RE: Trump's speeches criminal? Very possibly!

RE: Trump's speeches criminal? Very possibly! (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Phydeaux -> RE: Trump's speeches criminal? Very possibly! (3/20/2016 9:14:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic Its not a soccer match, its a presidential election process. or supposed to be. And it just proves there are at least 7 million fucking morons...but the number is way higher than that.... But like a bunch of hooligan twats they think they can fuck over who they like when they are riled up... So you're saying there is supposed to be violence at an English soccer match. Can you point out the section in the rules that say that?

ThatDizzyChick -> RE: Trump's speeches criminal? Very possibly! (3/20/2016 9:48:56 PM)
Oh for fuck's sake, the whole "violence" thing is just fucking media bullshit, they are playing it up for the ratings. Hell, CNN is basically the 24-hour Trump channel.

Greta75 -> RE: Trump's speeches criminal? Very possibly! (3/20/2016 9:55:23 PM)
FR So there is this law in the brokered convention that a candidates needs to at least win a minimum of 8 states to participate in the convention. This means!! Only Trump is legally able to contest in the convention. Even Cruz does not have 8 states. I saw this on CNN TV today. But they are speculating, the Republicans will CHANGE that law to allow others to participate! WTF Both parties are just shitheads blocking democracy and people's choices! Dems with their super delegates, and Reps with changing their rules to suit them at the right moments.

ThatDizzyChick -> RE: Trump's speeches criminal? Very possibly! (3/20/2016 10:01:13 PM)
quote: So there is this law in the brokered convention that a candidates needs to at least win a minimum of 8 states to participate in the convention. Incorrect. That was the rule in 2012, the rules for this year's convention have not yet been set.

Greta75 -> RE: Trump's speeches criminal? Very possibly! (3/20/2016 10:03:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick Incorrect. That was the rule in 2012, the rules for this year's convention have not yet been set. Isn't it pretty crazy that rules are able to happily change every 4 years, like nobody's business, for the party to go against the people's choice? Just ridiculous! The 8 state rule makes sense, as participating candidate should at least secure a decent amount of people's votes before being allowed to participate in conventions.

ThatDizzyChick -> RE: Trump's speeches criminal? Very possibly! (3/20/2016 10:05:23 PM)
quote: Isn't it pretty crazy that rules are able to happily change every 4 years Maybe, but that's the way the system works, there is a rules committee that sets the rules each year. The 8-states rule was apparently not in force in 2008, so it's not like it is some sort of long-standing tradition.

Phydeaux -> RE: Trump's speeches criminal? Very possibly! (3/21/2016 12:48:38 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick quote: So there is this law in the brokered convention that a candidates needs to at least win a minimum of 8 states to participate in the convention. Incorrect. That was the rule in 2012, the rules for this year's convention have not yet been set. No, its correct. The rule stays in place until it is changed. The rules committee will not be set until Juneish, and yes, a majority of the 112 man rule committee make the rules any damn thing they want. But as of now, the rule is 8. So amusingly, while theoretically 1237 delegates are needed to win, in actuality.. the number is 57. Although that would, of course, touch off a shit storm the likes of which we've never seen. The rule prior to 2012 was 5. But you're right, its not a tradition.

thompsonx -> RE: Trump's speeches criminal? Very possibly! (3/21/2016 4:01:37 AM)
ORIGINAL: Phydeaux ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick So there is this law in the brokered convention that a candidates needs to at least win a minimum of 8 states to participate in the convention. [/quote] Incorrect. That was the rule in 2012, the rules for this year's convention have not yet been set. No, its correct. The rule stays in place until it is changed. The rules committee will not be set until Juneish, and yes, a majority of the 112 man rule committee make the rules any damn thing they want. But as of now, the rule is 8. Do you just shake your head to hear it rattle? What the last election's rules were will not apply to this election since you point out that the rules committee will be meeting between now and the election to change the rules. So amusingly, while theoretically 1237 delegates are needed to win, in actuality.. the number is 57. Although that would, of course, touch off a shit storm the likes of which we've never seen. The rule prior to 2012 was 5. But you're right, its not a tradition. She was also right about the rule of 8 not going to be applicable in this election... Do you just open your mouth to change feet?

