Umm... delegates to the national nominating convention are democratically voted on either in a primary or caucus. The democratic party does have its non-democratic "superdelegates" but the republican party does not. Delegates very often are average Joe Schmoes if Joe Schmoe is the one who registers as a delegate for a non-mainstream candidate who then gets a large number of votes in a given primary or caucus. If you think people who are sent to the convention as Ron Paul delegates are going to be the type to play politics and change their vote at the convention then you are quite mistaking.
RON PAUL
- Thread starter Festering Anus
- Start date
-
Two Factor Authentication is now available on BeyondUnreal Forums. To configure it, visit your Profile and look for the "Two Step Verification" option on the left side. We can send codes via email (may be slower) or you can set up any TOTP Authenticator app on your phone (Authy, Google Authenticator, etc) to deliver codes. It is highly recommended that you configure this to keep your account safe.
I'm saying not many delegates are going to go for Ron Paul. People who sign up to be delegates are primarily people heavily involved in politics, the kind of people that don't know about or care about Ron Paul, or see him as an internet meme and nothing more.
So, no, I don't think Ron Paul supporters will go for someone else, I'm saying other people's supporters won't go for Ron Paul.
I don't think you fully get how the process works. Presidential candidates do not have an issue with getting enough potential delegates to sign up under their name. It is part of the process of getting on the ballot.
Say then we look at a small precinct caucus. 50 people show up in some elementary school gym. There, supporters of each candidate give a quick speech and tell people which delegates go with each candidate. Then they vote on those delegates and the delegates with the most votes get to attend the next highest district convention, and that delegation then select democratically the delegates that will be sent to the state convention, which then once again selects from their delegation those that will go to the national convention.
But all that really matters is the results of the precinct, and that is what is reported by the media. This is because once the precinct delegates have been selected, the rest of the process is pretty much decided statistically.
(Assuming of course the party doesn't decides to not seat a delegate for some reason ... which has happened in the past.) Quite a dirty practice really.
The crux is that it doesn't matter if another candidates potential delegates won't go for Paul if those delegates are not nominated in the first place. I know you might not like it but the process is democratic in nature even if the exact vote counts is not what counts in the end.
I'm talking about it because I wanted to clarify you on a technical point, and you refuse to get it. What you should be saying is that he won't get enough support among Republican primary voters, which may be the case, we'll see. But it's awfully backwards to say he won't get support from delegates like delegate support is separate from popular support. It's like saying some presidential nominee won't get elected because he needs support among the electoral college. To say he needs to get electoral college support is obvious and entirely dependent on state by state popular support in the general election.
Party machine backing usually helps, but if there's ever been a recent election cycle where such support is not needed and potentially even a detriment it is this year.
The fact is that in the first two Republican straw polls Paul got first in one, and second (by 1 vote) in the others. And compared to other potential Republican challengers he fairs best against Obama. Spin it however you want.
It is way too early for this anyway. And I think it is unlikely that he will get the GOP nomination, but there is no doubt in my mind he would be both a better candidate, and a better president than anyone else they might nominate in his stead.
I think you need to read this...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delegate#Republican_Party
My original point was that the people who matter for him to win the nomination are not the same people who were polled in the above listed polls.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delegate#Republican_Party
My original point was that the people who matter for him to win the nomination are not the same people who were polled in the above listed polls.
I think the fact that his son is running on the same policies and is dominating both the republican establishment candidate and the democrat candidate in the polls shows that things have changed for the Ron Paul movement. People are tired of what the left and right have to offer and are looking for something different and someone that they can trust.
People seem to forget that Ron Paul did not do nearly as well in CPAC/SLRC last time and it's not his "crazy internet followers" that caused him to come out on top this time around.
People seem to forget that Ron Paul did not do nearly as well in CPAC/SLRC last time and it's not his "crazy internet followers" that caused him to come out on top this time around.
Dude named his son after Ayn Rand. I'm pretty sure that's grounds for dismissal from the realm of reality.
