From the DailyPaul to Digital Point within 2 hrs.: http://www.dailypaul.com/228216/fir...o-half-of-minnesota-gop-convention-delegation Out of curiosity, isn't the real news here that Romney looks like he might get an extra two delegates from Minnesota's non-binding primary process? Notice how the delegate tally's from February's non-binding caucus originally only gave him 2 delegates, and now it looks like he might get 4.
http://dougwead.wordpress.com/2012/04/23/ron-paul-wins-in-iowa-and-minnesota-romney-in-a-panic/ ~~~ [video=youtube;0OVgYCMjr8c]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0OVgYCMjr8c[/video]
Who needs the Daily Paul to run articles like yours: http://www.dailypaul.com/228283/ron-paul-wins-in-iowa-and-minnesota-romney-in-a-panic We have you to cut and paste them all in Digital Point. Took you 12 hrs this time, so you are getting slow. Do Paulista's have some secret scoreboard? Can you win prizes?
I wasn't aware that there was some internet rule that news, articles and information had to be restricted to a single venue. Might as well ban the use of hyperlinks. /sarc If it bothers you terribly much, you can easily just ignore this thread or my posts. But I gather that what you really want is to prevent anyone from discussing the matter here. Sad.
Now now, dont get all butt hurt. I was just poking a little fun. I would do the same if every one of your stories came from the DailyKOS. Perhaps its a personal preference, but I've found the truthiness value of news and editorial to go up exponentially when obtained from multiple sources.
Actually, what you suggested was that Paul supporters would sit back and intentionally let Obama win re-election unless the GOP played along and made Paul the candidate despite the fact that he has very marginal support. So yes, you did suggest that 10-15 percent should dictate to the majority. Basically anyone that has that attitude deserves to see a second Obama administration. The difference between those and myself... if Paul wins the nomination I'd show up and vote for him, because I dont care to see what Obama meant when he told the Russian envoy to give him a little slack until after his last election when he'd have more latitude. I'm not voting for a guy that fears being constrained by the electorate, and Obama's open-mic episode made clear he does exactly that. The very idea of threatening to sit on your hands unless your favorite candidate gets the nomination is just childish. It's an echo from elementary days..."If you dont agree to play by my rules I'll take my ball and go home". Makes me wonder if there's a percentage of his supporters AREN'T self-destructive titty-babies.
I never said Ron Paul supporters would "sit on their hands". I know many are planning on writing in Ron Paul if he doesn't win the nomination. Others will vote for a 3rd party candidate who comes closest to representing what they want (likely Gary Johnson). Some may feel disenfranchised and sit it out and some will likely vote for Romney if he's the GOP pick. What I'm saying is that Romney can't count on Ron's base and I don't think he will pull enough independents to win the general. Ron Paul's base puts a high priority on issues. Romney's support is largely driven by party first rhetoric. Don't blame Ron's base if the party won't bend on the issues to attract them.
Your condescension is unwarranted and insulting. DailyPaul is quoting the same original sources as I am. I don't even read DailyPaul very often. I'm more active at RonPaulForums.com and a few other places.
My apologies. I mistakenly implied you were getting all your news from the DailyPaul.com when in reality you get all your news from RonPaulForums.com. Liberals experience a similar type of disorientation when leaving the echo chamber. All this time, Barack Obama thought the "change" people were voting for was socialism because that is all he heard from the people he hung out with. Even now, out in the real world, he tries his best to live life with blinders on.
Yeah, y'all are the only ones. Rest of us just toss a coin or vote for the one we think looks most presidential.
Do you disagree with statement following the one you selectively quoted? Or do you believe the "mega crowds" of 300 or so people that Romney draws to his public appearances are indicative of broad support for his proposed policies or character? Context.
Thought today's election results were fittingly humorous for this thread. Deleware. Uh oh http://www.cnn.com/election/2012/primaries/state/de Connecticut. Oh my. http://www.cnn.com/election/2012/primaries/state/ct New York. No help http://www.cnn.com/election/2012/primaries/state/ny Pennsylvania. The Santorum people really refused to get behind Romney, in Santorum's home state. Just look at all the districts Romney lost. http://www.cnn.com/election/2012/primaries/state/pa Rhode Island, Paul couldn't win a district, but as a semi-open primary, enough Democrats scrambled through the wires to give him a double digit vote count and three out of 19 delegates. http://www.cnn.com/election/2012/primaries/state/ri Obviously, the people want Ron Paul, not Romney.
Disappointing? He got the same microsegment of the electorate that's been voting for him all along. What were you expecting?
@Rebecca: Rasmussen uses likely voter analysis to shape it's polling numbers, vs some of the others which poll registered voters, or even more useless, all people. Generally, it makes Rasmussen more accurate when the actual vote is compared to the poll. The only nay sayers I've seen of recent that argue with Rasmussen's numbers say that we won't know who the likely voters are until the convention, because we won't know Romney's running mate, and a variety of other things could critically depress or stimulate voter turn out. Either way, it should be very close, which means you could make some money on Intrade right now, which has Obama at 60%. @Bernard: I can understand your disappointment, but if you had been honest with yourself, you would have seen this coming a few weeks back. I think you will be pleasantly surprised to find Romney's economic positions are much closer to Reagans than you think. He doesn't have Reagan's gift of gab, which will handicap him somewhat in getting the type of mandate Reagan had. That said, Romney is a guy with a track record of getting things done in a bipartisan way, and when he says he'll get government down from 25% to 20% of GDP in the first term, I think he is credible. Its not the 18-19% Obama Inherited, but it is a step in the opposite direction Obama has been going, and that will be have to be good enough for now.
I wasn't expecting Ron Paul to win 1,144 delegates. I was hoping there were enough Republicans to prevent Romney from getting there. I was hoping for better results in Pennsylvania.
This is one of the main reasons people don't like him, and also why people shouldn't vote for him, other than the fact he is better than Obama. This also embodies the whole process and shows that most politicians are status quo, parrot heads that are perpetuated and driven by corporations and by the main stream media. If you hadn't figured it out by now, I'm referring to the fact that he's saying one thing to get the nomination, then flopping to *get back* voters. The saddest part to all of this, is that he'll probably get most of those voters back because either people are too stupid to realize what he's doing or the media is purporting that he's some sort of savior and will drive his campaign forward. This is also why I think there should be some sort of test assuming you have even the slightest of knowledge about politics to be able to vote. If you don't then you should get educated to have that privilege.