Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 01-14-2019, 07:25 AM
BenedictusXIV BenedictusXIV is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2018
Posts: 45
Democracy: The art of winning an unfair game

I was taught and I have long believed that one should respect the will of the majority (as long as they respect the minority). However in the last decade (or two) I am reminded time and time again of George Carlin's saying: "Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that".

I can't help feeling that this is exactly the cut that political analysts make.
"Sure Mr. Trump, if we can get all the stupid people to vote for you, we just need one more vote to get you in the White House"
"Oh, so all I need to do is vote for me?"
"Umm, no sir. Like I said we need one more vote. Maybe you can persuade Mrs. Trump?"

Is it pretentious of me to label every trumpeteer as dumb? I don't think so. When it comes to politics or policy, I might be wrong but they're not right. Instead of debating whether or not former criminals should have voting rights, we need to worry about the 63M people who casted a republican ballot during the last general election. Against all democratic principles, I think these people should be labeled TDTV (Too Dumb To Vote) and have their voting rights suspended until they pass a simple competence test. Even now, faced with the results of their poor judgement, they still won't admit they made a terrible mistake. They don't deserve democracy.

Don't tell me it's a self-regulating system, it's not. Elections are not about differences of opinion, they are about big data, special interests and playing to the stupider half of the population.

Putin knows this. I firmly believe that our faith in democracy and freedom of speech is being used against us. Democracy is based on the premise that the majority of the people is mostly right, but that no longer applies in a world where the majority is easily influenced by fine tuned campaigns and personalized propaganda.

Our nation is under attack. Not from Islamic terrorists, invading hordes of murdering and plundering Hispanics or nuked up communists, but from cancerous ideas that are injected by our enemy to destabilize and create chaos. Ideas that feed on stupidity and lord knows we have plenty of that. Ideas that will ultimately destroy everything this nation has stood for from the day of its founding.

Political strategists don't shy away from anything that will give them an edge over the competition (aka their former or future employer) so they are more than happy to ride the tea train all the way to Washington. Never mind if the tickets are priced in rubles.

"That's what I like about Trump. At least he speaks his mind."
No! Two thirds of what comes out of his mouth is bullshit. If that's speaking his mind then it's only more proof that he is a shit for brains....like you, dear trumpeteer.

I could live with the mistake if we would have some general concensus that it was indeed a mistake. Instead Trump has approval ratings of over 40%. Sure, he is hitting all-time lows, but they're not low enough. How can 40% approve??? That doesn't even mean that 60% disapproves because there is always the blessed 20% who just go....huh?
How?? Is 40% of the population deaf, dumb and blind or are they just stupid?
George Carlin knew the answer. Putin knows the answer. Steve Bannon knows the answer. I know the answer.

I shouldn't be worried about 2020, but with so much stupidity going around, I am starting to lose sleep already. There shouldn't even be a remote chance of a second term for this nincompoop. Instead I'd say the odds are 50/50....and that's not counting Mrs. Trump.

Disclaimer: Being a republican doesn't make you stupid. Being a democrat doesn't absolve you from being stupid. Being a Trump supporter makes me wonder how you manage to breath in and out in the proper sequence.
  #2  
Old 01-14-2019, 07:37 AM
Ludovic Ludovic is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: America's Wing
Posts: 29,092
I'm more interested in the title of the OP than the contents: Arrow's Impossibility Theorem states that under a certain set of criteria that could be considered "fair", and faced with more than two choices, it's impossible to design a selection method that meets all the fairness criteria. So in a very real way, democracy is indeed the art of winning an unfair game.
  #3  
Old 01-14-2019, 08:06 AM
Thudlow Boink's Avatar
Thudlow Boink Thudlow Boink is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Lincoln, IL
Posts: 26,016
Quote:
Originally Posted by BenedictusXIV View Post
Democracy is based on the premise that the majority of the people is mostly right, but that no longer applies in a world where the majority is easily influenced by fine tuned campaigns and personalized propaganda.
Not entirely. Under democracy, the majority can be wrong, but at least the results of their wrong choices are self-inflicted, so they arguably get the government they deserve.

