THIS IS DISGUSTING - MASS DEL OUSTED

[freedomordeath]

http://bostonglobe.com/metro/2012/06/23/romney-campaign-ousts-ron-paul-delegates/3xYwhZ5kbZuRMyMBlXy6EK/story.html

When I read the reasons why, its because they refused to sign an avidavid to support Mitt.

There was this feeling of total and utter disgust that one of them an 18 year patriot who beat out scum will not be seated because he didn't sign the avvidavid.


Evan Kenney had just turned 18 and registered to vote for the first time when he campaigned to be an alternate delegate to the Republican National Convention. Lauding Ronald Reagan’s principles and blasting Keynesian economics at the Lynnfield caucus in April, the Wakefield High School senior beat out several well-known Massachusetts Republicans, including the party’s most recent nominee for governor, Charles D. Baker Jr.

These poeple have lost all respect and common deceny this IS NOT A DEMOCRACY BUT A REPUBLIC, their vote rigged primary results are meaningless.

[sailingaway]

I don't know any reason they had a right to refuse them for that, since they were DIRECTLY ELECTED at caucuses. My understanding is that the lawsuit just got a bunch more plaintiffs, from twitter:

USA_Patriot_Press ‏@USA_Free_Press
@hearthetruthnow -Today I heard from 60 new Delegates who want to become Plaintiffs as a result of Mass

USA_Patriot_Press ‏@USA_Free_Press
@hearthetruthnow- In this case they were not threatened with violence. They were given an ultimatum to sign a pledge to vote for Romney

USA_Patriot_Press ‏@USA_Free_Press
Not one of my Plaintiffs have been successfully ousted-I could have obtained a Court Order To protect the Mass Delegates

USA_Patriot_Press ‏@USA_Free_Press
@SmartPeople4Ron --They were over-confident. They said they were duly elected-They could not believe they were up against Organized Crime

however, it is my understanding they DID sign and were ousted anyhow, so I'm not sure about that part.

[Diashi]

Lawyers for Ron Paul, I summon you! this court case has become all the more important.

[Constitutional Paulicy]

I'm so sick of this shit. I've had little faith in our government in the past and if this doesn't get resolved justly, I may never have faith in it again.

[Delivered4000]

What if they signed the affidavit then voted Paul anyway?

[mmink15]

So angry about this. One of those hand-tying situations too. Is there anything at all we can/should be doing to counter this move? The hardest part of this r3VOLution is having to read stuff like this and not be able to do anything about it. "It" meaning the specific situation, not the cause in general. Things like this do tend to double a person's resolve, though.

[Tiso0770]

This will only inflame the Paul Supporters to fight harder.

[Constitutional Paulicy]

Things like this do tend to double a person's resolve, though.

Especially when it comes to Ron Paul people. Unfortunately it also doubles the the frustration every time the resolves is doubled.

[Pauls' Revere]

As hard as it would be for me to do why don't we all just vote for Obama as a protest vote and give the GOP the finger?

[cassielund99@gmail.com]

As hard as it would be for me to do why don't we all just vote for Obama as a protest vote and give the GOP the finger?


That would never happen. You vote with principal not for protest.

[Pauls' Revere]

That would never happen. You vote with principal not for protest.

Your right, I'd have to look at myself in the mirror...

[TruckinMike]

What if they signed the affidavit under duress then voted Paul anyway? There, fixed it for you.

[Tiso0770]

So if Mitt can't win over the hearts and minds of young voters, he will try to steal them, if he can't steal them, he will make sure they will not vote against him. Did i get that right?.

[Veteran Citizen]

What if they signed the affidavit then voted Paul anyway?

From the article: "under the penalty of perjury".

Clinton got away with it, the freedom delegates would probably not.

[freedomordeath]

NEVER.. always do the right thing and write Ron Paul in, but its not over yet ;) we still have a convention remember, its never over till the finish line.


As hard as it would be for me to do why don't we all just vote for Obama as a protest vote and give the GOP the finger?

your vote doesn't count anyway because the computer flips it one way or the other depending on who they choose. I actually wonder who the eiltes are backing. They have invested alot in Obama and not sure if they willing to dump him, but they also spend a bucket load of money on Romney, but I'm starting to think the co-opted tea party movement of 2010 and the ettempt to deflate this movement 2012 is all a controlled damage control tactic to avoid full blown revolution. Think about it, spending a bucket load of money on romney who no one likes only helps Obama win and all the red necks blame the Ron Paul movement for killing off the Romeny campaign and the elites sit with their smug smiles, but the revolution carries on because its up to us to educate the red necks (before I get flak for the red neck comment I consider myself a red neck)

We should carry on and educate poeple, take over all sherrif offices and pull our kids out of government schools and start private volunteered based education systems (private education for the poor or the non rich). In states where you are fortunate enough to have gold as legal tender, start up shopping malls or centres where poeple can trade and use it as prove for the rest of the nation.

