A blimp is a BAD IDEA - here is why

[amy31416]

Maturity and experience. I wish more around here would change in that direction too.


When I work for other people, I have to do things not to poorly represent them, and as such some of my personal freedom of expression (or protest) is limited. I still make it a point however to attempt to avoid handshakes of people who are actively harming the cause of liberty, if at all possible.



Oh, and if you read Saul Alinsky, you'll see that he teaches activists to move out of the street and into the realm of professional politics (cut the hair, wear a suit, etc) because one can be far more effective there..... the progressives have proved this over the last 100 years.

But you are poorly representing them--to a large, enthusiastic (or formerly enthusiastic) part of their constituents and those who donate. There are plenty here who don't want to donate a dime to anyone you claim to be working for.

Do you know why that is? You suck at this, you are only good at sucking up. You hate us, think you're above us, we're only worthwhile if we donate to you or who you say we should, and you've made that quite clear in this thread and many others.

If you're going to be a narcissistic, unprincipled, rude sociopath--learn how to be a good one. Most of us have met people like you in the past--and at least they can pretend to be charming.

I'm sure there's a training course for that. Set up the chip-in, eh?

 

[amy31416]

Good, I want it that way. Makes opposition research much harder to do and is why I only tell people I know and trust what I have done and what I currently do.

If anyone can google me and see what it is that I do, that makes it easier for them to fight me. Not everything in the world needs to be transparent, sorry.


I was willing to share some with Deb but she refuses to become friends on Facebook, so if she can't extend any trust, then neither will I.

lol. Still worried about those frothing at the mouth conversations you had with Raditude about young girls back in the day?

Seriously though--you didn't donate. It was looked up under both of your names, ain't nuthin.' My name comes right up, so do many others that I know.

 

[Matt Collins]

"We" helped OURSELVES by getting the blimp in the air. "WE" were part of the "education campaign" of Ron Paul. "WE" will have a great story to PASS ON to future generations about how "WE" started the fight to take back "OUR" country.

Yes that's awesome, I was part of that too, but we need to do things to win, not just feel good.

The blimp won over hearts and minds.

No it didn't... and most importantly, it didn't win any votes either.

It was proof for MANY of us that what we were doing was REAL and not just some spoof or political ploy to pawn us into the hands of the establishment. It gave us courage and strength and taught us how to stand TOGETHER for a big idea.

Yeah, it made people feel good, but it didn't accomplish anything.


We should aim to use our head and not our emotions.

MOST STATES electorate is DESIGNED to be representative of the POPULAR vote.

PRETENDING that you and the mouse and your pocket can WIN ELECTORALLY without POPULAR SUPPORT is what fails. Over and over and over and over again apparently.

Yes and no... this is a mixed bag.....


While we cannot scare away voters by seeming to be radical, we must also realize that in most cases fewer than 15% of the population decides any given election. In some cases it's less than 6%.


We don't need to win over the masses, we just need to market to those who are already going to the polls, and most of the time that is very few people.

 

[Matt Collins]

You hate us, think you're above us, we're only worthwhile if we donate to you or who you say we should, and you've made that quite clear in this thread and many others.

Not at all; you're just making stuff up.

But I do hate it when good people waste their time, talent, and resources doing ineffective things because they won't take the time to get trained and gain experience.

 

[Matt Collins]

The Democratic Party spends millions on registering new voters and GOTV efforts every cycle. And strangely enough, they wound up with a lion's share of young voters. Which wasn't the case when Reagan was president.

Things cycle.... but Dems also sign up every new immigrant that has become a citizen, and they also go door to door which is easy to do on their home turf: large urban areas. So while their overall % is down, it doesn't matter because they make up for it in sheer quantity.

Living in a city gives one a huge strategic political advantage compared to rural or suburban dwellers... it's one reason Democrats flourish there.

You're so obviously burning with jealousy of Gunny it's hilarious.

HA! Not even close..... I'll just leave that without further comment.

 

[Matt Collins]

e" focus? Of whom? What I remember is that I was not registered a Republic voter and I was not likely to go and vote. Here is the mixed message that is sent by the campaign in the last 2 cycles. The campaign constantly speaks to the youth as it's strong base of support. That is clearly a strength and a POTENTIAL political advantage. Sadly, the youth do not turn out to vote. Perhaps if the campaign put some focus on turning out it's base EARLY in the season rather than wait until the last minute, the campaign wouldn't have to come across as inauthentic and make promises that it cannot keep.

One dimensional focus is a losing strategy. You need to find your base, you need to get them to the polls. If you don't have a base, you don't have a campaign. You act as if it takes some tremendous amount of effort to have the candidate come up with a strategy to support the grass roots in making new voters. That happened organically in 2008. 'Ron Paul cured my apathy' was a common refrain.

