RNC Rule Change Would Give Rand Convention Speech and Nomination Chance

[JK/SEA]

No way. If they don't want Trump, because they think he might upset their gravy train, they sure as Hell are not going to want Rand. I realize that may upset some Paulbots, but that's the way it is.

why did you use the term Paulbots?...you could have said Ron Paul supporters.

seems a bit snarky for an ex-moderator in here.

[jllundqu]

why did you use the term Paulbots?...you could have said Ron Paul supporters.

seems a bit snarky for an ex-moderator in here.

Agreed. Odd choice of words

[JK/SEA]

Agreed. Odd choice of words

well, she is now a Trump supporter, so this might explain it. LE will say she's not...but she is.

[jmdrake]

No way. If they don't want Trump, because they think he might upset their gravy train, they sure as Hell are not going to want Rand. I realize that may upset some Paulbots, but that's the way it is.

Response without any reasoning. I guess that should be expected. Mitch McConnell endorsed Rand Paul. I assume that means Mitch would actually rather have Rand than Donald Trump or Ted Cruz. It's one thing to wreck a gravy train. It's another to wreck it and then urinate all over it just for the hell of it. It's possible, just possible, that some in the establishment might not like Donald Trump for some actual legitimate reasons. And Cruz has made a lot of enemies on a personal level. While I think it was stupid of Rand to criticize Cruz for calling Mitch McConnell a liar, on the flip side I do agree with Rand that Cruz doing that was unproductive. It was stupid of Rand to criticize Cruz from a tactical point of view since many of the voters he was trying to court actually feel that Mitch McConnell is a liar. But that tactical blunder in the primary means McConnell actually probably looks at Rand as an ally. Now it could all be a ruse. McConnell could have endorsed Rand just to hurt Rand. I don't think McConnell is that smart, but who knows? And again, I'm not saying the GOP will actually make Rand the nominee. But this is more of a possibility than the false hopes we had in 2008 and 2012 for a brokered convention. The brokered convention will actually happen. At least some very powerful republicans would prefer Rand to Trump and Cruz. (Again, I'm taking the McConnell endorsement at face value until someone gives me a real reason not to do so.) And making anyone but Rand the nominee will split the party. That said, the GOP seems suicidal these days so they could nominate Jeb Bush.

Now, if you're going to respond this time, please try to put some substance to your response and stay away from the straw man arguments? Thanks!

[Feelgood]

why did you use the term Paulbots?...you could have said Ron Paul supporters.

seems a bit snarky for an ex-moderator in here.

Who cares? FFS do we have to walk around on egg shells for every thread in this forum now? Why are people so butt hurt over things? Quite honestly, I wear the name Paulbot as a badge of honor. Now when people call us astro turf or tea-baggers, then it gets a little annoying. But Paulbot?!

[JK/SEA]

Who cares? FFS do we have to walk around on egg shells for every thread in this forum now? Why are people so butt hurt over things? Quite honestly, I wear the name Paulbot as a badge of honor. Now when people call us astro turf or tea-baggers, then it gets a little annoying. But Paulbot?!

not feeling good today i see...

when in a Ron Paul message board, its always good ettiquette to refer to members in here as either Ron Paul supporters or not. Using derogatory terms to label a group is a way to 'marginalize' or to make yourself appear to be 'superior' to said group...or individual.

You like Paulbot?...fine with me. I've given you my opinion.

[Chieppa1]

If Rand's name was Ron, there would be a huge grassroots movement to get him some traction in a brokered convention. Personally I think this is the legacy of Rand Paul 2016 and Rona Paul 2013. The 2012 Ron Paul campaign did such a good job of making sure the grassroots was marginalized, they weren't there for Rand.

And by grassroots I mean the sign-wavers, site-creators and "Paulbots" from 07-08.

This small window of opportunity would have been pounced on.

[JohnCifelli1]

I cannot believe there's a two page thread with some mild enthusiasm about a wacky rule change that would steal the nomination not just from a candidate who earned it, but from the voters behind him and our democratic nomination process in general. This thread should be multiple pages condemning party politics and the unholy machines that would engineer their own self preservation at the expense of democracy.

[Chieppa1]

I cannot believe there's a two page thread with some mild enthusiasm about a wacky rule change that would steal the nomination not just from a candidate who earned it, but from the voters behind him and our democratic nomination process in general. This thread should be multiple pages condemning party politics and the unholy machines that would engineer their own self preservation at the expense of democracy.

I would steal the nomination from the Republican voters if it ended with a Rand Paul vs. Hillary Clinton general election. Sorry I'm not sorry. This country is destroying itself, along with most of the world in the process.

