Debunking the Real Delegate Count Website:

reply to post by jjf3rd77


No..
I have tried to explain it to you and it's really not a difficult concept to grasp. At any point during the voting, during whichever round, a delegate can abstain from voting in that particular round for any number of reasons.

They can.. there is no arguing that, there are reasons they can do it and they can do it. It doesn't make them any less bound. Bound delegates can abstain from voting in a round. That doesn't change or violate their status as a bound delegate in anyway. If they were bound and voted for someone else that would be wrong, but they can be bound and choose not to vote in a round, period. They are bound they can vote for Romney or no one and it is no violation. It would only be a problem if they voted for someone that is not Romney.

Do you get it yet? I don't know how many times I have to say it before you understand.

reply to post by jjf3rd77


What do you mean how can you be bound but abstain?

It makes absolute sense! How can you read so many words yet understand so few of them? THAT is the real question. There are many rounds of voting delegates can abstain from them when they choose/have a reason. If a delegate bound to Romney abstains from voting that does not effect his status as a bound delegate in the least he is still bound to only vote for Romney when that delegate does vote.

READ SLOWLY: When the bound delegate votes they have to vote for the candidate they are bound to, when they abstain from voting they are not voting so it isn't a problem. They can abstain.. that's fine, they just can't vote for anyone else but Romney when they do vote. Of course that is only limited to so many rounds then they are no longer bound.

I wasn't really even talking about this anymore though you just brought it up again because.. i dunno why i guess you needed it repeated another dozen times.

Do you have a grade school reading level?

If you are bound to the candidate and abstain/ become unbound then you are no longer bound to the candidate. It's simple grade school grammar which doesn't need two lengthy BS paragraphs to try to explain the position. Delegates who are allowed to change positions are the uncommitted delegates!!! These uncommitted delegates are a few from each state so that each state does not have to impose the unit rule so Rule 38 is moot!

I keep repeating myself because you don't understand simple English!!!! You keep changing definitions of words to fit your fantasy tho. It's been fun, nothing is going to happen at the convention, will you make a thread apologizing to me about how you were wrong? Probably not.

I wonder if you'll disappear like all the other Ron Paul trolls. I've moved on, apparently you haven't since you've lowered yourself to grammatical battles like Ron Paul trolls always do! That's what they do last when they don't have any facts to back up their fantasies.

hahahahaa real delegate count has Romney up by 1107 delegates. Since they couldn't find any numbers to fudge from the last few primaries. thereal2012delegatecount.com...

Utah has 40 bound delegates at stake:


All 40 of Utah's delegates to the Republican National Convention are bound to the presidential contender receiving the greatest number of votes statewide in today's Presidential Primary. [Utah Republican Party Bylaws 7.0.B]

www.thegreenpapers.com...

Romney needs to win 37 delegates in Utah. Their numbers will even have him clinching the nomination. Face it it's over no matter which way you look at it.

reply to post by GogoVicMorrow


Actually if you read the laws/affidavits that bind delegates they say something along the lines of the delegate must, to the best of their ability, vote for the candidate to which they are bound. An abstention is not a vote for the candidate to which they are bound and as a result a dereliction of duty.

Originally posted by Xcalibur254
reply to post by GogoVicMorrow

 

Actually if you read the laws/affidavits that bind delegates they say something along the lines of the delegate must, to the best of their ability, vote for the candidate to which they are bound. An abstention is not a vote for the candidate to which they are bound and as a result a dereliction of duty.

Not to mention, how can one be bound and abstain, kinda defeats the whole purpose.

Originally posted by KonquestAbySS
reply to post by OccamsRazor04

 

Yes something we agree we on the convention is in Tampa which isn't now, but later....The OP is stating that Romney won regardless if the convention hasn't happened or not....Hahahaha, damn maybe you should of read the OP's previous post and you would find this one to be absurd.....The convention will be the final say on what happens....

Romney has enough bound delegates to win, it is over, Tampa is a formality.

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by OccamsRazor04

 

The person who doesn't understand the definition of contradictory is you.

The information I gave was not contradictory.

I said he had 200 bound delegates going to the convention and around 500+ general delegates going.

I don't see how you determine that is contradictory. The only explanation is that you don't understand the meaning of the word. The 200 number doesn't contradict the 500 number, but instead is included in it.

The 200 = bound, the 500 = overall bound/unbound/supporters of whomever else/etc. Nothing contradictory just you not understanding.

I hope now you can see how idiotic your analogy was.
Nothing I said was contradictory.

edit on 12-6-2012 by GogoVicMorrow because: (no reason given)

Show me a single source saying he has 200 bound delegates thanks.

reply to post by OccamsRazor04

Romney has enough bound delegates to win, it is over, Tampa is a formality.

You can't determine that as a "final" say until Tampa, which is a process before claiming a final victory....Ok, guesstimates show that Romney is winning, but people seem to think guesstimates are final...Convention is final, once the convention says that those guesstimates are accurate that Romney is winning, and won then so be it...Simple as that.

reply to post by KonquestAbySS


The numbers projected by the "untrustable (is that a word?) MSM" for the primaries were spot on.
The projected delegates in most cases besides for a few upsets by the Paul/Santorum campaigns were spot on.
The numbers "projecting" the delegate count from any website has been spot on. (Within a reasonable margin of error)
The projected delegates will be spot on in tampa besides for a few abstains from Paul/Santorum campaigns which will have virtually no impact on the national election just like in 2008!!!

But hey, at least Ron Paul is consistent in losing!

Originally posted by KonquestAbySS
reply to post by OccamsRazor04

 

You can't determine that as a "final" say until Tampa, which is a process before claiming a final victory....Ok, guesstimates show that Romney is winning, but people seem to think guesstimates are final...Convention is final, once the convention says that those guesstimates are accurate that Romney is winning, and won then so be it...Simple as that.

There are not enough secret delegates dedicated to Ron Paul to take the nomination away from Romney at the convention. The Romney delegates that may support Paul will still be bound to Romney. Ron Paul has said this, what don't you understand about that?

You think you're smarter than Ron Paul? With a lifetime of legislation and politics under his belt, I am 100% positive that he understands the delegate rules better than you do! If this was legit, he would be all over this like the political hawk he is. Instead of making secret deals with Romney and Bernanke.

So I ask again, why isn't Ron Paul officially using this in his non-existent campaign? Why isn't Obama attacking the GOP on this issue?

Originally posted by KonquestAbySS
reply to post by OccamsRazor04

 

Romney has enough bound delegates to win, it is over, Tampa is a formality.

You can't determine that as a "final" say until Tampa, which is a process before claiming a final victory....Ok, guesstimates show that Romney is winning, but people seem to think guesstimates are final...Convention is final, once the convention says that those guesstimates are accurate that Romney is winning, and won then so be it...Simple as that.

So in other words you have nothing to back it up. You can say what he has, most states have already determined delegates. How many bound delegates does he have at this moment.

reply to post by OccamsRazor04

So in other words you have nothing to back it up. You can say what he has, most states have already determined delegates. How many bound delegates does he have at this moment.

You're right, I don't know what he has, but apparently the MSM knows what he has or at least they think they know what he has bound delegate wise....Anyways, I will wait for the convention, there is no reason to over think it at the moment.

reply to post by KonquestAbySS



I appreciate the honest answer, I think he has 98 last I checked, with about 300 uncomitted. Anyways I am glad you are motivated to make politics important. Please do not go the way of other RP supports and simply toss your vote away. This is a two horse race, use your voice to press your agenda, but realize your vote could count, it has meaning. Imagine Obama and Romney were at a dead tie almost with one candidate (the worse of the two in your mind) up by 1 vote, you and your two friends all cast a vote for RP. You could have elected the lesser of the two evils (since in your mind both are bad choices). Instead the worse of the two now has power for 4 years.

When you hit the booth make your voice count. Then after election day push your agendas, gather support. Sometimes in life there are no good choices, and you need to make the best of the bad ones available.

Awwwww..... How cute. They got rid of their map!!!!. No more having to register for imap software or whatever the heck they were trying to get me to sign up for. thereal2012delegatecount.com...

They also now have two tallies on their site. One in big yellow highlight. The Real Delegate Count of delegates who prefer a candidate, not those "bound" to a candidate Romney 419, Paul 263, Gingrich 106, Santorum 41

I would surely love to know where they got those numbers! Any who, they have different numbers right below those, stating that Romney now has 1177 even though he really has about 300 more than that bound to him, they are promoting the Lawyers for Paul group that is suing the government telling them that "Federal Lawsuit has been filed claiming NO DELEGATES ARE BOUND!"

But wait! I thought all delegates were ALREADY unbound, why would they have to sue in the first place, if they weren't? Delegates would do what they do right?

Furthermore, why bother with all this "real" delegate count, if delegates are going to vote the way they are going to vote in tampa, if they are indeed unbound...Come on. It's all pointless then.

Contradictions abound on this site, and the blind cannot even see it

Face it, this website and the people trying to get Ron Paul to win the presidency this way are frauds, cheaters, and liars!

reply to post by jjf3rd77

Contradictions abound on this site, and the blind cannot even see it

Sorry, blind people don't follow the MSM in your world...Hahahahahah

It's true.

Awww how sad. The RealDelegateCount site is offline. Down for maintenance.

Is it really? Or did they just run out of money to keep their site operational? I will continue to track the site every week to see what's going on. I have contacted them, but they have not responded to me.