Too many liberty people have a defeatist attitude:

[Matt Collins]

Too many people in the liberty movement have a defeatist mentality which is a self-fulfilling prophecy.


I'm not "Mr. Positive" by any stretch of the imagination. Things are getting worse without a doubt, but in some respects they are also getting better.

That being said, the reason a lot of activists in the liberty movement have a defeatist attitude is because they continue to look for a silver bullet to achieve victory.

That simply isn't how the world works most of the time be it in business, school, or bringing about liberty.

Most of the time to achieve victory it takes grueling non-stop tedious unpleasant work which quite frankly many people are unwilling to do either because they are lazy or do not have the mental capacity to understand the long term results of short term actions. It's like hoping you'll win the lottery as the best chance for success.

Running candidates doomed to fail with zero results (and one can "win" an election without achieving electoral victory), attempting to get bills passed on their merits and giving up after the first try, are morale crushing activities. Do enough of this and people become defeatists, sour on the whole idea, and then give-up and go home.

Deeper, I think a lot of it has to do with personality types of the liberty movement. Many of us are INTJs or similar, which means we are thinkers, not necessarily doers. We definitely don't like dealing with other people. That makes it hard for us to want to be leaders and build organizations by recruiting others to show up and help out. It means we are not typically outgoing, or warm and friendly.

There are exceptions to this of course, but it is the world as I see it.

In the 7 years I have been doing this I have tasted victory in both small and big ways, so I know it can be done, I've done it myself, I've seen others do it, and I've had a front row seat to some pretty successful endeavors. I've also seen a lot of failure too, most of which was due to fighting the wrong battle.

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.

[acptulsa]

Does this mean you're not going to go around saying, for example, Blue Republican outreach efforts to grow the libertarian wing of the GOP with fresh blood are a waste of time and resources? Because if so, this is a red letter day!

[Matt Collins]

Does this mean you're not going to go around saying, for example, Blue Republican outreach efforts to grow the libertarian wing of the GOP with fresh blood are a waste of time and resources? Because if so, this is a red letter day!
For growing the GOP, that might work in urban areas.

To use it as a strategy to win elections, it is a complete waste of time.

[acptulsa]

...it is a complete waste of time.

Nice to know our defeatist attitude is alive and well and living in you.

[hated]

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.

On that note....


The Foundation for Applied Conservative Leadership

http://www.training4liberty.org/facl2/images/mission_tbl2.png

http://www.training4liberty.org/facl2/images/greenville.png (http://facl-greenvillesc.eventbrite.com)

http://www.training4liberty.org/facl2/images/lincoln.png (http://facl-lincolnne.eventbrite.com)

http://www.training4liberty.org/facl2/images/hartly.png (http://facl-hartlyde.eventbrite.com)

http://www.training4liberty.org/facl2/images/atlanta.png

http://www.training4liberty.org/facl2/images/griffin.png (http://facl-griffinga.eventbrite.com)

http://www.training4liberty.org/facl2/images/vancouver.png

http://www.training4liberty.org/facl2/images/biddeford.png (http://facl-biddefordme.eventbrite.com)

facltraining.org

[CaptUSA]

Nice to know our defeatist attitude is alive and well and living in you.Nice OP, Matt, but you kinda walked right into that one. :D

[Feeding the Abscess]

That being said, the reason a lot of activists in the liberty movement have a defeatist attitude is because they continue to look for a silver bullet to achieve victory.

Classic projection.

That's exactly what politics has always been, however - state your own problems, while placing those problems on someone (or everyone) else.

[MelissaWV]

THE IRONY IS TOO DAMNED HIGH.

http://gametaffy.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Jimmy-McMillan.jpg

[Matt Collins]

Nice to know our defeatist attitude is alive and well and living in you.
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.

[Bastiat's The Law]

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.

[fr33]

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.

Have you done the math to back up that statement?

[fr33]

Matt uses the word "victory" so often in the OP as if he doesn't know what it even means. What does it mean to you? In 2014 40,000 new laws take effect across the US and you've tasted victory?

[cajuncocoa]

If one continues to compromise on certain issues, it's easy to convince oneself that we're winning

[heavenlyboy34]

Matt uses the word "victory" so often in the OP as if he doesn't know what it even means. What does it mean to you? In 2014 40,000 new laws take effect across the US and you've tasted victory?

Collins reminds me of the "Naive" character in that famous "types of libertarians" cartoon.

[Origanalist]

If one continues to compromise on certain issues, it's easy to convince oneself that we're winning

https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQ77AJF2dYNezoI8bQrz3yQ5AkGLbum0-Biwxq8DDj_iYfi0RdOMw

[Bastiat's The Law]

Have you done the math to back up that statement?

Yes.

[Occam's Banana]

Too many liberty people have a defeatist attitude

Why are you being such a defeatist?


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.

Oh, you have got to be shitting me ... :rolleyes:

[heavenlyboy34]

Why are you being such a defeatist?



Oh, you have got to be shitting me ... :rolleyes:
Collins frequently makes me wonder whether he's being serious or not. I have him on ignore because I'm sick of wading through bullshit to find substance.

[The Free Hornet]

Nice to know our defeatist attitude is alive and well and living in you.

Bingo!

I'm reminded of this shoe salesman story:


A western shoe salesman went to Africa to scout the market. He wired his manufacturer, ‘I want to come home. Nobody wears shoes in this part of Africa.’

They brought him home and sent another salesman. The new salesman hurriedly wired an order, ‘Everybody here needs shoes!”

IMO, both salesmen have valid approaches and could be good at sales provided the right salesman is in the right location. If Matt doesn't want to sell shoes in the ghetto, then great. But it is a waste of time for him to convince others not to try.

[The Free Hornet]

For growing the GOP, that might work in urban areas.

To use it as a strategy to win elections, it is a complete waste of time.

If one or one's campaign manager is easily [mis]branded as a racist mofo, how does that affect election chances? I got the sense that W Bush could get along with anybody even if he didn't get their votes. Romney.... not so much.

[fr33]

Yes.

I'd like to see that math. You could probably persuade me that if we only funded certain campaigns in certain areas, we could make a little difference in a few more races but I've yet to see the polling stats to support your theory. Unless part of your plan involves us all moving our residences.

