Ron Paul winning the majority of delegates in 11 states

[wehateporn]

There are two Republican candidates left in the GOP nominee race and the delegate count seems to be shifting in Ron Paul's favor.

[sperbonzo]

unfortunately NONE of the major news outlets in the US will even mention his name...

The system has become so blatantly rigged that it's ridiculous.



.



.

[MediaGuy]

Hoorah for Ron Paul.

Problem is, they will bury him.

:D

[MediaGuy]

Originally Posted by sperbonzo

unfortunately NONE of the major news outlets in the US will even mention his name...

The system has become so blatantly rigged that it's ridiculous.



.



.

Zackly. Regardless of our politics, I think me and you agree.

And you still owe me a supper.

:D

[sperbonzo]

Originally Posted by MediaGuy

Zackly. Regardless of our politics, I think me and you agree.

And you still owe me a supper.

:D

So? Are you coming to Miami next week?


And BTW, if Ron Paul can keep Romney from getting the required delegates before the convention, then it will be a brokered convention, which means that Paul-supporting delegates that must vote for Romney now, will then be free to switch over... Could get very very interesting...


...but of course, in the end, the party establishment will crush any real changes...



.

[SwirlsGirl]

don't count out the bankers yet...they are crafty enough without being backed into a corner....just wait til the heat really gets turned up and Dr. Paul wins a few more states

[AsianDivaGirlsWebDude]

The Ron Paul Pipe Dream is alive...his delusional denizens have now latched onto his losing strategy to manipulate the delegate count in a few small states in order to claim some small marginal victories, in a strategy which even if played out successfully, still cannot rest enough delegates back to make a serious challenge to Romney.

Nonetheless his blind-faith followers will heed his call to claim that their tactical maneuvering of the delegate count in a handful of States is somehow meaningful to the end result, because they are incapable of doing the math, and unwilling to face reality (something which has been apparent for years), which is that they are backing a nutjob that is in this for the money (i.e., once the campaign stops, the money stops).



Oh well, at least it's entertaining watching the Republican party try to grapple with their crazy obstinate uncle.

ADG

[Rochard]

Originally Posted by sperbonzo

unfortunately NONE of the major news outlets in the US will even mention his name...

The system has become so blatantly rigged that it's ridiculous.



.



.

I honestly thought Ron Paul had dropped out... The press never ever mentions him. Romney is their guy.

[Phillipmcd1]

Who

[DWB]

Paul has been picking up a LOT of speed, but the mainstream media won't so much as mention his name in passing. They only say Romney, as if he has already won the GOP. It's disgusting.

[nextri]

It would be funny if it was really a chance that he could win, but it seems a bit far fetched..

[sperbonzo]

Originally Posted by Rochard

I honestly thought Ron Paul had dropped out... The press never ever mentions him. Romney is their guy.

Exactly.... meanwhile:

http://articles.businessinsider.com/...ney-supporters

"Paul supporters have managed to stage these state-level coups despite significant resistance from local Establishment Republicans, many of whom are predictably reluctant to relinquish their power to the insurgents. So far, however, the Paul campaign has attributed most of the Establishment's "shenanigans" to local animosities.

But there is growing evidence that the Romney camp ? and the national GOP ? are stepping up their efforts to prevent an embarrassing Ron Paul uprising on the floor of the Republican National Convention.

In Maine, for example, the Romney campaign dispatched its top lawyer, Benjamin Ginsberg, to oversee the state convention proceedings this weekend. (It's worth noting that Ginsberg is best known for his work for George W. Bush during the 2000 Florida recount.)

Ginsberg's presence didn't stop the convention from descending into chaos, with both sides accusing the other of breaking party rules with phony ballots and illegal delegate votes. (The Kennebec Journal has a colorful account of the madness here.)

Ultimately, Paul supporters out-numbered and out-organized their Romney counterparts, winning the majority of the state's RNC delegates, as well as both RNC Committee Chair posts and 34 out of 50 open spots on the state party committee. Romney supporters have pledged to mount a legal challenge to the results with the Republican National Committee.

