NBC mentions Ron Paul "the ayes have it" screwover in convention write-up

[erowe1]

? You were here... Ron Paul was threatening the delegation process and influencing the platform at the RNC.

The rule change didn't affect that.

Yes, I was here. That's why I don't think Ron wanted to be nominated at the convention. If that were what Ron wanted, then Rand would have waited until after the convention to endorse Romney.

 

[francisco]

I'm not sure it was a screw over. I think Ron Paul didn't want to be nominated and probably supported the rule change as a way to keep himself from having to decline a nomination.

Wut???

Ridiculous.

Getting nominated is not the same thing as winning the nomination.

Ron most assuredly wanted to have his name placed in nomination and have the delegate votes cast for him be announced, and to thereby earn the right to make a live, unedited speech to the convention, even though he knew with certainty that Romney had enough bound delegates to lock up the nomination.

The Romney forces wanted to have approval rights on what Ron would say, which Ron was unwilling to agree to. The Romney forces were deathly afraid of the clarion call for Liberty that Ron would undoubtedly make. Hence the video tribute to Ron which was presented at the convention instead.

 

[erowe1]

Ron most assuredly wanted to have his name placed in nomination and have the delegate votes cast for him be announced, and to thereby earn the right to make a live, unedited speech to the convention, even though he knew with certainty that Romney had enough bound delegates to lock up the nomination.

No he didn't.

I challenge you to find a single instance of him saying he wanted that.

Lots of people here at this website wanted that. But none of them ever bothered to ask if that was what Ron wanted.

 

[francisco]

No he didn't.

I challenge you to find a single instance of him saying he wanted that.

Lots of people here at this website wanted that. But none of them ever bothered to ask if that was what Ron wanted.

First of all, a cursory google search yields the following direct quote from Ron, indicating that he wanted to make an unencumbered speech to the convention:

Paul disclosed the extortion plot to the New York Times in an interview leading up to Paul Fest, the Paul-focused convention in Florida happening this weekend, and he said he still doesn't "fully" endorse Romney:


Mr. Paul, in an interview, said convention planners had offered him an opportunity to speak under two conditions: that he deliver remarks vetted by the Romney campaign, and that he give a full-fledged endorsement of Mr. Romney. He declined.

“It wouldn’t be my speech,” Mr. Paul said. “That would undo everything I’ve done in the last 30 years. I don’t fully endorse him for president.”

http://news.yahoo.com/ron-paul-denied-convention-speech-because-wouldnt-endorse-204158724.html

So there can be no doubt about that. Ron wanted to speak. Period.

Are you making the claim that in addition, Ron really didn't want to have his name placed in nomination? After all the work he did running for the election? If your standard of support on this issue is a direct quote from Ron, where is your evidence for your contention?

 

[erowe1]

First of all, a cursory google search yields the following direct quote from Ron, indicating that he wanted to make an unencumbered speech to the convention:




http://news.yahoo.com/ron-paul-denied-convention-speech-because-wouldnt-endorse-204158724.html

So there can be no doubt about that. Ron wanted to speak. Period.

Are you making the claim that in addition, Ron really didn't want to have his name placed in nomination? After all the work he did running for the election? If your standard of support on this issue is a direct quote from Ron, where is your evidence for your contention?

Notice that that is not about giving a nomination speech, but a speech as an invited speaker. Giving a speech as a nominee was something Ron never wanted. He didn't want to endorse Romney, but he also didn't want to keep fighting against him after the fight was over.

Yes, I am claiming that, after losing the primaries, Ron did not want to have his name placed in nomination.

I think there's plenty of evidence.

First of all, Rand's endorsement of Romney would not have happened before the convention if Ron were still running and wanted to be nominated.

Second, right before the convention, in a conference call with the delegates, a staffer from his campaign told them that if they tried to nominate Ron, he wouldn't accept it. Later on, after there was a clamor of outrage from people who all along were convinced that nominating him at the convention was the plan, the campaign said the staffer made a mistake in saying that. But I think that's implausible. They were just trying to smooth over the fallout from it. It wouldn't have been possible for a staffer to make a mistake like that if it really were the plan of the campaign itself for Ron to be nominated and give a nomination speech.

