Let's make America smart again

[Ziggurat]

Yes, but I think that morality is beyond the confined of the thread.

Intelligence is not.

You are wrong. I'm following the evidence to what I believe is the reasonable conclusion.

But you disallow the possibility that people could follow the evidence to any other reasonable conclusion.

Because it's reasonable.

No, it isn't. It's dogmatic.

 

[Ziggurat]

Presumption of innocence is for the courtroom..

Even there, that standard is not universal.

 

[xjx388]

No, this is absolutely not what anyone is saying, which means that not only do you not get it, but haven't read the thread at all.

Sure I have. I have very good reading comprehension (or so the standardized tests tell me ) and this is pretty much what many arguments are saying. My original thought was that the OP was sincerely trying to discuss ways of improving education in America. However, after reading the subsequent arguments by the OP and others, the real topic seems to be that Clinton lost because there are too many stupid people so we have to Make America Smarter.

The thread is about the demonstratable flaws of Trump and the unfounded accusations against Clinton, the people who ignored the former and believed the latter, and whether or not one could say that these people need to get smarter, and how to do this.

What if Clinton's perceived flaws had more to do with her policies than her emails and other alleged flaws? What if people voted for Trump despite their dislike for him personally because he was the candidate more likely to implement policies they like?

I think you are painting with a very broad brush when you say (not you personally but the OP and discussion in general) that America needs to get smarter because they didn't vote for a candidate you perceive as less flawed.

 

[Belz...]

Intelligence is not.

Your use of the word "okay" was a value judgment. What does it have to do with intelligence?

But you disallow the possibility that people could follow the evidence to any other reasonable conclusion.

No, that's not true. I've offered my reasoning for my conclusion. You're free to offer an alternative view. No one has done so in this thread so far.

No, it isn't. It's dogmatic.

Explain that. If the presumption of innocence is a fundamental aspect of our justice system because it's the best way to preserve our liberties and dignity, why then would it be somehow wrong-headed to apply this standard to a larger number of fields or activities? I'm not talking about choosing which pizza to buy at the restaurant, here, but about a conclusion reached based on available evidence.

 

[Belz...]

Sure I have. I have very good reading comprehension (or so the standardized tests tell me ) and this is pretty much what many arguments are saying.

Then I disagree with your claim that you have a good reading comprehension.

My original thought was that the OP was sincerely trying to discuss ways of improving education in America. However, after reading the subsequent arguments by the OP and others, the real topic seems to be that Clinton lost because there are too many stupid people so we have to Make America Smarter.

How about you address _my_ arguments, then?

What if Clinton's perceived flaws had more to do with her policies than her emails and other alleged flaws? What if people voted for Trump despite their dislike for him personally because he was the candidate more likely to implement policies they like?

I'm not interested in hypotheticals. Can you demonstrate that this scenario corresponds with reality?

I think you are painting with a very broad brush when you say (not you personally but the OP and discussion in general) that America needs to get smarter because they didn't vote for a candidate you perceive as less flawed.

Well, that's not what I'm saying at all, so it's all good.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

..... My original thought was that the OP was sincerely trying to discuss ways of improving education in America. .........

Why in the world would you think that in the Politics Forum?

Did you report to the moderators that the thread should be moved to Education?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Why in the world would you think that in the Politics Forum?

Did you report to the moderators that the thread should be moved to Education?

The thread did not start in the politics forum. But it's a waste of time now that any hope is gone of actually addressing critical thinking, fake news stories, and other actual issues sans political party attacks.

 

[Belz...]

The thread did not start in the politics forum. But it's a waste of time now that any hope is gone of actually addressing critical thinking, fake news stories, and other actual issues sans political party attacks.

Yep. All that matters now is that she lost. Whether or not she lost because of ignorance is irrelevant, so we can just all forget about reason and go home.

 

[Navigator]

Is this thread still on point?

If so, I am wondering if it is an established fact that "America" has ever been smart?

eta

Thought NSFW - contains a swear word or two

this

was an interesting commentary on America and her not-so-smart politics...I don't agree with it all but in general it is accurate enough.

 

[xjx388]

Then I disagree with your claim that you have a good reading comprehension.

We agree to disagree.

How about you address _my_ arguments, then?

Your arguments depend on the idea that people voted for Trump because they thought Clinton had flaws that were not based in reality. I think you are wrong about that. I think they voted against Clinton because they didn't like her policies and the "establishment politics" she represents. And for all Trump's faults and all his rhetoric he at least represented a position that many people support: tough on immigration, anti-Obamacare, etc.

I'm not interested in hypotheticals. Can you demonstrate that this scenario corresponds with reality?

I voted against Hillary because I felt that she would represent a continuation of Obama's policies especially when it comes to the medical field which is where I make my living and tax policy which affects me directly. It really had nothing to do with Clinton and her emails, etc.

