CNN Finally Admits - Ron Paul is in 2nd Place With Delegates - John King

Originally posted by Wookiep


Denial of delegate process, first sign of ignorance.

Please do explain the crooked process....my ears (and eyes) are open for a thorough explanation.

Look, I know very well how the delegate process works; inside and out. So....lay it out for me. Explain to me how you are right and I am wrong....win me over...come on, at least give it the old college try....or high school try...or GED try...whatever you got....just explain (in your mind) how the delegate process works...explain it to someone with a political science degree. surely you can do it, no?

You Ron Paul freaks ALWAYS want to claim big things; however, when asked to back it up, you always differ your answer to a random youtube video. Come on, break that mold....give it to me in words.

Wow, the immaturity level of anti-RP supporters amazes me.

Poochy sounds like a 5th grade schoolgirl arguing over whos cooler, Nsync or Bieber.

And yes, it is pretty hilarious.. Nu-uh, uhh-huh, am not, are too..

Grow the F up...

Originally posted by ls1cameric
Wow, the immaturity level of anti-RP supporters amazes me.

Poochy sounds like a 5th grade schoolgirl arguing over whos cooler, Nsync or Bieber.

And yes, it is pretty hilarious.. Nu-uh, uhh-huh, am not, are too..

Grow the F up...

no, just bringing facts to the table (i.e., Ron Paul kryptonite). The schoolgirls are the RP supporters that cant help but cry foul when someone brings truth to their fantasy...I can understand though, crushed dreams hurt.

reply to post by Muttley2012


I've got a question for you...

How could you morally, knowing what these other candidates stand for and represent, want to elect them over a very honest man who wants to actually do what's right for the people of this country instead of making money off of us and continue to drive this country on its current destructive path that Obama has created oh so well.

I see you just registered recently so my initial guess is your a troll and here just to stir up trash and piss people off with your ignorant antics. Or either you have your head in the sand and honestly have no clue as to what is really going on in America today.

I'm not offended at all b being called a Ron Paul crazy. I've honestly never even cared for politics until I woke up and realized what a hell hole we are in after Obama was elected and then researched all of these men running for office on my own instead of watching the news to tell me who's right for the job... I can't understand why ANYONE would want someone othr than Paul to be elected to try to bring America back to what it was meant to be.. These other guys sure as hell don't care or want that. They want more war, more taxes on the middle class, more laws to suppress our rights, get rid of constitutional rights, who needs em, just give me the money and it'll b okay... And you call me crazy???

Unless your profiting off of these guys, how can you even remotely support them? I'm talking about Obama too...

Originally posted by Muttley2012
reply to post by Wookiep

 

I'm convinced more now than ever....Ron Paul supporters are mentally retarded.

Oh is that right? Who do you support? If you support anybody at all. I'm curious.

We are retarded, because we see whats happening to our country by corrupt politicians? Are you serious? or are you just trolling my thread to death? Cause there is no way possible you can stand for the atrocities the country is enduring right now.

We are retarded because we want to turn our country around for he greater good, rather than chipping it away for personal gain?

I mean you do realize this country is in turmoil don't you? You must be George W. Bush.

Not worth getting into an argument with Muttley. S/he is just trying to goad emotional arguments. There has been little of substance in his/her responses to those that point it out beyond the "I know you are but what am I" level. Don't feed the trolls. Although Muttley, being a polisci grad I would be interested in hearing your intelligent articulation of the reasons why you are against Paul. Since you seem to have no respect for the beliefs of those that think he would be good for this country I would be curious to know why you feel so strongly about it. Please stick to intelligent political perspectives and not character attacks.

Originally posted by coyotepoet
Since you seem to have no respect for the beliefs of those that think he would be good for this country I would be curious to know why you feel so strongly about it. Please stick to intelligent political perspectives and not character attacks.

No where did I disrespect Paul. I brought intelligent perspective to the table...then I WAS ATTACKED. Nonetheless, I brought facts and have asked for others to bring THEIR facts....to this moment, nothing has been presented by the Paulites but OPINION.

Prove me wrong...bring facts to back your positions....not you specifically; rather, Paulites in general.

Prove to me that he is 2nd in delegates....PROVE IT! You know with numbers, facts, policy, law....anything other than OPINION and BIAS.

I'm not a troll....I'm bringing another dose of reality to a table that clearly can't stomach the truth.

