Greenpapers debunks Stealth Delegate Theory- For the last time!

HAHAHAHA ......HE already said he wouldnt have enough yesterday,,,TOO LATE!!!,,,,,,,,,,SHOULDA KEPT UP, YOUR POST MEANS NADA NOW.....no fight here sorry.........HAHAH now your gonna have to find some other topic troll,,You should try the reptilians or go debunk 2012,,Billy Meier is always fun to debunk and his fans get angry too, you may like trolling that one...P.S. no one, not even Paul knows how many delegates will vote for him.

Originally posted by jjf3rd77
This will be my last post about Ron Paul.

Considering you have spent an obscene amount of time on the Ron Paul topic I have to ask....

What will you do now with all your free time?

Since the Ron Paul movement is over. I will work on reporting stories about failing Obama and succeeding Mitt Romney. I am also helping fellow republicans get elected into various positions at state and local levels in my district!

May I ask what you two plan to be doing after the convention?

Originally posted by avatard
.P.S. no one, not even Paul knows how many delegates will vote for him.

If you actually listened to the man you support he said he is hoping to bring at least 200 delegates to the convention. Maybe more Romney bound delegates that follow Ron Paul's message of liberty.

I, for one, thank the OP for putting some time and effort into this. It's been real.

This idea that "the popular vote does not count" is both simplistic and apples & oranges. I don't see how what happens with the Electoral College in a national vote has anything at all to do with a private political party electing delegates to their own convention. It certainly does not justify that Paul ought to be the nominee by managing to garner 11% or so of the popular vote. The two issues are separate.

Now the idea that the popular vote, once in awhile, does not lead to a winner is steeped in resentment by individuals who think it's all about themselves. They think it is "unfair" when this happens. That's the basic issue, isn't it? Gore actually got a few more votes than Bush, therefore he should be President. Simple stuff. the actual breakdown was Gore: 48.38%. Bush: 47.87$ and Nader, bless his heart: 2.73%. But the Electoral College was a squeaker: 271 to 266.

This doesn't happen very often, but if you look historically, the gap between the electoral college and the popular vote has often been much much wider than the squeaker between Gore and Bush. Has the "opposite person" won before? Yes. Rutherford B. Hayes beat Samuel Tilden 185 to 184 where Tilden actually had 51% of the popular vote in 1876. Benjamin Harrison beat Grover Cleveland 233 to 168 where he won 47.8% of the popular vote to Cleveland's 48.6% in 1888.

So, out of all the elections since George Washington, three have had an electoral college winner who did not get the majority of popular votes. In all cases, the popular vote was very, very close, including the closest of all with Hayes in 1876 who won by a single electoral vote. By far the majority of the time the popular vote and the electoral college vote follow each other and its only when the popular vote is extremely close that they may not with an average of slightly more than once per century.

The popular vote determines the electoral votes. It's not that they don't count. Obviously, they do. The question becomes, why is it this way and is this not "unfair"? It's only unfair if you think you are the most important person in town. However, if you look how the electoral votes are distributed, you will see that it forces attention to all states, not just the Eastern seaboard and California. It gives a slight boost to less populated states. It means any one state, like, oh, say, Florida, al lt more power than would a simple popular vote.

If you didn't do that, then you may as well hold elections in California and New York and skip all the states in the middle. The larger urban populace places would carry the election every time. So you say you are disenfranchised by the electoral college. The farmer in Iowa or Kansas may say he's disenfranchised simply because he's outnumbered by urban interests. By forcing candidates to pay attention to everyone, the idea is that a broader base of representation, a more moderate candidate, would be more successful.

And think about this from a different direction. Everyone here is in the gifted program right?Half the population has an IQ less than 100. And these guys all vote. To me, that assures mediocrity.

