Paul campaign has new tactic to win delegates, hijack GOP convention

[Roger Bacon]

Ah yes.  Typical Paulbot.  "Invective"?  Check.

"Various rude behavior"?  Check.

Not able "to make any kind of effective argument for their positions"?  Check.

Comments that "often have the non sequitur like quality of computer generated spam"?  Check. 

I think this is absolutely hilarious because you've just described yourself, and the way you've behaved around here for years!

 

[howardroark]

BeachBum, remember when I told you about this and you vehemently denied it? Ron Paul is winning in states such as Iowa, Maine, Minnesota, Missouri, and others, because his voters realize that the non-binding straw poll preceding the actual caucusing is useless.

[howardroark]

What about the actual issue of Ron Paul trying to hijack the convention?

There's no "hijacking" going on. This is how the system is supposed to work. You field delegates in the caucuses and your supporters vote for them. It's republicanism at it's finest.

 Aside from the problems like Nevada delegates not being seated at the GOP Convention, isn't this undemocratic?  

What is undemocratic about having a series of elections to determine the delegates?

If by some miracle he was able to become the nominee through Obama/Chicago politician-style maneuvering

Ground swell of grassroots supporters = Chicago-style maneuvering??!??

it would be contrary to the votes of the 50 states that didn't vote for him.  (I'm assuming he will not win any of the remaining 8 primaries/caucuses, after losing the first 42.)  That's democracy?  

Uhmm, they clearly did vote for him if he was able to get his delegates through the caucuses. The difference is his supporters understood that the real voting doesn't begin till after the non-binding straw polls which you claimed were, in fact, binding in a different thread and threw a hissyfit when I explained to you that they are in fact non-binding and do not determine the allocation of state delegates to the national convention.

[howardroark]

BTW, I wasn't able to make it, but I hear the Wayne County Conventions (here in MI) were a success. Got Ron Paul people placed as delegates and alternates. If all the other counties did their jobs well, then the Ron Paul supporters will have significant impact on the party platform AND they'll be able to elect Ron Paul President if there's a brokered convention.

[Hugo Chavez]

I understand Paulbot.  You can't discuss the facts.  They're too inconvenient.  Now run along and post more pictures of Ron Paul crowds, talk about the media conspiracy against Ron Paul, talk about the "revolution" (lol), etc.  

 

If you thought BB was on this forum for the sole purpose of annoying the holy fucking hell out of you... you were right.

[Bindare_Dundat]

Uhmm, they clearly did vote for him if he was able to get his delegates through the caucuses. The difference is his supporters understood that the real voting doesn't begin till after the non-binding straw polls which you claimed were, in fact, binding in a different thread and threw a hissyfit when I explained to you that they are in fact non-binding and do not determine the allocation of state delegates to the national convention.

Like I said, he's as dense as they come. He's not malicious but damn...sometimes its like trying to reason with a four year old when it comes to this process. Yet, he turns a completely blind eye to the open corruption of the party.

He calls us conspiracy theorists but doesn't have the slightest desire to check out most of the articles or videos I post of legit individuals doing proper investigations into the delegate process and how the GOP is trying its best to fuck over Paul and his supporters by any means necessary. Any normal human being would be disgusted. I can understand he may not like Paul or some of his more radical supporters but that's besides the point, it's the corruption and underhanded tactics that should have everyone concerned.But no, he pisses and moans about people following the rules and calls it "hijacking".   

[Shockwave]

Like I said, he's as dense as they come. He's not malicious but damn...sometimes its like trying to reason with a four year old when it comes to this process. Yet, he turns a completely blind eye to the open corruption of the party.

He calls us conspiracy theorists but doesn't have the slightest desire to check out most of the articles or videos I post of legit individuals doing proper investigations into the delegate process and how the GOP is trying its best to fuck over Paul and his supporters by any means necessary. Any normal human being would be disgusted. I can understand he may not like Paul or some of his more radical supporters but that's besides the point, it's the corruption and underhanded tactics that should have everyone concerned.But no, he pisses and moans about people following the rules and calls it "hijacking".   

When someone doesnt want to recognize something, they wont. No matter how much info you give them, they will simply flat out ignore it and tell you your crazy.
Thats just psyche 101, people see what they want to see.

[howardroark]

When someone doesnt want to recognize something, they wont. No matter how much info you give them, they will simply flat out ignore it and tell you your crazy.
Thats just psyche 101, people see what they want to see.

Personally, I just find it hilarious that I PROVED it to him that this is happening now AS PER CAUCUS RULES, and now he's bitching about it as if it's some new revelation and calling it "hijacking." 

