Ron Paul says Trump doesn't understand how the rigging works.

[jmdrake]

"I think Donald Trump is off base when he says it's rigged. There's a lot of rigging going on but I don't think he understands how it works."

The entire video is good, but the part that gave rise to this thread is here: https://youtu.be/li0CPcRH4vk?t=2m

Ron Paul confirms what I and others have been saying. Trump absolutely could have competed in and won Colorado with a ground game. Ron Paul won delegates where he lost the popular vote and the establishment was against him because he and his team read and understood the rules and worked them to his advantage. And yet Trump, with a ton of his own money and the popular vote behind him, couldn't work a ground game and just chose to skip the state?

[Mike4Freedom]

That was a big screw up for his campaign. If Rand would be in Trumps position right now and lost Colorado in the same fashion, this forum would be destroying him right now. They would be saying that he a gatekeeper for the establishment. He was too incompetent to have a team ready down there to get delegates. He does not want to win, etc.

Trump does it, they are out to get him! Do you ever think that maybe he does not really want to win this thing? Maybe he just wants to come close so it looks like he tried? If someone else gets it at the convention he can save face. Do you think that could be going on?

[Ronin Truth]

Perhaps "The Donald" could put you on an advisory consultant retainer for his POTUS campaign, Ron. ;) :)

[jmdrake]

That was a big screw up for his campaign. If Rand would be in Trumps position right now and lost Colorado in the same fashion, this forum would be destroying him right now. They would be saying that he a gatekeeper for the establishment. He was too incompetent to have a team ready down there to get delegates. He does not want to win, etc.

Trump does it, they are out to get him! Do you ever think that maybe he does not really want to win this thing? Maybe he just wants to come close so it looks like he tried? If someone else gets it at the convention he can save face. Do you think that could be going on?

Except Rand wouldn't have lost Colorado "in the same fashion" as Donald Trump lost Colorado because Rand would have actually competed in Colorado! That's the point that you are missing even though Ron Paul himself said it. The deck was stacked against Paul in 2012, yet he won delegates in states where he lost the popular vote because he read the rules and understood how to work them. If Rand skipped out on Colorado like Donald Trump did then yes, this forum would have been in an uproar over how stupid Rand was.

[William Tell]

Trump is as always full of crap.

[timosman]

He can't go to a Pizza Ranch. He can't just walk in. That is just not in his arena


http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?487474-He-can-t-go-to-a-Pizza-Ranch-Winning-Iowa-Caucus-Presents-Trump-s-Next-Big-Challenge

[Mike4Freedom]

Except Rand wouldn't have lost Colorado "in the same fashion" as Donald Trump lost Colorado because Rand would have actually competed in Colorado! That's the point that you are missing even though Ron Paul himself said it. The deck was stacked against Paul in 2012, yet he won delegates in states where he lost the popular vote because he read the rules and understood how to work them. If Rand skipped out on Colorado like Donald Trump did then yes, this forum would have been in an uproar over how stupid Rand was.

I agree. I was just pointing out all the pro Trump people here have double standards about things.

[erowe1]

That was a big screw up for his campaign. If Rand would be in Trumps position right now and lost Colorado in the same fashion, this forum would be destroying him right now. They would be saying that he a gatekeeper for the establishment. He was too incompetent to have a team ready down there to get delegates. He does not want to win, etc.

Trump does it, they are out to get him! Do you ever think that maybe he does not really want to win this thing? Maybe he just wants to come close so it looks like he tried? If someone else gets it at the convention he can save face. Do you think that could be going on?

Well put. This is incontrovertibly the case.

[jmdrake]

I agree. I was just pointing out all the pro Trump people here have double standards about things.

Oh. My bad. :o I actually misread what you wrote.

[Smitty]

Ron Paul's delegate strategy was nothing but a way to demonstrate how rigged the system is.

Both Ron Paul and Doug Wead explained it numerous times on TV, but it took the Colorado Caucus for it to really sink in.

Thanks!, Colorado.

[erowe1]

Ron Paul's delegate strategy was nothing but a way to demonstrate how rigged the system is.


Rigged in the favor of anti-establishment candidates?

[jmdrake]

Ron Paul's delegate strategy was nothing but a way to demonstrate how rigged the system is.

Quote of Ron Paul actually saying that? Because he said the opposite in the video I posted in the OP.


Rigged in the favor of anti-establishment candidates?

^This.

[LibertyEagle]

Except Rand wouldn't have lost Colorado "in the same fashion" as Donald Trump lost Colorado because Rand would have actually competed in Colorado! That's the point that you are missing even though Ron Paul himself said it. The deck was stacked against Paul in 2012, yet he won delegates in states where he lost the popular vote because he read the rules and understood how to work them. If Rand skipped out on Colorado like Donald Trump did then yes, this forum would have been in an uproar over how stupid Rand was.

Uh, because Rand lost the first contest, right out of the gate?

[Smitty]

Quote of Ron Paul actually saying that? Because he said the opposite in the video I posted in the OP.



^This.

There's a lot of rigging going on but I don't think he understands how the rigging works"

--Ron Paul

[erowe1]

There's a lot of rigging going on but I don't think he understands how the rigging works"

--Ron Paul

But weren't you saying before that you disagree and think that Trump does understand, and that Colorado really was rigged against him?

[Smitty]

But weren't you saying before that you disagree and think that Trump does understand, and that Colorado really was rigged against him?

No.

You must have me confused with somebody else.

[erowe1]

No.

You must have me confused with somebody else.

In post 10, you said:

it took the Colorado Caucus for it to really sink in.

Thanks!, Colorado.

In what way do you mean this, if you don't mean that you agree with what Trump supporters are complaining about with regard to Colorado? If you're not talking about it sinking in with them, then who are you talking about? Is there some other story about election rigging in Colorado that is sinking in with some other group?

[bunklocoempire]

That was a big screw up for his campaign. If Rand would be in Trumps position right now and lost Colorado in the same fashion, this forum would be destroying him right now. They would be saying that he a gatekeeper for the establishment. He was too incompetent to have a team ready down there to get delegates. He does not want to win, etc.

Trump does it, they are out to get him! Do you ever think that maybe he does not really want to win this thing? Maybe he just wants to come close so it looks like he tried? If someone else gets it at the convention he can save face. Do you think that could be going on?

Run interference against Rand, get a chip to use down the road. It's how I would expect to operate in the slimy system.

Status quo works for a lot of people.

[RandallFan]

Rand would have lost. Dick Cheney-linked, Rubio & Cruz delegates united against the problem: Donald Trump.

There is no brilliance here. Trump has lost caucus events so it's pretty easy to get a majority of insiders at a state party against Trump.

Ron was lucky he had people in place at the right time in 2011 & 2012. They aren't all there. Ron's Iowa people got kicked out. So which states still have Ron people in control. No way Ron's people are 100% for Cruz. It's just the anti-frontrunner.

[Smitty]

In post 10, you said:


In what way do you mean this, if you don't mean that you agree with what Trump supporters are complaining about with regard to Colorado? If you're not talking about it sinking in with them, then who are you talking about? Is there some other story about election rigging in Colorado that is sinking in with some other group?

That's not what you claimed I said in the other post.

Go peddle your strawman somewhere else.

I don't want to talk with you, anyway.

You're strange.

[kahless]

That was a big screw up for his campaign. If Rand would be in Trumps position right now and lost Colorado in the same fashion, this forum would be destroying him right now. They would be saying that he a gatekeeper for the establishment. He was too incompetent to have a team ready down there to get delegates. He does not want to win, etc.

Trump does it, they are out to get him! Do you ever think that maybe he does not really want to win this thing? Maybe he just wants to come close so it looks like he tried? If someone else gets it at the convention he can save face. Do you think that could be going on?

Scratching my head thinking the same. There really is no excuse though for what is happening other than incompetence within his campaign staff.

It is not like he is short on cash. With the money Trump has he had should have paid professionals well in advance and the campaign wine and dine the delegates in each state. If this was his TV show he would have been fired already.

[LibertyEagle]

Scratching my head thinking the same. There really is no excuse though for what is happening other than incompetence within his campaign staff.

It is not like he is short on cash. With the money Trump has he had should have paid professionals well in advance and the campaign wine and dine the delegates in each state. If this was his TV show he would have been fired already.

Yeah, I agree. There is no excuse for it.

[unknown]

Thats an understatement.

Trump has been endorsing and promoting Liberal ideals for 15 years.

Although he claims to be a conservative now, he's still defending govt healthcare and planned parenthood...

There are Libs who are well intentioned idiots and then there are Libs who know damn well that Leftist policies dont work.

In his defense, Trump is the former.

So it should come as no surprise that he and the people he's surrounded himself with are clueless about the nomination process.

