Debbie Wasserman Schultz already has a new job. Do you agree?

It's "true", but being taken way out of context by click-bait sites. This is a good summary of the reality:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/...oted-and-she-s-not-running-Hillary-s-campaign

For all we know, it may have been the easiest way for the Dems to get Schultz to go quietly into the night, without making a scene.

In reality, this is a "gold star" sticker given to a pre-schooler, or Dwight Schrute being allowed to serve as Volunteer Sheriff's Deputy. I can somewhat understand Bernie supporters being upset, since they could frame it as Clinton implicitly condoning the behavior... but this isn't a "job" by any stretch of the imagination. That's why there's no news value.

 

As opposed to those well-informed, independent-thinking Republican voters.

 

what does this garbage of a post even mean

i'm making a real and sincere post. we are absolutely ruining everything for our children and their children. a gift from us to our children and their children, a world worse than our own created by us.

 

ah yes... more schoolyard bickering. you said it yourself, the democraps and the repubtards are exactly the same.

 

I didn't say that, actually. The Democrats and Republicans are both inept but on entirely different levels. One side nominated a selfish, entitled politician with loads of experience. The other side nominated a selfish, entitled reality TV star with zero experience.

 

They are both inept but are you brave enough to vote for somebody else? There are more than two choices but everyone acts like there are only two. NOBODY should vote for either of these idiots.

 

All of the above is accurate, but regardless it may end up being the dumbest political move of the entire campaign.

You don't have the DNC exposed as putting their finger on the scale for Hillary at the expense of Bernie voters, have that exposed, have the DNC resign in disgrace, and then place her as part of your campaign all within a 24 hour period of time. Well, you don't do it if you want Bernie voters support that is.

How many locked in Democrat votes did Hillary siphon off with this move? Tens of thousands? Almost surely. Hundreds of thousands? Very possible. Millions? Not out of the realm of possibility.

 

1) There are not more than two legitimate choice
2) It is a false equivalency to put Trump and Hillary in the same classification.

 

I put them in the same classification of unfit to be POTUS... also idiots, they both have plenty of examples to prove that status.

But either way, the post I replied to was written by a poster who has come to terms with the fact that both parties have failed to provide a candidate worth electing.

You are obviously a sheep without the capacity to understand this.

 

Yep. Loads of experience at being corrupt, inept and slimy.

Corrupt - Selling favors for donations and speaking fees.
Inept - Creating a server from which she exposed America's most sensitive secrets.
Slimy - Attempts to conceal her corruption. (FOIA stonewalling, Minimal press conferences)

Trump is also a bad choice. The difference is, he's easy to see coming and his shortcomings are on full display.

Voting for one over the other and justifying it means we shouldn't ever need to hear one peep from you over the next 4 years when the inevitable scandal occurs. Because you can't say you didn't know.

 

Yes, I would if there was a third-party candidate who A) was actually worth voting for policy-wise and B) was actually shown to be having a chance to win in polling leading up to the election. Gary Johnson is some kind of weird hybrid Republican/Libertarian mix who isn't as hawkish as mainstream Republicans and claims to be socially liberal even though most of his stances on social issues are extremely vague and don't lay out any sort of coherent policy. Jill Stein is basically Bernie Sanders on steroids. Plus, neither one has shown any ability to move up in the polls beyond Johnson almost getting to double digits on occasion. I would rather sit at home and not waste 30 minutes of my life than vote for either of those two.

 

the difference is voting for a snake or voting for a fox. they both gonna fack you up anyway. other choice is voting for a plant which is ridiculous in it's own right.

 

So, is this confirmed? I can't find any legit source for it.

 

If the 2 (other) parties get enough support to win a state or 2, it is entirely possible we have an election where neither Clinton nor Trump wins the electoral votes needed to be elected.

If this happens, it becomes a "Contingency Election" occurs and gets thrown to the House of Representatives where each state's delegation gets ONE vote for President. Currently, Republicans hold the edge with 33 states delegations to the Democrats 14. 3 are currently tied. DC votes as well. It would go Democrat. Territories do not vote in the Electoral college.

Given this possibility, it would seem Trump would win. But if there is no clear winner, would the Representatives (establishment) vote for him? How much would the popular vote count for (a lot). What kind of craziness, back room deals, lobbying, argruments would ensue? It would be like a Capitol Hill version of the D&D....insanity.