[Feelgood]

http://global3.memecdn.com/when-someone-starts-a-troll-thread_o_2058097.jpg

[jmdrake]

For growing the GOP, that might work in urban areas.

To use it as a strategy to win elections, it is a complete waste of time.

So let me see if I understand you. You agree that acptulsa's approach might work in urban areas to get more libertarians into the GOP. But you think that getting more libertarians into the GOP is a "complete waste of time" for winning elections? So...you don't win elections by getting more voters? Because that seems to be what you are saying.

Something is only a "waste of time" if it is either counterproductive, not at all productive, or less productive that something someone might be doing that would be productive. If acptulsa has no interest in going to a tea party rally (haven't seen one of those around here in awhile) and trying to convince teocons that "Rand really agrees with you 100%" then his trying to reach "blue republicans" is worth more than him sitting around arguing with you on a web forum. Look at Rand's "minority outreach" efforts. Will that win him the GOP nomination? No. Not in itself. But it may get him a few extra votes. It's certainly not a "waste of time."

[Tod]

When our forefathers revolted, it was because they had a defeatist attitude about the possibility of change within the existing political system. If only they had just written one more letter to King George, I'm just sure he would have granted their wishes.

[Matt Collins]

When our forefathers revolted, it was because they had a defeatist attitude about the possibility of change within the existing political system. If only they had just written one more letter to King George, I'm just sure he would have granted their wishes.
No, not exactly. Their situation was different because they had effectively zero control over their government. being thousands of miles away didn't help. We can have control over our government, but it means people have to actually be involved in the process.

[Matt Collins]

If one continues to compromise on certain issues, it's easy to convince oneself that we're winning
I completely agree.

[Matt Collins]

So let me see if I understand you. You agree that acptulsa's approach might work in urban areas to get more libertarians into the GOP. But you think that getting more libertarians into the GOP is a "complete waste of time" for winning elections? So...you don't win elections by getting more voters? Because that seems to be what you are saying.Huh? Now I am confused :p


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.



Look at Rand's "minority outreach" efforts. Will that win him the GOP nomination? No. Not in itself. But it may get him a few extra votes. It's certainly not a "waste of time."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.

[The Free Hornet]

No, not exactly. Their situation was different because they had effectively zero control over their government. being thousands of miles away didn't help. We can have control over our government [LOFL], but it means people have to actually be involved in the process.

California and Alaska are thousands of miles from DC. They have "effectively zero control over their government".

I claim zero control since 100% of a state's power can't overrule DC even when engaged in an unconstitutional activity. It is unambiguous that we are not a republic and we are not a democracy.

So I am throwing the bullshit flag (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?439819-C4L-has-another-misstep&p=5369728&viewfull=1#post5369728) on you:

https://fbcdn-profile-a.akamaihd.net/hprofile-ak-prn1/c60.21.252.252/s160x160/388928_498010950223200_1758058436_n.jpg

BOOM! Bet you didn't see that coming!

[Indy Vidual]

I would try much harder if things were not so hopeless. :p

[Matt Collins]

California and Alaska are thousands of miles from DC. They have "effectively zero control over their government".

I claim zero control since 100% of a state's power can't overrule DC even when engaged in an unconstitutional activity. It is unambiguous that we are not a republic and we are not a democracy.Look up "nullification" sometime, which is done at the state level.

[acptulsa]

Huh? Now I am confused :p


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.

Scientific polling data to support that or it isn't true. As for changing the party leadership, how can you look at what happened at the 2012 national convention and consider anything that works toward changing the leadership of that party a waste of time?


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.

We're heading into our third presidential election cycle. Are we not in it for the long term? If we were 'most Republicans', would we not have won by now? If we don't increase the GOP voting base, will it not continue it's previous trend of drying up and blowing away? Is taking over a party the 'usual course'? Even so, did not evangelicals do a pretty good job of it back in the days when Newt was Speaker of the House? Did not the Moral Majority forces recruit and unify every evangelical they could muster, including those who were lifelong Democrats?!


Look up "nullification" sometime, which is done at the state level.

And this is a more proven method than getting people to switch parties?

Your efforts to get us to give up on winning over disaffected Democrats is not merely 'negativity', Matt. Given how it has past history of success, it has current promise, and it is clearly more immediately effective than such things as nullification, your efforts to discourage us from doing it amount to trollery and saboutage.

Good OP, Matt. Take your own advice when you give good advice, for a change.

[fr33]

No, not exactly. Their situation was different because they had effectively zero control over their government. being thousands of miles away didn't help. We can have control over our government, but it means people have to actually be involved in the process.

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

And to put to rest your other ridiculous arguments; DC is indeed over a thousand miles away. Even being involved locally makes no difference. In order to create the government we have, they used your arguments. People locally got involved and voted for it. They have control of their government.

The men that decided, "fuck it, it's time for British soldiers to die or I die trying" were not in any different scenario than me; unless you count the fact that they had more freedom and less taxation than I do.

[Bastiat's The Law]

I'd like to see that math. You could probably persuade me that if we only funded certain campaigns in certain areas, we could make a little difference in a few more races but I've yet to see the polling stats to support your theory. Unless part of your plan involves us all moving our residences.

- Ron raised upwards if $40 million during the campaign.

- A typical House race would cost between $500-750K

- A Senate race is usually $2-6 million, although the cost widely varies by the state you wish you play in.

We'd only have to get our Liberty Candidates through the primary for the most part, because once they enter the general election against a democrat fund raising sort of goes on automatic pilot. We have to do the heavy lifting early in the election cycle to give our candidates the best shot at winning.

Polling is largely tied to who people perceive as the frontrunner. People (media especially) come to that conclusion by donation numbers. We have to inject cash heavily and early so we can get that earned media attention focused on our guys. To be taken seriously you got to be able to raise cash; it's a sad reality. People will all of a sudden put down their coffee and newspaper and start to take notice of you when you rack in the cash. Psychologically, voters like to back someone with a perceived chance at winning. To achieve that proverbial "light-bulb" moment you have to make some fund raising waves.

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.

[Bastiat's The Law]

Look up "nullification" sometime, which is done at the state level.

Matt is correct. Alaska will likely be the next state to legalize marijuana. It's essentially quasi-nullification by the people and legislatures in those states.

