Advertisement

"Elections" are such a sham

topic posted Fri, May 4, 2012 - 4:29 PM by  Abraxas
Share/Save/Bookmark
Apparently this is what "unelectable" looks like:

www.youtube.com/watch

Looks like all those people "rigging" the online polls have mastered human cloning... or maybe they got their hands on a few thousand of those Tupac hologram machines.

These crowds speak for themselves. Not unelectable, just unSelectable.

-----

"According to the Real Clear article, “Many would-be delegates criticized Romney, and some dejected Santorum fans teamed with Ron Paul supporters to push what they called a 'Conservative Unity Slate' to look for a non-Romney presidential candidate.”

"That is also technically accurate, but misleading. Not only did Paul and Santorum supporters “push” the Conservative Unity Slate, they got its delegates elected to go to the RNC.

"Todd King of Lewis, Colorado is one of the elected delegates from that slate. King is a Ron Paul supporter and will vote for Paul for president on the first ballot in Tampa. I asked him how the 17 unpledged delegates break down. This is his statement.

“13 unpledged delegates, including me, will vote for Ron Paul on the first ballot. One unpledged delegate will vote for Santorum. The remaining three unpledged delegates, also known as the 'delegates at large,' are the state GOP Chairman, the state GOP National Committeman and the National Committeewoman. Those three will likely vote for Romney. They usually vote for the frontrunner so as not to make waves.”

communities.washingtontimes.com/ne...e-/

-----

"In Colorado, supporters of the 12-term Congressman from Texas won 12 delegates and 13 alternate delegates. Paul’s state operation is confident that it can win over more of the Rick Santorum delegates to its side who were elected on a combined Paul-Santorum slate. The Paul-Santorum coalition’s combined delegate total is 20—more than establishment candidate Mitt Romney's estimated 16."

www.examiner.com/article/r...convention

-----

www.youtube.com/watch

-----

P.S. If anyone would like their replies to remain visible, they should encourage certain other posters to refrain from their pathetically mindless trolling.
posted by:
Abraxas
SF Bay Area
Advertisement
  • Re: "Elections" are such a sham

    Fri, May 4, 2012 - 5:27 PM
    Your Examiner article was written by a Ron Paul activist and supporter, every article I find that she has written is pumping up Ron Paul. Now, Paul may well have a strategy by which he can gain some of Santorum's delegates, but how many, if any, by the time the convention comes is still up in the air. I am also unsure where she got the idea that Ron Paul won 12 delegates in Colorado. Realclear politics for Colorado indicates that Romney won 19 delegates, Santorum at 6, Gingrich at 2, and Ron Paul at 3. Anything else Paul may get from Colorado by the time we get to the convention is is only a possibility at this point. This makes it clear that your article from the Examiner and your intial youtube video (claiming Ron Paul won 54% of the delegates in Colorado is nothing more than Ron Paul propaganda. A bit ironic considering your claims that the elections are a "sham", when reality is such that the claims you are propagating are in and of themselves......a sham. And if you delete this thread again it will only confirm that you are engaging in propaganda yourself. Censorship is not the answer, an open discussion is.

    www.realclearpolitics.com/epoll...t.html
    • Re: "Elections" are such a sham

      Mon, May 7, 2012 - 3:43 PM
      >>Your Examiner article was written by a Ron Paul activist and supporter, every article I find that she has written is pumping up Ron Paul.

      Do you have a point? 99% of the articles you post are written by Paul haters or Obama ball-lickers.

      >>Now, Paul may well have a strategy by which he can gain some of Santorum's delegates, but how many, if any, by the time the convention comes is still up in the air. I am also unsure where she got the idea that Ron Paul won 12 delegates in Colorado. Realclear politics for Colorado indicates that Romney won 19 delegates, Santorum at 6, Gingrich at 2, and Ron Paul at 3. Anything else Paul may get from Colorado by the time we get to the convention is is only a possibility at this point.

      I guess you're right... even a 99% probability is technically only a "possibility." I'm not even claiming 99% probability, but it does speak to what others have refered to as your use of "weasel words."

      And actually, if you weren't so wrapped up in your fear of Paul and attempts to discredit his candidacy, you might notice that RCP in fact reported Romney winning only 13 delegates, not 19. Time to get up to date, bub.
      www.realclearpolitics.com/news/...s.html

      Amusing that such a devout Obamanoid is effectively acting as a shill for Romney.

