Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

http://nationalinterest.org/feature/aga ... racy-17605

What could go wrong with letting a bunch of academics make all the important decisions and not all the non-graduate-degree-having hoi polloi? I mean, it can't be worse than Trump and Brexit, right?

I mean, there's no difference in voting on whether or not evolution or climate change is true and whether or not social science is true, amirite?

Pwns wrote:http://nationalinterest.org/feature/aga ... racy-17605

What could go wrong with letting a bunch of academics make all the important decisions and not all the non-graduate-degree-having hoi polloi? I mean, it can't be worse than Trump and Brexit, right?

I mean, there's no difference in voting on whether or not evolution or climate change is true and whether or not social science is true, amirite?

What you're describing (academics making all the decisions) is how we got as far as we've gotten today...
The difference between the dark ages and the enlightenment



We'll never return to that - but that is how we got out of the dark ages

For a country that has a hard enough time attempting to produce a legitimate one-vote-per-person election, this proposal literally would be like handing a jigsaw puzzle to a room full of baboons and expecting results.

Yeah, screw democracy. I mean, it only made America the greatest country in the world in less than 150 years of existence. What a colossal failure!!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Pwns wrote:http://nationalinterest.org/feature/aga ... racy-17605

What could go wrong with letting a bunch of academics make all the important decisions and not all the non-graduate-degree-having hoi polloi? I mean, it can't be worse than Trump and Brexit, right?

I mean, there's no difference in voting on whether or not evolution or climate change is true and whether or not social science is true, amirite?

I may have missed it, but where does the article suggest it has to be a bunch of academics? I thought it merely suggested smart people who can pass a test. Are you implying that only academics are smart enough to appreciate political science?

I find it an interesting notion. The old trope of having to take a test to drive a car applies. Non-academic conservative types feel only property owners should have the right to vote. I don't see much of a difference here.

And IIRC JSO is an advocate of this.

A typically elitist, academic, smug, bring-back-the-literacy-test approach to Fixing The System. If only we could all be as enlightened as Jason Brennan, whoever he is.

Or Klam.

Ivytalk wrote:A typically elitist, academic, smug, bring-back-the-literacy-test approach to Fixing The System. If only we could all be as enlightened as Jason Brennan, whoever he is.

Or Klam.

That's right. But at least you followed me to Johnson. I'm the poli-board prophet, enlightening the shit out of conks.

I'll bet your boy Edmund Burke was down with restricting who votes tho.

kalm wrote:

Ivytalk wrote:A typically elitist, academic, smug, bring-back-the-literacy-test approach to Fixing The System. If only we could all be as enlightened as Jason Brennan, whoever he is.

Or Klam.

That's right. But at least you followed me to Johnson. I'm the poli-board prophet, enlightening the **** out of conks.

I'll bet your boy Edmund Burke was down with restricting who votes tho.

What's an Edmund Burke?

kalm wrote:

Ivytalk wrote:A typically elitist, academic, smug, bring-back-the-literacy-test approach to Fixing The System. If only we could all be as enlightened as Jason Brennan, whoever he is.

Or Klam.

That's right. But at least you followed me to Johnson. I'm the poli-board prophet, enlightening the shit out of conks.

I'll bet your boy Edmund Burke was down with restricting who votes tho.

Wow, that's aleppo people you got to support Johnson. Do you work on commission?

93henfan wrote:

kalm wrote:
That's right. But at least you followed me to Johnson. I'm the poli-board prophet, enlightening the **** out of conks.

I'll bet your boy Edmund Burke was down with restricting who votes tho.

Wow, that's aleppo people you got to support Johnson. Do you work on commission?

You Trumpkins probably couldn't find Aleppo on a map, much less explain its geopolitical significance (either now or at the time of the Ottoman Turks).

Ivytalk wrote:

93henfan wrote:
Wow, that's aleppo people you got to support Johnson. Do you work on commission?

You Trumpkins probably couldn't find Aleppo on a map, much less explain its geopolitical significance (either now or at the time of the Ottoman Turks).

See, there you go accusing me of being dumb again. Seems to be your favorite thing to do this year.

