THIS IS DISGUSTING - MASS DEL OUSTED

everlasticity said:
For anyone wishing to contact someone responsible for ousting MA delegates, here is the email for the Chairman of the Allocation Committee of the Massachusetts Republican State Committee, the committee responsible for the decision.

[email protected]
Click to expand...

It might be a good idea to use judgement and words of other than four letters.
 
You have to play by the rules. If one of the rules is that you need to return an affidavit and you refused to do it, the consequence is obvious.

Do you know what will happen in four years because of what is happening now? Pretty much every state will pass legislation stating that delegates are directly nominated by the candidates according to the primary/caucus results. That will be the ultimate result of this kind of stuff.
 
DeMintConservative said:
You have to play by the rules. If one of the rules is that you need to return an affidavit and you refused to do it, the consequence is obvious.

Do you know what will happen in four years because of what is happening now? Pretty much every state will pass legislation stating that delegates are directly nominated by the candidates according to the primary/caucus results. That will be the ultimate result of this kind of stuff.
Click to expand...

just so you know my understanding is both that no such rule existed and also that they did in fact return signed affidavits and were axed anyhow. It is my understanding that this story is based on implications the party is putting out that our guys refused to vote for Romney on the first ballot when that is not the case.

and our guys are playing by the rules in place NOW. They were altered differently in different regions to benefit Romney. They change them all the time to favor the establishment. There is no way to stop that except by being the establishment.
 
Last edited:
sailingaway said:
just so you know my understanding is both that no such rule existed and also that they did in fact return signed affidavits and were axed anyhow.
Click to expand...

I can't know for sure, I'm accepting the word of the Rules Committee. If that's the case, then the RRLS delegates can appeal to the RNC to be installed as delegates.

Still, the endgame will be the one I'm pointing: none of this will happen in 4 years because everybody will make rules to make sure that the delegates to the convention firmly support the candidate primary voters picked .
 
DeMintConservative said:
I can't know for sure, I'm accepting the word of the Rules Committee. If that's the case, then the RRLS delegates can appeal to the RNC to be installed as delegates.
Click to expand...

they will but it will be heavy with Romney supporters making that decision. It seems they may also be joining the lawsuit though.

Still, the endgame will be the one I'm pointing: none of this will happen in 4 years because everybody will make rules to make sure that the delegates to the convention firmly support the candidate primary voters picked .
Click to expand...

and I repeat, what else is new? They always change the rules to suit the establishment. they've gone back and forth on caucuses other times when there were strong grass roots movements, but always came back to them because whenever there ISN'T such an organized movement, caucuses leave so many cards in the hands of party insiders -- particularly those willing to cheat and break people's bones.
 
sailingaway said:
they will but it will be heavy with Romney supporters making that decision. It seems they may also be joining the lawsuit though.



and I repeat, what else is new? They always change the rules to suit the establishment. they've gone back and forth on caucuses other times when there were strong grass roots movements, but always came back to them because whenever there ISN'T such an organized movement, caucuses leave so many cards in the hands of party insiders -- particularly those willing to cheat and break people's bones.
Click to expand...

I don't know what do you call "establishment" - anybody who doesnt' support Ron Paul or doesn't meet some purity test? - but they'll change the rules to make sure the preference of primary votes is enforced. Are you opposed to that? Do you think that the nominee should be picked by millions of primary voters and caucuses goers or the few people who care enough to go to state conventions and run/elect delegates?
 
DeMintConservative said:
You have to play by the rules. If one of the rules is that you need to return an affidavit and you refused to do it, the consequence is obvious.

Do you know what will happen in four years because of what is happening now? Pretty much every state will pass legislation stating that delegates are directly nominated by the candidates according to the primary/caucus results. That will be the ultimate result of this kind of stuff.
Click to expand...

I would assume what you're saying sounds like a pipe dream. The reason the states can't bind them now is because it falls under federal election rules once they get to the convention. We could be delegates under other candidates anyways. No need to be disgruntled. We are just going to let a little light into the house for some cleaning. ..
 
There is no rule regarding an affidavit. I thought all things concerning the election of delegates were covered by actual written rules. The people trying to be delegates had to take a verbal pledge before they were elected.

I also thought it against the rule to simply appoint delegates? So where are these replacements coming form?

The Establishment needs to wake up. There are only two people who can win this presidential election.... and neither of them is Romney.
 
DeMintConservative said:
I can't know for sure, I'm accepting the word of the Rules Committee.
Click to expand...


After all of their lies and cheating, that's sounding more and more like a bad bet, no matter what republican rules committee you are talking about.


DeMintConservative said:
I don't know what do you call "establishment" - anybody who doesnt' support Ron Paul or doesn't meet some purity test?
Click to expand...


Who exactly do you perceive to be creating the "purity test" in this instance? The delegates or the rules committee?
 
talkingpointes said:
I would assume what you're saying sounds like a pipe dream. The reason the states can't bind them now is because it falls under federal election rules once they get to the convention. We could be delegates under other candidates anyways. No need to be disgruntled. We are just going to let a little light into the house for some cleaning. ..
Click to expand...

Bind them? They'll just have the primary candidates submitting the slates - that they will obviously fill with their loyalists. Like some states already do. I know for a fact this is already being prepared in some states.
 
MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2 said:
After all of their lies and cheating, that's sounding more and more like a bad bet, no matter what republican rules committee you are talking about.

Who exactly do you perceive to be creating the "purity test" in this instance? The delegates or the rules committee?
Click to expand...

I can't apply the purity test concept to this situation. I'm all in favour of state parties binding their delegates to the results of primary/conventions.
 
DeMintConservative said:
I don't know what do you call "establishment" - anybody who doesnt' support Ron Paul or doesn't meet some purity test? - but they'll change the rules to make sure the preference of primary votes is enforced. Are you opposed to that? Do you think that the nominee should be picked by millions of primary voters and caucuses goers or the few people who care enough to go to state conventions and run/elect delegates?
Click to expand...

You speak like the nominee in any case is "picked by millions of primary voters", which is a load of crap. Ron Paul is the only bottom-up candidate, which is why he has the kind of support he does. Mittens was the establishment candidate and was picked by the elites that own the country to foist on the electorate. They own the media, they own the parties and they make the rules. This has nothing to do with the desires of "millions of primary voters" because even with the propaganda campaign waged by the elite for the benefit of Mittens, he is still perceived by most observers as a weak candidate who does not really connect with the conservative base of the GOP.

Yes, I am happy if we can somehow override the results of the elections, because the elections were scams to begin with. Your vote does not count and neither does mine. The whole "democracy" thing is just eyewash to make people believe they are not living in a tyrannical authoritarian dystopia; unfortunately, a lot of people are fooled by this or just don't care.
 
Red Green said:
You speak like the nominee in any case is "picked by millions of primary voters", which is a load of crap. Ron Paul is the only bottom-up candidate, which is why he has the kind of support he does. Mittens was the establishment candidate and was picked by the elites that own the country to foist on the electorate. They own the media, they own the parties and they make the rules. This has nothing to do with the desires of "millions of primary voters" because even with the propaganda campaign waged by the elite for the benefit of Mittens, he is still perceived by most observers as a weak candidate who does not really connect with the conservative base of the GOP.

Yes, I am happy if we can somehow override the results of the elections, because the elections were scams to begin with. Your vote does not count and neither does mine. The whole "democracy" thing is just eyewash to make people believe they are not living in a tyrannical authoritarian dystopia; unfortunately, a lot of people are fooled by this or just don't care.
Click to expand...

Sure, if you believe elections are scam I understand that you don't care about them.

I personally believe Romney was, sadly, the pick of the overwhelming majority of Republican primary voters and that the process was more or less fair - even if it was perfect, Romney would still be the winner with basically the same margin.

I'd struggle to understand if these people who want to be delegates to a party convention agreed with you more than with me though. It'd be a sort of nonsensical.
 
Red Green said:
You speak like the nominee in any case is "picked by millions of primary voters", which is a load of crap. Ron Paul is the only bottom-up candidate, which is why he has the kind of support he does. Mittens was the establishment candidate and was picked by the elites that own the country to foist on the electorate. They own the media, they own the parties and they make the rules. This has nothing to do with the desires of "millions of primary voters" because even with the propaganda campaign waged by the elite for the benefit of Mittens, he is still perceived by most observers as a weak candidate who does not really connect with the conservative base of the GOP.

Yes, I am happy if we can somehow override the results of the elections, because the elections were scams to begin with. Your vote does not count and neither does mine. The whole "democracy" thing is just eyewash to make people believe they are not living in a tyrannical authoritarian dystopia; unfortunately, a lot of people are fooled by this or just don't care.
Click to expand...

Talking about millions that voted with one hand while saying they will stack the delegates in the next election with the other. Either they are corrupt and this whole thing is a shame or is it not. Sounds like you wan't it to be one way while accepting that it works in another way.
 
A Romney victory means that there will be no chance for a liberty candidate until 2020.

Even if his camp wasn't responsible for all of the dirty tricks employed against the Campaign for Liberty, that alone would be enough for me not to vote for him,...but there's also many other reasons.

The same neocons who rode the country down into the mud during the Bush administration control Romney.

http://www.thenation.com/article/167683/mitt-romneys-neocon-war-cabinet
 
I think people are missing the point here. This is a representative government, and punishing delegates because they refuse to sign an affidavit for a candidate that they do not wish to be their representative, goes against the very notion of representative government. All the fancy speak beyond that is moot.
 
How many examples will we need before Paul supporters and the Liberty Movement realize that the GOP is not our party?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top