National Delegates (not voting equals what?)

[robertwerden]

So lets say the state of what ever has 40 bound delegates, and 30 are Ron Paul supporters. The State gets called to register a vote for a nominee and the bound delegates who support Ron Paul say no vote. Does that still fall with in the rules and then free them up to vote for Ron Paul in the second round of voting?

I see no vote in congress all the time which is legal if the person does not want to pick a side.

The result would be less delegates for McCain, right?

[Paul Revered]

Great question!

[angelatc]

National delegates not voting equals history being made.

[gerryb]

I heard this may cause alternate delegates to be called up to vote.. but dunno

It seems like we are doing better with alternates, anyhow!

[rancher89]

Nolan Chart article!

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=133550

[robertwerden]

Ok so the answer is clear. No vote is allowed, and that brings us to second round of voting where Ron Paul delegates bound for 1 can now vote openly for Ron Paul.

Looks like we have a plan

[ItsTime]

In order for this to work you need to say you are supporting McCain at the state level.

[robertwerden]

DUH. Im a State Delegate

[ItsTime]

I was speaking more general than just you ;) Call the Ron Paul HQ and ask them the questions you are asking here. They should know exactly what you can do.


DUH. Im a State Delegate

[Bradley in DC]

Please stop the delusions.

1) the article cites a rule that permits abstaining from the order in voting--not from not voting (this was common so that the home state of the nominee would be the one to put him over the top <let the balloons fall now, strike up the band>).

2) yes, the state delegate leader would simply substitute delegates not upholding their responsibility with alternates.

3) the idea that there are hundreds of "stealth" Ron Paul national delegates and that a majority of delegates from most states are Paul supporters, etc., is Steve Parent nonsense.

4) as it stands now--huge caveat--there will likely be a motion to suspend the rules and vote for McCain by acclamation to avoid any roll call vote at all (which would eat up valuable prime time coverage).

In sum, yes, please, let's all do what we can to get as many delegates as possible and have as great an impact as possible, but the official campaign failed us and it's to late to undo most of the damage. This is an email from Mike McHugh, the former official campaign staff ballot access coordinator, to a Meetup group:


It is a pipe dream to believe that Ron can win when even Ron Paul admits it is OVER

We need to move on and honor the effort by capitalizing on it in the congressional races.

This seems to be Rand Paul's focus. Rand is Ron's son.

With Esteem
Mike

and this too:


The Huckster and Romney delegate will back McCain not Ron Paul

Ron Paul is not even asking them to.

[rancher89]

I know that what you say is true Bradley, we're not going to get RP nominated.

It's just so hard to let go.

I know the focus is on the platform, getting into ec positions etc.

It's just that that little part of me, left over from the 60's, just wants to kick butt.

Now, not in four years.

But I will be a good soldier, sort of; and will do my best, hopefully; and listen to the best counsel out there, usually; and make my decisions accordingly.

I promise not to hurt the freedom movement by inexcusable behavior at the convention.

[Drsteveparent]

Please stop the delusions.

1) the article cites a rule that permits abstaining from the order in voting--not from not voting (this was common so that the home state of the nominee would be the one to put him over the top <let the balloons fall now, strike up the band>).

2) yes, the state delegate leader would simply substitute delegates not upholding their responsibility with alternates.

3) the idea that there are hundreds of "stealth" Ron Paul national delegates and that a majority of delegates from most states are Paul supporters, etc., is Steve Parent nonsense.

4) as it stands now--huge caveat--there will likely be a motion to suspend the rules and vote for McCain by acclamation to avoid any roll call vote at all (which would eat up valuable prime time coverage).

In sum, yes, please, let's all do what we can to get as many delegates as possible and have as great an impact as possible, but the official campaign failed us and it's to late to undo most of the damage. This is an email from Mike McHugh, the former official campaign staff ballot access coordinator, to a Meetup group:


It is a pipe dream to believe that Ron can win when even Ron Paul admits it is OVER

We need to move on and honor the effort by capitalizing on it in the congressional races.

This seems to be Rand Paul's focus. Rand is Ron's son.

With Esteem
Mike

and this too:


The Huckster and Romney delegate will back McCain not Ron Paul

Ron Paul is not even asking them to.



Bradley what is your agenda?

You people need to stop listening to this clown he is wrong on most everything he tells you.

I have not wanted to post here and have not until someone send me an email with this link. So let us look at Bradleys words of NON WISDOM.

3) the idea that there are hundreds of "stealth" Ron Paul national delegates and that a majority of delegates from most states are Paul supporters, etc., is Steve Parent nonsense.

Steve : It seems to me Bradley you just are not in the loop on the correct info and for good reason.


4) as it stands now--huge caveat--there will likely be a motion to suspend the rules and vote for McCain by acclamation to avoid any roll call vote at all (which would eat up valuable prime time coverage).

Steve : First off suspending the rules only suspends RULES OF ORDER not the bylaws and party rules and no suspension of the rules to enfore any new rule will apply and can NOT be in contradiction of any state or national law and or any bylaw or party rule. Also they will need a 2/3 majority to suspend the rules and that suspension will serve no purpose in their favor even if they were able to obtain a 2/3 majoirty. A rule requiring officers to be elected by ballot cannot be suspended even by a unanimous vote.

In sum, yes, please, let's all do what we can to get as many delegates as possible and have as great an impact as possible, but the official campaign failed us and it's to late to undo most of the damage. This is an email from Mike McHugh, the former official campaign staff ballot access coordinator, to a Meetup group:


Steve: No Bradley the sytem and the old right is what has failed us and if you haven't noticed the grassroots are the campaign.


It is a pipe dream to believe that Ron can win when even Ron Paul admits it is OVER

We need to move on and honor the effort by capitalizing on it in the congressional races.

This seems to be Rand Paul's focus. Rand is Ron's son.


Steve : Hence the word FORMER staffer and if this is not true and Ron Paul said no such thing, stop lying to these people and let us continue to fight 1 battle at a time.


I WANT EVERYONE TO LISTEN to watch this video for this is what i have been trying to educate as many as possible on how we will win this battle.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_DN-fhY96p0

[Conza88]

Steve wins.

[nate895]

I am going to keep fighting until the last hurrah, that is what I have been taught, and that is the way it will stay.

[robertwerden]

Ya, Bradley....
With all due respect, leave us who want to fight alone. If you are not going to help, then please don't try and stop us from marching on.

I say to all who are not even going to try, shame on you. To those who will go the distance and force liberty back into our governments face, stand with me my brothers.

[orlandoinfl]

It's quite clear that Bradley has ulterior motives.

May your chains set lightly upon you.

[Bradley in DC]

Bradley what is your agenda?

You people need to stop listening to this clown he is wrong on most everything he tells you.

Steve,

You have never shown a single instance where I've been wrong. I have pointed out repeatedly how you are wrong and how you contradict yourself.

[robertwerden]

Bradley, take it out side, this is my topic.

[Bradley in DC]

Bradley, take it out side, this is my topic.

The OP asked a question, I answered it. ;)

[robertwerden]

What ever

[blakmira]

You need to leave those of us alone who aren't acting like weak little crying wah-wah babies. Obviously you have a sour attitude, a spineless back and ulterior motives. So take your crib somewhere else while we fight your battles for you. Baby.

[TER]

Bradley, I do not doubt your sincerity. To you, we have lost the nomination.

