Ron Paul: It was almost like a tie

[bluesc]

Really? After 3 pages of insisting that Ron Paul can't win because the GOP won't let him.....heh.

Who said that?

 

[newbitech]

Seen it. Try again.

I am sure you have.

 

[angelatc]

Who said that?

Nobody with a clue...

The better they do, the more the establishment will work against them. You apparently don't understand the vastness of the reach of the establishment.

It often seems like you refuse to entertain any thought of GOP corruption because that would be wandering into tin foil hat territory. Apparently you haven't been around long enough to know what lengths the GOP will go to.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?360394-Ron-Paul-It-was-almost-like-a-tie&p=4174512&viewfull=1#post4174512

 

[bluesc]

Nobody with a clue...

That was completely unrelated. That was referring to the straw vote, not the delegates that we have.

 

[Bosco Warden]

Because there's no chance that a GOP convention won't end up screwing Paul out of his delegates. The campaign would never allow that to happen.

What do you mean by this, the delegates would be replaced or the delegates wouldnt support Paul?

Once we get past this BS primary all eyes will be focused on Dr. Paul and whoever else is left standing its not going to be that easy.

Of course all you have done is complain about the campaign, go somewhere else if that works better for you. IMHO.

 

[angelatc]

That was completely unrelated. That was referring to the straw vote, not the delegates that we have.

Oh. So the same GOP will behave better at their private convention than they did at the public caucus?

 

[angelatc]

What do you mean by this, the delegates would be replaced or the delegates wouldnt support Paul?

Yes. I believe that the majority of delegates at the convention will be Romney supporters, and that the worst case scenario - they will not elect a single Paul delegate to attend the convention - is possible.

.

Of course all you have done is complain about the campaign, go somewhere else if that works better for you. IMHO.

Yeah, that's all I've done for the past 4 years.

Give it up. The campaign is supposed to win elections, and they're not doing that. If that's not fair grounds for criticism, then nothing is, which makes us intellectually dishonest losers.

 

[bluesc]

Oh. So the same GOP will behave better at their private convention than they did at the public caucus?

Delegates have already been selected. The GOP is limited in what it can do now.

 

[low preference guy]

Delegates have already been selected. The GOP is limited in what it can do now.

I think you're underestimating their willingness to break the law and ability to get away with it. Still, it's worth crashing their little party.

 

[angelatc]

Delegates have already been selected. The GOP is limited in what it can do now.

What delegates are bound to Paul?

We're supposed to believe that a man who stands to win prestige and a huge salary can't be tempted to join the Paul campaign, but delegate tampering? That could never happen! ALl those 2008 Nevada stories were made up!

Of course, they can add and delete caucuses at a whim, but they can't change the rules at their own convention.

Heh. RIght.

Of course, if we had actually won the damned vote, we'd be in a much better position.

 

[bluesc]

Heh. Right. They can add and delete caucuses at a whim, but they can't change the rules at their own convention.

The delegates can change the rules at the convention.

 

[angelatc]

The delegates can change the rules at the convention.

And if they changed the rules so that the apportionment of the delegates needed to match the results of the caucuses, that would be unfair because......?

 

[bluesc]

And if they changed the rules so that the apportionment of the delegates needed to match the results of the caucuses, that would be unfair because......?

... And if in Nevada the Paul delegates changed the rules to unbind the delegates, that is somehow a fantasy while your scenario is realistic?

 

[cheapseats]

OPTIMISM is different from DELUSION, and both are different from GULLIBILITY.

It should be obvious to all but brightest-eyed of young Idealists and the most close-minded of Old Dogs that, absent unmistakably widespread popularity (landslide = insurance), they can do any fuckin' thing they want with the numbers. Teevee is the "paper of record".

Fuhgeddabout back burner, #WhitneyHouston whisked Maine right off the cooktop.

 

[newbitech]

... And if in Nevada the Paul delegates changed the rules to unbind the delegates, that is somehow a fantasy while your scenario is realistic?

Had you actually been around last time like you said you were, you'd probably remember a few things about what happened in Nevada LAST TIME. Of course you weren't and combine that with your extreme laziness and disdain for actually reading and understanding the process, you have no idea WHY your comment here is laughable at best.

Your scenario is a TOTAL fantasy because what you are talking about in Nevada was already tried by Ron Paul supporters in 2008. They ALMOST succeeded too. This is one of the big reason Nevada did change it's rules to bind delegates to the vote.

For the sake of others, since I know you will throw one of your "I'm a fool" gif gifs, read about Nevada 2008 here.

 

[bluesc]

Had you actually been around last time like you said you were, you'd probably remember a few things about what happened in Nevada LAST TIME. Of course you weren't and combine that with your extreme laziness and disdain for actually reading and understanding the process, you have no idea WHY your comment here is laughable at best.

Your scenario is a TOTAL fantasy because what you are talking about in Nevada was already tried by Ron Paul supporters in 2008. They ALMOST succeeded too. This is one of the big reason Nevada did change it's rules to bind delegates to the vote.

For the sake of others, since I know you will throw one of your "I'm a fool" gif gifs, read about Nevada 2008 here.

I was around last time and I do indeed remember. I have also talked to people in Nevada who remember too. It won't be happening again.

 

[newbitech]

I was around last time and I do indeed remember. I have also talked to people in Nevada who remember too. It won't be happening again.

LOL sure. Of course it won't happen again because the delegate are bound and the party insiders are more than happy to give Ron Paul his share of the LOSING VOTE! Wake up!

 

[bluesc]

LOL sure. Of course it won't happen again because the delegate are bound and the party insiders are more than happy to give Ron Paul his share of the LOSING VOTE! Wake up!

The delegates are bound and Paul people are bound to Romney. Then comes the convention.

 

[angelatc]

I was around last time and I do indeed remember. I have also talked to people in Nevada who remember too. It won't be happening again.

In the context of the conversation, this certainly doesn't support your position that we'll win with delegates.

I'm thinking you don't really understand what almost happened in Nevada last time, after all.

 

[bluesc]

In the context of the conversation, this certainly doesn't support your position that we'll win with delegates.

Yes it does.