In the final analysis this is a states rights issue. Is the "United States" singular or plural? Increasingly it is singular, with an overwhelmingly powerful Federal government which the founding fathers wished to avoid. But "the people" have been eroding this. Electing the senators by direct vote instead of through the state legislators was a big step in this direction. If we eliminate the Electoral College, that will pretty well complete the process. States may as well be seen like counties, powerless governmental entities wher ethe Federal giovernment will be all-powerful.

Originally posted by jjf3rd77
Since the Ron Paul movement is over. I will work on reporting stories about failing Obama and succeeding Mitt Romney. I am also helping fellow republicans get elected into various positions at state and local levels in my district!

May I ask what you two plan to be doing after the convention?

I will be researching Third Party Candidates hoping to find one worthy of my vote. Other than that, I will probably spend much of my time laughing at your postings if you actually believe that Mitt Romney would "succeed" as President.

I got news for you.... There is no difference between Romney and Obama. Either one will bring us more war, more spending, more debt, more stripping of our civil liberties, more shredding of our Constitution and more selling out of the people.

I'm glad this is your last thread on Ron Paul because your threads are pointless and have no merit (like your thread on the FED admitting how corrupt they are but not willing to do anything about it, among many others).

Let's not mention FEDERAL LAW that completely debunks the THEORY (pay attention here, NOT FACT) of The Green Papers.

42 USC § 1971 - VOTING RIGHTS
www.law.cornell.edu...


Whew, thats enough out of this troll about Ron Paul. What a great day!

Originally posted by eLPresidente
I'm glad this is your last thread on Ron Paul because your threads are pointless and have no merit (like your thread on the FED admitting how corrupt they are but not willing to do anything about it, among many others).

Let's not mention FEDERAL LAW that completely debunks the THEORY (pay attention here, NOT FACT) of The Green Papers.

42 USC § 1971 - VOTING RIGHTS
www.law.cornell.edu...


Whew, thats enough out of this troll about Ron Paul. What a great day!

edit on 9-6-2012 by eLPresidente because: (no reason given)

There appears to be some misunderstanding from the paulites. I am getting conflicting things here. Some say it is a federal law and some say it isn't. before you go spouting about random laws that you find on the internet maybe you should take intro to law course or two. It might help you guys understand lawyer speak a bit better.

There is no realistic way your fantasy will ever come to pass! End of discussion and I will be proven right once again at the convention. As I have been proven right in most of my previous threads about Ron Paul. Not by your actions but by Ron Paul's own actions and the things that have been occurring since he has started to wind down his campaign. Ron Paul says he won't win the nomination and didn't even talk about the laws in his letter. That was Ron Paul's own words. It's funny you guys take everything but this statement of his as Biblical truth.

He wants his own delegates at the convention to be supportive but play nice... What you are suggesting is the complete opposite of what Ron Paul wants! I would expect and hope Ron Paul would not want to win that way especially when 85% of the population do not want him in office ever, no matter which way his supporters thinks he will win. Even Ron Paul thinks some of you hard cores are a joke, but he does enjoy your enthusiasm. See, he wishes he had this much faith in himself!

Ron Paul will not save the USA sorry to burst your bubble...

Besides the law that you keep on referring to has already been debunked in this thread. Or do you all not understand what the unit rule is?

So methinks this last ditch effort is a complete waste of time (on the paultards part), wishful thinking, and complete BS. Since Ron Paul, himself, doesn't even acknowledge this. This same thing happened to OWS. They got roudy and lost touch with their message. If your message is to end the fed. Then try to do that. Don't try to elect someone into office using questionable methods when he doesn't even want it that way! If Ron Paul's message is so important I hope that his followers continue to push his ideals. I may not like all of them, but its a free country! We are a melting pot of ideas, so maybe they will have an impact if enough people pay attention. But this delegate thing is only hurting your image moreso than you probably realize.

If in the .0001% chance that it does come to pass, I will make an apologetic post and admit the errors of my ways.

As many a Ron Paul supporter said to me. Only his message and ideas matter. Let me, add something to that statement. Ron Paul doesn't matter, only his message and ideas matter. You don't need the man to get some of his ideas out there.

Will the Ron Paul people post apologies to ATS members who wanted to discuss real politics that they are sorry for spamming the boards at the height of the Ron Paul campaign this election season? I highly doubt it since your self righteous egos do not allow you to see that what you have been doing on ATS this entire election season has been spamming this website with Ron Paul videos or "news" on countless threads that didn't offer any real news or substance which of course has already been posted countless times before. These of course went completely unnoticed by somewhat bias ATS moderators, quite a few of them were Ron Paul supporters...

reply to post by jjf3rd77


Ron Paul is NOT the Liberty movement. He is simply a voice, a spokesperson.

I don't know exactly what his agenda is at this point, but most people know that "playing nice" is not going to solve anything. The parties never play nice and never have, and it is about time liberty threw it back in their faces. You can not change a system by playing by the rules established to keep that system in play.

So regardless of what Paul thinks should happen at the convention, there is an obvious disconnect with what NEEDS to happen. You don't come so far and work so hard to simply bend over and take it. The delegates who are Paul supporters can and should exert their right under the law to vote for Paul whether the convention likes it or not.

Originally posted by gwydionblack
reply to post by jjf3rd77

 

Ron Paul is NOT the Liberty movement. He is simply a voice, a spokesperson.

I don't know exactly what his agenda is at this point, but most people know that "playing nice" is not going to solve anything. The parties never play nice and never have, and it is about time liberty threw it back in their faces. You can not change a system by playing by the rules established to keep that system in play.

So regardless of what Paul thinks should happen at the convention, there is an obvious disconnect with what NEEDS to happen. You don't come so far and work so hard to simply bend over and take it. The delegates who are Paul supporters can and should exert their right under the law to vote for Paul whether the convention likes it or not.

Well I don't think your going to be as big as OWS. You're not going to form another Tea Party. I don't think there is going to be a revolution. Most Paul supporters think that state conventions are for rebellion and takeovers when they get stopped they complain about corruption...Kinda silly if you ask me this whole they are corrupt so we should be corrupt too idea. It would be interesting if there was enough delegates that did abstain from voting but 14 votes from last election...I think maybe there might be 28 since the "movement" supposedly is twice as large.

28 abstain votes is hardly enough to impact that national election.

Originally posted by gwydionblack
reply to post by jjf3rd77

 

there is an obvious disconnect with what NEEDS to happen.

You do know that what you believe needs to happen is different from other people's thoughts right?

You don't speak for the Ron Paul campaign, you don't speak for the delegates at the convention, and you don't speak for the majority of the republican party. People are gonna do what they are gonna do. And they usually don't want to wreck giant political conventions that honor Mitt Romney!

Originally posted by eazyriderl_l

Originally posted by jjf3rd77

Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by jjf3rd77

 

They don't think I am knowledgeable about politics or the government because they automatically brand me as a crazy conspiracy theorist (which I once was back when was I in grade school!)

and you did so much research that you now believe what the gov says is the truth, so much so that you will come day after day spouting how much you enjoy what they are doing, how much of a mittens fan you are, and that you dont like the insults from other person supporters, all the while insulting them yourself. Such hope for the future of the republican party.


Edit to add that if you had researched any part of your government, its agencies, or its policies you would most certainly find some conspiracy; Therefore, since you are no longer a conspiracy theorist you either have proof,( no longer a theory) or have not done the research you claim to have done.

edit on 8-6-2012 by eazyriderl_l because: (no reason given)

Supporting the oligarchy/plutocracy candidate is not going to help you. You will not get any of their perks. Sorry you are just not on their level.

I suggest researching the history of oligarchy/ plutocracy controlled governments and see how they went.

Originally posted by jjf3rd77

Originally posted by eLPresidente
I'm glad this is your last thread on Ron Paul because your threads are pointless and have no merit (like your thread on the FED admitting how corrupt they are but not willing to do anything about it, among many others).

Let's not mention FEDERAL LAW that completely debunks the THEORY (pay attention here, NOT FACT) of The Green Papers.

42 USC § 1971 - VOTING RIGHTS
www.law.cornell.edu...


Whew, thats enough out of this troll about Ron Paul. What a great day!

edit on 9-6-2012 by eLPresidente because: (no reason given)

There appears to be some misunderstanding from the paulites. I am getting conflicting things here. Some say it is a federal law and some say it isn't. before you go spouting about random laws that you find on the internet maybe you should take intro to law course or two. It might help you guys understand lawyer speak a bit better.

There is no realistic way your fantasy will ever come to pass! End of discussion and I will be proven right once again at the convention. As I have been proven right in most of my previous threads about Ron Paul. Not by your actions but by Ron Paul's own actions and the things that have been occurring since he has started to wind down his campaign. Ron Paul says he won't win the nomination and didn't even talk about the laws in his letter. That was Ron Paul's own words. It's funny you guys take everything but this statement of his as Biblical truth.

He wants his own delegates at the convention to be supportive but play nice... What you are suggesting is the complete opposite of what Ron Paul wants!

I would expect and hope Ron Paul would not want to win that way especially when 85% of the population do not want him in office ever, no matter which way his supporters thinks he will win. Even Ron Paul thinks some of you hard cores are a joke, but he does enjoy your enthusiasm. See, he wishes he had this much faith in himself!

Ron Paul will not save the USA sorry to burst your bubble...

Besides the law that you keep on referring to has already been debunked in this thread. Or do you all not understand what the unit rule is?

edit on 9-6-2012 by jjf3rd77 because: (no reason given)

When your 'theory' gets confronted with federal law (read: NOT GOP rule 38, but a FEDERAL LAW that you conveniently did NOT read when the link and LAW code was provided to you) you are mighty quick to deflect and even have the galls to say 'END OF DISCUSSION'.

Wow you have really shown your true colors here.

You see, the 'joke' is really on you, you made this thread but when 'federal law' comes into play, you tell others to go to a law class and then are quick to 'end the discussion' then you continue to bash Ron Paul supporters, the movement and take a couple of potshots at Ron Paul himself to cover up your ignorance and incompetence (and you know it).

Now, if you're just going to continue with silly rants about the Ron Paul movement because your argument is inferior to federal law, you might as well not bother posting.

Hell, PM a mod to have them delete this thread because you are straight up embarrassing yourself (i.e. telling me federal law has been debunked in this thread then continuing to call it a unit rule, what is it? federal law or unit RULE?) D-E-N-Y I-G-N-O-R-A-N-C-E




Goldman Sachs/Romney 2012!

Well you are wrong on a couple points.

First I will say it's refreshing that you are giving up on posting these types of threads.. I don't know why you continued so long though. If past experiences are indicative of results this thread and all the others will have as little credibility as the last half a dozen.

First off I am not sure that Romney really has the number of bound delegates to be nominated yet. I am not saying he wont have them or that they aren't basically in the bag, but I am saying that not all the states have had their state conventions and I don't know if enough have had them for him to have the number he needs. That is something you have had a lot of trouble grasping throughout the arguments. I am not arguing that he can't, or won't, but that he technically doesn't. Little things like that are what you compile to delude yourself into believing Romney is a popular or wanted candidate.

That brings me to the next point: you would have to be in total denial to think the media didn't try to ignore Paul at every turn. That "they ignore Republicans" bit is a joke.. Fox news is dedicated to only the GOP and they ignore Paul. When you consider how many gains Paul has made against the odds and how hard Romney, a person who was handed the election and has the MSM in his pocket, had to fight with no obstacles other than himself it's easy to see what kind of ideas and change people are really looking for.

I'll take the million people spreading a cause by word of mouth and then fighting for it everyday over the ten million people who are told who to vote for then spend 15 minutes casting that vote and then go back to being politically inactive for another 4 years.

reply to post by jjf3rd77


You are just making up stuff here.. it is a complete ramble.

14? 28? What are you even talking about? You honestly have no idea.