The General Election

[BigRedBuster]

 

 

 

I shouldn't be voting for a candidate specifically because they could win. I should be voting for the candidate who best represents what I want in that office. If that's Johnson, regardless of his chances of wining, that's who I should vote for.

 

You vote your conscious Knapp! I would not condemn anyone that did/does so, and in fact, this is the way it is supposed to be.

 

Q. If this was a life and death decision, weighing risk on the outcome, how would that affect your vote?

 

 

It is a life and death decision. These people have the power to create a Supreme Court that will directly affect my life. Their policies and laws dictate how I'm able to live, and in some cases, how I can die.

 

 

Very good!

 

Me personally, I am having an extremely difficult time looking at any of them and their platforms, and saying, this or that candidate represents whats best for my children's future.

 

It's like being forced to chose my preferred way to die and my choices are, firing squad, ran over by a tank, or jump out of an airplane without a parachute.

 

So, I'll ask you a question.

 

Why then are you going to vote for one of them?

 

Your statement sounds just like Knapp's and mine.

[TAKODA]

 

 

 

 

I shouldn't be voting for a candidate specifically because they could win. I should be voting for the candidate who best represents what I want in that office. If that's Johnson, regardless of his chances of wining, that's who I should vote for.

 

You vote your conscious Knapp! I would not condemn anyone that did/does so, and in fact, this is the way it is supposed to be.

 

Q. If this was a life and death decision, weighing risk on the outcome, how would that affect your vote?

 

 

It is a life and death decision. These people have the power to create a Supreme Court that will directly affect my life. Their policies and laws dictate how I'm able to live, and in some cases, how I can die.

 

 

Very good!

 

Me personally, I am having an extremely difficult time looking at any of them and their platforms, and saying, this or that candidate represents whats best for my children's future.

 

It's like being forced to chose my preferred way to die and my choices are, firing squad, ran over by a tank, or jump out of an airplane without a parachute.

 

So, I'll ask you a question.

 

Why then are you going to vote for one of them?

 

Your statement sounds just like Knapp's and mine.

 

 

Not sure that I have made such a commitment yet, however I feel it's my responsibility and duty to cast my vote. I would love to see the option of None of the above as part of the election process and then if "none of the above" collects the majority, it forces a re-do. Although we are all sick and tired of all the drama and the length of the process, I think in this election, it would be the best option.

[BigRedBuster]

 

 

 

 

 

I shouldn't be voting for a candidate specifically because they could win. I should be voting for the candidate who best represents what I want in that office. If that's Johnson, regardless of his chances of wining, that's who I should vote for.

 

You vote your conscious Knapp! I would not condemn anyone that did/does so, and in fact, this is the way it is supposed to be.

 

Q. If this was a life and death decision, weighing risk on the outcome, how would that affect your vote?

 

 

It is a life and death decision. These people have the power to create a Supreme Court that will directly affect my life. Their policies and laws dictate how I'm able to live, and in some cases, how I can die.

 

 

Very good!

 

Me personally, I am having an extremely difficult time looking at any of them and their platforms, and saying, this or that candidate represents whats best for my children's future.

 

It's like being forced to chose my preferred way to die and my choices are, firing squad, ran over by a tank, or jump out of an airplane without a parachute.

 

So, I'll ask you a question.

 

Why then are you going to vote for one of them?

 

Your statement sounds just like Knapp's and mine.

 

 

Not sure that I have made such a commitment yet, however I feel it's my responsibility and duty to cast my vote. I would love to see the option of None of the above as part of the election process and then if "none of the above" collects the majority, it forces a re-do. Although we are all sick and tired of all the drama and the length of the process, I think in this election, it would be the best option.

 

I would love that option.

 

Let me throw out another one.

 

Johnson/Weld

 

A handful of people in Washington are ruining America for 330 million of us. They have kept our nation in a state of perpetual war and increasing, unsustainable debt. This small group, which includes both major party leaders, has presided over the systematic dismantling of the freedoms guaranteed us under our Constitution. It is them we should be fighting, not each other.

​

We the People will never agree on all of the small things, but let’s agree on the big thing: Our leaders have blown it. If we don’t get control of this ship together and fix it together, we will all go down with it together.

