Posted on 12/12/2015 2:51:42 AM PST by Wingy
Just a thought experiment.... For the last several days we have been treated to a discussion on all the "News" channels, about a "brokered convention". What it is, how it works, and what the rules would be. Now, bear in mind that these discussions have been pointed at the Republican Convention as a method to keep Trump from getting the nomination. But folks, put your thinking caps on. If Trump garners enough delegates through the primary process, he will be the nominee. Period, end of story.
At this date, he looks poised to do just that, and barring some calamity, the road looks pretty clear for him. He will probably lose Idaho, then runs the board from New Hampshire to the SEC primaries in the south. The attacks from the elite will escalate and that will propel him to enough delegates to win the nomination comfortably.
However, what if in June, or July, or even August, Hillary gets indicted for her EMail transgressions? We go into the democratic convention and the frontrunner is in an orange jumpsuit and she can't raise her right hand because she is in cuffs. Sanders and O'mally have no chance to win an election (Neither did Hillary, hence the indictment). First ballot with Hillary disqualified, falls dead. Now the plot thickens. The delegates are free to vote for whomever pleases them. How about Al Gore? Too old, out of the limelight for too long and a dufus besides. Harry Reid? Too much baggage, and no one even likes him. John Kerry? Not a chance after the debacle of the Iranian deal. No one likes him either, besides, he lost to Bush!
As we go down the list, we finally get to the one that the party elites wanted all along. Elizabeth Warren. True she has some baggage, but the news media will keep that down for the short time before the election, and fill our heads with Trumps indiscretions, real or made up. They will balance it out with tales of Warren's strengths and successes real or imagined.
Voila! Obama's third term.
We found out this week the FBI, despite evidence of terrorist activity, shut down investigating all Muslims because of orders from on high.
This is the ‘independent’ body you expect to seek justice?
Lynch runs the DOJ.
Obama runs the FBI (part of Executive Branch).
You think they are going to touch Hillary?
Really?
Just picture this: Hillary is SECRETARY OF STATE. She and her husband take in MILLIONS of dollars from foreign countries (community property so it’s going straight to her) from the very countries she’s got authority over.
Hillary won’t face any charges over anything. Ever.
Now I'm sure that you are correct in that Hillary will do no time or face serious sanctions. My guess is a small fine and probation, but the true sin was losing to Trump. Too many things have been set into motion for that to happen.
Opps. Idaho should be Iowa. Not enough coffee....
Here’s my thought experiment for you:
Say you have 4 dozen eggs. and you put them in an incubator.
How many chickens will you get?
Lol. I was wondering what the heck Trump did to piss Idaho off so bad.
If Trump comes out of Super Tuesday with the majority of delegates, I would almost guarantee a Brokered Convention.
Hello Jeb.
Then at this time next year we will all be wondering if Hillary’s administration will be all that different from Obama’s.
In my opinion, the only way to keep Hillary out of the White House is Cruz and I do not see how he can beat Trump.
I an starting to feel like a Whig must have felt in 1856
I don't know. How many?
If Trump gets through the South in a winning fashion, and that looks likely at this date, how will it be a brokered convention? If he has the delegates, he wins on the first ballot. That won’t change, no matter what the elites want.
‘You think they are going to touch Hillary?”
My gut feeling is they want to touch Hitlery, but being told not to. There’s hope due to the statute of limitations.
In the interest of fair justice, she should be given a trial. If this does not happen we will be no different than a third world banana republic where there is mass corruption on the upper ends.
The a Uniparty gets elected (Clinton or Bush) justice will never prevail and corruption will get worse.
If we get Trump or Cruz in, we have a chance. We are so screwed if this does not happen and I think America knows it.
That’s my hobby horse with Hillary. Given that the Dims have no one else (other than, as you say, Warren) we know that Hillary will not be indicted on anything. Certainly not on classified info abuses, completely under Obama’s purview.OTOH, the following parameters:
I just do not see how the Dims in purple states would handle that issue. Other than, of course, delay. But simply discussing the issue in purple states should be pretty toxic politically for the Dims.
- acceptance of that lucre by Bill and by the Clinton Foundation, with Hillary a principal in both her marriage and the foundation, is flatly unconstitutional. As you no doubt agree, it does not matter for this purpose whether the Clinton Foundation’s use of the money is or is not pure as the wind-driven snow. Congress did not authorize her to benefit from foreign government money. Even if she cured cancer with the money, getting it was unconstitutional.
- each state has plenary power over the appointment (the Constitution does not mention election) of its Electors.
- any state could therefore prevent Hillary from winning its Electors. It would not even take keeping her off the ballot, justifiable as that would be. Just put her on Row E in the middle of the third parties, and that would cost her - and, BTW, the rest of the ticket - plenty of votes.
- It would be crucial if a blue or a purple state passed a law compromising the ability of a violator of the constitutional prohibition in Article I Section 9 against corruption to get its electors.
- You would not expect a blue state to do it, and it would be hard or impossible even in a purple one. But you would think that the Republican nominee would raise the issue. And draw the comparison with McCain-Feingold, which Dims love and which was limited by the Citizens United case which Dims revile. McCain-Feingold abridges freedom of the press, according to 4 SCOTUS justices, and yet it was approved by 5 others on the grounds of keeping politics from being corrupted by money. How does a Dim then oppose enforcing the prohibition of money grubbing from foreign governments? The law would not have to mention Hillary at all, but everyone would know its effect.