"You can fool all the people some of the time and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time." So far Trump has only won one election, the one where people hadn't yet had the chance to see how bad a leader he was. I want to believe they'll know better next time.
  #4  
Old 01-14-2019, 08:43 AM
BenedictusXIV BenedictusXIV is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2018
Posts: 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ludovic View Post
I'm more interested in the title of the OP than the contents: Arrow's Impossibility Theorem states that under a certain set of criteria that could be considered "fair", and faced with more than two choices, it's impossible to design a selection method that meets all the fairness criteria. So in a very real way, democracy is indeed the art of winning an unfair game.
Interesting read. If I understand it all correctly then the problem is with the "single winner" concept.
Quote:
according to William Poundstone, author of Gaming
the Vote: Why elections aren't fair . "It's really the worst system.
Its only virtue is that it is the simplest way of voting, which is
why we put up with it," he says.
So one solution can be a multiple party system and a coalition government.

I see that here in Europe. The loonies still get to rant, but there are no parties who have absolute power. That kinda limits the amount of damage one administration can do. Where it goes wrong is when they fall back on a dualistic approach (such as the Brexit vote).
  #5  
Old 01-14-2019, 08:56 AM
BenedictusXIV BenedictusXIV is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2018
Posts: 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thudlow Boink View Post
Not entirely. Under democracy, the majority can be wrong, but at least the results of their wrong choices are self-inflicted, so they arguably get the government they deserve.
I said mostly :P
THere is another statistical principle that says something like: The larger the group of participants, the better the odds of getting it right.

Example: If you let 1,000 people guess how many marbles are in a big bowl (of marbles), then the average of all guesses will be pretty clost to the actual number. The bigger the group, the more accurate the result.

(forgot what it's called)

Of course the majority can be wrong. Do we want to stop paying taxes? Yes! When do we want to stop? Now!
You can also argue (and I believe Aristotle already did) that the minority view should not be ignored in a true democracy or else it would simply become a dictatorship of the majority.

Last edited by BenedictusXIV; 01-14-2019 at 08:57 AM. Reason: fixed quote
  #6  
Old 01-14-2019, 08:59 AM
septimus's Avatar
septimus septimus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 18,086
I mostly agree with OP, but will note some exceptions.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BenedictusXIV View Post
... George Carlin's saying: "Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that".

... we need to worry about the 63M people who casted a republican ballot during the last general election. Against all democratic principles, I think these people should be labeled TDTV (Too Dumb To Vote) and have their voting rights suspended until they pass a simple competence test. Even now, faced with the results of their poor judgement, they still won't admit they made a terrible mistake. They don't deserve democracy.
... Our nation is under attack. Not from Islamic terrorists, invading hordes of murdering and plundering Hispanics or nuked up communists, but from cancerous ideas that are injected by our enemy to destabilize and create chaos. Ideas that feed on stupidity and lord knows we have plenty of that. Ideas that will ultimately destroy everything this nation has stood for from the day of its founding.
... Being a Trump supporter makes me wonder how you manage to breath in and out in the proper sequence.
I doubt if there's much difference between the average Trump-voter IQ and average Hillary-voter IQ! This is partly because right-wingers do their political thinking with their amygdala rather than with the cerebral centers of intelligence. And most Americans, whether on the left or the right, are content to treat national politics as vague and remote, rather than engage in in-depth research and contemplation.

Also, while it's truly horrid that Putin (and other foreign players, especially China) now find it easy to manipulate us using social media, the problem would exist (though to a smaller extent) even without foreign manipulators. The Koch Brothers spend far more on manipulating American public opinion than Vladimir Putin does. Even without any deliberate manipulation, the traditional roles of selfless wise men and professional journalists have been usurped by the crazy-gets-eyeballs model of modern social media, etc.

Democracy had a great hey-day; in less than two centuries democratic capitalism propelled the U.S. economy to develop railroads, airplanes, computers, and finally the Internet. But going forward, I wonder if autocracies which practice Internet censorship will achieve more success than the "free world."

The problem is very serious and I have no solution to offer. Sorry.
  #7  
Old 01-14-2019, 09:06 AM
Thudlow Boink's Avatar
Thudlow Boink Thudlow Boink is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Lincoln, IL
Posts: 26,016
Quote:
Originally Posted by BenedictusXIV View Post
I said mostly :P
THere is another statistical principle that says something like: The larger the group of participants, the better the odds of getting it right.