[Peace&Freedom]

My take is, Ron and Trump are both correct. Ron would have competed in Colorado based on its rules, but would have most likely lost. As we saw throughout the 2012 delegate battles, the rules in many states are set up for the party bosses to win, especially in states that effectively eliminate the delegate allocation process (controlled by voters via primary and caucus contests) by rolling it into the delegate selection process (controlled by the hacks at local or state conventions). Trump was not on top of the aggressive extent to which the bosses would work the apparatus in Colorado, but irrespective of that issue, he objects to "rules" that displace voter preference for party hack maneuvering in awarding delegates.

Participating in such a crooked game is a basic strategic reason why Paul activists so lost many of those battles, and why the delegate strategy ultimately failed. The delegate swiping rules were obscure and not transparent for a reason---they were designed for the party insiders to use to win, not us, which is why they raised a ruckus when the movement sought to use them for our candidate. Trump decided it was better not to commit the resources to participate in a crooked game, where a non-elite outcome was not going to be honored by the hacks in any event.

Paul supporters played by the rules, only to see them dishonored time and again at the state conventions, or failing that, at the RNC con itself. Trump chose to instead attack the party rules and establishment gamesmanship. So both Paul and Trump have drawn attention to the rigged game using different routes.

[Mordan]

My take is, Ron and Trump are both correct. Ron would have competed in Colorado based on its rules, but would have most likely lost. As we saw throughout the 2012 delegate battles, the rules in many states are set up for the party bosses to win, especially in states that effectively eliminate the delegate allocation process (controlled by voters via primary and caucus contests) by rolling it into the delegate selection process (controlled by the hacks at local or state conventions). Trump was not on top of the aggressive extent to which the bosses would work the apparatus in Colorado, but irrespective of that issue, he objects to "rules" that displace voter preference for party hack maneuvering in awarding delegates.

Participating in such a crooked game is a basic strategic reason why Paul activists so lost many of those battles, and why the delegate strategy ultimately failed. The delegate swiping rules were obscure and not transparent for a reason---they were designed for the party insiders to use to win, not us, which is why they raised a ruckus when the movement sought to use them for our candidate. Trump decided it was better not to commit the resources to participate in a crooked game, where a non-elite outcome was not going to be honored by the hacks in any event.

Paul supporters played by the rules, only to see them dishonored time and again at the state conventions, or failing that, at the RNC con itself. Trump chose to instead attack the party rules and establishment gamesmanship. So both Paul and Trump have drawn attention to the rigged game using different routes.

EXACTLY!!!!! MY THOUGHTS. And who is better at doing it? Trump! All the red heads supporting Trump on Reddit are waking up to the fact.

EDIT: Trump talks to everyone. Ron Paul only talked to intellectuals.

[jmdrake]

Uh, because Rand lost the first contest, right out of the gate?

Did Rand lose the first contest by not competing and claiming it was rigged? Ron won delegates where he was behind using the same system that Trump is calling "rigged." Are you going to address that? And note that I said "in the same fashion." Losing "in the same fashion" as Trump lost in Colorado would mean leading in the popular vote but just deciding not to compete because you know you can't win a midwestern caucus state (Trump just lost Wyoming) and so you just claim it's all "rigged."

[jmdrake]

My take is, Ron and Trump are both correct. Ron would have competed in Colorado based on its rules, but would have most likely lost. As we saw throughout the 2012 delegate battles, the rules in many states are set up for the party bosses to win, especially in states that effectively eliminate the delegate allocation process (controlled by voters via primary and caucus contests) by rolling it into the delegate selection process (controlled by the hacks at local or state conventions). Trump was not on top of the aggressive extent to which the bosses would work the apparatus in Colorado, but irrespective of that issue, he objects to "rules" that displace voter preference for party hack maneuvering in awarding delegates.

Participating in such a crooked game is a basic strategic reason why Paul activists so lost many of those battles, and why the delegate strategy ultimately failed. The delegate swiping rules were obscure and not transparent for a reason---they were designed for the party insiders to use to win, not us, which is why they raised a ruckus when the movement sought to use them for our candidate. Trump decided it was better not to commit the resources to participate in a crooked game, where a non-elite outcome was not going to be honored by the hacks in any event.

Paul supporters played by the rules, only to see them dishonored time and again at the state conventions, or failing that, at the RNC con itself. Trump chose to instead attack the party rules and establishment gamesmanship. So both Paul and Trump have drawn attention to the rigged game using different routes.

Actually Ron did compete in Colorado and the rules were pretty much the same. The only difference is that Colorado got rid what was before a non binding popular primary, which Ron lost badly. While Ron didn't win delegates in Colorado, he did win delegates in other states using the exact same process even though he consistently lost the popular vote. By the standards that Trump thinks should rule the day Ron wouldn't have won a single delegate.

[jmdrake]

There's a lot of rigging going on but I don't think he understands how the rigging works"

--Ron Paul

Ron didn't say the delegate system was rigged. What he said was that the rule changes that happened after he won delegates in a way that Trump is calling "rigged" prevented Ron from speaking in the convention. In other words "Nothing wrong with the delegate system. Everything wrong with the party bosses not honoring the results after the fact." I don't at all think Ron was hoping or expecting the party bosses from preventing him from speaking at the convention once he won the required number of delegates.

[LibertyEagle]

There was plenty wrong with the system when Ron ran. Are people forgetting all the mismarked delegate ballots, etc?

[LibertyEagle]

Did Rand lose the first contest by not competing and claiming it was rigged? Ron won delegates where he was behind using the same system that Trump is calling "rigged." Are you going to address that? And note that I said "in the same fashion." Losing "in the same fashion" as Trump lost in Colorado would mean leading in the popular vote but just deciding not to compete because you know you can't win a midwestern caucus state (Trump just lost Wyoming) and so you just claim it's all "rigged."

No, Rand lost Colorado, because of his poor campaign right out of the gate. It makes no sense to say what Rand would have done, since Rand never made it that far.

That said, I have already said in another thread that Trump is losing caucuses because of his campaign's lack of action. They should have hired Debbie Hopper from Ron's campaign, as she was the person who knew the delegate process inside and out. But, then again, so should have Rand.

[jmdrake]

No, Rand lost Colorado, because of his poor campaign right out of the gate. It makes no sense to say what Rand would have done, since Rand never made it that far.

You're missing the point. I will repeat it so that you can get it. Rand, had he done better, wouldn't have decided to skip cOlorado. Now I didn't bring up Rand. Someone else did. I brought up Ron. ANd Ron didn't skip Colorado. And Ron won delegates using the very system Donald is calling "rigged." That's the point.


That said, I have already said in another thread that Trump is losing caucuses because of his campaign's lack of action. They should have hired Debbie Hopper from Ron's campaign, as she was the person who knew the delegate process inside and out. But, then again, so should have Rand.

No arguments from me their. Again I was responding to what someone else said about Rand. I didn't bring him up. You're getting confused.

[LibertyEagle]

You're missing the point. I will repeat it so that you can get it. Rand, had he done better, wouldn't have decided to skip cOlorado. Now I didn't bring up Rand. Someone else did. I brought up Ron. ANd Ron didn't skip Colorado. And Ron won delegates using the very system Donald is calling "rigged." That's the point.

No arguments from me their. Again I was responding to what someone else said about Rand. I didn't bring him up. You're getting confused.


Not confused at all. I was responding to your comments about Rand.


Except Rand wouldn't have lost Colorado "in the same fashion" as Donald Trump lost Colorado because Rand would have actually competed in Colorado! That's the point that you are missing even though Ron Paul himself said it. The deck was stacked against Paul in 2012, yet he won delegates in states where he lost the popular vote because he read the rules and understood how to work them. If Rand skipped out on Colorado like Donald Trump did then yes, this forum would have been in an uproar over how stupid Rand was.

[Peace&Freedom]

There was plenty wrong with the system when Ron ran. Are people forgetting all the mismarked delegate ballots, etc?

Exactly. In the end, Satan cannot cast out Satan. Paul supporters won delegates at the conventions despite the system being rigged, and despite working a system designed for the hacks. And they encountered tons of unfair tactics getting the delegates per state on that basis, again, because we were fighting on enemy terrain to begin with. The rules of that process provides cover or encourages the hackivists to get away with the hardball, as these conventions are usually uncovered by the media anyway, which was the point of the obscurity.

And don't we remember the underhanded losses we were handed "following the rules" last time across the states pursuing this strategy, not just the delegate wins? The reason the CO situation became well known this time is because the primary schedule is mostly in a lull period, so more people noticed when Trump kicked the rock over and exposed the game. It was a strategic error for Ron to believe the RNC was going to honor the state wins he got, as he should have anticipated national treachery, after his supporters had encountered it all along the way during the delegate battles.

[CPUd]

Exactly. In the end, Satan cannot cast out Satan. Paul supporters won delegates at the conventions despite the system being rigged, and despite working a system designed for the hacks. And they encountered tons of unfair tactics getting the delegates per state on that basis, again, because we were fighting on enemy terrain to begin with. The rules of that process provides cover or encourages the hackivists to get away with the hardball, as these conventions are usually uncovered by the media anyway, which was the point of the obscurity.

