A Must Read For All Delegates

[LEK]

IMPORTANT INFORMATION ON WHAT TO EXPECT AT YOUR CONVENTION FROM THE OLD RIGHT : A MUST READ FOR ALL DELEGATES

Posted March 19th, 2008 by SGP
[from DailyPaul]

I am going to put out some things on what you should be perpared for as far as tricks they will try to keep your voices silent.

If you want me to address your meetup and discuss some issues email me at newspaper4paul@hotmail.com and i will try to address your group via telephone.

GET THESE TO EVERYONE THAT IS A DELEGATE AND POST ON EVERY BOARD YOU CAN.

Make sure you are recognized by the chair before bringing up anything!

Keep in mind the same things they may try to use against you could be used against them by you so look at these things both ways please.

1: Obtain a copy of your county and state bylaws and learn them but make sure there are no clauses for a paroxy vote in them and if there is make a motion to change the bylaws to not allow a proxy vote.

2: Watch out they do not try a PROXY VOTE clause : A vote by someone that is not at your convention in person that has given authroity to another person to cast thier vote. I have never seen this happen at any convention but just be ready and make sure it isn't in the bylaws that it is allowed.

3: When a vote is on the floor when you vote speak loudly as to show more numbers however they may try this same thing against you so what you must do if you believe that it is too close to call you need to CALL FOR DIVISION to force a hand count of the vote and when you vote on it be loud and vocal,

4: When in a debate on a motion that someone does not try to FORCE A CALL TO THE QUESTION for this is out of order the must first be addressed by the chair and then 2nd by someone then it must be voted on and they must have 2/3 majority to get the call to the question passed.

5: Do not let them try to table a motion on you : Table a motion is when they move to have the motion posponed to a later date as to wait for them to have the majority to get the motion passed.

6: If you have 2/3 majority at the convention you can defeat any motion before it even comes to a vote and this is called : Objection to consideration of the question and may not be debated in any way and if 2/3 vote aye you can kill the motion before it even hits the floor for a vote.

I will try and post more of these when i get time ok?

Dr. Steve Parent

http://www.dailypaul.com/node/43304

[TastyWheat]

In our party rules a "call to the question" only requires a majority and it screwed us a couple of times. Make sure your state party rules don't change the vote requirements. Motions that require 2/3 are that way for a reason, they take away some of the fairness of the meeting.

[hillertexas]

Thanks, Steve.

#4 is what did us in at my convention. I wish we would have known how to handle a "Call to the Question" beforehand. THEY WILL USE THAT TACTIC. Be prepared.

[robert4rp08]

/subscription bump

[pinkmandy]

Interesting. Thank you.

[Phantom]

Nice!

Added to my "Become a Delegate" page here (http://www.presidentronpaul.741.com/delegate.html)

[Suzu]

Thanks, Steve.

#4 is what did us in at my convention. I wish we would have known how to handle a "Call to the Question" beforehand. THEY WILL USE THAT TACTIC. Be prepared.

I don't understand his #4 as written. It makes no sense to me. I'm a delegate so I need to understand this.

[hillertexas]

I don't understand his #4 as written. It makes no sense to me. I'm a delegate so I need to understand this.

OK...
Question #1 of the day was whether or not to debate the resolutions and move onto the next order of business. It was decided that we should debate the resolutions. We started to pick apart and debate the various resolutions. We debated a motion to amend something. That passed. So at that moment we were in sort of a no mans land where we were not currently discussing any specific resolution. We had already been at it for awhile and the Chair was running around talking to people, sweating, etc. because he was panicking that we had stirred things up. It was 5pm and he had said that we would be done at 2pm. Neocons were getting grumpy and wanted to go home. So I see the Chair talking to someone and the next thing I know, that person is at the microphone. He is then recognized by the Chair and says something to the effect of "Call to Question". A neocon on the other side of the room seconds the motion. We did not know what it meant. The Chair calls for a vote (we were voting vocally....BIG MISTAKE).

"All in favor say aye"...
"All opposed"...
"The ayes have it"...

