GodPt3: PAUL coming in SECOND in NV. FIFTEEN % of vote!

DriftingByTheStorm

bootlegger10 wrote:

I don't even need to read that to know it is a retarded process.

what's your point?

LukinFan

Indian Summer wrote:

For real. Second place is any election means you are a loser without a job!

haha- you beat me to it!

DriftingByTheStorm

LukinFan wrote:

haha- you beat me to it!

Yah.
Way to back up an idiotic statement.

Primaries are determined by delegate votes totaled from 50 states, and while Ron Paul is already falling behind, there are still some 90% of delegates as of yet determined.

2nd place can get you plenty of delegates in plenty of states.

Ron Paul is currently pulling 30 - 50 % of delegates for NV.

Stuff that in your "loser without a job" yapper.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

interesting...

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/state/#NV

I'll have to remember NV is so "mormonized" so next time I'm there, I won't wear my mormons suck balls tshirt....

Hinny

Aren't Romney and Paul the only ones to bother with campaigning in Nevada, with everyone else too busy with focusing on South Carolina and Florida to head west?

ledvedderman

How do you think Ron Paul is going to keep this momentum for three weeks? This little victory will last three hours because he is going to get his teeth kicked in tonight in SC. An impressive day for Paul, but this is your pinnacle.

Even if the Mormans stayed home, he still doubles Paul.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

haters love kool-aid

ledvedderman

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

haters love kool-aid

What kool aid are we drinking? It sure isn't the "first silver medal" kool aid thinking it will propel my candidate to the top tier brand.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

ledvedderman wrote:

What kool aid are we drinking? It sure isn't the "first silver medal" kool aid thinking it will propel my candidate to the top tier brand.

The hater kind of kool aid...

you had to ask?

Nevermind

Ron Paul is a top tier candidate. You dont need the media to approve a persons popularity.

DriftingByTheStorm

ledvedderman wrote:

How do you think Ron Paul is going to keep this momentum for three weeks?

You mean, with out the moneytrust media's approval?

Isn't that what you are really asking here?

You mean,
in the face of this bullshit?
Piece of Shit NY Times
Faux Fucking Piece of Fox Shit
Oh Jee, Look: Did You Know Giuliani Was Beating Ron Paul! Load of fox crap!

Go ahead.
I want to hear you deny it.
Tell me it isn't real.
Tell me i'm a crybaby, and that my candidate just sucks.

Nevada is a testament to the truth in THE MESSAGE ...

If the message was given any legitimate and consistent airtime on the Old Media, Paul would be running solid in the pack.

Unfortunately the corruption and rampant manipulation by the moneytrust is so sickening and perverse that even my mother, who really is unsure about ron paul, thinks it is despicable.

Paul's message may be a bit thick for the average tube-bent boob to digest. But your question makes it sound like you think he is on a level playing field, and he clearly is not.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

...and the money just keeps rolling in.

quite something.

bootlegger10

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

what's your point?

I meant it is a retarded process to pick a nominee. For all the one person, one vote fans out there, this system is ridiculous. When more people can like individual A over individual B, and individual B wins, that is ridiculous.


Edit: Sorry for not having a youtube or picture reference. 4% in SC for Paul. Where is your thread about that?

jlew24asu

bootlegger10 wrote:

I meant it is a retarded process to pick a nominee. For all the one person, one vote fans out there, this system is ridiculous. When more people can like individual A over individual B, and individual B wins, that is ridiculous.


Edit: Sorry for not having a youtube or picture reference. 4% in SC for Paul. Where is your thread about that?

4%??? I thought it was 2. and wheres the outcry for the lack of duncan hunter coverage? hehe. fucking media machine!

DriftingByTheStorm

bootlegger10 wrote:

Edit: Sorry for not having a youtube or picture reference. 4% in SC for Paul. Where is your thread about that?

So let me get this straight.

Ron Paul has beat GIULIANI in EVERY state. In all of them by at LEAST 2 to 1. Some 4 to 1 or more.

Giuliani has CONSISTENTLY placed just above Hunter for last place.

Yet the media truly covers him, and props him up on this bogus "He is gonna win Florida" strategy.

So you're telling me a piece of shit like Giuliani who LOSES EVERYWHERE is "viable" still... and a guy like Ron Paul who now has a few 4ths, a 3rd, a 2nd and all of this with NO MEDIA COVERAGE is simply unelectable?

To me that is much more pathetic than Ron Paul not getting elected by the yokel super-"conservative" south carolinians (and i want to clarify that i love SC, and lived in Charleston for a while, but having lived there i know what "them people" are like on the whole, and the word "simple" comes to mind). The fact that allegedly "educated" and "forwardthinking" folk here on the train can come in and act totaly ignorant and frankly be pretty crass about something they seem to not really understand.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

Anyone that doesn't see media bias and censorship is either hopelessly delusional or specifically lying on purpose for a reason.

The latter is a pretty much a certainty from any message board on the internet with more than a few thousand users.

Reminds me of that song Some of these things are not like the others.

OutOfBreath

A suggestion on Paul and Giuliani so far. There have been primaries in, what, 4 states? Any of them any big populationwise? Now, a candidate who doesnt win any of those 4 gets less (or even no) press. Especially since american press is always bent on "winners". Paul hasn't won any state, nor is he likely to (usually chalking up 2-15%). Hence, he doesnt get highlighted much in news summaries. I believe that would change should he suddenly win a state. Until he does, dont hold your breath.

Giuliani is thought to have a shot since he's presumably big in big states like Florida and his home New York. Besides, he has made a name for himself already, so he is more "interesting" because of his otherwise celebrity. Hence he gets more press.

And according to these polls: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/

This puts Giuliani as number 4 overall, battling for the top spots in Florida, New Jersey and California. Big, important states. Notice how Paul stays put on 5-6% on all of these.

Hence, it is not surprising that media dont cover Paul a lot, since he's not even a longshot. Giuliani is a longshot, and a celebrity too.

Not that I really care one way or the other. The continued one-sidedness and calls for conspiracy/media working against him/everyone REALLY wanting him in the white house just annoys me I guess.

It's fine that you have your candidate, it is fine you campaigining for him like this. That's great. I just feel you could go easier on the exclamation marks is all.

(edit) As to if he SHOULD get more press, I dont necessarily disagree with that. I am always in favour of the most alternatives being known. But seeing as he overall perhaps can grab the 5th or maybe the 4th spot for the GOP, he is the one to go when media wants to dumb it down. Had he been a real contender, he'd gotten his press.
You should revive a culture for parties, and make a system that allows more than 2 monster parties, so he could start his own party, get 5-6% of the congress, and work from there. What you got now with extremely expensive presidential campaigns to "raise awareness" is really a very ineffective way to go about it. Anyways.

Peace
Dan

Eliot Rosewater

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

You mean, with out the moneytrust media's approval?

Isn't that what you are really asking here?

You mean,
in the face of this bullshit?
Piece of Shit NY Times
Faux Fucking Piece of Fox Shit
Oh Jee, Look: Did You Know Giuliani Was Beating Ron Paul! Load of fox crap!

That is so fucked up.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

It's one thing to not give someone press coverage because they are not as popular, however, it's entirely another thing to completely omit, skew results, and toss around childish innuendo's about the guy on purpose.

Fux news is hopelessly notorious for doing this. It's 100% undeniable.

OutOfBreath

When have I ever expressed anything but contempt for Fox News? And since he's against the war, well duh, he'll get mocked there.

My point is that he is a longshot, if that. And you have a media that covers winners and the big guys. That's a structural problem. Smaller candidates get no press whatsoever. You dont hear much of anyone past Clinton, Obama and Edwards om the dem side either. Understandably too with the 1 man pr district winner-takes-all system you got going generally. I dont think that's a good system, and indeed there are problems. However, I have no faith in the conspiracy against Paul. He's just not getting any like all other minor candidates. Just sucks for him that he seems to be a major minor and still not be heard.

Peace
Dan