Is todays America democratic

December 21, 2016, 10:32 am

Agree20 Disagree35

36%
64%

The debate "Is todays America democratic" was started by GeographyBuff on December 21, 2016, 10:32 am. By the way, GeographyBuff is disagreeing with this statement. 20 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 35 people are on the disagree side. That might be enough to see the common perception. It looks like most people are against to this statement.

PoliticsAsUsual posted 17 arguments to the agreers part.
PoliticsAsUsual posted 5 arguments to the disagreers part.

harley_quinn123, thereal, Rajat, tanya, shuhel_2005, KrotoR, LeftoverEye70 and 13 visitors agree.
GeographyBuff, PoliticsAsUsual, bestkuan, Islam, BlackRavan, HellaJeff, JunioRodgers, roasting4days, deezmofonutz, harshita, dapollman, MlgLeprechaun69 and 23 visitors disagree.

PoliticsAsUsual
replied to...

no shit.
it would be suspicious if no inconsistencies were ever found as we explore our reality more and more.

are you saying this is a bad thing? cause it's so awesome when an institution never admits inconsistencies like religion which buries any inconsistencies under layers of blind denial and dogma as well as demonization of scrutiny.

the finding, acknowledgement and adjusrment of inconsistencies is a matter of pride in the science community and what separates it from religion despite idiots claiming there is no difference and it's just another belief set.

2 years, 10 months ago
RogueAmerican
replied to...

Inconsistencies are discovered.

2 years, 10 months ago
PoliticsAsUsual
replied to...

so because education leads one to a viewpoint you don't like must mean they are biased.

aside from education, experts of numerous fields as well as the majority of economists tend time side with the left.

...perhaps it's not a bias but simply that the facts support liberal policies. would also explain why the right has now started to ignore facts considering them equal to opinion.

2 years, 10 months ago
PoliticsAsUsual
replied to...

what is wrong with sticking to a well tested model if no inconsistencies are found?

despite science opponents claiming it is just another faith based religion, unlike religion, science is more than welcoming to revisiting theories after those inconsistencies are discovered.

2 years, 10 months ago
PsychDave
replied to...

In some cases this is certainly true, but others spawn rival theories that compete until one is shown to be superior.

2 years, 10 months ago
RogueAmerican
replied to...

Normal science was my intention. Kuhn I believe wrote that science will be rooted in one particular theory until contradictions call for radical change.

2 years, 10 months ago
PsychDave
replied to...

But if something demonstrated a flaw in it we would have to abandon or modify it to reflect reality. Look at the competing theories of string theory vs loop quantum gravity. Both are plausible explanations that scientists are working towards testing. We can't tell yet, so at present they are both viable theories. Once we know which one is correct (if either is) the other will be abandoned.

I'm not sure how this ties in to educated people being more likely to be liberal. There has been a great deal of evidence of the benefits and drawbacks of each party.

2 years, 10 months ago
RogueAmerican
replied to...

I would say that those pursuing those particular fields are within an era of normal science. It is an inevitability that everyones judgement becomes deductive from a given postulate. I do not mean to discredit it, but take General Relativity. Many scientific endeavors are performed under the basis that this theory is true. Therefore, any education and further research will be tied into that given theory, and it will beget more and so on.

2 years, 10 months ago
PsychDave
replied to...

OK, the question then becomes why. If they are liberal due to an long running conspiracy to put liberals in positions of power (like teaching at community colleges) then it is a problem. If they are liberals because that is the conclusion they have come to upon studying politics, that seems like a problem with the political system that the majority of people studying it side with one side over the other. The overwhelming majority of scientists believe that climate change is being caused by our actions. That isn't a problem with the theory, it is agreement in which side of the debate is factually correct. If there is a similar effect from studying politics, would that not indicate that there is a problem with the platform used by conservatives that becomes evident with study?

2 years, 10 months ago
RogueAmerican
replied to...

There's a tendency for them to be liberal. Teachers are generally liberal.

2 years, 10 months ago
PsychDave
replied to...

