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.

 

"Not My President" T-Shirts

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 9 2006 @ 10:13 AM
link   
When Bush was first voted into office, he received 47.9% of the popular vote, while Gore got 48.4%. This led to an uproar about how "we have a president that we didn't even vote for" since more (voting) citizens wanted Gore than Bush.

I'm not here to debate which guy was better (Giant Douche vs. Turd Sandwich) or if the electoral college is the way to go. I'm asking about the shirts.

Bill Clinton got into office with 43.0% of the vote. Now, I understand that the rest of the votes were divided between Bush Sr (37.4%) and Perot (18.9%), but this STILL means that less than half of the voting population wanted Clinton in office. If Perot had not run, Bush Sr's votes could have still been as low as 37.4% or as high as 56.3%. Different people (with different political preferences) will tell you opposing outcomes of the election if Perot had not been there.

That is still not my point.

What I am asking is why didn't more people brit a shick when Prez Clinton got into office without even 45% of the pop vote? Why didn't anyone make a "REALLY Not My President" T-shirt of Clinton?




posted on Mar, 9 2006 @ 10:37 AM
link   
LOL "not my president" t-shirts. If I were American I'd definitely have one



posted on Mar, 9 2006 @ 11:16 AM
link   
It's very rare when there are more than 2 people running for one to actually get more than 50% of the popular vote. So what can you do in such a case? Let them take turns leading? Nope, the most votes wins, period, that's the way it should be. The electoral college system is old and should be retired.



posted on Mar, 10 2006 @ 07:35 PM
link   
As I see it, or saw it, there was a consensus that Bush Sr. hardly tried in 92… plus to say that Clinton was less legit by winning 6% more when Bush didn’t even get 40% of the vote holds less water.

Keep in mind I did not vote for Clinton either time, but even though 3rd parties are looked down upon by Repub’s and Dem’s they are still very legit and I don’t feel you should take away from their votes however large or small in each election.

I thought the 2000 election the Dem’s had a legitimate beef, although one they couldn’t win without a definitive count… not going to open up that can of worms here
in 1992 we are talking about a 6% difference and a clear-cut winner regardless of how high the winning percentage was. In 2000 we had the guy with more votes not becoming President.

I posted a different thread here
www.abovetopsecret.com...
about elections being preplanned… let me know what you think…


johnnyg



posted on Mar, 10 2006 @ 09:34 PM
link   
I guess I don't get out enoguh. I haven't seen these T-shirts.

But, where is the deception, coverup or conspiracy?



posted on Mar, 12 2006 @ 04:36 PM
link   
I'd have to say that the clear difference is that, while bush jr got less popular votes than Clinton, its the fact that bush jrs, opponent got more popular votes than him that sets people off.



posted on Mar, 12 2006 @ 05:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ralph_The_Wonder_Llama
Why didn't anyone make a "REALLY Not My President" T-shirt of Clinton?


I think it's a matter of Bush1 vs Clinton being very much like Giant Douche vs. Turd Sandwich, pretty equally foul.

But when it came to GeeDub against Gore or Kerry, it was more like Evil, anti-christ, insane, dangerous hellion vs Giant Douche or Turd Sandwich.

I'll take Turd Sandwich for $200, Alex.



posted on Mar, 12 2006 @ 07:29 PM
link   
It's based on who won the majority during that election...Clinton won the majority of those who voted, where as Bush Jr in 2000 didn't.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join