Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


There's nothing in the constitution that says you must have a vote if all bar one candidate pulls out, is there?

The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two Persons, of whom one at least shall not be an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves. And they shall make a List of all the Persons voted for, and of the Number of Votes for each; which List they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the Seat of the Government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the Presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the Certificates, and the Votes shall then be counted. The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President, if such Number be a Majority of the whole Number of Electors appointed; and if there be more than one who have such Majority, and have an equal Number of Votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediately chuse by Ballot one of them for President; and if no Person have a Majority, then from the five highest on the List the said House shall in like Manner chuse the President. But in chusing the President, the Votes shall be taken by States, the Representation from each State having one Vote; A quorum for this Purpose shall consist of a Member or Members from two thirds of the States, and a Majority of all the States shall be necessary to a Choice. In every Case, after the Choice of the President, the Person having the greatest Number of Votes of the Electors shall be the Vice President. But if there should remain two or more who have equal Votes, the Senate shall chuse from them by Ballot the Vice President.*

The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.

No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

In Case of the Removal of the President from Office, or of his Death, Resignation, or Inability to discharge the Powers and Duties of the said Office, the Same shall devolve on the Vice President, and the Congress may by Law provide for the Case of Removal, Death, Resignation or Inability, both of the President and Vice President, declaring what Officer shall then act as President, and such Officer shall act accordingly, until the Disability be removed, or a President shall be elected.

The President shall, at stated Times, receive for his Services, a Compensation, which shall neither be encreased nor diminished during the Period for which he shall have been elected, and he shall not receive within that Period any other Emolument from the United States, or any of them.

Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:—"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

AMENDMENT XII
Passed by Congress December 9, 1803. Ratified June 15, 1804.

The Electors shall meet in their respective states and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President, and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate; -- the President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted; -- The person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. [And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice-President shall act as President, as in case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President. --]* The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed, and if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.

AMENDMENT XX
Passed by Congress March 2, 1932. Ratified January 23, 1933.

Note: Article I, section 4, of the Constitution was modified by section 2 of this amendment. In addition, a portion of the 12th amendment was superseded by section 3.

Section 1.
The terms of the President and the Vice President shall end at noon on the 20th day of January, and the terms of Senators and Representatives at noon on the 3d day of January, of the years in which such terms would have ended if this article had not been ratified; and the terms of their successors shall then begin.

Section 2.
The Congress shall assemble at least once in every year, and such meeting shall begin at noon on the 3d day of January, unless they shall by law appoint a different day.

Section 3.
If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of the President, the President elect shall have died, the Vice President elect shall become President. If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President elect shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified.

Section 4.
The Congress may by law provide for the case of the death of any of the persons from whom the House of Representatives may choose a President whenever the right of choice shall have devolved upon them, and for the case of the death of any of the persons from whom the Senate may choose a Vice President whenever the right of choice shall have devolved upon them.

Section 5.
Sections 1 and 2 shall take effect on the 15th day of October following the ratification of this article.

Section 6.
This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years from the date of its submission.

 Tannhauser42 wrote:

 BigWaaagh wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/08/16/shame-on-you-rick-perry-takes-fallen-muslim-soldiers-father-to-task-for-attacking-trump/?tid=pm_politics_pop_b#comments

So, this guy is a moron

Ahhh, Rick "The world is 5000 years old" Perry...moron is a few rungs up on the ladder for this guy. Somebody from Texas has got to explain him being elected governor to me.

He was the Republican nominee. That's about the long and short of it.
Too bad we can't resurrect Ann Richards.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Question: If Trump's ratings keeping tanking, and Trump decides to throw in the towel, is it all over? The GOP can't parachute somebody else in can they?

There's nothing in the constitution that says you must have a vote if all bar one candidate pulls out, is there?

 jasper76 wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Question: If Trump's ratings keeping tanking, and Trump decides to throw in the towel, is it all over? The GOP can't parachute somebody else in can they?

There's nothing in the constitution that says you must have a vote if all bar one candidate pulls out, is there?

Think they can, and it would likely be Pence. But I doubt Trump drops out. IME, this would be the nightmare scenario for the Democrats. The electorate can't stomach an idiot like Trump, but they may find a new fresh candidate appealing given Clinton's relative unpopularity.

 jasper76 wrote:
IME, this would be the nightmare scenario for the Democrats. The electorate can't stomach an idiot like Trump, but they may find a new fresh candidate appealing given Clinton's relative unpopularity.

 Peregrine wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
IME, this would be the nightmare scenario for the Democrats. The electorate can't stomach an idiot like Trump, but they may find a new fresh candidate appealing given Clinton's relative unpopularity.

No, it would be the best possible outcome for the democrats. Trump dropping out takes his supporters with him (remember, more republican voters wanted Trump than any other candidate) which should more than offset any losses from the "I'm only voting D because of Trump" republicans, and then the republican party has to desperately scramble to find and legitimize a replacement candidate in a very short time. And really, who are they going to pick? Cruz was the second-place candidate in the primaries and he's pretty awful. Kasich is weak and only got the votes he did by stubbornly staying in the race long past the point where it was obvious that he wasn't going to win and collecting all of the "ugh, Trump and Cruz both suck" votes. Then below those two you have a bunch of failures who couldn't even manage more than 5% in the primaries. Do they pick some random anonymous governor that didn't even bother to run, and hope that everyone hates Clinton so much that they'll vote for a complete stranger just because they have that R next to their name?