Example: If you let 1,000 people guess how many marbles are in a big bowl (of marbles), then the average of all guesses will be pretty clost to the actual number. The bigger the group, the more accurate the result.

(forgot what it's called)
Wisdom of the crowd? That's a real thing, but it mainly applies when each person is guessing independently.
  #8  
Old 01-14-2019, 09:29 AM
Aspidistra Aspidistra is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 5,027
I read an interesting book last year called 'against elections' (different from 'against democracy' which is also a recent book) whose main thesis was that modern democracy suffers from its insistence that democracy==elections, and that we would benefit from the addition of a whole lot more sortition (the practice of choosing officials by lot) as was used in ancient democracies such as Greece and medieval Italian states.

The main supporting points I recall were the fact that the 'representatives' elections choose are never very representative of the actual population - too many lawyers, extroverts, rich people, people with good hair ... elections select on the basis of 'person can present themselves well' not 'person has good decision making'.

And also, the process of deliberating together with diverse people over an issue is actually a very valuable one that leads to good decision making, but the 'election' model doesn't really encourage that kind of thinking, but just the snap judgement 'pick a box' kind of decision making, which may not have any real thought behind it.

It's worth pointing out that although support for 'democracy' appears to be failing in the West, people still appear to trust juries ... which use the sortition model
  #9  
Old 01-14-2019, 09:53 AM
Buck Godot's Avatar
Buck Godot Buck Godot is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: MD outside DC
Posts: 5,324
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thudlow Boink View Post
Not entirely. Under democracy, the majority can be wrong, but at least the results of their wrong choices are self-inflicted, so they arguably get the government they deserve.
Of course in our "Democracy" the majority can be right but the results be wrong anyway.
  #10  
Old 01-14-2019, 10:01 AM
HurricaneDitka HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 11,967
Quote:
Originally Posted by BenedictusXIV View Post
... our faith in democracy ...
It seems pretty clear from the OP that you don't actually have faith in democracy.
  #11  
Old 01-14-2019, 10:02 AM
HurricaneDitka HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 11,967
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buck Godot View Post
Of course in our "Democracy" the majority can be right but the results be wrong anyway.
"Majority" is not the word you're looking for there. Try "plurality".

Last edited by HurricaneDitka; 01-14-2019 at 10:02 AM.
  #12  
Old 01-14-2019, 10:12 AM
Gyrate Gyrate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Greater Croydonia
Posts: 22,169
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
It seems pretty clear from the OP that you don't actually have faith in democracy.
IAN the OP but I don't have much faith in democracy either. Mind you, I have even less faith in the other alternatives (see Churchill yadda yadda yadda) so the best option is to try and make democracy work as best one can.
  #13  
Old 01-14-2019, 10:24 AM
F. U. Shakespeare F. U. Shakespeare is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Baltimore or less
Posts: 4,017
Quote:
Originally Posted by BenedictusXIV View Post
I was taught and I have long believed that one should respect the will of the majority (as long as they respect the minority).
I would phrase this as, "respect the decisions of majorities, while preserving the rights of minorities". It's also important not to define "right" too broadly. Everyone has a right to vote, and to equal treatment before the law, but not IMO to free health care.
  #14  
Old 01-14-2019, 10:56 AM
EscAlaMike EscAlaMike is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Location: Alabama
Posts: 1,418
Democracy is not the ultimate ideal.

The ultimate ideal is liberty.

Democracy is only useful insofar as it promotes liberty. If Democracy becomes destructive to liberty, then to hell with it.
  #15  
Old 01-14-2019, 11:23 AM
sbunny8 sbunny8 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Eugene, Oregon
Posts: 1,309
Quote:
Originally Posted by BenedictusXIV View Post
There is another statistical principle that says something like: The larger the group of participants, the better the odds of getting it right. Example: If you let 1,000 people guess how many marbles are in a big bowl (of marbles), then the average of all guesses will be pretty close to the actual number. The bigger the group, the more accurate the result. (forgot what it's called)
John Brunner called it the Delphi Principle.

