3 ms·

>Replace 'most' with 'a slender majority' if you want to retain the fig-leaf of objectivity and rationality that you seem to covet Would the argument still hol

>Replace 'most' with 'a slender majority' if you want to retain the fig-leaf of objectivity and rationality that you seem to covet Would the argument still hold water if he did ? > Politics is littered with examples of groups who were deceived into voting against their own self-interest. This isn't some kind of bizarre conspiracy - it's business as usual. It strikes me as more bizarre to pretend that democracy is some kind of idealized machine that extracts considered, rational decisions from large aggregates of people Tell that to the leftists in US who go around shouting that Trump lost the popular vote

andybak 9y ago
> Would the argument still hold water if he did ? Do you mean mine or his? I think his argument would lose some rhetorical force and be much less persuasive. If you mean something else then please clarify as I don't quite follow. > Tell that to the leftists in US who go around shouting that Trump lost the popular vote I'm not sure how the existence of that group is relevant here. Surely if anything they underscore my point from the other side of the fence? I'm not claiming "this only happens to the side I disagree with" if that's what you're implying.