The rationale for opposing Hillary’s name being on the ballot is simple: by putting a name on the ballot the state - especially on Row A or Row B - the state in effect recommends the candidate for consideration by the voters. How can your state recommend that you vote for a corrupt person???As to constitutionality, there is no case that the states even have to conduct an election to appoint its electors. And, if someone tried to bring a case to court, the answer could be, “Do you actually admit you think you have standing?”
I still think Biden will ride in and ‘save the day’ for the Democrat-Marxist-Communist Party. And that was his plan all along.
1) Rule 40. Trump must win 51% of delegates in eight or more states in order to have his name placed in nomination. The primaries in the beginning are proportional (not winner take all) making it harder to get a majority. This was done on purpose by the GOPe.
2) Your vote for Trump might be irrelevant. I cannot cite chapter and verse, but in some states a vote for Trump will not mean a vote for Trump.
This can happen three ways. I am doing this from memory so you will have to see what applies in your state/commonwealth.
First: you can vote for Trump but your vote means nothing if your do not also make a completely separate vote for Trump delegates. The ballot is constructed so folks might vote for a candidate without realizing they have to vote again for delegates.
Second: you can vote for Trump, but the party apparatus selects the delegates to the convention (I believe this is in Texas). The party can select a Bush person whose loyalty is not to Trump.
Three: (I think this is Virginia) You will be presented with a statement you are told to sign which declares your loyalty to the Republican party. Many people will think this is a legal requirement and that they will be committing a criminal offense if they “falsely” sign it. This is a pure intimidation tactic.
There are other tricks the GOPe has played to steal the election. Be aware of the rules.
There are reasons so many high up GOPers have confidently predicted a brokered convention for at least a month now. They know Trump is going to win the popular vote by far. They know they are not going to let Trump win at the convention. They are “predicting” the brokered convention because they want it to seem like a natural circumstance, to plant it in people’s minds as just one of those things, when it will be purely dirty tricks and stealing from the plutocrats.
Remember, Hillary is as acceptable to the GOPe as Jeb. The GOPe does not care if Trump runs independent, as long as the GOPe gets to keep their hands on the money making machinery running an auxilary to the Democrat party.
And if this does not finally clue folks into the Bush family, then wow.
Hard to tell, but even getting one would be a pullet surprise.
Say everything about the democrats unfolds as you say, all the dems need do is nominate Jeb Bush, he will gladly do it, he already has financial support of the GOPe, and since democrats have spent decades perfecting election fraud and are lock step robot voters he might win, who is to say that has not been the plan.
Just Saying... if we are imagining crazy scenarios.
I'm thinking, what a circus that would be! From the very first stages of jury selection, through the rest of the process, to the final verdict... it would take over the airwaves.
Tangent thought experiment...
We know, I think, that the Obamas and the Clintons are not best buds; they see themselves more as, say, the Corleones and the Barzinis vying for control of the Five Families.
The last thing the Obamas want is for the Clintons to regain control of the WH. That would ensure that the Obamas will look to history like the peanut butter in the sandwich that would become known as the Clinton Era. Bill and Hillary Clinton would thereby become the True Transformers of America, while Obama was just the house [insert term here] keeping the plantation running while the Clintons were away.
So Obama wants two things: that Hillary! never becomes President, and that he [BHO] is considered by historians as the True Transformer, with his successor playing Michael to his Vito.
He has to keep Hillary! from becoming the 45th POTUS, without actively campaigning against her. This leaves him with three options. One is assassination. A “normal” assassination would be difficult, unless he could somehow pay off Secret Service agents to make her vulnerable at a particular venue. Getting a nutcase to do the deed (cf. “Robert L. Dear”) in such a way as to make it possible to smear conservatives would be icing on the cake. A poisoning or some similar method leading to death or debilitation, however, could be covered up, though there would always be rumors.
The second option is to have her indicted. The problem here is twofold. The first is that the hypocrisy would be evident to everyone. The second is that the Clintons have shown themselves to be capable of gaining and keeping power in the midst of legal troubles, and so this might ultimately be unsuccessful, with the media portraying Hillary! as the Innocent Victim of a Right-Wing Smear Campaign, sweeping her to the WH.
The third option is to let her win the nomination and lose the election. This would not be difficult: as things stand now she is going to get the nomination, but all it would take to ensure her defeat is to not pull the usual Democrat tricks—don’t run an effective ground game among urban blacks, or unions, or step back from voter fraud just enough to let the GOP nominee win a close election—or better yet, make it look like the GOP nominee stole the election (cf. “Bush v Gore”). However, the success of this option is predicated upon the GOP having a nominee who can be manipulated in office to act “Dem lite,” so if by spring it is clear that the likely nominee is Trump and/or Cruz, this would be a less viable option.
Given the above, indictment is the option that has the least likelihood of success, and so it is not what will be chosen. Letting Hillary! lose is predicated on the GOP having a pliable nominee. The only remaining option is having Hillary! become sick enough or dead enough to be unable to run in the general election.
"...it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment" Hebrews 9:27
“Though the mills of God grind slowly, yet they grind exceeding small; Though with patience He stands waiting, with exactness grinds He all.”
- Henry Wadsworth Longfellow
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.