i havent posted on here in quite some time, been busy and frankly i cant stand many of the people on here.
but now that its official, i wonder if wallstreetcappers will man up and concede that he was 100% wrong about the medias reporting of the delegate count during the primary season. i highly doubt it, and i suspect he will either try to abuse his mod powers and threaten me with a boxing and never address the issue, or claim somehow that he never said the medias reported count months ago was right and the #s the RP camp where claiming were wrong.
in NV, RP got 17 delegates compared to 5 for mitt romney. when it was pointed out that the media merely prorated the popular vote in the state and used those numbers for their reporting, when thats not how the state awards delegates, good ol' moderator extraordinaire wallstreetcappers could not grasp this simple concept. and in ME, RP actually had 20/24 delegates but the GOP ignored this and gave romney 10 of RPs delegates (even the ME governor, a romney supporter, boycotted the convention over this)
i havent posted on here in quite some time, been busy and frankly i cant stand many of the people on here.
but now that its official, i wonder if wallstreetcappers will man up and concede that he was 100% wrong about the medias reporting of the delegate count during the primary season. i highly doubt it, and i suspect he will either try to abuse his mod powers and threaten me with a boxing and never address the issue, or claim somehow that he never said the medias reported count months ago was right and the #s the RP camp where claiming were wrong.
in NV, RP got 17 delegates compared to 5 for mitt romney. when it was pointed out that the media merely prorated the popular vote in the state and used those numbers for their reporting, when thats not how the state awards delegates, good ol' moderator extraordinaire wallstreetcappers could not grasp this simple concept. and in ME, RP actually had 20/24 delegates but the GOP ignored this and gave romney 10 of RPs delegates (even the ME governor, a romney supporter, boycotted the convention over this)
As I recall, Wall's argument was more about the inability of Paul to attain the nomination. I believe he inquired on several occasions why Paul supporters were not betting on Paul at his long odds.
If Paul actually had more delegates than the Republicans are stating, I will be interested to see what the Paul delegation does. Would they leave the party?
As I recall, Wall's argument was more about the inability of Paul to attain the nomination. I believe he inquired on several occasions why Paul supporters were not betting on Paul at his long odds.
If Paul actually had more delegates than the Republicans are stating, I will be interested to see what the Paul delegation does. Would they leave the party?
As an aside, there are mixed reports as to why the Maine Gov. did not attend the convention...with the Romney camp hinting he wasn't welcome, to the Bangor Daily News reporting he choose not to go.
As an aside, there are mixed reports as to why the Maine Gov. did not attend the convention...with the Romney camp hinting he wasn't welcome, to the Bangor Daily News reporting he choose not to go.
wall made numerous posts on the topic and every time it was essentially the media delegate count is right and RPs count is wrong (last night proved that false).
when specifically pressed about NV and ME, wallstreetcappers claimed he was not ignorant on the states delegate process yet refused to acknowledge the discrepancy between how those states awarded delegates and how the media reported its #s.
and i think wallstreetcappers is a big boy, he doesnt need one of his personal fluffers to come to his rescue. either he can admit he was completely wrong or he can continue his riding a high horse internet facade.
wall made numerous posts on the topic and every time it was essentially the media delegate count is right and RPs count is wrong (last night proved that false).
when specifically pressed about NV and ME, wallstreetcappers claimed he was not ignorant on the states delegate process yet refused to acknowledge the discrepancy between how those states awarded delegates and how the media reported its #s.
and i think wallstreetcappers is a big boy, he doesnt need one of his personal fluffers to come to his rescue. either he can admit he was completely wrong or he can continue his riding a high horse internet facade.
As I recall, Wall's argument was more about the inability of Paul to attain the nomination. I believe he inquired on several occasions why Paul supporters were not betting on Paul at his long odds.
If Paul actually had more delegates than the Republicans are stating, I will be interested to see what the Paul delegation does. Would they leave the party?
one more thing, having more delegates than the media was reporting (a factual statement) is completely independent from having enough delegates to win the nomination. this was something that was explicitly explained to wallstreetcappers, yet he refused to listen to anything that would invalid him. just to be clear, RP does extremely well in caucus states, many of the early states were caucuses where very few of the last ~35 states were caucuses. clearly wallstreetcappers assertion of betting on RP to win the nomination as the only way he would accept ones veiw that RP had more delegates than the media was reporting early in the delegate process is just asinine.
As I recall, Wall's argument was more about the inability of Paul to attain the nomination. I believe he inquired on several occasions why Paul supporters were not betting on Paul at his long odds.
If Paul actually had more delegates than the Republicans are stating, I will be interested to see what the Paul delegation does. Would they leave the party?
one more thing, having more delegates than the media was reporting (a factual statement) is completely independent from having enough delegates to win the nomination. this was something that was explicitly explained to wallstreetcappers, yet he refused to listen to anything that would invalid him. just to be clear, RP does extremely well in caucus states, many of the early states were caucuses where very few of the last ~35 states were caucuses. clearly wallstreetcappers assertion of betting on RP to win the nomination as the only way he would accept ones veiw that RP had more delegates than the media was reporting early in the delegate process is just asinine.
wall made numerous posts on the topic and every time it was essentially the media delegate count is right and RPs count is wrong (last night proved that false).
when specifically pressed about NV and ME, wallstreetcappers claimed he was not ignorant on the states delegate process yet refused to acknowledge the discrepancy between how those states awarded delegates and how the media reported its #s.
and i think wallstreetcappers is a big boy, he doesnt need one of his personal fluffers to come to his rescue. either he can admit he was completely wrong or he can continue his riding a high horse internet facade.
