This will make Ron Paul fans VERY happy!

[GuyPinestra]

The ONLY reason the libs are having a problem with this is that they KNOW Ron Paul is the only REAL threat to their victory in November.

Romney can't win, he's too much like Obama (see Romneycare), and Evangelicals won't vote for him in numbers high enough to do him any good.

Newt can't win, his baggage could fill a 747.

Santorum can't win, he's the epitome of the American Taliban.

And NONE of these 3 can get Ron Paul supporters, either. Without THAT bloc of voters, Obama rolls like an M1A1 Abrams tank...

 

[occupied]

Then why hold a cuacus at all?

It's just a ruse make people think they democratically chose the nominee rather than the state party bosses.

 

[LibertyForAll]

Then why hold a cuacus at all?

The caucus is where the delegates are selected and the vote is a straw poll that is supposed to indicate which direction the state is leaning. The real question is why not require all delegates to be bound to the popular vote. Then that begs the question why have delegates?

I think the reason lies in the nature of the race as a whole and the fact that a winner in one state my not last through the whole race so they can switch to support a candidate still in the race if one drops out. I am not 100% on that though.

 

[Truthmatters]

Its a subversion of democracy.

I guess its how the Rs like their governing

 

[Lonestar_logic]

The ONLY reason the libs are having a problem with this is that they KNOW Ron Paul is the only REAL threat to their victory in November.

Romney can't win, he's too much like Obama (see Romneycare), and Evangelicals won't vote for him in numbers high enough to do him any good.

Newt can't win, his baggage could fill a 747.

Santorum can't win, he's the epitome of the American Taliban.

And NONE of these 3 can get Ron Paul supporters, either. Without THAT bloc of voters, Obama rolls like an M1A1 Abrams tank...

Yea that's why Ron Paul's poll numbers are so high.

 

[GuyPinestra]

Its a subversion of democracy.

I guess its how the Rs like their governing

It's called getting the delegates. It's the same plan Obama used 3 years ago.

 

[occupied]

Its a subversion of democracy.

I guess its how the Rs like their governing

Some of these people have suggested going back to senators being chosen by the state legislatures. It seems to be the same principal of trying to give state party bosses the corrupt power they once had.

 

[GuyPinestra]

The ONLY reason the libs are having a problem with this is that they KNOW Ron Paul is the only REAL threat to their victory in November.

Romney can't win, he's too much like Obama (see Romneycare), and Evangelicals won't vote for him in numbers high enough to do him any good.

Newt can't win, his baggage could fill a 747.

Santorum can't win, he's the epitome of the American Taliban.

And NONE of these 3 can get Ron Paul supporters, either. Without THAT bloc of voters, Obama rolls like an M1A1 Abrams tank...

Yea that's why Ron Paul's poll numbers are so high.

Polls are rigged the same way the vote counts are rigged. Why don't you address the points I made in the post rather than talk about polls. Can Romney, Newt or Santorum win without the Paul voters?

I don't think so...

 

[LibertyForAll]

The democratic party has similar rules, just so you know...


Pledged Delegates Vs. “Bound” Delegates

Delegates to the Democratic National Convention who are elected based on the results of a primary or caucus are “pledged” to support the presidential candidate whom they represent as a delegate.

Under the Democratic Party’s Rules, pledged delegates are not legally “bound” or required to vote according to their presidential preference on the first ballot at the Convention. Rather, these delegates are, pledged “in all good conscience [to] reflect the sentiments of those who elected them.” [Rule 12.J]

Note: Rule 12J was intended to allow the convention to be a deliberative body. This enables pledged delegates to vote for the presumptive nominee even if they were pledged to someone who is no longer in the race.

Pledged delegates are not “bound” to vote for the candidate they were elected to represent. They can, and have in the past, cast a vote for the presumptive nominee when their candidate has dropped out of the race. As a sign of good faith, most former candidates will “release” their delegates from voting for them; however, this is not required, and only has a symbolic meaning to it. Delegates can vote for another presidential candidate without being “released.”

Are delegates bound? Can a pledged delegate change his or her presidential preference?

A delegate goes to the Convention with a signed pledge of support for a particular presidential candidate. At the Convention, while it is assumed that the delegate will cast their vote for the candidate they are publicly pledged to, it is not required. Under the Delegate Selection Rules, a delegate is asked to “in good conscience reflect the sentiments of those who elected them.” This provision is designed in part to make the Convention a deliberative body. Delegates are not bound to vote for the candidate they are pledged to at the Convention or on the first ballot.

Do the presidential candidates have a say in who becomes their delegate? What is the presidential candidate right of review?

