For Bradley in DC and anyone that wants to understand the truth of the delegate proce

[Drsteveparent]

Hello Bradley,

I must come out and now defend my positions again on another forum because people do not take the time to look at the facts but rather just say i am a nut and i need to be put in a straight jacket and i am wrong on every account.

This has to do with my information about the delegate process and how Dr. Paul CAN obtain the nomination in September at the RNC convention.

Bradley i do not recall everything you said so if i missed something bring it up and i will gladly answer it.

1: You are confusing the fact of winning delegates with obtaining delegates as in most states these delegates are elected to go to the state and national convention to support their candidate and the fact is Dr. Paul does not need to win the majority of delegates in 5 states but only obtain the majority in 5 states and there is a HUGE difference between winning and obtaining the majority.

For all of you out there that have questioned this in my article written about the delegate process i will make it clear now.

Dr. Paul only needs the actual people that are elected to be the majority of delegates in ANY 5 states to be placed on the ballot at the RNC in September and he DOES NOT have to win 5 state primary votes to obtain the delegates.


2: I have also seen where you claimed that people will go to jail for violating state election laws if they are bound to vote for Mccain in their state and choose to NOT vote for Mccain at the convention.

You are confusing state law with party rule and to this day i have never seen a state law that states that the republican party must force their delegates to vote for who wins the primary or GO TO JAIL for it. If there is such a law in any state i would love to see it.

The republican party is a private entity that the states do not dictate how the party chooses it's nominee however the party must follow any state laws that are in place pertaining to the candidate they have running on thier ticket but that has really nothing to do with party rule.

The previous delegates from prior years have made the rules for their state on how the party will choose the nominee and this is why some states have portioned delegates, winner take all delegates and 100% NON BOUND delegates.

The beauty of the delegated system and the party rules that are in place is that they can always be changed and this is why states are different from each other.

If we can obtain a 2/3 majoirty at any state convention those delegates control everything and can change anything they wish on a state level so long as it is pertaining to party rule such as UNBINDING the entire slate of delegates that were previously bound by the party rules.

If we have 50% plus 1 VOTE those delegates will control most of the convention and can still vote to change the entire party platform pass their resolutions etc.. and work to bring the republican party back to it's roots.

3: What happens to the Romney and Huckabee delegates?

The fact is there are 2 choices here 1: They would release their delegates and they are then free to vote for who they wish regardless of whether that candidate that releases them endorses Mccain for this does not bind them and they will be free to vote how they want end of story. 2: They will keep those delegates bound through the convention and depending on the state party rules they will vote for them untill they become released from casting the required number of votes they have been bound for and then they are free to do vote how they wish.

4: You claimed every state is different and this we agree on however.

I have told every meetup i have addressed to obtain a copy of their county and state bylaws to understand what is already in place before doing anything else other than registering to be a delegate. Again the bylaws can always be changed as well as the bylaws reflect the laws of the party NOT THE STATE that are currently in place and with the majoirty of votes the delegates and people of the party can change the bylaws in the county and the state to better fit the american people and the party as they see fit.

5: You also claimed i don't know what i am talking about when it comes to the RNC call and i assure you i am better versed in it than you are just from the comments you have made that are completely incorrect and i would hope you would take the time to become educated on the RNC call before tearing down everything i have been working on with many people for it is you that are giving false information and discouraging the people from getting involved because the assumed i was either wrong or a nut but it is you sir that is wrong or uninformed at the very least on many issues.

6: If you wish to challange me on the intellect of the RNC call and party rule why did you not contact me personally or simply reply to a post on daily paul and sopmeone would have gladly given you my contact information instead of treating my information as if i was an idiot and you could have saved me much needed time we have so little of now. In the future please if you doubt me contact me and debate me on the issue and we can get the truth without demeaning the message that i would hope we both long to accomplish which is to support and get Dr. Paul elected.

7: As i said i do not remember everything you claimed but i want everyone to understand this the goal here is to obtain the nomination in September and the plan i have put in front of thousands now is a working plan that can and will work so long as we get our people to register to become delegates before it is too late.

If anyone wishes to read the short article i wrote on the delegate process may view it here which also contains links to the RNC call, Robert rules of order, The green papers and information on how to be a delegate in your state as well as a volunteer at the convention. link : http://www.dailypaul.com/node/42901

If you have any questions feel free to contact me at newspaper4paul@hotmail.com

We also do not need to focus on every state for you are correct some states and very few we will not be able to make the changes we need as far as unbinding delegates we only need to focus most of our effort on the states we can make the changes and that will completely tip the scale in our favor and for thos in doubt i suggest you view some of your posts here that have had great success such as WA and here is a post to seek and ask them how they discovered that the primary meant nothing in the state you will be suprised with the answer i am sure.

link : http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=122090


Dr. Steve Parent

[tajitj]

I understand we all need to be delegates. But you seem to just put the idea out there but never have details. You understand the way delegates are picked differ in every state. Put out some specific info at each state forum on here. I am Texas state delegate along with my wife.

[Bradley in DC]

Steve, WELCOME!!! :)

I'm running out the door now to a McKinley for Congress meeting, but let's follow up later.

A few quick things--working together is better than anything else. I never doubted you and I want the same thing (promoting Dr. Paul). The delegate selection processes are complex and appear confusing (or at least difficult for you or I or anyone to make simple statements/explanations) and there are at a minimum three different sets of processes for each state and then LOTS of variations between states.

I humbly suggest using the wiki might be more useful.

[Drsteveparent]

I will not use wiki for they are not absolute i would rather read the source myself.

Yes as i said i do agree every state is different and tha is why each state needs to be addressed but it is almost impossible to detail everything myself with the short time we are working with although i am working on data for a web page that will educate every american on the process of every party so we can all get involved and make real change.

I look forward to our conversation.



Steve

[orlandoinfl]

Bravo DrSteve

[ronpaulhawaii]

Hi Steve, welcome and thanks for coming around (and all the work you are putting into this effort).

I think what Brad meant was the RPF Wiki in the Nav bar above. I haven't used it yet but, looking now, there are a few pages built.

I'm looking forward to seeing this develop

Thanks again

m

[acptulsa]

Welcome, Dr. Parent. The Wiki bar above is still wiki, and I don't blame you for preferring to do things threadwise. If you look yourself up on the members list above, you'll be able find this thread easily when desired.

[Drsteveparent]

I am new here and i must admit i am also not very web savvy either and i am a terrible typer.

I was not trying to be disrespectful i hope it didn't come across that way.

[LibertyIn08]

If we can obtain a 2/3 majoirty at any state convention those delegates control everything and can change anything they wish on a state level so long as it is pertaining to party rule such as UNBINDING the entire slate of delegates that were previously bound by the party rules.


What about loophole primaries? As national delegates are elected separately, no matter how many delegate slots Ron Paul supporters fill, these delegates will vote for who they wish. In Illinois, we elect delegates individually, and their preference is listed on the ballot. Pennsylvania is much alike, but without the preference listed.

How do you suggest unbinding helps in this case? What about states without a traditional state convention system?

[ronpaulhawaii]

I am new here and i must admit i am also not very web savvy either and i am a terrible typer.

I was not trying to be disrespectful i hope it didn't come across that way.

Many of us are terrible typers / etc. No worries.

Please be aware though, that we have our share of troublemakers here and it is best to have a thick skin at times

[Drsteveparent]

What about loophole primaries? As national delegates are elected separately, no matter how many delegate slots Ron Paul supporters fill, these delegates will vote for who they wish. In Illinois, we elect delegates individually, and their preference is listed on the ballot. Pennsylvania is much alike, but without the preference listed.

How do you suggest unbinding helps in this case? What about states without a traditional state convention system?


There is no need to unbind those delegates that are already unbound for they are bound by nothing although the party might ask or suggest they can not force the delegates to vote for someone in any way.

[Drsteveparent]

Many of us are terrible typers / etc. No worries.

Please be aware though, that we have our share of troublemakers here and it is best to have a thick skin at times

If you knew what i go through on a daily basis you would know my skin is thick and they will never drive me away.

It is very hard to defeat the truth although trouble makers are usually very easy to discredit for these people combine nouns and verbs to illicit prescribed responses which are irelivent to an intellegent mind.

I get frustrated sometimes but i will be going nowhere i assure you.




Steve

[LibertyIn08]

So, in terms of hard delegates, McCain has between 25-30% dependent upon the source. This means of the remaining 60 odd percent, assuming that Ron Paul picks up the Romney and Huckabee delegates (10% on top of McCain's 30, and a rather large assumption.), Ron Paul would have would have to get around 70+% of the remaining delegates.

Current numbers from conventions don't really indicate we're going to get those kinds of percentages. What is your plan, then, for conversion of delegates or pushing the voting past the first couple of ballots, where more delegates then become unbound?

[acptulsa]

Mr. Bydlak didn't see fit to answer, and I would certainly understand if you find it impolitic to do so, but I do have a question. Would it be useful to Dr. Paul for us to circulate ballot access petitions in the various states this summer? Would that make a handy Sword of Damocles for Dr. Paul to dangle over their heads in September?

[LibertyIn08]

Mr. Bydlak didn't see fit to answer, and I would certainly understand if you find it impolitic to do so, but I do have a question. Would it be useful to Dr. Paul for us to circulate ballot access petitions in the various states this summer? Would that make a handy Sword of Damocles for Dr. Paul to dangle over their heads in September?

That would more likely please rather than upset party stalwarts. The Libertarians would steal some of Ron's support, he most likely wouldn't be on every state ballot, and he wouldn't be featured in debates unless polling 10+%. Beyond that, we would end up with Peden receiving his congressional seat.

Paul himself has stated he wished to work within the party. I see no reason to pursue this non-starter further.

[constituent]

If you knew what i go through on a daily basis you would know my skin is thick and they will never drive me away.

It is very hard to defeat the truth although trouble makers are usually very easy to discredit for these people combine nouns and verbs to illicit prescribed responses which are irelivent to an intellegent mind.

I get frustrated sometimes but i will be going nowhere i assure you.





rock on! welcome to the forums!

[Drsteveparent]

So, in terms of hard delegates, McCain has between 25-30% dependent upon the source. This means of the remaining 60 odd percent, assuming that Ron Paul picks up the Romney and Huckabee delegates (10% on top of McCain's 30, and a rather large assumption.), Ron Paul would have would have to get around 70+% of the remaining delegates.

Current numbers from conventions don't really indicate we're going to get those kinds of percentages. What is your plan, then, for conversion of delegates or pushing the voting past the first couple of ballots, where more delegates then become unbound?

The plan needs to be for 2 or 3 states to unbind their delegates and then it wont matter. I do not understand what you mean by the remaining 70% could you please clarify this for me so i can give you a correct answer please.

We are not looking really for conversion because the mccain people will be mccain so the goal is to get to the convention with the majority going in which is looking better and better all the time.

[No1ButPaul08]

Dr. Steve, your article is full of stuff that you write as fact but instead is wishful thinking.

You write,

First, stop looking at who wins each state’s popular vote. For most of the states, the vote by the people is really nothing but a straw poll and has no real bearing on who will become the nominee. The only way this matters is if one person receives 1191 delegates that are bound by state rules to be committed to a candidate. So if a candidate like McCain now has 906 delegates but he doesn't reach 1191, WHICH HE WILL NOT, most of the delegates the state “awarded” him mean nothing. Keep in mind that in most of the states most of the people that represent the 906 for McCain are actually Ron Paul supporters.

NOW there is no possible way that anyone in the race can achieve this goal now because of the major split in state wins by the candidates.

Normally, Convention Delegates do not matter because the convention is not brokered and we would have a clear winner if someone has 1191 delegates. BUT THIS YEAR IS DIFFERENT. This will be a brokered convention – there is no way around it. Do you see how the Ron Paul campaign strategy will work?

This will be a brokered convention, there is no way around it. Do you really believe that? If so, you should put your money where your mouth is and bet the brokered convention at 20-1. You can donate the winnings to Dr. Paul. You say McCain WILL NOT get to 1191. He is already over at 1200 with 10 states left, of which he is surely going to win.
http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=p2Ua4t0-Z5pFHScTNGq7bUg

You also say
The bottom line is, less than 1/2 of the delegates are bound by state party rules.

I can't remember the exact number but it's actually 75-80%.

I'm starting to think trying to unbind the delegates is a really BAD idea. First, it has a 0% chance of success. It's unlikely that we will have 2/3 of the delegates in ANY state.

Second, we have nobody on the RNC, which means nobody on the committees. Make no mistake, the RNC runs the party, not the delegates. The RNC makes up all the committees at the convention. The delegates do get to vote, but the committees can do a number of things, including not allowing delegates.

Third, trying to take over the GOP in this manner does not do our movement any good. It will only make the GOP more hostile towards us. I'm all for people becoming involved and becoming delegates, but trying to overturn the delegates is a Clintonesque move, which in the end will do us no good.

Finally, I've never listened to Alex Jones and don't really have an opinion of him, but I do agree with him that Ron is going to tell his supporters bound to McCain to go for McCain AT THE CONVENTION. Alex might have misspoke and not said it clearly. Ron certaintly isn't going to tell people to vote for McCain, but I think he will have his supporters bound to McCain do what they are bound to do. He also said Ron didn't want to be accused of "stealing" the nomination.

I was one of the people who were trying to get RP supporters to vote for Huckabee in a couple of winner take all states with the idea of stopping McCain and leading to a brokered convention. The campaign issued a statement saying that although the idea had good intentions, if you for RP, vote for RP. It also went on to say, "But voting for a candidate other than Ron Paul when there isn’t any chance of getting delegates for Dr. Paul, merely in the hope of having a brokered convention, only weakens the Ron Paul movement rather than strengthening it."

These situations are different but they didn't want vote trading for, "merely in the hope of having a brokereed convention." I would also think Ron wouldn't want us trying to overturn delegates, merely in hope of stealing the nomination. I think trying to overturn delegates only weakens the RP movement, rather than strengthening it.

What does strenghthen the movement is getting people like BJ Lawson, Jim Forsythe, Brent Sanders, Murray Sabrin, Vern McKinley or any other of your favorite liberty candidates elected.

What I think to be the most important, is keeping McCain out of the White House. We absolutely need to have GOP nomination open in 2012. Also, putting a Dem in the White House will wake conservatives up.

[LibertyIn08]

The plan needs to be for 2 or 3 states to unbind their delegates and then it wont matter. I do not understand what you mean by the remaining 70% could you please clarify this for me so i can give you a correct answer please.

We are not looking really for conversion because the mccain people will be mccain so the goal is to get to the convention with the majority going in which is looking better and better all the time.

There is no other way to make it anymore explicit.

Hard Delegate Numbers (Bound as of conventions/primary processes, see Green Papers et al.):
25-30% McCain
10% Other (For Sake of Argument, All RP)

60% Not Yet Bound or Fully Decided

Basically, we have to get 70% of those remaining in conventions to go all to Paul to come in with a majority. Do you see this happening?

I think there needs to be a contingency plan in place, because unlike you, I do not feel the statistics are on our side. I do not see how 2-3 states unbinding somehow rectifies this as you suggest.

[Drsteveparent]

There is no other way to make it anymore explicit.

Hard Delegate Numbers (Bound as of conventions/primary processes, see Green Papers et al.):
25-30% McCain
10% Other (For Sake of Argument, All RP)

60% Not Yet Bound or Fully Decided

Basically, we have to get 70% of those remaining in conventions to go all to Paul to come in with a majority. Do you see this happening?

I think there needs to be a contingency plan in place, because unlike you, I do not feel the statistics are on our side. I do not see how 2-3 states unbinding somehow rectifies this as you suggest.

My questions means 70% of what delegates most delegates have not even been voted on yet and are only going to the county level and 12 states have not even had a primary yet so to make a prediction of what delegates we need is premature.

Most of Mccains delegate count is nothing more than virtual delegate numbers and according to the hard numbers he only has a little over 500 delegates bound to him.

As we get closer to september i can give you better number but until then your guess is as good as mine on how many we will have or need.

What we need is 50% plus 1 to obtain the nomination in September. We have many states to go and if we can sweep some key states as we have done ouyr chances are increased everytime we do so. WA was our first huge victory and MO will be out 2nd and so on.

As we have more conventions in the next few weeks we will all have a better understanding of where we actually stand but if people do not become delegates we will have no chance.

[LibertyIn08]

My questions means 70% of what delegates most delegates have not even been voted on yet and are only going to the county level and 12 states have not even had a primary yet so to make a prediction of what delegates we need is premature.

Most of Mccains delegate count is nothing more than virtual delegate numbers and according to the hard numbers he only has a little over 500 delegates bound to him.

As we get closer to september i can give you better number but until then your guess is as good as mine on how many we will have or need.

There is such a thing as a hard delegate count. Have you looked at the Green Papers website? I think estimating under 500 guaranteed delegates for McCain would be a mistake on our part.

[No1ButPaul08]

There is such a thing as a hard delegate count. Have you looked at the Green Papers website? I think estimating under 500 guaranteed delegates for McCain would be a mistake on our part.

Using only the hard delegates numbers from the Green Papers doesn't make the situation any better. Yeah McCain has "only" 582 delegates, but they've only alloted 816, meaning McCain has 71% of the "hard" delegates.

[nbhadja]

Dr. Steve, your article is full of stuff that you write as fact but instead is wishful thinking.

You write,

First, stop looking at who wins each state’s popular vote. For most of the states, the vote by the people is really nothing but a straw poll and has no real bearing on who will become the nominee. The only way this matters is if one person receives 1191 delegates that are bound by state rules to be committed to a candidate. So if a candidate like McCain now has 906 delegates but he doesn't reach 1191, WHICH HE WILL NOT, most of the delegates the state “awarded” him mean nothing. Keep in mind that in most of the states most of the people that represent the 906 for McCain are actually Ron Paul supporters.

NOW there is no possible way that anyone in the race can achieve this goal now because of the major split in state wins by the candidates.

Normally, Convention Delegates do not matter because the convention is not brokered and we would have a clear winner if someone has 1191 delegates. BUT THIS YEAR IS DIFFERENT. This will be a brokered convention – there is no way around it. Do you see how the Ron Paul campaign strategy will work?

This will be a brokered convention, there is no way around it. Do you really believe that? If so, you should put your money where your mouth is and bet the brokered convention at 20-1. You can donate the winnings to Dr. Paul. You say McCain WILL NOT get to 1191. He is already over at 1200 with 10 states left, of which he is surely going to win.
http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=p2Ua4t0-Z5pFHScTNGq7bUg

You also say
The bottom line is, less than 1/2 of the delegates are bound by state party rules.

I can't remember the exact number but it's actually 75-80%.

I'm starting to think trying to unbind the delegates is a really BAD idea. First, it has a 0% chance of success. It's unlikely that we will have 2/3 of the delegates in ANY state.

Second, we have nobody on the RNC, which means nobody on the committees. Make no mistake, the RNC runs the party, not the delegates. The RNC makes up all the committees at the convention. The delegates do get to vote, but the committees can do a number of things, including not allowing delegates.

Third, trying to take over the GOP in this manner does not do our movement any good. It will only make the GOP more hostile towards us. I'm all for people becoming involved and becoming delegates, but trying to overturn the delegates is a Clintonesque move, which in the end will do us no good.

Finally, I've never listened to Alex Jones and don't really have an opinion of him, but I do agree with him that Ron is going to tell his supporters bound to McCain to go for McCain AT THE CONVENTION. Alex might have misspoke and not said it clearly. Ron certaintly isn't going to tell people to vote for McCain, but I think he will have his supporters bound to McCain do what they are bound to do. He also said Ron didn't want to be accused of "stealing" the nomination.

I was one of the people who were trying to get RP supporters to vote for Huckabee in a couple of winner take all states with the idea of stopping McCain and leading to a brokered convention. The campaign issued a statement saying that although the idea had good intentions, if you for RP, vote for RP. It also went on to say, "But voting for a candidate other than Ron Paul when there isn’t any chance of getting delegates for Dr. Paul, merely in the hope of having a brokered convention, only weakens the Ron Paul movement rather than strengthening it."

These situations are different but they didn't want vote trading for, "merely in the hope of having a brokereed convention." I would also think Ron wouldn't want us trying to overturn delegates, merely in hope of stealing the nomination. I think trying to overturn delegates only weakens the RP movement, rather than strengthening it.

What does strenghthen the movement is getting people like BJ Lawson, Jim Forsythe, Brent Sanders, Murray Sabrin, Vern McKinley or any other of your favorite liberty candidates elected.

What I think to be the most important, is keeping McCain out of the White House. We absolutely need to have GOP nomination open in 2012. Also, putting a Dem in the White House will wake conservatives up.

Over 1200 delegates? I stopped reading after that. Stop listening to the MSM.

[Drsteveparent]

There is such a thing as a hard delegate count. Have you looked at the Green Papers website? I think estimating under 500 guaranteed delegates for McCain would be a mistake on our part.

Yes i have looked and i didn't say under i said a little over and as i stated these are not even actual people yet in most cases they are only numbers nothing more and to decide what we need and don't need at this time would be misinformation

Please do not take offense to this but your questions seem like those coming from a high school student or freshman in college and i am not trying to be sarcastic here.

If you dobt what i have said just go an research it for yourself and you will see what i am trying to explain.



Steve

[tajitj]

Quit kidding yourselves. Just because most are not bound, most states delegate process is already been underway. We have already been shut out of a number of states. Yes we should all try to be delegates, of course.
It is unrealistic to think come national convention time Dr. Paul is going to have 1152 supporters as delegates. How many states have already nominated state delegates and do not have a 2/3 Paul majority. Almost every state. Some out west are different. Time will tell our real support.

[LibertyIn08]

Yes i have looked and i didn't say under i said a little over and as i stated these are not even actual people yet in most cases they are only numbers nothing more and to decide what we need and don't need at this time would be misinformation

Please do not take offense to this but your questions seem like those coming from a high school student or freshman in college and i am not trying to be sarcastic here.

If you dobt what i have said just go an research it for yourself and you will see what i am trying to explain.



Steve

I'm glad you are willing to berate me simply due to my level of education. Yes, I am a high school student. I think you only issued that proclamation as an ad hominem attack or simply guessed correctly; nothing about my questions was illogical or immature.

Your attack does not reduce the validity of my argument. Tajit made the exact point that I am making: Our exclusion from previous conventions and the amount of bound delegates from such conventions, as well as loophole primaries, give McCain a formidable concrete delegate count that has to be overcome with a significant percentage of the remaining delegates.

I don't see how you can argue otherwise.

