37 votes

Gary Johnson supporters, you are starting to piss me off

Here come the D--kbots.

I'm sorry, but where the hell have you people been? I'm a newbie to Paul/Libertarianism and even I'm sick of you people.

Typical progressive bull. Ride in on the bodies of the front line and then tell them what to do.

If it is between Johnson and Obamney, I WILL vote Johnson.

In the meantime, rally FOR your candidate, don't co-opt the only reason anyone knows who the hell he is.



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

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

I support ron and gary, its

I support ron and gary, its not hard to support both. if rons on the ballot i forget about gary in the blink of an eye, whats the problem?

Gary Johnson is the next Ross

Gary Johnson is the next Ross Perot. It also ticks me off that people like Kokesh already backing Johnson like Ron Paul isn't even going to make nominee. I swear this country deserves what it gets if Obama or Romney gets elected.

That's because...

Ron Paul isn't even going to make nominee. It is mathematically impossible for Ron Paul to beat Mitt Romney at the convention. Mitt Romney will be the GOP nominee and either he or Barrack Obama will be president from January 2013 till January 2017.

Defeatist's like you should take a hike for the next 23 days

Be quiet and read and absorb if that's possible for you.This convention is going to be much different than 2008 and we are going to knock that weak flip-flopping jackass out the door and get Paul the nomination.

http://www.dailypaul.com/247569/front-page-this-there-is-no-...

Mitt Romney has 0 delegates, Ron Paul has 0 delegates
Submitted by PollMan on Sun, 08/05/2012 - 06:28. Permalink

Rick Santorum has 0 delegates,Newt Gingrich has 0 delegates.Granted they all have supporters called delegates but believing in the illusion created by the GOP that any are bound once their feet enter the RNC Convention in Tampa is a lack of knowledge and refusal to recognize history and FACTS.

When the nominating process starts and they start casting votes you will see because we have the law and truth and knowledge on our side this time that we didn't have in 2008.

These 3 links cut through all the bullshit.
http://republicanselect.blogspot.com/#!/2012/05/rnc-counsel-on-rule-38-of-rnc-rules.html
http://utahcountygop.com/blog/mr-jenkins-goes-to-st-paul/
http://www.dailypaul.com/235256/rnc-rule-37-section-b-or-how...

Exchange of letters between RNC attorney Jennifer Sheehan and
Nancy Lord Utah Republican Republican National Committeewoman.

http://republicanselect.blogspot.com/#!/2012/05/rnc-counsel-on-rule-38-of-rnc-rules.html

RNC Associate Counsel's Opinion on Rule 38 of the RNC Rules barring the "unit rule"
MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT: RULE NO 38 - UNIT RULE
FROM: RNC COUNSEL
TO: NANCY LORD
DATE: AUG 20, 2008
________________________________________________________________

This Memorandum is based on your request to examine the Republican Party Rules history
relating to the so-called “Unit Rule” provision currently found at Rule 38 which states, “No
delegate or alternate delegate shall be bound by any attempt of any state or congressional district
to impose the unit rule”.

This language was initially adopted at the 1964 Republican National Convention, paraphrasing
the words of the proponent of the amendment, in order to codify in party rules the actual practice
followed in past conventions, namely to allow delegates to vote as they chose even if state law
bound them to vote for a specific candidate.

This amendment which modified then Rule 18(a) was initiated by the RNC Rules Committee and
adopted by the full RNC at its pre-convention meeting. That ’64 language stated, “No Delegate
or Alternate shall be bound by any attempt of any State or Congressional District, the District of
Columbia, Puerto Rico or the Virgin Islands to impose the unit rule.” Based upon a review of the
transcripts of the RNC debate on the “Unit Rule”, proponents of the ’64 amendment argued that
their amendment to Rule 18 merely reflected current practice and adopting this Rules change
would simply memorialize what was the historical Convention practice, not create a new policy.

During the debate on the “Unit Rule” amendment, there was some concern raised that the new
language would be interpreted by some to prohibit the individual states from adopting rules
that would bind or allocate delegates to specific candidates. The proponents, however, gave
assurances that it was not their intention to effect any “legal or “moral” obligation of the delegates.
Based upon the concern raised that this provision would be erroneously read to prohibit states to
bind or allocate delegates a concerted effort was made to defeat the amendment. That effort to
reject the addition of the new “Unit Rule” language based on that concern, failed, 59 to 41.

