RULE CHANGE: 8 States needed to be put into Nomination

[AJ Antimony]

We don't care about the members of the GOP, we only want the political machinery and brand name.

I disagree. The more 'mainstream' GOPers we can convince along the way, the fewer new people we need to bring in, the easier our lives become. Also, current members of the GOP means current GOP donors--big donors. We certainly could use that. Not to mention all of the respectable political experience.

 

[Bastiat's The Law]

In Rhode Island?

Establishment republican support come 2016 will fracture between Rubio, Jeb Bush, Chris Christie. You could probably poll any state and those names would be at the top for nominees in 2016.

 

[WesSeid]

The best tactic right now is for Ron to attach himself in some way to the Libertarian ticket. With the understood warning to the GOP that Rand is prepared to do the same in 2016.

It'd be fun if Ron endorsed Gary Johnson. Yes, I know it is highly unlikely.

It has to be reported on for the people to know in the first place, and well....good luck.

They will need to stop the internet to stop liberty.

So we come back stronger next time and we'll be writing the rules.

They have struck Ron Paul down, and now he will become more powerful than they could possibly imagine.

 

[WesSeid]

"But AJ, they will cheat us no matter what!"

Wrong. They can only get away with cheating if we don't have enough people. Once we have enough people, then WE will be the ones serving on ALL the rules committees. Once we have enough people, they flat out won't be able to change the rules anymore. The rules will be ours.

People need to look at what happened in Clark County, Nevada. Paul supporters now control the Clark County GOP. 75% of Nevada residents live in Clark County.

 

[Peace&Freedom]

+Rep!

When was the last time ANY MSM organization talked about how the RNC is doing everything in their power to replace the duly elected Ron Paul Delegates with Romney Delegates, by breaking their own rules, not enforcing the rules, and changing their rules? When was the last time they even said Ron Paul's name on NBC Nightly News? If it isnt reported on, the people wont know about it, and think that any one else that says anything about it isnt a qualified source of information. Total sheeple brainwashing at its finest right there, and so many people cant even see that either.

The eureka posting on this thread. The ENTIRE political system in the US, including the major media, is structurally set-up by the bankster/defense/bigbiz/Israeli interests to neutralize and suppress alternative movements. This is the point the "LP means Olive Garden" folks aren't getting. Liberty people working outside the major parties are neutralized through marginalization, and gerrymandered districts. Liberty people working inside the major parties are neutralized through being co-opted, and through rigged party rules. It's not merely that the major parties are corruptly neutralizing us, it's that the major parties EXIST to neutralize us. As things now stand, to work in either the LP or the GOP = a seat at the Olive Garden.

The tactics used against Paul and his delegates have been used to freeze out the LP for decades, and that is the real reason why it "fails to get elected." Whether our liberty activity is inside or outside the major parties, the MSM's role is to ignore or discount us. This structural suppression is not going to change through internal reform of the Republican Party, because the suppression is systemic across both big parties and media supported, and because the defense/Fed et al backers of it are not going away. It's like using a demon to try to perform an exorcism. Only by holding the GOP snake by the neck and squeezing it hard from the outside, will we make a difference. Trying to ride the snake leads to being swallowed by it.

 

[WesSeid]

Only by holding the GOP snake by the neck and squeezing it hard from the outside, will we make a difference. Trying to ride the snake leads to being swallowed by it.

If the tactics used against Paul are the same ones used to freeze out the LP for decades, and if the suppression is not going to change through internal reform of the Republican Party, then what's the best way to change it from the outside? An entirely new party would get the Libertarian Party treatment, so that won't work. So what do we do?

 

[Peace&Freedom]

If the tactics used against Paul are the same ones used to freeze out the LP for decades, and if the suppression is not going to change through internal reform of the Republican Party, then what's the best way to change it from the outside? An entirely new party would get the Libertarian Party treatment, so that won't work. So what do we do?

I have explained an alternative that doesn't rely on any party apparatus (major or minor) to win, just to have an independent grassroots infrastructure, where pro-liberty activists both inside and outside the so called 'mainstream' work together, to use the momentum of the system against itself. Given that 1) there's not a dimes worth of difference between the Dem or GOP leadership, 2) the bulk of principled candidates are found in the LP/CP, and that 3) 95% of districts are hardwired to safely elect a Democrat or Republican, we draw from the pool of vetted LP/CP candidates to run a pro-liberty candidate in the PRIMARY whenever an open seat shows up. If it's a very GOP leaning district, run a Ron Paul Republican, if it's a very Dem leaning district, run a Ron Paul Democrat. Then as the winner of the primary of the party that dominates the district, coast to election victory.

Just as Paul ran a principled third party like campaign in a major party primary, so can others. This is a higher percentage strategy (compared to running long shot campaigns against entrenched incumbents), with open seat opportunities available across both parties. The movement relies on its own resources (meet-up network, CFL, money bombs, Paul's mailing and email lists, etc.) instead of party committee rules or arcane procedures.

 

[Barrex]

Ron Paul: Plan is to take back GOP by getting involved at all levels.

Member(s) of this forum (insert user name): Give up; join Libertarian party; start new party....

How the hell is this not counterproductive? Is this not Ron Paul Forums? Shouldnt people on this forum work to make Ron pauls plan reality and not to undermine it?

I dont blam evil and corrupt (GOP, RNC, lobbyists, etc.) They do/did what they can. This movement acts from time to time like complete retard. .... Plan, organization, action, activism. Those are the things that make difference and not splitters, whining about evil, corrupt and their crimes. That doesnt solve anything. It only weakens this movement. I saw this coming.

I feel like Cassandra (no I am not dressing like a woman... the one from Greek mythology)... no one believed me.


P.s.
Tomorrow will rain somewhere.

P.p.s.

So what will it be follow Ron Pauls plan or give up?
Whine and talk or organize and act?

P.p.p.s.

Cry havoc and let slip the dogs of war.
*havoc(Te)=release troops to destroy, devastate, plunder and burn.

 

[Peace&Freedom]

Ron Paul: Plan is to take back GOP by getting involved at all levels.

Member(s) of this forum (insert user name): Give up; join Libertarian party; start new party....

How the hell is this not counterproductive? Is this not Ron Paul Forums? Shouldnt people on this forum work to make Ron pauls plan reality and not to undermine it?

Supporting Paul the candidate in 2008 and 2012, be it on the ground or on these forums, is a separate issue from supporting Paul's plan for party reform in the years going forward. It is not counterproductive or undermining to suggest a better plan, especially in light of some of the failures of the campaign---if its last two plans did not lead to a nomination victory, what authority does it have to suggest their new plan will?

The alternative concept I just described did NOT involve either options to "give up; join Libertarian party; start new party." It does involve recognizing we are battling a crooked system, not just its crooked players. Pursuing a piecemeal plan that does not recognize this basic dynamic will likely be doomed to get cheated out of victory in 2016, 2020, and beyond.

 

[wgadget]

Seems that Ron Paul in 2012 could possibly have the power to carry the Libertarian Party to new heights of acceptance. Remember the constant questioning of the MSM as to whether he would run third party? An endorsement of Gary Johnson would not make a liar out of him, since he usually answered NO. But it would give the LP credence and a boost, especially in 2012, when THE MASSES are totally despondent about the horrible choices we've been given.

And after all, he apparently thought running as a Libertarian was a WORTHWHILE cause back in 1988, or he wouldn't have done it. It's important to remember what he learned from that experience: namely, that it's an exercise in futility. It wouldn't surprise me ONE BIT if he'd relish the thought of rectifying that situation once and for all, and he could do it with his endorsement.
Just my opinion.

Ron Paul's power lies in his humble political purity, imo, which is rare indeed lately. I hope he uses it wisely.

 

[Warmon]

Romney's top lawyer is Ben Ginsberg, not Goldberg. Look back at Post #173 and you can see that this rule change was submitted by none other than Ginsberg himself. Notice that the wording also changes from "plurality" to "majority'.

 

[sailingaway]

Romney's top lawyer is Ben Ginsberg, not Goldberg. Look back at Post #173 and you can see that this rule change was submitted by none other than Ginsberg himself. Notice that the wording also changes from "plurality" to "majority'.

Doesn't matter. We had MAJORITY in 7 states they hadnt cheated us out of at lower levels already. They just took them.

 

[RickyJ]

We need to make our own rule change. Only those that don't have a history of flip-flopping can be nominated. That leaves no one but Paul.

 

[AJ Antimony]

Actually you are the one not thinking it through. Besides, we are more than 1%. We're at least 10-15% or more, and considering that if we really wanted to hose the GOP we could just vote straight D, which, is something I'm giving at least a passing thought to (save for Paulian Reps). So, yeah..., also the fact that they change the rules at a moment's notice, or just ignore them flat out. So, yeah, now there are 101 spots, but tomorrow they could just as easily add 5 to each state, or, 5 or 10 in whatever state they are strong in. If you don't think they would do that, then you haven't been paying attention the last few years.

That's nothing compared to shutting down an entire state convention and running off with the ballot box. lol.

Are you kidding me right now? What evidence do you possibly have to suggest we are 10-15%? I say none. I actually have some facts to base my claim on: In 2008, 130,000,000 people voted. In 2012, Ron Paul received 2,000,000 GOP primary votes. That would equal, roughly, 1.5% of the general vote!

"But there were lots of people who couldn't vote for Ron due to party affiliation"

Great. How many? Even if we assume that Ron Paul has 2,000,000 MORE supporters who are just too lazy to register correctly to vote for him (then are they truly supporters?) then that would equal 4,000,000 supporters, or 3% of the general vote!

Next, your comment that 'they could add 5 committeemen to each state' proves you have no talent for reading comprehension. I just said that the only way for us to win Committee seats is to control state parties. States elect Committeemen, end of story. If they tell Iowa to elect 6 Committeemen instead of 2, then they will elect 6 Paul supporters instead of 2.

I don't understand, do you just not believe in numbers? Do you actually think that an evil man behind the curtain controls everything? Show up to a state convention with 66% of the vote and lose, then you'll actually have some credibility to talk about corruption. I don't even think you know what you're saying. Do you know what quorum is? If you have the numbers, then you will have quorum. If you REALLY have the numbers, like 66%, then you will have a clear quorum. They can do whatever the fuck they want when you have those numbers on your side. Let them "shut you down," you can rump with your 66% delegates. Oh, and I have no fucking clue how they would "shut you down" if you have 66% of the delegates and somehow don't elect a friendly chair.

If you still don't believe me, read Robert's Rules.

 

[sailingaway]

Are you kidding me right now? What evidence do you possibly have to suggest we are 10-15%? I say none. I actually have some facts to base my claim on: In 2008, 130,000,000 people voted. In 2012, Ron Paul received 2,000,000 GOP primary votes. That would equal, roughly, 1.5% of the general vote!

there was a huge smear he couldn't win and after a point people didn't see the reason to bother. It didn't mean they weren't his philosophically. IN February Ron was in second place in a Reuters poll with 21%. He touched a lot more people than ended up voting for him when they thought there was only one candidate who could 'beat Romney' and he wasn't it.

 

[sailingaway]

Are you kidding me right now? What evidence do you possibly have to suggest we are 10-15%? I say none. I actually have some facts to base my claim on: In 2008, 130,000,000 people voted. In 2012, Ron Paul received 2,000,000 GOP primary votes. That would equal, roughly, 1.5% of the general vote!

there was a huge smear he couldn't win and after a point people didn't see the reason to bother. It didn't mean they weren't his philosophically. IN February Ron was in second place in a Reuters poll with 21%. He touched a lot more people than ended up voting for him when they thought there was only one candidate who could 'beat Romney' and he wasn't it.

If you REALLY have the numbers, like 66%, then you will have a clear quorum. They can do whatever the fuck they want when you have those numbers on your side. Let them "shut you down," you can rump with your 66% delegates. Oh, and I have no fucking clue how they would "shut you down" if you have 66% of the delegates and somehow don't elect a friendly chair.

If you still don't believe me, read Robert's Rules.

I take it you didn't watch the Louisiana State convention videos.

Yet do we control the LA delegation? No.

Nor Maine.

both of those there was NO question about that we won, they just decided to say we didn't.

 

[AJ Antimony]

there was a huge smear he couldn't win and after a point people didn't see the reason to bother. It didn't mean they weren't his philosophically. IN February Ron was in second place in a Reuters poll with 21%. He touched a lot more people than ended up voting for him when they thought there was only one candidate who could 'beat Romney' and he wasn't it.

The quote I was responding to says "Besides, we are more than 1%"

To me, "we" means die hard Ron Paul supporters--the types who talk about him online and who go through the delegate process for him. "We" doesn't include the 'mainstream' GOP voters who were voting for the flavor of the month candidate. I mean, do you really think 40% of Virginia GOP voters are "us"?

 

[cajuncocoa]

If you still don't believe me, read Robert's Rules.

Because the GOP state parties follow Robert's Rules to the letter.

 

[AJ Antimony]

I take it you didn't watch the Louisiana State convention videos.

Yet do we control the LA delegation? No.

Nor Maine.

both of those there was NO question about that we won, they just decided to say we didn't.

Then why accept the IA, MN, and NV delegations? If they truly have the power to erase all of our delegates, then why stop at ME and LA? Why not award us ME and LA and take away IA and MN?

 

[sailingaway]

The quote I was responding to says "Besides, we are more than 1%"

To me, "we" means die hard Ron Paul supporters--the types who talk about him online and who go through the delegate process for him. "We" doesn't include the 'mainstream' GOP voters who were voting for the flavor of the month candidate. I mean, do you really think 40% of Virginia GOP voters are "us"?

I think we -- meaning people who would have Ron as their first choice and work for him if they thought he had a chance -- are well over 10%. Walking over coals even when there is no chance is not a standard any other candidate would meet.