SHOW ME THE MON ..... errr .... votes!!

[poptart]

Let me preface this thread by saying that it is not intended to discuss the merits (or lack there of) of Ron Paul as a presidential candidate.

We already know that he has some supporters here -- Dins, myself, Shine ...
And we also know that he has some here who think he's a nutjob.

This thread is to explore an interesting phenomenon.
That being, here is a guy who raised a BIG amount of money, an amount putting him among the MOST elite candidates in that regard, and yet .... he gets no votes.

How to explain it?

His money came at a grass roots level, and not by a 'handful' of fat-cats making big single donations.
Wouldn't it be logical to imagine that the many many MANY people who donated money also intended to actually VOTE for the guy?

What's the reason for Paul's lack of votes?

1. Election fraud.

2. Money raised is not an indication of true voter support -- there are infinitely many more people voting who DON'T ever donate cayesh than those who do.

3. Money donators don't vote.

4. Paul is not 'charismatic' enough to attract votes.

I think it's #2 ... and a li'l of #4.


Side issue:

I half-expect Paul to make a 3rd party run, based on the fact that two liberals will be squaring off in the general.

My hope is that by '12, after another 4 yrs of liberal presidency has taken us further down the crapper, a TRUE conservative will rise up and get the backing of the people, who might FINALLY wakey wakey, and take the oval office at that point.

'Til then, we're fucked badly.

[Mister Bushice]

No election fraud. Lets look at some generalized concepts.

Dude is old and has many fliends with mucho cash. They generate more cash down their own money trees. Big Pile right there all by itself.

Add in a minimum of another 3 million desperately hopeful people with Ron Paul bumper stickers contributing at least 10 dollars each. That be a big pile.

Yet, that still leaves 200 million or more voters who don't give a shit.

And the two party alliance has still not been breached. Not even close.

But good luck with the concept. When you wake up, things will still be the same.

[Diogenes]

You forgot option #5) He's a nutjob.

He might have gone from his current 1% to 2 or 3 % if he wasn't the 'Republican' (read Losertarian Presidential candidate who realized he'd never get elected with those wingnuts) promoting surrender in the WOT.

[BSmack]

Option 6: Paul is raising money from voters who are not registered Republicans and therefore cannot vote for him in most primaries.

[Diogenes]

Option 6: Paul is raising money from voters who are not registered Republicans and therefore cannot vote for him in most primaries.

Hopefully at least they're Americans and not Chicom agents.

[smackaholic]

Most sensible folks who really do want less gubmint realize that there is one HUGE area that the gubmint does need to be involved with. Defense.

And yes, sometimes a good defense is a good offense. We tried the head in the sand approach awhile back and ended up with WWII.

If Paul had a different stance in this area, he'd have my vote and probably alot of others. Unfortunately for him, he has to share his ostrich defense policy votes with the dems.

[poptart]

If Paul had a different stance in this area, he'd have my vote and probably alot of others. Unfortunately for him, he has to share his ostrich defense policy votes with the dems.

Sadly, I think you're right that Paul's 'extreme' foreign policy is the only thing that kept him from having been a MAJOR republican contender.

[Dinsdale]

The "bad defense policy" is hilarious.

If you poke a dog with a stick enough times, it will bite you. A wise person would stop poking the dog with a stick and walk away. A moron would go get a gun, shoot the dog, then cry "foul" when the rest of the dogs come chasing after him.


There's head in the sand going on alright -- people have their head in the sand as to why people who have had their land occupied for decades, and have a foreign governemt on the other side of the planet interfering with their everyday lives might actually have a problem with it.

A wise defense policy is very simple -- if someone attacks this country, there homeland gets carpet-bombed. No ifs, ans, or buts. Automatic. Not up for negotiation.


People have this strange idea that if the USA doesn't have military occupation in every corner of ther globe, that suddenly all goods and services will come to a screeching halt. This is somehow based on a strange notion that people in other countries don't like money and prosperity unless there's an American battleship parked off their coast. Ponderous, to say the least. A moronic attitude we're paying dearly for, since it's what brought about OPEC and the regulation of oil production. "Insanity" is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.



