Ron Paul Channel Monthly Fee...

[Matt Collins]

Lying about the campaign, and trying to defend its lies throughout.

Not at all, I haven't lied about anything ever. You on the other hand continue to perpetuate half-truths constantly. Why are you even here if you're only going to troll

 

[jjdoyle]

Not at all, I haven't lied about anything ever. You on the other hand continue to perpetuate half-truths constantly. Why are you even here if you're only going to troll

Actually, yeah, you have repeatedly lied when you said the campaign still needed to raise funds in April and May, because there were still conventions happening and the RNC. That is a direct contradiction of the campaign's funds as reported to the FEC. You keep lying and telling people the campaign needed more funds, but the campaign ended with more than a million on hand. They weren't spending the money on helping a brokered convention happen, so they didn't need more.

As of last September the beginning of last September, they had $2+ million on hand, and paid out over $40K in salaries in September 2012. Paid out over $20K in apparent salaries in October 2012, I believe. Then paid out over apparently $5K in salaries in DECEMBER 2012. Paid $4,734.93 for a "CATERING COST"! Ohhhh, and here we go...paid out $30.593.09 for "CONSULTING-LEGAL". IN DECEMBER 2012.

I bring facts, you bring name-calling because you can't answer for the sham that you participated in. The fact you are trying to defend a campaign for repeatedly lying to supporters is beyond me, but perhaps politics is your calling.

The reason I'm here? Because there are some liberty minded people around here apparently, some even that want to help get liberty minded candidates elected. Like Greg Brannon, Lee Bright, and even Matt Bevin. I'm also here to provide truth where necessary, and call a spade a spade, when necessary.

There is absolutely no reason to be defending a campaign that was actively lying to supporters, just to get more funds. NONE.

As people that don't like corruption and waste in their government, we shouldn't expect it from our candidates' campaigns either, much less excuse and defend it.

Why are you here? To call people names when you can't answer their questions?

 

[KingNothing]

Yeah, how dare people who work their ass off for something not give away the end product for free?

Almost every popular thing on the internet is free, and presented by people who work their ass off.

Ron is behind the eight-ball here.

 

[KingNothing]

1. Make it free.
2. Encourage viewers to spread the show in any way they can.
3. Ask for donations at the end of each episode.
4. Don't insult your potential audience. (That's for you, Daniel McAdams)
5. Profit.

Agreed.

I am by no means a cheap person, but when you look at the amazing things that people like Joe Rogan, Marc Maron, Bill Burr, Adam Carolla, etc are able to do on the internet by putting out a free product that reaches a TON of people, and making money off advertisers, you realize that the Paul camp is just thinking in 2003 terms, not 2013 terms.

 

[KingNothing]

"Do people think that television studios and equipment and producers and researchers, etc. grow on trees? That a news source not beholden to the usual military industrial complex related big advertisers should be sustained by pixie dust somehow?"


That just shows a wanton disregard for the network's potential and a stubborn arrogance that will ultimately doom it.

 

[Matt Collins]

Actually, yeah, you have repeatedly lied when you said the campaign still needed to raise funds in April and May, because there were still conventions happening and the RNC.

Hello, there were still operating expenses. But since you have never run a campaign you obviously don't know what you're talking about.

They weren't spending the money on helping a brokered convention happen, so they didn't need more.

Did the Campaign ever say anything about a brokered Convention?

As of last September the beginning of last September, they had $2+ million on hand, and paid out over $40K in salaries in September 2012.

Yeah, if they have just 15 people working for them, which I think they had more at that point, then you have to pay salary. Nothing to see here.

Paid out over $20K in apparent salaries in October 2012, I believe. Then paid out over apparently $5K in salaries in DECEMBER 2012.

Again, your ignorance of running a campaign is showing through. You can't just flip off a switch, there are lots of loose ends that have to be tied up, you have to draw down. A multi-million dollar organization was built in less than a year, that's a lot of paperwork, and some assets were accumulated.

 

[ClydeCoulter]

Instead I've been called a "moocher" by the asshole that calls himself the Executive of RPI. Apparently I've made a mistake in donating. Ignoring me would have made more sense. Instead I've been inspired to never donate again to such a cause. They are nothing but crooks.

I hate it when there is no comment section.

Moochers? Like many have said, who, that is a non-RP supporter, is going to pay to see stuff they don't agree with?

 

[jjdoyle]

Hello, there were still operating expenses. But since you have never run a campaign you obviously don't know what you're talking about.

