What Now? Ron Paul’s path to victory

Quote from JimOfTroy : So getting 74% of the delegates is a loss to you or what? Do you understand how caucuses work, or are you just here to troll?

btw RP only ends up with 6 delegates in Alaska. Not the 24 that was reported b4.

Quote from andyfico : The Ron Paul campaign itself is claiming victory a lot. How come this doesn't jive with what other sources are posting?

Because the media is full of shills and idiots who, knowingly or not, wrongly declare the winner of a non-binding straw poll the winner of a caucus, that way retards outside the media who also don't understand how a caucus works can use that information to troll forums and spread FUD.

Quote from andyfico : Is there a 3rd party verification of these results?

The delegates are elected and they indicate their support to the campaigns. It's not locked in until the actual vote occurs at the convention. That said, if they indicate their support to the campaign it's reasonable to assume that they will in fact vote that way.


Also, for what it's worth, the 74% in Louisiana was just the district caucuses. Those delegates will meet at the state convention and from that group the delegates to the national convention will be elected. So with a 74% majority, it's reasonably likely that they will elect the whole of the elected national convention delegates from amongst themselves.

Quote from JimOfTroy : Because the media is full of shills and idiots who, knowingly or not, wrongly declare the winner of a non-binding straw poll the winner of a caucus, that way retards outside the media who also don't understand how a caucus works can use that information to troll forums and spread FUD. The delegates are elected and they indicate their support to the campaigns. It's not locked in until the actual vote occurs at the convention. That said, if they indicate their support to the campaign it's reasonable to assume that they will in fact vote that way. Also, for what it's worth, the 74% in Louisiana was just the district caucuses. Those delegates will meet at the state convention and from that group the delegates to the national convention will be elected. So with a 74% majority, it's reasonably likely that they will elect the whole of the elected national convention delegates from amongst themselves.

Again, is there a source besides the Ron Paul campaign itself that can verify this claim? The Romney camp just said they have 2000 delegates. You take them at their word, right? That is the point I am making. I would like to see a neutral third party verify these claims.

Quote from JimOfTroy : Because the media is full of shills and idiots who, knowingly or not, wrongly declare the winner of a non-binding straw poll the winner of a caucus, that way retards outside the media who also don't understand how a caucus works can use that information to troll forums and spread FUD.

That's the booze... I mean... the Obomney Kool-Aid talking...

Quote from andyfico : Again, is there a source besides the Ron Paul campaign itself that can verify this claim? The Romney camp just said they have 2000 delegates. You take them at their word, right? That is the point I am making. I would like to see a neutral third party verify these claims.

There is no such thing until the convention occurs. Is that so hard to understand?

As for not taking the Romney campaign at their word, they have been claiming delegates in caucus states with unbound delegates before the delegates have even been elected. If you had even a rudimentary understanding of how these caucuses work, then it would be obvious that they are full of shit because there is no way they could know those unbound delegates will vote for them. So how do you take them at their word? Meanwhile Paul's campaign actually announces their delegate numbers AFTER the delegates are elected, yet you call them liars.

So, how about instead of listening to the corrupt media and trolling the Ron Paul threads with your FUD, you bother to educate yourself on how these caucuses actually work?

Quote from JimOfTroy : There is no such thing until the convention occurs. Is that so hard to understand? As for not taking the Romney campaign at their word, they have been claiming delegates in caucus states with unbound delegates before the delegates have even been elected. If you had even a rudimentary understanding of how these caucuses work, then it would be obvious that they are full of shit because there is no way they could know those unbound delegates will vote for them. So how do you take them at their word? Meanwhile Paul's campaign actually announces their delegate numbers AFTER the delegates are elected, yet you call them liars. So, how about instead of listening to the corrupt media and trolling the Ron Paul threads with your FUD, you bother to educate yourself on how these caucuses actually work?

So the delegates walk over and whisper in Ron Paul's ear that they are going to support him and no one else knows about this? So he can claim whatever he wants based on a private conversation and we have no way to verify it? Why is there not a neutral 3rd party that has spoken to these delegates if they have indeed pledged their support? I feel that you are misunderstanding my point and as a result getting frustrated and attacking me.

Quote from andyfico : So the delegates walk over and whisper in Ron Paul's ear that they are going to support him and no one else knows about this? So he can claim whatever he wants based on a private conversation and we have no way to verify it? Why is there not a neutral 3rd party that has spoken to these delegates if they have indeed pledged their support? I feel that you are misunderstanding my point and as a result getting frustrated and attacking me.

So when mainstream media like FOX and CNN announce that Obomney has the delegates... Who do you think is whispering in thier ear?...

Quote from andyfico : So the delegates walk over and whisper in Ron Paul's ear that they are going to support him and no one else knows about this? So he can claim whatever he wants and we have no way to verify it? I feel that you are misunderstanding my point and as a result getting frustrated and attacking me.

They don't whisper anything. For the most part, delegates who are elected will say who they are supporting, though they are generally free to not share that information or they could even be undecided, and they are free to change their minds. As a result, the only source is from the campaigns. It's that simple. Repeating that you want to see third party validation just demonstrates your lack of or disinterest in actually understanding. What do you expect the media to cover these events and announce the results? They've already released their numbers based on the straw polls, they can't let the cat out of the bag that they are full of shit. How about Romney's campaign, you think they're interested in releasing this information when they have the media declaring them winners already?