But if this fight is going to continue, we need believers in miracles. We may die in delusion, but will live with hope.

[Bradley in DC]

Bradley, I do not doubt your sincerity. To you, we have lost the nomination.

But if this fight is going to continue, we need believers in miracles. We may die in delusion, but will live with hope.

As I stated, we should all be doing as much as we can to get as many delegates as we can (yes, my ulterior motive :rolleyes:). I also added the caveat "at this time" (I've posted many times I fully expect McCain's rage to explode and his campaign to then implode. What happens then, I have no idea.

How many people became disillusioned and disappeared from our movement because of the false hopes from the official campaign staff and Steve's ilk? (give us $12 million and we'll win Iowa and NH--we gave them $20 million and got embarrassed in Iowa and zero delegates in NH, then the crushing defeats on Super Tuesday, and the energy was gone.) I tried to warn last year that the official campaign staff wasn't up to the job. Now I don't want us to lose more people when they realize Steve has no idea what he's talking about.

Let's rationally move forward, with good information.

[TER]

How many people became disillusioned and disappeared from our movement because of the false hopes from the official campaign staff and Steve's ilk? (give us $12 million and we'll win Iowa and NH--we gave them $20 million and got embarrassed in Iowa and zero delegates in NH, then the crushing defeats on Super Tuesday, and the energy was gone.) I tried to warn last year that the official campaign staff wasn't up to the job. Now I don't want us to lose more people when they realize Steve has no idea what he's talking about.

Let's rationally move forward, with good information.

People became disillusioned and disappeared because when the fight started in earnest, they gave up. Those who have stuck through have not underestimated the nature of the beast we are up against. For some people's rational minds (and I don't mean you), quitting seems just about right. For others, the cause is so great and so necessary, that every option must be discussed- every potential must be explored. This might lead to dead ends at times, but we are in a maze whose walls are being shifted around. Rules are rules until there are new rules, and governments are in power until there is a revolution.

[Conza88]

People became disillusioned and disappeared because when the fight started in earnest, they gave up. Those who have stuck through have not underestimated the nature of the beast we are up against. For some people's rational minds (and I don't mean you), quitting seems just about right. For others, the cause is so great and so necessary, that every option must be discussed- every potential must be explored. This might lead to dead ends at times, but we are in a maze whose walls are being shifted around. Rules are rules until there are new rules, and governments are in power until there is a revolution.

QFT.

“Positive thoughts have positive results. Negative thoughts produce negative results.” ~ Peter McWilliams

“Once our minds are 'tattooed' with negative thinking, our chances for long-term success diminish” ~ John Maxwell

Bradely, please stfu when addressing this issue. What have we got to lose mate? Why kill the hope?


“The way to overcome negative thoughts and destructive emotions is to develop opposing, positive emotions that are stronger and more powerful.” ~ Tenzin Gyatso

[Bradley in DC]

every option must be discussed- every potential must be explored. This might lead to dead ends at times, but we are in a maze whose walls are being shifted around.

And this is right and good and laudable--but childish attacks questioning my motives when I explain a rule that doesn't fit what we want doesn't help. :cool:

[tajitj]

In order for this to work you need to say you are supporting McCain at the state level.


Absolutely. If you are financially able to make the trip to St. Paul "pledge" whatever these neocons want. We can cause some real trouble at the national convention.

[Drsteveparent]

And this is right and good and laudable--but childish attacks questioning my motives when I explain a rule that doesn't fit what we want doesn't help. :cool:


What you explained WAS WRONG and you do it time and time again.

You go out of your way to find any post of positive and drag my name in it.

You have told people i need a straight jacket, i am a nut, i am delusional, that we have lost, etc......

Bradley tell me where i am wrong with my comments again as you claim.

Childish attacks is exaclty what you have done to me from the start and as the success stories of delegates winning has been happening what did you say in my post? Me and many others have posted the delegate information long before you were here etc.... but yet people come here and state if it wasn't for my information on daliypaul.com they would not have accomplished the victories that have won thus far and when they do praise for it you go out of your way to try and spin it and shoot it down just like you are doing again now.

You Bradley talk out of both sides of your mouth just like a DC HACK DOES. Yes Bradley i do question your motives and wonder why you continue to tell people we have lost so don't bother fighting any longer.

For the rest of you this is exactly what THE GOP IS DOING IN LETTERS TO DELEGATES RIGHT NOW, they are saying almost exactly what Bradley is saying which is just stay home, you will not have an impact at the conventions, your vote will not matter, here is the link to the letter being sent to Ron Paul delegates now from THE GOP : http://waronyou.com/2008/04/ron-paul-delegates-told-to-stay-home/

While i have been teaching our people how to unbind their delegates in the states that have bound delegates in another post you pasted RULE 15 clause (11) of the RNC call and said i was wrong and that unbinding delegates will have no effect because of this rule, then failed to respond when i shot that bullshit of yours down as well for you claimed unbinding WILL NOT TAKE EFFECT UNTIL THE NEXT CONVENTION, you were WRONG and here is the rule you posted.

Rule 15 Election of delegates or alternate delegates
(11) No 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 conevntion is to be held.

For those that do not understand this rule and Bradley surely does not understand much of anything, here is what this means.

This rule has nothing to do with binding and unbinding delegates only in the way they are selected for this years conventions and this rule protects the members from any bamboozle by party hacks to chage the rule on how delegates are to be selected this year NOTHING MORE. We can unbind the delegates at the state convention and that change will take EFFECT immediately therfor our delegates can be unbound at the national convention.

You may view the entire RNC Call here : http://www.gop.com/images/2008_Call_FINAL.pdf


Bradley as i said you are wrong on most everything i have seen from you and you have done nothing snce i have been here but tell people we can't win so don't bother and don't waste your time, YOU ARE WRONG and i will continue to question your motives for these actions speak loudly and scream foul of you in my opinion and the opinion of many others.

Either help us fight until September or get the hell out of our way.


If any of you want my help email me at newspaper4paul@hotmail.com and i will address you personally or you can find my information very active at dailypaul.com

[Drsteveparent]

The OP asked a question, I answered it. ;)


You didn't answer a damn thing all you did was post more carp and lies or propaganda you choose what word fits.

My comment shot your crap down and the OP wants you out of he knows your wrong.

[Bradley in DC]

You didn't answer a damn thing all you did was post more carp and lies or propaganda you choose what word fits.

My comment shot your crap down and the OP wants you out of he knows your wrong.

you are = you're, "Dr."

Steve, I'll try to simplify it to your (possessive) level:

There is a difference between "abstaining in the order" and abstaining from voting.

And yes, when referring to rules and parliamentary procedure, understanding words correctly is important.

[Drsteveparent]

you are = you're, "Dr."

Steve, I'll try to simplify it to your (possessive) level:

There is a difference between "abstaining in the order" and abstaining from voting.

And yes, when referring to rules and parliamentary procedure, understanding words correctly is important.

I agree and i have not addressed that issue yet so why do you bring it up as if i have? I will address that shortly after i research the article that was linked for i only responded to you thus far because you brought my name in to this thread

You create straw man arguments Bradley and people see right through it.

[Drsteveparent]

you are = you're, "Dr."

Steve, I'll try to simplify it to your (possessive) level:

There is a difference between "abstaining in the order" and abstaining from voting.

