I don't think that word means what you seem to think it means. "nuts" is a name. Expressing opinions about another person's ideas is not "name-calling", I can say your opinion is stupid, and that is not "name-calling". Saying that someone lied about who they supported is not "name-calling". If you want to accuse me of something, figure out what the correct word is and have at it.
designed to marginalize and run off people participants in the convention system, and deny them a voice.
Nothing I said would run off well-meaning, honest people from the participants in the convention system. Nor would I want to do so; so my words could hardly be "designed" to do so. If they do any such thing, and I assert they do not, it is by error, not design. I do mean to discourage people who want to usurp the will of the voters, and abuse the rules and the system to their own ends after the rest of us have followed the rules and consider the matter closed.
Most of us have a desire to have our votes properly cast for the candidate we collectively chose in our primary. We have little interest in WHICH PERSON is chosen to go to the convention to cast those votes. Paul is using our disinterest to pack the convention with delegates who don't actually support the candidate for whom they are bound to cast their ballots; at one point this was a not-irrational strategy, hoping a 2nd or subsequent ballot was called in which the delegates would be free to cast their own choice and would pick Paul. Now it is more likely just to get him on the convention floor (if they can "hold majority in 5 states"), and to maybe influence the party platform.
And to the degree these people are honest at the conventions, and abide by the rules at the convention, it is their right, and that's how the process works. To the degree they misrepresent their intentions, or decide they will violate their oath or binding, or use their "victory" to falsely claim a "change in the 1st ballot" so as to keep interest in their candidate, it is deserving of ridicule and concern by those of us who respect the intent of the voters.
Since I'm not involved in party politics, conventions, or any other "manuevering", I find it hilarious that you suggest otherwise. And I'm more than happy to discuss issues -- but that is what the political primary was for. That's what Ron Paul did on the stage month after month. And the voters cast their votes with that in mind, and made their choice of which ideas they liked, and Ron Paul mostly lost big, and now you seem to support using a backroom, obscure, misunderstood process to subvert that choice -- which seems the opposite of sitting down and discussing the issues openly and honestly.
Since you are not involved in party politics and the convention system, I can cut you some slack. Here’s one link that will educate and give you a bit more realistic view of the system, and it was just posted today.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2880885/posts
I am surprised a person as meticulous as you seem to be, plainly does not recognize how corrupt and rigged the presidential nominating system is, just by keeping up with what happened in Iowa, Virginia, and Florida alone.
Your oblique disparaging references accusing people of which you have no personal knowledge of dishonesty, nuttiness, etc. regarding a subject you have admitted you have no personal experience in, marks you broadly as a name-caller and certainly as a character assassin.
So, just educate yourself on the convention system, and take it from me, participation is the only way to gain real understanding of how the process really works.
Only then will you realize how badly you misunderstand our system of party politics, and how the delegate selection process and convention system, far from being obscure and “backroom” as you think, is in reality a strong, vibrant, exciting, open place for the people who care enough to actually participate to get together and iron out their differences for the purpose of selecting the party’s nominee.