Be Libertarian with us…​

Join us in trying something different.

Let’s put parties and differences aside while we solve our problems.

Together we’ll stop the spending and end the wars.

Together we’ll restore our industrial might.

Together, we’ll rebuild our own roads, bridges, schools and hospitals instead of building them for countries half a world away.

And if, in four years, we as a people decide we didn’t like peace, prosperity and freedom, we can always vote tyranny back into office again.​

 

[huKSer]

I wish I would stop double posting.

 

Try running a crossing pattern instead.

[TAKODA]

 

 

 

 

 

 

I shouldn't be voting for a candidate specifically because they could win. I should be voting for the candidate who best represents what I want in that office. If that's Johnson, regardless of his chances of wining, that's who I should vote for.

 

You vote your conscious Knapp! I would not condemn anyone that did/does so, and in fact, this is the way it is supposed to be.

 

Q. If this was a life and death decision, weighing risk on the outcome, how would that affect your vote?

 

 

It is a life and death decision. These people have the power to create a Supreme Court that will directly affect my life. Their policies and laws dictate how I'm able to live, and in some cases, how I can die.

 

 

Very good!

 

Me personally, I am having an extremely difficult time looking at any of them and their platforms, and saying, this or that candidate represents whats best for my children's future.

 

It's like being forced to chose my preferred way to die and my choices are, firing squad, ran over by a tank, or jump out of an airplane without a parachute.

 

So, I'll ask you a question.

 

Why then are you going to vote for one of them?

 

Your statement sounds just like Knapp's and mine.

 

 

Not sure that I have made such a commitment yet, however I feel it's my responsibility and duty to cast my vote. I would love to see the option of None of the above as part of the election process and then if "none of the above" collects the majority, it forces a re-do. Although we are all sick and tired of all the drama and the length of the process, I think in this election, it would be the best option.

 

I would love that option.

 

Let me throw out another one.

 

Johnson/Weld

 

A handful of people in Washington are ruining America for 330 million of us. They have kept our nation in a state of perpetual war and increasing, unsustainable debt. This small group, which includes both major party leaders, has presided over the systematic dismantling of the freedoms guaranteed us under our Constitution. It is them we should be fighting, not each other.

​

We the People will never agree on all of the small things, but let’s agree on the big thing: Our leaders have blown it. If we don’t get control of this ship together and fix it together, we will all go down with it together.

Be Libertarian with us…​

Join us in trying something different.

Let’s put parties and differences aside while we solve our problems.

Together we’ll stop the spending and end the wars.

Together we’ll restore our industrial might.

Together, we’ll rebuild our own roads, bridges, schools and hospitals instead of building them for countries half a world away.

And if, in four years, we as a people decide we didn’t like peace, prosperity and freedom, we can always vote tyranny back into office again.​

 

 

 

I would rather see no one get enough electoral votes and then the speaker of the house would take over until a new election is conducted. By that time, maybe Ryan would be compelled to accept the nomination?

[BigRedBuster]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I shouldn't be voting for a candidate specifically because they could win. I should be voting for the candidate who best represents what I want in that office. If that's Johnson, regardless of his chances of wining, that's who I should vote for.

 

You vote your conscious Knapp! I would not condemn anyone that did/does so, and in fact, this is the way it is supposed to be.

 

Q. If this was a life and death decision, weighing risk on the outcome, how would that affect your vote?

 

 

It is a life and death decision. These people have the power to create a Supreme Court that will directly affect my life. Their policies and laws dictate how I'm able to live, and in some cases, how I can die.

 

 

Very good!

 

Me personally, I am having an extremely difficult time looking at any of them and their platforms, and saying, this or that candidate represents whats best for my children's future.

 

It's like being forced to chose my preferred way to die and my choices are, firing squad, ran over by a tank, or jump out of an airplane without a parachute.

 

So, I'll ask you a question.

 

Why then are you going to vote for one of them?

 

Your statement sounds just like Knapp's and mine.

 

 

Not sure that I have made such a commitment yet, however I feel it's my responsibility and duty to cast my vote. I would love to see the option of None of the above as part of the election process and then if "none of the above" collects the majority, it forces a re-do. Although we are all sick and tired of all the drama and the length of the process, I think in this election, it would be the best option.

