Title: Federal Law Proves All Delegates Are UNBOUND! All Delegates Must See This! Source:
YouTube URL Source:http://www.youtube.com/watch?&v=GiEbNncoSG0 Published:Jun 4, 2012 Author:matlarson10 Post Date:2012-06-08 13:10:45 by GreyLmist Keywords:Ron Paul, Delegates, Unbound Free Agents, Election Law Views:558 Comments:37
However, many states have laws that directly bind delegates to the voters' choices. Some states bind all delegates, some bind only part of the delegates.
In addition, delegates would have to want to spike Romney so bad that they would take Paul who as a former LP candidate against Bush I repels them almost as much as legal heroin (which RP has advocated in a debate this year).
So the point is ridiculous. If Romney suffered some massive scandal (like the discovery he secretly has a harem of 72 virgin Nordic wives), I still doubt the convention would pick Ron Paul as the nominee. It would be Santorum. Or it would be Jeb Bush or Mitch Daniels.
The Paul campaign has made it clear they do not expect to have even half the delegates needed to capture the nomination. Personally, I doubt that he'll have the plurality in five states' delegate counts to have his name placed in nomination on the first round at the convention. The GOP old guard worked hard to deny him two states.
But keep in mind, he qualified on one state in 2008. Had they not cheated him this years, he would have qualified in at least five, maybe seven states. That kind of growth is something to build on, particularly with a far more adept retail politician like Rand Paul taking the core of the Ron Paul movement over after Ron retires.
That kind of growth is something to build on, particularly with a far more adept retail politician like Rand Paul taking the core of the Ron Paul movement over after Ron retires.
BUT, Rand is just another dyed in the wool neocon who just backstabbed his own father along with his supporters. BS, I'll never vote for him, and I suspect there are many who feel the same.
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
BUT, Rand is just another dyed in the wool neocon who just backstabbed his own father along with his supporters.
Ron has never indicated the slightest disappointment with Rand's policy stands. Exactly the opposite.
I'm not sure why you think you get to speak for him. He seems to have made very clear how proud he is of Rand getting elected to Senate and the policies he has advocated.
Last I checked, Rand wasn't openly supporting the indefinite detention of US citizens without charges or trial, nor did he support an attack against a nation who has not threatened or attacked us, nor had he publically fellated Israel to climax.
Now that he has endorsed Mitt Romney, all that has just changed.
I'll be curious to see what ole dad has to say about it...
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
Now that he has endorsed Mitt Romney, all that has just changed.
I don't think it has.
People like to demand that Pol X walk the plank for them.
Beyond that, Rand has many opportunities to challenge or rebuke items he has steadily opposed, even under a Prez Mitt. He has done so repeatedly to Obama and to the GOP elite (McConnell) on a number of issues. Remember the robopen incident over the Patriot Act and Obama being in France? Man, were they pissed. But Rand held the line and didn't flinch. He's done it other times, seems more comfortable with it overall than Tom Coburn is when he does it.
A senator is not a president but he does have considerable power at key junctures if he has the guts to use it. I think Rand does.
I think Rand is just another political stooge who did a few things to make people THINK he was on their side, just to win their approval and get himself elected.
He's no different than Romney, the man he personally endorsed for President.
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
He's no different than Romney, the man he personally endorsed for President.
You can't possibly be serious. Or you don't know much about either one.
Back in reality, the Pauls are now on the sidelines of the 2012 race, Ron retiring and Rand not up until 2016.
But to win anything, you have to play your cards. Of course, if you start pouting and take your cards and go home because some selected hero won't sally forth to tilt at windmills on command, then you can't act too surprised when no one takes you seriously.
One doesn't "win" anything by capitulating to the enemy, especially one who blatently lies and reneges on any promise he ever made to the electorate, while at the same time supporting corrupt corporate honchos.
Whatever cards Rand had are now on the floor, and good for you if you think this is a "wise move" on his part. There are MANY who will NEVER vote for him in the future because of this.
