[One Degree]

Clearl OD. You do not believe in the concept of one-person-one-vote. I do. Why is this hard for you to understand?

Then, because you have a reading comprehension problem, you said I posted an unsourced argument.



Now do you see the source?

No, you still did not source the quote, but I don’t really care.
One person one vote only works in small areas. Widespread areas like the US with different lifestyles require they all be represented. Democrats just supported the same idea with wanting gerrymandering boundaries changed to represent minorities better. Another contradiction in DNC policies.
California has more electoral votes than Idaho, Oregon,Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Nevada, Utah, and New Mexico combined. How do you see this being unfair to California?

[Negotiator]

Without the electoral college would the rural peoples of the USA ever be able to elect a president contra the urban population (like Trump), Yes or No?

Dun care.

Guess what: Presidents should be voted by majority vote.

Duh !

Like it happends in every. friggin. democracy. on the planet. Except the USA.

Theres no justification for the riddiculous voting system of the USA. There never was any. The rest of the world is laughing about you.

Just past presidential election everyone complained that Clinton won the majority, but Trump won the race. The whining raised to high levels in all political forums. But, but, but ... Clinton won ! Yeah, guess what. Trump didnt made the rules, he just played by them, and won by them. So tried Clinton, but she failed.

And all I kept telling people "Why yes, told ya so ever since I heard about this crap voting system of yours, decades ago, and so did many other people. So - will you NOW FINALLY change your riddiculous voting system ?".

So now, surprise ! You havent done anything about this, AGAIN - and you even have already forgotten about the whole issue AGAIN and give all kinds of riddiculous rationalizations why this absurdity makes any sense ? Yeesh.

[Victoribus Spolia]

Like it happends in every. friggin. democracy. on the planet. Except the USA.

The United States is not a democracy, its a constitutional federal republic that from its inception believed in balancing minority rights with majoritarian power via checks, balances and tri-cameral system of government.

Theres no justification for the riddiculous voting system of the USA. There never was any. The rest of the world is laughing about you.Just past presidential election everyone complained that Clinton won the majority, but Trump won the race. The whining raised to high levels in all political forums. But, but, but ... Clinton won ! Yeah, guess what. Trump didnt made the rules, he just played by them, and won by them. So tried Clinton, but she failed.And all I kept telling people "Why yes, told ya so ever since I heard about this crap voting system of yours, decades ago, and so did many other people. So - will you NOW FINALLY change your riddiculous voting system ?".So now, surprise ! You havent done anything about this, AGAIN - and you even have already forgotten about the whole issue AGAIN and give all kinds of riddiculous rationalizations why this absurdity makes any sense ? Yeesh.

Not an argument.

[Drlee]

The United States is not a democracy, its a constitutional federal republic that from its inception believed in balancing minority rights with majoritarian power via checks, balances and tri-cameral system of government.

Not quite true. It did not give a whit about "minority rights". The system of compromise which was necessary to form the federal republic was designed to protect the rights of mostly wealthy landowners and slave holders.

The main drivers of the system no longer apply. We no longer have slaves and (unthinkable to the founders) now allow full franchise to women and blacks having encoded this in our constitution. So what has happened is that we have allowed a tyranny of the minority. We have a minority of people attempting to deprive some people of the same rights that they have.

We have a bill of rights to protect minority rights and properly enforced it would prevent the tyranny of the masses. We should not have a situation where the opposite is true. Perhaps a fundamentalist Christian in Georgia might not like same sex marriage on religious grounds. That opinion should not be allowed to oppress someone in California or even more important, drive every facet of governance through two votes in the Senate.

OD asks me how California's large number of electoral votes is fair. I could answer that but would remind him that I do not think the electoral college is fair at all so he ought to ask someone else.

[One Degree]

Not quite true. It did not give a whit about "minority rights". The system of compromise which was necessary to form the federal republic was designed to protect the rights of mostly wealthy landowners and slave holders.

