U.S. Conservative top donors ready to throw their support behind General James "Mad Dog" Mattis as t
86 replies, posted
[QUOTE]Mattis, the former commander of the U.S. Central Command, would be thrown into the race as a third-party candidate during the general election to siphon votes from current frontrunners Trump and Hillary Clinton.
Operatives behind the movement to coax him into the race told The Daily Beast the initial goal would not be to clinch victory, but rather to capture enough votes to deny Trump and Clinton the 270 electoral events needed to win the general election.
This would throw the presidential election into the House of Representatives, where the incoming lawmakers would have the duty to decide who would serve as the U.S.’s 45th president.[/QUOTE]
[URL="http://freebeacon.com/politics/conservative-push-mattis-president/"]http://freebeacon.com/politics/conservative-push-mattis-president/[/URL]
[URL="http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/donors-trying-to-draft-mad-dog-mattis-for-presidential-run/article/2588042?custom_click=rss"]http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/donors-trying-to-draft-mad-dog-mattis-for-presidential-run/article/2588042?custom_click=rss[/URL]
O boy here we go. I'll get the keys to the clown car
Oh, wow. That's actually a brilliant plan for if the Republicans can't stop Trump from getting the nomination. A solid third-party candidate could force it to go to the House... which is pretty heavily Republican-controlled. I'd accuse it of being the plan from the beginning if I thought Trump's ego could actually participate in a plan that doesn't make him the most important person.
There's a number of seats up for re-election this year, though... would newly-elected representatives be the ones to choose the President, or would the sitting members do it?
this is still a pretty big gamble they'll be lucky if they could even pull this off
[QUOTE=gman003-main;50096761]Oh, wow. That's actually a brilliant plan for if the Republicans can't stop Trump from getting the nomination. A solid third-party candidate could force it to go to the House... which is pretty heavily Republican-controlled. I'd accuse it of being the plan from the beginning if I thought Trump's ego could actually participate in a plan that doesn't make him the most important person.
There's a number of seats up for re-election this year, though... would newly-elected representatives be the ones to choose the President, or would the sitting members do it?[/QUOTE]
I would cry if all of this were for nothing and jeb bush becomes president.
[QUOTE=gman003-main;50096761]Oh, wow. That's actually a brilliant plan for if the Republicans can't stop Trump from getting the nomination. A solid third-party candidate could force it to go to the House... which is pretty heavily Republican-controlled. I'd accuse it of being the plan from the beginning if I thought Trump's ego could actually participate in a plan that doesn't make him the most important person.
There's a number of seats up for re-election this year, though... would newly-elected representatives be the ones to choose the President, or would the sitting members do it?[/QUOTE]
Big problem: The voter will feel like the establishment is cheating them (they are) and soon go Nuclear either shortly after, OR during midterm election.
[QUOTE=gman003-main;50096761]Oh, wow. That's actually a brilliant plan for if the Republicans can't stop Trump from getting the nomination. A solid third-party candidate could force it to go to the House... which is pretty heavily Republican-controlled. I'd accuse it of being the plan from the beginning if I thought Trump's ego could actually participate in a plan that doesn't make him the most important person.
There's a number of seats up for re-election this year, though... would newly-elected representatives be the ones to choose the President, or would the sitting members do it?[/QUOTE]
It's the newly elected Congress.
I'm totally vote for Mattis, takes no shit and gives no fucks. Also known for having some the best fucking quotes ever.
[quote]Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everybody you meet.[/quote]
[quote]I come in peace. I didn’t bring artillery. But I’m pleading with you, with tears in my eyes: If you fuck with me, I’ll kill you all. [/quote]
[quote]PowerPoint makes us stupid.[/quote]
[quote]That said, there are some assholes in the world that just need to be shot. There are hunters and there are victims. By your discipline, cunning, obedience and alertness, you will decide if you are a hunter or a victim. It’s really a hell of a lot of fun. You’re gonna have a blast out here! [/quote]
This is a dream for every Marine out there to have our most not give a fuck general ever to be in office. Sadly Chesty is gone because these two would be amazing fucking duo.
um, i don't think a general is exactly going to siphen voters from the left, call me crazy but they won't likely be swayed by a general
[editline]8th April 2016[/editline]
[quote]This would throw the presidential election into the House of Representatives, where the incoming lawmakers would have the duty to decide who would serve as the U.S.’s 45th president.[/quote]
this sounds like a really good way to start a full blown riot in Washington DC and every other major city.
i know what the constitution says, but if there's 1 thing people [I]really really[/I] do not want this election season is to have congress have any say in the matter
Holy shit, this guy is like a Republican living meme
[img_thumb]http://i.imgur.com/8mQs9NU.png[/img_thumb]
[QUOTE=RG4ORDR;50096922]I'm totally vote for Mattis, takes no shit and gives no fucks. Also known for having some the best fucking quotes ever.
This is a dream for every Marine out there to have our most not give a fuck general ever to be in office. Sadly Chesty is gone because these two would be amazing fucking duo.[/QUOTE]
I can see why he isn't called James "Fairly Reasonable Dog" Mattis.
Holy fucking shit
T
Wait a minute
Let me check the date
EDIT: Oh shit so this is legit?
Currently, my support is firmly behind Trump. Mattis, however, wouldn't be a bad second choice for President. He'd definitely be a strong leader, that's for sure.
Ooh-fucking-rah this gave me a boner just reading it.