START LIVING FREE and apply it to your daily life.

[Veteran Citizen]

There, fixed it for you.

Duress can be a defense, but not being allowed to be a delegate probably won't qualify. Any Mass. Attorney's on the forum, that is a good question.

[Badger Paul]

And they want us to shut up and be good little Republicans and Romney supporters at the convention? Not after this.

Some deal there eh Rand? You turn over the fundraising lists assuming Romney would basically let us have our delegates and the Romney campaign decides to screw us anyway. Just remember this: Your fellow Senator Scott Brown may very well lose because of this cheap political maneuver. Who is going to work their fingers to the bone for him now that the party has basically told its young and most energetic activists to get lost?

Is worth it? Is it really worth it?

[everlasticity]

For anyone wishing to contact someone responsible for ousting MA delegates, here is the email for the Chairman of the Allocation Committee of the Massachusetts Republican State Committee, the committee responsible for the decision.

mcgrathed@rcn.com

[mmink15]

bump and thanks


For anyone wishing to contact someone responsible for ousting MA delegates, here is the email for the Chairman of the Allocation Committee of the Massachusetts Republican State Committee, the committee responsible for the decision.

mcgrathed@rcn.com

[CPUd]

Their reasoning will be that they were to sign it before they were elected as a delegate, and that their failure to sign disqualified them to run as a delegate:


Stephen Zykofsky, the Chairman of the committee that set the rules for the selection of delegates, sees this as an important distinction. Zykofsky told Red Mass Group that the rules only apply to nominees for delegate, not those elected at the April 28, 2012 caucus. Zykofsky believes that, "the state party was in its rights to ask for affirmation of support for Mitt Romney before the caucuses were held. That affirmation could have come in the form of a pledge, which was done, or in the form of an affidavit. The rules do not call for affirmation after the election is over."

Zykofsky does stress though that he told elected delegates that they should sign the affidavit, to avoid any pitfalls.
http://www.redmassgroup.com/diary/14903/massgop-allocation-committee-bounces-delegates-and-alternates-for-failure-to-follow-the-rules

[affa]

comments for that article need serious help

[sailingaway]

For anyone wishing to contact someone responsible for ousting MA delegates, here is the email for the Chairman of the Allocation Committee of the Massachusetts Republican State Committee, the committee responsible for the decision.

mcgrathed@rcn.com

It might be a good idea to use judgement and words of other than four letters.

[DeMintConservative]

You have to play by the rules. If one of the rules is that you need to return an affidavit and you refused to do it, the consequence is obvious.

Do you know what will happen in four years because of what is happening now? Pretty much every state will pass legislation stating that delegates are directly nominated by the candidates according to the primary/caucus results. That will be the ultimate result of this kind of stuff.

[sailingaway]

You have to play by the rules. If one of the rules is that you need to return an affidavit and you refused to do it, the consequence is obvious.

Do you know what will happen in four years because of what is happening now? Pretty much every state will pass legislation stating that delegates are directly nominated by the candidates according to the primary/caucus results. That will be the ultimate result of this kind of stuff.

just so you know my understanding is both that no such rule existed and also that they did in fact return signed affidavits and were axed anyhow. It is my understanding that this story is based on implications the party is putting out that our guys refused to vote for Romney on the first ballot when that is not the case.

and our guys are playing by the rules in place NOW. They were altered differently in different regions to benefit Romney. They change them all the time to favor the establishment. There is no way to stop that except by being the establishment.

[TrishW]

That would never happen. You vote with principal not for protest.

I would rather have 4 more years of Obama than 8 years of Romney. Protest and principal do not have to be mutually exclusive.

[DeMintConservative]

just so you know my understanding is both that no such rule existed and also that they did in fact return signed affidavits and were axed anyhow.

I can't know for sure, I'm accepting the word of the Rules Committee. If that's the case, then the RRLS delegates can appeal to the RNC to be installed as delegates.

Still, the endgame will be the one I'm pointing: none of this will happen in 4 years because everybody will make rules to make sure that the delegates to the convention firmly support the candidate primary voters picked .

[sailingaway]

I can't know for sure, I'm accepting the word of the Rules Committee. If that's the case, then the RRLS delegates can appeal to the RNC to be installed as delegates.

they will but it will be heavy with Romney supporters making that decision. It seems they may also be joining the lawsuit though.


Still, the endgame will be the one I'm pointing: none of this will happen in 4 years because everybody will make rules to make sure that the delegates to the convention firmly support the candidate primary voters picked .

and I repeat, what else is new? They always change the rules to suit the establishment. they've gone back and forth on caucuses other times when there were strong grass roots movements, but always came back to them because whenever there ISN'T such an organized movement, caucuses leave so many cards in the hands of party insiders -- particularly those willing to cheat and break people's bones.

