Ron Paul says Trump doesn't understand how the rigging works.

[kahless]

That was a big screw up for his campaign. If Rand would be in Trumps position right now and lost Colorado in the same fashion, this forum would be destroying him right now. They would be saying that he a gatekeeper for the establishment. He was too incompetent to have a team ready down there to get delegates. He does not want to win, etc.

Trump does it, they are out to get him! Do you ever think that maybe he does not really want to win this thing? Maybe he just wants to come close so it looks like he tried? If someone else gets it at the convention he can save face. Do you think that could be going on?

Scratching my head thinking the same. There really is no excuse though for what is happening other than incompetence within his campaign staff.

It is not like he is short on cash. With the money Trump has he had should have paid professionals well in advance and the campaign wine and dine the delegates in each state. If this was his TV show he would have been fired already.

 

[LibertyEagle]

Scratching my head thinking the same. There really is no excuse though for what is happening other than incompetence within his campaign staff.

It is not like he is short on cash. With the money Trump has he had should have paid professionals well in advance and the campaign wine and dine the delegates in each state. If this was his TV show he would have been fired already.

Yeah, I agree. There is no excuse for it.

 

[unknown]

Thats an understatement.

Trump has been endorsing and promoting Liberal ideals for 15 years.

Although he claims to be a conservative now, he's still defending govt healthcare and planned parenthood...

There are Libs who are well intentioned idiots and then there are Libs who know damn well that Leftist policies dont work.

In his defense, Trump is the former.

So it should come as no surprise that he and the people he's surrounded himself with are clueless about the nomination process.

 

[Peace&Freedom]

My take is, Ron and Trump are both correct. Ron would have competed in Colorado based on its rules, but would have most likely lost. As we saw throughout the 2012 delegate battles, the rules in many states are set up for the party bosses to win, especially in states that effectively eliminate the delegate allocation process (controlled by voters via primary and caucus contests) by rolling it into the delegate selection process (controlled by the hacks at local or state conventions). Trump was not on top of the aggressive extent to which the bosses would work the apparatus in Colorado, but irrespective of that issue, he objects to "rules" that displace voter preference for party hack maneuvering in awarding delegates.

Participating in such a crooked game is a basic strategic reason why Paul activists so lost many of those battles, and why the delegate strategy ultimately failed. The delegate swiping rules were obscure and not transparent for a reason---they were designed for the party insiders to use to win, not us, which is why they raised a ruckus when the movement sought to use them for our candidate. Trump decided it was better not to commit the resources to participate in a crooked game, where a non-elite outcome was not going to be honored by the hacks in any event.

Paul supporters played by the rules, only to see them dishonored time and again at the state conventions, or failing that, at the RNC con itself. Trump chose to instead attack the party rules and establishment gamesmanship. So both Paul and Trump have drawn attention to the rigged game using different routes.

 

[Mordan]

My take is, Ron and Trump are both correct. Ron would have competed in Colorado based on its rules, but would have most likely lost. As we saw throughout the 2012 delegate battles, the rules in many states are set up for the party bosses to win, especially in states that effectively eliminate the delegate allocation process (controlled by voters via primary and caucus contests) by rolling it into the delegate selection process (controlled by the hacks at local or state conventions). Trump was not on top of the aggressive extent to which the bosses would work the apparatus in Colorado, but irrespective of that issue, he objects to "rules" that displace voter preference for party hack maneuvering in awarding delegates.

Participating in such a crooked game is a basic strategic reason why Paul activists so lost many of those battles, and why the delegate strategy ultimately failed. The delegate swiping rules were obscure and not transparent for a reason---they were designed for the party insiders to use to win, not us, which is why they raised a ruckus when the movement sought to use them for our candidate. Trump decided it was better not to commit the resources to participate in a crooked game, where a non-elite outcome was not going to be honored by the hacks in any event.

Paul supporters played by the rules, only to see them dishonored time and again at the state conventions, or failing that, at the RNC con itself. Trump chose to instead attack the party rules and establishment gamesmanship. So both Paul and Trump have drawn attention to the rigged game using different routes.

EXACTLY!!!!! MY THOUGHTS. And who is better at doing it? Trump! All the red heads supporting Trump on Reddit are waking up to the fact.

EDIT: Trump talks to everyone. Ron Paul only talked to intellectuals.

 

[jmdrake]

Uh, because Rand lost the first contest, right out of the gate?

Did Rand lose the first contest by not competing and claiming it was rigged? Ron won delegates where he was behind using the same system that Trump is calling "rigged." Are you going to address that? And note that I said "in the same fashion." Losing "in the same fashion" as Trump lost in Colorado would mean leading in the popular vote but just deciding not to compete because you know you can't win a midwestern caucus state (Trump just lost Wyoming) and so you just claim it's all "rigged."

 

[jmdrake]

My take is, Ron and Trump are both correct. Ron would have competed in Colorado based on its rules, but would have most likely lost. As we saw throughout the 2012 delegate battles, the rules in many states are set up for the party bosses to win, especially in states that effectively eliminate the delegate allocation process (controlled by voters via primary and caucus contests) by rolling it into the delegate selection process (controlled by the hacks at local or state conventions). Trump was not on top of the aggressive extent to which the bosses would work the apparatus in Colorado, but irrespective of that issue, he objects to "rules" that displace voter preference for party hack maneuvering in awarding delegates.

