Ron Paul WILL Run in 2012 (Part II) – Get Prepared! [Mod Note: Not confirmed]

[Matt Collins]

Ron Paul WILL Run in 2012 (Part II)
Get Prepared!




Many of you know me and trust what I have to say, and if not, that is ok. You can take my word for it or not, it is your choice because I realize I am asking you to trust me without anything being put forth (at present) to support my assertion (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=257221). Each individual should decide for themselves whether or not my comments (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=257221) on the topic have merit. But I can tell you that if you are indeed committed to the cause of liberty there are action items that need to be executed to prepare and lay the ground work for a 2012 Ron Paul Presidential campaign.




The best opportunity for victory in 2012 will require each of us to do the following:



1- Donate to Rand Paul on August 20*
2- Become active and known in your local Republican Party
3- Work your precincts, create a list of friendlies, let them get to know you, get them involved in your local Republican Party too, and create a catalog/database of which issues are important to each household
4- Many local Republican Parties will be having officer elections in winter of 2011-- try and win as many seats as you can on your Republican Executive Committee




Please review the following courses on how to organize your precinct as
canvassing is the most important element of winning the campaign:

http://www.campaignforliberty.com/course.php?course=2


http://www.campaignforliberty.com/course.php?course=3




For those who are reading this assertion with doubts in your mind about a 2012 run by Ron, I can understand those doubts. But if you think I’m wrong or you don’t believe me, then I challenge you to implement the above action items regardless. Making great strides in your precinct program, fundraising for Rand, ensuring influence of your local GOP, and learning what it takes to win your precinct will end up being a self-fulfilling prophecy for those who doubt. If you honestly believe that Ron isn't going to run in 2012, then get out there and give him a reason to change his mind. But I can already tell you that he is going to run.





*Before Ron runs in 2011/2012 it is critical that Rand Paul win a seat in the US Senate with a clear mandate so that no one can challenge the fact that our ideas are accepted, at the forefront, and what the People actually demand from their federal government. It isn't just enough to win, but we must win by a landslide, or rather a "Randslide". A wide margin will send a very loud message that the statist/establishment cronies are no longer welcome. To ensure such a large victory in Rand's race we must give his campaign the tools to do so, which means donating to the Rand Paul Money Bomb this week on August 20th.

YouTube - Rand Paul August 19-20th Money Blitz (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LZs-BRG8o7Y&feature=player_embedded)

[thehunter]

Awesome!:D

[Son of Detroit]

As I said in my other thread,

Phrasing of our views on issues will be SO important for 2012. You can still be solid in your beliefs but word them in ways that won't be as off-putting to the mainstream voter. Push the talking points you know will be most effective and least offensive to Republican voters.

For instance on foreign policy:

1. Hammer home the point of cost first and foremost.

In this economy, harping on the fiscal side of what we do overseas will be way more effective than any other talking point. Sure, they are also immoral and make us less safe. However, most Republicans will just turn off their brains and go "LA LA LA" as soon as they hear that. Play up the cost and they'll be more receptive.

2. It is vital to push the idea that Ron Paul supports a STRONG NATIONAL DEFENSE.

I get the feeling that a lot of voters felt that Ron would just be a push over when it came to our defense. Make it known that Ron supports a strong and prepared military and if we are attacked, or an attack is imminent, he will be in support of using our armed forces to their fullest extent to defend our country.

3. If you remove the troops from abroad, it makes for a securer border.

Most Republicans are for strong border security. Appeal to that side of the party by suggesting that the troops we remove from around the world could be placed on the border to reduce the number of illegal aliens crossing into our country every day. Now I know there are a lot of Ron Paul supporters in favor of open borders, but Ron Paul himself is not. I think there were a number of Paul supporters in 2008 who used the run to push their own agendas rather than Dr. Paul's. If you're campaigning for Ron Paul, you have to represent the ideas of Ron Paul.

On foreign policy, you can talk about zionism/NWO/CFR/Israel sucks/abolish the military until you are blue in the face, but it will do Ron Paul no good in his campaign and will turn off any potential Republican vote. And for god sakes, leave the "9/11 was an inside job!" signs at home.

In my opinion, these are the 5 main talking points we should use in the primary, and what Dr. Paul should stress on.

1) Strongly against the bailouts and Obamacare.
2) Deficit needs to be reduced, and it needs to be reduced NOW.
3) Lower taxes for EVERYBODY.
4) A defense of non-intervention combined with a strong and prepared military will keep us more safe than our current foreign policy.
5) The Federal Reserve is the cause of our economic problems, and needs to be audited/abolished

[Matt Collins]

Phrasing of our views on issues will be SO important for 2012. Exactly. Getting people to open a package often times depends on how it's wrapped!

[Slutter McGee]

As I said in my other thread,

Phrasing of our views on issues will be SO important for 2012. You can still be solid in your beliefs but word them in ways that won't be as off-putting to the mainstream voter. Push the talking points you know will be most effective and least offensive to Republican voters.

For instance on foreign policy:

1. Hammer home the point of cost first and foremost.

In this economy, harping on the fiscal side of what we do overseas will be way more effective than any other talking point. Sure, they are also immoral and make us less safe. However, most Republicans will just turn off their brains and go "LA LA LA" as soon as they hear that. Play up the cost and they'll be more receptive.

2. It is vital to push the idea that Ron Paul supports a STRONG NATIONAL DEFENSE.

I get the feeling that a lot of voters felt that Ron would just be a push over when it came to our defense. Make it known that Ron supports a strong and prepared military and if we are attacked, or an attack is imminent, he will be in support of using our armed forces to their fullest extent to defend our country.

