Ron Paul raises over 4 million in one day

[ecoli]

There's still time for the "November 5th" campaign to get more money, because the day is not over on the West coast, even though most were counting from East coast time.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071106/ap_on_el_pr/paul_fundraising;_ylt=AniaDIkzFEHghCC68re.2Ues0NUE

 

http://www.ronpaulgraphs.com/directory.html

 

I donated a small bit to this campaign, but I only predicted that he'd raise about half of this amount. Very impressive to say the least. Hopefully, Ron Paul will get more serious media coverage after this event.

[bascule]

I appreciate the sentiment of a viral Internet movement reaching out and shaking up mainstream politics. I do not appreciate the cooption of Guy Fawkes and his Catholic plot against a Protestant monarchy being correlated to some overarching anti-Bush movement, the result of overzealous fans of the V for Vendetta movie (not the Alan Moore graphic novel, which was infinitely superior), nor do I appreciate the fact that the main Internet coordinator for pro-Ron Paul activities is Alex Jones, one of the foremost 9/11 lies movement conspiracymongers... and proprietor of such ridiculous conspiracist spin factories as prisonplanet.com and jonesreport.com.

 

All that said, I can't say I'm a fan of many of Ron Paul's political sentiments, particularly in regard to elimination of a number of federal government services.

[ecoli]

I appreciate the sentiment of a viral Internet movement reaching out and shaking up mainstream politics. I do not appreciate the cooption of Guy Fawkes and his Catholic plot against a Protestant monarchy being correlated to some overarching anti-Bush movement, the result of overzealous fans of the V for Vendetta movie (not the Alan Moore graphic novel, which was infinitely superior),

 

This part was just to make it sound catchy. The media pushed the Guy Fawkes/ V for Vendetta bit far more than was originally intended.

 

nor do I appreciate the fact that the main Internet coordinator for pro-Ron Paul activities is Alex Jones, one of the foremost 9/11 lies movement conspiracymongers... and proprietor of such ridiculous conspiracist spin factories as prisonplanet.com and jonesreport.com.

Yep, but even Alex Jones has the right to express his lies, and they are protected under the constitution.

Though, I don't know how 'foremost' he actually is for Ron Paul. RP has stated that he doesn't believe the 9/11 truthers, but that he would reopen investigation.

I suppose Alex Jones is hoping they'll find the "truth." We know that is scientifically impossible, so I don't think we have much to worry about.

 

All that said, I can't say I'm a fan of many of Ron Paul's political sentiments, particularly in regard to elimination of a number of federal government services.

agreed.

[Pangloss]

It's a mixed bag at best. He's nobody's savior, I'm afraid.

 

His position on free trade is murky and counter-productive, painting current agreements as "managed trade" and ignoring the benefits while overplaying the problems that have cropped up. His solution (of killing the current agreements) cannot possibly be sold to this country as a PRO free-trade solution.

 

Most of the left, even many of the ones that say they would vote for him, actually would never do so because he's not just opposed to abortion, he's in favor of actively working against it. And if that wasn't enough to stop them, his positions universally against illegal immigrants would (no drivers licenses, no health benefits, bigger walls, no amnesty under any circumstances).

 

He's opposed to gay marriage, supports "don't ask don't tell" and opposes gay adoption. All unrealistic positions in 2007.

 

He supports returning to the gold standard, a notion so crazy stupid that even most Ayn Rand followers have chucked it.

 

He has a history of supporting the death penalty, but now says he opposes it "at the federal level" (misleading, since there is no death penalty at the federal level). (Well ok, there's treason. When's the last time THAT happened?)

 

Some people like Ron Paul because he sounds different, but I think he mainly sounds different because there isn't a lot of diversity in the positions of most Democratic and Republican presidential candidates. When you've got Hillary and Barack and John all saying basically the same thing (and it's not what the left wants to hear), and you've got Rudy and Mitt and Fred all saying basically the same thing (and it's not what the right wants to hear), ol' Ron sounds pretty darn good.

