US Politics: Ballot Mainetenance

[Corvinus85]

5 hours ago, Fragile Bird said:

Looks like three people were shot, a school administrator and two students. The gunman then killed himself.

It’s a sad day when that’s a happy outcome.

Sadly it got worse. One sixth grader dead, 5 injured one being the administrator.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

18 minutes ago, Larry of the Lawn said:

I agree with the general point being made here, but I'd hesitate to use "stupid" where ignorant is more appropriate, especially when not only do you have a large portion of said government actively trying to keep the populace ignorant, but also where the actual participation in the government is symbolic at best for many people.

Being able to name all three branches of government doesn't really tell me all that much about someone's actual intelligence.

 

It does speak to their interest levels though. It's the most basic question one can be asked and they have learned the answer previously. Furthermore, in my travels most people give ridiculous answers to really simple questions. So good luck on them knowing the details of the US-Iranian conflict. Or why German Horses are trying to secretly invade Scotland and Hawaii at the same time. Split hairs on the terminology if you want, but the general public just isn't very bright, and the scary thing is well educated people are often not that much better than your average individual. 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

10 hours ago, Mr. Chatywin et al. said:

Or why German Horses are trying to secretly invade Scotland and Hawaii at the same time.

Your point is that the ignorant can be lead to believe just about anything is happening… correct?  If not… what?

Edited January 5 by Ser Scot A Ellison

[Larry of the Lawn]

28 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Your point is that the ignorant can be lead to believe just about anything is happening… correct?  If not… what?

I think it's an inside joke or something.

 

[IheartIheartTesla]

Yet another NH primary poll came out from the ARG group, and the story is pretty consistent with the previous one taken in mid-December 2023; namely, Haley is running close to Trump with a 4 point deficit (this one has Trump 37, Haley 33). All the other early primary states, it looks like Trump has a commanding lead, alas.

[Larry of the Lawn]

14 hours ago, Mr. Chatywin et al. said:

It does speak to their interest levels though. It's the most basic question one can be asked and they have learned the answer previously. Furthermore, in my travels most people give ridiculous answers to really simple questions. So good luck on them knowing the details of the US-Iranian conflict. Or why German Horses are trying to secretly invade Scotland and Hawaii at the same time. Split hairs on the terminology if you want, but the general public just isn't very bright, and the scary thing is well educated people are often not that much better than your average individual. 

I think politics and American Government trivia are just not something that most people spend too much time thinking about.  There's a difference between ignorance, disinterest, or apathy vs actual stupidity or inability to comprehend something.  For most people, being able to name the three branches of government ceased having any utility after the highschool quiz it showed up on.  

I think it's a pretty arbitrary and useless metric of anything.

I do think there is a pretty insidious strain of anti-intellectualism in this country, and I think that the fact that it's cultivated by some people in power is a terrible thing.  But personally I'd take whether or not random people can answer random trivia about the structure of the US government with a grain of salt.  

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

17 minutes ago, Larry of the Lawn said:

I think politics and American Government trivia are just not something that most people spend too much time thinking about.  There's a difference between ignorance, disinterest, or apathy vs actual stupidity or inability to comprehend something.  For most people, being able to name the three branches of government ceased having any utility after the highschool quiz it showed up on.  

I think it's a pretty arbitrary and useless metric of anything.

I do think there is a pretty insidious strain of anti-intellectualism in this country, and I think that the fact that it's cultivated by some people in power is a terrible thing.  But personally I'd take whether or not random people can answer random trivia about the structure of the US government with a grain of salt.  

Nah, this isn't trivia, it's the most basic thing. We're not even talking are you smarter than a fifth grader levels of basic information and if you can't remember day one of civics you will never comprehend even semi-complex topics. And yes, there is a difference between ignorance, disinterest, apathy and just being stupid, but one of the two political parties has become stupid. 

[Larry of the Lawn]

2 minutes ago, Mr. Chatywin et al. said:

Nah, this isn't trivia, it's the most basic thing. We're not even talking are you smarter than a fifth grader levels of basic information and if you can't remember day one of civics you will never comprehend even semi-complex topics. And yes, there is a difference between ignorance, disinterest, apathy and just being stupid, but one of the two political parties has become stupid. 

It's basic to you because you are interested in government.  Can you off the top of your head name Newton's laws of motion, or explain the difference between volts, ohms, and amps?  It's the most basic thing.  

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

8 minutes ago, Larry of the Lawn said:

It's basic to you because you are interested in government.  Can you off the top of your head name Newton's laws of motion, or explain the difference between volts, ohms, and amps?  It's the most basic thing.  

 

 

[Zorral]

JAMELLE BOUIE
If Trump Is Not an Insurrectionist, What Is He?
Jan. 5, 2024

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/05/opinion/trump-insurrections-disqualification-14th-amendment.html

Quote

 

.... But these objections rest on a poor foundation. They treat Trump as an ordinary candidate and Jan. 6 as a variation on ordinary politics. But as the House select committee established, Jan. 6 and the events leading up to it were nothing of the sort. And while many Americans still contest the meaning of the attack on the Capitol, many Americans also contested, in the wake of the Civil War, the meaning of secession and rebellion. That those Americans viewed Confederate military and political leaders as heroes did not somehow delegitimize the Republican effort to keep them, as much as possible, out of formal political life.