Go find these posts please. If you are going to throw around garbage like this then I for sure am going to expect you have my words to back it up.
So did you end up wagering on RP odds since the boots on the street obviously were correct..he is going to win the nomination still, right?
wall made numerous posts on the topic and every time it was essentially the media delegate count is right and RPs count is wrong (last night proved that false).
when specifically pressed about NV and ME, wallstreetcappers claimed he was not ignorant on the states delegate process yet refused to acknowledge the discrepancy between how those states awarded delegates and how the media reported its #s.
and i think wallstreetcappers is a big boy, he doesnt need one of his personal fluffers to come to his rescue. either he can admit he was completely wrong or he can continue his riding a high horse internet facade.
Go find these posts please. If you are going to throw around garbage like this then I for sure am going to expect you have my words to back it up.
So did you end up wagering on RP odds since the boots on the street obviously were correct..he is going to win the nomination still, right?
Go find these posts please. If you are going to throw around garbage like this then I for sure am going to expect you have my words to back it up.
So did you end up wagering on RP odds since the boots on the street obviously were correct..he is going to win the nomination still, right?
just reread the last 2 pages of the thread, you were pretty steadfast in your denial that RP could have more delegates than what the AP reported.
and for the 100x time, your continual assertion that one needed to wager on RP if they did not believe the AP reported delegates is as flawed of an argument as one can make.
so lets here it, do you still stand by your assertion that the AP reported delegate count from NV is correct, or do you finally accept that it is false. heres a hint, the delegate count is finalized now and it is not the same as what the AP was reporting.
Go find these posts please. If you are going to throw around garbage like this then I for sure am going to expect you have my words to back it up.
So did you end up wagering on RP odds since the boots on the street obviously were correct..he is going to win the nomination still, right?
just reread the last 2 pages of the thread, you were pretty steadfast in your denial that RP could have more delegates than what the AP reported.
and for the 100x time, your continual assertion that one needed to wager on RP if they did not believe the AP reported delegates is as flawed of an argument as one can make.
so lets here it, do you still stand by your assertion that the AP reported delegate count from NV is correct, or do you finally accept that it is false. heres a hint, the delegate count is finalized now and it is not the same as what the AP was reporting.
just reread the last 2 pages of the thread, you were pretty steadfast in your denial that RP could have more delegates than what the AP reported.
and for the 100x time, your continual assertion that one needed to wager on RP if they did not believe the AP reported delegates is as flawed of an argument as one can make.
so lets here it, do you still stand by your assertion that the AP reported delegate count from NV is correct, or do you finally accept that it is false. heres a hint, the delegate count is finalized now and it is not the same as what the AP was reporting.
Ahhhhhh the old copout routine. I seem to also recall from many here that the truth would come out at the circus event and RP delegates who had been secretly agreeing with those roving RP reporters on the street would vote from him and he would win.
My assertion as you cannot twist..(nor do you dare bump the thread because you would be proven wrong) is that the numbers being quoted here by a few of you were erroneous and impossible to prove.
I dont care what the AP reported, the debate was with regards to what several here were claiming..and I have not seen these same people show faces and account for their claims now that we are at the convention and that was when RP's inside boots on the streets numbers would miraculously reverse and he would win.
Instead now you get the same re-tread whining about the buses not being available for RP's folk or voting places shut down for RP delegates or whatever other hilarious excuses you guys have for why RP was robbed yet again.
Feel free to bump that thread and any REAL evidence you have, then we will see what I said and didnt say..
Get cracking, it should be fun to re-hash stuff from 6 months ago and point out exactly what was said.
You made the claim, now please back it up in its entirety immediately.
just reread the last 2 pages of the thread, you were pretty steadfast in your denial that RP could have more delegates than what the AP reported.
and for the 100x time, your continual assertion that one needed to wager on RP if they did not believe the AP reported delegates is as flawed of an argument as one can make.
so lets here it, do you still stand by your assertion that the AP reported delegate count from NV is correct, or do you finally accept that it is false. heres a hint, the delegate count is finalized now and it is not the same as what the AP was reporting.
Ahhhhhh the old copout routine. I seem to also recall from many here that the truth would come out at the circus event and RP delegates who had been secretly agreeing with those roving RP reporters on the street would vote from him and he would win.
My assertion as you cannot twist..(nor do you dare bump the thread because you would be proven wrong) is that the numbers being quoted here by a few of you were erroneous and impossible to prove.
I dont care what the AP reported, the debate was with regards to what several here were claiming..and I have not seen these same people show faces and account for their claims now that we are at the convention and that was when RP's inside boots on the streets numbers would miraculously reverse and he would win.
Instead now you get the same re-tread whining about the buses not being available for RP's folk or voting places shut down for RP delegates or whatever other hilarious excuses you guys have for why RP was robbed yet again.
Feel free to bump that thread and any REAL evidence you have, then we will see what I said and didnt say..
Get cracking, it should be fun to re-hash stuff from 6 months ago and point out exactly what was said.
You made the claim, now please back it up in its entirety immediately.
Ahhhhhh the old copout routine. I seem to also recall from many here that the truth would come out at the circus event and RP delegates who had been secretly agreeing with those roving RP reporters on the street would vote from him and he would win.
My assertion as you cannot twist..(nor do you dare bump the thread because you would be proven wrong) is that the numbers being quoted here by a few of you were erroneous and impossible to prove.
I dont care what the AP reported, the debate was with regards to what several here were claiming..and I have not seen these same people show faces and account for their claims now that we are at the convention and that was when RP's inside boots on the streets numbers would miraculously reverse and he would win.
Instead now you get the same re-tread whining about the buses not being available for RP's folk or voting places shut down for RP delegates or whatever other hilarious excuses you guys have for why RP was robbed yet again.
Feel free to bump that thread and any REAL evidence you have, then we will see what I said and didnt say..
Get cracking, it should be fun to re-hash stuff from 6 months ago and point out exactly what was said.
You made the claim, now please back it up in its entirety immediately.
dont try to spin your way out of this one, im asking you specifically about NV, nothing more nothing less. i dont care what others have said, i only care about what you and i have said regarding NV.
just reread the thread i quoted on here twice, and you will clearly see you touted the AP reported delegate counts.
you will also see you failing to understand how NV awards its delegates and failing to understand how the AP merely prorated its delegate count based on the popular vote, despite your best efforts to claim you know how the delegate process works.
lets recap, in the thread in question, you refuted someones (i think KOAJ) claim that RP actually had more delegates than he was being given credit for. you countered by citing the NYTIMES
Caucus delegates are not required
to follow the voting public. The so-called "experts" continue to
underestimate (or simply ignore) the RP machine at work. Winning
popular vote does not guarantee an automatic delegate for a candidate.
to which you replied (post 37)
Translation..RP worshipers cling to every single strand of mythical hope they can.
So J knows someone who knows someone..that is about as legit as speculation from a tabloid.
You
are correct about supporter propaganda though, RP's boots on the ground
is leading the race of spreading unverified rumors and poll figures
that never materialize.
turns out my source, an actual NV delegate was right and you were wrong.
Ahhhhhh the old copout routine. I seem to also recall from many here that the truth would come out at the circus event and RP delegates who had been secretly agreeing with those roving RP reporters on the street would vote from him and he would win.
My assertion as you cannot twist..(nor do you dare bump the thread because you would be proven wrong) is that the numbers being quoted here by a few of you were erroneous and impossible to prove.
I dont care what the AP reported, the debate was with regards to what several here were claiming..and I have not seen these same people show faces and account for their claims now that we are at the convention and that was when RP's inside boots on the streets numbers would miraculously reverse and he would win.
Instead now you get the same re-tread whining about the buses not being available for RP's folk or voting places shut down for RP delegates or whatever other hilarious excuses you guys have for why RP was robbed yet again.
Feel free to bump that thread and any REAL evidence you have, then we will see what I said and didnt say..
Get cracking, it should be fun to re-hash stuff from 6 months ago and point out exactly what was said.
You made the claim, now please back it up in its entirety immediately.
dont try to spin your way out of this one, im asking you specifically about NV, nothing more nothing less. i dont care what others have said, i only care about what you and i have said regarding NV.
just reread the thread i quoted on here twice, and you will clearly see you touted the AP reported delegate counts.
you will also see you failing to understand how NV awards its delegates and failing to understand how the AP merely prorated its delegate count based on the popular vote, despite your best efforts to claim you know how the delegate process works.
lets recap, in the thread in question, you refuted someones (i think KOAJ) claim that RP actually had more delegates than he was being given credit for. you countered by citing the NYTIMES
Caucus delegates are not required
to follow the voting public. The so-called "experts" continue to
underestimate (or simply ignore) the RP machine at work. Winning
popular vote does not guarantee an automatic delegate for a candidate.
to which you replied (post 37)
Translation..RP worshipers cling to every single strand of mythical hope they can.
So J knows someone who knows someone..that is about as legit as speculation from a tabloid.
You
are correct about supporter propaganda though, RP's boots on the ground
is leading the race of spreading unverified rumors and poll figures
that never materialize.
turns out my source, an actual NV delegate was right and you were wrong.
try to stay on point here, this entire time, dating back to the original thread, i am specifically talking about NV. your stance was the AP reported totals are correct, my stance was they are wrong.
yesterday proved that you and the AP were wrong and i was right.
try to stay on point here, this entire time, dating back to the original thread, i am specifically talking about NV. your stance was the AP reported totals are correct, my stance was they are wrong.
yesterday proved that you and the AP were wrong and i was right.
try to stay on point here, this entire time, dating back to the original thread, i am specifically talking about NV. your stance was the AP reported totals are correct, my stance was they are wrong.
yesterday proved that you and the AP were wrong and i was right.
You are trying to isolate one point or thread when the subject and point is MUCH larger than what you are seeking to bash me about. Well before your starting to post here we have discussed this exact point in many threads and over a long time horizon..the issue of what biased RP sources claim versus other outside sources..
So you cannot demand that the only thing that matters is one thread or even two threads that you are involved in when the issue is much larger than your small focus point.
I have not changed my view on the subject now, I had the same opinion well before you came along and will continue to have the same opinion after you have gone if the same situation arises.
My contention as it has always existed is that I would personally trust multiple outside sources of calculation versus what some guys who work for RP's campaign claim..and have claimed way before this one event.
You have no way to debate what I am saying, which was that the claims made by RP's camp are of no value unless what they claim actually is proven true..not that there was some miscounting and a mistake, but what they claim was proven correct.
See, RP's camp has claimed many things..every single caucus event they were bitching about why they didnt have better results, always the conspiracy theory and whining reasons for how they were kept out..I take claim with that and I take claim with their calculation methods.
You cannot isolate one part of a very long series of events and discussion, I've stayed consistent in all of my opinions, they have not changed. I am not interested in more conspiracy theories, rather I am interested in the claims his camp made from the boots on the streets..that come convention time he would win..that they had more than enough caucus numbers that would not be seen prior but that would come out at the convention and he would win.
try to stay on point here, this entire time, dating back to the original thread, i am specifically talking about NV. your stance was the AP reported totals are correct, my stance was they are wrong.
yesterday proved that you and the AP were wrong and i was right.
You are trying to isolate one point or thread when the subject and point is MUCH larger than what you are seeking to bash me about. Well before your starting to post here we have discussed this exact point in many threads and over a long time horizon..the issue of what biased RP sources claim versus other outside sources..
So you cannot demand that the only thing that matters is one thread or even two threads that you are involved in when the issue is much larger than your small focus point.
I have not changed my view on the subject now, I had the same opinion well before you came along and will continue to have the same opinion after you have gone if the same situation arises.
My contention as it has always existed is that I would personally trust multiple outside sources of calculation versus what some guys who work for RP's campaign claim..and have claimed way before this one event.
You have no way to debate what I am saying, which was that the claims made by RP's camp are of no value unless what they claim actually is proven true..not that there was some miscounting and a mistake, but what they claim was proven correct.
See, RP's camp has claimed many things..every single caucus event they were bitching about why they didnt have better results, always the conspiracy theory and whining reasons for how they were kept out..I take claim with that and I take claim with their calculation methods.
You cannot isolate one part of a very long series of events and discussion, I've stayed consistent in all of my opinions, they have not changed. I am not interested in more conspiracy theories, rather I am interested in the claims his camp made from the boots on the streets..that come convention time he would win..that they had more than enough caucus numbers that would not be seen prior but that would come out at the convention and he would win.
You are trying to isolate one point or thread when the subject and point is MUCH larger than what you are seeking to bash me about. Well before your starting to post here we have discussed this exact point in many threads and over a long time horizon..the issue of what biased RP sources claim versus other outside sources..
So you cannot demand that the only thing that matters is one thread or even two threads that you are involved in when the issue is much larger than your small focus point.
I have not changed my view on the subject now, I had the same opinion well before you came along and will continue to have the same opinion after you have gone if the same situation arises.
My contention as it has always existed is that I would personally trust multiple outside sources of calculation versus what some guys who work for RP's campaign claim..and have claimed way before this one event.
You have no way to debate what I am saying, which was that the claims made by RP's camp are of no value unless what they claim actually is proven true..not that there was some miscounting and a mistake, but what they claim was proven correct.
See, RP's camp has claimed many things..every single caucus event they were bitching about why they didnt have better results, always the conspiracy theory and whining reasons for how they were kept out..I take claim with that and I take claim with their calculation methods.
You cannot isolate one part of a very long series of events and discussion, I've stayed consistent in all of my opinions, they have not changed. I am not interested in more conspiracy theories, rather I am interested in the claims his camp made from the boots on the streets..that come convention time he would win..that they had more than enough caucus numbers that would not be seen prior but that would come out at the convention and he would win.
way to cop out
for the 101st time
NV is a caucus state, the sources you claimed to trust merely prorated the popular vote for delegates. when confronted with this information, you dismissed anyone who believed the true delegate count was different than what the AP was reporting.
now the true delegate count comes out, proving the RP people correct and the AP, and you, wrong, and you cannot get off your high horse for 2 seconds and admit you were wrong, pretty sad if you ask me.
i can and will make this specifically about NV, bc you have a history of speaking in generalities and not accepted facts.
i dont understand why it is so hard for you to admit that the source you trusted, the AP, was wrong regarding NV. its not like you are the person at the AP who came up with the #s. but it just goes to prove yet another instance where you try to act superior and condescending to anyone who disagrees with you. (see post 6, which occured AFTER i had linked the thread where you made the claims)
You are trying to isolate one point or thread when the subject and point is MUCH larger than what you are seeking to bash me about. Well before your starting to post here we have discussed this exact point in many threads and over a long time horizon..the issue of what biased RP sources claim versus other outside sources..
So you cannot demand that the only thing that matters is one thread or even two threads that you are involved in when the issue is much larger than your small focus point.
I have not changed my view on the subject now, I had the same opinion well before you came along and will continue to have the same opinion after you have gone if the same situation arises.
My contention as it has always existed is that I would personally trust multiple outside sources of calculation versus what some guys who work for RP's campaign claim..and have claimed way before this one event.
You have no way to debate what I am saying, which was that the claims made by RP's camp are of no value unless what they claim actually is proven true..not that there was some miscounting and a mistake, but what they claim was proven correct.
See, RP's camp has claimed many things..every single caucus event they were bitching about why they didnt have better results, always the conspiracy theory and whining reasons for how they were kept out..I take claim with that and I take claim with their calculation methods.
You cannot isolate one part of a very long series of events and discussion, I've stayed consistent in all of my opinions, they have not changed. I am not interested in more conspiracy theories, rather I am interested in the claims his camp made from the boots on the streets..that come convention time he would win..that they had more than enough caucus numbers that would not be seen prior but that would come out at the convention and he would win.
way to cop out
for the 101st time
NV is a caucus state, the sources you claimed to trust merely prorated the popular vote for delegates. when confronted with this information, you dismissed anyone who believed the true delegate count was different than what the AP was reporting.
now the true delegate count comes out, proving the RP people correct and the AP, and you, wrong, and you cannot get off your high horse for 2 seconds and admit you were wrong, pretty sad if you ask me.
i can and will make this specifically about NV, bc you have a history of speaking in generalities and not accepted facts.
i dont understand why it is so hard for you to admit that the source you trusted, the AP, was wrong regarding NV. its not like you are the person at the AP who came up with the #s. but it just goes to prove yet another instance where you try to act superior and condescending to anyone who disagrees with you. (see post 6, which occured AFTER i had linked the thread where you made the claims)
and another thing, first you said you didnt think i could find the proof that you made incorrect claims about NV, and when presented with that evidence, you brush it off as unimportant and try to change the subject.
just out of curiosity, whens the last time you acknowledged you made an incorrect statement?
and another thing, first you said you didnt think i could find the proof that you made incorrect claims about NV, and when presented with that evidence, you brush it off as unimportant and try to change the subject.
just out of curiosity, whens the last time you acknowledged you made an incorrect statement?
What statement did I make that was wrong? That I believe outside sources versus biased and wrong inside individuals that have made outlandish claims yet were and are wrong?
You are stuck on a concept about how the caucuses are counted, I am stuck on the validity of RP's foot doobies. The whole process started because on that date yet again the RP whining began, same sob story and same outlandish claims. I said I dont believe their figures and biases and I stand 100% on that exact viewpoint today.
What statement did I make that was wrong? That I believe outside sources versus biased and wrong inside individuals that have made outlandish claims yet were and are wrong?
You are stuck on a concept about how the caucuses are counted, I am stuck on the validity of RP's foot doobies. The whole process started because on that date yet again the RP whining began, same sob story and same outlandish claims. I said I dont believe their figures and biases and I stand 100% on that exact viewpoint today.
So when is the convention shocker going to happen which was dramatically claimed so many times over the campaign?
I am not going to watch even 1 minute of either convention but if you link me to the media release where RP shocks the world and wins, I promise to read it completely.
So when is the convention shocker going to happen which was dramatically claimed so many times over the campaign?
I am not going to watch even 1 minute of either convention but if you link me to the media release where RP shocks the world and wins, I promise to read it completely.
What statement did I make that was wrong? That I believe outside sources versus biased and wrong inside individuals that have made outlandish claims yet were and are wrong?
You are stuck on a concept about how the caucuses are counted, I am stuck on the validity of RP's foot doobies. The whole process started because on that date yet again the RP whining began, same sob story and same outlandish claims. I said I dont believe their figures and biases and I stand 100% on that exact viewpoint today.
EXCEPT THEY WERE RIGHT IN NEVADA AND YOUR SOURCE, THE AP, WAS WRONG
What statement did I make that was wrong? That I believe outside sources versus biased and wrong inside individuals that have made outlandish claims yet were and are wrong?
You are stuck on a concept about how the caucuses are counted, I am stuck on the validity of RP's foot doobies. The whole process started because on that date yet again the RP whining began, same sob story and same outlandish claims. I said I dont believe their figures and biases and I stand 100% on that exact viewpoint today.
EXCEPT THEY WERE RIGHT IN NEVADA AND YOUR SOURCE, THE AP, WAS WRONG
So when is the convention shocker going to happen which was dramatically claimed so many times over the campaign?
I am not going to watch even 1 minute of either convention but if you link me to the media release where RP shocks the world and wins, I promise to read it completely.
i never said anything about a convention shocker, and to try and change the subject is childish.
why dont you be a big boy and try to stay on topic, which is the # of delegates in NV, nothing more, nothing less.
So when is the convention shocker going to happen which was dramatically claimed so many times over the campaign?
I am not going to watch even 1 minute of either convention but if you link me to the media release where RP shocks the world and wins, I promise to read it completely.
i never said anything about a convention shocker, and to try and change the subject is childish.
why dont you be a big boy and try to stay on topic, which is the # of delegates in NV, nothing more, nothing less.
i never said anything about a convention shocker, and to try and change the subject is childish.
why dont you be a big boy and try to stay on topic, which is the # of delegates in NV, nothing more, nothing less.
That is where you are mistaken..
The conversation has been going on for a very long time, so while you are wanting to cherry pick this one event the conversation has been going on much longer than your tangent.
No need for the jabs either, you have nothing to complain about.
My replies on that tiny subject are consistent, my contention was that I would choose to believe outside sources versus inside. I would believe the AP and WSJ and other outside sources than some "boots on the ground" garbage.
The number of NV delegates you were debating with me was from RP "inside" sources..which I hold zero interest in listening to. Those SAME sources are the ones I keep quoting with my other comments..that there would be a shocking turn at the convention and RP would win. The very same group you are using to try and prove your point I am using to disprove.
i never said anything about a convention shocker, and to try and change the subject is childish.
why dont you be a big boy and try to stay on topic, which is the # of delegates in NV, nothing more, nothing less.
That is where you are mistaken..
The conversation has been going on for a very long time, so while you are wanting to cherry pick this one event the conversation has been going on much longer than your tangent.
No need for the jabs either, you have nothing to complain about.
My replies on that tiny subject are consistent, my contention was that I would choose to believe outside sources versus inside. I would believe the AP and WSJ and other outside sources than some "boots on the ground" garbage.
The number of NV delegates you were debating with me was from RP "inside" sources..which I hold zero interest in listening to. Those SAME sources are the ones I keep quoting with my other comments..that there would be a shocking turn at the convention and RP would win. The very same group you are using to try and prove your point I am using to disprove.
The conversation has been going on for a very long time, so while you are wanting to cherry pick this one event the conversation has been going on much longer than your tangent.
No need for the jabs either, you have nothing to complain about.
My replies on that tiny subject are consistent, my contention was that I would choose to believe outside sources versus inside. I would believe the AP and WSJ and other outside sources than some "boots on the ground" garbage.
The number of NV delegates you were debating with me was from RP "inside" sources..which I hold zero interest in listening to. Those SAME sources are the ones I keep quoting with my other comments..that there would be a shocking turn at the convention and RP would win. The very same group you are using to try and prove your point I am using to disprove.
i never made any assertions other than the count from NV. to quote some idiot i know...
Go find these posts please. If you are going to throw around garbage
like this then I for sure am going to expect you have my words to back
it up.
and let me ask a 15th time. if you know how the caucus process works, why do you believe continue to believe in the AP who merely prorated the popular vote? cmon, you still cant believe in the AP, for goodness sake, the actual count is in and the AP was wrong and "RP" was right regarding NV.
The conversation has been going on for a very long time, so while you are wanting to cherry pick this one event the conversation has been going on much longer than your tangent.
No need for the jabs either, you have nothing to complain about.
My replies on that tiny subject are consistent, my contention was that I would choose to believe outside sources versus inside. I would believe the AP and WSJ and other outside sources than some "boots on the ground" garbage.
The number of NV delegates you were debating with me was from RP "inside" sources..which I hold zero interest in listening to. Those SAME sources are the ones I keep quoting with my other comments..that there would be a shocking turn at the convention and RP would win. The very same group you are using to try and prove your point I am using to disprove.
i never made any assertions other than the count from NV. to quote some idiot i know...
Go find these posts please. If you are going to throw around garbage
like this then I for sure am going to expect you have my words to back
it up.
and let me ask a 15th time. if you know how the caucus process works, why do you believe continue to believe in the AP who merely prorated the popular vote? cmon, you still cant believe in the AP, for goodness sake, the actual count is in and the AP was wrong and "RP" was right regarding NV.
i never made any assertions other than the count from NV. to quote some idiot i know...
Go find these posts please. If you are going to throw around garbage
like this then I for sure am going to expect you have my words to back
it up.
and let me ask a 15th time. if you know how the caucus process works, why do you believe continue to believe in the AP who merely prorated the popular vote? cmon, you still cant believe in the AP, for goodness sake, the actual count is in and the AP was wrong and "RP" was right regarding NV.
Idiot huh?
You are asking questions that you are trying to prove me wrong with, I am giving you answers as I gave them then..I havent changed a single thing. My contention then was the same at that day, before you came to our site, after you will ever be on the site..you are not going to force me into your game, the discussion was not just the one specific point you are trying to make.
So yes..you have not proven anything, nor given any evidence to prove your point..this garbage tangent you are on. Notice I did not insult you or call you an idiot, I have not stooped to those levels.
It is almost as if you are having a debate with yourself because I am not on the same wave length as you which makes perfect sense. You came mid stream into a discussion and are stuck on some silly tangent while I have stated from before you have ever been involved in the conversation..
I do not believe or give credit to unknown biased sources..which the guys you quoted were stating. I dont care if the AP or the WSJ or any other source might have errors..that isnt the point. I wasnt debating what you are trying to force me into debating. I am questioning, did question, still question biased "inside" sources..as I did when those same sources predicted amazing activities to occur at the convention..which has not happened.
Keep hammering away at your tangent, I have not changed my stance one bit and I wont..what I was referencing in your thread was the same as I referenced in other RP threads before and during your stay here.
i never made any assertions other than the count from NV. to quote some idiot i know...
Go find these posts please. If you are going to throw around garbage
like this then I for sure am going to expect you have my words to back
it up.
and let me ask a 15th time. if you know how the caucus process works, why do you believe continue to believe in the AP who merely prorated the popular vote? cmon, you still cant believe in the AP, for goodness sake, the actual count is in and the AP was wrong and "RP" was right regarding NV.
Idiot huh?
You are asking questions that you are trying to prove me wrong with, I am giving you answers as I gave them then..I havent changed a single thing. My contention then was the same at that day, before you came to our site, after you will ever be on the site..you are not going to force me into your game, the discussion was not just the one specific point you are trying to make.
So yes..you have not proven anything, nor given any evidence to prove your point..this garbage tangent you are on. Notice I did not insult you or call you an idiot, I have not stooped to those levels.
It is almost as if you are having a debate with yourself because I am not on the same wave length as you which makes perfect sense. You came mid stream into a discussion and are stuck on some silly tangent while I have stated from before you have ever been involved in the conversation..
I do not believe or give credit to unknown biased sources..which the guys you quoted were stating. I dont care if the AP or the WSJ or any other source might have errors..that isnt the point. I wasnt debating what you are trying to force me into debating. I am questioning, did question, still question biased "inside" sources..as I did when those same sources predicted amazing activities to occur at the convention..which has not happened.
Keep hammering away at your tangent, I have not changed my stance one bit and I wont..what I was referencing in your thread was the same as I referenced in other RP threads before and during your stay here.
spin, deflect, deny, change the subject. seems to be the strategy of someone who doesnt have a leg to stand on.
why cant you answer these simple questions?
1) how many delegates did RP win in NV? 8 or 17?
2) after the caucus, who correctly predicted the correct # of delegates, the AP, who merely prorated based on the popular vote, or RP who factored in which delegates voted which way?
and why cant you provide any proof of your allegations of this broader conversation??? why is it you can allege something without proof but i cant? i would think as a moderator you would understand the principle of double standard.
spin, deflect, deny, change the subject. seems to be the strategy of someone who doesnt have a leg to stand on.
why cant you answer these simple questions?
1) how many delegates did RP win in NV? 8 or 17?
2) after the caucus, who correctly predicted the correct # of delegates, the AP, who merely prorated based on the popular vote, or RP who factored in which delegates voted which way?
and why cant you provide any proof of your allegations of this broader conversation??? why is it you can allege something without proof but i cant? i would think as a moderator you would understand the principle of double standard.
why am i not shocked you 1) cannot answer a simple question, did RP receive 8 or 17 delegates from NV? and 2) you try to call me out for showing proof of accusations, which i did, but you will not show proof of your accusations, perhaps bc i never said such things.
why am i not shocked you 1) cannot answer a simple question, did RP receive 8 or 17 delegates from NV? and 2) you try to call me out for showing proof of accusations, which i did, but you will not show proof of your accusations, perhaps bc i never said such things.
why am i not shocked you 1) cannot answer a simple question, did RP receive 8 or 17 delegates from NV? and 2) you try to call me out for showing proof of accusations, which i did, but you will not show proof of your accusations, perhaps bc i never said such things.
A few things..
First, you are stuck and I am stuck..so do you want to play the tail game for another 20 posts? You are fixated on one minute point, that to you was the only focus of the previous discussion and the current discussion. To me that was not at all the point, nor of really ANY value. I dont care about after the fact garbage like this..the discussion at the time was obviously one thing to you and another to me.
So you are going to keep chirping away at your minute point and making the personal idiot comment, negative bashing crap that you are known for as if that will some how change the content then and now. It wont and the back and forth really was going nowhere.
Last thing..where did I say YOU said the items regarding the convention? Show me where I stated that YOU said those things? That is the entire point...I've had this multi year discussion with many here, you are quite late to the game. The items I referenced WERE the point I was making then and now, that I dont trust or believe biased RP worker bees versus outside unbiased sources. So the way caucus votes are counted or that there was an error really does zippo for me because it was not the point.
The point was the over dramatized, crybaby tactics that the Paul camp have used for several campaigns now, the incorrect assumptions that they had more delegates then the other candidates but it was all in secret until the convention dot dot dot.
So feel free to keep chirping about Nevada and that single minute point, that obviously is the only thing you care about while to anyone who has been around for a bit longer knows where I've stood with regards to the RP fuzzy math and hidden caucus votes which never materialized (again).
I didnt reply because there is obviously nothing to reply about, we arent having a conversation..you are chirping about something that obviously I was not even part of or concerned about.
why am i not shocked you 1) cannot answer a simple question, did RP receive 8 or 17 delegates from NV? and 2) you try to call me out for showing proof of accusations, which i did, but you will not show proof of your accusations, perhaps bc i never said such things.
A few things..
First, you are stuck and I am stuck..so do you want to play the tail game for another 20 posts? You are fixated on one minute point, that to you was the only focus of the previous discussion and the current discussion. To me that was not at all the point, nor of really ANY value. I dont care about after the fact garbage like this..the discussion at the time was obviously one thing to you and another to me.
So you are going to keep chirping away at your minute point and making the personal idiot comment, negative bashing crap that you are known for as if that will some how change the content then and now. It wont and the back and forth really was going nowhere.
Last thing..where did I say YOU said the items regarding the convention? Show me where I stated that YOU said those things? That is the entire point...I've had this multi year discussion with many here, you are quite late to the game. The items I referenced WERE the point I was making then and now, that I dont trust or believe biased RP worker bees versus outside unbiased sources. So the way caucus votes are counted or that there was an error really does zippo for me because it was not the point.
The point was the over dramatized, crybaby tactics that the Paul camp have used for several campaigns now, the incorrect assumptions that they had more delegates then the other candidates but it was all in secret until the convention dot dot dot.
So feel free to keep chirping about Nevada and that single minute point, that obviously is the only thing you care about while to anyone who has been around for a bit longer knows where I've stood with regards to the RP fuzzy math and hidden caucus votes which never materialized (again).
I didnt reply because there is obviously nothing to reply about, we arent having a conversation..you are chirping about something that obviously I was not even part of or concerned about.
First, you are stuck and I am stuck..so do you want to play the tail game for another 20 posts? You are fixated on one minute point, that to you was the only focus of the previous discussion and the current discussion. To me that was not at all the point, nor of really ANY value. I dont care about after the fact garbage like this..the discussion at the time was obviously one thing to you and another to me.
So you are going to keep chirping away at your minute point and making the personal idiot comment, negative bashing crap that you are known for as if that will some how change the content then and now. It wont and the back and forth really was going nowhere.
Last thing..where did I say YOU said the items regarding the convention? Show me where I stated that YOU said those things? That is the entire point...I've had this multi year discussion with many here, you are quite late to the game. The items I referenced WERE the point I was making then and now, that I dont trust or believe biased RP worker bees versus outside unbiased sources. So the way caucus votes are counted or that there was an error really does zippo for me because it was not the point.
The point was the over dramatized, crybaby tactics that the Paul camp have used for several campaigns now, the incorrect assumptions that they had more delegates then the other candidates but it was all in secret until the convention dot dot dot.
So feel free to keep chirping about Nevada and that single minute point, that obviously is the only thing you care about while to anyone who has been around for a bit longer knows where I've stood with regards to the RP fuzzy math and hidden caucus votes which never materialized (again).
I didnt reply because there is obviously nothing to reply about, we arent having a conversation..you are chirping about something that obviously I was not even part of or concerned about.
i love how you continue toplay the prove i said this game when you know full well what you said and you know that anyone can readily look it up
post 18 The conversation has been going on for a very long time, so while you
are wanting to cherry pick this one event the conversation has been
going on much longer than your tangent.
the only conversation ive ever had was regarding the number of delegates from NV. to insuinuate otherwise is just patently false.
youve made it perfectly clear that you do not trust RP sources but rather MSM sources like the AP. but knowing the AP was wrong, and RP was right in NV, wheres the concession on your part??? you cant call someone a liar and then not be held accountable when they a proven to have told the truth.
now once again, back months ago,
1) you stated you trust the AP and not RP in regards to NV. 2) you where confronted with mathematical proof that the AP simply prorated the popular vote for delegate total when that is not how caucus states award delegates. 3) you claim you knew how caucus states award delegates 4) it turns out RP was correct in regards to NV 5) you refuse to admit the AP was wrong in regards to NV.
if you would just answer me one simple question, how many delegates did RP receive from NV?
First, you are stuck and I am stuck..so do you want to play the tail game for another 20 posts? You are fixated on one minute point, that to you was the only focus of the previous discussion and the current discussion. To me that was not at all the point, nor of really ANY value. I dont care about after the fact garbage like this..the discussion at the time was obviously one thing to you and another to me.
So you are going to keep chirping away at your minute point and making the personal idiot comment, negative bashing crap that you are known for as if that will some how change the content then and now. It wont and the back and forth really was going nowhere.
Last thing..where did I say YOU said the items regarding the convention? Show me where I stated that YOU said those things? That is the entire point...I've had this multi year discussion with many here, you are quite late to the game. The items I referenced WERE the point I was making then and now, that I dont trust or believe biased RP worker bees versus outside unbiased sources. So the way caucus votes are counted or that there was an error really does zippo for me because it was not the point.
The point was the over dramatized, crybaby tactics that the Paul camp have used for several campaigns now, the incorrect assumptions that they had more delegates then the other candidates but it was all in secret until the convention dot dot dot.
So feel free to keep chirping about Nevada and that single minute point, that obviously is the only thing you care about while to anyone who has been around for a bit longer knows where I've stood with regards to the RP fuzzy math and hidden caucus votes which never materialized (again).
I didnt reply because there is obviously nothing to reply about, we arent having a conversation..you are chirping about something that obviously I was not even part of or concerned about.
i love how you continue toplay the prove i said this game when you know full well what you said and you know that anyone can readily look it up
post 18 The conversation has been going on for a very long time, so while you
are wanting to cherry pick this one event the conversation has been
going on much longer than your tangent.
the only conversation ive ever had was regarding the number of delegates from NV. to insuinuate otherwise is just patently false.
youve made it perfectly clear that you do not trust RP sources but rather MSM sources like the AP. but knowing the AP was wrong, and RP was right in NV, wheres the concession on your part??? you cant call someone a liar and then not be held accountable when they a proven to have told the truth.
now once again, back months ago,
1) you stated you trust the AP and not RP in regards to NV. 2) you where confronted with mathematical proof that the AP simply prorated the popular vote for delegate total when that is not how caucus states award delegates. 3) you claim you knew how caucus states award delegates 4) it turns out RP was correct in regards to NV 5) you refuse to admit the AP was wrong in regards to NV.
if you would just answer me one simple question, how many delegates did RP receive from NV?
If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so. It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly. Covers does not provide any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in your relevant locality. Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it. As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.