Whenever confronted with something they don't agree with and can't combat with logic, the American fascist mind goes blank, and crashes. The DOS prompt looks like this on the reboot >"USA, USA, USA"

To Ron Paul supporters: If you can't bring yourself to vote for Obama, there is another candidate, who, like Paul, is committed to an immediate end to our overseas military madness.

Her name is Dr. Jill Stein. She's the Green Party candidate for President.

Don't get mad at the GOP establishment. Get even at the polls.

I won't dignify the Anglo-American Establishment's dog and pony show, which they pass off onto us as "elections". I've seen enough. I will never vote in this country again, until we route all foreign and domestic enemies and either kill them or drive them from our shores. The GOP, the party of Trotsky can go and self-fornicate. The same goes for the party of Marx, Lenin and Stalin.

I'm really tired of Ron Paul supporters whining. Yes, the establishment owns the Republican party. We know this. But that doesn't automatically mean Ron Paul is being cheated in some complex conspiracy. I love this quote, a sentiment always thrown around the internet: "[the Republican Party] illegitimately shut down the small-"d" democratic voices of those who might dare support the opposition party." Ron Paul people always claim this.

But who was trying to shut down democracy more than Ron Paul? Stuffing delegates at state conventions against the will of state voters--that's not shutting down the democratic process? That is not a democratic tactic, that is "Maybe only 10%-25% of us think we're right, but we are going to cram our votes down your throat anyways."

Face it, Ron Paul just isn't liked be large populations of people. It has nothing to do with conspiracies. The only vote-fraud going on here is on Ron Paul's side.

Also, Paul gets more media coverage than any "fringe" candidate (and I don't mean to say he's crazy, merely that he's seen as a nonconventional candidate) out there. How much does Rocky Anderson get? How much did Mike Gravel get in 2008? Paul gets a hundred times more attention, and people still don't vote for him.

Face it, there is no Ron Paul Revolution. Yes, the GOP sucks, and both Republicans and Democrats are owned by the establishment. Yes, Ron Paul might be a better choice than all other Republicans.

But there is no conspiracy. Ron Paul is failing on his own.

My sentiments, Brad. Was at MO caucii and witnessed same at county and district. The good ole boys don't want us in their sandbox. None can even say "Constitution" without coughing up a hairball. So which is it? Stay home Nov. 6 or vote Johnson?

To the poster who thinks Paulies are committing the fraud: Hey pal, just playing by THEIR rules, but they keep changing them. I never play cards with cheaters so deal my the hell out of your little game.

Daniel: you're absolutely right - democracy is all about the unfettered will of the people. However, we don't live in a democracy - the US is a constitutional republic, as is guaranteed to us in the Constitution.

In a republic, the people send out their best and brightest representatives to make an informed decision on the future of our country. Even minority groups can grab a piece of the pie, and have influence.

Meanwhile, a purely democratic system like what you seem to think we live under subjects everyone to the tyranny of the majority. If the majority supports a dictator, a warmonger, a thief, etc. we're all subjected to that no matter how narrow the margin of victory is.

Paul supporters did not commit voter fraud by getting our delegates into the convention. We are simply following the rules that our founders (AND the Republican party) chose for picking the nominee. The REAL fraud occurred when the RNC refused to seat delegates who were legally entitled to be seated, and forced through rules changes to screw over Ron Paul when the nays clearly had it. Our actions were nothing but above-board, honest, and in accordance with the rules - the same could not be said for the despicable RNC.

Frederick P. Blume @3 wrote:

I will never vote in this country again...

I'm sure ALEC and the GOP will be delighted to hear that. You'll save them all that money they've been spending on voter suppression.

Proud Patriot @6 chimed in with the usual, "we're a republic, not a democracy."

Hello! The word "republic" as envisioned by the framers is synonymous with "representative democracy."

Yes, indeed we are a constitutional republic, which operates through a democratic vote which results in representatives. Those representatives are then tasked with creating policies.

And so, I'm still missing how this is what Ron Paul is doing? He's stuffing delegates into a convention when they weren't actually elected by voters. So, a Republic to you means: If I think I'm right, then you have to have things our way? Just because you think Ron Paul will save the world, doesn't mean that it's his right in a Republic to then try to appropriate the system for his own and muscle his way in.