[jjdoyle]

- Ron raised upwards if $40 million during the campaign.

- A typical House race would cost between $500-750K

- A Senate race is usually $2-6 million, although the cost widely varies by the state you wish you play in.

We'd only have to get our Liberty Candidates through the primary for the most part, because once they enter the general election against a democrat fund raising sort of goes on automatic pilot. We have to do the heavy lifting early in the election cycle to give our candidates the best shot at winning.

Polling is largely tied to who people perceive as the frontrunner. People (media especially) come to that conclusion by donation numbers. We have to inject cash heavily and early so we can get that earned media attention focused on our guys. To be taken seriously you got to be able to raise cash; it's a sad reality. People will all of a sudden put down their coffee and newspaper and start to take notice of you when you rack in the cash. Psychologically, voters like to back someone with a perceived chance at winning. To achieve that proverbial "light-bulb" moment you have to make some fund raising waves.

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.

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.

[Ronin Truth]

That's one of the really cool things about being a "liberty people". You are free to have whatever damned attitude that you choose. I assume that the correct number have chosen the attitude that they want.

[CaptUSA]

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.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.

[pcosmar]

it is a complete waste of time.

Defeatist attitude.

[LibertyEagle]

I totally agree with what Matt said.

[pcosmar]

Ok..
Nice rant Matt,, but I have a different perspective. I have no interest in Growing the GOP.
I would like to Defeat the GOP, and the Democrat party,, and any/all other parties.
I have no interest in the parties. And the GOP is directly responsible for at least have the problems with this country.


And the devil, taking him up into a high mountain, showed unto him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time.
And the devil said unto him, All this power will I give thee, and the glory of them: for that is delivered unto me; and to whomsoever I will, I give it.
If thou therefore wilt worship me, all shall be thine.

If winning requires a deal with the devil,, NO Thank You.

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


Then I saw “a new heaven and a new earth,” for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and there was no longer any sea. I saw the Holy City, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride beautifully dressed for her husband. And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, “Look! God’s dwelling place is now among the people, and he will dwell with them. They will be his people, and God himself will be with them and be their God. ‘He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death’ or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away.”

[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

http://www.training4liberty.org/facl2/images/mission_tbl2.png

http://www.training4liberty.org/facl2/images/greenville.png (http://facl-greenvillesc.eventbrite.com)

http://www.training4liberty.org/facl2/images/lincoln.png (http://facl-lincolnne.eventbrite.com)

http://www.training4liberty.org/facl2/images/hartly.png (http://facl-hartlyde.eventbrite.com)

http://www.training4liberty.org/facl2/images/atlanta.png

http://www.training4liberty.org/facl2/images/griffin.png (http://facl-griffinga.eventbrite.com)

http://www.training4liberty.org/facl2/images/vancouver.png

http://www.training4liberty.org/facl2/images/biddeford.png (http://facl-biddefordme.eventbrite.com)

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% (https://www.voterinfo.sbe.virginia.gov/election/DATA/2012/A64F1220-CC02-4DED-AB71-09E34ED36339/unofficial/1_s.shtml) 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 (http://rethinkvirginia.wordpress.com/2012/02/16/the-game-changer/). 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 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T9hWdnTdeoI) 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...

[Matt Collins]

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.No, because it wasn't winnable. Ron could've unloaded his entire warchest, and Romney would've been able to double or triple that amount spent, and Romney would've been able to buy it.




There's no chance, so why even try, right? #DefeatistLE is correct. Picking battles isn't the same as being a defeatist.


I would have challenged Romney in Virginia. That's why you don't get paid good money to run multi-million dollar campaigns.


If you lose, well you were going down anyways.Except for the fact the PCC would've lost all of its funds in the effort, which were indeed used to gain more delegates in other states. The more delegates we had, the bigger splash we could make, the more pain we could cause, and the more rules changes we could affect.

[Matt Collins]

And for anyone else who happens to be reading, I am refusing to respond to JJDoyle's comments because he is lying and making stuff up. I worked on the PCC in 2012, he did not.

[Matt Collins]

Yes I have done all of those things and learned it was a waste of time.Then you were doing it wrong.



There is no resistance. These people are conservative Republicans and they spend my money like a drunken sailor. Let me give you the formula for success:

1- build a list of everyone who cares about a specific issue
2- fundraise off that list
3- use those funds to grow that list
4- also use those funds to inform voters about specific politicians on that issue
5- if the politician still votes against you after you mobilize those who care about the issue, then replace the politician the following election

If you do that two or 3 times, you become feared, which means you become respected, and they become scared to cross you. Your goal is to gain political power.


It is a lot of work, but it isn't rocket science, and it isn't even really political "science".

[Matt Collins]

Nice rant Matt,, but I have a different perspective. I have no interest in Growing the GOP.
I would like to Defeat the GOP, and the Democrat party,, and any/all other parties.Fair enough and trust me I'm sympathetic, but the fact is that there has been a 2 party system in the US since its inception, and will be for the foreseeable future.

Don't try and change the weather on the battlefield because you can't.



If winning requires a deal with the devil,, NO Thank You.It doesn't.


I will wait for them all to be destroyed.
Call that defeatist if you will. I want something better.Well you'll be waiting until infinity, and losing your rights in the mean time.

[LibertyEagle]

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% (https://www.voterinfo.sbe.virginia.gov/election/DATA/2012/A64F1220-CC02-4DED-AB71-09E34ED36339/unofficial/1_s.shtml) 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?

Bullshit. With limited funds, you choose the states you are going to go after. Virginia was not a good bet.

[fr33]

And for anyone else who happens to be reading, I am refusing to respond to JJDoyle's comments because he is lying and making stuff up. I worked on the PCC in 2012, he did not.I actually think he tells a lot of hard truths. Unlike him I don't really hold a grudge over it because Ron Paul 2012 was about building a movement rather than becoming president. His posts are worth paying attention to though. Maybe it's just my perspective because I didn't think "the delegates are going to win it!" or "it's happening!" back then.

[Matt Collins]

As for changing the party leadership, how can you look at what happened at the 2012 national convention and consider anything that works toward changing the leadership of that party a waste of time?Iowa, New Hampshire, Minnesota, Virginia, and a few smaller more isolated places show that the local / state leadership can in fact be changed.