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
There are MANY who will NEVER vote for him in the future because of this.
Pardon me if I doubt that you speak for all of them.
4um has a lot of doomsayer types, people with attitudes that guarantee that they will always lose in any battle of political wills.
I've supported Ron Paul since '96. I don't think I'm going to be dictated to by a bunch of kids who have to be reminded to bathe, shave, and get a haircut before they start knocking on doors for the candidate.
And there is quite a whiff of juvenile attitudes among the refusenik element, comparable to the idiot Obama youth vote. I say good riddance. I've seen them come and go before. I'm still here and they are nowhere. Let them go vote for Gary Johnson or whoever, see how far that gets them.
And BTW, I don't know what you feel in regards to the act of endorsing a person for political office, but my thoughts on it are that if you endorse a person, you are saying that you agree with his positions and that you are laying your own reputation on the line in terms of that person's honesty and integrity.
Mittens has already been proven to be a dishonest slug with zero integrity, so that pretty much describes Rand as of now.
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
The final outcome will be either Obama gets reelected and things stay the same, or Romney gets elected and we have mushroom clouds emanating from our major cities. Nice to see you're blinded by the letters R and D. Screw the two party/one party system, you should be wiser by now, and be able to see through the BS.
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
Let them go vote for Gary Johnson or whoever, see how far that gets them.
If liberty is what is most important to you, then who else is worthy of the vote? Not Mitt!
Johnson is on the ballot in all 50 states and he would be the best candidate for Paulies to back as he is most closely aligned to the liberty ideology. Johnson is against all the warring and he knows how to balance a budget. His record of job creation in New Mexico puts Mitt's to shame. What's not to like?
We will not beat the two party fraud by continually buying into that bullshit routine election after election after election. Enough is enough.
" If you cannot govern yourself, you will be governed by assholes. " Randge, Poet de Forum, 1/11/11
"Life's tough, and even tougher if you're stupid." --John Wayne
I'll vote for the best options, of course. Anything but Harry Reid is my mantra. LOL! But, there is no way in hell I will vote for Obama Lite, even if Ron Paul were his running mate. I discarded him in 2008 and he is even less appealing in 2012.
" If you cannot govern yourself, you will be governed by assholes. " Randge, Poet de Forum, 1/11/11
"Life's tough, and even tougher if you're stupid." --John Wayne
If Romney suffered some massive scandal (like the discovery he secretly has a harem of 72 virgin Nordic wives), I still doubt the convention would pick Ron Paul as the nominee. It would be Santorum. Or it would be Jeb Bush or Mitch Daniels.
There's speculation that Romney attended the recent Bilderberg meeting -- like other outlaw pols here in the past, such as Obama and Hillary; which is a criminal violation of the Logan Act prohibiting unauthorized, secretive meetings with foriegn officials. Evidence is stronger that Mitch Daniels and Kerry did. (Ref.) If so, all of them should be banned from our elections. Additionally, there's the question of Romney's eligibility for office, as with Obama. Insistent presumptions that his father was a citizen of this country at the time of his birth isn't enough evidence.
But keep in mind, [Ron Paul] qualified on one state in 2008. Had they not cheated him this years, he would have qualified in at least five, maybe seven states. That kind of growth is something to build on, particularly with a far more adept retail politician like Rand Paul taking the core of the Ron Paul movement over after Ron retires.
I agree that kind of growth is something to build on but disagree that Rand Paul taking over his movement after he retires is the way it should go. The movement isn't of concern to Rand so much as its value to him and his Neocon cadre as a self-promotion and publicity tool.
-------
"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
I agree that kind of growth is something to build on but disagree that Rand Paul taking over his movement after he retires is the way it should go. The movement isn't of concern to Rand so much as its value to him and his Neocon cadre as a self-promotion and publicity tool.
The only viable plan is to take the more mainstream but hardcore Paul supporters, combine them with the Tea folk and slice off as much of the evangelical vote as possible.
