It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Romney to reach 1,144 Delegates in Texas:

page: 10
6
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 27 2012 @ 11:23 PM
link   
So this map by the NY time shows that Romney is leading the race with 1084 delegates so far. Now people here are saying that the delegates are not bound and they can vote for who they want, but wouldn't that be betrayal? I mean obviously people are voting in favor of Romney and the people EXPECT the delegates to vote for Romney. Wouldn't that technically be betrayal by the delegates?

elections.nytimes.com...
edit on 5/27/2012 by muse7 because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 27 2012 @ 11:28 PM
link   
reply to post by muse7
 


It's going to be very hard to continue admonishing the delegates that back out on voting Romney when they decide to drop all of the fraud and collusion perpetrated by the GOP back in the GOP's laps.

I would say that might be part of the plan. They could technically abstain from the first vote so Romney doesn't get enough delegates, and then vote Paul in the second round. When people complain they can say that the whole primary cycle was a farce because of the countless instances of fraud which will be documented (regardless of how they have been avoided by the MSM there have been several arrests and will be trials and etc).

It also wouldn't be betrayal because bound delegates are only bound to vote for the candidate they are bound to in the first round. Meaning they can't vote for anyone else, however they can still abstain from voting for the candidate they are bound to because abstaining isn't voting for another candidate.

Honestly.. it's kinda awesome to see people come together to keep this rich guy, who buys anything he wants including a nomination to be president, from becoming president without a fight. It's made even better by the fact that they are doing it to support one of the first real candidates in decades.
edit on 27-5-2012 by GogoVicMorrow because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 11:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by jjf3rd77
 


You haven't verified any information either. The percentage by which Romney won the primary has little to do with who the delegates support and it also doesn't debunk the map in any way shape or form.

I used the same exact source that you have been using, green papers.

You are done talking to me because you have run out of ways to weasel out of admitting your wrong.
It's ok though, talking to you for any amount of time is a shameful way to spend ones life.. even if for just a few minutes. Try and have a good life, I hope you aren't as miserable a person to your loved ones as you are here.
edit on 27-5-2012 by GogoVicMorrow because: (no reason given)


I don't know why you keep saying that I have not proven anything, you probably just ignore everything I say or any link I point to expect to twist things to work in your favor. Let me repeat what the Wash Post and the GOP delegate Rule book states: "Under state rules, if a candidate wins more than 50 percent of the vote, which Romney did, then the delegates are parceled out in a winner-take-all format — both by congressional district and statewide. That means that Romney claims the three delegates for each of the 11 districts in the state as well as the 13 delegates for winning the statewide vote with more than 50 percent."


So you see winning 50% of the vote has everything to do with it!

Still waiting on that Virginia link and any other link which matches the magic map!

But thank you for the insults I really appreciate them! Insults usually occur when people run out of facts! I still have plenty of questions, but apparently even you have reverted to insults We have only touched Virginia.

Like this question, can you prove any information on that map? Can you point to me where they get their information? Just a link to where they get their numbers, that's all I am asking.
edit on 27-5-2012 by jjf3rd77 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 28 2012 @ 12:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by jjf3rd77
 

You haven't verified any information either.


Typical twisting tactic. I am the one asking the questions here. Besides, if the information cannot be verified by me or you than why are you using such questionable information?



I used the same exact source that you have been using, green papers.


If you do use the greenpapers then why do they have different numbers than the Paul map? What motive would they have to lie?



posted on May, 28 2012 @ 12:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by muse7
So this map by the NY time shows that Romney is leading the race with 1084 delegates so far. Now people here are saying that the delegates are not bound and they can vote for who they want, but wouldn't that be betrayal? I mean obviously people are voting in favor of Romney and the people EXPECT the delegates to vote for Romney. Wouldn't that technically be betrayal by the delegates?

elections.nytimes.com...
edit on 5/27/2012 by muse7 because: (no reason given)


Yes and it's illegal in all the states Romney won above the 50% mark that have bound delegates.



posted on May, 28 2012 @ 02:39 AM
link   
reply to post by jjf3rd77
 


And let me explain something to you that you seem incapable of understanding.

After that has happened, when those delegates go to the national convention, they cast votes for their choice of nominee. Since Paul has supporters in 17 of those slots they will abstain from the first vote (the one where they are bound to Romney) and then they are free to vote their will after the first round.

I don't know if you are getting it. The bound delegates are only bound to vote for the candidate they are bound to in the first round of voting for the nominee, but there are several rounds and if Romney doesn't get enough votes in the first round they continue on. So all of the Romney delegates bound or unbound that are actually Paul supporters will abstain from the first round (meaning not vote for anyone, so they aren't violating any rule) and then start voting in the second round. Obviously you aren't understanding what I am saying to you.



posted on May, 28 2012 @ 02:40 AM
link   
reply to post by jjf3rd77
 


No. National delegates are not bound by state rules.