 

I would love that option.

 

Let me throw out another one.

 

Johnson/Weld

 

A handful of people in Washington are ruining America for 330 million of us. They have kept our nation in a state of perpetual war and increasing, unsustainable debt. This small group, which includes both major party leaders, has presided over the systematic dismantling of the freedoms guaranteed us under our Constitution. It is them we should be fighting, not each other.

​

We the People will never agree on all of the small things, but let’s agree on the big thing: Our leaders have blown it. If we don’t get control of this ship together and fix it together, we will all go down with it together.

Be Libertarian with us…​

Join us in trying something different.

Let’s put parties and differences aside while we solve our problems.

Together we’ll stop the spending and end the wars.

Together we’ll restore our industrial might.

Together, we’ll rebuild our own roads, bridges, schools and hospitals instead of building them for countries half a world away.

And if, in four years, we as a people decide we didn’t like peace, prosperity and freedom, we can always vote tyranny back into office again.​

 

 

 

I would rather see no one get enough electoral votes and then the speaker of the house would take over until a new election is conducted. By that time, maybe Ryan would be compelled to accept the nomination?

 

How is that going to happen if everyone just falls in line behind an R or D (even though they hate those options)?

[huKSer]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Trump seems to be getting a surge lately probably due to the email decision and him not doing anything overly stupid that last week or so. I expect to see his numbers go up over the next couple weeks due to the convention bounce. But I think that Hillary will gain all/most of it back after the D convention.

We are basically in a worthless dead period in the campaign. Really, the only news worthy items that have happened in the last few weeks is the email decision and Trump's soap opera VP search.

 

In other words, Trump hasn't opened his mouth up much lately to be able to spew idiotic stuff that can be thrown back at him.

 

I suspect once the conventions happen and things get cranked back up, he won't be able to help himself and it will be back to business as usual.

 

 

Which, if you think about it, is really damning against Clinton. Trump has a bump in the polls right now not because of something he's done, but because of something he hasn't done - open his mouth.

 

It basically means we could prop a watermelon in an Armani suit in front of a camera and it'd be polling nearly as well as Hillary Clinton.

 

As long as they have an R or a D beside their name. God forbid if someone without an R or a D tries to actually be sensible and run. Roughly 90% of the country will just say..."Oh...he doesn't have a chance.".

 

 

You're right. But that's because generations of Americans have grown up thinking Democrats & Republicans are "the government." That's our fault as much as anything.

 

That's why I'm voting Johnson this year. Screw 'em all. I'm done with these parties.

 

 

Knapp, totally appreciate your thoughts here and I too, am troubled that we are between a rock and a hard place, but you and I both know, Johnson don't have a chance in heck to win the election, thus, all of us who have the same type of thought process, would be wasting our vote and we will ultimately end up with one of the two that we have zero confidence in, running our country.

 

Voting the lesser of two evils here, is not a winning strategy either!

 

And there we are....

 

 

That didn't take long.

 

 

Tell me I am wrong?

 

You would be wrong if people would stop saying.."I'm not voting for him because he doesn't have a chance"

 

 

The only legitimate chance Johnson could win is, if the other two candidates did not get enough electoral votes to secure the white house, and then, only then, the Presidential appointment would be in the hands of The House of Representatives.

 

Explain why that is.

Its in the Constitution.

 

The popular vote does not elect the President. It tells the members of the electorial college how to vote. In case of a tie (which only happened before political parties came about) or no clear majority the election process then goes to the House of Rep to vote and they can vote however they want. It would still take a miracle for the republicans not to vote in Trump. Or maybe sanity and compromise will prevail, but I doubt it.

 

Edit: But then again Trump could open his mouth and anger enough people to insure his defeat.

[BigRedBuster]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Trump seems to be getting a surge lately probably due to the email decision and him not doing anything overly stupid that last week or so. I expect to see his numbers go up over the next couple weeks due to the convention bounce. But I think that Hillary will gain all/most of it back after the D convention.

We are basically in a worthless dead period in the campaign. Really, the only news worthy items that have happened in the last few weeks is the email decision and Trump's soap opera VP search.

 

In other words, Trump hasn't opened his mouth up much lately to be able to spew idiotic stuff that can be thrown back at him.

