PDA

View Full Version : Ron Paul: It was almost like a tie




knarf
02-11-2012, 10:04 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ifyXiX2SivY

knarf
02-11-2012, 10:36 PM
It was like a tie!

rp08orbust
02-11-2012, 11:44 PM
It was almost a win if he had spent the week campaigning.

noneedtoaggress
02-12-2012, 12:13 AM
Wow, dude, give the guy a break. He's doing all this for you, you think he wouldn't rather be spending these days with his family? He's going out of his way and stressing himself out and putting himself in danger.

PaulConventionWV
02-12-2012, 09:12 AM
It was almost a win if he had spent the week campaigning.

It would have been a win if the vote was fair. Don't be hard on Ron Paul. He did win. They just won't admit it.

Acala
02-12-2012, 11:01 AM
It was almost a win if he had spent the week campaigning.

Yes, he has only spent the last forty years devoting his life to the fight for liberty and done more to revive the liberty movement in this country than any other person. But he sucks. And you, presumably, are much more effective in what you do to fight for liberty . . .which is what exactly?

bluesc
02-12-2012, 11:06 AM
It was almost a win if he had spent the week campaigning.

He was there all week.

People demanded he keep events hush-hush so that they weren't full of supporters, then people complain that he didn't announce any events to his supporters.

The campaign can't win.

rp08orbust
02-12-2012, 11:19 AM
He was there all week.

Really? When and where was that revealed? The background in the TV interviews he did sure looked a lot like one of his offices in Texas.

bluesc
02-12-2012, 11:22 AM
Really? When and where was that revealed? The background in the TV interviews he did sure looked a lot like one of his offices in Texas.

He was definitely there Thursday. Pretty sure he was there before that as well.

This is a partial quote:


Ron Paul is in Maine, it's just being kept very hush hush. If it gets on the Daily Paul or RPF, then we get flooded with non-caucus goers, which defeats the purpose of having him at a caucus full of undecided voters and delegates.

rp08orbust
02-12-2012, 11:38 AM
This is a partial quote: <snip>

In that case I'll lay off Ron, though like many, I'm still in one clusterf**k of a mood :(

angelatc
02-12-2012, 11:39 AM
So now they have a plan, and can't tell us either what it is or where he is?

The campaign seriously thinks you're stupid if you believe that Paul was in Maine. There's no point in being in Maine if he isn't actually telling people that he was there. And he was in Texas - the videos speak for themselves. Now that Politicos schedule has scrolled off I can't capture that.

angelatc
02-12-2012, 11:40 AM
In that case I'll lay off Ron, though like many, I'm still in one clusterf**k of a mood :(

You should be. This campaign is a clusterf*ck.

cheapseats
02-12-2012, 11:52 AM
Ron Paul: It was almost like a tie


Horseshoes and hand grenades.

Gary4Liberty
02-12-2012, 12:01 PM
Only 5524 votes were cast in the whole state! What percentage of the population is that? And what percentage of the registered voters is that?

Bosco Warden
02-12-2012, 12:32 PM
IT WAS A WIN!!

Politico: Romney's campaign might be involved in cancelling the caucus that Paul is doing well with only 80% reported!

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0212/72758_Page2.html#ixzz1m7hjtgs0

Got F**ked by Romney and the rest of the GOP shitbags.

Just keep moving forward, we are getting the delegates needed to take this.

Also, its time to give up another happy meal for Dr. Paul DONATE SOME CASH!! This is just beginning!!

https://secure.ronpaul2012.com/


BIG WIN FOR RON PAUL IN MAINE
With 95% reporting, Ron Paul has over 36% of the vote in Maine right behind first place finisher Mitt Romney, who has barely 39%.

But when all the votes are counted will Romney still be in first place? Only 194 votes stand between Paul and a first place victory. Washington County is a stronghold for Paul and has yet to report. It might be a week before we know the final outcome there and Washington County is expected to yield 200 votes or more.

Still, Maine is a state in Romney’s backyard that he should’ve been able to walk away with easily. That Mitt almost lost to Ron tonight–and that Mitt still may lose to Ron in the days to come–does not bode well for the establishment candidate. Romney shouldn’t have had to campaign in Maine and yet circumstances forced him to make a last ditch effort.

Santorum, riding high on Tuesday, was 20 points behind Paul tonight. Newt Gingrich, who won South Carolina with 41% last month, got only 6% tonight.

This was not a good night for Mitt Romney. It was a fantastic night for Ron Paul.


http://www.ronpaul2012.com/2012/02/11/big-win-for-ron-paul-in-maine/

bluesc
02-12-2012, 12:45 PM
So now they have a plan, and can't tell us either what it is or where he is?

The campaign seriously thinks you're stupid if you believe that Paul was in Maine. There's no point in being in Maine if he isn't actually telling people that he was there. And he was in Texas - the videos speak for themselves. Now that Politicos schedule has scrolled off I can't capture that.

Yes, we know, you're pissed that they let you down and didn't get a win yet.

angelatc
02-12-2012, 12:52 PM
Yes, we know, you're pissed that they let you down and didn't get a win yet.

It isn't about me. It's about this notion that the campaign can do no wrong.

Been here, done that before. Paul won't fire the people who can't get him across the finish line. This isn't a 5th grade soccer game where everybody gets a prize to make everybody feel good. (Although even at that age, the kids all know who won even if the grown ups pretend that the score doesn't matter.)

The voters know what a winner looks like, and Paul isn't looking like a winner.

The fact that there are people here thinking these results are acceptable is ridiculous, and the concept that we can win the Presidency without winning a single primary or caucus is beyond preposterous.

He screwed up by not going to Maine, and if Collins is telling you he really was in Maine, only not actually campaigning, that's just a lie.

ConCap
02-12-2012, 12:53 PM
Less than 6,000 vote in Maine.

When it comes to the internet Paul has the edge. However most of them are young. Unless you can get them to get their dead a$$e$ of the couch or off of their computer chairs, leave the house and vote, you will never get the vots needed to win. 195 short. You should of had Maine.

bluesc
02-12-2012, 12:59 PM
Indeed. Been here, done that before. Paul won't fire the people who can't get him across the finish line. This isn't a 5th grade soccer game where everybody gets a prize to make everybody feel good. (Although even at that age, the kids all know who won even if the grown ups pretend not to keep score.)

The voters know what a winner looks like, and Paul isn't looking like a winner.

The fact that there are people here thinking these results are acceptable is ridiculous, as is the concept that we can win the Presidency without winning a single primary or caucus is preposterous.

He screwed up by not going to Maine, and if Collins is telling you he really was in Maine, only not actually campaigning, that's just a lie.

#1 I wasn't told by Collins
#2 I agree the idea that he can win the nomination without winning a state is unrealistic
#3 I agree that he isn't coming across as someone who wants to win

I would have liked to have won, but the results are acceptable. We still get the majority of the delegates in this case. He probably won, but the GOP cancelled the caucus where Paul was strong and created new caucuses that were strong for Romney the night before the results were announced. That isn't tin foil hat stuff, and it isn't delusional. It happened.

angelatc
02-12-2012, 01:00 PM
Less than 6,000 vote in Maine.

When it comes to the internet Paul has the edge. However most of them are young. Unless you can get them to get their dead a$$e$ of the couch or off of their computer chairs, leave the house and vote, you will never get the vots needed to win. 195 short. You should of had Maine.

Yes, but it isn't the campaign's fault. It's the GOP's fault. It's the fault of the young voters. It's the weather. It's apathy. It's never the campaign's fault. After all, they have a plan, you know. It doesn't involve winning, apparently, but just send them more money anyway.

angelatc
02-12-2012, 01:01 PM
#1 I wasn't told by Collins
#2 I agree the idea that he can win the nomination without winning a state is unrealistic
#3 I agree that he isn't coming across as someone who wants to win

I would have liked to have won, but the results are acceptable. We still get the majority of the delegates in this case. He probably won, but the GOP cancelled the caucus where Paul was strong and created new caucuses that were strong for Romney the night before the results were announced. That isn't tin foil hat stuff, and it isn't delusional. It happened.

An acceptable loss? That's just wrong on so many levels I can't even begin to address it.

It happened because the campaign rolls over and allows it to happen. But it's never their fault when we lose......

Bosco Warden
02-12-2012, 01:04 PM
It isn't about me. It's about this notion that the campaign can do no wrong.

Been here, done that before. Paul won't fire the people who can't get him across the finish line. This isn't a 5th grade soccer game where everybody gets a prize to make everybody feel good. (Although even at that age, the kids all know who won even if the grown ups pretend that the score doesn't matter.)

The voters know what a winner looks like, and Paul isn't looking like a winner.

The fact that there are people here thinking these results are acceptable is ridiculous, and the concept that we can win the Presidency without winning a single primary or caucus is beyond preposterous.

He screwed up by not going to Maine, and if Collins is telling you he really was in Maine, only not actually campaigning, that's just a lie.

Tell everyone what should be done, lets hear a plan that you think would be the WINNING plan?

I was here in 08 also, and it seems more disorganized then in 08 but its doing better overall. I have to have faith that there is alot going on behind the scenes then I am privy to.

Dr. Paul knows what he is doing, I trust his judgement. He has 30 years of being on the right side, I am sure this is no exception.

The GOP is cheating, but either way he will be on the ballot and we can vote for him. The other candidates will not have the needed delegates to to get the GOP nod, so its going to be someone else, and Dr. Paul.

angelatc
02-12-2012, 01:06 PM
Tell everyone what should be done, lets hear a plan that you think would be the WINNING plan?

Firing Benton/Tate and getting somebody in there that actually knows how to win, and maybe doesn't embarrass us by putting out press releases saying that we had a victory in Maine.

bluesc
02-12-2012, 01:07 PM
An acceptable loss? That's just wrong on so many levels I can't even begin to address it.

It happened because the campaign rolls over and allows it to happen. It's never their fault that we lose.

We won the delegates.

