You tell some truth, yes, and as stated many times before, what you then do is make large leaps from there to draw conclusions that do not have enough facts to back them up. But, apparently, you believe if you keep repeating the same thing over and over again, you will get enough small intellect people to agree with you.
I have more people on the forums that agree with me, than don't. I base my opinions on facts, and what we know of the actions/non-actions of the campaign. You and Matt Collins have repeatedly for years personally attacked users here that questioned the official campaign. Not me. Nobody that looks at the facts, actions, non-actions of the campaign and concludes it was dishonest, is of small intellect. But nice try at trying to insult me, and those that agree with me.
What we know is that Doug Wead said that by the time Romney threatened the campaign, that there was no chance for Ron to win the election. So, they decided it wasn't a good long-term strategic move to have Ron's legacy darkened.
And? Doesn't change my points any. It proves them. Ron Paul 2012 lied to supporters at least starting in February 2012, all of March 2012, April 2012, and May 2012. They wasted millions of dollars after they agreed to not attack Mitt Romney, and wasted months of time of supporters.
That's your opinion. Because you were still living in la la land that Ron Paul hadn't already lost. And since he had, it made strategic sense to change focus to what would further the liberty movement as a whole. You know, losing the battle, but winning the war.
Actually, you're speaking out of repeated ignorance. I was warning people during the campaign something wasn't right. And there are some members here on the forums that can testify to that. I was in no la la land about Ron winning, like I'm not in some la la land about Rand winning either. And no, the campaign didn't change strategies, they were simply lying to supporters for months. Again, wasting not only their money, but more importantly their time.
The Ron Paul supporters in Louisiana that participated in the delegate process will testify to it. As one member here on the forums has already stated it, multiple times.
Jack Hunter was pretty damned good and I'm sorry he can no longer be associated with Ron and Rand. He was absolutely FABULOUS at explaining the message in terms that conservatives could understand. So, while at times Ron went off into libertarian la la land, Hunter could bring it back to reality and it was starting to resonate with regular voters. So yeah, that was pretty great.
That's your opinion. Ron Paul went off to Constitutional land quite often, but not libertarian la la land. There is a difference. The issue was messaging, and better talking points (things I was saying and even helped with during the campaign). Jack Hunter was not helping in either of those areas from my experience with the 2012 campaign. There was another staffer that did though.
Because, and as you well know, the plan from the very beginning was for the race to end up being between Ron and Mitt. The others needed to fall by the wayside. No, things didn't work out as planned and in my opinion, the whole strategy was a no-go after Ron didn't win in Iowa. Certainly by the end of New Hampshire. I don't think there was any hope at all after that point. So, no, I didn't appreciate the fundraising letters pretending like there was a chance in hell. On that we agree. But, switching to having Ron make a big a mark as possible so that the liberty movement could be viewed as "here to stay" and also viewed hopefully as not as scary as some in the Republican Party had been made to think, seems pretty rational a move. Again, trying to win the war, even though the battle was lost.
I don't know what the plan was. There is no proof of your claim at all of a Mitt Romney vs. Ron Paul idea, based on the actual actions of the campaign. Virginia, the first one-on-one state, there was not one single positive/negative RP ad. Ron Paul 2012 never aired a single Mitt Romney only TV attack ad, in any state. Even after it was just him and Mitt left in the race in April 2012. They ignored Rick Santorum in Iowa, despite him being the last candidate to be getting free positive press. And didn't attack him until outside of Iowa. In South Carolina. Where Ron Paul finished 4th. Then Michigan, where they helped Mitt Romney win the state, by attacking Rick Santorum.
So, after Iowa and New Hampshire, and after Maine and others, they should have closed shop as I have said. Not continue to lie to supporters for months.
And Ron could have had a bigger mark, had the campaign been using funds to address bigger issues with campaign funds. Not simply helping Mitt Romney win the nomination. That has been one of my points in past posts as well. Running an ad like what Herman Cain's campaign put out (after it ended though) on his 9/9/9 plan, but on issues that Ron found important. Like the FED, foreign policy, and others.
Nope. Wrong again. I will say again. I do not lump you and the likes of Dondero in with any other supporters. Or view you as supporters at all, frankly.
I'm not like Dondero, because he doesn't apparently agree with RP's foreign policy. I am much more aligned with a Constitutional foreign policy, than a neocon type. Nice try at another ad hominem personal attack, but failing again. I supported Ron in 2008, donated to the campaign, volunteered at the campaign office near D.C.. I went to events in 2008 and was outside the South Carolina debate where he got much national attention after Rudy went after him in stupid ignorance. I went to our state delegate process then, and voted for RP supporters in the process.
Even did the unthinkable, sign waving.
Wait. Do you honestly not realize that winning nominations IS about the delegates? Really?
Wait, have you missed all the prior posts, even in this thread, about Ron Paul 2012 supporters showing up to become delegates, with no direction from the campaign? Taking over state conventions, like in Iowa, Louisiana, and others, and now losing all that and the campaign abandoning many of them in the process? The delegate process matters less now though, than in 2012, because of the rule changes. So, again, the supporters showed up when asked, and even when not. The campaign abandoned supporters, and had been lying to them for months.
I have questions about that what happened there too. Thing is, we really don't know the answer at this point. But, apparently, that doesn't stop you from reaching a conclusion. You've got your noose ready.
Not true at all. Have you not talked to any Louisiana RP supporters that went through the delegate process? Have you not seen the repeated posts by one here on the forums? Here's a link to one comment on the forums if you want to try and ask them:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...Jesse-Benton&p=5635456&viewfull=1#post5635456
And again, Ron Paul 2012 committed suicide. As I have said in months past, Rand should have no one like Jesse Benton, John Tate, Jack Hunter, Matt Collins, or even yourself on his staff, if he is serious about winning. Truth and honesty is a must.
