| Forum Index > General Forum |
Hey guys! We'll be closing this thread shortly, but we will make an American politics megathread where we can continue the discussions in here. The new thread can be found here: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=383301 | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On May 15 2012 03:59 Saryph wrote: Source I wonder how this victory by Paul will be explained by the diehards in this thread. He cut a deal with the RNC. At a minimum, I'm guessing that he's going to get a speech slot at the convention. | ||
|
aksfjh
United States4853 Posts
On May 15 2012 03:29 Thenerf wrote: Sending support to mexico is about a politically viable as sending support to the united states for Detroit or Balitmore. It would be career suicide for any politicians involved. In Mexico they are quite motivated(at least publically) to get their shit together by their own merits. Of course, but the stance in the U.S. has largely been ignored. There's no talks about what to do, and I feel that the Latino and Southern vote would be better served with appearing to lend a hand to our southern neighbor than debating who deports more/fewer illegals. | ||
|
Saryph
United States1955 Posts
On May 15 2012 04:04 xDaunt wrote: He cut a deal with the RNC. At a minimum, I'm guessing that he's going to get a speech slot at the convention. If he has even half the votes his supporters say he has I would agree with at least a speech slot. That's pretty much all he has said he has wanted from the start. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
|
Mango Chicken
55 Posts
On May 14 2012 05:00 AcuWill wrote: Rand is not the next generation of the Liberty movement. His voting record does not follow the Liberty movement, his personal stances do not, and just because he is Ron Paul's son, DOES NOT mean he is the next Ron Paul or that he will be the next standard bearer of the Liberty movement. Pretty pathetic that Ron couldn't even raise a decent kid. I'd give that kid a Biblical spanking if he acted like that as a child while I was still raising him. | ||
|
SpeaKEaSY
United States1070 Posts
On May 15 2012 03:59 Saryph wrote: Source I wonder how this victory by Paul will be explained by the diehards in this thread. Here's an explanation by Jack Hunter, who is part of the Ron Paul Campaign, explaining what happened. The Ron Paul drops out headline is wishful thinking by the mainstream media. As far as I know, there's still a money bomb scheduled on the 17th I believed. | ||
|
Uncultured
United States1340 Posts
| ||
|
TheToast
United States4808 Posts
On May 15 2012 08:14 SpeaKEaSY wrote: Here's an explanation by Jack Hunter, who is part of the Ron Paul Campaign, explaining what happened. The Ron Paul drops out headline is wishful thinking by the mainstream media. As far as I know, there's still a money bomb scheduled on the 17th I believed. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SzeoVUo1QCA So ceasing campaign activities in primary elections is in fact part of Ron Paul's grand strategy to win the campaign? Ummm.... okay. Since most states have hard delegates who are obligated to vote for a candidate, and Romney is slated to have more than enough hard delegates to win the primary outright, what it Ron Paul's strategy here? Just to make as much noise and distract from the issues as much as possible? Disrupt the Republican convention as much as possible? Because that's really all he can achieve at this point. It will be interesting to see how Limbaugh and other conservative commentators react to this tomorrow. -edit: On May 15 2012 08:23 Uncultured wrote: I'm sure it's been said a hundred times by now, but the General election is not decided yet, because Ron Paul can still pull a Harding and win the Repub nomination. Slim chance, but it's been done before. No, actually it hasn't. At least not with the percentages of votes Paul would have to win in the upcoming primary elections; the ones he's not campaigning for. In fact there hasn't been a brokered convention in 60 years. It's just not going to happen, period. | ||
|
RCMDVA
United States708 Posts
He never has come out swinging against Romney to the degree Gingrich/Santorum did. That question... as to why Ron Paul has been giving Romney a pass here and there... seems to be answered with.... There is something in it for Rand. Outside shot at VP (my personal longshot bet), or a certain lock for a cabinet position. | ||
|
SpeaKEaSY
United States1070 Posts
On May 15 2012 08:26 TheToast wrote: So ceasing campaign activities in primary elections is in fact part of Ron Paul's grand strategy to win the campaign? Ummm.... okay. Since most states have hard delegates who are obligated to vote for a candidate, and Romney is slated to have more than enough hard delegates to win the primary outright, what it Ron Paul's strategy here? Just to make as much noise and distract from the issues as much as possible? Disrupt the Republican convention as much as possible? Because that's really all he can achieve at this point. It will be interesting to see how Limbaugh and other conservative commentators react to this tomorrow. No, he's focusing on winning the votes that count (the delegates) in order to get the most bang for the buck, considering he's not being funded by Goldman Sachs like Romney and Obama. Of course, the media spins this to mean "LOL RON PAUL QUITS RACE" because they know people like you will eat it up. If the establishment is so confident in Romney's inevitable nomination, why are they blatantly avoiding mentioning Dr. Paul's name? Why are Romney supporters going against the rules by shutting down conventions when Ron Paul seems to be winning, even going so far as throwing punches at Ron Paul supporters? It's absolutely pathetic that when Ron Paul starts winning using the delegate strategy, the media barely makes mention of it, but they jump on something that they can construe as him quitting the race. | ||