Did the Campaign ever say anything about a brokered Convention?

Yeah, if they have just 15 people working for them, which I think they had more at that point, then you have to pay salary. Nothing to see here.

Again, your ignorance of running a campaign is showing through. You can't just flip off a switch, there are lots of loose ends that have to be tied up, you have to draw down. A multi-million dollar organization was built in less than a year, that's a lot of paperwork, and some assets were accumulated.

Did the campaign ever say anything about a brokered convention? You can't be serious.

It's not about flipping a switch and cutting it off, it's about the fact they kept asking for more money when they didn't need the funds and didn't use the funds they already had to win and try for a brokered convention. It's about them lying to supporters throughout the entire campaign, continuously, while asking for MORE, MORE, MORE.

Again, calling someone ignorant on something, when they have provided you facts and proof the campaign didn't need the funds YOU claimed they continued to need? Matt Collins can't answer legitimate questions, so he resorts to calling people ignorant, dense, trolls, and slow.

If the campaign had agreed to not attack Mitt Romney, and make sure there was no brokered convention because Rand got a speaking slot, there was no need for 15 staffers in September. Then again, I guess they were busy making sure Ron Paul delegates behaved at the RNC and didn't cause an uproar for King Romney.

Let's just say the campaign never said the word "brokered", to give your complete ignorance on this the benefit of the doubt. Then why in the WORLD would you post this in another thread, where the GUY IN THE VIDEO YOU POSTED praises John Tate and Jesse Benton for the supposed delegate strategy? He spends nearly the entire video talking about the supposed delegate strategy and telling those that paid attention to the situations last year, basically nothing new.

SEE THIS video for answers for the inside scoop on what happened at the end of the Campaign:

Your complete ignorance as a campaign staffer with supposed "knowledge"(?!), while continuously talking down to those that provide proof and have proof of outright lying, is ASTONISHING. Is this how dishonest the campaign really was throughout? I mean, I know the evidence is stacked up. But, people like you really sitting on staff, thinking, "How can we lie to supporters, to keep money coming in?" I don't know what else explains it.

Playing smoke and mirrors, changing topics as fast as you can, continuing your lies and defense of lies from Ron Paul 2012. It's amazing you're trying to call somebody ignorant, when you have no clue apparently what even happened with the campaign and from the campaign. Once the campaign agreed to not attack Mitt Romney, they agreed to not go for a brokered convention. They should have closed shop, immediately. They didn't need a dime after that, for ANYTHING. They had millions on hand, and no debt.

Ron Paul 2012 spent $4K on CATERING in December 2012, and has spent $17,500.00 since April this year on "CONSULTING-POLITICAL STRATEGY". Two excellent examples of continuing to waste donations from supporters who gave much, and then some when asked.

 

[V3n]

The unused campaign money doesn't just disappear into a vacuum, and it would be illegal for Ron Paul to use it for his own personal benefit. It goes to charities, local and state campaigns, future campaigns and the like. If Ron Paul asked me to donate to his campaign TODAY, I'd still donate, and have faith he would be a good steward of it!

 

[angelatc]

The unused campaign money doesn't just disappear into a vacuum, and it would be illegal for Ron Paul to use it for his own personal benefit. It goes to charities, local and state campaigns, future campaigns and the like. If Ron Paul asked me to donate to his campaign TODAY, I'd still donate, and have faith he would be a good steward of it!

he can give it to one of his non profits.

 

[jjdoyle]

The unused campaign money doesn't just disappear into a vacuum, and it would be illegal for Ron Paul to use it for his own personal benefit. It goes to charities, local and state campaigns, future campaigns and the like. If Ron Paul asked me to donate to his campaign TODAY, I'd still donate, and have faith he would be a good steward of it!

Ummmm, I'm not sure if you can show me Ron Paul 2012 has donated a dime to a charity, or local and state campaigns, but I would appreciate it if you can. I have looked through most of the financial statements since September last year, and don't recall any being given to charity, or local and state campaigns. I wouldn't doubt they're sitting on it to transfer to Rand Paul 2016, or his PAC. None of the emails said they wanted the money for Rand in 2016.

Also, nobody is saying the money would disappear in a vacuum. What many have and are asking, is that when Ron Paul 2012 agreed to help Mitt Romney win the nomination, why did they continue to ask for more funds? They had no debt, and millions on hand. Yet, they continued to send out campaign emails acting like they were going for a brokered convention. Trash talking Mitt Romney in campaign emails, but never producing one single Mitt Romney only attack ad. They had no need for more funds in April and May, even February and March. They helped Mitt Romney seal the nomination when they helped him win in Michigan, against Rick Santorum. That was at the end of February.