[ecoli]

His position on free trade is murky and counter-productive, painting current agreements as "managed trade" and ignoring the benefits while overplaying the problems that have cropped up. His solution (of killing the current agreements) cannot possibly be sold to this country as a PRO free-trade solution.

I don't agree... government stays out of trade = free trade. It's not that difficult of a concept.

I mean, people believe that the government agreements are free trade, but how can they be considered truly "free" when they are controlled by the government? We have treaties with certain countries, so we trade with mostly those countries... that doesn't sound like free trade to me.

 

Most of the left, even many of the ones that say they would vote for him, actually would never do so because he's not just opposed to abortion, he's in favor of actively working against it.

That's a misrepresentation of Ron Paul's beliefs. He believes that the federal government has no right to legislate on matter of abortion or marriage. That's up to the states to legislate. This seems in line with the constitution to me. He's certainly not actively working against it.

And if that wasn't enough to stop them, his positions universally against illegal immigrants would (no drivers licenses, no health benefits, bigger walls, no amnesty under any circumstances).

This is one point on Paul I can't decide on. I think that illegal immigrants that are here should perhaps be granted amnesty as long as the boarder is secured more. According to Paul, the federal government maintaining boarder security is mandated by the constitution.

I think I'm undecided because the politicians can't decide if we need the immigrants to do cheap labor, or if they 'steal' all our money through the various entitlement programs (DREAM act, et al). However, I'm against most entitlement programs for everybody, so this is a null issue for me.

Ideally, we'd bring troops home from Iraq and focus on boarder security, grant amnesty to people here (background checks perhaps), get rid of entitlement programs. That way, we ensure the immigrants are legal and they're coming here to work, not to profit from the entitlements. The racism factor is a non-issue for me.

 

He's opposed to gay marriage, supports "don't ask don't tell" and opposes gay adoption. All unrealistic positions in 2007.

again, this is a misrepresentation of RP's beliefs. He believes the states should decide this, not the federal government.

 

He supports returning to the gold standard, a notion so crazy stupid that even most Ayn Rand followers have chucked it.

Again a misrepresentation. Ron Paul wants to repeal legislation that re-legalizes money backed by gold and silver. He wants to let that money compete against the money printed by the federal reserve.

He doesn't want to get rid of the Fed money... at least not any time soon. He does tend to disagree that the federal government should be controlling the economy, because how easily government is corrupted by corporations.

 

He has a history of supporting the death penalty, but now says he opposes it "at the federal level" (misleading, since there is no death penalty at the federal level). (Well ok, there's treason. When's the last time THAT happened?)

 

There's nothing unconstitutional about this position.

 

Some people like Ron Paul because he sounds different, but I think he mainly sounds different because there isn't a lot of diversity in the positions of most Democratic and Republican presidential candidates. When you've got Hillary and Barack and John all saying basically the same thing (and it's not what the left wants to hear), and you've got Rudy and Mitt and Fred all saying basically the same thing (and it's not what the right wants to hear), ol' Ron sounds pretty darn good.

This is true. It's unfortunate that more people like Paul and Kucinich are not saying it either. Judging by this fund raising event, there's plenty of dissatisfaction to be had in America.

[Sisyphus]

It's not really surprising. Ron Paul is a shoo in for President of the Internet (replacing Howard Dean, who is not seeking reelection). In an actual election though, his wacky stubbornness would scare away most voters.

[ecoli]

It's not really surprising. Ron Paul is a shoo in for President of the Internet (replacing Howard Dean, who is not seeking reelection). In an actual election though, his wacky stubbornness would scare away most voters.

I really don't see what's wacky about him.

 

So many people are against the Iraq war right now, so he's got that vote (esp. against Hilary and the other GOPs). And, there's not really much of a chance that his libertarian ideology would change the system that quickly, since he still believes in giving congress the power that's due to them (more in fact than most GOP candidates).