BTW, best example of this happening is Missouri. Ron Paul finished dead last in that state with 5% of the vote when Santorum had his "hat trick." Of course, RP didn't campaign there and his supporters didn't go vote because they realized that it was a non-binding straw poll. When the REAL voting started in the caucuses, they smoked the whole thing. Of course, now the GOP is furiously mad that their golden boy, the far-left progressive Mitt Romney who doesn't have a plan to balance the budget, is opposed to a flat tax or even reduced taxes (after all, his tax plan is revenue neutral because it will allegedly replace various credits and deductions with lower rates), and has taken every side of every social issue from abortion to gay marriage, is getting his ass kicked by Ron Paul in these various caucuses. For example, check out this letter from the Establishment GOP to the grassroots:


Why is the Establishment GOP challenging the St. Charles Caucus delegation? Because Ron Paul won it, fair and square. Right now, the Establishment GOP is working overtime to sink the campaign of the ONE and ONLY true conservative and constitutionalist who will stick to small-r republican principles, Ron Paul. But the Establishment is dead set on proceeding with the coronation of the Big Government RINO Mitt Romney.

[Roger Bacon]

 

If you thought BB was on this forum for the sole purpose of annoying the holy fucking hell out of you... you were right.

Hahahahahahahahahhahaha. Reading that caused me to choke on my cereal!!

[Dos Equis]

I think this is absolutely hilarious because you've just described yourself, and the way you've behaved around here for years!

 

Why thank you.    And here is the sum total of the contribution to the board by you and your 25 gimmicks:

[Dos Equis]

BeachBum, remember when I told you about this and you vehemently denied it? Ron Paul is winning in states such as Iowa, Maine, Minnesota, Missouri, and others, because his voters realize that the non-binding straw poll preceding the actual caucusing is useless.

I don't remember "vehement" denials.  What I remember telling you is the the person who gets to 1144 after winning the necessary number of states will be the nominee.  And that's exactly what's going to happen. 

[Dos Equis]

There's no "hijacking" going on. This is how the system is supposed to work. You field delegates in the caucuses and your supporters vote for them. It's republicanism at it's finest.

What is undemocratic about having a series of elections to determine the delegates?

Ground swell of grassroots supporters = Chicago-style maneuvering??!??

Uhmm, they clearly did vote for him if he was able to get his delegates through the caucuses. The difference is his supporters understood that the real voting doesn't begin till after the non-binding straw polls which you claimed were, in fact, binding in a different thread and threw a hissyfit when I explained to you that they are in fact non-binding and do not determine the allocation of state delegates to the national convention.

It's undemocratic to have a person run in 50 primaries/caucuses, lose every single one, finish dead last in the popular vote, but still "win" at the end of the day.  That candidate would not be who the people wanted or voted for. 

That is the Obama-like Chicago-style maneuvering.  Do you know how he was elected in Illinois? 

Can you link me to the "hissyfit"?  My memory is failing me.   

What I recall telling you is I know exactly how the process works.  I also tried to explain history to you and how the nominee who wins 1144 will be the nominee.  There is no way delegates are going to upset the apple cart.  We're talking about happens, practically speaking, in every election.   

I also tried to explain to you that this is no different than the electoral college, which isn't required to elect the president in accordance with either the popular vote or the number of delegates won during the election.  But they always follow the election's outcome and elect the person who won 270.  That's the reality. 

And the reality regarding Ron Paul is he isn't going to win squat.  He was never a viable candidate.  He was a never a contender.  He's not going to be elected president.  Romney will be the nominee. 

[Dos Equis]

When someone doesnt want to recognize something, they wont. No matter how much info you give them, they will simply flat out ignore it and tell you your crazy.
Thats just psyche 101, people see what they want to see.

Truth.

[Roger Bacon]

Beach Bum scurrying to recover!!!!  

[avxo]

It's undemocratic to have a person run in 50 primaries/caucuses, lose every single one, finish dead last in the popular vote, but still "win" at the end of the day.  That candidate would not be who the people wanted or voted for. 

It's not undemocratic for the candidate who comes out on top in the well-defined and understood process to win delegates who will then go the party's national convention.

That is the Obama-like Chicago-style maneuvering.  Do you know how he was elected in Illinois?

You are honestly equating someone winning a binding caucus to "maneuvering"? Shit, what's not maneuvering according to you? Hiring Miss Cleo and handing her an Ouija board perhaps?

What I recall telling you is I know exactly how the process works.

Clearly you don't if you call what's happening "maneuvering."

I also tried to explain to you that this is no different than the electoral college, which isn't required to elect the president in accordance with either the popular vote or the number of delegates won during the election.  But they always follow the election's outcome and elect the person who won 270.  That's the reality.

If they didn't, would that be "maneuvering" or would that be perfectly legal, according to the rules established for the Electoral College?

[Shockwave]

It's not undemocratic for the candidate who comes out on top in the well-defined and understood process to win delegates who will then go the party's national convention.


You are honestly equating someone winning a binding caucus to "maneuvering"? Shit, what's not maneuvering according to you? Hiring Miss Cleo and handing her an Ouija board perhaps?


Clearly you don't if you call what's happening "maneuvering."


If they didn't, would that be "maneuvering" or would that be perfectly legal, according to the rules established for the Electoral College?

Dont bother, he has his own narrow view of the process and thats that.