However, there's an equal and opposite principle: Garbage In, Garbage Out.

The Delphi Principle fails when the participants have no knowledge at all relating to the subject, or they have been fed disinformation. Example: You let 1,000 people guess the number of marbles in a bowl, while showing them a photo of a completely different bowl. Another example: You let 1,000 people guess the total number of marbles in all the bowls, jars, and boxes located in a fictional town that you just made up.

I was teaching statistics at a community college in the Spring of 2002. I asked the entire class to write down the number of victims who died in the attacks on September 11th, so we could make a histogram. Every single person in the class (all 30 of them) gave an answer which was higher than the correct number. Most of them were too high by a factor of three or more. I used this to emphasize that sampling error only tells you the likelihood of mistakes due to random chance, which is often dwarfed by the likelihood of mistakes due to poorly designed sampling methods, such as asking for information from people who do not have the correct information.

The famous book How to Lie With Statistics used the example where pollsters asked people how many times per week they took a bath, and reported the results of the poll. The fundamental error is that people don't actually KNOW how many times per week they take baths. They can only estimate, based on fallible memory. The poll results didn't show anything about bath-taking, only about memories of baths taken.

Getting back to the OP, monarchy is based on the assumption that royals have wisdom to make good decisions based on good information they get from their advisors, but democracy is based on the assumption that citizens have the wisdom to make good decisions based on good information they get from the free press. When the press is owned by giant corporations who push propaganda to suit their own selfish interests (or fail to challenge the propaganda of dishonest politicians), it becomes even less likely that you can trust the citizens to make good decisions. Garbage In, Garbage Out.

Last edited by sbunny8; 01-14-2019 at 11:26 AM.
  #16  
Old 01-14-2019, 03:26 PM
Red Wiggler Red Wiggler is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 1,564
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aspidistra View Post
I read an interesting book last year called 'against elections' (different from 'against democracy' which is also a recent book) whose main thesis was that modern democracy suffers from its insistence that democracy==elections, and that we would benefit from the addition of a whole lot more sortition (the practice of choosing officials by lot) as was used in ancient democracies such as Greece and medieval Italian states.

The main supporting points I recall were the fact that the 'representatives' elections choose are never very representative of the actual population - too many lawyers, extroverts, rich people, people with good hair ... elections select on the basis of 'person can present themselves well' not 'person has good decision making'.

And also, the process of deliberating together with diverse people over an issue is actually a very valuable one that leads to good decision making, but the 'election' model doesn't really encourage that kind of thinking, but just the snap judgement 'pick a box' kind of decision making, which may not have any real thought behind it.

It's worth pointing out that although support for 'democracy' appears to be failing in the West, people still appear to trust juries ... which use the sortition model
I'm a closet demarchist. Having elections is way better than not having any organized selection process at all but the winner of an election is not necessarily one who is good at governance. He or she might be. But what they're really demonstrably good at is winning election.
  #17  
Old 01-14-2019, 03:33 PM
HurricaneDitka HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 11,967
I don't love the idea of choosing officials by random lottery. What other methods could we use to to enhance the "good at governance" quotient of our government officials? Should we eliminate people based on certain criteria (e.g. criminal record, mental illness, income / education level, property ownership, tax contributions, hours of public service, etc) and choose randomly from those who make it through our filters?
  #18  
Old 01-14-2019, 03:57 PM
DSYoungEsq DSYoungEsq is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Indian Land, S Carolina
Posts: 13,997
Quote:
Originally Posted by BenedictusXIV View Post
I was taught and I have long believed that one should respect the will of the majority (as long as they respect the minority). However in the last decade (or two) I am reminded time and time again of George Carlin's saying: "Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that".

I can't help feeling that this is exactly the cut that political analysts make.
"Sure Mr. Trump, if we can get all the stupid people to vote for you, we just need one more vote to get you in the White House"
"Oh, so all I need to do is vote for me?"
"Umm, no sir. Like I said we need one more vote. Maybe you can persuade Mrs. Trump?"

