Here's what's going down:
Colorado Precinct Caucuses
Precinct Caucuses meet in each precinct at 7p MST to choose delegates to the County Assemblies and District Conventions. Caucuses last about 1.5 hours.
Delegates selected at the Precinct Caucuses may (but are not required to) declare their Presidential Preference.
Since no National Convention delegates are bound to Presidential contenders, the Precinct Caucuses do not violate the RNC's Tuesday 6 March 2012 timing rule.
zero national convention delegates are allocated during the Precinct Caucuses - national convention delegates are first elected in March.
Minnesota Precinct Caucuses / non-binding straw poll
Republican Party Precinct Caucuses meet to choose the precinct's delegates to the BPOU [="Basic Political Organization Unit" (the next higher tier: County, State Senate District or State House District)] Convention. There will also be a non-binding straw poll re: Presidential Preference held in coordination with these Precinct Caucuses. (NOTE: It is the later Congressional District and State Conventions that will actually elect Republican National Convention delegates).
zero national convention delegates are allocated during the Precinct Caucuses - national convention delegates are first elected in April.
Missouri Non-binding Primary
Missouri Republican non-binding Primary. Today's primary has no effect on delegate allocation.
Missouri Secretary of State: February 2012 Presidential Preference Primary.
Dr. Paul has a good shot in all these states. CO is home to the libertarian party so you know he's going to do well there. Kansas City is home to many liberty activists as well, so he as a shot in MO. MN not so sure.
Freedom4Me73986:Dr. Paul has a good shot in all these states. [...] MN not so sure.
How about those links you owe me!
Here in the boondocks of MN, Paul took 2nd place, behind Sin-torum. John James - you were right about the caucuses; I got to vote and am now a delegate to the county...heehee.
I was pretty surprised at Paul's finish. My town's quite socially conservative.
all three election results
Santorum? Really?
I think this probably indicates the end of real hope for the Ron Paul campaign.
I've been throwing up since I found out. I hope he runs as a third party just to bring awareness to Gary Johnson.
Neodoxy: Santorum? Really? I think this probably indicates the end of real hope for the Ron Paul campaign.
The entire point of this thread was to point out how these results essentially mean nothing in terms of delegates, and delegates mean more than anything else in terms of Paul getting elected.
Ytterbium:Here in the boondocks of MN, Paul took 2nd place, behind Sin-torum. John James - you were right about the caucuses; I got to vote and am now a delegate to the county...heehee.
That's what it's all about. Get in touch with sympathetic Paul people and get instructed on next steps (i'm not positive you can communicate with the campaign...double check the rules and if you can, get in touch with the nearest campaign HQ).
^^ Awesome!
I plan to do that.
Re: Santorum. I was surprised that he won at my polling place. I think it boiled down to an article some lady brought in from the WSJ about him being prolife--we're a big catholic community. Funny thing is that this lady could barely pronounce his name correctly, but she read some feel-good quotes from the article. Romney and the Newt finished with very small percentages...don't remember exactly. But I just found that to be odd; like most people made a snap decision then & there for Santorum.
Did you inform everyone that Paul just told Piers Morgan on national TV a couple days ago that "life begins at conception?"
People are such idiots. It just goes to show how little it takes.
A friend of mine was doing Ron Paul's "Phone From Home" program and he asked one lady who she was voting for and she said, "I'm not sure. I'll see who they're talking about on election day." He was too stunned to respond.
I want to know how Santorum is winning CO when CO is known to be a very libertarian state. Dr. Paul said he was going to focus his campaign on the states he knew he had a chance in. Those states were Maine, CO and MN. So why did he lose miserably in MN and is losing in CO?
Freedom4Me73986:So why did he lose miserably in MN and is losing in CO?
Why are you still using computers and the Internet and not living in the woods?
Freedom4Me73986:So why did he lose miserably in MN and is losing in CO? Why are you still using computers and the Internet and not living in the woods?