I have reason to believe that is the strategy for Rand. The evangelical clergymen don't like Ron all that much but they swoon over Rand. That didn't happen by accident.
It's easy to talk about winning a nomination but every nominee (other than sacrifice candidates like Dole and the Stain) has to assemble broad coalitions to support the candidate and his agenda to win the nomination.
Me: There's speculation that Romney attended the recent Bilderberg meeting -- like other outlaw pols here in the past, such as Obama and Hillary; which is a criminal violation of the Logan Act prohibiting unauthorized, secretive meetings with foriegn officials. Evidence is stronger that Mitch Daniels and Kerry did. (Ref.) If so, all of them should be banned from our elections.
Jon Huntsman is another politician who reportedly attended the recent Bilderberg meeting and should be banned from our elections for violation of the Logan Act.
Noting here also that Romney reportedly attended George Soros's Bretton Woods II Conference as well; as did Senate Majority Leader from Nevada, Harry Reid, and Texas Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst. They should be banned too from our elections, along with Romney and others, as violators of the Logan Act.
Edited for sentence structure.
-------
"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
The only viable plan is to take the more mainstream but hardcore Paul supporters, combine them with the Tea folk and slice off as much of the evangelical vote as possible.
I have reason to believe that is the strategy for Rand. The evangelical clergymen don't like Ron all that much but they swoon over Rand. That didn't happen by accident.
It's easy to talk about winning a nomination but every nominee (other than sacrifice candidates like Dole and the Stain) has to assemble broad coalitions to support the candidate and his agenda to win the nomination.
Really? Ron Paul has already assembled the broadest coalition of any candidate of any party because Ron Paul is a Statesman and not a politician-as-usual. Rand wants to be a RINO-Neocon politician and play those party politics as usual. Seems you do too, very unlike most Ron Paul supporters by my reckonings, but let's be clear on what Rand did. Many politicians don't publicly support or campaign for other politicians -- Presidential candidates or not. Like them, he could have simply abstained from doing so for Romney and it wouldn't have jeopardized his career or alienated his father's movement for the most part. So, why did he do it? Perhaps to demonstrate to the party puppeteers that what he has most in common with Romney is ruthlessness against the preliminary benefactors of their careers and, of the two of them, Rand is moreso because of his willingness to undermine his father's work, not just a generous business partner's.
I'm thinking that we don't even need a party at all to run Ron Paul as a candidate for President.
Edited for spelling.
-------
"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
However, many states have laws that directly bind delegates to the voters' choices. Some states bind all delegates, some bind only part of the delegates.
Which states are you talking about? These State located elections are for a Federal election. Ronald Reagan suggested that delegates who were pressured as "bound" could abstain from voting in the first round of the national convention.
I'm thinking that we don't even need a party at all to run Ron Paul as a candidate for President.
Indy? Sure.
Except you still have to get on 51 ballots (general). To do that, you have to have something that looks like and functions like a political party.
We don't have national elections. All U.S. elections are state and local elections.
If he wanted, RP could flip and get the nomination of the LP and the CP. They came right out publicly and tried to tempt him in 2008 with it. And between the two, he would have been on all 51 ballots (in some places, twice).
But he wouldn't do it. The '88 run convinced him that just doing ballot access consumes far too much effort and money. You may recall how Buchanan ended up with the Reform party in 2000.
Besides, Ron Paul promised his wife in 2008 before he even started his run that there would be no more third-party runs for him. AFAIK, he has not rescinded that promise.
And since he's already announced his retirement, how does he suddenly burst forth to run yet another campaign?
Then you get to the states that have sore-loser laws, that forbid those who lost a primary or nomination from running in that state as a general election candidate (something that should be in all 50 states IMO). I hate double-dippers like Lieberman and Murkowski, almost as much as carpetbaggers.
Which states are you talking about? These State located elections are for a Federal election. Ronald Reagan suggested that delegates who were pressured as "bound" could abstain from voting in the first round of the national convention.
