Bush wins.... what now?

Bottle_of_Smoke

narommy wrote:

Religion is a set of values. Voting for a person on religion is agreeing with those values. How else would you vote?

I'd say set of beliefs. I'm not religious, but I'd never harm someone without good reason, I can't steal either, these are values but they're not a religion.

You do have a point tho, because after reading your post I've realised I could never vote for a really religious person as it just implies they'd never consider anything outside their religion's rule.

Vote for someone you think is gonna do a good job running your country not because you sit beside them in church

WhiteWashMan

politics has never been about logical decisions.
its about passion.

thats how people vote.

although i think the idea of telling someone how to vote just because you dont think that religious ideology is a reason for picking a side, is a little draconian i think.

i mean, its a called a democratic vote because people get to decide for themselves who to vote for.

telemachus

I don't suppose anyone could expand on what exactly this "challenging" system means. It's been confusing me for a while and I can't recall it appearing (at least in such prominence) in previous elections. How is that members of both political parties can interfere with a citizens voting rights, surely it's up to the bureaucratic system set in place to impartially (at least in theory) handle the voting to ascertain someones right to vote. How can biased party members, who are not officially apointed within the voting system have the right to to some degree selectively invalidate, or cast aspersion on peoples votes?

Memnoch

Earthman wrote:

Oh I'd agree with you regarding forcing their principals down other peoples necks.
But they do have a democratic right to vote for a candidate who shares their beliefs.
It's seems to be reality that 3 million more americans voted for Bush this time ultimately because they agreed with him, given that most commentators were stating that a vote for Kerry or the democratic party was a vote against Bush this time rather than a vote specifically for the Democrats.

Would you be in favour of China exerting America like dominance over the world?
What are gay rights like in China??

they "agreed" with him because he said he would use his religious beliefs to reduce the "rights" of others. And really the truth is I doubt its his own beliefs. He did that because thats a WEDGE issue, and it clearly shows by the number of people voting for him, it was pure calculation. Can I get some of the more moderate christians to vote for my by throwing gays out the window? Yes I can..... "Constitutional ban on gay marriage!!!!!!11111"

At the end of the day its wrong its bigotry whatever way you look at it.

I'm not in favor of anyone exerting dominance over the world, but the american empire has become far to belligerant for my tastes, time for it to collapse. America has murdered just as many if not more people as China has. The difference is that america shakes your hand and stabs you in the back, China unceremoniously shoots you in the head.

Memnoch

Rock Climber wrote:

Thats an amazing statement given that , it's what goes on in virtually every country in the world.
To say that a voters belief system whether athiest Christian or otherwise shouldn't impact on the way they vote is delusionary to be honest.
A same sex marriage ban was approved in 11 states yesterday.
Theres peoples belief systems translating into their votes in practice.

If there was a referendum for that in Ireland in the morning, it wouldn't pass either, like it or lump it.
Civil unions might though. Personally I don't like this gay activist obsession with the institution of marriage,I'd have a more practical approach and demand simple equality in tax and inheritance treatment etc and have a registered committment,I'd dump the word marriage it's for Dana not for me.

NONE of that makes it RIGHT. At the end of the day they are forcing their "beliefs" on others. That is the whole point of the idea behind seperation of religion from state to prevent that.

You say its okay now, but what if Bush said tomorrow "i'm going to ban all non-christian religious practices in america," and got elected because of it by the christians who were happy with it. He won't do it off course, but as an analogy it still stands, this would be wrong. Similarly it would be wrong to vote for someone because they promise to bring back slavery.

Its the forceful usurption of people's rights based on the personal "belief's" of others that I'm against, and that i don't see how anyone can logically defend as acceptable.

because its happening to gays its okay, but if it was happening to "blacks" it wouldn't be?

wake up and smell the hypocrisy

Rock Climber

Memnoch wrote:

NONE of that makes it RIGHT. At the end of the day they are forcing their "beliefs" on others. That is the whole point of the idea behind seperation of religion from state to prevent that.

I can see the smoke coming out of your ears memnoch...
But you are asking to change the human psyche
You know darn well that people bring their belief systems to the polls with them when they vote, I'm sure you bring yours after all you believe in the separation of church and state and undoubtedly vote accordingly.

