jasper76 wrote:

 SickSix wrote:

 Ustrello wrote:

 SickSix wrote:

 Verviedi wrote:
He said that all abortions should be illegal, and women who have them should be punished, if I recall correctly.

No he was asked 'If abortions were illegal do you think women who have them should be punished?'. Then the media just conveniently edited out the question and only published his response.

So his response still isn't vile? Good to know

He was asked if something was illegal should the violator be punished, he said yes. The POTUS takes an oath swearing them to uphold the law.

So is this the end game of the ProLife movement?

If abortion is ever banned, what should the punishment be for a woman who has one? "I don't know," isn't an answer for this question. If you propose to punish people for having abortions, it's only fair to let everyone know what the
punishment is.

Fines, imprisonment, death, what are we taking about here?

 feeder wrote:
What was the punishment before? When they were illegal? I thought just the providers were punished, based on dim recollections of old-timey docu-dramas.

 jasper76 wrote:
So, no-one here's a politician. No-one here has to worry about what their voters think.

Let's hear it.

 Ouze wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
So, no-one here's a politician. No-one here has to worry about what their voters think.

Let's hear it.

i don't think there should be any punishment, because I think abortion should be legal and am saddened and horrified that the various backdoor attempts to chip away at it over the last decade have been relatively successful.

 Verviedi wrote:
Meanwhile in Mississippi...
http://thefreethoughtproject.com/bill-grants-churches-power-soldiers-god-legally-kill-citizens-cops/

 jasper76 wrote:

 SickSix wrote:

 Ustrello wrote:

 SickSix wrote:

 Verviedi wrote:
He said that all abortions should be illegal, and women who have them should be punished, if I recall correctly.

No he was asked 'If abortions were illegal do you think women who have them should be punished?'. Then the media just conveniently edited out the question and only published his response.

So his response still isn't vile? Good to know

He was asked if something was illegal should the violator be punished, he said yes. The POTUS takes an oath swearing them to uphold the law.

So is this the end game of the ProLife movement?

If abortion is ever banned, what should the punishment be for a woman who has one? "I don't know," isn't an answer for this question. If you propose to punish people for having abortions, it's only fair to let everyone know what the
punishment is.

Fines, imprisonment, death, what are we taking about here?

“Once again Donald Trump has demonstrated that he hasn’t seriously thought through the issues, and he’ll say anything just to get attention,” Cruz said in a statement.

“On the important issue of the sanctity of life, what’s far too often neglected is that being pro-life is not simply about the unborn child; it’s also about the mother — and creating a culture that respects her and embraces life.

"Of course we shouldn’t be talking about punishing women; we should affirm their dignity and the incredible gift they have to bring life into the world,” he added.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
This is awesome!

It is now completely legal to start up the church of Huitzilopochtli, designate some sacred warriors, and capture people to cut out their beating hearts and consume them in cannibalistic rituals.

 Tannhauser42 wrote:

 Verviedi wrote:
Meanwhile in Mississippi...
http://thefreethoughtproject.com/bill-grants-churches-power-soldiers-god-legally-kill-citizens-cops/

Oh. Oh my. Has anyone notified the Church of Satan yet? I await what will, undoubtedly, be a most glorious response from them.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

Same.

Now I'm not a fan of the practice, and would much prefer a large contraception and education push, but I believe the choice should be there.

 whembly wrote:

I'm looking at the bill... and, this has *got* to be an early April's Fools Joke*.

 TheMeanDM wrote:
So Sanders needs 57% of delegates left to overtake Clinton.

I am curious to see if amyone has broke the % down by state.

Like...if he took 80% of California, what would that do to the 57%?

And in that topic....

Apparently this Superdelegate isn't beholden to what the majority of the people wish her to do: back Sanders.

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/alaskan-superdelegate-sti_b_9579342.html

 Kilkrazy wrote:
You can do that anyway, thanks to self defence and 'stand your ground' laws.

