Federal Law Proves All Delegates Are UNBOUND! All Delegates Must See This!

reply to post by usernameconspiracy


I think you're wrong again. A candidate cannot dictate or give delegates away. its the delegates choice - not the candidates.

Let me revert back to the OP...

"No person, whether acting under color of law or otherwise, shall intimidate, threaten, coerce, or attempt to intimidate, threaten, or coerce any other person for the purpose of interfering with the right of such other person to vote or to vote as he may choose, or of causing such other person to vote for, or not to vote for, any candidate for the office of President"

Originally posted by Wide-Eyes
reply to post by Helmkat

 

So by backing Romney, they will not be sheeple?

Didn't say that now did I. I see this as a no win scenario for Paul if he gets the nomination.

If he wins the nomination by virtue of "party tricks" there is excellent probablity you will see Americans demand reforms of the politcal parties on a scale the likes of which has not been seen in an age. People will be outraged when the man who got 10% of the vote is suddenly the candidate of choice in a party. Democrats and Republicans could easily come together on this topic.

In the end: Paul loses

Or if the public is as hypnotized as many believe, they will support Paul but not because of what Paul stands for but because they have been conditioned to follow who is at the head of their party.

This could possibly lead to a win for Paul and lead him to the Oval office -but- it will be a hollow victory. Is a victory handed to you by zombies really a victory? Not if you are a Human with some honor and dignity.

While deep down the rabbit hole, this speculation is not out of the realm of possibility.

Delegates are bound.

The random member from the Daily Paul, which all the OPs information is stolen from, is an internet lawyer apparently.


Ron Paul will not be the Republican nominee.


I really hope he would be able to play these games though...Romney has recieve 6 million more votes than Ron Paul has. I would love to see the 8 million+ (by the time all Statse vote) Republican voters be disenfranchised and pissed off at Ron Paul for stealing the nomination.

I doubt they are going to run out to the polls in November to vote for someone who wants to close all Military bases.

I was at a BBQ this past weekend and was amazed at a few things...

1. How many people hate Obama. And mind you, most of the people attending were hispanic immigrants.
2. How most of us agreed on all the issues.
3. How some of them never heard of Ron Paul or thought he dropped out.
4. How just like many here, none knew how the delegate process worked.

Well, after an intense hour or so of conversation, we now have more Patriots toward the r3VOLution.

And now they know that unlike many countries around the world, in this great country you CANNOT force a person to vote for a candidate! At the very least, you can abstain!

Do You Get It Yet?

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
The most despicable thing about Paul supporters wetting their pants at this supposed loophole regarding Federal law and unbound delegates, is that the Ron Paul fans are constantly bleating on about ''states' rights'' and ''intrusive big gubmint'', yet, when it suits them, they are only too eager to sacrifice these ''principles'' and exploit a Federal law which overrides legislation or regulation made at an autonomous level. That's bang out of order.

Federal laws stand on their own. For example, if you run a stop sign and a cop sees you, you get a ticket unless you are a smooth talker with a generous police officer. Nobody is smooth talking anyone when it comes to federal laws, or exploiting anything. The OP is just bringing existing law to light. No principals are being sacrificed. I think you may have federal laws confused with executive orders.

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes

Originally posted by bl4ke360
He doesn't believe in upholding rights that only he believes in, he believes in using the constitution to determine those rights. Since you don't live in America, perhaps you didn't know the constitution is the foundation of our country.

I am aware that the Constitution is the foundation of the USA, but Ron Paul and those who share his selective views, tend to want to cherry-pick it and accept tweaks, updates and amendments to it when they agree with them, but decry ''big government'' when federal laws are passed which they don't agree with.

Now, I may be merely be a humble non-American

, but isn't the arbiter of what's constitutional or unconstitutional the Supreme Court of the United States ? If they upheld a law, then it's constitutional; if they strike down a law, then it's unconstitutional. Therefore, every single federal law on the statute books is, by definition, constitutional, as it has either been upheld or not struck down.

No they are not. The supreme court is not there to interpret the constitution. They are there to interpret laws that are passed as constitutional or not. the constitution stands on its own a simple easy to read document. No one has ANY business trying to interpret it.

Yes, it is a living document, but not in the sense that it is at the whim of the people to interpret it as they see fit, it is only a living document in that if 2/3rds of both houses and 3/4ths of all states decide to change it.

Aside from that it is supposed to be read as it is written and it is congresses responsibility to pass laws that are within their constitutional mandate and it is the SCOTUS' job to make sure that those laws do not violate their constitutional mandate.

This idea that constitution is open to interpretation is ridiculous on its face.

Has it happened in the past? Yes, and when it does, it is We the People's responsibility to stand up to it.

Jaden

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes

Originally posted by ugie1028
I thought he already 'Secured' the nomination when he supposedly took Texas... Now he's securing it again tomorrow? Yea THAT makes sense...

Isn't it 1,144 he needs to secure the nomination ? The latest figure I've seen is that he has 1,074 hard count delegates, meaning that he is 70 shy of the amount he needs.

With Romney running away with the popular Republican vote, then it's not exactly going to be difficult for him to gain the delegates in tonight's primaries !

edit on 5-6-2012 by Sherlock Holmes because: (no reason given)

Wrong again. There is no set amount that he can even obtain before august at the convention. It requires the first round to be voted before ANY candidate has ANY delegates.

There are basically two different delegate counts that are being made, even though no candidates really have ANY delegates yet.

the two counts are the states that state they have bound delegates based on primary elections (which we are seeing here is NOT really the case) and the states who have already selected their delegates who are in large part Ron Paul supporters.

No one will have any delegates until the first round of voting at the national convention takes place. After the first round, if there is not a candidate with the required number of delegates, they will open the floor and have rounds of voting until a candidate DOES have the required amount of delegates.

We CANNOT know who the candidate for the Republican candidate will be until after the RNC takes place....

Jaden

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher


I doubt they are going to run out to the polls in November to vote for someone who wants to close all Military bases.

Ron Paul doesn't want to close ALL military bases. He wants to rid this country of interventionism on foreign land, which mostly pisses the world off, and save us money that we don't have by closing military bases overseas, thereby strengthening our defense and our military bases here in America. This would prevent our military from being spread too thin, and thereby prevent us from being more vulnerable for attack on our soil.
What, did you think the Patriot act would keep us safe?

The thing is from my observations is that most of the others delegates went in without a clue of the process and what it meant. I can not stress the truth in that statement and what it means to our future.

Instead of hundreds it was thousands this time, uneducated thousands. They were in need of cue cards held up, they were told to watch certain leaders to know when to stand or stay seated, they did not have to think or consider.

Really, they were only there to see the slate of their candidate, as far as the more important issues which were the amendments to the platform, they did not think or question, that was very dangerous.

Truth.

Originally posted by Allenb83

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher


I doubt they are going to run out to the polls in November to vote for someone who wants to close all Military bases.

Ron Paul doesn't want to close ALL military bases. He wants to rid this country of interventionism on foreign land, which mostly pisses the world off, and save us money that we don't have by closing military bases overseas, thereby strengthening our defense and our military bases here in America. This would prevent our military from being spread too thin, and thereby prevent us from being more vulnerable for attack on our soil.
What, did you think the Patriot act would keep us safe?

Not to derail the topic at hand, but closing our overseas military bases ensures our weakness. First we would lose all strategic advantage to respond to a threat, but mainly because either China or Russia would immediately take those strategic positions for themselves. You (and Ron Paul) might not like the USA being the "world police" but you would like it even less if someone else were to take over the job!

Originally posted by Helmkat
If Ron Paul somehow managed to win the GOP nomination, it probably would be the straw that finally breaks the apathy of the American public but not in the way you all think it will.

More then likely you would see the public rise up against the GOP and Paul, not understanding that they should of been siding with Paul from the begining. The public won't see it that way, they will just know their will has been denied again by tricks.

or less likely

The people will follow Paul blindly and that will be sad because they will truly be the "sheeple" the 10% who supported Paul thought they were.

Hypocracy either way you look at it if Paul wins the nomination.

Good... there shouldn't be any where NEAR as many people allowed to vote as there are. There needs to be standards of understanding.

If the Sheeple that are wrongly allowed to vote, vote for Liberty, it's good for everyone and it's good for a free people.

We need to LIMIT the ability for fools who have been manipulated to vote. They shouldn't be allowed to vote in the first place.

People need to have an awareness of how our government functions if they are going to be allowed to vote, they need to have an awareness of each candidates positions if they are going to be allowed to vote.

I HOPE that they vote for Ron Paul and then I hope that we get some common sense rules in place to make it harder for people to vote. They should have to be willing to work at it to be able to vote. They should have to learn what they are voting for so that there are NO MORE sheeple voting in the first place.

Jaden

reply to post by usernameconspiracy


I see your point but maybe I would agree with you 20 or 30 years ago. Why would closing a base in Japan, France or Germany make us weaker? How would this give China or Russia an advantage? Our military can deploy anywhere in the world and set up a base in a matter of 72 hours. Not to mention our SEALs who can probably strike within hours anywhere in the world. Does South Korea need us? They have a reserve army of 5 million I believe and are very capable of defending themselves.

Maybe it's power through military force you're advocating? Think about it.

Originally posted by maddog99
reply to post by usernameconspiracy

 

Maybe it's power through military force you're advocating? Think about it.

