For Bradley in DC and anyone that wants to understand the truth of the delegate proce

[No1ButPaul08]

One, do you still think that there HAS to be a brokered convention? You have claimed that McCain can't win on the first ballot because he won't have enough bound delegates--but he COULD have enough votes from bound AND UNBOUND delegates to win on the first ballot, right?

Steve : 1: Has to be and forced are two different things however My claim about Mccain has since been updated and my comments on this were when Romney and Huckabee where still in the race and therefor it absolutely would have left Mccain short to win on the first ballot.

Absolutely would have left McCain short to win on the first ballot? Wrong, Huckabee and Romney could still be in the race and McCain would STILL be marching to the nomination. It was pretty clear that McCain was going to be the nominee on 2/6 without the brokered convention and they were in the race at that point.

The idea of the brokered convention was lost when McCain won SC and then won FL ending Guiliani's "campaign" locking up all the winner take all states for McCain in the northeast. Even after Super Tuesday you were claiming, "IT'S GOING TO BE A BROKERED CONVENTION."

 

[Drsteveparent]

This quote --- taken out of context and from a completely different medium, like many of your thinly-veiled attacks seem to be --- refers to an admission by you, or someone posing as you, online. That chatter claimed to have prescribed the medication for himself.

What this has to do with answering questions posed to you in this forum is beyond me. Why you feel a need to reference everything else (which appears to take much more time and effort) rather than answer direct questions is confusing. I have said your message is sound but that the facts and messenger are in some doubt. This thread would not exist unless that were an accurate assessment in the views of several people. I respectfully ask that you cease focusing so much on things that happened outside of this forum a couple of weeks ago, and perhaps go back to educating people, if that was the intention. I have provided questions, comments, and even advice over the time period I have interacted with you.

The difficulty I think some people have with me is that I seem friendly at times, and hostile at others. That's how human beings seem, which is to say that when two people agree they feel far more friendly towards each other. When there is disagreement, there is a tendency to assume it results from some sort of spite. I will say again: I agree people need to get educated. If I were to postscript that with some secret delegate numbers which I can't reveal the source to, I would be playing the role of educator, not simply someone spreading the message. Giving out quantifiable results brings to bear a certain degree of responsibility (imo)... this is the problem we're having right now with the MSM. They will have the numbers right there, but add projections, assumptions, anything to make Dr. Paul disappear. We have no way, as the audience, to really scrutinize their "sources". There is a high degree of spin going on in this post, mostly about things that have zero to do with the questions at hand. Most of the questions are still not hammered down.

My advice is genuine. My questions are genuine. My suspicions are genuine but have nothing to do with the two prior categories. The only things my personal suspicion has an effect on are whether or not I'd have you over for dinner, and whether I choose to accept you in a role of educator. Personal conclusions about why I'm on this forum, about what I do outside of this forum, and especially about who I am, have no relevance except when I have to defend myself when attacked on those fronts.

I'm not claiming to be blameless, because I react poorly to personal attacks and the snide slandering of various projects I have worked on and people whom I care about. I have answered personality accusations in kind, but I will stop, because it's my hope that although you have asserted you're quitting from the boards a few times, perhaps some light will be shed in a courteous manner on some of the questions still being posed. These are not your inferiors, these are The People... more than that these are The People who are involved in the process, and the ones who will do what they can --- WHETHER OR NOT IT IS WHAT YOU ARE DOING --- to get Dr. Paul or persons with similar mindsets elected to their positions of power through the next decade and beyond.

When it comes down to it, that's the point. We are the People. Not just the ones that agree with you, not just the ones that agree with me. The people you say not to donate to, or listen to, or put any faith in... they're also "the People". Asking questions and expecting an answer as if one is on equal footing with the person answering is NOT some sign of weakness, naysaying, or discouragement. It's not defeatest. We must each, as individuals, make a decision as to where we focus our efforts, our limited time, our valuable monetary and temporal resources. If you disagree with something I've said here, or something someone else has, it's my hope that you can do so with an equally extended olive branch.