[quote]This would throw the presidential election into the House of Representatives, where the incoming lawmakers would have the duty to decide who would serve as the U.S.’s 45th president.[/quote]
Is this like an explicit admission that conservatives don't give a fuck about democracy?
since reading this news article, american flags have started manifesting in my home physically
Literally every Marine would vote for Mattis. Period. He is a living legend in our community.
So he's like. America incarnate or some shit?
[QUOTE=RG4ORDR;50096922]Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everybody you meet.[/QUOTE]
Well I guess I now know where that line from Meet the Sniper came from, neat.
So is this guy General Sherman re-incarnated or something? Because those are the vibes I'm getting.
[QUOTE=Smug Bastard;50097714]So is this guy General Sherman re-incarnated or something? Because those are the vibes I'm getting.[/QUOTE]
He's like Lindon Johnson and Patton had a hate baby that spews out freedom.
Oh my fucking god I would vote for him in a heartbeat. Ol' Mad Dog Mattis is the man America needs.
So if the GOP's plan works, who would the House vote for? They wouldn't seriously vote for Mattis, especially if he only polls a small percentage of the vote. And the whole point of this scheme is so that they won't vote for Trump, but if Trump becomes the Republican candidate, then who else would they vote for? Why couldn't they ask a former candidate like Jeb to run as that third party candidate instead of Mattis? He would be a more-legitimate option and would probably win much more of the vote than Mattis, and therefore give credibility to the GOP's plan.
But regardless of who runs as that third party candidate, I don't think they'll get the outcome they're expecting. Sure, Mattis or Jeb could siphon votes away from Trump, but they wouldn't necessarily siphon that many votes away from Clinton/Sanders, and so the Democrat candidate could win every single state and therefore every electoral college vote by a landslide, thanks to winner-takes-all. That is, unless the Democrats collude with the Republicans and pull the same trick. But even if the GOP plan works, there would probably be a huge backlash through the President being elected by the House rather than the people.
[QUOTE=sb27;50097828]So if the GOP's plan works, who would the House vote for? They wouldn't seriously vote for Mattis, especially if he only polls a small percentage of the vote. And the whole point of this scheme is so that they won't vote for Trump, but if Trump becomes the Republican candidate, then who else would they vote for? Why couldn't they ask a former candidate like Jeb to run as that third party candidate instead of Mattis? He would be a more-legitimate option and would probably win much more of the vote than Mattis, and therefore give credibility to the GOP's plan.
But regardless of who runs as that third party candidate, I don't think they'll get the outcome they're expecting. Sure, Mattis or Jeb could siphon votes away from Trump, but they wouldn't necessarily siphon that many votes away from Clinton/Sanders, and so the Democrat candidate could win every single state and therefore every electoral college vote by a landslide, thanks to winner-takes-all. That is, unless the Democrats collude with the Republicans and pull the same trick. But even if the GOP plan works, there would probably be a huge backlash through the President being elected by the House rather than the people.[/QUOTE]
the GOP would rather have clinton or bernie win than trump
I spent a while considering General Mattis as a candidate, doing some research. He's not necessarily the best. I don't know anything about his economic policies... because he may not even have any economic policies. Same for social policies or rights issues. His strategies during the Iraq war seem dead-on, though, and he seems to be mostly aligned with me on foreign policy.
As far as his personal character, I have found very little against it. The only potential strikes I found were a potential eagerness to fight Iran (source too far removed to place much trust in this statement), and removing a subordinate officer who didn't meet his schedule for attack (according to some sources, the plan was too aggressive and would have placed the soldiers under that command in far too much danger, although other sources disagree, saying that officer was genuinely too cautious). He manages to be both down-to-earth (eating MREs in a foxhole) and intellectual (reading Aurelius), both soft and deadly as the situation demands, and above all pragmatic. I have done only a preliminary study, there could very well be things I missed, but I'm liking what I've seen so far.
He automatically slid into my personal rankings above Trump, by virtue of having actually led a large organization to success on his own merits as a leader, and by not being skullfuckingly retarded. He's jumped over Cruz by being practical and reasonable, willing to compromise when necessary. I would have to learn more about his actual plans before I can fairly judge him against Hillary and Kasich (the next two on my personal rankings), but I expect I'd like him more than either. I think it's unlikely he'll be my top pick - the simple fact that the conservative establishment likes him indicates we will probably disagree on many issues - but I don't think he would be a genuinely bad president. I can certainly see myself voting for him.
I think the "potential eagerness to fight Iran" is probably true as that was supposedly an issue Mattis and Obama sharply disagreed with that led to his retirement from the defense department.
Personally, I don't know. What makes him presidential aside from his war record and reputation in the marine corps?
Who?
[QUOTE=1nfiniteseed;50100633]I think the "potential eagerness to fight Iran" is probably true as that was supposedly an issue Mattis and Obama sharply disagreed with that led to his retirement from the defense department.
Personally, I don't know. What makes him presidential aside from his war record and reputation in the marine corps?[/QUOTE]
Literally nothing. Nothing makes him presidential. He's basically a meme because of that Marine Corps reputation you mentioned, and he has no political experience to speak of or clear policies outlined regarding social and economic issues. And that eagerness to fight Iran is to be expected in a military figure. Like Truman warned, all they ever want to do is fight, fight, fight. Not a good plan at all even from a military perspective.
We do not need this man.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.