[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
I hope the “top tier” candidates fund raising goes down again.
The best thing about Paul’s transparency is that on Jan 1 everyone will know exactly the result and be talking about it while the others compile their figures. This will give the Paul campaign an added advantage.
So now RP is the big money candidate? He sounds shady to me. Sounds like people are going to call in a lot of favors if he is elected.
[/quote]
Even though his voting record for the past years on Capitol Hill suggest otherwise. But were it true then basically every candidate you have ever supported falls into the same category.
[quote]cloakmanor wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
So now RP is the big money candidate? He sounds shady to me. Sounds like people are going to call in a lot of favors if he is elected.
The problem isn’t necessarily quantitative but rather where such monies are acquired from. The Paul campaign is obviously grass roots-based as opposed to one based upon funding via special interest groups (this could range anywhere from the NAACP, AIPAC, and so forth to corporate interests; e.g., the pharmaceutical industry).
In fact, I believe the Paul campaign does not accept donations from corporations or other special interests.
This approach is probably identical to Ron Paul’s ability to raise money from individuals during his congressional campaigns.[/quote]
I recently read that one of his commercials was funded by a businessman (=corporation) to the tune of $85,000 (although I may have added a zero and it was only $ 8,500)
There was also talk of the infamous Liberty Dollar Corp giving him $ 2,300.
[quote]storey420 wrote:
Even though his voting record for the past years on Capitol Hill suggest otherwise. But were it true then basically every candidate you have ever supported falls into the same category.[/quote]
Zap doesn’t vote. He just accepts the State and its leader who ever it happens to be.
[quote]storey420 wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
I hope the “top tier” candidates fund raising goes down again.
The best thing about Paul’s transparency is that on Jan 1 everyone will know exactly the result and be talking about it while the others compile their figures. This will give the Paul campaign an added advantage.
So now RP is the big money candidate? He sounds shady to me. Sounds like people are going to call in a lot of favors if he is elected.
Even though his voting record for the past years on Capitol Hill suggest otherwise. But were it true then basically every candidate you have ever supported falls into the same category.[/quote]
His voting record and campaign indicate he may be in the supplement companies pockets.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
storey420 wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
I hope the “top tier” candidates fund raising goes down again.
The best thing about Paul’s transparency is that on Jan 1 everyone will know exactly the result and be talking about it while the others compile their figures. This will give the Paul campaign an added advantage.
So now RP is the big money candidate? He sounds shady to me. Sounds like people are going to call in a lot of favors if he is elected.
Even though his voting record for the past years on Capitol Hill suggest otherwise. But were it true then basically every candidate you have ever supported falls into the same category.
His voting record and campaign indicate he may be in the supplement companies pockets.
TC, did Biotest give him any money? ;)[/quote]
I work in that industry and am very pleased with Paul’s views and efforts in that arena. I have donated to his campaign and my company will but I expect no favors just justice. CODEX and making supplements prescription based goes against freedom. Just one issue I agree with Paul’s stance on. Hillary Clinton is part of the antithesis to such freedom.
There are plenty of special interests that could be vested in Paul. I’m sure gun companies are throwing money at him left and right. It isn’t “buying” a politician when he’s already on your team.
You mean the way you relentlessly ridicule America?
Yes, I see your point- Any other confessions?
[/quote]
I'm curious as to what you mean by "ridiculing America?" Is this from the same list of catch-phrases that brought us, "blaming America first," "hating America," "hating freedom," etc.
What is this "America" that keeps getting blamed for everything? It's as though the spirits of everyone that happens to live inside a few arbitrary lines on a map, rise up into the sky to form a great holy eagle. And then the eagle, which represents the heart and soul of every American citizen, flies around the world doing terrible things to the people that were unlucky enough to be born in Asscracksylvania.
I can see why criticisms of an America that is a some kind of collective spiritual force would be taken very personally by some. I would be sympathetic...if the notion wasn't completely insane.
Most sane people don't have a problem with "America"... whatever that is. Free speech, rule of law, freedom of religion, etc.? It is the POLICIES of the GOVERNMENT that intelligent people criticize; policies that rarely reflect the will of the people, particularly in the realm of foreign affairs (no public opinion is better studied than America's). American's have no reason to take the criticism government policies personally. They've had little to do with them.
[quote]johnnybravo30 wrote:
What is this “America” that keeps getting blamed for everything? It’s as though the spirits of everyone that happens to live inside a few arbitrary lines on a map, rise up into the sky to form a great holy eagle. And then the eagle, which represents the heart and soul of every American citizen, flies around the world doing terrible things to the people that were unlucky enough to be born in Asscracksylvania.
[/quote]
It would be different if the collective included “the lesser peoples.”
I’m not sure this is an instance of, “the group of us is more important than anyone of us as an individual.” I was ranting about nationality being the most important part of a person’s identity; that loyalty to the abstract concept of a nation trumps the loyalty to humanity.
[quote]Mick28 wrote:
I was listening to a little talk radio on my commute the other day. The host called 10 people and asked them if they were voting for Ron Paul.
Are you ready?
7 didn’t know who he was and the other three knew who he was and said they were not voting for him.
[/quote]
So then, since you know about polls you would also understand how significance is a factor of the number of data points in the survey – survey says…sorry 10 data points means nothing. These people probably won’t even show up for the primary so it is pointless to know who they WON’t vote for. The only polls that mean anything are the polls taken on election day.
You probably already know that since you are an expert on politics…as you’ve tried to convince us.
In case you haven’t noticed, Paul has more visible support on the ground than any other candidate. Heck, they even show up more visibly than Giuliani supporters at his own rally. Ron Paul is changing the rules to the game and all the other candidates can only sit back and wonder…WTF is going on?
The latest national poll appears to have Ron Paul at 7% with Giuliani sitting at 20%. While obviously still rather small this is a significant increase over the previous 1% and 2% he was regularly polling at.
The Republican race for the nomination is becoming increasingly interesting considering the gradual ever-closing distance gap between several of the candidates.
[quote]Mick28 wrote:
I was listening to a little talk radio on my commute the other day. The host called 10 people and asked them if they were voting for Ron Paul.
Are you ready?
7 didn’t know who he was and the other three knew who he was and said they were not voting for him.
Granted this is not scientific. But, Lefty and the other Paulies have no respect for Harris, Gallup or Zogby anyway. So…I thought I would put forth an unscientific poll, the sort that the Paulies around here seem to love.
You know it’s a shame that the host of that radio program didn’t wait until after school let out he’d of probably gotten at least one Paulie supporter that way.
No one polls stronger with males 16 and 17 years old than Ron Paul.
[/quote]
So only 30% know he exists and he is already polling at 7% nationwide?
Impressive!
So once he has Gulianis name recognition he will be polling in the twenties?
[quote]orion wrote:
So only 30% know he exists and he is already polling at 7% nationwide?
Impressive!
So once he has Gulianis name recognition he will be polling in the twenties?
[/quote]
If you want to spin that statistic its like saying, of the likely republican primary voters that knows who he is, he would poll at greater than 23% favorability – whereas, all the other candidates’ support is already saturated.
This is to help people who want to go to NH to campaign for Dr. Paul which is being organized by Vijay Boyapati, formerly of Google, for Operation: Live Free or Die.
This is to help people who want to go to NH to campaign for Dr. Paul which is being organized by Vijay Boyapati, formerly of Google, for Operation: Live Free or Die.
Every little bit helps.[/quote]
I’m confident that you can send some money to someone in the US and have them spend it for you. (I’m thinking you Mick!) All this said, the fact that we’re capped at giving $2300 to a candidate is a gross violation of the first amendment.