We're heading into our third presidential election cycle. Are we not in it for the long term? If we were 'most Republicans', would we not have won by now? If we don't increase the GOP voting base, will it not continue it's previous trend of drying up and blowing away?Good point, but the GOP's most likely source of new voters will be from the swing / independents, not those who are normally hard Democrat. A paradigm shift could indeed occur (it has multiple times), but that usually takes longer than a decade.



Is taking over a party the 'usual course'? Even so, did not evangelicals do a pretty good job of it back in the days when Newt was Speaker of the House? Did not the Moral Majority forces recruit and unify every evangelical they could muster, including those who were lifelong Democrats?!Another good point.

They took it over with Reagan, but they lost power due to falling into the access trap and became largely ignored or pacified.

But the other aspect was that the Democrat Party was fundamentally changing at the time, becoming much more liberal. Remember when Al Gore was a good conservative family man for example?



Your efforts to get us to give up on winning over disaffected Democrats is not merely 'negativity', Matt. Given how it has past history of success, it has current promise, and it is clearly more immediately effective than such things as nullification, your efforts to discourage us from doing it amount to trollery and saboutage.

Good OP, Matt. Take your own advice when you give good advice, for a change.You fail to understand that legislative battles can be won in many state legislatures in a single cycle or two. Changing peoples hearts and minds usually takes much longer than that.

[speciallyblend]

Matt Collins seems to fail to understand the only person driving us away is Rand Paul. As i said 6 months ago you should be addressing rand paul not us.

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!

Colorado Voters clearly showed we do not need rands pandering or the gop. As a matter of fact, Colorado Voters now know we do not need the gop/dnc or the federal gov. We can nullify the all!

Colorado Voters nullified the gop/dnc and the federal gov 2 times and we can do it again without rands bs.

[LibertyEagle]

Matt Collins seems to fail to understand the only person driving us away is Rand Paul. As i said 6 months ago you should be addressing rand paul not us.

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!

Colorado Voters clearly showed we do not need rands pandering or the gop. As a matter of fact, Colorado Voters now know we do not need the gop/dnc or the federal gov. We can nullify the all!

Colorado Voters nullified the gop/dnc and the federal gov 2 times and we can do it again without rands bs.

Too bad Colorado voters hate the 2nd Amendment though, isn't it?

[jjdoyle]

Bullshit. With limited funds, you choose the states you are going to go after. Virginia was not a good bet.

And Michigan was? You seem to spin like Bill O'Reilly when he can't answer questions, defending the complete failure of a dishonest campaign. Last I checked, you didn't even care where Ron Paul 2012 spent their money, because you gave it "freely". Now you're acting like Virginia wasn't winnable (defeatist), ignoring the clear facts that delegates were WINNABLE in the PRIMARY. Which is how Ron Paul was awarded 3 delegates, because of the hard work of a SUPPORTER (not the campaign), even though RP lost the popular vote. Don't let the facts stand in your way though.

Ron Paul 2012 could have won MORE delegates in Virginia, by targeting districts and not the whole state. Instead, they had already chosen to help Mitt Romney win the nomination at that point. Michigan was before Virginia. They attacked Rick Santorum in Michigan at the end of February. Wasted at least $100K attacking Rick Santorum in Michigan when RP had absolutely NO CHANCE of winning that state. NONE. ZERO. And yet, you really think Ron Paul's chances of winning Virginia were less than Michigan? When even some Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich supporters were trying to help Ron Paul win Virginia?


And for anyone else who happens to be reading, I am refusing to respond to JJDoyle's comments because he is lying and making stuff up. I worked on the PCC in 2012, he did not.
And yes, Matt Collins did work for Ron Paul 2012, so did Jesse Benton. Maybe they had a special blend of Kool-Aid they required staffers to drink and that's why he calls me saying Ron Paul 2012 agreed to not attack Mitt Romney before going into Michigan, despite Doug Wead saying it and the campaign's own actions screaming it, a lie? I know the truth can be hard to swallow sometimes, and apparently for political campaign workers it's really hard when you are trying to continue some mirage of "greatness" done when it was the exact opposite. Complete failure and dishonesty.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q3PwzZ--v94

The media. Even Rick Santorum. And Ron Paul supporters DURING the campaign were saying the exact same thing. Doug Wead didn't even have to admit it, for it to be true. It was clear to anybody involved in politics at any level, the campaign had sold supporters out to the Mitt Romney campaign and continuously mislead them and lied to them to get more funds.

Ron Paul 2012 didn't spend a dime in Virginia running even a single positive TV ad to even let the voters know he was serious about winning, yet they spent $100K (at least) attacking Rick Santorum in a state that would have caused a complete bloodbath in the Republican primary had Mitt Romney lost it: Michigan.

We can all thank Ron Paul 2012 and the likes of Jesse Benton (and I guess people like Matt Collins too, since he is either willfully ignorant or outright lying about the facts and events) and the others at the top, for bowing to King Romney. And then wasting another $20 million of supporters' money, not counting time, during the primary.

$20 MILLION that could have been better directed to Senate races, or House races. Instead, we got Rick Santorum Sasquatch attack ads.

Yes, Ron Paul 2012 was scared to attack Mitt Romney. They were effectively blackmailed out of the race, with a "We'll destroy your personal career." Well geez, I wish they had told supporters that information before so many wasted time and money going to conventions for nothing. Well, maybe to be arrested, assaulted, and harassed. I guess that's a good thing, in this police state?

And what email did Ron send that said he was throwing in the towel as you claimed? You made that claim, but like always, failed to back it up when I asked you for details on it. When did he send it? January? February? I have all the emails.

[LibertyEagle]

And Michigan was? You seem to spin like Bill O'Reilly when he can't answer questions, defending the complete failure of a dishonest campaign. Last I checked, you didn't even care where Ron Paul 2012 spent their money, because you gave it "freely". Now you're acting like Virginia wasn't winnable (defeatist), ignoring the clear facts that delegates were WINNABLE in the PRIMARY. Which is how Ron Paul was awarded 3 delegates, because of the hard work of a SUPPORTER (not the campaign), even though RP lost the popular vote. Don't let the facts stand in your way though.

