Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 31 to 53 of 53

Thread: NBC mentions Ron Paul "the ayes have it" screwover in convention write-up

  1. #31
    Quote Originally Posted by erowe1 View Post
    He did suspend his campaign, and he did so conspicuously...
    WRONG. The terms "Suspending" and "Withdrawing" a campaign have specific meanings under election law, and Ron did neither of those in the 2012 race. Rather, faced with diminishing resources:

    On May 14, Paul's campaign announced that due to lack of funds (though despite financial backing from financiers Peter Thiel and Mark Spitznagel[118]) he would no longer actively campaign for votes in the 11 remaining primary states, including Texas and California, that had not yet voted.[9][119] He would, however, continue to seek to win delegates for the national party convention in the states that had already voted.
    (emphasis mine)


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul

    Ceasing active campaigning is NOT the same as suspending.


    The whole point of having delegates is to have them nominate you and vote for you. If Ron didn't want to be nominated why did he fight to attain and retain delegates right up to the convention?
    Brawndo's got what plants crave. Its got electrolytes.



    H. L. Mencken said it best:


    “Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard.”


    "As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron."



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #32
    Quote Originally Posted by francisco View Post
    The whole point of having delegates is to have them nominate you and vote for you. If Ron didn't want to be nominated why did he fight to attain and retain delegates right up to the convention?
    No, that is not the whole point. For Ron Paul, after he conceded defeat, as you yourself just quoted him doing, that was never the point. On more than one occasion he talked about what his point of having these delegates there was. He wanted them to influence the party in various ways. Conspicuously, in all the times he talked about what he was up to, he ever once intimated that he wanted them to submit his name for nomination. And if that were the whole point, then how do you explain the campaign telling their delegates that they didn't want them to do that?

    Your nitpicking about differences between suspending and withdrawing is irrelevant. Either way, Ron Paul was no longer trying to win the nomination. He didn't want to have to endorse Romney, but he also didn't want to give a speech as a candidate still running against him. And notice, that you're contradicting yourself. You said that he didn't suspend his campaign. But read the quote you provide. That's exactly what he did. He didn't withdraw, he suspended. Ceasing active campaigning IS the same as suspending.

    Once again, if what you say is true, how come you are unable to find a single quote from Ron Paul or anyone else associated with his official campaign that supports it? You've obviously been looking. Isn't it odd to you that of all the people who talked incessantly about this plan of nominating him so he could give a floor speech, not once did he or anyone from his campaign say a single thing in support of that plan?
    Last edited by erowe1; 03-18-2016 at 03:32 PM.



  4. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  5. #33
    Quote Originally Posted by fisharmor View Post
    You guys can't talk about this. It's not allowed.

    If you open up the possibility that something important happened at the 2012 convention that Ron Paul supporters were needed for, then you open up the possibility that Rand's endorsement of Romney actually was a kick in the teeth.

    And if there's one thing that we've settled on this site over the last four years, it's that there was absolutely no problem with Rand's endorsement. Ron was done by June 2012 and there was nothing at the convention worth doing outside of Rand's schmoozing and politicking.

    By bringing up the idea that the 2012 convention was about more than just the nominee, you're giving those retards who didn't like the Romney endorsement more evidence that they were actually right. So cut it out.
    Agreed.

  6. #34
    @ erowe1:

    You seem to have problems with reading comprehension.

    Ron did not suspend. Ron did not withdraw either. He stopped active campaigning in states that had not voted yet. That is not the same as "suspending" which has a specific meaning under FEC regulations. Ron never declared a suspension to the FEC. He kept working to attain and retain delegates. There would be no rational reason to want delegates unless he wanted to be nominated, because that is what delegates do.

    Earlier, you asserted that some un-named staffer supposedly said that Ron didn’t want to be nominated, although the campaign denied that. Got a link?
    Last edited by francisco; 03-18-2016 at 03:43 PM.
    Brawndo's got what plants crave. Its got electrolytes.



    H. L. Mencken said it best:


    “Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard.”


    "As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron."

  7. #35
    Quote Originally Posted by francisco View Post
    @ erowe1:

    You seem to have problems with reading comprehension.

