PDA

View Full Version : The Military favors Ron Paul


Fishpicker
07-16-2007, 04:30 PM
Military Favors Ron Paul over McCain
July 16th, 2007 · No Comments

The US Department of Elections has released the Selected Presidential Reports for the 2007 July Quarterly, and there are a few surprises. No surprise, of course, is that people in the armed services and veterans overwhelmingly support the Republican Party. However, after digging through individual candidates’ contributions by employers, we find an elating (or disturbing, if you’re rooting for Rudy McRomney) trend. The breakdown? Here you go.

*** I cant embed the chart. here's a link (http://ronpauldelaware.wordpress.com/2007/07/16/military-favors-ron-paul-over-mccain/) to the actual numbers.
*** 1.Ron Paul ($22140) 2.McCain ($16675) 3.Romney 4.Rudy

This table expresses in dollars the total campaign contributions that each candidate has received from individuals who marked “Air Force,” “US Marines,” “USMC,” “Army,” “Navy,” or some other such permutation of letters as their employer that gives the appearance that they are a member of the armed services. The “veteran” column was derived by looking for “retired ______,” “______ retired,” or anything containing the word veteran, with the exception of Veterans’ Affairs (or the like).

What conclusions can be drawn from this surprising, exciting information? One might jump to the conclusion that the troops are tired and demoralized and angry to be fighting in the desert sand, and willing to leap on the only Republican candidate who wants an immediate end to the war. But that’s an insufficient explanation, since veterans favor Ron Paul as well.

Our military forces have a strong tradition of valorization and an implicit belief that they have served to protect the freedom of private citizens in the United States. So profound is this belief that it ranks as the #1 reason that veterans and active duty say they joined (even though education ranks as the #1 reason prior to enlistment).

This culture of pride in service particularly to safeguard American liberties and freedoms — regardless of whether it is true or not — disinclines those in service to contribute to candidates like Romney and Giuliani who want to expand Executive power and increase spying on Americans. This is why Ron Paul and John McCain are the clearest front-runners in terms of contributions. Well, that and the fact that McCain was a Captain in the Navy and Ron Paul was a flight surgeon.

Or … (one final thought) … does it run in the other direction? Does the military favor Paul and McCain because they were military, or do Ron Paul and John McCain have a favorable set of values for military servicemen and women because they themselves have served?

go bowe
07-16-2007, 04:44 PM
hussein's my guy...

Logical
07-16-2007, 04:54 PM
ROFL

Sorry but unless you can come up with something with more dollars than $22K I am going to have a hard time taking this as signficant.

CHIEF4EVER
07-16-2007, 05:06 PM
ROFL

Sorry but unless you can come up with something with more dollars than $22K I am going to have a hard time taking this as signficant.

No doubt. He will spend more than 22K on toilet paper and carryout Chinese food in a week...............

Fishpicker
07-16-2007, 05:16 PM
22k isnt spectacular, but that's 22k out of 49k for the enitre Republican field.

44% of all money donated to Republicans by military went to Ron Paul.

Taco John
07-16-2007, 05:33 PM
ROFL

Sorry but unless you can come up with something with more dollars than $22K I am going to have a hard time taking this as signficant.



"This table expresses in dollars the total campaign contributions that each candidate has received from individuals who marked “Air Force,” “US Marines,” “USMC,” “Army,” “Navy,” or some other such permutation of letters as their employer that gives the appearance that they are a member of the armed services."

penchief
07-16-2007, 05:50 PM
Who you vote for...

Rudy Vs. Hillary

Sorry, but Rudy's nothing more than an empty suit. Love or hate Hillary (I'm not inspired, btw), she'd make a superior president. Especially considering the cluster**** that the next president is going to be handed by this miserable failure of a president. Would you rather leave Bush's mess to a Bush impersonator or to someone who actually has a work ethic and a conscience?

What we need in 2008 is a competent leader who is capable of seeing the bigger picture in a way that protects the public's welfare. What we don't need is another empty suit parrotting the corpo-fascist mantra to a brainwashed public for another next eight years.

Logical
07-16-2007, 06:18 PM
"This table expresses in dollars the total campaign contributions that each candidate has received from individuals who marked “Air Force,” “US Marines,” “USMC,” “Army,” “Navy,” or some other such permutation of letters as their employer that gives the appearance that they are a member of the armed services."

TJ, I read that, not sure how that make 22K any more or less signficant.

penchief
07-16-2007, 06:34 PM
ROFL

You're laughing now......

CHIEF4EVER
07-16-2007, 06:48 PM
You're laughing now......

Dude, I can't stand Rudy frickin Giulani but I can assure you of one thing. If the Democrats are dumb enough to trot sHrillary out as their candidate, they won't sniff the WH for ANOTHER four years as a minimum.