 

I suspect once the conventions happen and things get cranked back up, he won't be able to help himself and it will be back to business as usual.

 

 

Which, if you think about it, is really damning against Clinton. Trump has a bump in the polls right now not because of something he's done, but because of something he hasn't done - open his mouth.

 

It basically means we could prop a watermelon in an Armani suit in front of a camera and it'd be polling nearly as well as Hillary Clinton.

 

As long as they have an R or a D beside their name. God forbid if someone without an R or a D tries to actually be sensible and run. Roughly 90% of the country will just say..."Oh...he doesn't have a chance.".

 

 

You're right. But that's because generations of Americans have grown up thinking Democrats & Republicans are "the government." That's our fault as much as anything.

 

That's why I'm voting Johnson this year. Screw 'em all. I'm done with these parties.

 

 

Knapp, totally appreciate your thoughts here and I too, am troubled that we are between a rock and a hard place, but you and I both know, Johnson don't have a chance in heck to win the election, thus, all of us who have the same type of thought process, would be wasting our vote and we will ultimately end up with one of the two that we have zero confidence in, running our country.

 

Voting the lesser of two evils here, is not a winning strategy either!

 

And there we are....

 

 

That didn't take long.

 

 

Tell me I am wrong?

 

You would be wrong if people would stop saying.."I'm not voting for him because he doesn't have a chance"

 

 

The only legitimate chance Johnson could win is, if the other two candidates did not get enough electoral votes to secure the white house, and then, only then, the Presidential appointment would be in the hands of The House of Representatives.

 

Explain why that is.

Its in the Constitution.

 

The popular vote does not elect the President. It tells the members of the electorial college how to vote. In case of a tie (which only happened before political parties came about) or no clear majority the election process then goes to the House of Rep to vote and they can vote however they want. It would still take a miracle for the republicans not to vote in Trump. Or maybe sanity and compromise will prevail, but I doubt it.

 

I was talking about why Johnson basically has no chance.

[TAKODA]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I shouldn't be voting for a candidate specifically because they could win. I should be voting for the candidate who best represents what I want in that office. If that's Johnson, regardless of his chances of wining, that's who I should vote for.

 

You vote your conscious Knapp! I would not condemn anyone that did/does so, and in fact, this is the way it is supposed to be.

 

Q. If this was a life and death decision, weighing risk on the outcome, how would that affect your vote?

 

 

It is a life and death decision. These people have the power to create a Supreme Court that will directly affect my life. Their policies and laws dictate how I'm able to live, and in some cases, how I can die.

 

 

Very good!

 

Me personally, I am having an extremely difficult time looking at any of them and their platforms, and saying, this or that candidate represents whats best for my children's future.

 

It's like being forced to chose my preferred way to die and my choices are, firing squad, ran over by a tank, or jump out of an airplane without a parachute.

 

So, I'll ask you a question.

 

Why then are you going to vote for one of them?

 

Your statement sounds just like Knapp's and mine.

 

 

Not sure that I have made such a commitment yet, however I feel it's my responsibility and duty to cast my vote. I would love to see the option of None of the above as part of the election process and then if "none of the above" collects the majority, it forces a re-do. Although we are all sick and tired of all the drama and the length of the process, I think in this election, it would be the best option.

 

I would love that option.

 

Let me throw out another one.

 

Johnson/Weld

 

A handful of people in Washington are ruining America for 330 million of us. They have kept our nation in a state of perpetual war and increasing, unsustainable debt. This small group, which includes both major party leaders, has presided over the systematic dismantling of the freedoms guaranteed us under our Constitution. It is them we should be fighting, not each other.

​

We the People will never agree on all of the small things, but let’s agree on the big thing: Our leaders have blown it. If we don’t get control of this ship together and fix it together, we will all go down with it together.

Be Libertarian with us…​

Join us in trying something different.

Let’s put parties and differences aside while we solve our problems.

Together we’ll stop the spending and end the wars.

Together we’ll restore our industrial might.

Together, we’ll rebuild our own roads, bridges, schools and hospitals instead of building them for countries half a world away.

