Riddle Me This....

[Procrustes Stretched]

VPs are personal picks by candidates...not by the party or the people....so for anyone to say it is "protocol" for that person to be the peoples choice for candidate is absurd.

Siete...once again.....stated something a fact that was not fact...and then ran out of embarrassment.

VPs are nominees. The party votes for them. The people do not select nominees for President or VP. The people vote to send delegates to vote. It's called representative democracy, and if you Jarhead are going to lecture Siete or anyone else on stating 'facts?' I suggest you stay quiet and listen to others first

Stop acting like a child. I know exactly how it works, son. The delegates vote based on what the people say during the primaries....whereas they don't have to, more often than not, they do. The government is BY THE PEOPLE....no matter how you wish to spin what I say.

Now.....either grow up or stay as a child and act like an adult.....but you should do one or the other if you wish to stay at the adult table.

Of course, Lincoln said (how many years after some colonists rebelled and formed a government?) 'representative government is 'by the people' and how is that relevant to what I posted?

You are not representative of 'adults at a table,' because it is you who made a personal attack on Siete, and when called out on how you were more uninformed than those you would so personally attack, you defaulted to a personal attack on Dante.

 

[JustAnotherNut]

their VPs are next in line ..

Is that for sure?

to be honest, I'm not sure there really is an answer in such a case. I don't know that our Founding Fathers had ever expected such a situation to make provisions for it.

really? Hmmm, I call you on bs here

You can call me whatever you feel necessary to the situation, but my comment was an honest one......I wasn't sure if there were protocols in place to cover such a situation of both nominees somehow not making it until the election. And so far only one poster has actually answered my question with a link to back it up. But it is only for the Republican party.
Maybe with your Democratic insight you could provide a factual answer for your party's protocol under such circumstances...

Believe it or not this is a serious question so please save your nasty ass responses for the FZ......

If Hillary & Trump are BOTH either indicted, found unfit for office, or whatever comes to mind to fill in the blank before November........what then happens to the Presidential race? Does that just mean Johnson wins uncontested? Or does each party find suitable replacements?

The republicans definitively have procedures to substitute a candidate.

The RNC Can Legally Dump Donald Trump but It Has to Act Fast

See hypothetical "1"

I assume the dems do as well.

 

[bendog]

their VPs are next in line ..

Is that for sure?

to be honest, I'm not sure there really is an answer in such a case. I don't know that our Founding Fathers had ever expected such a situation to make provisions for it.

really? Hmmm, I call you on bs here

You can call me whatever you feel necessary to the situation, but my comment was an honest one......I wasn't sure if there were protocols in place to cover such a situation of both nominees somehow not making it until the election. And so far only one poster has actually answered my question with a link to back it up. But it is only for the Republican party.
Maybe with your Democratic insight you could provide a factual answer for your party's protocol under such circumstances...

Believe it or not this is a serious question so please save your nasty ass responses for the FZ......

If Hillary & Trump are BOTH either indicted, found unfit for office, or whatever comes to mind to fill in the blank before November........what then happens to the Presidential race? Does that just mean Johnson wins uncontested? Or does each party find suitable replacements?

The republicans definitively have procedures to substitute a candidate.

The RNC Can Legally Dump Donald Trump but It Has to Act Fast

See hypothetical "1"

I assume the dems do as well.

This is the best answer I see.
https://www.quora.com/What-happens-...minee-both-die-or-are-otherwise-incapacitated

You might want to google Thomas Eagleton and Sargent Shriver. After Eagleton was nominated for VP in 72, some very bad journalism muckraked his three hospitalizations for depression and (cue scary music) shock treatment.

 

[eagle7_31]

Believe it or not this is a serious question so please save your nasty ass responses for the FZ......

If Hillary & Trump are BOTH either indicted, found unfit for office, or whatever comes to mind to fill in the blank before November........what then happens to the Presidential race? Does that just mean Johnson wins uncontested? Or does each party find suitable replacements?

Unless I am mistaken depends on timing. If this happened say in the next couple of weeks the national committees would select replacements. At some point the voting machines will be set with Clinton, Trump etc. If that is the case I'm not sure what would happen. The Electoral college votes in December and vote for anyone they want, so they might vote the VP candidates in that situation.

 

[bendog]

Believe it or not this is a serious question so please save your nasty ass responses for the FZ......

If Hillary & Trump are BOTH either indicted, found unfit for office, or whatever comes to mind to fill in the blank before November........what then happens to the Presidential race? Does that just mean Johnson wins uncontested? Or does each party find suitable replacements?