The states with direct election of GOP delegates are: IL/PA/RI/WV/NJ
Mitt Romney is Not The GOP Nominee
Some young gangsta-wannabe ranting on a webcam isn't going to be my first choice for information. I suppose some people think they can just stamp their feet and clamp their hands over their ears and pretend Romney isn't the nominee. I predict they're going to be disappointed.
You may recall that Ron Paul didn't win the popular vote in a single state. Santorum won 11, Gingrich won at least two (SC/GA, big states).
So if Romney's plane crashes, Ron Paul still won't be the nominee. Even if he does want to legalize heroin, something the GOP masses absolutely crave. It would be Jeb Bush or Mitch Daniels or someone not named Ron Paul, someone who had never run for prez against a GOP nominee (even an icky one like Bush Senior).
We don't have national elections. All U.S. elections are state and local elections.
These are elections are for a Federal position, not State officials. If States don't want to comply with the Federal election regs of unbound delegates, they could be excluded from the vote counts.
I'm not talking about a third party run for Ron Paul this time, although I think that option is a good one. Ron Paul has already campaigned for the office of President. He wouldn't need to campaign again for a no-party run or a third party run. That's the first I've heard of such a promise to his wife about no more third party runs and don't know what the reasoning for that could possibly be but I think a third party option is a good one for him to consider, if necessary. I think a no-party run might be a better route and his wife probably wouldn't even object to that because it wouldn't be like a breach of promise thing.
-------
"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
The states with direct election of GOP delegates are: IL/PA/RI/WV/NJ
Gosh, that's mighty high-toned of you to assign it as my homework to research your unsourced statements, TooCon. I'd ask how many delegates that amounts to but I'll just estimate that the vote counts for 10% of the States could be excluded for non- compliance with Federal election regs, one of them being Santorum's home base.
You might like this video more on account of the speaker being more conventionally polished:
We don't have national elections. All U.S. elections are state and local elections.
Found this at an FEC .gov page on delegates:
A delegate or delegate committee may contribute a maximum of $2,500 to a federal candidate, per election.4 11 CFR 110.1(b)(1). The primary and general are considered separate elections but, in the case of Presidential candidates, the entire primary season is considered only one election. 11 CFR 100.2 and 110.1(j)(1).
-------
"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
These are elections are for a Federal position, not State officials.
We only have state delegates, selected and governed by the rules and/or laws of their state, and the ~120 unbound superdelegates (GOP honchos).
We may have a Federal Elections Commission but we do not have even a single federal election. Let alone federal convention delegates which sounds just plain silly.
Me [at Post #17]: There's speculation that Romney attended the recent Bilderberg meeting -- like other outlaw pols here in the past, such as Obama and Hillary; which is a criminal violation of the Logan Act prohibiting unauthorized, secretive meetings with foriegn officials. Evidence is stronger that Mitch Daniels and Kerry did. (Ref.) If so, all of them should be banned from our elections.
[continuing at Post #19] Jon Huntsman is another politician who reportedly attended the recent Bilderberg meeting and should be banned from our elections for violation of the Logan Act.
Noting here also that Romney reportedly attended George Soros's Bretton Woods II Conference as well; as did Senate Majority Leader from Nevada, Harry Reid, and Texas Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst. They should be banned too from our elections, along with Romney and others, as violators of the Logan Act.
Rand Paul Confronted on Bilderberg [My note: Has no comment when asked, near end of video, about violation of the Logan Act by Sen. John Kerry's attendance at the Bilderberg meeting in Virginia. Robo- answers on other issues like his support for Romney and voting for economic war sanctions against Iran and Syria. Interview Reporter from WGCN Radio in Chicago.]
Published on Jun 10, 2012 by PplAwaken
Rand Paul is confronted on a variety of Issues as well as Bilderberg 2012.
Edited for grammar.
