Paul gets 52% of military contributions

F

FUCK THE POLICE

911 EVERY DAY
http://www.kansascity.com/273/story/193973.html

Odd, I wouldn't have thought it his main constituency. Then again, being the only candidate really opposed to the war...

Military support for Paul

So we now know that, measured in terms of financial support, Ron Paul, the one GOP candidate who actually backs individual liberty against government power, is now ahead of Huckabee, Brownback, Thompson (Tommy) and Tancredo. He’s the alternative to the Big Three. But guess who are among his strongest supporters? The U.S. military. Paul has a staggering 52.53 percent of all military contributions.
 
It still won't make a difference, unless the Dems screw up, it is their election!
 
A meaningless statistic.

Those contributions amounted to less $25,000.00.

There isn't a chance in hell that he'll get the republican nomination.
 
uscitizen said:
I am not positive of that BAC, The Repubs are pretty much in hell which makes anything possible.
Click to expand...

The Republican Party will not allow him to get the nomination and the notion that many people will "crossover" and vote in the republican primary will not work. There are relatively few states that have open primaries and most of them are in the republican "red, white and blue" south.

Even at that, open primaries are unconstitutional because they deny a political party its first amendment rights of freedom of association. States with open primaries are being challenged as we speak and Mississippi has just declared that voters must declare party affiliation and closed their primaries which goes into effect just in time for the 2008 elections.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/18/us/18south.html?ref=us

I agree with that decision, not because of Paul, but because open primaries are a racially divisive tool that has allowed southern states to eliminate progressive candidates. I know this issue personally having worked for a politician who lost an election solely by crossover voting. She came back and won in the next election after voters were made aware of the trick and came out in numbers that negated the crossover.

That being said, republicans are cutthroat and savvy and it would take a miracle for him to get their nomination.

I agree with you .. they are stuck in hell and their latest vote against bringing the troops home only sinks them deeper.
 
I like that decision as well. Believe me, in my area people would crossover and vote for the absolute worst Democrat during primaries and the numbers simply would make it impossible for the Democrats to overcome that.

As it is, ocassionally the D wins because they do produce good candidates. Very ocassionally.
 
Watermark said:
http://www.kansascity.com/273/story/193973.html

Odd, I wouldn't have thought it his main constituency. Then again, being the only candidate really opposed to the war...

Military support for Paul

So we now know that, measured in terms of financial support, Ron Paul, the one GOP candidate who actually backs individual liberty against government power, is now ahead of Huckabee, Brownback, Thompson (Tommy) and Tancredo. He’s the alternative to the Big Three. But guess who are among his strongest supporters? The U.S. military. Paul has a staggering 52.53 percent of all military contributions.
Click to expand...



Obviously, republicans largely see Ron Paul as a traitor, since he dares to say that U.S. policies in the middle east are what fuel Al Qaeda and jihaddist extremism.
 
Cypress said:
Obviously, republicans largely see Ron Paul as a traitor, since he dares to say that U.S. policies in the middle east are what fuel Al Qaeda and jihaddist extremism.
Click to expand...

or just another of the Libertarian national candidates, that had at least enough sense not to run as a Libertarian?
 
Cypress said:
Obviously, republicans largely see Ron Paul as a traitor, since he dares to say that U.S. policies in the middle east are what fuel Al Qaeda and jihaddist extremism.
Click to expand...

I haven't seen any Republicans refer to Ron Paul as a traitor. Maybe DailyKos or Moveon can dig something up.

His foregin policy beliefs do not appeal to all Republicans. He holds very little crossover appeal as Darla described his domestics beliefs to her friends as "extreme libertarian". I'm not quite sure what an extreme libertarian is, I would think that would be an anarchist or worse (if there is such thing) but his libertarian domestic beliefs will not appeal to the left (nor all of the right I'm sure).
 
cawacko said:
I haven't seen any Republicans refer to Ron Paul as a traitor. Maybe DailyKos or Moveon can dig something up.

