...lol...you're "
surprised at me"?...and yes, it is quite legal. Again, it's called "politics", deal with it instead of whining about it.
...I politely asked you to do some research and educate yourself of the process so you wouldn't look so ignorant of how the process actually works, and so you scour the internet and copied and pasted that garbage?...did you even read the article? It's not even an actual quote from anyone.
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/republicans-take-fresh-look-their-eight-state-rule
...but hey, you found it on the internet so it must be true, right?...the education continues.
from YOUR link:
Take notice, there ARE two names attached to QUOTES.
Looks like Rule 40 (very legal, lol) was "designed" to prevent Ron Paul's delegates from being counted.
"Designed"......lmao.....
."designed" to screw Ron Paul because the GOP establishment didn't like him- and they basically said "fuk you" to his voters.
From Your link:
Rule 40
Four years ago, Mitt Romney’s allies at the Republican National Committee added what seemed like a minor tweak, in order to be eligible for the nomination, a candidate has to win a majority of the delegates from at least eight states.
But the funny thing about the RNC’s rules is how easy they are to change based on circumstances.
Politico reported yesterday on the precarious future facing this obscure party rule.
“I’m not a big fan of the eight-state threshold. I think that’s an artificial number,” said David Wheeler, a rules committee member from South Dakota. “It was designed to prevent Ron Paul delegates – their votes from being counted. I don’t think it’s necessary to do that this year.”
This is one of those arguments that partisan activists are supposed to think, but not say out loud.
It’s certainly true that Rule 40 was created to undermine Ron Paul, but when Republican officials publicly acknowledge this, it raises questions about the integrity of the entire process.
In effect, the argument is, “We manipulated the rules last time to undermine a candidate the party didn’t like, and now that circumstances have changed, it’s time to manipulate them
again to undermine a
different candidate the party doesn’t like.”
Interestingly enough, one might expect Ted Cruz to oppose Rule 40, but as of yesterday, the Texas senator was actually making the opposite case.
Consider what Cruz told conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt yesterday:
“
I think that would be a terrible idea for the Washington power brokers to change the rules, because they’re unhappy with the candidates who the voters are voting for. Under the rules, and you’re right, there is some irony in that it was the Romney Team that put this rule in place to prevent Ron Paul from being put on the ballot.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
There ya go! From
your link.
But I already "researched" it. (post 874)
Fact- the GOP has a rule in place which can be changed accordingly to screw any candidate they
don't like regardless of how many votes, states or delegates they may have only because the sh!t-ass GOP may not like them
Pretty good huh? Wonderful.....and very "
legal".
You can stop playing the "whiner" card, it doesn't apply to those who aren't surprised and aren't saddened by Trump's current success despite the GOP and Super PACs pouring hundreds of millions of dollars in negative ads vs Trump and propping up a couple of their early candidates. And now we have two other candidates wasting our time who have already been mathematically eliminated with one of them winning just one state.
Maybe you can use the whiner card on a couple of people who expected the Trump train to derail months ago and are now reduced to posting angry name calling graffiti.