TRUMP is seriously dangerous

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Re: TRUMP is seriously dangerous

Postby seemslikeadream » Thu Aug 04, 2016 1:27 am

The RNC Can Legally Dump Donald Trump but It Has to Act Fast
One word in the party’s rules would let it create a vacancy and fill it—like say, declaring the candidate mentally unfit. Then it gets interesting.
What would happen if the GOP dumped Donald Trump?
Top party officials are reportedly exploring options on how to replace the Republican nominee should he exit the race. But suppose, on top of his Gold Star-family insulting, almost-treason encouraging, and baby expelling, Trump were to really cross some line, whatever that might be, and GOP leaders decide they can’t support him anymore. Nor do they just want to disown the Republican nominee; suppose they want him off the ballot. Could they do it?
Or, imagine if Trump himself that sees he’s about to get shellacked (by a woman, no less) and to save himself the humiliation, blames the rigged system and drops out. Again, unlikely—but not impossible to imagine. What then?
I asked Nathaniel Persily, Stanford law professor and a pre-eminent scholar of election law (and, lucky for me, an old friend), what would happen if Trump were to quit, or to be formally dumped by the GOP. Could someone else be the Republican choice for president?
His answer? “Yes—but it depends on timing.” And there are three sets of rules that affect what would happen next.
1. Party Rules
First, Persily explained, are the party’s own rules.
The Republican Party rules states that “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.” They could do this by calling a new convention, or, more likely, casting votes remotely.


So in case of a Trump withdrawal, Persily said, “you can either redo the convention or, more likely, the RNC itself would just re-nominate a candidate.”
What about a Trump Dump?
Here, it’s uncharted territory, and Persily doesn't think the RNC has much room to maneuver. But notice that weasel-word “otherwise” in the RNC rules. That basically allows the RNC to come up with any reason to declare the spot vacant. For example, they could, following President Obama, deem him unfit for office – as in, mentally unfit. Or they could hold a vote of no confidence. No doubt, if Trump is fighting them, that would be a bumpy road, possibly involving litigation. It might be easier for leaders to endorse Gary Johnson and move on. But because of that word “otherwise,” it’s likely within the RNC’s power to dump Trump even without his consent. Then they would be able to fill the “vacancy” by majority vote.
Interestingly, that person could be anyone. Mike Pence does not automatically move up the ticket. On the contrary, unless Pence drops out (or is similarly found to be unfit, which seems impossible), he remains the nominee for Vice President, which, after all, is a separate office and a separate nomination. Most likely, the GOP’s knight in shining armor, House Speaker Paul Ryan, would be a leading candidate for a last-minute substitution.
So, within the GOP rules, it’s not hard to replace Trump if he drops out, and it’s not impossible to kick him off the ticket because of the word “otherwise.”
2. State Ballot Rules