"B-b-b-b-but Iran will seize the Straits!"

Yeah, I'm sure all of those other Gulf States will sit idly by while Iran bleeds them dry. Or do you think that maybe the people affected would stick up for themselves? They've shown a pretty strong track record for doing so (sup 9/11), yet they're going to sit back and let "their interests" be ruined by a couple of Iranian battleships?


Ohhhhhkay. That's a well-thought-out, reasonable answer.


And if the US didn't have a buhzillion troops sitting there doing nothing on the N. Korean border, I'm sure the country that's a few decades from an upgrade to "third-world," which can't quite keep their lights on at night will just waltz right across the border of a heavily populated, highly developed country... makes perfect sense.


Our foreign/defense policy is moronic.

And yes, sometimes a good defense is a good offense. We tried the head in the sand approach awhile back and ended up with WWII.

Revisionist history. If the US had dealt with its domestic traitors in a timely fashion, US troops never would have been involved in Europe. But even in the 1930's, certain people were allowed to buy the government, and some fatcats were making a mint by financing/enabling the Nazis to build their massive mechanized war machine. Of course, you people elected their ringleader's son and grandson to the Oval Office, which wasn't the intelligent course of action either. But it's kind of the same dealio -- who cares how much it costs the American People in both dollars and lives, when the nation's royalty stands to make a buck?

Sorry smacka, but the same foreign policy that caused WW2 to spiral out of control is still in place today... the idea that as a peon, you owe the royalty your life for their profit.


And until people Wakey Wakey to this, nothing will change.

[poptart]

Our foreign/defense policy is moronic.

You're preachin' the the choir, Dinsdale.

I agree with Paul on foreign policy.

I'm just saying that the people have become so accustomed to the idea that we 'need' to have our forces all over the globe that Paul's wish to nearly COMPLETELY remove forces from everywhere strikes folks as .... wacko and entirely unrealistic.


Sheeple.

[poptart]

Let me help you out here. Having lots of money will help you get your message out that's it. If your message doesn't resonate, it doesn't matter how much fucking money you have you're just spinning your wheels.

The difference between Paul and Romney, of course, is that Romney 'got his message out' by using tons of his OWN fortune.
It wasn't a case of him RAISING the kind of money that Ron Paul did.

For Paul to actually RAISE the kind of cayesh that he did and then show so poorly ...... is a very interesting thing.

[Dinsdale]

Sheeple.

BINGO!


Frankly, the Average Joe ain't too bright... just look at this board of you need verification.

It doesn't take a rocket surgeon to follow the money and understand how "foreign policy" is shaped. But sheeple don't have the mental capacity to do so, apparently. They don't even understand the concept of the American Royal Family, who have engaged in flagrant acts of treason on many occasions to benefit themselves and themselves only, sometimes with severe consequences.


But I believe that some people don't want to face the ugly side of this country's past, and it's easier to remain in denial than to admit to such ugliness. But 6 million Jews died for it, and millions of others... for the benefit of the Bush family (save it, mvscal -- it's true, and the more we learn the uglier it gets). Everyone's heart bleeds for the Jews who were part of the final solution and for the war dead of WW2. Yet they turn around and still ask "how did this happen?" They don't want to hear the answer -- that Hitler's war machine quite likely never would have came into being if a few American businessmen weren't getting very wealthy by helping build it. And when a law was passed (which Congress NEVER should have had to do in the first place), they just kept right on doing it. Were they executed for treason? No, they were promoted to royalty by buying off the government. It's too far over-the-top for the Average Joe to even want to believe, so they remain in denial, and 60+ years later, the same "policy" is in æffect, because it's easier than accepting the truth and being complicit in such ugliness...


Lather, rinse, repeat... and repeat... and repeat... and repeat... but continue to expect a different, positive result each time.

[Shlomart Ben Yisrael]

We are and always have been a global nation with global interests...

What goes around, comes around.
As long as you're cool with that, I'm cool with that.

[Shlomart Ben Yisrael]

And it comes around a fuck of a lot faster if you don't have a strong pimp hand.

