44 votes

Ron Paul Might Actually Win Republican Nomination (Yes Seriously)


Interesting Article about Ron. we dont need the delegates to abstain just vote for anyone but Romney in the first round!!! LOL

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.


Excellent explanation in this article by J Vincent Burr ... we are wedged right in this thing fellow freedom brawlers!

Just vote present

on the first round of the vote.

But how as a bound delegate

do you vote for ANOTHER candidate? Thats what bound means... you HAVE to either A) vote the candidate in which you are bound, or B) like we have been saying abstain from voting on the first round.

Am I wrong?

There is no legal right to

There is no legal right to FORCE a person to vote a certain way. The Republican Party is a private club and can't make you do anything. They won't put a gun to your head and tell you how to vote, people just fall in line because they think they have to vote a certain way, they don't question the "authority" of the RNC and don't know they have a choice.

ALWAYS, vote your conscience. No delegates are bound, all can vote as they choose!

"If you put a gun to my head and said vote Romney/Gingrich/Santorum...I would say pull the trigger!"

You are incorrect.


Abstaining is naive, didn't

Abstaining is naive, didn't work in 08 and will only ensure Romney the nomination this time around. We need to vote to unbound all delegates at the start of the convention, I believe that will be our only hope. If things go smoothly all hope is lost.

There is NO REASON for them to abstain.



I assume you are referring to rule 38

But there are some who say it's only applicable to states that are winner take all based on the wording used. I don't want delegates to use rule 38 erronously and for the RNC to say that since delegates only have one vote, that vote for RP will automatically be turned into a vote for Romney. It would essentially be a wasted vote, simply because of an incorrect usage of the rules. Abstaining would be safer.

A question

Did abstaining in 08 result that the delegates got replaced, despite being present? If that's the case, the abstaining strategy will indeed fail.

against all odds

No matter what, let it be said that I did everything in my power to make a better future for generations to come. When the going gets tough thats when we are needed to put our efforts forth and change the direction of humanity.

As I see it a group of about 250 or so people have perpetuated a multi generational extortion, theft, war, and debt slavery upon all of humanity.

Until a critical mass of humanity can see this, the rest of humanity will continue to support their own genocidal extinction.

Only a leaderless revolt of ideas (like Dr. Paul's) using as a primary weapon of enlightened disengagement will humanity be free of the false national debts used to justify the immoral extorted theft submission control system.

Humanity is in a race on one side the 250 or so top henchmen if they win potential extinction as a worst outcome.

On the other side a growing mass of humanity that no longer will submit nor participate in the false debt slave financial control system. If they gain critical mass to change direction a era of prosperity and enlightenment will be enjoyed by humanity for all those hiden tech will be revieled.


If this were to happen

...I would retract and apologize for all my previous criticism of the campaign.

If I remember the 2008 RNC

If I remember the 2008 RNC convention correctly, bound delegates don't even get to vote. They have a roll call vote and your state votes together in a block. I wish the delegates the best of luck, but I'm not too sure about this abstaining thing everyone has been pushing. Especially now that everyone has been talking about it for 3 months.

Each state delegate still

Each state delegate still VOTES in a "state caucus"/meeting that is held before the roll call vote. Look up what happened in Utah in 2008 - ironically enough it was an adamant ROMNEY supporter who was bound to McCain but refused to vote for McCain.

You think they can take your vote away because of a private clubs rule saying you are "bound" to do so? Because of a word...they can impose their will on you and FORCE you against your will to vote for someone you don't support? Get real! It is your body, mind and VOTE!

Liberty activists are smarter than this!! If you realize the Government can't force you to vote for someone why wouldn't you realize a private club named the Republican Party can't force you to vote a certain way.

Think about it!

"If you put a gun to my head and said vote Romney/Gingrich/Santorum...I would say pull the trigger!"

CORRECT, Finally someone gets it

The State Chair, when the state is called to vote, will proclaim the Bound Delegate vote.

There may be a way or two getting around this, but there will be virtually nothing that anyone can do especially if your State Chair is a Rhino.

Better start thinking about other options.

Challenge the proclamation!

Challenge the proclamation! If you have the numbers remove the chair of the state, if you don't have the numbers than make it known they are LYING about the vote totals. It is your vote, use it and make your voice heard!

"If you put a gun to my head and said vote Romney/Gingrich/Santorum...I would say pull the trigger!"

Good point.

The abstaining strategy will never work. What i read over at Politico, is that if the majority of delegates abstain, the state is skipped from the roll call and they are replaced with the alternates. The keyword here is MAJORITY. They might be forced to accept the roll call if only SOME of the bound vote abstain. The other people will have to vote for Romney, in order to prevent themselves from being replaced. Of course, this tactic assumes that delegates are not replaced individually, but by entire states.

that gives a new angle - very good read, thanks!


"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know Peace." - Jimi Hendrix


That's an interesting tactic I haven't considered yet. it's worth exploring. People have been screaming abstaining, but if you abstain, you run a certain risk of being replaced by the alternates. Voting for a different candidate might prevent the delegates from being replaced and forcing a 2nd round vote.

Absent delegates may be replaced by alternates,

not those who are present and abstain.

See Rule 29 (a and b)


The rule doesn't matter.

What matters is what happens in practice. I read on Politico that abstaining simply means being replaced by the alternates. Does Politico have the same sort of abstaing in mind as we do? If they do and they are right, then apparently the rules don't matter and they simply replace you just like that.

I hope someone who was actually a delegate in the past can shed some light on this.

Something you read on Politico trumps the adopted rules?

Post the link if you have one.

Here's the link


Hope that politico has it wrong and that they meant absence instead of abstinence.

NIce quotes from Founders in the Link

Michagan is all over it! I've always loved those Michagoians I guess you call them1

If the U.P. splits off

and declares sovereignty I'm there.

To my Liberal Trolls:
"Really Don't mind if you sit this one out. Your words but a whisper, your deafness a shout. I may make you feel, but I can't make you think."
Ian Anderson 1972

Hey there talking about me :D

Hey there talking about me :D im one of those delegates going to detroit :D

Great link thanks.

Great link thanks.

The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire. - Heinlein

YOU are the campaign!

YOU are the campaign!