It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Bill Clinton got 43% of the vote in 1992

page: 1
6

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 16 2017 @ 09:43 AM
link   
57% voted against him. Donald Trump did better. Got 46% of the vote.

en.wikipedia.org...

en.wikipedia.org...




posted on Feb, 16 2017 @ 09:45 AM
link   
a reply to: man404

Clinton won because Ross Perot got 19 million votes.



posted on Feb, 16 2017 @ 09:47 AM
link   
a reply to: jjkenobi

Back then there were 3 contenders. In 2016 there were 4. Trump, Clinton, Johnson, Stein.



posted on Feb, 16 2017 @ 09:49 AM
link   
a reply to: man404

At least the Country wasn't in utter chaos less than a month after he took office.



posted on Feb, 16 2017 @ 09:51 AM
link   
a reply to: ugmold

That's because there are so many Mexican citizens in the US now compared to back then. They wave Mexican flags. Beat people up.



posted on Feb, 16 2017 @ 09:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: ugmold
a reply to: man404

At least the Country wasn't in utter chaos less than a month after he took office.


Yeah it was chaos a few years later lol.



posted on Feb, 16 2017 @ 09:54 AM
link   
a reply to: ugmold


Chaos created by tantrum spaz hissyfits of "progressive" liberals destroying cities and assaulting innocent people. Which btw was already happening while he was president elect and not the sitting president.

So yes i agree with you but then i also recognize where the actual guilt lies.



posted on Feb, 16 2017 @ 09:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: man404
a reply to: jjkenobi

Back then there were 3 contenders. In 2016 there were 4. Trump, Clinton, Johnson, Stein.


Not really.

Stein got 1.3 million votes.
Johnson got 4.2 million votes.
Total of 5.5 million votes between the two.

Ross Perot got 19 million votes.
Clinton got 43 million.
Bush got 39 million.

Ross Perot completely affected the outcome of the 1992 election.



posted on Feb, 16 2017 @ 09:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: ugmold
a reply to: man404

At least the Country wasn't in utter chaos less than a month after he took office.


Yea, I'd assume the large majority of conservatives just took the loss as is and waited until the next election to win. Unlike what we see when the liberals lose the election. They like to riot while pillaging and destroying communities all under the guise of "protesting". Someone needs to give those people direction.



posted on Feb, 16 2017 @ 09:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: man404
a reply to: ugmold

That's because there are so many Mexican citizens in the US now compared to back then. They wave Mexican flags. Beat people up.

Breitbart style comments carry no weight here, although I see more everyday.



posted on Feb, 16 2017 @ 09:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: ugmold

originally posted by: man404
a reply to: ugmold

That's because there are so many Mexican citizens in the US now compared to back then. They wave Mexican flags. Beat people up.

Breitbart style comments carry no weight here, although I see more everyday.


maybe you are seeing them more and more because they are actually factual:




edit on America/ChicagovAmerica/ChicagoThu, 16 Feb 2017 10:01:03 -06001720172America/Chicago by everyone because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 16 2017 @ 10:02 AM
link   
a reply to: jjkenobi

Doesn't matter. Still 4 contenders compared to 3.



posted on Feb, 16 2017 @ 10:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: man404
57% voted against him. Donald Trump did better. Got 46% of the vote.

en.wikipedia.org...

en.wikipedia.org...


Hiliary Clinton got more then Trump at 48%



posted on Feb, 16 2017 @ 10:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: man404
a reply to: jjkenobi

Doesn't matter. Still 4 contenders compared to 3.


Sigh. Okay. Google 1992 Election results.

Bill Clinton (Dem)
George Bush (Rep)
Ross Perot (Ind)
Andre Marrou (Lib)

Four total contenders. Although I'm not sure why I'm even trying here, it doesn't matter how many people ran.



posted on Feb, 16 2017 @ 10:20 AM
link   
a reply to: jjkenobi

Okay I stand corrected. So 4 in both 1992 and 2016.



posted on Feb, 16 2017 @ 10:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: ugmold

Breitbart style comments carry no weight here, although I see more everyday.


How's this for weight?





posted on Feb, 16 2017 @ 11:06 AM
link   
The 1960 Election is probably another case where the candidate with lower popular vote got into office. I was looking at the 1960 election back in the fall and I didn't realize how close that actually was. The popular vote according to 270 to win was 34,227,096 to 34,107,646 in Kennedy's favor. With all of the voter fraud in that election, Kennedy might have actual had less votes than Nixon. Kennedy stole Illinois. If you give Illinois to Nixon, the result in Texas would have determined the election. Kennedy won Texas by 46,000 votes but there was a lot of suspicion of fraud in Texas. If you give Illinois and Texas to Nixon, the electoral college would have been Nixon-270 Kennedy-252 Byrd-15. Either way, with all of the fraud, Nixon probably won the popular vote.



posted on Feb, 16 2017 @ 01:18 PM
link   
a reply to: ugmold

I just looked out my window. Seems fine.



posted on Feb, 18 2017 @ 05:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheBulk

originally posted by: ugmold

Breitbart style comments carry no weight here, although I see more everyday.


How's this for weight?






Facts don't seem to carry much weight with the "progressives". But then again since when was that news anyway.



new topics

top topics



 
6

log in

join