CNN John King admitted Ron Paul in 2nd place in delegate count

[Paulie]

"He does make the point, he is 2nd in delegates..."

[youtube]vgCEZwrc1o8&feature=youtu.be[/youtube]

 

[GuyPinestra]

Somebody's gonna be in TROUBLE.... Lord knows the Establishment didn't want THAT to get out!!

 

[sealybobo]

Ok Ron Paul fanatics. Now is your chance to explain to us how Ron Paul's way would solve this problem:

Once again, speculators behind sharply rising oil and gasoline prices

WASHINGTON — U.S. demand for oil and refined products — including gasoline — is down sharply from last year, so much that United States has actually become a net exporter of gasoline, unable to consume all that it makes. Yet oil and gasoline prices are surging. So much for his theories on Supply and Demand.

Still, oil's price shot up because it trades in financial markets, where Wall Street firms and other big financial players dominate the trading of oil, even though they have no intention of ever taking possession of the oil whose contracts they are trading. Even with the extra cost put on oil from Iran fears, prices are at least another $10 higher than what demand fundamentals would dictate. Why? Financial speculators. Speculators who'll never take delivery of oil made up 64 percent of the market.

Obviously these people are very strong, and the financial lobby is the strongest of any single lobby.

And their explanations don't even add up. Last year, when oil and gasoline prices rose and slowed the U.S. economy, the surging prices were explained away by traders who said that oil and other commodities moved inverse to slumping stock prices. Today, oil prices and stock prices seem to be moving in tandem — upward — contradicting last year's justification.

 

[TruthSeeker56]

So what happened to all of the "Wall Street reform" that we were promised as part of Obama's "Hope and Change" package?

I miss the "good ol' days", back on January 19, 2009:

Regular Unleaded Gasoline: $1.85 gallon
Diesel Fuel: $2.30 gallon

 

[GuyPinestra]

Ok Ron Paul fanatics. Now is your chance to explain to us how Ron Paul's way would solve this problem:

Once again, speculators behind sharply rising oil and gasoline prices

WASHINGTON — U.S. demand for oil and refined products — including gasoline — is down sharply from last year, so much that United States has actually become a net exporter of gasoline, unable to consume all that it makes. Yet oil and gasoline prices are surging. So much for his theories on Supply and Demand.

Still, oil's price shot up because it trades in financial markets, where Wall Street firms and other big financial players dominate the trading of oil, even though they have no intention of ever taking possession of the oil whose contracts they are trading. Even with the extra cost put on oil from Iran fears, prices are at least another $10 higher than what demand fundamentals would dictate. Why? Financial speculators. Speculators who'll never take delivery of oil made up 64 percent of the market.

Obviously these people are very strong, and the financial lobby is the strongest of any single lobby.

And their explanations don't even add up. Last year, when oil and gasoline prices rose and slowed the U.S. economy, the surging prices were explained away by traders who said that oil and other commodities moved inverse to slumping stock prices. Today, oil prices and stock prices seem to be moving in tandem — upward — contradicting last year's justification.

Shouldn't you be asking your guy in the White House??

 

[sealybobo]

Ok Ron Paul fanatics. Now is your chance to explain to us how Ron Paul's way would solve this problem:

Once again, speculators behind sharply rising oil and gasoline prices

WASHINGTON — U.S. demand for oil and refined products — including gasoline — is down sharply from last year, so much that United States has actually become a net exporter of gasoline, unable to consume all that it makes. Yet oil and gasoline prices are surging. So much for his theories on Supply and Demand.

Still, oil's price shot up because it trades in financial markets, where Wall Street firms and other big financial players dominate the trading of oil, even though they have no intention of ever taking possession of the oil whose contracts they are trading. Even with the extra cost put on oil from Iran fears, prices are at least another $10 higher than what demand fundamentals would dictate. Why? Financial speculators. Speculators who'll never take delivery of oil made up 64 percent of the market.

Obviously these people are very strong, and the financial lobby is the strongest of any single lobby.

