Whatever the rights and wrongs, many of his policies are fringe in the sense that they are well outside the mainstream of American politics.

Why is this even worth commenting on?

Which is how you know they are good ideas.

lol no, the mob is always right

REVOLUTION

Ben Swann on how the RNC cheated Dr. Paul. Worth the watch for sure - the teleprompter part is going viral.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pKaXqoC4DjE&feature=plcp

So your saying Ron Paul was cheated because the Republicans said that delegates must vote in line with the democratic choices of the residents of that state when there is a statewide presidential preference vote such as a primry caucus or state convention?

Seriously? Cheated?

I mean holy **** at me praising the Republicans for letting democracy play out but that rule change makes sense and it will increase the chances of an outsider candidate like Ron Paul winning the primary selection process. This is a good thing for the libertarian movement, provided it can stop pitching a fit and being so short sighted about the goals they are trying to achieve.

I think the problem most people have with it is giving the party veto power over state delegates. That clearly will not help libertarians.

Well, it won't help libertarians if they intended to game the delegate selection process again.

The video is worth watching though. Start it at about 3:20 for the

I don't see how they gamed the system. They showed up and voted. Even if they are bound to Mitt Romney (for example), they should be able to go to the convention and speak their minds.

Actually it does the exact opposite.

Please explain how, then, because everybody seems to think so.

If Ronald Paul had won the most votes in state which is winner take all but has unbound delegates then Romney could have stole his delegate votes and ignored the will of the people if he had a better method of biasing the delegate system itself.

Now if Ronald Paul or whoever runs in his spot in 2016 like Randal Paul wins the most votes in that same state he is guaranteed the delegates from that state.

It directly stops the party from having veto power over delegates. Now delegates have to respect the will of the people.

The method used to "bias the delegate system" is voting. What's wrong with that?

I still don't see how this stops the party from having veto power. They can now directly choose the delegates, regardless of the process that the delegates went through.

BTW: "Having" a delegate simply means they are bound to vote for you. They should not just be party robots.

Delegates are now bound to vote for who the people in the states voted for. That is what Paulbots are complaining about.

Before anyone could become a delegate and ignore what the residents of states wanted in terms of their delegate votes and they could then go into business for themselves. Now delegates cant ignore the people they are supposed to represent.

Yay democracy.

I don't think that's what they are complaining about at all.

Let's put it this way:

The California GOP delegation strongly believes in ending the war on drugs. They combine with like minded states to form a moderately strong alliance. Should the national party be allowed to replace these delegates?

Whatever the Koch brothers say imo.

If they wont vote in line with the people in those states then absolutely yes.

What kind of libertarian are you that you want to concentrate power to a small number of elites?

How do you mean 'vote in line with the people of the states'? The only possible way that a delegate can be bound is to vote for a candidate. A delegate voting for Romney can still have other views about what the party should do.

I still say that giving the party veto power over delegates IS the concentration of power. And I'm not a libertarian....yet.

Delegates were bound to vote in line with the people of states where those people expressed a desire. This is a good move as it stops politicians from usurping the democratic selection process through undemocratic loopholing of rules.

I understand that, but you're still not answering the question. Should the national party be able to throw out delegates that may have a conflicting view of policy? Look at the California drug war delegation above. These are people who are bound to a candidate and will be voting for that candidate.

I still laugh when voting and winning is loopholing the rules.

That isnt part of the rule change afaik.

No. Voting and losing but getting more delegates is loopholing the rules. Paulbots don't really have much room to complain about the arcane and undemocratic way in which the party conducts the primary because paul would have done worse in a transparent and democratic system.

How can you get more delegates if you lose the votes? That doesn't make sense. You only get delegates if you win the votes.