Rand Says: Any potential presidential campaign would include Jesse Benton

Matt Collins said:
Compare where Ron was polling this time in 2011 to where Rand is now polling. But of course that doesn't fit your lame defeatist narrative.
Click to expand...
This doesn't dispute what I said at all. You only read and responded to the first line and did nothing to address the rest of my post...the real reason for the increase in Rand's poll numbers. Still doesn't mean Ron's base is increasing. Those new people still can't face the truth because they're not hearing it.
 
Last edited:
cajuncocoa said:
Those new people still can't face the truth because they're not hearing it.
Click to expand...
And here is the crux of the problem... you want to change people's minds... that is not what how politics works.... gaining political power has nothing to do with changing people's minds. You have to identify and mobilize people that already agree with you, or who are likely to agree with you. When you change your mindset, things will become much more clear.


And you can't change anything about the government until you posses political power.
 
Matt Collins said:
And here is the crux of the problem... you want to change people's minds... that is not what how politics works.... gaining political power has nothing to do with changing people's minds. You have to identify and mobilize people that already agree with you, or who are likely to agree with you. When you change your mindset, things will become much more clear.


And you can't change anything about the government until you posses political power.
Click to expand...
It's like arguing whether the chicken or the egg came first. To my way of thinking, if you haven't educated voters, the government will keep doing the same things over and over again. It's bigger than one man. If we continued to educate them, we could eventually make a bigger difference in Congress and the Senate (please don't tell me about people like Bentivolio and DeMint).

The Congress we have, even if/when Rand is elected, will still put the same stupid bills on his desk...and he will sign them so he can be re-elected in 2020. And in 2024, he will leave office doing for Liberty Republicans what Ronald Reagan did for conservative Republicans 36 years prior...they will feel good for a long time without much to show for it.
 
cajuncocoa said:
It's like arguing whether the chicken or the egg came first. To my way of thinking, if you haven't educated voters, the government will keep doing the same things over and over again.
Click to expand...
No it's not, you're wrong and factually incorrect.

You only need to mobilize 3-6% of the population in most cases to vote for/against a candidate in order to win. The French, American, Russian, and German revolutions only came about with about 3-6% of the population*. 3% can control the government if they are smart about it. You need to understand that and get away from your fantasy land of "Educating everyone" because that is the long road to accomplishing nothing.

Been there, done that, it doesn't work. No one who is successful takes the "education route" because it simply is ineffective.

cajuncocoa said:
It's bigger than one man. If we continued to educate them, we could eventually make a bigger difference in Congress and the Senate (please don't tell me about people like Bentivolio and DeMint).
Click to expand...
Uh no.... it doesn't matter how many people rant and rave and bitch and moan... it matters how many people put pressure on the politicians... real pressure... like causing them to possibly lose an election.



cajuncocoa said:
The Congress we have, even if/when Rand is elected, will still put the same stupid bills on his desk...and he will sign them so he can be re-elected in 2020. And in 2024, he will leave office doing for Liberty Republicans what Ronald Reagan did for conservative Republicans 36 years prior...they will feel good for a long time without much to show for it.
Click to expand...
Perhaps, and this is a fear I have as well. But, who would you rather have at the helm of the government, Rand or Jeb?



*I obviously don't support the Nazis, Bolsheviks, etc but strategy is ideologically neutral and effectiveness has nothing to do with who is using those tactics.
 
Last edited:
Matt Collins said:
You only need to mobilize 3-6% of the population in most cases to vote for/against a candidate in order to win. The French, American, Russian, and German revolutions only came about with about 3-6% of the population*. 3% can control the government if they are smart about it. You need to understand that and get away from your fantasy land of "Educating everyone" because that is the long road to accomplishing nothing.
Click to expand...

As opposed to what the French, American, and Russian revolutions accomplished. Which was what again?
 
Matt Collins said:
No it's not, you're wrong and factually incorrect.

You only need to mobilize 3-6% of the population in most cases to vote for/against a candidate in order to win. The French, American, Russian, and German revolutions only came about with about 3-6% of the population*. 3% can control the government if they are smart about it. You need to understand that and get away from your fantasy land of "Educating everyone" because that is the long road to accomplishing nothing.

Been there, done that, it doesn't work. No one who is successful takes the "education route" because it simply is ineffective.

Uh no.... it doesn't matter how many people rant and rave and bitch and moan... it matters how many people put pressure on the politicians... real pressure... like causing them to possibly lose an election.



Perhaps, and this is a fear I have as well. But, who would you rather have at the helm of the government, Rand or Jeb?



*I obviously don't support the Nazis, Bolsheviks, etc but strategy is ideologically neutral and effectiveness has nothing to do with who is using those tactics.
Click to expand...
You keep talking about winning elections, but I'm talking about making real change in policy. They're not the same.

You may not be able to change policy without winning an election, but you CAN win an election and still change nothing. That's what we'll get when the population is still under the spell of Limbaugh, Hannity, and Fox News.
 
Matt Collins said:
No it's not, you're wrong and factually incorrect.