Third, if that had been what Ron wanted, he would have said so, and planned for it, with his official campaign coordinating it. It wouldn't have been up to the delegates to pursue on their own initiative without his go ahead like they did.

I think that most likely, when the rule change happened, Ron Paul was aware of what was going on and approved of it, and those who made the change knew that he would not object to it. Notice that of all the people who have complained about it since that time, saying that he got screwed out of giving a speech or something, he himself has never made a peep about the rule change.

Ron would have given a speech as an invited speaker if they had let him do it the way he wanted to. But he didn't want to give one as a nominee.

If you disagree, then the ball's in your court. Where's your evidence? If what you say is true, the official campaign would have been explicit about it. It wouldn't just be a secret plan talked about on websites like this.

 

[francisco]

... Giving a speech as a nominee was something Ron never wanted.

And your evidence for this is what, exactly? Can you find a single instance where Ron said that?

 

[francisco]

?


<head_scratch> Did RPF get redirected somewhere? Not sure I recognize this place anymore.

truer words never spoken

 

[erowe1]

And your evidence for this is what, exactly? Can you find a single instance where Ron said that?

You admit in post #24 that you did a Google search. Isn't it odd to you that you weren't able to find a single instance of Ron Paul or anyone associated with his official campaign saying that they were on board with the plan of nominating him at the convention? Isn't it odd to you that this plan was entirely executed by rogue delegates acting without any direction from the campaign?

I think the evidence I already provided you was plenty.

 

[francisco]

You admit in post #24 that you did a Google search. Isn't it odd to you that you weren't able to find a single instance of Ron Paul or anyone associated with his official campaign saying that they were on board with the plan of nominating him at the convention? Isn't it odd to you that this plan was entirely executed by rogue delegates acting without any direction from the campaign?

I think the evidence I already provided you was plenty.

Your arguments are not persuasive. My google search was literally less than 30 seconds and I cited the first direct responsive source I found which was direct and to the point. Frankly the idea that Ron didn’t want to be nominated after working so hard is absurd. If he didn’t want to be nominated why did he conspicuously not suspend his campaign?

 

[erowe1]

Your arguments are not persuasive. My google search was literally less than 30 seconds and I cited the first direct responsive source I found which was direct and to the point. Frankly the idea that Ron didn’t want to be nominated after working so hard is absurd. If he didn’t want to be nominated why did he conspicuously not suspend his campaign?

He did suspend his campaign, and he did so conspicuously. His son even endorsed Romney after that.

Go ahead and keep searching. Let us know if you ever find any evidence that Ron Paul still wanted to be nominated after conceding that it was impossible for him to win the nomination or ever felt like this rule change screwed him out of anything.

If what I say is so absurd, I'm sure you'll be able to find something to support your claim.

How do you think it was ever possible for his own campaign's staffer to tell all of his national convention delegates that Ron Paul would not accept the nomination and give a floor speech if they tried to nominate him, if, in fact, as you say, it was Ron's own plan all along to have them nominate him so he could give a floor speech? For that to have been a simple mistake is not possible.

 

[francisco]

He did suspend his campaign, and he did so conspicuously...

WRONG. The terms "Suspending" and "Withdrawing" a campaign have specific meanings under election law, and Ron did neither of those in the 2012 race. Rather, faced with diminishing resources:

On May 14, Paul's campaign announced that due to lack of funds (though despite financial backing from financiers Peter Thiel and Mark Spitznagel[118]) he would no longer actively campaign for votes in the 11 remaining primary states, including Texas and California, that had not yet voted.[9][119] He would, however, continue to seek to win delegates for the national party convention in the states that had already voted.

(emphasis mine)


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul

Ceasing active campaigning is NOT the same as suspending.


The whole point of having delegates is to have them nominate you and vote for you. If Ron didn't want to be nominated why did he fight to attain and retain delegates right up to the convention?

 

[erowe1]

The whole point of having delegates is to have them nominate you and vote for you. If Ron didn't want to be nominated why did he fight to attain and retain delegates right up to the convention?

No, that is not the whole point. For Ron Paul, after he conceded defeat, as you yourself just quoted him doing, that was never the point. On more than one occasion he talked about what his point of having these delegates there was. He wanted them to influence the party in various ways. Conspicuously, in all the times he talked about what he was up to, he ever once intimated that he wanted them to submit his name for nomination. And if that were the whole point, then how do you explain the campaign telling their delegates that they didn't want them to do that?

Your nitpicking about differences between suspending and withdrawing is irrelevant. Either way, Ron Paul was no longer trying to win the nomination. He didn't want to have to endorse Romney, but he also didn't want to give a speech as a candidate still running against him. And notice, that you're contradicting yourself. You said that he didn't suspend his campaign. But read the quote you provide. That's exactly what he did. He didn't withdraw, he suspended. Ceasing active campaigning IS the same as suspending.

Once again, if what you say is true, how come you are unable to find a single quote from Ron Paul or anyone else associated with his official campaign that supports it? You've obviously been looking. Isn't it odd to you that of all the people who talked incessantly about this plan of nominating him so he could give a floor speech, not once did he or anyone from his campaign say a single thing in support of that plan?

 

[P3ter_Griffin]

You guys can't talk about this. It's not allowed.

If you open up the possibility that something important happened at the 2012 convention that Ron Paul supporters were needed for, then you open up the possibility that Rand's endorsement of Romney actually was a kick in the teeth.

And if there's one thing that we've settled on this site over the last four years, it's that there was absolutely no problem with Rand's endorsement. Ron was done by June 2012 and there was nothing at the convention worth doing outside of Rand's schmoozing and politicking.

By bringing up the idea that the 2012 convention was about more than just the nominee, you're giving those retards who didn't like the Romney endorsement more evidence that they were actually right. So cut it out.

Agreed.

 

[francisco]

@ erowe1:

You seem to have problems with reading comprehension.

Ron did not suspend. Ron did not withdraw either. He stopped active campaigning in states that had not voted yet. That is not the same as "suspending" which has a specific meaning under FEC regulations. Ron never declared a suspension to the FEC. He kept working to attain and retain delegates. There would be no rational reason to want delegates unless he wanted to be nominated, because that is what delegates do.

Earlier, you asserted that some un-named staffer supposedly said that Ron didn’t want to be nominated, although the campaign denied that. Got a link?

 

[erowe1]

@ erowe1:

You seem to have problems with reading comprehension.

Ron did not suspend. Ron did withdraw either. He stopped active campaigning in states that had not voted yet. That is not the same as suspending. He kept working to attain and retain delegates. There would be no rational reason to want delegates unless he wanted to be nominated, because that is what delegates do.

Earlier, you asserted that some un-named staffer supposedly said that Ron didn’t want to be nominated, although the campaign denied that. Got a link?

If you think it's irrational for Ron to have wanted those delegates at the convention without wanting them to nominate him, that's something to take up with him. Because that's the fact of what happened. Your own searching supports my claim. You still can't find a single instance of him or anyone else from his campaign saying anything at all in support of the plan to submit his name for nomination. If that was the whole point, then why can't you find any?

On the other hand, you can find plenty of instances of them talking about why they wanted delegates there to influence the party.

We talked about that conference call here on the forums. It was a big deal. If you don't even know about that, then why have you been so adamantly arguing this point here. You even said above that Ron clearly wanted to give a nomination speech. It's not looking so clear to you any more, is it?

ETA: Here's something at the Daily Paul talking about it. They mention the conference call at the beginning, and then they have emails backtracking on that afterwards. My question is, if what you say is true, and nominating Ron Paul was the entire point of having those delegates, how is it even conceivably possible for this staffer to have made that claim in the first place?
http://archive.dailypaul.com/250848

Another edit:
I just noticed, it's not just the conference call by the unknown staffer, but even in one of the follow-up emails by Debbie Hopper. Notice this part:

But please note, we do not have the five states necessary to nominate Dr. Paul, and he has expressed a desire not to be nominated since it is clear we don’t have the numbers to win a floor fight.

So those delegates who tried to submit Ron's name for nomination went against his express wishes, communicated to them clearly from the campaign on more than one occasion. When the RNC rules committee changed the threshold to 8 states, the were doing Ron a favor by sparing him from having to deal with a nomination he didn't want.

 

[erowe1]

You guys can't talk about this. It's not allowed.

If you open up the possibility that something important happened at the 2012 convention that Ron Paul supporters were needed for, then you open up the possibility that Rand's endorsement of Romney actually was a kick in the teeth.

And if there's one thing that we've settled on this site over the last four years, it's that there was absolutely no problem with Rand's endorsement. Ron was done by June 2012 and there was nothing at the convention worth doing outside of Rand's schmoozing and politicking.

By bringing up the idea that the 2012 convention was about more than just the nominee, you're giving those retards who didn't like the Romney endorsement more evidence that they were actually right. So cut it out.

Yes, and the converse of this is also true. Since we know that Rand's endorsement of Romney was not a betrayal of his father, and that those who have pretended it was all these years are wrong, we also know that there was no secret "delegate strategy" whereby Ron would in any way at all continue to campaign against Romney at the convention.

 

[francisco]

@ erowe1:

I am convinced that you are wrong. You are convinced that I am wrong. It is not important to me that you agree with me. As far as the issue at hand, readers of the thread can decide for themselves. Many if not most will not care and will view the whole discussion as being akin to how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. I suspect that you have been involved in other similar discussions before.

 

[erowe1]

@ erowe1:

I am convinced that you are wrong. You are convinced that I am wrong. It is not important to me that you agree with me. As far as the issue at hand, readers of the thread can decide for themselves. Many if not most will not care and will view the whole discussion as being akin to how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. I suspect that you have been involved in other similar discussions before.

Why are you still convinced that I'm wrong?

I just showed you that the official campaign right before the national convention clearly told Ron's delegates that he did not want them to nominate him. How do you explain that if he really did want them to?

And notice, that after you've obviously been looking for some statement from Ron or any other official voice of his campaign that approved of the plan to submit his name for nomination, you can't find a single one. Why do you suppose that is?

You're right that I've been through this whole discussion before. In the summer of 2012 we had a mod here named SailingAway who was all-in for this plan of nominating Ron at the convention, and she silenced all dissent. One reason you're probably so convinced it was true was because people here talked about it, and when others of us questioned it, we were banned and our posts were deleted. Simply asking things like, "How do we know this is what Ron wants?" was not allowed. I was one of her victims.

 

[sailingaway]

If you think it's irrational for Ron to have wanted those delegates at the convention without wanting them to nominate him, that's something to take up with him. Because that's the fact of what happened. Your own searching supports my claim. You still can't find a single instance of him or anyone else from his campaign saying anything at all in support of the plan to submit his name for nomination. If that was the whole point, then why can't you find any?

Just before Rand's endorsement he was on an interview where he said something about having a possibility for a speech, not an edited speech on the floor.

In any event, here is his response to the tangle the GOP got itself into by passing the rule, although the attorney who got it passed in another interview said it only governed the 'Then existing' 2012 convention'.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/18/polit...rump-rule-40-republican-convention/index.html

 

[invisible]

Just before Rand's endorsement he was on an interview where he said something about having a possibility for a speech, not an edited speech on the floor.

In any event, here is his response to the tangle the GOP got itself into by passing the rule, although the attorney who got it passed in another interview said it only governed the 'Then existing' 2012 convention'.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/18/polit...rump-rule-40-republican-convention/index.html

OMG, you're back! PLEASE stay!