Ron Paul Third Quarter Fundraising

I don't care for Ron Paul, what concerns me is that his following won't endorse the parties nomination after his defeat and we'll get another Ross Perot affect....the man we can thank for Bill Clinton getting elected.
Click to expand...
About my personal choice, already made, you are correct. There simply isn't another candidate running in either of the major parties for which I could vote to take the presidency.

The reasons for that have been made clear in this and several other threads, and don't bear repeating.

I see that many of you don't want a candidate that obeys the highest law of the land, the US Constitution as it was written, and that's too bad. Nevertheless, I shall continue to involve myself in his election to the presidency, and if Dr. Ron Paul isn't the nominee, then my involvement in the process shall cease.

None of the other Republican candidates are electable in my opinion (and in the opinion of many others), and if you want to learn that lesson, continue on in your support of one of them.

Another new fund raiser.
 
Last edited:
I see that many of you don't want a candidate that obeys the highest law of the land, the US Constitution as it was written, and that's too bad.
Click to expand...

No many of us don't want a fruitloop that has a legally untenable view of the constitution and that's good. Of course:

"The reasons for that have been made clear in this and several other threads, and don't bear repeating."

if Dr. Ron Paul isn't the nominee, then my involvement in the process shall cease.
Click to expand...

:) That includes prostelytizing?

if you want to learn that lesson, continue on in your support of one of them.
Click to expand...

Of course, most of us havent even completely made up our minds yet as we evaluate the candidates based on a variety of factors. Of course, when you look at those factors, the good Doc fails miserably.

WildineverwasacultistAlaska TM

PS $500 Paul does not get the repub nomination. Any takers?
 
Those of you who do not like the candidate strongest on the constitution, get together and decide on one of the others.
Click to expand...

Well, I'm just as strong on the constitution as Paul. Im sure you are as well. Why don't you vote for me or vote for yourself. The answer is obviously because we cant win.

My question to you folks is what gets lost in translation bewteen knowing you can't win, but somehow thinking Paul can.

The question isn't who is strongest on the constitution. The question is who is strongest on the constitution that can win.
 
Tell me how the people you think can win are strong, in any way, on the constitution. It's been said over and over that there is not enough difference between the "lead" candidates of the 2 parties.
Show me where any of them support the constitution better than Hillary.
 
My question to you folks is what gets lost in translation bewteen knowing you can't win, but somehow thinking Paul can.
Click to expand...

No one gave either of us $5 million last quarter to give it a shot.
 
No many of us don't want a fruitloop that has a legally untenable view of the constitution and that's good.
Click to expand...

Any examples of Ron Paul positions on the Constitution which are legally untenable? Anything close to Rudy's untenable idea that Congress has the authority (under the commerce clause, no doubt) to pass a law saying we must get permission to own a handgun?
 
Wildalaska: Come on, Pauls been feeding at the Pork Trough with the rest of the pigs (including my own, but those are MY pigs) since hes been in congress and then champions himself as the messiah of constituionalism, all the while chanting womb control.
Click to expand...

Are you just making this stuff up as you go along?

Espousing your opinions is welcome, but it would be appreciated if you would start including supporting arguments in your post, instead of making vague statements like 'Ron Paul is a fruit loop' and pressing the 'post reply' button without further information. This is a discussion thread, not a poll.

Regarding pork: He's the only candidate, as far as I can tell, that does not accept his Congressional pension, votes against Congressional pay raises, only accepts personal campaign contributions as opposed to corporate sponsorships, and has chosen not to accept federal funds to match his campaign raisings. He was the sole dissenter when Congress voted for a measure to spend $30,000 in taxpayer money to mint a gold medal to honor Ronald Reagan, and instead asked his fellow Congressmen to pay $100 dollars from their own pockets to foot the bill. He was alone in his charity.

And concerning 'womb control,' he is opposed to federal controls of abortion. He's a 'states rights' guy, you see.

PS $500 Paul does not get the repub nomination. Any takers?
Click to expand...

In reply, I just donated $500 to his campaign.

Mr. J--- J----,

Thank you very much for your donation of $500.00 to the Ron Paul 2008 Presidential Campaign.

Your donation will allow us to expand and grow our campaign.

We depend on donors like you to help us spread the message of freedom, peace and prosperity through Ron Paul’s candidacy.

Thanks for being a part of the campaign!
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
The last president we had who put ideology and esoteric political beliefs above the pragmatic neccessities of running a country was Jimmy Carter. Ron Paul is even more honest and ideologically rigid than Carter. That does not mean that either man was wrong, in fact it speaks well for them as human beings. Alas our system does not really reward that sort of honor and integrity. Paul's ideology is even more radical than was Carter's.

Paul on the supreme court? Maybe, but as president? God save us all from another honorable president.
 
"Pragmatic necessities" are what got us where we are today. If you like the course of the country, and the state of our constitutional rights, then by all means, keep voting in "pragmatists" who try to be all things to all people.
 
Ronald Reagan, Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton were both presidents who did what needed to be done and ignored the ideologs in their own parties when it was the right thing to do. I liked one of those guys and didn't likeone of them and have mixed feelings for the third, but the fact is they were damn effective presidents and our country ran better when they were in the oval office.

BushII and Carter are the opposite, they put ideology ahead of doing what the country needed. They listened too closely to their parties supporters. Paul is about as far from Nixon, Clinton and Reagan as you can get without being Carter.

BTW, I don't agree that "pragmatism" brought us to the state we are in today. After Reagan and Clinton our country was in the best shape it had been in a century. BushII put his neocon ideology to work and pretty much destroyed the economic, political and social progress that several years of pragmatists had built. I don't think of BushI as a contributor, he was basically just Reagan light for a few years until we could find someone better.
 