Then it gets trickier.
Right now, Donald Trump’s name is set to appear on the ballots of 50 states. “So you have questions about ballot access,” Persily said. “There are deadlines in the state laws and that’s a state-by-state finding.”
Arkansas and Oklahoma require names to be certified by Aug. 10, for example, North Carolina by Aug. 5. Delaware’s ship has already sailed; they require certification the week after the national convention takes place. So in those states, even if the RNC duly voted for his replacement, it would simply be too late to take his name off the ballot.
In other states, though, the RNC has as late as Sept. 21 (Alaska) to replace the names on the ballot. “If it happens in August,” Persily said, “it’s not really a big problem.”
In September, if Trump were to quit or get fired, it’s possible that his name would be on some state ballots but not on others. And in October, it’s too late to take him off the ballot.
Now, just because someone’s on the ballot doesn’t mean they are necessarily in the running. There have been congressional races in which candidates have died while on the ballot. In New York, for example, veteran Congressman Ted Weiss passed away shortly before the 1992 election. Democrats hastily nominated Assemblyman Jerrold Nadler, and even though voters cast their ballots for Weiss, Nadler received the votes. He’s been in Congress ever since.
Presidential elections are different, however, because, as you may recall from the 2000 election, we don’t elect our presidents directly. Actually, voters in each state choose electors who formally vote for president in the Electoral College. And so we have to look to a third set of rules.
3. Electoral College Rules
Suppose Trump quits in October. It’s too late to modify the ballots, but the RNC hastily meets on Skype and puts Paul Ryan’s name in the hat. It’s all over the news, and in some states, there could even be notices at polling stations: “Voting for Trump actually means voting for Ryan.” But still, those voters are pulling the lever by Trump’s name. What happens now?
The question, Persily explains, is whether state electors are pledged to the individual candidate, or to the party that nominated him or her.
“Would Donald Trump’s electors be able to vote for someone else in the Electoral College? Most states say yes—you vote for whoever the party has nominated.”
Alabama, Maine, Massachusetts, Mississippi, South Carolina, Vermont, and Wyoming go by candidate. Here’s Maine, for example: “The presidential electors at large shall cast their ballots for the presidential and vice-presidential candidates who received the largest number of votes in the State.”
So in those states, if Trump says he’s running, and his name is on the ballot, those electors have to vote for Trump. Conceivably, if Trump withdraws of his own accord, courts might rule that Trump wasn’t really the “candidate” anymore, even though he was the name on the ballot. But that isn’t entirely certain.
More states, though, go by party, including Alaska, California, Connecticut, Florida, Michigan, Montana, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Washington, Wisconsin, as well as the District of Columbia. Hawaii’s statute, for example, says that “The electors, when convened, if both candidates are alive, shall vote by ballot for that person for president and that person for vice president of the United States, who are, respectively, the candidates of the political party or group which they represent.”
In those states, the state GOP could well say “As duly confirmed at the RNC meeting, Donald Trump is not the nominee of the Republican Party. Electors must vote for the actual nominee, Paul Ryan.”
In sum, right up until Nov. 7, the Republican Party could dump Trump by declaring him unfit for office, reconvening, and nominating someone else. But it would get messier depending on how long they wait.
If Trump withdraws, there’s really no problem, legally speaking, even at the last minute. While his name would be on the ballot, electors would vote for the party’s actual nominee, or courts would declare Trump no longer the “candidate.”
All this, of course, is unprecedented. And obviously, the political upheaval would be far more significant than the legal provisions in play. “It’s not likely,” Persily says of the legal machinations. “But who thought that Trump was likely?”
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: TRUMP is seriously dangerous

Postby Freitag » Thu Aug 04, 2016 1:39 am

Image
User avatar
Freitag
 
Posts: 615
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 12:49 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: TRUMP is seriously dangerous

Postby justdrew » Thu Aug 04, 2016 1:42 am

I've said all along it wouldn't be trump going the distance. I'm still predicting bush. :shrug:
By 1964 there were 1.5 million mobile phone users in the US
User avatar
justdrew
 
Posts: 11966
Joined: Tue May 24, 2005 7:57 pm
Location: unknown
Blog: View Blog (11)

Re: TRUMP is seriously dangerous

Postby Nordic » Thu Aug 04, 2016 2:05 am

I'm starting to wonder whether nuclear incineration is now the optimal Elite plan to preempt methane clathrate/permafrost meltdown predicted by Guy McPherson, Malcolm Light, Sam Carana et. al., and avoid the subsequent societal shitstorm through useless eater elimination. Nothing beats global warming like nuclear winter!


I've found myself wondering about that myself lately, especially considering the seemingly unstoppable provocation with Russia, and If that doesn't work out, China as Plan B.

Why the fuck would anyone else seem SO DETERMINED to go to war with Russia unless nuclear winter and depopulation was the end game.
"He who wounds the ecosphere literally wounds God" -- Philip K. Dick
Nordic
 
Posts: 14230
Joined: Fri Nov 10, 2006 3:36 am
Location: California USA
Blog: View Blog (6)

Re: TRUMP is seriously dangerous

Postby seemslikeadream » Thu Aug 04, 2016 8:17 am

The Huffington Post

Trump Boasts About Watching ‘Top Secret’ Iran Video Immediately After Becoming Eligible To Receive Classified Briefings
His vivid description raised questions about whether he disclosed classified material.
08/03/2016 07:12 pm ET | Updated 10 hours ago
10k
Christina Wilkie
National Political Reporter, The Huffington Post
Jessica Schulberg
Foreign Affairs Reporter, The Huffington Post

Donald Trump on Wednesday described vivid details from a video he said he had watched earlier in the day of Iranian officials unloading cash from an airplane. The money was part of a payment, announced earlier this year, from the U.S. to Iran to settle a decades-old dispute over an incomplete weapons sale.

