Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Acclamation...The RNC's Answer To Ron Paul Mischief

page: 4
14
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 2 2012 @ 11:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by gwydionblack
reply to post by TinfoilTP
 


It is the delegates themselves that have to vote to suspend the rules.

If they don't, then they can get all the governors and senators they want and it won't matter worth a damn.

Ron Paul has been accumulating delegates like no tomorrow. It is ridiculous. Romney delegates are Ron Paul delegates. Santorum delegates are Ron Paul delegates. Each state where the final "truth" has come out, Ron Paul has shown to have the majority of delegates.

Therefore, the delegates WILL NOT vote to suspend the rules and therefore acclamation will not even be possible.


When they have a voice vote for acclamation...the chair person isn't super human and doesn't only hear delegates voting...the whole damn crowd responds.

Pelosi declare 2/3rds voted Aye...do you honestly think she knew that for a fact???




posted on May, 2 2012 @ 11:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by gwydionblack
reply to post by TinfoilTP
 


What are you even talking about?

Have you even read the GOP Convention Rules? I have? Let me list it for you again as I have above to let you smoke on that.




RULE NO. 32 Suspension of Rules A motion to suspend the rules shall always be in order, but only when made by authority of a majority of the delegates from any state and seconded by a majority of the delegates from each of five (5) or more other states severally.


Outkast himself said in the OP that they must suspend the rules in order to have acclamation, he is just wrong that it takes only two people to do so, as is clearly stated above - it takes MUCH MORE than two people. Unless they change these rules beforehand, which they have not yet done - THESE ARE THE RULES.

Here is the link for you to carouse at your leisure. GOP PARTY RULES


They won't follow the rules if they honestly think Ron Paul can cause the mischief people are talking about.

And even if they did...do you honestly think Romney doesn't have 5 states.



posted on May, 2 2012 @ 11:40 PM
link   
reply to post by gwydionblack
 


To use your own argument from another thread, where in the rules does it explicitly say that a vote by acclamation is against the rules. If it's not against the rules then there is no reason to suspend the rules.



posted on May, 2 2012 @ 11:42 PM
link   
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 


What is ridiculous is you denying the official GOP rules that are places directly in front of you.

YOU SAID:



This is how it would work...One person calls to suspend the rules and nominate by Acclamation...they need somone to second it...which many Romney supporters will...and then they will vote by Acclamation.


Bold emphasis placed by me.

Now considering there is no mention of acclamation in the official rulebook - then you are correct - they WOULD have to suspend the rules. And I don't give a damn how the DNC is run and how they conducted business, I care about the official rules that are placed in front of us here and now and that currently still stand for this convention.

Let me make this perfectly clear to you and everyone else.

To call for acclamation, you need to suspend the rules.

To suspend the rules, as stated on the GOP official website rules, AGAIN:



RULE NO. 32 Suspension of Rules A motion to suspend the rules shall always be in order, but only when made by authority of a majority of the delegates from any state and seconded by a majority of the delegates from each of five (5) or more other states severally.






They won't follow the rules if they honestly think Ron Paul can cause the mischief people are talking about.


If they don't follow the rules they will be breaking the law and could quite possibly be facing charges of voter fraud among other things.



And even if they did...do you honestly think Romney doesn't have 5 states.


Does anyone KNOW if Romney has 5 states? No... not that I am aware of. I KNOW that Ron Paul has the majority of delegates in at least 3 states, but in states that have "bound" delegates - it is honestly impossible to tell what Romney has considering such candidates have to keep of face support for Romney, regardless of if they are indeed Ron Paul supporters, many of which are confirmed to be.

But consider this - the truth has finally come out the past two weeks as Ron Paul nabbed the majority of delegates in 3 or 4 states, and he stated the same message he stated during the earlier runs. He claims that he snagged a good bit if not the majority in most of the other contests prior as well. He didn't lie about the latest states, what reason do we have to believe that he was lying about those before?

With Romney the only thing you have to go on is faith - faith that his delegates will not abstain, faith that he actually HAS enough supports to break the rules and go against Ron Paul because OK face it - with all your excuses if Romney does not have enough support to break the rules, and if those bound delegates can abstain from voting - you have nothing left to fire with because Ron Paul wins this election whether you, the RNC, or anyone else likes it or not.



posted on May, 2 2012 @ 11:45 PM
link   
This is going to be my most favorite moment of the year, making the election cycle all worth while.

New internet Meme,

money bomb a losing candidate to the bitter end
cheat the system to not reflect the will of the voters
show up on convention night expecting to win
get flash mobbed by the entire GOP and lose in an instant

Priceless
edit on 2-5-2012 by TinfoilTP because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 2 2012 @ 11:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcalibur254
 


Because it explicitly states how voting DOES work. Each delegate is given one vote to cast, by roll call vote, per state, until such a candidate receives the necessary required votes to earn himself the nomination. If not, the vote is repeated until one candidate does.

You try to use my logic back against me, but you fail because you use it backwards. Abstaining is a part of a voting process while acclamation is substituting the process with something entirely different.

edit on 2-5-2012 by gwydionblack because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 2 2012 @ 11:48 PM
link   
reply to post by gwydionblack
 


They can make it look all tidy and official by Romneys people calling for a suspension from ones state, and having only 5 other states approve.

There you go, suspension officially by the book.

Then Boehner can do whatever he wants.



posted on May, 2 2012 @ 11:48 PM
link   
So, let me get this straight. The 45K to 50K will all follow the party line. Some of them are Congressman (Tea Party anyone, are they still voting for Santorum?), Some of them are "special invites" from those Congressman, I mean you all seem like RP hasn't had any impact on the GOP.



posted on May, 2 2012 @ 11:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by hoochymama
So, let me get this straight. The 45K to 50K will all follow the party line. Some of them are Congressman (Tea Party anyone, are they still voting for Santorum?), Some of them are "special invites" from those Congressman, I mean you all seem like RP hasn't had any impact on the GOP.



Yes they will all follow the Party line or else they would be Paul Fanatics and not even invited.



posted on May, 2 2012 @ 11:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by gwydionblack
reply to post by Xcalibur254
 


Because it explicitly states how voting DOES work. Each delegate is given one vote to cast, by roll call vote, per state, until such a candidate receives the necessary required votes to earn himself the nomination. If not, the vote is repeated until one candidate does.

You try to use my logic back against me, but you fail because you use it backwards. Abstaining is a part of a voting process while acclamation is substituting the process with something entirely different.

edit on 2-5-2012 by gwydionblack because: (no reason given)


Unless they vote to suspend the rules by acclamation and to nominate by acclamation.

Please point out in the rules where they are not allowed to do this



posted on May, 2 2012 @ 11:51 PM
link   
reply to post by TinfoilTP
 
Lol. Maybe you should sit this one out.



posted on May, 2 2012 @ 11:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xcalibur254
reply to post by gwydionblack
 


To use your own argument from another thread, where in the rules does it explicitly say that a vote by acclamation is against the rules. If it's not against the rules then there is no reason to suspend the rules.


You raise a valid and legal point, there is no rule against it. Hahaha that would be the route to take to really poke em in the eye.

Whether they do that or actually follow the rules by involving only 6 states to suspend, the Paul people are done for, there is no way to win.



posted on May, 2 2012 @ 11:53 PM
link   
reply to post by TinfoilTP
 


To do that...

Romney needs to have the majority of delegates from 5 states.

Do you have any proof showing that the majority of delegates from any state, let alone 5, supports Romney?

I'm not talking about delegate count, bound or unbound - because when it comes to this - it doesn't matter.

On the other hand, Ron Paul has numerous states where he has the majority of delegates as his supporters... and it has been proven. Therefore, the only thing this serves to show is that, at the very least, in those states - Romney does not have the majority he needs.

Considering Ron Paul's strategy has been the same all the way since Iowa - considering Iowa is one of the very states that Ron Paul has the majority of delegates as his supporters... what is anyone to say that nearly all the states thus far are not all at the mercy of Ron Paul supporters?

Point is, Romney "support" isn't very open and there is certainly no known majorities that he holds as of right now.



posted on May, 2 2012 @ 11:53 PM
link   
reply to post by gwydionblack
 



If they don't follow the rules they will be breaking the law and could quite possibly be facing charges of voter fraud among other things.





The RNC is a private organization...they can't face charges over breaking their own rules. All they can do is lose confidence of their members...but if they do this to lock out Ron Paul...I think most of their members would applaud them.


Now a bound delegate IS bound by state law, they pledge an oath of support...if they break that...it is possible they could be charged with perjury. But you didn't let the get in your way for your silly abstaination argument.

But each side can manipulate the rules...you yourself have stated that they can vote to change the rules...and now you seem to be back peddling.



posted on May, 2 2012 @ 11:54 PM
link   
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 
Your starting to sound like a "Party Expert" sent from above. I mean, all the Rules you know off the top of your head. The topic was "sound" until you included a Youtube video with Hillary Clinton involved. This is ATS you know. Just like anything, conditions are different. This isnt 2008 or 2004 or 1988.

edit on 2-5-2012 by hoochymama because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 2 2012 @ 11:54 PM
link   
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 


Where did I ever say they COULDN'T vote to suspend the rules?

They certainly can.

IF THEY HAVE THE MAJORITY OF DELEGATES FROM SIX - Count them -

One, two, three, four, five, SIX STATES - to approve suspension of the rules.
edit on 2-5-2012 by gwydionblack because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 2 2012 @ 11:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by hoochymama
So, let me get this straight. The 45K to 50K will all follow the party line. Some of them are Congressman (Tea Party anyone, are they still voting for Santorum?), Some of them are "special invites" from those Congressman, I mean you all seem like RP hasn't had any impact on the GOP.



Has he?

How many of his policies are they pushing for right now...is Romney advocating to close all bases around the world...did I miss something???



posted on May, 2 2012 @ 11:58 PM
link   
reply to post by gwydionblack
 


But nowhere in the handbook does it mention abstaining. It mentions voting for a candidate. Last time I checked Abstain is not a candidate. So either both abstaining and acclamation are in the rules or neither are.



posted on May, 2 2012 @ 11:58 PM
link   
reply to post by gwydionblack
 



To do that...

Romney needs to have the majority of delegates from 5 states.

Do you have any proof showing that the majority of delegates from any state, let alone 5, supports Romney?




You are right...Romney has no delegates at all...Ron Paul has 100% of the delegates and he is overwhelmingly popular.



It's hard to talk with you when you live in a completely different reality.



posted on May, 2 2012 @ 11:59 PM
link   
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 
Are you really going to make me go back to the Congress Elections and look all that up?? No. We can do that in another thread.

Short answer, Yes, there were a lot of Congressman who dont follow EVERY single thing that RP believes in.






top topics



 
14
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join