BTW, I don't agree that "pragmatism" brought us to the state we are in today. After Reagan and Clinton our country was in the best shape it had been in a century. BushII put his neocon ideology to work and pretty much destroyed the economic, political and social progress that several years of pragmatists had built. I don't think of BushI as a contributor, he was basically just Reagan light for a few years until we could find someone better.
Click to expand...
In fact, the best president in the 20th century was Calvin Coolidge, not any of those you mentioned. Coolidge ran a presidency that was as close to being Constitutional as recorded since that of Martin van Buren's nearly a century earlier. No president since Coolidge has made the slightest attempt to live within the law, particularly those you mention.

Reagan did campaign as a Goldwater Republican, then employed far too many men loyal to the Bush crime family to get even half of his plans into action. That makes Reagan a failure as a president.

Nixon's position on the presidency is summed up best by his statement to David Frost during an interview, "if the president does it, it's not illegal".

I think the country wants a law abiding president. When we get one who forces the government to act within the law, punishes those government agents that act illegally, fires those that act incompetently (FBI incompetence led to the successful completion of the 9/11 attacks, no one was fired), and gets the federal government out of our faces; we'll all be better off.

For those that think Ron Paul isn't pragmatic I'll just point you to his reputation with his constituents in serving them when they ask for help. It's among the best in the House of Representatives. While others have claimed that Ron Paul is feeding at the federal trough when requesting a portion of funds delineated for earmarks, funds that are committed regardless of whether or not he requests a portion of them, that is in fact a pragmatic reaction to documented needs of the people in his district.

Unwavering dedication to lawful government combined with pragmatism within that law will make a good president.
 
That makes Reagan a failure as a president.
Click to expand...
A question for all of you other Paul supporters: Is this opinion representative of Paul and/or his supporters as a group?

I'm just trying to get a sense of how such a belief would impact the nomination and eventually the election. Such a belief runs counter to a majority of Republicans and Independents I've met, and counter to many Dems I've met (and counter to many polls I've read). As such, if Paul and/or the majority of his supporters hold a belief counter to that held by so many people, I wonder how Paul can be the "only one" to unite those vast and separate groups of people.
 
I think the country wants a law abiding president. When we get one who forces the government to act within the law, punishes those government agents that act illegally, fires those that act incompetently...
Click to expand...

Which pretty much sums up the Carter attempt at running things honorably. I'm sorry, but if the Ron Paul compaign thinks that modern americans would tolerate, let alone desire, another Coolidge then they are out of their collective mind.
 
"Pragmatic necessities" are what got us where we are today.
Click to expand...

Yep the place everyone wants to come to. The place where there is rule of law, a thriving economy, free presss, free elections...

The place where pragmatic folks can get together and solve problems.

WildreckonitswhatsideoftheglassyouareonAlaska TM
 
I love shrimp. If anybody wants some of my special recipes, email me. I make a wonderful Korean spicy seafood and tofu stew, perfect for lounging around the fire after a hard day of shooting, or in my case, after a hard day of plotting ZOG's newest steps to deprive the Patriots of their rights.


WildneedkokuchangAlaska TM
 
From the Chattanoogan article mentioned above:

Only Ron Paul, who wants to eliminate the IRS...
Click to expand...

Dr. Paul doesn't want to just eliminate the IRS. He wants to eliminate all Federal tax collection period, and then fund our Federal Government with "Constitutionally Authorized" revenues like customs duties.

Most Americans are astute enough to realize that such an idea is impractical.

There are way too many Americans who depend on a Federal Government check for things like a Civil Service pension, Social Security, or other largess for Dr. Paul to ever get enough votes to defeat Hillary Clinton.

Mike Huckabee's idea for a VAT is better, but still not going to be popular.
 
Regarding pork: He's the only candidate, as far as I can tell, that does not accept his Congressional pension, votes against Congressional pay raises, only accepts personal campaign contributions as opposed to corporate sponsorships, and has chosen not to accept federal funds to match his campaign raisings. He was the sole dissenter when Congress voted for a measure to spend $30,000 in taxpayer money to mint a gold medal to honor Ronald Reagan, and instead asked his fellow Congressmen to pay $100 dollars from their own pockets to foot the bill. He was alone in his charity.
Click to expand...

Ron Paul's voting record to obtain his share of port is well-documented:

Ron Paul's $400 Million Earmarks
Monday, August 06, 2007

By Brit Hume

E-MAIL STORY PRINTER FRIENDLY VERSION
Now some fresh pickings from the Political Grapevine:

Pet Projects

Texas congressman and Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul — who is campaigning as a critic of congressional overspending — has revealed that he is requesting $400 million worth of earmarks this year.

The Wall Street Journal reports Paul's office says those requests include $8 million for the marketing of wild American shrimp and $2.3 million to pay for research into shrimp fishing.

A spokesman says, "Reducing earmarks does not reduce government spending, and it does not prohibit spending upon those things that are earmarked. What people who push earmark reform are doing is they are particularly misleading the public — and I have to presume it's not by accident."
Click to expand...

Ron Paul must believe that shrimp-pork-earmarks are constitutional. I've reviewed the United States Constitution, but I've yet to find the word 'shrimp'. :D

I see that many of you don't want a candidate that obeys the highest law of the land, the US Constitution as it was written, and that's too bad.
Click to expand...

Ron Paul picks his earmarks just like every other congressional candidate has. He's part of the same system. His earmarks speak for themselves.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top