(Also, what I'm hearing from you and the previous commenter is that, since these are the rules, its a perfectly fine procedure. So rule by obstruction and muscle is fine just because your party usually agrees? So your saying Ron Paul is for politics as usual?)

(And by the way, our government has checks to prevent majority rule; its called government regulation. Much of which Ron Paul wants to abolish).

Daniel said @ 4:

I love this quote, a sentiment always thrown around the internet: "[the Republican Party] illegitimately shut down the small-"d" democratic voices of those who might dare support the opposition party." Ron Paul people always claim this.

I'm not a "Ron Paul people", but the sentiment is actually true. Don't believe it? Watch the actual video tapes of what happened in Georgia and in Missouri and in Louisiana and then come back and tell me it is not true.

As I say, watch the actual videos at those link and then come back and tell us if the party is illegitimately shutting down the democratic voices of those people or not.

But who was trying to shut down democracy more than Ron Paul? Stuffing delegates at state conventions against the will of state voters--that's not shutting down the democratic process?

Actually, that is the democratic process as defined by the Republican Party itself. They cannot "stuff delegates at state conventions" without first having those delegates be chosen by members at local and county conventions. If you'd like to argue they were "stuffing" local and county conventions, well, they played by the rules at those conventions by showing up and participating. The establishment did not. The establishment cheated, and violated their own rules, as seen in those videos, and ordered in troopers to help them when they couldn't do it on their own.

That is not a democratic tactic, that is "Maybe only 10%-25% of us think we're right, but we are going to cram our votes down your throat anyways."

Those are the rules. I'm sorry you don't care for them, but the Paul folks followed them, the RNC did not.

Face it, Ron Paul just isn't liked be large populations of people. It has nothing to do with conspiracies. The only vote-fraud going on here is on Ron Paul's side.

Whether he is "liked be [sic] large populations of people" is rather beside the point. Please feel free to cite any actual examples of "vote-fraud" by the Paul side. That's a very serious charge. I'll be happy to look at it your evidence, but so far, I've seen none. I've seen plenty of fraud from his opponents, however. If you need more samples than I've already given you, just let me know.

Daniel continued to misunderstand what's happening @ 8:

He's stuffing delegates into a convention when they weren't actually elected by voters. ... Just because you think Ron Paul will save the world, doesn't mean that it's his right in a Republic to then try to appropriate the system for his own and muscle his way in.

It sounds like you really don't understand how the party system works in this country. I don't blame you. It's rather arcane (and often undemocratic, as I mentioned in the article.) But you really don't seem to know what you're talking about here --- with all due respect.

So rule by obstruction and muscle is fine just because your party usually agrees?

Again, I recommend you watch those videos I pointed you to above and get back to us. There was only one group "rul[ing] by obstruction and muscle" in this case, and it was the establishment GOP. The evidence is overwhelming. If you have any that mitigates it, please feel free to share it. As I mentioned, I am aware of none.

Bradly,

Why do you care about Republican inter-party bickering? Did you come to the aid of the Tea Party wing against the RINOs? You gonna do a puff piece on Cruz? I don't think so.

BTW, I like Ron and Rand. But Ron lost. So be it. They are good with it, and so am I. Ron did a good job moving the party politic to smaller government.

Davey Crocket asked:

Why do you care about Republican inter-party bickering?

If you bother to read any of the links in the story, you'll see that this was not about "inter-party bickering". It was about shutting out democratic voices --- and often violently --- in violation of rules and even laws on some occasions. It's also about election fraud in several instances.

This blog is as much about the important of the exercise of democracy as an American value as anything else. And when that democracy is snuffed out by tyranny, I'm happy to expose it whenever I can.

Did you come to the aid of the Tea Party wing against the RINOs?

If you mean the real Tea Party wing (the Ron Paul wing, who were the real Tea Partiers before the corporate astroturfers took over in exactly February of 2009), then the answer is yes. Beyond that, you'll have to explain what you mean by "Tea Party wing against the RINOs". The fake Tea Partiers (the Tea Baggers) tossed out a lot of moderate Republicans. They are welcome to do so. It's their party. Not sure what your question means.