    Ron did not suspend. Ron did withdraw either. He stopped active campaigning in states that had not voted yet. That is not the same as suspending. He kept working to attain and retain delegates. There would be no rational reason to want delegates unless he wanted to be nominated, because that is what delegates do.

    Earlier, you asserted that some un-named staffer supposedly said that Ron didn’t want to be nominated, although the campaign denied that. Got a link?
    If you think it's irrational for Ron to have wanted those delegates at the convention without wanting them to nominate him, that's something to take up with him. Because that's the fact of what happened. Your own searching supports my claim. You still can't find a single instance of him or anyone else from his campaign saying anything at all in support of the plan to submit his name for nomination. If that was the whole point, then why can't you find any?

    On the other hand, you can find plenty of instances of them talking about why they wanted delegates there to influence the party.

    We talked about that conference call here on the forums. It was a big deal. If you don't even know about that, then why have you been so adamantly arguing this point here. You even said above that Ron clearly wanted to give a nomination speech. It's not looking so clear to you any more, is it?

    ETA: Here's something at the Daily Paul talking about it. They mention the conference call at the beginning, and then they have emails backtracking on that afterwards. My question is, if what you say is true, and nominating Ron Paul was the entire point of having those delegates, how is it even conceivably possible for this staffer to have made that claim in the first place?
    http://archive.dailypaul.com/250848

    Another edit:
    I just noticed, it's not just the conference call by the unknown staffer, but even in one of the follow-up emails by Debbie Hopper. Notice this part:
    But please note, we do not have the five states necessary to nominate Dr. Paul, and he has expressed a desire not to be nominated since it is clear we don’t have the numbers to win a floor fight.
    So those delegates who tried to submit Ron's name for nomination went against his express wishes, communicated to them clearly from the campaign on more than one occasion. When the RNC rules committee changed the threshold to 8 states, the were doing Ron a favor by sparing him from having to deal with a nomination he didn't want.
    Last edited by erowe1; 03-18-2016 at 03:59 PM.

  8. #36
    Quote Originally Posted by fisharmor View Post
    You guys can't talk about this. It's not allowed.

    If you open up the possibility that something important happened at the 2012 convention that Ron Paul supporters were needed for, then you open up the possibility that Rand's endorsement of Romney actually was a kick in the teeth.

    And if there's one thing that we've settled on this site over the last four years, it's that there was absolutely no problem with Rand's endorsement. Ron was done by June 2012 and there was nothing at the convention worth doing outside of Rand's schmoozing and politicking.

    By bringing up the idea that the 2012 convention was about more than just the nominee, you're giving those retards who didn't like the Romney endorsement more evidence that they were actually right. So cut it out.
    Yes, and the converse of this is also true. Since we know that Rand's endorsement of Romney was not a betrayal of his father, and that those who have pretended it was all these years are wrong, we also know that there was no secret "delegate strategy" whereby Ron would in any way at all continue to campaign against Romney at the convention.

  9. #37
    @ erowe1:

    I am convinced that you are wrong. You are convinced that I am wrong. It is not important to me that you agree with me. As far as the issue at hand, readers of the thread can decide for themselves. Many if not most will not care and will view the whole discussion as being akin to how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. I suspect that you have been involved in other similar discussions before.
    Brawndo's got what plants crave. Its got electrolytes.



    H. L. Mencken said it best:


    “Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard.”


    "As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron."

  10. #38
    Quote Originally Posted by francisco View Post
    @ erowe1:

    I am convinced that you are wrong. You are convinced that I am wrong. It is not important to me that you agree with me. As far as the issue at hand, readers of the thread can decide for themselves. Many if not most will not care and will view the whole discussion as being akin to how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. I suspect that you have been involved in other similar discussions before.
    Why are you still convinced that I'm wrong?

    I just showed you that the official campaign right before the national convention clearly told Ron's delegates that he did not want them to nominate him. How do you explain that if he really did want them to?

    And notice, that after you've obviously been looking for some statement from Ron or any other official voice of his campaign that approved of the plan to submit his name for nomination, you can't find a single one. Why do you suppose that is?

