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

[Matt Collins]

Oh hey, look, another Collins thread ... implying that only by embracing the system and selling out can one "win".

Uh, no, I haven't implied any of the above. Nice try at putting words in my mouth though #fail

 

[ifthenwouldi]

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.

 

[Natural Citizen]

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.

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.

 

[Anti Federalist]

The guy who wrote posted this is just trying to stir the shit pot.

Fixed that for you.

 

[Anti Federalist]

Uh, no, I haven't implied any of the above. Nice try at putting words in my mouth though #fail

Bullshit.

 

[Natural Citizen]

You do realize that Ron's take on foreign policy is not a winning position, right?

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.

 

[mac_hine]

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.

 

[jjdoyle]

You finally get something correct.

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.

Of course it is. The only reason to be involved in politics is to gain power. Just like the only reason to be in business is to gain money.

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.

Being in politics and not wanting to win* makes zero since either.

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.

*Winning doesn't always mean getting elected to office.

For the majority of supporters, yes it does. It's why they donate to a POLITICAL PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN. To get A PERSON ELECTED.

Have you been paying attention:

http://valleywag.gawker.com/rand-paul-opening-silicon-valley-office-to-fund-expecte-1637671354

http://www.cnbc.com/id/101796057

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.

You do realize that Ron's take on foreign policy is not a winning position, right? Being nuanced or at least having the correct rhetoric is required to win.

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.

Your ignorance and lack of campaign experience is showing.

The only ignorant one here, is yourself at this point.

The 2012 PCC was NOT a failure... it built lists, created new donors, nearly won Iowa, spooked the establishment, changed the debate, built networks in many states, and yes it even got people to think about issues in a different light.

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.

How many campaigns have you worked on? How many campaigns have you won?

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?

That "quote" was taken out of context and was received differently than it was intended.

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:

Thats because you don't know what youre talking about and have zero understanding of what it takes to win a Presidential election.

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.

He will likely win NH and Iowa, SC and FL won't matter after that.

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.

And if you discourage people from helping Rand win, then you are actively working against the cause of liberty.

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.

 

[Matt Collins]

Doyle - TLDR

 

[Matt Collins]

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."

Which is one major reason why he wasn't taken seriously.

 

[Matt Collins]

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.

Sacrificing convictions or principles are not necessary for political gain.

 

[cajuncocoa]

Doyle - TLDR

TLDR = Matt can't comprehend more than 5 words at a time. LOL

 

[Matt Collins]

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.

The smart grassroots will absolutely support Rand because they realize the benefits that come from a 2016 effort.

He may gain the support of Red State geriatrics, but they're a dying breed, much like the ReTHUGlican party in general.

In case you haven't noticed, Rand is appealing to ALL segments of the political spectrum.

 

[fisharmor]

no. fa likes to fling trollbait every now and then.

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]

The smart grassroots will absolutely support Rand because they realize the benefits that come from a 2016 effort.

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.

In case you haven't noticed, Rand is appealing to ALL segments of the political spectrum.

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.

It is still a verifiable fact that Ron Paul had not dropped out of the race when Rand endorsed Romney.

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.

 

[jjdoyle]

TLDR = Matt can't comprehend more than 5 words at a time. LOL

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]

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.

Rand's endorsement of rMoney is not equivalent to a denunciation of Ron.

 

[ifthenwouldi]

Which is one major reason why he wasn't taken seriously.

Liberty isn't taken seriously in this country.

Sacrificing convictions or principles are not necessary for political gain.

Historical precedent says otherwise at the presidential level in this country.

 

[jjdoyle]

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]

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.