OK so he wasn't named after Ayn Rand, but is apparently a "big fan" in his own words. Welp!
F*ck you, got mine.
F*ck you, got mine.
Lol. The truth is that Ayn never really talked all that much about here believes to the public. There is in fact very few quotes of hers that even exist that pertain to her true feelings of political philosophy. What we have here to day with Ayn is her prediction coming true and everyone going out and buying the books leading to her being a number one best seller after probably sixty years with Atlas Shrugged. That lead to the lefties raging war once against her once again. Leaving off exactly where they stopped their fight against here all those decades ago. What we have with Atlas Shrugged is a novel with a prediction intertwined in a story about where it all ends with productive leaving the unproductive to rot in their own filth. The book however is about the basic idea of give and take the basic idea of the value of money, of liberty, of freedom, regulation, over taxation, takers that push for equality, but practice laziness and control of others. It shines on this government in a negative light giving off the impression they control everything and their supporters, the takers, can't see reason for nothing(lol not false). It would show court cases where the business man was in front of the government and the business man would decree there was no reason for him to be there at all as he had no power to change their minds and his rights no longer existed. This ofcourse lead to the judge asking stupid questions and doing what the businessman said he would. (much like the congress today, btw (aka Toyota, GM, Chrysler, Banks and Banks that were forced to take loans, electronic companies, insurance companies, etc etc etc etc etc etc. Going to the congress isn't about having a chance is about dealing with tripe until they decide to dish out punishments or just decide to take you over, whichever one)
Anyway, yes I believe she was pure capitalist even if she never said it out right. However, claiming that is enough for why she is wrong is retarded. It wouldn't be enough if I said it about pure socialist and its not enough for a capitalist either.
Oh and the Hickman stuff is lol. Obama has far more issues with that kind of thing then Ayn, and he even appointed them to cabinet positions, but you guys aren't bitching about that...hmmm. Which is actually relevant to something when Hickman was not. I guess its kind like the fact that Obama was a horrible student, but all you guys care about is how Bush was a horrible student. Or how Obama got into Harvard by favors which just happens to be what bush did aswell with Yale, but low and behold its a big ****ing deal when bush did it, but somehow not Obama. Obama even gets credit for gaining access. Not sure with what though. He won't release his SAT scores, which if anything tells me they're embarrassing. On top of it, everyone thinks Obama is a great speaker, but the reality is when you take away is speech tutor he says like more times then a retarded teenager on crack. Though its hard to tell when he answers every question he doesn't want to answer in twenty five minutes or more. After the first five minutes most likely you are only half listening, afterall.
SlayerDragon said:
Yes Slayer, that point was totally worth bringing up and totally makes him look like a jackass. Can you be any dumber?
------
edit: and Ron Paul is moron that believes that ending federal currency is the right path to take. Saying that states should have their own currency and the fed should stay out of it. He like to support all of this by saying that that current currency is unconstitutional and that the fed can't be responsible for such a responsibility. Which ok, that last part is true, but we have tried his idea before and it just lead to all currency being worthless. Yes, the current system is doing the same thing in just a different way, however, I fail to see how replacing one failed idea with another is actually the right thing to do. It seems to me to be more like the retarded thing to do.
Last edited:
Actually, he's dead on there too. He's for denationalization of money and market competition in currency, mirroring the view of F.A. Hayek. Another moron? Paul never claims states should have their own currency, and free banking currency has never been worthless. (It does help that it rarely has been tried. While certainly debatable, Scotland is the only instance that came close to what Paul advocates.
The fact is that free banking is the enemy of big government. When politicians spend, they first try to tax, if that doesn't work they borrow, and if that fails, then in the current system there is always the last option of inflation. Such a market for currency would force governments to finance spending morally, through taxes that the populace supports, or borrowing at a market rate of interest from willing lenders. To politicians, this is unacceptable.
America's gold standard and bi-metal standards were significantly flawed, but hyperinflation was *not* one of them. Should you wish to brush up your on your monetary history I'd recommend History of Money and Banking in the US by Rothbard.
Last edited:
