More bad news Paul supporters: Ron Paul polling low in his home state of Texas, page 6

posted on May, 12 2012 @ 04:48 PM

link

Remember, it's only the RP supporters who simply ignore anything that challenges their views, not him.

Yes. OP is all about the hard, irrefutable, facts of months old polls of completely undisclosed scientific methods backed by rock-solid misunderstandings of even the most basic of legal concepts such valid cause to file suit and what a court of law constitutes of evidence.

It sure is refreshing to see how academically sound OP's ideas are.

captaintyinknots

posted on May, 12 2012 @ 04:48 PM

link

Originally posted by MsAphrodite
reply to post by captaintyinknots
[more

We are doing something about it. Soon enough you will see. The courts are not needed for the R3volution. The people will prevail.

So then, why all the cries of voter fraud? If it doesnt matter, why does the RP crowd need to lean on it so heavily as a defense?

And if it is there, and you are about freedom and liberty, isnt it your DUTY to pursue it?

captaintyinknots

posted on May, 12 2012 @ 04:50 PM

link

Originally posted by milominderbinder

Assumption, huh? OK...whatever, man. We'll just pretend you haven't gone on a five-page rant of why you consider RP's supposed impending loss of Texas as being evidentiary of a failed campaign.

Actually...you should consider running for office yourself given your talent for pretending that you didn't say the words you have just said.

As I challenge all RP-culters when they make false accusation: Please quote a few of these pages of "rants" you accuse me of making. Should be easy enough. Show me where I have said it is evidence of a failed campaign? Show me where I have done these things you claim, or be exposed as a liar.

edit on Sat May 12 2012 by DontTreadOnMe because: Mod Note: Big Quote – Please Review This Link.

captaintyinknots

posted on May, 12 2012 @ 04:52 PM

link

Originally posted by milominderbinder

Originally posted by captaintyinknots

Originally posted by milominderbinder

May I ask, have you been in the United States for the last 12 months or so, or have you been living/traveling overseas somewhere?? The evidence which has surfaced has been pretty hard not to notice at all.

Lived here all my life, not that that has anything to do with the subject. Ive seen the "evidence". Im not impressed.

Hmmmm. Interesting use of quotation marks. Generally speaking, official documents, video recordings, and eyewitness testimony is considered plain old evidence (sans quotes) in every other legal matter in the United States.

In fact, these forms of evidence are typically regarded so highly that they are routinely cited as being credible enough to even sentence people to death.

Tell me, why is that you feel such items are not deserving of the same standard in this instance?

so, again, for the umpteenth time, if this evidence is so prevalent, if it is so irrefutable, why are you all still crying about it, and not pursuing legal action?

captaintyinknots

posted on May, 12 2012 @ 04:55 PM

link

Originally posted by milominderbinder
Please a read a book. Seriously...any kind of book at all. Given that I am a voter and not Ron Paul himself, I really can't imagine a court that would think I have incurred any sort of civil damages at all...ESPECIALLY SINCE RON PAUL IS STILL VERY MUCH IN THE RUNNING TO WIN THE NOMINATION. Likewise, I can't hardly file criminal charges given that I am not a either a District Attorney in one of the districts in question nor a Federal Prosecutor.

Thus, it would be a remarkable departure from the traditions of Western law for me to file suit because of damages that I have not yet suffered due to election fraud which my favored candidate has not lost.

Although...I tell you what. Instead of talking out of your ass, why don't you take this opportunity to educate me. Please draft a Summons and Complaint and post it here in ATS so I can learn more about this incredible new form litigation which heretofore has not ever been practiced once in all of recorded human history.

I must say, it sounds very interesting and unique I would love to read it.

LOL

Why cant you respond without personal attacks? You do it in nearly every post....

no one said anything about civil damages. If you have evidence that proves that RP is being defrauded, present it to a constitutional lawyer. It would be in your best interests, as it would support that which you assert-that RP is doing better than is being let on.

So what is the downside? Oh, right...it would be laughed out of court.

