I'd say the guy who won was more savvy tbh.Quote:
Originally Posted by Clipper Nation
Scoreboard.
Printable View
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