In 1976 the no “Unit Rule” language was modified by the RNC Rules Committee, effectively
requiring the 1976 Convention to record delegate votes based on the results of “any binding
Presidential Primary or direct election of delegates bound or pledged pursuant to state law.” The
Convention Rules Committee and the Convention itself accepted this RNC modification without
any debate. The additional Rule 18(a) language applicable to the 1976 Republican Convention
read as follows, “…however, that in any event, the vote of each state for the nomination for
President shall be announced and recorded (or in the absence of an announcement shall be
recorded) in accordance with the results of any binding Presidential Primary or direct election of
delegates bound or pledged pursuant to state law. No delegate or alternate shall be bound by any
attempt of any state or Congressional district to impose the unit rule.”

The ’76 language was deleted in 1980 effectively reverting back to the 1964 language and the
current language regarding the “Unit Rule” now found in Rule 38 is consistent with the 1980
language.

Dear Blake and Sean,

Thank you so much for the memorandum [above] regarding the history of the Rule 38.

After studying it, I still have unanswered questions.

From the memo, I am clear that:

1. Rule 38 was not intended "to prohibit the individual states from adopting rules that would bind or allocate delegates to specific candidates".

What I need clarified is the following:

1. Do the RNC Rules require a state's delegation to follow its state laws or state party rules in the matter of binding of their national delegates to vote for a particular candidate? (I believe the answer is no; the RNC Rules are silent on this issue. My understanding is that any “legal" or “moral” obligation of the delegates, under either state law or state party rules, is simply that -- a state party matter. The RNC will not get involved in any such issue unless it deems that there is a violation of Rule 38 - an attempt to invoke the "Unit Rule" - during the time of the national convention.)

2. Do the RNC Rules prohibit a state party from changing its rules regarding the binding of their national delegates after the 2nd Tuesday in the September the year before the convention but before the national convention begins? (I believe the answer is no - the RNC Rules are again silent on this issue.)

3. Do the RNC Rules allow a national delegate to cast their vote for anyone they choose at the national convention, regardless of any vote-binding rules in their state or regardless of whether or not that "candidate" has been officially nominated under the RNC "majority of delegates from five states" rule? (I believe the answer is yes. I cite the actual rolling roll call of the states vote in 2000 as an example. In several states, even though George W. Bush had for many months been the presumptive nominee, several states, including Arkansas (19 for Bush, 5 for Alan Keyes) in the 2nd session on Monday evening, Massachusetts (35 for Bush, 1 for McCain, and 1 abstention) in the 3rd session on Tuesday evening,

4. Is the process of the "rolling roll call of the states" the process by which it is determined which candidates have met the RNC "majority of delegates from five states" rule in order to have their name officially placed in nomination? In other words, or as a corollary, do only those candidates who receive a "majority of delegates from five states" votes during the "rolling roll call of the states" become an official nominee, while any candidates receiving votes who did not receive the required majority of five states' votes simply fall to the floor, having not met the threshold?

Is there any way that you can clarify the answers to these questions in writing before tomorrow morning?

Nancy Lord
Utah Republican Republican National Committeewoman

From: Jennifer Sheehan - Legal
To: Nancy Lord
Cc: Sean Cairncross - Legal ; Blake G. Hall
Sent: Friday, August 22, 2008
Subject: RE: The Unit Rule

Mrs. Lord:
I am going to attempt to clearly answer your questions as listed below.

1. You are correct - the answer is no. The national convention allows delegates to vote for the individual of their choice, regardless of whether the person's name is officially placed into nomination or not.

2. National Party Rule No. 15(e) does prohibit State Parties from changing their delegate selection and allocation process that the State Party had to submit to the RNC no later than Sept. 4, 2007. However, the time frame for submitting a challenge to the national convention delegation based upon these Rules has expired, as any delegate contests had to be filed by August 2, 2008.

3. Yes - see #1 above.

4. Your question is mixing two separate issues. The first issue involves the nominating process, which requires the majority of delegates from five states to put a candidate's name into the official nominating process. The delegates from these five states must sign a nominating form that is then submitted to the Secretary of the Republican National Convention. After the Secretary receives these forms, the candidates are announced who have been officially placed into the nominating process and are therefore eligible to accumulate votes from the national convention delegates.