[DeMintConservative]

they will but it will be heavy with Romney supporters making that decision. It seems they may also be joining the lawsuit though.



and I repeat, what else is new? They always change the rules to suit the establishment. they've gone back and forth on caucuses other times when there were strong grass roots movements, but always came back to them because whenever there ISN'T such an organized movement, caucuses leave so many cards in the hands of party insiders -- particularly those willing to cheat and break people's bones.

I don't know what do you call "establishment" - anybody who doesnt' support Ron Paul or doesn't meet some purity test? - but they'll change the rules to make sure the preference of primary votes is enforced. Are you opposed to that? Do you think that the nominee should be picked by millions of primary voters and caucuses goers or the few people who care enough to go to state conventions and run/elect delegates?

[talkingpointes]

You have to play by the rules. If one of the rules is that you need to return an affidavit and you refused to do it, the consequence is obvious.

Do you know what will happen in four years because of what is happening now? Pretty much every state will pass legislation stating that delegates are directly nominated by the candidates according to the primary/caucus results. That will be the ultimate result of this kind of stuff.

I would assume what you're saying sounds like a pipe dream. The reason the states can't bind them now is because it falls under federal election rules once they get to the convention. We could be delegates under other candidates anyways. No need to be disgruntled. We are just going to let a little light into the house for some cleaning. ..

[TrishW]

There is no rule regarding an affidavit. I thought all things concerning the election of delegates were covered by actual written rules. The people trying to be delegates had to take a verbal pledge before they were elected.

I also thought it against the rule to simply appoint delegates? So where are these replacements coming form?

The Establishment needs to wake up. There are only two people who can win this presidential election.... and neither of them is Romney.

[MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2]

I can't know for sure, I'm accepting the word of the Rules Committee.


After all of their lies and cheating, that's sounding more and more like a bad bet, no matter what republican rules committee you are talking about.



I don't know what do you call "establishment" - anybody who doesnt' support Ron Paul or doesn't meet some purity test?


Who exactly do you perceive to be creating the "purity test" in this instance? The delegates or the rules committee?

[DeMintConservative]

I would assume what you're saying sounds like a pipe dream. The reason the states can't bind them now is because it falls under federal election rules once they get to the convention. We could be delegates under other candidates anyways. No need to be disgruntled. We are just going to let a little light into the house for some cleaning. ..

Bind them? They'll just have the primary candidates submitting the slates - that they will obviously fill with their loyalists. Like some states already do. I know for a fact this is already being prepared in some states.

[DeMintConservative]

After all of their lies and cheating, that's sounding more and more like a bad bet, no matter what republican rules committee you are talking about.

Who exactly do you perceive to be creating the "purity test" in this instance? The delegates or the rules committee?

I can't apply the purity test concept to this situation. I'm all in favour of state parties binding their delegates to the results of primary/conventions.

[Red Green]

I don't know what do you call "establishment" - anybody who doesnt' support Ron Paul or doesn't meet some purity test? - but they'll change the rules to make sure the preference of primary votes is enforced. Are you opposed to that? Do you think that the nominee should be picked by millions of primary voters and caucuses goers or the few people who care enough to go to state conventions and run/elect delegates?

You speak like the nominee in any case is "picked by millions of primary voters", which is a load of crap. Ron Paul is the only bottom-up candidate, which is why he has the kind of support he does. Mittens was the establishment candidate and was picked by the elites that own the country to foist on the electorate. They own the media, they own the parties and they make the rules. This has nothing to do with the desires of "millions of primary voters" because even with the propaganda campaign waged by the elite for the benefit of Mittens, he is still perceived by most observers as a weak candidate who does not really connect with the conservative base of the GOP.

Yes, I am happy if we can somehow override the results of the elections, because the elections were scams to begin with. Your vote does not count and neither does mine. The whole "democracy" thing is just eyewash to make people believe they are not living in a tyrannical authoritarian dystopia; unfortunately, a lot of people are fooled by this or just don't care.

[DeMintConservative]

You speak like the nominee in any case is "picked by millions of primary voters", which is a load of crap. Ron Paul is the only bottom-up candidate, which is why he has the kind of support he does. Mittens was the establishment candidate and was picked by the elites that own the country to foist on the electorate. They own the media, they own the parties and they make the rules. This has nothing to do with the desires of "millions of primary voters" because even with the propaganda campaign waged by the elite for the benefit of Mittens, he is still perceived by most observers as a weak candidate who does not really connect with the conservative base of the GOP.

Yes, I am happy if we can somehow override the results of the elections, because the elections were scams to begin with. Your vote does not count and neither does mine. The whole "democracy" thing is just eyewash to make people believe they are not living in a tyrannical authoritarian dystopia; unfortunately, a lot of people are fooled by this or just don't care.

Sure, if you believe elections are scam I understand that you don't care about them.

