I'm equating number of votes and where (in our messed up democracy with the entire electoral college) to say the we chose the guy to be president. The case went in front of the US Supreme Court who, if I'm not mistaken, are supposed to set aside their personal feelings and decide on issues based on the letter and the intent of the law, just like every Judge out there. It's our laws and processes that got us Bush. However it went, "the people" had chose Bush. Even if it wasn't the first time, we definitely chose him the second time. If you want to dispute his election, tell your district's Congress(wo)man and Senator. After all--you had a say in their election and they're there to represent you.
Enough of this--Bush was elected twice in one form or another. You had a say in this, I didn't. The only evidence of a purchased or an attempt to purchase an election in this thread was done by Democrats. Give me a solid (as in no conspiracy theorist nutjobs) evidence that the election was purchases and I'll rethink my position. Heck--give me any non-conspiracy evidence and I'll rethink my position.
I'm not american. I didn't vote for him.
What I'm asking is - what does it matter how many people voted for him? What relevance does it have to a persons quality as a leader? The masses can choose complete idiots - it happens quite often. The masses are...well...dumb.
So how can you state that X is a better leader than Y simply because X had more votes? 
I don't know if I accomplished my exact goals with the statement. What I was saying is either way we chose him. Election fraud or no, it's our system that we should influence. Yeah, the masses are a bunch of idiots voting along party lines. There's no doubt that
most elections are won because a candidate is from the more popular party, not because they're a better choice.
The biggest example of the opposite of this is Obama's support base stemming from more than just Democrats--he has many anti-Clinton supporters from both Democratic and Republican parties. Many Republics will rally their support just to keep Clinton from an arguably third term in office. Back in the late 1700s, the founding fathers never thought of a man running for president and then his wife running for president--effectively doubling their power over the country and becoming a sort of monarchy.
Regardless of the
post-WWII limit of 2 terms for a president, Washington himself started the sort of 2-term limit tradition for whatever reasons he did (old age, fear of a monarchy, &c). It was followed by most presidents prior to WWII, and Roosevelt only stayed in office to support the British and see WWII through. Wartime presidents get elected because a switch in power usually disrupts the war effort. We helped thousands more people in Iraq and Afghanistan than the liberal media will tell us about on a daily basis. They've basically made us forget about the war.
As Iraq and Afghanistan stabilize, we hear less and less about it. No doubt the media chooses what to show and what not to show--they try to direct our attention towards one issue or another. As long as they make advertising revenue and keep a high number of viewers, they'll continue with that. I think one reason we hear less about the war is people started tuning out of it--the war basically marked the true end of my childhood. At 10 years old, I started seeing and hearing and being exposed to the outside world's problems as well as the end of an even worse experience--visitation.
Anyways--the masses are dumb. They're a flock of sheep being led to a slaughterhouse by both the Democratic and the Republican parties. On a whole, we gave up our voices to those ambitious enough to take them from us--our own local politicians. We are so blind of the abuses the government, again Democratic or Republican, on us that we willingly accept them. One thing that immediately comes to mind is state-run burglary--or the lottery. In my state of New York at least, the lottery is meant to help pay for the education system. However, most of the profits are being used anywhere BUT the education system. The only money that really goes from the lottery to education is all for publicity and a burst of new stuff--computers, projectors, calculators, and text books. Stuff that'll almost always be broken or outdated within 3-5 years. The lottery rarely seems to give a handout, and when they do they make sure every local TV station hears about it and makes a story about it.
