Matt Collins
Member
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2007
- Messages
- 47,707
Uh, no, I haven't implied any of the above. Nice try at putting words in my mouth though #fail
Former Ron staffer: "Rand Must Denounce His Father To Win The Nomination"
- Thread starter Matt Collins
- Start date
ifthenwouldi
Member
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2007
- Messages
- 290
You know what my favorite Ron Paul moment is? When he was on C-SPAN (2008?) being asked why he wished to be President. He replied something to the effect that "He didn't."
It was partly his humility, but there was also this resignation to the fact that this was a long-term fight for freedom. The tide would never be turned in a single election, so there was little point in sacrificing deeply-held convictions about the cause for temporary political gain. The game would be played, but not at the expense of principles or loyalty.
I miss that mindset.
It was partly his humility, but there was also this resignation to the fact that this was a long-term fight for freedom. The tide would never be turned in a single election, so there was little point in sacrificing deeply-held convictions about the cause for temporary political gain. The game would be played, but not at the expense of principles or loyalty.
I miss that mindset.
Natural Citizen
Banned
- Joined
- Jan 16, 2012
- Messages
- 16,463
Yep. Statesmen are few and far between. We may be lucky to see one every century or so.
My all-time favorite Ron Paul moment was when he said it wasn't like he was just trying to win and get elected. He said he wanted to change the course of history.
I think that junior is a part of that and I even believe that junior recognizes why he is in the position that he's in and how it came to be that he's a part of that.
I don't believe that this is the case for some who claim to speak for his political interest, though, out in the www.
Last edited:
Anti Federalist
Member
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2007
- Messages
- 117,577
Fixed that for you.
Anti Federalist
Member
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2007
- Messages
- 117,577
Bullshit.
Natural Citizen
Banned
- Joined
- Jan 16, 2012
- Messages
- 16,463
Like what position(s) on what aspects of foreign policy? Foreign policy is a very broad subject. I mean we can't just throw the term around like it's just some kind of word to be used as political fodder.
Well...I guess we could try to do that but we'd end up looking pretty stupid if we do it from within the company of the wrong people. You know?
So, then, I suppose that I'm asking you to explain what you mean by his position on "Foreign Policy". What does foreign policy mean to you or how do you interpret the use of the language from those whom you appear so confident to believe may support your model in the interest of winning? If you wouldn't mind...
I'm not soliciting a debate or anything with you. I'm just really interested in the depth of competence that some who say such things with regard to Ron's positions on foreign policy actually have when it comes to foreign policy as a whole.
Last edited:
mac_hine
Member
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2011
- Messages
- 1,225
This thread is annoying the shit out of me.
There's no way in hell a middle of the road, fence straddling Rand Paul has any chance of inspiring the grass roots to his cause, whatever that may be. If his handlers convince him to publicly denounce his father, which I doubt he would ever do overtly (he's already done a decent job of doing that by not being the same guy who ran for the Senate) he would lose the majority of those still committed to him. He may gain the support of Red State geriatrics, but they're a dying breed, much like the ReTHUGlican party in general.
This is probably my favorite RP video. I still go back to it from time to time. If Rand continues his current course of pragmatism and appeasement, there's no way in hell he'll ever garner this type of support.
There's no way in hell a middle of the road, fence straddling Rand Paul has any chance of inspiring the grass roots to his cause, whatever that may be. If his handlers convince him to publicly denounce his father, which I doubt he would ever do overtly (he's already done a decent job of doing that by not being the same guy who ran for the Senate) he would lose the majority of those still committed to him. He may gain the support of Red State geriatrics, but they're a dying breed, much like the ReTHUGlican party in general.
This is probably my favorite RP video. I still go back to it from time to time. If Rand continues his current course of pragmatism and appeasement, there's no way in hell he'll ever garner this type of support.
And you still haven't. Ron Paul 2012 was/is a lying, corrupt, GARBAGE of a campaign. And any staffers involved trying to defend it, are pathetic IMO.
I've been more right, than you ever have here.
Not according to the oath Rand, and other Congressmen take. Power has little to do with why Rand is supposed to be running for President, assuming he is. The only reason "power" would be needed, would be to continue to ignore that oath. It doesn't take power to follow the Constitution, especially as President. Less, is more. Or, supposed to be.
I didn't vote for Ron Paul thinking he was going to be a king, I voted because I thought he set the world record for number of presidential vetoes. My expectations, were pretty low, but realistic with what I expect a constitutional presidential candidate to achieve these days.
Imagine someone starting a business and they didn't want to make money. Doesn't make much sense does it?
Non-profits exist. Some people start businesses, for purposes other than making money. Some people do things, at their own expense. Something you probably don't know about, considering your billed Ron Paul 2012 for the likes of $1,000 for your "expenses", while supporters were paying their own way to the RNC and state conventions.
Yeah, until you make a backroom deal with another campaign and don't tell supporters, because you're in politics for your future job and your future finances. Like certain Ron Paul 2012 staffers.
And yes, if you run, you should run to win. I don't see Rand as having a chance right now, if a Mike Huckabee type candidate runs.
For the majority of supporters, yes it does. It's why they donate to a POLITICAL PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN. To get A PERSON ELECTED.
Yes, I pay more attention than you, based on my history of posts and your history of posts, and I pay attention from a realistic side. I don't think those people will give in the end when it matters, as I don't think they are really so stupid to believe Rand is one of them, IF he is simply playing the game.
Ron's take on foreign policy is not only the winning position, it is the constitutional, American, conservative position. Not my problem Rand is apparently surrounding himself with political losers, and doesn't have better talking points.
The only ignorant one here, is yourself at this point.
Ron Paul 2012 was a failure. It wasted millions of dollars, AND months of time. Lied to supporters for months, helped Mitt Romney win the nomination using liberty supporters' money. It wasted supporters time by continuously pitching a fake delegate strategy they had no intention of actually pursuing (ask the Louisiana supporters), for the purpose of raising money they didn't need except for maybe Jesse Benton's and other Ron Paul 2012's staffers legal defense fund.
I wouldn't call building lists, based on lies, an accomplishment. It would be like the NSA saying it's made a great accomplishment building a terrorists list, by listening to every single American phone call.
Ron Paul 2012 was so inept in its messaging to voters, that despite having the most passionate supporters, and having the most conservative constitutional candidate, it got fewer votes, despite raising more money than Rick Santorum. Ron Paul 2012, couldn't get more votes than Rick Santorum.
More than you. But those don't have anything to do with this. What's your college education? Degrees? Are you married? Do you have children? What's your favorite type of pizza? Do you like ad hominems?
No, the quote was not taken out of context, liar. You can ignore it, not listen to it, and try to change it after the fact, but it was not taken out of context. Here it is again, for the record and FULL context:
I know exactly what I'm talking about, and what it takes to win a Presidential election. Ron Paul 2012 had it with the supporters, just not in the actual campaign. I guess it's hard to win a Presidential election, when you're raising funds for your legal defense fund, lying to supporters, and helping another candidate win the nomination though.
If Mike Huckabee, or a candidate like him, runs, I do not see Rand winning Iowa. Iowa might not even be winnable to him, because of the dishonesty that was/is Ron Paul 2012 and their actions in the state. That's why I have said I think he'll concentrate more on New Hampshire, but perhaps use Iowa as a "strong finish" showing. Outside of New Hampshire, I don't see where he goes. Maybe Maine and Wisconsin. But, McCain won South Carolina and Florida, and Romney was able to win Florida, despite losing South Carolina.
You have continuously tried and failed to defend what was/is a lying, corrupt, dishonest campaign, and you are actively working against the cause of liberty doing so. Truth and liberty are like peanut butter and jelly. I'm here for the CAUSE OF LIBERTY, and liberty supporters, not for the cause of padding Jesse Benton's, Matt Collins', or Rand Paul's pockets. Especially not for the cause of funding their legal defense funds.
Last edited:
Matt Collins
Member
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2007
- Messages
- 47,707
Doyle - TLDR
Matt Collins
Member
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2007
- Messages
- 47,707
Which is one major reason why he wasn't taken seriously.
Matt Collins
Member
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2007
- Messages
- 47,707
Sacrificing convictions or principles are not necessary for political gain.
cajuncocoa
Banned
- Joined
- May 15, 2007
- Messages
- 16,013
TLDR = Matt can't comprehend more than 5 words at a time. LOL
Matt Collins
Member
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2007
- Messages
- 47,707
The smart grassroots will absolutely support Rand because they realize the benefits that come from a 2016 effort.
In case you haven't noticed, Rand is appealing to ALL segments of the political spectrum.
fisharmor
Member
- Joined
- Feb 8, 2008
- Messages
- 12,455
It is still a verifiable fact that Ron Paul had not dropped out of the race when Rand endorsed Romney.