 Verviedi wrote:
Meanwhile in Mississippi...
http://thefreethoughtproject.com/bill-grants-churches-power-soldiers-god-legally-kill-citizens-cops/

The media and the Washington chattering class are very focused on the prospect of a "brokered" Republican convention – despite the fact that, as former Republican National Committee chairman Haley Barbour has pointed out, there are no "brokers" in smoke-filled back rooms anymore. Seriously: Who do people think the brokers are – Bob Dole? John McCain? Mitt Romney? Maybe a bunch of cigar-chomping scotch-drinking fat-cat lobbyists? Things don't work that way anymore, and they haven't for years. Voters wouldn't stand for it.

"Our nominee is going to be picked by the voters in the primaries and the caucuses," Barbour told MSNBC's Chris Matthews in January. "And if nobody gets a majority, those people selected by them are going to work that out."

The people who will work it out, as Barbour puts it, are the delegates to the Republican National Convention. RNC Chairman Reince Priebus isn't going to work it out, and unlike the Democrats, the GOP doesn't have unbound superdelegates who can fix any "mistakes" the primary voters make.

This spring, in states and localities all over the nation, delegates to the convention are being selected. Primaries and caucuses may decide the number of delegates each candidate receives, but the actual names of the delegates are yet to be determined. In fact, we won't know for a few more months exactly who is going to the convention. We can make some guesses, though, because in the past many of the attendees are people who tend to run for delegate every four years. They're regulars.

Over the last few election cycles, it didn't matter too much who the individual delegates were, since their candidate had won a majority of pledged delegates so everything was pretty much decided in advance.

But this time may be different. Already, there's been a tremendous amount of speculation regarding the role of the convention's Rules Committee: How many candidates will be allowed to appear on the first ballot? Will delegates be able to switch candidates after the first ballot? Can they retroactively change some states from winner-take-all to proportional? Bottom line: Can they change the rules to keep Donald Trump off the ticket?

Questions like those are the talk of the town right now in Washington. Everyone has an opinion, and it seems everyone is suddenly an expert on arcane Republican convention rules. "Republican convention rules" is getting searched on Google 100 times more in mid-March than it was in mid-January.

With all this in mind I consulted with an actual authority on these matters: Sean Spicer, the RNC's spokesman and chief strategist.

Here's what I learned: Spicer says that while the media is focused on the convention nominating a candidate for president, its real function is to pass the rules which provide the mechanism for the party to exist for four more years. "It's like going to a [Parent-Teacher Association] meeting and thinking that the primary business of the PTA is to elect a PTA president," he says.

There's also this: The GOP's convention rules are based on a modified version of the same rules used to run the House of Representatives. (In fact, traditionally the speaker of the House runs the convention, as will be the case this year.) Just as in every new session of the House, the first order of business at a GOP convention, after the call to order, is to pass a rules package. Spicer compared it to a condo board or neighborhood association meeting, where people need to know the process and how the meeting will run before they start voting on new business.

Most people think that the last convention's rules are the default – that the 2012 rules are in effect until the 2016 committee changes them – but that is not the case. The Rules Committee doesn't get to pick and choose from among the previous rules; it has to come up with a complete package from scratch every four years. "The 115th Congress cannot operate until it first passes a rules package, and we're the same way," Spicer says. Each convention passes its own new set of rules, and they can be similar to prior ones – or they can be vastly different. It depends on what the delegates want.

In terms of how much the rules can differ from year to year: "The Romney delegates wrote rules to ensure a Romney nomination; the McCain delegates wrote rules for a McCain nomination. Those rules were written by delegates whose candidates are not on the ballot this time," Spicer says. Contrary to popular belief, the 2016 rules don't exist yet – and won't until a new set is passed by the 2016 delegates. Those who talk about "changing the rules" don't really understand the process, he says. It's a blank slate: There are no rules to change yet.

