Heck...Why not a RUMP NATIONAL CONVENTION...backed by the military?

[SteveMartin]

I think we need a rump national convention along the lines of what the RP supporters in Louisiana did. It is obvious that our "democratic process" has been thoroughly rigged. And, based on the media malfeasance and manipulation in the current electoral cycle (as well as blatant vote fraud, polling fraud, etc., etc.) Ron Paul has a right to declare this neocon-twisted Republican nomination process null & void. I think he would receive the backing of a vast majority of the military if he declared a rump national convention!

We all know that when people hear RP's message the majority of them are drawn to it and wind up supporting it. Only party hacks seem not to go for the message, because they are the ones who will be replaced. People have been denied the right to hear his message, the right to vote for him, blatantly false information regarding his level of popularity--you name it!

That having been said, it is my opinion that this election cycle has been thoroughly tainted by the MSM, and that we need Congressional hearings and a rump national convention.

To do so, we will need this petition to get at least 20-30,000 signatures as one bullet in the chamber of any such effort--preferably 100,000 sigantures-- (currently at app. 6550 signatures right now):

"A Petition for Fair and Equal Treatment in the Media of Dr. Ron Paul's Presidential Election Campaign":

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/487443841

[morlhzd]

A rump national convention would signal the end for the GOP as a valid party - so maybe just keeping the threat out there will help.

Either way I'm in.

[SteveMartin]

Now, I am only suggesting "backed by the military" in the sense that we are allowed to peaceably assemble and conduct our business with their assistance and protection. We would likely need it.

No one is suggesting a military coup here...

[Libertytree]

If this could be tied in with the March on Washington, it might present a very strong message. A lot of coordination and pre planning would have to be put into this. Maybe this is the answer to what to call the "march/protest"? Signatures for the petition could be taken the day of the event and delivered to the appropriate place(s).

Just thinking and throwing the spaghetti against the wall and seeing what sticks....? I do like the concept Steve.

[SteveMartin]

LT,

Thanks!

Yep...we will need to get some stuff going soon if we are going to plan it right and have it be successful.

Who else is on board? We can use all the people who want to help on a planning committee...starting with conference calls?

[Libertytree]

There's lots of folks who are yet to chime in w/ their idea's, so let's keep formulating idea's etc...it can only be made to be better.

I think Torchbearer will have some first hand experience and new idea's to throw at this, because he's involved in the first Rump Convention at the state level.

Integrating the petition, both online and actual handwritten signatures and delivered by each and everyone of us involved in the "march" is a definite statement.

Keep thinkin'!

[Revolution9]

Can you explain to the readers what a Rump Convention is. This ain't no booty call for a rap video..so just what is it and its advantages within the system context?

Best
Randy

[billjarrett]

Can you explain to the readers what a Rump Convention is. This ain't no booty call for a rap video..so just what is it and its advantages within the system context?

Best
Randy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1860_Democratic_National_Convention

Is that what you were looking for Randy?

[thoughtbombing]

A rump national convention would signal the end for the GOP as a valid party - so maybe just keeping the threat out there will help.

Either way I'm in.

GRAND. I'm in.

[Banana]

The real question would be whether RNC has systematically broken its own rules, which would be news to me.

We had a rump convention in LA because they changed their own rules and fudged the bets, and resisted against being called out. The folks in LA played by the rules and therefore had a case.

I don't think RNC has done anything similar to LA GOP, so at that point, a rump convention would be more like a meetup for sore losers, unless we can show that RNC pulled a LA GOP act in several states.

As Bradley in DC would say, learn the rules, play the game.

[Libertytree]

I look forward to seeing where this thread has progressed when I return from work. I have a couple idea's to bounce around but need to refine them until later.

Great concept though.

[Libertytree]

Well, the GOP allowing the media to ignore/blacklist the most conservative candidate is certainly grounds IMHO. The GOP has been negligent in their duties to the party and to the American public.

[Banana]

Pretty sure that GOP can't just go to media and say, "Hey, turn your camera to Ron, please!"; after all, media are private companies and can do what they want.

Even if they were negligent, I'd imagine we'd need more solid evidence. See, they can just say we're a bunch of sore losers because same thing happened to every second tier candidate before Ron Paul.

In LA, GOP set rules and deadlines. The people there followed the rules and as a result, was most organized. The GOP didn't like that, so they changed their own rules to give other candidate a sporting chance (HA!). The people there made note of that. Then they did it again by taking in 500 provisional ballot, denying RP delegates' eligibility, even if they were holding a certificate of eligibility. Because of that clear-cut infractions, they have a solid case.

It has to be something really concrete; fuzzy finger-wanging over the media blackout isn't enough, IMO.

[nate895]

Pretty sure that GOP can't just go to media and say, "Hey, turn your camera to Ron, please!"; after all, media are private companies and can do what they want.

Even if they were negligent, I'd imagine we'd need more solid evidence. See, they can just say we're a bunch of sore losers because same thing happened to every second tier candidate before Ron Paul.

In LA, GOP set rules and deadlines. The people there followed the rules and as a result, was most organized. The GOP didn't like that, so they changed their own rules to give other candidate a sporting chance (HA!). The people there made note of that. Then they did it again by taking in 500 provisional ballot, denying RP delegates' eligibility, even if they were holding a certificate of eligibility. Because of that clear-cut infractions, they have a solid case.

It has to be something really concrete; fuzzy finger-wanging over the media blackout isn't enough, IMO.

If they admit any delegates that violated any of the rules it is possible. If they admitted the LA delegates from the regular convention, or if they admitted the delegates from states that decided on how to apportion their delegates after September, or any other rule pretty much.

[burningfur]

Now, I am only suggesting "backed by the military" in the sense that we are allowed to peaceably assemble and conduct our business with their assistance and protection. We would likely need it.

No one is suggesting a military coup here...

but bring your guns, so they know you're serious.

[Banana]

If they admit any delegates that violated any of the rules it is possible. If they admitted the LA delegates from the regular convention, or if they admitted the delegates from states that decided on how to apportion their delegates after September, or any other rule pretty much.

That's a good example. This will be hard to call us sore losers because we can point to their own rulebook and say you didn't follow that rule.

But still need to find out if there is even a provision for a rump convention (can't imagine having one as there is nobody else to appeal to above national level?), and what threshold it is (e.g. if just one state, it should be done within that state's party; going to national is stretching it, but if more than just handful, then yes, good case).

[jblosser]

To whom are you going to appeal to get your convention recognized as the real one? The RNC who is holding the one you are objecting to?

