Due to the rather silly delegate system you guys use to elect nominees, is Ron Paul winning?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9x28_I9oIVg

In other words, Ron Paul is cheating the system..or, not really as much cheating, but definitely punching below the belt. Ron has a very small handful of followers. The thing is that his followers are commited to Ron to the point of psychosis. By circumventing the voting process, Rons followers are packing the delegates. If this plan happens to succede, then sure, Ron Paul can very well get the nomination.

All of Rons fans will be jumping and screaming "vote for Ron, vote for Ron" with their usual "wake up" crap. In reality, the republicans who didnt vote for Ron will also remember what happened at the delegate voting, and many will simply not show up and vote.

Believe me when I tell you this: Ron Paul will never be elected president of this country. Ron Paul will NOT be able to compete against Obama.

---

Might i also point out that, even though this is not illegal, it is not honest.

now, all of you Ron Paul fans, please explain to me how Ron will bring honesty back to the white house when he is OPENLY flaunting the democratic process. In fact his entire campaigned is based on making sure your vote for someone else is a vote for Ron.

Now...tell me Ron Paul isnt a lying scum bag. Lets here your excuses.

It's perfectly honest, and that's the problem with the system. Did you watch the whole interview? None of the delegates lied about who they were going to represent; they just showed up and became delegates.

The word you might be looking for is "fair", not "honest". No, it's not fair, but then the democratic system in your country (and mine) is not fair. You win by gaming the system, and this is just an example of that.

(February 11, 2012 at 9:27 am)Tiberius Wrote: is Ron Paul winning?

No, "we the people" are losing.

No, "honest" is the word. Too bad your little tin god is just as big a crook as all the other fuckheads, huh?

(February 11, 2012 at 12:24 pm)Tiberius Wrote: It's perfectly honest, and that's the problem with the system. Did you watch the whole interview? None of the delegates lied about who they were going to represent; they just showed up and became delegates.

The word you might be looking for is "fair", not "honest". No, it's not fair, but then the democratic system in your country (and mine) is not fair. You win by gaming the system, and this is just an example of that.

Yes, I saw the entire interview.

So you have no problem with a politician taking a vote for someone else and making it a vote for himself?

I thought Ron was against that stuff?

Either way, if this guy gets elected my family will be eating at the local soup kitchen and sleeping in the gutter. The next ron Paul supporter that insists that I "wake up" and vote for Paul is going to make me go off.

If Ron Paul were to actually get the nomination, he would end up getting utterly slaughtered in the election. So it really doesn't matter.

(February 11, 2012 at 12:24 pm)Tiberius Wrote: The word you might be looking for is "fair", not "honest". No, it's not fair, but then the democratic system in your country (and mine) is not fair. You win by gaming the system, and this is just an example of that.

Correction, you can win by gaming the system. There's a word for gaming a system, and it is not synonymous with honest, or fair. Finding a weakness in an imperfect process and exploiting it to circumvent the spirit of the process shouldn't figure into how our representative government is chosen, should it? Let's say a candidate you vehemently opposed was engaging in this, what would you have to say about that?

(February 11, 2012 at 12:32 pm)Minimalist Wrote: No, "honest" is the word. Too bad your little tin god is just as big a crook as all the other fuckheads, huh?

No, it's not the word. There is nothing dishonest about what he's done, since he's been open about it (hence the interview), and nothing about it breaks any law...in fact it's how a caucus is set up to work. Individual votes simply do not count in a caucus; all the individual votes do is show who the favourite candidates are in order of popularity. It is the delegates' votes that actually count, and there are no rules about who a delegate can be, or which way they can cast their vote.

Like I said before, this is a quirk of the system, and one that Ron Paul realised he could use to his advantage.

(February 11, 2012 at 12:39 pm)reverendjeremiah Wrote: So you have no problem with a politician taking a vote for someone else and making it a vote for himself?

He isn't doing that. The individual votes count for nothing in a caucus. It is the votes from the delegates that count, and the method for choosing delegates is entirely separate.

(February 11, 2012 at 12:43 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Correction, you can win by gaming the system. There's a word for gaming a system, and it is not synonymous with honest, or fair. Finding a weakness in an imperfect process and exploiting it to circumvent the spirit of the process shouldn't figure into how our representative government is chosen, should it? Let's say a candidate you vehemently opposed was engaging in this, what would you have to say about that?

I'd say the system was flawed, which I've done so here. It doesn't matter if candidates I hate are doing it, if it's a legitimate part of the system, I have no grounds to complain about their action, other than to point out that the system is flawed.

Well, we agree on one point, disagree on another. The system is flawed. The flaws in this system do not remove my grounds for complaining about their actions.

(Case in point, Libertarian.....in your estimation our current system is flawed, but those parts which you feel are flawed are legitimate, so what are your grounds for complaining?)