Total Posts:8|Showing Posts:1-8
Jump to topic:

Why are those losers the only candidates?

xus00HAY
Posts: 1,393
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2016 3:20:43 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
My guess is the zero-year affect. The winner of the 2016 election will be the incumbant in 2020. Every candidate who wins an election ending in zero dies in office. If the winner of the 2016 election wins re-election in 2020, he will be dead within 4 years.
I guess they want to serve for 2 full terms to consider themselves a success.
n.b. Reagan died on the operating table. He was revived with one of those jump-start things with the paddles. This was kept secret so Hinckly would not be a success. George W Bush stole the 2000 election, believe me, there is no way the majority of American voters would actually choose that idiot.
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2016 3:30:35 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/5/2016 3:20:43 AM, xus00HAY wrote:
My guess is the zero-year affect. The winner of the 2016 election will be the incumbant in 2020. Every candidate who wins an election ending in zero dies in office. If the winner of the 2016 election wins re-election in 2020, he will be dead within 4 years.
I guess they want to serve for 2 full terms to consider themselves a success.
n.b. Reagan died on the operating table. He was revived with one of those jump-start things with the paddles. This was kept secret so Hinckly would not be a success. George W Bush stole the 2000 election, believe me, there is no way the majority of American voters would actually choose that idiot.

Most of that is nonsense, but you do know that Bush did NOT have the majority of votes, right? That has never been in question.
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2016 6:33:30 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/5/2016 3:32:39 AM, TBR wrote:
-----------Bush / Gore / Nader
Total 50,456,002 - 47.87% / 50,999,897 - 48.38% / 2,882,955 - 2.74%

http://www.infoplease.com...

Did Bush even bother to thank the green party in his acceptance speech?
xus00HAY
Posts: 1,393
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2016 4:47:30 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
Florida was in question. We know that if they did a recount Gore would have won because George W is still alive, even though there are millions of radical Muslims who would have killed him if they could.
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2016 5:58:21 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/5/2016 4:47:30 PM, xus00HAY wrote:
Florida was in question. We know that if they did a recount Gore would have won because George W is still alive, even though there are millions of radical Muslims who would have killed him if they could.

No doubt Florida was the issue, however you sounded like you were talking the actual national vote count. Bush clearly lost that.
xus00HAY
Posts: 1,393
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2016 8:36:00 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
Although more people voted for Gore, Bush had more electoral votes.
Now if a few hundred or so more Floridians had voted for Gore, Al would have got Florida's electoral votes, and would have won in a land slide.
They used computers to count the votes in Florida, and this thing called a butterfly ballot. You got a card and a stylus, and you punched out the chad next to the name of the candidate you wanted.
My guess is all those old people down there could not see well enough to do this accurately.
Comparing the number of votes Gore recieved to the 2 guys who were above and below him on the list, Al was disapointed,. Pat Buchannon and the guy from the socialist workers party, did much better in Florida than they had ever hoped for.