So you feel that science majors are more likely to skew conservative? I'm not sure where you get that since parts of the conservative base are outright anti-science (creationism, climate change denial). Do you have any evidence of this divide between social sciences and physical sciences?

Also wouldn't social science also incorporate political science majors? If conservative is the more reasonable and superior view to those who really understand, shouldn't you believe political science majors would skew conservative?

2 years, 10 months ago
RogueAmerican
replied to...

But considering that liberal arts are the overarching qualifier for social science, I wont revoke it. The degrees are historical and anthropological.

2 years, 10 months ago

Yes social sciences.

2 years, 10 months ago
PoliticsAsUsual
replied to...

do you know what the liberal arts even are? they have nothing to do with political leaning. in fact, considering the subjects, I'd imagine the practitioners would be particularly conservative compared to other fields.

are you sure you know what your talking about and not just seeing red at the sight of the dreaded word "liberal"

are you sure the social sciences are not the fields you actually want to be referring to?

2 years, 10 months ago
neveralone
replied to...

true.

2 years, 10 months ago
neveralone
replied to...

I understand and u are right I was putting one of many reasons. but on liberal being the more reasonable wouldn't that simply have put educated vs. knowledgeable since it started? we don't see this. if u look at some charts.(just google educated political views) there's a steady increase on Ed. not a a bunch bring liberal since the beginning.

2 years, 10 months ago
RogueAmerican
replied to...

Or it could be a massive feedback loop. There is a large divide in students/teachers of the liberal arts versus the sciences. The sciences will normally not become teachers because their degrees arent as tuned to education as others. Liberal arts students usually must turn to education as a source of employment. We may also look at divides within the politics of these individuals too. Liberal arts students are more likely to be liberal than conservative.

2 years, 10 months ago
PsychDave
replied to...

I don't doubt there are teachers who put their personal biases ahead of other considerations, but I have yet to see any evidence that they are the majority. Doesn't mean they aren't, but without that proof you cannot claim that this is the reason colleges and universities skew liberal. Most people are familiar with Occam's razor, so let's apply it here.

It is possible that most sources of higher education tend to be liberal because the staff are indoctrinating the students to think this way. This requires the assumption that nearly all teachers are liberal, that the administrations of each of the schools have been hiring liberal leaning teachers for decades (since many have tenure) and that teachers are intentionally influencing their student's views of politics.

It is also possible that they tend to be liberal because that is the more well reasoned viewpoint. This requires us to assume that schools teach students to examine facts and information critically, which leads to students skewing liberal.

Which scenario requires fewer assumptions?

Finally, I don't really doubt your experience, it is just hard to debate since I only have your viewpoint to base arguments on, and that is naturally biased towards your beliefs. I can guess at the teacher's reasons and motivations, but that's all I can do.

2 years, 10 months ago

hah true but I honestly didn't but I can see where ur coming from.

nothing so big. it was this last semester during the debates and we were supposed to choose our party and problem for this one. I was the only Republican is person in the class the rest were either democratic or (more likely for the state I'm in) wanted to get on the teachers good side. my paper wasn't wasn't anything drastic. it is a community college. I'm going to high school and college and work at the same time and do this in my spare time. English one. I think it was mainly for when it was happening more than anything else for why it was that big. will see on the 18th I guess.

2 years, 10 months ago
PsychDave
replied to...

That's an interesting story, but I have no way of proving you haven't made it up.

At no point in my university education did any professor tell me which party was better or make attempts to sway my politics. Without knowing what your expressed "political standpoint" was, it is hard to judge if the teacher was justified it questioning its merits. If you were arguing that Trump should be crowned King of the Americas, I would say they were justified. Since I suspect it was something more reasonable, it would depend on the viewpoint and the justification given. I'm also curious what school you go to and what program you are in that teachers spend so much time pushing political agendas. 8 won't ask because I honestly don't think you should post that information on an anonymous board, but I can't help but wonder.

2 years, 10 months ago
PsychDave
replied to...

