R.I.P Tony Stark

TreeFrogTrader said:
If the nominee clearly leaves the race, I believe that all delegates- not just the superdelegates- get to vote again in another vote for the nominee. The party simply no longer has a nominee and there is no rule that it automatically falls to the vp nominee. Now some of the delegates may still be bound to their state obligation to stay with the candidate that their state originally voted for, and then see whether or not that person gets a majority vote in the first pass and then if there is no majority they are freed up on the second vote to go elsewhere. Of course I am speaking from what the rules look like but the DNC can pretty much change those rules and just say that they are going to have a executive committee meeting and choose someone so there is that.

An even more dicy scenario would be if the election were held- joe wins- and then goes tits up two weeks later. Does the vp then automatically become prez? I think the answer is no. The election is in early november but the electoral college does not meet until late in december so the majority of the electoral delegates are coming into the electoral college election uncommitted or unattached.

Another nightmare would be if Joe is elected and then had a debilitating stroke that incapacitated him two weeks late such that he was still elected but had not voluntarily, or lacked the capacity to willfully step down so was required to be elected at the electoral college because all these states passed laws requiring their electoral votes to go to the person who got the plurality. How the hell are you going to apply the 25th amendment to someone who has not even assumed office yet.

Okay, we have a few "thought experiments" and those are arguably far-fetched a bit. But we do know that if Joe is elected it is not far-fetched- but rather an absolutely certainty that he will ultimately leave office under extremely messy circumstances. He is already unfit for office so people have an obligation to be gaming some of this out in their mind if they care about the country. In other words: What are you doing for gawds sake, how can this end well? Those little scenarios I just outlined just for sport will look tame when you how it really goes- if he wins.

Sad, very sad, for Joe and the country.

Jill, I have no respect for you. You know Joe looks to you for signals about what is good and what is do-able and what the family supports. Why did you allow this? You enjoy watching him become a national basketcase when he could have left at the top of Obama's game? Shame on you. It will not end well.
More...
Hey Tree....!

No reference to the above post (Or this thread lol) but I wanted to quote you so you see this.

I caught the 1960 RNC speeches on C-SPAN, they are running various conventions all weekend.

I'll tell ya what, Nixon gave a hell of a speech in Chicago that year. His acceptance speech for his nomination. It was a really good speech. It was impressive.

I liked this line (paraphrased):

"People ask me if God is on our side(?). I like to quote Abraham Lincoln when he was asked this."

Lincoln: "Its not a matter of if God is on our side, its a matter if we are on God's side."

That one drew some serious applause. Nixon looked good. Incredibly poised. You should watch it if you've never seen it. I hadn't. It was pretty cool. I couldn't help but thinking how much times have changed, and yet they still stay the same. Tricky Dick lost that year to a charismatic Kennedy. The popular vote was within 1% though. Ya gotta give him credit.

I wonder if he'd have still won in 68 if LBJ hadn't withdrawn.
Nixon was a sharp cat though, just going by what I saw. I never really gave it much thought.

...."C-SPAN... 'cable's gift to America'".

Best channels out there.
In a way.
 
vanzandt said:
Hey Tree....!

No reference to the above post (Or this thread lol) but I wanted to quote you so you see this.

I caught the 1960 RNC speeches on C-SPAN, they are running various conventions all weekend.

I'll tell ya what, Nixon gave a hell of a speech in Chicago that year. His acceptance speech for his nomination. It was a really good speech. It was impressive.

I liked this line (paraphrased):

"People ask me if God is on our side(?). I like to quote Abraham Lincoln when he was asked this."

\Lincoln: "Its not a matter of if God is on our side, its a matter if we are on God's side."

That one drew some serious applause. Nixon looked good. Incredibly poised. You should watch it if you've never seen it. I hadn't. It was pretty cool. I couldn't help but thinking how much times have changed, and yet they still stay the same. Tricky Dick lost that year to a charismatic Kennedy. The popular vote was within 1% though. Ya gotta give him credit.

I wonder if he'd have still won in 68 if LBJ hadn't withdrawn.
Nixon was a sharp cat though, just going by what I saw. I never really gave it much thought.

...."C-SPAN... 'cable's gift to America'".

Best channels out there.
In a way.
More...


When it comes to debates, the times they waz a-changing in that 1960 race. Television was just coming into races as a major factor.

Of interest, those who listened to the famous kennedy-nixon debate on the radio, thought that Nixon won. But those who watched it on tv, thought Kennedy won - for obvious reasons.

Now the times, they is a-changing again- in the sense that it is unknown how it will work out when someone attempts to make the big kill by running a virtual campaign. Uncharted territory. Is less of Joe more? or is more of Joe actually less for the campaign?

Hillary actually suffered a little bit from the Joe syndrome. She would go months without being in the public eye. such as in Obama's second term when she was out of office. Her frigging ratings would go through the roof because people projected so much on to her as far as being the expected heir to Obama. And then she would re-appear on some book tour or something and they were sick of her again. Some of her campaign people say that she did not really fail to campaign in Wisconsin and Michigan. Instead, her campaign decided she was ahead so it was too risky to put her out there again, since she fucked up there with that "deplorables" comment. Joe's campaign is going through that too. They want him out and about, except lots of his handlers don't. What to do?
 
Last edited:
TreeFrogTrader said:
When it comes to debates, the times they waz a-changing in that 1960 race. Television was just coming into races as a major factor.

Of interest, those who listened to the famous kennedy-nixon debate on the radio, thought that Nixon won. But those who watched it on tv, thought Kennedy won - for obvious reasons.

Now the times, they is a-changing again- in the sense that it is unknown how it will work out when someone attempts to make the big kill by running a virtual campaign. Uncharted territory. Is less of Joe more? or is more of Joe actually less for the campaign?

Hillary actually suffered a little bit from the Joe syndrome. She would go months without being in the public eye. such as in Obama's second term when she was out of office. Her frigging ratings would go through the roof because people projected so much on to her as far as being the expected heir to Obama. And then she would re-appear on some book tour or something and they were sick of her again. Some of her campaign people say that she did not really fail to campaign in Wisconsin and Michigan. Instead, her campaign decided she was ahead so it was too risky to put her out there again, since she fucked up there with that "deplorables" comment. Joe's campaign is going through that too. They want him out and about, except lots of his handlers don't. What to do?
More...
This is impressive.
The man had incredible poise. I can see how he won in '68.
(the clip i saw saw on c-span didn't pan out to the audience. He just stood there and didn't blink once)
...queued.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top