Taco John
07-16-2007, 06:49 PM
TJ, I read that, not sure how that make 22K any more or less signficant.



That's because you're not seeing the forest through the trees. You're trying to find significance in the amount of money cited, vs. the percentage of that money in comparison to the other, more established candidates.

I'm not sure why anybody would just look at the total, while ignoring the context that it's put in... Well, unless they had an agenda to discredit anything positive about Ron Paul. I can understand why recx would do it. Seems to me that you're smarter than that though.

Taco John
07-16-2007, 06:52 PM
Do you realize that 22K donated could be as little as 10 people?.......


My lucky day. I get to call you stupid.

You would have to be painfully stupid to believe that anywhere near 10 military personnel donated that 22k to the Ron Paul campaign. We're not talking about high rollers here. We're talking about hard working folks who have families and other matters that they can be spending their hard-earned dollars on.

penchief
07-16-2007, 07:00 PM
Dude, I can't stand Rudy frickin Giulani but I can assure you of one thing. If the Democrats are dumb enough to trot sHrillary out as their candidate, they won't sniff the WH for ANOTHER four years as a minimum.

At this point, I'm not gonna dispute what you're saying. There was a time that my New York observations of Rudy led me to believe that he could never be a legitimate candidate for President of the United Sates. But looky now.

I'm sure there were a lot of Texans who thought the idea of George Jr. becoming president was laughable, too. But when the establishment chooses it's figurehead, they know how to pick em. Not only are Bush and Rudy both big time fronters, they're both completely corruptable.

I'm just saying that if a voter wants to vote for Rudy, they'd better be ready for no change in the current direction of this country. He's so obviously the handpicked replacement for Bush.

noa
07-16-2007, 07:24 PM
I'm just saying that if a voter wants to vote for Rudy, they'd better be ready for no change in the current direction of this country. He's so obviously the handpicked replacement for Bush.

Yep. He's a neocon, or at least that's who whispers in his ear. I've said it in another thread, but a vote for Rudy is a vote for war with Iran. He said in a Repub debate he wants to train our military in nation building. If we elect him, expect us to continue to over-extend our military and other defense resources under the guise of "staying on offense."

Fishpicker
07-16-2007, 07:42 PM
I shudder when I think of this country run by Rudy.
-Has a mean streak
-hates animal rights activists of any sort
-terrified his children so much they dont speak to him
-imprisoned homeless in NYC (forced labor)
-Oversaw the biggest **** up in American History and brags about it
-his concept of freedom is not unlike his obsession for sniffing panties
-is a drag queen
-has family ties to organized crime (shades of Departed)
-keeps changing his story about 9/11
-Destroyed the largest crime scene in US history despite having extensive experience in Law.
-Deserted the true heros of 9/11 after lying to them about the safety/quality of air in NY.
-has no compunctions about pressing the big red button
-doesnt have a clue about the true source of terrorism
-has no problem giving speeches for pay about 9/11 (while ATST) can't to be bothered with trivialities like the Iraq Study Group.
-looks like Nosferatu with a meth addiction

And Hillary is just a tad worse in my opinion.

wazu
07-16-2007, 08:02 PM
I got my Ron Paul bumper sticker in the mail today. First one I have ever owned. My wife is appalled at the idea of me actually putting it on my car.

Logical
07-16-2007, 08:23 PM
That's because you're not seeing the forest through the trees. You're trying to find significance in the amount of money cited, vs. the percentage of that money in comparison to the other, more established candidates.

I'm not sure why anybody would just look at the total, while ignoring the context that it's put in... Well, unless they had an agenda to discredit anything positive about Ron Paul. I can understand why recx would do it. Seems to me that you're smarter than that though.
I am also smart enough to realize that even if they are all $1 dollar donors that is only 22,000 people which just is not a significant amount, nor is any of the amounts for any of the candidates significant. I am not desirous of anything negative towards Ron Paul (though he scares me, but then so does Rudy and Hillary) I am just looking for something significant to be impressed. I guess I just don't think the sample size can be significant.

Seems to me his supporters are grasping at straws in hoping for signs of his success.

Taco John
07-16-2007, 08:27 PM
I don't think you have a grasp on what a significant amount really is, if you feel that 22,000 politically motivated soldiers isn't a significant amount, especially at this stage in the game.

Logical
07-16-2007, 08:34 PM
I don't think you have a grasp on what a significant amount really is, if you feel that 22,000 politically motivated soldiers isn't a significant amount, especially at this stage in the game.Well I hope you are right, not because I believe he will be the candidate if you are, but because I hope that will get the message across that the Republicans have no decent candidate.