But, I'm guessing based on your comment, that you are a prime example of who Ron Paul Channel is aimed, right?

 

[V3n]

http://www.factcheck.org/2008/02/leftover-campaign-funds/

Candidates do sometimes end up with surplus funds, though, particularly if they’re incumbent members of Congress who decide not to run for another term. State and local governments have their own rules, but those running for federal office — including presidential candidates — must abide by strict FEC guidelines when it comes to their extra campaign money. They can donate an unlimited amount to a charity or political party. They can also, within limits, make contributions directly to other candidates. A campaign committee can give up to $2000 per election to each candidate. If the committee is converted into a political action committee, the limit jumps to $5000 – but to be established as a PAC, the committee would have to be in existence for six months, receive contributions from 50 donors, and make contributions to five recipients.

It's the law.

If they're asking for more funds, then they have good use for it. Just because you can't find it, doesn't mean they didn't put it to good use. If you wanted an itemized list of where your contribution is to go towards, you should have asked for one before donating. A gift is a gift - when you lend money to your friends, are do you immediately start to micromanage what they spend it on?

If they put the Channel on Roku I might spring for it, yeah.

 

[ctiger2]

The Judge is on the new one just released today.

 

[jjdoyle]

http://www.factcheck.org/2008/02/leftover-campaign-funds/



It's the law.

If they're asking for more funds, then they have good use for it. Just because you can't find it, doesn't mean they didn't put it to good use. If you wanted an itemized list of where your contribution is to go towards, you should have asked for one before donating. A gift is a gift - when you lend money to your friends, are do you immediately start to micromanage what they spend it on?

If they put the Channel on Roku I might spring for it, yeah.

You're missing my point. Ron Paul 2012 currently has over a million dollars cash on hand. The itemized deductions show where the money goes. There has not been a charity donation in any of the financial reports from last September, when they have over $2 million on hand, that I have seen. Yes, I have looked at the itemized deductions.

If "a friend" comes to me, and asks me for money to get his car repaired, and I give it to him, I expect him to fix his car. If a friend comes to me, telling me he needs more money for the car repair, then I see him out with a new BBQ and catering a party, I would ask for my money back. If he spent the money on something else or not at all and I discovered his car didn't even need repairing, while telling me in writing the money was for a car repair, I would take him to small claims court, because "a friend" shouldn't lie.

 

[Occam's Banana]

Like many have said, who, that is a non-RP supporter, is going to pay to see stuff they don't agree with?

No one. Why should they? Why should people who do not support Glenn Beck pay to see "Glenn Beck stuff" they don't agree with?

"Non-RP supporters" does not appear to be the audience they are trying to reach. As McAdams said (emphasis added).

For most of us, the mainstream media — be it print or broadcast — just does not work. We struggle to get informed and keep informed and it is mind-numbing to watch and read the dumbed-down pablum fed to the masses. Like me, millions are just turning it all off. So this was made for us.

The Ron Paul Channel (RPC) is an attempt to create a source for news and opinion - as an alternative to the MSM - specifically designed to appeal to people who already support and agree with Ron Paul. IOW: RPC is NOT an "outreach" effort. So those complaining that the subscription "paywall" aspect will hinder efforts to disseminate RPC content are completely missing the point. RPC material isn't meant to be disseminated for "evangelization" purposes. That's not what RPC is trying to do here.

Given the clearly stated purpose of the RPC, there is nothing inherently "wrong" with how they are going about things. It may succeed. It may fail. They are doing A in order to achieve B - so it isn't really fair to criticize them for not doing C in order to achieve D. You can argue that doing A isn't the best way of achieving B. Or you can wish that they were trying to achieve D rather than B. But complaining that they aren't doing C when they are not trying to achieve D just doesn't make sense.

 

[V3n]

You're missing my point. Ron Paul 2012 currently has over a million dollars cash on hand. The itemized deductions show where the money goes. There has not been a charity donation in any of the financial reports from last September, when they have over $2 million on hand, that I have seen. Yes, I have looked at the itemized deductions.

If "a friend" comes to me, and asks me for money to get his car repaired, and I give it to him, I expect him to fix his car. If a friend comes to me, telling me he needs more money for the car repair, then I see him out with a new BBQ and catering a party, I would ask for my money back. If he spent the money on something else or not at all and I discovered his car didn't even need repairing, while telling me in writing the money was for a car repair, I would take him to small claims court, because "a friend" shouldn't lie.