I just ask respectfully that we stop bringing every forum, chatroom, radio show, and person into this conversation that never asked to be brought up.

I do agree with some of your points although i disagree with many as well so let me just address what i need to and be done with this please.

1: I do not work for the campaign and it is not my job to spell out every detail from every county, state and district. I have told everyone i have worked with to educate themselves and the people that attack me for not being clear seem to think i have unlimited time and that my bills get paid somehow by me writing articles on every detail.

2: I have told these people exactly what they need to do : Get your bylaws - roberts ruls of order- register to become a delegate - and i have called many meetup groups at my own expense even while in Europe on business which is why my damn phone bill is over $6000 but instead i get people saying are you and idiot why is your phone bill so high? You need to get skype! You need a different cell phone plan! I am sick of this for my efforts have been to do nothing more than help as many as i can and spent my own money to do it which is hurting me financially. People wanted to set up a chip in for me and i said NO because this is not about the money and i didn't do it for that reason. But yet i am and idiot because i let my phone bill get that high? Shame on me for spending my own money helping people be prepared to enter their convention so that had a chance to make a difference. If that makes me an idiot so be it.

The personal attacks are the problem Melissa as your husband proudly came in here and stated that i admitted to being treated as a scitzofrantic WHICH IS A LIE and does constitute libel which i have not decided yet if i will pursue legal ramifications for this blatent action of libel as to attack my mind set and my integrity as well as my level of intellegence and my mental state of mind.

It is not my job to explain myself to you or anyone else for that matter and in a chat room i was trying to answer 6 people at once and everytime i answered someone elses question someone else would claimed i attacked or belittled them even though my answer did not even pertain to them or their question.

You heard my interview and you and your husband own the station so why not make the interview public for all to hear exaclty where my position was on the issues which will surely put everything into perspective of what my motives are for everyone to hear.

I did not come here or get involved to fight and argue i only wished to educate those that needed it and then allow them to continue to educate themselves but when people ask me a specific questions about a state they assume like magic i have the answer right away which i can't possibly know every bylaw in every county and state and which is why i TELL EVERYONE research it first then i can better help you prepare.


This is what you refer too in your first sentence and this came from your husband or so he claims you are his wife : Please fact-check any statements made by Drsteveparent. Not only did we debunk many statements he made when he visitted rpiradio.com, but he also loaded sock puppets (from his same IP address in Winnipeg, Canada) in our chat to back him up and then deny doing so despite the obvious proof which everyone was witness to, he has also admitted to suffering from schizophrenia in another chat room.

Debunked? Really? Sock puppets? he has also admitted to suffering from schizophrenia in another chat room.


I cam here to address legit questions and this is the same crap i have put up with from you people since DAY 1 and i will not stand for it and i will YES be sarcastic to anyone that makes such claims and it is well warranted.

I wish this could of been different but it has not started that way.

I do appreciate the advice you gave me on daily paul ragarding the phone calls and that was very nice of you and i thank you for that but it came just a little that but is still appreciated.

I will also continue to say to everyone that if you are not part of the solution you are part of the problem END OF STORY.

All i can do is give people the information i have massed over the years and prepare them as much as possible so they have a fighting chance and that is all i am trying to do nothing more nothing less.

 

[Sandra]

So now we know what happened to rpradio.

 

[Drsteveparent]

Absolutely would have left McCain short to win on the first ballot? Wrong, Huckabee and Romney could still be in the race and McCain would STILL be marching to the nomination. It was pretty clear that McCain was going to be the nominee on 2/6 without the brokered convention and they were in the race at that point.

The idea of the brokered convention was lost when McCain won SC and then won FL ending Guiliani's "campaign" locking up all the winner take all states for McCain in the northeast. Even after Super Tuesday you were claiming, "IT'S GOING TO BE A BROKERED CONVENTION."

It would have if Huck and Mitt stayed in just do the simple math as i stated you are a waste of time for your first claim was IT WOULD BE GOOD FOR A DEMOCRAT TO WIN THE WHITE HOUSE.

No i will not respond to your ignorance. But i see you will be voting for Hillary in NOV.

 

[No1ButPaul08]

2: I have told these people exactly what they need to do : Get your bylaws - roberts ruls of order- register to become a delegate - .

I agree with all of this. What I don't agree with is the delusional statements I've already questioned in this thread of which you have yet to clearly respond. You say something like, "that info is old read the updated info." Like I've said previously the info was wrong then and it is wrong now. You also accuse me of "trying to get people to go third party." Could you please point out where I've done this? I'm going to guess you can't. That's because it hasn't happened. You will also notice my signature encouraging people to sign up to be a delegate through Ron Paul.

I cam here to address legit questions and this is the same crap i have put up with from you people since DAY 1 and i will not stand for it and i will YES be sarcastic to anyone that makes such claims and it is well warranted.

I've asked you many legit questions and you've yet to respond to them. Instead, you come up with a silly reason and make up things that aren't true to dodge my questions

 

[Drsteveparent]

I agree with all of this. What I don't agree with is the delusional statements I've already questioned in this thread of which you have yet to clearly respond. You say something like, "that info is old read the updated info." Like I've said previously the info was wrong then and it is wrong now. You also accuse me of "trying to get people to go third party." Could you please point out where I've done this? I'm going to guess you can't. That's because it hasn't happened. You will also notice my signature encouraging people to sign up to be a delegate through Ron Paul.



I've asked you many legit questions and you've yet to respond to them. Instead, you come up with a silly reason and make up things that aren't true to dodge my questions

Search the thread you will find the answer to those qustions you asked and i will not respond to you again.

 

[No1ButPaul08]

It would have if Huck and Mitt stayed in just do the simple math as i stated you are a waste of time for your first claim was IT WOULD BE GOOD FOR A DEMOCRAT TO WIN THE WHITE HOUSE.

No i will not respond to your ignorance. But i see you will be voting for Hillary in NOV.

No it wouldn't have. McCain had 70% of the delegates 2/6, when they were both in the race. With all the momentum he had (the media declaring him the winner), what makes you think that trend wouldn't continue. The odds on the betting exchange for the brokered convention is the same then as it is now, 20-1. I'll remind you that Huckabee did stay in and got crushed in every state besides Kansas.

You will not respond to my "igonorance." If I was so ignorant, couldn't you just prove me wrong quickly and move on. That's right, you can't, so you just resort to calling me ignorant and hope people believe you while you leave my questions unanswered.

I will not vote for Hillary, Obama, or McCain. I live in Indiana it doesn't really matter who I vote for as the GOP hasn't lost the state since FDR. Who I prefer to win in Nov. out of those 3 really has nothing to do with this thread. I made a simple point that keeping McCain out of the WH will help us in 2012, and you keep using that as a crutch by making me out to be a Dem so therefore, according to you I'm ignorant.

 

[No1ButPaul08]

Search the thread you will find the answer to those qustions you asked and i will not respond to you again.

Huh? You've hardly responded to anything I've posted in this thread, most of which is asking you questions or proving you're wrong. You're standard response to me has been

Why would i answer any of your questions considering you made it clear your intentions which is that putting a democrat in the white house would be a good thing. Yes that comment deserves for me to explain nothing to you for you have already quit or you are going to try to get people to go 3rd party either way i will not waste my time on you.
.

So, instead of answering my questions, you call me ignorant and put words in my mouth. But you've addressed ONE point I made this entire thread

The brokered convention issue was when Romney and Huck were still in the race dividing delegates all over the country and my article about the delegates had changed although people have copied the old and continue to send it out which i have little control over which is why i say if you want a questions answered email me and i will answer you directly based on your state considering i have the info i need in your state.