And don't we remember the underhanded losses we were handed "following the rules" last time across the states pursuing this strategy, not just the delegate wins? The reason CO situation became well known this time is because the primary schedule is mostly in a lull period, so more people noticed when Trump kicked the rock over and exposed the game. It was a strategic error for Ron to believe the RNC was going to honor the state wins he got, as he should have anticipated national treachery, after his supporters had encountered it all along the way during the delegate battles.

Cryin' Don didn't kick over a damn thing. He makes it harder for a real grassroots candidate to win next time around, because 1) they won't be taken seriously when real cheating happens, and 2) switching from a caucus to a primary is exactly what the "establishment" wants.

[LibertyEagle]

Cryin' Don didn't kick over a damn thing. He makes it harder for a real grassroots candidate to win next time around, because 1) they won't be taken seriously when real cheating happens, and 2) switching from a caucus to a primary is exactly what the "establishment" wants.

My opinion...
A "real" grassroots candidate has no chance of becoming President. The system is far too rigged at that level. It has been the fact for a very long time that the only chance we would have is to overwhelm the establishment with a huge amount of supporters. We don't, and never will have, that number. Goldwater was able to win the nomination back in the 60's, but a grassroots candidate has never repeated that since. And now we have the rigged voting machines, the near total media control by the establishment, the rigged debates, etc. And when Goldwater ran, the supporters WANTED to help the campaign. They volunteered in droves. They never spent time figuring out how to stab them in the back, or do something counter to them, because they, the supporters, thought they could do it "better". And the supporters spent the time to learn Robert's Rules of Order and got involved in their local and state GOP, so that they could help their candidate.

Our lack of success has nothing to do with Trump. It's just a cop out.

[Mordan]

To the idiots who say "It's Trump's fault this is happening because he doesn't have a ground game and he doesn't know the rules"...

He does know the rules, and he knows the "ground game". The reason he won't play that game is because he'd have to go bribe people and pull the same undemocratic El Rato shit bag tactics. He's not going to lower himself to that. He doesn't want to cheat the people, he wants to win their votes.


A quote from Reddit. Anyone who thinks Ron Paul could have won with a stealth delegate strategy is deluding himself. Ron Paul with Trump mouth could have won Primaries.

[erowe1]

Rand would have lost. Dick Cheney-linked, Rubio & Cruz delegates united against the problem: Donald Trump.

There is no brilliance here. Trump has lost caucus events so it's pretty easy to get a majority of insiders at a state party against Trump.

Ron was lucky he had people in place at the right time in 2011 & 2012. They aren't all there. Ron's Iowa people got kicked out. So which states still have Ron people in control. No way Ron's people are 100% for Cruz. It's just the anti-frontrunner.

You don't need people in control to win contests like Colorado's. Trump didn't lose because the party leaders were against him. He lost because he and his supporters didn't even try to do what it took to win.

[erowe1]

As we saw throughout the 2012 delegate battles, the rules in many states are set up for the party bosses to win, especially in states that effectively eliminate the delegate allocation process (controlled by voters via primary and caucus contests) by rolling it into the delegate selection process (controlled by the hacks at local or state conventions).

What's an example of a state that effectively eliminated the delegate allocation process by rolling it into the delegate selection process?

To me that sounds like exactly the kind of contest that would have been tailor-made for Ron Paul. It's the contests where voters most directly determined the outcome and that most favored those who were ahead in the popularity polls where Ron was always at his biggest disadvantage. But when we had opportunities to convert the higher levels of enthusiasm and knowledge of the process that Ron Paul supporters had into delegates, we always did well. On the other hand, the same couldn't be said for Trump and his reading-averse supporters.

[erowe1]

That's not what you claimed I said in the other post.

Go peddle your strawman somewhere else.

I don't want to talk with you, anyway.

You're strange.

So you admit it.

[erowe1]

A quote from Reddit. Anyone who thinks Ron Paul could have won with a stealth delegate strategy is deluding himself. Ron Paul with Trump mouth could have won Primaries.

Wait. So you actually believe the garbage in that quote? Trump willingly lost because he's too moral?

Ron wouldn't have needed to do a "stealth delegate strategy." He would have been able to win openly by having his supporters run to be delegates for the state convention and getting them out to the precinct caucuses on March 1 to vote for those Ron Paul delegates, where his supporters would have outnumbered everyone else, and then with the state convention stacked with his supporters, they would have elected delegates to the national convention. Nothing stealth about it.

[Peace&Freedom]

What's an example of a state that effectively eliminated the delegate allocation process by rolling it into the delegate selection process?


Colorado. By eliminating holding a primary and not even making the caucuses about voters selecting candidates, but about voting for delegates.

[surf]

interesting comments on lp's (or at least our leading candidates) reluctance to embrace non-intervention. I agree with that, and i'm not sure if this is some stance that they believe will appeal. hope here is that whomever our candidate is will unleash a sensible freedom based bright foreign policy position on the electorate this summer.

[erowe1]

Colorado. By eliminating holding a primary and not even making the caucuses about voters selecting candidates, but about voting for delegates.

But that example proves you wrong. States like that are ideal for candidates like Ron Paul. It's the states that give their delegates to the most popular candidate that he could never win.

[Peace&Freedom]

But that example proves you wrong. States like that are ideal for candidates like Ron Paul. It's the states that give their delegates to the most popular candidate that he could never win.

The point I was making is, even in caucus states, there should be a "candidate preference" step in the delegate process where voters get to vote for candidates, where the delegates get allocated based on voter preference, not a straight to the delegate selection stage, where voter preferences got cut out of the process.

[erowe1]

The point I was making is, even in caucus states, there should be a "candidate preference" step in the delegate process where voters get to vote for candidates, where the delegates get allocated based on voter preference, not a straight to the delegate selection stage, where voter preferences got cut out of the process.

I know. And that's the point I was talking about. What you want is a process that is more stacked against anti-establishment candidates like Ron Paul.

[Mordan]

But that example proves you wrong. States like that are ideal for candidates like Ron Paul. It's the states that give their delegates to the most popular candidate that he could never win.

you are delusional. You need to win primaries to have any legitimacy in the eyes of voters. As Ben Carson explained, the voting system in the US is rigged and outdated.

[erowe1]

You need to win primaries to have any legitimacy in the eyes of voters.

I agree. Ron Paul would never have won without broader popular support than he had. But with the support that he did have, states doing it the Colorado way would have been ideal for him.


As Ben Carson explained, the voting system in the US is rigged and outdated.

He's the one who's delusional. I wonder what he'd say if someone told him that his church should make decisions by democratic votes, where they open up the voting to anyone who shows up regardless of believing in Seventh Day Adventist doctrines. That's essentially what people are saying when they act like the GOP should make it easy for socialists like Trump to take over their party.

[Peace&Freedom]

I know. And that's the point I was talking about. What you want is a process that is more stacked against anti-establishment candidates like Ron Paul.

I want a primary process that has something to do with voters informing how delegates get allocated for candidates, be it via a primary or a caucus. Not one where party bosses control both delegate allocation and selection on the back end. What we learned from the Paul experience is that to win, educational campaigns are not enough, and a stealth delegate strategy is not enough. We need a liberty candidate who can and will engage reachable voting blocs and build winning coalitions.

[Bossobass]

"It's A Rotten System" Ron Paul Says: US Elections Are Rigged, Voting Simply Used To Pacify The Public

Ron got his arse kicked by not knowing the rules and, more importantly, by not fighting back when cheated.

This thread is useless information and Ron should know better.

[erowe1]

Not one where party bosses control both delegate allocation and selection on the back end.

Party bosses didn't control what happened in Colorado, voters did. But it was a process that only drew politically active and informed voters, not the reality show demographic.

Honestly, I don't think states should spend any tax payer dollars on any part of the nomination process of private organizations like the Republican and Democrat parties at all. There shouldn't even be the potential for these statewide primaries using local polling places that are now the norm. I can't see how anyone here even thinks that's defensible.

[erowe1]

Ron got his arse kicked by not knowing the rules

What rules do you think he didn't know?

[CPUd]

https://i.imgur.com/3lklzQo.jpg

[Mordan]

I agree. Ron Paul would never have won without broader popular support than he had. But with the support that he did have, states doing it the Colorado way would have been ideal for him.



He's the one who's delusional. I wonder what he'd say if someone told him that his church should make decisions by democratic votes, where they open up the voting to anyone who shows up regardless of believing in Seventh Day Adventist doctrines. That's essentially what people are saying when they act like the GOP should make it easy for socialists like Trump to take over their party.

The problem is. In the General Election, you have 2 choices and those 2 choices are made by power brokers in both parties. Are you blind there isn't something wrong. You can't say "Oh let those private entities do whatever they want to pick the nominee" for the sake of being private entities.
The system is rigged. You just can't accept Trump is right on this count.

