# Start Here > Ron Paul Forum >  Maddow: Ron Paul could be nominated at RNC, only needs one more state

## michael6186

Rachel Maddow just had a quick segment on Ron Paul's plans for the Tampa convention, namely his plans to be nominated on the floor of the convention if we secure enough delegates next week in Nebraska. I'll post a tube in a minute.


update:



http://www.youtube.com/watch?&v=kIlYgIBS2nU

----------


## JK/SEA

its been a minute...whats the hold up?

----------


## michael6186

Sorry. It's uploading. The iPhone 4S shoots in 1080p so the file is huge even though the clip is short.

----------


## JK/SEA

just ribbin' ya...

thanks for the effort...

----------


## Suzu

This ought to be good....

----------


## michael6186

It's got 22 minutes left and I'm about to head back to work, but the video will be live at this link eventually: http://youtu.be/AqJQaC7hFjw

----------


## michael6186

Here we go.

----------


## IDefendThePlatform

C'mon Nebraska. I know Ron already actually has at least 5 states with the legitimate delegates from Louisiana, but this would sure be nice.

----------


## green73



----------


## jct74

thanks for the tubes guys.  bump.

----------


## sailingaway

argh.... He HAS five states (at least) the only way he doesn't is if they don't seat Ron's Louisiana delegates, and no impartial observer seeing those videos would find against Ron.  In fact if they DON'T seat Louisiana I seriously recommend we fund a chip in to create a web ad of the Louisiana video and a cable ad with the link to the longer web ad.  Ron won't, but they need to know they can't get away with crap, with US.

----------


## sailingaway

Huh, she says Louisiana but ignores NEVADA.  Why? There is nothing saying he can't use Nevada for the nomination, they are only bound on the BALLOT vote, as I understand it.

Hopefully 'all eyes on Nebraska' means MSNBC will have a camera there....  Because so far whenever the establishment has hired 'extra security' it was because they were planning to cheat and anticipated outrage.

----------


## parocks

> argh.... He HAS five states (at least) the only way he doesn't is if they don't seat Ron's Louisiana delegates, and no impartial observer seeing those videos would find against Ron.  In fact if they DON'T seat Louisiana I seriously recommend we fund a chip in to create a web ad of the Louisiana video and a cable ad with the link to the longer web ad.  Ron won't, but they need to know they can't get away with crap, with US.


A cable ad with the best video available.  Agree with this.

----------


## sailingaway

> A cable ad with the best video available.  Agree with this.


we have some DANDY video of Louisiana.  The text over about broken bones, hospitalizations and being taken away by ambulance don't hurt our case, either.

----------


## qwerty



----------


## twomp

I hope they will be there. I don't know if it will stop them but they'll definitely think twice about cheating if they see some MSNBC cameras filming.




> Huh, she says Louisiana but ignores NEVADA.  Why? There is nothing saying he can't use Nevada for the nomination, they are only bound on the BALLOT vote, as I understand it.
> 
> Hopefully 'all eyes on Nebraska' means MSNBC will have a camera there....  Because so far whenever the establishment has hired 'extra security' it was because they were planning to cheat and anticipated outrage.

----------


## MarcusI

Nebraska would be more secure, because Nebraska held a non-binding straw poll. I also think that it's okay with Nevada, but Nebraska would be 100%. 

Any news about Louisiana? Is it sure that they will be seated?

----------


## WhistlinDave

The "hired security" in Louisiana were there for exactly this kind of thing, to "maintain an orderly convention."  And in Nebraska they're saying they've hired extra.  Sounds to me like the Nebraska GOP leadership is planning more violence in the name of rule breaking and election fraud.

I wonder if any Nebraska delegates might be able to use a little bit of Louisiana video, some tidbits about the Federal lawsuit, and a little bit of persuasion in order to convince at least some local TV media to cover the convention?  Maybe they could entice them by pointing out they may get the national scoop on more bones being broken?  (Of course I hope that doesn't happen again, but you know how the media loves juicy bad news...)

Personally if I were a Nebraska delegate I would do everything possible to get some TV cameras in there.  And (obviously) would bring my own camera either way...

----------


## devil21

Go Huskers!  Have lots of cameras running and people ready to make a stand.  Sounds like you all have the numbers that many of us didn't and can make a big impact.  Do us proud!  Extra security will not land in your favor.

----------


## RonPaulRules

Bump

----------


## puppetmaster

Go get-em guys take no prisoners

----------


## bubbleboy

Oh too bad Rand already endorsed Romney, I guess he didn't know this.

----------


## Barrex

@sailingaway
I am not stalking you or anything like that  but again Mitt and GOP are contesting a lot of Rons delegates so anything can happen...Nebraska would make it closer to 100% sure that he will be nominated...

----------


## sailingaway

> @sailingaway
> I am not stalking you or anything like that  but again Mitt and GOP are contesting a lot of Rons delegates so anything can happen...Nebraska would make it closer to 100% sure that he will be nominated...


But Ron is entitled to them and I see no benefit in projecting the clearly correct outcome as being 'in doubt'.  If Romney dominated credentials committtee cheats, everyone SHOULD be shocked.  That we are already clear that they intend to try shouldn't turn into an 'expectation' that the cheating will be successful, to help the party establishment get away with cheating in the public mind, imho.