I dont need to compose one, as I am not the one claiming it is rampant. I cant compose a complaint about something that I am calling BS on. Logic....its your friend.

edit on Sat May 12 2012 by DontTreadOnMe because: Mod Note: Big Quote – Please Review This Link.

milominderbinder

posted on May, 12 2012 @ 04:57 PM

link

Originally posted by captaintyinknots

Originally posted by MsAphrodite
reply to post by captaintyinknots
[more

We are doing something about it. Soon enough you will see. The courts are not needed for the R3volution. The people will prevail.

So then, why all the cries of voter fraud? If it doesnt matter, why does the RP crowd need to lean on it so heavily as a defense?

And if it is there, and you are about freedom and liberty, isnt it your DUTY to pursue it?

Ummmm...because it's not [snip] possible to file a civil suit for damages not suffered and because it's not [snip] possible to file criminal charges since I'm not a District Attorney nor a Federal prosecutor.

Seriously...where are you confused on this??

edit on Sat May 12 2012 by DontTreadOnMe because: Mod Note: Do Not Evade the Automatic Censors

captaintyinknots

posted on May, 12 2012 @ 04:59 PM

link

Originally posted by milominderbinder

Originally posted by captaintyinknots

Originally posted by MsAphrodite
reply to post by captaintyinknots
[more

We are doing something about it. Soon enough you will see. The courts are not needed for the R3volution. The people will prevail.

So then, why all the cries of voter fraud? If it doesnt matter, why does the RP crowd need to lean on it so heavily as a defense?

And if it is there, and you are about freedom and liberty, isnt it your DUTY to pursue it?

Ummmm...because it's not f&*&^ing possible to file a civil suit for damages not suffered and because it's not f&*&^ing possible to file criminal charges since I'm not a District Attorney nor a Federal prosecutor.

Seriously...where are you confused on this??

Youre missing the entire point, and proving yourself quite immature while doing so. It isnt about civil damages. Its about getting it recognized in court, so that it stops happening.

But thats too much logic, isnt it? Much easier to use it as a crutch when your candidate is behind...

milominderbinder

posted on May, 12 2012 @ 05:13 PM

link

Why cant you respond without personal attacks? You do it in nearly every post....

no one said anything about civil damages. If you have evidence that proves that RP is being defrauded, present it to a constitutional lawyer. It would be in your best interests, as it would support that which you assert-that RP is doing better than is being let on.

So what is the downside? Oh, right...it would be laughed out of court.

I dont need to compose one, as I am not the one claiming it is rampant. I cant compose a complaint about something that I am calling BS on. Logic....its your friend.

There are no personal attacks here. Have I called you any names or slandered your character at all? No. I have simply observed and pointed out that you are utterly ignorant and would do well to read a book of some sort....a fact which you continue re-proving again and again.

For example:

1. Finding a "constitutional lawyer" simply means that you will find a lawyer. All lawyers are constitutional lawyers given that it's the supreme law of the land, all attorneys are bound by it. This is probably the reason why law schools and bar exams are typically so concerned about the matter.

2. You certainly DO need to compose a Summons & Complaint for the legal action you are referencing, given that the legal mechanisms which you are referring to are solely your invention. Any attorney I found, "constitutional" or otherwise, (LOL) would likely not be privy to this entirely new form litigation which you willed into existence from the aether.

3. "No one said anything about civil damages"- Yes...you did...you are simply too uneducated to REALIZE that you did. What other remedy to allegations of election fraud are you aware of other than criminal charges and civil damages? Another one of your inventions? I've already stated numerous times that I am not a District Attorney or Federal Prosecutor. Perhaps I should have specified that I am not Attorney General of any of our 50 states either.

4. "..it would be laughed out of court"- At least we agree on something. I really can't imagine any other response when a guy files a civil suit for allegations of election fraud, in a non-affected district, for an election still in progress.

In fact...I can pretty easily imagine the judge would laugh me, toss the case out, and advise to me to read a book of some sort. Seriously...any kind of book at all.

milominderbinder

posted on May, 12 2012 @ 05:15 PM
link

Originally posted by captaintyinknots

Originally posted by milominderbinder

Originally posted by captaintyinknots

Originally posted by MsAphrodite
reply to post by captaintyinknots
[more

We are doing something about it. Soon enough you will see. The courts are not needed for the R3volution. The people will prevail.