That is why the remaining Republican campaigns are working hard to make sure that people friendly to their candidates are being selected as delegates, no matter who won the state. The RNC chairman selects the chair of the Rules Committee, but the rest of the committee is comprised of delegates from all 50 states and the territories, one man and one woman from each. Those delegates can write whatever rules they'd like.

"The thing so interesting about this year's process," says Spicer, "is that for the first time in 40 years, people are paying attention. And it's not because the process has changed, because it hasn't. We're not doing anything different."

One final thought: In addition to writing the rules, the delegates will also be writing the party platform and voting on it. And while we've seen platform fights in the past – mostly on hot-button social issues – this year, the Platform Committee will likely be negotiating on a wider range of issues such as immigration, free trade and foreign policy. If Donald Trump becomes the nominee, will the Republican Party platform really call for building a wall with Mexico, imposing a 35 percent tax on goods made by companies that have left the United States and temporarily banning all Muslims?

Stay tuned.

 whembly wrote:

 Tannhauser42 wrote:

 Verviedi wrote:
Meanwhile in Mississippi...
http://thefreethoughtproject.com/bill-grants-churches-power-soldiers-god-legally-kill-citizens-cops/

Oh. Oh my. Has anyone notified the Church of Satan yet? I await what will, undoubtedly, be a most glorious response from them.

I'm looking at the bill... and, this has *got* to be an early April's Fools Joke*.

 whembly wrote:

Spoiler:

I had to look back at the few Republican conventions... and, it looks like this opinion piece is likely correct:
Republican Conventions Rules? You can't change the rules that has yet to be written.

The media and the Washington chattering class are very focused on the prospect of a "brokered" Republican convention – despite the fact that, as former Republican National Committee chairman Haley Barbour has pointed out, there are no "brokers" in smoke-filled back rooms anymore. Seriously: Who do people think the brokers are – Bob Dole? John McCain? Mitt Romney? Maybe a bunch of cigar-chomping scotch-drinking fat-cat lobbyists? Things don't work that way anymore, and they haven't for years. Voters wouldn't stand for it.

"Our nominee is going to be picked by the voters in the primaries and the caucuses," Barbour told MSNBC's Chris Matthews in January. "And if nobody gets a majority, those people selected by them are going to work that out."

The people who will work it out, as Barbour puts it, are the delegates to the Republican National Convention. RNC Chairman Reince Priebus isn't going to work it out, and unlike the Democrats, the GOP doesn't have unbound superdelegates who can fix any "mistakes" the primary voters make.

This spring, in states and localities all over the nation, delegates to the convention are being selected. Primaries and caucuses may decide the number of delegates each candidate receives, but the actual names of the delegates are yet to be determined. In fact, we won't know for a few more months exactly who is going to the convention. We can make some guesses, though, because in the past many of the attendees are people who tend to run for delegate every four years. They're regulars.

Over the last few election cycles, it didn't matter too much who the individual delegates were, since their candidate had won a majority of pledged delegates so everything was pretty much decided in advance.

But this time may be different. Already, there's been a tremendous amount of speculation regarding the role of the convention's Rules Committee: How many candidates will be allowed to appear on the first ballot? Will delegates be able to switch candidates after the first ballot? Can they retroactively change some states from winner-take-all to proportional? Bottom line: Can they change the rules to keep Donald Trump off the ticket?

Questions like those are the talk of the town right now in Washington. Everyone has an opinion, and it seems everyone is suddenly an expert on arcane Republican convention rules. "Republican convention rules" is getting searched on Google 100 times more in mid-March than it was in mid-January.

With all this in mind I consulted with an actual authority on these matters: Sean Spicer, the RNC's spokesman and chief strategist.

Here's what I learned: Spicer says that while the media is focused on the convention nominating a candidate for president, its real function is to pass the rules which provide the mechanism for the party to exist for four more years. "It's like going to a [Parent-Teacher Association] meeting and thinking that the primary business of the PTA is to elect a PTA president," he says.

There's also this: The GOP's convention rules are based on a modified version of the same rules used to run the House of Representatives. (In fact, traditionally the speaker of the House runs the convention, as will be the case this year.) Just as in every new session of the House, the first order of business at a GOP convention, after the call to order, is to pass a rules package. Spicer compared it to a condo board or neighborhood association meeting, where people need to know the process and how the meeting will run before they start voting on new business.

Most people think that the last convention's rules are the default – that the 2012 rules are in effect until the 2016 committee changes them – but that is not the case. The Rules Committee doesn't get to pick and choose from among the previous rules; it has to come up with a complete package from scratch every four years. "The 115th Congress cannot operate until it first passes a rules package, and we're the same way," Spicer says. Each convention passes its own new set of rules, and they can be similar to prior ones – or they can be vastly different. It depends on what the delegates want.

In terms of how much the rules can differ from year to year: "The Romney delegates wrote rules to ensure a Romney nomination; the McCain delegates wrote rules for a McCain nomination. Those rules were written by delegates whose candidates are not on the ballot this time," Spicer says. Contrary to popular belief, the 2016 rules don't exist yet – and won't until a new set is passed by the 2016 delegates. Those who talk about "changing the rules" don't really understand the process, he says. It's a blank slate: There are no rules to change yet.

That is why the remaining Republican campaigns are working hard to make sure that people friendly to their candidates are being selected as delegates, no matter who won the state. The RNC chairman selects the chair of the Rules Committee, but the rest of the committee is comprised of delegates from all 50 states and the territories, one man and one woman from each. Those delegates can write whatever rules they'd like.

"The thing so interesting about this year's process," says Spicer, "is that for the first time in 40 years, people are paying attention. And it's not because the process has changed, because it hasn't. We're not doing anything different."

One final thought: In addition to writing the rules, the delegates will also be writing the party platform and voting on it. And while we've seen platform fights in the past – mostly on hot-button social issues – this year, the Platform Committee will likely be negotiating on a wider range of issues such as immigration, free trade and foreign policy. If Donald Trump becomes the nominee, will the Republican Party platform really call for building a wall with Mexico, imposing a 35 percent tax on goods made by companies that have left the United States and temporarily banning all Muslims?

Stay tuned.

So, for 2016, the RNC convention rules doesn't exist yet. So, all this hemming/hawwing over convention rules is nothing more than vaporware.

Hence, why Kasich is still "running"...

Hence, why Rubio is "suspended", but keeping his delegate wins...

 jasper76 wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Spoiler:

I had to look back at the few Republican conventions... and, it looks like this opinion piece is likely correct:
Republican Conventions Rules? You can't change the rules that has yet to be written.

The media and the Washington chattering class are very focused on the prospect of a "brokered" Republican convention – despite the fact that, as former Republican National Committee chairman Haley Barbour has pointed out, there are no "brokers" in smoke-filled back rooms anymore. Seriously: Who do people think the brokers are – Bob Dole? John McCain? Mitt Romney? Maybe a bunch of cigar-chomping scotch-drinking fat-cat lobbyists? Things don't work that way anymore, and they haven't for years. Voters wouldn't stand for it.

"Our nominee is going to be picked by the voters in the primaries and the caucuses," Barbour told MSNBC's Chris Matthews in January. "And if nobody gets a majority, those people selected by them are going to work that out."

The people who will work it out, as Barbour puts it, are the delegates to the Republican National Convention. RNC Chairman Reince Priebus isn't going to work it out, and unlike the Democrats, the GOP doesn't have unbound superdelegates who can fix any "mistakes" the primary voters make.

This spring, in states and localities all over the nation, delegates to the convention are being selected. Primaries and caucuses may decide the number of delegates each candidate receives, but the actual names of the delegates are yet to be determined. In fact, we won't know for a few more months exactly who is going to the convention. We can make some guesses, though, because in the past many of the attendees are people who tend to run for delegate every four years. They're regulars.

Over the last few election cycles, it didn't matter too much who the individual delegates were, since their candidate had won a majority of pledged delegates so everything was pretty much decided in advance.

But this time may be different. Already, there's been a tremendous amount of speculation regarding the role of the convention's Rules Committee: How many candidates will be allowed to appear on the first ballot? Will delegates be able to switch candidates after the first ballot? Can they retroactively change some states from winner-take-all to proportional? Bottom line: Can they change the rules to keep Donald Trump off the ticket?

Questions like those are the talk of the town right now in Washington. Everyone has an opinion, and it seems everyone is suddenly an expert on arcane Republican convention rules. "Republican convention rules" is getting searched on Google 100 times more in mid-March than it was in mid-January.

With all this in mind I consulted with an actual authority on these matters: Sean Spicer, the RNC's spokesman and chief strategist.

Here's what I learned: Spicer says that while the media is focused on the convention nominating a candidate for president, its real function is to pass the rules which provide the mechanism for the party to exist for four more years. "It's like going to a [Parent-Teacher Association] meeting and thinking that the primary business of the PTA is to elect a PTA president," he says.

There's also this: The GOP's convention rules are based on a modified version of the same rules used to run the House of Representatives. (In fact, traditionally the speaker of the House runs the convention, as will be the case this year.) Just as in every new session of the House, the first order of business at a GOP convention, after the call to order, is to pass a rules package. Spicer compared it to a condo board or neighborhood association meeting, where people need to know the process and how the meeting will run before they start voting on new business.

Most people think that the last convention's rules are the default – that the 2012 rules are in effect until the 2016 committee changes them – but that is not the case. The Rules Committee doesn't get to pick and choose from among the previous rules; it has to come up with a complete package from scratch every four years. "The 115th Congress cannot operate until it first passes a rules package, and we're the same way," Spicer says. Each convention passes its own new set of rules, and they can be similar to prior ones – or they can be vastly different. It depends on what the delegates want.

In terms of how much the rules can differ from year to year: "The Romney delegates wrote rules to ensure a Romney nomination; the McCain delegates wrote rules for a McCain nomination. Those rules were written by delegates whose candidates are not on the ballot this time," Spicer says. Contrary to popular belief, the 2016 rules don't exist yet – and won't until a new set is passed by the 2016 delegates. Those who talk about "changing the rules" don't really understand the process, he says. It's a blank slate: There are no rules to change yet.

That is why the remaining Republican campaigns are working hard to make sure that people friendly to their candidates are being selected as delegates, no matter who won the state. The RNC chairman selects the chair of the Rules Committee, but the rest of the committee is comprised of delegates from all 50 states and the territories, one man and one woman from each. Those delegates can write whatever rules they'd like.

"The thing so interesting about this year's process," says Spicer, "is that for the first time in 40 years, people are paying attention. And it's not because the process has changed, because it hasn't. We're not doing anything different."

One final thought: In addition to writing the rules, the delegates will also be writing the party platform and voting on it. And while we've seen platform fights in the past – mostly on hot-button social issues – this year, the Platform Committee will likely be negotiating on a wider range of issues such as immigration, free trade and foreign policy. If Donald Trump becomes the nominee, will the Republican Party platform really call for building a wall with Mexico, imposing a 35 percent tax on goods made by companies that have left the United States and temporarily banning all Muslims?

Stay tuned.

So, for 2016, the RNC convention rules doesn't exist yet. So, all this hemming/hawwing over convention rules is nothing more than vaporware.

Hence, why Kasich is still "running"...

Hence, why Rubio is "suspended", but keeping his delegate wins...

As far as I've been led to understand, it's within the RNC's power to make a rule saying "Donald Trump cannot be the Republican nominee.". Is that your understanding as well, or do I have the wrong end of the stick on this?

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

 Verviedi wrote:
Meanwhile in Mississippi...
http://thefreethoughtproject.com/bill-grants-churches-power-soldiers-god-legally-kill-citizens-cops/

I remember what happened last time we had "Soldiers of God." The Crusades were not pretty.