-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
- Status
R
the seven state petition requirement -was- met...then the deputy chairman claimed that it wasn't because delegates withdraw from the petition...
if it wasn't going to go anywhere then why did they provoke an uproar on the convention floor just to prevent a roll call vote?
if the seven state requirement was not met then why are they refusing to release the names of any of the delegates who withdrew their signatures or even a list of the three states that were supposedly struck from the petition as a result?
what are the trumpists and the party bosses hiding?
if it wasn't going to go anywhere then why did they provoke an uproar on the convention floor just to prevent a roll call vote?
if the seven state requirement was not met then why are they refusing to release the names of any of the delegates who withdrew their signatures or even a list of the three states that were supposedly struck from the petition as a result?
what are the trumpists and the party bosses hiding?
"the seven state petition requirement -was- met...then the deputy chairman claimed that it wasn't because delegates withdraw from the petition..."
So then it wasn't met !!
There was an up roar because they wanted to bull doze their way in.
So because they are not releasing their names this very second means there was foul play?
How do you rationalize things?
So then it wasn't met !!
There was an up roar because they wanted to bull doze their way in.
So because they are not releasing their names this very second means there was foul play?
How do you rationalize things?
Hold on now, no one is talking about an act of violence such as attacking Hillary. I only suggested in an earlier post that Rachel vote for Hillary instead of Trump. I can only conclude Rachel may find Hillary Clinton to be more agreeable to Rachel than the Donald as she never complains about Hillary.
I don't know whether there's an unholy alliance, but I doubt very seriously that Trump would insist that our nation is hopelessly racist and that cops are out to hurt and even kill minorities with impunity.
That's what we're currently getting, and I'm pretty certain that Hillary will give us more of the same.
Just sayin'.
That's what we're currently getting, and I'm pretty certain that Hillary will give us more of the same.
Just sayin'.
R
i think you have a really bad case of 'not actually reading what you are responding to'...
in the very first post i mentioned that 'almost physical' intimidation was reported by party 'whips' trying to get delegates to withdraw their signatures from the petition... later on reports came out of threats of career ending consequences for those who didn't fall in line...
and as i pointed out...the new rules were passed without a real vote... they were passed by voice vote during an uproar in which the deputy chairman's call that 'the ayes have it' was itself very open to dispute...
in the very first post i mentioned that 'almost physical' intimidation was reported by party 'whips' trying to get delegates to withdraw their signatures from the petition... later on reports came out of threats of career ending consequences for those who didn't fall in line...
and as i pointed out...the new rules were passed without a real vote... they were passed by voice vote during an uproar in which the deputy chairman's call that 'the ayes have it' was itself very open to dispute...
R
even if that is true it should -still- be a totally unrelated issue from the 'party bosses can henceforth change the rules whenever they want' rule that was part of the package the rules committee sent to the convention...
there was a blatant power grab on the part of the RNC...and they did it in collaboration with the trump campaign...
and that is why this is causing a stir outside of the 'never trump' camp as well...it's why ken cuccinelli threw his convention badge on the floor and walked out...it's why one of trump's own fundraisers resigned saying 'we don't do this in america'
there was a blatant power grab on the part of the RNC...and they did it in collaboration with the trump campaign...
and that is why this is causing a stir outside of the 'never trump' camp as well...it's why ken cuccinelli threw his convention badge on the floor and walked out...it's why one of trump's own fundraisers resigned saying 'we don't do this in america'
V
I see. I'll vouch for Rachel, she appears to dislike Hillary from the posts I've read from her. I'm not saying you personally, but I've seen posters that assume because someone speaks facts that put Trump in a negative light that they love Hillary. This isn't the case at all. One can simply dislike both candidates, even if they emphasize one candidate's name more so than the other.
- Status