 

To me, the fact that the american voter would keep ushering more of the same candidates that support unsustainable fiscal spending, is wacky. Change can be scary... but wacky? It's not like his ideas are not supported or anything.

 

Some of his followers may be in the conspiracy theorist vein, but he's still an intellectual. He sure as hell understands more about economics than any other candidate. Shouldn't that be a priority for those who are going to be making decisions based on economics?

[Pangloss]

I don't agree... government stays out of trade = free trade. It's not that difficult of a concept.

I mean, people believe that the government agreements are free trade, but how can they be considered truly "free" when they are controlled by the government? We have treaties with certain countries, so we trade with mostly those countries... that doesn't sound like free trade to me.

 

It is, because we're still a nation that can't handle that much freedom -- we screw it up with nutty notions about harm. Before we had these agreements we were unable to compete internationally -- every time we tried to do so some grandstanding politician or union leader would slap down another tarriff or labor demand and we'd be back at square one. People just aren't able to grasp the concept of international competition. Not yet, at any rate.

 

One of the bright spots in the current economy is a vast increase in exports. The agreements aren't perfect, but they are making a difference.

 

 

That's a misrepresentation of Ron Paul's beliefs. He believes that the federal government has no right to legislate on matter of abortion or marriage. That's up to the states to legislate. This seems in line with the constitution to me. He's certainly not actively working against it.

 

I disagree that I'm misrepresenting his beliefs. He's stated on numerous occassions that he will actively work against it, and he's stated on numerous occassions that he's as pro-life as they come. (shrug)

 

With every other presidential candidate you can say that they may be pro-life (those that are), but that they'll stand back and let the process work itself out. Ron Paul is an exception to that.

 

But of course that's just my opinion.

 

 

again, this is a misrepresentation of RP's beliefs. He believes the states should decide this, not the federal government.

 

(Re: gay rights) It's not a misrepresentation -- it's his stated position. Saying that the states should decide it is a cop-out common to politicians of all kind.

 

 

Again a misrepresentation. Ron Paul wants to repeal legislation that re-legalizes money backed by gold and silver. He wants to let that money compete against the money printed by the federal reserve.

He doesn't want to get rid of the Fed money... at least not any time soon. He does tend to disagree that the federal government should be controlling the economy, because how easily government is corrupted by corporations.

 

Perhaps an exaggeration on my part.

 

 

There's nothing unconstitutional about this position.

 

I didn't say that there was. I said that nobody gets charged with the death penalty at the federal level -- it's practically unheard of. The death penalty is a LOCAL punishment typically administered to axe murderers.

 

When was the last time you saw a murder trial in federal court, ecoli?

[Mr Skeptic]

Saying that the states should decide it is a cop-out common to politicians of all kind.

 

No, it is what the Constitution demands for all powers not specifically granted by the Constitution to the federal government. Those are for the states, or the people, to decide.

[Pangloss]

No, it is what the Constitution demands for all powers not specifically granted by the Constitution to the federal government. Those are for the states, or the people, to decide.

 

Except when it is determined through the due process of public discourse, legislation and judicial review that the right must be usurped at the federal level. That was the case with civil rights legislation in the 1960s -- certain states couldn't do what was determined to be right, and the federal government had to abridge a state right. Nobody would think to suggest today that that was a mistake. And we've done this on any number of issues, on a fairly regular basis.

 

But I will grant you that it may be the man's honest opinion, because national opinion is on his side (at least with regard to gay marriage) so he doesn't have to hide behind state determination if he doesn't want to. (shrug)

 

But it's an opinion I don't share. Undefined-therefore-protected states rights are a bizarre artifact of a highly disconnected, highly localized, hypersensitive, non-globalized, pre-industrialized community. And one which should be discarded.

[ecoli]

Except when it is determined through the due process of public discourse, legislation and judicial review that the right must be usurped at the federal level. That was the case with civil rights legislation in the 1960s -- certain states couldn't do what was determined to be right, and the federal government had to abridge a state right.