 

[Ambrosia]

What's particularly ironic is that Trump is really just Obama without the airs and "dignified" trappings. Even though I saw what Obama was back in 2008, and I thought even back then he would be a poor President (and, in my opinion, I was proved right)

I am from the UK. (note that in the UK the most left wing Democrat policies are roughly centre right Conservative policies here)

I don't follow US politics particularly closely, but from the outside looking in Obama has been the best US president by a country mile in my lifetime. (born in '75. W Bush, imo, being the worst.)

I can't for the life of me understand how the US political system works when for 3/4 of his years in office he's been opposed by a Republican Congress whose policies were "do the complete opposite of anything Obama wants." The GOP seems to me to have been usurped by religious fundamentalists. I get extremely uncomfortable when religion and politics mix.

Given the state of the world and of the US at the time he took office, I'd say he's done a remarkably good job.

In any case, Obamacare is untenable as it is.

No arguments there, but it was based on a republican plan, and then opposed at every stage of the process, so what you have in effect is basically "ObamaCareLight". Which when you live in a country with a decent healthcare system is laughable, or at least it would be if it wasn't quite so tragic. The NHS here is very far from perfect, but it's orders of magnitude better than the mess you have in the US. Had Obama implemented his original plan the system would be much better, as I understand it.

Yes. As I've said before, the Presidency is idiot-proof but not genius-proof. Hillary Clinton was a much graver threat to liberty than Donald Trump could be. The mainstream media will be on Trump's ass from day 1 (or actually day -72), and Trump is not smart enough to get away with anything to devious. I can't say the same for the Clintons.

This is a fair point. Though from where I am sitting Bill Clinton was also a good president so him having some input into US policy again wouldn't have been such a bad thing. Political dynasties are bad. Power corrupts, and all that. So perhaps another Clinton in the top job would indeed have been a bad thing. It's hard to say how much experience is too much, and how long an individual can be in power before they begin to get corrupted.

Trump is an absolute wild card, hopefully he'll shake things up a lot and when the next elections come around there will be newer, better candidates to choose from and the 'checks and balances' in the US will manage to keep him from doing anything monumentally stupid (like stacking the SCOTUS with religious judges, pulling out of Climate Change agreements, or going to war) in the meantime.

The unwashed masses are not as dumb as the elite thinks they are, and the elite are not as smart as they think they are. That's perhaps the most important thing I've learned during my adulthood which has made me into a conservative.

Very true.

My overriding thought from watching the US elections from here has been that in a country of over 300million those were the best 2 candidates you could find?

 

[Belz...]

Your arguments depend on the idea that people voted for Trump because they thought Clinton had flaws that were not based in reality.

That's half of my argument. The other half is that they thought Trump had qualities he doesn't have in reality, or didn't care about his very real, demonstrable flaws.

I think you are wrong about that. I think they voted against Clinton because they didn't like her policies and the "establishment politics" she represents.

Ok, let's talk about that. How about Trump? A bit of research into his past would reveal that he's far from being anti-establishment. In fact, the cabinet he's currently assembling proves just how super-establishment he is -- more so than Clinton, I would argue. So in fact those who voted for Trump were wrong, which brings us right back to the thread topic.

And for all Trump's faults and all his rhetoric he at least represented a position that many people support: tough on immigration, anti-Obamacare, etc.

Granted. However, even if I agreed with those positions, I could never have gotten past his bigoted rants, shady past, impossible solutions and lack of competence for the office.

I voted against Hillary because I felt that she would represent a continuation of Obama's policies especially when it comes to the medical field which is where I make my living and tax policy which affects me directly. It really had nothing to do with Clinton and her emails, etc.

Fair enough. I thought the e-mail scandal was both largely manufactured and largely irrelevant.

 

[Ambrosia]

Is this thread still on point?

If so, I am wondering if it is an established fact that "America" has ever been smart?

I would say yes. America sent people to the freaking moon.

Rocket Science requires smart people.

Since the OP comes from a Neil DeGrasse Tyson quote, I think a much better idea from him is to put money back into space.
He has argued frequently that a flagship project, like putting people on the moon does more to inspire people to take up scientific and engineering careers than anything else. A position I'd agree with. How many kids would watch live pictures of a Mars landing and think "That's amazing, I want to do that!"

If you want to make your country smarter, then you need to increase to ratio of smart people to dumb people. I think one of the best ways to do that is to inspire people to want to become smart in the first place.

We live in a world where more people are inspired to be great at sports, or great at trading stocks, or great at lawyering, because that's where the money is.

It would be awesome to live in a world where a top engineer or astrophysicist got similar money and recognition as top footballers or bankers.

 

[Belz...]

My overriding thought from watching the US elections from here has been that in a country of over 300million those were the best 2 candidates you could find?