Absolutely. The only thing that can make you politically competent is learning about politics, platforms and policies. But you are mistaken when you say evaluating the credibility of a source is intuitive. It 8s inductive and logical. You look at what they are saying, why they are saying it, and who else agrees. If they are saying something illogical and every other source disagrees, they are likely not credible. If they are making logical statements and all other experts agree, they are likely credible. Most sources fall somewhere in between, but there are logical, rational ways to evaluate sources, starting by fact checking them to see if they are lying.

I'm curious what sources you consider accurate but that would be disallowed for academic purposes.

2 years, 10 months ago
neveralone
replied to...

but then again I would argue u could of also been influenced by ur teacher. I'm in college now and my teacher wanted us to do a debate essay and I did mine on a political stand point.(and a religious one later). when my teacher read it she called me up front and demanded that I defended it since all "educated people" know that the Democratic party was better. long story short I defended it she gave me a b grudgingly. also all my other teachers say this a lot as well until I ask why then they give faulty logic. so it would seem to me that colledge would influence the students to go liberal. and why not? for them they would make a lot of money off the gov. since democratic views like Hilary wanted free Ed. through tax. that would give them an steady flow instead of encouraging people to get in

2 years, 10 months ago
RogueAmerican
replied to...

But your engagement into politics is the only thing that will make you a competent voter regardless of your ideology. Critical analysis may be strengthened in college since you often have to write accurate portrayals and arguments, but the process of determining whether a source is credible is intuitive. There are plenty sources that are very accurate but would be disallowed im any academic scenariom

2 years, 10 months ago
PsychDave
replied to...

I was not a political science major, but in both physics and psychology they taught how to evaluate information and sources. That is valuable in any field or subject since it let's me see through the fluff and propaganda and see what is actually being shown. Education is a good thing. The fact that educated people tend to disagree with a position doesn't mean they are all biased, it means there is likely a flaw in the position.

2 years, 10 months ago
RogueAmerican
replied to...

Yes only if you are under the implication that everyone will be political science majors and too are creatures of logic.

2 years, 10 months ago
PoliticsAsUsual
replied to...

I think there's liberal bias because it's true.

most economists agree with progressive economics while the right dismisses experts and points to tiny pockets of disagreement.

an experience where one meets many different people as peers in a campus may also enrich one's social views getting over biases and bigotry.

is that indoctrination, or valuable experience? once again your party demonizes the things that are good for you. education, regulation, political correctness, separation of church and state. these are all there for our protection but have been twisted. I know your getting heated at those last 2 but let me explain.

you are a Christian living in a Christian majority country. separation of church may not seem like a bad idea, but what if this was a Muslim country? or vise versa?

political correctness to me means you get ostracized for saying ethnic slurs and racial stereotypes. we are beyond toilet humor in the halls of power are we not? the extended definition of political correctness that the right cries, especially the silencing of opinion is a fabrication of nonsense news stories about insignificance blown out of proportion. it's not a thing. no legitimate Democrat or right wing activists does or promotes that. it's the action of ignorant fools captioned "liberals" and yall fall for it every time.

2 years, 10 months ago
PoliticsAsUsual
replied to...

there was no pivot, at what point did I negate anything I said. it was always both.

being mad doesn't make you a good voter. you can spot the problem but you can still be played in the end. the economy is screwed, how do we fix it? we have no idea, let's just vote on party lines. oh, party said f*** the experts? OK f*** the experts!!!

they can spot the problem but they not only have no clue what the solution is, but they can be easily guided to a detrimental solution by a charismatic con man. like PR.

you can educate yourself but there are differences. aside from skipping on a range of similar topics, it is very inefficient. having a guided course covers all the bases, while your only freelance approach may miss important topics. but what you really miss is how to find inspect and judge information. and that is the part that is politically relevant.

2 years, 10 months ago
RogueAmerican
replied to...

The baker didn't want to make a cake celebrating a gay wedding. He did not refuse to sell to gays, he did not want to bake something in order to celebrate something he did not want to.