[erowe1]

The problem is. In the General Election, you have 2 choices and those 2 choices are made by power brokers in both parties. Are you blind there isn't something wrong. You can't say "Oh let those private entities do whatever they want to pick the nominee" for the sake of being private entities.
The system is rigged. You just can't accept Trump is right on this count.

How is Trump right? Please explain.

[dude58677]

"The primaries are beauty contests. It's the delegates that count." Ron Paul

"The majority cannot vote away your rights. Which is why we are a republic and not a democracy. Your rights are infinite." Rand Paul

[Bossobass]

What rules do you think he didn't know?

Apparently you weren't involved in the process. Try a search engine.

[erowe1]

Apparently you weren't involved in the process. Try a search engine.

I was involved. I was a delegate to the Indiana state convention in 2008 and 2012. The Ron Paul supporters and campaign were definitely on top of the rules here. As far as I could see, the same was true generally everywhere else. Do you actually know of any evidence to the contrary?

[Bossobass]

I was involved. I was a delegate to the Indiana state convention in 2008 and 2012. The Ron Paul supporters and campaign were definitely on top of the rules here. As far as I could see, the same was true generally everywhere else. Do you actually know of any evidence to the contrary?

Bullshit.

You were here calling members "moron", which is apparently your mission in life. There were plenty of shills in these forums confusing the matter as well. The Ron Paul campaign people in my state were clueless and balls less.


From an April 11th interview, for the dullards among us...


Dr. Ron Paul says the American electoral system is rigged to keep “independent thinkers” from succeeding.
“I see elections as so much of a charade,” the former Texas congressman said during an April 11 appearance on RT America’s “The Fishtank.” “So much deceit goes on.”
Paul is no stranger to the twisted rules of the American presidential horse race. He ran for the highest office as a Libertarian in 1988, and in 2008 and 2012 as a Republican.
He arguably came closest to the nomination in 2012, when the GOP amended its party regulations to prevent the former Texas representative from stealing Mitt Romney’s thunder.

Rule 40(b) of “The Rules of the Republican Party” was changed so the Republican National Committee could “limit the visibility and power of libertarian-minded Texas Rep. Ron Paul at the convention and thus present a unified front behind Mitt Romney, the presumptive nominee,” according to David Byler, an elections analyst at RealClearPolitics. The rule requires that, in order to win the nomination, a candidate must have the support of a majority of delegates from eight states.
Although recent wins have tipped Sen. Ted Cruz past the cut off, the rule as written came close to helping Trump take the nomination. Paul warned that the GOP’s machinations to block Donald Trump are a sign of a corrupt, undemocratic system.
“I’ve worked on the assumption … for many, many decades, that whether there’s a Republican or a Democrat president, the people who want to keep the status quo seems to have their finger in the pot and can control things,” he said in the interview.
“They just get so nervous, though, if they have an independent thinker out there — whether it’s Sanders, or Trump or Ron Paul, they’re going to be very desperate to try to change things.”
Paul had nothing but scorn for Trump’s policies: “He’s offering us nothing new, and he’s going backward in many ways.”
He suggested that the 2016 election is “a lot more entertainment than anything else” because none of the candidates “have answers” to modern political problems.
Even so, Paul interprets the success of these outsider candidates as a sign that “more people are discovering that the system is all rigged and voting is just pacification for the voters and it really doesn’t count.”
“I don’t think there’s an easy way out for the establishment or the parties,” he noted, explaining that Democrats and Republicans would both rather risk “further alienation of the people” than allow a candidate to succeed who could shake up the system.
Paul recalled his own 2012 encounter with Rule 40(b) as an important political lesson for both himself and the American people.
“I was upset about it but didn’t want to waste too much energy being angry because this is the way the system works,” he said. “It’s a rotten system.”

[erowe1]

Bull$#@!.

You were here calling members "moron", which is apparently your mission in life. There were plenty of shills in these forums confusing the matter as well. The Ron Paul campaign people in my state were clueless and balls less.


From an April 11th interview, for the dullards among us...


Where's the part about Ron Paul not knowing the rules? It looks like according to your own evidence, he knows the rules pretty well.

Being Ron Paul supporters doesn't make us shills. That's the point of this website. And when trolls who come here trying to sell other candidates who oppose everything we stand for get called out on it, that's what's supposed to happen. Take your whining somewhere else.

[fcreature]

I find it amusing that some here seem to believe that it is easier to convince 50% + 1 of voters in the Republican primary to support a (true) liberty candidate than it is to simply get involved and influence the party by becoming delegates. Just so you all know, most of the delegates are not diabolical RNC henchmen. They're normal, everyday people who simply decided to get involved in the process.

There is corruption and then there is laziness/ineptness. Corruption is when they have your delegates & supporters arrested, or when they shut down conventions despite against their own rules, or when they change rules after the fact. Ineptness is when you have no clue what you are doing and fail to get any of your supporters to show up and vote for your delegates, or to even properly identify and qualify a proper slate of delegates.

Donald Trump is correct that the process is rigged, but is dangerously wrong on what is being rigged. Now you are going to have all his low information followers complaining that the entire thing should be a primary which is exactly what the establishment wants and will embrace.

Who would have guessed that so many supposed Ron Paul supporters can't even understand the differences between a representative republic and a democracy.

[erowe1]

I find it amusing that some here seem to believe that it is easier to convince 50% + 1 of voters in the Republican primary to support a (true) liberty candidate than it is to simply get involved and influence the party by becoming delegates. Just so you all know, most of the delegates are not diabolical RNC henchmen. They're normal, everyday people who simply decided to get involved in the process.

There is corruption and then their is laziness/ineptness. Corruption is when they have your delegates & supporters arrested, or when they shut down conventions despite against their own rules, or when they change rules after the fact. Ineptness is when you have no clue what you are doing and fail to get any of your supporters to show up and vote for your delegates, or to even properly identify and qualify a proper slate of delegates.

Donald Trump is correct that the process is rigged, but is dangerously wrong on what is being rigged. Now you are going to have all his low information followers complaining that the entire thing should be a primary which is exactly what the establishment wants and will embrace.

Who would have guessed that so many supposed Ron Paul supporters can't even understand the differences between a representative republic and a democracy.

+ rep

[Mordan]

Bull$#@!.

You were here calling members "moron", which is apparently your mission in life. There were plenty of shills in these forums confusing the matter as well. The Ron Paul campaign people in my state were clueless and balls less.


From an April 11th interview, for the dullards among us...

+1 Bossobass

Ron Paul wouldn't even break all the stops to denounce the GOP corruption. Erowe and others keep hiding behind the Democracy/Republic non-existent issue to defend a RIGGED and CROOKED system. Trump and Ron Paul agree.

[Mordan]

How is Trump right? Please explain.

The problem is. In the General Election, you have 2 choices and those 2 choices are made by power brokers in both parties. Are you blind there isn't something wrong. You can't say "Oh let those private entities do whatever they want to pick the nominee" for the sake of being private entities.

[CPUd]

The problem is. In the General Election, you have 2 choices and those 2 choices are made by power brokers in both parties. Are you blind there isn't something wrong. You can't say "Oh let those private entities do whatever they want to pick the nominee" for the sake of being private entities.

If you believe there are only 2 choices, then you are proof positive that it's not the system that is rigged, it's the voters.

[openfire]

+1 Bossobass

Ron Paul wouldn't even break all the stops to denounce the GOP corruption. Erowe and others keep hiding behind the Democracy/Republic non-existent issue to defend a RIGGED and CROOKED system. Trump and Ron Paul agree.

Precisely.

Exhibit A:

http://gulagbound.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/ayes-have-it.jpg

[openfire]

If you believe there are only 2 choices, then you are proof positive that it's not the system that is rigged, it's the voters.

//

[Bossobass]

Where's the part about Ron Paul not knowing the rules? It looks like according to your own evidence, he knows the rules pretty well.

Being Ron Paul supporters doesn't make us shills. That's the point of this website. And when trolls who come here trying to sell other candidates who oppose everything we stand for get called out on it, that's what's supposed to happen. Take your whining somewhere else.

Thanks for the lecture, Everyone-Should-Be-You. Typical of your non-contributions. So, how does Ron show he didn't know/cope with/contest the rigging "rules" (your word)?


Rule 40(b) of “The Rules of the Republican Party” was changed so the Republican National Committee could “limit the visibility and power of libertarian-minded Texas Rep. Ron Paul at the convention...

If the "rules" were arbitrarily changed, what was RP, psychic? You contend he knew that was a possibility? Right. And, if he somehow knew the rule that was changed before it was changed, what did he do about it?

If RP "recalled his own encounter" with a rules change as "a lesson for himself and America" what lesson would there be if he knew? Here's a hint, shill; there was a lesson for RP because he didn't know and was cheated. That's only a single incident of the rampant corruption that cheated RP out of the nomination in 2012, facts that obviously escape you.