So then, why all the cries of voter fraud? If it doesnt matter, why does the RP crowd need to lean on it so heavily as a defense?

And if it is there, and you are about freedom and liberty, isnt it your DUTY to pursue it?

Ummmm...because it's not f&*&^ing possible to file a civil suit for damages not suffered and because it's not f&*&^ing possible to file criminal charges since I'm not a District Attorney nor a Federal prosecutor.

Seriously...where are you confused on this??

Youre missing the entire point, and proving yourself quite immature while doing so. It isnt about civil damages. Its about getting it recognized in court, so that it stops happening.

But thats too much logic, isnt it? Much easier to use it as a crutch when your candidate is behind...

Wow. The judicial branch stopping an election? That's even more highly unlawful than the Supreme Court stopping a recount.

Interesting angle though. I look forward to seeing your Brief.

captaintyinknots

posted on May, 12 2012 @ 05:31 PM
link

Originally posted by milominderbinder

Why cant you respond without personal attacks? You do it in nearly every post....

no one said anything about civil damages. If you have evidence that proves that RP is being defrauded, present it to a constitutional lawyer. It would be in your best interests, as it would support that which you assert-that RP is doing better than is being let on.

So what is the downside? Oh, right...it would be laughed out of court.

I dont need to compose one, as I am not the one claiming it is rampant. I cant compose a complaint about something that I am calling BS on. Logic....its your friend.

There are no personal attacks here. Have I called you any names or slandered your character at all? No. I have simply observed and pointed out that you are utterly ignorant and would do well to read a book of some sort....a fact which you continue re-proving again and again.

For example:

1. Finding a "constitutional lawyer" simply means that you will find a lawyer. All lawyers are constitutional lawyers given that it's the supreme law of the land, all attorneys are bound by it. This is probably the reason why law schools and bar exams are typically so concerned about the matter.

2. You certainly DO need to compose a Summons & Complaint for the legal action you are referencing, given that the legal mechanisms which you are referring to are solely your invention. Any attorney I found, "constitutional" or otherwise, (LOL) would likely not be privy to this entirely new form litigation which you willed into existence from the aether.

3. "No one said anything about civil damages"- Yes...you did...you are simply too uneducated to REALIZE that you did. What other remedy to allegations of election fraud are you aware of other than criminal charges and civil damages? Another one of your inventions? I've already stated numerous times that I am not a District Attorney or Federal Prosecutor. Perhaps I should have specified that I am not Attorney General of any of our 50 states either.

4. "..it would be laughed out of court"- At least we agree on something. I really can't imagine any other response when a guy files a civil suit for allegations of election fraud, in a non-affected district, for an election still in progress.

In fact...I can pretty easily imagine the judge would laugh me, toss the case out, and advise to me to read a book of some sort. Seriously...any kind of book at all.

Gotta love how you defend your personal attack with personal attacks. Very classy.

1)So you are saying that all lawyers are the same, and there are not specific ones that specialize in constitutional law?

2)No, I certainly dont, as I am the one claiming it is not rampant. Those claiming it is obvious (such as you are), have the burden of proving it. And if you "know" its true, there is no legitimate reason to NOT pursue it in the legal system, as it is YOUR candidate that you are claiming is suffering from it. The only reason you wouldnt, is because you like to use it as a crutch.

3)No, I did not, as much as you keep jumping to it. Its a little sad that you try to claim it is about civil, when no one, anywhere, has said that. Try reading it again.

4)Again, you talk of civil suit. Is this a form of deflection? Or do you really not know that citizens have the right to bring issues such as voter fraud to the courts...no, not for civil damages.

This is truly sad, but I do love that you start your post by defending your personal attacks with a personal attack, and close it out with an AD HOM. Perfect. Just perfect.

captaintyinknots

posted on May, 12 2012 @ 05:32 PM
link

Originally posted by milominderbinder

Originally posted by captaintyinknots

Originally posted by milominderbinder

Originally posted by captaintyinknots

Originally posted by MsAphrodite
reply to post by captaintyinknots
[more

We are doing something about it. Soon enough you will see. The courts are not needed for the R3volution. The people will prevail.