What unites Trump with the former secessionists under the disqualification clause is that like them, he refused to listen to the voice of the voting public. He rejected the bedrock principle of democratic life, the peaceful transfer of power.

The unspoken assumption behind the idea that Trump should be allowed on the ballot and that the public should have the chance to choose for or against him yet again is that he will respect the voice of the electorate. But we know this isn’t true. It wasn’t true after the 2016 presidential election — when, after winning the Electoral College, he sought to delegitimize the popular vote victory of his opponent as fraud — and it was put into stark relief after the 2020 presidential election.

Trump is not simply a candidate who does not believe in the norms, values and institutions we call American democracy — although that is troubling enough. Trump is all that and a former president who used the power of his office to try to overturn constitutional government in the United States.

Is it antidemocratic to disqualify Trump from office and deny him a place on the ballot? Does it violate the spirit of democratic life to deny voters the choice of a onetime officeholder who tried, under threat of violence, to deny them their right to choose? Does it threaten the constitutional order to use the clear text of the Constitution to hold a former constitutional officer accountable for his efforts to overturn that order?

The answer is no, of course not. There is no rule that says democracies must give endless and unlimited grace to those who used the public trust to conspire, for all the world to see, against them. Voters are free to choose a Republican candidate for president; they are free to choose a Republican with Trump’s politics. But if we take the Constitution seriously, then Trump, by dint of his own actions, should be off the board.

Not that he will be. The best odds are that the Supreme Court of the United States will punt the issue of Section 3 in a way that allows Trump to run on every ballot in every state. And while it will be tempting to attribute this outcome to the ideological composition of the court — as well as the fact that Trump appointed three of its nine members — I think it will, if it happens, have as much to do with the zone of exception that exists around the former president. ....

 

Not to mention all the evidence that he violated the rules that forbid gifts and financial payments to the POTUS while he's POTUS -- he accepted and, yea, verily, DEMANDED money from everyone gifted one way and another TO HIMSELF.  This is breaking laws.

 

Edited January 5 by Zorral

[Phylum of Alexandria]

11 minutes ago, Larry of the Lawn said:

It's basic to you because you are interested in government.  Can you off the top of your head name Newton's laws of motion, or explain the difference between volts, ohms, and amps?  It's the most basic thing.  

I agree that we shouldn't conflate ignorance and stupidity. That said, there is a real national interest in cultivating basic competence in civics; it shouldn't be regarded as a niche area of focus like scientific laws or nomenclature.

[Zorral]

PAUL KRUGMAN
Ron DeSantis, Nikki Haley and Politically Obtuse Plutocrats

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/04/opinion/nikki-haley-ron-desantis.html

Quote

 

.... At the beginning of 2023, however, the big money thought it had found a way to resurrect the old strategy. Wall Street, in particular, believed that it had found its next George W. Bush in the form of Ron DeSantis, the Florida governor who was supposed to offer a Trump-like appeal to the Republican base while in reality being mainly a defender of elite privilege. The campaign contributions data reveal just how all-in Wall Street went for DeSantis. Even though his campaign is now in free fall, the financial industry has given far more to DeSantis in this election cycle than to anyone else, including President Biden.

But it was all wasted money. Part of the problem is that DeSantis turns out to be a terrible politician. At the start of 2023, betting markets considered him the Republican front-runner; now he’s a punchline.

Beyond that, DeSantis wasn’t playacting at being a cultural and social extremist. Who gets into a gratuitous fight with Disney or has his handpicked surgeon general crusade against Covid vaccines?

Hence the last-minute pivot to Haley. But the slavery contretemps reveals why this pivot has very little chance of succeeding.

Haley went off the rails basically because she was trying to avoid antagonizing the G.O.P. base, which hates anything that hints at social liberalism. A politician who admits that slavery caused the Civil War, or that climate change is a real threat, or that Covid vaccines are safe, just might be a little bit, you know, woke. Yet the big money doesn’t want politicians who are genuine extremists. Haley failed to walk that tightrope; probably nobody could.

What’s so striking to me is the political obtuseness of big money. Any moderately well-informed observer could have told big bankers that a MAGAfied Republican Party isn’t going to nominate anyone who might make them comfortable. Someday, perhaps, reasonable people will once again have a role to play within the G.O.P. But that day is at least several election cycles away.

For now, rationality has a well-known Democratic bias. And throwing money at Nikki Haley won’t change that.

 

 

[horangi]

15 hours ago, Mr. Chatywin et al. said:

It does speak to their interest levels though. It's the most basic question one can be asked and they have learned the answer previously. Furthermore, in my travels most people give ridiculous answers to really simple questions. So good luck on them knowing the details of the US-Iranian conflict. Or why German Horses are trying to secretly invade Scotland and Hawaii at the same time. Split hairs on the terminology if you want, but the general public just isn't very bright, and the scary thing is well educated people are often not that much better than your average individual. 

Not sure if there are many A Perfect Circle fans on the board, but the song Disillusioned seems to cover the bases pretty well.  You could worry about complex politics/global warming/raging conflicts, or instead, your next dopamine hit is only an Instagram scroll away.  Its become too easy to isolate oneself from community responsibility or critical thinking in general.  I suspect under better conditions, the majority of these folks could be considerate, responsible citizens.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

1 hour ago, Mr. Chatywin et al. said:

Nah, this isn't trivia, it's the most basic thing. We're not even talking are you smarter than a fifth grader levels of basic information and if you can't remember day one of civics you will never comprehend even semi-complex topics. And yes, there is a difference between ignorance, disinterest, apathy and just being stupid, but one of the two political parties has become stupid. 

“Only a Bill” and the rest of “Government Schoolhouse Rock” are probably the most education many people had about the structure of the US Government…

[Larry of the Lawn]

56 minutes ago, Phylum of Alexandria said:

I agree that we shouldn't conflate ignorance and stupidity. That said, there is a real national interest in cultivating basic competence in civics; it shouldn't be regarded as a niche area of focus like scientific laws or nomenclature.

I chose the other two examples because I think they actually translate pretty well- electricity is something we all use all the time, but not everyone needs to know everything about it to have a practical working knowledge of using it.   And Newton's laws of motion are practically the most basic thing in physics, yet if someone couldn't extemporaneously name them in the street or on a fantasy message board, I wouldn't take it to mean they had no understanding of them at all.  A friend of mine is a lawyer who writes the actual legislation submitted by the Democratic caucus int he Connecticut legislature.  I guarantee you he couldn't answer the electricity or physics questions.  But he could probably explain to you each of the those laws of motion with examples and an actual functional understanding of them if prompted more.   

By the same token, my mom probably couldn't tell you the three branches of government, yet if you asked her about checks and balances she'd probably be able to give you a good working description of all three and how they interact.  

It's literally just a trivia question, and it probably doesn't say much about people's ability to actually understand these things or to function ally participate in a democracy.

Edited January 5 by Larry of the Lawn

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

32 minutes ago, horangi said:

Not sure if there are many A Perfect Circle fans on the board, but the song Disillusioned seems to cover the bases pretty well.  You could worry about complex politics/global warming/raging conflicts, or instead, your next dopamine hit is only an Instagram scroll away.  Its become too easy to isolate oneself from community responsibility or critical thinking in general.  I suspect under better conditions, the majority of these folks could be considerate, responsible citizens.

Kind of prefer this from Tool:

 

12 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

“Only a Bill” and the rest of “Government Schoolhouse Rock” are probably the most education many people had about the structure of the US Government…

And they gave 10 seconds of attention to it. Like I said, spending many years as a field organizer it was shocking how little people knew made even worse by how even more little they cared, but they were really confident in their opinions.

[Phylum of Alexandria]

4 minutes ago, Larry of the Lawn said:

It's literally just a trivia question, and it probably doesn't say much about people's ability to actually understand these things or to function ally participate in a democracy.

I agree with you, except to say that it's far more important for everyone to know about the three branches of government than it is for everyone to know about conductance or impedance or whatever.

If someone can name the three branches of government and the gist of how they differ, they are more likely to respect the notion of checks and balances, wouldn't expect the president to be able to legislate new policy, etc.

If someone doesn't understand the basics of electricity (beyond basic safety), they can call an expert.

[Phylum of Alexandria]

13 minutes ago, Larry of the Lawn said:

By the same token, my mom probably couldn't tell you the three branches of government, yet if you asked her about checks and balances she'd probably be able to give you a good working description of all three and how they interact.

Well, I'm talking about civics education in general, not advocating for one piece of information over another. If your mom can give a description of them and how they interact, that's good. 

[Kalbear]

7 minutes ago, Mr. Chatywin et al. said:

And they gave 10 seconds of attention to it. Like I said, spending many years as a field organizer it was shocking how little people knew made even worse by how even more little they cared, but they were really confident in their opinions.

It is remarkable how confident people are in their opinions when they demonstrably don't know anything about them. 

[Larry of the Lawn]

Just now, Phylum of Alexandria said:

Well, I'm talking about civics education in general, not advocating for one piece of information over another. If your mom can give a description of them and how they interact, that's good. 

Sure, but my original contention was with Ty making a bunch of assumptions from the fact that x percent of people cannot tell you on the spot the three branches of government.  I'm guessing that a much larger value than x actually have a functional understanding of them.

That's why I think that honing in on what is essentially trivia is a poor example of how "stupid" or "uniformed" or "not bright" or "ignorant" the general populace is or isn't.  And his use of those terms more or less interchangeably, which we've been over.