• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Why does Ron Paul get the most military donations?

Help Support Ranchers.net:

djinwa

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 6, 2009
Messages
100
Reaction score
0
Location
WA
I've been told if you are against our current wars, you are unpatriotic and you don't support the troops.

Why then do the troops give more to Ron Paul (wants to bring the troops home) than any other candidate by far?

The current campaign:
http://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2011/jul/23/ron-paul/ron-paul-says-members-military-have-given-him-far-/

That said, from April through June, Paul fielded more than $25,000 from individuals who listed their employer as a branch of the military.

Combined, six other Republican presidential candidates listed donations from members of the military totaling about $9,000. Our most-to-least breakdown: Herman Cain, $2,850; Mitt Romney, $2,750; Michele Bachmann, $2,250; Newt Gingrich, $500; and Tim Pawlenty and Rick Santorum, $250 each.

The 2008 campaign:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2007/nov/29/ron-paul/a-military-victory-for-paul/

Ron Paul, the only Republican candidate for president who opposes the war and one of the most ardent antiwar candidates in both parties, is on the money here.

The Center for Responsive Politics reports that since January, he has received at least $53,670 from U.S. military personnel. The Houston Chronicle, after an extensive analysis of Federal Election Commission reports, puts the figure at $63,440 for the same period.

Both sources say Democratic candidate Barack Obama comes in second, with CRP reporting he has received $45,200 from military folks. The Houston paper says active and retired military personnel funneled $53,968 to Obama's campaign.

"What we were hearing from the donors is that this money was definitely a statement about the war," Ritsch said. "It doesn't mean it reflects the views of anyone else in the military. It just may be the way this small slice of people is making a statement, because it's one of the ways they can make a statement. If you're active military, there aren't too many ways you can protest the mission you've been assigned."

John McCain comes in third, with CRP reporting he received $40,000 and the Chronicle saying $48,208. McCain was a Vietnam War prisoner and backs the surge in Iraq.


Here's a recent cover of The Ranger, a newspaper for military people

http://img59.imageshack.us/img59/2205/ronpaulranger.jpg
 

Steve

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
16,547
Reaction score
0
Location
Wildwood New Jersey
The military is a slice of America..

there are people of all faiths, political parties and beliefs..

they support a variety of views.. and like candidates for many different reasons..

when I was in, I didn't pay much attention to politics.. I liked Reagan, he did alot for the military..

Bush sr was respected, he let US kick Saddam's butt... didn't drag US into a long war.. but overall it still wasn't our battle..

Clinton downsized the military.. hard to like a guy who fired your buddy...
and made huge cuts....

I retired before Bush2,, but still knew alot of guys in, most felt we needed to do the job... but after numerous tours overseas, it is hard to see an end..

Obama.. so far he really hasn't done anything..

which takes US to Ron Paul.. many in the military are not supportive of US fighting others battles... sticking our nose where it doesn't belong..

but I think it is deeper then that,... when you able to take care of yourself like most in the military are.. you really don't like the nanny-state our government has become.. and Ron Paul has spoken that message well.. but most realize that Paul goes to far as a libertarian, and he would not ever get elected.. so supporting Paul is more of a message of the rest to get a little more libertarian.

with all that said... Paul lost alot of my support in his more then scary disregard of Iran's nuke danger..
 

djinwa

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 6, 2009
Messages
100
Reaction score
0
Location
WA
Steve said:
with all that said... Paul lost alot of my support in his more then scary disregard of Iran's nuke danger..

Which puzzles me, because I don't hear people begging to bomb North Korea, who already have a nuke, so they are a bigger threat, right?

For some reason we only bomb those who aren't a threat.

Strange.

I've also been reading recently more about how the 1953 coup by our CIA installing the Shah in Iran. And thereafter helping to train his secret police, who brutalized his people for decades.

So we have a history of messing with them, and we're still doing regime changes in the region. It seems quite natural for them to want a nuke, because we don't mess with those who have one. Doesn't mean they'd use it on us.