And if, in four years, we as a people decide we didn’t like peace, prosperity and freedom, we can always vote tyranny back into office again.​

 

 

 

I would rather see no one get enough electoral votes and then the speaker of the house would take over until a new election is conducted. By that time, maybe Ryan would be compelled to accept the nomination?

 

How is that going to happen if everyone just falls in line behind an R or D (even though they hate those options)?

 

 

If you believe the maps and who is going to win what states electoral votes, it would be a tough road to hoe. Johnson would have to carry the vote in New Hampshire, New Mexico, and California, or a combination of states that equal enough votes to styme the electoral vote quota. If he won those three states it would be nearly guaranteed to be thrown to the house with him having 64 delegates

[BigRedBuster]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I shouldn't be voting for a candidate specifically because they could win. I should be voting for the candidate who best represents what I want in that office. If that's Johnson, regardless of his chances of wining, that's who I should vote for.

 

You vote your conscious Knapp! I would not condemn anyone that did/does so, and in fact, this is the way it is supposed to be.

 

Q. If this was a life and death decision, weighing risk on the outcome, how would that affect your vote?

 

 

It is a life and death decision. These people have the power to create a Supreme Court that will directly affect my life. Their policies and laws dictate how I'm able to live, and in some cases, how I can die.

 

 

Very good!

 

Me personally, I am having an extremely difficult time looking at any of them and their platforms, and saying, this or that candidate represents whats best for my children's future.

 

It's like being forced to chose my preferred way to die and my choices are, firing squad, ran over by a tank, or jump out of an airplane without a parachute.

 

So, I'll ask you a question.

 

Why then are you going to vote for one of them?

 

Your statement sounds just like Knapp's and mine.

 

 

Not sure that I have made such a commitment yet, however I feel it's my responsibility and duty to cast my vote. I would love to see the option of None of the above as part of the election process and then if "none of the above" collects the majority, it forces a re-do. Although we are all sick and tired of all the drama and the length of the process, I think in this election, it would be the best option.

 

I would love that option.

 

Let me throw out another one.

 

Johnson/Weld

 

A handful of people in Washington are ruining America for 330 million of us. They have kept our nation in a state of perpetual war and increasing, unsustainable debt. This small group, which includes both major party leaders, has presided over the systematic dismantling of the freedoms guaranteed us under our Constitution. It is them we should be fighting, not each other.

​

We the People will never agree on all of the small things, but let’s agree on the big thing: Our leaders have blown it. If we don’t get control of this ship together and fix it together, we will all go down with it together.

Be Libertarian with us…​

Join us in trying something different.

Let’s put parties and differences aside while we solve our problems.

Together we’ll stop the spending and end the wars.

Together we’ll restore our industrial might.

Together, we’ll rebuild our own roads, bridges, schools and hospitals instead of building them for countries half a world away.

And if, in four years, we as a people decide we didn’t like peace, prosperity and freedom, we can always vote tyranny back into office again.​

 

 

 

I would rather see no one get enough electoral votes and then the speaker of the house would take over until a new election is conducted. By that time, maybe Ryan would be compelled to accept the nomination?

 

How is that going to happen if everyone just falls in line behind an R or D (even though they hate those options)?

 

 

If you believe the maps and who is going to win what states electoral votes, it would be a tough road to hoe. Johnson would have to carry the vote in New Hampshire, New Mexico, and California. If he won those three states it would be nearly guaranteed to be thrown to the house with him having 64 delegates

 

So, to reach your goal, doesn't it make sense to back Johnson?

 

And....on top of it, you're not voting for someone that makes you throw up when you leave the voting booth.

[TAKODA]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I shouldn't be voting for a candidate specifically because they could win. I should be voting for the candidate who best represents what I want in that office. If that's Johnson, regardless of his chances of wining, that's who I should vote for.

 

You vote your conscious Knapp! I would not condemn anyone that did/does so, and in fact, this is the way it is supposed to be.

 

Q. If this was a life and death decision, weighing risk on the outcome, how would that affect your vote?

 

 

It is a life and death decision. These people have the power to create a Supreme Court that will directly affect my life. Their policies and laws dictate how I'm able to live, and in some cases, how I can die.

 

 

Very good!

 

Me personally, I am having an extremely difficult time looking at any of them and their platforms, and saying, this or that candidate represents whats best for my children's future.

