Happy Constitution Day! Annenberg Annual Civics Survey

[*bfine32*]

(09-21-2018, 10:29 PM)GMDino Wrote: I take your word for it.


You do know that that's bad form around here...right?  But "deaf ears" and all...


Except the OP simply stated the truth that the results are during the "Trump era".  A reflection of people during that era...not on Trump himself.


Your comments on the popular vote?



And then there's this beauty:


A general conversation about voters and their lack of civics knowledge was taken, by you, as an attack on Trump because he won the last election.

You said that.  No one else did.


You lose.

As I thought you could not fine one post of me defending Trump. You kinda found me defending those that voted for Trump from condescending slurs. 

It should be real easy. Find one post in this tread where I defended anything the current POTUS has done. Just one; it should be easy.

It was not taken as an attack on Trump; it was taken (which of course it was) as an attack on the populace that voted for Trump. 

"They're not as informed as we are"

[NATI BENGALS]

(09-21-2018, 10:50 PM)bfine32 Wrote: As I thought you could not fine one post of me defending Trump. You kinda found me defending those that voted for Trump from condescending slurs. 

It should be real easy. Find one post in this tread where I defended anything the current POTUS has done. Just one; it should be easy.

It was not taken as an attack on Trump; it was taken (which of course it was) as an attack on the populace that voted for Trump. 

"They're not as informed as we are"

Reporting survey results is viewed as an attack on Trump voters now? Interesting. Im doing a story about snowflakes. Its a fake made up story that im not even doing. But i will use this to help differentiate snowflakiness

[*bfine32*]

(09-21-2018, 10:58 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: Reporting survey results is viewed as an attack on Trump voters now? Interesting. Im doing a story about snowflakes. Its a fake made up story that im not even doing. But i will use this to help differentiate snowflakiness

Only if you read the words bolded in the OP. You have 2 choices:

You can feign ignorance

or

You can admit the motivation behind the OP.

There is absolutely zero doubt in the rational person's mind why the OP bolded the words he did. And it is not as unbiased as you try to play it is,

[Dill]

(09-21-2018, 06:39 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I wonder how many people answered these questions "yes" or "no"?

Well some certainly answered "no." And 1% refused to answer in one survey.

[NATI BENGALS]

Check this out.

When someone says Trump cheated on his wives, filed bankruptcy multiple times, settled a lawsuit for scamming college kids, and confused 7/11 for 9/11. Its not an attack.

Its just facts.

When you feel "attacked" by the reporting of facts... Maybe examine your reality

[Dill]

(09-21-2018, 08:14 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Well you can want all you want but as I said; some folks have neither the time or inclination to take a refresher civics class. Knowing the names of the 3 branches of government are not going to change that. I want every able bodied American to serve in his/her county's military for a minimum of 2 years, but some are not inclined to do so. 

It just struck me as funny that the same people moaning about an ill-informed population were the same ones cheering the popular vote results; given the original purpose of the EC

We are now 340+ million people.  How big--and expensive--would the U.S. military be if every able-bodied American served?

Just for the record, I am "moaning" about ill informed voters, and I have always defended the electoral college.

[*bfine32*]

(09-21-2018, 11:25 PM)Dill Wrote: We are now 340+ million people.  How big--and expensive--would the U.S. military be if every able-bodied American served?

Just for the record, I am "moaning" about ill informed voters, and I have always defended the electoral college.

As to the first: exactly; unfortunately, some things are just not fesible

As to the latter, you can claim you had no bias in the OP, but I drafted numerous correspondences today and none started with In the era of Trump. 

[Dill]

(09-21-2018, 08:36 PM)bfine32 Wrote: ...and there in-lies the question; uninformed about what?

The name of the 3 branches of government

How a candidate's economic policies will affect local and global economy

The veto powers of POTUS

For everything anyone suggests we should educate the populace on when it comes to civics, I can name 5 you omit. The best we can do is hope that those that are educated on the process have a sliver of honesty. Americans are going to vote for who thinks the most like them and no class on the 15th Amendment is going to change that.

The whole thread just stinks of sour grapes and condescension.. The person I didn't want elected got elected. Now that I've played out the popular vote stance, let's go wit the population is ignorant, because if they were informed they would have voted like I wanted them to.  

Uninformed about how government works, how populations are swayed by propaganda, about the ethical bases of domestic and international law, the essential differences between liberal democracies and authoritarian regimes. Stuff like that, among other things.

Actually classes on the Amendments, not to mention the history of civil rights, might change what some Americans are "like."  Democracy can't be uncoupled from literacy, including "civics" literacy.


Your last comment, once again, disconnects dissatisfaction with Trump from Trump's own behavior. You yourself have grudgingly admitted it is truly bad. You don't dispute that he has purveyed Alex Jones-style conspiracy theories, nor that he favored Putin over our intel services on a world stage. You don't dispute his ugly tweets about women, or that he had a "fixer" to pay off porn stars and who knows what else. Yet you can't acknowledge that any of this could be the real reason people think him unfit for office, let alone that they are right.

And he is in office because enough voters were ok with his ugly behavior and lack of experience. So yes, the person I didn't want elected because of his unfitness was elected, and by people who were comfortable with that unfitness, or worse, saw it as fitness.  You deflect criticism from the man who would restrict immigration from "shithole" countries and countries that send us their"rapists," because in that criticism you only see "condescension" towards supporters who embrace these degrading stereotypes.  Everyone is accountable for his own behavior, apparently, but Trump and Trump supporters.

[Dill]

(09-21-2018, 11:30 PM)bfine32 Wrote: As to the first: exactly; unfortunately, some things are just not fesible

As to the latter, you can claim you had no bias in the OP, but I drafted numerous correspondences today and none started with In the era of Trump. 

??? Not clear at all how you are using the term "bias." 

You have ever seen me use the term; You have never seen me claiming myself free of bias or claiming that others aren't.  That's because people rarely use the term as an accurate descriptor. "Bias hunting" is generally the practice of people unused to examining issues from different sides or having their own views cross examined.

But I will say that criticism of people who have earned criticism is not "showing bias."

And that inability or refusal to criticize people manifestly deserving of it is showing bias.

[*Nately120*]

(09-21-2018, 08:14 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Well you can want all you want but as I said; some folks have neither the time or inclination to take a refresher civics class. Knowing the names of the 3 branches of government are not going to change that. I want every able bodied American to serve in his/her county's military for a minimum of 2 years, but some are not inclined to do so. 

It just struck me as funny that the same people moaning about an ill-informed population were the same ones cheering the popular vote results; given the original purpose of the EC

Hell, I'd vote for that just to see how this country would deal with the notion that everyone, even the people we hate and disagree with, is a country-serving hero.  US Army veteran and American hero Colin Kaepernick kneels during Anthem.  Is he still a hero, or is he spitting in the face of every US citizen who is also a country-serving hero?

[GMDino]

(09-24-2018, 11:15 AM)Nately120 Wrote: Hell, I'd vote for that just to see how this country would deal with the notion that everyone, even the people we hate and disagree with, is a country-serving hero.  US Army veteran and American hero Colin Kaepernick kneels during Anthem.  Is he still a hero, or is he spitting in the face of every US citizen who is also a country-serving hero?

If he did that every conservative would hate him.

They hate any veteran that isn't a conservative.  They have shown that over and over.

[*Nately120*]

(09-24-2018, 11:27 AM)GMDino Wrote: If he did that every conservative would hate him.

They hate any veteran that isn't a conservative.  They have shown that over and over.

In all fairness, it could be less "give 'em all guns and drop 'em into the combat zone" and more requiring 2+ years of serving the country in some capacity other than just front line infantry.  As long as the privileged people in this country were given a loophole to avoid the "required" service, I could see it happening. Then again, election 2016 showed us just how popular public servants are.

[GMDino]

(09-24-2018, 11:30 AM)Nately120 Wrote: In all fairness, it could be less "give 'em all guns and drop 'em into the combat zone" and more requiring 2+ years of serving the country in some capacity other than just front line infantry.  As long as the privileged people in this country were given a loophole to avoid the "required" service, I could see it happening.  Then again, election 2016 showed us just how popular public servants are.

Wouldn't matter.  If someone served they will be immediately treated as a bad person from not being a Republican...followed by an attack on Democrats for not supporting the troops and respecting veterans.  

[*Nately120*]

(09-24-2018, 11:36 AM)GMDino Wrote: Wouldn't matter.  If someone served they will be immediately treated as a bad person from not being a Republican...followed by an attack on Democrats for not supporting the troops and respecting veterans.  

Fair enough.  I have a pal who is a black democrat who happens to be a major in the army and he tells me how quickly his white-bread redneck inlaws are to tell him how wrong he is about the job he does and they don't. 

[*michaelsean*]

(09-21-2018, 11:25 PM)Dill Wrote: We are now 340+ million people.  How big--and expensive--would the U.S. military be if every able-bodied American served?

Just for the record, I am "moaning" about ill informed voters, and I have always defended the electoral college.

I don't think they'd all serve at once   Do it like they used to.  6 months active, and 1.5 years reserve.  

[GMDino]

(09-24-2018, 11:45 AM)Nately120 Wrote: Fair enough.  I have a pal who is a black democrat who happens to be a major in the army and he tells me how quickly his white-bread redneck inlaws are to tell him how wrong he is about the job he does and they don't. 

(09-24-2018, 01:39 PM)michaelsean Wrote: I don't think they'd all serve at once   Do it like they used to.  6 months active, and 1.5 years reserve.  

The other problem with this is if the powers that be know they have an unlimited, forced army they are more likely to send them to fight.

[*Nately120*]

(09-24-2018, 01:40 PM)GMDino Wrote: The other problem with this is if the powers that be know they have an unlimited, forced army they are more likely to send them to fight.

Maybe...but I think there would certainly be less support for a war if everyone had a legit shot and being sent off to die in it.  I recall my ol' man telling me when he got back after being drafted for Vietnam that people claimed they were for the war until they knew someone who died in it.  Stuff like that can turn the tide, can't it?

It's one thing to join the military and get deployed, but if you or your son/daughter turns 18 and is given a gun and shipped to a war zone that's different.  Anyways, this is all conjecture so I'm getting off topic here.

[GMDino]

(09-24-2018, 01:43 PM)Nately120 Wrote: Maybe...but I think there would certainly be less support for a war if everyone had a legit shot and being sent off to die in it.  I recall my ol' man telling me when he got back after being drafted for Vietnam that people claimed they were for the war until they knew someone who died in it.  Stuff like that can turn the tide, can't it?

It's one thing to join the military and get deployed, but if you or your son/daughter turns 18 and is given a gun and shipped to a war zone that's different.  Anyways, this is all conjecture so I'm getting off topic here.

I think that's why we have the volunteer system we have now.

If it was mandatory the whole way of thinking reverts to a bunch of guys who don't have to leave their homes sending a bunch of kids they never have meet or worry about.

[*Nately120*]

(09-24-2018, 01:47 PM)GMDino Wrote: I think that's why we have the volunteer system we have now.

If it was mandatory the whole way of thinking reverts to a bunch of guys who don't have to leave their homes sending a bunch of kids they never have meet or worry about.

Well, the cynical view is that wars will be fought by the poorer and less educated regardless if it is voluntary or a draft system.  Dare I say, the bone spurs of a poor man are less debilitating than those of a richer man? 

[GMDino]

(09-24-2018, 01:54 PM)Nately120 Wrote: Well, the cynical view is that wars will be fought by the poorer and less educated regardless if it is voluntary or a draft system.  Dare I say, the bone spurs of a poor man are less debilitating than those of a richer man? 

Aye.  I just hesitate to give them an unlimited source of fresh meat that is required to be there versus volunteered.