How do you expect people to vote by the way without reference to their belief system.
They just have an opinion thats different to you rs(or rather the equivalent of you in America) and theres more of them that there is of you.
Thats how they get their way, it's democracy.

Its the forceful usurption of people's rights based on the personal "belief's" of others that I'm against, and that i don't see how anyone can logically defend as acceptable.

A system whereby people vote for parties that espouse their beliefs and ideals can be very logically defended-again it's called democracy.
I mightn't like the outcome of a democratic vote but I do have to accept it as do you.
Democracy doesn't discourage campaigning for change though.

Memnoch

Rock Climber wrote:

I can see the smoke coming out of your ears memnoch...
But you are asking to change the human psyche
You know darn well that people bring their belief systems to the polls with them when they vote, I'm sure you bring yours after all you believe in the separation of church and state and undoubtedly vote accordingly.

How do you expect people to vote by the way without reference to their belief system.
They just have an opinion thats different to you rs(or rather the equivalent of you in America) and theres more of them that there is of you.
Thats how they get their way, it's democracy.



A system whereby people vote for parties that espouse their beliefs and ideals can be very logically defended-again it's called democracy.
I mightn't like the outcome of a democratic vote but I do have to accept it as do you.
Democracy doesn't discourage campaigning for change though.

so if "democracy" decides we should accept slavery then so be it?

no i don't think so

why don't the american's whose democracy you are defending so stoutly allow a democratic fundamentalist muslim Iraqi state then?


I will stand up against what both you and I know is wrong. And that is the forceful usurption of human rights. I understand the human psyche, i see WHY these people act the way they do, you don't need to explain that to me. However, that is largely irrelevant. Its still W R O N G.

this isn't an issue of "opinion". Slavery was, is and always will be wrong. Discrimination of race was is and always will be wrong, so will murder and rape and abusing kids. These things are WRONG no matter WHAT your opinion. Throughout history we have had such "majorities" enacting terrible crimes. however being the majority didn't make them right or morally justified(even though they believed otherwise). As is the case now, their only justification was power.

So we come back to it.. its wrong...

bonkey

Memnoch wrote:

so if "democracy" decides we should accept slavery then so be it?

no i don't think so

What are your options? What. exactly do you see as the alternative to allowing the majority to decide what is right?

Should we each abandon democracy whenever it results in a decision we disagree with? Should the world just listen to you, or is there someone you can suggest as the infallible source of moral decision?

why don't the american's whose democracy you are defending so stoutly allow a democratic fundamentalist muslim Iraqi state then?

Actually, the US administration have said on several occasions that should this be the result of the Iraqi elections - should they choose to elect a government who will run the country along Muslim / Sharia law - then they will accept it.

Now, I accept that this doesn't gel entirely with the notion of them limiting who can run. I've always been critical of democracy which is "free to choose amongst the choices we let you have", but seriously dude....you can't have both worlds.

You complain on one hand that the US isn't giving the Iraqi's the freedom to democratically choose whatever they want....whilst saying that the US is wrong to give itself the freedom to do whatever it democratically chooses.

So its damned for doing it, and damned for not doing it. Exactly what do you think they should be doing? Either they limit democracy, and don't allow the "unpalatable" choices that you have an objection to allowing people to choose....or they don't limit it, and allow people to make the choices you say we shouldn't accept because they're unpalatable.

Sounds like a lose-lose situation to me unless they hire you and form their policy on the "do what Memnoch says it right" doctrine

I will stand up against what both you and I know is wrong.

Replace the word "know" with "belief" and then go back and read some of your own comments about forcing one's belief on others. And why the replacement??? Because you only believe its wrong...right and wrong being moral concepts can only be based on belief, not knowledge.

You won't accept other's beliefs to be forced on you....but think your beliefs are what they should be forced into accepting?

And if you're not saying that they should be forced into it.....then what are you complaining about? They made a choice, under a system which allows them to make a choice. Either you respect that choice (agreeing with it or not), or you should seek to change the system so that such choices cannot be made. You say you don't want to respect that choice, so the only conclusion is that you think the right thing to do is to prevent people from freely making that choice. So the imposition of your beliefs is the solution to the wrong of these people imposing their beliefs???