 

It's like being forced to chose my preferred way to die and my choices are, firing squad, ran over by a tank, or jump out of an airplane without a parachute.

 

So, I'll ask you a question.

 

Why then are you going to vote for one of them?

 

Your statement sounds just like Knapp's and mine.

 

 

Not sure that I have made such a commitment yet, however I feel it's my responsibility and duty to cast my vote. I would love to see the option of None of the above as part of the election process and then if "none of the above" collects the majority, it forces a re-do. Although we are all sick and tired of all the drama and the length of the process, I think in this election, it would be the best option.

 

I would love that option.

 

Let me throw out another one.

 

Johnson/Weld

 

A handful of people in Washington are ruining America for 330 million of us. They have kept our nation in a state of perpetual war and increasing, unsustainable debt. This small group, which includes both major party leaders, has presided over the systematic dismantling of the freedoms guaranteed us under our Constitution. It is them we should be fighting, not each other.

​

We the People will never agree on all of the small things, but let’s agree on the big thing: Our leaders have blown it. If we don’t get control of this ship together and fix it together, we will all go down with it together.

Be Libertarian with us…​

Join us in trying something different.

Let’s put parties and differences aside while we solve our problems.

Together we’ll stop the spending and end the wars.

Together we’ll restore our industrial might.

Together, we’ll rebuild our own roads, bridges, schools and hospitals instead of building them for countries half a world away.

And if, in four years, we as a people decide we didn’t like peace, prosperity and freedom, we can always vote tyranny back into office again.​

 

 

 

I would rather see no one get enough electoral votes and then the speaker of the house would take over until a new election is conducted. By that time, maybe Ryan would be compelled to accept the nomination?

 

How is that going to happen if everyone just falls in line behind an R or D (even though they hate those options)?

 

 

If you believe the maps and who is going to win what states electoral votes, it would be a tough road to hoe. Johnson would have to carry the vote in New Hampshire, New Mexico, and California. If he won those three states it would be nearly guaranteed to be thrown to the house with him having 64 delegates

 

So, to reach your goal, doesn't it make sense to back Johnson?

 

And....on top of it, you're not voting for someone that makes you throw up when you leave the voting booth.

 

 

Like I stated, there are a lot of big "ifs" and it would take a perfect storm for this to happen. Perplexing and frustrating yet, here we are. What a time to be alive!

 

I have zero confidence in our current voting choices or situation.

[TAKODA]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Trump seems to be getting a surge lately probably due to the email decision and him not doing anything overly stupid that last week or so. I expect to see his numbers go up over the next couple weeks due to the convention bounce. But I think that Hillary will gain all/most of it back after the D convention.

We are basically in a worthless dead period in the campaign. Really, the only news worthy items that have happened in the last few weeks is the email decision and Trump's soap opera VP search.

 

In other words, Trump hasn't opened his mouth up much lately to be able to spew idiotic stuff that can be thrown back at him.

 

I suspect once the conventions happen and things get cranked back up, he won't be able to help himself and it will be back to business as usual.

 

 

Which, if you think about it, is really damning against Clinton. Trump has a bump in the polls right now not because of something he's done, but because of something he hasn't done - open his mouth.

 

It basically means we could prop a watermelon in an Armani suit in front of a camera and it'd be polling nearly as well as Hillary Clinton.

 

As long as they have an R or a D beside their name. God forbid if someone without an R or a D tries to actually be sensible and run. Roughly 90% of the country will just say..."Oh...he doesn't have a chance.".

 

 

You're right. But that's because generations of Americans have grown up thinking Democrats & Republicans are "the government." That's our fault as much as anything.

 

That's why I'm voting Johnson this year. Screw 'em all. I'm done with these parties.

 

 

Knapp, totally appreciate your thoughts here and I too, am troubled that we are between a rock and a hard place, but you and I both know, Johnson don't have a chance in heck to win the election, thus, all of us who have the same type of thought process, would be wasting our vote and we will ultimately end up with one of the two that we have zero confidence in, running our country.

 

Voting the lesser of two evils here, is not a winning strategy either!

 

And there we are....

 

 

That didn't take long.

 

 

Tell me I am wrong?