At the time of his presidency, many of the states had established religion in there government. The danbury baptists feared that they would be forced to live as a minority in a theocratic law. Any religious practice by the baptists would be an allowance from theocratic law, not a guarantee. It is to which Jefferson was against. He argued that congress shall make no law respecting an establishment etc. as to which one would be compelled to practice a religion. This was strictly government incorporation of a religious body into itself through taxes, laws, and other methods to force individuals to participate in religion. He further goes on to say that all are given natural rights unless they counteract social duties. Anything preventing somebody from the free exercise of pursuing what they wanted (if it were aligned with social law) was wrong. This is not to be confused with religious voice and influence. For instance, catholics fighting against abortion is different from catholics fighting for religious establishment. I would say it is wrong for someone to be forced to fast, but not to abort a child.

2 years, 10 months ago
RogueAmerican
replied to...

That was laughably the greatest pivot of all time. I said education is a good thing. The claim was that college voters are more informed than those who are not is wrong. You then pivoted to experience being key. Then to both are key. Knowledge is important to making informed decisions; that is obvious. But a college degree does not make an informed voter. If education and degrees were critical to knowledgeable voting, you cant say "well they're just naive". If college were as critical as you believe, life experience would be the smaller of the two concerns. If life experience is the greater of the two concerns, then degrees are not the power behind influential voting. I argue that the two are meaningless. Informed voters are mad from people who care to be informed. Absolutely nothing else can make am informed voter. A college degree doesnt make me aware of what prop a, b, and c are, i do. A college degree doesnt teach me the constitution, i teach myself.

Somebody interested in cars knows cars. The only way people will know cars is if they want to know about cars. I for one, am not too knowledgeable on the subject. I could be if I took the time, but I dont really concern myself with it because I dont care. I could do research on cars, but I would prefer to spend time elsewhere. The same is true with politics.

Im not trying to outsmart you or throw some cheap tricks to gain the upper hand. I would much prefer if we could lose our pride and just talk about the issues. Pivoting and minutiae are boring; Id rather go for the core of the idea. My issue here is ive lost your argument in its movement.

But furthermore to college in general, theres a reason people stereotype colleges as liberal havens. It is because like most stereotypes there is some truth to it. I can go off of the charts looking at schools and cast them as having incredible liberal bias.

2 years, 10 months ago
PoliticsAsUsual
replied to...

"Religion has been damaged by secularism since religion has been demonized as something estranged. Bakers and such are forced to provide services and create something of which they do not agree. Any attempt of Christian lobbying is met with "separation of church and state" when the entire point of that phrase was to assure the danbury baptists that they wouldnt be forced into religious participation."

this should be split into a seperate topic but no one is demonizing religon by keeping it out of lawmaking and schooling. a baker can chose to not make profane cakes, but these ******s are refusing to make generic 3 tier cake for reasons of discrimination. someone walks into a store and orders a wedding cake, bakers makes cake. no info needed. this is not a priest making a pact in God's name.

back up this ludicrous definition of separation of church and state, and how is a Baptist already not in a religion?!!!

2 years, 10 months ago
PoliticsAsUsual
replied to...

we can agree people being removed from classrooms is wrong. unless of course he expressed his political beliefs via vulgarities and slurs. so what? stupid things happen, how is this representative of anything besides a scapegoat?

and if something is a human problem it will be a problem regardless. I don't understand the point of bringing it up. education will not make anything worse. possibly better.

how is including outside opinions going to increase your internal biases? your logic is absolutely backwards. shutting yourself in inductively is only going to amplify your bias. the point is not to figure out what it is or what it should be, but what it is not, and how it is being misrepresented. to spot missing details, and avoid shenanigans.

2 years, 10 months ago
PoliticsAsUsual
replied to...

twist the words however you want an education is not a bad thing. it's a positive. people who lack it are missing tools that help them make an informed decision. there are no guarantees of anything in life so let's skip over that fools argument. those with an education have a distinct advantage over those who dont. we should educate our public so we can stop competing for jobs with the 3rd world, and quit making me choose between naivety or ignorance.

