NationStates

The Lone Alliance wrote:It's not going to work, Utah is going to go Johnson before it goes McMullin.

Johnson is NOT the official Mormon protest vote now. Actually, he never was. Plus he supports pot legalization nationwide (dear to my heart), not something Utahans want. So Johnson, I think can forget winning Utah.

I don't think this guy has enough name recognition to get more than maybe 3% of the popular vote. He also pitched in way too late. I don't think this will be much of an issue for Trump.

New Jerzylvania wrote:

The Lone Alliance wrote:It's not going to work, Utah is going to go Johnson before it goes McMullin.

Johnson is NOT the official Mormon protest vote now. Actually, he never was. Plus he supports pot legalization nationwide (dear to my heart), not something Utahans want. So Johnson, I think can forget winning Utah.

Ronmey endorsed him last I heard.

So what you actually believe that Hillary will win Utah now because of this guy?

Are you a Mormon?

Ifreann wrote:

New Jerzylvania wrote:
Yo win, yes. But not to effect the out come in states with significant Mormon population. Do you care to argue that?
If somehow the gap narrows between Hillary and Trump, one of those states could be decisive. Doesn't look like that now, but CIA guys like to make sure, ya know?

This based on your extensive knowledge of CIA operations?

Do you think they don't want to make sure certain things don't happen which they deem vital to our national security?

Keep in mind what former Director Mike Morrel said about The Donald and Putin as you compose an answer.

The Lone Alliance wrote:

New Jerzylvania wrote:
Johnson is NOT the official Mormon protest vote now. Actually, he never was. Plus he supports pot legalization nationwide (dear to my heart), not something Utahans want. So Johnson, I think can forget winning Utah.

Ronmey endorsed him last I heard.

So what you actually believe that Hillary will win Utah now because of this guy?

Are you a Mormon?

No. I had a next door neighbor that was a Mormon. Tried to convert me and my wife at the time. They are, let me say, very committed.

As to what I believe, Utah is in play. Whereas in other years it's red red red.
H. Ross Perot, not a Mormon, got 26% there in 1992. Utahan can and will vote for third parties. I think if Perot had been a Mormon he'd have won Utah in 1992. He came in second.

New Jerzylvania wrote:

Ifreann wrote:This based on your extensive knowledge of CIA operations?

Do you think they don't want to make sure certain things don't happen which they deem vital to our national security?

Keep in mind what former Director Mike Morrel said about The Donald and Putin as you compose an answer.

Good point. I'm also theorizing that, considering Hillary's past antics, there will be some shady business in this election. I'm not at all endorsing The Donald, but Hillary doesn't need to rig the election against him, he's already so beatable.

Pantuxia wrote:I don't think this guy has enough name recognition to get more than maybe 3% of the popular vote. He also pitched in way too late. I don't think this will be much of an issue for Trump.

depends where that 3% comes from 'cos it's a state by state election not a national referendum

New Jerzylvania wrote:

Ifreann wrote:This based on your extensive knowledge of CIA operations?

Do you think they don't want to make sure certain things don't happen which they deem vital to our national security?

Keep in mind what former Director Mike Morrel said about The Donald and Putin as you compose an answer.

Do you think that you can state confidently that "CIA guys like to make sure" based on the public statements of a former CIA director? Do you think Michael Morell's statement has given you some deep insight into how the CIA typically acts to influence US elections?

Pantuxia wrote:

New Jerzylvania wrote:
Do you think they don't want to make sure certain things don't happen which they deem vital to our national security?

Keep in mind what former Director Mike Morrel said about The Donald and Putin as you compose an answer.

Good point. I'm also theorizing that, considering Hillary's past antics, there will be some shady business in this election. I'm not at all endorsing The Donald, but Hillary doesn't need to rig the election against him, he's already so beatable.

Agreed. I doubt McMullin is working to help Hillary though as he has said as much, see the link in OP.

The Guaranteed Eternal Sanctuary Man wrote:

Pantuxia wrote:I don't think this guy has enough name recognition to get more than maybe 3% of the popular vote. He also pitched in way too late. I don't think this will be much of an issue for Trump.

depends where that 3% comes from 'cos it's a state by state election not a national referendum

It's just a wild guess. I don't have anything to back it up. It's a baseless assumption. But thanks to Jerzylvania, I now think that some shady doings might occur in Utah. He is a former CIA leader, after all.

