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

reply to post by gwydionblack


It says nothing in that rule to say how they have to determine that "majority of delegates" from 5 other states....they can simply do it by voice vote.

I find it funny, and a bit sad, that you think the RNC won't do this...they would break no rules...it would be up to Boenher to decide if the voice vote held the majority of 5 states, then up to him again to see if 2/3rds voted to suspend the rules.


If the RNC has the choice of bending the rules to nominate Romney or to watch the Convention turn into a circus ...what do you think they are going to do???

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
reply to post by gwydionblack

 

It says nothing in that rule to say how they have to determine that "majority of delegates" from 5 other states....they can simply do it by voice vote.

If they did it by voice vote how would they prevent the entire crowd from voice voting as well? If the ratio of delegates to non-delegates is 40 to 1 this makes the delegates irrelevant when it comes to this and then what would the point be of specifying that the voting would have to come from the delegates?

reply to post by OutKast Searcher


You still don't understand... voice vote from whom? The delegates are the ones whose voice matters. So all the crowd at the convention cheers for a suspension of the rules... and they consider that a "majority" of the delegates?

Ridiculous thoughts still wander through your brain as you continue to make this crap up. They would still need to hear the voice vote from the DELEGATES ALONE and as has been stated numerous times, there would not be enough support among the delegates to get it done.

Not only that, but you make it sound like such and act would PREVENT the RNC from becoming a circus when it could only ensure that to happen as they would never be able to maintain order after the fact.

IT SIMPLY WILL NOT HAPPEN. It is not the DNC. It is not even a remotely unified party. It is a party of cutthroats and the convention is going to be chaos regardless.

Originally posted by bl4ke360

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
reply to post by gwydionblack

 

It says nothing in that rule to say how they have to determine that "majority of delegates" from 5 other states....they can simply do it by voice vote.

If they did it by voice vote how would they prevent the entire crowd from voice voting as well? If the ratio of delegates to non-delegates is 40 to 1 this makes the delegates irrelevant when it comes to this and then what would the point be of specifying that the voting would have to come from the delegates?

They wouldn't, that is exactly the point.

At that point, it is all up to the discretion to the chair person, most likely John Boehner.

Again...go watch the DNC video...they did this exact same thing but for different reasons. They did it to make it look like the party was united...the RNC would do it to stop any shenanigans from being played out.

And if anyone thinks this is the only way the RNC could get around Paul shenanigans...then I have to say they are just very naive.

I don't understand what all the fuss is about anyways. If by some miracle Romney doesn't get the 1144 Paul is going to play ball. Both him and his campaign manager have publicly stated he's looking for VP or a sort of czar position over the federal reserve. He's not going to risk ruining his sons career over some shenanigans that almost positively won't work. It's fun to imagine hypothetical good times though.

reply to post by gwydionblack

You still don't understand... voice vote from whom? The delegates are the ones whose voice matters. So all the crowd at the convention cheers for a suspension of the rules... and they consider that a "majority" of the delegates?

Um...yes...it is up to the chair person to decide.

Again...go watch the DNC video...do you honestly think Pelosi was able to determine that a 2/3rds of the delegates voted "aye"???

It doesn't matter as long as there is a overwhelming support for the motion....the chair person (Boenher) will pass it claiming the Ayes have it.

Answer me this...do you think the RNC wants Paul as their nominee??? If the answer is no, why don't you think they will do anything they can to prevent that?

Ridiculous thoughts still wander through your brain as you continue to make this crap up. They would still need to hear the voice vote from the DELEGATES ALONE and as has been stated numerous times, there would not be enough support among the delegates to get it done.

First off...you accuse me of making up crap...and then you claim you know that there won't be enough support.

Since you have all the answers...among the delegates (not alternates), how many are going to be Paul supporters regardless of who they are bound to???

I'd LOVE to hear your answer to this.

Not only that, but you make it sound like such and act would PREVENT the RNC from becoming a circus when it could only ensure that to happen as they would never be able to maintain order after the fact.

IT SIMPLY WILL NOT HAPPEN. It is not the DNC. It is not even a remotely unified party. It is a party of cutthroats and the convention is going to be chaos regardless.

The Republican party is actually pretty united behind Romney besides Paul supporters...and let's face it...they aren't really Republicans. They don't consider themselves Republicans and neither does the RNC.

IF Paul supporters would cause a scene afterward...it would be spun to look like crazy Ron Paul fanatics being sore losers.

Sure...ATS would be in an uproar...the Daily Paul would be too...no one else would care. Ron Paul supporters need to get it through their head that they are a very very small minority of the population. He is getting around 10-15% in Republican Primaries...so I would say he has about an overall support of 5-7% nationally.

People just don't like Ron Paul...it's time to deal with that fact.

Except that this video is just Hillary Clinton conceding in the race. This will not happen if Paul doesn't voluntarily suspend his campaign and concede the race to Mitt Romney. No chance, no how. About as much chance of that happening as there is Ron Paul supporting Mitt's candidacy.

Outkast is persistent in his efforts, but seldom uses facts.

Originally posted by wearewatchingyouman
I don't understand what all the fuss is about anyways. If by some miracle Romney doesn't get the 1144 Paul is going to play ball. Both him and his campaign manager have publicly stated he's looking for VP or a sort of czar position over the federal reserve. He's not going to risk ruining his sons career over some shenanigans that almost positively won't work. It's fun to imagine hypothetical good times though.

Exactly.

I'm waiting for Paul to make his deal...Romney endorsement for something...I think he will do it for as little as a prime speaking part at the Convention.

I don't think he has a chance at VP...Romney doesn't need him and doesn't want Ron Paul's policies to conflict with his in the General. Maybe a cabinet position or something...but more likely just the promise that they won't destroy Rand Paul's career.

Originally posted by macaronicaesar
Except that this video is just Hillary Clinton conceding in the race. This will not happen if Paul doesn't voluntarily suspend his campaign and concede the race to Mitt Romney. No chance, no how. About as much chance of that happening as there is Ron Paul supporting Mitt's candidacy.

Outkast is persistent in his efforts, but seldom uses facts.

Hillary didn't suspend her campaign...she motioned to suspend the rules and vote for Obama by acclamation.

Talk about seldomly using facts.

Originally posted by gwydionblack
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?

That is the most likely scenario they will use so Ron Paul fanatics won't have any excuses when they do start to riot and pout like babies outside of the Convention.

If you think the GOP can't get 6 states to do this then you are dillusional. Romney will easily have 6 states with a majority of delegates because all of Gingrich and Santorum's delegates will tow the Party line.

I can't wait for Ron Paul to hit the podium and tell you all to knock it off, settle down and stop acting violently after Romney gets the nomination. Violence of any kind is abhorent and dusgusting to his Libertarianism but Ron Paul supporters don't care one bit for anything he actually says or stands for and they will prove it in the end also.

I don't know how many times I've seen these type of threads. Like really, you could put this in a dozen other "I don't like Ron Paul so I'll make a thread and make it seem like I'm really helping his supporters even though I'm subliminally trying to bash him like I do in every other thread that mentions his name" threads...

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher

Originally posted by wearewatchingyouman
I don't understand what all the fuss is about anyways. If by some miracle Romney doesn't get the 1144 Paul is going to play ball. Both him and his campaign manager have publicly stated he's looking for VP or a sort of czar position over the federal reserve. He's not going to risk ruining his sons career over some shenanigans that almost positively won't work. It's fun to imagine hypothetical good times though.

Exactly.

I'm waiting for Paul to make his deal...Romney endorsement for something...I think he will do it for as little as a prime speaking part at the Convention.

I don't think he has a chance at VP...Romney doesn't need him and doesn't want Ron Paul's policies to conflict with his in the General. Maybe a cabinet position or something...but more likely just the promise that they won't destroy Rand Paul's career.

No way in hell he endorses Romney. Paul has integrity. He would rather have his campaign go bankrupt.

reply to post by OutKast Searcher

It doesn't matter as long as there is a overwhelming support for the motion....the chair person (Boenher) will pass it claiming the Ayes have it.

And I am telling you, that is Boenher does this, he will have a riot on his hands at the convention from the majority of the delegates.

Answer me this...do you think the RNC wants Paul as their nominee??? If the answer is no, why don't you think they will do anything they can to prevent that?

I know for a fact the RNC does not want Paul as their nominee. Obviously they would do many things to prevent it, however - completely destroying the Republican Party from further use is not one of the things I think they would be willing to do. They already have an enormous amount of controversy surrounding the tactics and legitimacy of many of the states primaries, with many GOP officials resigning over such incidents. If they were to do as you were saying, against the support that if most definitely going to be at the convention, they would be committing PARTY SUICIDE.

First off...you accuse me of making up crap...and then you claim you know that there won't be enough support.

Now I know this may sound appealing to you, and you might think that it is a possibility, and you THINK that, for some odd reason, Ron Paul is going to have zero support at this convention, yet at 2008 RNC, there was quite a lot of support for Paul even there that was clearly audible AND visible - and he wasn't even a viable contender at the time! Do you think somehow, four years later, running in the race, winning majority of delegates state after state, support and financial contributions for the many exponential increased... that somehow that support and presence at the Convention isn't somehow going to increase at the convention this year.

My turn for the

Since you have all the answers...among the delegates (not alternates), how many are going to be Paul supporters regardless of who they are bound to???

I'd LOVE to hear your answer to this.

Why would anyone make a claim to know any such number? Apparently you know better then most, because you assume that Paul will have literally NO presence at the convention to speak for him. But let me but it to you this way...

Buuuut.... what I do know is that Ron Paul DOES hold majority delegates in Iowa, Washington, Minnesota, Louisiana, and a handful of other states- all of which it has been proven that the MAJORITY of those delegates have openly given their support to Ron Paul.

What you DON'T have, is a single state in which the majority of delegates has openly given their support to Mitt Romney or any other candidate. Not by numbers or forced binding, but by political support- as in - "I would vote to break the Republican Convention Rules to get Romney elected" kind of support.

So once again, we go off of your idea that you tend to show great hypocrisy with - what we know. What we know is that Ron Paul's delegate strategy works and it is public knowledge of his delegate pickings and support - and that he DOES INDEED have the majority of delegates in a number of states.

What we don't know... is if Romney does. If you assume that he does, you are proving your hypocrisy to your own statements made many times in former posts.

reply to post by TinfoilTP


Who the hell says that Gingrich and Santorum have any supportive delegates? Or Romney for that matter?

You just STILL aren't getting it through your head. It isn't about a DELEGATE COUNT. Just because those delegate numbers are given to those men prior to the convention, does not mean that those delegates SUPPORT those candidates. Just because some delegates are BOUND to vote for a particular candidate, does not mean that they are not Ron Paul SUPPORTERS. In fact - many of the bound delegates ARE Ron Paul supporters.

This idea that the count matters at this point and the Romney "clearly has majority of 6 states" is ridiculous as there is no evidence, anywhere, that anyone can yet provide stating that there is a majority of Romney supporters to any states. Why is this information not available? Because most of Romney's delegates are RON PAUL SUPPORTERS.

Which means that they will not - let me emphasis that - THEY WILL NOT vote to suspend the rules and allow for acclamation under any circumstances, be them bound to Romney or not.



And what is worse is you disgrace the process and Ron Paul's character, yet you pretend to know how Paul would react to dirty tactics at the convention - like he would simply surrender and give in. Why certainly, because that is EXACTLY what Ron Paul has done for the past 4 decades, he has given into pressure and accepted majority opinion.

