3 ms·

> To wit: there are I issues and P positions for each issue, yet there are not I * P ballot choices, so people inevitably get something they don't want. Sigh.

by ajross 8mo ago

> To wit: there are I issues and P positions for each issue, yet there are not I * P ballot choices, so people inevitably get something they don't want. Sigh. I hate the internet. That was exactly my point. Thank you. The democratic process inherently produces outcomes where not every action taken by a government has majority support. Always. Inevitably. And, precisely because this is an inevitable result, arguments of the form that such actions represent the manipulation of the government by a conspiracy of elites suppressing the will of the masses are, in the jargon, batshit. There is no conspiracy. You're just, to repeat for the fifth time, in a minority. Not on the issue itself, but on your prioritization. Sure, lots of people might "agree" with you, but no one gives enough of a shit to change their vote. So the government chases the votes instead, and the interests of those who can deliver the votes.

gravisultra 8mo ago
This is the logic that cost Kamala Harris the election. Liberals are absolutely addicted to putting their head in the sand about how much people care about genocide and Israel's influence on our lives. We've hit the breaking point, Zionism is no longer electorally valid.
ImPostingOnHN 8mo ago
> The democratic process inherently produces outcomes where not every action taken by a government has majority support. Always. Inevitably. Precisely -- you are repeating my point. And precisely because this is an inevitable result, arguments result of the form that such actions are what people want, because they voted for that politician, and that politician did that, therefore the people must have wanted it, therefore anyone who doesn't want it must be in the minority. This was your argument. For the 6th time: This is not the case. Just because a politician did something does not mean it has majority support. Polling shows this particular position (pro-Iran-war) does not have majority support, but rather majority opposition [0], contrary to your argument. Because of the aforementioned I*P limitation, polls are the way to determine this, and that is what they determined [0]. If you think there is majority support for the Iran war, you are in a bubble. Your own personal "batshit" conspiracy theory about "elites" or whatever has no bearing on this. 0 - https://time.com/7382231/iran-us-israel-war-support-polling-trump-republicans-democrats/ https://time.com/7382231/iran-us-israel-war-support-polling-...
- ajross 8mo ago
  > arguments result of the form that such actions are what people want ... who are you replying to? Not me. I certainly didn't say that.
  - ImPostingOnHN 8mo ago
    You clearly said that opposition to the Iran war was not a majority position [0] (i.e., that the Iran war is something voters want), which is incorrect. Your explanation of this claim was that voters don't care about Iran, which is also incorrect, per polling [1]. 0 - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47250233 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47250233 1 - https://time.com/7382231/iran-us-israel-war-support-polling-trump-republicans-democrats/ https://time.com/7382231/iran-us-israel-war-support-polling-...
    - ajross 8mo ago
      Cite 0 isn't what I said, though. I said people who care about Iran (in the sense of it being a primary driver of voting preference) are in the minority. You're arguing with a strawman, or a mistake. You agree with me.
      - ImPostingOnHN 8mo ago
        > Cite 0 isn't what I said, though. Yes it is. Here is the exchange in question: >> I'm talking about the majority position, not minority (opposition to Iran war) > So, no, you're not. Or you're misunderstanding how this works. > people don't care about the war in Iran. They were talking about the majority position (it is opposition to Iran war), and they weren't "misunderstanding how this works", and people do care about the war in Iran. >I said people who care about Iran (in the sense of it being a primary driver of voting preference) are in the minority. Close -- you were talking about people who care about the Iran war, and you omitted everything in parentheses. In contradiction to that thing which you said, however: People who oppose the Iran war are in the majority.

by ajross 8mo ago

gravisultra 8mo ago

This is the logic that cost Kamala Harris the election. Liberals are absolutely addicted to putting their head in the sand about how much people care about genocide and Israel's influence on our lives. We've hit the breaking point, Zionism is no longer electorally valid.

ImPostingOnHN 8mo ago

> The democratic process inherently produces outcomes where not every action taken by a government has majority support. Always. Inevitably. Precisely -- you are repeating my point. And precisely because this is an inevitable result, arguments result of the form that such actions are what people want, because they voted for that politician, and that politician did that, therefore the people must have wanted it, therefore anyone who doesn't want it must be in the minority. This was your argument. For the 6th time: This is not the case. Just because a politician did something does not mean it has majority support. Polling shows this particular position (pro-Iran-war) does not have majority support, but rather majority opposition [0], contrary to your argument. Because of the aforementioned I*P limitation, polls are the way to determine this, and that is what they determined [0]. If you think there is majority support for the Iran war, you are in a bubble. Your own personal "batshit" conspiracy theory about "elites" or whatever has no bearing on this. 0 - https://time.com/7382231/iran-us-israel-war-support-polling-trump-republicans-democrats/ https://time.com/7382231/iran-us-israel-war-support-polling-...

ajross 8mo ago
> arguments result of the form that such actions are what people want ... who are you replying to? Not me. I certainly didn't say that.
- ImPostingOnHN 8mo ago
  You clearly said that opposition to the Iran war was not a majority position [0] (i.e., that the Iran war is something voters want), which is incorrect. Your explanation of this claim was that voters don't care about Iran, which is also incorrect, per polling [1]. 0 - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47250233 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47250233 1 - https://time.com/7382231/iran-us-israel-war-support-polling-trump-republicans-democrats/ https://time.com/7382231/iran-us-israel-war-support-polling-...
  - ajross 8mo ago
    Cite 0 isn't what I said, though. I said people who care about Iran (in the sense of it being a primary driver of voting preference) are in the minority. You're arguing with a strawman, or a mistake. You agree with me.
    - ImPostingOnHN 8mo ago
      > Cite 0 isn't what I said, though. Yes it is. Here is the exchange in question: >> I'm talking about the majority position, not minority (opposition to Iran war) > So, no, you're not. Or you're misunderstanding how this works. > people don't care about the war in Iran. They were talking about the majority position (it is opposition to Iran war), and they weren't "misunderstanding how this works", and people do care about the war in Iran. >I said people who care about Iran (in the sense of it being a primary driver of voting preference) are in the minority. Close -- you were talking about people who care about the Iran war, and you omitted everything in parentheses. In contradiction to that thing which you said, however: People who oppose the Iran war are in the majority.