• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Might makes right?

A

AntiEverything

Senior member
This is just something I've thought of since the election. It's been said numerous times around here that just because Bush won the election doesn't mean that conservatives are right.

Yet those same people claim that the world hates the US, and that we need to change our ways and be more like the rest of the world.

So which is it? Why a US majority wrong, but this supposed international majority is right? You can't have it both ways.

Discuss.
 
Yet those same people claim that the world hates the US, and that we need to change our ways and be more like the rest of the world. So which is it? Why a US majority wrong, but this supposed international majority is right? You can't have it both ways. Discuss.
Click to expand...

While I'm in the current US 'majority', I don't see a contradiction in the above. You can be a majority within a group of size X (say the US population) by a minority if the group is expanded to size Y (say the global population).

This works in reverse. Here in California the majority voted for Kerry. But in the larger context of the U.S. more people voted for Bush. If you expanded the vote pool futher (say all Europeans where allowed to vote in election, to show the point) then Kerry may have received more votes.

As for the question of right or wrong, that is a moral evaluation within the confines of the group size you comparing.

Bill
 
We must be more like the rest of the world? I must've not have been logged in for that one. Link?
 
Well, as a Kerry voter, the rest of the world agrees with me while the rest of the US doesn't agree with me.

Therefore, the rest of the world is right.
 
Originally posted by: AntiEverything
This is just something I've thought of since the election. It's been said numerous times around here that just because Bush won the election doesn't mean that conservatives are right.

Yet those same people claim that the world hates the US, and that we need to change our ways and be more like the rest of the world.

So which is it? Why a US majority wrong, but this supposed international majority is right? You can't have it both ways.

Discuss.
Click to expand...

Loaded question as the question yu ask in the last paragraph has no pertinance to the previous two.

1) Yet those same people claim that the world hates the US, and that we need to change our ways and be more like the rest of the world."
We are not claiming this. POLLS PROVE THIS. If you are so confident, go to Toronto and tell people how proud you are to have voted for Bush. Prepare for a shi!t beating.

2) "It's been said numerous times around here that just because Bush won the election doesn't mean that conservatives are right."
Many Bush supporters voted for Bush on moral issues alone. An exit poll stated taht 33% of women Bush voters voted for moral issues(abortion) only! Eliminat ehte narrow minded people that voted and this election would have ended differently.

3) "Why a US majority wrong, but this supposed international majority is right?"
To answer your loaded question, those that voted Kerry (as suported in sttement in comment #2) it is safe to say that in general, Kerry supporters looked at hte whole picture.
 
Originally posted by: bsobel
Yet those same people claim that the world hates the US, and that we need to change our ways and be more like the rest of the world. So which is it? Why a US majority wrong, but this supposed international majority is right? You can't have it both ways. Discuss.
Click to expand...

While I'm in the current US 'majority', I don't see a contradiction in the above. You can be a majority within a group of size X (say the US population) by a minority if the group is expanded to size Y (say the global population).

This works in reverse. Here in California the majority voted for Kerry. But in the larger context of the U.S. more people voted for Bush. If you expanded the vote pool futher (say all Europeans where allowed to vote in election, to show the point) then Kerry may have received more votes.

As for the question of right or wrong, that is a moral evaluation within the confines of the group size you comparing.

Bill
Click to expand...


See what I mena about Bush supporters being narrow minded?
 
Originally posted by: AntiEverything
This is just something I've thought of since the election. It's been said numerous times around here that just because Bush won the election doesn't mean that conservatives are right.

Yet those same people claim that the world hates the US, and that we need to change our ways and be more like the rest of the world.

So which is it? Why a US majority wrong, but this supposed international majority is right? You can't have it both ways.

Discuss.
Click to expand...





It IS both ways. Why would you say it "can't" be, just because of a stale old maxim?



:light:
 
Originally posted by: AntiEverything
This is just something I've thought of since the election. It's been said numerous times around here that just because Bush won the election doesn't mean that conservatives are right.

Yet those same people claim that the world hates the US, and that we need to change our ways and be more like the rest of the world.

So which is it? Why a US majority wrong, but this supposed international majority is right? You can't have it both ways.

Discuss.
Click to expand...
52% of those polled who voted for the Dub said the war in Iraq was going poorly. It seems to me that they are of the same opinion as the Majority of those in the world. I doubt that the rest of the world even cares about our economy or our Moral Values.
 
Originally posted by: AntiEverything


Discuss.
Click to expand...

Might does not make right. Neither does popularity make right.

I think many people, like me, that point to Bush's poor popularity abroad are not using it as evidence that Bush is wrong but as evidence that Bush's reign has serious consequences abroad. The world is getting smaller, we don't need to be loved by everyone but it's certainly not a good thing that most people have such strong distaste for the US right now.
 
See what I mena about Bush supporters being narrow minded?
Click to expand...

Other than flamebait, what as your point? I answered the posters question while (at least I thought) trying to be neutral to the issue, explaining that the quesiton of right or wrong is subjective to the group making the decision. How does any of your responses differ from that assertion?

Bill
 
Originally posted by: AntiEverything
This is just something I've thought of since the election. It's been said numerous times around here that just because Bush won the election doesn't mean that conservatives are right.

Yet those same people claim that the world hates the US, and that we need to change our ways and be more like the rest of the world.

So which is it? Why a US majority wrong, but this supposed international majority is right? You can't have it both ways.

Discuss.
Click to expand...

The majority of Americans, or even American voters for that matter, did NOT vote for Bush. However, Diebold and the GOP Propaganda machine are working very hard to prevent you from seeing that.
 
Originally posted by: IHateMyJob2004
Originally posted by: bsobel
Yet those same people claim that the world hates the US, and that we need to change our ways and be more like the rest of the world. So which is it? Why a US majority wrong, but this supposed international majority is right? You can't have it both ways. Discuss.
Click to expand...

While I'm in the current US 'majority', I don't see a contradiction in the above. You can be a majority within a group of size X (say the US population) by a minority if the group is expanded to size Y (say the global population).

This works in reverse. Here in California the majority voted for Kerry. But in the larger context of the U.S. more people voted for Bush. If you expanded the vote pool futher (say all Europeans where allowed to vote in election, to show the point) then Kerry may have received more votes.

As for the question of right or wrong, that is a moral evaluation within the confines of the group size you comparing.

Bill
Click to expand...


See what I mena about Bush supporters being narrow minded?
Click to expand...
Well, if Kerry had won a majority of support, I'd think we were right. I don't get your point...
 
Originally posted by: b0mbrman
Well, if Kerry had won a majority of support, I'd think we were right. I don't get your point...
Click to expand...
What? Are you saying that because you weren't in the majority, you're wrong?

 
Originally posted by: Gaard
Originally posted by: b0mbrman
Well, if Kerry had won a majority of support, I'd think we were right. I don't get your point...
Click to expand...
What? Are you saying that because you weren't in the majority, you're wrong?
Click to expand...
No, I'm saying that if the majority of America had voted for Kerry, the majority would be right

Come on, we're on the same team here
 
Only time will tell who was wrong. I do know the world was wrong during the coldwar, many didnt agree with our policy. Which ended up being a good thing imo.
 
The majority of Americans, or even American voters for that matter, did NOT vote for Bush. However, Diebold and the GOP Propaganda machine are working very hard to prevent you from seeing that.
Click to expand...

You have in seperate threads accused the Bush administration and Diebold of fraud. Fine, that is your theory. But even given that, you have shown no evidence that the difference in vote count you claim (OH, FL, PA) comes remotely close to covering the difference in the popular vote. Given that fact, what do you base your above assertion that the majority of voters did 'not vote for Bush'.

Bill
 
Right and wrong, truth and lies, good and evil... these aren't determined by counting heads. A majority should never be the standard for right and wrong.
 
Originally posted by: cwjerome
Right and wrong, truth and lies, good and evil... these aren't determined by counting heads. A majority should never be the standard for right and wrong.
Click to expand...

 
Originally posted by: cwjerome
Right and wrong, truth and lies, good and evil... these aren't determined by counting heads. A majority should never be the standard for right and wrong.
Click to expand...

Yup. Those 56 million Kerry voters or 60 million Bush voters could be wrong. Our system is the way it is because of the terrible ways to determine what's right, majority rules has been determined to be the best.

The difference in real life is that we NEED a president, but we don't all need to agree on morality. I can think of no instance where being a part of a moral minority would convince me to change my mind.
 
Originally posted by: bsobel
The majority of Americans, or even American voters for that matter, did NOT vote for Bush. However, Diebold and the GOP Propaganda machine are working very hard to prevent you from seeing that.
Click to expand...

You have in seperate threads accused the Bush administration and Diebold of fraud. Fine, that is your theory. But even given that, you have shown no evidence that the difference in vote count you claim (OH, FL, PA) comes remotely close to covering the difference in the popular vote. Given that fact, what do you base your above assertion that the majority of voters did 'not vote for Bush'.

Bill
Click to expand...

It's really only the high-electoral swing states that have been scrutinized much. And once the information becomes available you don't have to look very hard to find inconsistencies -- they're all over the place. (most counties don't have precinct data posted yet to verify)

There are indications that there was nothing wrong with the exit polls -- they were accurate in that the states using paper ballots/lever machines the exit polls were near dead on, while those using computer voting consistently give Bush a 5-10% lead vs. the exit polls. The exit polls suggest that Kerry won the popular vote, and got the electoral by a landslide. I trust those more than I trust the "official" vote right now.
 
Originally posted by: glugglug
Originally posted by: bsobel
The majority of Americans, or even American voters for that matter, did NOT vote for Bush. However, Diebold and the GOP Propaganda machine are working very hard to prevent you from seeing that.
Click to expand...

You have in seperate threads accused the Bush administration and Diebold of fraud. Fine, that is your theory. But even given that, you have shown no evidence that the difference in vote count you claim (OH, FL, PA) comes remotely close to covering the difference in the popular vote. Given that fact, what do you base your above assertion that the majority of voters did 'not vote for Bush'.

Bill
Click to expand...

It's really only the high-electoral swing states that have been scrutinized much. And once the information becomes available you don't have to look very hard to find inconsistencies -- they're all over the place. (most counties don't have precinct data posted yet to verify)

There are indications that there was nothing wrong with the exit polls -- they were accurate in that the states using paper ballots/lever machines the exit polls were near dead on, while those using computer voting consistently give Bush a 5-10% lead vs. the exit polls. The exit polls suggest that Kerry won the popular vote, and got the electoral by a landslide. I trust those more than I trust the "official" vote right now.
Click to expand...

Your tinfoil hat seems slightly askew.

 
Originally posted by: glugglug
Originally posted by: bsobel
The majority of Americans, or even American voters for that matter, did NOT vote for Bush. However, Diebold and the GOP Propaganda machine are working very hard to prevent you from seeing that.
Click to expand...

You have in seperate threads accused the Bush administration and Diebold of fraud. Fine, that is your theory. But even given that, you have shown no evidence that the difference in vote count you claim (OH, FL, PA) comes remotely close to covering the difference in the popular vote. Given that fact, what do you base your above assertion that the majority of voters did 'not vote for Bush'.

Bill
Click to expand...

It's really only the high-electoral swing states that have been scrutinized much. And once the information becomes available you don't have to look very hard to find inconsistencies -- they're all over the place. (most counties don't have precinct data posted yet to verify)

There are indications that there was nothing wrong with the exit polls -- they were accurate in that the states using paper ballots/lever machines the exit polls were near dead on, while those using computer voting consistently give Bush a 5-10% lead vs. the exit polls. The exit polls suggest that Kerry won the popular vote, and got the electoral by a landslide. I trust those more than I trust the "official" vote right now.
Click to expand...

Because your candidate was leading these exit polls, huh? Do you really think Kerry pulled 60% of the Pennsylvania vote?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top