BTW, I did "come to the aid" of Joe Miller in Alaska against Lisa Murkowski. Go read the blog.

None of it was political. All of it was about the exercise of democracy.

You gonna do a puff piece on Cruz? I don't think so.

No clue what that even means. Sorry.

BTW, I like Ron and Rand. But Ron lost. So be it.

Ron's supporters were strongarmed by thugs and tyrants. I covered it. You are welcome to come to make excuses for thugs and tyrants if you wish. I won't.

BTW, if you'd like to use my full name --- I'm not afraid to use my real name here and stand by everything I say and write --- it's Bradley, not Bradly. Thanks.

Great piece, Brad. Hadn't seen those videos yet...tears at my heart. What really struck me was the delegate in the second video, stating what election integrity veterans hear time and time again from voters...sadly, only AFTER their vote has been stolen: "If it can happen to me, it can happen to anybody, and EVERYBODY..."
What a thresh-hold issue this is for so many of us. Tragic, really, that it's not quite real to us until it's too late for remedy.

My poor Ron Paul friends are devastated. The reports from the delegates are still rolling in on the RP pages - each one so full of heart-break and disillusionment it pains me deeply...they worked SO hard. They did everything right.
...and still, this.

Posted this to all my RP forums:

"To my beloved Watch the Vote members, all 2,527 of you: I'm not sure I can adequately express how much you have been in my thoughts and prayers today as I sink into the same fits of despair I'm reading from you all in the posts here. (Everytime) our once Great Republic is made lesser by stolen elections and corrupt political practices - we who know better than most (read: those of us who've had our own votes stolen beyond a shadow of a doubt) become more and more shell-shocked and traumatized. I wanted to assure you all that this is 100% NORMAL for those of us most committed, those of us who care the most. Do not underestimate the power of this knee-slapping horror story, or it's very real traumatic repercussions...

Please be kind to yourselves right now, and to one another. Resist the urge to lash out. Take some time to decompress. Visit family you haven't seen in months, go bowling, stare at a rose...replenish, if you can. Rage and depression are par for this course...

You can't possibly know how much change you have affected in this hot moment...it takes time for the fruits of our labor to be seen / felt. What Ron Paul and his supporters have pulled off this year is UNPRECEDENTED, and you guys did it under the most difficult circumstances - when more than half the U.S. is asleep, where most of your REPUBLICAN comrades have missed the ship entirely. Bev Harris and I (and many others in the cyber-sky who support you) have been BLOWN AWAY by what you've accomplished. Believe me, outside of the amazing WI DEMS - NO ONE, not *even the OCCUPY movement* scared them half as much as YOU DID (and still do!)

I urge you all from the bottom of my broken heart - do not give up. Do not give in. We, The People, need you."

Eerily similar to your sentiments, above - and I swear I had not read this yet when it was written.
Syngery? Coincidence? Or have I just grown some kind of hive-minded "Brad-brain" after years and years of reading you daily?....

I am truly devastated by yesterday's events.

...and it surprises me that I can still feel this surprised by a feeling so familiar to me during *yet another* stolen election season.

I too was a RP-style Tea before it got co-opted. Did the whole caucus thing, at county and district and saw first hand how the GOP old garde was. Feeling a bit rudderless right now. I can either walk away from the entire process or ensure that Obama gets in instead of Rmoney.

At least that's just four years of Stalinism vs. 8 of a Trotskiite(plus whatever Ryan would get). All the GOP did here was show their azzes at a national level in a global light. Their county, district, state crap could be covered up or stifled. So if you've payed attention all along, let there be no doubt: The GOP and the DNC are one in the same and will both use similar tactics to hold onto the POTUS powers they've consolidated over the past couple decades(or more).

This why Boehner never took action against O's overreaches. The Paulies and the OWS crowd all know that the Banks/Elites are calling the shots and obviously fear anyone getting any traction towards seats of power. Why else would they throw this election back to the Democrats?