CHIEF4EVER
07-16-2007, 08:39 PM
I don't find it odd that military likes Ron Paul... they would have the best job in the world... they wouldn't have to do anything!!

Yea, that must be it. Those lazy military sops........:rolleyes: :shake:

Fishpicker
07-16-2007, 08:45 PM
I am also smart enough to realize that even if they are all $1 dollar donors that is only 22,000 people which just is not a significant amount, nor is any of the amounts for any of the candidates significant. I am not desirous of anything negative towards Ron Paul (though he scares me, but then so does Rudy and Hillary) I am just looking for something significant to be impressed. I guess I just don't think the sample size can be significant.

Seems to me his supporters are grasping at straws in hoping for signs of his success.

nothing is going to convince you... when he won all the internet polls, you just assumed that RP supporters rigged them. (even though news agencies have some of the most redundant and secure networks. a $400 input filter is all it would take to discover IP spoofing to manipulate votes)

when RP won Fox's phone poll, you again claimed RP supporters gamed the poll. (even though Fox News did a phone poll to eliminate the possibilty of vote manipulation. I recorded that debate... in the first 5 minutes of the coverage they state that the poll was limited to 1 call/vote per phone)

And now... 22k is nothing despite being the highest total.

a mousy little guy like Ron Paul scares you? he's a lovable little dweeb that likes to reminisce on the constitution. that scares you?

Logical
07-16-2007, 08:47 PM
I don't find it odd that military likes Ron Paul... they would have the best job in the world... they wouldn't have to do anything!!You really are an idiot.

Logical
07-16-2007, 08:48 PM
nothing is going to convince you... when he won all the internet polls, you just assumed that RP supporters rigged them. (even though news agencies have some of the most redundant and secure networks. a $400 input filter is all it would take to discover IP spoofing to manipulate votes)

when RP won Fox's phone poll, you again claimed RP supporters gamed the poll. (even though Fox News did a phone poll to eliminate the possibilty of vote manipulation. I recorded that debate... in the first 5 minutes of the coverage they state that the poll was limited to 1 call/vote per phone)

And now... 22k is nothing despite being the highest total.

a mousy little guy like Ron Paul scares you? he's a lovable little dweeb that likes to reminisce on the constitution. that scares you?

It is some of the things he wants to do that scares me, not the man.

Logical
07-16-2007, 08:50 PM
Rudy and Fred >>>> Hillary and ObamaYou just keep pushing and some day you will convince me that no matter what I should do the opposite of what you say.

CHIEF4EVER
07-16-2007, 09:02 PM
You just keep pushing and some day you will convince me that no matter what I should do the opposite of what you say.

I've supported candidates before, even enthusiastically, but I have never had a boner for one like he does. My goodness.

Fishpicker
07-16-2007, 09:45 PM
He is by far the best man for the job. I believe in lower taxes, a secure border, staying on the offensive against terrorism, fixing health care with free market ideas, keeping America competitive and many other things he champions.

I think raising taxes would destroy our economy, I believe that going back to 9/10 days will just lead to it another major attack in the future, I don't believe the goverment should run our health care sysytem, I don't think giving hand outs is the way to go.

The differences between Rudy and any Democratic candidate are huge. I cannot stand to think of Hillary Clinton running this great country. Rudy has a record of success. He turned New York around, I think he can turn this country around.

and he's a family man (married to his cousin for 14 years)

Sully
07-16-2007, 09:51 PM
Compared to Bill, he's a Saint.....
You have to be ****ing joking to try and make this argument.

noa
07-16-2007, 09:51 PM
What does going back to pre-9/11 days even mean?

Fishpicker
07-16-2007, 09:54 PM
Compared to Bill, he's a Saint..... he didn't have any kids with her, and for the record, it's his second cousin.


:)

you're down with incest recx?

wazu
07-16-2007, 10:02 PM
...he didn't have any kids with her...

Oh, well nevermind then.

Fishpicker
07-16-2007, 10:11 PM
It is going to be SOCO's like you that are to ****ing dumb to look at the big picture that will end up getting Hillary in office.

oh, I must have hit a nerve.

wazu
07-16-2007, 10:12 PM
It is going to be SOCO's like you that are to ****ing dumb to look at the big picture that will end up getting Hillary in office.

That's the same kind of logic that produced the John Kerry nomination for the Democrats.

Fishpicker
07-16-2007, 10:15 PM
It is going to be SOCO's like you that are to ****ing dumb to look at the big picture that will end up getting Hillary in office.

I just remembered. Los Vegas oddsmakers say that Ron Paul is the only candidate that can even beat Hillary. Giving anyone other than Ron Paul the nomination is what will insure Hillary goes to the WH.

