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

sailingaway said:
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
Click to expand...

invisible said:
OMG, you're back! PLEASE stay!
Click to expand...

Seconded!

Believe it or not, I just came back to this thread intending to comment "I miss SailingAway" and lo and behold there she was!
 
sailingaway said:
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.
Click to expand...

But not a nomination speech. He didn't want to give a nomination speech.
 
erowe1 said:
But not a nomination speech. He didn't want to give a nomination speech.
Click to expand...

It had to be a nomination speech because otherwise it would be edited. It might have been dreamland to hope he'd persuade enough delegates to let him win the convention, but he had to be nominated to have a speech, of his own views, to the general election audience that did not turn out for primaries, without being edited. He was offered an edited speech if he endorsed Romney. He turned it down.

And the bit about why did a staffer say he didn't want his delegates to nominate him is a very long, very passionate thread somewhere here, probably still in archives somewhere. Someone said it, and RP had to send an email saying it was just a staffer thinking for himself, and never came from Ron. I don't think I've ever seen AntiFederalist's faith in Ron shaken except that one time -- until Ron weighed in saying it didn't come from him. Perhaps AF remembers.

I haven't been here for a couple reasons. One is that the personalities of some here just can't keep from challenging history. I feel a need to use facts to defend Ron's integrity when that happens. Another is that I had no interest in, by so doing, undermining Rand. Ron wasn't running. I was going to vote for Rand if he stayed in the race until California. I don't want to undermine him. But I seem to be constitutionally incapable of refraining from defending Ron with actual facts if his reputation is undermined. And leading his delegates on at that point would have been rotten. And he wasn't doing that.

Don't know if I'll be here if and when you answer this, so .... don't take my silence to mean anything else than that I don't see your response.
 
Valli6 said:
This thread was better before you filled it with this pointless argument which is not really even on topic.
Click to expand...

Nobody had to disagree with me.

I made an accurate on topic response to the OP, and then others insisted on arguing that what I said was false. As you can see, if you've kept up, it was actually 100% true.
 
Last edited:
sailingaway said:
It had to be a nomination speech because otherwise it would be edited.
Click to expand...

But he never wanted to give a nomination speech either.

He wanted to give an unedited speech where he wouldn't have to endorse Romney, but not if it meant giving a nomination speech. He wasn't allowed to do that.

sailingaway said:
And the bit about why did a staffer say he didn't want his delegates to nominate him is a very long, very passionate thread somewhere here, probably still in archives somewhere. Someone said it, and RP had to send an email saying it was just a staffer thinking for himself, and never came from Ron
Click to expand...

That's false. And if you look at the emails that came directly from the campaign after that conference call that are in the link I already provided, they clearly say that Ron did not want to be nominated. It was not just a staffer thinking for himself.
 
Last edited:
erowe1 said:
But not a nomination speech. He didn't want to give a nomination speech.
Click to expand...

You should have the read the article linked by the previous poster instead of ignoring it, you malicious, willfully-ignorant dipshit:

"They did not want my name to come up and so they changed the rules because we had the votes," Paul told CNN "At This Hour" anchors Kate Bolduan and John Berman. "We had the numbers to allow my name to be put into nomination, but they wouldn't do it."​
 
RonPaulGeorge&Ringo said:
You should have the read the article linked by the previous poster instead of ignoring it, you malicious, willfully-ignorant dip$#@!:

"They did not want my name to come up and so they changed the rules because we had the votes," Paul told CNN "At This Hour" anchors Kate Bolduan and John Berman. "We had the numbers to allow my name to be put into nomination, but they wouldn't do it."​
Click to expand...

I read it.

And it supports my point. Don't you think that if Ron wanted to give a nomination speech and felt in any way slighted by the rules change, that would have been the perfect time to mention it?

And speaking of reading, did you read the quotes from Debbie Hopper in two official campaign emails to national convention delegates telling them explicitly that Ron did not want to be nominated?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

PAF
National Elections Expose the Sham that Is Centralized “Democracy”
Replies
0
Views
519
PAF
PAF
PAF
Voting: The Seen and the Unseen
Replies
2
Views
64
TheTexan
TheTexan
W
The Constitution's Unsung Hero: Congressman Matt Rosendale
Replies
1
Views
531
Swordsmyth
Swordsmyth
Occam's Banana
The Nation: "The Libertarian Party Goes Alt-Right"
2
Replies
39
Views
2K
DamianTV
DamianTV
Occam's Banana
Project Decentralized rEVOLution: For a New Libertarian Party
Replies
6
Views
6K
Occam's Banana
Occam's Banana
Back
Top