Is this another GOP stunt?...MASS Delegates...

[wetroof]

this is a good. I am really supportive of this. They are trying to go to Tampa. I support that a hundred percent. I don't care what they have to say in this one vid about being against legal action to unbind the delegates.

For all we know at the convention they were go back on there pledge to vote Mitt. Or they might not, depending on the rules. still its more RP strength on the convention floor which IMO is significant.

 

[enjerth]

this is a good. I am really supportive of this. They are trying to go to Tampa. I support that a hundred percent. I don't care what they have to say in this one vid about being against legal action to unbind the delegates.

For all we know at the convention they were go back on there pledge to vote Mitt. Or they might not, depending on the rules. still its more RP strength on the convention floor which IMO is significant.

That'd be great. I hope for the best. This is a political campaign, the likes of which frequently pits us against each other. We should be trying to overcome that.

 

[Cinderella]

this is a good. I am really supportive of this. They are trying to go to Tampa. I support that a hundred percent. I don't care what they have to say in this one vid about being against legal action to unbind the delegates.

For all we know at the convention they were go back on there pledge to vote Mitt. Or they might not, depending on the rules. still its more RP strength on the convention floor which IMO is significant.

Ahh a voice of reason!! Apparently some here think that the only business taking place in Tampa is the nomination. You know there are other things delegates will be voting on. Would you rather see interviews from a select few of Romneys insider friends? Or would you rather see LIBERTY folk be there spreading the message?! It's always been known that Massachusetts has the most strict binding laws in the country. Why is this a surprise to you people that they are going to uphold their oath? Some people gave their word in front of over 200 people, at their caucus. Are you people suggesting they go back on their word? What would RP say about those tactics?

 

[jcannon98188]

Ahh a voice of reason!! Apparently some here think that the only business taking place in Tampa is the nomination. You know there are other things delegates will be voting on. Would you rather see interviews from a select few of Romneys insider friends? Or would you rather see LIBERTY folk be there spreading the message?! It's always been known that Massachusetts has the most strict binding laws in the country. Why is this a surprise to you people that they are going to uphold their oath? Some people gave their word in front of over 200 people, at their caucus. Are you people suggesting they go back on their word? What would RP say about those tactics?

So what is the goal then? Get some planks? The GOP doesn't even follow the Constitution, you think they will care about planks? You want a voice of reason? Stop believing that the GOP is not every bit as evil as Obama is.

 

[jcannon98188]

Ahh a voice of reason!! Apparently some here think that the only business taking place in Tampa is the nomination. You know there are other things delegates will be voting on. Would you rather see interviews from a select few of Romneys insider friends? Or would you rather see LIBERTY folk be there spreading the message?! It's always been known that Massachusetts has the most strict binding laws in the country. Why is this a surprise to you people that they are going to uphold their oath? Some people gave their word in front of over 200 people, at their caucus. Are you people suggesting they go back on their word? What would RP say about those tactics?

Also, they shouldn't have made those oaths in the first place.

 

[Cinderella]

Also, they shouldn't have made those oaths in the first place.

Had they not given the oath, they wouldn't have been allowed to run as delegates.
Am I speaking to a brick wall? I doubt you have taken the time to actually read the rules in Massachusetts.
Rule 4.5 : "Each nominee for election as a pledged Congressional District delegate or alternate delegate shall express a commitment to a qualifying Presidential candidate and agree to be bound to vote for that candidate on the first such roll-call unless released by such candidate, as required by law. c. 53 § 70(I)"
Hence the verbal pledge given at the caucus. However, the affidavits that followed are not required in the rules.

 

[cajuncocoa]

So what is the goal then? Get some planks? The GOP doesn't even follow the Constitution, you think they will care about planks? You want a voice of reason? Stop believing that the GOP is not every bit as evil as Obama is.

+rep

 

[Natural Citizen]

Perhaps it should be expected that a flood of "occupy" this and that news is in our future as well. Who knows....

 

[Carehn]

Fuck Romney & Fuck the GOP!

 

[sailingaway]

Ahh a voice of reason!! Apparently some here think that the only business taking place in Tampa is the nomination. You know there are other things delegates will be voting on. Would you rather see interviews from a select few of Romneys insider friends? Or would you rather see LIBERTY folk be there spreading the message?! It's always been known that Massachusetts has the most strict binding laws in the country. Why is this a surprise to you people that they are going to uphold their oath? Some people gave their word in front of over 200 people, at their caucus. Are you people suggesting they go back on their word? What would RP say about those tactics?

the NOMINATION is a separate thing from the vote on the first ballot. Just the NOMINATION gets Ron an unedited speech on our own strength. Nevada, for example, should be able to be a state that puts Ron in NOMINATION to be put on the ballot to begin with. The 'first vote on the ballot' where binding would kick in comes later. Regardless, we don't have a majority in MASS so it was never going to be a full state for Ron, regardless, and as Cinderella says the ballot vote isn't everything.

and note, nominating Romney might be the will of the voters in a bound state in MASS, but there are other states where delegates will be voting for Romney where the state did NOT vote for him. The establishment spins it whichever way works for them.

 

[sailingaway]

Had they not given the oath, they wouldn't have been allowed to run as delegates.
Am I speaking to a brick wall? I doubt you have taken the time to actually read the rules in Massachusetts.
Rule 4.5 : "Each nominee for election as a pledged Congressional District delegate or alternate delegate shall express a commitment to a qualifying Presidential candidate and agree to be bound to vote for that candidate on the first such roll-call unless released by such candidate, as required by law. c. 53 § 70(I)"
Hence the verbal pledge given at the caucus. However, the affidavits that followed are not required in the rules.

Yeah. The oaths aren't anywhere in the rule, but that isn't your fault. This was one way to go, and who knows if you would have gotten in the other way. I'm not about to second guess those on the ground, however, I'm not second guessing our delegates in other states who may have found it better to go a different way, either. You each had your own circumstances and personalities to work with. Somewhere they were arresting our delegates when they were outvoted and were breaking our delegates bones might have reacted differently.

 

[sailingaway]

I've been avoiding watching that. I should have continued. I feel sick now. Thanks Massachusetts "Liberty" Caucus.

well, I'm not going to watch it, to be honest.

It is what it is, and Tampa isn't long ahead of us, now.

 

[Origanalist]

well, I'm not going to watch it, to be honest.

It is what it is, and Tampa isn't long ahead of us, now.

Same here, I passed.