Ron Paul campaign statement concerning Reince Priebus and RNC Rule 11

Nice smoke and mirrors. The issue is not if the fund was set up, the issue is that it is being USED to support one candidate when that candidate does not have the nomination yet. That's where the problem is.

Now if they want to give equal funding to Paul to run Paul vs Obama ads - that's a different story entirely.

-t
 
Seems people have been forgetting the purpose of this campaign.
Iv seen alot of people saying lately stuff like, forget the campaign go grassroots.

Don't you think all that oppose us are dying for the day where our assembly for Ron Paul becomes divided? The campaign is going to do what it chooses to do, our focus is to push our guy and get him in office. If the Ron Paul campaign goes too far out of your belief system, you have full freedom and rights to withdraw your trust in this movement, if you choose to do that...don't cause a rift on your way out.



The last thing we need is Ron Paul supporters fighting between campaign and grassroots, people need to remember we are here for Dr.Paul.
 
Seems people have been forgetting the purpose of this campaign.
Iv seen alot of people saying lately stuff like, forget the campaign go grassroots.

Don't you think all that oppose us are dying for the day where our assembly for Ron Paul becomes divided? The campaign is going to do what it chooses to do, our focus is to push our guy and get him in office. If the Ron Paul campaign goes too far out of your belief system, you have full freedom and rights to withdraw your trust in this movement, if you choose to do that...don't cause a rift on your way out.



The last thing we need is Ron Paul supporters fighting between campaign and grassroots, people need to remember we are here for Dr.Paul.

No fight is needed. The grassroots is required to break away if it comes down to a fight between Ron Paul 2012 and Rand Paul 2016.

The grassroots exists to push for Ron in 2012.
 
No fight is needed. The grassroots is required to break away if it comes down to a fight between Ron Paul 2012 and Rand Paul 2016.

The grassroots exists to push for Ron in 2012.

If Rand doesn't deliver his state for Ron, I don't think alot grassroots will follow him later ...
 
So what's the problem?

RNC collects additional money with both campaigns' blessings and is going to use this money to help the nominee.
 
Wouldn't this allow the RNC to suck up donations from big banks and the military industrial complex, etc... early on while they still believe that Romney is going to be the nominee? Then if our delegate strategy pays off in the end and Ron gets the nomination, he'll be able to use all these funds against Obama, funds that would have never originally been donated to him by these institutions had they known that Paul was going to be the nominee. If so, I think this is a smart move. They're using Romney's inevitability as a way to amass funding for a campaign against Obama. If all goes well, Romney will never get a chance to use that money and we won't have to rely solely on grassroots donations anymore. We'll have a huge warchest provided by the establishment to take down Obama. It's brilliant!
 
Last edited:
Wouldn't this allow the RNC to suck up donations from big banks and the military industrial complex, etc... early on while they still believe that Romney is going to be the nominee? Then if our delegate strategy pays off in the end and Ron gets the nomination, he'll be able to use all these funds against Obama, funds that would have never originally been donated to him by these institutions had they known that Paul was going to be the nominee. If so, I think this is a smart move. They're using Romney's inevitability as a way to amass funding for a campaign against Obama. If all goes well, Romney will never get a chance to use that money and we won't have to rely solely on grassroots donations anymore. We'll have a huge warchest provided by the establishment to take down Obama. It's brilliant!

Indeed, I have seen no proof that Romney is directly benefiting from this "Victory fund" at Ron Paul's expense. Please correct me if I'm wrong on this though.
 
Wouldn't this allow the RNC to suck up donations from big banks and the military industrial complex, etc... early on while they still believe that Romney is going to be the nominee? Then if our delegate strategy pays off in the end and Ron gets the nomination, he'll be able to use all these funds against Obama, funds that would have never originally been donated to him by these institutions had they known that Paul was going to be the nominee. If so, I think this is a smart move. They're using Romney's inevitability as a way to amass funding for a campaign against Obama. If all goes well, Romney will never get a chance to use that money and we won't have to rely solely on grassroots donations anymore. We'll have a huge warchest provided by the establishment to take down Obama. It's brilliant!

Excellent point.
 
If Rand doesn't deliver his state for Ron, I don't think alot grassroots will follow him later ...

Rand cannot deliver a state for Ron. The vast majority of the Republican voters in KY very likely don't like Ron Paul. We all know this. It is widely known by anyone who has looked into it. I don't even understand why you brought this up.
 
Wouldn't this allow the RNC to suck up donations from big banks and the military industrial complex, etc... early on while they still believe that Romney is going to be the nominee? Then if our delegate strategy pays off in the end and Ron gets the nomination, he'll be able to use all these funds against Obama, funds that would have never originally been donated to him by these institutions had they known that Paul was going to be the nominee. If so, I think this is a smart move. They're using Romney's inevitability as a way to amass funding for a campaign against Obama. If all goes well, Romney will never get a chance to use that money and we won't have to rely solely on grassroots donations anymore. We'll have a huge warchest provided by the establishment to take down Obama. It's brilliant!

smart analysis.
 