It would be more correct to say they wanted to protect the ‘superiority’ of the educated elite. The same argument Democrats claim now. They believe their ‘assumed superiority’ gives them additional rights in decision making.

The main drivers of the system no longer apply. We no longer have slaves and (unthinkable to the founders) now allow full franchise to women and blacks having encoded this in our constitution. So what has happened is that we have allowed a tyranny of the minority. We have a minority of people attempting to deprive some people of the same rights that they have.

This is based upon the false assumption centralization is always superior.

We have a bill of rights to protect minority rights and properly enforced it would prevent the tyranny of the masses. We should not have a situation where the opposite is true. Perhaps a fundamentalist Christian in Georgia might not like same sex marriage on religious grounds. That opinion should not be allowed to oppress someone in California or even more important, drive every facet of governance through two votes in the Senate.

You are totally eliminating ‘community rights’ and claiming only individual rights matter. Why should voters in California oppress those in Georgia into accepting ‘rights’ they don’t agree with? Your ‘assumed superiority’ prevents you from seeing it works both ways with centralized decision making.

OD asks me how California's large number of electoral votes is fair. I could answer that but would remind him that I do not think the electoral college is fair at all so he ought to ask someone else.

But, you have not shown how it is unfair other than by your personal preference to ignore community rights.

[Stormsmith]

People are being told to return to work to continue working to process income tax return, to protect people from unsafe food and air safety. They wont get their regular paycheques. Apparently some of your armed forces are furloughed. It seems to me these men and women are essential. I wonder if they could join the unions representing federal workers.

And change your labour laws. There's no way President Trump should be able to force workers, union or not, to work without paying them on time.

[Drlee]

It would be more correct to say they wanted to protect the ‘superiority’ of the educated elite. The same argument Democrats claim now. They believe their ‘assumed superiority’ gives them additional rights in decision making.

Nonsense. That is a Fox News blind. The democrats are targeting working class Americans and doing it so well that they kicked the republicans collective asses in the mid terms.

As to your ridiculous claim that democrats claim additional rights, please tell us what those rights are. I don't think you have a clue about what you mean.

But, you have not shown how it is unfair other than by your personal preference to ignore community rights.

Nonsense again. Read what I posted. The fact that you are incapable of understanding a concept does not mean the concept is invalid.

[Victoribus Spolia]

Not quite true. It did not give a whit about "minority rights". The system of compromise which was necessary to form the federal republic was designed to protect the rights of mostly wealthy landowners and slave holders.

You are using "minority" in the modern sense, i was using it in etymological sense. The southern aristocracy were in the minority at this time.

So what has happened is that we have allowed a tyranny of the minority. We have a minority of people attempting to deprive some people of the same rights that they have.

That is hardly true; as has been stated; nearly all vestiges of minority protections for rural populations have been removed, starting in the 19th century and coming to a terminus in the 17th amendment. Literally the last vestige of protection for rural representation is in the state legislatures and the electoral college for national elections.

As state legislatures continue to get weaker in the face of federal centralization, the abolition of the electoral college will guarantee that rural peoples will never have adequate representation in the federal government again. Full-stop.

Perhaps a fundamentalist Christian in Georgia might not like same sex marriage on religious grounds. That opinion should not be allowed to oppress someone in California or even more important, drive every facet of governance through two votes in the Senate.

California supported gay marriage long before the Supreme Court Ruling on gay marriage eliminated DOMA and now that is a federally settled matter along with abortion.

Your idea that rural peoples are oppressing urbanites is nonsense; for anything based on population regarding politics is ipso facto urban in its favoring.

Hence, the House is pro urban as representatives are based on population; hence the more urban the state (the more cities) the higher population and therefore the more representation it has in the House.

The Senate is less urban than the house because representation is limited to two per state in order to balance state's rights; however, since the 17th amendment, senators are elected based on state-wide popular vote; hence the cities have more power to determine the senators for their state; thus, the representation in the senate is also pro-urban.

