RNC 2012 uproar

Last Updated:

  1. pbf98

    pbf98 Well-Known Member Contributor

    RNC Sham 2012 - YouTube

    Any thoughts? Do you believe Ron Paul should have gotten it?

    Personally I find this to be ridiculous changing rules just so they will get who they want and not what the people.. I see a better chance with Ron Paul up for election vs having Romney.

  2. OutofDate1980

    OutofDate1980 Well-Known Member

    Duh, this is the Republican Party, where the leadership selects it's electorate and vote counting be damned.
  3. A.Nonymous

    A.Nonymous Well-Known Member

    Democratic party is worse in this regard. Someone like Ron Paul would have no hopes of getting anywhere in the Democratic party.
  4. OutofDate1980

    OutofDate1980 Well-Known Member

    Ralph Reed, a Republican defined Christian, has been resurrected at the RNC 2012, with a few 10's of $millions from "secret" admires.:love:
    Gives a new meaning to bringing in the sheep.

    Ralph Reed: From Purgatory to Power | Moyers & Company | BillMoyers.com

    "BILL MOYERS: In 2000, Reed helped put George W. Bush and Dick Cheney in the White House.

    GEORGE W. BUSH: Ralph Reed is with us, he
  5. OutofDate1980

    OutofDate1980 Well-Known Member

    Speculation on your part.

    As we can all see from the OP what the Republican leadership actually did at their convention. No speculation required.
  6. A.Nonymous

    A.Nonymous Well-Known Member

    I'd have to look at the rules, but I seem to recall that one party requires a plurality of delegates for nomination and the other requires an actual majority. I can't recall which is which at the moment though and I'm too lazy to look it up. Whatever party requires a majority virtually ensures someone like Paul has no chance while requiring a plurality means someone like Paul could have a shot.
  7. OutofDate1980

    OutofDate1980 Well-Known Member

    I'm too lazy to read your post.:)
  8. pbf98

    pbf98 Well-Known Member Contributor

    Rxpert83 likes this.
  9. A.Nonymous

    A.Nonymous Well-Known Member

    The Dems are doing the same thing. It's how party politics run. The National Convention for both parties is extremely scripted including the voting. It's predetermined before they vote.
  10. OutofDate1980

    OutofDate1980 Well-Known Member

    Well, as demonstrated by the poster, the RNC is fixed, so you are just speculating on the DNC.
  11. A.Nonymous

    A.Nonymous Well-Known Member

    No, the DNC is equally fixed. It's a given that Obama will be nominated yet they'll hold a vote anyway even though everyone knows what the outcome of the vote will be.
  12. pbf98

    pbf98 Well-Known Member Contributor

    Yea the DNC is given that Obama will be it, and yes to be "fair" they will hold a vote though i do not see it being as controversial as what the RNC turned out to be
  13. OutofDate1980

    OutofDate1980 Well-Known Member

    Well, a far as I know Obama won enough delegates in the primaries to win the nomination. The OP was about rule changes and poster made a convincing case that the voting on these rules wasn't democratic.

    You have yet to go beyond speculation.
  14. A.Nonymous

    A.Nonymous Well-Known Member

    I don't think anyone other than Paul supporters thought the RNC voting was "controversial". Ron Paul didn't win a single primary. For him to have won the nomination would've been a complete travesty. That would've been controversial.
  15. OutofDate1980

    OutofDate1980 Well-Known Member

    I think as more people learn about the teleprompter vote, delegate removal, among other events, it will be "controversial".

    Ron Paul delegates and supporters walk out of RNC in protest | Florida politics blog: The Buzz | Tampa Bay Times

    "But it underscored the bitter divide between the small but feuding faction of the Paul and tea party sector of the party and the establishment factions that controlled the convention
  16. A.Nonymous

    A.Nonymous Well-Known Member

  17. OutofDate1980

    OutofDate1980 Well-Known Member

    Well from what little I know about the way Republicans award delegates, many state organizations have a caucus which the actual delegates are selected. Ron Paul claimed he won the majority of those state delegates in 8 states.

    I see no reason why Romney didn't give Ron Paul his 15 minutes of fame and let him speak at the RNC.

    I believe the supporters of Ron Paul and others are upset about how the voting on rules were conducted, i.e. the teleprompter vote.
  18. A.Nonymous

    A.Nonymous Well-Known Member

    Some states do use caucuses. Actually both parties use the caucus system in some states. This is a flaw in the system IMO and Paul and his followers exploited it expertly. The current system for the GOP (and possibly for the Dems as well) makes it possible for a candidate to (theoretically) gain enough delegates to be nominated without winning a single vote in any primary. This is a flaw in the system. A system that would allow someone to be nominated by the party after they've been rejected at the polls is a flawed system that needs to be fixed. The Republicans are trying to fix that flaw.

    The scripted voting is normal for a nominating convention. Both parties do it.
  19. bberryhill0

    bberryhill0 Well-Known Member

    Do you guys really think that it matters?!? All politicians are bought and paid for by the highest bidder.
  20. OstrichSaK

    OstrichSaK Well-Known Member

    All except one...
  21. OutofDate1980

    OutofDate1980 Well-Known Member

    Looks like the Democrats started reforms in 1968, but then again, they're a bunch of progressives, not like Republicans, who can't do anything till failure is a done deal.

    Unlocking The Mysteries Of Delegate Selection : NPR

    "The intent of the McGovern-Fraser Commission reforms
  22. A.Nonymous

    A.Nonymous Well-Known Member

    Democratic delegates aren't bound either. Remember the whole superdelegate thing from four years ago? That was all because those delegates aren't legally bound.
  23. ElasticNinja

    ElasticNinja Well-Known Member

    Yes, when you have an incumbent, *shock* they will get the nomination.

    Stop with your "equally as bad" horseshit plz.

    That's not true for every politician
  24. PH8AL

    PH8AL Well-Known Member

    Blood in the water? We can only hope. We could get really lucky and this be the Implosion of the party that will lead to the end of gridlock caused by a minority fringe.

    Or its just politics as usually, 80% of them are lawyers and arguing is what they went to college for.
  25. A.Nonymous

    A.Nonymous Well-Known Member

    But it's still scripted. It's just as scripted as the Republicans. Four years ago there was no incumbent and it was still scripted and people were bitching about the fact that super delegates can vote for whomever they please. Now people are are bitching about how the Republicans are closing loopholes that let their delegates do the same thing essentially and saying the Republicans should've closed them years ago. It's ridiculous hypocrisy.

    Both parties are the same in far more ways than they are different. But politics nowadays is a religion. No one cares any longer about what is actually right or wrong or what the best solution is. It's all about power. It's all about money. Both sides are in the pockets of various corporations. If Party A proposes a solution no thought is actually given to whether the solution is a good one or not. Party B will immediately attack the solution and make ad hominen attacks against Party A as well. Party A will do the same thing when Party B proposes a solution. It's the most ridiculous system in the world. The emperor has no clothes and no one is saying a word about it. Instead they pretend that one party is populated by saints and the other by demons.
    bberryhill0 likes this.

Share This Page