It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by madhatr137
reply to post by Iamonlyhuman
Why do you see this as a form of suppression?
Because the way the system is supposed to work is that the delegates of a state are supposed to be representative of the results of the caucus.
What we have broadcast is a group of people who overtly don't care about the results of the caucus gaming the system in their favor.
Technically, it is legal.
But it would be like supporters of Candidate X becoming the Electoral College delegates of a state ignoring the popular vote that occurs in that state and simply casting their vote for Candidate X. Technically, it is legal. But it is suppressive in the manner that it is ignoring the manner in which the system is "supposed to" work. Essentially, you have a group of people announcing that they intend to ignore the ideals of democracy in order to make their candidate win. To me, that is suppression.
And despite the repetition by Mr. Wead of how the "rules were changed" for Romney's favor, he did not make it clear as for how the shifting of caucus dates, the change, actually benefited Romney.
Originally posted by The Sword
reply to post by MidnightTide
I can recall at least TWO threads about this very same subject.
Last time I heard, Paul did not have a lot of delegates. I do not think he will win a single state either.
It's time to take the ball and go home, Paulites.