Home Main Category Second Amendment/Politics

Ron Paul wins Minnesota, Colorado delegates to Republican National Convention

Big BatteryBig Battery MemberPosts: 203 Member
Despite what Romney hoped would happen... Santorum delegates are moving to Ron Paul...


source

In Colorado, supporters of the 12-term Congressman from Texas won 12 delegates and 13 alternate delegates. Paul’s state operation is confident that it can win over more of the Rick Santorum delegates to its side who were elected on a combined Paul-Santorum slate. The Paul-Santorum coalition’s combined delegate total is 20—more than establishment candidate Mitt Romney's estimated 16. In addition, the Paul-Santorum coalition denied Romney delegates all the committee spots within the Colorado National Delegation. Two Ron Paul supporters will serve on the Rules Committee and the Paul coalition dethroned known Romney supporter and Colorado State Party Chairman Ryan Call from his position as Delegation Chairman.

“Ron Paul’s victories today declare his delegate-attainment strategy to be a success and they demonstrate that the media and Washington pundits are undercounting his delegates to the Republican National Convention in Tampa,’ said Ron Paul 2012 National Campaign Manager John Tate.

Replies

  • tennmiketennmike Senior Member Posts: 27,398 Senior Member
    Even if all of Santorum's delegates throw in behind Paul, he's still barely at 50% of Romney's delegate count.

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/republican_delegate_count.html
      I refuse to answer that question on the grounds that I don't know the answer”
    ― Douglas Adams
  • Big BatteryBig Battery Member Posts: 203 Member
    RCP is wrong. They dont understand how the delegate and caucus system works. This is common on all the sites reporting delegate counts. This is why they all have different numbers.
    This helps to explain the confusing delegate system the media doesnt seem to get or chooses not to get.
    It is a little old but explains it. Also, the bound delegates are only bound in the FIRST vote at the convention.
  • shotgunshooter3shotgunshooter3 Senior Member Posts: 5,742 Senior Member
    I would like to see Ron Paul overtake Romney, but I am not crossing my fingers. He has a lot of good ideas, many of which probably wouldn't catch on. However, I like his mentality, and that alone sitting in the Oval Office would be better than nothing.
    - I am a rifleman with a poorly chosen screen name. -
    "Slow is smooth, smooth is fast, and speed is the economy of motion" - Scott Jedlinski
  • Big BatteryBig Battery Member Posts: 203 Member
    Sorry BB, I've been a long time fan of Paul's but it's over. I had high hopes, but he just didn't gained the momentum he did in '08. Too bad really, but then he was always too far outside of the mainstream for the establishment to ever let him win. The GOP likes to give the conservative base the illusion that they actually have some say in who the candidate will be, but somehow the party insider's darling always seems to get the nod, no matter how unpopular he may seem (Romney, McCain, Bush, Dole...).

    I would then support and endorse his move to a third party position. But I have not given up. Obama is going to make mince meat of Romney over his elitist history. Obama has more drone kills than any other president... Romney cant beat him with the traditional GOP agenda of national defense and tax cuts.
  • samzheresamzhere Banned Posts: 10,923 Senior Member
    Folks supporting Ron Paul are honorable, as I believe is he, but I simply cannot accept his stance re. Israel or Iran.

    Should he magically become the nominee, Obama would win in a landslide similar to LBJ vs. Goldwater. Paul simply could not generate the crossover or independent votes needed to win. His support continues to be marginal nationwide and that's simply the facts of it.

    I've got no desire to see the Republican party go down in flames again, just for the sake of some reactionary supporters of a fringe candidate. It's not that I dislike Paul, I simply cannot agree with his international policies or theories. The concept of "fortress America" was tried and it failed. And that was another more naive era.
  • CaliFFLCaliFFL Senior Member Posts: 5,486 Senior Member
    samzhere wrote: »
    The concept of "fortress America" was tried and it failed.

    While we have troops in over 150 countries, we are invaded by 20 million foreign nationals at home. Many of which kill, rape and rob Americans, defraud our systems, spread disease, and stand up and demand American benefits.

