Why are people giving Ron Paul so much money?
- Thread starter Cypress
- Start date
Beefy
Worst gambler ever
I give him money because I believe in his message, and I believe that it should be heard. I hope he gets the R nod, but I'm under no illusions that he indeed will.
I'm tired of the status quo, that the Republicrats have been selling us for 100 years. You might like it, but I don't and I won't support it anymore.
More of the same. More war, more restrictions of liberty, more shackles, more ownership of the individual by the government... You endorse it, I don't
That's why.
I'm tired of the status quo, that the Republicrats have been selling us for 100 years. You might like it, but I don't and I won't support it anymore.
More of the same. More war, more restrictions of liberty, more shackles, more ownership of the individual by the government... You endorse it, I don't
That's why.
I think he might be banking all that money for an independent run. But, I could be wrong.
Socrtease
Verified User
It is because it is NOT republicans that are giving him money. Let me rephrase that, it is not JUST republicans that are giving him money. Disaffected Dems and Independents are as well. But they need to change their party affiliation for the primaries in states that have closed primaries. In states that have open primaries, ONLY those that voted republican last time are even getting polling calls. Paul is going to suprise people in states that have open primaries. My bet is he goes into the convention with a goodly number of delegates. Now while the Republican convention is a winner take all convention, states are allowed to divide their delegates proportionally. Many of them do. If that is the case then my bet is some Paul Delegates will come to the convention and withhold their delegates from the total. I think the Republican convention is much more likely to end up in a floor fight. I think Paul delegates could start that fight.
Beefy
Worst gambler ever
It wouldn't bother me if he was. At least if he were to run as in indy, it would force the duopoly candidates to address some of his issues.
I think he would get more support from independents, than from GOP primary voters anyway. The wingnuts love war and torture.
Socrtease
Verified User
It might be too hard to get on the ballot in many states. Paul was on Morning Joe this morning and said that some states restrict also ran major party candidates from running on their state ballot as a third party candidate.
theMAJORITY
MAJORITYrules-sorry
He is getting money from the people?---Hmmm what a concept.
A better question is---Why arn't big coporations and their rich friends giving him any?
A better question is---Why arn't big coporations and their rich friends giving him any?
Beefy
Worst gambler ever
Apparently so do the Dems. They voted for the resolution, they just confirmed Mukasey, and they just gave W another $70 billion for the war.
Both parties absolutely disgust me as a whole. There are exceptions, but for the most part, they can fuck themselves.
touche. I would just point out that they voted to ban waterboarding, and I think they're too cowardly to end the war. I don't think they love it. Not that it matters much in the end, I guess.
Beefy
Worst gambler ever
It doesn't matter. Love it or not, they're a cog in the wheel. They're war pigs just like the Republicans.
If they voted to outlaw waterboarding, good on them, but they confirmed Mukasey, who evaded like a bastard on that issue. I wonder what all the questioning was for if they were simply going to confirm him anyhow.
They deserve a lot of criticism for that. I've certainly criticized them for their cowardess. Funny thing is, for all the gossip about liberal posters being democratic parrots, I see way more criticism of the democratic party by liberals on this board, than I do see criticism of the libertarian party by libertarians.
theMAJORITY
MAJORITYrules-sorry
Your going to have to watch Pauls 1 hour interview on the Glen Beck show today--tonight--right now (I made a thread about it with times on and cable TV network). You will see you are way off the mark on this one. I think you may even agree with him.
cawacko
Well-known member
That's apples and oranges. The Libertarian Party basically has no power so they are not making decisions like the Democratic and Republican party's are. Hence they will get less coverage etc.
No need to. First of all, Glenn Beck is a war monger who makes me puke.
Secondly, I've probably heard more ron paul interviews than most people here. Believe it or not, Ron Paul is on Air America all the time.
Beefy
Worst gambler ever
Oh, I've left that party a couple of years ago because of their idiotic, inept approach to politics. They're off the grid. I'm a small "l" libertrian, I believe in the philosophy, not the party that hijacked the title of that philosophy.
"Young Libertarian" has said the same. But there's really not much to talk about with the party because they always pick stupid hot button issues and thus remain irrelevant to mainstream politics. I was one of them for 11 years, now I'm registered Republican simply so I can vote for Paul in the Hawaii primary. After that, I'll go back to "decline to state".
You're saying that a libertarian can't think of one single policy position of Ron Paul's or Micheal Badnarik, to criticize? I guess not, I've hardly ever heard criticism of libertarian policies or politicians. They must be perfect.
Beefy
Worst gambler ever
BAC should watch the interview. I think its primarily geared towards the accusation that he's a closet racist. If I had a tv, I'd watch it, but I'll wait for the youtube version.
Beefy
Worst gambler ever
That's not what he said, see my post above.
Good on you. I was thinking of the other Libertarian fanatics, who never once to my knowledge, been able to muster one single criticism of any policy of their party, while pointing the finger of "partisan parrot" at others.