It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

An Alternative to Donald Trump - Independent Conservative Candidate - Evan McMullin

page: 2
13
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 8 2016 @ 10:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

He has missed the paperwork deadline for Independent candidates in Texas which was May 9. So he can't even officially be on the ballot there.


That's what I've read. He would have to sue the state, which has also been mentioned as a possibility.



And plenty of states also have really high numbers of signatures that will have to be gathered to even get him on the ballot and there is very little time.


So, with enough money and exposure behind him, which he apparently has, that is certainly a possibility.



Did you miss the part where NO ONE knows him at all?


Of course not. That's what the funding and exposure would attempt to rectify. It's not like I'm supporting this guy. He's ex-CIA and former Goldman Sachs employee... Not the kind of person I'd look to as an alternative to anything. But this bid isn't aimed at people like me.



So if he gains any traction, the press will trot that out there.


Of course, his religion will be discussed. As will any dirt that can be found. That happens to ALL candidates for public office. It didn't hurt Romney, though. And he's got some of Romney's people working with him.



So, well, it's just a bunch of sad, sad people in denial wasting their money on someone who is playing along and likely destroying his career at the same time.


You may be right about sad people in denial, but why would a third-party run (and loss) destroy his career? Theodore Roosevelt, Strom Thurmond, George Wallace, Ross Perot and Ralph Nadar all lost on third party bids, but none of their careers were destroyed. Source

I have no idea and I really don't care if this guy's efforts will go anywhere. It's not going to affect my vote. I think it's an interesting possibility and worthy of discussion. And thank you for doing some research and actually discussing it.




posted on Aug, 8 2016 @ 10:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: Ohanka
"well funded, ex-CIA, worked for Goldman Sachs"

Ok, so he's an establishment hack then. Might as well vote for Clinton if you vote for this clown.




McMullin was little-known before MSNBC anchor Joe Scarborough broke the story.


This guy is probably a deep cover DNC operative.


“The best way to control the opposition is to lead it ourselves.”

― Vladimir Ilyich Lenin





posted on Aug, 8 2016 @ 11:00 AM
link   
Aren't the Koch brothers still looking for someone to support?



posted on Aug, 8 2016 @ 11:04 AM
link   
OMG..I thought the title said Evan McMuffin.



posted on Aug, 8 2016 @ 11:11 AM
link   
I think the big question is whether he will appear on the ballots in the major swing states. Nader threw the race to Bush, in 2000, when Gore lost by 537 votes in Florida.

It doesn't take much to swing a close election.

So, I guess I find this late entry suspect. It sure isn't about 'winning.' Not when you enter this late in the game and have no name recognition.



posted on Aug, 8 2016 @ 11:21 AM
link   
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

Sue the state?

There is not enough time.



posted on Aug, 8 2016 @ 11:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: carewemust
OMG..I thought the title said Evan McMuffin.


More like McGuffin.



posted on Aug, 8 2016 @ 11:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
I think the big question is whether he will appear on the ballots in the major swing states.



... his longshot bid could potentially have an impact in key battleground states such as Ohio, Virginia and New Hampshire – assuming he can raise money and build an organization.


Source

And Arizona is looking pretty "light pink" these days. Senator Jeff Flake Says Hillary May Take Arizona


It sure isn't about 'winning.' Not when you enter this late in the game and have no name recognition.


Absolutely agree. He's not talking about winning. He's talking about giving anti-Trump republicans an alternative. They hope to save face. Yes, Hillary will still win, but if the GOP can embarrass Donald with a landslide loss, they will have met their goal, as it will discourage other Trump-like candidates from trying.

It's crazy that the GOP would be trying to lose the election by a landslide to save face. but that's what I think we're seeing.
edit on 8/8/2016 by Benevolent Heretic because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 8 2016 @ 11:26 AM
link   
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

And when the party punishes its base? Why should its base ever vote for them or anyone connected to them again?

Maybe we should start asking Bernie voters the same question.



posted on Aug, 8 2016 @ 11:34 AM
link   
Mormon, Langley, Goldman Sachs.

Yeah, definitely an outsider then... /s/ And he can't even fill out forms on time? What's up with that? Too busy recruiting new Mormons/new CIA moles/new investment patsies?

On the other hand, it's great fun watching Scarborough grasping at non-Trumpian straws for something new to talk about, now that his good buddy has exploded like the Great Pumpkin filled with dynamite he so obviously was.

If only they had given this kind of exposure to Sanders and Johnson, oh.... 15 months ago.



posted on Aug, 8 2016 @ 11:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

And when the party punishes its base? Why should its base ever vote for them or anyone connected to them again?


The GOP base encompasses a WIDE range of voters. And this year, they're pitted against each other. From true conservatives to libertarians to tea partiers and extremists, they're all over the map. Some love Trump and some hate him. Some prefer Hillary. But asking ME to justify or explain what the GOP does, is just laughable. I couldn't explain them if I tried. Sorry.



posted on Aug, 8 2016 @ 12:41 PM
link   
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

I really do not understand why there would be ANY need for an alternative to Trump...
edit on 8-8-2016 by deckdel because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 8 2016 @ 12:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: deckdel
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

I really do not understand why there would be ANY need for an alternative to Trump...


Are you aware that many republicans cannot bring themselves to vote for him? Some are staying home, some are voting for Gary Johnson and some are supporting Hillary. You may be enamored with Donald, but many on the right find him as repulsive as most on the left do.

Much of the establishment GOP does not approve of him.



posted on Aug, 8 2016 @ 01:28 PM
link   
If benevolent heretic is for him.

I'm against him.

Thanks for vetting him for me so I don't need to waste my time.



posted on Aug, 8 2016 @ 01:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: Deny Arrogance
If benevolent heretic is for him.

I'm against him.


I'm flattered that my opinions serve as a deciding factor in your political choice, but I am, in no way, supporting Mr. McMullin.



posted on Aug, 8 2016 @ 02:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
I love it when leftists tell conservatives whom to vote for as if they really want to help us get what we actually want. It's cute.

You mean like when Trump supporters try to tell Bernie supporters to vote for Trump, even though Trump won't push any of our preferred policies?



posted on Aug, 8 2016 @ 02:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: Deny Arrogance
If benevolent heretic is for him.

I'm against him.

Thanks for vetting him for me so I don't need to waste my time.


originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

originally posted by: Deny Arrogance
If benevolent heretic is for him.

I'm against him.


I'm flattered that my opinions serve as a deciding factor in your political choice, but I am, in no way, supporting Mr. McMullin.

Fight! Fight! Fight! Fight!

In all seriousness, I'll probably look into McMullin just for kicks. I'm still voting either Stein or Hillary depending on how close my state is. But I like to know at least a little bit about each candidate.



posted on Aug, 8 2016 @ 03:36 PM
link   
Seems getting ballot access has been in the works for a couple months by this group (Better for America), even though the eventual candidate wasn't named. This story is from June:

Conservative Donor's Group Presses Ballot Access for a Third-Party Candidate



A conservative donor who has been scouring Republican ranks for a third-party candidate is pressing ahead with a group to get on the ballot in dozens of states. The candidate will come once the group sees that the ballot access is possible.

The donor, John Kingston, a bundler and ally of Mitt Romney, said he will bankroll a ballot-access project to create a path for someone to run as another option. The effort is being called Better for America.

“We do not have to be boxed in by this Hobson’s choice moment of Evil No. 1 or Slightly Less Evil No. 2,” Mr. Kingston said, referring to the major parties’ presumptive nominees Mr. Trump and Mrs. Clinton.



originally posted by: enlightenedservant
I like to know at least a little bit about each candidate.


I do, too. I've checked out a lot of the rumors, scandals, and conspiracy theories about both Hillary and Trump, and read about Hillary's, Trump's, Stein's and Johnson's positions on the issues so I can make an informed choice.



posted on Aug, 8 2016 @ 03:51 PM
link   
And here's McMullin for President Now people can look at his positions on the issues


His positions are basically conservative.

Letter to America



Hillary Clinton is a corrupt career politician who has recklessly handled classified information in an attempt to avoid accountability and put American lives at risk including those of my former colleagues. She fails the basic tests of judgment and ethics any candidate for President must meet. Moreover, she only offers stale economic ideas like the same old top-down government control that has brought us eight years of historically low growth.

Donald Trump appeals to the worst fears of Americans at a time we need unity, not division. Republicans are deeply divided by a man who is perilously close to gaining the most powerful position in the world, and many rightly see him as a real threat to our Republic. Given his obvious personal instability, putting him in command of our military and nuclear arsenal would be deeply irresponsible. His infatuation with strongmen and demagogues like Vladimir Putin is anathema to America values. We cannot and must not elect him.

Millions of Americans are not being represented by either of these candidates; those of us who care about the strength of the military and intelligence services find little to embrace in either Trump or Clinton.

Americans who believe in limited, Constitutional government that is smaller, smarter, and more accountable view both Clinton and Trump as symbols of corruption and excess that provide no hope of basic competence in the federal government.



posted on Aug, 8 2016 @ 04:02 PM
link   
McMullin doesn't stand a prayer and will serve to do noting more than siphon votes away from Trump. Enough to make a difference? I doubt it.

The GOP is in panic mode because Trump's not going to play ball. Everyone wants someone to come in and turn it all upside-down until that prospect is a reality, now they're freaking out.

Two choices: Business as usual, or flip the cart. I know I'm ready to roll the dice. But then I don't think Trump is the demon the media and the left (and the GOP establishment) is making him out to be.

See, we don't need to take up pitchforks and storm the Capitol with throat slitting knives to effect some major change. We just have to have the stones to vote for the equivalent. You think the vested interests want to see that tree shaken?





top topics



 
13
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join