The nomination process that the national convention is part of is to select the person that the national party will tell the state chapters is the person they should submit to their state to be put on the ballot using the access they have secured. This is all part of the internal workings of what is essentially a corporation. Yes, they are bound by rules, but that's not the same as law. It meets the law when it's a matter of what name goes on the ballot.

That's not to say it's not possible to make a case for this somewhere inside the party but I'm not sure people are understanding what a rump convention is or why it's a possibility in LA. "Not being fair in the media" is not typically a recognized justification.

[nate895]

That's a good example. This will be hard to call us sore losers because we can point to their own rulebook and say you didn't follow that rule.

But still need to find out if there is even a provision for a rump convention (can't imagine having one as there is nobody else to appeal to above national level?), and what threshold it is (e.g. if just one state, it should be done within that state's party; going to national is stretching it, but if more than just handful, then yes, good case).

A rump convention at a national level would mean that the state parties would have to decide which convention is right and who gets on the ballot, sometimes both get on the ballot as the same party.

[liberteebell]

Pretty sure that GOP can't just go to media and say, "Hey, turn your camera to Ron, please!"; after all, media are private companies and can do what they want.

Even if they were negligent, I'd imagine we'd need more solid evidence. See, they can just say we're a bunch of sore losers because same thing happened to every second tier candidate before Ron Paul.

In LA, GOP set rules and deadlines. The people there followed the rules and as a result, was most organized. The GOP didn't like that, so they changed their own rules to give other candidate a sporting chance (HA!). The people there made note of that. Then they did it again by taking in 500 provisional ballot, denying RP delegates' eligibility, even if they were holding a certificate of eligibility. Because of that clear-cut infractions, they have a solid case.

It has to be something really concrete; fuzzy finger-wanging over the media blackout isn't enough, IMO.

I certainly see your point about actual rules broken and I agree.

But I also have some issues with ethics and some questions. What about party control of the debates? What about party officials openly dogging one of their own, ironically, the one with the most conservative credentials? Didn't the RNC chairman endorse juan mc100yearwar a couple of weeks ago? That would certainly disenfranchise lots of voters who had not yet had their primary or caucus and it sounds unethical to me. (not that these people have any ethics in the first place).

Didn't some of the same things happen in WA state as did in LA?

At any rate, count me in for anything that challenges The Establishment.

[nosebruise]

uh...

and exactly how would you get "backing" by the military?

you wanna call the FBI/CIA and see if they'll back you up too? :rolleyes:

[Banana]

But I also have some issues with ethics and some questions.

The bitch about ethics is that it's easiest to waffle (Oh, I'm sorry, I would never do that. It was an accident, honest!). I'd rather that we go after broken rules and not just "It's not fair", which just looks like a smear.


What about party control of the debates?

Good question- I assumed it was media's to control... Anyone know?


What about party officials openly dogging one of their own, ironically, the one with the most conservative credentials?

Missed the news. Mind elaborating?


Didn't the RNC chairman endorse juan mc100yearwar a couple of weeks ago? That would certainly disenfranchise lots of voters who had not yet had their primary or caucus and it sounds unethical to me. (not that these people have any ethics in the first place).

Certainly, yes. This is unethical, but also easy to waffle. Understand that nobody likes to hear someone bitching about how it's not right, and it's easy for people to dismiss this out of hand, thinking what a sore loser. It's human tendency, unfortunately, and is why I would worry more about following the rule to letter and leaving it up to them to break their own rules (personally, I'd prefer they didn't. Makes it all easier for us, no?)


Didn't some of the same things happen in WA state as did in LA?

Yes, but not as blatantly as I would like it. What we basically had was a dumbass who called it too premature, and hurt *both* Huckabee and Paul. We would have a better case if the dumbass persisted and insisted that McCain won even after the full count showing otherwise. Even then, we ought to have more than just two states.

If Nate is right about rump convention leading to leaving up to state parties to accept which national convention is right, this would be even a bigger uphill battle as we'd have convince the same state party we're calling dumbass that they're dumbass. See the problem?

I doubt that LA folks would want to ask LA GOP to decide if the rump convention is right.


At any rate, count me in for anything that challenges The Establishment.

And you can do so by being a delegate. (Sorry but wanted to remind everyone the importance...)

[liberteebell]

The bitch about ethics is that it's easiest to waffle (Oh, I'm sorry, I would never do that. It was an accident, honest!). I'd rather that we go after broken rules and not just "It's not fair", which just looks like a smear.

Thanks. You're helping me with clarity.




Good question- I assumed it was media's to control... Anyone know?

I read somewhere that the parties actually had control over the debates. I'll see if I can dig up the article.




Missed the news. Mind elaborating?

Nearly every local republican official I've encountered has openly dogged Ron Paul, as officials running committee meetings. It's pretty sad but I think your answer to the ethics question applies here.




Certainly, yes. This is unethical, but also easy to waffle. Understand that nobody likes to hear someone bitching about how it's not right, and it's easy for people to dismiss this out of hand, thinking what a sore loser. It's human tendency, unfortunately, and is why I would worry more about following the rule to letter and leaving it up to them to break their own rules (personally, I'd prefer they didn't. Makes it all easier for us, no?)

Yes, makes plenty of sense.




Yes, but not as blatantly as I would like it. What we basically had was a dumbass who called it too premature, and hurt *both* Huckabee and Paul. We would have a better case if the dumbass persisted and insisted that McCain won even after the full count showing otherwise. Even then, we ought to have more than just two states.

If Nate is right about rump convention leading to leaving up to state parties to accept which national convention is right, this would be even a bigger uphill battle as we'd have convince the same state party we're calling dumbass that they're dumbass. See the problem?

I doubt that LA folks would want to ask LA GOP to decide if the rump convention is right.

Yes and again, thank you for helping me clarify.




And you can do so by being a delegate. (Sorry but wanted to remind everyone the importance...)

I am :D

[SteveMartin]

The "military" would join us to see that we were allowed to peacably assemble. I would love to see some major generals stand up with us with their sidearms so that if Hitlery's or McInsane's goons tried to cause trouble we could give them pause.

I have plenty of evidence of media unfairness. It's easily documented, to the point that no honest jury could say that it did not have a major impact on the election. We also have plenty of evidence of "upfront voter fraud" where people were told they could not vote for RP because he had "already dropped out."

To me, the march that is being planned is pure symbolism, right? Let's do something like this in conjunction with it, and if it rises beyond symbolism on its own merits, great.

[TruthAtLast]

i like the idea in concept but wouldn't they just say "if you don't like how our party works, start your own".