----------


## tuggy24g

Well I thought he already had 5 states. Minnesota, Nevada, Louisiana, Iowa,Maine,Colorado, and Massachusetts? Maybe it has to do with what states delegates are bound and unbound, but not sure? What about states like Pennsylvania who delegates do not have a preference until convention time? Maybe someone can explain!!

----------


## sailingaway

> Well I thought he already had 5 states. Minnesota, Nevada, Louisiana, Iowa,Maine,Colorado, and Massachusetts? Maybe it has to do with what states delegates are bound and unbound, but not sure? What about states like Pennsylvania who delegates do not have a preference until convention time? Maybe someone can explain!!


Colorado is only a majority if the Santa people who said they would vote for Ron do, and they have to be unbound for that on ballot but in Nomination should be able to if they stay true on that point.  But now Santa himself will actually be there, I just am not counting on it.  It MAY be a majority for nomination purposes and for votes on numerous conservative issues, but we will have to see, so I'm not counting it yet. Mass isn't a majority even assuming our duly elected (by the direct voters) delegates are seated because we only got the majority of the CDs not the ones the allocation committee (party insiders) selected.  We have LA, ME, MN, IA and NV however, but the NV people are or aren't (depending on your position on binding) bound to Romney on the first ballot VOTE. But the first vote isn't the NOMINATION vote, and for nomination that should be enough, not even counting Alaska (where we might have the vote in coalition) and OK where if our delegates are seated we may have it or TX or Oregon which may be close, etc.

NE is yet to come and the fact they are hiring tons of 'security' means to me they intend to cheat and know our guys will be outraged.  That is certainly what happened in LA and MO.

----------


## ClydeCoulter

> Colorado is only a majority if the Santa people who said they would vote for Ron do, and they have to be unbound for that.  It MAY be a majority for nomination purposes and for votes on numerous conservative issues, but we will have to see, so I'm not counting it yet. Mass isn't a majority even assuming our duly elected (by the direct voters) delegates are seated because we only got the majority of the CDs not the ones the allocation committee (party insiders) selected.  We have LA, ME, MN, IA and NV however, but the NV people are or aren't (depending on your position on binding) bound to Romney on the first ballot VOTE. But the first vote isn't the NOMINATION vote, and for nomination that should be enough, not even counting Alaska (where we might have the vote in coalition) and OK where if our delegates are seated we may have it or TX or Oregon which may be close, etc.
> 
> NE is yet to come and the fact they are hiring tons of 'security' means to me they intend to cheat and know our guys will be outraged.  That is certainly what happened in LA and MO.


I hope there are no shinanigans in NE.  We don't need no stinkin' broken bones and jail time for playing by the rules.  But the hiring 'security' does make the intentions of the establishment suspect, at this point.

----------


## sailingaway

> I hope there are no shinanigans in NE.  We don't need no stinkin' broken bones and jail time for playing by the rules.  But the hiring 'security' does make the intentions of the establishment suspect, at this point.


I hope there are tons of *video cameras* in NE.  I would expect there to be an argument over that and over pretending some unilaterally trumped up rules banning it exist, just as in MO and other places.

----------


## slamhead

We have 5 with Mass but we know what happened there.

----------


## FSP-Rebel

If they keep puffing out their chests, more info for LFRP. The party shouldn't be allowed to call for security at all since the delegates are the sovereigns in the house. The different chairs are obliged by the delegates, not the other way around.

----------


## rb3b3

if there was ever a time but more importantly a place for the lawyers for ron paul to be, it would be in nebraska with video cameras and the whole 9 yards!!!!! all this extra security as we all know means one thing and one thing only, its to keep ron from winning

----------


## mommaliberty

> A cable ad with the best video available.  Agree with this.


why not use Google tv ads service... pick the time slot etc.

----------


## walt

> The "hired security" in Louisiana were there for exactly this kind of thing, to "maintain an orderly convention."  And in Nebraska they're saying they've hired extra.  Sounds to me like the Nebraska GOP leadership is planning more violence in the name of rule breaking and election fraud.
> 
> I wonder if any Nebraska delegates might be able to use a little bit of Louisiana video, some tidbits about the Federal lawsuit, and a little bit of persuasion in order to convince at least some local TV media to cover the convention?  Maybe they could entice them by pointing out they may get the national scoop on more bones being broken?  (Of course I hope that doesn't happen again, but you know how the media loves juicy bad news...)
> 
> Personally if I were a Nebraska delegate I would do everything possible to get some TV cameras in there.  And (obviously) would bring my own camera either way...



This would be wise +rep

----------


## anaconda

Nevada = #5?

----------


## sailingaway

> Nevada = #5?


yes, and it should be fine, right there.  IA, ME, MN, LA and NV. (not even counting OK, or a couple where we were awfully close to half or majority)  But we also have a good shot at NE next weekend.  We know, because the party is hiring 'extra security' in case we 'try something' which is what they do when they know they don't have the numbers to win fairly, and plan to cheat.  At least, so far that has been the case. The write up even said they were warned to by LA of all places, where OUR guys had broken bones and were hospitalized by THEIR private security.

----------


## anaconda

> But the first vote isn't the NOMINATION vote, and for nomination that *should be* enough


Anybody know how we can get a little more assurance or clarity on this?

----------


## anaconda

> yes, and it should be fine, right there.  IA, ME, MN, LA and NV. (not even counting OK, or a couple where we were awfully close to half or majority)  But we also have a good shot at NE next weekend.  We know, because the party is hiring 'extra security' in case we 'try something' which is what they do when they know they don't have the numbers to win fairly, and plan to cheat.  At least, so far that has been the case. The write up even said they were warned to by LA of all places, where OUR guys had broken bones and were hospitalized by THEIR private security.


I thought LA was still up in the air?

----------


## cheapseats

REALITY CHECK: Y'all are wide-screen that Rachel Maddow is NOT a friend of Liberty, ergo NOT a friend The Moovement...RIGHT?

----------


## sailingaway

> Anybody know how we can get a little more assurance or clarity on this?


A rules 'expert' said he thought they could vote for Ron in the nomination process, quoted in an article.  But what are rules?  As we have seen, they are fluid.....

----------


## cheapseats

QUESTION:  If Ron Paul is nominated from the floor...with drama naturally-read-that-PREDICTABLY ensuing, including enthusiastically slapping Mitt Romney in the face...how does that NOT jeopardize the GETTING RAND IN GOOD GRACES WITH BAD GUYS game plan?

----------


## sailingaway

> I thought LA was still up in the air?


Heck, they CHALLENGED everything.  But it is clear we are in the right.  They can DECLARE Ron has no delegates at all, but that doesn't make it so.

----------


## 69360

> QUESTION:  If Ron Paul is nominated from the floor...with drama naturally-read-that-PREDICTABLY ensuing, including enthusiastically slapping Mitt Romney in the face...how does that NOT jeopardize the GETTING RAND IN GOOD GRACES WITH BAD GUYS game plan?


I don't see how that hurts Rand unless insiders are spiteful for no reason at all.

I mean Romney has enough bound delegates to take the nomination on the first ballot. Ron being nominated on the floor won't change that, it will just get Ron an unedited prime time speech. 

The GOP doesn't get their perfect circle jerk convention but the end result will be the same right?

----------


## Pauls' Revere

Do we/Will we have a live link at Nebraska?

----------


## sailingaway

> I don't see how that hurts Rand unless insiders are spiteful for no reason at all.
> 
> I mean Romney has enough bound delegates to take the nomination on the first ballot. Ron being nominated on the floor won't change that, it will just get Ron an unedited prime time speech. 
> 
> The GOP doesn't get their perfect circle jerk convention but the end result will be the same right?


If we are more concerned with GOP establishment opinion than our own goals, we might as well give up.

----------


## anaconda

> QUESTION:  If Ron Paul is nominated from the floor...with drama naturally-read-that-PREDICTABLY ensuing, including enthusiastically slapping Mitt Romney in the face...how does that NOT jeopardize the GETTING RAND IN GOOD GRACES WITH BAD GUYS game plan?


It's not in Rand's hands. It's not really even in Ron's hands. Right? Besides, Rand endorsed Mittens.

----------


## anaconda

> Heck, they CHALLENGED everything.  But it is clear we are in the right.  They can DECLARE Ron has no delegates at all, but that doesn't make it so.


I was assuming that the challenges were still being reviewed. Has LA decided which slate they are sending? Wasn't this the parking lot extended convention?

UPDATE: Just got off my lazy ass and found this article published just yesterday...

http://theadvocate.com/home/3275474-...ocks-delegates

----------


## sailingaway

> I was assuming that the challenges were still being reviewed. Has LA decided which slate they are sending? Wasn't this the parking lot extended convention?
> 
> UPDATE: Just got off my lazy ass and found this article published just yesterday...
> 
> http://theadvocate.com/home/3275474-...ocks-delegates


this was not the parking lot delegation.  This was the one where the rightly elected chair had his newly implanted surgical hip dislocated and had to be taken away by ambulance, and where the newly elected rules chair (the real one) had fingers broken.  WATCH this -- the first 2:27 is just people making motions and being ignored, which is important because it gives grounds to remove the chair. ALSO important is the fact that the temporary self declared chair was removed BEFORE fake rules by the fake rules committee chair were ratified, so they didn't apply, meaning  a majority of the delegates still had the rule of the room.  You can see the rest for yourself:

----------


## anaconda

> this was not the parking lot delegation.  This was the one where the rightly elected chair had his newly implanted surgical hip dislocated and had to be taken away by ambulance, and where the newly elected rules chair (the real one) had fingers broken.  WATCH this -- the first 2:27 is just people making motions and being ignored, which is important because it gives grounds to remove the chair. ALSO important is the fact that the temporary self declared chair was removed BEFORE fake rules by the fake rules committee chair were ratified, so they didn't apply, meaning  a majority of the delegates still had the rule of the room.  You can see the rest for yourself:


Thanks. 

I found an anti-Paul article from last month which has a good explanation from presumably a pro-Paul commenter at the very bottom. The comment is by an "Anonymous" on 7-7-12 at 10:39 P.M.

http://www.unitedliberty.org/article...lost-louisiana

Sailingaway, I'm not quite clear on the "rules ratification." According to "Anonymous" there was a rules committee meeting the day before the convention, where the new rules committee chair was elected and some new "supplemental rules" were voted down by presumably pro Paul forces elected at the local conventions. Are you saying that a whole set of rules needs to be approved before the convention could proceed? Plus I don't see how anyone could claim any legitimacy for the Romney side of things. And couldn't there be assault charges filed? Why did the rules chair who was voted out the _previous day_ get up and start making a "rules report?" I wonder if this individual was interviewed? Would he claim that the rules meeting the day before was somehow illegitimate?

----------


## WhistlinDave

> I was assuming that the challenges were still being reviewed. Has LA decided which slate they are sending? Wasn't this the parking lot extended convention?
> 
> UPDATE: Just got off my lazy ass and found this article published just yesterday...
> 
> http://theadvocate.com/home/3275474-...ocks-delegates


Parking lot convention was Oklahoma, I'm pretty sure.

----------


## sailingaway

> Thanks. 
> 
> I found an anti-Paul article from last month which has a good explanation from presumably a pro-Paul commenter at the very bottom. The comment is by an "Elizabeth."
> 
> http://www.unitedliberty.org/article...lost-louisiana
> 
> Sailingaway, I'm not quite clear on the "rules ratification." According to "Elizabeth," there was a rules committee meeting the day before the convention, where the new rules committee chair was elected and some new "supplemental rules" were voted down by presumably pro Paul forces elected at the local conventions. Are you saying that a whole set of rules needs to be approved before the convention could proceed? Plus I don't see how anyone could claim any legitimacy for the Romney side of things. And couldn't there be assault charges filed? Why did the rules chair who was voted out the _previous day_ get up and start making a "rules report?" I wonder if this individual was interviewed? Would he claim that the rules meeting the day before was somehow illegitimate?


The rules chair refused to recognize being voted out and a new rules chair being voted in and they said they had new rules. They IGNORE that the rules chair was voted out and replaced.  The beginning of the video above, at about 2:27 is where the self designated chair of the convention was trying to rush in a ratification of the rules changes which they said were new rules.  The committee can't just make rules, they have to be ratified, and these weren't.  The chair was removed before the body could vote on them.  OUR guys elected a new rules chair at the rules committee meeting the day before, but the self appointed convention chair, trying to rule the convention by personal reputation, refused to hear him and had him dragged off by off duty police, resulting in his fingers being broken.

the point of my posting the video is the strength of the evidence we have.  Any normal person watching that is going to see the vast majority were following OUR chair, and only a tiny group in the front around the stage were following the self appointed chair.  It is pretty compelling imho, and when added to close ups of the guys being dragged off, is even more compelling.

the Elizabeth commenter I see there is pretty anti Paul from my view.  There was nothing vague about what happened. and the Paul supporters WERE the peaceful ones.  Maybe I'm looking at the wrong comment.

----------


## anaconda

> Any normal person watching that is going to see the vast majority were following OUR chair, and only a tiny group in the front around the stage were following the self appointed chair.  It is pretty compelling imho, and when added to close ups of the guys being dragged off, is even more compelling.


But who can we appeal to? This reminds me of Massachusetts. They do whatever they want without any accountability to rules.

----------


## anaconda

> the Elizabeth commenter I see there is pretty anti Paul from my view.  There was nothing vague about what happened. and the Paul supporters WERE the peaceful ones.  Maybe I'm looking at the wrong comment.


I am mistaken. It's the comment posted by "Anonymous" but at the bottom like I said. Actually, I'll just copy and paste it here:



_"What is interesting is how many people have commented here, including the author, without watching any of the cell phone videos available on YouTube.

I’ve read several reports, and watched videos of the Rules Committee meeting and of the opening of the Convention. Here is a summary as I see it:

* At the LA Caucus on Apr. 28th, Ron Paul wins 111 of 150 delegates. The LAGOP State Central Committee gets to appoint an additional 30 delegates so Ron Paul has 111 of 180 delegates going to the state convention.

* Rules Committee delegates worked for about 1 month to develop the rules for the convention.

* The day before the Rule Committee meeting just prior to the convention, the executive committee of the LAGOP publishes 16 pages of “supplemental” rules that they say will govern the convention and all committee meetings. According to Ron Paul supporters, these new rules violate the LAGOP bylaws and RNC rules.

* The day before the convention at the Rules Committee meeting, the majority of the members of the committee rejected the new rules and 16 of the 21 members voted to remove the Rule Committee chairman, who was Scott Wilfong, the 2012 LAGOP Caucus Director, and voted to install Alex Helwig as the new Rules Committee chairman. The Rules Committee then met and adopted the rules for the convention. All actions were accomplished in accordance with Roberts Rules of Order, which Mr. Wilfong had stated would govern the meeting.

* At the convention the next day, Roger Villere (Convention Chairman) calls for the report from the Rules Committee, and introduces Mr. Wilfong. A woman delegate then twice asks a request for information, but she is ignored by both Mr. Villere and Mr. Wilfong. Alex Helwig then attempts to tell Mr. Villere that Mr. Wilfong is not the Rules Committee chairman, that Mr. Wilfong was removed the day before. Mr. Wilfong then states that he is still the Rules Committee chairman. After some argument, Mr. Villere asks for Mr. Helwig to leave, and then asks the sergeant-at-arms to have him removed. As the off-duty police officers approach Mr. Helwig, he calls for a vote to remove the Chairman, which is immediately seconded by several people.

* As Mr. Helwig is escorted from the room**, Mr. Wilfong attempts to gives his report. But many delegates then start chanting “the chairman was removed” — clearly a message to Mr. Villere that Mr. Wilfong was not the Rules Committee chairman. While Mr. Wilfong is speaking, Mr. Henry Herford is nominated and then elected by an overwhelming (per voice vote) majority of the delegates. The majority of the delegates then turn their chairs around with their backs to Mr. Villere and proceed with the meeting. Mr. Herford runs the meeting for the majority of the delegates using a portable PA system, while Mr. Villere also continues from the dais with a smaller group. Mr. Villere then tells Mr. Herford to turn his microphone off. Mr. Herford does not, and Mr. Villere then asks the sergeant-at-arms to shut off Mr. Wilfong’s microphone and have him removed.

* After Mr. Helwig is removed*** by the off-duty police officers, the majority of the delegates then elect Connie Bernard as the new Chairman. They proceed with the convention.

Anyone have other information to add?

Leaving aside the issue of personal injuries (see below), do the actions of the LAGOP sound like they were proper?

I went to the Democratic candidates’ forum for Alexandria, VA City Council last week, and I was so appalled by what I heard that I was going to attend the Alexandria GOP meeting last night to see what Republicans are running. But I am rather disgusted with some of the Republican leadership at this point, so at the last minute I decided not to go. Maybe my vote, and my money, won’t go to the GOP this year, either.

** According to a statement released by the Ron Paul campaign, “Alex Helwig, Chairman of the Rules Committee who made the motion to remove the chair, was arrested by Shreveport police and released. During his brief detainment, some of his fingers were broken and when he returned to the event he was walking with aid of a cane.”

*** Also according to the Paul campaign, “Mr. Herford has a prosthetic hip and according to a doctor at the scene it appears as though the prosthetic was dislocated and may require replacement.” Herford’s injury can be seen on several videos on the web.


_

----------


## cajuncocoa

> QUESTION:  If Ron Paul is nominated from the floor...with drama naturally-read-that-PREDICTABLY ensuing, including enthusiastically slapping Mitt Romney in the face...how does that NOT jeopardize the GETTING RAND IN GOOD GRACES WITH BAD GUYS game plan?


Besides, everyone who wants to work within the GOP cite the main reason for doing so as "it's what Ron Paul wants"...doesn't it seem counter to "what Ron Paul wants" to insist on nominating him from the floor at the convention?  I get the feeling he really doesn't want his delegates to do that.

----------


## anaconda

> Besides, everyone who wants to work within the GOP cite the main reason for doing so as "it's what Ron Paul wants"...doesn't it seem counter to "what Ron Paul wants" to insist on nominating him from the floor at the convention?  I get the feeling he really doesn't want his delegates to do that.


Dr. Paul has said recently on national t.v. that the convention should include a healthy debate, like conventions of yesteryear. A speech would help the cause of free debate that he seeks. My guess is that he would want to be nominated from the floor. Plus the convention rules allow for nominating a candidate with a plurality of delegates from 5 states. How can they argue with their own rules? How is observing their own rules not working within the party? Plus Dr. Paul has already said "no way" to supporting Romney, so perhaps his definition of "working within the party" does not preclude an ample dosage of contentiousness.

----------


## sailingaway

> But who can we appeal to? This reminds me of Massachusetts. They do whatever they want without any accountability to rules.


the credentials committee at RNC but what we have discovered is that when media runs with it they tend to follow their rules more in credentials committee.  Georgia wouldn't have been thrown out but for us getting video to media who picked it up and the same with St Charles in MO.  We have to spread the Louisiana videos so a LOT of people know what happened before the credentials committee makes its ruling at RNC.

----------


## sailingaway

> Dr. Paul has said recently on national t.v. that the convention should include a healthy debate, like conventions of yesteryear. A speech would help the cause of free debate that he seeks. My guess is that he would want to be nominated from the floor. Plus the convention rules allow for nominating a candidate with a plurality of delegates from 5 states. How can they argue with their own rules? How is observing their own rules not working within the party? Plus Dr. Paul has already said "no way" to supporting Romney, so perhaps his definition of "working within the party" does not preclude an ample dosage of contentiousness.


He outright said he wanted to be nominated from the floor because it got him an unedited speech. In his speech before the Texas state GOP convention Ron said that 1976, when he was a delegate for Reagan 'was the last time the _people_ got to pick the nominee', it is clearly a process of which he approves.  Some in the campaign are trying to water that down to nominating him for VP for some unfathomable (to me) reason, unless they think Romney's delegates would actually VOTE for Ron for VP, which I don't think any of us expect.  Both would get him the unedited speech, but he isn't running for VP.

Ron Paul said we should be respectful but not be pushed around.

----------


## WhistlinDave

> Ron Paul said we should be respectful but not be pushed around.


Exactly.  Nominate him from the floor, and if RP truly does not want that, then he is free to decline it.  Don't try to read his mind or guess.  He is running for President.  He said "no way" when asked if he endorses Romney, and he has not come out and said "don't nominate me" or "I don't want to be President any more."

So if we have the ability to nominate him for President, anyone suggesting the delegates shouldn't do it can stick it up their a** quite frankly.

And if he truly doesn't want the nomination then he can decline it and concede to Mitt at that point.  (I think anyone thinking clearly knows that will not happen.)

----------


## devil21

Ron wants the prime time speech.  It's the biggest platform the media will ever give him.  If we can get him nominated from the floor then he gets it.  

Btw, I guarantee he will do it even if he doesn't want it.  He's as loyal to us as we are to him.  Can you imagine RP giving a keynote speech on live tv at the RNC?  People in droves will wonder why they voted for Mitt once they compare the speeches.  I don't have illusions of winning the nomination (though I never gave up) but this is a huge opportunity to advance the Liberty movement.  Ron won't turn that down.

(On a pure political strategy note, if the party gives him this without shenanigans it will go a long way to winning some extra votes for Mitt)

----------


## freedomordeath

How much would a 1min cable TV ad cost anyways reagrding the Lousianna delagtes story, I think this would be an excellent idea, we got his far we might  as well go down fighting. We should air the advert and add the contact details for the RNC in the advert to ask them to re-instate the correct slate.

----------


## airborne373

Well ... if Rachel Maddow on MSNBC says so it must be true.

----------


## torchbearer

> I am mistaken. It's the comment posted by "Anonymous" but at the bottom like I said. Actually, I'll just copy and paste it here:
> 
> 
> 
> _"What is interesting is how many people have commented here, including the author, without watching any of the cell phone videos available on YouTube.
> 
> I’ve read several reports, and watched videos of the Rules Committee meeting and of the opening of the Convention. Here is a summary as I see it:
> 
> * At the LA Caucus on Apr. 28th, Ron Paul wins 111 of 150 delegates. The LAGOP State Central Committee gets to appoint an additional 30 delegates so Ron Paul has 111 of 180 delegates going to the state convention.
> ...


this is accurate.

----------


## truthspeaker

I truly believe that praying for the Texas Convention worked. It had 8,000 people there and could have been very nasty folks.

I had no idea we still have states who have not held their conventions yet. When is Nebraska's, which state still needs to have a convention, and whatever happened in California?

----------


## sailingaway

> How much would a 1min cable TV ad cost anyways reagrding the Lousianna delagtes story, I think this would be an excellent idea, we got his far we might  as well go down fighting. We should air the advert and add the contact details for the RNC in the advert to ask them to re-instate the correct slate.


Corey et all would know, they aired High Tide on cable, we don't have to go major network to get enough to know about it. If we run it on cable media will mention it. EVERYONE doesn't have to know, just enough that the credentials committee impartiality would be destroyed if they ruled in the way obviously contrary to common sense.

When I was chipping in to High Tide I remember a thousand dollars went a long way, relatively speaking, on decent shows on cable.  We might be able to afford a little Fox Business in the Tampa market, at least, and in some less expensive markets of interest, Iowa, other swing states.  That would also help our guys' credibility going forward, I should think, in the parties we have taken over in those states.

----------


## sailingaway

> I truly believe that praying for the Texas Convention worked. It had 8,000 people there and could have been very nasty folks.
> 
> I had no idea we still have states who have not held their conventions yet. When is Nebraska's, which state still needs to have a convention, and whatever happened in California?


California delegates are not picked at convention, unfortunately.

And I _do_ pray that if it is God's will the NE convention is orderly, peaceful, and Ron's delegates prevail.

----------


## Monotaur

> I truly believe that praying for the Texas Convention worked. It had 8,000 people there and could have been very nasty folks.
> 
> I had no idea we still have states who have not held their conventions yet. When is Nebraska's, which state still needs to have a convention, and whatever happened in California?


Nebraska is the 14th.  California apparently does not have a convention as the delegates are selected directly (I'm unsure of this, but sailingaway would have more info).

EDIT: It looks like sailingaway beat me to it.

----------


## WhistlinDave

> Corey et all would know, they aired High Tide on cable, we don't have to go major network to get enough to know about it. If we run it on cable media will mention it. EVERYONE doesn't have to know, just enough that the credentials committee impartiality would be destroyed if they ruled in the way obviously contrary to common sense.
> 
> When I was chipping in to High Tide I remember a thousand dollars went a long way, relatively speaking, on decent shows on cable.  We might be able to afford a little Fox Business in the Tampa market, at least, and in some less expensive markets of interest, Iowa, other swing states.  That would also help our guys' credibility going forward, I should think, in the parties we have taken over in those states.


If somebody creates it, I will chip in.  Currently between jobs so I can't afford much but I will contribute what I can.





> Nebraska is the 14th.  California apparently does not have a convention as the delegates are selected directly (I'm unsure of this, but sailingaway would have more info).
> 
> EDIT: It looks like sailingaway beat me to it.



Here in California each candidate (campaign) hand picks their own slate of delegates.  No caucuses, no convention that I'm aware of.  The results of the primary dictate who gets the delegates.  Most of the delegates are given out based on the results in each Congressional District.  Three delegates per district.  Then the candidate who wins the majority of districts gets several at-large delegates as well, I think something like 42 more delegates.

Unfortunately since the MSM was spreading the lie that Romney had clinched the nomination after his "win" in Texas, everyone here thought RP was out, so he did not win in a single district.  Even my next door neighbor, who is a huge conspiracy theorist and a RP supporter said to me the day before the primary, "So now that Ron Paul's out, are you going to bother to vote?"  I said, "Karl, what the f*ck?!?  He's not out!!!"  So if my neighbor didn't know, when he generally keeps himself pretty informed via the non-MSM news, I imagine most people in California believed RP was already out.

It's unfortunate because California has more delegates than any other state, but the delegates are decided by the uninformed masses (the sheeple), which really means the delegates here are basically selected by the media.

----------


## anaconda

> A rules 'expert' said he thought they could vote for Ron in the nomination process, quoted in an article.  But what are rules?  As we have seen, they are fluid.....


Several articles are hitting the internet today, all implying that Ron must win a plurality of delegates in NE to get nominated at Tampa. Here's an example:

http://content.usatoday.com/communit...1#.T_t2d_U2vWA

----------


## sailingaway

> Several articles are hitting the internet today, all implying that Ron must win a plurality of delegates in NE to get nominated at Tampa. Here's an example:
> 
> http://content.usatoday.com/communit...1#.T_t2d_U2vWA


Yeah, that is the media meme, but they don't mention Nevada.

and msnbc noticed that the Nebraska convention will be held on Bastille Day:

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news...uls-last-stand

----------


## tod evans

> the Nebraska convention will be held on Bastille Day:

----------


## devil21

Maddow is on right now covering the Mass delegate debacle.  Video will be available soon Im sure.

----------


## anaconda

> Maddow is on right now covering the Mass delegate debacle.  Video will be available soon Im sure.


Friggin' sweet. Hope she talks about Louisiana also.

----------


## nurse_emily

add the youtube if you find it. Thanks!

----------


## sailingaway

> add the youtube if you find it. Thanks!


I haven't seen the youtube yet, but the video is in a couple of threads:  http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...rupt-power-bro

----------


## Feeding the Abscess

I will eat my underwear and post it on YouTube if the campaign actually enters Ron's name for nomination after having won 5 states.

----------


## sailingaway

> I will eat my underwear and post it on YouTube if the campaign actually enters Ron's name for nomination after having won 5 states.


I don't think you quite get it.  The campaign doesn't do it, the delegates do.

And Ron has outright said he wanted it because it gives him a 'nomination speech' which isn't edited by anyone and is HIS speech.

----------


## Feeding the Abscess

> I don't think you quite get it.  The campaign doesn't do it, the delegates do.
> 
> And Ron has outright said he wanted it because it gives him a 'nomination speech' which isn't edited by anyone and is HIS speech.


I'll amend it slightly:

I'll eat my underwear and post the video on YouTube if the campaign doesn't discourage the delegates from nominating Ron from the floor.

----------


## sailingaway

> I'll amend it slightly:
> 
> I'll eat my underwear and post the video on YouTube if the campaign doesn't discourage the delegates from nominating Ron from the floor.


I fear that myself, that they will try, and try to get the delegates to make it VP instead (using Nevada they could do that now, and I think they can use Nevada anyhow, but there are so many credentials challenges.....we need NE too.)

But I am not sure the delegates would go along with it, and I am not sure I think RON would push it.  Ron just wants the speech.

----------


## anaconda

I just watched a youtube of another portion of her show on another thread. Seems like the rest of the show should be tubed by now.

----------


## shishka

What not get Rachel Maddox to send a video crew there herself? She might as well follow up on the story.  If everyone at the NE state convention knew of that presence, there would be less opportunity for cheating...

----------


## unknown

My GOD.  Do you people realize what this means!?

WE ARE DOING IT!!!

We didnt bust our arses for nothing!!!

----------


## unknown

> But I am not sure the delegates would go along with it, and I am not sure I think RON would push it.


But why not, thats what we (the troops) need!

----------


## sailingaway

> But why not, thats what we (the troops) need!


I think I was confusing in the way I wrote that.  I meant the delegates, I hope, will push for the highest win they can get.

----------


## WhistlinDave

> REALITY CHECK: Y'all are wide-screen that Rachel Maddow is NOT a friend of Liberty, ergo NOT a friend The Moovement...RIGHT?


Are you sure about that?  I'm not.  Of course she's not going to publicly come out and say it, but judging by all the coverage she gives Ron Paul in a world where nobody else does on a national level, I would say she likes something about him.

Maybe because as a lesbian she knows RP said he was OK with gay marriage years before Obama did?  ("I favor voluntary associations of any kind, and people can call it whatever they want.")  Or maybe because she likes the fact that he isn't a warmonger like Obama and Romney?  Or maybe because she is well informed and knows that Ron Paul will be far better for civil liberties than Obama, who renewed the Patriot Act and signed the NDAA?  Believe it or not, there are a lot of liberals out there who aren't blind to Obama's murderous rampage and abuses against the Constitution.  (Which is exactly why RP will beat Obama if we can just get him the nomination.)

If I was a betting man, I'd lay money on it that Rachel Maddow wants Ron Paul to get the GOP nomination.  (By the way, am I the only one who thinks she's one of the cuter lesbians on TV these days?  If I was a lesbian myself I'd probably have a big crush on her.)

----------


## sailingaway

I take it you think she may read this and decide to do more coverage?

----------


## WhistlinDave

> I take it you think she may read this and decide to do more coverage?


Me?  (If you did mean me,) Why would I think she would find her way here to read this?  That would be wishful thinking!

----------


## opinionatedfool

Some lawyer in Nebraska needs to call up the local police departments around the convention and inform them about the convention and what the rules are as far as people getting elected chairman and controlling the convention. We certainly don't need our people arrested because of establishment idiots again.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> REALITY CHECK: Y'all are wide-screen that Rachel Maddow is NOT a friend of Liberty, ergo NOT a friend The Moovement...RIGHT?


Word.

----------


## unknown

Mother effing youtube isnt working for me, what the hell!!!???!??!?

Oh and bump.  :-P

----------


## unknown

> REALITY CHECK: Y'all are wide-screen that Rachel Maddow is NOT a friend of Liberty, ergo NOT a friend The Moovement...RIGHT?


Kinda funny/weird to see so many Rachel Madow threads on the forums.

----------


## randpaul2016

okay so what if Ron Paul wins Nebraska?

----------


## 69360

> okay so what if Ron Paul wins Nebraska?


Then there will be 5 states with a plurality of RP delegates and those delegates will be able to put RP's name forward for the nomination. RP and Romney will both get a 15 minute unedited prime time speech. Then the delegates will vote for the nominee. Romney has enough bound delegates to win the nomination and barring something unforseen would win in the first round of voting.

----------


## sailingaway

Then there will be AT LEAST 5 UNBOUND states with a MAJORITY of delegates for Ron.  He already has 5 with a majority, ME, IA, MN, NV and LA.  It is just they are pretending where people are ONLY bound on 'the first ballot' that they are bound on the nomination process.  At least one rules expert interviewed at the time of the NV convention said that is not the case, and our guys control that delegation, it isn't like unaffiliated with us party insiders will be reporting the state actions and might try to fudge it.   No 'other name has been nominated' since the 1976 convention with Reagan against Ford and the Rockefeller Republicans apparently want to make sure that never happens again.

There are other states where we are so close it may be a matter of who shows up in Tampa.  But we definitely want NE because RNC/Romney's folks have apparently said 'there will be no 5 states' presumably by the same hook or crook means they've been employing whenever they could.  But if we don't get it, I don't at all buy the meme they are creating that Ron doesn't already have 5 states.

----------


## sailingaway

> Then there will be 5 states with a plurality of RP delegates and those delegates will be able to put RP's name forward for the nomination. RP and Romney will both get a 15 minute unedited prime time speech. Then the delegates will vote for the nominee. Romney has enough bound delegates to win the nomination and barring something unforseen would win in the first round of voting.


but it would still be the first time the delegates had a choice since 1976.

----------


## ClydeCoulter

> but it would still be the first time the delegates had a choice since 1976.


^^^ THIS ^^^

Ron Paul getting an unedited speach at the RNC (vs Romney's speach) would be historic, historic!

It would show we are here and count.

Sailingaway has been stating this in so many posts on so many threads that it is only trolling to keep saying "what's the point" about this.

----------


## Tiso0770

Rachel Maddow is a hack!!!. She want's GOP and Ron Paul supporters to slug it out so the Dems can have their show to watch and a laugh or two.

----------


## devil21

> Rachel Maddow is a hack!!!. She want's GOP and Ron Paul supporters to slug it out so the Dems can have their show to watch and a laugh or two.


I don't see anything wrong with that.  It's not like she's creating the drama.  It was already there.  She's just reporting on it.  At least someone in the MSM is.

----------


## sailingaway

> I don't see anything wrong with that.  It's not like she's creating the drama.  It was already there.  She's just reporting on it.  At least someone in the MSM is.


Yeah.  I'm sure she has her own reasons, but I don't care.  There SHOULD be publicity of the shenanigans.

----------


## cheapseats

> Rachel Maddow is a hack!!!.


There are WORSE Talking Heads/Opinion Shapers masquerading as "Journalists", biased as she is.

But those LEAN FORWARD ads mark her not only as unapologetically Big Government, but also as not-even-a-passing-nod-to-fiscal-reality Socialist.






> She want's GOP and Ron Paul supporters to slug it out so the Dems can have their show to watch and a laugh or two.


Oh, she may truly want to expose Republican Party Machine shenanigans but, yes, because it helps her "side".  EITHER WAY, it helps her "side".  It helps her side if there are more "Ron Paul type people" in power than people who seek out DICK CHENEY'S advice.  It helps her side if the the Convention is the wrong sort of spectacle and the "party" goes into further disarray.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Rachel Maddow is a hack!!!. She want's GOP and Ron Paul supporters to slug it out so the Dems can have their show to watch and a laugh or two.


Yes, of course.

But the fact is, the GOP brought this all on themselves and they deserve to have the ire of Ron Paul supporters.  If I was a Democrat, I would be smiling, too.

----------


## devil21

Im enjoying watching her show because she's totally bashing the establishment GOP into the ground.  Maybe the shaudenfreud (sp?) that Im feeling is why she's covering RP lately.  Ratings talk.  I lied before when I said I wouldn't watch her show any more than any other after that.  All of Romney's faults on tv is just too much to not laugh at.....then cry a little.

----------