My question was, whose responsibility is it to make sure young new voters get registered for the primaries. you somehow inferred that I suggested this is the ONLY WAY TO WIN. I did not. It's another dimension that needs to be added and was sorely lacking from the campaigns of 2008 and 2012. We should learn from our mistakes, not constantly repeat them.

Good discussion here... you're on the right track... but you just correctly just pointed out that young people usually don't vote. So why would we waste a lot of time trying to get people who are not likely to vote, to actually go out and vote?


It is easier to get people who are likely to go to the polls to vote for our guy, than it is to get people who were not going to the polls to actually get up and go to the polls.


It's more effective to get voters to vote for your guy than it is to get non-voters to go vote for your guy.

You aren't going to get people trained if you dont first learn how to "get people". You are not "getting" the people here at this forum. Please point me to the thread topic you started where you offered up this "training".

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...ork-for-Rand-Paul-in-2016&highlight=work+rand

Also, be more effective at what? Compromise? Pandering?

Winning elections, causing political pain to politicians, getting them to do what you want them to do.

This really sounds like BS Matt. Please write down the formula, this forum is populated by doctors, lawyers, engineers, and many other technical types. I am sure the formula can be known by most here. So do us a favor write down this formula.

Lincoln (of all people) was the first to write it down and it's called the Lincoln 4 Step to winning an election:

1- make a list of everyone who is likely to vote
2- ascertain for whom each person on the list is going to vote for
3- have the undecideds get talked to by a respected individual and persuaded to vote for you
4- turn out your supporters on election day


In other words it's marketing 101:
1- identify customers
2- segment customers
3- target customers


Obviously there are volumes of details on the mechanics of it, but that is the basic formula for winning an election.

Also, the mindset that tells you that someone has a desire to become "an asset" for some other person is twisted. Never mind tying in "liberty candidate". Treating people as assets is part of the problem, not part of the solution, Matt.

Candidates must have competent people in order to win an election in most cases.

Well as you like to say, perception rules in politics. The perception is, you are attacking Gunny. I think you are attacking him because another thing we know about politics is, you don't punch down, you punch up. Gunny is not in here trashing activists activities, instead, he is setting an example and lending us all his experience.

Uh no, he was openly and publicly trashing a liberty campaign earlier this year.

How about going back to being genuine, authentic, truthful, honest? You all worry so damn much that people might think there is something quirky or silly about the truth.

Sadly the truth doesn't seem to matter in politics... what matters is messaging control so that you are not vulnerable to being attacked.

YOU NEED POPULARITY. PERIOD. You get that by being disruptive. Not by going along with the status quo. Ron Paul struck a chord with people and that reverberated.

Ron Paul was not a popular candidate, numerically or electorally speaking.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

Uh no, he was openly and publicly trashing a liberty campaign earlier this year.

This, again, is a straight up bald faced lie. I produced a single post-mortem and didn't even promote it. In order to learn from mistakes you have to know what the mistakes are. WHich is why the campaign was over before I even said a single word, and then only to produce a single post-mortem.

You are a filthy, disgusting liar, who is obsessed with damaging me. I have no idea what your creepy stalker problem is or what it will take to get your creepy stalker self to go creepy stalk someone else, but you have a serious problem and you need help.

 

[Natural Citizen]

...but you just correctly just pointed out that young people usually don't vote. So why would we waste a lot of time trying to get people who are not likely to vote, to actually go out and vote?

Be careful, Matt. We live in unusual times. Thinking like that might get some folks caught in the middle of storm without their galoshes.

 

[angelatc]

I

Either way, if any political organization or campaign hires Matt Collins it would show terrible judgement on the part of the candidate and the campaign manager.

Yeah, I didn't donate to the 2012 campaign specifically because Matt was on the payroll. I didn't broadcast that but after the campaign was over I was surprised to find out that I was efinitely not the only person who reached that same conclusion.

Of course, if Matt had stepped up and acted like a professional, i would have changed my mind. But when I saw he was getting paid to post on Facebook and RPF al day, I cringed. Then when I saw the campaign (Matt) pass up an offer to actually use Facebook's technical stuff like a professional, choosing instead to use it like he was a high school girl....that pretty much cemented it for me.

Now that I have said that, it occurs to me...that's probably why Matt suddenly feels the need for secrecy.
.

 

[Bryan]

I know this is a contentious matter but it needs to be approached in the best way possible. What has been done here is far from that. We will never be in the business of trying to tell others what to think but we need to keep things civil and let good discourse bring facts to light, let positions be stated and then let everyone come to their own conclusions.

Some posts have been deleted, this thread will be locked if things don't improve.

Thank you.

 

[angelatc]

This, again, is a straight up bald faced lie. I produced a single post-mortem and didn't even promote it. In order to learn from mistakes you have to know what the mistakes are. WHich is why the campaign was over before I even said a single word, and then only to produce a single post-mortem..