WTF does that have to do w/ the caucuses?
Caucuses = civ
The Anarch is to the Anarchist what the Monarch is to the Monarchist. -Ernst Jünger
I don't even watch news anymore, it's all such a big charade. Literally, we are living under Pravda-style levels of propaganda. I walked past a TV on the wall at work showing CNN and there on their big studio screen, some anchor was walking up and down showing a simulated 2012 run-off between Obama and a Republic candidate... sub-titled "the race to 270" (delegates). Funny thing was that the audio was off and all I garnered from the visuals was that Obama was way ahead on delegates. So, basically, they're telling us how the election is going to go.
*shrug
Clayton -
So?
Freedom4Me73986: Caucuses = civ So?
The proper response is "touche".
Freedom4Me73986:It's not about Dr. Paul winning the presidency but winning ideas. He's been waking up sheeple for the past four years.
What difference does that make if you're going to live alone in the woods?
Clayton:I don't even watch news anymore, it's all such a big charade. Literally, we are living under Pravda-style levels of propaganda. I walked past a TV on the wall at work showing CNN and there on their big studio screen, some anchor was walking up and down showing a simulated 2012 run-off between Obama and a Republic candidate... sub-titled "the race to 270" (delegates). Funny thing was that the audio was off and all I garnered from the visuals was that Obama was way ahead on delegates. So, basically, they're telling us how the election is going to go.
I've been researching aspects of the Soviet Union on-and-off over the past several months. One of the things I read last night was a rather brief analysis of freedom of the press in the Soviet Union. This analysis was contained in The Encyclopedia of Soviet Law. Anyway, what struck me was just how many similarities there seem to be between the state of the media in the US and the state of the media in the old USSR. Apparently, the Soviet state didn't rely upon outright censorship after Stalin's reign - except when it came to "state secrets". Otherwise, "self-censorship" was the order of the day.
If anyone would like, I can quote the entire passage from the book (I think the whole thing is available on Google Books - no pages were missing from my preview).
The keyboard is mightier than the gun.
Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.
Voluntaryism Forum
Do quote, please!
If it makes you feel any better, I am in the twin cities metro (where most of the population in MN is) and my caucus and the three others that I know people who attended, Ron Paul won. His plan for getting the delegates is working even if he is not winning the polls.
Get a load of this. This is what I'm talking about. This is what isn't getting reported (really because there isn't a way to, and it's not "newsworthy"), but this is what matters...
Does one of these sound familiar???
Writes a friend:
Lew, I'm in Michele 'Jealous of Dr. Paul' Bachmann's district. He lost my precinct by a single vote to warmonger Satantorum. I counted them myself. Even more frightening is that a Catholic priest and myself couldn't get them to strike from the party platform the part which wishes to re-instate the death penalty in the state for ... drumroll ... serious offenses. They didn't even want to change serious offenses to murder. I signed up to be a delegate, so be assured, we have at least one anarchist infiltrating their system, thanks to LRC dragging me tooth and nail a few years back. Keep up the fight. You are very appreciated!
Writes Charles:
I have to say, even though Santorum won the straw poll in our caucus last night (with Ron taking a strong second), the caucus itself was a very uplifting experience. They opened the night by giving anyone the chance to give a brief stump speech for their candidate. Overwhelmingly, most of the speeches given were in favor of Ron Paul. Apparently few others were enthusiastic enough about their candidate to be bothered to get up and stump for them. What made me even happier was the fact that most of the people giving these speeches were 40+ years old. My favorite was given by a Vietnam war vet, who gave a powerful and emotional speech about how he was so sick of wars, so sick of the killing, and so sick of the ignorant hatred towards people in these foreign lands who, after all, have lives and families just like the rest of us. He received a good round of applause, even among many who weren't Paul supporters. Oh, and the best part of the night: I became a delegate...so I guess that makes at least two anarchists who will be marching into Mordor.
Writes another friend:
Make it three! Though I'll be eligible to vote before election, (I am still in gov't schooling now), I had earlier received mixed messages over whether or not I could participate in the MN caucuses. Lew, Charles, and friend in the Bachmann district, I am proud to say that I participated, inflitrated, and will be a delegate! Thank you, LRC, for being a part of my intellectual and political journey. I am terribly eager to see what influence I can have. Keep up the fight!
Make it three!
Though I'll be eligible to vote before election, (I am still in gov't schooling now), I had earlier received mixed messages over whether or not I could participate in the MN caucuses. Lew, Charles, and friend in the Bachmann district, I am proud to say that I participated, inflitrated, and will be a delegate! Thank you, LRC, for being a part of my intellectual and political journey. I am terribly eager to see what influence I can have.
Keep up the fight!
I can see the headlines: Ron Paul handing anarchists the election process.
Wheylous:I can see the headlines: Ron Paul handing anarchists the election process.
I'm sure they'll try anything, but that one is too easy to jujitsu and flip back on to the accuser and make him out to be the loon...just like the Obama birth certificate fiasco.
If you recall, there were some who contended that the "official birth certificate" released last May (and brought up again yesterday) was purposefully made so obviously fake so that it would guarantee people would cry fraud and thus reignite the "birther" issue and distract people who might otherwise be raising less "conspiracy-laced" (and therefore more believable, and therefore more damning) issues. And whether it's true that that was part of an overall plan, that's certainly what happened. It did turn all the suspicion that had been mounting back onto the accusers, opening them up to ridicule while at the same time taking the focus off the reality of the situation.
That's what anyone crying "anarchist!" would get. It would definitely be a gamble for them. Mark Levin has actually been trying that off and on for a while, and obviously hasn't had any success. Check out the Tom Woods hoopla. In fact, I literally heard him on the radio last night with a caller going on about it. The funny part was, when the caller started badmouthing Tom, Levin backed off and started saying how he didn't know enough of the facts, "I'm not in the business of attacking people without the facts..." etc. It was hilarious. I could just see the worried look on his face at the prospect of another ass-whipping from Woods and the ensuing tirade of negative mail, facebook comments, and phone calls. Levin may be an idiot, but he's not an idiot.
Wheylous:Do quote, please!
Ask and ye shall receive:
Encyclopedia of Soviet Law:FREEDOM OF THE PRESS Freedom of the press is guaranteed by Art. 50 of the Soviet Constitution on the same grounds as freedom of speech, i.e. "in accordance with the interests of the people and in order to strengthen and develop the socialist system". This means that the Party as the vanguard of the working people controls the whole press. Freedom of the press was abolished as early as 9 November 1917, by the Decree on the Press, which was directed against the "bourgeois" press and authorized the Council of People's Commissars to ban press organs hostile to Soviet power. In the ensuing period, all printing offices and stocks of paper were nationalized and the press became a Party and government monopoly. The Soviet press is an important means of implementing the will of the Party speaking to the masses immediately and continuously. The main functions of the press used to be defined in more or less the same terms. Probably the most authoritative and still valid statement is included in a resolution of the June 1963 plenum of the Central Committee of the CPSU, where the main functions are listed as follows: formation of Marxist-Leninist Weltanschauung and communist morals in Soviet people; systematically and profoundly throwing light on the Party's and the whole Soviet people's work for the fulfillment of the economic plans, for the increase of labor productivity, for the improvement of the Party direction of production, and on the problems of cultural construction; unfolding sharp and principled self-criticism directed against indolence, bureaucratism, waste, idleness, and other anti-social phenomena, and popularizing good examples. It can be assumed that the Soviet press has to fulfill three basic functions: 1) agitation and propaganda, i.e. ideological indoctrination of the people, 2) mass organization, i.e. mobilization of the people in order to realize the economic and socio-political goals set by the Party, 3) criticism and control, i.e. pointing at shortcomings which the Party is interested in eliminating. In 1981 there were 8172 newspapers and 5195 periodicals with a total one-issue circulation of 178.3 million and 194.6 million copies respectively in the Soviet Union. In considering the structure of the press, one may distinguish between three groups of publishers and five territorial levels. According to the former view-point there is the Party press, the government press, and the press of the social organizations. The territorial structure shows the following picture: 1) 31 central newspapers (82 million), 2) 160 republican newspapers (26 million), 3) 426 regional (territory, province, autonomous republic, and province) newspapers (29.1 million), 4) 3,714 local (city, district) newspapers (35.1 million), 5) 3,841 factory and kolkhoz newspapers (6.1 million). As the above figures indicate, the central papers constitute the most important grouping, for they are managed by the top organs of the Party, governments, and social organizations, and consequently, derive their leading authoritative and official character from the top of a highly centralized power pyramid. The most prominent newspapers are Pravda (Party, 10.7 million), Isvestiia (Government, 6.9 million), Komsomol'skaia Pravda (Komsomol, 10 million), Sel'skaia Zhizn' (Party, 9.9 million), Trud (Trade Unions, 12.9 million), Sovetskaia Rossiia (Party, 3 million), and Krasnaia Zvezda (Ministry of Defense). The party's total grip over the press is ensured by several means. First of all, in matters of finance and production facilities, the press is absolutely dependent on the Party. The newspapers are staffed with selected and politically trained, reliable journalists. Most of them are Party members who are bound by Party discipline to carry out Party instructions. Apart from instructions concerning certain aspects of everyday work, there are many decisions taken by the top Party organs relating to the press's fundamental political tasks. The chief directing and supervisory body is the Propaganda department of the Central Committee's secretariat where there are sections established for the central, regional, and local press. Corresponding departments function on every echelon of the Party apparatus. The press sections approve the "working" plans of the newspapers and can interfere on any occasion. The process of indirect censorship runs along the indicated lines. The first stage is the "self-censorship" of every journalist who would risk his career if he committed political errors. If he has doubts, he consults his editor or editor-in-chief. Should he be unable to decide the matter himself, he refers to the competent press section, and so on even up to the Politburo or the Secretary-General. In some cases the process is reversed by the issuing of instructions to the effect that certain matters cannot be handled without prior approval by Party organs. Furthermore, the important news is supplied by the official news agency TASS. This system of control is so overwhelming and, at the same time, so flexible that the importance of direct censorship has been constantly diminished. The special government censoring organ, Glavlit, was established in the early 1920s and was in full operation during the Stalin era. Since then, it was reorganized as "Main Administration for the Defense of State Secrets in the Press" and its role has been restricted to supervising the press from the standpoints of state secrets. Apart from that, there are at least four specialized censorship agencies (military, KGB, nuclear, and space affairs). See also FREEDOM OF SPEECH; PRESS; SAMIZDAT; SECURITY G. Brunner
Freedom of the press is guaranteed by Art. 50 of the Soviet Constitution on the same grounds as freedom of speech, i.e. "in accordance with the interests of the people and in order to strengthen and develop the socialist system". This means that the Party as the vanguard of the working people controls the whole press. Freedom of the press was abolished as early as 9 November 1917, by the Decree on the Press, which was directed against the "bourgeois" press and authorized the Council of People's Commissars to ban press organs hostile to Soviet power. In the ensuing period, all printing offices and stocks of paper were nationalized and the press became a Party and government monopoly.
The Soviet press is an important means of implementing the will of the Party speaking to the masses immediately and continuously. The main functions of the press used to be defined in more or less the same terms. Probably the most authoritative and still valid statement is included in a resolution of the June 1963 plenum of the Central Committee of the CPSU, where the main functions are listed as follows: formation of Marxist-Leninist Weltanschauung and communist morals in Soviet people; systematically and profoundly throwing light on the Party's and the whole Soviet people's work for the fulfillment of the economic plans, for the increase of labor productivity, for the improvement of the Party direction of production, and on the problems of cultural construction; unfolding sharp and principled self-criticism directed against indolence, bureaucratism, waste, idleness, and other anti-social phenomena, and popularizing good examples. It can be assumed that the Soviet press has to fulfill three basic functions: 1) agitation and propaganda, i.e. ideological indoctrination of the people, 2) mass organization, i.e. mobilization of the people in order to realize the economic and socio-political goals set by the Party, 3) criticism and control, i.e. pointing at shortcomings which the Party is interested in eliminating.
In 1981 there were 8172 newspapers and 5195 periodicals with a total one-issue circulation of 178.3 million and 194.6 million copies respectively in the Soviet Union. In considering the structure of the press, one may distinguish between three groups of publishers and five territorial levels. According to the former view-point there is the Party press, the government press, and the press of the social organizations. The territorial structure shows the following picture: 1) 31 central newspapers (82 million), 2) 160 republican newspapers (26 million), 3) 426 regional (territory, province, autonomous republic, and province) newspapers (29.1 million), 4) 3,714 local (city, district) newspapers (35.1 million), 5) 3,841 factory and kolkhoz newspapers (6.1 million). As the above figures indicate, the central papers constitute the most important grouping, for they are managed by the top organs of the Party, governments, and social organizations, and consequently, derive their leading authoritative and official character from the top of a highly centralized power pyramid. The most prominent newspapers are Pravda (Party, 10.7 million), Isvestiia (Government, 6.9 million), Komsomol'skaia Pravda (Komsomol, 10 million), Sel'skaia Zhizn' (Party, 9.9 million), Trud (Trade Unions, 12.9 million), Sovetskaia Rossiia (Party, 3 million), and Krasnaia Zvezda (Ministry of Defense).
The party's total grip over the press is ensured by several means. First of all, in matters of finance and production facilities, the press is absolutely dependent on the Party. The newspapers are staffed with selected and politically trained, reliable journalists. Most of them are Party members who are bound by Party discipline to carry out Party instructions. Apart from instructions concerning certain aspects of everyday work, there are many decisions taken by the top Party organs relating to the press's fundamental political tasks. The chief directing and supervisory body is the Propaganda department of the Central Committee's secretariat where there are sections established for the central, regional, and local press. Corresponding departments function on every echelon of the Party apparatus. The press sections approve the "working" plans of the newspapers and can interfere on any occasion. The process of indirect censorship runs along the indicated lines. The first stage is the "self-censorship" of every journalist who would risk his career if he committed political errors. If he has doubts, he consults his editor or editor-in-chief. Should he be unable to decide the matter himself, he refers to the competent press section, and so on even up to the Politburo or the Secretary-General. In some cases the process is reversed by the issuing of instructions to the effect that certain matters cannot be handled without prior approval by Party organs. Furthermore, the important news is supplied by the official news agency TASS. This system of control is so overwhelming and, at the same time, so flexible that the importance of direct censorship has been constantly diminished. The special government censoring organ, Glavlit, was established in the early 1920s and was in full operation during the Stalin era. Since then, it was reorganized as "Main Administration for the Defense of State Secrets in the Press" and its role has been restricted to supervising the press from the standpoints of state secrets. Apart from that, there are at least four specialized censorship agencies (military, KGB, nuclear, and space affairs).
See also FREEDOM OF SPEECH; PRESS; SAMIZDAT; SECURITY
G. Brunner
Danke!
Bitte.
Hee hee! Needless to say, I was starstruck when I opened my inbox to find a message from LEW ROCKWELL!!! , saying my little blurb had been posted!
Oh, I've got to get down to Mises University to meet all these wonderful libertarians in person!!!!
But first, to Mordor I venture!
Wheylous: Danke!
Meinst du sondern "спасибо"?
Voter fraud caught in MN.