RNC changes rules last minute

[line-em-up]

Doctor doctor ...

Give me the news. I got a.... bad case of loving you.

[line-em-up]

No, DR Paul was offered a chance to support Romney, not speak freely. This is about the RNC changing the rules Friday night. That's complete and utter bullshit. If they have to change the rules a few days before the convention to disqualify DR Paul, it's quite obvious what type of shenanigans are going on.

True. This is the exact kind of bullshit that I don't like. It's just typical politics. I say we flush DC down the freain, refill it with brand new faces and reevaluate any laws made in the last 100 years.

[KBScobravert]

Doctor doctor ...

Doctor

[slow99]

Doctor

...

No, DR Paul was offered a chance to support Romney, not speak freely. This is about the RNC changing the rules Friday night. That's complete and utter bullshit. If they have to change the rules a few days before the convention to disqualify DR Paul, it's quite obvious what type of shenanigans are going on.

It's about selecting the Republican candidate within the rules that were set out in the beginning. It has nothing to do with your opinions about DR Paul's chances. The RNC changed the rules to disqualify him. It's going to bite them in the ass... watch and see.

That's right, because when you're on the side of liberty there is no compromising. DR Paul supporters know there is no difference between the two goldman sachs candidates, except their skin color.

Not compromising and sticking with your candidate is not a wasted vote. Everyone has the right to vote for who they want. Just because you don't support DR Paul doesn't mean it's a "wasted vote." The DR Paul supporters understand that a vote for Obama is vote for Romney, there is no difference between them. DR Paul supporters want a liberty minded candidate, and neither of the goldman sachs candidates offer that.

As far as the Repubs not wanting DR Paul that's fine, but at least adhere to rules that were in place to nominate Mitt. When you change the rules last minute like that, it's BS chicken spit.

The reason a lot of DR Paul's supporters were mad at Rand is because they expected him to endorse his father. I understand that would end Rands political career, but some DR Paul supporters just feel he should have endorsed his father regardless.

You're right, they aren't proven because everyone wants to continue doing the same failed policies that continually have buried us deeper in debt and more wars. We will never know what DR Paul's policies could have done good or bad if we never even give them a chance. It is what it is, and IMO this sinking ship whether Barry or Mitt is at the helm is in big trouble.

I'm not whining or complaining. The only one's I see whining are romney supporters bitching about DR Paul's write in supporters. If his following is so minimal and he doesn't have a chance, the Romney supporters shouldn't have anything to worry about. I'm simply stating the facts. Romney or Obama is not a realistic solution to anything unless you're wanting less freedoms and more of the same policies IMO. It's cool, we can agree to disagree. You are entitled to your opinion.

I'm not claiming Paul exempt, I'm saying Romney is talking minor bs changes. DR Paul is talking major changes way different than Obama and Romney. It doesn't matter though, neither Paul or Romney will get the chance to prove their policies are best anyway IMO.

Doctor.

[teal93derp]

I give him the respect he deserves. DR Ron Paul is a true patriot and inspiration to people who care about liberty.

[Forever_frost]

I give him the respect he deserves. DR Ron Paul is a true patriot and inspiration to people who care about liberty.

I don't see you calling Romney, Governor Romney.

[slow99]

I don't see you calling Romney, Governor Romney.

Dr. Bernanke agrees.

[Up0n0ne]

That's right, because when you're on the side of liberty there is no compromising. DR Paul supporters know there is no difference between the two goldman sachs candidates, except their skin color.

Mittens and Obummer will head us in the same direction, one will just do it a little slower.
Neither Mittens or Obummer are for the Constitution, which is pretty easy to see as well as a red flag.
There is no differemce between the Rep. and Dems. Both have an agenda, neither of which is to uphold, defend, or get back to the Constitution which should be a priority.

But yeah, they work for the same paople.