So ALL of congress is pro-urban with rural representation being pretty well gone; in spite of the massive amount of land and resources held by rural peoples in this country (thus signifying their practical importance as a group).

The Supreme Court justices are nominated by a sitting president, but confirmed by the senate (which has been established as pro-urban).

So what aspect of government maintains rural minority representation? The presidency, and even there its balanced.

RARELY have presidents lost the popular vote and still won the electoral college, Trump just happened to be one of the like 3 or 4 times this has happened in ALL U.S. History.

THUS; even though rural representation can come through to sway a presidential election, it requires almost unanimous support among that rural base to accomplish.

SO, how the fuck can you sit there and say that the rural minority is oppressing the urban majority in U.S. Politics? The claim is absurd and you are literally advocating removing the last vestige of representation this very poor and misunderstood demographic has in the Federal Government.

Perhaps you think these older blue collar Americans who worked their whole lives, served in all the wars, and raised families as best as possible deserve to lose this last bit of representation because they are backward old white people with antiquated values, but if you think for a moment that sort of philosophy is in line with the intention of the founding fathers and the principles of American government, you are guilty of a cognitive dissonance that can only be attributed to either an irrational hatred of Trump, or an immoral and condescending disregard for poor rural whites who have been left behind by the 21st century.

The overwhelming percentage of the landscape for this nation is rural and you are advocating that the people who live, work, and maintain the vast majority of the American landscape and are some of the sole remaining representatives of its traditional beliefs and values ought to lose the LAST bit of representation they have left.


ALSO.....

I notice you were eerily silent about my description of rural values from my home....

I am sure you would have a hard time discussing them with any sympathy, let alone empathy (which is what is really needed).

Now, as to return to your older point about urban people still having rural interests in mind; I now wish to present the Yellow Vest protests as exhibit A on how they don't have a fucking clue.

The fuel tax is an urban delusion. Its easy for urban people to tax gas when most of them can walk, bike, or take a bus ( everyone where I live has to drive atleast 45 minutes one way to make more than $15/hr); Likewise, its easy for urban people to support an inheritance tax when the only people that own real estate in the cities are big corporate ass holes where the majority in rural areas are poor farmers who want to pass on the $20K a year farm to their sons without bankrupting the family business that has been in their families since they got off the mayflower.

As I said, if you eliminate rural representation, you really are fucking over a lot of people in a very serious way, and the policy examples above are just two points among hundreds that could be given of whats happening now even with the electoral college still being around.

[Foxfyre]

Even if successfully built......maybe it'd produce a 1% dent in illegal immigration from the border with Mexico. Easier to simply deport those already in the USA right now, and would only take a few months.

We can begin with the illegal immigrants Trump employs, including his illegal immigrant wife!

There is no evidence that President Trump employs illegals. And Melania is a naturalized U.S. citizen.

As for walls, they DO WORK!!! They work for Israel. They work for Hungary. They work for Macedonia. And they work at the U.S. border as testified to by the Border Patrol including Obama's Border Security Chief. Wherever the walls exist, illegal entry is reduced to a tiny trickle of what it was. It is a critical component, along with several other measures, to help the Border Patrol control the situation.

Some pertinent and accurate information:
https://dailycaller.com/2017/02/01/will ... he-answer/

[One Degree]

Nonsense. That is a Fox News blind.

Education gives most people a sense of superiority. Your own posts attest to this despite you calling it nonsense.
https://www.reference.com/business-fina ... ef3100a5f1
Medical doctors have the highest average IQ, but it ranges from 105 to 132 in this study. Obviously, some of them are barely above average, most are above average, but few have superior intelligence. Now, this is the best, so how do you figure those other doctorates fit in? Are you honestly saying that these people don’t feel superior and the general public accepts it, when it actually has little basis. This is ‘assumed superiority’.
Few of the ‘doctors’ have any actual claim to superior intelligence.

The democrats are targeting working class Americans and doing it so well that they kicked the republicans collective asses in the mid terms.