And that is the forceful usurption of human rights.

I'm staggered by the number of times you seem to cast a democratically-made decision as being "forceful". Exactly what, then, is a non-forceful way of making a change? Not allowing the public to make a decision, and having it imposed on them by some intellectual/moral elite or a dictator? Or allowing everyone to do what they think is right themselves, thus giving anarchy?

i see WHY these people act the way they do,

Because they believe what they do is R I G H T ???

you don't need to explain that to me. However, that is largely irrelevant. Its still W R O N G.

Only by your beliefs. Not by theirs. And there's more of them then of you.

Now....if society doesn't define right and wrong by basing it off what the majority believe to be right and wrong.....how else can it define it?

this isn't an issue of "opinion".

Yes, it is. What else is right and wrong based on, if not on opinion? There's no facts to assert that something is right and wrong. There's no science. All we each have is a base set of beliefs from which we can opine whether a given action/opinion is right or wrong.

Right and wrong are nothing but opinion, so this most certainly is an issue of opinion.

Slavery was, is and always will be wrong.

By most peoples' thinking in the developed world, today, at least, yes.

When it was legal and condoned, however, it was not always wrong. Not by the standards and morals of the day. We can argue that those standards and morals were wrong, but only because they differ to our current position.

F'r example: current thinking (mostly) says that euthenasia is wrong. Who's to say that in 100 years there won't be a Memnoch the Third, on whatever replaces boards, instructing everyone about how euthenasia was, is, and always will be a basic human right??? Or maybe Memnoch the Third will say that euthenasia was, is and always will be wrong. Who knows? And...more importantly...given that we don't know, how can it effect us? All we can do is act on what we believe today to be right and wrong.

And how can we best determine what society as a whole sees as right and wrong, if not by asking society?

Take another idea....do you know how many people insist that smoking is a right, despite it not being enshrined in any human rights, civil rights, or other-form-of-rights document anywhere??? Now, are these people right, or wrong? Does that change if 99% of the population agrees with them? Does it change if 99% of the population disagrees with them?

If it doesn't change, then what absolute definition of right and wrong do you have access to? I'm only asking because the rest of the world is desperately in need of it, and it seems unfair to keep it from us, when differing beliefs of what is right and wrong are ultimately at the heart of every conflict in the world today.

These things are WRONG no matter WHAT your opinion.

They are wrong by your standards. You happen to be choosing cases where the vast majority of people you meet - in the society you live in - will mostly agree with you. That makes it easy...democracy will support what you believe.

But the cell-stem research, gay marriage, and other issues do not enjoy a single overwhelming moral stance. This is the real problem - that society does not overwhelmingly agree on what is right.

Your complaint seems to be that democracy lets us down in these situations, because it allows people to choose a situation other than your preferred one. Well, sorry mate, but thats a better situation over allowing someone to dictate to society what the right solution is....which is the alternative.

Throughout history we have had such "majorities" enacting terrible crimes.

And yet, as time has progressed, we have democratically used the same system to change the rules, by first changing the hearts and minds of the majority, and then allowing them to change the rules to what we believe is right.

Its not democracy which is at fault (if fault there is). Its humanity which is flawed. You mighn't agree with the decision, but if you believe that it is right not to respect that decision, ask yourself why it is not equally right for everyone to only no respect every law that they disagree with?

You can campaign to change people's minds. You can object to the law. But you must respect it, unless you wish to acknowledge the right of everyone to disrespect any law they themselves object to.

jc

Redleslie2

bonkey wrote:

You can campaign to change people's minds. You can object to the law. But you must respect it, unless you wish to acknowledge the right of everyone to disrespect any law they themselves object to.

How can one object to a law and respect it simultaneously? If you respect a law, then you're hardly going to object to it are you? And observing a law is not necessarily the same as respecting it.

bonkey

Redleslie2 wrote:

How can one object to a law and respect it simultaneously?

By either observing it, or accepting the legal consequences of not observing it.