Is it pretentious of me to label every trumpeteer as dumb? I don't think so. When it comes to politics or policy, I might be wrong but they're not right. Instead of debating whether or not former criminals should have voting rights, we need to worry about the 63M people who casted a republican ballot during the last general election. Against all democratic principles, I think these people should be labeled TDTV (Too Dumb To Vote) and have their voting rights suspended until they pass a simple competence test. Even now, faced with the results of their poor judgement, they still won't admit they made a terrible mistake. They don't deserve democracy.

Don't tell me it's a self-regulating system, it's not. Elections are not about differences of opinion, they are about big data, special interests and playing to the stupider half of the population.

Putin knows this. I firmly believe that our faith in democracy and freedom of speech is being used against us. Democracy is based on the premise that the majority of the people is mostly right, but that no longer applies in a world where the majority is easily influenced by fine tuned campaigns and personalized propaganda.

Our nation is under attack. Not from Islamic terrorists, invading hordes of murdering and plundering Hispanics or nuked up communists, but from cancerous ideas that are injected by our enemy to destabilize and create chaos. Ideas that feed on stupidity and lord knows we have plenty of that. Ideas that will ultimately destroy everything this nation has stood for from the day of its founding.

Political strategists don't shy away from anything that will give them an edge over the competition (aka their former or future employer) so they are more than happy to ride the tea train all the way to Washington. Never mind if the tickets are priced in rubles.

"That's what I like about Trump. At least he speaks his mind."
No! Two thirds of what comes out of his mouth is bullshit. If that's speaking his mind then it's only more proof that he is a shit for brains....like you, dear trumpeteer.

I could live with the mistake if we would have some general concensus that it was indeed a mistake. Instead Trump has approval ratings of over 40%. Sure, he is hitting all-time lows, but they're not low enough. How can 40% approve??? That doesn't even mean that 60% disapproves because there is always the blessed 20% who just go....huh?
How?? Is 40% of the population deaf, dumb and blind or are they just stupid?
George Carlin knew the answer. Putin knows the answer. Steve Bannon knows the answer. I know the answer.

I shouldn't be worried about 2020, but with so much stupidity going around, I am starting to lose sleep already. There shouldn't even be a remote chance of a second term for this nincompoop. Instead I'd say the odds are 50/50....and that's not counting Mrs. Trump.

Disclaimer: Being a republican doesn't make you stupid. Being a democrat doesn't absolve you from being stupid. Being a Trump supporter makes me wonder how you manage to breath in and out in the proper sequence.
This entire sentiment about those who voted for the President is exactly what is wrong with a large number of "liberals" and Democrats today: the assumption that they are on the "right" side of things because their position is inherently "superior" to that of those who are on the "other" side. I know several people who voted for Donald Trump for a variety of reasons, none of which can be considered inherently stupid. From those who were concerned about the state of the federal judiciary, to those who are socially conservative on things like abortion, to those who are fiscal hawks and/or opposed to liberal federal social programs, to those who simply disliked Hillary Clinton more than they disliked Donald Trump, there are any number of people who had perfectly valid reasons to vote for him. To label all such people as "stupid" just shows an incredible bias in your own thinking.
  #19  
Old 01-14-2019, 04:22 PM
squidfood squidfood is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 390
Quote:
Originally Posted by BenedictusXIV View Post
I see that here in Europe. The loonies still get to rant, but there are no parties who have absolute power. That kinda limits the amount of damage one administration can do. Where it goes wrong is when they fall back on a dualistic approach (such as the Brexit vote).
The solution to that part of it is adding strong federalism to the equation. If the Brexit vote had been structured "a majority of (England, Scotland, Wales, N. Ireland) has to approve to exit", it would have failed. Major constitutional changes/referenda just shouldn't be done on straight majority vote, especially when substantial regionalism exists in a country. This is independent of whether the overarching structure is parliamentary or congressional: each of the federal pieces can have its own structure (within limits).
  #20  
Old 01-14-2019, 05:27 PM
Ludovic Ludovic is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: America's Wing
Posts: 29,092
Quote:
Originally Posted by squidfood View Post
The solution to that part of it is adding strong federalism to the equation. If the Brexit vote had been structured "a majority of (England, Scotland, Wales, N. Ireland) has to approve to exit", it would have failed. Major constitutional changes/referenda just shouldn't be done on straight majority vote, especially when substantial regionalism exists in a country. This is independent of whether the overarching structure is parliamentary or congressional: each of the federal pieces can have its own structure (within limits).
I'm not sure if a majority of each country would have been the way to go but I'm with you on major consitutional changes and referenda needing more than a simple majority. They should require at the very least 53% or so to take into account possible polling error just from the weather or calendar (let alone buyer's remorse.), no use tying your horse to a huge change when it could have very well been a different result on a different day.

My personal opinion is more like 55% at the bare minimum for such things.
  #21  
Old 01-14-2019, 05:52 PM
DigitalC DigitalC is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Obamatopia
Posts: 10,566
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSYoungEsq View Post
This entire sentiment about those who voted for the President is exactly what is wrong with a large number of "liberals" and Democrats today: the assumption that they are on the "right" side of things because their position is inherently "superior" to that of those who are on the "other" side. I know several people who voted for Donald Trump for a variety of reasons, none of which can be considered inherently stupid. From those who were concerned about the state of the federal judiciary, to those who are socially conservative on things like abortion, to those who are fiscal hawks and/or opposed to liberal federal social programs, to those who simply disliked Hillary Clinton more than they disliked Donald Trump, there are any number of people who had perfectly valid reasons to vote for him. To label all such people as "stupid" just shows an incredible bias in your own thinking.
We are on the right side of things, our position is inherently superior. It is not an assumption. The act of voting for Trump was inherently stupid, whatever mental gymnastics your friends had to do to justify that to themselves does not make it any less stupid. If anything it makes it more so.
  #22  
Old 01-14-2019, 06:12 PM
asahi's Avatar
asahi asahi is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 7,755
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSYoungEsq View Post
This entire sentiment about those who voted for the President is exactly what is wrong with a large number of "liberals" and Democrats today: the assumption that they are on the "right" side of things because their position is inherently "superior" to that of those who are on the "other" side. I know several people who voted for Donald Trump for a variety of reasons, none of which can be considered inherently stupid. From those who were concerned about the state of the federal judiciary, to those who are socially conservative on things like abortion, to those who are fiscal hawks and/or opposed to liberal federal social programs, to those who simply disliked Hillary Clinton more than they disliked Donald Trump, there are any number of people who had perfectly valid reasons to vote for him. To label all such people as "stupid" just shows an incredible bias in your own thinking.
Nope. Those are all very stupid justifications for voting for someone so horribly repugnant to the values of a fair and just society, and so utterly unqualified to run in the first place. I'll keep saying it: the people who voted for Trump knew what they were voting for, and they're just as responsible for whatever ruin comes next. I won't be in the mood for reconciliation.
  #23  
Old 01-14-2019, 06:39 PM
Dacien Dacien is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2018
Posts: 245
I can think of intelligent people who plugged their nose and voted for Trump for no other reason than to hopefully avoid a 5-4 liberal leaning SCOTUS. Say what you want about Merrick Garland being a centrist, I'm not about to duke it out on that one, but I feel confident in saying Merrick Garland was decidedly far to the left of Scalia's originalism.
  #24  
Old 01-14-2019, 08:50 PM
septimus's Avatar
septimus septimus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 18,086
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSYoungEsq View Post
This entire sentiment about those who voted for the President is exactly what is wrong with a large number of "liberals" and Democrats today: the assumption that they are on the "right" side of things because their position is inherently "superior" to that of those who are on the "other" side. I know several people who voted for Donald Trump for a variety of reasons, none of which can be considered inherently stupid. From those who were concerned about the state of the federal judiciary, to those who are socially conservative on things like abortion, to those who are fiscal hawks and/or opposed to liberal federal social programs, to those who simply disliked Hillary Clinton more than they disliked Donald Trump, there are any number of people who had perfectly valid reasons to vote for him. To label all such people as "stupid" just shows an incredible bias in your own thinking.
Let's see: Donald Trump flirts shamelessly with girls in their early teens, was even credibly accused of raping a 13-year old, and talked about grabbing pussy because he was a star. Would anyone but a stupid person think this monster was morally fit to lead the country?