And their explanations don't even add up. Last year, when oil and gasoline prices rose and slowed the U.S. economy, the surging prices were explained away by traders who said that oil and other commodities moved inverse to slumping stock prices. Today, oil prices and stock prices seem to be moving in tandem — upward — contradicting last year's justification.

Shouldn't you be asking your guy in the White House??

Why would Obama sell me on Ron Paul's approach? I'm asking Ron Paul supporters to explain to me how Ron Paul's way would handle oil speculalators who are randomly jacking up the prices 60% more than they should be. We are consuming less but that doesn't seem to be lowering the prices. Doesn't that go against how they say supply and demand works? If we consume less the price should go down. What does the great Doctor say about oil speculators? What would he do. Do you even know? Have you even thought it out that far? And you can't be a dick if you want to convince people to vote for Ron Paul. You're going to have to use logic and facts if you are going to win over a thinking progressive liberal.

 

[Ed Spacer]

Interesting how the establishment of both sides are seriously threatened by this guy to rig the gears against him. Paul ought to be complimented. Theres lots i disagree with him on, but domestically,dead in for me. Simple answer for the oil problem. Fuck glibaluzation. No more Opec. Refine,and drill our own oil. Dependence on our selves. US then having complete control.

 

[GuyPinestra]

Ok Ron Paul fanatics. Now is your chance to explain to us how Ron Paul's way would solve this problem:

Once again, speculators behind sharply rising oil and gasoline prices

WASHINGTON — U.S. demand for oil and refined products — including gasoline — is down sharply from last year, so much that United States has actually become a net exporter of gasoline, unable to consume all that it makes. Yet oil and gasoline prices are surging. So much for his theories on Supply and Demand.

Still, oil's price shot up because it trades in financial markets, where Wall Street firms and other big financial players dominate the trading of oil, even though they have no intention of ever taking possession of the oil whose contracts they are trading. Even with the extra cost put on oil from Iran fears, prices are at least another $10 higher than what demand fundamentals would dictate. Why? Financial speculators. Speculators who'll never take delivery of oil made up 64 percent of the market.

Obviously these people are very strong, and the financial lobby is the strongest of any single lobby.

And their explanations don't even add up. Last year, when oil and gasoline prices rose and slowed the U.S. economy, the surging prices were explained away by traders who said that oil and other commodities moved inverse to slumping stock prices. Today, oil prices and stock prices seem to be moving in tandem — upward — contradicting last year's justification.

Shouldn't you be asking your guy in the White House??

Why would Obama sell me on Ron Paul's approach? I'm asking Ron Paul supporters to explain to me how Ron Paul's way would handle oil speculalators who are randomly jacking up the prices 60% more than they should be. We are consuming less but that doesn't seem to be lowering the prices. Doesn't that go against how they say supply and demand works? If we consume less the price should go down. What does the great Doctor say about oil speculators? What would he do. Do you even know? Have you even thought it out that far? And you can't be a dick if you want to convince people to vote for Ron Paul. You're going to have to use logic and facts if you are going to win over a thinking progressive liberal.

Who's being a dick? I just figured if you wanted an answer you'd go to the place that made all the promises. I haven't got a clue about what Ron Paul would do, but I'm guessing there would be a lot more oil exploration and production here in the US. I think if we had our own stable and abundant supply of the stuff the 'speculators' wouldn't have much volatility to speculate about.

 

[Ed Spacer]

900 years of supply in our sovreign territory.....if obama doesnt sell our land to commie nations.

 

[LibertyForAll]

Volatility in the middle east creates an atmosphere ripe for speculation. Ending the wars in that area of the world would go a long way towards lowering oil prices. Also now we have an artificial increase in gas prices due to excessive regulation. Regulations that require boutique gasolines create high demand for specific types of gasoline in certain areas which keep prices high. Restrictions on domestic drilling offshore and otherwise also jack of the price because of the need to import. Based on what I have read of his positions I think he would get rid of a lot of the regulations that prevent drilling and he would work towards peace in the middle east and these two things by themselves would lower prices.

