Reality Check...Ben Swann Clarifies Rule 38

..or rather Jennifer Sheehan, Legal Council for the RNC did. In 2008 she stated that "The RNC does not recognize a state's binding of national delegates, but considers each delegate a free agent who can vote for whoever (sic) they choose."

Now, with that in mind, let's just throw all those fictitious delegate counts out the window. This thing is NOT over, Mitt Romney does NOT have the delegates he (and the MSM) presumes he has, and Ron Paul is kicking ass with his delegate strategy.

Here's the link to Ben's "Reality Check" with the quote from the RNC's legal council.

http://www.fox19.com/story/18305604/reality-check-why-all-rnc-delegates-are-free-agents-and-unbound

 

Why are you assuming the delegates are going to vote for Paul. Maybe Romney will get 99% of them.

 

Again with this strawman... If you have been paying attention you would know how well Paul is doing in Nevada, Maine, Iowa, Mass etc etc etc.. Even the MSM has been reporting him gaining delegates..... Pay attention.

 

when all is said and done, ron paul won't be nominated

and you're going to look pretty foolish for having said what you've said

will you come clean and admit i was right or dig in deeper and blame it on fraud

the latter is a position which would further discredit you, ron paul and his supposed movement

 

I never said Ron Paul would be nominated. I have always said he is pushing for a brokered convention.

There has been fraud in this election it is well documented as well as posted on this very forum.

You have no way to discredit me. I post facts you troll.


Give it up already. < yes i know you are going to snip this and try to spin it>

Facts are Paul has gained many delegates in the states i mentioned. The media doesnt deny it but you still do... Shame on you little troll!

 

you can keep mischaracterizing me if you want, but just so you know, i'm a 6'2", 225 lb marathoner

and what's the point of getting delegates when he won't be nominated?

 

What's important to remember in regards to this is that Ron Paul has been amassing delegates in the recent caucuses and conventions. In addition to actual Ron Paul delegates, there are many Ron Paul people that have become delegates for other candidates in case of a brokered convention. With the RNC's Legal Council's statement, those delegates are free to vote for Ron Paul on the first ballot.

Mitt Romney is now much less the 'inevitable' nominee.

 

I just watched Ben's Reality check, and I am stoked!

[video=youtube;IqZBCFGkU4s]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IqZBCFGkU4s[/video]

 

those reality check episodes seem to be the only honest reporting i can find...on anything...anywhere

 

Tell me about it..not just Ron Paul, either. Just everything he reports about is honest.

 

If you're interested, here's the link to 'Reality Check's' page. You can view any episode going back to last year from there.

http://www.fox19.com/category/208878/reality-check-with-fox19s-ben-swann-from-wxix-cincinnati

 

Ben Swann is like the Ron Paul of journalism. He tells the truth and people recognize that.

 

swann is as biased as they come

 

wow, that was insightful.

 

it's the simple truth

 

no doubt. I always look to you for truth.

 

i don't think you care about the truth

you seem to prefer propaganda and misinformation

 

at least that's something, i don't think i've seen you produce much information of any kind.

 

that's more a factor of you looking than me producing

http://www.forum4politics.com/economics-trade/174365-myths-about-federal-reserve.html

 

Note to self: In the future consult dujac for guidance.

 

don't bother

 

that thread seems like more of a reflection of someone with tunnel vision, trying to prove a mile-wide point by arguing vehemently about a single inch. you seem to be under the impression that corruption doesn't exist in the u.s. government...

would it be safe to assume that you believe that all people are innately good, and that people who question the nature of other people are just unnecessarily paranoid? it certainly seems so, because you take that stance to debate when people question a system that you have so much faith in, a system that can't be rationalized when combined with the ultimate irrationality, humans.

saying 'the fed doesn't profit' is like saying 'guns don't kill people'. so? your point?

does this mean that guns are harmless, that greedy fools and idiots should be wielding one?

does this mean that the fed is harmless, that greedy fools and idiots should be wielding one?

see what i did there? my point exactly

 

fairvote.org

There's your unbiased source. Written back in Dec 2011.

 

sounds like paul could still have an impact

 

no, you're completely wrong about that, i'm well aware there is some corruption in our government

no, you're wrong again

that's about as stupid an analogy as is possible, the fed gives all its net profits to the government

yea, you made yourself look foolish again