If verifiable facts are "trollbait", well, I guess I can expect name-calling from people who refuse to recognize facts. There's not really another way to counter those facts, other than sticking your head in the sand.
As to enjoying it... well, I would really enjoy it more if being a Ron Paul fan didn't associate me with people who can't process a timeline or read Ron's June 2012 statement about the race without reading things into it which he didn't say. Yes, I'd enjoy very much being associated with people who can process English sentences.
But yeah, Suzanimal, Rand already did very much throw his father under the bus, and now we're going to get 2-3 rebuttals which consist of nothing more than "nyuh-uh, stupid poopyhead, can't you see this is how politics works?" and an expectation that everyone will just accept that playing by the rules and doing the exact same things as every other politician is somehow going to get us a net benefit of liberty.
Spikender
Member
- Joined
- Nov 27, 2011
- Messages
- 4,596
If being "smart" means selling your soul to a Rand Paul 2016 campaign that throws his own father that inspired ME and MILLIONS of others to get involved with politics under the bus, then fuck that campaign.
Rand Paul is doing a great job so far in my eyes appealing to a lot of people. But if he throws his father under the bus (which he won't) or hires the same goons who ran his father's campaign the last two elections (which I pray he won't) then he'll lose a spectrum of supporters he direly needs: the Ron Paul grassroots that helped spread his father's message.
And to me, none of the other groups are as important as US. We are the ground troops in these campaigns that get shit done. The other voting blocks simply don't have the vigor and absolute fervor for liberty that WE have.
Simple as that.
True... I forgave him for that though and I'm guessing his father did as well. But hiring the same idiots who ran Ron's campaign or dissing his father just to win 2016 would piss me off and I'd swear off Rand for good. There'd be no coming back from that and I'm guessing Rand knows that and isn't going to do something stupid like the article suggests.
Last edited:
It's okay though, Matt is protected by some lying, corrupt, dishonest, and others that are apparently BLIND, moderators around here. And then you have Bryan that repeatedly turns a blind-eye to it, being willfully ignorant of it, not responding to PMs, and ignoring MULTIPLE reports on various posts. I wouldn't expect anything less. It seems Matt Collins can get by with openly lying, name-calling, antagonizing users for YEARS, making repeated false claims, ad hominem attacks (the same with another RPF member), and get repeated passes.
It's almost like some Ron Paul 2012 staff just transferred to being moderators here on the forums. No wonder Matt Collins feels right at home, spewing digital diarrhea posts all the time.
And yes, I agree with Matt Collins, the smart grassroots will support Rand in 2016 with receipt strings attached. Especially since Rand is so (apparently) cozy with the Wall Street fat cats. Maybe some Ron Paul 2008 and Ron Paul 2012 supporters can actually get reimbursed from Rand's campaign, at somebody else's expense, for the work they did for free and never billed Ron Paul 2008 or Ron Paul 2012. Because, if there is one thing I have learned from Matt Collins on the forums (and my own research), it is that there is nothing like working for "free", when you can bill your expenses to a campaign for a nice round number, like $1,000.
GunnyFreedom
Member
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2007
- Messages
- 32,882
ifthenwouldi
Member
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2007
- Messages
- 290
Liberty isn't taken seriously in this country.
Historical precedent says otherwise at the presidential level in this country.
Rand's endorsement of rMoney is not equivalent to a denunciation of Ron.
No, that was just the equivalent of throwing all the Ron Paul 2012 supporters under the bus that had been lied to in campaign emails about a delegate strategy, and listened to interviews about the strategy, and were working towards that strategy.
Emails that Rand Paul sent out himself, trying to bilk supporters of more money:
"Every dollar you can give today will help my dad carry his strong momentum over into the start of the second quarter and keep the establishment on notice that this race is far from over."
Followed up with a P.S. that included:
"His (Ron Paul's) delegate strategy is seeing tremendous success all over the country, and further victories are within reach."
Sent March 31st/April 1st, 2012.
NewRightLibertarian
Member
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2010
- Messages
- 4,589
Ron and Rand are clearly in cahoots so how is Rand going to renounce him? They run a political campaign together, for fucks sake. This article is trash, and this idea is garbage. This is why Rand should refrain from surrounding himself with these right wing hacks as much as possible.
Last edited: