Ron Paul is Winning! (Delegates Explained)

reply to post by OutKast Searcher

Tell me that if your precinct voted for Paul and then the delegate voted for Romney that you wouldn't be pissed.

No, I wouldn't be pissed, you know why? Because that is the PROCESS. It may suck, but more power to them! If Romney supporters stuck around and played by the rules, the last thing I would do is cry "fraud". I think you're sick in the head for Obama and it has clouded your judgment something fierce.

It's funny you mention being pissed off, however. I just wonder how you would deal with all the nonsense in the MSM if it applied to Obama in the same way it does for Dr. Paul. You're so sickly in love with Obama, that you advocate bad media practices along with every other biased wrong doing to Dr. Paul in this GOP "nomination" process. Your media induced "God" Obama is above and beyond that to the point of your loyal worship regardless of the corrupt and immoral process involved. You have sold out to the establishment, plain and simple. The sad part is, you've made it abundantly clear.

reply to post by MsAphrodite


Hillary never had a chance.

She was the darling of the feminists and warmongers though.

reply to post by OutKast Searcher

Show me any source that shows Obama getting delegates out of a precinct/county/district he didn't win.

ok ... let's use Kentucky as an example but you'll have to do the dirty work.
CNN primary results just for you
Kentucky --> Clinton strong with 65%+ of the popular/regional/county/district votes
(feel free to research further for more specific regional details)

Total delegates = 60
(i didn't look for pledged vs unpledged but by all means, if you feel the need, please do)

so, 60 total delegates -- who voted 36 - 24 in favor of Obama. delegate votes 2008 --> scroll down to the "roll call" results.
now, last i checked 65.5% of 60 delegates should have generated a minimum of 39 votes, seems Clinton was a bit short even where she was strong.

i'm sure you could find precinct/county/district specifics but i'm not interested ... the point is, you are incorrect to assume a candidate is stealing anything ... the proper word would be more like schmoozing

do keep in mind, the convention and a delegate vote is a long ways off and all those UNpledged delegates, will be bought, sold, re-sold, wined, dined, ie: SCHMOOZED in every way imaginable between now and then.
again, it's all part of the game.

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
reply to post by NeoVain

 

Yes that is Ron Paul's strategy.

Overturn the will of the people by having delegates pledge to vote at the convention directly against the majority of the voters.

I would love to hear what Ron Paul supporters would say if a different candidate did this...if an overwhelming majority of the people voted for Ron Paul...but the delegate went to someone else???


So Ron Paul supporters, you are right...there is fraud going on...fraud against the people...and it is being done by the Ron Paul campaign.

I think you show a severe lack of understanding of the process with this post.

There are 1.3m people living in Maine, and yet only 5000 voted. The caucus vote is a fraction of the population, and many of the non voters are so fed up with their governments they dont bother voting. Even then, the process from voters to delegates is just another step, Maine went form 1.3m to 5k and will now get whittled down to delegates.

The voting process does not represent the voice of the people at all. It represents the voice of those who are still willing to engage in the process. The delegate process does exactly the same - represent those that are willing to engage one step further.

reply to post by Honor93


What do you not understand about the 2008 DNC?

Hillary stopped the vote and called for a vote by acclamation...after that all the remaining delegates that hadn't voted went to Obama regardless of state result as a show of being united.

Just like John McCain got all the delegates from almost every state...in a show of being united.

You are talking alot...but not making much sense.

reply to post by Wookiep

No, I wouldn't be pissed, you know why? Because that is the PROCESS. It may suck, but more power to them! If Romney supporters stuck around and played by the rules, the last thing I would do is cry "fraud". I think you're sick in the head for Obama and it has clouded your judgment something fierce.

No, that isn't the process...the process is for them to honor the vote. They aren't LEGALLY binded...but they are expected to honor the vote. Ron Paul supporters have cried fraud in every single state after legitimate results have come out...don't tell me they wouldn't cry fraud if delegates were stolen from him.

And what does this have to do with Obama? I just think you are out of arguments so you like to bring up Obama because you think it gets you points on ATS.

I've said it over and over...if I was looking for an easy Obama win...I would be cheering for Ron Paul.

It's funny you mention being pissed off, however. I just wonder how you would deal with all the nonsense in the MSM if it applied to Obama in the same way it does for Dr. Paul. You're so sickly in love with Obama, that you advocate bad media practices along with every other biased wrong doing to Dr. Paul in this GOP "nomination" process. Your media induced "God" Obama is above and beyond that to the point of your loyal worship regardless of the corrupt and immoral process involved. You have sold out to the establishment, plain and simple. The sad part is, you've made it abundantly clear.

Really...would you like to give some evidence of my "love for Obama"? Did I swoon over him at a rally that me and my son went to? Did I act like he was a celebrity and was giddy that I got to see him? Or was that someone else???

Listen...just because the candidate you support lost AGAIN in a state you guys all but guranteed...don't lash out at me. I understand that you think that if you try to say I'm an Obama lover that you will get people on ATS to agree with you...so congrats on your stars. But please show me where I have said anything about Obama in this thread???

It's just a sign of you running out of things to say...attempting to fall back on bashing me and my beliefs instead of defending Ron Paul.

You guys can continue to lie to yourselves and bash anyone that speaks of reality...but it isn't going to make Ron Paul any more popular...and it isn't going to get him the nomination.

reply to post by UKTruth

I think you show a severe lack of understanding of the process with this post.

You go ahead and believe the Ron Paul supporters...I honestly don't care...but we will see in August who has the better understanding.

reply to post by Honor93


ONE delegate looks to have not honored the vote in Kentucky.

Clinton should have had 37 votes...she had 36. The results are not a direct proportional to the total vote...they are proportional based on what precincts went which way in each district.

You don't seem to understand delegates very much...so please stop the attempts at educating me in something you don't understand.

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
reply to post by Honor93

 

What do you not understand about the 2008 DNC?

Hillary stopped the vote and called for a vote by acclamation...after that all the remaining delegates that hadn't voted went to Obama regardless of state result as a show of being united.

Just like John McCain got all the delegates from almost every state...in a show of being united.

You are talking alot...but not making much sense.

listen fool, i understand the 2008, 2000 and all of the elections, all the way back to the 1974 shenanigans of the political rapists. (and further back but we don't need to go there)

the 2008 convention was manipulated from the word go ... Florida & Michigan delegates ring any bells for you?
while it is true that acclamation was the "final result", are you even aware that by the time acclamation was requested and approved, the total delegate tally wasn't even enough to declare a "winner" by the policies of the electoral? ahhhh, but of course, that matters not to the likes of you.

besides, you asked for "proof" and i provided it ... no one says you have to accept it.
BUT, why haven't you answered any of my questions?
sooooooo, which is it, did Obama play by the rules or did he cheat?

again, you can't have it both ways.
(actually, Hillary called for the acclamation simply to save face, nothing more -- it wouldn't have done her any good for the public to become aware that she was merely a media-whore and gave not a dang about the process at hand)

you cannot compare McCain's campaign or delegate appointment to Obama/Clinton, apples and oranges.
i may not be making any sense to you but for those truly interested in the process, at least they may garner a greater understanding of their need to participate in the process.

just because you watch from the sidelines and feel a need to complain doesn't justify the error of your ways, nice try though.

reply to post by FreedomXisntXFree


Don´t forget Occam's razor "The easiest explanation is usually the correct one"

He probably gets paid by the hour, sure would be the easiest explanation here.
Ockhams Razor

reply to post by Honor93


Florida and Michigan broke the rules...they knew by doing so what the penalty would be. They are lucky they got half of their delegates to count...they should have had zero.

And no...I don't believe you understand the process. I think you THINK you understand it...but you are clearly not understanding much and not making a whole lot of sense.

Obama did not do what Ron Paul is doing...period. You have not provided proof...and bringing up Michigan and Florida just further demonstrates your ignorance on the topic.

So please...show me where it was Obama's whole strategy to steal delegates in precincts/counties/states where he lost the vote.

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
reply to post by Honor93

 

ONE delegate looks to have not honored the vote in Kentucky.

Clinton should have had 37 votes...she had 36. The results are not a direct proportional to the total vote...they are proportional based on what precincts went which way in each district.

You don't seem to understand delegates very much...so please stop the attempts at educating me in something you don't understand.

ONE ???? delegate in Kentucky ... are you illiterate too?

NO FOOL, Obama got 36 votes, look cloooossseeeerrrr and harder while you're at it.

Clinton won 65.5% of the popular vote which should have generated 39 delegate votes for Clinton, not the 24 she received ... in case that math is too large for you, that's a difference of 15 delegate votes, not one.

but alas, you seem to be enjoying your wallowing far too much for any logical or productive thought patterns to emerge so continue on in your fantasy ... we'll see what's produced at the Convention.

and you're correct, as a prior delegate, i have little understanding of the process.
you keep believing it.

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
reply to post by Honor93

 

Florida and Michigan broke the rules...they knew by doing so what the penalty would be. They are lucky they got half of their delegates to count...they should have had zero.

And no...I don't believe you understand the process. I think you THINK you understand it...but you are clearly not understanding much and not making a whole lot of sense.

Obama did not do what Ron Paul is doing...period. You have not provided proof...and bringing up Michigan and Florida just further demonstrates your ignorance on the topic.

So please...show me where it was Obama's whole strategy to steal delegates in precincts/counties/states where he lost the vote.

apparently the penalty was worth the risk as they were seated and counted at Convention.
and be that as it may, that was then and this is now.

you are entitled to your mistaken interpretation of the facts, i shall not deny you such but i certainly have better things to do then engage in your stupidity ... hence, have a nice day.

Obama did worse than RP is currently doing ... Obama won via the same methods ... so, are you agreeing he cheated or are you implying he did it differently?
i'd be curious as to the differently because that could possibly involve breaking the rules, so which is it?

proof of delegate gathering was provided via the Kentucky results.
(Obama did not win 60% of local/popular vote, yet he won 60% of the delegates)
[in your words, he STOLE them -- so again, which is it?]

Florida & Michigan were brought up because you claim i didn't understand the 2008 process.
when the fact of the matter is, Obama did what RP is doing ... played the game by the rules.
why is this so hard for you to accept?

the Obama strategy is no different than many before him or any after him.
until the process changes, it is what it is and it is part of the game.
Either you're on your game or you're not ... personally, i like the idea that RP has developed momentum and a loyal base without the assistance of the likes of ACORN and such entities.
AND, we all know, without ACORN, Obama didn't stand a chance.

Originally posted by FreedomXisntXFree
reply to post by OutKast Searcher

 

post removed by staff

I am pretty sure many people who frequent this place are doing so through a long a boring work day. So I am pretty sure no one is wasting their life here just a little work related productivity. Of course the fact that you were reduced to such comments is telling. I would love to see Ron Paul steal this nomination that way one of the two parites would rip itself apart and die and hopelly the other without a common enemy to unfiy it will follow suit.

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
reply to post by UKTruth

 

I think you show a severe lack of understanding of the process with this post.

You go ahead and believe the Ron Paul supporters...I honestly don't care...but we will see in August who has the better understanding.

August has nothing to do with it.

You suggest the Ron Paul campaign is committing election fraud - which shows you dont understand the rules set out by the GOP themselves.

Who wins the ticket at the convention is not the debate.

reply to post by UKTruth


No, I am not claiming Paul is committing "election fraud"...you would need to have an election to have election fraud. Apparently you don't realize that these aren't elections.

I am claiming that Paul is frauding the voters by pissing on their vote.

reply to post by OutKast Searcher

I am claiming that Paul is frauding the voters by pissing on their vote.

sooooo, since he's doing what Obama did, how was the Obama strategy any different ??
oh yeah, the Obama strategy included the use of proxy criminals to achieve their goals ... ACORN anyone?
Ron Paul ... not so much.

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher

I am claiming that Paul is frauding the voters by pissing on their vote.

How so? I believe it has been explained to you and the other non Paul supporters how this delegate situation works. There are delegates that are pledged to vote for certain candidates, and there are those who are not and may vote as they choose. During the convention's first round those who are pledged will vote as they are bound to do and the rest may vote to their preferrences. If there is no majority at that time then those voters are released to vote as they will in the following vote rounds. At that time, IF that happens, the Ron Paul delegates may have the numbers to nominate Paul.

There have been rumors from the MSM that a brokered convention just may end up nominating former FL governor Jeb Bush who has not even been a candidate thus far. Would that be any less a fraudulent piss-off for you?

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by OutKast Searcher

 

I am claiming that Paul is frauding the voters by pissing on their vote.

sooooo, since he's doing what Obama did, how was the Obama strategy any different ??
oh yeah, the Obama strategy included the use of proxy criminals to achieve their goals ... ACORN anyone?
Ron Paul ... not so much.

Obama lost in every single state and polled in 4th place nationaly?