I'm passing the buck onto you. If you cannot prove it, you have no truth. This is the way we argue with european.
duh, you want me to prove something didnt happen.... I dont think so. Once again I think you got nothing. You typed yourself into a corner and now youre trying to play to the crowd. Post something that links bush to buying the courts or STFU.
Oh, so you think Bush winning against his opponent Gore didn't actually happen now. Okies. You have no proof otherwise.
The court itself was conservative and the decisions to get to the court were heavily dominated by people in power who were outspoken Bush supporters in a state that had a governor who was Bush's brother
"buying" in politics doesn't have to mean cash was literally used to literally buy something, you gotta work on your metaphors man
The fact that we haven't addressed the electoral college yet is very telling. Must meet someone's goals. I saw no push after Bush's first election to address it, why is that?
For those that are interested: http://www.presidentelect.org/art_evpvdisagree.html http://www.historyhouse.com/in_history/electoral_college/
A few states I believe actually held votes on ways to split their electoral votes, but all the propositions failed.
Because it works equally, for and against the candidates/parties concerned. The system isnt for the people. It's for them.
id, have to say,it does not work equally! but the system was desinged so that the majority could not oppose their will on the minority, that being said, we are soppossed to have a represntitive gov. of witch we dont have at this time, 80%of the pepole that decide they want a certiane change our supossed representatives will vote contrary to our wants and needs and vote in favor of big money intrests, if you can show me they dont, i will concede to your kingship!