Republican Nomination?

Originally posted by BigRed
It's the fourth quarter -- which encompasses the last three months. I do not know all the quarters. But I'm sure they all out raised Ron. I know he has raised like almost thirty million in all four quarters. But it is significant to note that Ron raised more money than any other Republican in the fourth quarter (a critical time period), so don't be down-playing that now.

And like I said, there are bills (I will name them when I get more time) that McCain has introduced. I would assume you introduce a bill because you want it passed. I don't care if he has a liberal or a non-liberal or a Republican or an indepedent record beforehand; he is trying to get liberal-oriented material passed NOW. And also, as I've said, my issues lie primarily with him and the war.

Haha. He wouldn't be lying. He said he is 99.9999999999 infinite percent sure he will not run. He is not going to absolutely say no. How is that proving you're point that it is a fan base? You do not go Indepedent if you don't have the support nor the money. That's nothing to do with a fan base. I don't like the tone of that statement. This isn't some ****ing baseball club, this is real shit that is effecting the country and the future.

McCain-Feingold, McCain-Kennedy, etc. Pay attention to what you're talking about and folks like Quiero Mota won't accuse you of not knowing what you're talking about.

NOW? Really? I wonder why? And if it all comes down to NOW, then how is he going to "go right back to being Mr. Liberal", after he gets elected?

I don't care if you don't like my tone. I have heard very few people who support Ron Paul actually have any idea what Paul is advocating. On this forum alone, I've heard about half of them saying things that are later proven to be totally false. His fans put so many words in his mouth, that it makes it that much harder for people who really care to find out.

Originally posted by Robtard
Sorry, despite his uber ability to raise money, or to be more exact, for other people to raise money for him, his numbers are lousy. So yeah, he raised the most money, he still isn't doing well in the elections.

So you're the fastest runner, yet still manage to come in 4th & 5th at the track, race after race. Whoop-de-da.

Edit: I forgot, he got 3rd once.

Apparently you're misinformed because he also got second place in Nevada.

Originally posted by Admiral Akbar
Apparently you're misinformed because he also got second place in Nevada.

Didn't follow that election, good for him. Let's see him keep the momentum.

Yeah, he came in 2nd in Nevada, with 13%. But Romney came in 1st with 51%. Paul only beat McCain by 1%. Which was only about double what he's come in with in most other primaries, which is usually around 5% of Republicans voting, which is also only a percentage of total Republican voters.

Go Ron Paul!

...as I said, his numbers are still lousy, despite the ability of his supporters to bankroll his ass.

Let's explain how it works in a primary.

State X has a primary. That's pre-voting to see who has a chance. That means a small percentage of total voters from state X, both dems and repubs, vote. So that small percentage of voters cast preliminary votes. But that small percentage is cut in half (just for the sake of explaination) one half for dems and one half for repubs. Then that 1/2 is cut up into the votes cast for which ever particular candidate recieved what-ever percentage of votes. So, for any candidate, their received votes are a % of a % of a %.

But, Ron Paul has raised a lot of money and spent relatively little of it. So, anyone that counts him out is doing so at their own risk.

I'm willing to risk it... the chances of RP cleaning house now or towards the end are slimer than Cheny's chances of passing through the pearly gates once that stolen heart of his beats it's last beat. But hey, I've been wrong in a blue-moon before.

"It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."

Matthew

Originally posted by Robtard
Sorry, despite his uber ability to raise money, or to be more exact, for other people to raise money for him, his numbers are lousy. So yeah, he raised the most money, he still isn't doing well in the elections.

So you're the fastest runner, yet still manage to come in 4th & 5th at the track, race after race. Whoop-de-da.

Edit: I forgot, he got 3rd once.

Anyways, he's actually got second and possibly first in Nevada and Lousiana respectively.

And with all due respect to you Robtard; why is it that you care so much? It seems at every chance you get, you take a swipe at Ron Paul. What is so bad about him that inclines you to take jab after jab against him? Not that I care if in particular if you like or don't like, but it be nice to know the reason for the jabbing... He is still in the race: first, third, fourth, six, et cetera place finishes are almost irrelevant. Delegates matter and Ron still has a chance (especially with a brokered convention).

There were 11 candidates. There are four now. Ron is still in it. That's great as is considering he gets ZERO Media attention (a media blackout is more like it) and previous "front-runners" have dropped out and Ron is just a "fringe" candidate.

Originally posted by Devil King
McCain-Feingold, McCain-Kennedy, etc. Pay attention to what you're talking about and folks like Quiero Mota won't accuse you of not knowing what you're talking about.

NOW? Really? I wonder why? And if it all comes down to NOW, then how is he going to "go right back to being Mr. Liberal", after he gets elected?

I don't care if you don't like my tone. I have heard very few people who support Ron Paul actually have any idea what Paul is advocating. On this forum alone, I've heard about half of them saying things that are later proven to be totally false. His fans put so many words in his mouth, that it makes it that much harder for people who really care to find out.

You're misunderstanding my perspective. You say John had these bills, but is literally changing to fit what the "conservative" voters want. You mention his conservative record beforehand (like years beforehand). I feel that conservative past is irrelevant if he is introducing liberal solutions to the problems facing America now and it's even worse that he is trying to "change" to fit conservatives. So if he fools the people (which is too easy to do) and gets in the WH, you don't think with his new power leverage he won't try to get these liberal bills passed?

Not to mention, McCain along with Romney and Huckabee aren't conservatives on foreign policy either.

It's the tone of the statement. Not you. I'm not sure what Ron Paul supporters you're talking to, if I ventured a guess, probably not many. The Ron Paul supporters I speak with, converse with and so forth are some of the smartest, most creative and down-right knowledgeable people I've come across. They have to be to a degree to like Ron Paul, comprehend some of his platform and so forth because of it being so different and to run this grassroots campaign.

I prefer this Mahatma Ghandi quote, "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win."

Plus, I don't really care what the Bible says.

Originally posted by BigRed
True, it hasn't translated into votes. I'll be the first to tell you that and I'll tell you it sucks. But you have to remember, we are primarily a grassroots organization. The money is only to allow Ron to continue the machine rolling. This campaign moves, gets votes and breaks records because of his supporters. Which is symbolic somewhat of a Ron government.

Anyways, he's actually got second and possibly first in Nevada and Lousiana respectively.

And with all due respect to you Robtard; why is it that you care so much? It seems at every chance you get, you take a swipe at Ron Paul. What is so bad about him that inclines you to take jab after jab against him? Not that I care if in particular if you like or don't like, but it be nice to know the reason for the jabbing... He is still in the race: first, third, fourth, six, et cetera place finishes are almost irrelevant. Delegates matter and Ron still has a chance (especially with a brokered convention).

I don't really care per se, but RP supporters tend to want to celebrate mediocrity and make something out of nothing; that's my beef. If he truly does well, then I'm glad for him.

Originally posted by Robtard
I don't really care per se, but RP supporters tend to want to celebrate mediocrity and make something out of nothing; that's my beef. If he truly does well, then I'm glad for him.

But we'll see what goes down after ST.

Originally posted by BigRed
I think perspective matters more than you give it credit for.

But we'll see what goes down after ST.

What perspective? He either does well or he doesn't; so far he isn't.

Okay.

Originally posted by Devil King
Yeah, he came in 2nd in Nevada, with 13%. But Romney came in 1st with 51%. Paul only beat McCain by 1%. Which was only about double what he's come in with in most other primaries, which is usually around 5% of Republicans voting, which is also only a percentage of total Republican voters.

Yeah, unfortunately a fairly decent portion of Nevada is mormon.

Originally posted by Robtard
What perspective? He either does well or he doesn't; so far he isn't.

Okay.

Originally posted by BigRed
You just made my point...

No, it isn't my personal perspective or opinion that RP isn't do well, his numbers so far are lousy, as fact. Which is my point, RP supporters will celebrate his mediocre numbers thus far.

Originally posted by Robtard
No, it isn't my personal perspective or opinion that RP isn't do well, his numbers so far are lousy, as fact. Which is my point, RP supporters will celebrate his mediocre numbers thus far.

However, when you actually use some perspective and direct it in regards to where the campaign has started and where has come through almost 95% grassroots effort, it is very remarkable.

That's not celebrating "medicore" standings in primaries and so forth. That's just looking at circumstances, perspective and facts.

Now of course you can break it down and say, "He's won, he lost." That's fine and all and I won't disagree on that level.

Originally posted by BigRed
I don't get the idea that anyone is celebrating getting fifth or fourth or whatever in whatever State. Nobody is. So your point isn't really one at all...

However, when you actually use some perspective and direct it in regards to where the campaign has started and where has come through almost 95% grassroots effort, it is very remarkable.

That's not celebrating "medicore" standings in primaries and so forth. That's just looking at circumstances, perspective and facts.

Now of course you can break it down and say, "He's won, he lost." That's fine and all and I won't disagree on that level.

Are you sure about that, absolutely sure about that? I remember past posts when he came in 5th and the outlook was, 'he did well, he only came in a few percentage points behind so and so.'

Yes, yes, the "grassroots" appeal, whopp-de-da.

That's what I am saying, so far, his numbers are lousy, so, so far, he is losing, as fact. Can it turn around for him? Sure, it's possible, just not probable.

Originally posted by Robtard
Are you sure about that, absolutely sure about that? I remember past posts when he came in 5th and the outlook was, 'he did well, he only came in a few percentage points behind so and so.'

Yes, yes, the "grassroots" appeal, whopp-de-da.

That's what I am saying, so far, his numbers are lousy, so, so far, he is losing, as fact. Can it turn around for him? Sure, it's possible, just not probable.

I have never seen it "whoop-de-da". I have always seen it whoop-dee-doo"(SP?). I have also seen "whoop de F***in'-doo"😉 http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=whoop-de-****ing-doo

What part of the country do people say that in? (No, there is no ulterior motives with my question, this is genuine curiosity.)

On topic...

Is there anything new that anyone has seen in the news on the nominations?

Originally posted by dadudemon
I have never seen it "whoop-de-da". I have always seen it whoop-dee-doo"(SP?). I have also seen "whoop de F***in'-doo"😉 http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=whoop-de-****ing-doo

What part of the country do people say that in? (No, there is no ulterior motives with my question, this is genuine curiosity.)

On topic...

Is there anything new that anyone has seen in the news on the nominations?

It should really be "whoop-de-do-da", but considering you're the guy who makes up his own definitions for known words, you really shouldn't throw stones, Mr. Glasshouse.

Haven't watched the news today.

Originally posted by Robtard
It should really be "whoop-de-do-da", but considering you're the guy who makes up his own definitions for known words, you really shouldn't throw stones, Mr. Glasshouse.

Haven't watched the news today.

Dude, I wasn't making fun of you...I made that quite clear. You don't have to get offensive. Wife not puttin' out lately?

And just because I was using "FTW" to mean "fut the wuck"(a spoonerism) BEFORE "FTW" meant "for the win" doesn't mean I am making up my own definitions. It's called the internet chose a different direction on that one. 🙁