“I’ll never forget the scene this morning,” Trump told the crowd in Daytona Beach, Florida, of what he said he had watched. “Iran ― I don’t think you’ve heard this anywhere but here ― Iran provided all of that footage, the tape, of taking that money off that airplane.

“Over there, where that plane landed, top secret, they don’t have a lot of paparazzi, you know,” Trump said. “The paparazzi doesn’t do so well over there.” But “they have a perfect tape, obviously done by a government camera, and the tape is of the people taking the money off the plane. It’s a military tape. It’s a tape that was a perfect angle, nice and steady.”

No publicly available video matches what Trump described. This raises the possibility that Trump was either fabricating the contents of a non-existent video, or he was disclosing information to which he has newly been granted access.

Trump’s description of the “top secret” tape came just days after the Republican presidential nominee became eligible to receive classified intelligence briefings ― a privilege afforded to the nominees of the two major political parties in order to prepare them, should they win the White House.

A spokeswoman for the Trump campaign declined to say how Trump acquired the video.

A spokesman for the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, the group that handles classified national security briefings for presidential candidates, did not immediately respond to a question about whether Trump has been briefed by the agency.

But both Trump and Clinton are eligible for classified briefings now that they have secured their parties’ nominations, James Clapper, the director of national intelligence, said late last month after the presidential conventions. The Atlantic’s Russell Berman reported Wednesday that Trump and Clinton could begin receiving briefings “as soon as the coming days.”

The vividness of Trump’s description of the video makes it difficult to imagine a scenario in which he made it up. He described how the video was shot by a steady hand. “Nobody getting nervous they’re going to be shot because they’re taking a picture of money pouring off a plane.”

Trump continued: “Iran released that tape, which is of quality like these guys have,” he said, pointing to the media in the back of the room. “Iran released that tape so that we will be embarrassed.”

UPDATE: 9:11 p.m. ― A video clip shown on Fox News Wednesday morning appeared to show U.S. citizens arriving in Geneva on Jan. 17. The video was clearly marked “Geneva, Switzerland.”

If this is the “top secret” Iran video that Trump claims to have seen, it would mean that Trump told his audience a half-dozen things about the tape that aren’t accurate. Contrary to what Trump said about the video he claimed to have seen, this video was not shot in Iran, it did not show the exchange of cash, it was not “top secret,” it was not “a military tape,” and it was not “provided by Iran.” Nor was it released to “embarrass the United States,” as Trump repeatedly claimed.

On the contrary, the safe return of U.S. citizens to neutral Switzerland was widely viewed as a victory for international diplomacy and U.S. foreign policy.

A spokeswoman for the Trump campaign did not respond to an inquiry about whether Trump was referring to the Geneva tape.


Editor’s note: Donald Trump regularly incites political violence and is a serial liar, rampant xenophobe, racist, misogynist and birther who has repeatedly pledged to ban all Muslims ― 1.6 billion members of an entire religion ― from entering the U.S.
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: TRUMP is seriously dangerous

Postby JackRiddler » Thu Aug 04, 2016 10:23 am

The neocon-R2P-humanitarian interventionism coalition for imperialism backing Clinton don't actually want a nuclear war with Russia. The risks of their own stupidity are not on their radar. They're just willing to risk hot war, just like in the original cold war. They want Russia to fold. They want hegemony over it and its integration into the U.S. world empire. They want Putin out, the return of an American comprador government in Moscow like in the 1990s, Ukraine in NATO (and not just NATO in Ukraine, which is already the case), Russian capitulations on Syria, Georgia, (re)isolation of Iran, no realignment with Turkey, etc. They want to control and plunder the world without limits, as always.
We meet at the borders of our being, we dream something of each others reality. - Harvey of R.I.

To Justice my maker from on high did incline:
I am by virtue of its might divine,
The highest Wisdom and the first Love.

TopSecret WallSt. Iraq & more
User avatar
JackRiddler
 
Posts: 16007
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 2:59 pm
Location: New York City
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: TRUMP is seriously dangerous

Postby Luther Blissett » Thu Aug 04, 2016 10:45 am

Now time to readdress what trumpists would do if Trump were removed or drops out from the race (from way back on page 34):

Luther Blissett » Thu Mar 03, 2016 10:54 am wrote:
General Patton » Thu Mar 03, 2016 10:22 am wrote:
Luther Blissett » Thu Mar 03, 2016 8:45 am wrote:I hadn't even considered yet until your post what Trump's most rabid base will do if he loses. I don't know why it hadn't crossed my mind.

Option one is to do nothing and reabsorb back into the Republican and Independent blocs as if nothing had ever happened.


lol no

Not even the GOP pundits who are the local arm of the Likud think everything will go back to being the same.

Option two is to remain unified as a dystopian expression of a pretty old demographic, but to do nothing. What most electoral blocs do when their "team" loses. Gore voters capitulated pretty merrily that fall and voiced most of their concern towards only Nader voters, or if they were a little more woke, the Court. It was only a short-lived bout of whining.


All Trump voters are old except for the ones who aren't.

http://www.latimes.com/visuals/graphics ... story.html
http://www.vox.com/2016/2/23/11099644/t ... itarianism

There's more than enough young people to cause problems. Hell he could pipeline poor whites from the socialist patches in Oklahoma, rural Appalachia ect for soldiers who would kill for him on command.

Option three is to organize with their sights on 2020. My hunch is that this is a little too feeble and patient though. This road would represent something like the formation of a new third party based on national identity, strength, or isolationism.


The newly elected chair of the Republican Party in the county that includes the Texas Capitol spent most of election night tweeting about former Gov. Rick Perry’s sexual orientation and former President Bill Clinton’s penis, and insisting that members of the Bush family should be in jail.
....
“We will explore every single option that exists, whether it be persuading him to resign, trying to force him to resign, constraining his power, removing his ability to spend money or resisting any attempt for him to access data or our social media account,” Mackowiak told the Tribune. “I’m treating this as a coup and as a hostile takeover.”

“Tell them they can go fuck themselves
,” Morrow told the Tribune.
http://www.texastribune.org/2016/03/02/ ... s-capitol/

Option four is to organize not with their sights on electoral politics but on social upheaval, more organized paramilitaries with larger scale and further reach; absorption of the ultraright into a nation-wide coalition, focusing on cities, the southwest, and Muslim populations. Somewhat like a KKK-tinged occupation.


You're forgetting about the illegals. The whole reason Sessions has backed him is he has pledged to kick out both the illegals and the anchor babies, Operation Wetback 2.0. Most likely with the cooperation of legal Mexican immigrants on his side.

People will still be fired up if Don doesn't deliver hard and fast and may take matters into their own hands. Even if he's lying and he's actually a moderate we're past the point of no-return here.

Option five is to spasm immediately. The least historically precedented but possible. I'm not sure how this could play out legally and formally but it's not hard to imagine how it would happen socially.

What are some others? Are options one-three the more likely?


Option 6: Trump takes a bullet and becomes a martyr for ultra-nationalism.

Option 7: Trump releases blackmail material that puts even more pressure on Clinton, Clinton responds, mutually assured destruction occurs. Which candidate is covered in more teflon?


Oh trust, I offered the first few options only because I didn't want to go full paranoid. My option 4 presumed the large presence in the southwest was specifically to drive a paramilitary response to "illegal immigrants". I still think option 5 is the most likely.