[Drsteveparent]

Quit kidding yourselves. Just because most are not bound, most states delegate process is already been underway. We have already been shut out of a number of states. Yes we should all try to be delegates, of course.
It is unrealistic to think come national convention time Dr. Paul is going to have 1152 supporters as delegates. How many states have already nominated state delegates and do not have a 2/3 Paul majority. Almost every state. Some out west are different. Time will tell our real support.


I have never stated we will have 2/3 at national i have only stated what will happen isf we do at state conventions.

Like i have said i can;t give you all the answers now because most states have not even elected delegates yet but if we have the numbers we can win the nomination but we have lots of work to do.

mY INFO for now is in general for we still have 12 states that have not even had a primary yet but if we do not get our people to become delegates where they have not been elected yet we will have no shot.

You have to take these things in steps and everything will depend on our numbers and i can not in to the future time will tell over the next several weeks and from what i have seen so far from the people contacting me we are doing very well and that is all i will say until we get closer.

[Drsteveparent]

I'm glad you are willing to berate me simply due to my level of education. Yes, I am a high school student. I think you only issued that proclamation as an ad hominem attack or simply guessed correctly; nothing about my questions was illogical or immature.

Your attack does not reduce the validity of my argument. Tajit made the exact point that I am making: Our exclusion from previous conventions and the amount of bound delegates from such conventions, as well as loophole primaries, give McCain a formidable concrete delegate count that has to be overcome with a significant percentage of the remaining delegates.

I don't see how you can argue otherwise.

I did not attack you i only stated my opinion as to what your questions pertained but you are asking me to give you numbers that are impossible to give you for we have only had a handfull of states that have even elected delegates yet.

To try and illicit a prescribed response from me as to claim my intergrity is to belittle you is without merit and will only prolong any response i entertain from you in the future and to claim i attacked your intellect is unwarranted and is actually offensive so i will say this once again research it for yourself and do not rely on other to give you the information you require.

We still have 12 states that have not even had a primary so how can i possibly see what the future holds? As we get closer i can give you more precise answers as for now i can not give you what you require and when i can i will happily share the information with you.

[LibertyIn08]

I did not attack you i only stated my opinion as to what your questions pertained but you are asking me to give you numbers that are impossible to give you for we have only had a handfull of states that have even elected delegates yet.

To try and illicit a prescribed response from me as to claim my intergrity is to belittle you is without merit and will only prolong any response i entertain from you in the future and to claim i attacked your intellect is unwarranted and is actually offensive so i will say this once again research it for yourself and do not rely on other to give you the information you require.

We still have 12 states that have not even had a primary so how can i possibly see what the future holds? As we get closer i can give you more precise answers as for now i can not give you what you require and when i can i will happily share the information with you.

Likewise I can ask this: How can you still tell people we have a shot, if you have no numbers yourself? As I said, the hard numbers do not look good. Many of us have also done our own calculations; see the spreadsheet above for an example. What are the alternative strategies? One cannot simply put on their blinders and be oblivious to all possibilities.

I have not seen concrete or reasonable answers to these questions yet.

[No1ButPaul08]

Over 1200 delegates? I stopped reading after that. Stop listening to the MSM.

I'm not listening to the MSM. I'm listening to my spreadsheet that I linked right after I said that.

http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=p2Ua4t0-Z5pFHScTNGq7bUg

And like I said, the people relying on the hard count that only shows McCain at 582 fail to mention that the 582 is 71% of the hard delegates so far. And out the the 816 hard delegates that have been allocated, 0 have been overturned, a trend that will most definitely continue.

[mdh]

Please fact-check any statements made by Drsteveparent. Not only did we debunk many statements he made when he visitted rpiradio.com, but he also loaded sock puppets (from his same IP address in Winnipeg, Canada) in our chat to back him up and then deny doing so despite the obvious proof which everyone was witness to, he has also admitted to suffering from schizophrenia in another chat room.

I don't mean to be disparaging here, just to encourage everyone to do their own fact checking before taking *any* statements made on the internet at face value...

[No1ButPaul08]

One more thing to add for now. Dr. Steve, can you prove this statement

Now I assure you that even though we didn't win the popular vote in many states, WE DID PICK UP THE MAJORITY OF DELEGATES OVER ALL THE OTHER CANDIDATES IN MOST STATES. So yes, they won the straw poll, and we won what counts – which is delegates.

I'm going to guess you can't, because I don't think it's even close to being the truth, and yet you state it like it's pure fact.

Also, since I posted my criticism of you, you've replied four times in this thread, yet you have failed to reply to my post, any reason for this?

[Bradley in DC]

One more thing to add for now. Dr. Steve, can you prove this statement

Now I assure you that even though we didn't win the popular vote in many states, WE DID PICK UP THE MAJORITY OF DELEGATES OVER ALL THE OTHER CANDIDATES IN MOST STATES. So yes, they won the straw poll, and we won what counts – which is delegates.

I'm going to guess you can't, because I don't think it's even close to being the truth, and yet you state it like it's pure fact.

Also, since I posted my criticism of you, you've replied four times in this thread, yet you have failed to reply to my post, any reason for this?

Steve,

Yes, I was referring to the wiki here on RPFs. This would be the best way to examine issues and avoid confusion. We could spell out where we agree and then differentiate where we don't.

One huge difference between us, you and I, is that I have been relying not just on my own thoughts but have been working with several other people here cooperatively (via Google docs, the forum, PMs, emails, etc.) to understand everything as well as possible.

You make truly outlandish claims such as the one quoted and questioned above. You also have confused rules binding delegates in many different ways. For one, you have claimed repeatedly that there will be a brokered convention because McCain doesn't have enough votes from bound candidates. I have corrected your misunderstanding repeatedly: votes from unbound delegates count at the convention too.

I can assure you that in all points where I had questions (lots, especially for caucus states), I've sought answers before pontificating on them. I am not confused at all. If you take a look at the state subfora here (created by the admins by my request for this purpose), I posed the rules from 2004 urging people to update their states' rules for 2008 even before the call of the convention. I have clarified all questions I had from the legal counsel of the DC GOP and the RNC personally. If there is a dispute between your understanding and that of the legal counsel of the RNC, I'm pretty sure the convention isn't going to go to you resolve disputes. ;)

[SteveMartin]

The whole "brokered convention" thing is, IMO, a cynical canard being used to excuse the continued salaries of those who have already ripped all of us off in so many ways, as well as a way for Dr. Paul to put off running as an independent.

[acptulsa]

The whole "brokered convention" thing is, IMO, a cynical canard being used to excuse the continued salaries of those who have already ripped all of us off in so many ways, as well as a way for Dr. Paul to put off running as an independent.

The attempt to bring a third party to prominence in this country has failed and failed and failed again. The last time anything resembling an independent run succeeded in seating a president was 1860. This is somewhat discouraging.

You don't like the idea of trying to make the G.O.P. safe for conservatives once again? Well excuuuse me!

[SteveMartin]

That's why I am not promoting a third party run.

The last Independent candidate took 19% in the general election, and would have been in the White House had he not dropped out 6 weeks before the election (because his "ROLE" was not to win, but to distract and totally marginalize patriots.)

[Drsteveparent]

Steve,

Yes, I was referring to the wiki here on RPFs. This would be the best way to examine issues and avoid confusion. We could spell out where we agree and then differentiate where we don't.

One huge difference between us, you and I, is that I have been relying not just on my own thoughts but have been working with several other people here cooperatively (via Google docs, the forum, PMs, emails, etc.) to understand everything as well as possible.

You make truly outlandish claims such as the one quoted and questioned above. You also have confused rules binding delegates in many different ways. For one, you have claimed repeatedly that there will be a brokered convention because McCain doesn't have enough votes from bound candidates. I have corrected your misunderstanding repeatedly: votes from unbound delegates count at the convention too.

To get the updater versions of my articles on the delegate process you need to view the UPDATED March 13th VERSION which can be found here : http://www.dailypaul.com/node/42901

Any other version you should not seek as the information i have been updating.

I can assure you that in all points where I had questions (lots, especially for caucus states), I've sought answers before pontificating on them. I am not confused at all. If you take a look at the state subfora here (created by the admins by my request for this purpose), I posed the rules from 2004 urging people to update their states' rules for 2008 even before the call of the convention. I have clarified all questions I had from the legal counsel of the DC GOP and the RNC personally. If there is a dispute between your understanding and that of the legal counsel of the RNC, I'm pretty sure the convention isn't going to go to you resolve disputes. ;)

I will try and answer everyones questions that have been asked today but i will start with Bradley.

Refering to the question above : The numbers as far as picking up the majority of delegates thus far ar from the reports i receive privately from the people directly involved and not what the local MSM reports so i believe i have the hard numbers that matter and will never disclose everything i have been sent until every state convention is over.

Many states have not even had a convention as of yet and i can not possibly give you numbers that we do not have but everyone keeps looking at the virtual delegated numbers instead of the hard numbers of bound delegates which i believe for Mccain now is 563 hard delegates. Bradley is correct that unbound votes do count if they actually support Mccain and this is exactly why we need to obtain as many delegates as possible to have a shot at winning the nomination but if we do not get the numbers all over the country then this election for Dr. Paul will probably be over and for you to tell people i am a nut and i need a straight jacket does not help me to encourage people to even become a delegate in the first place so it is counter productive.

The brokered convention issue was when Romney and Huck were still in the race dividing delegates all over the country and my article about the delegates had changed although people have copied the old and continue to send it out which i have little control over which is why i say if you want a questions answered email me and i will answer you directly based on your state considering i have the info i need in your state. The article will continue to change as more states and delegates are selected and i can not possibly cover every county and every state in the USA myself and i have always urged everyone to obtain their local bylaws and call before they do anything as well except registering to become a delegate then i have scheduled conference calls with the heads of meetup groups in those states to discuss thier strategy based on a state to state basis. If someone here wishes to write an entire USA county and state article to explain every county and state by all means do so but i assure you it will not be finished before September.

I suggest we start here Bradley are we in agreement that the only way we even have a shot at the nomination is through the delegate process? Are we in agreement that everyone getting involved needs to understand rules of order as well as parliamentary procedure BEFORE they enter their process?

How can the DC GOP and the RNC possibly have the answers for every county and state as you describe? Do they patch you thorugh to someone when you are asked what state are you from to discuss only that state and furthermore how can you possibly trust the GOP to give you the accurate information without verifying the context of that information?

If you people here do not want me educating people on Parliamentary procedure and the delegate process fine i will gladly continue what i have been doing in other areas which if you have seen these people have done extremely well in their states with my help in preparing them but to make claims Bradley that i need A STRAIGHT JACKET is uncalled for sir and does nothing but discourage people from even doing the research they require to make actual changes in thier local communities which is exactly what i have encouraged all to do BEYOND this election.

My goal is simple which is to get people involved locally in their party to make the changes that are long over due and in the process take the nomination in September. If you have listened to any of my radio interviews i make it very clear as to what my intentions are and have been on numerous programs.

My focus of this posts was to address directly Bradley and what he claims i have stated is wrong to clear up those issues first then i will adress any remaining issues when i have time for the rest of you.

[Drsteveparent]

Please fact-check any statements made by Drsteveparent. Not only did we debunk many statements he made when he visitted rpiradio.com, but he also loaded sock puppets (from his same IP address in Winnipeg, Canada) in our chat to back him up and then deny doing so despite the obvious proof which everyone was witness to, he has also admitted to suffering from schizophrenia in another chat room.

I don't mean to be disparaging here, just to encourage everyone to do their own fact checking before taking *any* statements made on the internet at face value...

I have not done nor said any such thing and you and melissa should really seek counciling for your op status in a tiny little chat room has distorted your views and to continue to have your wife follow me in chat rooms while i am doing question and answer interviews is very childish on yours and her part and has become very boring.

[Drsteveparent]

Dr. Steve, your article is full of stuff that you write as fact but instead is wishful thinking.

You write,

First, stop looking at who wins each state’s popular vote. For most of the states, the vote by the people is really nothing but a straw poll and has no real bearing on who will become the nominee. The only way this matters is if one person receives 1191 delegates that are bound by state rules to be committed to a candidate. So if a candidate like McCain now has 906 delegates but he doesn't reach 1191, WHICH HE WILL NOT, most of the delegates the state “awarded” him mean nothing. Keep in mind that in most of the states most of the people that represent the 906 for McCain are actually Ron Paul supporters.

NOW there is no possible way that anyone in the race can achieve this goal now because of the major split in state wins by the candidates.

Normally, Convention Delegates do not matter because the convention is not brokered and we would have a clear winner if someone has 1191 delegates. BUT THIS YEAR IS DIFFERENT. This will be a brokered convention – there is no way around it. Do you see how the Ron Paul campaign strategy will work?

This will be a brokered convention, there is no way around it. Do you really believe that? If so, you should put your money where your mouth is and bet the brokered convention at 20-1. You can donate the winnings to Dr. Paul. You say McCain WILL NOT get to 1191. He is already over at 1200 with 10 states left, of which he is surely going to win.
http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=p2Ua4t0-Z5pFHScTNGq7bUg

You also say
The bottom line is, less than 1/2 of the delegates are bound by state party rules.

I can't remember the exact number but it's actually 75-80%.

I'm starting to think trying to unbind the delegates is a really BAD idea. First, it has a 0% chance of success. It's unlikely that we will have 2/3 of the delegates in ANY state.

Second, we have nobody on the RNC, which means nobody on the committees. Make no mistake, the RNC runs the party, not the delegates. The RNC makes up all the committees at the convention. The delegates do get to vote, but the committees can do a number of things, including not allowing delegates.

Third, trying to take over the GOP in this manner does not do our movement any good. It will only make the GOP more hostile towards us. I'm all for people becoming involved and becoming delegates, but trying to overturn the delegates is a Clintonesque move, which in the end will do us no good.

Finally, I've never listened to Alex Jones and don't really have an opinion of him, but I do agree with him that Ron is going to tell his supporters bound to McCain to go for McCain AT THE CONVENTION. Alex might have misspoke and not said it clearly. Ron certaintly isn't going to tell people to vote for McCain, but I think he will have his supporters bound to McCain do what they are bound to do. He also said Ron didn't want to be accused of "stealing" the nomination.

I was one of the people who were trying to get RP supporters to vote for Huckabee in a couple of winner take all states with the idea of stopping McCain and leading to a brokered convention. The campaign issued a statement saying that although the idea had good intentions, if you for RP, vote for RP. It also went on to say, "But voting for a candidate other than Ron Paul when there isn’t any chance of getting delegates for Dr. Paul, merely in the hope of having a brokered convention, only weakens the Ron Paul movement rather than strengthening it."

These situations are different but they didn't want vote trading for, "merely in the hope of having a brokereed convention." I would also think Ron wouldn't want us trying to overturn delegates, merely in hope of stealing the nomination. I think trying to overturn delegates only weakens the RP movement, rather than strengthening it.

What does strenghthen the movement is getting people like BJ Lawson, Jim Forsythe, Brent Sanders, Murray Sabrin, Vern McKinley or any other of your favorite liberty candidates elected.

What I think to be the most important, is keeping McCain out of the White House. We absolutely need to have GOP nomination open in 2012. Also, putting a Dem in the White House will wake conservatives up.


I answered these questions on page 4 while addressing Bradley.

[Drsteveparent]

Using only the hard delegates numbers from the Green Papers doesn't make the situation any better. Yeah McCain has "only" 582 delegates, but they've only alloted 816, meaning McCain has 71% of the "hard" delegates.


He still needs 1191 hard delegates to be assured the nomination 1191 is the magic number unless we can unbind in a few states such as MO and TX then that changes everything.

[Drsteveparent]

Quit kidding yourselves. Just because most are not bound, most states delegate process is already been underway. We have already been shut out of a number of states. Yes we should all try to be delegates, of course.
It is unrealistic to think come national convention time Dr. Paul is going to have 1152 supporters as delegates. How many states have already nominated state delegates and do not have a 2/3 Paul majority. Almost every state. Some out west are different. Time will tell our real support.

Only 2 states have elected state delegates thus far we have a long way to go.

Most states have not even had a convention nor even a primary yet.

[Drsteveparent]

I'm not listening to the MSM. I'm listening to my spreadsheet that I linked right after I said that.

http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=p2Ua4t0-Z5pFHScTNGq7bUg

And like I said, the people relying on the hard count that only shows McCain at 582 fail to mention that the 582 is 71% of the hard delegates so far. And out the the 816 hard delegates that have been allocated, 0 have been overturned, a trend that will most definitely continue.

This is where you should be looking : http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P08/R.phtml

[LibertyIn08]

This is where you should be looking : http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P08/R.phtml

Earlier you told me those numbers aren't credible. Which way is it?

By the way, the assertion that only 2 states have chosen their delegates is not correct. You are, once again, forgetting State GOP nominated delegates (California) and loophole primaries (Illinois).

[mdh]

I have not done nor said any such thing and you and melissa should really seek counciling for your op status in a tiny little chat room has distorted your views and to continue to have your wife follow me in chat rooms while i am doing question and answer interviews is very childish on yours and her part and has become very boring.

Unfortunately for you, I have irrefutable proof of what you were up to, including the sock-puppetry. I've also seen logs from another chat where you stated that you used a drug used to treat schizophrenia. Hint: your IP matches what it did when you were using the "El_buggo" and other sock puppets and what it does here on the forum. Any moderator can confirm that (and in fact one has).

Your statements here directed towards me once again show signs of mental illness, including paranoia. But listen, all I want is for you not to spread disinformation to this movement which I've worked very hard to spread good information within. If you choose to continue, it's only your own reputation that you damage.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

Steve, WELCOME!!! :)

I'm running out the door now to a McKinley for Congress meeting, but let's follow up later.

A few quick things--working together is better than anything else. I never doubted you and I want the same thing (promoting Dr. Paul). The delegate selection processes are complex and appear confusing (or at least difficult for you or I or anyone to make simple statements/explanations) and there are at a minimum three different sets of processes for each state and then LOTS of variations between states.

I humbly suggest using the wiki might be more useful.

Are you some sort of insider? I thought that only corrupted people reside in DC :p

[mdh]

By the way, the assertion that only 2 states have chosen their delegates is not correct. You are, once again, forgetting State GOP nominated delegates (California) and loophole primaries (Illinois).

West Virginia is even more complicated - we've chosen *some* of our RNC delegates (rather, the Huckabee campaign chose them since he won), and not others (three apportioned to each of the three congressional districts in the state are chosen in the May primary).

[Drsteveparent]

Earlier you told me those numbers aren't credible. Which way is it?

By the way, the assertion that only 2 states have chosen their delegates is not correct. You are, once again, forgetting State GOP nominated delegates (California) and loophole primaries (Illinois).

I never said any such thing and that link was refering to a spread sheet that appears someone made up without hard data which is why i will not use anything like that until it is confirmed and the greenpapers numbers i have confirmed.

Please show us where the delegates from CA and IL have already been elected or selected all or any other state for that matter to go to the national convention?

California hs not even had a convention yet so i would love to see what you claim unless you are talking about bonus delegates then that would be very few people from those states and only if those states are alloted bonus delegates and that is a big IF.

I have no time to bicker with you young man if you want to challange my information bring us facts to dispute my claims instead of doing exaclty what others have done which is say your wrong without 1 fact to back it up.

[Bradley in DC]

I will try and answer everyones questions that have been asked today but i will start with Bradley.

Refering to the question above : The numbers as far as picking up the majority of delegates thus far ar from the reports i receive privately from the people directly involved and not what the local MSM reports so i believe i have the hard numbers that matter and will never disclose everything i have been sent until every state convention is over.

Many states have not even had a convention as of yet and i can not possibly give you numbers that we do not have but everyone keeps looking at the virtual delegated numbers instead of the hard numbers of bound delegates which i believe for Mccain now is 563 hard delegates. Bradley is correct that unbound votes do count if they actually support Mccain and this is exactly why we need to obtain as many delegates as possible to have a shot at winning the nomination but if we do not get the numbers all over the country then this election for Dr. Paul will probably be over and for you to tell people i am a nut and i need a straight jacket does not help me to encourage people to even become a delegate in the first place so it is counter productive.

The brokered convention issue was when Romney and Huck were still in the race dividing delegates all over the country and my article about the delegates had changed although people have copied the old and continue to send it out which i have little control over which is why i say if you want a questions answered email me and i will answer you directly based on your state considering i have the info i need in your state. The article will continue to change as more states and delegates are selected and i can not possibly cover every county and every state in the USA myself and i have always urged everyone to obtain their local bylaws and call before they do anything as well except registering to become a delegate then i have scheduled conference calls with the heads of meetup groups in those states to discuss thier strategy based on a state to state basis. If someone here wishes to write an entire USA county and state article to explain every county and state by all means do so but i assure you it will not be finished before September.

I suggest we start here Bradley are we in agreement that the only way we even have a shot at the nomination is through the delegate process? Are we in agreement that everyone getting involved needs to understand rules of order as well as parliamentary procedure BEFORE they enter their process?

How can the DC GOP and the RNC possibly have the answers for every county and state as you describe? Do they patch you thorugh to someone when you are asked what state are you from to discuss only that state and furthermore how can you possibly trust the GOP to give you the accurate information without verifying the context of that information?

If you people here do not want me educating people on Parliamentary procedure and the delegate process fine i will gladly continue what i have been doing in other areas which if you have seen these people have done extremely well in their states with my help in preparing them but to make claims Bradley that i need A STRAIGHT JACKET is uncalled for sir and does nothing but discourage people from even doing the research they require to make actual changes in thier local communities which is exactly what i have encouraged all to do BEYOND this election.

My goal is simple which is to get people involved locally in their party to make the changes that are long over due and in the process take the nomination in September. If you have listened to any of my radio interviews i make it very clear as to what my intentions are and have been on numerous programs.

My focus of this posts was to address directly Bradley and what he claims i have stated is wrong to clear up those issues first then i will adress any remaining issues when i have time for the rest of you.

Steve,

You have claimed (which you may have corrected) that a majority of McCain's delegates are secretly Ron Paul supporters and would vote for Dr. Paul if we unbind the delegates. I consider that delusional, yes, and have said so. (It would please me greatly for you to prove me wrong--especially at the national convention. :)) I have pointed out that many delegates (from CA, DC, NY, etc.) have finished our processes with Dr. Paul getting no delegates, clandestine or not. Our delegates were decided entirely by the "straw poll [having] no real bearing on who will become the nominee" as you mistakenly claim.

You claim, "The only way this matters is if 1 person receives 1192 delegates that are bound by state rules to be commited to that candidate. NOW there is no possible way that anyone in the race can achieve this goal now because of the major split in state wins by the candidates."

