Jack Hunter Resigns

[Christian Liberty]

"libertarians against drug legalization".

"libertarians against pulling out of all foreign military bases."

"libertarians for protecting Israel."

Rand isn't a libertarian, he's a conservative. Just actually a conservative rather than a neo-progressive.

 

[jjdoyle]

Those 2 issues are lightyears apart. A newsletter coming out under Ron's name is quite a bit different than an employee's antics in his youth. Rand terminated him; that will satisfy most anyone who liked Rand even a little bit.

Did Rand terminate him? Or, did he quit? If Jack quit, it's a different ballgame. Rand SHOULD have terminated him immediately, at least then Rand could use plausible deniability. "I didn't know about it, but took care of it as soon as I learned about it."

If Jack quit though, then Rand can't really use plausible deniability because he learned about it, and did nothing to the general public's eye.

Again, the whole thing is messed up because if Jack didn't reveal the information in his interview or the staff knew about it and ignored it, it really shows ignorance from somebody of not seeing and acknowledging how Ron's campaign was put in the garbage with a 2 week straight barrage of "racism" "racism" "racism" "racism" "racism" news casts before Iowa.

If I'm pro-life and had photos of myself protesting outside of a Planned Parenthood location, would it be smart for me to apply for a position with or a politician who is pro-choice to hire me? I don't think so. It's a very taboo topic for a Republican trying to pick up Democrat voters and independent voters, to not know or ignore this when it was brought to their attention is an issue.

So, was Jack fired, or did he quit?

 

[Federico]

LOL...what a pompous attitude you have. First you don't believe that Rand has disavowed the libertarian label, and then when you're shown to be wrong, you construct a reason why it's not still true based on nothing but conjecture.

I advise you to learn how to read. I did not say that Rand had never disavowed the libertarian label, I disputed the claim that he had done so "repeatedly." This has not been shown to be wrong.

 

[Federico]

"libertarians against drug legalization".

"libertarians against pulling out of all foreign military bases."

"libertarians for protecting Israel."

Rand isn't a libertarian, he's a conservative. Just actually a conservative rather than a neo-progressive.

I agree with cajuncocoa that arguing over labels is a bit silly, but I'll go ahead and dispute the idea that libertarians can't be against drug legalization, pulling out of all foreign military bases, or for protecting Israel. These aren't even my positions, but I can defend them adequately from a libertarian perspective. It's simply not true that there exists "One Right Libertarian Answer" to all possible political questions. Reasonable people (and reasonable libertarians) can disagree.

 

[Federico]

Did Rand terminate him? Or, did he quit? If Jack quit, it's a different ballgame. Rand SHOULD have terminated him immediately, at least then Rand could use plausible deniability. "I didn't know about it, but took care of it as soon as I learned about it."

If Jack quit though, then Rand can't really use plausible deniability because he learned about it, and did nothing to the general public's eye.

Again, the whole thing is messed up because if Jack didn't reveal the information in his interview or the staff knew about it and ignored it, it really shows ignorance from somebody of not seeing and acknowledging how Ron's campaign was put in the garbage with a 2 week straight barrage of "racism" "racism" "racism" "racism" "racism" news casts before Iowa.

If I'm pro-life and had photos of myself protesting outside of a Planned Parenthood location, would it be smart for me to apply for a position with or a politician who is pro-choice to hire me? I don't think so. It's a very taboo topic for a Republican trying to pick up Democrat voters and independent voters, to not know or ignore this when it was brought to their attention is an issue.

So, was Jack fired, or did he quit?

Check the thread title.

 

[cajuncocoa]

I advise you to learn how to read. I did not say that Rand had never disavowed the libertarian label, I disputed the claim that he had done so "repeatedly." This has not been shown to be wrong.

I'd advise you to learn to communicate with respect, as board guidelines mandates.

Whether you said it or you were quoting someone else who did, that's where our discussion originated.

This is where it ends.