    I'd say we haven't tried "fortress America" nearly vigorous enough. But hey, as long as Israel is safe...
    When our governing officials dismiss due process as mere semantics, when they exercise powers they don’t have and ignore duties they actually bear, and when we let them get away with it, we have ceased to be our own rulers.

    Adam J. McCleod


  • BufordBuford Senior Member Posts: 6,713 Senior Member
    CaliFFL wrote: »
    While we have troops in over 150 countries, we are invaded by 20 million foreign nationals at home. Many of which kill, rape and rob Americans, defraud our systems, spread disease, and stand up and demand American benefits.

    I'd say we haven't tried "fortress America" nearly vigorous enough. But hey, as long as Israel is safe...
    As to Israel and Iran we should mind our own business.
    Just look at the flowers Lizzie, just look at the flowers.
  • samzheresamzhere Banned Posts: 10,923 Senior Member
    Well, guys, I have always admitted to a strong pro-Israel stance for family history reasons, but the USA tried to be uninvolved several times in the past (particularly WW2) and being neutral didn't work out nor was it the right thing.

    Closing our borders to illegals is another topic and I totally agree this should be done asap.

    And I think we need to consider carefully when and where we commit our troops' lives. Being an ally to Israel is one thing, US boots on the ground is another. And problem with Iran is that they are threatening the free flow of oil and working on nukes. Sometimes it's necessary to swat flies. Committing troops isn't part of the issue, thankfully. Our Navy can do the job just fine, and so can the Israelis.

    But anyway... Ron Paul supporters or not, his nomination will ensure another Obama victory and that's how it is. Those who think otherwise are fooling themselves. At least that's my opinion.
  • JayhawkerJayhawker Moderator Posts: 16,928 Senior Member
    samzhere wrote: »
    But anyway... Ron Paul supporters or not, his nomination will ensure another Obama victory and that's how it is. Those who think otherwise are fooling themselves. At least that's my opinion.

    Regretfully Ron Paul is seen by a HUGE number of people as an old guy with some good ideas and a good share of bad ones whose hobby is running for President every 4 years...
    Sharps Model 1874 - "The rifle that made the west safe for Winchester"
  • ColtRevolverColtRevolver New Member Posts: 13 New Member
    I would LOVE for Ron Paul to steal the nomination but it won't happen. The thing to remember though is he's spreading his ideas and more people are following them and coming into Congress. IF we can continue that, we can start repairing what's happened to this country. My heart weeps that the timing for Paul was off. If we had him about 30 years earlier as a fiery young man, I think he would take the election by storm like Teddy Roosevelt did.
  • Big BatteryBig Battery Member Posts: 203 Member
    He just won Iowa. Google foxnews, they just announced it.
  • samzheresamzhere Banned Posts: 10,923 Senior Member
    So right now, Ron Paul has a few more delegates than I do. Lemme know when Ron Paul's delegate count tops 800, okay?
  • bisleybisley Senior Member Posts: 10,798 Senior Member
    Jayhawker wrote: »
    Regretfully Ron Paul is seen by a HUGE number of people as an old guy with some good ideas and a good share of bad ones whose hobby is running for President every 4 years...

    It's certainly the way I view him.

    His foreign policy views identify him as either a pacifist or an extreme isolationist. Emotionally, I can identify with some aspects of either, but reality keeps creeping in to my thoughts. Every time I see him, I get this vision of Neville Chamberlain jubilantly waving the Munich agreement around, after basically telling Hitler that he could have Czechoslavakia, if he would just promise not to attack Poland. He viewed it as a great diplomatic triumph, while Hitler viewed it as a geo-political strategy that would give him half of Europe at a much lower cost than had been previously calculated. After meeting with the parties to the agreement, he described them to his cronies as "small worms" who would not oppose him to save their allies.

