So?...

[Huggo]

We don't actually elect our president. The electoral college does. Oh well.

[Mizango]

We elected him (twice), now it's up to him to lead the nation.

Who is this "We" fellow you speak of? Speaking of which, the only thing I want to see he and his cronies do is to get the fuck out of office.

[pohibaba]

Where are you getting this passion from? I don't get it. I really don't care about what happened 8 years ago. It happened before that and if people didn't think it could happen again they have no idea how the system works. You guys all seem to think I'm angry about something, and I don't know why. I made a 1 sentence remark about something I found humorous. It wasn't elaborate in the least. It got misunderstood, so I felt like explaining what I meant. That got misunderstood too apparently, and I would be surprised if the same thing doesn't happen to this post.

I never said anything about giving anyone some sort of fraction of power based on the percentage of the popular vote they received. Again, my point was that the argument that a group of people, as a whole, voted someone into office somewhat falls apart when that group, as a whole, didn't really do that. Yes he was elected, no I couldn't care less about whether or not the electoral college system is revamped or abolished, and yes I was screaming at the masses and my TV in 2000 exactly as loud as I am screaming at them now (that being at a volume of 0).

My point was that he WAS elected President, and so he DOES have the right to lead the country in the direction that he best sees fit, regardless of whether he recieved over 50% of the vote or not. Clinton never recieved 50% of the vote either, does that somehow make him less of a leader?

[Plow]

My point was that he WAS elected President, and so he DOES have the right to lead the country in the direction that he best sees fit, regardless of whether he recieved over 50% of the vote or not. Clinton never recieved 50% of the vote either, does that somehow make him less of a leader?

um

As should be pretty obvious, I've been against the invasion of Iraq since it began in 1998, but I agree with Cheney on this point. A President needs to do what he thinks is best for the nation and not what the nation thinks is best for the nation. We elected him (twice), now it's up to him to lead the nation.

Technically we didn't elect him twice though. The first time he lost the popular vote.

True or false: Under the election rules that have governed our country for 200+ years, he was elected.

Uh... false...


He may or may not have actually won the election (way, way more than likely that he did not), but the supreme court essentially stepped in and appointed him president.

No one that was really paying attention would make the mistake of saying he was legitimately elected by the system we are supposed to use.

As should be pretty obvious, I've been against the invasion of Iraq since it began in 1998, but I agree with Cheney on this point. A President needs to do what he thinks is best for the nation and not what the nation thinks is best for the nation. We elected him (twice), now it's up to him to lead the nation.

the president's job as a representative is to... represent the people...

"I am the decider" is the last thing any of our founding fathers would ever want to hear the president say, I know that much.

There are three different ways you can look at the role of a public official: 1) They were elected to represent the public so they need to bend to the will of the public; 2) They were elected as a representative of their political party so they need to represent the values of their party; or 3) They were elected on their own merits and based on their political beliefs and for the purpose of being the leading representative of the majority of the people and thus be a leader and represent his own ideas and values.

Personally, I believe that a President should be the latter. We knew what we were getting when we elected him, so why should we be surprised now?

Technically we didn't elect him twice though. The first time he lost the popular vote.

That was a stupid argument 8 years ago, and that's still a stupid argument. Michael Moore called, he wants his talking points back.

I believe the president is supposed to be elected because the people believe he will represent their beliefs... hence the fact that politicians tend to be liars on an insane level, because they have to make the people believe they'll represent them when the reality is that they're there for the money 99% of the time, which comes from the businesses, not the citizens.

It's hilarious to me really that a citizen of the U.S., especially a conservative, would imply that the government doing what the people want them to do should be viewed in some kind of negative connotation such as "bending to the will."

And it's really not a stupid argument, like I pointed out above you'd have to be completely ignorant to actually believe bush was legitimately elected.

[Tyche]

My point was that he WAS elected President, and so he DOES have the right to lead the country in the direction that he best sees fit, regardless of whether he recieved over 50% of the vote or not. Clinton never recieved 50% of the vote either, does that somehow make him less of a leader?

um

As should be pretty obvious, I've been against the invasion of Iraq since it began in 1998, but I agree with Cheney on this point. A President needs to do what he thinks is best for the nation and not what the nation thinks is best for the nation. We elected him (twice), now it's up to him to lead the nation.

Technically we didn't elect him twice though. The first time he lost the popular vote.

True or false: Under the election rules that have governed our country for 200+ years, he was elected.

Uh... false...


He may or may not have actually won the election (way, way more than likely that he did not), but the supreme court essentially stepped in and appointed him president.

No one that was really paying attention would make the mistake of saying he was legitimately elected by the system we are supposed to use.

1st quote. Clinton never got 50% of the popular vote. In either election. You are saying "um" to a true statement.

2nd quote. I love it. You proclaim "THAT'S FALSE", followed by "He may or may not have won the election. I found that humorous.

[Plow]

My point was that he WAS elected President, and so he DOES have the right to lead the country in the direction that he best sees fit, regardless of whether he recieved over 50% of the vote or not. Clinton never recieved 50% of the vote either, does that somehow make him less of a leader?

um

As should be pretty obvious, I've been against the invasion of Iraq since it began in 1998, but I agree with Cheney on this point. A President needs to do what he thinks is best for the nation and not what the nation thinks is best for the nation. We elected him (twice), now it's up to him to lead the nation.

