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

reply to post by RealSpoke


Excuse me, he speaks logically in rants. But, conjecture regarding the Republican Convention, based on what happened at the democratic convention?

Ron Paul will have a plurality of 5 states at the convention. The relevant rule below, requiring a roll of the states-if there is more than one candidate with a plurality of delegates within 5 states.

Fox News

RULE NO. 40
Nominations
(a) In making the nominations for President of the United States and Vice President of the United States and voting thereon, the roll of the states shall be called separately in each case; provided, however, that if there is only one candidate for nomination for Vice President of the United States who has demonstrated the support required by paragraph (b) of this rule, a motion to nominate for such office by acclamation shall be in order and no calling of the roll with respect to such office shall be required.

(b) Each candidate for nomination for President of the United States and Vice President of the United States shall demonstrate the support of a plurality of the delegates from each of five (5) or more states, severally, prior to the presentation of the name of that candidate for nomination.

Then he goes on to say that they can call by acclamation, changing the rules. This would require a 2/3 vote by the delegates. See my post above.

The facts are in this thread, if you can get past the hyperbole.

reply to post by KonquestAbySS



I hate to say it but you've taken the cake with your paranoia regarding the anti-Ron Paul conspiracy.

I suggest that you stop and think before spouting such nonsense. It really does not help Ron Paul's cause if you are doing so.

reply to post by ogbert


He stated a conspiracy theory on how "TPTB or mainstream republicans" could "steal" the nomination from Ron Paul. If the OP was from another user, say a Ron Paul supporter, people wouldn't have a problem with the thread. But since the theory is from a person that doesn't like RP the thread is filled with adhominem attacks and called dis-info.

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
Last week I made a thread to show the "hard count" of bound delegates and how Romney is leading by a large margin and is almost guaranteed to get the nomination.

Of course the Ron Paul supporters didn't like this news, after they stopped questioning that this was indeed an accurate count, they moved on to other methods Ron Paul will be nominated. These included voting to unbind the bound delegates and having bound delegates abstain from voting for Romney.

I honestly don't believe that the RNC is going to allow any of those shenanigans going on at their convention...but for arguments sake...let's say it does happen. The RNC can exploit the exact same rules that Ron Paul supporters are advocating and they can have a Romney supporter (probably a big shot in the Republican party or possibly Santorum) call to nominate Romney by Acclamation.

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. The chairperson will ask for all those in favor, than all those opposed. But here is the thing...John Boenher will be the chairperson and he will call the vote to not even let the "nays" have a voice. And there will be so much noise in there, no one will really be able to hear a "nay"....he will claim the Ayes have it and Romney is the nominee.

Obama was nominated by Acclamation...not for the same reason (they wanted to show unity instead of stopping mischief)...but you can see below an example of how this will work.

So there you have it Ron Paul supporters...Ron Paul will be defeated by his own game if he chooses to go down that path.


Do Ron Paul supporters honestly think that Boenher and the RNC are going to let ANYTHING make Romney look bad at the convention???

Oh dear. what a terrible thread. Whilst anti Ron Paul, at least your posts used to have some substance in them. You seem so worried now that you are resorting to the the very thing you have been ridiculing others for.

Here's the thing - if it ever gets to this - Ron Paul will wipe the floor with Romney. He will control most of the room. Romney's only chance is to win it in round 1.

reply to post by OutKast Searcher


And? Then Paul runs 3rd party and hands Obama his 2nd term or splits both the Republican and Democrat vote and actually wins the damn thing. Even if Paul didn't run 3rd party or if the GOP does screw Paul like you explain, Romney will never win 1 on 1 against Obama. The GOP has a losing horse in Romney. The only way we have a Republican President ...or someone other than Obama is if it's Ron Paul.

reply to post by ogbert

To get a suspension of the rules, they would have to go by the default rules of the convention, The US House of Representatives Rules, which require a vote of 2/3 of the delegates.

And where does it say they can't do this by acclamation (voice vote)???

The rules say nothing about HOW they need to poll to get 2/3rds of the delegates to favor...it doesn't say they need a roll call...it doesn't say they need a ballot vote...just 2/3rds...and they can do that by acclamation and the judgement of the chair person.

They will suspend the rules by acclamation and nominate in the same acclamation vote (please re-watch the video, they are using the exact same procedure)...then it is up soley to Boehner to decide if the acclamation vote gained the 2/3rds vote or not.

reply to post by korathin

I wonder what angle your running.

My angle is that I like politics, I like elections, and I like discussing and projecting the outcome of those elections.

Ron Paul supporters keep claiming different ways that Paul is going to steal the nomination...I'm simply pointing out the flaws in their logic.

Wouldn't you rather know about this Acclamation method now instead of being surprised by it at the convention???

Or would you rather only hear positive news about Ron Paul and ignore everything else?

Originally posted by RealSpoke
Outkast is speaking logically on the subject, RP supporters generally don't. And this is coming from someone that voted for RP.

And really all I'm trying to do is show that the RNC has tricks up it's sleeve as well.

I'm not sure why RP supporters are angry about this, I would think they would want to know this type of information so they are prepared for everything that could possibly happen.

reply to post by UKTruth

Oh dear. what a terrible thread. Whilst anti Ron Paul, at least your posts used to have some substance in them. You seem so worried now that you are resorting to the the very thing you have been ridiculing others for.

Here's the thing - if it ever gets to this - Ron Paul will wipe the floor with Romney. He will control most of the room. Romney's only chance is to win it in round 1.

I am not advocating for the RNC to do this...I'm simply stating that this is the most likely thing they will do if Ron Paul and his supporters try to play games with the bound delegates.

I'm not sure you know how the convention works...Ron Paul will definately not control most of the room...the delegates are a small part of the crowd...and the non-delegate crowd will be overwhelmingly pro-Republican Party...they may not be in love with Romney...but they will do what they see as keeping the party strong.

I can't repeat it enough...this isn't about me caring if Ron Paul gets nominated...I've said it over and over...I wish he would because it would be an easy win for Obama. This is about being realistic, rational, and logical while looking at the potential outcomes of the Republican Convention.

Ron Paul supporters insisted on claiming that bound delegates can abstain and force a second round...and I'm simply saying that if that tactic was allowed (which I still don't think it will be), then this is a way for the RNC to get around that very easily.

Originally posted by Jagermeister
reply to post by OutKast Searcher

 

And? Then Paul runs 3rd party and hands Obama his 2nd term or splits both the Republican and Democrat vote and actually wins the damn thing. Even if Paul didn't run 3rd party or if the GOP does screw Paul like you explain, Romney will never win 1 on 1 against Obama. The GOP has a losing horse in Romney. The only way we have a Republican President ...or someone other than Obama is if it's Ron Paul.

I'm fine with Obama winning

And explain to me how this would be screwing Paul over but it wouldn't be screwing Romney over if Paul would play this game with delegates to deny Romney the nomination???

Click here for more information.

reply to post by OutKast Searcher


You are oblivious to the proceeding of any convention or Rule of Order.

Acclamation itself - BREAKS THE RULES!

You don't understand the simplest concept that you can't vote to suspend via acclamation... because - wrap your damn mind around this - YOU NEED TO SUSPEND THE RULES TO USE ACCLAMATION IN THE FIRST PLACE. And the rule for suspending the rules... is already well in place and quite clear.

That is what you call a logical paradox. You are a sad person, defending a dead stance.


You are a shill Outkast. This is made plain and obvious by your posts in the past ever since I arrived on ATS, and made even the more obvious by your recent topics on Paul to which you show so much unfounded interest in a person whom you apparently don't even support, or don't even hate all that much, yet will stop at nothing to bend logic and break wills to tow the media and party line that he does not have a chance.

I hope you realize that it doesn't become more obvious that you have some sort of agenda. Your actions as of late are not simply someone who has a "mild interest in politics" it is someone who is feverishly trying to defend one side, even when so called "factual" data is proven wrong. Even in your last topics when sources to the contrary to your were provided, you maintained the resounded belief that somehow your source was uncontroversially the better and more suitable of the many, and that your original point still stood - regardless of how many times it has been shot down.

Now here, as I have shot down the realism of acclamation and how the GOPs own rules shoot down the mere possibility of it - you make more excuses than any Paul supporter could ever hope to come up with, and the ignorance you show is astounding.

Your "discussion" of politics is nothing more than you spouting at the mouth a continuous stream of "I'm right, you are all wrong" and it forever has been for as long as I have known your posts here. But only recently has it become as fanatical as this is it really is telling.

Your questions have been answered. Read the second paragraph of this post once again, and again, and again, until it finally designed to seep through one of the cracks in your skulls because THAT is the reality.

If you have any other legitimate questions, feel free to ask, but I kindly ask that you dispose of the dead equine that you have become so predisposed of beating on, because its corpse has been properly mutilated, and it has served to prove no further points for you.

Reaffirming Our Desire For Productive Political Debate (REVISED)
Go After the Ball, Not the Player!

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher

Originally posted by Jagermeister
reply to post by OutKast Searcher

 

And? Then Paul runs 3rd party and hands Obama his 2nd term or splits both the Republican and Democrat vote and actually wins the damn thing. Even if Paul didn't run 3rd party or if the GOP does screw Paul like you explain, Romney will never win 1 on 1 against Obama. The GOP has a losing horse in Romney. The only way we have a Republican President ...or someone other than Obama is if it's Ron Paul.

I'm fine with Obama winning

And explain to me how this would be screwing Paul over but it wouldn't be screwing Romney over if Paul would play this game with delegates to deny Romney the nomination???

I was just pointing out that Romney has absolutely no chance of actually becoming president and that I find it amazing that the GOP doesn't understand this. It's almost like they want to lose. But it's either going to be Paul or Obama. I'm not exactly Obama's biggest fan and there is no way in hell I would ever actually cast a vote for the man, but I'd still rather write in Paul's name and hand Obama a 2nd term than see Romney take office.

If that were to happen, I wouldn't be surprised if the Ron Paul supporters started a riot. I cannot imagine the RNC doing anything that would enrage the Ron Paul delegates more.

reply to post by gwydionblack

You don't understand the simplest concept that you can't vote to suspend via acclamation... because - wrap your damn mind around this - YOU NEED TO SUSPEND THE RULES TO USE ACCLAMATION IN THE FIRST PLACE
...
Now here, as I have shot down the realism of acclamation and how the GOPs own rules shoot down the mere possibility of it

Please show me the rule that says you can't suspend the rules by acclamation.

Back up your claim with a source....give us the exact rule that says you can't suspend the rules by acclamation.

You keep saying you showed the rule that prohibits using acclamation to get the 2/3rds vote to suspend the rules...why can't you show this???

Even in your last topics when sources to the contrary to your were provided, you maintained the resounded belief that somehow your source was uncontroversially the better and more suitable of the many, and that your original point still stood - regardless of how many times it has been shot down.

No one proved anything wrong...all they proved (including you) is that you don't understand the process. Saying "bound" isn't "bound" and people using states "soft counts" to try to disprove the "hard counts"...it was all illogical nonsense.

The "hard counts" are still valid no matter how much you don't like it...those are legally bound delegates to Romney.

Your questions have been answered. Read the second paragraph of this post once again, and again, and again, until it finally designed to seep through one of the cracks in your skulls because THAT is the reality.

I'd rather read the actual rule that says you can't use a voice vote (acclamation) to suspend the rules.

The fact is that this scenario is much more likely than bound delegates "abstaining" from voting...proven by the DNC doing it last year. You can't provide any rule that disallows an acclamation vote to suspend the rules.

You act like the RNC will just lie down and accept any games Paul would try to do...I find that rather naive.

If you have any other legitimate questions, feel free to ask, but I kindly ask that you dispose of the dead equine that you have become so predisposed of beating on, because its corpse has been properly mutilated, and it has served to prove no further points for you.

You haven't proven anything...but you would like me to just be quiet because you don't like what I'm saying...sorry...this is reality...deal with it.

Originally posted by Studenofhistory
If that were to happen, I wouldn't be surprised if the Ron Paul supporters started a riot. I cannot imagine the RNC doing anything that would enrage the Ron Paul delegates more.

But are you ok with Ron Paul delegates abstaining from voting for the candidate they are BOUND to???

I'm seeing a lot of hypocrisy from Ron Paul supporters around here.

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
reply to post by OutKast Searcher

 

Are you Mormon by chance?

Just asking?

I love that you think I support Romney.

I guess someone can't be honest and realistic and not support Romney. The simple fact is that Romney is winning by a large margin...short of him screwing it up for himself with some huge gaffe...he will be the nominee.

I'm sorry your guy is losing, but it is no reason to suspend logic and create a fantasy world to live in.

reply to post by OutKast Searcher




Slowly now...

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.

on-ly
adverb
1. without others or anything further; alone; solely; exclusively
Dictionary.com

Notice it also says "majority of the delegates"... twice. Not "voiced opinion by the crowd" or "by the guidance of the chairperson", no... it says "majority of the delegates".

ONLY BY...majority of the delegates.


Do you comprehend the English language?

It's pointless to argue this. OP I suggest you just quit thinking about it if the RP supporters are annoying you, which is what I sense. We will just have to wait and see. The truth is nobody knows how this will turn out and only time will tell. Speculation such as this thread only confuse people and cause arguments. No offense to anyone but let's just wait and see.