Do you deny that there is no possible way that the media could be accurately allocating unbound delegates based on straw poll results? That these media outlets, and some campaigns, have been claiming they won delegates when it's not possible to know because the delegates have not even been selected? Knowing that should make it obvious that what's being reported in the media is total bullshit. Yet you continually refer back to media sources for evidence. Paul's campaign has been saying that the delegates are not selected, the delegate counts by the media are based on false assumptions, etc. Then they release their counts when the delegates are actually selected. Being the only campaign releasing their results in this manner leads me to believe that their information is probably valid.

So no, I'm not misunderstanding you, you lead off by calling the campaign liars and then you just keep repeating the same farking thing that I've already responded to. Add in your past participation in the Ron Paul threads and your obvious intent to troll any RP supporters rather than have a discussion, and that's where my attitude towards you comes from. It's not like I'm posting numbers that come from random forums and declaring them fact, so spare me the bullshit.

Quote from JimOfTroy : They don't whisper anything. For the most part, delegates who are elected will say who they are supporting, though they are generally free to not share that information or they could even be undecided, and they are free to change their minds. As a result, the only source is from the campaigns. It's that simple. Repeating that you want to see third party validation just demonstrates your lack of or disinterest in actually understanding. What do you expect the media to cover these events and announce the results? They've already released their numbers based on the straw polls, they can't let the cat out of the bag that they are full of shit. How about Romney's campaign, you think they're interested in releasing this information when they have the media declaring them winners already? Do you deny that there is no possible way that the media could be accurately allocating unbound delegates based on straw poll results? That these media outlets, and some campaigns, have been claiming they won delegates when it's not possible to know because the delegates have not even been selected? Knowing that should make it obvious that what's being reported in the media is total bullshit. Yet you continually refer back to media sources for evidence. Paul's campaign has been saying that the delegates are not selected, the delegate counts by the media are based on false assumptions, etc. Then they release their counts when the delegates are actually selected. Being the only campaign releasing their results in this manner leads me to believe that their information is probably valid. So no, I'm not misunderstanding you, you lead off by calling the campaign liars and then you just keep repeating the same farking thing that I've already responded to. Add in your past participation in the Ron Paul threads and your obvious intent to troll any RP supporters rather than have a discussion, and that's where my attitude towards you comes from. It's not like I'm posting numbers that come from random forums and declaring them fact, so spare me the bullshit.

Wow. You really have misunderstood everything I've been saying. I'll say it again though. Ron Paul's campaign says that X number of delegates are going to support him. Ron Paul is running for President ans is behind Romney. Given this factor, the prudent thing to do is seek independent verification. I'm not saying that he is lying but there are rational reasons not to blindly accept what Ron Paul's campaign. The same goes for Romney.

Ron Paul doesn't lie... Romney does...

Quote from andyfico : Wow. You really have misunderstood everything I've been saying. I'll say it again though. Ron Paul's campaign says that X number of delegates are going to support him. Ron Paul is running for President ans is behind Romney. Given this factor, the prudent thing to do is seek independent verification. I'm not saying that he is lying but there are rational reasons not to blindly accept what Ron Paul's campaign. The same goes for Romney.

Well, nobody is this dense, so enjoy jerking off to the thought of aggravating someone on a message board. I'm done with you.

Quote from JimOfTroy : Well, nobody is this dense, so enjoy jerking off to the thought of aggravating someone on a message board. I'm done with you.

You are the one who is getting himself aggravated simply because I don't accept as undeniable truth what the Paul campaign says in regards to delegate counts. I simply asked for a 3rd party to verify and you went apeshit on me. One has to wonder why. I hope not all RP supporters are like you and can objectively read what someone is asking instead of immediately jumping into defensive mode. Jesus man, this is the Podium where people ask for 3rd party verification every minute. You make it look like the RP campaign is lying when you get so defensive. Calm down.

Quote from andyfico : You are the one who is getting himself aggravated simply because I don't accept as undeniable truth what the Paul campaign says in regards to delegate counts. I simply asked for a 3rd party to verify and you went apeshit on me. One has to wonder why. I hope not all RP supporters are like you and can objectively read what someone is asking instead of immediately jumping into defensive mode. Jesus man, this is the Podium where people ask for 3rd party verification every minute. You make it look like the RP campaign is lying when you get so defensive. Calm down.

I'm not aggravated at all, I just know that's what you're going for, which is why I said "the thought of aggravating someone". I've explained, in detail, that the statements from the campaign are the only source for this information, that there's no such thing as 3rd party verification in these situations, but that there are facts that prove the media and other campaigns are lying about delegate counts, something that cannot be said about RP's campaign. To keep asking just demonstrates that you're trolling. Then to add that somehow me being "defensive" makes it look like the RP campaign is lying is, in addition to being idiotic reasoning, just further evidence of the trolling being that I'm in no way a representative of the campaign, so what I have to say does have any bearing on the way the campaign looks. It's just you trying to say things to get a rise, aka trolling. But it's done in that subtle way that a number of posters on this board do so that the mods don't do anything about it. I'm not aggravated by you, annoyed by you, or being defensive. I just don't like you or have any desire to tolerate your particular brand of BS and as such respond to you with the open hostility that is deserved for someone who behaves in the manner that continue to.