Trump gets the shaft - Cruz proven communist

[Pokesan]

Originally Posted by Uuruk [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

no i'm the faggot police and you are under arrest.

put the cuffs on tight officer handsome [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[Spyder73]

Originally Posted by Pokesan [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

put the cuffs on tight officer handsome [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Well played, and welcome back f@ggot

[iruinedyourday]

Originally Posted by Uuruk [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

no i'm the faggot police and you are under arrest.

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.][You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.][You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[Daywolf]

Originally Posted by Trollhide [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

ah but it's not united, not united at all. Sure the establishment is united, that pic is correct there, but the gop voters are split pretty severely. Even McCains' "Hobbits" are split with around half the tea party in one camp and the rest in the other, including TP founders split. As for evangelicals, Ted has an edge if christian faith groups are broken down into groups, singling out just "evangelicals", but overall Donald has the Christian faith groups among those of which vote for republicans. Barna often gets it right, though often has issues differentiating between cell groups and traditional "practicing" attendance groups.

Now this whole whack job on the Colorado election is not simply a result of Donald, though the rule is new, but it originates with Ron Paul and the last election (and likely in consideration of the one before). It seems a measure to control dissidence within the party, a counter measure against especially tea party and religious groups as shown above, of which many supported Ron or threatened to, and currently support Donald. Though Ron had no solid support to really propel him into the running, the idea was there, and the idea frightened the establishment so they rewrote the rules at the conclusion of the last election.

And that dissidence did rise, as too many of those elected (giving them the house and senate) more or less said 'let them eat cake' once they were in. The voters put them in on the issues to resolve as they ran on, and they only went along with Obama and outraged many of the voters that put them there (and not just reps). And that's right, Colorado wasn't about Ted, not even Ron or Donald, it's about them, to hold power, and in the end they will turn those rules in on Ted and they will both be out.

The question is if they will concede, that being if they are unable to cause enough division to skirt under the radar and get the win for their loss (win or lose they retain power, unless they lose control). But it may be at least some of them are starting to waver, as Randy Evans said recently that Donald only needs 1100 delegates to win his prediction anyway, who is an RNC member. This being after Paul Ryan saying he will not run.

I think in part, his comment is maybe because the prospect of a bait and switch at a brokered convention to someone else has grown so toxic, no one else wants it, and Ryan was their greatest hope for that. Though I still have my eye on Romney, as he is still my suspicion for some bait and switch, as Romney has less to lose in such a divided and toxic environment. And really, so toxic I have doubts Ted could prevail in uniting voters once all is said and done if he doesn't cleanly win here ...which seems very unlikely ... almost hilariously so.

[iruinedyourday]

22 1 sentence posts in a row then DAYWOLFED

[Daywolf]

Originally Posted by iruinedyourday [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

22 1 sentence posts in a row then DAYWOLFED

Yep, content > post count [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
I could have included more... hah
I was tempted to break down more groups outside of the ones mentioned, but meh game forum has enough paragraphs (which I usually try to keep to 3 or less here) and I don't repost elsewhere so would be a waste. But there is enough prospective info from the links for personal background research ...not that you would [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[Ahldagor]

Originally Posted by Daywolf [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

ah but it's not united, not united at all. Sure the establishment is united, that pic is correct there, but the gop voters are split pretty severely. Even McCains' "Hobbits" are split with around half the tea party in one camp and the rest in the other, including TP founders split. As for evangelicals, Ted has an edge if christian faith groups are broken down into groups, singling out just "evangelicals", but overall Donald has the Christian faith groups among those of which vote for republicans. Barna often gets it right, though often has issues differentiating between cell groups and traditional "practicing" attendance groups.

Now this whole whack job on the Colorado election is not simply a result of Donald, though the rule is new, but it originates with Ron Paul and the last election (and likely in consideration of the one before). It seems a measure to control dissidence within the party, a counter measure against especially tea party and religious groups as shown above, of which many supported Ron or threatened to, and currently support Donald. Though Ron had no solid support to really propel him into the running, the idea was there, and the idea frightened the establishment so they rewrote the rules at the conclusion of the last election.

And that dissidence did rise, as too many of those elected (giving them the house and senate) more or less said 'let them eat cake' once they were in. The voters put them in on the issues to resolve as they ran on, and they only went along with Obama and outraged many of the voters that put them there (and not just reps). And that's right, Colorado wasn't about Ted, not even Ron or Donald, it's about them, to hold power, and in the end they will turn those rules in on Ted and they will both be out.

The question is if they will concede, that being if they are unable to cause enough division to skirt under the radar and get the win for their loss (win or lose they retain power, unless they lose control). But it may be at least some of them are starting to waver, as Randy Evans said recently that Donald only needs 1100 delegates to win his prediction anyway, who is an RNC member. This being after Paul Ryan saying he will not run.

I think in part, his comment is maybe because the prospect of a bait and switch at a brokered convention to someone else has grown so toxic, no one else wants it, and Ryan was their greatest hope for that. Though I still have my eye on Romney, as he is still my suspicion for some bait and switch, as Romney has less to lose in such a divided and toxic environment. And really, so toxic I have doubts Ted could prevail in uniting voters once all is said and done if he doesn't cleanly win here ...which seems very unlikely ... almost hilariously so.

Well said and the brokered convention the gop will likely have could cripple the party worse than the 68 democratic one did for the dems. A lot of parallels to the 68 and 72 nominations for both parties are happening. Consider Sanders's run like McGovern's.

[iruinedyourday]

Originally Posted by Daywolf [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Yep, content > post count [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
I could have included more... hah
I was tempted to break down more groups outside of the ones mentioned, but meh game forum has enough paragraphs (which I usually try to keep to 3 or less here) and I don't repost elsewhere so would be a waste. But there is enough prospective info from the links for personal background research ...not that you would [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Im not sure your perception of your forum skills is on par with others perceptions.

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[Daywolf]

Originally Posted by iruinedyourday [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Im not sure your perception of your forum skills is on par with others perceptions.[/IMG]

If someone disagrees with me, I'm doing it right.
Thanks [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[Sidelle]

I'm sad that this never became a thing during this most memorable presidential race ever.

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]