# Lifestyles & Discussion > Open Discussion >  Do you want Jesse Benton involved in any capacity in Rand Paul 2016?

## Rocco

I have seen some talk on this recently, so I wanted to take the pulse of the Rand subforum. Do we want Jesse involved, even if in a smaller capacity than campaign chairman?

----------


## radiofriendly

Don't you suppose that if they hire him, despite all the hand wringing here, there must be some reason? Maybe every political campaign needs a 'bad guy' to take all the heat. And if Jesse keeps Kokesh away, maybe it's for the best?

----------


## thoughtomator

Does "walking talking example of what NOT to do" count as a role?

----------


## fr33

No he's a bumbling fool.

If I wanted to save money on donating to political campaigns, I'd vote yes because a campaign with Benton involved won't get anything from me.

----------


## fr33

> Don't you suppose that if they hire him, despite all the hand wringing here, there must be some reason? Maybe every political campaign needs a 'bad guy' to take all the heat. And if Jesse keeps Kokesh away, maybe it's for the best?


We only "need a bad guy to take all the heat" if the campaign doesn't think it can win. See Ron Paul 2008 & 2012. A successful campaign doesn't thrive upon conspiracy theories within itself.

----------


## jtstellar

> Don't you suppose that if they hire him, despite all the hand wringing here, there must be some reason? Maybe every political campaign needs a 'bad guy' to take all the heat. And if Jesse keeps Kokesh away, maybe it's for the best?


i was about to say "not really, but if they do hire him i'm sure there's a good reason/agenda"  so i guess you said it first

----------


## fr33

Considering Rand's strategy so far, I hope for a campaign in which most people don't know who the campaign manager is and one which the campaign manager doesn't do interviews. Seems to be a winning strategy.

----------


## anaconda

Wasn't Jesse Benton the campaign manager for Rand Paul's 2010 Senate campaign? 23.4% margin primary win and 11.4% margin general election win. Maybe this is relevant.

----------


## eric4186

where's the option for 'hell no'?

----------


## CPUd

He is probably going to be involved in some way.  But what will really start the QQ around here is when he makes Trygve Olson a senior advisor.

----------


## Matt Collins

Why does this matter? No one here has any input on this subject.


And yall should be grateful for Jesse because he was the driving force to get Ron to run in 2012. I doubt he would've if Jesse hadn't had pushed him to.

----------


## RonPaulFanInGA

Public poll?  Lame.

----------


## specsaregood

There is no way he isn't going to be involved in some role.  But I think Rand is aware enough to not put him in a position to unnecessarily piss off the grassroots.  He is gonna have a tough enough time with those cats.

----------


## RonPaulFanInGA

> Wasn't Jesse Benton the campaign manager for Rand Paul's 2010 Senate campaign? 23.4% margin primary win and 11.4% margin general election win. Maybe this is relevant.


David Adams was the Campaign Manager for the primary.  Benton came on in May 2010 after the Maddow media feeding frenzy.  What role exactly he had, it's hard to know.  His title was that of Campaign Manager, but Politico had a story at the time saying the NRSC took over running the campaign because they didn't want anymore amateur mistakes.

----------


## Peace&Freedom

> Why does this matter? No one here has any input on this subject.
> 
> 
> And yall should be grateful for Jesse because he was the driving force to get Ron to run in 2012. I doubt he would've if Jesse hadn't had pushed him to.


Jessie pushed for Ron to create another cash flow machine for the Paul Inc team in running in 2012, or to at best run to further build the liberty movement, instead of pushing him to run to WIN. It matters because twice bitten, a lot of grassroots people have already sworn they WILL NOT WORK for the kind of run-to-lose campaign Benton signifies, that's just a fact. They may not have a say in the matter, but they don't have to knowingly involve themselves in a campaign that is, yet again, monkey-wrenched to fail from the start.

----------


## RonPaulFanInGA

If McConnell somehow loses, and it's extremely rare for a Senate party leader to lose reelection, doesn't that say something about Benton?

----------


## phill4paul

No. The Sorenson scandal should be enough to give pause.........




> Fusaro: *I understand that Ron Paul came out and said that nobody gave you… The lying that’s going on is just incredible.  It’s one thing to be smart politically and tough, but now you have Ron Paul out there lying*.
> 
> Sorenson: *You think he knows?*
> 
> Fusaro: *No, actually, I think he doesn’t.*
> 
> Sorenson: *You think they purposefully kept it from him?*
> 
> Fusaro: *Oh sure, it’s like Rothfeld said, they have to run their campaign.  He has to run his.*
> ...


http://theiowarepublican.com/2013/in...l-endorsement/

----------


## fisharmor

The thing Jesse Benton signifies more than anything, I think, is that being related to Ron Paul doesn't make you philosophically compatible with Ron Paul.

When I think back on it, it has always been Ron saying that he and Rand are practically political twins, and it was always Rand saying that they differ.

So I can totally see Rand using Benton, to build bridges with the rest of the R team.  As if to say "See, I'm so not like my dad that I hired this guy who worked for McConnell, of all people".

Politically, it would be a wise move.
Yes, it will also piss off the grassroots.  But as we've been told ad nauseum, we're a lot less important than the god-and-country Republican base.
And it will give us further doubts about the whole sleeper agent theory.

----------


## RonPaulFanInGA

> The thing Jesse Benton signifies more than anything, I think, is that being related to Ron Paul doesn't make you philosophically compatible with Ron Paul.
> 
> When I think back on it, it has always been Ron saying that he and Rand are practically political twins, and it was always Rand saying that they differ.
> 
> So I can totally see Rand using Benton, to build bridges with the rest of the R team.  As if to say "See, I'm so not like my dad that I hired this guy who worked for McConnell, of all people".
> 
> Politically, it would be a wise move.
> Yes, it will also piss off the grassroots.  But as we've been told ad nauseum, we're a lot less important than the god-and-country Republican base.
> And it will give us further doubts about the whole sleeper agent theory.


Let me see if I got this:

Hiring Benton, who worked for Ron Paul's presidential campaigns in 2008 and 2012, would further show that Rand Paul is not enough like his father for your satisfaction?

----------


## mosquitobite

> No. The Sorenson scandal should be enough to give pause.........
> 
> 
> 
> http://theiowarepublican.com/2013/in...l-endorsement/


This.

We don't need that kind of scandal attached to Rand.  _PUHLEEEZE!!!_

----------


## Vanguard101

Why do you guys want this man to be his father? Why can't he be his own person? Oh my goodness...

----------


## fisharmor

> Let me see if I got this:
> 
> Hiring Benton, who worked for Ron Paul's presidential campaigns in 2008 and 2012, would further show that Rand Paul is not enough like his father for your satisfaction?


Where does my satisfaction enter into what I wrote?
If he hired Lew Rockwell as his campaign manager, the grassroots would be happy, and the media would have a field day pointing out that he has an anarchist moonbat working for him.

If he hires Benton, then he plays the politics game again.  He gets to say he hired McConnell's former manager, which ingratiates him with the party.
And if anyone brings up that he managed Ron's campaigns, they get to write it off by saying that he's his grandson-in-law and that he just got his career start with those campaigns.

I admitted it's the wise political move, and I admitted that people who care about consistency aren't important if you're trying to win an election.
Now it would be nice if you also made a concession - namely that this is pretty much the only thing on anyone's radar WRT Rand.

----------


## Deborah K

Benton is unscrupulous.  I know this from personal experience.

----------


## Rocco

As one of only two people who voted for "I want Benton managing the campaign", yes it matters. It's one thing to have the kooky anti Rand fringe be anti Benton, but for 70%+ of RPF to be anti Benton tells me that at the VERY least we probably need a different public face. I wouldn't mind seeing Rand bring some new talent into the organization.




> Why does this matter? No one here has any input on this subject.
> 
> 
> And yall should be grateful for Jesse because he was the driving force to get Ron to run in 2012. I doubt he would've if Jesse hadn't had pushed him to.

----------


## JK/SEA

> Why does this matter? No one here has any input on this subject.


ummm...donations are 'input', but perhaps money isn't an issue in a campaign?

----------


## Original_Intent

You did not include the option that I wanted, "Yes, running one of the other candidates campaigns." :P

----------


## Matt Collins

> ummm...donations are 'input', but perhaps money isn't an issue in a campaign?


Just because one donates to a campaign or an organization does not give one influence in operations, messaging, or policy.

----------


## Matt Collins

> Jessie pushed for Ron to create another cash flow machine for the Paul Inc team in running in 2012, or to at best run to further build the liberty movement, instead of pushing him to run to WIN. It matters because twice bitten, a lot of grassroots people have already sworn they WILL NOT WORK for the kind of run-to-lose campaign Benton signifies, that's just a fact. They may not have a say in the matter, but they don't have to knowingly involve themselves in a campaign that is, yet again, monkey-wrenched to fail from the start.


Uh, actually did it ever cross your mind that maybe Ron's goal wasn't to become President?

----------


## Deborah K

> Just because one donates to a campaign or an organization does not give one influence in operations, messaging, or policy.


Wanna bet?  If whomever IS in charge of operations, etc. is making decisions that go against those who are donating, the ramifications include serious backlash and funds drying up.  Don't kid yourself.





> Uh, actually did it ever cross your mind that maybe Ron's goal wasn't to become President?


Is this your opinion?  Or do you have evidence to back this up?  This outrageous statement implies that everyone who sent money in on Nov 5 to the tune of 6 million dollars believing it was to get him elected were duped by Ron!   You had better be careful there, buddy.

----------


## mit26chell

I won't donate one f*cking dime if he has any ties to the campaign whatsoever. I don't trust that snake.

----------


## specsaregood

> I won't donate one f*cking dime if he has any ties to the campaign whatsoever. I don't trust that snake.


Well good luck with your other endeavors.   There is no way he wont have any ties whatsoever.

----------


## Original_Intent

> Just because one donates to a campaign or an organization does not give one influence in operations, messaging, or policy.


Are you being stupid or just ignoring the obvious? Don't put the cart in front of the horse. Maybe it does not "give one influence in operations" etc. but operations, messaging and policy DO influence contributions. DUH. So perhaps "input" should be replaced with "feedback". The point being, and I really can't see how you can miss it, is if they put Benton on the campaign, a possible method of expressing disapproval of that choice will be not to donate.

----------


## JK/SEA

> Are you being stupid or just ignoring the obvious? Don't put the cart in front of the horse. Maybe it does not "give one influence in operations" etc. but operations, messaging and policy DO influence contributions. DUH. So perhaps "input" should be replaced with "feedback". The point being, and I really can't see how you can miss it, is if they put Benton on the campaign, a possible method of expressing disapproval of that choice will be not to donate.


this.

if i'm going to support a campaign that uses a person in question to lead that campaign, i may as well send my money to the DNC.

----------


## ctiger2

> And yall should be grateful for Jesse because he was the driving force to get Ron to run in 2012. I doubt he would've if Jesse hadn't had pushed him to.


Of course Benton was the driving factor, he saw the potential for personally profiting/job security/more exposure for himself. It wasn't like Benton wanted Ron to run because he wanted the message of liberty to spread more OR even for Ron to win. Look at Benton now, he's fully ingrained in establishment politics.

Why do you think people from CA contacted Ron about starting his own channel? To promote liberty? Hell no, they saw the money as well. The spread of liberty is a by product for them. The main goal is profiting. However, I do think *Ron's main goal is spreading liberty*. Others are using him as a vehicle for profits.

If Benton was involved I definitely wouldn't donate. But, in reality I won't donate anyhow.

----------


## FSP-Rebel

> Of course Benton was the driving factor, he saw the potential for personally profiting/job security/more exposure for himself. It wasn't like Benton wanted Ron to run because he wanted the message of liberty to spread more OR even for Ron to win. Look at Benton now, he's fully ingrained in establishment politics.
> 
> Why do you think people from CA contacted Ron about starting his own channel? To promote liberty? Hell no, they saw the money as well. The spread of liberty is a by product for them. The main goal is profiting. However, I do think *Ron's main goal is spreading liberty*. Others are using him as a vehicle for profits.
> 
> If Benton was involved I definitely wouldn't donate. But, in reality I won't donate anyhow.


I agree with your aforementioned points but since you're a doctrinaire anarchist and no longer in the donor class, it's kind of pointless for posting the latter or even chiming in here, frankly. I Stand with Rand.

----------


## whoisjohngalt

> Just because one donates to a campaign or an organization does not give one influence in operations, messaging, or policy.


You aren't getting it, Matt.  

If Benton is not the campaign manager, I will be maxing out my donations to Rand.  If Benton is the campaign manager or involved in any other important capacity, he will not get a dime of my money.

That's $5200 they won't be getting.  I bet you there are more like me considering the poll results.

----------


## puppetmaster

i am certain there are many better choices for Rand

----------


## Matt Collins

> Wanna bet?  If whomever IS in charge of operations, etc. is making decisions that go against those who are donating, the ramifications include serious backlash and funds drying up.  Don't kid yourself.


"Original Intent" just explained this up above this post







> Is this your opinion?  Or do you have evidence to back this up?  This outrageous statement implies that everyone who sent money in on Nov 5 to the tune of 6 million dollars believing it was to get him elected were duped by Ron!   You had better be careful there, buddy.


Ron was running to win, but winning can mean more than just getting elected...


In fact I would say Ron was the only Republican winner in 08 and 12...

Reasons to run a campaign:
- to build an organization
- to raise an issue
- to spoil for / against a candidate
- to get other politicians on the record
- to build name recognition
- to prepare for a future run


So, if you look at that list you are forced to conclude that Ron Paul won, even though he didn't get elected. Getting elected into office isn't everything.

----------


## Matt Collins

> Of course Benton was the driving factor, he saw the potential for personally profiting/job security/more exposure for himself. It wasn't like Benton wanted Ron to run because he wanted the message of liberty to spread more OR even for Ron to win.


Really? How do you know that?

----------


## Matt Collins

> If Benton is not the campaign manager, I will be maxing out my donations to Rand.  If Benton is the campaign manager or involved in any other important capacity, he will not get a dime of my money.
> 
> That's $5200 they won't be getting.  I bet you there are more like me considering the poll results.


There aren't that many people with this mindset to make a difference. Not sure what you'll be doing in 2016, but I'll be doing everything I can to bring about liberty on a national level.

----------


## puppetmaster

I really can't see any benefits hiring him

----------


## whoisjohngalt

> There aren't that many people with this mindset to make a difference. Not sure what you'll be doing in 2016, but I'll be doing everything I can to bring about liberty on a national level.


Yeah and all your efforts won't be $#@! compared to my money.  But that's ok.  I'm happy you do what you can.  

I've been around Benton enough in person to form my own opinions.  Thanks for your input.  We will see if Rand will take the chance that there aren't many others like me.

----------


## Deborah K

> "Original Intent" just explained this up above this post


His post backs up my post.   Nice try.




> Ron was running to win, but winning can mean more than just getting elected...
> 
> 
> In fact I would say Ron was the only Republican winner in 08 and 12...
> 
> Reasons to run a campaign:
> - to build an organization
> - to raise an issue
> - to spoil for / against a candidate
> ...


This is a back-peddle if ever I saw one.

----------


## phill4paul

> Just because one donates to a campaign or an organization does not give one influence in operations, messaging, or policy.


  For someone that claims to be an expert on politics and political campaigns that is absolutely the most naive claim I have ever heard.

----------


## phill4paul

Did anyone ever add up the total contributions posted in our money bomb threads? I'd be interested in knowing the numbers.

----------


## puppetmaster

Hiring family really make no sense IMHO. I think it just gives the other side ammo, trivial ammo, but still keeps things that matter away from forefront. 
There will be many very qualified people beating down doors to be involved in Rand Paul's campaign.

----------


## Matt Collins

> This is a back-peddle if ever I saw one.


Not at all. It's an understanding of the motivations of candidates... which isn't always to get elected.

----------


## Maltheus

I've donated thousands to Ron and was one of the senior grassroots organizers in my libertarianish (swing) state. I'm one of the few who've remained a precinct leader (recently getting re-elected) to put me in a better place to support his campaign. Former Paulers approach me all the time to ask my opinion on Rand. If he goes with Benton, then my opinion will be "remember what they (Benton and his crew) did to us in '12, do you really want to go through that again?" He won't get a dime from me (I've padded Jesse's pockets enough). I won't help to organize anything. The other organizers barely have their hearts in this and likely won't bother either (because I know they feel the same way after what he and his crew did to our county, and we've barely been holding the group together as is). And I give my committee position away to someone who likely isn't a Pauler (because we don't have enough willing to do it anymore) and I won't bother with my caucus. In short, he'll likely lose a close state, that he may have had a shot at otherwise, and for what? Nepotism? Especially with that Iowa scandal going on? I'd lose faith in Rand, if he were that short sighted. I truly believe it'll be the defining moment of his campaign. This is the time to raise a fuss, because it'll be too late once he makes his pick.

----------


## whoisjohngalt

> Not at all. It's an understanding of the motivations of candidates... which isn't always to get elected.


Fwiw, I heard Ron Paul Jr. speak in Houston last night and he repeatedly stated that Ron did not want to win.  So Matt is right about this if you believe Ronnie Paul at all. There are plenty of other reasons to hate Jesse Benton though.

----------


## whoisjohngalt

> I've donated thousands to Ron and was one of the senior grassroots organizers in my libertarianish (swing) state. I'm one of the few who've remained a precinct leader (recently getting re-elected) to put me in a better place to support his campaign. Former Paulers approach me all the time to ask my opinion on Rand. If he goes with Benton, then my opinion will be "remember what they (Benton and his crew) did to us in '12, do you really want to go through that again?" He won't get a dime from me (I've padded Jesse's pockets enough). I won't help to organize anything. The other organizers barely have their hearts in this and likely won't bother either (because I know they feel the same way after what he and his crew did to our county, and we've barely been holding the group together as is). And I give my committee position away to someone who likely isn't a Pauler (because we don't have enough willing to do it anymore) and I won't bother with my caucus. In short, he'll likely lose a close state, that he may have had a shot at otherwise, and for what? Nepotism? Especially with that Iowa scandal going on? I'd lose faith in Rand, if he were that short sighted. I truly believe it'll be the defining moment of his campaign. This is the time to raise a fuss, because it'll be too late once he makes his pick.


But Matt says that there aren't very many of us out there.  So it's OK.

----------


## Matt Collins

> If he goes with Benton, then my opinion will be "remember what they (Benton and his crew) did to us in '12, do you really want to go through that again?"


And what exactly was that? 





> He won't get a dime from me (I've padded Jesse's pockets enough). I won't help to organize anything.


Nice to see that people are putting the end goal second to petty personality disputes

----------


## Deborah K

> Not at all. It's an understanding of the motivations of candidates... which isn't always to get elected.


It's a back-peddle Matt.  Your intellectual dishonesty is rearing its ugly head again.




> Uh, actually did it ever cross your mind that maybe Ron's goal wasn't to become President?





> Is this your opinion?  Or do you have evidence to back this up?  This outrageous statement implies that everyone who sent money in on Nov 5 to the tune of 6 million dollars believing it was to get him elected were duped by Ron!   You had better be careful there, buddy.





> Ron was running to win, but winning can mean more than just getting elected...


Open. And. Shut.

----------


## Deborah K

> And what exactly was that? 
> 
> 
> Nice to see that people are putting the end goal second to petty personality disputes


Really Matt????  Talk about petty.

----------


## JK/SEA

my PCO position will be coming up for re-election. I'm the current PCO.

 I am now, and have been thinking about running again to be in place for Rand if necessarry.....

i may just retire from politics, and watch the cluster $#@! from a distance this time...

nice thread. Thanks for your thoughts Matt....gives me a warm fuzzy feeling.

----------


## specsaregood

> Really Matt????  Talk about petty.


I have a hunch that if somebody created a similar poll but replaced the name Jesse Benton with Matt Collins, the results would be eerily similar.

----------


## phill4paul

> I have a hunch that if somebody created a similar poll but replaced the name Jesse Benton with Matt Collins, the results would be eerily similar.


 LMAO. If I could I would buy you a beer for the effort, but I can't, so you would just have to settle for a +rep.

----------


## compromise

Mr. Benton is well qualified - he appears to have the necessary experience. I trust Rand to make the right decision here regardless of what he does (and I hope others do as well, not only regarding this but on other issues too), but I imagine he will have Benton as campaign manager.

----------


## Deborah K

> Not at all. It's an understanding of the motivations of candidates... which isn't always to get elected.


And btw, this statement, in and of itself, is worthy of a thread all its own.  "Candidates with motivations other than getting elected".  Geee....who is going to donate to a campaign like that?  And if the candidate doesn't make that clear from the onset - he is not worthy of one single dime.

FFS, Matt.

----------


## Deborah K

> Mr. Benton is well qualified - he appears to have the necessary experience. I trust Rand to make the right decision here regardless of what he does (and I hope others do as well, not only regarding this but on other issues too), but I imagine he will have Benton as campaign manager.


I imagine he won't.  Benton is a pariah.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

I want Rand to hire the best campaign staff he can afford; whether than includes Benton I don't know. I certainly have nothing against Benton, and I've never understood why some people do. I suppose he's just a convenient scapegoat. A lot of people had unrealistic expectations in 2012, and when reality slapped them in the face, they needed someone to blame.

----------


## Matt Collins

> And btw, this statement, in and of itself, is worthy of a thread all its own.  "Candidates with motivations other than getting elected".  Geee....who is going to donate to a campaign like that?  And if the candidate doesn't make that clear from the onset - he is not worthy of one single dime.
> 
> FFS, Matt.


Are you so narrow minded that you cannot possibly understand that many candidates run for office for other reasons than actually getting elected to office?! Are you unable to comprehend the fact that there are benefits to running a campaign even if it doesn't result in an electoral victory?

----------


## Deborah K

> Are you so narrow minded that you cannot possibly understand that many candidates run for office for other reasons than actually getting elected to office?! Are you unable to comprehend the fact that there are benefits to running a campaign even if it doesn't result in an electoral victory?


Thanks for the neg rep Matt.  Start a thread on it, Mr. Know-it-All!  Enlighten me since you think I am so ignorant.

Anyone who runs a campaign with no intention of winning doesn't deserve to have that campaign funded.

----------


## Deborah K

> I want Rand to hire the best campaign staff he can afford; whether than includes Benton I don't know. I certainly have nothing against Benton, and I've never understood why some people do. I suppose he's just a convenient scapegoat. A lot of people had unrealistic expectations in 2012, and when reality slapped them in the face, they needed someone to blame.


Educate yourself on him.

----------


## whoisjohngalt

> Thanks for the neg rep Matt.  Start a thread on it, Mr. Know-it-All!  Enlighten me since you think I am so ignorant.
> 
> Anyone who runs a campaign with no intention of winning doesn't deserve to have that campaign funded.


Least of his sins.  He is an absolutely awful campaign manager though and that should disqualify him if the other stuff isn't enough.

I'm much more upset with how he is so aggressive in using a family member for financial gain at the expense of that family member.  The biggest thing is how apparent it was that he did not have Ron's best interests at heart.  

Add to that, that no one speaks well of him.  I've only heard people call him nasty name or say nothing, at all.  Haven't even heard Ron say nice things about him.  I've been around him three or four times and every time I get the same feeling as when I've been standing next to Rick Santorum.  Shudder.

Rand is very smart.  It would cost him about $5 million dollars in donations by my estimation.  Not to mention he might keep some votes, but would lose the willingness of many to help out the campaign.  I don't think this poll is going to help Mr. Benton's chance any.

----------


## Peace&Freedom

> Ron was running to win, but winning can mean more than just getting elected...
> 
> In fact I would say Ron was the only Republican winner in 08 and 12...
> 
> Reasons to run a campaign:
> - to build an organization
> - to raise an issue
> - to spoil for / against a candidate
> - to get other politicians on the record
> ...


I actually appreciate the concession that there are other metrics in campaign politics than straight out winning elections. The above breakdown is what 3rd party candidates and parties seek to achieve in the absence of winning office. BUT THIS IS DIFFERENT THAN CONVEYING TO SUPPORTERS YOU ARE MAINLY RUNNING TO WIN OFFICE, while actually running the operation to achieve the other metrics. Benton represents the latter, bait and switch problem.

----------


## boneyard bill

Benton ran Ron Paul's 2008 and 2012 campaigns, and they were quite efficient. Ron was the only candidate to get on the Virginia ballot except for Romney. Santorum couldn't even field a complete delegate slate in his home state of Pennsylvania. I think most Washington observers agree that the Paul campaign was every bit as efficient and well-organized as Romney's was. They just didn't have all that PAC money helping them out. I disagree with the delegate strategy that they tried in 2012. I would have preferred for them to put more resources into the initial caucuses and primaries, but Jesse wasn't necessarily the mastermind behind that strategy, and it probably did help to build the organization that is still out there ready to go to work for Rand. 

Of course, the Sorenson thing could change all of that. If it turns out that Benton was involved in illegal payments, of course, he couldn't be Rand's campaign manager or anyone else's.

----------


## Deborah K

> Are you so narrow minded that you cannot possibly understand that many candidates run for office for other reasons than actually getting elected to office?! Are you unable to comprehend the fact that there are benefits to running a campaign even if it doesn't result in an electoral victory?


I'm still waiting, Matt.  I'm not taunting you either.  I really do think you should explain yourself here.  You stepped into this $#@!, and now you've got it on your shoe with this comment:




> Uh, actually did it ever cross your mind that maybe Ron's goal wasn't to become President?


Now start a damned thread and explain why anyone should donate to a campaign where the goal of the candidate and the team isn't to win!!

----------


## twomp

Why does Matt Collins always talk to everyone like children. Insecurity issues?

----------


## MichaelDavis

> If McConnell somehow loses, and it's extremely rare for a Senate party leader to lose reelection, doesn't that say something about Benton?


It's not as unlikely as you might think. The Senator Leaders face a lot of the blame for Congress' problems. Dachle lost re-election and Reid almost lost re-election. McConnell is in a very tight race and Reid will be in 2016.

----------


## phill4paul

> I want Rand to hire the best campaign staff he can afford; whether than includes Benton I don't know. I certainly have nothing against Benton, and I've never understood why some people do. I suppose he's just a convenient scapegoat. A lot of people had unrealistic expectations in 2012, and when reality slapped them in the face, they needed someone to blame.


  If you don't have anything against him then you have not been here long enough or even bothered to find out why you should even have an _informed_ opinion regarding the situation. Suppose all you want from a March 2014 join date. The rest of us have been here through it.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> Educate yourself on him.


I've been a Paulite since 2007, so I was there when the Benton-hating began, and I've probably read all the same stuff you have: I still don't get it.

I've had countless conversations at the Daily Paul over Benton, and I've yet to find anyone who can explain how he's a "traitor" or whatever.

It's one thing to say that he made poor choices for the campaign, impugning his motives is quite another. 

And as for his competence: none of us had an inside view of the campaign, so how can we really judge the merit of his decisions? 

...anyway, try to educate me if you want. I'm all ears.

----------


## phill4paul

> I've been a Paulite since 2007, so I was there when the Benton-hating began, and I've probably read all the same stuff you have: I still don't get it.
> 
> I've had countless conversations at the Daily Paul over Benton, and I've yet to find anyone who can explain how he's a "traitor" or whatever.
> 
> It's one thing to say that he made poor choices for the campaign, impugning his motives is quite another. 
> 
> And as for his competence: none of us had an inside view of the campaign, so how can we really judge the merit of his decisions? 
> 
> ...anyway, try to educate me if you want. I'm all ears.


  Ahh, you're another Daily Pauler refugee. All I need to know. Have a good troll.

----------


## Matt Collins

> Anyone who runs a campaign with no intention of winning doesn't deserve to have that campaign funded.


You continue to fail to grasp the concept that "winning" an election does not always equate to electoral victory.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> Ahh, you're another Daily Pauler refugee.


Refugee? No, I'm still an active member at the DP. My handle is "NowOrNever." Look me up.




> All I need to know. Have a good troll.


Why am I trolling? Because you disagree with me about Benton?

----------


## eleganz

> Ahh, you're another Daily Pauler refugee. All I need to know. Have a good troll.


Where is that coming from? DP has never been my home but I don't classify that as some sort of troll hq.  I think revolution 3.0 made some level headed points.

----------


## Matt Collins

> Now start a damned thread and explain why anyone should donate to a campaign where the goal of the candidate and the team isn't to win!!


You fail to comprehend that winning an election doesn't always equate to electoral victory. The two are NOT one in the same.

----------


## Matt Collins

> Why does Matt Collins always talk to everyone like children.


Because lots of people around here act like them

----------


## JK/SEA

whats Lew Moore up to these days?......

----------


## Matt Collins

> BUT THIS IS DIFFERENT THAN CONVEYING TO SUPPORTERS YOU ARE MAINLY RUNNING TO WIN OFFICE, while actually running the operation to achieve the other metrics. Benton represents the latter, bait and switch problem.


Not really. If Ron had won the Iowa straw poll then it would've been a very different race from that point forward and he would've had a good chance at the nomination. However every competition after Iowa that he did not win made it less and less likely for him to secure the nomination.

----------


## Matt Collins

> I'm much more upset with how he is so aggressive in using a family member for financial gain at the expense of that family member.  The biggest thing is how apparent it was that he did not have Ron's best interests at heart.


You don't know what you are talking about.


You've stood next to him? You've been in the same room as him?   And somehow you know everything about him?

----------


## phill4paul

> Refugee? No, I'm still an active member at the DP. My handle is "NowOrNever." Look me up.
> 
> 
> 
> Why am I trolling? Because you disagree with me about Benton?


  What don't you get about post #17? Don't care to follow your handle because issues were much better discussed on _these_ forums. IMHO.

----------


## Deborah K

> ...... winning an election doesn't always equate to electoral victory. The two are NOT one in the same.


Well no $#@!, Matt.  Stop dodging and stick to the subject at hand, or avoid it altogether because you're just making yourself look foolish.

----------


## phill4paul

...

----------


## phill4paul

> What don't you get about post #17? Don't care to follow your handle because issues were much better discussed on _these_ forums. IMHO.


Edit: And look at the damned numbers man. 80% know him for what he is on these forums.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> What don't you get about post #17?


What it's supposed to prove about Benton




> Don't care  to follow your handle because issues were much better discussed on _these_ forums. IMHO.


I wasn't asking you to "follow" my handle at the DP. I thought by calling me a "refugee" you were suggesting that I had been banned (for being a troll?), so I was giving you the opportunity to verify that I had not in fact been banned.

----------


## Deborah K

> I've been a Paulite since 2007, so I was there when the Benton-hating began, and I've probably read all the same stuff you have: I still don't get it.
> 
> I've had countless conversations at the Daily Paul over Benton, and I've yet to find anyone who can explain how he's a "traitor" or whatever.
> 
> It's one thing to say that he made poor choices for the campaign, impugning his motives is quite another. 
> 
> And as for his competence: none of us had an inside view of the campaign, so how can we really judge the merit of his decisions? 
> 
> ...anyway, try to educate me if you want. I'm all ears.




I don't have time to rehash all the damage Benton has done to the movement.  I met him in '07 when I was organizing Revolution March.  I dealt with his bull$#@! when I was organizing P.A.U.L. Festival in '12.  I have enough personal knowledge to convince me of his disdain for the grassroots.  But there's a ton more $#@! on the guy - google it and see for yourself.

----------


## Maltheus

> And what exactly was that?


Our state coordinator sat in a room with over 60 loyal and longtime Ron Paulers, in the biggest Republican county in our state (never once made an appearance before this) and promised to support the slate we had come up with (through elections). When the convention had come around, he slandered us by telling the rest of the state (those who didn't attend our regular meetings) that we were secretly with the Romney campaign, trying to derail Ron Paul. He then split our vote, getting people to vote for the slate he came up with (Santorum people who ALL ended up voting for Romney). Then he lied to everyone about how many RP delegates he had (everyone on these forums believed our state was a potential if not probably win for months thereafter).

After that fallout, the Santorum guy who worked with our coordinator (to get himself elected chairman) bragged about what he had done and how he had personally worked with Benton to get the plan approved. And this jibes with what the coordinator told us. We dominated the state convention, only to end up with 0 national votes.

As for my other problems with Benton, I have friends who've worked with him personally and they all described him as an abusive know-it-all, who can't take good advice. Which also jibes with the accounts I read on line. And then there is his foot-in-mouth disease, like when he accidentally dropped RP out of the race in '08, and we had to convince all the delegates that it wasn't true.





> Nice to see that people are putting the end goal second to petty personality disputes


It's not a personality dispute. It's a recognition of a waste of time. I'm looking to change things in this country. Not help the Paul dynasty earn more income. I'd like to believe Rand is the real deal. Giving yet another welfare position to his relative would make me question that.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> I don't have time to rehash all the damage Benton has done to the movement.  I met him in '07 when I was organizing Revolution March.  I dealt with his bull$#@! when I was organizing P.A.U.L. Festival in '12.  I have enough personal knowledge to convince me of his disdain for the grassroots.  But there's a ton more $#@! on the guy - google it and see for yourself.


You dont have time to make an argument against Benton. That's fine.

But I certainly don't have the time to revisit all the anti-Benton screeds scattered across the internet to refute them.

So...the end, I guess.

----------


## CPUd

I remember at the RNC the delegates who walked out told him they were going to have a press conference and he told them if they did it, don't sound like a bunch of crybabies.

It doesn't really matter to me who runs his hypothetical campaign; I'd hope that some of his current advisors are involved, because they've been doing a hell of a job lately.

Also, Jesse shouldn't be doing anything that involves communicating with the grassroots, because he sucks at that.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> I remember at the RNC the delegates who walked out told him they were going to have a press conference and he told them if they did it, don't sound like a bunch of crybabies.


Is that supposed to be a mark against Benton? 

To me, that sounds like good (albeit unwelcome) advice.




> I'd hope that some of his current advisors are involved, because they've been doing a hell of a job lately.


Agreed, whoever's running the show right now (maybe Rand himself?) should just keep on truckin.




> Also, Jesse shouldn't be doing anything that involves communicating with the grassroots, because he sucks at that.


The fact that he's so hated by the grassroots (even if that hatred is misplaced, as I believe it is), is probably good reason to keep him out of any kind of grassroots liaison role, agreed.

----------


## Deborah K

> You dont have time to make an argument against Benton. That's fine.
> 
> But I certainly don't have the time to revisit all the anti-Benton screeds scattered across the internet to refute them.
> 
> So...the end, I guess.


So be it.  Just bear in mind, while you're giving him the benefit of the doubt, that you don't have all the facts.

----------


## angelatc

> You dont have time to make an argument against Benton. That's fine.
> 
> But I certainly don't have the time to revisit all the anti-Benton screeds scattered across the internet to refute them.
> 
> So...the end, I guess.


Deb does not need to make an argument against Benton.  She's been here fighting the fight for 7 freaking years.  We know exactly who Benton is and what he has done to deserve her disdain.

And I do mean deserve.

----------


## phill4paul

> You dont have time to make an argument against Benton. That's fine.
> 
> But I certainly don't have the time to revisit all the anti-Benton screeds scattered across the internet to refute them.
> 
> So...the end, I guess.


  Louisiana.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> Louisiana.


Kashmir

?

LOL, but seriously, what about LA? Why don't you post the article describing whatever crime in Cajun country you're alleging Benton committed?

