It's time for Rand Paul to unleash Ron Paul

I love Ron Paul but putting him in Rand's campaign spotlight would be a net negative, in my opinion.

It's all the media and establishment would need to start the "Rand is as wacky as his Dad" narrative.

Even if Ron's presence quadruples Rand's campaign crowds, what would average Joe Voter see on the news? Crickets plus talking heads yapping about his wacky Dad.
 
Last edited:
I love Ron Paul but putting him in Rand's campaign spotlight would be a net negative, in my opinion.

It's all the media and establishment would need to start the "Rand is as wacky as his Dad" narrative.

Even if Ron's presence quadruples Rand's campaign crowds, what would average Joe Voter see on the news? Crickets plus talking heads yapping about his wacky Dad.

What's he got to lose at this point? According the media, Rand is irrelevant regardless, only polling 4% on a good day (not that I believe the polls). Ron can only help in early states that Ron did well in.
 
It is also why Ron never won any primary states. You can't win primaries taking those extreme positions, they are scared to vote for fringe/extremist candidates.

Ron more than doubled his support from 2008 to 2012. His positions were winning converts. It takes time to deprogram the masses from decades of propaganda and indoctrination. Given a enough time and the correct strategy Ron would win some primary states and a lot of caucus states.
 
The way that the grassroots are behaving, I would not advise Rand to run again. The base is unreliable.

No point in even thinking about 2020 if people aren't willing to pull their weight in 2016.

Some much rather be right in their own niche than to engage in other circles. To become president, you must build coalitions especially when your coalition is one of the smallest ones. I do wish some people would understand this.
 
Ron won't say the things he needs to in order to be of assistance to Rand. Plus he has too much baggage. Involving Ron, especially on the ground in a key state, is a bad idea.

Matt, is it totally lost on you that Donald Trump has gone much further than Ron ever did into 9/11 truther land and is kicking everybody's ass? Seriously the problem never was what Ron said. At least not totally. He was hamstrung by the same "Don't say that" strategy that has Rand bottled up.

Here's the problem. All of a sudden people care about national security and they want something done. Ron and Rand on the subject talk about what not to do. Months ago, before Donald Trump said it I was saying Rand should say bomb the ISIS controlled oil fields. People vehemently attacked me for saying that. But to me it was obvious. ISIS makes most of its money selling oil. Bombing ISIS troops wasn't doing anything but helping them grow. Their money supply needs to be cut off. Obama was not bombing the oil fields. Then Trump came out and said "bomb the oil fields." Finally Obama started taking out oil tankers and Britain is bombing the oil fields.

Now, I know ISIS is totally a product of U.S. intervention in Syria. The Ben Swann report proves that. But to get people to listen long enough to hear you say that you have to come up with a pro-active strategy to deal with the threat people already see. My suggestion at this point? Rand needs to start using the "T" word as in "treason." People like John McCain, Lindsey Graham and Hillary Clinton are traitors to this country for giving aid and comfort to the enemies of the U.S. Yes. Shake those people up by using over the top language. That is what Donald Trump is doing. Rand needs to do a speech in which he outlines the fact that ISIS is the greatest threat to western civilization since Adolf Hitler. Then he needs to hearken back to our World War II alliance with Stalin to defeat Hitler and compare Putin to a "kindler gentler" Stalin. He needs to make the point that we should listen to the call made by France and the European Union for the United States to cooperate with Russia in totally defeating ISIS and all of the Syrian rebels! Yes. Take the gloves off and declare that John McCain's "moderate jihadists" are now enemies of the U.S. because they at times work together with ISIS and share the same ultimate ISIS goal of defeating Assad. He must declare openly that defeating Assad goes against the interests of the U.S. and if we are serious about standing with the French people in the wake of a brutal terror attack, it is time we recognize this. Now the trick is how to do that without throwing the Kurds under the bus. That shouldn't be too hard because the Kurds are more concerned about survival than they are about "democracy" in Syria. Also Turkey is playing both sides when it comes to ISIS and Turkey is the main enemy of the Kurds. This is a delicate situation as Turkey is a NATO ally. But for the sake of the campaign such geopolitical intricacies don't matter.
 
