Ron Paul won Washington state

[GDaddy]

Reminds me of the Who's Quadrophenia. Cant wait till he sees his bell hop.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Perry404
For the record it was communicated to me from someone who spoke with Carol Paul that that was not written by Ron Paul.

Was it written by the same guys who used to write RP's racist newsletters?

Just curious...

 

[Pabster]

Ron Paul DID NOT Win Washington state.

Perry, you've got to be the worst of the Paulbots. And that's saying something, given your competition.

 

[Nebor]

Originally posted by: Pabster
Ron Paul DID NOT Win Washington state.

Perry, you've got to be the worst of the Paulbots. And that's saying something, given your competition.

Pabster's right. I'm a Paul supporter, and I'll vote for him in the Texas primary and the general election (write in.) But making up stupid lies doesn't help anyone. I know Paul isn't going to win. That doesn't make me not want to support him. So your attempts to trick people into supporting Paul because he's a "winner" are misguided and childish. You do way more damage to Paul's campaign than you do good.

 

[BeauJangles]

Originally posted by: Nebor
You do way more damage to Paul's campaign than you do good.

:thumbsup: that's the most sensible mentioned in this thread.

 

[HeXploiT]

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: Pabster
Ron Paul DID NOT Win Washington state.

Perry, you've got to be the worst of the Paulbots. And that's saying something, given your competition.

Pabster's right. I'm a Paul supporter, and I'll vote for him in the Texas primary and the general election (write in.) But making up stupid lies doesn't help anyone. I know Paul isn't going to win. That doesn't make me not want to support him. So your attempts to trick people into supporting Paul because he's a "winner" are misguided and childish. You do way more damage to Paul's campaign than you do good.

Prove it. Show me the delegate count from Washington state. After you find the results I hope you will be courteous enough to apologize for calling me a liar.

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: Perry404
Prove it. Show me the delegate count from Washington state. After you find the results I hope you will be courteous enough to apologize for calling me a liar.

With the Washington State primary on Feb 19, 2008, it is really hard to do what you ask. It is impossible right now to show a final delegate count for a vote that hasn't taken place yet.

I could ask you to prove that Santa Claus is actually the flying spaghetti monster, the fact that you can't prove that doesn't mean whatever I say is correct. Just because we can't show you a final delegate count for a vote that hasn't happened yet, doesn't mean that anything you say is correct, Perry404.

 

[HeXploiT]

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: Perry404
Prove it. Show me the delegate count from Washington state. After you find the results I hope you will be courteous enough to apologize for calling me a liar.

With the Washington State primary on Feb 19, 2008, it is really hard to do what you ask. It is impossible right now to show a final delegate count for a vote that hasn't taken place yet.

I could ask you to prove that Santa Claus is actually the flying spaghetti monster, the fact that you can't prove that doesn't mean whatever I say is correct. Just because we can't show you a final delegate count for a vote that hasn't happened yet, doesn't mean that anything you say is correct, Perry404.

The point is that the information I have provided is relevant and as far as I know accurate. The two statements, "Paul lost" and "the vote hasn't taken place yet" cannot both be true.

Read this article.

It states specifically that "According to the state tally,McCain won 26 percent of delegates, Huckabee garnered 24 percent"
That's 50%.
How many other candidates are left on the Republican side to split the other 50% of the delegates? The math seems fairly simple to me.

All this aside I don't appreciated being called a liar. I may be wrong but I am not making things up out of thin air. Let's see someone else do the math.

 

[halik]

Originally posted by: Slick5150
"Ron Paul won Washington state"

Really? According to the actual results, he finished 3rd.

Reality... pffft

 

[DaveSimmons]

Originally posted by: Perry404
It states specifically that "According to the state tally,McCain won 26 percent of delegates, Huckabee garnered 24 percent"
That's 50%.
How many other candidates are left on the Republican side to split the other 50% of the delegates? The math seems fairly simple to me.

All this aside I don't appreciated being called a liar. I may be wrong but I am not making things up out of thin air. Let's see someone else do the math.

In WA 50% of Republican delegates come from caucuses (with RP getting 0%) and 50% come from primary voting (on Feb. 19th IIRC).

The other 50% isn't RP, it hasn't been voted on yet. RP has won 0% in WA so far.

 

[teclis1023]

Originally posted by: DaveSimmons

Originally posted by: Perry404
It states specifically that "According to the state tally,McCain won 26 percent of delegates, Huckabee garnered 24 percent"
That's 50%.
How many other candidates are left on the Republican side to split the other 50% of the delegates? The math seems fairly simple to me.

All this aside I don't appreciated being called a liar. I may be wrong but I am not making things up out of thin air. Let's see someone else do the math.

In WA 50% of Republican delegates come from caucuses (with RP getting 0%) and 50% come from primary voting (on Feb. 19th IIRC).

The other 50% isn't RP, it hasn't been voted on yet. RP has won 0% in WA so far.

lol

 

[Sinsear]

Originally posted by: DaveSimmons

Originally posted by: Perry404
It states specifically that "According to the state tally,McCain won 26 percent of delegates, Huckabee garnered 24 percent"
That's 50%.
How many other candidates are left on the Republican side to split the other 50% of the delegates? The math seems fairly simple to me.

All this aside I don't appreciated being called a liar. I may be wrong but I am not making things up out of thin air. Let's see someone else do the math.

In WA 50% of Republican delegates come from caucuses (with RP getting 0%) and 50% come from primary voting (on Feb. 19th IIRC).

The other 50% isn't RP, it hasn't been voted on yet. RP has won 0% in WA so far.

Nice find. So it's safe to say that Ron Paul has won nothing. Time to lock this thread and it's misleading title up.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: Sinsear
Nice find. So it's safe to say that Ron Paul has won nothing. Time to lock this thread and it's misleading title up.

QFT. :thumbsup:

 

[HeXploiT]

Originally posted by: DaveSimmons

Originally posted by: Perry404
It states specifically that "According to the state tally,McCain won 26 percent of delegates, Huckabee garnered 24 percent"
That's 50%.
How many other candidates are left on the Republican side to split the other 50% of the delegates? The math seems fairly simple to me.

All this aside I don't appreciated being called a liar. I may be wrong but I am not making things up out of thin air. Let's see someone else do the math.

In WA 50% of Republican delegates come from caucuses (with RP getting 0%) and 50% come from primary voting (on Feb. 19th IIRC).

The other 50% isn't RP, it hasn't been voted on yet. RP has won 0% in WA so far.

I've got news for you, many of Rons delegates are stealth delegates. Do you know what that means?
Also none of the delegates are bound.

Originally posted by: Sinsear

Nice find. So it's safe to say that Ron Paul has won nothing. Time to lock this thread and it's misleading title up.

What find? lol. The only one who has posted any relevant information in this thread is me. I'll bet there isn't one person in this thread who even understands the delegate process, the primary or the caucus in Washington state and this includes myself.
Also not one person has been able to put forth any delegate information whatsoever(aside from myself).

As for the rest of you keep up the bullshit and lets see how this plays out.
At least DaveSimmons has attempted to formulate an educated opinion even if it is wrong. The rest of you are for the most part good for mindless insults and little else.

 

[BoomerD]

While I realize it doesn't include delegate counts, here's the latest from the Washington Republican Primary:

Washington - 6235 of 7150 Precincts Reporting - 87%
Name Party Votes Vote %
McCain , John GOP 3,468 26%
Huckabee , Mike GOP 3,226 24%
Paul , Ron GOP 2,799 21%

I'm sure the RPBots would hope that the delegates who have been "won" by the other candidates will desert and cast their votes for Ron Paul, but it ain't gonna happen...
Note: Votes = Precincts

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: Perry404
I've got news for you, many of Rons delegates are stealth delegates. Do you know what that means?

Yeah, it means they don't exist. Just like Paul. :laugh:

They're "stealth" alright. :laugh:

 

[HeXploiT]

Originally posted by: BoomerD
While I realize it doesn't include delegate counts, here's the latest from the Washington Republican Primary:

Washington - 6235 of 7150 Precincts Reporting - 87%
Name Party Votes Vote %
McCain , John GOP 3,468 26%
Huckabee , Mike GOP 3,226 24%
Paul , Ron GOP 2,799 21%

I'm sure the RPBots would hope that the delegates who have been "won" by the other candidates will desert and cast their votes for Ron Paul, but it ain't gonna happen...
Note: Votes = Precincts

Yes that is the popular vote which is unrelated to delegates.

 

[Sinsear]

Originally posted by: Perry404

I've got news for you, many of Rons delegates are stealth delegates. Do you know what that means?
Also none of the delegates are bound.

I know what the stealth delegates are all about. And if I need any more info I can always head on over to the Ron Paul Forums to see the idiots frothing over the fact that they think they have an invisible little empire built in the underhanded stealth delegate method. Too bad that many delegates are actually bound for one to 2 rounds, and that the convention will most likely not be brokered. So up in smoke goes that theory.

 

[HeXploiT]

Originally posted by: Sinsear

Originally posted by: Perry404

I've got news for you, many of Rons delegates are stealth delegates. Do you know what that means?
Also none of the delegates are bound.

I know what the stealth delegates are all about. And if I need any more info I can always head on over to the Ron Paul Forums to see the idiots frothing over the fact that they think they have an invisible little empire built in the underhanded stealth delegate method. Too bad that many delegates are actually bound for one to 2 rounds, and that the convention will most likely not be brokered. So up in smoke goes that theory.

This thread is not about a brokered convention it concerns the state of Washington.

 

[Sinsear]

Originally posted by: Perry404

Originally posted by: Sinsear

Originally posted by: Perry404

I've got news for you, many of Rons delegates are stealth delegates. Do you know what that means?
Also none of the delegates are bound.

I know what the stealth delegates are all about. And if I need any more info I can always head on over to the Ron Paul Forums to see the idiots frothing over the fact that they think they have an invisible little empire built in the underhanded stealth delegate method. Too bad that many delegates are actually bound for one to 2 rounds, and that the convention will most likely not be brokered. So up in smoke goes that theory.

This thread is not about a brokered convention it concerns the state of Washington.

You brought up the "stealth delegates" stuff buddy. Don't make me link to the RP circle jerk forums and the stealth threads.

And seen as you want to talk about Washington, please show me somewhere besides your misleading thread title where Ron Paul has won Washington.

 

[HeXploiT]

Originally posted by: Sinsear

Originally posted by: Perry404

Originally posted by: Sinsear

Originally posted by: Perry404

I've got news for you, many of Rons delegates are stealth delegates. Do you know what that means?
Also none of the delegates are bound.

I know what the stealth delegates are all about. And if I need any more info I can always head on over to the Ron Paul Forums to see the idiots frothing over the fact that they think they have an invisible little empire built in the underhanded stealth delegate method. Too bad that many delegates are actually bound for one to 2 rounds, and that the convention will most likely not be brokered. So up in smoke goes that theory.

This thread is not about a brokered convention it concerns the state of Washington.

You brought up the "stealth delegates" stuff buddy. Don't make me link to the RP circle jerk forums and the stealth threads.

Yeah genius because those uncommitted move on to the next level.

 

[Siddhartha]

Perry404 have you considered joining the Libertarian party?

 

[HeXploiT]

Originally posted by: Siddhartha
Perry404 have you considered joining the Libertarian party?

Why would I? I've been a conservative Republican my entire adult life.
Anyway Zionists feel at home in the Republican party.

 

[compuwiz1]

nvm

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: Perry404
The point is that the information I have provided is relevant and as far as I know accurate. The two statements, "Paul lost" and "the vote hasn't taken place yet" cannot both be true.

What you have posted is not accurate. Why? First the primary vote isn't done. So, your post, from the thread title, of "Ron Paul won Washington state" is not accurate. No one has won that state yet. Second, if you consider the caucus only, Ron Paul still didn't win that. Ron Paul MAY win the state, but he is currently in 3rd in Washington State after the caucus. In order for him to win, he has to come from behind in the primary.

It states specifically that "According to the state tally,McCain won 26 percent of delegates, Huckabee garnered 24 percent"
That's 50%.
How many other candidates are left on the Republican side to split the other 50% of the delegates? The math seems fairly simple to me.

The math is simple, if it is actually done. So, lets do it. The caucuses give roughly half of the republican delegates in Washington. Here are the caucus results.:
[*]McCain: 26%
[*]Huckabee: 24%
[*]Paul: 21%
[*]Romney: 16%
[*]Uncommitted: 13%
[*]Math time: total = 26% + 24% + 21% + 16% +13% = 100%. Yes, the math works out, it was simple to add up to 100%. Paul is currently in 3rd.

Paul may sway those uncommitted delegates. Paul may do well in the primary. Ron Paul may win Washington state. But until that happens, any statement that "Ron Paul won Washington state" is a misleading lie.

All this aside I don't appreciated being called a liar. I may be wrong but I am not making things up out of thin air. Let's see someone else do the math.

I did the math, not that there was much to do. If you don't want to be called a liar, don't make a statement that isn't true. The statement that Paul won Washington isn't true at this point. No one has won Washington.

Originally posted by: Perry404
Why would I? I've been a conservative Republican my entire adult life.

Why? Because the Republicans haven't been conservative since the ~1950s when there was a split in the Democrat party. A massive portion of non-conservative democrats swapped parties (from Democrat to Republican) during that time. Sure, their high-spending and other non-conservative ideas (and thus the voters support) meant that many republicans won. Most of the presidents since then were Republicans for example. But, it also meant that Republicans haven't truely been conservative for 50-60 years. Why switch? Switch so that you can be in a party that is truely conservative instead of a party that pretends to be conservative and then does the exact opposite when in office. I'll let the proposed 3 trillion dollar budget speak for itself even though budgets aren't the only non-conservative part of today's Republican party.