Fishpicker
07-16-2007, 10:19 PM
Do you think that because Rudy married his second cousin 30 years ago he will now be a bad President?

yep... he's got all sorts of family problems. Normally I wouldnt begrudge someone for that but, c'mon an incestuous drag queen mafioso is a bad choice for Pres. do you really need someone to tell you this?

noa
07-16-2007, 10:20 PM
Removing the patriot act.

Yeah, they'll tell the cops and the FBI and the CIA and the NSA to stop worrying about terrorism.

CHIEF4EVER
07-16-2007, 10:21 PM
I just remembered. Los Vegas oddsmakers say that Ron Paul is the only candidate that can even beat Hillary. Giving anyone other than Ron Paul the nomination is what will insure Hillary goes to the WH.

I'd have to disagree with you there Mr. Fishpicker. If sHillary is nominated, the Dems will lose yet again. She is the most unlikeable woman on the planet. By practically everyone........

CHIEF4EVER
07-16-2007, 10:22 PM
yep... he's got all sorts of family problems. Normally I wouldnt begrudge someone for that but, c'mon an incestuous drag queen mafioso is a bad choice for Pres. do you really need someone to tell you this?

One that wants to squelch the 2d Amendment to boot. LMAO

noa
07-16-2007, 10:23 PM
If you take away the tools for them to do so, it's the same thing.

Like what?

Do you even know what tools you are talking about?

Fishpicker
07-16-2007, 10:48 PM
I'd have to disagree with you there Mr. Fishpicker. If sHillary is nominated, the Dems will lose yet again. She is the most unlikeable woman on the planet. By practically everyone........

Women will put Hillary into office because they will have everything to gain from her brand of Socialist health care. Ron Paul would take away anti-war voters from Hillary. All the hippies will side with Paul too since he is in favor of ending the war on drugs. (pro NORML too IIRC)

CHIEF4EVER
07-16-2007, 10:54 PM
Women will put Hillary into office because they will have everything to gain from her brand of Socialist health care. Ron Paul would take away anti-war voters from Hillary. All the hippies will side with Paul too since he is in favor of ending the war on drugs. (pro NORML too IIRC)

Please reread your post. That is why sHillary will WIN? Maybe I misunderstood.

CHIEF4EVER
07-16-2007, 10:59 PM
he didn't have any kids with her, and for the record, it's his second cousin.

LMAO So he's originally from Mississippi then. LMAO

Please don't take offense folks from Mississippi. I couldn't let that one go.

Fishpicker
07-16-2007, 11:12 PM
ROFL....

Do you have any clue what the "drag queen" thing was even about?

Do you have any idea what his record is on going after the Mafia?

to which "drag" occasion are you referring?
---
yep and that's not bad. And do you remember Bernie Kerik... Giuliani looked the other way and made him police commisioner.

Fishpicker
07-16-2007, 11:13 PM
Please reread your post. That is why sHillary will WIN? Maybe I misunderstood.

my mistake. that's why Hillay will win if she faces Rudy McRomney.

wazu
07-16-2007, 11:16 PM
my mistake. that's why Hillay will win if she faces Rudy McRomney.

I think Hillary would lose to Romney. They need to change it to Rudy McThompson.

Taco John
07-17-2007, 12:21 AM
I think Hillary would beat Romney in a landslide.

CHIEF4EVER
07-19-2007, 09:50 PM
He is by far the best man for the job. I believe in lower taxes, a secure border, staying on the offensive against terrorism, fixing health care with free market ideas, keeping America competitive and many other things he champions.

I think raising taxes would destroy our economy, I believe that going back to 9/10 days will just lead to it another major attack in the future, I don't believe the goverment should run our health care sysytem, I don't think giving hand outs is the way to go.

The differences between Rudy and any Democratic candidate are huge. I cannot stand to think of Hillary Clinton running this great country. Rudy has a record of success. He turned New York around, I think he can turn this country around.

And if you believe in Rudy, you believe in abrogation of the second Amendment. Not to mention he believes in a series of liberal social values. No thanks, don't want a Bill CLinton on steroids. :shake:

BucEyedPea
07-24-2007, 08:40 AM
Military.com poll. (http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,142665,00.html?ESRC=eb.nl)

Another surprising read, about the military and Paul based on a poll of 5,440 participants.


"Nearly 60 percent of readers who participated... said the United States should withdraw its troops from Iraq now or by the end of 2008. More than 40 percent of the respondents agreed the pullout should begin immediately because 'we're wasting lives and resources there.'" (A minority 41 percent voted to fight on "until the insurgency is totally defeated.")


The Military Loves Ron Paul (http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070730/engelhardt)