Posted on 09/19/2018 4:20:32 PM PDT by kevcol
Former Vice President Al Gore compared the Trump administration to an experiment that’s “terminated early for ethical reasons,” in an interview with MSNBC anchor Andrea Mitchell that also touched on the upcoming election and man-made global warming.
On global warming, Gore repeated to Mitchell the line he uses in nearly every speech: “Every night on the television news is like a nature hike through the book of Revelation.”
(Excerpt) Read more at dailycallernewsfoundation.org ...
“THAR HE BLOWS!!!”
Gore would never have attempted an in-house purge of Clinton for one single, solitary reason: Clinton wouldn’t have chosen him as VP without having a ton of dirt to keep Gore firmly in line. This was also the reason Bush, Sr. couldn’t go nuclear on Clinton in 1992. They each had enough info on one another for mutually assured destruction. That’s why between the Bushes, Clintons, Gore, Zero, they’ve been holding the nation hostage to a profoundly corrupt Deep State for 3 decades.
That’s what those 1000 FBI files were all about.
Imagine if you will, Melania ordering (or the Donald ordering for her) 1000 FBI files be sent to the White House.
Imagine the uproar.
A Nixon protege spent years in prison for access to one.
That was before that even. The “stuff” that was going on in Mena, Arkansas, for example, when Bubba Clinton was Governor and Bush VP.
It’s funny, I remember (almost 30 years ago) my Communist half-sister ranting about Papa Bush and his “corrupt” CIA connections (his brief service as Director under Ford), emphasizing he was part of the Deep State. I dismissed it at the time as partisan nonsense, though there was a kernel of truth to it. Then again, why she would’ve been bothered by it, given he was ultimately promoting a leftist agenda ?
To be honest, I’ve never known what to make of that book and the things described in it.
To me, it was a given that there was a crime syndicate working in Arkansas. The Ives boys and the other events... there were very ugly forces at work.
People were dropping dead around the Clintons like it was a warm summer night, lots of lights, and bug zappers apleanty.
Around the Bush’s, nothing like that.
It would seem to me that if the Bushes were involved, their family wealth would have been far north of what it was. There would also be a death toll around them.
I say this, because if this “underground” was taking care of business around Clinton because he knew, wouldn’t it also have been taking care of business around Bush because he knew?
It was quite a tale. I don’t totally dismiss it.
James Woods - locked out of his Twitter account.
https://heartiste.wordpress.com/2018/09/21/we-are-all-james-woods/
LS - they’re watching.
I’ll tell you one death that bothered me related to Bush... Lee Atwater. Atwater was one of the last unapologetic balls-to-the-walls party strategists. His masterminding of 1988 was such that we’ve yet to match it again (in 1988, all 50 states except DC were in play for the GOP for the Presidency - and that was the last time). If Atwater had not been dead by 1992, an untimely death to say the least, how would he have handled the Clintons ? Of course, it seems counterintuitive that Papa Bush would want his brilliant strategist dead, but might it have been a threat to him personally if Atwater had gone nuclear on the Clintons and they retaliated in kind with “alleged” collusion (and with that, might’ve placed the nutter Perot in the Presidency instead) ?
As I’ve speculated, I think virtually everyone in DC has dirty on everybody else, blackmail for keeping things status quo and benefitting those in the Deep State. This isn’t new, of course, it’s been going on for decades and decades.
Things were likely quite bad under President Reagan, and sadly as much we respect him, he wasn’t able to really clean up the profound mess and take a sledgehammer to the corruption. We’ve already seen the visceral reaction from both parties in collusion to Trump’s ascension and his public attempts to tackle this epic corruption both have proliferated.
I think if we got the unvarnished truth as to the who, what and whys of the collusion going back for the past century to the present, it would freak the public far worse than a revelation of being contacted by space aliens. In a lot of ways, we need to stop looking at things through the prism of party politics (Dem vs GOP) and through the lens of insider vs. outsider. It’s paramount that we effectively purge the insider ring.
I’ve seen some folks claiming that JFK was taking on the “Deep State” (or Ike’s “Military-Industrial Complex”), but I don’t ascribe noble motives to a guy who stole a Presidential election through massive voter fraud. In his case, I think he was merely trying to supplant the Deep State “bosses” of that era with his own people, so he could become the “new” big boss. The leftist media of the era was happy to give him that assist. Whether Oswald masterminded the assassination or it was a conspiracy by those in power to stop JFK’s hijacking of “the outfit” for himself, I tend to point to that period where this nation has rapidly unraveled socially, culturally, politically, morally, et al.
Anyway, excuse my stream-of-consciousness musings here. I doubt we’ll ever get the truth in our lifetime. I think a lot of this runs deeper to Satan himself, those who will sell their souls for power, money, influence, fame, et al, and those are the people in charge and threatening those of us who are diametrically opposed to evil and serve God.
Atwater had a brain tumor (that clearly impacted his sanity and led him to apologize to Dukakis for kicking his ass), I don’t see how Bush could have given him a brain tumor.
Your theory doesn’t hold water anyway, if Bush was afraid Atwater would be too effective against Bill Clinton leading Clinton to retaliate with some kind of blackmail dirt on Bush (collusion? what?) he could have simply ordered him to stand down rather than murder him.
As you know I don’t put much stock in grand blackmail conspiracies.
I don’t see Perot possibly winning 270 electoral votes under any circumstance. If it went to the House they would have elected Clinton.
I don’t have a problem with your premise until you get to Perot.
He only needed 181 electoral votes, in a three way race.
Huh? You need a majority of the electoral college or else it goes to the House, which votes by state delegation (majority of states needed) among the top 3 candidates. If no electoral college majority for VP the Senate chooses the VP from the top two.
There was so much dirt on the Clintoons that if Papa Bush REALLY wanted to win reelection, he could’ve unleashed it. He didn’t. That followed the same pattern with McQueeg and Willard (some might throw in Dole, too, but I don’t question his patriotism, only that he wasn’t going to be permitted to win and refused to run an ungentlemanly race against a vile criminal).
As for grand conspiracies, you can call many of those grand consensuses. When you have a media that refuses to report on the truth, on real corruption, etc., it becomes exceedingly easy for this criminality to go on. These are the same people who deny there is a Combine in IL, a Deep State, Hillary’s corruption, or that Zero is a Mohammadan (or the dark forces who were backing him from the beginning), or that they are participating in the greatest scheme in the history of the republic to overthrow (by any means) the duly elected President - all this when the evidence is glaring.
As I said, it need not necessarily be “conspiracy” when you have so many on the same page with committing treason and sedition.
In a two way race, you need 270 electoral votes to prevail. The final tally could be 270 to 268.
270
268
---
538
In a three way race, you need 181 electoral votes to prevail.
It could look something like this.
181 Perot
180 Bush
177 Clinton
---
538
You gotta get a minimum of 270 EVs regardless of the number of candidates in the mix. If Perot got 269 and the other 269 went to Bush Sr. and Bubba, the Democrat Congress would still have seated Bubba even if he got say, 6 EVs (that of Arkansas).
As an example: 1860 there were 4 major candidates for President. The victor still needed to obtain a majority of EVs that year or it went to the Congress to decide. Lincoln got just under 40% of the vote, but he still won outright because he got 180 EVs - which was just over 59% of the total amount of EVs.
Sen. Douglas came in 2nd place in total votes, just under 30%, but it was nearly worthless, because he received only 12(!) EVs, carrying just Missouri and New Jersey (and in NJ’s case, of the 7 Electors, 4 voted for Lincoln and 3 for Douglas).
VP Breckinridge was in 3rd place with just 18%, but he got 72 EVs (or nearly 1/4th of the college), which all came from the South (and DE & MD)
Even Sen. John Bell, who placed 4th with 13%, still got 3rd place in EVs, 39, well ahead of Douglas, but won just 3 states (KY, TN & VA).
Even with all that dissension, the Republican majority in Congress still would’ve seated Lincoln if he came in under the number of EVs needed (if they had gone to Douglas instead).
If a Presidential Contest fails to select a candidate who wins 270 Electoral Votes, the Election falls to the House, who convene to select a President. Each state gets one vote and the candidate receiving 26 votes is elected. The Senate convenes to select the Vice President uses the same method.
Thanks for weighing in on this folks.
I did read each of your comments, in this swarm of them. If that is the ruling, then I stand corrected. Thanks again.
It hasn’t happened since 1824 so you can be excused for not knowing.
In that election (4 candidates) Jackson won the most electoral votes but didn’t get a majority so it went to the House, which elected 2nd place finisher JQ Adams. Jackson and Adams both had John C Calhoun as their running mate so he did get a majority of electoral votes for VP.
The Senate had to elect the VP just once, in 1836 democrat Van Buren was elected President but some of his electors refused to vote for his running mate, Richard Johnson, who fell just short of a majority. The Senate elected Johnson over the Whig runner-up on a near party line vote.
This was talked about a little bit during the last election cause some people were hoping McMullin would carry Utah and that neither Trump nor Clinton would get 270. Democrats and enough RINOs in the House could have then possibly elected McMullin.
I’ve never given any credence to the idea that Obama is a Muslim, I’m sure he’s an atheist.
What about the ethics of turning a climate change scam into hundreds of millions of dollars?
Some additional clarification, as this subject is a bit more complicated than the way that Impy and DJ described it (although their examples are correct).
If no presidential candidate receives a majority of electoral votes (currently 270), the 12th Amendment provides that the House gets to elect the president, choosing “from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President.” There are two ways to read this: As stating that the House may not consider more than three candidates, or that the House may not consider more candidates than those with the third highest number of elections. I’ve thought about this for over 20 years now, and my conclusion is that the most logical reading would be that if, say, Trump has 266 EVs, Hillary has 264 EVs, McMullin has 4 EVs and Stein has 4 EVs, that the House could elect any one of those four (because they are the persons that received the top three “numbers” on the list). So, if I’m correct, the House wouldn’t be limited to three persons if there’s a tie for third; furthermore, if the first-place finisher got 238 EVs and there’s a three-way tie for second with 100 EVs each, the House could choose from among four candidates instead of being limited to just one choice.
A crucial point is that, when the House votes to elect the president of the United States, the vote is held by state delegation, not individually. So if California’s 55 Representatives cast 30 votes for Hillary, 20 votes for Trump, 3 votes for Stein and 2 votes for McMullin, Hillary would receive 1 vote in the contingent election; meanwhile, if Alaska’s sole Representative cast his vote for Trump, Trump would receive 1 vote in the contingent election.
Moreover, if no candidate gets a plurality (or, if the House votes to require a majority, a majority) of a state’s delegation, no vote would be cast by such delegation. So if New Mexico’s Representatives cast one vote for Trump, one for Hillary and one for Stein, no one would receive the vote of the NM delegation. Since *a majority* of delegations are required for the House to elect a president, these ties increase the probability that none of the candidates would be elected president in the first round of voting.
If no one receives the vote of 26 state delegations, a second vote would need to be held, with Representatives being able to change their votes, until someone is elected president. (If no one is elected president by January 20, the new VP would be sworn in as Acting President and serve in such capacity until the House finally elects a president; as Acting President, the VP can make all sorts of appointments and sign or veto bills, but would *not* be entitled to nominate a new VP under the 25th Amendment, for the simple reason that *there is no vacancy in the vice presidency* (he is the VP, and merely is acting as president until the House elects one).
Which may lead you to ask, how did the VP get elected? If no candidate received 270 VP EVs, the 12th Amendment provides that the Senate, by a vote of “a majority of the whole number” of Senators (i.e., 51 Senators, with the lame-duck VP *not* being able to break a tie), would elect the VP “from the two highest numbers on the list.” The language here differs from that used in the case of contingent elections in the House, so there’s no danger of someone claiming that if VP candidate X got 180 EVs and VP candidates Y and Z each got 179 EVs that the Senate only could elect X. However, there’s a different potential problem with this phrasing: Wooden literalism might lead someone to argue that if X and Y each got 268 EVs and Z got 2 EVs that the Senate could consider Z because 2 is the “second highest number” (with 268 being the highest). However, I would hope that judges wouldn’t be so mathematically clueless as to fail to realize that the two highest numbers in such case are 268 and 268.
As for what happens if the House fails to elect a president *and* the Senate fails to elect a VP, that would take a much longer post to explain. Cliff’s Notes version: Both the new Speaker and the holdover Secretary of State would claim to become Acting President on January 20, and we’d be in the midst of a genuine constitutional crisis. If you’re interested in this issue, as well as other potential constitutional crises, I highly recommend “Constitutional Cliffhangers” by Brian C. Kalt: https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/constitutional-cliffhangers-brian-c-kalt/1102887882?ean=9780300234305
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.