Participating in such a crooked game is a basic strategic reason why Paul activists so lost many of those battles, and why the delegate strategy ultimately failed. The delegate swiping rules were obscure and not transparent for a reason---they were designed for the party insiders to use to win, not us, which is why they raised a ruckus when the movement sought to use them for our candidate. Trump decided it was better not to commit the resources to participate in a crooked game, where a non-elite outcome was not going to be honored by the hacks in any event.

Paul supporters played by the rules, only to see them dishonored time and again at the state conventions, or failing that, at the RNC con itself. Trump chose to instead attack the party rules and establishment gamesmanship. So both Paul and Trump have drawn attention to the rigged game using different routes.

Actually Ron did compete in Colorado and the rules were pretty much the same. The only difference is that Colorado got rid what was before a non binding popular primary, which Ron lost badly. While Ron didn't win delegates in Colorado, he did win delegates in other states using the exact same process even though he consistently lost the popular vote. By the standards that Trump thinks should rule the day Ron wouldn't have won a single delegate.

 

[jmdrake]

There's a lot of rigging going on but I don't think he understands how the rigging works"

--Ron Paul

Ron didn't say the delegate system was rigged. What he said was that the rule changes that happened after he won delegates in a way that Trump is calling "rigged" prevented Ron from speaking in the convention. In other words "Nothing wrong with the delegate system. Everything wrong with the party bosses not honoring the results after the fact." I don't at all think Ron was hoping or expecting the party bosses from preventing him from speaking at the convention once he won the required number of delegates.

 

[LibertyEagle]

There was plenty wrong with the system when Ron ran. Are people forgetting all the mismarked delegate ballots, etc?

 

[LibertyEagle]

Did Rand lose the first contest by not competing and claiming it was rigged? Ron won delegates where he was behind using the same system that Trump is calling "rigged." Are you going to address that? And note that I said "in the same fashion." Losing "in the same fashion" as Trump lost in Colorado would mean leading in the popular vote but just deciding not to compete because you know you can't win a midwestern caucus state (Trump just lost Wyoming) and so you just claim it's all "rigged."

No, Rand lost Colorado, because of his poor campaign right out of the gate. It makes no sense to say what Rand would have done, since Rand never made it that far.

That said, I have already said in another thread that Trump is losing caucuses because of his campaign's lack of action. They should have hired Debbie Hopper from Ron's campaign, as she was the person who knew the delegate process inside and out. But, then again, so should have Rand.

 

[jmdrake]

No, Rand lost Colorado, because of his poor campaign right out of the gate. It makes no sense to say what Rand would have done, since Rand never made it that far.

You're missing the point. I will repeat it so that you can get it. Rand, had he done better, wouldn't have decided to skip cOlorado. Now I didn't bring up Rand. Someone else did. I brought up Ron. ANd Ron didn't skip Colorado. And Ron won delegates using the very system Donald is calling "rigged." That's the point.

That said, I have already said in another thread that Trump is losing caucuses because of his campaign's lack of action. They should have hired Debbie Hopper from Ron's campaign, as she was the person who knew the delegate process inside and out. But, then again, so should have Rand.

No arguments from me their. Again I was responding to what someone else said about Rand. I didn't bring him up. You're getting confused.

 

[LibertyEagle]

You're missing the point. I will repeat it so that you can get it. Rand, had he done better, wouldn't have decided to skip cOlorado. Now I didn't bring up Rand. Someone else did. I brought up Ron. ANd Ron didn't skip Colorado. And Ron won delegates using the very system Donald is calling "rigged." That's the point.

No arguments from me their. Again I was responding to what someone else said about Rand. I didn't bring him up. You're getting confused.

Not confused at all. I was responding to your comments about Rand.

Except Rand wouldn't have lost Colorado "in the same fashion" as Donald Trump lost Colorado because Rand would have actually competed in Colorado! That's the point that you are missing even though Ron Paul himself said it. The deck was stacked against Paul in 2012, yet he won delegates in states where he lost the popular vote because he read the rules and understood how to work them. If Rand skipped out on Colorado like Donald Trump did then yes, this forum would have been in an uproar over how stupid Rand was.

 

[Peace&Freedom]

There was plenty wrong with the system when Ron ran. Are people forgetting all the mismarked delegate ballots, etc?

Exactly. In the end, Satan cannot cast out Satan. Paul supporters won delegates at the conventions despite the system being rigged, and despite working a system designed for the hacks. And they encountered tons of unfair tactics getting the delegates per state on that basis, again, because we were fighting on enemy terrain to begin with. The rules of that process provides cover or encourages the hackivists to get away with the hardball, as these conventions are usually uncovered by the media anyway, which was the point of the obscurity.

