Too many liberty people have a defeatist attitude:

[Barrex]

During campaign, before and even now a lot of people are defeatist, pessimistic, waaay too optimistic, unrealistic. Everyone has his own point of "if I was in charge we would rule the world" view...Realists are in minority here.

Since Ron didnt have establishment on his side he had to find 50 campaign state leaders, leaders of local chapters etc. Since he didnt have establishment professionals he had to take amateurs and outsiders who joined GOP just because Ron (not attacking anyone just stating the obvious). They were faced with well payed well funded professionals who knew the game inside and out and they were also the judges in some/most cases.

People here bragged about how they know Roberts rules.?!... and then they come to conventions, caucuses etc. without a single lawyer (some where taken when it was too late). When I pointed out that mayor flaw it was pointed to me that "i dont understand how American system works"; "you cant yada yada". ...well Mitt did and could when he needed it... Knowing rules without a way to enforce them is useless...and so on and so on.

Point being: Mistakes were made. There is no perfection. Do your own thing to promote liberty if you dont want to be a part of certain group(sign wawers, Kens campaign...). It is no reason to give up and start spitting on each others.

It was really interesting thing to watch. I hope that in 2016 you will learn from your mistakes and improve your "game". I wish you all the best.

 

[Badger Paul]

A lot of neutral political observers agree that Romney's win in Michigan was decisive on his way to the nomination. Had he lost it, it would have been a pier-six brawl from that point onward even with all the money he spent up to that point plus the potential of other candidates jumping in. Santorum's campaign was basically running on nothing other than what some rich Wyoming man was paying for in TV commercials attacking Romney. If RP's ads, which seemed to be aimed at the other two candidates instead of Romney, made a difference in that outcome, what other conclusion can you draw other than RP's campaign aided Romney's nomination, either directly or indirectly, hmm?

Collins I really don't know why you are wasting your time on RPF hectoring about people's "lack of faith". Aren't you supposed to planning Rand 2016? What do you care about our supposed level of commitment? You'll get your cushy little six-figure campaign job payed by coal company money and I'm sure you'll have other corporate money to spend as you all in the claque see fit. You don't need us to make automated phone calls to voters, you don't need us to direct mail campaign literature, they do that by machine too. You have enough acolytes to staff a few offices. Go out and fundraise and buy the support of some Iowa State Senator for an endorsement. You fellows seem to do that pretty well.

I must say though in all seriousness it's hard to have faith in a group of operatives who over two Presidential campaigns have won a grand total of zero states by popular or straw poll votes and who threw away what delegate wins there were in crooked deals (Remember Louisiana?). You know how to make money though, I will give you that. Doesn't do the rest of us much good but hey, live it up Collins, you've earned it.

 

[Cap]

A lot of neutral political observers agreed that Romney's win in Michigan was decisive on his way to the nomination. He had he lost it would have been pier-six brawl from that point onward even with all the money he spent up to that point plus the potential of other candidates jumping in. Santorum's campaign was basically running on nothing other than what some rich Wyoming man was paying for in TV commercials attacking Romney. If RP's ads, which seemed to be aimed at the other two candidates instead of Romney, made a difference in that outcome, what other conclusion can you draw other than RP's campaign aided Romney's nomination, either directly or indirectly, hmm?

Collins I really don't why you are wasting your time on RPF hectoring about people's "lack of faith". Aren't you supposed to planning Rand 2016? What do you care about our supposed level of commitment? You'll get your cushy little six-figure campaign job payed by coal company money and I'm sure you'll have other corporate money to spend as you all in the claque see fit. You don't need us to make automated phone calls to voters, you don't need us to direct mail campaign literature, they do that by machine too. You have enough acolytes to staff a few offices. Go out and fundraise and buy the support of some Iowa State Senator for an endorsement. You fellows seem to do that pretty well.

I must say though in all seriousness it's hard to have faith in a group of operatives who over two Presidential campaigns have won a grand total of zero states by popular or straw poll votes and who threw away what delegate wins there were in crooked deals (Remember Louisiana?). You know how to make money though, I will give you that. Doesn't do the rest of us much good but hey, live it up Collins, you've earned it.

So much truth in 3 paragraphs.

