# Start Here > Ron Paul Forum >  1500 People who showed up to caucus TURNED AWAY

## kathy88

http://blogs.mcclatchydc.com/washing...sh-caucus.html




> Benegas said it quickly became apparent there weren't enough volunteers to check everyone in — which in most cases involved looking up their voter registration on a list provided by the county auditor and helping them find their precinct number, and that the rooms they booked were filled to capacity.
> 
> And the party was under pressure to finish by 11:30 so that results could be tabulated and turned over to the state party.
> 
> "We did pull the leadership aside and said, 'What are we going to do?'" Benegas said.
> 
> The only choice apparent was to close the doors and turn an estimated 1,500 people away, he said.
> 
> "I am extremely sorry we could not accommodate everyone," he said. "I apologize to those folks who we had to turn away. We fit in as many as we could, but we had more than we could physically fit in the rooms."
> ...





This is so $#@!ed up on so many levels.

----------


## DrHendricks

This is a joke right?

----------


## kathy88

Someone in communication with Doug needs to GET THIS INFO to the campaign NOW.

----------


## kathy88

> This is a joke right?


Doesn't appear to be. The GOP is the most unorganized, crooked, sorry bunch of $#@!s God ever grouped together.

----------


## SCOTUSman

You cannot have people put in danger. There is a legal liability issue. If you fill in way too much, what else can you do? 

They should have planned ahead and had multiple caucus times for areas like that, but once they didn't plan ahead, there is nothing they can do. I would have done the same, as I would want zero legal liability by having that many people in one place at once.

----------


## kathy88

> You cannot have people put in danger. There is a legal liability issue. If you fill in way too much, what else can you do? 
> 
> They should have planned ahead and had multiple caucus times for areas like that, but once they didn't plan ahead, there is nothing they can do. I would have done the same, as I would want zero legal liability by having that many people in one place at once.


Bull$#@!. They cited pressure from the State Party to get votes in.  The State Party can wait. They could have done two caucuses back to back. People would have waited.

----------


## kathy88

Also, state officials were projecting this kind of turnout. So they should have been better prepared.

----------


## SCOTUSman

> Bull$#@!. They cited pressure from the State Party to get votes in.  The State Party can wait. They could have done two caucuses back to back. People would have waited.


You know how much complaining there would have been???? "Why do these people get to vote now, and not us" There would be such a $#@!fest, you don't even know.....

and it isn't bs. It IS a legal liability issue. You can't have 200% capacity. So how dare you call that bull $#@!.

----------


## SCOTUSman

> Also, state officials were projecting this kind of turnout. So they should have been better prepared.


Agreed, but they didn't. That doesn't mean bad planning means putting people at risk and risking legal liability if something occurs. This is the caucus system folks. They dont' have to answer to state election laws, they can do whatever they want and it isn't illegal because it is all under the guise of the state party. You can only vote at one time, if not...you don't get to vote. We are fans of the caucus system.

----------


## JulioForPaul

Hopefully the Ron Paul people were more motivated and got there early.  Maybe this helps us?

----------


## sailingaway

they couldn't step outside and caucus?

Wow.

----------


## hb6102

Then caucus in the parking lot!

----------


## PaulSoHard

There's 1500 people who didn't get to share their voice.

----------


## justatrey

No doubt this is completely inexcusable. But what we don't know is, does it hurt Paul? We'll have to wait and see how the totals come out in Kennewick.

----------


## sailingaway

> Agreed, but they didn't. That doesn't mean bad planning means putting people at risk and risking legal liability if something occurs. This is the caucus system folks. They dont' have to answer to state election laws, they can do whatever they want and it isn't illegal because it is all under the guise of the state party. You can only vote at one time, if not...you don't get to vote. We are fans of the caucus system.


I think that should be challenged if they violate their own rules and hold themselves out as being representative and get state benefits and monopoly protected by ballot access and debate access.

Maybe there is an exception to the laws, but this seems like a major antitrust type situation.....

----------


## liberty2897

> Doesn't appear to be. The GOP is the most unorganized, crooked, sorry bunch of $#@!s God ever grouped together.


That was exactly my impression.  There were a LOT of Ron Paul people left standing outside with the doors closed.  VERY disappointing.  

On the good side, at least 4 people I went with got in, voted, and went through the delegate selection process.

----------


## kathy88

> You know how much complaining there would have been???? "Why do these people get to vote now, and not us" There would be such a $#@!fest, you don't even know.....
> 
> and it isn't bs. It IS a legal liability issue. You can't have 200% capacity. So how dare you call that bull $#@!.


So it's better to just let them NOT VOTE AT ALL? You know what. Never mind.

----------


## Merk

Isn't this a legal issue?

These people were denied the right to vote.

----------


## kathy88

> That was exactly my impression.  There were a LOT of Ron Paul people left standing outside with the doors closed.  VERY disappointing.  
> 
> On the good side, at least 4 people I went with got in, voted, and went through the delegate selection process.


You were at the caucus they are talking about?

----------


## Carole

There is simply no excuse for this.

----------


## FSP-Rebel

Pretty pathetic how they didn't have any extra accommodations available considering the state chair had been predicting major turn out for like a week now.

----------


## splint

The GOP will have no one to blame but themselves in November. 

NOBP

----------


## jemuf

> Also, state officials were projecting this kind of turnout. So they should have been better prepared.


Don't even argue with scotusman.  All his posts have about the same tone.  He's one of those guys who likes to be the downer, the deliverer of bad news.  Someone opened a rule book and he stepped out.

scotusman: "There's only one way to do everything.  Innovation is for Steve Jobs types not the common man.  And I'm the authority on this stuff.  Hell I'm the authority on pretty much everything."

----------


## JJ2

> Hopefully the Ron Paul people were more motivated and got there early.  Maybe this helps us?


College kids on a Saturday morning? Forget it. The people who came late and were turned away at these locations were our people.

----------


## thoughtomator

If you think they have legal liability from fire codes, just wait until you see their legal liability from denying qualified individuals the equal right to participate in an election.

If pursued properly this can bankrupt everyone involved in the decision as well as the organization responsible for the debacle.

----------


## SCOTUSman

> So it's better to just let them NOT VOTE AT ALL? You know what. Never mind.


If you are going to ask questions like that and cop an attitude, which you are seemingly doing...then I'll ask one, but I'll answer yours. Yes. I'd rather have people not vote than a fire break out and people die and then I get sued for their deaths. I'd choose that option every time.

So how about you, if you want to ask EXTREME questions. Would you rather have everyone get to vote, and have 200% capacity and people get hurt and have to assume legal liability?

If I was in the same situation, I would have done the same thing. I don't want to be attached to any liability like that. No brainer.

----------


## NoOneButPaul

> The GOP will have no one to blame but themselves in November. 
> 
> NOBP


More and more I hope Paul runs 3rd party...

After everything that's gone on I don't see how he can't. 

If he focused on California and California only he could spin it to the GOP that he's trying to take Obama's best state as a 3rd party to help the GOP win, or at least force Boehner to pick the President.

----------


## surf

i got back from my caucus and there was barely enough room. my precinct caucused in a stairwell, but somehow we did get everyone in.

when it comes to turning people away we can only hope that they weren't our people.

----------


## SCOTUSman

> If you think they have legal liability from fire codes, just wait until you see their legal liability from denying qualified individuals the equal right to participate in an election.
> 
> If pursued properly this can bankrupt everyone involved in the decision as well as the organization responsible for the debacle.


No it couldn't. This is where people simply don't understand a caucus. A caucus is not an election that is sanctioned by the state. State election laws are not applicable. There is no right to vote in the caucus. The state party can make all the determination they want under their rules (whether they fairly apply them or not...or ignore them). It is just like a local convention. That is simply all a caucus is...a local convention (on the most localized scale) with a straw vote....You can't show up to the libertarian party's convention and if they dont' allow you to participate as a registered libertarian say they are breaking election laws. Now if they use state resources, ballots, etc. and use the elections office to conduct a primary...then you bet your butt there would be legal issues involved.

----------


## ronpaulhawaii

> You cannot have people put in danger. There is a legal liability issue. If you fill in way too much, what else can you do? 
> 
> They should have planned ahead and had multiple caucus times for areas like that, but once they didn't plan ahead, there is nothing they can do. I would have done the same, as I would want zero legal liability by having that many people in one place at once.


1st, the GOP predicts MASSIVE turnout yet is ill prepared for massive turnout 

2nd, They could have had it outside



> *Weather* for *Kennewick, WA*
> ]61°F | °C


There is NO excuse for disenfranchising voters. None!

----------


## NoOneButPaul

> If you are going to ask questions like that and cop an attitude, which you are seemingly doing...then I'll ask one, but I'll answer yours. Yes. I'd rather have people not vote than a fire break out and people die and then I get sued for their deaths. I'd choose that option every time.
> 
> So how about you, if you want to ask EXTREME questions. Would you rather have everyone get to vote, and have 200% capacity and people get hurt and have to assume legal liability?
> 
> If I was in the same situation, I would have done the same thing. I don't want to be attached to any liability like that. No brainer.


You aren't wrong in your logic, but the main focus or point should be that this type of situation shouldn't have happened to begin with. 

They should have planned for this and because they didn't 1500 people didn't get to vote- that's a serious issue.

Best case scenario, about 750 were Paul supporters...

----------


## SCOTUSman

> I think that should be challenged if they violate their own rules and hold themselves out as being representative and get state benefits and monopoly protected by ballot access and debate access.
> 
> Maybe there is an exception to the laws, but this seems like a major antitrust type situation.....


