RE: Trump's speeches criminal? Very possibly!

Collarspace Discussion Forums

Home Login Search

RE: Trump's speeches criminal? Very possibly!

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Trump's speeches criminal? Very possibly!

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

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Trump's speeches criminal? Very possibly! - 3/20/2016 9:14:24 PM

Phydeaux

Posts: 4828
Joined: 1/4/2004
Status: offline

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?

(in reply to Lucylastic)

Profile

Post #: 321

RE: Trump's speeches criminal? Very possibly! - 3/20/2016 9:48:56 PM

ThatDizzyChick

Posts: 5490
Status: offline

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.

_____________________________

Not your average bimbo.

(in reply to Lucylastic)

Profile

Post #: 322

RE: Trump's speeches criminal? Very possibly! - 3/20/2016 9:55:23 PM

Greta75

Posts: 9968
Joined: 2/6/2011
Status: offline

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.

(in reply to Cinnamongirl67)

Profile

Post #: 323

RE: Trump's speeches criminal? Very possibly! - 3/20/2016 10:01:13 PM

ThatDizzyChick

Posts: 5490
Status: offline

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.

_____________________________

Not your average bimbo.

(in reply to Greta75)

Profile

Post #: 324

RE: Trump's speeches criminal? Very possibly! - 3/20/2016 10:03:06 PM

Greta75

Posts: 9968
Joined: 2/6/2011
Status: offline

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.

(in reply to ThatDizzyChick)

Profile

Post #: 325

RE: Trump's speeches criminal? Very possibly! - 3/20/2016 10:05:23 PM

ThatDizzyChick

Posts: 5490
Status: offline

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.

_____________________________

Not your average bimbo.

(in reply to Greta75)

Profile

Post #: 326

RE: Trump's speeches criminal? Very possibly! - 3/21/2016 12:48:38 AM

Phydeaux

Posts: 4828
Joined: 1/4/2004
Status: offline

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.

(in reply to ThatDizzyChick)

Profile

Post #: 327

RE: Trump's speeches criminal? Very possibly! - 3/21/2016 4:01:37 AM

thompsonx

Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline

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?

(in reply to Phydeaux)

Profile

Post #: 328

RE: Trump's speeches criminal? Very possibly! - 3/23/2016 9:22:09 AM

ImperialPath

Posts: 215
Joined: 3/11/2016
Status: offline

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.

(in reply to Lucylastic)

Profile

Post #: 329

RE: Trump's speeches criminal? Very possibly! - 3/23/2016 9:25:40 AM

ImperialPath

Posts: 215
Joined: 3/11/2016
Status: offline

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.

(in reply to Lucylastic)

Profile

Post #: 330

RE: Trump's speeches criminal? Very possibly! - 3/23/2016 9:28:22 AM

ImperialPath

Posts: 215
Joined: 3/11/2016
Status: offline

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.

(in reply to Lucylastic)

Profile

Post #: 331

RE: Trump's speeches criminal? Very possibly! - 3/23/2016 9:45:54 AM

Phydeaux

Posts: 4828
Joined: 1/4/2004
Status: offline

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.

< Message edited by Phydeaux -- 3/23/2016 9:48:29 AM >

(in reply to thompsonx)

Profile

Post #: 332

RE: Trump's speeches criminal? Very possibly! - 3/23/2016 4:34:16 PM

mnottertail

Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline

Oh, we can say without let or hindrance two things, the rules will change to disfavor trump and nutsuckers are retards.

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30

(in reply to Phydeaux)

Profile

Post #: 333

RE: Trump's speeches criminal? Very possibly! - 3/23/2016 6:28:32 PM

thompsonx

Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline

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.

(in reply to Phydeaux)

Profile

Post #: 334