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: 7
4
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 9 2012 @ 10:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by KonquestAbySS
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)


And so my post showing Ron Paul stating he does NOT have enough delegates and Romney has enough BOUND delegates is on topic. You keep trolling though, like I said, answer my post or just quit talking to me. You're a troll.




posted on Jun, 10 2012 @ 12:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04

And so my post showing Ron Paul stating he does NOT have enough delegates and Romney has enough BOUND delegates is on topic. You keep trolling though, like I said, answer my post or just quit talking to me. You're a troll.


It's ok he doesn't realize that he debunked himself.



posted on Jun, 10 2012 @ 02:01 AM
link   
reply to post by jjf3rd77
 


Dude you debunked yourself what are you talking about? Hahaha yeaaaaahhh I love how they try and come to save the day....You have your sidekick, I have none...



posted on Jun, 10 2012 @ 02:07 AM
link   
reply to post by OccamsRazor04
 


Your post says nothing, but that you are in favor of Romney regardless, just like the OP....You two are working in tandem...Keep going. It does take an army to take me down...



posted on Jun, 10 2012 @ 02:09 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jun, 10 2012 @ 08:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by KonquestAbySS
reply to post by OccamsRazor04
 


Your post says nothing, but that you are in favor of Romney regardless, just like the OP....You two are working in tandem...Keep going. It does take an army to take me down...


Where do I mention support for Romney? How about we stay on topic please.

This is what Ron Paul 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.
Ron Paul says Romney won the nomination and delegates are BOUND. So respond to what I actually have to say, this is about bound delegates and Ron Paul, stop trying to twist the topic and actually respond to my post or just quit posting. I don't need an army, I have the facts.

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, 10 2012 @ 09:26 PM
link   
reply to post by jjf3rd77
 


I love that you keep posting this complete non sense, even though the site you are trying to debunk has completely reasonable and accurate numbers. Romney is still winning in the numbers you are trying to debunk. For som reason you are incapable of understanding that Romney doesn't officially have all the delegates that you think he has.

The site you are trying to debunk keeps an accurate count in real time. It changes almost daily as delegates are decided.

Eventually the site might say that Romney has enough for the nomination, but not until enough state conventions have occurred for that to be possible.

Ron Paul will have around 200 bound delegates going to the convention and probably 500+ in Tampa.

You are wasting your time, but not only that you are wasting your time and still wrong.

Have fun supporting your worthless flip flopper.



posted on Jun, 10 2012 @ 10:51 PM
link   
reply to post by GogoVicMorrow
 


Yeah, and you can have fun supporting your worthless do nothing racist creationist! That never had a chance in hell to win anyway!

But sure, Ron Paul even said his delegates are bound and that they are bound to the convention! You Fail!

The numbers on real delegate count are not accurate!


edit on 10-6-2012 by jjf3rd77 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 11 2012 @ 12:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by jjf3rd77
 

Ron Paul will have around 200 bound delegates going to the convention and probably 500+ in Tampa.


This is all you needed to post to show you are clueless. The convention IS Tampa. He can not have 200 at the convention and 500 in Tampa. They are the same thing. Please do a modicum of research before posting.

Romney already has enough BOUND delegates to win. Ron Paul has already admitted this. Your source is wrong.



posted on Jun, 11 2012 @ 03:37 AM
link   
reply to post by OccamsRazor04
 




No, not clueless. Guilty of leaving out a word or two but not clueless. I am plenty aware that the convention and "Tampa" are one in the same. Your post is all anyone needs to see to know you are a complete tool that uses lame deflections and your vocabulary word of the day calender to avoid addressing the actual content of someones post.

Clarified for you especially:

Ron Paul will have around 200 bound going to the convention (Tampa) and around 500+ bound and unbound in Tampa (the convention).

Sorry, I forget how articulate I have to be when talking to you shill folk that use little hang ups to deflect from having to actually debate.

I really don't know what your point was in responding. Can you explain it to me now?
No.. because you had no reason except you thought you saw an error in understanding on my part, but in reality it was just an error in phrasing on my part and an error in comprehension on your part.

So what exactly were you guys talking about again because as it stands my last post was and is still correct and the numbers are from Ron Paul himself.


edit on 11-6-2012 by GogoVicMorrow because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 11 2012 @ 03:43 AM
link   
dbl
edit on 11-6-2012 by GogoVicMorrow because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 11 2012 @ 03:49 AM
link   
reply to post by GogoVicMorrow
 


You posted contradictory information. You're still wrong. Ron Paul estimates 200 delegates bound and unbound, and 300 more who support him but are bound to Romney. 200 delegates, 500 supporters. I think his # will be lower personally.



posted on Jun, 11 2012 @ 03:51 AM
link   
reply to post by OccamsRazor04
 


No.. I did no such thing.
How was in contradictory? I would love to know. I don't think you know what that word means.

He has around 200 bound, and 500 general delegates going to the convention.

Nothing contradictory there.

I am correct and you don't really have a leg to stand on, you responded to me out of lack of understanding and because you thought you saw a chance to insult. Now you continue to argue in an attempt to save face. You should just give up on this one.
edit on 11-6-2012 by GogoVicMorrow because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 11 2012 @ 04:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by OccamsRazor04
 


No.. I did no such thing.
How was in contradictory? I would love to know. I don't think you know what that word means.

He has around 200 bound, and 500 general delegates going to the convention.

Nothing contradictory there.

I am correct and you don't really have a leg to stand on, you responded to me out of lack of understanding and because you thought you saw a chance to insult. Now you continue to argue in an attempt to save face. You should just give up on this one.
edit on 11-6-2012 by GogoVicMorrow because: (no reason given)


One of us sure doesn't know the meaning of contradictory.

Ron Paul will have around 200 bound delegates going to the convention and probably 500+ in Tampa.

You posted two figures for the same event. Like saying I am making $200 tomorrow and $500 the day after today. They can not both be right.
dictionary.reference.com...
Welcome.
Now as I stated in my last response, correcting your contradictory statement still leaves you wrong. Ron Paul estimates 200 delegates both bound and unbound, not 500. He will have 500 supporters, 200 of them being his delegates. Show me a source where Ron Paul will have 200 bound delegartes and 500 delegates total. I can go all day.



posted on Jun, 11 2012 @ 08:20 AM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



posted on Jun, 11 2012 @ 03:59 PM
link   
reply to post by GogoVicMorrow
 


So you finally admit they are bound since Ron Paul said it.

Good.....Good....Join us!!!!
edit on 11-6-2012 by jjf3rd77 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 12 2012 @ 12:12 AM
link   
reply to post by OccamsRazor04
 


Yes something we agree we on the convention is in Tampa which isn't now, but later....The OP is stating that Romney won regardless if the convention hasn't happened or not....Hahahaha, damn maybe you should of read the OP's previous post and you would find this one to be absurd.....The convention will be the final say on what happens....



posted on Jun, 12 2012 @ 08:35 PM
link   
reply to post by OccamsRazor04
 


The person who doesn't understand the definition of contradictory is you.

The information I gave was not contradictory.

I said he had 200 bound delegates going to the convention and around 500+ general delegates going.

I don't see how you determine that is contradictory. The only explanation is that you don't understand the meaning of the word. The 200 number doesn't contradict the 500 number, but instead is included in it.

The 200 = bound, the 500 = overall bound/unbound/supporters of whomever else/etc. Nothing contradictory just you not understanding.

I hope now you can see how idiotic your analogy was.
Nothing I said was contradictory.
edit on 12-6-2012 by GogoVicMorrow because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 12 2012 @ 08:36 PM
link   
reply to post by jjf3rd77
 


I never said they weren't bound, ever.
You are confusing me with someone else.

I said that bound delegates can abstain from voting for the candidate they are bound.



posted on Jun, 12 2012 @ 09:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by jjf3rd77
 

I said that bound delegates can abstain from voting for the candidate they are bound.


The difference is that you believe that they can all abstain, which means they are not bound! You don't have to actually state that, "they are bound." Saying, "They can all abstain," is the same thing!

How can you be bound but abstain? Doesn't make sense!

Your theory fails once again.
edit on 12-6-2012 by jjf3rd77 because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
4
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join