So then, why all the cries of voter fraud? If it doesnt matter, why does the RP crowd need to lean on it so heavily as a defense?

And if it is there, and you are about freedom and liberty, isnt it your DUTY to pursue it?

Ummmm...because it's not f&*&^ing possible to file a civil suit for damages not suffered and because it's not f&*&^ing possible to file criminal charges since I'm not a District Attorney nor a Federal prosecutor.

Seriously...where are you confused on this??

Youre missing the entire point, and proving yourself quite immature while doing so. It isnt about civil damages. Its about getting it recognized in court, so that it stops happening.

But thats too much logic, isnt it? Much easier to use it as a crutch when your candidate is behind...

Wow. The judicial branch stopping an election? That's even more highly unlawful than the Supreme Court stopping a recount.

Interesting angle though. I look forward to seeing your Brief.

Someone said anything about stopping an election? Where?

Do you honestly believe this garbage that you type, or do you just think that if you type nonsense and empty accusations someone reading it might believe you?

Southern Guardian

posted on May, 12 2012 @ 05:41 PM
link

Another reality check for Ron Paul supporters. Every Republican who has gained the nomination in the last 30 years has won his own home state in the primaries.

McCain, won Arizona by a landslide in 2008.
Bush in 2004, well ofcourse he won his own state.
Bush in 2000? Won his state of Texas by a landslide.
Bob Dole had no problem winning his very own homestate of Kansas in 1996.
George H Bush in 1992? haha he definately won his own state.
Reagan won his own state in both 84' and 80'.
Gerald Ford won his home state of Michigan in 76'

You know what? I can't be stuffed checking every year now.... all I know is that it's been a lonnng time since a Republican won the nomination without winning his home state. Atleast those who had not won their own states have made up for it by winning enough outside states.
edit on 12-5-2012 by Southern Guardian because: (no reason given)

CoolStoryMan

posted on May, 12 2012 @ 05:54 PM
link

Southern Guardian

posted on May, 12 2012 @ 06:00 PM
link

Originally posted by CoolStoryMan
not taking the bait though

I'm posting the facts, if you believe that posting something that is negative to Ron Paul's prospects as merely trolling then you need to learn to open your mind alittle.

And, since you believe I am trolling and telling everybody else not to take the 'bait', why did you bother to post on my thread then? You're only adding to it.

Swills

posted on May, 12 2012 @ 06:06 PM
link

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
Another reality check for Ron Paul supporters. Every Republican who has gained the nomination in the last 30 years has won his own home state in the primaries.

McCain, won Arizona by a landslide in 2008.
Bush in 2004, well ofcourse he won his own state.
Bush in 2000? Won his state of Texas by a landslide.
Bob Dole had no problem winning his very own homestate of Kansas in 1996.
George H Bush in 1992? haha he definately won his own state.
Reagan won his own state in both 84' and 80'.
Gerald Ford won his home state of Michigan in 76'

You know what? I can't be stuffed checking every year now.... all I know is that it's been a lonnng time since a Republican won the nomination without winning his home state. Atleast those who had not won their own states have made up for it by winning enough outside states.
edit on 12-5-2012 by Southern Guardian because: (no reason given)

So the Texas Primaries are over and Ron Paul came in dead last? Oh wait, you're basing all of this off of [5] polls from over a month ago, my mistake.

And Mitt did win his home state, barely, but a win is a win huh?
edit on 12-5-2012 by Swills because: (no reason given)

Plotus

posted on May, 12 2012 @ 06:31 PM
link

I think this is spin, Let's just wait and see how Ron Paul does.

six67seven

posted on May, 12 2012 @ 06:41 PM
link

I'm a RP supporter and a Texan. I will tell everyone something right now that is so much bigger than RP and he would say the same.

Things will never be the same going forward for our political system and let me tell you why: RP has gotten so many young people involved in the political system. These young people, so enthusiastic, so loving of their liberties, so understanding of the current corrupt, rotten system that RP is trying to change for the better for all Americans, that these young masses will be entering our political system as representatives. They will start changing the system themselves by not just getting involved, but by "infiltrating" our corrupt, rotten system. They will LEAD by example, they will shed light on the corrupt, they will be the ideas that will not die. There will be countless Ron Pauls in the system in the very near future. This is the rEVOLution!!!

