10 votes

Was Oklahoma a rump convention?

And if so, is it a legitimate convention that will retain the delegates?

Comment viewing options

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

not a rump

a rump is when 2 conventions going on at same time, See Reform Party Long Beach Convention. Buchanan vs Heglein

The Paul supporter convention outside was just reconvened from the same convention on the same property because orginal convention never ended - perfectly legal.

http://articles.cnn.com/2000-08-12/politics/reform.party_1_p...

Ultimately Buchanan prevailed because his convention was at the orginal site, Hagelin moved his off site.
Hagelin had a rump, a convention going on at same time.

The judge basically said no rules were broken, but the biggest factor was the Hagelin convention was not at the orginal site, and was not a continuation of the orginal convention, but OK is, they did it right.

SteveMartin doesn't think it was legit

I'm no expert, I'm just sayin'. Personally, this was some of the best political entertainment I've had since that Dana Bash person got picked on by RP supporters back in Iowa.

yeah, leave them alone over there.

If you are going to bring people on board supporting paul, don't go to paid propaganda sites. They will just ban you immediately if you speak against media contrived notions such as:

1. Romney already won the nomination
2. Romney has 850+ delegates
3. Paul supporters are cult like pot smokers
4. Muslims want to kill you.
5. It is right to kill millions of people around the world and invade other countries...hitler tried it, but was far less successful. We rock!

No, because they didn't secede

The GOP ended it without a vote. It was illegally shut down, so it was in effect, still a convention. Some people left. Too bad, too sad.

Ralph

actually not legally shut down, just plain not shut down at all because it never ended, but the Paul delegates were illegal kicked out of the convention.

The reason I asked is because of the comment by Steve Martin

I read on another thread that it being a 'rump' convention, none of it is legal binding and then he posted the wikipedia explanation of what a rump convention is.
So often, we are fed misinformation on this site and being a newbie, I was curious as to what the truth is.

ok notice the wording

wiki is not very reliable in anything

but the wording says a reconvened convention

the southerners a rump.

That's because the southerners had a different convention, which is a rump.

Oklahoma did not have a different convention, it was on the same property and was reconvened.

here is wiki if you like using them with the above scenerio

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1860_Democratic_National_Conven...