Yes, it's easy to blame them when you're constantly pissed at them. When you consider the cancelled caucus that was a Paul "stronghold", and the three added caucuses that were in Romney "strongholds", it's not difficult to imagine that the very small margin of defeat was caused by the Maine GOP. The campaign has NEVER made any noise about fraud or shenanigans before despite losses. They accepted it and moved on. They are pissed about this one, and have every right to be.

Of course, it's easy to be a critic from your armchair.

I didn't say it's never their fault. It certainly was in Nevada. They screwed up there and they know it.

mport1
02-12-2012, 01:12 PM
It was almost a win if he had spent the week campaigning.

This. Unfortunately. Apparently a little more time there would have pushed him over the edge.

angelatc
02-12-2012, 01:13 PM
We won the delegates.

See my soccer analogy. I don't care that everybody got a token to take home.


Yes, it's easy to blame them when you're constantly pissed at them.

Because it's entirely unrealistic to expect them to actually win? Sounds like your bar is set a lot lower than mine.




When you consider the cancelled caucus that was a Paul "stronghold", and the three added caucuses that were in Romney "strongholds", it's not difficult to imagine that the very small margin of defeat was caused by the Maine GOP. The campaign has NEVER made any noise about fraud or shenanigans before despite loses. They accepted it and moved on.

Which is absolutely pathetic. What you just said is that Romney's campaign is virile and strong enough to be able to strong arm a win simply by getting our caucuses thrown out, and Paul's campaign plan to counter it? Lay down and take it like a good girl. Again.

ConCap
02-12-2012, 01:21 PM
It’s the fault of the individual that was for Paul and did not go vote.

I have been looking for a job for the last 3yrs. Do you know how many times I saw the phrase:
MUST BE ABLE TO WORK WITH MINIMAL OR NO SUPERVISION.

If you are for Ron Paul, go vote for him. Why do you need a political party, movement leader or campain manager to tell you what to do?

Untill the day comes, when we all rase our kids to be RESPONSIBLE INDIVIDUALS thinking for themselves and not relying on political parties, it will never change.

Bosco Warden
02-12-2012, 01:21 PM
Firing Benton/Tate and getting somebody in there that actually knows how to win, and maybe doesn't embarrass us by putting out press releases saying that we had a victory in Maine.

Replace them with who?

I am also frustrated with some of the things done, but we are getting the delegates. This is a HUGE undertaking Dr. Paul is doing right here. The Establishment is well entrenched and has everything going to for them. The media, both print and video.

I dont see how changing Benton/Tate would have helped in Maine for example if the GOP cheats at the polls.

This maybe the only way to get the National. As I said he will be on the ballot.

WilliamC
02-12-2012, 01:24 PM
I think that Ron Paul could flat out win and still the media would report he lost.

If anyone thinks changing the campaign is going to change Ron Paul and how he campaigns at this late date I must respectfully disagree.

What we see is what we get, and Ron Paul isn't the perfect candidate as he has said himself.

bluesc
02-12-2012, 01:24 PM
See my soccer analogy. I don't care that everybody got a token to take home.

Paul got the majority of the delegates.


Because it's entirely unrealistic to expect them to actually win? Sounds like your bar is set a lot lower than mine.

Then why do you continue to come here and whine that they didn't win when you already knew they wouldn't?


Which is absolutely pathetic. What you just said is that Romney's campaign is virile and strong enough to be able to strong arm a win simply by getting our caucuses thrown out, and Paul's campaign plan to counter it? Lay down and take it like a good girl. Again.

Well Romney has the establishment on his side, and the establishment has people in key positions in most states. The decision was made to add caucuses the night before they were held and the decision was made to cancel the caucus in Ron's stronghold mere hours before the vote was held. What exactly would you have done in their position?

What I said is before(in previous states), they accepted losses and moved on because they didn't suspect shenanigans. Now they are making noises. They aren't just laying down and taking it. There isn't much they can do though, since the Maine GOP didn't break any of their own rules. They make them so that they can break them.

You hold way too much anger towards the campaign because they aren't giving you liberty when you want it. Maybe you should run for office and hire the crack team of professionals that you have in mind.

bluesc
02-12-2012, 01:27 PM
Replace them with who?

I am also frustrated with some of the things done, but we are getting the delegates. This is a HUGE undertaking Dr. Paul is doing right here. The Establishment is well entrenched and has everything going to for them. The media, both print and video.

I dont see how changing Benton/Tate would have helped in Maine for example if the GOP cheats at the polls.

This maybe the only way to get the National. As I said he will be on the ballot.

Firing Benton and/or Tate would do nothing to help. People just desperately want to direct their anger and frustration at someone.

Armchair strategists always have someone to blame and something to criticize.

They never mention that we have Doug Wead and someone who has run many successful Senate campaigns. A true professional who was sent by the Senate minority leader to help Rand in his race. No one ever mentions that the campaign hired him. No, we have no professionals.

Keith and stuff
02-12-2012, 01:33 PM
Only 5524 votes were cast in the whole state! What percentage of the population is that? And what percentage of the registered voters is that?

Ron Paul got 0.2% of the vote in Maine, actually, it was more like 0.154%. It was the lowest percentage of the vote that Ron Paul has received in any state. Yes, even lower than CO. Even though the Maine Caucus system is more open to non-Republicans than most of the other caucuses, so far. Compare that the New Hampshire with 4.5% of the population, far more than every other state.

People just don't like to vote in the Maine caucuses, for Ron Paul or otherwise. However, people especially don't like to be delegates to the county conventions in Maine, which is great for Ron Paul. He couldn't find 2000 people in the whole state to vote for him, but his campaign and the grassroots did find enough people to be delegates to the county conventions that Ron Paul will have the majority of them.

angelatc
02-12-2012, 01:34 PM
Then why do you continue to come here and whine that they didn't win when you already knew they wouldn't?

I didn't know they wouldn't win Maine. Seems like others don't expect much from them though. THAT's the part I don't get.




Well Romney has the establishment on his side, and the establishment has people in key positions in most states. The decision was made to add caucuses the night before they were held and the decision was made to cancel the caucus in Ron's stronghold mere hours before the vote was held. What exactly would you have done in their position?

What I said is before(in previous states), they accepted losses and moved on because they didn't suspect shenanigans. Now they are making noises. They aren't just laying down and taking it. There isn't much they can do though, since the Maine GOP didn't break any of their own rules. They make them so that they can break them.

You hold way too much anger towards the campaign because they aren't giving you liberty when you want it. Maybe you should run for office and hire the crack team of professionals that you have in mind.

Straw man. It isn't about me. It's about the fact that Ron Paul's campaign staff can't campaign effectively enough to actually win elections, which is what the donors believe they're being paid to do.

You can apparently keep spinning and whining "it's not our fault!" all day long, but the horrible truth is that Ron Paul has once again hired a staff that can't bring home a single win. Yes, they're far, far ahead of where they were last time. But that's not good enough.

Bosco Warden
02-12-2012, 01:38 PM
Interesting and related video.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5O2zP2VfRZk

bluesc
02-12-2012, 01:40 PM
Straw man. It isn't about me. It's about the fact that Ron Paul's campaign staff can't campaign effectively enough to actually win elections, which is what the donors believe they're being paid to do.

You can apparently keep spinning and whining "it's not our fault!" all day long, but the horrible truth is that Ron Paul has once again hired a staff that can't bring home a single win. Yes, they're far, far ahead of where they were last time. But that's not good enough.

Again you assume that if they had better staff, they would be winning. Reality is that they wouldn't. The better they do, the more the establishment will work against them. You apparently don't understand the vastness of the reach of the establishment.

It often seems like you refuse to entertain any thought of GOP corruption because that would be wandering into tin foil hat territory. Apparently you haven't been around long enough to know what lengths the GOP will go to.

bluesc
02-12-2012, 01:41 PM
Interesting and related video.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5O2zP2VfRZk

Lol you're about to be flamed by our resident "realists".

angelatc
02-12-2012, 01:44 PM
Firing Benton and/or Tate would do nothing to help. People just desperately want to direct their anger and frustration at someone.

Armchair strategists always have someone to blame and something to criticize.

They never mention that we have Doug Wead and someone who has run many successful Senate campaigns. A true professional who was sent by the Senate minority leader to help Rand in his race. No one ever mentions that the campaign hired him. No, we have no professionals.
That makes it even worse - you just said we have some very skilled professionals, but they are professionals who still can't win. No amount of spin changes that.

Changing campaign managers when you're losing is the winning strategy. (I seem to recall that Rand Paul changed his even when he was winning. Looking back that was amazingly prescient.)

Pretending that losing is winning is a losing strategy.

angelatc
02-12-2012, 01:45 PM
Apparently you haven't been around long enough to know what lengths the GOP will go to.

Now you're just being silly, not to mention putting words in my mouth.

bluesc
02-12-2012, 01:47 PM
That makes it even worse - you just said we have some very skilled professionals, but they are professionals who still can't win. No amount of spin changes that.

Changing campaign managers when you're losing is the winning strategy. (I seem to recall that Rand Paul changed his even when he was winning. Looking back that was amazingly prescient.)

Pretending that losing is winning is a losing strategy.

So.. We find even better professionals and suddenly the media and GOP becomes friendly? My god, you absolutely refuse to entertain the thought that maybe, just maybe there are powers working against us.

Maybe the campaign manager is doing well and doesn't need replacing.

Winning the majority of delegates is winning. There is no changing that.

angelatc
02-12-2012, 01:47 PM
Again you assume that if they had better staff, they would be winning. Reality is that they wouldn't.


I don't believe that, but if the campaign believes that, then they definitely should be fired.

jcannon98188
02-12-2012, 01:48 PM
I didn't know they wouldn't win Maine. Seems like others don't expect much from them though. THAT's the part I don't get.
Straw man. It isn't about me. It's about the fact that Ron Paul's campaign staff can't campaign effectively enough to actually win elections, which is what the donors believe they're being paid to do. You can apparently keep spinning and whining "it's not our fault!" all day long, but the horrible truth is that Ron Paul has once again hired a staff that can't bring home a single win. Yes, they're far, far ahead of where they were last time. But that's not good enough.