 

[Paulie]

When you know that we're so close to getting involved in Syria, and so close to getting involved in attacking Iran, why WOULDN'T you speculate on oil?

 

[Article 15]

Yo, Paulie, can you post the real delegate count, man?

RCP has it....

Romney - 99
Santorum - 47
Gingrich - 32
Paul - 20

....but I from what I've heard that isn't accurate and I'd like to see the real numbers.

 

[Paulie]

Yo, Paulie, can you post the real delegate count, man?

RCP has it....

Romney - 99
Santorum - 47
Gingrich - 32
Paul - 20

....but I from what I've heard that isn't accurate.

No one can know for sure. The only hard numbers are the ones from the proportional states. All the caucus states though, except for Nevada, don't award delegates propotionally. They have many levels of conventions to hold over the next couple months before any delegates become bound and sent to national.

In the caucus states, so far the process is as far as district conventions, where delegates that stayed after the caucus beauty contests got themselves elected to move on to those district conventions. The Paul camp claims they have gotten anywhere from 50-75% of those delegates so far. From there, those delegates select a new slate of delegates to move on to county conventions, and then that same process happens again to select state convention delegates. And then that's where the final delegates are selected and bound, and sent to the national convention.

The best math I've seen on it so far is this:

Total Delegates (IA, NH, SC, FL, NV, MN, CO, ME)

Romney: 93 (6, 7, 2, 50, 14, 2, 7, 5)
Paul: 82 (13, 3, 0, 0, 5, 28, 17, 16)
Gingrich: 29 (0, 0, 23, 0, 6, 0, 0, 0)
Santorum: 25 (6, 0, 0, 0, 3, 7, 9, 0)
Unpledged: 14 (3, 2, 0, 0, 0, 3, 3, 3)

Unpledged at this point would be the ones Huntsman picked up before he dropped.

 

[Article 15]

Yo, Paulie, can you post the real delegate count, man?

RCP has it....

Romney - 99
Santorum - 47
Gingrich - 32
Paul - 20

....but I from what I've heard that isn't accurate.

No one can know for sure. The only hard numbers are the ones from the proportional states. All the caucus states though, except for Nevada, don't award delegates propotionally. They have many levels of conventions to hold over the next couple months before any delegates become bound and sent to national.

In the caucus states, so far the process is as far as district conventions, where delegates that stayed after the caucus beauty contests got themselves elected to move on to those district conventions. The Paul camp claims they have gotten anywhere from 50-75% of those delegates so far. From there, those delegates select a new slate of delegates to move on to county conventions, and then that same process happens again to select state convention delegates. And then that's where the final delegates are selected and bound, and sent to the national convention.

The best math I've seen on it so far is this:

Total Delegates (IA, NH, SC, FL, NV, MN, CO, ME)

Romney: 93 (6, 7, 2, 50, 14, 2, 7, 5)
Paul: 82 (13, 3, 0, 0, 5, 28, 17, 16)
Gingrich: 29 (0, 0, 23, 0, 6, 0, 0, 0)
Santorum: 25 (6, 0, 0, 0, 3, 7, 9, 0)
Unpledged: 14 (3, 2, 0, 0, 0, 3, 3, 3)

Unpledged at this point would be the ones Huntsman picked up before he dropped.

Yeah, it was how the caucus states hand out their delegates that I was hearing about.

Thanks, homey.

Do you think he would agree to be someone's running mate?

 

[Paulie]

Art, keep in mind, the MSM is taking the popular vote counts from the caucus states, and proportionally splitting the delegates up between the candidates based on that vote. But that vote doesn't have anything to do with delegates in those states.

Why they don't spend a whole lot of time explaining the actual delegate process to people is anyone's guess.

 

[Article 15]

Art, keep in mind, the MSM is taking the popular vote counts from the caucus states, and proportionally splitting the delegates up between the candidates based on that vote. But that vote doesn't have anything to do with delegates in those states.