"That's two completely contradictory opinions if you uphold both as you do. You claimed that education means the electorate will be well informed. You backed away from that point to experience is the key since since educated youth are too naive. If theyre too naive after college, then education isnt the key to being well informed."

for the 3rd time, I SAID BOTH. one should have experience AND knowledge. experience comes automatically, so knowledge is what we should add. please, stop twisting my words. I said that originally, and I explicitly pointed it out the second time around. this is #3 after this your just messing with me.

2 years, 10 months ago
RogueAmerican
replied to...

There is no guaruntee that those without a college education cannot be well informed just as there is none to suggest college students will be either.

You claimed I cannot point to liberals coming out of college being liberal because they are far too naive. However, if they have 20 years of life experience, then they are able to be examined. That's two completely contradictory opinions if you uphold both as you do. You claimed that education means the electorate will be well informed. You backed away from that point to experience is the key since since educated youth are too naive. If theyre too naive after college, then education isnt the key to being well informed. Their "critical skills" are at weakest as they are more recently affirmed? If experience is key to being well informed (which its not), then you must concede that education does little as even they are naive.

2 years, 10 months ago
RogueAmerican
replied to...

I have experienced people being removed from classes for only having a certain political belief.

I said human nature is the problem, not the concept of education.

But if education does not weed out the naive and make them cognizant of politics, then what does?

Religion has been damaged by secularism since religion has been demonized as something estranged. Bakers and such are forced to provide services and create something of which they do not agree. Any attempt of Christian lobbying is met with "separation of church and state" when the entire point of that phrase was to assure the danbury baptists that they wouldnt be forced into religious participation.

If you analyze critically using deductive thinking, you are. Looking for answers based on a premise is completely misguided. It is impossible to be impartial if you argue from a status that what you believe is true.

Critical analysis must be inductive in order to ensure that improper conclusions are not made. Reasoning from data, facts, and information provides an accurate representation of what something is, not what it should be.

2 years, 10 months ago
PoliticsAsUsual
replied to...

how has religion been damaged by secularism?

how does induction prevent bias? and what about critical thinking is inductive? please explain these 2.

2 years, 10 months ago
PoliticsAsUsual
replied to...

I would not be shocked if those conservatives are the majority of the readers of those liberal news lol. I'm not even sure what news your talking about! I've heard Forbes being described as liberal news. I'm guessing liberal news is anything that reports anything contrary to conservative views... no wonder all of you claim there is no unbiased news.

the second paragraph is a whole bunch of twisting my words.

I said both are important.
I did not say naivety is exclusive to education, or anything at all.
of course those without education can gain life experience, but they usually don't educate themselves enough to apply that experience effectively.

those examples from colleges are openly cited as "liberals" and not education facilities by the right media. they seek to discredit the opposition by showing wild examples that represent noone, and then promote people not to engage with liberals. it's like a cult.

which facilities of human nature are worsened through education?

2 years, 10 months ago
RogueAmerican
replied to...

You may be shocked, but many conservatives read more liberal pieces than not.

You claim that life experience dictates whether or not people are competent with politics. Can those without college diplomas not gather their own experience and learn. You cannot claim that naivety is is exclusive of education then claim that education is the determining factor unless you agree that education does not mean an informed electorate.

And in regard to Christian influence, none of it is found wrong by any original intentions. Drifts to secular society have broken down religion.

Also if critical analysis is deductive, then it cannot truly be critical analysis. One may not have an objective view if they seek to prove a truth. Critical analysis must be inductive to preserve one from bias.

Examples of current students are used to show the disgusting bias and censorship that takes place in education facilities. You can be thrown out of classes for supporting Trump.

I dont hold negative assumptions about education. I am concerned with the facilities and human nature. Those two have shown themselves to be problematic.

2 years, 10 months ago
PoliticsAsUsual
replied to...

wtf are you talking about?
Bernie said free college. Hillary said debt free college... 1 word makes a world of difference. who is angry about it who supported it? what are you talking about?

2 years, 10 months ago
PoliticsAsUsual
replied to...