Trump University was a crass and blatant fraud; that fact was readily visible to anyone who knew hot to click Google. Trump had consistently defrauded others; he'd declared bankruptcy repeatedly and American banks no longer gave him credit. Much of the vomitus that emerged from his barf-hole was lies, baby talk, or gratuitous insults.

Trump was a pompous ass whose flatulent stump speeches showed nothing but ignorance and hatred. He encouraged his supporters to beat up protesters and journalists. He was condemned and ridiculed by most GOP leaders (excepting Limbaugh, Alex Jones, etc.). His idea of "debate" was to repeat hateful nicknames like a grade-school bully. Are these the "valid reasons" to vote for Trump?

Trump had a long history of racism. Trump had a history of kanoodling with Russian Mafia.

Hillary Clinton's biggest fault was that she wasn't a professional baby-kissing politician. I'll agree that some of the people who voted for Trump weren't "stupid" in a clinical sense (though it's safe to say most were so ignorant they should have been embarrassed to vote). But, unless they are part of the kleptocratic crowd eager to betray their own country, then their decision to vote for this pathetic excuse for a human being was a stupid decision.

No, DSYoungEsq, your viewpoint quoted above is so unreasonable I have no interest in further reading of your newsletter.

Oh: And how's that "fiscal hawkery" working out for all y'all?
  #25  
Old 01-14-2019, 09:17 PM
Dacien Dacien is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2018
Posts: 245
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
Hillary Clinton's biggest fault was that she wasn't a professional baby-kissing politician.
I think just the opposite. I think her candidacy was a well-oiled machine, and had a support structure to marvel at. The problem was people just didn't like Hillary.

"If you donít like Trump and never did and find yourself baffled as to how the voters could have possibly disagreed with you, the answer is simple: They didnít. He was able to win not just because of the Electoral College, but because most voters also didnít like his opponent."
  #26  
Old 01-14-2019, 09:39 PM
asahi's Avatar
asahi asahi is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 7,755
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dacien View Post
I think just the opposite. I think her candidacy was a well-oiled machine, and had a support structure to marvel at. The problem was people just didn't like Hillary.

"If you donít like Trump and never did and find yourself baffled as to how the voters could have possibly disagreed with you, the answer is simple: They didnít. He was able to win not just because of the Electoral College, but because most voters also didnít like his opponent."
That's one problem; the other is their own abject stupidity and ignorance. We live in a country of morons who hold conservative presidents accountable only when they're unemployed and they've got padlocks on their front doors.
  #27  
Old 01-14-2019, 09:48 PM
octopus's Avatar
octopus octopus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 7,761
Funny how a system is lauded until it provides a result that vocal elitists disagree with. It’s almost as if democracy is a ruse to provide a veneer of legitimacy to a modern ruling political class.
  #28  
Old 01-14-2019, 10:19 PM
HurricaneDitka HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 11,967
Quote:
Originally Posted by octopus View Post
Funny how a system is lauded until it provides a result that vocal elitists disagree with. It’s almost as if democracy is a ruse to provide a veneer of legitimacy to a modern ruling political class.
I was thinking more along the lines if "sad, but unsurprising". The libs want to pout and stamp their feet because they didn't get their way, fine, but these anti-democratic views, especially after they spent so much time and energy accusation President Trump of being a "fascist" are just ... sad.

Last edited by HurricaneDitka; 01-14-2019 at 10:21 PM.
  #29  
Old 01-14-2019, 10:24 PM
elucidator elucidator is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Further
Posts: 59,384
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dacien View Post
....most voters also didnít like his opponent.
(emphasis added with a pedantic sniff...)

Three million more voters voted for his opponent. Sorry, didn't mean to interrupt, you were saying?
  #30  
Old 01-14-2019, 11:03 PM
Dacien Dacien is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2018
Posts: 245
Quote:
Originally Posted by elucidator View Post
(emphasis added with a pedantic sniff...)

Three million more voters voted for his opponent. Sorry, didn't mean to interrupt, you were saying?
The crazy part is, if she had just been slightly more popular, if slightly more people had bothered to go out and vote for her in key states, she'd be Madam President right now. But she just couldn't muster that tiny extra bit of support.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:00 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017