It's a minor distinction, I'll grant you, but 'they were supposed to do this by law' and 'they HAD to' are different enough that it's worth making the distinction, especially since it happens to be pretty funny.

TIL breaking the law is ok if it's amusing to do so.

TIL that kids with low reading comprehension are going to cry about shit they didn't understand if I said it.

It's pretty funny that they wrote the rules they said they would follow and then didn't follow them?

No, making the distinction is the funny bit.

Nope, all that happened was you took a position based on your personal bias and when proved wrong said but my personal bias means I was still right. I'd say TIL that's how you roll but it's always been pretty obvious.

Except I just literally explained this in the post right above this mewling garbage. Try reading it twice to see if you're smart enough to catch on to what's actually happening here, kiddo.

I'm really not seeing what's funny. This whole "distinction" isn't a distinction. If the Democrat party writes rules that the Democrat party is to abide by, how is it inaccurate to say they "have to?"

This post was edited by Santara on Jul 23 2016 12:19pm

Because they didn't. If you 'have to' do something then it's unavoidable, but they clearly avoided it.

It was one of them thingies wherein one creates dissonance between expectation and the thing that you say because the mental frission causes amusement. I can't remember what those things are called after walking through this PaRDian wasteland, but I swear that they're a thing. Joe-ack? Something like that.

Because they don't "have to" any more than the United States "has" to abide by international law. Power has prerogatives.

It does make the nomination process look like a sham, but Clinton neophytes can't be expected to care.