Please... you have no idea what the hell you are talking about.

reply to post by capone1


Why wouldn't he endorse him? They are friends. I could see Romney agreeing to speed up the troop withdrawal from Afghanistan to start as soon as he would take office. It's a war with no end game anyways. I've already noticed a trend at FOX news calling it Obama's war. Romney would then offer him a position as czar of the federal reserve. I think Paul would consider this a win for his movement. Paul has always thought long term. I don't think he'd jeopardize the momentum of his movement. I think he understands things happen slowly but surely and is looking to make sure his son can continue what he started.

I have been a delegate at a number of conventions and have chaired a couple of smaller conventions. I will admit that I have never been a delegate to the GOP national convention, but at every convention I have attended or chaired, we have in fact suspended the rules (also always requiring a 2/3 vote) and said vote was always done by a voice vote of acclamation.

Obviously, since the GOP convention is going to use the rules of the House of Representatives, I was curious if voice vote to suspend the rules was allowed.

On April 27, 2012, C-Span has the video of the House voting to suspend the rules and the vote was taken by voice vote.

Link to video of voice vote in the House to suspend the rules.

The vote takes place around the 1 hour 8 minute mark.

So people are correct that it will require the majority of delegates from six states to suspend the rules, but Boehner can (and probably will) call for the vote to be taken by voice vote.

Obviously, the vote can be challenged, but I have spent enough time in these weeds. I was mainly curious if the suspension of the rules can be held by voice vote. It can, and with 50000 people in attendance, the chaos and cacophony inside the hall convinces me that IF the GOP wanted to shut out the Paul delegates and move to acclamation, they will have the rules behind them. And on television, it will look like a united party.

Originally posted by wearewatchingyouman
reply to post by capone1

 

Why wouldn't he endorse him? They are friends. I could see Romney agreeing to speed up the troop withdrawal from Afghanistan to start as soon as he would take office. It's a war with no end game anyways. I've already noticed a trend at FOX news calling it Obama's war. Romney would then offer him a position as czar of the federal reserve. I think Paul would consider this a win for his movement. Paul has always thought long term. I don't think he'd jeopardize the momentum of his movement. I think he understands things happen slowly but surely and is looking to make sure his son can continue what he started.

Won't happen. They are too different.

reply to post by capone1


I think you're fooling yourself. You don't think the party wants all those votes Paul can bring with him that they can't get without him? You don't think Paul wants some of his ideas to become a major part of the Republican platform? I think this is a lot less black and white than you want it to be. Guess we'll all find out soon enough.

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher

Originally posted by macaronicaesar
Except that this video is just Hillary Clinton conceding in the race. This will not happen if Paul doesn't voluntarily suspend his campaign and concede the race to Mitt Romney. No chance, no how. About as much chance of that happening as there is Ron Paul supporting Mitt's candidacy.

Outkast is persistent in his efforts, but seldom uses facts.

Hillary didn't suspend her campaign...she motioned to suspend the rules and vote for Obama by acclamation.

Talk about seldomly using facts.

Actually she did end her campaign 2 months before the convention. Ironic you mention facts when you don't use any

Originally posted by bl4ke360

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher

Originally posted by macaronicaesar
Except that this video is just Hillary Clinton conceding in the race. This will not happen if Paul doesn't voluntarily suspend his campaign and concede the race to Mitt Romney. No chance, no how. About as much chance of that happening as there is Ron Paul supporting Mitt's candidacy.

Outkast is persistent in his efforts, but seldom uses facts.

Hillary didn't suspend her campaign...she motioned to suspend the rules and vote for Obama by acclamation.

Talk about seldomly using facts.

Actually she did end her campaign 2 months before the convention. Ironic you mention facts when you don't use any

In the video...Hillary didn't suspend her campaign.

Context...please stay within context...I never said Hillary never suspended her campaign...I was speaking in context of the video.

Wow.