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

[William Tell]

Well, I don't expect Rand to specifically denounce Alex Jones, but conspiracy theorists in general. And by denounce, I don't think the best strategy would be to make a conference out of it. He should just make fun of them or something, thereby portraying himself as genuinely reasonable and causing the crazies to turn against him.

It would be the dumbest move of his political career. Every serious Paul supporter I know is conspiracy theorist by mainstream standards. It would be perceived as attacking the JBS, and Larry McDonald, and Ron Paul. It would also make a narrative in the media that he is desperate, and somehow actually linked to people he is throwing 'under the bus'

Would he bring up the issues by himself?

 

[Anti Federalist]

 

[newbitech]

Well, I don't expect Rand to specifically denounce Alex Jones, but conspiracy theorists in general. And by denounce, I don't think the best strategy would be to make a conference out of it. He should just make fun of them or something, thereby portraying himself as genuinely reasonable and causing the crazies to turn against him.

Rand and Ron go on Alex's show because he has a platform. Notice they don't discuss 9/11 was an inside job, chemtrails, aliens, illuminati, and autism. They also don't scream.

Here ya go, send this to Rand, teach him a lesson.

 

[donnay]

Well, I don't expect Rand to specifically denounce Alex Jones, but conspiracy theorists in general. And by denounce, I don't think the best strategy would be to make a conference out of it. He should just make fun of them or something, thereby portraying himself as genuinely reasonable and causing the crazies to turn against him.

Rand and Ron go on Alex's show because he has a platform. Notice they don't discuss 9/11 was an inside job, chemtrails, aliens, illuminati, and autism. They also don't scream.

Yes, Jones' show is BIG. Lot's of people waking up--maybe you should tune in.

 

[Christian Liberty]

This guy is just ridiculous. Rand went all out and campaigned for Ron all three times he ran for President, and all of a sudden he's going to "denounce him?" What joke. Who denounces their own father? Rand will make it clear where he disagrees with Ron on the issues, but he certainly isn't going to "denounce him."

If my father was a nazi, I wouldn't have a problem with publicly denouncing him to win political office. Of course, Ron Paul is an honorable man, which would make the question valid in this case.

 

[LibertyEagle]

Rand needs to denounce former staffers like this guy and Jesse Benton. Seriously my biggest worry for Rand 2016 is that Rand doesn't jettison Benton soon enough and right at the wrong time Benton gets dragged down by the pay for endorsement scandal. But if Rand takes Rasmussen's advice (any relation to Rasmussen reports?) any support I might have given him will go to another doctor that may be running. This is about the only thing Rand could do to lose my vote, but he would lose it for sure. Considering that the people Rand might pull from this stunt might be leaning this other doctor's way anyway, loss of Ron's supporters could tip the balance against Rand. Rand needs to keep that in mind.

Yeah, ya gotta love Ben Carson's gun-grabbing ways, eh.

 

[LibertyEagle]

Former Ron Paul '08 PCC staffer, Don Rasmussen, explains why he thinks Rand must publicly denounce Ron in order to win the Republican nomination in 2016:

http://dailycaller.com/2014/10/09/t...enounce-his-father-to-win-the-gop-nomination/

PS on edit - here is a podcast of the author discussing this:
http://thelibertarianrepublic.podbe...in-the-gop-nod-podcast/#.VDbW4H4t5fI.facebook

I think he was a consultant Ron hired for a short period of time. He was a slimy fellow; one not predisposed to telling the truth.

You should remember him, Deb. http://www.theblaze.com/author/don-rasmussen/

That thirty percent has made Ron Paul the vessel for every crazy conspiracy theory and repugnant political idea that the liberty movement has permitted to linger at its fringe.

He's right about this part. There were and are a small subset of so-called supporters that believe that because they donated 50 bucks to Ron's campaign, that they bought their ticket to piggyback their own personal agenda, whether Dr. Paul agreed with it or not, off of his campaign. So, yeah, Rasmussen was right about this part.

 

[LibertyEagle]

It would be the dumbest move of his political career. Every serious Paul supporter I know is conspiracy theorist by mainstream standards. It would be perceived as attacking the JBS, and Larry McDonald, and Ron Paul. It would also make a narrative in the media that he is desperate, and somehow actually linked to people he is throwing 'under the bus'

Nah, it wouldn't. Apparently, you weren't around here during the '08 campaign.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

Yeah, ya gotta love Ben Carson's gun-grabbing ways, eh.

Carson has improved dramatically on guns. Last thing we have to break him of (re firearms) is this 'smartgun' thing. He still has a few fiscal policy issues that need improvement also, but the speed at which he is improving makes me think he is going through an awakening, and that gives me a lot of hope. If he continues on the this direction, I might could support him for a federal office within about 18 months.

That is, assuming of course that he continues his current growth trend.