|
Mango Chicken
55 Posts
On May 15 2012 08:23 Uncultured wrote: I'm sure it's been said a hundred times by now, but the General election is not decided yet, because Ron Paul can still pull a Harding and win the Repub nomination. Slim chance, but it's been done before. I got an e-mail from Nigeria recently about how if I send over some money I'll get great returns on it. Slim chance that it's going to happen but would you like me to forward it on to you? | ||
|
Whynaut
Canada367 Posts
On May 15 2012 11:10 SpeaKEaSY wrote: It's absolutely pathetic that when Ron Paul starts winning using the delegate strategy, the media barely makes mention of it, but they jump on something that they can construe as him quitting the race. Define winning. The examples I keep hearing are Nevada (where even the delegates who support him are bound to vote for Romney on at least the first ballot, because he won the vote) and Maine. Are there other states I haven't heard about where this has worked? How far can this strategy take him? Assume the best case scenario: Paul acquires all the as yet unchosen delegates from the states with non-binding caucuses, and ensures that all the delegates from states with binding caucuses support him. Where would that leave him? I'm genuinely curious (a contested convention would be really interesting). | ||
|
SpeaKEaSY
United States1070 Posts
On May 15 2012 11:48 Whynaut wrote: Define winning. The examples I keep hearing are Nevada (where even the delegates who support him are bound to vote for Romney on at least the first ballot, because he won the vote) and Maine. Are there other states I haven't heard about where this has worked? How far can this strategy take him? Assume the best case scenario: Paul acquires all the as yet unchosen delegates from the states with non-binding caucuses, and ensures that all the delegates from states with binding caucuses support him. Where would that leave him? I'm genuinely curious (a contested convention would be really interesting). Goal is to prevent Romney from achieving about 1100 (I forget the exact number) which would allow him to secure the nomination on the first ballot. Once the first ballot has concluded, all the delegates that were bound to vote for Romney (or Gingrich, or Santorum) on the first ballot would now be free to vote for Ron Paul. There's also a theory that might be disqualified due to the RNC already using funds and providing aid prior to Ron Paul dropping out. Might be why they're so eager to declare him out of the race. | ||
|
TheToast
United States4808 Posts
On May 15 2012 11:48 Whynaut wrote: Define winning. The examples I keep hearing are Nevada (where even the delegates who support him are bound to vote for Romney on at least the first ballot, because he won the vote) and Maine. Are there other states I haven't heard about where this has worked? How far can this strategy take him? Assume the best case scenario: Paul acquires all the as yet unchosen delegates from the states with non-binding caucuses, and ensures that all the delegates from states with binding caucuses support him. Where would that leave him? I'm genuinely curious (a contested convention would be really interesting). You're right about bound delegates, that's the case for many states. In the first round of voting, delegates from those states have no choice but to vote for the predefined candidate. Other states have unbound delegates, where the primary vote is actually just a caucus; the actual delegates are elected by the state parties. Currently Romney has I believe 789 hard delegates. He needs 1144 votes to win the nomination. Even if Paul manages to snap up every unbound delegate he's still going to lose. On May 15 2012 11:10 SpeaKEaSY wrote: No, he's focusing on winning the votes that count (the delegates) in order to get the most bang for the buck, considering he's not being funded by Goldman Sachs like Romney and Obama. Of course, the media spins this to mean "LOL RON PAUL QUITS RACE" because they know people like you will eat it up. If the establishment is so confident in Romney's inevitable nomination, why are they blatantly avoiding mentioning Dr. Paul's name? Why are Romney supporters going against the rules by shutting down conventions when Ron Paul seems to be winning, even going so far as throwing punches at Ron Paul supporters? It's absolutely pathetic that when Ron Paul starts winning using the delegate strategy, the media barely makes mention of it, but they jump on something that they can construe as him quitting the race. Yup, he sure is winning. -.- I've explained about 20 times now why it's impossible for Ron Paul to win the nomination, but I guess I can't argue with someone who wants to deny reality. | ||
|
SpeaKEaSY
United States1070 Posts
On May 15 2012 12:31 TheToast wrote: I've explained about 20 times now why it's impossible for Ron Paul to win the nomination, but I guess I can't argue with someone who wants to deny reality. Read the post I wrote above you. Paul does not need to win >1100 delegates. All he has to do is prevent Romney than doing so, and then hoping that enough Romney delegates defect to his side when they become unbound after the first round. It's not impossible, as much as you wish it were so. | ||
|
TheToast
United States4808 Posts
On May 15 2012 12:35 SpeaKEaSY wrote: Read the post I wrote above you. Paul does not need to win >1100 delegates. All he has to do is prevent Romney than doing so, and then hoping that enough Romney delegates defect to his side when they become unbound after the first round. It's not impossible, as much as you wish it were so. No, it's impossible. Allow me to quote myself: On May 15 2012 03:11 TheToast wrote: ^There are still I think 14 states yet to have their primaries, something like 800 delegates still up for grabs. Romney needs at maximum 344 delegates to win the nomination outright. Much less if we count the unbound delegates. Even if they force a floor vote it's not going to matter. While I suspect there will be shenanigans, the GOP will likely be anticipating them as well. Assuming Paul gets ALL of the current unbound delegates, he would still need to nab some 500 delegates from the remaining primary states to be able to deny Romney the outright nomination. That's something like 60% of the votes. And in reality, Romney is still going to get a large portion of those unbound delegates, so it's over 500 delegates Paul would need to grab from the remaining primaries. Considering that he's not even campaigning in those states anymore, the odds of this happening are all but non existant. He's NOT going to win the primary, he's NOT going to be able to deny Romney the nomination. If you wish to continue your fantasies I can't stop you. But the reality is that Paul has lost and Romney has won. | ||
|
SpeaKEaSY
United States1070 Posts
On May 15 2012 12:31 TheToast wrote: Even if Paul manages to snap up every unbound delegate he's still going to lose. And like I said, it won't matter how many delegates he has now, if Romney gets DISQUALIFIED for violation of Rule 11. Not that I expect the Republican party to obey its own rules, but at least as it stands it seems like the RNC and the Romney campaign have some 'splainin to do. | ||
|
aksfjh
United States4853 Posts
Then, in November, "It's quite obvious that Obama and Romney are rigging the elections. I saw this youtube video that shows how voting machines are FORCING people to not pick Ron Paul! Here's the video, educate yourselves! <youtube>" | ||
|
DeepElemBlues
United States5080 Posts
LOL so now you're backtracking from when you said: On May 15 2012 12:31 TheToast wrote: Even if Paul manages to snap up every unbound delegate he's still going to lose. This: On May 15 2012 12:31 TheToast wrote: Even if Paul manages to snap up every unbound delegate he's still going to lose. Is identical in meaning to this: Assuming Paul gets ALL of the current unbound delegates, he would still need to nab some 500 delegates from the remaining primary states to be able to deny Romney the outright nomination. That's something like 60% of the votes. And in reality, Romney is still going to get a large portion of those unbound delegates, so it's over 500 delegates Paul would need to grab from the remaining primaries. Considering that he's not even campaigning in those states anymore, the odds of this happening are all but non existant. So, zero backtracking. And like I said, it won't matter how many delegates he has now, if Romney gets DISQUALIFIED for violation of Rule 11. Not that I expect the Republican party to obey its own rules, but at least as it stands it seems like the RNC and the Romney campaign have some 'splainin to do. The Ron Paul campaign doesn't believe this Rule 11 bullshit. This is why Ron Paul supporters are so god damn annoying and basically insufferable. Everything is a whine. Everything is soooooooooo unfair. | ||
|
TheToast
United States4808 Posts
On May 15 2012 12:46 SpeaKEaSY wrote: LOL so now you're backtracking from when you said: And like I said, it won't matter how many delegates he has now, if Romney gets DISQUALIFIED for violation of Rule 11. Not that I expect the Republican party to obey its own rules, but at least as it stands it seems like the RNC and the Romney campaign have some 'splainin to do. That's not going to happen. Every real Republican is focused 100% on defeating Obama, to them it's really the only thing that matters. Given that Paul has no chance of winning in a general election, there's no way in hell they are going to entertain any of this. They are not going to invalidate the Romney campaign, nor are they going to unseat the best RNC chairman they've had in a decade. Any real Republican would throw their support behind Romney right now. As Limbaugh correctly pointed out in the quote I posted earlier; most of the Ron Paul people aren't really republicans. Their independents or fringe libertarians who's only aim here is to elect Ron Paul. They don't care about the core principles of the current Republican platform, and polling data shows many of them support Obama over other RNC candidates. So if you think the GOP is going to entertain this nonsense from a fringe group of independents with no stake in the republican party and who can't be counted on to vote Republican; you really need to start thinking more clearly. It ain't gonna happen. Period. Reince Priebus and the RNC are "violating rule 11" and supporting the Romney campaign because they're thinking what the rest of us have been thinking from day 1. Paul isn't a serious candidate. He's never been a serious candidate. His platform is light years away from the core Republican voters. He says crazy things about homosexuality and other topics (see the movie Bruno for confirmation) that would lead to scandal after scandal in a general election. His policies are totally unrealistic. That's why all of this nonsense is going to be swept under the rug at the RNC convention. Sure, maybe the RNC did violate rule 11, but no one besides a small minority of Paul supporters (the majority of which AREN'T actually Republicans) actually care. No one else does. As I said, every real Republican right now is focused on beating Obama. Causing a big ruckus at the convention is counter productive to that. And it means nothing. Literally nothing. tldr; it ain't gonna happen. | ||
| ||
IntoTheTV X SOOP
Premier - Group D
SHIN vs GuMiho
Clem vs Classic
[ Submit Event ] |
|
|
|
OSC
OSC
GSL
Epic.LAN
Replay Cast
Sparkling Tuna Cup
WardiTV Invitational
Epic.LAN
AI Arena Tournament
Yamato Cup
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
