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

Don Rasmussen is a political whore that makes money off us idiots that either value his opinions or the opinions of the people that hire him.
 
LibertyEagle said:
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.
Click to expand...

There were and are a subset of supporters who demand that their personal agenda of belittlement and hostility to 9-11 truth be associated with Ron Paul, who did not communicate such attitudes, and have used him as a shield to launch attacks on them as a "lunatic fringe" at every opportunity, as again seen here.
 
TaftFan said:
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.
Click to expand...

Because this massively divisive approach worked SO WELL in winning primaries for Ron Paul in the last two presidential campaigns, right?
 
Anti Federalist said:
Vote harder!!!
Click to expand...

Sign more petitions!!!!!!

Deborah K said:
In the early months of 2012, when asked who he would endorse, Rand stated he would endorse the Republican nominee. When Romney was crowned the nominee, Rand endorsed him. Ron stayed in the race, imo, to continue to lay the groundwork for Rand in 2016.
Click to expand...

Do you know what early month(s) of 2012 Rand said he would endorse the Republican nominee, was it January by any chance? I found the article below which shows Rand saying it would be an honor to be considered a veep for Romney, but I'm not sure the source for when he first said he would endorse the Republican nominee.
http://dailycaller.com/2012/02/22/r...to-be-considered-as-veep-this-explains-a-lot/

If it was February 2012 when it first surfaced, that 100% lines up with Ron Paul 2012 having already apparently made the backroom deal with Romney's campaign, and instead of attacking him in Michigan, agreed to help him win the nomination without waves at the RNC.

Which, would beg the question, was Rand Paul knowingly involved in Ron Paul 2012's decision to not attack Mitt Romney going into Michigan for perhaps his own future benefit, and in so doing, further wasted supporters time and money by not having Ron Paul 2012 close shop, and instead continued to raise money for a legal defense fund instead of trying to actually win the nomination?
 
Last edited:
William Tell said:
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 Alex Jones in 2005 or 2006.
Click to expand...

I was listening to Alex prior to Y2K! Maybe 1998 or so. I used to listing to him "religiously" until I found him in error on something that he was preaching. I personally investigated and found that he was in error and when I gently tried to correct him on his call in line 3 times over the course of a year, he would shout over me and hang up on me and then after I was "off the air" say nasty things about me and even called me a "communist"!!! Any one who's ever talked to me for more than 5 minutes would know that's about as far from my real positions as can be. No, Alex is a carnival barker and he does a great job at exposing the police state, but when he claims something is "DOCUMENTED" don't believe it. I proved him wrong and even invited him to join me in China to personally "investigate" his claim but he just dumps the caller and goes on a 10 minute rage. (The issue I found him in error on was "Chinese fetus eating").

P.S. I've always been a big conspiracy believer and still am but there are always errors in conspiracy theories because of the nature of the secret...
 
Last edited:
William Tell said:
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?
Click to expand...

It wouldn't even be good strategy either. Nobody associates Rand Paul with conspiracy theories. Going out of your way to fuck over long-time supporters over something the average voter doesn't understand or give a shit about to lick the boots of the establishment and their propaganda machine is about the worst idea ever. The usual cowards are just begging Rand Paul to do their bidding for them, since they've been such a failure at trying to drive dedicated supporters out of the movement for many years so they can play kiss ass with neocons and other Republican scum (ie. Jack "Jim DeMint is a champion of liberty" Hunter and that piece of trash nobody Austin Petersen).

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.
Click to expand...

Alex Jones is a close personal friend to the Paul family, and shares pretty much the same views about every issue with them. Only Jones can say a lot more because he's not involved in politics.
 
Last edited:
Anti Federalist said:
Vote harder!!!
Click to expand...

cajuncocoa said:
Absolutely! If he's going to win the GOP nomination, he has to get with the program. The only reliable sources of news for the GOP are FoxNews and Rush Limbaugh. Denounce all else!
Click to expand...

TaftFan said:
I didn't say anything about news, but now that you mention it the conspiracy theorists do tend to get their news from ridiculous sources, whether InfoWars, NaturalNews, Beforeitsnews, or Press TV.

Frankly, I think those who lack judgement should hit the road.

Strawman.
Click to expand...

I'll just use the following video from Fox News for my "news", and to call for the 28 pages of the 9/11 Commission (Fraud) Report to at the very least be de-classified:


And if you add Fox News as a ridiculous source for news, I wouldn't even argue with you.

The only one that has lacked judgement that has mattered IMO though, is Rand Paul. Hiring a former Ron Paul 2012 staffer with a questionable past, having staffers that plagiarized his speeches, not knowing how to do proper endorsements. Perhaps even being in on the Ron Paul 2012 decision to not attack Mitt Romney, for his personal, future, political gain.
 
Peace&Freedom said:
There were and are a subset of supporters who demand that their personal agenda of belittlement and hostility to 9-11 truth be associated with Ron Paul, who did not communicate such attitudes, and have used him as a shield to launch attacks on them as a "lunatic fringe" at every opportunity, as again seen here.
Click to expand...

Nope, only those who participated in piggybacking their agenda off of Ron Paul's campaign. If you weren't one of those, the comment wasn't directed at you.
 
anaconda said:
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.
Click to expand...

Stormfronters thought the same. Still, when people donate to a candidate, they don't own the candidate or their platform. That applies to both stormfronters and anyone else, for that matter.