And don't we remember the underhanded losses we were handed "following the rules" last time across the states pursuing this strategy, not just the delegate wins? The reason the CO situation became well known this time is because the primary schedule is mostly in a lull period, so more people noticed when Trump kicked the rock over and exposed the game. It was a strategic error for Ron to believe the RNC was going to honor the state wins he got, as he should have anticipated national treachery, after his supporters had encountered it all along the way during the delegate battles.

 

[CPUd]

Exactly. In the end, Satan cannot cast out Satan. Paul supporters won delegates at the conventions despite the system being rigged, and despite working a system designed for the hacks. And they encountered tons of unfair tactics getting the delegates per state on that basis, again, because we were fighting on enemy terrain to begin with. The rules of that process provides cover or encourages the hackivists to get away with the hardball, as these conventions are usually uncovered by the media anyway, which was the point of the obscurity.

And don't we remember the underhanded losses we were handed "following the rules" last time across the states pursuing this strategy, not just the delegate wins? The reason CO situation became well known this time is because the primary schedule is mostly in a lull period, so more people noticed when Trump kicked the rock over and exposed the game. It was a strategic error for Ron to believe the RNC was going to honor the state wins he got, as he should have anticipated national treachery, after his supporters had encountered it all along the way during the delegate battles.

Cryin' Don didn't kick over a damn thing. He makes it harder for a real grassroots candidate to win next time around, because 1) they won't be taken seriously when real cheating happens, and 2) switching from a caucus to a primary is exactly what the "establishment" wants.

 

[LibertyEagle]

Cryin' Don didn't kick over a damn thing. He makes it harder for a real grassroots candidate to win next time around, because 1) they won't be taken seriously when real cheating happens, and 2) switching from a caucus to a primary is exactly what the "establishment" wants.

My opinion...
A "real" grassroots candidate has no chance of becoming President. The system is far too rigged at that level. It has been the fact for a very long time that the only chance we would have is to overwhelm the establishment with a huge amount of supporters. We don't, and never will have, that number. Goldwater was able to win the nomination back in the 60's, but a grassroots candidate has never repeated that since. And now we have the rigged voting machines, the near total media control by the establishment, the rigged debates, etc. And when Goldwater ran, the supporters WANTED to help the campaign. They volunteered in droves. They never spent time figuring out how to stab them in the back, or do something counter to them, because they, the supporters, thought they could do it "better". And the supporters spent the time to learn Robert's Rules of Order and got involved in their local and state GOP, so that they could help their candidate.

Our lack of success has nothing to do with Trump. It's just a cop out.

 

[Mordan]

To the idiots who say "It's Trump's fault this is happening because he doesn't have a ground game and he doesn't know the rules"...

He does know the rules, and he knows the "ground game". The reason he won't play that game is because he'd have to go bribe people and pull the same undemocratic El Rato shit bag tactics. He's not going to lower himself to that. He doesn't want to cheat the people, he wants to win their votes.

A quote from Reddit. Anyone who thinks Ron Paul could have won with a stealth delegate strategy is deluding himself. Ron Paul with Trump mouth could have won Primaries.

 

[erowe1]

Rand would have lost. Dick Cheney-linked, Rubio & Cruz delegates united against the problem: Donald Trump.

There is no brilliance here. Trump has lost caucus events so it's pretty easy to get a majority of insiders at a state party against Trump.

Ron was lucky he had people in place at the right time in 2011 & 2012. They aren't all there. Ron's Iowa people got kicked out. So which states still have Ron people in control. No way Ron's people are 100% for Cruz. It's just the anti-frontrunner.

You don't need people in control to win contests like Colorado's. Trump didn't lose because the party leaders were against him. He lost because he and his supporters didn't even try to do what it took to win.

 

[erowe1]

As we saw throughout the 2012 delegate battles, the rules in many states are set up for the party bosses to win, especially in states that effectively eliminate the delegate allocation process (controlled by voters via primary and caucus contests) by rolling it into the delegate selection process (controlled by the hacks at local or state conventions).

What's an example of a state that effectively eliminated the delegate allocation process by rolling it into the delegate selection process?

To me that sounds like exactly the kind of contest that would have been tailor-made for Ron Paul. It's the contests where voters most directly determined the outcome and that most favored those who were ahead in the popularity polls where Ron was always at his biggest disadvantage. But when we had opportunities to convert the higher levels of enthusiasm and knowledge of the process that Ron Paul supporters had into delegates, we always did well. On the other hand, the same couldn't be said for Trump and his reading-averse supporters.

 

[erowe1]

That's not what you claimed I said in the other post.

Go peddle your strawman somewhere else.

I don't want to talk with you, anyway.

You're strange.

So you admit it.

 

[erowe1]

A quote from Reddit. Anyone who thinks Ron Paul could have won with a stealth delegate strategy is deluding himself. Ron Paul with Trump mouth could have won Primaries.

Wait. So you actually believe the garbage in that quote? Trump willingly lost because he's too moral?

Ron wouldn't have needed to do a "stealth delegate strategy." He would have been able to win openly by having his supporters run to be delegates for the state convention and getting them out to the precinct caucuses on March 1 to vote for those Ron Paul delegates, where his supporters would have outnumbered everyone else, and then with the state convention stacked with his supporters, they would have elected delegates to the national convention. Nothing stealth about it.