Ron Paul Fundraising pulls in over 2.6 M today alone

[lawrnk]

Perot got clinton in. You deny that?

[swiven]

Can we confine the Paul bashing to things he's actually said or implied he believes or is going to do?

Please.

Pretty please with sugar on top?

If you want to tell me that Paul has no chance of winning the Republican nomination, fine. Having spent the last view months watching the way the mainstream media treats a pro-gun, pro-life, anti-spending Republican, I agree that he has a long uphill road to climb. I'm not sure why you're telling me about it though, because I'm going to try to keep educating people about Paul's message.

If you want to tell me that Paul's views are naive/difficult to implement/flat out wrong, go ahead. Show me another anti-spending Republican with a better shot. If you don't care that we're putting our children in debt bondage to China to pay for our wars and handout programs, or think that there's more important issues in this campaign that are addressed better by another candidate, feel free to try and convince me that your views are correct.

But please don't vilify Paul for things that haven't happened yet that he's said he's not going to do. It's not as though he has a huge track record of flip-flopping on his convictions or promises, so I have no reason to think that he'll try to run again as an independent, even though his campaign is doing way better than the pundits predicated.

On topic, I am still doing my happy dance about the 4.2 million he raised on Monday.

[NcongruNt]

Perot got clinton in. You deny that?

I found your post reactionary and unfounded.

First, you somehow make the assumption that Hillary is going to be the Democratic candidate. The primaries haven't even started, but you seem to have it worked out in your mind what the outcome will be.

Secondly, I don't find that my vote for a third party is a vote for someone's opposing party. I vote for whomever I please, and I have no allegiance to one party or the other. Saying that a vote for an independent is a vote for the democrats is short-sighted, in my opinion. If we continue to vote in response to fear mongering that the status quo parties are the only real option (regardless of how bad the two choices are) and an independent vote is wasted, we will never have any fundamental change.

If enough people stop listening to the partisan divisive drivel spewed by the two reigning parties and refuse to support their nonsense, the politicians are going to wake up and realize that this country wants something more than inflammatory partisan hackery. Politicians are going to have to wake up and realize that they have to do more than run a campaign of polarizing divisiveness and actually address the problems that face this nation. At the very least, they'll have to reassess their actions in order to win over support.

If an independent candidate causes a "loss" of votes to the Republicans, maybe someone will realize that they need to start listening to the people they seek to represent.

As for who "got Clinton in", no one but the voters did that. People voted for their candidate of choice. If the majority of people had thought Bush was a better candidate, he would have won, but he didn't. Ross Perot ran a legitimate campaign, and garnered a significant number of votes. So did Bush and Clinton. Clinton won the most.

What I find offensive is that the political machine, such as it is, makes the patronizing assumption that voters can only think in 2 dimensions, and that people only belong to one of two opposite sides of a spectrum. It pretends to be 2 diametrically opposed groups, while in reality it fights over the majority in the middle on the fringes of both party ideologies. It is a superficial "us vs. them" mentality without regard for the fact that we are a single nation of mostly moderate people. In my opinion, partisan gridlock is the best state of this system, because it best addresses the needs of the moderate majority and minimizes overly-partisan legislation.

[edited for additional content]

[KBCraig]

Perot got clinton in. You deny that?

I found your post reactionary and unfounded.

Not to mention unfactual. Perot drew more Democrat votes than Republican; if he'd stayed out of the race, Clinton would have won by an even larger margin.

See Politics: Who Cares by Peirce Lewis, Casey McCracken, and Roger Hunt (American Demographics, October 1994, vol. 16, no. 10) p. 23: Perot's support drew heavily from across the political spectrum, with 20% of his votes coming from self-described liberals, 27% from self-described conservatives, and 53% coming from self-described moderates. Economically, however, the majority of Perot voters (57%) were middle class, earning between $15,000 and $49,000 annually, with the bulk of the remainder drawing from the upper middle class (29% earning over $50,000 annually).

Perot only had 27% conservative support.

I am really tiring of answering the whole third party, Perot comparison. Some people are just so eager to pigeonhole, that they can only envision people in certain pre-established roles, no matter what the facts actually are.

[KBCraig]

Oh, and don't forget to donate Sunday, 11/11, if you're a veteran or wish to donate in honor of a veteran. If you're making a small donation, please do so as part of the "server stress test" from 7-8 p.m. Eastern (6-7 Central, 5-6 El Paso):

We need to help the campaign perform a $10 Donation Server STRESS TEST on November 11th from 7:00 to 8:00 PM eastern time.