And yes, when referring to rules and parliamentary procedure, understanding words correctly is important.

your Definition your (yo̵or; often yôr)


of, belonging to, made by, or done by you: also used before some formal titles Your Honor, Your Majesty
Informal the: used to designate a typical member of a group or class: often followed by average

Get the hell out of here Bradley you serve no positive purpose for Dr. Paul and it become clearer every post you make

[amonasro]

If this turns into another Bradley-Steve pissing match I'm out of here. Two smart guys with valuable knowledge of the political process, who are passionate about Ron Paul, who have spent countless hours of their life working for this campaign....

...and here they fight like children. Bradley you are more guilty of this than Steve. He comes in here on occasion, threatens to lift some spirits, and you descend upon him like crows to a carcass.

Bradley, who has used thousands of posts to remind us why we can't win and how the official campaign has failed us, chases out the guy who has been teaching delegates to unbind delegates at the state level and inspiring hope to otherwise hope-starved supporters.

No matter how much truth your posts may contain, that is why members complain about you, Bradley. Maybe you should offer to work with Steve and help him understand the process instead of tearing him to shreds. Just a thought.

[Conza88]

http://www.spotlight.com.au/__data/page/8611/vip_winners2.jpg



If this turns into another Bradley-Steve pissing match I'm out of here. Two smart guys with valuable knowledge of the political process, who are passionate about Ron Paul, who have spent countless hours of their life working for this campaign....

...and here they fight like children. Bradley you are more guilty of this than Steve. He comes in here on occasion, threatens to lift some spirits, and you descend upon him like crows to a carcass.

Bradley, who has used thousands of posts to remind us why we can't win and how the official campaign has failed us, chases out the guy who has been teaching delegates to unbind delegates at the state level and inspiring hope to otherwise hope-starved supporters.

No matter how much truth your posts may contain, that is why members complain about you, Bradley. Maybe you should offer to work with Steve and help him understand the process instead of tearing him to shreds. Just a thought.

[Bradley in DC]

What you explained WAS WRONG and you do it time and time again.

You go out of your way to find any post of positive and drag my name in it.

You have told people i need a straight jacket, i am a nut, i am delusional, that we have lost, etc......

Bradley tell me where i am wrong with my comments again as you claim

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=132022

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=1388470&postcount=29

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=1389261&postcount=2

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=1391253&postcount=4

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=1389251&postcount=9

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=1389444&postcount=15

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=1389768&postcount=25

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=1389984&postcount=9

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=1392371&postcount=10

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=1391958&postcount=3

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=1391994&postcount=12

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=1392127&postcount=29

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=1392199&postcount=40

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=1392701&postcount=7

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=1393001&postcount=21

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=1393084&postcount=23

HAHAHAHAHA:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=1393111&postcount=24

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=1393115&postcount=25

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=1393134&postcount=26
Is it possible i made mistakes? I do not believe they were mistakes i would consider them to vague of an statement which i will gladly admit guilt on.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=1393227&postcount=27

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=1393346&postcount=28

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=1393149&postcount=30

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=1393832&postcount=33

Steve,

Please correct your DailyPaul post you link to from here:
http://www.dailypaul.com/node/42901

Now with this part, I think you are just being unnecessarily vague to the point of being wrong:

I know many of you are new to the election process but don't worry, as I am going to go into how this all works. So read and then read again, if you need to.

Did you know that the delegates can actually vote to unbind their delegates that are bound by state rules?

Did you know that delegates can actually overturn any previous vote?

Did you know the delegates have control of the entire process?
Let's take DC and the other primary states: There are no state conventions, the only "delegates" we have are the national nominating convention delegates who have no ability nor opportunity to do anything like what you say we could do.

Since we're all agreed you have gone a bit overboard with generalizations, etc. Correcting "details" that are factually inaccurate--at least in some places--with qualifiers would help avoid the confusion you are causing.

Now with this selection:


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.
Votes do count--either directly electing national nominating convention delegates, meeting thresholds to get delegates, or choosing state delegates that choose the national nominating convention delegates.


The only way this matters is if one person receives 1191 delegates that are bound by state rules to be committed to a candidate.
Now, as we've discussed here, this statement is factually inaccurate. Either delusional or a lie. Period. A candidate can get the nomination on the first vote and avoid a brokered convention with the votes of BOUND AND UNBOUND delegates.


So if a candidate like McCain now has 586 HARD DELEGATES but if he doesn't reach 1191, WHICH HE MAY NOT, most of the delegates the state “awarded” him mean nothing.
Now, thank you for changing the factual error that McCain could not reach 1191 votes to "may not." It would help if you used the correct terms that cause confusion and replace "hard delegates" with "bound delegates."


Keep in mind that in most of the states most of the people that represent the 1200 for McCain are actually Ron Paul supporters, Romney and Huck people.
I sincerely hope you're right, I really do, but yes, I'm dubious.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=1393882&postcount=34

and a medical doctor questioning "Dr." Steve's mental state:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=1395169&postcount=39

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=1394184&postcount=1

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=1395480&postcount=3

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=1396242&postcount=8

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=1396425&postcount=17

Steve,

In the OP you say I said things I never said:
Hello Bradley, ...

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.
But in fact I have never said any such thing. In this thread I pointed out my discussion of the issue here:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=104384
Lie
1 : to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive
2 : to create a false or misleading impression
I have nothing confused. You are lying now since you know what you say is factually wrong, an untrue statment with the intent to deceive, since I have explained it here in this thread and here you are obviously reading that what you say is wrong.

I have asked you to correct your misstatements both here when you lie about what I say and on Daily Paul and your other posts where you deceive others with false information about the delegate process:
Steve: The only way this matters is if one person receives 1191 delegates that are bound by state rules to be committed to a candidate.
Bradley: Now, as we've discussed here, this statement is factually inaccurate. Either delusional or a lie. Period. A candidate can get the nomination on the first vote and avoid a brokered convention with the votes of BOUND AND UNBOUND delegates.
You know it is not true even while you deny saying it:
Bradley: Would you please clarify (again) that McCain (or anyone else!) can get the nomination from the majority of votes of bound AND unbound delegates at the national nominating convention (at the first or subsequent votes)?

Steve : I have never denied that for of course it is possible which is why i have said many times if we do not get our number of delegates registered and elected we will have no shot at winning at all and i have never tried to hide the fact that we could lose and this would be a battle to win either way.
So yes, liar or delusional, but I'd defer to a real medical doctor...

Bragging about how many you mislead is less impressive than unfounded professional claims.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=1396447&postcount=19

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=1397772&postcount=22

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=1397827&postcount=24

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=1397862&postcount=26

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=1396631&postcount=28

[ceakins]

Steve,

You have never shown a single instance where I've been wrong. I have pointed out repeatedly how you are wrong and how you contradict yourself.

Do you actually look at the reports, hell we have one county is Washington state where 73 of the 87 state delegates were RP supporters. We haven't even had our state convention yet.

[Bradley in DC]

Do you actually look at the reports, hell we have one county is Washington state where 73 of the 87 state delegates were RP supporters. We haven't even had our state convention yet.

Ceakins, that's great!

But how does that show I was gave out bad information?

[Bradley in DC]

I agree and i have not addressed that issue yet so why do you bring it up as if i have?

You create straw man arguments Bradley and people see right through it.