Evidentially, the motion that had just passed meant that we were going back to the original question which, if you remember, was whether or not to debate the resolutions and move on. "Call to Question" at that moment basically meant "should we stop debating these resolutions and move on?" The ayes had it. ALL debate on resolutions was stopped. The next order of business was adjournment. The convention was adjourned. It was over before we knew what hit us. But all of these motions, point of order, etc things from Robert's Rules of Order are just chess pieces in this crazy game. We just didn't know how to block the "Call to Question" piece ahead of time. And thus, they had a checkmate.

[Suzu]

Excellent explanation (if in fact that's what he meant - and I do not know that it is, but since it appears that you do, unless someone contests your explanation with one that sounds more logical, I accept yours). Thank you so much, hillertexas!

[Bradley in DC]

Not a must read for ALL delegates but possibly useful for those in states where state conventions have a role choosing the national convention delegates.

[hillertexas]

Excellent explanation (if in fact that's what he meant - and I do not know that it is, but since it appears that you do, unless someone contests your explanation with one that sounds more logical, I accept yours). Thank you so much, hillertexas!

no problem....that was my best guess. I am brand new at this too...learning as I go. Good luck next Saturday! :)

[Drsteveparent]

Bradley you are a real piece of work.

Did you read the title?

IMPORTANT INFORMATION ON WHAT TO EXPECT AT YOUR CONVENTION FROM THE OLD RIGHT : A MUST READ FOR ALL DELEGATES

I suppose that isn't clear enough for you either?

For anyone that wants a 1 hour mp3 of me explaining things to expect at your convention email me at newspaper4paul@hotmail.com and i will send you a copy.

It is actually a must read for anyone wanting to learn basics of rules of order and Parliamentary procedure.

Instead of trying to tear down everything i share why don't you help and start writing things out and share them.

[Bradley in DC]

Bradley you are a real piece of work.

Did you read the title?

IMPORTANT INFORMATION ON WHAT TO EXPECT AT YOUR CONVENTION FROM THE OLD RIGHT : A MUST READ FOR ALL DELEGATES

I suppose that isn't clear enough for you either?

For anyone that wants a 1 hour mp3 of me explaining things to expect at your convention email me at newspaper4paul@hotmail.com and i will send you a copy.

Yes, I read the title. I'm trying to correct your misinformation. Some states do not have conventions at all (contrary to the misinformation on Anson's site you promote), and some in some states the conventions have no role in choosing the delegates. That's it. It's worthless for us in DC, etc.

[Phantom]

Steve, can you post a link to the MP3 explaining things to expect at your convention so that I can add it to my "Become a Delegate" page here (http://www.presidentronpaul.741.com/delegate.html)

Thanks!

[Drsteveparent]

Yes, I read the title. I'm trying to correct your misinformation. Some states do not have conventions at all (contrary to the misinformation on Anson's site you promote), and some in some states the conventions have no role in choosing the delegates. That's it. It's worthless for us in DC, etc.


Yes you have made that clear many times.

Please tell me where this information is incorrect.

Yes we know for DC is worthless in general and i believe we are all aware of this.

I assume you do not need any of this information because you are a Parliamentarian?

Maybe some people are actually choosing to get involved in the party and fight to bring the party back to it's roots instead of making claims such as this is worthless to me.

[Drsteveparent]

Steve, can you post a link to the MP3 explaining things to expect at your convention so that I can add it to my "Become a Delegate" page here (http://www.presidentronpaul.741.com/delegate.html)

Thanks!

Phanton i am sorry i will not and i will not post on this again either for i believe Bradley should answer questions here and i will stick to dailypaul.com

If you people would like my help i suggest you find it on dailypaul however if you choose to receive your information from the people here feel free to do so.

Good luck everyone at your conventions.

[spacehabitats]

IMPORTANT INFORMATION ON WHAT TO EXPECT AT YOUR CONVENTION FROM THE OLD RIGHT : A MUST READ FOR ALL DELEGATES

Posted March 19th, 2008 by SGP
[from DailyPaul]

I am going to put out some things on what you should be perpared for as far as tricks they will try to keep your voices silent.

If you want me to address your meetup and discuss some issues email me at newspaper4paul@hotmail.com and i will try to address your group via telephone.

GET THESE TO EVERYONE THAT IS A DELEGATE AND POST ON EVERY BOARD YOU CAN.

Make sure you are recognized by the chair before bringing up anything!

Keep in mind the same things they may try to use against you could be used against them by you so look at these things both ways please.