Everyone needs to give just Ten Dollars on November 11th from 7:00 to 8:00 PM eastern time.


This server test has three purposes:

#1 To give RON PAUL the greatest number of small donations in a single hour (and thus more free media coverage).

#2 To lend an additional boost to the www.ThisNovember11th.com Veteran's Day fundraiser.

#3 To STRESS TEST the RON PAUL 2008 donation server leading up to the BOSTON TEA PARTY on November 16th.


Please schedule this $10 Dollar Donation event in your individual meetup groups.

The e-Campaign Director, Justine Lam, is aware of and supportive of this initative and has said that "Yes, I think we could handle it".

Now it is up to us to perform the $10 test to find out.

[frankie_the_yankee]

Perot got clinton in. You deny that?

I found your post reactionary and unfounded.

Not to mention unfactual. Perot drew more Democrat votes than Republican; if he'd stayed out of the race, Clinton would have won by an even larger margin.

I hear you but I just don't buy it.

In the upcoming race, if Paul ran as a 3rd party candidate he would hurt the Republican. Conversely, if Bloomberg runs as a 3rd (or 4th) party candidate, it will hurt the Democrat.

Of course neither one says they would run an independent campaign. I believe Paul. But I wouldn't trust ex-Democrat Bloomberg as far as I could throw him.

[KBCraig]

I hear you but I just don't buy it.

Oh, okay. By all means, go with your assumptions, rather than the factual research source I cited.

Say, what happened to:

Anyway, I'm done with this line of discussion.

[frankie_the_yankee]

Say, what happened to:

Anyway, I'm done with this line of discussion.

I didn't say I was done with the thread. Only that I was done with discussing Ron Paul's assertion (repeated by a poster) that we brought on 9/11, and that it was in some way our fault.

To me that is a complete non-starter. I do not believe that line of thought is worthy of discussion, certainly any discussion involving me.

[frankie_the_yankee]

I hear you but I just don't buy it.

Oh, okay. By all means, go with your assumptions, rather than the factual research source I cited.

I'm not disparaging your source. I simply do not find the data pursuasive.

Just my opinion. I was around in '92, and most Perot people I talked to seemed to be Libertarians or Republicans who were attracted to some part of Perot's message. (And keep in mind I lived in RI at that time where there was no shortage of Democrats to encounter.)

In fairness, I did note some people who were attracted to his anti-NAFTA protectionist statements ("..that giant sucking sound...") and some of these people were certainly labor union guys who leaned Democrat.

But I myself thought Perot was right about NAFTA and GATT (and still do) even though I consider myself to be a Libertarian-leaning Republican. I think we gave up too much of our sovereignty and are watching our manufacturing base slowly being destroyed as a result.

I also thought he wiped the floor with Al Gore in that debate. My favorite takeaway line was when he put his hands on his hips, looked at Gore and said, "Would you even recognize the truth if you saw it?"

You see, I was attracted to Perot's candidacy myself to some degree. And most of his message did not strike me as appealing to people who would buy into the big government Eurosocialist redistributionist message that Bill Clinton was putting out.

So it seemed pretty obvious to me, and still does, that most of his support came from Bush. To change my mind on that would take a whole boatload of information and a solid argument.

[KBCraig]

Just my opinion. I was around in '92, and most Perot people I talked to seemed to be Libertarians or Republicans who were attracted to some part of Perot's message. (And keep in mind I lived in RI at that time where there was no shortage of Democrats to encounter.)

I will keep that in mind. RI Democrats were very different from TX/AR/LA/OK/heartland Democrats of 1992, most of whom now call themselves Republicans, but would have voted unblinkingly Democrat in '92. Not until the Gingrich revolution of '94 did they start to change parties.

n fairness, I did note some people who were attracted to his anti-NAFTA protectionist statements ("..that giant sucking sound...") and some of these people were certainly labor union guys who leaned Democrat.

But I myself thought Perot was right about NAFTA and GATT (and still do) even though I consider myself to be a Libertarian-leaning Republican.

As do I. NAFTA/GATT are not free trade; they are managed trade. As Perot said, anything that is 10,000 pages long isn't free trade.

You see, I was attracted to Perot's candidacy myself to some degree. And most of his message did not strike me as appealing to people who would buy into the big government Eurosocialist redistributionist message that Bill Clinton was putting out.