It is in the OP and the subject of this thread. :p

[Bradley in DC]

If this turns into another Bradley-Steve pissing match I'm out of here. Two smart guys with valuable knowledge of the political process, who are passionate about Ron Paul, who have spent countless hours of their life working for this campaign.... Maybe you should offer to work with Steve and help him understand the process instead of tearing him to shreds. Just a thought.

I have REPEATEDLY urged Steve to work with the rest of us on this forum who have been working on the delegate rules question for nearly a year.

I started a wiki in his honor for us to work together in a dispassionate, impersonal way. It is Steve and his apologists who do not play with others. We cite facts, they question motives, etc.

We have started state-specific subfora with state-specific rules. We have worked together jointly on Google.docs to combine our efforts. Steve just things he knows more than all of us combined, classic fatal conceit.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=1388302&postcount=3
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.

[Conza88]

http://images.jupiterimages.com/common/detail/08/38/23473808.jpg

:rolleyes:

[orlandoinfl]

Ceakins, that's great!

But how does that show I was gave out bad information?

This is what it all boils down to, doesn't it.

Brad is upset that he isn't getting the recognition he feels he deserves.
While Steve is working hard to keep the dream alive.

End of story.

[Bradley in DC]

This is what it all boils down to, doesn't it.

Brad is upset that he isn't getting the recognition he feels he deserves.
While Steve is working hard to keep the dream alive.

End of story.

Do you even know me?

Steve is either a liar or delusional, as the links of his postings show. Rather than refute the evidence you attack me for wanting recognition by my saying we should all work together anonymously in a wiki to provide the best rules for everyone. :rolleyes:

[LibertyIn08]

This is what it all boils down to, doesn't it.

Brad is upset that he isn't getting the recognition he feels he deserves.
While Steve is working hard to keep the dream alive.

End of story.

Wow. Thanks for giving me a good laugh this afternoon!

Bradley doesn't need anyone's recognition, what he's done for the movement speaks for itself.

[Bossobass]

Bradley doesn't need anyone's recognition, what he's done for the movement speaks for itself.

Actually, no...it doesn't.

Care to list the wonderful things Bradley has done for 'the movement'?

I could easily have made repeated 'predictions' last year that Ron Paul would not win the nomination, but the MSM was doing a good enough job of that without my throwing more fuel on that fire. What would you be saying of my prediction now, had I actually done something so worthless, that I did a lot for the movement? You must be referring to a bowel movement.

Brad's posting since he joined the forum can be summed up as:

1. Constant posting of new threads that showed RP at 1% in polls (popular vote and delegate count and everything in between).
2. Constant harping that the 'official campaign' is incompetent and will result in a failed race.
3. Constant harping that the 'official campaign' 'let us down'.
4. Constant ranting about delusional RP supporters who still think there's a chance for RP to win the R nomination.

Rocky Balboa: "You stop this fight and I'll kill ya."

The facts are that McCain (the original presumptive nominee) spent $35 million and fell from 35% to 12% in the same time that the official campaign took RP from absolute and utter obscurity with less than 1% chance to 15% after having spent less than 1/3 what McCain spent and in the face of a smear campaign and news blackout, the likes of which was unprecedented.

So people like Brad have tended to take all of the credit for the campaign's successes and heaped all of the failures on several people on the campaign staff.

I recall the big push to get new people into the 'official campaign' to eliminate the incompetents and infuse recognized winners. Yeah, you know.. proven entities. Immediately afterward, the forward momentum screeched to a near halt. The rant then switched to 'They waited too long to make the move.', etc., blah, yadda.

Ron Paul, his staff and his loyal supporters made history on many fronts and made this election cycle itself historic. And, we ain't done yet.

Dr. Steve is far from perfect in his body of facts and his delivery, but the ancient Italian proverb applies here: "Man who is standing with hands in pockets should never tell man who is working how it's done."

Dr. Steve is an asset, a rare and valuable commodity. Brad is a nay sayer, a commodity we already have in over abundance.

I present myself at GOP functions as representing thousands of proven record-breaking fund raisers who will lick stamps, pound on doors, make phone calls, write e-mails, V-O-T-E, carry signs and attend rallies. And we aren't going away, so fight us or trade with us. It works on every level, because it's true and it's the best strategy.

OTOH, if I presented myself as a delusional nutjob who thinks Ron Paul will win the nomination through infiltration by an unwanted minority who are engaged in illegal tactics, well...

You decide which is the better approach. I already have.

Bosso

[Bradley in DC]

Actually, no...it doesn't.

Care to list the wonderful things Bradley has done for 'the movement'?

So people like Brad have tended to take all of the credit for the campaign's successes and heaped all of the failures on several people on the campaign staff.

I recall the big push to get new people into the 'official campaign' to eliminate the incompetents and infuse recognized winners. Yeah, you know.. proven entities. Immediately afterward, the forward momentum screeched to a near halt. The rant then switched to 'They waited too long to make the move.', etc., blah, yadda.

Ron Paul, his staff and his loyal supporters made history on many fronts and made this election cycle itself historic. And, we ain't done yet.

Dr. Steve is far from perfect in his body of facts and his delivery, but the ancient Italian proverb applies here: "Man who is standing with hands in pockets should never tell man who is working how it's done."

Bosso

My contributions? Well, I've helped LOTS of people here on RPFs and in person in several cities (eg, including speaking at a fundraiser a few blocks from HQ when no official staff would come). I spoke last month at the Mises Institute to explain HOW to return to sound money (where the moderator dubbed me the "future" of the movement)--the official campaign staff has done a piss poor job explaining how nearly any of Dr. Paul's ideas would actually work. Dr. Paul would not have been on the ballot in DC except for me--can Steve claim any substantive results?

I've taken credit for what? :confused:

I pointed out last year that when the same people on the official staff kept making the same mistakes that the race would fail or we needed to make changes and took a lot of heat from it. They didn't make changes. Later, others realized I was right and urged Dr. Paul to heed the advice of myself and many, many others to bring in people who could meet the new expectation of winning--not just educating (which they failed at anyway).

So, by your summary, the momentum stopped when the official campaign failures became more apparent (hostility of campaign to the press, disasters in Iowa loosing database of GOTV, no delegates in NH, the rally at Valley Forge, etc.) because they didn't listen to the advice of the grassroots. Yup.

We do agree that Steve is far from perfect in his body of facts, yes.

Our presidential primaries here are finished so I'm helping RP Republicans running locally...while Steve keeps giving out misinformation. Which one of us is furthering the movement?

[orlandoinfl]

Which one of us is furthering the movement?

Answer: Dr.Steve Parent.

Thanks for your contributions to the RP campaign, now move aside.

[Phantom]

Bradley in DC - 10:37 AM -
I'm running out the door now to a McKinley for Congress meeting, but let's follow up later.

How did that meeting go? Or did you not bother go?

I ask because your following post was at 11:40 AM.

[jabrownie]

Only thing I gotta say as far as this thread goes:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lfz4UsDdTY0

[ItsTime]

Cat fight!

http://blogs.mysanantonio.com/weblogs/potato/flying-cat-fight.jpg

[Conza88]

http://www.cat-pics.co.uk/images/cat-fight.jpg

Which ones Steve? Haha. :D

[joemiller]

Please stop the delusions.

4) as it stands now--huge caveat--there will likely be a motion to suspend the rules and vote for McCain by acclamation to avoid any roll call vote at all (which would eat up valuable prime time coverage).

