Romney and GOP establishment strike deal with Ron Paul loyalists before convention - Polidicks

[quote]GOP officials and the Mitt Romney campaign have cut a deal with Texas Rep. Ron Paul's campaign to allow some — though not all — of Paul's delegates from Louisiana and Massachusetts to be seated at the Republican National Convention. The status of Maine's delegates remains unsettled. The compromise would appear to avert a potential public clash with Paul supporters during the convention's opening day Monday. Among Republican delegates descending on Tampa for the GOP presidential convention will be scores of Paul loyalists, who had been uncertain about the degree to which their party and presumptive nominee Romney would allow them to participate. The key looks to be in part the GOP's embrace of Paul's call for an audit of the Federal Reserve, a move hailed by his son, Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul, as "great news" and "long overdue." (Romney on Monday endorsed the concept during an appearance in New Hampshire; the party on Tuesday included it in its proposed party platform.) The fate of the 20 Paul-committed Maine delegates, elected during the state's GOP party convention in May, was still unclear, but negotiations were continuing. Pro-Paul delegations from Iowa, Nevada and Minnesota have already been credentialed, without challenge, for the convention. Romney and the RNC had been pursuing a legal strategy that appeared designed to prevent Paul from coming into the convention with "the support of a plurality of the delegates from each of five or more states." Why? Reaching that threshold, according to the party rulebook, would allow Paul delegates to place the longtime congressman's name into nomination during the convention and the candidate to make a speech. Paul has not sought to be nominated from the floor. But as Josh Putnam, a campaigns and elections expert, has noted, the scenario of restive Paul supporters on the convention floor presented a headache for Romney and Republicans, who naturally want to project party unity and power coming out of the convention. By challenging the Paul delegates, Romney and the party held a bargaining chip, said Putnam, who writes the FrontloadingHQ political blog. The message from Romney and the GOP: "We will get our way if we want to, but if you guys are willing to go along with where we're going, we'll let you be part of this," Putnam said. Paul is a libertarian whose views attracted Tea Party conservatives as well as young people opposed to war spending. During the Republican primaries, Paul pursued a strategy of picking up delegates in caucus states and at state conventions. The actual number of delegates he secured remains unclear, but estimates put the figure at at least 100. "The Paul folks have flexed their muscle in 2012," Putnam said Tuesday, "and I imagine the RNC will punch back — not quell the rebellion, but figure out a way to incorporate these people that keeps them united as a party." Indeed, it appears that the participation of Paul delegates in shaping the party platform during meetings that are being held in advance of the convention, and Sen. Rand Paul's scheduled convention speech, may have resulted in a deal that will placate the congressman's supporters for now. Or at least some of them. "We want to redefine the party from the ground up," said Carl Bunce, a pro-Paul delegate from Nevada who chaired the congressman's Silver State effort. "The natural step is to take it to the convention, though the establishment wants to mute any dissent for the imaginary 'party unity' that they produce as a giant TV show." "We're just asking for a fair, open and transparent process," Bunce said. "And Republicans have refused to give us that at a national level." Ron Paul will hold a rally on Sunday; the convention opens Monday at 2 p.m.[/quote] [I]Source: [URL]http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2012/08/21/159594780/romney-and-gop-strike-deal-with-ron-paul-loyalists-before-convention[/URL][/I]

Thought it was gonna be Romney supporting the legalization of weed

[quote]The message from Romney and the GOP: "We will get our way if we want to, but if you guys are willing to go along with where we're going, we'll let you be part of this," Putnam said.[/quote] But I'm not willing to go along with more endless wars, Mr. Romney.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;37370017]But I'm not willing to go along with more endless wars, Mr. Romney.[/QUOTE] What does that mean, exactly? Should all armed conflicts have an agreed end-date, where you just pull out regardless of circumstances? Or should they be agreed to "end" when certain objectives have been achieved? I understand the complaint of getting bogged down in a war with no clear direction/purpose, but I get somewhat concerned with the idea that wars can be completely pre-defined and pre-planned. I mean, what if the Second World War hadn't finished in 1945? Would the Allies have gone "well that's time, Japan can keep whatever it has left in the Pacific"?