AussieDingus

posted on May, 12 2012 @ 06:46 PM
link

Enough with all these constant pro or anti Paul threads. If you like his policies, then vote for him. If you don't like his policies, then don't vote for him.
By telling people to support, or not to support Paul, people are being no didfferent to a football fan trying to recruit others to their way of thinking, and following their team.
Every single one of these pro or anti Paul threads turns into a childish school yard argument, and goes back to square one.
And while people continue to vote for someone based on what political party they support, then those people are limiting themselves to 50% of the vote. by not aligning yourself with a party, you have 100% of the field to vote for, and then the policies, rather than the personality or party, will determine the winner. Which is is how its supposed to be in the first place !

hab22

posted on May, 12 2012 @ 06:53 PM
link

Im voting for Ron Paul no matter what. If I have to write his name in, so what. Obama and Romney are puppets to Goldmans Sachs.

milominderbinder

posted on May, 12 2012 @ 07:19 PM
link

1)So you are saying that all lawyers are the same, and there are not specific ones that specialize in constitutional law?

2)No, I certainly dont, as I am the one claiming it is not rampant. Those claiming it is obvious (such as you are), have the burden of proving it. And if you "know" its true, there is no legitimate reason to NOT pursue it in the legal system, as it is YOUR candidate that you are claiming is suffering from it. The only reason you wouldnt, is because you like to use it as a crutch.

3)No, I did not, as much as you keep jumping to it. Its a little sad that you try to claim it is about civil, when no one, anywhere, has said that. Try reading it again.

4)Again, you talk of civil suit. Is this a form of deflection? Or do you really not know that citizens have the right to bring issues such as voter fraud to the courts...no, not for civil damages.

This is truly sad, but I do love that you start your post by defending your personal attacks with a personal attack, and close it out with an AD HOM. Perfect. Just perfect.

1. An "attorney who specializes in law" is very different from whatever a "constitutional lawyer" might be. Forgive me for misunderstanding your bad grammar. Notwithstanding, such an attorney would no doubt not be interested in the case, given that the GOP's rather arcane nomination process is neither a Constitutional provision nor is it State or Federal statute of any kind, as it is merely a policy issue surrounding a self-regulating entity. However, upon successful legal action to establish that regulations were, in fact, unlawfully violated I suppose one might then have a case regarding the unlawful disenfranchisement of the vote if and only if my vote was one of those affected. Any freshman undergrad-level intro to law or political science textbook ought to flesh out the details on this. Please buy and read one.

2. There are plenty of legitimate reasons for me to NOT pursue it in a court of law....starting with the fact that I do not have the legal right to file suit in the matter thus making such an action impossible. Certainly I could go take it the evidence to a Federal Prosecutor or an Attorney who has successfully argued cases before The Supreme Court and make sure they had the evidence. However, I fail to see what value it would provide as it assumes that said attorney's are completely unaware of this already AND that it would in any way assist my candidate of choice in getting elected. Given that the judicial branch does not have the lawful power to stop an election, I would be quite surprised if we could have it all wrapped up before the GOP convention. Likewise, such an action would assume that I felt our legal system was sufficiently immune to corruption enough to allow for due process to occur, which happens to be an opinion which I do not hold.

3. You ARE saying it's a civil matter, by advocating that I ought to take legal action of some sort. The only avenue in the American legal system which would be open to me is civil court. A citizen cannot press criminal charges. The judicial branch cannot halt an election by injunction...and even if it could that in and of itself would be a civil matter. You tell me...what other avenues remain for a concerned US citizen "to take legal action"? There are no other classifications of legal actions in the American legal system. Do tell.

4. See above. Note: Although I haven't corrected you thus far, the allegations are that Ron Paul's campaign was subjected to ELECTION fraud...not VOTER fraud. This is a significant difference and since you seem interested in mincing words, I would ask that you apply the same standards to your vocabulary and argument that you expect of others.