Too many liberty people have a defeatist attitude:

[LibertyEagle]

I will wait for them all to be destroyed.
Call that defeatist if you will. I want something better.

We all want something better, but "waiting" for it to happen and not engaging is extremely unlikely to get you what you want.

 

[pcosmar]

We all want something better, but "waiting" for it to happen and not engaging is extremely unlikely to get you what you want.

It is already written. It is a done deal. And ultimately what "I want" is irrelevant.

I had supported Ron because he gave me hope. That hope was that we could disengage from the Middle East voluntarily.
That hope has ended.

The events coming to the Middle East are prerecorded.
The United States of America has no place in those events. NONE.
There are to my understanding two ways that this would come about,, either by disengaging voluntarily (my hope in supporting Ron) or we will be removed from the picture.

We will be removed. One way or another. The US will cease to be a player. It is irrelevant.

 

[cajuncocoa]

Actually, Ron Paul supporters did ban together, and tried to show that political clout to the establishment in 2012. Only, they didn't realize the campaign they were working to support, was actively working to support Mitt Romney. Which is why some of them were tossed under the Mitt Romney bus.

And had Ron Paul 2012 not remained in the race after agreeing to attack Mitt Romney, how many more millions could have been directed to other candidates/campaigns? About $20 million? So, 5-10 Senators? Or, 20-40 Congressmen?

The reason Ron Paul supporters aren't electing more, is because they aren't your average Mitt Romney supporters overflowing with cash. They saved up, delayed car repairs, ate Ramen noodles, etc., to donate to a campaign that had bigger plans than actually winning after they agreed to help Mitt Romney win the nomination.

Oh, and it doesn't matter if we storm the Bastille and have a campaign/candidate serious about winning, because as Maine shows, the RNC will simply ignore the duly elected delegates who spent their own money to go down to Florida. They will write what they want on the teleprompter, and change the rules to protect their own.

what else is there to say? +rep

 

[cajuncocoa]

I enthusiastically supported Ron because he spoke truth to power. He didn't pander, and he didn't worry about the effect his straight-talk would have on Boobus. His words may have been way outside of Boobus' comfort zone, but it was exactly what needed to be said. Yes, I would have eaten Ramen noodles (to quote jjdoyle's post above) exclusively for a month to send some $$ to Ron's campaign because I had never been so energized by a candidate before...and I doubt I ever will be again. There will always be a candidate who is better than his/her opponent, but there will never be another Ron Paul. As pcosmar said, Ron gave me hope...that hope is gone. If we always say what Boobus wants to hear, we'll always get what Boobus wants: mediocrity and soft tyranny.

 

[jdcole]

Not at all. You fail to understand the concept of doing things that are pretty much guaranteed to fail (such as what you described), vs not trying anything because you think that you can't win at all.

OBVIOUSLY it won't work, don't you get it, plebe? You SHOULDN'T even TRY. Don't put effort into spreading the message of liberty to everybody, only reach for the low-hanging fruit! Nothing ever got done with hard work and determination, it was only achieved by taking the easy route.

FIFY.

 

[jjdoyle]

Yeah, this certainly seems like some of that negativity to which Matt was referring.

Listen, the 2012 campaign employed a strategy that didn't work. They weren't supporting Romney, they were trying to become the "anti-Romney" candidate. It took a lot of resources to keep slamming down all the fakers that the media were putting in that role. It may have seemed like Paul's campaign was laying cover-fire, but that's only based upon a negative point of view. The problem at the core of the strategy was that Ron Paul was deemed long ago to be unacceptable to the GOP base. Once we spent our funds defeating the fakers, they settled for Romney without ever giving Ron a serious look. The good thing is that Rand has worked extremely hard to avoid that label. (Much to the detriment of his reputation among many of us.) But, he is moving that ball forward.

My hope is not that you agree with me on all of this. My hope is that you do not give up. If you don't like the approach of organized campaigns, try something else - but try something. Don't waste your time turning your fire inward.