[QUOTE=BoysLightUp;37370990]What does that mean, exactly? Should all armed conflicts have an agreed end-date, where you just pull out regardless of circumstances? Or should they be agreed to "end" when certain objectives have been achieved? I understand the complaint of getting bogged down in a war with no clear direction/purpose, but I get somewhat concerned with the idea that wars can be completely pre-defined and pre-planned. I mean, what if the Second World War hadn't finished in 1945? Would the Allies have gone "well that's time, Japan can keep whatever it has left in the Pacific"?[/QUOTE] maybe there shouldn't have been a war to begin with? We have better ways to embarrass ourselves internationally.

[QUOTE=BoysLightUp;37370990]What does that mean, exactly? Should all armed conflicts have an agreed end-date, where you just pull out regardless of circumstances? Or should they be agreed to "end" when certain objectives have been achieved? I understand the complaint of getting bogged down in a war with no clear direction/purpose, but I get somewhat concerned with the idea that wars can be completely pre-defined and pre-planned. I mean, what if the Second World War hadn't finished in 1945? Would the Allies have gone "well that's time, Japan can keep whatever it has left in the Pacific"?[/QUOTE] WWII is a poor example. WWII was total war, the fighting was directed not just at the military but an entire country, just ask the people of Berlin, London or any large city in Japan or Russia. If the war in Afghanistan or Iraq were fought that way, the entire region would be a fine powder by now, we've been there for more than twice as long as it took for the combined attacks of the Allies to reduce Germany to rubble in a conventional war against an enemy which was on an even playing field. If it's not total war that's being fought because it was necessary to protect ourselves from an aggressor, then you really have to ask if it was worth fighting at the cost of our own people, more than that you have to question the motives and actions of those who behind it.

[QUOTE=BoysLightUp;37370990]What does that mean, exactly? Should all armed conflicts have an agreed end-date, where you just pull out regardless of circumstances? Or should they be agreed to "end" when certain objectives have been achieved? I understand the complaint of getting bogged down in a war with no clear direction/purpose, but I get somewhat concerned with the idea that wars can be completely pre-defined and pre-planned. I mean, what if the Second World War hadn't finished in 1945? Would the Allies have gone "well that's time, Japan can keep whatever it has left in the Pacific"?[/QUOTE] "Hey Iran, meet me at the playground on November 23, 2012 until June 6, 2020. It's on!"

My pipe dream: Romney switches places with Ron Paul. (sigh)

[QUOTE=Ryu-Gi;37376672]My pipe dream: Romney switches places with Ron Paul. (sigh)[/QUOTE] haha yeah i agree it would be the funniest trainwreck of a campaign since the Romney campaign

[QUOTE=BoysLightUp;37370990]What does that mean, exactly? Should all armed conflicts have an agreed end-date, where you just pull out regardless of circumstances? Or should they be agreed to "end" when certain objectives have been achieved?[/quote] Uh, yes? Why the fuck would you keep a war going on after you have achieved your objectives? Oh that's right, to hunt down "insurgents" who only shoot at you because, well, you're still there after you've completed your objectives. [I]Example:[/I] [QUOTE]I understand the complaint of getting bogged down in a war with no clear direction/purpose, but I get somewhat concerned with the idea that wars can be completely pre-defined and pre-planned. I mean, what if the Second World War hadn't finished in 1945? Would the Allies have gone "well that's time, Japan can keep whatever it has left in the Pacific"?[/QUOTE] Did we keep bombing the fuck out of Japan and Berlin once Japan surrendered and Hitler was dead? No. The objectives of the Second Gulf War and the Afghanistan War have both long been completed. There really is no legitimate reason for us to stay there unless you include trying to "spread democracy" at the end of a gun barrel and "rebuilding" countries with money we don't have to even repair ourselves.