Voting by acclamation is done all the time at party meetings and is certainly within the party's rules and by-laws. I am quite sure the GOP elite will not give anyone the slightest chance of disrupting their little show.


I don't think anybody here is telling anybody to stop just because they are beaten. The unforseen can always happen.

joe

[Drsteveparent]

Steve,

You have never shown a single instance where I've been wrong. I have pointed out repeatedly how you are wrong and how you contradict yourself.

Steve : Yes i have right in this post for the 4th or 5th time

Show me where you are right Bradley and i am wrong! Dispute everything i posted here with fact.


Bradley what is your agenda?

You people need to stop listening to this clown he is wrong on most everything he tells you.

I have not wanted to post here and have not until someone send me an email with this link. So let us look at Bradleys words of NON WISDOM.

3) the idea that there are hundreds of "stealth" Ron Paul national delegates and that a majority of delegates from most states are Paul supporters, etc., is Steve Parent nonsense.

Steve : It seems to me Bradley you just are not in the loop on the correct info and for good reason.


4) as it stands now--huge caveat--there will likely be a motion to suspend the rules and vote for McCain by acclamation to avoid any roll call vote at all (which would eat up valuable prime time coverage).

Steve : First off suspending the rules only suspends RULES OF ORDER not the bylaws and party rules and no suspension of the rules to enfore any new rule will apply and can NOT be in contradiction of any state or national law and or any bylaw or party rule. Also they will need a 2/3 majority to suspend the rules and that suspension will serve no purpose in their favor even if they were able to obtain a 2/3 majoirty. A rule requiring officers to be elected by ballot cannot be suspended even by a unanimous vote.

In sum, yes, please, let's all do what we can to get as many delegates as possible and have as great an impact as possible, but the official campaign failed us and it's to late to undo most of the damage. This is an email from Mike McHugh, the former official campaign staff ballot access coordinator, to a Meetup group:


Steve: No Bradley the sytem and the old right is what has failed us and if you haven't noticed the grassroots are the campaign.


It is a pipe dream to believe that Ron can win when even Ron Paul admits it is OVER

We need to move on and honor the effort by capitalizing on it in the congressional races.

This seems to be Rand Paul's focus. Rand is Ron's son.


Steve : Hence the word FORMER staffer and if this is not true and Ron Paul said no such thing, stop lying to these people and let us continue to fight 1 battle at a time.


I WANT EVERYONE TO LISTEN to watch this video for this is what i have been trying to educate as many as possible on how we will win this battle.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_DN-fhY96p0

[Drsteveparent]

Originally Posted by Bradley in DC
Please stop the delusions.

4) as it stands now--huge caveat--there will likely be a motion to suspend the rules and vote for McCain by acclamation to avoid any roll call vote at all (which would eat up valuable prime time coverage).





Voting by acclamation is done all the time at party meetings and is certainly within the party's rules and by-laws. I am quite sure the GOP elite will not give anyone the slightest chance of disrupting their little show.


I don't think anybody here is telling anybody to stop just because they are beaten. The unforseen can always happen.

joe

I see Joe is new here and is also wrong defending Bradley.

4) as it stands now--huge caveat--there will likely be a motion to suspend the rules and vote for McCain by acclamation to avoid any roll call vote at all (which would eat up valuable prime time coverage).

Steve : First off suspending the rules only suspends RULES OF ORDER not the bylaws and party rules and no suspension of the rules to enfore any new rule will apply and can NOT be in contradiction of any state or national law and or any bylaw or party rule. Also they will need a 2/3 majority to suspend the rules and that suspension will serve no purpose in their favor even if they were able to obtain a 2/3 majoirty. A rule requiring officers to be elected by ballot cannot be suspended even by a unanimous vote.

[Bradley in DC]

Steve : Yes i have right in this post for the 4th or 5th time

Show me where you are right Bradley and i am wrong! Dispute everything i posted here with fact.

Repeating yourself (with your own delusions as a source) isn't any more convincing the more times you repeat it. If you are right, everyone else (Green Papers (http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P08/R-PU.phtml), CNN (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/scorecard/#R), etc.) are all wrong...in fairness, your delusional world is probably a happier place. ;)

[nate895]

Repeating yourself (with your own delusions as a source) isn't any more convincing the more times you repeat it. If you are right, everyone else (Green Papers (http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P08/R-PU.phtml), CNN (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/scorecard/#R), etc.) are all wrong...in fairness, your delusional world is probably a happier place. ;)

John McCain has 765 hard delegates (http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P08/tally.phtml) right now, those are the one that would require extra-extraordinary circumstances to change.

[Drsteveparent]

Repeating yourself (with your own delusions as a source) isn't any more convincing the more times you repeat it. If you are right, everyone else (Green Papers (http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P08/R-PU.phtml), CNN (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/scorecard/#R), etc.) are all wrong...in fairness, your delusional world is probably a happier place. ;)

I believe everyone here can see right through you Bradley, you asked the question and i answered it and you avoid it, well done Brad as usual no facts.

Bradley: 4) as it stands now--huge caveat--there will likely be a motion to suspend the rules and vote for McCain by acclamation to avoid any roll call vote at all (which would eat up valuable prime time coverage).

Steve : First off suspending the rules only suspends RULES OF ORDER not the bylaws and party rules and no suspension of the rules to enfore any new rule will apply and can NOT be in contradiction of any state or national law and or any bylaw or party rule. Also they will need a 2/3 majority to suspend the rules and that suspension will serve no purpose in their favor even if they were able to obtain a 2/3 majoirty. A rule requiring officers to be elected by ballot cannot be suspended even by a unanimous vote.


If you just prove to everyone here that i was wrong with what i stated above regarding your comments we can end this. Please show me where i answered your comments in this thread that i am wrong and delusional and you are correct.

Do that and i will never post here again however if i am correct stop following posts that have my name in them.

[yongrel]

I believe everyone here can see right through you Bradley, you asked the question and i answered it and you avoid it, well done Brad as usual no facts.

4) as it stands now--huge caveat--there will likely be a motion to suspend the rules and vote for McCain by acclamation to avoid any roll call vote at all (which would eat up valuable prime time coverage).

Steve : First off suspending the rules only suspends RULES OF ORDER not the bylaws and party rules and no suspension of the rules to enfore any new rule will apply and can NOT be in contradiction of any state or national law and or any bylaw or party rule. Also they will need a 2/3 majority to suspend the rules and that suspension will serve no purpose in their favor even if they were able to obtain a 2/3 majoirty. A rule requiring officers to be elected by ballot cannot be suspended even by a unanimous vote.


If you just prove to everyone here that i was wrong with what i stated above regarding your comments we can end this. Please show me where i answered your comments in this thread that i am wrong and delusional and you are correct.

Do that and i will never post here again however if i am correct stop following posts that have my name in them.

It's amazing how much respect a guy gets around here just by adding "Dr" to his name.

Maybe I should re-register as DrYongrel.

I like a lot of what you say, but you're combative and unwilling to adjust your stance based on new info. Infighting ain't helping anyone.

[Bradley in DC]

I believe everyone here can see right through you Bradley, you asked the question and i answered it and you avoid it, well done Brad as usual no facts.

