What's new
  • Please note members who been with us for more than 10 years have been upgraded to "Veteran" status and will receive exclusive benefits. If you wish to find out more about this or support IcMag and get same benefits, check this thread here.
  • Important notice: ICMag's T.O.U. has been updated. Please review it here. For your convenience, it is also available in the main forum menu, under 'Quick Links"!

Ron Paul 2012!!!

bentom187

Active member
Veteran
welp lets throw another wrench into this. https://www.facebook.com/BenSwannRealityCheck

"FACTS ABOUT A CANDIDATES NAME BEING PLACED INTO NOMINATION AT THE REPUBLICAN NATIONAL CONVENTION!

I have been in touch with a member of the RNC Rules committee over the past 4 days and have been able to confirm a few FACTS about the nomination process.

1. For a candidate's name to be placed into nomination at the RNC you DO need a plurality of delegates from 5 states.

2. Binding and Non-binding distinctions DO NOT have an affect on nominating a candidates name. If "binding" is allowable by rule, (it is not) it would only pertain to a vote taken on the nomination, not the process of placing a name in nomination.

3. The Ron Paul campaign HAS the majority of delegates in the following 5 states: Nevada, Maine, Minnesota, Louisana, Iowa. He MAY have the majority in Massachusetts and Colorado."
 

MadBuddhaAbuser

Kush, Sour Diesel, Puday boys
Veteran
they've been saying its over since last year.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/conten...e-claims-RP-should-be-nominated-at-convention

Per Ben Swann of Reality Check, Fox 19 in Cincinnati, RNC Rules Committee Member says Ron Paul should be nominated at convention
by
JamesButabi
Published on 07-16-2012 10:26 AM
Per Facebook
https://www.facebook.com/BenSwannRealityCheck


"FACTS ABOUT A CANDIDATES NAME BEING PLACED INTO NOMINATION AT THE REPUBLICAN NATIONAL CONVENTION!

I have been in touch with a member of the RNC Rules committee over the past 4 days and have been able to confirm a few FACTS about the nomination process.

1. For a candidate's name to be placed into nomination at the RNC you DO need a plurality of delegates from 5 states.

2. Binding and Non-binding distinctions DO NOT have an affect on nominating a candidates name. If "binding" is allowable by rule, (it is not) it would only pertain to a vote taken on the nomination, not the process of placing a name in nomination.

3. The Ron Paul campaign HAS the majority of delegates in the following 5 states: Nevada, Maine, Minnesota, Louisana, Iowa. He MAY have the majority in Massachusetts and Colorado."

EDIT: Damn bentom beat me to it. and i had a page open for two hours before i posted some how.
 

MadBuddhaAbuser

Kush, Sour Diesel, Puday boys
Veteran
Ok so today I found a letter asking for donations to RNC supporters, written on RNC letterhead with ann romney's name as the return address and as the author of the letter. How the fuck is that legitimate, and how can people think the RNC is operating fairly?

also, here is an interesting article I came across today. Its interesting looking back and seeing what "crazy people" have to say and how it plays out.

http://blog.nj.com/njv_paul_mulshine/2012/07/ron_pauls_predictions_from_200.html
Ron Paul's predictions from 2002: So good that at first I thought the speech was faked
Published: Sunday, July 15, 2012, 4:12 PM
Paul Mulshine/The Star Ledger


When I first saw the above video, I thought perhaps someone had edited it to make it seem like Ron's predictions from 2002 were more accurate then they were.

Nope.

When you watch the C-SPAN version below you see the exact same remarks verbatim, without the added commentary.

Just to make sure, I sourced this back to the original page on C-SPAN.Note at the 1:28 mark where he predicts "Some of our moderate Arab allies will be overthrown by Islamic fundamentalists."

Got that right.

And then there's this from the CNN transcript (which is in all CAPS for some reason):

THE UNITED STATES, WITH TONY BLAIR AS HEAD CHEERLEADER, WILL ATTACK IRAQ WITHOUT PROPER AUTHORITY AND A MAJOR WAR, THE LARGEST SINCE WORLD WAR II WILL RESULT.

MAJOR MOVES WILL BE MADE BY CHINA, INDIA, RUSSIA, AND PAKISTAN IN CENTRAL ASIA TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE CHAOS FOR THE PURPOSE OF GRABBING LAND, RESOURCES, AND STRATEGIC ADVANTAGES SOUGHT AFTER FOR YEARS.


Go to the bottom of this page for a rolling transcript of the entire speech (with some typos). Another fun line:

DURING THE NEXT DECADE, THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WILL BECOME POORER AND LESS FREE, WHILE THEY BECOME MORE DEPENDENT ON THE GOVERNMENT FOR ECONOMIC SECURITY.

And then:

I HAVE NO TIMETABLE FOR THESE PREDICTIONS, BUT JUST IN CASE KEEP THEM AROUND AND LOOK AT THEM IN FIVE TO 10 YEARS.

Ten years out, the only thing wrong with these predictions is that he wasn't pessimistic enough.

I'm sure that many of those in the chamber on that day and also those watching the speech on C-SPAN, asked themselves "Who is this nutty naysayer?"

Turns out he wasn't so nutty after all. And he didn't say quite enough nays.

Imagine if he had gotten up there and predicted, "The U.S. will invade Iraq with no plan whatsoever for policing a hostile populace afterward."

They might have sent the men in white suits for him.

Nobody could be that dumb.

Alas, Bush was.

It's amazing how much Ron got right.

As to what he got wrong, we don't have the draft yet.


But just give President Obamney some time.

and here's the video to go along with it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PUTPBP8yHz4&feature=player_embedded
 

trichrider

Kiss My Ring
Veteran
welp lets throw another wrench into this. https://www.facebook.com/BenSwannRealityCheck

"FACTS ABOUT A CANDIDATES NAME BEING PLACED INTO NOMINATION AT THE REPUBLICAN NATIONAL CONVENTION!

I have been in touch with a member of the RNC Rules committee over the past 4 days and have been able to confirm a few FACTS about the nomination process.

1. For a candidate's name to be placed into nomination at the RNC you DO need a plurality of delegates from 5 states.

2. Binding and Non-binding distinctions DO NOT have an affect on nominating a candidates name. If "binding" is allowable by rule, (it is not) it would only pertain to a vote taken on the nomination, not the process of placing a name in nomination.

3. The Ron Paul campaign HAS the majority of delegates in the following 5 states: Nevada, Maine, Minnesota, Louisana, Iowa. He MAY have the majority in Massachusetts and Colorado."

that's what i was hoping for! let us not lose the ball....block that kick, block that kick, block that kick!:biggrin:
 
L

LuckyPunch

cu barack obama next year
my karma goes to ron paul
if he will win everyone get a porsche fort free
 

bentom187

Active member
Veteran
[YOUTUBEIF]xdzoIHJBGt0[/YOUTUBEIF]

http://www.examiner.com/article/rnc-confirms-ron-paul-will-be-up-for-nomination

RNC confirms Ron Paul will be up for nomination

The Republican National Convention is quickly approaching (August 26th). For over the past year, avid Ron Paul supporters have won delegate spots in various state conventions across the country. Through this hard-work, Ron Paul will officially be allowed to be nominated for the nominee of the Republican Party.

For the past three days, Ben Swann (Fox19 Cincinnati) has been in contact with a Republican Rules Committee member. In order for a candidate to be elected for the Republican Party nomination, the candidate must have a plurality in five or more states. If by rule, binding and non-binding policies are applied to delegates, it would still not affect the process of voting for placement of a candidate's name into the potential nominee ballot. Presidential hopeful Ron Paul does have a plurality in five or more states (Nevada, Maine, Minnesota, Louisiana, and Iowa). This means that Ron Paul will be eligible for nomination on August 26th in Tampa Bay.

The Ron Paul Revolution is planning on amassing 100,000+ supporters to Tampa in order to celebrate Paul's 30+ year career in American politics. However, the Republican National Committee senses pressure from the Paul supporters. The RNC has attempted to block access in order to make the convention as exclusive as possible.

The Ron Paul Revolution carries on to Tampa Bay with assurance that Ron Paul has the potential to be nominated. Whether or not Paul does win the nomination, we are all in for something special this August.
 

DiscoBiscuit

weed fiend
Veteran
"Plurality" qualifies if and when too-many-candidates means "majority" isn't as likely.

Last I read, Dr. Paul isn't scheduled to speak at the convention. According to TRMS's interpretation of primary rules, a speaker has to "win" 5 states. I know Ron has a unique definition of "win" but as of last check he's not slated to speak.
 

MadBuddhaAbuser

Kush, Sour Diesel, Puday boys
Veteran
"Plurality" qualifies if and when too-many-candidates means "majority" isn't as likely.

Last I read, Dr. Paul isn't scheduled to speak at the convention. According to TRMS's interpretation of primary rules, a speaker has to "win" 5 states. I know Ron has a unique definition of "win" but as of last check he's not slated to speak.


The rules regarding plurality are for the ability to be nominated. The speaker role is a different thing. When it boils down to it they could put up whoever they want to talk(think joe lieberman in 08, a democrat speaking at the republican convention? wtf?).

And im not shocked maddow said ron wasnt scheduled, last I checked no speakers were finalized.

They decided to change it to plurality instead of majority in 08, so they are the only ones to blame.


Oh and here's a video from the dirty dirtbags at fox confirming Ron can be nominated back in may. I wonder why all of a sudden his last stand was in nebraska last week? media disinformation/blackout/cold shoulder to ron? nah that couldn't be, I must be paranoid again.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gQ24-Exqt-Q
 

bentom187

Active member
Veteran
RP 7/18/12 questioning bernanke

[YOUTUBEIF]doaQ3_ZUF6U[/YOUTUBEIF]

[YOUTUBEIF]GqBoPkOgzIM[/YOUTUBEIF]

[YOUTUBEIF]1Q8Z-C3hyLE [/YOUTUBEIF]
 

dagnabit

Game Bred
Veteran
582328_10150787478991370_123301236369_9585853_238940162_n.jpg

:)
 

SpasticGramps

Don't Drone Me, Bro!
ICMag Donor
Veteran
Nothing to see here. Move along. From the massive Swiss Bank UBS.......

UBS Issues Hyperinflation Warning For US And UK, Calls It Purely "A Fiscal Phenomenon"
Supposedly warnings about the latent inflationary threat posed by simply ridiculous non-financial debt levels (as presented most recently here yesterday), not to mention financial debt (which as MF Global's rehypothecated implosion demonstrated so vividly can be any number between minus and plus infinity, thank you London "regulators") from the blogosphere can be ignored ($15 trillion melting ice cube that is shadow banking which also doubles as the best inflationary buffer known to man, notwithstanding). After all, what does the blogosphere know: remember, Libor has been repeatedly proven to not be manipulated, as the mainstream media so strenly claimed year after year after year until it had no choice but to do a 180 and pretend its advertiser paid for lies in the past 3 years never existed. But when these same warnings emanate from the "very serious people" at UBS, economists with a Ph.D. at that, it may be a little more difficult to dismiss them. So here it is: "Hyperinflation Revisited" from Caesar Lack, PhD, economist.
My favorite parts of article....
Hyperinflation is a fiscal phenomenon

Ultimately, hyperinflation is a fiscal phenomenon; that is, hyperinflation results from unsustainable fiscal deficits. Peter Bernholz notes that historically, cases of hyperinflation have been preceded by the central bank monetizing a significant proportion of the government deficit. After investigating 29 hyperinflationary episodes, 28 of which happened in the 20th century, Bernholz writes: "We draw the conclusion that the creation of money to finance a public budget deficit has been the reason for hyperinflation."

When government deficits become unsustainable, austerity is often the first reaction. Austerity is deflationary, recessionary, and painful. If the austerity necessary to balance the budget is deemed to be too painful, a government can either choose to default or to inflate the currency.

If the country concerned has its own currency, it will usually choose to inflate it. If government finances do not improve sufficiently, confidence in the currency may evaporate at some point and hyperinflation may arise. Hyperinflation is more closely related to deflation than to "normal" high inflation, as hyperinflation can be viewed as the result of a failed attempt at printing money to avoid the deflation that would be caused by austerity.
And this gem.....
Indicators to watch

The more the fiscal situation deteriorates and the more central banks debase their currencies, the higher the risk of a loss of confidence in the future purchasing power of money. Indicators to watch in order to determine the risk of hyperinflation therefore pertain to the fiscal situation and monetary policy stance in high-deficit countries. Note that current government deficits and the current size of central bank balance sheets are not sufficient to indicate the sustainability of the fiscal or monetary policy stance and thus, the risk of hyperinflation. The fiscal situation can worsen without affecting the current fiscal deficit, for example when governments assume contingent liabilities of the banking system or when the economic outlook worsens unexpectedly. Similarly, the monetary policy stance can expand without affecting the size of the central bank balance sheet. This happens for example when central banks lower collateral requirements or monetary policy rates, in particular the interest rate paid on reserves deposited with the central bank. A significant deterioration of the fiscal situation or a significant expansion of the monetary policy stance in the large-deficit countries could lead us to increase the probability we assign to the risk of hyperinflation.
Obama/Romney 2012!! YES WE CAN!!!!

The Swiss make the best tin foil hats. Of course hyperinflation is purely an Alex Jones phenomenon.
 

DiscoBiscuit

weed fiend
Veteran
The rules regarding plurality are for the ability to be nominated. The speaker role is a different thing. When it boils down to it they could put up whoever they want to talk(think joe lieberman in 08, a democrat speaking at the republican convention? wtf?).

And im not shocked maddow said ron wasnt scheduled, last I checked no speakers were finalized.

They decided to change it to plurality instead of majority in 08, so they are the only ones to blame.


Oh and here's a video from the dirty dirtbags at fox confirming Ron can be nominated back in may. I wonder why all of a sudden his last stand was in nebraska last week? media disinformation/blackout/cold shoulder to ron? nah that couldn't be, I must be paranoid again.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gQ24-Exqt-Q

Good points, ol' Joe certainly didn't win his speaking slot.

I won't bore with an opinion regarding RM's fairness but I've learned more about the candidates and especially the "It's not the votes, it's the delegates" process.
 
Top