    I can see Ron Paul trading Israel to the radical Muslim countries for a promise not to attack the US.
  • Big ChiefBig Chief Senior Member Posts: 32,995 Senior Member
    Y'all go ahead and throw yer votes away on RP on a third party ticket and it will be 4 more years of Obammy..........remember H. Ross Perot? You can say you stood up for an alternative to Romney and leave his bumper stickers on your cars until they finally fade and peel away like he will to make a political statement. But Obammy will be grinning like a jackass in a briar patch in the oval office for 4 more years.
    It's only true if it's on this forum where opinions are facts and facts are opinions
    Words of wisdom from Big Chief: Flush twice, it's a long way to the Mess Hall
    I'd rather have my sister work in a whorehouse than own another Taurus!
  • samzheresamzhere Banned Posts: 10,923 Senior Member
    Big Chief wrote: »
    Y'all go ahead and throw yer votes away on RP on a third party ticket and it will be 4 more years of Obammy. etc

    Big you couldn't have said it better. The other day someone here also said that we've got either beef or pork on the menu, and fried chicken isn't on the menu.

    I do NOT think it's wrong to support a less popular candidate or believe that he/she has better ideas than the front runner. That's fine. But come November we can't resurrect Reagan or Ike or McArthur or run Gunny or Bruce Willis, either. And John Wayne was just an actor who skipped the big one. We've GOT to vote for Romney or either non-voting or voting 3rd party/writein will essentially be a pro-Obama vote.

    You Ron Paul supporters have to face facts! Ron Paul had ALL the chances to get more votes in the primaries and to get more donations to run lots of ads and stuff. Nobody prevented donors from lining up behind him via superpacs and giving millions. But the cold hard fact is that Ron Paul's ideas and policies are simply NOT as well supported as are the more moderate candidates, especially in foreign policy. He's way back in the vote count for the single and simple reason that not as many people wanted him to be the nominee! He may be your fave and you may prefer the "fortress America" ideas but that's not how most people see it.

    Now it's time to bid RP a fond farewell and be glad he got some national coverage, hope that he'll have some oomph with Romney when Rom is elected, and continue to support his ideas and try to push the Republican party in the direction you prefer. And, yeah, vote for Romney. This is the way mature and sensible people behave. They still like their candidate and still push for his/her policies but know that this now has to be done from inside.

    I've been told not to complain when Romney signs unconstitutional legislation yet nobody has been able to tell me exactly what laws they will be. And how he'll get them past the House and newly-controlled Republican Senate. Or the consequences of Obama sitting there 4 more years, enacting more and more unconstitutional mandates every day. Truth is this, plain and simple: Romney on his worst day is better than Obama.

    That will be our choice in November, barring some terrible crisis: 1) Obama or 2) Romney. Crying and sniffling and kicking rocks all the way home and refusing to eat your vegetables or vote Republican until Ron Paul gets elected won't do anything except ensure another 4 years of Obama.
  • Big BatteryBig Battery Member Posts: 203 Member
    It will be an interesting convention in Tampa. You see.. Ron Paul now took Iowa just like was predicted. He will tie or win enough states to get on the ballot for the convention. No one seems to understand the rules.

    If you want to support who the power brokers pick for you that is your perogative but I am going with saving my country. It isn't over yet, despite what Hannity says.
  • samzheresamzhere Banned Posts: 10,923 Senior Member
    Ron Paul has precisely the same chance of being the nominee as I do. Which is zero.

    Pick for me? No, RP simply hasn't received as many votes as Romney. He didn't win enough primaries. Until Santorum dropped out, Paul was running 4th, distant. When Newt quits he'll be in 2nd place among the active candidates, distant.

    Power brokers didn't go to the primaries and vote. Republicans did. And more voted for Romney than Paul. More people donated money to the Romney campaign, too.

    You've got this strange concept of who's received the most votes and who has therefore earned the most delegates. The nomination will have been decided prior to the convention. By the people who VOTED in the primaries or sent delegates.

    Thus far, NO ONE has told me what unconstitutional laws that Romney will sign as prez. After of course the bill passes both houses.

    "Saving your country" isn't going to be on the ballot in November. It will be Obama or Romney, plus the usual communist party guy who keeps running till he dies (like Ron Paul, who's made a cottage industry of being a perpetual candidate).