What are the social aspects of option 7? I'd like to explore that further.
The Rich and the Corporate remain in their hundred-year fever visions of Bolsheviks taking their stuff - JackRiddler
User avatar
Luther Blissett
 
Posts: 4994
Joined: Fri Jan 02, 2009 1:31 pm
Location: Philadelphia
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: TRUMP is seriously dangerous

Postby The Consul » Thu Aug 04, 2016 12:11 pm

My perception from the beginning has been that the only thing that can get better ratings than an ascendant strutting Trumpolini is a descending flacid Trump in flames. The media will feed on his demise with great relish. If one didn’t know any better, one might suspect that HRC had it all planned. Who else could steal away her “mischaracterization” of Comey’s comdemnation of her…by “Kicking out a baby” from the hall no less along with the heavily covered stupid meaningless mistakes. What better way to pad the viewership of a Great Fall than to allow him to build himself up in the public eyes “for free”. Any of the other serious political candidates in the primary (Kasich, Bush, Christie, Cruz, Rubio) would by now have made HRC’s total bitch meme front and center in the news cycles and shown that no, sorry, her life story is not about helping poor little girls make it in a big bad ungly world that Hilary has made better.
Now we have unnamed sources predicting that it is possible DT will exit the campaign and what the GOP will do (“legally”) to appoint a new candidate. Like they suddenly woke up Wednesday morning and realized, wow man, we’ve been fucking played.
The two disasters waiting to destroy either candidate are the DNC hacked emails and the suit against Trump University. If they happen to play out at the same time the latter is much more likely to finish off Trump than the former would do to Clinton (seriously, what could be in there that a dozen right wing sites haven’t been hammering on for decades). Lying and scheming and screwing over the public trust for personal profit in general is one thing, but ripping off old ladies, well, that’s unconscionable! And it’s easier press.
Clinton will be elected, seems increasingly certain. It’s worth wondering what GOP does to save it’s ass and whether Koch bros try to lift Libertarianism to third party status. But the shit will keep hitting the fan, bigger globs of it, in faster order, no matter who puts their hand on the bible in January.
" Morals is the butter for those who have no bread."
— B. Traven
User avatar
The Consul
 
Posts: 1247
Joined: Fri Mar 26, 2010 2:41 am
Location: Ompholos, Disambiguation
Blog: View Blog (13)

Re: TRUMP is seriously dangerous

Postby Searcher08 » Thu Aug 04, 2016 12:20 pm

@ Luther Option 7: Trump releases blackmail material that puts even more pressure on Clinton, Clinton responds, mutually assured destruction occurs. Which candidate is covered in more teflon?

This is the one I am wondering about - as potentially there is a Jeffrey Epstein related scenario which covers this. FWIW I think both Clinton and Trump are up to their neck in some very icky Epstein business. Clinton would probably not pull the trigger first but Trump... who knows.
User avatar
Searcher08
 
Posts: 5887
Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2007 10:21 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: TRUMP is seriously dangerous

Postby JackRiddler » Thu Aug 04, 2016 2:14 pm

Mutual implosion, how I've longed for it. Ain't happening. If only it had happened while Sanders could still win. Still, wouldn't it be great if it were suddenly Stein vs. Johnson? (Except for who would definitely win that. I suppose Johnson is a genuinely lesser evil. As in actually lesser, not just a slightly lower velocity towards the same outcome.)

Except let's not kid, neither of the beast parties would go away. If the D's lost Clinton they'd step in with Biden (who'd be ridiculously popular) and if Trump gave up the R's would put up... golly, someone. I don't see how Bush could be done credibly any more. Ryan or Romney. Or Romney-Ryan. Sounds vaguely familiar, somehow. Did they do that one before?
We meet at the borders of our being, we dream something of each others reality. - Harvey of R.I.

To Justice my maker from on high did incline:
I am by virtue of its might divine,
The highest Wisdom and the first Love.

TopSecret WallSt. Iraq & more
User avatar
JackRiddler
 
Posts: 16007
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 2:59 pm
Location: New York City
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: TRUMP is seriously dangerous

Postby 82_28 » Thu Aug 04, 2016 2:31 pm

I suppose we could say this about any of the multitudinous threads this here year but what exactly is the point of the primaries and shit? If Trump and Clinton jetted all over the fucking country all this time, only to be replaced, shows the system is a farce. We knew that before. But why is the farce now so noticeable? There are obvious reasons, however, why are like 100% of people in the country saying this shit be fucked. Except of course for the cagey Dan Savage who has been in equal parts wrong side and right side about just about everything. I'm sure there are others.
There is no me. There is no you. There is all. There is no you. There is no me. And that is all. A profound acceptance of an enormous pageantry. A haunting certainty that the unifying principle of this universe is love. -- Propagandhi
User avatar
82_28
 
Posts: 11194
Joined: Fri Nov 30, 2007 4:34 am
Location: North of Queen Anne
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: TRUMP is seriously dangerous

Postby Wombaticus Rex » Thu Aug 04, 2016 2:31 pm

Nordic » Thu Aug 04, 2016 1:05 am wrote:
Why the fuck would anyone else seem SO DETERMINED to go to war with Russia unless nuclear winter and depopulation was the end game.


Because NATO can actually defeat them and then the globe would finally be well and truly globalized.

It's a strategic bid for both natural resources and planetary control.
User avatar
Wombaticus Rex
 
Posts: 10896
Joined: Wed Nov 08, 2006 6:33 pm
Location: Vermontistan
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: TRUMP is seriously dangerous

Postby JackRiddler » Thu Aug 04, 2016 2:32 pm

Trump as populist is a liberal myth. Populism and the anti-establishment mood is currently all over the place. Liberals (not "leftists" but liberals as we are usually using it here: the neoliberal technocrat power elite) like to blame everything on populism and have never been more obvious of their love of elites and all billionaires not named Trump. Especially fascist outbreaks. Classical fascism used to be understood as escalated class war with a middle class base (with an ideology that also had appeal throughout the class system, since it was national and inclusive of all ). That was too Marxist, and liberal historians have been trying to make it into a populist/working class thing ever since. Here's a comment on Trump's base I saw today that I agree with:

From Cary Gabriel Costello via Steve Lopez:

"Often commentators cite the fact that only 44% of Trump supporters have college degrees. This is true, but it doesn't mean Trump supporters are less educated than average--it means they are MORE educated. Only 29% of American adults have college degrees. And the theory that people support Trump because they are low income and thus driven by economic populism? . . . In fact, Trump supporters in the primaries were wealthier than Clinton or Sanders supporters. . . .

"What does explain support for Trump? . . . [W]hat the data show is that populism and authoritarianism play a very weak role in motivating Trump support. The one factor, besides being conservative and Republican, that has a robust effect is racism . . . a combination of white supremacist attitudes and a belief that lazy brown people are getting a free ride on the back of hardworking whites. And Trump supporters strongly believe this. . . .

"For many years now, the Republican party has been the party of 'white resentment'--that is, racism. The idea that this is the year of white working class Republican populism is a myth--a prettier story to tell than white racism coming out of the closet, but a myth."


Meanwhile, as for the Clinton-led Democrats:

THE GOOD BILLIONAIRES
https://www.currentaffairs.org/2016/08/ ... llionaires

It has been puzzling watching the Democrats’ emerging general election strategy. Instead of attempting to articulate a compelling social agenda, which would deal with the debt, alcoholism, and suicide that afflict working-class Republican voters, the Clinton campaign has evidently decided to position itself as the choice of sensible elites. Instead of trying to find ways to deal with people’s woes and fears, Clinton has deployed Mark Cuban to laugh at Trump’s finances, and Warren Buffett to bring up the issue that voters care about most: wealthy men’s tax returns.
We meet at the borders of our being, we dream something of each others reality. - Harvey of R.I.

To Justice my maker from on high did incline:
I am by virtue of its might divine,
The highest Wisdom and the first Love.

TopSecret WallSt. Iraq & more
User avatar
JackRiddler
 
Posts: 16007
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 2:59 pm
Location: New York City
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby Perelandra » Thu Aug 04, 2016 2:53 pm

^OMG, so good on a quick skim. Thanks for the link.
“The past is never dead. It's not even past.” - William Faulkner
User avatar
Perelandra
 
Posts: 1648
Joined: Thu Feb 28, 2008 7:12 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: TRUMP is seriously dangerous

Postby Luther Blissett » Thu Aug 04, 2016 3:00 pm

Out of the 9% of americans who selected these two candidates, about 5% chose Clinton and 4% chose Trump.
The Rich and the Corporate remain in their hundred-year fever visions of Bolsheviks taking their stuff - JackRiddler
User avatar
Luther Blissett
 
Posts: 4994
Joined: Fri Jan 02, 2009 1:31 pm
Location: Philadelphia
Blog: View Blog (0)

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests