Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

To: Do not dub me shapka broham
Without the votes of Republicans living in New York, California, Massachusetts, among all of the other states enumerated by this guy, George W. Bush would have lost the popular vote in 2004.

Popular vote? If strict Constitutionalists such as Scalia and Thomas read your post, they'd laugh at you. Nowhere in the Constitution does the popular vote have any meaning in Presidential elections.

67 posted on 10/11/2005 4:56:33 PM PDT by Vision Thing
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies ]


To: Vision Thing

no, they don't, but their votes kept the liberals from harping on the "he never won the popular vote" train.

Plus, even though they can't deliver their states, the blue states deliver a hell of a lot of money to the presidential campaign for republicans.

To insult them like this is idiotic.


72 posted on 10/11/2005 4:58:27 PM PDT by flashbunny (Sorry, but I'm allergic to KoolAid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies ]

To: Vision Thing
You're absolutely correct.

I was just using the imbecilic reasoning of the man who posted that utterly moronic piece.

After all, where the hell in the Constitution does it say that we have to be silent if we disagree with a decision made by the president?

74 posted on 10/11/2005 4:59:46 PM PDT by Do not dub me shapka broham ("We don't want a Supreme Court justice just like George W. Bush. We can do better.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson