BTW, when Andrea "I love Hillary and the left" Mitchell is getting fed up...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9dq5UdDSA7Q
Printable View
BTW, when Andrea "I love Hillary and the left" Mitchell is getting fed up...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9dq5UdDSA7Q
The President has the authority to declare a national emergency and postpone the elections. Of course, this would have significant consequences and fallout, but it CAN be done. I've actually considered this as a possibility to keep BO in office longer since the last election.
No he doesn't. It would take an act of congress.
Unless there was some reason to declare marshal law over the entire US.
However they get there doesn't matter, only the consequences.
And what are those consequences again?
The only people who want Trump to be president are a slim majority/minority* of voters (where that line is we won't know). The world (sans Russia) hates Trump. Half this country hates Trump to include nearly all of the political class, most Congress-critters and appointed judges, and almost all mega-corps (globalism is good for business).
They have motive, means, and opportunity to disrupt this election.
I sincerely hope I am wrong and they do not. But I can't think of any other reason to run Clinton knowing all the flaws making her unelectable other than having an "out" that can be exercised with one phone call to either DoJ or the media. And I can't think of any other reason why the Dems only put up one serious challenger (Sanders) knowing all this in advance depriving their party (and America) of the ability to chose an electable candidate. O'Malley could have been that guy, for example.
* Including those us who look at Trump like a mixed bag but a much preferable option than anything the Dems can/will produce.
It's possible that you have the cause and effect mixed up: Hillary made it this far because the powers-that-be have her under their thumb, precisely because of what you mentioned. All of those scandals would have faded into the background were Hillary not a presidential candidate.
I'm afraid you're the one who has cause and effect mixed up. The scandals would have faded because the Clintons and their friends have done a remarkable job controlling the media since about 1991. After Bill won, they arranged to take over the bureaucracy and power inside the Democratic Party to solidify their stranglehold on power (no one does background investigations and dirty politcal tricks like the Clintons which is one reason I never believed in the birther nonsense -- if there had been any truth to it, Hillary would have dug it up and used it in 2008). She's a corrupt incompetent conniving beeyatch as an administrator but she's a dangerous corrupt conniving backstabbing beeyatch as a political manipulator (still incompetent as a campaigner but she makes up for that incompetence with corrupt practices).
They would have had her elected in 2008 if not for Obama's fantasy story and telegenic presence upsetting her apple cart. As I have said a few times, the Clintons are desperate to win this election because the power of electoral office is the only way they can avoid impartial investigation and prosecution. It was the reason they engineered a retreat to New York and stealing away Daniel Patrick Moynihan's seat in the Senate. If you watched what was going on in 2008, you can see Obama didn't really want her as SecState but worked a deal where they could continue to hold onto political power to get their cooperation (and that of those they controlled in the rest of the Democratic Party).