 

You would be wrong if people would stop saying.."I'm not voting for him because he doesn't have a chance"

 

 

The only legitimate chance Johnson could win is, if the other two candidates did not get enough electoral votes to secure the white house, and then, only then, the Presidential appointment would be in the hands of The House of Representatives.

 

Explain why that is.

Its in the Constitution.

 

The popular vote does not elect the President. It tells the members of the electorial college how to vote. In case of a tie (which only happened before political parties came about) or no clear majority the election process then goes to the House of Rep to vote and they can vote however they want. It would still take a miracle for the republicans not to vote in Trump. Or maybe sanity and compromise will prevail, but I doubt it.

 

Edit: But then again Trump could open his mouth and anger enough people to insure his defeat.

 

 

Thanks for answering that HuKSer! +1

[TAKODA]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Trump seems to be getting a surge lately probably due to the email decision and him not doing anything overly stupid that last week or so. I expect to see his numbers go up over the next couple weeks due to the convention bounce. But I think that Hillary will gain all/most of it back after the D convention.

We are basically in a worthless dead period in the campaign. Really, the only news worthy items that have happened in the last few weeks is the email decision and Trump's soap opera VP search.

 

In other words, Trump hasn't opened his mouth up much lately to be able to spew idiotic stuff that can be thrown back at him.

 

I suspect once the conventions happen and things get cranked back up, he won't be able to help himself and it will be back to business as usual.

 

 

Which, if you think about it, is really damning against Clinton. Trump has a bump in the polls right now not because of something he's done, but because of something he hasn't done - open his mouth.

 

It basically means we could prop a watermelon in an Armani suit in front of a camera and it'd be polling nearly as well as Hillary Clinton.

 

As long as they have an R or a D beside their name. God forbid if someone without an R or a D tries to actually be sensible and run. Roughly 90% of the country will just say..."Oh...he doesn't have a chance.".

 

 

You're right. But that's because generations of Americans have grown up thinking Democrats & Republicans are "the government." That's our fault as much as anything.

 

That's why I'm voting Johnson this year. Screw 'em all. I'm done with these parties.

 

 

Knapp, totally appreciate your thoughts here and I too, am troubled that we are between a rock and a hard place, but you and I both know, Johnson don't have a chance in heck to win the election, thus, all of us who have the same type of thought process, would be wasting our vote and we will ultimately end up with one of the two that we have zero confidence in, running our country.

 

Voting the lesser of two evils here, is not a winning strategy either!

 

And there we are....

 

 

That didn't take long.

 

 

Tell me I am wrong?

 

You would be wrong if people would stop saying.."I'm not voting for him because he doesn't have a chance"

 

 

The only legitimate chance Johnson could win is, if the other two candidates did not get enough electoral votes to secure the white house, and then, only then, the Presidential appointment would be in the hands of The House of Representatives.

 

Explain why that is.

Its in the Constitution.

 

The popular vote does not elect the President. It tells the members of the electorial college how to vote. In case of a tie (which only happened before political parties came about) or no clear majority the election process then goes to the House of Rep to vote and they can vote however they want. It would still take a miracle for the republicans not to vote in Trump. Or maybe sanity and compromise will prevail, but I doubt it.

 

Edit: But then again Trump could open his mouth and anger enough people to insure his defeat.

 

 

I don't know. I am not sure if they had a clear cut (different choice), that they wouldn't hit the reset button and choose a different option.

 

I guess that brings up a good point. Knowing now what we are left to choose from now, if you could re-set everything back to the beginning of this election process, who would you replace Trump with, Hilary with?

[Red Five]

[TGHusker]

https://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2016/07/is-hillary-clinton-running-a-false-flag-campaign-t.html

 

Clinton is running a false flag campaign, with the secret goal of helping Trump win the presidency? Read to the end to get the answer.

 

 

Spoiler alert - don't read unless you want to know the answer before reading the amusing article.

 

(Editorial Note: Yes, this is satire—based on stories like these and prompted by the truly scary/awful/heartbreaking reality that the Democrats have nominated a candidate that could actually lose to Donald Trump. Carry on.)

 

 

Related:

http://blackbag.gawker.com/is-donald-trump-running-a-false-flag-campaign-to-help-h-1723925057