It appears that you don't know the difference between winning a convention where delegates were unbound and winning a convention when delegates are already bound to someone else (and saying that you're going to ignore the binding). The former is legitimate (and both Romney and Paul have done that). The latter is not. That's what you guys have been trying (and what Ron Paul has tried to tell you not to do but you've kept promoting it anyway). That's what ticked everyone off. And that was your big mistake.
A binding process absolutely means that you have a voice - all voters have a voice, and the binding is to the individuals they vote for. They're not just picking names out of a hat and arbitrarily binding delegates. They're being bound to the candidates chosen by the people. When you go in and tell people that you know more than them and you are going to overrule them, that tends to not go over well.
You still didn't answer my question. I get the sense that you're not going to. If Ron Paul won bound delegates and Sarah Palin organized to try to take away their binding, you know full well you'd think it was an affront to democracy.
Want DP delivered to your inbox daily? Subscribe here:
Content of posts and comments on the Daily Paul represent the opinions of the original posters, and are not endorsed, approved, or otherwise r