22 votes

Media hates Ron Paul's 1st caucus win

Even though Ron Paul has unequivocally won his "first" caucus, the national media openly attempts to hide the results and calls Mitt Romney the winner anyway.

Continue reading on Examiner.com Media hides Ron Paul caucus win - Denver Conspiracy | Examiner.com http://www.examiner.com/conspiracy-in-denver/media-hides-ron...




Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Great article

Great article

The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire. - Heinlein

Sorry, but there was no win.

Sorry, but there was no win. According to the rules of the caucus, Romney won. They weren't playing the same rules as other caucuses.

There was no win because Ron Paul didn't receive a single voe. YOU could say he TIED for the win, since everyone got zero votes.

The bottom line is, it is obvious that there were more Romney supporters at the caucus than Ron Paul supporters. Sorry, but that is just reality. The uncommitted delegate pledged to Romney because it was obvious that he was getting votes from Romney supporters who had no other Romney delegates to vote for. So he felt it was the only ethical thing to do.

You can't take rules from other games (caucuses) and apply them to the one you are playing that has different rules. The ONLY mistake made was the Virgin islands official website combining delegate votes in the first place.

This outrage of this really just makes Ron Paul supporters look ignorant of the rules of the caucus. Or desperate. Either way, it looks bad on Ron Paul...not the GOP or media.

I understand all the fuss on Saturday night when people really DIDN'T understand what happened with the rules. But now that it is obvious, I cannot believe people are still bringing it up.

post some links

Sounds like you have done a lot of analysis-- point us to your sources.

likely a troll. has been a member only a few minutes.

don't take his/her comments too seriously

nr

Yeah, post some links.

I would like to see more data to validate your claim.

In Liberty

Then it should go both

Then it should go both ways...see how that works. I know how the system works in the virgin Islands, but people voted on Delegates, that outside of the uncommitted ones, directly translated to who they were supporting. The thing is, the media is treating this as an 'absolute win' on all fronts for Romney, and in many cases not explaining even how the Virgin Islands is different.

Seems to me, the People of

Seems to me, the People of the Virgin Islands should make a BIG stink. If the FCC or the FEC will not stand up for the true results being on the news they should at least try our crooked AG, of the US. This is just criminal and clearly against FCC rules.

but the "true results" would

but the "true results" would be:

Popular Vote:
Romney - 0 votes
Santorum - 0 votes
Gingrich - 0 votes
Paul - 0 votes.

Because there is no such thing as a popular vote when some voters get to vote 6 times for their candidate and others can only vote 3 times.

As for bring criminal...wow. Where exactly did you go to law school?

kinda important to spell correctly

if you're gonna rebut by implying that you're smarter than your opponent, no?

"As for bring criminal...wow. Where exactly did you go to law school?"

I know, 'cause "bring" and "being" is so similar?

Er... wait, they're not.

Sure, an adjacent key on your QWERTY board, but really, is there anything more moronic or ironically hilarious than to convey that you're illiterate, when attempting to P0Wnz someone?

LOL

Thanks Troll. Begone! Er... dang it, Mods got rid of him already... oh well. Good job mods!

Predictions in due Time...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGDisyWkIBM

"Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it's realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy." - Dr. Ronald Ernest Paul

but the "true results" would

delete

but the "true results" would

server timed out saying my post didn't go though...

Haters Gon' Hate

The media Ron Paul haters just keep on pulling out all the stops trying to stop the unstoppable idea who's time has come. Ron Paul keeps on keeping on; the revolution keeps growing every day.

I loved the title of your post. Reminded me of the below from another DP post.
http://www.dailypaul.com/217080/ron-paul-haters-gon-hate
http://img600.imageshack.us/img600/9655/4f4d3d4fd535cf40bf00...

Jeffrey Phelps

Sounds more and more p'od every time I read one of his articles...as well as he should be. It is kind of sad though that for honest reporting, your employer gives you the title "conspirecy reporter." IMO it shows how far down the rungs American journalism has really slid to.

“When a well-packaged web of lies has been sold gradually to the masses over generations, the truth will seem utterly preposterous and its speaker a raving lunatic.” – Dresden James

IF flipper romney had an ounce of integrity

the only ethical thing for romney to do would be to publically admit that he was NOT the winner of that caucus, and a refuse to take credit for what he did not earn. for him to accept those delegates and not insist that they be credited to dr. paul shows a glaring lack of integrity.

nr

Now you are just getting

Now you are just getting ridiculous.

If you put a decent college basketball team up against the Miami Heat. and give them 6 points for every basket while the Heat get 3. the college basketball team will win almost every time.

That is what happened.

NOBODY won a popular vote because you can't win something that doesn't exist.

Ron Paul should call Mitt Romney and thank him for not caring enough about VI to get 3 more delegates to run because if he had, it is obvious that Romney would have taken all 9 delegates easily AND won what you erroneously are calling the "popular vote". It is clear that there were 35-40 Romney supporters at the caucus, and at most 25-30 Ron Paul ones

a member for 57 MINUTES. why show up here now??

i will look into what your claim, but what you say differs from what i've been reading.

nr

On the other hand

what he said is all spelled out on the official VI GOP page. So there's that.

How so?

The votes weren't cast for the candidates, they were cast for delegates:
http://vigop.com/2012/03/vi-gop-2012-caucus-results-coming-s...
http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P12/VI-R

Each person could cast up to six votes for delegates. Some of the delegates were pledged to candidates, others were not. Three of the candidates went to Romney because they were pledged to Romney. They were in the top six because they got more votes. (Three more delegates for Romney were superdelegates, not selected by the vote at all.)

There were three potential Romney delegates who got 29, 31 and 41 votes respectively. There were six potential Paul delegates who got 14, 15, 15, 21 and 29 votes respectively. Those vote totals only make sense if there were 14 or 15 Paul supporters voting (each casting six votes, for the six potential Paul delegates), and about twice that many Romney supporters (each casting three votes for the three potential Romney delegates, then using their remaining three votes for some of the other delegates as well).

There was one "uncommitted" delegate who got 31 votes, then later committed to Romney. Looks like the Romney supporters knew that was coming.

i read that dr. paul had 29% of the votes and 26% for romney

is that not true????

nr

Those percentages

are what you get if you add up the votes for the six potential delegates pledged to Paul, and compare that to the total votes for the three potential delegates pledged to Romney, etc. And leave out the votes for the "uncommitted" delegate who it aopears everyone knew was in fact a Romney delegate (the one that declared for Romney after the vote was taken) rather than count those as Romney votes. That's how you get thise percentages.

and congratulate Ron Paul on his win

!!