      But where did the author come up with her "12 delegates" number? Probably from statements like the one attributed to Todd King in the Washington Post article I linked above.

      Of course, you missed the point of the video entirely (big surprise there). Paul is the only Republican candidate that consistently draws such huge crowds, yet the lackey establishment MSM (and the suckers that spout their tripe on the interwebs) is constantly try to label Paul and his supporters as "fringe," while pushing the false meme that he is "unelectable," and his caucus numbers come up mysteriously "short" when compared to his obvious support from the public, with reports of voting "irregularities." Kinda like how the exit polling in '00 and '04 didn't mesh with the "official" general election results.

      >>This makes it clear that your article from the Examiner and your intial youtube video (claiming Ron Paul won 54% of the delegates in Colorado is nothing more than Ron Paul propaganda. A bit ironic considering your claims that the elections are a "sham", when reality is such that the claims you are propagating are in and of themselves......a sham.

      Ahahaha... the Obama campaign puts out ads that imply that Romney wouldn't have ordered a bin Laden raid, uses Soviet/Chinese/N.Korean-style cult-of-personality posters, and his supporters deface the American flag by replacing the stars with Obama's face, while the establishment MSM keeps trying to convince people that Paul is an "unelectable" "fringe candidate," and *this* is propaganda? Hilarious.

      >>And if you delete this thread again it will only confirm that you are engaging in propaganda yourself. Censorship is not the answer, an open discussion is.

      Right... "open discussion..." where you demand answers to your every quibbling question and inane semantic hair-splitting, while ignoring those proffered to you that you find inconvenient? Mm hmm. Am I supposed to care what a condescending, hypocritical Obama apologist and Democorp water-carrier thinks of my posts?

      -----

      In their mad dash to create the long awaited general election narrative, media outlets have pronounced Ron Paul’s campaign dead.

      They now speculate about what his supporters may do when he drops out. The Associated Press reports that Romney has over ten times the delegates that Ron Paul has secured. Reuters reports that Paul is far behind in Wisconsin and that his supporters have finally conceded that he can’t win the nomination.

      None of this is true. Romney has not secured 568 delegates. Hundreds of those delegates won’t be determined until Republican state conventions, many of which haven’t happened yet.

      As I’ve reported before, there is very credible evidence that Ron Paul will emerge from those conventions with the majority of delegates in many states. Texas, New York and California haven’t even held their primaries yet. Those three states alone control over four hundred delegates.

      communities.washingtontimes.com/ne...te/

      -----

      Maine Romney Operatives Caught Handing Out FAKE Ron Paul Delegate Lists
      www.youtube.com/watch

      Too bad for Romney, it didn't work...

      Paul wins majority of delegates from Maine GOP
      news.yahoo.com/paul-wins-...422402.html

      -----

      Dirty Tricks at Nevada State Republican Convention
      www.youtube.com/watch

      Too bad for Romney, it didn't work...

      Ron Paul wins majority of Nevada delegates
      www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...og.html
      • Re: "Elections" are such a sham

        Mon, May 7, 2012 - 9:17 PM
        Noooo! Nooooo! Anything but meaningful change!! Please, please, all you voters go back to sleep until just before the ''selection'' and then we'll wake you up and tell you who you want to vote for.

        Rank and file military are going for RP and young people from all sides of the political spectrum.
      • Re: "Elections" are such a sham

        Tue, May 8, 2012 - 10:07 AM
        <<>>Your Examiner article was written by a Ron Paul activist and supporter, every article I find that she has written is pumping up Ron Paul.

        Do you have a point?<<

        Yes, she is nothing more than a Ron Paul cheer leader and is hardly an objective source for your numbers.

        <99% of the articles you post are written by Paul haters or Obama ball-lickers.

        False, less than 5% of my posts (if that) even have to do with Ron Paul.

        <<I'm not even claiming 99% probability,

        Actually you put it out there as 100% fact, and now you are backpedaling it seems.

        <<And actually, if you weren't so wrapped up in your fear of Paul

        I have absolutely nothing to fear from Paul. As a matter of fact, I wish him luck in creating more chaos in the Republican primaries.