In Nevada, the Paul sweep was largely expected ? the Silver State has been a Ron Paul stronghold since the 2008 election, when the state GOP literally turned off the lights at their convention to avoid seating Ron Paul delegates to the national convention. Since then, Paul supporters have won elections to local and county GOP boards, and are now major players in state Republican politics."


But Nevada's Paul-friendly party Establishment didn't stop the Republican National Committee from trying to stop Paul's acolytes from completing their takeover this weekend. In a letter obtained by the Las Vegas Sun last week, the RNC's lawyer warned that the national party could unseat Nevada's convention delegation in Tampa if the state party elected too many Ron Paul supporters as delegates.

Romney is also apparently keen not to avoid a second embarrassment in Iowa, a state where Paul continues to make significant inroads. At the Republican National Committee summit in Phoenix last month, Romney aides tried to force Iowa's three-person RNC delegation to sign a "loyalty pledge" promising to vote for Romney at the national convention. Iowa GOP Chair AJ Spiker, a former state director for the Paul campaign, told Business Insider that the Romney camp backed down after he and the two Iowa RNC chairs refused to sign the pledge.

Privately, sources close to the Ron Paul campaign say they believe Republicans will continue to ramp up his efforts to block Paul delegates at state conventions, particularly after Romney's embarrassing delegate losses in Massachusetts. But state organizers tell Business Insider that Paul supporters are significantly more organized than Romney's delegate team, and are ready to put up a tough fight in states like Idaho and Washington."

[baddog]

You Paul guys are a funny bunch. Even if Paul is able to garner enough delegates to make it seem interesting to the Ron Paul fan bois, he won't get enough to get the nomination; but if he did get the nod; we are stuck with Obama again.

I realize the Paultards don't give a shit because they do not really want Paul in the Oval office anyway, but that is reality.

[sperbonzo]

Originally Posted by nextri

It would be funny if it was really a chance that he could win, but it seems a bit far fetched..

What you don't understand is what I posted above... if Ron Paul can keep Romney from getting the required delegates before the convention, then it will be a brokered convention, which means that Paul-supporting delegates that must vote for Romney now, will then be free to switch over...

In the end Romney will win, because he has the political elite establishment that will be willing to do anything to keep Ron Paul out.... but it will sure make a hell of a statement!


.

[baddog]

Originally Posted by sperbonzo

but it will sure make a hell of a statement!


.

I have to ask, what statement would that be?

[AsianDivaGirlsWebDude]

ADG

[u-Bob]

[u-Bob]

From an EPJ comment on the Romney's chances vs Paul's chances discussion:

* in 2008 Romney lost to the guy who got crushed by Obama
* Romney gets approximately 1/10th the number of supporters at his rallys as Ron Paul and Obama, showing a huge lack of general support
* Romney trails Ron Paul with Independent and young/first-time voters, which are the demographics Obama used to win in 2008
* Romney won many of non-binding straw polls due to having tons of special interest donations to spend on television and print ads, but he has a hard time getting enough dedicated supporters to win the delegates races, which are what matter.

[sperbonzo]

Originally Posted by baddog

I have to ask, what statement would that be?

That libertarianism is finally a fully viable political force and needs to be acknowledged and allowed a fair hearing on the national stage.


I can but hope.....



....that, or eventually expatriate...






.

[seeandsee]

Ron Paul push it to the end!

[KingNigel]

[WarChild]

"People should know when they are conquered."

[Captain Kawaii]

Originally Posted by sperbonzo

unfortunately none of the major news outlets in the us will even mention his name...

The system has become so blatantly rigged that it's ridiculous.



.



.

qft and amen on that

[baddog]

Originally Posted by sperbonzo

That libertarianism is finally a fully viable political force and needs to be acknowledged and allowed a fair hearing on the national stage.


I can but hope.....



....that, or eventually expatriate...






.

Was nice knowing you. Any idea of where you will move?

[Joe Obenberger]

Don't count Ron Paul out.

Obama has announced that he's in favor of Gay marriage, as if anyone thought that would cost him any votes, given who his support base is.

