The primaries are not binding. Mitt has been counting his chickens before they are hatched, and so have most people in the media. But two days ago, Fox News admitted that Ron Paul will be there, at the convention, and will have someone place his name in nomination. (Unless he trades that away, and he'd have to get a real ironclad concession out of Romney before he would do any such thing.)
No guarantees, but after all, if Warren G. Harding could do it, why couldn't Ron Paul?
Then it will be up to him.
Could Ron Paul win the GOP nomination after all?
Temlakos~POTL~PWCM~JLA~☆
2012/04/29 00:43:58
|
|
|||||
|
106 votes
|
|
45% | |||
|
99 votes
|
|
42% | |||
|
30 votes
|
|
13% | |||
On Thursday evening, Ron Paul stunned the media again: he won most of the delegate votes in Washington State. IB Times tells how significant this is:
Washington is now the third state, after Iowa and Minnesota, in which Ron Paul
has locked up at least half of the state’s nominating delegates. In
order to be officially entered in nomination at the Tampa, Fla.,
convention, he needs to secure half or more of the delegates in five
states, and as of Thursday, he looks poised to grab a majority of
delegates in other states like North Dakota and Maine in coming weeks.
Rob Richie and Elise Helgesen, at Politico.com, said
as far back as November 25 of last year that the Republicans might not
nominate a candidate in one ballot. They discussed whether the rules
let States move their primaries up. But those same rules made the
primaries largely non-binding. And Rule 40, paragraph b, clearly says
how many State majorities a candidate needs to be on the ballot:
Each candidate for nomination for President of the United
States and Vice President of the United States shall demonstrate the
support of a plurality of the delegates from each of five (5) or more
states, severally, prior to the presentation of the name of that
candidate for nomination.
Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich have both suspended their campaigns.
They have done this so that they can raise money to pay off their
staggering campaign debts. But neither man has released any delegates actually bound to him. Furthermore, Ron Paul has taken delegate slots that Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich might have gotten. And unlike Gingrich and Santorum, Ron Paul is not in debt. He has two million dollars in cash on hand.
Historical precedent
In 1920, Warren G. Harding came to the Republican National Convention
with six percent of the delegates, less than any other candidate. Ten
ballots later, the convention nominated him with 70 percent of the vote. He went on to defeat Democrat James Cox in a landslide.
Ron Paul hopes to do today what Warren Harding did 92 years ago. And
he will start with a higher proportion of delegates than Harding had.
See also this video of Ron Paul as a guest host on CNBC.
Read More: http://www.conservativenewsandviews.com/2012/04/28...
obummer's quite the puppet...
Being a strict Constitutionalist, a supporter of the rule of law, individual liberty and free market capitalism is eons away from anarchy.
Much like the electoral college, delegates COULD vote for anyone, but they DO NOT. I am sure there are individual examples where delegates at conventions, or in the electoral college change their votes, but not enough of them to throw a nomination or an election.
Also, in this day an age, for a group of delegates to throw a nomination or an election, that would bring major protests. Never mind the threats delegates would receive, ranging from you will not live here, you will never work again, probably all the way to death threats.
As far as I am concerned, Ron Paul is a patriot and did not run expecting to win. ROn Paul ran to expose some issues that are very important that the GOP has been ignoring for years, and to expose the neocons within the party. Hell, our newest star, Marco Rubio just visited the Brookings Institute with Senator Lieberman. Between his stance on immigration, and his neocon foreign policy, Rubio is pretty much done as a conservative bonafide. Ron Paul is a libertarian of course, but him being part of the mix exposes the RINOs we have running the show, so God Bless the man.
The same goes with dems... DINOs I guess...
Once you find a way to quit your finger pointing, belly-aching, "he said-she said" crap you'll all, both parties will be far more credible than you currently are.
RINO... bullsheet. The people just have a difference of opinion. Listen to them and see if it makes sense for crap's sakes. If it does, support it if it's warranted. If it doesn't make sense try to explain why it doesn't and, if possible improve upon the idea so it does.
But this childish, knee jerk labeling is totally absurd!
Friggin' "RINO"... what the hell is that other than a personal label on someone you don't agree with. Get real!