Start here:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=132022

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=1388470&postcount=29

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=1389261&postcount=2

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=1391253&postcount=4

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=1389251&postcount=9

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=1389444&postcount=15

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=1389768&postcount=25

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=1389984&postcount=9

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=1392371&postcount=10

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=1391958&postcount=3

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=1391994&postcount=12

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=1392127&postcount=29

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=1392199&postcount=40

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=1392701&postcount=7

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=1393001&postcount=21

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=1393084&postcount=23

HAHAHAHAHA:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=1393111&postcount=24

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=1393115&postcount=25

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=1393134&postcount=26
Is it possible i made mistakes? I do not believe they were mistakes i would consider them to vague of an statement which i will gladly admit guilt on.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=1393227&postcount=27

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=1393346&postcount=28

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=1393149&postcount=30

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=1393832&postcount=33

Steve,

Please correct your DailyPaul post you link to from here:
http://www.dailypaul.com/node/42901

Now with this part, I think you are just being unnecessarily vague to the point of being wrong:

I know many of you are new to the election process but don't worry, as I am going to go into how this all works. So read and then read again, if you need to.

Did you know that the delegates can actually vote to unbind their delegates that are bound by state rules?

Did you know that delegates can actually overturn any previous vote?

Did you know the delegates have control of the entire process?
Let's take DC and the other primary states: There are no state conventions, the only "delegates" we have are the national nominating convention delegates who have no ability nor opportunity to do anything like what you say we could do.

Since we're all agreed you have gone a bit overboard with generalizations, etc. Correcting "details" that are factually inaccurate--at least in some places--with qualifiers would help avoid the confusion you are causing.

Now with this selection:


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.
Votes do count--either directly electing national nominating convention delegates, meeting thresholds to get delegates, or choosing state delegates that choose the national nominating convention delegates.


The only way this matters is if one person receives 1191 delegates that are bound by state rules to be committed to a candidate.
Now, as we've discussed here, this statement is factually inaccurate. Either delusional or a lie. Period. A candidate can get the nomination on the first vote and avoid a brokered convention with the votes of BOUND AND UNBOUND delegates.


So if a candidate like McCain now has 586 HARD DELEGATES but if he doesn't reach 1191, WHICH HE MAY NOT, most of the delegates the state “awarded” him mean nothing.
Now, thank you for changing the factual error that McCain could not reach 1191 votes to "may not." It would help if you used the correct terms that cause confusion and replace "hard delegates" with "bound delegates."


Keep in mind that in most of the states most of the people that represent the 1200 for McCain are actually Ron Paul supporters, Romney and Huck people.
I sincerely hope you're right, I really do, but yes, I'm dubious.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=1393882&postcount=34

and a medical doctor questioning "Dr." Steve's mental state:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=1395169&postcount=39

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=1394184&postcount=1

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=1395480&postcount=3

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=1396242&postcount=8

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=1396425&postcount=17

Steve,

In the OP you say I said things I never said:
Hello Bradley, ...

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.
But in fact I have never said any such thing. In this thread I pointed out my discussion of the issue here:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=104384
Lie
1 : to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive
2 : to create a false or misleading impression
I have nothing confused. You are lying now since you know what you say is factually wrong, an untrue statment with the intent to deceive, since I have explained it here in this thread and here you are obviously reading that what you say is wrong.

I have asked you to correct your misstatements both here when you lie about what I say and on Daily Paul and your other posts where you deceive others with false information about the delegate process:
Steve: The only way this matters is if one person receives 1191 delegates that are bound by state rules to be committed to a candidate.
Bradley: Now, as we've discussed here, this statement is factually inaccurate. Either delusional or a lie. Period. A candidate can get the nomination on the first vote and avoid a brokered convention with the votes of BOUND AND UNBOUND delegates.
You know it is not true even while you deny saying it:
Bradley: Would you please clarify (again) that McCain (or anyone else!) can get the nomination from the majority of votes of bound AND unbound delegates at the national nominating convention (at the first or subsequent votes)?

Steve : I have never denied that for of course it is possible which is why i have said many times if we do not get our number of delegates registered and elected we will have no shot at winning at all and i have never tried to hide the fact that we could lose and this would be a battle to win either way.
So yes, liar or delusional, but I'd defer to a real medical doctor...

Bragging about how many you mislead is less impressive than unfounded professional claims.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=1396447&postcount=19

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=1397772&postcount=22

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=1397827&postcount=24

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=1397862&postcount=26

[url]http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=1396631&postcount=28[/url

[Drsteveparent]

It's amazing how much respect a guy gets around here just by adding "Dr" to his name.

Maybe I should re-register as DrYongrel.

I like a lot of what you say, but you're combative and unwilling to adjust your stance based on new info. Infighting ain't helping anyone.

What is to Adjust? He just fed everyone crap and asked them to eat it.

He can not dispute my argument for i have facts and he does not.

I am only asking him to prove me wrong for it was his claim i keep posting the same thing and that is because he does not anser to the question and statement he asked me.

[LibertyIn08]

What is to Adjust? He just fed everyone crap and asked them to eat it.

He can not dispute my argument for i have facts and he does not.

I am only asking him to prove me wrong for it was his claim i keep posting the same thing and that is because he does not anser to the question and statement he asked me.

Debbie Hopper, someone from the National Ron Paul Campaign, just proved you incorrect on the assertion we have the majority of the delegates.

Can we please start with a retraction of that claim? At the very least?

[nc4rp]

I WANT EVERYONE TO LISTEN to watch this video for this is what i have been trying to educate as many as possible on how we will win this battle.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_DN-fhY96p0 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_DN-fhY96p0)



YEAH STEVE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Conza88]

http://scienceblogs.com/omnibrain/upload/2007/04/Troll's%20Brain%20and%20memory.gif

Lol :D

[amy31416]

It's amazing how much respect a guy gets around here just by adding "Dr" to his name.

Maybe I should re-register as DrYongrel.

I like a lot of what you say, but you're combative and unwilling to adjust your stance based on new info. Infighting ain't helping anyone.

Screw it, I won't lie. Ya'll need to call me Master (or would it be mistress?) amy31416. I'm going to re-register as soon as I decide between gender-specific titles.

[joemiller]

Originally Posted by Bradley in DC
Please stop the delusions.

4) as it stands now--huge caveat--there will likely be a motion to suspend the rules and vote for McCain by acclamation to avoid any roll call vote at all (which would eat up valuable prime time coverage).

I am just pointing out that it is a perfectly normal act to suspend the rules and vote by acclamation. It is done in one motion, with a second. Voting by acclamation is probably how the majority of motions are decided at party meetings. So as far as Bradley's fourth point is concerned, he is correct...and you can call me Susan if it isn't so.


joe

[nate895]

I am just pointing out that it is a perfectly normal act to suspend the rules and vote by acclamation. It is done in one motion, with a second. Voting by acclamation is probably how the majority of motions are decided at party meetings. So as far as Bradley's fourth point is concerned, he is correct...and you can call me Susan if it isn't so.


joe

This doesn't happen regularly at national conventions, they even had a roll call last RNC when George Bush didn't lose a single vote at the convention.

[Bradley in DC]

This doesn't happen regularly at national conventions, they even had a roll call last RNC when George Bush didn't lose a single vote at the convention.

that's my fear: that the McCain people won't want anyone else getting visible support--and that attention spans are shorter and the networks don't want to cover conventions without commercials that no one is watching...