 

[LibertyEagle]

Did Rand terminate him? Or, did he quit? If Jack quit, it's a different ballgame. Rand SHOULD have terminated him immediately, at least then Rand could use plausible deniability. "I didn't know about it, but took care of it as soon as I learned about it."

If Jack quit though, then Rand can't really use plausible deniability because he learned about it, and did nothing to the general public's eye.

Again, the whole thing is messed up because if Jack didn't reveal the information in his interview or the staff knew about it and ignored it, it really shows ignorance from somebody of not seeing and acknowledging how Ron's campaign was put in the garbage with a 2 week straight barrage of "racism" "racism" "racism" "racism" "racism" news casts before Iowa.

If I'm pro-life and had photos of myself protesting outside of a Planned Parenthood location, would it be smart for me to apply for a position with or a politician who is pro-choice to hire me? I don't think so. It's a very taboo topic for a Republican trying to pick up Democrat voters and independent voters, to not know or ignore this when it was brought to their attention is an issue.

So, was Jack fired, or did he quit?

Not sure. The thread title says he resigned, so I suppose that is what he did. But, I also am confident that it was after he and Rand discussed it.

I don't think it really matters which word was used. In this case, firing him wouldn't carry any more weight than Jack resigning and that is for several reasons.

 

[LibertyEagle]

I'd advise you to learn to communicate with respect, as board guidelines mandates.

Whether you said it or you were quoting someone else who did, that's where our discussion originated.

This is where it ends.

You called him "pompous". Is that particularly civil?

 

[cajuncocoa]

You called him "pompous". Is that particularly civil?

Look who wants to stir the pot....why am I not surprised?

 

[angelatc]

Look who wants to stir the pot....why am I not surprised?

We can take that as a no.

 

[Federico]

You called him "pompous". Is that particularly civil?

That cajuncocoa is a giant hypocrite does not make her point any less valid. I am oftentimes more aggressive and less polite than I ought to be. It's a flaw I occasionally try to correct, but I just have very little tolerance for stupidity.

 

[cajuncocoa]

We can take that as a no.

"We" who?

Take it however you ​like.

 

[LibertyEagle]

 

[jjdoyle]

Not sure. The thread title says he resigned, so I suppose that is what he did. But, I also am confident that it was after he and Rand discussed it.

I don't think it really matters which word was used. In this case, firing him wouldn't carry any more weight than Jack resigning and that is for several reasons.

Perhaps he discussed it with Rand, but it shouldn't have even been up for discussion. He shouldn't have applied to work with Rand, and if he was asked to work for him, he should have turned it down knowing his own history. If Rand's staff didn't know about it, that's one thing. Once Rand knew about it, he should have fired him immediately. I don't see exactly what positives Jack brought to Rand's team, I see more negatives and potentially losing Democrat and independent voters over this type of issue.

Republicans are held to a higher standard than Democrats on this issue, whether we like it or not.

 

[LibertyEagle]

Perhaps he discussed it with Rand, but it shouldn't have even been up for discussion. He shouldn't have applied to work with Rand, and if he was asked to work for him, he should have turned it down knowing his own history. If Rand's staff didn't know about it, that's one thing. Once Rand knew about it, he should have fired him immediately. I don't see exactly what positives Jack brought to Rand's team, I see more negatives and potentially losing Democrat and independent voters over this type of issue.

Republicans are held to a higher standard than Democrats on this issue, whether we like it or not.

Jack knows how to reach conservatives. That is a major plus to bring to a cause. Major. Especially for many libertarians who haven't really any clue as to how to do that.

Beyond that, yes, I realize the politically-correct will have a heart murmur over Jack's youthful antics and the fact that he doesn't kiss Lincoln's rosy butt, and in politics, I realize that is important. But, for myself, I could really care less. It is a non-issue for me and I cannot fathom why we are doing our enemies any favors by acting like it is something more than what it really is, on this forum.