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> Deb does not need to make an argument against Benton.


Only if she wants to convince anyone

----------


## angelatc

> Uh, actually did it ever cross your mind that maybe Ron's goal wasn't to become President?


Did it cross your mind that if that is true then he  openly lied to us through two Presidential campaigns?   And that means that you yourself lied to us during the second one?

OMFG.  You never cease to amaze me.

You just thoroughly discredited yourself, as well as your candidate and his entire campaign....all for the sake of puffing yourself up to some random stranger on the internet.

And Benton hired you, IIRC.

----------


## angelatc

> Kashmir
> 
> ?
> 
> LOL, but seriously, what about LA? Why don't you post the article describing whatever crime in Cajun country you're alleging Benton committed?



Why don't you go back to The Daily Paul?  It is absolutely asinine of you to join today just to try to mock us for opinions that we have developed over the course of 7 years, some of us in a direct relationship with the campaigns.

You've read stuff.  Isn't that nice?

Let me assure you that we've seen and done much more.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

I see. You've been a member of an internet forum for 7 years, therefore your assertions should be taken on faith, no facts or arguments required. 

Color me unimpressed.

----------


## Deborah K

> I see. You've been a member of an internet forum for 7 years, therefore your assertions should be taken on faith, no facts or arguments required. 
> 
> Color me unimpressed.


Troll is trolling.

----------


## twomp

> I see. You've been a member of an internet forum for 7 years, therefore your assertions should be taken on faith, no facts or arguments required. 
> 
> Color me unimpressed.


It's not taken on faith. It's on experience. They have direct experience with the campaign. Something which you do not have. Your assertions are the ones based on faith. Faith and lack of knowledge.

----------


## Anti-Neocon

I don't know why certain posters are refusing to explain *why* Benton deserves the flak he's taking.  If you want to keep something confidential, then just say so, but taking the attitude of "just believe me, you're not worthy enough of my time to explain" isn't going to get anyone on your side.

----------


## Deborah K

> I don't know why certain posters are refusing to explain *why* Benton deserves the flak he's taking.  If you want to keep something confidential, then just say so, but taking the attitude of "just believe me, you're not worthy enough of my time to explain" isn't going to get anyone on your side.


At this point it's probably 'Benton Fatigue'.  The subject of Benton has been hashed and rehashed so many times that many of us are not motivated anymore to waste any more time with it when a little bit of research on your own will suffice.  That's probably better anyway, then you're not taking anyone's word for it.

----------


## Deborah K

> I don't know why certain posters are refusing to explain *why* Benton deserves the flak he's taking.  If you want to keep something confidential, then just say so, but taking the attitude of "just believe me, you're not worthy enough of my time to explain" isn't going to get anyone on your side.


dupe

----------


## angelatc

> At this point it's probably 'Benton Fatigue'.  The subject of Benton has been hashed and rehashed so many times that many of us are not motivated anymore to waste any more time with it when a little bit of research on your own will suffice.  That's probably better anyway, then you're not taking anyone's word for it.


This!  The archives are full of various first-hand accounts of the shenanigans that Benton pulled.  If you do not know what we are talking about, then get some coffee and start digging.

----------


## anaconda

> Now start a damned thread and explain why anyone should donate to a campaign where the goal of the candidate and the team isn't to win!!


I am not knowledgeable enough about Jesse Benton to have much of an opinion.

Yet, I recall Larry Leopard discussing (in the documentary) a phone conversation regarding a solicitation for donations in 2007, and they admitted that it was unlikely that Ron Paul would win. Yet, he said words to the effect of "If he can get into the debates make a clear case for his positions, then it's a story that deserves to be told." So while, I agree we should try to win, there are potentially great benefits from running and not winning (I had believed in both 2008 and 2012 that there were small but plausible scenarios were Ron could win ). For example, in 2008 when Ron Paul came to the assessment that winning the nomination was not possible, I believe (correct me here I may be wrong on this) he sank a bunch of the remaining campaign donations into Campaign For Liberty. Yet, if Ron Paul had decided to fight his fiercest battle in the primary, wouldn't he have spent every last dime in an effort to garner votes?

----------


## Deborah K

> I am not knowledgeable enough about Jesse Benton to have much of an opinion.
> 
> Yet, I recall Larry Leopard discussing (in the documentary) a phone conversation regarding a solicitation for donations in 2007, and they admitted that it was unlikely that Ron Paul would win. Yet, he said words to the effect of "If he can get into the debates make a clear case for his positions, then it's a story that deserves to be told." So while, I agree we should try to win, there are potentially great benefits from running and not winning (I had believed in both 2008 and 2012 that there were small but plausible scenarios were Ron could win ). For example, in 2008 when Ron Paul came to the assessment that winning the nomination was not possible, I believe (correct me here I may be wrong on this) he sank a bunch of the remaining campaign donations into Campaign For Liberty. Yet, if Ron Paul had decided to fight his fiercest battle in the primary, wouldn't he have spent every last dime in an effort to garner votes?


Thinking that your chances are slim, is very different from campaigning with no intention to win because you have other motives.

----------


## angelatc

> I am not knowledgeable enough about Jesse Benton to have much of an opinion.
> 
> Yet, I recall Larry Leopard discussing (in the documentary) a phone conversation regarding a solicitation for donations in 2007, and they admitted that it was unlikely that Ron Paul would win. Yet, he said words to the effect of "If he can get into the debates make a clear case for his positions, then it's a story that deserves to be told." So while, I agree we should try to win, there are potentially great benefits from running and not winning (I had believed in both 2008 and 2012 that there were small but plausible scenarios were Ron could win ). For example, in 2008 when Ron Paul came to the assessment that winning the nomination was not possible, I believe (correct me here I may be wrong on this) he sank a bunch of the remaining campaign donations into Campaign For Liberty. Yet, if Ron Paul had decided to fight his fiercest battle in the primary, wouldn't he have spent every last dime in an effort to garner votes?


2007 was an amazing time for all of us, and I think that perspective is important.  When they were having that conversation with Larry, they didn't expect the reaction that they received.  

But you make another important point:  if they told Larry that in the beginning, and he still donated all he could and much more, why did they tell us a different story in 2012?

----------


## phill4paul

> Kashmir
> 
> ?
> 
> LOL, but seriously, what about LA? Why don't you post the article describing whatever crime in Cajun country you're alleging Benton committed?


  Why don't YOU do catch up, and in the process garner esteem, instead of talking out your ass. You've obtained all the search material and key words you need. Looking forward to a discussion from an _informed_ forum member.

----------


## anaconda

> Thinking that your chances are slim, is very different from campaigning with no intention to win because you have other motives.


I agree with your statement completely. Yet I am still curious to know if you think Dr. Paul should have spent every last dime in 2008 in an effort to maximize votes? 

Elsewhere, I am skeptical that passionate supporters of, say, the Green Party, Socialist Equality, or the Constitution Party thought they could win (although I may be wrong here - some political science graduate student must have done a study on this). I suspect very many of these people believe in their cause sufficiently to donate and campaign for issues and ideas that they wish to promote and gather increasing public support for. Possibly their goals at first are smaller, such as influencing the party platforms of other larger parties. I admire these peoples' efforts in this regard, and I think it would be unfortunate if they decided to not be involved because electoral victory was not immediately possible.

----------


## puppetmaster

I know that Rands ultimate consultant is his dad so I am very comfortable with what ever rand chooses.

----------


## Deborah K

> I agree with your statement completely. Yet I am still curious to know if you think Dr. Paul should have spent every last dime in 2008 in an effort to maximize votes?


I didn't have a problem with it because he didn't get C4L off the ground until after the primaries.  He pretty much launched C4L around the same time we organized the Revolution March, which was well after the primaries and it was clear he wouldn't win.




> Elsewhere, I am skeptical that passionate supporters of, say, the Green Party, Socialist Equality, or the Constitution Party thought they could win (although I may be wrong here - some political science graduate student must have done a study on this). I suspect very many of these people believe in their cause sufficiently to donate and campaign for issues and ideas that they wish to promote and gather increasing public support for. Possibly their goals at first are smaller, such as influencing the party platforms of other larger parties. I admire these peoples' efforts in this regard, and I think it would be unfortunate if they decided to not be involved because electoral victory was not immediately possible.


I agree.  But I don't think any of that changes the fact that running for office should be done with the intent to win.

----------


## fr33

> I know that Rands ultimate consultant is his dad so I am very comfortable with what ever rand chooses.


I'm not. Ron never ran to win. If Benton has any power withing Rand's campaign, I'm not wasting my money. Rand isn't running an educational campaign like Ron did so there's no point in hiring amateurs.

----------


## mosquitobite

> It's not a personality dispute. It's a recognition of a waste of time. I'm looking to change things in this country. Not help the Paul dynasty earn more income. I'd like to believe Rand is the real deal. Giving yet another welfare position to his relative would make me question that.


This is how I see it as well.

Nepotism.

The only nepotism we need is Ron Paul as the head of the treasury.

Benton did not succeed on his first 2 Paul campaigns, we don't need him on a third.  Not only will RPF forums revolt at the thought, but if Rand truly wants to be seen as a true contender and wants that money he has been courting - he can't go with an amateur who has a possible scandal attached to him.  Our country is TOO.FAR.GONE at this point.  Rand is not running an education race.  If he's not in it to win it, well I'll find someone else to support with my time and treasure.

And I say this with a heavy heart because I would love to knock on doors and phone bank for Rand in 2016.  

Rand, PLEASE do not make the mistake of making Benton your #1 guy.

----------


## angelatc

> I know that Rands ultimate consultant is his dad so I am very comfortable with what ever rand chooses.


Noe mt.  As far as I am concerned, Ron's weakness is his inability to surround himself with effective administrators.

----------


## angelatc

> Benton did not succeed on his first 2 Paul campaigns, we don't need him on a third..


Point of order - Benton didn't run the 2007 campaign.

----------


## mosquitobite

Sorry spokesman.  Which as others have said, he wasn't good at.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/20...mcconnell.html

----------


## whoisjohngalt

> You don't know what you are talking about.
> 
> 
> You've stood next to him? You've been in the same room as him?   And somehow you know everything about him?


I don't know everything about him, but I know that he's an $#@! and his first objective is definitely not liberty.  That's all I need to know.  

You don't have to listen to an $#@! long to know one.

----------


## angelatc

> "Original Intent" just explained this up above this post
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ron was running to win, but winning can mean more than just getting elected...
> 
> 
> ...


Wow wow wow.

so, during the campaign in which Matt was paid by those donations to create several alternate accounts to properly represent the level of deception the campaign was willing to stoop to, anybody who DARED assert the campaign was perhaps not actually trying to win the presidency was blasted by him and his little socks.

And now you have the audacity to stand here and call the people who actually believed the charade stupid for believing it.

Holy freaking mother of....


This is the House the Benton built.

----------


## angelatc

> Sorry spokesman.  Which as others have said, he wasn't good at.
> 
> http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/20...mcconnell.html


In 2007 he was pretty much one of us until he hitched up with Ron's grandddaughter.

----------


## Bman

I said no but if his job is only picking up coffee and donuts in the morning I wouldn't make a deal of it.

----------


## Matt Collins

> Wow wow wow.
> 
> so, during the campaign in which Matt was paid by those donations to create several alternate accounts to properly represent the level of deception the campaign was willing to stoop to, anybody who DARED assert the campaign was perhaps not actually trying to win the presidency was blasted by him and his little socks.
> 
> And now you have the audacity to stand here and call the people who actually believed the charade stupid for believing it.
> 
> Holy freaking mother of....
> 
> 
> This is the House the Benton built.


Nice try, but not even close.

----------


## angelatc

> I'm not. Ron never ran to win. If Benton has any power withing Rand's campaign, I'm not wasting my money. Rand isn't running an educational campaign like Ron did so there's no point in hiring amateurs.



There is a very good possibility that if Rand decides to run in 2016 that he might not be expecting to win.  Look, he's trying to change the law in KY so that he can run for 2 offices simultaneously.    That speaks volumes to me.  And I do not necessarily disagree with that assessment.  Reagan ran 3 times before he won the nomination.  But having a Plan B (building the base, improving name recognition, tailoring messaging, all those things) is exactly that - Plan B.

----------


## Rocco

See, this is the kind of stuff that irks me. Say what you want about some of his decisions Deborah, but you screwed yourselves with PAUL Fest when you made people like Gigi Bowman (who is an open 9/11 truther) and Tracy Diaz major organizers and invited the Libertarian Party to have a major presence at a festival that was taking place during the GOP convention. The simple fact of the matter is that when Benton spoke of a fringe element he was correct. Not everyone involved was fringe, but there was a fringe element that made it impossible for the campaign to endorse the festival in any capacity. Benton cannot be blamed for this. 

The only bad decision I have seen Jesse make was sending out the email stating that Ron couldn't win, but who knows if Rand's arm was being twisted to endorse for an RNC speaking slot. He might have done us a favor. Can anyone point to other specifics? 




> I don't have time to rehash all the damage Benton has done to the movement.  I met him in '07 when I was organizing Revolution March.  I dealt with his bull$#@! when I was organizing P.A.U.L. Festival in '12.  I have enough personal knowledge to convince me of his disdain for the grassroots.  But there's a ton more $#@! on the guy - google it and see for yourself.

----------


## angelatc

> Nice try, but not even close.


Come Matt, tell me which part I'm wrong about.

You were on the campaign payroll: check.
You had several accounts here:  check.
You insulted people who didn't think Ron was trying to win: check

And now you're here insulting the people who did think Ron was trying to win: check

You need to go spend some more time in spin class, son.

----------


## fr33

> There is a very good possibility that if Rand decides to run in 2016 that he might not be expecting to win.  Look, he's trying to change the law in KY so that he can run for 2 offices simultaneously.    That speaks volumes to me.  And I do not necessarily disagree with that assessment.  Reagan ran 3 times before he won the nomination.  But having a Plan B (building the base, improving name recognition, tailoring messaging, all those things) is exactly that - Plan B.


If he hires Benton, I'll know how insincere he is being, and act accordingly. Another barometer is to look at the first "yes" voters on this poll, and recognize those co-opters among us.

----------


## MRK

> Why does this matter? No one here has any input on this subject.
> 
> 
> And yall should be grateful for Jesse because he was the driving force to get Ron to run in 2012. I doubt he would've if Jesse hadn't had pushed him to.

----------


## jjdoyle

> Wasn't Jesse Benton the campaign manager for Rand Paul's 2010 Senate campaign? 23.4% margin primary win and 11.4% margin general election win. Maybe this is relevant.


I wouldn't give Jesse Benton credit, for what the grassroots did. EVER.

----------


## RonPaulFanInGA

> You continue to fail to grasp the concept that "winning" an election does not always equate to electoral victory.


Sorry, but no.  American politics does not reward losers.  Barack Obama sitting in the White House is not "winning".

----------


## Maltheus

> And I say this with a heavy heart because I would love to knock on doors and phone bank for Rand in 2016.  
> 
> Rand, PLEASE do not make the mistake of making Benton your #1 guy.


Exactly! I *want* to do this. I'd like to help get peoples' asses back off the couch to help support this. I love working with liberty minded people. But eight years of this guy was enough. I can't do it again. I won't. He's incompetent at best. And he's usually not at his best.

----------


## Peace&Freedom

> See, this is the kind of stuff that irks me. Say what you want about some of his decisions Deborah, but you screwed yourselves with PAUL Fest when you made people like Gigi Bowman (who is an open 9/11 truther) and Tracy Diaz major organizers and invited the Libertarian Party to have a major presence at a festival that was taking place during the GOP convention. The simple fact of the matter is that when Benton spoke of a fringe element he was correct. Not everyone involved was fringe, but there was a fringe element that made it impossible for the campaign to endorse the festival in any capacity. Benton cannot be blamed for this.


There was no fringe element at PAUL Fest, nor are the persons/groups you mentioned in that zone---it was a representative sampling of the *entire* grassroots liberty movement, free of the thin skinned, artificial marginalization so typical of the Bentonite control freaks, who smear anything not officially cleared by the official campaign as "fringe." Such folks have been trying to use the Paul cause to 'purge' the movement of non-Republicans, populists, truthers and others for years, to no avail (give it up folks, we've been a major part of it from the start, and aren't going anywhere). This attempt to sow needless division within the movement is one of the ongoing problems the grassroots have had with the Bentons from the official campaign.

----------


## twomp

> See, this is the kind of stuff that irks me. Say what you want about some of his decisions Deborah, but you screwed yourselves with PAUL Fest when you made people like Gigi Bowman (who is an open 9/11 truther) and Tracy Diaz major organizers and invited the Libertarian Party to have a major presence at a festival that was taking place during the GOP convention. The simple fact of the matter is that when Benton spoke of a fringe element he was correct. Not everyone involved was fringe, but there was a fringe element that made it impossible for the campaign to endorse the festival in any capacity. Benton cannot be blamed for this. 
> 
> The only bad decision I have seen Jesse make was sending out the email stating that Ron couldn't win, but who knows if Rand's arm was being twisted to endorse for an RNC speaking slot. He might have done us a favor. Can anyone point to other specifics?


Are you fking serious??? Fringe???  Did you get your talking points from Peter King? Nice of you to toe the party line,  "if you aren't with us, then you are part of the fringe" I guess wanting to follow the constitution makes you a part of the "fringe" now right? How about this, try to take over the GOP with just the rank and file GOP warmongers then. You need us "fringe" more than we need you sheeple. Baaaa baaaa go back to doing what your masters tell you to do. You too Matt Collins. Talk to us when you grow a set of balls instead of what your masters tell you to say.

----------


## Matt Collins

> Come Matt, tell me which part I'm wrong about.
> 
> You were on the campaign payroll: check.
> You had several accounts here:  check.
> You insulted people who didn't think Ron was trying to win: check
> 
> And now you're here insulting the people who did think Ron was trying to win: check
> 
> You need to go spend some more time in spin class, son.


In case you didn't notice, I never said Ron wasn't trying to win. Pay attention.

----------


## Matt Collins

> Sorry, but no.  American politics does not reward losers.  Barack Obama sitting in the White House is not "winning".


Sorry that apparently you too cannot comprehend basic political realities.

----------


## Matt Collins

> See, this is the kind of stuff that irks me. Say what you want about some of his decisions Deborah, but you screwed yourselves with PAUL Fest when you made people like Gigi Bowman (who is an open 9/11 truther) and Tracy Diaz major organizers and invited the Libertarian Party to have a major presence at a festival that was taking place during the GOP convention. The simple fact of the matter is that when Benton spoke of a fringe element he was correct. Not everyone involved was fringe, but there was a fringe element that made it impossible for the campaign to endorse the festival in any capacity. Benton cannot be blamed for this.


Pretty much this. I have no grudge against Deb, other than her ignorant obstinatince in this thread and a few others. Never met her, don't know her, I am sure that she has worked very hard on a lot of liberty projects.





> There was no fringe element at PAUL Fest, nor are the persons/groups you mentioned in that zone---it was a representative sampling of the *entire* grassroots liberty movement, free of the thin skinned, artificial marginalization so typical of the Bentonite control freaks, who smear anything not officially cleared by the official campaign as "fringe." Such folks have been trying to use the Paul cause to 'purge' the movement of non-Republicans, populists, truthers and others for years, to no avail (give it up folks, we've been a major part of it from the start, and aren't going anywhere). This attempt to sow needless division within the movement is one of the ongoing problems the grassroots have had with the Bentons from the official campaign.


You are missing the point... the campaign has to be able to control its message and image. With people who are outspoken conspiracy theorists, LP and CP candidates, and complete mental cases like Vermin Supreme being at PaulFest, the campaign absolutely had to distance itself from it. If you don't understand this, then you're not living in the real world and have no concept of how politics works.

----------


## ronaldo23

Rand hiring Jesse in any capacity to run his presidential campaign would be on par with hiring Mike Tyson as future press secretary.

----------


## Natural Citizen

Heh. Vermin Supreme. I forgot about that dolt. What's he up to these days?

----------


## Maltheus

> Rand hiring Jesse in any capacity to run his presidential campaign would be on par with hiring Mike Tyson as future press secretary.


The difference being, Tyson at least provides some level of celebrity appeal. I still haven't seen a case for anything Benton might bring.

----------


## jjdoyle

> In case you didn't notice, I never said Ron wasn't trying to win. Pay attention.


No, you said:



> Uh, actually did it ever cross your mind that maybe Ron's goal wasn't to become President?


Which, if the goal wasn't to become President, that means "not trying to win". Unless you think people wasted time and money on a PRESIDENTIAL campaign, not to actually win the nomination? Some of us understand that was the campaign's strategy, with backroom deals with Romney's campaign and a speaking slot at the RNC.
But, last I checked, the majority of people I know donated to Ron Paul 2012 to try and WIN the presidency and nomination. Not some delusional "Plan B".

Maybe I got the wrong campaign fundraising emails, begging supports always for more money (to help Romney win), using things like, "In it to win it."

Or, maybe Ron wasn't being totally honest when he said:
"Every single dollar raised will go toward winning this nomination.  And I guarantee you it will be put to immediate use."

In one campaign fundraising email before Super Tuesday?

Yes, some of us know Ron Paul 2012 was a campaign full of complete idiots, and/or complete liars. Probably both. The Kent Sorenson issue is just some evidence of both of those.

So, I guess Jesse Benton was a good campaign manager deserving of another spot in another campaign; I guess if you think having more money than all but one other candidate, the most passionate supporters, and the candidate with the best record to run on, yet getting fewer votes than Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich, is good?

So, no, Rand should not in any fashion have Jesse Benton on his  campaign. Then again, Ron Paul 2012 didn't listen to the grassroots in  2012 and saw them only good for one thing, money.

----------


## DevilsAdvocate

Why should the campaign have to serve as a learning experience for some stumbling newbie on training wheels? Benton is like a child king with an enormous army at his command, directing them this way and that way randomly without any understanding of what he's doing.

The thing that bothers me the most is that he ascended to his position in the community through association. He is a social climber, using his friends to get him an undeserved position. If I founded a successful company and I limited my applications for the top slots to the small pool of people I had met in my life, rather than casting a net across the entire ocean of nationwide applicants, I would be a fool and likely fail. Just because Benton happens to know the Pauls by chance, he gets to run the campaign? This is an example of poor campaign management, something which was a major problem with Ron Paul.

----------


## Matt Collins

> Which, if the goal wasn't to become President, that means "not trying to win".


This has already been explained here. Please, try and keep up.

----------


## Matt Collins

> Why should the campaign have to serve as a learning experience for some stumbling newbie on training wheels? Benton is like a child king with an enormous army at his command, directing them this way and that way randomly without any understanding of what he's doing.


Maybe in '07, but he is not an amateur now.

----------


## DevilsAdvocate

Yes, but there are better people. For example, I am a runner. I trained really hard, and got really, really fast in college. But there are people out there who are naturally gifted. Touched by the wings of an angel, they can run circles around me without breaking a sweat. 

Benton is studying, and working, and learning on the job. But for such a major endeavor, we need someone with proven pure talent that will get this done. We are going for results here. We have no proof that this guy can hold water to the people running campaigns on the national level.

Besides, I have heard several accounts that he is actually sort of a despicable person, who's primary concern is his own self aggrandizement. Also, a lot of the grassroots hate him, he's got to go. Pick somebody else, it's not a big deal, he's not our only option. Like I said the only reason he's still around is because of his pull and associations, he has no special talent worth keeping.

----------


## eleganz

If I can recall correctly, Benton was the Co-Chair last time and I think John Tate was the other? Are you guys ok with Tate at the helm?

----------


## twomp

> Pretty much this. I have no grudge against Deb, other than her ignorant obstinatince in this thread and a few others. Never met her, don't know her, I am sure that she has worked very hard on a lot of liberty projects.
> 
> 
> You are missing the point... the campaign has to be able to control its message and image. With people who are outspoken conspiracy theorists, LP and CP candidates, and complete mental cases like Vermin Supreme being at PaulFest, the campaign absolutely had to distance itself from it. If you don't understand this, then you're not living in the real world and have no concept of how politics works.


If that were true, then the campaign should have reached out and said something instead of sending their lapdog (I.e. you) to speak out. And for the matter, if you are the campaigns spokesman for these things, you should be fired. You do nothing but speak down to people that disagree with you. Around here we call that short man syndrome, people who act tough because they are insecure or are "lacking" in real life.

----------


## KingNothing

> Did it cross your mind that if that is true then he  openly lied to us through two Presidential campaigns?   And that means that you yourself lied to us during the second one?
> 
> OMFG.  You never cease to amaze me.
> 
> You just thoroughly discredited yourself, as well as your candidate and his entire campaign....all for the sake of puffing yourself up to some random stranger on the internet.
> 
> And Benton hired you, IIRC.



Honestly, do you really think that Ron wanted to be president?  I'm sure he would have graciously accepted the position had we voted him in, but there is absolutely no way he wanted to hold that office.

----------


## KingNothing

> Thinking that your chances are slim, is very different from campaigning with no intention to win because you have other motives.



I think that the only way Ron could have won is if he'd been even better at getting the message out and educating people.  Don't get me wrong, he did a WONDERFUL job, but what I'm saying is that the route to winning and the route to laying the groundwork for future campaigns was exactly the same.

----------


## T.hill

Didn't Rand already assign his former chief of staff, Doug Stafford, to manage his current national operations? Kinda seems like that could imply he's leaning towards him.

----------


## Occam's Banana

> Heh. Vermin Supreme. I forgot about that dolt. What's he up to these days?


Vermin Supreme is NOT a "dolt" - he is an extraordinarily subtle and incisive performance artist.

Well, okay ... maybe he's not so subtle ... but he's definitely incisive ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4d_FvgQ1csE

----------


## twomp

> Didn't Rand already assign his former chief of staff, Doug Stafford, to manage his current national operations? Kinda seems like that could imply he's leaning towards him.


I think Doug Stafford is doing an extraordinaire job. I hope he chooses him. But actually, I'm pretty sure Rand knows what he's doing. He will pick the most qualified person.

----------


## CPUd

I have a feeling Santorum ran in 2012 for the purpose of winning in 2016, but doesn't seem to be working out for him right now.

----------


## Peace&Freedom

> You are missing the point... the campaign has to be able to control its message and image. With people who are outspoken conspiracy theorists, LP and CP candidates, and complete mental cases like Vermin Supreme being at PaulFest, the campaign absolutely had to distance itself from it. If you don't understand this, then you're not living in the real world and have no concept of how politics works.


Talk about missing the point, and not understanding---it was a Paul and liberty *movement* event, that the campaign tried to manipulate _as if_ they were supposed to control it. In the real world, you can't have it both ways, saying "if you don't like how the campaign does events, put together your own," then absolutely shun and run down people when they _do_ successfully organize their own. Controlling your own message, cool. Trying to control everybody else's message, or calling it "fringe" if you can't, uncool.

And since the "Paul campaign" or candidacy _was OVER_ by the time of a GOP convention that was designed to coronate Romney anyway, what was the harm _at that point_ in participating with supporters at a broader festival? "The campaign this, the campaign that" is simply a canard, or code for "never fraternize with the grassroots," or micro-manage/purge them if you do (AKA, needless division). This endless control-freak PR tendency is yet another part of the friction between Benton and the grassroots.

----------


## compromise

> You are missing the point... the campaign has to be able to control its message and image. With people who are outspoken conspiracy theorists, LP and CP candidates, and complete mental cases like Vermin Supreme being at PaulFest, the campaign absolutely had to distance itself from it. If you don't understand this, then you're not living in the real world and have no concept of how politics works.


Agreed 100%.

PaulFest was fundamentally indistinguishable from Comic-Con.

----------


## RonPaulFanInGA

> I have a feeling Santorum ran in 2012 for the purpose of winning in 2016, but doesn't seem to be working out for him right now.


Santorum is dead-last nationally among polled GOP candidates for 2016, according to the most-recent CNN poll.  This, despite being the second-place contender in 2012.

I hope it is dawning on ol' Rick that the only reason he won anything was because the media pumped him up in December 2011 to make things interesting for ratings reasons, and there just aren't that many Americans who want to see him as President.

----------


## phill4paul

> Kashmir
> 
> ?
> 
> LOL, but seriously, what about LA? Why don't you post the article describing whatever crime in Cajun country you're alleging Benton committed?


  I'm trying to teach you how to fish instead of just giving you one. Do with this knowledge what you will.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Kashmir
> 
> ?
> 
> LOL, but seriously, what about LA? Why don't you post the article describing whatever crime in Cajun country you're alleging Benton committed?


http://collapsereport.com/2012/08/22...aul-delegates/

----------


## whoisjohngalt

> Kashmir
> 
> ?
> 
> LOL, but seriously, what about LA? Why don't you post the article describing whatever crime in Cajun country you're alleging Benton committed?


I don't think you realize that this is not a court of law, it's a court of public opinion.  Perception is reality.  This is more than an uphill battle; people are pretty well set on their opinion on this matter.

The whole Sorenson payoff thing...  The phone call where he is repeatedly called a scum and said to have definitely known about the transaction.  Go ahead and try to claim innocent until proving guilty.  Again, this isn't a court of law and you know it works nothing like one.

----------


## whoisjohngalt

> Maybe in '07, but he is not an amateur now.


But he still sucks dick.  What good is experience if it doesn't make you any better?

----------


## Maltheus

> The whole Sorenson payoff thing...  The phone call where he is repeatedly called a scum and said to have definitely known about the transaction.  Go ahead and try to claim innocent until proving guilty.  Again, this isn't a court of law and you know it works nothing like one.


I had always known about the allegations, but hadn't gotten around to reading the transcript, until the other day. And I can't deny, it sounds authentic. That's precisely the kind of rookie, brute force mistake, that is Benton's MO. And it makes me wonder if there was money behind some of the odd moves I was seeing as well. Does anyone know if Ron has ever reviewed that call?

In any case, unless this allegation can be convincingly refuted, it alone should disqualify him from being positioned anywhere near Rand's campaign. To pretend like this won't be an issue, would tell me that Rand is not ready for prime-time.

----------


## satchelmcqueen

i hope thats not true. 


> Uh, actually did it ever cross your mind that maybe Ron's goal wasn't to become President?

----------


## whoisjohngalt

I'm pretty sure that after Benton is done with the McConnell campaign, there isn't going to be anyone willing to "hold their nose" to work with him again.  

You couldn't find a clothespin strong enough to keep out the Benton stench.

----------


## Matt Collins

> If that were true, then the campaign should have reached out and said something instead of sending their lapdog (I.e. you) to speak out.


I had nothing to do with it, but reaching out doesn't work in a lot of cases because some people are either not rational, have their own pet interests at heart, or are incapable of understanding the political perception realities of why some of the people at PaulFest were a problem. 




> And for the matter, if you are the campaigns spokesman for these things, you should be fired. You do nothing but speak down to people that disagree with you. Around here we call that short man syndrome, people who act tough because they are insecure or are "lacking" in real life.


 When people act like children, they should not be surprised when they are treated like children. Besides, someone has to try and explain this stuff. In 2012, that job fell to me.

----------


## Matt Collins

> Talk about missing the point, and not understanding---it was a Paul and liberty *movement* event, that the campaign tried to manipulate _as if_ they were supposed to control it. In the real world, you can't have it both ways, saying "if you don't like how the campaign does events, put together your own," then absolutely shun and run down people when they _do_ successfully organize their own. Controlling your own message, cool. Trying to control everybody else's message, or calling it "fringe" if you can't, uncool.


Incorrect.

When other people attach themselves to your organization or your name for their own personal agenda, especially if it makes you look bad, then sometimes you are forced to shed them. 






> And since the "Paul campaign" or candidacy _was OVER_ by the time of a GOP convention that was designed to coronate Romney anyway, what was the harm _at that point_ in participating with supporters at a broader festival? "The campaign this, the campaign that" is simply a canard, or code for "never fraternize with the grassroots," or micro-manage/purge them if you do (AKA, needless division). This endless control-freak PR tendency is yet another part of the friction between Benton and the grassroots.


No, not at all. There were still objectives the campaign and delegates were trying to accomplish at the Convention. Image is everything in politics and having an event that looked like Woodstock, especially with some people attending/speaking who were embarrassing to the Campaign, was problematic.

----------


## 69360

I don't really care either way. Since when should people on an internet forum have a say in who a candidate hires as campaign staff?

----------


## jjdoyle

> This has already been explained here. Please, try and keep up.


I've been way ahead of you for a LONG, LONG, LONG time.

I don't repeatedly try to excuse a campaign and those associated with, that were actively lying to supporters for months. I was during the campaign, and now after, one of the few around here trying to make some aware of the complete dishonesty that was, and is, Ron Paul 2012. And why? Because if you don't learn from your mistakes, you might repeat them. Having people on staff like Jesse Benton (and even yourself), isn't learning from mistakes.

Having people on staff that view the grassroots as only good for money, spit upon them, laugh at them, and turn their backs on their efforts for a speech at the RNC, or a potential future job, is beyond pathetic. And all of those within Ron Paul 2012 that did those things, should be nowhere near Rand in 2016 if he runs.

"In fact I would say Ron was the only Republican winner in 08 and 12...

Reasons to run a campaign:
- to build an organization
- to raise an issue
- to spoil for / against a candidate
- to get other politicians on the record
- to build name recognition
- to prepare for a future run

So, if you look at that list you are forced to conclude that Ron Paul  won, even though he didn't get elected. Getting elected into office  isn't everything."

If I look at that list, it looks like a loser list to me.
If you run an actual honest campaign, you run it to win, not some other delusional second goal. The moment you agree to not attack another candidate, is the moment you end your campaign, instead of lying to supporters for months.

Ron Paul 2012 did help spoil the nomination for candidates like Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich, candidates that were actually trying to win it. By attacking them until they dropped out. Which resulted in what? Mitt Romney sealing the nomination. Because Ron Paul 2012 helped make sure there was no issue for him at the RNC. Despite pushing for their fake delegate strategy to supporters for months, always asking them for more money. Never having enough. Despite ending with more than a million cash-on-hand.

So, your idea to spoil for a candidate is spot on, as I have said and all evidence points exactly to it. Ron Paul 2012 was a second campaign of Mitt Romney. Designed to help Mitt Romney win by attacking his opponents directly, and never only attacking Mitt Romney in any state like they did Rick Perry, Newt Gingrich, and Rick Santorum where/when it actually mattered, or could have. Like Virginia. Maine. Iowa. New Hampshire.

Anything other than trying to win the nomination of a PRESIDENTIAL campaign, while stating that as your own "goal" in continuous campaign emails, is fraud and lies. Which, we now know, is exactly what Ron Paul 2012 was. Fraud, and lies. With Jesse Benton and the others at the top.

So again, no. Nobody associated with Ron Paul 2012 should be associated with Rand in 2016. Why?
Ron Paul 2012 had the candidate with the best record to run on.
Ron Paul 2012 had the candidate with the most passionate supporters.
Ron Paul 2012 raised the 2nd most amount of money, only behind King Romney.

Despite all of those, the crack-staff at Ron Paul 2012 managed to get fewer votes than Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich. Two candidates that weren't even in the race as long as RP. So, what can the Ron Paul 2012 staff point to, other than repeatedly lying to supporters to raise/waste millions of dollars, as a positive and show people they should be hired?

For those of us that care about truth and honesty, absolutely nothing.

The majority of people do not donate to a PRESIDENTIAL campaign for any of your stated reasons. They donate to a presidential campaign believing that the campaign is ACTUALLY trying to win it. Unfortunately, Ron Paul 2012 was not doing that. Instead it was wasting supporters' time and money, for months. Destroying momentum.

Ron Paul 2012 was run like a freaking circus, except at least a circus  is entertaining and you usually get your monies worth and an expected  performance. So, I apologize to any circus performers for  that horrible analogy. You do your job(s) much better than anybody I  have seen associated with Ron Paul 2012. Unless of course, we are to  believe that "in it to win it", doesn't actually mean trying to win it.  Oh, that's right, it didn't mean it. Because it was simply a lie to get  supporters to give more money, for some "future run"?

----------


## phill4paul

> (Given that Matt Collins is a fairly influential member around these parts and posts a lot)


  Ya got that _half_ right.

----------


## JK/SEA

maybe Rand doesn't need grassroot support, based on Matts rhetoric, we are a liability and an embarrassment..... 

Seems that he is getting enough support from the main stream GOP, and so-cons. Libertarian 'types'' can pound sand and take your support and money elsewhere. Matts got this everyone...

go back to sleep.

looks like i'll be withdrawing from the next status quo election that Matt supports by not becoming a PCO, and willl save thousands of dollars this time around.

thanks Matt for your wisdom, and for getting Ron elected.....oh wait....nevermind...

----------


## MelissaWV

> I don't really care either way. Since when should people on an internet forum have a say in who a candidate hires as campaign staff?


I don't think I should have a say, but I do have an opinion (and that's most of what a forum is --- a place for opinions).

----------


## Rocco

Somebody who uses the term "we" when talking about 9/11 truthers thinks there was no problem with fringe elements at Paulfest? Seems legit. 




> There was no fringe element at PAUL Fest......Such folks have been trying to use the Paul cause to 'purge' the movement of non-Republicans, populists, *truthers* and others for years, to no avail (give it up folks, *we've* been a major part of it from the start, and aren't going anywhere). This attempt to sow needless division within the movement is one of the ongoing problems the grassroots have had with the Bentons from the official campaign.


There is literally not one person who has been labeled fringe for wanting to follow the constitution. Associating with 9/11 truth, anarchism and conspiracy theories like the notion that Sandy Hook was an inside job makes you fringe. 




> Are you fking serious??? Fringe???  Did you get your talking points from Peter King? Nice of you to toe the party line,  "if you aren't with us, then you are part of the fringe" I guess wanting to follow the constitution makes you a part of the "fringe" now right? How about this, try to take over the GOP with just the rank and file GOP warmongers then. You need us "fringe" more than we need you sheeple. Baaaa baaaa go back to doing what your masters tell you to do. You too Matt Collins. Talk to us when you grow a set of balls instead of what your masters tell you to say.


You are remembering incorrectly, DevilsAdvocate. If you look at the names under the poll results I am one of six who voted for Benton to manage the campaign. Actually, these poll results have not gone anywhere close to how I wanted them to go, I was hoping the irrational Benton hate had subsided by now. 




> But, because I am the Devils Advocate I have to mention: if I recall the OP here has a personal feud with Benton. This may be contributing a lot to the mood of the thread, and perhaps to the prevailing mood about Benton on these forums. (Given that Matt Collins is a fairly influential member around these parts and posts a lot)


You really don't realize that 80%+ of the country finds things like 9/11 truth to be completely unacceptable at best and appalling at worst, do you? The harm is tying our movement to truthers and conspiracy theorists, which is already a *HUGE* problem. 




> And since the "Paul campaign" or candidacy _was OVER_ by the time of a GOP convention that was designed to coronate Romney anyway, what was the harm _at that point_ in participating with supporters at a broader festival? "The campaign this, the campaign that" is simply a canard, or code for "never fraternize with the grassroots," or micro-manage/purge them if you do (AKA, needless division). This endless control-freak PR tendency is yet another part of the friction between Benton and the grassroots.

----------


## Matt Collins

> maybe Rand doesn't need grassroot support, based on Matts rhetoric, we are a liability and an embarrassment.....


Nice try, but you fail:
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman

----------


## Matt Collins

> If I look at that list, it looks like a loser list to me.


That's because you are ignorant. That's not an insult, but a statement of fact as it relates to this topic. You simply don't know what you're talking about.





> If you run an actual honest campaign, you run it to win, not some other delusional second goal.


You still fail to comprehend that winning an election does not always equate to electoral victory. 






> Ron Paul 2012 had the candidate with the best record to run on.
> Ron Paul 2012 had the candidate with the most passionate supporters.
> Ron Paul 2012 raised the 2nd most amount of money, only behind King Romney.


And those are not the only factors in getting elected.

----------


## Peace&Freedom

> Incorrect.
> 
> When other people attach themselves to your organization or your name for their own personal agenda, especially if it makes you look bad, then sometimes you are forced to shed them. 
> 
> No, not at all. There were still objectives the campaign and delegates were trying to accomplish at the Convention. Image is everything in politics and having an event that looked like Woodstock, especially with some people attending/speaking who were embarrassing to the Campaign, was problematic.


Why all the belittlement rhetoric and spin? The liberty movement was/is not a "personal agenda" and Paul was _carried by the grassroots_ from the start, the latter did not Johnny-come-lately "attach" themselves to him. And whatever machinations Paul delegates wanted to perform at the convention, those were not _campaign_ actions, since the campaign was at its end at that point. In fact, they were ordered to "not be disruptive" by Paul himself, which guaranteed they could not succeed at the convention in any event.

If the real agenda was to position for Rand Paul in 2016, that is an objective (for an as-yet undeclared candidacy) that is different than the RON Paul candidacy, which had ended. The Bentons, then and now, seem determined to co-opt the Paul grassroots into compliance, or marginalize it where it cannot. The campaign reps didn't just 'shed' PaulFest, they propagandized against it. Hence for a third time I say, this caused needless division.

----------


## Lucille

Why is he even being considered?  Because he did such a great job running Ron's campaign (into the ground)?



(Photo from here:http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...re%28Not-AF%29)

----------


## matt0611

If Benton is highly involved in Rand's campaign it means that Rand is not serious about becoming President IMO.

I don't think he will be. I think Rand is much more serious than Ron was.

He may be involved in a very small capacity. If he is anymore than that I will not donate a dime.

----------


## Peace&Freedom

> Somebody who uses the term "we" when talking about 9/11 truthers thinks there was no problem with fringe elements at Paulfest? Seems legit. 
> 
> There is literally not one person who has been labeled fringe for wanting to follow the constitution. Associating with 9/11 truth, anarchism and conspiracy theories like the notion that Sandy Hook was an inside job makes you fringe.


How about we be more accurate, and stop the false labeling? Roughly half the public believes WTC collapsed via controlled demolition:
http://rinf.com/alt-news/breaking-ne...1-truth/67615/

And that's with the public being kept in the dark by the MSM on most of the facts. So is half the public fringe? Is Ben Swann fringe, for reporting the facts pointing to an additional shooter/false flag op at Sandy Hook?:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3jrBYG1Y26A





> You really don't realize that 80%+ of the country finds things like 9/11 truth to be completely unacceptable at best and appalling at worst, do you? The harm is tying our movement to truthers and conspiracy theorists, which is already a *HUGE* problem.


Your stats are wrong and incomplete (see WTC poll above). Will people holding this position ever take responsibility for the harm it caused to his candidacy, by de-coupling the truth movement from Paul's campaigns? Exactly how many primaries did Paul win, following this view? We've already tried it your way, twice. Two busted campaigns later, the 'no-truth' approach lacks the authority to lecture anybody.

----------


## JK/SEA

> Nice try, but you fail:
> https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman


and yet, thats my perception, my right, and my opinion.

You chatise grass roots, and alienate. Good work Mr. 'i know more than you' Collins.

Carry on, and good luck.

----------


## jjdoyle

> That's because you are ignorant. That's not  an insult, but a statement of fact as it relates to this topic. You  simply don't know what you're talking about.
> 
> You still fail to comprehend that winning an election does not always equate to electoral victory. 
> 
> And those are not the only factors in getting elected.


I would rather be ignorant of some things, than work for a bunch of  liars and crooks like what were employed by Ron Paul 2012, and try to  repeatedly defend them and failing to do so, like you have. But please,  do show me my ignorance.

But, since you are apparently ignorant  of much about what Ron Paul 2012 did/didn't do, and maybe just arrogant  instead, I doubt you can.

 Despite repeatedly acting like some  great inside campaign worker with knowledge that the "outsiders"  don't/didn't know, you look like a complete joke at best, or just  another dishonest campaign worker. Trying to be like Jesse Benton, and  hoping you can get a job in the future with another campaign?

BUT, you have failed to show how I am ignorant of anything that I have stated.
Because the thoughts and conclusions I post, are based on the facts/history/actions/non-actions of Ron Paul 2012.
Like Ron Paul 2012 not ever attacking Mitt Romney on TV like they did Rick Perry, Newt Gingrich, and Rick Santorum.
Like  Ron Paul 2012 sending emails to supporters saying every dime would be  spent to win the nomination, then the campaign working with Romney's  campaign and helping him win it without supporters knowing Ron Paul 2012  had agreed to not attack Mitt Romney at least as early as February  2012.
Like the official campaign website, RonPaul2012.com, being used to defend a LYING endorsement of Mitt Romney.

I  might be ignorant of some things, like the complete level of dishonesty  that was/is Ron Paul 2012 and those associated with it. I agree.
But  not this stupid, dishonest lie being spun now about some "greater plan"  or "future campaign", or whatever delusional lies some want to use to  try and defend a campaign that was 100% dishonest with supporters. Some  of those people trying to defend a lying/dishonest campaign now were  taking paychecks from that very campaign, like yourself. Imagine that.

You,  taking a paycheck from a campaign that was kissing Romney's butt for  months, helping him win the nomination. And you sat by in complete  silence peddling the lies that were/are Ron Paul 2012, to keep getting  paychecks from the very grassroot supporters you now want to label as  fringe, or embarrassing?
So, YOU might be ignorant, and I really hope  that's the case here. Because if you aren't simply ignorant that you  were working for and are now repeatedly defending a dishonest campaign,  that would make you a liar.

So yes, let it be known to Rand (and  I'll call to let him know), if he hires Jesse Benton or Matt Collins, I  won't donate a dime to his campaign in 2016. People that sat by lying to  supporters, in either outright ignorance or just outright dishonesty,  shouldn't be involved in any campaign that is supposed to be about  "liberty" and taking an oath seriously.

----------


## Rocco

So your response to "these people are fringe" is "I agree with them"? 

Sometimes in order to win a debate you only need to let your opponent speak, so I won't add anything further. 




> How about we be more accurate, and stop the false labeling? Roughly half the public believes WTC collapsed via controlled demolition:
> http://rinf.com/alt-news/breaking-ne...1-truth/67615/
> 
> And that's with the public being kept in the dark by the MSM on most of the facts. So is half the public fringe? Is Ben Swann fringe, for reporting the facts pointing to an additional shooter/false flag op at Sandy Hook?:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3jrBYG1Y26A
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your stats are wrong and incomplete (see WTC poll above). Will people holding this position ever take responsibility for the harm it caused to his candidacy, by de-coupling the truth movement from Paul's campaigns? Exactly how many primaries did Paul win, following this view? We've already tried it your way, twice. Two busted campaigns later, the 'no-truth' approach lacks the authority to lecture anybody.

----------


## phill4paul

> I would rather be ignorant of some things, than work for a bunch of  liars and crooks like what were employed by Ron Paul 2012, and try to  repeatedly defend them and failing to do so, like you have. But please,  do show me my ignorance.
> 
> But, since you are apparently ignorant  of much about what Ron Paul 2012 did/didn't do, and maybe just arrogant  instead, I doubt you can.
> 
>  Despite repeatedly acting like some  great inside campaign worker with knowledge that the "outsiders"  don't/didn't know, you look like a complete joke at best, or just  another dishonest campaign worker. Trying to be like Jesse Benton, and  hoping you can get a job in the future with another campaign?
> 
> BUT, you have failed to show how I am ignorant of anything that I have stated.
> Because the thoughts and conclusions I post, are based on the facts/history/actions/non-actions of Ron Paul 2012.
> Like Ron Paul 2012 not ever attacking Mitt Romney on TV like they did Rick Perry, Newt Gingrich, and Rick Santorum.
> ...


You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to jjdoyle again.

  You have laid out your treatise in a more complete fashion at other times. Teh Collinz has _never_ been able to rebut. Which is why very few take him seriously anymore.

  And notice to Teh Collinz. Henceforth, whenever you use yourlogicalfallacy.com as a rebuttal to any poster from here on out it shall garner a neg rep from me. It's gone past the point of the ridiculous.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> I don't really care either way. Since when should people on an internet forum have a say in who a candidate hires as campaign staff?


If you put hard money, time and effort into a candidate's run for office, then you get a voice, AFAIC.

----------


## twomp

> If you put hard money, time and effort into a candidate's run for office, then you get a voice, AFAIC.


Agreed. I wouldn't want to donate my money into a campaign that hires a [mod delete] like Matt Collins talking like he's better than everyone. I'd rather give to Amash and Massies campaigns instead.

----------


## Peace&Freedom

> So your response to "these people are fringe" is "I agree with them"? 
> 
> Sometimes in order to win a debate you only need to let your opponent speak, so I won't add anything further.


My response (supported by evidence) was that the charge was patently false, and you failed to understand it. No wonder you won't add anything. "Fringe" implies only a very few extremists, whereas _half the population_ means the view is commonly held. Honesty requires that you stop the mislabeling.

----------


## DevilsAdvocate

> You are remembering incorrectly, DevilsAdvocate. If you look at the names under the poll results I am one of six who voted for Benton to manage the campaign. Actually, these poll results have not gone anywhere close to how I wanted them to go, I was hoping the irrational Benton hate had subsided by now.



Oh Hey Rocco, sorry about that. Somehow I thought it was Matt Collins who was the OP. I remember Matt posted a thread a while ago (may have been years) where he met Benton at a party and Benton was a total &%^* to him. (Actually may not have been Collins after all haha) Anyway it was late last night and I haven't posted for a while, forgive me for this. Besides this misstep I think that I made my points quite clearly though.

----------


## TaftFan

He will probably have to have a minor role. Not campaign manager. 

I think there is a broad group of experts that Rand will need to draw from, ranging from establishment types to grassroots types. The best group of consultants is a diverse group.

I could see him hiring Gingrich's guy, Rick Tyler.

----------


## CPUd

> My response (supported by evidence) was that the charge was patently false, and you failed to understand it. No wonder you won't add anything. "Fringe" implies only a very few extremists, whereas _half the population_ means the view is commonly held. Honesty requires that you stop the mislabeling.


I think you meant to say around half the survey respondents didn't even know the name of the 3rd building that collapsed, and after being shown a 30-second video, said they suspect a controlled demolition, but don't know for sure.

http://rethink911.org/docs/Rethink911Results083013.xls

----------


## JK/SEA

> Agreed. I wouldn't want to donate my money into a campaign that hires a [mod delete] like Matt Collins talking like he's better than everyone. I'd rather give to Amash and Massies campaigns instead.


yep...this is the far superior strategy. Getting Liberty candidates in the House and Senate, and $#@! the Presidency....too much BS goes into a Presidential run. Too much effort and time and MONEY....for what?....House and Senate...repeat this 5 times a day till it sinks in. Hopefully we can truly make real progress, and let the Matt Collins of the world pound sand instead....

----------


## Teenager For Ron Paul



----------


## Matt Collins

> Why all the belittlement rhetoric and spin? The liberty movement was/is not a "personal agenda" and Paul was _carried by the grassroots_ from the start, the latter did not Johnny-come-lately "attach" themselves to him.


Yes, there were many people who have tried to tie their own personal agendas to the Paul wagon. Whether it be their candidacy for office, or their pet conspiracy theory, their own prestige, etc.





> And whatever machinations Paul delegates wanted to perform at the convention, those were not _campaign_ actions, since the campaign was at its end at that point.


Incorrect, the Campaign was still active then.




> In fact, they were ordered to "not be disruptive" by Paul himself, which guaranteed they could not succeed at the convention in any event.


following parliamentary procedure is not disruptive. 




> The campaign reps didn't just 'shed' PaulFest, they propagandized against it.


Yes, distancing some of the people at PF from the campaign was necessary.

----------


## Matt Collins

> He will probably have to have a minor role. Not campaign manager.


No, he'll have a major role and will be one of the top guys just like he was on Rand's successful Senate campaign. But a Presidential campaign is a massive organization and power is not always concentrated. The most likely scenario I foresee is that there will be 3 or 4 top people who are calling the shots in their respective areas of responsibility.


Anyone who thinks that Jesse Benton will not be a major part in Rand's Campaign is kidding themselves.

----------


## JK/SEA

> No, he'll have a major role and will be one of the top guys just like he was on Rand's successful Senate campaign. But a Presidential campaign is a massive organization and power is not always concentrated. The most likely scenario I foresee is that there will be 3 or 4 top people who are calling the shots in their respective areas of responsibility.
> 
> 
> Anyone who thinks that Jesse Benton will not be a major part in Rand's Campaign is kidding themselves.


at this point, i don't care.

i'm giving my time and efforts to supporting Liberty candidates for Congerssional seats that fit my ideals.

The Presidency is a joke anyway.....need i say more, or can you read between the lines?

so Matt, you go right ahead and waste your time....(thats a Libertarian point of view btw....agreed?)

----------


## 69360

> If you put hard money, time and effort into a candidate's run for office, then you get a voice, AFAIC.


I still don't see how that gives you a say in who gets hired. Ultimately it's the candidate's choice who they think they can work best with and who will help them win.

----------


## IndianaPolitico

I have no problem with Benton being involved with Rand's campaign. I guarantee that he will not be campaign manager however. Rand will have access to a much broader, more qualified field to pick from.

----------


## jjdoyle

> No, he'll have a major role and will be one  of the top guys just like he was on Rand's successful Senate campaign.  But a Presidential campaign is a massive organization and power is not  always concentrated. The most likely scenario I foresee is that there  will be 3 or 4 top people who are calling the shots in their respective  areas of responsibility.
> 
> Anyone who thinks that Jesse Benton will not be a major part in Rand's Campaign is kidding themselves.


Well, at this point, the FBI is still investigating the Kent Sorenson issue.
And  if Kent Sorenson was telling the truth, and Jesse Benton knew about the  bribe, I think that takes him out of the running for any position.

Then again, the issue might do enough damage to Rand in Iowa, it won't even matter.

So,  unless Rand isn't thinking that is an issue, then maybe he is kidding  himself? Maybe he isn't really serious about running to win, and instead  just interested in running another campaign to waste millions of dollars, to build up  his name, keep his family/friends employed, and then retire from the Senate and setup a paid-subscription  channel to spread the message from behind a paywall?

After all, the message is very important to spread, but apparently only so important it should be behind a paywall or if you're making $160K+ a year for some. Or, if you're peddling plastic chicken dinners enough, in the hopes you might get a job with a campaign, that is filled with other dishonest people.

So no, I don't think supporters are kidding themselves if they don't think Jesse Benton will be, or should be, part of Rand's 2016 campaign (assuming he does run). If he is, it shows Rand hasn't learned from history. Clearly, that was the case when he hired Jack Hunter, who used RonPaul2012.com to defend Rand Paul's lying endorsement of Mitt Romney.

Jack Hunter, like yourself, belittled the supporters and thought they needed some STUPID explanation of why Rand was right in endorsing Mitt Romney. It's not the supporters' fault Rand didn't have a clue of how to do a proper endorsement, and gave Mitt Romney credit for something there is absolutely no evidence he was supportive of "throughout his campaign".

See how well that worked out for the both of them.

----------


## Peace&Freedom

> Incorrect, the Campaign was still active then.
> 
> following parliamentary procedure is not disruptive. 
> 
> Yes, distancing some of the people at PF from the campaign was necessary.


The campaign, by all contenders, was OVER, Romney had the delegates to win on the first ballot, and had won the rule battles. The only issue was whether Ron could get his name placed in nomination, and get to give a nomination speech. The GOP henchmen weren't willing to give him even that, and in that context, the only way to fight back *was* to be disruptive. This could have been as simple as having the delegates mass protest the proceedings, then motioning to suspend the rules (i.e., not follow procedure) to unbind the delegates or grant Paul speaking time. Paul instructed his supporters to _not_ disrupt, so no victory was possible, even for getting him 15 minutes to speak.

Again, the campaign reps *didn't just distance* themselves from PaulFest, they *propagandized against it* (as well as lied to its organizers, according to several here), which was _not_ necessary, and widely displeased the grassroots.

----------


## Original_Intent

> yep...this is the far superior strategy. Getting Liberty candidates in the House and Senate, and $#@! the Presidency....too much BS goes into a Presidential run. Too much effort and time and MONEY....for what?....House and Senate...repeat this 5 times a day till it sinks in. Hopefully we can truly make real progress, and let the Matt Collins of the world pound sand instead....


And state legislators with the cajones to tell D.C. to suck it when they don't adhere to the Constitution. (which is pretty much all the time.)

----------


## MelissaWV

> And state legislators with the *cajones* to tell D.C. to suck it when they don't adhere to the Constitution. (which is pretty much all the time.)



*nitpick*

Cajones?  Containers?  Boxes?  A drum?

----------


## Matt Collins

> Paul instructed his supporters to _not_ disrupt, so no victory was possible, even for getting him 15 minutes to speak.


Disruption and fighting for procedure are not one in the same.

----------


## rp08orbust

> And yall should be grateful for Jesse because he was the driving force to get Ron to run in 2012.


What is that supposed to prove?  I can think of plenty of self-serving reasons to persuade another person to run for president.

While I would have been disappointed if Ron Paul had run for the open Senate seat from Texas instead, in hindsight, perhaps that would have been the better decision.

----------


## RonPaulFanInGA

> While I would have been disappointed if Ron Paul had run for the open Senate seat from Texas instead, in hindsight, perhaps that would have been the better decision.


The U.S. Senate is a six-year commitment, and I do not believe Ron Paul wanted to remain in Congress until he was 83-years-old in early 2019.

----------


## phill4paul

If Benton, Jack Hunter and Teh Collinz are on RandPaul2016 Inc. then I know I'll be sitting that one out. Because at that point I wouldn't trust Rand to pick the right people for cabinet positions.

----------


## kathy88

Well I maxed both times Ron ran, and like others here if Benton is involved that will decrease to zilch.

----------


## RonPaulFanInGA

> If Benton, Jack Hunter and Teh Collinz are on RandPaul2016 Inc. then I know I'll be sitting that one out. Because at that point I wouldn't trust Rand to pick the right people for cabinet positions.


It's weird that you would lump Hunter in with Benton, and sad that he's the one of that trio certain _not_ to be on Rand Paul's hypothetical official presidential campaign team, even though he'd be the least offensive of that group.

Wasn't Hunter forced to resign over some stupid Confederate faux-outrage?  Why would Paul bring him back?  The media is already going to try and paint him as some sort of rabid bigot over the Civil Rights Act issue, why would he exasperate the problem with Hunter?

----------


## phill4paul

> It's weird that you would lump Hunter in with Benton, and sad that he's the one of that trio certain _not_ to be on Rand Paul's hypothetical official presidential campaign team, even though he'd be the least offensive of that group.
> 
> Wasn't Hunter forced to resign over some stupid Confederate faux-outrage?  Why would Paul bring him back?  The media is already going to try and paint him as some sort of rabid bigot over the Civil Rights Act issue, why would he exasperate the problem with Hunter?


  There is a common thread to all three. There is a disdain for grassroots support that they deem fringe. There is a belief that they are above the common man, that they are the insiders with the "know-how." Which is hilarious. Because every one of us knows that Ron's war chest was built from the bottom up and got Ron both the money and publicity that they were unable to do.

----------


## JK/SEA

//

----------


## JK/SEA

> There is a common thread to all three. There is a disdain for grassroots support that they deem fringe. There is a belief that they are above the common man, that they are the insiders with the "know-how." Which is hilarious. Because every one of us knows that Ron's war chest was built from the bottom up and got Ron both the money and publicity that they were unable to do.


Matt says the 'fringe' (grassroots) are not welcome. 
Take your support and money some place else. Apparently.

----------


## whoisjohngalt

92.63% opposed and something like $20,000 pledged if Benton is not on the team.

I feel like an anti-bundler.  Keep up the good work, Collinz.

----------


## Warlord

> 92.63% opposed and something like $20,000 pledged if Benson is not on the team.
> 
> I feel like an anti-bundler.  Keep up the good work, Collinz.


I'm surprised by these numbers to be honest...

----------


## phill4paul

> 92.63% opposed and something like $20,000 pledged if Benson is not on the team.
> 
> I feel like an anti-bundler.  Keep up the good work, Collinz.


  They don't need the grassroots. They are gonna get red blooded mainstream GOPers to back Rand. What's a six million moneybomb compared to big donor support? So shut up you fringe folk that don't like Benton. You're not going to be needed this time around.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...cared-of-Paul)

----------


## Matt Collins

> Matt says the 'fringe' (grassroots) are not welcome. 
> Take your support and money some place else. Apparently.


https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman

----------


## Matt Collins

_For those of you who refuse to support Rand simply because you dislike someone on his staff, realize that when Jeb Bush becomes President, you were complacent in allowing that to happen:
_

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014...sidential-run/

----------


## liberalnurse

Oh, I support Rand.  I'll volunteer, maybe buy a Tshirt and yard sign.  I'll definitely vote for him.  Just won't give him a penny if Benton or you, for that matter Matt, are paid staff.  You burnt your bridges here with a lot of us in 2012. Oh, and no need to yell.  We hear you and have heard you loud and clear.

----------


## whoisjohngalt

> Oh, I support Rand.  I'll volunteer, maybe buy a Tshirt and yard sign.  I'll definitely vote for him.  Just won't give him a penny if Benton or you, for that matter Matt, are paid staff.  You burnt you bridges here with a lot of us in 2012. Oh, and no need to yell.  We hear you and have heard you loud and clear.


Can we make this like a money bomb thread and officially pledge how much we plan not to donate if Benton is involved in the running of the campaign?
That way when Rand's staffers come across the thread, they will understand how important that choice is.

I officially pledge to withhold a max donation of $5200 if Jesse Benton is selected as campaign manager for Rand Paul's 2016 presidential campaign.  I also pledge that should Jesse Benton not be selected to run Rand's campaign, I will donate $5200 to Rand Paul's 2016 presidential campaign.

----------


## Maltheus

> For those of you who refuse to support Rand simply because you dislike someone on his staff, realize that when Jeb Bush becomes President, you were complacent in allowing that to happen:
> 
> http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014...sidential-run/


It's impossible to convince the RP base to tolerate Benton. There are too many people out there, with too many different reasons to dislike him. It should be, however, much easier to convince Rand Paul to not go with the guy under investigation for corruption, who is pretty much only known nationally for the cringe-worthy McConnell flub. That is, assuming he isn't being completely insulated by the Bentonites. Until he actually makes the mistake, there's still hope to turn this around. I'm not sure why you aren't on board with us Matt. Given how much time you've spent on the defensive, on this issue, surely it's clear to you that he's more of an impediment to fundraising and acquiring delegates than he is a boon. We can't continue to drive out our most experienced people and hope to make any progress.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> There is a common thread to all three. There is a disdain for grassroots support that they deem fringe. There is a belief that they are above the common man, that they are the insiders with the "know-how." Which is hilarious. Because every one of us knows that Ron's war chest was built from the bottom up and got Ron both the money and publicity that they were unable to do.


Ron's war chest?  Are you serious here?   We few gave it all we had, but the fact is that Ron's campaign never raised enough money to compete in a national race.  Especially when he also needed to run ads to counteract the lies being spewed about him by the media.

They never hated the "fringe", as you call it.  But, one more time.... THERE ARE NOT ENOUGH OF US TO WIN.  We are just a drop in the bucket.   To win just the Republican nomination, Rand will have to win over one ton of mainstream Republicans.  I don't understand why some of you cannot get this.   All of you know that the other guys are looking for any opportunity at all to blow up into something worthy of sinking Rand.   Why do some here want to help them?

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Oh, I support Rand.  I'll volunteer, maybe buy a Tshirt and yard sign.  I'll definitely vote for him.  Just won't give him a penny if Benton or you, for that matter Matt, are paid staff.  You burnt your bridges here with a lot of us in 2012. Oh, and no need to yell.  We hear you and have heard you loud and clear.


There were times he did some good though.  Be fair.  I remember more than a few times when people saw some claim and started running off with it screaming that the sky was falling and Matt stepping in with more information.

----------


## angelatc

> For those of you who refuse to support Rand simply because you dislike someone on his staff, realize that when Jeb Bush becomes President, you were complacent in allowing that to happen:
> 
> 
> http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014...sidential-run/


m 

Oh look - the campaign is here blaming us for another loss - this time before it even happens. Because nothing is ever their fault when they lose. 

The real deal is simply that we all know that there's no freaking way Rand will win if Benton runs the campaign.   He's weak, arrogant, he can't handle the media, his messaging gets nowhere, has never been able to manage the press, his last strategy (the stealth delegate thing) was bot laughable and devastating on every imaginable level.

You can stamp your feet and have your little tantrums all you want, and you can blame us yet again.  We can totally live with that.

----------


## liberalnurse

> There were times he did some good though.  Be fair.  I remember more than a few times when people saw some claim and started running off with it screaming that the sky was falling and Matt stepping in with more information.


I agree. I specifically stated 2012.

----------


## angelatc

> Ron's war chest?  Are you serious here?   We few gave it all we had, but the fact is that Ron's campaign never raised enough money to compete in a national raise.  Especially when he also needed to run ads to counteract the lies being spewed about him by the media.


Which highlights two of the areas that Benton's campaign was weak in.  He could not raise money, and he couldn't effectively counter the media messaging.   This is exactly WHY he should not be allowed to run another campaign.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Which highlights two of the areas that Benton's campaign was weak in.  He could not raise money, and he couldn't effectively counter the media messaging.   This is exactly WHY he should not be allowed to run another campaign.


Oh, I don't want Benton running Rand's campaign either.  I'm sure he's learned a lot, politically, working for McConnell, but even there he got caught with his foot in his mouth.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> _For those of you who refuse to support Rand simply because you dislike someone on his staff, realize that when Jeb Bush becomes President, you were complacent in allowing that to happen:
> _
> 
> http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014...sidential-run/



How so?  I read the article and I didn't see anything in there that could be blamed on the grassroots.

----------


## phill4paul

> Ron's war chest?  Are you serious here?   We few gave it all we had, but the fact is that Ron's campaign never raised enough money to compete in a national raise.  Especially when he also needed to run ads to counteract the lies being spewed about him by the media.
> 
> They never hated the "fringe", as you call it.  But, one more time.... THERE ARE NOT ENOUGH OF US TO WIN.  We are just a drop in the bucket.   To win just the Republican nomination, Rand will have to win over one ton of mainstream Republicans.  I don't understand why some of you cannot get this.   All of you know that the other guys are looking for any opportunity at all to blow up into something worthy of sinking Rand.   Why do some here want to help them?


Yes, his War Chest. RonPaul2012, Inc. was handed the second largest amount through fundraising second only to Mitt Romney. There WAS enough to compete but for some reason RonPaul2012, Inc. chose not to attack Mitt Romney. That is on RonPaul2012, Inc. not on those that gave all they had. You need to read some of jjdoyles posts to understand what the hell went down. 
As far as this issue with Benton goes I hope that if you are serious about not sinking Rand then you, and Rand, will take to heart the message of what 80% of the respondents of this poll are trying to get across.

----------


## JK/SEA

> https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman


this response from Matt is childish...at best.

----------


## JK/SEA

> _For those of you who refuse to support Rand simply because you dislike someone on his staff, realize that when Jeb Bush becomes President, you were complacent in allowing that to happen:
> _
> 
> http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014...sidential-run/


Jeb Bush President?....so what?...the Presidency is a joke, but carry on wasting your efforts, as i will be focusing on CONGRESSIONAL SEATS...

----------


## Occam's Banana

> _For those of you who refuse to support Rand simply because you dislike someone on his staff, realize that when Jeb Bush becomes President, you were complacent in allowing that to happen:
> _
> 
> http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014...sidential-run/


https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/

----------


## angelatc

> Oh, I don't want Benton running Rand's campaign either.  I'm sure he's learned a lot, politically, working for McConnell,* but even there he got caught with his foot in his mouth.*


*
*
Exactly.  Benton might end up as a stellar campaign professional after he grows up.  But to date, he has not done anything to inspire any confidence in me, that's for sure.

----------


## phill4paul

> this response from Matt is childish...at best.


  Yup. Hope others will be encouraged to treat it likewise.




> And notice to Teh Collinz. Henceforth, whenever you use yourlogicalfallacy.com as a rebuttal to any poster from here on out it shall garner a neg rep from me. It's gone past the point of the ridiculous.

----------


## JK/SEA

> Yup. Hope others will be encouraged to treat it likewise.


Matt Collins. Leading the way.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> _For those of you who refuse to support Rand simply because you dislike someone on his staff, realize that when Jeb Bush becomes President, you were complacent in allowing that to happen:
> _
> 
> http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014...sidential-run/


LOL - Is that a threat?

Do you think I care?

I sat on my hands and refused to support Romney over O-Bomb-Ya.

Threatening me with Bush or Hillary is an empty threat at best.

Have you forgotten?

*No One But Paul.*

If I perceive that Rand is doing something unforgiveably boneheaded or filling his staff with a bunch of Benton clones, I'll happily write in Ron Paul yet again, and sleep soundly on election night.

We may be small in number, but we can make the difference between a win or a loss.

2012 proved that.

----------


## MelissaWV

Actually I kind of want to change my vote.  Maybe Benton and Collins could advise, and then the exact opposite of their suggestions could be implemented.

----------


## Cabal



----------


## Warlord

Jeb as president? dont make me laugh.  He holds no political office for a start plus is the most boring speaker you can find

----------


## devil21

I have no doubt that Benton was compromised long ago, either by sheer political ladder-climbing desire or directly by elements that would like to see our movement fail....or maybe both.  I wouldn't abandon Rand entirely if Benton had a very minor campaign role but it definitely would make me question motives more.  If Benton were campaign manager, spokesman, or anything even remotely resembling his positions of influence in Ron's campaigns then I would be majorly disappointed and much, much less involved than I would be otherwise.

No surprise the sock puppet brigade voted YES though, while everyone with join dates before 2012 say NO.  That sorta tells me what I need to know about Benton.

----------


## jjdoyle

> Ron's war chest?  Are you serious here?   We  few gave it all we had, but the fact is that Ron's campaign never  raised enough money to compete in a national raise.  Especially when he  also needed to run ads to counteract the lies being spewed about him by  the media.
> 
> They never hated the "fringe", as you call it.  But, one more time....  THERE ARE NOT ENOUGH OF US TO WIN.  We are just a drop in the bucket.    To win just the Republican nomination, Rand will have to win over one  ton of mainstream Republicans.  I don't understand why some of you  cannot get this.   All of you know that the other guys are looking for  any opportunity at all to blow up into something worthy of sinking Rand.    Why do some here want to help them?


It is not the grassroots' responsibility to run a campaign that is actually TRYING to win it.

Your point of saying Ron Paul 2012 didn't have enough to compete in a national raise, is beyond stupid though.

Ron  Paul raised the 2nd most amount of money in 2012, only behind Mitt  Romney on the Republican side. Most people involved in political  campaigns are very aware of the importance of actually WINNING states in  Primaries, to increase fundraising. Had Ron Paul 2012 ACTUALLY been  trying to win, and not simply waste millions for some "future campaign",  I can only imagine how much Ron Paul 2012 would have raised if RP had  won a state's popular vote.

Ron Paul 2012 raised more money than  Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich, both of which actually won a state with  the popular vote. Let that sink in for a bit, and you start to see the  incompetence that was/is Ron Paul 2012 with its messaging. Along with  your stupid line of thinking Ron Paul 2012 didn't have enough to win a  national race. Ron Paul never won a SINGLE state's popular vote, AND  STILL raised more than candidates that did.

Despite one around  here (who received paychecks from the campaign) saying they needed to  control its messaging. The real problem with Ron Paul 2012 was not a  money problem. They had grassroots that would give all, and then some.  The real problem with Ron Paul 2012 was not having "enough" voters to  win. You address that with your messaging and ads (which the campaign didn't do). Showing up to states. Living in states. Asking people to vote for you. (Something Ron Paul didn't even do in Virginia before the primary, but did it for the Republican candidate for governor recently.)

The real problem  with Ron Paul 2012 was that its messaging was being controlled, and it  was being controlled by staffers that had agreed to help Mitt Romney's  campaign. I believe this 100%, based on facts/history/actions/non-actions of the campaign.

It's why Ron Paul 2012 was wasting funds attacking Rick Santorum in South Carolina. A state Ron Paul had no chance to win.
It's why Ron Paul 2012 wasted funds attacking Rick Santorum in Michigan. Another state Ron Paul had no chance to win.

It's  also why Ron Paul 2012 never ran one single Mitt Romney only TV attack  ad in states Ron Paul had a chance to win. Like Maine, New Hampshire,  Nevada, and even Virginia.

Which is exactly why Ron Paul 2012 was a horrible, lying and corrupt, campaign, with 100% of the blame for being the failure that it was/is.

Ron  Paul 2012 was so incompetently run (if you don't buy the outright  dishonestly run), they wasted money attacking Rick Santorum in South  Carolina and Michigan. Instead of spending funds on ads to address the  "lies" you said the media was spreading. Or, better yet, having their  media guy go on to those shows and try and address them when it  mattered.

Think about that for a moment. Ron Paul had ONE major  issue. ONE. And the incompetent campaign couldn't get RP or anybody on  staff to address it in a professional style as the campaign was sinking  faster in Iowa than the Titanic did in the North Atlantic Ocean? No, the grassroots had to give money to a PAC that produced an ad to try and help with that issue. After Iowa.

But,  you continue to have a defeatist attitude and blame the grassroots for  things like, "not getting it". It's not the grassroots responsibility  to win it, and ACTUALLY TRY TO WIN IT. But guess what, the grassroots  did exactly that. Ron Paul's supporters, though outnumbered by idiots to  1, went above and beyond when called upon. And even when not.

Ron  Paul 2012 was a complete failure of a campaign, with  incompetent/dishonest campaign workers and staff that were spread  throughout the entire campaign.

Don't act like the grassroots  didn't understand we didn't have enough to win, when it was those  supporters pounding the pavement trying to turn out the votes. Doing the  waste of "Phone-from-Home" campaign. And those very same supporters  being TURNED AWAY BY THE OFFICIAL CAMPAIGN FROM GOING TO HELP IN IOWA! Supporters doing those things for FREE.

The  amount of blaming grassroots and supporters for the incompetent, lying,  dishonest campaign staff and workers, is beyond me. I understand  we are outnumbered idiots to 1 in many instances. THAT DIDN'T STOP THE  GRASSROOTS FROM ACTUALLY TRYING TO WIN IT.

Your stupid idea that Ron Paul 2012 didn't have enough money to run a national campaign, falls directly on the campaign. For not actually TRYING to win it, and instead agreeing with and helping Mitt Romney's campaign seal the nomination. THAT IS ON THE CAMPAIGN. Not the grassroots. Your defeatist attitude about the grassroots "not getting it" is 100% wrong, and misplaced.

----------


## phill4paul

Awaiting Teh Collinz, Teh Insider, Teh Pulse on Teh Inner Workings of Teh RonPaul1012, Inc. to address these points without resorting to https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/.

----------


## angelatc

> Awaiting Teh Collinz, Teh Insider, Teh Pulse on Teh Inner Workings of Teh RonPaul1012, Inc. to address these points without resorting to https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/.


Your logical fallacy is assuming that it is possible for Matt to be wrong about anything, ever.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> It is not the grassroots' responsibility to run a campaign that is actually TRYING to win it.


I wholeheartedly believe that they were trying to win at the beginning, when there was a chance.




> Your point of saying Ron Paul 2012 didn't have enough to compete in a national raise, is beyond stupid though.


What's stupid is not to realize that it would take far more money than the others to compete against the 24x7 media onslaught smearing Ron Paul.  Pretty much after Iowa, the donation spigot closed.




> Ron  Paul raised the 2nd most amount of money in 2012, only behind Mitt  Romney on the Republican side. Most people involved in political  campaigns are very aware of the importance of actually WINNING states in  Primaries, to increase fundraising. Had Ron Paul 2012 ACTUALLY been  trying to win, and not simply waste millions for some "future campaign",  I can only imagine how much Ron Paul 2012 would have raised if RP had  won a state's popular vote.


They tried to win in Iowa.  Perhaps you have forgotten what the media was doing to him at the time.




> Ron Paul 2012 raised more money than  Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich, both of which actually won a state with  the popular vote. Let that sink in for a bit, and you start to see the  incompetence that was/is Ron Paul 2012 with its messaging. Along with  your stupid line of thinking Ron Paul 2012 didn't have enough to win a  national race. Ron Paul never won a SINGLE state's popular vote, AND  STILL raised more than candidates that did.


Yes, and the media was not singularly focused on sliming them, like they were Ron.




> Despite one around  here (who received paychecks from the campaign) saying they needed to  control its messaging. The real problem with Ron Paul 2012 was not a  money problem. They had grassroots that would give all, and then some.  The real problem with Ron Paul 2012 was not having "enough" voters to  win. You address that with your messaging and ads (which the campaign didn't do). Showing up to states. Living in states. Asking people to vote for you. (Something Ron Paul didn't even do in Virginia before the primary, but did it for the Republican candidate for governor recently.)


I don't agree with everything the campaign did, either.  But, neither did I think any candidate's campaign was run perfectly.  But, you just ignore those.




> The real problem  with Ron Paul 2012 was that its messaging was being controlled, and it  was being controlled by staffers that had agreed to help Mitt Romney's  campaign. I believe this 100%, based on facts/history/actions/non-actions of the campaign.


Oh bull$#@!.  Hell yes, the message needed to be controlled so that it was RON PAUL'S message being communicated, not some supposed supporters who believed they earned the right to piggyback off of Ron Paul's campaign because they donated 50 bucks.

Do you have any proof that RP staffers agreed to help Mitt Romney's campaign?  Actual proof; not your delusional thoughts.




> It's why Ron Paul 2012 was wasting funds attacking Rick Santorum in South Carolina. A state Ron Paul had no chance to win.
> It's why Ron Paul 2012 wasted funds attacking Rick Santorum in Michigan. Another state Ron Paul had no chance to win.
> 
> It's  also why Ron Paul 2012 never ran one single Mitt Romney only TV attack  ad in states Ron Paul had a chance to win. Like Maine, New Hampshire,  Nevada, and even Virginia.
> 
> Which is exactly why Ron Paul 2012 was a horrible, lying and corrupt, campaign, with 100% of the blame for being the failure that it was/is.
> 
> Ron  Paul 2012 was so incompetently run (if you don't buy the outright  dishonestly run), they wasted money attacking Rick Santorum in South  Carolina and Michigan. Instead of spending funds on ads to address the  "lies" you said the media was spreading. Or, better yet, having their  media guy go on to those shows and try and address them when it  mattered.
> 
> ...


Sorry, stopped reading.  Your troll bait posts are getting more than tiring.  Hopefully soon, management will have had enough of you.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Yes, his War Chest. RonPaul2012, Inc. was handed the second largest amount through fundraising second only to Mitt Romney. There WAS enough to compete but for some reason RonPaul2012, Inc. chose not to attack Mitt Romney. That is on RonPaul2012, Inc. not on those that gave all they had. You need to read some of jjdoyles posts to understand what the hell went down. 
> As far as this issue with Benton goes I hope that if you are serious about not sinking Rand then you, and Rand, will take to heart the message of what 80% of the respondents of this poll are trying to get across.


I recall most of us understanding at the time that the goal was to make it an ultimate race between Romney and Paul and to force the others out.  I don't know if that was a smart move or not, but that is what was being discussed around here at the time.  Get the others out and force people to choose between a big government oinker and Paul.

----------


## Rocco

This is the piece JJDoyle conveniently forgets...




> I recall most of us understanding at the time that the goal was to make it an ultimate race between Romney and Paul and to force the others out.

----------


## phill4paul

> Blah, blah, blah.


  Annnnd a whole lot of nothing. Why no anti-Romney ad with money in the till?

----------


## phill4paul

> This is the piece JJDoyle conveniently forgets...


  No. Most of who exactly? Give me some numbers. Start a poll.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Annnnd a whole lot of nothing. Why no anti-Romney ad with money in the till?


I recall most of us understanding at the time that the goal was to make it an ultimate race between Romney and Paul and to force the others out.

After that, you heard what Doug Wead said as much as I did.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> No. Most of who exactly? Give me some numbers. Start a poll.


What would that tell you?  Most everyone who actually did something has gone from this place.  The bitchers and moaners and quitters, inc. rule the place now.

It WAS talked about a great deal at the time, whether you want to admit it or not.

----------


## phill4paul

> Most everyone who actually did something has gone from this place.


   Honestly? I'll admit that I'm not the the paragon of what RPF's had to offer. Are you? I'll be interested to see what many long time members have to say about this. 

  We did this to ourselves?

----------


## JK/SEA

> What would that tell you?  Most everyone who actually did something has gone from this place.  The bitchers and moaners and quitters, inc. rule the place now.
> 
> It WAS talked about a great deal at the time, whether you want to admit it or not.


''bitchers, moaners, quitters''.................

helluva an allegation there.....

in my defense, seeing as how i VOTED in the poll, i'm focusing on Congressional seats as opposed to the useless efforts of working on getting a President.

----------


## jjdoyle

> I recall most of us understanding at the time that the goal was to make it an ultimate race between Romney and Paul and to force the others out.  I don't know if that was a smart move or not, but that is what was being discussed around here at the time.  Get the others out and force people to choose between a big government oinker and Paul.


You memory is pretty horrible in regards to the campaign. You didn't even know the campaign was sitting on more than a million cash-on-hand when it ended. Even negative repping me when I provided the link to it. You believed outright lies from those within the campaign and out, that either didn't know, or were too lazy (probably), to look at a link.

The first one-on-one state, Virginia, had not one single RP ad run in it. Not one single POSITIVE RP ad, or Romney attack ad.

So, this delusional thinking that the goal was to make it RP vs. Romney, is completely stupid at its base. And has no evidence to back it up. Even Jesse Benton admitted in May on a press call, that the chances of a brokered convention fell apart when Rick Santorum dropped out. Why did Rick Santorum drop out? Because Ron Paul 2012 never helped Rick Santorum win a state, like it did Mitt Romney.

And do I have proof that Ron Paul staff agreed to help Mitt Romney win the nomination? Actions speak louder than words, so yes, I do:
1) Ron Paul 2012 ran attack ads against Rick Santorum in Michigan, spending at least $100K doing so.
2) Ron Paul 2012 ran attack ads against Rick Santorum in South Carolina, a state Ron Paul couldn't have even beat Mitt Romney in according to the polls.
3) Ron Paul 2012 produced an ad making fun of Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich for attacking a Mitt Romney staffer over the Etch-A-Sketch issue.
4) Ron Paul could not answer with a flatout "No." when asked if there was an agreement with Mitt Romney's campaign in late January 2012, or early February 2012.
5) Ron Paul 2012's expert campaign staffer, Jesse Benton, confirmed in a phone conference with the press in May 2012, that Ron Paul 2012 staff had already been talking with Romney's staff about certain planks to put in at the RNC.

Some can't add 2+2 and get 4. But I can.

Then, Doug Wead confirmed at the RNC that Mitt Romney's campaign had threatened to "forever destroy" the name Ron Paul, and the decision was made for the "future" of the movement to not attack Mitt Romney.

So, they agreed to not attack Mitt Romney before Michigan, and didn't let supporters know of that information. And instead attacked Rick Santorum in Michigan, helping Mitt Romney win that state.

And Ron Paul 2012 continued to lie about some fake delegate strategy to supporters only to get more money from them. A delegate strategy they helped make sure wouldn't happen in states like Louisiana, when they gave away more than half the elected delegates.

Then, the campaign ended with an email in June, and RP sitting by in complete silence for nearly a week after his son went on national TV, and endorsed Mitt Romney and drug Ron Paul supporters into that endorsement. And lied in that endorsement.
And Ron Paul 2012's official campaign website was used to DEFEND A LYING ENDORSEMENT OF MITT ROMNEY. Perhaps if Rand knew how to do a proper endorsement, it wouldn't have required Jack Hunter to try and defend a lying endorsement?

So no, your stupid understanding it just that. Based on the actual actions/non-actions of the campaign, words of Doug Wead, and Rand's lying endorsement, Ron Paul 2012 was a side campaign for Mitt Romney.

*Ron Paul 2012 never ran one single pro-RP or anti-Romney ad in Virginia, the first one-on-one state. So, the delusional idea that it was some plan to make Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich drop out first, holds NO TRUTH.*

The entire campaign was completely dishonest from the moment they agreed to not attack Mitt Romney, and continued.




> This is the piece JJDoyle conveniently forgets...


I'll post it again, since you conveniently know how to not read full posts, or ignore history:
*Ron Paul 2012 never ran one single pro-RP or anti-Romney ad in  Virginia, the first one-on-one state. So, the delusional idea that it  was some plan to make Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich drop out first,  holds NO TRUTH.*

----------


## Rocco

Anybody who was around during the campaign realizes that you are full of it. By the time Virginia came around the nomination was lost, the bulk of the work and spending to get the non Romney's out was done pre Iowa, and it was ABSOLUTELY the strategy. The entire rationale was that the conservative vote was being split and allowing Romney to be out in front and until we coalesced the conservatives behind Ron Paul we could not win. The fact that you deny this is laughable. 




> You memory is pretty horrible in regards to the campaign. You didn't even know the campaign was sitting on more than a million cash-on-hand when it ended. Even negative repping me when I provided the link to it. You believed outright lies from those within the campaign and out, that either didn't know, or were too lazy (probably), to look at a link.
> 
> The first one-on-one state, Virginia, had not one single RP ad run in it. Not one single POSITIVE RP ad, or Romney attack ad.
> 
> So, this delusional thinking that the goal was to make it RP vs. Romney, is completely stupid at its base. And has no evidence to back it up. Even Jesse Benton admitted in May on a press call, that the chances of a brokered convention fell apart when Rick Santorum dropped out. Why did Rick Santorum drop out? Because Ron Paul 2012 never helped Rick Santorum win a state, like it did Mitt Romney.

----------


## phill4paul

> Anybody who was around during the campaign realizes that you are full of it. By the time Virginia came around the nomination was lost, the bulk of the work and spending to get the non Romney's out was done pre Iowa, and it was ABSOLUTELY the strategy. The entire rationale was that the conservative vote was being split and allowing Romney to be out in front and until we coalesced the conservatives behind Ron Paul we could not win. The fact that you deny this is laughable.


 I thought, correct me if I'm wrong, we were "still in it to win it" in Virginia? Delegates. Hoo-yah! 50 thousand votes. That's all we needed. 43 frikken delegates vs. 3. In a one-on-one state. You're actually gonna try and defend that. That is what is laughable.

----------


## jjdoyle

> Anybody who was around during the campaign realizes that you are full of it. By the time Virginia came around the nomination was lost, the bulk of the work and spending to get the non Romney's out was done pre Iowa, and it was ABSOLUTELY the strategy. The entire rationale was that the conservative vote was being split and allowing Romney to be out in front and until we coalesced the conservatives behind Ron Paul we could not win. The fact that you deny this is laughable.


Virginia was on Super Tuesday, March 6th. Michigan was on February 28th, only a week before.

Your idea of them trying to get all the candidates out in Iowa, doesn't hold water.
There was not one single Rick Santorum attack ad produced by Ron Paul 2012 that aired in Iowa. Despite MYSELF even sending them a template for a Rick Santorum attack ad in the middle of December.

Guess what though. I didn't stop there. I know the idea of "my enemy's enemy is my friend.", and in politics, that is very much true. Rick Perry was DONE. But he was at least grasping at straws and TRYING to climb up. I sent the template to his campaign after not receiving a response from Ron Paul 2012.
Within 24 hours of Rick Perry's campaign getting the template, they had produced the ad and were running it in Iowa.

So, perhaps had Ron Paul 2012 not been sleeping at the wheel in Iowa, while Rick Santorum was getting free press and climbing in the polls, they would have been prepared with an attack ad for him too.

Instead, they wasted money attacking him in South Carolina, and in Michigan.

So, perhaps you were clueless and missed my previous posts about sending Ron Paul 2012 an attack ad template for Rick Santorum in Iowa, and them ignoring it, but it doesn't change the fact they didn't attack Rick Santorum in Iowa. Only waited until after. Because, they ARE the experts that did less, with more.

----------


## devil21

> Annnnd a whole lot of nothing. Why no anti-Romney ad with money in the till?


If you recall, Ron's ad guy was married to a Romney campaign staffer.  Ron put out great ads against everyone except Romney.  The question would be how much impact Benton had on the hiring of that guy and whether there was an agreement to not go after Romney in exchange for his services.

----------


## phill4paul

> If you recall, Ron's ad guy was married to a Romney campaign staffer.  Ron put out great ads against everyone except Romney.  The question would be how much impact Benton had on the hiring of that guy and whether there was an agreement to not go after Romney in exchange for his services.


  I wasn't aware. Can you link some specifics?

----------


## Matt Collins

> Oh, I support Rand.  I'll volunteer, maybe buy a Tshirt and yard sign.  I'll definitely vote for him.  Just won't give him a penny if Benton or you, for that matter Matt, are paid staff.  You burnt your bridges here with a lot of us in 2012. Oh, and no need to yell.  We hear you and have heard you loud and clear.


If you refuse to support a candidate because you have personality problems with someone on his staff, then you are petty and winning back your liberty isn't that important to you apparently.  I have personality problems with several people in the liberty movement, but yet I don't let that get in the way of getting the job done.

----------


## Matt Collins

> Oh look - the campaign is here blaming us for another loss -


No, not at all. No one blamed a loss on anyone. 





> The real deal is simply that we all know that there's no freaking way Rand will win if Benton runs the campaign.   He's weak, arrogant, he can't handle the media, his messaging gets nowhere, has never been able to manage the press, his last strategy (the stealth delegate thing) was bot laughable and devastating on every imaginable level.


Your ignorance is showing.

----------


## Matt Collins

> this response from Matt is childish...at best.


https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem

----------


## Matt Collins

> Jeb Bush President?....so what?...the Presidency is a joke, but carry on wasting your efforts, as i will be focusing on CONGRESSIONAL SEATS...



A liberty minded president will have control over foreign policy. They will be able to repeal previous executive orders. They will be able to issue pardons. They will be able to veto legislation. They will be able to have the presence of the bully pulpit. They will be able to make thousands of appointments. They will be able to influence the direction of the Party. 

There are many other things that a President can do, even if they simply play defense and don't allow certain things to happen that would otherwise happen. THAT is why getting someone into the Executive Branch is important if that opportunity presents itself. At this point in time, it is looking like Rand is that opportunity for us to win.

----------


## Matt Collins

> Jeb as president? dont make me laugh.  He holds no political office for a start plus is the most boring speaker you can find


No, but he has a lot of money and his network is still in place. Romney didn't hold a political office when he ran, and he is pretty boring to listen to, and yet he won the nomination.

----------


## Matt Collins

> Anybody who was around during the campaign realizes that you are full of it. By the time Virginia came around the nomination was lost, the bulk of the work and spending to get the non Romney's out was done pre Iowa, and it was ABSOLUTELY the strategy. The entire rationale was that the conservative vote was being split and allowing Romney to be out in front and until we coalesced the conservatives behind Ron Paul we could not win. The fact that you deny this is laughable.


Don't waste your time on JJDoyle. [mod delete] I think he is opposition that is trying to spread disinfo to lower morale. I could be wrong, but he is definitely not worth responding to as I have explained to him why he is wrong multiple times and he refuses to accept reality from someone who was there and saw most of this stuff first hand.

----------


## phill4paul

> https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem


  What do you think of Matt Collins's post?

 I disapprove

----------


## Rocco

We were finished once we lost Iowa, or certainly after we lost New Hampshire. Even if you held out a small glimmer of hope until Nevada, once we lost Nevada we were done. By Virginia it was over no matter how much we (myself included, 100% fully admitted) were deluding ourselves. 




> I thought, correct me if I'm wrong, we were "still in it to win it" in Virginia? Delegates. Hoo-yah! 50 thousand votes. That's all we needed. 43 frikken delegates vs. 3. In a one-on-one state. You're actually gonna try and defend that. That is what is laughable.

----------


## phill4paul

> No, but he has a lot of money and his network is still in place. Romney didn't hold a political office when he ran, and he is pretty boring to listen to, and yet he won the nomination.


  Because of RonPaul2012, Inc. Take a bow.

----------


## phill4paul

> We were finished once we lost Iowa, or certainly after we lost New Hampshire. Even if you held out a small glimmer of hope until Nevada, once we lost Nevada we were done. By Virginia it was over no matter how much we (myself included, 100% fully admitted) were deluding ourselves.


  We were? Why? There was money to spend. Was there not? 50k votes. 50 $#@!ing k votes for 43 delegates. Well, damn, add those delegates to what was traded away in LA annnd.....
  Why was NH lost? Because there are some venerated forum members here that were told to just give money and go $#@! themselves, leave it to RP2012,Inc and shut the $#@! up.  
 No, don't even try to pull this $#@!.

----------


## phill4paul

> Don't waste your time on JJDoyle. [mod delete] I think he is opposition that is trying to spread disinfo to lower morale. I could be wrong, but he is definitely not worth responding to as I have explained to him why he is wrong multiple times and he refuses to accept reality from someone who was there and saw most of this stuff first hand.


 Ohhh, scary. He's the bad guy when he is the one bringing up relative points and all you have to rebut with is "he is the opposition." Lol.

----------


## JK/SEA

> A liberty minded president will have control over foreign policy. They will be able to repeal previous executive orders. They will be able to issue pardons. They will be able to veto legislation. They will be able to have the presence of the bully pulpit. They will be able to make thousands of appointments. They will be able to influence the direction of the Party. 
> 
> There are many other things that a President can do, even if they simply play defense and don't allow certain things to happen that would otherwise happen. THAT is why getting someone into the Executive Branch is important if that opportunity presents itself. At this point in time, it is looking like Rand is that opportunity for us to win.



ever hear of a veto proof congress?....liberty congress people at 60% can and will neuter a fascist president....like a Jeb Bush for instance. And that would be just the beginning

----------


## jjdoyle

> Don't waste your time on JJDoyle. He is a troll, and in fact I think he is opposition that is trying to spread disinfo to lower morale. I could be wrong, but he is definitely not worth responding to as I have explained to him why he is wrong multiple times and he refuses to accept reality from someone who was there and saw most of this stuff first hand.


Stating facts about what Ron Paul 2012 did/didn't do, is not spreading disinfo.
Unlike yourself in spreading outright lies like Jesse Benton influencing and convincing Ron Paul to run for President in 2012, WITH NO PROOF.

You have never explained anything about why I am wrong, because you can't. The truth, is not wrong.

*Can you please provide me a link to the Mitt Romney only TV attack ad, like Ron Paul 2012 produced and aired for Rick Santorum, Rick Perry, and Newt Gingrich? No, you can't. It didn't happen.
*
Facts:
1) Ron Paul 2012 never ran one single Mitt Romney only TV attack ad, like they did against Rick Perry, Rick Santorum, and Newt Gingrich.
2) Ron Paul 2012 wasted funds, at least $100K, attacking Rick Santorum in Michigan, a state Ron Paul had NO chance of winning. Helping Mitt Romney win that state.
3) Ron Paul 2012 sent out multiple emails saying all funds would be used to win the nomination, but ended with Rand Paul endorsing Mitt Romney on national TV for a speaking slot at the RNC. BEFORE the RNC had happened. Why? Because Ron Paul 2012 was working with Romney's campaign in states like Louisiana, to make sure the delegate issue, was NOT an issue. Ask the Louisiana Ron Paul supporters who showed up, and DID WHAT THEY WERE SUPPOSED TO DO! Before they were thrown under the Mitt Romney bus.
4) Ron Paul 2012 ended with more than a million dollars cash-on-hand, and sent an email to at least one supporter who was asking for a refund in September 2012, lying and saying the amount they had on hand was being over-stated by some. Denying that supporter a refund, despite even now still having over $900,000 cash-on-hand, after helping Mitt Romney win the nomination.

I do think they might be keeping the cash-on-hand for a legal defense fund in the Kent Sorenson issue, which in all honesty, if that is the case, is a dishonest and waste of hard working supporters' money. If Ron Paul 2012 had staff doing illegal transactions, the supporters should not pay for that. The fact they are still stitting on that cash, wasting it, is beyond me. Give it back to supporters that ask, so they can donate it to candidates/campaigns that actually want to win, and make a real difference.

I accept reality. You know nothing. Like the Kent Sorenson issue. Like the backroom deal with Romney's campaign. You are exactly the problem. A campaign staffer that "just follows orders", and will take paychecks all day long from supporters' that gave who were actually trying to win, even when you are staring the liars directly in the face you should be exposing.

Jesse Benton, and staffers like yourself that continue to spread lies about how wonderful RP2012 was, should be nowhere near Rand in 2016. If you can't accept and state the reality of the complete, dishonest, misleading, waste that was Ron Paul 2012, you shouldn't be involved in a serious political campaign. Because lying to supporters and wasting their time and money for MONTHS is one of the dumbest ways I have ever heard to "grow a movement". Which, is what some want to claim Ron Paul 2012 was really about.

----------


## phill4paul

Your chance to shine Teh Collinz. Or just sign off as another FrankRep. Go....................




> Stating facts about what Ron Paul 2012 did/didn't do, is not spreading disinfo.
> Unlike yourself in spreading outright lies like Jesse Benton influencing and convincing Ron Paul to run for President in 2012, WITH NO PROOF.
> 
> You have never explained anything about why I am wrong, because you can't. The truth, is not wrong.
> 
> *Can you please provide me a link to the Mitt Romney only TV attack ad, like Ron Paul 2012 produced and aired for Rick Santorum, Rick Perry, and Newt Gingrich? No, you can't. It didn't happen.
> *
> Facts:
> 1) Ron Paul 2012 never ran one single Mitt Romney only TV attack ad, like they did against Rick Perry, Rick Santorum, and Newt Gingrich.
> ...

----------


## Crashland

After reading through this long thread, from my perspective jjdoyle's points are a lot more compelling than Collins. Plus, even if Ron's 2012 campaign was not the failure that it was, no one from Ron's staff should expect anything or feel like they are somehow entitled to have certain positions in Rand's 2016 campaign. That is completely up to Rand. I thought everybody should already know by now he doesn't do politics the same way as his father.

----------


## devil21

> I wasn't aware. Can you link some specifics?


Re: RP's ad guy (Collins tried to thread slide my post off the page....I see what you did Collins.....anyway)

Jon Downs is the droid you're looking for.  Alicia Downs is his wife.  Google fu will find the rest.

Hiring beltway insiders like Wead, Fein, Downs and Benton (Im sure he loves that label but he's a sell out) will guarantee a competitive campaign.  It will also guarantee a losing campaign since they are ultimately committed to their own ends, not the movement.  The grassroots will win Rand2016, not Benton or any of the ivory tower political schmucks that usually control these campaigns.

----------


## jjdoyle

> Re: RP's ad guy (Collins tried to thread slide my post off the page....I see what you did Collins.....anyway)
> 
> Jon Downs is the droid you're looking for.  Alicia Downs is his wife.  Google fu will find the rest.
> 
> Hiring beltway insiders like Wead, Fein, Downs and Benton (Im sure he loves that label but he's a sell out) will guarantee a competitive campaign.  It will also guarantee a losing campaign since they are ultimately committed to their own ends, not the movement.  The grassroots will win Rand2016, not Benton or any of the ivory tower political schmucks that usually control these campaigns.


Here's an article on Ron Paul 2012's ad guy:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politi...fqO_story.html

With this specifically about his wife and Romney's campaign:
"He contemplated moving up at Garden.com, but stuck it out with Bush. His break came when Douglas dispatched him to the primary states. He proved his mettle, and in the general election he took on more responsibilities, becoming executive director of the campaign in Delaware. There he met his wife, Alicia, who had considerably more political experience at the time.

“There was a little rivalry,” Downs said. “She still won’t admit this, but she worked for me.”

“I couldn’t stand him,” said Alicia Downs, *who consults for Mitt Romney’s political action committee.*"

And then there was this nugget at the end:

"Downs said he doesn’t show any of his Paul-related work to his wife before it’s public, and she insisted that they don’t even talk during the debates.

His portfolio for coming Paul ads is packed with material, he says, about Gingrich, Perry and the rest — all playing the Shih Tzu role. *Asked if had a negative spot ready to go on Romney, he demurred.*

“I don’t get into campaign strategy,” Downs said and waited a beat. “I’ll say, ‘You haven’t seen your last Ron Paul ad.’ ”"

This interview was posted in December 2011.

Emphasis added on the Romney portions.

----------


## TaftFan

I think it is clear they were soft on Romney to get a convention speaking spot. It didn't happen of course.

But really, convention speaking slots don't really mean a damn thing if you think about it. At least not these days.

----------


## jjdoyle

> I think it is clear they were soft on Romney to  get a convention speaking spot. It didn't happen of course.


Only if you think the speaking slot was for only Ron, and not also Rand.

And I personally agree on the speaking slot issue. Can anybody tell me who else spoke at the RNC, other than the Hollywood actor talking to a chair?

----------


## CPUd

> I think it is clear they were soft on Romney to get a convention speaking spot. It didn't happen of course.
> 
> But really, convention speaking slots don't really mean a damn thing if you think about it. At least not these days.


He wasn't going for that kind of a speaking slot, because the Romney campaign would have had to OK the speech.  But I do think if his name was on the ballot, he would have used the 15 minute floor time for his own speech.

He had a better speaking slot though.  At the Sun Dome.

----------


## liberalnurse

> If you refuse to support a candidate because you have personality problems with someone on his staff, then you are petty and winning back your liberty isn't that important to you apparently.  I have personality problems with several people in the liberty movement, but yet I don't let that get in the way of getting the job done.


What part of I support Rand didn't you get?  I just said I refuse to pay Benton or your paychecks. Calling me petty is like calling the kettle black, where you and Benton are concerned.  This goes way deeper, for me, than personality conflicts.

----------


## jjdoyle

> I wholeheartedly believe that they were trying to win at the beginning, when there was a chance.
> 
> What's stupid is not to realize that it would take far more money than  the others to compete against the 24x7 media onslaught smearing Ron  Paul.  Pretty much after Iowa, the donation spigot closed.


Do  you know how many more millions they raised and wasted after Iowa? I'm  just guessing you don't, based off your past ignorance regarding  specific campaign finance issues.
But, of course the funds didn't  come as often and as much after Iowa, New Hampshire, Maine, Virginia, or  others...because they weren't winning. (They were helping Mitt Romney win instead.)

That's basic politics as to why the funds slowed down after Iowa,  New Hampshire, South Carolina, Maine, Virginia, and the others though. If you aren't winning, you have a harder time raising funds.  But the campaign kept on lying to supporters  for months about some fake delegate strategy, which unfortunately for  the campaign (but more so for the supporters), the supporters took them at their word. Doing exactly what  was asked, and then some. Only to have delegates thrown under Mitt  Romney's bus, because they didn't want to cause an issue at the RNC for  King Romney.

If RP had said they would fight for the delegates at  the RNC, make sure the rules were honored, and make sure the delegates  that showed up and did as asked were honored and recognized, you and I  both know the delegates could have raised a huge stink at the RNC.  Instead, Jesse Benton was there trying to make sure the delegates  weren't an issue.




> They tried to win in Iowa.  Perhaps you have forgotten what the media was doing to him at the time.
> 
> Yes, and the media was not singularly focused on sliming them, like they were Ron.


Herman  Cain was done in by the media. And he even tried to address his issue  in professional, sit down style, interviews. He even held a big press  conference early on saying he would fight the charges. Sure, he might  have been lying through his teeth about the issue, and I think he was,  but that's the thing....he actually was semi-serious about winning.  Because he was getting out in front of his issue, by holding a press  conference. Having sit down interviews about it, with HIS wife present  for one (maybe more).




> I don't agree with everything the campaign  did, either.  But, neither did I think any candidate's campaign was run  perfectly.  But, you just ignore those.


You're 100% right. I do ignore those other candidates' campaigns, BECAUSE I WASN'T SUPPORTING THEM. LOL.
But,  even I knew how to use another campaign to try and help Ron Paul in  Iowa, since Ron Paul 2012 couldn't be bothered to do it themselves.

It's why I sent Rick Perry's campaign the Rick Santorum attack ad  template I had made, because Ron Paul 2012 was busy turning grassroot  supporters away from helping in Iowa, because the experts they were had  it all under control. Too busy to attack Rick Santorum when it might  have actually HELPED Ron Paul win a state. Instead, they waited until it  helped Mitt Romney.
South Carolina. Where Ron Paul placed last. They  ran attack ads against Rick Santorum. Why? He wasn't polling anywhere  near the top in SC. It was all Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney.

----------


## amonasro

I voted no. Jesse is too young and inexperienced, simple as that. I also recall one or two press releases that had obvious spelling and/or grammatical errors. This can never happen, ever.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> The first one-on-one state, Virginia, had not one single RP ad run in it. Not one single POSITIVE RP ad, or Romney attack ad.


Yes, and that was because they didn't feel there was a chance in hell of winning Virginia.  So, spending money there would have been like throwing money down a rat hole.

All you have done since you have gotten here is do your best to make everyone here hate the people who worked for Ron's campaign.  You know damn well that some of these people will most assuredly be working for Rand's if he runs for President.  You're not fooling everyone here, bud, and hopefully your time here will be up soon.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Do  you know how many more millions they raised and wasted after Iowa? I'm  just guessing you don't, based off your past ignorance regarding  specific campaign finance issues.
> But, of course the funds didn't  come as often and as much after Iowa, New Hampshire, Maine, Virginia, or  others...because they weren't winning. (They were helping Mitt Romney win instead.) 
> 
> That's basic politics as to why the funds slowed down after Iowa,  New Hampshire, South Carolina, Maine, Virginia, and the others though. If you aren't winning, you have a harder time raising funds.  But the campaign kept on lying to supporters  for months about some fake delegate strategy, which unfortunately for  the campaign (but more so for the supporters), the supporters took them at their word. Doing exactly what  was asked, and then some. Only to have delegates thrown under Mitt  Romney's bus, because they didn't want to cause an issue at the RNC for  King Romney.
> 
> If RP had said they would fight for the delegates at  the RNC, make sure the rules were honored, and make sure the delegates  that showed up and did as asked were honored and recognized, you and I  both know the delegates could have raised a huge stink at the RNC.  Instead, Jesse Benton was there trying to make sure the delegates  weren't an issue.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


All you do is twist and spin.

Hell yes they wanted to control who showed up in Iowa and what they did.  They didn't want a repeat of what happened in Ron's first campaign.  Do you remember some of the crap that went on?  Do you?   Fact is, there were a lot of well-meaning supporters who had less of a clue of how to win a campaign than even Ron's '08 campaign staff.

----------


## jjdoyle

> All you do is twist and spin.
> 
> Hell yes they wanted to control who showed up in Iowa and what they did.  They didn't want a repeat of what happened in Ron's first campaign.  Do you remember some of the crap that went on?  Do you?   Fact is, there were a lot of well-meaning supporters who had less of a clue of how to win a campaign than even Ron's '08 campaign staff.


Ron Paul 2012 didn't feel like trying to win in Virginia, the first one-on-one state where Ron Paul lost by only 50,000 votes. But the campaign geniuses (and yourself) thought it was wise to waste funds down the rat hole attacking Rick Santorum in South Carolina and Michigan? You make no sense. None. You can't even explain that level of stupidity. It makes NO sense. Well, it makes no sense if they were actually being honest and running a campaign to win. Not help Mitt Romney win.

Two states Ron Paul where had LESS chance of winning, than Virginia. The campaign was a complete fraud and a joke, and this "Romney vs. Paul" idea holds no water, because of Virginia. The fact you are calling Virginia a rat hole, is beyond stupid and pathetic though, because it ignores the facts of the vote totals in the states and the fact that ONE RON PAUL SUPPORTER in Virginia did more to win RP delegates in the state (and did just that), than Ron Paul 2012 did with their political geniuses on staff.

Let that sink in. A state Ron Paul didn't spend a dime in, NOT ONE DIME, running one single positive or negative ad. He won 3 delegates BECAUSE OF A SUPPORTER. THAT guy should be hired on staff in 2016, but nobody within Ron Paul 2012.

I don't know what twisting and spinning you're talking about, because like Matt Collins, you can't logically address any of my points I bring up.

(Where's that yourlogicalfallacy link at? LOL)

You are clearly ignoring the facts/actions/non-actions of the campaign, or trying to excuse them by bringing up OTHER campaings. It's laughable. We, are not them. Last I checked, Ron Paul supporters don't want to be like THEM. Don't want candidates like THEM.

So, the campaign was incompetent and didn't know how to communicate well with the grassroots, yes, we know that. It's exactly what turning away supporters in Iowa is an exact example of. A good campaign will bring all supporters in, especially in an early state like Iowa, and give them talking points and informational cards to pass out. It's pretty EASY to spot problem workers, and DEAL with them properly. (Not like Jack Hunter refusing to answer simple questions, ignoring them, treating them like scum not worth being talked to, and then calling security on them.)

Fact is there were a lot of well-meaning supporters who had more of a clue of how to win a campaign, than ANYBODY on the staff at Ron Paul 2012. Unless of course, you believe that a presidential campaign is not actually supposed to be run to win, and instead only waste millions of dollars, lie to supporters about some fake delegate strategy, and drag it along for months for some "future" campaign.

You may twist and spin like Bill O'Reilly in his "no spin zone" because you can't explain stupid things like calling Virginia a rat hole, and not being able to explain why they wasted funds attacking Rick Santorum in states like South Carolina and Michigan; but I stick with facts/history/actions/non-actions to form my opinions.
Like the fact Ron Paul 2012 never ran one single Mitt Romney only TV attack ad, in any state, where it could have mattered. Even early states, like Maine where RP lost by less than 2% points in the popular vote.
Or, New Hampshire.
Or, Virginia.

Again, why was the campaign denying some supporters refunds in September 2012, when they were asking via email and sitting on a nice million+ cash-on-hand, and denying they had the funds that were being reported? Is it because they knew then about the Kent Sorenson issue, and thought they might need the funds for a long, drawn out, legal case?

There are plenty of reasons Jesse Benton, and other Ron Paul 2012 staff, should not be near Rand in 2016. Helping Mitt Romney win the nomination, agreeing to not attack Mitt Romney, is a BIG one.

----------


## LibertyEagle

What I know, doyle, is that YOU should be nowhere near the liberty movement.  You may be fooling some, but you aren't fooling me.

----------


## jjdoyle

> What I know, doyle, is that YOU should be nowhere near the liberty movement.  You may be fooling some, but you aren't fooling me.


Sorry you can't handle the truth, because that is exactly what the liberty movement starts with.
Just because you may think the world is flat, doesn't make it flat.

I will continue to state the truth about what was and is Ron Paul 2012. After all, the campaign is technically still going, because it's paying two staffers each month, and sitting on over $900,000.

So again, another epic post by you not addressing a single point or fact I brought up. Because you don't KNOW much, and you THINK I shouldn't be anywhere near the movement, because apparently truth is toxic to you.

So, do you really think Jesse Benton should be anywhere on Rand's staff in 2016? Because, I don't. And there are numerous reasons. Some of which I have already stated, some others have already stated.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Sorry you can't handle the truth, because that is exactly what the liberty movement starts with.
> Just because you may think the world is flat, doesn't make it flat.
> 
> I will continue to state the truth about what was and is Ron Paul 2012. After all, the campaign is technically still going, because it's paying two staffers each month, and sitting on over $900,000.
> 
> So again, another epic post by you not addressing a single point or fact I brought up. Because you don't KNOW much, and you THINK I shouldn't be anywhere near the movement, because apparently truth is toxic to you.
> 
> So, do you really think Jesse Benton should be anywhere on Rand's staff in 2016? Because, I don't. And there are numerous reasons. Some of which I have already stated, some others have already stated.


You have no truth.  You have spin.  Who is paying you to do this?

----------


## ClydeCoulter

> What I know, doyle, is that YOU should be nowhere near the liberty movement.  You may be fooling some, but you aren't fooling me.


Crap, you really got him there, huh?

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Crap, you really got him there, huh?


You may want to continue this crap with him, but I do not.  His agenda for being on this forum has been clear from the start.  Check out his posting history.

----------


## jjdoyle

> You may want to continue this crap with him, but I do not.  His agenda for being on this forum has been clear from the start.  Check out his posting history.


I think he's well aware of my history of stating facts/history/actions/non-actions of the campaign. I think he probably appreciates the truth, and doesn't find it toxic. Just because you can't answer legitimate points and criticisms, doesn't make them go away.

My agenda, is truth. And growing the movement with truth. Learning from past mistakes, so they are not repeated. Like not hiring incompetent, corrupt, dishonest campaign workers. Your agenda is apparently shrinking the movement, and trying to get rid of anybody that brings up legitimate criticisms and points you can't answer.

Instead of addressing the points, you go personal.




> You have no truth.  You have spin.  Who is paying you to do this?


LOL. I'm not paid by anybody. If you or Matt can refer me to who pays y'all, I would appreciate it. I could use some extra funds.

Truths:
Ron Paul 2012 never ran one single Mitt Romney only TV attack ad in any state.
Ron Paul 2012 agreed to not attack Mitt Romney, no later than February 2012, and before the Michigan primary.
Ron Paul 2012 continued to ask supporters for more money for all of February, March, April, and into May; not telling supporters they had agreed to not attack Mitt Romney.
Ron Paul 2012 staffer Jesse Benton in May 2012 confirmed to the press that Ron Paul 2012 and Mitt Romney's campaign had already been talking, about things like what planks to put in the Republican platform at the RNC.
Ron Paul 2012's official campaign website was used to defend a lying endorsement of Mitt Romney.

All facts. All truths.

----------


## phill4paul

> What I know, doyle, is that YOU should be nowhere near the liberty movement.  You may be fooling some, but you aren't fooling me.


  Telling us who should or should not be in _YOUR_ liberty movement.  I expected no less. Can you refute any of the points he has made?.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> I think he's well aware of my history of stating facts/history/actions/non-actions of the campaign. I think he probably appreciates the truth, and doesn't find it toxic. Just because you can't answer legitimate points and criticisms, doesn't make them go away.
> 
> My agenda, is truth. And growing the movement with truth. Learning from past mistakes, so they are not repeated. Like not hiring incompetent, corrupt, dishonest campaign workers. Your agenda is apparently shrinking the movement, and trying to get rid of anybody that brings up legitimate criticisms and points you can't answer.
> 
> Instead of addressing the points, you go personal.
> 
> 
> 
> LOL. I'm not paid by anybody. If you or Matt can refer me to who pays y'all, I would appreciate it. I could use some extra funds.
> ...


No, you are full of spin and lies.  You claim they never intended to win.  That is a lie.  You claim that the reason they didn't go after Romney was because their goal was to help him win.  Also a lie.  You claim that they didn't campaign in certain states was because they were sold out.  Another lie.

No one is paying me.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Telling us who should or should not be in _YOUR_ liberty movement.  I expected no less. Can you refute any of the points he has made?.


They have.  He ignores them and keeps repeating the same spin.

----------


## ClydeCoulter

> No, you are full of spin and lies.  You claim they never intended to win.  That is a lie.  You claim that the reason they didn't go after Romney was because their goal was to help him win.  Also a lie.  You claim that they didn't campaign in certain states was because they were sold out.  Another lie.
> 
> No one is paying me.


I didn't see those claims in the post you responded to.  Care to actually take apart his "Truth" claims one by one in the post you replied to?

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Yes, distancing some of the people at PF from the campaign was necessary.


Serious question: why? 

If the campaign was over before Rand endorsed Romney, why does this matter?

----------


## jjdoyle

> I didn't see those claims in the post you responded to.  Care to actually take apart his "Truth" claims one by one in the post you replied to?


Don't hold your breath waiting on a truthful response. 

Though, you might get one about the earth being flat. And if you disagree with that, you will be told you aren't needed in this movement. And you are liar for saying the earth is square. Even though you never said the earth was square.

----------


## whoisjohngalt

> _For those of you who refuse to support Rand simply because you dislike someone on his staff, realize that when Jeb Bush becomes President, you were complacent in allowing that to happen:
> _
> 
> http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014...sidential-run/


https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/black-or-white

Support Rand blindly no matter what or else... or else..  JEB BUSH!

I smell the stink of desperation.

----------


## kathy88

> You have no truth.  You have spin.  Who is paying you to do this?


Seriously? What the hell? His points are salient and there's a lot of evidence to back them up. 2012 was a nightmare. I think there are a lot of us here who agree with a lot of what he said and you're accusing him of being a paid shill? That's pretty harsh AND a violation of TOS.... in case you have not reviewed them lately.

----------


## mosquitobite

> Facts:
> 
> 1) Ron Paul 2012 never ran one single Mitt Romney only TV attack ad, like they did against Rick Perry, Rick Santorum, and Newt Gingrich.
> 
> 2) Ron Paul 2012 wasted funds, at least $100K, attacking Rick Santorum in Michigan, a state Ron Paul had NO chance of winning. Helping Mitt Romney win that state.
> 
> 3) Ron Paul 2012 sent out multiple emails saying all funds would be used to win the nomination, but ended with Rand Paul endorsing Mitt Romney on national TV for a speaking slot at the RNC. BEFORE the RNC had happened. Why? Because Ron Paul 2012 was working with Romney's campaign in states like Louisiana, to make sure the delegate issue, was NOT an issue. Ask the Louisiana Ron Paul supporters who showed up, and DID WHAT THEY WERE SUPPOSED TO DO! Before they were thrown under the Mitt Romney bus.
> 
> 4) Ron Paul 2012 ended with more than a million dollars cash-on-hand, and sent an email to at least one supporter who was asking for a refund in September 2012, lying and saying the amount they had on hand was being over-stated by some. Denying that supporter a refund, despite even now still having over $900,000 cash-on-hand, after helping Mitt Romney win the nomination.
> ...


QFT

----------


## eduardo89

> And if Jesse keeps Kokesh away, maybe it's for the best?


I'd hire him just for that reason.

----------


## Rocco

We were done because the #1 point against Ron Paul was that he couldn't win and when we lost Iowa, the one state where we'd put all our marbles, we were finished. 

Once Iowa was lost, and more importantly the narrative at the time was that Iowa was lost to Romney, we realistically had very little chance to win New Hampshire. Once New Hampshire was lost, we had close to zero chance of winning the nomination. Iowa was the whole thing, once we lost it there was never a chance we were gonna bounce back. By Virginia Mitt basically had it locked up. 




> We were? Why? There was money to spend. Was there not? 50k votes. 50 $#@!ing k votes for 43 delegates. Well, damn, add those delegates to what was traded away in LA annnd.....
>   Why was NH lost? Because there are some venerated forum members here that were told to just give money and go $#@! themselves, leave it to RP2012,Inc and shut the $#@! up.  
>  No, don't even try to pull this $#@!.

----------


## Rocco

All of your "facts" make 100% strategic sense when put in the context of the FACT that we were trying to get the other conservatives out of the race so we could cease to split the conservative vote, which EVERYBODY in not just the liberty movement but the broader conservative movement believed was the key to beating Romney. That's why we attacked Santorum in Michigan, that's why we attacked everyone but Romney, that's why we carried out this strategy until Romney won, at which point getting the others out of the race didnt matter. You can disagree, but implying dishonesty is flat out deception. 




> Stating facts about what Ron Paul 2012 did/didn't do, is not spreading disinfo.
> Unlike yourself in spreading outright lies like Jesse Benton influencing and convincing Ron Paul to run for President in 2012, WITH NO PROOF.
> 
> You have never explained anything about why I am wrong, because you can't. The truth, is not wrong.
> 
> *Can you please provide me a link to the Mitt Romney only TV attack ad, like Ron Paul 2012 produced and aired for Rick Santorum, Rick Perry, and Newt Gingrich? No, you can't. It didn't happen.
> *
> Facts:
> 1) Ron Paul 2012 never ran one single Mitt Romney only TV attack ad, like they did against Rick Perry, Rick Santorum, and Newt Gingrich.
> ...

----------


## samforpaul

Could someone tell me how much Jesse was compensated for running the Ron and Rand Paul campaigns.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> I'd hire him just for that reason.


I don't understand the issue with Kokesh. You may not like his methods, but that's how change gets done. Adam has done more to advance the cause for liberty than 30 so-called "liberty candidates" combined.

----------


## eduardo89

> I don't understand the issue with Kokesh. You may not like his methods, but that's how change gets done. Adam has done more to advance the cause for liberty than 30 so-called "liberty candidates" combined.


What has Kokesh done apart from look like a fool?

----------


## LibertyEagle

> All of your "facts" make 100% strategic sense when put in the context of the FACT that we were trying to get the other conservatives out of the race so we could cease to split the conservative vote, which EVERYBODY in not just the liberty movement but the broader conservative movement believed was the key to beating Romney. That's why we attacked Santorum in Michigan, that's why we attacked everyone but Romney, that's why we carried out this strategy until Romney won, at which point getting the others out of the race didnt matter. You can disagree, but implying dishonesty is flat out deception.


QFT

----------


## eduardo89

> Could someone tell me how much Jesse was compensated for running the Ron and Rand Paul campaigns.

----------


## JK/SEA

> What has Kokesh done apart from look like a fool?



Adam Kokesh is a Patriot and a Warrior. People who disrespect Adam are fools.

----------


## ClydeCoulter

Sidesteppers are stepping in.  You know it when you see it.  Like Farrah Fawcett's hair.  It's good $#@!.

----------


## eduardo89

> Adam Kokesh is a Patriot and a Warrior. People who disrespect Adam are fools.


You high?

----------


## ClydeCoulter

> You high?


You sidesteppin'?

----------


## JK/SEA

> You high?


you funny?

----------


## JK/SEA

> You sidesteppin'?


some people, like Matt, and 'others' resort to personal attacks when someone bitch slaps them....its understandable, and i hold no real animosity towards mis-guided, well meaning individuals.

----------


## ClydeCoulter

> I think he's well aware of my history of stating facts/history/actions/non-actions of the campaign. I think he probably appreciates the truth, and doesn't find it toxic. Just because you can't answer legitimate points and criticisms, doesn't make them go away.
> 
> My agenda, is truth. And growing the movement with truth. Learning from past mistakes, so they are not repeated. Like not hiring incompetent, corrupt, dishonest campaign workers. Your agenda is apparently shrinking the movement, and trying to get rid of anybody that brings up legitimate criticisms and points you can't answer.
> 
> Instead of addressing the points, you go personal.
> 
> 
> 
> LOL. I'm not paid by anybody. If you or Matt can refer me to who pays y'all, I would appreciate it. I could use some extra funds.
> ...





> We were done because the #1 point against Ron Paul was that he couldn't win and when we lost Iowa, the one state where we'd put all our marbles, we were finished. 
> 
> Once Iowa was lost, and more importantly the narrative at the time was that Iowa was lost to Romney, we realistically had very little chance to win New Hampshire. Once New Hampshire was lost, we had close to zero chance of winning the nomination. Iowa was the whole thing, once we lost it there was never a chance we were gonna bounce back. By Virginia Mitt basically had it locked up.





> All of your "facts" make 100% strategic sense when put in the context of the FACT that we were trying to get the other conservatives out of the race so we could cease to split the conservative vote, which EVERYBODY in not just the liberty movement but the broader conservative movement believed was the key to beating Romney. That's why we attacked Santorum in Michigan, that's why we attacked everyone but Romney, that's why we carried out this strategy until Romney won, at which point getting the others out of the race didnt matter. You can disagree, but implying dishonesty is flat out deception.


To retarget the thread.

No, they don't.  You can carry rhetoric around your neck but it still won't hold water to the facts.  If it was a done deal early on, like the loss of Iowa, then no amount of rhetoric explains the actions afterward.  Take jjdoyle's Tuths and try to align the rhetoric with the facts.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> What has Kokesh done apart from look like a fool?


I don't think you're really looking for an answer as much as you're just looking to insult.  But OK, I'll bite:  the things he's done for the liberty movement are (no doubt) the same things for which you call him a fool. 

 *smh*

I could understand someone outside of this movement calling him a fool....someone who hasn't been educated and/or exposed to the overreach of authority.  But coming from a long-time member of this board it's a little disturbing.

----------


## jjdoyle

> All of your "facts" make 100% strategic sense when  put in the context of the FACT that we were trying to get the other  conservatives out of the race so we could cease to split the  conservative vote, which EVERYBODY in not just the liberty movement but  the broader conservative movement believed was the key to beating  Romney. That's why we attacked Santorum in Michigan, that's why we  attacked everyone but Romney, that's why we carried out this strategy  until Romney won, at which point getting the others out of the race  didnt matter. You can disagree, but implying dishonesty is flat out  deception.


Ron Paul 2012 agreed to not attack Mitt Romney  before Michigan, that is a fact. Ron Paul 2012 never told supporters of  that agreement during the campaign, even though the media was reporting  on it and suspicious of it because of "inside sources" (and the obvious  fact Ron Paul 2012 wasn't attacking Romney). Ron Paul 2012 continued to  waste time and money for all of February, March, April, May, and even  June, July, August up until the RNC when they had already agreed to not  attack Mitt Romney.

When they agreed to not attack Mitt Romney,  they should have closed shop. Why? How do you expect to get ahead of  someone that has been polling ahead of your candidate basically the  entire time, without attacking him? Or, like in Virginia, not even running one single positive ad letting voters know you're serious?

And what do their actions instead show? They were helping Mitt Romney win and seal the nomination, without waves at the RNC, instead of actually trying for any other strategy.

Virginia showed exactly that. The first one-on-one state. Where this supposed strategy that you claim was the goal, was a reality. Only Mitt Romney and Ron Paul on the ballot. Not one single other candidate. And Ron Paul 2012 didn't spend one dime on one single ad, positive or negative in the state.

Unless  Ron Paul 2012 expected to somehow beat Mitt Romney who was polling  ahead of Ron Paul basically the entire time, by never attacking him when/where it actually mattered?

Ron Paul 2012 ended with more than  a million cash-on-hand, and didn't run one single ad in Virginia where  Ron Paul lost by about 50,000 votes. They wasted funds attacking Rick  Santorum in South Carolina, where he was polling in third. And in Michigan, where Mitt Romney losing would have caused chaos.

Mitt  Romney won the nomination, and all chances at a brokered convention were  killed, when he won Michigan with the help of Ron Paul 2012  spending at least $100K attacking Rick Santorum in the state. Had Mitt  Romney lost Michigan, Super Tuesday (including Virginia) would have been  fully in play and the "idea" of a brokered convention would have actually been more likely to happen. I have explained this in detail in other posts. Would  you like the explanation of why Romney losing Michigan was actually key,  to any supposed delegate strategy?

Stating the goal was to get everybody but Romney to drop out, doesn't hold any water at all, because of Virginia. And because we know they had agreed to not attack Mitt Romney before Michigan's primary in February.

----------


## Maltheus

> The real problem  with Ron Paul 2012 was that its messaging was being controlled, and it  was being controlled by staffers that had agreed to help Mitt Romney's  campaign. I believe this 100%, based on facts/history/actions/non-actions of the campaign.


I saw this first hand in Colorado as Matt Holdridge worked against the grassroots to put only Santorum and Romney people on our ballot, and when our county revolted and told him that we were doing our own slate of actual Ron Paul delegates, he pretended to agree (to a room full of over 60 people) and not interfere, even got to vote. Then we get to the convention and pretends like he never heard about any of this and tried to convince the rest of the state that we were with the Romney campaign, trying to sabotage the RP campaign, when he was the one clearly doing that all along. He even admitted to me, flat out on a conference call that they were looking for people who "might even be willing to vote for Romney."

Of course, this was all borne out in the results. He went on to pretend like we were close to a majority of delegates, when we all know we didn't. Every single person elected off his slate voted for Romney in the end (many of them being notorious Ron-bashers in our state). And Holdridge bragged, along with his partners in crimes, that this was all Benton's strategy and that we shouldn't question it. We dominated that convention in numbers, yet walked away without a single vote, because of these crooks. And THAT'S why I (nor any of my compatriots) will not be wasting our time again, if they continue with the same crew.

----------


## Original_Intent

> https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/black-or-white
> 
> Support Rand blindly no matter what or else... or else..  JEB BUSH!
> 
> I smell the stink of desperation.


Yeah, I heard I elected Obama by not supporting Romney also. SSDD.

----------


## JK/SEA

> Yeah, I heard I elected Obama by not supporting Romney also. SSDD.


yep, same here. Told one person he elected Obama by not supporting Ron Paul....

----------


## Arklatex

Kokesh while a true patriot has a super large ego and so does Benton cares about his career more than the movement.  He knows our movement his correct he just puts it as his tool for advancing his career I think he could easily be used as a mole against us if enough dough was flashed in his face.  So no, I use to like the guy but I don't want to see him involved with rand and as one who has been a long time donor Benton involved would damper my financial support

----------


## Arklatex

L.p.


> I saw this first hand in Colorado as Matt Holdridge worked against the grassroots to put only Santorum and Romney people on our ballot, and when our county revolted and told him that we were doing our own slate of actual Ron Paul delegates, he pretended to agree (to a room full of over 60 people) and not interfere, even got to vote. Then we get to the convention and pretends like he never heard about any of this and tried to convince the rest of the state that we were with the Romney campaign, trying to sabotage the RP campaign, when he was the one clearly doing that all along. He even admitted to me, flat out on a conference call that they were looking for people who "might even be willing to vote for Romney."
> 
> Of course, this was all borne out in the results. He went on to pretend like we were close to a majority of delegates, when we all know we didn't. Every single person elected off his slate voted for Romney in the end (many of them being notorious Ron-bashers in our state). And Holdridge bragged, along with his partners in crimes, that this was all Benton's strategy and that we shouldn't question it. We dominated that convention in numbers, yet walked away without a single vote, because of these crooks. And THAT'S why I (nor any of my compatriots) will not be wasting our time again, if they continue with the same crew.

----------


## Petar

If Rand Paul chooses to employ Benton then I trust his judgement. 

As far as I know, Benton has only been demonized by the grassroots as a scapegoat for Ron Paul's inability to get elected.

----------


## phill4paul

> If Rand Paul chooses to employ Benton then I trust his judgement. 
> 
> _As far as I know_, Benton has only been demonized by the grassroots as a scapegoat for Ron Paul's inability to get elected.


  A scapegoat is someone who is singled out for _unmerited_ treatment or blame. If you read this thread you _will know_ that term does not apply to Benton.

----------


## Petar

> A scapegoat is someone who is singled out for _unmerited_ treatment or blame. If you read this thread you _will know_ that term does not apply to Benton.


As far as I know Jesse Benton is a victim of a large hysterical group of people who really don't know what they are talking about. 

I trust that Rand Paul will be able to decide himself far better than any of us.

----------


## ClydeCoulter

> I think he's well aware of my history of stating facts/history/actions/non-actions of the campaign. I think he probably appreciates the truth, and doesn't find it toxic. Just because you can't answer legitimate points and criticisms, doesn't make them go away.
> 
> My agenda, is truth. And growing the movement with truth. Learning from past mistakes, so they are not repeated. Like not hiring incompetent, corrupt, dishonest campaign workers. Your agenda is apparently shrinking the movement, and trying to get rid of anybody that brings up legitimate criticisms and points you can't answer.
> 
> Instead of addressing the points, you go personal.
> 
> 
> 
> LOL. I'm not paid by anybody. If you or Matt can refer me to who pays y'all, I would appreciate it. I could use some extra funds.
> ...





> Ron Paul 2012 agreed to not attack Mitt Romney  before Michigan, that is a fact. Ron Paul 2012 never told supporters of  that agreement during the campaign, even though the media was reporting  on it and suspicious of it because of "inside sources" (and the obvious  fact Ron Paul 2012 wasn't attacking Romney). Ron Paul 2012 continued to  waste time and money for all of February, March, April, May, and even  June, July, August up until the RNC when they had already agreed to not  attack Mitt Romney.
> 
> When they agreed to not attack Mitt Romney,  they should have closed shop. Why? How do you expect to get ahead of  someone that has been polling ahead of your candidate basically the  entire time, without attacking him? Or, like in Virginia, not even running one single positive ad letting voters know you're serious?
> 
> And what do their actions instead show? They were helping Mitt Romney win and seal the nomination, without waves at the RNC, instead of actually trying for any other strategy.
> 
> Virginia showed exactly that. The first one-on-one state. Where this supposed strategy that you claim was the goal, was a reality. Only Mitt Romney and Ron Paul on the ballot. Not one single other candidate. And Ron Paul 2012 didn't spend one dime on one single ad, positive or negative in the state.
> 
> Unless  Ron Paul 2012 expected to somehow beat Mitt Romney who was polling  ahead of Ron Paul basically the entire time, by never attacking him when/where it actually mattered?
> ...


Here ya go, @Petar...just a taste of the past few pages of this thread.

----------


## Arklatex

HERE'S my thought on whether ron truly wanted to win, and the answer after he got tremendous grassroots support is yes.  He didn't really desire the job similar to how George Washington didn't either but he would have done it.  And in the end with his power he personally chose to use his remaining influence to flush out Santorum, evident by that one debate where they got to question another candidate on stage and his focus on Santy during interviews, and he wanted mitt over Obama.  That's what my spidey senses told me long long ago.  His campaign in 2006 started out as educational build up to a victory on down the road maybe decades away, and in that he was very surprised at the chord he struck among the young and, the liberty fighters of all walks of life and even international support.  I support Ron more than any man alive today, I stand with rand, I like Thomas massie a lot, but I see avenues into Cruz I don't like.  In Austin. Texas there is very big anti Cruz vibe.  I.d like to see a rand/massie or Mike Lee ticket, and Benton let him go be hired by Rubio or Christie.

There some big egos in this forum, but don't let that distract us.  We need to help the people not of the GOP, nor of even the USA, but humanity.  Cast the ego aside.  The grassroots is what made this campaign not the offical campaign, they need to realize that.  I think a hug  error we made was suppressing another 'remember remember the fifth of November' and that was done by the two Individuals, the owner of this forum and the Dailey Paul site, they should have stepped aside and let free will creativity do its thing unhindered.  That would have created millions in donations and free air time on all the news outlets, local newspapers, sure it'd been spun by the pundits but they could have more spun Paul in that borat appearence and that was do e by Benton.  We all make mistakes and I forgive them all.... except Benton I've been around him personally.

----------


## mosquitobite

> There some big egos in this forum, but don't let that distract us.  We need to help the people not of the GOP, nor of even the USA, but humanity.  Cast the ego aside.  The grassroots is what made this campaign not the offical campaign, they need to realize that.  I think a huge error we made was suppressing another 'remember remember the fifth of November' and that was done by the two Individuals, the owner of this forum and the Dailey Paul site, they should have stepped aside and let free will creativity do its thing unhindered.  That would have created millions in donations and free air time on all the news outlets, local newspapers, sure it'd been spun by the pundits but they could have more spun Paul in that borat appearence and that was done by Benton.  We all make mistakes and I forgive them all.... except Benton I've been around him personally.


I agree.

The 5th of November was the political high of my lifetime.  Only thing that has come second, in excitement for me, was Rand's drone filibuster.

Both showed liberty to be popular, and that I wasn't alone.

----------


## angelatc

> If Rand Paul chooses to employ Benton then I trust his judgement. 
> 
> As far as I know, Benton has only been demonized by the grassroots as a scapegoat for Ron Paul's inability to get elected.


Funny thing about being in charge of a campaign -  it comes with responsibility.

----------


## Matt Collins

> Serious question: why? 
> 
> If the campaign was over before Rand endorsed Romney, why does this matter?


There were still image issues and objectives at the Convention that had to be dealt with. Why would we want a Woodstock narrative going into the Convention?

----------


## Matt Collins

> Could someone tell me how much Jesse was compensated for running the Ron and Rand Paul campaigns.


www.fec.gov

----------


## Matt Collins

> https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/black-or-white
> 
> Support Rand blindly no matter what or else... or else..  JEB BUSH!
> 
> I smell the stink of desperation.


Incorrect, because at this point in time Jeb Bush is the only other Republican capable of winning the nomination. 


And BTW - 
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman

----------


## Matt Collins

> If Rand Paul chooses to employ Benton then I trust his judgement. 
> 
> As far as I know, Benton has only been demonized by the grassroots as a scapegoat for Ron Paul's inability to get elected.





> As far as I know Jesse Benton is a victim of a large hysterical group of people who really don't know what they are talking about. 
> 
> I trust that Rand Paul will be able to decide himself far better than any of us.



Bingo

----------


## samforpaul

> www.fec.gov



Thanks, but where do I go after clicking the link?

----------


## Petar

> Funny thing about being in charge of a campaign -  it comes with responsibility.


I blame the Illuminati.

----------


## JK/SEA

> Bingo


https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman

----------


## angelatc

> Could someone tell me how much Jesse was compensated for running the Ron and Rand Paul campaigns.


Funny, if you go through the reports that Matt is linking to, add up all the payments Jesse received and post the figure here, Matt will tell you that your number is incorrect and that some of that money was actually expense reimbursements.

Although, expense reimbursements are supposed to be marked as such, with the name of the end recipient also listed as a payee.   

Suppose Jesse stayed at the Des Moines Hilton during the campaign's trip there, and used his own credit card so he could rack up some personal miles or points.

The FEC report should say there was a check issued to Jesse Benton for, say, "Reimbursement for Hotel Expense" with what is called a "Memo Transaction" attached, listing the Iowa Hilton as the entity that actually got the money.

----------


## angelatc

> Incorrect, because at this point in time Jeb Bush is the only other Republican capable of winning the nomination. 
> 
> 
> And BTW - 
> https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman


Ha ha ha ha ha!!!!

Yeah, right.

----------


## Rocco

Of course it does, if it becomes clear that one man is going to win the nomination then it becomes the duty of the Paul campaign to finish out in a way that benefits our movement most. By keeping our heads down and playing the delegate process we were able to make huge strides into the base of the party that are paying huge dividends today. Had we attacked Romney at every step we would've had a much harder fight for delegates on our hands.Here in New York, where we got 2nd, the Romney campaign was mainly focused on Newt and it allowed us to advance past him. When first becomes impossible you must shoot for second, and in a delegate sense we did get second place. I repeat, when viewed through the prism that the race was lost after Iowa, the decisions made by the campaign make perfect sense. 




> To retarget the thread.
> 
> No, they don't.  You can carry rhetoric around your neck but it still won't hold water to the facts.  If it was a done deal early on, like the loss of Iowa, then no amount of rhetoric explains the actions afterward.  Take jjdoyle's Tuths and try to align the rhetoric with the facts.

----------


## JK/SEA

> Incorrect, because at this point in time Jeb Bush is the only other Republican capable of winning the nomination. 
> 
> 
> And BTW - 
> https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman


Karl?...is that you?

----------


## Rocco

First of all, I absolutely cannot stand this Alex Jones tactic you are using of trying to overload your post with numerous half truths, making it damn near impossible to respond to every one. Secondly, as I stated before, we didn't attack Romney because we wanted to get all of the other conservatives out until probably around Nevada, at which point it became clear we could not win. Virginia was too late in the game to matter. Michigan was too late to matter. You are talking about a campaign whose goals had shifted due to the electoral reality on the ground, at this point our effort centered around the delegate process and spending money in caucus states. Virginia was a winner take all primary, we knew we wouldn't get much if anything in the way of delegates from it. 

Trying to claim that Virginia disproves the campaign strategy completely ignores literally every single strategic aspect of a campaign besides ballot access. Virginia was within 10 days of NINE caucus states. Caucuses were our #1 target. That is why we didn't focus on Virginia, not because we were "covertly handing it to Romney".




> Ron Paul 2012 agreed to not attack Mitt Romney  before Michigan, that is a fact. Ron Paul 2012 never told supporters of  that agreement during the campaign, even though the media was reporting  on it and suspicious of it because of "inside sources" (and the obvious  fact Ron Paul 2012 wasn't attacking Romney). Ron Paul 2012 continued to  waste time and money for all of February, March, April, May, and even  June, July, August up until the RNC when they had already agreed to not  attack Mitt Romney.
> 
> When they agreed to not attack Mitt Romney,  they should have closed shop. Why? How do you expect to get ahead of  someone that has been polling ahead of your candidate basically the  entire time, without attacking him? Or, like in Virginia, not even running one single positive ad letting voters know you're serious?
> 
> And what do their actions instead show? They were helping Mitt Romney win and seal the nomination, without waves at the RNC, instead of actually trying for any other strategy.
> 
> Virginia showed exactly that. The first one-on-one state. Where this supposed strategy that you claim was the goal, was a reality. Only Mitt Romney and Ron Paul on the ballot. Not one single other candidate. And Ron Paul 2012 didn't spend one dime on one single ad, positive or negative in the state.
> 
> Unless  Ron Paul 2012 expected to somehow beat Mitt Romney who was polling  ahead of Ron Paul basically the entire time, by never attacking him when/where it actually mattered?
> ...