[goldwater's ghost]

I cannot believe there's a two page thread with some mild enthusiasm about a wacky rule change that would steal the nomination not just from a candidate who earned it, but from the voters behind him and our democratic nomination process in general. This thread should be multiple pages condemning party politics and the unholy machines that would engineer their own self preservation at the expense of democracy.

we are not a democracy. we are a federal republic

[jmdrake]

I cannot believe there's a two page thread with some mild enthusiasm about a wacky rule change that would steal the nomination not just from a candidate who earned it, but from the voters behind him and our democratic nomination process in general. This thread should be multiple pages condemning party politics and the unholy machines that would engineer their own self preservation at the expense of democracy.

A candidate has not "earned" the nomination until he has a majority, not a plurality, of the delegates.

[JohnCifelli1]

we are not a democracy. we are a federal republic

You are misunderstanding me. democracy with a little d, as in an empowered electorate.

[JohnCifelli1]

I would steal the nomination from the Republican voters if it ended with a Rand Paul vs. Hillary Clinton general election. Sorry I'm not sorry. This country is destroying itself, along with most of the world in the process.

So you are the moral peer of Rence Priebus, and have the same hubris as to the importance of the USAs place in the world as GWB. Cool.

[The Gold Standard]

I cannot believe there's a two page thread with some mild enthusiasm about a wacky rule change that would steal the nomination not just from a candidate who earned it, but from the voters behind him and our democratic nomination process in general. This thread should be multiple pages condemning party politics and the unholy machines that would engineer their own self preservation at the expense of democracy.

Democracy is a despicable form of government, and anything to undermine it is welcome. You, your democracy, and your Fuhrer can go to hell.

[JohnCifelli1]

Democracy is a despicable form of government, and anything to undermine it is welcome. You, your democracy, and your Fuhrer can go to hell.

You have a reading problem. See above, dummy.

[Dianne]

Seems like I heard that over and over in the last election, when we filled the congress with republicans.

[Son_of_Liberty90]

A candidate has not "earned" the nomination until he has a majority, not a plurality, of the delegates.

Correction: The nomination is "bestowed" upon the candidate of the establishment's choice

[Chieppa1]

So you are the moral peer of Rence Priebus, and have the same hubris as to the importance of the USAs place in the world as GWB. Cool.

Sure man whatever. The USA empire is not responsible for most of the military conflicts on Earth. Keep telling yourself that. The voters in this country are so focus on themselves, they ignore the actions of the empire.

Is the conflict in Yemen even in the news? The US empire is responsible for that conflict. Not one voter or candidate has brought it up. And if it was, it was to sell the country on more bombs landing in that country to stop the spread of "terrorism".

If Ron Paul/Rand Paul grassroots supporters got either one into office at a brokered convention, I would support it because I put human suffering at the hands of the State above following the will of the ignorant majority.

[JohnCifelli1]

Sure man whatever. The USA empire is not responsible for most of the military conflicts on Earth. Keep telling yourself that. The voters in this country are so focus on themselves, they ignore the actions of the empire.

Is the conflict in Yemen even in the news? The US empire is responsible for that conflict. Not one voter or candidate has brought it up. And if it was, it was to sell the country on more bombs landing in that country to stop the spread of "terrorism".

If Ron Paul/Rand Paul grassroots supporters got either one into office at a brokered convention, I would support it because I put human suffering at the hands of the State above following the will of the ignorant majority.

I'm not sure why you're bringing up empire, or why I need to tell myself anything. I think you might be mischaracterizing me as a Trump supporter...I am not. At all. But what we are talking about doing here is directly analogous to what the RNC did to marginalize Ron's supporters in 2012. Then, everyone was in arms about the RNC breaking rules. Now everyone is discussing doing the same thing that we found the RNC guilty of. Willfully ignorant or not, votes have been cast for Trump, in a larger number than that for any other candidate, by a wide margin. If we do not respect that, we are as guilty of disrespect for democracy and enfranchisement as those who we have, for over 4 years, labeled evil, corrupt, and part of the problem. Why even have primaries and caucuses if various factions are going to change rules to cheat candidates and the voters who support them anyhow?

[Chieppa1]

I'm not sure why you're bringing up empire, or why I need to tell myself anything. I think you might be mischaracterizing me as a Trump supporter...I am not. At all. But what we are talking about doing here is directly analogous to what the RNC did to marginalize Ron's supporters in 2012. Then, everyone was in arms about the RNC breaking rules. Now everyone is discussing doing the same thing that we found the RNC guilty of. Willfully ignorant or not, votes have been cast for Trump, in a larger number than that for any other candidate, by a wide margin. If we do not respect that, we are as guilty of disrespect for democracy and enfranchisement as those who we have, for over 4 years, labeled evil, corrupt, and part of the problem. Why even have primaries and caucuses if various factions are going to change rules to cheat candidates and the voters who support them anyhow?