        <<and attempts to discredit his candidacy

        I disagree with his positions and ideology, as is my right. And?

        I would also like to ask the following question. IF Ron Paul were to siphon off delegates from Santorum and/or convince un attributed delegates to cast their vote for him, how is that representative of of Pauls chances in the general election? Seems a rather illogical assertion to say the least.
        • Re: "Elections" are such a sham

          Thu, May 10, 2012 - 12:15 PM
          >>Yes, she is nothing more than a Ron Paul cheer leader and is hardly an objective source for your numbers.

          I guess they all can't be as "objective" as the rest of the establishment MSM, right? But go on... keep harping on that one and ignore the other articles.

          >>False, less than 5% of my posts (if that) even have to do with Ron Paul.

          I didn't say "99% of your Ron Paul posts..." I said 99% of your posts. If I restricted it to just Ron Paul posts, I'd up that figure to 100%.

          >>Actually you put it out there as 100% fact, and now you are backpedaling it seems.

          Ahahaha.... is that what I did? *I* made the video, huh? *I* posted the figures, huh?

          I posted the video because of the footage from the rallies, not because of the figures in the opening sequence, which was pretty clear considering my commentary in the opening post. And I refreshed it to a video without the numbers because I hadn't confirmed them, and I felt they detracted from the *point* I was trying to make, which was in regards to the rallies.

          Now just for shits and giggles, let's contrast this situation against one of your video-related claims.

          Jeff: ”Be that as it may, there are many and varied sources for this 10,000 number."
          uspolitics.tribe.net/thread/...6873afa5

          And my “debunking” of every “source” in your link:
          uspolitics.tribe.net/thread/...82c6522f

          Here we have an example of *you* *definitively asserting* the validity of a video's claim, with all your "sources" ultimately being proven to be bullshit. I guess I can't say you "backpedaled" on your claims, since you prefer to just ignore it or instead *lie about it* when it's brought up, claiming that I have you "confused with someone else."

          >>I have absolutely nothing to fear from Paul.

          Whatever you say.

          >>IF Ron Paul were to siphon off delegates from Santorum and/or convince un attributed delegates to cast their vote for him, how is that representative of of Pauls chances in the general election? Seems a rather illogical assertion to say the least.

          1) Um, it doesn't. No one said it did.

          2) *What* is an "illogical assertion?" You asked a question, and then say it's an "illogical assertion." You don't make no damn sense. You're so wrapped up in trying to maintain this pathetic air of faux intellectualism that you can't even put sentences together properly.

          3) Are *you* asserting that if Ron Paul actually ended up being the GOP contender in the general election, that Republicans that would have voted for Romney, Gingrich or Santorum would instead vote for Obama over Paul? If Paul ended up being the nominee, he would have the vast majority of the Republican base, he would have all the Paul voters that don't settle for anyone else, and he would have a fair share (some would say a majority share) of the voters that would only have reluctantly voted for a "lesser evil" Obama over Romney, but would actually prefer an honest, authentic, principled candidate, regardless of whether they disagree with him on some issues. This is why you and other Obamanoids fear a head to head with Paul. Obama vs Romney is easy (and in the off-chance Romney won, it would essentially just be more of the same). No one's leaving the Obama camp to vote for Romney, but people *will* leave the Obama camp to vote for Paul, because his message speaks to people across the political spectrum, including a significant number of people that voted for Obama in 2008.

          >>You are conflating an article written by Kristen Wyatt on Realcear Politics with the official Realclear Politics delegate count, which in reality has Romney at 19 delegates in Colorado.

          OMFG... are you that dense? I'm not conflating *anything.* *You* are "conflating" the results of a *non-binding caucus* that was held in early February with the *actual results of delegate elections* that was held in April. Do you know what "non-binding" means?

          "After three days choosing delegates to the Republican National Convention, Colorado’s GOP has chosen 13 Romney delegates and six Santorum delegates. The remaining 17 delegates are unpledged, meaning they are free to choose any Republican candidate for president."
          denver.cbslocal.com/2012/04/...elegates/

          "Convention results: Romney: 14"
          en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colo...uses,_2012

          >>I have never denied that Paul has an enthusiastic and fervent following. But again, the idea that Ron Paul may siphon off delegates in no way speaks to his numbers on the national level, as you tried to previously indicate.

          Gotta love it... these rally numbers aren't an indicator of an orchestrated media effort to downplay support for Ron Paul, or an indicator of potential shenanigans at the caucuses, they're just an "enthusiastic and ferverent following." One could only guess how many thousands upon thousands more Paul supporters are really out there that didn't make it to any rallies (like myself).

          "As you tried to previously indicate..." whatever you say. I don't see anywhere that I "tried to previously indicate" any such thing, but whatever you say, bub.

          >>You are trying to deflect attention from the fact that the claims you are propagating are in and of themselves a sham.

          "Propagating," huh? What claims am I "propagating?" Where are these claims? Oh, you mean the figures at the beginning of the video that I didn't make, figures that I never referenced, that weren't the point of my posting the video, and that were excised once an updated video was available? Only in your mind does that qualify as "propagating."

          You, on the other hand, are actually "propagating" false claims by your repeated posting of the RCP link that says Romney won 19 delegates (and even specifically repeating it yourself), even after it's been illustrated that the number is incorrect.

          >>Yes, pointing out that you are propagating FALSE numbers in order to artificially pump up your candidate of choice is "hair splitting"....*rolls eyes*. Jesus dude.....

          Except that I'm not "propagating" any false numbers, as you are. And my comment was not in reference to anything specific in this thread, it was to your general style that you like to call "debate."

          >>Simple math, Ron Paul has 93 delegates firmly in his column, 772 behind Romney. Even freaking Gingrinch has him beat.

          Except that Romney *doesn't* have 772 delegates "firmly in his column." What was that about "propagating false numbers?"

          >>Really it is wishful thinking on the part of Paul supporters, just look at history and how the vote typically gets reflected in the delegate count in the end. If there is a chance, it is ever so slight Abraxas. I know you are passionate about your candidate, but wishful thinking will do little to change the count in my opinion.

          Mm kay...

          "Paul supporters were elected to 21 of the 24 delegate spots from Maine to the GOP national convention in Tampa, Fla."
          news.yahoo.com/paul-wins-...422402.html

          Apparently that's what an "ever so slight" chance looks like. Seems a bit at odds with the 14 delegates for Romney at the RCP link you keep "propagating."

          And in Maine:

          22 of the 25 Nevada delegates up for grabs will be Paul supporters.
          www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...og.html
          (these delegates are proportionately bound to Romney on the initial ballot, but can vote for Paul if it goes to a brokered convention)

          Personally, I'd be pleasantly surprised (*very* surprised) if Paul got the nomination. Not due to lack of support or electability, but due to shenanigans on the part of the establishment GOP machine. But the establishment GOP machine would never engage in shenanigans to secure the nomination for their annointed stuffed shirt, right? Oh of course not.
          • Re: "Elections" are such a sham

            Thu, May 10, 2012 - 12:43 PM
            <<I guess they all can't be as "objective" as the rest of the establishment MSM, right?

            In regards to the agreed upon delegate count won through votes in specific states, definately more objective than your source who is nothing more than a shill for one specific candidate. She pulled her numbers out of thin air, as did the initial youtube video you posted that was clearly a sham. The delegate count as reported by Realclearpolitics is agreed upon by most everyone.....but Ron Paul ball lickers that put out false numbers and provide no basis for said false numbers other than wishful thinking

            <<I didn't say "99% of your Ron Paul posts..." I said 99% of your posts.

            I would disagree being that 99% of my posts are not even related to Ron Paul or Obama. Until the gay marriage issue came up, 90% of my posts had to do with either the Arab Spring, the Trayvon Martin Case, and others that have nothing to do with either candidate. Exaggeratet much?

            Be that as it may, the point is that you are relying on a Ron Paul ball-licker for your delegate count numbers. I on the other hand am not relying on an Obama ball-licker for my delegate count numbers.

            <<>>Actually you put it out there as 100% fact, and now you are backpedaling it seems.

            Ahahaha.... is that what I did? *I* made the video, huh? *I* posted the figures, huh?>>

            A straw man being that I did not say you either created the numbers or the video. What I did say is that you "put it out there", and you did so in a manner that makes it clear you were falsely inflating Pauls numbers. You even went on to post an author that is a Ron Paul ball licker as confirmation of the claims you provided. If you made a mistake, just admit as such and move on. Rather than twisting in the wind with these lame excuses.

            <<I posted the video because of the footage from the rallies

            The second video you posted was about footage from the rallies, the first one (that you conveniently deleted) falsely inflated Paul's numbers. Can you at least admit that?

            <<And I refreshed it to a video without the numbers

            So now you are calling censorship of your obvious errors 'refreshing', LOL! What a riot!
          • Re: "Elections" are such a sham

            Thu, May 10, 2012 - 1:01 PM
            <<Now just for shits and giggles, let's contrast this situation against one of your video-related claims.

            I never claimed that the 10,000 number was a fact, hence my use of a question mark. In addition, just because a quick google search turned up a historical 1982 massacre does not mean there are not many and varied sources for this current uprisings 10,000 dead claims. As a more careful search reveals, there ARE many and varied sources, with the UN having the count at 10,000 themselves. Nice attempt at deflection though.

            english.peopledaily.com.cn/9077....html
            in.news.yahoo.com/monitors-...08022.html
            www.newstrackindia.com/newsde...ng.html
            www.andhranews.net/Intl/201...-3577.htm

            Looks like many and varied news sources to me.
            search.yahoo.com/search

            <<Here we have an example of *you* *definitively asserting* the validity of a video's claim

            How does a question mark at the end = "definitively asserting" the 10,000 dead claim in the video? You do know what a question mark means do you not? I even went on to alaborate further in that I was not certain of that 10,000 number. Epic fail bud.


            • Re: "Elections" are such a sham

              Thu, May 10, 2012 - 2:13 PM
              >>I never claimed that the 10,000 number was a fact, hence my use of a question mark.

              "Be that as it may, there are many and varied sources for this 10,000 number."

              I don't see any question mark. I do see a "definitive assertion" that "there are many and varied sources for this 10,000 number."

              >>In addition, just because a quick google search turned up a historical 1982 massacre does not mean there are not many and varied sources for this current uprisings 10,000 dead claims.

              No, it means that you can't "research" for shit.

              >>As a more careful search reveals, there ARE many and varied sources, with the UN having the count at 10,000 themselves.

              Oh really?

              english.peopledaily.com.cn/9077....html
              "The United Nations said that more than 10,000 people were killed in the 13-month crisis in Syria while Damascus blamed "armed terrorists" for the killing of thousands of military and security personnel."

              That doesn't say 10,000 civilians. That says 10,000 "people." Syrian security forces and government officials are people too, you know, and the line in the article isn't differentiating between "people" being killed by security forces or by "rebels."

              Also, this article on the UN observers, dated May 4 articles.chicagotribune.com/2012...atory says "more than 9,000," not "more than 10,000," so the People's Daily article dated April 22 isn't definitive... and yes, I know 10,000 is "more than 9,000," so let's not go there.

              in.news.yahoo.com/monitors-...08022.html
              www.newstrackindia.com/newsde...ng.html
              www.andhranews.net/Intl/201...-3577.htm

              OMFG... this shit is too funny. Three web sites posting the *exact same article* does not qualify as "many and varied sources."

              search.yahoo.com/search

              The first page of this search link displays ten results.

              Five of those results are, again, the *exact same article* as the one posted at the links above. That's not "many and varied sources."

              One result is a slightly different article that cites the *exact same source* (Syrian Observatory for Human Rights) as the other five. And even that source says that only about 7,000 are civilians. I'd also wager a guess that the UN is probably getting their figure from the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, as SOHR's number is 9,734, which meshes with the "over 9,000" figure in the Chicago Tribune article. So again... likely the same "source."

              One result is a Wikipedia entry, in which the source for the 10,000 figure is the same UN report mentioned above, so the same critique applies.

              Two results are in reference to the same 1982 massacre that you counted as a "source" in the previous thread.

              One result is an Answers.yahoo.com page, where the "source" is some random anonymous poster that says "there are estimates," with no actual reference.

              >>Looks like many and varied news sources to me.

              I'm sure it does, which really says something about your "sourcing" and "research" abilities. So, even after you've performed a "more careful search," you in fact came up with ZERO sources. Add to that the fact that the "7,000 civilians" source's report came out at the end of March 2012, when you were making a "definitive assertion" to "many and varied sources" in November of 2011, and the result is DOUBLE EPIC "SOURCING" FAIL.

              And now that you've finally admitted that you made the claim to "many and varied sources for this 10,000 number," and made an incredibly feeble attempt to reinforce your initial false claims, maybe now you can admit that you've lied about me having you "confused with someone else."
              • Re: "Elections" are such a sham

                Thu, May 10, 2012 - 4:22 PM
                <<I don't see any question mark.

                Jeff: "10,000 dead civilians?"

                Jeff: "How can it be hypocrisy when I never indicated that 10,000 was a confirmed number? Note that you are once again ignoring the fact that I put a question mark at the end of 10,000, thereby indicating that I am not sure the number is correct."

                Ultimately you were attempting to play a gotcha game, you ignored my point being that whether the death toll was 10,000 or 3,500, those deaths would galvanize public opinion against the Syrian regime.

                Abraxas: ""Some" have not said 10,000."

                And yet I have come back to show that some have certainly estimated the number of dead in Syria at 10,000. You are conflating my initial sloppy google search with a lack of reporting of this number. As my second and more careful search indicates, there are many and varied sources for this number.

                <<No, it means that you can't "research" for shit.

                What the above sentence means is that you are more interested in playing gotcha games and trying to attack me than you are in discussing the brutal syrian crackdown on civilians. I was at work, I did a quick google search, and then came back and admitted that I was not careful enough in my initial search. You jumped to the erroneous conclusion that there are not many and varied sources for that 10,000 number based on my initial search brining up other historical data. What is clear is that we both made errors. The difference is that I can admit my errors, you do nothing but make excuses for yours. So how about you focus on discussing something real rather than once again trying to make a mountain out of a mole hill in an attempt to excercise your on-going grudge against me?

                <<Also, this article on the UN observers, dated May 4 articles.chicagotribune.com/2012...atory says "more than 9,000," not "more than 10,000,"

                Well I'll be damned, you got me by 1,000 there.... I guess you have aquired some giant victory in your grudge match...LMFAO!! My point was never to definitively state that 10,000 number, and I never did. As you know of course, and yet you falsely indicated that I did. The point was always in regards to the fact that civilian deaths, 3,500 or 10,000 was going to galvanize the Syrian public against the regime. That is 3,500 would be more than died on 9-11, and you seen how that galvanized the American public. You ignored the larger point to harp on this 10,000 number which I never definitively stated. So what interests you more? Gotcha games? Or actually having a substance based discussion about the Syrian crackdown? Or even Ron Pauls ACTUAL chances, not inflated numbers?
              • Re: "Elections" are such a sham

                Thu, May 10, 2012 - 4:34 PM
                And just to clarify, by "sources" I meant "news sources", ie., more than just a youtube video as you were claiming. It is not like there are a lot of monitors that can get in to Syria in order to estimate these numbers.
          • Re: "Elections" are such a sham

            Thu, May 10, 2012 - 1:36 PM
            <<>>IF Ron Paul were to siphon off delegates from Santorum and/or convince un attributed delegates to cast their vote for him, how is that representative of of Pauls chances in the general election? Seems a rather illogical assertion to say the least.

            Um, it doesn't. No one said it did. <<

            Is this thread not about Ron Paul's electability as you see it? And that elections are a "sham"? Or are you agreeing with me in that siphoning off delegates is in and of itself a sham being that it is not reflective of the popular vote in each state?

            <<*What* is an "illogical assertion?" You asked a question, and then say it's an "illogical assertion." You don't make no damn sense. You're so wrapped up in trying to maintain this pathetic air of faux intellectualism that you can't even put sentences together properly.

            You put forth a thread on Ron Paul's electibility, and in the body of that thread you asserted that Ron Paul is siphoning off delegates. How is your assertion, ie., that Ron Paul is siphoning off delegates, an actual example of Ron Paul's electiblity? Seems to me it would be an example of Ron Paul cult followers being so fervent in their beliefs that they are attempting to undermine the votes of the people. Now if you gave the wrong impression as to what it is you are asserting, then simply correct yourself and move on.

            <<Are *you* asserting that if Ron Paul actually ended up being the GOP contender in the general election, that Republicans that would have voted for Romney, Gingrich or Santorum would instead vote for Obama over Paul?

            I never even hinted at such a thing. They simply may not vote at all, many conservatives disagree with a number of Ron Pauls views.

            <<and he would have a fair share (some would say a majority share) of the voters that would only have reluctantly voted for a "lesser evil" Obama over Romney

            Where do you get these numbers? What specifically is this assessment based on? In my opinion, most that would "reluctantly" vote for Obama definately would not vote for Paul. But just to be clear, what specific demographic are you speaking of? You list sounds like nothing more than more Ron Paul Cult of Personality Ball Licking B.S.

            << This is why you and other Obamanoids fear a head to head with Paul.

            And now your cult of personality ball licking is leading you to attribute emotions to me that I am not experienceing in the least. I oppose the views of both Ron Paul and Romney, and I will express that opposition here just as everyone else does. It does not then follow that we are somehow scared of Ron Paul, it is nothing more than projection. Your candidate is going to lose, stop living in a fantasy land and freaking deal with it.
          • Re: "Elections" are such a sham

            Thu, May 10, 2012 - 1:38 PM
            ....and he is going to lose based on him......getting less votes, rather than it somehow being foul play. Less votes = lack of support. You just can't concede that your candidate is going to legitimately lose. Get real.
      • Re: "Elections" are such a sham

        Tue, May 8, 2012 - 10:34 AM
        <<And actually, if you weren't so wrapped up in your fear of Paul and attempts to discredit his candidacy, you might notice that RCP in fact reported Romney winning only 13 delegates, not 19. Time to get up to date, bub.

        You are conflating an article written by Kristen Wyatt on Realcear Politics with the official Realclear Politics delegate count, which in reality has Romney at 19 delegates in Colorado. www.realclearpolitics.com/epoll...t.html

        <<Paul is the only Republican candidate that consistently draws such huge crowds

        I have never denied that Paul has an enthusiastic and fervent following. But again, the idea that Ron Paul may siphon off delegates in no way speaks to his numbers on the national level, as you tried to previously indicate.

        <<>>This makes it clear that your article from the Examiner and your intial youtube video (claiming Ron Paul won 54% of the delegates in Colorado is nothing more than Ron Paul propaganda. A bit ironic considering your claims that the elections are a "sham", when reality is such that the claims you are propagating are in and of themselves......a sham.

        Ahahaha... the Obama campaign puts out ads that imply that Romney wouldn't have ordered a bin Laden raid.....

        You are trying to deflect attention from the fact that the claims you are propagating are in and of themselves a sham. What is clear is that you are not above your own style of Ron Paul partisanship and the perpetuating of propaganda to support your candidate.

        <<Right... "open discussion..." where you demand answers to your every quibbling question and inane semantic hair-splitting,

        Yes, pointing out that you are propagating FALSE numbers in order to artificially pump up your candidate of choice is "hair splitting"....*rolls eyes*. Jesus dude.....

        <<In their mad dash to create the long awaited general election narrative, media outlets have pronounced Ron Paul’s campaign dead.

        Simple math, Ron Paul has 93 delegates firmly in his column, 772 behind Romney. Even freaking Gingrinch has him beat.

        <<None of this is true. Romney has not secured 568 delegates. Hundreds of those delegates won’t be determined until Republican state conventions, many of which haven’t happened yet.

        Really it is wishful thinking on the part of Paul supporters, just look at history and how the vote typically gets reflected in the delegate count in the end. If there is a chance, it is ever so slight Abraxas. I know you are passionate about your candidate, but wishful thinking will do little to change the count in my opinion.

        <<As I’ve reported before, there is very credible evidence that Ron Paul will emerge from those conventions with the majority of delegates in many states.

        Personally I doubt it, Republicans will corral their delegates as is typically done in these primaries. And while he may yet emerge with a few more states, he is VERY far behind. But hey, if by some miracle he comes out as the Main Stream Republican candidate, more power to him. I welcome the chaos to the Republican convention! :)
      • Re: "Elections" are such a sham

        Tue, May 8, 2012 - 10:36 AM
        Might I add, IF fervent Ron Paul supporters who get in as delegates go against the vote in their respective states, that will in fact be a distortion of the actual votes in those states being that the delegates would not then reflect the populate vote.

Recent topics in "! * POLITICS * !"