Thanks,

This of course is the exact opposite of what the Founding Fathers (FFs) intended.

The FFs didn't want too much direct democracy. They envisioned the people of each state voting for wise, mature men of reason, who would then band together to work out the best man to have as president.

Why? The FFs were wise, mature men of reason themselves. They knew that the general voting population consists of many good ol' boys. These are the guys who get thrown into jail. They think a good, convincing rational argument about policy is to call someone "orange".

These are the guys who think "Although I am not educated in the academic sense, I'm not dumb", yet somehow wind up in jail.

These are the guys who quit growing both intellectually and emotionally at the age of 14. They don't want to do anything that is more intellectually challenging than watching sports.

<The FFs didn't want too much direct democracy. They envisioned the people of each state voting for wise, mature men of reason, who would then band together to work out the best man to have as president.>

This is apparently true.

<Why? The FFs were wise, mature men of reason themselves. They knew that the general voting population consists of many good ol' boys. These are the guys who get thrown into jail. They think a good, convincing rational argument about policy is to call someone "orange">

And this is the reason it is true. I'm sure the FFs had their share of good ol' boys back then that weren't much different than the unwashed plebs we find trying to post here.

I guess the question becomes, why have a popular vote at all? Why not just forget about getting out the vote, tell people to stay home, and let the electoral college cast their votes and be done with it?

Philosophically, I think the question is one between what it fair, what is wise and which is to be preferred if they are not one in the same.

"It's not fair!" is what the people may say. "My vote doesn't count" they say, and maybe it's true. What would be fair, would be to let every citizen of this country vote, since we all live here, have to deal with the good and the bad, have to deal with our elected officials and all have skin in the game. Let every vote count so that we, the regular people, no longer have to play second fiddle to the rich.

The obvious drawback to this is exactly as you explained. You have the dregs of society, the stupid people, the people who are on the short end of the unequal stick, the people without commonsense, the fools - these people have an equal vote with the wise, the learned, the educated, the people with commonsense. Surely, this can't be a good thing.

In what just world would the fool be given equal say as the wise man?

As you said, the fool thinks that a rational argument is to call someone ORANGE and etc...

This will not do.

But on the other hand, just because the electoral college is generally a more educated group of people, it doesn't mean that they are moral. Immoral people such as those are merely educated fools. The only difference between them and the bottom tier fools is that they are more dangerous.

So which is better, to be fair or to be wise?

I guess this question is moot unless we can agree that the electoral college is wise and not just informed.

Either way, I am glad that the ORANGE VOICES, the "smart people" that end up in jail and on drugs aren't in the driver's seat.

Personally, I am partial to the old way of voting where only white male landowners were eligible to vote. I think exceptions could be made for certain Asians though, as their countries and cultures bear the stamp of intelligence, reason, wisdom and success, whereas other cultures are perennially ghetto infested failed states of little accomplishment with the dubious distinction of always lagging behind the rest of the world and being the source of much of the world's trouble.

You asked <So which is better, to be fair or to be wise?> and my first reaction was, maybe these are NOT mutually exclusive.

Maybe that which seems unfair on the surface, is actually fair when analyzed deeply.

But I also liked this part:

<Personally, I am partial to the old way of voting where only white male landowners were eligible to vote. <<<I think exceptions could be made for certain Asians though, as their countries and cultures bear the stamp of intelligence, reason, wisdom and success,>>>...

But we aren't allowed to think these things.>

Aren't we?

I have made a career in a high-tech industry. And of course no one is allowed to <say> what you wrote. But a little thoughtful analysis of the employee pool shows that the decision-makers, those doing the hiring, are still <thinking> what you wrote, and actions speak louder than words.

Because the industry I am in is dominated by Whites, Asians, mostly male, and I cannot ever remember an American-born Black man in this industry.

There are many Black men in the industry - but they are the best and brightest from Africa, coming to the US to earn doctorates in engineering and apply their education to careers where they make big bucks and improve the world. "Win/wins" for them, their families, and their employers.

I agree with the rule of law, and that our borders should be secure, not porous. And that immigration should be done through adherence to a legal process.

But I am all in favor of bringing in immigrants who represent the best and brightest of their home countries. Bring in the scientists and engineers, the talent pool for high-tech companies of change, the workers for the visionaries like Jeff Bezos, Steve Jobs, and Elon Musk.

Let them come here and contribute to the building and thriving of America. Let America continue to compete and win on the world stage by offering, as she always has, a home to immigrants who want the good life and who are willing to assimilate and work for that good life.

These immigrants can become Americans. Their brilliant children will automatically *be* Americans. One of the most patriotic men I know is Vietnamese, son of two refugees from the Viet Nam war. He got married to a woman of Chinese descent, who was born in Illinois. They dressed in traditional American Colonial costumes for their wedding!

