http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1880172.html
:lol Willard
:lol Hated by his own party
:lol Inspiring faithless electors
:lol Worst candidate of my lifetime
Printable View
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1880172.html
:lol Willard
:lol Hated by his own party
:lol Inspiring faithless electors
:lol Worst candidate of my lifetime
Should read "lmao bitter Paultards" tbh.
Sorry, but if this happens, Willard would be the first candidate since William Jennings Bryant to have multiple faithless electors.... that would reflect poorly on HIM, not Ron Paul supporters, tbh....Quote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
:lol Willard Jennings Romney
:lol First candidate since 1896 to have multiple faithless electors
:lol Biggest failure in the history of American politics
No, it reflects on Paul supporters, who can't stop being assholes. They deserved to be disenfranchised. I'd make sure they never had the chance to be assholes again.Quote:
Originally Posted by Clipper Nation
Paul supporters have every right to be bitter. They are plentiful motivated organized and saavy in approach.
You then look at fucktards like Grover Norquist who have money backing them and are able to get the GOP by the balls.
Paul worries me but his movement would have actually resulted in change around Washington had he been given a fair shot and I like that a hell of a lot more than the shittiness that passes through nowadays.
Those electors are using the electoral college to be used for what it was intended for. They were within their rights and I hope they tell the parties to go fuck themselves.
:cry "Ron Paul supporters are such assholes for not abandoning their principles and whoring themselves out to the moneyed elite!" :cryQuote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
Too funny how you're defending election fraud now, but I'm sure you threw a shitfit over the election fraud in 2000, tbh....
:cry "It's only wrong when it screws over my team and my guy!" :cry
"the election fraud in 2000"
that was in the Presidential election, RP isn't even a Pres nominee, a fringe fantaisist bug squashed, again and again and again.
Didn't tbhQuote:
Originally Posted by Clipper Nation
lol fraudQuote:
:cry "It's only wrong when it screws over my team and my guy!" :cry
primaries < > general elections anyway
Had Paultards taken the high road, I'd have more sympathy for them -- but from the very beginning when it was clear he had no popular support, they immediately started looking for ways to be assholes because they couldn't accept that most people just don't like their guy.
As were the RNCheat frauds in 2008 and 2012...Quote:
Originally Posted by boutons_deux
RP won the GOP nomination from the floor, only to have it stolen from him at the last second by a rigged voice vote and the Maine screwjob, tbh....Quote:
RP isn't even a Pres nominee
How is RP a fringe fanaticist?Quote:
a fringe fantaisist bug squashed, again and again and again.
Suuuure...Quote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
The only people who don't recognize a rigged convention as election fraud are the culprits, neocons, and Ron Paul haters, tbh....Quote:
lol fraud
So vote-rigging is somehow okay until the general election in your world? So much for that "love of democracy" you like to tout, tbh....Quote:
primaries < > general elections anyway
RP supporters did take the high road, tbh.... while the crooks were flipping votes in the primaries, getting primaries cancelled due to a couple snowflakes in MAINE, and even committing violence against Paul supporters, we just handled our biz, got delegates elected, took over our local arms of the GOP, and operated within the rules of the GOP and the republican form of government guaranteed to us in the Constitution, tbh....Quote:
Had Paultards taken the high road, I'd have more sympathy for them
Wrong.... RP performed well in both hypothetical matchup polls against Obama AND favorability ratings.... get your facts straight, B....Quote:
but from the very beginning when it was clear he had no popular support
Once again, completely false....Quote:
they immediately started looking for ways to be assholes because they couldn't accept that most people just don't like their guy.
No completely true.
I agree the RNC overreacted to the irrelevant Paul campaign, but that's because they stated they were going to be assholes from the very beginning.
lol hypothetical matchups
Dude finished fourth. A completely disinterested Newt Gingrich kicked his ass without even trying.
Only as long as you ignore all the facts, tbh....Quote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
So irrelevant that you've devoted a sizeable amount of your 70,188 posts on here bashing it....Quote:
I agree the RNC overreacted to the irrelevant Paul campaign
BTW, with 70,000+ posts on here, I'm not surprised that you have no clue what's been going on in this election... too busy posting throwaway lines and UTSA rhetorical devices all day....
Source?Quote:
but that's because they stated they were going to be assholes from the very beginning.
Polling companies do them for everyone, including your beloved Willard Romney....Quote:
lol hypothetical matchups
Dude finished first, had his win stolen from him and delegates illegally taken away, and STILL had more influence, delegates, and a bigger role at the RNCheat than fatass Newt, tbh...Quote:
Dude finished fourth. A completely disinterested Newt Gingrich kicked his ass without even trying.
:lol Newt
:lol Moon colony
:lol "Newt University"
fantasist, someone who believes/pushes fantasies like killing the Fed, fractional banking, and going back to the gold standard, killing regulations and "just trust everybody To Do The Right Thing", etc, etc, etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by Clipper Nation
:lol Scoreboard.
Romney 10,023,280 52.12%
Santorum 3,931,019 20.44%
Gingrich 2,734,300 14,22%
Paul 2,095,619 10.90%
Sounds like the Constitution to me.... I guess our Founders were also fanaticists?Quote:
Originally Posted by boutons_deux
:lol Posting a random poll with no contextQuote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
:lol Padding that post count
:lol Going for 80,000
You thought that was a random poll with no context?
Holy shit!
You just proved you have no knowledge of the political system. I'd have to spend 10,000 posts explaining to each of your screen names what the fuck you just saw.
:lol Someone who thinks we live in a democracy and thinks Ron Paul cheated by getting his delegates elected telling me that I know nothing about our political system
All irrelevant given what I posted.Quote:
Originally Posted by Clipper Nation
Do you still not know what I posted?
Yeah, it's the so-called "popular vote" in the primaries, yet you completely missed the greater context of the vote-rigging that occurred, as well as the fact that the popular vote is just a meaningless straw poll while the real point of primaries and caucuses are to elect delegates to the convention....Quote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
Remind me again who knows nothing about our political system?
:lol "You hate democracy even though we live in a republic"
:lol "Vote rigging is okay except for the general election"
:lol Going for 80,000
lol so calledQuote:
Originally Posted by Clipper Nation
lol the greater context of hypothetical polls
Paul was going to lose the nomination no matter what. There was no scenario where he would win.
At all.
Scoreboard.
Ron Paul did win... the RNC had to cheat and screw over all future grassroots to reverse it...
Scoreboard.
How are they "saavy"?Quote:
Originally Posted by FuzzyLumpkins
Getting delegates elected to the convention, putting electors in the Electoral College, taking over state and local Republican Parties, and raising awareness of libertarian politics at large in spite of a biased mainstream media are all pretty savvy, tbh.... far savvier than cheating at the convention and outright buying the nomination like Willard did....Quote:
Originally Posted by SnakeBoy
Show me the scoreboard that shows he won.Quote:
Originally Posted by Clipper Nation
I showed you the scoreboard that shows he lost to Newt Gingrich.
I'd say the guy who won was more savvy tbh.Quote:
Originally Posted by Clipper Nation
Scoreboard.
Ron Paul had delegates at the RNC, Newt didn't.... scoreboard.Quote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
Ron Paul had at least five pluralities, and his delegates filed the paperwork that would allow him to be nominated under the old rules, which were changed via a rigged voice vote... scoreboard.
Sweet logic... if just buying the nomination is savvier than overcoming built-in disadvantages and still winning, I guess that means the Yankees who buy all their players are savvier this year than the Orioles who develop their players, even though they're both tied for the division lead right now and are both playoff-bound....Quote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
Oh, he had 180 and Willard had over 2000.Quote:
Originally Posted by Clipper Nation
Scoreboard.
So, you don't have anything resembling a scoreboard.Quote:
Ron Paul had at least five pluralities, and his delegates filed the paperwork that would allow him to be nominated under the old rules, which were changed via a rigged voice vote... scoreboard.
savvyQuote:
Sweet logic... if just buying the nomination is savvier than overcoming built-in disadvantages and still winning, I guess that means the Yankees who buy all their players are savvier this year than the Orioles who develop their players, even though they're both tied for the division lead right now and are both playoff-bound....
noun
Definition of SAVVY
: practical know-how <political savvy>
Looks like Romney had the know how to win the nomination.
If the Yankees win, they will have had the know how to win.
Savvy.
I guess the Moneyball A's weren't "savvy" then because they didn't win the World Series, even though they changed the way the entire league scouts, develops, and analyzes players....
Also, "practical know-how" =/= winning....
Not as savvy as the ones who actually won.Quote:
Originally Posted by Clipper Nation
Those teams had the know how to win.
Paul got outmaneuvered. I called it a long time ago. Guess that makes me savvy.
Nope, Paul just got outcheated and outspent... Ron bless
Gotta love the denial of the Paultard.Quote:
Originally Posted by Clipper Nation
Please show us the method how you claim Paul was going to win the nomination by any method with verifiable numbers.
Then you can claim scoreboard.
I've already provided plenty of numbers and facts, you just choose to ignore them...
:lol In denial
Are you expecting Chumpmeister to be reasonable?Quote:
Originally Posted by Clipper Nation
Not really, it's just funny to see him get all worked up and have to resort to UTSA rhetorical devices and namecalling, tbh....Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
Hey, if you can't provide an actual scenario with verifiable numbers, just say so.Quote:
Originally Posted by Clipper Nation
I don't expect you to be able to, so this kind of answer and some post count smack is all I think is you can post about this from now on.
My contention is that Ron Paul had no chance at all to win the nomination at the convention regardless of the method attempted.
Prove me wrong.
I agree with you there.... what I disagree with is the idea that there were somehow HONEST reasons why he had no chance... anyone who kept track of the RNC knew that the voice vote was questionable at best, that Maine got screwed, and the rule changes effectively killed any grassroots in this party...Quote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
Since the most you can do to counter these facts is to bring up meaningless straw polls and call people "assholes," I think we're pretty much done here...
:lmaoQuote:
Originally Posted by Clipper Nation
Yep, we're done.
Thanks. Took you long enough.
If you actually read my posts this whole time, you would realize that I've been saying that if everyone followed the rules, Ron Paul had a chance.... since the RNC cheated and changed the rules at the last second, they removed that chance.... but I know you're too busy padding that precious post count of yours to actually follow an argument, so it is what it is, B...Quote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
Wait, so you don't agree with me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Clipper Nation
OK, we're back to your disproving my contention that there was no way Paul was going to win the nomination under the old rules.
Prove me wrong.
I have proven you wrong, and you've ignored it, so trying to get me to keep arguing in circles with you is pointless....
Typical Chump. Take the win on the point not being in play.Quote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
No, you haven't proved me wrong and now you know you can't, so you're whining and will probably start with the post count smack or other distraction technique.Quote:
Originally Posted by Clipper Nation
Just say you don't have the numbers to disprove my contention and never did. I already know it. You already know it. You need to admit it to yourself so you can get on with your life.
Typical WC. Talking out of his ass about something about which he knows nothing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
I would say you don't know, but then the idea of having principles is probably illusive to you.Quote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
I have provided numbers and facts, while YOU have called people "assholes" for exercising their constitutional right to a republican form of government, posted the cumulative results of meaningless straw polls, and bickered over the definition of "savvy".... remind me again who's using distraction techniques?Quote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
When even Wild Cobra is shitting on you, it's clear that your argument simply sucks, B.....
YOU of all people shouldn't be lecturing anyone else on "getting on with their lives"....Quote:
You need to admit it to yourself so you can get on with your life.
Not any that prove Paul could have won the nomination.Quote:
Originally Posted by Clipper Nation
Quit with the smack talk and name calling and prove me wrong.
That's all you have to do.
And party rules are not covered by the Constitution btw.
The Constitution guarantees a republican form of government.... A republican government features things like conventions and delegates and the Electoral College that would have no reason to exist in a mob-rule democracy.... by disenfranchising Ron Paul's legally elected delegates for no apparent reason other than that they wouldn't be voting for the chosen moneyed elite candidate, the RNC severely disrupted the whole electoral process of our republican government....
Like I said. Chumpmeister doesn't know what principle is. He seems to have no integrity, so he doesn't understand such concepts.Quote:
Originally Posted by Clipper Nation
Why do people treat Ron Paul supporters like they're Nazis and lepers?
No, they didn't.Quote:
Originally Posted by Clipper Nation
Paul had no chance either way.
Prove me wrong.
I don't stalk women on the internet.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
You still don't get it, do you. It's the ethics of how it happened.Quote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
You still don't get it, do you? No one is talking to you and he claims that Paul could have won. I never disagreed that it was a wrong and stupid thing to do, just understandable since Paultards promised to be assholes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
Don't even try to talk to me about ethics, stalker.
I see it as very unlikely, but yes. I also see it as possible that Ron Paul could have won the convention. They played the game to win the convention, not the popular vote.Quote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
You saying it was impossible for Paul to win is moronic.
Prove it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
Don't whine and say you won't take the time.
Prove.
It.
Wow...Quote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
That's lame even for you.
I say I only see it as "very unlikely" and you want me to prove that?
FUCK YOU!
You said it was "possible," flaglot.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
I didn't expect a meltdown, but whatever.
ethics! :lolQuote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
in politics? :lol
in American public or corporate life? :lol
No meltdown here. Just amazed at how stupid you have become. I know you are an asshole, but I never knew you were really that stupid, till now.Quote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
OK Boutons.Quote:
Originally Posted by boutons_deux
I stand corrected...
And by you...
Oh Shit...
The shame of it all...
Top Romney Adviser Faults Obama For Murder Of U.S. Ambassador, Claims Romney Would Have Prevented Attack
Advisers to Mitt Romney on Thursday defended his sharp criticism of President Obama and said that the deadly protests sweeping the Middle East would not have happened if the Republican nominee were president.
“There’s a pretty compelling story that if you had a President Romney, you’d be in a different situation,” Richard Williamson, a top Romney foreign policy adviser, said in an interview. “For the first time since Jimmy Carter, we’ve had an American ambassador assassinated.”
http://thinkprogress.org/security/20...vented-attack/
So I can say:
"If Gore would have been President, then 9/11 would have not happened" :lol
One of the most common, biggest mistakes people make is to assume/confuse personal ethics and morality as also applying to group ethics/morality.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
a group's priority is to strengthen the group, to recruit/indoctrinate new members usually with high entrance requirement (initiation, the more difficult/painful/expensive, the better the member's commitment to the group), to demonize/fight/destroy other groups.
Any individual in the group is expendable to serve the group's objectives.
eg: religions and cults, criminal gangs, the military, countries, political parties, top management of organizations, etc, etc. Applies to almost any group.
People who think they are very moral, ethical as individuals, and might even be so, will say nothing against, and even engage in completely immoral/unethical/criminal activities to serve the group.
The classic example is The Holy Roman Catholic Church allowing their priests to violate and rape children for decades, centuries? (does anybody think this crime is a 20th century only crime), in order to protect the priests and above all protect the One True Eternal Church, AT ALL COSTS (to individuals, including children).
Wow...Quote:
Originally Posted by boutons_deux
My admission must have made you cum!
Stall. Deflect. Distract.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
It wasn't possible. You failed.
bitch slapping WC silly is always a blastQuote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
I didn't feel shit. You must be having some twisted fantasy.Quote:
Originally Posted by boutons_deux