MtnGoat Posted January 4, 2003 Share Posted January 4, 2003 "can you name major politicy rollbacks taken by say Clinton that went against the majority of public opinion?:" Not offhand, no. I can say that if your standard for legitimacy is an actual majority of possible voters then Clinton can't even meet that, however, for a rollback OR a new policy. In fact, in the first election he had more people vote against him than voted for him, only the votes were split between Perot and Bush. So if you're going to play the non legitimacy game using majorities as a basis, make sure you apply it everywhere. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
allison Posted January 4, 2003 Share Posted January 4, 2003 Because a president is elected or selected, does not mean s/he necessarily has a mandate. Based on the results of the 2000 election, won or lost by the slimmest of margins, I would say "no mandate." On the other hand, the midterm Congressionals say to me "mandate." I have a new autosig in honor of this thread. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MtnGoat Posted January 4, 2003 Share Posted January 4, 2003 "But, if the president has any concern for our country, he wouldn't embark on a unilateral (domestically speaking) path." Funny how when Dems assume power, "sharing" the power isn't in the cards, when it's a Rep in charge, suddenly it's all about sharing! "for the interests of the world at large (Kyoto agreement, International Criminal court, NATO, etc.), because that is where we live, in the world. There is no isolation anymore." Which is precisely why not following two of the three points provided is so important. Not allowing interelationships to lead down the road to making bad choices is part and parcel of effective leadership. Not buying into an extremely costly and ineffective proposal such as Kyoto, or an open ended, socialist based court system is very important to keeping the world a place where bad ideas are not snapped up because they are popular. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_b Posted January 4, 2003 Share Posted January 4, 2003 I am not sure where you learned that having a representative democracy and a republic of states meant that politicians could do whatever they fancied irrespective of the desires of their constituancies. I guess next time you wrap yourself in the flag and talk about democracy you better explain what you mean. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sexual_chocolate Posted January 4, 2003 Share Posted January 4, 2003 Hey, you're not calling me a dem, are you? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
feralp Posted January 4, 2003 Share Posted January 4, 2003 That area around the trail leading up to Snow Creek Wall is private land owned by the Irrigation district. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_b Posted January 4, 2003 Share Posted January 4, 2003 ok fine, we have established Clinton did not govern with an absolute majority. Did he use his relative majority to push through policies that were hugely unpopular? no, as you yourself conceeded. All of this points for a balance in the exercise of power especially whenever democracy is not legitimized by an absolute majority. This is sorely lacking today. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattp Posted January 4, 2003 Share Posted January 4, 2003 I don't believe the area along the trail, say, fifteen switchbacks up is owned by the irrigation district. This area was logged when they did the "salvage" operation and I am pretty sure it is F.S. land. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MtnGoat Posted January 4, 2003 Share Posted January 4, 2003 (edited) "I am not sure where you learned that having a representative democracy and a republic of states meant that politicians could do whatever they fancied irrespective of the desires of their constituancies." Are they doing what they fancy irrespective of their constituency? Seems to me Bush is doing what his constituency wants, and given the midterm election results, I think it looks like a stay the course vote to me. Whenever Dems are in power they certainly attempt to do what they darned well please, claiming it's good for *all* Americans, in spite of themselves because as we all "know" that supposedly, Dems know what is best for everyone else. Well, now the shoe is on the other foot. "I guess next time you wrap yourself in the flag and talk about democracy you better explain what you mean." When was it I was wrapping myself in the flag, exactly? If we have differing versions of democracy, well that's just how politics goes, isn't it. Edited January 4, 2003 by MtnGoat Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MtnGoat Posted January 4, 2003 Share Posted January 4, 2003 "Did he use his relative majority to push through policies that were hugely unpopular? no, as you yourself conceeded." No, I conceded I couldn't think of any rollbacks, that's it. He tried to push one hugely unpopular issue through, and went down in flames (thank god): Socialized Health Care. And I might add, did so using tactics Bush has been roundly condemned for concerning energy policy, but which the oh so concerned Dems of the day simply couldn't be bothered about, secret meetings behind closed doors to develop the plan. Where was the outrage heaped on Bush and Cheney, when it was a Dem president and a dem proposal? Totally absent, that's where. Around this time he succeeded in helping Republicans begin gaining power in House and Senate to the current glorious result, beginning with the Dem's loss of the house. This provided the necessary firepower to gridlock Clinton at nearly every turn, for which I am eternally gratefull. Anything which slows the operation of the federal behemoth is a good thing. " All of this points for a balance in the exercise of power especially whenever democracy is not legitimized by an absolute majority." I'm not interested in balancing power to stymie actual change. Bush was elected, and then the midterms handed him total control. He should use it and go for it. When the Dems get total control, they can do the same. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_b Posted January 4, 2003 Share Posted January 4, 2003 huh? all right, it's settled then: Bush's constituency is 18% of the voting age population. Only someone with very low standards of what constitutes an acceptable form of democracy, could think such poor representativity legitimizes policies that are obviously taken against the wishes of the majority. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill_Simpkins Posted January 4, 2003 Share Posted January 4, 2003 Bush seems like he's on a mission to destroy nature. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
