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.

 

Debunking the Real Delegate Count Website:

page: 4
4
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 11:06 PM
link   
I actually have a question... Yeah there are a bunch of rules both federal and convention, but I have one that is serious and I want both parties, liberty supports and establishment favorers, to answer...

So we have this problem of bound and unbound delegates, but I have heard more than once from the msm (yeah probably not the best place for good info but...) the possibility of other people joining the delegate race; i.e. Michelle Bachman and jeb bush to name two... Well if they weren't even on the ballot I can only assume they would receive no "bound" delegates, does that mean they really have no chance to win? Why would it even be an option at that point to join? It doesn't make sense to me and honestly it makes me question the whole bound delegate system... I wonder if it is more like guidelines than enforceable law


reply to post by jjf3rd77

reply to post by freakjive

reply to post by MrSpad

reply to post by tothetenthpower
edit on 6-6-2012 by PhysicsAdept because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 11:15 PM
link   
No one knows exactly what is going to happen and I can't wait for it all to be over.
History will ALWAYS surprise people..
We'll see if this next election holds anything fun or not.

b



posted on Jun, 7 2012 @ 12:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by PhysicsAdept
I actually have a question... Yeah there are a bunch of rules both federal and convention, but I have one that is serious and I want both parties, liberty supports and establishment favorers, to answer...

So we have this problem of bound and unbound delegates, but I have heard more than once from the msm (yeah probably not the best place for good info but...) the possibility of other people joining the delegate race; i.e. Michelle Bachman and jeb bush to name two... Well if they weren't even on the ballot I can only assume they would receive no "bound" delegates, does that mean they really have no chance to win? Why would it even be an option at that point to join? It doesn't make sense to me and honestly it makes me question the whole bound delegate system... I wonder if it is more like guidelines than enforceable law


The answer to your question is quite simple. The favorable GOP nominee would still win after the first ballot, second ballot when some delegates are still bound to Romney. However, to start fresh you would need a clean slate on the third vote. Then, delegates are free to vote whoever they want. Establishment types which are mostly the delegates will be able to vote for whichever tea party candidate they want. You will get chris christie, marco rubio, jeb bush sarah palin etc. etc....

It will be a mess and will only hurt Ron Paul in the long run.

The point is now moot anyway. Ron Paul has stated that he believes in the GOP primary process. He knows that Romney has bound delegates as does he! It's over! Ron Paul made the announcement today. www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Jun, 7 2012 @ 12:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by OLD HIPPY DUDE
It's the same process except this time the people can particapate in the process.


Don't you mean 11% of the people who voted for Ron Paul? While the other 89% voted for a different candidate?

So what it's minority rule? Not very democratic if you ask me!
edit on 7-6-2012 by jjf3rd77 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 7 2012 @ 12:36 AM
link   
reply to post by schuyler
 





It's pointed out that Paul has received about 11% of the vote nationwide, when people were allowed to vote.


Is that all 11%?....Nationwide....Ehhhhhhhhh wrong.......You better re-due your math.....RP is still in this race baby......Till the convention.......That's all that matters.....Stop trying to deflect the point at hand....Stop making it obvious like the MSM.......We know the tactics....Your tactics are sorry....
edit on 7-6-2012 by KonquestAbySS because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 7 2012 @ 01:19 AM
link   
reply to post by Bspiracy
 





No one knows exactly what is going to happen and I can't wait for it all to be over. History will ALWAYS surprise people.. We'll see if this next election holds anything fun or not.


You're right but it should not be dictated as a clinch till the convention...Calling it a "clinch" is absurd...Especially like the OP has been claiming weeks ago....Making it more obvious



posted on Jun, 7 2012 @ 02:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by freakjive

Originally posted by jjf3rd77

Originally posted by freakjive

You're failing to see the point. You claimed that Romney grabbing Texas sealed the deal on the nomination. The truth and FACT of the matter is it DID NOT.


He does have enough binding delegates so the ones that are unpledeged do not matter. State Rules matter more than the national rule which now has been amended. There are not enough unpledged delegates left to beat Mitt Romney!
edit on 6-6-2012 by jjf3rd77 because: (no reason given)


Such weak and feeble attempts.

Check out This Thread



How about you debunk Ron Paul. This is what he has to say.

What's more, we will send several hundred additional supporters to Tampa who, while bound to Romney, believe in our ideas of liberty, constitutional government, and a common-sense foreign policy.

He admits the delegates are BOUND to Romney. Strike 1.

Due to the smart planning of our campaign and the hard work and diligence of supporters like you, we stand to send nearly 200 bound delegates to the Republican National Convention in Tampa.

Strike 2.

And while this total is not enough to win the nomination, it puts us in a tremendous position to grow our movement and shape the future of the GOP!

Strike 3.
Now debunk Ron Paul.
www.politico.com...
edit on 7-6-2012 by OccamsRazor04 because: (no reason given)

edit on 7-6-2012 by OccamsRazor04 because: (no reason given)

edit on 7-6-2012 by OccamsRazor04 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 7 2012 @ 03:06 AM
link   
reply to post by OccamsRazor04
 


How about you try debunking Ron Paul since 1976? Can you?...No, I didn't think so...Move on...Just baiting the pro Paul group eh?....Just more trolls...



posted on Jun, 7 2012 @ 06:06 AM
link   
reply to post by KonquestAbySS
 


Translation, you can't dismiss what I said so you obfuscate. Good try troll. Move along until you can respond to my post.



posted on Jun, 7 2012 @ 07:24 AM
link   
This thread was debunked inside itself


Can we just go ahead and move it to the Hoax bin now?



posted on Jun, 7 2012 @ 09:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by KonquestAbySS
reply to post by OccamsRazor04
 


How about you try debunking Ron Paul since 1976? Can you?...No, I didn't think so...Move on...Just baiting the pro Paul group eh?....Just more trolls...


Sure we can debunk Ron Paul for what he has said, because saying things and actually implementing your ideas into government and seeing your plans in action are totally different. You guys are like the communists! "it will be utopia!" But it only works in theory...

If Ron Paul became President he will not get anything done, because only 15% of the US population, that includes 4% who didn't vote in the primaries, agrees with what he says!
edit on 7-6-2012 by jjf3rd77 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 7 2012 @ 09:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Thunderheart
This thread was debunked inside itself



We have proven to you what rule 38 means. That your conspiracy theory holds no water based on rule 38, and that the math just doesn't add up on the real delegate count map!

So, yes, the map has been debunked along with all your theories! Big of you to admit it!

edit on 7-6-2012 by jjf3rd77 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 7 2012 @ 09:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by KonquestAbySS
reply to post by schuyler
 


Is that all 11%?....Nationwide....Ehhhhhhhhh wrong.......


Show me where that factor is wrong. The real delegate count map does not even use the popular vote in their math so you can't point me to their link. They just assign random delegates to Paul, unaware of how the process works...

If rule 38 mattered why isn't ron paul talking about it? Why isn't Obama, for that matter talking about it? Nothing else in his campaign is working, so that would only help him!

So you think, a bunch of ron paul fanatics who were conspiracy theorists from the beginning figured out this rule before the smartest and most cunning politicians on the planet did?

Romney played a crazy primary game and beat out all the tea party types
Obama may or may not be born in this country and if that is proven he would have run the greatest con this country has ever seen!

Ron Paul--- His morals would not allow him to do those things or create some giant conspiracy about stealth delegates. His stealth delegates are bound to Romney anyway. He actually said this!
edit on 7-6-2012 by jjf3rd77 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 7 2012 @ 09:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by jjf3rd77

Originally posted by KonquestAbySS
reply to post by schuyler
 


Is that all 11%?....Nationwide....Ehhhhhhhhh wrong.......


Show me where that factor is wrong.


Scroll to the right for Paul...



RealClearPolitics.com Source
edit on 6/7/2012 by freakjive because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 7 2012 @ 11:27 AM
link   
reply to post by freakjive
 



Yeah that was from two months ago! Got a more updated version of his numbers? I think even RealClearpolitics has stopped calculating Paul's chances cause he has none!



posted on Jun, 7 2012 @ 12:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrWendal


The Popular vote has never mattered. Al Gore WON the popular vote, did he become President? No he did not. I have no idea why you continue to ignore FACTS and the thing is none of this is anything new. Let us look at the vote totals from the 2000 election. Al Gore vs George W Bush.

Al Gore (D)
Popular vote total: 50,999,897
percent of popular vote: 48.38

George W Bush (R)
Popular Vote total: 50,456,002
percent of popular vote: 47.87

Source


If you want to actually "debunk" these things, you are facing an uphill battle. If you think the popular vote matters, then let me see you "debunk" how Al Gore won the popular vote and still not become President. Let me see you "debunk" the Utah Delegate who successfully cast his vote for Mitt Romney even though John McCain won the State and he was "bound" to vote for McCain. There is nothing to debunk, these things happened. It would be like trying to "debunk" the fact that water is wet.


That's an easy one! Each state has a certain amount of electorate votes. Whoever wins the state gets 100% of that states electorate votes. Some states have many electorates, and others have significantly less, based on size and population. Therefore, although unusual, it is possible for one to get the total popular vote (as Gore did) and not get more electoral votes than the other person (Bush). If you are winning states with a small number of electoral votes and not winning the larger states, you will not win enough electoral votes to become President.

So, the popular vote does matter. Each state's electoral votes are based on that state's popular vote. For example, if Obama wins in Rhode Island and gets 100% of the popular vote (just for an extreme example) he gets all of Rhode Island's electoral votes. Well, that isn't very many, but in a close race, getting 100% of the popular vote in one state could be enough to get you the highest popular vote overall. Now Romney takes Texas, which has considerably more electoral votes than Rhode Island. Romney has a significant lead in electoral votes than Obama at that point, regardless of the popular vote, although both states electoral votes were 100 percent based on the popular vote.

That is why Bush won over Gore, even though Gore won the popular vote. Bush carried more of the bigger states. Now, where you are free to complain is that even if every voter turned out in Rhode Island and all of them voted for Obama, there is still only the assigned number of electoral votes available to Obama. Likewise, if only five voters show up to vote in Texas, and three of them vote for Romney, Romney gets the substantially higher number of electoral votes allotted to Texas, even though nobody showed up.



posted on Jun, 7 2012 @ 12:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by schuyler
Amazing. It's pointed out that Paul has received about 11% of the vote nationwide, when people were allowed to vote. The reply to this is that the popular vote doesn't count, as is proven by the fact that the Electoral College system can result in a candidate winning the electoral vote without winning the popular vote, though the spread between the popular vote in every election where this has happened has been relatively small. See the link I provided above if you care to research when this has happened and by how much.

So you appear to be saying that if Paul received 11% of the popular vote, but finangled his way to the presidency regardless, that would be okay with you. In other words, if Paul doesn't have the will of the people behind him, that's just tough. The people do not count. Paul winning does.

I've always maintained people with a cause are dangerous. And you just proved it. You would go for a dictatorship if it meant Paul was president. Thank God you won't get your way.



However, if Romney (or any other candidate) did the exact same thing, these same Ron Paul supporters would be screaming for justice and demanding criminal charges for all involved!



posted on Jun, 7 2012 @ 12:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by jjf3rd77
reply to post by freakjive
 



Yeah that was from two months ago! Got a more updated version of his numbers? I think even RealClearpolitics has stopped calculating Paul's chances cause he has none!


Just keep moving the goal posts, don't you?
The numbers aren't going to change by any significant amount even if there was updated figures on the site.

Bait, switch, troll. At least you get those things right.



posted on Jun, 7 2012 @ 12:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by freakjive

Just keep moving the goal posts, don't you?
The numbers aren't going to change by any significant amount even if there was updated figures on the site.


You're the one avoiding all my questions and posting two month old polls that still has Ron Paul in last place with only 15% of the people caring about him!

Look at how the polls are changing today. Romney is either tied with Obama or has a slight lead against Obama whereas two weeks ago, Romney was down by 5. Polls don't change much lolz. And your'e calling me blind! www.realclearpolitics.com...

So, Ron Paul has 15% of the vote two months ago. That means he still is losing! I sure would like to know what those numbers are today!



edit on 7-6-2012 by jjf3rd77 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 7 2012 @ 12:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by usernameconspiracy

So, the popular vote does matter.


Forget it, there is no point arguing with people who believe in these conspiracy theories. We believe in totally different things and they think that Ron Paul is winning and will do all types of crazy theories to try to get your brain turned to mush with all their gobbly gook mucking up a system that they should have learned in grade school!




top topics



 
4
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join