Look, I know you have been here since 2007. But SHUT UP! You honestly think firing Ron Paul's staff would make him win more? It is because of LAZY PEOPLE that DIDN'T VOTE than Ron Paul lost. These people would not of voted even if Ron Paul himself knocked on their door and offered to drive them. You say he should not take this laying down. HE ISN'T LYING DOWN! The Campaign knows that all they need to do is let the grassroots take this on. If they start shouting about this and making it the point of their campaign, they will be wasting money, time, and possible losing voters. No one wants a cry baby in office. He is continuing to campaign like he should. It is our job as the grassroots movement to be the ones shouting about this and raising the alarms. Yes the Ron Paul campaign team isn't the greatest. But do you not realize what he has done? If Ron Paul doesn't win in 2012 it doesn't matter. He has successfully started a massive movement that will not die off. The ideals of liberty and freedom are finally becoming mainstream! If he doesn't win in 2012, Ron Paul 2.0 will win in 2016.

bluesc
02-12-2012, 01:49 PM
Now you're just being silly, not to mention putting words in my mouth.

You're being silly if you don't consider it. There is clear evidence. The campaign is making noises which they have never done before. No one is saying vote fraud (which is taboo around here), but there were shenanigans that were unavoidable.

angelatc
02-12-2012, 01:52 PM
So.. We find even better professionals and suddenly the media and GOP becomes friendly? My god, you absolutely refuse to entertain the thought that maybe, just maybe there are powers working against us.

Maybe the campaign manager is doing well and doesn't need replacing.

Winning the majority of delegates is winning. There is no changing that.

Grow up already. Nobody is your friend in politics. There's not a candidate on the stage that doesn't have millions of people that literally and passionately hate him.

You're just being silly, hanging on to the "but we're winning delagates!" strategy. We can't win an election, we don't have any friends in the GOP, and we don't have anything close to a majority of the delegates that have been awarded so far, but we're somehow going to waltz into the GOP convention, and rule the world.

Yeah, I'm the one who hasn't been around long enough. *snort*

bluesc
02-12-2012, 01:52 PM
I don't believe that, but if the campaign believes that, then they definitely should be fired.

Also, what makes you think the best in the business would even join Ron's campaign? We were incredibly lucky to pick up the guy from the top GOP staff only because he developed a friendship with Rand has a future with Rand's campaigns and friends.

They would never have won Florida no matter what staff they had. Nor SC. Nor NH. So no, they wouldn't be winning.

angelatc
02-12-2012, 01:54 PM
You're being silly if you don't consider it. There is clear evidence. The campaign is making noises which they have never done before. No one is saying vote fraud (which is taboo around here), but there were shenanigans that were unavoidable.

Mitt seemed to avoid them, now didn't he? Gee, maybe that means he's got a stronger campaign than we do.

angelatc
02-12-2012, 01:56 PM
Also, what makes you think the best in the business would even join Ron's campaign? We were incredibly lucky to pick up the guy from the top GOP staff only because he developed a friendship with Rand has a future with Rand's campaigns and friends.

They would never have won Florida no matter what staff they had. Nor SC. Nor NH. So no, they wouldn't be winning.

Yeah, right. No self-respecting hired gun campaign manager would ever want to be associated with a candidate that pulls in millions of dollars at the drop of a hat, and was polling first in and second in certain important places. *snort*

Excuses, excuses. What you keep saying, over and over, is that Paul can't win. I say bullshit.

bluesc
02-12-2012, 01:57 PM
Grow up already. Nobody is your friend in politics. There's not a candidate on the stage that doesn't have millions of people that literally and passionately hate him.

You're just being silly, hanging on to the "but we're winning delagates!" strategy. We can't win an election, we don't have any friends in the GOP, and we don't have anything close to a majority of the delegates that have been awarded so far, but we're somehow going to waltz into the GOP convention, and rule the world.

Yeah, I'm the one who hasn't been around long enough. *snort*

Wow, you completely distorted my argument there.

No other candidate has almost everyone in the media working against him. No other candidate is hated by the entire establishment and therefore the local GOP leadership in most states.

You have given up, so piss off. There are people that don't give up when facing difficulty. I feel bad for you.

We have a majority of delegates awarded to state/county conventions, and they will award delegates to the national convention. Of course, that isn't being a "realist".

You really turn into a bitch during election season, huh?

bluesc
02-12-2012, 01:58 PM
Yeah, right. No self-respecting hired gun campaign manager would ever want to be associated with a candidate that pulls in millions of dollars at the drop of a hat, and was polling first in and second in certain important places. *snort*

Again you assume people aren't working against Paul. If there is someone extremely talented, you can be sure as shit there will be threats that their career will end if they help him, just like elected officials get the same threats.

angelatc
02-12-2012, 02:00 PM
Look, I know you have been here since 2007. But SHUT UP! You honestly think firing Ron Paul's staff would make him win more?

Uhm, yes.

angelatc
02-12-2012, 02:02 PM
Again you assume people aren't working against Paul. .

I never said there weren't people working against Paul. I said he needs somebody who will actually man up and fight back.

angelatc
02-12-2012, 02:03 PM
You have given up, so piss off.

You're the one that seems resigned to losing, not me.

bluesc
02-12-2012, 02:04 PM
I never said there weren't people working against Paul. I said he needs somebody who will actually man up and fight back.

Attack the media and bitch about the GOP after every loss. Gotcha.

angelatc
02-12-2012, 02:05 PM
You really turn into a bitch during election season, huh?

Yeah, because only a bitch would complain about a staff that can't win elections.

bluesc
02-12-2012, 02:05 PM
You're the one that seems resigned to losing, not me.

You have accepted defeat unless the campaign fires Jesse Benton, which, let's face it, isn't going to happen.

Not that it would achieve much other than giving you temporary relief though.

angelatc
02-12-2012, 02:06 PM
Attack the media and bitch about the GOP after every loss. Gotcha.

That's about all you're doing.

bluesc
02-12-2012, 02:06 PM
Yeah, because only a bitch would complain about a staff that can't win elections.

It's more to do with the way you talk to people.

angelatc
02-12-2012, 02:07 PM
You have accepted defeat unless the campaign fires Jesse Benton, which, let's face it, isn't going to happen.

Not that it would achieve much other than giving you temporary relief though.

See? I think we can win. You don't, so you don't see losing as losing. What a shame the campaign thinks like you do.

bluesc
02-12-2012, 02:08 PM
That's about all you're doing.

I'm not being paid to do it. I don't do it unless someone, for some reason, blames everything on the campaign.

There's a big difference between someone on the internet and someone who, at any time, can be quoted by the national media. Of course, they wouldn't do that though, because they are fair :rolleyes:

bluesc
02-12-2012, 02:10 PM
See? I think we can win. You don't, so you don't see losing as losing. What a shame the campaign thinks like you do.

Where did I state that we can't win? I said we're not WINNING, which is clearly true if you don't count unallocated delegates.

angelatc
02-12-2012, 02:14 PM
It's more to do with the way you talk to people.

I'm not running for office.

bluesc
02-12-2012, 02:17 PM
I'm not running for office.

You should consider it. Assholes get elected with ease.

Bosco Warden
02-12-2012, 02:25 PM
You two should take this to a PM, youre wasting bandwidth now.

WE ARE WINNING, WHAT PART ARE YOU NOT UNDERSTANDING HERE?

angelatc
02-12-2012, 02:27 PM
It's more to do with the way you talk to people.

Yes, I have no patience for idiots who think losing is acceptable, and even better - thinks he can convince me that losing is winning.

angelatc
02-12-2012, 02:29 PM
Y

WE ARE WINNING, WHAT PART ARE YOU NOT UNDERSTANDING HERE?

The part about us winning...... that's insane.

bluesc
02-12-2012, 02:30 PM
Yes, I have no patience for idiots who think losing is acceptable, and even better - thinks he can convince me that losing is winning.

Winning the majority of delegates in a state is winning that state.

angelatc
02-12-2012, 02:31 PM
You should consider it. Assholes get elected with ease.

So you're position is so weak that you have to resort to calling be "bitch" and "asshole" because you can't convince me that winning elections doesn't actually matter when we're trying to win elections.

Heh.

bluesc
02-12-2012, 02:33 PM
So you're position is so weak that you have to resort to calling be "bitch" and "asshole" because you can't convince me that winning elections doesn't actually matter when we're trying to win elections.

Heh.

I never said we didn't need to win any states. I've been counting, and that's 11 times now in the last 24 hours that the "realists" have claimed that I assume we can win the nomination without winning elections when I haven't claimed anything close to it. It's funny.

angelatc
02-12-2012, 02:38 PM
Winning the majority of delegates in a state is winning that state.

Romney won 11, Paul won 10. Reality is a bitch, too.

angelatc
02-12-2012, 02:39 PM
I never said we didn't need to win any states. I've been counting, and that's 11 times now in the last 24 hours that the "realists" have claimed that I assume we can win the nomination without winning elections when I haven't claimed anything close to it. It's funny.

So, what states are you planning on winning? Please tell us.

bluesc
02-12-2012, 02:43 PM
Romney won 11, Paul won 10. Reality is a bitch, too.

Zero delegates to the national convention have been selected. Stop reading news sites.

angelatc
02-12-2012, 02:45 PM
I'm not being paid to do it. I don't do it unless someone, for some reason, blames everything on the campaign.



Of for God's sakes. The campaign's job - their only job - is to win elections. And you're sobbing like a little girl because some of us actually believe they should be held accountable for their inability to actually do that.

bluesc
02-12-2012, 02:45 PM
So, what states are you planning on winning? Please tell us.

What future states would you expect to win with a new campaign manager that Benton can't?

