put an "H" in there and I will know wtf you are talking about.
So you did not like GWB, not Republican enough for you.
Who would be Republican enough for you?
Gotta love the "No true Scotsman" arguement.
Any facts that are inconvenient can safely be shunted aside simply because one does not like it using such an arguement.
Of course if one wishes to remain honest and use logic and reason instead one might have a better chance at being taken seriously. Whcih of course bodes ill for Robert.
Better question for Robert is perhaps who was the 'true' Republican who oversaw a balanced budeget?
Then again there is another question that remains open to this day. What well researched evidence is there that any organized, widespread voter fraud was committed during this last USA Federal election?
So far we have the cherry pickings that a tabloid printed.
In that Robert opines that if there were precincts in which Romney got no votes it must be fraud.
That of course is not a valid assumption with such relatively small and cherry picked samples. Let alone the fact that it is pure speculation based soley on the result rather than any actual evidence of changed votes. He shows us an anecdote about vote changes that has more holes in it than a sieve, as pointed out to him by several posters here.
I am sure that Robert can find us the well researched articles written that compare all precincts all across the nation and see how many voted unanimously in one way or the other. Given that Obama won the popular vote and the electoral college I would not be the least bit surprised at a few more of these outliers on his side but I believe that I can safely state that the number going each way will be close to 50/50.