Please don't speak for me. I didn't speak for you. I never called you a Trump supporter. And I get your point about 2012. My point is that I care about the rules of the Republican Convention very very little. I do have disrespect for pure democracy when the mindless hordes of voters continue to vote for empire.

I brought up empire because it is my major reason for voting, following Ron Paul or being on this site. Ron Paul would have ended or tried to end the empire. Breaking the RNC's rules to have him as president is okay with me. I am not a statist. I don't care about these rules or super special voting conventions.

I don't know why we support candidates or have primaries. Mostly because this country isn't full of the same people as (for example) Brazil. Where when the government is clearly a corrupt piece of $#@!, the people march on the capital.

[r3volution 3.0]

There's no way Rand gets nominated at the convention.

They'd rally around Trump (might take their gravy train seats for 4-8 years) before Rand (would definitely destroy the gravy train altogether).

But if libertarians want to become delegates, that's not a bad idea.

We might be able to use the leverage to get some other concessions, in terms of rule changes, platform planks, etc.

[Chieppa1]

There's no way Rand gets nominated at the convention.

They'd rally around Trump (might take their gravy train seats for 4-8 years) before Rand (would definitely destroy the gravy train altogether).

But if libertarians want to become delegates, that's not a bad idea.

We might be able to use the leverage to get some other concessions, in terms of rule changes, platform planks, etc.

This country really wants and needs an insurgent movement. Libertarians should be working to be that movement.

We have the people, the ideas, the practice and experience to do that. Bernie Sanders supporters have NOTHING on Ron Paul grassroots. We need to continue to make it "cool" to be in our camp.

[Peace&Freedom]

There's no way Rand gets nominated at the convention.

They'd rally around Trump (might take their gravy train seats for 4-8 years) before Rand (would definitely destroy the gravy train altogether).

But if libertarians want to become delegates, that's not a bad idea.

We might be able to use the leverage to get some other concessions, in terms of rule changes, platform planks, etc.

I don't think so, and it's time to say it flatly: the delegate strategy of 2012 was a COMPLETE FAILURE. We pushed this approach in a comprehensive and massive way four years ago, and what did Paul supporters get at the RNC convention? Totally choked out, snuffed out, and squashed like a bug. No nomination speech by Ron, no rule changes in our favor, no platform planks, etc., nothing, nada, zippo.

Rand got the obligatory 10 minute prime time speech almost no one remembers, but that was only because he endorsed Mitt. On the secondary front, yes, there were a few Paulites installed in the state party operations, but even that didn't last. So ultimately, it was a massive waste of time and energy. A total bust. Unless the controllers of the major party apparatus are squarely confronted, and not finessed, our efforts will continue to be squashed.

One way that could have worked would be for Rand (or Napolitano, or similar popular and Paul-compatible figure) to declare for the LP nomination and win it in May, then offer to accept the GOP nod in July to the party's rank and file delegates, if the con is truly going to be contested. Then it would be the rank and file's call to unify the anti-Hillary vote by nominating him, not the controllers. There is still time to do this. But without that leverage, they won't nominate a pro-liberty candidate.

[r3volution 3.0]

I don't think so, and it's time to say it flatly: the delegate strategy of 2012 was a COMPLETE FAILURE. We pushed this approach in a comprehensive and massive way four years ago, and what did Paul supporters get at the RNC convention? Totally choked out, snuffed out, and squashed like a bug. No nomination speech by Ron, no rule changes in our favor, no platform planks, etc., nothing, nada, zippo.

Notice how I said "might."

I doubt we'd gain anything of consequence, but if people would like to try, I'm not going to talk them out of it.

There's very little downside, so what the hell.

One way that could have worked would be for Rand (or Napolitano, or similar popular and Paul-compatible figure) to declare for the LP nomination and win it in May, then offer to accept the GOP nod in July to the party's rank and file delegates, if the con is truly going to be contested. Then it would be the rank and file's call to unify the anti-Hillary vote by nominating him, not the controllers. There is still time to do this. But without that leverage, they won't nominate a pro-liberty candidate.

I'd say the odds of that working would have been about the same as a stealth delegate strategy: i.e. not good.

But, unlike sneaking in some delegates, this would have had major costs/risks: in terms of damaging Rand's reputation within the GOP.