Prove me wrong or zip it...ALL Y'ALL

reply to post by Muttley2012

No where did I disrespect Paul. I brought intelligent perspective to the table...then I WAS ATTACKED. Nonetheless, I brought facts and have asked for others to bring THEIR facts....to this moment, nothing has been presented by the Paulites but OPINION. Prove me wrong...bring facts to back your positions....not you specifically; rather, Paulites in general.

I didn't say you disrespected Paul but rather the Paulites. I would genuinely be interested in knowing why you are so against Paul.

Originally posted by Muttley2012

Originally posted by Wookiep


Denial of delegate process, first sign of ignorance.

Please do explain the crooked process....my ears (and eyes) are open for a thorough explanation.

Look, I know very well how the delegate process works; inside and out. So....lay it out for me. Explain to me how you are right and I am wrong....win me over...come on, at least give it the old college try....or high school try...or GED try...whatever you got....just explain (in your mind) how the delegate process works...explain it to someone with a political science degree. surely you can do it, no?

You Ron Paul freaks ALWAYS want to claim big things; however, when asked to back it up, you always differ your answer to a random youtube video. Come on, break that mold....give it to me in words.

You keep saying that you've brought facts to the table, but so far you haven't brought any at all. Anyway, to address your post....

If you truly understand how the delegate process works, then you wouldn't be posting MSM figures that the media constantly spouts off (and in no possible way can claim those numbers) to try and spin those false figures as gospel. They have already conceded that the Ron Paul campaign is correct with their numbers, (what more do you want?) but you won't catch them admitting it again. So far, the MSM have assumed pledged delegates awarded based on straw polls (albiet fraudulent ones in some states) from caucuses and have tried to sell it to the public. It's backfired and they basically admitted it, hence the point of this thread.

Have you ever been to a caucus? I have, but before that I didn't know how it worked either. They had caucus training in my area that I went to, and that's the only reason I understand that what they show us on T.V. in terms of "votes" means close to nothing at caucuses. (except in terms of super delegates) It's ok to admit you have no clue how it actually works though.

I'll break it down down further for you, but I'll just post the explanation that I've already given in a thread that I linked about this that you obviously haven't read yet. Here you go: (I've edited the first line to put the convo in context)


These numbers the Paul campaign have quoted recently are actual pledged Ron Paul STATE delegates. Some delegate spots have not been voted for yet because they start at the county level then go up the chain to the state level, then the convention level etc which are voted on at a later date.

At the caucuses however, state delegates are voted for immediately following the straw poll, then county, then congressional etc..It's a TAD confusing BUT, although it's impossible to know all the numbers (they ALL haven't been counted/voted on yet, in some cases won't be for months), there's no reason to believe the numbers posted by the Paul campaign aren't correct so far.

Here's the thread I'm refering to again:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Edit to add: The Ron Paul campaign has informed their supporters very clearly of this process. The other candidates don't. Many people stick around and vote only on the straw poll thinking that will get their candidate elected/delegates, then leave. They are wrong. The only thing that matters is delegates, which happens AFTER the straw poll, and that is what the media constantly talks about, but it means almost nothing. Paul supporters stick around and vote for delegates OR nominate themselves to become delegates (in which case, people need to vote for them in order to become a delegate). That is why the Paul campaign is doing so well with delegates, and why he is really in second place. That could very well change after super tuesday, we'll see, but in caucus states don't expect to know the real results for a long while.

Now, if you want to talk about the STRAW polls the media is always talking about, and the corruption/fraud happening there, then that is a whole different thread topic. Let's just say the GOP has been as shady as we'll ever see, and there's proof of that as well.

reply to post by Muttley2012

The Ron Paul campaign has informed their supporters very clearly of this process. The other candidates don't. Many people stick around and vote only on the straw poll thinking that will get their candidate elected/delegates, then leave. They are wrong. The only thing that matters is delegates, which happens AFTER the straw poll, and that is what the media constantly talks about, but it means almost nothing. Paul supporters stick around and vote for delegates OR nominate themselves to become delegates (in which case, people need to vote for them in order to become a delegate). That is why the Paul campaign is doing so well with delegates, and why he is really in second place.

Looks like facts to me and not just opinion. Here is how a portion of it looked in Colorado:



Looking at the straw poll results it looks like Santorum came out ahead, but if Paul got 100% of the actual delegates did S really come out ahead? It's easy to see why the MSM would play down this part and only focus on the "facts" that you are quoting.

reply to post by coyotepoet


That's exactly what I'm talking about. You "get it". Thanks! Now if only others would understand that you don't even have to be a Ron Paul supporter to understand this...