I love Ron Paul but putting him in Rand's campaign spotlight would be a net negative, in my opinion.

It's all the media and establishment would need to start the "Rand is as wacky as his Dad" narrative.

Even if Ron's presence quadruples Rand's campaign crowds, what would average Joe Voter see on the news? Crickets plus talking heads yapping about his wacky Dad.

Considering the current front runner in the GOP race, "whackiness" isn't a problem.
 
Considering the current front runner in the GOP race, "whackiness" isn't a problem.

Ron's "wackiness" consists in "blaming America," as boobus is told to see it.

Trump's "wackiness" consists in an overly zealous "Murica! Fuk Yea!," as boobus is told to see it.

In this cycle, the latter much more closely matches the feelings of the electorate, doesn't it?
 
I think it's time to pull out all the stops! Time to bring out Ron! We've got nothing to lose, right? This election will be the most important election of our lifetime!

Remember what the grassroots did in 07? We brought Ron out from the dead and he ended up overperforming! And in 2010? We got liberty-minded Congressmen elected from the base! Not to mention the 2012 campaign! Are we going to let a bunch of MSM presstitutes tell us Rand isn't worth voting for and create this narrative to make Joe and Jane 6-pack think Rand isn't the ONE guy who has America's best interests at heart?? I don't think so! The MSM forget that we get pumped up and we'll rally behind Rand more so! Yes, the campaign has failed in part of its strategy but it's up to us to keep the dream alive! I want to thank all of you who've been putting your butts on the line, the idea of creating groups for students, etc. So, take a deep breath, look at the polls as if it were a chronometer but don't get scared and fight as if we're 40 points down! Look what we've tried to do in 8 years guys! We got grassroots Americans into federal office and created a movement that has a never say die attitude!!

Time to fight as if it were 1776 all over again!! :) :cool:
 
Ron's "wackiness" consists in "blaming America," as boobus is told to see it.

Trump's "wackiness" consists in an overly zealous "Murica! Fuk Yea!," as boobus is told to see it.

In this cycle, the latter much more closely matches the feelings of the electorate, doesn't it?

Trump's "wackiness" including saying:

1) We shouldn't have gone into Afghanistan.
2) We shouldn't have gone into Iraq.
3) Bush was ultimately responsible for 9/11.
 
"Ron won't say the things he needs to in order to be of assistance to Rand. Plus he has too much baggage. Involving Ron, especially on the ground in a key state, is a bad idea. "

So we've come to the point in Liberty Movement where the man who helped to spark it is now considered to have too much "baggage" to help his own son who was elected to the U.S. Senate because of that very same movement. And the candidate who is leading in the polls talks about deporting Hispanics.

If this is not a messed up political environment I don't know what is.

By the way Collins, to say Rand is doing great in Iowa, as you have had done so, means you either 1). Left reality, 2). Are lying throughout teeth or 3). You've seen internal polling from the campaign which very much contradicts the polling in Iowa through the media. Now I think it's No. 3 but knowing you I'm not going to rule out No. 1 or No. 2 either. Now if it is No. 3, could you please share this polling data with the rest of the class in order to, if nothing else, to encourage supporters who have come on these forums to obviously perk people up and could use some hard evidence that things are indeed hunky-dory in Iowa rather than just wishful thinking and blind optimism. I think it would benefit all us to show that those who are busting their butts for the campaign that their work is not in vain and for those on the fence about Rand, to come down off it and give our support for something which can become a force next year instead of making a useless and futile gesture.
 
I'm sure Trump appreciates your support.

:rolleyes: No but I'm sure he appreciates your stupidity. I support Ron Paul's foreign policy. At times during this election cycle Donald Trump, Ben Carson and Ted Cruz have parrotted parts of it. In a way that's a good thing because it shows his ideas are winning.
 
