I want to start this off by saying I'm not creating this thread to bait anyone. I'm actually interested in the answer considering some of the rhetoric that I have seen on these boards. Now I don't generally frequent the political boards unless I see a specific topic trending across a number of threads so admittedly my observations are somewhat limited.

What I'm seeing are people trying to figure out how bound delegates can get away with not voting for Romney. To many this probably just seems like political strategy but when you look at the bigger picture it takes on a darker hue. For the most part the delegate process represents the government of the United States as a whole, just on a smaller scale. We have the general population expressing their wishes and then we have representatives who are supposed to represent the desires of their constituency. In this case we hold a primary to determine who the people want as their candidate in the general election and then we have delegates represent that choice at the National Convention. While the specifics are a little different it is more or less a representation of the government laid out in the Constitution.

The point where it gets dark is when it is pointed out to Ron Paul supporters that by abstaining or attempting to vote against the candidate to which they are bound that they are ignoring the will of the people they are supposed to represent. When this gets mentioned the general response that I have seen is that people who do not research the candidates should more or less not be allowed to vote. Now combine this with the fact that many Paul supporters in the past have said that anyone who properly researches the candidates will support Ron Paul. What you're left with is the opinion that only Ron Paul supporters should be allowed to vote. I'm not saying this is what people actually mean but this is the direction the rhetoric I have seen suggests.

Now I do want to say that I am not saying that Ron Paul wants a totalitarian regime. He truly does seem to know and support the Constitution. What I'm saying is many of his supporters aren't exemplifying the ideals of their candidate. It seems like they are willing to throw the Constitution out the window in order to get their candidate in office, ignoring the will of the people, simply because they think he's the right choice.

So, I guess I'll end this post with a question to all Ron Paul supporters that I hope can cut to the heart of what I've seen. If you could invalidate the votes of everyone who doesn't support Ron Paul would you?

.

I thought that was precisely what we were trying to replace ?

.

So, I guess I'll end this post with a question to all Ron Paul supporters that I hope can cut to the heart of what I've seen. If you could invalidate the votes of everyone who doesn't support Ron Paul would you?

The simple answer is no, I wouldn't. Anyone who in this day, at this time in our country who believes any change will come about for the betterment of our people and our society by voting for Romney or Obama for that matter is either delusional or actively ignoring all the simple truths in the world and choosing to stay in the "matrix".

People wan't real change, and not the kind Obama promised.......

Originally posted by Helious
People wan't real change, and not the kind Obama promised.......

I 2nd that.

And just looking at Romneys background makes me want to vomit.

Really the only other reasonable (and consistent) candidate is Ron Paul.

Wait, the delegates aren't people? Abstaining to vote on the first ballot unwinds them. They aren't forced to vote for Romney, that's exactly why they CAN abstain from voting. The republican party is a private corporation. They choose their rules. They aren't breaking the rules even if they do abstain from voting. Just like the MSM isn't breaking the rules by saying Romney won (when he wins the straw poll but not the delegates) and that Romney won (when he won the delegates but not the straw poll) its not breaking any rules, it's not totalitarianism. The totalitarianism would come in when a bound delegate must vote for the candidate he/she is bound to. Yes, I agree that the candidates and vote counters should listen to the people. But if they really were listening to the people we wouldn't have the electoral college (who can conveniently ignore the will of the people)

Right because using the delegate process in our favor, despite the voting fraud, the diebold voting machines, the msm bias, and the shills that seem to fill so many websites and news media (not talking about you). The fact is that most people don't vote, and that the voting process is currently rigged. People aren't being represented properly, and voting should be seen as a celebratory kinda-of-deal, rather than the mundane process its been turned into today. People seem to be acting like the Ron Paul supporters don't count as American voters...

Oh come on with this thread title...

You could have worded it a bit better, if your goal wasn't to "bait" anyone.

Your entire point is that:

"All those who promote and support Ron Paul's views wish for a totalitarian government because the delegates think Mitt Romney is an idiot."

.... Come on...

Sounds like you are voting for Obama, which is perfectly fine.
Because it's all an illusion in the first place.

This whole idea that you are stating "the people clearly want Romney" is a farce --- due to vote rigging and media lies.

People have been brainwashed into accepting Romney/Obama just as they were with Bush and the majority of presidents before them.

Look at the bigger picture.


---- I like Ron Paul's speeches, and fully agree with them. I liked the ones he made 30 years ago too. Obama never impressed me, although he can sing very well he is not fit to be President as he openly dishonors MY Constitution.

Hope I've made it a bit more clear for you.

I think that you need to give your fellow citizens a little more credit. Most people are honest, hardworking individuals who want nothing more than what they believe is rightly theirs. I simply want the 100% of the money I work for, the land I live on, the right to grow my family's food, and the right to my own thoughts.

I don't think the majority is willing to cheat to win. It is all about the message of what direction we should be heading towards. Forwards instead of backwards.

We already have a "Totalitarian Regime". If I have to have a "Dictador", let me choose him at least one time in my life.

Let's face it, there aren't anymore JFKs.

Given that the media refuses to not acknowledge him and that some of the primary voting results have been proven to be manipulated, I don't know what choice he has. Also, I don't agree that his supporters are disregarding the constitution - it's not like they're breaking any rules... unlike some of the other candidates. I actually think of his strategy to be rather clever

When your country is in the process of electing a presidential candidate, I'm painfully observing the process. Either way it goes, regarding who's elected, my (western) country bows and follows the tone your government sets. This regards any policy, regulation or general direction your government takes. They'll do anything to be part of the table of the "cool guys".

But if Ron Paul were elected as president, I'm not sure how my country would react. It would actually confuse the politicians so much, they would'nt know up from down. At the least it would make us, the people, realize that the economic and moral corruption we've been allowing all this time would meet its end. At least I hope so.

Originally posted by Monsatan
But if they really were listening to the people we wouldn't have the electoral college (who can conveniently ignore the will of the people)

The Electoral College is bound by law to vote in the manner prescribed. They don't "conveniently ignore the will of the people." The mistake here is assuming only the vote of the people matter and all votes should be strictly person to candidate. So once in awhile you have a candidate who wins via the electoral college when the popular vote was very close, but opposite.

If there were no Electoral College, then the East and Eest Coast states would elect the President, and everyone iin any other state should just as well stay home, including all the flyover states. Because of the nature of the Electoral College, candidates are forced to pay attention to all states, even those with few electoral votes, because each one on its own could tip the election.

This was done originally quite on purpose in an attempt to keep the power out of the hands of the Federal government and in the hands of the states, i.e.: States were considered equal partners in the Federal government because iot was teh States that agreed to form the union. The People had a direct voice through the House and an indirect voice through the Senate. In other words, Senators were to be the representatives of the States, not direct representatives of the people. The 17th amendment changed all that.

Now the argument is that the Electoral College should be eliminated, but look what we have done. The 17th amendment stripped states rights and gave that power not to the people, but consolidated it in the Federal government and cutting the states completely out of governing the Federation. Abolishing the Electoral College would complete the process. In wanting power for ourselves, we ceded it to an over-reaching government.

Next, we will be complaining about the power of the Federal government. well, if we give it to them, what do you expect? We killed what power the states had, then we bemoan the fact that the Feds keep telling us what to do.

To summarize, when the actual general election is being abused and defaced, then you can talk. Luckily, as it stands, the general election still abides by the Constitution, even if the voting system has shown signs of heavy tampering.