    Reality is an odd thing to wake up to, I admit. But on Wednesday morning Nov 7, reality ought to be a loss for Obama, and there is ONE option besides an Obama win: Romney. Like it or not, that's reality. I guess you could write in RP's name but you'll have the same effect if you write in M. Mouse or my name.

    I'm not enamored of Romney but he's the best we've got right now to defeat Obama. People who think there'll be a huge groundswell of votes for Ron Paul are seriously deceiving themselves.

    You say "you see..." so I'll wait to see what Tampa brings. Wanna make a gentlemen's bet? 100 bucks to the charity of the winner's choice, I say Romney will be the nominee and Paul will not have any success (such as veep). Donation payable to Wounded Warriors should I win. Any takers?
  • BullgatorBullgator Member Posts: 393 Member
    Very well stated Sam.
  • casinoroyalecasinoroyale Member Posts: 68 Member
    CaliFFL wrote: »
    While we have troops in over 150 countries, we are invaded by 20 million foreign nationals at home. Many of which kill, rape and rob Americans, defraud our systems, spread disease, and stand up and demand American benefits.

    I'd say we haven't tried "fortress America" nearly vigorous enough. But hey, as long as Israel is safe...

    These foreign nationals don't spread disease any more than US citizens, and they pay more to the government than they receive out of it. The real leaches in society are the corporations that receive massive corporate welfare programs from the government, not some poor immigrants.
  • QuinianQuinian Senior Member Posts: 707 Senior Member
    I'm with Buford and Calif on this one
  • bisleybisley Senior Member Posts: 10,798 Senior Member
    These foreign nationals don't spread disease any more than US citizens, and they pay more to the government than they receive out of it. The real leaches in society are the corporations that receive massive corporate welfare programs from the government, not some poor immigrants.

    Living in one of the states where these "poor immigrants" are most concentrated, I think I can safely say that you cannot prove what you are saying about them. Like most government statistics, the numbers on how many illegals there are and how much they contribute or take away from the government can fluctuate wildly, depending upon what point a politician is trying to make. Creating these statistics is not much more of an exact science than counting game animals - probably less so, since these are intelligent human beings who have survived for centuries by deceiving government oppressors.

    Still, it would not matter, if immigration were to be controlled properly, and assimilation into the existing society was once again the goal of the federal government. We did it in the past, with a reasonable amount of success, and many of our greatest Americans were first or second generation legal immigrants, who came for the promise of being free to succeed. They believed in it more earnestly than most of our own citizens, embraced our culture as their own, and contributed to the national wealth and general well-being of society.

    The illegal immigrants are 'allowed' in now because corrupt politicians want it that way, to benefit their political ends. They start life here as fugitives and are naturally resentful of the local people because they know their livelihoods can be taken away by them. Conversely, the local folks are resentful of them and exploit their 'fugitive' status by paying them low wages. It is a screwed up situation, and the federal government created it by abdicating their responsibility to control immigration. And they did it without the consent of the people who are having to deal with it.
  • samzheresamzhere Banned Posts: 10,923 Senior Member
    These foreign nationals don't spread disease any more than US citizens, and they pay more to the government than they receive out of it. The real leaches in society are the corporations that receive massive corporate welfare programs from the government, not some poor immigrants.

    Well, actually illegal immigrants DO spread disease more than US citizens. Across the Southwest we've got recurrences of tuberculosis in schools brought here by illegals from Mexico and Central/South America. It's not their fault that they're infected, because TB is endemic in many rural areas there. It's our fault that we let them into the US. Being illegal they also don't seek out proper medical care. They also live in close-packed housing that accentuates spread of TB and other infectious diseases. Again, not their fault. Many of these folks have zero schooling, are illiterate, and live in squalor back home. Their own native country keeps them in poverty because a 2-class medieval system is part of life in some of these regions. That's what "3rd world" means. If there were more leaders' heads hanging from lamp poles in those places maybe the people there would take charge and build a better country for themselves. Chile, for example, which is now thriving in a democratic government instead of under the heel of Pinochet. But these countries are not our problem. The people there have to, in some cases, rise up.

