Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Ron Paul is Winning! (Delegates Explained)

page: 1
23
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
+2 more 
posted on Feb, 11 2012 @ 06:03 AM
link   
In this clip, Rachel Maddow and Doug Weed does a pretty good job explaining the delegates issue, and why Ron Paul is actually winning where it counts so far: The amount of delegates!




edit on 11-2-2012 by NeoVain because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 11 2012 @ 06:14 AM
link   
Is this person really this clueless? Wow I cant really imagine what its like to live in America right now. It must feel so insane with all the mind control and bull# over elections.

Edit: And Lies, Election fraud, Every candidate being a utter joke accept for Ron Paul. Its hard for people like us in New Zealand to even see how this insanity is possible. Ooh the world is owned by the Rothschild New World Order?.... I see

.....
edit on 11-2-2012 by Mandrakerealmz because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 11 2012 @ 06:14 AM
link   
reply to post by NeoVain
 


It says her name right at the top. Are you pretending not to know her because she is a liberal?
edit on 11-2-2012 by GogoVicMorrow because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 11 2012 @ 06:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mandrakerealmz
Is this person really this clueless? Wow I cant really imagine what its like to live in America right now. It must feel so insane with all the mind control and bull# over elections.

Edit: And Lies, Election fraud, Every candidate being a utter joke accept for Ron Paul. Its hard for people like us in New Zealand to even see how this insanity is possible. Ooh the world is owned by the Rothschild New World Order?.... I see

.....
edit on 11-2-2012 by Mandrakerealmz because: (no reason given)


Maybe it is easier to understand if you know what flouride does to your brain, and also consider the fact that the U.S flouridates their water



posted on Feb, 11 2012 @ 06:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by NeoVain
 


It says her name right at the top. Are you pretending not to know her because she is a liberal?
edit on 11-2-2012 by GogoVicMorrow because: (no reason given)


No sorry wasn´t sure if it was her name of someone elses name, but removed that question mark now, since you confirmed it for me, so thanks



posted on Feb, 11 2012 @ 06:22 AM
link   
Oh you beat me to it by 20 minutes!

This makes me so excited!!!!

GO RON PAUL!!!!!!!!!!!!!



posted on Feb, 11 2012 @ 06:32 AM
link   
i knew it , ive always had that feeling , every time i watched Doug Wead in an interview with that smile and confidence made me feel that they had something under their sleeves , go get em Paul , show them how the game works , but the problem now is that this secret is exposed , so i think there will be some changes in the game.



posted on Feb, 11 2012 @ 06:42 AM
link   
Hopefully not. No one has the support base like Ron Paul. Like she said, " The sheep go and vote for who they think is good at the moment because they don't really know anything about who they're voting for. They go home and forget about it. Then all the Ron Paul supporters float around like delegate hawks."

Even with the secret "out".....the other support bases don't care about their candidate the way Paul supporters do.

This is awesome.
edit on 11-2-2012 by FreedomXisntXFree because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 11 2012 @ 06:43 AM
link   
Yeeeehaww!!! Come on people make this go viral!!!

Go Ron Paul!!



posted on Feb, 11 2012 @ 06:50 AM
link   
reply to post by NeoVain
 


I'm hopeful of this too, but saying he is winning is doing the same thing the media is with the others. We just hope he is. I am afraid that this info came out way too soon though. The GOP and other supporters are going to start countering this way to early for it to be effective.

I don't know, he needs to win a state. I really think there was fraud to keep Santorum in because they need to dice up the votes. It should have already been down to Paul and Romney by now.



posted on Feb, 11 2012 @ 07:10 AM
link   
reply to post by NeoVain
 


So does New Zealand :'( It does many things. And the government lie about all of it. Calcification of the pineal gland seems most distressing



posted on Feb, 11 2012 @ 07:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mandrakerealmz
Its hard for people like us in New Zealand to even see how this insanity is possible.

.....
edit on 11-2-2012 by Mandrakerealmz because: (no reason given)


I used to work for a company in New Zeland and I recall a few years ago that you guys had some sort of deadlocked election and ended up going without a government for a bit? I might be mistaken though.



posted on Feb, 11 2012 @ 07:31 AM
link   
So Paul can be GOP's nominee for President without being GOP voters' choice for President. Can he also become POTUS without being Americans' choice for President? After all the elections only result in the selection of electors for the electoral college and it is the electoral college that elects the President. Can Paul convince the electors to vote for him even if Obama wins majority of the electors in the "Presidential Elections"? Would Paul supporters be still rooting for him to be POTUS even if he looses the race to win states for electors? What would be the implications of winning the electors after losing the states?



posted on Feb, 11 2012 @ 10:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Observor
Can he also become POTUS without being Americans' choice for President?


That happened in the 2000 elections when Gore won the popular vote. It happened before also.

With the lack of enthusiasm for the other contenders it seems the two most vocal factions are the Ron Pauls and then the Non-Pauls. Anyone else gets only passing mention.

The count in some of the primaries so far don't seem to make perfect sense either. The only openly televised count in Nevada last week had Paul winning around 3 to 1 over his closest challenger. That was a special voting time to permit Seventh-Day Adventists and strict observant Jews a chance to vote that was not on their sabbath; and they are not really thought to be Paul's strongest support and voter base - perhaps why that count was allowed to be televised.

The world is full of surprises.

edit on 11-2-2012 by Erongaricuaro because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 11 2012 @ 10:40 AM
link   
Ron Paul only has 8 while Romney has 94 so how can you say he's winning?

elections.nytimes.com...

Paul is in 4th place as far as delegates go.



posted on Feb, 11 2012 @ 11:31 AM
link   
reply to post by Kenrichaed
 


Actually he is officially in 3rd place, he will rise to second when the most recent delegates are tallied.

Here is the ACTUAL delegate count.
NPR Delegate Tracker

and here is an article on why it's bad to count the unofficial delegates and why NPR wont do it.
Here


On Thursday, uber-primary watcher Josh Putnam warns of extrapolating delegate counts from states that do not explicitly tie election results to the actual allocation of delegates.
edit on 11-2-2012 by GogoVicMorrow because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 11 2012 @ 11:34 AM
link   
reply to post by GogoVicMorrow
 


Your tracker hasn't been updated for 4 days, the link I gave is constantly updating.



posted on Feb, 11 2012 @ 11:47 AM
link   
reply to post by Kenrichaed
 


You are still missing the point.
It is national public radio. They are on top of it. The reason it hasn't been updated in 4 days is because no delegates have been officially added to any candidate. When they are, then they will update it.

I just said on the other thread that that is what is wrong with 24/7 news stations. They have a tendency to get into the predictive news business.

Trust me NPR is a much more credible station that any of the other MSM stations.
edit on 11-2-2012 by GogoVicMorrow because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 11 2012 @ 11:51 AM
link   
Yes we are debating the same topic in 2 threads and its getting confusing. I will leave this one and contain my coments to the other thread.



posted on Feb, 11 2012 @ 11:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kenrichaed
Ron Paul only has 8 while Romney has 94 so how can you say he's winning?

elections.nytimes.com...

Paul is in 4th place as far as delegates go.


New york times?

And here is CNN

www.cnn.com...

Get the point?

Not one of these MSM outlets actually bother with the real numbers, they just want to get some numbers out to get credit. The only thing they have in common is their bias against Ron Paul, and you deem them trustworthy?

Someone who SHOULD know the real numbers, on the other hand, is Ron Paul... with his ancient knowledge of the system.
edit on 11-2-2012 by NeoVain because: (no reason given)





new topics

top topics



 
23
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join