[Dos Equis]

It's not undemocratic for the candidate who comes out on top in the well-defined and understood process to win delegates who will then go the party's national convention.


You are honestly equating someone winning a binding caucus to "maneuvering"? Shit, what's not maneuvering according to you? Hiring Miss Cleo and handing her an Ouija board perhaps?


Clearly you don't if you call what's happening "maneuvering."


If they didn't, would that be "maneuvering" or would that be perfectly legal, according to the rules established for the Electoral College?

You can make the same statement about Jimmy Carter being elected president by the electoral college, in a "well-defined and understood process," and it still wouldn't be very democratic. 

Yes, I'm equating what Ron Paul is trying to do with what Obama did in Illinois.  Both were legal. 

In any event, this is primarily message board material because he's not going to be the nominee.   

[Dos Equis]

Dont bother, he has his own narrow view of the process and thats that.

My narrow view of the process is the guy who wins the most votes during the primary/caucus season and gets the the required number of delegates (1144 this year) always wins, that's the way it should be, and that's exactly what will happen in a few weeks.

[Shockwave]

My narrow view of the process is the guy who wins the most votes during the primary/caucus season and gets the the required number of delegates (1144 this year) always wins, that's the way it should be, and that's exactly what will happen in a few weeks.

How are you arguing this when Bush lost the popular vote but still won the presidency? Essentially youre arguing against yourself, it seems. (I voted for Bush twice, FYI)

[Dos Equis]

How are you arguing this when Bush lost the popular vote but still won the presidency? Essentially youre arguing against yourself, it seems. (I voted for Bush twice, FYI)

Because Bush won a majority of votes in enough states to secure 270 delegates.  He actually beat Gore in the popular vote in a number of states.  Carter/Reagan is a better example (losing almost every primary, losing the popular vote, then being elected president by the electoral college). 

No comparison at all to what Ron Paul is trying to do.   

[Shockwave]

Because Bush won a majority of votes in enough states to secure 270 delegates.  He actually beat Gore in the popular vote in a number of states.  Carter/Reagan is a better example (losing almost every primary, losing the popular vote, then being elected president by the electoral college). 

No comparison at all to what Ron Paul is trying to do.   

He's trying to work a system set in place, just like either of those examples, under the rules.
He's not breaking any rules.
He's not defrauding anyone.
He's just educating his supporters what it takes to WIN an election and taking advantage of rules rarely used (and rarely taught because normally one doesnt have to fight their own party. Usually one's party doesnt pre-pick their candidate and marginalize another to nonethingness intentionally to keep them out of the race, either).
As long as he breaks no rules, I see no problem with what he does.
The way I see it, they want to keep him out of the media, want to do whatever they can to sabotage his campaign, he has every right to use every available method (as long as its in line with the rules) to give him a shot at winning.
At least he's following the rules. The party trying to keep him down doesnt seem to care about breaking or re-writing them to fuck him over.

[Dos Equis]

He's trying to work a system set in place, just like either of those examples, under the rules.
He's not breaking any rules.
He's not defrauding anyone.
He's just educating his supporters what it takes to WIN an election and taking advantage of rules rarely used (and rarely taught because normally one doesnt have to fight their own party. Usually one's party doesnt pre-pick their candidate and marginalize another to nonethingness intentionally to keep them out of the race, either).
As long as he breaks no rules, I see no problem with what he does.
The way I see it, they want to keep him out of the media, want to do whatever they can to sabotage his campaign, he has every right to use every available method (as long as its in line with the rules) to give him a shot at winning.
At least he's following the rules. The party trying to keep him down doesnt seem to care about breaking or re-writing them to fuck him over.

I never said he was breaking any rules. 

You would have had no problem with the electoral college electing Jimmy Carter as president over Reagan?

[Shockwave]

I never said he was breaking any rules. 

You would have had no problem with the electoral college electing Jimmy Carter as president over Reagan?

If he found a way to do it, no.
On a personal level, yes of course I would be mad Reagan lost. But if he did it under the rules, then what can you do?

[Dos Equis]

If he found a way to do it, no.
On a personal level, yes of course I would be mad Reagan lost. But if he did it under the rules, then what can you do?

I'd have a huge problem with it.  Just like I'd have a problem if any majority in the House or Senate used the filibuster to block any measure from proceeding, or any judge or other nominee from getting confirmed, etc.  It would be within the rules, but wrong. 

It's never going to happen, but for the sake of message board discussion, if it worked it would disenfranchise millions of voters.  You would think Ron Paul, who supposedly is all for "liberty," would not be trying to essentially overturn the will of the voters.

As I've said before, his support is a mile wide and an inch thick.  That's why he couldn't win a single primary or caucus. 

[avxo]

You can make the same statement about Jimmy Carter being elected president by the electoral college, in a "well-defined and understood process," and it still wouldn't be very democratic.

We don't have a democracy, we have a republic. There's a difference and you may want to ask yourself what it is one day.