ImperialPath -> RE: Trump's speeches criminal? Very possibly! (3/23/2016 9:22:09 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic quote: ORIGINAL: ImperialPath quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic quote: ORIGINAL: ImperialPath quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic oh Im pretty sure its gonna be freaky ....the freaks are losing it. So true...so true. I saw some real freaks blocking a road Saturday. I suspect Dems are getting a bit embarrassed about all this nonsense. really??? you did??? freaks? oooooh did you take pics??? selfies? Why yes. Just a handsome facial, right? I dont know you...... do seem to over exaggerate A LOT not justs about a peaceful protest being freaks And you dont wanna talk about the trump supporters violence Im guessing you dont get out much I wonder what would you cry about if any of them were armed and silently protesting. or wuld you be freaaaaaaaaaaaakin out By the way a handsome facial is just another term for a misguided pearl necklace. SO I had to laugh. I don't like to discuss violence at all. Do you equate using cars to block others free passage an example of violence? If not, how did the subject of violence arise here? Would you think a reasonable person might expect that blocking miles of cars, families with crying children perhaps, might trigger violence and road rage if one were to think clearly about the happenstance.

ImperialPath -> RE: Trump's speeches criminal? Very possibly! (3/23/2016 9:25:40 AM)
quote: Im guessing you dont get out much I wonder what would you cry about if any of them were armed and silently protesting. or wuld you be freaaaaaaaaaaaakin out Okay.

ImperialPath -> RE: Trump's speeches criminal? Very possibly! (3/23/2016 9:28:22 AM)
quote: And it just proves there are at least 7 million fucking morons...but the number is way higher than that.... But like a bunch of hooligan twats they think they can fuck over who they like when they are riled up... ...and you say I exaggerate? You do make me smile.

Phydeaux -> RE: Trump's speeches criminal? Very possibly! (3/23/2016 9:45:54 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx ORIGINAL: quote: Phydeaux ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick quote: So there is this law in the brokered convention that a candidates needs to at least win a minimum of 8 states to participate in the convention. Incorrect. That was the rule in 2012, the rules for this year's convention have not yet been set. No, its correct. The rule stays in place until it is changed. The rules committee will not be set until Juneish, and yes, a majority of the 112 man rule committee make the rules any damn thing they want. But as of now, the rule is 8. Do you just shake your head to hear it rattle? What the last election's rules were will not apply to this election since you point out that the rules committee will be meeting between now and the election to change the rules. Ah, another useless post from the village idiot. a). I did not point out that the rules committee will not be meeting before the election. I pointed out they will, in fact be meeting around June. The republican convention will be late July. What the rules will be therefore are unknown. b). That said, it is more common than not for the rules to remain the same. Will they? Can't say. So what the rules are now, actually are germane to the conversation. quote: quote: So amusingly, while theoretically 1237 delegates are needed to win, in actuality.. the number is 57. Although that would, of course, touch off a shit storm the likes of which we've never seen. The rule prior to 2012 was 5. But you're right, its not a tradition. She was also right about the rule of 8 not going to be applicable in this election... Do you just open your mouth to change feet? Just curious - do you ever read an article or just presume that every idea that pops into your head is pure gold from on high? I'd suggest greenpapers - a place where you can brush up on the intricacies of us elections.

mnottertail -> RE: Trump's speeches criminal? Very possibly! (3/23/2016 4:34:16 PM)
Oh, we can say without let or hindrance two things, the rules will change to disfavor trump and nutsuckers are retards.

thompsonx -> RE: Trump's speeches criminal? Very possibly! (3/23/2016 6:28:32 PM)
ORIGINAL: Phydeaux a). I did not point out that the rules committee will not be meeting before the election. I pointed out they will, in fact be meeting around June. The republican convention will be late July. What the rules will be therefore are unknown. b). That said, it is more common than not for the rules to remain the same. Will they? Can't say. So what the rules are now, actually are germane to the conversation. The rules that will be in play at the convention are the only thing germane to the conversation.

Page: << < prev 13 14 15 16 [17]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125