The 2016 US Election (Part III)

[The Romulan Republic]

snip

You quote, approvingly, both Milo Yiannapoulos and Ben Shapiro. You rail against SJWs. I see no reason whatever to take you seriously.

I'd like to ask a question about this, because I've seen a lot of speculation on-line but not much in the way of solid, reliable answers.

What happens if a candidate has to be replaced and its past the deadlines to get someone's name on the ballot? Do they run someone else under the old candidate's name? Surely they don't just hold the election with only one major candidate getting to run?

Its unlikely, of course, and hopefully it doesn't happen, but it is always possible, and so I would presume its one that the parties have procedures for.

We don't have procedures for that in place. In theory, the party could sue to have the name replaced on the ballot, but there aren't provisions for this yet.

Theoretically, the national party gets to decide who's on the ticket should someone die between now and January, but there aren't any hard-and-fast rules for this. There aren't explicit rules for this since this hasn't happened yet. The 20th amendment lays out a path to power in the event that a nominee dies before they're inaugurated. In that case, the Veep gets to be president until a President is named. This would presumably be the Veep. The processes are pretty ill-defined, and the choices made to name the President would set precedent for future cases.

Fortunately, neither Hillary nor Trump are in danger of dying between November 9th and January 20th, so the point is moot.

Neither is likely to die, of course, but anyone could die unexpectedly at any time, especially considering most Presidential candidates are a little on the elderly side. I find it a little surprising that its never happened in over 200 years, and rather baffling that their is apparently no set contingency for this eventuality. It seems like something that's almost inevitably going to bite us in the ass big time and lead to a Constitutional crisis one day. It'd be nice to come up with a contingency in advance rather than waiting for a cluster fuck and then trying to fix it at the last minute for a change.

Sue to get on the ballot... with a Supreme Court that's split along partisan lines and down a Justice? Lovely.

Edit: As to Crown... yeah. The SJW stuff sounds less like "disgruntled Bernie or Buster" and more like "closet Trump supporter".

[Crown]

snip

You quote, approvingly, both Milo Yiannapoulos and Ben Shapiro. You rail against SJWs. I see no reason whatever to take you seriously.

Edit: As to Crown... yeah. The SJW stuff sounds less like "disgruntled Bernie or Buster" and more like "closet Trump supporter".

Well as I am not a US citizen and thus ineligible to vote I am neither. And I reject the label 'closet anything'; I'm pretty unapologetic about who and what I am thank you very much.

[Crown]

Every single poll I remember during the primaries showed that in a head to head Bernie Sanders destroyed any candidate the Republican party put him up against. If I am wrong, or I don't remember correctly or of course any polling now suggests otherwise, then I concede.

Point. I don't have time to dig before I head into work, but there were several polls were Kasich was tied or one point ahead of Sanders. He was the only one who could make that claim - neither Trump, Rubio, Cruz, or Bush could get within 3 points of Sanders.

Didn't he nuke Trump from low earth orbit in the head to heads, or am I going senile suffering from pneumonia?

[maraxus2]

Neither is likely to die, of course, but anyone could die unexpectedly at any time, especially considering most Presidential candidates are a little on the elderly side. I find it a little surprising that its never happened in over 200 years, and rather baffling that their is apparently no set contingency for this eventuality. It seems like something that's almost inevitably going to bite us in the ass big time and lead to a Constitutional crisis one day. It'd be nice to come up with a contingency in advance rather than waiting for a cluster fuck and then trying to fix it at the last minute for a change.

Sue to get on the ballot... with a Supreme Court that's split along partisan lines and down a Justice? Lovely.

Edit: As to Crown... yeah. The SJW stuff sounds less like "disgruntled Bernie or Buster" and more like "closet Trump supporter".

There are lots of ill-defined aspects of the democratic process. The fact that we even have deadlines to be on the ballot is a little nutty, and that's bitten voters in the ass several times. A few years ago, LA had an election where the incumbent Democrat died just after winning the Democratic primary for the State Senate. Since she was in an absolutely safe seat, everyone knew that she'd win, and that they would need a special election to fill it in a few months time. The state found a workaround for this issue, but it didn't really exist before.