Try to get this, Wizard; the Trump delegates were eliminated from the ballots before hand and by altered ballots and told to go home. Shills like yourself are spewing the "no harm, no foul" meme. Exactly what part of "all rigged", "corrupt", "undemocratic", "so much deceit goes on" don't you get? Or, are you just fond of interpreting RP's words to fit your Trump hate?

[fcreature]

Erowe and others keep hiding behind the Democracy/Republic non-existent issue to defend a RIGGED and CROOKED system. Trump and Ron Paul agree.

Yes, they agree with the problem. So what? Socialists and libertarians agree on many things. We agree that the current system is corrupt but libertarians know that the corruption stems from the government being too involved and socialists think there isn't enough involvement. Following your logic, socialists must be correct because, hey, the system is rigged.

Agreeing on the premise does not validate Trump's conclusions or his reasoning. How one comes to a conclusion is rather important. Trump does not understand what the true corruption is.

[CPUd]

Thanks for the lecture, Everyone-Should-Be-You. Typical of your non-contributions. So, how does Ron show he didn't know/cope with/contest the rigging "rules" (your word)?



If the "rules" were arbitrarily changed, what was RP, psychic? You contend he knew that was a possibility? Right. And, if he somehow knew the rule that was changed before it was changed, what did he do about it?

If RP "recalled his own encounter" with a rules change as "a lesson for himself and America" what lesson would there be if he knew? Here's a hint, shill; there was a lesson for RP because he didn't know and was cheated. That's only a single incident of the rampant corruption that cheated RP out of the nomination in 2012, facts that obviously escape you.

Try to get this, Wizard; the Trump delegates were eliminated from the ballots before hand and by altered ballots and told to go home. Shills like yourself are spewing the "no harm, no foul" meme. Exactly what part of "all rigged", "corrupt", "undemocratic", "so much deceit goes on" don't you get? Or, are you just fond of interpreting RP's words to fit your Trump hate?

You need to learn how to make your points without resorting to personal attacks.

[openfire]

You need to learn how to make your points without resorting to personal attacks.

This, coming from someone who consistently compares members to chimpanzees.

hypocrite

[hip-uh-krit]

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/customavatars/avatar42199_3.gif

noun
1.
a person who pretends to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc., that he or she does not actually possess, especially a person whose actions belie stated beliefs.
2.
a person who feigns some desirable or publicly approved attitude, especially one whose private life, opinions, or statements belie his or her public statements.

[Bossobass]

You need to learn how to make your points without resorting to personal attacks.

When anyone neg reps me "for being a moron", he/she reaps the blowback until hell freezes over, and… you need to stop telling people what they need to do.

[CPUd]

When anyone neg reps me "for being a moron", he/she reaps the blowback until hell freezes over, and… you need to stop telling people what they need to do.

Just trying to help you out.

[openfire]

Just trying to help you out.

BS. You are just trying to be a prick. And succeeding.

[erowe1]

The problem is. In the General Election, you have 2 choices and those 2 choices are made by power brokers in both parties. Are you blind there isn't something wrong. You can't say "Oh let those private entities do whatever they want to pick the nominee" for the sake of being private entities.

What does this have to do with Trump being right about something? And who are you replying to? Your response has nothing to do with anything I said.

[erowe1]

BS. You are just trying to be a prick. And succeeding.

Which one of you two is the Trump supporter?

[erowe1]

When anyone neg reps me "for being a moron", he/she reaps the blowback until hell freezes over, and… you need to stop telling people what they need to do.

"You must spread some [negative] Reputation around before giving it to Bossobass again."

[erowe1]

Erowe and others keep hiding behind the Democracy/Republic non-existent issue to defend a RIGGED and CROOKED system.

Can you quote me doing that?


Trump and Ron Paul agree.

About what? They obviously don't agree about what RP is talking about in the OP.

[erowe1]

Thanks for the lecture, Everyone-Should-Be-You. Typical of your non-contributions. So, how does Ron show he didn't know/cope with/contest the rigging "rules" (your word)?



If the "rules" were arbitrarily changed, what was RP, psychic? You contend he knew that was a possibility? Right. And, if he somehow knew the rule that was changed before it was changed, what did he do about it?

If RP "recalled his own encounter" with a rules change as "a lesson for himself and America" what lesson would there be if he knew? Here's a hint, shill; there was a lesson for RP because he didn't know and was cheated. That's only a single incident of the rampant corruption that cheated RP out of the nomination in 2012, facts that obviously escape you.

Try to get this, Wizard; the Trump delegates were eliminated from the ballots before hand and by altered ballots and told to go home. Shills like yourself are spewing the "no harm, no foul" meme. Exactly what part of "all rigged", "corrupt", "undemocratic", "so much deceit goes on" don't you get? Or, are you just fond of interpreting RP's words to fit your Trump hate?

You're changing the subject. Earlier you claimed that Ron Paul was a lazy idiot like you and Trump who didn't know the rules. Now you're talking about the GOP making a new rule. Those are two totally different things.

The rule you're talking about was irrelevant anyway. At that point Ron Paul had already stopped campaigning and had informed his own delegates that he didn't even want them to nominate him.

And there you go again calling Ron Paul supporters shills. Why are you even here? If you want a Trump forum, I'm sure they're out there.

[erowe1]

You need to learn how to make your points without resorting to personal attacks.

+ rep

[dude58677]

In the long run this GOP race is very very good for America. If Donald Trump wins then we no longer have career politicians. If Ted Cruz wins then the American public is educated that we live in a Republic and not a democracy and it would be well understood why it is a good thing.

These candidates are terrible on alot of the issues although clearly better than Hilliary and Bernie. Thus why I said it is better in the long run that Donald Trump and Ted Cruz are the front runners.

Ron Paul is the inspiration for this 2016 race for having non-mainstream views and seeking delegates instead of focusing of primary wins.

So it all goes back to that blowback debate between Ron Paul and Rudy Gulliani which was the greatest Presidential debate since the Libcoln-Douglas debates.

Of course I'm being sarcastic because bandwagon voting has never worked.

[Peace&Freedom]

Cryin' Don didn't kick over a damn thing. He makes it harder for a real grassroots candidate to win next time around, because 1) they won't be taken seriously when real cheating happens, and 2) switching from a caucus to a primary is exactly what the "establishment" wants.



Donald Trump is correct that the process is rigged, but is dangerously wrong on what is being rigged. Now you are going to have all his low information followers complaining that the entire thing should be a primary which is exactly what the establishment wants and will embrace.

Trump has not been complaining about caucuses in general, only the recent "caucuses" where voters were not involved in allocating delegates based on their candidate preference. Even in a republic, voters are at least indirectly involved. Trump probably wouldn't mind if all states became caucus states, so long as voting for candidates was the real dynamic, instead of it being insiders doing both the allocating and selecting of delegates.

[CPUd]

Trump has not been complaining about caucuses in general, only the recent "caucuses" where voters were not involved in allocating delegates based on their candidate preference. Even in a republic, voters are at least indirectly involved. Trump probably wouldn't mind if all states became caucus states, so long as voting for candidates was the real dynamic, instead of it being insiders doing both the allocating and selecting of delegates.

He's complaining because he lost. The "Trumpertantrum" was planned some time after Manafort was hired and told him it was too late to get his people into the state conventions. This is because on March 1st, precinct caucuses were held all over Colorado, where any registered GOP could go and vote; if Trump wanted votes, all he had to do was have his supporters run for delegate, make it known they were for Trump, and get people out to the precincts to vote. Over 60,000 voted in CO, very few Trump supporters ran for delegate all the way up to the state convention, so they were outnumbered 4 to 1. In WY, there was a straw poll on March 12 for some of the delegates, here are the results:
http://i.imgur.com/cU4z5BT.png

http://i.imgur.com/dnrtFMK.png

I'm willing to bet the CO results if they had a straw poll would look much like WY.

[erowe1]

Trump has not been complaining about caucuses in general, only the recent "caucuses" where voters were not involved in allocating delegates based on their candidate preference.

Voters were involved. The ones who didn't participate chose not to.


Trump probably wouldn't mind if all states became caucus states, so long as voting for candidates was the real dynamic, instead of it being insiders doing both the allocating and selecting of delegates.

Baloney. Trump's complaints have nothing to do with any of that. It's 100% about being a sore loser.

And honestly I don't know if he even really means it. I think he might want to lose the nomination and is happy about the chance to say he was cheated out of it. That way he can avoid the consequences of both winning and losing.

[Peace&Freedom]

He's complaining because he lost. The "Trumpertantrum" was planned some time after Manafort was hired and told him it was too late to get his people into the state conventions.

That is, Mannafort fully briefed him that it was a rigged game, and Trump chose not to play. If the final decision on delegates in CO was to be made by insiders at the state convention, Trump could have had a thousand people on the ground in the weeks prior and it would have made no difference.


Voters were involved. The ones who didn't participate chose not to.

Incomplete. The voters were involved in CO in voting for delegates, not candidates. Voters did not participate in choosing who those delegates would be bound to, which was only determined at the state convention, which was controlled by insiders.


Baloney. Trump's complaints have nothing to do with any of that. It's 100% about being a sore loser.

And honestly I don't know if he even really means it. I think he might want to lose the nomination and is happy about the chance to say he was cheated out of it. That way he can avoid the consequences of both winning and losing.

One can speculate that way about all the candidates. Maybe Hillary is doing all her campaigning as a vanity project, and doesn't want to face winning or losing wither. Maybe Cruz is just a stalking horse for Hillary, and is being unlikeable on purpose, to ruin the Republican brand. See how easy it is to negatively paint anybody?

All we really know is, Trump has repeatedly said he doesn't want to play a crooked game, because he doesn't want to own the outcome of playing with crooks. If you're losing the game, it's because you played by the crook's rules, which favored the crooks to begin with. If you're winning (as Paul supporters found out in 2012), the crooks will change the rules. Given that reality, the best move is not to play, while calling it the rigged game that it is.

[erowe1]

Incomplete. The voters were involved in CO in voting for delegates, not candidates. Voters did not participate in choosing who those delegates would be bound to


That was by their own choice. They had caucuses to determine who would represent them at the state convention, and they could have sent Trump supporters there. They didn't.

Nobody stopped them from doing it. Nobody tricked them. Nobody made it hard for them. They just didn't do it, plain and simple.

[erowe1]

All we really know is, Trump has repeatedly said he doesn't want to play a crooked game

That isn't all we really know.

We also really know that he's being utterly disingenuous when he pretends to care about whether it's crooked. Playing crooked games is Trump's bread and butter.

We also really know that the reason he lost Colorado wasn't because of any crookedness, but 100% because of the failure of him and his supporters to do what was necessary to win. This undeniable fact sheds a certain light on his and your harping about crooked games.

[CPUd]

That is, Mannafort fully briefed him that it was a rigged game, anf Trump chose not to play. If the final decision in CO was to be made by insiders at the state convention, having a thousand people on the ground in the months prior would have made no difference.
The final decision was not made by insiders; it was made by the delegates who were elected on March 1 all the way up to the state convention. If Trump turned out his people on March 1, it would be Trump delegates making those decisions.


All we really know is, Trump has repeatedly said he doesn't want to play a crooked game, because he doesn't want to own the outcome of playing with crooks. If you're losing the game, it's because you played by the crook's rules, which favored the crooks to begin with. If you're winning (as Paul supporters found out in 2012), the crooks will change the rules. Given that reality, the best move is not to play, while calling it the rigged game that it is.
Trump has played with political crooks all his career. He's got a handful of the dirtiest currently running his campaign.

[Peace&Freedom]

That was by their own choice. They had caucuses to determine who would represent them at the state convention, and they could have sent Trump supporters there. They didn't.

Nobody stopped them from doing it. Nobody tricked them. Nobody made it hard for them. They just didn't do it, plain and simple.

The voters did not get to choose, because the delegates were not representing them, as the candidate the local delegates represented did not reflect who the delegates would be bound to, who would be going to the RNC convention. The voters did not get to choose the candidate and in some way allocate the national delegates, plain and simple.


The final decision was not made by insiders; it was made by the delegates who were elected on March 1 all the way up to the state convention. If Trump turned out his people on March 1, it would be Trump delegates making those decisions.


See above. Those local delegates did not get converted into national delegates, to reflect the preference of the local voters who supported Trump. Those voters were disenfranchised, since their preference was cancelled out at the state convention. That was the entire point of the insiders setting up the unbound system in that state, to cut out the local voters from allocating delegates through expressing their candidate choice.

[erowe1]

The voters did not get to choose, because the delegates were not representing them

The voters chose those delegates. The people those delegates represented were the ones who showed up to vote. Trump's supporters simply didn't show up. They could have elected delegates who would have represented them by sending Trump delegates to the RNC. They just chose not to participate.

The voters did choose the candidate by choosing the delegates who were going to choose the candidate.

[Peace&Freedom]

The voters chose those delegates. The people those delegates represented were the ones who showed up to vote. Trump's supporters simply didn't show up. They could have elected delegates who would have represented them by sending Trump delegates to the RNC. They just chose not to participate.

The voters did choose the candidate by choosing the delegates who were going to choose the candidate.

Only those local delegates didn't choose the national delegates, the controllers of the state convention did, which made the voters choice of local delegates a nothing burger. No matter how many Trump delegates showed up at the state con, the state GOP was going to select national delegates who were all Cruz, which is what they did. You can keep cleaning it up all you want to, but this is not voters choosing candidates, or voters allocating delegates to national.

[CPUd]

Only those local delegates didn't choose the national delegates, the controllers of the state convention did, which made the voters choice of local delegates a nothing burger. No matter how many Trump delegates showed up at the state con, the state GOP was going to select national delegates who were all Cruz, which is what they did. You can keep cleaning it up all you want to, but this is not voters choosing candidates, or voters allocating delegates to national.

Where are you getting this from? Because it is completely false.

[erowe1]

Only those local delegates didn't choose the national delegates, the controllers of the state convention did

Source?

(mod edit)

[HVACTech]

Where are you getting this from? Because it is completely false.

true that, the "Republicans" would NEVER bear false witness. right? :)

[Peace&Freedom]

The Denver Post's (http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_29750206/angry-donald-trump-blasts-colorado-gop-results-totally) summary of the CO con:


Colorado GOP leaders canceled the party’s presidential straw poll in August to avoid binding its delegates to a candidate who may not survive until the Republican National Convention in July.

Instead, Republicans selected national delegates through the caucus process, a move that put the election of national delegates in the hands of party insiders and activists — leaving roughly 90 percent of the more than 1 million Republican voters on the sidelines.

Ryan McMaken (https://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/colorado-caucuses-non-elections/), on the Colorado con and the "if you missed the fine print, tough" used car salesman excuse making for all the gaming:


...It’s rather laughable that the caucus system is put out there by Republican activist types — many of whom are knee-jerk anti-democracy types — that caucusing is somehow more “rational” and less subject to “mob rule” than an ordinary primary, in which all Republicans would be able to vote. Those video clips of delegates being paraded up to give ten-second speeches well illustrates the true amount of rational debate and discussion that takes place at these conventions: there isn’t any. Mob rule is alive and well at GOP conventions. The numbers are simply smaller.

The process is designed so that a majority of people present (that is, a majority of party activists and hacks who have immense amounts of free time to attend these meetings) steamroll everyone else.

Considering this, we’re forced to conclude that Trump likely had no chance of winning a majority of delegates at the state convention even under slightly different rules. Most of Trump’s supporters are working-class types outside the Party’s activist core, and few of them understand the convoluted delegate process. Basically, considering the Party rules, Cruz won fair and square.

That said, most of those who are defending the GOP process don’t realize how out-of-touch they look. Party hacks are so devoted to their little club that they are blinded to how corrupt and fixed it looks to outsiders. Anyone who hasn’t drunk the political-party Kool-Aid can see that the entire system is rigged to favor the chosen favorites of the elites. Slogans put out by apologists for the party system such as “parties are private organizations!” and “we’re a republic not a democracy!” just make them look all the more divorced from the general public’s views of how politics should work.

Many of those on the outside recognize — whether they say it explicitly or not — that the party system exists to limit voter choice to the favored candidates of wealthy elites in both parties...

And here's the resolution to prevent CO delegates from voting for Trump:

https://theconservativetreehouse.files.wordpress.com/2016/04/colorado-resolution.jpg?w=662&h=883

And guess who exactly were behind the GOP's decision last year to stop an initiative to hold a CO primary (again as per the Denver Post (http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/04/17/colorado-lawmakers-voted-scrap-election-are-ted-cruz-delegates/)):


In May of 2015, four Colorado Senate Republicans killed an initiative “to create a presidential primary in 2016,” reported the Denver Post. “Under the bill, Colorado would have held a presidential primary in March that ran parallel with the state’s complicated caucus system… when it came before the Senate Appropriations Committee, four Republicans voted to kill the bill with three Democrats supporting it.”

The four Republicans who voted against the initiative were Sen. Kevin Grantham, Sen. Kent Lambert, Sen. Laura Woods, and Sen. Jerry Sonnenberg.

On Cruz’s campaign website, Sens. Woods, Grantham, and Lambert are all listed as Cruz supporters and as declared members of Cruz’s “Colorado Leadership team.”

[CPUd]

The Denver Post's (http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_29750206/angry-donald-trump-blasts-colorado-gop-results-totally) summary of the CO con:



Ryan McMaken (https://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/colorado-caucuses-non-elections/), on the Colorado con and the "if you missed the fine print, tough" used car salesman excuse making for all the gaming:



And here's the resolution to prevent CO delegates from voting for Trump:

https://theconservativetreehouse.files.wordpress.com/2016/04/colorado-resolution.jpg?w=662&h=883

And guess who exactly were behind the GOP's decision last year to stop an initiative to hold a CO primary (again as per the Denver Post (http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/04/17/colorado-lawmakers-voted-scrap-election-are-ted-cruz-delegates/)):

It was the responsibility of the Trump campaign to find their own local party leaders and activists to run for delegate. That's why well-organized campaigns have teams who go out and identify these people. If Trump was such a popular candidate, this would have not been a problem. Cruz is only slightly more popular than Trump and they had a full slate. Ron 2012 had plenty of people willing to give their time and money to work their way through the delegate process when other campaigns like Santorum were left hanging in the wind just like the Trump 2016 supporters.

[Peace&Freedom]

It was the responsibility of the Trump campaign to find their own local party leaders and activists to run for delegate. That's why well-organized campaigns have teams who go out and identify these people. If Trump was such a popular candidate, this would have not been a problem. Cruz is only slightly more popular than Trump and they had a full slate. Ron 2012 had plenty of people willing to give their time and money to work their way through the delegate process when other campaigns like Santorum were left hanging in the wind just like the Trump 2016 supporters.

It's the responsibility of the campaign to not waste resources on a rigged game, that was designed to defeat them no matter how strong its ground game was. A good campaign does not obligate itself to pour funds into a money pit, or play a stilted game where the outcome was already decided. The CO set-up made the local vote and local delegates irrelevant, as they were to be steamrolled at the state convention controlled by the hack insiders, who were only going to be selecting national delegates for Cruz. The cut-out of the voters and cynical gaming was even admitted by the former CO GOP Chair (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/04/11/former_co_gop_chair_message_were_sending_is_your_v ote_doesnt_matter_and_your_voice_doesnt_count.html ):


Former Colorado state Republican party chairman Ryan Call talked to Laura Ingraham today to explain the delegation-selection process works and how it "cuts out any semblance of democracy or the popular will." Call said the statewide convention that chooses the delegates reinforces all the worst stereotypes of the party.

"The very time we should be opening up our doors and being more open and transparent, and welcoming people into our Party, we’ve essentially made the decision to close it off and make it more cumbersome and more difficult. And, to prevent the ability of people to have their voice heard in this process. You’re reinforcing all of the very worst stereotypes about the Party and I, frankly, am very concerned about the way voters are going to feel," Call told Ingraham.

[CPUd]

It's the responsibility of the campaign to not waste resources on a rigged game, that was designed to defeat them no matter how strong its ground game was. A good campaign does not obligate itself to pour funds into a money pit, or play a stilted game where the outcome was already decided. The CO set-up made the local vote and local delegates irrelevant, as they were to be steamrolled at the state convention controlled by the hack insiders, who were only going to be selecting national delegates for Cruz. The cut-out of the voters and cynical gaming was even admitted by the former CO GOP Chair (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/04/11/former_co_gop_chair_message_were_sending_is_your_v ote_doesnt_matter_and_your_voice_doesnt_count.html ):

Show where the national delegates were chosen by "party insiders" who were not elected as precinct delegates on March 1.

Here's a list:
http://cologop.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/2016_ElectionSummaryReport-National-Delegate-by-Vote-totals.pdf

[CPUd]

FWIW, this was the official Cruz slate. They had it printed on t-shirts:

https://i.imgur.com/XZdbUbf.jpg



and the statewide delegates/alternates:

http://i.imgur.com/c4mcqSf.png

There was no need to cheat, the trump delegates were greatly outnumbered.

[CPUd]

Q&A from local press:



Back to presidential politics for a minute. It’s 2016— a presidential election year! Will March 1 have any bearing on the presidential race for Colorado Republicans?

Yes, in a way.

If you go to a Republican precinct caucus on March 1, you’ll be helping elect delegates to the next level. The levels after the March 1 precinct caucuses are the congressional conventions and the state convention. These delegates selected March 1 at the precinct caucuses are people who will eventually go on to make up 34 of the state GOP’s 37 delegates at the national convention held later this year in Cleveland. So if you have a favorite presidential candidate, you’ll want to make sure you elect delegates who also support that candidate. And plenty of the presidential campaigns are trying to figure out the best strategy for getting their candidate help in Colorado on March 1.




So if I’m not a diehard, party-building type, but I’m still a registered Republican and I want to participate, why should I spend time on March 1 to caucus?

Other than that it just might be your duty as a registered voter in a major political party to participate in local elections and make your voice heard about who should represent you and your party?

Well, if you want to nationalize it, if you have a favorite Republican candidate for the White House who you want to see nominated by the Republican Party, then you can get in on the ground floor early to find out who of your local potential delegates are also in your corner. And, most importantly, you yourself can run to become a delegate.

Another big reason to get involved this time is to hep decide who could run against Bennett for U.S. Senate. In April, only three GOP candidates out of the dozen or so who have announced they’re running will make it out of the state convention. That’s because a candidate needs to crack 30 percent of the delegate vote in order to get on the GOP primary ballot for U.S. Senate.

“You very much can have an impact whether you run for delegate or you elect delegates who support candidates that you like,” at the March 1 caucuses, says Lynch. “Your vote goes so much further in a caucus process simply by showing up.”

http://www.coloradoindependent.com/156936/colorado-republican-caucuses

[Mordan]

It was the responsibility of the Trump campaign to find their own local party leaders and activists to run for delegate. That's why well-organized campaigns have teams who go out and identify these people. If Trump was such a popular candidate, this would have not been a problem. Cruz is only slightly more popular than Trump and they had a full slate. Ron 2012 had plenty of people willing to give their time and money to work their way through the delegate process when other campaigns like Santorum were left hanging in the wind just like the Trump 2016 supporters.

you are a tool. Ron Paul had them in 2012 and achieved NOTHING. NADA. SLITCH.

Trump is doing so much more this year. I cannot thank him enough for FIGHTING and raising hell in the media.

[CPUd]

you are a tool. Ron Paul had them in 2012 and achieved NOTHING. NADA. SLITCH.

Trump is doing so much more this year. I cannot thank him enough for FIGHTING and raising hell in the media.

Ron 2012 got members elected to the national committees, and into leadership of at least 4 state GOPs. They did not get the support they needed during the off years and all got ousted within 3 years. Trump is making it harder for a takeover like Ron 2012 to happen again.

You should also learn to make your points without resorting to name calling.

[erowe1]

The Denver Post's (http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_29750206/angry-donald-trump-blasts-colorado-gop-results-totally) summary of the CO con:



Ryan McMaken (https://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/colorado-caucuses-non-elections/), on the Colorado con and the "if you missed the fine print, tough" used car salesman excuse making for all the gaming:



And here's the resolution to prevent CO delegates from voting for Trump:

https://theconservativetreehouse.files.wordpress.com/2016/04/colorado-resolution.jpg?w=662&h=883

And guess who exactly were behind the GOP's decision last year to stop an initiative to hold a CO primary (again as per the Denver Post (http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/04/17/colorado-lawmakers-voted-scrap-election-are-ted-cruz-delegates/)):

None of that backs up what you said.

The delegates to the national convention were elected by state convention delegates, who were elected by caucus goers. If Trump supporters wanted to send Trump supporting delegates to the national convention, they could have. Nothing prevented them from doing that. They simply didn't. Nobody left them on the sidelines. They just chose to stay on the sidelines.

[erowe1]

you are a tool. Ron Paul had them in 2012 and achieved NOTHING. NADA. SLITCH.

Trump is doing so much more this year. I cannot thank him enough for FIGHTING and raising hell in the media.

Got it. So here at Ron Paul Forums, those who support that loser Ron Paul the site's mission are tools, and those who oppose everything we stand for and support the great Donald Trump aren't.

[Bossobass]

None of that backs up what you said.

The delegates to the national convention were elected by state convention delegates, who were elected by caucus goers. If Trump supporters wanted to send Trump supporting delegates to the national convention, they could have. Nothing prevented them from doing that. They simply didn't. Nobody left them on the sidelines. They just chose to stay on the sidelines.

From the Great Wizard who knows all: "Nobody left them on the sidelines…"

Tell that to delegate number 379.


http://i.imgur.com/OWA7ZTF.jpg

[LibertyEagle]

Got it. So here at Ron Paul Forums, those who support that loser Ron Paul the site's mission are tools, and those who oppose everything we stand for and support the great Donald Trump aren't.

Climb down off that "we" mountain, erowe. Ron Paul believes in defending borders and national sovereignty.

[Mordan]

Got it. So here at Ron Paul Forums, those who support that loser Ron Paul the site's mission are tools, and those who oppose everything we stand for and support the great Donald Trump aren't.

You and CPUd keep replying in bad faith. You are both bloody minded.

See: you just said two utterly manipulative things. BOLDED. Both wrong and manipulative. I don't see value anymore in reading your comments.

[erowe1]

Climb down off that "we" mountain, erowe. Ron Paul believes in defending borders and national sovereignty.

As do I. This website has a mission. We who support that mission on this website aren't the ones who are tools, trolls, shills, and whatever else you Trump supporters have taken to calling us. It's the other way around.

[erowe1]

You and CPUd keep replying in bad faith. You are both bloody minded.

See: you just said two utterly manipulative things. BOLDED. Both wrong and manipulative. I don't see value anymore in reading your comments.

Go back and read your own post that I was replying to, and you'll see that my words were completely called for.

You shouldn't read my comments. You shouldn't read anyone else's comments here either.

You expect to be able to just come here and take over the site and turn it into the very thing we're here to fight against, and everyone is supposed to just roll over and let you. Think again.

[erowe1]

From the Great Wizard who knows all: "Nobody left them on the sidelines…"

Tell that to delegate number 379.


Right. That one poor delegate 379. If only there weren't that typo on the ballot, maybe the delegates to the state convention who were Cruz supporters by an overwhelming majority (because that's who the Republican voters of the state elected to go there) would have elected that Trump delegate to go to the national convention. It's all because of that one typo, and has nothing to do with the fact that Trump and his supporters simply didn't get the vote out on the day of the precinct caucuses when it counted.

The additional facts that the Trump campaign's own printed slates for delegates at the precinct and district caucuses were far more riddled with errors than the party's ballot with that one error was, and that all of Trump's other RNC delegates also lost, and not just 379, are of course not material to the matter.

[fcreature]

From the Great Wizard who knows all: "Nobody left them on the sidelines…"

Tell that to delegate number 379.


http://i.imgur.com/OWA7ZTF.jpg

LOL this is your proof of cheating and corruption?

Really?

How many times has this image been thrown around the forum? Sad that this is all you have to go on. Mistakes are standard procedure. Had Trump's campaign actually been present they would have been able to have this corrected before going out.

Still waiting to hear where the cheating happened. Comparing this to how Ron was treated is, at best, disingenuous.

[Bossobass]

LOL this is your proof of cheating and corruption?

Really?

How many times has this image been thrown around the forum? Sad that this is all you have to go on. Mistakes are standard procedure. Had Trump's campaign actually been present they would have been able to have this corrected before going out.

Still waiting to hear where the cheating happened. Comparing this to how Ron was treated is, at best, disingenuous.

Really?

You want me to be your investigative reporter when the evidence of fraud is rife enough for Helen Keller to find?

And, how many instances do you need to be convinced that there is corruption in the process? Used to be that one was enough. No, not for the Trump haters. Ron couldn't convince you, the delegates' eye witness accounts are apparently too redundant for you and you drone on with the no harm, no foul meme.

How Ron was treated, since he's being quoted here as saying Trump just doesn't know the rules, IS THE POINT. But don't let the example get in the way of your idea that no cheating occurred, which is precious.

[Bossobass]

Right. That one poor delegate 379. .

It takes more than one?

[erowe1]

It takes more than one?

Seeing as how all of the Trump delegates lost, the fact that just one of them has that excuse doesn't explain much.

Are you really going to pretend that by far the main reason Colorado sent zero Trump delegates to the national convention is the fault of the Trump campaign and Trump's own supporters failing to do what was necessary?

[CPUd]

Really?

You want me to be your investigative reporter when the evidence of fraud is rife enough for Helen Keller to find?

And, how many instances do you need to be convinced that there is corruption in the process? Used to be that one was enough. No, not for the Trump haters. Ron couldn't convince you, the delegates' eye witness accounts are apparently too redundant for you and you drone on with the no harm, no foul meme.

How Ron was treated, since he's being quoted here as saying Trump just doesn't know the rules, IS THE POINT. But don't let the example get in the way of your idea that no cheating occurred, which is precious.

Ron was cheated for real. Trump pretends he was cheated to cover up his own campaign's incompetence.

[LibertyEagle]

As do I. This website has a mission. We who support that mission on this website aren't the ones who are tools, trolls, shills, and whatever else you Trump supporters have taken to calling us. It's the other way around.

You believe in defending borders? News to me. Glad to know you now support ending the illegal alien invasion of our country.

[jllundqu]

Ron was cheated for real. Trump pretends he was cheated to cover up his own campaign's incompetence.

This a thousand times. Trump didn't put in the groundwork and got spanked by ACTUAL ACTIVISTS and people on the ground doing the fine minutia and politicking that Trump doesn't care about. He just hopes his populist rhetoric will carry him to the nomination and doesn't give a damn about ACTUALLY doing the work it takes to get there according to the rules laid out like 40 years ago in most states.

DROP MIC....

CLOSE THREAD //

[silverhandorder]

Trump was cheated there should have been an election.

Also all the States where he won elections he should have control of who is his delegate. So shit like louisiana, Georgia should not happen.

[Bossobass]

Good golly, you Trump-Haters….

Did Ron Paul say Trump doesn't understand how the rigging works or not? That's the point of the OP.

There is no implication from Ron that the elections aren't rigged. Get it?

Please stop trying to convince those of us who are capable of understanding what Ron said that the elections are not rigged.

Once again, because da Trump Hate is strong with the 3 guys who hide behind THE MISSION…

The elections are RIGGED, there is SO MUCH DECEIT, A CHARADE, ROTTEN, SIMPLY USED TO PACIFY THE PEOPLE…

This^^^ is what RP said. Try to absorb it and move on to goofing on candidates who wore brown shoes with a black belt yesterday and other really important stuff that's typical of this endless hate ranting.

[erowe1]

You believe in defending borders? News to me. Glad to know you now support ending the illegal alien invasion of our country.

I like Ron Paul's hands off approach to that issue, as opposed to the big government approaches of people like Trump.

[erowe1]

Good golly, you Trump-Haters….

Did Ron Paul say Trump doesn't understand how the rigging works or not? That's the point of the OP.

There is no implication from Ron that the elections aren't rigged. Get it?

Please stop trying to convince those of us who are capable of understanding what Ron said that the elections are not rigged.

Once again, because da Trump Hate is strong with the 3 guys who hide behind THE MISSION…

The elections are RIGGED, there is SO MUCH DECEIT, A CHARADE, ROTTEN, SIMPLY USED TO PACIFY THE PEOPLE…

This^^^ is what RP said. Try to absorb it and move on to goofing on candidates who wore brown shoes with a black belt yesterday and other really important stuff that's typical of this endless hate ranting.

So now you're backtracking and you want to agree with Ron Paul again, huh?

Except for some reason you still say "Trump hater" as if there's something wrong with that.

[Peace&Freedom]

None of that backs up what you said.

The delegates to the national convention were elected by state convention delegates, who were elected by caucus goers. If Trump supporters wanted to send Trump supporting delegates to the national convention, they could have. Nothing prevented them from doing that. They simply didn't. Nobody left them on the sidelines. They just chose to stay on the sidelines.

The quotes cited confirm just what I said, frequently down to the exact same words or phrase. So I'm done providing cites, since again you and CPUd have demonstrated that facts you don't like don't matter to you. The GOP establishment runs a rigged process, as shown in abundance in 2008, 2012, and currently, which the movement opposes---the only difference this year being, you are siding with that establishment, while I still oppose it.

[Bossobass]

I like Ron Paul's hands off approach to that issue, as opposed to the big government approaches of people like Trump.

Ron proposed bringing our troops home and stationing them on our borders. Hands-off, for sure.

[Bossobass]

So now you're backtracking and you want to agree with Ron Paul again, huh?

Except for some reason you still say "Trump hater" as if there's something wrong with that.

Good to see you've flip flopped and there's nothing wrong with your silly hat as long as you wear it.

[Bossobass]

Seeing as how all of the Trump delegates lost, the fact that just one of them has that excuse doesn't explain much.

Are you really going to pretend that by far the main reason Colorado sent zero Trump delegates to the national convention is the fault of the Trump campaign and Trump's own supporters failing to do what was necessary?

Yes, I am, as long as you're really going to contend that Trump got zero delegates because he's ignorant and lazy.

[erowe1]

The quotes cited confirm just what I said.

No they didn't. You claimed, "those local delegates didn't choose the national delegates, the controllers of the state convention did." That's totally false, and you have presented no evidence for it at all. What do you think happened at the state convention? A bunch of delegates gathered and then didn't do anything? What do you think that ballot was for, the one with the infamous missing #379?

[erowe1]

Yes, I am, as long as you're really going to contend that Trump got zero delegates because he's ignorant and lazy.

But that is the reason. Not just him individually, but his campaign and supporters. You're just making yourself look as ignorant as them.

[erowe1]

Good to see you've flip flopped and there's nothing wrong with your silly hat as long as you wear it.

I haven't flip flopped. I'm the guy who's been agreeing with the OP this whole time.

[erowe1]

Ron proposed bringing our troops home and stationing them on our borders. Hands-off, for sure.

I said "to that issue," as in the issue of illegal immigration. Obviously when he talked about having the military protect our own borders instead of other countries he wasn't talking about protecting us from unarmed civilians.