Talk:Carl Bunce

Initial discussion
Note from Conor Kenny: I'm trying to isolate the various disputes here by cleaning up the talk page, but if you'd like to see the form of the discussion page before I got to it, see here.

There appears to be an issue with allowing reference to the controversy surrounding this candidate. The Ground Rules are fairly clear about propagandists, selective presentation of the evidence, and individuals contributing articles about themselves.

While I understand the wishes of Mr. Bunce (aka Twaters1) to spin this article in a way that benefits his canmpaign, it would seem appropriate to point out, 1) Mr. Bunce helped to organize a Rump Convention of the Nevada GOP on June 28, 2008 in violation of Nevada State Law (NRS 293.163); and, 2) Mr. Bunce was party to a lawsuit against the Nevada GOP which was dismissed on July 25, 2008.

There are a number of reliable news sources which support these statements
 * Las Vegas Review-Journal on Status of Rump Convention
 * Las Vegas Fox News Affiliate Story on Delegate Lawsuit
 * Reno Gazette-Journal on Dismissal of Lawsuit Against Nevada GOP

and there are other external resources dealing with the same topic
 * Carl Bunce Attempts to Illegally Organize Rump Convention
 * Nevada Ron Paul Supporters Stage Rogue GOP Convention

This information is completely relevant to this candidate and his campaign. If there's a good reason why it shouldn't be included, let me know. Sue B 22:12, 3 August 2008


 * How nice. Twaters1 came through and simply deleted the discussion section and reverted the edits without comment. :Sue B 23:10, 3 August 2008


 * (From the "summary" field:) "Conventions have nothing to do with campaigns"-Twaters1


 * Twaters1 has now deleted the discussion section a second time. You're welcome to share your personal opinion about conventions and candidates here, but it's a violation of the wiki rules to simply delete the discussion. Sue B 23:22, 3 August 2008


 * What the French, Sue. This clown obviously thinks he owns the place. I'm curious why the entire article is copy of Carl Bunce's campaign web site. Is that what the wiki is for? Jenny A 23:42, 3 August 2008


 * What does the NV state convention have to do with Carl Bunce's Congressional campaign? I keep seeing that he co-chaired this rogue event?  Which is totally false.  The Nevada state convention was a total waste of Nevada Republicans time.  The State Party felt the need to silence the entire delegation and pick their own national delegates.  The list of "appointed" not elected mind you, still have not been released to the Republican of the state of Nevada.  This has many flavors of fascism in it to me.  I contacted Carl Bunce about the attempts at lies on this site. He told me not to waste my time on it. My fault for posting the website information, but I thought this site was for his positions on real issues. Not caddy arguments between party members. So have fun creating myths and rumors ladies. --Twaters1


 * Thanks for letting us know about your affiliation with the candidate and the bias motivating your edits. The linked articles clearly show how he was involved, and how he was a party to the lawsuit. Sue B 00:35, 4 August 2008


 * I had no bias but to remove lies. He was an elected delegate at the April 26th and the June 28th. He was added to that lawsuit because of his wish to retain his delegate status, which has been denied as we all know here in Nevada. The will of the Republican delegates has been ignored. Carl's status at the conventions and in the lawsuit was purely as a delegate, nothing more.  --Twaters1 20:45, 3 August 2008 (EDT)  Neat time stamp!

What is the deal with saying he is doing this for money?
Is that not a total fabrication? How do have any information to source that. He has spent a great amount of personal funds to take part in the process in Nevada and has been shut down at every step. I can not see what financial interest there is unless you believe Congressmen live off the donations that donors give them?--Twaters1 21:30, 3 August 2008 (EDT)

Sue and Jenny ?
Why are you only interested in editing Carl Bunce's and Chris Dyer's pages. What experts are you in their lives and congressional campaigns? Everything you contribute is laced with smears.--Twaters1

Nevada Republican Convention
Thanks for your help, Mr. Kenny. The statement "when the State Party illegally called a recess because they did not want any Ron Paul supporters moving on the the RNC in St. Paul" is not a statement of fact. May I suggest simply saying "when the convention was recessed," instead? At the scheduled end of the convention, Chairman Bob Beers called a "recess subject to the call of the chair." That's neither illegal or uncommon. A floor vote during the convention changed in the delegate selection process. After 200 delegates were nominated from the floor, there were neither enough ballots to conduct a floor vote, nor enough time to count the ballots. Contrary to what some may believe, it was not because the Party didn't want Paul delegates going to St. Paul. In fact, Presidential preference wasn't a consideration for the Nominating Committee prior to the convention, and it wasn't a factor in selecting the delegates after the Party failed to gather a quorum to reconvene. --Jenny A 22:20, 3 August 2008 (EDT)


 * Everyone knows what went down on April 26th.. http://www.dailypaul.com/node/47172 --Tammy W 22:34, 3 August 2008 (EDT)


 * Party line schmarty line. DailyPaul.com is not a reliable, objective news source. However, I'm fairly confident in the reporting of the Las Vegas Review-Journal, the Reno Gazette-Journal, and the local NBC affiliate in Reno, Nevada. If you can find any reliable, objective news sources which state the convention was "illegally recessed" because the Nevada GOP didn't want to send Ron Paul supporters to St. Paul, I'd be happy to take a look. Otherwise, in 24 hours that biased statement will be edited, or another complaint to the managing editors will be filed. Jenny A 22:34, 3 August 2008 (EDT)


 * This is a first hand account of actions of Party Leaders on April 26th. That is news! Just not what you consider news I am sure. Just because media does not want to pick up on it, does not mean it is incorrect. Why are we giving main stream media any credit in what they report?--Tammy W 23:40, 3 August 2008 (EDT) I forgot that article was also used as a sworn affidavit in the GOP Delegate Court case.  So it is news! --Tammy W 23:44, 3 August 2008 (EDT)


 * It's a blog post on a political propaganda site. Might I also respectfully point out, the author is R. Bunce. Presumably, that's Carl Bunce's brother, Richard. You know, the same guy that originally invited him to his first Ron Paul rally in 2007. Not exactly objective reporting, however, if you'd like to include it as an external source, I really think that's an awesome idea. The case was dismissed so the statements in R. Bunce's affadavit were never challenged. All fun and games aside, could you please find ANY reliable, objective news sources that say "illegally recessed to prevent any Ron Paul delegates from going to St. Paul?" I've offered three other sources that tell the story completely different. Jenny A 00:07, 4 August 2008 (EDT)


 * The current sentence regarding the legality of the recess and the reasons for it is not a neutral statement, and it is not supported by any objective external source. It should be rephrased. Sue B 10:29, 4 August 2008 (EDT)


 * So you believe, Carl Bunce is not being honest about events he and many others experienced first hand? When does something become fact? Does it have to be printed in a mass media news source? Which I guess makes it unbiased somehow. FOX NEWS? MSNBC? Yeah those have no bias. I have lived a long time and I know when I am being fed BS. I am probably worried to much about your meddling in this page, but I believe in truth and can not allow party insiders to spin their deeds to their own benefit.--Tammy W 14:26, 4 August 2008 (EDT)


 * I edited the Article to not reflect the term "illegal" since apparently no one is being punished for the action.--Tammy W 17:47, 4 August 2008 (EDT)


 * Please take a moment to review the Ground Rules, Tammy. The proper procedure is to submit your proposed changes here, then, if there's no objection after 24 hours you may make your edits. The current description you have of the controversy Mr. Bunce helped to create at the Nevada Republican Convention is unacceptable. Sue B 19:20, 4 August 2008 (EDT)


 * My apologies, I am learning the ropes on this site. --Tammy W 23:23, 4 August 2008 (EDT)


 * While we're on the subject of the Nevada Republican Convention, I'd like to expand on the election tampering. Considering Mr. Bunce's position on "cleaning up corruption," it seems particularly a propos to give more attention to the issues with voting irregularities that caused a delay in counting the votes. Jenny A 17:07, 11 August 2008 (EDT)


 * Voting irregularities is complete BS! What were they? That people actually got to vote for delegates? How about the Party not even having any type of ballots available, do you want to talk about that? They never had any intentions on allowing the people to have a voice! Keep up the smear. Like I said laughable. --Tammy W 17:37, 11 August 2008 (EDT)


 * "Delegate elections were marred by irregularities, including convention-goers voting in the wrong congressional district or in more than one election..." Molly Ball, Las Vegas Review-Journal


 * Tammy, if you continue with the personal attacks, that might be considered a violation of the Ground Rules. Jenny A 14:17, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

Unlawful Rump Convention
"NRS 293.163 Selection of delegates and alternates to national party convention and members of national committee by state convention in presidential election year. 1. In presidential election years, on the call of a national party convention, but one set of party conventions and but one state convention shall be held on such respective dates and at such places as the state central committee of the party shall designate."

The June 28 Rump Convention in Reno was called in violation of state law. Mr. Bunce is not a member of the state central committee. Dr. Wayne Terhune, Mike Weber, and James Smack, the other oranizers of the event, aren't either.

I'd like to include a reference from a Las Vegas Review-Journal article and a link to Mr. Bunce's comment at politickernv.com regarding the unlawful rump convention to make it clear that he was more than just an attendee. He was one of the delegates assigned at that convention, and he has an open animosity toward Nevada Republicans. Sue B 10:38, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

Lawsuit Against the Nevada Republican Party
Carl Bunce was one of the two-dozen or so delegates that were party to the lawsuit against the Nevada Republican Party filed July 18, 2008. It would make sense to include some external sources, particularly where Carl Bunce has commented, to help understand the motives and reasoning behind the lawsuit. Sue B 13:07, 4 August 2008 (EDT)
 * Paultards Go To Court Chuck Muth - Muth's Truths
 * Paul-ing Out Molly Ball, Las Vegas Review-Journal


 * Reasoning behind delegate lawsuit. From my take a as life long Republican and of course as an American, the Nevada delegates who had their voice shut out by the State Republican Party wanted to ensure that national delegates were just not appointed by the Executive Committee but by the Republicans of Nevada. Carl Bunce as others in that lawsuit were elected in the Congressional Districts to be national delegates at the "Official" July 26th event and also at the "Rump" June 28th convention. So these individuals felt that people of Nevada had selected them as delegates to represent Nevada at the RNC.  I think you can agree that the State Party has shown no interest in honoring the elections from the April 26th event and the will of the people since they appointed the delegates on July 25th. Which I still have no idea who is representing my state to the RNC.


 * How you can see nothing wrong with this situation? It only tells me you are either part of the party apparatus here in Nevada or at national level trying to cover their deeds, and trying to make someone who wants to represent the people of Nevada look bad for going against the party leadership. Why is it wrong to question authority especially when the authority is overstepping its bounds. A person who speaks up against wrongs, is who any American should want to represent them at the federal level.  So your sourcing of this convention in relation to his campaign for Congress will most likely garner votes for Carl Bunce and backfire on you. --Tammy W 14:13, 4 August 2008 (EDT)


 * That's all very well and good. It's also your personal opinion and interpretation. This isn't about seeing nothing wrong with this situation, Tammy. It's about providing full, complete, and objective information about the candidate and the controversy he participated in. I assume from your statement that "sourcing of this convention (and lawsuit) in relation to his campaign for Congress will most likely garner votes" you have no problem with including that information in the candidate's bio. I'll go ahead and work out a paragraph or two that more completely, and accurately describes the events and post it here in the discussion. Sue B 14:55, 4 August 2008 (EDT)


 * So your saying you are a Republican party insider?--Tammy W 15:14, 4 August 2008 (EDT)


 * My party affiliation is really irrelevant, Tammy. The object of the wiki is to provide full, complete and objective information about the candidate. That would include the controversy in which he was not only a knowing and willing participant, but obviously an organizer. Since Mr. Bunce stated in a interview that the entire reason he's running is because of the controversy surrounding the Nevada Republican Convention, it seems perfectly reasonable to include that information here.


 * The dailypaul.com narrative written by Richard Bunce has been refuted by a number of other attendees at the convention. It would only seem fair and reasonable to include those sources as well.


 * Finally, Mr. Bunce has made a number of rather public comments to indicate he holds the Nevada Republican Party, and by extension the majority of Republican voters in Nevada, in very low esteem. In the interest of providing a full, complete, and objective profile of the candidate, those quotes, and the sources where they can be found should be part of his bio.


 * Of course, you're welcome to disagree. Your affiliation with the candidate, however, seems to be impairing your ability to be objective. Sue B 15:58, 4 August 2008 (EDT)


 * "majority of Republican voters in Nevada, in very low esteem." What?  How can you say that? I believe he and others are trying to clean house of the people in the State Party Leadership, which deserve to be held in low esteem, because they do not follow rules and go against a majority of Republican Voters at their conventions. Maybe 10% of our party members pay attention to matters that take place in the leadership of our party, the rest just follow the leaders if they are right or wrong.


 * As far a my affiliation with Carl Bunce, I have talked to him on the phone twice. Once to inquire about his stances on my pet issues and I thought I was chatting with Barry Goldwater himself and a second time to let him know that people were saying he was running for the "money" and "jumping on the Ron Paul bandwagon." I should have listened to his advice and ignored it, but I am an old bat that believes in the truth still. --Tammy W 17:28, 4 August 2008 (EDT)


 * I provided links to Mr. Bunce's own comments which support that statement, Tammy, although I must apologize. Looks like I missed this one:


 * "EW, Gabe, and any other GOP member, you better get used to following the rules to the letter! There is a new brand of Republican in this state, and these Republicans want to follow the rules that are in place and make others follow them as well.


 * "The corruption, that I personally saw at the State Convention makes me sick. That is corruption at the highest levels and it is going to be gone sooner then most think. I am also sick of all you people that act like you are so 'active'. Active people now the rules and are happy to follow them or find another place to play! If everyone is so active why is the REP Voter Registration 80,000+ behind DEM’s in Clark County? You all must be doing something right?


 * "The true conservatives are back in charge of NV GOP and we are here to stay for a long time to come. The message of true Republicans will make our party grow so we can fight off the growth of the DEM’s and their socialist agendas that will destroy this country and this state.