So it seemed pretty obvious to me, and still does, that most of his support came from Bush. To change my mind on that would take a whole boatload of information and a solid argument.

I was also attracted to Perot, for several reasons. First, he cut to the truth about NAFTA/GATT. Second, he came from outside the political system, with a proven track record of getting things done. Next, we all have a vested interest in seeing the two party system smashed, and letting independent candidates become viable.

As I pointed out above, the heartland Democrats were not into, as you put it, the "big government Eurosocialist redistributionist message". Many of them weren't industrial unionists. But they were still Democrats, and wouldn't have voted for a Republican to save their lives. The veneer had not been cracked yet; they were Democrats because their daddies were Democrats, and grandaddies were Democrats, and great-grands were Democrats, because "Lincoln was a Republican, and FDR saved us all!"

This is very easy to illustrate. Just look at how solidly Democrat flyover country was until '94/'96. The same good ol' boys who are now afraid Democrats will take away their guns, were convinced in 1992 that George H.W. Bush would send their jobs to Mexico with NAFTA.

When Bill Clinton actually did so, it was he who made them into Republicans, not Ross Perot.

The same "Bubba from the heartland" demographic hasn't changed much, except in party affiliation. It was they who created the GOP majority from '94-'04, then became just as disaffected from the GOP as they had been from the Democrats.

They don't like gun control.
They don't like big spending and national debt.
They don't like federal meddling in local matters.
They cheer the troops, but they don't like sending them into foreign nations that didn't attack us any more than they liked it 40 years ago.
They are socially conservative, and don't want Washington --nor Austin-- dictating what constitutes a marriage or a family.

In short, the traditional middle America Blue Dog Democrats who voted for Perot are, ideologically speaking, closely aligned with traditional rock-ribbed Yankee Republicans (real Yankees from New England, not the "everyone northeast of here" Yankee. )

When the libertarians and Goldwater Republicans who are so enthusiastic about Ron Paul, are able to spread that message to those Heartland swing voters, Paul will have it in the bag.

Kevin

[Will938]

This invasive policy we set might of saved us during the cold war but it also helped to cause the hatred that was responsible for 9/11.

OK. We caused the hate. 9/11 was our fault. Fighting back will only cause more hate.

That's my problem with Paul. He and bin Ladan seem to be on the same page.

Anyway, I'm done with this line of discussion.

Ok, I'm not. I'd be mighty unhappy if foreigners came here and tried to topple my government, incite a civil war, rig elections that led to millions of my countrymen's deaths. Wouldn't you? Bin Laden started his power house against us because he saw our troops in Saudi Arabia as the ultimate offense. I'm not saying that we bow to what every person is offended by, but we should learn from it and act accordingly. Any thought that I believe we are responsible for 9/11 is completely ridiculous. We didn't have any hand in it, but I don't think anyone is going to deny that they must of been pretty upset with us to sacrifice their lives in order to hurt us. And why was that? Good question to ask ourselves.

Obviously just like violent crime the criminal is responsible. Terrorists were responsible for 9/11. That doesn't mean we get to ignore the reasons behind why they felt justified to do so. Just as if I told someone how ugly his wife was, if he punched me in the face he commited the crime not me. But I'm pretty sure you'd say I should of known better.

Because he understands why people hate us (hint it isn't for "our freedom" LOL Giuliani) he is on the same page as Bin Laden? Well then thank god we have someone who understands.

He never said we shouldn't fight back, he voted to invade Afghanistan and get Bin Laden's head. He didn't vote to nation build like we are now. He wants wars to be about war; get in, kill, destroy, and get out. I used to feel the same way as you...from what I gather anyhow. We fight, kill anyone rising to oppose us, and continue building a democratic model. Well what if every person we kill inspires two more to take his place? We won't be done killing until we clear out a few continents...that is unless we gain our objectives and leave. So then; go to war for very good reasons, kill, maim, destroy, and come home.

[Will938]

Other than Fred, I hope ron paul wins. Frankly, I do think he has a shot in hades though.

The chance is distant, but he is the #3 republican contender and his odds are rising far more rapidly than any other candidate.

[frankie_the_yankee]

Will938,

Your argument, and Paul's, assumes a moral, social, and cultural equivalence between our society and that of the murderous terrorists and jihadists that simply does not exist.

[Will938]

Will938,

Your argument, and Paul's, assumes a moral, social, and cultural equivalence between our society and that of the murderous terrorists and jihadists that simply does not exist.

Your argument seems to assume that their society produces murderous terrorists for the sake of being murderous terrorists and nothing will ever change that pattern. How did it get that way, did religion create all this? How could that explain the vast majority of normal people who practice their religion. That means that something aggravated the rest of the group so much that they wish us all dead. Bin Laden says it has to do with our troop buildup in Saudi Arabia...I'll take his word for it. Something we did influenced his decision. Seems pretty logical doesn't it? I mean, did we really expect them to throw darts at a wall of western targets to decide who was gonna receive their hate?

It really doesn't have to do with an equivilence of those things to our society. What someone might consider "offensive" might change, and the value of the offense could differ, but the concept doesn't change. We assume that people get upset when we do them "wrong" universally. A German would be just as upset as an Iranian if we struck something near and dear to them.

They weren't born murderous, it was learned. There was a point where all the people who killed themselves in the name of whatever felt indifferent about the United States. Somewhere along the way something happened to change that. Furthermore, attacking sovereign countries to catch them hurts us. If they aren't disrupting our interests in the region then why bother? Wouldn't we be better served beefing up customs and border patrol? No one will ever be able to challenge us militarily...at least in the next couple decades, so lets worry more about where we are actually vulnurable and cover our borders.

We stay out of nations unless we're there to wreck them, and then we do so and leave. If a nation is harboring a group that is messing with our interests then tell them to take care of it or we'll do it for them. But put the money where it matters, lets protect our country here. It keeps us from being entangled in affairs that get us universally hated and achieve nothing but gaining numbers for the enemy and losing money/troops. At the same time we get the bonus of defense from the real threats.

[Liberty]

Your argument seems to assume that their society produces murderous terrorists for the sake of being murderous terrorists and nothing will ever change that pattern. How did it get that way, did religion create all this? How could that explain the vast majority of normal people who practice their religion. That means that something aggravated the rest of the group so much that they wish us all dead. Bin Laden says it has to do with our troop buildup in Saudi Arabia...I'll take his word for it. Something we did influenced his decision. Seems pretty logical doesn't it? I mean, did we really expect them to throw darts at a wall of western targets to decide who was gonna receive their hate?

It really doesn't have to do with an equivilence of those things to our society. What someone might consider "offensive" might change, and the value of the offense could differ, but the concept doesn't change. We assume that people get upset when we do them "wrong" universally. A German would be just as upset as an Iranian if we struck something near and dear to them.

They weren't born murderous, it was learned. There was a point where all the people who killed themselves in the name of whatever felt indifferent about the United States. Somewhere along the way something happened to change that. Furthermore, attacking sovereign countries to catch them hurts us. If they aren't disrupting our interests in the region then why bother? Wouldn't we be better served beefing up customs and border patrol? No one will ever be able to challenge us militarily...at least in the next couple decades, so lets worry more about where we are actually vulnurable and cover our borders.

We stay out of nations unless we're there to wreck them, and then we do so and leave. If a nation is harboring a group that is messing with our interests then tell them to take care of it or we'll do it for them. But put the money where it matters, lets protect our country here. It keeps us from being entangled in affairs that get us universally hated and achieve nothing but gaining numbers for the enemy and losing money/troops. At the same time we get the bonus of defense from the real threats.

Having lived and worked there for a few months, before we were involved with the Gulf Wars I learned the hate runs deep and the people there make no qualms about their belief in Holy Jihad. Their mission as a people is to destroy and eliminate those who do not share their beliefs in their profet Mohammad. They have attempted to kill Jews and Christians for centurys. The hatered for the United States. Is not only because we we have served as protectorates for Israel, but because we are perceived as a Christian country with Christian values. Its not that they dislike us or disaprove, They hate us and want us gone.

One of the reasons that our presence during the 1st Gulf war ticked off Al Quada so much was that a Christian presence on their Holy land was thought to foul that land. Very few Saudis, Bin Laden included, like the Iraqi's it is their very hate toward us and our Christianity that drives them up a wall. They hate us not because we have chosen to defend ourselves but because of our Jewish/Christian beliefs.

Its very difficult for us to understand the depth of their hate for us, because most of have been raised to believe that there is good in all men. While as individiduals there are many fine people over there, but collectively as a group we need to understand that they want to eliminate us and our society.