I agree. There should be an independent group within the GOP that enforces the party's rules on the local, state, and national level. Whether they agree with the rules or not...if they are in place when it is time to vote and pick delegates...well that is the rules. If they are changed through the proper processes, then they can do that, but you have to use the rules you have. PERIOD. 

However, who enforces their own rules, themselves. They can apply them or ignore them willy nilly. Nobody is going to say anything because the rules don't mean sh*t.

----------


## kathy88

> 1st, the GOP predicts MASSIVE turnout yet is ill prepared for massive turnout 
> 
> 2nd, They could have had it outside
> 
> 
> There is NO excuse for disenfranchising voters. None!


I saw your tweet Michael. There is no excuse. We work so hard and it's so corrupt.

----------


## Texan4Life

> http://blogs.mcclatchydc.com/washing...sh-caucus.html
> 
> [QUOTEBenegas said it quickly became apparent there weren't enough volunteers to check everyone in  which in most cases involved looking up their voter registration on a list provided by the county auditor and helping them find their precinct number, and that the rooms they booked were filled to capacity.
> 
> And the party was under pressure to finish by 11:30 so that results could be tabulated and turned over to the state party.
> 
> "We did pull the leadership aside and said, 'What are we going to do?'" Benegas said.
> 
> The only choice apparent was to close the doors and turn an estimated 1,500 people away, he said.
> ...





This is so $#@!ed up on so many levels.[/QUOTE]

WTF?

this is an election... not like they were lining up for a $#@!ing free tshirt!!!

----------


## SCOTUSman

> You aren't wrong in your logic, but the main focus or point should be that this type of situation shouldn't have happened to begin with. 
> 
> They should have planned for this and because they didn't 1500 people didn't get to vote- that's a serious issue.
> 
> Best case scenario, about 750 were Paul supporters...


Exactly. This shouldn't have happened, but it did. Why? Because as we have seen time after time after time after time. From literally every state thus far, the GOP is the most inept, idiotic group of individuals that we so tirelessly try to be a part, yet they continually tear us a new one. I don't get why we do this. 

I bet most of them were RP people, probably wearing shirts, hoodies, etc. I'm sure the volunteers told the state GOP this...ad played into their answer. I'm hoping these were old, Romney supporters that were showing up the, but who knows.

I will say this, it seems that from the early bird exit polling in the past caucus and primary states. RP people usually get there earlier...so we can hope?

----------


## Philosophy_of_Politics

They cannot use safety precautions or liability as a legal excuse, because turning away voters and denying them their chance to vote would actually increase the risk of public outrage or political riots.

----------


## TheGrinch

> I agree. There should be an independent group within the GOP that enforces the party's rules on the local, state, and national level. Whether they agree with the rules or not...if they are in place when it is time to vote and pick delegates...well that is the rules. If they are changed through the proper processes, then they can do that, but you have to use the rules you have. PERIOD. 
> 
> However, who enforces their own rules, themselves. They can apply them or ignore them willy nilly. Nobody is going to say anything because the rules don't mean sh*t.


That still doesn't excuse disenfranchising 1,500 voters, who you expected to show up... The government and parties just love to use this "incompetence" excuse.... It always comes down to emphasis of "we *failed* you", not "*we* failed you", like it should be...

It's rather sickening that you're defending them disenfranchising voters by not preparing for the turnout they expected...

----------


## Cyberbrain

Amazing that the guy in that article could think disenfranchising 1500 people was the right call. Why didn't these people DEMAND to be able to participate?

----------


## pacelli

> Also, state officials were projecting this kind of turnout. So they should have been better prepared.


I agree

----------


## SCOTUSman

> That still doesn't excuse disenfranchising 1,500 voters, who you expected to show up... The government and parties just love to use this "incompetence" excuse.... It always comes down to emphasis of "we *failed* you", not "*we* failed you", like it should be...
> 
> It's rather sickening that you're defending them disenfranchising voters by not preparing for the turnout they expected...


LOL. Whatever you say. I'm not defending anybody. But lets personally attack each other. People just don't understand the caucus process. How it isn't an election sanctioned by the state. There is no civil rights violations or the like involved. 


If you want people to vote whenever during the day, ask for a primary.

----------


## kathy88

> Amazing that the guy in that article could think disenfranchising 1500 people was the right call. Why didn't these people DEMAND to be able to participate?


Because they are sheep. And the ones that aren't probably got tazed. LOL.

----------


## NoOneButPaul

> Exactly. This shouldn't have happened, but it did. Why? Because as we have seen time after time after time after time. From literally every state thus far, the GOP is the most inept, idiotic group of individuals that we so tirelessly try to be a part, yet they continually tear us a new one. I don't get why we do this. 
> 
> I bet most of them were RP people, probably wearing shirts, hoodies, etc. I'm sure the volunteers told the state GOP this...ad played into their answer. I'm hoping these were old, Romney supporters that were showing up the, but who knows.
> 
> I will say this, it seems that from the early bird exit polling in the past caucus and primary states. RP people usually get there earlier...so we can hope?


The worst part is... if they were a bunch of old Romney/Santorum voters then the MSM will pick it up and run with it and spin a Paul win into an illegitimate one. 

Maine, Iowa, Nevada... nothing to see there.

1500 Romney supporters get denied, watch what happens...

----------


## TheGrinch

> LOL. Whatever you say. I'm not defending anybody. But lets personally attack each other. People just don't understand the caucus process. How it isn't an election sanctioned by the state. There is no civil rights violations or the like involved. 
> 
> 
> If you want people to vote whenever during the day, ask for a primary.


OK good, glad you came to your senses that they were not right to disenfranchise voters for safety reasons, when they had much time to expect this kind of turnout and did nothing...

----------


## Philosophy_of_Politics

> They cannot use safety precautions or liability as a legal excuse, because turning away voters and denying them their chance to vote would actually increase the risk of public outrage or political riots.


This ^

----------


## Brent H

I was at a pooled caucus in Olympia.  The country chairman suspended the rules (with a voice vote approval from the crowd) and delayed the start time by about 45 minutes to allow more people to get into the hall where the people were meeting.  They did not close the doors until everyone was in.  Then, it was standing room only.

----------


## 3kgt

> You cannot have people put in danger. There is a legal liability issue. If you fill in way too much, what else can you do? 
> 
> They should have planned ahead and had multiple caucus times for areas like that, but once they didn't plan ahead, there is nothing they can do. I would have done the same, as I would want zero legal liability by having that many people in one place at once.


 I agree somewhat but there are solutions that I believe should HAVE to be implemented i.e. the caucuses run longer and people can wait for their turn, so to speak.

----------


## SCOTUSman

> OK good, glad you came to your senses that they were not right to disenfranchise voters for safety reasons, when they had much time to expect this kind of turnout and did nothing...


I'm not saying it is ethically or morally right. I'm speaking strictly legally speaking. People need to understand how the process works to most effectively take part in the process. Politics is the dirtiest game in the book.

----------


## liberty2897

> You were at the caucus they are talking about?


Yes I was.

----------


## SCOTUSman

> I was at a pooled caucus in Olympia.  The country chairman suspended the rules (with a voice vote approval from the crowd) and delayed the start time by about 45 minutes to allow more people to get into the hall where the people were meeting.  They did not close the doors until everyone was in.  Then, it was standing room only.


Too bad people didn't use voice vote at this one and asked for multiple sessions of voting.

----------


## SCOTUSman

> I agree somewhat but there are solutions that I believe should HAVE to be implemented i.e. the caucuses run longer and people can wait for their turn, so to speak.


Exactly. There should have been a request for multiple sessions of voting. There really should have been increased preparedness by the state if they were expecting such a turnout.

----------


## SCOTUSman

> The worst part is... if they were a bunch of old Romney/Santorum voters then the MSM will pick it up and run with it and spin a Paul win into an illegitimate one. 
> 
> Maine, Iowa, Nevada... nothing to see there.
> 
> 1500 Romney supporters get denied, watch what happens...


Sadly true. There was little to no buzz on all those states stories. Especially where we got screwed in NV and ME. In the MSM, Maddow was the only one that mentioned it in ME. NOBODY in NV.

----------


## sailingaway

> Because they are sheep. And the ones that aren't probably got tazed. LOL.


I don't think people should have to be up on political games and infighting to prevent their being disenfranchised.  People are given no real choice but the two parties and the pretence is you can fully participate in and impact the outcome of who those parties elect.  Wherever that model breaks down WE should be objecting, not blaming it on those caught completely unprepared, imho.

----------


## andrew1229649

Take the good with the bad....keep the caucus, it's far more transparent.

----------


## Philosophy_of_Politics

Who can we contact? Seriously? Do not let this one go until there is a resolution.

----------


## sailingaway

> Take the good with the bad....keep the caucus, it's far more transparent.


Keep the caucus but require it to BE transparent

----------


## Esoteric

Romney won the Benton County caucuses in 2008.

----------


## Ronulus

Couldn't they have had the people inside finish up then let the rest in to the rooms as the others left and had them vote as well, like a part b.

----------


## sailingaway

> Couldn't they have had the people inside finish up then let the rest in to the rooms as the others left and had them vote as well, like a part b.


many things COULD have happened.... and that sounds like a good way to deal with it, then just let back in those who want to stay to elect delegates etc

----------


## tbone717

> Couldn't they have had the people inside finish up then let the rest in to the rooms as the others left and had them vote as well, like a part b.


Not without a change in the rules, which would have needed to be done via a voice or roll call vote.  