So the question really would come down to.... is the goal really to just let ALL republicans know how corrupt their own party is; that their votes never REALLY counted for anything; that they were never really given a choice?

If that is the case, then such a movement (especially tied to a significant march) could destroy the Republican party, but ultimately many voters would be left without a home and we would need to provide them with one. Some voters that are life-long republicans might stay but they would realize that they are on a sinking ship and may stand up to force their organization to make some changes.

I just think we would need to define some clear goals here. I doubt we would succeed in taking over the Republican party, but we could strike such a severe blow to their credibility that they would have no shot at winning the General election and the sting might last for years.

[SteveMartin]

Not if we set up alternate voting sites all across America, advertise those locations well, and list all the major candidates on the ballot along with the winner of our Republican convention....

[nate895]

Not if we set up alternate voting sites all across America, advertise those locations well, and list all the major candidates on the ballot along with the winner of our Republican convention....

Now that sounds like fun. When is the alternative Army beginning to recruit? I'd like to be a general.

[SteveMartin]

What do you all say to them apples! Talk about a rEVOLutionary act-- and taking your country back!!!

[SteveMartin]

nate,

Don't worry. RP has LOTS of support in the REAL army.

[nate895]

nate,

Don't worry. RP has LOTS of support in the REAL army.

The ones that actually fight, the ones that get to stay at the Pentagon love McWar.

[SteveMartin]

Well, I think we could probably get a few hundred reservists and state-side duty folks to join us anyway...

[Libertytree]

Ya know, it's kind of ironic.

Last week at work I had a conversation with a guy who was deploying to Iraq the next day. He said something that caught my ear, he said that many of the military service people, himself included, wanted to be here in the states in order to cover our backs. He alluded, though not specifically, that they think they are/will be needed here more than over there.

At the same time another customer overheard our conversation,chimed in, emphatically agreed and brought up the Haliburton detention centers, they both acknowledged their existence with one of the gentlemen talking about the army/he himself helping to build those facilities.

[torchbearer]

actually this may work, imagine having two republicanson the election ballot. this is brilliant!!!!
all we have to do is get ballot access for Ron in all 50 states, but have him claim the republican nomination because of all the illegalities the other GOP candidate participated in to get the nomination of the illegal convention in st.paul.

so there willl be two republicans on the ballot, and we will have a choice...

[torchbearer]

Well, I think we could probably get a few hundred reservists and state-side duty folks to join us anyway...

let's do this...

[Banana]

But have other state parties committed same stupid breaking-their-own-rules-and-making-up-as-they-go thing as LA GOP? I've yet to hear a report?

[torchbearer]

But have other state parties committed same stupid breaking-their-own-rules-and-making-up-as-they-go thing as LA GOP? I've yet to hear a report?

They wouldn't have to.. if the RNC accepts the phony slate from louisiana, it would invalidate their whole convention.
If the RNC follows their rules and rejects 90% of the louisiana delegation, then we'd have to prove other illegalities elsewhere...and force them to act according to their own laws.
If they don't follow their laws, they have no valid power because their powers are granted by those very laws they aren't following..

[Thomas Paine]

If the history of the Roman Republic is any guidance, someday some numnut with a lot of money (eg. Warrent Buffett or Bill Gates) is going to seize a party's nomination with the backing of the military or a privately financed army.

[brandon]

This is a great idea

First we need to get as many delegates as possible into the "real" RNC. We already have approx 50 that are bound to Paul. We will get an additional 50 or so bound to paul by the time the convention happens.

Most states are yet to have the conventions to choose the delegates. We need our people to become delegates, even if it means they will be bound to vote for mccain. They can still help us anyway. We should have a minimum of 100 delegates at RNC, if we can get that up to 300-400, then we really have ground to stand on.

Imagine 400 delegates walking out of the RNC in protest to them accepting the fake delegates from LA. Our 400 "real" delegates then convene with the other delegates from this movement and nominate Ron Paul.

Lets do it. Please become delegates. Learn the process and get involved.

[Banana]

They wouldn't have to.. if the RNC accepts the phony slate from louisiana, it would invalidate their whole convention.
If the RNC follows their rules and rejects 90% of the louisiana delegation, then we'd have to prove other illegalities elsewhere...and force them to act according to their own laws.
If they don't follow their laws, they have no valid power because their powers are granted by those very laws they aren't following..

Ah, I see what you are getting at. I'm not terribly good at this, but I want to make sure we totally understand what we're doing.

Would it only work if we had a close call? If McWar had 1000 delegates while Ron Paul had 42 (not counting the sleeper delegates) and the difference was 47, wouldn't they just spin it as inconsequential?


This is a great idea, and I am behind it 100%.

First we need to get as many delegates as possible into the "real" RNC. We already have approx 50 that are bound to Paul. We will get an additional 50 or so bound to paul by the time the convention happens.

Most states are yet to have the conventions to choose the delegates. We need our people to become delegates, even if it means they will be bound to vote for mccain. They can still help us anyway. We should have a minimum of 100 delegates at RNC, if we can get that up to 300-400, then we really have ground to stand on.

Imagine 400 delegates walking out of the RNC in protest to them accepting the fake delegates from LA. Our 400 "real" delegates then convene with the other delegates from this movement and nominate Ron Paul.

Lets do it. Please become delegates. Learn the process and get involved.

Now that's something... If we fill enough slots, whether bound to other candidates, we can make some real noises.


As I said before, Paul *will* win, with or without nomination if we storm the states and national convention.

[torchbearer]

//

[nate895]

We'd have to have delegations from every state for this to count, won't we?

If that is the case, then we need to get some people signed up from all 50 states, DC, and the territories. Contact the meetups.

[torchbearer]

We'd have to have delegations from every state for this to count, won't we?

If that is the case, then we need to get some people signed up from all 50 states, DC, and the territories. Contact the meetups.

consider it a meet-up coordinated convention in each state.
too bad there isn't a simple way to contact all of them at once.

[nate895]

consider it a meet-up coordinated convention in each state.
too bad there isn't a simple way to contact all of them at once.

If we could get the campaign on board, the coordinators would probably just be able to contact all the local meet-up heads, and then we'd be able to have some fun with our own conventions and such.

[torchbearer]

If we could get the campaign on board, the coordinators would probably just be able to contact all the local meet-up heads, and then we'd be able to have some fun with our own conventions and such.

SteveMartin can you get this to HQ for consideration?

[nate895]

bump for the rump convention.

[tomveil]

bump for the rump convention.

Hey nate I just saw your sig...where in WA are you?

I want to say I'm in the 17th, but I don't remember for sure.

