Abraham Lincoln's 22 Delegates in 1860...

[UK4Paul]

I just read this on another forum...

"In May of 1860, the votes of 233 delegates were required to win the Republican nomination. Abraham Lincoln arrived at that convention starting only with the support of the 22 delegates from Illinois. He went on to win the nomination."

This is why a brokered convention is so important! Abraham Lincoln won with less than 10% of the delegates to start off.

:)

[CoreyBowen999]

I wonder what his strategy was at the convention:eek:

[Paul10]

....

[AlbemarleNC0003]

I wonder what his strategy was at the convention:eek:

I've read he had a high pitched whiny voice.

[celticsman7]

I remember it had to do with a compromise between big city politicians and stuff like that. The same thing with James Polk. He was named the nominee as a compromise choice. Can Ron Paul be a compromise choice? I don't know. But he can be the winning choice.

[patriot4paul]

Wow! I wonder what Abraham Lincoln said that made the delegates of other candidates change their minds. That's awesome.

[Churchill2004]

Lincoln was an in-the-middle comprimise. Paul is not going to be a comprimise choice for the other delegates.

[Paul10]

....

[UK4Paul]

Maybe the Republican party will compromise with Ron Paul when they realize he is the only Repblican who could win the election against a Democrat :)

[patriot4paul]

Lincoln was an in-the-middle comprimise. Paul is not going to be a comprimise choice for the other delegates.

I believe you're right. I hate to be a downer, but it looks like our only hope is if Dr. Paul changes his mind and runs third party.

[randomname]

what if he changes his stance on the war in Iraq? :D

[Jae0]

You people... -sigh- just because people are delegates for other candidates... doesnt mean they actually support them. Ron Paul supporters, the ones that organize things, arent stupid. They know what they're doing. Have some faith.

[Galileo Galilei]

I wonder what his strategy was at the convention:eek:

He promised the civil war.

[utrunner07]

what if he changes his stance on the war in Iraq? :D

I can't tell if you are joking but don't y'all think it might be possible for him to say Iraq sucks and I would not have done it but we must finish it out in a few years/ months whatever...and then we become non-interventionist? I know lots don't agree with this but I think it may be a necessary sacrifice. If he said this he would BE THE PERFECT REPUBLICAN CANDIDATE...any thoughts?

[Apparition]

In a brokered convention, we'd have a lot more delegates on our side since the RP supporters who will inevitably be bound through the first round of votes will be freed in the event that it's brokered.

So yeah... stop being negative and let RP's strategy sink in.

[Mystile]

I can't tell if you are joking but don't y'all think it might be possible for him to say Iraq sucks and I would not have done it but we must finish it out in a few years/ months whatever...and then we become non-interventionist? I know lots don't agree with this but I think it may be a necessary sacrifice. If he said this he would BE THE PERFECT REPUBLICAN CANDIDATE...any thoughts?

naw, RP is a straight shooter, and he's already got a lot of support from the anti-war camp.

[Jae0]

In a brokered convention, we'd have a lot more delegates on our side since the RP supporters who will inevitably be bound through the first round of votes will be freed in the event that it's brokered.

So yeah... stop being negative and let RP's strategy sink in.

QFT

[ForrestLayne]

In a brokered convention, we'd have a lot more delegates on our side since the RP supporters who will inevitably be bound through the first round of votes will be freed in the event that it's brokered.

So yeah... stop being negative and let RP's strategy sink in.

+1191

[utrunner07]

naw, RP is a straight shooter, and he's already got a lot of support from the anti-war camp.

Ok just thought I would ask. I disagree with him, I think we need to finish what we started but thats what I respect about Paul, he sticks to his guns no matter what and thats why, among other reasons, I will be voting for him.

[Tanner]

I can't tell if you are joking but don't y'all think it might be possible for him to say Iraq sucks and I would not have done it but we must finish it out in a few years/ months whatever...and then we become non-interventionist? I know lots don't agree with this but I think it may be a necessary sacrifice. If he said this he would BE THE PERFECT REPUBLICAN CANDIDATE...any thoughts?

Hope this doesn't change the direction of the thread, but no. Unequivocally no. Not only would this go against principled voting for 20 years in congress for Paul, but also against everything he (and it seems most of us) stands for morally. Not to mention that the "war" is illegal. That should be enough. To let something this important take a backseat is a complete refutation of principle and morality.

Sorry if I come across as a hardass, but having friends I grew up with die in a country like Iraq for immoral and illegal reasons is something to never back down against, and it's outrageous when both sides of the political cartel are discussing our 10 year plan there.

[sratiug]

Ok just thought I would ask. I disagree with him, I think we need to finish what we started but thats what I respect about Paul, he sticks to his guns no matter what and thats why, among other reasons, I will be voting for him.

We finished the war we started a long time ago. The only way to finish the occupation is to bring about the end of the world, or leave.

[zadrock]

Assuming we do have a brokered convention, let's keep something in mind: by the time September rolls around, we will have months of polls comparing Hillbama to the various Republican candidates. The polls may or may not include Dr. Paul. But I guarantee that he will be the one most likely to beat the Democrats. (If he's not included, the polls will just show that the others basically have no chance.) Given that, why wouldn't delegates for McHuckney vote for Paul?

Z

[Paul Revered]

Maybe the Republican party will compromise with Ron Paul when they realize he is the only Repblican who could win the election against a Democrat :)Especially if we are otherwise, writing in our votes for Paul.

[MGreen]

Ron Paul's compromise: Nominate me or I will attack you with the North.

[jsu718]

Most evangelicals vote for abortion over anything else. If Huckabee drops out, his support WILL go to Ron Paul.

[CanadiansforRP]

Most evangelicals vote for abortion over anything else. If Huckabee drops out, his support WILL go to Ron Paul.

Abortion and gay marriage. That is the 2 key issues for evangelicals.

[libertarian4321]

None of the delegates that Romney, Huck, and McCain have would vote for Paul as their second choice. His stance on the Iraq War is strongly rejected by them.

Some of the "mccain" delegates may really support Ron Paul, depending on state rules. If McCain wins Texas, and I'm a REPUBLICAN delegate, I have to vote for McCain on the first ballot.

But on the second ballot, you can bet I won't be voting for McCain...

[lastnymleft]

None of the delegates that Romney, Huck, and McCain have would vote for Paul as their second choice. His stance on the Iraq War is strongly rejected by them.

For now. Time is on the Good Doctor's side, and events at play will see him gain much support prior to Nov 4th.

(1) The US military are currently sending back to Iraq people that have previously been sent back State-side because of being medically unfit. I'm talking people with a foot blown off, for example.

(2) Suicide rates of active duty soldiers have increased 20% between 2006 and 2007. The stresses that lead to this will continue, and worsen these figures.

(3) A large factor in the 'surge' "working" is Moqtadr Al Sadr self-declaring a six month halt to their resistance campaign in AUGUST 2007. He did this to (i) root out foreign entities that had infiltrated his organization, and (ii) to further his religious studies, in order to become senior enough within the Shiite religious heirarchy so that he doesn't have to take orders from the Ayatollahs in Iran. So when he emerges from this six month TEMPORARY cease-fire within the next month, he'll likely be stronger, and more powerful, than ever before.

(1) + (2) + (3) = Unsustainable that the surge can be considered a "win" for much longer. These idiots that are currently supporting pro-war candidates just because they think that the last 5 months has been going well, therefore ignoring all that led up to it, will think again when the body bags start piling up again.

AND, though they are pumping the economy now, it, too, is an unsustainable dead-cat bounce. They may be able to, but I don't think they'll be able to keep it going for the next nine months, and if it does fail catastrophically - as it is sure to do, when it does "go" - then people will reach for radical alternatives.

Housing bubble collapsing leads to Credit Card bubble collapsing leads to Credit Derivatives collapsing. The Credit Derivatives are the mother of all bubbles, and yet no-one is really talking about it. Warren Buffet described credit derivatives as "financial weapons of mass distruction". When they go off, the house of cards comes down.

Mind you, Executive Orders currently in place allow for GWB to suspend the Constitution, defer elections, and declare martial law in the event of financial/economic disturbances, or any form of civil unrest (such as mass protests against the war, or the economy).

[BeFranklin]

I've read he had a high pitched whiny voice.

Like Ron Paul ;)

[Arek]

Yea but in those conventions they kept going until someone received 2/3 of the delegates. I'm pretty sure now they settle for a simple plurality over 50% the n again I never saw any rule changes anywhere since tehnically conventions have been nothing but shams since everyone drops out besides one candidate befor ethe convention usually.