Ron Paul exposes the neocons.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Red herring. What I said was that I believe that when your political strategy is to disenfranchise the greatest possible number of people you no longer get to call yourself a "man of the people". Very simple.

His political strategy? This is how the nomination process works. Are you going to say its not right to call time outs in NFL matches? Lol

Man of the people indeed. These people got up from their seats and stayed at their districts and became delegates.

The "disenfranchised" people should only blame themselves for not becoming delegates. Laziness and probably uneducated about the process. You want someone like that picking the nominee?

Originally posted by Mairuzu
These people

the vast minority

Originally posted by Mairuzu
You want someone like that picking the nominee?

nono, I'd much rather an opportunist that exploits archaic laws to win in spite of never receiving a plurality of votes.

Originally posted by inimalist
right... so, in that case, why have any democracy in deciding the candidate?

Why are you asking me? Sometimes the beauty contest does reflect the delegates.

Originally posted by inimalist

looking at Minnesota then, which district did Paul receive 83% of the vote in?

You're still confused about the process. petpet

Originally posted by inimalist

logical fallacy, just because something has been done in a certain way does not mean it is correct.

Lol is that it? You just simply have a disagreement with the rules? haermm

Sorry bro.

Originally posted by inimalist

you are appealing to the fact something is the law as a justification for why it is right.
that you think marijuana prohibition is unconstitutional in the first place actually emphasizes my point, as you are using entirely different standards for different laws.

No you're comparing something that has no relation at all.

Originally posted by inimalist
the vast minority

nono, I'd much rather an opportunist that exploits archaic laws to win in spite of never receiving a plurality of votes.

What's stopping Romney supporters from becoming delegates and acheiving the same thing?

Originally posted by Mairuzu
Lol is that it? You just simply have a disagreement with the rules? haermm

Sorry bro.

god... apply that logic to anything else...

oligarchy is ok, so long as it is by the rules!

Originally posted by Mairuzu
What's stopping Romney supporters from becoming delegates and acheiving the same thing?

you are probably right that Paul's victory has to do with his followers being more involved and active on his behalf.

though, that doesn't address the fact that I think a minority of highly motivated people shouldn't have more say than the majority, but thats ok, no harm has ever come from an extreme minority of people hijacking the electoral system against the will of the majority.

Originally posted by inimalist
you are probably right that Paul's victory has to do with his followers being more involved and active on his behalf.

though, that doesn't address the fact that I think a minority of highly motivated people shouldn't have more say than the majority, but thats ok, no harm has ever come from an extreme minority of people hijacking the electoral system against the will of the majority.

But yes lets attack Ron Paul and his supporters because they are following the rules haermm

Originally posted by Mairuzu
But yes lets attack Ron Paul because he's following the rules haermm

but you do agree, then, that the rules are entirely undemocratic and allow a small minority of people to quash the expressed will of the majority?

also, lets not attack the police enforcing drug laws, because they are following the rules.

Not really when there is equal opportunity to become those delegates for everyone. (unless youre on the commitee and you support romney and disobey the rules in his favor)

It could have been split. You just seem to be upset that so many delegates happen to be Ron Paul supporters in specific states and are now not in favor of how the nomination works.

yes, because, since day one, ive said Paul is the most representative candidate of my views in the entire race.

I'm sad to see him win. This has nothing to do with thinking the system is poorly designed, I'm just so anti-Paul that I would have voted for him as an American.

I don't even know wtf you're talking about anymore.

Originally posted by Mairuzu
I don't even know wtf you're talking about anymore.

regardless of who I support, I feel flagrant violations of democracy, whether legal or not, should not be tolerated.

pretty easy, I put principles above power.

Good for you 🙂

Originally posted by Mairuzu
Good for you 🙂

He must not be in this country.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
He must not be in this country.

yes, because I believe in the entirely unamerican principle that the minority should not have power over the majority...

😛

Oh cnn. 😛

http://www.cnn.com/m/elections/2012/primaries

No bias here lol.

Originally posted by Mairuzu
Man of the people indeed. These people got up from their seats and stayed at their districts and became delegates.

The levels of doublethink in Libertarians never cease to amaze me.

What? What?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
The levels of doublethink in Libertarians never cease to amaze me.

Mmm?

I didn't know you had to pay insurance on the building to become a delegate. Where does it say that on the rules?

YouTube video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7pxTkS24gXQ