Yes, presidential candidates have an opportunity to review the list of individuals who have filed to run for delegate pledged to them. In accordance with Party rules, during candidate right of review, presidential candidates may approve a specific number of delegate candidates in order to ensure they are bona fide supporters. These approved delegate candidates must still be elected by the states.



Read more: Pledged Delegates Vs. “Bound” Delegates | Swampland | TIME.com

 

[Lonestar_logic]

The ONLY reason the libs are having a problem with this is that they KNOW Ron Paul is the only REAL threat to their victory in November.

Romney can't win, he's too much like Obama (see Romneycare), and Evangelicals won't vote for him in numbers high enough to do him any good.

Newt can't win, his baggage could fill a 747.

Santorum can't win, he's the epitome of the American Taliban.

And NONE of these 3 can get Ron Paul supporters, either. Without THAT bloc of voters, Obama rolls like an M1A1 Abrams tank...

Yea that's why Ron Paul's poll numbers are so high.

Polls are rigged the same way the vote counts are rigged. Why don't you address the points I made in the post rather than talk about polls. Can Romney, Newt or Santorum win without the Paul voters?

I don't think so...

Prove that vote counts are rigged.

I'll answer your question with a question. Can Paul win without Romney's, Newt's and Santorum's voters?

 

[CaughtInTheMid]

i almost think it's funny because of the way the media, both left and right, cut him out of, or asked him few questions, in the debates.

 

[Oddball]

Its a subversion of democracy.

I guess its how the Rs like their governing

Forgotten so soon about the Democrat Party's "super delegate" system, have we?

Or maybe you're just dumber than a sack of bricks.

Sometimes it's difficult to figure out which.

 

[occupied]

The democratic party has similar rules, just so you know...


Pledged Delegates Vs. “Bound” Delegates

Delegates to the Democratic National Convention who are elected based on the results of a primary or caucus are “pledged” to support the presidential candidate whom they represent as a delegate.

Under the Democratic Party’s Rules, pledged delegates are not legally “bound” or required to vote according to their presidential preference on the first ballot at the Convention. Rather, these delegates are, pledged “in all good conscience [to] reflect the sentiments of those who elected them.” [Rule 12.J]

Note: Rule 12J was intended to allow the convention to be a deliberative body. This enables pledged delegates to vote for the presumptive nominee even if they were pledged to someone who is no longer in the race.

Pledged delegates are not “bound” to vote for the candidate they were elected to represent. They can, and have in the past, cast a vote for the presumptive nominee when their candidate has dropped out of the race. As a sign of good faith, most former candidates will “release” their delegates from voting for them; however, this is not required, and only has a symbolic meaning to it. Delegates can vote for another presidential candidate without being “released.”

Are delegates bound? Can a pledged delegate change his or her presidential preference?

A delegate goes to the Convention with a signed pledge of support for a particular presidential candidate. At the Convention, while it is assumed that the delegate will cast their vote for the candidate they are publicly pledged to, it is not required. Under the Delegate Selection Rules, a delegate is asked to “in good conscience reflect the sentiments of those who elected them.” This provision is designed in part to make the Convention a deliberative body. Delegates are not bound to vote for the candidate they are pledged to at the Convention or on the first ballot.

Do the presidential candidates have a say in who becomes their delegate? What is the presidential candidate right of review?

Yes, presidential candidates have an opportunity to review the list of individuals who have filed to run for delegate pledged to them. In accordance with Party rules, during candidate right of review, presidential candidates may approve a specific number of delegate candidates in order to ensure they are bona fide supporters. These approved delegate candidates must still be elected by the states.



Read more: Pledged Delegates Vs. “Bound” Delegates | Swampland | TIME.com

Yes but answer this? Has a state ever been switched at the convention and if so has it made a difference? I honestly don't know and don't really feel like doing the research.

 

[GuyPinestra]

Yea that's why Ron Paul's poll numbers are so high.

Polls are rigged the same way the vote counts are rigged. Why don't you address the points I made in the post rather than talk about polls. Can Romney, Newt or Santorum win without the Paul voters?

I don't think so...

Prove that vote counts are rigged.

I'll answer your question with a question. Can Paul win without Romney's, Newt's and Santorum's voters?

The proof of rigged vote counts is in the video on the 'Maine caucus' thread...

Not a valid question. You guys will vote ABO no matter what, and you've proved it with the 'revolving frontrunners' show...

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Polls are rigged the same way the vote counts are rigged. Why don't you address the points I made in the post rather than talk about polls. Can Romney, Newt or Santorum win without the Paul voters?

I don't think so...

Prove that vote counts are rigged.

I'll answer your question with a question. Can Paul win without Romney's, Newt's and Santorum's voters?

The proof of rigged vote counts is in the video on the 'Maine caucus' thread...

