<p>Hm...where in the constitution does it say that a person can't run again? Grover Cleveland did it. William Jennings Bryan ran several times. So did Nixon iirc. </p>
<p>You can't put the word constitution everywhere just to make it seem unconstitutional for him to run again. </p>
<p>FYI: Gore won Florida. The National Opinion Research Center at UChicago did a recount of all the votes. Gore would of won. :P Why did Bush win? Hm...could anyone tell me who was the governor? His brother...and a republican Floridian government. Democracy was cheated... :(</p>
<p>^See what I mean about not understanding the Constitution...First, I never said Gore couldn't run again. He is a joke, he can do whatever he wants. The liberals tried to unconstitutionally hustle a Florida 'recount' because the senile morons couldn't follow simple voting procedures.</p>
<p>Winning the popular vote and losing the electoral vote is kinda like having the most points through the game season and then losing the final...No matter how much your total points tally, you still lose. Get it?</p>
<p>Another pearl of wisdom. Our country is NOT A DEMOCRACY. Democracy is possibly the worst form of government, arguably worse than dictatorships.</p>
<p>gore does not have the charisma to win
geez he's like the most boring guy out there
plus hes creepy looking and people won't vote for an ugly president, we're too obsessed with looks to do that</p>
<p>bush won because the supreme court made him win not because of his brother</p>
<p>"This 'argument' that Barack Obama is too inexperienced is absolute hogwash. All of the major candidates have relevant experience in various roles related to governance, and none has ever run a country before. So they are all inexperienced, just as every president has been until they were elected for the first time."</p>
<ul>
<li>that's actually not true. he's only been involved in the national government for a few years now. he doesn't have the experience in dealing with foreign affairs and dealing with issues that affect the entire nation. it's not about whether he has experience leading the country, but it is about his experience in dealing with national and foreign issues.</li>
</ul>
<p>No candidate could possibly have experience in every major aspect of governance that affects the entire country. Not surprisingly, none of them do. How many of the candidates have little or no significant experience in foreign affairs? How many of the candidates have little or no significant experience in tax reform, military leadership, international economics, tort reform, or any of the other important areas that affect the entire country? That Obama is singled out by media outlets as "the inexperienced one" is insulting to the intelligence of Americans.</p>
<p>^There are lots of morons in America just like there are lots of morons in Canada, the UK, Sweden, and every other country in the world. Anyway, I don't want the above comment to detract from the more reasoned arguments that have been presented in this thread. (especially mine!)</p>
<p>Just saying there should be more stringent laws concerning voting..Some of the responses on this thread validate my point. You know, like a test on the Constitution, politics, and issues.</p>
<p>I'm a libertarian and will be voting republican this election because saving capitalism is more important to me than social issues. Even though I am deist, I would much rather have a "religious freak" in office who follows the constitution over a power-hungry socialist.</p>