Former Ron staffer: "Rand Must Denounce His Father To Win The Nomination"

Matt Collins said:
LOL, yeah, ok.... how many legislative bills have you killed? How many liberty people have you been involved in getting elected? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Rand and Amash. I tried with plenty others like BJ Lawson, Singh and other ethical people like them. I also donated to Gunny--how much have you donated to these candidates?

I can proudly say that I've never donated to you and never will. :D
 
LibertyEagle said:
Yes, yes, and that's good. But, that's a far cry from missiles being fired from the plane, the passengers being alive and being housed at some undisclosed place, bombs being planted all over the place by our government, etc. You know, the various stuff that Alex Jones has pushed over the years.

It's sad you know, because it was in large part all the crazy stuff that Jones pushed, that gave anyone questioning 9-11 a bad name. I personally think that was the objective.

As always on this subject, you and I will have to agree to disagree.
Click to expand...

*Facepalm* You still don't get it do you? William Tell was talking about Walter Jones and not Alex Jones!
 
GunnyFreedom said:
He does seem to have a particular talent for taking people who like him and making them hate him. Surely there is an appropriate career field for that skill.
Click to expand...

That makes him special. I'm not always the most pleasant person, but I don't try to use people and piss them off.
 
William Tell said:
Maybe Gary Johnson should stop treating Rand Paul like the enemy (he called him a sellout). But of course, Gary really does not care about the Constitution, he is a social liberal with a tinge of fiscal sanity thrown in. But I realize that is a bit off topic. You are making some good points.
Click to expand...

I haven't kept up with Gary Johnson post the 2012 elections. But a lot of people have called Rand a sellout. And now some people apparently want Rand to really sellout. I can't blamed Gary Johnson for feeling the same way that (at least) one quarter of Ron's supporters have felt at one time or another. Gary Johnson was not my first choice and I ultimately voted for Virgil Goode. But in 2012, when Ron clearly wasn't running, and Gary Johnson was not attacking Ron, there was no need for this forum to treat him officially as an enemy. Moving him from "opposing candidates" when Ron clearly wasn't running simply made sense an should have been done. "Oh but Gary Johnson is stealing moment from the holy delegate strategy!" :rolleyes:
 
jmdrake said:
William Tell is right, but you apparently don't understand what he's saying. Believing that there is a plan for a "North American Union" is a "conspiracy theory" by mainstream standards. Believing the government is buying up ammo to make it scarce as a form of gun control is a "conspiracy theory" by mainstream standards. Believing MLK was a communist is a "conspiracy theory" by mainstream standards. Here's an example of what much of the rest of the world sees as a "conspiracy theory".

Click to expand...


The difference is, those are conspiracies that Ron Paul agrees with, Drake. Do you really not see the difference? The man owned his own campaign platform. No one else did.

jmdrake said:
Did you even read the article before going off on your own personal agenda? Rassmussen was wanting Rand to denounce Ron's foreign policy!
Click to expand...

Yes, I read it. But, apparently you did not.

Calm down, Drake. Sheesh.
 
Last edited:
jmdrake said:
I'd take that over Rand's "deport anyone who ever attended a speech by a radical Islamist" ways any day of the week. That said, I prefer Rand. But there's no way I would support him if he denounced his father, especially over something his father is so obviously right on like the fact that Russia's annexation of Crimea is none of our business. LE, you were one of the first people I informed about Rand endorsing torture back when he was running for senate. I kept quite about it. But if you expect me to be a stupid lemming, well you don't know me as well as you think you do. I think Rand Paul is a great man. But Rand worship does this movement no good. If Rand were to denounce his father then what would be the point of Ron Paul forums? That said, it ain't gonna happen. It's wishful thinking by some former campaign staffer(s) would sucked at their job so badly the our hard earned "moneybomb" donations were spent in 2008 on crap commercials like "He's catching on I'm telling you" on in 2012 was wasted on attacking everybody but Mitt Romney will supposedly executing a (dishonest) "delegate" strategy that would have required only attacking Mitt Romney. Ron Paul Inc's "etch-a-sketch" ad should have been counted as an in kind contribution to the Mitt Romney campaign as it only had the effect of attacking Romney's opponents for attacking Romney's flip flopping.
Click to expand...

I guess Zimmerman got what he wanted. :rolleyes:
 
Matt Collins said:
No, you are being dishonest here... quote me in full... I said "would you be willing to 'renounce' your parents' views in order to have a chance to reverse statism nationwide?


I am not talking about renouncing one's parents, I am talking about renouncing one's parents' VIEWS.
Click to expand...

Matt, I love you like a brother. But you are digging yourself in deep here. The article that you posted is not talking about Rand disowning his father's "views" but rather Rand disowning his father. From the article:

Marine made the undoubtedly difficult decision to publicly denounce her father and set FN on the more moderate course necessary to gain broad political support for their candidates and ideas.