Its the "I had every right to disregard this law, and you have no right to punish me for breaking it because its wrong" attitude that I ahve a problem with.

jc

Redleslie2

bonkey wrote:

By either observing it, or accepting the legal consequences of not observing it.

Its the "I had every right to disregard this law, and you have no right to punish me for breaking it because its wrong" attitude that I ahve a problem with.

jc

Ok but I haven't noticed if anyone here has explicitly supported such an attitude. Anyone mention supporting Pinochet vs democracy? Anyhow, can you think of any circumstances where this liberal fundamentalism (for want of a better expression) of yours might be tested to the limit?

Hairy Homer

bonkey wrote:

Should we each abandon democracy whenever it results in a decision we disagree with?

Absolutely not!!! Winning elections is only part of what democracy is about. Being voted into power and then deciding that you can do what the hell you like to whom the hell you like is the Hitler model of democracy, otherwise known as Nazism.

Democracy is a set of checks and balances that limits the ability of a ruler to wield absolute power.

It must also be based on a system of rights and entitlements that endows the individual with certain priveleges that the ruler may not intrude upon.

If some nasty type that you don't like gets voted into power, a real democracy should have those checks and balances in place to restrict him, or her, from indulging the worst aspects of his/her character.

bonkey

Redleslie2 wrote:

Ok but I haven't noticed if anyone here has explicitly supported such an attitude.

I haven't said anyone explicitly supported such an attitude. What I have noticed, however, is that there are people telling us that what happened in the US is fundamentally wrong, but can't tell us what should be done instead, or what would be right.

Without resorting to pipe-dreams (like wishing that people didn't think the way people do), I'm asking what can/should be done, and trying to shortcut an awful lot of the to-and-fro which would almost inevitably be part of any answer.

Anyone mention supporting Pinochet vs democracy?

Oh for....w

You're getting as bad as arcadegame at showing an inability to discuss any topic without having to bring up your own pet little issue...

...which mostly seems to be just you trying to poke at Corinthian...which is funny considering you (allege to) have him on ignore.

Anyhow, can you think of any circumstances where this liberal fundamentalism (for want of a better expression) of yours

Liberal fundamentalism? What the hell is liberal about a belief that one needs to work within the law and the entire democratic system in order to change it?

Fundamentalist...I'll accept...because I believe that fundamentally you either work within the system, or admit that what you really want is a different system rather than just changing the laws which the current one has given rise to.

might be tested to the limit?

No, but I'm sure you can bring up Pinochet again as an example in an attempt to steer the conversation to your own liking...

jc

Yoda

bonkey wrote:

Without resorting to pipe-dreams (like wishing that people didn't think the way people do), I'm asking what can/should be done, and trying to shortcut an awful lot of the to-and-fro which would almost inevitably be part of any answer.

Find some way to reconcile the two opposing worldviews. On the one hand, we have people with education and feet firmly in the real world, who are now disappointed. On the other hand, we have people who vote for the candidate who they believe does what God tells them to do in some books they think are really important to them.

bonkey

Hairy Homer wrote:

Being voted into power and then deciding that you can do what the hell you like to whom the hell you like is the Hitler model of democracy, otherwise known as Nazism.

I see.

So do you feel the Irish government are engaged in Nazism for allowing the use of Shannon Airport to the Americans?

Or indeed, that any elected government who engage in any activity which does not meet the approval of The Mobb are engaged in Nazism?

And given that Bush has had popular support for most of his actions when he took them....do you believe that any elected governemnt who engatge in any activity which is approved by the majority, but which does not meet with the approval of some minority is engaged in Nazism?

Or do you just reserve this ridiculous classification for the governments who do things you don't like, regardless of whether or not it is in any way linked to Nazism at all?

Democracy is a set of checks and balances that limits the ability of a ruler to wield absolute power.

And Bush doesn't have absolute power. I suggest you check on the fact that he needed approval to go to war for a start.

It must also be based on a system of rights and entitlements that endows the individual with certain priveleges that the ruler may not intrude upon.

Which are the laws enshrined in the constitution, which can be changed by the people. Indeed, the laws banning gay marriage in this election just passed were voted in by the people, but apparently Bush is copping the blame for that too.