Rules are here: http://youra.net/images/gop/2012caucusmanual.pdf  - It is helpful that we read them and understand them before we make any claims or accusations.

----------


## Aratus

> Hopefully the Ron Paul people were more motivated and got there early.  Maybe this helps us?


hopefully, yes. but it looks like washington could have issues the way iowa and maine did. lets hope the officials are basically honest.

----------


## Carson

Does Google already have the results out anyway? 

Old thread;

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...d-for-tomorrow

----------


## sailingaway

> Not without a change in the rules, which would have needed to be done via a voice or roll call vote.  
> 
> Rules are here: http://youra.net/images/gop/2012caucusmanual.pdf  - It is helpful that we read them and understand them before we make any claims or accusations.


You don't think that mass of people not allowed in the room would have voted to allow it?

----------


## tbone717

> You don't think that mass of people not allowed in the room would have voted to allow it?


Not my call to make.  I try and deal with facts as much as possible.  Not being on the ground there, the only info I have is from the article and I think one person in the thread that claimed they were there.

----------


## tbone717

Just as a side note.  The caucus is more of a private affair than a state election. Reading the WA states election laws, caucuses aren't covered.  Not at least from what I gathered, though I may have missed something.

http://www.sos.wa.gov/elections/election_laws.aspx

----------


## sailingaway

> hopefully, yes. but it looks like washington could have issues the way iowa and maine did. lets hope the officials are basically honest.


I think most people tend to be.  It is the insiders who broke their own rules to unilaterally appoint PCOs who determine delegates whom I seriously question.

----------


## sailingaway

> Just as a side note.  The caucus is more of a private affair than a state election. Reading the WA states election laws, caucuses aren't covered.  Not at least from what I gathered, though I may have missed something.
> 
> http://www.sos.wa.gov/elections/election_laws.aspx


I'm aware of that. But the reason that is considered acceptable is you supposedly can change the party by participation.  Public acceptability of the two party system seems like something worth challenging, if that isn't the case.

----------


## Philosophy_of_Politics

Their rules are irrelevant. The people have the right to vote, assuming that they're legal to vote, and properly registered. Their laziness, and negligence, is not a great enough excuse to deprive Washington Citizens the right to vote. It's your constitutional right, to participate in a fair election. That's why we have laws intended to criminalize voter/election fraud. This forum alone, people have already voiced several alternative ways to handle this overflow crowd. Simply because they didn't want it to take time, or delay the tabulation, is a faulty argument.

State Bureau of Elections, and then the Town & County Clerks, get ahold of them.

----------


## tbone717

> I'm aware of that. But the reason that is considered acceptable is you supposedly can change the party by participation.  Public acceptability of the two party system seems like something worth challenging, if that isn't the case.


Well the changing party by participation is the GOP rules not the state.  As I understand it, people can change part at the location and then vote in the caucus.  This is an effort to increase the party registration more than anything.

----------


## tbone717

> Their rules are irrelevant. The people have the right to vote, assuming that they're legal to vote, and properly registered. Their laziness, and negligence, is not a great enough excuse to deprive Washington Citizens the right to vote. It's your constitutional right, to participate in a fair election. That's why we have laws intended to criminalize voter/election fraud. This forum alone, people have already voiced several alternative ways to handle this overflow crowd. Simply because they didn't want it to take time, or delay the tabulation, is a faulty argument.
> 
> State Bureau of Elections, and then the Town & County Clerks, get ahold of them.


My point it that the caucuses aren't governed by state election laws.   It is a party matter, not a state matter.  Feel free to read the state laws and see if you can find anything different.  I was not able to.  The old primary system was governed at the state level, but not the caucuses in 08 nor in 12.

----------


## sailingaway

> Well the changing party by participation is the GOP rules not the state.  As I understand it, people can change part at the location and then vote in the caucus.  This is an effort to increase the party registration more than anything.


What I'm saying is their monopoly barriers to entry like ballot access and debate access could be determined unacceptable and go away if ordinary people understand how little they can impact parties to do anything the inner circle don't want, and that the inner circle find it perfectly acceptable to change the rules as they go.  this isn't just us, look at Santorum in Iowa first, then in Michigan. And we didn't look at RON there only because we werent' threatening first.

----------


## Ranger29860

> Their rules are irrelevant. The people have the right to vote, assuming that they're legal to vote, and properly registered. Their laziness, and negligence, is not a great enough excuse to deprive Washington Citizens the right to vote. It's your constitutional right, to participate in a fair election. That's why we have laws intended to criminalize voter/election fraud. This forum alone, people have already voiced several alternative ways to handle this overflow crowd. Simply because they didn't want it to take time, or delay the tabulation, is a faulty argument.
> 
> State Bureau of Elections, and then the Town & County Clerks, get ahold of them.


First off their is no implicit right to vote for president. Second the Republican party is a private organization and their activities and rules govern what they do... the states can't touch them. They have jsut as much power over them as they do a country club.

----------


## Philosophy_of_Politics

> My point it that the caucuses aren't governed by state election laws.   It is a party matter, not a state matter.


The party also handles official election results of a state. If they don't want to be subjected to election laws, then don't be a party.

----------


## SCOTUSman

> The party also handles official election results of a state. If they don't want to be subjected to election laws, then don't be a party.


You clearly don't understand the difference between a caucus and a primary. If caucus were bound by state election laws, you could have CAUCUSES anyways. Why? Because under state laws, POLLING places must be OPEN for XXX amount of hours that are specified.

----------


## Ranger29860

> The party also handles official election results of a state. If they don't want to be subjected to election laws, then don't be a party.


OR dont allow them to have anything to do with state election counting or federal counting. It still stands that this caucus is as official in a legal sense as that of electing a president of a club

----------


## tbone717

> What I'm saying is their monopoly barriers to entry like ballot access and debate access could be determined unacceptable and go away if ordinary people understand how little they can impact parties to do anything the inner circle don't want.


I suppose so, third parties do have a lot easier time working at the state level, but the LP and CP have really failed in their attempt to gain status as a legitimate alternative.  You need to take that up with them.  I have had my day trying to work with them, I have no plans to do so again - it's like talking to a wall.

----------


## SCOTUSman

> First off their is no implicit right to vote for president. Second the Republican party is a private organization and their activities and rules govern what they do... the states can't touch them. They have jsut as much power over them as they do a country club.


Yep, exactly. People just don't get it.

----------


## tbone717

> You clearly don't understand the difference between a caucus and a primary. If caucus were bound by state election laws, you could have CAUCUSES anyways. Why? Because under state laws, POLLING places must be OPEN for XXX amount of hours that are specified.


Right, as stated caucuses are, for lack of a better term, a private event.  It is essentially on the same level legally as the local VFW voting for their officers.

----------


## SCOTUSman

If the state really wanted, they could pass a law that wouldn't allow the people to vote for President. They could say the state legislature gets to vote for the President or simply pick their electoral college members and let them vote for whoever. 

The Constitution originally gave the people the right to vote for their representatives, after it was amended, it gave the people the right to vote for senator (previously from it was the state legislatures), but not then nor now does the Constitution rest the right to vote for President with the people. They are elected by the electoral college from the slate of electors from each state. The state has full authority to determine the process in which their electors are selected.

----------


## Philosophy_of_Politics

> You clearly don't understand the difference between a caucus and a primary. If caucus were bound by state election laws, you could have CAUCUSES anyways. Why? Because under state laws, POLLING places must be OPEN for XXX amount of hours that are specified.


I truly do not give a rats ass about what loophole they devised, to avoid accountability.

----------


## TheGrinch

> Yep, exactly. People just don't get it.


No, we get it, but as you've already agreed, it certainly doesn't make that right...

And "no implicit right to vote for president"? For registered voters? Are you kidding me? Just because they do things to not have to recognize that right by technically not breaking the law, does not mean that registered voters don't have the right to vote. 

Thus, I'm not sure what your argument is, when you agree that it's not right and they should have done something about... So no, we can't sue or prosecute them, but that doesn't mean people should take 1,500 voters getting turned away lightly... Whether legal, planned or unplanned, disenfranchising voters is never okay.

----------


## Ranger29860

> I truly do not give a rats ass about what loophole they devised, to avoid accountability.


Who are they accountable to? There members right? And if there members are so pissed about this then they should no longer donate  to them. Without money they cant function. Thats how you hold PRIVATE organizations accountable.

----------


## tbone717

> I truly do not give a rats ass about what loophole they devised, to avoid accountability.


It's not a loophole.  You are trying to cast an entirely different definition of a caucus on it than it is.  A caucus is not a state election, like the general election is.  It is essentially, a private event.  Members of a party determining who they wish to elect to be the nominee for President at a party convention.  None of this involves the state.

----------


## sailingaway

> I suppose so, third parties do have a lot easier time working at the state level, but the LP and CP have really failed in their attempt to gain status as a legitimate alternative.  You need to take that up with them.  I have had my day trying to work with them, I have no plans to do so again - it's like talking to a wall.


I couldn't care less about them, I care about US.  We should pass this to Santorum supporters and get all parts of the grass roots which have been kept out of it to protest the monopoly barriers.

the TEA PARTY (such of the original as still exists) should care.

----------


## Ranger29860

> No, we get it, but as you've already agreed, it certainly doesn't make that right...
> 
> And "no implicit right to vote for president"? For registered voters? Are you kidding me? Just because they do things to not have to recognize that right by technically not breaking the law, does not mean that registered voters don't have the right to vote. 
> 
> Thus, I'm not sure what your argument is, when you agree that it's not right and they should have done something about... So no, we can't sue or prosecute them, but that doesn't mean people should take 1,500 voters getting turned away lightly... Whether legal, planned or unplanned, disenfranchising voters is never okay.


I never once said it was OK but when you have people saying we should sue them or they should get in trouble at a federal level you have to explain why that would never happen. And the right to vote issue helps explain that. 

like i said in a previouse post .. them members of that district should stop supporting them financially thats how you hurt them the most.

----------


## Philosophy_of_Politics

> It's not a loophole.  You are trying to cast an entirely different definition of a caucus on it than it is.  A caucus is not a state election, like the general election is.  It is essentially, a private event.  Members of a party determining who they wish to elect to be the nominee for President at a party convention.  None of this involves the state.


Could our candidate have a shot in a general election without attending this "private event?" If the answer no, this means the party has too much influence on official elections. Therefore, we can conclude, that they should be subjected to normal Election laws.

----------


## tbone717

> I couldn't care less about them, I care about US.  We should pass this to Santorum supporters and get all parts of the grass roots which have been kept out of it to protest the monopoly barriers.
> 
> the TEA PARTY (such of the original as still exists) should care.


That's fine because at the end of the day this is a matter that needs to be taken up with the WA State GOP, not the Secretary of State.

----------


## Ranger29860

> Could our candidate have a shot in a general election without attending this "private event?" If the answer no, this means the party has too much influence on official elections. Therefore, we can conclude, that they should be subjected to normal Election laws.


Think about what your asking... The guys who stack the rules should be subject to the rules they created so that they can no longer stack the rules in their favor? Do they have to much power? YES but is this avenue of approach ever going to go anywehre NO

----------


## tbone717

> Could our candidate have a shot in a general election without attending this "private event?" If the answer no, this means the party has too much influence on official elections. Therefore, we can conclude, that they should be subjected to normal Election laws.


Yes he could.  Any candidate can file to run as an Independent on the ballot, get the required number of signatures, raise the ample amount of funds needed and have a shot.  There is nothing legally preventing anyone from doing this.  That does not of course mean that he has a realistic chance of winning, but he does have the ability to enter the race however he wants.

Are you suggesting that we are supposed to have equalization of outcomes for anyone who wants to run for office?  Sort of an "affirmative action plan" for candidates that do not have enough funds or support to win?

----------


## sailingaway

> That's fine because at the end of the day this is a matter that needs to be taken up with the WA State GOP, not the Secretary of State.


It needs to be take up as a legislative cause to change ballot access laws, and as a debate threshold.

----------


## rpwasright

Why on earth are any of you suprised at this?  It has been happening since this whole election got started.  This whole damn thing is rigged.  From the primary to the general, representation by the people is a joke in this country as it is in all democracies.  This election has made me firmly a an-cap.  I'll still vote for Paul just to at least spit in the elites of this countries face but it won't make one bit of difference in the destruction that is facing this country.  We will change when we lose the world reserve currency.  Until then its just going to get worse.

----------


## sailingaway

> Yes he could.  Any candidate can file to run as an Independent on the ballot, get the required number of signatures, raise the ample amount of funds needed and have a shot.  There is nothing legally preventing anyone from doing this.  That does not of course mean that he has a realistic chance of winning, but he does have the ability to enter the race however he wants.
> 
> Are you suggesting that we are supposed to have equalization of outcomes for anyone who wants to run for office?  Sort of an "affirmative action plan" for candidates that do not have enough funds or support to win?


the 'sore loser laws' ballot access, threshold of 15% to get INTO the debate... these things are only accepted by the public because by and large they think the only reason they aren't being represented is because they didn't work at it through the process.  Show that isn't true, and that thinking can change.

----------


## TheGrinch

> I never once said it was OK but when you have people saying we should sue them or they should get in trouble at a federal level you have to explain why that would never happen. And the right to vote issue helps explain that. 
> 
> like i said in a previouse post .. them members of that district should stop supporting them financially thats how you hurt them the most.


I have not seen 1 post where someone suggested suing them. Care to show me where anyone is saying anything more than it's simply not right?

Most everyone here realizes that we have to play this game by the GOP's rules, but that in no way means we're just going to accept that they choose to run it in an irresponsible way that disenfranchises 1,500 voters... I don't give a rats ass if it's legal or not... It's also legal for the media to ignore and marginalize Dr. Paul as long as it's not blatant hard-to-prove libel, but that doesn't mean I have to somehow appreciate that their irresponsible reporting is well within their legal right.

What is legal is not necessarily moral, and that's the entire point.... There are literally tons of things that are legal that no reasonable person should accept... This would be one of them.

----------


## DerailingDaTrain

I'm sure those 1500 were mostly RP supporters. Bastards

----------


## Chowder

> I have not seen 1 post where someone suggested suing them. Care to show me where anyone is saying anything more than it's simply not right?
> 
> Most everyone here realizes that we have to play this game by the GOP's rules, but that in no way means we're just going to accept that they choose to run it in an irresponsible way that disenfranchises 1,500 voters... I don't give a rats ass if it's legal or not... It's also legal for the media to ignore and marginalize Dr. Paul as long as it's not blatant hard-to-prove libel, but that doesn't mean I have to somehow appreciate that their irresponsible reporting is well within their legal right.
> 
> What is legal is not necessarily moral, and that's the entire point.... There are literally tons of things that are legal that no reasonable person should accept... This would be one of them.


ROTFLMAO!

I love your avatar! ha ha ha!

Rep! +

----------


## gorgonzola

and so it begins!

It will not go unnoticed this time. The black out stops here and now!

Rise up WA !!!

Next stop ...Alaska!!!!

----------


## Ranger29860

> I have not seen 1 post where someone suggested suing them. Care to show me where anyone is saying anything more than it's simply not right?
> 
> Most everyone here realizes that we have to play this game by the GOP's rules, but that in no way means we're just going to accept that they choose to run it in an irresponsible way that disenfranchises 1,500 voters... I don't give a rats ass if it's legal or not... It's also legal for the media to ignore and marginalize Dr. Paul as long as it's not blatant hard-to-prove libel, but that doesn't mean I have to somehow appreciate that their irresponsible reporting is well within their legal right.
> 
> What is legal is not necessarily moral, and that's the entire point.... There are literally tons of things that are legal that no reasonable person should accept... This would be one of them.


Im not sure how to quote from 2 diffrent places 

this is from philosophy of politics from a few pages ago and the person I was replying to. *POP tthi is not me going after you only making a point to grinch*

"Their rules are irrelevant. T*he people have the right to vote*, assuming that they're legal to vote, and properly registered. Their laziness, and negligence, is not a great enough excuse to deprive Washington Citizens the right to vote. It's your constitutional right, to participate in a fair election. T*hat's why we have laws intended to criminalize voter/election fraud*. This forum alone, people have already voiced several alternative ways to handle this overflow crowd. Simply because they didn't want it to take time, or delay the tabulation, is a faulty argument.

*State Bureau of Elections, and then the Town & County Clerks, get ahold of them."*

----------


## Philosophy_of_Politics

> Think about what your asking... The guys who stack the rules should be subject to the rules they created so that they can no longer stack the rules in their favor? Do they have to much power? YES but is this avenue of approach ever going to go anywehre NO


Yeah. It's whatever. Someone better get to these people, before I do. That's all I can say.

----------


## Ranger29860

> Yeah. It's whatever. Someone better get to these people, before I do. That's all I can say.


end of the day we all hate the establishment :P

----------


## Philosophy_of_Politics

> Im not sure how to quote from 2 diffrent places 
> 
> this is from philosophy of politics from a few pages ago and the person I was replying to. *POP tthi is not me going after you only making a point to grinch*
> 
> "Their rules are irrelevant. T*he people have the right to vote*, assuming that they're legal to vote, and properly registered. Their laziness, and negligence, is not a great enough excuse to deprive Washington Citizens the right to vote. It's your constitutional right, to participate in a fair election. T*hat's why we have laws intended to criminalize voter/election fraud*. This forum alone, people have already voiced several alternative ways to handle this overflow crowd. Simply because they didn't want it to take time, or delay the tabulation, is a faulty argument.
> 
> *State Bureau of Elections, and then the Town & County Clerks, get ahold of them."*


Fair enough. I just don't see how an entity that has had this much power over the voting process, and even has personnel in States, which pretty much require someone to run in their party; cannot be subjected to election/voting laws.

This is equivalent to votes for 1 party, being counted by a foreign enemy, where U.S. Law does not apply to them.

----------


## liberty2897

> I'm sure those 1500 were mostly RP supporters. Bastards


Yep, I think so.  I didn't see very many young people inside at all.   The local news paper just said Caucus starts at 10:00am.   I told everyone I know to get there earlier and they all got in (barely).   All the establishment GOP at my table didn't feel one bit sorry about people being locked out.  They said they should have got there by 8:00 or 8:30.  Oh well,  I made it though the process with senior perfume permeating the air.  I hope the rest of the state did better.  I know this is a GOP event and they do things their way, but I definitely left with a feeling like this process was rigged to some degree.   I'm not surprised.

----------


## jeremiahj13

Get out the vote has changed names to:

Get out the vote if there's room >_<

----------


## hunter100

This is not a public election, it is a party election.  They do not have to follow any state election rules that they don't want to, which means they can exclude whoever they want to.  Hopefully all the RP supporters got there early.  I know I would have if I lived there.

----------


## Philosophy_of_Politics

> This is not a public election, it is a party election.  They do not have to follow any state election rules that they don't want to, which means they can exclude whoever they want to.  Hopefully all the RP supporters got there early.  I know I would have if I lived there.


A non-public party election, that requires the general public to compete in a non-public party election, in order to determine who gets to be the official representative of the party publicly in the official presidential election.

Yeah, I'm at a tipping point.

----------


## TheGrinch

> This is not a public election, it is a party election.  They do not have to follow any state election rules that they don't want to, which means they can exclude whoever they want to.  Hopefully all the RP supporters got there early.  I know I would have if I lived there.


I know I should let it go, but IMO this is what is wrong with America, that we just accept things that are blatant bull$#@!, because "that's jsut the way things are".... This movement exists to oppose not only the illegal, but the "legal" overreaches of government with little checks and balances.

Do you really think, regardless of legality, that people should think it's right that certain people *who meet the qualifications* are excluded? I mean Jesus, we used to have Jim Crow laws too. Were those okay because as you say, "the law says they can exclude whoever they want to"?

We live in America, where our country was founded on taking it very seriously when the system was used against the people. Why should it  matter if it's legal when they're acting like bigots with regard to who they want to allow to voice their choice for president? Moreover, why do you feel the need to defend them doing scummy crap like this?

----------


## Tudo

In communist Vietnam everyone votes. You would think why when there's one party rule? Well, everyone must vote and if you don't show up to vote they will quickly dispatch the police, ballot in hand to your house in order to make you vote and they won't be smiling when they arrive. There's even 2 candidates although they basically say the same thing and lead in exactly the same way. That's communist vietnam.

----------


## tbone717

> I know I should let it go, but IMO this is what is wrong with America, that we just accept things that are blatant bull$#@!, because "that's jsut the way things are".... This movement exists to oppose not only the illegal, but the "legal" overreaches of government with little checks and balances.
> 
> Do you really think, regardless of legality, that people should think it's right that certain people *who meet the qualifications* are excluded? I mean Jesus, we used to have Jim Crow laws too. Were those okay because as you say, "the law says they can exclude whoever they want to"?
> 
> We live in America, where our country was founded on taking it very seriously when the system was used against the people. Why should it  matter if it's legal when they're acting like bigots with regard to who they want to allow to voice their choice for president? Moreover, why do you feel the need to defend them doing scummy crap like this?



But if you read the party rules, there was recourse for this, but no one took any action on it.  Someone could have made a motion to split the caucus vote up into multiple sessions to accommodate the crowd, if someone seconded the motion it would have been brought to a voice vote and either pass or fail.

So this begs the question, why do I know this sitting here in PA and RP supporters who are members of the WA GOP do not know this, or failed to act on it.

----------


## TurkishMarch

> You know how much complaining there would have been???? "Why do these people get to vote now, and not us" There would be such a $#@!fest, you don't even know.....
> 
> and it isn't bs. It IS a legal liability issue. You can't have 200% capacity. So how dare you call that bull $#@!.





> If you are going to ask questions like that and cop an attitude, which you are seemingly doing...then I'll ask one, but I'll answer yours. Yes. I'd rather have people not vote than a fire break out and people die and then I get sued for their deaths. I'd choose that option every time.
> 
> So how about you, if you want to ask EXTREME questions. Would you rather have everyone get to vote, and have 200% capacity and people get hurt and have to assume legal liability?
> 
> If I was in the same situation, I would have done the same thing. I don't want to be attached to any liability like that. No brainer.


Are there only two possible outcomes to this scenario - one, file everyone into the same place at the same, or two, send 1500 people home?  If a state can take a couple weeks to count votes all while "accidentally" "losing" "some" of them, it seems reasonable that an additional caucus location and / or time could be selected.  Because you only see one alternative seems like a weak excuse to be rude to another forum member who is understandably frustrated.

----------


## Cinderella

Roberts Rules of order should be our bible from now till November!

----------


## TheGrinch

> But if you read the party rules, there was recourse for this, but no one took any action on it.  Someone could have made a motion to split the caucus vote up into multiple sessions to accommodate the crowd, if someone seconded the motion it would have been brought to a voice vote and either pass or fail.
> 
> So this begs the question, why do I know this sitting here in PA and RP supporters who are members of the WA GOP do not know this, or failed to act on it.


Okay, since you're up on Washington's part ruels, maybe you can answer these questions.

Who sets the caucuses? Because obviously it was an oversight that Paul supporters didn't pick up on, but at the same time, they aren't responsible for determining turnout and setting caucuses to accomodate it, are they? The difference being, that Paul supporters simply slipped up in not double-checking everything, whereas it's conceivable that the ones who organize this anticipated bigger turnout, but did not do anything about it... Being that this appears to be a strong district for Paul, foul play could be suspected.

Foul play seems to gain even more credence, unless: Did their rules say that they had no choice but to turn all these voters away? Was there no way they could have accommodated them, such as by holding some in the parking lot or at a later time? If those options were on the table, then they chose the option that would disenfranchise the most voters, drawing more suspicion of foul play, when added to all of the other shenanigans we've seen from the GOP in every other state.

So while you may be right that Paul supporters should have been more diligent in making sure the GOP was doing it the right way, but it wasn't Paul supporters who organized it or made the call to turn voters away, and unless you can show that they had no other choice, then I'm sure not just going to accept that they were right to choose the disenfranchisement option.

----------


## hunter100

> I know I should let it go, but IMO this is what is wrong with America, that we just accept things that are blatant bull$#@!, because "that's jsut the way things are".... This movement exists to oppose not only the illegal, but the "legal" overreaches of government with little checks and balances.
> 
> Do you really think, regardless of legality, that people should think it's right that certain people *who meet the qualifications* are excluded? I mean Jesus, we used to have Jim Crow laws too. Were those okay because as you say, "the law says they can exclude whoever they want to"?
> 
> We live in America, where our country was founded on taking it very seriously when the system was used against the people. Why should it  matter if it's legal when they're acting like bigots with regard to who they want to allow to voice their choice for president? Moreover, why do you feel the need to defend them doing scummy crap like this?


Two points:
1:  I didn't say I agreed with the practice, I just said it doesn't violate state election laws. Ron Paul chose to stay with the Republican party, therefore he and his supporters have to deal with the party BS.  If you don't like the way the party is running these elections, then go support another party.  That is the only right you have as a voter that they cannot control.

2:  IF (a big if) it turns out that Ron Paul wins this particular caucus because the party shut out all of Romney/Santorum/Gingrich's voters, are you still going to complain and try to overturn the election result?

----------


## Tyler_Durden

American Idol text voting is counted more accurately and is less disenfranchising than the GOP.

----------


## Philosophy_of_Politics

> American Idol text voting is counted more accurately and is less disenfranchising than the GOP.


I wanna' hear Ron Paul say that publicly.

----------


## hunter100

> American Idol text voting is counted more accurately and is less disenfranchising than the GOP.


Ha.  If they used text voting, all the old people would bitch because they don't know how too...

----------


## liberty2897

Forgot to mention another thing that bothered me at the Benton County caucus today.  We were instructed at the beginning that if we were a Libertarian,  that we should not participate, and we should probably just leave (I'm paraphrasing here, but pretty close to that).  This was followed by applause from quite a few.  That is the GOP for you.

----------


## Ranger29860

> Forgot to mention another thing that bothered me at the Benton County caucus today.  We were instructed at the beginning that if we were a Libertarian,  that we should not participate, and we should probably just leave (I'm paraphrasing here, but pretty close to that).  This was followed by applause from quite a few.  That is the GOP for you.


please say someone got the audio of that

----------


## UtahApocalypse

Dear GOP,

$#@! YOU

I am voting Obama in November. I am sick of people being disenfranchised by their own party. Your party is toast. If Ron Paul is not the NOMINEE (not V.P, Sec. Treasury, ANYTHING ELSE) I will feel sick to my stomach, probably puke but vote Obama in November

----------


## Gray Fullbuster

> Forgot to mention another thing that bothered me at the Benton County caucus today.  We were instructed at the beginning that if we were a Libertarian,  that we should not participate, and we should probably just leave (I'm paraphrasing here, but pretty close to that).  This was followed by applause from quite a few.  That is the GOP for you.


GOP on Libertarians > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s1Lll...el_video_title

----------


## TheGrinch

> Two points:
> 1:  I didn't say I agreed with the practice, I just said it doesn't violate state election laws. Ron Paul chose to stay with the Republican party, therefore he and his supporters have to deal with the party BS.  If you don't like the way the party is running these elections, then go support another party.  That is the only right you have as a voter that they cannot control.
> 
> 2:  IF (a big if) it turns out that Ron Paul wins this particular caucus because the party shut out all of Romney/Santorum/Gingrich's voters, are you still going to complain and try to overturn the election result?


1) Don't give me the "go run indy if you don't like it". If it was a viable option, Dr. Paul would do it, but currently the only 2 parties are a viable option. If people don't liek the way the GOP is running their elections, then they have every right to demand it's changed. Your attitude is the equivalent of saying "if you don't like getting raped, you need to get your orrifices sewed up, rather than trying to stop the rapists". 

2) Did I ever say I'm challenging the poll results? I'm not in favor of any voters being disenfranchised. I want a fair election..  I mean, do I like that people naively and ignorantly support these other candidates without knowing what they really stand for? No, but I'll defend to death anyone's right to vote. This is absurd that because the law allows voters to be disenfranchised, we're not allowed to not like it.

----------


## hunter100

> 1) Don't give me the "go run indy if you don't like it". If it was a viable option, Dr. Paul would do it, but currently the only 2 parties are a viable option. If people don't liek the way the GOP is running their elections, then they have every right to demand it's changed. Your attitude is the equivalent of saying "if you don't like getting raped, you need to get your orrifices sewed up, rather than trying to stop the rapists".


Your analogy is absurd.  Members of the republican party freely choose to associate with the party and attend its events while a person getting raped has no such freedom of association.  Using ultra agressive, inflamatory arguments is not the way to conduct a civil debate over any topic, in my opinion (you aren't Rush Limbaugh are you?).  Going "indy" as you put it is certainly a viable option.  In fact, it is the only way to get a third party going.

----------


## TheGrinch

> Your analogy is absurd.  Members of the republican party freely choose to associate with the party and attend its events while a person getting raped has no such freedom of association.  Using ultra agressive, inflamatory arguments is not the way to conduct a civil debate over any topic, in my opinion (you aren't Rush Limbaugh are you?).  Going "indy" as you put it is certainly a viable option.  In fact, it is the only way to get a third party going.


My analogy is not absurd, when only the 2 parties get airtime, and only the 2 parties get to participate in the general election debates. People have been working on building up the third-parties for decades, but it's clear that the political climate is not yet to the point to where enough people demand another option. Unfortunately things will probably have to be far worse before that happens (the polls back up what I'm saying), so for the time being, we have to work within the 2 dominant parties... We don't have a choice besides not voting or voting third-party, neither of which is currently going to achieve what we seek: to restore this country before it's too late.

So yes, it may technically be a "free association", since you do have the choice not to participate and let your apathy get them elected anyway, but nonetheless, they're still continually rigging the process to enure that only establishment-approved candidates have a chance... So I'm not even sure why I'm sitting here arguing semantics about legality with you, when it's clear that you're only allowed to associate with the Republican party if you vote for their guys, and not the only one who actually stands up for the fiscal conservatism they all claim to want, rather than big government in disguise. They're pulling the wool over the eyes of the voters who they allow to vote, and marginalizing those who see through it, and I'm not going to stand for it.

You're missing the point of the analogy, which is to mean that it's silly to just say, well go somewhere else if you don't like it, when our exact goal is to try to restore the party to respectability. It's to say that we don't have to be "raped" or make concessions ourselves, to be as loud as can be that what they're doing is wrong.

----------


## RPit

This County:

Romney 728    43%
Santorum 418   25%
Paul 308   18%


This is bull$#@!..

----------


## Butchie

The only problem is so many of you are famous for being conspiracy kooks and for crying foul everytime things don't go Ron's way, when there actually is something legit no one is going to listen to you.

----------


## RPit

I actually never said anything about much voter fraud so... but this is bull$#@! no matter what...

----------


## Liberty Rebellion

This seems to be the GOP strategy. My county sends the most delegates of any other MO county to the conventions. Last time they had record turnout bc of the Paul supporters showing up. This time they are holding it in a huge highschool, but booked the auditorium with capacity of 300 (~130 showed up last time) instead of the gymnasium which can hold 2,000.

----------


## RPit

I have a feeling they bused in the Romney supporters early, and knew that they'll do this even if the turnout for other candidates was high.. This wreaks of bs.

----------


## asurfaholic

> I have a feeling they bused in the Romney supporters early, and knew that they'll do this even if the turnout for other candidates was high.. This wreaks of bs.


WHY AREN'T THESE PEOPLE RIOTING OUTSIDE?

Hold some GOP officials hostage and demand action.

----------


## tbone717

> This seems to be the GOP strategy. My county sends the most delegates of any other MO county to the conventions. Last time they had record turnout bc of the Paul supporters showing up. This time they are holding it in a huge highschool, but booked the auditorium with capacity of 300 (~130 showed up last time) instead of the gymnasium which can hold 2,000.


This is usually done because of costs.  They base the size venue needed on previous turnout which makes sense.  Why pay the money for the gym when the auditorium may be cheaper to rent for the event?  

If you want to have an effect on decisions like this, then I suggest you get involved in your local GOP and run for an office.  If MO is anything like PA, they may have positions such as committeeman.  That is a good office to start with and is very winable if you are well networked and respected in your community.

----------


## NoOneButPaul

> The only problem is so many of you are famous for being conspiracy kooks and for crying foul everytime things don't go Ron's way, when there actually is something legit no one is going to listen to you.


This is unfortunate but you are completely right...

----------


## wgadget

> The only problem is so many of you are famous for being conspiracy kooks and for crying foul everytime things don't go Ron's way, when there actually is something legit no one is going to listen to you.


And when DO things "go Ron's way"? Do tell.

----------


## NoOneButPaul

> This is usually done because of costs.  They base the size venue needed on previous turnout which makes sense.  Why pay the money for the gym when the auditorium may be cheaper to rent for the event?  
> 
> *If you want to have an effect on decisions like this, then I suggest you get involved in your local GOP and run for an office.  If MO is anything like PA, they may have positions such as committeeman.  That is a good office to start with and is very winable if you are well networked and respected in your community.*


This is how we'll win in the long run...

----------


## tbone717

> The only problem is so many of you are famous for being conspiracy kooks and for crying foul everytime things don't go Ron's way, when there actually is something legit no one is going to listen to you.


See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Boy_Who_Cried_Wolf

----------


## MelissaWV

So I'm sure this has been answered, but why were these people not already inside?

----------


## tbone717

> This is how we'll win in the long run...


Right and it is how we are making inroads already.  Our state senator is an outstanding representative of libertarian conservatism.

----------


## NoOneButPaul

> And when DO things "go Ron's way"? Do tell.


That's irrelevant to his point. 

The fact is, even if there was fraud, we should have so many votes for Ron that it wouldn't matter.

America just isn't ready for it, that's why we have to keep fighting long after this is over.

----------


## TheGrinch

> See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Boy_Who_Cried_Wolf


Quite the opposite. I would say that that analogy is way more appropriate for why we shouldn't believe a word that comes out of the media or establishment GOP's mouth, when they're constantly caught lying and doing shady things that would suggest foul play.

----------


## tbone717

> So I'm sure this has been answered, but why were these people not already inside?


Too many showed up.  In order to accommodate them, someone would have needed to make a motion to split the caucus into multiple sessions.  No one did, so the caucus proceeded as normal.  From my reading of the state GOP rules, our people there could have, and should have dealt with the situation as the rules prescribe and none of this would have been an issue.

----------


## Aratus

duckies, this is only the beginning of the evening...
its midnight in less than four hours where i am, and
washington state is in the pacific time zone so they are
three hours behind me. it looks like our people got in
the door right before the romney people shut them so
maybe there were more paul and santorum people on
the outside or maybe even gingrich people. a guess!

----------


## TheGrinch

> Too many showed up.  In order to accommodate them, someone would have needed to make a motion to split the caucus into multiple sessions.  No one did, so the caucus proceeded as normal.  From my reading of the state GOP rules, our people there could have, and should have dealt with the situation as the rules prescribe and none of this would have been an issue.


You did not answer my question of whether they had other options than to just turn voters away and disenfranchise them... It's certainly possible that it was a misunderstanding (though it does seem to contribute to a trend), but you can't blame Paul supporters for letting something that wasn't their responsibility slip by them, nor for turning the voters away. Just because they have checks-and-balances does not mean they were responsible for either.

----------


## MelissaWV

> Too many showed up.  In order to accommodate them, someone would have needed to make a motion to split the caucus into multiple sessions.  No one did, so the caucus proceeded as normal.  From my reading of the state GOP rules, our people there could have, and should have dealt with the situation as the rules prescribe and none of this would have been an issue.


You're not actually answering my question.

"Too many showed up."  So you are telling me that they turned away people from the front of the line, who got there earliest?  Or did they turn away the people who got there towards the end?

----------


## Liberty Rebellion

> This is usually done because of costs.  They base the size venue needed on previous turnout which makes sense.  Why pay the money for the gym when the auditorium may be cheaper to rent for the event?  
> 
> If you want to have an effect on decisions like this, then I suggest you get involved in your local GOP and run for an office.  If MO is anything like PA, they may have positions such as committeeman.  That is a good office to start with and is very winable if you are well networked and respected in your community.


Respected in my community? lol I have no interest in running for office, especially a GOP committeeman.

With the shenanigans that took place in my county last time around and the other things that are happening this time around including the small capacity venue, I doubt cost is the reason they booked a small venue. The turnout last time was a record in the past decade for GOP caucus because of Ron Paul supporters. This time they are organizing the Tea Partiers in the area that support Santorum.

----------


## liberty2897

> So I'm sure this has been answered, but why were these people not already inside?


Before entering the main rooms, everyone had to register.  The registration area was right next to the entrance doors.  There was not enough room for everyone to get past the front doors and register before 10:00am, even if they got there much earlier.

----------


## wgadget

> duckies, this is only the beginning of the evening...
> its midnight in less than four hours where i am, and
> washington state is in the pacific time zone so they are
> three hours behind me. it looks like our people got in
> the door right before the romney people shut them so
> maybe there were more paul and santorum people on
> the outside or maybe even gingrich people. a guess!


Phew...Well, that's a relief.

----------


## tbone717

> Quite the opposite. I would say that that analogy is way more appropriate for why we shouldn't believe a word that comes out of the media or establishment GOP's mouth, when they're constantly caught lying and doing shady things that would suggest foul play.


I guess you weren't hear for the multiple page thread of people crying voter fraud when Google was testing it's election map and had results reported a day before the contest.  I am starting to come to the opinion that this movement has been infiltrated by people who's sole mission is to make libertarian-conservatives look like bunch of reactionary conspiracy theorists.

----------


## tbone717

> Respected in my community? lol I have no interest in running for office, especially a GOP committeeman.


Seriously, then stop bitching about a system you aren't willing to help to change.  It only stifles the work that 1000's of others are trying to do.

----------


## MelissaWV

> Before entering the main rooms, everyone had to register.  The registration area was right next to the entrance doors.  There was not enough room for everyone to get past the front doors and register before 10:00am, even if they got there much earlier.


Um, if you get there earlier, you get through the registration process earlier.  I guess I'm missing something here.  Oh well.  For a movement that values personal responsibility, I do see an awful lot of cries of "fraud" compared to suggestions for how later contests can avoid these party strategies.

----------


## TheGrinch

> I guess you weren't hear for the multiple page thread of people crying voter fraud when Google was testing it's election map and had results reported a day before the contest.  I am starting to come to the opinion that this movement has been infiltrated by people who's sole mission is to make libertarian-conservatives look like bunch of reactionary conspiracy theorists.


Odd, I'm starting to come to the conclusion that some here are so opposed to the dirty word they've created "conspiracy theorists", that they'll deny anything fishy, even if all indications are that something is up.

As for those who speculate too much, the reason for that is that they constantly pull crap like that, so it's entirely natural for someone to assume the worst, when they're constantly lying and pulling shenanigans. What have the GOP and media done in this race to inspire confidence from Paul supporters? You'd have to be blind to not see that they've given us nothing but ammo to assume the worst out of them.

----------


## Liberty Rebellion

> Seriously, then stop bitching about a system you aren't willing to help to change.  It only stifles the work that 1000's of others are trying to do.


No.

The system will change anyways and I help change it in other ways. 

And how exactly am I stifling someone's work by working in the liberty movement? That makes no sense. You have no idea who I am, what I've done for the movement, and what I'm doing.

----------


## liberty2897

> Um, if you get there earlier, you get through the registration process earlier.  I guess I'm missing something here.  Oh well.  For a movement that values personal responsibility, I do see an awful lot of cries of "fraud" compared to suggestions for how later contests can avoid these party strategies.


I never used the word fraud.  They weren't prepared to handle that many people by 10:00am is the point I was trying to make.   There wasn't enough people processing the registration.  Another point, the local newspaper just said Caucus starts at 10:00am.  The establishment GOP definitely knew to get there much earlier.  I agree that it is the voters responsibility to look these things up, but I definitely think the GOP was either 1)  not very organized and prepared in this county  or 2)  It went just like they wanted it to.   It looked to me like all the old-time establishment GOP made it in fine.   Again, I am not saying fraud or anything illegal happened.  It just sucks to see half the people not be able to vote.

----------


## tbone717

> No.
> 
> The system will change anyways and I help change it in other ways. 
> 
> And how exactly am I stifling someone's work by working in the liberty movement. That makes no sense


Because you are making accusations from behind a computer about a process that you have never been involved in, have little (if any) knowledge about, and are not willing to get yourself involved in locally.

It has been explained many pages back how this could have been remedied.  Instead of complaining about the local GOP officials that booked the room, we should be complaining about the RP supporters that failed to make a motion to split the caucus to multiple votes to accommodate the others.

----------


## TheGrinch

> Because you are making accusations from behind a computer about a process that you have never been involved in, have little (if any) knowledge about, and are not willing to get yourself involved in locally.
> 
> It has been explained many pages back how this could have been remedied.  Instead of complaining about the local GOP officials that booked the room, we should be complaining about the RP supporters that failed to make a motion to split the caucus to multiple votes to accommodate the others.


Okay, should we also blame Dr. Paul supporters who didn't do enough to anticipate that the GOP would muddy up the process?

How in the world do you continue to blame this group for an oversight on something that they weren't responsible for organizing? How is it our fault for not objecting, but it's not their fault for not doing things the right way? I've even admitted that it could be a simple oversight on their part, but your willingness to deflect all blame t othis hard-working group even less responsible for an "oversight" (who we know is not up to anything shady), is flat out sickening.

Do you ever post other than to trash Paul supporters you don't agree with? If so, I've never seen it.

----------


## Anti Federalist

Heh heh heh...I'm shocked, shocked I tell you.

Getting the picture yet folks?

----------


## kathy88

> Um, if you get there earlier, you get through the registration process earlier.  I guess I'm missing something here.  Oh well.  For a movement that values personal responsibility, I do see an awful lot of cries of "fraud" compared to suggestions for how later contests can avoid these party strategies.


After tonight later contests are going to be even harder, unfortunately.

----------


## Aratus

> Heh heh heh...I'm shocked, shocked I tell you.
> 
> Getting the picture yet folks?


over at Intrade, there is gambling going on there... louie

----------


## Aratus

Intrade has to pay out in good faith despite how corrupt our politics gets when "results" become official!

----------


## asurfaholic

> Too many showed up.  In order to accommodate them, someone would have needed to make a motion to split the caucus into multiple sessions.  No one did, so the caucus proceeded as normal.  From my reading of the state GOP rules, our people there could have, and should have dealt with the situation as the rules prescribe and none of this would have been an issue.


What if the people inside didnt know that was going on outside?

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Bull$#@!. They cited pressure from the State Party to get votes in.  The State Party can wait. They could have done two caucuses back to back. People would have waited.


Absolutely agreed!!!!

----------


## tbone717

> Okay, should we also blame Dr. Paul supporters who didn't do enough to anticipate that the GOP would muddy up the process?
> 
> How in the world do you continue to blame this group for an oversight on something that they weren't responsible for organizing? How is it our fault for not objecting, but it's not their fault for not doing things the right way? I've even admitted that it could be a simple oversight on their part, but your willingness to deflect all blame t othis hard-working group even less responsible for an "oversight" (who we know is not up to anything shady), is flat out sickening.
> 
> Do you ever post other than to trash Paul supporters you don't agree with? If so, I've never seen it.


1) The room they booked was too small.  Considering that in 2008 WA had a caucus and a primary it is difficult for people to estimate the turnout.  They made a mistake, people do make mistakes.

2) There is remedy for this in the state GOP rules, as previously stated.

So there are two groups at fault.  I never absolved the people who booked too small a room for their error in estimating turnout.  The local GOP volunteers who booked too small of a room, and the Paul supporters (and for that matter anyone that was in the caucus) for not making a motion from the floor.  The problem is that we have far too many people that want to put all the blame on the GOP volunteers as if there was some grand conspiracy to suppress the vote, when the blame also needs to be placed on the people who did not bother to read or understand their parties rules.

----------


## tbone717

> What if the people inside didnt know that was going on outside?


According to an earlier post in this thread, the guy who claims he was there did vote if I am not mistaken.  Check the post if you like and ask him to clarify.

----------


## tbone717

Honestly, I think some of you just like to bitch and moan about everyone else rather than looking at it rationally.  It;s been nice folks, but I'm done here for a while if not longer.  We have a Senate race & some state races in PA to win, and it's time to shift focus on what is winnable.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> 1) The room they booked was too small.  Considering that in 2008 WA had a caucus and a primary it is difficult for people to estimate the turnout.  They made a mistake, people do make mistakes.
> 
> 2) There is remedy for this in the state GOP rules, as previously stated.
> 
> So there are two groups at fault.  I never absolved the people who booked too small a room for their error in estimating turnout.  The local GOP volunteers who booked too small of a room, and the Paul supporters (and for that matter anyone that was in the caucus) for not making a motion from the floor.  The problem is that we have far too many people that want to put all the blame on the GOP volunteers as if there was some grand conspiracy to suppress the vote, when the blame also needs to be placed on the people who did not bother to read or understand their parties rules.


You make good points.  Although, I too wonder if the people in the RP supporters in the room knew that people were being turned away.

It's a sad deal, but we can choose to learn from it so that it never happens again.

----------


## Tyler_Durden

Ben Swann has asked for any available video of this event.....

----------


## TheGrinch

> Honestly, I think some of you just like to bitch and moan about everyone else rather than looking at it rationally.  It;s been nice folks, but I'm done here for a while if not longer.  We have a Senate race & some state races in PA to win, and it's time to shift focus on what is winnable.


Glood riddance... No one was undisputably claiming fraud as much as it was bull$#@! that they didn't accomaodate those voters.  You are the one woh's completely discounted the possibility, when we've seen nothing but a trend of GOP shenanigans that indicates the opposite. So take your defeatist attitude elsewhere. We're gonig to make sure no BS is going on before we just assume it's a misunderstanding... Really it seems the anti-"conspiracy-theorists" have a much more far-out-there theories that everything is just peachy and rosey in politics.

----------


## kathy88

> Ben Swann has asked for any available video of this event.....


I could kiss that guy square on the mouth. And I like guys. LOL.

----------


## kathy88

> Honestly, I think some of you just like to bitch and moan about everyone else rather than looking at it rationally.  It;s been nice folks, but I'm done here for a while if not longer.  We have a Senate race & some state races in PA to win, and it's time to shift focus on what is winnable.


Okay bye. You focus on what's winnable. We'll continue to help Ron.

----------


## Butchie

> Glood riddance... No one was undisputably claiming fraud as much as it was bull$#@! that they didn't accomaodate those voters.  You are the one woh's completely discounted the possibility, when we've seen nothing but a trend of GOP shenanigans that indicates the opposite. So take your defeatist attitude elsewhere. We're gonig to make sure no BS is going on before we just assume it's a misunderstanding... Really it seems the anti-"conspiracy-theorists" have a much more far-out-there theories that everything is just peachy and rosey in politics.


No one is discounting it, we're simply saying there are many here, not necessarily you, who are always spouting some conspiracy or another to the point where it's lost all credibility, at this stage even if you had undeniable proof who is going to listen to a Ron Paul supporter?

----------


## ProBlue33

This is going to sound bad, but looking at the results it was Santorum & Romney country anyway, this hurt them more than it hurt us.
Not good for sure, but that county was unwinnable anyways.

----------


## klamath

> This is going to sound bad, but looking at the results it was Santorum & Romney country anyway, this hurt them more than it hurt us.
> Not good for sure, but that county was unwinnable anyways.


This. If the Tri cities area had gone heavy paul I would have been suspicious. The went for Romney. Those 1500 extra people only would have increased Romney's vote total.

----------


## TheGrinch

> No one is discounting it, we're simply saying there are many here, not necessarily you, who are always spouting some conspiracy or another to the point where it's lost all credibility, at this stage even if you had undeniable proof who is going to listen to a Ron Paul supporter?


And as he said with the "boy who cried wolf" example, he actually proved my point... It's not the Paul supporters who are lying to the point of no one believing them; they're simply speculating, and it's not unfounded.... It's due to the fact the media and GOP are the ones lying "crying Romney" if you will, to the point that we're naturally skeptical of anything and everything they do...

People here don't just speculate because they simply like to speculate. It's 100% reactionary to all of the shadiness and lies that we see in every single state and the media's irresponsible reporting and flat out ignoring Dr. Paul (and I'm jsut talking about this election as the most blatant example)

If you want to know why conspiracy theories exist, it's because this kind of crap happens to a degree to where you can't simply just call it coincidence anymore. Something happens a few times, it's an isolated incident, but when this stuff keeps happening over and over and over, with votes disappearing and Dr. Paul getting nothnig but negative coverage foolwoing strong showings, then well.... You call a spade a spade, and assume they're going to continue to act like one, rather than give them a benefit of the doubt they haven't earned with us...

----------


## kathy88

> And as he said with the "boy who cried wolf" example, he actually proved my point... It's not the Paul supporters who are lying to the point of no one believing them; they're simply speculating, and it's not unfounded.... It's due to the fact the media and GOP are the ones lying "crying Romney" if you will, to the point that we're naturally skeptical of anything and everything they do...
> 
> People here don't just speculate because they simply like to speculate. It's 100% reactionary to all of the shadiness and lies that we see in every single state and the media's irresponsible reporting and flat out ignoring Dr. Paul (and I'm jsut talking about this election as the most blatant example)
> 
> 
> If you want to know why conspiracy theories exist, it's because this kind of crap happens to a degree to where you can't simply just call it coincidence anymore. Something happens a few times, it's an isolated incident, but when this stuff keeps happening over and over and over, with votes disappearing and Dr. Paul getting nothnig but negative coverage foolwoing strong showings, then well.... You call a spade a spade, and assume they're going to continue to act like one, rather than give them a benefit of the doubt they haven't earned with us...



QFT. And for those of us here last time it isn't anything new. Just more blatant and dirty this time because of increasing RP support. Harder to hide it.

----------


## shelskov

If they couldn't all fit int he rooms at the same time then take your poll of the group that fits in the room, ask them to go outside, invite (and check the rosters) the remaining attendees inside the room, take their poll, repeat until all vote.

Just so everyone knows, there is nothing wrong with people waiting outside of a building for a little while, there doesn't have to be enough room inside for everyone to be in there at the same time. 

Who decided who could come in and who was turned away?

Such BS...

----------


## kathy88

> If they couldn't all fit int he rooms at the same time then take your poll of the group that fits in the room, ask them to go outside, invite (and check the rosters) the remaining attendees inside the room, take their poll, repeat until all vote.
> 
> Just so everyone knows, there is nothing wrong with people waiting outside of a building for a little while, there doesn't have to be enough room inside for everyone to be in there at the same time. 
> 
> Who decided who could come in and who was turned away?
> 
> Such BS...


That was easy, any RP shirts were out, grey hair, in.

----------


## mosquitobite

benjamin c cook = enemy of rights and liberty

http://www.tri-cityherald.com/2012/0...#disqus_thread

----------


## NoOneButPaul

> That was easy, any RP shirts were out, grey hair, in.


There's always the 50/50 chance it was the other way around...

In which case the Santorum people have every right to be as mad as we would be if we finished in 3rd.

----------


## KingNothing

> This. If the Tri cities area had gone heavy paul I would have been suspicious. The went for Romney. Those 1500 extra people only would have increased Romney's vote total.


So wait a minute.  Are you saying that sometimes poor planning hurts candidates who aren't Ron Paul and that not everything is a conspiracy to keep our man down?!

HA!  That's exactly what THEY want you to think.

----------


## KingNothing

> That was easy, any RP shirts were out, grey hair, in.


Do you have any proof of that?

----------


## liberty2897

> This. If the Tri cities area had gone heavy paul I would have been suspicious. The went for Romney. Those 1500 extra people only would have increased Romney's vote total.


What do you base that on?   When Ron Paul visited the tri-cities a few weeks back,  he had a lot of supporters show up.

Here are the attendance estimates for the recent republican candidate tricity events according to the local news:

Ron Paul - 1500
Newt Gingrich - 500
Rick Santorum - 500
Josh Romney (Mitts son)- 130

----------


## Aratus

even if the ratio kept intact, we just don't know.
what we do know is mitt still won and newt is last.

----------


## klamath

> What do you base that on?   When Ron Paul visited the tri-cities a few weeks back,  he had a lot of supporters show up.
> 
> Here are the attendance estimates for the recent republican candidate tricity events according to the local news:
> 
> Ron Paul - 1500
> Newt Gingrich - 500
> Rick Santorum - 500
> Josh Romney (Mitts son)- 130


Because romney won Benton, Franklin and Walla walla counties. Rally numbers mean nothing. RP's people could have been coming from as far away as central oregon.
On top of that santorum came in second in all three of the counties as well.

----------


## liberty2897

> Because romney won Benton, Franklin and Walla walla counties. Rally numbers mean nothing. RP's people could have been coming from as far away as central oregon.
> On top of that santorum came in second in all three of the counties as well.


Okay,  that is good logic.   I guess I'm just embarrassed to live in a county where Santorum beat Paul.

----------


## sailingaway

> Because romney won Benton, Franklin and Walla walla counties. Rally numbers mean nothing. RP's people could have been coming from as far away as central oregon.
> On top of that santorum came in second in all three of the counties as well.


Did Romney really win Benton?  A twitter announcement I saw said Ron won it big time.  Not that twitter is flawless, I'm just surprised.  And Benton had 800 people turned away, so I was pissed.

----------


## klamath

> Did Romney really win Benton?  A twitter announcement I saw said Ron won it big time.  Not that twitter is flawless, I'm just surprised.  And Benton had 800 people turned away, so I was pissed.


Romney won it 43% to 18% for RP. santorumj got 24%
http://www.google.com/elections/ed/us/results Hover over the three counties surrounding Kenniwick.

----------


## PineGroveDave

So, forgive me as I'm unaware of WA rules, but is anyone considering filing a complaint with the Attorney General?

----------


## KingNothing

> So, forgive me as I'm unaware of WA rules, but is anyone considering filing a complaint with the Attorney General?


We probably should out of principle, but in this instance it only helped us.

----------


## kathy88

> Do you have any proof of that?


Nope. It was sarcasm.

----------


## Feelgood

> Okay bye. You focus on what's winnable. We'll continue to help Ron.


Are you saying Ron is not winnable?  :-)

Here is another interesting link from that page. Off topic, but still a good read. 

http://blogs.mcclatchydc.com/washing...-in-ohio-.html

----------


## kathy88

> Are you saying Ron is not winnable?  :-)
> 
> Here is another interesting link from that page. Off topic, but still a good read. 
> 
> http://blogs.mcclatchydc.com/washing...-in-ohio-.html


No, not at all! I should have quoted his comment that he was "out" going to work on winnable stuff.

----------


## Butchie

> And as he said with the "boy who cried wolf" example, he actually proved my point... It's not the Paul supporters who are lying to the point of no one believing them; they're simply speculating, and it's not unfounded.... It's due to the fact the media and GOP are the ones lying "crying Romney" if you will, to the point that we're naturally skeptical of anything and everything they do...
> 
> People here don't just speculate because they simply like to speculate. It's 100% reactionary to all of the shadiness and lies that we see in every single state and the media's irresponsible reporting and flat out ignoring Dr. Paul (and I'm jsut talking about this election as the most blatant example)
> 
> If you want to know why conspiracy theories exist, it's because this kind of crap happens to a degree to where you can't simply just call it coincidence anymore. Something happens a few times, it's an isolated incident, but when this stuff keeps happening over and over and over, with votes disappearing and Dr. Paul getting nothnig but negative coverage foolwoing strong showings, then well.... You call a spade a spade, and assume they're going to continue to act like one, rather than give them a benefit of the doubt they haven't earned with us...


But again, unless you have proof it is better to keep quiet. Look at that CPAC "crowd switch" form '11, there was proof on video, but just saying things like "Oh, my friends, cousins, best friends, girlfriend said she saw someone throw out some Ron Paul votes" is not going to get the job done, it's not that I'm calling anyone a liar, just that people won't accept heresay as proof, add to that the fact that you always get no shortage of fools who in their accussations make some mention about how the "NWO" or "Illuminati" or "Zionist Bankers" are behind it all and it's easy to see why no one listens.

----------