Good. The more votes taken from Trump, the better.

Socialist Nordia wrote:Good. The more votes taken from Trump, the better.

At this point, I'm seriously wondering if he'll crack 30% when the final vote comes in.

Ifreann wrote:

New Jerzylvania wrote:
Do you think they don't want to make sure certain things don't happen which they deem vital to our national security?

Keep in mind what former Director Mike Morrel said about The Donald and Putin as you compose an answer.

Do you think that you can state confidently that "CIA guys like to make sure" based on the public statements of a former CIA director? Do you think Michael Morell's statement has given you some deep insight into how the CIA typically acts to influence US elections?

Confidently or confidentially? lol.
Hey, you're not dragging me into the weeds on that last sentence. Who knows? That's a lot to read into it. But I see no other D or R candidate for the POTUS has ever been dissed by a former director like the current GOP nominee, unless you know of one. Do you? ...and if so please cite.

My opine is partially a generalized marginally subjective opinion based on some conjecture and about 70 years of CIA history. For the other part, I'll take Morrel at his word.

New Jerzylvania wrote:

Ifreann wrote:Do you think that you can state confidently that "CIA guys like to make sure" based on the public statements of a former CIA director? Do you think Michael Morell's statement has given you some deep insight into how the CIA typically acts to influence US elections?

Confidently or confidentially? lol.
Hey, you're not dragging me into the weeds on that last sentence. Who knows. That's a lot to read into it. But I see no other candidate has ever been dissed by a former director like the current GOP nominee, unless you know of one. Do you and if so please cite.

My opine is partially a generalized marginally subjective opinion based on some conjecture and about 70 years of CIA history. For the other part, I'll take Morrel at his word.

So you saying that CIA guys like to make sure, as if you know what CIA guys like, is actually just you speculating about the secret operations of an intelligence agency.

The Romulan Republic wrote:

Socialist Nordia wrote:Good. The more votes taken from Trump, the better.

At this point, I'm seriously wondering if he'll crack 30% when the final vote comes in.

i think 30% might be his bottom 'cos of his rock solid wack base.

I like more candidates, but it seems late now

Ifreann wrote:

New Jerzylvania wrote:
Confidently or confidentially? lol.
Hey, you're not dragging me into the weeds on that last sentence. Who knows. That's a lot to read into it. But I see no other candidate has ever been dissed by a former director like the current GOP nominee, unless you know of one. Do you and if so please cite.

My opine is partially a generalized marginally subjective opinion based on some conjecture and about 70 years of CIA history. For the other part, I'll take Morrel at his word.

So you saying that CIA guys like to make sure, as if you know what CIA guys like, is actually just you speculating about the secret operations of an intelligence agency.

People, some ex-CIA write books about this stuff all the time. Then there is James Bond and all that too. I prefer the non-fictional books though, but I'm not quoting any in particular, so don't ask.

I could argue with you the theories that JFK and/or RFK was killed by CIA plots.
But unlike theories in science which are proven (Universal Law of Gravitation, Newton's Law of Motion, Theory of General Relativity), these theories are the other kind, which are nebulous and without the smoking gun fact (pardon the pun). We can talk about those assassinations later, but this thread is not going to become one of those Alex Jones conspiracy theory type of fiascos right off the bat.

Major-Tom wrote:

Poisonapple wrote:He could become the fulcrum in deciding Nevada and Utah to be sure. It's also not good news for Gary Johnson in Utah. In Arizona, where polls have recently shown the race has Trump leading Clinton by 2% also has a Mormon population of 4 or 5%. This could also help Clinton.

Obama led Romney in a few Arizonan polls around the same time. Romney carried the state by 10%. Anyone who says that states like Georgia, Arizona, Texas, and Utah are in play aren't thinking.

Couldn't this mean that if there's a shy GOP effect that New Jersey and Michigan then are in play.

New Jerzylvania wrote:Evan McMulllin is also a Mormon and could be a factor in Utah and swing states with significant Mormon populations such as Nevada.

Mormons make up a disproportionate amount of the CIA because many of them are bilingual or multilingual due to their missionary trips. Furthermore, due to their culture and work ethic, they are incredibly unlikely to have compromising backgrounds that would raise alarms during a security screening, making them the ideal agent.