 

[anaconda]

There were and are a small subset of so-called supporters that believe that because they donated 50 bucks to Ron's campaign, that they bought their ticket to piggyback their own personal agenda, whether Dr. Paul agreed with it or not, off of his campaign.

But it is not unreasonable or unusual for candidates to listen to the needs and wishes of their prospective constituency. A candidate's platform can expand and contract along with short and long term social dynamics and evolving narratives. I see political rallies as great places for people to display their priority agendas. All the folding tables set up with free literature and so forth is enlightening and a great manifestation of the 1st Amendment. If they are rude or disruptive that is a different thing.

 

[LibertyEagle]

But it is not unreasonable or unusual for candidates to listen to the needs and wishes of their prospective constituency. A candidate's platform can expand and contract along with short and long term social dynamics and evolving narratives. I see political rallies as great places for people to display their priority agendas. All the folding tables set up with free literature and so forth is enlightening and a great manifestation of the 1st Amendment. If they are rude or disruptive that is a different thing.

No, it's not reasonable to expect someone like Ron Paul to change his principles based on someone else's agenda. Think about what you just said. Don't you remember when that stormfront guy donated to his campaign? Do you remember what Dr. Paul said about it? Google it.

 

[Deborah K]

Rand and Ron go on Alex's show because he has a platform. Notice they don't discuss 9/11 was an inside job, chemtrails, aliens, illuminati, and autism. They also don't scream.

Why do you suppose they go on his show? To appeal to his listeners, perhaps? And, who do you think his listeners are? Why, they are the very people you wish Rand would denounce.

 

[erowe1]

Every serious Paul supporter I know is conspiracy theorist by mainstream standards.

How is this possible? Were you involved in a meetup group that pulled from a diverse range of supporters? Or are all the RP supporters you know from the same clique or something?

 

[William Tell]

How is this possible? Were you involved in a meetup group that pulled from a diverse range of supporters? Or are all the RP supporters you know from the same clique or something?

I was in a number of groups with diverse people. None of the people I know trusted the MSM, if you talk about the UN and Globalism you are a conspiracy theorist by MSM standards. Only in this past year has supporting the release of more 911 info become somewhat mainstream on the Right, thanks to Jones and Massie. In 2012 it made you a nutty truther.

 

[LibertyEagle]

Why do you suppose they go on his show? To appeal to his listeners, perhaps? And, who do you think his listeners are? Why, they are the very people you wish Rand would denounce.

I'm sure no one wants to separate from anyone who doesn't attempt to piggyback their personal agendas, that the candidate doesn't agree with, to their platform. Why would they? You know there is a difference, Deb. Come on.

 

[LibertyEagle]

I was in a number of groups with diverse people. None of the people I know trusted the MSM, if you talk about the UN and Globalism you are a conspiracy theorist by MSM standards. Only in this past year has supporting the release of more 911 info become somewhat mainstream on the Right, thanks to Jones and Massie. In 2012 it made you a nutty truther.

Huge difference between Jones and Massie. Get real. Were you listening to Jones around the time that 9-11 happened?

 

[William Tell]

Huge difference between Jones and Massie.

There was no distinction made by MSM during the Bush administration between folks who asked questions. Like I said, the people I know are all conspiracy theorists by MSM standards, as are you if you oppose Globalism.

Get real. Were you listening to Jones around the time that 9-11 happened?

I first heard Alex Jones in 2005 or 2006.

 

[LibertyEagle]

There was no distinction made by MSM during the Bush administration between folks who asked questions. Like I said, the people I know are all conspiracy theorists by MSM standards, as are you if you oppose Globalism.

I first heard him in 2005 or 2006.

You missed a lot. lolol

 

[William Tell]

Huge difference between Jones and Massie. Get real. Were you listening to Jones around the time that 9-11 happened?

I was talking about Walter Jones in the post you first replied to, not Alex Jones. I can see why you would assume I meant Alex though, as he is the Jones most thought of in regard to 911.

 

[anaconda]

No, it's not reasonable to expect someone like Ron Paul to change his principles based on someone else's agenda. Think about what you just said. Don't you remember when that stormfront guy donated to his campaign? Do you remember what Dr. Paul said about it? Google it.

I didn't say anything about changing one's principles. The candidate is generally obligated to comment on new or previously unaddressed issues and events as they unfold and explain if, how, and to what extent they are relevant to their platform. Many 9-11 truthers, for example, feel their priority issue has much overlap with the Ron Paul platform, presumably because they think that a Ron Paul government would be antithetical to false flag operations. They are free to support Ron for whatever reason they choose, and to proclaim their priority issue as a right of free speech. Ron took the Don Black incident to which you refer to further clarify his platform and push back against persistent malicious falsehoods and stereotypes. It works both ways.