Ron Paul 2012 could have won MORE delegates in Virginia, by targeting districts and not the whole state. Instead, they had already chosen to help Mitt Romney win the nomination at that point. Michigan was before Virginia. They attacked Rick Santorum in Michigan at the end of February. Wasted at least $100K attacking Rick Santorum in Michigan when RP had absolutely NO CHANCE of winning that state. NONE. ZERO. And yet, you really think Ron Paul's chances of winning Virginia were less than Michigan? When even some Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich supporters were trying to help Ron Paul win Virginia?

And yes, Matt Collins did work for Ron Paul 2012, and maybe they had a special blend of Kool-Aid they required staffers to drink and that's why he calls Ron Paul 2012 agreeing to not attack Mitt Romney before going into Michigan, despite Doug Wead saying it and the campaign's own actions screaming it, a lie?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q3PwzZ--v94

The media. Even Rick Santorum. And Ron Paul supporters DURING the campaign were saying the exact same thing. Doug Wead didn't even have to admit it, for it to be true. It was clear to anybody involved in politics at any level, the campaign had sold supporters out to the Mitt Romney campaign and continuously mislead them and lied to them to get more funds.

Ron Paul 2012 didn't spend a dime in Virginia running even a single positive TV ad to even let the voters know he was serious about winning, yet they spent $100K (at least) attacking Rick Santorum in a state that would have caused a complete bloodbath in the Republican primary had Mitt Romney lost it: Michigan.

We can all thank Ron Paul 2012 and the likes of Jesse Benton (and I guess people like Matt Collins too, since he is either willfully ignorant or outright lying about the facts and events) and the others at the top, for bowing to King Romney. And then wasting another $20 million of supporters' money, not counting time, during the primary.


$20 MILLION that could have been better directed to Senate races, or House races. Instead, we got Rick Santorum Sasquatch attack ads.
People donated to Ron Paul. If you wanted to donate to senate or house races, you should have done that. However, you don't control others' donations.


Yes, Ron Paul 2012 was scared to attack Mitt Romney. They were effectively blackmailed out of the race, with a "We'll destroy your personal career."
Ron Paul had already lost by that point. Selfishly, I would have liked to see an attack ad too, but it would have been just that, selfish, if it wouldn't have changed the outcome. Should they have run one earlier? Yeah, maybe, but they were trying to thread a needle in a haystack to give Ron any chance whatsoever of winning and the establishment killed Ron off pretty early in the game. Those are the facts.


Well geez, I wish they had told supporters that information before so many wasted time and money going to conventions for nothing. Well, maybe to be arrested, assaulted, and harassed. I guess that's a good thing, in this police state?

And what email did Ron send that said he was throwing in the towel as you claimed? You made that claim, but like always, failed to back it up when I asked you for details on it. When did he send it? January? February? I have all the emails.

You are hopeless. Yeah, Ron sent out an email throwing in the damn towel. It was talked about here on the forums quite a lot. You weren't here, slick, so if you aren't up on things, google is your friend. I'm not going to do your work for you.

Ron told us many times that it was important to have a good showing at that convention, so that we could show that we weren't a fly in the pan movement. That we were here to stay and there were a lot of us.

Neither Ron Paul or his campaign had the goal of helping Mitt Romney. You want to believe that, so you do. Go for it. No one is going to change your mind, because you want to be pissed. You have done nothing on these forums but try to get people to throw in the towel since you joined. Divide and conquer. It's the same kind of thing I would expect out of the likes of Karl Rove.

[jjdoyle]

People donated to Ron Paul. If you wanted to donate to senate or house races, you should have done that. However, you don't control others' donations.

Ron Paul had already lost by that point. Selfishly, I would have liked to see an attack ad too, but it would have been just that, selfish, if it wouldn't have changed the outcome. Should they have run one earlier? Yeah, maybe, but they were trying to thread a needle in a haystack to give Ron any chance whatsoever of winning and the establishment killed Ron off pretty early in the game. Those are the facts.

You are hopeless. Yeah, Ron sent out an email throwing in the damn towel. It was talked about here on the forums quite a lot. You weren't here, slick, so if you aren't up on things, google is your friend. I'm not going to do your work for you.

Ron told us many times that it was important to have a good showing at that convention, so that we could show that we weren't a fly in the pan movement. That we were here to stay and there were a lot of us.

Neither Ron Paul or his campaign had the goal of helping Mitt Romney. You want to believe that, so you do. Go for it. No one is going to change your mind, because you want to be pissed. You have done nothing on these forums but try to get people to throw in the towel since you joined. Divide and conquer.

If I'm hopeless, you are completely clueless. And YOU have repeatedly failed to back up your claims, when asked. I guess you think Rand was stupid for not doing his own work before writing the letter to the editor in the 80s, thinking the professor in the 80s talking about nuclear power plants should have sourced his information, because you clearly don't source your's. BTW, I was here during the campaigns. Both of them.

You are truly a defeatist, because you claim Ron Paul had lost it before Michigan even voted. Which is 100% and completely false, based on the numbers. Had Mitt Romney lost Michigan, as has been explained, the entire race would have been a bloodbath between Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich, and Ron Paul. Except one thing. Ron Paul 2012 would have had the funds to use in states like Virginia and the help of other candidates like Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich supporters in that state.

And no, I have only been concerned with the truth since I joined the forums. I'm sick of people like you and Collins acting "holier-than-thou" and ignoring the facts and history of a completely dishonest campaign. Ignoring the facts that Ron Paul supporters gave ALL, and then some by showing up to conventions only to be assaulted, harassed, and arrested. And then have a campaign not respect them.

Again, maybe you didn't comprehend it the first two times I posted it, but we'll try again. Why Mitt Romney needed to lose Michigan:
"Here are the vote totals for candidates that had won the popular votes in states up until the Michigan and Arizona vote on February 28th (not counting Iowa since it ended in basically a tie for Romney and Santorum):
Mitt Romney had won 4 primaries/caucuses (New Hampshire, Florida, Nevada, Maine).
Rick Santorum had won 3 primaries/caucuses (Colorado, Missouri, Minnesota).
Newt Gingrich had won 1 primary/caucus (South Carolina).
Ron Paul 0.

Again, this is not delegate counts, but the popular vote as reported by the media.