-------
"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
This is a never before seen interview of Rand Paul in 2010 on the campaign trail right before becoming U.S Senator. It's pretty amazing seeing Rand Paul make such statements against the Bilderberg Group and Goldman Sachs but yet still endorse a Goldman Sachs flip flopping Bilderberg puppet.
-------
"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
Just one day after his appearance on Fox News publicly endorsing Willard Romney for President, Kentucky U.S. Senator Rand Paul appeared at CPAC Chicago (6-8- 12), was asked by JNReports on his support for Willard, Whether or Not Economic Sanctions on Iran and Syria are acts of war, and if he would investigate U.S. Senator John Kerry's involvement at the Bilderberg Group Meetings in Chantilly VA (No Comment)
-------
"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
This is a recording of Carol Paul being interviewed 6-13-12 on Ron Paul Radio, Rand apparently didn't consult his family before endorsing Mitt RMoney (Goldman Sachs/JP Morgan/BOA)
Comments by ALLRonPaul:
"Carol said Rand hasn't called her and she has no idea what he was thinking...Maybe I am hearing that out of context but to me that says she had no Idea the endorsement was even coming,"
"maybe after we hear from Doug Wead it will be clearer, he speaks tonight 9pm est on facebook and 10pm on ronpaultribune"
"Carol also said Ron is working on a video that should be released this week, I didn't get to record that part."
-------
"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
All 123 named plaintiffs are from states in the 9th Circuit. They sued the Republican National Committee, its Chairman Reince Priebus, and every state party chairman in the 9th Circuit.
[sic]
"Names [sic - recte: Named] plaintiffs and plaintiffs identified as Does 1 through 1,000 are residents of the United States, including all states within the jurisdiction of the 9th Circuit Federal Court who are duly elected delegates, alternate delegates, delegates elected by being denied certification due to their refusal to surrender their voting rights to vote in accordance with the free exercise of their conscience and not be bound to the nominee of defendant's choice."
[sic]
Citing 42 U.S.C., the plaintiffs claim it is illegal to try to force people to vote for a specific candidate: "'No person, whether acting under the 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 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.'"
But the Republican mavericks claim that in almost every state, the defendants have violated this law by harassing delegates who don't support Mitt Romney.
"This harassment included the use of violence, intimidating demands that delegates sign affidavits under penalty of perjury with the threat of criminal prosecution for perjury as well as financial penalties and fines if the delegate fails to vote as instructed by defendants rather than vote the delegate's conscience ...
[sic]
They claim that Romney does not have the nomination sewed up despite the machinations of the defendants: "The Republican National Committee (hereafter RNC) and its chairman have been aiding the Governor Romney Campaign for at least 6 months up to and including the present time, notwithstanding that no candidate has won the nomination. Governor Romney does not have 1,144 delegates, the minimum number of delegates required to win the nomination, and no candidate can be assured that they are the nominee until the delegates vote because the delegates have a statutory and constitutional right to vote their conscience."
[sic]
"Plaintiffs allege there has been a systematic campaign of election fraud at state conventions, including programming a voting machine in Arizona to count Ron Paul votes as Governor Romney votes; ballot stuffing, meaning the same person casting several ballots in several states; altering and falsifying ballot totals for each candidate; the use of violence at several state conventions; [and] altering procedural rules to prevent votes from being cast for Ron Paul," the complaint states.
They claim that the RNC and its chairman "intimidate delegates in support of the RNC's position that Governor Romney is the nominee of the party when Governor Romney does not have the minimum number of delegates and no vote has yet taken place and the convention has not begun."
They claim that delegates who refuse to sign loyalty affidavits to Romney "are told they may not serve as delegates, even though they were duly elected."
The plaintiffs ask the court to order the RNC to inform delegates that they can vote for the candidate of their choice; to reinstate delegates who lost their seats at the convention because they refused to sign loyalty affidavits; and to recount ballots by hand or hold another convention in areas "where the sanctity of the ballots are untrustworthy."
-------
"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC