Ron Paul supporters: What will convince you that Romney won fair and square?

page: 2
4
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 9 2012 @ 02:46 AM
link   
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 


I'll repost this again to make sure you see it, There's more then 500 delegates that are undecided at this point and could switch, with 869 remaining and with Santorum and Gingrich basically out of the race that's even more delegates that are going to go with Ron Paul. I say the odds are starting to stack in Dr. Pauls favor. Romney only has downhill to head from here on out.

I'm sorry but all the reason's I've sided against Romney are reasons that came out of his own mouth in the form of speech. He has made so many disturbing remarks I don't know how anybody that was half sane could vote for him. Too bad that only narrows it down to about have the country with common sense so I'm sure it'll be a close race. Do that math again with the delegates.

elections.nytimes.com...
thereal2012delegatecount.com...
www.washingtonpost.com...
www.politico.com...
www.realclearpolitics.com...
edit on 9-5-2012 by Brandon88 because: (no reason given)
edit on 9-5-2012 by Brandon88 because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 9 2012 @ 02:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Brandon88
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 


I'll repost this again to make sure you see it, There's more then 500 delegates that are undecided at this point and could switch, with 869 remaining and with Santorum and Gingrich basically out of the race that's even more delegates that are going to go with Ron Paul. I say the odds are starting to stack in Dr. Pauls favor. Romney only has downhill to head from here on out.

I'm sorry but all the reason's I've sided against Romney are reasons that came out of his own mouth in the form of speech. He has made so many disturbing remarks I don't know how anybody that was half sane could vote for him. Too bad that only narrows it down to about have the country with common sense so I'm sure it'll be a close race.


elections.nytimes.com...
thereal2012delegatecount.com...
www.washingtonpost.com...
www.politico.com...
www.realclearpolitics.com...
edit on 9-5-2012 by Brandon88 because: (no reason given)
edit on 9-5-2012 by Brandon88 because: (no reason given)


Did you see him take credit for the car companies doing better now??
Saw a clip of him he's like

"I said we should let em go bankrupt first before bailing them out, and that's what happened, and now look at how well they're doing. I'll take some credit for that."

Really dude, really??

Ok me too. Where's my share of the profits. I make cars too... right..? right?
oh my.

I hope that was a bad joke, but I hope that about him too... haha


...edited to add links that were posted after my quote.
edit on 5/9/2012 by Dustytoad because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 9 2012 @ 02:56 AM
link   
reply to post by Brandon88
 


Yep, your source below reports Romney having more than 700 delegates at this stage, and Paul having just under 200 delegates (which I believe is well higher than his actual delegate count, but we'll take this from the source).
thereal2012delegatecount.com...



posted on May, 9 2012 @ 03:01 AM
link   
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 


With the remaining delegates up for grabs alone there is more then enough to tie it up with Romney, not counting unpledged delegates and the ones that will vote for somebody else considering their candidate is now out of the race. Even if Romney got some of them there is still plenty left for Dr. Paul to win by a large margin.

Thought this was funny, rt.com...


“This was my district (2nd). I actually got to count votes! We ended up sending 15 Paul, 15 Santorum, and 1 Romney. The Romney people were pissed! I’m not sure how the alternates worked out, but it was either 15 Paul, 16 Santorum, or vice versa. My wife and I are both alternates. I was so upset by the “Unity Slate” people and their disgusting bias that I used part of my speech to express how appalled I was at their behavior. They were very rude anytime a speech maker mentioned Ron Paul, and their “savagery” caused them to yell “time” and interrupt well before the allotted time had run out. The Ron Paul people were all very civilized, in my humble opinion. -Brandon Clarke
edit on 9-5-2012 by Brandon88 because: (no reason given)


And this,


Mitt Romney drew criticism Monday after he failed to challenge a questioner who suggested at a campaign event that President Obama should be tried for treason.The woman, in posing a question to Romney, asserted, “We have a president right now that is operating outside the structure of our Constitution.”She was interrupted by applause from the crowd. “I want to know," she said before turning to another audience member and saying, “Yeah, I do agree he should be tried for treason. But I want to know what you are going to be able to do to help restore balance between the three branches of government and what you’re going to be able to do to restore our Constitution in this country?”
Romney, after waiting for the applause to die down, answered the woman’s question without addressing the treason remark. “Well, as I’m sure you do, I happen to believe that the Constitution was not just brilliant, but probably inspired,” he said. “I believe the same thing about the Declaration of Independence.” He continued by criticizing Obama for suggesting that it would be unprecedented for the Supreme Court to overturn the healthcare law that Democrats enacted in 2010, which is now before the high court.


Hes great at side stepping issues right? I'm sure he'd do this in office as well the man can't even answer a question honestly. And you think he'd be a good choice for POTUS. God help us all.
edit on 9-5-2012 by Brandon88 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 9 2012 @ 03:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by Southern Guardian

Imagine if we could swap the attitudes of Paul supporters for those of Romney supporters, if Paul was in Romney's place, I really wonder howmany folks here will be crying foul over the fairness of these elections? I really have to wonder.


I guess we'll find out in August.



posted on May, 9 2012 @ 03:16 AM
link   
reply to post by litterbaux
 


Add one more to your list of Romney supporters. Thanks.



posted on May, 9 2012 @ 03:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
I'm well aware that this place is crawling with Paul supporters, I'm not really interested in getting stars or flags,


So why don't you troll somewhere else?

For stars and flags perhaps?

Oh wait, you're trying to convince us of your beliefs?? HAHA!



posted on May, 9 2012 @ 03:19 AM
link   
reply to post by OccamsRazor04
 


Ok, 2 so far.

Clearly the majority.




posted on May, 9 2012 @ 03:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04
reply to post by litterbaux
 


Add one more to your list of Romney supporters. Thanks.


damn I thought the statue of liberty would say it first.

Well, I know one and a half now I guess.

Just looked at my state's primary which was today 55 delegates... and I'm mad.

If anyone knows anything about North Carolina they know that certain counties would go to Ron Paul. The same counties that voted against amendment 1... The College towns... UNC, DUKE, NCSU... I could have at least promised Orange county...
I'm confused.. I don't trust these results at all.
edit on 5/9/2012 by Dustytoad because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 9 2012 @ 03:41 AM
link   
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 


With all due respect, I am a bit confused.

You start off by asking what would make Ron Paul supports (such as myself) accept particular facts. You then present these "facts" but only link one thing to support your "facts". So really, and please correct me if I am wrong, there are no "facts". There is only one "fact" mixed with a lot of opinion from your perspective. That is how I see it, do you think this would be an accurate assessment?

Onto the OP: The first thing you link is delegate numbers. However, these are strictly total numbers that do not show how this total came to be. So we have no real way of verifying anything in order to accept it as fact. That being said, we know for a fact that the delegate numbers are misrepresented.

Ron Paul said very early on in this race that his focus was to pile up delegates. He said he was not interested in winning primaries and states, but he would get delegates. After saying that many people scoffed, joked, and laughed at the statement. Even for supporters, such as myself, it was a confusing statement to make. Speaking only for myself, I didnt understand it. As we watch the process play itself it out, and we are now seeing Ron Paul pile up delegates and we see this strategy beginning to pay off and work. I am sure for many supporters, there has been a real educational experience on how this process really works. I am sure many of us were under the impression that if you won primaries, you won delegates and it was just that simple, but apparently as we are now seeing, it is not as simple as that.

Now going back to your linked "fact" of delegates, we know we can not trust these total numbers. This is a fact that no one can deny. We watched as CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, Real Politics, and everyone else has been listing delegates counts as each State has had their Caucuses and Primaries. We watched as each of these outlets assigned delegates based on the results. However we now know that, particularly in Caucus States, that the vote is almost irrelevant to the selection of delegates. We watched as each of the MSM outlets assigned delegates to Candidates when the truth was the delegate selection process had not even begun yet. Early on, as you can see from almost any link when this subject has came up, that Paul was assigned like 6 delegates for Iowa, but now that the delegate selection process has finished Paul actually got more like half the delegates for that State.

To give you a better idea of what I am trying to say, let us look at your delegate count of 700 for Romney. Now let us compare that count with Real Clear Politics. Currently they have two separate counts for Romney.

Check this out Real Clear Politics

Now this link should take you to the "Election 2012" page. In the top left, directly under the banner is 3 sections. The first one, top left, says "GOP Nomination Battle". You will notice a small red "



posted on May, 9 2012 @ 03:46 AM
link   
Just wanted to add this to the discussion....


At present, no single Republican nominee is even close to clinching the 1,044 national delegates needed to win the nomination. This includes Mitt Romney, who after spending $80 million convincing GOP voters to like him, continues to underwhelm.


Yet according to this OP Romney has won fair and square?

It's an interesting article, some may want to read this.
Paul wins Nevada, Maine and Iowa prove delegate strategy is working



posted on May, 9 2012 @ 04:44 AM
link   
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 


1. Transparency with voting results. Voting should not be electronic. I program and build devices often and, it must be said, electronics are not "smart". Phone's are not smart, computers are not smart, no. They are only logic gates set up in the way needed and controlled through a coding language. Nothing electronic is ever secure. On top of this, we, the American citizens need to be present at the reading of the votes and have the freedom to verify the results. Good old fashion paper votes that are read and displayed in public is what will make me believe there is no corruption.

2. Fair coverage from the media. The fact he was ignored in/after Iowa, even though he was in a close 3-way tie with Romney and Santorum, the media mocked him and covered lesser candidates much more. The media bias has been documented vastly and is undeniable.

3. If there were no, or significantly less, scandals within the GOP primaries. The number of voting problems experienced this year have been unprecedented, and all have been negative towards Ron.

4. Explanations from the thousands of people who attend his rallies explaining why they would go to rallies and support Ron Paul, but fail to vote for him.

5. If I could actually meet a peer who doesn't support Ron Paul and actually knows what is happening in the political world. (IMHO, if people were not being deliberately dumb down by the world of media, many of them would certainly a different opinion than they do now. Whether this is for or against RP, I don't care. All I want is a truly unbiased, non-manipulated, educated political view from voters.)


When these happen and show Ron Paul truly lost, then I will admit to anyone and everyone that I was wrong. Not wrong for believing in Ron Paul and that the system is extremely and undeniably corrupt, but I was wrong about this.

Don't forget, for the reasons I mentioned above, it is justifiable to believe there is something wrong with the results regarding RP. You may see everything in a different light than I, or other, RP supporters do, but the corruption is undeniable. If someone were to consistently lie to you, would you believe them after a while? Would you know when to trust them when everything they do is secretive? I see where you come from and the reported results verify your stance. However, I believe we have been deceived, lied to, misled, and/or just plain uninformed too many times by the group controlling the events, the people reporting the results, and anyone else who has a stake in the presidency. This has caused me to be very wary of anything occurring right now.

Am I going to be called a crazy conspiracy theorist, Paulbot, uneducated, blind or anything else?



posted on May, 9 2012 @ 04:49 AM
link   
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 


I'm not sure if this is even serious. We cried foul because they cheated, plain and simple. Paul wins Iowa like he really should of and it's a different ball game, if they don't steal Nevada from him, same thing, he was never given the opportunity to build momentum, they completely stifled him from the beginning. Now the result is, they have most likely gotten their way this time around, but things are changing slowly, revolutions don't happen over night. The people are waking up, this is a good thing.


Nothing will convince me he won fair and square, Dr Paul got 82 seconds of air time during a National debate while he was 2nd or 3rd in the running, how the hell can you ignorant people call this fair, what took place in this election by the GOP should have everyone concerned, whether you like Paul or not, everyone deserves and equal shot and that was never the case.

We, the People, have no say and people like SouthernGuardian are perfectly content with that as long as we continue to get one of the establishment puppets, well that's great, isn't it, I'm thrilled to have to suffer because the majority of Americans are idiots.
edit on 9-5-2012 by macaronicaesar because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 9 2012 @ 07:53 AM
link   
Paper ballots counted by an independent, honest group. But of course that's not going to happen.



posted on May, 9 2012 @ 07:59 AM
link   
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 


Q: Ron Paul supporters: What will convince you that Romney won fair and square?
A: When I see a flock of these flitting about, then perhaps I'll believe Romney won fair and square.



posted on May, 9 2012 @ 08:28 AM
link   
taking the oath as President 2012 taking his turn as the 45th President of these here United States.


RON PAUL - revolution - romney should bow out and throw his support to RON PAUL



posted on May, 9 2012 @ 08:47 AM
link   
First what can be agreed on as what is fair and square ?
Second what is the final count at the republican national convention ?
edit on 9-5-2012 by OLD HIPPY DUDE because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 9 2012 @ 08:57 AM
link   
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 


Nothing is going to convince them, I use thegreenpapers as well because it is the best source that goes down to the state level and through their rules to find a solid bound delegate count.

I made a thread using the "hard count"...didn't phase them...they first claimed the counts were wrong...but only focused on the "soft counts" and didn't quite grasp the difference between the two. When I showed that they were wrong and that the "hard counts" are in fact correct and they couldn't point out a flaw in the hard counts in any state that had them...they moved on to more ridiculous arguments...like they are going to "unbind" the bound delegates...or delegates that are "pledged to vote for Romney" are going to abstain...because somehow they think abstaining is still supporting someone



There were three primaries last night...Romney won every single one...his bound delegate count should jump by 50 from last night...and Ron Paul supporters won't acknowledge the wins and support Romney had last night.

www.cnn.com...
Indiana
Romney - 65%
Paul - 16%
Santorum - 13%
Gingrich - 6%

North Carolina
Romney - 66%
Paul - 11%
Santorum - 10%
Gingrich - 8%

West Virginia
Romney - 70%
Santorum - 12%
Paul - 11%
Gingrich - 6%


Paul barely beat Santorum in two states and lost to him in WV....but somehow people who think the guy who gets 60-70% of the vote is "winning" are the ones that are clueless.
edit on 9-5-2012 by OutKast Searcher because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 9 2012 @ 08:59 AM
link   
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 


no no no, he is saying YOU are not to be believed...get it?
Kinda like global warming ya know?



posted on May, 9 2012 @ 09:42 AM
link   
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 


I have no doubt he won fair and square. That's what's friggin' scary about it. People are as blind, deaf and dumb as always. Romney is not a good human being. He's done so much harm for profit I'm supprised he's not in jail. Oh, of course he's not in jail, he best buds with all the other megalomaniac.



new topics
 
4
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join