Which is funny because your article YOU linked was what I was attacking. You also went on to say about the brokered convention

It would have if Huck and Mitt stayed in just do the simple math

And I responded, No it wouldn't have. McCain had 70% of the delegates 2/6, when they were both in the race. With all the momentum he had (the media declaring him the winner), what makes you think that trend wouldn't continue. The odds on the betting exchange for the brokered convention is the same then as it is now, 20-1. I'll remind you that Huckabee did stay in and got crushed in every state besides Kansas.

So really, as far as I can tell, you really haven't addressed any of the questions I've asked of you, or the places where i've pointed out that you were wrong. But hey, you're Dr. Steve Parent, the all-knowing delegate authority, so you must be right.

Would you mind showing me where you've addressed my questions, because as far as I can tell you haven't. Just saying you have when you haven't doesn't really get the job done

 

[Bradley in DC]

Bradley: Do you still think that there HAS to be a brokered convention? You have claimed that McCain can't win on the first ballot because he won't have enough bound delegates--but he COULD have enough votes from bound AND UNBOUND delegates to win on the first ballot, right?

Steve : 1: Has to be and forced are two different things however My claim about Mccain has since been updated and my comments on this were when Romney and Huckabee where still in the race and therefor it absolutely would have left Mccain short to win on the first ballot.

2: Yes he could obtain enough from bound and unbound at this point which is why it is important to obtain as many Paul delegates as possible.

Ok, so let's be clear. When you previously wrote your oft-repeated claim:

I know many of you are bummed about yesterday BUT THAT IS BECAUSE YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND HOW THE ELECTION SYSTEM WORKS : Let me explain to you the reality of how to become the nominee.

First stop looking at who wins each states popular vote for most of these states the vote by the people is really nothing but a straw poll and have no real bearing on who will become the nominee. The only way this matters is if 1 person receives 1191 delegates that are bound by state rules to be commited to that candidate. So if a candiate like Mccain has 600 delegates now and IF he doesn't reach 1191 WHICH HE WILL NOT most of the delegates the state awarded him mean nothing and keep in mind in most of the states most of the people that represent the 600 for Mccain are actually Ron Paul supporters. NOW there is no possible way that anyone in the race can achieve this goal now because of the major split in state wins by the candidates.​

You either didn't know what you were talking about or were either lying or delusional: As you admit now, votes of bound and unbound delegates count. As you admit now, there IS a possible (and in fact probable) way that McCain will have a majority of delegate support on the first ballot. If you are NOT delusional then you are a charlatan, a fraud. Let's be clear: you admit now that I was right, and you were wrong.

Let's look at your claims in a little more depth:

First stop looking at who wins each states [sic] popular vote for most of these states the vote by the people is really nothing but a straw poll and have no real bearing on who will become the nominee.​

Well, as I point out in greater detail in the wiki, the primary vote is the ONLY factor deciding the (elected) delegates from many states, including California, etc. In addition, the primary vote is the only factor in other states in determining some of the (elected) delegates. In many other states then it is their "straw poll" vote that picks the state convention delegates that pick the national nominating convention delegates (which does in fact have a "real bearing on will become the nominee) and, in addition in many states, a candidate must meet a minimum threshold to be awarded any delegates.

So if a candiate like Mccain has 600 delegates now and IF he doesn't reach 1191 WHICH HE WILL NOT most of the delegates the state awarded him mean nothing​

So, by your reasoning in this explanation to all of us who don't understand how the system works, we should not bother trying to be delegates to the national nominating convention unless Dr. Paul reaches 1191 delegates or we would "mean nothing" according to you. I call shenanigans.

keep in mind in most of the states most of the people that represent the 600 for Mccain are actually Ron Paul supporters.​

I sincerely hope you prove me wrong and Dr. Paul is the GOP nominee, but at this point, yeah, my money would be on you being delusional.

Bradley: Two, you claim that state party conventions can change state election law binding delegates. If that characterization is correct, yes, it is delusional. Or could you clarify your position?

steve : I have claimed no such thing pertaining to state laws and i have not seen one state law that dictates to the party on how they force or not force their delegates to vote. This is the difference between state law and party rule and they are not synonymous except when state laws apply to election procedure in the state.

DC "state" law legally binds ALL of our 19 delegates (the 16 elected delegates as well as the 3 unelected delegates); ok, to be fair, DC is (as you would expect) weird, but they simply require that they follow the DC GOP plan. There are others as well.

Bradley: similarly, others tell me that state conventions CANNOT change the rules binding national convention delegates. Could you please cite your sources and make of list of relevant states? Obviously in states that choose their delegates by primary only (including California, etc.--see the wiki), your tactic couldn't work.

Steve: Then they are uninformed or mistaken unless their state already has that set in place in thier bylaws however the bylaws can always be changed as well, which is why i have told everyone to obtain a copy if the bylaws in thier state to see what they can and can't do and to see if the bylaws must be ammended first before moving to unbind the delegates.

The source is in the state party rules and the RNC call

So, it's your word with no specific citations to back up your claim versus others. Wow, that really put everyone in their place. Especially since you are on public record on this post as being outed as either delusional or a charlatan (see above).

 

[Drsteveparent]

Ok, so let's be clear. When you previously wrote your oft-repeated claim:

I know many of you are bummed about yesterday BUT THAT IS BECAUSE YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND HOW THE ELECTION SYSTEM WORKS : Let me explain to you the reality of how to become the nominee.

First stop looking at who wins each states popular vote for most of these states the vote by the people is really nothing but a straw poll and have no real bearing on who will become the nominee. The only way this matters is if 1 person receives 1191 delegates that are bound by state rules to be commited to that candidate. So if a candiate like Mccain has 600 delegates now and IF he doesn't reach 1191 WHICH HE WILL NOT most of the delegates the state awarded him mean nothing and keep in mind in most of the states most of the people that represent the 600 for Mccain are actually Ron Paul supporters. NOW there is no possible way that anyone in the race can achieve this goal now because of the major split in state wins by the candidates.​

You either didn't know what you were talking about or were either lying or delusional: As you admit now, votes of bound and unbound delegates count. As you admit now, there IS a possible (and in fact probable) way that McCain will have a majority of delegate support on the first ballot. If you are NOT delusional then you are a charlatan, a fraud.

Steve : The comment was clear as i said "MOST OF THE STATES" is it my job to write a thesis? you ahve taken the comment out of context with the end of the context of that statement which clearly is : Obtain a copy of your bylaws to see what you must and can change so you can obtain the advantage when you enter your convention.


DC "state" law legally binds ALL of our 19 delegates (the 16 elected delegates as well as the 3 unelected delegates); ok, to be fair, DC is (as you would expect) weird, but they simply require that they follow the DC GOP plan. There are others as well.

Well that doesn't suprise me considering DC doesn't obey the 2nd ammendment why should they obey anything else.

Show me any other state that has this law for as i have stated i have not seen one yet and i haven't seen the law in DC either we are just talking your word for it.




So, it's your word with no specific citations to back up your claim versus others. Wow, that really put everyone in their place. Especially since you are on public record on this post as being outed as either delusional or a charlatan (see above).

Yes i guess i need that straight jacket. All you have to do is read the article in context as i stated i never said it was a thesis and as i have said many times i have encouraged everyone to research their own state so how many times do i have to repeat that?

You can take things out of context all day long and that will not change the actual meaning when put in context here is a perfect example.

Mathew 19:24 : Again I say to you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."

When you put this in context IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH BEING RICH OR POOR OR MONEY.

Set alone like that it is easy to assume that it is harder for a rich man to get in to heaven that someone poor. WHICH IS NOT TRUE.

I also want to see the law that claims what you state or is it one of those laws from the IRS CODE?

 

[mdh]

lol. So I just got back from handing out about 500 slimjims on the WVU campus. What have you all been doing for the cause today?

 

[Bradley in DC]

lol. So I just got back from handing out about 500 slimjims on the WVU campus. What have you all been doing for the cause today?