The Rules require that a roll call be taken from each state who announces the number of votes that its delegates cast for any eligible candidates, as well as for any person someone would like to cast a vote for in the roll call. You are correct that a person does not have to be officially nominated in order to receive votes, however, this vote is essentially pointless as it will not count towards the official tally.

Therefore to clarify, a candidate must receive the support of the majority of five state delegations in order to be officially placed into the nomination. Only candidates that have been officially nominated can accumulate votes that will count towards the majority of delegates necessary to officially nominate the Republican nominee for President. The Republican nominee for President must receive at least 1191 votes from the national convention delegation in order to receive the official nomination.

Please let me know if you have additional questions or need further clarifications related to this process.

Sincerely,

Jennifer Sheehan
Associate Counsel
Republican National Committee

Also:
http://www.dailypaul.com/235256/rnc-rule-37-section-b-or-how...

http://ivn.us/2012/05/16/a-first-ballot-rebellion-in-tampa/

Another RNC rule that seems to indicate the primacy of the individual delegate’s preference at the nominating convention is Rule 37, Section (b), which states:

“In the balloting, the vote of each state shall be announced by the chairman of such state’s delegation, or his or her designee; and in case the vote of any state shall be divided, the chairman shall announce the number of votes for each candidate, or for or against any proposition; but if exception is taken by any delegate from that state to the correctness of such announcement by the chairman of that delegation, the chairman of the convention shall direct the roll of members of such delegation to be called, and the result shall be recorded in accordance with the vote of the several delegates in such delegation.”

All delegates from every State that support Ron Paul must make sure that this rule is enforced to the letter.

This issue came up because a McCain "bound" delegate wanted to vote for Ron Paul actually was allowed to vote for Mitt Romney (he feared being removed from the floor if he cast his vote for Paul). He was allowed to vote and cast his vote Romney.
http://utahcountygop.com/blog/mr-jenkins-goes-to-st-paul/

November 6th 2012 I voted for Dr.Ron Paul
"We must remember, elections are short-term efforts. Revolutions are long-term projects." ~ Ron Paul

Alright. For the sake of you dreamers,

I won't say anything more about the convention for the next 23 days.

even if

paul endorses johnson he wont get my vote. the LP has bashed him, bashed his ideals which I AGREE WITH many times. the LP has been nowhere, not fighting not doing anything, if they get a certain percentage they get MILLIONS of dollars. They sat back and waited, and now are trying to swoop in take votes and win money not an election. He will be the reason obama wins as well, which i could care less about romney or obama, either one will just give us more fire to throw during debates and further the future of the REAL liberty movement. sometimes bad things have to occur. i myself will write in ron paul, pray tampa changes things, and focus on the future, because gary johnson is not the answer.

Freedom.

Any time someone supports

Any time someone supports Gary Johnson, send them this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aTch7InkZjo

I vote for the best candidate, not the lesser of 2 or 3 evils. He is not ready to carry the banner of liberty. We need to unite around our best spokesman for liberty, not Johnson.

Question

What will you do when Ron Paul endorses Johnson in early September?

Please don't tell me that

Please don't tell me that question was for me...

"Come, Watson, come! The game is afoot."

Yes

The question is for you. Answer it.

LOL...

Sorry, I'm laughing with you honestly I am.

~Breath~

**************************************************************

Box of Tissues

You will be crying in September, I guarantee it.

You had me at you piss me off

because there is no sugar coating at this point. We need the fire of people like you, I don't care if you have been here one day, keep that fire and keep telling all of us what pisses you off. Hold that fire and don't be afraid to release it. Rock on my friend!!!!!

Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must. like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it.-Thomas Paine

The R3volution requires action, not observation!!!!

Boo Hoooooo!!!!! Instead of

Boo Hoooooo!!!!!

Instead of ignoring something that I might get all sensitive about, I have to read it because it's there and get myself all worked up!!!

Let people discuss Paul.
Let people discuss Johnson.

Who cares.
Read only the threads that you might like...

“If ever a time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin.”

Yeah! Right on! Sorry, who

Yeah! Right on! Sorry, who were you talking to?

"Come, Watson, come! The game is afoot."

I don't believe in telling people what to do. . . .

However, most of what I see coming out of people who disregard Gary Johnson to the point of saying, "he has no chance of winning" or "he is taking the attention off of Ron Paul's chance of winning," are narrowly focused on a Ron Paul nomination.

I say, if you have any semblance of character, allow others to think 2 or 3 steps ahead of the game if they so choose. It's not an ailment to the liberty movement, it is a reinforcement.

I have been a delegate to my TX state convention to vote for Ron Paulian candidates since 2008. That was when I was first able to vote when I was 21. I disregard people telling me how or when or why I should vote because I make that decision on my own based on my own experiences. Don't attempt to make that decision for others who are on your side. Respect their choices and move on to discussing your own ideas.

Love thy enemy.

This is EXACTLY oh excuse me,

This is EXACTLY oh excuse me, exactly, sorry for the all caps... what I'm talking about: freaking progressives can talk in circles and say they're moving forward.

"I don't believe in telling other people what to do... Allow others to think 2 or three steps ahead..."

Sophistry makes you dizzy, no?

"Come, Watson, come! The game is afoot."

Oh yeah...and your comment about me being a "progressive"..

Poisoning the well!

Love thy enemy.

My logic is that if you have

My logic is that if you have to co-opt something to survive, then you are a progressive/socialist. You have to feed off of others.

"Come, Watson, come! The game is afoot."

Sorry, I meant to say PLEASE.

hahaha.

Love thy enemy.

You may think so.... Then

You may think so....

Then again a Ron Paul Delegate running short on cash may be looking at the expense of the convention, reading about everyone jumping ship and not bother to spend the funds to travel.

I doubt that would happen..

Looking at the expense side of things, why would you decide to be an RNC candidate without the funds to be able to go. That's one of the questions I was asked in going to the State Convention in 2008. It's a decision based upon responsibility in being able to go by others financing your travel or yourself.

On another hand, you have Ron Paul himself asking for help for delegates to get to Tampa. This means he is actively financing his delegates' trip to Tampa.

Don't you worry so much. People will have their opinions and Ron Paul delegates will have their means.

Love thy enemy.

If you have not noticed the

If you have not noticed the economy is slipping more and more everyday. A persons finances today may not be nearly as robust as a year ago. I'm sure everyone pushing Johnson are helping Ron collect that money for the delegates.

This is Mike's web site, so he makes the decisions...

...but honestly, this is the kind of thread that used to get people banned.

From the site rules:

Rules

No profane, disrespectful or divisive language

Spell check and grammar check your work before posting, and refrain from excessive use of CAPITAL LETTERS

Do not post the ENTIRE text of articles from other sites. This is copyright infringement, and could get you, me, and this site in trouble. (In fact, it already has!) Feel free to post a short intro, and then a link to the original article. Understanding fair use would be wise, also. Embedding videos and images is not permitted.

Do not post racist, sexist, pornographic or otherwise obscene materials

Do not engage in flame wars, personal attacks on other members, incite or encourage violence, post spam or advertisements.

Do not bump your own thread to keep it on the front page, or post the same non-related comment on multiple threads to promote your website or event

No Assholes™

If you have an idea, then you do it, not Michael Nystrom, not Ron Paul. You. Learn how and do it.

Any powers not herein delegated are reserved to the States respectively, or to the People.

"Failure to follow these rules can result in banishment from the community."

Then I will be banned. At

Then I will be banned. At least I'm not "censoring" anyone!

"Come, Watson, come! The game is afoot."

That will be the day I sign

That will be the day I sign off for good.... When someone supporting Ron Paul over third party candidates on the Daily Paul is banned I'm out of here.

It's not a Gary Johnson

It's not a Gary Johnson site.... Those pushing Johnson should be band... Couldn't agree with you more..

Apparently my post was not

Apparently my post was not clear. This thread is flamebait. It was unnecessary. Mike Nystrom himself has stated that Gary Johnson is a viable alternative.

Can you think straight?

Can you think straight? Please explain the logic of that comment.

The OP was NOT flame bait, it was an expression of how much the Johnsons are pissing me off. But maybe you didn't read it?

"Come, Watson, come! The game is afoot."

Last time I checked the front

Last time I checked the front page reads the Daily Paul and Ron Paul is still in the race...