as a whole/majority and therefor the people are accountable for this war. Do you agree a message has now been sent that the eople disapprove of the war?
2006-11-10 15:15:10 · 17 answers · asked by Fairplay 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Your opinion is a popular misconception of how our government is formed, and its function.
The will of the people do not govern much in the US. You get to vote. You can write letters and you can try to influence politicians through campaign contributions.
I do think this is an unpopular war, and I do think that message has been sent.
2006-11-10 15:22:25 · answer #1 · answered by ? 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Your "speculative opinion" reminds me of one of my favorite quotes:
"In a democracy, the people get the government they deserve."
This is especially true when the people can't be bothered to vote. Even with a landslide victory, a candidate is lucky to get 30% of the eligible vote. What a sad commentary for the greatest country in the world, eh?
With this in mind, it is difficult to know what the message of the real majority of the people was - I personally was more turned off by the total inaction of this administration to do anything at all about illegal immigration and other domestic policies than I was with the handling of our response to the events of 9/11 - there is no excuse for total inaction when the administration controls both houses.
2006-11-10 23:33:18 · answer #2 · answered by LeAnne 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Personally, I give my fellows credit for being more intelligent than the media presumes. This wasn't entirely a referendum on the war. The planet is heating up and the consequences will be global catastrophe if we don't get off fossil fuels.
A lot of people know this, and can see Bush policies ignore this issue almost entirely.
That has to change if we are to survive as a species.
2006-11-10 23:47:40 · answer #3 · answered by water boy 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I have to answer this carefully. We do vote a person in to office and then wake up two years later and go...."WHAT THE HECK WAS I THINKING?" Just because a war is going on, doesn't mean that the majority approved of it. It is a little more complicated than that. What I will say, is that at the moment it would appear most Americans are ready to bring home our troops from Iraq.
I think a lot of Americans for whatever reason, believed it would be a good idea to invade Iraq. As if somehow it would solve our 911 problems and give us vengence. Reality is starting to ring true. Yet, that is a story for a different day.
Good Luck and Take Care
2006-11-10 23:24:06 · answer #4 · answered by escapingmars 4 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Sure do. The majority of American people put the Democrats in control as a direct referendum against Bush.
Nancy Pelosi said impeachment was not on the table, but that will change shortly as there is a bigger movement to impeach Bush and Chaney for the crimes committed and he will pay.
Bush decided someones head had to roll because of the illegal war, and he picked old Rummie. It was a good choice, as Ronald Dumsfeld doesn't know his a s s from a hole in the ground.
If Bush and his side kick, Chaney are impeached, that puts Nancy Pelosi in as President, she is third in line as speaker of the house, and with enough pressure, it will be done.
Darryl S.
2006-11-10 23:33:17 · answer #5 · answered by Stingray 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
i think there've been many messages sent before disapproving of the war and many protests showing that many Americans are against it. even if the definition of a president/leader is as what u stated above (a representation of the will of the people), it doesnt mean that the president will actually follow the will of his fellow civilians and will most surely go against them considering he has the authority/power to do so. its been displayed b4, and our current leader is an example of it. i mean, he didnt exatly fairly win his 1st term election so why wudnt he 'bend the rules'. and voters only voted for him for a 2nd time only bcuz most are afraid of change. so thankfully theres a limit of 2 terms, otherwise..who knows where we wud be in the next 5-10 yrs.
2006-11-10 23:28:29 · answer #6 · answered by student 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
In reality it seems to be that the President (in general) is aware of classified information not known to the media and general public, and sometimes has to act in the best interest of the country, whether the public agrees from their perception of events or not. Just because the majority (and who ever knows its really the majority) of people disagree with a given situation, doesn't necessarily mean that the course of action is wrong.
2006-11-10 23:50:10 · answer #7 · answered by JBarleycorn 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes, the message was sent - we're just not sure if it was received.
The President theoretically represents the whole country, but is elected by a party, and is rarely elected by a national majority (although Bush was). Since the party publishes a manifesto, it is expected that the President will try to follow that (though in another slight twist to the system, he isn't actually bound by the party to that either). In other words, the President is elected to represent the country as a whole, but his policies may not represent the views of the majority.
That's representative democracy for you!
2006-11-10 23:31:03 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
No, the leaders are the representation of the parties. We have no choice in who we vote for.
No, a message has not now been sent. Americans never wanted any part of this war. That is dependent on the terrorists. It takes 2 to fight. It is not an independent resolution. A depends on B.
2006-11-10 23:25:27 · answer #9 · answered by Poncho Rio 4 · 2⤊ 1⤋
You're on it! Disapprove of war, the new laws against basic freedoms, the economy that doesn't help the middle class and the poor and terrible foreign policy.
The problem with this shoddy Administration is they're like 6 month olds who doo doo all over themselves in public! They don't care who sees it!
2006-11-10 23:35:21 · answer #10 · answered by Reba K 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