So you might think the Moral Right thinks it has a choice in Romney? Not quite hardly. I'm waiting to repress my giggles if this Mormon LDS member articulates that marriage is between one man and one woman. He'll have to explain the curious shift in divine inspiration about that truism between the time of Brigham Young and the present. Christian Fundamentalists just don't trust LDS, some thinking it to be satanic.

Ron Paul's people are smart as hell and highly motivated, and they have the benefit of working for a straight shooter candidate with authentic integrity.

Watch for more stories delving into Romney's background, like today's story about him chopping off the long blonde hair of a gay kid with his pals back in school. Anything can happen between now and the convention. Those Republican sellouts can huff and they can puff, but they can't blow down the American political tradition - it's in that tradition that Ron Paul stands alone, and it's far outside the American traditions of freedom and live-and-let live in which the Republicans stand. Keep your eye on Ron Paul.

[Elli]

On a related note, I just watched the Ralph Nader movie "An Unreasonable Man" on Netflix the other night. Highly interesting stuff. And then the democrats had the gall to turn on him and blame him for their loss because he "stole their votes!" How long is the US going to stay a two party system with bumps in the road like these?

[baddog]

Originally Posted by Elli

And then the democrats had the gall to turn on him and blame him for their loss because he "stole their votes!" How long is the US going to stay a two party system with bumps in the road like these?

First off, nader did steal their votes. Secondly, when I look at how fucked up other countries are with their dozens of parties, they make the 2 party system look good . . . even if it is not even close to being true that we only have two.


I will say that the only way in hell I would vote for Obama is if Paul did get the nomination.

[Elli]

I prefer to have some semblance of choice, not just a choice between two parties that are competing to look more and more like each other.

[SwirlsGirl]

Originally Posted by Joe Obenberger

Don't count Ron Paul out.

Obama has announced that he's in favor of Gay marriage, as if anyone thought that would cost him any votes, given who his support base is.

So you might think the Moral Right thinks it has a choice in Romney? Not quite hardly. I'm waiting to repress my giggles if this Mormon LDS member articulates that marriage is between one man and one woman. He'll have to explain the curious shift in divine inspiration about that truism between the time of Brigham Young and the present. Christian Fundamentalists just don't trust LDS, some thinking it to be satanic.

Ron Paul's people are smart as hell and highly motivated, and they have the benefit of working for a straight shooter candidate with authentic integrity.

Watch for more stories delving into Romney's background, like today's story about him chopping off the long blonde hair of a gay kid with his pals back in school. Anything can happen between now and the convention. Those Republican sellouts can huff and they can puff, but they can't blow down the American political tradition - it's in that tradition that Ron Paul stands alone, and it's far outside the American traditions of freedom and live-and-let live in which the Republicans stand. Keep your eye on Ron Paul.

QFT spot on summary Joe! You cannot stop an idea whose time has come!

[baddog]

Originally Posted by Elli

I prefer to have some semblance of choice, not just a choice between two parties that are competing to look more and more like each other.

Yeah, we can do like Greece and have Neo-Nazis on one side and Communists on the other, then fill in the middle with Republicans, Democrats, Green, Libertarian, Peace and Freedom.

How many parties do you have running for your PM? We had like 12 or 13 choices in 2008 for president. Will probably have that many come November as well.

[DTK]

Originally Posted by sperbonzo

unfortunately NONE of the major news outlets in the US will even mention his name...

The system has become so blatantly rigged that it's ridiculous.



.



.

+1

What's amazing is how few people truly get this.

edit: On second thought, sadly, tragically, it's not amazing at all.

[IllTestYourGirls]

Originally Posted by baddog

First off, nader did steal their votes. Secondly, when I look at how fucked up other countries are with their dozens of parties, they make the 2 party system look good . . . even if it is not even close to being true that we only have two.


I will say that the only way in hell I would vote for Obama is if Paul did get the nomination.

Who is to say Nader votes would have voted for the Dem? No one. You can not "steal" someones votes. Take Ron Paul voters for example. Most of them will NEVER vote for Romney. Those votes were not stolen they just were not earned by the other candidate.

[TheSquealer]

Originally Posted by Elli

On a related note, I just watched the Ralph Nader movie "An Unreasonable Man" on Netflix the other night. Highly interesting stuff. And then the democrats had the gall to turn on him and blame him for their loss because he "stole their votes!" How long is the US going to stay a two party system with bumps in the road like these?

IMHO a two party system that represents the vast majority of the people and their views is far better than a 10 party system where a lunatic with little support can become president.

[baddog]

Originally Posted by TheSquealer

IMHO a two party system that represents the vast majority of the people and their views is far better than a 10 party system where a lunatic with little support can become president.

And that is the thing; we are not a two party system, we have a dozen. Literally. The Libertarians think they should be the one, but why don't they merge with green, peace and freedom, the communists, socialists, tea party and every other fringe party out there? Maybe then there will be enough people to give the Dems and Repubs a run for their money.

Remember, they did not start out as the favorites.

[baddog]

Originally Posted by IllTestYourGirls

Who is to say Nader votes would have voted for the Dem? No one. You can not "steal" someones votes. Take Ron Paul voters for example. Most of them will NEVER vote for Romney. Those votes were not stolen they just were not earned by the other candidate.

I think they call them polls. Not sure how you came to the conclusion that they "would never" vote Romney since I see examples all the time of some pundit or politician that said "no way" with Romney a few months ago that have changed their tune lately.

[Rochard]

Originally Posted by baddog

First off, nader did steal their votes. Secondly, when I look at how fucked up other countries are with their dozens of parties, they make the 2 party system look good . . . even if it is not even close to being true that we only have two.


I will say that the only way in hell I would vote for Obama is if Paul did get the nomination.

The problem with the two party system is it's a choice between the lesser of two evils, and both sides are more interested in beating the other side and then undoing what the other side did when they are were in charge.

[kane]

Originally Posted by Rochard

The problem with the two party system is it's a choice between the lesser of two evils, and both sides are more interested in beating the other side and then undoing what the other side did when they are were in charge.

As Baddog said we do actually have many parties to pick from. We just have two major ones. The reason the others are not major tend to be for one 1 of 2 reasons. Either they are very far from mainstream and only a niche party or they are very poorly run.

These smaller parties often focus just on the presidential election which they have no hope in hell of winning. They should be focusing on getting people elected at the local level. Get them into seats in state houses and senates. Get them onto city council and into positions at the state and local level. If they can get a number of candidates into office on local levels and people see that they are good and that it works they start expanding up. Work on getting some congressional reps and senators in Washington, mayors of big cities and possibly even governors. All of this would slowly help them build their credibility and the size and power of the party so they could one day compete on the national stage.

The problem is that most of these parties are disorganized and often run and/or controlled by crackpots. It just reminds me of something I once heard said about legalizing weed. The reason nobody takes the legalizing pot movement seriously is because the spokesman they elect is always stoned.

[TheSquealer]

Originally Posted by JohnnyClips

Typical

Something a propagandized lemming would say

Something someone who's traveled the world and lived in plenty of corrupt shit holes where lunatics who represent a tiny minority stand a real chance at winning due to the fact there are many parties, would say.

I'd ask you where you've lived and what you've seen but given all the lies you've told so far about who and what you are and the obvious fact that your deranged, there's really no point.

[TheSquealer]

And anyone who's using Russia Today to make a point about anything in the US, has already lost without saying a word.

[Jakez]

People like Ron Paul and vote for him because they believe he is the only honest candidate available and not a puppet to corporations and such and actually cares about this country and it's people. Regardless of what his actual stances or plans are, why would you call someone who votes for a person like that a retard? Sounds pretty stupid to me..

[StickyGreen]

Everything is so backwards in this country now.

It used to be normal to stand up for our constitution and want to protect our liberties... now you're labeled as some sort of weirdo conspiracy theorist whackjob if you believe in those things....

Sad times indeed.

[oscer]

I like Ron Paul i hope he runs even if he does not get the republican nomination

[DTK]

Originally Posted by kane

The reason the others are not major tend to be for one 1 of 2 reasons. Either they are very far from mainstream and only a niche party or they are very poorly run.

Those are a couple reasons, but you missed the big one: MONEY.

Originally Posted by StickyGreen

Everything is so backwards in this country now.

It used to be normal to stand up for our constitution and want to protect our liberties... now you're labeled as some sort of weirdo conspiracy theorist whackjob if you believe in those things....