Nice smoke and mirrors. The issue is not if the fund was set up, the issue is that it is being USED to support one candidate when that candidate does not have the nomination yet. That's where the problem is.

Now if they want to give equal funding to Paul to run Paul vs Obama ads - that's a different story entirely.

-t



Yeah I just had to bump this thread/reply, because half the people don't seem to understand what's going on. The RNC is essentially officially endorsing that Romney guy, by name... not Paul at all... and all with the encouragement of the Paul campaign... while that same Paul campaign asks us to send them money to beat that guy who's name... is Romney.

All these comments about how we should keep our heads down and just not worry about it, or how this is all great because Paul secretly knows he'll get the nomination and thereby sneak away money from unsuspecting banks (which by the way would be dishonest/immoral if it were true, which it's not, because Paul's chance of nomination, EVEN IF ROMNEY HAD A SCANDAL TOMORROW AND HAD TO DROP OUT, leaving Paul in 1st place currently, would STILL be like 1 in 100), or how this is fine because we have to sacrafice Ron Paul's total delegate footprint in this election in order to create a more friendly environment in the establishment in 2016 for Rand Paul (of all people)... all these comments are sincerely giving me the heebie jeebies. It's all a little twilight zoneish.

Ron has always said his goal was to get the maximum number of delegates... in THIS election. It's under those clearly stated conditions that they accept donations. If that's not the plan anymore, then they at least need to be honest with the Paul supporters and explicitly say it, and stop taking money from gullible freedom fighters. While they're at it, they might want to not wait 3 weeks to say whether or not they're going to support the OK outdoor convention, and their legal reasoning one way or the other.

It's all about honesty. Selling your soul may be self-destructive, but it's still honest capitilism. :) Misrepresentation however, is just fraud. :(
 
Last edited:
Because he is a plant and is about himself (and whatever interests support him). About time people wake up to what I've known for four years.

i thought something similar to this awhile back..but now i just think it may be that he prob talks a good game and got the job, but he's out of his league as far as a presidential campaign leader.... he married into the Paul family, and is probably passionate, but he's just a knucklehead as far as I'm concerned
 
Wouldn't this allow the RNC to suck up donations from big banks and the military industrial complex, etc... early on while they still believe that Romney is going to be the nominee? Then if our delegate strategy pays off in the end and Ron gets the nomination, he'll be able to use all these funds against Obama, funds that would have never originally been donated to him by these institutions had they known that Paul was going to be the nominee. If so, I think this is a smart move. They're using Romney's inevitability as a way to amass funding for a campaign against Obama. If all goes well, Romney will never get a chance to use that money and we won't have to rely solely on grassroots donations anymore. We'll have a huge warchest provided by the establishment to take down Obama. It's brilliant!

On that note, look at how the MSM is already starting to push Obama and point out flaws in Romney for the general election. This may play into our favor when we win the nomination
 
"If Rand doesn't deliver his state for Ron, I don't think alot grassroots will follow him later ... "

That's a good point although one wonders if they really want the grassroots support
 
Priebus-MTP.jpg


RNC’s Reince Priebus: ‘For Those People That [Gay Marriage] Is Their Issue, They Have A Clear Choice’
by Noah Rothman | 4:59 pm, May 13th, 2012

I’m not sure if it’s going to be a defining issue, but clearly for people in America – where gay marriage is their number one issue, we clearly have two candidates with two different views. On one hand, you’ve got Barack Obama who is now, I guess, going to promote and perhaps crusade for this issue. And you have Mitt Romney who’s been consistent and I think in line with most Americans – which is that marriage ought to be defined between one man and one woman. So, for those people that this is their issue, they have a clear choice.

Video and article here... http://www.mediaite.com/tv/reince-priebus-on-mtp-for-those-people-that-gay-marriage-is-their-issue-they-have-a-clear-choice/
 
And this...but I think Bradley is toast.

Just curious. I noticed Glen got 13% in the primary. Would it not have been a wise choice to run to reclaim his House seat in 2012, instead of going for senate? Just wondering.
 
Last edited:
Just curious. I noticed Glen got 13% in the primary. Would it not have been a wise choice to run to reclaim his House seat in 2012, instead of going for senate? Just wondering.

All the more reason why after all the dust settles, RP supporters either need to ally with local groups that are already in place, or organize at the local and state level. While we do have an enthusiastic grassroots, we are poorly organized. The Tea Party crowd (yeah I know we started all that) has done a far better job at organizing locally than RP supporters have. Just for comparison the local Tea Party group here has regular meetings at a local establishment , while the RP meetup group is all virtual.
 
Back
Top