[joemiller]

This doesn't happen regularly at national conventions, they even had a roll call last RNC when George Bush didn't lose a single vote at the convention.


But the question was, "Can it be done?" And the answer to that question is, yes; it can be done and is perfectly within party rules and by-laws. Now will it be done is another question.

Usually on a motion of this type if there is any challenge from any "voting" member of the proceedings, the chair will proceed directly with a roll-call vote. If there are enough Ron Paul "voting" delegates attending the GOP convention to "challenge" the acclamation motion, even if there aren't actually enough to block the motion, chances are the Chair will proceed with a roll-call vote in order to avoid any unpleasantness in front of three-hundred million Americans. Plus, it makes for good theatrics, a show of unity and all that.

joe

[nbhadja]

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=132022

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=1388470&postcount=29

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=1389261&postcount=2

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=1391253&postcount=4

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=1389251&postcount=9

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=1389444&postcount=15

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=1389768&postcount=25

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=1389984&postcount=9

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=1392371&postcount=10

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=1391958&postcount=3

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=1391994&postcount=12

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=1392127&postcount=29

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=1392199&postcount=40

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=1392701&postcount=7

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=1393001&postcount=21

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=1393084&postcount=23

HAHAHAHAHA:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=1393111&postcount=24

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=1393115&postcount=25

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=1393134&postcount=26
Is it possible i made mistakes? I do not believe they were mistakes i would consider them to vague of an statement which i will gladly admit guilt on.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=1393227&postcount=27

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=1393346&postcount=28

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=1393149&postcount=30

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=1393832&postcount=33

Steve,

Please correct your DailyPaul post you link to from here:
http://www.dailypaul.com/node/42901

Now with this part, I think you are just being unnecessarily vague to the point of being wrong:

I know many of you are new to the election process but don't worry, as I am going to go into how this all works. So read and then read again, if you need to.

Did you know that the delegates can actually vote to unbind their delegates that are bound by state rules?

Did you know that delegates can actually overturn any previous vote?

Did you know the delegates have control of the entire process?
Let's take DC and the other primary states: There are no state conventions, the only "delegates" we have are the national nominating convention delegates who have no ability nor opportunity to do anything like what you say we could do.

Since we're all agreed you have gone a bit overboard with generalizations, etc. Correcting "details" that are factually inaccurate--at least in some places--with qualifiers would help avoid the confusion you are causing.

Now with this selection:


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.
Votes do count--either directly electing national nominating convention delegates, meeting thresholds to get delegates, or choosing state delegates that choose the national nominating convention delegates.


The only way this matters is if one person receives 1191 delegates that are bound by state rules to be committed to a candidate.
Now, as we've discussed here, this statement is factually inaccurate. Either delusional or a lie. Period. A candidate can get the nomination on the first vote and avoid a brokered convention with the votes of BOUND AND UNBOUND delegates.


So if a candidate like McCain now has 586 HARD DELEGATES but if he doesn't reach 1191, WHICH HE MAY NOT, most of the delegates the state “awarded” him mean nothing.
Now, thank you for changing the factual error that McCain could not reach 1191 votes to "may not." It would help if you used the correct terms that cause confusion and replace "hard delegates" with "bound delegates."


Keep in mind that in most of the states most of the people that represent the 1200 for McCain are actually Ron Paul supporters, Romney and Huck people.
I sincerely hope you're right, I really do, but yes, I'm dubious.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=1393882&postcount=34

and a medical doctor questioning "Dr." Steve's mental state:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=1395169&postcount=39

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=1394184&postcount=1

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=1395480&postcount=3

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=1396242&postcount=8

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=1396425&postcount=17

Steve,

In the OP you say I said things I never said:
Hello Bradley, ...

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.
But in fact I have never said any such thing. In this thread I pointed out my discussion of the issue here:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=104384
Lie
1 : to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive
2 : to create a false or misleading impression
I have nothing confused. You are lying now since you know what you say is factually wrong, an untrue statment with the intent to deceive, since I have explained it here in this thread and here you are obviously reading that what you say is wrong.

I have asked you to correct your misstatements both here when you lie about what I say and on Daily Paul and your other posts where you deceive others with false information about the delegate process:
Steve: The only way this matters is if one person receives 1191 delegates that are bound by state rules to be committed to a candidate.
Bradley: Now, as we've discussed here, this statement is factually inaccurate. Either delusional or a lie. Period. A candidate can get the nomination on the first vote and avoid a brokered convention with the votes of BOUND AND UNBOUND delegates.
You know it is not true even while you deny saying it:
Bradley: Would you please clarify (again) that McCain (or anyone else!) can get the nomination from the majority of votes of bound AND unbound delegates at the national nominating convention (at the first or subsequent votes)?

Steve : I have never denied that for of course it is possible which is why i have said many times if we do not get our number of delegates registered and elected we will have no shot at winning at all and i have never tried to hide the fact that we could lose and this would be a battle to win either way.
So yes, liar or delusional, but I'd defer to a real medical doctor...

Bragging about how many you mislead is less impressive than unfounded professional claims.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=1396447&postcount=19

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=1397772&postcount=22

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=1397827&postcount=24

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=1397862&postcount=26

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=1396631&postcount=28

While these may prove a point, the posts from No1ButPaul08 and MDH don't count at all since they are useless trolls who hate RP.
Though the cowsley post count.

[nbhadja]

Actually, no...it doesn't.

Care to list the wonderful things Bradley has done for 'the movement'?

I could easily have made repeated 'predictions' last year that Ron Paul would not win the nomination, but the MSM was doing a good enough job of that without my throwing more fuel on that fire. What would you be saying of my prediction now, had I actually done something so worthless, that I did a lot for the movement? You must be referring to a bowel movement.

Brad's posting since he joined the forum can be summed up as:

1. Constant posting of new threads that showed RP at 1% in polls (popular vote and delegate count and everything in between).
2. Constant harping that the 'official campaign' is incompetent and will result in a failed race.
3. Constant harping that the 'official campaign' 'let us down'.
4. Constant ranting about delusional RP supporters who still think there's a chance for RP to win the R nomination.

Rocky Balboa: "You stop this fight and I'll kill ya."

The facts are that McCain (the original presumptive nominee) spent $35 million and fell from 35% to 12% in the same time that the official campaign took RP from absolute and utter obscurity with less than 1% chance to 15% after having spent less than 1/3 what McCain spent and in the face of a smear campaign and news blackout, the likes of which was unprecedented.

So people like Brad have tended to take all of the credit for the campaign's successes and heaped all of the failures on several people on the campaign staff.

I recall the big push to get new people into the 'official campaign' to eliminate the incompetents and infuse recognized winners. Yeah, you know.. proven entities. Immediately afterward, the forward momentum screeched to a near halt. The rant then switched to 'They waited too long to make the move.', etc., blah, yadda.

Ron Paul, his staff and his loyal supporters made history on many fronts and made this election cycle itself historic. And, we ain't done yet.

Dr. Steve is far from perfect in his body of facts and his delivery, but the ancient Italian proverb applies here: "Man who is standing with hands in pockets should never tell man who is working how it's done."

Dr. Steve is an asset, a rare and valuable commodity. Brad is a nay sayer, a commodity we already have in over abundance.

I present myself at GOP functions as representing thousands of proven record-breaking fund raisers who will lick stamps, pound on doors, make phone calls, write e-mails, V-O-T-E, carry signs and attend rallies. And we aren't going away, so fight us or trade with us. It works on every level, because it's true and it's the best strategy.