Lots of preparations to put Vern McKinley in Congress as our best hope for the next Ron Paul Republican there--oh, and exposing Steve as a liar or delusional so RP supporters would know to look for good information elsewhere.

 

[Drsteveparent]

I know many of you are bummed about yesterday BUT THAT IS BECAUSE YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND HOW THE ELECTION SYSTEM WORKS : Let me explain to you the reality of how to become the nominee.

First stop looking at who wins each states popular vote for most of these states the vote by the people is really nothing but a straw poll and have no real bearing on who will become the nominee. The only way this matters is if 1 person receives 1191 delegates that are bound by state rules to be commited to that candidate. So if a candiate like Mccain has 600 delegates now and IF he doesn't reach 1191 WHICH HE WILL NOT most of the delegates the state awarded him mean nothing and keep in mind in most of the states most of the people that represent the 600 for Mccain are actually Ron Paul supporters. NOW there is no possible way that anyone in the race can achieve this goal now because of the major split in state wins by the candidates.​

You either didn't know what you were talking about or were either lying or delusional: As you admit now, votes of bound and unbound delegates count. As you admit now, there IS a possible (and in fact probable) way that McCain will have a majority of delegate support on the first ballot. If you are NOT delusional then you are a charlatan, a fraud.

Steve : The comment was clear as i said "MOST OF THE STATES" is it my job to write a thesis? you ahve taken the comment out of context with the end of the context of that statement which clearly is : Obtain a copy of your bylaws to see what you must and can change so you can obtain the advantage when you enter your convention.


DC "state" law legally binds ALL of our 19 delegates (the 16 elected delegates as well as the 3 unelected delegates); ok, to be fair, DC is (as you would expect) weird, but they simply require that they follow the DC GOP plan. There are others as well.

Well that doesn't suprise me considering DC doesn't obey the 2nd ammendment why should they obey anything else.

Show me any other state that has this law for as i have stated i have not seen one yet and i haven't seen the law in DC either we are just talking your word for it.




So, it's your word with no specific citations to back up your claim versus others. Wow, that really put everyone in their place. Especially since you are on public record on this post as being outed as either delusional or a charlatan (see above).[/QUOTE]


Yes i guess i need that straight jacket. All you have to do is read the article in context as i stated i never said it was a thesis and as i have said many times i have encouraged everyone to research their own state so how many times do i have to repeat that?

You can take things out of context all day long and that will not change the actual meaning when put in context here is a perfect example.

Mathew 19:24 : Again I say to you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."

When you put this in context IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH BEING RICH OR POOR OR MONEY.

Set alone like that it is easy to assume that it is harder for a rich man to get in to heaven that someone poor. WHICH IS NOT TRUE.

I also want to see the law that claims what you state or is it one of those laws from the IRS CODE?

 

[Drsteveparent]

Lots of preparations to put Vern McKinley in Congress as our best hope for the next Ron Paul Republican there--oh, and exposing Steve as a liar or delusional so RP supporters would know to look for good information elsewhere.

Actually Bradley it is becoming quite clear you can't read.

 

[MelissaWV]

I drove you to the University campus to do so and have had our house and garage taken over by campaign materials I share the same yard where we have the two signs up right now, and the two windows where we have two additional signs. I also babysat the chatroom, sent out some more relevant emails, and communicated in a friendly manner with people.

lol not much else I can do today, but tomorrow is another story!

 

[mdh]

Lots of preparations to put Vern McKinley in Congress as our best hope for the next Ron Paul Republican there

Rock on, Bradley!

It just happened to be our first 80+ degree day of the year here too... lots of beautiful girls scantilly dressed to hand slimjims to.

 

[Bradley in DC]

Yes i guess i need that straight jacket. All you have to do is read the article in context

Here is the context:

PLEASE EVERYONE COPY AND SEND THIS TO THIER EMAIL LIST AND MEETUP HEADS AND ANY OTHER RON PAUL FORUM THERE IS.

I know many of you are new to the election process but don't worry.

I am going to go into some depth of how this all works so read and then read again if you need to.

