How Ron Paul Wins the Nomination: A break-down of delegates and a brokered convention

Delusions of idiocy. Exceedingly desperate delusions of idiocy.

 

here's the poll piers morgan shows in that video:

ELECTION 2012 TRACKING
Mar 22-26, 2012 – GOP ballot support updates daily at 1 p.m. ET

GOP BALLOT SUPPORT

Romney........39%
Santorum......27%
Gingrich........12%
Paul.............10%
Other.............2%

http://www.gallup.com/poll/election.aspx

 

Yup! This thing ain't over until August! And even then, we will keep going; Win-Lose-or-Draw.

 

Paul and Gingrich now have NO reporters traveling with them. The 'embedded" national reporters have been assigned other duties. If the local news wishes to cover Paul or Gingrich, that is up to the locals. This is the campaign, Kiss of Death.

April will have 282 delegates that will be "bound" to the winner. Paul will not get 1 delegate of those 282. There are a few others, that Paulobots will make believe he will get.

And THIS:

RNC rule No. 40(b) states:

Each candidate for nomination for President of the United States and Vice President of the United States shall demonstrate the support of a plurality of the delegates from each of five (5) or more states, severally, prior to the presentation of the name of that candidate for nomination.


Effectively eliminating all of the Paulobots make believe delegates.

He WILL NOT win 5 states so his name will NOT be entered for nomination.

 

Ron Paul is politically done for on a national basis. Maybe he can get re-elected in his district, but nationally he's toast-a-rama.

Maybe somebody else will pick up the more palatable parts of his agenda. Maybe not.

 

Paul announced last summer he would not seek reelection to Congress. So he's done, or he 'changes his mind.' aka, FLIP-FLOPS!

 

Lets hope he goes back to Texas and gives out that free health care he talks about. At least then he's actually helping people instead of running for president so he can prove that he, not the current administration or the Republicans, will be the best at destroying America.

He's all like "guys guys, if you're trying to destroy America, you're doing it all wrong. Here, THIS is how it's done, if you want it done right" and then proceeds to lay out his platform.

 

I don't think of Paul as a bad guy or a destroyer, or any kind of a hero either. He's just another politician with a massive ego that has reached to end of his political career. He was never Presidential material. Had he brought some of his good ideas into law, maybe. But he didn't. He'll be forgotten.

 

Yes well, the destroy part was more of a play on how Dems accuse Republicans of destroying America and Repub's say the exact same about Dems.

My entire post was half jest anyway, though I do think Ron Paul would make a disastrous president who would end up making the last two look like the best we've ever had.

 

I cannot imagine anything that would make GWB look like the best president we've ever had.
And there is no possibility of anything making obama look like anything other than the worst in history. obama makes Carter and Nixon look 'reasonable.'
And if we just look at national debt, obama makes Bush look OK.

Best presidents in my lifetime. Truman, Reagan, Eisenhower, Clinton.

Worst, obama, Carter, Nixon, LBJ, GW Bush,

 

How we can win California:

http://freeindependentsun.com/repub...rd-how-ron-paul-activists-can-win-california/

 

California Republican Presidential Primary Poll

June 5 (Winner Take All Primary) 172 Delegates

romney - 35.4

santorum - 24.8

gingrich - 14.6

paul - 10.2

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/ca/california_republican_presidential_primary-1567.html

 

You can win CA by smoking lots and lots of keys of that wacky tabacky you want legalized. But when your brain clears,,,,,,,,,IF your brain clears, you'll realize once again it was a smoke filled dream. Paul is finished,,,Deal with reality for something completely different.

 

Who is more foolish, the fool, or the fool who follows him around telling him he's a fool?

 

The fool, because he won't listen to the guy following him around trying to talk some sense into him.

 

Beat me to it. But all of reality is unavailable to Paulobots. Paul is LONG out of the race. He was never in the race in 2012, 2008, 1988, or 1984. By election day he will have already been quietly retired to Texas. Although it would be nice if he would drag his mindless Paulobots along to vote for Romney.


That's politics, my first choice didn't make it either, so I'll have to vote for the nominee [Romney] and against the incompetent, dangerous obama.

 

what's foolish is allowing the fool to keep spinning his lies without confronting him

 

Must have missed the reference...

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x0ow4X8tiMI"]More foolish - Kenobi - YouTube[/ame]

So you seriously think that you don't look like a fool if you spend...days? Weeks? On forums repeating the same comment over and over again to people who obviously aren't being "persuaded" by your comment?

I support Paul because he is correct. He is the strongest candidate speaking out against our Foreign Policy, Drug Policy and Economic Policy. He is more effective in spreading this message, and more successful electorally than any "insurgent" candidate in recent year (Perot, Nader, Cobb, Johnson, McKinney, Stein, Kucinich, Anderson, etc.).