They have the nationwide plan. I don't.

bluesc
02-12-2012, 02:46 PM
Of for God's sakes. The campaign's job - their only job - is to win elections. And you're sobbing like a little girl because some of us actually believe they should be held accountable for their inability to actually do that.

They are winning the delegates.

You're acting like a little girl because you're not getting your liberty immediately and are being told to wait.

Or we can just scream "FIRE JESSE BENTON!!1111111!111!"

That will solve our problems too.

angelatc
02-12-2012, 02:47 PM
Zero delegates to the national convention have been selected.

Right, because the people in the same GOP that detest us so much that it's really delusional of us to expect the campaign to deliver a victory are totally going to pick Ron Paul delegates to represent them at the national convention.

All this spinning making you dizzy?

bluesc
02-12-2012, 02:48 PM
Right, because the people in the same GOP that detest us so much that it's really delusional of us to expect the campaign to deliver a victory are totally going to pick Ron Paul delegates to represent them at the national convention.

All this spinning making you dizzy?

The GOP doesn't select delegates. The people that stay behind at the caucuses do. Please, read up on the process.

angelatc
02-12-2012, 02:49 PM
They are winning the delegates.

You're acting like a little girl because you're not getting your liberty immediately and are being told to wait.

Or we can just scream "FIRE JESSE BENTON!!1111111!111!"

That will solve our problems too.

If Benton / Tate were in it for the win, they'd step down.

ConCap
02-12-2012, 02:50 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ifyXiX2SivY


BUMP

angelatc
02-12-2012, 02:50 PM
The GOP doesn't select delegates. The people that stay behind at the caucuses do. Please, read up on the process.

Yep. And we're the only campaign that understands this, and Romney didn't have anybody staying. ROTFL!!!

steph3n
02-12-2012, 02:50 PM
It’s the fault of the individual that was for Paul and did not go vote.

I have been looking for a job for the last 3yrs. Do you know how many times I saw the phrase:
MUST BE ABLE TO WORK WITH MINIMAL OR NO SUPERVISION.

If you are for Ron Paul, go vot for him. Why do you need a political party, movement leader or campain manager to tell you what to do?

Untill the day comes, when we all rase our kids to be RESPONSIBLE INDIVIDUALS thinking for themselves and not relying on political parties, it will never change.

This is exactly why I am an anarchist, but one that realizes it will never work. Even in the most easy tasks people want to pass off blame of their own responsibility to someone else, many here should not be saying 'no one but Paul' but instead join the rest of the nation whining 'Anyone but ME!' when it comes to being responsible.

angelatc
02-12-2012, 02:51 PM
BUMP

Only losers think a tie is the same as a win. I didn't come to tie.

steph3n
02-12-2012, 02:51 PM
Replace them with who?

I am also frustrated with some of the things done, but we are getting the delegates. This is a HUGE undertaking Dr. Paul is doing right here. The Establishment is well entrenched and has everything going to for them. The media, both print and video.

I dont see how changing Benton/Tate would have helped in Maine for example if the GOP cheats at the polls.

This maybe the only way to get the National. As I said he will be on the ballot.

I suggest Lesko, because everyone wants to listen to that WINNER....:rolleyes:

angelatc
02-12-2012, 02:52 PM
It’s the fault of the individual that was for Paul and did not go vote.

Bullshit. Romney's campaign got people to show up and vote for him. Paul's campaign was not able to do that.

angelatc
02-12-2012, 02:54 PM
What future states would you expect to win with a new campaign manager that Benton can't?

They have the nationwide plan. I don't.

They're blowing smoke up your skirt. This is the same crap we heard in 2007, which is why there's not a lot of 2007 tags around here these days.

bluesc
02-12-2012, 02:54 PM
Yep. And we're the only campaign that understands this, and Romney didn't have anybody staying. ROTFL!!!

Romney doesn't have a grassroots and is relying on big WTA states. You're trying too hard to remain negative.

bluesc
02-12-2012, 02:56 PM
They're blowing smoke up your skirt. This is the same crap we heard in 2007, which is why there's not a lot of 2007 tags around here these days.

So that's it. You're still butthurt from 4 years ago.

angelatc
02-12-2012, 02:58 PM
Romney doesn't have a grassroots and is relying on big WTA states. You're trying too hard to remain negative.

Reality is a big negative when you're a loser.

angelatc
02-12-2012, 02:59 PM
So that's it. You're still butthurt from 4 years ago.

Dear God, they're doing the exact same things they did 4 years ago, with the exact same lack of results, and I'm "butthurt" because I'm not falling for it again.

bluesc
02-12-2012, 03:00 PM
Reality is a big negative when you're a loser.

Lol. God you're depressing.

ConCap
02-12-2012, 03:01 PM
Only losers think a tie is the same as a win. I didn't come to tie.


I agree, you only win or you lose.
At the end of the sports season each summer, I would have my kids bring any green ribon they had received and we would burn them in the first back yard fire of the fall season.

I bumped because you and the other guy stold this mans thread and I was trying to get it back on line.

bluesc
02-12-2012, 03:01 PM
Dear God, they're doing the exact same things they did 4 years ago, with the exact same lack of results, and I'm "butthurt" because I'm not falling for it again.

This isn't 2007.

angelatc
02-12-2012, 03:02 PM
This isn't 2007.

How can you tell?

angelatc
02-12-2012, 03:04 PM
I agree, you only win or you lose.
At the end of the sports season each summer, I would have my kids bring any green ribon they had received and we would burn them in the first back yard fire of the fall season.

I bumped because you and the other guy stold this mans thread and I was trying to get it back on line.

And I care because....?

bluesc
02-12-2012, 03:04 PM
How can you tell?

I looked at the bottom right hand corner of my screen.

Also actually followed the delegate reports unlike you.

bluesc
02-12-2012, 03:06 PM
And I care because....?

You should consider getting high or something. Your hair is going to begin falling out if you keep this up.

ConCap
02-12-2012, 03:16 PM
Bullshit. Romney's campaign got people to show up and vote for him. Paul's campaign was not able to do that.


Which says or doesn’t say a lot about the integrity of the individuals that say they are for Paul.

angelatc
02-12-2012, 03:27 PM
You should consider getting high or something. Your hair is going to begin falling out if you keep this up.

I haven't been high since the '80's. You however, must stay pretty stoned if you honestly think that losing is winning.

angelatc
02-12-2012, 03:28 PM
Which says or doesn’t say a lot about the integrity of the individuals that say they are for Paul.

There's all different levels of support. Getting the supporters out is the easy part. Getting the undecideds out is the game changer.

angelatc
02-12-2012, 03:30 PM
I looked at the bottom right hand corner of my screen.

Also actually followed the delegate reports unlike you.

ROTFL! Says the guy that told me not to read the delegate reports.

Yeah, ok.

bluesc
02-12-2012, 03:30 PM
I haven't been high since the '80's.

Poor girl.

bluesc
02-12-2012, 03:33 PM
ROTFL! Says the guy that told me not to read the delegate reports.

Yeah, ok.

The delegate reports from the people that became delegates are correct. The delegate reports from the media that award delegates proportionately after a non-binding straw vote are false.

Of course, I can explain it to you a million times yet you'll continue to deny the true reality.

steph3n
02-12-2012, 03:39 PM
The delegate reports from the people that became delegates are correct. The delegate reports from the media that award delegates proportionately after a non-binding straw vote are false.

Of course, I can explain it to you a million times yet you'll continue to deny the true reality.

While it may be true, it may not end up being the reality because the GOP is so corrupt!

NidStyles
02-12-2012, 03:41 PM
Yeah, because only a bitch would complain about a staff that can't win elections.

You really are on the wrong site.

newbitech
02-12-2012, 03:46 PM
You really are on the wrong site.

No she is not.

angelatc
02-12-2012, 03:46 PM
While it may be true, it may not end up being the reality because the GOP is so corrupt!

Heh. We don't get it both ways.

I heard over and over again that only Paul and Romney had people that stuck around to be delegates. Therefore, there's no legitimate reason to believe that we have a secret majority of the delegates.

And even if it were possible - can you imagine for a second the reaction of that same GOP when they saw that we were going to win the nomination without actually winning a single election? Nobody would chuckle and say, "Why gee! That clever little man really bested us this time!"

bluesc
02-12-2012, 03:47 PM
No she is not.

Heh. You'll get along with angelatc. You both think alike..

angelatc
02-12-2012, 03:48 PM
Poor girl.

You'll find that most people leave the things of childhood behind about the age of 30. Of course, there are exceptions to that rule, but for the most part, it's perfectly normal for a person my age not to get stoned any more.

bluesc
02-12-2012, 03:48 PM
Heh. We don't get it both ways.

I heard over and over again that only Paul and Romney had people that stuck around to be delegates. Therefore, there's no legitimate reason to believe that we have a secret majority of the delegates.

And even if it were possible - can you imagine for a second the reaction of that same GOP when they saw that we were going to win the nomination without actually winning a single election? Nobody would chuckle and say, "Why gee! That clever little man really bested us this time!"

Lol. What is that, 12 or 13?

angelatc
02-12-2012, 03:50 PM
Heh. You'll get along with angelatc. You both think alike..

We were both here in 2007. Perhaps our shared positions are based on past experience, which is sadly proving thus far to be an accurate indicator of future performance.

bluesc
02-12-2012, 03:50 PM
You'll find that most people leave the things of childhood behind about the age of 30. Of course, there are exceptions to that rule, but for the most part, it's perfectly normal for a person my age not to get stoned any more.

You had no problem dragging the temper tantrums with you.

bluesc
02-12-2012, 03:50 PM
We were both here in 2007. Perhaps our shared positions are based on past experience, which is sadly proving thus far to be an accurate indicator of future performance.

I was around in 2007.

angelatc
02-12-2012, 03:52 PM
You had no problem dragging the temper tantrums with you.

This isn't a temper tantrum. This is a request for some semblance of accountability from the campaign. Asking for a staff that is actually capable of winning an election isn't asking for too much, even though you seem to think it is.

newbitech
02-12-2012, 03:53 PM
Heh. We don't get it both ways.

I heard over and over again that only Paul and Romney had people that stuck around to be delegates. Therefore, there's no legitimate reason to believe that we have a secret majority of the delegates.

And even if it were possible - can you imagine for a second the reaction of that same GOP when they saw that we were going to win the nomination without actually winning a single election? Nobody would chuckle and say, "Why gee! That clever little man really bested us this time!"

You have to appreciate the enthusiasm of the new people. You an I know that we are getting the same thing we got in 2007 from the campaign. I'd be willing to bet that the campaign suspends with money in the bank and sends that money to c4l.

I'd like to think that winning meant the message of liberty was growing more popular. I have been upset with this campaign since they came out and claimed victory in Iowa. Victory for me means the message is being accepted as being the most popular message. I don't want to hear about stealth delegates and I don't want winning to mean coming in 2nd, 3rd, or 4th place. This might have been acceptable to someone who just heard the message for the 1st time, but for those of us who have been banking on actually winning by making the message popular, the results are FAR from acceptable.

There is failure here, and it's certainly NOT with the grassroots. It is up to the campaign to convert those efforts in to votes and WINS. That isn't happening. Sadly, the strategy from 2007 is the same strategy being used today. It is not taking advantage of the gains we have made in the last 4 years. That is not only disappointing, it is unacceptable for people that have been in this since last time around.

I'll take the moral victories, but I am about sick of the campaign claiming victories in the process when that just flat isn't happening. It wasn't a tie. It was a loss.

bluesc
02-12-2012, 03:53 PM
This isn't a temper tantrum. This is a request for some semblance of accountability from the campaign.

It's a temper tantrum.

newbitech
02-12-2012, 03:54 PM
Heh. You'll get along with angelatc. You both think alike..

this is where you fail relationships. You don't have to think like someone to get along with them. Have you learned nothing in your time here?

bluesc
02-12-2012, 03:55 PM
You have to appreciate the enthusiasm of the new people.

Lol. Acting like a beat up old timer full of wisdom.

You had a temper tantrum when the campaign ignored your state. I'm noticing a pattern.

angelatc
02-12-2012, 03:55 PM
It's a temper tantrum.

Well, we already know your version of reality is pretty distorted, and you're going to see nothing but what you want to see.....go burn another one.

angelatc
02-12-2012, 03:56 PM
Lol. Acting like a beat up old timer full of wisdom.

You had a temper tantrum when the campaign ignored your state. I'm noticing a pattern.

A pattern of losing? Yeah, we see that too.

bluesc
02-12-2012, 03:57 PM
this is where you fail relationships. You don't have to think like someone to get along with them. Have you learned nothing in your time here?

You don't make friends by constantly whining and discouraging people under the guise of being "realistic".

I get along with plenty of people who criticize the campaign. When it's warranted.

bluesc
02-12-2012, 03:58 PM
A pattern of losing? Yeah, we see that too.

Lol.

newbitech
02-12-2012, 03:59 PM
Lol. Acting like a beat up old timer full of wisdom.

You had a temper tantrum when the campaign ignored your state. I'm noticing a pattern.

I am not the one being beat up. I learn from mistakes and correct them, unlike some people we are talking about. You like to stir the pot, your motives are already under question. Mine are not. You wouldn't notice a pattern if it was tattooed to your forehead.

My state isn't the only state being ignored by the campaign. Maybe you need to widen your field of vision. Maybe you just can't. For shame.

bluesc
02-12-2012, 03:59 PM
Well, we already know your version of reality is pretty distorted, and you're going to see nothing but what you want to see.....go burn another one.

Dude. You think Maine awards delegates proportionately. Don't talk to me about reality.

bluesc
02-12-2012, 04:00 PM
I am not the one being beat up. I learn from mistakes and correct them, unlike some people we are talking about. You like to stir the pot, your motives are already under question. Mine are not. You wouldn't notice a pattern if it was tattooed to your forehead.

My state isn't the only state being ignored by the campaign. Maybe you need to widen your field of vision. Maybe you just can't. For shame.

Yeah, they will ignore Ohio too.

My motives aren't under question. I've already revealed that I'm a spy for AIPAC.

angelatc
02-12-2012, 04:00 PM
You have to appreciate the enthusiasm of the new people. You an I know that we are getting the same thing we got in 2007 from the campaign. I'd be willing to bet that the campaign suspends with money in the bank and sends that money to c4l.

I'd like to think that winning meant the message of liberty was growing more popular. I have been upset with this campaign since they came out and claimed victory in Iowa. Victory for me means the message is being accepted as being the most popular message. I don't want to hear about stealth delegates and I don't want winning to mean coming in 2nd, 3rd, or 4th place. This might have been acceptable to someone who just heard the message for the 1st time, but for those of us who have been banking on actually winning by making the message popular, the results are FAR from acceptable.

There is failure here, and it's certainly NOT with the grassroots. It is up to the campaign to convert those efforts in to votes and WINS. That isn't happening. Sadly, the strategy from 2007 is the same strategy being used today. It is not taking advantage of the gains we have made in the last 4 years. That is not only disappointing, it is unacceptable for people that have been in this since last time around.

I'll take the moral victories, but I am about sick of the campaign claiming victories in the process when that just flat isn't happening. It wasn't a tie. It was a loss.

Yep. I think a lot of us did a pretty good job at holding our tongues until now.

I'm fine with moral victories, but we deserve the truth about where we are, and the campaign doesn't seem really keen on that. THe only thing that makes sense is that it's the same scenario as 2008.

NidStyles
02-12-2012, 04:02 PM
A pattern of losing? Yeah, we see that too.

How are they losing? He's going after delegates. Delegates are what matters. McCain was losing almost the entire time, but pulling Delegates.

angelatc
02-12-2012, 04:03 PM
Dude. You think Maine awards delegates proportionately. Don't talk to me about reality.

ROTFL! And you think we're going to get a majority of the GOP delegates.

bluesc
02-12-2012, 04:04 PM
And you think we're going to get a majority of the GOP delegates.

From Maine? Yes.

To the national convention? It's possible, but I'm not assuming that we will.

ROTFL!

newbitech
02-12-2012, 04:05 PM
You don't make friends by constantly whining and discouraging people under the guise of being "realistic".

I get along with plenty of people who criticize the campaign. When it's warranted.

I am not sure what making friends has to do with anything that we are talking about. You misspoke. You completely and regularly mischaracterize and distort my positions because you are too lazy to do the research to even make an attempt to understand what I understand. You'd have no idea what being realistic was if it wasn't laid out before you. You lack critical thinking skills simply because you think that my critique of the campaign is something I made up because of how I feel.

Might I suggest you actually take a look at the reality of the delegate situation and reevaluate the campaign in light of the fact the only discernible difference between the 2008 strategy and the 2012 strategy is the effort put in by people like me and angelatc in that time span. The campaign gets NO credit for increasing the popularity of the message and NO credit for converting the superior enthusiasm in to actual votes.

angelatc
02-12-2012, 04:06 PM
How are they losing? He's going after delegates. Delegates are what matters. McCain was losing almost the entire time, but pulling Delegates.

Bullshit. McCain won 31 states, plus DC, plus a bunch of territories too.

And this is the first time in who knows how long that the GOP hasn't used a winner-take-all strategy.

angelatc
02-12-2012, 04:07 PM
From Maine? Yes.

To the national convention? It's possible, but I'm not assuming that we will.

ROTFL!

If gambling were not illegal, I would happily ask you to wager on that.

bluesc
02-12-2012, 04:07 PM
I am not sure what making friends has to do with anything that we are talking about. You misspoke. You completely and regularly mischaracterize and distort my positions because you are too lazy to do the research to even make an attempt to understand what I understand. You'd have no idea what being realistic was if it wasn't laid out before you. You lack critical thinking skills simply because you think that my critique of the campaign is something I made up because of how I feel.

Might I suggest you actually take a look at the reality of the delegate situation and reevaluate the campaign in light of the fact the only discernible difference between the 2008 strategy and the 2012 strategy is the effort put in by people like me and angelatc in that time span. The campaign gets NO credit for increasing the popularity of the message and NO credit for converting the superior enthusiasm in to actual votes.

http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/154/912/berneydidnotread.gif?1318992465

newbitech
02-12-2012, 04:08 PM
Yeah, they will ignore Ohio too.

My motives aren't under question. I've already revealed that I'm a spy for AIPAC.

In case you haven't noticed, they will ignore pretty much any state that doesn't give them a chance to claim some obscure victory based on anything BUT the message being popular.

I really don't care who you are, but it's pretty obvious to anyone with an inkling of discernment that your motives are not forthright.

bluesc
02-12-2012, 04:09 PM
If gambling were not illegal, I would happily ask you to wager on that.

Name a charity, I will donate $1000 to it if Paul doesn't gain the majority of delegates from Maine.

Mods or admin can release my personal information to the internet to shame me if I don't follow through.

newbitech
02-12-2012, 04:10 PM
http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/154/912/berneydidnotread.gif?1318992465

That really says a lot about your character. Surrender noted.

angelatc
02-12-2012, 04:11 PM
Name a charity, I will donate $1000 to it if Paul doesn't gain the majority of delegates from Maine.

Mods or admin can release my personal information to the internet to shame me if I don't follow through.

I don't have $1000 to back up my words, so I suggest we settle for bragging rights.

newbitech
02-12-2012, 04:11 PM
Name a charity, I will donate $1000 to it if Paul doesn't gain the majority of delegates from Maine.

Mods or admin can release my personal information to the internet to shame me if I don't follow through.

please, you'll be gone as soon as it becomes clear who wins the nomination. I'll put money on that too.

angelatc
02-12-2012, 04:11 PM
That really says a lot about your character. Surrender noted.

Yep. That's how I saw it too. Congrats!

ronpaulitician
02-12-2012, 04:12 PM
Eh. The 2011-2012 campaign has already far exceeded my expectations.

I was fine with the "let's get delegates" strategy when I thought it was just a longshot. Now, with Santorum winning, Gingrich still in it, that longshot is looking a lot better. A victory in Maine (read: no shenanigans) would have been nice, but I'll take the very close second. Onward.

bluesc
02-12-2012, 04:14 PM
In case you haven't noticed, they will ignore pretty much any state that doesn't give them a chance to claim some obscure victory based on anything BUT the message being popular.

I really don't care who you are, but it's pretty obvious to anyone with an inkling of discernment that your motives are not forthright.

I'm an AIPAC spy, dude. I don't know why no one believes me.

Ron can compete in states. Just not Ohio, because Romney has already set his sights on it and has made it publicly known that he will blow a lot of his huge warchest to win it.

bluesc
02-12-2012, 04:15 PM
I don't have $1000 to back up my words, so I suggest we settle for bragging rights.

You don't need to back up your words. If you lose, you just take the walk of shame and admit you were wrong.

angelatc
02-12-2012, 04:15 PM
please, you'll be gone as soon as it becomes clear who wins the nomination. I'll put money on that too.

That was the part that discouraged me the most after 2008. So many people were so passionate, but when we lost - they disappeared. I thought they'd come back when we won Iowa.

And getting the people to step up and support other liberty candidates is next to impossible, too. All I can say at this juncture is thank heavens Rand Paul won, although it sucks that he'll need to give up his Senate seat to run for President in 2016.

bluesc
02-12-2012, 04:16 PM
please, you'll be gone as soon as it becomes clear who wins the nomination. I'll put money on that too.

Ok. Another $1000.

bluesc
02-12-2012, 04:16 PM
That really says a lot about your character. Surrender noted.

It does. I'm extremely lazy.

angelatc
02-12-2012, 04:17 PM
I'm an AIPAC spy, dude. I don't know why no one believes me.

Ron can compete in states. Just not Ohio, because Romney has already set his sights on it and has made it publicly known that he will blow a lot of his huge warchest to win it.

How many delegates will Ron need to win to match the number that Romney will get in Ohio and Florida alone?

newbitech
02-12-2012, 04:18 PM
It does. I'm extremely lazy.

We knew that already. That is not what I am talking about though.

bluesc
02-12-2012, 04:20 PM
How many delegates will Ron need to win to match the number that Romney will get in Ohio and Florida alone?

The majority from Colorado, Minnesota, Maine and Iowa would just about match it.

Factor in Nevada if Paul can get a majority at the state convention, Washington, Idaho, North Dakota and Alaska, and it doesn't look too tough.

Of course, Romney will also win a lot on Super Tuesday, as will Gingrich.

bluesc
02-12-2012, 04:20 PM
We knew that already. That is not what I am talking about though.

Well I didn't read because I'm lazy. Not much more to it.

newbitech
02-12-2012, 04:22 PM
Well I didn't read because I'm lazy. Not much more to it.

mmm hmmm..

newbitech
02-12-2012, 04:23 PM
Ok. Another $1000.

Like you'll be around to pay up.

bluesc
02-12-2012, 04:23 PM
mmm hmmm..

Oh, please do go amateur psychologist.

angelatc
02-12-2012, 04:24 PM
The majority from Colorado, Minnesota, Maine and Iowa would just about match it.

Factor in Nevada if Paul can get a majority at the state convention, Washington, Idaho, North Dakota and Alaska, and it doesn't look too tough.

Of course, Romney will also win a lot on Super Tuesday, as will Gingrich.

Exactly. And that's the problem. Because the delegates aren't winner take all, a huge lead - like the boost that Florida gave Romney - is practically impossible to overcome.

If Romney can get 50% of the vote in Ohio - something that the Paul campaign apparently anticipates - that's essentially 66 more in his column. I think Romney might be onto something.....

bluesc
02-12-2012, 04:25 PM
Like you'll be around to pay up.

I won't be going anywhere :D

newbitech
02-12-2012, 04:26 PM
Oh, please do go amateur psychologist.

I am listening, go on.

newbitech
02-12-2012, 04:26 PM
I won't be going anywhere :D

that explains a lot.

bluesc
02-12-2012, 04:27 PM
Exactly. And that's the problem. Because the delegates aren't winner take all, a huge lead - like the boost that Florida gave Romney - is practically impossible to overcome.

If Romney can get 50% of the vote in Ohio - something that the Paul campaign apparently anticipates - that's essentially 66 more in his column. I think Romney might be onto something.....

I never said it was easy. I never said I would bet on Paul becoming the nominee. I know the odds. I just don't call it impossible - because it isn't.

bluesc
02-12-2012, 04:28 PM
I am listening, go on.

No diagnosis?

angelatc
02-12-2012, 04:28 PM
I never said it was easy. I never said I would bet on Paul becoming the nominee. I know the odds. I just don't call it impossible - because it isn't.

I can assure you that it is absolutely not possible if we don't win elections.

Pauls' Revere
02-12-2012, 04:29 PM
RON PAUL kicked ass!

We got 10 delgates!

only 84% reporting! this isn't over.

http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/primaries/states/maine

Newt = Zero

Santorum = zero

Romney = 11

bluesc
02-12-2012, 04:30 PM
I can assure you that it is absolutely not possible if we don't win elections.

And I can assure you that I keep reading as if I assume we can :D.

Maybe I should put a disclaimer in my sig: "I do not believe Paul can win the nomination without winning any primary states"

bluesc
02-12-2012, 04:31 PM
RON PAUL kicked ass!

We got 10 delgates!

only 84% reporting! this isn't over.

http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/primaries/states/maine

That delegate count is a projection based on nothing.

angelatc
02-12-2012, 04:34 PM
And I can assure you that I keep reading as if I assume we can :D.

Maybe I should put a disclaimer in my sig: "I do not believe Paul can win the nomination without winning any primary states"

But you can't bring yourself to admit that we haven't won any states yet, and that we don't have any real prospects left to win any, either?

angelatc
02-12-2012, 04:34 PM
That delegate count is a projection based on nothing.

Yes. We have a secret billionaire who is going to buy us all the delegates we need. That's what I heard.

newbitech
02-12-2012, 04:35 PM
No diagnosis?

There are 2 reason I provide services, one is for pay, which you haven't provided. The other is for my personal pleasure and entertainment. Were you expecting something else?

bluesc
02-12-2012, 04:35 PM
But you can't bring yourself to admit that we haven't won any states yet, and that we don't have any real prospects left to win any, either?

I can admit we haven't won any primary states.

I can admit we will win the delegate counts out of some caucus states.

The prospects depend on where the campaign decides to target.

bluesc
02-12-2012, 04:36 PM
There are 2 reason I provide services, one is for pay, which you haven't provided. The other is for my personal pleasure and entertainment. Were you expecting something else?

Something for my personal amusement?

angelatc
02-12-2012, 04:37 PM
I can admit we haven't won any primary states.

I can admit we will win the delegate counts out of some caucus states.

The prospects depend on where the campaign decides to target.

And they've done a stellar job so far.....

bluesc
02-12-2012, 04:38 PM
Yes. We have a secret billionaire who is going to buy us all the delegates we need. That's what I heard.

Trololololol

newbitech
02-12-2012, 04:38 PM
But you can't bring yourself to admit that we haven't won any states yet, and that we don't have any real prospects left to win any, either?

What is sad is that RIGHT NOW is the time to correct that. Not after the fact. Denial is only prolonging the agony. We need to be discussing ways to win instead of fantasizing about how to interpret a loss as something other than a loss.

angelatc
02-12-2012, 04:39 PM
RON PAUL kicked ass!

We got 10 delgates!

only 84% reporting! this isn't over.

http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/primaries/states/maine

Newt = Zero

Santorum = zero

Romney = 11



2012 Caucus Process
Delegate Allocation: None of Maine's 24 delegates will be bound to any candidate as a result of the precinct caucuses which started on Feb. 4 and end on Feb. 11. Twenty-one delegates will be elected at state convention in May, though not necessarily in connection to the caucus results. The state's three Republican National Committee members remaining as unpledged to any candidate.



So it's possible that all of the delegates will go to Romney.

bluesc
02-12-2012, 04:39 PM
And they've done a stellar job so far.....

Yes, they have. Well, not in Nevada. We should have got 2nd in the straw vote there. They did well with delegates though. Hopefully well enough.

angelatc
02-12-2012, 04:41 PM
What is sad is that RIGHT NOW is the time to correct that. Not after the fact. Denial is only prolonging the agony. We need to be discussing ways to win instead of fantasizing about how to interpret a loss as something other than a loss.

That's where I'm at, too. But we've been here before, too.

bluesc
02-12-2012, 04:41 PM
So it's possible that all of the delegates will go to Romney.

Living in a fantasy world!!!!111!!!1

angelatc
02-12-2012, 04:41 PM
Yes, they have. Well, not in Nevada. We should have got 2nd in the straw vote there. They did well with delegates though. Hopefully well enough.

Again, your bar is set too low. This isn't the Special Olympics.

angelatc
02-12-2012, 04:42 PM
Living in a fantasy world!!!!111!!!1

Because there's no chance that a GOP convention won't end up screwing Paul out of his delegates. The campaign would never allow that to happen.

bluesc
02-12-2012, 04:43 PM
Again, your bar is set too low. This isn't the Special Olympics.

Delegates are worth more than winning a non-binding straw vote.

bluesc
02-12-2012, 04:44 PM
Because there's no chance that a GOP convention won't end up screwing Paul out of his delegates. The campaign would never allow that to happen.

That is possible. Paul taking all of the delegates is possible too.

angelatc
02-12-2012, 04:45 PM
That is possible. Paul taking all of the delegates is possible too.

Which is more probable?

newbitech
02-12-2012, 04:46 PM
Something for my personal amusement?