Sad times indeed.

+1
Tragic, but true.

Originally Posted by Jakez

People like Ron Paul and vote for him because they believe he is the only honest candidate available and not a puppet to corporations and such and actually cares about this country and it's people.

This is true as well. In today's America, honest, honorable men like Paul get marginalized and all we're left with are whores/frontmen for the huge money interests (i.e. Obamney/Rombama) that get them elected.

Even though I don't agree with enough of his platform to be fully behind him, I may well vote for him for one core reason: he's the only honest, non-whore politician on the national stage. I have no illusions about his electability, but contrary to conventional un-wisdom, a vote cast from your conscience and beliefs is never wasted.

[CYF]

Ron Paul is the only stand up candidate, I hope he wins. He's got my vote.

[kane]

Originally Posted by DTK

Those are a couple reasons, but you missed the big one: MONEY.

another is apathy. If everyone that complained that they had to choose between the lesser of two evils would vote for a 3rd party candidate we would have a 3rd party. But instead everyone complains and then they either don't vote or they pick what they think is the lesser of two evils.

As for money, you can get that over time. If you start small and run candidates in local elections that aren't as expensive you can gain access and power without spending much money. It wouldn't be easy, but it could be done.

[baddog]

Originally Posted by Rochard

The problem with the two party system is it's a choice between the lesser of two evils, and both sides are more interested in beating the other side and then undoing what the other side did when they are were in charge.

I believe it is Algeria that had their first elections in 60 years today. 44 different parties. We have at least 13, will another 30 do?

Originally Posted by JohnnyClips

There should be no government, aka a small group of people with a monopoly on everything to do what they want. We don't need "leaders"

No, you need a padded cell.

[DTK]

Originally Posted by kane

another is apathy.

Or an intentional dumbing down. My aunt is a bleeding-heart liberal, but one thing she's been saying for ages is that when budget cuts happen, kids and education (you know, any country's future) are always among the first to get screwed. And she's right.

Originally Posted by kane

As for money, you can get that over time. If you start small and run candidates in local elections that aren't as expensive you can gain access and power without spending much money. It wouldn't be easy, but it could be done.

Unfortunately, I disagree completely. In this country, virtually the only way for a politican/party to generate the kind of money needed to become a real player is to whore yourself out to the huge money interests.

This is especially true after the Citizens United ruling, which allows any person/organization to donate an unlimited amount of money to a candidate's (or any ballot initiative's) Super PAC.

For some perspective: Newt Gingrich's sugar daddy Sheldon Adelson donated $16.5 Million to Gingrich's super PAC. It would take 330,000 mere mortals donating $50 each to equal that amount.

[baddog]

Originally Posted by Jakez

Regardless of what his actual stances or plans are, why would you call someone who votes for a person like that a retard? Sounds pretty stupid to me..

I have to admit, your comment made me stop and think. Was I calling someone a retard for backing Ron Paul? I guess it could be perceived by some that this is what I meant and for that I truly apologize. I am not sure a retard would even know who Ron Paul is. When I use the phrase Paultard it is more addressing the fanatics that do not know when to figure out another way. A Paultard is someone that only wants him to run for the discord. He is not going to get the Republican nod, so if you want to make a Libertarian statement, have him run as a Libertarian.

[DTK]

Originally Posted by baddog

No, you need a padded cell.

With you on that, BD. This douche Johnny Clips is the kind of guy who gives most of us who reject the 'official story' a bad name.



ps. hey, long time. hope you've been doing well

[baddog]

Originally Posted by DTK

Unfortunately, I disagree completely. In this country, virtually the only way for a politican/party to generate the kind of money needed to become a real player is to whore yourself out to the huge money interests.

Long time no see; hope all is well.

Anyway, I have to respectfully disagree. Why does this country have to be different than the rest of the world? Political parties seem to be based primarily on where you live in a lot of places. So you have people like the Tea Party getting their fingers in little spots and the next thing you know you have this religious fanatics running your life. The key; grass roots, grow.

You are right, it will (or can) not happen overnight, but I doubt the Whips went out overnight either.