Not a valid question. You guys will vote ABO no matter what, and you've proved it with the 'revolving frontrunners' show...

So votes were rigged in one states caucus means all votes are rigged. Gotcha

It was as valid of a question as yours was.

Tell me when did you start speaking for all Ron Paul supporters?

You seem to think that if Ron doesn't get the nomination his supporters will just sit at home during the general election.

 

[GuyPinestra]

Prove that vote counts are rigged.

I'll answer your question with a question. Can Paul win without Romney's, Newt's and Santorum's voters?

The proof of rigged vote counts is in the video on the 'Maine caucus' thread...

Not a valid question. You guys will vote ABO no matter what, and you've proved it with the 'revolving frontrunners' show...

So votes were rigged in one states caucus means all votes are rigged. Gotcha

It was as valid of a question as yours was.

Tell me when did you start speaking for all Ron Paul supporters?

You seem to think that if Ron doesn't get the nomination his supporters will just sit at home during the general election.

Jeez Lonestar, I didn't draw the conclusion that you're supposing I did. Where did I say ALL votes were rigged? That's probably a 50/50 proposition, but I can't be sure.

Valid or not I still answered it. You guys are all voting ABO, right?

I don't speak for ALL Ron Paul supporters, but I'm sure I DO speak for a large majority. I'm basing that statement on what I've heard them say, it's not like they VOTED for me to be their spokesman.

No, we're not going to just sit home. The VAST majority of us are either writing in his name or voting for the Libertarian candidate, just like we did in '08. Remember '08?

 

[Lonestar_logic]

The proof of rigged vote counts is in the video on the 'Maine caucus' thread...

Not a valid question. You guys will vote ABO no matter what, and you've proved it with the 'revolving frontrunners' show...

So votes were rigged in one states caucus means all votes are rigged. Gotcha

It was as valid of a question as yours was.

Tell me when did you start speaking for all Ron Paul supporters?

You seem to think that if Ron doesn't get the nomination his supporters will just sit at home during the general election.

Jeez Lonestar, I didn't draw the conclusion that you're supposing I did. Where did I say ALL votes were rigged? That's probably a 50/50 proposition, but I can't be sure.

Valid or not I still answered it. You guys are all voting ABO, right?

I don't speak for ALL Ron Paul supporters, but I'm sure I DO speak for a large majority. I'm basing that statement on what I've heard them say, it's not like they VOTED for me to be their spokesman.

No, we're not going to just sit home. The VAST majority of us are either writing in his name or voting for the Libertarian candidate, just like we did in '08. Remember '08?

You said, "Polls are rigged the same way the vote counts are rigged."

Was I supposed to know you didn't mean ALL votes? 50/50? Hell you can't even support that claim.


You're basing your opinion on what you heard a few supporters says. I doubt it's the majority.

Here you go saying what the VAST majority will do without no proof to back it up.

Let me tell you a little known secret. In about 20 states write-in votes don't count if the candidate don't file as a write-in candidate. In several states write-in candidates are not allowed in presidential elections. In another 9 or 10 states a candidate losing the primary cannot file as a write-in candidate in the general election.

In 08 Paul received less than 20,000 write in votes. In my opinion those votes were a huge waste of time for the voter.

Who is he Libertarian candidate?

 

[GuyPinestra]

You said, "Polls are rigged the same way the vote counts are rigged."

Was I supposed to know you didn't mean ALL votes? 50/50? Hell you can't even support that claim.


You're basing your opinion on what you heard a few supporters says. I doubt it's the majority.

Here you go saying what the VAST majority will do without no proof to back it up.

Let me tell you a little known secret. In about 20 states write-in votes don't count if the candidate don't file as a write-in candidate. In several states write-in candidates are not allowed in presidential elections. In another 9 or 10 states a candidate losing the primary cannot file as a write-in candidate in the general election.

In 08 Paul received less than 20,000 write in votes. In my opinion those votes were a huge waste of time for the voter.

Who is he Libertarian candidate?

As I said,

That's probably a 50/50 proposition, but I can't be sure.

As far as what exact percentage of Paul supporters will be doing what, I base that OPINION on what I see and hear. Since I am DAILY in touch with Paul supporters across the country, i think MY estimates are a damned sight more accurate than yours.

I know what happens to write-ins. I also know that Ron Paul got a lot more than 20K of them. As you said, in a lot of states they aren't even counted. The Libertarian ticket in 2008 got a little over 500K votes.

There is no Libertarian candidate yet, they haven't had their convention... It will probably be Gary Johnson.

 

[hortysir]

I watched that on Rachel earlier. Very interesting.

I just can't believe he's saying it on TV!

We cannot put this clown on the world stage

 

[rightwinger]

But....but.....Ron Paul is the only one defending the Constitution