I personally believe Romney was, sadly, the pick of the overwhelming majority of Republican primary voters and that the process was more or less fair - even if it was perfect, Romney would still be the winner with basically the same margin.

I'd struggle to understand if these people who want to be delegates to a party convention agreed with you more than with me though. It'd be a sort of nonsensical.

[talkingpointes]

You speak like the nominee in any case is "picked by millions of primary voters", which is a load of crap. Ron Paul is the only bottom-up candidate, which is why he has the kind of support he does. Mittens was the establishment candidate and was picked by the elites that own the country to foist on the electorate. They own the media, they own the parties and they make the rules. This has nothing to do with the desires of "millions of primary voters" because even with the propaganda campaign waged by the elite for the benefit of Mittens, he is still perceived by most observers as a weak candidate who does not really connect with the conservative base of the GOP.

Yes, I am happy if we can somehow override the results of the elections, because the elections were scams to begin with. Your vote does not count and neither does mine. The whole "democracy" thing is just eyewash to make people believe they are not living in a tyrannical authoritarian dystopia; unfortunately, a lot of people are fooled by this or just don't care.

Talking about millions that voted with one hand while saying they will stack the delegates in the next election with the other. Either they are corrupt and this whole thing is a shame or is it not. Sounds like you wan't it to be one way while accepting that it works in another way.

[DeMintConservative]

Stacking the delegates?

Let me explain in simple terms: how many Ron Paul delegates will be coming from Ohio?

[Smitty]

A Romney victory means that there will be no chance for a liberty candidate until 2020.

Even if his camp wasn't responsible for all of the dirty tricks employed against the Campaign for Liberty, that alone would be enough for me not to vote for him,...but there's also many other reasons.

The same neocons who rode the country down into the mud during the Bush administration control Romney.

http://www.thenation.com/article/167683/mitt-romneys-neocon-war-cabinet

[Philosophy_of_Politics]

I think people are missing the point here. This is a representative government, and punishing delegates because they refuse to sign an affidavit for a candidate that they do not wish to be their representative, goes against the very notion of representative government. All the fancy speak beyond that is moot.

[cajuncocoa]

How many examples will we need before Paul supporters and the Liberty Movement realize that the GOP is not our party?

[erowe1]

I think people are missing the point here. This is a representative government....

No it isn't. It's a private organization.

[erowe1]

It looks to me like these delegates brought this on themselves. Does anyone know why they refused to send in their affidavits?

[Philosophy_of_Politics]

No it isn't. It's a private organization.

Funded by taxpayers, part of the official federal and state political process. Loopholes are merely a farce.

[sailingaway]

No it isn't. It's a private organization.

I disagree when it has monopoly preferences for ballot access granted by government. If those are taken away, fine.

[sailingaway]

It looks to me like these delegates brought this on themselves. Does anyone know why they refused to send in their affidavits?

again, my understanding is that is not correct but the party excuse. My understanding is they DID sign.

[erowe1]

again, my understanding is that is not correct but the party excuse. My understanding is they DID sign.

I hope you're right. It's one thing when kids on the internet spread rumors that Ron Paul supporters elected as bound delegates for Romney plan to turn around and vote for Paul on the first ballot. But the last thing Ron Paul needs is actual RNC delegates lending those rumors any credibility.

[MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2]

I can't apply the purity test concept to this situation. I'm all in favour of state parties binding their delegates to the results of primary/conventions.


Why not? It sounds exactly like a purity test from the rules committee. Can explain why you can't apply that concept to the rules committee?

Also, it sounds like you say you are NOT in favor of them following their own rules.

[sailingaway]

I don't know what do you call "establishment" - anybody who doesnt' support Ron Paul or doesn't meet some purity test? - but they'll change the rules to make sure the preference of primary votes is enforced. Are you opposed to that? Do you think that the nominee should be picked by millions of primary voters and caucuses goers or the few people who care enough to go to state conventions and run/elect delegates?
lol! I am much more literal to the words you were using than that. I mean those in place to make rules about how delegates are selected, in that instance.

And I prefer more people having a say but not if the information to them is filtered by those with an agenda. I can't make up my mind on this point, I am struggling with it right now.

[sailingaway]

I hope you're right. It's one thing when kids on the internet spread rumors that Ron Paul supporters elected as bound delegates for Romney plan to turn around and vote for Paul on the first ballot. But the last thing Ron Paul needs is actual RNC delegates lending those rumors any credibility.

given the state of my information, it is possible no rule required AFFIDAVITS just votes, and the affidavits may have gone further than the rule..... which is to say, they might not have signed right away, but my understanding is they always said they would vote for Romney on the first ballot and they have signed the affidavits, before they were axed, I don't know the timing. And I don't know the precise wording of the affidavits or whether they went beyond what the rules required.

