Do you want Jesse Benton involved in any capacity in Rand Paul 2016?

[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/showth...-who-covered-AFs-face-in-that-picture(Not-AF))

 

[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-news/new-poll-finds-most-americans-open-to-911-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-news/new-poll-finds-most-americans-open-to-911-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.
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.

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.