Unless I am mistaken depends on timing. If this happened say in the next couple of weeks the national committees would select replacements. At some point the voting machines will be set with Clinton, Trump etc. If that is the case I'm not sure what would happen. The Electoral college votes in December and vote for anyone they want, so they might vote the VP candidates in that situation.

Now that would be bizarre ... if the ballots were already prepared and machines set up.

 

[eagle7_31]

Believe it or not this is a serious question so please save your nasty ass responses for the FZ......

If Hillary & Trump are BOTH either indicted, found unfit for office, or whatever comes to mind to fill in the blank before November........what then happens to the Presidential race? Does that just mean Johnson wins uncontested? Or does each party find suitable replacements?

Unless I am mistaken depends on timing. If this happened say in the next couple of weeks the national committees would select replacements. At some point the voting machines will be set with Clinton, Trump etc. If that is the case I'm not sure what would happen. The Electoral college votes in December and vote for anyone they want, so they might vote the VP candidates in that situation.

Now that would be bizarre ... if the ballots were already prepared and machines set up.

Hey benny long time no hear. How are things in Ole Miss these days? As for the question at hand the voting machines have to set up and ready to deliver sometime in October if memory serves. With all the voting districts in country its quite a chore. The key again depending on the timing is what the EC can and would do. They are the final legal word so to speak. And they are free to vote for anyone.

 

[Iceweasel]

They're both unfit for the office. Hilary lied to Congress under oath and it can be proven, so impeachment isn't out of the question.

But both are on the ballots, so It's a mystery to me.

No one 'lied' to Congress under oath. Hillary testified for hours and hours with some of the best legal minds at her disposal sitting next to/behind her. And she is one very brilliant lawyer herself. Hillary Clinton did not perjure herself before Congress. Lie? That's a subjective term when taken out of the legal sphere.

If somebody testifies to the best of their knowledge, and that knowledge is found to be wanting? Is it a lie or a misstatement AnCap'n_Murica?

Yes, she lied. It's been proven. Now you lie.

 

[AnCap'n_Murica]

Yes, she lied. It's been proven. Now you lie.

The perjury is only a matter of public record, still the Hillbots expect people not to believe their own lying eyes and ears.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

You can call me whatever you feel necessary to the situation, but my comment was an honest one......I wasn't sure if there were protocols in place to cover such a situation of both nominees somehow not making it until the election. And so far only one poster has actually answered my question with a link to back it up. But it is only for the Republican party.
Maybe with your Democratic insight you could provide a factual answer for your party's protocol under such circumstances...

why did you ignore all of my posts but one? I already laid it out for you and no links are needed.

my post: "Their is a process for selecting a replacement, give time. If time is short I believe what another posted, in that the parties and PACs would suggest write-in candidates. A 3rd party candidate like Johnson stands little to no chance. If Hillary stumbles, Trump is still in. If rump stumble, Hillary is still in. If both stumbled? Highly improbable."

Reply to this: "their VPs are next in line .."
here: "No. They are not the party nominee" (for President) "VPs are nominees. (for VP) The party votes for them. The people do not select nominees for President or VP. The people vote to send delegates to vote. It's called representative democracy..."

post: "their VPs are next in line .."
reply by somebody else: "For nomination -- maybe, if the party wants it that way and it's before the election. But if it's after and they're not in the office yet I don't think they succeed. I suspect it throws to the House."

My reply: "If it is after the election? No one has been sworn in yet, but there is a team of 'elects' The people have already voted and the electoral college would have already certified. I would guess the VP steps up. There are rules for the House stepping in only during the electoral college process"

So I am back and forth on how and if it is the VP nominee, or the VP elect. They are two totally different scenarios. Now why are you either being too defensive (as witness your OP about the type of responses you inferred your op would bring on), or playing Mickey the dunce?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Yes, she lied. It's been proven. Now you lie.

The perjury is only a matter of public record, still the Hillbots expect people not to believe their own lying eyes and ears.

Perjury:
Whoever—

(1) having taken an oath before a competent tribunal, officer, or person, in any case in which a law of the United States authorizes an oath to be administered, that he will testify, declare, depose, or certify truly, or that any written testimony, declaration, deposition, or certificate by him subscribed, is true, willfully and contrary to such oath states or subscribes any material matter which he does not believe to be true; or

(2) in any declaration, certificate, verification, or statement under penalty of perjury as permitted under section 1746 of title 28, United States Code, willfully subscribes as true any material matter which he does not believe to be true;

is guilty of perjury and shall, except as otherwise expressly provided by law, be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. This section is applicable whether the statement or subscription is made within or without the United States.​

- Cornell Law School Website

Now tell us legal genius AnCap'n_Murica, how you could make a case against Hillary Clinton

 

[Pogo]

I'm am seriously starting to believe there is no one in either party fit to hold office.

Arguably if there were ---- they'd be smart enough to not be chained to a political party.

 

[Pogo]

You can call me whatever you feel necessary to the situation, but my comment was an honest one......I wasn't sure if there were protocols in place to cover such a situation of both nominees somehow not making it until the election. And so far only one poster has actually answered my question with a link to back it up. But it is only for the Republican party.
Maybe with your Democratic insight you could provide a factual answer for your party's protocol under such circumstances...

why did you ignore all of my posts but one? I already laid it out for you and no links are needed.

my post: "Their is a process for selecting a replacement, give time. If time is short I believe what another posted, in that the parties and PACs would suggest write-in candidates. A 3rd party candidate like Johnson stands little to no chance. If Hillary stumbles, Trump is still in. If rump stumble, Hillary is still in. If both stumbled? Highly improbable."

Reply to this: "their VPs are next in line .."
here: "No. They are not the party nominee" (for President) "VPs are nominees. (for VP) The party votes for them. The people do not select nominees for President or VP. The people vote to send delegates to vote. It's called representative democracy..."

post: "their VPs are next in line .."
reply by somebody else: "For nomination -- maybe, if the party wants it that way and it's before the election. But if it's after and they're not in the office yet I don't think they succeed. I suspect it throws to the House."

My reply: "If it is after the election? No one has been sworn in yet, but there is a team of 'elects' The people have already voted and the electoral college would have already certified. I would guess the VP steps up. There are rules for the House stepping in only during the electoral college process"

So I am back and forth on how and if it is the VP nominee, or the VP elect. They are two totally different scenarios. Now why are you either being too defensive (as witness your OP about the type of responses you inferred your op would bring on), or playing Mickey the dunce?

OK I looked it up. Somebody had to.

In chronological order -- if a nominated candidate is removed/incapacitated before Election Day (this example is from 2008):

>> Each party has its own protocol for this scenario, but in neither case does the running mate automatically take over the ticket. If John McCain were to die before the election, the rules of the Republican Party authorize the Republican National Committee to fill the vacancy, either by reconvening a national convention or by having RNC state representatives vote. The new nominee must receive a majority vote to officially become the party candidate. If Barack Obama were to die before the election, the Democratic Party's charter and bylaws state that responsibility for filling that vacancy would fall to the Democratic National Committee, but the rules do not specify how exactly the DNC would go about doing that. (Congress could also pass a special statute and push back Election Day, giving the dead candidate's party time to regroup.) <<
​

If after Election Day but before the Electoral College meets, which is where the POTUS actually gets elected:

>> There's no federal law that mandates how electors must cast their votes; theoretically, if the candidate to whom they were pledged dies and their party has not made a preferred successor clear, electors can vote for their party's VP candidate, a third-party candidate, or a leading preconvention contender within their own party. Under this scenario, however, individual state laws have the potential to make things murky, given that each state has the power to determine exactly how its electoral votes are to be cast and distributed. <<
​

--- and if after the EC votes but before Inauguration Day:

>> The 20th Amendment states that if the president-elect dies before beginning his term, then the vice president-elect assumes his or her spot. However, the point at which a candidate officially becomes "president-elect" is debatable. He or she definitely assumes the title after Jan. 6, when a joint session of Congress officially counts the Electoral College votes and declares a winner. But the shift could be said to occur immediately after the Electoral College vote. (See Pages 2 and 3 of this PDF article from the Arkansas Law Review.)


If a candidate dies after Dec. 15 but before Jan. 6, Congress, when it convenes, has to decide whether to count the votes cast for him. (In 1872, three electoral votes cast for the late Horace Greeley were discounted by Congress, but it's unclear whether votes cast for a living candidate who subsequently dies would be treated the same way.) <<​

 

[g5000]

Believe it or not this is a serious question so please save your nasty ass responses for the FZ......

If Hillary & Trump are BOTH either indicted, found unfit for office, or whatever comes to mind to fill in the blank before November........what then happens to the Presidential race? Does that just mean Johnson wins uncontested? Or does each party find suitable replacements?

