By your faulty line of reasoning, Clinton never should have been awarded the presidency in 1992 or 1996. He only got 43% of the vote in 1992, which is a clear expression of the voter's "intent" to reject him for the office. And don't forget that 43% was with the Democrats usual fabricated votes (though they reached their productive peak in 2000). Similarly, in 1996 he was rejected by the "intent" of the majority of the voters.
Nevertheless, we have seen, in 2000, the absolute genius of the Electoral College, which prevented a party that fabricated as many as 2 million votes from stealing the government and establishing a Nazi dictatorship, with Carville as the new Goebbels. So I am willing to grant William the Bastard his two terms, even though the "intent" of the voters cried out for him to go home instead. Of course, I am consoled by the fact that he did so much damage to the American left and the party of Daschlegephardt during his two failed terms, that America's future is now a bit brighter, in that it will be generations before another Dem holds the office again... |
