Ron Paul Fundraising pulls in over 2.6 M today alone

[atxgun]

Many of you know that Paul is very pro 2nd amendment. He's finally getting some real cash flow. It's pretty amazing if you look at these graphs http://paulcash.slact.net/

[Kalrog]

He might actually have the cash to get his message out. I don't think he has a chance at the party nomination, but he might be the only R candidate that I would vote for (as opposed to voting against someone else).

[atxgun]

He had said in the past he wouldn't run independently if he didn't get the nomination. But who knows if he gets his 12 M goal maybe he'll reconsider running outside of the GOP. If nothing else I hope this will get the mainstream media to give up their case that Paul really has no supporters and the online "illusion" is just pushed by a very small number of people.

[Will938]

He's set to make more $$$ in one day than any other republican candidate. Romney made 3.1 million in a day, Paul should have 3.2 million in another two hours. And over 4 million by the end of the night if this momentum keeps up.

[atxgun]

And over 4 million by the end of the night if this momentum keeps up.

I did my part to keep the ball rolling. I saved a screen shot of the widget when my name appeared for posterity

[anygunanywhere]

Done!

Anygun

[KBCraig]

Today was my fifth donation, and I have yet to be able to capture my name!

This finally put me over the $200 minimum to make the FEC's donor list. That's one government list I'm proud to be on!

I'm 44, and had never donated to any political campaign until Ron Paul decided to run.

The pace isn't slacking off at all:
http://ronpaulgraphs.com/nov_5_extended_total.html

[frankie_the_yankee]

He had said in the past he wouldn't run independently if he didn't get the nomination. But who knows if he gets his 12 M goal maybe he'll reconsider running outside of the GOP.

And if he's dumb, spiteful or stubborn enough to do that. and I'm almost certain he isn't, you might as well get used to hearing about President Clinton and the First Husband for the next 8 years.

And the cause of gun rights in this country will be set back by 100 years at least, and maybe forever.

Between the SCOTUS and lower court appointments she would make, and the UN-inspired treaties she would push for ratification of, it would take a 2nd revolution to get our gun rights back.

[boomerang]

And if he's dumb, spiteful or stubborn enough to do that. and I'm almost certain he isn't, you might as well get used to hearing about President Clinton and the First Husband for the next 8 years.

As bad as that would be, it's sounds like a better future than one with President Giuliani. The Republicans in Congress would at least consider voting against unconstitutional legislation pushed by Clinton but they would probably bend over for Rudy. Same thing with the supposedly nonpartisan Supreme Court. Remember that Clinton's homeland defense rifle ban expired but the 1989 Republican rifle ban is still in effect.

I don't think Paul will run as a GDI if he doesn't get the GOP nomination, but I'd vote for Obama or Clinton before I'd vote for Giuliani. So I hope against hopes that Ron Paul will get the nomination. That's why I donated.

And the cause of gun rights in this country will be set back by 100 years at least, and maybe forever.

Rolling back 100 years of restrictive gun laws sounds like a great idea.

[atxgun]

I don't think Paul will run as a GDI if he doesn't get the GOP nomination, but I'd vote for Obama or Clinton before I'd vote for Giuliani. So I hope against hopes that Ron Paul will get the nomination. That's why I donated.

If very many people feel as you do, get ready to get hosed.

Ron Paul or any candidate definitely cannot win if they loose support to people that would otherwise support them but simply feel "they cannot win". I like Paul and his policies so that's what I stand for, not just the lesser of two or three evils.

[frankie_the_yankee]

I don't think Paul will run as a GDI if he doesn't get the GOP nomination, but I'd vote for Obama or Clinton before I'd vote for Giuliani. So I hope against hopes that Ron Paul will get the nomination. That's why I donated.

If very many people feel as you do, get ready to get hosed.

Ron Paul or any candidate definitely cannot win if they loose support to people that would otherwise support them but simply feel "they cannot win". I like Paul and his policies so that's what I stand for, not just the lesser of two or three evils.

Sure. And if he gets the GOP nomination he will get my vote. (Even though I think he will go down in flames in the general election. I'll go down with him at that point.)

But if he doesn't get the nomination, I'm gonna vote for whoever does get the GOP nomination, even if it is Satan Himself. Because that will be the only chance of defeating whoever the Democrat is.

And if the choice is between Satan and a Democrat, I'll vote for Satan every time.

And so should you.

[atxgun]

I don't think Paul will run as a GDI if he doesn't get the GOP nomination, but I'd vote for Obama or Clinton before I'd vote for Giuliani. So I hope against hopes that Ron Paul will get the nomination. That's why I donated.

If very many people feel as you do, get ready to get hosed.

Ron Paul or any candidate definitely cannot win if they loose support to people that would otherwise support them but simply feel "they cannot win". I like Paul and his policies so that's what I stand for, not just the lesser of two or three evils.

Sure. And if he gets the GOP nomination he will get my vote. (Even though I think he will go down in flames in the general election. I'll go down with him at that point.)

But if he doesn't get the nomination, I'm gonna vote for whoever does get the GOP nomination, even if it is Satan Himself. Because that will be the only chance of defeating whoever the Democrat is.

And if the choice is between Satan and a Democrat, I'll vote for Satan every time.

And so should you.

I guess what I was getting at is that you should do all you can to support him up to the point of the nomination. As crappy as it is I think he can only ever gain legitimacy by getting loads of cash.

[boomerang]

Rolling back 100 years of restrictive gun laws sounds like a great idea.

Except that's not what I meant and you know it.

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

The courts will do their dirty work for them and the politicians will say that while they personally believe in gun rights, it's what the courts have determined the constitution means and it is out of their hands. (Sound familiar?)

Yes. Very familiar. It sounds a lot like Giuliani.

But this is a discussion about Ron Paul's fundraising.

I donated to Dr. Paul's campaign because I believe he's the best candidate for President. How about you?

[frankie_the_yankee]

I donated to Dr. Paul's campaign because I believe he's the best candidate for President. How about you?

I didn't because I don't. I think his foreign policy would be a disaster.

And if he doesn't get the nomination and any significant number of his supporters sit on their hands, Hillary will get elected and you can kiss your gun rights goodbye forever.

I wouldn't begin to know how to do a search on this, but I'll bet that if you looked at every federal case involving gun rights since 1993, you will find that Clinton/Carter-appointed judges have voted or ruled against gun rights almost every time. This includes the 5th circuit, the 9th circuit, the DC circuit, and wherever they've had the chance.

In an 8 year term, nearly half the federal judiciary turns over. Just remember that when you vote for Obama or Clinton out of a dislike for Giulianni (or even if you just think he is not "pure" enough).

Your fingers will be cold and dead, Hillary's agents will be prying your guns from them, and she will be claiming to personally support individual gun rights while "lamenting" that the courts have ruled and there's nothing she can do.

[atxgun]

Well I think if any of the GOP candidates are elected other than ron paul the world will deteriorate to a point to where you need to exercise your gun rights on a daily basis for survival much more so than if a dem get's in office.

This claim is directly related to the foreign policies of other "republicans" and I think Paul's is the only sensible one. Of course you disagree on that point so we can just leave it at that.