 

[LibertyEagle]

During campaign, before and even now a lot of people are defeatist, pessimistic, waaay too optimistic, unrealistic. Everyone has his own point of "if I was in charge we would rule the world" view...Realists are in minority here.

Since Ron didnt have establishment on his side he had to find 50 campaign state leaders, leaders of local chapters etc. Since he didnt have establishment professionals he had to take amateurs and outsiders who joined GOP just because Ron (not attacking anyone just stating the obvious). They were faced with well payed well funded professionals who knew the game inside and out and they were also the judges in some/most cases.

People here bragged about how they know Roberts rules.?!... and then they come to conventions, caucuses etc. without a single lawyer (some where taken when it was too late). When I pointed out that mayor flaw it was pointed to me that "i dont understand how American system works"; "you cant yada yada". ...well Mitt did and could when he needed it... Knowing rules without a way to enforce them is useless...and so on and so on.

Point being: Mistakes were made. There is no perfection. Do your own thing to promote liberty if you dont want to be a part of certain group(sign wawers, Kens campaign...). It is no reason to give up and start spitting on each others.

It was really interesting thing to watch. I hope that in 2016 you will learn from your mistakes and improve your "game". I wish you all the best.

So much truth in 5 paragraphs.

 

[LibertyEagle]

"If more in the liberty movement would take every political training course they could so that they would be able to understand how to be more effective, and then if they would choose their battles more wisely, we would start to see an even greater change across the country for the cause of liberty, guaranteed."

Sounds to me like somebody needs more money. Did the claque already spend the millions it stashed from 2012 already?

You remind me of an Amway salesperson.

If you were trying to win a football game, do you think it would be important to know how to block, pass, understand plays and how to execute them, etc?

Because it sure is sounding like some here believe that no, that's not important at all. Just trot out on the field not knowing your ass from a hole in the ground and gripe and blame everyone under the sun if you don't win.

 

[jurgs01]

Matt,
What you're suggesting is taught in many activism seminars. I just attended one hosted by NAGR recently.

Cliff Notes:
Only about 3-5% of the population is who you have to convince on any issue.
Target those who already agree with you, and make sure you focus on the issues they agree with.
Don't waste time and resources fighting unwinnable battles.
The threat of pain to currently sitting politicians is 10x as effective as anything else. Prove you can deliver pain if they go against you.
Primary the hell out of RINOs. Even if your candidate loses the seat to a Statist Democrat, the district is probably a swing district and you have sent a message to the RNC that running RINOs is unacceptable.

People in politics are convinced that these are the only methods that work, and they are pretty effective, but I wouldn't demean those who have chosen to put effort into educational or other paths. Although the people in these training seminars are convinced otherwise, these things are important in the long view.

 

[Smitty]

Both of the dominant political parties are owned.

If you're an outsider, you will not be allowed to represent what is essentially a private club.

You have as much chance of taking over General Motors as you do the GOP.

Is it defeatist to understand that truth?

 

[jjdoyle]

Actually, slick, last time I checked, its innocent until proven guilty. Where is her proof that Ron Paul stole money, or do you not care? You seem willing and eager even to believe it, since you keep posting this video. I lost a lot of respect for her when she did that hack job interview with Kokesh. If you actually believe that Ron is a thief, why are you here? Unless it is to destroy.

Glad, not-slick, I quoted your idiotic reply before you went back and edited it, to try and be divisive about something else.

Actually liar, last time I checked, I didn't say Ron Paul stole money, and those words didn't come out of her mouth either. Unless you care to show me where I said it, because I certainly didn't. Oh, and she didn't either. Liar.

Where is the proof Ron Paul 2012 WASTED money (Rick Santorum Sasquatch attack ads, for one), and the campaign was a SCAM though? I guess you can't read and comprehend, but I'll try to provide another, shorter version below.