Thank you for correcting your statement that the unbound delegates votes count. Your inference that they didn't I've labeled a "load of crap" and jaundiced my view of your understanding of this process greatly. Since you now admit your statement on unbound delegates was misleading (factually incorrect), so you now realize that yes, McCain get a majority of the votes at the convention and it might not be brokered? Even for the sake of argument that McCain gets no votes from Romney or Huckabee delegates, McCain can still win a majority of the delegates' votes at the national convention on the first ballot avoiding a brokered convention.

You say, "Everyone - when a candidate wins delegates by winning a primary that does not mean there are actual people won acting as delegates- these are virtual delegates. What do I mean by virtual delegates: A virtual delegate is just a number - there are no actual people YET that will go and vote for the candidate who won the particular state at the national convention. We call these people convention delegates."
In straight primary states, the presidential contender recruits a slate of "delegate candidates" to compete with the slates of "delegate candidates" from his competitors. These names are filed with the state secretary of state/board of election and are part of the public record (in some states, the delegates' names are actually printed on the ballot). I am the one who recruited the initial slate for Dr. Paul in DC. Whoever wins the primary sends their slate of (now) delegates to the national nominating convention (there are no state conventions, etc., in these states). Show my the RNC by-laws about your so-called "virtual delegates" please.

You say, "First off these results are good. Even though it seems as though Ron Paul is coming in last, the popular votes mean NOTHING. Most of these Super Tuesday states are winner take all. What that means is if ONE candidate wins with 51% of the votes then the delegates are legally bound to vote for that winner. If no one candidate takes 51% then it becomes a brokered convention. With there being three virtual “frontrunners” there is no chance of any of the candidates taking that required 51%. Let me repeat THERE IS NO CHANCE OF ANY ONE CANDIDATE TAKING 51%."

I say:

Load of crap. The results were NOT good--they were the piss-poor results you'd expect from an official campaign staff that is almost totally incompetent; they are the weak link in the rEVOLution, stop deferring to them. The popular votes do mean something--in many states it is the ONLY thing that matters. The author confuses the rules for winner-take-all and bound--they are entirely separate. There is VERY MUCH a chance that McCain would get a majority of the delegates, yes.

This is one PM I got and will give you the opportunity to respond:

"Changing the Rules \ Suspending
Bradley,

You seem to be a sensible man.. and you're probably about to get banned for defeatist talk here...

These people that talk about changing the rules are confused. Suspending the Rules means suspending Robert's Rules of Order.. not suspending all the rules that exist on the docket.

They also talk of changing the rules and unbinding delegates at the state levels, yet all the state levels that have convention have rules specifically against adjusting the delegate's stature and status as bound at the convention.. those must be done BEFORE the convention by a meeting of the rules committees in most states.

These kids think they've found some kind of a loophole, and they're not nearly as smart as they think. It's frustrating watching people rely on this tactic, as it's going to fail.

I wish I could communicate to them that this is not going to work. That they can't cherry pick rules to their favor and ignore other rules that outright state "You cannot unbind national delegates at the state convention/county convention/etc."

How do you not just explode?"

You claim I'm confused about the five state rule to qualify to nominate someone at the convention. Here is my post and explanation of that (which differs greatly from what you claim I say):

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=104384
(since you're new here, Aravoth is a member that has done some INCREDIBLE YouTube videos and was an inside joke among our forum members).

[MelissaWV]

Good Afternoon! I realize that my convention didn't happen, even though I was there. Most states, after all, have not had them. Someone has already pointed out two states which have, therefore it stands to reason that my state GOP Convention did not occur, despite being there with my husband as delegates and participating in the process. I am sure I could have been online instead, doing something as important as posting up sock puppets in a "little" chatroom.

I have been in said chatroom since its inception. Despite your paranoid assertions to the contrary, I have been in the chatroom I "stalked" you to since its inception as well. I am friends with a large number of those people. Lest your paranoia ebb, I am also friends with Bradley... or at very least my husband is. The man is a saint, and helped us out when no one else would or could, by letting mdh stay with him an extra period of time when mdh's ride left him stranded in DC. This was, of course, campaign-related... mdh has worked very hard to get the word out about the national campaign, and worked locally to try to make our state Paul-friendly. Our county's results speak for themselves. Bradley is a busy, busy man and he took time out to be courteous and compassionate -- because that's just how he is.

I do find irony in the pot-kettle-black taking place here. I have a handful of posts on here, even fewer questions which I posed to you in chatrooms, and I have never claimed to be something I'm not. I have not followed you, I have never once called you a scourge, ignorant, or any number of more colorful things. I have stated time and time again that everyone's entitled to do what they will, and that I am not interested in going out of my way to try to pry change from the jaws of the past (as I am deluded and really do think I was at that Convention). I am interested in working locally to get people elected who give a damn, and working within the system here on various projects. I am not going to be "volunteering" in MN unless my husband ends up going for some reason. We do not have the money to pack up and go to MN otherwise just to "be a part of it". Your need to assert that mdh and I are delusional megalomaniacs who have nothing better to do than follow you across the internet needs some fact-checking of its own, and perhaps a mirror.

I am here because I am interested in Bradley's posts, and since you decided to drag ME into YOUR post (honestly... I'm flattered and all but please stop hitting on me) I am entitled to this response. Yes, we get it: delegates. I have been saying the same thing for months. I should perhaps have gone under the title of Admiral so that people would listen. I also, though, understand that you are a farce. I saw the sock puppets myself, I saw you state you overdonated to the campaign (breaking the law is a great way to represent the campaign!), I saw you ply your oft-quoted "You are either part of the solution or part of the problem", and I saw the internet ignorant speaking in tongues and yelling "AMEN!" at the message. Why? Because the message is sound. The messenger is suspect, though.

I suppose we could have a fake Ron Paul on, and spread the message, and that would be fine with some people. Personally, I want the messenger to reflect the message, and not spread their disinformation and what's potentially some other agenda under the surface. A former-DNC ear/nose/throat doctor from Florida who is now helping other states (but not his own --- FL is LOST! per the doctor?) from his base in Canada (he's on his way to Switzerland... has been for two weeks) via the internet, who feels so self-important he has to belittle anyone NOT taking part in his delegate rush?

Keep spreading your message, but leave me out of it. Find another tiniest violin to play for yourself. You'll find in the longrun that people do want substance behind claims, not "trust me" or "I can't reveal that".

[Liberty_is_NORML]

Dr. Steve Parent,

People like you are one of the reasons that I don't hang out much here anymore.

I have just read this entire thread and I cannot make one coherent thought out of your posts.

I trust that you are neither:

A. A Doctor of any sort - if you are, remind me not to go to your graduate school.

or

B. A parent.

Take your meds and do something productive for liberty.

[Bradley in DC]

I answered these questions on page 4 while addressing Bradley.

Steve, again, since you're new to the RPF, I should explain that referencing page numbers doesn't work here since users can define preferences differently (User CP at the top left of the navigation bar); ie., your page numbers are not my page numbers.

Again, I strongly urge you to put forth your arguments on the RPF Wiki (using the link at the top of the toolbar) to facilitate this type of discussion. Rather than talking past each other, we could actually clarify our points. I urge you to start it out of respect and suggest you suggest "rules(!)" for the wiki development (one of which might be we identify ourselves for our changes, if that concerns you).

In response to one of your first questions in the OP, I commented on a web page I believed to be yours correcting bad information. My post was simply deleted with no changes made to the false info nor any further effort to contact me. I took that as a clear sign.

Also, your disrespect of the work of the many people on our forum who have spent many hours working together co-operatively to learn the rules and get as many delegates as possible is probably not the best way to win over this audience. ;) Don't underestimate Bryan & Josh's superpowers. :D Please do check out the work we have been doing publicly informing everyone of the state-specific rules in our state subfora.

[ButchHowdy]

Dr. Steve Parent,

People like you are one of the reasons that I don't hang out much here anymore.

I have just read this entire thread and I cannot make one coherent thought out of your posts.

I trust that you are neither:

A. A Doctor of any sort - if you are, remind me not to go to your graduate school.

or

B. A parent.

Take your meds and do something productive for liberty.

Actually, because of your presence Dr. Steve, I am returning for duty and look forward to reading all of your posts.

I wouldn't worry too much about the "Straight-Jacket" thing . . . I'm sure Bradley meant it affectionately!

[orlandoinfl]

It's shocking to see how vile people can be towards Steve. If you've talked to him on the phone or listened to his interviews, you'd see he is a very intelligent man.

A man teaching Ron Paul supporters how to beat the MACHINE is nothing but good.

[SteveMartin]

...unless it precludes the only thing that will eventually work in THIS ELECTION cycle: An Independent run.

Some of you believe we have more cycles to save this country. Others of us do not.

[Bradley in DC]

I took the liberty of starting a wiki on the thread.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?p=1389282#post1389282

[No1ButPaul08]

This is where you should be looking : http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P08/R.phtml

That's where I quoted those hard numbers from, so I'm not sure why you're linking that. Ir also confirms what I've been saying, if you only want to go by the hard numbers, McCain has 582, but that 582 is 71% of the hard delegates alloted and exactly 0 delegates have been unbound at this point.

Can we PLEASE stop listening to "Dr." Steve Parent. He makes delusional wishful statements and passes them off as fact. He's hurting the movement more than helping it.

Can we please focus on getting congressional candidates elected.

Oh, and Steve you mention people keep linking your article about the brokered convention with the old wrong info and you can't stop it. Why did then link the same article in your original post

[ButchHowdy]

" . . . Can we PLEASE stop listening to "Dr." Steve Parent. He makes delusional wishful statements and passes them off as fact. He's hurting the movement more than helping it. . . ."

Unlike your interference, of course . . .

[LibertyIn08]

I never said any such thing and that link was refering to a spread sheet that appears someone made up without hard data which is why i will not use anything like that until it is confirmed and the greenpapers numbers i have confirmed.

Please show us where the delegates from CA and IL have already been elected or selected all or any other state for that matter to go to the national convention?

California hs not even had a convention yet so i would love to see what you claim unless you are talking about bonus delegates then that would be very few people from those states and only if those states are alloted bonus delegates and that is a big IF.

I have no time to bicker with you young man if you want to challange my information bring us facts to dispute my claims instead of doing exaclty what others have done which is say your wrong without 1 fact to back it up.

California's convention is after the GOP convention. The delegates are not chosen at California's state convention. Illinois is a loophole primary. All but I believe 10 have been chosen, and the other 10 to be decided at the convention.

These are facts.

- A Young Man

[No1ButPaul08]

It's shocking to see how vile people can be towards Steve. If you've talked to him on the phone or listened to his interviews, you'd see he is a very intelligent man.

A man teaching Ron Paul supporters how to beat the MACHINE is nothing but good.

It's not shocking when you read this thread. Bradley and I have torn Steve to shreds and his answers are rather weak.

My problem with Steve is not him trying to get people involved and to become a delegate.

My problem is when he writes things like.

Normally, Convention Delegates do not matter because the convention is not brokered and we would have a clear winner if someone has 1191 delegates. BUT THIS YEAR IS DIFFERENT. This will be a brokered convention – there is no way around it. Do you see how the Ron Paul campaign strategy will work?

Even if this was wrote before any primaries it's a joke. It's a wishful statement passed off as a fact. Or

The bottom line is, less than 1/2 of the delegates are bound by state party rules.

Wrong, this number is between 75-80%. Or

Only 2 states have elected state delegates thus far we have a long way to go.
Most states have not even had a convention nor even a primary yet.


At least 3 states that have already voted directly elected delegates at the primary. AL, TN, IL. There are other states which the candidates picks his delegates and the can only be overturned by the state committee, which we assuredly don't have control of. Or

The plan needs to be for 2 or 3 states to unbind their delegates and then it wont matter

2 or 3 states, seriously? There are 10 states left and hundreds of unallocated delegates with McCain already at 1200 and he thinks unbinding 2 or 3 states and then it won't matter. DELUSIONAL RANT. All of these scenarios assume that magically ALL of the delegates not going to McCain right now won't go to McCain. IMO, this couldn't be further from the truth. Every delegate we don't get, McCain will, including most of the Romney and Huck delegates. These people will most likely be party hacks and the party hacks will go to McCain.

Are you starting to see a pattern here. Dr. Steve isn't the all knowing delegate authority he and others thinks he is. Not even close. I think people listen to him because he's super optimistic and they are in denial that Ron Paul won't be President. Ron Paul is my hero and favorite politician of all time, and yet, I can say with 100% certainty, that RP will not be President or the GOP nominee for President in 2008. Sorry folks, its the truth

Please focus on Congressional candidates. Any time spent on this is time not spent on them.

[LibertyIn08]

It's not shocking when you read this thread. Bradley and I have torn Steve to shreds and his answers are rather weak.

My problem with Steve is not him trying to get people involved and to become a delegate.

My problem is when he writes things like.

Normally, Convention Delegates do not matter because the convention is not brokered and we would have a clear winner if someone has 1191 delegates. BUT THIS YEAR IS DIFFERENT. This will be a brokered convention – there is no way around it. Do you see how the Ron Paul campaign strategy will work?

Even if this was wrote before any primaries it's a joke. It's a wishful statement passed off as a fact. Or

The bottom line is, less than 1/2 of the delegates are bound by state party rules.

Wrong, this number is between 75-80%. Or

Only 2 states have elected state delegates thus far we have a long way to go.

Most states have not even had a convention nor even a primary yet.


At least 3 states that have already voted directly elected delegates at the primary. AL, TN, IL. There are other states which the candidates picks his delegates and the can only be overturned by the state committee, which we assuredly don't have control of. Or

The plan needs to be for 2 or 3 states to unbind their delegates and then it wont matter

2 or 3 states, seriously? There are 10 states left and hundreds of unallocated delegates with McCain already at 1200 and he thinks unbinding 2 or 3 states and then it won't matter. DELUSIONAL RANT. All of these scenarios assume that magically ALL of the delegates not going to McCain right now won't go to McCain. IMO, this couldn't be further from the truth. Every delegate we don't get, McCain will, including most of the Romney and Huck delegates. These people will most likely be party hacks and the party hacks will go to McCain.

Are you starting to see a pattern here. Dr. Steve isn't the all knowing delegate authority he and others thinks he is. Not even close. I think people listen to here because he's super optimistic and they are in denial that Ron Paul won't be President. Ron Paul is my hero and favorite politician of all time, and yet, I can say with 100% certainty, that RP will not be President or the GOP nominee for President in 2008. Sorry folks, its the truth

Please focus on Congressional candidates. Any time spent on this is time not spent on them.

Don't be such a defeatist. Your rants are damaging the movement.

:rolleyes:

[Bradley in DC]

Please show us where the delegates from CA and IL have already been elected or selected all or any other state for that matter to go to the national convention?

Steve, as I've explained many times and you still don't understand, in primary states (not "primary + something else) it is the primary and only the primary that decides the (elected) delegates to the national convention. Dr. Paul gave the California Secretary of State his slate of "delegate candidates" to represent him if he had won a plurality in a Congressional District or statewide (we did not). McCain similarly sent in a list of HIS OWN "DELEGATE CANDIDATES" to represent him. In those CDs and AL where he won, those people (real people, not your make believe "virtual ones") who were his "delegate candidates" are now "delegates" to the national convention. All of the (elected) delegates are bound. There is nothing you can do to release them. These rules are similar to those in NY, DC, OH, etc. The processes there are finished, it's over, we lost, the official campaign got us zilch.


http://www.ronpaul2008.com/uploads/pdf/125.pdf

CALIFORNIA 2008

Numbers
173 Total Delegates
• 3 RNC, 159 CD and 11 AL
Important Dates
Delegate list submitted to SOS: 1/07/08
Primary: 2/05/08
State Convention: 2/22/08 – 2/24/08
Alternate list submitted to SOS: 3/06/08
Selection Method
Primary

Delegates Bound for 2 ballots

o 170 Bound

o 3 Unbound
Selection Details
AL – Delegate allocation: Statewide winner-
take-all.
Delegate election: Presidential candidates
file a slate of AL delegates prior to
primary.

CD – Delegate allocation: CD winner-take-all.
Delegate election: Presidential candidates
file a slate of CD delegates prior to
primary.


We did not get the ten percent threshold to qualify for any delegates in NH. Zip. Nada. Your characterizing those results favorably and as part of an official campaign strategy that is working is delusional, if that's what you really believe and weren't just lying to do some artificial cheerleading you thought would be helpful. Giving out false information has dashed many peoples' hopes and hurt the campaign.

The information on Anson's site you like to promote (and I think authored in large part) has done great harm to our effort to get Dr. Paul delegates to the national convention:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=688305&postcount=20

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=688443&postcount=30

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=694523&postcount=8

and others...

[cjhowe]

Out of curiosity, is anyone discussing this thread a delegate to a convention that has yet to of taken place or in a state where they are still eligible to be a delegate for the 2008 cycle (mass meeting has yet to of occurred)?

[Bradley in DC]

Out of curiosity, is anyone discussing this thread a delegate to a convention that has yet to of taken place or in a state where they are still eligible to be a delegate for the 2008 cycle (mass meeting has yet to of occurred)?

I was a "delegate candidate" for Dr. Paul in DC on his slate. We have a winner-take-all primary in DC (which weirdly even binds the three unelected delegates). McCain got the whole kielbasa.

I was also a "delegate candidate" for Steve Forbes in 1996 for Ohio (CD-1) and worked on both his campaigns there in 1996 and 2000 with the task of ballot petitioning and delegate candidate selection, etc. This wasn't my first time around this block. I've been to a few Republican national conventions too (as a guest, never as a delegate since the good guys never won).

[Drsteveparent]

What is amazing here is all i see from most are people that want to support a 3rd party run and people that support Bob Barr that is not even close to be someone Ron Paul would ever support but yet many have mad him the saint of the movement.

I also see that you make suggestions based on things i have never climed to be 100% in any way what so ever and instead of focusing all your energy in to getting people involved in the party and changing the platform you decide to use the same tactics the neo cons use which is to discourage people to even try.

IT'S OVER - HE CAN'T WIN - WE NEED 3RD PARTY.

I had written in detail the answers to everyone questions but i can see this is a waste of time.

We have 12 states that haven't even had a primary and you people sit here and complain about 3rd party runs. What a bunch of defeatest attitudes here what a shame.

Here is some reality before i am put in a straight jacket - 3rd parties CAN NOT WIN because of the way the system is set up and if you people have not figured that out yet you need to have your heads examined.

You do not have to worry i won't be back here to as some of said destroying the movement.

I didn't know getting people involved in local politics and teaching them how to fight back was how things are destroyed?

The american people are LAZY and that is why america has failed and why the Government has taken control of your money and your lives but you are either too lazy of too stupid to figure it out and for those of you that have figured it out GOOD FOR YOU.

Bradley you keep giving people the discouragment that they are helpless and you should be admired for that.

Go ahead and supprt this 3rd party crap and waste your money supporting a lost cause instead of getting involved and changing the party from the inside out.

No wonder this campaign has done so terrible because most of you have no clue how the system works and will just allow things to keep going as they have.

I left my party and spent thousands to help this type of attitude i should have my head examined.

Good luck all you will surely need it.

[constituent]

The american people are LAZY and that is why america has failed and why the Government has taken control of your money and your lives but you are either too lazy of too stupid to figure it out and for those of you that have figured it out GOOD FOR YOU.

.....


No wonder this campaign has done so terrible because most of you have no clue how the system works and will just allow things to keep going as they have.

I left my party and spent thousands to help this type of attitude i should have my head examined.

Good luck all you will surely need it.


your attitude is all wrong here. "the american people" what a collectivist maroon, and to think, i was trying to hear you out.

let me be the first to say,


GOOD RIDDANCE (it's a shame it's come to this).

[smartguy911]

Dr. Steve Parent,

People like you are one of the reasons that I don't hang out much here anymore.

I have just read this entire thread and I cannot make one coherent thought out of your posts.

I trust that you are neither:

A. A Doctor of any sort - if you are, remind me not to go to your graduate school.

or

B. A parent.

Take your meds and do something productive for liberty.

I still have no idea what kind of degree he got. Doctor of what??

[Sandra]

Drsteveparent, Bradley is on a great deal of ignore lists so a bunch of us don't understand your rant about him. Quite frankly the reason for it is he believes he is th END ALL of any political discussion. Most of us just ignore him and you should too.

[mdh]

Here is some reality before i am put in a straight jacket - 3rd parties CAN NOT WIN because of the way the system is set up and if you people have not figured that out yet you need to have your heads examined.

Really? I've known quite a few LP candidates personally who have been elected to local and even state offices.


You do not have to worry i won't be back here to as some of said destroying the movement.

$10 says he posts again shortly, possibly under some other pseudonym. Mods can verify this by IP.


I didn't know getting people involved in local politics and teaching them how to fight back was how things are destroyed?

How does giving people incorrect information help them become involved? If anything, it leads to time wasted and people even more discouraged. Assuming your motives are 100% altruistic in nature, you really stink at fact-checking your information, which makes you as untrustworthy as if you were here on some mission from the DNC to disrupt the GOP political process and make the one Republican who could beat Hillary or Obama look even worse in the eyes of the common man.


The american people are LAZY and that is why america has failed and why the Government has taken control of your money and your lives but you are either too lazy of too stupid to figure it out and for those of you that have figured it out GOOD FOR YOU.

And here we are with the ad hom attacks that got you booed out of the rpiradio.com chat. ;)


No wonder this campaign has done so terrible because most of you have no clue how the system works and will just allow things to keep going as they have.

Spoken like someone who truly lacks the insight to understand the failings in this campaign. I'm glad I have that insight and was involved at the level that I have been, though, as the lessons learned here will last me a life time as I work to promote freedom long beyond this election cycle.


I left my party and spent thousands to help this type of attitude i should have my head examined.

I've never seen any proof that you were involved in the DNC. Furthermore, please explain how your thousands were spent that you "lost". Also, any proof, even just links to official DNC websites, where we can verify your involvement would set that issue to rest. A web search for "Steve Parent" only turns up someone murdered by Charlie Manson and an AG Gonzalez aid involved in some scandals.

Oh, and for the record, claiming (threatening?) that Bradley will soon be banned here is just hilarious. I truly laughed at that one.

[mdh]

Drsteveparent, Bradley is on a great deal of ignore lists so a bunch of us don't understand your rant about him. Quite frankly the reason for it is he believes he is th END ALL of any political discussion. Most of us just ignore him and you should too.

Hello! I don't believe we've been introduced, Sandra. I see you've been appointed spokersperson for "a great deal" of people, and just wanted to congratulate you on that position.
;)

[Sandra]

I've been posting since July, Who the hell are you?

[MelissaWV]

The trouble here isn't Bradley, nor anyone's particular opinion of him. The trouble is the facts do not add up, and when one questions DrSteve one does not receive a verifiable response. There are many responses along the lines of "trust me" and "I can't reveal the sources for that". Beyond this, he seems to use any venue he can find to alternately play martyr, then parade himself around as the same thing you believe Bradley to be.

"You're either part of the problem, or part of the solution!" Is that not a Bush-worthy sentiment? All sorts of people have had "solutions" they thought were the ONLY one throughout history. There's no monopoly on knowing what's best, though, so no one on this entire, exhaustive thread has the ultimate answers (because our situations are all unique!).

And yes, name-calling breeds resentment. Being condescending to the "masses" one is trying to educate seems a silly way to go about achieving a goal. Somehow this guy has done everything: doctor, musician, DNC administrative position, party insider... but he hasn't learned to communicate his points succintly. I haven't learned either, but then again I'm no guru! I am just a simple person engaged in this process, and I don't need leading, I don't need coddling, I don't need preaching to by some expert. I think there's far too much of that going on, but it's up to the people preaching and those who do need the hand-holding to decide that. It's its own market :) I do wish the information were correct, and I don't understand the hostility.

I do suspect, also, that we haven't heard the last of Doctor Steve, but peace be with you doc! Florida misses you: please come home from Canada sometime in the next few months. Patients don't like having to wait that long to see their doctor :(

[mdh]

I've been posting since July, Who the hell are you?

As you can see from my user info box, I've been posting since May. :)

If you're genuinely curious, I'm one of the original grassroots organizers in the state of West Virginia, founder of a number of projects, chairman of a PAC which supports Ron Paul, director of rpiradio.com, participant in Operation Live Free or Die, currently running the northern WV Ron Paul HQ out of my house, and... well, the list goes on and on. :)

[Sandra]

Mods, can you please investigate these new posters that are "so in the know" please. They are popping up everywhere today and are probably second ID's.

[Sandra]

Heven't seen you post here before.

[MelissaWV]

He has 800 more posts than you and he's a new poster?

As for me I'm mdh's wife. I have said so, never claimed to be otherwise, and have posted here previously. I'm not sure how that's "new" either. I just keep quiet until I wish to speak :)

[Banana]

and here I hoped that we would come to reconciliation.... guess it's not as fun as name calling and pissing contests, silly ol' me.


I guess the best thing we can is not to get too distracted and do our homework for our state and work to get our people elected as a delegate, pass resolutions, and bringing attention to everyone else the fact that they are about to give a criminal the nomination.

[mdh]

Heven't seen you post here before.

That's largely irrelevant. I do notice that I have signifigantly more posts than you do, for whatever that's worth. As far as mods go, I've met Josh and Cowlesy in person, and spoken to Bryan a bunch of times as well. All three of them are great folks. I've also met Bradley in person and he's one of the greatest assets this community has. His political knowledge and experience are a tremendous resource to us, and his credentials can easily be backed up, unlike some others around here...

[Sandra]

That's largely irrelevant. I do notice that I have almost twice as many posts as you do. As far as mods go, I've met Josh and Cowlesy in person, and spoken to Bryan a bunch of times as well. All three of them are great folks. I've also met Bradley in person and he's one of the greatest assets this community has. His political knowledge and experience are a tremendous resource to us, and his credentials can easily be backed up, unlike some others around here...

And how is THAT relevant? :rolleyes:

[Sandra]

Have you posted by another ID? You can change ID and keep posting counts on some forums.

[mdh]

And how is THAT relevant? :rolleyes:

In my opinion, someone with tremendous real-world political knowledge and experience who is willing to share that with our community is a great asset to us, and that fact is absolutely relevant. Furthermore, I feel that the fact that his information can be checked and proven correct, and that his credentials can be backed up with facts and not just bold claims by himself and others who originate from his same IP address is also very much relevant in the context of this campaign.

Would you dispute either of those assertions?

[mdh]

Have you posted by another ID? You can change ID and keep posting counts on some forums.

No. Neither my userid nor my avatar image (the orly owl) have changed since I signed up in May, shortly after this forum was first created.

[Sandra]

In my opinion, someone with tremendous real-world political knowledge and experience who is willing to share that with our community is a great asset to us, and that fact is absolutely relevant. Furthermore, I feel that the fact that his information can be checked and proven correct, and that his credentials can be backed up with facts and not just bold claims by himself and others who originate from his same IP address is also very much relevant in the context of this campaign.

Would you dispute either of those assertions?

Yes, I put them in bold text. I also believe you're still in Jr. High. or Bradley.

[Bradley in DC]

What is amazing here is all i see from most are people that want to support a 3rd party run and people that support Bob Barr that is not even close to be someone Ron Paul would ever support but yet many have mad him the saint of the movement...

I had written in detail the answers to everyone questions but i can see this is a waste of time.

We have 12 states that haven't even had a primary and you people sit here and complain about 3rd party runs. What a bunch of defeatest attitudes here what a shame...

You do not have to worry i won't be back here to as some of said destroying the movement.

I didn't know getting people involved in local politics and teaching them how to fight back was how things are destroyed? ...

Bradley you keep giving people the discouragment that they are helpless and you should be admired for that.

Go ahead and supprt this 3rd party crap and waste your money supporting a lost cause instead of getting involved and changing the party from the inside out.

No wonder this campaign has done so terrible because most of you have no clue how the system works and will just allow things to keep going as they have...

Steve, I am questioning your truthfulness or at least grasp of the facts. I am giving people the right information as best I can so that we can win the maximum number of delegates possible--and encouragement for the upcoming contests.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=128018

This campaign did poorly not because of any posts on some forum but by the failures of the official campaign staff.

Here was my post on a Barr third party thread:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=1387327&postcount=3


I've not been shy that I know and have worked with Barr and greatly appreciate all of his hard work defending our rights and liberties through many fights.

That said, people, it's APRIL! First things, first, and keep some perspective. Right now on the calendar (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=128018) there are lots of contests with Dr. Paul still competing. At this point, no, we're not likely to get the nomination, so why bother right? Well, for one, delegates contests often affect local parties and they determine the party platform, etc.

More importantly, the caveat "at this point" is BEFORE the true McCain comes to light. IMHO, this man is not personally qualified to be president (yes, he's a natural born citizen, I don't really care about the FEC which we shouldn't even have...). He is not qualified because of his own, um, "mercurial" personality.

You have NOT answered the questions put to you. Please take a look at the wiki I started in your honor. If you were truly interested in clarifying the rules--and were in fact knowledgeable of them, you would work together with the rest of us to win.

[mdh]

Yes, I put them in bold text.

You dispute that it is my opinion? Well, on that count I can assure you that I genuinely hold that opinion!

As far as originating from the same IP address, it was proven both on the rpiradio.com chat and here on the forums that "Dr Steve" and several other pseudonyms have been used by the same IP address despite denial by the individual using that IP address in several instances that that was the case.


I also believe you're still in Jr. High. or Bradley.

Way to resort to ad hom attacks. Typical, though, I suppose I should have expected it. As far as being Bradley, you can ask any number of folks who have met both Bradley and I in person, including several moderators/admins of ronpaulforums.com.

[Sandra]

Your last post confirms my suspicions. All because you KNOW the mods doesn't prove acceptance of you posts.

[Bradley in DC]

Oh, and for the record, claiming (threatening?) that Bradley will soon be banned here is just hilarious. I truly laughed at that one.

Wait, what? I missed that one. Details, please. :eek: :confused: :rolleyes:

[milly]

O'rly?

[mdh]

Your last post confirms my suspicions. All because you KNOW the mods doesn't prove acceptance of you posts.

Confirms your suspicions of what? That I am Bradley? I think he might dispute that too... ;)

This is silly, and you still haven't responded to what assertions you would question. It seems like you're only questioning whether or not something is my opinion and I am and can be the only authority on the facts as to what opinions I do or do not hold.

[MelissaWV]

You have all proven to me that you are the one-armed man. Anyone remember that guy we're trying to elect? The one up there ^^^ in that picture? Work locally and ignore people who feel "you're doing it wrong". Seek advice from reasonable sources. And for pity's sake stop using forums to leap to conclusions about personal lives. If you stand on the facts, you'll have less room to walk on but you're unlikely to fall over.

Have a good night and a better morning.

[Bradley in DC]

Only 2 states have elected state delegates thus far we have a long way to go.

Most states have not even had a convention nor even a primary yet.

Steve, this is just delusional crazy talk if you really believe it.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?p=1389282#post1389282



Bradley responds:
State laws do govern part of the delegate process, yes. Some states bind their delegates until they are release by the candidate no matter what votes you imagine.

These states chose their (elected) national convention delegates exclusively by primary: AL (45 bound), CA (149 bound), CT (27 bound), DC (all 19 bound--elected and RNC), OH (85 "morally bound" but chosen by McCain: "Candidates submit a proposed slate of delegates who are directly elected on the ballot."), RI (17 bound: Delegates directly elected on the ballot, in proportion to the number of delegates each candidate receives"), and TN (mixed system: 52 bound, 40 of which "Directly elected on primary ballot" and 12 "elected by State Executive Committee"). Without double checking, I'm pretty sure we don't have any RP national convention delegates in any of these states. There is no opportunity for a "stealth" strategy. Game over here, move along, nothing more to see.

These states, I think, are finished: AS (9 unbound, all McCain), Guam (9unbound, all McCain), NH (12 bound, all for others, Dr. Paul did not meet minimum vote threshold), NY (110 bound, "Delegates Effectively Bound: selected either by or in coordination with the winning candidate"), [leaving for others to fill in]

Some states are just bizarre to me, such as FL.

Steve, you make the claim that most of McCain's delegates are really Ron Paul supporters who will vote for him once they are unbound. Now, given the facts, your claim makes you come across as delusional, yes.

[mdh]

Wait, what? I missed that one. Details, please.



This is one PM I got and will give you the opportunity to respond:

"Changing the Rules \ Suspending
Bradley,

You seem to be a sensible man.. and you're probably about to get banned for defeatist talk here...

These people that talk about changing the rules are confused. Suspending the Rules means suspending Robert's Rules of Order.. not suspending all the rules that exist on the docket.

They also talk of changing the rules and unbinding delegates at the state levels, yet all the state levels that have convention have rules specifically against adjusting the delegate's stature and status as bound at the convention.. those must be done BEFORE the convention by a meeting of the rules committees in most states.

These kids think they've found some kind of a loophole, and they're not nearly as smart as they think. It's frustrating watching people rely on this tactic, as it's going to fail.

I wish I could communicate to them that this is not going to work. That they can't cherry pick rules to their favor and ignore other rules that outright state "You cannot unbind national delegates at the state convention/county convention/etc."

How do you not just explode?"

The bold is what I was referencing...

[No1ButPaul08]

What is amazing here is all i see from most are people that want to support a 3rd party run and people that support Bob Barr that is not even close to be someone Ron Paul would ever support but yet many have mad him the saint of the movement.

This board is fractured in whether or not to support Bob Barr, yet, that has nothing to do with this thread, so I don't know where you're going with that.


I had written in detail the answers to everyone questions but i can see this is a waste of time.

This is code for: I have no clue what I'm talking about, so I'm going to stay quiet so I don't make myself look stupid.


We have 12 states that haven't even had a primary and you people sit here and complain about 3rd party runs. What a bunch of defeatest attitudes here what a shame.

Is it that bad to have a defeatist attitude when you've been defeated? I call that being realistic. On the flip side a majority of people here are in denial.


Here is some reality before i am put in a straight jacket - 3rd parties CAN NOT WIN because of the way the system is set up and if you people have not figured that out yet you need to have your heads examined.

I agree here although a multi-billionaire could run a credible third party campaign. Again, a third party run is not the issue here, so i'm not sure why you're bringing that up.


You do not have to worry i won't be back here to as some of said destroying the movement.
I didn't know getting people involved in local politics and teaching them how to fight back was how things are destroyed?

Thank God. Maybe people will see your abysmal performance in this thread and stop believing the jibberish you spew.


The american people are LAZY and that is why america has failed and why the Government has taken control of your money and your lives but you are either too lazy of too stupid to figure it out and for those of you that have figured it out GOOD FOR YOU.

Pretty sure 99% of RP supporters realize this, otherwise they probably wouldn't support him.


No wonder this campaign has done so terrible because most of you have no clue how the system works and will just allow things to keep going as they have.

I left my party and spent thousands to help this type of attitude i should have my head examined.

Good luck all you will surely need it.

Steve, it appears you have no clue how the system works.

[Bradley in DC]

Yes, I put them in bold text. I also believe you're still in Jr. High. or Bradley.

Wait, Sandra, what? (if you don't have me on ignore) ;)

No, I have never had any other screenname here.

MDH was a tech guy extraordinaire :) when we broadcast the Republican presidential debate in Baltimore over RPR.com (I was one of the broadcasters who interviewed Dr. Paul, Carol, Lew Moore, some grandchildren of Dr. Paul, other staffers and others).

I have made an effort to meet and promote and encourage RP supporters when they're in DC (yes, including having MDH, among others, crash on my couch, etc.) and when traveling (including from a wonderful lunch with Rev9 in Atlanta last month to speaking at fundraisers for RP to meeting the NY Meetup last summer).

Oh, and Sandra, regarding your efforts in LA, how is asking questions trying to understand a sign of my thinking I know it all (your state's politics still confuses me). :confused:

[No1ButPaul08]

The bold is what I was referencing...

I think that was a joke. Previously people would get attacked, including Bradley and myself, when questioning the all-knowing delegate authority Dr. Steve Parent. Hopefully after this thread that changes. I believe the person who wrote the PM was on Bradley's side and was alluding to the fact that he got attacked on these forums even though he was right

[Bradley in DC]

The bold is what I was referencing...

Ah, got it. No, sorry about that. That was a PM to me from someone frustrated with Steve's supporters shouting down the others of us correcting his misinformation. I think (!) it was meant to be sarcastic.

[LibertyIn08]

Wait, Sandra, what? (if you don't have me on ignore) ;)

No, I have never had any other screenname here.

MDH was a tech guy extraordinaire :) when we broadcast the Republican presidential debate in Baltimore over RPR.com (I was one of the broadcasters who interviewed Dr. Paul, Carol, Lew Moore, some grandchildren of Dr. Paul, other staffers and others).

I have made an effort to meet and promote and encourage RP supporters when they're in DC (yes, including having MDH, among others, crash on my couch, etc.) and when traveling (including from a wonderful lunch with Rev9 in Atlanta last month to speaking at fundraisers for RP to meeting the NY Meetup last summer).

Oh, and Sandra, regarding your efforts in LA, how is asking questions trying to understand a sign of my thinking I know it all (your state's politics still confuses me). :confused:

Bradley, it is not worth trying to reconcile. Their opinion of you is cast, despite the work you've done for the campaign.

The questions will continue to go unanswered from either SGP or his associates, because they have no answers. When the facts are stacked against them, there is simply no recourse other than to resort to ad hominem attacks or other inflammatory remarks.

[mdh]

Oh, and Sandra, regarding your efforts in LA, how is asking questions trying to understand a sign of my thinking I know it all (your state's politics still confuses me). :confused:

I think I'll take a moment here to go off on a tangent about LA politics... Their former GOP governor, Buddy Roemer, was sent to the WV convention to speak on behalf of McCain and was downright obnoxious. Every other candidate in the race at the time (Paul, Huckabee, Romney) spoke for themselves, while McCain had this guy speak on his behalf who made a total schmuck of himself. That's my only personal knowledge of LA politics.... ;)

[mdh]

Bradley, it is not worth trying to reconcile. Their opinion of you is cast, despite the work you've done for the campaign.

The questions will continue to go unanswered from either SGP or his associates, because they have no answers. When the facts are stacked against them, there is simply no recourse other than to resort to ad hominem attacks or other inflammatory remarks.

You'll note that Sandra dropped an ad hom attack and then ceased posting on this thread despite my request for clarification of which assertions of mine they were questioning.

[milly]

yea mdh...Buddy Roemer was so incoherent I felt sad for him...

[JosephTheLibertarian]

What ad hominem? I didn't see any from Sandra.

[mdh]

What ad hominem? I didn't see any from Sandra.

I also believe you're still in Jr. High. or Bradley.
...

[Bradley in DC]

He still needs 1191 hard delegates to be assured the nomination 1191 is the magic number unless we can unbind in a few states such as MO and TX then that changes everything.

Steve,

No. You are just factually wrong here on both counts. No nominee needs 1191 "hard" delegates (that is not even a term, so I'll give you the benefit of the newbie doubt and think you mean "bound" but even with that benefit of the doubt, you are still simply factually wrong).

McCain (or any nominee) can win the nomination on the first ballot from a majority of any combination of delegates bound or unbound, elected or unelected.

According to the call of the convention you like to claim you understand, it is TOO LATE by a long shot to change the rules binding delegates. The rules had to be finalized before September last year. Changing them now would result in that state losing delegates to the national convention (according to those same by-laws):



Rule No. 15 Election of Delegates and Alternate Delegates
(11) No delegates or alternate delegates shall be selected pursuant to any
Republican Party rule of a state or state law which materially changes the manner of
selecting delegates or alternate delegates or the date upon which such state party holds a
presidential primary, caucus, convention, or meeting for the purpose of voting for a
presidential candidate and/or selecting delegates to the national convention if such changes
were adopted or made effective after the first Tuesday in September of the year before the
year in which the national convention is to be held.

No matter how many times you repeat your canard, it is still a load of crap.

[Sandra]

I can't even posture for an ad hominem attack when you were only asserting what you yourself said were your "opinions".

[LibertyIn08]

I can't even posture for an ad hominem attack when you were only asserting what you yourself said were your "opinions".

You accused him of being in Junior High or being a sock puppet of Bradley. If that doesn't qualify as an ad hominem attack, I don't know what does.

[Sandra]

Ad hominem refers to an attack or reference of personal character when debating facts. Only opinions were asserted on both sides. Google it.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

...

Oh, you're not? I thought RP was bringing out the young people haha

[Cowlesy]

Okay.

Steve Parent--- I don't question that you are a Ron Paul supporter, and trying to do your part to help people understand the delegate process.

That being said, when I listened to you on RPI Radio, you mentioned you were in Florida, and when asked about the process in Florida, you completely sidestepped the question. It's kind of hard to proclaim you're teaching people the delegate process, when you can't explain your own state even when asked on-point.

Further, I went ahead and checked IP's. You are showing up as originating in Canada. One of your other biggest fans has an IP showing up in the south of Spain, and the other 3 ardent Steve Parent'rs are all located in a region area right around central Florida.

This in itself proves nothing, but is very suspicious, and frankly I've met mdh and Bradley, and they're very authentic. Brad has spent a considerable amount of time not just participating in U.S. politics, but a great deal of energy helping those of us who are newcomers (he even traveled to NYC to help our Meetup group). I've been reading your replies, and you just aren't coming close to refuting anything Brad has to say.

Steve, we're glad you're a Ron Paul supporter. But before you wish people to consider you a credible expert on the delegate process, at least here on Ron Paul Forums, you're going to have provide a lot of clarifications of your background and be able to refute a lot of folks who've done their homework to gain credibility on here.

[Bradley in DC]

Ad hominem refers to an attack or reference of personal character when debating facts. Only opinions were asserted on both sides. Google it.

If you are referring to me. I am offering facts, naming states, naming rules, posting fuller explanations on the wiki I started to debate the facts, posting links, etc. But yes, I have opinions too. :D

[LibertyIn08]

Ad hominem refers to an attack or reference of personal character when debating facts. Only opinions were asserted on both sides. Google it.

I'm rather sure that rather than addressing the issue at hand, you attacked him instead.

"An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument."

[Sandra]

Cowlesy, Bradley has given us lousey advise as well in spite of you being aquainted with him.

[mdh]

I said...


That's largely irrelevant. I do notice that I have signifigantly more posts than you do, for whatever that's worth. As far as mods go, I've met Josh and Cowlesy in person, and spoken to Bryan a bunch of times as well. All three of them are great folks. I've also met Bradley in person and he's one of the greatest assets this community has. His political knowledge and experience are a tremendous resource to us, and his credentials can easily be backed up, unlike some others around here...

To which Sandra responded...


And how is THAT relevant? :rolleyes:

My opinions were stated in attempt to discern what Sandra was questioning the relevance of only, as their reply was unclear as to what they were referring to. I should note that it was never made clear what Sandra was questioning the relevance of. My original post, quoted above, states facts.

[Sandra]

Hello! I don't believe we've been introduced, Sandra. I see you've been appointed spokersperson for "a great deal" of people, and just wanted to congratulate you on that position.
;)

Apparently you missed his post. Instead he steps in as spokesperson.

[Bradley in DC]

Cowlesy, Bradley has given us lousey advise as well in spite of you being aquainted with him.

Sandra,

Sorry for interrupting, but at the risk of returning to the thread and in deference of Steve, is there anything here in this thread I posted refuting him which is factually incorrect?

[LibertyIn08]

Apparently you missed his post.

You came in to this thread and began, right off the bat, to verbally attack Bradley in the name of the masses. I think his response was entirely called for.

[Cowlesy]

Cowlesy, Bradley has given us lousey advise as well in spite of you being aquainted with him.

Where is the lousy advice?

[Sandra]

This really is turning into a pissing contests among so called experts, all of which have a whole lot to learn.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

Sandra,

Sorry for interrupting, but at the risk of returning to the thread and in deference of Steve, is there anything here in this thread I posted refuting him which is factually incorrect?

Are you a lobbyist?

[Sandra]

Where is the lousy advice?


Now we can start a thread with that one!

[LibertyIn08]

Where is the lousy advice?

Not being able to produce evidence seems to be a recurring phenomenon in this thread.

[Cowlesy]

Now we can start a thread with that one!

Thanks for answering my question.

[mdh]

Apparently you missed his post.

That post was in response to your post which stated as fact that "a great deal of people" had added Bradley to their ignore lists, and that "Dr Steve" may wish to do so as well. I felt you took great liberties in speaking for "a great deal of people", so I called you out on it. People who speak for others (our politicians speak for us all the time...) very frequently do so because they don't believe people will agree with them when given the opportunity to speak for themselves, and they are afraid of having other or even opposing viewpoints put to the public. Another reason that people often speak for others is that they wish to give credibility to untrue statements.

I'd also note that not a single other person has come forward stating that they have Bradley on their ignore list, which further calls into question Sandra's original assertion.

[Bradley in DC]

Are you a lobbyist?

Is that meant as an ad hominem attack? :D

No, I'm not. :cool:

[Bradley in DC]

Not being able to produce evidence seems to be a recurring phenomenon in this thread.

Hey! One side of this debate--the debate on the OP topic at least--are producing evidence. :p

[LibertyIn08]

Hey! One side of this debate--the debate on the OP topic at least--are producing evidence. :p

Hey, I got your back, don't worry.

Still no response as to how we can unbind CA's delegates when their state convention is after the national convention!

[Bradley in DC]

Hey, I got your back, don't worry.

Duly noted. Thanks.



Still no response as to how we can unbind CA's delegates when their state convention is after the national convention!

It's even more comical than that: the state convention has NO ROLE in choosing the national convention delegates anyway!

[LibertyIn08]

It's even more comical than that: the state convention has NO ROLE in choosing the national convention delegates anyway!

Well, I tried telling that to SGP both here and at Daily Paul, but still have not gotten a response, other than an attack on my intellectual capabilities (which perhaps are lacking, but such a discussion does not pertain to the issue at hand).

I just got frustrated after having to tell multiple people in my district that their chances of being delegates in Illinois were slim-to-none, despite the fact that SGP had told them it was a sure-fire thing. Their website did not explain the loophole process, and many are expecting to go to the convention with the thoughts of us controlling the full slate.

Sadly, it cannot happen.

[Bradley in DC]

Posted at 5.23 pm

If you knew what i go through on a daily basis you would know my skin is thick and they will never drive me away.

It is very hard to defeat the truth although trouble makers are usually very easy to discredit for these people combine nouns and verbs to illicit prescribed responses which are irelivent to an intellegent mind.

I get frustrated sometimes but i will be going nowhere i assure you.




Steve


Posted at 5.59 pm, next day


What is amazing here is all i see from most are people that want to support a 3rd party run and people that support Bob Barr that is not even close to be someone Ron Paul would ever support but yet many have mad him the saint of the movement.

I also see that you make suggestions based on things i have never climed to be 100% in any way what so ever and instead of focusing all your energy in to getting people involved in the party and changing the platform you decide to use the same tactics the neo cons use which is to discourage people to even try.

IT'S OVER - HE CAN'T WIN - WE NEED 3RD PARTY.

I had written in detail the answers to everyone questions but i can see this is a waste of time.

We have 12 states that haven't even had a primary and you people sit here and complain about 3rd party runs. What a bunch of defeatest attitudes here what a shame.

Here is some reality before i am put in a straight jacket - 3rd parties CAN NOT WIN because of the way the system is set up and if you people have not figured that out yet you need to have your heads examined.

You do not have to worry i won't be back here to as some of said destroying the movement. [emphasis added]

I didn't know getting people involved in local politics and teaching them how to fight back was how things are destroyed?

The american people are LAZY and that is why america has failed and why the Government has taken control of your money and your lives but you are either too lazy of too stupid to figure it out and for those of you that have figured it out GOOD FOR YOU.

Bradley you keep giving people the discouragment that they are helpless and you should be admired for that.

Go ahead and supprt this 3rd party crap and waste your money supporting a lost cause instead of getting involved and changing the party from the inside out.

No wonder this campaign has done so terrible because most of you have no clue how the system works and will just allow things to keep going as they have.

I left my party and spent thousands to help this type of attitude i should have my head examined.

Good luck all you will surely need it.

So the moral is that you cannot defend your canard so you are taking your marbles and going home?

Steve, I genuinely hope you cool off and return. However, as a former Democrat, you seem to be falling into a common problem they have of confusing the importance of "intentions" with reality. Because I point out reality (official campaign incompetence, the factual errors of your posts, etc.), you have to question my intentions. When the reality of my good intentions (and good facts) are defended here, you can't take it.

As I've pointed out in this thread and the stickied one, now is the time for us to roll up our sleeves because we have work to do electing more RP delegates. We can only do that by facing hard-headed reality and working with good information. Trying to twist reality to fit intentions doesn't work.

[Roxi]

good grief this thread has gone in so many directions...


I would only like to comment on the identity of both mdh and melissa.... mdh's real name is Matt and he came to NH for Operation Live Free Or Die. He stayed several weeks in the Hampton house with a group of about 16 people, a few of them are on this forum and could verify that as well. He was also one of the original guys who started Ron Paul Radio and has stated only the facts in his post. I also know melissa is his wife and she also came to NH for OLFD which although i coordinated her arrival i can't remember if she stayed in the london derry house or franks house, but i know she took video of the ron paul igloo/fort that was made there...

anyway i have some pictures of him in NH on my blog im sure which is in my signature below but im sure several hundred people on this forum can verify my identity and that i was the volunteer coordinator in NH for OLFD for 2 months

thats all thanks....

[JosephTheLibertarian]

How can a question be an ad hominem attack? I was told that virtually every resident of DC is apart of the corruption.

Stop picking on Sandra.

[mdh]

How can a question be an ad hominem attack? I was told that virtually every resident of DC is apart of the corruption.

Stop picking on Sandra.

Sandra started picking on others, including my friends and then me when I defended them. "I don't start fights, I just end 'em."

[Bradley in DC]

How can a question be an ad hominem attack? I was told that virtually every resident of DC is apart of the corruption.

Stop picking on Sandra.

I have never picked on Sandra. And the purpose of this thread is to see whether one should believe Steve or his detractors--one can't believe everything one is told. If anything, Steve started it to pick on me, as the title and OP should suggest clearly.

[Drsteveparent]

One more thing to add for now. Dr. Steve, can you prove this statement

Now I assure you that even though we didn't win the popular vote in many states, WE DID PICK UP THE MAJORITY OF DELEGATES OVER ALL THE OTHER CANDIDATES IN MOST STATES. So yes, they won the straw poll, and we won what counts – which is delegates.

I'm going to guess you can't, because I don't think it's even close to being the truth, and yet you state it like it's pure fact.

Also, since I posted my criticism of you, you've replied four times in this thread, yet you have failed to reply to my post, any reason for this?

Why would i answer any of your questions considering you made it clear your intentions which is that putting a democrat in the white house would be a good thing. Yes that comment deserves for me to explain nothing to you for you have already quit or you are going to try to get people to go 3rd party either way i will not waste my time on you.

[Drsteveparent]

Steve, I am questioning your truthfulness or at least grasp of the facts. I am giving people the right information as best I can so that we can win the maximum number of delegates possible--and encouragement for the upcoming contests.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=128018

This campaign did poorly not because of any posts on some forum but by the failures of the official campaign staff.

Here was my post on a Barr third party thread:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=1387327&postcount=3



You have NOT answered the questions put to you. Please take a look at the wiki I started in your honor. If you were truly interested in clarifying the rules--and were in fact knowledgeable of them, you would work together with the rest of us to win.

The truth is in me telling meetup gropus via phone that each state is different and they must obtain their bylaws and party rule before they try to do anything except register to become a delegate and if i had to write all of this out it will takes months. Perhaps you should just listen to my radio interviews and mdh and melissa should have them for 1 interview was done on their station and in fact after i finished JOEMAC the host of the show QUIT because of their attitudes. You are asking me to spell out in extreme deatil for the people that have not had their meetup group address me directly and i do not have the time to speak to people one on one.

I have given no one incorrect information only advised them after we researched their state and i even told people from CA, NY, and FL do not put much hope in their process because of how it is fixed and i would of told them that in DC but no one from DC ever contacted me but i assure you when we research their states they know exaclty what they can and can't do.

You are asking me to write an article on every state and county which will take months and if you have noticed we have very little time to even register to become delegates.

I thought the grassroots were most of the campaign from what i have seen as far as the Ron Paul campign staff i think we are all in agreement on how they did.

You think Bob Barr is a great guy? Have you looked at his voting record?

[Drsteveparent]

Hey, I got your back, don't worry.

Still no response as to how we can unbind CA's delegates when their state convention is after the national convention!

When did i ever suggest that CA would have success in unbinding anything? Or any other state for that matter for all i have stated is that if we have the numbers we control the conventions.


That is the problem Alexander this info can be twisted 16 different ways but when i have i hour or more to explain to meetup groups after our research of their state i and they are very clear on what they can and can't do.

[Drsteveparent]

I have never picked on Sandra. And the purpose of this thread is to see whether one should believe Steve or his detractors--one can't believe everything one is told. If anything, Steve started it to pick on me, as the title and OP should suggest clearly.

Bradley when you make public attempts to make people think i am insane and need a straight jacket you deserve to picked on.

I believe i have made everything clear and maybe you people should ask the folks from.

WA, MO, NV, OK, TX, and any other state that i have addressed personally and ask them if the information and education i gave them helped them to succeed in their conventions.

I am sure you would be suprised.

Now as mdh has claimed i suppose i should go and take my daily Thorzine and put my straight jacket back on.

[Drsteveparent]

For any of you that have not figured it out my article was written before super tuesday and had it not been for that article most would not have become delegates and we would of had no shot at this nomination.

This is why the article changes after every caucus and primary and it will continue to change as we get closer.

If you want my updated info i suggest you look for the ones that say updated and a date of the update.

I have no more desire to be here and many of you do have a defeatest attitude so i say go ahead and quit but get out of our way.

I will also continue to say this : If you are not part of the solution to bring America back to it's roots then you are part of the PROBLEM.

[nc4rp]

myself being totally ignorant before this election, I have learned a great deal from both you guys. BOTH.

its a complicated process, and no one person can know it all, although BOTH have woken up MASSES of people to the process, facts, and details, albeit out of millions of details there will be a few errors.

so just carry on, sort it out as we go, later look back as we all will have learned even more. we've all done the best we can and Dr Paul and teh founders should be proud. we will be able to look back and give an accurate account of where the little errors were and the corrections. overall yall both helped.

theres too many details for one person to know it all.

[Aratus]

it looks like the 270 some delegates ALIKE for Mitt Romney and Huckabee
are critical in keeping mcCain from gettin' a voice vote sweeping under
the rug of all party differences that are deepset! These 550 obvious dissenters
from things going monarchistic and status quo!!! john mcCain has a core
of support, yes, but there are reasons why people DID not vote for him
totally. even if the voters couldn't quite pull the lever for Ron Paul in
washington state, the fact that people opted to a 20 percentile for Romney
and his suspended campaign indicates that mcCain is not solidly ensconched
amoungst 50% to 60% or 70% of the REPUBLICAN party people out there!!!

[Drsteveparent]

Steve,

No. You are just factually wrong here on both counts. No nominee needs 1191 "hard" delegates (that is not even a term, so I'll give you the benefit of the newbie doubt and think you mean "bound" but even with that benefit of the doubt, you are still simply factually wrong).

McCain (or any nominee) can win the nomination on the first ballot from a majority of any combination of delegates bound or unbound, elected or unelected.

According to the call of the convention you like to claim you understand, it is TOO LATE by a long shot to change the rules binding delegates. The rules had to be finalized before September last year. Changing them now would result in that state losing delegates to the national convention (according to those same by-laws):



Rule No. 15 Election of Delegates and Alternate Delegates
(11) No delegates or alternate delegates shall be selected pursuant to any
Republican Party rule of a state or state law which materially changes the manner of
selecting delegates or alternate delegates or the date upon which such state party holds a
presidential primary, caucus, convention, or meeting for the purpose of voting for a
presidential candidate and/or selecting delegates to the national convention if such changes
were adopted or made effective after the first Tuesday in September of the year before the
year in which the national convention is to be held.

No matter how many times you repeat your canard, it is still a load of crap.

Yes you are correct they do not need 1191 only the majority however the fact is that if someone obtains 1191 they can not lose the nomination for at that point the election process is over. If someone does not obtain 1191 and does not receive the majority then a 2nd round of voting takes place and so on and so on until someone obtains the majority 50% plus 1 vote.

Bradley this is where you are wrong : The rule is in changing the electing of delegates based on party rules not the way in which delegates are bound or unbound only the way delegates are selected or voted upon : You are feeding people a load of crap and this is why people keep saying you have been giving them bad advice.

[Sandra]

Rule No. 15 Election of Delegates and Alternate Delegates
(11) No delegates or alternate delegates shall be selected pursuant to any
Republican Party rule of a state or state law which materially changes the manner of
selecting delegates or alternate delegates or the date upon which such state party holds a
presidential primary, caucus, convention, or meeting for the purpose of voting for a
presidential candidate and/or selecting delegates to the national convention if such changes
were adopted or made effective after the first Tuesday in September of the year before the
year in which the national convention is to be held.

I am from a state challenging our caucus for this reason. Yes Parent is correct, this is for electing state delegates at convention. This is the base rule used for the challenge in that the LAGOP changed the way party delegates were held by changing the date of qualifying deadline (that was not submitted to the RNC) and refusing to count valid provisional votes. Another added factor was the caucus was not called according to RNC rules which may invalidate the entire process.

Check out the Louisiana forum.

[Sandra]

Is Louisiana the only state formally challenged before the RNC?

[Drsteveparent]

I am from a state challenging our caucus for this reason. Yes Parent is correct, this is for electing state delegates at convention. This is the base rule used for the challenge in that the LAGOP changed the way party delegates were held by changing the date of qualifying deadline (that was not submitted to the RNC) and refusing to count valid provisional votes. Another added factor was the caucus was not called according to RNC rules which may invalidate the entire process.

Check out the Louisiana forum.

Correct and that is exactly why that rule is in place and why you people in LA have legal recourse to overturn what happened to them.

It is like i said people are lazy and if they would just read things in the proper context it would all become clear to them.

[Drsteveparent]

Is Louisiana the only state formally challenged before the RNC?


I believe so Sandra although MO could be next.

[Sandra]

If we in Louisiana had continued to listened to some people that tried to force their opinion on us we would not have done it. Thankfully we ignored and marched onward.

[Drsteveparent]

If we in Louisiana had continued to listened to some people that tried to force their opinion on us we would not have done it. Thankfully we ignored and marched onward.

Sandra if your meetup group would like my input contact me at newspaper4paul@hotmail.com and give me a contact number and i will help you in any way i can.

I am also doing a radio interview Friday from 3-5 EST at www.rprradio.com to talk about the delegate process and rules of order. I suggest you listen to 3-4-08 part 2 that has some great information in it.

You can listen many other radio interviews on the delegate and convention process here http://www.presidentronpaul.741.com/delegate.html

[Sandra]

Thanks! We are still awaiting a decision from the RNC. It's become apparent that the GOP is in the dying stage in states that break the rules to keep certain people out. Even McCain supporters are getting out because of how the party in perceived. Financially it's bankrupt and has to take in new members just to keep it on life support. It is disappearing in LA. Hopefully the RNC realizes that keeping the rules and enforcing them is their only hope.

[ronpaul.republican]

I am new here and i must admit i am also not very web savvy either and i am a terrible typer.

I was not trying to be disrespectful i hope it didn't come across that way.

Not disrespectful at all. Your work is critically important.

I think the very best thing that could possibly be done in this educational process is to produce a multimedia training DVD with video.

Americans generally have no clue how their leaders are selected, and it's almost impossible for average people to figure out.

[Drsteveparent]

Not disrespectful at all. Your work is critically important.

I think the very best thing that could possibly be done in this educational process is to produce a multimedia training DVD with video.

Americans generally have no clue how their leaders are selected, and it's almost impossible for average people to figure out.

I could not agree more and i am working on some of that now only in text and after this election i plan on posting a website that will educate every american on how the process works and i do not care what party they are from.

My goal is to get people involved in thier local party and effect change for the better.

[LibertyIn08]

Retracted.

[ronpaul.republican]

he has also admitted to suffering from schizophrenia in another chat room.

Well as long as he doesn't suffer from it in this chat room, I'll believe every word he says! :cool:

[Bradley in DC]

Bradley when you make public attempts to make people think i am insane and need a straight jacket you deserve to picked on.

I believe i have made everything clear and maybe you people should ask the folks from.

WA, MO, NV, OK, TX, and any other state that i have addressed personally and ask them if the information and education i gave them helped them to succeed in their conventions.

I am sure you would be suprised.

Now as mdh has claimed i suppose i should go and take my daily Thorzine and put my straight jacket back on.

Steve,

Welcome back. I thought you would return, and I'm glad about that. Again, I strongly urge you to take up my challenge to clarify these issues via the wiki, but of course that's up to you. Such a format, me thinks, would be much less personal (which seems to be a problem on this thread, as I feared, diverting us from clarifying the issues for all concerned--which is, I hope, both our goals.)

Everything clear. Um, not exactly no. You make arguments that, as I understand them, are counter-factual.

I know that you misunderstood my explanations of the five state rule to get nominated which I've explained at greater length previously in a thread (brokered convention misunderstandings) on this forum.

You and I have a similar understanding and explanations of the delegates from other candidates being released. See, this conversation can be useful. However, some of your claims and logic appear ridiculous and this would be a good place to clarify everything.

One, do you still think that there HAS to be a brokered convention? You have claimed that McCain can't win on the first ballot because he won't have enough bound delegates--but he COULD have enough votes from bound AND UNBOUND delegates to win on the first ballot, right?

Two, you claim that state party conventions can change state election law binding delegates. If that characterization is correct, yes, it is delusional. Or could you clarify your position?

Three, you claim that state party conventions at this date can change rules binding delegates that would go in effect at the 2008 national nominating convention. By my reading of the RNC by-laws, all of those rules needed to be finalized before September last year or they would get penalized (fewer delegates). Why would a state do that?

Four, similarly, others tell me that state conventions CANNOT change the rules binding national convention delegates. Could you please cite your sources and make of list of relevant states? Obviously in states that choose their delegates by primary only (including California, etc.--see the wiki), your tactic couldn't work.

I'll address the rest of the questions later, but this would be a good start.

Best,
Bradley

[MelissaWV]

Now as mdh has claimed i suppose i should go and take my daily Thorzine and put my straight jacket back on.

This quote --- taken out of context and from a completely different medium, like many of your thinly-veiled attacks seem to be --- refers to an admission by you, or someone posing as you, online. That chatter claimed to have prescribed the medication for himself.

What this has to do with answering questions posed to you in this forum is beyond me. Why you feel a need to reference everything else (which appears to take much more time and effort) rather than answer direct questions is confusing. I have said your message is sound but that the facts and messenger are in some doubt. This thread would not exist unless that were an accurate assessment in the views of several people. I respectfully ask that you cease focusing so much on things that happened outside of this forum a couple of weeks ago, and perhaps go back to educating people, if that was the intention. I have provided questions, comments, and even advice over the time period I have interacted with you.

The difficulty I think some people have with me is that I seem friendly at times, and hostile at others. That's how human beings seem, which is to say that when two people agree they feel far more friendly towards each other. When there is disagreement, there is a tendency to assume it results from some sort of spite. I will say again: I agree people need to get educated. If I were to postscript that with some secret delegate numbers which I can't reveal the source to, I would be playing the role of educator, not simply someone spreading the message. Giving out quantifiable results brings to bear a certain degree of responsibility (imo)... this is the problem we're having right now with the MSM. They will have the numbers right there, but add projections, assumptions, anything to make Dr. Paul disappear. We have no way, as the audience, to really scrutinize their "sources". There is a high degree of spin going on in this post, mostly about things that have zero to do with the questions at hand. Most of the questions are still not hammered down.

My advice is genuine. My questions are genuine. My suspicions are genuine but have nothing to do with the two prior categories. The only things my personal suspicion has an effect on are whether or not I'd have you over for dinner, and whether I choose to accept you in a role of educator. Personal conclusions about why I'm on this forum, about what I do outside of this forum, and especially about who I am, have no relevance except when I have to defend myself when attacked on those fronts.

I'm not claiming to be blameless, because I react poorly to personal attacks and the snide slandering of various projects I have worked on and people whom I care about. I have answered personality accusations in kind, but I will stop, because it's my hope that although you have asserted you're quitting from the boards a few times, perhaps some light will be shed in a courteous manner on some of the questions still being posed. These are not your inferiors, these are The People... more than that these are The People who are involved in the process, and the ones who will do what they can --- WHETHER OR NOT IT IS WHAT YOU ARE DOING --- to get Dr. Paul or persons with similar mindsets elected to their positions of power through the next decade and beyond.

When it comes down to it, that's the point. We are the People. Not just the ones that agree with you, not just the ones that agree with me. The people you say not to donate to, or listen to, or put any faith in... they're also "the People". Asking questions and expecting an answer as if one is on equal footing with the person answering is NOT some sign of weakness, naysaying, or discouragement. It's not defeatest. We must each, as individuals, make a decision as to where we focus our efforts, our limited time, our valuable monetary and temporal resources. If you disagree with something I've said here, or something someone else has, it's my hope that you can do so with an equally extended olive branch.

I just ask respectfully that we stop bringing every forum, chatroom, radio show, and person into this conversation that never asked to be brought up.

[Sandra]

Drsteveparent, it does no good to address Bradley... at all. If you noticed only a couple of folks respond to him. He just tries to force those who are more learned fron the boards and does so consistantly.

[Sandra]

When it comes down to it, that's the point. We are the People. Not just the ones that agree with you, not just the ones that agree with me. The people you say not to donate to, or listen to, or put any faith in... they're also "the People". Asking questions and expecting an answer as if one is on equal footing with the person answering is NOT some sign of weakness, naysaying, or discouragement. It's not defeatest. We must each, as individuals, make a decision as to where we focus our efforts, our limited time, our valuable monetary and temporal resources. If you disagree with something I've said here, or something someone else has, it's my hope that you can do so with an equally extended olive branch.

I just ask respectfully that we stop bringing every forum, chatroom, radio show, and person into this conversation that never asked to be brought up.

Melissa I kinda have a beef with you opening an account expressly to tag team someone with your husband (mdh). This is considered bad form on boards unless you state who you are.

[Drsteveparent]

I know that you misunderstood my explanations of the five state rule to get nominated which I've explained at greater length previously in a thread (brokered convention misunderstandings) on this forum.

Steve : I thought we came to a clear meaning on this already haven't we?

You and I have a similar understanding and explanations of the delegates from other candidates being released. See, this conversation can be useful. However, some of your claims and logic appear ridiculous and this would be a good place to clarify everything.

Steve : show me where and i will explain it.

One, do you still think that there HAS to be a brokered convention? You have claimed that McCain can't win on the first ballot because he won't have enough bound delegates--but he COULD have enough votes from bound AND UNBOUND delegates to win on the first ballot, right?

Steve : 1: Has to be and forced are two different things however My claim about Mccain has since been updated and my comments on this were when Romney and Huckabee where still in the race and therefor it absolutely would have left Mccain short to win on the first ballot.

2: Yes he could obtain enough from bound and unbound at this point which is why it is important to obtain as many Paul delegates as possible.

Two, you claim that state party conventions can change state election law binding delegates. If that characterization is correct, yes, it is delusional. Or could you clarify your position?

steve : I have claimed no such thing pertaining to state laws and i have not seen one state law that dictates to the party on how they force or not force their delegates to vote. This is the difference between state law and party rule and they are not synonymous except when state laws apply to election procedure in the state.


Three, you claim that state party conventions at this date can change rules binding delegates that would go in effect at the 2008 national nominating convention. By my reading of the RNC by-laws, all of those rules needed to be finalized before September last year or they would get penalized (fewer delegates). Why would a state do that?

Steve: no that only pertains to how the delegates are elected not how the delegates are bound or unbound or pledged and those party rules pertaining to the bound unbound issue can be changed at the state convention.

Steve: It also applies to when a primary must take place and the reason these states such as FL lost delegates was because they moved up their primary agaonst the preset rules in the RNC call. This again has nothing to do with how the delegates are bound or unbound or how the party changes the rules in that regard.

Four, similarly, others tell me that state conventions CANNOT change the rules binding national convention delegates. Could you please cite your sources and make of list of relevant states? Obviously in states that choose their delegates by primary only (including California, etc.--see the wiki), your tactic couldn't work.

Steve: Then they are uninformed or mistaken unless their state already has that set in place in thier bylaws however the bylaws can always be changed as well, which is why i have told everyone to obtain a copy if the bylaws in thier state to see what they can and can't do and to see if the bylaws must be ammended first before moving to unbind the delegates.

The source is in the state party rules and the RNC call


I am not back Bradley you are wrong about that but before i leave i wanted to make sure i cleared everything up for the people that may have doubted my information dur to the rhetoric that has appeared here.

Perhaps you should listen to some of my radio interviews and you would get a better perspective of what i have been teaching people in their states.

Email me at newspaper4paul@hotmail.com and i will gladly send you a few to listen.

[MelissaWV]

I opened this account at the start of the year to tagteam someone in April? That seems odd. The people in this thread who I have been addressing do, in fact, know who I am. DrSteve knows who I am, Bradley's spoken to me before, several other people involved have known me from one place or another. People in the other threads I've posted on have known who I am as well, because they related to goings on at another project I work on. I apologize if you were confused as to my identity, but this isn't "tag teaming" and I am posting my own thoughts. There's a statistical display on each person's name that lets you know when they joined and how many posts they have. My posting is not exclusive to this thread, hence your observation is false.

Have a good day though :)

[Sandra]

Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 13

Most of your posts were saved for this thread?

[No1ButPaul08]

I ask you to prove this statement

Now I assure you that even though we didn't win the popular vote in many states, WE DID PICK UP THE MAJORITY OF DELEGATES OVER ALL THE OTHER CANDIDATES IN MOST STATES. So yes, they won the straw poll, and we won what counts – which is delegates.

And you respond


Why would i answer any of your questions considering you made it clear your intentions which is that putting a democrat in the white house would be a good thing. Yes that comment deserves for me to explain nothing to you for you have already quit or you are going to try to get people to go 3rd party either way i will not waste my time on you.

So you won't answer my questions because I made one comment about prefering a Dem to McCain for the sole purpose of keeping the 2012 GOP nomination open. That makes no sense. Sounds to me like you can't answer my questions. I keep attacking you here, and you've yet to respond. I'm sorry, you do respond with something like, "I'm right and you'rre wrong and since you're a defeatist I'm not going to answer your questions." Sorry Steve that doesn't work around here. You're making a fool out of yourself by not answering my questions.


I have given no one incorrect information

Haha, many of us have pointed out your incorrect information in this thread. That is just a flat out lie


When did i ever suggest that CA would have success in unbinding anything? Or any other state for that matter for all i have stated is that if we have the numbers we control the conventions.



Please show us where the delegates from CA and IL have already been elected or selected all or any other state for that matter to go to the national convention?

California hs not even had a convention yet so i would love to see what you claim unless you are talking about bonus delegates then that would be very few people from those states and only if those states are alloted bonus delegates and that is a big IF.


You didn't suggest CA would have success, but you did suggest they could have success, which they can't. The convention in CA has nothing to do with the delegates, as it is after the national convention. McCain chose his slate of delegates and they are going to the national convention. Also, in IL delegates are elected directly in the primary. So you were wrong on both those states


I believe i have made everything clear

I don't, could you please show me where you did this?


For any of you that have not figured it out my article was written before super tuesday and had it not been for that article most would not have become delegates and we would of had no shot at this nomination.

This is why the article changes after every caucus and primary and it will continue to change as we get closer.

If you want my updated info i suggest you look for the ones that say updated and a date of the update.


Steve, I been tearing apart the article YOU linked in your original post. Updated or not, it's been wrong every time it's been posted

[MelissaWV]

In general I don't hang out here looking for something to say or someone to pick on. I posted here because I was informed by someone that my name was mentioned, and I believe in a good fair forum where those mentioned get a chance to refute what's said about them, and try to set the record straight. Previously, if you'll notice, I have posted to several other threads which involved me. I don't feel a need to butt in literal thousands of times in under a year, even if I've a right to. Mostly I read, and absorb what information there is to offer.

I am not "saving" posts. I make posts as required to get my point across and to keep disinformation about me, personally, from sitting out there. It's a failing of mine :)

[No1ButPaul08]

I am not back Bradley you are wrong about that but before i leave i wanted to make sure i cleared everything up for the people that may have doubted my information dur to the rhetoric that has appeared here.


I really hope people continue to doubt your "infomation" after reading this thread

[No1ButPaul08]

One, do you still think that there HAS to be a brokered convention? You have claimed that McCain can't win on the first ballot because he won't have enough bound delegates--but he COULD have enough votes from bound AND UNBOUND delegates to win on the first ballot, right?

Steve : 1: Has to be and forced are two different things however My claim about Mccain has since been updated and my comments on this were when Romney and Huckabee where still in the race and therefor it absolutely would have left Mccain short to win on the first ballot.

Absolutely would have left McCain short to win on the first ballot? Wrong, Huckabee and Romney could still be in the race and McCain would STILL be marching to the nomination. It was pretty clear that McCain was going to be the nominee on 2/6 without the brokered convention and they were in the race at that point.

The idea of the brokered convention was lost when McCain won SC and then won FL ending Guiliani's "campaign" locking up all the winner take all states for McCain in the northeast. Even after Super Tuesday you were claiming, "IT'S GOING TO BE A BROKERED CONVENTION."

[Drsteveparent]

This quote --- taken out of context and from a completely different medium, like many of your thinly-veiled attacks seem to be --- refers to an admission by you, or someone posing as you, online. That chatter claimed to have prescribed the medication for himself.

What this has to do with answering questions posed to you in this forum is beyond me. Why you feel a need to reference everything else (which appears to take much more time and effort) rather than answer direct questions is confusing. I have said your message is sound but that the facts and messenger are in some doubt. This thread would not exist unless that were an accurate assessment in the views of several people. I respectfully ask that you cease focusing so much on things that happened outside of this forum a couple of weeks ago, and perhaps go back to educating people, if that was the intention. I have provided questions, comments, and even advice over the time period I have interacted with you.

The difficulty I think some people have with me is that I seem friendly at times, and hostile at others. That's how human beings seem, which is to say that when two people agree they feel far more friendly towards each other. When there is disagreement, there is a tendency to assume it results from some sort of spite. I will say again: I agree people need to get educated. If I were to postscript that with some secret delegate numbers which I can't reveal the source to, I would be playing the role of educator, not simply someone spreading the message. Giving out quantifiable results brings to bear a certain degree of responsibility (imo)... this is the problem we're having right now with the MSM. They will have the numbers right there, but add projections, assumptions, anything to make Dr. Paul disappear. We have no way, as the audience, to really scrutinize their "sources". There is a high degree of spin going on in this post, mostly about things that have zero to do with the questions at hand. Most of the questions are still not hammered down.

My advice is genuine. My questions are genuine. My suspicions are genuine but have nothing to do with the two prior categories. The only things my personal suspicion has an effect on are whether or not I'd have you over for dinner, and whether I choose to accept you in a role of educator. Personal conclusions about why I'm on this forum, about what I do outside of this forum, and especially about who I am, have no relevance except when I have to defend myself when attacked on those fronts.

I'm not claiming to be blameless, because I react poorly to personal attacks and the snide slandering of various projects I have worked on and people whom I care about. I have answered personality accusations in kind, but I will stop, because it's my hope that although you have asserted you're quitting from the boards a few times, perhaps some light will be shed in a courteous manner on some of the questions still being posed. These are not your inferiors, these are The People... more than that these are The People who are involved in the process, and the ones who will do what they can --- WHETHER OR NOT IT IS WHAT YOU ARE DOING --- to get Dr. Paul or persons with similar mindsets elected to their positions of power through the next decade and beyond.

When it comes down to it, that's the point. We are the People. Not just the ones that agree with you, not just the ones that agree with me. The people you say not to donate to, or listen to, or put any faith in... they're also "the People". Asking questions and expecting an answer as if one is on equal footing with the person answering is NOT some sign of weakness, naysaying, or discouragement. It's not defeatest. We must each, as individuals, make a decision as to where we focus our efforts, our limited time, our valuable monetary and temporal resources. If you disagree with something I've said here, or something someone else has, it's my hope that you can do so with an equally extended olive branch.

I just ask respectfully that we stop bringing every forum, chatroom, radio show, and person into this conversation that never asked to be brought up.


I do agree with some of your points although i disagree with many as well so let me just address what i need to and be done with this please.

1: I do not work for the campaign and it is not my job to spell out every detail from every county, state and district. I have told everyone i have worked with to educate themselves and the people that attack me for not being clear seem to think i have unlimited time and that my bills get paid somehow by me writing articles on every detail.

2: I have told these people exactly what they need to do : Get your bylaws - roberts ruls of order- register to become a delegate - and i have called many meetup groups at my own expense even while in Europe on business which is why my damn phone bill is over $6000 but instead i get people saying are you and idiot why is your phone bill so high? You need to get skype! You need a different cell phone plan! I am sick of this for my efforts have been to do nothing more than help as many as i can and spent my own money to do it which is hurting me financially. People wanted to set up a chip in for me and i said NO because this is not about the money and i didn't do it for that reason. But yet i am and idiot because i let my phone bill get that high? Shame on me for spending my own money helping people be prepared to enter their convention so that had a chance to make a difference. If that makes me an idiot so be it.

The personal attacks are the problem Melissa as your husband proudly came in here and stated that i admitted to being treated as a scitzofrantic WHICH IS A LIE and does constitute libel which i have not decided yet if i will pursue legal ramifications for this blatent action of libel as to attack my mind set and my integrity as well as my level of intellegence and my mental state of mind.

It is not my job to explain myself to you or anyone else for that matter and in a chat room i was trying to answer 6 people at once and everytime i answered someone elses question someone else would claimed i attacked or belittled them even though my answer did not even pertain to them or their question.

You heard my interview and you and your husband own the station so why not make the interview public for all to hear exaclty where my position was on the issues which will surely put everything into perspective of what my motives are for everyone to hear.

I did not come here or get involved to fight and argue i only wished to educate those that needed it and then allow them to continue to educate themselves but when people ask me a specific questions about a state they assume like magic i have the answer right away which i can't possibly know every bylaw in every county and state and which is why i TELL EVERYONE research it first then i can better help you prepare.


This is what you refer too in your first sentence and this came from your husband or so he claims you are his wife : Please fact-check any statements made by Drsteveparent. Not only did we debunk many statements he made when he visitted rpiradio.com, but he also loaded sock puppets (from his same IP address in Winnipeg, Canada) in our chat to back him up and then deny doing so despite the obvious proof which everyone was witness to, he has also admitted to suffering from schizophrenia in another chat room.

Debunked? Really? Sock puppets? he has also admitted to suffering from schizophrenia in another chat room.


I cam here to address legit questions and this is the same crap i have put up with from you people since DAY 1 and i will not stand for it and i will YES be sarcastic to anyone that makes such claims and it is well warranted.

I wish this could of been different but it has not started that way.

I do appreciate the advice you gave me on daily paul ragarding the phone calls and that was very nice of you and i thank you for that but it came just a little that but is still appreciated.

I will also continue to say to everyone that if you are not part of the solution you are part of the problem END OF STORY.

All i can do is give people the information i have massed over the years and prepare them as much as possible so they have a fighting chance and that is all i am trying to do nothing more nothing less.

[Sandra]

So now we know what happened to rpradio.

[Drsteveparent]

Absolutely would have left McCain short to win on the first ballot? Wrong, Huckabee and Romney could still be in the race and McCain would STILL be marching to the nomination. It was pretty clear that McCain was going to be the nominee on 2/6 without the brokered convention and they were in the race at that point.

The idea of the brokered convention was lost when McCain won SC and then won FL ending Guiliani's "campaign" locking up all the winner take all states for McCain in the northeast. Even after Super Tuesday you were claiming, "IT'S GOING TO BE A BROKERED CONVENTION."

It would have if Huck and Mitt stayed in just do the simple math as i stated you are a waste of time for your first claim was IT WOULD BE GOOD FOR A DEMOCRAT TO WIN THE WHITE HOUSE.

No i will not respond to your ignorance. But i see you will be voting for Hillary in NOV.

[No1ButPaul08]

2: I have told these people exactly what they need to do : Get your bylaws - roberts ruls of order- register to become a delegate - .

I agree with all of this. What I don't agree with is the delusional statements I've already questioned in this thread of which you have yet to clearly respond. You say something like, "that info is old read the updated info." Like I've said previously the info was wrong then and it is wrong now. You also accuse me of "trying to get people to go third party." Could you please point out where I've done this? I'm going to guess you can't. That's because it hasn't happened. You will also notice my signature encouraging people to sign up to be a delegate through Ron Paul.


I cam here to address legit questions and this is the same crap i have put up with from you people since DAY 1 and i will not stand for it and i will YES be sarcastic to anyone that makes such claims and it is well warranted.

I've asked you many legit questions and you've yet to respond to them. Instead, you come up with a silly reason and make up things that aren't true to dodge my questions

[Drsteveparent]

I agree with all of this. What I don't agree with is the delusional statements I've already questioned in this thread of which you have yet to clearly respond. You say something like, "that info is old read the updated info." Like I've said previously the info was wrong then and it is wrong now. You also accuse me of "trying to get people to go third party." Could you please point out where I've done this? I'm going to guess you can't. That's because it hasn't happened. You will also notice my signature encouraging people to sign up to be a delegate through Ron Paul.



I've asked you many legit questions and you've yet to respond to them. Instead, you come up with a silly reason and make up things that aren't true to dodge my questions


Search the thread you will find the answer to those qustions you asked and i will not respond to you again.

[No1ButPaul08]

It would have if Huck and Mitt stayed in just do the simple math as i stated you are a waste of time for your first claim was IT WOULD BE GOOD FOR A DEMOCRAT TO WIN THE WHITE HOUSE.

No i will not respond to your ignorance. But i see you will be voting for Hillary in NOV.

No it wouldn't have. McCain had 70% of the delegates 2/6, when they were both in the race. With all the momentum he had (the media declaring him the winner), what makes you think that trend wouldn't continue. The odds on the betting exchange for the brokered convention is the same then as it is now, 20-1. I'll remind you that Huckabee did stay in and got crushed in every state besides Kansas.

You will not respond to my "igonorance." If I was so ignorant, couldn't you just prove me wrong quickly and move on. That's right, you can't, so you just resort to calling me ignorant and hope people believe you while you leave my questions unanswered.

I will not vote for Hillary, Obama, or McCain. I live in Indiana it doesn't really matter who I vote for as the GOP hasn't lost the state since FDR. Who I prefer to win in Nov. out of those 3 really has nothing to do with this thread. I made a simple point that keeping McCain out of the WH will help us in 2012, and you keep using that as a crutch by making me out to be a Dem so therefore, according to you I'm ignorant.

[No1ButPaul08]

Search the thread you will find the answer to those qustions you asked and i will not respond to you again.

Huh? You've hardly responded to anything I've posted in this thread, most of which is asking you questions or proving you're wrong. You're standard response to me has been


Why would i answer any of your questions considering you made it clear your intentions which is that putting a democrat in the white house would be a good thing. Yes that comment deserves for me to explain nothing to you for you have already quit or you are going to try to get people to go 3rd party either way i will not waste my time on you.
.

So, instead of answering my questions, you call me ignorant and put words in my mouth. But you've addressed ONE point I made this entire thread


The brokered convention issue was when Romney and Huck were still in the race dividing delegates all over the country and my article about the delegates had changed although people have copied the old and continue to send it out which i have little control over which is why i say if you want a questions answered email me and i will answer you directly based on your state considering i have the info i need in your state.

Which is funny because your article YOU linked was what I was attacking. You also went on to say about the brokered convention


It would have if Huck and Mitt stayed in just do the simple math

And I responded, No it wouldn't have. McCain had 70% of the delegates 2/6, when they were both in the race. With all the momentum he had (the media declaring him the winner), what makes you think that trend wouldn't continue. The odds on the betting exchange for the brokered convention is the same then as it is now, 20-1. I'll remind you that Huckabee did stay in and got crushed in every state besides Kansas.

So really, as far as I can tell, you really haven't addressed any of the questions I've asked of you, or the places where i've pointed out that you were wrong. But hey, you're Dr. Steve Parent, the all-knowing delegate authority, so you must be right.

Would you mind showing me where you've addressed my questions, because as far as I can tell you haven't. Just saying you have when you haven't doesn't really get the job done

[Bradley in DC]

Bradley: Do you still think that there HAS to be a brokered convention? You have claimed that McCain can't win on the first ballot because he won't have enough bound delegates--but he COULD have enough votes from bound AND UNBOUND delegates to win on the first ballot, right?

Steve : 1: Has to be and forced are two different things however My claim about Mccain has since been updated and my comments on this were when Romney and Huckabee where still in the race and therefor it absolutely would have left Mccain short to win on the first ballot.

2: Yes he could obtain enough from bound and unbound at this point which is why it is important to obtain as many Paul delegates as possible.

Ok, so let's be clear. When you previously wrote your oft-repeated claim:


I know many of you are bummed about yesterday BUT THAT IS BECAUSE YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND HOW THE ELECTION SYSTEM WORKS : Let me explain to you the reality of how to become the nominee.

First stop looking at who wins each states popular vote for most of these states the vote by the people is really nothing but a straw poll and have no real bearing on who will become the nominee. The only way this matters is if 1 person receives 1191 delegates that are bound by state rules to be commited to that candidate. So if a candiate like Mccain has 600 delegates now and IF he doesn't reach 1191 WHICH HE WILL NOT most of the delegates the state awarded him mean nothing and keep in mind in most of the states most of the people that represent the 600 for Mccain are actually Ron Paul supporters. NOW there is no possible way that anyone in the race can achieve this goal now because of the major split in state wins by the candidates.

You either didn't know what you were talking about or were either lying or delusional: As you admit now, votes of bound and unbound delegates count. As you admit now, there IS a possible (and in fact probable) way that McCain will have a majority of delegate support on the first ballot. If you are NOT delusional then you are a charlatan, a fraud. Let's be clear: you admit now that I was right, and you were wrong.

Let's look at your claims in a little more depth:


First stop looking at who wins each states [sic] popular vote for most of these states the vote by the people is really nothing but a straw poll and have no real bearing on who will become the nominee.

Well, as I point out in greater detail in the wiki, the primary vote is the ONLY factor deciding the (elected) delegates from many states, including California, etc. In addition, the primary vote is the only factor in other states in determining some of the (elected) delegates. In many other states then it is their "straw poll" vote that picks the state convention delegates that pick the national nominating convention delegates (which does in fact have a "real bearing on will become the nominee) and, in addition in many states, a candidate must meet a minimum threshold to be awarded any delegates.


So if a candiate like Mccain has 600 delegates now and IF he doesn't reach 1191 WHICH HE WILL NOT most of the delegates the state awarded him mean nothing

So, by your reasoning in this explanation to all of us who don't understand how the system works, we should not bother trying to be delegates to the national nominating convention unless Dr. Paul reaches 1191 delegates or we would "mean nothing" according to you. I call shenanigans.


keep in mind in most of the states most of the people that represent the 600 for Mccain are actually Ron Paul supporters.

I sincerely hope you prove me wrong and Dr. Paul is the GOP nominee, but at this point, yeah, my money would be on you being delusional.


Bradley: Two, you claim that state party conventions can change state election law binding delegates. If that characterization is correct, yes, it is delusional. Or could you clarify your position?

steve : I have claimed no such thing pertaining to state laws and i have not seen one state law that dictates to the party on how they force or not force their delegates to vote. This is the difference between state law and party rule and they are not synonymous except when state laws apply to election procedure in the state.

DC "state" law legally binds ALL of our 19 delegates (the 16 elected delegates as well as the 3 unelected delegates); ok, to be fair, DC is (as you would expect) weird, but they simply require that they follow the DC GOP plan. There are others as well.



Bradley: similarly, others tell me that state conventions CANNOT change the rules binding national convention delegates. Could you please cite your sources and make of list of relevant states? Obviously in states that choose their delegates by primary only (including California, etc.--see the wiki), your tactic couldn't work.

Steve: Then they are uninformed or mistaken unless their state already has that set in place in thier bylaws however the bylaws can always be changed as well, which is why i have told everyone to obtain a copy if the bylaws in thier state to see what they can and can't do and to see if the bylaws must be ammended first before moving to unbind the delegates.

The source is in the state party rules and the RNC call

So, it's your word with no specific citations to back up your claim versus others. Wow, that really put everyone in their place. Especially since you are on public record on this post as being outed as either delusional or a charlatan (see above).

[Drsteveparent]

Ok, so let's be clear. When you previously wrote your oft-repeated claim:


I know many of you are bummed about yesterday BUT THAT IS BECAUSE YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND HOW THE ELECTION SYSTEM WORKS : Let me explain to you the reality of how to become the nominee.

First stop looking at who wins each states popular vote for most of these states the vote by the people is really nothing but a straw poll and have no real bearing on who will become the nominee. The only way this matters is if 1 person receives 1191 delegates that are bound by state rules to be commited to that candidate. So if a candiate like Mccain has 600 delegates now and IF he doesn't reach 1191 WHICH HE WILL NOT most of the delegates the state awarded him mean nothing and keep in mind in most of the states most of the people that represent the 600 for Mccain are actually Ron Paul supporters. NOW there is no possible way that anyone in the race can achieve this goal now because of the major split in state wins by the candidates.

