Reality Check: Why all RNC delegates are 'Free Agents' and unbound

[BenMuldowney]

one of the reasons the local gop commits fraud at the drop of a hat is that there are usually no consequences. i know of mass precincts that were openly and brazenly stolen and even the filthy local hacks that supported ron paul behind the scenes, looked the other way.

 

[BenMuldowney]

a political party is similar to an SRO in the security markets. an SRO can fine its members all they want.. and some members pay the fines if they want to remain 'licensed'. but the SRO's have no authority to collect if those that are penalized just flat out refuse to pay. BECAUSE THEY DONT HAVE AUTHORITY!!!!!

 

[tbone717]

The language in those sentences is pretty unequivocal.

"The RNC does not recognize a states binding of national delegates, but considers each delegate a free agent who can vote for whoever they choose."

That's a pretty closed statement.

If the statement was proceeded by ” based on your your situation in Utah” the meaning is completely changed. The fact is we do not have the entire letter, but believe whatever you wish. The truth will be shown by the actions of bound delegates in August

 

[BenMuldowney]

If the statement was proceeded by ” based on your your situation in Utah” the meaning is completely changed. The fact is we do not have the entire letter, but believe whatever you wish. The truth will be shown by the actions of bound delegates in August

not really, the rnc is not the policeman for all of the different state rules. the state gop can write rules for state conventions and can even fine delegates who break state party rules at the national convention but how can they collect fines? they can't.

think of the nfl; they can fine players for breaking rules and the players always pay.... but they dont have to legally. but the nfl holds all of the leverage and its in the players' best interest to pay the fine. not so much the case for the rino party.

update: it appears some states do have laws concerning bound delegates and violations of these laws are misdemeanors.

 

[Voluntary Man]

We really need to temper our expectations with this and learn more. Even the official campaign (in my state) isn't sure. I just can't imagine it's good to sign an affidavit and then do the opposite of what you said you would do under oath.

nor is it probably a good idea to use your vote to help elect a guy who will violate his oath the minute he lowers his hand.

 

[tbone717]

nor is it probably a good idea to use your vote to help elect a guy who will violate his oath the minute he lowers his hand.

At that point then one would have to make a decision as to whether or not they wish to be a delegate at the RNC.

 

[Suzu]

what could they do? kick me out of the state gop? i would guess yes... but guess what? big whoop.

And there would by then be 100 more like you, to take your place. So, go ahead, be a sacrificial animal!

 

[Voluntary Man]

At that point then one would have to make a decision as to whether or not they wish to be a delegate at the RNC.

not a problem for me. i don't do oaths.

 

[BenMuldowney]

At that point then one would have to make a decision as to whether or not they wish to be a delegate at the RNC.

no offense but you would have sided with the british and scolded the minutemen for not playing by crown's rules on warfare. do you have any idea what the other side has planned for us eventually? you seem very effeminate in your approach.

 

[BenMuldowney]

And there would by then be 100 more like you, to take your place. So, go ahead, be a sacrificial animal!

it appears that some states do have laws concerning this... it is in the codes. (misdemeanors)

i do not advocate breaking state laws.

 

[dancjm]

If the statement was proceeded by ” based on your your situation in Utah” the meaning is completely changed. The fact is we do not have the entire letter, but believe whatever you wish. The truth will be shown by the actions of bound delegates in August

No I am sorry you are wrong.

It is clear that those two sentences are without qualification. As I said, closed statements.

I'm not being optimistic either, its just a grammatical observation.

Reading your posts, I am starting to wonder which side you are really on...

 

[S.Shorland]

http://www.zerohedge.com/contribute...ny-“committment”-vote-mitt-romney-and-can-in?

 

[BenMuldowney]

No I am sorry you are wrong.

It is clear that those two sentences are without qualification. As I said, closed statements.

I'm not being optimistic either, its just a grammatical observation.

Reading your posts, I am starting to wonder which side you are really on...

i think the big question is whether a delegate would be breaking a state party rule or would they be violating state code. if it is breaking a gop state rule then the fine would not be collectable.

 

[tbone717]

No I am sorry you are wrong.

It is clear that those two sentences are without qualification. As I said, closed statements.

I'm not being optimistic either, its just a grammatical observation.

Reading your posts, I am starting to wonder which side you are really on...

As I said you are free to believe whatever you wish. We will see at the RNC whether or not delegate binding is legitimate or not.

The notion that all delegates are unbound regardless of state rules, could very well lead people to conclude that the primary contests that are upcoming are meaningless and that focus solely needs to be placed on winning seats at the state conventions. This could then cause people not to focus on GOTV efforts in those states - why would we concern ourselves with GOTV if the delegates are not bound anyway? As I stated numerous times the two sentences were pulled from a letter sent by the RNC legal counsel to the Utah delegattion in 2008. We do not know the true meaning of the statements without the context of the letter as a whole. That is simple reading comprehension.

But again, you are free to believe whatever you wish and act according to your beliefs. It is my position that delegates are bound, and that the quotes were referring to the situation faced by Utah in 2008. Therefore, I believe it is very important to prevent Romney from winning any more bound delegates by defeating him in the upcoming primaries.

 

[Suzu]

As I stated numerous times the two sentences were pulled from a letter sent by the RNC legal counsel to the Utah delegattion in 2008. We do not know the true meaning of the statements without the context of the letter as a whole. That is simple reading comprehension.

I see you repeating that we have not seen the "letter as a whole". but it was posted on this forum last week - in response to one of your complaints, IIRC. Check your subscriptions, read, and comprehend!

 

[Cyberbrain]

The language in those sentences is pretty unequivocal.

"The RNC does not recognize a states binding of national delegates, but considers each delegate a free agent who can vote for whoever they choose."

That's a pretty closed statement.

If the statement was proceeded by ” based on your your situation in Utah” the meaning is completely changed. The fact is we do not have the entire letter, but believe whatever you wish. The truth will be shown by the actions of bound delegates in August

This really is a big issue, that we don't have the entire letter.

My problem with this idea is it is already known that there is a separation of NATIONAL GOP and STATE GOP and that statement could only be reaffirming that fact. As in, the RNC does not recognize any binding of delegates and that it does view all delegates as free agents...from it's role as a NATIONAL committee. It defers those matters to the individual states and their delegations, allowing them to make their own rules.

OR it could be saying that the RNC WILL NOT recognize binding of delegates and it WILL allow all delegates to defy their state gop rules and act by their own accord, and it could be just for that individual case in Utah or it could be applicable to all states.

Either way the only useful thing that can come out of this is protection for our delegates, from the RNC, against each state, if the delegates choose to vote for someone they're not bound to but we all know the RNC isn't going to help us anyway so this discussion seems sort of pointless.

The statement is more vague than it seems at first and more importantly there is no historical precedent that I know of for ignoring binding of delegates like this. This makes for a very difficult legal case unlike abstaining where there is an actual precedent for bound delegates abstaining.

 

[tbone717]

I see you repeating that we have not seen the "letter as a whole". but it was posted on this forum last week - in response to one of your complaints, IIRC. Check your subscriptions, read, and comprehend!

What was posted was the original article that the quotes were pulled from. (http://utahcountygop.com/blog/mr-jenkins-goes-to-st-paul/) Which actually set the context for the quotes. But if you all think I am wrong and delegate binding does not matter then that's fine - at this point I really don't care.

I have made my statements on the issue and you folks can believe whatever you choose to believe and act accordingly.

 

[Suzu]

This really is a big issue, that we don't have the entire letter.

But we do! I saw it posted on this forum last week, in fact. I can't give you a link because I assumed - obviously I was wrong - that it had been seen by at least some of those who keep complaining that it hasn't shown up.

 

[BenMuldowney]

What was posted was the original article that the quotes were pulled from. (http://utahcountygop.com/blog/mr-jenkins-goes-to-st-paul/) Which actually set the context for the quotes. But if you all think I am wrong and delegate binding does not matter then that's fine - at this point I really don't care.

I have made my statements on the issue and you folks can believe whatever you choose to believe and act accordingly.

you are missing the big picture or you are intentionally avoiding it. show me the rule that states a delegate is bound. is it state code or is it a gop state rule? if it is the latter they have no authority to collect a fine. therefore a delegate is allowed to do the right thing.

 

[Suzu]

What was posted was the original article that the quotes were pulled from.

Please provide a link to the article so I can verify whether it is what I meant.