Here ya go:
1) Ron Paul 2012 agreed to not attack Mitt Romney, at least before going into Michigan at the end of February. And never did.
2) Ron Paul 2012 never ran a single Mitt Romney only TV attack ad, EVER. Not in Michigan. Not in Virginia, the first one-on-one state for Ron Paul where they could have won delegates. Or, Maine where RP lost by like 2% points.
3) Ron Paul not only agreed to not attack Mitt Romney, but then HELPED him win the nomination in Michigan by using at least $100K of donations from supporters to attack Rick Santorum there. They wasted campaign funds (not that you care, you gave freely) on Rick Santorum attack ads to help Mitt Romney win the nomination.
4) Ron Paul 2012 then continued for all of February, March, April, and May, asking supporters for more money on a false hope of a delegate strategy, that they ensured wouldn't come to fruition in Louisiana where they gave away half the delegates.
5) And let's not forget Ron Paul 2012 upper staffers apparently bribing someone to endorse Ron Paul in Iowa. That investigation is still ongoing (they confiscated Sorenson's computers last month), and I can only imagine that more charges might be filed against someone involved in Ron Paul 2012 if there are against Kent Sorenson.
6) Oh, then don't forget RonPaul2012.com was used to defend a lying endorsement of Mitt Romney.

You definitely aren't slick IMO, and perhaps not a defeatist, but definitely more like some of the supporters Mrs. Freeman described in the video.

So, the lessons learned are a lot (well, for some grassroots anyway). And everybody on this forum should watch that Penny Langford-Freeman interview to hear the names, and make sure that those people are not near Rand 2016. The federal government might be helping us on that front with some of them though, depending on what their Kent Sorenson investigation finds.

jjdoyle, since you are disregarding the point of my posts to you, I don't know how else to address you.

You want to keep addressing the campaign that you didn't like instead of addressing what you do like and what your plans are. Ok, so the campaign didn't perform to your liking??? So what? Instead of continuing to drive this wedge, wouldn't it be more constructive to draw people positively toward your path?

For people who profess to love liberty, we certainly spend too much time trying to denigrate the actions of others. And when those actions do not conform to ours, we turn negative. It's sad. But the true enemies of liberty count on it. Instead of each of us growing our own flank in the movement, the flanks fire upon each other because they think the "other" flank isn't doing right. Liberty knows that if we allow each to do, the best possible result will happen.

If you answer this post by talking about the campaign again, you are missing the entire point.

I didn't disregard the point of your post. You're in a forum thread calling liberty minded supporters and people defeatists, trying to defend that stupidity. That's your issue, not mine. You also claimed Ron Paul 2012 wasn't helping Mitt Romney, when as I have shown, they did just that.

So, you might not agree with some liberty minded supporters and people that see Ron Paul 2012 as a complete fraud, so what? Instead of you continuing to try and defend a lying campaign, wouldn't it be more constructive to draw people positively toward your path by not saying and agreeing they have defeatist attitudes? Oh, I guess if the shoe fits?

Oh, and I have said it before in other threads, but if you donated to Ron Paul 2012, contact Lori Pyeatt with the campaign and ask her for a refund of your campaign donation. Then you can give it to liberty minded candidates like Greg Brannon, and help get a liberty minded Senator up in DC. There are current candidates like Greg Brannon that I believe could use the money A LOT more than it just sitting in a Ron Paul 2012 bank account in Texas.

And, if you must know, I'm focusing locally and on candidates like Greg Brannon, and other non-incumbent candidates going at people like Mitch McConnell and Lindsey Graham.

 

[jmdrake]

Huh? Now I am confused


But to answer your question, I think, generally for primary elections getting new blood into the GOP will not change the outcome of primary elections. It can however change party leadership, especially in urban areas where Republicans are weak.

It all depends on how close the primary is. If you can get within striking distance, even a few hundred votes can make a difference. And ultimately if everybody who already supported Ron Paul reached just one more person, imagine the difference that would have made? I don't think I gained any votes for Ron in 2012 from my outreach to "likely republican voters." I knocked on doors, made phone calls, etc. I don't think it did any good. I did get some of my Democratic family members to vote for Ron. So which effort was really a "waste of time" for me?

I agree with that, but I think it might be that he is fundamentally trying to broach a rhetoric that has been traditionally ignored by mainstream GOP/leadership. There isn't much short term value in it, but if Rand paint himself as a uniter that brings people in to the party who traditionally were not, then it helps him in the long run. And MLK was a Republican too, but that point is lost on most people these days. If the Party can get back to issues that appeal to that group of individuals (drug war, civil liberties/rights, etc), then I think they can indeed increase their voting base. But that typically only works on a large scale over a very long period of time which is why most Republicans have given up on it.



And by the way, come out to Mafiaoza's tonight and hang with us in Nashville. Haven't seen ya in a while.

My car broke down that week. 2013 was rough and 2014 is still bleak. I'll be back in the swing of things when I can.

 

[Matt Collins]

rand can only flip flop(romney) now like a fish out of water and I am not sure I could even buy that bs if he did!

So you must refuse to support Ron Paul because of his endorsements too, right?

 

[Matt Collins]

Well I was unaware that the Romney campaign so bluntly threatened to destroy Ron Paul's name and reputation. That part of the campaign makes more sense to me now.

Efforts like that, knowing that they can bury someone, is really discouraging. That's what fosters the defeatist attitude. We all have it, might as well get used to it.

If you take JJDoyle's posts at face value, here is what you get:

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/false-cause

 

[Matt Collins]

And not only that, they don't wear pinky rings.

LOLz, good one

 

[Matt Collins]

Collins..You'll get your cushy little six-figure campaign job payed by coal company money and I'm sure you'll have other corporate money to spend as you all in the claque see fit.

I must say though in all seriousness it's hard to have faith in a group of operatives who over two Presidential campaigns have won a grand total of zero states by popular or straw poll votes

If Ron were to run a 3rd time (4th time), he would likely win Iowa and New Hampshire. You don't win a Presidential election in a single cycle if you're a modern Republican. And if you're anti-establishment like we are, it takes you even longer than that.

 

[Matt Collins]

Matt,
What you're suggesting is taught in many activism seminars. I just attended one hosted by NAGR recently.

Cliff Notes:
Only about 3-5% of the population is who you have to convince on any issue.
Target those who already agree with you, and make sure you focus on the issues they agree with.
Don't waste time and resources fighting unwinnable battles.
The threat of pain to currently sitting politicians is 10x as effective as anything else. Prove you can deliver pain if they go against you.
Primary the hell out of RINOs. Even if your candidate loses the seat to a Statist Democrat, the district is probably a swing district and you have sent a message to the RNC that running RINOs is unacceptable.

Here is the strategy in writing:
http://www.nationalgunrights.org/our-strategy

 

[Badger Paul]

"If you were trying to win a football game, do you think it would be important to know how to block, pass, understand plays and how to execute them, etc? "

Sure, so long as I don't have to take a loan out to do. Do you think people on RPF are just made of money to contribute to every moneybomb, buy every book and attend every conference?

 

[Matt Collins]

It all depends on how close the primary is. If you can get within striking distance, even a few hundred votes can make a difference. And ultimately if everybody who already supported Ron Paul reached just one more person, imagine the difference that would have made?

I agree, but it doesn't work like that.

http://src-fla.us/index.php/toolkit/80-20-rule

I don't think I gained any votes for Ron in 2012 from my outreach to "likely republican voters." I knocked on doors, made phone calls, etc. I don't think it did any good.

2 things - you didn't have airspport from the mother ship, and if you were doing it in Davidson County, then you were likely wasting his time because urban Republicans were not going to vote for Ron.

My car broke down that week. 2013 was rough and 2014 is still bleak. I'll be back in the swing of things when I can.

Doh, so sorry man. If you ever get in a pinch and I can help out, give me a call.

 

[Badger Paul]

"If Ron were to run a 3rd time (4th time), he would likely win Iowa and New Hampshire. "

Really? Who are we going to bribe to do that?

 

[jjdoyle]

IDIOCY

You mean, if you take Doug Wead's comment at face value. Which, I agree, there's more to it than we all know. Like the apparent illegal bribing of Kent Sorenson.

"If Ron were to run a 3rd time (4th time), he would likely win Iowa and New Hampshire. "

Really? Who are we going to bribe to do that?

Not Kent Sorenson. Maybe they could just take a lesson from Mitt Romney's campaign, and blackmail the other candidates to not run to win?

 

[TomtheTinker]

The irony is that we don't have to be defeated at all. Politics in a way is the ultimate free market, get your candidate money and you're dealt into the game. Out raise your opponents and out work them at the polls and you win. The Liberty Movement could be electing 10-15 House members and 1-2 Senators every election cycle if we got our head on straight.

This

 

[awake]

Defeatist? I seen the ending already and we win. Always.