3. If you remove the troops from abroad, it makes for a securer border.

Most Republicans are for strong border security. Appeal to that side of the party by suggesting that the troops we remove from around the world could be placed on the border to reduce the number of illegal aliens crossing into our country every day. Now I know there are a lot of Ron Paul supporters in favor of open borders, but Ron Paul himself is not. I think there were a number of Paul supporters in 2008 who used the run to push their own agendas rather than Dr. Paul's. If you're campaigning for Ron Paul, you have to represent the ideas of Ron Paul.

On foreign policy, you can talk about zionism/NWO/CFR/Israel sucks/abolish the military until you are blue in the face, but it will do Ron Paul no good in his campaign and will turn off any potential Republican vote. And for god sakes, leave the "9/11 was an inside job!" signs at home.

In my opinion, these are the 5 main talking points we should use in the primary, and what Dr. Paul should stress on.

1) Strongly against the bailouts and Obamacare.
2) Deficit needs to be reduced, and it needs to be reduced NOW.
3) Lower taxes for EVERYBODY.
4) A defense of non-intervention combined with a strong and prepared military will keep us more safe than our current foreign policy.
5) The Federal Reserve is the cause of our economic problems, and needs to be audited/abolished

That is pretty much spot on. I would rather avoid foreign policy all together, considering the current mood of the country is right on for Ron Paul's fiscal small government views.

But we can't ignore it. There are many voters that need to be assured Ron Paul will still support a strong national defense. And it really wouldn't be true to our ideas to ignore it.

Hopefully though we can do two things. 1. Phrase our arguments in a way that will appeal to the Republican electorate. 2. Recognize that the war is not our number one issue.

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee

[paulitics]

As I said in my other thread,

Phrasing of our views on issues will be SO important for 2012. You can still be solid in your beliefs but word them in ways that won't be as off-putting to the mainstream voter. Push the talking points you know will be most effective and least offensive to Republican voters.

For instance on foreign policy:

1. Hammer home the point of cost first and foremost.

In this economy, harping on the fiscal side of what we do overseas will be way more effective than any other talking point. Sure, they are also immoral and make us less safe. However, most Republicans will just turn off their brains and go "LA LA LA" as soon as they hear that. Play up the cost and they'll be more receptive.

2. It is vital to push the idea that Ron Paul supports a STRONG NATIONAL DEFENSE.

I get the feeling that a lot of voters felt that Ron would just be a push over when it came to our defense. Make it known that Ron supports a strong and prepared military and if we are attacked, or an attack is imminent, he will be in support of using our armed forces to their fullest extent to defend our country.

3. If you remove the troops from abroad, it makes for a securer border.

Most Republicans are for strong border security. Appeal to that side of the party by suggesting that the troops we remove from around the world could be placed on the border to reduce the number of illegal aliens crossing into our country every day. Now I know there are a lot of Ron Paul supporters in favor of open borders, but Ron Paul himself is not. I think there were a number of Paul supporters in 2008 who used the run to push their own agendas rather than Dr. Paul's. If you're campaigning for Ron Paul, you have to represent the ideas of Ron Paul.

On foreign policy, you can talk about zionism/NWO/CFR/Israel sucks/abolish the military until you are blue in the face, but it will do Ron Paul no good in his campaign and will turn off any potential Republican vote. And for god sakes, leave the "9/11 was an inside job!" signs at home.

In my opinion, these are the 5 main talking points we should use in the primary, and what Dr. Paul should stress on.

1) Strongly against the bailouts and Obamacare.
2) Deficit needs to be reduced, and it needs to be reduced NOW.
3) Lower taxes for EVERYBODY.
4) A defense of non-intervention combined with a strong and prepared military will keep us more safe than our current foreign policy.
5) The Federal Reserve is the cause of our economic problems, and needs to be audited/abolished

I want to add to this, that we need to cite examples of empires that have collapsed from overextension of the military.

It isn't just an opinion, but fact with thousands of years of history to prove it.

I may make a thread on this issue sometime soon because we need to really drive this point home.

I think it is the most important topic we should get our facts straight on, because 50% of the time we will get hammered on this.

[itshappening]

We need a grassroots PAC Collins, we really do. we need to organize, prepare and strategize, we need to go after the opponents. look at the polls, none of them bring in more than 20 odd percent of the vote nationally so the field is wide open

[Matt Collins]

We need a grassroots PAC Collins, we really do. There are many PACs out there, and you can start your own, it's not hard to do. www.FEC.gov will explain how to do it.

[malkusm]

As I said in my other thread,

Phrasing of our views on issues will be SO important for 2012. You can still be solid in your beliefs but word them in ways that won't be as off-putting to the mainstream voter. Push the talking points you know will be most effective and least offensive to Republican voters.

For instance on foreign policy:

1. Hammer home the point of cost first and foremost.

In this economy, harping on the fiscal side of what we do overseas will be way more effective than any other talking point. Sure, they are also immoral and make us less safe. However, most Republicans will just turn off their brains and go "LA LA LA" as soon as they hear that. Play up the cost and they'll be more receptive.

2. It is vital to push the idea that Ron Paul supports a STRONG NATIONAL DEFENSE.

I get the feeling that a lot of voters felt that Ron would just be a push over when it came to our defense. Make it known that Ron supports a strong and prepared military and if we are attacked, or an attack is imminent, he will be in support of using our armed forces to their fullest extent to defend our country.

3. If you remove the troops from abroad, it makes for a securer border.

Most Republicans are for strong border security. Appeal to that side of the party by suggesting that the troops we remove from around the world could be placed on the border to reduce the number of illegal aliens crossing into our country every day. Now I know there are a lot of Ron Paul supporters in favor of open borders, but Ron Paul himself is not. I think there were a number of Paul supporters in 2008 who used the run to push their own agendas rather than Dr. Paul's. If you're campaigning for Ron Paul, you have to represent the ideas of Ron Paul.