"To your claim on critical thought; how does one lack it without a college degree? I assume that we can agree critical thinking is inductive rather than deductive. Now imagine a an aspiring gender studies student, 18 and ready to go to college. What are their political views? Fast forward to graduation. What are the new political views? Chances are they will be the same if not more extreme after graduation, which begs the question: was college for the perspective student a search for critical thought on politics? We may safely assume that and individual seeking such a degree looks only for a reaffirmation of thought."

sorry we do not agree. critical reasoning is not inductive at all. as history buff pointed out, one needs to examine physical evidence of the information presented, background evidence, and many other things that are outside ones head and require deduction. one must also have KNOWLEDGE of techniques used to undermine and twist studies in the past, and knowledge is something acquired.

chances are not that they will be the same. they can be very different, they can also be similar but more fleshed out with more reason behind it. their peer groups may drive them to extremes, but as they acquire knowledge and experience, the exact opposite will happen. you insist on judging college students in the process of education and then ASSUME that is how they will act after graduation, and even more extreme. if that is so, then why are all the extreme examples on right wing sites about current students? shouldn't the real psychos by the graduates already out in the world? yet that is not what we see, therefore... wrong. they may be more extreme sophomore and junior year than freshmen (since pre-college they likely cared more about their xbox then politics, so no duh) but senior/graduate level there is far more reason then passion.

why do you hold such negative assumptions about education? is this from experience? or lack of?

2 years, 10 months ago
PoliticsAsUsual
replied to...

"The idea of being impassioned by fear and scapegoating is a completely prefabricated and self-serving statement. Everyone is in danger of being impassioned. If you tell a college liberal that Christians are trying to influence policy, then all hell breaks loose. Populism is a human condition in general. This kind of talk never even occurs in colleges any more, and furthermore know of individuals thrown out of recitations for their political beliefs."

being impassioned by fear and scapegoating is something everyone is liable to, but many educated people learn to ask more questions of the information they are given. it is true that noone is immune, but they are LESS likely to be swayed by arguments of passion and fear.

your college liberal vs Christian influence is a scapegoating generation btw. any religious influence of a pluralistic diverse society is a red flag, however it is what kind of influence that is important. if Christians want to open up more centers for the poor, by all means. however if you want to enforce values justified only by scripture, then hell no. would you want religious influence of policy in a different religion majority country? I don't think so.

also, I'm getting really tired of the right bringing up the stupid college students.
these KIDS are being educated, I'm talking about ADULTS who finished their education and have experienced life. I'm not for electing 20 year Olds to high office.

these are just stupid immature kids. education is not the only factor. life experience, temperment, etc, are all important. their limited world view, immature extreme opinions, and clique based echo chamber peer groups make them horrible examples for the generalizing to an entire political spectrum. an immature college student is equivalent to an uneducated older person. when will you realize that right wing media, from extremes like breitbart to less extreme like national review use these kids easy targeted scapegoats to demonize the entire left when the represent Noone but themselves...

even Obama said what they are doing is stupid and they should hear, and engage, in differing opinions... let me guess, your news didn't report that.

2 years, 10 months ago
RogueAmerican
replied to...

Consider it this way. Im pursuing a degree has absolutely nothing to do with politics (though they may intersect) leaving all of my knowledge of politics to self pursuance. Frankly, politics is taken as taboo and contrary points of view are detestable. The only ones who embrace it are political science degrees and those hoping to enter law school. Beyond that, anybody with a college degree is likely to be disengaged from current legislations and situations. Even those with those degrees may be clueless to current happenings, but it is less likely as that is their passion.

2 years, 10 months ago
PoliticsAsUsual
replied to...

"And what if, and individual who didnt go to college is impassioned by politics? I believe one of the representatives from Arizona is lacking in a college degree, and I am assured he knows more in the political world than the average college educated person."

know more about the political world? like inside dealing, under the table agreements, dealing in favors? probably, but that is learned from experience. you don't need to go to college to get an education, one can be self taught, but that is rare as most prefer to drink beer and watch football. a self taught education rarely gets you a job without a degree so few pursue it. an UNeducated person (college or otherwise) that is passionate for politics imo, is a danger to our freedoms, our stability, and our security (international).

