How come Conservatives are always the majority?

Post Reply New Topic

He's not respected by anyone whose respect I value.

He's kind of at odds with Putin at the moment, but Putin is being really sleazy in general. Pakistan is obviously angry because we keep violating their sovereignty as well. But yeah, Romney managed to infuriate pretty much every nation he visited. He even made a "Jews are great with money, am I right?" joke during his trip to Israel. I don't know why people accuse Obama of being a hippy or whatever. The guy has a massive hitlist and bodycount in the thousands, by his own command. He's even imprisoned and tortured journalists who found out when he hit civilian targets based on bad intelligence. Of course, that happened in Yemen, so most American never heard much about it.

In short, conservatives are the subset of society who are unsatisfied with their way of life and want to blame every scapegoat they can think of but themselves and are corralled by their hate and fear and the messaging of the ultra-rich who pat them on the back as their familiars vote for their own doom and their puppeteers slip their hands past their wallets as they turn to leave poor mr. voter in a pool of s**t and carcinogens.

Conservatives are also NOT the majority. But fear is a stronger motivator than an abstract idea of change and so more of them are willing to go to the polls. The last US election had a total of what, 110 million votes? we have over 300million citizens, where were the other 2/3?

Conservatives use violence to enforce their beliefs on a social level, so non-conservatives often do not live to adulthood in conservative areas. those that do move or convert to survive. A college near me has a lot of people from Texas. Every f*****g day they are running around attacking each other. Literally hitting each other and random strangers to solve disputes or resolve perceived slights. Under their belief system it's perfectly fine. They don't understand how or why they would want to resolve issues other ways. A homosexual man was killed right in front of me after being outed. They just kept hitting him and hitting him. They didn't have a goal in mind, other than to inflict pain. They did not think he would stop being gay, they thought they were enforcing god's will. So when you talk to a conservative understand that they aren't really human in the way they process morality. They are more loyal to Satan than those who openly praise him.

Please forgive me. I had forgotten that all countries deserve to be treated relative to their own histories and circumstances except for the USA, which must be held to an absolute standard in all things. It's really a compliment--only America deserves to be held to the highest standard. All other countries are allowed to make excuses and get special pleadings in their favor.

My God, that's terrible. A friend involved with LGBT rights told me a while back about friends and acquaintances who had been physically assaulted because they were either gay, or simply perceived as gay.

I agree with Raptor. Any respect Obama has throughout the world is more a reflection of the beholders of such respect rather than Obama himself. Furthermore, who respects him? Our enemies walk all over him and many of our key allies are rightfully disgusted with his Administration's misconduct and his idiotic foreign policy.

You're very conservative though...

Bush was a laughing stock leader. Obama isn't. It's like North Korea in reverse (except obviously both Bush and Obama are better presidents than the Kim dynasty).


I'm sorry, I don't understand the relevance of your point to my point? Unless you think calling Obama a conservative is somehow an insult.

The question demands absolute standards of conservatism. It doesn't make sense to talk about a subset being in a minority if that subset is only judged relative to the mean, because naturally just under half of all Americans will be more conservative than the median (and just under half will be less conservative).

In any case, Obama isn't even left wing by the standards of American politicians! The Green and Justice parties are comfortably to his left (and are generally more liberal), without being communist. Even within the Democratic party, there are centrists and leftists, as opposed to centre-right Obama. This is a good analysis from 2008: http://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2008
(Their 2012 analysis shifts Obama upwards and to the right)

Conservative, not VERY conservative, although I wish I could honestly claim that I am fanatically conservative just for the outrage it would provide here.

The only online political affiliation test that I've taken and put any stock in for it's comprehensiveness rated me at 66% conservative and 34% liberal or a number very close to those. Maybe it was 68/32. It's been a while and I forgot where that website was or I'd post a link to it.

^^A couple of good mushroom trips will help you to lower that 66% down to a manageable level of say,20%.

I've been fucdup a few times. It didnt change my politics.

^^^Are you sure?I think it explains the 34% liberal.

If Conservatives are in the majority, here is maybe why....

Most people believe in traditional values. They believe in the positive virtues their parents held as well as their grandparents.

Most liberal doctrines are not new...they are old and have been proven to fail again and again in the past.

People will believe in what works.

A doctrine, conservative or liberal, gets tested in the crucible of life itself. If it fails, people reject it. If it works, people embrace it.

Some would say that a government where the people are the sovereign (e.g., a republic) is a liberal concept. The more conservative value is power being vested in an individual or small group of elites. Even then, the concept of the people being the sovereign is rooted in conservative values of moral governance (as Jesus taught, let he who would lead be servant of all). Likewise, the reason why republics are few and far between and generally don't last longer than 200 years is because the model ONLY WORKS IF other necessary principles are followed with it (e.g., sense of community and civic responsibility, knowledge of national history especially the why and how of the republic coming into existence, etc.). Without those associated principles, the construct inevitably fails.

He got rid of Bin Laden. He got rid of Ahmadinejad. He got rid of Mehsud. He stopped Kim from nuking everything. Could you please clarify which of your enemies are walking all over him?


Global perceptions of Obama are far better than global perceptions of Bush. And can you imagine how bad America's international perception would be with John McCain in charge of foreign policy?





Images taken from: http://www.pewglobal.org/2013/07/18/cha ... ack-obama/
and: http://www.pewglobal.org/2012/06/13/glo ... s-faulted/

I'd like to see some proof to back up these assertions.

To start with, they aren't in the majority according to any reliable data I've seen.

People disagree with their parents all the time.
The time between the end of the post World War 2 recession and the 70s was the most economically vibrant time in our history. During this period, economic policy was to the left of what it is now, whether Democrats or Republicans were in charge, and tax rates were through the roof for the wealthier people. Reaganomics, meanwhile, seem to lead to lower economic performance, because the free market does not actually regulate itself well. Look back into the Industrial Revolution for more examples of how hands off economics didn't work that well.

Human history would like to have a word with you.

Exactly. The problem is, a hands off economic system does not encourage community and civic responsibility at all. It encourages acting in your own benefit to net the best profit, which is very often at odds with what is healthy for the community at large (case in point, almost the entire Industrial Revolution).

Last edited by Frisco on 26 Dec 2013, 7:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Also, I would like to question the extent to which most people are conservative.

In the last French election, right-wing parties gained 46.87% of the vote in the first round. In the second round, when most of the left-wing parties had been eliminated, Sarkozy gained 48.36% of the valid votes. This increase was probably mostly caused by an increase in the number of invalid votes, which went from about 2% to nearly 6%. I guess many "left wingers" (perhaps Greens) spoiled their papers rather than back Hollande.

In the last UK election, 52% of people voted for one of the major parties that are notionally "left" but in practice are centrist. A further 3.2% voted for the Green party, the SNP, or Plaid Cymru, all left wing parties, plus 0.7% voted for left wing Northern Irish parties. Of course, there is an argument to be had that conservatives are more likely to be politically disenfranchised, and turnout was very low.

In the last German election, the major right wing parties gained 45% of the votes. So did the major left wing parties. The other 10% went to niche parties.

Even in America, the bastion of western conservatism, Barack Obama is preferred to Mitt Romney and John McCain. Al Gore is preferred to George W. Bush. Bill Clinton is preferred to Dole/Perot (but not Bush/Perot). Whilst Obama might not be progressive, the more conservative candidates have lost the popular vote in at least four of the last six presidential elections- and you could argue the extent to which Perot is progressive or conservative, I don't think he really fitted in any of the traditional boxes.