You only need to mobilize 3-6% of the population in most cases to vote for/against a candidate in order to win. The French, American, Russian, and German revolutions only came about with about 3-6% of the population*. 3% can control the government if they are smart about it. You need to understand that and get away from your fantasy land of "Educating everyone" because that is the long road to accomplishing nothing.
Click to expand...

You are probably right if you are talking about a violent overthrow, as in all of your examples. Trying to do it peacefully, you need much more than 3% of the idiot population.
 
The Gold Standard said:
You are probably right if you are talking about a violent overthrow, as in all of your examples. Trying to do it peacefully, you need much more than 3% of the idiot population.
Click to expand...
No, that is not correct. In a contested election only about 3-6% determine the outcome.
 
cajuncocoa said:
You keep talking about winning elections, but I'm talking about making real change in policy. They're not the same.
Click to expand...
Tying election season to legislative season is the trick. If there is a price at the ballot box for bad behavior then policy gets changed. That's my point.



cajuncocoa said:
You may not be able to change policy without winning an election, but you CAN win an election and still change nothing. That's what we'll get when the population is still under the spell of Limbaugh, Hannity, and Fox News.
Click to expand...
I agree, but as stated, it only takes 3-6% to change the outcome of a contested election in most cases.
 
cajuncocoa said:
You keep talking about winning elections, but I'm talking about making real change in policy. They're not the same.

You may not be able to change policy without winning an election, but you CAN win an election and still change nothing. That's what we'll get when the population is still under the spell of Limbaugh, Hannity, and Fox News.
Click to expand...

...

If 2016 becomes a national security election, as many campaign officials predict, it won't be difficult to paint Paul as out of touch. "As you look at the potential candidates, there's a pretty good consensus among them. The only outlier, really, is Rand Paul," says Elliott Abrams, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations who was a top adviser to Presidents Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush. "There's no difference between most of these guys, except for Rand Paul."
Click to expand...

http://www.nationaljournal.com/magazine/isolated-and-alone-20150227
 
Brett85 said:
...

If 2016 becomes a national security election, as many campaign officials predict, it won't be difficult to paint Paul as out of touch. "As you look at the potential candidates, there's a pretty good consensus among them. The only outlier, really, is Rand Paul," says Elliott Abrams, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations who was a top adviser to Presidents Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush. "There's no difference between most of these guys, except for Rand Paul."
Click to expand...
http://www.nationaljournal.com/magazine/isolated-and-alone-20150227
Click to expand...

And not having been educated on how the establishment plays the national security game, Boobus is going to fall for it again when they pull out their big guns against Rand as 2016 draws nearer. If they want to make 2016 a "national security election" you can bet they will start ratcheting up the fear factor by the end of this year. Not being any more wise to the ways Fox News and CNN play him for a fool every time the establishment wants a neocon in office, Boobus will march to the polls to nominate Ted Cruz or some other GOP "Israel firster" once again.
 
I can't believe this thread is still going on. Rand has cast his lot with Benton. Either Benton will get indicted, in which case the Rand Paul presidential campaign will spontaneously implode, or he won't and maybe Rand kind of has a shot. As for educational campaign versus political campaign, you frankly can't have one without the other and neither will ever be perfect. There would be no Rand Paul campaign without first there being a critical mass of people educated to the fact that the way our government is run is totally and completely corrupt.
 
cajuncocoa said:
And not having been educated on how the establishment plays the national security game, Boobus is going to fall for it again when they pull out their big guns against Rand as 2016 draws nearer. If they want to make 2016 a "national security election" you can bet they will start ratcheting up the fear factor by the end of this year. Not being any more wise to the ways Fox News and CNN play him for a fool every time the establishment wants a neocon in office, Boobus will march to the polls to nominate Ted Cruz or some other GOP "Israel firster" once again.
Click to expand...
Incorrect... Ron came close to getting the popular vote in Iowa on caucus night... within 3%.... a bit of tweaking and maybe he could've won it outright. It doesn't take a majority, it takes a very dedicated minority to win these things.
 
Matt Collins said:
Incorrect... Ron came close to getting the popular vote in Iowa on caucus night... within 3%.... a bit of tweaking and maybe he could've won it outright. It doesn't take a majority, it takes a very dedicated minority to win these things.
Click to expand...
Matt, you keep moving the goalposts to suit your needs. You started out talking about winning the election; now you're talking about Iowa....make that almost winning Iowa. :rolleyes:
 
Matt Collins said:
Incorrect... Ron came close to getting the popular vote in Iowa on caucus night... within 3%.... a bit of tweaking and maybe he could've won it outright. It doesn't take a majority, it takes a very dedicated minority to win these things.
Click to expand...

And that makes it a good idea to piss on Ron Paul grassroots crazy conspiracy kooks every chance you get? Take the one group that if played right would back Rand 100%. Brilliant. :rolleyes:
 
phill4paul said:
And that makes it a good idea to piss on Ron Paul grassroots crazy conspiracy kooks every chance you get? Take the one group that if played right would back Rand 100%. Brilliant. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
I have many friends who believe in good conspiracies (and honestly, who doesn't love imagining a good conspiracy?). But the trick is to either keep it to yourself, or at the very minimum not put it forth in a way that is toxic to one's candidate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top