American presidential election, let PA decide

Pastmaster wrote: Dean wrote: Pastmaster wrote: Yes, because I agree with their views more than Johnson. I know if I were a business I wouldn't want to be forced to make something against my will.  Eh? Would you like to run that past the boys and girls again, this time with a little more explanation... Who is being forced to make something against their will? ... and while you're at it, what precisely is this 'something' they are being forced to make?  This seems a somewhat farcical method for deciding which 'also ran' candidate to vote for. Johnson wants to force companies to do things for people against their will, such as forcing a Christian baker to bake a cake for gay people. While I of course am against bigotry like that, you've got to let businesses run themselves. Hopefully, smart consumers will start boycotting the business and get it to change their ways or go out of business.

If I had a vote, then probably Sanders. I'd not consider Clinton but then I wouldn't vote for Trump either. That sad, I'm quite surprised he hasn't got a single vote in this poll. I know this is a liberal place, but even so...

String theory.........who are puppetmasters who bring us these clowns

^ You're right Ivan, most Americans have no clue what living under a Communist Totalitaria means.  They haven't lived it.   But the progressive tradition in the US is tremendous and appeals to a huge number of citizens.   Always has.   They used to call us commies just for being San Franciscans and New Yorkers, which of course we both were and were not.   The American politik is more like an experiment than an age-old culture like the rest of the world, and so we see things in different terms and are more likely to try on a new hat.  

Sanders may be a new kind of misled & scary in your eyes, but I doubt he would (or would be able) to take property away or force people to give everything they labor for to the State.   He'd be impeached first.

The T wrote: Ivan_Melgar_M wrote: The T wrote: Ivan_Melgar_M wrote: I can't believe how a USA citizen may vote by a communist supported by Maduro, Ortega and Castro, the guys who are killing three countries Obviously Ivan though you know about a lot of things you're not omniscient and have no idea why many many Americans would vote for Sanders.  There's many reasons for it. And I can say with confidence that the views of those two clowns and Castro are number 463736373738383 in the list of reasons why.  I know that.....BECAUSE MOST PEOPLE DON'T KNOW  What?

Oh, it's just Ivan telling us HOW THINGS ARE!
Or something like that...

I think Ivan was saying most Americans are unaware of whatever foreign communist support Sanders may have.   But as the Russo-American Cold War is so far in the past and so disconnected from our times, that fact doesn't have the same impact on a politician as it would've even just twenty years ago.

There are no candidates that express my views.

What do folk think about the Clinton e-mail scandal/debacle/kurfuffle?

I'm guessing Clinton supporters think nothing of it, but if Trump had done it they'd calling for his head on a plate..?

Dean wrote: I understand that in the USA the honorific "President" is a life title that continues after they leave office, so Bill Clinton is still called President Clinton and both George Bushes are still called President Bush. I also gather that constitutionally Bill Clinton, as a two-term ex-President, is ineligible for the role of Vice-President so while I presume there are several official roles he could hold in the White House, there are (at least) two he cannot. As far as I can tell no ex-President has ever held any of those jobs.  So if Hillary Clinton wins the presidency there will be two President Clintons and I presume that officially she'll be referred to using her full name and colloquially as President Hillary, however this will be the first time that a President has occupied the White House in any capacity other than as President. I guess that in that situation he will also be known as the First Gentleman Bill Clinton (as opposed to First Dude or First Spouse)... In the unlikely event of America waking up on November the 9th to find President-elect Jill Stein measuring the Oval Office for drapes with her husband adopting the (albeit unofficial) 'First Lady' role of White House host as First Gentleman Richard Rohrer this wouldn't be an an issue. Gender role reversal is not uncommon in a presidency and there are female presidents in other countries whose husbands are known as First Gentleman.  The equivalent position in the UK is that of Prince Philip who is neither King to our Queen, nor (unlike Prince Albert to Queen Victoria) is he officially Prince Consort. he has official duties but they are not the traditional ones associated with the wives of British Kings... (which is where this drivel I type is heading).   Given that there is precedent for someone else other than the President's spouse to be given the job of being First Lady in principle Hillary Clinton could appoint another member of the Clinton 'clan' to the role and leave Bill Clinton as First Gentleman in name only (if at all). So, ignoring any personal feelings of whether you like either of the Clintons or not (so if not then pretend your favourite First Lady of your favourite ex-President swapped roles), is the role of White House host/hostess an appropriate one for someone who has previously held the highest office in the country?

ClemofNazareth wrote: I'm not so sure the question of whether Bill Clinton could serve as vice-president is as constitutionally clear as some would believe.  No person can serve as VP if they would not be eligible to fill the presidency, and no person can be elected to the office of president more than twice.   But vice-presidents aren't elected so unless something else disqualifies him from filling the presidency, then he could in theory serve as VP.