Priscilla Ann
Member
Walter Cronkite much more intellectual credibility than George Bush. Even if you like Bush, you have to admit that he is not a brilliant man. That much is evident after listening to him for even five minutes.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Walter Cronkite Says US too ignorant to Vote
- Thread starter Salty
- Start date
I'll admit no such thing. The only thing Cronkite ever had was a great voice.
But I know the theory. Elite, intellectual liberals, dumb conservative hicks.
But I know the theory. Elite, intellectual liberals, dumb conservative hicks.
T
TexasSky
Guest
Okay, so what is wrong with what Cronkite said. Thomas Jefferson said basically the same thing.
He said that the reason we needed republic instead of a pure democracy was because the masses are not intelligent or educated enough to properly govern themselves, and that they needed to elect educated men to govern.
From my experiences in life, I tend to agree that most Americans don't have a CLUE how the system really works.
They do not attend their precinct caucuses.
Therefore they do not become delegates to county or state or national.
Therefore they have absolutely no input into party platforms or who the next candidate funded by the parties will be.
So, instead of voting on the best man, period.
They "choose from the leftovers" that other people who DID participate in the system elected.
Last time I worked an election that I remember the numbers from - we had over 9,500 vote in the precinct, but 5 attended the caucus.
He said that the reason we needed republic instead of a pure democracy was because the masses are not intelligent or educated enough to properly govern themselves, and that they needed to elect educated men to govern.
From my experiences in life, I tend to agree that most Americans don't have a CLUE how the system really works.
They do not attend their precinct caucuses.
Therefore they do not become delegates to county or state or national.
Therefore they have absolutely no input into party platforms or who the next candidate funded by the parties will be.
So, instead of voting on the best man, period.
They "choose from the leftovers" that other people who DID participate in the system elected.
Last time I worked an election that I remember the numbers from - we had over 9,500 vote in the precinct, but 5 attended the caucus.
mcdirector
Active Member
Johnv, this is good. I especially like the respecting the voting decisions of others. Based on the name calling in this thread alone, I'd venture to say that the giving of respect for those voting decisions is rare.
T
TexasSky
Guest
El Guero,
Before a person can run for a national political office on the Republican or the Democratic ticket they have to win the endorsement of the party that is going to finance them.
Now: The night after Reagan was elected the second time, I was invited to a metting by local party big shots to "discuss the viable possibilities for the next presidential election." A lot of names were thrown around including Jack Kemp, George Bush (the senior), Pat Buchannon. There were also names thrown in from people who wanted the party to endorse them, like T. Boone Pickens, the Texas Corporate Raider and oilman. Pickens was told there was no way the party bigshots would support him, so he saved his money and went away quietly.
By day three after Reagan was elected party experts were investigating the various "wanna bes" to decide who would "harm the party." Moderates and conservatives were split on what the candidates would have to pledge to support, and on who would be sent to the electoral college IF the Republicans been the Democrats.
Democrats were doing the same thing.
So, by the time you go to a primary election to vote - a LOT of very important decisions have already been made for you by the party machine. If you aren't participating, you didn't even get a voice in those.
Come election night, after the primary closes, there is a "precinct caucus". If you voted in that primary, you can attend that meeting. At that meeting you can submit "resolutions" and you elect delegates to county. Now, you need to be careful, they've started manipulating the system. Some places require resolutions be typed, with three copies, or they won't let you submit them. They do that to keep the uninformed from messing up their plans. They have coached their people to show up with everything done by the book, in advance.
I ran a fairer precinct. If you DIDN'T have the 3-typed-in-triplicate, we allowed you access to a typewriter to do it then.
You submit your resolution. For instance - one that was killed was a high federal tax on anything related to abortion activities. Interestingly enough, though it was submitted to be a "preventive measure" to limit abortion if the anti-abortion plan failed. The idea behind it was to made abortion more expensive than giving birth. The money raised from the tax, per the plank, would have been used to provide pre-natal and medical care to individuals who said they were aborting because they couldn't afford birth. Certain pro-life people thought it endorsed abortion.
Both parties have "liberals," "convervatives" and "moderates" inside their own party. So while you might think all Republicans are conservative compared to Democrats, not all Republicans are as conservative as their fellow conservatives.
The parties split over that. THey elect delegate slates to county. At county, in some areas, candidates are required to agree to represent and vote their party platform. So, if a candidate is liberal, he wants the more liberal delegates elected so they will give him a liberal platform to work from, and vice versa.
At county you elect delegates to state. Where the resolutions, platform, etc., are narrowed down even more.
At state you elect the representatives to the electoral college, should your candidate win the national popular election.
