Hidden Cam: WA State GOP recommends voting on delegate slates for 3 of the 4 candidates
- Thread starter justatrey
- Start date
PaulSoHard
Member
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2012
- Messages
- 743
Corruption caught on camera. Great find
sailingaway
Member
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2010
- Messages
- 72,103
I'll have to watch it but in Price they weren't hiding it, they specifically said they had a 'unity' slate with only Romney, Santorum and Gingrich people 'because Ron Paul supporters couldn't be depended on to fall behind whomever was the nominee' which I thought odd since the delegates PICK who is the nominee, and only then is the party supposed to fall behind them, as I understand it.
alucard13mmfmj
Member
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2012
- Messages
- 3,899
just how much corruption and shenanigans is needed for this shit to go on national news? seems theres trickery in every state and every other county?
justatrey
Member
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2007
- Messages
- 1,980
I don't know any details, just happened to see it posted on Facebook...
PolicyReader
Member
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2012
- Messages
- 3,399
would be good to know the context 
regardless thanks for the info
regardless thanks for the info
0:31 "This is a very first slate, it represents 3 of the 4 candidates for president. Those three that agreed to work together.
0:45 "Coming from an area where they've tricked people; I hope that stands out as an example of how important voting for this slate is."
2:30 "A lot of people are here for the first time, and one of the disadvantages of doing it this way... new people, it's harder for us to include you, and I apologize for that. But, we didn't do this until we saw 3 legislative districts get taken over in King county by the Ron Paul folks."
2:40 "At this moment we decided we had to be more careful, and this represents that being more careful."
4:45 "I'm asking you, on behalf of the Romney campaign to vote for it."
5:20 "[If Ron Paul delegates are elected] then that state caucus will be disrupting... it will get on the national news, and there will be terrible consequences for our state, and our state party."
0:45 "Coming from an area where they've tricked people; I hope that stands out as an example of how important voting for this slate is."
2:30 "A lot of people are here for the first time, and one of the disadvantages of doing it this way... new people, it's harder for us to include you, and I apologize for that. But, we didn't do this until we saw 3 legislative districts get taken over in King county by the Ron Paul folks."
2:40 "At this moment we decided we had to be more careful, and this represents that being more careful."
4:45 "I'm asking you, on behalf of the Romney campaign to vote for it."
5:20 "[If Ron Paul delegates are elected] then that state caucus will be disrupting... it will get on the national news, and there will be terrible consequences for our state, and our state party."
Last edited:
PauliticsPolitics
Member
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2008
- Messages
- 2,190
Quote from note on original video. It looks like the plan did not work out well for this dude working "on behalf of the Romney Campaign"!
"This was my district (2nd). I actually got to count votes! We ended up sending 15 Paul, 15 Santorum, and 1 Romney. The Romney people were pissed! I'm not sure how the alternates worked out, but it was either 15 Paul, 16 Santorum, or vice versa. My wife and I are both alternates. I was so upset by the "Unity Slate" people and their disgusting bias that I used part of my speech to express how appalled I was at their behavior. They were very rude anytime a speech maker mentioned Ron Paul, and their "savagery" caused them to yell "time" and interupt well before the allotted time had run out. The Ron Paul people were all very civilized, in my humble opinion."
Last edited:
PauliticsPolitics
Member
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2008
- Messages
- 2,190
Also, the guy talking in this video is allegedly Alex Hays, the Executive Director of Mainstream Republicans of Washington.
Last edited:
tbone717
Banned
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2011
- Messages
- 3,595
Yes and no. The delegates from a state also are there to support the eventual nominee in a show of unity. If you look at roll call votes from previous conventions, the states generally cast their votes for the presumptive nominee. By the time of the convention, typically all opposition candidates will have dropped out or suspended, which leaves the delegates from early states free to vote for the presumptive nominee. In that sense they are correct in their assumption that Paul delegates won't vote for the presumptive nominee, so they want to have delegates representing their state that are willing to vote for the nominee whomever it is.
Think of it this way. If for example Romney gets his 1144 prior to the RNC, most delegates are going to be voting for Romney. Only the Paul ones will be hold outs. So they don't want their state's delegates to have some holdouts if it is preventable.
PolicyReader
Member
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2012
- Messages
- 3,399
^Accurate political analysis IMO.
