Ron Paul: what will he be able to do at the convention?
|
|
|||||
|
55 votes
|
|
33% | |||
|
7 votes
|
|
4% | |||
|
11 votes
|
|
7% | |||
|
12 votes
|
|
7% | |||
|
12 votes
|
|
7% | |||
|
70 votes
|
|
42% | |||
Over the weekend, reports came in from Examiner.com (Wilmington, DE and their National
edition). They showed Ron Paul winning delegates in Missouri, Colorado
and Minnesota that everyone thought would go to Romney or Santorum.
Santorum then quit the race last week, and never said how he expected
“his” delegates to vote. The two Examiners seemed to think that many of
them would vote for Ron Paul and not for Mitt Romney. In any
event, Ron Paul knew that caucuses would select delegates, because
primaries were non-binding. Not only are those primaries non-binding;
they have no influence on what caucuses do.
The Colorado results are most interesting. Caucuses chose 36
delegates. Sources did not seem to agree on how they would vote. But
those who investigated the matter closely, realized what had happened. RealClearPolitics, for instance, says
that Mitt Romney had the most delegates. In fact, he “won” 13
delegates, against 6 for Santorum. The caucuses chose 17 others who did not pledge their votes. But where do their loyalties lie? Tom Mullen at The Washington Times thinks he knows. Todd King of Lewis, CO, one of those “unpledged” delegates, told Mr. Mullen this:
13 unpledged delegates, including me, will vote for Ron
Paul on the first ballot. One unpledged delegate will vote for Santorum.
The remaining three unpledged delegates, also known as the ‘delegates
at large,’ are the state GOP Chairman, the state GOP National
Committeeman and the National Committeewoman. Those three will likely
vote for Romney. They usually vote for the frontrunner so as not to make
waves.
So Ron Paul can count on as many delegate votes as Mitt Romney can,
or almost as many, depending on how the super-delegates vote.
Missouri Republicans changed their caucus rules,
under pressure from many who felt that the Republican “establishment”
wanted them to shut-up and let them do things their way. Ron Paul hopes
to “dominate” in Missouri when Republican voters there meet in caucus
this Saturday and in June.
The Ron Paul campaign flatly disputes the AP/New York Times delegate tally. In March they showed the true delegate strength as:
- Mitt Romney: 425
- Rick Santorum: 361
- Ron Paul: 225
- Newt Gingrich: 165
One commenter on that page explained how Ron Paul’s supporters get delegates:
This isn’t for sissies. You have to go to the meetings,
meet people and tell them your name so they’ll remember you when it
comes time to vote in delegates, etc. And frankly, it’s boring. I
listened to a long speech tonight and there were a million other things I
would’ve rather been doing (like reading on here or griping with my RP
friends on Facebook).
If those who support the other three candidates are less willing to
listen to “boring…long speech[es]” and forgo their “million other things
[they'd] rather [do],” then of course they’re losing delegates. They
leave the field to Ron Paul.
Read More: http://www.conservativenewsandviews.com/2012/04/16...
I can't see Paul accepting a cabinet position from a moderate flip-flopper.
I can't see Ron Paul supporters voting for more of the same crap. Thus, if Paul loses at the convention, the Republican Party hasn't a chance.
I am not talking about czar positions that Obama created, but there are other advisor positions.
We don't need same-o-same-o politics. we can't let the NWO take over.
"This is what happens when you let your country devolve from what was intended. As you have ignored the loss of your freedoms and given government more power for decades, now you must gradually take it back."
"Through hard work, vigilance, patience, and patriotism we can deal with the next few administrations and have perhaps ten or twenty years from now, the kind of lifestyle this country took for granted in the eighties."
That is if you can believe anything he says; sorry Red, but he reminds me so much of Obama. He looks good/presidential, has been flip flopping since he stepped into the public atmosphere. He called himself a moderate progressive and now he's a Conservative. He will be warmongering and so much more. So it's between hoping he will be decent enough to wait another four years, or the ship will really sink while he is in office. Same thing with Obama.
I'm baffled how so many people complain, yet when they get the opportunity they vote the same problematic individuals in. Not to mention 190 Republicans voted in favor of NDAA, and 93 Democrats as well. Congress has more power than ...
"This is what happens when you let your country devolve from what was intended. As you have ignored the loss of your freedoms and given government more power for decades, now you must gradually take it back."
"Through hard work, vigilance, patience, and patriotism we can deal with the next few administrations and have perhaps ten or twenty years from now, the kind of lifestyle this country took for granted in the eighties."
That is if you can believe anything he says; sorry Red, but he reminds me so much of Obama. He looks good/presidential, has been flip flopping since he stepped into the public atmosphere. He called himself a moderate progressive and now he's a Conservative. He will be warmongering and so much more. So it's between hoping he will be decent enough to wait another four years, or the ship will really sink while he is in office. Same thing with Obama.
I'm baffled how so many people complain, yet when they get the opportunity they vote the same problematic individuals in. Not to mention 190 Republicans voted in favor of NDAA, and 93 Democrats as well. Congress has more power than the president; he's just the figurehead. So even if we did vote the right person into presidency, (which isn't Romney or Obama) we still will have an up hill battle with congress.
Agreed lol; just one more point. We can't vote a long party lines, but the individual. As I pointed out, most of the House Republicans voted for NDAA. The overwhelming majority, which only 43 said Nay. The Democrats were split on it; 93 Aye and 93 Nay. I would give the 43 who voted Nay another chance and the 93 who voted Nay as well. The others could kick rocks, since they willingly gave more power to the executive branch and created the bill for Obama to sign.
Congress is losing power; the majority of them are creating horrid bills, for their puppet to sign.
And its quite obvious that more often than not both choices presented to us for president are the wrong choices.
And remain ignorant.
And Obama, he's bad, but he's just a puppet. A distraction to keep us from seeing the big picture - the raping of America over the past century. There are people more evil than him. They are the people that own him and Romney. Looking at their campaign contributors, one of the biggest owners is Goldman Sachs.
He is no savior, but he's the only one running who has any integrity or honesty.
Romney is just running around lying a bout his positions trying to pretend to be conservative.
You are right that he is a pawn, but he's a pawn to the same interests as Obama. Once again, look at who goldman sachs donates to. They are a top donator to both.
And guess who owns t he European Union now?
Romney will not take us back to the Bush years. He'll only continue down the path Obama is taking us.
Also, by definition a guide is a leader.