2 years, 10 months ago

Yes, but as you said not many people care to put in that effort. High school alone gives a potent enough background in research. But beyond that, those who actually are engaged by default are fewer.

2 years, 10 months ago

critical thinking is not something people are born with. it had to be taught. that is one of the primary things universities teach. always check the sources. always check who wrote it. always check if it has been peer reviewed etc.

these are not things most people do. i have no idea how many times I've linked peer reviewed research on this app and the person I'm debating links a website with no references or info on the author and thinks the two sources are equal.

not everyone who gets a secondary education is capable of using these critical thinking skills. but educated people are much more capable of doing so then those who were never taught these things.

2 years, 10 months ago
neveralone
replied to...

to add to the college thing look at what Hilary promised. she said free college and everyone jumped for it. now there angry about it. so they can get passionate as well.

2 years, 10 months ago
RogueAmerican
replied to...

And what if, and individual who didnt go to college is impassioned by politics? I believe one of the representatives from Arizona is lacking in a college degree, and I am assured he knows more in the political world than the average college educated person.

The idea of being impassioned by fear and scapegoating is a completely prefabricated and self-serving statement. Everyone is in danger of being impassioned. If you tell a college liberal that Christians are trying to influence policy, then all hell breaks loose. Populism is a human condition in general. This kind of talk never even occurs in colleges any more, and furthermore know of individuals thrown out of recitations for their political beliefs.

To your claim on critical thought; how does one lack it without a college degree? I assume that we can agree critical thinking is inductive rather than deductive. Now imagine a an aspiring gender studies student, 18 and ready to go to college. What are their political views? Fast forward to graduation. What are the new political views? Chances are they will be the same if not more extreme after graduation, which begs the question: was college for the perspective student a search for critical thought on politics? We may safely assume that and individual seeking such a degree looks only for a reaffirmation of thought.

2 years, 10 months ago
PoliticsAsUsual
replied to...

"This rampant intellectualism of the left is even more nonsensical. The uneducated voted for Trump; as if a degreeement. A theoretical mathematician may be completely oblivious to social and political issues and still have a post doctorate degree."

there are many social and political degree programs. why would uneducated people somehow be more knowledgeable about social issues? the uneducated are far more likely to fall for fake news, be unable to spot a faulty study or a twisted interpretation. they are more likely to be swayed by fear and scapegoating. the fact that there are different types of degree program may require more specifics as to the knowledge of the educated, but it does nothing to defend the knowledgeability of the uneducated as they lack even basic skill of critical thought.

2 years, 10 months ago

yes it is

2 years, 10 months ago
RogueAmerican
replied to...

degree ment political engagement*

2 years, 10 months ago

That is the quintessential example of chronological snobbery. The current electorate is not any more capable of making sound decisions. The literacy rates of men in the US was about 90% in the founding era. I daresay they were more engaged at that time than ever before. This was their entertainment and their life

Nonetheless, the Electoral college was not established for the sake of stupidity, but passion. Reason is the slave of passion, and the founders wanted a barrier between the electorate and the elections. Ad I have said before, a politician may easily impassion a majority, but not easily every ideology and circumstance found in different regions.

States are still widely divided by policy! Will North Dakota and California have the same energy policy and ideas? Should a high population state like California supercede these smaller states? The issue is ever present.

This rampant intellectualism of the left is even more nonsensical. The uneducated voted for Trump; as if a degreeement. A theoretical mathematician may be completely oblivious to social and political issues and still have a post doctorate degree.

2 years, 10 months ago
PoliticsAsUsual
replied to...

your conflating electoral college with the Electoral system. the Electoral system was meant to give smaller states an equivalent say to the larger states. we can easily do the Electoral point count without needing the college to convene a month later and vote for real.

what about what was hillary? not sure how to respond to this incomplete tangent.

the founders feared democracy at a time when most of the people were illiterate and uneducated. they did not trust them. today most people are literate and are better educated. democracy is much closers to working effectively now, however many people are still undereducated, and those people pretty much all voted trump.

the Electoral system should be abolished. we are a unified nation, and no one thinks of themselves as a Tennesseenian first and American second. we do not need the system. if anything the political division now should be city/rural not big state/small state. the Electoral College on the other hand needs to either do its job (which it failed at when it was finally needed) or stop wasting tax dollars.