----------


## Matt Collins

> Funny, if you go through the reports that Matt is linking to, add up all the payments Jesse received and post the figure here, Matt will tell you that your number is incorrect and that some of that money was actually expense reimbursements.


Compensation and reimbursement are not the same thing.

----------


## Matt Collins

> First of all, I absolutely cannot stand this Alex Jones tactic you are using of trying to overload your post with numerous half truths, making it damn near impossible to respond to every one. Secondly, as I stated before, we didn't attack Romney because we wanted to get all of the other conservatives out until probably around Nevada, at which point it became clear we could not win. Virginia was too late in the game to matter. Michigan was too late to matter. You are talking about a campaign whose goals had shifted due to the electoral reality on the ground, at this point our effort centered around the delegate process and spending money in caucus states. Virginia was a winner take all primary, we knew we wouldn't get much if anything in the way of delegates from it. 
> 
> Trying to claim that Virginia disproves the campaign strategy completely ignores literally every single strategic aspect of a campaign besides ballot access. Virginia was within 10 days of NINE caucus states. Caucuses were our #1 target. That is why we didn't focus on Virginia, not because we were "covertly handing it to Romney".


As I said, don't waste your time with Doyle.

----------


## Rocco

It isn't for him. It's for the people reading the thread.




> As I said, don't waste your time with Doyle.

----------


## kathy88

> Of course it does, if it becomes clear that one man is going to win the nomination then it becomes the duty of the Paul campaign to finish out in a way that benefits our movement most. By keeping our heads down and playing the delegate process we were able to make huge strides into the base of the party that are paying huge dividends today. Had we attacked Romney at every step we would've had a much harder fight for delegates on our hands.Here in New York, where we got 2nd, the Romney campaign was mainly focused on Newt and it allowed us to advance past him. When first becomes impossible you must shoot for second, and in a delegate sense we did get second place. I repeat, when viewed through the prism that the race was lost after Iowa, the decisions made by the campaign make perfect sense.


If viewed through the prism that the race was lost after Iowa, then the fundraising begging should have stopped with Iowa. And probably the "In it to win it" emails should have stopped. You can't have it both ways. I may try to find your post from that time frame where you admitted to voting for Romney....... I'm sure it's there somewhere.

----------


## Crashland

> Compensation and reimbursement are not the same thing.


He never said that it was. He was talking about improper documentation on the "reimbursements".

----------


## kathy88

> He never said that it was. He was talking about improper documentation on the "reimbursements".


He's a she, but your point is correct

----------


## phill4paul

> If viewed through the prism that the race was lost after Iowa, then the fundraising begging should have stopped with Iowa. And probably the "In it to win it" emails should have stopped. You can't have it both ways. I may try to find your post from that time frame where you admitted to voting for Romney....... I'm sure it's there somewhere.


  Hey, see, it is alright for them to_ lie_ to you if the end result is what they have sculpted for the campaign. But, see, we should _trust_ them the next go around to run the show. Naw, I'm not buying this line of argument. Not one bit.

----------


## Rocco

First off, I didn't vote for Romney, I voted for Gary Johnson. Secondly, as someone who worked my ass off in a state 1 month after Michigan, I am glad they didn't admit that after Iowa it was over. I'm glad our grassroots got the chance to vote for Ron Paul and organize. 




> If viewed through the prism that the race was lost after Iowa, then the fundraising begging should have stopped with Iowa. And probably the "In it to win it" emails should have stopped. You can't have it both ways. I may try to find your post from that time frame where you admitted to voting for Romney....... I'm sure it's there somewhere.

----------


## kathy88

> First off, I didn't vote for Romney, I voted for Gary Johnson. Secondly, as someone who worked my ass off in a state 1 month after Michigan, I am glad they didn't admit that after Iowa it was over. I'm glad our grassroots got the chance to vote for Ron Paul and organize.


LMAO you voted for Gary Johnson? The biggest Libertarian basher on the forums? BEGGING people not to vote Libertarian because it is a wasted vote? I call bull$#@!. I don't have time these days to research old posts, but I may make an exception just to make you look like a big ass.

You're GLAD they wasted all the grassroots funds on a losing strategy that was based on a lie? Why, exactly? Everyone in the country had the CHANCE to vote for Ron Paul. What are you even talking about? He was on the ballot in all 50 states. All that work was done way before primaries, well most of it, anyway. And I'm sure on this forum alone there are hundreds of people who would have written him in even if he wasn't on the ballot. But that's a wasted vote, right? Kinda like Johnson...

----------


## kathy88

HAHAHA look what i found first try.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...reable-offense

You can stop talking now.

----------


## jtstellar

to all the 3 minute grassroots of 2012

god, this 'betrayal' crap again, considering ron spent half of his life during the political dark age of our time, how he has managed to do has been amazing enough already, let the petty quarrels go.  you worked hard for year, so what?  people like him have been doing it for 30 plus years, think how much drama ron must have been involved in his entirely life, we're talking decades and decades, has he ever brought $#@! to the public and complained?  seriously, human interaction is going to create things not everyone is satisfied with, sometimes you have to cut off loose ends and nobody is happy in the process.  the bottom line is the overall result from 2012 gained a lot of recognition and it wasn't for nothing, so i don't get why the insistence to get a negative page off of that effort and dwell on it

edited for less negative tone, but whatever really.  negative people will stay negative, it doesn't take any provoking.  rome isn't built in a day, neither is personality.

----------


## Rocco

I bash the Libertarian Party because they are ineffective and target liberty Republicans instead of RINOs for congress. That being said, I'd never vote for somebody like Mitt Romney over somebody like Gary Johnson, ultimately policy is what matters. Just because I think Gary should've ran for senate and I think the LP activists should quit wasting their time doesn't mean that when it came right down to it Gary Johnson wasn't the guy I agreed with by far the most on the issues. How can you even sit there and accuse me of something without evidence? 

If they had withdrawn after Iowa we would've never done the organizing we did, which was a major point of the campaign in the first place, and because we fought on our movement is better off. That is why I am glad we marched on. 




> LMAO you voted for Gary Johnson? The biggest Libertarian basher on the forums? BEGGING people not to vote Libertarian because it is a wasted vote? I call bull$#@!. I don't have time these days to research old posts, but I may make an exception just to make you look like a big ass.
> 
> You're GLAD they wasted all the grassroots funds on a losing strategy that was based on a lie? Why, exactly? Everyone in the country had the CHANCE to vote for Ron Paul. What are you even talking about? He was on the ballot in all 50 states. All that work was done way before primaries, well most of it, anyway. And I'm sure on this forum alone there are hundreds of people who would have written him in even if he wasn't on the ballot. But that's a wasted vote, right? Kinda like Johnson...

----------


## Rocco

What, you found that I was angry and acting emotionally the day after Benton announced it was all over? That Ron Paul 2012 ending, which was one of the greatest experiences of my life, made me upset? My response is this; so what? That's not at all a representation of my position on Jesse Benton, which I have formulated over a long time. 

The difference between us is that my emotional outburst ended within a couple of days, while you people carry on this temper tantrum for years. 




> HAHAHA look what i found first try.
> 
> http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...reable-offense
> 
> You can stop talking now.

----------


## kathy88

Ok Rocco. Lets drop the Johnson for a sec. How about instead you explain why two years ago you were raging that Benton was incompetent and should not be anywhere near the Paul's again, yet now you are defending him and wanting him involved? How does that happen?

----------


## Rocco

Plus effing rep. 




> to all the 3 minute grassroots of 2012
> 
> god, this 'betrayal' crap again, considering ron spent half of his life during the political dark age of our time, how he has managed to do has been amazing enough already, let the petty quarrels go.  you worked hard for year, so what?  people like him have been doing it for 30 plus years, you are like that hermit shut-in so precious about your little 3 month effort, give me a break.  if you think 3 month of work alone is enough to legitimize your butt-hurt and sensitive feelings, by all means stay out and leave room for others, someone who can actually work for decades and not whine about everything everybody is ever involved in.  think how many drama ron must have been involved in his entirely life, we're talking decades and decades, has he ever brought $#@! to the public and whine like you did?  seriously, human interaction is going to create things not everyone is satisfied with, sometimes you have to cut off loose ends and nobody is happy in the process.  that's what distinguishes a chess piece from a chess player, i suppose.

----------


## kathy88

> What, you found that I was angry and acting emotionally the day after Benton announced it was all over? That Ron Paul 2012 ending, which was one of the greatest experiences of my life, made me upset? My response is this; so what? That's not at all a representation of my position on Jesse Benton, which I have formulated over a long time. 
> 
> The difference between us is that my emotional outburst ended within a couple of days, while you people carry on this temper tantrum for years.


No the difference is when we get screwed we don't allow the opportunity to present itself again. It's called learning from mistakes.

----------


## Rocco

You quoted a thread that was posted the day Benton announced that Ron Paul couldn't win the nomination. I was pissed off. It was an emotional outburst. Big deal. Should I go back and dig up everything you've ever said that was overly emotional? 




> Ok Rocco. Lets drop the Johnson for a sec. How about instead you explain why two years ago you were raging that Benton was incompetent and should not be anywhere near the Paul's again, yet now you are defending him and wanting him involved? How does that happen?

----------


## phill4paul

> HAHAHA look what i found first try.
> 
> http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...reable-offense
> 
> You can stop talking now.


  Bwahahaha!

----------


## kathy88

> You quoted a thread that was posted the day Benton announced that Ron Paul couldn't win the nomination. I was pissed off. It was an emotional outburst. Big deal. Should I go back and dig up everything you've ever said that was overly emotional?


Sure you can. One thing you will not find is inconsistency.

----------


## Rocco

The point is that this is a moronic argument that proves nothing. Rehashing one thread from the day that we ended the campaign doesn't even prove that I am anti Benton, let alone that Benton is bad. Quite frankly I'm not even sure what it is you're trying to prove, I don't think you really do either, you're just trolling. 




> Sure you can. One thing you will not find is inconsistency.

----------


## kathy88

> The point is that this is a moronic argument that proves nothing. Rehashing one thread from the day that we ended the campaign doesn't even prove that I am anti Benton, let alone that Benton is bad. Quite frankly I'm not even sure what it is you're trying to prove, I don't think you really do either, you're just trolling.


Tsk tsk... Now you're violating the TOS. Yeah I'm a troll. Got me.

----------


## Matt Collins

> It isn't for him. It's for the people reading the thread.


True dat...

I don't think anyone bothers to read his posts though... they are so long and poorly put together.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> HAHAHA look what i found first try.
> 
> http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...reable-offense
> 
> You can stop talking now.





> This press release was the absolute worst thing we could have done here, and it begs the question; why is Jesse Benton still around? The guy has mismanaged the campaign at every turn. I will say this, I hope the grassroots stands up and says NO to Jesse Benton running any future Rand Paul campaign.


Burn...

----------


## ClydeCoulter

> True dat...
> 
> I don't think anyone bothers to read his posts though... they are so long and poorly put together.


I read his posts, and he does post content that can be read, as opposed to say...just link.

----------


## Rocco

Only if you're simple minded and cannot distinguish between a vent and a sincerely held belief. 




> Burn...

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Only if you're simple minded and cannot distinguish *between a vent and a sincerely held belief*.


But if someone posts a "Rand puts his foot in his mouth" incident, we're just basement dwelling purists who don't know what the $#@! we're talking about.

Hey, why not man up and apologize for the vent?

I did...

----------


## NoOneButPaul

81% says No.... that should say enough... this forum never agrees on anything.

Will Benton being involved stop me from voting for Rand? Probably not. But he's really gotta keep him away to appease the Grassroots alone - they're going to have to put up with enough compromising in 2016 so they should throw us this bone and tell Benton to take a hike.

----------


## Occam's Banana

> I don't think anyone bothers to read his posts though... they are so long and poorly put together.





> I read his posts, and he does post content that can be read, as opposed to say...just link.


https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/

So, there!

----------


## Rocco

The difference is that some of you are chomping at the bit to post anything bad about Rand, I was sincerely reacting to bad news. 




> But if someone posts a "Rand puts his foot in his mouth" incident, we're just basement dwelling purists who don't know what the $#@! we're talking about.
> 
> Hey, why not man up and apologize for the vent?
> 
> I did...

----------


## cajuncocoa

> True dat...
> 
> I don't think anyone bothers to read his posts though... they are so long and poorly put together.


I had no trouble reading them.  But that might be because I'm just stupid.

----------


## Occam's Banana

> But if someone posts a "Rand puts his foot in his mouth" incident, we're just basement dwelling purists who don't know what the $#@! we're talking about.





> The difference is that some of you are chomping at the bit to post anything bad about Rand, I was sincerely reacting to bad news.


AF, are you being InSiNcErE again?

Shame on you, you InSiNcErE devil, you!

----------


## kathy88

> The difference is that some of you are chomping at the bit to post anything bad about Rand, I was sincerely reacting to bad news.


That is a total lie. Criticism is hardly chomping at the bit to post bad stuff. When Rand makes a statement in the media that appears inconsistent with the "liberty message" he gets called out on it just like anyone else. He just does it more often than Ron did.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> That is a total lie. Criticism is hardly chomping at the bit to post bad stuff. When Rand makes a statement in the media that appears inconsistent with the "liberty message" he gets called out on it just like anyone else. He just does it more often than Ron did.


Why is this so damned hard to understand?  And they say I'm the stupid one.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> The difference is that some of you are chomping at the bit to post anything bad about Rand, I was sincerely reacting to bad news.


I'm not sure who "some of you" are, but yeah, that's *me*, trolling the Rand forum and posting 20 negative stories a day.

----------


## mad cow

The poll didn't have a "_I will leave Rand's staff hiring decisions to Rand_" choice,so I didn't vote.

----------


## devil21

> As far as I know Jesse Benton is a victim of a large hysterical group of people who really don't know what they are talking about. 
> 
> I trust that Rand Paul will be able to decide himself far better than any of us.


Not really.  It was Benton's name on emails and media reports that intimated that the campaign was shutting down RIGHT WHEN THE RNC DELEGATES WERE WORKING ON A STRATEGY FOR TAMPA.  Benton nearly single-handedly deflated the grassroots at the exact moments that our momentum was picking up.  It was almost predictable to the point that if RP delegates won large presence in some states, you knew Benton would be along to say something stupid and demoralizing.

I agree though that's it Rand's choice.  He just has to realize that a large portion (how large is anyone's guess) of the grassroots that put RAND on the map in the first place will back off a campaign that Benton has any power in.

eta
Here's a list of all of Rand's past and present staffers.  Benton isn't on the list.  I'd like to see these people elevated to campaign positions long before Benton comes anywhere near it.
http://www.legistorm.com/member/2817/Sen_Rand_Paul.html

----------


## jjdoyle

> First of all, I absolutely cannot stand this Alex Jones tactic you are using of trying to overload your post with numerous half truths, making it damn near impossible to respond to every one. Secondly, as I stated before, we didn't attack Romney because we wanted to get all of the other conservatives out until probably around Nevada, at which point it became clear we could not win. Virginia was too late in the game to matter. Michigan was too late to matter. You are talking about a campaign whose goals had shifted due to the electoral reality on the ground, at this point our effort centered around the delegate process and spending money in caucus states. Virginia was a winner take all primary, we knew we wouldn't get much if anything in the way of delegates from it. 
> 
> Trying to claim that Virginia disproves the campaign strategy completely ignores literally every single strategic aspect of a campaign besides ballot access. Virginia was within 10 days of NINE caucus states. Caucuses were our #1 target. That is why we didn't focus on Virginia, not because we were "covertly handing it to Romney".





> Of course it does, if it becomes clear that one man  is going to win the nomination then it becomes the duty of the Paul  campaign to finish out in a way that benefits our movement most. By  keeping our heads down and playing the delegate process we were able to  make huge strides into the base of the party that are paying huge  dividends today. *Had we attacked Romney at every step we would've had a much harder fight for delegates on our hands.*Here  in New York, where we got 2nd, the Romney campaign was mainly focused  on Newt and it allowed us to advance past him. When first becomes  impossible you must shoot for second, and in a delegate sense we did get  second place. I repeat, when viewed through the prism that the race was  lost after Iowa, the decisions made by the campaign make perfect  sense.


I'm sorry you cannot comprehend what you read, or take the time to actually read a serious reply. The fact that you are trying and failing to defend a dishonest campaign now (thanks kathy88 for really showing me what I'm dealing with, and I'm still not even sure), and you simply can't comprehend truth, doesn't mean the posts are half truths. You failed to address my points, in any fashion that makes sense to the supporters that donated money and time in January, February, March, April, and May when asked to do so.

FULL  TRUTH - Ron Paul 2012 agreed to not attack Mitt Romney, before the  Michigan primary. But spent money attacking Rick Santorum there, helping  Mitt Romney win that state, and the nomination. It also continued to send emails "attacking" Mitt Romney in the emails to supporters, but never doing so publicly in an ad. Why? They were dragging supporters along, trying to tell them what they needed to hear, so they would part with more money.

I didn't say attack Mitt Romney at  every step, or in every single state. I said where it mattered. Michigan mattered for causing a brokered convention. Maine mattered.  New Hampshire mattered. Virginia mattered. Virginia mattered  specifically for the supposed delegate fight, because a candidate could  win delegates, without winning the state outright. They didn't try.

It's  why I sent Ron Paul 2012 a draft campaign ad attacking Rick Santorum in  IOWA. And they didn't use it. 2 weeks later, I sent it to Rick Perry's  campaign (my enemey's enemy is my friend), and they had it up within 24  hours.

So, if the campaign was lost after Iowa, it should have  closed shop. Not wasted months of time, and certainly not wasted months  of supporters' money. If it was about some other two man strategy they  tried to float like Doug Wead did, that falls to pieces with Virginia. And even in Maine, where it was a two main race in the polls. Mitt Romney and Ron Paul.

Ron Paul 2012  agreed to not attack Mitt Romney, and from their own actions we saw and  know, helped him win the nomination without any waves at the RNC.

I'm  sorry that you can't comprehend my full posts with truth containing  facts/history/actions/non-actions of the campaign, but it seems like  it's just you, Liberty Eagle, and Matt Collins that can't. So, I take  that as a compliment.  I wouldn't expect people repeatedly defending a  lying, corrupt, deceptive campaign, to understand the truth. One has already shown today that the truth is toxic to them. When you respond to truth, with lies. It says a lot.

It may  take a few times of seeing it, to wake some up. Like when speaking with  neocons, I may need to change my tactic and wording for you to better  understand what was the waste/fraud/lie of Ron Paul 2012.

And your Nevada point, MIGHT make sense. If they had attacked Romney after Nevada. They didn't.

Again, Nevada was on February 4th.
Michigan on February 28th. 
Virginia on March 6th.

So, if after Nevada it was over, the campaign thought it was smart to attack Rick Santorum in Michigan where RP had no chance of winning, wasting at least $100K doing so, but not spend one time in Virginia to try and pick up delegates?

Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich were in race until April. And according to Jesse Benton in May 2012, their supposed brokered convention strategy, fell apart when Rick Santorum dropped out. Imagine that. Rick Santorum dropped out. Who Ron Paul 2012 was helping Mitt Romney beat in states like Michigan. It's why their brokered convention strategy doesn't hold any water either.

----------


## mosquitobite

I got neg repped in the past for saying one of my only hesitations/complaints of Ron Paul as President was that he was almost _too_ trusting and willing to delegate to people not worthy of either.

Either Ron Paul himself made the decision to help or play nice with Romney and the campaign staff was simply following his orders...
Or
The staff had too many Trojan horses.

----------


## jjdoyle

> to all the 3 minute grassroots of 2012
> 
> god, this 'betrayal' crap again, considering ron spent half of his life during the political dark age of our time, how he has managed to do has been amazing enough already, let the petty quarrels go.  you worked hard for year, so what?  people like him have been doing it for 30 plus years, think how much drama ron must have been involved in his entirely life, we're talking decades and decades, has he ever brought $#@! to the public and complained?  seriously, human interaction is going to create things not everyone is satisfied with, sometimes you have to cut off loose ends and nobody is happy in the process.  the bottom line is the overall result from 2012 gained a lot of recognition and it wasn't for nothing, so i don't get why the insistence to get a negative page off of that effort and dwell on it
> 
> edited for less negative tone, but whatever really.  negative people will stay negative, it doesn't take any provoking.  rome isn't built in a day, neither is personality.


See, the weird thing about you spinning "the political dark age of our time", is that RP was making a nice paycheck as a Congressman. It's not like he was starving, voting "No." on all those bills. It's not like he was eating rice and beans as a Congressman, to sacrifice better food, to give donations to a campaign that had agreed to not attack Mitt Romney. Maybe had he known of the sacrifices his supporters were making, he wouldn't have allowed his campaign to be run as horribly as it was? But then again, if this was about some supposed message for 30 years, why is it behind a paywall now?

Newsletters in the 90s.
Pay Channel now.

He was doing exactly what he was elected to do, and making plenty of money while doing it.

This post is about the campaign of Ron Paul 2012, Jesse Benton, and should he be near Rand in 2016.
No, Jesse shouldn't.
And neither should John Tate.
And others that are trying to defend a campaign that was actively lying to supporters for months, while collecting paychecks from those supporters.

----------


## Arklatex

doyle provides articulated posts with info, anyone who belittles that even if you disagree should be ashamed.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> doyle provides articulated posts with info, anyone who belittles that even if you disagree should be ashamed.


I've always found his postings to be well written and informative as well. Of course...this makes people like him dangerous to some who like to run with the old "voters are generally stupid" gag. Right? Ad hominem is really the only counter.

I have mentioned my disdain for what I've seen with the Ron Paul Channel as well. Ron isn't technologically literate and so is quite open for being taken advantage of by some who are. He's basically being silenced if you think about it. His message absolutely is _not_ reaching the audience in the same measure that he did before this thing came along and has systematically been reduced to someone's intellectual property. This appears to be by design. The crap of it is that nobody else in the political arena is really taking up the slack. I don't like it. Not one bit.

----------


## Rocco

His posts are lengthy but fail to refute the central premise that we were trying to get the conservatives out to narrow it to us and Romey, and until he actually refutes that rather then repeating contextless evidence  of nothing he really has not made a cogent argument. Like I said, it's an Alex Jones tactic of overloading with information that is factual, even though very little of it is good information to refute the arguments we are making. 




> doyle provides articulated posts with info, anyone who belittles that even if you disagree should be ashamed.

----------


## jjdoyle

> His posts are lengthy but fail to refute the central premise that we were trying to get the conservatives out to narrow it to us and Romey, and until he actually refutes that rather then repeating contextless evidence  of nothing he really has not made a cogent argument. Like I said, it's an Alex Jones tactic of overloading with information that is factual, even though very little of it is good information to refute the arguments we are making.


No they don't.
Virginia. The first one-on-one state where it was only Mitt Romney versus Ron Paul on the ballot, and Ron Paul 2012 didn't spend one dime running ads in it. Positive, or negative. Your premise holds no water.

You can't address the points, so you go with a full-blown idiot tactic by bringing up Alex Jones. Typical. Can't address the points. Go personal.

Kathy88 already showed us all you aren't consistent (maybe consistent like Mitt Romney on a topic, LOL), and showed us all your true hypocrisy. Anything else?

----------


## fr33

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...l=1#post545903

----------


## mosquitobite

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...-if-Bevin-wins

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> Just because one donates to a campaign or an organization does not give one influence in operations, messaging, or policy.


That is one of the most naive, Pollyanna positions I have ever heard.  I'm surprised at you, Matt.  I thought you were more Machiavellian.  I thought you had a clue about how power works.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> That is one of the most naive, Pollyanna positions I have ever heard.  I'm surprised at you, Matt.  I thought you were more Machiavellian.  I thought you had a clue about how power works.


You know what he meant.  It takes more than 2500 bucks to buy off a politician.  lol.  Plus, do you believe that Ron or Rand are for sale at any price?

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> Mr. Benton is well qualified - he appears to have the necessary experience. I trust Rand to make the right decision here regardless of what he does (and I hope others do as well, not only regarding this but on other issues too), but I imagine he will have Benton as campaign manager.


Yes, he is qualified, and would perhaps not be a bad choice.  Certainly he would be better than some total novice.  However, I see little evidence that he has any astounding brilliance or knack for political campaign management.

The ideal campaign manager, in contrast, _would._  Rand is hopefully looking around for or has already recruited someone who is a true master, at the top of his game.  Someone who has an extreme talent for this and has done it successfully for decades.  Someone whose entire neural network has been changed and rebuilt to specialize in the sole task of managing political campaigns, due to his intense life-long focus on the task.

_That_ is who Rand should hire.  The best.

----------


## JK/SEA

> You know what he meant.  It takes more than 2500 bucks to buy off a politician.  lol.  Plus, do you believe that Ron or Rand are for sale at any price?


why do people donate money for, in regards to politics?

----------


## cajuncocoa

> You know what he meant. *It takes more than 2500 bucks to buy off a politician.* lol.  Plus, do you believe that Ron or Rand are for sale at any price?


Of course. That's why they don't listen to *us.* 

They listen to the corporations and establishment bundlers who can donate millions.  

FYI, this is not a swipe at Rand or Ron.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> You know what he meant.


 But I replied to what he wrote.




> It takes more than 2500 bucks to buy off a politician.


 Prices vary.  Products vary.  

But, I do "know what you meant" and I agree.  Major national-level politicians are not going to be very heavily influenced for $2,500.




> Plus, do you believe that Ron or Rand are for sale at any price?


 We all have certain parts of us which are for sale, and certain parts which are not.  For example, I would sit down and have dinner with someone and for that hour pretend to like him for $1,000.  So, incidentally, would Rand and Ron Paul.

----------


## klamath

> That is a total lie. Criticism is hardly chomping at the bit to post bad stuff. When Rand makes a statement in the media that appears inconsistent with the "liberty message" he gets called out on it just like anyone else. He just does it more often than Ron did.


Ron didn't get called out. He $#@!ed up all the damned time but we let it pass. *RON PAUL HIRED BENTON*. The buck stops at RON. Any $#@! Benton did was directly overseen by the man that that was supposed to be CNC. It wouldn't have been called the Benton administration it would have been the Paul administration with all the people RON hired. The only thing that is holding me back with Rand is to make sure he is not exactly the same inept of leader and manager.

----------


## Matt Collins

> why do people donate money for, in regards to politics?


For ideological reasons, because they support what the candidate says, does, or thinks. Also for access reasons, they want to be able to talk to the politician or have a social status, pride. And then there are a few who donate based on wanting to be able to exert influence on policy matters, although almost no one does that with the Pauls.

----------


## jjdoyle

> But I replied to what he wrote.
> 
>  Prices vary.  Products vary.  
> 
> But, I do "know what you meant" and I agree.  Major national-level politicians are not going to be very heavily influenced for $2,500.
> 
> *We all have certain parts of us which are for sale, and certain parts which are not.  For example, I would sit down and have dinner with someone and for that hour pretend to like him for $1,000.  So, incidentally, would Rand and Ron Paul.*


Exactly. And imagine, what if you were promised a speaking slot at the RNC? Payments in all different forms.

----------


## Publicani

jjdoyle, cathy88, klamath and others - thanks for expressing the feelings of many Ron Paul supporters so well! 

It's not the first time somebody sells his principles for his son, but by doing so Ron might have lost his place in history as the greatest American.

----------


## Deborah K

> See, this is the kind of stuff that irks me. Say what you want about some of his decisions Deborah, but you screwed yourselves with PAUL Fest when you made people like Gigi Bowman (who is an open 9/11 truther) and Tracy Diaz major organizers and invited the Libertarian Party to have a major presence at a festival that was taking place during the GOP convention. The simple fact of the matter is that when Benton spoke of a fringe element he was correct. Not everyone involved was fringe, but there was a fringe element that made it impossible for the campaign to endorse the festival in any capacity. Benton cannot be blamed for this. 
> 
> The only bad decision I have seen Jesse make was sending out the email stating that Ron couldn't win, but who knows if Rand's arm was being twisted to endorse for an RNC speaking slot. He might have done us a favor. Can anyone point to other specifics?


Get your facts straight.  I spoke with Ron a couple of times during the planning of this event.  He even offered to do a video for us which we couldn't manage to pull off at such late notice.  Ask Kathy88 if you don't believe me.  I announced back in Feb '12 that I was organizing an event in his honor, Benton et.al. announced in June that they were having a competing event.  Even though the campaign knew for MONTHS about ours.  We changed our objective since it was too late  (signed contracts, etc) to cancel.  We then became P.A.U.L. Festival (People Awakening and Uniting for Liberty). It was pretty clear that he wasn't going to be the nominee by June, despite some folks' dreams.  And we continued to be as supportive as we possibly could of the campaign, who btw, sent buses on Sunday to take our attendees who wanted to attend the Sundome event, to the event.

By June, realizing what we were up against, we widened our scope and invited ALL of the 3rd party candidates, and everyone else who supported Dr. Paul, and we continued to keep the event in his honor, even having a huge banner across our stage thanking him.  And our speakers, even the other Presidential candidates paid homage to Dr. Paul.  All acknowledged what he did for us. 

I'm getting really tired of people marginalizing the truthers.  The fact of the matter is that truther movement put Dr. Paul on the map.  If it weren't for Aaron Russo and Alex Jones and their followings Ron wouldn't have been a blip on the radar.   I know some people are going to get their panties in a knot over this, but it is undeniable.  I was part of the events that took place that Aaron organized, when he was alive, to get Ron interviewed on the MSM, back when no one knew who the hell he was.  In fact, I didn't know who he was until I watched 'America: From Freedom to Fascism, which Aaron produced.  I know there are fanatics in the truther movement, but Gigi and Tracey are not among them.  Geez, I thought it was Adam Kokesh that ruined it for us, now I hear it was Gigi and Tracy.  WTF.   They are two of the most dedicated people I know to cause of Liberty.  

It's disappointing that there are still so many people in this movement who can't accept the diversity within the movement and wish that we were homogenized.

Edit:  It's also worthy of mention that Gigi and Tracy didn't even join the team until late June early July. By then, we were already dealing  
with Benton's competing event, not to mention the RNC trying to prevent us from having the event at the Florida State Fairgrounds, and also a few rogue elements trying to undermine the event from the inside.

----------


## Deborah K

> Pretty much this. I have no grudge against Deb, other than her ignorant obstinatince in this thread and a few others. Never met her, don't know her, I am sure that she has worked very hard on a lot of liberty projects.
> 
> 
> You are missing the point... the campaign has to be able to control its message and image. With people who are outspoken conspiracy theorists, LP and CP candidates, and complete mental cases like Vermin Supreme being at PaulFest, the campaign absolutely had to distance itself from it. If you don't understand this, then you're not living in the real world and have no concept of how politics works.


Vermin Supreme was wandering around in his satirical fashion and you bring him up like he was 'top of the bill' speaker.  You're not a trustworthy individual.

----------


## Deborah K

> Agreed 100%.
> 
> PaulFest was fundamentally indistinguishable from Comic-Con.


Really?  Explain.

----------


## Deborah K

> Yes, distancing some of the people at PF from the campaign was necessary.


Explain this.  Distancing who?  You won't explain it.  You just spew bull$#@! and hope some of it sticks.

----------


## Deborah K

> He wasn't going for that kind of a speaking slot, because the Romney campaign would have had to OK the speech.  But I do think if his name was on the ballot, he would have used the 15 minute floor time for his own speech.
> 
> He had a better speaking slot though.  At the Sun Dome.


Ron told me in a phone call that they tried to tell him what to say and not to say.

----------


## kathy88

> Vermin Supreme was wandering around in his satirical fashion and you bring him up like he was 'top of the bill' speaker.  You're not a trustworthy individual.


One of the nicest, most intelligent and well spoken people I've ever had the pleasure to meet.

----------


## jjdoyle

> Ron told me in a phone call that they tried to tell him what to say and not to say.


Wait, who tried to tell him what to say and not to say? The Romney campaign?

----------


## eduardo89

> ever hear of a veto proof congress?....liberty congress people at 60% can and will neuter a fascist president....like a Jeb Bush for instance. And that would be just the beginning


lol, once there are 10 'liberty' congressmen elected we can talk about getting the 251 others needed for a 60% majority.

----------


## JK/SEA

> lol, once there are 10 'liberty' congressmen elected we can talk about getting the 251 others needed for a 60% majority.


good to see you thought this through.

----------


## Deborah K

> Wait, who tried to tell him what to say and not to say? The Romney campaign?


Yes. He took it in stride but it was clear to me he would have nothing of it.

----------


## Deborah K

> One of the nicest, most intelligent and well spoken people I've ever had the pleasure to meet.


I never got to meet him but I appreciate his satire.  Some people are just too dense to get it.

----------


## jjdoyle

> Yes. He took it in stride but it was clear to me he would have nothing of it.


Well, it looks like Romney's campaign was helping write Ron Paul  2012's campaign ads, so I can only imagine they thought that would be  the next step.
I mean, controlling "the message" is very important.
Maybe that's why Rick Santorum was okay to be named/attacked at Ron Paul 2012's Florida rally, but not Mitt Romney?

I  mean, I thought supporters and delegates went to Florida to fight and  make Ron Paul the nominee against Mitt Romney...the only other  Republican candidate in the race then. But, apparently Rick Santorum who  had dropped out of the race on April 10th was the real problem?

----------


## Deborah K

> Well, it looks like Romney's campaign was helping write Ron Paul  2012's campaign ads, so I can only imagine they thought that would be  the next step.
> I mean, controlling "the message" is very important.
> Maybe that's why Rick Santorum was okay to be named/attacked at Ron Paul 2012's Florida rally, but not Mitt Romney?
> 
> I  mean, I thought supporters and delegates went to Florida to fight and  make Ron Paul the nominee against Mitt Romney...the only other  Republican candidate in the race then. But, apparently Rick Santorum who  had dropped out of the race on April 10th was the real problem?


I can only speculate at this point.  Which I'm not inclined to do.

----------


## Rocco

Deb, you were widely considered to be the sane one and THIS is still your belief...And you wonder why the campaign decided they had to separate? You believe the truther movement put Ron Paul on the map. That message is a recipe for Ron Paul's legacy to be tarnished. Fanatics in the truther movement is a repetition of terms to most Americans, the VAST majority of voters find 9/11 truth repulsive, and our movement can have nothing to do with them. THANK GOD Jesse Benton did what he did.




> I'm getting really tired of people marginalizing the truthers.  The fact of the matter is that truther movement put Dr. Paul on the map.  If it weren't for Aaron Russo and Alex Jones and their followings Ron wouldn't have been a blip on the radar.   I know some people are going to get their panties in a knot over this, but it is undeniable.  I was part of the events that took place that Aaron organized, when he was alive, to get Ron interviewed on the MSM, back when no one knew who the hell he was.  In fact, I didn't know who he was until I watched 'America: From Freedom to Fascism, which Aaron produced.  I know there are fanatics in the truther movement, but Gigi and Tracey are not among them.  Geez, I thought it was Adam Kokesh that ruined it for us, now I hear it was Gigi and Tracy.  WTF.   They are two of the most dedicated people I know to cause of Liberty.  
> 
> It's disappointing that there are still so many people in this movement who can't accept the diversity within the movement and wish that we were homogenized.
> 
> Edit:  It's also worthy of mention that Gigi and Tracy didn't even join the team until late June early July. By then, we were already dealing  
> with Benton's competing event, not to mention the RNC trying to prevent us from having the event at the Florida State Fairgrounds, and also a few rogue elements trying to undermine the event from the inside.