Thing is, you have proven very little. You have a few facts around the edge, but then jump from them to a grand conclusion that isn't substantiated.
I have many facts and can find older posts you may have missed, that may help. Outside of just campaign lying fundraising emails. We have Jesse Benton's press call in May 2012, where he stated once again Ron Paul 2012 had been talking with Mitt Romney's campaign. Doug Wead's admission outside the RNC they agreed in February 2012 to not attack Mitt Romney. The campaign abandoning supporters in the delegate process.
The campaign repeatedly lied to supporters, for months. Simply dragging them along for their money, and wasting their time as well.
You have suspicions. But, you have no rational basis to jump to a conclusion.
Facts, based on actions/non-actions, and actual words of staffers is more than rational. There's not even jumping to conclusions, when it is a fact the campaign lied to supporters for months. When it is a fact based on the vote totals and polling prior to Michigan, that Ron Paul 2012 helped Mitt Romney win Michigan, by attacking Rick Santorum there.
No, Dondero is a lying piece of slime. Slime that you quoted without stating who you were quoting. Cute.
AGAIN, I wasn't the one that made the claim. It was another person. Like you claiming the brochure had a coffin on the front, when it didn't. There claim was at least backed up, even if it was by a "lying piece of slime" according to you, though you were the one that lied about what it actually said.
The point is that they put pictures of coffins in a brochure bearing RP's name before the Iowa primary and sent it to Iowa voters. Many of the veterans WHO HAD BEEN supporting Ron there were offended as all hell.
It also linked to Truther videos. No, they hadn't intended to do that, but they damn sure did. In a brochure that was sent out across the country, including Iowa. Yeah, that was brilliant
The point is, you made a claim it had a coffin on the front. And that it hurt Ron Paul in Iowa. You say you have proof, but provided none. I didn't make that claim. You did.
Do you have proof that putting f'ing COFFINS on their brochure helped Ron in Iowa, you propaganda-filled BS artist?
Again, you made a claim about the brochure, that wasn't true. Propaganda to fit your story? Perhaps. Because I even asked you if you had evidence it hurt Ron, other than from someone in the campaign. But you have provide nothing, and just continue personal attacks.
I didn't "lie". I read the blatherings that you posted, without quoting them as belonging to Dondero. People usually refer to that as plagiarizing, but I haven't accused you of that, because I realize you didn't intend to do that.
You are ignorant of what plagiarism is apparently. That's what Rand was accused of. I sourced my information, with a LINK. From WHERE I FOUND IT. I even put it in "".
When I clicked through and saw it was Mr. Dondero, I saw the link which, as I recall, had something about semitism in it, so I just closed it. I've read many articles by Dondero in the past and didn't feel the need to read another.
So, yeah, if he didn't call Ron an anti-semite, I was wrong. But, that was on oversight. Not a lie, as you claim. It certainly wasn't intended, anymore that your intent was to plagiarize Dondero. Of course I know the only reason you are focusing on this is to draw attention away from what YOU did. Most here would typically be repelled and appalled that someone calling themselves a RP supporter would quote Dondero in an effort to substantiate their own views. Birds of a feather, and all that.
Once again, I didn't plagiarize Dondero. You are ignorant and trying to use that as an attack. I didn't post a link to substantiate my own views, but simply the claim and post of another RPF member in the thread. Somebody else made the claim, not me.
And yes, I even then copied/pasted the direct quote from the article using "" again, where Dondero said Ron Paul WAS NOT AN ANTI-SEMITE after you falsely claimed he said it. You have proven repeatedly over the last several days you don't even read articles when links, and simply jump to conclusions with name-calling.
You quoted it, well kinda, in an effort to substantiate your views. Yeah, we know. lol
How many times are you going to repeat the same lie? Another member made the claim, I went to see if it was true/not true. Found an article with it, and posted it. Quoted it using, "", and provided the link. There is no "kinda" to it. Repeated lies and false claims, like the one you made of brochure having a the coffin on the front to fit your story. I went to look for it myself. Couldn't find one with it on the front. Asked you for it. Now you change it.
Every word out of your mouth is contrived and twisted propaganda. You're pretty good at twisting words, repeating bullshit that others have already answered many times before and spouting half-truths. You came to this forum with an agenda and have done nothing else but try to execute it. I have always seen right through you and you hate it. Too bad.
If knowing the truth is an agenda, and helping members in certain areas is an agenda. So be it. But I do hate your repeated lies, false claims, outright ignorance on purpose, and twisting what people and articles actually do and say. Your charge here, is one against yourself. Not me.
But, considering you find me funny, I wonder why would continuously twist and lie about what is actually said/done, unless you were lying about finding me funny in your latest negative rep as well:
Yes, much like the RP race car was for raising money to advertise Ron Paul. lolol
So, you had a problem with the RP race car also? Did it not exist, and not advertise Ron Paul's name? If not, that could be a problem if that's what funds were being stated they were needed for. Like a campaign lying to supporters for months, about why they needed funds. About a fake strategy. And the sort. So yeah, if the RP race car didn't exist, and didn't advertise Ron Paul's name/message as it was stated it would, that is a problem.
Mistakes were certainly made. Romney's campaign made quite a few too. But, that doesn't prove jack poo. All you still have are suppositions.
I didn't support Mitt Romney. Didn't endorse him. Didn't defend an endorsement of him. Didn't vote for him. So, I don't really care if his campaign made mistakes, other than for the purpose of seeing if we could learn from them. But, there is also difference between a mistake, and repeatedly lying to supporters.
