Confirmed: All Delegates Are Unbound!

[1836]

My sentiments exactly.
I'm not holding my breath, that's for damn sure.
We'll see what happens in August but until then we all need to make sure all delegates understand this. An official campaign statement on this would be nice.

The campaign has been fairly clear to avoid creating a disruption at the convention unnecessarily. If we do not have the numbers to win the nomination for Paul (which the campaign will know, and presumably we could easily guess at) or if we aren't even really close (say we have 400, 500 delegates, a sizable number but nowhere near what's needed) then we should avoid pressing a rules battle that we will certainly lose.

That is because such a battle would inevitably harm our movement's effectiveness going forward, create horrid blowback for those who are actually winning the battle for liberty (i.e., Massie, Amash, Rand and so many others), and REALLY hurt our ability to change the platform AT THE SAME CONVENTION.

In my opinion our best shot, if we don't have the numbers, is going to be with the platform. And that would really be a sweet victory in and of itself.

It just comes down to whether or not there are 1100-1200 or so Ron Paul delegates. We'll have a lot, but I'm not sure we'll have that many.

 

[dusman]

I'm just reviewing over some court cases that relate to this matter. Here is one interesting ruling from Wisconsin:

"

The State has a substantial interest in the manner in which its elections are conducted, and the National Party has a substantial interest in the manner in which the delegates to its National Convention are selected. But these interests are not incompatible, and to the limited extent they clash in this case, both interests can be preserved. The National Party rules do not forbid Wisconsin to conduct an open primary. But if Wisconsin does open its primary, it cannot require that Wisconsin delegates to the National Party Convention vote there in accordance with the primary results, if to do so would violate Party rules. Since the Wisconsin Supreme Court has declared that the National Party cannot disqualify delegates who are bound to vote in accordance with the results of the Wisconsin open primary, its judgment is reversed

It is so ordered."

[url]http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=450&invol=107

[/URL]Some other interesting information about slates being selected illegally here:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=419&invol=477​

 

[romancito]

I'm just reviewing over some court cases that relate to this matter. Here is one interesting ruling from Wisconsin:

"

The State has a substantial interest in the manner in which its elections are conducted, and the National Party has a substantial interest in the manner in which the delegates to its National Convention are selected. But these interests are not incompatible, and to the limited extent they clash in this case, both interests can be preserved. The National Party rules do not forbid Wisconsin to conduct an open primary. But if Wisconsin does open its primary, it cannot require that Wisconsin delegates to the National Party Convention vote there in accordance with the primary results, if to do so would violate Party rules. Since the Wisconsin Supreme Court has declared that the National Party cannot disqualify delegates who are bound to vote in accordance with the results of the Wisconsin open primary, its judgment is reversed

It is so ordered."​

The way I read it is that the 'State interest' represents those people that cannot exercise their right to vote, such as a 1 year old child. The National Party interest may not be incompatible with the 'State interests' but in today's deficit spending it can very well be. If a politician in these two major parties are known to recommend to the voters a policy of deficit spending in which the 1 year old will be encumbered to pay interest and principal, then in my opinion, the State interest is that delegates to the National Party Convention be able to vote their conscience as 'free agents.' The same goes with any number of issues such as advocating military actions, etc. in which those that don't have the right to vote are encumbered to provide their services.

In those terms, in my mind, a number of issues generate a life of their own in terms of rights. Protesters have the right to protest if that National Party advocates policies and platforms that encumber non-voting populations. And delegates need also to have their freedom to vote freely after considering all the facts and including the protesters points of view too. So, in my mind, if Romney offers positions that include deficit spending and military interventions, then it is the solemn duty of each delegate to vote their conscience. That's the way I feel fairness is accomplished.

So in my mind is not a question of Ron Paul per se, but a candidate that represents freedom for those non-voting persons from encumbrances such as debt repayment or war service. If the National Party does not provide a choice during the nomination process then the National Party interests are incompatible with the State interest. In that case it should be protested energetically by those who want to advocate the State interest.​

 

[StilesBC]

I'm not sure Ron Paul wants us creating a giant battle over rules for nomination purposes at the convention. I think if we've got the delegates, if we truly have them, then perhaps.

But if we don't, we should focus more on the platform and on ensuring the convention is fair. The more ruckus we cause unnecessarily, the more harm we do to ourselves.

That said, I absolutely want those who are in a position to vote for Paul based on boundedness or being unbound by state party rules, to do so. I'm just talking in terms of avoiding ugly blowback for our movement. I know my view on this is unpopular here. But it's just my view. Well, and it seems to be the campaign's view as well.

The seeds of blowback have already been sown. Romney doesn't stand a hope in hell against Obama. And whether Paul supporters don't show up, vote for Obama to ensure no incumbent runs in 2016, or vote 3rd party... they will be blamed for Romney's defeat. The period following Obama's reelection will be marked by witch-hunts against Paul supporters in states not already controlled by the liberty movement, and a purging of the old guard in states that are. Moreover, the numerous liberty candidates that get elected to both the house and the senate in the general will be large enough to act as a block - potentially in a kingmaker role (balance of power - common to European and Parliamentary systems, but unfamiliar to Americans).

The Republican party's identity will be split like no time in recent history.

 

[thatpeculiarcat]

The Republican party's identity will be split like no time in recent history.

A new party system in American politics emerging, perhaps?

 

[Occam's Banana]

A new party system in American politics emerging, perhaps?

Quite possibly. Just look at American history. Especially the Progressives' take-over of the Democrats or the Republicans' replacement of the Whigs. This is how it works.

 

[devil21]

Irrelevant. There are actual laws that say you cannot be bound to vote a certain way, and laws ALWAYS trump party rules.

Actually, that was the basis of the SCOTUS decision but for a different reason. State laws can't force a private national organization (RNC) to do anything. So no, laws do not trump rules. Not in the case of the RNC anyway. How does the state of Iowa, for example, enforce an Iowa state law in FLORIDA?

 

[dusman]

Actually, that was the basis of the SCOTUS decision but for a different reason. State laws can't force a private national organization (RNC) to do anything. So no, laws do not trump rules. Not in the case of the RNC anyway. How does the state of Iowa, for example, enforce an Iowa state law in FLORIDA?

Just as you explained, state laws do not supersede national party rules.

 

[StilesBC]

Quite possibly. Just look at American history. Especially the Progressives' take-over of the Democrats or the Republicans' replacement of the Whigs. This is how it works.

Or the parties change their identities but continue by the same names.

 

[Occam's Banana]

Or the parties change their identities but continue by the same names.

That's exactly what happened when the Progressives took over the Democrats.

 

[freedomordeath]

I'm not sure Ron Paul wants us creating a giant battle over rules for nomination purposes at the convention. I think if we've got the delegates, if we truly have them, then perhaps.

But if we don't, we should focus more on the platform and on ensuring the convention is fair. The more ruckus we cause unnecessarily, the more harm we do to ourselves.

That said, I absolutely want those who are in a position to vote for Paul based on boundedness or being unbound by state party rules, to do so. I'm just talking in terms of avoiding ugly blowback for our movement. I know my view on this is unpopular here. But it's just my view. Well, and it seems to be the campaign's view as well.

This is a fallacy, poeple are swayed by FOX, CNN & MSM and have very short memories. What made Romney unfavourable 4 years ago has not made the slightest bit of difference in this campaign, poeple just don't plain like him, yet we stuck with him. If this theory is correct then your argument holds no water whatsoever. 4 years is 400 sheeple years.

Southern Africa was "liberated" to great fanfare, the world MSM spotlight shone hard on this yet where are they now with farmers getting murdered, raped, disease taking hold and great injustice being done. Where is the world, I think you need to realize the seriousness of this situation.

Do you think all those laws passed recently, the greatest raid of American freedom in the last century is not geared up for something big, 450million rounds of hollow point by homeland is very dodgy. The microchips ready for the 2013 Obamacare provision, forget all the conspiracy around this, its basically some corporation that makes microchips co-opting government to plant it into poeple looking for free medical care paid by you the tax payer.

These poeple are there to destroy you, not so much the GOP establishment, they are cranky old farts that watch FOX too much, but they are being decieved. No the answer is not to give an inch, as on the football pitch, you fight for every inch and you defend every inch you gain.

Hey, look on the bright side, the ultimate check and balance the founders left was the 2nd Amendment, making poeple upset in TAMPA is no where near as bad as you having to defend your family with a gun.

 

[romancito]

....I think you need to realize the seriousness of this situation.

Do you think all those laws passed recently, the greatest raid of American freedom in the last century is not geared up for something big, 450million rounds of hollow point by homeland is very dodgy. The microchips ready for the 2013 Obamacare provision, forget all the conspiracy around this, its basically some corporation that makes microchips co-opting government to plant it into poeple looking for free medical care paid by you the tax payer.

These poeple are there to destroy ....

I agree with that. But now the campaign seems to be hiding behind an ant hill.

 

[1836]

The seeds of blowback have already been sown. Romney doesn't stand a hope in hell against Obama. And whether Paul supporters don't show up, vote for Obama to ensure no incumbent runs in 2016, or vote 3rd party... they will be blamed for Romney's defeat. The period following Obama's reelection will be marked by witch-hunts against Paul supporters in states not already controlled by the liberty movement, and a purging of the old guard in states that are. Moreover, the numerous liberty candidates that get elected to both the house and the senate in the general will be large enough to act as a block - potentially in a kingmaker role (balance of power - common to European and Parliamentary systems, but unfamiliar to Americans).

The Republican party's identity will be split like no time in recent history.

You're wrong.

If Romney loses, the Republican Party will see an incredible LOSS of interest. Longtime activists who have other, more pressing concerns in their own lives will simply... drop out. What's the point of keeping involved when your damn party can't even win?

The only way they'd blame it all on Ron Paul would be if Ron pulled a 2008-style third party endorsement. Given his support THIS time around, they'd have good reason to blame him, too.

Folks, we have this thing in the bag. Whatever happens in the election, 2014 is our year to shine. And the elections beyond that, 10-15 years into the future. Keep the faith, keep working, and we will take over not only the party but also restore this republic and the Constitution.

I am confident that if all the people currently involved STAY involved, that is possible. I'm just too cynical about our chances if people feel like "THIS IS IT!" I even remember one Paul supporter telling me that they were moving OUT OF THE COUNTRY if Paul didn't get the nomination. While I respect the decision, that kind of dropping out does not help our movement...

 

[1836]

This is a fallacy, poeple are swayed by FOX, CNN & MSM and have very short memories. What made Romney unfavourable 4 years ago has not made the slightest bit of difference in this campaign, poeple just don't plain like him, yet we stuck with him. If this theory is correct then your argument holds no water whatsoever. 4 years is 400 sheeple years.

Southern Africa was "liberated" to great fanfare, the world MSM spotlight shone hard on this yet where are they now with farmers getting murdered, raped, disease taking hold and great injustice being done. Where is the world, I think you need to realize the seriousness of this situation.

Do you think all those laws passed recently, the greatest raid of American freedom in the last century is not geared up for something big, 450million rounds of hollow point by homeland is very dodgy. The microchips ready for the 2013 Obamacare provision, forget all the conspiracy around this, its basically some corporation that makes microchips co-opting government to plant it into poeple looking for free medical care paid by you the tax payer.

These poeple are there to destroy you, not so much the GOP establishment, they are cranky old farts that watch FOX too much, but they are being decieved. No the answer is not to give an inch, as on the football pitch, you fight for every inch and you defend every inch you gain.

Hey, look on the bright side, the ultimate check and balance the founders left was the 2nd Amendment, making poeple upset in TAMPA is no where near as bad as you having to defend your family with a gun.

If it hits the fan, I'm with you. I'll defend this soil to the last. I'll gladly share a hill with you in Real County, TX to fight the bad guys who want to destroy our Republic, if it came to it. But we're not there yet... and while the system is flawed, deeply flawed, we have no reason to give up hope and stop fighting.

I have no problem fighting in Tampa. But let's be honest. We need to do everything with an eye to the future. That's my point.

 

[devil21]

We're on the ballot box part right now. Let's see how that works out before going to that last box.

 

[The Free Hornet]

The only way they'd blame it all on Ron Paul would be if Ron pulled a 2008-style third party endorsement. Given his support THIS time around, they'd have good reason to blame him, too.

Screw that and screw this:

That is because such a battle would inevitably harm our movement's effectiveness going forward, create horrid blowback for those who are actually winning the battle for liberty (i.e., Massie, Amash, Rand and so many others), and REALLY hurt our ability to change the platform AT THE SAME CONVENTION.

TPTB (RNC included) elected to discount Ron Paul and treat him and this movement unfairly. They have no grounds to bitch about anything when Romney loses in August or November.

If they were concerned about Ron Paul we would have had more fairness in the debates and in the media. They were quite happy when MSM forces elevated and kept their bankrolled candidate at the top.

The platform is worthless. The memory of the voting public makes these prognostications pointless. Let someone blame Ron Paul or the movement. Among the few who remember, fewer will care.

What the hell is "horrid blowback"? A few votes in Congress won't change much. Their loss is not "horrid blowback" anymore than their gain alone will stop the march of statism. There is no coherent or lasting narrative that blames Ron Paul or this movement for anything. I didn't vote for McCain or Bush (or their Democratic opponents) but I can be pushed into voting for Obama against Romney (not that I'd have to in my state). No sensible person would blame the person bringing young people and independents into the voting booth to vote Republican.

 

[devil21]

I used to have a troll sig like yours but it got killed by admin.

cheapseats isn't a troll btw.

 

[romancito]

Good luck with your long term movement. Lots of time will give us a good chance to intellectualize it some more. We need to intellectualize how a long deflationary period of apocalyptic proportions will affect our long term plans to take over the Republican party. It is as if North Korea or China or Cuba never were the most prosperous economies of their times. Countries have a way of turning prosperity into misery. How? By waiting a little bit more for another messiah. To me, I think it is now or never. I hope Dr. Paul and the campaign have a good plan the next couple of months for what he needs to do to win and it isn't procrastinating as little bit more. I hope it includes engaging with those organizers of Ron Paul Fest ahead of the RNC and attending the event all three days. Otherwise I don't think he will win more than having a good time running for President.

 

[soulcyon]

Ben swann originally put this claim forth, and now the lawyers confirmed it.

 

[romancito]

http://bostonglobe.com/metro/2012/0...cus-ballots/AA7spH6RjTT4Jz2F7JceMN/story.html

Brad Wyatt, a Paul supporter and confirmed delegate ...

He acknowledged Paul’s supporters hope to influence the party platform at the convention and to press for a prime-time speech by Paul but said, “We are all committed to voting for Mitt Romney when we get down there. We’re not causing any trouble.’’

Confirmed: all bound delegates are bound if the mantra is "we're not causing any trouble." So, forget about the dream