[Pudge7681]

I would argue that the issue of whether the President is ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ for a country is rooted in opinion, and the nationwide vote in an election reflects the ‘popular opinion’. If a demographic has the capacity to influence the popular opinion on its political leader, yet refuses to exercise its right to participate in the political process, then that opinion will not be represented. Ergo, the opposing opinion constitutes the majority, and the ‘popular opinion’ of those who cared enough to involve themselves in the selection of the ‘right leader’ wins the day.

As a math educator I must say that if anything in this world is logical it is this statement. Logic is a mathematical subject upon which our entire world is built. Socrates, Plato, Descartes...all were amazing philosophers who used logic to win their argument. The logic presented by Esthete is concrete and can not be argued. If Kerry were the right choice Bush wouldn't have been re-elected.

Just because 90% of the media outlets today are Left-Wing Liberal Propagandists doesn't mean that we all should believe that Kerry was clearly the right choice. I do think it's wonderful to get more and more voters out to the polls but when you do so with malintent (Liberal MTV ushers voters to the poll while feeding them Pro-Kerry propaganda) you aren't truly helping any cause.

[The Horrible Esthete]

Where are you getting that? Did I even come close to saying such a thing? cratch: (talking to skipdiggedydog here...)

Those of Kerry's constituency who showed up to the polls accounted for 48% of the popular vote. I contend that had the young demo. showed up, it could easily have been 50% or better for Kerry.

One could hold the perspective that in the end, the negligence of the young demo. rendered the vote of 48% of the country (and that of the rest of Kerry's constituency) as absolutely worthless....

[skippy the wonder dog]

Oh, so the claim that Kerry's constituency didn't vote was simple hyperbole.

Whatever.

My suggestion is this: the reason people are having difficulty seeing your supposed "irony" is that it exists only in your mind. Poor turnout among 18-24 year-olds does not in the least undermine arguments that Bush was the wrong choice. That remains a non-sequitur. You can dress it up, but you can't take it anywhere.

[The Horrible Esthete]

You know, it's one thing to disagree with viewpoints in a discourse, but its another to ignore critical statements amidst the discussion, or to cast aside valid arguments just because you cannot move beyond your fixation with technicalities you think you learned in Logic 101.

Discussing something with you is like trying to speak with a two-year-old who plugs his ears and screams incessantly. There is some irony in all of this - whether it means anything in the overall scheme of things is up to you to accept or reject. But if it, for whatever reason, is too painful for you to acknowledge (as it seems), then just go ahead and ignore it, take your copy of The Republic and go home.

[skippy the wonder dog]

Uh, yeah. I guess you must be right.

[Pudge7681]

My suggestion is this: the reason people are having difficulty seeing your supposed "irony" is that it exists only in your mind. Poor turnout among 18-24 year-olds does not in the least undermine arguments that Bush was the wrong choice. That remains a non-sequitur. You can dress it up, but you can't take it anywhere.

I suppose skippy that you may have an argument for the undermining the "Bush wrong choice" statement. What it does undermine however, is the argument that Kerry was THE right choice. Clearly Kerry wasn't powerful enough to light the proverbial fire under the ass of the young voter. Furthermore, if Kerry were the clear-cut right choice, the vote wouldn't have depended on a heavily liberal young America to vote Kerry into office.

Your argument about irony is clearly wrong. To make the general sweeping statement that it only exists in his mind is inherently what makes it incorrect as I too believe it is ironic. That my friend is how logic works. To say it only exists in one place and have it proven it exists in another proves the entire statement incorrect. In addition, my argument would be for the irony here since you hear all the Dems claiming it's all the young people's fault for not voting and yet there is clearly not a 100% voter turn out amongst 25-70 year olds either.

[LoftyPines]

I would argue that the issue of whether the President is ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ for a country is rooted in opinion, and the nationwide vote in an election reflects the ‘popular opinion’. If a demographic has the capacity to influence the popular opinion on its political leader, yet refuses to exercise its right to participate in the political process, then that opinion will not be represented. Ergo, the opposing opinion constitutes the majority, and the ‘popular opinion’ of those who cared enough to involve themselves in the selection of the ‘right leader’ wins the day.