Wow. Take a friend to court over borrowed money. Clearly we have very different opinions on donating/lending/giving (even "friendship"). Pretty much polar-opposite. I don't see much point in carrying this further since we're about as distant as possible on the subject. See you around the boards - I hope we can find common ground elsewhere in the pursuit of Liberty. (plus I'm signing off for the night anyway)

 

[July]

No one. Why should they? Why should people who do not support Glenn Beck pay to see "Glenn Beck stuff" they don't agree with?

"Non-RP supporters" does not appear to be the audience they are trying to reach. As McAdams said (emphasis added).



The Ron Paul Channel (RPC) is an attempt to create a source for news and opinion - as an alternative to the MSM - specifically designed to appeal to people who already support and agree with Ron Paul. IOW: RPC is NOT an "outreach" effort. So those complaining that the subscription "paywall" aspect will hinder efforts to disseminate RPC content are completely missing the point. RPC material isn't meant to be disseminated for "evangelization" purposes. That's not what RPC is trying to do here.

Given the clearly stated purpose of the RPC, there is nothing inherently "wrong" with how they are going about things. It may succeed. It may fail. They are doing A in order to achieve B - so it isn't really fair to criticize them for not doing C in order to achieve D. You can argue that doing A isn't the best way of achieving B. Or you can wish that they were trying to achieve D rather than B. But complaining that they aren't doing C when they are not trying to achieve D just doesn't make sense.

Indeed. I don't know much about marketing these sorts of projects, but all through the campaign people were complaing about the MSM and wishing there were alternative news/opinion outlets from a liberty perpsective to cater to the topics we would like to see. I think that's what this is supposed to be. We are the target audience.

I agree with others though that at $10 I'd like to see the channel eventually branch out to host other talent, personalities, shows, etc. Granted I understand that doesn't happen over night immediately at launch, so I'm gonna wait and see how it develops, and I hope it will be successful. He could have gone the free/YouTube route, but then again maybe not if he is also looking to hire additional talent, guests, etc. That doesn't come free. Plus, maybe maintaining independence from YouTube is a good idea? Besides, these days on the Internet, they had to have known the episodes would leak anyway.

As for Ben Swann, I see his project has gotten some of the same complaints, about that it should be free, etc. He went with the donation route, so we can see this is clearly not an easy solution either.

 

[evilfunnystuff]

Indeed. I don't know much about marketing these sorts of projects, but all through the campaign people were complaing about the MSM and wishing there were alternative news/opinion outlets from a liberty perpsective to cater to the topics we would like to see.

We wanted that so those not already on board with us could see it, those of us wanting a freedom media outlet already know how to find the those stories, views, and opinions.

 

[RonPaulMall]

Agreed.

I am by no means a cheap person, but when you look at the amazing things that people like Joe Rogan, Marc Maron, Bill Burr, Adam Carolla, etc are able to do on the internet by putting out a free product that reaches a TON of people, and making money off advertisers, you realize that the Paul camp is just thinking in 2003 terms, not 2013 terms.

But there is another issue at work here. Joe Rogan and Adam Carolla are incredibly talented entertainment personalities. They are good interviewers. They are great speakers. They are funny. Ron Paul is none of those things. Nobody in their right might would pick Ron Paul to host a TV show. He's terrible at it. Ron Paul's only virtue is the fact that he's Ron Paul. This show is more about monetizing the cult of Ron Paul, not launching a viable libertarian themed online news program. If the latter were truly the goal, they might use Ron Paul's name for publicity and trot him out now and again to prove his affiliation with the show, but they wouldn't have him be the host. That job would go to somebody who actually has some skill in the field. And once you put together a viable format, we could get in to the debate about what would be the best distribution method. But like I said, that isn't what is going on here. This is about cashing in on the Ron Paul cult, and so Ron Paul being the voice of the show and a subscription based model targeting only the hardest of hard core fans makes sense for what they are trying to be. The only thing I wonder about is if they are being a bit optimistic about how much blood they can squeeze from that stone. 20 employees is a hell of a lot of overhead for what they are doing.

 

[GregSarnowski]

The thing about Ron Paul, which I love him for, is that I already know pretty much his exact position on all the issues. I don't see something in the news and think "I wonder what Ron Paul thinks about this" because I already know he would take the consistent principled approach. So for me this show is kind of redundant in that regard, even if it were free.