developing the technologies of how to escape responsibility by being an unknown by even the majority of their followers.

I'm not a leader though. I just figured out the value of a dictionary > 40 years ago. I'd rather be known as the anti-Babel than the anti-Christ. After all, my first 8 years of education was by a Roman Catholic school and I was an Altar Boy during the Greek prayer days. Unfortunately it doesn't seem anyone is concerned with finding anything that Jesus wrote.

[Yorkshire pud]

Unfortunately it doesn't seem anyone is concerned with finding anything that Jesus wrote.

Put your mind at rest... There's nothing to find.

[eeieeyeoh]

Put your mind at rest... There's nothing to find.

Are you saying the Holy Apostles wrote only falsehoods in the New Testament?

Although I don't know what being raised a Jew and the death warrant being claimed on my Mother's fetus was about, and wasn't born in a manger, are you claiming a major jump in communication technology?

However the foundation was based on a baby being born and left in the Nile river in a reed basket to be discovered crying and raised by Egyptian royalty at the time and named Moses.

The Babylon era seems erased.

Since I feel an epissle coming on, I'll be back soon.

[Yorkshire pud]

[/quote]

Are you saying the Holy Apostles wrote only falsehoods in the New Testament?

What is it about some on this forum who deliberalty try to put words in others' mouths? It irritates me no end. But as you've gone off on a tangent; The New testament bible wasn't begun until after the crucifixion of Jesus; by about 3-400 years afterwards.


What you said and I addressed was this:

Unfortunately it doesn't seem anyone is concerned with finding anything that Jesus wrote.

Jesus didn't write anything; ergo there's nothing to find. It's why I said there's nothing to find.

are you claiming a major jump in communication technology?

What the hell are you wittering on about? Are you claiming one? You're back to sticking words in other peoples mouths.