Ron Paul: It was almost like a tie

[angelatc]

Yes it does.

Ok, explain to me what you think happened in Nevada last time, and the changes that were made to prevent it from happening again. Then explain how we're going to circumvent that and win.

 

[bluesc]

Ok, explain to me what you think happened in Nevada last time, and the changes that were made to prevent it from happening again. Then explain how we're going to circumvent that and win.

PM me.

 

[angelatc]

PM me.

No.

 

[newbitech]

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

could you be any more vague about the process?

 

[bluesc]

No.

Then don't ask questions like that and expect a public answer.

 

[bluesc]

could you be any more vague about the process?

I could.

 

[newbitech]

I could.

You have no idea what happened in Nevada in 2008 do you?

 

[bluesc]

You have no idea what happened in Nevada in 2008 do you?

Yes. It's not some veteran's secret what happened at the convention and after. My problem with you defeatists is that you are trying to compare it to 2012 when it is not relevant at all.

 

[newbitech]

Yes. It's not some veteran's secret what happened at the convention and after. My problem with you defeatists is that you are trying to compare it to 2012 when it is not relevant at all.

veteran's secret? LMAO. It's your job as a Ron Paul supporter to dig in to facts and understand history.

Since you have no idea what happened, I give you veteran permission to go look it up and come back with your report. Along with your report, you should include the relevance of what happened in 2008 to the relevance of what is happening now. Pay particular attention to how you are touting a strategy that ALMOST worked in 2008 but was shut down. Also pay particular attention to how the party has hardened the process to make sure something like that doesn't happen again.

I realize that you have better things to do like getting high on the bench, but I figure I'll at least give you a chance to get some extra credit.

 

[bluesc]

veteran's secret? LMAO. It's your job as a Ron Paul supporter to dig in to facts and understand history.

Since you have no idea what happened, I give you veteran permission to go look it up and come back with your report. Along with your report, you should include the relevance of what happened in 2008 to the relevance of what is happening now. Pay particular attention to how you are touting a strategy that ALMOST worked in 2008 but was shut down. Also pay particular attention to how the party has hardened the process to make sure something like that doesn't happen again.

I realize that you have better things to do like getting high on the bench, but I figure I'll at least give you a chance to get some extra credit.

It's not relevant precisely because of the proportional rules and other interests. You can PM me if you like.

 

[newbitech]

It's not relevant precisely because of the proportional rules and other interests. You can PM me if you like.

You have no clue. For the sake of others, I will address you lack of knowledge and you lack of willingness to find out the facts for yourself. No I won't PM you because what I have to say is public. I really don't care about making a personal issue with you unless you want to continue spread disinfo after knowing the facts.

Here is a several part video that goes into depth on what happened. Whoever your sources are that assure us that this won't happen in Nevada again are already discredited even though I believe you have no sources that are telling you this. I think you are lying in more ways than one.

This is why it is UNACCEPTABLE to ALMOST win or tie for that matter. Delegates mean something, sure. But without the backing of the people, ie popular vote, the delegates lose their power simply because the rules can and will be changed regardless of what the majority of delegates want. Here is your proof and facts.

Relying on a delegate strategy and acting like popular vote means nothing, or simply a beauty contest is totally debunked and is a fraudulent claim IMO to anyone who knows what can and will happen. INCLUDING RON PAUL and the CAMPAIGN.



















For this reason Ron Paul and his message must TRULY WIN, and not simply settle for delegates.

 

[bluesc]

You have no clue. For the sake of others, I will address you lack of knowledge and you lack of willingness to find out the facts for yourself. No I won't PM you because what I have to say is public. I really don't care about making a personal issue with you unless you want to continue spread disinfo after knowing the facts.

Here is a several part video that goes into depth on what happened. Whoever your sources are that assure us that this won't happen in Nevada again are already discredited even though I believe you have no sources that are telling you this. I think you are lying in more ways than one.

This is why it is UNACCEPTABLE to ALMOST win or tie for that matter. Delegates mean something, sure. But without the backing of the people, ie popular vote, the delegates lose their power simply because the rules can and will be changed regardless of what the majority of delegates want. Here is your proof and facts.

Relying on a delegate strategy and acting like popular vote means nothing, or simply a beauty contest is totally debunked and is a fraudulent claim IMO to anyone who knows what can and will happen. INCLUDING RON PAUL and the CAMPAIGN.

You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

 

[newbitech]

You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

I am talking about a failed delegate strategy. I am talking about how almost winning, is NOT winning especially when the strategy being used in 2012 was the same strategy that was used in 2008, SUCCESSFULLY I might add, and it STILL did not win.

When are you going to actually back up your bullshit?

 

[bluesc]

I am talking about a failed delegate strategy. I am talking about how almost winning, is NOT winning especially when the strategy being used in 2012 was the same strategy that was used in 2008, SUCCESSFULLY I might add, and it STILL did not win.

When are you going to actually back up your bullshit?

When you PM me?

One minor, but highly relevant detail is that the current Chairman of the Nevada GOP is a Paul supporter.

4 of 17 county Republican chairmen in NV support Paul.

5 of 12 members of the NV GOP executive board support Paul.

It's not the same Nevada as it was in 2008. It's much like Iowa. The IAGOP chairman that was just elected is a Paul supporter. We have significant party control in these states.

 

[newbitech]

When you PM me?

One minor, but highly relevant detail is that the current Chairman of the Nevada GOP is a Paul supporter.

4 of 17 county Republican chairmen in NV support Paul.

5 of 12 members of the NV GOP executive board support Paul.

It's not the same Nevada as it was in 2008. It's much like Iowa. The IAGOP chairman that was just elected is a Paul supporter. We have significant party control in these states.

You think that means something? Ron Paul's campaign manager in Florida, Mark Cross, threw his support behind a corrupt politician who was later indicted on fraud charges. Just because someone says they support Ron Paul doesn't mean they are incapable of uniting with party insiders for political expediency, ESPECIALLY when it is their own political careers on the line.

I am sorry, I have seen the results of betrayal first hand in this movement. I think it is great that strides are being made for political insiders who support Ron Paul. We'll see what happens at the conventions I suppose. Let me know when a Ron Paul supporter becomes the NOMINATED chairman of the Republican National Committee. Then I might be impressed with an insider strategy. Until then, I am not satisfied with ALMOST winning, or ALMOST changing the rules to unbind representative government from the will of the people.

 

[bluesc]

You think that means something? Ron Paul's campaign manager in Florida, Mark Cross, threw his support behind a corrupt politician who was later indicted on fraud charges. Just because someone says they support Ron Paul doesn't mean they are incapable of uniting with party insiders for political expediency, ESPECIALLY when it is their own political careers on the line.

I am sorry, I have seen the results of betrayal first hand in this movement. I think it is great that strides are being made for political insiders who support Ron Paul. We'll see what happens at the conventions I suppose. Let me know when a Ron Paul supporter becomes the NOMINATED chairman of the Republican National Committee. Then I might be impressed with an insider strategy. Until then, I am not satisfied with ALMOST winning, or ALMOST changing the rules to unbind representative government from the will of the people.

Then we shall meet again after the Nevada state convention . Just to let you know though, the current NV GOP chairman was at that convention four years ago supporting Paul. Like I said, there are people there who remember.

 

[steph3n]

You have to appreciate the enthusiasm of the new people. You an I know that we are getting the same thing we got in 2007 from the campaign. I'd be willing to bet that the campaign suspends with money in the bank and sends that money to c4l.

I'd like to think that winning meant the message of liberty was growing more popular. I have been upset with this campaign since they came out and claimed victory in Iowa. Victory for me means the message is being accepted as being the most popular message. I don't want to hear about stealth delegates and I don't want winning to mean coming in 2nd, 3rd, or 4th place. This might have been acceptable to someone who just heard the message for the 1st time, but for those of us who have been banking on actually winning by making the message popular, the results are FAR from acceptable.

There is failure here, and it's certainly NOT with the grassroots. It is up to the campaign to convert those efforts in to votes and WINS. That isn't happening. Sadly, the strategy from 2007 is the same strategy being used today. It is not taking advantage of the gains we have made in the last 4 years. That is not only disappointing, it is unacceptable for people that have been in this since last time around.

I'll take the moral victories, but I am about sick of the campaign claiming victories in the process when that just flat isn't happening. It wasn't a tie. It was a loss.

I am not sure how much door to door and person to person talking you have done, but if you had you would stop blaming the campaign and have your eye's opened to how dense the US citizenry is, they don't want freedom or liberty in any way, they think they are free 'enough' now.

The only way the 'campaign' could do it differently is if Ron was not Ron, maybe Rand, he would have won, but he is not as pure as Ron, so take it for what it is worth, it isn't the campaigns fault here.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

It isn't about me. It's about this notion that the campaign can do no wrong.

Been here, done that before. Paul won't fire the people who can't get him across the finish line. This isn't a 5th grade soccer game where everybody gets a prize to make everybody feel good. (Although even at that age, the kids all know who won even if the grown ups pretend that the score doesn't matter.)

The voters know what a winner looks like, and Paul isn't looking like a winner.

The fact that there are people here thinking these results are acceptable is ridiculous, and the concept that we can win the Presidency without winning a single primary or caucus is beyond preposterous.

He screwed up by not going to Maine, and if Collins is telling you he really was in Maine, only not actually campaigning, that's just a lie.

So you don't think we got screwed? If the votes were counted fairly, it would have been a win. There is so much shady stuff going on in Maine, you can't ignore the fact that the election was stolen from him. It can't be ALL the campaign's fault. If they stole it, there's nothing the campaign could have done.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

Romney won 11, Paul won 10. Reality is a bitch, too.

You clearly don't know how our election process works. It would be funny if it weren't so damn sad that you think this is about winning popular beauty contests when you have no idea what the fuck you're talking about. Take 3 years of political science education, did ya? I'm not saying that's impressive, but at least I know what the election system is about.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

Oh, please do go amateur psychologist.