SINCE HE'S ONLY WON 1 ELECTION. WHICH IS QUESTIONABLE DUE TO DIEBOLD DELIVERING OHIO LIKE THEY PROMISED.
2006-09-14 08:56:07 · 29 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
DON'T GIVE THEM ANY IDEAS YOU MORON, DELETE THIS QUESTION!
2006-09-14 08:57:45 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 2⤋
because of the fact the Courts determination to end the countless recounts demanded by utilising the Gore camp became in straightforward terms 5 - 4. as a result, of their eyes, Bush did no longer win, yet became chosen. Had the determination long previous any incorrect way, they might have lauded it because of the fact the wisest determination ever made by utilising the courtroom. it style of feels the Liberals and positively, many Conservatives do no longer like it whilst somebody wins the popular vote, yet loses interior the Electoral college. those self same people additionally won't do any examine on how some thing like that could desire to probable happen. playstation : The Libs save with ease forgetting that there had already been 3 recounts, all of which Gore lost.
2016-11-07 08:07:01 · answer #2 · answered by pachter 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
In America, a president can only serve two consecutive terms at a time. He could give us a break and try and run again in 2012 but let's hope the Mayan calendar is correct and the world will end then so we don't have to suffer through another minute of the rodeo clown's "leadership."
Or maybe he'll be distracted after 2008 by something shiny and wander off to play with that for a while.
2006-09-14 08:59:43 · answer #3 · answered by Mimi Di 4 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Um. Bush is not likely to have the power to change constitutonal term limits, and the supreme court has nothing to do with it. Perhaps a review of the executive, legislative and judicial powers and the roles granted to them by the U.S. constitution is in order.
According to the 22nd amendment "No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once. "
As the president was unable to change the constitution to ban gay marriage, it's highly unlikely that he will have the votes to nullify the 22nd amendment.
Go here to read the rest:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment22/#Scene_1
2006-09-14 09:05:47 · answer #4 · answered by James R 2 · 3⤊ 0⤋
No sweetie! Bush' term is coming to a close! And trust me once his a*s is actually removed from the White House and he tumbles his a*s back to Texas with the rest of the tumble weeds, I'm am going to do the dance of all dances. I don't give a damn what the weather permits, I will be dancing in the streets. I might even give a block party! HELLO!
2006-09-14 09:00:46 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 1⤋
If the votes were actually counted like Democrats wanted and the Republicans didn't, the Democrats would have won.
Bush and the conservatives are some of the most anti-freedom people in this world but they would like you to believe that they represent freedom but, in reality, they're the furthest thing from freedom.
Liberals stand for the true meaning of freedom.
2006-09-14 09:04:17 · answer #6 · answered by p2prox 4 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Wat Ayo don't guve em ideas my dude.. I hate dat muthaFu**ker aight if he is elected again imma live in Mexico cuz I rater got through da shyt den live here or Canada anywhere away from America if he is yet again,God Forbid President wit his there Weapons of Mas Destruction (Bush Language) and his W everywhere I go I see him do W wit his fingures I seen enough sayin how da W stand for WINNER F**K no it meansWHITE F**KER
2006-09-14 10:51:28 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Nope
2006-09-14 08:58:00 · answer #8 · answered by Sally Pepsi 4 · 3⤊ 0⤋
No, and he was not "appointed." The Supreme Court UPHELD the decision of the Electoral College.
Good heavens, some people are ignorant!
2006-09-14 09:00:30 · answer #9 · answered by The_Cricket: Thinking Pink! 7 · 3⤊ 2⤋
If you took the time to read the actual decision, you'd know that he wasn't appointed. I'm sure that's too much trouble for you though, as it's much easier to make it up as you go, or parrot whatever your left-wing friends are peddling. You have a nice day now.
2006-09-14 08:59:25 · answer #10 · answered by Chris S 5 · 2⤊ 3⤋
James Baker is working on that
Go big Red Go
2006-09-14 08:58:54 · answer #11 · answered by 43 5 · 2⤊ 2⤋