1: Obtain a copy of your county and state bylaws and learn them but make sure there are no clauses for a paroxy vote in them and if there is make a motion to change the bylaws to not allow a proxy vote.

2: Watch out they do not try a PROXY VOTE clause : A vote by someone that is not at your convention in person that has given authroity to another person to cast thier vote. I have never seen this happen at any convention but just be ready and make sure it isn't in the bylaws that it is allowed.

3: When a vote is on the floor when you vote speak loudly as to show more numbers however they may try this same thing against you so what you must do if you believe that it is too close to call you need to CALL FOR DIVISION to force a hand count of the vote and when you vote on it be loud and vocal,

4: When in a debate on a motion that someone does not try to FORCE A CALL TO THE QUESTION for this is out of order the must first be addressed by the chair and then 2nd by someone then it must be voted on and they must have 2/3 majority to get the call to the question passed.

5: Do not let them try to table a motion on you : Table a motion is when they move to have the motion posponed to a later date as to wait for them to have the majority to get the motion passed.

6: If you have 2/3 majority at the convention you can defeat any motion before it even comes to a vote and this is called : Objection to consideration of the question and may not be debated in any way and if 2/3 vote aye you can kill the motion before it even hits the floor for a vote.

I will try and post more of these when i get time ok?

Dr. Steve Parent

http://www.dailypaul.com/node/43304

About #4, I am afraid that Steve's clarification is a bit confusing.

According to Robert's Rules of Order

http://www.robertsrules.org/motions.htm

"I move the previous question." Is a motion to "Close debate".

You cannot interrupt the speaker (i.e. you must be recognized by the chair),the motion must be seconded, the motion cannot be debated or amended, and passage requires a 2/3 majority.

Since it requires a 2/3 majority, a voice vote would never be appropriate, and if the chair allowed that, a "I move a rising vote" would clearly be in order.

A motion to count the votes of delegates standing does NOT need to be seconded and cannot be debated or voted on. It is every delegates RIGHT to question the chair's judgment on who won a voice vote. (That's why Robert's refers to it as a "Demand a rising vote".)

This thing about speaking or yelling loudly on voice votes, while appropriate, is not necessary. If you think you have lost a voice vote where you might have the majority, move for a rising vote.

By the way, if you are panicking and think you are being railroaded, do not roll over and give up; even if you are foggy on the proper procedure.

A "Parliamentary inquiry" (asking for help from the parliamentarian as to how to proceed ) or "Point of information" (asking for a clarification from the speaker)is certainly in order, and, again, does not need to be seconded.:)

Robert's Rules of Order were designed to facilitate orderly and FAIR meetings, not allow parliamentarians to confuse and intimidate delegates.

[spacehabitats]

Phanton i am sorry i will not and i will not post on this again either for i believe Bradley should answer questions here and i will stick to dailypaul.com

If you people would like my help i suggest you find it on dailypaul however if you choose to receive your information from the people here feel free to do so.

Good luck everyone at your conventions.


signed,

Your "Glorified Massage Therapist"

[Drsteveparent]

You left out a very KEY FACTOR in your statement.


Space habitat : A "Parliamentary inquiry" (asking for help from the parliamentarian as to how to proceed ) or "Point of information" (asking for a clarification from the speaker)is certainly in order, and, again, does not need to be seconded.

Steve : It can also be denied and the chair does not have to explain the proper procedure in any way. This also applies to a rise to point of information and can be denied as well.


Spacehabitat: A motion to count the votes of delegates standing does NOT need to be seconded and cannot be debated or voted on. It is every delegates RIGHT to question the chair's judgment on who won a voice vote. (That's why Robert's refers to it as a "Demand a rising vote".)

You should ask for a call for a rising COUNTED vote otherwise the chair can just eyeball the vote thus usuing his judgement without actually counting the vote.

[spacehabitats]

You left out a very KEY FACTOR in your statement.


Space habitat : A "Parliamentary inquiry" (asking for help from the parliamentarian as to how to proceed ) or "Point of information" (asking for a clarification from the speaker)is certainly in order, and, again, does not need to be seconded.

Steve : It can also be denied and the chair does not have to explain the proper procedure in any way. This also applies to a rise to point of information and can be denied as well.


Spacehabitat: A motion to count the votes of delegates standing does NOT need to be seconded and cannot be debated or voted on. It is every delegates RIGHT to question the chair's judgment on who won a voice vote. (That's why Robert's refers to it as a "Demand a rising vote".)

