>> ^ChaosEngine:
>> ^newtboy:
I'm sorry to break it to you, but Ron Paul is running a close second, possibly first in delegates. Wikipedia shows him having won 2 primaries,

Well, my reading must be broken then, because I missed the bit where he won anything.
>> ^newtboy:
contrary to your claim, and coming in second in 13 more with up to 36% of the vote. The rub is that is primary vote results, not delegates. The Paul campaign has made no secret that they are working for delegates, not votes...they are not the same thing. The delegates are elected in meetings held AFTER the primary vote, and are not required to vote with the populace...and Paul supporters more than anyone stayed and voted for delegates, and voted for themselves AS delegates, so Paul MAY have the most delegates and be the candidate at this point, there's no real telling until the convention.

So basically what you're saying is that Paul is working to subvert the will of the electorate and get in with backroom deals? Wow, what a great candidate.
He lost. Romney is the candidate. Get over it.

You didn't hear that he won 2 states because the GOP claimed he didn't and the media repeated it, all before the votes were counted. Apparently audits have shown that he did win.
What I'm saying is that apparently Paul is the only one smart enough to play BY THE RULES set up by the retardicans which allow you to win without the most votes...if you think that's underhanded, blame the retardicans that set it up that way so THEY don't have to follow the votes. What I NEVER said is that he's my candidate, you infered that.
I agree that this WOULD be underhanded and sneaky IF HE DIDN"T TELL EVERYONE PUBLICLY THAT WAS THE PLAN. Saddly for those wanting to denegrate him, he DID repeatedly state this plan, and was ignored. If you want someone to be mad at, it's the retardicans and the media who ignore this intelligent, honest candidate.

>> ^newtboy:


I'm sorry to break it to you, but Ron Paul is running a close second, possibly first in delegates. Wikipedia shows him having won 2 primaries,


Well, my reading must be broken then, because I missed the bit where he won anything.


>> ^newtboy:

contrary to your claim, and coming in second in 13 more with up to 36% of the vote. The rub is that is primary vote results, not delegates. The Paul campaign has made no secret that they are working for delegates, not votes...they are not the same thing. The delegates are elected in meetings held AFTER the primary vote, and are not required to vote with the populace...and Paul supporters more than anyone stayed and voted for delegates, and voted for themselves AS delegates, so Paul MAY have the most delegates and be the candidate at this point, there's no real telling until the convention.


So basically what you're saying is that Paul is working to subvert the will of the electorate and get in with backroom deals? Wow, what a great candidate.

He lost. Romney is the candidate. Get over it.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
Sorry to be the one to break the news to you, but Ron Paul is running a distant last place campaign with dismal national polling numbers. He has yet to win a single state primary and has no realistic chance at winning the race. Despite all of this, he gets plenty of news coverage - nearly 10,000 articles on google news.
To contrast, both Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich - the second and third place winners in the nomination fight - are getting far less coverage than Paul. Why no tears for the media BLACKOUT on Rick and Newt?
I agree with you that all of the other candidates suck too.


I'm sorry to break it to you, but Ron Paul is running a close second, possibly first in delegates. Wikipedia shows him having won 2 primaries, contrary to your claim, and coming in second in 13 more with up to 36% of the vote. The rub is that is primary vote results, not delegates. The Paul campaign has made no secret that they are working for delegates, not votes...they are not the same thing. The delegates are elected in meetings held AFTER the primary vote, and are not required to vote with the populace...and Paul supporters more than anyone stayed and voted for delegates, and voted for themselves AS delegates, so Paul MAY have the most delegates and be the candidate at this point, there's no real telling until the convention. That was his clearly and publicly stated methodology at the beginning of the campaign, and is one more thing about Paul that was either barely or completely not reported on so few know, and fewer understand.
Hits on Google news are NOT the same as 'media coverage'...on broadcast/print media, Paul is almost completely ignored, is removed from polls AND primary result reporting repeatedly (even when he's close second or even first in polls), and when he is mentioned it's nearly always with derision and mockery. The most Paul reporting I've seen on broadcast was about the voting irregularities that put Romney in first in some states where Paul was somehow completely omitted before results had been reported from precincts, and the like. Again, fuel for conspiracy theorists if not actual conspiracy.
As for Santorum and Gingrich, they are NOT candidates, but are still mentioned (usually with a semblance of respect) on broadcast 'news' infinitely more than Paul, and he is at worst running second (out of 2 candidates left). It is the consistency of the omission and derision of his name in broadcast/print news that creates the APPEARANCE of conspiracy, especially when you consider he's one of two remaining candidates.

Sorry to be the one to break the news to you, but Ron Paul is running a distant last place campaign with dismal national polling numbers. He has yet to win a single state primary and has no realistic chance at winning the race. Despite all of this, he gets plenty of news coverage - nearly 10,000 articles on google news.

To contrast, both Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich - the second and third place winners in the nomination fight - are getting far less coverage than Paul. Why no tears for the media BLACKOUT on Rick and Newt?

I agree with you that all of the other candidates suck too.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
Why is everything a grand conspiracy in the eyes of a Ron Paul supporter? For a group of people so interested in 'personal responsibility' they don't seem very interested in taking responsibility for their own failings. Don't blame the media. Ron Paul is a terrible candidate who does a perfectly fine job of marginalizing himself.


Your statement implies that the other Retardican candidates did not marginalize themselves... but each and every one of them has, (including the front runner) yet they all continue to get air time. At the same time Ron Paul won some primaries (no air time) did exceedingly well in others (ignored), and MAY actually have the most delegates at the convention (his supporters stayed and voted for the delegates, so he may actually be ahead in numbers, people). The media has consistently ignored the Ron Paul campaign from the beginning of the campaign, except when they were taking the time to denigrate and downgrade it.
Why? I have no idea, but they certainly have been singling out Paul to ignore. I still hear them speaking about Gingrich, Santorum, Cain, even Bachman on national news, daily. Talk about marginalized candidates, they are all out of the race completely but are still getting tons of air time. Paul is still running, maybe even winning (probably not, but there's no real way of knowing right now), but never gets mentioned, even when he wins primaries. You can try to make the argument it's because he isn't a winning candidate, but you have to ignore ALL the facts to try to make that argument stick.
If, as you imply, Paul is a terrible candidate, why does he not get the air time that all the other terrible candidates got? Please, I'm looking for a real answer if there is one, not another meaningless, denigrating quip about Paul's inadequacy.

I remember that blackout, I was in 1st grade in 1965 and we thought it was just our neighborhood that was affected in upstate NY. Went into school the next day and found out it was the entire northeast.

I think the problem is quite the opposite. If he comes out with either position, he splits his base, and stands a greater chance of losing a reelection bid. Whatever he comes out to say would be political trouble for him. Remember, every kid on phish tour he'd win with the announcement has two parents that wish the kid would get a job, and don't want their president "condoning" drug use. Also, generally speaking, the youth don't vote in large numbers even if they like you.

>> ^artician:

If he ran on the promise (though questionable that he would keep it) of anti-prohibition, it would probably result in a huge growth in approval and give him just that much more a stronger democratic base.
One of Ron Pauls main points is just that, and the only reason he's not winning by a large majority is the media working against him. Enough people believe in his campaign they've still managed to keep him close to the top, despite his anti-prohibition stance and the media blackout.

If he ran on the promise (though questionable that he would keep it) of anti-prohibition, it would probably result in a huge growth in approval and give him just that much more a stronger democratic base.

One of Ron Pauls main points is just that, and the only reason he's not winning by a large majority is the media working against him. Enough people believe in his campaign they've still managed to keep him close to the top, despite his anti-prohibition stance and the media blackout.

>> ^oritteropo:

It didn't, I think @lucky760 fiddled with the apparent submit times as a fiddle to help avoid weirdness from the SOPA shutdown. For instance, a video submitted right on the time had no submit time at all until the lights came back on, and then everything in the queue showed incorrect submit times. It still did weird things to videos promoted just prior to the blackout, but I think that only affected the two I promoted so it's not a big deal (it's not far to the deadpool mines, is it?).
>> ^geo321:
That's weird. Why did this video go to the pq half a day early?



We gave all queued and Top 15 videos an extra 12 hours to compensate for the SOPA/PIPA downage. Time travel always has unintended side effects. This is why you must be careful not to cause a paradox.

Great Scott.

It didn't, I think @lucky760 fiddled with the apparent submit times as a fiddle to help avoid weirdness from the SOPA shutdown. For instance, a video submitted right on the time had no submit time at all until the lights came back on, and then everything in the queue showed incorrect submit times. It still did weird things to videos promoted just prior to the blackout, but I think that only affected the two I promoted so it's not a big deal (it's not far to the deadpool mines, is it?).
>> ^geo321:

That's weird. Why did this video go to the pq half a day early?

These blackouts made a difference. Thank you VideoSift for being a part of it!

I checked in with the Sift this morning to see how things look during the blackout.

One word....

Brilliant!

Good work @dag and to all who supported him with this statement. I know some people here get discouraged with drama and negative interactions and I don't blame them. As with most diverse communities, the Sift is a microcosm of the bigger world. It's times like this when the community comes together in support of each other that makes me happy, grateful, and proud.

The way the bill of SOFA got shelved and what is on the horizon I'd think of this as a trial run of a protest. It's definitely not finished. >> ^joedirt:

The biggest impact will be reddit and xvideos.com is blackout.

Thanks geo and have a happy blackout period.

In reply to this comment by geo321:
*promote

The biggest impact will be reddit and xvideos.com is blackout.