The Christian Coalition literally took over the Republican Party by organizing people to take over the precinct caucses. Unfortuantely, they didn't necessarily require the person they represented even profess to be a Christian. Locally I've seen them endorse an Apache Shaman over a Christian Minister based on the theory that his held the same ideals that the Christians had and was more outspoken. I disagreed and disapprove. No man who admits he isn't Christian should be endorsed by people claiming they only endorse Christian values.
What we often saw was that the population endorsed the moderate, and the caucses and county were taken over by the very conservative. THe liberals actually stopped showing up.
So, Pat Buchannon's people were sent to state, but George Bush was the candidate. Since Buchannon's people were the party machine, they often refused to work with George Bush, and in some cases voted Buchannon on the first vote at State even though their constiuents had voted Bush.
I saw more lies, more unethical manipulation of elections and more dirty politics in the Christian Coalition than I've seen in secular groups. When asked how they could even think of behaving that way, I would be told the end justified the means. As a Christian, I disagree. I have nothing to do with the organization anymore.
What bothered me the most were people's refusal to think. I saw rumors and pictures circulated that a candidate beat his wife. The pictures being images of her leaving the abused women's shelter. The person circulating them knew that the reason the woman was there was because she RAN THE SHELTER. But they didn't tell voters that. They justified it on the basis that the candidate was "liberal."
Does it matter? You tell me. MOST of the appointees to cabinets, committees, aides, etc., that a candidate makes personally come from their buddies at the precinct levels. Meirs is the biggest current example.
She is being appointed because she is a long standing good friend who has earned a political reward FAR more than because she has earned a right to the highest court in the world. (And I say that as a Bush supportor.)
Before a person can run for a national political office on the Republican or the Democratic ticket they have to win the endorsement of the party that is going to finance them.
Now: The night after Reagan was elected the second time, I was invited to a metting by local party big shots to "discuss the viable possibilities for the next presidential election." A lot of names were thrown around including Jack Kemp, George Bush (the senior), Pat Buchannon. There were also names thrown in from people who wanted the party to endorse them, like T. Boone Pickens, the Texas Corporate Raider and oilman. Pickens was told there was no way the party bigshots would support him, so he saved his money and went away quietly.
By day three after Reagan was elected party experts were investigating the various "wanna bes" to decide who would "harm the party." Moderates and conservatives were split on what the candidates would have to pledge to support, and on who would be sent to the electoral college IF the Republicans been the Democrats.
Democrats were doing the same thing.
So, by the time you go to a primary election to vote - a LOT of very important decisions have already been made for you by the party machine. If you aren't participating, you didn't even get a voice in those.
Come election night, after the primary closes, there is a "precinct caucus". If you voted in that primary, you can attend that meeting. At that meeting you can submit "resolutions" and you elect delegates to county. Now, you need to be careful, they've started manipulating the system. Some places require resolutions be typed, with three copies, or they won't let you submit them. They do that to keep the uninformed from messing up their plans. They have coached their people to show up with everything done by the book, in advance.
I ran a fairer precinct. If you DIDN'T have the 3-typed-in-triplicate, we allowed you access to a typewriter to do it then.
You submit your resolution. For instance - one that was killed was a high federal tax on anything related to abortion activities. Interestingly enough, though it was submitted to be a "preventive measure" to limit abortion if the anti-abortion plan failed. The idea behind it was to made abortion more expensive than giving birth. The money raised from the tax, per the plank, would have been used to provide pre-natal and medical care to individuals who said they were aborting because they couldn't afford birth. Certain pro-life people thought it endorsed abortion.
Both parties have "liberals," "convervatives" and "moderates" inside their own party. So while you might think all Republicans are conservative compared to Democrats, not all Republicans are as conservative as their fellow conservatives.
The parties split over that. THey elect delegate slates to county. At county, in some areas, candidates are required to agree to represent and vote their party platform. So, if a candidate is liberal, he wants the more liberal delegates elected so they will give him a liberal platform to work from, and vice versa.
At county you elect delegates to state. Where the resolutions, platform, etc., are narrowed down even more.
At state you elect the representatives to the electoral college, should your candidate win the national popular election.
The Christian Coalition literally took over the Republican Party by organizing people to take over the precinct caucses. Unfortuantely, they didn't necessarily require the person they represented even profess to be a Christian. Locally I've seen them endorse an Apache Shaman over a Christian Minister based on the theory that his held the same ideals that the Christians had and was more outspoken. I disagreed and disapprove. No man who admits he isn't Christian should be endorsed by people claiming they only endorse Christian values.
What we often saw was that the population endorsed the moderate, and the caucses and county were taken over by the very conservative. THe liberals actually stopped showing up.
So, Pat Buchannon's people were sent to state, but George Bush was the candidate. Since Buchannon's people were the party machine, they often refused to work with George Bush, and in some cases voted Buchannon on the first vote at State even though their constiuents had voted Bush.
I saw more lies, more unethical manipulation of elections and more dirty politics in the Christian Coalition than I've seen in secular groups. When asked how they could even think of behaving that way, I would be told the end justified the means. As a Christian, I disagree. I have nothing to do with the organization anymore.
What bothered me the most were people's refusal to think. I saw rumors and pictures circulated that a candidate beat his wife. The pictures being images of her leaving the abused women's shelter. The person circulating them knew that the reason the woman was there was because she RAN THE SHELTER. But they didn't tell voters that. They justified it on the basis that the candidate was "liberal."
Does it matter? You tell me. MOST of the appointees to cabinets, committees, aides, etc., that a candidate makes personally come from their buddies at the precinct levels. Meirs is the biggest current example.
She is being appointed because she is a long standing good friend who has earned a political reward FAR more than because she has earned a right to the highest court in the world. (And I say that as a Bush supportor.)
T
TexasSky
Guest
I don't think Boone would make a President either... but.. he is the best example that even with money, you can't even try to get elected in this country if you don't know how the system works.
"""Johnv, this is good. I especially like the respecting the voting decisions of others. Based on the name calling in this thread alone, I'd venture to say that the giving of respect for those voting decisions is rare."""--------------------------------------------------------------
I don't respect the dicision of a Christian to vote for a party or candidate who is on record as wanting to vote for Abortion or Homosexual marriage. When a candidate supports such things, a Christian has no business giving him the power to cause more abortions or homosexual marriages.
I don't respect the dicision of a Christian to vote for a party or candidate who is on record as wanting to vote for Abortion or Homosexual marriage. When a candidate supports such things, a Christian has no business giving him the power to cause more abortions or homosexual marriages.
I don't know of any objective standard that would bear out the truth of this statement. You might argue that "credibility" is different than "reality," and on that, you could be right. Cronkite certainly had a measure of intellectual credibility, but it was not earned. Bush is no genius, but Cronkite was just a face with a voice. He demonstrated no great ability to incisively analyze the events of his day. He showed no great ability to reason through issues and difficulties. And that is fine. That is not what he was paid for.
Some of the most brilliant people in history are very poor speakers. In fact, probably most of them are. That is not to argue that Bush is brilliant. It is simply to say that you have arrived at your conclusion from a faulty method. Bush is certainly not the brightest president, but he is by no means a moron. He is likely well into the top percentage of this country in terms of intellect. To say that we "elected a fool" was not a statement of reality. It was a statement of politics.
Priscilla Ann
Member
I draw my conclusions about Bush from listening to him for the last five years.
Enough said.
Enough said.
Terry_Herrington
New Member
Bingo!
(just kidding)
Then you have heard enough to be beyond questioning his intelligence. Question his policies; question his judgment about some matters. But there is no reason to question his intelligence.
mcdirector
Active Member
By respect, I meant verbally. I can tell you I don't agree with you without calling you names. I can discuss a candidate without calling him or her names. Whatever I think of someone personally, I do the cause of Christ absolutely no good with this behavior.
I will and do speak out long and hard in support of candidates who I feel support a biblically moral point of view, but I must also be moral and upright in my behavior.
T
TexasSky
Guest
President Bush is more educated than most of the people who call him ignorant. A fact that never ceases to amuse me.
I also believe that a lot of the people who knock his speaking mannerisms do not understand certain cultures. In Texas for many, many years it was considered very rude for educated men to speak "above the average man." The more like a Bostonian or New Yorker you sounded, the harder it was to get business done. The smartest men in Texas were the men who, though highly educated, could make the most common man feel at ease and feel like his equal.
President Bush, like many Texans, has a sense of humor and a Texas accent. He might not pronounce "nuclear" the way you do, but I bet you he can explain a nuclear reaction better than you could.
Beyond that - consider that people weren't impressed with the education of John the Baptist, Christ Jesus or Matthew, Mark, Peter and John.
In the end though, it is clear they were wiser than the "experts" who ran the temple.
I also believe that a lot of the people who knock his speaking mannerisms do not understand certain cultures. In Texas for many, many years it was considered very rude for educated men to speak "above the average man." The more like a Bostonian or New Yorker you sounded, the harder it was to get business done. The smartest men in Texas were the men who, though highly educated, could make the most common man feel at ease and feel like his equal.
President Bush, like many Texans, has a sense of humor and a Texas accent. He might not pronounce "nuclear" the way you do, but I bet you he can explain a nuclear reaction better than you could.
Beyond that - consider that people weren't impressed with the education of John the Baptist, Christ Jesus or Matthew, Mark, Peter and John.
In the end though, it is clear they were wiser than the "experts" who ran the temple.
Joseph_Botwinick
<img src=/532.jpg>Banned
This is the reason the Democrats keep losing...they have become a bunch of elitist, better than thou, snobs. Bill Clinton was a liberal for sure...but he also knew how to talk Southern and not act like a snob.
Joseph Botwinick
Joseph Botwinick