<Let them come here and contribute to the building and thriving of America.>

Of course, I agree with this. I think we just need to be very selective as to who we let in at this point. Also, I don't want the traditional American culture to change to some blend of inferior peasant cultures, so I think it's best, overall, to prefer European immigrants over others, since history has shown that they assimilate easily.

America is, basically, an expression of the best of European culture. The people of Europe are smart, beautiful, have similar Christian morals and a unique cultural history of innovation, advancement and achievement.

I want the best of the best to immigrate to the US. I want people who will give more to the country than they take. I don't want more hyphenated Americans who refuse to assimilate, have a chip on their should, are mad at America, feel entitled to our stuff, commit crimes, weigh the system down with illegitimacy and burden the society, all the while compromising our superior culture with their failed and inferior peasant cultures.

Until 1965, about 200 years, the immigration policy of this country was one that sought to maintain a 90% white European culture. Ted Kennedy and friends pushed to change that in 65 because the soviets were criticizing us for being "hypocrites", because we preached freedom and opportunity but "you blacks and browns aren't welcome".

So the change in immigration policy was sold with the promise that the cultural identity of the nation would be preserved (don't worry about it) but now the soviets couldn't criticize us.

https://pics.me.me/trump-saidhewoul...

But I am all in favor of bringing in immigrants who represent the best and brightest of their home countries.>

Who screens the "best and brightest?"
Nancy Pelosi?>

Those libs don't care about bringing the right people here.>

How about employing all able bodied individuals on government assistance?

Who screens the "best and brightest?"
Nancy Pelosi?>

As <BP> said, that's a very good question. And fortunately, the people I am referring to mostly come to America on H1B visas, which require sponsorship from companies that want to hire them.

So hi tech companies like Intel, for example, sponsor asian men and women who have advanced technical degrees in engineering and science.

If you can get a doctorate in Chemistry or Electrical Engineering, you are welcome here in my mind.

Black reverend Jesse Lee Peterson interviews Alt Right activist.

https://youtu.be/cSMt_kYdl5o>

That was surprisingly good.

I watched the whole thing. The video clips from Europe are highly concerning.

The words from Biden are highly concerning. I didn't know he said that the flood of refugees & immigrants is a good thing and shouldn't stop.

I am suspicious that HRC would have gone to war - she is such a Neocon hawk. And of course her war would have created more Muslim refugees that she would have brought to America. This is only speculation but also very plausible.

I am, and always have been, in agreement with Trump on immigration. Even though I voted for HRC. As I said, it was the toughest vote of my life.

And if Trump stays consistent on immigration and building the wall, keeping out Muslims, etc., I will vote for him in 2020. Why? I saw the videos from Europe that Peterson showed.

You realize some of those video clips were in the US, right?>

Of course.

So hi tech companies like Intel, for example, sponsor asian men and women who have advanced technical degrees in engineering and science.>

Yeah, that's how they take care of people like you!

Even though I voted for HRC. As I said, it was the toughest vote of my life.>

What I find interesting about people like you is the assumption of the status quo. You don't seem to appreciate the mission creep/agenda, of fascism.

I only needed one metric to support Trump.
The supreme court.
These folks will rewrite your constitution quicker than you can say, “5 to 4 decision.”
The lie goes along the lines of it needs to be a “living breathing” document.

Just keep asking yourself one question.
What happens when tga becomes the “victim?” Unfortunately, it's a necessary requirement of fascism.

The rude awakening was highlighted well by playground player on his forum:

<playground player:

I got a chuckle from "nanotechnology fascism".

<What I find interesting about people like you is the assumption of the status quo. You don't seem to appreciate the mission creep/agenda, of fascism.>

On the contrary.

What I find interesting about people like you is your blind spot for the fascism of the Republican Party.

I, however, am very concerned about it. And is probably the single most important factor that I contemplate before deciding how to vote.

My cousin is a lesbian, and she was never able to get married until the opposition to gay marriage was overcome. That opposition came mostly from the Right, especially after Obama won a second term and flipped on the issue.

I've never seen my cousin happier. Her mother, my aunt, can't stop talking about what a positive impact the marriage has made in my cousin's life.

This would never have happened if the sexual fascism wing of the GOP had their way.

If anything, the Republican Party seems more fascist to me than the Democratic Party. Obviously that is an opinion, formed by each individual, based on which issues are more important to them. And I don't expect you will change your mind based on what I write here.

That will not do.

I know that you snowflakes are taking the Trump presidency hard, being that he's all anti PC and so forth.

Here's a video of <travis> the moment Trump was elected.

My cousin is a lesbian, and she was never able to get married>

Well, I don't think them "marriage is between a man and woman" fascists were "soooooo" bad.

tga even liked a few:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VPc...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S5L...

<until the opposition to gay marriage was overcome.>