Why they don't spend a whole lot of time explaining the actual delegate process to people is anyone's guess.

Yeah, don't some people have essentially superdelegate power or something of that nature in the caucus states?

That's where he's making his money.

 

[Truthmatters]

Go Paul go!


take over that republican party.

it will be the best thing to happen to the republican party in decades.

I wonder if Paul will make them stop cheating in elections?

 

[Paulie]

Yo, Paulie, can you post the real delegate count, man?

RCP has it....

Romney - 99
Santorum - 47
Gingrich - 32
Paul - 20

....but I from what I've heard that isn't accurate.

No one can know for sure. The only hard numbers are the ones from the proportional states. All the caucus states though, except for Nevada, don't award delegates propotionally. They have many levels of conventions to hold over the next couple months before any delegates become bound and sent to national.

In the caucus states, so far the process is as far as district conventions, where delegates that stayed after the caucus beauty contests got themselves elected to move on to those district conventions. The Paul camp claims they have gotten anywhere from 50-75% of those delegates so far. From there, those delegates select a new slate of delegates to move on to county conventions, and then that same process happens again to select state convention delegates. And then that's where the final delegates are selected and bound, and sent to the national convention.

The best math I've seen on it so far is this:

Total Delegates (IA, NH, SC, FL, NV, MN, CO, ME)

Romney: 93 (6, 7, 2, 50, 14, 2, 7, 5)
Paul: 82 (13, 3, 0, 0, 5, 28, 17, 16)
Gingrich: 29 (0, 0, 23, 0, 6, 0, 0, 0)
Santorum: 25 (6, 0, 0, 0, 3, 7, 9, 0)
Unpledged: 14 (3, 2, 0, 0, 0, 3, 3, 3)

Unpledged at this point would be the ones Huntsman picked up before he dropped.

Yeah, it was how the caucus states hand out their delegates that I was hearing about.

Thanks, homey.

Do you think he would agree to be someone's running mate?

I don't really have any idea what's going on, but I'm 100% sure his campaign has an endgame they're working towards. The chances of Paul getting enough delegates are really low. If any of the others drop it's probably not going to split the vote up enough in the states that award delegates proportionally, which is most of them. And in those states, there's a 50% popular vote threshold where if you pass that, it's winner take all. So unless there's a brokered convention where all delegates become unbound after the first round of voting, Paul probably has no chance.

But he'll most likely have enough delegates that he can cut some deals. What the deals are that he has in mind, I have no clue. But what I don't think it is, is Rand as VP. Ron knows VP means nothing. He's going to want placements in the administration that would lead to shit actually getting changed.

 

[Paulie]

Art, keep in mind, the MSM is taking the popular vote counts from the caucus states, and proportionally splitting the delegates up between the candidates based on that vote. But that vote doesn't have anything to do with delegates in those states.

Why they don't spend a whole lot of time explaining the actual delegate process to people is anyone's guess.

Yeah, don't some people have essentially superdelegate power or something of that nature in the caucus states?

That's where he's making his money.

That's more of a democratic party thing, but for republicans they get 3 of those type of delegate in each state. Members of the RNC, basically. So you know that they're not voting Paul. But that's not enough to really matter anyway.

 

[Article 15]

Art, keep in mind, the MSM is taking the popular vote counts from the caucus states, and proportionally splitting the delegates up between the candidates based on that vote. But that vote doesn't have anything to do with delegates in those states.

Why they don't spend a whole lot of time explaining the actual delegate process to people is anyone's guess.

Yeah, don't some people have essentially superdelegate power or something of that nature in the caucus states?

That's where he's making his money.

That's more of a democratic party thing, but for republicans they get 3 of those type of delegate in each state. Members of the RNC, basically. So you know that they're not voting Paul. But that's not enough to really matter anyway.

Ah.

Man, the GOP's process is more confusing than the Dem's to me.