State rules may say they are bound, but the rules of the national convention, I believe allows them to vote however the delegate wants. Can you find something that disproves that? I will try to find something that proves it. I am willing to work with you, however, I would gather from your personality that if you found something that proves you wrong you would bury it rather than shed light on it.
edit on 28-5-2012 by GogoVicMorrow because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 28 2012 @ 09:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by jjf3rd77
 


And let me explain something to you that you seem incapable of understanding.

After that has happened, when those delegates go to the national convention, they cast votes for their choice of nominee. Since Paul has supporters in 17 of those slots they will abstain from the first vote (the one where they are bound to Romney) and then they are free to vote their will after the first round.

I don't know if you are getting it. The bound delegates are only bound to vote for the candidate they are bound to in the first round of voting for the nominee, but there are several rounds and if Romney doesn't get enough votes in the first round they continue on. So all of the Romney delegates bound or unbound that are actually Paul supporters will abstain from the first round (meaning not vote for anyone, so they aren't violating any rule) and then start voting in the second round. Obviously you aren't understanding what I am saying to you.


1. There has never been a second voting round in the history of the country! Ron Paul has a greater chance of endorsing Romney himself than winning that way!

2. Some states still keep their bound delegates during the second round. If there ever was one. So, those bound to Romney will still stay with him! For your scenario to even work, and all delegates become unbound, then we would have to start at the third round of voting which has never happened in the history of this country!!!!!!


Do you see how much of an impossibility this is?



posted on May, 28 2012 @ 09:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by jjf3rd77
 


No. National delegates are not bound by state rules.

State rules may say they are bound, but the rules of the national convention, I believe allows them to vote however the delegate wants. Can you find something that disproves that?


It doesn't matter because of the sheer impossibility of going to either the second or third round of voting is 100% utterly impossible. You have a greater chance of getting struck by lightning. And even if we get to the third round of voting there's no rule saying they have to vote for Ron Paul. Other candidates like Trump, Palin, or even Rubio will get on the ballot creating more of a mess for Ron Paul and Romney. And since the third round of voting frees all the delegates. They are free to pick whom they want out of every conservative tea party person out there. Ron Paul is the guy they most align with now since he's running. But if they have their pick. They will probably go a different direction. Someone closer to their own individual districts and states. Not every Paul supporter has unwavering support of the guy like you do. I am sure you like other members of the government too! So would you still vote for Paul, even if now you had the chance to get your favorite name on the ticket and maybe sway others around you to vote for them? I know I wouldn't be voting for Romney! I'd probably choose Paul Ryan or Somebody like that.

Why do you want this so bad? Do you see how crazy it will be? The whole scenario will be chaotic and will only Hurt Ron Paul and Romney, the RNC's reputation, the reputation of ron paul delegates, and will deny the republican party a win. This scenario will guarantee Obama the win and will cast a huge shadow over the republican party much more so than the republicans already have!

Remember in the 1924 Democratic Convention, the only thing somewhat close to what you are describing, they picked John Davis to run against Calvin Coolidge by the 103 ballot on the first round of voting. They lost and their reputation was ruined for years!


Ron Paul had a good run, and I enjoyed watching the primaries. But it's over for him. your sneaky infiltration technique is only being hyped up on here and ronpaul forums or the dailypaul. No one else cares about the few little delegates that might want to cause trouble at the convention. They can be bribed to vote for Romney you know. That's politics!
edit on 28-5-2012 by jjf3rd77 because: (no reason given)

edit on 28-5-2012 by jjf3rd77 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 28 2012 @ 10:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by jjf3rd77
1. There has never been a second voting round in the history of the country!



Not true. In 1924 the Democrats had 103 rounds. There are other instances as well as recently as 1948 if not later.


edit on 28-5-2012 by DelMarvel because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 28 2012 @ 10:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
They could technically abstain from the first vote so Romney doesn't get enough delegates, and then vote Paul in the second round. When people complain they can say that the whole primary cycle was a farce because of the countless instances of fraud which will be documented (regardless of how they have been avoided by the MSM there have been several arrests and will be trials and etc).)


There is no way that there was enough voting fraud over multiple primaries to get from Paul's 10 or 15 percent to a winning percentage.



posted on May, 28 2012 @ 10:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by jjf3rd77

Originally posted by macaronicaesar

He is doing a delegate battle, yes, but he is following their rules and beating them at it. He can't win, Paul I mean, I agree with you about this, but where we differ is, I think it's tragic, you think it's great.


Ron Paul may be following the rules but his followers are not. They booed Romney's son off a stage and got into fist fights with Romney supporters (At the same rally I think!) Romney's son, was invited to speak on behalf of the Paul campaign, and the idiots booed him off stage! That's not civil or following any known rules that I know of.

