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.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

A Candidate's Death Could Delay or Eliminate the Presidential Election

page: 1
25
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:
+2 more 
posted on Aug, 30 2016 @ 11:47 PM
link   


The presidential election could be delayed or scrapped altogether if conspiracy theories become predictive and a candidate dies or drops out before Nov. 8. The perhaps equally startling alternative, if there's enough time: Small groups of people hand-picking a replacement pursuant to obscure party rules.


"There's nothing in the Constitution which requires a popular election for the electors serving in the Electoral College," says John Nagle, a law professor at the University of Notre Dame, meaning the body that officially elects presidents could convene without the general public voting.

A Candidate's Death Could Delay or Eliminate the Presidential Election

Umm....what?!?

This article from US News & World Report has me speechless.

Has there ever been a similar article before another presidential election?

Exactly *what* is going on here? Has the MSM lost their collective minds? Have we? Or is this some sort of foreshadowing as believed by many conspiracy theorists.

It boggles the mind...


edit on 8/31/2016 by Riffrafter because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 30 2016 @ 11:56 PM
link   
a reply to: Riffrafter

They acknowledged today that they have every right to "spread it on" in regard to Trump opposition.

Somehow they think they are doing the world a favor or something.

This is probably the first trickles of a deluge of disinformation.

They are essentially saying, "Go against us and it doesn't really matter. We will win without your approval. Support us and we don't need all of this dirty business."



posted on Aug, 31 2016 @ 12:07 AM
link   
a reply to: Riffrafter

It seems morbid. But the anti Clinton people swear she is on the brink of death. The anti trump people point out the lack of any real medical report whatsoever and he would be the oldest man to be in office at the beginningif he wins. I suppose it is a question.



posted on Aug, 31 2016 @ 12:15 AM
link   
The part where it says "without the general public voting" is kind of shocking... So the university gets to vote instead of the people if I am seeing that right?

There is something very suspicious going on if they are coming out before hand to say that.
I wonder if UN or NATO is trying to pull some of the strings.
edit on 31-8-2016 by AnonymousTi because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 31 2016 @ 12:18 AM
link   
a reply to: Riffrafter

looks like you and i can't sleep for good reason.

Homeland Security Wants To Control POTUS Elections

blitzkrieg comes to mind.



posted on Aug, 31 2016 @ 12:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: AnonymousTi
The part where it says "without the general public voting" is kind of shocking... So the university gets to vote instead of the people if I am seeing that right?

There is something very suspicious going on if they are coming out before hand to say that.


I imagine it would be a delegate count in the matching party. I imagine there is a process in place. Why would it be an entire other primary?



posted on Aug, 31 2016 @ 01:14 AM
link   
a reply to: AnonymousTi

That is the part that stuck out to me as well. It literally says nothing in the US Constitutions garauntees a popular vote.

So basically, the electoral college could just go ahead and pick the president with their votes without us even getting a voice? And legally? What?



posted on Aug, 31 2016 @ 01:42 AM
link   
a reply to: Riffrafter

Well, isn't this an interesting plot twist. Just wait...it gets even better.



posted on Aug, 31 2016 @ 02:12 AM
link   
a reply to: Riffrafter

This springs from a guy trying to sell his upcoming book. From the end of the "story"....your link.



Amar, author of a forthcoming book touching on candidate death, outlines four distinct scenarios that would warrant special consideration because of the wording of the 20th Amendment: a death before an election, a death after an election but before electors meet in December, a death between electors voting and Congress counting votes in January, and the time between Congress confirming the election and the Jan. 20 inauguration.


Remember, voting is in the hands of the states, not the feds. The major parties have their rules for replacing candidates. People must be really bored to sit around and think up these things. I guess with candidates of this age the old "sex, drugs and rock-and-roll" has been superseded by morbidity.



posted on Aug, 31 2016 @ 02:17 AM
link   
a reply to: Riffrafter

Well, Clinton will be the same age as Reagan was when first elected if she wins, and Trump will be one year older than Reagan if he wins. To date, Reagan remains the oldest person elected as POTUS. That can all change come November...



Exactly *what* is going on here? Has the MSM lost their collective minds? Have we? Or is this some sort of foreshadowing as believed by many conspiracy theorists. It boggles the mind...


This is what is going on here: Both candidates are old as hell!

These two senior citizens are the oldest people to ever be in contention for the highest office in the land in the history of the U.S elections. Let that marinate.

The last three presidents; Bill Clinton and Barack Obama were in their 40's; and George Dubya in his mid 50's when first elected.

Therefore, there is a higher probability of death for either candidate before, or during their Presidency, than there was for any other president in history.

One can only hope...





edit on 31-8-2016 by Involutionist because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 31 2016 @ 03:28 AM
link   
Funny this was never brought up by the media back in 2008 when Hillary admitted her fantasy about Obama being assassinated.




posted on Aug, 31 2016 @ 04:50 AM
link   
a reply to: Riffrafter

Would not an arrest do the same thing.?



posted on Aug, 31 2016 @ 04:50 AM
link   
a reply to: Riffrafter

Well it is good to know what happens in this contingency, although it is about what I expected. I think it is likely that Hillary could get charged with some sort of crime before the election.



posted on Aug, 31 2016 @ 07:14 AM
link   
a reply to: Riffrafter

Nothing is going to stop a general election from happening. Just like with a write-in vote of someone dead (I get the feeling that Gene Wilder will be a relatively popular write-in this year), if the party doesn't replace the candidate in time, I assume that the name on the ballot would remain unchanged (or removed) and that only the living candidates will remain on the ballot. Then people would vote, regardless.

Of course, that's speculation, as I don't really care about this scenario nor do I think that getting all worked up over an article from MSNBC makes much sense--don't put too much weight into organizations that are meaningless.

ETA: Keep in mind that NOTHING in the Constitution says that there has to be more than one party represented in an election--there is no right to be on a ballot if someone catastrophic happens last minute and the party doesn't have time to regroup and update ballots in every state. I'm sure that there may be some concessions made, like maybe postponing the election a week or something, but I don't know how the logistics in something like that would work, not to mention everyone would be screaming about the process being effed up if something like that were to happen. It's a lose-lose all around, as "fraud" would get screamed in both scenarios, but I would hope that the election would just go on as planned and that people would have to write in the name of their party's candidate if there wasn't one updated in the system.

That would really show who pays attention and who just votes for the letter next to the name, wouldn't it?
edit on 31-8-2016 by SlapMonkey because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 31 2016 @ 07:17 AM
link   
a reply to: Deny Arrogance

I can't stand the woman, but at least in 2008 she seemed like a real human being.

Eight years can really make someone even more fake than they used to be--exponentially so.



posted on Aug, 31 2016 @ 09:22 AM
link   
a reply to: Riffrafter

Trump better get food tasters and plane mechanics he absolutely trusts, or we might get a third term of Obama.



posted on Aug, 31 2016 @ 09:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: facedye
a reply to: Riffrafter

looks like you and i can't sleep for good reason.

Homeland Security Wants To Control POTUS Elections

blitzkrieg comes to mind.


The OP article may be meaningless but have DHS involved in the election process sounds like the death knell of democracy to me. I suppose DHS will have oversight of the electronic voting tabulation? Is that the Reichstag I smell burning AGAIN?



posted on Aug, 31 2016 @ 09:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: facedye
a reply to: Riffrafter

looks like you and i can't sleep for good reason.

Homeland Security Wants To Control POTUS Elections

blitzkrieg comes to mind.


The OP article may be meaningless but to have DHS involved in the election process sounds like the death knell of democracy to me. I suppose DHS will have oversight of the electronic voting tabulation? Is that the Reichstag I smell burning AGAIN?



posted on Aug, 31 2016 @ 09:33 AM
link   
With Hillary's bizarre health issues and the lefts venomous rabid violence toward Trump and his supporters I can see why they wrote this article. Crazy scenarios!



posted on Aug, 31 2016 @ 09:35 AM
link   
AAAAAA!

Another spin on the "Obama is not going to leave the Presidency" crapola.

Same song, 8,542,528th verse.

Must be a slow news day.



new topics

top topics



 
25
<<   2 >>

log in

join