 * "A warning to all current GOP members in NV. If you are involved in any fraud and/or corruption at any level. Quit now! Principles and Truth are going to be the new brand of the NV GOP! A note for Sue Lowden, hiding information from party members is corruption!" -- Carl Bunce May 17, 2008


 * Very Barry Goldwateresque, wouldn't you agree? After a short time researching this candidate, Tammy, I've found a number of sources who feel:


 * 1) That Mr. Bunce and the Paul supporters tried change the rules like they did in the county conventions, take over the Nevada State Republican Convention, and disenfranchise the 86% of Republican voters who did not choose Ron Paul;


 * 2) Mr. Bunce and the Paul Campaign are the problem, not the Party leadership;


 * 3) Having never even bothered to register to vote for his entire adult life, Mr. Bunce is poorly suited to "save" the Nevada Republican Party; and


 * 4) If any housecleaning is in order, a number of Nevada Republicans feel it's Mr. Bunce and his associates are the people who should go.


 * There are more sources I could reference, if you'd like to continue. Sue B 20:46, 4 August 2008 (EDT)


 * Yes those quotes all sound like him. Clean up the corruption! But the references you listed are opinion pieces by Mr. Muth and clones of him, they are a bit nonfactual in comparison to first hand accounts of the events in question. I guess it just comes down you if you believe Carl Bunce and others or a version presented by the State Party officers and opinion pieces.  So this is a endless and pointless battle. It boils down to who is in support of the people's voice and I assume that is what elections are for.


 * As for your removal of the facts of the unannounced recess, you can call it whatever you want but there was no prior knowledge before the recess was called. The entire delegation was surprised by ending of the event. If it was known to the delegation, why were they angered by it? --Tammy W 22:37, 4 August 2008 (EDT)


 * Tammy, the position statement the candidate posted on Sue Lowden's blog which Sue posted above should be on the candidate's bio page.


 * I agree with you on one point, it is a pointless battle. The Carl asked you to drop it, and it's now obvious why. If it did boil down to anyone, it would be who speaks for the 86% of Nevada Republicans who voted for "Anyone But Ron Paul." Judging from that quote, it ain't Carl Bunce. Nice catch, Sue.


 * As for the removal of your slanted, unsupported misrepresentation about the Nevada Republican convention, Tammy, I suggest we use something along these lines, "The state party broke up its original convention in April when supporters of Ron Paul hijacked the proceedings and tried to elect delegates for their candidate to the national GOP convention in September." Seems more neutral, factual, and to the point. Jenny A 23:27, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

Blog Comments
Sue B, I altered your creative paraphrasing with the quote. You intend on trying to imply that That Carl told all GOP members to quit. When it is clearly obvious that his intent is to warn corrupt individuals within the Party to quit their corrupt practices. Your non-stop attempts at smear and bias are laughable.--Tammy W 14:35, 11 August 2008 (EDT)


 * It would be paraphrasing if I changed the words... But I didn't change the words. That's exactly what Mr. Bunce wrote.


 * While you might say his intent was to warn "corrupt individuals," it's fairly obvious, Mr. Bunce was referring to anyone who didn't agree with his point of view as being corrupt. He even went on to include a "note to Sue Lowden," stating withholding the list of delegates was corruption. In the interest of explaining the candidate's intent, should we mention that it was not, in fact, corruption to withhold the list from him? He had no right or interest in the list of delegates.


 * Thanks for the edit all the same. I went ahead and closed the quotes. Sorry if I missed that before. Jenny A 17:07, 11 August 2008 (EDT)


 * Interesting Jenny A that you are logged into your other account talking about edits you made as Sue B. Now that is shady! Hard to keep all your characters straight. It does not matter how many people you act like. Your lies shine brightly! --Tammy W 17:42, 11 August 2008 (EDT)


 * With all due respect, dear. I was the last person to edit the page before you came in and added your spin, and I was the person who came in and closed the quotes when you were done. Like I said, I didn't change the words, that's exactly what he said. Jenny A 23:25, 11 August 2008 (EDT)



"Spin", placing an entire quote is spin? Sue B is the one who added the quote with the creative "..." to leave out stuff like he was telling all Republicans to just Quit Now! Leaving out the meat of the quote about "corruption." Well you dirty work is done. Tomorrow is the day. You can continue on to your next target Dina Titus!, but you may have some cleaning up to do.--Tammy W 23:58, 11 August 2008 (EDT)

Ron Paul Endorsement
Carl Bunce sent out an email to 30,000 people on a Ron Paul mailing list, presumably a list he "appropriated" while working as a computer consultant for the Paul campaign. I'd like to mention the misleading "Ron Paul Endorsement" Mr. Bunce sent out, as well as his explanation. Any objections? Jenny A 17:07, 11 August 2008 (EDT)