birdog1960

absolutely. required reading. you didn't ask if you're higher information, you asked if it was classic. i'm not comfortable as the arbiter of all things classic but i'll play along.

that is sufficient but not necessary.

can we agree that "low information voters" include the 56% of dems who are totally unfamiliar with bern? http://www.gallup.com/poll/184346/sanders-surges-clinton-sags-favorability.aspx i'm thinking my friend from exeter doesn't meet the criteria, on the other hand, i'd love to see a similar poll on the repug candidates.

yes, yes , yes, maybe but not imo, no.

read the thread. or seeking the truth = educated = classics = "high information". unless you are demented, delirious or otherwise impaired. which are you?

“He makes Jerry Springer look like Masterpiece Theatre.” - David Brooks on The Donald

ah, yes. the lowest common denominator. what say we aim for the highest, instead. go bernie.

they do for high school you moron. the reason they emphasize classics is that they are examples of the highest human achievements in the arts.. they are models of excellence for young students to endeavor towards in any area of study.. they are the opposite of mediocre. not the tack i would take but interesting: http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/classical-studies-greek-latin-conservatives/ "And so, when a conservative like Limbaugh observes that it’s difficult for Classical Studies graduates to find work, the proper response is not to mock them for studying something useless, but rather to ask how it is that we, as Western people, have culturally degraded ourselves to the point where there isn’t enough work for teachers of the Classics — and how we can change that dismal condition".

if the classics are a waste of time, why do you suppose so many top schools emphasize them? and why would people spend $50k a year for their kids to study them there?

it is the question. i put forth an example of a voter that would not be considered "low information" because he would be considered highly educated by reasonable people. barring development of dementia, delerium, or isolation from current information sources, highly educated and low informatiuon states are unlikely to coexist.

in referencew to this discussion, the question is then if la feels you are "low information" or is that condition removed by your education.

would you want your dermatologist to be self taught? to practice to standards of his own making? your neurosurgeon? your lawyer? would you be pleased if any of them never attended college? do you think their professional training would have been successful without a broader base of knowledge gained by more fundamental tiers of broader formal education?

firstly, he's been taught and has taught others how to examine data and information by a systematic method, found over the centuries to be effective. he knows the classics which are called that for a reason. he's travelled extensively so that he's seen alternative cultural norms and customs. he knows history. he knows scientific method. he knows how to read and write well. he understands math well enough to understand basic physics. he's studied logic. as far as media, i suspect he uses a wide variety of sources but i've never asked. he seems to know and understand opposing viewpoints to his own.

many are likely seeking this as well. but how many do you think would spend the time and effort on higher degrees if they were destined to earn the same as someone that only finished high school? no, they desire to be valued more by society while simultaneously being more valuable to it. and you probably criticized clinton for wondering what the definition of is is. there's a commonly understood and accepted definition of intelligence or "smartness". it involves having a knowledge base and the ability to problem solve and apply that knowledge base among other skills. throughout the history of man it has become clear that formal education is the most effective way for most people to develop those attributes and skills. there are exceptions but they are just that. who said sanders voters would be "low information".? what do you base that on? that's what began this debate. the word "smart" or intelligent" wasn't brought up until the word "faculty" was attacked. it does go to a foundation of the separation of contemporary right and left politics, however: respect for classic learning versus contempt of it.

conclusion: intelligent people seeking higher earnings will generally seek higher degrees at top schools. compared to the general population, people that matriculated and completed degrees at top institutions are more intelligent and have greater aptitude. these statements are not mutually exclusive. smart than the general population doesn't necessarily mean smart.

agreed. so what? let's amend the 4th premise to "designed to measure intelligence and aptitude against the general population" is that better? yeah.

is there a premise you feel is false? conclusion not supported? i skipped a few steps in an attempt at brevity but you skipped everything.

ibid. see last response

yes. the conclusion isn't that everyone from harvard is competent.

why don't we diagram the logic: in general the higher the degree one holds the more they earn. degrees from top school statistically result in even higher earnings admission is highly competitive at top schools. top schools select students for admission in a large part on test scores designed to measure intelligence and aptitude. these test are to a significant extent validated. and the final premise: high earning is considered important by a large majority of people. conclusion: intelligent people seeking higher earnings will generally seek higher degrees at top schools. compared to the general population, people that matriculated and completed degrees at top institutions are more intelligent and have greater aptitude. so, have at it. attack the premises or conclusion. honestly, i think a more robust conclusion is supported but lets start here.

true. as a percentage, it's a very small number. but those people are concentrated around places like this.

see this is where education is important. exeter is one of the top prep schools in the country. they've educated the economic elite of this country for centuries. they give full scholarships to anyone with a family income less than 75K. and they have an endowment of about $1 million per student from very wealthy alumni donors. alumni include famous authors, politicians,businessmen and, oh yeah, mark zuckerberg. it's an incubator for future american leaders. so teaching there holds some sway with me. he's helped to mold many future and current leaders. his opinion matters, like it or not. and pieces of paper from institutions like this and universities of the same caliber are prerequisites for membership in many selective groups. whether you think so or not, they are considered validation of ones intelligence and abilities in a great many situations. and for good reason. the schools are extremely selective from the start and then they weed out lesser beings along the way. the piece of paper at the end means plenty.

wrong. just finished talking to a guy who is retired faculty from exeter in new hampshire. very well read. very high information level. and he told me he sent sanders money.

i'm disappointed. i thought banana republic would do a better job:http://bananarepublic.gap.com/browse/product.do?cid=10865&vid=1&pid=404003002. these are the funkiest socks they seem to have. i bought some recently in a 5 pack with polka dots, or horizontal wide stripes or vibrant colors and every time i wear a pair people (actually only women) comment on them. positively! very positively! buy some outrageous socks, guys! they're magic. just stay away from banana republic. and the proposed ppp cabinet...

the "msm" is about the status quo with very few exceptions (and i wouldn't consider those outliers msm, whatever that is). as alaska cleverly pointed out, even clinton didn't move the bar much. i think he meant to initially but he wanted a second term and didn't see massive change and simultaneous reelection in the cards. in the end, he didn't even get minor health care reform. but then we have a black man elected in an incredibly racist nation, evidenced by the vitriol surrounding a symbol adored by racist, hate groups. so the cadillac health plan and 2nd amendment issues don't change the electoral college playing field very much. they were there when that black man in that racist country was reelected. perhaps it's not so in buffalo. i'll take a look at the districts voting for obama for reelection soon. but nationally, for sure. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election_in_New_York,_2012 pretty interesting stuff. erie county went obama by a decent majority. as chef stated some of the rural bills counties went heavily red.