Wow, derailed in a single comment. A new record! Anyways, slightly on topic, I really hope that Ron Paul's son has the same libertarian views as his father. As much as we all hate to accept, Ron is never going to be elected, ever. He's just too old, and simply runs to keep pushing his views out there. However, some new blood would be beneficial to the entire Ron Paul cause. If his son ran for the Republican Party and had a bit more charisma than his father, he could certainly get the attention of a lot of conservatives. Rand Paul seems to have the same libertarian views, and already has more political history than President Obama. However, I just need to note that he disagrees with a couple things that the majority of Facepunch likes. • [URL="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/26/us/politics/26kentucky.html?_r=1"]He opposes same sex marriage, but thinks that the decision should be left up the state.[/URL] • [URL="http://www.randpaul2010.com/2010/04/ky-right-to-life-–-rand-paul-100-pro-life-–-see-for-yourself/"]Rand opposes abortion, even in cases of rape.[/URL] Again, he thinks that the states should decide on this. • Rand Paul is a baptized Christian, and [URL="http://youtu.be/dkumBcWAlrM?t=12s"]refused to answer how old the world was when asked.[/URL] With the negatives out of the way, he supports a lot of things that Facepunch and the general internet agrees with such as opposing [URL="http://web.archive.org/web/20101104202218/http://www.randpaul2010.com/issues/a-g/guns-politicians/"]gun control[/URL], [URL="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=76lb9kAbXr4"]not being involved in the middle-eastern conflict[/URL], [URL="http://paul.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=419"]forbidding internet censorship[/URL], [URL="http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/05/04/im-very-serious-about-running-ron-pauls-son-says/"]and following the overarching Libertarian views[/URL]. [quote]"Libertarian would be a good description," Rand Paul told CNN, "because libertarians believe in freedom in all aspects of your life – your economic life as well as your social life as well as your personal life."[/quote] Point is, don't worry about Ron Paul anymore. There's never a chance of him winning at this point. However, look forward to his son.

I never liked Rand as much as his father. He always seemed like a badly watered down version of him. I've yet to come across someone as equal to Ron himself, sadly.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;37377302]I never liked Rand as much as his father. He always seemed like a badly watered down version of him. I've yet to come across someone as equal to Ron himself, sadly.[/QUOTE] There's not much of a choice anymore, though. With how politics are, you need to appeal to a large majority of your party, and general "internet libertarian views" is to small of a group. No one could support what most internet-goers like and be elected by the general conservative populace.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;37376929]The objectives of the Second Gulf War and the Afghanistan War have both long been completed. There really is no legitimate reason for us to stay there unless you include trying to "spread democracy" at the end of a gun barrel and "rebuilding" countries with money we don't have to even repair ourselves.[/QUOTE] "Japan and Berlin" are bad examples. First of all, we really really left Japan [I]or[/I] Germany. Second, it was nothing like what we're doing now. After the surrender there was peace between the factions, here there is no surrender and our enemy wants a fight to the death.

The problem is that right now, were trying to set up an enemy for a war on a general idea such as terrorism, when anyone can buy the power to be a terrorist for a couple of cows, or goats, or whatever the price of a cheap AK is.

[QUOTE=Chezhead;37377377]There's not much of a choice anymore, though. With how politics are, you need to appeal to a large majority of your party, and general "internet libertarian views" is to small of a group. No one could support what most internet-goers like and be elected by the general conservative populace.[/QUOTE] Gotta get your views out somehow, and that's what Ron did. I just wish it caught on more. It got a good momentum but no where near what I wished for. [editline]23rd August 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;37377382]"Japan and Berlin" are bad examples. First of all, we really really left Japan [I]or[/I] Germany. Second, it was nothing like what we're doing now. After the surrender there was peace between the factions, here there is no surrender and our enemy wants a fight to the death.[/QUOTE] So we continue to spend billions, lives of soldiers and destruction of Asian nations just to get a shot at a couple of goat herders with rifles whose biggest reason for shooting at us is because....we're spending billions, lives of soldiers and destruction of Asian nations just to get a shot at a couple of goat herders with rifles? [editline]23rd August 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Chezhead;37377262][URL="http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/05/04/im-very-serious-about-running-ron-pauls-son-says/"]and following the overarching Libertarian views[/URL]. Point is, don't worry about Ron Paul anymore. There's never a chance of him winning at this point. However, look forward to his son.[/QUOTE] My issue with Rand is, sure he's for "overarching Libertarian views" but when you get down to the details, he seems, at least to me, just another neocon.