 

[DylanWaco]

Jack didn't "apply" to work with Rand. He was approached when someone else decided he didn't want to help Rand with his book. Rand knew about Jack's "history" from day one.

 

[Feeding the Abscess]

Jack didn't "apply" to work with Rand. He was approached when someone else decided he didn't want to help Rand with his book. Rand knew about Jack's "history" from day one.

Ironically, it was Tom Woods who was scheduled to do Rand's book.

 

[NewRightLibertarian]

Sarge, why can't you understand that there are not enough "dedicated supporters" to win a national election. That if Rand is to have any chance at all, they must get through the propaganda that many Republicans have had drummed into their heads for years on end. In fact, regardless of whether Rand tries for the presidency, we must get through to many, many more Americans. Ron reached those he could in the Republican Party. To reach more, a different approach has to be used. That is what Rand and Jack were trying to do. You seem to want to use Ron's approach, which DID NOT work with these people. Jack never tried to sweep you under the rug. He simply asked that you not attach your favorite conspiracy theory to our candidates. That's all. Why is that so hard for you to understand.

You are incorrect. He did try to sweep dedicated supporters under the rug, badmouthed perfectly legitimate issues that we should be working to raise awareness of, and bashed one of the best liberty groups in America. All to bolster his political career. Now you're making excuses for him. His purge didn't work, and he's now been disgraced. Let this be a lesson to all of those in the liberty movement that karma will bite you in the ass. And I wouldn't tout Jack Hunter's strategy as being anything but garbage considering he was run from the campaign.

 

[jjdoyle]

Jack didn't "apply" to work with Rand. He was approached when someone else decided he didn't want to help Rand with his book. Rand knew about Jack's "history" from day one.

If true, that's not good for Rand. It doesn't take much to tank a campaign from the media, and the fact (according to you) he ignored Jack's history on this issue, despite knowing it, shows very poor judgement for someone that might be running in 2016 I think. Was Rand sleeping when his dad's campaign went to the garbage disposal because of the "racism" issue from the EARLY 90s that Ron said he didn't even write?

I really hope you are 100% wrong on this, for Rand's sake if he is running in 2016.

On Jack being able to reach conservatives, what are we looking at specifically? Did he do something that reached conservatives in a way never before? I might be missing it, but I'm not really familiar with him outside of what he did and didn't do for Ron Paul 2012 and with Rand. Also, he doesn't seem to have a very big following considering he has been on cable TV shows, worked for Ron and Rand, and was and maybe still is a frequent guest on Michael Savage's radio program.

I see some have said it, but I fail to see where that is. Again, these political science guys are a dime a dozen these days, maybe that's why I don't see it. Knowing my family and friends who watch Fox I can't think of one that mentions Rand on any regular basis (extremely rare), and never Jack Hunter or even someone like Judge Napolitano who had his own show on Fox Business and was a frequent guest on O'Reilly in the past.

 

[69360]

Did Rand terminate him? Or, did he quit? If Jack quit, it's a different ballgame. Rand SHOULD have terminated him immediately, at least then Rand could use plausible deniability. "I didn't know about it, but took care of it as soon as I learned about it."

If Jack quit though, then Rand can't really use plausible deniability because he learned about it, and did nothing to the general public's eye.

Again, the whole thing is messed up because if Jack didn't reveal the information in his interview or the staff knew about it and ignored it, it really shows ignorance from somebody of not seeing and acknowledging how Ron's campaign was put in the garbage with a 2 week straight barrage of "racism" "racism" "racism" "racism" "racism" news casts before Iowa.

If I'm pro-life and had photos of myself protesting outside of a Planned Parenthood location, would it be smart for me to apply for a position with or a politician who is pro-choice to hire me? I don't think so. It's a very taboo topic for a Republican trying to pick up Democrat voters and independent voters, to not know or ignore this when it was brought to their attention is an issue.

So, was Jack fired, or did he quit?

He quit, he wouldn't have got fired because he did nothing wrong.