Here add this to your bag of tricks..

http://i1212.photobucket.com/albums/cc450/erodyte/Antoine-Dodson-Dumb.gif#you stupid gif

bluesc
02-12-2012, 04:47 PM
Which is more probable?

It's impossible to tell without a hard total of delegates to the state convention.

bluesc
02-12-2012, 04:47 PM
Here add this to your bag of tricks..

http://i1212.photobucket.com/albums/cc450/erodyte/Antoine-Dodson-Dumb.gif#you stupid gif

Seen it. Try again.

angelatc
02-12-2012, 04:49 PM
It's impossible to tell without a hard total of delegates to the state convention.

Really? After 3 pages of insisting that Ron Paul can't win because the GOP won't let him.....it's impossible to determine who stands the best chance at a GOP convention. heh.

bluesc
02-12-2012, 04:50 PM
Really? After 3 pages of insisting that Ron Paul can't win because the GOP won't let him.....heh.

Who said that?

newbitech
02-12-2012, 04:55 PM
Seen it. Try again.

I am sure you have.

angelatc
02-12-2012, 05:05 PM
Who said that?

Nobody with a clue...


The better they do, the more the establishment will work against them. You apparently don't understand the vastness of the reach of the establishment.

It often seems like you refuse to entertain any thought of GOP corruption because that would be wandering into tin foil hat territory. Apparently you haven't been around long enough to know what lengths the GOP will go to.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?360394-Ron-Paul-It-was-almost-like-a-tie&p=4174512&viewfull=1#post4174512 (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?360394-Ron-Paul-It-was-almost-like-a-tie&p=4174512&viewfull=1#post4174512)

bluesc
02-12-2012, 05:10 PM
Nobody with a clue...

That was completely unrelated. That was referring to the straw vote, not the delegates that we have.

Bosco Warden
02-12-2012, 05:18 PM
Because there's no chance that a GOP convention won't end up screwing Paul out of his delegates. The campaign would never allow that to happen.

What do you mean by this, the delegates would be replaced or the delegates wouldnt support Paul?

Once we get past this BS primary all eyes will be focused on Dr. Paul and whoever else is left standing its not going to be that easy.

Of course all you have done is complain about the campaign, go somewhere else if that works better for you. IMHO.

angelatc
02-12-2012, 05:18 PM
That was completely unrelated. That was referring to the straw vote, not the delegates that we have.

Oh. So the same GOP will behave better at their private convention than they did at the public caucus?

angelatc
02-12-2012, 05:20 PM
What do you mean by this, the delegates would be replaced or the delegates wouldnt support Paul?

Yes. I believe that the majority of delegates at the convention will be Romney supporters, and that the worst case scenario - they will not elect a single Paul delegate to attend the convention - is possible.


.

Of course all you have done is complain about the campaign, go somewhere else if that works better for you. IMHO.

Yeah, that's all I've done for the past 4 years.

Give it up. The campaign is supposed to win elections, and they're not doing that. If that's not fair grounds for criticism, then nothing is, which makes us intellectually dishonest losers.

bluesc
02-12-2012, 05:23 PM
Oh. So the same GOP will behave better at their private convention than they did at the public caucus?

Delegates have already been selected. The GOP is limited in what it can do now.

low preference guy
02-12-2012, 05:25 PM
Delegates have already been selected. The GOP is limited in what it can do now.

I think you're underestimating their willingness to break the law and ability to get away with it. Still, it's worth crashing their little party.

angelatc
02-12-2012, 05:27 PM
Delegates have already been selected. The GOP is limited in what it can do now.

What delegates are bound to Paul?

We're supposed to believe that a man who stands to win prestige and a huge salary can't be tempted to join the Paul campaign, but delegate tampering? That could never happen! ALl those 2008 Nevada stories were made up!

Of course, they can add and delete caucuses at a whim, but they can't change the rules at their own convention.

Heh. RIght.

Of course, if we had actually won the damned vote, we'd be in a much better position.

bluesc
02-12-2012, 05:27 PM
Heh. Right. They can add and delete caucuses at a whim, but they can't change the rules at their own convention.

The delegates can change the rules at the convention.

angelatc
02-12-2012, 05:31 PM
The delegates can change the rules at the convention.

And if they changed the rules so that the apportionment of the delegates needed to match the results of the caucuses, that would be unfair because......?

bluesc
02-12-2012, 05:32 PM
And if they changed the rules so that the apportionment of the delegates needed to match the results of the caucuses, that would be unfair because......?

... And if in Nevada the Paul delegates changed the rules to unbind the delegates, that is somehow a fantasy while your scenario is realistic?

cheapseats
02-12-2012, 05:40 PM
OPTIMISM is different from DELUSION, and both are different from GULLIBILITY.

It should be obvious to all but brightest-eyed of young Idealists and the most close-minded of Old Dogs that, absent unmistakably widespread popularity (landslide = insurance), they can do any fuckin' thing they want with the numbers. Teevee is the "paper of record".

Fuhgeddabout back burner, #WhitneyHouston whisked Maine right off the cooktop.

newbitech
02-12-2012, 05:44 PM
... And if in Nevada the Paul delegates changed the rules to unbind the delegates, that is somehow a fantasy while your scenario is realistic?

Had you actually been around last time like you said you were, you'd probably remember a few things about what happened in Nevada LAST TIME. Of course you weren't and combine that with your extreme laziness and disdain for actually reading and understanding the process, you have no idea WHY your comment here is laughable at best.

Your scenario is a TOTAL fantasy because what you are talking about in Nevada was already tried by Ron Paul supporters in 2008. They ALMOST succeeded too. This is one of the big reason Nevada did change it's rules to bind delegates to the vote.

For the sake of others, since I know you will throw one of your "I'm a fool" gif gifs, read about Nevada 2008 here (http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/07/18/nevada-gop-cancels-convention-opts-for-conference-call/).

bluesc
02-12-2012, 05:46 PM
Had you actually been around last time like you said you were, you'd probably remember a few things about what happened in Nevada LAST TIME. Of course you weren't and combine that with your extreme laziness and disdain for actually reading and understanding the process, you have no idea WHY your comment here is laughable at best.

Your scenario is a TOTAL fantasy because what you are talking about in Nevada was already tried by Ron Paul supporters in 2008. They ALMOST succeeded too. This is one of the big reason Nevada did change it's rules to bind delegates to the vote.

For the sake of others, since I know you will throw one of your "I'm a fool" gif gifs, read about Nevada 2008 here (http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/07/18/nevada-gop-cancels-convention-opts-for-conference-call/).

I was around last time and I do indeed remember. I have also talked to people in Nevada who remember too. It won't be happening again.

newbitech
02-12-2012, 05:49 PM
I was around last time and I do indeed remember. I have also talked to people in Nevada who remember too. It won't be happening again.

LOL sure. Of course it won't happen again because the delegate are bound and the party insiders are more than happy to give Ron Paul his share of the LOSING VOTE! Wake up!

bluesc
02-12-2012, 05:52 PM
LOL sure. Of course it won't happen again because the delegate are bound and the party insiders are more than happy to give Ron Paul his share of the LOSING VOTE! Wake up!

The delegates are bound and Paul people are bound to Romney. Then comes the convention.

angelatc
02-12-2012, 05:54 PM
I was around last time and I do indeed remember. I have also talked to people in Nevada who remember too. It won't be happening again.

In the context of the conversation, this certainly doesn't support your position that we'll win with delegates.

I'm thinking you don't really understand what almost happened in Nevada last time, after all.

bluesc
02-12-2012, 05:55 PM
In the context of the conversation, this certainly doesn't support your position that we'll win with delegates.

Yes it does.

angelatc
02-12-2012, 05:58 PM
Yes it does.

Ok, explain to me what you think happened in Nevada last time, and the changes that were made to prevent it from happening again. Then explain how we're going to circumvent that and win.

bluesc
02-12-2012, 06:00 PM
Ok, explain to me what you think happened in Nevada last time, and the changes that were made to prevent it from happening again. Then explain how we're going to circumvent that and win.

PM me.

angelatc
02-12-2012, 06:06 PM
PM me.

No.

newbitech
02-12-2012, 06:09 PM
The delegates are bound and Paul people are bound to Romney. Then comes the convention.

could you be any more vague about the process?

bluesc
02-12-2012, 06:12 PM
No.

Then don't ask questions like that and expect a public answer.

bluesc
02-12-2012, 06:12 PM
could you be any more vague about the process?

I could.

newbitech
02-12-2012, 06:13 PM
I could.

You have no idea what happened in Nevada in 2008 do you?

bluesc
02-12-2012, 06:16 PM
You have no idea what happened in Nevada in 2008 do you?

Yes. It's not some veteran's secret what happened at the convention and after. My problem with you defeatists is that you are trying to compare it to 2012 when it is not relevant at all.

newbitech
02-12-2012, 06:22 PM
Yes. It's not some veteran's secret what happened at the convention and after. My problem with you defeatists is that you are trying to compare it to 2012 when it is not relevant at all.

veteran's secret? LMAO. It's your job as a Ron Paul supporter to dig in to facts and understand history.

Since you have no idea what happened, I give you veteran permission to go look it up and come back with your report. Along with your report, you should include the relevance of what happened in 2008 to the relevance of what is happening now. Pay particular attention to how you are touting a strategy that ALMOST worked in 2008 but was shut down. Also pay particular attention to how the party has hardened the process to make sure something like that doesn't happen again.

I realize that you have better things to do like getting high on the bench, but I figure I'll at least give you a chance to get some extra credit.

bluesc
02-12-2012, 06:26 PM
veteran's secret? LMAO. It's your job as a Ron Paul supporter to dig in to facts and understand history.

Since you have no idea what happened, I give you veteran permission to go look it up and come back with your report. Along with your report, you should include the relevance of what happened in 2008 to the relevance of what is happening now. Pay particular attention to how you are touting a strategy that ALMOST worked in 2008 but was shut down. Also pay particular attention to how the party has hardened the process to make sure something like that doesn't happen again.