It would be for anyone other than Trump.

That's nice. If it came down to Trump vs Clinton I'd be making sure my passport is still valid. That said our dislike of Trump isn't keeping him from leading at the moment whakiness and all.
 
Matt, is it totally lost on you that Donald Trump has gone much further than Ron ever did into 9/11 truther land and is kicking everybody's ass? Seriously the problem never was what Ron said. At least not totally. He was hamstrung by the same "Don't say that" strategy that has Rand bottled up.

Here's the problem. All of a sudden people care about national security and they want something done. Ron and Rand on the subject talk about what not to do. Months ago, before Donald Trump said it I was saying Rand should say bomb the ISIS controlled oil fields. People vehemently attacked me for saying that. But to me it was obvious. ISIS makes most of its money selling oil. Bombing ISIS troops wasn't doing anything but helping them grow. Their money supply needs to be cut off. Obama was not bombing the oil fields. Then Trump came out and said "bomb the oil fields." Finally Obama started taking out oil tankers and Britain is bombing the oil fields.

Now, I know ISIS is totally a product of U.S. intervention in Syria. The Ben Swann report proves that. But to get people to listen long enough to hear you say that you have to come up with a pro-active strategy to deal with the threat people already see. My suggestion at this point? Rand needs to start using the "T" word as in "treason." People like John McCain, Lindsey Graham and Hillary Clinton are traitors to this country for giving aid and comfort to the enemies of the U.S. Yes. Shake those people up by using over the top language. That is what Donald Trump is doing. Rand needs to do a speech in which he outlines the fact that ISIS is the greatest threat to western civilization since Adolf Hitler. Then he needs to hearken back to our World War II alliance with Stalin to defeat Hitler and compare Putin to a "kindler gentler" Stalin. He needs to make the point that we should listen to the call made by France and the European Union for the United States to cooperate with Russia in totally defeating ISIS and all of the Syrian rebels! Yes. Take the gloves off and declare that John McCain's "moderate jihadists" are now enemies of the U.S. because they at times work together with ISIS and share the same ultimate ISIS goal of defeating Assad. He must declare openly that defeating Assad goes against the interests of the U.S. and if we are serious about standing with the French people in the wake of a brutal terror attack, it is time we recognize this. Now the trick is how to do that without throwing the Kurds under the bus. That shouldn't be too hard because the Kurds are more concerned about survival than they are about "democracy" in Syria. Also Turkey is playing both sides when it comes to ISIS and Turkey is the main enemy of the Kurds. This is a delicate situation as Turkey is a NATO ally. But for the sake of the campaign such geopolitical intricacies don't matter.

Ron Paul would articulate an intelligent non-interventionist foreign policy with enough exposition to show the root causes of this phenomenon and use history, the constitution, and the words of the Founders to formulate another path. Would it win? Who knows, but he'd certainly be pulling in more people and campaign cash than Rand is at this juncture.



 
:rolleyes: No but I'm sure he appreciates your stupidity. I support Ron Paul's foreign policy. At times during this election cycle Donald Trump, Ben Carson and Ted Cruz have parrotted parts of it. In a way that's a good thing because it shows his ideas are winning.
Bingo....


But I also think Trump is actually honest and sincere regarding his comments of Iraq because it is not wise for him to say it outloud in a Republican primary. On everything else, I think he is mostly full of shit.
 
:rolleyes: No but I'm sure he appreciates your stupidity. I support Ron Paul's foreign policy. At times during this election cycle Donald Trump, Ben Carson and Ted Cruz have parrotted parts of it. In a way that's a good thing because it shows his ideas are winning.

Boy, you're dumb...

I would prefer that you were overtly on the other side, so I would've have to pretend to tolerate you.
 
The time has come ... WE NEED RON NOW !

I'd like to see ron be rand's coach but then again we should let rand run his campaign, so let's see what his gut says! Christmas dinner's going to be interesting interesting at the pauls, that's for sure!! ;)
 
Back
Top