Prestor Jon wrote:
Actually the majority of Republican primary voters voted for somebody other than Trump. Trump is the Republican nominee who has received the lowest percentage of primary votes since 1968, he is literally the most unpopular Republican nominee in over half a century.

 jasper76 wrote:
@Peregrine: You could be right, but I tend to think there are probably a whole lot of voters who would jump at the chance to vote for someone besides Trump or Clinton. Let's call them "Johnson voters".

In any case, I'd think in the unlikely event that Trump decided to drop out,.it would likely fall to Pence, no?

 Peregrine wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:
Actually the majority of Republican primary voters voted for somebody other than Trump. Trump is the Republican nominee who has received the lowest percentage of primary votes since 1968, he is literally the most unpopular Republican nominee in over half a century.

Right, but the non-Trump votes were split among a bunch of different candidates. Trump was the most popular candidate, and not by a small margin. Remember, the primaries were effectively over long before the final votes were cast, and the only question was whether Trump would win by a large enough majority to be guaranteed the nomination or if people could cling to the last desperate hope of an unrestricted convention vote where Trump's delegates could abandon him. Cruz was the only meaningful threat to Trump, and he fell well short of the nomination. So, if Trump is the least popular nominee in over half a century what does that say about the pathetic failures who couldn't even beat Trump?

 Bookwrack wrote:


So, who's seen this already? I'm uncomfortably reminded of when it turned out that the Romney campaign was so far up their own asses that there wasn't even a concession speech prepared when he lost the 2012 election.

I mean, the Trump campaign has shown they'ce crawled so far up their own butts, that they came out the other side and are halfway through doing it again, but this is getting absolutely surreal. Where the feth can this even go in the next two months?

 jasper76 wrote:
I'm watching the Green Party town hall. Pretty meh. Their VP got called out for calling Obama and Uncle Tom, and things got award and squirmy straight off the bat.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
When asked about her path to victory, Stein said there are 43 million with student debt. Her campaign is the only one that will cancel that debt, and if all of them voted for her, she could flip the vote.

(Obviously not a winning strategy, but it'd be hilarious if it happened)

 Frazzled wrote:
It would fall to Pence. This will not happen as it would defeat the purpose of Trump running in the first place-clearing a path for HRC. The Republicans just fell for it.

 Ustrello wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
I'm watching the Green Party town hall. Pretty meh. Their VP got called out for calling Obama and Uncle Tom, and things got award and squirmy straight off the bat.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
When asked about her path to victory, Stein said there are 43 million with student debt. Her campaign is the only one that will cancel that debt, and if all of them voted for her, she could flip the vote.

(Obviously not a winning strategy, but it'd be hilarious if it happened)

The green party (much like the libertarian) is a joke and their only way to garner any headlines or support is to say stupid gak

 Steve steveson wrote:
They need to take a look at the Lib Dem's in the UK. They prommised all sorts of stuff they knew they could nto actualy deliver. They then managed to get in to power, and had no idea what to do, so got crucified at the next election. They did not have much power, but they were not offering quite so bat gak insain stuff as your guys fringe parties are.

 Steve steveson wrote:

 Ustrello wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
I'm watching the Green Party town hall. Pretty meh. Their VP got called out for calling Obama and Uncle Tom, and things got award and squirmy straight off the bat.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
When asked about her path to victory, Stein said there are 43 million with student debt. Her campaign is the only one that will cancel that debt, and if all of them voted for her, she could flip the vote.

(Obviously not a winning strategy, but it'd be hilarious if it happened)

The green party (much like the libertarian) is a joke and their only way to garner any headlines or support is to say stupid gak

They need to take a look at the Lib Dem's in the UK. They prommised all sorts of stuff they knew they could nto actualy deliver. They then managed to get in to power, and had no idea what to do, so got crucified at the next election. They did not have much power, but they were not offering quite so bat gak insain stuff as your guys fringe parties are.

 Ustrello wrote:

So just when you think the trump train couldn't get any sadder he posted a "doctors" note about his health

https://www.donaldjtrump.com/images/uploads/trump_health_record.pdf

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Ustrello wrote:

So just when you think the trump train couldn't get any sadder he posted a "doctors" note about his health

https://www.donaldjtrump.com/images/uploads/trump_health_record.pdf

"To whom my concern" Typo in the first line always instils confidence

Apparently Donald Trump tested positive for everything, too. Wonder what they were testing him for

Also, "astonishingly excellent" test results? In my experience I have never had a doctor refer to test results as astonishing

Also, it's no wonder his BP is 110/65 if he is on an 81mg daily dose of Aspirin. That is a big dose. After my kidney transplant I was put on medication which had a side effect of increasing my blood pressure and I was put on a 25mg dose of aspirin every other day to counter it. Him having to take Statin also implies that he is having to control his cholesterol levels.