It should be noted here, that Ron Paul lost Maine, by 2% points. Ron Paul 2012 never ran a single attack ad against only Romney in the state, and it was Ron's first chance outside of Iowa to really upset the apple cart with the popular vote totals reported by the media. Ron Paul 2012 had already run attack ads against just Rick Perry, Newt Gingrich, and Rick Santorum, but NONE for just Romney.

Then, on February 28th, Mitt Romney won both Arizona and Michigan. Barely getting a victory over Rick Santorum in Michigan, by 3%, thanks in part to Ron Paul 2012 helping attack Rick Santorum with campaign funds running a TV attack ad against him.

With Romney winning both states on February 28th, that brought his total state victories to 6:
Romney - 6 states (New Hampshire, Florida, Nevada, Maine, Arizona, Michigan)
Santorum - 3 states (Colorado, Missouri, Minnesota)
Gingrich - 1 state (South Carolina)
Paul - 0 states

What was after that?
Wyoming's might have swung to Santorum, because he lost it only by 7% to Romney. Wyoming's is a weird one though, spread over a period of time not just one day from what I'm looking at (apparently something like Maine).
Then on March 3rd there was Washington, and Romney won that one with 38% of the vote to Ron Paul's 25% and Rick Santorum's 24%.

So, before Super Tuesday happened, this was is what the state totals were:
Mitt Romney - 8 (New Hampshire, Florida, Nevada, Maine, Arizona, Michigan, Wyoming, and Washington)
Rick Santorum - 3 (Colorado, Missouri, Minnesota)
Newt Gingrich - 1 (South Carolina)
Ron Paul - 0

Then after Super Tuesday, which had 10 states voting, the results were:
Romney - 14 (picked up Alaska, Idaho, Massachusetts, Ohio, Vermont, and Virginia)
Santorum - 6 (picked up North Dakota, Oklahoma, and Tennessee)
Gingrich - 2 (picking up Georgia)
Ron Paul - 0

Why did Romney win the nomination? Because Ron Paul 2012 never ran a single attack ad against only him, in any state, trying to cause a brokered convention. Ron Paul 2012 helped Mitt Romney defeat Rick Santorum in Michigan, which gave Romney momentum, and taking momentum away from Santorum.

Had Romney lost Michigan to Santorum, Super Tuesday would have been an absolute massacre between Romney and Santorum with attack ads, because of how close the race would have still been.
Romney was pretty much guaranteed only a few wins on Super Tuesday, even if he had lost Michigan:
Idaho and Massachusetts

Newt Gingrich would have probably still won Georgia, and been the only state he grabbed that day like normal.

Rick Santorum though? He picked up North Dakota, Oklahoma, and Tennessee. Those were his only three. He could have probably picked up Alaska, which he lost by 4% points, if Romney had lost Michigan.
Santorum probably would have picked up Ohio as well, because he lost that one by 1% point.

The whole thing would have fallen apart and been a complete mess (brokered convention) if Ron Paul 2012 had not helped Mitt Romney win Michigan. OR, at the very least, tried to help Rick Santorum beat Mitt Romney in states like Ohio and Alaska on Super Tuesday with some attack ads.

Oh, and while Romney was having to spend money on Super Tuesday trying to destroy Rick Santorum in states, that would have given Ron Paul 2012 a chance to try and actually win Virginia. Causing more of a headache for Mitt Romney, especially if Newt and Santorum helped in any significant fashion.

Instead, the campaign helped Mitt Romney by never attacking only him in any state, like they did Perry, Newt, or Santorum. They agreed to not attack Mitt Romney, because they never did. They never released a single Mitt Romney only attack ad, and repeatedly used events to try and defend him...like they did with their Etch-A-Sketch ad making fun of Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich instead."

Apparently you didn't read that the first few times it was posted, because the truth can be hard to swallow. And like you can't provide links to back up anything you claim, it's no surprise you repeatedly defend a lying campaign, and fail at it miserably. The only people here I have seen try to get rid of supporters and liberty minded people, are people like you and Matt Collins.

I'm here for the liberty supporters, and some of the candidates. To get ideas, share ideas. Help. And I'm not going to sit by though, and let people try to rewrite history and facts about a completely dishonest campaign that lied to liberty supporters for months, and attack those very supporters calling them "defeatist".

The only ones that are defeatist, are the ones that make excuses for Ron Paul 2012 like yourself and Matt Collins. "They couldn't win it. They had already lost it. They didn't have a chance. The media wouldn't let them. King Romney wouldn't let them." Defeatists.

Calling liberty supporters that took over state conventions and donated the 2nd most amount of money behind only King Romney, defeatist, IS COMPLETELY STUPID. Ron Paul supporters and liberty supporters are not defeatists, but they probably are realists.

And clearly you weren't reading the full thread (no surprise) about the $20 million. Bastiat provided the rough math for electing Senators and Congressmen, and said liberty people should be doing it more. I said the liberty minded people I know, aren't your Mitt Romney walking bank type supporters. The RP supporters I know saved up, delayed car repairs, ate Ramen, took on extra jobs, and asked family/friends to donate to a campaign instead of giving them gifts.

Then those supporters then saw a campaign completely lie and betray their trust and use those campaigns donations to help Mitt Romney win the nomination. And SOME wonder why people might not be throwing cash around to politicians as quickly anymore? Ron Paul 2012 wasted about $20 million from January 2012 until September 2012. After, according to defeatists attitudes like you and Matt Collins, they had already lost and had no chance of winning. Again, another reason Ron Paul 2012 should have closed up shop, instead of continuing to lie to supporters and help Mitt Romney win the nomination without any waves at the RNC.

And if we can't learn from the mistakes of Ron Paul 2012, like having corrupt, dishonest, campaign workers involved at multiple levels, that is going to be a problem. Every Rand supporter should watch the following video, and take down the names and make sure that Rand has NONE of those people on staff, at the very least:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dX4DdfSGiFs


Can you dispute what she said with facts and history? I can't. So, again, slick (I guess the truth is slick sliding through your fingers, is that why you called me slick?), don't let the facts get in the way of your lies and delusional history.

Ron Paul supporters and the liberty minded people I know, are not defeatists. They went above and beyond, when called upon by a lying campaign.

[LibertyEagle]

Apparently you didn't read that the first few times it was posted, because the truth can be hard to swallow. And like you can't provide links to back up anything you claim, it's no surprise you repeatedly defend a lying campaign, and fail at it miserably.
It was posted here numerous times. Your not wanting to get off your ass to google it, does not require me to do it for you.


The only people here I have seen try to get rid of supporters and liberty minded people, are people like you and Matt Collins.
Good thing I know you aren't representative of the liberty movement, because if you were, I'd head the opposite direction.


I'm here for the liberty supporters, and some of the candidates. To get ideas, share ideas. Help. And I'm not going to sit by though, and let people try to rewrite history and facts about a completely dishonest campaign that lied to liberty supporters for months, and attack those very supporters calling them "defeatist".
You are here to help? LOLOL. Your goal is obvious and it isn't to help.


The only ones that are defeatist, are the ones that make excuses for Ron Paul 2012 like yourself and Matt Collins. "They couldn't win it. They had already lost it. They didn't have a chance. The media wouldn't let them. King Romney wouldn't let them." Defeatists.

Actually, you are a quitter and you want to blame everyone for your behavior. Ron Paul didn't have a chance in hell of winning, but we tried anyway and moved the ball forward quite a bit. You could pick the ball up and continue to move it forward, but instead you want to whine over spilled milk and get others to quit like you have.


Can you dispute what she said with facts and history? I can't. So, again, slick (I guess the truth is slick sliding through your fingers, is that why you called me slick?), don't let the facts get in the way of your lies and delusional history.

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.

[jjdoyle]

Are you too lazy to google for it. It was posted here multiple times.

Good thing I know you aren't representative of the liberty movement, because if you were, I'd head the opposite direction.

You are here to help? LOLOL. Your goal is obvious and it isn't to help.

Actually, you are a quitter and you want to blame everyone for your behavior. Ron Paul didn't have a chance in hell of winning, but we tried anyway and moved the ball forward quite a bit. You could pick the ball up and continue to move it forward, but instead you want to whine over spilled milk and get others to quit like you have.

I was disappointed in Penny Langford-Freeman in that interview. But, then again, Ron also hired Dondero. Since you have posted that video numerous times, you must believe like she apparently does that Ron Paul is skimming money from his supporters. And if you do, one wonders why you are here unless it is to destroy.

Are you too lazy to back up another one of your, so far, false claims? Where is the email? When was it? January 2012? After Iowa? February, before Michigan. No, neither of those, and you know it (well, maybe not, keep forgetting your complete ignorance on campaign funds, wouldn't be surprised you making this up out of thin air).

You have no clue what candidates I have been helping, and you are willfully clueless on other issues. (My post history might give you a clue, to at least one candidate.) And no, I'm not blaming "everyone of your (my) behavior", another lie from a liar no doubt. I'm blaming Ron Paul 2012 for their own actions. For lying to supporters for months, and destroying forward momentum.

Oh, since you are apparently lying about Ron Paul sending that email and just so you know, the only thing that comes up so far when searching for Ron Paul throwing in the towel, is actually posts about Jesse Benton saying something. Not Ron Paul. And guess what, that was in May 2012. Four months after they had already agreed to help Mitt Romney win Michigan, and the nomination. So, let's just say your claim is true, and Ron was throwing in the towel in May 2012, well Ron Paul 2012 had already helped Mitt Romney win the nomination at that point. If it wasn't before Michigan voted, then it doesn't matter. Again, there is no email turning up at that time from Ron, and only stuff on Jesse Benton in the Google results.

And for that video, not only does she touch on some inside Ron Paul 2012's campaign staff, but I believe she also mentions why she wouldn't help in '07, because they weren't serious about actually winning. And she saw that continue in Ron Paul 2012. If you run, you run to win. Not lie to supporters to build your email/donor list to sell to political campaigns and organizations in the future.

Definitely not make defeatist statements like, "The media wouldn't allow us." The same media Ron Paul 2012 turned down interview requests on. Because, it is defeatist attitudes like your's and Matt Collins, trying to blame the media, the weather, Mitt Romney, and even SUPPORTERS, that are the real problem.

But, here is Jesse Benton in May 2012:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eu9rQC03lJw

Notice how he mentions they had already been in contact with Mitt Romney's campaign and they were working together on platform issues. LOL. Every, single, turn. Working with Mitt Romney's campaign.

[goRPaul]

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. But I had already seen the writing on the walls- watching them steal the straw poll in Iowa and the terrible media blackout afterwards was evidence enough that it wasn't going to be his year.

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.

[speciallyblend]

Too bad Colorado voters hate the 2nd Amendment though, isn't it?

RPF site is havng majrissues this is rpf doing this not IE! below del with thetypos it s rpf

excuse me?are you deaf dumb or blind? the politians did thatnot thevoters. sory e is oig e typo adskippn lttrs nnot typing

ecleedd 2 of the bastards. foo omak geel stateen ooell eem ie rp dnt agree. this I ie doin the tyo.

wow I sues igess you havso mayngs on rpf it affcts keyboard oo well


RPF MODS yo have areal issue hrewth ie and our site

[speciallyblend]

Too bad Colorado voters hate the 2nd Amendment though, isn't it?

to bad you are so full of collectivist BS. you know full well 100%!! it was not voters but politicians who did that and the voters removed 2 and one resigned. wow LE never thought you would say that kinda bs!! what we learned in Colorado is we do not need the gop/dnc or the federal gov or rand or le BS!!!!

we can nullify rand/gop/dnc and thefederal gov we are doing it.

rpf yu have majho issues with your sie under ie cannot even type. tis is rpf not I ince it doest hppenbut rpf

all I hear from rand fluffers is excuses for rands bs when we call rand out for rands bs.

[CaptUSA]

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. :(

[Badger Paul]

"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.

[Cap]

[COLOR=#37404E][FONT=lucida grande]Too many people in the liberty movement have a defeatist mentality which is a self-fulfilling prophecy.


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

[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 (http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2013/12/confirmed-fbi-raid-at-kent-sorensons.html)), 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 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T9hWdnTdeoI) 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 (http://youtu.be/dX4DdfSGiFs?t=33m23s).

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 :p


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?



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KmJqSLNy8ms

[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 :p :D :cool:

[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.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_n5E7feJHw0






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.





https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1QCzww6EG7E

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.

[Matt Collins]

...