[Forever_frost]

Mittens and Obummer will head us in the same direction, one will just do it a little slower.
Neither Mittens or Obummer are for the Constitution, which is pretty easy to see as well as a red flag.
There is no differemce between the Rep. and Dems. Both have an agenda, neither of which is to uphold, defend, or get back to the Constitution which should be a priority.

But yeah, they work for the same paople.

Really? I don't see Romney violating the Constitution.

[Snatch Napkin]

Really? I don't see Romney violating the Constitution.

Give it time. It WILL happen. Hell, Bush did.

Having said that, I hope Mittens gets the win.

[Forever_frost]

Give it time. It WILL happen. Hell, Bush did.

Having said that, I hope Mittens gets the win.

What violation did Bush commit?

[racrguy]

What violation did Bush commit?

Lolz.


Also, there's a reason I petitioned to have your name changed to teal93derp. I too like RP, but the man isn't infallible, he's just a FAR better choice than the other runners IMO.

[Up0n0ne]

Really? I don't see Romney violating the Constitution.

Romney was and is for the NDAA, he supported the renewal of The Patriot Act, is for mandatory healthcare, wire tapping, has a record for supporting strict gun laws, believes that the president has the power to take the country to war without the approval of the U.S. Congress.
I'm sure there's more and we know Obummer is for these.

The top supporters for both include Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, Citigroup, and Morgan Stanley.

[jw33]

Tinkering around with delegates and procedure.

If the definition of "tinkering around" and "pulling tricks" is to learn, instruct, and follow the rules and procedures in each state's primary or caucus process, then yes the Paul campaign has in fact done all of the above. Very well in some cases. The overwhelming majority was within the rules, no one inside the party did them any favors, they most of the time clearly stated what they planned to do, and anyone in the states that were so contested had the option to show up and do the same for their candidate. Again, the game is chess not checkers. And you play the game using the rules to your advantage as much as possible.

CJ is right when he said Paul never had a chance. The entire thing was a major longshot and no matter what happened Paul would never be given the nod. You still play to win though because there are different degrees of success in this game. Having good size group of delegates in your corner during the republican national convention is a nice thing to have. Most of the time a candidate will roll over for a nice box of chocolates and say whatever they are told to say which is great, just what we need more of in politics. Every once in a while though you get a stubborn old goat like Ron Paul (who is partly revered for his willingness to stand up and speak his mind) that will without a doubt actually use this scenario to influence the direction of the party based on what his supporters want. Some of it is good, some of it is bad, but mostly the fear within the party is the idea that someone would dare to challenge past or present record of those in power.

At the end of the day this (the party making power grabs) is bad for the GOP and bad for our country. This affects everyone, but the blindest republican voters. If you are for anything the Tea Party or Paul represents or wish for a smaller federal government or want to get Obama out of the Washington this is not good! The Ron Paul people I actually know, the ones that spend a decent amount of time and their own money getting out the message, who show up and participate in the process, some of who are in Tampa right now and were sent their by representatives from our state, this is probably what pisses everyone off the most. The, "say one thing do another" attitude and the good-ole-boy group is part of the problem. In Texas we actually have a decent state party. If I lived in one of these other states where I participated in the process and made my choice on whom to send to represent me and it was done fair and square within the rules and then some old coot in a suit just decided to change the rules, I would be fucking livid too.

And this is where and why it all matters. Now at the national convention the committees are even freer to do as they please with less resistance. The rules will get changed and this year it will not matter much (because the new rules shouldn't take effect until 2016), but next time it may be the candidate even more people get behind who is silenced at the highest level by the chosen few. If the question was asked, will the republican party include the grassroots movement and let them inside the big tent to expand the party and win elections, judging by their behavior so far the answer is no. And that is why, in my opinion, this is bad for everyone who plans to vote republican or against Obama in November. They are in at least some way ignoring/pissing off the people who are actually shaping party and they have told they want to attract as voters.

[Forever_frost]

If he didn't have his name on it, he committed no constitutional violation. He's a private person with his own opinions. How did Romney violate the Constitution?