Washington (US Political RP; 2016 ; OOC ; OPEN!)

by **Bolovia** » Fri Jul 22, 2016 7:44 pm

The Portland Territory wrote:
Bolovia wrote:You mean Krug?

Oopsie poopsie

You...you have 2 uvulas?

by **The Portland Territory** » Fri Jul 22, 2016 7:49 pm

Bolovia wrote:
The Portland Territory wrote:Oopsie poopsie

You...you have 2 uvulas?

Yeah, I actually do. It's called a biuvula.

by **Bolovia** » Fri Jul 22, 2016 7:50 pm

The Portland Territory wrote:
Bolovia wrote:You...you have 2 uvulas?

Yeah, I actually do. It's called a biuvula.

Sweet

by **The Portland Territory** » Fri Jul 22, 2016 9:16 pm

Yo Bolovia, that rally was WWWAAAYYY to quick to happen. At least try to be realistic and set it for happening tomorrow afternoon. You can't go from a debate in New Hampshire to a rally in Texas right after it!

by **Bolovia** » Fri Jul 22, 2016 9:24 pm

The Portland Territory wrote:Yo Bolovia, that rally was WWWAAAYYY to quick to happen. At least try to be realistic and set it for happening tomorrow afternoon. You can't go from a debate in New Hampshire to a rally in Texas right after it!

Ok. I'll say something like (OOC: This happened the day after the debate or something), or I'll save it as a draft. Probably'll do that instead.

EDIT: Can't save it anymore, dammit. OOC notice it is.

by **Jovuistan** » Fri Jul 22, 2016 10:01 pm

How can a third party candidate possibly attract 60,000 people to one of their rallies, in Montana no less?

by **Bolovia** » Fri Jul 22, 2016 10:07 pm

Jovuistan wrote:How can a third party candidate possibly attract 60,000 people to one of their rallies, in Montana no less?

Black magic.

EDIT: Libertarian Black magic.

by **Red Party** » Fri Jul 22, 2016 10:20 pm

Jovuistan wrote:How can a third party candidate possibly attract 60,000 people to one of their rallies, in Montana no less?

Montana is one of the biggest Libertarian voter bases bud.

by **Krugeristan** » Sat Jul 23, 2016 3:06 am

I kinda had to end the debate because my Internet was going to be turned off for the night.

Thanks again, Portland.

by **The Boras** » Sat Jul 23, 2016 3:32 am

Red Party wrote:
Jovuistan wrote:How can a third party candidate possibly attract 60,000 people to one of their rallies, in Montana no less?

Montana is one of the biggest Libertarian voter bases bud.

You see the thing about that is that in every election from 2000-2012, the Libertarian candidate never got past 60,000 votes, or even 20,000 votes. The highest in the past four elections was 14,000 votes.

by **Bolovia** » Sat Jul 23, 2016 4:25 am

The Boras wrote:
Red Party wrote:Montana is one of the biggest Libertarian voter bases bud.

You see the thing about that is that in every election from 2000-2012, the Libertarian candidate never got past 60,000 votes, or even 20,000 votes. The highest in the past four elections was 14,000 votes.

It's Black Libertarian Magic I tells ya.

by **The Portland Territory** » Sat Jul 23, 2016 5:12 am

Bolovia wrote:
The Boras wrote:You see the thing about that is that in every election from 2000-2012, the Libertarian candidate never got past 60,000 votes, or even 20,000 votes. The highest in the past four elections was 14,000 votes.

It's Black Libertarian Magic I tells ya.

Frickin Johnson. I've always known him to be a warlock

by **The Boras** » Sat Jul 23, 2016 7:25 am

Are you gonna mention Kirk in the meeting?

by **The Portland Territory** » Sat Jul 23, 2016 7:29 am

The Boras wrote:Are you gonna mention Kirk in the meeting?

Well we are talking about him a bit, yeah

by **Jovuistan** » Sat Jul 23, 2016 7:29 am

The Boras wrote:Are you gonna mention Kirk in the meeting?

"Yeah, it's a bit unfortunate how little substance has been given so far. Honestly though, I think regardless of who our nominee is, we'll be far better off than the Democrats. I mean really, a damn Comedian won their Iowa Caucus, and by a landslide..."

No.

by **The Boras** » Sat Jul 23, 2016 7:46 am

Ah sorry I didn't catch that.

Also I like how everybody's thinking he can win. He only has ballot access in 10 states people, and I don't intend for him to have more. The fact that he will lose is an objective fact.

by **The Portland Territory** » Sat Jul 23, 2016 7:58 am

The Boras wrote:Ah sorry I didn't catch that.

Also I like how everybody's thinking he can win. He only has ballot access in eight states people, and I don't intend for him to have more. The fact that he will lose is an objective fact.

Eh, keep trying. It's kinda funny

by **Jovuistan** » Sat Jul 23, 2016 7:59 am

The Boras wrote:Ah sorry I didn't catch that.

Also I like how everybody's thinking he can win. He only has ballot access in eight states people, and I don't intend for him to have more. The fact that he will lose is an objective fact.

Inb4 Waldriech puts Kirk on the ballot everywhere and he wins.

by **The Boras** » Sat Jul 23, 2016 8:00 am

Okay I stand corrected, it's 10 states. But it doesn't change the fact that he will lose.

by **Red Party** » Sat Jul 23, 2016 8:50 am

The Boras wrote:
Red Party wrote:Montana is one of the biggest Libertarian voter bases bud.

You see the thing about that is that in every election from 2000-2012, the Libertarian candidate never got past 60,000 votes, or even 20,000 votes. The highest in the past four elections was 14,000 votes.

Look, lately the Libertarian party has been picking up steam. Unless the OP will say otherwise, it shall remain at 60,000

by **The Boras** » Sat Jul 23, 2016 8:54 am

Red Party wrote:
The Boras wrote:You see the thing about that is that in every election from 2000-2012, the Libertarian candidate never got past 60,000 votes, or even 20,000 votes. The highest in the past four elections was 14,000 votes.

Look, lately the Libertarian party has been picking up steam. Unless the OP will say otherwise, it shall remain at 60,000

i understand that the Libertarian party has been gaining steam, but it's more likely because of the conditions of the 2016 elections. Both party has its most un-popular candidates in history, while in this timeline, both Democrats and Republicans have a wide, diverse range of candidates. But I guess I'm fine with keeping it at 60,000. Don't wanna cause too much trouble with this.

by **The Portland Territory** » Sat Jul 23, 2016 9:06 am

When will the polls be out?

by **Zelent** » Sat Jul 23, 2016 10:54 am

Frick I don't even know what to post.

by **The Portland Territory** » Sat Jul 23, 2016 11:35 am

Damn I'm scared for the poll :shock:

by **Democratic Peoples republic of Kelvinsi** » Sat Jul 23, 2016 11:40 am

The Portland Territory wrote:Damn I'm scared for the poll

Just have a good time I do not care how I finish, it so fun playing Drumpf.

Washington (US Political RP; 2016 ; OOC ; OPEN!)

When day should the New Hampshire Republican Debate be?

Who is online