You are not going to like this answer, and to be honest I don't like it much either, but yeah, that's exactly what I'm advocating. It's a reality in the world today. I wish it could change, but the reality is that we can't afford to bring everyone home and wait to see if it all turns out okay. Honestly, it's probably our own fault that this kind of world wide presence is needed now. I certainly would not feel comfortable closing our over seas bases.

As long as that military force is out there, stationed throughout the world, I prefer it's the U.S. military.

reply to post by Allenb83

Originally posted by Allenb83

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher


I doubt they are going to run out to the polls in November to vote for someone who wants to close all Military bases.

Ron Paul doesn't want to close ALL military bases. He wants to rid this country of interventionism on foreign land, which mostly pisses the world off, and save us money that we don't have by closing military bases overseas, thereby strengthening our defense and our military bases here in America. This would prevent our military from being spread too thin, and thereby prevent us from being more vulnerable for attack on our soil.
What, did you think the Patriot act would keep us safe?

OS knows that himself well enough, don't waste your time explaining it to him. His last sentence was an example of trolling at it's best.

As far as the military base thing goes... History shows that many great empires fell from over reaching themselves militarily and going broke as a result... Knowing that and the state of our economy, any rational thinking man would advocate cutting some or most of the 900 over seas bases.

As far as the delegates, I hope this is the push we need. All the way Ron Paul.

Originally posted by maddog99
I was at a BBQ this past weekend and was amazed at a few things...

1. How many people hate Obama. And mind you, most of the people attending were hispanic immigrants.
2. How most of us agreed on all the issues.
3. How some of them never heard of Ron Paul or thought he dropped out.
4. How just like many here, none knew how the delegate process worked.

Well, after an intense hour or so of conversation, we now have more Patriots toward the r3VOLution.

And now they know that unlike many countries around the world, in this great country you CANNOT force a person to vote for a candidate! At the very least, you can abstain!

Do You Get It Yet?

Ya, I get it...you will probably not be invited back to another party until after elections.
the "crazy politics guy" is rarely a hit at a barbecue.

Lots of people say stuff to be agreeable..were you expecting a full blown debate when people are trying to eat some grilled meat and chill out in the sun?

.

reply to post by usernameconspiracy



Really Russia only has bases in old holdings on its border and China has None ..

But The US has to have bases on all their door steps ... and everywhere else too ...

Blame yourself we you see that big flash in the sky .

People like you who buy the MIC WarMonger BS are the problem ..

If you Provoke war you usually get what you ask for .

Face it you are a paranoid product of propaganda weened on the MSM and a slave of the Globalist Empire ..

Sad ...

.

"No person, whether acting under color of law or otherwise, shall intimidate, threaten, coerce, or attempt to intimidate, threaten, or coerce any other person for the purpose of interfering with the right of such other person to vote or to vote as he may choose, or of causing such other person to vote for, or not to vote for, any candidate for the office of President"

While Americans should vote DIRECTLY for the office of President of United States, the idea of delegates who then vote on their behalf is abhorrent.

In reality, Americans don't vote for their candidate, or for their President. They vote for their convention delegates or for the electoral college.

Most other countries vote for their Presidents DIRECTLY, except in the case of a parliamentary democracy where the MP who leads the party with the largest number of seats becomes Prime Minister (usually).

Calling USA the greatest democracy on Earth, then not being able to directly vote for the highest office in the land is laughable.

Originally posted by babybunnies
Calling USA the greatest democracy on Earth, then not being able to directly vote for the highest office in the land is laughable.

That's a common misunderstanding. The United States is a constitutional republic, not a democracy.

Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.

Originally posted by babybunnies

"No person, whether acting under color of law or otherwise, shall intimidate, threaten, coerce, or attempt to intimidate, threaten, or coerce any other person for the purpose of interfering with the right of such other person to vote or to vote as he may choose, or of causing such other person to vote for, or not to vote for, any candidate for the office of President"

While Americans should vote DIRECTLY for the office of President of United States, the idea of delegates who then vote on their behalf is abhorrent.

In reality, Americans don't vote for their candidate, or for their President. They vote for their convention delegates or for the electoral college.

Most other countries vote for their Presidents DIRECTLY, except in the case of a parliamentary democracy where the MP who leads the party with the largest number of seats becomes Prime Minister (usually).

Calling USA the greatest democracy on Earth, then not being able to directly vote for the highest office in the land is laughable.

Yeah calling the USA the greatest democracy on earth is ridiculous...It's not nor has it EVER been a democracy...

It is a republic. It was founded as a democratic republic but it has devolved into a socialist republic, more and more since the new deal was put into practice.

We need to return to a democratic republic with a free market, with incentives promoting small business so as to limit the power of conglomerate corporations as too much power always leads to corruption.

Jaden