...and also must it take so long to pick these people? Get on with it!

 

[xjx388]

That's half of my argument. The other half is that they thought Trump had qualities he doesn't have in reality, or didn't care about his very real, demonstrable flaws.

Or, it could be that they saw his flaws, held their nose and voted for him anyway -just as I'm sure many did for Clinton. Given the polls on the subject, it seems obvious to me that most people didn't really like either candidate. But those were basically our choices; the 3rd Party candidates got no traction.

Ok, let's talk about that. How about Trump? A bit of research into his past would reveal that he's far from being anti-establishment. In fact, the cabinet he's currently assembling proves just how super-establishment he is -- more so than Clinton, I would argue. So in fact those who voted for Trump were wrong, which brings us right back to the thread topic.

You may very well be right. But optics are important: he has no political experience, spoke his mind with no filter, wasn't afraid to take controversial positions . . . he seemed pretty much the opposite of most politicians. He was different and for a lot of people he represented a chance to change the culture of DC. Hopefully, he will.

Granted. However, even if I agreed with those positions, I could never have gotten past his bigoted rants, shady past, impossible solutions and lack of competence for the office.

I agree with those positions and I couldn't bring myself to vote for him. I voted Libertarian. Being a Texan it was a meaningless vote but it meant something to me.

Fair enough. I thought the e-mail scandal was both largely manufactured and largely irrelevant.

I think most people feel that way. You have to be careful and not judge all of America based on the loudest media outlets, pundits and trouble-makers.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

The thread did not start in the politics forum. But it's a waste of time now that any hope is gone of actually addressing critical thinking, fake news stories, and other actual issues sans political party attacks.

If you are really interested in improving education in the USA, and not Trump bashing, why did you latch on to a political jab from celebrity talking heads?

 

[Belz...]

Or, it could be that they saw his flaws, held their nose and voted for him anyway -just as I'm sure many did for Clinton.

I think that was a terrible mistake, a dangerous and foolish one at that, and one that they could all come to regret.

You may very well be right. But optics are important: he has no political experience, spoke his mind with no filter, wasn't afraid to take controversial positions . . . he seemed pretty much the opposite of most politicians.

Exactly. People were bamboozled because they didn't bother to either fact-check him or learn anything about the issues he talked about or the solutions he proposed.

 

[sunmaster14]

I think that was a terrible mistake, a dangerous and foolish one at that, and one that they could all come to regret.



Exactly. People were bamboozled because they didn't bother to either fact-check him or learn anything about the issues he talked about or the solutions he proposed.

Your confidence in this opinion is grossly misplaced. I don't know anybody who either voted for (or rooted for) Trump who was bamboozled. Like I said before, your analysis is so shallow as to be laughable. You don't seem capable of thinking past superficial nonsense. You see Trump saying silly things, and you are convinced that he would do something bad (which you aren't even capable of articulating). I see Trump saying silly things, and I am convinced that his confidence and narcissism and ignorance coupled with strong institutional constraints, bureaucratic inertia, and experienced conservative advisers, make him uniquely capable of doing politically difficult, but necessary and important, things.

Just to give a concrete example, he will end our crazy immigration policy where we give priority to people who are uneducated and culturally incompatible with our values. Progressives will call him a racist and whatnot, and he won't give a crap. Of course, all he needs to do is make our immigration policy as sensible as Canada's and Australia's, where there is a point system which selects for those people who will contribute positively to the country rather than negatively. Our immigration policy should benefit us, first and foremost. It's crazy that such a notion should be controversial.

 

[Noztradamus]

And yet it's managed to do its "job" just as well if not better.

So maybe they are the ones to listen to if you want to make America smart again.

 

[Ziggurat]

Your use of the word "okay" was a value judgment. What does it have to do with intelligence?

There are multiple components to that judgment. Part of it is a value judgment, but part of it is simply understanding meaning, which is a matter of intelligence. And since this thread is about intelligence, not morality, the obvious implication is that anyone who supported Trump over Clinton failed at the intelligence component of that judgment.

No, that's not true. I've offered my reasoning for my conclusion. You're free to offer an alternative view. No one has done so in this thread so far.

The fact that you offered reasons doesn't change the fact that you don't accept alternate possibilities.

Explain that. If the presumption of innocence is a fundamental aspect of our justice system because it's the best way to preserve our liberties and dignity, why then would it be somehow wrong-headed to apply this standard to a larger number of fields or activities? I'm not talking about choosing which pizza to buy at the restaurant, here, but about a conclusion reached based on available evidence.

Because that presumption doesn't provide us with the most likely way to obtain the truth. That's not its primary goal, and rightly so. But why on earth would we need a system designed to preserve liberties in scenarios where liberties are never at risk? Why shouldn't we be able to prioritize the truth under such conditions?