I'd also like to note how deplorable it is that this kind of PR > Principle bandwagoning has been & is standard practice among political insiders who try to sell anything less than 100% conformity as a negative. Both parties do it and it's an extremely heinous type of manipulative behavior in support of entrenching the power/position of those who possess it (and their friends) at the expense of honest debate or individual involvement in the process.
tbone717
Banned
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2011
- Messages
- 3,595
I suppose. Remember that the primary process if for choosing among a slate of candidates to be the one to run in November against the primary opposition. Which in this case is Obama. The convention is designed as a means for the party (and both are this way) to showcase their candidate and their ideals before a national audience. Sort of like one big commercial. It is not designed for a small uprising of people to have their moment in the sun.
We are kind of mucking up the process with being able to get some delegates slots. Though at the end of the day, I honestly think we are going to have far more than estimated by the media, but far less than estimated by some here.
We have to put ourselves in their shoes sometimes. If Paul had won IA, NH, etc and was the presumptive nominee. If we were the ones in leadership in the party and our candidate won the nomination outright. Would we want a group of 200 or so stray delegates chanting "Newt, Newt, Newt" while Paul was on the stage giving his acceptance speech?
Last edited:
kathy88
Member
- Joined
- Jan 16, 2008
- Messages
- 11,716
There is absolutely NOTHING wrong with RP delegates sticking it out until the end for their candidate. This go with the flow, do as we do attitude is what got us these other three shitty nominees. As tbone mentioned, it is for showcasing their guy. Our guy is better than their guy. We organized and conquered in a manner that hasn't been seen in a very long time. Our enthusiasm and dedication should not be thrown by the wayside. I understand the GOP wanting someone who will back the eventual nominee, that's the way it's done. However unbound delegates are unbound delegates. That's the way the system is set up. Unbound delegates are not solely for the purpose of toeing the line. We are going to shake things up.
And I'm going to disagree that we don't have as many delegates as we think. We do and we will have more. Getting involved in local GOP and getting other candidates elected is a very important part of this process, agreed. But this is the Ron Paul Forums. Our ultimate purpose is to get him the nomination. Anything else is secondary. Not less important, but secondary.
It would be nice if the dozen or so people who like to come into every positive thread and shit on it would just shut up and work on their local elections. We'll keep working for Ron. K?
And I'm going to disagree that we don't have as many delegates as we think. We do and we will have more. Getting involved in local GOP and getting other candidates elected is a very important part of this process, agreed. But this is the Ron Paul Forums. Our ultimate purpose is to get him the nomination. Anything else is secondary. Not less important, but secondary.
It would be nice if the dozen or so people who like to come into every positive thread and shit on it would just shut up and work on their local elections. We'll keep working for Ron. K?
tbone717
Banned
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2011
- Messages
- 3,595
Sort of. They want to have delegates that will vote for Newt or Santorum if they are the presumptive nominee. More so Santorum I would imagine, because the chances on Newt getting the nomination is gotta be at zero now. Essentially, they are saying that if Santorum winds up winning this thing, they want their state delegation to support the nominee, rather than casting their votes for someone who is not going to win the nomination (as they see it)
Last edited:
TheGrinch
Member
- Joined
- Jan 24, 2012
- Messages
- 3,995
It is their rules that take the ultimate decision out of the popular votes hands, and into those of the delegates.
However, I don't even see how you can say we're "mucking" anything by playing by the rules, when they're blatantly disregarding their own rules in order to disenfrachise us.
If they wanted party unity, then they'd be making sure the Paul supporters are included and respected for being interested enough to become a part of the process. However, the establishment and media have chosen the route of ignoring, marginalizing, and now even disenfranchising just to maintain their control over the 2 party system... Even if we were "mucking" that up (which again makes no sense when we're going by their rules that they're not follwing when it doesn't suit them), I'm not sure why we should feel at all bad about that.
What's the alternative, to just let the establishment choose whoever they want, with no regard to the people's voices? You're absolutely correct that we would not be happy if the shoe was on the other foot, but we'd know better to blame the way the system has been set up to allow for that, than to blame the candidate like you're implying.
And we're big boys here, and we've done jsut fine with combatting media lies like the racist newsletters, so I'm not going to get concerned that the public doesn't like it.... In fact, if it does achieve temporary "bad publicity" for the movement, this all will bring to light a corrupt and controllnig nature of the delegate process, and I'm okay with the repurcussions that might have.
Were'nt you the one here before we actually had video evidence that said that if we had proof of fraud, that we should do something about it? Well, that evidence is starting to pile up, so I think it's rather convenient that you're now changing your tune to justify fraud and disenfranchisement.
Last edited:
Similar threads
