Business Insider: Ron Paul May Have Just Secretly Won Iowa

reply to post by xuenchen


Very interesting when you see the delegates spread out like that...wonder how many of those delegates are RP. Also wonder how the delegates will work out for Perry/Bachmann/Gingrich when they drop out. Will they even show? who knows...

Originally posted by eLPresidente
reply to post by TinfoilTP

 

What the heck are you talking about?

It is a FACT Santorum wasn't prepared to win delegates, he was climbing the polls off on the media's dime.

Delegates is how you win elections and is how the electoral college works as well.

There is no "electoral college" in primaries or at party conventions.

reply to post by OutKast Searcher


Thank You for that clarification but I was talking about the general election as well as the party election. Questions or Concerns?

reply to post by TinfoilTP
If it means beating the party insiders like Benkie admitting before the caucus that they WOULD NOT let Paul win, going so far as to purposefully stacking the deck, and overriding such generally unpleasant people such as yourself for a chance to get this country back on track, I can't say I mind, Tinfoil.

reply to post by TinfoilTP


WRONG AGAIN! you are getting easier and easier by the minute.

This is no "back door unfair advantage". These are the rules for Iowa. Every candidate has/had the fair opportunity to take advantage of this. That is not hypocrisy. This is called knowing the rules of the game and being organized enough to utilize it. Or as I call it, being serious about politics, which none of the other candidates are.

Hypocrisy would be the media saying Iowa counts if Paul loses, and doesnt count if he wins.
THAT is hypocrisy.

Shall I school you some more? Looks like its back to school for you!

reply to post by OutKast Searcher
The main problem with that argument is the party would never be willing to stack the deck in Paul's favor, as they are admittedly willing to do - in addition to purposefully discrediting entire states and possibly the whole process - to ensure that he doesn't win.

And, OutKast - these are unpledged delegates anyway. Fair game, regardless. When we get to states with pledged delegates, I guess we'll have to see whose supporters are involved enough in the process to GET involved in the process, and how they feel about how seriously the various candidates would take THEIR pledges - or oaths - of office.

If anyone accusing Ron Paul supporters of "dirty underhanded tricks" could explain to me exactly how playing by the rules is "dirty" or "underhanded" I'd appreciate it (especially from a certain Paul thread troll)...

All of the candidates are well aware of how the game is played... and if they don't or they lack the organizational skills that Paul supporters do who's problem is that exactly...

I don't see too many Paul supporters doing anything other than laughing at how pathetic every other candidate outside of Romney looks having to sue to get on the ballot in Virginia because they couldn't manage to get the required signatures which were part of THE RULES... and how's that old saying go... something about "all's fair in love and war"... well... welcome to the R3VOLUTION...

If you're too ignorant to know how to play the game... maybe you should stay on the sidelines to avoid making a fool out of yourself...

reply to post by TinfoilTP
And people say they want an anti-establishment candidate...if "the GOP establishment" is who you think should try to prevent this, then apparently the people should be for it.

reply to post by OutKast Searcher


See my above post about "hypocrisy".

You trolls are hilarious. You just sit here and bash paul supporters. But your not actually accomplishing anything. Just arguing for the sake of arguing. And how do I know this? As I said, your obviously not here to accomplish or change anything. Just to argue.

I was planning to post this as well and it looks like I was beaten to the punch.

This is certainly an interesting thought that I dont think many considered. Anyway, the story has also been picked up by the Washington Examiner.

TWE report

Originally posted by eLPresidente
reply to post by OutKast Searcher

 

Thank You for that clarification but I was talking about the general election as well as the party election. Questions or Concerns?

Some terminology as the election unfolds in sequential order for you foreigners.

Primary - a Party election in a single State, most use this format few use the Caucus format
Convention Delegates - These go from each State to the Party Convention to decide a Party Nominee
Convention - a single Convention is held for each Party to decide a single Party Nominee using Convention Delegates

General Election - this is the main election between the Party Nominees
Electoral College Delegates - each State sends these after the General election to the Electoral College to decide the Presidency, these have nothing to do with Convention delegates.

Who won the Iowa Democratic caucuses ?

**

reply to post by xuenchen
Obama, apparently.

As someone else already pointed out, by the time Iowa gets their process done, the nominee is already decided.
There is a minimum amount of delegates needed to sew up the nomination, and it always happens before Iowa comes into play.

Ron Paul will be endorsing another candidate, his sticking it out is only going to earn him a spot at the podium of the GOP convention to thump his fist and say what he wants.

reply to post by TinfoilTP


still awaiting your reply!

So you switched from faux news style double speak to just trying to demoralize paul supporters.

I have a feeling it takes you a long time to learn things. Cause you obviously haven't realized how dedicated the Paul base is, and the fact that no one cares what you think.

Originally posted by VonDoomen
reply to post by TinfoilTP

 

still awaiting your reply!

So you switched from faux news style double speak to just trying to demoralize paul supporters.

I have a feeling it takes you a long time to learn things. Cause you obviously haven't realized how dedicated the Paul base is, and the fact that no one cares what you think.

No his loss demoralized if anything because the Ron Paul supporters foolishly thought he would win the whole thing by a landslide. If their expectations were not artificially raised to such ridiculous levels, that demoralized feeling would not be there. The MSM certainly cannot be blamed for such oulandish landslide predictions and certainly none of his detractors can be blamed either. Ron Paul himself cannot even be blamed, because he never even predicted a landslide. His fanatic supporters came up with that one all on their own.

Originally posted by TinfoilTP

Originally posted by VonDoomen
reply to post by TinfoilTP

 

still awaiting your reply!

So you switched from faux news style double speak to just trying to demoralize paul supporters.

I have a feeling it takes you a long time to learn things. Cause you obviously haven't realized how dedicated the Paul base is, and the fact that no one cares what you think.

No his loss demoralized if anything because the Ron Paul supporters foolishly thought he would win the whole thing by a landslide. If their expectations were not artificially raised to such ridiculous levels, that demoralized feeling would not be there. The MSM certainly cannot be blamed for such oulandish landslide predictions and certainly none of his detractors can be blamed either. Ron Paul himself cannot even be blamed, because he never even predicted a landslide. His fanatic supporters came up with that one all on their own.

You obviously didn't get that this was directed at you Captain Oblivious... so here... I'll repost it for you since you somehow "didn't see it"...

If anyone accusing Ron Paul supporters of "dirty underhanded tricks" could explain to me exactly how playing by the rules is "dirty" or "underhanded" I'd appreciate it (especially from a certain Paul thread troll)...

All of the candidates are well aware of how the game is played... and if they don't or they lack the organizational skills that Paul supporters do who's problem is that exactly...

I don't see too many Paul supporters doing anything other than laughing at how pathetic every other candidate outside of Romney looks having to sue to get on the ballot in Virginia because they couldn't manage to get the required signatures which were part of THE RULES... and how's that old saying go... something about "all's fair in love and war"... well... welcome to the R3VOLUTION...

If you're too ignorant to know how to play the game... maybe you should stay on the sidelines to avoid making a fool out of yourself...

reply to post by SwissMarked


I posed him the same question and he refuses to reply to either of us.

He knows hes wrong. He just cant admit it.

These type of people aren't "debaters".

Just here to cause drama.

reply to post by TinfoilTP


I never said or thought this would be a landslide?

To even think that is rather foolish.

If you want to debate me, then debate ME. Don't just throw out outlandish accusations at a whole group of people and put us all under the same umbrella.

your posts are becoming more and more irrelevant by the minute.

Originally posted by VonDoomen
reply to post by SwissMarked

 

I posed him the same question and he refuses to reply to either of us.

He knows hes wrong. He just cant admit it.

These type of people aren't "debaters".

Just here to cause drama.

Strawman arguments are thrown out by one type of person... one with strings attached...

It's a shame there are people out there that are naive enough to think that the puppet masters will cut their strings if they dance good enough for them... but I suppose "ignorance is bliss"...