2 years, 10 months ago
PoliticsAsUsual
replied to...

your conflating electoral college with the Electoral system. the Electoral system was meant to give smaller states an equivalent say to the larger states. we can easily do the Electoral point count without needing the college to convene a month later and vote for real.

what about what was hillary? not sure how to respond to this incomplete tangent.

the founders feared democracy at a time when most of the people were illiterate and uneducated. they did not trust them. today most people are literate and are better educated. democracy is much closers to working effectively now, however many people are still undereducated, and those people pretty much all voted trump.

the Electoral system should be abolished. we are a unified nation, and no one thinks of themselves as a Tennesseenian first and American second. we do not need the system. if anything the political division now should be city/rural not big state/small state. the Electoral College on the other hand needs to either do its job (which it failed at when it was finally needed) or stop wasting tax dollars.

2 years, 10 months ago

before Trump supporters murder me, he may still be a good president, but even his supporters are just hoping he will do what he says. he is unpredictable and rolling the dice is not something I consider smart. there are better, more stable ways of challenging the status quo.

2 years, 10 months ago
PoliticsAsUsual
replied to...

well you pretty much restated what I said but with a negative connotation. Do you think it would have been fair for the smaller states to join a union where their will and desires would be routinely squashed by bigger states? in those less unified times I think this was an excellent compromise that allowed everyone a voice.

how would a popular vote prevent a demagogue from being elected? the 2 are unrelated. there is nothing about a popular vote that would safeguard against demagogues. your demonizing a system that had nothing to do with promoting demagoguery because your bitter over a result (I know your from canada, which makes your repeated returning to the loss even more surprising) (note I'm not happy about it either, just not dwelling since it's off topic). a demagogue could just as easily be elected by the popular vote and lost the electoral, would you be singing praises for the Electoral system in that situation?

the election of trump proves 2 things. 1. our democracy is real and our system is not controlled by elites to the extent some people feared. 2. the citizens are gullible, confuse facts with opinions, and need enhanced education and critical thought so they wouldn't be swayed by a demagogue.

2 years, 10 months ago
RogueAmerican
replied to...

What was Hillary? The purpose of the Electoral College was to, as Hamilton put it, require a candidate to display more talents than a few tricks aimed at major opinions. It is more difficult to appease the desires of a large Republic; where states carrying unique opinions must be largely satisfied. Enhanced democracy was a huge fear of the founders.

2 years, 10 months ago

no it helped. it gives each of us a say. just because Trump happened to win on this u r now looking at the electoral college as something bad. it helps in many ways like Politics said.

2 years, 10 months ago

no, the reasons behind it helped soothe the fears of the smaller states and give them a bigger say in things then their population warrants. it helped created a country, but it most certainly does not enhance democracy. it helped to allow a demagogue to become president with millions less votes then his opposition.

2 years, 10 months ago
PoliticsAsUsual
replied to...

there is a reason for the system as it exists. we were not originally a unified nation, we were a union of individual states. why would the smaller states join a union where they would be bullied by bigger states in a straight democratic vote due to population differences? would that be fair? maybe the Electoral system needs an update, but the reasons behind it enhanced democracy, not undermined it.

2 years, 10 months ago

trump proved you can get less votes and still win. that's American democracy.

2 years, 10 months ago

Democratic, yes.

2 years, 10 months ago

true. we still have the power.

2 years, 10 months ago

I believe it is. even if we are not given the tools to make a truly informed decision, it is our decision who governs for us. Trump proved that.

2 years, 10 months ago
Discuss "Is todays America democratic" people politics society
Add an argument!
Use the arrow keys to navigate between statements. Press "A" to agree and press "D" to disagree.