But if he did resign, what would depend on exactly when he resigned.
If he were to resign before the electors meet to vote, then his electors could vote for anyone they wish for president, and perhaps for VP, too.
If he were to resign right after taking the oath of office in January, the elected VP would become president.
If he were to resign after the electors had made their decision, but before the inauguration, the situation would probably become a little more complicated. Would the electors be able to meet and chose again? Would the house of Representatives then chose the president? Would the chosen VP become president? Would the current president remain president until a decision is made?
The constitution doesn't say, and many would have their own opinions, including the Supreme Court, I'm sure. How long would it take to decide, and how would the decision be made? The Constitution doesn't say.
There is some speculation (and Trump may have implied) that this is just a big marketing ploy on his part, and he will resign before he actually becomes president (if he were to win).
With the job market now, any rational person who wants a job can find one, very quickly.
Eight years ago, i know a at least a couple dozen people who were looking for a job and couldn't find one. college graduates had no job offers a all, except, perhaps, for the very best engineers.
This year is completely different. Everyone i know who wants a job has one.., and about all the college graduates here had job offers before they graduated.
But demographics is key. Only those who want and need jobs are getting them.
But you must understand that the FBI only reports gun deaths that are considered "crimes". That means that they don't even count shootings by many who are mentally ill, children, or suicides. But those are all gun deaths that might be stopped with the right polices of who should and who should not have a gun.
You are wrong, Springer. Last year there were about 33,000 auto deaths and about 33,000 gun deaths, about the same number of both.
And you are right, we have done a lot to make cars and roads safer, and to keep unsafe drivers off the road. Lots of new auto rules over the past 30 years or more, and lots of new technology, too. And it worked, although we could and will still do more.
But so far, we can't write any new rules, or create any new technology yet to keep guns out of the hands of terrorists, criminals, the mentally ill, or children yet. If we did, then the gun death rate would drop, just as the car death rate has dropped over the past decades.
Unlawful? The issue is lawful or unlawful, but simply the fact that they happened at all.
You can decide whether shooting an unarmed person stopped for a broken taillight is lawful or unlawful. And you can decided whether shooting a person for selling CDs and having a legal gun in his pocket (and telling police it was there) is lawful or not.
As far as i;'m concerned, the simple fact that the shootings even happened is the problem. In my bible, no intentional death is ever lawful in the eyes of the Lord.
"No they won't "
An absolutely perfect response!! Just a single pronoun, without any known reference, and no object at all - won't what???
A perfect response!!
Over the past year, police have fatally shot almost 3 people every day (1,000 a year). Over the past 4 years, United Kingdom police have shot 1 person, 1 fatal shooting in 4 years. Something is clearly wrong here, and needs to be fixed.
But why should we expect anything different. This (Dallas shootings) is exactly why those open carry folks said they wanted to be able to carry their guns - to protect themselves and to take back a government that didn't protect them or work for them.
I'd hate to see what happens if police here decide that anyone carrying a gun and not in a uniform was a threat and they decided to shoot first and ask questions later.
The "bad decision" line forms behind Springer at the prison door. Just tel them what bad decisions you've made and they'll find a cell for you.
Unfortunately, in order to indict, you have to have broken a law. No laws that existed at the time seem to have been broken. If they can indict her for not having broken any laws, they can certainly also indict you for not having broken the same laws.
Clearly Hillary has made some bad decisions, but if we can be indicted for making bad decisions, I'm sure that you and many others would be spending a lot of time in prison.
Now they seem to be hitting their own. (I guess that's not new). James Comey is a Republican who served in GW Bush's Department of Justice. As long as they spend their time attacking their own team members, the opposition can do whatever they want. Today's Republicans. Unbelievable.
Yep, another perp, guilty of carrying a gun. And that's what they do now with those guilty of carrying a gun.
But, I'm very surprised. I don't think he's ever used a phrase like "three percent" I don't don't think he's ever used such a phrase in any past post, ever. Did you even have any idea he even understood what it means? But surprise is always fun this morning!
"Alexis-Charles-Henri Clérel de Tocqueville was a French political thinker and historian best known for his works Democracy in America and The Old Regime and the Revolution."
The first line of the Wikipedia de Tocqueville page is,
"Alexis-Charles-Henri Clérel de Tocqueville (French: [alɛksi ʃaʁl ɑ̃ʁi kleʁɛl də tɔkvil]; 29 July 1805 – 16 April 1859) was a French political thinker and historian best known for his works Democracy in America (appearing in two volumes: 1835 and 1840) and The Old Regime and the Revolution (1856)"
Remove the parenthetical phrases, and it is clear where you got your sentence. If you didn't get it from Wikipedia, yourself, then the person you copied it from did.
From the same Wikipedia page that you quoted above, it says,
"Alexis de Tocqueville came from an old Norman aristocratic family with ancestors who participated in the Battle of Hastings in 1066. His parents, Hervé Louis François Jean Bonaventure Clérel, Comte de Tocqueville, an officer of the Constitutional Guard of King Louis XVI, and Louise Madeleine Le Peletier de Rosanbo, barely escaped the guillotine due to the fall of Robespierre in 1794."
In that era anyone who could read or write in France (except those living in and around Paris) was an aristocrat. and especially read and write French, Most of the lower classes spoke local patois languages and not French. It was not until after Napoleon that any effort was made to teach those living in France to speak, read, and write French, the language spoken in Paris. Even now, you can find people in France who can still speak Langue D'oc, Breton, Basque, Picard, Norman, Langue D'oil, and many other related languages.
Why should there be any difference if those emails are released by wikileaks again now, or by Hillary and the State Dept, as was already done months ago?