In my opinion, you vote for who you want to win. If the two-major parties nominate candidates supported by the same interests and with relatively the same policies (especially on ones you care about), then voting for a "third" candidate, or a "long shot" candidate isn't a waste of a vote, it is the only productive vote you can make, because you are helping show the support for said positions (and the lack of support for the mainstream positions) and encouraging other like-minded candidates to run themselves.

Additionally, with this specific election, it is not over. A brokered convention has led to "long shot" candidates winning. That is a fact. You may say, "but that was only once, or only here, or only there" but it is fact.

I remember when the Red Sox were 0-3 against the Yankees, and "no one had ever come back from 0-3 games in the semi-finals" and..well, they did.

"Never has happened" isn't proof that it can't.

And in the case of the 2012 Republican Primary, Ron Paul is well within reason to still "have a chance." And even if he didn't, it isn't of no value to continue to get as much support around him, and his positions, as possible. And, to get as many delegates making noise at the National Convention. This is a long term movement, we want to get Paul in the White House, but either way this is a long term movement.

So, since no one seemed to get the point of my paraphrase;

If you think someone is a fool, and it is obviously they aren't "listening" to your tell them so (probably because they think you are a fool yourself), at what point do you realize you are the fool that is following them around (stalking)?

And, if your answer is "You are hurting Romney's chances of beating Obama" then follow the proof you constantly use to discredit Paul; polls:

http://freeindependentsun.com/repub...on-paul-led-republican-ticket-can-beat-obama/

 

except that he isn't correct, he's losing again

 

Just trying to help people that are in incredibly desperate need of help. Doesn't make me a fool for trying to help fools. It just reminds me of the adage, No good deed goes unpunished.

And you can post every link to idiotic nonsense you wish. It doesn't change the actual FACT that Paul only has 26 delegates which are firmly his. Everything else is the vivid Paulobot imagination,,,,,,,smoke,,no pun intended.

 

Okay, so who should I vote for? Who should I support for President? Seriously, if voting for and supporting Ron Paul is "foolish" and you are trying to help me, then here is your chance.

I am opposed to the Wars overseas. I am opposed to the Patriot Act and NDAA. I am opposed to the War on Drugs. I am opposed to the Death Penalty. I want a balanced budget. I want the Federal Reserve abolished.

Who should I be supporting and voting for?

Keep in mind, I am very active in my community and local politics. I donate to charity (mostly poverty relief). I do most of my activism non-politically.

When I vote for a President, I vote for the one that best represents me, not just the one I think can win.

So, with that knowledge, who would you suggest I support this election? Specifically in the Republican Primary, because both the Green and Libertarian Nominees are fairly certain (Stein and Johnson respectively) and there is no reason to vote in the Democratic Primary. And if I can help reform the Republican Party toward a more libertarian platform I would like to do so (as I would have liked to reform the Democratic Party to a more progressive platform).

So, what is the most productive use of my vote in the Primary? How can I vote to guide the national political scene in the right direction?

 

People latch on to Paul for specific issues, legalizing drugs, individual liberty issues and his basic thumb the nose attitude at the status quo. Problem is, his many policies are all not that viable and his history of legislation is non-existent. At what point in time do you realize that even the most rabid Republican caucus is not going to vote for this type of social engineering? Ron Paul has lost in every way he can lose, there will be no brokered convention and all of you guys will be whining about the lack of attention he gets during the convention itself. I would save these posts to show you guys in the future just for embarrassment's sake but I don't want to rub it in. Just look at your posts before the primaries, you guys thought he would win many of them.

 

That's a ridiculous argument. You don't vote for the guy you think is most likely to win. You vote for the one that most represents your views. It is this inane logic and resistance to change that any one who challenges the status quo finds it difficult to be effective in any way. Compared to many others like him, ron Paul has actually been quite successful. We know Romney will soon be the nominee but a vote for Paul will show support for his ideas and that you want the country to be going in that direction and encourage others like him to take his message forward and make it more effective.

I will give you an example of a politician outside the USA namely Imran Khan from Pakistan. For the last 15 years, he has been the head of a party which has to date one just a solitary seat in Parliament and was called a fool ridiculed for being all talk. And yet, not only has he been shorlisted for the Time top 100 list but is expected to win the upcoming elections.

Change is resisted by anyone and most revolutionaries are called fools. It is only when things get really bad, do people start to challenge their own long spread beliefs and that is when change occurs. This is not the time for Ron Paul but he has paved the way for someone like him to make a ddifference. Such difference does not come overnight but takes decades, even lifetimes.

 

In a perfect world you vote for the best person. In the real world you vote for the best available. Paul has proven to be ineffective, he is not the best person. And obama is the worst person. So idealism should let the worst stay? Paul doesn't think that. Paul knows he won't be the Republican nominee, but Paul will vote for the Republican nominee. Paulobots will vote for the incompetent fool obama.

 

No the worst person would be Gingrich, then Santorum, then Romney, then Obama and best would be Paul. Obviously Paul would ask people to vote for the GOP seeing as he belongs to that party but had he been a Democrat, his ideas would have generated much more support from his party members.