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: 5
4
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 7 2012 @ 01:33 PM
link   
reply to post by OccamsRazor04
 





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


Translation, first off this thread isn't about debunking RP personally anyways like you mentioned. It is about debunking the "real" delegate count website/s. Sorry I debunk trolls.

Welcome to the realm of conspiracy theories where things do indeed get debunked.
edit on 7-6-2012 by KonquestAbySS because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 7 2012 @ 02:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by KonquestAbySS
reply to post by OccamsRazor04
 


Welcome to the realm of conspiracy theories where things do indeed get debunked.
edit on 7-6-2012 by KonquestAbySS because: (no reason given)


So do you admit the map is wrong?



posted on Jun, 7 2012 @ 03:34 PM
link   
reply to post by jjf3rd77
 


Oh, yes the map on your avatar is wrong, you are not a centeralist.
And you signature is wrong also, you do not search for the middle ground.
It's not for me to say what you are, but you are not what you proclaim to be.
But I think the posts that respond to you are quite clear on who and what you really are .



posted on Jun, 7 2012 @ 03:49 PM
link   
reply to post by jjf3rd77
 





So do you admit the map is wrong?


No that is the proper sector for a centralist, but you are not a centralist. I think you are more toward the bottom of that diagram.



posted on Jun, 7 2012 @ 03:49 PM
link   
reply to post by OLD HIPPY DUDE
 



Mr. Hippy let me ask you a very simple question. Why is Obama not using rule 38 to his advantage? Why isn't Romney? Are you calling them stupid???

Why did Ron Paul himself, just admit that he did not have enough delegates to ever get the nomination?

Oh sorry that was like four questions! Until you can answer those, please do not come back to this thread to insult me some more!

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



posted on Jun, 7 2012 @ 03:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by KonquestAbySS
reply to post by jjf3rd77
 


No that is the proper sector for a centralist, but you are not a centralist. I think you are more toward the bottom of that diagram.


I give you the same question I gave Mr. Hippy. Stop derailing this thread and making it personal. It shouldn't be personal! This is not about my beliefs! This is about facts and reason not conspiracy theories!
edit on 7-6-2012 by jjf3rd77 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 7 2012 @ 04:28 PM
link   
reply to post by jjf3rd77
 





Mr. Hippy let me ask you a very simple question. Why is Obama not using rule 38 to his advantage? Why isn't Romney? Are you calling them stupid???



Because rule 38 is the GOP national convention rules, not sure what the democratic convention rules are.
Because it involves delegates not candidates.
No.
Let me quote rule 38 from the GOP national convention rule.

No delegate or delegate alternete shall be bound by any attempt by any state or congressional district to impose the unit rule.

That is the whole rule.




Why did Ron Paul himself, just admit that he did not have enough delegates to ever get the nomination?


Because he is an honest man ?
Is he admitting defeat ? No.
Has he conceded to Romney ? No.
Has he thrown his support behind Romney ? No.
Is it over ? No.




I give you the same question I gave Mr. Hippy. Stop derailing this thread and making it personal. It shouldn't be personal! This is not about my beliefs! This is about facts and reason not conspiracy theories!



Oh, but it is about you personal beliefs. You believe the race is over. Others don't.
And your right this should not personal, but you like to rub your false facts in peoples faces and gloat.
You bait people and antagonize people, you do not post to discuss or debate.



posted on Jun, 7 2012 @ 11:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by jjf3rd77

Originally posted by freakjive


Such weak and feeble attempts.


So all you have to back up is the poor sorry videos that I have already debunked. Ok. Since you are not pointing out anything wrong in my thread.

Do you know that each state has laws based on who gets allocated delegates and who gets binding delegates based on the popular vote? These laws are clearly stated and pointed out in my thread. You can do a google search for them. For instance in texas it states that delegates are bound to the popular vote winner who gets more than 20% of the state vote. In this case Mitt Romney. They are bound to Mitt Romney unless the candidate dies or drops out!
edit on 6-6-2012 by jjf3rd77 because: (no reason given)


FEDERAL LAW TRUMPS THESE STATE LAWS YOU SPEAK OF. DELEGATES CAN VOTE HOWEVER THEY WANT. It is that simple. End of discussion.



posted on Jun, 8 2012 @ 12:06 AM
link   
RP is going all the way to the republican convention as a republican. Third party candidates never win nominations. This is because they go “start to finish” as a third party candidate. If he goes all the way to the convention and loses to Romney as a republican candidate, he will than sign on as a third party candidate. RP and all his supporters are not going to roll over and vote for Romney if he wins. Not only will the Republican Party lose a boat load of their base to RP, but RP will also gain the independent voters and most of the Obama voters who will not vote for a republican, but would be will willing to vote for someone else. Most of my liberal friends have told me that they would vote for RP, just as long as he doesn’t stay on as a republican.

I will vote for RP either way, but don’t you see the logic in RP switching over to a third party candidate?

1.RP would take away all the loyal voters who will not roll over for Romney.
2.He would take most of the independent voters.
3.He would gain all the democrats who will not vote for a republican.

If RP becomes a third party candidate, he WILL become the POTUS!

Edit: Don't fret my friends, RP will go third party, and once he does, Romney-Noodle and Obama-jad will be wetting themselves



posted on Jun, 8 2012 @ 08:50 AM
link   
reply to post by CJCSuperman
 


I actually discussed this in this very thread. The only place where a national convention is defined as an election is in a law that's about campaign contributions. It has no effect on the law against threats, intimidation, or coercion. Federal law does not unbind delegates.



posted on Jun, 8 2012 @ 10:27 AM
link   
reply to post by Xcalibur254
 


Many of these discussions on the topics of the GOP, delegates, laws and rules is very misleading and leads to apples and oranges. The GOP is a private organization which makes it's own rules.And by what we have seen in the past that appears to be legal and binding. Examples ie: The Boy Scouts of America Vs. Gays and The PGA VS. woman. Even though these organizations discriminate, they are private organizations and CAN make their own rules.So federal law CAN NOT VOID a legal organizations own rules.

Again the GOPs own rules, accepted by the national committee in 2008, are legal and binding.

GOP national convention rule 38

No delegate or delegate alternete shall be bound by any attempt by any state or congressional district to impose the unit rule.


And so we all stay on the same page.

GOP rule 42

Temporary Rules
Rules 25 through 42 shall be the temporary rules of the next national convention and its committees and subcommittees.

These rules were created and accepted by the national committee in 2008, and the next convention is Aug. 2012.
edit on 8-6-2012 by OLD HIPPY DUDE because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 8 2012 @ 10:47 AM
link   
reply to post by OLD HIPPY DUDE
 


Why do you keep bringing up Rule 38? It is inconsequential to what is being discussed. You seem to keep ignoring the part where it says it's to prevent states from imposing the unit rule. The fact that every state has unbound delegates means that no state is trying to impose the unit rule. Thus Rule 38 has no bearing on anything.



posted on Jun, 8 2012 @ 11:00 AM
link   
reply to post by Xcalibur254
 


Nice bait and switch.
The discussion is about delegates, federal law and GOPrules, ie: apples and oranges.
Pick one and stick to the subject. And stop playing games.
The OP clearly states delegates and rule 38 is about delegates.



posted on Jun, 8 2012 @ 11:20 AM
link   
reply to post by OLD HIPPY DUDE
 


What bait and switch? I responded to your false claims regarding Rule 38. What Rule 8 prevents is not the binding of delegates but the use of the unit rule. The unit rule occurs when all delegates are forced to vote for the delegate that has the most delegates in his favor. In other words the delegates vote as a unit. The fact that every state has unbound delegates makes it impossible for any state to use the unit rule. As a result Rule 38 has no impact.



posted on Jun, 8 2012 @ 11:44 AM
link   
reply to post by Xcalibur254
 


It all comes down to interpitation. The rule is written simple and clear.

No delegate or delegate alternete shall be bound by any attempt by any state or congressional district to impose the unit rule.

No delegate or delegate alternete shall be bound ( what don't you understand)

by any attempt by any state or congressional district (what don't you understand)

to impose the unit rule.( I think you understand this, but this is not the whole meat of the rule)


It's the whole rule !
No one is bound, regardless, period.



posted on Jun, 8 2012 @ 12:05 PM
link   
reply to post by OLD HIPPY DUDE
 


Yes. You have to look at the whole rule. Since no state is attempting to impose the unit rule then the rule doesn't affect anything. Let's look at it as a simple if-then statement.

If any state or congressional district attempts to impose the unit rule then no delegate or delegate alternative shall be bound.

Since the premise (the if part) is false the conclusion (the then part) is also false. This rule has no bearing on anything.



posted on Jun, 8 2012 @ 01:31 PM
link   
if anybody still has any hope of the stealth delegate theory coming true. Feast your eyes on this post!

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Greenpapers debunks. It's over ppl!
edit on 8-6-2012 by jjf3rd77 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 8 2012 @ 01:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcalibur254
 


Sorry, I posted the whole rule, the word "if" is not in the rule.
The word "if " , is implyed by you, in your interpetation, not in the rule.



posted on Jun, 8 2012 @ 02:00 PM
link   
reply to post by jjf3rd77
 


It still proves nothing.
Most people don't trust or believe the MSM.
Any premature jubilation for either side before the real delegate count at the CONVENTION is joke.



posted on Jun, 8 2012 @ 02:01 PM
link   
but its simple grammar that you paultards have no reason twisting for your own political purposes even when not true!

this happens to every paul thread. It gets dragged into word twisting...

The funny thing is. Rule 38 was never mentioned in my OP. I never touched it. The math doesn't add up. sorry.
edit on 8-6-2012 by jjf3rd77 because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join