[Britannia]

I've come to the conclusion that Mitt Romney is little more than a common crook in an expensive suit.

[heavenlyboy34]

http://bostonglobe.com/metro/2012/06/23/romney-campaign-ousts-ron-paul-delegates/3xYwhZ5kbZuRMyMBlXy6EK/story.html

When I read the reasons why, its because they refused to sign an avidavid to support Mitt.

There was this feeling of total and utter disgust that one of them an 18 year patriot who beat out scum will not be seated because he didn't sign the avvidavid.



These poeple have lost all respect and common deceny this IS NOT A DEMOCRACY BUT A REPUBLIC, their vote rigged primary results are meaningless.
It's nice to think so and argue from classical republican thought, but in practice you're incorrect. The last vestiges of republicanism were smashed long ago, primarily by direct election of Senators, the income tax, Lincoln et al's destruction of state soverignty, and the FED. Nowadays, people can and do vote themselves largesse, democracy-style.

[libertyfanatic]

I've come to the conclusion that Mitt Romney is little more than a common crook in an expensive suit.
Bingo!

[freedomordeath]

this is a REPUBLIC NOT A DEMOCRACY.... google trends and put romney and ron paul in and see the media coverage. Look around for mitt romney signs, look on the internet for all his supporters, you get loads Obama sheeple, but where is romneys die hard supporters. IT IS A BIG CON, the sheeple have Romney forced onto them, they didn't want him, but they were forced to pick him.. you know the whole lesser of 2 evils BS... if Rick Santorum got the 1st election victory momentum, who knows how things could have turned out. Thats why the delgate system is AWESOME, the delgates need to give speeches and need to defend their guy, its very good vetting procedure and nice thing is there are NO VOTING MACHINES.

Another way of looking at it is.... you as an individual were born free under the protection of the constitution, even if you have to go against 250million poeple, so be it. You have your gold and silver, stocked up with many cans of food, loaded weapon with the flag proudly flying outside your house and ready to defend the constitution both foreign and domestic and gve those 250million hell ;)

[MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2]

I've come to the conclusion that Mitt Romney is little more than a common crook in an expensive suit.


He's an expensive crook in a common suit, unfortunately.

[anaconda]

Lawyers for Ron Paul, I summon you! this court case has become all the more important.

I will be very discouraged with Ron Paul if he does not address this with great prejudice. Just sayin.

[anaconda]

It looks to me like these delegates brought this on themselves. Does anyone know why they refused to send in their affidavits?

Why should they? How can they make up rules as they go along or after the fact? What other rules could they come up with? Home ownership? Sexual preference affidavits? 50 push ups?

[anaconda]

Where does this all end? What's next? What if tomorrow the RNC says Ron Paul delegates from Maine, Minnesota, and Iowa are not allowed in Tampa because they do not reflect the will of the voters in those states?

[Endthefednow]

To Arms!! To Arms !! The Ron Paul R3volution will not be Nice ;)

[anaconda]

As hard as it would be for me to do why don't we all just vote for Obama as a protest vote and give the GOP the finger?

This is a good strategy. Our worst outcome would be a Romney victory.

[erowe1]

Why should they?

So that they can go to the convention and be among the hundreds of Paul supporters bound to Romney that Ron Paul wants there.

[erowe1]

I will be very discouraged with Ron Paul if he does not address this with great prejudice. Just sayin.

I hope he addresses it and says clearly, "I do not want any of my supporters who are elected as delegates bound to other candidates to break their pledge and vote for me on the first ballot. There is no effort on the part of my campaign for that to happen. As far as I know, there is no organized effort on anybody's part for that to happen. Any delegates who do that are acting independently and entirely without my blessing."

[anaconda]

So that they can go to the convention and be among the hundreds of Paul supporters bound to Romney that Ron Paul wants there.

I think imposing a new and additional rule after the delegates are rightfully elected must be some form of contract violation and therefore illegal.

[MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2]

I think imposing a new and additional rule after the delegates are rightfully elected must be some form of contract violation and therefore illegal.

Unethical. Personally, I think that's more important. Criminals in government are rarely prosecuted for their crimes. I don't need to make a list, as this forum pretty much *is* a list.

[erowe1]

I think imposing a new and additional rule after the delegates are rightfully elected must be some form of contract violation and therefore illegal.
How do you know it's a new rule?

[anaconda]

I hope he addresses it and says clearly, "I do not want any of my supporters who are elected as delegates bound to other candidates to break their pledge and vote for me on the first ballot. There is no effort on the part of my campaign for that to happen. As far as I know, there is no organized effort on anybody's part for that to happen. Any delegates who do that are acting independently and entirely without my blessing."

With all due respect, I think Ron Paul would be missing the point completely if he did. The issue is that the MA Republican Party is breaking their own rules and deserve to be publicly outed as completely corrupt. If we are to accept the MA Republican Party's concern as sufficient validity for this unlawful affidavit request, then Ron Paul's express disapproval for a delegate's unwillingness to vote for Mittens on a first ballot would not be binding and therefore would not assuage their concerns.

[erowe1]

He would be missing the point completely if he did. The issue is that the MA Republican Party is breaking their own rules and deserve to be publicly outed as completely corrupt.

No he wouldn't be missing the point completely. The party establishment thinks that's what's happening. They see discussions on this website that feed those suspicions. That suspicion should sound so ludicrous that nobody could possibly believe it. And we should be doing our part to paint it as ludicrous. We should treat people who encourage pledged delegates to vote against their pledges the same way we treat people who make posts encouraging the breaking of election finance laws. Instead, those of us who are correctly saying that there is no such strategy going on get drowned out by people who don't know what they're talking about who think there is.

[MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2]

No he wouldn't be missing the point completely. The party establishment thinks that's what's happening. They see discussions on this website that feed those suspicions. That suspicion should sound so ludicrous that nobody could possibly believe it. And we should be doing our part to paint it as ludicrous. We should treat people who encourage pledged delegates to vote against their pledges the same way we treat people who make posts encouraging the breaking of election finance laws. Instead, those of us who are correctly saying that there is no such strategy going on get drowned out by people who don't know what they're talking about who think there is.

So that is justification to break their own rules? They're worried someone might break the rules, so they start breaking rules first? I guess you're one of those "preemptive war" guys. Have fun justifying that bullshit.

[anaconda]

How do you know it's a new rule?

Good question but I think it is.

[erowe1]

So that is justification to break their own rules? They're worried someone might break the rules, so they start breaking rules first? I guess you're one of those "preemptive war" guys. Have fun justifying that bullshit.

I'm not certain that they broke a rule. If they did, it's no justification. But those delegates still should have sent in their affidavits, unless they honestly were never made aware that they were supposed to. You can be sure that all the Romney supporters who were elected as delegates in MA sent in their affidavits. The difference between them and these 17 Ron Paul supporters is that those will be at the RNC, and these won't.

[anaconda]

That suspicion should sound so ludicrous that nobody could possibly believe it.

As a side note, apparently the RNC rules actually allow for delegates to vote their conscience (rule 38). Why is it ludicrous therefore to think that they might? The RNC obviously has no intention of following their own rules and apparently don't find their own behavior ludicrous.

[erowe1]

As a side note, apparently the RNC rules actually allow for delegates to vote their conscience (rule 38). Why is it ludicrous therefore to think that they might?

The thing that makes delegates "bound" is state party rules, not RNC rules. When states had their primaries, all their Republican voters voted under the pretense that some of the delegates they were electing were bound delegates. They weren't voting for representatives to vote their consciences, they were voting for particular presidential candidates and delegates to vote for those candidates. Even if delegates could get away with breaking their pledges at the RNC, they would be dishonest to do that.

We want the notion that we would support bound delegates doing that to sound ludicrous because we need to grow our movement and engender support from others, and pulling stunts like that would impede us in that. If we want to look like we're the ones doing everything we can to play by the rules and its the establishment that is corrupted, then we need to stay above reproach.

[anaconda]

The thing that makes delegates "bound" is state party rules, not RNC rules. When states had their primaries, all their Republican voters voted under the pretense that some of the delegates they were electing were bound delegates. They weren't voting for representatives to vote their consciences, they were voting for particular presidential candidates and delegates to vote for those candidates. Even if delegates could get away with breaking their pledges at the RNC, they would be dishonest to do that.

We want the notion that we would support bound delegates doing that to sound ludicrous because we need to grow our movement and engender support from others, and pulling stunts like that would impede us in that. If we want to look like we're the ones doing everything we can to play by the rules and its the establishment that is corrupted, then we need to stay above reproach.

Your argument is sound and ethical. My only concern at this point is if the MA Republican Party improperly introduced an additional and improper requirement of the duly elected delegates. If they wanted to make such an affidavit a requirement for 2016, fine. But not in 2012 after the delegates were fairly elected and had complied with all of the rules in the process of becoming duly elected.

[MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2]

The thing that makes delegates "bound" is state party rules, not RNC rules. When states had their primaries, all their Republican voters voted under the pretense that some of the delegates they were electing were bound delegates. They weren't voting for representatives to vote their consciences, they were voting for particular presidential candidates and delegates to vote for those candidates. Even if delegates could get away with breaking their pledges at the RNC, they would be dishonest to do that.

We want the notion that we would support bound delegates doing that to sound ludicrous because we need to grow our movement and engender support from others, and pulling stunts like that would impede us in that. If we want to look like we're the ones doing everything we can to play by the rules and its the establishment that is corrupted, then we need to stay above reproach.