If some nasty type that you don't like gets voted into power, a real democracy should have those checks and balances in place to restrict him, or her, from indulging the worst aspects of his/her character.

The trouble being that the more you ensure they can never abuse their position, the less they can do in their position.

What would you prefer as a balance? The UK system where the PM can commit the country to war without the consent of his government? The Irish system, where the PM can do absolutely SFA proactive about anything?

Ultimately, what people seem to be overlooking is that neither Bush nor the Governmental structure is the problem. Limit his power, requiring more referenda (like the Swiss do in their adaption of the US system), and all that happens is that those who voted him into power will vote for what he would do in the current system without a vote....at least when it comes to the stuff you're saying is objectionable. End result unchanged.

jc

bonkey

Yoda wrote:

Find some way to reconcile the two opposing worldviews.

Clearly. I'm asking what that way is. Or, perhaps, more accurately, I'm pointing out that until we can propose a better way, then we must accept the existing "best way" that we have.....which we generally believe to be democracy.

jc

Redleslie2

bonkey wrote:

I haven't said anyone explicitly supported such an attitude. What I have noticed, however, is that there are people telling us that what happened in the US is fundamentally wrong, but can't tell us what should be done instead, or what would be right.

So this attitude is there but you can't tell us where exactly. Ok. It's not against the law to bitch and moan about an election result but the way you're going on you'd swear it was.

Oh for....w

You're getting as bad as arcadegame at showing an inability to discuss any topic without having to bring up your own pet little issue...

...which mostly seems to be just you trying to poke at Corinthian...which is funny considering you (allege to) have him on ignore.

Lame. Nonsense. Is there now a rule where one can't mention certain historical events for fear of upsetting other posters? Well excuse me so. The coup in Chile is a valid example of someone getting massively huffy about an election result is it not? The coup in Algeria when the islamic fundamentalists were set to win elections is another. Sophie Scholl who was among those who broke the law to resist the nazis is yet another. In the real world, people do take sides and break the law. Democracy would not exist otherwise.

And yes I do have corinthian on ignore. Of course I do.

Liberal fundamentalism? What the hell is liberal about a belief that one needs to work within the law and the entire democratic system in order to change it?

Fundamentalist...I'll accept...because I believe that fundamentally you either work within the system, or admit that what you really want is a different system rather than just changing the laws which the current one has given rise to.

Depends on one's definition of a political liberal I suppose but I would say that the abhorrence of any kind of civil disobedience or lawbreaking to change laws that are perceived to be unjust is a fairly typical liberal sit-on-the-fence kind of position. It's moral cowardice really and often a tacit advocation of the status quo. I wonder what Rosa Parks would make of your attitude. "Get up and give me that seat you bad democracy hating lawbreaker you. :mad: "

No, but I'm sure you can bring up Pinochet again as an example in an attempt to steer the conversation to your own liking...

jc

Cop out tbh. Anyone who says they'd never break the law even if their own lives depended on doing so is probably only fooling themselves.

bonkey

Redleslie2 wrote:

It's not against the law to bitch and moan about an election result but the way you're going on you'd swear it was.

Which would then lead me to conclude that the way you're going on, you'd swear my attitude was, or should be, also against the law...

Whats your point?

Lame. Nonsense.

Sure it is. Thats why you have exactly one case that you trot out, again and again and again and again as long as its vaguely relateable, and why you head down the Punch-and-Judy to-and-fro with Corinthian on said topic every single time he rises to the bait, regardless of the topic...

The coup in Chile is a valid example of someone getting massively huffy about an election result is it not?

Well, Chile would seem to be a case that you have previously point out where a valid democratic result was thrown away by someone who didn't like what the majority had chosen....

...so are you agreeing with me that this was a bad thing to do?

...or are you saying that it is okay to act against election results when you disagree with them?

I mean...it seems like you're raising a point which agrees with me - that you should accept valid democratic decisions rather than taking illegal action to throw them out cause you don't like them....but you seem to be doing it in disagreement with me when I'm arguing exactly that.

And yes I do have corinthian on ignore. Of course I do.

You have him on ignore, post comments to the thread about how you're ignoring him, and mail the mods telling us that you can't read what he wrote but would like us to make sure its not inflammatory or worthy of a ban....