Despite all the "outsider" slogans this cycle, having an (R) next to your name still means a lot - however stupid you and I might think that is.

[r3volution 3.0]

This country really wants and needs an insurgent movement. Libertarians should be working to be that movement.

We have the people, the ideas, the practice and experience to do that. Bernie Sanders supporters have NOTHING on Ron Paul grassroots. We need to continue to make it "cool" to be in our camp.

I'm all for working on a Libertarian (upper-case L) insurgent campaign from now to November: understanding that the result won't be a victory, except in a PR sense. The LP can and should have its biggest year ever, which would send a very nice message, that the liberty movement is alive and well and not buying into Trumptardation. But I don't want to do anything crazy that would damage our position within the GOP (like trying to get Rand nominated for the LP, to spoil Trump, for instance).

[Bern]

The proposal to change rule 40 is coming from Curly Haugland, who is on the rules committee. That alone means that the proposal will be given some serious consideration by the committee. Mr. Haugland has been an RNC member for 16 years now. While I'm not sure how long he's been on the rules committee, that also carries weight. It remains to be seen if he has the clout to push through his rule change proposal. I believe it is likely that "the establishment" would like to ensure that either Rubio or Kasich are options should Trump fail to get 1237 pledged delegates, so Haugland may get support for his proposal.

I attended my Senate District convention here in Texas on Saturday (two days ago). Texas' RNC National Committeewoman showed up and addressed the delegation. She stressed that rumors that the RNC was conducting secret meetings or otherwise plotting to thwart the will of the voters were false. The RNC will fully support the nominee. She also mentioned that efforts to amend the rules did not have broad support among the RNC members. She was a bit vague on this point though. I sent an email this morning to both her and Texas' RNC National Committeeman asking for some clarifications.

This whole discussion is academic if Trump does reach 1237 delegates. But if he doesn't, and there is no nominee after the first ballot and delegates are released from their pledges (either on second or third ballot), the nominee is going to be determined by the delegates at the national convention. I hope that there are still RPF/Ron Paul liberty people staying involved in their state GOP processes, because the SD caucus at the State convention is where these delegates are selected (by majority vote).

FWIW, I saw a number of Ron Paul folks that I first met back in 2012 still attending and participating. Less than were there in 2012 and that's understandable, but still a good core bunch. Overall attendance at our district convention was very slightly up, but if it was because of Trump supporters, it wasn't immediately apparent (but I live in Cruz territory, so YMMV).

[Anti Federalist]

No way. If they don't want Trump, because they think he might upset their gravy train, they sure as Hell are not going to want Rand. I realize that may upset some Paulbots, but that's the way it is.

"Paulbots"?

Seriously?

What's next..."Paultards"?

[Ender]

No way. If they don't want Trump, because they think he might upset their gravy train, they sure as Hell are not going to want Rand. I realize that may upset some Paulbots, but that's the way it is.

PAULBOTS....... the same term some anti-Ron Paul sites used to use.

What forum do you think your on?

[nikcers]

The GOP chairman from the American territory east of Puerto Rico has ruled that John Yob, Erica Yob and four other delegates failed to heed a technicality in party rules by not informing him that they can take part in the July convention in Cleveland. But Yob, whose candidacy previously was questioned because he moved to the island only three months ago, said the chairman, John Canegata, is misreading the party's rules.The dispute is another illustration of GOP turmoil involving the Michigan transplants, who have drawn the ire of some islanders who feel they are gaming the system.
"The chairman is not a dictator and cannot unilaterally break the USVI GOP rules to hand select his preferred delegates," Yob said in a prepared statement. "We are confident we will be properly certified (as delegates) by the certification committee."
Yob, a political consultant who advised Rand Paul on his presidential campaign this year and in the past has worked for Republican presidential candidates John McCain and Rick Santorum, as well as Michigan campaigns for Gov. Rick Snyder, Pete Hoekstra and Terri Lynn Land, registered to vote in January after moving to St. John, one of the territory's three main islands.
Though local election officials revoked Yob's registration and alleged that he falsified how long he has lived in the Virgin Islands in order to meet a 90-day residency requirement, a judge issued a temporary restraining order that allowed Yob to stay on the ballot. He was the top vote-getter in the party's March 10 caucus.
A judge this week granted a temporary injunction allowing Yob's voter registration to stand, the New York Times reports.
In the latest timing dispute, Canegata claims that party rules require elected delegates to confirm in writing that they are willing and able to serve at the national convention – and that Yob and the others failed to do so. Yob claims the requirement only takes effect once election results are certified.
http://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapi...ds_republ.html

Looks like they don't want to let this happen.

[CPUd]