“If they want to endorse me, they’re endorsing what I do or say — it has nothing to do with endorsing what they say,” said Mr. Paul,
Click to expand...
source
 
Don Rasmussen discusses call for Rand Paul to denounce his father

Earlier this week I posted an op-ed on Daily Caller discussing Rand Paul's 2016 Republican primary strategy. This article brought out strong feelings on both sides. That was my intention; to start a discussion. I am happy to continue that discussion here. Please take a moment to read the article and hear the follow-up interview with Austin Peterson's Freedom Report before commenting. I don't want to spend a lot of time having to knock down the straw men I saw on the other thread about this topic.

Note: I wrongly attributed the 30% quote to David Adams. Brian Doherty in fact suggested to Daily Beast that Rand "...has clearly decided that the noisiest Paulites in the Paul wings." "He could afford to lose" A correction will be posted to the article tomorrow.
 
LibertyEagle said:
Nope, only those who participated in piggybacking their agenda off of Ron Paul's campaign. If you weren't one of those, the comment wasn't directed at you.
Click to expand...

The truth remains that MOST of the piggybacking of Paul has been done by the non-truthers on this board and elsewhere, who have used Paul to push their agenda of disparaging/marginalizing 9-11 truth, or other issues of widespread concern to the liberty movement for years. So most of the harping on piggybacking should be directed at them, not the truthers.
 
jmdrake said:
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.
Click to expand...

Just based on Ron Paul 2012's own survey, if Rand brings on Jesse Benton, it is a loss for Rand. I see absolutely no upside, just perhaps dishonesty and under-the-table deals, to bringing Jesse Benton on board.

Unfortunately, I think Rand very much had a hand in some of the decisions being made by Ron Paul 2012, for his own future political benefits. So, it's like they are all "married" together, and some are afraid to actually denounce the dishonesty that was/is Ron Paul 2012, because they see a potential future of $$$$$$$$$ from a Rand campaign in 2016.

I don't care. Rand needs to be honest, and surround himself with honest, upstanding people. If Rand won't do it, Ron should come out and throw some under the bus first. He should have done it for the 2012 campaign on the newsletters issue at the very least, because even now it is going to be an issue for Rand in 2016 if a larger campaign wants to attack Rand.

Peace&Freedom said:
The truth remains that MOST of the piggybacking of Paul has been done by the non-truthers on this board and elsewhere, who have used Paul to push their agenda of disparaging/marginalizing 9-11 truth, or other issues of widespread concern to the liberty movement for years. So most of the harping on piggybacking should be directed at them, not the truthers.
Click to expand...

You got that right, Ron Paul even came out saying he basically doesn't even believe the 9/11 Commission (Fraud) Report, and that every commission from the government is designed to "deceive" the people:
 
Last edited:
LibertyEagle said:
Stormfronters thought the same. Still, when people donate to a candidate, they don't own the candidate or their platform. That applies to both stormfronters and anyone else, for that matter.


source
Click to expand...

So, why can't this same logic be applied to the so-called 'conspiracy theorists' who are supposedly hurting Rand's chances and giving people like Rasmussen ideas that Rand should renounce his Father??
 
Let's see here:

1) Powerful people conspire together to get more power
2) Powerful people control the media
3) Media tells people that the above 1) & 2) are "conspiracy theories" and should be ridiculed/dismissed
4) Powerful people get even more power as they suppress any kind of independent thought, and crush anyone who threatens them

LOL. Just kidding. What a crazy theory, LOL @ anyone who actually believes that!
 
bxm042 said:
Let's see here:

1) Powerful people conspire together to get more power
2) Powerful people control the media
3) Media tells people that the above 1) & 2) are "conspiracy theories" and should be ridiculed/dismissed
4) Powerful people get even more power as they suppress any kind of independent thought, and crush anyone who threatens them

LOL. Just kidding. What a crazy theory, LOL @ anyone who actually believes that!
Click to expand...

Wait, did you say conspiracy theory? SHUT UP, CONSPIRACY THEORIST!!! :mad:
 
Rand definitely can't and won't renounce Ron. Fortunately, or maybe unfortunately, I think a huge chunk of people who were on board Ron Paul will naturally fall off and not support Rand.

A lot of Ron Paul supporters were on board in the same way people get on board indie bands. Being out of the mainstream was Ron Paul's appeal to them. Free market ideas were not why they voted for Ron Paul. A lot people attracted to Joe Rogan or Jesse Ventura also supported Ron Paul. Those people won't support Rand. And that is a good thing.

Rand Paul can't win if his base is perceived as a bunch conspiracy and anti-Semite crazies. But a lot of the crazies were Ron Paul's (and Rand Paul's) donor base. He is kind of in a box. I sometimes think the media overestimates Rand Paul's floor of support.
 
sgt150 said:
Nobody associates Rand Paul with conspiracy theories.
Click to expand...

I agreed with 99% of your post but took issue with this part.^

The left is frequently calling Rand a conspiracy theorist or his supporters conspiracy theorists. Just today I saw this:

"But instead, he is using Ebola to not only attack President Obama (as are other Republicans, natch) but to push his extremist anti-government agenda that goes beyond healthy skepticism to tin-foil hat conspiracy land..."


from here http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...l-wants-you-to-think-you-re-going-to-die.html

I see and hear this frequently. I remember Lawrence O'Donnell calling Rand's question to Hillary about arms going from Libya to Syria through Turkey "conspiracy theory" the day after the hearing (can't find the tube right now). And so forth. "Paranoia" is another word the left attaches to Rand.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top