Jesse Benton, Dimitri Kesari, and John Tate have been convicted

[Anti Federalist]

Thanks, I stand corrected, it does appear to be "law".

+rep

And also goes to show there is no such thing as this anymore:

[N]or shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1001

 

[Anti Federalist]

What I have seen him do is to remind people that RP also made some not-so-great endorsements, when some here are attacking other individuals for doing same. It seems that people don't want to be reminded of that fact.

Going on Hannity's show to endorse Mitt Romney over your own father because of "politics", more than likely on the advice of one of these now convicted felons, is much more than "not so great".

That is Chernobyl level lack of foresight and planning.

 

[LibertyEagle]

My point is the same that I have been making for years now.

The "professionals" thought the grassroots were a bunch of kooks and an embarrassment.

They made it clear that they neither wanted nor needed our "help", starting in 2012 and running right through to 2016 (but they'll take our money, thank you very much).

That discouraged and "disenfranchised" the loose but vibrant coalition we had assembled starting in 2007.

So much so that there was no energy at all in 2016.

And the result was a failed Paul campaign that was over before NH.

Oh bullshit, AF. They always wanted help from the grassroots. But, they wanted the grassroots to help the campaign on the things that all successful campaigns must do. Things like phone-banking, handing out campaign literature door-to-door, canvassing, getting out the vote, etc. What you seem to be talking about is the grassroots doing WHATEVER THE HELL THAT THE GRASSROOTS WANTED TO DO and to hell with whether it contradicted with what the campaign was doing, or harmed it. Yeah, that doesn't work and it has NEVER worked.

Working against your candidate's campaign is what the competitors do; it isn't what people do who support the candidate.

 

[Anti Federalist]

What the heck is your point, AF? That throwing snowballs at the media, or doing wholesale mailouts to Republican voters that linked to "911 was an inside job" videos, would somehow have won the day?

And 9/11 was an inside job.

The release of the redacted documents will prove that.

Saudi involvement and inside protection within the US government.

Inside Job.

That said, would it do us any good?

Of course not...Idiot AmeriKa does not want the truth.

 

[LibertyEagle]

Going on Hannity's show to endorse Mitt Romney over your own father because of "politics", more than likely on the advice of one of these now convicted felons, is much more than "not so great".

That is Chernobyl level lack of foresight and planning.

Yeah, I agree. But dragging him through the mud afterwards for months, if not longer, is not so brilliant either; unless said person intended to stick a knife in the candidate's back and twist it.

 

[Anti Federalist]

Oh bullshit, AF. They always wanted help from the grassroots. But, they wanted the grassroots to help the campaign on the things that all successful campaigns must do. Things like phone-banking, handing out campaign literature door-to-door, canvassing, getting out the vote, etc. What you seem to be talking about is the grassroots doing WHATEVER THE HELL THAT THE GRASSROOTS WANTED TO DO and to hell with whether it contradicted with what the campaign was doing, or harmed it. Yeah, that doesn't work and it has NEVER worked.

Working against your candidate's campaign is what the competitors do; it isn't what people do who support the candidate.

You can jump up and down and scream bullshit all you want.

I know what I saw in NH.

 

[LibertyEagle]

And 9/11 was an inside job.

The release of the redacted documents will prove that.

Saudi involvement and inside protection within the US government.

Inside Job.

That said, would it do us any good?

Of course not...Idiot AmeriKa does not want the truth.

So, it's good to work against the candidate, mailing out things to prospective voters with the candidate's name on them, that are not in the candidate's platform, eh?

 

[Anti Federalist]

Yeah, I agree. But dragging him through the mud afterwards for months, if not longer, is not so brilliant either; unless said person intended to stick a knife in the candidate's back and twist it.

I made my case, vented my anger then mostly left it alone.

You will find no record of me posting over and over, every day, about the subject.

But I will admit that, and the cold shoulder that "we" got from the official campaign, and the complete soldiering of the Northern Pass issue in NH, left a foul taste in my mouth and lot of other people's as well.

And they sat out 2016.

And you see what the result was.

 

[Anti Federalist]

So, it's good to work against the candidate, mailing out things to prospective voters with the candidate's name on them, that are not in the candidate's platform, eh?

No, I admitted that it probably wouldn't do any good.

At the same time, so what, fight through it move on.

The harm it may have done was more than offset by the enthusiasm and work done that was productive.

 

[LibertyEagle]

I made my case, vented my anger then mostly left it alone.

You will find no record of me posting over and over, every day, about the subject.

But I will admit that, and the cold shoulder that "we" got from the official campaign, and the complete soldiering of the Northern Pass issue in NH, left a foul taste in my mouth and lot of other people's as well.

And they sat out 2016.

And you see what the result was.

You're talking Ron's campaign with respect to the Northern Pass issue, right?

As I recall, you were none to fond of Rand and posted about that many, many times. So, excuse me if I doubt the only reason you or your comrades sat it out in '16 was because of Ron's campaign. Which by the way, were entirely different people than Rand's.

 

[Anti Federalist]

You're talking Ron's campaign with respect to the Northern Pass issue, right?

As I recall, you were none to fond of Rand and posted about that many, many times. So, excuse me if I doubt the only reason you or your comrades sat it out in '16 was because of Ron's campaign. Which by the way, were entirely different people than Rand's.

No, I think you are recalling wrong.

I met Rand at the Fanueil Hall "Tea Party" rally back in 2007.

I was impressed by his speech then and supported his campaign for Senate, with donations.

My one and single negative issue with Rand, was that damn endorsement, its timing and content.

That called into question any number of issues of judgement, in my mind.

But past my initial anger at that, I don't recall saying much...I sat on my hands mostly, outside of donating during a couple of the lukewarm "money bombs".

Which by the way, were entirely different people than Rand's

Right, precisely my point.

You see how reliable and enthusiastic those people were.

I mentioned "money bombs"...hell the "straights" couldn't break a million on any of them, IIRC.

That's who the campaign jettisoned all us kooks in order to go and court and whisper in their collective ears.

Great plan, that.

 

[Anti Federalist]

You're talking Ron's campaign with respect to the Northern Pass issue, right?

Yes.

I am convinced beyond any shadow of doubt, that, had they run with that, from a property rights/anti-eminent domain perspective, he could have won NH.

 

[LibertyEagle]

Yes.

I am convinced beyond any shadow of doubt, that, had they run with that, from a property rights/anti-eminent domain perspective, he could have won NH.

He might would have, but he still would have lost the nomination and badly.

 

[Anti Federalist]

He might would have, but he still would have lost the nomination and badly.

Well, we don't know that...but all I could do is what I could do in my home state.

He probably would have lost the general as well, since he is very wrong about one thing.

Freedom is not popular, people do not want it and will actively fight against you to get it.

 

[Anti Federalist]

So, it's good to work against the candidate, mailing out things to prospective voters with the candidate's name on them, that are not in the candidate's platform, eh?

I was just going through a file folder I keep filled with clippings and memorabilia, from both campaigns.

Unless I'm mistaken, the only instance of a mailer going out with any reference to 9/11 was the "super flyer".

Am I correct in this?

Or were there others I missed?

 

[Matt Collins]

Going on Hannity's show to endorse Mitt Romney over your own father

False... Ron was no longer seeking the nomination.

 

[Matt Collins]

The "professionals" thought the grassroots were a bunch of kooks and an embarrassment.

They made it clear that they neither wanted nor needed our "help", starting in 2012 and running right through to 2016 (but they'll take our money, thank you very much).

That discouraged and "disenfranchised" the loose but vibrant coalition we had assembled starting in 2007.

Only half-wrong.... they wanted the real kooks out, those who hurt the cause and embarrassed the candidate, but the solid activists were the backbone of the campaign.

So much so that there was no energy at all in 2016.

And the result was a failed Paul campaign that was over before NH.

No, that was different reasons... the way that Rand endorsed Romney hurt him, and his lack of attention to the grassroots (and in some cases actively disenfranchising) is what caused him to be a non-starter.

I don't think he could've beaten Trump, because he wasn't willing to out-do him, but he still should not have done worse than Ron did in '08 in Iowa, and that's what happened.

 

[LibertyEagle]

I was just going through a file folder I keep filled with clippings and memorabilia, from both campaigns.

Unless I'm mistaken, the only instance of a mailer going out with any reference to 9/11 was the "super flyer".

Am I correct in this?

Or were there others I missed?

Yes, I think that's correct. Although, supporters weren't shy to link him to it.

 

[presence]

I believe that if we ever get the full truth, we’ll find out that our government had it in the records exactly what the plans were, or at least close to it.

 

[Anti Federalist]

False... Ron was no longer seeking the nomination.

You can say "false" all you want, Collins, and you can also kiss my ass all you want.

"The Campaign" was still sending out letters and emails with Ron's name on it, looking for donations to continue.

So, that leaves us with only two options:

1 - Rand threw his dad under the bus and chose Romney over his old man for purely political points, that turned out to be worthless.

2 - Ron Paul grifted and scammed thousands of well meaning people out of hundreds of thousands of dollars by disingenuously sending out messages to donate and continue the effort in 2012.

It's one or two, pick one.

Anything else is bullshit and spin.