Let's put it bluntly: Both Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich tried your strategy. They both said, we are staying in until Romney gets the 1,144 delegates. They both ran out of money and steam before that happened. Ron Paul already ran out of money and is not actively campaigning, anymore.

Another question for the Ron Paul people: If you think the RNC is so corrupt do you honestly expect them to give you the nomination? NO!


I don't have time to argue with someone who is intellectually dishonest like you. Romney's son was trying to have an unsupported slate rammed through and was booed off the stage by both Paul and Romney supporters, albeit, most likely mostly Paul backers, but since when is booing someone who is doing something he shouldn't be doing against the rules? It isn't.

Fist fights huh? You mean the Romney supporter who punched the Paul supporter for raising a point of order? No, I don't expect the GOP to nominate Paul, some Paul supporters are hopeful, it keeps them moving forward and supporting the cause. Nothing wrong with that. I fully expected the cheating and grandstanding that took place from the very beginning, I just hoped more sheeple like yourself wouldn't accept it. Oh well, the movement continues and the people are becoming aware, that's great and will continue, change doesn't happen over night.

From this point forward though, I will add you to my ignore list. There is nothing worse then discussing with a full blown liar. When you say things like Paul broke rules when booing Romneys son for trying to sneak through his own slate, lmao. Or that Paul supporters engaged in fist fights, haha.

I encourage a little bit of fist fighting if they insist on committing fraud.
edit on 28-5-2012 by macaronicaesar because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 28 2012 @ 11:05 AM
link   
So, when do delegates become "bound" and "legal" and actually counted?.. Not until Tampa, or?..



posted on May, 28 2012 @ 11:06 AM
link   

edit on 28-5-2012 by jjf3rd77 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 28 2012 @ 11:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by CALGARIAN
So, when do delegates become "bound" and "legal" and actually counted?.. Not until Tampa, or?..


It depends on the state. But the National convention says no delegates are bound by the convention itself. States laws are different. They probably just made the rule so they can be true to their morals and beliefs. Leave it up to the states right?

As far as I am aware. Each delegate pledges his support to a candidate during the state primaries or state conventions. Then, once the convention happens, they vote once more finalizing their support to the candidate of their choice. So it's kinda like a promise, and then following through on that promise. If there really are Ron Paul supporters pledging support for Romney at the primaries an then abstaining their votes depending on when the state allows them to do that, then they are being dishonest conspirators. But i guess that's expected of Ron Paul guys.
edit on 28-5-2012 by jjf3rd77 because: (no reason given)

edit on 28-5-2012 by jjf3rd77 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 28 2012 @ 11:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by macaronicaesar

I don't have time to argue with someone who is intellectually dishonest like you. Romney's son was trying to have an unsupported slate rammed through and was booed off the stage by both Paul and Romney supporters, albeit, most likely mostly Paul backers, but since when is booing someone who is doing something he shouldn't be doing against the rules? It isn't.


Well. for someone who doesn't have the time to argue with me, you sure did leave a long response.Anyway, how do you think Romney's son got invited to Paul's rally? Do you honestly think he can just walk in there without Paul's support??? Give me a break!



posted on May, 28 2012 @ 11:21 AM
link   
This whole stupid strategy doesn't make sense and will probably just back the ron paul idiots into a corner anyway and force them to vote Romney like they pledged to in the primaries!

If your theory is correct and there really are stealth delegates that are going to make the switch, let me ask you this. Why not just pledge to vote for Paul in the first place? The problem with conspiracy theories is that the most simplest things are sometimes overlooked! There are no paul supporters in place of romney supporters that are secretly supporting paul because most paul supporters would just come out straight and say I am pledging my support for paul. Give me a link that shows there are paul supporters in romeny delegate spots and I'll give you a star...



posted on May, 28 2012 @ 01:33 PM
link   
reply to post by jjf3rd77
 


Good thing they aren't bound to vote for a candidate under the national rules then.



posted on May, 28 2012 @ 01:42 PM
link   
reply to post by DelMarvel
 


Wouldn't matter. In for a penny in for a pound. What is the GOP gonna say? "We just defrauded the vote in some states?" Why would they do that? Can you say that maybe those few key defeats the GOP had the fix in would not have been the victories Paul needed to sway voters his way? Those limited instances very well could have stolen his thunder. People sure didn't seem picky that election. Any republican that wasn't romney they supported.

So I think they would have a pretty good case.



posted on May, 28 2012 @ 01:53 PM
link   
reply to post by jjf3rd77
 



Do you think Ron Paul voters will vote for Romney, if he wins the GOP?



new topics

top topics


active topics

 
6
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join