    Their fault or not, they bring endemic levels of TB and other diseases that we've virtually eliminated prior. It's spread on migrant worker crops and in rural and low-income urban grade schools, too.

    These people of course cannot be turned away from proper medical treatment. But then they need to be sent back to their home countries, or prevented entering here in the first place.

    I don't understand the term "corporate welfare" in this context and by the way, the term is "leeches" (parasites), whereas "leaches" is the process of soaking out chemicals from a substrate. The term "corporate welfare" of course is an old, outdated mantra from the 60s and 70s about corporations sucking the proletariat. A Marxist phrase, actually. How that spreads disease escapes me. Check the stats on growing infectious diseases in cities and border communities and then let me know how corporations are spreading TB or tularemia, and even plague.

    Illegal immigrants cost this country hundreds of millions each year in increased ER costs (ER operations are expensive, rather than a regular doctor or clinic) but illegals tend to head to the ER because they'll be treated there without fear of reprisal from border cops. The money saved by employing illegals (who of course work for less and have no way to complain about bad working conditions) is blood money. The US can afford the increases in food prices if all the crop workers were paid legally. What we cannot afford is the cost in creating an underclass.
  • bisleybisley Senior Member Posts: 10,798 Senior Member
    Not saying this makes it right, but there's a big difference in how easy it was to come here legally back then vs. now. Used to be all you needed to do was manage to get yourself here somehow and be willing to work and you were welcomed with open arms. Nowadays there's reams of paperwork, quotas, wait lists etc.

    Thank you for that concession to the idea that big government is responsible for most of our problems.
  • Big BatteryBig Battery Member Posts: 203 Member
    Ron Paul revolution hits the Bay State

    By ALEXANDER BURNS |
    4/30/12 9:56 AM EDT

    The Globe reports on an activist revolt in the state of Massachusetts:

    When Massachusetts Republicans went to their caucuses on Saturday, many didn’t vote for Mitt Romney’s picks.

    Instead, they went for Ron Paul.

    Less than half of Romney’s 27 chosen delegates won, and the losers included some notable Massachusetts Republicans - including Kerry Healey, the former lieutenant governor, and the House minority leader, Bradley H. Jones Jr., according to two Republican State Committee members who did not want to be named. Even some prominent alternate delegates lost - including 2010 gubernatorial candidate Charles D. Baker and Sheriff Frank G. Cousins Jr., the Republicans said.


    The delegates are pledged to vote for Romney anyway, but it's still striking to see the Paul-infused grassroots rejecting the GOP's last two gubernatorial nominees -- Healey and Baker -- and a prominent Romney surrogate like Jones, in the presumptive presidential nominee's home state. While Paul's campaign has fallen well short of its hopes in 2012, his supporters continue to prove they can have an outsized impact in small, activist-dominated settings like this one.
    http://www.politico.com/blogs/burns-haberman/2012/04/ron-paul-revolution-hits-the-bay-state-122024.html


    The politico doesnt even understand how the delegates work. They point out above that the delegates are obligated to vote for Romney anyway... but they dont understand that the delegates can abstain from the first vote and then vote as they choose in any subsequent votes. The irony of this artical is that the Politico thought they could safely report good news for Ron Paul without hurting Romney but they just dont get it.
  • samzheresamzhere Banned Posts: 10,923 Senior Member
    Ron Paul supporters are still not replying on my gentleman's bet of $100 to the winner's charity. I contend that Paul will have zero movement at the convention. He'll give a speech and go home. Period. First ballot will go to Romney. My charity is Wounded Warriors.

    Any takers?
Sign In or Register to comment.
Magazine Cover

GET THE MAGAZINE Subscribe & Save

Temporary Price Reduction

SUBSCRIBE NOW

Give a Gift   |   Subscriber Services

PREVIEW THIS MONTH'S ISSUE

GET THE NEWSLETTER Join the List and Never Miss a Thing.

Get the top Guns & Ammo stories delivered right to your inbox every week.

Advertisement