Technically we didn't elect him twice though. The first time he lost the popular vote.

True or false: Under the election rules that have governed our country for 200+ years, he was elected.

Uh... false...


He may or may not have actually won the election (way, way more than likely that he did not), but the supreme court essentially stepped in and appointed him president.

No one that was really paying attention would make the mistake of saying he was legitimately elected by the system we are supposed to use.

1st quote. Clinton never got 50% of the popular vote. In either election. You are saying "um" to a true statement.

2nd quote. I love it. You proclaim "THAT'S FALSE", followed by "He may or may not have won the election. I found that humorous.

I'm not umming the Clinton comment, I'm umming the same thing I elaborated on in the 2nd part.

It is in fact false to claim that Bush was put in office by being elected by our system. We cannot know if he won the election, what we do know is that the supreme court stepped in and *actively blocked* our election system to place him in office.


If you want to consider being appointed to the presidency by the supreme court somehow legitimately winning an election just for the sake of argument, you go right ahead. The fact of the matter is that he never actually won the election because the process was stopped, even if he would have won it were it not.

[aurik]

As ridiculous as you think it sounds, it is true.

The '00 race in Florida was too close to know who won. The republican government there decided to stop counting at a point where they could certify a victory for the Republicans and the Supreme Court basically refuted that the courts had jurisdiction to change that decision.

At which point, it's fair to say that Bush may not have been fairly elected in '00.

[Tyche]

I'm well aware of the Florida recount craze. It got down to like 300 votes or less difference iirc. I was 16 then, long ass time ago. I had just got confuzzled in the manor in which plow quoted the poster. I thought he was saying that Clinton did get more than 50% of the vote, which we all know he didn't. (which was the point of the original quote, they were pointing out that a higher percentage of americans voted for Bush than they did clinton).

[Khamsin]

I'm totally against Cheney/the war/etc, but make sure you actually watch the clip. The punctuation is a bit off in the quoting, especially on the final quote with the way they placed the period, made him sound a lot worse than he actually did.


At the risk of sounding like lolGuartz, remember that all sides are capable of spewing propaganda and twisting the truth a bit.

He said what he said. In response to whether he cared what the American people thought, he said "No" and that was that.

Now, he did make a point later in the interview on the other topic of being blown off course. That's the reason we have a representative democracy, because a true democracy would steer us in too many different directions and we'd be unable to focus (let alone be bogged down in a public vote on every matter). In that respect, our representatives do need to act on their own in our best interests rather than just based on what the public is saying at the time.

[Kaelan]

I haven't heard anything bad in that video. It looks like it's put out in a sensationalist way that expects people to disagree with what he's saying and while I disagree with a lot of things he did and does, I don't disagree with what he said there. I mean, he has a point. If you really do think there are legitimate reasons to go to war with another country based on existing evidence and that it is a matter of safety for the rest of the world (but more importantly, your country), which would have worse effects if it was ignored, then yes, "the public doesn't approve of it" isn't an argument you should be paying attention to. "Experts on the subject disagree with it for legitimate reasons and can explain exactly why and how they disagree with it and why it would be better to not go to war" would be an argument you should be paying attention to. But that's not the case here.

I don't know what the numbers are now, but only 2 years ago we had something like 62% of the american public thinking it would be better if creationism was presented in classrooms alongside evolution (some smaller percentage of them want it taught exclusively). This does not by any sense of the word make the idea merit any extra consideration by the judges and people who actually decide whether it should actually happen or not. Even if 90% of the public was in favor of it, that still wouldn't make it any more of a good idea.

As much as I think cheney is a tard, I can't really bring myself to go with what everybody else is suggesting here.

[pohibaba]

the president's job as a representative is to... represent the people...

"I am the decider" is the last thing any of our founding fathers would ever want to hear the president say, I know that much.

I believe the president is supposed to be elected because the people believe he will represent their beliefs... hence the fact that politicians tend to be liars on an insane level, because they have to make the people believe they'll represent them when the reality is that they're there for the money 99% of the time, which comes from the businesses, not the citizens.

It's hilarious to me really that a citizen of the U.S., especially a conservative, would imply that the government doing what the people want them to do should be viewed in some kind of negative connotation such as "bending to the will."

Currently, about 46% of America supports an amendment to ban gay marriage. Regardless of who gets elected President, assuming that that percentage reaches 51%, you believe that they should sign this amendment. Even if it was stated from the beginning that they opposed it? That would be moronic. If we simply had a President who did whatever the majority of America wanted, we wouldn't have a leader, we would have a puppet. There's no difference between tyranny from one person and tyranny of the majority.

[ronin sparthos]

While i dont like Cheney for his statements in the past about various issues, hes correct in the sense that sometimes you have to ignore what the majority says if you believe your path will serve the best interests of the country.

Now do i think his choices are worth that? Not Really.

A majority of people in this country are subject to mob mentality:

(hey man lets get outta iraq, i HEARD its bad and i dont have a point-of-view but yeah man i heard on MTV it was bad so lets get out.)

....and its up to a visionary leader to lead the way even when shit has hit the fan with the citizens. Thats what a leader is, someone you count on to make the clutch decisions.

The iraq situation regarding him and Bush? Thats another story, im confident that its a lost cause and we need to pull out in some orderly fashion - but he is right on that one point about ignoring the majority sometimes... even if its in the bush/cheney fashion of being poorly spoken/worded.