Just because 90% of the media outlets today are Left-Wing Liberal Propagandists doesn't mean that we all should believe that Kerry was clearly the right choice. I do think it's wonderful to get more and more voters out to the polls but when you do so with malintent (Liberal MTV ushers voters to the poll while feeding them Pro-Kerry propaganda) you aren't truly helping any cause.

The Liberal Media is a myth. We hear all these allegations about the left leaning media because they come from the right, never from the left.

In a reality it makes clear sense for news agencies to endorse or support thr right, because right-leaning policies have a MUCH greater benefit on the massive media conglomerations. Why would CNN (TimeWarnerTurner) ever endorse a democrat candidate over a republican one. They of course, have to show some semblance of 'fair and balanced' coverage. But it is NEVER fair and balanced. This is true with all large companies.

[skippy the wonder dog]

I suppose skippy that you may have an argument for the undermining the "Bush wrong choice" statement. What it does undermine however, is the argument that Kerry was THE right choice. Clearly Kerry wasn't powerful enough to light the proverbial fire under the ass of the young voter.

Congratulations -- this actually is indisputable. While it doesn't prove Kerry was the wrong choice, he clearly was unable to convince these people (and many others) that he was the right choice. Don't confuse that, though, with proof that Bush was the right choice, or even with evidence that Bush was not the wrong choice, or I'll despair for the future of math in America.

People can argue whether Bush or Kerry was the "right" choice until they're blue in the face, but it helps to argue from real evidence. It's a vain hope, I know, but I'm a quixote.

Now, if somone jumps up and shouts from the rooftops that Kerry is the candidate for youth, while they sat at home and ignored him, that would be ironic. Otherwise, though, you're finding irony in the fact that people don't all agree. There's no irony there, unless you're Alanis.

[The Horrible Esthete]

Now, if somone jumps up and shouts from the rooftops that Kerry is the candidate for youth, while they sat at home and ignored him, that would be ironic. Otherwise, though, you're finding irony in the fact that people don't all agree. There's no irony there, unless you're Alanis.

I don't know about screaming from rooftops, but polling does reflect that Kerry was supposed to be the 'right' candidate for change, according to the young vote, and this was a huge selling point on Kerry's platform. His campaign focused on the demographics that this broad issue was supposed to resonate with, and every one of those demographics showed up at the polls - except for the young voters, who were perhaps the most vocal demographic in the clamor for 'change'.

One of the definitions of 'irony', according to Merriam-Webster's dictionary, is "incongruity between the actual result of a sequence of events and the normal or expected result".

Are you telling me that this defintion doesn't perfectly apply to the scenario described in the first paragraph??

[skippy the wonder dog]

If someone says, "youth is on the march, we're going to kick the bum out," and youth stays home and plays halo 2, then yes. But that's not where we were looking for irony. Here's the first paragraph:

"Don't you left-wingers see the irony in your scathing criticism of the right-wing administration as being 'wrong' for this country, when your touted alternative is thwarted because the demographic which could tilt the scales in your favor is too aloof and pathetic to even cast a ballot??"

So I'd have to say no -- unless you were referring to rhetoric about a youthful wave of change rather than simply "scathing criticism of the right-wing administration."

[The Horrible Esthete]

If someone says, "youth is on the march, we're going to kick the bum out," and youth stays home and plays halo 2, then yes. But that's not where we were looking for irony. Here's the first paragraph:

"Don't you left-wingers see the irony in your scathing criticism of the right-wing administration as being 'wrong' for this country, when your touted alternative is thwarted because the demographic which could tilt the scales in your favor is too aloof and pathetic to even cast a ballot??"

So I'd have to say no -- unless you were referring to rhetoric about a youthful wave of change rather than simply "scathing criticism of the right-wing administration."

I meant the 'first paragraph' in that same post....

[skippy the wonder dog]

Well, we can agree that's ironic.

[grooveless touque]

The rightness or wrongness of an action or a philsophy is in NO WAY related to the number of people who support it, or the number of people who vocally and actively support it. Just because the youth of America could not be motivated to vote (and it boggles my mind too, now of all times) does not mean John Kerry's agenda is any less right for the interests of the free world, or that George Bush's is any less wrong. As I said before, the voting numbers do not in any way detract from our arguments against George Bush.