Go make your cute Ivy League stand.

93henfan wrote:

kalm wrote:
That's right. But at least you followed me to Johnson. I'm the poli-board prophet, enlightening the shit out of conks.

I'll bet your boy Edmund Burke was down with restricting who votes tho.

Wow, that's aleppo people you got to support Johnson. Do you work on commission?

Let's just call it Allepo faith.

93henfan wrote:

Ivytalk wrote:
You Trumpkins probably couldn't find Aleppo on a map, much less explain its geopolitical significance (either now or at the time of the Ottoman Turks).

See, there you go accusing me of being dumb again. Seems to be your favorite thing to do this year.

Not at all. I understand why some Trump supporters are angry with Never-Trump Republicans: "It's the SCOTUS, stupid!" But the argument presupposes the worst-case scenario about the 2016 down-ballot elections, and it overestimates the significance of SCOTUS in our daily lives.

I predict that Hillary will beat Trump decisively, and that her margin of victory will be greater than the total number of Gary Johnson votes, Aleppo or not.

Ivytalk wrote:

93henfan wrote:
See, there you go accusing me of being dumb again. Seems to be your favorite thing to do this year.

Not at all. I understand why some Trump supporters are angry with Never-Trump Republicans: "It's the SCOTUS, stupid!" But the argument presupposes the worst-case scenario about the 2016 down-ballot elections, and it overestimates the significance of SCOTUS in our daily lives.

I predict that Hillary will beat Trump decisively, and that her margin of victory will be greater than the total number of Gary Johnson votes, Aleppo or not.

I'll take that bet.

kalm wrote:

Ivytalk wrote:A typically elitist, academic, smug, bring-back-the-literacy-test approach to Fixing The System. If only we could all be as enlightened as Jason Brennan, whoever he is.

Or Klam.

That's right. But at least you followed me to Johnson. I'm the poli-board prophet, enlightening the shit out of conks.

I'll bet your boy Edmund Burke was down with restricting who votes tho.

I'm the king of rock, there is none higher
Sucker MC's should call me sire
To burn my kingdom, you must use fire
I won't stop rockin' till I retire

kalm wrote:

Ivytalk wrote: Not at all. I understand why some Trump supporters are angry with Never-Trump Republicans: "It's the SCOTUS, stupid!" But the argument presupposes the worst-case scenario about the 2016 down-ballot elections, and it overestimates the significance of SCOTUS in our daily lives.

I predict that Hillary will beat Trump decisively, and that her margin of victory will be greater than the total number of Gary Johnson votes, Aleppo or not.

I'll take that bet.

Hey, I wasn't trolling you, I was trolling 93!

Actually, I think Hillary will win, but by fewer than the total number of GJ votes.

But greater than the total number of Jill Stein votes.

kalm wrote:

Ivytalk wrote:A typically elitist, academic, smug, bring-back-the-literacy-test approach to Fixing The System. If only we could all be as enlightened as Jason Brennan, whoever he is.

Or Klam.

That's right. But at least you followed me to Johnson. I'm the poli-board prophet, enlightening the shit out of conks.

I'll bet your boy Edmund Burke was down with restricting who votes tho.

Did you vote for Johnson in '12?

Why is Kaeppernicus getting everyone riled up?

Oh, wait, this isn't some dude sitting for an anthem. It is some clown trying to sell books.

BTW...there is a reason why voters are misinformed. It is because people like Hillary surround themselves with people that don't want people to know the truth...and the media...controlled by people who also don't want the masses involved, don't bother to tell the truth.

Gosh, if only politicians, and the media, were honest...and so-called smart people actually had a clue about anything other than their specialty (and even that is debatable).

I know some people that think they are smart...and they support Hillary.

When you ask them why they support Hillary, they clearly have no idea about reality.

Sounds like this guy.

AZGrizFan wrote:

kalm wrote:
That's right. But at least you followed me to Johnson. I'm the poli-board prophet, enlightening the shit out of conks.

I'll bet your boy Edmund Burke was down with restricting who votes tho.

Did you vote for Johnson in '12?