So... you know that there are states where Romney delegates comprise way more than the Romney % vote? In some cases, Romney lost, and still has the majority of delegates. Why aren't those being challenged by the RNC, or state rules committees? I could guess, but I'll give you and DemintConservative an opportunity to answer that question. Why aren't they breaking rules to make themselves compliant?

[erowe1]

So... you know that there are states where Romney delegates comprise way more than the Romney % vote? In some cases, Romney lost, and still has the majority of delegates. Why aren't those being challenged by the RNC, or state rules committees? I could guess, but I'll give you and DemintConservative an opportunity to answer that question. Why aren't they breaking rules to make themselves compliant?

The rules vary by state. In my state, whoever wins each congressional district gets 3 delegates for that district. These are bound delegates. If Romney wins each district with a small plurality, he'll still get 100% of my state's bound delegates according to the rules of my state's GOP which Republican voters who voted in the primary understood to be governing the process they were participating in. For another candidate to have gotten any bound delegates at all, that candidate would have to have won the primary in at least one congressional district. My state also has unbound at-large delegates. But the issue we're talking about here is not with unbound delegates, but with bound ones.

As for your question, "Why aren't they breaking rules to make themselves compliant?" I can't answer that because I don't understand what you're asking.

[Michael Landon]

You have to play by the rules. If one of the rules is that you need to return an affidavit and you refused to do it, the consequence is obvious.

Do you know what will happen in four years because of what is happening now? Pretty much every state will pass legislation stating that delegates are directly nominated by the candidates according to the primary/caucus results. That will be the ultimate result of this kind of stuff.

Not in Minnesota. The GOP tried to pass this, but because we were the majority, we voted it down. :)

- ML

[angelatc]

From the article: "under the penalty of perjury".

Clinton got away with it, the freedom delegates would probably not.

Really? So the courts don't want to get involved with the party rules and regulations, but reneging on a pledge is perjury?

[angelatc]

I can't apply the purity test concept to this situation. I'm all in favour of state parties binding their delegates to the results of primary/conventions.

Ugh - I'm not. 90% of the people don't pay any attention to the candidates or their voting records or their positions on the issues. They vote for the name that they recognize. I like the idea of the activists getting a shot at steering the party.

[Red Green]

Unethical. Personally, I think that's more important. Criminals in government are rarely prosecuted for their crimes. I don't need to make a list, as this forum pretty much *is* a list.

Precisely. When was the last time a candidate for public office asked to sign a pledge to do exactly what he said he would do under the penalty of perjury?

Here they are asking delegates to do that but they don't ask the people they are going to put in power? Crazy.

[sailingaway]

Precisely. When was the last time a candidate for public office asked to sign a pledge to do exactly what he said he would do under the penalty of perjury?

Here they are asking delegates to do that but they don't ask the people they are going to put in power? Crazy.

they take an oath to follow the Constitution. Not under penalty of perjury, though....

[FSP-Rebel]

Ugh - I'm not. 90% of the people don't pay any attention to the candidates or their voting records or their positions on the issues. They vote for the name that they recognize.
Or the person their favorite talk host is pushing or providing positive coverage on.

[Veteran Citizen]

they take an oath to follow the Constitution. Not under penalty of perjury, though....


Let's have a count then, how many are willing to lose their freedom to protect the freedom of others,

Don't be a pussy, I've risked my life to save the lives of many others.

[DeMintConservative]

I disagree when it has monopoly preferences for ballot access granted by government. If those are taken away, fine.

Are you going to apply the same principle to any institution/collective person/individual that benefits from some form of government intervention?


Why not? It sounds exactly like a purity test from the rules committee. Can explain why you can't apply that concept to the rules committee?

Also, it sounds like you say you are NOT in favor of them following their own rules.

Maybe it's just me, but I tend to see "purity test" as related to ideological and institutional positions.

Say, if they were excluding the delegates merely because they were/are Ron Paul supporters, I'd agree with you. This is more of a technicality: they want the delegates that are bound to vote for Romney to make that personal commitment.



lol! I am much more literal to the words you were using than that. I mean those in place to make rules about how delegates are selected, in that instance.

And I prefer more people having a say but not if the information to them is filtered by those with an agenda. I can't make up my mind on this point, I am struggling with it right now.

Everybody has an agenda.


I hope he addresses it and says clearly, "I do not want any of my supporters who are elected as delegates bound to other candidates to break their pledge and vote for me on the first ballot. There is no effort on the part of my campaign for that to happen. As far as I know, there is no organized effort on anybody's part for that to happen. Any delegates who do that are acting independently and entirely without my blessing."

Fully agreed. I think he'll eventually say that.