Now you are getting really delusional if you think Democrats won back the working class. I am guessing your definition of working class is college educated professionals? Lol

As to your ridiculous claim that democrats claim additional rights, please tell us what those rights are. I don't think you have a clue about what you mean.

They claim the right to make decisions for those who disagree with them through their insistence upon centralization, and using the courts instead of the legislature for change. Now you want to eliminate the electoral college to remove any chance of them overriding your ‘superior views’. Your philosophy is based upon superiority. Liberals are basically still ‘white man burden’ advocates incapable of seeing their hypocrisy.

Nonsense again. Read what I posted. The fact that you are incapable of understanding a concept does not mean the concept is invalid.

I don’t need to read it again. This is just deflection to avoid responding to my actual points.

[Hindsite]

OD asks me how California's large number of electoral votes is fair. I could answer that but would remind him that I do not think the electoral college is fair at all so he ought to ask someone else.

I believe it would be fair if the large number of illegal immigrants were not counted as members of the population to determine electoral votes. But the fact that California is able to increase their electoral college votes by including illegal aliens makes it unfair. But the liberal Democrats want to increase that advantage by opposing the citizenship question on the 2020 census and by welcoming more illegal immigrants into their state and giving the right to vote for them as they promise them more free stuff.

[Drlee]

VS: California supported gay marriage long before the Supreme Court Ruling on gay marriage eliminated DOMA and now that is a federally settled matter along with abortion.

Thank you for making my point that this is about lifestyle choices not political oppression.

I am not going to go point by point from your post most of which I have covered already. Your contention that rural people are oppressed and would be further oppressed without their votes counting far more than mine are facile.

SO, how the fuck can you sit there and say that the rural minority is oppressing the urban majority in U.S. Politics? The claim is absurd and you are literally advocating removing the last vestige of representation this very poor and misunderstood demographic has in the Federal Government.

You mean the very poor people who are overwhelmingly supporting candidates who want to further erode what few protections they have.

Just

The fuel tax is an urban delusion. Its easy for urban people to tax gas when most of them can walk, bike, or take a bus ( everyone where I live has to drive atleast 45 minutes one way to make more than $15/hr);

If you have a problem with fuel taxes I recommend you speak to your state representatives. They can dramatically reduce it or tailor it to geography. And, oh by the way, I did not see the Trump administration and republican congress do fuck all about it despite being a creation of rural America. You need to get real about who is fucking who.

Likewise, its easy for urban people to support an inheritance tax when the only people that own real estate in the cities are big corporate ass holes where the majority in rural areas are poor farmers who want to pass on the $20K a year farm to their sons without bankrupting the family business that has been in their families since they got off the mayflower.

Same answer. Why did the fat cats you constantly elect to congress fuck you so often. You are pussies. You can't even control your own representative so you whine about some congressman from California. Get off your ass and fire the assholes who are screwing you. Your assholes first.

So start with your state. If wages are not high enough raise the minimum wage. Ours is $11.50 an hour. We were told that jobs would flee the state. Didn't happen.

Again. Stop whining like a little girl, get into your pickup, load 10 of your friends in the back and go get someone elected to your state legislature who is not sold out to big business. Dump those so-called conservatives and elect a progressive with YOUR best interests in mind. Start by trying to find someone who believes in representative government.

Pussies.

I refuse to listen to these arguments anymore. Rural Republican drones are suffering a self-inflicted wound.

Medical doctors have the highest average IQ, but it ranges from 105 to 132 in this study. Obviously, some of them are barely above average, most are above average, but few have superior intelligence. Now, this is the best, so how do you figure those other doctorates fit in? Are you honestly saying that these people don’t feel superior and the general public accepts it, when it actually has little basis. This is ‘assumed superiority’.
Few of the ‘doctors’ have any actual claim to superior intelligence.

I have no idea what point you are trying to make.

