PDA

View Full Version : Why do our troops hate our troops?


gblowfish
07-20-2007, 09:15 AM
Apologies if posted before.

The Federal Election Commission's data is pretty stunning when it comes to who our troops support for president in 2008. In fact, more that 70% have given money to candidates who are solidly against the war.
Here is the list of the candidates our troops have actually given their limited paychecks to support....

Ron Paul 26.23%
Barack Obama 24.02%
John McCain 18.31%
Hillary Clinton 11.08%
Bill Richardson 5.59%
Mitt Romney 4.05%
John Edwards 2.63%
Rudy Giuliani 2.44%
Mike Huckabee 1.84%
Tom Tancredo 1.63%
Duncan Hunter 1.05%
Joe Biden 0.84%
Mike Gravel 0.16%
Sam Brownback 0.07%
Dennis Kucinich 0.05%
Others 0%


Obviously our troops hate our troops.

trndobrd
07-20-2007, 09:17 AM
link please

gblowfish
07-20-2007, 09:38 AM
http://tinyurl.com/yun8l7

BucEyedPea
07-20-2007, 09:49 AM
Here's another link...which includes veterans:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/marina/marina17.html


52.53%: Ron Paul
35.4%: McCain
7.9%: Romney
5.2%: Giuliani
2.2%: Hunter
2.6%: Others

pikesome
07-20-2007, 11:27 AM
My question is why are people giving Paul money in the first place. He's not going to get elected. They could send me the money, I'm not getting elected either.

BucEyedPea
07-20-2007, 02:23 PM
So a candidate should only get money if we know he will be elected?
Wow! Americans have really surrendered their integrity and principles on the alter of electability. I wonder what this country would really be like today if people voted their consciences more. This is never a waste. In fact it's a sign that many aren't happy with the choices, with Pubs & Dems, with the Exec branch and with Congress. Are we on our way to being a failed state too? :hmmm:

pikesome
07-20-2007, 02:29 PM
So a candidate should only get money if we know he will be elected?
Wow! Americans have really surrendered their integrity and principles on the alter of electability. I wonder what this country would really be like today if people voted their consciences more. This is never a waste.

Uh, no. But if someone gave Ron Paul 40 bazillion dollars it wouldn't change the fact he isn't going to get elected. It's one of the real weak points in our political system, it's damn hard for 3rd party candidates to get elected. I'm glad people are listening to what he has to say but a Libertarian President? Come on. More likely would be that Obama, Clinton or Rudy would start to say the same things and Mr. Paul could go back to doing whatever he did before throwing his name in.

wazu
07-20-2007, 07:28 PM
Uh, no. But if someone gave Ron Paul 40 bazillion dollars it wouldn't change the fact he isn't going to get elected. It's one of the real weak points in our political system, it's damn hard for 3rd party candidates to get elected. I'm glad people are listening to what he has to say but a Libertarian President? Come on. More likely would be that Obama, Clinton or Rudy would start to say the same things and Mr. Paul could go back to doing whatever he did before throwing his name in.

Umm...Ron Paul is running as a Republican.

Adept Havelock
07-20-2007, 08:54 PM
Umm...Ron Paul is running as a Republican.

If he could put together "40 bazilion" dollars it'd make for one hell of a primary season.

wazu
07-21-2007, 09:33 AM
If he could put together "40 bazilion" dollars it'd make for one hell of a primary season.

Maybe he will. He's already got more cash on hand than McCain. I'm not sure how rich Fred Thompson is, but he hasn't declared yet so I'm guessing he doesn't have that much more cash to spend on a campaign that Ron Paul. (Maybe he does, I'm not sure.)

BucEyedPea
07-21-2007, 10:01 AM
Maybe he will. He's already got more cash on hand than McCain. I'm not sure how rich Fred Thompson is, but he hasn't declared yet so I'm guessing he doesn't have that much more cash to spend on a campaign that Ron Paul. (Maybe he does, I'm not sure.)

If each Paul supporter just sent $7 per month, Paul could move out of the 2nd tier into the first tier by December 2007. Or less of his supporters can give more. Send some money. Just some per supporter helps. We can make this a Velvet Revolution.

Once a candidate gets enough money from certain Party Establishment power groups he is expected to parrot party lines. Witness Thompson's conversion to "compassionate conservatism" and the entire NeoCon philosophy.

Consider the following:
• Pollsters are selecting responses which only include loyal republicans and democrats who are likely to vote. But new voters are registering because of Paul's message. Young voters are also registering.
• Rasmussen isn’t tracking the second-tier candidates.Most pollsters are not polling 2nd tier candidates.
• Pollsters tend to poll those with landlines and are less likely to adopt to new technology. There is now a cellphone constituency not being measured.
• Paul has moved ahead 1 percentage point ahead of Huckabee.


National polls are entirely a reflection of name identification, not voters' views of the candidates.
• In early 1975, Carter was polling at 1% (he went on to win the Presidency).
• In early 1987, Dukakis was polling at 1% (he went on to win the Democratic nomination).
• In early 1991, Clinton was at 2% (he went on to win the Presidency).
• In the spring of 1999, John McCain was polling at 3% (he went on to win the NH primary).
• In early 2003, Joe Lieberman was leading the field for the Democratic presidential nomination (he failed to win any primary).


Ron Paul and Opinion Polling (http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig8/pitkaniemi1.html)
Polling Methodology and Politics (http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig8/fisk1.html)