On foreign policy, you can talk about zionism/NWO/CFR/Israel sucks/abolish the military until you are blue in the face, but it will do Ron Paul no good in his campaign and will turn off any potential Republican vote. And for god sakes, leave the "9/11 was an inside job!" signs at home.

In my opinion, these are the 5 main talking points we should use in the primary, and what Dr. Paul should stress on.

1) Strongly against the bailouts and Obamacare.
2) Deficit needs to be reduced, and it needs to be reduced NOW.
3) Lower taxes for EVERYBODY.
4) A defense of non-intervention combined with a strong and prepared military will keep us more safe than our current foreign policy.
5) The Federal Reserve is the cause of our economic problems, and needs to be audited/abolished

This has to be the best post I've read in a long time. :)

[Elwar]

10k votes at the Ames Iowa Straw poll - August, 2011!

at least

[AuH2O]

These threads feel less about Dr. Paul running, and more about Matt Collins telling us Dr. Paul is running.

[Bergie Bergeron]

Which is pretty much the same since Matt doesn't really talk about himself in there.

[Promontorium]

I don't doubt Matt Collins. I doubt America.

[ItsTime]

10k votes at the Ames Iowa Straw poll - August, 2011!

at least

My family will be there.

[TortoiseDream]

Iowa Straw Poll
Iowa Straw Poll
Iowa Straw Poll
Iowa Straw Poll
Iowa Straw Poll
Iowa Straw Poll
Iowa Straw Poll
Iowa Straw Poll
Iowa Straw Poll
Iowa Straw Poll
Iowa Straw Poll

Focus.

[Deborah K]

Tons of ideas started here: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=232814

Feel free to merge them to this thread if you'd like.

[ItsTime]

The sad part is when we win the Iowa Straw Poll, they will just say we spammed it and focus on who came in 2nd. Even after Romney buses 1000s off Mormon compounds to vote.

[freshjiva]

As I said in my other thread,

Phrasing of our views on issues will be SO important for 2012.
...

On foreign policy, you can talk about zionism/NWO/CFR/Israel sucks/abolish the military until you are blue in the face, but it will do Ron Paul no good in his campaign and will turn off any potential Republican vote. And for god sakes, leave the "9/11 was an inside job!" signs at home.

+1. What some Ron Paul supporters need to understand is that Ron's ideas need not be justified by conspiracies. They are grounded in the principles of liberty, backed by the lessons of history. His ideas are justifiable with pure reason. No conspiracy theories needed.




In my opinion, these are the 5 main talking points we should use in the primary, and what Dr. Paul should stress on.

1) Strongly against the bailouts and Obamacare.
2) Deficit needs to be reduced, and it needs to be reduced NOW.
3) Lower taxes for EVERYBODY.
4) A defense of non-intervention combined with a strong and prepared military will keep us more safe than our current foreign policy.
5) The Federal Reserve is the cause of our economic problems, and needs to be audited/abolished

This is somewhat misleading. Ron Paul himself has stated that abolishing the Federal Reserve would not be step #1. Nor would it even be step #2, 3, 4, or even 5. The first step towards sound monetary policy is full transparency of monetary policy actions, i.e. the activities at the discount window. Immediately going to a gold standard or a complete abolition of the Fed, at this point in time, would also be catastrophic with the excess liquidity we have in this market. Taxes need to be cut, government restraints/regulations rolled back, and the economy needs to get back to producing. This growth in production would lead to higher savings, which would naturally push interest rates higher through market forces. The dollar would then strengthen back to its appropriate levels, at which point we can officially peg the dollar to gold and have perfect transparency and zero monetary inflation going forward.

This, however, is a long process (3-4 years) and could conceivably done in President Paul's first term, but it definitely wouldn't be among the first things he can do.

So when talking about the Fed, we need to explain to people that Ron Paul is for full transparency, because the taxpayers deserve to know who is getting bailed out and at what cost, and how much money is being created out of thin air.

[nayjevin]

So when talking about the Fed, we need to explain to people that Ron Paul is for full transparency, because the taxpayers deserve to know who is getting bailed out and at what cost, and how much money is being created out of thin air.

good post, good thread


Become active and known in your local Republican Party

Time to work on my driver and hit the links.

If we can't get up and down for par the terrorists win. Only Ron Paul understands this fact.

ps.
me: "Ron Paul stood with Reagan."
him: "On what?"
me: "Everything, sir. It's your shot."

[Inkblots]

The dollar would then strengthen back to its appropriate levels, at which point we can officially peg the dollar to gold and have perfect transparency and zero monetary inflation going forward.

Forgive me if I'm wrong, freshjiva, but Dr. Paul doesn't actually advocate returning the dollar to the gold standard at all at this point, does he? My impression was that he favors a free market in money, in which various private bank, foreign, and commodity-backed currencies are allowed to freely compete with the US Dollar. And that in order to realize this vision, he advocates the repeal of legal tender laws so that citizens can sign enforceable contracts requiring payment in any desired currency. I think the 'he wants to take us back to the 1890s' notion of Dr. Paul's monetary policy is the cable news cartoon version. But maybe I'm wrong.

[Old Ducker]

So Matt, has Ron promised you a position in his administration? Press secretary perhaps...

[Arklatex]

I am here in this illusion. There is a great cosmic play ringing down. What you are attempting here is of the most glorious you characters.

I shall support this cause to the extreme. I will be in Iowa. Think positive thoughts and follow not your mind but your heart. Our (galactic-wide invisible)opposition is more vincible than you may believe my friends. By default they win, but you reading these words right here, you are of the creator.