His foregin policy beliefs do not appeal to all Republicans. He holds very little crossover appeal as Darla described his domestics beliefs to her friends as "extreme libertarian". I'm not quite sure what an extreme libertarian is, I would think that would be an anarchist or worse (if there is such thing) but his libertarian domestic beliefs will not appeal to the left (nor all of the right I'm sure).
Click to expand...

An extreme libertarian is a libertarian who got a rash he can't get rid of, and is looking to make as many people pay for that as possible.
 
cawacko said:
I haven't seen any Republicans refer to Ron Paul as a traitor. Maybe DailyKos or Moveon can dig something up.

His foregin policy beliefs do not appeal to all Republicans. He holds very little crossover appeal as Darla described his domestics beliefs to her friends as "extreme libertarian". I'm not quite sure what an extreme libertarian is, I would think that would be an anarchist or worse (if there is such thing) but his libertarian domestic beliefs will not appeal to the left (nor all of the right I'm sure).
Click to expand...

"haven't seen any Republicans refer to Ron Paul as a traitor."

Cawacko,

In less time that it took you to write this, you could have gone to "The Google", and found the answer yourself.

Here's only a tiny portion of what I got from a two second google search, of wingnut sites:

"Ron Paul is a Traitor"

www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=2007407 - 17k - Cached
Click to expand...


"Ron Paul, traitor to Conservative Values"

digg.com/2008_us_elections/Ron_Paul_traitor_to_Conservative_Values
Click to expand...
 
Now if we were in a thread where you said, "No democrats have said that." then I posted a thread from a message board and a personal digg article you would say, "Like we allow them to speak for the Party."
 
Watermark said:
http://www.kansascity.com/273/story/193973.html

Odd, I wouldn't have thought it his main constituency. Then again, being the only candidate really opposed to the war...

Military support for Paul

So we now know that, measured in terms of financial support, Ron Paul, the one GOP candidate who actually backs individual liberty against government power, is now ahead of Huckabee, Brownback, Thompson (Tommy) and Tancredo. He’s the alternative to the Big Three. But guess who are among his strongest supporters? The U.S. military. Paul has a staggering 52.53 percent of all military contributions.
Click to expand...

That is very interesting, considering the fact that so many people are saying that the Military fully supports the war.
 
blackascoal said:
A meaningless statistic.

Those contributions amounted to less $25,000.00.

There isn't a chance in hell that he'll get the republican nomination.
Click to expand...

Ron Paul is third in contributions right now. Ahead of John McCain, actually. He's still far behind him in the polls, but that wasn't the point of this thread.
 
blackascoal said:
The Republican Party will not allow him to get the nomination and the notion that many people will "crossover" and vote in the republican primary will not work. There are relatively few states that have open primaries and most of them are in the republican "red, white and blue" south.

Even at that, open primaries are unconstitutional because they deny a political party its first amendment rights of freedom of association. States with open primaries are being challenged as we speak and Mississippi has just declared that voters must declare party affiliation and closed their primaries which goes into effect just in time for the 2008 elections.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/18/us/18south.html?ref=us

I agree with that decision, not because of Paul, but because open primaries are a racially divisive tool that has allowed southern states to eliminate progressive candidates. I know this issue personally having worked for a politician who lost an election solely by crossover voting. She came back and won in the next election after voters were made aware of the trick and came out in numbers that negated the crossover.

That being said, republicans are cutthroat and savvy and it would take a miracle for him to get their nomination.

I agree with you .. they are stuck in hell and their latest vote against bringing the troops home only sinks them deeper.
Click to expand...

That decision is stupid. The only point of the new law in Mississippi was to disallow candidates from running as candidates from more than one parties and further cement two party power.

If parties want freedom of association, they should pay for their own fucking elections.
 
McCain is simply dead in the water. Whomever convinced him that the Bush-Clone approach was the way to win this thing is in mortal danger of McCain going all Prison Guard all over them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top