Taking a random photo with people is not connecting or endorsing their behaviors. Unless you think politicians do background checks before they take random photos. We have been over this before. Your desperation and trolling does not make something factual.
Delegates matter not the popular vote. You need 1144 delegates to be nominated. If Romney doesnt get atleast 1144 delegates then he doesnt get nominated.< in the first round of voting>
The GOP can nominate whomever they want regardless of the delegate count. Its their own rules and they can choose to follow them or not. This isn't a law.
What if I could show you proof that his story about those newsletters has changed, and that his people didn't deny he wrote the newsletter, but instead said he was being sarcastic?
Yes I do...you made the question of "was any president ever elected that couldn't win a single state primary election?" I replied with Abraham Lincoln and the tough path of getting to the presidency (similar to the situation)....therefore your questions has been answered by yourself if you "studied him for 40 years". Oh...so you were referring to the newsletters (or in your case "writings" that you claim you didn't refer to) Yes...he did take responsibility...but once again...where is the ACTUAL proof he is tied to it Really? That's the best you have?? A picture?? That's your proof he is "connected" with them?? Wow...yeah...you need to head to the Conspiracy section for sure...lol...thanks...that's the best laugh I have had all day!
Actually no they cant as they have rules concerning changing the rules. If they start going against their own rules then the whole party loses any credibility whatsoever.
Sorry but if the popular vote is with Romney, which it clearly is, then nobody well hold them accountable for actually picking the guy that most of the republicans want. Paul will not be the nominee no matter what.
Actually if it gets to be a brokered convention anyone can be nominated to be voted on and the whole idea of the popular vote goes out the window.
You can post all the pretty and meaningless chats your want they prove nothing as those delegate count totals are still bases on estimates...
Yes but most will vote for Romney. Why your assuming that someone other than who most of the republicans are voting for is going to win is boggling my mind.
If you have been paying attention in many states Paul is sending the majority of the open delegates to Tampa including some that are forced to vote<bound> for Romney in the first vote. They are not forced to vote for Romney if it becomes a brokered convention.
no, it wasn't answered no, i wasn'treferring to the newsletters, i was referring to the strategy otherwise i would have said newsletter, which you brought up here's the evidence his signature is on them, he owned the company, he was the editor, he was the publisher, he promoted the newsletters, he profited from them[/QUOTE]
Just one 'for instance'. Romney dominated Massachusetts in the vote, but RP got many of the delegates. Now, they are bound to Romney for the first vote, but not after that. That is true in other states, too, not to mention the actual Ron Paul delegates. My, oh my, you are easily boggled, aren't you?
He maybe but I'm not and I do have this article from the Victoria advocate (my hometown paper in Ron Paul's district) from 1996 on the newsletter where his press secretary instead of denying Paul wrote it or new anything about it says "It's a style of writing - it's sarcastic". Ron Paul himself is quoted defending the statistic that 95% of urban black people are semi criminal or criminal saying that is the assumption the study he was referring to leaves you with http://www.victoriaadvocate.com/search/archives/?q=Ron+Paul+newsletter&search_location=archives&x=0&y=0 Click the first link on the list of two and it will take you right to it.
Yes it was. I gave you an answer. It's not my fault you don't want to accept it. No..you weren't...otherwise you would have said strategy...which you didn't Still not actual proof he was "connected to it" Topic already been debunked...keep trying...
Welcome to 2012...this topic has already been debunked numerous times...including everything you mentioned...
show me an actual answer, not some illogical riddle outreach to rednecks is a strategy, not a newsletter you can keep making loony claims, but you're still wrong
Seriously I just showed you proof he at least acted like he knew what was in those newsletters in 1996 why in 2012 is the answer that he never saw them, never new about them, didn't write them. where has that been debunked? What is the explanation.
Did you miss the part where I mentioned Abraham Lincoln or are you purposely putting your head in the sand to avoid it? No...that's a title...not a strategy... You do realize that's just a stamp of his signature right? You really think he hand wrote his signature on every article??
So a local newspaper in Ron Paul's district just totally made up quotes from Ron Paul, and his press secretary when he was a candidate for congress, and no libel charges were ever filed no retractions ever made? They just let that slide. i'm sorry man the article is legit, and the quotes are legit from 1996 when nobody knew Ron Paul.
