The percentage was somewhat highter than that, actually, but assuming the people who didn’t bother to vote in 2004 wouldn’t bother to care if Bush decided to overstay his welcome, I guess it won’t make any difference.
In any case, the proposed scenario is ridiculous. He’d be forcibly ejected from the White House and looked upon with bewilderment and dismay, as though he’d lost his mind (which I guess would be necessary for him to consider such a move). It’s nothing more than partisan paranoia and propaganda, i.e. let’s shock those who have misgivings about Bush by speculating on having Bush around… forever!
I’m sick of arguments of the type: “The bad guys do bad thing X. We should do bad thing X too. But since we’re the good guys, it will be a good thing when we do it.”
And so the meta-argument that since the bad guys use the above argument, the good guys should also use the above argument is just as stupid.
If you or Rjung wants to point out my personal hypocracy by quoting me making the same lazy argument Rjung used, then feel free. But if I said such a thing I was wrong, same as Rjung is wrong. That I said it wouldn’t make it acceptable for Rjung to say it, it would be unacceptable for me to say it. And pretending to JOKE about it is no defense either, because you know, I know, and the American people know that it ain’t no joke, not even when Ann Coulter says things like that.
So you can search but you won’t find any such quote from me, because I’m not a tremendous asshole. You can search for when Ann Coulter said such things and you’ll find them, because she’s a tremendous asshole. It isn’t unfair that the bad guys say assholish things but the good guys can’t, that’s what differentiates the assholes from the good guys.
Kind of a circular argument, that. “No one who goes along with them ever seems to call them on it.” I guess anyone who calls them on it isn’t someone who “goes along with them.”
I think you’re grossly underestimating how indifferent large segments of any population can be to power struggles taking place far away in a capitol to which they feel no emotional attachment and can find no connection to their daily lives.
They’ll occasionally complain about it, though, if tyrant Bush preempts American Idol to announce his sweeping political reforms, including putting a soldier on every corner.
How many coups in first world countries have we seen? We’ve seen dictators take over Germany, Italy and Spain during the great depression, but how many countries were ticking along nice and democratic, economy doing OK, when some unpopular asshole ups and declares himself dictator?
Doesn’t happen. There are coups in third world countries where the ruling junta changes hats, there are presidents for life, there are generals who assume power “to preserve the country”.
I suppose it’s a true scotsman situation where I can claim that any country where a dictator took over was fucked up already, but honestly, any country where a dictator took over was fucked up already. OK, semi-democratic Weimar Germany semi-democratically elected Adolf as Chancellor. But Weimar Germany honestly was fucked up already. Lost WWI, the depression, hyperinflation, Freikorps, street warfare between political factions. Hitler had a constituency that BELIEVED in dictatorship, he openly sneered at democracy. And the events of WWII pretty much shattered anti-democracy as a political ideology.
We’ve never seen a modern liberal democracy become a dictatorship because most people were indifferent. Hasn’t happened. People are indifferent to most political squabbles because they aren’t affected by them much. A dictator pretty much HAS to interfere, you’ve gotta have censorship, you’ve gotta have arbitrary police power, you’ve gotta have a politicized military, and on and on…and all of those piss off the common schlub who just wants to drink himself a beer without those goddam kids screaming all the time for once.
That’s because it’s an obvious parody of your post, intended for you to realize how utterly absurd you sound in this thread.
In fact, this whole thread in general is absurd. It was absurd the first few times we did it as well, and it hasn’t gotten to be any more sensible over time.
Why should personal examples be required? All you need to do to permit the argument to fluorish is to sit back and do nothing. It’s been flourishing like dandelions ever since 9/11. If you allow weeds to grow on the right, they’ll surely scatter seed on the left.
Rjung, I also note plenty of things you haven’t denounced in this thread.
You didn’t denounce Al Sharpton! You’re a reverse-racist!
You didn’t denounce Bill Clinton getting a blowjob! You’re a sexist!
You didn’t denounce Ken Lay! You’re pro-corporate fraud!
You didn’t denounce Cheney shooting his buddy in the face! You’re pro-maiming!
You didn’t denounce the Beltway Sniper! You’re pro-Islamic terror!
You didn’t denounce Charles Manson! You’re pro-murder!
Should we require everyone to put a list of things they disagree with in their signature and append it to each post? Or can we act like grown ups?
The link I gave was to the white house. Have you ever troubled yourself to denounce the argument when it comes from the president, the vice president, or the president’s press secretary? Do you object to the president using this type of invalid argument? Or can you somehow justify that it’s OK when the most powerful man in the free world argues that way, but not when rjung does it?
You’re misinterpreting my statement, especially since I described the idea of an American coup as “ridiculous”. In the preposterously unlikely event that the OP’s scenario comes to pass, I predict there will be large segments of the American population that won’t care, much as they don’t care about voting currently. I didn’t say this would allow, or even aid, the coup.
It was, in fact, a minor correction to Shodan’s statement that “49% of the country” didn’t vote for Bush. Actually, it’s more like:
[ul][li]79% of the country (with a population in 2004 of ~293 million) didn’t vote for Bush[/li][li]69.5% of the electorate (~203 million) didn’t vote for Bush[/li][li]49.2% of the voters (~122 million) didn’t vote for Bush[/ul][/li]
It’s a minor nitpick, but in any case if the idea of a coup requires making up new facts (i.e. the military and state governments would play along), there’s no point ignoring actual facts (i.e. a big chunk of the U.S. population is likely to not give a damn).
Not that this is a particular swipe at Americans. This kind of indifference is common worldwide.
Next time George Bush gets into an argument with me on the Dope and says ridiculous things, I’ll call that motherfucker on it. Deal?
I’ll repeat my earlier question. If George Bush says something stupid, will you say something stupid too? Is George Bush your standard for rhetoric? You refuse to stand taller than George Bush…no matter how low he stoops, you’re gonna stoop lower?
Nope, it’s too late. Your silence, and the silence of millions like you has already spoken. The argument is now as mainstream as long hair in 1979. Your reluctance to ‘call the motherfucker on it’ without a special SDMB appearance by the president, something which will never happen, shows where you really stand on use of the technique.
Not at all. I just won’t feign surprise or righteous indignation when others use the techniques he popularized. Heck, I suspect those techniques will stand as one of Mr. Bush’s enduring legacies to the national political landscape. It’s too bad we’ve come to this, but I don’t see any real effort to improve matters.
I’m supposed to append to each post a denunciation of Bush, otherwise I’m complicit in his crimes. Kind of like how Cato used to append “Cathargo delenda est” to every speech.
Makes sense.
And since I have NOT done so in the past, it’s only fair that Rjung should get a pass.
Makes sense.
And since YOU have not denounced pissing on the toilet seat, I will now commence to pee freely.
You’ve got your work cut out for you! You should probably start a blog, and every day post the decisions made by Bush, and whether or not you support them.
To do anything less would obviously make you complicit in war crimes.
I think this is a question that we should all worry ourselves about and take most seriously. What if GW Bus(c)h and crew refused to step down? Its a scary and most alarming thought that could really (really reall) happen, and I think it behooves us to frantically worry about it. <chews nails and looks around in a panic>
Ok, so what would happen? Well, obviously GW would get to stay president. He’d have the military and congress solidly and mindlessly behind him. In addition, he’d have all his underground agents and catspaws who would rise up at the right time and take control at the local level. There would be very little fighting as the vast majority of American’s, being the peaceloving and calm folks that they are would simply go along. It would just be business as usual in fact. The far left would probably have some problems with it, and would protest somewhat…but this would just bring them out in the open (and an open target is easy to hit)…and anyway, according to Rand the left only really sqauks when they are safe, saying nothing when the dictator siezes power. So, they’d either be dead or fled, the unwashed masses would go along, and the far right agents would revel in their new found power. And the Straightdope would be a different place…(rjung would probably be on the run from the great liberal turkey shoot…)