allthumbs Posted January 4, 2003 Share Posted January 4, 2003 Bill, that's an ignorant statement. Of course he's not out to destroy nature. Get a f'in clue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winter Posted January 4, 2003 Author Share Posted January 4, 2003 Anything which slows the operation of the federal behemoth is a good thing. Here we have the problem with the conservative approach. This statement is completely incorrect - transportation, public lands, the economy, commerce, and national defense. All these issues require a strong federal government in order to maximize our common welfare. This statement is also completely hypocritical. The conservatives crying for smaller government are also the ones slapping Bush on the back for creating the Ridge gets a job Security Department and spending billions of dollars on questionable missile defense systems that may or may not work. The "smaller government" line appeals to a less educated voter, while the rich and powerful republicans simply grow big government when it suits their constituents' needs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MtnGoat Posted January 4, 2003 Share Posted January 4, 2003 "Only someone with very low standards of what constitutes an acceptable form of democracy, could think such poor representativity legitimizes policies that are obviously taken against the wishes of the majority." Every single voter has had the opportunity to vote, and they have made their choice with respect to that opportunity. Not voting is a choice to let others decide, and those who did vote made that choice. If allowing people to decide who to vote for, and wether or not to vote in the first place, is somehow "low standards", I direct you to those who made the choices, because it's not my place to explain their decisions. As for "obviously" against the wishes of the majority, what a laugh. All that's obvious here is a very vocal bunch of complainers used to being in power are now out, and using every play they can think of to influence policy anyway. They've been vocal all out of proportion to their actual numbers anyway, for a long time. Take a look at the midterm results and tell me all about what is "obviously" against the wishes of the majority. Voters have given Bush more support and ability to implement his wishes than they have given any recent prez, must be a trick. If you're going to convince me a "majority" wants something anyway, I want to see evidence of it in their personal lives first. I mean choices and action, not demands someone *else*do ,what they don't choose on their own. The secret "majority" is so concerned about oil, SUV's are still flying off the lots, for example. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MtnGoat Posted January 4, 2003 Share Posted January 4, 2003 (edited) "transportation, public lands, the economy, commerce, and national defense. All these issues require a strong federal government in order to maximize our common welfare. " I could not disagree more. Some elements of transpo and many elements of defense require centralized planning. Lands, the economy, and commerce can take care of themselves with much less oversight. All that is required for an economy and commerce is rule of law, enforcement of contracts and property rights, and fiscal discpline maitaining the currency. Everything else should be left to the market and the consumer, or the states. "This statement is also completely hypocritical. The conservatives crying for smaller government are also the ones slapping Bush on the back for creating the Ridge gets a job Security Department and spending billions of dollars on questionable missile defense systems that may or may not work." That's because you mischaracterize the "smaller govt" line to begin with, and then extend it to areas your opponents never applied it to in the first place. Defense and security is a direct constitutional mandate. Managing education, social affairs, retirement, trying to do so with health care, and a whole basketful of other things, instead of the states or the people, is in direct conflict with the constitution itself. Funny how some amendments are more popular than others, huh? Edited January 4, 2003 by MtnGoat Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_b Posted January 4, 2003 Share Posted January 4, 2003 listen, you can attempt to rationalize all you want. All that one needs to know is: 18% of the potential vote is not a mandate for radical policy changes, especially when there are good reasons to think most people disagree. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MtnGoat Posted January 4, 2003 Share Posted January 4, 2003 I'm sorry, ignoring that all voters have the opportunity to vote, and don't choose to, doesn't magically make the 18% or whatever immaterial. 100% did not did not go and place votes only to be ruled by the mean old 18%. Whatever their reasons for voting, or not voting, they had the chance, and I for one am not qualified to second guess their choices or reasons for one simple reason.. I am not them and I do not know their reasons. They're adults, with free will, able to make their own choices. Everyone had their choices, and they made them. Wether or not you recognize that, something you have difficulty with elsewhere as well, it doesn't indicate anything unusual. Count on your chosen method of determining vote legitimacy (percentage of votes cast out of total possible voters) as the yardstick for your claims in the future! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rat Posted January 4, 2003 Share Posted January 4, 2003 feralp is correct. the snow creek trail (usfs easement of some sort) is located on land owned by the icicle irrigation district. it owns the land from icicle creek to the wilderness boundary as well as a significant chunk of land north of icicle creek. both areas were heli-logged in 1990 as you said. be happy that they didn't clearcut the area as they had the right to do. the proposed thinning area is immediately around the leavenworth national fish hatchery (department of interior land, not usfs/department of agriculture). a stupid area to waste tax dollars but certainly not the tragedy that the news article and harriet bullit makes it out to be. harriet bullit and her well-to-do cadre of sycophants can kiss my ass. all she wants is more environmental brownie points for her already grossly over-sized "retreat". none of us pays the full cost of the resources we use and abuse and no government will ever allow it because it would hamper economic growth. now scurry out and use that credit card one more time today. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fairweather Posted January 5, 2003 Share Posted January 5, 2003 Ronald Reagan won 49 states in the election of 1984! Popular Vote: 1984 Ronald Reagan: 54,455,075 Walter Mondale: 37,577,185 Popular Vote 1980: Ronald Reagan: 43,899,248 Jimmy Carter: 36,481,435 John Anderson:: 5,719,437 ...someone in a previous post said that no president had ever won a "clear" majority. I thought I'd just throw in this little reminder. Reagan CLEARLY had a "mandate" but it is doubtful many of the lefties here recall his tenure with anything but disdain. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MtnGoat Posted January 5, 2003 Share Posted January 5, 2003 great post! It probably won't satisfy j_b, who is using the *total* number of possible voters to establish that no "majority" legitimizes mandates. That not voting is as much of a choice as voting, doesn't seem to make any difference to him. But since we now know what standard he uses for a "majority", he has kindly provided the leverage for us to deny any mandate exists for programs and policies he supports, using his very own standard of how one calculates a legitimate majority. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winter Posted January 5, 2003 Author Share Posted January 5, 2003 (edited) Managing education, social affairs, retirement, trying to do so with health care, and a whole basketful of other things, instead of the states or the people, is in direct conflict with the constitution itself. Funny how some amendments are more popular than others, huh? What are you talking about? Which Constitution are you reading? Section 8 specifically calls out roads and interstate commerce. How are we supposed to have public companies and functioning markets without federal regulation? You state that the conservatives are not hypocrites, because the Constitution specifically calls outs national defense. Have you read Section 8? It also calls out interstate commerce. How do you reconcile the conservatives' wail for a smaller government with respect to commerce yet a stronger and larger government with respect to the military? You decry the influence of the federal government, but our economy would fail to function properly without the central rule of law governing our markets. This is precisely the reason Bush jumped all over the Enron and Woldcom scandles in an effort to assure the American investor that the markets would function properly with FEDERAL oversight of accounting and reporting laws. We are left with the reality that the conservatives only stick to the "small government" crap when it suits their biased needs. Edited January 5, 2003 by Winter Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MtnGoat Posted January 5, 2003 Share Posted January 5, 2003 "What are you talking about? Which Constitution are you reading? Section 8 specifically calls out roads and interstate commerce. How are we supposed to have public companies and functioning markets without federal regulation?" Did I not say maintainance of law enforcement, rule of law, and contract enforcement? Is this not regulation of interstate commerce among other things? This is specifically why I mentioned them. And you'll please note I also *specifically* mentioned transportation. I notice you make no reference to the issues you quoted me on. "Have you read Section 8? It also calls out interstate commerce." I have addressed that. "How do you reconcile the conservatives' wail for a smaller government with respect to commerce yet a stronger and larger government with respect to the military?" I already have. *YOU* are the one claiming conservatives want all govt functions reduced, your misinterpretation of their stance does not make it their stance. I very much doubt you'll find many conservatives calling for smaller govt when it comes to defense. The main place they call for less govt is in the social arena where those who would manipulate social issues *directly* impinge on personal rights to free association, private property, and the right to control ones own resources, such as hiring, trade, among other issues. "You decry the influence of the federal government, but our economy would fail to function properly without the central rule of law governing our markets. This is precisely the reason Bush jumped all over the Enron and Woldcom scandles in an effort to assure the American investor that the markets would function properly with FEDERAL oversight of accounting and reporting laws." You do not seem to grasp what I have posted. I specifically mentioned law and contract enforcement as the proper role of govt. How do you square your accusations with what I clearly posted only a few posts back, the very post you are using to attack my positions, when I clearly state the proper function of the Fed is precisely what you claim I do not support? This makes no sense. The federal govt is not needed to make parents in states support education for their kids. Neither is it needed to make people want to save for their retirement, especially using an inescapable ponzii system which people are *obligated* by force to contribute to in spite of the fact of fiscal insolvency and low returns. You can support these issues all you like, that does not mean they cannot be done at the state level as detailed in the amendment. Lest you forget, the constitution is a document to *LIMIT* federal govt, not the people and not the states. Wether or not some program you prefer may be more "efficient" in your eyes if it's huge and federal, is simply not the point. The limits on federal control contained in the constitution do not exist to make what you want convenient or efficient, because the founders recognized that limits are necessary as any convenience can be jusitified by someone. "We are left with the reality that the conservatives only stick to the "small government" crap when it suits their biased needs." All I can see is the reality that what you are doing is misquoting those you disagree with, taking a position they do not hold in the first place, the representing it as theirs so you can attack it. Just like you have done with my post, as a perfect example. I say rule of law and contract is necessary for an economy, and federally and consitutionally mandated, then you ask me why I can't see rule of law is necessary for an economy when thats exactly what I said in the first place. I can't think of a clearer example of the problem here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlpineK Posted January 5, 2003 Share Posted January 5, 2003 Dude you bore me right the fuck out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MtnGoat Posted January 5, 2003 Share Posted January 5, 2003 that just chokes me up, you can't imagine how much. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.