For Bradley in DC and anyone that wants to understand the truth of the delegate proce

[Sandra]

Is Louisiana the only state formally challenged before the RNC?

 

[Drsteveparent]

I am from a state challenging our caucus for this reason. Yes Parent is correct, this is for electing state delegates at convention. This is the base rule used for the challenge in that the LAGOP changed the way party delegates were held by changing the date of qualifying deadline (that was not submitted to the RNC) and refusing to count valid provisional votes. Another added factor was the caucus was not called according to RNC rules which may invalidate the entire process.

Check out the Louisiana forum.

Correct and that is exactly why that rule is in place and why you people in LA have legal recourse to overturn what happened to them.

It is like i said people are lazy and if they would just read things in the proper context it would all become clear to them.

 

[Drsteveparent]

Is Louisiana the only state formally challenged before the RNC?

I believe so Sandra although MO could be next.

 

[Sandra]

If we in Louisiana had continued to listened to some people that tried to force their opinion on us we would not have done it. Thankfully we ignored and marched onward.

 

[Drsteveparent]

If we in Louisiana had continued to listened to some people that tried to force their opinion on us we would not have done it. Thankfully we ignored and marched onward.

Sandra if your meetup group would like my input contact me at [email protected] and give me a contact number and i will help you in any way i can.

I am also doing a radio interview Friday from 3-5 EST at www.rprradio.com to talk about the delegate process and rules of order. I suggest you listen to 3-4-08 part 2 that has some great information in it.

You can listen many other radio interviews on the delegate and convention process here http://www.presidentronpaul.741.com/delegate.html

 

[Sandra]

Thanks! We are still awaiting a decision from the RNC. It's become apparent that the GOP is in the dying stage in states that break the rules to keep certain people out. Even McCain supporters are getting out because of how the party in perceived. Financially it's bankrupt and has to take in new members just to keep it on life support. It is disappearing in LA. Hopefully the RNC realizes that keeping the rules and enforcing them is their only hope.

 

[ronpaul.republican]

I am new here and i must admit i am also not very web savvy either and i am a terrible typer.

I was not trying to be disrespectful i hope it didn't come across that way.

Not disrespectful at all. Your work is critically important.

I think the very best thing that could possibly be done in this educational process is to produce a multimedia training DVD with video.

Americans generally have no clue how their leaders are selected, and it's almost impossible for average people to figure out.

 

[Drsteveparent]

Not disrespectful at all. Your work is critically important.

I think the very best thing that could possibly be done in this educational process is to produce a multimedia training DVD with video.

Americans generally have no clue how their leaders are selected, and it's almost impossible for average people to figure out.

I could not agree more and i am working on some of that now only in text and after this election i plan on posting a website that will educate every american on how the process works and i do not care what party they are from.

My goal is to get people involved in thier local party and effect change for the better.

 

[LibertyIn08]

Retracted.

 

[ronpaul.republican]

he has also admitted to suffering from schizophrenia in another chat room.

Well as long as he doesn't suffer from it in this chat room, I'll believe every word he says!

 

[Bradley in DC]

Bradley when you make public attempts to make people think i am insane and need a straight jacket you deserve to picked on.

I believe i have made everything clear and maybe you people should ask the folks from.

WA, MO, NV, OK, TX, and any other state that i have addressed personally and ask them if the information and education i gave them helped them to succeed in their conventions.

I am sure you would be suprised.

Now as mdh has claimed i suppose i should go and take my daily Thorzine and put my straight jacket back on.

Steve,

Welcome back. I thought you would return, and I'm glad about that. Again, I strongly urge you to take up my challenge to clarify these issues via the wiki, but of course that's up to you. Such a format, me thinks, would be much less personal (which seems to be a problem on this thread, as I feared, diverting us from clarifying the issues for all concerned--which is, I hope, both our goals.)

Everything clear. Um, not exactly no. You make arguments that, as I understand them, are counter-factual.

I know that you misunderstood my explanations of the five state rule to get nominated which I've explained at greater length previously in a thread (brokered convention misunderstandings) on this forum.

You and I have a similar understanding and explanations of the delegates from other candidates being released. See, this conversation can be useful. However, some of your claims and logic appear ridiculous and this would be a good place to clarify everything.

One, do you still think that there HAS to be a brokered convention? You have claimed that McCain can't win on the first ballot because he won't have enough bound delegates--but he COULD have enough votes from bound AND UNBOUND delegates to win on the first ballot, right?

Two, you claim that state party conventions can change state election law binding delegates. If that characterization is correct, yes, it is delusional. Or could you clarify your position?

Three, you claim that state party conventions at this date can change rules binding delegates that would go in effect at the 2008 national nominating convention. By my reading of the RNC by-laws, all of those rules needed to be finalized before September last year or they would get penalized (fewer delegates). Why would a state do that?

Four, similarly, others tell me that state conventions CANNOT change the rules binding national convention delegates. Could you please cite your sources and make of list of relevant states? Obviously in states that choose their delegates by primary only (including California, etc.--see the wiki), your tactic couldn't work.

I'll address the rest of the questions later, but this would be a good start.

Best,
Bradley

 

[MelissaWV]

Olive Branch.

Now as mdh has claimed i suppose i should go and take my daily Thorzine and put my straight jacket back on.

This quote --- taken out of context and from a completely different medium, like many of your thinly-veiled attacks seem to be --- refers to an admission by you, or someone posing as you, online. That chatter claimed to have prescribed the medication for himself.

What this has to do with answering questions posed to you in this forum is beyond me. Why you feel a need to reference everything else (which appears to take much more time and effort) rather than answer direct questions is confusing. I have said your message is sound but that the facts and messenger are in some doubt. This thread would not exist unless that were an accurate assessment in the views of several people. I respectfully ask that you cease focusing so much on things that happened outside of this forum a couple of weeks ago, and perhaps go back to educating people, if that was the intention. I have provided questions, comments, and even advice over the time period I have interacted with you.

The difficulty I think some people have with me is that I seem friendly at times, and hostile at others. That's how human beings seem, which is to say that when two people agree they feel far more friendly towards each other. When there is disagreement, there is a tendency to assume it results from some sort of spite. I will say again: I agree people need to get educated. If I were to postscript that with some secret delegate numbers which I can't reveal the source to, I would be playing the role of educator, not simply someone spreading the message. Giving out quantifiable results brings to bear a certain degree of responsibility (imo)... this is the problem we're having right now with the MSM. They will have the numbers right there, but add projections, assumptions, anything to make Dr. Paul disappear. We have no way, as the audience, to really scrutinize their "sources". There is a high degree of spin going on in this post, mostly about things that have zero to do with the questions at hand. Most of the questions are still not hammered down.

My advice is genuine. My questions are genuine. My suspicions are genuine but have nothing to do with the two prior categories. The only things my personal suspicion has an effect on are whether or not I'd have you over for dinner, and whether I choose to accept you in a role of educator. Personal conclusions about why I'm on this forum, about what I do outside of this forum, and especially about who I am, have no relevance except when I have to defend myself when attacked on those fronts.

I'm not claiming to be blameless, because I react poorly to personal attacks and the snide slandering of various projects I have worked on and people whom I care about. I have answered personality accusations in kind, but I will stop, because it's my hope that although you have asserted you're quitting from the boards a few times, perhaps some light will be shed in a courteous manner on some of the questions still being posed. These are not your inferiors, these are The People... more than that these are The People who are involved in the process, and the ones who will do what they can --- WHETHER OR NOT IT IS WHAT YOU ARE DOING --- to get Dr. Paul or persons with similar mindsets elected to their positions of power through the next decade and beyond.

When it comes down to it, that's the point. We are the People. Not just the ones that agree with you, not just the ones that agree with me. The people you say not to donate to, or listen to, or put any faith in... they're also "the People". Asking questions and expecting an answer as if one is on equal footing with the person answering is NOT some sign of weakness, naysaying, or discouragement. It's not defeatest. We must each, as individuals, make a decision as to where we focus our efforts, our limited time, our valuable monetary and temporal resources. If you disagree with something I've said here, or something someone else has, it's my hope that you can do so with an equally extended olive branch.

I just ask respectfully that we stop bringing every forum, chatroom, radio show, and person into this conversation that never asked to be brought up.

 

[Sandra]

Drsteveparent, it does no good to address Bradley... at all. If you noticed only a couple of folks respond to him. He just tries to force those who are more learned fron the boards and does so consistantly.

 

[Sandra]

When it comes down to it, that's the point. We are the People. Not just the ones that agree with you, not just the ones that agree with me. The people you say not to donate to, or listen to, or put any faith in... they're also "the People". Asking questions and expecting an answer as if one is on equal footing with the person answering is NOT some sign of weakness, naysaying, or discouragement. It's not defeatest. We must each, as individuals, make a decision as to where we focus our efforts, our limited time, our valuable monetary and temporal resources. If you disagree with something I've said here, or something someone else has, it's my hope that you can do so with an equally extended olive branch.

I just ask respectfully that we stop bringing every forum, chatroom, radio show, and person into this conversation that never asked to be brought up.

Melissa I kinda have a beef with you opening an account expressly to tag team someone with your husband (mdh). This is considered bad form on boards unless you state who you are.

 

[Drsteveparent]

I know that you misunderstood my explanations of the five state rule to get nominated which I've explained at greater length previously in a thread (brokered convention misunderstandings) on this forum.

Steve : I thought we came to a clear meaning on this already haven't we?

You and I have a similar understanding and explanations of the delegates from other candidates being released. See, this conversation can be useful. However, some of your claims and logic appear ridiculous and this would be a good place to clarify everything.

Steve : show me where and i will explain it.

One, do you still think that there HAS to be a brokered convention? You have claimed that McCain can't win on the first ballot because he won't have enough bound delegates--but he COULD have enough votes from bound AND UNBOUND delegates to win on the first ballot, right?

Steve : 1: Has to be and forced are two different things however My claim about Mccain has since been updated and my comments on this were when Romney and Huckabee where still in the race and therefor it absolutely would have left Mccain short to win on the first ballot.

2: Yes he could obtain enough from bound and unbound at this point which is why it is important to obtain as many Paul delegates as possible.

Two, you claim that state party conventions can change state election law binding delegates. If that characterization is correct, yes, it is delusional. Or could you clarify your position?

steve : I have claimed no such thing pertaining to state laws and i have not seen one state law that dictates to the party on how they force or not force their delegates to vote. This is the difference between state law and party rule and they are not synonymous except when state laws apply to election procedure in the state.


Three, you claim that state party conventions at this date can change rules binding delegates that would go in effect at the 2008 national nominating convention. By my reading of the RNC by-laws, all of those rules needed to be finalized before September last year or they would get penalized (fewer delegates). Why would a state do that?

Steve: no that only pertains to how the delegates are elected not how the delegates are bound or unbound or pledged and those party rules pertaining to the bound unbound issue can be changed at the state convention.

Steve: It also applies to when a primary must take place and the reason these states such as FL lost delegates was because they moved up their primary agaonst the preset rules in the RNC call. This again has nothing to do with how the delegates are bound or unbound or how the party changes the rules in that regard.

Four, similarly, others tell me that state conventions CANNOT change the rules binding national convention delegates. Could you please cite your sources and make of list of relevant states? Obviously in states that choose their delegates by primary only (including California, etc.--see the wiki), your tactic couldn't work.

Steve: Then they are uninformed or mistaken unless their state already has that set in place in thier bylaws however the bylaws can always be changed as well, which is why i have told everyone to obtain a copy if the bylaws in thier state to see what they can and can't do and to see if the bylaws must be ammended first before moving to unbind the delegates.

The source is in the state party rules and the RNC call


I am not back Bradley you are wrong about that but before i leave i wanted to make sure i cleared everything up for the people that may have doubted my information dur to the rhetoric that has appeared here.

Perhaps you should listen to some of my radio interviews and you would get a better perspective of what i have been teaching people in their states.

Email me at [email protected] and i will gladly send you a few to listen.

 

[MelissaWV]

Sandra

I opened this account at the start of the year to tagteam someone in April? That seems odd. The people in this thread who I have been addressing do, in fact, know who I am. DrSteve knows who I am, Bradley's spoken to me before, several other people involved have known me from one place or another. People in the other threads I've posted on have known who I am as well, because they related to goings on at another project I work on. I apologize if you were confused as to my identity, but this isn't "tag teaming" and I am posting my own thoughts. There's a statistical display on each person's name that lets you know when they joined and how many posts they have. My posting is not exclusive to this thread, hence your observation is false.

Have a good day though

 

[Sandra]

Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 13

Most of your posts were saved for this thread?

 

[No1ButPaul08]

I ask you to prove this statement

Now I assure you that even though we didn't win the popular vote in many states, WE DID PICK UP THE MAJORITY OF DELEGATES OVER ALL THE OTHER CANDIDATES IN MOST STATES. So yes, they won the straw poll, and we won what counts – which is delegates.

And you respond

Why would i answer any of your questions considering you made it clear your intentions which is that putting a democrat in the white house would be a good thing. Yes that comment deserves for me to explain nothing to you for you have already quit or you are going to try to get people to go 3rd party either way i will not waste my time on you.

So you won't answer my questions because I made one comment about prefering a Dem to McCain for the sole purpose of keeping the 2012 GOP nomination open. That makes no sense. Sounds to me like you can't answer my questions. I keep attacking you here, and you've yet to respond. I'm sorry, you do respond with something like, "I'm right and you'rre wrong and since you're a defeatist I'm not going to answer your questions." Sorry Steve that doesn't work around here. You're making a fool out of yourself by not answering my questions.

I have given no one incorrect information

Haha, many of us have pointed out your incorrect information in this thread. That is just a flat out lie

When did i ever suggest that CA would have success in unbinding anything? Or any other state for that matter for all i have stated is that if we have the numbers we control the conventions.

Please show us where the delegates from CA and IL have already been elected or selected all or any other state for that matter to go to the national convention?

California hs not even had a convention yet so i would love to see what you claim unless you are talking about bonus delegates then that would be very few people from those states and only if those states are alloted bonus delegates and that is a big IF.

You didn't suggest CA would have success, but you did suggest they could have success, which they can't. The convention in CA has nothing to do with the delegates, as it is after the national convention. McCain chose his slate of delegates and they are going to the national convention. Also, in IL delegates are elected directly in the primary. So you were wrong on both those states

I believe i have made everything clear

I don't, could you please show me where you did this?

For any of you that have not figured it out my article was written before super tuesday and had it not been for that article most would not have become delegates and we would of had no shot at this nomination.

This is why the article changes after every caucus and primary and it will continue to change as we get closer.

If you want my updated info i suggest you look for the ones that say updated and a date of the update.

Steve, I been tearing apart the article YOU linked in your original post. Updated or not, it's been wrong every time it's been posted

 

[MelissaWV]

Sandra

In general I don't hang out here looking for something to say or someone to pick on. I posted here because I was informed by someone that my name was mentioned, and I believe in a good fair forum where those mentioned get a chance to refute what's said about them, and try to set the record straight. Previously, if you'll notice, I have posted to several other threads which involved me. I don't feel a need to butt in literal thousands of times in under a year, even if I've a right to. Mostly I read, and absorb what information there is to offer.

I am not "saving" posts. I make posts as required to get my point across and to keep disinformation about me, personally, from sitting out there. It's a failing of mine

 

[No1ButPaul08]

I am not back Bradley you are wrong about that but before i leave i wanted to make sure i cleared everything up for the people that may have doubted my information dur to the rhetoric that has appeared here.

I really hope people continue to doubt your "infomation" after reading this thread