    You're right that I've been through this whole discussion before. In the summer of 2012 we had a mod here named SailingAway who was all-in for this plan of nominating Ron at the convention, and she silenced all dissent. One reason you're probably so convinced it was true was because people here talked about it, and when others of us questioned it, we were banned and our posts were deleted. Simply asking things like, "How do we know this is what Ron wants?" was not allowed. I was one of her victims.
    Last edited by erowe1; 03-18-2016 at 04:14 PM.

  11. #39
    Quote Originally Posted by erowe1 View Post
    If you think it's irrational for Ron to have wanted those delegates at the convention without wanting them to nominate him, that's something to take up with him. Because that's the fact of what happened. Your own searching supports my claim. You still can't find a single instance of him or anyone else from his campaign saying anything at all in support of the plan to submit his name for nomination. If that was the whole point, then why can't you find any?
    Just before Rand's endorsement he was on an interview where he said something about having a possibility for a speech, not an edited speech on the floor.

    In any event, here is his response to the tangle the GOP got itself into by passing the rule, although the attorney who got it passed in another interview said it only governed the 'Then existing' 2012 convention'.

    http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/18/politi...ion/index.html
    "Integrity means having to say things that people don't want to hear & especially to say things that the regime doesn't want to hear.” -Ron Paul

    "Bathtub falls and police officers kill more Americans than terrorism, yet we've been asked to sacrifice our most sacred rights for fear of falling victim to it." -Edward Snowden

  12. #40
    Quote Originally Posted by sailingaway View Post
    Just before Rand's endorsement he was on an interview where he said something about having a possibility for a speech, not an edited speech on the floor.

    In any event, here is his response to the tangle the GOP got itself into by passing the rule, although the attorney who got it passed in another interview said it only governed the 'Then existing' 2012 convention'.

    http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/18/politi...ion/index.html
    OMG, you're back! PLEASE stay!
    I have an autographed copy of Revolution: A Manifesto for sale. Mint condition, inquire within. (I don't sign in often, so please allow plenty of time for a response)



  13. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  14. #41
    Quote Originally Posted by sailingaway View Post
    Just before Rand's endorsement he was on an interview where he said something about having a possibility for a speech, not an edited speech on the floor.

    In any event, here is his response to the tangle the GOP got itself into by passing the rule, although the attorney who got it passed in another interview said it only governed the 'Then existing' 2012 convention'.

    http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/18/politi...ion/index.html
    Quote Originally Posted by invisible View Post
    OMG, you're back! PLEASE stay!
    Seconded!

    Believe it or not, I just came back to this thread intending to comment "I miss SailingAway" and lo and behold there she was!
    Brawndo's got what plants crave. Its got electrolytes.



    H. L. Mencken said it best:


    “Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard.”


    "As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron."

  15. #42
    Quote Originally Posted by sailingaway View Post
    Just before Rand's endorsement he was on an interview where he said something about having a possibility for a speech, not an edited speech on the floor.
    But not a nomination speech. He didn't want to give a nomination speech.

  16. #43
    Quote Originally Posted by erowe1 View Post
    But not a nomination speech. He didn't want to give a nomination speech.
    This thread was better before you filled it with this pointless argument which is not really even on topic.

  17. #44
    Quote Originally Posted by erowe1 View Post
    But not a nomination speech. He didn't want to give a nomination speech.
    It had to be a nomination speech because otherwise it would be edited. It might have been dreamland to hope he'd persuade enough delegates to let him win the convention, but he had to be nominated to have a speech, of his own views, to the general election audience that did not turn out for primaries, without being edited. He was offered an edited speech if he endorsed Romney. He turned it down.

    And the bit about why did a staffer say he didn't want his delegates to nominate him is a very long, very passionate thread somewhere here, probably still in archives somewhere. Someone said it, and RP had to send an email saying it was just a staffer thinking for himself, and never came from Ron. I don't think I've ever seen AntiFederalist's faith in Ron shaken except that one time -- until Ron weighed in saying it didn't come from him. Perhaps AF remembers.

    I haven't been here for a couple reasons. One is that the personalities of some here just can't keep from challenging history. I feel a need to use facts to defend Ron's integrity when that happens. Another is that I had no interest in, by so doing, undermining Rand. Ron wasn't running. I was going to vote for Rand if he stayed in the race until California. I don't want to undermine him. But I seem to be constitutionally incapable of refraining from defending Ron with actual facts if his reputation is undermined. And leading his delegates on at that point would have been rotten. And he wasn't doing that.

    Don't know if I'll be here if and when you answer this, so .... don't take my silence to mean anything else than that I don't see your response.
    "Integrity means having to say things that people don't want to hear & especially to say things that the regime doesn't want to hear.” -Ron Paul

    "Bathtub falls and police officers kill more Americans than terrorism, yet we've been asked to sacrifice our most sacred rights for fear of falling victim to it." -Edward Snowden

  18. #45
    Quote Originally Posted by Valli6 View Post
    This thread was better before you filled it with this pointless argument which is not really even on topic.
    Nobody had to disagree with me.

    I made an accurate on topic response to the OP, and then others insisted on arguing that what I said was false. As you can see, if you've kept up, it was actually 100% true.
    Last edited by erowe1; 03-18-2016 at 09:20 PM.

  19. #46
    Quote Originally Posted by invisible View Post
    OMG, you're back! PLEASE stay!
    Purdy please?
    "The Patriarch"

  20. #47
    Quote Originally Posted by sailingaway View Post
    It had to be a nomination speech because otherwise it would be edited.
    But he never wanted to give a nomination speech either.

    He wanted to give an unedited speech where he wouldn't have to endorse Romney, but not if it meant giving a nomination speech. He wasn't allowed to do that.

    Quote Originally Posted by sailingaway View Post
    And the bit about why did a staffer say he didn't want his delegates to nominate him is a very long, very passionate thread somewhere here, probably still in archives somewhere. Someone said it, and RP had to send an email saying it was just a staffer thinking for himself, and never came from Ron
    That's false. And if you look at the emails that came directly from the campaign after that conference call that are in the link I already provided, they clearly say that Ron did not want to be nominated. It was not just a staffer thinking for himself.
    Last edited by erowe1; 03-18-2016 at 09:18 PM.

  21. #48



  22. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  23. #49
    Rachel Maddow did a piece on how Ron Paul and his delegates last night..
    http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow/w...p-647895107737

  24. #50
    Quote Originally Posted by LibertyRevolution View Post
    Rachel Maddow did a piece on how Ron Paul and his delegates last night..
    http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow/w...p-647895107737
    That was a good segment. Now I can show everyone how corrupt the Republican Party was back in 2012. They're not just doing this to Trump.

  25. #51
    Quote Originally Posted by erowe1 View Post
    But not a nomination speech. He didn't want to give a nomination speech.
    You should have the read the article linked by the previous poster instead of ignoring it, you malicious, willfully-ignorant dip$#@!:

    "They did not want my name to come up and so they changed the rules because we had the votes," Paul told CNN "At This Hour" anchors Kate Bolduan and John Berman. "We had the numbers to allow my name to be put into nomination, but they wouldn't do it."

  26. #52
    Quote Originally Posted by RonPaulGeorge&Ringo View Post
    You should have the read the article linked by the previous poster instead of ignoring it, you malicious, willfully-ignorant dip$#@!:

    "They did not want my name to come up and so they changed the rules because we had the votes," Paul told CNN "At This Hour" anchors Kate Bolduan and John Berman. "We had the numbers to allow my name to be put into nomination, but they wouldn't do it."
    I read it.

    And it supports my point. Don't you think that if Ron wanted to give a nomination speech and felt in any way slighted by the rules change, that would have been the perfect time to mention it?

    And speaking of reading, did you read the quotes from Debbie Hopper in two official campaign emails to national convention delegates telling them explicitly that Ron did not want to be nominated?

  27. #53
    Quote Originally Posted by LibertyRevolution View Post
    Rachel Maddow did a piece on how Ron Paul and his delegates last night..
    http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow/w...p-647895107737
    Thanks for that link. Nice to see the MSM finally reporting what we all witnessed in 2012.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •