Media: Ron Paul delegate strategy is perfectly legitimate

Discussion in 'Elections & Campaigns' started by camp_steveo, May 4, 2012.

  1. BleedingHeadKen

    BleedingHeadKen Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2008
    Messages:
    16,551
    Likes Received:
    1,270
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Well, as people always tell me, if you don't like the rules, change them. You can probably start with this organization: http://parliamentarians.org/np.php

    The rules were intended to allow people options and not be blocked by old guards and their preferred dictatorial fiat. Like chess, there are countless legitimate moves, and your opponent cannot always see them.
     
  2. dujac

    dujac Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2011
    Messages:
    27,458
    Likes Received:
    370
    Trophy Points:
    83
    elections aren't really much like chess, war may be, but not elections

    the winner of an election is the one that gets a clear majority, like romney is doing
     
  3. BleedingHeadKen

    BleedingHeadKen Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2008
    Messages:
    16,551
    Likes Received:
    1,270
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Are you suggesting that the rules of parliamentary procedure should be based upon your subjective view of the qualities of the candidate?

    It wouldn't surprise me if you are. My guess is that you'd prefer that the world be ruled by an elite cabal of individuals who then appoint other individuals who they believe know better than everyone else. The rules are just for the rest of us slobs and must not be used against your masters.

    Yes, you know the wishes of the majority of voters, apparently. What it is that the secretly want. Parliamentary rules exist for a reason. If you don't like them, there are organizations that work to update and alter the rules on a regular basis. You can join them and work to make them more conducive to world rule by elites.

    By the way, political parties are not required to follow parliamentary procedure. They can elect, on the wishes of the voters, to forgo those procedures and adopt new procedures. Maybe you should push through that change. If a majority of voters agree with you, then you'd be right about your assertion above. I doubt that they will agree with you, though, seeing as the procedures give voice to even the smallest factions in the face of rigid, top down rule (the kind that you prefer.)
     
  4. BleedingHeadKen

    BleedingHeadKen Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2008
    Messages:
    16,551
    Likes Received:
    1,270
    Trophy Points:
    113
    After 8 years of Bush, I think the Republicans deserve 8 years of Obama. That is, before they get to inflict their own warfare monger/welfare pimp on the public again.
     
  5. dujac

    dujac Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2011
    Messages:
    27,458
    Likes Received:
    370
    Trophy Points:
    83
    you guessed wrong and it's clear that ron paul bears no resemblance to eisenhower

    all you have to do is look at the vote results

    for example: ron paul got 6.1% in louisiana and he's lost in every state primary election to date

    you don't know what you're talking about
     
  6. kenrichaed

    kenrichaed Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2011
    Messages:
    8,539
    Likes Received:
    128
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Good, this means that even if Paul gets the delegates then the republican party can still nominate Romney.

    Good news indeed.
     
  7. Slyhunter

    Slyhunter New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2010
    Messages:
    9,345
    Likes Received:
    104
    Trophy Points:
    0
    If Ron Paul somehow gets the nomination I'm voting for Obama.
     
  8. BleedingHeadKen

    BleedingHeadKen Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2008
    Messages:
    16,551
    Likes Received:
    1,270
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Elections are very much like chess. You see two candidates duking it out on the national stage. As someone involved in the political process for many years, I see what goes on to get them there. You have an extremely superficial view of the system.
     
  9. Ethereal

    Ethereal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2010
    Messages:
    40,617
    Likes Received:
    5,790
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That's because you're a big-government-loving progressive pretending to be a conservative.
     
  10. dujac

    dujac Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2011
    Messages:
    27,458
    Likes Received:
    370
    Trophy Points:
    83
    you're projecting and ron paul won't be nominated by the gop
     
  11. BleedingHeadKen

    BleedingHeadKen Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2008
    Messages:
    16,551
    Likes Received:
    1,270
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I know very well what I am talking about, or I would not be talking about it. How about you?
     
  12. dujac

    dujac Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2011
    Messages:
    27,458
    Likes Received:
    370
    Trophy Points:
    83
    if you did, you'd admit that ron paul won't be nominated by the gop

    first of all, he doesn't have the majority of votes

    second, the party leadership doesn't want him

    so you can talk, but when it comes to the nomination, ron paul will walk away the loser
     
  13. BleedingHeadKen

    BleedingHeadKen Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2008
    Messages:
    16,551
    Likes Received:
    1,270
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The bylaws of the RNC don't appear to be online, but most likely the first section state that all committee meetings and conventions will follow the Robert's Rules of Order, 11th edition. A change to the bylaws requires a 2/3rd vote from the floor of the convention.

    You think that the body of the Republican convention will vote to end parliamentary procedures *and* gut their by-laws? I'm guessing that it's highly unlikely, and impossible if 1/3rd of the delegates are not concerned enough about Paul to take such an extreme measure. It would destroy the party, so it wouldn't bother me if they did it.

    It's not going to happen. If Ron Paul gets enough delegates to force a floor debate and a vote, then there will be a vote on the floor. In order to then win the nomination, Romney must then get 50% or more of the vote. Otherwise, it goes to top 2 and all of Romney's delegates become unbound.

    I don't think this is going to happen, but it's fascinating to watch, just as I watched some major happenings at the Libertarian convention today.
     
  14. BleedingHeadKen

    BleedingHeadKen Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2008
    Messages:
    16,551
    Likes Received:
    1,270
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That is very likely to be the case, but you still have a very superficial view of all of the processes involved in getting a candidate nominated and accepted at a convention which then puts them into the primary race. I recommend anyone get involved in their local, state or national party and learn more about the process and how one can affect it personally. I've been doing it for years with the Libertarian party.
     
  15. BleedingHeadKen

    BleedingHeadKen Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2008
    Messages:
    16,551
    Likes Received:
    1,270
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Point me out to where I ever said that Ron Paul will be nominated by the GOP. You lie, as usual.
    He doesn't need a majority. All that needs to happen is that Romney not have a majority, and then there's a vote on the floor of the convention. If you are not familiar with how that process works, I'm sure that you can hunt down the bylaws of the RNC. You can certainly pick up Robert's Rules of Order at any bookstore or on Amazon. It explains a lot of the standard procedures, and the bylaws will make clear the specifics of the GOP convention.

    Watch the convention on CSpan in August. You'll learn alot, though it can be like watching sausauge be made. In the case of Eisenhower, who was *not* at all likely to win the nomination, he managed to provoke a battle int he credentials committee, which deliberated for an unheard of 24 hours, holding up the start of the convention for that time. In the end, his people managed to get a vote to suspend the rules before the convention rules had even begun, and all sorts of shenanigans went on, fully within the scope of parliamentary procedure. In the end Eisenhower won, but it was never a sure bet for him. Taft was the favorite, and Warren hoped that a deadlock between Taft and Eisenhower would favor him.

    Anything can happen at a convention. They are hardly the lockstep, everyone just shows up to vote deal that you seem to think that they are.

    In fact, I predict that it may not be Romney or Paul at all. There's a good chance that if Paul is able to force a vote, Jeb Bush and Chris Christie will be nominated on the floor and Romney will be dropped in favor of one of those two.

    The party leadership of the GOP is rigid and they prefer to rule the roost top down with no dissension from the rabble. It's one of the downfalls of the party and why they are driving out young people who are finding it difficult to participate. It's also why they are so bad at fielding candidates. Bob Dole was a result of rigid party leadership that rewards seniority. However, the leadership of the party can be thrown out. I watched today as the Libertarian Party voted to toss out the chair and vice chair of the party, a totally unexpected and rather stunning vote of no confidence. It can happen to the GOP party leadership because parliamentary procedure allows for it. Even when Paul loses, all that energy he has created will likely lead to massive leadership change in the GOP. Does that bother you? That's been part of his goal: to change the GOP and return to what he believes is its conservatives roots.
     
  16. dujac

    dujac Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2011
    Messages:
    27,458
    Likes Received:
    370
    Trophy Points:
    83
    nothing i've written is a lie


    i didn't say he needs a majority, i said he doesn't have one and elections are designed for the one that gets a clear majority to win

    look at history, especially in regards to the electoral college


    Is my vote for President and Vice President meaningful in the Electoral College system?

    Yes, within your state, your vote has a great deal of significance.

    It is possible that an elector could ignore the results of the popular vote, but that occurs very rarely.

    Your vote helps decide which candidate receives your state's electoral votes.

    http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/faq.html#270
     
  17. Windigo

    Windigo Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2008
    Messages:
    15,026
    Likes Received:
    1,139
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Corney capitalists and the politicians in their pocket also abide by the law.
     
  18. BleedingHeadKen

    BleedingHeadKen Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2008
    Messages:
    16,551
    Likes Received:
    1,270
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Fine then, I won't predict the future. I do not claim to be a psychic, as you apparently do. My prediction is that Romney will be soundly defeated by Obama as most of the Republican base stays home and hopes for better in 2016. Unless the economy tanks. However, QE has been in effect since October, pumping in $90 billion/month in new currency. That will continue through the election in order to prop up the fake recovery. That might last through the summer, though it's not looking good. Otherwise, we might be see a war started with Iran by the Nobel peace prize winner. Romney offers nothing that Obama doesn't, except that he's not Obama.

    Right now we are concerned with what is, effectively, a parliamentary election. Parliamentary elections are designed to give minor factions a voice and if Romney does not have 50%+1 in the first round of voting, there will be further votes. Romney's delegates are only bound to him for the first vote. There are numerous things that can happen at a convention as various factions use parliamentary tricks to be heard. It's not like a general election where everyone just goes to the ballot box and puts a mark by their favorite person.

    Ron Paul doesn't need to win to still score a major victory. He can parlay his factional power into structural changes within the Republican Party or create changes in the bylaws that allow more grassroots participation and a return to the principles that conservatives ostensibly subscribe to.

    Parliamentary politics is not a winner takes all system as you believe it to be.

    If you were paying attention to this thread, you'd know that what we are talking about is the convention, which is where the delegates go to do the business of the party. That has nothing to do with electoral college or the general election.
     
  19. BleedingHeadKen

    BleedingHeadKen Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2008
    Messages:
    16,551
    Likes Received:
    1,270
    Trophy Points:
    113
    They do not abide by *the* law, just the body of law that is legislated statutes. They'd like you to think that there are no other laws.

    I'm still waiting to understand why it is that you believe that using parliamentary procedures to alter a convention is "anti-thetical" to libertarianism. Have you seen what happened at the libertarian convention this weekend? There was a huge upset in the election of the national chair which was a result of using those procedures. A faction which has been growing in power and size for some time finally mustered enough votes to prevent either candidate from getting a majority and forced a new round of nominations. The old guard was almost entirely thrown out in favor of more populist candidates.

    Reason magazine has been covering it.
     
  20. dujac

    dujac Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2011
    Messages:
    27,458
    Likes Received:
    370
    Trophy Points:
    83
    if you understood the process you'd know that the candidate that gets the clear majority of votes is the winner
     
  21. Slyhunter

    Slyhunter New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2010
    Messages:
    9,345
    Likes Received:
    104
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I fear the worst if Obama gets reelected. Our country will no longer be sovereign come 2016. Our country will be bankrupted before then if Obama is reelected.

    Your wrong about Romney not being any different;
    Romney will drill for oil in the Gulf, Obama won't.
    Romney will drill for oil in Alaska, Obama won't.
    Romney will open up federal lands for shale oil, obama won't.
    Romney will work to change tax laws to get these rich companies like Apple to repatriate their money, Obama won't.
    Romney will work towards making it cheaper to do business in America making it more likely more companies will invest here, Obama won't.
    Romney will abolish Obamacare, Obama won't.
    Romney will work towards changing laws to at least make life uncomfortable for illegal aliens to remain in the US so they will self deport, Obama won't.
    Romney will close the border, Obama won't.

    If you allow Obama to win by voting third party none of these things will occur and it will be your fault.
     
  22. South Pole Resident

    South Pole Resident New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2008
    Messages:
    1,541
    Likes Received:
    20
    Trophy Points:
    0
    It doesnt work that way, my vote represents me, and the things I want to happen in this country. If your boy cant win without my vote, thats his problem not mine. This team sport (*)(*)(*)(*) has to stop.

    Romney can say he will do what ever, his actions tell me all I need to know. Skin pigment is all that separates them.
     
  23. Objectivism

    Objectivism New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2012
    Messages:
    219
    Likes Received:
    8
    Trophy Points:
    0
    obama had plans too...look how those turned out...

    if i had faith that romney would actually do all those things, i might just vote for him, but he's a typical politician, saying what needs to be said to get votes, and he's gotten yours for that reason. he's shown that he isn't a guy who can be trusted...and all that takes is the support of the media and the corporate powers, which he has, therefore he cannot be trusted.

    i'll never trust a candidate that is propped up by anything other than the interests of the people. ron paul is the guy i think i can trust, even if he doesn't have all the answers, at least his attention and focus are on the right issues, and his priority is the people of this country.
     
  24. dujac

    dujac Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2011
    Messages:
    27,458
    Likes Received:
    370
    Trophy Points:
    83
    most voters don't agree with you
     
  25. Objectivism

    Objectivism New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2012
    Messages:
    219
    Likes Received:
    8
    Trophy Points:
    0
    do you trust most voters? didnt think so
    do you think most voters are intelligent people, capable of making their own decisions? didnt think so

    that's probably because the average person is a subjective thinker, meaning they think with something other than the rational area of their brain...

    remember, most voters also voted for bush...and obama...

    want to explain that? want to explain what makes other mainstream candidates any different?

    advocating the bandwagon is probably the least intelligent thing a person can possibly do, but as a collectivist, which i assume you are, it should only come naturally
     

Share This Page