Why can't we just leave them and the others over there alone?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SAVAK
Sources disagree over how many victims SAVAK had and how inhumane its techniques were. Writing at the time of the Shah's overthrow, TIME magazine described SAVAK as having "long been Iran's most hated and feared institution" which had "tortured and murdered thousands of the Shah's opponents."[25] The Federation of American Scientists also found it guilty of "the torture and execution of thousands of political prisoners" and symbolizing "the Shah's rule from 1963-79." The FAS list of SAVAK torture methods included "electric shock, whipping, beating, inserting broken glass and pouring boiling water into the rectum, tying weights to the testicles, and the extraction of teeth and nails." [26] According to a former CIA analyst on Iran,[27][28] Jesse J. Leaf, SAVAK was trained in torture techniques by the CIA.
 

Steve

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
16,547
Reaction score
0
Location
Wildwood New Jersey
For some reason we only bomb those who aren't a threat.

did I use the word bomb anywhere in my comment? NO..

I believe North Korea is a treat, I believe Iran is a treat, and both should be treated as such.. with sanctions, and military planing to deal with them if they ever get to the point of delivering on the threats they have made..

I believe we should support our allies in the region in protecting themselves..

hmm,.. no begging.. no bombing.. no threats even.. funny that... downright strange in fact..
 

Steve

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
16,547
Reaction score
0
Location
Wildwood New Jersey
Why can't we just leave them and the others over there alone?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11_attacks

we supported them in their wars against their enemies.. we left them alone... how well did that work out?

when your sitting at home alone in the dark... wondering what happened..
Earlier this year Iranian officials announced that Iran's cyber war campaign would be activated under the Passive Defense Organization of Iran, which openly recruited hackers who would support the goals and ideals of the radicals ruling Iran. Also as reported earlier, in a recent meeting among Iran's Revolutionary Guard commanders and Iranian scientists, America's vulnerabilities for a cyber attack were discussed. They concluded that the U.S. power grids represent the best opportunity for such attacks, as more U.S. utilities are moving their control systems to the Internet and using smart-grid technology.


I know in your world, there seldom goes a speech where the leaders of Iran don't talk of peace, or of how Iran can better it's relations with US and Israel , ... but in reality they threaten our country on a regular basis,.. if it is idle threats then we should do as Paul indicates.. if not, then Paul and your thinking is downright dangerous..
 

Steve

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
16,547
Reaction score
0
Location
Wildwood New Jersey
The Fantasy of Ron Paul's Military Support

In response to this article from the Houston Chronicle reporting that Ron Paul and Barack Obama lead all candidates in fund raising among "donors identified as affiliated with the military," Sullivan headlines a post "Whom the Troops Support," with this stunningly self-indulgent conclusion

Just one indicator, of course: campaign donations from active service military members. And guess who's first? Ron Paul. Second? Barack Obama. Those tasked to actually fighting this war get it, don't they?

Except this isn't about campaign donations from "active service military members," whatever they might be, but "donors affiliated with the military," which Sullivan might have noticed had he slogged through the whole first sentence of the story. In fact, the first "active service military member" and Ron Paul supporter interviewed for the piece is 72-year-old Lindell Anderson, a retired Army chaplain from Fort Worth. Further, the Chron notes that the average size of Paul's donations from this subset was $500. How many active duty soldiers are giving $500 to fringe candidates a year out from the election? Not many, I suspect. In fact, among all the candidates, the total number of contributors surveyed here numbered less than 1,000--out of an Armed Forces of 2.2 million. And, remember, most of these contributors aren't even active duty.

So yes, Andrew, those tasked with fighting this war do get it, which is why they aren't donating to Paul. The only real report we have on political contributions from active duty military in this election cycle has Paul taking in just over $19,000, and that's only counting donations larger than $200. So,maximum, we're talking about 90 active duty soldiers who we know have actually contributed to Ron Paul's campaign. The rest is pure speculation,

90 active duty members... maximum... doesn't sound like the military is backing Paul...

sometimes when a person does a bit of research he finds what is reported isn't true.. strange... really strange indeed... :? :???:
 

Latest posts

Top