Disturbing Video Of Hillary Clinton Leaving 9/11 Memorial

[exxonv]

BTW, when Andrea "I love Hillary and the left" Mitchell is getting fed up...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9dq5UdDSA7Q

[theGinsue]

An election cannot be postponed.

All of those examples are interpretations of a law or situation and nowhere close to the same as not holding an election. There is no process established which would allow them to not hold an election. If by some way they did I bet many would start voting from the roof tops.

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.

[newracer]

No he doesn't. It would take an act of congress.

Unless there was some reason to declare marshal law over the entire US.

[Skip]

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.

[Rumline]

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.

It was Clinton's turn this year, and there was no way the Clintons were going to let the Dem Establishment weasel out of it. Putting up Bernie kept the kiddies tuned in.

[Aloha_Shooter]

It was Clinton's turn this year, and there was no way the Clintons were going to let the Dem Establishment weasel out of it. Putting up Bernie kept the kiddies tuned in.

Again, it's not so much a matter of Clinton's turn as it is they NEED to control the Oval Office to avoid investigation and inevitable prosecution for their various misdeeds (not the least of which is tax fraud) by a clean DOJ and FBI.

[Rumline]

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.

[Great-Kazoo]

It's possible that you have the cause and effect mixed up: Hillary made it this far because the puppet masters 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.

[Aloha_Shooter]

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).

[Bailey Guns]

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 think you need a history lesson. In the democratic party, the Clintons ARE the powers that be. They've been getting away with murder (figuratively...and maybe literally) since long before any of the current big-whigs in the party came along.