Extraordinary physical strength and stamina? What kind of check up was this?

And this is definitely the website of an excellent doctor who also gives out his personal email address on his letterheads http://www.haroldbornsteinmd.com/

Honestly about all it was missing was a comment that Donald Trump has the best hands, just the best, and also the biggest penis he had ever seen which was capable of maintaining an erection for hours with no pharmaceutical help.

 Maddermax wrote:


Yeah, be careful linking to that site, someone was saying it was bringing up virus warnings.

Donald Trump has given two major speeches this week. Unsurprisingly, his campaign has said he did a great job. This morning, Rudy Giuliani seemed to imply the Republican nominee had actually done a really, really great job — maybe the best job ever.

The former New York mayor offered that characteristically understated evaluation Wednesday morning on “Fox and Friends.”

“Those two speeches were the two most substantive, I would say historic, speeches that any presidential candidate has made in a very long time,” he said of Trump’s speeches both Tuesday and Monday, when Trump laid out his vision for fighting terrorism.

Then Giuliani went big. After clips of Trump’s Tuesday speech played, he said:

“I think this is the best speech that any Republican, at the least, has ever given. Democrats never talk about law and order, so they leave out one part of it. There are two parts to fixing the problems in the American cities that Democrats have controlled for 50 to 100 years. In the case of that city, they haven’t had a Republican mayor since 1906 in Milwaukee. Now, New York City had a Republican mayor, me. We went down in homicide by 75 percent, other crime 60 percent, unemployment cut in half.”

So ... maybe Giuliani just misspoke again, as he did Monday when he said there had not been terrorist attacks on U.S. soil in the eight years before Barack Obama’s presidency.

But if he didn’t — and he meant exactly what he said — that would place Trump’s speech ahead of:

Abraham Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address (1863)
Ronald Reagan’s “Tear Down This Wall” (1987)
Reagan’s “Evil Empire” (1983)
Reagan’s “A Time for Choosing” (1964)
Dwight Eisenhower’s farewell “Military-Industrial Complex”speech (1961)
Theodore Roosevelt’s “The Man with the Muckrake” (1906)
George W. Bush’s “Our Mission and Our Moment” after 9/11 (2001)
Let’s say, for argument’s sake, that he only meant Republican presidential candidates — as he specified in his previous quote about Trump’s two speeches Monday and Tuesday. That would place Trump ahead of:

Reagan’s 1976 concession speech
Reagan’s speech at Liberty State Park (1980) — “A recession is when your neighbor loses his job. A depression is when you lose yours. And recovery is when Jimmy Carter loses his.”
Reagan’s “A Time to Recapture Our Destiny” speech at the 1980 GOP convention
Dwight Eisenhower’s “I Shall Go to Korea” (1952)
Roosevelt’s speech after being shot in 1912: “It Takes More than That to Kill a Bull Moose” (so he wasn't running as a Republican then, but still — the man got shot)
Lincoln’s Cooper Union speech (1860) — “Does the proper division of local from federal authority, or anything in the Constitution, forbid our Federal Government to control as to slavery in our Federal Territories? Upon this, Sen. Stephen Douglas holds the affirmative, and Republicans the negative.”
Barry Goldwater’s “Extremism in the Defense of Liberty is No Vice” (1964)
(Obviously, this is an incomplete list.)

We weren’t around for most of these speeches, so we can’t say for sure whether these guys might have matched Trump’s performance. But we can just say they mostly seem to have gotten pretty good reviews. Time will tell, as they say.

 Ustrello wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
I'm watching the Green Party town hall. Pretty meh. Their VP got called out for calling Obama and Uncle Tom, and things got award and squirmy straight off the bat.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
When asked about her path to victory, Stein said there are 43 million with student debt. Her campaign is the only one that will cancel that debt, and if all of them voted for her, she could flip the vote.

(Obviously not a winning strategy, but it'd be hilarious if ihappened)

The green party (much like the libertarian) is a joke and their only way to garner any headlines or support is to say stupid gak

 kronk wrote:
They left Kennedy's "I am a doughnut" off that list.

 jasper76 wrote:
In any case, I seriously hope all 4 tickets make the debate, no matter if they receive 15% or not. That rule is a joke, it's undemocratic, totally designed to keep Republicans and Democrats in perpetual incumbency.

 jmurph wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
In any case, I seriously hope all 4 tickets make the debate, no matter if they receive 15% or not. That rule is a joke, it's undemocratic, totally designed to keep Republicans and Democrats in perpetual incumbency.

You seem surprised by this.

Stein has some ridiculous positions that make her completely unsuited. Her anti-vaxxer, anti-power (as in nuclear, coal, etc.), anti-military stances are absurd. Johnson is slightly less extreme, and probably would reflect a fair amount of Republicans. Interestingly, polling indicates that the third party candidates are drawing more from HRC than Trump, as she polls higher without them.

Those who think this will be a blowout may be in for a rude shock about how close it may be. I would still guess Trump draws close to 40% of the vote. Think about that for a minute.