[DeMintConservative]

Not in Minnesota. The GOP tried to pass this, but because we were the majority, we voted it down. :)

- ML

Yeah, but the Minnesota GOP is in shambles. And nobody was too worried about that. That's why I'm saying that things will change substantially if the convention is somehow disrupted and Paul delegates bound to vote for Romney go rogue. At some point, the MN party will get back together and find a way of voting this in a caucus or a primary. What was the percentage of the vote that Paul got in the MN caucus? 25%? Even if a few states keep this system, does it matter when all the others adopt the Ohio way to nominate delegates?


Mind you: what did the other two guys running for Senator did once Bills got the party endorsement in the convention? They dropped out of the primary and endorsed Bills.

If there is a faction of the party that isn't willing to reciprocate this kind of stuff, what exactly do you think the rest of the party will behave?


Ugh - I'm not. 90% of the people don't pay any attention to the candidates or their voting records or their positions on the issues. They vote for the name that they recognize. I like the idea of the activists getting a shot at steering the party.

Oh me too. I strongly dislike the primary system. I'd get rid of it and go back to the times of having the nominee picked by smoke-filled rooms. I think the more fundamental problem this country is facing is that there's too much democracy injected in the institutional mechanisms. Now it's going to be very complicated to put the genie back in the bottle.

My point is about what's going to happen.

[sailingaway]

Are you going to apply the same principle to any institution/collective person/individual that benefits from some form of government intervention?

I think disenfranchisement is a bit more serious, and that is what we are talking about, your subsidized 'green energy' company isn't keeping you from being able to vote and their deal with the state doesn't restrict voting for others. THAT is where the lawsuit lies, imho. Ballot access preferences essentially force you to vote for one of two parties on a regular basis and the perpetuation of that is what makes them the only games in town, and makes their 'private rules' have the effect of disenfranchising voters.


But yeah, I think govt should not be about favoring business interests.

They specifically added something not in the rules to oust our guys. Our guys were ELECTED, they didn't like the results, so they created something new with the entire purpose of only going after people who think a certain way. There is no way to spin that as right.

[zeloc]

This is absolutely outrageous and clearly illegal. I understand that there is a main lawsuit filed against the RNC in CA but shouldn't this be a separate lawsuit in MA against the Republican party of Massachusetts? What is the next step? This is clearly an abuse of power by the GOP of MA and a slap in the face to the voters of MA who voted in these delegates. If all these delegates were revoked then apparently the MA GOP is going to handpick the ones that they think should go which is against a democratic system.

I am not a delegate but what is our plan and how can I help? Someone posted an e-mail address of where to send feedback to the GOP but I think we are beyond that based on the brazen actions by the GOP. Can I be a plaintiff even if I was not elected as a delegate? I can't see how the GOP could possibly win this case based on the written rules and what transpired. Based on the significance of this case and how it affects constitutional rights I imagine that a suit with a large financial value could be filed against the MA GOP but law is not my area of expertise.

sailingaway, I urge you not to relegate this thread to Hot Topics like so many others that were salutary to Ron Paul and his campaign. While there are specious allegations of algorithmic vote-flipping and other baseless claims against the GOP, they have clearly crossed the line on this one and we should not take this lightly, especially when the right-to-vote is concerned.

[economics102]

As hard as it would be for me to do why don't we all just vote for Obama as a protest vote and give the GOP the finger?

I'm not above doing this. The only reason I wouldn't is if I either have some better plan for my vote or decide to write in Ron Paul.

In fact, Romney is the ONLY person I won't consider voting for. I'll consider writing in Ron Paul. I'll consider voting for Gary Johnson. And I'll consider voting for Obama as a FU to Romney and the GOP (plus, strategically it's better for our movement if there is a GOP primary in 2016). But I won't vote for Romney. No way, no how.

And even just straight-up politically, the GOP deserves to lose. The takeaway from the election needs to be "oops, maybe nominating a spineless moderate in the midst of one of the biggest upswings in conservative political sentiment wasn't a smart idea."

Of course, that will just lead to the rise of fake conservatives/horror shows like Bachmann, Santorum, or Gingrich gaining stature while real conservative/liberty candidates continue to be suppressed.

[Southerner]

...I'll consider voting for Obama as a FU to Romney and the GOP (plus, strategically it's better for our movement if there is a GOP primary in 2016). But I won't vote for Romney. No way, no how.

And even just straight-up politically, the GOP deserves to lose. The takeaway from the election needs to be "oops, maybe nominating a spineless moderate in the midst of one of the biggest upswings in conservative political sentiment wasn't a smart idea."

Of course, that will just lead to the rise of fake conservatives/horror shows like Bachmann, Santorum, or Gingrich gaining stature while real conservative/liberty candidates continue to be suppressed.

I understand, you WANT your cookie and you want it NOW, so you are going to throw a temper tantrum because you are gonna get your way. Life doesn't work like that, nor do the responsible adults in the room respond to it well. So you vote for 0bama, and instead of a cookie, you get gruel.

[CaptainAmerica]

so much for a fucking vote.freedom my ass.