[nate895]

Hey nate I just saw your sig...where in WA are you?

I want to say I'm in the 17th, but I don't remember for sure.

I am in the Felida area of Vancouver, I am actually on the border of my district.

[pacelli]

bump for rump

[tomveil]

I am in the Felida area of Vancouver, I am actually on the border of my district.

Well, damn! You part of the Vancouver meetup? If you need local help from us, just let us know.

[nate895]

Well, damn! You part of the Vancouver meetup? If you need local help from us, just let us know.

I have been to the meetup a few times, not very often and I'm not officially a member since I am not 18 yet. I'll talk to the meetup (I was hoping maybe Katja could help with managing eventually) if my family and friends think it's a good idea. My parents aren't entirely sold, and I haven't talked to my friends about it since I had the worst flu ever last week. I figure I'd only have a small chance of winning from my age, but I'm a pretty good speaker, and it would be fun to do.

[tomveil]

I have been to the meetup a few times, not very often and I'm not officially a member since I am not 18 yet. I'll talk to the meetup (I was hoping maybe Katja could help with managing eventually) if my family and friends think it's a good idea. My parents aren't entirely sold, and I haven't talked to my friends about it since I had the worst flu ever last week. I figure I'd only have a small chance of winning from my age, but I'm a pretty good speaker, and it would be fun to do.

Good, sounds like you're already in touch with the right people :)

[nate895]

bump for the rump

[Sandra]

If we could get the campaign on board, the coordinators would probably just be able to contact all the local meet-up heads, and then we'd be able to have some fun with our own conventions and such.



Meetup heads failed to contact everyone in the meetup so this flopped miserably. As a matter of fact Mr JC brought it up in the meeting during the break at the convention. Some organizers kept information to themselves to further their own cause. HQ needs to send info directly to the message boards or everybody's email. There's no reason to send privy information to organizers they don't really know. It tends to get passed along half-assed anyway. An exception would be those whose professional talents are needed by HQ. But as for Dist 6 we had no word at all unless someone from another district told us something.

[SteveMartin]

If HQ got involved we would have to be sure that any infiltrators were kicked out of the national office first or everything we might plan would be thwarted at every step before it could be implemented. Actually, RP himself would probably have to be on board with it first and foremost. I suppose I could call him, but we may want to have the plan more fully developed before I bothered RP personally.

Then, if/when HQ got involved and took the leadership of the plan, we would probably want a very well-put-together list of grievances with proofs before rolling forward. We would want to show ample cause why the current elections cycle has been thoroughly mismanaged and the "fairness doctrine" trashed. I think many people may have proofs available...I know I certainly have been documenting my share since last May.

[brandon]

If HQ got involved we would have to be sure that any infiltrators were kicked out of the national office first or everything we might plan would be thwarted at every step before it could be implemented. Actually, RP himself would probably have to be on board with it first and foremost. I suppose I could call him, but we may want to have the plan more fully developed before I bothered RP personally.

Then, if/when HQ got involved and took the leadership of the plan, we would probably want a very well-put-together list of grievances with proofs before rolling forward. We would want to show ample cause why the current elections cycle has been thoroughly mismanaged and the "fairness doctrine" trashed. I think many people may have proofs available...I know I certainly have been documenting my share since last May.

We have to get as many delegates as possible to actually be in the RNC to even consider this. I think we would need at least 1/5 of the total delegates (around 500) at the RNC to walk out and join the rump convention for this to have any legitimacy.

I worry to many people already gave up on this campaign. I hope I am proved wrong.

We should pick up quite a few delegates in pa.

[nate895]

We have to get as many delegates as possible to actually be in the RNC to even consider this. I think we would need at least 1/5 of the total delegates (around 500) at the RNC to walk out and join the rump convention for this to have any legitimacy.

I worry to many people already gave up on this campaign. I hope I am proved wrong.

We should pick up quite a few delegates in pa.

The campaign plans on having at least 458 there, w/out PA, WA, and some caucus states. I'd say that we will probably get around 500 there, and then we'd have full delegations from the other states for the rump convention. If I were the delegates in Pennsylvania, I'd campaign as a person that would go to the convention that would represent small government conservatism.

[nate895]

Another we'd have to do is prove to the FEC that we are the legitimate Republican Nominee, that would give us 75 million dollars in public funding automatically.

[SteveMartin]

I don't see the need for any certain number of delegates at the national convention in order to walk out. Maybe I just don't understand what rules we are applying.

We have already seen that the GOP doesn't follow their own rules. The way Dr. Paul and his supporters have been treated (whether at the "debates," in the polling where his name wasn't even mentioned early on, or in the actual primary elections and caucus straw polls with all of their blatant fraud) I honestly don't see us owing the GOP anything...not even a large walkout.

In fact, I'd almost be inclined to just have our delegates never show up there at all...but that's just off the cuff really...

[Chester Copperpot]

A rump national convention would signal the end for the GOP as a valid party - so maybe just keeping the threat out there will help.

Either way I'm in.

SAME HERE.. IN!

[SteveMartin]

Anybody her got free conference calling ability?? Might be a good idea to have a couple of those, then I will call RP if we all think we have enough material meriting such a step.

(I'd like these calls open to all proven RP supporters only...so help me think of how we could accomplish that--and lock out eavesdroppers.)

[Brown Sapper]

Can someone please tell me how exactly are we going to get the military to stand with us? I know a lot of them do but stupid UCMJ is kind of a roadblock. Are they going to get orders or are they going to stand independently? Units can't act on their own they must have orders. If they start acting on their own it could get VERY ugly.

[torchbearer]

the only thing i need HQ for is the logistical problem of communicating with all our supporters in an efficient manner.

I could go around to all the thousands of meet-ups and notify their organizers one at a time, or I could get HQ to relay the needed info through their massive emailing list.
All other details can be taken care of by dependable people like ourselves.

it would help if we had a better HQ to do most of this for us... but we can definitely do it with very little help on their end.

basically, we would be making our own campaign staff with grassroots volunteers.
50 state leaders who are over a confederated meet-up group which comprises of all the organizers of the regional meet-up groups. a chain of command.
those 50 state coordinators could be consolidated into one national meet-up set up for the purpose of providing convention info.

the structure is already 80% complete. the biggest thing i see is the logistics of the initial communications, which HQ could prove to be very useful.

thoughts?

[SteveMartin]

BS,

Good point. I guess that National Guard troops and individual high-ranking officers acting independently (or issuing commands to their subordinates) would have to form the bulk of our protective support, unless there was some type of major emergency due to another Bush misstep in the M.E. or something where all bets are off and standard UCMJ is being ignored en masse.

