Reagan trumps Bush's legacy by being true.

Well men,who do you think can do a better job?

Clinton?The World trade center was attacked while he was in office.But because it didn't fall it was OK.Also the Cole and Embassies.That was 1993 it took him till 1998 to do one missile attack on Osama bin Laden.This was the time to get him while he was still out in the open and not worried about being on the run.

Bush is to blame :rolleyes:

Carter was the first cheap suit to fold and allow all this terrorism on his watch.

Bush will be remembered for alot of bad things,never the good stuff.

Enron/stock market ,9/11,lowering taxes for business and not signing a new assault weapon ban.All good things that kept us out of any kind of depression

I don't see on Rep or Dem for 2008 that will protect this country or keep or economy stable.
 
Derby FALs:
Gore did get more votes, though.
Click to expand...
There are many of us here that had high hopes for Bush that are today, thoroughly disgusted with the present administration. Bush received more electoral votes than Bush and subsequently assumed office according to the existing Constitution, not the one many wish we had. That's all that counts.

I'm assuming you are referring to the popular vote. To tell you the truth, I can't remember if that's true or not and it matters not. But let's assume for a second, that Bush had won the popular vote and Gore had won the electoral vote. I assume the Democrats would have conceded based on the totally irrelevant fact that Bush got the popular vote, despite the electoral victory by Gore? I think not. I predict the difference in that case would be that those who respect the existing Constitution would not be whining to this day about losing legally and trying to insinuate the opposite.

So if you think Gore received the majority of electoral votes, please provide a source for that claim. If you are making a point about the popular vote tally, then I ask why? What's your point? The election process was designed to specifically prohibit a popular vote and limit regional dominance in the process. This is not a democracy. Thank God.
 
I'm assuming you are referring to the popular vote. To tell you the truth, I can't remember if that's true or not and it matters not. But let's assume for a second, that Bush had won the popular vote and Gore had won the electoral vote. I assume the Democrats would have conceded based on the totally irrelevant fact that Bush got the popular vote, despite the electoral victory by Gore? I think not. I predict the difference in that case would be that those who respect the existing Constitution would not be whining to this day about losing legally and trying to insinuate the opposite.
Click to expand...


It is pretty rare.

There have been four cases of this happening thus far. In 1824, John Quincy Adams was awarded the presidency by the House of Representatives, despite not having won the popular vote or the electoral college vote (neither he nor opponent Andrew Jackson had an electoral college majority). In 1876, Rutherford B. Hayes became President despite losing the popular vote to Samuel J. Tilden, because Hayes had a one vote advantage in the electoral college. In 1888, in a much more clear-cut example of a candidate losing the popular vote but winning the electoral college vote, Benjamin Harrison was elected President over Grover Cleveland. Finally, in 2000, George W. Bush became president after losing the popular vote to Al Gore, but winning the electoral vote. For more information on how the electoral college works, see this National Archives and records Administration site on the U.S. Electoral College (http://www.nara.gov/fedreg/elctcoll/index.html).
 
Well, I had a question in there I hoped you would try to answer. You seemingly do understand the Electoral process, so now I really would like to know:
So if you think Gore received the majority of electoral votes, please provide a source for that claim. If you are making a point about the popular vote tally, then I ask why? What's your point?
Click to expand...
 
Also remember that after the ballots were actually tallied Gore also won Florida after the fact.
Click to expand...

After the initial "selective precinct" recount failed to produce enough votes for Gore, Democratically run precincts began to change the standards of which votes count even trying to predict voters intent by counting hanging then pregnant then dimpled then dented chads. Florida's democratic majority supreme court ruled that changing the rules after the election wasn't wrong and allowed these standard changes to remain. Bush won by a larger margin under these changes. Bush won by three of the 4 different standards used.

Even trying to steal the election Gore lost.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top