----------


## Rocco

I won't take the time for a lengthy reply because you cannot even refute my short replies about how Virginia's winner take all status being a state that was within a 10 day range of 10 caucus states made it strategically undesirable or how getting Santorum out was a part of the campaign strategy that, if you were there, was obviously being carried out; that strategy being to coalesce the conservative vote. After Nevada ended we still wanted to coalesce the conservative vote as best we could because we wanted maximum representation at the RNC and at the state level parties, and we still had a better chance of drawing from Gingrich and Santorum then Romney. We still had several goals to accomplish with caucus states, and we did. Michigan was a part of the strategy to coalesce conservatives behind Ron Paul. 

The fact that Kathy brings up a rant I posted angrily the day that we essentially dropped out, literally the single hardest day of the campaign, and some of you act as if that is at all a fair representation of my opinion on the man makes it perfectly clear to me that either your logical processes are flawed, or you do not understand basic human nature. 




> I'm sorry you cannot comprehend what you read, or take the time to actually read a serious reply. The fact that you are trying and failing to defend a dishonest campaign now (thanks kathy88 for really showing me what I'm dealing with, and I'm still not even sure), and you simply can't comprehend truth, doesn't mean the posts are half truths. You failed to address my points, in any fashion that makes sense to the supporters that donated money and time in January, February, March, April, and May when asked to do so.
> 
> FULL  TRUTH - Ron Paul 2012 agreed to not attack Mitt Romney, before the  Michigan primary. But spent money attacking Rick Santorum there, helping  Mitt Romney win that state, and the nomination. It also continued to send emails "attacking" Mitt Romney in the emails to supporters, but never doing so publicly in an ad. Why? They were dragging supporters along, trying to tell them what they needed to hear, so they would part with more money.
> 
> I didn't say attack Mitt Romney at  every step, or in every single state. I said where it mattered. Michigan mattered for causing a brokered convention. Maine mattered.  New Hampshire mattered. Virginia mattered. Virginia mattered  specifically for the supposed delegate fight, because a candidate could  win delegates, without winning the state outright. They didn't try.
> 
> It's  why I sent Ron Paul 2012 a draft campaign ad attacking Rick Santorum in  IOWA. And they didn't use it. 2 weeks later, I sent it to Rick Perry's  campaign (my enemey's enemy is my friend), and they had it up within 24  hours.
> 
> So, if the campaign was lost after Iowa, it should have  closed shop. Not wasted months of time, and certainly not wasted months  of supporters' money. If it was about some other two man strategy they  tried to float like Doug Wead did, that falls to pieces with Virginia. And even in Maine, where it was a two main race in the polls. Mitt Romney and Ron Paul.
> ...

----------


## phill4paul

> Deb, you were widely considered to be the sane one and THIS is still your belief...And you wonder why the campaign decided they had to separate? You believe the truther movement put Ron Paul on the map. That message is a recipe for Ron Paul's legacy to be tarnished. Fanatics in the truther movement is a repetition of terms to most Americans, the VAST majority of voters find 9/11 truth repulsive, and our movement can have nothing to do with them. THANK GOD Jesse Benton did what he did.


 So nice that you (and who else specifically?) thought Deb was the sane one. Who the f*ck are you exactly? What was your role in RonPaul2012, Inc?

----------


## Rocco

I volunteered, donated and did some pretty intense organizing locally. 




> So nice that you (and who else specifically?) thought Deb was the sane one. Who the f*ck are you exactly? What was your role in RonPaul2012, Inc?

----------


## phill4paul

> I volunteered, donated and did some pretty intense organizing locally.


Who didn't? 

You specifically said




> Deb, you were widely considered to be the sane one and THIS is still your belief...


  You did not say.... "I widely considered you.." So you are saying that there is a consortium somewhere that considers Deb sane but......?

----------


## Rocco

Deb has widespread respect on the forum, that is what I base that comment on. That being said, other organizers involved did not have respect from many in the movement.

----------


## phill4paul

> Deb has widespread respect on the forum, that is what I base that comment on. That being said, other organizers involved did not have respect from many in the movement.


  She still does. More so than you. Are you saying that the rest of us agree with your statement? I can assure that you are wrong. I have and still consider her one of the most sane members. You I question. I would take Deb for 100 of you any day.

----------


## jjdoyle

> I won't take the time for a lengthy reply because you cannot even refute my short replies about how Virginia's winner take all status being a state that was within a 10 day range of 10 caucus states made it strategically undesirable or how getting Santorum out was a part of the campaign strategy that, if you were there, was obviously being carried out; that strategy being to coalesce the conservative vote. After Nevada ended we still wanted to coalesce the conservative vote as best we could because we wanted maximum representation at the RNC and at the state level parties, and we still had a better chance of drawing from Gingrich and Santorum then Romney. We still had several goals to accomplish with caucus states, and we did. Michigan was a part of the strategy to coalesce conservatives behind Ron Paul. 
> 
> The fact that Kathy brings up a rant I posted angrily the day that we essentially dropped out, literally the single hardest day of the campaign, and some of you act as if that is at all a fair representation of my opinion on the man makes it perfectly clear to me that either your logical processes are flawed, or you do not understand basic human nature.


Since you are apparently COMPLETELY ignorant on Virginia. Virginia was not a winner take all state. There, refuted your idiot claim very quickly. (Full version below, with image.)

No, you fail to show how your stupid idea of the campaign getting everybody out but Romney holds water.
Why would Rick Santorum drop out, when he had/was beating Ron Paul in states with the popular vote?
Why would Rick Santorum drop out, when he received more votes than Ron Paul? And was in the race for a shorter amount of time than Ron Paul?

Your stupid idea holds no water, other than misleading supporters to waste more money on the campaign.
Michigan was a PRIMARY, not a Caucus. They attacked Rick Santorum in Michigan. Spent at least $100K on attack ads against him in the state.
A state Ron Paul had no chance of winning.

Ron Paul claimed Super Tuesday was the most important day of his campaign "yet". Including Michigan which had already taken place, where they wasted funds attacking Rick Santorum. Now, mind you, he made that claim in a fundraising email of course. So, take it as you will...

But, there goes your stupid "concentrate on the caucus state" idea. Maine. A caucus state. Where RP was polling at/near the top, only next to Romney. Not one single Romney ad. And when it came time for the first one-vs-one state, Ron Paul 2012 didn't spend one dime running ads to attack Mitt Romney in it.

*Virginia awarded delegates not based on the total popular vote outcome, and not like some caucuses to waste supporters' time; even if you didn't win the state outright you could get delegates. It's how RP got 3 delegates in it, because of one supporter going all out for him.*

Since you can't seem to comprehend how your stupid "two man" idea holds no water with just typed words, I created an image for you with some facts about the states (WARNING THOUGH, it has words too, so you might have trouble comprehending it also):


"you cannot even refute my short replies about how Virginia's winner take all status"
Again, I can't refute a reply that is ignorant and stupid of the actual facts? Like Virginia not being an actual "winner take all" state...

If you can't or didn't read the rest, I refuted your stupidity on the "winner take all" status of Virginia. Virginia wasn't winner take all.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> One of the nicest, most intelligent and well spoken people I've ever had the pleasure to meet.


I had a chance to talk to him at the St. Anselm's debate, and agree.

----------


## devil21

> Well, it looks like Romney's campaign was helping write Ron Paul  2012's campaign ads, so I can only imagine they thought that would be  the next step.


I hope you didn't take that from my earlier posts in this thread.  I've never seen any evidence that Romney had anything to do with the _content_ of Ron's ads, other than the possibility that Ron's ad guy was the reason for the lack of Romney ads.

----------


## jjdoyle

> I hope you didn't take that from my earlier posts in this thread.  I've never seen any evidence that Romney had anything to do with the _content_ of Ron's ads, other than the possibility that Ron's ad guy was the reason for the lack of Romney ads.


Just watch the ads, and then watch the ones where it has all three candidates in them. Romney is usually described in one sentence, with nothing hard hitting, and with a word (or, term) they probably thought would actually help him in the General Election, "Moderate". That's right, Ron Paul 2012 called him a MODERATE!
I bet Romney's campaign was terrified, insulted, and about to drop the A-bomb on Ron Paul 2012 because of that...until you realize that they had already agreed to not attack Mitt Romney when that ad was released.

And being labeled a "moderate" in an ad was probably viewed as a positive to Romney's campaign, because he could attempt to pick up more Democrat leaning voters that way.

----------


## devil21

> Just watch the ads, and then watch the ones where it has all three candidates in them. Romney is usually described in one sentence, with nothing hard hitting, and with a word (or, term) they probably thought would actually help him in the General Election, "Moderate". That's right, Ron Paul 2012 called him a MODERATE!


It's just speculation though.  




> I bet Romney's campaign was terrified, insulted, and about to drop the A-bomb on Ron Paul 2012 because of that...until you realize that they had already agreed to not attack Mitt Romney when that ad was released.
> 
> And being labeled a "moderate" in an ad was probably viewed as a positive to Romney's campaign, because he could attempt to pick up more Democrat leaning voters that way.


I also recall some chatter that Romney promised not to "bury" Ron Paul 2012 if the ads didn't attack Romney.  There definitely was some backroom dealings going on (no confirmation of what exactly though) but this thread is about Benton, not random bashing of the campaign.

----------


## CPUd

> ..
> 
> *Virginia awarded delegates not based on the total popular vote outcome, and not like some caucuses to waste supporters' time; even if you didn't win the state outright you could get delegates. It's how RP got 3 delegates in it, because of one supporter going all out for him.*
> 
> 
> "you cannot even refute my short replies about how Virginia's winner take all status"
> Again, I can't refute a reply that is ignorant and stupid of the actual facts? Like Virginia not being an actual "winner take all" state...
> 
> If you can't or didn't read the rest, I refuted your stupidity on the "winner take all" status of Virginia. Virginia wasn't winner take all.
> ...


Virginia was effectively a winner-take all; because there were only 2 on the ballot, one was going to go over 50%.

----------


## jjdoyle

> Virginia was effectively a winner-take all; because there were only 2 on the ballot, one was going to go over 50%.


Not all the delegates were awarded by the total popular vote in the entire state, but by region.
Meaning, they could have tried to win just a specific portion of the state, instead of not trying at all. It's how RP picked up 3 delegates, even though he only got 40% of the votes overall. Because of one RP supporter that went all out for the man in his area and he picked up more than 50% in that area.

Even though Mitt Romney got 60% overall, Ron Paul still was able to pick up delegates. And had Ron Paul 2012 actually been trying to win, instead of help Mitt Romney by that point, should have tried to pick up more...especially if it was _really_ about some delegate strategy as well.

----------


## Peace&Freedom

One other way to get some perspective on this, is to look back on discussions of this matter during past election cycles. As with this February 2009 thread on whether Ron Paul should run again in 2012---below is my comment, verbatim, from post #40:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post1975250

"_If Paul announces he's running, he needs to make clear he will be running to win, and back it up with bringing in serious campaign people (as viewed by the grassroots) to make it happen. If it's Moore and Benton front and center again, forget it, we've already lost..._"

----------


## Matt Collins

I would bet every dime I have that Jesse will be at the top or near the  top of Rand's likely campaign for President. He is family, he is  trusted, and he is experienced. 


People around here need to learn not to fret about things they cannot change.

----------


## Matt Collins

> Explain this.  Distancing who?  You won't explain it.  You just spew bull$#@! and hope some of it sticks.


I am not going to name names, but there are / were certain people at PF that the campaign could not / should not be associated with. In politics, you have to actively distance yourself sometimes from these people.

----------


## JK/SEA

> I am not going to name names, but there are / were certain people at PF that the campaign could not / should not be associated with. In politics, you have to actively distance yourself sometimes from these people.


''THESE PEOPLE''...what people?....blacks?...gays?...hispanics?...or people like me and Debbie, or AF, or 81% of the people on this forum?.......?

seems to me we need to distance ourselves from people LIKE YOU, in order to break the cycle of the status quo you support.

----------


## Matt Collins

> I'm getting really tired of people marginalizing the truthers.  The fact of the matter is that truther movement put Dr. Paul on the map. If it weren't for Aaron Russo and Alex Jones and their followings Ron wouldn't have been a blip on the radar.


 Uh no. The conspiracy movement helped to keep Ron marginalized.

----------


## Matt Collins

> ''THESE PEOPLE''...what people?


People who cause a distraction from the controlled message.

----------


## jjdoyle

> Uh no. The conspiracy movement helped to keep Ron marginalized.


Ron Paul 2012 did that themselves. It's not the grassroots' responsibility to tailor a proper message.
Stop blaming the grassroots for the campaign not being prepared.

----------


## JK/SEA

Looks more and more like wannabe Liberty folks like Matt will get another Democrat elected  as President....

''remember, remember the 5th of November...''

----------


## Rocco

Firstly, Virginia was winner take all by congressional districts, so there was no delegate process that could have resulted in us attaining more delegates. In Virginia congressional districts the winner took all the delegates, yes Ron won one of the CDs, but that does not change the fact that our strategy was to go all out in caucus states where there was more of a process that resulted in not only delegate increases, but also state party gains. So yes, it was winner take all in the same way New York and several other states were, in that there was no way we could maximize gains via the process. The vote determined who won all the delegates, hence the term "winner take all". 

The idea that we didn't go all out in Maine is laughably stupid. The campaign essentially wrote CPAC off to concentrate on Maine, and it paid off because we made huge gains.

You have failed to refute any of my claims, which is why only the ignorant come to your defense. Nobody on this forum who was involved in the campaign at any level or has ever worked on campaigns agrees with you. 




> Since you are apparently COMPLETELY ignorant on Virginia. Virginia was not a winner take all state. There, refuted your idiot claim very quickly. (Full version below, with image.)
> 
> No, you fail to show how your stupid idea of the campaign getting everybody out but Romney holds water.
> Why would Rick Santorum drop out, when he had/was beating Ron Paul in states with the popular vote?
> Why would Rick Santorum drop out, when he received more votes than Ron Paul? And was in the race for a shorter amount of time than Ron Paul?
> 
> Your stupid idea holds no water, other than misleading supporters to waste more money on the campaign.
> Michigan was a PRIMARY, not a Caucus. They attacked Rick Santorum in Michigan. Spent at least $100K on attack ads against him in the state.
> A state Ron Paul had no chance of winning.
> ...

----------


## mosquitobite

> You have failed to refute any of my claims, which is why only the ignorant come to your defense. Nobody on this forum who was involved in the campaign at any level or has ever worked on campaigns agrees with you.


So you and Matt who were actually on the RP2012 campaign are the ones taking this personally from what I can see.

And I've ran a campaign.  Granted, it was simply on a much smaller, local level, but my candidate won.

I think where the campaign messed up was by trying to control the grassroots, while at the same time keeping them at arms length.

I understand some of that is because of law, which is why most of us here ACCEPTED that excuse.

But you either want my feet on the street, or you don't.  Can't have it both ways.

----------


## Deborah K

> Uh no. The conspiracy movement helped to keep Ron marginalized.



Matt, no matter how much you and Rocco don't want it to be true, AJ, and Russo, and their followings are responsible for putting Ron on the map, through their informative documentaries and other online venues.  Ron got noticed on the internet first.  Ron and AJ are friends, and Ron was a regular on AJ's show for years and years.  Russo lead the charge in getting thousands of supporters to demand cable news networks to interview Ron through mass emailings.  I know, because I was involved in it, and saw the results when barely anyone knew who Ron was, back in late '06 and '07.  

The way the campaign handled the so-called 'conspiracy movement' was pathetic.  How ignorant to try to exclude supporters, especially the very people who got Ron noticed in the first place.  The fact that the MSM and the establishment tried to paint Ron with the 'conspiracy' brush is a testament to the threat that he was becoming to them with his fast rise in popularity. And how do they choose to deal with it?  By alienating part of their base.  Brilliant!    What the campaign should have done, was opened the lines of communication up with ALL supporting groups, through a team of grassroots liaisons, and helped them understand the importance of maneuvering through the landmines of the political process through a joint effort to effect the change we were all hoping for.  ALL of us!  Including the 'untouchables'.  Had they made contact with prominent players in the various groups, they would have inspired an unbelievable amount of cooperation. "Controlling the message" would have been much more effective.  Instead, what they got was backlash.  If you think that "controlling the message" by alienating a substantial part of your support base is wise, then you're not as smart as you think you are.  The goal should be inclusivity and cooperation - unity.  Instead, we now have warring factions within the movement.  And you think I'm the one who is ignorant.

----------


## jjdoyle

> *a state that was within a 10 day range of 10 caucus  states made*


First, what 10 caucus states were you talking about here?




> Firstly, Virginia was winner take all by congressional districts, so there was no delegate process that could have resulted in us attaining more delegates. In Virginia congressional districts the winner took all the delegates, yes Ron won one of the CDs, but that does not change the fact that our strategy was to go all out in caucus states where there was more of a process that resulted in not only delegate increases, but also state party gains. So yes, it was winner take all in the same way New York and several other states were, in that there was no way we could maximize gains via the process. The vote determined who won all the delegates, hence the term "winner take all". 
> 
> The idea that we didn't go all out in Maine is laughably stupid. The campaign essentially wrote CPAC off to concentrate on Maine, and it paid off because we made huge gains.
> 
> *You have failed to refute any of my claims, which is why only the ignorant come to your defense. Nobody on this forum who was involved in the campaign at any level or has ever worked on campaigns agrees with you.*


So, you as a volunteer, are now calling other campaign volunteers ignorant. When you were ignorant of Virginia not being winner take all. Congratulations.
Ron Paul 2012 could have spent, and should have spent, $100K concentrating on certain congressional districts in Virginia, to try and pick up more delegates.
Instead, it spent $100K attacking Rick Santorum in Michigan, helping Mitt Romney win the state, and didn't get one delegate.

And in Maine, no Mitt Romney only attack ad. Not one. Ever. The entire campaign. So, Ron Paul 2012 thought they were going to waltz into the nomination, without ever attacking the one candidate polling ahead of their guy basically the entire time?

You are also clearly ignorant of who did/didn't volunteer. And ignorant of who does/doesn't have experience in political campaigns.
But, if you're saying Ron Paul 2012 was concentrating on the caucuses, now you're trying to claim it was a delegate strategy?
Which, as SOME delegates will tell you, is/was a complete lie. Why?
Because the campaign used the idea of a brokered convention, then sold everybody out that was getting involved in the process, so Rand could get a speech?

----------


## Matt Collins

> So you and Matt who were actually on the RP2012 campaign are the ones taking this personally from what I can see.


I am not taking anything personally. But I will say that there is a lot of mis/disinfo in this thread by people who are either trying to create their own narrative, or simply don't know what they were talking about. As someone who had not just a front row seat to the action, but was actually involved in a good portion of it, I am here to dispel the nonsense.






> I think where the campaign messed up was by trying to control the grassroots, while at the same time keeping them at arms length.
> 
> But you either want my feet on the street, or you don't.  Can't have it both ways.


People who are damaging to a campaign need to be turned away, that's campaigning 101.

----------


## Matt Collins

> Matt, no matter how much you and Rocco don't want it to be true, AJ, and Russo, and their followings are responsible for putting Ron on the map, through their informative documentaries and other online venues.


No, not at all. What put Ron on the map was when he bitchslapped Rudy in that debate.





> Ron got noticed on the internet first.  Ron and AJ are friends, and Ron was a regular on AJ's show for years and years.  Russo lead the charge in getting thousands of supporters to demand cable news networks to interview Ron through mass emailings.  I know, because I was involved in it, and saw the results when barely anyone knew who Ron was, back in late '06 and '07.


Neither Russo or AJ had any sort of mainstream mass-media reach. They definitely fired up their respective audiences, no doubt about that, but they were not responsible for "breaking" Ron Paul.







> The way the campaign handled the so-called 'conspiracy movement' was pathetic.  How ignorant to try to exclude supporters, especially the very people who got Ron noticed in the first place.


Your premise is incorrect. And besides, people who are damaging to a campaign should be turned away.





> The fact that the MSM and the establishment tried to paint Ron with the 'conspiracy' brush is a testament to the threat that he was becoming to them with his fast rise in popularity.


You left out the part that the conspiracy crowd was trying to use Ron as their personal vehicle for their pet agendas by attaching themselves to him. Is it any wonder the MSM had ammo to use against him? 





> What the campaign should have done, was opened the lines of communication up with ALL supporting groups, through a team of grassroots liaisons, and helped them understand the importance of maneuvering through the landmines of the political process through a joint effort to effect the change we were all hoping for.


No. You do not legitimize toxic factions unless you want to be completely irrelevant and even further ignored.

----------


## Deborah K

> I am not taking anything personally. But I will say that there is a lot of mis/disinfo in this thread by people who are either trying to create their own narrative, or simply don't know what they were talking about. As someone who had not just a front row seat to the action, but was actually involved in a good portion of it, I am here to dispel the nonsense.
> 
> 
> 
> People who are damaging to a campaign need to be turned away, that's campaigning 101.


For someone who was supposedly so involved, you are desperately out of touch with the grassroots, Matt.  If you're so much in-the-know, why is your credibility in question with so many people within the movement?   And not just on these forums, for which you were supposed to be the liaison.

----------


## Deborah K

> No, not at all. What put Ron on the map was when he bitchslapped Rudy in that debate.
> 
> Oh I see, he just magically showed up as a candidate one day.    The Rudy exchange made people sit up and take notice, no doubt, but the grassroots, largely made up of "fringe" groups in the beginning, put him on the map and got him in the race.
> 
>  Neither Russo or AJ had any sort of mainstream mass-media reach. They definitely fired up their respective audiences, no doubt about that, but they were not responsible for "breaking" Ron Paul.
> 
> In your mind, who convinced him to run?  The GOP?  From where do you think the grassroots originated, Matt?  lol.  Aaron Russo had mass-media reach Matt.  You know who he was, right?
> 
> 
> ...


//

----------


## jjdoyle

> People who are damaging to a campaign need to be turned away, that's campaigning 101.


Well, for Rand in 2016 that would be people like Jesse Benton then. And people like John Tate, and yourself.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> No, not at all. What put Ron on the map was when he bitchslapped Rudy in that debate.
> 
> 
>  Neither Russo or AJ had any sort of mainstream mass-media reach. They definitely fired up their respective audiences, no doubt about that, but they were not responsible for "breaking" Ron Paul.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your premise is incorrect. And besides, people who are damaging to a campaign should be turned away.
> ...


I agree with Matt on this.  TOTALLY.

----------


## Deborah K

> I agree with Matt on this.  TOTALLY.


Fair enough, LE.  And I don't especially enjoy feeling like I should have to defend the truther movement.  But I'm really getting sick and tired of them being vilified and blamed for every freakin thing that goes wrong.  Especially given that they were instrumental in getting the word out initially about Ron.  I don't give a flying rat's butt who doesn't want to accept that fact, but it is a fact.

And, if the campaign and its operatives had the least little bit of foresight and vision, they could have turned all of the support they had from the different factions into a phenomenal success instead of rejecting them, alienating them, vilifying them and dividing the movement.  What did they expect would happen?

----------


## CPUd



----------


## klamath

Though I don't believe Paul was directly working to help Romney there is strong evidence that he did treat Romney with care. This could have been from several factors. First a personal friendship with the Romney's and or the very plain knowledge that Romney *WAS* going to be the nominee and didn't want to totally alienate the man that would control the convention and who would speak.
No Ron would have been nowhere without the grass roots but at the same time certain people did harm Ron. Not all truthers harmed Ron but some did, those that insisted Ron was one of them and screamed this at every campaign stop they could.  
Trutherism was proved without a doubt to be a candidate killing position with Debra Medina. Medina was in a bigger surge that Santorum and was posed to win the tea party surge to the governor of Texas. One little slip that she was a possible truther or even protecting staff members that were truthers KILLED her political career *DEAD*. She will NEVER win a statewide office.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Fair enough, LE.  And I don't especially enjoy feeling like I should have to defend the truther movement.  But I'm really getting sick and tired of them being vilified and blamed for every freakin thing that goes wrong.  Especially given that they were instrumental in getting the word out initially about Ron.  I don't give a flying rat's butt who doesn't want to accept that fact, but it is a fact.
> 
> And, if the campaign and its operatives had the least little bit of foresight and vision, they could have turned all of the support they had from the different factions into a phenomenal success instead of rejecting them, alienating them, vilifying them and dividing the movement.  What did they expect would happen?


Deb, you know I love ya and respect so much everything you have done for the movement; not to mention you as a person.  But, there was never enough of us to win.   You know I didn't agree with how you were treated.  You deserved better.   But, I do understand why the campaign had to distance themselves.  Their goal was to make our movement not so scary to mainstream Republicans.  Because unfortunately, the media, AND some of our own movement had scared the crap out of them.  It's just a fact.  

It also doesn't matter how much the Truthers "got the word out initially" about Ron Paul.  That's not even germane.  Again, there were not enough of them and everyone else in this movement to get Ron Paul the nomination.   We can't make this personal.   We have to face the fact that if we want to win, we have to attract many many others.  That doesn't for one minute change what so many in this movement have done to get us this far and still continue to do.  But, we all must keep our eye on the prize.

----------


## phill4paul

> I am not taking anything personally. But I will say that there is a lot of mis/disinfo in this thread by people who are either trying to create their own narrative, or simply don't know what they were talking about. As someone who had not just a front row seat to the action, but was actually involved in a good portion of it, I am here to dispel the nonsense.


  Then please begin. Because you've said a whole lot of nothing w/ regards jjdoyle's points.

----------


## phill4paul

Will someone lease define "truthers" for me? Was it the "911"ers? The "anti-vax"ers? The "anti-M.I.C."ers? The "anti-War on Drug"ers? The "anti military police"ers? The "anti electronic voting fraud"ers? The "anti-Israeli first"ers? The "anti-War on Terror"ers? The "anti-government waste"ers? The "anti-federalist"ers?

  Ron appealed to just about everyone based on "anti." Done with it. Tired of it. That mindset wasn't spawned in the mainstream. The mainstream followed.

----------


## Matt Collins

> Then please begin. Because you've said a whole lot of nothing w/ regards jjdoyle's points.


I have done that in previous threads but I no longer respond in any significant way to JDoyle's drivel. It's not worth my time because he has only the goal of spreading misinformation.

----------


## phill4paul

> I have done that in previous threads but I no longer respond in any significant way to JDoyle's drivel. It's not worth my time because he has only the goal of spreading misinformation.


  Then please link. If it is something that you are versed at then it should come as easy as posting anything else you have written without directly responding to the content and assertions.

----------


## ClydeCoulter

> I have done that in previous threads but I no longer respond in any significant way to JDoyle's drivel. It's not worth my time because he has only the goal of spreading misinformation.


That's a good cop out.  Just ignore what you can't respond to and call it rhetoric that is beneath you.

----------


## phill4paul

> That's a good cop out.  Just ignore what you can't respond to and call it rhetoric *that is beneath you*.


  Oh,CC. SMDH. You know better than that when it comes to Teh Collinz.

----------


## Matt Collins

> In your mind, who convinced him to run?  The GOP?   From where do you think the grassroots originated, Matt?  lol.  Aaron  Russo had mass-media reach Matt.  You know who he was, right?


Kent Snyder.





> if they had been communicated with, instead of ostracized, things probably would have been different.


No, because many of them do not have the capacity to understand why they should not be vocal about their conspiracy agenda, and many others simply don't care because they were trying to use Ron to get their message out. And as I said, in a political campaign, you cannot validate a crowd like that.



I am in no way comparing the conspiracy crowd to say the KKK, but this is a very similar analogy:  Imagine if a Republican candidate had lots of members of the Klan as a segment of his support base. He can't simply tell them that he wants their support but they must quiet down on their racist overtones. That doesn't work, that candidate MUST actively distance himself from his supporters who are open and avowed racists, otherwise the candidate will be marginalized and the Klan members supporting him become the issue in the campaign instead of the candidate's message.  

Again, I am not saying the conspiracy crowd is like the Klan in any way, but I am saying that when a candidate has a group of supporters in his base that is potentially toxic, it is a requirement for a candidate to distance themselves from them or else lose. 


That is as plain as I can make it and I am not trying to be mean or rude or insulting about it. That is just the way the world works.

----------


## Matt Collins

> Then please link. If it is something that you are versed at then it should come as easy as posting anything else you have written without directly responding to the content and assertions.


Dozens of times and then I gave up because it's like talking to a brick wall again because he is here to spread disinfo. Just go to the forum search too, type in my name as author, and then type in his username under the "search what" field and you'll find them.

----------


## ClydeCoulter

> Oh,CC. SMDH. You know better than that when it comes to Teh Collinz.


I was referring to his ego, not physical size

----------


## Occam's Banana

> Then please link.


https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/

HTH

----------


## ClydeCoulter

You must be right, Teh Collinz, the movement should be separated from the likes of Alex Jones...oops....tell Ron Paul to get away from there...ahhhhhhhh http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...es-Show-4-3-14

----------


## phill4paul

After saying in a paragraph why your definition of "toxic" in the liberty movement is the equivalent of the Klan you say........




> Again, I am not saying the conspiracy crowd is like the Klan in any way,


  You're a politician through and through. That's why many here don't cotton to ya.

----------


## jjdoyle

> I am not taking anything personally. But I will say that there is a lot of mis/disinfo in this thread by people who are either trying to create their own narrative, or simply don't know what they were talking about. As someone who had not just a front row seat to the action, but was actually involved in a good portion of it, I am here to dispel the nonsense.


Truth is not disinfo. Defending and trying to rewrite what the campaign did/didn't do is disinfo. *I'm still waiting on you to provide me with the Mitt Romney only TV attack ad Ron Paul 2012 ran, like they did for Rick Perry, Rick Santorum, and Newt Gingrich.*
You and your stupid "front row seat to the action" claims don't mean crap, when you have repeatedly shown you had no clue what the campaign was doing. You didn't know about the Kent Sorenson issue, or the agreement to not attack Mitt Romney before Michigan's Primary.

Or, maybe you did, and you're just defending liars that thought it wise to waste supporters' time and money for months? It does seem birds of a feather, flock together.

You can't dispel truth, even if you try. And unfortunately for a lying, deceitful, dishonest campaign, I have the facts on my side. Along with their actions/non-actions/words. Ron Paul 2012 was 100% dishonest with supporters from the moment they agreed to not attack Mitt Romney, apparently made a backroom deal with his campaign, and stayed in the race.

Continuing to waste supporters' time and money to push a fake delegate strategy they made sure wouldn't be an issue at the RNC for King Romney. Because after all, Rand's speaking slot was oh so important, to grow the movement by first destroying it with a lying endorsement of Mitt Romney and having Ron Paul 2012's campaign website used to try (but failed) and defend it.

----------


## Rocco

LOL @ the Alex Jones tactic of repeating yourself loudly over and over, it's no wonder that all of your defenders on this thread seem to have an affinity for 9/11 truth. This line of non logic only works on those who cannot connect point A to point B.

Like Matt, I am done here. You cannot debate someone who cannot follow a logical train of thought and instead will respond to every one of your posts by essentially copy n pasting a post theyve written 1000 times. 




> *I'm still waiting on you to provide me with the Mitt Romney only TV attack ad Ron Paul 2012 ran, like they did for Rick Perry, Rick Santorum, and Newt Gingrich.*

----------


## jjdoyle

> LOL @ the Alex Jones tactic of repeating yourself loudly over and over, it's no wonder that all of your defenders on this thread seem to have an affinity for 9/11 truth. This line of non logic only works on those who cannot connect point A to point B.
> 
> Like Matt, I am done here. You cannot debate someone who cannot follow a logical train of thought and instead will respond to every one of your posts by essentially copy n pasting a post theyve written 1000 times.


I never said anything about 9/11, so your stupid logic here is just that, stupid. You can't address the points, so you pull a Rudy Giuliani, and go to a totally different topic. From "our government's actions have consequences", to "you're blaming BBQing rednecks for 9/11!".

FWIW, I don't even listen to Alex Jones, or any talk radio really.

Please, for myself and others, answer the simple question. *What are the 10 caucus states you said the campaign was concentrating on instead of Virginia?* And I expect they had results that were worth it that you can point to also?

----------


## Nirvikalpa

Only if Collins is thrown in as a consolation prize.









Otherwise I may actually waste my time campaigning for him.  Only with these two behind it is it obvious the campaign will be going nowhere.

----------


## mosquitobite

What's interesting is that Rocco voted yes.

Matt didn't vote.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> ''THESE PEOPLE''...what people?....blacks?...gays?...hispanics?...or people like me and Debbie, or AF, or 81% of the people on this forum?.......?
> 
> seems to me we need to distance ourselves from people LIKE YOU, in order to break the cycle of the status quo you support.


Real people, that's who... 

Real people, who are, to paraphrase Jimmy Stewart: the ones who do most of living and working and paying and dying in this open air prison called AmeriKa.

You see, we are loud, and abrasive and angry at what's happening to our country.

Therefore we are an embarrassment to the people that *did* this.

The ones that Collinz *agrees* with, that claim they are living in the poorhouse at $174,000 a year plus unlimited perqs, for the "service" of bankrupting and enslaving us.

We don't shine on in the Georgetown cocktail party circuit, you see.

We are supposed to do what our masters and enforcers tell us to do:

*Shut the $#@! up and move along.*

----------


## jjdoyle

> Real people, that's who... 
> 
> Real people, who are, to paraphrase Jimmy Stewart: the ones who do most of living and working and paying and dying in this open air prison called AmeriKa.
> 
> You see, we are loud, and abrasive and angry at what's happening to our country.
> 
> Therefore we are an embarrassment to the people that *did* this.
> 
> *The ones that Collinz agrees with, that claim they are living in the poorhouse at $174,000 a year plus unlimited perqs, for the "service" of bankrupting and enslaving us.
> ...


He was completely clueless on the MRA accounts for expenses, and I think I have finally figured out the perfect campaign worker.

You must think politicians are poor that will be making $150K+ a year, plus benefits/travel expense accounts. And you must repeat that drivel, because politicians always need "more money" from the people.

Don't ask questions. Just give more money. The experts are busy with backroom deals for *their* future.

----------


## Matt Collins

This is why JJDoyles is wrong:

----------


## jjdoyle

> This is why JJDoyles is wrong:


LOL, already watched that when it was originally posted. He explains nothing that the grassroots that were paying attention to during the campaign, didn't already know.
AND, I find it hilarious that you and Rocco can't type responses, but provide wasteful 30+ minute videos. Seriously, that video explains nothing about the Kent Sorenson issue, the agreement to not attack Mitt Romney, why the campaign spent $100K attacking Rick Santorum in Michigan, etc.

----------


## specsaregood

//

----------


## phill4paul

> This is why JJDoyles is wrong:


  My response lies in this youtube. Can you dispute the points made in this video regarding the issue?

----------


## jjdoyle

> My response lies in this youtube. Can you dispute the points made in this video regarding the issue?


I think I'm going to need to read the book now. I missed the Kent Sorenson issue, agreement to not attack Romney, and the wasting of $100K in Michigan, but not spending one dime in Virginia on ads, in it.
It says "FULL" audio in the title, but I'm thinking they skimmed certain parts from it in the final edit.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> I think I'm going to need to read the book now. I missed the Kent Sorenson issue, agreement to not attack Romney, and the wasting of $100K in Michigan, but not spending one dime in Virginia on ads, in it.
> It says "FULL" audio in the title, but I'm thinking they skimmed certain parts from it in the final edit.


Over and $#@!ing over.  You are a damn broken record.  

The Kent Sorenson issue, if it is true, was stupid as all hell.  Getting him was irrelevant and to try to buy him off, if that is what indeed happened, was dumber than dirt.

They didn't attack Romney, because as you have been told numerous times, yet you just gloss over and keep repeating your diatribe, was because they wanted it to end up being a 2 man race between Romney and Paul.  Unfortunately, that didn't work out.  

Paul stood no chance in Virginia.  To spend money there would have been like pouring money down a rat hole.

----------


## jjdoyle

> Over and $#@!ing over.  You are a damn broken record.  
> 
> The Kent Sorenson issue, if it is true, was stupid as all hell.  Getting him was irrelevant and to try to buy him off, if that is what indeed happened, was dumber than dirt.
> 
> They didn't attack Romney, because as you have been told numerous times, yet you just gloss over and keep repeating your diatribe, was because they wanted it to end up being a 2 man race between Romney and Paul.  Unfortunately, that didn't work out.  
> 
> Paul stood no chance in Virginia.  To spend money there would have been like pouring money down a rat hole.


This digital diarrhea you type on the keyboard repeatedly defending a lying, dishonest, corrupt campaign, is beyond disgusting. I'm that I'm immune to it.

You have a defeatist's attitude. Paul stood no chance in Virginia, so no point in trying? Despite the facts/numbers making A LOT more sense than Michigan. Which you can't explain. Virginia, the first one-vs-one state. NOT ONE dime on ads, positive or negative.

So, your stupid, "they wanted it to end up being a 2 man race between Romney and Paul." holds no water. Unless you can point me to a state RP was actually going to win, once it became a two man race.
North Carolina? Nope.
California? Nope.
Texas? Nope.

I am the digital medicine, to the digital diarrhea people like you, Matt Collins, and Rocco are trying to spread.

They didn't attack Romney, because they agreed to not do so. And at that point, should have ended the campaign. Doug Wead told us about this decision. The fact you are denying that, is beyond stupid. I'm sorry you can't comprehend the facts, and they need to be repeated over and over for people just like you.

A rat hole = Michigan.
Virginia = first one-vs-one state. Worth running ads to try and win some delegates, if not the entire state.

----------


## klamath

> This digital diarrhea you type on the keyboard repeatedly defending a lying, dishonest, corrupt campaign, is beyond disgusting. I'm that I'm immune to it.
> 
> You have a defeatist's attitude. Paul stood no chance in Virginia, so no point in trying? Despite the facts/numbers making A LOT more sense than Michigan. Which you can't explain. Virginia, the first one-vs-one state. NOT ONE dime on ads, positive or negative.
> 
> So, your stupid, "they wanted it to end up being a 2 man race between Romney and Paul." holds no water. Unless you can point me to a state RP was actually going to win, once it became a two man race.
> North Carolina? Nope.
> California? Nope.
> Texas? Nope.
> 
> ...


You have proved the campaign was incompetent, you have proved that the campaign did not attack Romney but you have not except with circumstantial evidence made the case it was *intentionally* trying to deceive donors to help Romney win the nomination. 
If I was on a jury I would have to vote to acquit. Case not proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

----------


## JK/SEA

> You have proved the campaign was incompetent, you have proved that the campaign did not attack Romney but you have not except with circumstantial evidence made the case it was *intentionally* trying to deceive donors to help Romney win the nomination. 
> If I was on a jury I would have to vote to acquit. Case not proved beyond a reasonable doubt.


for me personnally, and as a PCO, i had to hold my nose so i couldn't smell the stink. Just because you couldn't smell it, doesn't mean it didn't smell like $#@!.

my verdict...guilty.

----------


## mosquitobite

> You have proved the campaign was incompetent, you have proved that the campaign did not attack Romney but you have not except with circumstantial evidence made the case it was *intentionally* trying to deceive donors to help Romney win the nomination. 
> If I was on a jury I would have to vote to acquit. Case not proved beyond a reasonable doubt.


That's not what the poll shows.  The number of NOs continues to grow while the yes's do not.

----------


## klamath

> for me personnally, and as a PCO, i had to hold my nose so i couldn't smell the stink. Just because you couldn't smell it, doesn't mean it didn't smell like $#@!.
> 
> my verdict...guilty.


I personally could make a stronger circumstantial case Ron does all this to personally make money for himself and family. He did the newsletters to make money, he built a fanatic base of donors running, he attempted to steal a donor created website to make money off of it, he built a donor only supported closed channel,..... All circumstantial but if we are going to convict on that Hmmmmm.....

----------


## ClydeCoulter

> I personally could make a stronger circumstantial case Ron does all this to personally make money for himself and family. He did the newsletters to make money, he built a fanatic base of donors running, he attempted to steal a donor created website to make money off of it, he built a donor only supported closed channel,..... All circumstantial but if we are going to convict on that Hmmmmm.....


Like, in everything, honesty is paramount.

If I offer a service that others are willing to buy into, and I do provide that service as advertised, then I see no problem with it.  It is a voluntary exchange where both sides of the exchange are beneficial and complete.

On the other hand, if one side is falsely advertising, while subverting the common goal openly agreed upon, then there is fraud.

----------


## jjdoyle

> You have proved the campaign was incompetent, you have proved that the campaign did not attack Romney but you have not except with circumstantial evidence made the case it was *intentionally* trying to deceive donors to help Romney win the nomination. 
> If I was on a jury I would have to vote to acquit. Case not proved beyond a reasonable doubt.


And the incompetence is more than enough of a reason for Jesse Benton, John Tate, and other staffers on Ron Paul 2012 to not be near Rand in 2016. Point proven. 

BUT, if I was taking this to trial, I would of course need/want the phone records/email records.
And getting people like Doug Wead to testify about what was happening. Once you establish the fact they were lying to supporters (proven by showing the emails that all funds would be used to win the nomination, then them turning down refund requests from supporters after the RNC, them ending the campaign and sitting on more than a million cash-on-hand, not having any digital contact information for supporters to contact them now, only physical snail mail now, etc.) and can't be trusted to the jurors/judge, a civil case is much different from a criminal case.

I'll leave the criminal case to the FBI's current investigation of the Kent Sorenson issue. 

And being that this post is about if I want Jesse Benton to be involved in 2016, and you have said I have proven the campaign was incompetent, is exactly the point. I don't even put it all on Jesse Benton, I include others like John Tate, Matt Collins, and staffers trying to get supporters to donate to what was/is a dishonest campaign. Some only taking paychecks from supporters, but not donating to the cause they supposedly believed in themselves?

----------


## Arklatex

LibertyEagle, Sir Collins, others realize doyle has a slight point so realize it to satisfy his ego. 

Of all the possible outcomes,  Ron wanted a Romney Pres over Newt, Unsanitory, and Barack if he were a king maker which also positioned us best for the future within our chosen path.  Is that not maybe true? So what?

Doyle, don't trash the entire campaign.  Ron cares about this mission to the point of Martyrdom, respect that - we have our loyal opposition that will and has gone to those lengths.

Would there have been an Jesus Miracle at the convention and we got the nomination you think Ron would have turned it down?  It was dumb/divine luck that got him elected into congress and we were always holding out for that again.   

Look where we are with Rand going into 2016. * WOW*,  I can't believe it.  We went from some "loonies" sitting around in the proverbial basement discussing the taboo(the fed, etc etc) to where we are now.  Was there ever a thread in the history of the 'net like this that ended in cohesion?  Why not try and make one.  Kiss Bow and make up.  We are the microcosm and if we want macrosomic results then it starts here.

Compliment each other,  Do it!  We have way more in common than all you egos.  If you can't - you expect an entire country to?

----------


## jjdoyle

> LibertyEagle, Sir Collins, others realize doyle has a slight point so realize it to satisfy his ego. 
> 
> Of all the possible outcomes,  Ron wanted a Romney Pres over Newt, Unsanitory, and Barack if he were a king maker which also positioned us best for the future within our chosen path.  Is that not maybe true? So what?
> 
> *Doyle, don't trash the entire campaign.  Ron cares about this mission to the point of Martyrdom, respect that - we have our loyal opposition that will and has gone to those lengths.*
> 
> Would there have been an Jesus Miracle at the convention and we got the nomination you think Ron would have turned it down?  It was dumb/divine luck that got him elected into congress and we were always holding out for that again.   
> 
> Look where we are with Rand going into 2016. * WOW*,  I can't believe it.  We went from some "loonies" sitting around in the proverbial basement discussing the taboo(the fed, etc etc) to where we are now.  Was there ever a thread in the history of the 'net like this that ended in cohesion?  Why not try and make one.  Kiss Bow and make up.  We are the microcosm and if we want macrosomic results then it starts here.
> ...


The bold part is apparently not true at all. According to Doug Wead, the reason Ron Paul 2012 didn't attack Romney, is because Romney's campaign threatened to destroy Ron Paul's name. And if RP cares about this to the point of Martyrdom, why is his message now hidden behind a pay wall?

And I don't exactly see where we are in 2016, because the real attacks haven't even happened yet.
You know, the same media that didn't give Ron Paul 2008 a chance, then after the campaign thought RP was the greatest politician since sliced bread, then in 2012 made him to be a devil, loon, or naive, again? Like, Glenn Beck...

Based on history, I expect no less moving forward. Except now, if Rudy Giuliani/John McCain/Lindsey Graham types are running as well, and were to beat Rand, we can at least expect Rand to endorse them if they were to win the nomination. Because our "devil" is less evil than their "devil". And it's just a game apparently, to collect a nice government paycheck.

And being that Ron Paul 2012 got fewer votes with the best Republican candidate than Rick Santorum/Newt Gingrich, I'm not sure what I'm to expect in 2016, once the real attacks start coming.

The moment they agreed to not attack Mitt Romney though, was the moment Ron Paul 2012 should have closed shop. Or, at the very least, not asked for one more dime. And nobody associated with making those decisions at Ron Paul 2012, and those trying to excuse lying to supporters now, should be near Rand in 2016.

So, perhaps Ron/Rand should come out and address why Ron Paul 2012 lied to supporters for months, before they expect some of those supporters to return with money/time in 2016.

----------


## JK/SEA

> Uh no. The conspiracy movement helped to keep Ron marginalized.


almost forgot...

Matt, wipe your mouth off, ya got $#@! stains in the corners.

----------


## fr33

jjdoyle makes more sense on this topic than anyone else. I wish it weren't true but it is.

We're so bold that we're going raise a group of delegates to get us elected then after we email you telling you it's a lost cause, we'll start charging you to hear what we have to say.

I want Rand to run a campaign better than Ron did. Anything less and I'll know it's a scam.

----------


## Carlybee

> LibertyEagle, Sir Collins, others realize doyle has a slight point so realize it to satisfy his ego. 
> 
> Of all the possible outcomes,  Ron wanted a Romney Pres over Newt, Unsanitory, and Barack if he were a king maker which also positioned us best for the future within our chosen path.  Is that not maybe true? So what?
> 
> Doyle, don't trash the entire campaign.  Ron cares about this mission to the point of Martyrdom, respect that - we have our loyal opposition that will and has gone to those lengths.
> 
> Would there have been an Jesus Miracle at the convention and we got the nomination you think Ron would have turned it down?  It was dumb/divine luck that got him elected into congress and we were always holding out for that again.   
> 
> Look where we are with Rand going into 2016. * WOW*,  I can't believe it.  We went from some "loonies" sitting around in the proverbial basement discussing the taboo(the fed, etc etc) to where we are now.  Was there ever a thread in the history of the 'net like this that ended in cohesion?  Why not try and make one.  Kiss Bow and make up.  We are the microcosm and if we want macrosomic results then it starts here.
> ...


You do know the GOP ptb still thinks you're a bunch of loonies right?

----------


## Arklatex

jjdoyle you truly believe Paul was scared of Romney trashing him?  That I do not believe that for one second.  

I think you misjudge his character.  Evidence is everything he has done.  And that money is his motivation?  Naw man.

----------


## Arklatex

> You do know the GOP ptb still thinks you're a bunch of loonies right?


Not the true ptb.  And I refer will start referring to them as the powers that were.

----------


## ClydeCoulter

> jjdoyle you *truly believe Paul was scared of Romney trashing him*?  That I do not believe that for one second.  
> 
> I think you misjudge his character.  Evidence is everything he has done.  And that money is his motivation?  Naw man.


@JJDoyle is not talking out of his ass.  And maybe it had nothing to do with Ron, but Ron Paul 2012 campaign staff.  Take a bit of time and have a listen to this, then you will hear for yourself.

----------


## jjdoyle

> jjdoyle you truly believe Paul was scared of Romney trashing him?  That I do not believe that for one second.  
> 
> I think you misjudge his character.  Evidence is everything he has done.  And that money is his motivation?  Naw man.


Here ya go:



You don't even have to look for it, I trimmed it down for you.

----------


## Arklatex

I saw that tube when it came out.

----------


## jjdoyle

> jjdoyle you truly believe Paul was scared of Romney trashing him?  That I do not believe that for one second.  
> 
> I think you misjudge his character.  Evidence is everything he has done.  And that money is his motivation?  Naw man.


If money isn't the motivation, why is Ron Paul Channel behind a pay wall? He could be making money on YouTube and other services just like it, where the videos could be shared with millions of people on social networking sites like Facebook and Twitter.

So, yes, I do believe RP2012 was scared of the ads Romney was going to run. Ads that would have destroyed Ron Paul's name with the general GOP voter, even more than had already been done. Rand would be included in that, and the "future" of the liberty movement. Instead of ending the campaign though, like they should have, they continued to lie to supporters for months. Wasting time, and money.

----------


## Arklatex

Omg, well dude I'll give you my userid and password, only to you, so you can get behind that $10 pay wall.  You know, it does cost a bit to try and counter the Media by starting your own professional news channel - how many other former Presidential Candidates are doing so?  Please man, I barely even watch it as it's nothing new he hasn't expressed ad hominem in the public domain for his entire life.  And the important clips are on youtube and I don't see them being taken down:  

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aWLjcNNU5YM

Over 100,000 views, please man, if you think Paul is motivated by money and that is why he has taken on what he has then, dude, I misjudged your intuition.  You're lashing out from some adolescent complex.  Who is it that you DO support?  Bob Barr?  Cruz?  Anyone? or do you only criticize?

----------


## Arklatex

That's Ventura haha, but anyway.

----------


## jjdoyle

> Omg, well dude I'll give you my userid and password, only to you, so you can get behind that $10 pay wall.  You know, it does cost a bit to try and counter the Media by starting your own professional news channel - how many other former Presidential Candidates are doing so?  Please man, I barely even watch it as it's nothing new he hasn't expressed ad hominem in the public domain for his entire life.  And the important clips are on youtube and I don't see them being taken down:  
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aWLjcNNU5YM
> 
> Over 100,000 views, please man, if you think Paul is motivated by money and that is why he has taken on what he has then, dude, I misjudged your intuition.  You're lashing out from some adolescent complex.  Who is it that you DO support?  Bob Barr?  Cruz?  Anyone? or do you only criticize?


Yeah, Ventura, not RP. Haha! Original point, invalid. Probably like your intuition. Or, you're maybe just speaking out of adolescent ignorance.
And I don't want your password, I don't need to hear it. It's the general GOP voters, Democrat voters, they NEED to hear the stuff. Those are the ones that WE could share it. The ones that have been programmed/brainwashed for years, or their entire lives. The ones Rand needs to win in 2016.

And I do believe RP is motivated by money, as many are. It was the subscription newsletters in the 80s/90s. A paywall channel now. It might be about the message, but for some, the message has money attached to it. That is a simple fact.
His campaign denied a few supporters refund requests in September 2012. So what, he could sit on close to a million cash-on-hand, paying two workers (one his daughter or daughter-in-law) paychecks for doing basically nothing campaign related (maybe they're still working on that Mitt Romney only TV attack ad!?)? Still.

Those are facts. Facts and truth are not lashing out. You can question my intuition all day long, but it is backed up by facts/history/actions/non-actions. Actions speak louder than words. Hiding the "message" behind a paywall. Not having basic 2012 campaign contact information, like a phone number/email address, to contact the campaign now. Denying refund requests. After helping Mitt Romney win the Republican nomination. That's sick IMO.

And asking who I support is a great way to try and not address the actual facts and points already brought up, and spin the topic totally elsewhere, because you apparently don't like my legitimate criticisms. But if you must know, I can actually answer that question. Because I'm not like some around here when asked questions, will avoid them and post /yourlogicalfallacy links.

I like Greg Brannon, and will be picking up signs soon to help him in my area. I think Mike Lee is running a good campaign right now against Graham. So, right now, I'm supporting those two. I even did some initial things for Bevin a few months back.

----------


## LibertyEagle

Seriously dude?  His daughter is a CPA, so yeah, he paid her peanuts to do the accounting.  Sounds like a smart move to me.  As far as Ron's pay channel goes, those guys approached Ron and it's a good thing they did.  Our movement has not been known for their expertise in conducting quality video shows.  I'm thinking back to all the shaking cameras, the audio that just sucked, etc.  At least these guys know what they are doing.  

I just love how you think it's your damn business to give away someone else's work and that sounds like exactly what you think should be done.

All you have done here since day one is tear down.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> @JJDoyle is not talking out of his ass.  And maybe it had nothing to do with Ron, but Ron Paul 2012 campaign staff.  Take a bit of time and have a listen to this, then you will hear for yourself.


If you think Ron Paul doesn't take an active role in his own interests, you are (mod edit).  Far too often around here, if some don't like something that happened, they blame everyone around Ron and not him directly.  Belly up.  Ron is not an idiot and he is not a wallflower, either.  Is it that hard to hold Ron accountable for something you don't agree with?  Is that it?  Ron has never been one to be led around by the nose.  Give the man some credit.

----------


## jjdoyle

> Seriously dude?  His daughter is a CPA, so  yeah, he paid her peanuts to do the accounting.  Sounds like a smart  move to me.  As far as Ron's pay channel goes, those guys approached Ron  and it's a good thing they did.  Our movement has not been known for  their expertise in conducting quality video shows.  I'm thinking back to  all the shaking cameras, the audio that just sucked, etc.  At least  these guys know what they are doing.  
> 
> I just love how you think it's your damn business to give away someone  else's work and that sounds like exactly what you think should be done.
> 
> All you have done here since day one is tear down.


I don't know that she is a CPA, and I did a search for it. Maybe you  have a link to that? I do believe that Ron Paul's brother, Wayne, is a  CPA. And has a CPA/financial type firm, and that was listed as receiving  payments during the campaign. But not Lori. Again, maybe you have a  link that she is a CPA?

But, I don't know why they are still paying two  staffers ($5,000 since January this year) in 2014, and still paying a  law firm in Virginia ($46,000), when the campaign was effectively over in February 2012. When they agreed to not attack Mitt Romney, and instead helped him win the nomination by wasting $100K attacking Rick Santorum in Michigan. And yet they couldn't/wouldn't give  refunds to supporters when asked in September 2012?

Why is Ron Paul 2012  STILL paying a law firm so much money, into 2014? Sure, they have funds  to pay a law firm into 2014, when each quarter they have "no outstanding  debts" listed, yet didn't have the funds to attack Mitt Romney, or at  least run positive ads in Virginia letting GOP voters know they were  serious about winning. LOL.

Talk about deluded thinking. Glad I can't breath your digital air, because you are still spewing digital diarrhea.

Oh,  and since you're such a campaign expert (spreading disinfo  left/right/center) like Collins, maybe you can tell us who this group of  investors are that helped launch Ron Paul Channel? I have looked for  that information, but didn't find it in my initial searches. I haven't  looked up the California tax information on it yet, but that might help  shed some light.

And for your ignorance, putting your ORIGINAL  videos on YouTube does not mean "giving away". People make livings off  of having their videos just on YouTube, and having ads running on them.  If RP 2012 made so much supposed progress, Ron Paul should easily be  able to make a living off of YouTube and having his videos shared,  should he not? Maybe the only progress that was made, was a bigger  donation list...
I just thought we were trying to grow the movement, not simply preach to the choir.

And I'm  clearly not the one that has cursed at users, told them to get out,  leave, while doing nothing but trying to defend a lying campaign and  failing to do so. And if you missed it, you are in the minority in this  thread about whether a certain staffer from Ron Paul 2012 should be  hired by Rand. Not me.

----------


## LibertyEagle

You are nothing but a troll.  More than one have set you straight on a variety of your claims.  You simply post them again.  

If Bryan allows you to stay on here much longer, it will be clear to me that he has no interest in this website being viable in the future.  You should have been banned long ago.

----------


## jjdoyle

> You are nothing but a troll.


I'll be happy to say I'm a truth troll. Truth will grow the movement.

And once again, you failed to address a single point.

Can you provide me a link to where Lori is a CPA?

*added after she edited her original no response comment:
Ummm, clearly there are more that agree with me about the campaign, than disagree (only you, Collins, Rocco). I can count on one hand the people that disagree about the campaign, excluding people like Jesse Benton and other RP 2012 staffers (see: people taking paychecks from the supporters).

----------


## devil21

Isn't it time to let this thread die?

----------


## jjdoyle

> Isn't it time to let this thread die?


It's not 2016 yet, and Rand still hasn't made the decision.

----------


## Arklatex

those who seek controversy will find it. Yet those who seek clarification will find it as well. They must, however, be willing to overlook controversy, recognizing that it is a defense against truth in the form of a maneuver

----------


## jjdoyle

> those who seek controversy will find it. Yet those who seek clarification will find it as well. They must, however, be willing to overlook controversy, recognizing that it is a defense against truth in the form of a maneuver


Exactly right. You might have to keep asking the right questions, sometimes repeatedly, before the person/people understand them. Changing the methods those question(s) are asked might help as well.

Even when people call you slow, deluded, juvenile, etc., and want you to be banned for seeking the truth, you shouldn't stop seeking it.

----------


## kathy88

Just read this entire thread again. I deserve a prize.

----------


## pcosmar

> Just read this entire thread again. I deserve a prize.


I didn't.
I saw it and had not commented on it.

----------


## jjdoyle

> Just read this entire thread again. I deserve a prize.


Learn anything new (saw a grammatical error in the image I shared, need to update it!)?

I always wait on actual responses from some, and rarely get them, as you can see above in this thread. Instead, it's the usual name-calling and personal attacks.

Can somebody please provide a link showing that Lori is a CPA, as LibertyEagle claimed?

----------


## Aratus

i think the safest and wisest thing is to have all with the understanding that for Senator Rand Paul to both run for the presidency
and for the senate in 2016 we need Jesse Benton to be on speaking terms with Kentucky's two senators.  If Doctor Rand does come
close to the nomination in 2016 or even secures it directly, we know that this has to sit well with Mitch McConnell, because if the
two senators from KY are alienated from each other and not communicating, things become an obstacle course.  I assume that the
senior senator hired Jesse Benton because of his innate abilities and knowledge.  I do think someone else should be the campaign's
manager, but any "favorite son" or "favorite daughter" effort in the KY delegation at the RNC needs Mitch to be front row & center...

----------


## Aratus

i am assuming as the television cameras pan over the hall in '16 at 
the next RNC we all will be able to spot Jesse Benton quite often!!!

----------


## Aratus

heck, if he's the guy in the KY delegation who
gets to tell the Chair how they all voted, i am 
likely not going to be in a state of shock at all.
i expect him to have a role that makes way more 
sense as the fall of 2016 looms. this is my vote!!!

----------


## thoughtomator

I vote we give Jesse the job of distracting Candy Crowley

----------


## Anti Federalist

Drive by bump

----------


## Anti Federalist

> What has Kokesh done apart from look like a fool?


Keep himself out of jail?

----------


## Anti Federalist

> AF, are you being InSiNcErE again?
> 
> Shame on you, you InSiNcErE devil, you!


Ah ha ha hah...where did that guy go?

----------


## jjdoyle

> Drive by bump


I'm still waiting on a link to Lori being a CPA, like LibertyEagle (as of now) falsely claimed months ago.
I searched for it myself and couldn't find it back in April.
I would think from April to August (almost September now) that LibertyEagle could backup that claim, if it was true.

----------


## kylejack

Jesse Benton resigned McConnell's campaign over allegations that he was involved in the bribe paid to Kent Sorenson to endorse Ron Paul. Benton is done in politics, probably.

----------


## CPUd

> Ah ha ha hah...where did that guy go?


He's still out there exposing coginfils:

http://www.liberalforum.org/index.ph...of-free-speech
http://forum.grasscity.com/politics/...nal-right.html

----------


## helmuth_hubener

Yes, I want Benton to manage the campaign:

    boneyard bill,
    compromise,
    menciusmoldbug,
    MichaelDavis,
    Okaloosa,
    Rocco,
    Traditional Conservative

Hmm.

----------


## cajuncocoa

h/t Carlybee:




_Memorandum_


To: Supporters, Interested Parties

From: Jesse Benton, Chief Strategist

Date: May 15, 2012 

Re: Paul Campaign Convention Strategy 

Every day, I see firsthand how humbled and encouraged Dr. Paul is to have the enthusiastic support of so many who are committed to revitalizing our country.

Let me be very clear. Dr. Paul is NOT dropping out or suspending his campaign.

As Dr. Paul has previously stated, he is in this race all the way to the Republican National Convention in Tampa this August.

And he is deeply grateful for every resource he has been entrusted with to run an historic campaign that continues to defy all expectations.

Looking ahead, our campaign must honor that trust by maximizing our resources to ensure the greatest possible impact at the National Convention.

So while our campaign is no longer investing in the remaining primary states, we will continue to run strong programs at District and State Conventions to win more delegates and alternate delegates to the National Convention.

To this end, our campaign has several positive and realistic goals:1) Having recently WON Maine, we believe we can win several more states.
2) We will win party leadership positions at both the state and national levels.
3) We will continue to grow our already substantial total of delegates.We will head to Tampa with a solid group of delegates. Several hundred will be bound to Dr. Paul, and several hundred more, although bound to Governor Romney or other candidates, will be Ron Paul supporters.

Unfortunately, barring something very unforeseen, our delegate total will not be strong enough to win the nomination. Governor Romney is now within 200 delegates of securing the party’s nod. However, our delegates can still make a major impact at the National Convention and beyond. 

All delegates will be able to vote on party rules and allow us to shape the process for future liberty candidates.

We are in an excellent position to make sure the Republican Party adds solid liberty issues to the GOP Platform, which our delegates will be directly positioned to approve. Our campaign is presently working to get several items up for consideration, including monetary policy reform, prohibitions on indefinite detention, and Internet freedom.

Finally, by sending a large, respectful, and professional delegation to Tampa, we will show the party and the country that not only is our movement growing and here to stay, but that the future belongs to us.

Dr. Paul will begin this new phase of the campaign this Friday by speaking and holding several events at the Minnesota State Convention. He has also recently accepted an invitation to speak at the Texas Convention, and we are busy scheduling appearances around other State Conventions later this month and into June.

As Dr. Paul stated in his message yesterday, this fight is NOT over. We will continue fighting and expanding, and “we will not stop until we have restored what once made America the greatest country in human history.”

But for Dr. Paul’s efforts in the remaining State Conventions to be successful, and to ensure we get as many Ron Paul delegates to Tampa as we can, he needs you to continue standing with him. 

Along those lines, as you probably already know, the grassroots are holding a Money Bomb onThursday, May 17. Any money raised from that Money Bomb will go toward winning delegates and finalizing our plans for Tampa. 

As those plans for the National Convention come together, we will make sure all of our delegates, whether bound or unbound, get the information and aid they need.

Your support on May 17 will also help us reach more Americans with the solutions we know can restore our nation. Each person we add to our cause strengthens our movement for the critical work that awaits us beyond Tampa.

Dr. Paul, John Tate, myself, and the entire campaign staff know what incredible sacrifices have been made by each of our supporters.

Thank you for all of your hard work and your dedication to liberty. Together, we will champion Ron Paul and his message in Tampa, and we will lay the groundwork for future victories.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Yes, I want Benton to manage the campaign:
> 
>     boneyard bill,
>     compromise,
>     menciusmoldbug,
>     MichaelDavis,
>     Okaloosa,
>     Rocco,
>     Traditional Conservative
> ...


AT least a couple of them are the moderates.

----------


## JK/SEA

> Yes, I want Benton to manage the campaign:
> 
>     boneyard bill,
>     compromise,
>     menciusmoldbug,
>     MichaelDavis,
>     Okaloosa,
>     Rocco,
>     Traditional Conservative
> ...


Collins sock puppets?

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Collins sock puppets?


Some of them probably are.  TC isn't though.  Or at least, it would have taken way more effort than Collins would be willing to put in.  Collins doesn't get into religious debates

----------


## phill4paul

> If you think Ron Paul doesn't take an active role in his own interests, you are as deluded as doyle.  Far too often around here, if some don't like something that happened, they blame everyone around Ron and not him directly.  Belly up.  Ron is not an idiot and he is not a wallflower, either.  Is it that hard to hold Ron accountable for something you don't agree with?  Is that it?  Ron has never been one to be led around by the nose.  Give the man some credit.


  So you are saying Ron knew exactly what was being published in his newsletters?

----------


## Christian Liberty

> So you are saying Ron knew exactly what was being published in his newsletters?


John Robbins thought it was Lew Rockwell:

http://godshammer.wordpress.com/2008...-lew-rockwell/

I wonder if he would have known or not...

----------


## Christian Liberty

Really, I think people just make more of racism than they should.  If you aren't more ticked about support for preemptive war than you are about someone's personal views on race: well... I think you've been brainwashed by the State.  ANd that's partially true for me to, emotionally.  But I can logically figure out that that's what has happened.

----------


## phill4paul

> Really, I think people just make more of racism than they should.  If you aren't more ticked about support for preemptive war than you are about someone's personal views on race: well... I think you've been brainwashed by the State.  ANd that's partially true for me to, emotionally.  But I can logically figure out that that's what has happened.


  Say what?

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Say what?


Racism is bad, but its ridiculous that its considered the crime of all crimes as far as PC is concerned.  The fact that personal prejudice is seen as worse than support for mass murder in today's "society" says a lot about how screwed up people's priorities are.

Put another way, I care less about the possibility that Rockwell might be racist (if that even is true) than I do about the fact that many of my own family members support preemptive war.

----------


## kylejack

> Racism is bad, but its ridiculous that its considered the crime of all crimes as far as PC is concerned.  The fact that personal prejudice is seen as worse than support for mass murder in today's "society" says a lot about how screwed up people's priorities are.
> 
> Put another way, I care less about the possibility that Rockwell might be racist (if that even is true) than I do about the fact that many of my own family members support preemptive war.


Okay, but that's not really the topic.

Ron Paul's defense to the newsletters was that he didn't know what people were publishing in his own newsletter. Liberty Eagle, on the other hand, says Ron Paul is intimately involved in things done in his name and that the buck stops with him. 

So if Liberty Eagle is correct, Ron Paul's newsletter defense is bunk.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Okay, but that's not really the topic.
> 
> Ron Paul's defense to the newsletters was that he didn't know what people were publishing in his own newsletter. Liberty Eagle, on the other hand, says Ron Paul is intimately involved in things done in his name and that the buck stops with him. 
> 
> So if Liberty Eagle is correct, Ron Paul's newsletter defense is bunk.


I doubt Ron knew about it.  I've even heard that it was potentially someone Rockwell knew but that Ron did not know.  I definitely don't think Ron knew anything about it.

----------


## fr33

> Yes, I want Benton to manage the campaign:
> 
>     boneyard bill,
>     compromise,
>     menciusmoldbug,
>     MichaelDavis,
>     Okaloosa,
>     Rocco,
>     Traditional Conservative
> ...


Some of those probably worked for the campaign in 2012 and hoped to again in 2016.

----------


## devil21

> Yes, I want Benton to manage the campaign:
> 
>     boneyard bill,
>     compromise,
>     menciusmoldbug,
>     MichaelDavis,
>     Okaloosa,
>     Rocco,
>     Traditional Conservative
> ...


May they rest in peace.  :bows:




> Some of those probably worked for the campaign in 2012 and hoped to again in 2016.


Saber?  compromise and MichaelDavis handles were AIPAC type profiles.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

Rocco actually did work for the campaign, as I recall.

I guess Jesse made a good impression on him.  Good chap, that Jesse Benton, eh Rocco?

----------


## Matt Collins

> Collins sock puppets?


I don't have any fake accounts on here

----------


## pcosmar

> I don't have any* fake* accounts on here


OK,, Real accounts with different names.

----------


## Matt Collins

> OK,, Real accounts with different names.


Nope, none of those either... but I do post here using my real name... there are many times I question my own judgement in doing so though heh

----------


## orenbus

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...91#post5646891
McConnell Campaign Manager Subpoenaed in Bribery Case Before He Resigned

----------


## jjdoyle

> http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...91#post5646891
> McConnell Campaign Manager Subpoenaed in Bribery Case Before He Resigned


I'm biting my tongue, with what I know. But this poll should be at 100%, nothing less IMO.

----------


## jjdoyle

Post Republican victories on Tuesday, how are we all feeling now?

I'm still in the same, "_No, I do not want Jesse Benton involved in any aspect of Rand Paul 2016._" camp.

----------


## CPUd

You should at least wait until Rand says he's running before you keep bumping this thread.

----------


## pcosmar

> but I do post here using my real name...


So do I.. and I have never had any other accounts here.. nor profited from advertizing.

----------


## jjdoyle

> You should at least wait until Rand says he's running before you keep bumping this thread.


Waiting until Rand says he is running (and assuming already has staff lined up) is way too late for Rand to get a feed of the positive/negative of hiring the likes of Jesse Benton on his staff in 2016.

The reason I stated what I did back in October was because of certain financials I had just looked at, regarding Jesse Benton's and Dimitri Kesari's dealings with Kent Sorenson.

----------


## Lucille

Rand Says: Any potential presidential campaign would include Jesse Benton 
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...e-Jesse-Benton

----------


## phill4paul

Things I will spend money on in 2015-16 as opposed to moneybombs.

  1) Guns.
  2) Ammunition.

  Energy I will spend in 2015-2016 as opposed to political energy.

  1) Fixing up of my own homestead.
  2) Fixing up of friends and neighbors homesteads. 

  I wish him luck. I have posted that I would not support him if Jesse was involved. I am a man of my word.

----------


## Cap

> Things I will spend money on in 2015-16 as opposed to moneybombs.
> 
>   1) Guns.
>   2) Ammunition.
> 
>   Energy I will spend in 2015-2016 as opposed to political energy.
> 
>   1) Fixing up of my own homestead.
>   2) Fixing up of friends and neighbors homesteads. 
> ...


Pretty much my stance.

----------

