Ron Paul got 6 states? Rule change! Now you need 8.

**no1_vern** · August 29th, 2012, 05:51 PM

Five States to Be Nominated for President at RNC? YES, Ron Paul Gets Six. Rule Change! Now You Need Eight!

Delegates from Nevada tried to nominate Mr. Paul from the floor, submitting petitions from their own state as well as Minnesota, Maine, Iowa, Oregon, Alaska and the Virgin Islands. That should have done the trick: Rules require signatures from just five states. But the party changed the rules on the spot. Henceforth, delegates must gather petitions from eight states.

Republican politics at its finest!

**aldtech** · August 30th, 2012, 01:04 AM

Originally Posted by no1_vern

Five States to Be Nominated for President at RNC? YES, Ron Paul Gets Six. Rule Change! Now You Need Eight!

Republican politics at its finest!

Their all inclusive big tent is not so inclusive after all. What a suprise, NOT.

/ald

**Epidemic** · August 30th, 2012, 08:58 AM

I don't understand what the big deal was. What does the rule requiring 8 states or 5 states have to do with anything. Even if Nevada delegates had their way nothing would have changed the vote was still overwhelmingly in Mitts favor??? So why would the RNC not want to have them nominate Ron Paul???

Both parties are subject to the same petty politicing but I just don't understand the point of this, I don't even see the political gain. Someone explain Why RNC felt compelled to do this?

**tony_j15** · August 30th, 2012, 09:43 AM

Because they think the race is going to be super close and they don't want Paul syphoning votes away.

**Chuckiechan** · August 30th, 2012, 09:57 AM

What they don't want is a Parliament. If you get too many people all divided into different groups, you end up with a gaggle of positions with no consensus.

Plus, Ron Paul is retiring and his son Rand Paul, is not quite as "out there" as Dad. So for the time being, the "problem" is solving itself.

I'll give Ron Paul credit for saying things that need to be said, but the problem with his positions is that he over simplifies. Everything sounds just so damn good and logical, but with fair and honest analysis his positions are impractical.

I am interested in where Rand Paul goes ideologically after Dad hangs up his spurs. He's more of a fiscal conservative policy geek similar to Paul Ryan, and is a Tea Party favorite.

**tony_j15** · August 30th, 2012, 10:14 AM

Originally Posted by Chuckiechan

What they don't want is a Parliament. If you get too many people all divided into different groups, you end up with a gaggle of positions with no consensus.

Yeah, because it would be so horrible if people actually had to compromise and come to a reasonable consensus. Long live GOP GroupThink!

**The Real Bingo** · August 30th, 2012, 10:30 AM

Originally Posted by Chuckiechan

What they don't want is a Parliament. If you get too many people all divided into different groups, you end up with a gaggle of positions with no consensus.

That's nonsense. Each representative is not automatically constrained by party platform or dogma. He can vote for himself and have an individual opinion on any issue. Just because he/she doesn't conform to the stodgy Republican/Democrat dichotomy doesn't mean the way of governing would change. Maybe it's just me, but I don't think only two parties can accurately represent 300 million people on the myriad of issues out there. Naturally a third, fourth, and fifth party would overlap the R's and D's in ideology, but why should we as citizens and champions of capitalism, freedom and choice want to restrict the free dissemination of ideas in the political arena?

**Epidemic** · August 30th, 2012, 10:47 AM

Originally Posted by tony_j15

Because they think the race is going to be super close and they don't want Paul syphoning votes away.

But syponing votes away from what? In the end there would be a vote and MITT is clearly the front runner right? I did not think there were any indications that there would have been even close to a question of the winner.

**Chuckiechan** · August 30th, 2012, 11:41 AM

but why should we as citizens and champions of capitalism, freedom and choice want to restrict the free dissemination of ideas in the political arena?

I didn't say "restricting". Everyone is free to disseminate ideas, but eventually you have to come around to a few. Meanwhile, money is being spent, sound bites are being recorded, and time is being wasted arguing about pressure groups needs and not the overall needs of the country.

You get your ideas to the convention by "working local". When is the last time you have attended a Q&A of your local congressman or the expected candidate of your party?

That's where it starts.

**tony_j15** · August 30th, 2012, 11:46 AM

Originally Posted by Epidemic

But syponing votes away from what? In the end there would be a vote and MITT is clearly the front runner right? I did not think there were any indications that there would have been even close to a question of the winner.

From the GOP Convention vote that decides who will be the Republican candidate for President. I apologize for not making that more clear.
You're correct about Romney.

EDIT: I don't know why I said it would be "super-close." The convention vote won't be close at all. Yeesh.