If you want to ignore him, then ignore him. Otherwise, forgive me for being suspicious, because I just don't fully trust people who "report" posts that they claim to be ignoring.

Depends on one's definition of a political liberal I suppose but I would say that the abhorrence of any kind of civil disobedience or lawbreaking to change laws that are perceived to be unjust is a fairly typical liberal sit-on-the-fence kind of position.

Let me re-iterate what I've already said, because you're either misunderstanding or ignoring it.

I have no problem with people choosing to disobey a law as long as they accept that they will be held accountable for it such disobedience.. I have a problem with people somehow thinking that it is okay to break a law because they disagree with it, and then feeling further wronged when they get punished for breaking the law.

Cop out tbh. Anyone who says they'd never break the law even if their own lives depended on doing so is probably only fooling themselves.

For someone who is complaining about me making an issue over something that was never explicitly said, this comment is nothing but hypocracy on your part. I have never said I wouldn't break the law, nor even implied it. In fact, its got nothing to do with the point I'm making which is that if you are going to break the law, accept that you must be accountable for it, or else the law in general serves no purpose.

jc

The Corinthian

bonkey wrote:

You have him on ignore, post comments to the thread about how you're ignoring him, and mail the mods telling us that you can't read what he wrote but would like us to make sure its not inflammatory or worthy of a ban....

Roffle... priceless

Redleslie2

bonkey wrote:

Which would then lead me to conclude that the way you're going on, you'd swear my attitude was, or should be, also against the law...

Whats your point?

I'm not sure why you're making such a big deal about some harmless bitching and moaning at the election result, that‘s all.

Sure it is. Thats why you have exactly one case that you trot out, again and again and again and again as long as its vaguely relateable, and why you head down the Punch-and-Judy to-and-fro with Corinthian on said topic every single time he rises to the bait, regardless of the topic...

I ask you again. Is there now a rule where one can't mention certain historical events for fear of upsetting other posters?

Well, Chile would seem to be a case that you have previously point out where a valid democratic result was thrown away by someone who didn't like what the majority had chosen....

...so are you agreeing with me that this was a bad thing to do?

...or are you saying that it is okay to act against election results when you disagree with them?

I gave a few examples and I can understand why people acted against the elected (almost certain to be elected in the FIS case) government in each case. People have divergent interests so we're forced to take sides every now and then. Are you saying that Sophie Scholl was no better than Pinochet for (attacking in her own way) the elected government? The election of the FIS would have meant no more democracy for anybody. Is it better to be anti-democratic and oppose the election of a government that will abolish democracy, or be anti-democratic and support the abolition of democracy. That’s a bit of a crappy dilemma.

I have no problem with people choosing to disobey a law as long as they accept that they will be held accountable for it such disobedience.. I have a problem with people somehow thinking that it is okay to break a law because they disagree with it, and then feeling further wronged when they get punished for breaking the law.

Does it matter how severe or arbitrary the punishment is?

I have never said I wouldn't break the law, nor even implied it. jc

I asked you whether you could think of any circumstances where what I call your liberal fundamentalism might be tested to the limit, and you said "no". I'll rephrase the question and ask can you imagine any circumstances or pick a single example from history where you'd break the law and act against the government, violently or non-violently, take your pick.

bonkey

Redleslie2 wrote:

I'm not sure why you're making such a big deal about some harmless bitching and moaning at the election result, that‘s all.

If thats how you want to see it....

I was always of the opinion that this forum was for discussion....and that putting yoru opinions up here gave others the right to question and/or disagree with them.

I apologise for doing that on a topic which wasn't to your liking, but am glad that you're not the moderator if you have a problem with me doing that.

I ask you again. Is there now a rule where one can't mention certain historical events for fear of upsetting other posters?

If there was, I'd have banned you long ago, so I assumed that this was a rhetorical question.

I take issue with people both hijacking threads (as arcade did quite a lot), and people going through all the motions of hijacking threads. Youre actions, whether intentional or not, show that you have a proclivity for bringing up Pinochet - and only ever Pinochet - whenever even vaguely possible to do so. If I'm being overly suspicious, then just chalk it down to me not having found the right balance of letting things run and actually keeping control of this forum.