You either didn't know what you were talking about or were either lying or delusional: As you admit now, votes of bound and unbound delegates count. As you admit now, there IS a possible (and in fact probable) way that McCain will have a majority of delegate support on the first ballot. If you are NOT delusional then you are a charlatan, a fraud.

Steve : The comment was clear as i said "MOST OF THE STATES" is it my job to write a thesis? you ahve taken the comment out of context with the end of the context of that statement which clearly is : Obtain a copy of your bylaws to see what you must and can change so you can obtain the advantage when you enter your convention.


DC "state" law legally binds ALL of our 19 delegates (the 16 elected delegates as well as the 3 unelected delegates); ok, to be fair, DC is (as you would expect) weird, but they simply require that they follow the DC GOP plan. There are others as well.

Well that doesn't suprise me considering DC doesn't obey the 2nd ammendment why should they obey anything else.

Show me any other state that has this law for as i have stated i have not seen one yet and i haven't seen the law in DC either we are just talking your word for it.




So, it's your word with no specific citations to back up your claim versus others. Wow, that really put everyone in their place. Especially since you are on public record on this post as being outed as either delusional or a charlatan (see above).


Yes i guess i need that straight jacket. All you have to do is read the article in context as i stated i never said it was a thesis and as i have said many times i have encouraged everyone to research their own state so how many times do i have to repeat that?

You can take things out of context all day long and that will not change the actual meaning when put in context here is a perfect example.

Mathew 19:24 : Again I say to you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."

When you put this in context IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH BEING RICH OR POOR OR MONEY.

Set alone like that it is easy to assume that it is harder for a rich man to get in to heaven that someone poor. WHICH IS NOT TRUE.

I also want to see the law that claims what you state or is it one of those laws from the IRS CODE?

[mdh]

lol. So I just got back from handing out about 500 slimjims on the WVU campus. What have you all been doing for the cause today? ;)

[Bradley in DC]

lol. So I just got back from handing out about 500 slimjims on the WVU campus. What have you all been doing for the cause today? ;)

Lots of preparations to put Vern McKinley in Congress as our best hope for the next Ron Paul Republican there--oh, and exposing Steve as a liar or delusional so RP supporters would know to look for good information elsewhere. ;)

[Drsteveparent]

I know many of you are bummed about yesterday BUT THAT IS BECAUSE YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND HOW THE ELECTION SYSTEM WORKS : Let me explain to you the reality of how to become the nominee.

First stop looking at who wins each states popular vote for most of these states the vote by the people is really nothing but a straw poll and have no real bearing on who will become the nominee. The only way this matters is if 1 person receives 1191 delegates that are bound by state rules to be commited to that candidate. So if a candiate like Mccain has 600 delegates now and IF he doesn't reach 1191 WHICH HE WILL NOT most of the delegates the state awarded him mean nothing and keep in mind in most of the states most of the people that represent the 600 for Mccain are actually Ron Paul supporters. NOW there is no possible way that anyone in the race can achieve this goal now because of the major split in state wins by the candidates.

You either didn't know what you were talking about or were either lying or delusional: As you admit now, votes of bound and unbound delegates count. As you admit now, there IS a possible (and in fact probable) way that McCain will have a majority of delegate support on the first ballot. If you are NOT delusional then you are a charlatan, a fraud.

Steve : The comment was clear as i said "MOST OF THE STATES" is it my job to write a thesis? you ahve taken the comment out of context with the end of the context of that statement which clearly is : Obtain a copy of your bylaws to see what you must and can change so you can obtain the advantage when you enter your convention.


DC "state" law legally binds ALL of our 19 delegates (the 16 elected delegates as well as the 3 unelected delegates); ok, to be fair, DC is (as you would expect) weird, but they simply require that they follow the DC GOP plan. There are others as well.

Well that doesn't suprise me considering DC doesn't obey the 2nd ammendment why should they obey anything else.

Show me any other state that has this law for as i have stated i have not seen one yet and i haven't seen the law in DC either we are just talking your word for it.




So, it's your word with no specific citations to back up your claim versus others. Wow, that really put everyone in their place. Especially since you are on public record on this post as being outed as either delusional or a charlatan (see above).[/QUOTE]


Yes i guess i need that straight jacket. All you have to do is read the article in context as i stated i never said it was a thesis and as i have said many times i have encouraged everyone to research their own state so how many times do i have to repeat that?

You can take things out of context all day long and that will not change the actual meaning when put in context here is a perfect example.

Mathew 19:24 : Again I say to you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."

When you put this in context IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH BEING RICH OR POOR OR MONEY.

Set alone like that it is easy to assume that it is harder for a rich man to get in to heaven that someone poor. WHICH IS NOT TRUE.

I also want to see the law that claims what you state or is it one of those laws from the IRS CODE?

[Drsteveparent]

Lots of preparations to put Vern McKinley in Congress as our best hope for the next Ron Paul Republican there--oh, and exposing Steve as a liar or delusional so RP supporters would know to look for good information elsewhere. ;)

Actually Bradley it is becoming quite clear you can't read.

[MelissaWV]

I drove you to the University campus to do so and have had our house and garage taken over by campaign materials :) I share the same yard where we have the two signs up right now, and the two windows where we have two additional signs. I also babysat the chatroom, sent out some more relevant emails, and communicated in a friendly manner with people.

lol not much else I can do today, but tomorrow is another story!

[mdh]

Lots of preparations to put Vern McKinley in Congress as our best hope for the next Ron Paul Republican there

Rock on, Bradley!

It just happened to be our first 80+ degree day of the year here too... lots of beautiful girls scantilly dressed to hand slimjims to.

[Bradley in DC]

Yes i guess i need that straight jacket. All you have to do is read the article in context

Here is the context:


PLEASE EVERYONE COPY AND SEND THIS TO THIER EMAIL LIST AND MEETUP HEADS AND ANY OTHER RON PAUL FORUM THERE IS.

I know many of you are new to the election process but don't worry.

I am going to go into some depth of how this all works so read and then read again if you need to.

The MSM is not reporting how to become the nominee in a situation like this so i will tell you to stop getting your info from the MSM.

I know many of you are bummed about yesterday BUT THAT IS BECAUSE YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND HOW THE ELECTION SYSTEM WORKS : Let me explain to you the reality of how to become the nominee.

First stop looking at who wins each states popular vote for most of these states the vote by the people is really nothing but a straw poll and have no real bearing on who will become the nominee. The only way this matters is if 1 person receives 1191 delegates that are bound by state rules to be commited to that candidate. So if a candiate like Mccain has 600 delegates now and IF he doesn't reach 1191 WHICH HE WILL NOT most of the delegates the state awarded him mean nothing and keep in mind in most of the states most of the people that represent the 600 for Mccain are actually Ron Paul supporters. NOW there is no possible way that anyone in the race can achieve this goal now because of the major split in state wins by the candidates.

Normally Convention Delegates do not matter because the convention is not brokered and we have a clear winner because someone has 1191 delegates. BUT THIS YEAR IS DIFFERENT. This will be a brokered convention there is no way around it. Do you see how the ronpaul campaign strategy will work.

When a candidate wins delegates by winning a primary that does not mean there are actual people that won acting as delegates- these are virtual delegates.

What do I mean by virtual delegates: A virtual delegate is just a number - there are no actual people YET that will go and vote for the candidate who won the particular state at the national convention. We call these people convention delegates

The actual delegates are voted on (in most states) at a statewide delegate caucus after the Primary (which is just a giant preference poll) Who can be delegates? Anyone. In closed Primary states they must be registered Republicans, in Open Primary states they can be Republicans, Democrats, Independents.

And we have lots of delegates.

[Bradley in DC]

Steve: This will be a brokered convention there is no way around it. Do you see how the ronpaul campaign strategy will work.

That was wrong, period. Yes, either delusional rantings or fraudulent.





Steve: When a candidate wins delegates by winning a primary that does not mean there are actual people that won acting as delegates- these are virtual delegates.

What do I mean by virtual delegates: A virtual delegate is just a number - there are no actual people YET that will go and vote for the candidate who won the part.

No, in primaries, it generally means that there are actual people that won as delegates. I go into more detail in the wiki. The candidates file their slate of "delegate candidates" with the state Secretary of State. Voters choose one slate of NAMED DELEGATE CANDIDATES to represent them as delegates. In some states, the delegate candidates' names are publicized in the voting guide and in others the names of the actual delegate candidates themselves appear on the ballot. "Virtual delegates" only exist in your virtual reality.

[Drsteveparent]

Bradley DO YOU NOT SEE THIS?

First stop looking at who wins each states popular vote for most of these states the vote by the people is really nothing but a straw poll and have no real bearing on who will become the nominee. The only way this matters is if 1 person receives 1191 delegates that are bound by state rules to be commited to that candidate

MOST STATES - MOST STATES - MOST STATES- Did i say every state? where did i ever say that as i said it is not my job to right a thesis ON THE ELECTION PROCESS.

MY job in that article was the basics of the delegate process i went into extreme detail with every meetup group acording to their state.

You are a lost cause man.

[Drsteveparent]

That was wrong, period. Yes, either delusional rantings or fraudulent.



No, in primaries, it generally means that there are actual people that won as delegates. I go into more detail in the wiki. The candidates file their slate of "delegate candidates" with the state Secretary of State. Voters choose one slate of NAMED DELEGATE CANDIDATES to represent them as delegates. In some states, the delegate candidates' names are publicized in the voting guide and in others the names of the actual delegate candidates themselves appear on the ballot. "Virtual delegates" only exist in your virtual reality.


Steve : I was not wrong : If huck and Romney stayed in it would have been a brokered convention when they dropped out i chaged the content to address that.

Yes Bradley in some states they do but at the point they have won they are not actual people yet they must be registered then elected then filed by the candidate. Why are you so dense to see the context of my article?

I believe it is very clear and 100% correct.

[Sandra]

Do you understand why Bradley is on so many ignore lists now? And no, he does NOT read posts in reply to his questions, never. Even spoon fed he misses his mouth.

[Drsteveparent]

Do you understand why Bradley is on so many ignore lists now? And no, he does NOT read posts in reply to his questions, never. Even spoon fed he misses his mouth.

What a waste of time this has been and i am done with this thread.

Explaining the same thing over and over and they still don;t understand it?

This guy was a legislator and worked for the campaign? Good GOD

[milly]

take 2 Thorzine and call me in the morning...

[No1ButPaul08]

First stop looking at who wins each states popular vote for most of these states the vote by the people is really nothing but a straw poll and have no real bearing on who will become the nominee. The only way this matters is if 1 person receives 1191 delegates that are bound by state rules to be commited to that candidate. So if a candiate like Mccain has 600 delegates now and IF he doesn't reach 1191 WHICH HE WILL NOT most of the delegates the state awarded him mean nothing and keep in mind in most of the states most of the people that represent the 600 for Mccain are actually Ron Paul supporters. NOW there is no possible way that anyone in the race can achieve this goal now because of the major split in state wins by the candidates.

Let's look at the context. Yes, you did say most states. And the popular vote in most states does determine who the delegates are bound for, so you are wrong anyway. But then you go on to say they need 1191 "bound" delegates, which is untrue. You also say McCAIN WILL NOT GET TO 1191, which is false. You also say there is no possible way anyone in the race can achieve that goal. Are you really trying to defend this?

[No1ButPaul08]

What a waste of time this has been and i am done with this thread.

Explaining the same thing over and over and they still don;t understand it?

This guy was a legislator and worked for the campaign? Good GOD

This is now the third time you've been done with this thread. Yet you continue to come back. Not sure what you've explained in this thread. You've yet to answer any of my questions.

This thread hasn't been a waste of time, we now have a place to send people when they try to reference Dr. Steve Parent.

We can just point to this thread and people will hopefully see you for the fool that you are and stop believing the crap you spew.

[No1ButPaul08]

Do you understand why Bradley is on so many ignore lists now? And no, he does NOT read posts in reply to his questions, never. Even spoon fed he misses his mouth.

Is this all you have to add to this thread, attacking Bradley? Bradley is right on this issue and you are just making yourself look like a fool by defending Dr. Steve Parent, while adding nothing to the topic of conversation

[Drsteveparent]

Let's look at the context. Yes, you did say most states. And the popular vote in most states does determine who the delegates are bound for, so you are wrong anyway. But then you go on to say they need 1191 "bound" delegates, which is untrue. You also say McCAIN WILL NOT GET TO 1191, which is false. You also say there is no possible way anyone in the race can achieve that goal. Are you really trying to defend this?

Yes, you did say most states. And the popular vote in most states does determine who the delegates are bound for, so you are wrong anyway.

Steve : tell me how i am wrong.

But then you go on to say they need 1191 "bound" delegates, which is untrue. You also say McCAIN WILL NOT GET TO 1191, which is false. You also say there is no possible way anyone in the race can achieve that goal. Are you really trying to defend this?[/


Steve : no need to Defend? as i stated before if Romney and Huckabee stayed in the race for delegates would have been split all the way through with possibly Mccain having the most states and possibly not but he would NOT of had 1191 delegates and been the over all winner.

Why is this so hard for you few to understand? 1191 is the magic number and then the race is over THAT IS A FACT not fiction. 2180 total delegates - 1191 = 50% plus 1 is that really that hard to understand?

[Drsteveparent]

Is this all you have to add to this thread, attacking Bradley? Bradley is right on this issue and you are just making yourself look like a fool by defending Dr. Steve Parent, while adding nothing to the topic of conversation

Bradley has been wrong on 85% of what he has said because he can not read properly or he just takes it out of context to suit his purpose.

[milly]

No1ButPaul08

Don't even bother with this fool...I asked him the most basic questions about RNC Convention rules and he was totally clueless...I had to bite my lip to stop from laughing. And then he pulls these crazy stunts logging into chatrooms with multiple nicks to cheer himself on. You are dealing with either a plant or a very sick individual. He is not a Doctor and he doesn't even live in the US. Anyone who follows him needs to question their own set of values...good luck

[Drsteveparent]

No1ButPaul08

Don't even bother with this fool...I asked him the most basic questions about RNC Convention rules and he was totally clueless...I had to bite my lip to stop from laughing. And then he pulls these crazy stunts logging into chatrooms with multiple nicks to cheer himself on. You are dealing with either a plant or a very sick individual. He is not a Doctor and he doesn't even live in the US. Anyone who follows him needs to question their own set of values...good luck

Milly all of you people from rpi have the same attitude and what question do you ask me?

All your lies will not distort the truth now go back to your pathetic rpi radio chat room where you are a op and enjoy your little power trip.

Have you become a delegate yet milly?

[No1ButPaul08]

I thought you were done with this thread because it was a waste of time? Guess not


Steve : tell me how i am wrong.

In most states the popular vote determines who the delegates are bound to. That makes it much more than a straw poll. So therefore, you are wrong.


Steve : no need to Defend? as i stated before if Romney and Huckabee stayed in the race for delegates would have been split all the way through with possibly Mccain having the most states and possibly not but he would NOT of had 1191 delegates and been the over all winner.

This is just wrong. Like i said before, McCain had 71% of the delegates alloted on 2/6 when they were both in the race. With all the momentum what makes you think that trend would not continue. the odds on the betting exchanges were 20-1 then and 20-1 now. And it's only 20-1 because McCain is 72 and has a scandalous past.


Why is this so hard for you few to understand? 1191 is the magic number and then the race is over THAT IS A FACT not fiction. 2180 total delegates - 1191 = 50% plus 1 is that really that hard to understand?

Where has anybody not acknowledged that the magic number is 1191. Nobody in this thread to my knowledge. Not sure what you are trying to get us to understand

[Sandra]

Milly is someone secondary account.

[milly]

don't make me break out the chat logs (with all IP addresses) showing your twisted attempts to make up fictional characters to pump yourself up...one more piece of misinformation and that will be what you have to deal with...it would be funny if it wasn't so sad

[No1ButPaul08]

Bradley has been wrong on 85% of what he has said because he can not read properly or he just takes it out of context to suit his purpose.

85% huh

Could you point out his 85% that was wrong and the 15% that was right. Just because you say 85% doesn't make it so. Just creating numbers and spouting them as fact does not make it so.

[No1ButPaul08]

No1ButPaul08

Don't even bother with this fool...I asked him the most basic questions about RNC Convention rules and he was totally clueless...I had to bite my lip to stop from laughing. And then he pulls these crazy stunts logging into chatrooms with multiple nicks to cheer himself on. You are dealing with either a plant or a very sick individual. He is not a Doctor and he doesn't even live in the US. Anyone who follows him needs to question their own set of values...good luck

The only reason I bother is because people do believe the crap he spews. Especially on these forums. I'm not going to that happen anymore

[Sandra]

Bradley has been wrong on 85% of what he has said because he can not read properly or he just takes it out of context to suit his purpose.


+1000! The Louisiana forum had to run Bradley out. He intentionally gave the most injurous advice I've ever seen. I don't believe he is who he says he is or has but what little experience he gained on this campaign. I believe wholeheartedly he was a mole.

Check out the crap he posted in the LA forums.

[No1ButPaul08]

don't make me break out the chat logs (with all IP addresses) showing your twisted attempts to make up fictional characters to pump yourself up...one more piece of misinformation and that will be what you have to deal with...it would be funny if it wasn't so sad

Please do

[MelissaWV]

milly isn't an op.

Imposing one person's behavior or ideas, or your opinion of those, upon an entire group is generally not the most diplomatic way to get through life. There's no "power trip", only rules, and we're on this forum now as all equals.

You're welcome for pointing you in the direction of VOIP, and I said that a $6000 phone bill was insane. Not that you were insane, or that you were an idiot. Just a reminder: I'm one person. If you want to continue with some sort of strange quirky vendetta against me go ahead, but I did want to correct the error in your post.

*** Sandra : The bulk of your posts seem to simply be attempts to question why people have even set up an account. At least Dr. Steve is speaking to the subject at hand. milly is someone I've known for many months through other projects, and his account (if you'll notice) was created some time ago. You appear to have some sort of automatic suspicion that every account which doesn't have post numbers in the thousands is a puppet account. This may shock you, but some of us post elsewhere, or spend our time on other pursuits a great deal of the time. It's even a beautiful day out today! I went outside and drove mdh downtown and had to pick him up early because he ran out of slimjims to pass out :( Should have taken more boxes!

[Bradley in DC]

This guy was a legislator and worked for the campaign? Good GOD

Fact checking you: No, I was never a legislator I never worked for the RP campaign, I have never said otherwise.

[m72mc]

Ron Paul want´s YOU to be a delegate and support his campaign. That´s really the bottom line.

[Drsteveparent]

Fact checking you: No, I was never a legislator I never worked for the RP campaign, I have never said otherwise.


Well someone named RYAN from CO called rpr radio and said you were so who is lying?

I can send you the interview if you give me your email for it was a direct attempt to discredit me by usuing your name from here.

[JeffersonAndLiberty]

I would just like to point out that Steve's knowledge and commitment are one of the many reasons for the delegate-related successes we've had so far ... And of course the delegates themselves who took the info to heart and made it work. Much of the info is on DP, including links to Steve's radio interviews and posts.

[No1ButPaul08]

I would just like to point out that Steve's knowledge and commitment are one of the many reasons for the delegate-related successes we've had so far ... And of course the delegates themselves who took the info to heart and made it work. Much of the info is on DP, including links to Steve's radio interviews and posts.

I don't doubt that Steve has helped some people with the delegate process. That doesn't excuse the delusional statements for which he has been called on in this thread and his subsequent I'm right, you're wrong, refuse to answers questions, number-creating attitude.

[RonPaulGuyEastWA]

I don't doubt that Steve has helped some people with the delegate process. That doesn't excuse the delusional statements for which he has been called on in this thread and his subsequent I'm right, you're wrong, refuse to answers questions, number-creating attitude.

I hang out here and on the Daily Paul forums, but rarely post. Because of Steve Parents' encouragement I looked into the rules for my state and decided to become a delegate - and now I'm off to my state convention in late May and hoping to go to national. I don't care if you call him "delusional" - he has done a lot to wake people up to the power of delegates. It's unlikely that we will have enough delegates to overturn the MSM "ordained" candidate McCain, but many of us are sure going to do our best to make it happen.

Regardless of who Steve is or isn't, where he lives, his title of Dr., I don't care. The bottom line is he has awoken many to the power of being a delegate. You can nit pick him all you want, but all most of us see is negativity and defeatism. I realize the odds are small of obtaining short term victory (Paul for President), but they are not impossible. I know many supporters who are in it for the longer term as well, starting at a local level. It is possible to support both goals.

[No1ButPaul08]

I hang out here and on the Daily Paul forums, but rarely post. Because of Steve Parents' encouragement I looked into the rules for my state and decided to become a delegate - and now I'm off to my state convention in late May and hoping to go to national. I don't care if you call him "delusional" - he has done a lot to wake people up to the power of delegates. It's unlikely that we will have enough delegates to overturn the MSM "ordained" candidate McCain, but many of us are sure going to do our best to make it happen.

Regardless of who Steve is or isn't, where he lives, his title of Dr., I don't care. The bottom line is he has awoken many to the power of being a delegate. You can nit pick him all you want, but all most of us see is negativity and defeatism. I realize the odds are small of obtaining short term victory (Paul for President), but they are not impossible. I know many supporters who are in it for the longer term as well, starting at a local level. It is possible to support both goals.

I have never attacked Steve for encouraging people to become delegates, it's the way he goes about doing it. Every article he has wrote gives this false illusion that we are close to victory, when in fact, we never were. He's guaranteed a brokered convention, claimed, "WE DID PICK UP THE MAJORITY OF DELEGATES OVER ALL THE OTHER CANDIDATES IN MOST STATES", among others

So my point is, when should I believe Steve and when shouldn't I. He's been proven wrong many times in this thread. Why people would continue to believe him is beyond me. His behavior in this thread has been less than stellar.

Just searched "Steve Parent" on here. His first article popped up 2/6, right after Super Tuesday and long after forming any delegate organization would have helped.

[Sandra]

I have never attacked Steve for encouraging people to become delegates, it's the way he goes about doing it. Every article he has wrote gives this false illusion that we are close to victory, when in fact, we never were. He's guaranteed a brokered convention, claimed, "WE DID PICK UP THE MAJORITY OF DELEGATES OVER ALL THE OTHER CANDIDATES IN MOST STATES", among others

So my point is, when should I believe Steve and when shouldn't I. He's been proven wrong many times in this thread. Why people would continue to believe him is beyond me. His behavior in this thread has been less than stellar.

Just searched "Steve Parent" on here. His first article popped up 2/6, right after Super Tuesday and long after forming any delegate organization would have helped.

When did you prove him wrong? YOU DIDN"T! We in Louisiana proved him right. You are presenting a nebulous argument , while WE HAVE DONE IT. Proof through action! What do you have?

[RonPaulGuyEastWA]

I have never attacked Steve for encouraging people to become delegates, it's the way he goes about doing it. Every article he has wrote gives this false illusion that we are close to victory, when in fact, we never were.

I recall hearing someone saying "It's about the message." Oh yeah, that was Ron Paul. Put aside your petty criticism and appreciate the positive things. All of us have flaws and if being overly excited and optimistic is Steve's flaw, more power to him. Steve can be a little over the top for some, but for others his optimism can be very encouraging.

I understand you are not encouraged and don't believe Ron Paul can win, but you don't need to drag others down with that attitude. A movement begins by people believing in something, even if it may not seem achievable to "realists" at the time. This election cycle I finally found a man who agrees with me on most issues and I'm not going to stop supporting that man because people tell me he can't achieve victory.

[No1ButPaul08]

When did you prove him wrong? YOU DIDN"T! We in Louisiana proved him right. You are presenting a nebulous argument , while WE HAVE DONE IT. Proof through action! What do you have?

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=1389152&postcount=41

Here's he claims only two states have elected delegates. I resonded
At least 3 states that have already voted directly elected delegates at the primary. AL, TN, IL. There are more, but there's 3. Proof from the GOP
http://www.gop.com/images/Press_State_Summaries.pdf

Another, the number of bound delegates is 1821/2380, or 76.5%. Shown here on the far bottom right.
http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P08/R-PU.phtml

I proved him wrong on that here
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=1391253&postcount=158

It's more of him refusing to answer my questions asking him to prove his delusional statements he spouts as fact. These are littered throughout the thread. But you've asked me to show where I've proven him wrong, so I did

[No1ButPaul08]

All of us have flaws and if being overly excited and optimistic is Steve's flaw, more power to him. Steve can be a little over the top for some, but for others his optimism can be very encouraging.

He's not overly excited and optimistic, more like manipulating and misleading. Good for him that he's getting people involved, but he can do that while not misleading people and giving them false hope.

[Bradley in DC]

+1000! The Louisiana forum had to run Bradley out. He intentionally gave the most injurous advice I've ever seen. I don't believe he is who he says he is or has but what little experience he gained on this campaign. I believe wholeheartedly he was a mole.

Check out the crap he posted in the LA forums.

Sandra,

aside from highjacking this thread, what on earth are you talking about? :confused:

[EDIT: ok, it's been a few hours and you've posted several other times but not responded here, so I'll try again. What Louisiana forum "ran me out"? The subforum here? Would you like me to cross-post this question there to disprove you? Wow, you know my intentions with such certaintly. Impressive. "Injurious [note correct spelling] advice"? Examples, please. Or just one. You can believe whatever you like, but my public record is there. Mole for whom? based on what information from whom?

[Bradley in DC]

Well someone named RYAN from CO called rpr radio and said you were so who is lying?

I can send you the interview if you give me your email for it was a direct attempt to discredit me by usuing your name from here.

Um, so you are saying here that you just believe everything you hear from some random person on an internet radio show as Gospel truth?


We're getting to the bottom of your assurances of what you know. ;) :D

[RonPaulGuyEastWA]

So my point is, when should I believe Steve and when shouldn't I.

From the information I've read, Steve always encourages you to review your local and state GOP by-laws/rules. You have internet access - verify how things work in your state. Surely you can't expect one person to summarize all 50 state processes and spoon feed everyone.


He's been proven wrong many times in this thread. Why people would continue to believe him is beyond me. His behavior in this thread has been less than stellar.

He is being attacked in this thread, and like most humans respond to attack, he became defensive.


Just searched "Steve Parent" on here. His first article popped up 2/6, right after Super Tuesday and long after forming any delegate organization would have helped.

I found out about Ron Paul about 1 week before my state's popular vote took place so I didn't have very long to get educated. The point is that no matter when someone became involved or first heard the message, they can still contribute to a good cause. I understand that sooner would have been better, but complaining about Steve's timing is weak.

[Drsteveparent]

Um, so you are saying here that you just believe everything you hear from some random person on an internet radio show as Gospel truth?


We're getting to the bottom of your assurances of what you know. ;) :D


He sure believed it and went on for 20 minutes about it.

It was simple question but i take it he was lying?

[No1ButPaul08]

From the information I've read, Steve always encourages you to review your local and state GOP by-laws/rules. You have internet access - verify how things work in your state. Surely you can't expect one person to summarize all 50 state processes and spoon feed everyone.

Yes, but he's also guaranteed a brokered convention and said we have most of the delegates in most of the states.


.He is being attacked in this thread, and like most humans respond to attack, he became defensive..

Does that make it right? Why doesn't he try to prove his statements or admit it was delusional thinking. Instead he justs ignores it or resorts to personal attacks


I found out about Ron Paul about 1 week before my state's popular vote took place so I didn't have very long to get educated. The point is that no matter when someone became involved or first heard the message, they can still contribute to a good cause. I understand that sooner would have been better, but complaining about Steve's timing is weak.

I was only somewhat questioning the timing, the greater point was that Steve was not the great delegate influence he's made out to be. People were talking about delegates on here long before anybody here had ever heard of Steve. I was not one of those. Bradley was, as he posted in every state forum the 2004 rules asking people to update them.

[undergroundrr]

Dr. Paul often says that it's foolish to express absolutes in politics.

I will always trust a delusional optimist before a realist naysayer. The delusional guy is better equipped to exploit an unexpected opportunity. Even if I were 99.99% sure RP will not be the Republican nominee, like a hostage chained to a wall, with my own execution imminent, I would still hang onto that small gap of possibility.

I'm now a delegate to my state convention Even for a resolutely secular person like me, every step forward in this process seems miraculous. But it's really just persistence.

The Steven Bradbury video says it all. If you haven't watched it in a while, you owe it to yourself.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lfQMJtilOGg

[mdh]

Milly all of you people from rpi have the same attitude and what question do you ask me?

All your lies will not distort the truth now go back to your pathetic rpi radio chat room where you are a op and enjoy your little power trip.

lol, milly isn't an op.

[No1ButPaul08]

Dr. Paul often says that it's foolish to express absolutes in politics.

I will always trust a delusional optimist before a realist naysayer.

Delusion > realism

I guess in reality when HillBamaCain gets elected your world will be much better when RP gets elected

[Sandra]

Does that make it right? Why doesn't he try to prove his statements or admit it was delusional thinking. Instead he justs ignores it or resorts to personal attacks



I was only somewhat questioning the timing, the greater point was that Steve was not the great delegate influence he's made out to be. People were talking about delegates on here long before anybody here had ever heard of Steve. I was not one of those. Bradley was, as he posted in every state forum the 2004 rules asking people to update them.


NoOneButPaul08, Your post is the most hypocrytical lying mess I've ever read. It's OK for you to do all of the above

As far as Bradley, he wasn'y trying to help, he was trying to be an expert at everything.

[mdh]

Bradley's done an awful lot to help - I've seen some of it with my own two eyes, in fact.

Dr Steve on the other hand has gone around making unsubstantiated claims on the internet and generally saying things that have been proven time and again to be false - and now he's on dailypaul talking about needing $6000, but begging people not to setup a chipin for him. ;)

[Sandra]

Birds of a feather.

[RonPaulGuyEastWA]

He's not overly excited and optimistic, more like manipulating and misleading. Good for him that he's getting people involved, but he can do that while not misleading people and giving them false hope.

False hope according to you. I thought I addressed this when saying "A movement begins by people believing in something, even if it may not seem achievable to 'realists' at the time." If that's false hope, then you can chalk me up as a believer in false hope.


Here's he claims only two states have elected delegates. I resonded
At least 3 states that have already voted directly elected delegates at the primary. AL, TN, IL. There are more, but there's 3.

I read through this thread previously but don't recall how the exchange of words happened between you and Steve, but I'm sure there's a constructive way to help shape his message as opposed to discrediting his method of delivery and enthusiasm.

[RonPaulGuyEastWA]

Yes, but he's also guaranteed a brokered convention and said we have most of the delegates in most of the states.

The MSM has also guaranteed that McCain is the presumed nominee. But I won't believe them until the convention is over.

I realize it may be perceived as foolish to press on and fight for Paul delegates, but I also realize that no man knows the future and a lot can happen before now and the convention. Foolish, perhaps. Optimistic, absolutely!

[mdh]

OK, let me put a few more facts out there for everyone.

http://www.dailypaul.com/node/45397 is the first. Our pal "Dr Steve" is seen here clearly soliciting donations. Not to a legitimate organization. Not for campaigning activites. For himself.
He also goes on to say he's off, however we've seen that said before. In this very thread, no less!

http://www.dailypaul.com/node/45505 is the second. In this, "Dr Steve" calls for people who have put "his info" to work and had success to come here and say as much. So where are they? "El_buggo" (whom you'll remember shared DrSteve's IP address in Manitoba) stated that he participated in the Missouri process thanks to DrSteve's advice. But if DrSteve is a resident of Florida currently staying in Canada, how was he legally able to take part in the Missouri process? None of this adds up. Furthermore, this guy just showed up on the scene recently. Unlike Bradley and I who have been active for about a year in the Ron Paul activism community (and a quick google search readily proves it), I can't find anything about DrSteve going back very far at all - and there's nothing about his supposed involvement in the DNC, which you'd think would be out there. In fact a google search for Steve Parent turns up nothing political in nature that I could see at all except for recent posts on Ron Paul related sites, and some information about a form AG Gonzalez aid who was involved in some investigations of that office.

Strange...!

[Sandra]

mdh, did you ever ask for donations?

[Drsteveparent]

Bradley's done an awful lot to help - I've seen some of it with my own two eyes, in fact.

Dr Steve on the other hand has gone around making unsubstantiated claims on the internet and generally saying things that have been proven time and again to be false - and now he's on dailypaul talking about needing $6000, but begging people not to setup a chipin for him. ;)

I begged no one to do no do nothing you liar.

I thanked the people that wanted to set one up but declined and there is a big difference.

You have proven me wrong on anything.

By the way MDH what happened to all the money from the donations to your crappy little neo con station people are asking about?

Why do all your hosts keep quiting your station?

WAIT UNTIL THE TRUTH COMES OUT ABOUT RPI RADIO PEOPLE.

[No1ButPaul08]

NoOneButPaul08, Your post is the most hypocrytical lying mess I've ever read. It's OK for you to do all of the above

As far as Bradley, he wasn'y trying to help, he was trying to be an expert at everything.

No, I actually prove my statements and then come with a slight personal attack, instead of personal attacks all the time.

You have added nothing to this thread but personal attacks or questioning people's post count. When you can prove Steve's statements right or prove me wrong and can add something to the topic at hand, please do, otherwise I'm not really sure what you are doing in this thread

[undergroundrr]

Delusion > realism

I guess in reality when HillBamaCain gets elected your world will be much better when RP gets elected

reality > realism

Sorry, but some of your past speculations on the benefits of a Democrat president make your dig ring a little hollow.

[No1ButPaul08]

The MSM has also guaranteed that McCain is the presumed nominee. But I won't believe them until the convention is over.

I realize it may be perceived as foolish to press on and fight for Paul delegates, but I also realize that no man knows the future and a lot can happen before now and the convention. Foolish, perhaps. Optimistic, absolutely!

I have never said it was foolish to get delegates. Something can happen to McCain and then it's anyone game. I am calling some of steve's ridiculous statements foolish of which he has yet to answer for instead he resorts to putting words in my mouth resulting in him not answering my questions because I'm, "ignorant."

[mdh]

mdh, did you ever ask for donations?

For myself personally? No.

For legitimate organizations with legitimate goals? Absolutely.

There's a big difference. "Dr Steve" is asking (despite the actual wording of the post, the tone just seems to scream "send me money" - feel free to disagree with me on it, I really don't care) for people to send him $6000 for his own personal use. He's also asking them to do it via a relatively anonymous method (paypal).

I am sure the comedy of this whole fiasco (guy shows up out of nowhere claiming credentials without any proof, guy spews a bunch of half-true BS but develops a following by being upbeat while playing the ever-so-popular victim card, a few weeks later guy asks for $6000) is not lost on the more intelligent among us.

[Bradley in DC]

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=1389152&postcount=41

Here's he claims only two states have elected delegates. I resonded
At least 3 states that have already voted directly elected delegates at the primary. AL, TN, IL. There are more, but there's 3. Proof from the GOP
http://www.gop.com/images/Press_State_Summaries.pdf

Another, the number of bound delegates is 1821/2380, or 76.5%. Shown here on the far bottom right.
http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P08/R-PU.phtml

I proved him wrong on that here
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=1391253&postcount=158

It's more of him refusing to answer my questions asking him to prove his delusional statements he spouts as fact. These are littered throughout the thread. But you've asked me to show where I've proven him wrong, so I did

Here is what I posted on the wiki.
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?p=1389282#post1389282
(We should all work together to get all of the correct information out right.)

These states chose their (elected) national convention delegates exclusively by primary: AL (45 bound), CA (149 bound), CT (27 bound), DC (all 19 bound--elected and RNC), OH (85 "morally bound" but chosen by McCain: "Candidates submit a proposed slate of delegates who are directly elected on the ballot."), RI (17 bound: Delegates directly elected on the ballot, in proportion to the number of delegates each candidate receives"), and TN (mixed system: 52 bound, 40 of which "Directly elected on primary ballot" and 12 "elected by State Executive Committee"). Without double checking, I'm pretty sure we don't have any RP national convention delegates in any of these states. There is no opportunity for a "stealth" strategy. Game over here, move along, nothing more to see.

[Drsteveparent]

yes mdh you people came you have proven me wrong and if you would bother to read people here are discouraging people to become delegates and even staying in the fight and i will not tolerate that.

I also as you can clearly see i told them to tell the truth.

[mdh]

By the way MDH what happened to all the money from the donations to your crappy little neo con station people are asking about?

Why do all your hosts keep quiting your station?

WAIT UNTIL THE TRUTH COMES OUT ABOUT RPI RADIO PEOPLE.

Contributions to rpiradio are spent to keep rpiradio alive. This includes hardware, bandwidth, and PSTN termination bills.

As for hosts leaving, who are you referring to? The last time anyone left was warelock and that was like a month ago. I see no reason to go into his personal reasons for leaving to you.

But yes, do wait until the truth comes out about RPI Radio! I sincerely urge everyone to. The truth will shock you! The new content being added will be enjoyable! You'll love the new shows, talent, and the great live event coverage we'll be bringing you in the future. That's the shocking truth about RPI Radio! :)

[RonPaulGuyEastWA]

OK, let me put a few more facts out there for everyone.

http://www.dailypaul.com/node/45397 is the first. Our pal "Dr Steve" is seen here clearly soliciting donations. Not to a legitimate organization. Not for campaigning activites. For himself.
He also goes on to say he's off, however we've seen that said before. In this very thread, no less!

http://www.dailypaul.com/node/45505 is the second. In this, "Dr Steve" calls for people who have put "his info" to work and had success to come here and say as much. So where are they? "El_buggo" (whom you'll remember shared DrSteve's IP address in Manitoba) stated that he participated in the Missouri process thanks to DrSteve's advice. But if DrSteve is a resident of Florida currently staying in Canada, how was he legally able to take part in the Missouri process? None of this adds up. Furthermore, this guy just showed up on the scene recently. Unlike Bradley and I who have been active for about a year in the Ron Paul activism community (and a quick google search readily proves it), I can't find anything about DrSteve going back very far at all - and there's nothing about his supposed involvement in the DNC, which you'd think would be out there. In fact a google search for Steve Parent turns up nothing political in nature that I could see at all except for recent posts on Ron Paul related sites, and some information about a form AG Gonzalez aid who was involved in some investigations of that office.

Strange...!

I can't vouch for who Dr. Steve Parent is or isn't, but I don't care. His frantic messages in the Daily Paul forum caught my attention and convinced me to check into the delegate process. As far as I'm concerned, mission accomplished. I'm sure there are others who have also contributed greatly, but there are other sites besides ronpaulforums.com where people can contribute to Dr. Paul's candidacy. I choose to recognize Steve Parent because his message had the greatest impact on me. He has spent a lot of his own time and expense supporting this cause - I hope you can respect that without trying to rip him to shreds.

[Drsteveparent]

Here is what I posted on the wiki.
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?p=1389282#post1389282
(We should all work together to get all of the correct information out right.)

These states chose their (elected) national convention delegates exclusively by primary: AL (45 bound), CA (149 bound), CT (27 bound), DC (all 19 bound--elected and RNC), OH (85 "morally bound" but chosen by McCain: "Candidates submit a proposed slate of delegates who are directly elected on the ballot."), RI (17 bound: Delegates directly elected on the ballot, in proportion to the number of delegates each candidate receives"), and TN (mixed system: 52 bound, 40 of which "Directly elected on primary ballot" and 12 "elected by State Executive Committee"). Without double checking, I'm pretty sure we don't have any RP national convention delegates in any of these states. There is no opportunity for a "stealth" strategy. Game over here, move along, nothing more to see.

wow bradley i missed 1 state sue me.

I am still waiting for that DC law that binds your delegates

[constituent]

Here is what I posted on the wiki.
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?p=1389282#post1389282
(We should all work together to get all of the correct information out right.)



lol, the wiki. this thread has been a blast.

::hello, milly. good to see you again!::

[No1ButPaul08]

reality > realism

Sorry, but some of your past speculations on the benefits of a Democrat president make your dig ring a little hollow.

So you would rather have McCain? All three of them are pretty much the same, and this really has nothing to do with the topic at hand. In reality, HillBamaCain will be President, and in delusional SteveParentLand Ron Paul will be President. I live in reality, so I will plan accordingly.

[mdh]

yes mdh you people came you have proven me wrong and if you would bother to read people here are discouraging people to become delegates and even staying in the fight and i will not tolerate that.

I also as you can clearly see i told them to tell the truth.

No one has discouraged anyone from becoming delegates. That's just a silly statement for you to make to try and smear your opponents to those who jump in and don't read the whole thread.

If you are who you say you are, how about some proof? I've asked time and again for a link to any official DNC website that talks about your involvement with them. Can we at least get to the point where we know who you *are*? I think that'd go an awfully long way for you to be at all trustworthy to the folks here.

[Drsteveparent]

Contributions to rpiradio are spent to keep rpiradio alive. This includes hardware, bandwidth, and PSTN termination bills.

As for hosts leaving, who are you referring to? The last time anyone left was warelock and that was like a month ago. I see no reason to go into his personal reasons for leaving to you.

But yes, do wait until the truth comes out about RPI Radio! I sincerely urge everyone to. The truth will shock you! The new content being added will be enjoyable! You'll love the new shows, talent, and the great live event coverage we'll be bringing you in the future. That's the shocking truth about RPI Radio! :)

Joemac quit after he had me on the show that very night because of your defeatest attitudes and that was a little over week ago maybe 2 weeks.

[Cowlesy]

Dr. Steve Parent -- where are you located?

[Drsteveparent]

No one has discouraged anyone from becoming delegates. That's just a silly statement for you to make to try and smear your opponents to those who jump in and don't read the whole thread.

If you are who you say you are, how about some proof? I've asked time and again for a link to any official DNC website that talks about your involvement with them. Can we at least get to the point where we know who you *are*? I think that'd go an awfully long way for you to be at all trustworthy to the folks here.

People here defending you and bradley saying it's over and Ron Paul will not be president isn't discouragment?

That's rich mdh.

[constituent]

Joemac quit after he had me on the show that very night because of your defeatest attitudes and that was a little over week ago maybe 2 weeks.

did joemac ask you to post that?


that's the real question.

this has gotten too personal.

the "aura" is defeatist.

[No1ButPaul08]

No one has discouraged anyone from becoming delegates. That's just a silly statement for you to make to try and smear your opponents to those who jump in and don't read the whole thread.

If you are who you say you are, how about some proof? I've asked time and again for a link to any official DNC website that talks about your involvement with them. Can we at least get to the point where we know who you *are*? I think that'd go an awfully long way for you to be at all trustworthy to the folks here.

I should point out here that Steve is yet to respond to this

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=1389984&postcount=107

[Drsteveparent]

Dr. Steve Parent -- where are you located?

Now or my main residence?

[mdh]

Joemac quit after he had me on the show that very night because of your defeatest attitudes and that was a little over week ago maybe 2 weeks.

JoeMac also has personal issues in play far beyond what "Dr Steve" alludes to here, but I'm not going to go into it in a public forum. You are correct though in that JoeMac quit hosting more recently than my other example. OK, one host in a month's time. It happens, and it's hardly problematic for us. We've dealt with worse in the past and continued to be just fine. :)

[Drsteveparent]

did joemac ask you to post that?


that's the real question.

this has gotten too personal.

the "aura" is defeatist.

Joemac doesn't care and made it public to everyone go ask him yourself.

He wants everyone to know why he left.

[Sandra]

Dr. Steve Parent -- where are you located?

if it's Canada, what does it matter?

[Cowlesy]

Now or my main residence?

Well you've said you're in Florida, you show up as Highway 32/Railway Ave S in Winkler Canada, your biggest cheerleaders are in a small area of Florida and one in the south of Spain.

So...Canada, Spain, or Florida?

[Drsteveparent]

JoeMac also has personal issues in play far beyond what "Dr Steve" alludes to here, but I'm not going to go into it in a public forum. You are correct though in that JoeMac quit hosting more recently than my other example. OK, one host in a month's time. It happens, and it's hardly problematic for us. We've dealt with worse in the past and continued to be just fine. :)


Oh is Joemac a scitzofrantic as well mdh?

You have a excuse for everything and they are all boring.

I was going to be on your station friday and i just cancelled with Ted for i can not support your network any longer.

[constituent]

Well you've said you're in Florida, you show up as Highway 32/Railway Ave S in Winkler Canada, your biggest cheerleaders are in a small area of Florida and one in the south of Spain.

So...Canada, Spain, or Florida?

QUICK. GRAB YOUR TIN-FOIL!!!!!!


::sorry::

[Bradley in DC]

He sure believed it and went on for 20 minutes about it.

It was simple question but i take it he was lying?

Steve, of the two of us in this conversation, you are the only one who knows anything about your exchange with "Ryan." To the best of my knowledge, I don't know any Ryans in Colorado.

That said, you and I both know who things get confused in the game of telephone, etc. That is why I'm glad you started this thread here.