Start right now

[Maximus]

Bump for freedom

[freshjiva]

Forgive me if I'm wrong, freshjiva, but Dr. Paul doesn't actually advocate returning the dollar to the gold standard at all at this point, does he? My impression was that he favors a free market in money, in which various private bank, foreign, and commodity-backed currencies are allowed to freely compete with the US Dollar. And that in order to realize this vision, he advocates the repeal of legal tender laws so that citizens can sign enforceable contracts requiring payment in any desired currency. I think the 'he wants to take us back to the 1890s' notion of Dr. Paul's monetary policy is the cable news cartoon version. But maybe I'm wrong.

You are indeed correct, however, Ron has said that repealing legal tender laws and allowing gold/silver/competing currencies to become legal tender would be the transition plan.

Your comment is indeed what Ron advocates, but only for the time being, while we still have fiat money with the Fed diluting its value by adding a bunch of zeroes to its own balance sheet. Competing currencies, at the very least, affords the Market the option to use other forms of money in lieu of Federal Reserve notes. Ultimately, however, having a single hard currency would be ideal for the sake of ease and convenience for commerce, and this would happen under a Market-determined commodities-backed currency. A pure gold standard would be the 2nd best option.

[BarryDonegan]

You are indeed correct, however, Ron has said that repealing legal tender laws and allowing gold/silver/competing currencies to become legal tender would be the transition plan.

Your comment is indeed what Ron advocates, but only for the time being, while we still have fiat money with the Fed diluting its value by adding a bunch of zeroes to its own balance sheet. Competing currencies, at the very least, affords the Market the option to use other forms of money in lieu of Federal Reserve notes. Ultimately, however, having a single hard currency would be ideal for the sake of ease and convenience for commerce, and this would happen under a Market-determined commodities-backed currency. A pure gold standard would be the 2nd best option.

I would imagine that competing currencies would make for an easier transition period, as you don't have to completely abolish the fed nor do you have to force people to engage in bimetalism and speculation when the dollar is pegged to an artificial amount of gold.

Over time, the Fed would become worthless or begin acting as a private banking system that must attract consumers in order to exist.

Competing currencies is wildly different than advocating a clear gold standard. I don't think any of us should be advocating for a return to the gold standard.

[freshjiva]

I would imagine that competing currencies would make for an easier transition period, as you don't have to completely abolish the fed nor do you have to force people to engage in bimetalism and speculation when the dollar is pegged to an artificial amount of gold.

Over time, the Fed would become worthless or begin acting as a private banking system that must attract consumers in order to exist.

Competing currencies is wildly different than advocating a clear gold standard. I don't think any of us should be advocating for a return to the gold standard.

Well, I think Ron might disagree with you on there, but the Austrian economists slightly differ in the opinions of what the ideal currency should be backed by. Hayek argued for money to be backed by a basket of commodities, including gold and silver, but Mises argued for a pure gold standard. Either one works, because it means that our money has SOME real value, unlike our worthless paper money today.

Here is one among many videos of Ron Paul explaining that competing currencies would serve as a transition, but not the end result. Skip straight to 4:23 :

YouTube - Ron Paul & Lew Rockwell "We Have A Dictatorship When It Comes To Foreign Policy" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hT0oEU0HKCI)

[BarryDonegan]

Well, I think Ron might disagree with you on there, but the Austrian economists slightly differ in the opinions of what the ideal currency should be backed by. Hayek argued for money to be backed by a basket of commodities, including gold and silver, but Mises argued for a pure gold standard. Either one works, because it means that our money has SOME real value, unlike our worthless paper money today.

Here is one among many videos of Ron Paul explaining that competing currencies would serve as a transition, but not the end result. Skip straight to 4:23 :



I don't see that as an advocation of using competition in currency as a transition phase to get to the institution of a gold standard. When you have competition in currencies, you would have to use government force to create a gold standard. I think Ron Paul means, when he says "gold standard", that, in a competing currency system, the average consumer would choose a full-reserve gold-backed bank. However, you would have the option of putting your money in a riskier fractional reserve bank if you had money to invest.

That allows the money supply to ebb and flow based on investors' confidence in emerging technologies, all the while allowing a de facto gold standard for everyone with less disposable income.

In every case where a policy objective has been advocated by Ron Paul, he has advocated for the institution of a system of competition in currency, or the repeal of legal tender laws. I don't believe that to be transitional at all. I see that as the end-goal, whereas the market behavior that occurs after the repeal of legal tender laws would seem to be a transition, as it allows the market to rationally and slowly shed the illiquid assets in central banks as people begin to inject their money in other types of banks as they are built in response to the new legal environment.

Since competition in currency allows us to try metal standards, right up against fractional reserve banks, right up against baskets of currencies, with algorithims trading them for strength, competition in currency itself would be a fine economic system allowing the maximum possibilities for the consumer.

The "gold standard" has the baggage of being an outdated system, which Ron Paul even criticizes as being easily victimized by "bimetallism", and he simply says that it is superior to a fiat standard. The jury is out on bimetallism. When you force the dollar to be pegged to a specific amount of precious material, speculators can profit off of reselling it if the amount you pick isn't consistent with real valuation in the market. That is well-known by any of those who would be debating against the institution of the gold standard (the exact type of people who would argue that there should be an independent federal reserve).

The best way to counter the argument would be to suggest competition, as that is what the Fed's independence is supposed to accomplish in essence, in its attempt to sever monetary policy from politics. However, appointed bureaucrats are not independent, obviously. That, in my view, is why, even in the video you linked, Ron Paul advocated for competition in currency, which should be the way we characterize the first step of the objective to restore sound money.

[pinkmandy]

Diebold is a huge concern I think. How are we going to make sure they aren't cheating this time?

[Inkblots]

In every case where a policy objective has been advocated by Ron Paul, he has advocated for the institution of a system of competition in currency, or the repeal of legal tender laws. I don't believe that to be transitional at all. I see that as the end-goal, whereas the market behavior that occurs after the repeal of legal tender laws would seem to be a transition, as it allows the market to rationally and slowly shed the illiquid assets in central banks as people begin to inject their money in other types of banks as they are built in response to the new legal environment.

Since competition in currency allows us to try metal standards, right up against fractional reserve banks, right up against baskets of currencies, with algorithims trading them for strength, competition in currency itself would be a fine economic system allowing the maximum possibilities for the consumer.

Thank you for the useful discussion, Barry and freshjiva. What Barry says above had always been my impression of Dr. Paul's policy prescription, and I agree that it is preferable to a government-regulated gold standard for precisely the reasons he points out. There are several ready arguments against a return to a pure gold standard, but the only substantive one against a free market in money is the efficiency losses incurred in converting between different currencies for different contractual arrangements, which doesn't pack all that much punch against the large and obvious benefits mentioned before.

Since we're talking strategy, it's important to note that the cable news talking heads and, unfortunately, many people who are actually supporters of Dr. Paul, misrepresent or oversimplify his position on monetary policy, to the detriment of the campaign. It's easy for people to dismiss him if we let the pundits cast him as a 'loony 1890s gold-bug'; by informing the public that what Dr. Paul advocates in the realm of monetary policy is a practical and powerful unleashing of the free market, we can simultaneously show how deep his understanding of economics is, and how shallow and ill-informed his critics are.

[klamath]

If you know independent voters that support RP get them registered republicans NOW! waiting until the last minute to change registration can backfire in that long time republicans will see that as an attempt to falsely alter the election and will reflect badly on RP. It will become the talking point of other candidates that democrats and indies are hijacking the party to get a moderate in or a extremist that is easily defeated by Obama. Neither would be true but it would be effective talking points for party line Republicans.

[BarryDonegan]

Thank you for the useful discussion, Barry and freshjiva. What Barry says above had always been my impression of Dr. Paul's policy prescription, and I agree that it is preferable to a government-regulated gold standard for precisely the reasons he points out. There are several ready arguments against a return to a pure gold standard, but the only substantive one against a free market in money is the efficiency losses incurred in converting between different currencies for different contractual arrangements, which doesn't pack all that much punch against the large and obvious benefits mentioned before.

Since we're talking strategy, it's important to note that the cable news talking heads and, unfortunately, many people who are actually supporters of Dr. Paul, misrepresent or oversimplify his position on monetary policy, to the detriment of the campaign. It's easy for people to dismiss him if we let the pundits cast him as a 'loony 1890s gold-bug'; by informing the public that what Dr. Paul advocates in the realm of monetary policy is a practical and powerful unleashing of the free market, we can simultaneously show how deep his understanding of economics is, and how shallow and ill-informed his critics are.

Once, at a fundraiser, I took opportunity to try to explain competition in currency to a particular senator who is most unfriendly to the concept of removing the "independent central bank".

I asked if he'd heard of competition in currency, and he said no. I said it would be a situation where the free market set rates, and some banks could run really risky reserves while other banks held tight reserves. Consumers use the tight reserves, investors go for the riskier banks so capital could grow when a businessman needed money to fund a new idea. When the business fails, that fractional reserve debt would recede and the unneeded money would disappear from the system when that bank went under.

I also described that the market would probably develop some kind of algorithm based retail check-card type system where you could accept currencies denominated in any way, and have them introconverted in real time. The strength of your bank's algorithm, if you chose to operate in baskets of currencies, would affect the buying power of your account.

When he heard that there was a possibility for guys like him to risk tons of money on some fractional-reserve bank with really high returns, he was into it. I think guys from the finance perspective often worry that the reaction against the Fed will turn into an attempt to politicize interest rates, or, worse, set interest rates too low by fixing to an interest rate through bimetalism. To be fair, these are real concerns, and they can be addressed in a satisfactory way by competition in currency.

I see our main objective to be to make the opposition become true believers in competition in currency, regardless of their previous positions, because it is right.

[jazzloversinc]

....THe REVOLUTION CONTINUES....

[Matt Collins]

Thank you for the useful discussion, Barry Barry is a good friend of mine and is brilliant. I got him elected to the Nashville Republican Party Executive Committee. :)

[Matt Collins]

So Matt, has Ron promised you a position in his administration? Press secretary perhaps...No, that isn't ethical :rolleyes:

[Libertydad88]

I'm definitely ready to do my part this time around. Bring it on!

[RPgrassrootsactivist]

So Matt, has Ron promised you a position in his administration? Press secretary perhaps...

I want to see Tom Woods as press secretary. He's one of the most articulate defenders of liberty we have, and would be an ideal spokesman for Ron's administration.

[Imperial]

WOW! I am shocked at how much press this is getting. I saw FrumForum talking about "posts at ron paul forums" say Ron Paul will run in 2012. Then I was browsing the Texas Tribune, a great source on Texas politics, and was stunned to see Jesse Benton talking about Paul in 2012.

And then I clicked the link. http://www.americanindependent.com/spokesperson-u-s-rep-ron-paul-is-still-considering-all-of-his-options-for-2012/

Half of the article discusses Matt Collins' credentials in the Paulista movement. The other half describes factoids about Paul as a presidential candidate. Oh, and I am pretty sure the picture is from Gage, another forum member.

[Matt Collins]

Half of the article discusses Matt Collins' credentials in the Paulista movement. The other half describes factoids about Paul as a presidential candidate. :eek::eek::eek::eek: My head is going to explode! :p;):D:):cool:

[teacherone]

^^^^ you better not fuck this up dude.

[trey4sports]

its starting to feel like 2007 all over again......

[freshjiva]

I don't see that as an advocation of using competition in currency as a transition phase to get to the institution of a gold standard. When you have competition in currencies, you would have to use government force to create a gold standard. I think Ron Paul means, when he says "gold standard", that, in a competing currency system, the average consumer would choose a full-reserve gold-backed bank. However, you would have the option of putting your money in a riskier fractional reserve bank if you had money to invest.

That allows the money supply to ebb and flow based on investors' confidence in emerging technologies, all the while allowing a de facto gold standard for everyone with less disposable income.

In every case where a policy objective has been advocated by Ron Paul, he has advocated for the institution of a system of competition in currency, or the repeal of legal tender laws. I don't believe that to be transitional at all. I see that as the end-goal, whereas the market behavior that occurs after the repeal of legal tender laws would seem to be a transition, as it allows the market to rationally and slowly shed the illiquid assets in central banks as people begin to inject their money in other types of banks as they are built in response to the new legal environment.

Since competition in currency allows us to try metal standards, right up against fractional reserve banks, right up against baskets of currencies, with algorithims trading them for strength, competition in currency itself would be a fine economic system allowing the maximum possibilities for the consumer.

The "gold standard" has the baggage of being an outdated system, which Ron Paul even criticizes as being easily victimized by "bimetallism", and he simply says that it is superior to a fiat standard. The jury is out on bimetallism. When you force the dollar to be pegged to a specific amount of precious material, speculators can profit off of reselling it if the amount you pick isn't consistent with real valuation in the market. That is well-known by any of those who would be debating against the institution of the gold standard (the exact type of people who would argue that there should be an independent federal reserve).

The best way to counter the argument would be to suggest competition, as that is what the Fed's independence is supposed to accomplish in essence, in its attempt to sever monetary policy from politics. However, appointed bureaucrats are not independent, obviously. That, in my view, is why, even in the video you linked, Ron Paul advocated for competition in currency, which should be the way we characterize the first step of the objective to restore sound money.

Great post, Barry. I think I understand what you're saying. You make a strong case for why competitive currencies could be the ultimate end in how money works in this country. Just like banks and the US Government offer investment vehicles of the safest risk level (savings accounts and Treasuries, respectively), perhaps a bank (or even the Federal Reserve itself), amid this competition in money, would issue a gold standard based currency, which would serve as the risk-free currency. But, like you mentioned, even gold standard dollars issued by the Fed would be one of many legal currencies circulating. Individuals and businesses would then be free to decide for themselves what their risk appetite is, and denominate their savings in the appropriate currency, OR can choose to diversify among various high risk, low risk, and risk-free currencies.

I never saw it that way! It sounds like a free market solution to even money could be a wonderful thing. I would like to investigate further into this to understand what possible pitfalls there would be in such a laissez-faire monetary system. Is there any time in the history of civilization where a nation-state has permitted competing currencies?

[ronpaulhawaii]

We need a grassroots PAC Collins, we really do. we need to organize, prepare and strategize, we need to go after the opponents. look at the polls, none of them bring in more than 20 odd percent of the vote nationally so the field is wide open

We could use LOTS of PACs, in addition to this one http://alcpac.com/ ;)


Diebold is a huge concern I think. How are we going to make sure they aren't cheating this time?

Become poll workers, election judges, get on the election board, organize sanctioned poll watchers, help www.blackboxvoting.org raise awareness on the issue. And perhaps most importantly, get honest people in the STATEHOUSES to address election laws...


its starting to feel like 2007 all over again......

Except it is the summer of '06, and I hope this hype doesn't distract people from the current races...

Current Primaries
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=245428

General Election Campaigns
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=256239

[mstrmac1]

IDEA:

I could round up some money... Lets say $25,000 or so. We then have a grassroots contest for the most "grass rootsie" Ron Paul get out the message over a six months span.

What this would create is much more than $25,000 dollars worth of advertising, support, canvassing, unique billboards, blimps, etc... you get the idea.

If I raise the money I would need everyone else to be the creative side of rules committe/ and marketing of the contest.

What do you think?

[Matt Collins]

YouTube - The Alex Jones Show Wed 08.18.2010 part-5 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fvoOOK6StuY&feature=player_embedded)

Ron basically said the following at 3:05 into the above video:


"[an announcement] will not be this year.....[whether or not I'll do it] will depend on what I perceive as [the level] of support.... I need to know if the support is really out there"


AJ (or DP) was incorrect however that anyone specified January would be the announcement time. Also there is no "inside official" as AJ/DP claims either.

Get ready because once we get Rand into the Senate by a large margin, 2012 will be just around the corner!

[Matt Collins]

Oh and what Ron just essentially said in case anyone didn't catch it is that the grassroots needs to get their act in gear before he'll announce. That means it's in our hands so get to work doing this (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=257354)!

[farrar]

I saw the money bomb at $55,000. I read a short paragraph in a text book and looked up. It was 62,000.... That made my day so far.

[libertybrewcity]

As Collins said above, get to know your neighbors and make a list of issues that are important to them.

In elections, microtargeting can be the key to getting votes. Chances are, people support some aspect of Ron Paul's platform whether it is cutting spending, decentralization, end to the drug war, low taxes, more liberal on social issues, abortion, etc, etc. The list goes on an on. You can individualize Ron Paul to work for everyone.

Many candidates have been doing this for years. In 2004, Kerry gave handheld devices to volunteers in Iowa and showed them to voters with a special message for different areas of Iowa.

[Matt Collins]

YouTube - Ron Paul Will Run in 2012? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rgu1xV8cIqw&feature=player_embedded)

[Matt Collins]

YouTube - Ron Paul to announce for president 2012? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gtYqED6FVVU)

[Matt Collins]

YouTube - Ron Paul 2012 - Let the Race Begin! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a7-lIYERors&feature=player_embedded)

[KramerDSP]

Matt, you really don't need to bump five similarly themed threads to post the same five videos.

[low preference guy]

Matt, you really don't need to bump five similarly themed threads to post the same five videos.

it's one of his main hobbies. when you see a bunch of threads bumped by Matt Collins in new posts, just don't read any of them.

[Matt Collins]

Matt, you really don't need to bump five similarly themed threads to post the same five videos.

it's one of his main hobbies. when you see a bunch of threads bumped by Matt Collins in new posts, just don't read any of them.

I do it for a very specific reason: RPF is a knowledgebase of liberty and politics. Making sure relevant threads have relevant material is important because when people go to search for information they should find everything relevant on that particular topic. Think of this place as a library, I do. In fact leaving breadcrumbs for others to find in the future is what I feel the responsible thing to do.

So there is my rationale behind it.

[james1906]

it's one of his main hobbies. when you see a bunch of threads bumped by Matt Collins in new posts, just don't read any of them.

He's a bigger self-promoter than Paris Hilton.

[Eric21ND]

As I said in my other thread,

Phrasing of our views on issues will be SO important for 2012. You can still be solid in your beliefs but word them in ways that won't be as off-putting to the mainstream voter. Push the talking points you know will be most effective and least offensive to Republican voters.

For instance on foreign policy:

1. Hammer home the point of cost first and foremost.

In this economy, harping on the fiscal side of what we do overseas will be way more effective than any other talking point. Sure, they are also immoral and make us less safe. However, most Republicans will just turn off their brains and go "LA LA LA" as soon as they hear that. Play up the cost and they'll be more receptive.

2. It is vital to push the idea that Ron Paul supports a STRONG NATIONAL DEFENSE.

I get the feeling that a lot of voters felt that Ron would just be a push over when it came to our defense. Make it known that Ron supports a strong and prepared military and if we are attacked, or an attack is imminent, he will be in support of using our armed forces to their fullest extent to defend our country.

3. If you remove the troops from abroad, it makes for a securer border.

Most Republicans are for strong border security. Appeal to that side of the party by suggesting that the troops we remove from around the world could be placed on the border to reduce the number of illegal aliens crossing into our country every day. Now I know there are a lot of Ron Paul supporters in favor of open borders, but Ron Paul himself is not. I think there were a number of Paul supporters in 2008 who used the run to push their own agendas rather than Dr. Paul's. If you're campaigning for Ron Paul, you have to represent the ideas of Ron Paul.

On foreign policy, you can talk about zionism/NWO/CFR/Israel sucks/abolish the military until you are blue in the face, but it will do Ron Paul no good in his campaign and will turn off any potential Republican vote. And for god sakes, leave the "9/11 was an inside job!" signs at home.

In my opinion, these are the 5 main talking points we should use in the primary, and what Dr. Paul should stress on.

1) Strongly against the bailouts and Obamacare.
2) Deficit needs to be reduced, and it needs to be reduced NOW.
3) Lower taxes for EVERYBODY.
4) A defense of non-intervention combined with a strong and prepared military will keep us more safe than our current foreign policy.
5) The Federal Reserve is the cause of our economic problems, and needs to be audited/abolished

Point number 2 is critical.

[speciallyblend]

blimpin for the collins!! I am sorry what is matt collins promoting? ooo yeah to register republican and become a delegate and get involved , OOOOOO THE HORROR . we must stop the collins asap!!

[speciallyblend]

He's a bigger self-promoter than Paris Hilton.

hmmm paris hilton =coke, alcohol and sex tapes. The collins= register republican, become a delegate and get involved!!!!

what is the problem again??

[lucius]

Quit making this shit up!!! jk :D



Ron Paul WILL Run in 2012 (Part II)
Get Prepared!




Many of you know me and trust what I have to say, and if not, that is ok. You can take my word for it or not, it is your choice because I realize I am asking you to trust me without anything being put forth (at present) to support my assertion (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=257221). Each individual should decide for themselves whether or not my comments (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=257221) on the topic have merit. But I can tell you that if you are indeed committed to the cause of liberty there are action items that need to be executed to prepare and lay the ground work for a 2012 Ron Paul Presidential campaign.




The best opportunity for victory in 2012 will require each of us to do the following:



1- Donate to Rand Paul on August 20*
2- Become active and known in your local Republican Party
3- Work your precincts, create a list of friendlies, let them get to know you, get them involved in your local Republican Party too, and create a catalog/database of which issues are important to each household
4- Many local Republican Parties will be having officer elections in winter of 2011-- try and win as many seats as you can on your Republican Executive Committee




Please review the following courses on how to organize your precinct as
canvassing is the most important element of winning the campaign:

http://www.campaignforliberty.com/course.php?course=2


http://www.campaignforliberty.com/course.php?course=3




For those who are reading this assertion with doubts in your mind about a 2012 run by Ron, I can understand those doubts. But if you think I’m wrong or you don’t believe me, then I challenge you to implement the above action items regardless. Making great strides in your precinct program, fundraising for Rand, ensuring influence of your local GOP, and learning what it takes to win your precinct will end up being a self-fulfilling prophecy for those who doubt. If you honestly believe that Ron isn't going to run in 2012, then get out there and give him a reason to change his mind. But I can already tell you that he is going to run.





*Before Ron runs in 2011/2012 it is critical that Rand Paul win a seat in the US Senate with a clear mandate so that no one can challenge the fact that our ideas are accepted, at the forefront, and what the People actually demand from their federal government. It isn't just enough to win, but we must win by a landslide, or rather a "Randslide". A wide margin will send a very loud message that the statist/establishment cronies are no longer welcome. To ensure such a large victory in Rand's race we must give his campaign the tools to do so, which means donating to the Rand Paul Money Bomb this week on August 20th.

YouTube - Rand Paul August 19-20th Money Blitz (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LZs-BRG8o7Y&feature=player_embedded)

[Matt Collins]

FUNDRAISING IS KEY

Ron Paul's fundraising growth was exponential in 2007-2008. Lets start the exponential growth 10 months earlier for 2011-2012.

One of the reasons Paul got as much media attention that he got in 2007-2008 (especially later in 2007) was his ability to harness our grassroots financial support - support that is reported and is one of few things the media covering the election has to cover. Lets make Ron the frontrunner financially EARLY and he WILL NOT be ignored.


Timeline of events:

January 2011 Ron Paul forms exploratory committee

Q1 2011 starts Jan 1 - March 31 2011, and is reported on April 15.

This is analgous to Q1 2007 (http://projects.washingtonpost.com/2008-presidential-candidates/finance/2007/q1/) where Ron raised $639k:
Republicans $53,204,874
Mitt Romney $20,737,149
Rudy Giuliani $14,731,897
John McCain $12,992,655
Tom Tancredo $1,311,533
Ron Paul $639,889
Mike Huckabee $544,880
Duncan Hunter $499,874
Tommy Thompson $315,036

OUR Goal starting THE DAY HE ANNOUNCES FORMING AN EXPLORATORY COMMITTEE should be to raise at least $10 million dollars by March 2011. (Q1)

Q2 2011 - Our goal should be $20 million to keep him in frontrunner status:

Results from Q2 2007 (http://projects.washingtonpost.com/2008-presidential-candidates/finance/2007/q2/)
Republicans $49,673,752
Rudy Giuliani $17,267,287
Mitt Romney $13,793,151
John McCain $11,187,821
Ron Paul $2,357,423
Tom Tancredo $1,465,776
Duncan Hunter $803,383
Mike Huckabee $763,618
Tommy Thompson $458,967

Q3 2011 - The ball shall continue to roll, and the freedom movement shall envelope this country.

Here's Q3 2007: (http://projects.washingtonpost.com/2008-presidential-candidates/finance/2007/q3/)
Republicans $47,464,436
Fred Thompso$12,717,993
Rudy Giuliani $11,253,552
Mitt Romney $9,533,269
John McCain $5,466,904
Ron Paul $5,204,218
Mike Huckabee $1,031,679
Tom Tancredo $747,539
Duncan Hunter $486,337
Tommy Thompson $195,725
Alan Keyes $21,218


Ron Paul got most of his fundraising in Q4 2007 - when it mattered the least fundraising-wise - the numbers aren't published until mid-January, when the early primaries are already over and the game is up and he's been called a "long-shot" too many times to remember. Lets change the MSM's adjective of choice from "long-shot" to "moneybags" and "wildly popular."

Most of Ron Paul's $34 million came at the end, in November and December of 2007, when it was too late to do as much good as EARLIER.

Imagine if Ron, instead of raising $25 million in November and December and January had gotten it 8-10 months earlier! We'd have at least double the support we have now, Paul would be even more of a household name - the freedom movement would have been in a stronger position - who knows what would have happened!?


The government (Federal Election Commission) dictates individuals can give a maximum of $2400 per person ($4800 per married couple). (http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/citizens.shtml#fn2)

A few suggestions:
START SAVING NOW.
1. I'm maxing out and encouraging my friends to do the same. In a fight there are times to save onto your ammo and times to fire with all you've got - Jan 2011 lets fire the shot heard around the world (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concord_Hymn).

2. Join your local tea party and tell them Ron Paul started the modern tea party movement. Lets earn their hearts and minds.

3. I posit that a money bomb should be planned for some time in Jan, Feb., or March 2011 to put our campaign in a competitive position and gain financial-frontrunner status.

4. Meetup groups

http://ronpaulgraphs.com/ (http://ronpaulgraphs.com/) - note all the major money bombs occurred 10 months before they MUST this time around. This is necessary, but not sufficient, to win.

http://ronpaulgraphs.com/thumb_all_time_total.png?911.png
For math geeks, lets shift the curve to the left.

Info on primaries: http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P12/ (http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P12/)

Better list of suggestions:http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=232814 (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=232814)

Avery J. Knapp Jr., M.D.
Helped run the Greater NYC Ron Paul Action Meetup (http://www.meetup.com/campaignforlibertynyc/) (and helped start it in May 2007, end of Q2, shortly after I heard about Ron Paul).

SOURCE:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=2878691&postcount=144

[speciallyblend]

beckin, Towelie says Don't forget to Register Republican, Become a Delegate and Get Involved!!! wanna get high?

YouTube - South Park- Towelie Quotes (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OA6EHCrgZC0)

[Matt Collins]

Ron Paul plans trip to Iowa:
http://dailycaller.com/2010/10/05/ron-paul-books-trip-to-iowa-%E2%80%94-but-will-he-run-for-president-in-2012/

[Matt Collins]

YouTube - Ron Paul "Let the Revolution Begin" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sDXKV3lO3fk&feature=email)

[Anti Federalist]

Barry is a good friend of mine and is brilliant. I got him elected to the Nashville Republican Party Executive Committee. :)

Now you sound like William Frawley in Miracle on 34th Street.

[Matt Collins]

http://i185.photobucket.com/albums/x93/sonicspikesalbum/Campaign%20VI/Toldja2.jpg