I'm going to piss a lot of people off with this, but it's true. Don't forget who Bush's "in the bag" votes come from: evangelical Christians, the victims of the greatest mindfuck ever perpetrated by humanity. These people are clueless sheep who allow themselves to be herded towards what they are told is a greater good. They are, in short oblivious. Now, not ALL Christians fit this mold, but the type who vote for George Bush sure do. These people honestly believe there's an invisible man in the sky, and he loves you, but if you don't worship him day and night, he will send you to a lake of fire for all eternity. Oh yes, and even though he's all powerful, he needs money. Lots of money. If you can convince these people of THAT, you can convince them to blindly vote for Bush. Two-thirds of Christians voted for Bush, even a majority of Catholics, and Kerry is Catholic! When Jerry Falwell speaks, they listen, and are as willfully blind to the fallacies of his arguments as they are to those of the religion they follow. These people are at once ignorant and militantly dedicated to their causes. Just because these contemptible fools vote for Bush in overwhelming numbers, giving him a multi-million vote head start over Kerry doesn't make Bush's agenda any less wrong. The financial toll he has taken on his country is overlooked. The humanitarian toll he has taken is overlooked. The environmental cost he exacts on his country and the rest of the world is overlooked...because, god damn it, he supports a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage! And we all know gays are the single biggest threat to the well-being and security of the world, right? The fact that a 50% divorce rate also makes a mockery of traditional marriage is overlooked.

There's a final example - most Americans are ignorantly opposed to gay marriage and loathe gay people. This doesn't make human rights and justice and equity for this demographic any less right.

[The Horrible Esthete]

The rightness or wrongness of an action or a philsophy is in NO WAY related to the number of people who support it, or the number of people who vocally and actively support it.

This is true, if 'rightness and wrongness' are based in a standard of moral or ethical principle. But if 'rightness and wrongness' are used to qualify the merits of a leader in the eyes the populace, then I'm not so sure. What I mean by that is the moral and ethical codes of the populace may (and should) be scrutinized, but when it comes time for that populace to select its leader, his 'rightness' or 'wrongess' for the nation is established by the democratic process itself, regardless how morally rich or bankrupt that populace might be. Do you understand what I'm getting at here?

Anyway, I agree with most everything in your post. The Evangelical Christians are on the same level with Muslim Extremists in my eyes. The best goverment, IMO, is a government that establishes moral and ethical standards outside of religious doctrine.

But I wouldn't go so far to say that 'most Americans loathe gay people". Aside from the fact I'm an athiest and aside from my belief that the war on drugs is useless and counterproductive waste of taxpayer money government resources, and jail space, I am a rather typical conservative - and I harbor zero contempt or dislike for homosexuals as people. None at all. The behavior of some of the more overt homosexuals might get on my nerves, but I don't hate the individual for it. I may not approve of the government recognizing the marriage of two men or two women, but again, that does not constitute a dislike of the individuals themselves...

Actually, I tend to think that over the past decade or so, mainstream America has seemed to develop a sort of fascination with homosexuality and those who practice it. Not sure why, but it's evident.....

[grooveless touque]

Yes, that point is well taken...that is to say, I sort of agree that the proportion of people who support something is indicative of how right for them said concept may be...although you have to keep in mind most people are too selfish to really know what's good for them...IE most people think tax cuts are great, whatever the deficit may be.

By 'most Americans', referring to homosexuals, I was just thinking of the number of states who have legal limits on recognizing gay relationships (not just straight-up 'marriage'). And there are many regions where people mindlessly follow the lead of fire and brimstone types...people who would rather ignore the whole gay demographic, pretend it doesn't exist, because the history where they're from is one of hatred and intolerance and they'd rather be blissfully ignorant, at the very least.

You're right about the fascination with gay culture, but I don't think that goes to equality. I think it makes caricatures out of gay people. I mean, if the bling-bling hood-thuggery of certain parts of black culture had emerged BEFORE the 60s civil rights movement, I don't think our society's fascination with it would be just or equitable. We'd have reduced blacks to such easily digestible stereotypes, rather than having a basic foundation of respect to start out from, where we can acknowledge the whole street culture scene is only a small constituent of the diverse and valuable black population.