You see, the liberty movement as it has existed for decades now, has a problem. We are diverse and have diverse opinions on how to achieve success. And instead of working in a positive nature on our opinion, many of us work in a negative fashion to try to break down another's. (I call this the LP syndrome) I kindly ask you to review your post and ask yourself whether you are adding or subtracting.

You deny the truth that supporters were saying during the campaign, the media, Penny Langford-Freeman, and then Doug Wead said at the RNC?

Not only did Ron Paul 2012 agree to not attack Mitt Romney before Michigan, it never attacked only Mitt Romney. EVER. Even after Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich dropped out.
Ron Paul 2012 not only supported Mitt Romney and helped him win the nomination by attacking Rick Santorum in Michigan, but they even used RonPaul2012.com to defend an endorsement of Mitt Romney. Clearly, one of us is using facts/history, and the other...not sure.

The defeatist attitudes I have seen around here are ones that say things like, "It was lost after Iowa. We had no chance."
Or, "The media and Mitt Romney would never have allowed Ron Paul to win the nomination."

They say those defeatist things, trying to justify why a campaign would lie to supporters for all of February, March, April, and May asking them for more donations, when that same campaign had thrown in the towel and agreed to not attack Mitt Romney, many months before.

So no, I don't think too many liberty people have defeatist attitudes. I think unfortunately the last presidential campaign many got behind, did.

 

[Matt Collins]

No I have no control over the government. None. At. All.

Really? Have you ever been involved in local issues? Do you know who your state Rep and Senator is? How about your county or city commissioner/s? When do your local council meetings meet?
Have you ever gone to a council or commission meeting?

And to put to rest your other ridiculous arguments; DC is indeed over a thousand miles away. Even being involved locally makes no difference.

This statement right here tells me that you have never been involved locally, and have never put forth any effort to be. You're part of the problem.

 

[Matt Collins]

Actually, Ron Paul supporters did ban together, and tried to show that political clout to the establishment in 2012. Only, they didn't realize the campaign they were working to support, was actively working to support Mitt Romney. Which is why some of them were tossed under the Mitt Romney bus.

WHY is he allowed to repeat outright lies on the forum?

 

[jjdoyle]

WHY is he allowed to repeat outright lies on the forum?

Ron Paul 2012 never attacked Mitt Romney only, like they did Rick Perry, Newt Gingrich, and Rick Santorum.
Ron Paul 2012 agreed to not attack Mitt Romney, before Michigan.
Ron Paul 2012 spent at least $100K attacking Rick Santorum in Michigan, helping Mitt Romney win it.
Ron Paul 2012 didn't respect supporters in Louisiana that showed up and took over the convention, and gave away half the duly elected Ron Paul delegates. (Ask the Ron Paul supporters in Louisiana that were there.)
Ron Paul 2012 used the official campaign website, RonPaul2012.com, to try and defend an endorsement of Mitt Romney.

All facts.

 

[goRPaul]

Ron Paul 2012 never attacked Mitt Romney only, like they did Rick Perry, Newt Gingrich, and Rick Santorum.
Ron Paul 2012 agreed to not attack Mitt Romney, before Michigan.
Ron Paul 2012 spent at least $100K attacking Rick Santorum in Michigan, helping Mitt Romney win it.
Ron Paul 2012 didn't respect supporters in Louisiana that showed up and took over the convention, and gave away half the duly elected Ron Paul delegates. (Ask the Ron Paul supporters in Louisiana that were there.)
Ron Paul 2012 used the official campaign website, RonPaul2012.com, to try and defend an endorsement of Mitt Romney.

All facts.

Ron Paul 2012 spent next to no money in Virginia where he was up against Romney 1v1. Romney won 60%-40%, by less than 50,000 votes. I don't know why anyone was incensed about this. Didn't someone say something about picking your battles? This would've been a nice one to pick.

 

[mosquitobite]

On that note....

The Foundation for Applied Conservative Leadership
​

facltraining.org

^^ highly recommend! Loved the one day training and hope a three day one is in my area soon!

 

[mosquitobite]

Run the numbers, there's really no reason why we shouldn't be electing a couple dozen rock-solid Liberty Candidates every 2 years. I don't think Paul supporters realize how much potential political clout we could wield when we ban together. And that's just liberty candidates and fund raising. I haven't even touched upon banning together state-by-state just like Iowa, Nevada, and Maine did. We have to storm the Bastille in every damn state across the country and kick out the old party bosses and install our people. No deals. Show up with overwhelming numbers and defeat the bastards. That endeavor would only take anywhere from a few hundred to a couple thousand activists.

Agree.

 

[LibertyEagle]

Ron Paul 2012 spent next to no money in Virginia where he was up against Romney 1v1. Romney won 60%-40%, by less than 50,000 votes. I don't know why anyone was incensed about this. Didn't someone say something about picking your battles? This would've been a nice one to pick.

As I recall, Ron didn't stand a chance in hell in Virginia. It would have been throwing money down a rat hole.

 

[goRPaul]

As I recall, Ron didn't stand a chance in hell in Virginia. It would have been throwing money down a rat hole.

There's no chance, so why even try, right? #Defeatist

I would have challenged Romney in Virginia. If you lose, well you were going down anyways. If you win, you win all the delegates, and you prove you're the only candidate who can beat Romney. Paul got 40% without even trying. What if they tried? What if they got 25,000 to switch their votes from Romney to Paul? Enormous opportunity missed.

The campaign was gifted a chance to go 1v1, and they backed down. They were scared. If you can't beat the establishment pick mano a mano, how do you expect to win when the other stooges show up?

 

[CaptUSA]

So, jjdoyle, I take it you did not read the rest of my post???

I'm not expecting you to agree with anything anyone else does. Whether it be the campaigns, the LP, Kokesh, anyone. I'm just asking that you refrain from pissing in their Wheaties. They are on your side. They are just employing different strategies. In most cases, these are strategies to which you are not privy. Instead of reacting negatively to their direction, react positively in your own direction. This is the only way we win. Allow those that get excited in one direction to remain excited, while you are excited operating in your own manner.

There are many paths to liberty. Allow each man to choose his own. Isn't this what the liberty movement is all about?

Turn your ire towards those that are trying to enslave you and away from those that are trying (in their own way) to set you free.

 

[jjdoyle]

As I recall, Ron didn't stand a chance in hell in Virginia. It would have been throwing money down a rat hole.

Defeatist attitude, after defeatist attitude. That sure didn't stop the ONE Ron Paul supporter in Virginia who helped WIN his county for RP in the primary and actually got RP 3 Virginia delegates because of it. Because he was ACTUALLY trying. Maybe had the campaign not spent $100K attacking Rick Santorum in Michigan, in a state RP had NO CHANCE of winning and effectively lost it by 25+ % points to Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum (25+ percentage points behind BOTH of them in the final vote), Ron Paul 2012 would have tried to win Virginia? Heck, maybe they would have actually just tried to win it...

Did you know there were actually DELEGATES up for grabs in Virginia, had Ron Paul 2012 concentrated on winning just certain districts and not the entire state? Ron Paul 2012 could have actually made a play to gain more delegates in Virginia. DELEGATES. You know, delegates, for their supposed delegate strategy that was really only a fraud, to mislead supporters for months to continue to nickel and dime them.

Virginia, the first one-on-one state for Ron Paul to make a big splash in, and defeatist types that repeatedly defend a lying campaign think money spent attacking Rick Santorum in Michigan was better spent? We had Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich voters in Virginia trying to get people to vote for Ron Paul. Which is more than Ron Paul 2012 did. Yet, what happened in the recent Virginia Governor's race? Ron Paul and Rand Paul endorsed the Republican?

Perhaps had Ron Paul 2012 not completely wasted supporters' time and money in Virginia (certainly not their own), and actually tried to win it when it mattered, more supporters and voters in Virginia might have listened to their gubernatorial endorsement? Because as of now, Rand and Ron did more to try win Virginia for a candidate for governor, than they did against Mitt Romney. People donated to Ron Paul 2012 to win him the presidential nomination last I checked, not get involved in a governor's race, and play this dumb defeatist, "The media wouldn't allow us. Mitt Romney would have stopped us." bullcrap cards.

Very ironic Ron Paul 2012 didn't try to win Virginia in the presidential race, but helped Mitt Romney win Michigan instead. Again, a state he had NO chance of actually winning by any polling numbers, and yet the campaign spent at least $100K on Rick Santorum attack ads in the state.

I guess I need to post the breakdown again of how Ron Paul 2012 attacking Rick Santorum in Michigan helped seal the nomination for Mitt Romney...

So, jjdoyle, I take it you did not read the rest of my post???

I'm not expecting you to agree with anything anyone else does. Whether it be the campaigns, the LP, Kokesh, anyone. I'm just asking that you refrain from pissing in their Wheaties. They are on your side. They are just employing different strategies. In most cases, these are strategies to which you are not privy. Instead of reacting negatively to their direction, react positively in your own direction. This is the only way we win. Allow those that get excited in one direction to remain excited, while you are excited operating in your own manner.

There are many paths to liberty. Allow each man to choose his own. Isn't this what the liberty movement is all about?

Turn your ire towards those that are trying to enslave you and away from those that are trying (in their own way) to set you free.

I ready your entire post, and it was completely off. The path to liberty starts with truth. Not playing some "game", lying to supporters, wasting liberty minded supporters' time and money for months, and not even knowing how to do endorsements properly. All while making $160-70K and asking others to sacrifice their time/money on false promises, while you are getting a fat paycheck.

I take it you haven't seen my other post (it got moved to Hot Topics) that already addressed the moving forward part, and that I have been creating things and doing things for liberty minded candidates and non-incumbents? But I don't think (and won't excuse) lying to supporters and lying in a national TV endorsement of someone is choosing a path to liberty, or whatever you might call it. If it doesn't start with truth, I don't think it's a path to liberty.

And no, a campaign that will actively lie to supporters, and say things like "I am relying on your help to keep fighting all the way to the Republican National Convention in August." in May 2012, while continuing to ask for more money after they agreed to not attack Mitt Romney back in February 2012 and instead help him win it, is NOT on my side.

 

[fr33]

Really? Have you ever been involved in local issues? Do you know who your state Rep and Senator is? How about your county or city commissioner/s? When do your local council meetings meet?
Have you ever gone to a council or commission meeting?


This statement right here tells me that you have never been involved locally, and have never put forth any effort to be. You're part of the problem.

Yes I have done all of those things and learned it was a waste of time. Locally they are busy banning cigarettes, e-cigarettes, and spending millions on bonds for schools and colleges. There is no resistance. These people are conservative Republicans and they spend my money like a drunken sailor. You don't know shit about me or where I live or what I've done. We now have to get permission to build a fence or shop or any structure in our yard thanks to our city council of our town of less than 2000 people.

 

[jjdoyle]

Yes I have done all of those things and learned it was a waste of time. Locally they are busy banning cigarettes, e-cigarettes, and spending millions on bonds for schools and colleges. There is no resistance. These people are conservative Republicans and they spend my money like a drunken sailor. You don't know shit about me or where I live or what I've done. We now have to get permission to build a fence or shop or any structure in our yard thanks to our city council of our town of less than 2000 people.

I don't remember, but were you the forum member that helped run ads targeting a specific issue up in New Hampshire (maybe New Jersey?) that had good feedback and results from the ads being run?

 

[fr33]

I don't remember, but were you the forum member that helped run ads targeting a specific issue up in New Hampshire (maybe New Jersey?) that had good feedback and results from the ads being run?

No.

 

[jjdoyle]

No.

Might have been Anti-Federalist then. I'm trying to remember the exact issue, but I thought it had something to do with a land grab for some Canadian company. But yeah, Republicans spend money like Democrats. Nationally. Locally. Always needing more...