A: They fear the Dems less than they fear an awake and educated voter bloc. There are too many to 'detain' at this point and we will infest the ignorant with the Truth. And they certainly can't be having that, now can they?

So, myself, I'll find my rudder. And I'll beat the Establishment over the head with it. Meanwhile, take whatever measures each of you must to weather out four more years of the Stalinist Obama.

the real problem is when those same Reich wing loons are going to do the same thing with the Nov. election and steal the vote.
and what are democrats going to do about it?

Absolutely nothing.

This election has already been stolen

@Brad - thanks for covering the story.

Brad wrote: “after the GOP had adopted new rules last week (to keep pesky party supporters of non-establishment-approved candidates from gaining any foothold in future election cycles)”

I don’t believe “last week’s” rules were actually adopted. That was the majority proposal out of the Rules Committee. The proposal, if passed at convention, would have allowed future presumptive Presidential nominees to purge-at-will any delegates he or she wanted to. I believe that proposal died in subsequent negotiations, and was replaced with rules stating that unreleased delegates who vote against the wishes of the voters of their state are deemed to have immediately resigned, and their rogue votes would be disregarded.

Last week’s majority Rules Committee proposal also proposed allowing the RNC national committee to unilaterally amend the bylaws at any time, even (especially) outside of convention. That was the change that many delegates (even a majority?) opposed. This is akin to giving the US Senate power to unilaterally amend the federal Constitution.

@Canning - regarding Jill Stein - I’ll bet more Paul supporters vote for Gary Johnson than Jill Stein. I doubt Stein ever endorsed Paul, whereas Johnson has. Paul and Johnson are both libertarians (Paul, more so than Johnson). Does Stein consider herself to be a libertarian Green? I doubt it.

The framers’ “republic” pitted the interests of the state governments against the interests of the people, creating a check on federal power. US Senators were elected by the state legislatures, whereas representatives in the House were elected directly by the people. This is just one of the republican checks and balances on federal power that has been abandoned in pursuit of a more perfect democracy.

@Daniel - the rules changes in Tampa were opposed by more than just Paul supporters. In fact, those changes may have been opposed by a majority of the delegates at convention. We’ll never know, because John Boehner, who was chairing the vote to adopt the new rules, refused to count the votes. We are not talking about using a secret electronic machine to count them, we are talking about openly and publicly just not counting the votes, period. One of the changes that “passed” allows the top 100 (or so) RNC national committee members to unilaterally amend the Republican Party bylaws at any time, even outside of convention. That is why a large number of delegates, including many non-Paul supporters, opposed the change.

Here's the thing--If delegates to the Republican National Convention would be REQUIRED to vote according to the results of their state primary, and would be prohibited from exibiting any independence in those decisions why bother to HAVE a national convention at all, since everything would be irrevocably determined at the state level?

The very structure of the nomination process itself emphasizes that delegates MUST have the right to vote according to their own beliefs and consciences. If that was never intended, the winner of each state primary could simply be added up and the nominee named. No national delegates would be required.

I'm sure someone will point out that the platform and rules, etc. are also debated and agreed upon at the national convention, but any actual debate would depend upon delegates having the latitude to divert from the wishes of their own state party in the event that the wishes of the individual state parties do not agree. Something has to give, after all, if anything is to be accomplished, but holding delegates to the obstensible wishes of their state party based on its primary vote does not allow for anything to give.

Registered voters are supposed to vote for those delegates they feel would best represent their interests at the state level; those delegates vote for the delegates that would best represent their interests at the national level. When you cast a vote for a delegate, you're placing your trust in them to carry out your own wishes to the best of their ability. If they fail to do that, the fault lies with the original voter for spending their vote badly, not with the delegate.

When the absolute power to approve or dismiss delegates, rules and platform issues is concentrated among a few at the very top, there is absolutely no guarantee that the will of the voters will be accurately represented. When the power lies with the delegates, the power actually resides with the voters. If the voters fail to do their due diligence with regard to the beliefs and the background of the delegates they elect, they have voluntarily surrendered that power to those better equipped and more prepared to manage it.

I really enjoy seeing them eat their young.