Of course, there presence would hopefully only need to be symbolic, and we may be less controversial getting police officers to stand with us.

[the_bee]

what is a rump national convention?

[Brown Sapper]

what is a rump national convention?

From what I gather is we get enough delagates at the national convention to say F--- this BS and call it a sham, then form a totally new convention and nominate their own candidate (Ron Paul), get the FEC to condone it base on the injustice we have been dealt on our candidate and get him on the Presidential ballot with a Republican tag.

[SteveMartin]

the only thing i need HQ for is the logistical problem of communicating with all our supporters in an efficient manner.

I could go around to all the thousands of meet-ups and notify their organizers one at a time, or I could get HQ to relay the needed info through their massive emailing list.
All other details can be taken care of by dependable people like ourselves.

it would help if we had a better HQ to do most of this for us... but we can definitely do it with very little help on their end.

basically, we would be making our own campaign staff with grassroots volunteers.
50 state leaders who are over a confederated meet-up group which comprises of all the organizers of the regional meet-up groups. a chain of command.
those 50 state coordinators could be consolidated into one national meet-up set up for the purpose of providing convention info.

the structure is already 80% complete. the biggest thing i see is the logistics of the initial communications, which HQ could prove to be very useful.

thoughts?

Would the www.ronpaulfriendsUSA.com setup be something we might achieve this throug?....Do you know Dick Mills in Houston?

[SteveMartin]

BS,

That isn't quite what I envision. I'd like to go even a step further. My suggestion may be all wet, but I don't think the FEC would ever side with us on anything.

My suggestion is to hold a seperate election...Our own voting places, our own ballot with the other parties' candidates plus the real Republican listed. Let the media/RNC candidate twist....

[Brown Sapper]

The would be so much backlash if a guard unit drew weapons out without the consent of a Brigade Commander to support a political event. I pretty sure that even going to the rally in uniform would probably piss a whole lot of big wigs off. Anywho pretty much my whole company down in Texas are Paulites but we won't be able to do anything of this magnitude unless we got orders.

[torchbearer]

Would the www.ronpaulfriendsUSA.com setup be something we might achieve this throug?....Do you know Dick Mills in Houston?

No i don't know him, and even if there structure is together, how hard would it be to get people to sign up on another site... where with meet-up there are already plugged in...

[torchbearer]

//

[Banana]

Not to be a stickler, but I think someone should grab a RNC By-laws and all relevant documents and cite it so we can play by the rules.

Going to do us no good to cry foul if we aren't playing by their rules.

Ditto for FEC's appeal procedures.

[billjarrett]

Not to be a stickler, but I think someone should grab a RNC By-laws and all relevant documents and cite it so we can play by the rules.

Going to do us no good to cry foul if we aren't playing by their rules.

Ditto for FEC's appeal procedures.

Is this what you are looking for, or something else?

http://www.gop.com/About/AboutRead.aspx?Guid=a4cc4fcb-6043-4af2-860a-41ae912a2c42

[torchbearer]

Not to be a stickler, but I think someone should grab a RNC By-laws and all relevant documents and cite it so we can play by the rules.

Going to do us no good to cry foul if we aren't playing by their rules.

Ditto for FEC's appeal procedures.

Pepperpete has the rules, pm her for guidelines, she would be great as a national committee secretary.

[torchbearer]

//

[Banana]

Is this what you are looking for, or something else?

http://www.gop.com/About/AboutRead.aspx?Guid=a4cc4fcb-6043-4af2-860a-41ae912a2c42

Yeah, saw that before; I was originally unsure if that was everything; sometime they have more than just one set of documents. Does anyone else know?

Tourchbearer- thanks for the name drop.


Anyway, this is most relevant to what is going on with LA GOP:


RULE NO. 16
Enforcement of Rules
(a) If any state or state party violates the Rules of the Republican Party relating to the timing of the selection process resulting in the election of delegates or alternate delegates to the next national convention, such state shall suffer a loss of its delegates and alternate delegates to that national convention as follows:

(1) If a state or state party violates the Rules of the Republican Party relating to the timing of the selection process resulting in the election of delegates or alternate delegates to the national convention before the call to the national convention is issued, then the number of delegates to the national convention from that state shall be reduced by fifty percent (50%), and the corresponding alternated delegates shall also be reduced.

(2) If a state or state party violates the Rules of the Republican Party relating to the timing of the selection process resulting in the election of delegates or alternate delegates to the national convention after the call to the national convention is issued, then the number of delegates to the national convention from that state shall be reduced by ninety percent (90%), and the corresponding alternate delegates shall also be reduced.

(3) Any sum representing a fraction shall be increased to the nearest whole number, so long as such rounding does not prevent a state from having at least one (1) delegate or alternate delegate to the national convention.

(b) If a violation has occurred before the issuance of the call to the national convention, the chairman of the Republican National Committee shall notify the offending state of the violation and shall inform the state of the number of delegates and alternate delegates it will lose. This reduced number of delegates and alternate delegates will be reflected in the call to the national convention, and will be reported to the secretary of state or responsible election official of the offending state and to the chairman of every state party. Said reduced number will be the only number recognized as the official delegation of the state to the national convention.

(c) If a violation has occurred after the issuance of the call to the national convention, the chairman of the Republican National Committee shall notify the state of the violation and shall inform the state of the number of delegates and alternate delegates it will lose. This reduced number of delegates and alternate delegates will be reported to the secretary of state or responsible election official of the offending state and to the chairman of every state party, and such reduced number will be the only number recognized as the official delegation of the state to the national convention.

(d) If the chairman of the Republican National Committee does not act upon a violation of the Rules of the Republican Party relating to the selection and/or allocation of delegates or alternate delegates to the national convention, then a statement may be filed against a state or state party by any three (3) members of the Republican National Committee Standing Committee on Rules who feel that a violation has occurred.

(1) A statement filed against a state or state party by any three (3) members of the Standing Committee on Rules shall be written and shall specify the reasons why the members believe the state or state party is in violation. The statement shall be signed and dated by each Rules member filing the statement, and shall be filed with the secretary of the Republican National Committee. The secretary of the Republican National Committee shall, within twenty (20) days of receipt, distribute such statement to all members of the Republican National Committee.

(2) The Standing Committee on Rules shall meet upon the call of the chairman of the Rules Committee, and shall vote upon whether a state or state party is in violation. If by majority vote the Standing Committee on Rules finds a violation, then such state or state party shall suffer the penalties described in paragraph (a) of this rule.