That is what I was just looking at. Is he really having a case of the vapors over some remarks you made after the race was effectively over?

 

[GunnyFreedom]

That is what I was just looking at. Is he really having a case of the vapors over some remarks you made after the race was effectively over?

"effectively over" it was like days after the polls closed lol

 

[GunnyFreedom]

"effectively over" it was like days after the polls closed lol

I stated my position, once. I defended my position during the thread, to the extend of some 5 to 7 posts, and then I dropped the matter forever.

Yes, lol this is why Matt has been going after me all this time as a 'betrayer'

 

[angelatc]

I stated my position, once. I defended my position during the thread, to the extend of some 5 to 7 posts, and then I dropped the matter forever.

Yes, lol this is why Matt has been going after me all this time as a 'betrayer'

Wow. So then, Matt's real goal here is to make sure the liberty movement gets no criticism, ever? Even after they lose elections? Heh - good luck with that.

 

[jjdoyle]

Wow. So then, Matt's real goal here is to make sure the liberty movement gets no criticism, ever? Even after they lose elections? Heh - good luck with that.

110%. It's been like this for years, especially during the campaigns, and not just with Matt, but with others around here even that didn't want to accept legitimate criticisms and people calling out issues with things in Ron Paul 2012.

They called it, "trimming the fat", I think. Or, something along those lines. And the fact is, they have had success, especially when we have shown how Matt Collins apparently has certain moderators in his pockets, and can get people banned by lying about things. I wonder how many times that has happened over the years, with moderators and admins turning a blind-eye to repeat lies from certain protected users, while running off other liberty supporters?

 

[acptulsa]

A lot of it is political environment too... Rand is very smart in the way he does things, but also the environment has made it possible for him to do the things he does. The Net generation, the hypocrisy of both Bush and Obama, the tea party movement, NSA and federal surveillance overreach, etc.


Rand is writing the narrative right now that he is the only one who can beat Hillary.


The people he is reaching out to will likely not cross over to vote in a Republican primary for him, but, that narrative is going to be one of the things he uses to convince Republican primary voters that he is the only Republican who can beat Hillary.

Rand is smart, and the political landscape is advantageous to him. Who made it that way? Who are the landscapers?

Who reached out to the Net Generation? Who pointed out the similarities between the hypocrisy of Dubya and Obama? Who created the modern tea party? Who taught America what the No Such Agency was?

And who brought more than a few into Republican primaries and created the dialog about how the GOP could move past Dubya and Cheney, become relevant again, and lose the stigma?

Tell us who did that, Matt Collins, and if you ever want to be relevant again, be honest about it. Because we know you saw it all happen?

I'm asking you two questions. Can you give credit where it's due? And can you finally begin to see the big picture? Because the Big Picture is too big to fit inside campaign headquarters, Matt.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

Wow. So then, Matt's real goal here is to make sure the liberty movement gets no criticism, ever? Even after they lose elections? Heh - good luck with that.

Not "the liberty movement" just a small constellation within it.

 

[jjdoyle]

Rand is smart, and the political landscape is advantageous to him. Who made it that way? Who are the landscapers?

Who reached out to the Net Generation? Who pointed out the similarities between the hypocrisy of Dubya and Obama? Who created the modern tea party? Who taught America what the No Such Agency was?

And who brought more than a few into Republican primaries and created the dialog about how the GOP could move past Dubya and Cheney, become relevant again, and lose the stigma?

Tell us who did that, Matt Collins, and if you ever want to be relevant again, be honest about it. Because we know you saw it all happen?

I'm asking you two questions. Can you give credit where it's due? And can you finally begin to see the big picture? Because the Big Picture is too big to fit inside campaign headquarters, Matt.

I'm going to try and answer this for Matt Collins, are you thinking of Alex Jones?

 

[amy31416]

Not at all; you're just making stuff up.

But I do hate it when good people waste their time, talent, and resources doing ineffective things because they won't take the time to get trained and gain experience.

You are doing far more damage than good in regards to Rand's potential campaign.

Step down, if you have any integrity. Go back to being a roadie, if they'll have you. I'm not joking, and I'm not making stuff up. A reasonable person in your position would analyze the situation and ask themselves and others what they could be doing better, they would want to get to know these grassroots riff-raff. Instead, you just try to smoosh enthusiastic people with weak political doublespeak and more of the same old garbage.

I know you're capable of looking in the mirror and probably think you're the most amazing guy in the world, but what if you're wrong? What if it's you (and people like you), not us, who's really screwing the pooch? You are common and your "skills" are poor in this position. There are many extraordinary people here, and you suck the life out of them.

What do you think drew all these people to Ron Paul? Serious question.

 

[liberalnurse]

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to amy31416 again.

Ron Paul ALWAYS said, "Have fun." And we did. Not so much fun anymore, is it?