Likewise, Missouri had a Senate race where the Democratic challenger, Mel Carnahan, died in a plane crash a few weeks before the election. Since the Democrat was the incumbent Governor, Carnahan's Lt. Gov, now the governor, promised to appoint Carnahan's wife to the seat in the event that Carnahan defeated the incumbent. Carnahan did in fact defeat the incumbent Senator, despite the fact that he was dead. Jean Carnahan got appointed to the Senate. The incumbent was a clueless dipshit named John Ashcroft. Wonder what happened to him?

The point being that it's impossible to plan contingencies for this sort of thing. I don't know how you'd even go about replacing a nominee if they died in the six months between July and January.

[The Romulan Republic]

No, you're never going to be able to plan for every eventuality, but "candidate dies between the ballot deadlines and the election" seems like a fairly obvious possibility with fairly major effects if it happened, so its surprising if no contingency has been planned.

I don't see why it would be impossible. The parties would presumably have their own internal procedures, but it seems almost criminally irresponsible for governments not to have an exemption of some sort to ballot deadlines (which do make sense to a point, as you can't have last minute changes to the ballot that the voters might be uninformed about) for this scenario.

[maraxus2]

No, you're never going to be able to plan for every eventuality, but "candidate dies between the ballot deadlines and the election" seems like a fairly obvious possibility with fairly major effects if it happened, so its surprising if no contingency has been planned.

I don't see why it would be impossible. The parties would presumably have their own internal procedures, but it seems almost criminally irresponsible for governments not to have an exemption of some sort to ballot deadlines (which do make sense to a point, as you can't have last minute changes to the ballot that the voters might be uninformed about) for this scenario.

I agree, and I think this is why states have different processes for dealing with it. But the Feds are an entirely different beast. You're not in a position to suddenly shift gears to another nominee, particularly if the nominee lost the primary (e.g. Bernie) or wasn't connected to the nominee's campaign (e.g. Biden). You'd have to get a great deal of internal consensus, which would be difficult enough if it were only among party regulars. Since you'd have to give the nomination from someone who won the nomination in a democratic way, to someone who either lost or didn't participate in the primary, it becomes more slippery.

Typically, states resolve this issue by having a special election within a specified time frame. For state elections, it's usually a few months. For the Feds, it's the length of the term. Jean Carnahan had to run for re-election two years after being appointed to the Senate following her husband's death, for example.

But you can't have a special election for the Presidency because that election is constitutionally fixed. So the not-very-democratic national parties have to pick a nominee using whatever methods they feel best. It makes rational sense that they don't have the process laid out, as it would make the backroom knife-fighting more difficult for whatever side eventually came out on top. Plus, this has never happened, nor is there much reason to think that it will any time in the near future. Particularly not with the nominee's health much more public now than in the past.

It'd be one thing if this were the mid 40's and an obviously ill Roosevelt was running for a 4th term. Fortunately, we are not in this position, nor are we likely to be any time in the near future. Barring an act of God, at least.

[bilateralrope]

Remember that you are talking about a system where it's possible for a presidential candidate to be on the ballot in some states, but not in others. Which means that there can be candidates who are on ballots, but can't win even if they get every single vote from every single person who is able to vote for them. That seems way more fucked up than there not being a plan for a candidate dying at an inopportune time.

[The Romulan Republic]

So if the Democratic candidate died, all the states with Blue state governments will let a new Democrat on the ballot, and all the Red state governments won't? And if the Republican candidate died, the reverse?

That would be messy. I haven't actually done the math to see which party could win in a scenario where they were only on the ballot in states where they controlled the state governments.

I also see third parties having a very good year in a states where their is no Democrat or no Republican, as the case may be, on the ballot. Which could lead to a scenario where no one gets an electoral college majority (i.e. a Trump win, since it would go to the Republican House).

Or am I missing something here?

[Flagg]

Even if she were terminally ill, that's why the vice president is a thing. Presidents have been known to die. Hillary Clinton's less horrid than Trump by any metric an honest person can name, and her choice of vice president is also exceedingly more presidential than Darth Spraytan. I'd vote for a dying Hillary Clinton before I'd vote for Donald Trump.

No, sorry. If a candidate were terminally ill (or know they will be unable to do the job) they should drop out and have the party choose a replacement.

If you can't do the job for 4 years due to health reasons you are not qualified. And if you know it, then you're defrauding the American people. I'm voting for Clinton to be President with what's his face to be VP only to take the office of POTUS should an unforseen event occur that renders the POTUS unable to do thier duties, not "when my degenerative disease I've known about for months or years before the election renders me unqualified after I'm sworn in".

I'd like to ask a question about this, because I've seen a lot of speculation on-line but not much in the way of solid, reliable answers.

What happens if a candidate has to be replaced and its past the deadlines to get someone's name on the ballot? Do they run someone else under the old candidate's name? Surely they don't just hold the election with only one major candidate getting to run?

Its unlikely, of course, and hopefully it doesn't happen, but it is always possible, and so I would presume its one that the parties have procedures for.

IIRC, the person is still on the ballot and you can still vote for them, then assuming that ticket wins, the VPOTUS-Elect is sworn in as President and they then choose a Vice President which then goes to the senate which will confirm them or reject them and the new POTUS fights with the Senate should thier chosen VP nominee be rejected until someone is confirmed.

[The Romulan Republic]

That would be a reasonably sensible answer, but can't you just see Republicans crying fraud and suing because a dead candidate was on the ballot?

Hell, there are some Democrats who would.

[Mr Bean]

The entire point of the Vice Presidency is to have a spare President. The VP becoming the P is automatic it's in the VP job description. It's also mentioned in the 25th amendment. The tricky part is if either sides sues because while the base requirements for President....

No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States.

...Don't mention anything about being alive, the 25th amendment does but that triggers the Vice President becomes President clause. Thus with a clear legal standard any such lawsuits will quickly fail.

Legally as far as far as any talking head I've read or legal expert voiced on Monday when the news channels were full of what if Secretary Clinton drops dead talk, the comments were all the same... running for President makes all President related laws apply to you including the VP succession laws.

Or another way to say it, by constitutional law if either Presidential hopeful dies post convention his or her Vice President assumes the President role at the top of the ticket and it's on the party to fill the VP slot pre-election while Congress fills it post election pre-confirmation.

[Rhadamantus]

Crown, you're a moron. Drumpf saying he know believes that Obama was born in the US in no way excuses his deplorable behavior.

I'm not excusing anything. I'm applauding at his ability to play a clearly biased media like a fiddle to do his bidding. We used to have the following quote underneath the banner of the forum; "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~ Aristotle

Here's a succinct summary of what he just did from Ben Shapiro (who while obviously conservative is no Drumpf fan);

Drumpf: The sky is not blue.
Media: Is it blue?
Drumpf: Tell you tomorrow.
*hourlong full coverage*
Drumpf: It's blue.
Media: Dammit!

It is also not comparable to one Hillary supporter saying some sort-of racist things years ago.

That doesn't refute the Donald's claim that birtherism started out of her camp; to which they now claim it was 'one rogue staffer who we fired' in 2007 but not an actual tactic we used (CNN). Except for the fact a photo of Barak in African/Muslim garb was leaked by her staff in 2008, to which the Obama staff quickly pointed out it was meant to feed into narrative but the Clinton staff responded 'totally coincidental' honest.

If you want the staff minutes of the secret email of Clinton and her advisors openly discussed starting the birther movement; I haven't got it. I'll hold my hands up to that (I do have the emails from the DNC openly discussing using Bernie's atheism against him though if you want those, just FYI). But the birther whispers began during the primary, there is avoiding that.

Replacing Hillary with Bernie would be dumb as fuck, given his general unelectability, and the literal impossibility of it.

Every single poll I remember during the primaries showed that in a head to head Bernie Sanders destroyed any candidate the Republican party put him up against. If I am wrong, or I don't remember correctly or of course any polling now suggests otherwise, then I concede.

Your idiotic ranting about SJWs is also not enhancing your credibility.

1+1 = 2. Also SJWism is mental disorder and a social cancer. Question; does 1+1 not equal 2 anymore because of my 'credibility'?

Crown, one of her supporters accusing Obama of being foreign and her staff circulating pictures of him in foreign garb are shitty. They are still far far less shitty than what Trump has done, and if you are going to claim that anything about his foreignness means they started the birther contrversy, then it started in 2004.

Also, with Bernie's atheism, do you not see how have a canididate running for president who is an atheist might just be a problem if you want to win?

Bernie Sanders was never electable. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_ ... _myth.html. He was a socialist and possibly an atheist (two of the three most hated groups). He had a history of praise for communist regimes, and even endorsed breadlines. He said children should run around naked and touch each other's genitals, and has since voted against the amber alert. Support for his positions drops in half once people learn how much it will cost them. His wife bankrupted Burlington College, then left with a 200,000 golden parachute. He claims to be adamantly against nuclear power, but in 1994 he was part of the commission that dumped nuclear waste on a poor hispanic community in Texas. When questioned, his defense was that he was the representative from Vermont.He also profited off it, as he appointed his wife as head of the commission for the disposal of the waste (until 2014, the Sanders had never visited texas).
In an election against Trump, he might have a chance. If he had to face Rubio or Kasich though, think 1984.

Also, your politics are interesting, seeing as you seem to support Bernie Sanders, yet hate "SJWs".

[The Romulan Republic]

Sanders is a borderline socialist but definitely not an atheist, unless you presume that he's lying.

Also, the old "wisdom" of socialist=unelectable is not as airtight as it was. It will likely become less so as more and more of the electorate was born post-Cold War.

Fun fact: Bernie currently has the highest approval rating of any Senator.

Of course, its a moot point as far as this election is concerned. The primary is over.

[TimothyC]

Didn't he nuke Trump from low earth orbit in the head to heads, or am I going senile suffering from pneumonia?

By something on the close order of ten to fifteen points in every poll.

[The Romulan Republic]

To be fair, Clinton was up their for a bit, or nearly, after the conventions.

[Wild Zontargs]

Also, your politics are interesting, seeing as you seem to support Bernie Sanders, yet hate "SJWs".

I'm another one of those pro-Bernie anti-SJW Lefties. A lot of people on the Left see SJWs as the equivalent of the Tea Party on the Right: a group that is attempting to hijack their end of the political spectrum and run it straight to crazy-town by taking otherwise sensible concepts to absurd extremes.

[The Romulan Republic]

While their are certainly some dogmatic idiots on the Left (I count the Bernie or Busters among them as well), "SJWs" are largely an inflated bogey-man of the far Right/alt Right. Too often, SJW is little more than code for "anyone who isn't cool with treating women and minorities like shit" or at least "anyone who acknowledges bigotry against women and minorities is still a real problem". Its become, for a lot of people, the new enemy of the day (along with Muslims). I find that somewhat poisons the term for any other use.

[Flagg]

Sanders is a borderline socialist but definitely not an atheist, unless you presume that he's lying.

Also, the old "wisdom" of socialist=unelectable is not as airtight as it was. It will likely become less so as more and more of the electorate was born post-Cold War.

Fun fact: Bernie currently has the highest approval rating of any Senator.

Of course, its a moot point as far as this election is concerned. The primary is over.

Even Republicans in the US are socialists, they just don't know what the word actually means because they're fucking stupid. As for socialism and Atheism, what does one have to do with the other? The late Christopher Hitchens was a fucking Dubya shit swallowing warmonger as long as you were killing Muslims and he was an Atheist.

Of course the question is rhetorical because idiots conflate socialism with totalitarian Communist regimes (which are known to ban religion or at least have a heavy hand when it came to it) in ignorant conservative bubble-land.

[Flagg]

The entire point of the Vice Presidency is to have a spare President. The VP becoming the P is automatic it's in the VP job description. It's also mentioned in the 25th amendment. The tricky part is if either sides sues because while the base requirements for President....

No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States.

...Don't mention anything about being alive, the 25th amendment does but that triggers the Vice President becomes President clause. Thus with a clear legal standard any such lawsuits will quickly fail.

Legally as far as far as any talking head I've read or legal expert voiced on Monday when the news channels were full of what if Secretary Clinton drops dead talk, the comments were all the same... running for President makes all President related laws apply to you including the VP succession laws.

Or another way to say it, by constitutional law if either Presidential hopeful dies post convention his or her Vice President assumes the President role at the top of the ticket and it's on the party to fill the VP slot pre-election while Congress fills it post election pre-confirmation.

Yeah, right on the money. Basically when you vote for who should be POTUS, you're voting for the VPOTUS as well by default. It's a lot better than when the person in second place became VPOTUS.

[Flagg]

Also, your politics are interesting, seeing as you seem to support Bernie Sanders, yet hate "SJWs".

I'm another one of those pro-Bernie anti-SJW Lefties. A lot of people on the Left see SJWs as the equivalent of the Tea Party on the Right: a group that is attempting to hijack their end of the political spectrum and run it straight to crazy-town by taking otherwise sensible concepts to absurd extremes.

The good old Golden Mean fallacy. Alive and kicking.

[Simon_Jester]

"Logically, if one side has dangerous extremists who are actively exerting political power, the other side must ALSO have dangerous extremists with enough political power to worry about. Right?"

[Flagg]

"Logically, if one side has dangerous extremists who are actively exerting political power, the other side must ALSO have dangerous extremists with enough political power to worry about. Right?"

Yeah! All those SJW making not so vague threats against opposing politicians like when Donnie Douchebag recently said Clinton's Secret Sercive detail should be disarmed to "see what happens", Christians (or people ignorant bigots assume are Christians) being murdered just like Muslims, and demanding a wall be built on our northern border to keep those filthy Maple Suckers out of our country. Fucking SJWs!

[Crown]

Crown, one of her supporters accusing Obama of being foreign and her staff circulating pictures of him in foreign garb are shitty. They are still far far less shitty than what Trump has done, and if you are going to claim that anything about his foreignness means they started the birther contrversy, then it started in 2004.

The conversation has moved on in between your posts between Terralthra and myself, which I think demonstrates that I'm not drawing a moral equivalency between Trump's birtherism and Clinton's (and there is no debate that she *winkwink* *nudgenudge* more than a few times during the primary); I'm enjoying how what was meant to be a political headshot of Trump from the Clinton camp completely blew up.

Also, with Bernie's atheism, do you not see how have a canididate running for president who is an atheist might just be a problem if you want to win?

Bernie Sanders was never electable. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_ ... _myth.html. He was a socialist and possibly an atheist (two of the three most hated groups). He had a history of praise for communist regimes, and even endorsed breadlines. He said children should run around naked and touch each other's genitals, and has since voted against the amber alert. Support for his positions drops in half once people learn how much it will cost them. His wife bankrupted Burlington College, then left with a 200,000 golden parachute. He claims to be adamantly against nuclear power, but in 1994 he was part of the commission that dumped nuclear waste on a poor hispanic community in Texas. When questioned, his defense was that he was the representative from Vermont.He also profited off it, as he appointed his wife as head of the commission for the disposal of the waste (until 2014, the Sanders had never visited texas).
In an election against Trump, he might have a chance. If he had to face Rubio or Kasich though, think 1984.

I knew about his Sandinsta flirtations but not his creative writing. But as I already said; if I'm wrong then I'll concede.

Also, your politics are interesting, seeing as you seem to support Bernie Sanders, yet hate "SJWs".

I feel this is conversation best had outside of this thread; the TL:DR summary is that I'm by nature far more critical of 'my side' than the opposition.

[Crown]

Also, your politics are interesting, seeing as you seem to support Bernie Sanders, yet hate "SJWs".

I'm another one of those pro-Bernie anti-SJW Lefties. A lot of people on the Left see SJWs as the equivalent of the Tea Party on the Right: a group that is attempting to hijack their end of the political spectrum and run it straight to crazy-town by taking otherwise sensible concepts to absurd extremes.

The good old Golden Mean fallacy. Alive and kicking.

Ah someone erroneously labelling logical fallacies on SD.net still alive and kicking. He wasn't asserting that the truth must be found as a compromise between two positions. He was using a simile between the nut job wing of the right and how those of us who identify as left view SJWs.

Dumbass.

"Logically, if one side has dangerous extremists who are actively exerting political power, the other side must ALSO have dangerous extremists with enough political power to worry about. Right?"

Also, not what Wild Zontargs said.

Yeah! All those SJW making not so vague threats against opposing politicians like when Donnie Douchebag recently said Clinton's Secret Sercive detail should be disarmed to "see what happens", Christians (or people ignorant bigots assume are Christians) being murdered just like Muslims, and demanding a wall be built on our northern border to keep those filthy Maple Suckers out of our country. Fucking SJWs!

Remind me again who was nearly assassinated again this election cycle

[maraxus2]

"Logically, if one side has dangerous extremists who are actively exerting political power, the other side must ALSO have dangerous extremists with enough political power to worry about. Right?"

Yeah! All those SJW making not so vague threats against opposing politicians like when Donnie Douchebag recently said Clinton's Secret Sercive detail should be disarmed to "see what happens", Christians (or people ignorant bigots assume are Christians) being murdered just like Muslims, and demanding a wall be built on our northern border to keep those filthy Maple Suckers out of our country. Fucking SJWs!

It's true. One side has effectively taken over government in many of the states and has around forty votes in Congress, while the other is basically a bunch of dipshits on the internet. Essentially the same thing.