The MSM is not reporting how to become the nominee in a situation like this so i will tell you to stop getting your info from the MSM.

I know many of you are bummed about yesterday BUT THAT IS BECAUSE YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND HOW THE ELECTION SYSTEM WORKS : Let me explain to you the reality of how to become the nominee.

First stop looking at who wins each states popular vote for most of these states the vote by the people is really nothing but a straw poll and have no real bearing on who will become the nominee. The only way this matters is if 1 person receives 1191 delegates that are bound by state rules to be commited to that candidate. So if a candiate like Mccain has 600 delegates now and IF he doesn't reach 1191 WHICH HE WILL NOT most of the delegates the state awarded him mean nothing and keep in mind in most of the states most of the people that represent the 600 for Mccain are actually Ron Paul supporters. NOW there is no possible way that anyone in the race can achieve this goal now because of the major split in state wins by the candidates.

Normally Convention Delegates do not matter because the convention is not brokered and we have a clear winner because someone has 1191 delegates. BUT THIS YEAR IS DIFFERENT. This will be a brokered convention there is no way around it. Do you see how the ronpaul campaign strategy will work.

When a candidate wins delegates by winning a primary that does not mean there are actual people that won acting as delegates- these are virtual delegates.

What do I mean by virtual delegates: A virtual delegate is just a number - there are no actual people YET that will go and vote for the candidate who won the particular state at the national convention. We call these people convention delegates

The actual delegates are voted on (in most states) at a statewide delegate caucus after the Primary (which is just a giant preference poll) Who can be delegates? Anyone. In closed Primary states they must be registered Republicans, in Open Primary states they can be Republicans, Democrats, Independents.

And we have lots of delegates.​

 

[Bradley in DC]

Steve: This will be a brokered convention there is no way around it. Do you see how the ronpaul campaign strategy will work.​

That was wrong, period. Yes, either delusional rantings or fraudulent.

Steve: When a candidate wins delegates by winning a primary that does not mean there are actual people that won acting as delegates- these are virtual delegates.

What do I mean by virtual delegates: A virtual delegate is just a number - there are no actual people YET that will go and vote for the candidate who won the part.​

No, in primaries, it generally means that there are actual people that won as delegates. I go into more detail in the wiki. The candidates file their slate of "delegate candidates" with the state Secretary of State. Voters choose one slate of NAMED DELEGATE CANDIDATES to represent them as delegates. In some states, the delegate candidates' names are publicized in the voting guide and in others the names of the actual delegate candidates themselves appear on the ballot. "Virtual delegates" only exist in your virtual reality.

 

[Drsteveparent]

Bradley DO YOU NOT SEE THIS?

First stop looking at who wins each states popular vote for most of these states the vote by the people is really nothing but a straw poll and have no real bearing on who will become the nominee. The only way this matters is if 1 person receives 1191 delegates that are bound by state rules to be commited to that candidate

MOST STATES - MOST STATES - MOST STATES- Did i say every state? where did i ever say that as i said it is not my job to right a thesis ON THE ELECTION PROCESS.

MY job in that article was the basics of the delegate process i went into extreme detail with every meetup group acording to their state.

You are a lost cause man.

 

[Drsteveparent]

That was wrong, period. Yes, either delusional rantings or fraudulent.



No, in primaries, it generally means that there are actual people that won as delegates. I go into more detail in the wiki. The candidates file their slate of "delegate candidates" with the state Secretary of State. Voters choose one slate of NAMED DELEGATE CANDIDATES to represent them as delegates. In some states, the delegate candidates' names are publicized in the voting guide and in others the names of the actual delegate candidates themselves appear on the ballot. "Virtual delegates" only exist in your virtual reality.

Steve : I was not wrong : If huck and Romney stayed in it would have been a brokered convention when they dropped out i chaged the content to address that.

Yes Bradley in some states they do but at the point they have won they are not actual people yet they must be registered then elected then filed by the candidate. Why are you so dense to see the context of my article?

I believe it is very clear and 100% correct.