I realize that you have better things to do like getting high on the bench, but I figure I'll at least give you a chance to get some extra credit.

It's not relevant precisely because of the proportional rules and other interests. You can PM me if you like.

newbitech
02-12-2012, 06:35 PM
It's not relevant precisely because of the proportional rules and other interests. You can PM me if you like.

You have no clue. For the sake of others, I will address you lack of knowledge and you lack of willingness to find out the facts for yourself. No I won't PM you because what I have to say is public. I really don't care about making a personal issue with you unless you want to continue spread disinfo after knowing the facts.

Here is a several part video that goes into depth on what happened. Whoever your sources are that assure us that this won't happen in Nevada again are already discredited even though I believe you have no sources that are telling you this. I think you are lying in more ways than one.

This is why it is UNACCEPTABLE to ALMOST win or tie for that matter. Delegates mean something, sure. But without the backing of the people, ie popular vote, the delegates lose their power simply because the rules can and will be changed regardless of what the majority of delegates want. Here is your proof and facts.

Relying on a delegate strategy and acting like popular vote means nothing, or simply a beauty contest is totally debunked and is a fraudulent claim IMO to anyone who knows what can and will happen. INCLUDING RON PAUL and the CAMPAIGN.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zgy6J6jCyBQ



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i41EsWYJac4


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HLEP_qEtI_4


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


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MrQlaW9y4lY


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-5EpGt6y4_g


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6cK0ub6KedY




For this reason Ron Paul and his message must TRULY WIN, and not simply settle for delegates.

bluesc
02-12-2012, 06:45 PM
You have no clue. For the sake of others, I will address you lack of knowledge and you lack of willingness to find out the facts for yourself. No I won't PM you because what I have to say is public. I really don't care about making a personal issue with you unless you want to continue spread disinfo after knowing the facts.

Here is a several part video that goes into depth on what happened. Whoever your sources are that assure us that this won't happen in Nevada again are already discredited even though I believe you have no sources that are telling you this. I think you are lying in more ways than one.

This is why it is UNACCEPTABLE to ALMOST win or tie for that matter. Delegates mean something, sure. But without the backing of the people, ie popular vote, the delegates lose their power simply because the rules can and will be changed regardless of what the majority of delegates want. Here is your proof and facts.

Relying on a delegate strategy and acting like popular vote means nothing, or simply a beauty contest is totally debunked and is a fraudulent claim IMO to anyone who knows what can and will happen. INCLUDING RON PAUL and the CAMPAIGN.


You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

newbitech
02-12-2012, 06:48 PM
You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

I am talking about a failed delegate strategy. I am talking about how almost winning, is NOT winning especially when the strategy being used in 2012 was the same strategy that was used in 2008, SUCCESSFULLY I might add, and it STILL did not win.

When are you going to actually back up your bullshit?

bluesc
02-12-2012, 06:52 PM
I am talking about a failed delegate strategy. I am talking about how almost winning, is NOT winning especially when the strategy being used in 2012 was the same strategy that was used in 2008, SUCCESSFULLY I might add, and it STILL did not win.

When are you going to actually back up your bullshit?

When you PM me?

One minor, but highly relevant detail is that the current Chairman of the Nevada GOP is a Paul supporter.

4 of 17 county Republican chairmen in NV support Paul.

5 of 12 members of the NV GOP executive board support Paul.

It's not the same Nevada as it was in 2008. It's much like Iowa. The IAGOP chairman that was just elected is a Paul supporter. We have significant party control in these states.

newbitech
02-12-2012, 07:05 PM
When you PM me?

One minor, but highly relevant detail is that the current Chairman of the Nevada GOP is a Paul supporter.

4 of 17 county Republican chairmen in NV support Paul.

5 of 12 members of the NV GOP executive board support Paul.

It's not the same Nevada as it was in 2008. It's much like Iowa. The IAGOP chairman that was just elected is a Paul supporter. We have significant party control in these states.

You think that means something? Ron Paul's campaign manager in Florida, Mark Cross, threw his support behind a corrupt politician who was later indicted on fraud charges. Just because someone says they support Ron Paul doesn't mean they are incapable of uniting with party insiders for political expediency, ESPECIALLY when it is their own political careers on the line.

I am sorry, I have seen the results of betrayal first hand in this movement. I think it is great that strides are being made for political insiders who support Ron Paul. We'll see what happens at the conventions I suppose. Let me know when a Ron Paul supporter becomes the NOMINATED chairman of the Republican National Committee. Then I might be impressed with an insider strategy. Until then, I am not satisfied with ALMOST winning, or ALMOST changing the rules to unbind representative government from the will of the people.

bluesc
02-12-2012, 07:10 PM
You think that means something? Ron Paul's campaign manager in Florida, Mark Cross, threw his support behind a corrupt politician who was later indicted on fraud charges. Just because someone says they support Ron Paul doesn't mean they are incapable of uniting with party insiders for political expediency, ESPECIALLY when it is their own political careers on the line.

I am sorry, I have seen the results of betrayal first hand in this movement. I think it is great that strides are being made for political insiders who support Ron Paul. We'll see what happens at the conventions I suppose. Let me know when a Ron Paul supporter becomes the NOMINATED chairman of the Republican National Committee. Then I might be impressed with an insider strategy. Until then, I am not satisfied with ALMOST winning, or ALMOST changing the rules to unbind representative government from the will of the people.

Then we shall meet again after the Nevada state convention :). Just to let you know though, the current NV GOP chairman was at that convention four years ago supporting Paul. Like I said, there are people there who remember.

steph3n
02-12-2012, 07:45 PM
You have to appreciate the enthusiasm of the new people. You an I know that we are getting the same thing we got in 2007 from the campaign. I'd be willing to bet that the campaign suspends with money in the bank and sends that money to c4l.

I'd like to think that winning meant the message of liberty was growing more popular. I have been upset with this campaign since they came out and claimed victory in Iowa. Victory for me means the message is being accepted as being the most popular message. I don't want to hear about stealth delegates and I don't want winning to mean coming in 2nd, 3rd, or 4th place. This might have been acceptable to someone who just heard the message for the 1st time, but for those of us who have been banking on actually winning by making the message popular, the results are FAR from acceptable.

There is failure here, and it's certainly NOT with the grassroots. It is up to the campaign to convert those efforts in to votes and WINS. That isn't happening. Sadly, the strategy from 2007 is the same strategy being used today. It is not taking advantage of the gains we have made in the last 4 years. That is not only disappointing, it is unacceptable for people that have been in this since last time around.

I'll take the moral victories, but I am about sick of the campaign claiming victories in the process when that just flat isn't happening. It wasn't a tie. It was a loss.


I am not sure how much door to door and person to person talking you have done, but if you had you would stop blaming the campaign and have your eye's opened to how dense the US citizenry is, they don't want freedom or liberty in any way, they think they are free 'enough' now.

The only way the 'campaign' could do it differently is if Ron was not Ron, maybe Rand, he would have won, but he is not as pure as Ron, so take it for what it is worth, it isn't the campaigns fault here.

PaulConventionWV
02-14-2012, 06:35 AM
It isn't about me. It's about this notion that the campaign can do no wrong.

Been here, done that before. Paul won't fire the people who can't get him across the finish line. This isn't a 5th grade soccer game where everybody gets a prize to make everybody feel good. (Although even at that age, the kids all know who won even if the grown ups pretend that the score doesn't matter.)

The voters know what a winner looks like, and Paul isn't looking like a winner.

The fact that there are people here thinking these results are acceptable is ridiculous, and the concept that we can win the Presidency without winning a single primary or caucus is beyond preposterous.

He screwed up by not going to Maine, and if Collins is telling you he really was in Maine, only not actually campaigning, that's just a lie.

So you don't think we got screwed? If the votes were counted fairly, it would have been a win. There is so much shady stuff going on in Maine, you can't ignore the fact that the election was stolen from him. It can't be ALL the campaign's fault. If they stole it, there's nothing the campaign could have done.

PaulConventionWV
02-14-2012, 07:02 AM
Romney won 11, Paul won 10. Reality is a bitch, too.

You clearly don't know how our election process works. It would be funny if it weren't so damn sad that you think this is about winning popular beauty contests when you have no idea what the fuck you're talking about. Take 3 years of political science education, did ya? I'm not saying that's impressive, but at least I know what the election system is about.

PaulConventionWV
02-14-2012, 07:25 AM
Oh, please do go amateur psychologist.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qLrnkK2YEcE&ob=av3e

PaulConventionWV
02-14-2012, 07:27 AM
Yes. We have a secret billionaire who is going to buy us all the delegates we need. That's what I heard.

Angela, the process is no secret. If you would just bother to learn about the system, you would know that what we are talking about is not wishful thinking. These are facts.

PaulConventionWV
02-14-2012, 07:37 AM
Oh. So the same GOP will behave better at their private convention than they did at the public caucus?

Nobody is saying that, but they won't be able to affect the outcome of a convention like they were with the caucuses. If only Paul people are delegates, then they can't just pick up random hobos and make them delegates instead. If the majority of the delegates are Ron Paul people, then it is very likely that we will get the majority of delegates out of the convention. Only the Paul people have enough desire to become delegates. Romney people are fair weather supporters who don't care enough to get involved in the process and take time away from their daily lives for Romney. You had better believe Paul people will.

PaulConventionWV
02-14-2012, 07:45 AM
What delegates are bound to Paul?

We're supposed to believe that a man who stands to win prestige and a huge salary can't be tempted to join the Paul campaign, but delegate tampering? That could never happen! ALl those 2008 Nevada stories were made up!

Of course, they can add and delete caucuses at a whim, but they can't change the rules at their own convention.

Heh. RIght.

Of course, if we had actually won the damned vote, we'd be in a much better position.

Well, if you believe that, then why are you complaining about the campaign? What you are basically saying is that Ron Paul can't win no matter what he does. I say the GOP establishment is not as immortal as you are making them out to be.