OTOH, if I presented myself as a delusional nutjob who thinks Ron Paul will win the nomination through infiltration by an unwanted minority who are engaged in illegal tactics, well...

You decide which is the better approach. I already have.

Bosso

RIGHT ON!

[JosephTheLibertarian]

As I stated, we should all be doing as much as we can to get as many delegates as we can (yes, my ulterior motive :rolleyes:). I also added the caveat "at this time" (I've posted many times I fully expect McCain's rage to explode and his campaign to then implode. What happens then, I have no idea.

How many people became disillusioned and disappeared from our movement because of the false hopes from the official campaign staff and Steve's ilk? (give us $12 million and we'll win Iowa and NH--we gave them $20 million and got embarrassed in Iowa and zero delegates in NH, then the crushing defeats on Super Tuesday, and the energy was gone.) I tried to warn last year that the official campaign staff wasn't up to the job. Now I don't want us to lose more people when they realize Steve has no idea what he's talking about.

Let's rationally move forward, with good information.

up to what job? what didn't they do right?

[Bradley in DC]

While these may prove a point, the posts from No1ButPaul08 and MDH don't count at all since they are useless trolls who hate RP.
Though the cowsley post count.

I know MDH personally--he's been a very active and loyal Paul partisan (and I have no reason to think No1ButPaul08 is any different).

Parent is a delusional attention seeker ("email me, call me, listen to me"). Last night Debbie Hopper from the official campaign HQ made clear here on RPFs that Parent's claims of majority of delegates makes us look foolish. He's right, I wasn't in his loop--but no rational person is.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=1411009&postcount=1


I don't know Steve, but I do know that a majority of the delegates that have been elected are not RP supporters. If that claim is being made, it's false. If our people are believing it and repeating it, they're going to look mighty foolish.

[Bradley in DC]

up to what job? what didn't they do right?

Start here:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=85493

There is much, much more that we've not made public not wanting to embarrass the good doctor. :eek:

[nc4rp]

let me refer you to Gimly: "Certainty of death; small chance of succes. What are we waiting for?"

how many times do i have to post that stopping now would be like walking off the field in the last game of the world series when your getting beat real bad.

even if someones facts are off, you do the best you can and keep up the good fight!

[No1ButPaul08]

While these may prove a point, the posts from No1ButPaul08 and MDH don't count at all since they are useless trolls who hate RP.
Though the cowsley post count.

Another baseless accusation with no proof. Do you mind explaining how I'm, "a useless troll who hates RP."

Edit: I just looked and nbhadja has called me a troll previously for believing McCain has 1200 delegates
http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=p2Ua4t0-Z5pFHScTNGq7bUg

I guess because I believe McCain has enough delegates to win the nomination that makes me a troll who hates RP. One can't possibly be a RP supporter while also believing he has no shot to win the nomination, that's just trollish divisive behavior.:rolleyes:

[JosephTheLibertarian]

Start here:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=85493

There is much, much more that we've not made public not wanting to embarrass the good doctor. :eek:

ok. some good stuff there. I would have fired a ton of people. If you're not producing any results, you should get the boot. Did Ron Paul fire ANYONE?

[LibertyIn08]

Retracted.

[mczerone]

And this is right and good and laudable--but childish attacks questioning my motives when I explain a rule that doesn't fit what we want doesn't help. :cool:

Technically, It may help. :cool:

As others have noted in this thread, distancing naysayers is essential to continue to work at questionable tasks, and all the people in this thread have done is asked you to go away. Yes, you came in and answered the OP, but that was all that was required from you here, and you stayed anyway.

I wish you luck in what you are hoping to achieve for yourself, and hopefully there won't be too many people trying to tell you that you are barking up the wrong tree while you strive for those goals. But stay out of other people's way.

There is one rule in life. The golden rule.

But with people like Bradley around, it is easy to start be negative to yourself and others, because you start expecting that others are going to be negative toward you. He is a divider, regardless of the truth of his claims. Just as "Dr. Steve" is a uniter, regardless of the truth of his.

Neither have all the answers, and both probably have some very serious logical errors in some of what they try to tell you. Just don't let the type of person telling you the news get in the way of the reality of what they say.

[LibertyIn08]

Technically, It may help. :cool:

As others have noted in this thread, distancing naysayers is essential to continue to work at questionable tasks, and all the people in this thread have done is asked you to go away. Yes, you came in and answered the OP, but that was all that was required from you here, and you stayed anyway.

I wish you luck in what you are hoping to achieve for yourself, and hopefully there won't be too many people trying to tell you that you are barking up the wrong tree while you strive for those goals. But stay out of other people's way.

There is one rule in life. The golden rule.

But with people like Bradley around, it is easy to start be negative to yourself and others, because you start expecting that others are going to be negative toward you. He is a divider, regardless of the truth of his claims. Just as "Dr. Steve" is a uniter, regardless of the truth of his.

Neither have all the answers, and both probably have some very serious logical errors in some of what they try to tell you. Just don't let the type of person telling you the news get in the way of the reality of what they say.

Please raise your hands if you wanted Bradley to leave.

Steve, please stop holding up other people's hands. Thanks.

I don't see the majority of hands raised, Mczerone. If anything, I'd say more people are receptive to the correct information than the drivel put forth by Steve.

Now, if you can show to me where the majority of people wanted Bradley to leave, or discounted Debbie's statements, or those of the moderators... I will gladly leave the thread and admit Steve's method is better than ours. There are 28 different posters in this thread, and I can find no more than 4 or 5 upset with Bradley or the initiative to disseminate correct information.

[Bradley in DC]

Please raise your hands if you wanted Bradley to leave.

Steve, please stop holding up other people's hands. Thanks.

I don't see the majority of hands raised, Mczerone. If anything, I'd say more people are receptive to the correct information than the drivel put forth by Steve.

Now, if you can show to me where the majority of people wanted Bradley to leave, or discounted Debbie's statements, or those of the moderators... I will gladly leave the thread and admit Steve's method is better than ours. There are 28 different posters in this thread, and I can find no more than 4 or 5 upset with Bradley or the initiative to disseminate correct information.

Alex,

You don't understand. I'm a "divider" to the apologists of the incompetence at HQ. You see, that's why some like Steve--because they can dream we had a competently lead staff (yes, Debbie and some others were hardworking, effective and dedicated, but they were the exceptions, and the decisions above them were made by those not qualified or capable to do so). Oh, but if we can just close our eyes and Steve is right, then HQ wasn't incompetent and Dr. Paul really is on the path to getting the nomination...

Because I've said out loud (some of) what the Congressional office and long-time political machine of Dr. Paul in Lake Jackson and the grassroots leaders all say privately, I'm a "divider." :rolleyes:

[mdh]

While these may prove a point, the posts from No1ButPaul08 and MDH don't count at all since they are useless trolls who hate RP.
Though the cowsley post count.

lol. I'm just going to let you speak for yourself here, and let intelligent people make their own decisions about which of us is the better man. :)

[mdh]

I know MDH personally--he's been a very active and loyal Paul partisan (and I have no reason to think No1ButPaul08 is any different).

Most of the people who come on here to make these sorts of statements are people who have a grudge against me because I've had to ban them from the rpiradio.com chat channel for excessive abuse. ;)