Originally posted by Muttley2012

Originally posted by ThoughtIsMadness
reply to post by Muttley2012

 

Hahaha numbers don't lie? It all depends on who is counting them

Touche!

In this case, it's the respective states that are counting their delegates. The numbers I provided above are dead on accurate. If there is any fuzziness in the math, the error is in RP's count, not mine. If I'm wrong, then please explain it to me, as I can't view the OP video AND a thorough explanation of the video was not provided in the OP (despite T&C).

Well if we have anything to learn from maine then we know the "states" aren't very good at keeping track of numbers.

I love it how the Cult of Paul maintain an air of moral superiority while completely ignoring the democratic principle of good faith for which the caucuses are designed.

Let's just say you're right, I don't think you are but let's say you are, and RP is second in delegates because after the non-binding but still representative straw poll is cast, for which he only receives 5-25%, his people stick around and gobble up all the delegates....

...let's say he wins the nomination using this tactic.

You honestly don't think that there is going to be a major backlash from the 75-95% of the represented body whose will was just cast aside? You think it is okay for those delegates votes to be cast to RP in bad faith? And you think that a GOP candidate "winning" the Primary candidacy in Bad Faith stands a chance in the general election?

I mean, you guys say the system is rigged so that Paul can't win...so your response is to rig the system so that even if he loses(the popular vote/straw poll) he still wins(the delegates)?

If you are willing to win in Bad Faith in the Caucuses, what about in the Primary Election? Let's say there was a way he could rig the Electoral College vote to fall in his favor, even if he did not win a single state or the popular vote...just hypothetically...would that be a legitimate win in your minds? I have a feeling your answers will be a resounding "yes."

I just hope that the dramatic irony is not lost on you.

You ask me, not that you would because I am obviously not a RP supporter, if you truly want to see how much support there is for RP, he shouldn't be running for the GOP candidacy, he should be running as an Independent, 3rd Party Candidate....but we all know that would guarantee the already more than likely re-election of President Obama..

reply to post by madhatr137

I love it how the Cult of Paul maintain an air of moral superiority while completely ignoring the democratic principle of good faith for which the caucuses are designed.

Oh, you mean like how Al Gore actually won the 2000 election but it was handed to Bush by the Supreme Court? You mean that kind of ignoring of the democratic principle?

Or how there was fraud in Ohio in 2004 or Florida in 2000?

Or how about the electronic voting machines?

If you are willing to win in Bad Faith in the Caucuses, what about in the Primary Election? Let's say there was a way he could rig the Electoral College vote to fall in his favor, even if he did not win a single state or the popular vote...just hypothetically...would that be a legitimate win in your minds? I have a feeling your answers will be a resounding "yes." I just hope that the dramatic irony is not lost on you.

Well, again, Al Gore won the popular vote. Bush's win wasn't legitimate in a lot of people's minds yet that didn't make one lick of difference. He was all about bad faith but Americans gave him 8 years.

Nahh! It's only subverting the democratic process when Ron Paul does something to even the playing field on a rigged system.

reply to post by coyotepoet



I agree with you. Al Gore was the legitimate victor of the 2000 Presidential Election and that the presidency was stolen from him through the clever use of technicalities in the system.

But comparing Gore's situation to Paul's is apples to oranges.

As you said yourself, Gore won the popular vote. Paul has not.

It would be one thing if Paul was actually winning the popular vote in these Straw Polls and then being denied the delegates via technicality...i would support his move if that were the case...but that is not the case. It is the opposite. He is not winning and attempting to grab a disproportionate number of delegates to his proportion of votes in the poll....to me, that is dishonest. Even if the system is rigged, it's still dishonest.

Our electoral system is screwed up. I agree with that. But is exploiting its flaws going to fix that?

reply to post by madhatr137

As you said yourself, Gore won the popular vote. Paul has not. It would be one thing if Paul was actually winning the popular vote in these Straw Polls and then being denied the delegates via technicality...i would support his move if that were the case...but that is not the case. It is the opposite. He is not winning and attempting to grab a disproportionate number of delegates to his proportion of votes in the poll....to me, that is dishonest. Even if the system is rigged, it's still dishonest.

Who's to say though? I'm not a rabid Paul fan, but I do think his policies would be best for this country right now, particularly when the other choices are the hypocrytical Newt, Romney supported by bankers and guaranteed to carry on whatever fiscal policy they say to, and fundamentalist Santorum.

It's interesting to observe the media coverage. I'm not going to go into that part of it as many people have talked about it. However, if Paul were to truly get equal media coverage with the rest of the candidates, I believe he would be more popular than we are being led to believe.

How does that make a difference? Basic psychology. Nobody wants to vote for a loser and everybody wants to vote for a winner. By constantly putting out the message that candidate A is a winner even though it might not be true (see the Iowa Romney/Santorum results) and that candidate B is unelectable though that is not true either, the media plays on that winner/loser dynamic and simply declares the winner that they want (in this case Romney with full support of Goldman Sachs.) The American people, wanting to vote for a winner, vote for who the media tells them is the winner.

In my eyes, a vote for any other candidate is a vote for the status quo and I believe that enough Americans are sick of the rigged system and the crappy ecomonic status quo where only the banks and corporations are profiting that they would vote for Paul in a second were it not for the media manipulation.

reply to post by madhatr137


Look, I didnt vote for the last two presidents. And in fact, none of the Primary candidates in the last three elections, were my candidate. But , I was still forced to choose between two people i didnt even agree with. Just like hundreds of thousands of other Americans.
All other Presidents, or Primary candidates got there by playing the game too, and I had to deal with it.
The only real difference this time around is that theres a possibility that MY chosen candidate has a chnace this year. Thats it.

I didnt cry foul when Bush won, even though i didnt like him. I didnt cry foul when Obama won, even though i dont like him. Hell, I didnt' even cry foul early on during the caucuses when Gore surged and made it a two man race between him and Bush, even though I dont like either one, and neither was my choice.But, because they knew how to play the game, those were my only option.

Now, the tables have turned for some of you more "old schoolers". And your candidate isn't to so well, so you cry foul, and attack. and its sad, and only stands to reason considering who most of you back anyway.....the corrupt follow the corrupt.

Originally posted by Muttley2012

Originally posted by ls1cameric
Wow, the immaturity level of anti-RP supporters amazes me.

Poochy sounds like a 5th grade schoolgirl arguing over whos cooler, Nsync or Bieber.

And yes, it is pretty hilarious.. Nu-uh, uhh-huh, am not, are too..

Grow the F up...

no, just bringing facts to the table (i.e., Ron Paul kryptonite). The schoolgirls are the RP supporters that cant help but cry foul when someone brings truth to their fantasy...I can understand though, crushed dreams hurt.

Facts to the table? Jesus the only one bringing facts into Washington is Ron Paul. The media blackout on a single candidate legitimately running for office who isn't going to conform to how things are run should be enough of a reason to realize something fishy is going on.

I see you support Obama in your sig. Why is that? Not trying to be a dick but really what has Obama done to warrant your vote and support?

Originally posted by Muttley2012
According to my count....hell, anyone that can count knows that Ron Paul is currently in 4th place in the delegate count.

Romney: 123
Santorum: 72
Gingrich: 32
Paul: 19

Ron Paul currently possesses 7.7% of the delegates awarded to date.

A real fine showing

P.S. Numbers don't lie. BUT politicians and news personalities sure do

edit on 24-2-2012 by Muttley2012 because: (no reason given)

Really now?? How did you come to such a count when Iowa delegates have not been assigned yet? How did you come to such a count when Maine has not finished counting yet? How did you come to such a count when Florida is still being contested? How did you reach this conclusion when South Carolina delegates will be awarded by Congressional district?

Your so called count, is the same count that the MSM has been pushing on TV where they admit their count is a "projection". Did you know in Iowa the MSM awarded delegates to whomever they felt like even though those delegates will not even be known until the Convention?

reply to post by cconn487

I see you support Obama in your sig. Why is that? Not trying to be a dick but really what has Obama done to warrant your vote and support?

For real!!! I'm an independent, but I voted for Obama last election, hoping that he would be different and actually mean what he says. But, I actually switched my registration to Republican for the primaries that year just so I could vote for Ron Paul in those primaries. Obama has just been 4 more years of Bush policies or worse. And you know, judging by his big support from the Banksters at Sachs et al, Romney would be just the same, a continuation of the same policies that got this country into the mess its in right now.

That's what makes me laugh when they say Ron Paul has no chance of beating Obama. I voted for Obama last election, I vote Democratic 99.9% of the time and I would vote for Ron Paul in a second. No chance against Obama? S**t! He's got the best chance.