[DamianTV]

Perhaps what is needed is to use the Defeatist Attitude to our advantage?

Get the police to quit abusing people because these people will do the same thing regardless of their involvements or not. It can undermine the Monopoloy on Violece when they choose to embrace Defeatism and dont commit violence. What else could happen on the other two Monopolies: Belief and Money? MSM gives up on Fearmongering because no one listens? Low level employees in the Banking sector give up on being bastards because theyve already taken every last dime that people own?

Can our Defeatism unite us?

There are a lot of valid reasons that people embrace Defeatism and just give up. When people realize that putting forth anything above and beyond the minimum level of effort goes unrewarded, they tend to embrace Defeatism. The Parasites at the top of our Pyramid of Control survive by us continuing to feed that very same system with our energy and continued efforts. We work for them, not ourselves. The fruits of our labors are no longer our own. People recognize the choice between what is Right and what is Easy. When the benefits of what is Easy (Defeatism) outweigh the benefits of what is Right, people may choose to give up. Its the same reason as may Illegal Immigrants come here, Open Borders + Welfare State. Theyve given up on providing for themselves and take the Easy Defeatism path of Welfare. Its the same exact reason that a person who is upside down on their Mortgage (Death Contract, literal translation) simply "walk away" from "bad debt". And that could be exactly what is needed. Quit feeding into the system that thrives and prospers on our efforts to combat the system. We try to fight the system because we think we can win, and they use our "moves and counter moves" against us. We take an action, they try to make us look like fools. If we were to take up arms (which is what I suspect the Status Quo wants), they now have an excuse to ban all weapons. It feeds into the system.

I think the Real Defeatism is the realization that it is our own actions that support the continued existence Status Quo. Our Defeatism is giving up on this system that threw us all overboard in the year 1913. What we are really giving up on is the system that does NOT work. Did you give up? I have. And that is why we have both chosen to undermine the current system. And our numbers continue to grow. We have almost all of us given up on the idea that eliminating Freedom only benefits the Status Quo itself. Thus, that very same Defeatism works to our advantage. It binds us together, since we tend to focus more so on common traits instead of embracing our differences. Cops will have kids that will not grow up to be Cops, but want to be something else. Many will want to be Teachers and Creators, not Parasites and Abusers. Its a perfectly good reason for Cops to embrace Defeatism and just put forth the minimum level of effort that it takes to keep their jobs. It lowers the standards they all need to achieve, and when that happens, they dont bother. Unfortunately, they end up going after the "low hanging fruit", the non violent criminals that are the easiest to catch and imprison. The pot smokers. The non violent citizen. The speeders. So why not just encourage those that are on the take to give up also? Its like giving up on Elections and choosing to vote for "Nobody". "Nobody" will let you not pay your taxes. "Nobody" will protect you. "Nobody" will leave you alone. "Nobody" will bring about "change you can believe in". And in a sense, "Nobody" really is the best Political Candidate.

Defeatism is the realization of the Cloward Piven Strategy in full force.

What is really happening here is that Collectivism is showing its structural weaknesses and is why people are embracing Defeatism. The change that is taking place is that when people embrace Defeatism, it is merely people awakening to the idea that putting all your efforts towards the betterment of the Collective does not provide any meaningful benefits for the Individual. Defeatism is the transition from Collectivism to Individualism. We live in a society that defines each individual by their worth and roles in the Collective. We look at women for their reproductive values, and men are defined by their Jobs. If a man does not have a Job, they are viewed by the Collective as "worthless" regardless of how that individual defines themselves. And that is what is changing. People are experiencing Defeatism and recognizing that they are not the things that they own or the actions they make that benefits the collective. They are abandoning the inevitable end of Consumerism. Yet, without a path to a positive self identity, they feel lost. Your parents always told you to "just be yourself", and this contradicts every single thing that our modern consumeristic collectivist society seeks to brand the individual as. You are your Job. You are your Debt. You are your Money. What you are not is your Self. You are not your Thoughts. You are not how you feel about others. Every self defining characteristic has been displaced by a manufactured quality. Your creativity is not required by those in the Status Quo. What is required of you is to repeat their ideas so you apply those same labels you bear on to others. You created the Jonses by the glorification of consumerism. I wish I had your Boat, your Car, your Job, your House. You failed to treat the Jones as a person and applied Status Quo Labels. You didnt tell the Jones they were good because they chose to Homeschool their children to the best of their ability. You shunned them when they questioned the efficacy of Vaccines. You ostracised them when Mr and Mrs Jones lost their good paying jobs and could no longer feed themselves. You did not support them, or try to teach them to understand that others have been defeated by this very same system. The term "you" also includes me. But perhaps, that is exactly what is needed. Reward the Jones emotionally when they give up, and make them feel like they just joined the largest growing class in history. Welcome them to Generation X and the children of Generation X. Praise them when they abandon the system that we have embraced and supported instead of what Freedom really means, the Definition of Self as each person sees fit to define themselves as.

When we all become Defeatists, we can easily overthrow the system by simply walking away from it. It is only with our continued effort to support this failing system that it has any chance of survival. We can then see ourselves once again as Individuals that are Free instead of a Group that is Owned by a small group of Parasitic Elites.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

I was going to post in this thread, but don't think it will do any good.

[Matt Collins]

I was going to post in this thread, but don't think it will do any good.
lolz....




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RFlCD5CYAcU

[green73]

I know a lot of statsts think it's defeatist if one believes that voting (aka democracy) is a losing game.

[presence]

Politics in a way is the ultimate free market

Indeed.

Unfortunately, the opposition prints the money.

LOL

[TheTexan]

I know a lot of statsts think it's defeatist if one believes that voting (aka democracy) is a losing game.

But if you don't vote... how would you win elections???? :confused:

[Danke]

But if you don't vote... how would you win elections???? :confused:

Be in charge of counting the ballots, duh.

[Ronin Truth]

What the right number and how do you propose to get there?

[JK/SEA]

i give up.

who's buying drinks?

i can go one round.

[phill4paul]

Defeatism? I'm already saving for the next election cycle....

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?470011-Why-you-should-be-saving-NOW-for-the-next-election-cycle

[BarryDonegan]

Every second spent hating on someone else's effort is a second wasted on a personal inching towards liberty.