Evidence for God from Science

In my opinion, it is obvious to everyone, and they all know she is going to lose badly to Trump. One of the obvious signs is that right across the USA, the people have put up Trump signs and banners far outnumbering Clinton.

One of the Wiki leaks from John Podesta (Martin Armstrong on his blog agrees), claimed that what they do for polls (the rigged system), is to take samples from one area, (generally, the Liberal states like California or New York and the Liberal cities in the US, because the people in the cities are far more likely to vote Democrat then the small towns), and then they send that poll out to the media networks that spread the word, to prevent the other side from voting. So though it appears Clinton is leading in the polls, as reported by the Liberal media who has been bought by special interest, the truth is, Trump is way out front.

This could be a ploy for Obama to steal the election from Trump.

Since there are only 10 days left, she could be removed as the Democrat candidate and since early voting has already started, Obama will by Executive Order, declare the election void, and postpone the elections for a year, or longer, to allow the Dems time to get a new candidate, and Congress won't stop him, because they haven't done anything to stop his executive overreach in the past.

Also, Kaine could not just step in. Because the entire voting process would have to start over. Since early voting has started and people have already voted for Clinton, they can't just presume that they would vote for Kaine.

And he will attempt to stay in office.

Donald Trump's Presidency means the death of Liberalism in the West, something the Democrats absolutely fear, and if the USA goes that route, all the other Western nations are bound to follow. Mike Pence said he wants "Roe vs Wade" on the ash heap of history. If Trump appoints Christian conservative judges, the gay marriage amendment is bound to go as well. Those comments did not go over well with Liberal-voting Democrats, who want Christian morality marginalized even eradicated. Right-wing, anti-Liberal governments are on the rise in Europe because of the failed social policies of the Left, that have helped ruin Europe, just like the US.

"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." John Adams, Second President of the United States.

Frankly, I would just like Trump to win fair and square and the passing of power from Democrat to Republican be peaceful. However, I am not sure if it is going to go that way, especially since Trump claimed he is going to "Drain the Swamp." I expect Trump to completely purge the system in Washington; greedy bankers, corrupt politicians and biased media who report subjectively rather than objectively, will be a thing of the past.

I am amazed Clinton has not resigned. Anyone else would have. Why is she still clinging on to power? Even Nixon resigned. Bob Woodward, the reporter who broke the Nixon story in Watergate, said the Clinton foundation is "Corrupt" and a "Scandal".

Kurieuo wrote:

Jac3510 wrote:Kaine would be the person elected/sworn in.

Not necessarily, what about the Electorial College? Popular vote could go to Hillary but be handed to Trump if enough reason is felt, and public pressure is on. Although doubt it.

The popular vote is only relevant politically - a big win gives a candidate more political clout, at least for a while, but that's from the perception that his/her win was a mandate from the people rather than anything in the Constitution. The Electoral College picks the President, period, regardless of where the popular vote goes. That's why G.W. Bush got to be President despite narrowly losing the popular vote.

Kurieuo wrote:And, if Trump doesn't win the election, it'll be contested. Supreme Court could order a re-vote.

Public sentiment can apply a lot of pressure, which could sway judgement of the EC or SC.

A general recount is out of the question, but there could be recounts in places where the vote is extremely close. Trump can't just demand one if he loses. Public sentiment should be irrelevant. The Justices on the SCOTUS are appointed for life because that makes them more or less immune to outside pressure.

Long story short, our Democracy is stronger than you think. There's not going to be a revolution if Trump loses, just a lot of ugly, partisan politics. And that's coming regardless.

Kurieuo wrote:I have no idea why Comey reopened...

Seriously? You're doing an awful lot of speculating for somebody who hasn't taken 3 minutes to learn the basics of the story.

Anyway, the FBI was investigating Anthony Weiner's latest sexting scandal, so they seized his laptop. They then discovered that his wife, Clinton aide Huma Abedin, had used that laptop to send emails to Hillary Clinton. The decision was then made to look at those emails to see if any of them were classified. They have yet to do so, and they're not likely to do so prior to the election, but Comey figured he should tell Congress. And here we are.

Kurieuo wrote:

Jac3510 wrote:Kaine would be the person elected/sworn in.

Not necessarily, what about the Electorial College? Popular vote could go to Hillary but be handed to Trump if enough reason is felt, and public pressure is on. Although doubt it.

And, if Trump doesn't win the election, it'll be contested. Supreme Court could order a re-vote.

Public sentiment can apply a lot of pressure, which could sway judgement of the EC or SC.

I have no idea why Comey reopened, unless Hillary was a lot worse than even he knew. Possibly a distraction to take some heat off, possibly wait to see if Hillary's elected and then he can close the case and she could vice-versa protect him back. If Trump gets in, when then it really doesn't matter if they now move to prosecute Hillary and Comey looks trustworthy again. It doesn't make total sense to me, yet, but in time it might.

The EC has nothing to do with it. The really important point here is the date by which a person can get on, or be taken off, the ballot. Up until that time, if a candidate gets out of the race, they can be replaced by whatever means the endorsing party likes. So if Clinton had been indicted three months ago, for example, Democrats could have just replaced her with say Biden or Warren or Kaine or Sanders or whoever. They would then just have that new person placed on the ballot.

Thing is, that date is long since passed. No one can get on or be taken off the ballot, because the ballots are now set. So if Hillary were indicted today and resigned from the race (or removed by the party), she would still be on the ballot. So if she is elected, even if she is ineligible to serve, then at that point you just move through standard machinery for filling the office. In this case, the VP takes on the responsibilities of the POTUS. If she were indicted after the election takes place, the same thing would apply. She would either resign or be impeached at the VP would take over as POTUS with the Speaker of the House being next in line (so the effective VP).

So it doesn't matter who wins the popular vote or the EC vote. That only mattes on election day and has nothing to do with it. Yes, Trump could lose the popular vote and still be elected. That happened to GWB. Lost the popular vote to Al Gore and still was elected POTUS. And, for the record, that wasn't unprecedented. It also happened in 1824 (John Quincy Adams), 1876 (Rutherford B Hayes), and 1888 (Benjamin Harrison). GWB was just the first president in modern history for it to happen. It wouldn't surprise me, either, for that to become a real possibility in every election given how divided our country is and given population density distributions. Simple fact is that very densely populated urban areas tend to vote for Democrats, which gives them an EC advantage in terms of starting them much closer to the needed 270, but if they lose all the rural EC votes (which is very, very possible), they lose the presidency while running a fairly good chance of winning the popular vote.

And the SCOTUS cannot simply just order a revote. Yes, you can challenge the results of the election in court, but you can't offer a general challenge. Remember that November 8 is not one election for POTUS. It is, rather, 50 individual elections for POTUS happening on the same day. You can't challenge all 50, nor would you. And you would need grounds to challenge any given state's election (so, again, see Florida in 2000). If Trump loses, he would have to identify a state he thinks should have gone his way and real, legal reasons he think the count is wrong such that he should have been granted its EC votes. Obviously its possible, but nothing like an easy argument to make. Legal standards for voter fraud are a LOT higher than popular, media level arguments, and frankly, there's almost no way he'd win that argument in court.

I think it is true that people well aware of Hillary and Bill's shenanigans, yet who self-identify as progressive/liberal or as a Democrat - well these latest revelations won't change their vote. However, just like many Republicans - especially women - who have decided not to vote because they can't stand Trump - well, there are many Democrats who are about as fed up with Hillary. And this latest development could at least cause a significant number of Democrats who had about made up their mind that, while they don't like Hillary, they would vote for her anyway, to not vote at all.

The other thing is, apparently these discovered emails are in the THOUSANDS. So the analysis involved will not be quick - no matter how much the HillBillies demand the FBI show all they know. Here's the other thing - this thing is so messed up - was Weiner Boy was reading confidential emails???!!! No wonder Hillary and Huma have bonded, they both have been long humiliated by husbands who are horndogs! And if smartphones and email had been around back in Bill's presidency, we'd have endlessly been hearing about similar things - that is, more than we already have, all these years.

edwardmurphy wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:I have no idea why Comey reopened...

Seriously? You're doing an awful lot of speculating for somebody who hasn't taken 3 minutes to learn the basics of the story.

Anyway, the FBI was investigating Anthony Weiner's latest sexting scandal, so they seized his laptop. They then discovered that his wife, Clinton aide Huma Abedin, had used that laptop to send emails to Hillary Clinton. The decision was then made to look at those emails to see if any of them were classified. They have yet to do so, and they're not likely to do so prior to the election, but Comey figured he should tell Congress. And here we are.

Of course I'm aware of that, but I don't believe it. Comey had been absolutely grilled and shown to be in Hillary's pocket. Why turn now? There is a lot of internal pressure also.