Also of the many groups of cultures and people who reside in the United States, Mormons have that uniquely American authenticity to them, as it is a wholly American religion and its adherents are largely WASPs who've been here since the 18th century, meaning they have absolutely zero ties to foreign nations and won't be corrupted by diaspora politics (unless you count the Mormon colonies in Northern Mexico, but they basically live as an extension of America).

New Jerzylvania wrote:

Ifreann wrote:Do you think that you can state confidently that "CIA guys like to make sure" based on the public statements of a former CIA director? Do you think Michael Morell's statement has given you some deep insight into how the CIA typically acts to influence US elections?

Confidently or confidentially? lol.
Hey, you're not dragging me into the weeds on that last sentence. Who knows? That's a lot to read into it. But I see no other D or R candidate for the POTUS has ever been dissed by a former director like the current GOP nominee, unless you know of one. Do you? ...and if so please cite.

My opine is partially a generalized marginally subjective opinion based on some conjecture and about 70 years of CIA history. For the other part, I'll take Morrel at his word.

Given the horrible shit our intelligence community has done in those 70 years, a president who gets on their nerves is a good thing.

Whatever puts Donald Trump in second place, or preferably, third or fourth place.

There's already an acceptable NeverTrump / NeverHillary candidate named Gary Johnson.

New Jerzylvania wrote:

Individual Concerns wrote:No.
The GOP has earned both Trump and and McMullin by mostly ignoring, and sometimes giving the finger to its constituancy for the last eight years.
Actually, truth be told, this has been a simmering problem, particularly since Bush 41, where the disconnect between GOP officers and their constituants has sharply widened.

John Q. Republican is beyond fed up with pulling the lever for people who will not honor their campaign platforms, and more often than not, act in direct defiance of their constituants.

They think they know better than everyone else, afterall Bush 41 was the director of "The Company." They know everything.

It is way past time for the GOP to throw Theodore under the bus and shit can the ideals of his Progressive Party.
Or, they will soon repeat the mistake of their nineteenth century progenitors, and find themselves left behind to either obscurity, or become the Democrats they should have been all along, as the conservatives coalesce into a new party (or maybe meld with Constitution party) to begin truly representing the average working American again.

Its a nice pipe dream anyway.

Darjihad wrote:Whatever puts Donald Trump in second place, or preferably, third or fourth place.

There's already an acceptable NeverTrump / NeverHillary candidate named Gary Johnson.

But bc of his stance on Marijuana, he's really not acceptable to Mormons. Now they have one of their own to vote for in the General for the second straight cycle.
Could Mormons be thinking of having a candidate of their own on a regular basis now that the GOP has arguably imploded (at least temporarily) ?

Yorkers wrote:

New Jerzylvania wrote:Evan McMulllin is also a Mormon and could be a factor in Utah and swing states with significant Mormon populations such as Nevada.

Mormons make up a disproportionate amount of the CIA because many of them are bilingual or multilingual due to their missionary trips. Furthermore, due to their culture and work ethic, they are incredibly unlikely to have compromising backgrounds that would raise alarms during a security screening, making them the ideal agent.

Also of the many groups of cultures and people who reside in the United States, Mormons have that uniquely American authenticity to them, as it is a wholly American religion and its adherents are largely WASPs who've been here since the 18th century, meaning they have absolutely zero ties to foreign nations and won't be corrupted by diaspora politics (unless you count the Mormon colonies in Northern Mexico, but they basically live as an extension of America).

Great post!

New Jerzylvania wrote:

Ifreann wrote:So you saying that CIA guys like to make sure, as if you know what CIA guys like, is actually just you speculating about the secret operations of an intelligence agency.

People, some ex-CIA write books about this stuff all the time. Then there is James Bond and all that too. I prefer the non-fictional books though, but I'm not quoting any in particular, so don't ask.

The directorships of the various federal acronymnal agencies are political appointments. Often with little or no professional experience relating to the agency at hand. Actual administration and leadership comes from the AD's.
The director is just a mouthpiece for the president to the public and congress, and in extreme cases of plausible deniability, a sacrificial lamb.
I would put no more stock in their opinions than I would in any other politician, and certainly would not expect them to forward a notion that gainsays their employer, except for extreme cases of presidential incompetence.