It's time you disown the article. As for "disowning his father's views"....Rand's already done that. Ron said close Gitmo. Rand said leave it open. Ron said no to military tribunals. Rand not only said "yes" but "Yes because in a civilian court testimony elicited from torture is not allowed." (It's not allowed in a military tribunal either, but Rand left the impression that it was.) Ron said Iran having a nuke isn't a threat. Rand said Iran having a nuke isn't a threat. Then he changed his mind and said it was. Ron said no sanctions. Rand voted for sanctions. What's left?

It's funny that I was one of the few people that was not at all surprised when Rand went on CNN and said he would have voted for the Civil Rights Act in its entirety. I remember before that announcement, you and others were scrambling trying to come up with a way to explain Rand's position. My view was "Let's wait and see what his position actually is before trying to defend it." It turns out...I was right. And you know what? None of that bothers me. Rand's change on the CRA bothered you and others, but not me. If I could live with a seeming endorsement of using testimony elicited from torture I could certainly live with a nuanced position on a law that really doesn't matter anymore and that I have mixed feelings about. But my point is....what's left? What do anyone want Rand to do in "denouncing Ron's views" that he hasn't already done? Should he say "Not only would I have voted for the civil rights act, but I denounce the racist views of anyone who would not?" At some point, after you have already distinguished your views from someone else, there's no way to "denounce" those views without denouncing the person. And considering that race will probably be the most problematic issue for Rand to deal with............
 
LibertyEagle said:
The difference is, those are conspiracies that Ron Paul agrees with, Drake. Do you really not see the difference? The man owned his own campaign platform. No one else did.



Yes, I read it. But, apparently you did not.

Calm down, Drake. Sheesh.
Click to expand...

Right. That's why you don't know the difference between Walter Jones and Alex Jones. :rolleyes: From the article that you claim to have read.

However, the reality is that there is no amount of outreach or position finessing that is going to turn a plurality of Republican activists and voters towards Rand as long as each of these efforts can be countered with a quote from Ron Paul. He is long distrusted for his political heresy on a host of GOP sacred cows from Israel to the Cuban embargo to drug legalization. These are already used as a cudgel to pound on the more moderate and popular narrative that the younger Paul has worked hard to cultivate.

It's Ron's foreign policy that's poison for some people, kept a lot of republicans from even considering Ron, and is what Rassmusen is wanting Rand to "denounce" Ron over. You would be denounced just as strongly.
 
LibertyEagle said:
I guess Zimmerman got what he wanted. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

I'm not sure which Zimmerman you are talking about. But if Rand were to come out and say "I can no longer support the anti-semetic, racist, isolationist views of my father" I would be looking for another candidate. I guess Rand can be happy that there's nothing he could do short of physically assaulting Ron that would lose him your support.
 
We already have one article on this crap. We don't need another. Mods, please merge.
 
There's at least three people that have commented on this that I have shared WHY I think Rasmussen is suggesting this. I know WHY it is being suggested, but unfortunately now for Rand, because Ron Paul 2012 was/is a dishonest campaign, lying to supporters for months, wasting their time and money, instead of addressing issues that might have ACTUALLY HELPED Rand in 2016, they helped Mitt Romney. And, Rand perhaps knew about that deal, considering the timing of everything.

See, this is what happens when you surround a presidential campaign and a political campaign with political losers that aren't in it for liberty, but are apparently in it for money and personal gain. Political LEECHES, if you will. Like people that have no problem billing a presidential campaign for "expenses", and even lying about how much they billed the campaign for "expenses", while other supporters were giving up time, semesters in school, jobs, and better things for their families, AT THEIR OWN EXPENSE. Ron Paul 2012 made a deal with the Devil (Romney's campaign in this instance), and apparently for RAND's benefit in 2016, and they had absolutely no clue what they were doing after it. Because Ron Paul 2012 was such a failure, and Rand was married to it (campaigning for it, taking positions of the candidate, sending out multiple fundraising emails), now he is trying to distance himself from certain constitutional positions, and a certain constitutional candidate, and being told he needs to renounce certain positions?

The question is, WHY? I know why. I have seen the attack ad template that will be used against Rand in 2016, if the GOP primary is a competitive race with Rand at the top. I have shared that ad with some in this thread. The real problem with Rand IMO, is not Ron's positions or political record, but who Rand is surrounding himself with.
 
Matt Collins said:
Tom Woods is a great historian and economist, but he doesn't know anything about effective politics. Statements like this and others he made from 2012 are proof of that.
Click to expand...

So when you recommend something, it's brilliance and omniscience, but when someone else recommends the exact same thing, "he doesn't know anything about effective politics". Did you even listen to the clip wherein Tom gives your advice in his own words? Of course you didn't. Here it is again, though; 34:24:

http://www.schiffradio.com/pg/jsp/verticals/archive.jsp?dispid=310&pid=66419

You also didn't answer my very simple, fair, and relevant question: Would you renounce your father if you though it would further some agenda of yours, like liberating the country from itself? You want to ask Suzanimal these kinds of questions, but don't want to answer them yourself?
 
i could see cons defending rand for sticking by his father. He ultimately will have to criticize his father if he wants serious support
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top