(e) If a state or state party is determined to be in violation:

(1) No member of the Republican National Committee from the offending state shall be permitted to serve as a delegate or alternate delegate to the national convention.

(2) After the Republican National Committee members are excluded from being part of the offending state’s delegation to the national convention, the state party shall determine which of the state’s remaining delegates (and corresponding alternate delegates) are entitled to serve as part of the state’s reduced delegation to the national convention.

(3) In addition to the penalties provided for in paragraphs (e)(1) and (2) of this rule, the Republican National Committee Standing Committee on Rules may impose additional sanctions relating to the offending state’s hotel location at the national convention, guest privileges and VIP passes at the national convention, and seating location in the national convention hall.

(f) A state or state party shall have no appeal from either a finding of a violation against it or a penalty imposed upon it under this rule.

Note that the only penalty is a loss of 90% delegates. Too bad it's not clear on how the 10% will be selected, and what they will be bound to.

That said, this is relevant for contesting RNC:


RULE NO. 20
Contests: Resolution by States
All contests arising in any state electing district delegates by district conventions shall be decided by its state convention or, if the state convention shall not meet prior to the national convention, then by its state committee. Only contests affecting delegates elected at large shall be presented to the Republican National Committee; provided, however, if the contest regarding a district delegate arises out of the irregular or unlawful action of the state committee or state convention, the Republican National Committee may take jurisdiction thereof and hear and determine the same under the procedures provided in Rules No. 22 and No. 23.


RULE NO. 22
Contest Filing
(a) Notices of contests shall state the grounds of the contest and shall be filed, no later than thirty (30) days before the time set for the meeting of the national convention, with the secretary of the Republican National Committee and shall be sent, simultaneously, by registered mail to the person or persons being contested, except in the case of delegates or alternate delegates elected at a time or times in accordance with applicable state law rendering impossible the filing of the notice of contest within the time above specified.

(b) Notices of contests may be filed only by a resident of the state whose delegation is challenged who was eligible to participate at any level in the delegate selection process of that state.

(c) Only contests that are timely filed under these rules shall be considered.

(d) For purposes of the rules relating to contests and credentials, the term “party” shall mean a person or persons who shall have filed a notice of contest pursuant to this Rule No. 22, and the person or persons whose right to be seated as a delegate or alternate delegate is the subject of such notice of contest.

RULE NO. 23
Contest Procedure
(a) The Committee on Contests shall have the power to adopt procedural rules, not inconsistent with these rules, which shall govern the expeditious resolution of contests before the Committee on Contests. When any deadline set out in this rule falls on a Sunday or legal holiday, such deadline shall be extended to the following day.

(b) No later than twenty-two (22) days before the convening of the national convention (or, in the case of delegates or alternate delegates elected at a time or times in accordance with applicable state law rendering impossible compliance with this requirement, within five (5) days after such election), each of the parties shall file with the secretary of the Republican National Committee at least three (3) printed or typewritten copies of the statement of position in support of the party’s claim to sit as delegates or alternate delegates to the national convention together with such affidavits or other evidence as desired. The secretary of the Republican National Committee, upon receiving the statement of position of a party, shall furnish the opposing party a copy of said statement of position. Each statement of position shall begin with a summary of not more than one thousand (1,000) words setting forth succinctly a synopsis of the statement of position and a specific statement of the points relied upon.

(c) The Committee on Contests shall promptly hear the matter; decide which issues are involved, either of law or fact, or both; decide upon its recommendation for resolution of such issues; and submit such issues and its recommendations for resolution to the Republican National Committee. The issues so submitted by the Committee on Contests shall be the sole issues passed upon and determined by the Republican National Committee unless the Republican National Committee shall, by a majority vote, extend or change the same. If the Committee on Contests for any reason shall fail to state the issues either of law or fact, the Republican National Committee shall decide upon what issues the contest shall be tried, and the hearing shall be limited to such issues unless the Republican National Committee, by a majority vote, shall decide otherwise.

(d) The Committee on Contests shall make up a report of each contest filed, showing the grounds of contest; the statute and rule, if any, under which the contest is waged; and the contentions of each party thereto. The report shall conclude with a statement of the points of issue in the contest, both of fact and law, and a statement of the recommendation of the Committee on Contests as to resolution of such points of issue, and shall be signed by the chairman or his designee. When the Committee on Contests has prepared such report stating the issues of law and fact, a copy of the statement of such issues shall be submitted forthwith to a person in the convention city, whom the parties must appoint at the time of filing the contest to receive such statement, and a copy shall be served forthwith by the chairman of the Committee on Contests upon the parties by the most expeditious method available, providing for written evidence of receipt including, but not limited to, overnight delivery service.

(e) The parties shall have eight (8) days to file written objections to the Committee on Contests' statement of the issues of fact or law, or both, unless the Republican National Committee is called to act upon the contest sooner, in which case such objections shall be made before the meeting of the whole committee. If the parties reside in American Samoa, Guam, Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, or the Virgin Islands, they shall be entitled to ten (10) days to file written objections. The objections shall contain any additional statement of issues of either law or fact, or both, claimed by the party submitting the same to be involved in and necessary to be decided in the contest.

(f) When the Republican National Committee is called to pass upon any contest that may arise, the members of the Committee on Credentials shall also be notified of the time and place of such meeting and shall have the right to attend all hearings of all contests but without the right to participate in the discussion or the vote.

I strongly encourage everyone to do their homework as well. :)

[Banana]

I had to rush after I posted the above.

Anyway, it seems as if there isn't really any provisions for a rump convention, other than making an appeal to contest committee after the national convention.

Am I missing something?

[nate895]

I had to rush after I posted the above.

Anyway, it seems as if there isn't really any provisions for a rump convention, other than making an appeal to contest committee after the national convention.

Am I missing something?

The reason there is no provisions for one is because there would be no point to make rules on how to proceed with one, it is calling the convention BS, and leaving, and saying you are the real convention. It is like when there is a struggle over a crown, there is no rules for when someone isn't really King but they claim the throne anyway, the real one will just take the real throne and they eventually fight it out. Except for fighting out in this case, we have a battle at the FEC and the Secretaries of State of the several states and we get on the ballot as another Republican nominated by another convention. Instead of fighting a long and bloody war, we fight at the ballot box in November.

[nate895]

bump

[Banana]

Could they argue that if we had a rump convention, we broke the rules and therefore are illegitimate? They can point to the 22 and 23 and say, 'we have provisions for this (going to the contest committee after the national convention) and they didn't follow through with this.' ?

[nate895]

Could they argue that if we had a rump convention, we broke the rules and therefore are illegitimate? They can point to the 22 and 23 and say, 'we have provisions for this (going to the contest committee after the national convention) and they didn't follow through with this.' ?

We will file contests, and they will probably reject them, and then we will do the same thing as the Louisianans were gonna do, and have motions for those delegates to be barred, and then we will have elected our own delegates walkout and meetup with the other delegates (we need to hold caucuses in every state to elect the delegates legally), and then they do the same exact thing that the convention was gonna do. These caucuses maybe a little expensive, we will need private homes to do them in and to have announcements in newspapers to make it look official.

[billjarrett]

We will file contests, and they will probably reject them, and then we will do the same thing as the Louisianans were gonna do, and have motions for those delegates to be barred, and then we will have elected our own delegates walkout and meetup with the other delegates (we need to hold caucuses in every state to elect the delegates legally), and then they do the same exact thing that the convention was gonna do. These caucuses maybe a little expensive, we will need private homes to do them in and to have announcements in newspapers to make it look official.

What about those of us in non-caucus states (Illinois)? Don't we still have to follow the state GOP delegate selection rules?

And if we have to hold our own primary, this may be easy in some states, but sucks in Illinois. I would imagine we would also have to follow the ballot access rules, which require months of alot of people petitioning here.

[nate895]

What about those of us in non-caucus states (Illinois)? Don't we still have to follow the state GOP delegate selection rules?

And if we have to hold our own primary, this may be easy in some states, but sucks in Illinois. I would imagine we would also have to follow the ballot access rules, which require months of alot of people petitioning here.

No, you just have to find a way to elect delegates to the convention, actually Illinois is already good since Ron Paul already had delegates on the ballot, they would be at the rump convention instead of the elected delegates.

[Banana]

If legitimizing rump convention require that we repeat the primary, would that be too infeasible? I mean, we're looking at two months between the national convention and general election day?

[torchbearer]

If legitimizing rump convention require that we repeat the primary, would that be too infeasible? I mean, we're looking at two months between the national convention and general election day?

we don't have to do it the same way..
we can do it the cheapest easiest way... we could even vote online if that is the agreed upon method by each state caucus committee.

[Banana]

I'm starting to get uncomfortable with that idea....


Look it from viewpoint of the judge or FEC committee or whoever we go to decide this:

RPRs doesn't like national convention. Walks out. Contest committee denies the charge. In each state, RPRs holds a rump caucus, elect their own people. They then do a mass emailing and announcement is placed on newspapers in 180K precincts that there's to be a rump caucus to vote on delegates. 95% of RPRs vote in. All delegates meet somehow for a rump national convention and nominate Ron Paul.

Now substitute RPR with neocon and Ron Paul with John McCain, then you should see the problem; it's just a bunch of sore losers who didn't like the stack of decks dealt.

I'm down with it if we just stick to official delegates for the national convention, but basically repeating the primary to everyone's annoyance?

Furthermore, recall that Ron Paul won't do a third party vote because one suspected reason was that he'd get blame for splitting the conservative vote unjust-ably. This would be basically same thing, no?

[darkdruid]

wow, what if we pass a simple resolution to follow the constitution that everyone passes because its common sense and then we point out the McCain won't do because he doesn't defend it so point it out to others and then walk out and have the rump convention.

[Banana]

wow, what if we pass a simple resolution to follow the constitution that everyone passes because its common sense and then we point out the McCain won't do because he doesn't defend it so point it out to others and then walk out and have the rump convention.

Now, that's something... This is probably one thing we could pass even if we didn't have enough RPRs at the convention.

But the problem is that GOP are obliged to support nominee in any way... I'd think we would need another resolution to make it clear that nominee is indebted to us and owe us four years of servitude in order for this constitutional resolution to be effective.

[No1ButPaul08]

Where exactly has the national gop broke the rules?

What woud give this, "rump convention" any validity?

In LA, it was pretty obvious the state GOP was making rules up as it went along. That doesn't appear to be so at the national level. Are there any cases of this?

[nate895]

Where exactly has the national gop broke the rules?

What woud give this, "rump convention" any validity?

In LA, it was pretty obvious the state GOP was making rules up as it went along. That doesn't appear to be so at the national level. Are there any cases of this?

If they seat the Louisiana delegates they are breaking their own rules.

[BeFranklin]

Lawyers should be hired and contest everything that can be contested in each state, such as the last minute rule changes that violated GOP rules - and these motions with the resulting press conferences should be held about a month and a half before the national GOP convention. Then when the GOP doesn't become reasonable, and as a result of the widely known lawsuits already going on, a rump convention should be held.

We can hold a money bomb for it to pay the legal fees. This money bomb should be held on April 19th I think.

[BeFranklin]

FYI - an alternative view of rules violations might be that no delegate can be said to be bound, since the ultimate "contract" that he was bound to was the party rules which were already nulled.

[Joseph Hart]

Signed

[SteveMartin]

Well, whatever we decide to do or not do, the petition should be signed by everyone who feels the media has had an impact on the election:

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/487443841

[fisharmor]

The "military" would join us to see that we were allowed to peacably assemble. I would love to see some major generals stand up with us with their sidearms so that if Hitlery's or McInsane's goons tried to cause trouble we could give them pause.


The would be so much backlash if a guard unit drew weapons out without the consent of a Brigade Commander to support a political event. I pretty sure that even going to the rally in uniform would probably piss a whole lot of big wigs off. Anywho pretty much my whole company down in Texas are Paulites but we won't be able to do anything of this magnitude unless we got orders.

(Deep breath.)

First of all, the idea that the military should be there as a show of force is functionally identical to the idea that DoE needs to have standardized tests, or the idea that we need Social Security in order to retire. It is asking the federal government to tax us and perform a service - something I thought was anathema in this campaign.

Second of all, if any of you doesn't have a weapon in your closet which doesn't require a federal consent form for you to take it out, GET ONE, because this is what is supposed to happen if the deck is stacked and the people want justice - not "you'd better pay attention because this guy in uniform has a gun", but "you'd better pay attention because I HAVE A GUN, AND SO DOES EVERY OTHER CIVILIAN HERE".

Third, if you live in a state which treats you like a criminal when you exercise your constitutional rights, and you don't have this option, then work on changing that!

Fourth, sidearms are for only protecting yourself at short distances from criminals and animals. Resistance to tyranny requires long arms, as they are both visible and useful at a distance.

Lastly, if anything I've said sounds crazy to you, consider that the second thing the founders thought to amend to the constitution is a guarantee that you will have the right to do this. I submit that it is less crazy than organizing a rump convention.

But I'm also on board with the rump convention, if it can be proved that the regular convention is fixed.

[SteveMartin]

The military (or RP-sympathetic police forces) being there at all is only a minor corollary to the main idea of a rump convention.

[nate895]

bump

[SteveMartin]

So, does anyone think we have enough ammo (I know I have plenty) to declare the whole Republican election cycle void because of RNC/MSM misdeeds?

[LibertiORDeth]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1860_Democratic_National_Convention

Is that what you were looking for Randy?

I still don't fully get it... So we have our own Republican National Convention, with all the delegates for Ron Paul, and supporters...

[LibertiORDeth]

Now that sounds like fun. When is the alternative Army beginning to recruit? I'd like to be a general.

Me too! :D:D:D Brigidier General, if you please.

[LibertiORDeth]

Anybody her got free conference calling ability?? Might be a good idea to have a couple of those, then I will call RP if we all think we have enough material meriting such a step.

(I'd like these calls open to all proven RP supporters only...so help me think of how we could accomplish that--and lock out eavesdroppers.)

I pledge alegience to Ron Paul, the defender of the constitution...

...or maybe not a good idea :p

Does having almost 1k posts prove it?

[LibertiORDeth]

BS,

Good point. I guess that National Guard troops and individual high-ranking officers acting independently (or issuing commands to their subordinates) would have to form the bulk of our protective support, unless there was some type of major emergency due to another Bush misstep in the M.E. or something where all bets are off and standard UCMJ is being ignored en masse.

Of course, there presence would hopefully only need to be symbolic, and we may be less controversial getting police officers to stand with us.

Don't military personal get weekends off? We could hold it on Saterday...

[LibertiORDeth]

BS,

That isn't quite what I envision. I'd like to go even a step further. My suggestion may be all wet, but I don't think the FEC would ever side with us on anything.

My suggestion is to hold a seperate election...Our own voting places, our own ballot with the other parties' candidates plus the real Republican listed. Let the media/RNC candidate twist....

Would those be legitimate votes then? I mean, if at our sites the winner is RP, and at the other polling places it is Hitlary, who would be the president?

[nosebruise]

The would be so much backlash if a guard unit drew weapons out without the consent of a Brigade Commander to support a political event. I pretty sure that even going to the rally in uniform would probably piss a whole lot of big wigs off. Anywho pretty much my whole company down in Texas are Paulites but we won't be able to do anything of this magnitude unless we got orders.

YES.

you guys are totally using 3rd grade daydream logic.

threads like these don't help anything
you wanna make a thread like this?

call up the military and see if they will back you first.
if you want i can give you the answer right now:
"HAHAHAHAHAHAHHhahahhaa" *click*

you think military personnel can just randomly go around "protecting" who they want?


stop making threads like this, until you have something to back it up. don't just make wild daydreams about a swift infeasable toppling of power.
come back when you have something concrete. and understand the implications of things.
:rolleyes:

[LibertiORDeth]

Furthermore, recall that Ron Paul won't do a third party vote because one suspected reason was that he'd get blame for splitting the conservative vote unjust-ably. This would be basically same thing, no?

I thought it was because he would lose his seat in Congress...

[LibertiORDeth]

Lawyers should be hired and contest everything that can be contested in each state, such as the last minute rule changes that violated GOP rules - and these motions with the resulting press conferences should be held about a month and a half before the national GOP convention. Then when the GOP doesn't become reasonable, and as a result of the widely known lawsuits already going on, a rump convention should be held.

We can hold a money bomb for it to pay the legal fees. This money bomb should be held on April 19th I think.

Can't we find volunteer RPR lawyers?

[LibertiORDeth]

Any reason why of the last 8 posts 7 were mine? Is this thread dying?

[SteveMartin]

Waiting for some word from TorchBearer....

[LibertiORDeth]

So would we just have the duly elected delegates that storm out from the bogus RNC vote, or are we holding new caucuses/primaries to establish new delegates?

[nate895]

So would we just have the duly elected delegates that storm out from the bogus RNC vote, or are we holding new caucuses/primaries to establish new delegates?

We'd have our delegates storm out of the convention where they would join the other delegates and we'd have our own convention. So, to answer your question, both.

[Banana]

~~MODS~~

I would love it, (and hopefully OP doesn't mind) if we delete the 'backed by the military' from the title; this make the thread sounds a bit shady and not really serious and we haven't really been talking about military aspect since the first page.



Back to the topic:

I, for one, hope that we don't have to come to rump convention, as the logistics sounds much more complex in asserting legitimacy than if we just stuck around and made resolutions to 1) bind the nominee to Paul's message, 2) modify the rules so the party is much more grassroots-oriented than ran by a bunch of clingy old men with no ambition to do something productive.

So far, we have a definite problem in LA, maybe in WA, NH and NY, (I don't think those has had their state conventions, so can't say for sure one way or other; but definitely will want to keep a close eye as things develop), and by then we should be better informed to make decision on how we want to go to the convention.

That said, I hope the number one priority is to fill up the ranks with our people. If Huckabee is really going for a brokered convention, we need to see to it that wherever we can, we send delegates who are RPRs, even bound to Huck or McCain or Strom Thurmond if need be!

Without enough RPR delegates, the whole thing will be academic.

[brandon]

rump

[LibertiORDeth]

bump for the rump

[SteveMartin]

We need to get the petition roaring folks. We must create a wave of awareness as to how the media has totally invalidated this election cycle.

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/487443841

That contention will become the basis of anything we do moving forward. 6700 signatures isn't going to get it done!

[SteveMartin]

Well, I tried editing the title, but I guess I can't...

[SteveMartin]

Well, I just received some information rules regarding the national convention...more as it is developed.

[1836]

This is nuts. Backed by the military?

I can see it now on CNN or NBC or ABC: "Disgruntled Ron Paul Supporters Detained in Riot"

[Banana]

This is nuts. Backed by the military?

I can see it now on CNN or NBC or ABC: "Disgruntled Ron Paul Supporters Detained in Riot"

Moderators...

Please edit the title to omit the military part. That has been an nonissue in this thread as we've not discussed about bringing in military since first page...

[LibertiORDeth]

Why did this die?

[hillertexas]

bump

[RideTheDirt]

They screwed over Nevada, and a few other places, let's use that to our advantage!

[All Seeing Eye]

A BIG bump for the possible RUMP in St. Paul's 2nd September?

[ClayTrainor]

A BIG bump for the possible RUMP in St. Paul's 2nd September?

hellllllllllllllllllll yea!