You should ask for a call for a rising COUNTED vote otherwise the chair can just eyeball the vote thus usuing his judgement without actually counting the vote.

Sure, the chair could also pull out a .44 magnum and pick off the front row.
But in either case he might run the risk of having the results of the convention invalidated.

And Welcome Back!:)


signed,

Your "Glorified Massage Therapist"

[Drsteveparent]

Sure, the chair could also pull out a .44 magnum and pick off the front row.
But in either case he might run the risk of having the results of the convention invalidated.

And Welcome Back!:)


signed,

Your "Glorified Massage Therapist"

Oh really? Please explain your point of order on that issue.

[Sandra]

Drsteveparent listen up! Bradley and Spacehabitat hijack threads on a regular basis to try to detract from the subject. If everyone who has had enough of their crap will put them on "ignore", they will stop being replied to and will eventually disappear. I find when I don't have to read their crap at all, it's really frustrating for them especially when an ignored user tries to make a cute reply.

Spacehabitat needs a therapist. Badly!

[No1ButPaul08]

Drsteveparent listen up! Bradley and Spacehabitat hijack threads on a regular basis to try to detract from the subject. If everyone who has had enough of their crap will put them on "ignore", they will stop being replied to and will eventually disappear. I find when I don't have to read their crap at all, it's really frustrating for them especially when an ignored user tries to make a cute reply.

Spacehabitat needs a therapist. Badly!

Sandra coming into the thread with a personal attack while adding nothing to the conversation, big surprise.

[constituent]

this is gay.


-i'll leave the buddhists out of it.

[spacehabitats]

Drsteveparent listen up! Bradley and Spacehabitat hijack threads on a regular basis to try to detract from the subject. If everyone who has had enough of their crap will put them on "ignore", they will stop being replied to and will eventually disappear. I find when I don't have to read their crap at all, it's really frustrating for them especially when an ignored user tries to make a cute reply.

Spacehabitat needs a therapist. Badly!

Could you please put me on your ignore list?

Otherwise it is just tooooooo tempting to respond to your "hijacking" lame attacks.
And I agree that they do detract from the threads.

And by the way, I think that if anyone would take the time to compare Dr? Steve's original post and my clarification, they would have a pretty good idea who to put on an ignore list.

Anyway, I have to go eat dinner now. So have fun flaming me while I'm gone.;)


signed,

Your "Glorified Massage Therapist"
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=131921&page=39

[spacehabitats]

Oh really? Please explain your point of order on that issue.

Which issue? The lack of due process in denying a simple request for help from the parliamentarian or the mass murder?

[Drsteveparent]

Which issue? The lack of due process in denying a simple request for help from the parliamentarian or the mass murder?

Murder is obvious

Due process? There is nothing due about what you claimed it is nothing more than a request that can be denied and there is no authority to overturn the decision unless it is voted on.

So explain your point of order of what disipline can be enacted to the chair for such an action as to deny the request.

[Drsteveparent]

We are waiting Doctor

[Zera]

Hey Dr. Parent. How do you think things are going with the delegates overall?

[Drsteveparent]

Hey Dr. Parent. How do you think things are going with the delegates overall?


From the repots i have from the boots on the ground we are dominating.

Do not listen to the naysayers here they are wrong.

[Zera]

From the repots i have from the boots on the ground we are dominating.

Do not listen to the naysayers here they are wrong.

Sounds good. I have a question though.

Don't we have to win on the first ballot? I mean, since Huckabee and Romney released their delegates, they're free to vote how they want. If we don't want McCain to get at least 50% of the delegates, that means Paul has to win on the very first ballot. How are we going to accomplish this?

Unless what I heard was a lie.

[Drsteveparent]

Sounds good. I have a question though.

Don't we have to win on the first ballot? I mean, since Huckabee and Romney released their delegates, they're free to vote how they want. If we don't want McCain to get at least 50% of the delegates, that means Paul has to win on the very first ballot. How are we going to accomplish this?

Unless what I heard was a lie.

No we do not have to win on the first ballot although we could win on the first ballot if we can just a get a few key states to unbind the delegates.

We need to obtain as many delegates as possible in every state and vote to unbind bound delegates in as many states as possible.

[Zera]

No we do not have to win on the first ballot although we could win on the first ballot if we can just a get a few key states to unbind the delegates.

We need to obtain as many delegates as possible in every state and vote to unbind bound delegates in as many states as possible.

Well, what I was trying to say is this:

McCain and Paul are the only two real candidates that will be accepting delegates at the convention. With the amount of delegates there are... The first ballot would only not to have be won by like one delegate. How will we be able to achieve that?

[MelissaWV]

The title of the thread IS "A Must Read for All Delegates", however it was not posted by Dr. Steve. That seems to be where the confusion arose. No, this is not useful for "all" delegates, especially since some Conventions have already passed. Other localities do not have Conventions which are relevant to the issue at hand (which is getting RNC delegates who are pro-Paul vs. pro-McCain).

Is it too much to hope this can continue without the melodrama and nastiness? :(

Also: DailyPaul Forums have been down for me for 1-2 days. I'm not sure if this is a blanket thing but I continue to get a "software upgrade" notice.

[Sandra]

The title of the thread IS "A Must Read for All Delegates", however it was not posted by Dr. Steve. That seems to be where the confusion arose. No, this is not useful for "all" delegates, especially since some Conventions have already passed. Other localities do not have Conventions which are relevant to the issue at hand (which is getting RNC delegates who are pro-Paul vs. pro-McCain).

Is it too much to hope this can continue without the melodrama and nastiness? :(

Also: DailyPaul Forums have been down for me for 1-2 days. I'm not sure if this is a blanket thing but I continue to get a "software upgrade" notice.

That's OK we're big girls and boys and we get it. Thanks. :rolleyes:

[Drsteveparent]

Well, what I was trying to say is this:

McCain and Paul are the only two real candidates that will be accepting delegates at the convention. With the amount of delegates there are... The first ballot would only not to have be won by like one delegate. How will we be able to achieve that?

You have to remember that huckabee and romney also have delegates and there may be more of them becoming delegates although i believe the numbers are small.


We need to obtain as many delegates as possible in every state and vote to unbind bound delegates in as many states as possible.

A few key states of successful unbinding will change everything.

[Drsteveparent]

In our party rules a "call to the question" only requires a majority and it screwed us a couple of times. Make sure your state party rules don't change the vote requirements. Motions that require 2/3 are that way for a reason, they take away some of the fairness of the meeting.

Where in your party rules does it state that you can call the question while in debate with only a majority? That is a direct contrdiction of the rules of order that has been adoped by the RNC.

Can you show me what you are claiming it says so i can explain it to you please?

[pepperpete1]

Where in your party rules does it state that you can call the question while in debate with only a majority? That is a direct contrdiction of the rules of order that has been adoped by the RNC.

Can you show me what you are claiming it says so i can explain it to you please?

Dr. Steve,

I think what happened was that the persons that were at Tastywheat's convention did not know what the rules really were and just believed what was told them. I am sure this is happening all over and that is why you and the others helping to explain how things work, is so important.

Zera's question is one I have had also. Even if the delegates do become unbound, the GOP party leaders are all telling the "sheep" that they need to support McCain for party unity. So, they get on board and will vote for McCain on the first round. That looks to me like we would be screwed because he would have the majority to win right then.

Do you have a plan we can use to overcome this?

[spacehabitats]

You left out a very KEY FACTOR in your statement.


Space habitat : A "Parliamentary inquiry" (asking for help from the parliamentarian as to how to proceed ) or "Point of information" (asking for a clarification from the speaker)is certainly in order, and, again, does not need to be seconded.

Steve : It can also be denied and the chair does not have to explain the proper procedure in any way. This also applies to a rise to point of information and can be denied as well.


Spacehabitat: A motion to count the votes of delegates standing does NOT need to be seconded and cannot be debated or voted on. It is every delegates RIGHT to question the chair's judgment on who won a voice vote. (That's why Robert's refers to it as a "Demand a rising vote".)

You should ask for a call for a rising COUNTED vote otherwise the chair can just eyeball the vote thus usuing his judgement without actually counting the vote.

Actually, the point is.....

There is absolutely NO downside to at least making a parliamentary inquiry if our delegates have legitimate questions. (And much to be gained if their opponents are trying to pull a fast one.)

Are you telling delegates that it is a bad idea to make a parliamentary inquiry just because the chair CAN deny? Are you saying that this is likely to happen? And even if it did, what did the delegate lose?

A request as reasonable as a parliamentary inquiry would routinely be granted and you know it.

That is why conventions have parliamentarians. And even if the chair were stupid or biased enough to deny such a reasonable request, they could and should be easily overruled. (Unless, of course the convention was so stacked against our delegates that they didn't stand a prayer of accomplishing anything anyway.)

Similarly a rising vote is routinely counted. (Or they would have mentioned that in Robert's Rules.)

Again I would assume that you knew all these things and can only conclude that you felt compelled to criticize my comment (even at the risk of confusing or disabling our delegates) simply to make yourself look more authoritative.

At least you are consistent.

signed,

Your "Glorified Massage Therapist"
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...131921&page=39 (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=131921&page=39)

[Drsteveparent]

Actually, the point is.....

There is absolutely NO downside to at least making a parliamentary inquiry if our delegates have legitimate questions. (And much to be gained if their opponents are trying to pull a fast one.)

Are you telling delegates that it is a bad idea to make a parliamentary inquiry just because the chair CAN deny? Are you saying that this is likely to happen? And even if it did, what did the delegate lose?

A request as reasonable as a parliamentary inquiry would routinely be granted and you know it.

That is why conventions have parliamentarians. And even if the chair were stupid or biased enough to deny such a reasonable request, they could and should be easily overruled. (Unless, of course the convention was so stacked against our delegates that they didn't stand a prayer of accomplishing anything anyway.)

Similarly a rising vote is routinely counted. (Or they would have mentioned that in Robert's Rules.)

Again I would assume that you knew all these things and can only conclude that you felt compelled to criticize my comment (even at the risk of confusing or disabling our delegates) simply to make yourself look more authoritative.

At least you are consistent.

signed,

Your "Glorified Massage Therapist"
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...131921&page=39 (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=131921&page=39)





There is absolutely NO downside to at least making a parliamentary inquiry if our delegates have legitimate questions. (And much to be gained if their opponents are trying to pull a fast one.)

Are you telling delegates that it is a bad idea to make a parliamentary inquiry just because the chair CAN deny? Are you saying that this is likely to happen? And even if it did, what did the delegate lose?

A request as reasonable as a parliamentary inquiry would routinely be granted and you know it.


Steve: No you are correct there is no downside although the way you responded to my comments you made it sound as if they do not need to learn this information because someone would be there to help them AND THAT IS JUST FALSE and you should know that.

No it is not a bad idea and in my latest 1 hour interview last week i explained just what you said in detail however i made it crystal clear that it can and most probably will be denied considering what the GOP is already doing if you have not noticed. The people need to be educated and they can not count on a former GOP chairman or any other loyal Mccain party member to help them in any way.

In some cases yes it may be granted but don't count on it for what i have been told by many already is that the chair and the party or trying to shut them out AND YOU KNOW THIS DOCTOR.


That is why conventions have parliamentarians. And even if the chair were stupid or biased enough to deny such a reasonable request, they could and should be easily overruled. (Unless, of course the convention was so stacked against our delegates that they didn't stand a prayer of accomplishing anything anyway.)


Steve : WRONG for it is not required by anyone to answer questions and that is clear even in roberts rules so explain to us how this can be overuled and by who? You are telling us that they can overule something that is not required? I want to see you explain that to us as to the point of order that would pertain.



Similarly a rising vote is routinely counted. (Or they would have mentioned that in Robert's Rules.)

Again I would assume that you knew all these things and can only conclude that you felt compelled to criticize my comment (even at the risk of confusing or disabling our delegates) simply to make yourself look more authoritative.

At least you are consistent.



Steve: Yes it normally is routine and i have already seen and been told many times already that they are not counting the votes and in fact if you bothered to keep up on the revised edition of rules of order they make it clear that you must ASK FOR A COUNTED vote if you wish to receive one.

Yes i did know these things that is exaclty why i am responding to this post of yours because you are WRONG.

I do not need to look authoritative only to make sure people are educated on rules of order properly and not to assume someone will help them that is from the GOP.


A few of you take more time trying to tear me down than helping the cause i have been working hard on and that is fine for you will not drive me away from educating everyone i can before the conventions are over and then after this election i will continue to educate everyone on how to make changes in America.

[Drsteveparent]

Dr. Steve,

I think what happened was that the persons that were at Tastywheat's convention did not know what the rules really were and just believed what was told them. I am sure this is happening all over and that is why you and the others helping to explain how things work, is so important.

Zera's question is one I have had also. Even if the delegates do become unbound, the GOP party leaders are all telling the "sheep" that they need to support McCain for party unity. So, they get on board and will vote for McCain on the first round. That looks to me like we would be screwed because he would have the majority to win right then.

Do you have a plan we can use to overcome this?

The fact is many people that are bound for mccain that were for romney or huckabee still do not support mccain

The numbers that are coming in from many states how we are doing very well in the delegated process.

It looks like the state of WA has over 2/3 of the delagtes going to state thus far meaning they will get virtually every delegate in that state to the national convention.

If this keeps up we can beat Mccain at the national convention.

We are still in this but we need to get as many people to become delegates before our time runs out and i am working countless hours to make sure that happens.

You also have to remeber that there should be many bound delegates the are bound to vote for Mccain that are actually Ron Paul supporters and this is how we can win this in September.

I still believe we can win and many others now are seeing this and are helping me educate others on how we can win.

Just keep spreading the information and watch what happens.

[Bradley in DC]

No we do not have to win on the first ballot although we could win on the first ballot if we can just a get a few key states to unbind the delegates.

We need to obtain as many delegates as possible in every state and vote to unbind bound delegates in as many states as possible.

Steve,

You've said Texas is one of the key states needed to unbind their delegates for your "stealth" strategy and that you know of no state law binding delegates but the state election law (http://www.texasgop.org/site/DocServer/2006_General_Rules.pdf?docID=2041) in Texas [p. 19, Sec. 10 a)] does bind delegates. I posted this nearly a year ago on another forum (http://ronpaulforum.com/showthread.php?t=183) debunking the misinformation on Anson's site which you promote (and I suspect you are the main source for its misinformation).



1. First nomination convention ballot: delegate or alternate shall be released from the
pledge only in the event of death, withdrawal, or by decision of the candidate.
2. Second nomination convention ballot: delegate or alternate may be released from the
pledge by decision of the candidate;
3. Third nominating convention ballot: delegate or alternate shall be released from the
pledge if the candidate has failed to receive twenty percent (20%) or more of the total
vote cast on the preceding ballot; or by the decision of the candidate;
4. Fourth and subsequent nominating convention ballots: delegates and alternates are
released from any pledge.
c. Uncommitted Delegates: Uncommitted delegates and alternates may vote as they choose on all
questions and candidates presented at the National Convention.

So, with Texas, California (where the state convention has no role choosing the national convention delegates), and other states out of your equation, what is your game plan?

Of course, I agree with the second point which is why I post what I do.

[Drsteveparent]

Steve,

You've said Texas is one of the key states needed to unbind their delegates for your "stealth" strategy and that you know of no state law binding delegates but the state election law (http://www.texasgop.org/site/DocServer/2006_General_Rules.pdf?docID=2041) in Texas [p. 19, Sec. 10 a)] does bind delegates. I posted this nearly a year ago on another forum (http://ronpaulforum.com/showthread.php?t=183) debunking the misinformation on Anson's site which you promote (and I suspect you are the main source for its misinformation).



1. First nomination convention ballot: delegate or alternate shall be released from the
pledge only in the event of death, withdrawal, or by decision of the candidate.
2. Second nomination convention ballot: delegate or alternate may be released from the
pledge by decision of the candidate;
3. Third nominating convention ballot: delegate or alternate shall be released from the
pledge if the candidate has failed to receive twenty percent (20%) or more of the total
vote cast on the preceding ballot; or by the decision of the candidate;
4. Fourth and subsequent nominating convention ballots: delegates and alternates are
released from any pledge.
c. Uncommitted Delegates: Uncommitted delegates and alternates may vote as they choose on all
questions and candidates presented at the National Convention.

So, with Texas, California (where the state convention has no role choosing the national convention delegates), and other states out of your equation, what is your game plan?

Of course, I agree with the second point which is why I post what I do.


I fail to understand what you are getting at Bradley? What you posted confirms exactly what i have been saying every day to the people for amost 4 months now.

Can you please get to the point please?