Why do so many Americans want stupid presidents?

[grandpa]

Quote by: another day Yeah like appealing to the "common man"... except even the common man doesn't watch that crap, it's the lowest common denominator...

Well, the lowest common denominator is pretty common, unfortunately. That's not to say I don't enjoy "lowbrow" stuff at all, but some stuff is so low you wonder if you'll ever get back up again. The funny thing is this: Many rightwingers are very concerned about the perils of "multiculturalism," yet they totally overlook the stupidity of American culture.

Grandpa h.

[SoylentGreen]

I know of some political parties that have co-leaders. In all cases that I know of the co-leaders are always a male and female. Do you think America could handle the concept of a co-leadership between Hillary and Obama?

[Winter wind]

Quote by: grandpa That alone is reason to consider not voting. Anyway, I doubt the WWE appearance will be fruitless. Some yahoos will think it actually adds something to the candidates.

The yahoos are the ones who watch WWE.
And it's about getting your name out everywhere. I just think saying "McCaniac" is just so stupid.

Hilrod was just sad.

Quote by: grandpa Well, the lowest common denominator is pretty common

Quote by: another day it's the lowest common denominator...

Wow, I've coined a new term! And it's catching!

I feel so significant.

[Ken Carman]

Quote by: sdbest The American electorate is unique in that a large percentage--perhaps a majority--of it is suspicious of well-educated, intelligent people. The Democratic primary campaign is indicative. Better educated people vote Obama. Poorly educated people vote Clinton. In other words, smart people vote Barack, stupid people vote Clinton. The 'elitist' brouhaha that engulfed the Democratic campaign over Obama's "bitter" observation was seized upon not only by Clinton, but also by pundits across the U.S. The exception was Bill Maher, "Hell, yes I want someone smarter than me as President." Please explain, why do so many Americans--perhaps a majority--think that having a President (like Bush or Reagan) who has the intellect of a salamander is a good thing? Apart from Dick Cheney, why would anyone want a dumb, uneducated President?

I'd sure like to see proof for your first statement about under educated and Hillary. While I'm somewhat stuck between the two, I know plenty Clinton supporters who are neither under educated, or poorly educated. I would also challenge the stupid remarks. I've met many a "stupid," yet very educated, person. Education never assures one will be smart, or even become smart. It's what you do with it. I've also met many a smart non-college grad, at least smarter than some PHDs I've known. BTW, to be clear, I have two degrees and came close to a third... only dropping out because I spent all my resources getting an AA and my BA. I will always wonder what would have happened if I had been able to afford a PhD. But sometimes education can keep you from coloring outside preset borders. Maybe I'm better off?

Example: Bush is supposedly college educated. I'm sure we both have our doubts regarding how he got that education... but it's still speculation.

I have no idea why people think have lettuce-brained pols sit in the Oval Office is a good thing: except few people have taught themselves to think things through. College can help with that, it can also prevent it. The ability to think through things without sheep-ifying oneself is up to the individual. The first step, I suppose, is challenge one's own assumptions: not just once but for the rest of your life. Most would rather just move on to arrogance. Sad, but true.

[Ken Carman]

Quote by: SoylentGreen I know of some political parties that have co-leaders. In all cases that I know of the co-leaders are always a male and female. Do you think America could handle the concept of a co-leadership between Hillary and Obama?

Yes, I do. But supporters? I really doubt that. What I'm reading from the supporters indicates we have at least thousands of potential Lee Harvey Oswalds out there: the anger and sheer hatred is that real. Unfortunately, for the candidate himself, from what I've been reading most of them follow the candidate who acts as if he wants a less invective filled, hate saturated, rhetorical climate... not that those who support the other are pure in any sense.

So Amertica mature enough? Maybe. The supporters? I have my doubts.

[Ken Carman]

Quote by: SoylentGreen Has it ever occurred to anybody that one person could not possibly contain all the views of 380 million + ?

That's why hedging, half saying things, and shifting around to satisfy different audiences, has always been part of the pols vocabulary. Unless you approach it like this: appeal to fanatics, make sure you introduce new tech owned by those who support you to the extreme that can vontrol the vote, make sure you pack the courts and the military with those who will rule for you/ back you up as much as possible: get rid of those who think for themselves, make everything poltical to the point of disagreeing the the president can send you to jail or to the grave. That way, only your "base" matters.

Frankly a pres who would be willing to listen and adjust would be refreshing now.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: SoylentGreen I know of some political parties that have co-leaders. In all cases that I know of the co-leaders are always a male and female. Do you think America could handle the concept of a co-leadership between Hillary and Obama?

Why does every stupid idea that comes along have to be tried on the US for size?


Do you just want some of us to yell at you for suggesting such bizarre ideas?

[Winter wind]

Quote by: mb Why does every stupid idea that comes along have to be tried on the US for size?

I actually thought the same thing, but I don't think we should risk trying it.

And your right MB. America should do what China does, watching what techniques work and copying that technique.

[SoylentGreen]

Ken Carman That's why hedging, half saying things, and shifting around to satisfy different audiences, has always been part of the pols vocabulary.

Excuse me but that's not politics, that's just plain crap. Your admitting that the whole presidential campaign is about finding the person who can lie the best.
The president of America , like the Queen of England is a figure head. But instead of giving the position to the first born like any mature society would Americans hold a reality TV contest to find the American idiot.

[SoylentGreen]

Quote by: Milton Bradley Why does every stupid idea that comes along have to be tried on the US for size?

I wasn't actually suggesting it for your country. Not a good idea to give dangerous toys to children.

Do you just want some of us to yell at you for suggesting such bizarre ideas?

Yes please.
But if you don't back it with more than just posturing then expect a sarcastic response

[Ken Carman]

Quote by: SoylentGreen Excuse me but that's not politics, that's just plain crap. Your admitting that the whole presidential campaign is about finding the person who can lie the best. The president of America , like the Queen of England is a figure head. But instead of giving the position to the first born like any mature society would Americans hold a reality TV contest to find the American idiot.

Did I say just the presidential campaign? All campaigns, all pols hedge... etc. I've both helped to run campaigns: including that of my own father, worked for Goldwater and Nixon... maybe it's "crap," but it is part of the political equation... except those who insist they have a direct line to God. Those are the ones who really scare me.

Figurehead? If Bush has proven anything BS, it's this. People who think he just some figurehead simply aren't paying attention: like how he just said he personally approved torture... um, "enhanced techniques." Now some treat it as if they're just a figurehead, but no way, in any document, is that stated. Implied? No, not even that, but of course one can interpret syntax pretty much any way one wants: that's why there's idiots out there who probably still think Puff the Magic Dragon was a drug song. In fact the office of president is suppose to be subject to checks and balances more than it has been: but it clearly hasn't. That's why actual declared wars in the true sense of the phrase are rare. The checkers and balancers usually just let the pres do it if he'll offer up some half ass reason like Iraq just might, maybe, strike us with nukes if we don't. (To be fair that was more Condi, but it was more an example than historical in nature. But there are plenty of examples he offered too.)

Some presidents are actively engaged and like to micromanage. Clinton did that. Some are a mix: some say Bush II here but I think he's been a hell of a lot more active and hands on than anyone will ever admit; deniability being needed. More like Ronny: now there was a figurehead. That's not good or bad, it just goes to style. One hopes the most horrid ones will be more "figurehead." Unfortunately, that's most often NOT the case.

Now, if I were an arrogant twit I would claim here I just made you eat your words: but I'm not, I didn't... and given your screen name the whole concept's a little gross... but also funny... (Just joking, obviously.)

[SoylentGreen]

Ken Carman but it is part of the political equation..

It may be part of the american equation but politicians in other parts of the world manage to get elected on their political standings not their ability to entertain.

People who think he just some figurehead simply aren't paying attention: like how he just said he personally approved torture

Your right, figurehead isn't the right word to use. But while America continues to give power to some clown based on his ability to equivocate, then American politics is simply a cult of personality and can never be seen as a serious world leader.

[Ken Carman]

Quote by: SoylentGreen It may be part of the american equation but politicians in other parts of the world manage to get elected on their political standings not their ability to entertain. Your right, figurehead isn't the right word to use. But while America continues to give power to some clown based on his ability to equivocate, then American politics is simply a cult of personality and can never be seen as a serious world leader.

Point #1...

You're right. But that would be... other parts of the world. Wishing it so doesn't make it so, but we would agree that's the direction we need to go. Yet I'm not sure shifting and adjusting quite qualifies as an attempt to entertain. Sometimes a it qualifies as an attempt to actually represent instead of being more like a know it all "sit down and shut up cause I know better" dictator. It's a matter of being somewhere between jello and an arrogant, self aggrandizing, hardass.

Point #2...

...or they hand power to some Jimmy Jones wannabe thinking God approves everything he thinks and does. We don't need either.

[sdbest]

Quote by: Ken Carman I'd sure like to see proof for your first statement about under educated and Hillary.

Obama Dominates Clinton Among College Graduates [Gallup]

[SoylentGreen]

Ken Carman But that would be... other parts of the world. Wishing it so doesn't make it so

Americans are a weird mob, you prefer to keep a political system because it sounds right , not because it is right.

Sometimes a it qualifies as an attempt to actually represent

Which gets back to the question of how is it possible for one person to represent the views of 380mill. +?
And please don't get me started on your crazy election system.
Not only don't you have anyone worth voting for but you don't have a system that's capable of doing the job.

[grandpa]

Quote by: SoylentGreen Americans are a weird mob, you prefer to keep a political system because it sounds right , not because it is right. Which gets back to the question of how is it possible for one person to represent the views of 380mill.

That's always a reasonable question, though some consider it blasphemous.

Grandpa h.

[Derek Wolff]

Obama Dominates Clinton Among College Graduates [Gallup]

SDB I have a feeling that has more to do with their political belief system and how gullible the youth is rather than education.

[sdbest]

Quote by: Derek Wolff SDB I have a feeling that has more to do with their political belief system and how gullible the youth is rather than education.

The cohort was college graduates, not youth. College graduates are represented in the age demographic from early 20s to over 80. Indeed, most college graduates are not "youth."

[SoylentGreen]

Quote by: grandpa That's always a reasonable question, though some consider it blasphemous.

Sigh!, I can only hope that one or two of the some will visit the thread and give us their reasons for considering it so. I could do with a good laugh.

[Chancellor]

Quote by: Chaossaber314 I'm curious when elitist became synonymous with intelligent because it's not the same thing to me. In fact, the comment in question reeks of stupidity and ignorance.

Because most people are intimidated by intelligent people and they think that intelligent people are being elitist and condescending when they're really just being normal for intelligent people.