When the INSANE are running the ASYLUM In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule. -- Friedrich Nietzsche
“How fortunate for those in power that people never think.” Adolph Hitler
Ron Paul's Route To Convention Chaos: The Vice Presidential Nomination Posted: 06/20/2012 7:19 pm Updated: 06/20/2012 9:41 pm
WASHINGTON -- This may be the Ron Paul gambit we've been waiting for.
An obscure rule change made four years ago by the Republican Party has opened the door for Paul forces to cause a major headache for Mitt Romney when he tries to nominate his choice for vice president at the party convention in August.
The Republican National Committee could change Rule 40 in the week leading up to the convention, but that would risk the appearance of jamming Romney's nominee through, and likely cause a subsequent backlash.
Republican officials are still waking up to the fact that Paul loyalists -- who control the majority of delegates in Maine, Minnesota and Iowa, and have sizable contingents in a number of other states -- could very likely enter Paul's name into nomination for vice president. This would force a roll call vote where each delegate of each state is polled on the floor of the convention.
Such a move would transform a symbolic procedure that has taken mere minutes in the past several conventions into a chaotic and time-consuming spectacle that could eat up the better portion of a day.
Not only would such a floor fight step all over the message of party unity and strength that the Romney campaign hopes to drive through the convention, it would also open the door for alternatives to Romney's choice to gain momentum and further drive the process off the rails.
For example, if Romney chose Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio) as his vice presidential pick, but the Paul forces leveraged their impressive foothold in several states to nominate Paul from the floor, then someone like Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla) could emerge as the preferred pick for many delegates as the convention goes into a roll call vote. And Rubio's name could be entered into nomination, in addition to Paul's, if a plurality of five states voted to nominate him.
Ron Paul... "Social Security for ME... NOT FOR YOU!
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
He was forced to pay into it, why do you have a problem with younger folks having the option to opt out of it? By the way the short part you posted didn't show the whole interview, he explained how he would cut funding from overseas to try to save many of the programs that are in rough shape today. nice try though.
"In the beginning of a change, the Patriot is a scarce man, brave, hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, however, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a Patriot."
"In the beginning of a change, the Patriot is a scarce man, brave, hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, however, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a Patriot."
He was forced to pay into it, why do you have a problem with younger folks having the option to opt out of it? By the way the short part you posted didn't show the whole interview, he explained how he would cut funding from overseas to try to save many of the programs that are in rough shape today. nice try though.
FORCED??? Poor baby... now he's FORCED to take the money!
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
Ron Paul has previously stated that the only thing that is Constitutional about Social Security is the fact that the payment has to be made back to the citizens. He has stated that it is now a debt that is owed to the citizens, and therefore, it is Constitutional. The entire idea behind it, however, is not, so if there was a way to phase it out, it would be fine.
FORCED??? Poor baby... now he's FORCED to take the money!
And if he doesn't live long enough to collect what he put in then he got screwed, if he takes more than what he put in other taxpayers get screwed, yeah great system
"In the beginning of a change, the Patriot is a scarce man, brave, hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, however, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a Patriot."
Box people are forced to pay social security through their jobs, and hell yes Ron Paul paid into it all those years he should get HIS money back. But he wants an option for the younger generation, because we know Social Security is going broke. And why shouldn't anyone beable to plan their own retirement?
A good point RP... and how is today any different than before SS?
~ In 1997, nearly half of all elderly people — 47.6% — had incomes below the poverty line before receipt of Social Security benefits. After receiving Social Security benefits, only 11.9% remained poor.
~ Social Security's effects in shrinking poverty are most striking among elderly women. Seven million of the 11.4 million elderly people whom Social Security lifted from poverty in 1997... more than 60%, were women. Without Social Security, 52.6% of all elderly women were below the poverty line.
Is that what you want RP? To watch half of America's elderly live in poverty??? Suppose one of these elderly women had invested all of her SS dollars for her eventual retirement. Suppose she had put her total SS contribution into Enron Stock... (Because her broker told her it couldn't lose). Or suppose she had diversified into Enron, WorldCom Inc and Conseco Inc.
Before Social Security, half of elderly Americans lived in poverty... Many others avoided poverty by living with relatives in their "golden years" (something that seldom happens today)
Ending Social Security is just one more 'money grab' by rich, who like Ron Paul, collect SS but don't need it.
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
Ending Social Security is just one more 'money grab' by rich
How is it a money grab for the rich by allowing people to invest their own money the way they see fit, isn't the money grab taking the money which the retired person may never see again? If someone dies 1 year before they collect SS the money is gone, the person can not leave it to his relatives unlike private investments. If people trust SS then they should have that option, those who don't trust it should also have the option of opting out. Paul wants to cut spending to secure the programs that are now in trouble for those who paid into it, I guess I don't understand your problem.
What the hell does that mean, what cause he is well off he shouldn't get anything in return for what he put in.
"In the beginning of a change, the Patriot is a scarce man, brave, hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, however, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a Patriot."
Box wants successful people who paid into SS to just give the money to the government and not collect it because they don't need it.
When Warren Buffett stated that HE PAYS TOO LITTLE IN INCOME TAX... much less than his secretary... The Rabid Right Response was: "Let Warren donate his millions to the government then" (with an accompanying Smug Smile).
Now Ron Paul says he wants to end Social Security (putting half of elderly Americans into poverty) So Ron... just like Warren... Should put his money where his mouth is... "RON PAUL (SHOULD NOT COLLECT HIS UNCONSTITUTIONAL SOCIAL SECURITY CHECK." (Just one more case of Righties "Do as I say, Not as I do)
What's good for Buffett should be good for Paul.
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
Logged