One of the many reasons I won't "tow" a party's line. You're all too friggin' brainwashed. You have no independent thought anymore.
A RINO is someone who is not an "obstructionist" and "gets things done."
It is different from a neocon, as a neocon buys into the military adventure across the globe and nation building game.
The label RINO gets thrown around, that is for sure, but it is clearly defined as someone who enables the agenda of the other party, plain and simple.
The "establishment" doesn't care if it's Romney or Obama. Either way they get to maintain their status quo of ripping off We the People and driving America to her death.
Out of curiosity, with Mittens promising whatever was expedient to whatever crowd he was braying to, how the dickens do you know what he stands for? He's painted himself into such a corner during this circus of a primary season, that it will be next to impossible for him to break out of all the promises he made to the Right to get the nomination.
...though I believe Ron Paul isn't the answer. I couldn't stand listening to another speech made by him.
We take great pride viewing ourselves as "rebels" as "independents" as "revolutionaries" yet when the time comes for us to break from the norm and create a bonafide, viable, influential new political party or parties we simply revert back to that which we are comfortable with... i.e., "all bark, no bite". This is a slight on me as much as any of you!
I'm of the belief that we'll continue to have a (for the most part) 2 party political system until it eventually becomes one.
Then no one will be happy.
Until then... and most likely after that happens, if I live that long, I'll remain wholly independent. I'm not persuaded by any particular party line. I'm more impressed, influenced by the candidates, their beliefs, traditions, ideals, dreams, desires, opinions, character, abilities, enthusiasm, love for this country, etc. then by whether or not they're towing the liberal or conservative line.
Oh well... just a thought.
A second term for the Obama Administration is probably the most serious threat the Republic has faced, certainly in my lifetime, for a very, very, long time. I think Ron Paul is well aware of that, and is aware his popularity would make running as a protest candidate would make him potentially nothing more than Perot 2.0, and secure the dismantlement of the Constitution, that Paul loves so much, by the Obama Administration in its next four years.
And anybody that does not see a second Obama Administration as THE END, is on crack. Obama gets another four years, and the closest thing there will be to a conservative will be a blue dog democrat, and the closest thing there will be to a libertarian will be Dennis J. Kucinich, and they all will be unelectable in the Socialist Democracy of America.
And of course, but I've met many, MANY, Ron Paul supporters on here that have said Barack Hussein Obama is their ALTERNATIVE to Ron Paul if he does not receive the GOP nomination. They espouse their devotion to the Constitution and Ron Paul's message, yet, they would still vote for Barack Hussein Obama. They are frauds, but unfortunately they're still dangerous. They refuse to listen to anyone who doesn't see eye to eye with them on Ron Paul. Hopefully rational people within the camp can make them see the truth.
A libertarian could not support President Obama. The man stands against everything libertarianism is about. Ron Paul ran on the GOP ticket this primary, not the Democrat ticket, and that speaks for itself.
I have not engaged in the primary debates over the candidates very much, as my view is the Romney campaign has had the money, and the organization, and was pretty much a done deal, as none of the other candidates had the money, or the organization. So, I do not find it constructive to divide our side (and that includes Ron Paul supporters), especially when that is what the Obama campaign really wants.
I understand your consternation with people who want their candidate, or else they will vote for Obama. But you must understand our side needs to unite to get rid of Obama. The people who will vote for Obama in the fall are Obama supporters, nothing more, nothing less. Real Ron Paul supporters are not among that group.
YES! THANK YOU!
"The people who will vote for Obama in the fall are Obama supporters, nothing more, nothing less. Real Ron Paul supporters are not among that group."
I suppose they are not, but then leads me to believe that they are closeted liberal democrats, and quite frankly there are a lot of them out there. And that's a problem. They are purposely dividing the Republican Party/conservative vote, and a lot of the "true" Ron Paul supporters fail to see that.
And as for labeling you being a part of the Ron Paul camp, that is my mistake.
There was some questioning of Paul as a bonafide libertarian when he first ran, but in the two plus decades he has proven to be a libertarian. I do not know of one libertarian, that I am aware of anyway, that wants to see Obama in there right now, let alone for four more years.
I expect him to be at the convention, and afterward I expect him to support the nominee.