If you want to have a real and honest discussion about what it is like to have a very high IQ why not start a thread. It will not go well but you can try. I will tell you parenthetically that the IQs you mentioned above are not particularly high. Depending on the test 132 would just put one in the top 2%. Not bad but not all that unusual. Two ways to look at it. In the average room of 50 people if your IQ was 132 you would likely be the smartest guy there. (I know math people but leave me to OD for a moment.) That sounds pretty good. Or you could look at it this way. If your IQ was 132 there would be nearly 7 million people in the US as smart or smarter than you. Not so heady now.

The democrats are targeting working class Americans and doing it so well that they kicked the republicans collective asses in the mid terms.

Targeting? You mean campaigning to represent them based upon these people's needs, wants and desires? Those despicable democrats. What do they want? A mere howling democracy.

Now you are getting really delusional if you think Democrats won back the working class. I am guessing your definition of working class is college educated professionals? Lol

Which is it?

They claim the right to make decisions for those who disagree with them through their insistence upon centralization, and using the courts instead of the legislature for change. Now you want to eliminate the electoral college to remove any chance of them overriding your ‘superior views’. Your philosophy is based upon superiority. Liberals are basically still ‘white man burden’ advocates incapable of seeing their hypocrisy.

I know you do not see it but this statement of yours is nonsensical.

Fucking special snowflakes. The Republicans have become a party of pussies and whiners. "Oh lordy! Dose lib'rals don set out to take away our god given right to racism, poverty, worship of the almighty rich man. Next thing you know 'dem dam dems will want to count everyone's vote the same and ever'one else's vote. Darkies in the city don gonna take away our guns and pickups. Dey gone make my son marry a black man. Hell and damnation. We is fucked fo sho"

Wimps. Grow some balls and go to work. Start fixing your state legislatures and stop trying to blame your troubles on someone else.

I am not going to call them the fly-over states anymore. I am going to call them the flat-dick states.

And remember our motto here in Mississippi class, "If you hear banjos, paddle faster."

[Victoribus Spolia]

Same answer. Why did the fat cats you constantly elect to congress fuck you so often. You are pussies. You can't even control your own representative so you whine about some congressman from California. Get off your ass and fire the assholes who are screwing you. Your assholes first.

So start with your state. If wages are not high enough raise the minimum wage. Ours is $11.50 an hour. We were told that jobs would flee the state. Didn't happen.

Again. Stop whining like a little girl, get into your pickup, load 10 of your friends in the back and go get someone elected to your state legislature who is not sold out to big business. Dump those so-called conservatives and elect a progressive with YOUR best interests in mind. Start by trying to find someone who believes in representative government.

Pussies.

I refuse to listen to these arguments anymore. Rural Republican drones are suffering a self-inflicted wound.

So much Christian empathy, so much compassion.

Did I mention this didn't address my arguments at all and was just a bunch of ad-hominem tripe? Good job.

You mean the very poor people who are overwhelmingly supporting candidates who want to further erode what few protections they have.
Just

Yeah cause the Democrats did us so well through the 80s and 90s.

You do realize that many of these blue collar rural folks, especially here in the appalachian range were democrats for the last 100 years right?

This just sounds really fucking stupid on your part.

You haven't address any of my arguments on the nature of popular vote regarding the branches of government, because you can't.

Thanks for vindicating my position and making yourself look like an ass. Awesome.

If you have a problem with fuel taxes I recommend you speak to your state representatives. They can dramatically reduce it or tailor it to geography. And, oh by the way, I did not see the Trump administration and republican congress do fuck all about it despite being a creation of rural America. You need to get real about who is fucking who.

Irrelevant. My points aren't about Trump and they aren't about Republicans, they are about rural representation v. urban representation. You are making it about Trump because you need to in order to morally justify supporting urban majoritarian oppression in your own mind which is rationally undeniable given the facts I provided.

Whatever makes you sleep at night, after all you've basically shown me how far your Christian charity actually extends. Apparently "loving your neighbor" only applies to those poor which are fashionable to elitists like yourselves, not the poorest people in the nation, like those in Appalachia. Probably because their values and skin color is inconvenient....fuck them I guess.

[One Degree]

I have no idea what point you are trying to make.

If you want to have a real and honest discussion about what it is like to have a very high IQ why not start a thread. It will not go well but you can try. I will tell you parenthetically that the IQs you mentioned above are not particularly high. Depending on the test 132 would just put one in the top 2%. Not bad but not all that unusual. Two ways to look at it. In the average room of 50 people if your IQ was 132 you would likely be the smartest guy there. (I know math people but leave me to OD for a moment.) That sounds pretty good. Or you could look at it this way. If your IQ was 132 there would be nearly 7 million people in the US as smart or smarter than you. Not so heady now.

I am well aware. I even posted once how the different levels were reflected in the world’s population, but thanks for this irrelevant rant. The point was they are not impressive and therefore a doctorate does not justify a belief in superiority. Amazing, you were unable to comprehend my point. Lol

I know you do not see it but this statement of yours is nonsensical.

And using this as a rebuttal is a stroke of genius? Lol

Fucking special snowflakes. The Republicans have become a party of pussies and whiners. "Oh lordy! Dose lib'rals don set out to take away our god given right to racism, poverty, worship of the almighty rich man. Next thing you know 'dem dam dems will want to count everyone's vote the same and ever'one else's vote. Darkies in the city don gonna take away our guns and pickups. Dey gone make my son marry a black man. Hell and damnation. We is fucked fo sho"

Wimps. Grow some balls and go to work. Start fixing your state legislatures and stop trying to blame your troubles on someone else.

See what brilliant posts you can write with a doctorate? Irrelevant drivel that would only impress a limited intelligent 12 year old.

I am not going to call them the fly-over states anymore. I am going to call them the flat-dick states.

And remember our motto here in Mississippi class, "If you hear banjos, paddle faster."

Was this an indication of your level of doctorate work? Apparently, everything past 6th grade was wasted on you.
Your drivel resulted in my appearing to dismiss education in general. I don’t. I am dismissing those that think a degree entitles them to the ‘assumed superiority’ your insults verify.

[Drlee]

OD. Now you have gone off at the mouth about somebody's "doctorate" for several threads now. What is your problem? Explain it to us.

VS has descended into insulting my religious beliefs because he is in so far over his head that it is the best he can do. I have him too rattled to make a cogent argument so I will give him a time out to regroup.

[One Degree]

OD. Now you have gone off at the mouth about somebody's "doctorate" for several threads now. What is your problem? Explain it to us.

VS has descended into insulting my religious beliefs because he is in so far over his head that it is the best he can do. I have him too rattled to make a cogent argument so I will give him a time out to regroup.

I don’t know how I can make it any clearer. ‘Liberals’ claim they are ‘smarter’ than conservatives based upon their education. What they are actually doing is claiming a ‘superiority’ that only a very few of them have any right to. They believe the degree makes all of them automatically smarter than those without degrees. As a member of MENSA, you should be the first to understand what I am saying. Their members come from all education levels and will normally be the first to tell you how little different IQs make us. It is an ‘assumed superiority’ that is not justifiable.

[Victoribus Spolia]

I have him too rattled to make a cogent argument

Is that what happened huh?



I guess when you descended into calling the poorest people in the country a bunch of stupid pussies when you normally rattle on about how unempathetic conservatives and libertarians are towards poor people when they criticize welfare, I stopped taking you seriously.

Its not like you addressed ANY of my claims about popular government and its relationship to rural representation. Feel free to do so if you are able.

[Drlee]

I don’t know how I can make it any clearer. ‘Liberals’ claim they are ‘smarter’ than conservatives based upon their education.

Nonsense. What "liberals" do this? Show me an example.

They believe the degree makes all of them automatically smarter than those without degrees.

Nonsense again. A degree gives one a liberal education base and some level of esoteric knowledge. I know, for example, next to nothing about engineering.

As a member of MENSA, you should be the first to understand what I am saying.

Mensa membership has nothing to do with college degrees. Many members have them, possibly because they find it easier to learn but beyond that there is no real association.

Their members come from all education levels and will normally be the first to tell you how little different IQs make us.

I assume you are still talking about MENSA. I think you are wrong. In fact I know you are. Small differences in IQ are insignificant. Big ones are quite significant. But that is of no matter to this discussion. IQ does not impart knowledge. People with high IQs are not "geniuses". Well directed people with ambition and the desire to learn will carry the day every time regardless of their IQ. They may just have to work harder or less hard depending on their "gifts".

It is an ‘assumed superiority’ that is not justifiable.

You completely misunderstand the organization and have never attended an annual gathering or you would not say this.

I guess when you descended into calling the poorest people in the country a bunch of stupid pussies...

Show me where I did this. And, oh by the way, show me where all rural people are the "poorest people in the country".

...when you normally rattle on about how unempathetic conservatives and libertarians are towards poor people when they criticize welfare, I stopped taking you seriously.

Not conservatives. Republicans. Do try to keep up. You use a lot of big words. Spend more time on reading comprehension and less time trying to google credibility.

[One Degree]

Nonsense. What "liberals" do this? Show me an example.

Seriously? You are claiming you are unaware of the repeated claim, including on this forum, that studies prove liberals are smarter than conservatives? This claim then is used to justify calling Trump supporters ignorant which you repeatedly do. This is the type of unreasonable denial used to even consider another’s arguments.

Nonsense again. A degree gives one a liberal education base and some level of esoteric knowledge. I know, for example, next to nothing about engineering.

Which means what in the greater scheme?

Mensa membership has nothing to do with college degrees. Many members have them, possibly because they find it easier to learn but beyond that there is no real association.

Again, you seem to be deliberately misunderstanding what I said just so you don’t have to agree with anything I say. You are repeating my own argument as a rebuttal.

I assume you are still talking about MENSA. I think you are wrong. In fact I know you are. Small differences in IQ are insignificant. Big ones are quite significant. But that is of no matter to this discussion. IQ does not impart knowledge. People with high IQs are not "geniuses". Well directed people with ambition and the desire to learn will carry the day every time regardless of their IQ. They may just have to work harder or less hard depending on their "gifts".

You contradict yourself in the same paragraph. You say large differences in IQ are ‘quite significant’ then say those with ambition and desire will carry the day every time. So, where is the ‘big difference’ in a quality of a person’s life or even their political choices, since that is what we are discussing. Can you use a higher IQ and a higher education to prove a political choice is better for a person than they believe it is?
This is the claim, “liberals are smarter so we should listen to them and they should ignore us.”

You completely misunderstand the organization and have never attended an annual gathering or you would not say this.

Your misunderstanding of what I said is not evidence I don’t understand the organization.

[Drlee]

You contradict yourself in the same paragraph. You say large differences in IQ are ‘quite significant’ then say those with ambition and desire will carry the day every time.

Correct.

So, where is the ‘big difference’ in a quality of a person’s life or even their political choices, since that is what we are discussing. Can you use a higher IQ and a higher education to prove a political choice is better for a person than they believe it is?

What does this even mean? What are you asking? Are you really asking me if I think people are automatically right because they are smart?

This is the claim, “liberals are smarter so we should listen to them and they should ignore us.”

It is wise to seek the council of smart people. Do you disagree? Are liberals smarter? I do not get advice from "liberals". I get advice from persons. Liberal or conservative or somewhere in between one decides whether to accept opinions, arguments or advice based upon the opinion, argument or advice. The source is a factor in the decision making process. Some people have higher credibility with me than others. But not because of their political bent. I make an exception for Trump supporters. Though I do not always reject what they say I am suspect of their motives and credibility. I find them, very generally, to be a group of people who are not very smart.

Just to remind you. It would be odd for me to not consider some conservatives to be very smart. I am a conservative. I am not a fascist or white nationalist for the record.