Al Gore got more votes, I never said popular vote wins the elections in the US. But GWB lost that election according to the will of people.lowing wrote:
Technically, GWB won the election. It is not the popular vote that wins elections in the US, and it is not unprecedented.sergeriver wrote:
Technically, he lost the first time, since the will of the people elected Al Gore. Remember he had 500k more votes than GWB. Then, the Electoral College voted for Bush. The second time he won against a clown.Stingray24 wrote:
Why is the will of the people you agree with the only one you're highlighting, CPoe? The will of the people was also expressed by those who voted Bush in twice. He's been elected President and as such, has the power to veto.
The elected Dems oppose the surge, leaving the troops that are already there with less manpower than they need for another year and half. The Dems are quite the "support the troops" group aren't they.
GB won the election according to the laws of the land. He didn't "steal" it, as is a popular accusation among the liberals.sergeriver wrote:
Al Gore got more votes, I never said popular vote wins the elections in the US. But GWB lost that election according to the will of people.lowing wrote:
Technically, GWB won the election. It is not the popular vote that wins elections in the US, and it is not unprecedented.sergeriver wrote:
Technically, he lost the first time, since the will of the people elected Al Gore. Remember he had 500k more votes than GWB. Then, the Electoral College voted for Bush. The second time he won against a clown.
By delivering they mean August of 2008.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Here's the thing though. Here in the US, we don't vote for parties. We vote for people. Because the majority of the house and senate happen to be democrats in this election does not mean that the majority of the people support the democratic party as a whole. They support their local candidate, and his stance on the issues.CameronPoe wrote:
The most recent election resulted in a majority of the population of America voting for a party which supported this kind of policy in the middle east. Personally I don't agree with two party politics but 'them's the rules'. Bush will be going against the majority will of the people by vetoing this, i.e. he will be acting undemocratically.Stingray24 wrote:
Why is the will of the people you agree with the only one you're highlighting, CPoe? The will of the people was also expressed by those who voted Bush in twice. He's been elected President and as such, has the power to veto.
The elected Dems oppose the surge, leaving the troops that are already there with less manpower than they need for another year and half. The Dems are quite the "support the troops" group aren't they.
My representative (Arkansas 2nd, Vic Snyder) has more in common with the republican party than many republicans (like, say, Chaffe from Rhode Island).
This is one of the fundamental problems foreigners (no offense cameron) have with understanding our political system. About 40% of Americans vote for a party. It's normally the same party their parents voted for. The other 20% vote for candidates. It's this 20% that decide elections. And they care about people. Things like morality, likeability, and individual positions are what infulence decisions.