I gave a few examples

In this thread? Other than Pinochet? To me? Before this whole side-issue of your love for mentioning the man came up?

Where?

Incidentally, I'm still waiting for you to explain why you mentioned Pinochet. Are you saying he ws right to supplant the democratic system he disagreed with? Or are you saying he was wrong to abide by a consittutional referendum he disagreed with? Or are you willing to admit that Pinochet is not an example counter to my argument???

As for Sophie Scholl....I'll wait to answer that until you've clarified why you mentioned Pinochet because I still can't understand how he is an example of a flaw in my argument. I say he was wrong to ignore democracy when he did, and right to abide by it when he did. That fits entirely with my position which you are disagreeing with. So can you explain how Pinochet is relevant?

The election of the FIS would have meant no more democracy for anybody.

And was the FIS democratically elected? If not, then the point is moot.

Is it better to be anti-democratic and oppose the election of a government that will abolish democracy,

Huh? For a government to be elected to abolish democracy, then the majority of voters must want to abolish democracy. If thats their wish, then surely they should be allowed to do so, shouldn't they? Or is the democratic process - for you - inviolate and should be held sacrosanct?

If so, do you feel then that Cuba should revert to a democratic state? Perhaps be forcefully reverted if it doesn't do so willingly?
Even if that means the end of socialism there?

Or is democracy only sacrosanct when its being replaced by something you disapprove of?

I asked you whether you could think of any circumstances where what I call your liberal fundamentalism might be tested to the limit, and you said "no".

Yes, I did. I can think of no situation where I would perform an illegal action and not accept the legal ramifications should I get caught.

I'll rephrase the question and ask can you imagine any circumstances or pick a single example from history where you'd break the law and act against the government, violently or non-violently, take your pick.

No shortage of them. Tons. And in every single case, I would accept the that my actions were in contravention of standing law, and would accept the consequences of my actions should I be caught.

jc

Seaneh

Here, don't go acting all shocked that he got ellected now, I told you all months ago he would waltz it.

Hairy Homer

bonkey wrote:

I see.

So do you feel the Irish government are engaged in Nazism for allowing the use of Shannon Airport to the Americans?

Or indeed, that any elected government who engage in any activity which does not meet the approval of The Mobb are engaged in Nazism?

That's not what I said. Nor what I meant. I was referring to the fact that Adolf Hitler was democratically elected under the rules applying in Germany at the time. Did this mean that his rule was democratic? Would you apply the argument that: 'Well constitutionally he won the election and was appointed Chancellor of Germany. It was the will of the people. All his anti Semitic legislation was just that: legislation. Auschwitz was a product of the rule of law.' ?

I suspect not.

There is more to democracy than simple majority rule. Unionist misrule in Northern Ireland had the support of the majority, but it wasn't democratic.

If you don't have sufficient checks and balances inherent in your system, the danger of despotic rule becomes very real.

And given that Bush has had popular support for most of his actions when he took them....do you believe that any elected governemnt who engatge in any activity which is approved by the majority, but which does not meet with the approval of some minority is engaged in Nazism?

As we all know now, his principal argument was based on a falsehood. Because the majority of Americans are swayed by the argument 'let's fight terror abroad so we don't have to fight it here' doesn't mean anybody else around the world in what might be a battleground state should countenance it.

And Bush doesn't have absolute power. I suggest you check on the fact that he needed approval to go to war for a start.

He's getting dangerously close to it. He's in the White House and his party controls both houses of Congress. The checks and balances inherent in the US system are breaking down. Despite the fact that more people voted for John Kerry than for any other candidate in a previous presidential election in American history.


It's a scary time, with a genuinely scary little man in charge of the world's most powerful country. What's that he said: 'I earned political capital, and I'm going to spend it.'

The trouble being that the more you ensure they can never abuse their position, the less they can do in their position.

Seems like a good enough idea to me.

Ultimately, what people seem to be overlooking is that neither Bush nor the Governmental structure is the problem. Limit his power, requiring more referenda (like the Swiss do in their adaption of the US system), and all that happens is that those who voted him into power will vote for what he would do in the current system without a vote....at least when it comes to the stuff you're saying is objectionable. End result unchanged.

jc

Sadly what the world needs now is somebody that the US has genuine grounds to be afraid of. Somebody with their own nuclear deterrent that would make the Yanks think twice about beseiging some small desert town and blowing it to **** in the name of 'liberating' it. Somebody with their own industrial muscle strong enough to put the yanks back in their box.

International law? Doesn't apply to us old boy.

ionapaul

Hairy Homer wrote:

Despite the fact that more people voted for John Kerry than for any other candidate in a previous presidential election in American histor

...

International law? Doesn't apply to us old boy.

Don't you mean George Bush received more votes than any other candidate in a US presidential election?

International law isn't exactly democratic, is it?

seamus

ionapaul wrote:

Don't you mean George Bush received more votes than any other candidate in a US presidential election?

No, I think he's referring to the commonly-touted fact that GWB has received the most votes ever, which also neglects to mention that John Kerry also received more votes than any US president in history (afaik).

It says nothing about GWB's popularity, and a lot about the voting history of Americans. The true popularity is in the percentages, that is - he's only *barely* more popular (in a country of 250 million, 4 million extra votes isn't much extra popularity).

That only 60% of Americans bothered their ass to vote, and both candidates received the most votes ever (ergo, this time, more votes were cast than ever before), really exposes the voting apathy of the American people, at least in the last 50 years.

The real question is - what is democracy worth when people don't want to use it? What is the point in being democratic when it's consistently a minority of a population choosing the leader?

pork99

On the plus side Bush's victory is a gift for satirists.

No doubt there will be a lot more of this sort of thing over the next four years;


The Men Who Stare at Goats

looking forward to reading that

(actually on second thoughts this sort of thing makes satire redundant)

ionapaul

seamus wrote:

No, I think he's referring to the commonly-touted fact that GWB has received the most votes ever, which also neglects to mention that John Kerry also received more votes than any US president in history (afaik).

...

The real question is - what is democracy worth when people don't want to use it? What is the point in being democratic when it's consistently a minority of a population choosing the leader?

Given the growing population of the US, every winning presidential candidate will, more likely than not and assuming the two party system remains, receive more votes than any previous election winner. Likewise, in a very close contest, the losing candidate will (probably) receive more votes than any previous winner. I think this much is obvious. Ross Perot got more than 10 times the number of votes Lincoln did in 1860

I think that an unpreceedented number of 'get out the vote' programmes operated during this last election - as you mentioned, it is lamentable that so many chose to stay at home on Tuesday. The fact that people allow the system to be manipulated to their disadvantage, simply by not exercising the right to vote, is a little shocking. Would it be a better system / better for the system, if a small tax credit was offered to everyone voting? Though I get the feeling the section of the electorate that doesn't vote would closely match the section of the tax-paying public that couldn't be bothered taking advantage of any tax credits available to them!

seamus

ionapaul wrote:

Given the growing population of the US, every winning presidential candidate will, more likely than not and assuming the two party system remains, receive more votes than any previous election winner. Likewise, in a very close contest, the losing candidate will (probably) receive more votes than any previous winner. I think this much is obvious. Ross Perot got more than 10 times the number of votes Lincoln did in 1860

Well, that's why I said last 50 years It's only fair that each year there will be more people to vote. Surely there have been at least 115 million people of voting age in America for each election in the last 50 years...

Hairy Homer

ionapaul wrote:

Don't you mean George Bush received more votes than any other candidate in a US presidential election?

They both did:

Bush received 59,459,765

Kerry received 55,949,407

Previous record:
Reagan in 1984 54,455,075

Sleepy

ionapaul wrote:

Would it be a better system / better for the system, if a small tax credit was offered to everyone voting? Though I get the feeling the section of the electorate that doesn't vote would closely match the section of the tax-paying public that couldn't be bothered taking advantage of any tax credits available to them!

Bloody good idea! Would certainly have to be widely advertised but taking that as a given I'd be well in favour of it. Obviously, it would be very controversial for whichever party introduced it as they would no doubt be accused of attempting to buy votes but I'd love to see it brought in.