See Rule 9: https://s3.amazonaws.com/prod-static-ngop-pbl/docs/Rules_of_the_Republican+Party_FINAL_S14090314.pdf

RULE NO. 9 Filling Vacancies in Nominations
(a) The Republican National Committee is hereby authorized and empowered to fill any and all vacancies which may occur by reason of death, declination, or otherwise of the Republican candidate for President of the United States or the Republican candidate for Vice President of the United States, as nominated by the national convention, or the Republican National Committee may reconvene the national convention for the purpose of filling any such vacancies.
(b) In voting under this rule, the Republican National Committee members representing any state 9 of 44 shall be entitled to cast the same number of votes as said state was entitled to cast at the national convention.
(c) In the event that the members of the Republican National Committee from any state shall not be in agreement in the casting of votes hereunder, the votes of such state shall be divided equally, including fractional votes, among the members of the Republican National Committee present or voting by proxy.
(d) No candidate shall be chosen to fill any such vacancy except upon receiving a majority of the votes entitled to be cast in the election.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

You can call me whatever you feel necessary to the situation, but my comment was an honest one......I wasn't sure if there were protocols in place to cover such a situation of both nominees somehow not making it until the election. And so far only one poster has actually answered my question with a link to back it up. But it is only for the Republican party.
Maybe with your Democratic insight you could provide a factual answer for your party's protocol under such circumstances...

why did you ignore all of my posts but one? I already laid it out for you and no links are needed.

my post: "Their is a process for selecting a replacement, give time. If time is short I believe what another posted, in that the parties and PACs would suggest write-in candidates. A 3rd party candidate like Johnson stands little to no chance. If Hillary stumbles, Trump is still in. If rump stumble, Hillary is still in. If both stumbled? Highly improbable."

Reply to this: "their VPs are next in line .."
here: "No. They are not the party nominee" (for President) "VPs are nominees. (for VP) The party votes for them. The people do not select nominees for President or VP. The people vote to send delegates to vote. It's called representative democracy..."

post: "their VPs are next in line .."
reply by somebody else: "For nomination -- maybe, if the party wants it that way and it's before the election. But if it's after and they're not in the office yet I don't think they succeed. I suspect it throws to the House."

My reply: "If it is after the election? No one has been sworn in yet, but there is a team of 'elects' The people have already voted and the electoral college would have already certified. I would guess the VP steps up. There are rules for the House stepping in only during the electoral college process"

So I am back and forth on how and if it is the VP nominee, or the VP elect. They are two totally different scenarios. Now why are you either being too defensive (as witness your OP about the type of responses you inferred your op would bring on), or playing Mickey the dunce?

OK I looked it up. Somebody had to.

In chronological order -- if a nominated candidate is removed/incapacitated before Election Day (this example is from 2008):

>> Each party has its own protocol for this scenario, but in neither case does the running mate automatically take over the ticket. If John McCain were to die before the election, the rules of the Republican Party authorize the Republican National Committee to fill the vacancy, either by reconvening a national convention or by having RNC state representatives vote. The new nominee must receive a majority vote to officially become the party candidate. If Barack Obama were to die before the election, the Democratic Party's charter and bylaws state that responsibility for filling that vacancy would fall to the Democratic National Committee, but the rules do not specify how exactly the DNC would go about doing that. (Congress could also pass a special statute and push back Election Day, giving the dead candidate's party time to regroup.) <<
​

If after Election Day but before the Electoral College meets, which is where the POTUS actually gets elected:

>> There's no federal law that mandates how electors must cast their votes; theoretically, if the candidate to whom they were pledged dies and their party has not made a preferred successor clear, electors can vote for their party's VP candidate, a third-party candidate, or a leading preconvention contender within their own party. Under this scenario, however, individual state laws have the potential to make things murky, given that each state has the power to determine exactly how its electoral votes are to be cast and distributed. <<
​

--- and if after the EC votes but before Inauguration Day:

>> The 20th Amendment states that if the president-elect dies before beginning his term, then the vice president-elect assumes his or her spot. However, the point at which a candidate officially becomes "president-elect" is debatable. He or she definitely assumes the title after Jan. 6, when a joint session of Congress officially counts the Electoral College votes and declares a winner. But the shift could be said to occur immediately after the Electoral College vote. (See Pages 2 and 3 of this PDF article from the Arkansas Law Review.)


If a candidate dies after Dec. 15 but before Jan. 6, Congress, when it convenes, has to decide whether to count the votes cast for him. (In 1872, three electoral votes cast for the late Horace Greeley were discounted by Congress, but it's unclear whether votes cast for a living candidate who subsequently dies would be treated the same way.) <<​

basically what I posted off the top of my noggin'



AnCap'n_Murica ?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

So many more people have stepped up their game since last I frequented this place. Or maybe it is most of the boorish trolls have moved on to moldier pastures and reason cuts through?

 

[Pogo]

So many more people have stepped up their game since last I frequented this place. Or maybe it is most of the boorish trolls have moved on to moldier pastures and reason cuts through?

My impression having not taken such a sabbatical is the opposite, so I dunno --- maybe the fresh oxygen of the outside world has distorted your perceptions.

Give it time, some shit never changes.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

So many more people have stepped up their game since last I frequented this place. Or maybe it is most of the boorish trolls have moved on to moldier pastures and reason cuts through?

My impression having not taken such a sabbatical is the opposite, so I dunno --- maybe the fresh oxygen of the outside world has distorted your perceptions.

Give it time, some shit never changes.

Oh, I didn't mean to suggest that all was pure. Just that some posts now come through

 

[Care4all]

They're both unfit for the office. Hilary lied to Congress under oath and it can be proven, so impeachment isn't out of the question.

But both are on the ballots, so It's a mystery to me.

No one 'lied' to Congress under oath. Hillary testified for hours and hours with some of the best legal minds at her disposal sitting next to/behind her. And she is one very brilliant lawyer herself. Hillary Clinton did not perjure herself before Congress. Lie? That's a subjective term when taken out of the legal sphere.

If somebody testifies to the best of their knowledge, and that knowledge is found to be wanting? Is it a lie or a misstatement AnCap'n_Murica?

Yes, she lied. It's been proven. Now you lie.

no, she didn't lie, NOR HAS IT BEEN PROVEN...

she would be charged with perjuy, THEN TRIED where she is allowed to defend herself in front of a jury or judge, her choosing, BEFORE you can ever make that claim.

Trey Goudy's little quirp with comey in the hearing, would never in a million years hold up in court....

1, classified markings were NOT on the 3 emails, only ''partial markings'', no CLASSIFIED markings at the top of the 3, with no classified numerical markings, or date classified at the top either....

There is no way from here to high heaven, anyone could be charged with perjury when they did not knowingly lie...

and

2, those 3 emails with partial markings in the context, were not classified emails at all and the tiny partial markings were a mistake.

NO ONE can even charge her with perjury over that, let alone get a conviction...

trey goudy got his video for an ad though....that's all it was...a video opportunity....showmanship...to FOOL people just like you!

 

[Care4all]

Also, the Benghazi Intelligence committee, the only committee investigating Benghazi with full top secret clearance, said that they were not unlawfully shipping arms to Syria.... or something of the sort, which I will copy and paste below...

so, either no one was shipping arms to Syria orrrrrrrr, it was an approved program with a select few, the Intelligence community and the Intelligence Select Congressmen and Senators, knowing about it...

this Intelligence Select Committee, says nothing wrong happened....could be a lie, but a legal authorized top secret kind of lie....?

https://intelligence.house.gov/sites/intelligence.house.gov/files/documents/benghazi report.pdf

 

[AnCap'n_Murica]

no, she didn't lie, NOR HAS IT BEEN PROVEN...

she would be charged with perjuy, THEN TRIED where she is allowed to defend herself in front of a jury or judge, her choosing, BEFORE you can ever make that claim.

Trey Goudy's little quirp with comey in the hearing, would never in a million years hold up in court....

1, classified markings were NOT on the 3 emails, only ''partial markings'', no CLASSIFIED markings at the top of the 3, with no classified numerical markings, or date classified at the top either....

There is no way from here to high heaven, anyone could be charged with perjury when they did not knowingly lie...

and

2, those 3 emails with partial markings in the context, were not classified emails at all and the tiny partial markings were a mistake.

NO ONE can even charge her with perjury over that, let alone get a conviction...

trey goudy got his video for an ad though....that's all it was...a video opportunity....showmanship...to FOOL people just like you!

The "smartest woman in the world" didn't know what information that she was dealing with was classified?. You really want to run with that?

1) She testified, under oath, that she only used one device. The FBI investigation proved differently.

2) She testified, under oath, that no work related emails were deleted. The FBI investigation proved differently.

3) She testified, under oath, that no emails marked classified were emailed. The FBI investigation proved differently.

That is at least three counts of perjury.

Now, I have no brief for Trey Gowdy. He has shown himself to be a gutless eunuch, who is all bark. Even so, the evidence of perjury is right there in the public record. All one needs to do is take off the partisan blinders to see it.