I have no problem with your reasoning. All I suggest is that no quarter be asked, when previously no quarter was given.

The "live by the sword..." principle is honourable if anything.

[Shlomart Ben Yisrael]

Hitler's war machine quite likely never would have came into being if a few American businessmen weren't getting very wealthy by helping build it.

German rearmament was almost entirely self-financed, you ignorant dolt.

Start here: Metallurgische Forschungsanstalt

US corporations were bit players at best in German rearmament.

I think what Dins is getting at is, American corporations were providing raw materials to the Reich through third-party countries, namely Switzerland.

As dry as William L. Shirer's "Rise And Fall..." is, he does document those facts quite correctly.

Otherwise yes, he is an ignorant dolt.

[Shlomart Ben Yisrael]

Try again.

Try what again? I don't see any fundamental difference in what you or I are saying.

[Shlomart Ben Yisrael]

That statement is rubbish. Same goes for Japan.

[Shine]

For Paul to actually RAISE the kind of cayesh that he did and then show so poorly ...... is a very interesting thing.

I think the biggest issue is that Paul was a complete and total unknown to start the process, and then was given slightly more than zero run by the main stream media. This is the first year I've paid attention at such an early point in the campaign process, and had this been a normal year for me where I didn't really tune in with more than a passing glance until late summer I wouldn't have known who he was. The grass roots support Paul was able to build/is continuing to build is very impressive but sadly it won't amount to all that much. I believe Paul has 42 delegates thus far so hopefully with a few more strong showings he'll be able to build on that number and reach a point where he'll at least be able to speak at the RNC.

There have been some rather solid showings for Paul, if you take into consideration again that outside of very devoted political followers nobody even knows who he is. For a guy who routinely polled in the 2-3% range Paul got:

10% in Iowa
8% in New Hampshire
14% in Nevada
19% in Maine
17% in Alaska
8% in Colorado
16% in Minnesota
25% in Montana
7% in New York
21% in North Dakota

If he had the name recognition and MSM coverage of the alleged "front runners" and had a starting point in the teens the story might have been quite different. Unfortunately for America we're staring a Hitlery/McCain "choice" this November.

[Diogenes]

Let me help you out here. Having lots of money will help you get your message out that's it. If your message doesn't resonate, it doesn't matter how much fucking money you have you're just spinning your wheels.

The difference between Paul and Romney, of course, is that Romney 'got his message out' by using tons of his OWN fortune.
It wasn't a case of him RAISING the kind of money that Ron Paul did.

Romney actually raised more outside funds than any other candidate, excluding his own funds.

And it wasn't a case of voters' not liking his message, it was a case of having the blue states go for McClown, the Red ones go for the Huckster, and the Purple for Mitt.

All the states McRINO has won so far will go dem in november anyway. All the ones Huckster split off enough of the vote to win, would go GOP no matter what. The swing states?

Their man is out.

Enjoy four years of Pimpdaddy Hitlery or the Cholcalate Cupcake.

[Diogenes]

I think the biggest issue is that Paul was a complete and total unknown to start the process, and then ...

...the more people got to know him, the better they understood what a clueless loser he was.

10% in Iowa
8% in New Hampshire
14% in Nevada
19% in Maine
17% in Alaska
8% in Colorado
16% in Minnesota
25% in Montana
7% in New York
21% in North Dakota

Yeah, he kicked ass in states with a population density of 1 per 10,000 miles or less.


Not enough to even outpoll John Edwards, mind you...

[Terry in Crapchester]

Unfortunately for America we're staring a Hitlery/McCain "choice" this November.

Obama will be the Democratic nominee.

[Cuda]

Bwaaaaaaahahahahahahahahahahaha.

Jeebus, Terry, I thought the GOP was the Stupid Party. Apparently, the DemocRats are the Stupid-er Party

If the DemocRats haven't figured out by about 1984 that this whole "super delegate" thingie was meant from the outset to make sure it would be party insiders rather than the rank and file who had the final word on who the nominee was going to be, they'll fucking never figure it out- not even if it's explained to them very slowly.