But these types of behavior was unconstitutional in the first place... there was no need to take away states rights for them via legislation.

 

But it's an opinion I don't share. Undefined-therefore-protected states rights are a bizarre artifact of a highly disconnected, highly localized, hypersensitive, non-globalized, pre-industrialized community. And one which should be discarded.

I disagree again. Large central governments have shown time and time again they can't handle power when it's given to them. There's too much corruption in large central governments. State and local governments breed corruption too, but it's easier to control, and harder to corporations to infiltrate.

[DrDNA]

I hate to say this, but when the real political machines get through tearing Paul down, unfortunately, there may not be much left for average Joe Dem or Joe Rep to vote for. You can bet that they will go to great lengths to paint Paul as uncooperative and argumentative. I've watched him debate and I believe that he actually is kind of snappy. Don't get me wrong. I like him, and I like that part about him, but I can also see the political machines tearing him down over it........for example, he's too stubborn and argumentative to work with congress....won't be able to work with other leaders.....bla bla bla....yackity yack.....nonsense...nonsense That, plus the "wasted vote" nonsense.

That "wasted vote" and yakity yack, bla bla nonsense is dog (or sheep) food and the dogs (sheep) will eat it. Woof (Baaaa).

[CDarwin]

I disagree again. Large central governments have shown time and time again they can't handle power when it's given to them. There's too much corruption in large central governments. State and local governments breed corruption too, but it's easier to control, and harder to corporations to infiltrate.

 

Uhm... Ever heard of a fellow named Huey Long? What about Tammany Hall? You can't seriously suggest that state and local government have been historically more immune to corruption than the federal government. Federal government is a bigger pond, so it's much harder for individual fish, like corporations or political machines or racist idiots, to control it.

 

I can cite you example after example of corruption in Tennessee politics in the 20th Century. The Crump and Lea machines, the Bank of Tennessee scandal, the L&N Railroad monopoly and it's excesses, privately rented prison labor, et cetera.

 

I'd also like to direct everyone to my very insightful comment on Ron Paul's role in New Hampshire in the other thread.

[ecoli]

I hate to say this, but when the real political machines get through tearing Paul down, unfortunately, there may not be much left for average Joe Dem or Joe Rep to vote for. You can bet that they will go to great lengths to paint Paul as uncooperative and argumentative. I've watched him debate and I believe that he actually is kind of snappy. Don't get me wrong. I like him, and I like that part about him, but I can also see the political machines tearing him down over it........for example, he's too stubborn and argumentative to work with congress....won't be able to work with other leaders.....bla bla bla....yackity yack.....nonsense...nonsense That, plus the "wasted vote" nonsense.

That "wasted vote" and yakity yack, bla bla nonsense is dog (or sheep) food and the dogs (sheep) will eat it. Woof (Baaaa).

I know what you're saying, but it's a ridiculous claim to make. Ron Paul wants powers that the president uses to be RETURNED to congress + senate. Of course, he'd also try to get rid of the corruption (and I think he supports term limits). So, for they'd tear him apart for the obvious reasons - and all the wrong ones.

[CDarwin]

I hate to say this, but when the real political machines get through tearing Paul down, unfortunately, there may not be much left for average Joe Dem or Joe Rep to vote for. You can bet that they will go to great lengths to paint Paul as uncooperative and argumentative. I've watched him debate and I believe that he actually is kind of snappy. Don't get me wrong. I like him, and I like that part about him, but I can also see the political machines tearing him down over it........for example, he's too stubborn and argumentative to work with congress....won't be able to work with other leaders.....bla bla bla....yackity yack.....nonsense...nonsense That, plus the "wasted vote" nonsense.

That "wasted vote" and yakity yack, bla bla nonsense is dog (or sheep) food and the dogs (sheep) will eat it. Woof (Baaaa).

 

I have a feeling they won't need to do much of anything.

[ecoli]

Uhm... Ever heard of a fellow named Huey Long? What about Tammany Hall? You can't seriously suggest that state and local government have been historically less immune to corruption than the federal government. Federal government is a bigger pond, so it's much harder for individual fish, like corporations or political machines or racist idiots, to control it.

 

I can cite you example after example of corruption in Tennessee politics in the 20th Century. The Crump and Lea machines, the Bank of Tennessee scandal, the L&N Railroad monopoly and it's excesses, privately rented prison labor, et cetera.

 

I'd also like to direct everyone to my very insightful comment on Ron Paul's role in New Hampshire in the other thread.

 

You bring up good points... but let me bring it to your attention that these are cases of corruption that we were able to stop once we found out.

We seem to be unable to stop corruption on the federal level.

And, the way I see it, it's easier for corporations to pay off one senator than 50 state senators.

[Sisyphus]

You bring up good points... but let me bring it to your attention that these are cases of corruption that we were able to stop once we found out.

We seem to be unable to stop corruption on the federal level.

And, the way I see it, it's easier for corporations to pay off one senator than 50 state senators.

 

Who's the "we" that (supposedly) stopped those things? The overreaching feds? Various assassins?

[DrDNA]

I know what you're saying, but it's a ridiculous claim to make. Ron Paul wants powers that the president uses to be RETURNED to congress + senate. Of course, he'd also try to get rid of the corruption (and I think he supports term limits). So, for they'd tear him apart for the obvious reasons - and all the wrong ones.

 

They will tear him apart with anything they can use if he presents a threat.

You do realize that this stuff, when it comes with a significant amount of support, is threatening to the only thing that they hold dear (control, power) right? They have spent 230 years screwing up the constitution. What makes you think they want it to go back to the way it was intended?

They will eat anything in their path, including their own young if their young present a threat. Ask Colin Powell.

[ecoli]

They will tear him apart with anything they can use if he presents a threat.

You do realize that this stuff, when it comes with a significant amount of support, is threatening to the only thing that they hold dear (control, power) right? They have spent 230 years screwing up the constitution. What makes you think they want it to go back to the way it was intended?

They will eat anything in their path, including their own young if their young present a threat. Ask Colin Powell.

Sure, but we aren't so far gone, that they can deny an elected leader his position in government... oh wait.

 

Who's the "we" that (supposedly) stopped those things? The overreaching feds? Various assassins?

 

why not the special police taskforces?

[Pangloss]

But these types of behavior was unconstitutional in the first place... there was no need to take away states rights for them via legislation.

 

No they weren't "unconstitutional in the first place". We decided that they were unconstitutional through the course of public discussion, legislation and judicial review. And in case you didn't notice, that process took 175 years (1789-1964) to complete!

 

 

I disagree again. Large central governments have shown time and time again they can't handle power when it's given to them. There's too much corruption in large central governments. State and local governments breed corruption too, but it's easier to control, and harder to corporations to infiltrate.

 

I respect your opinion on it. But I could have sworn I'd heard you agree on the value of communitary thinking in the modern world, and how we all affect each other to some degree. Localized governments with differing laws doesn't support that point of view. In fact this is true of both conservative and liberal points of view, whether it's local abortion law differences or local drug use law differences.

[bascule]

Yep, but even Alex Jones has the right to express his lies, and they are protected under the constitution.

 

As is my right to call Alex Jones an annoying conspiracy monger. The friction the 9/11 "truth" movement has brought to liberals everywhere has been devastating. 9/11 conspiracies shouldn't be part of the political discourse, and yet a movement with that idea at its base has thrust Ron Paul into the political mainstream.

 

Perhaps I'm just disturbed by the number of infowars.com bumper stickers I see next to a Ron Paul sticker.

 

Though, I don't know how 'foremost' he actually is for Ron Paul. RP has stated that he doesn't believe the 9/11 truthers, but that he would reopen investigation.

 

It has nothing to do with Ron Paul himself. I like what Ron Paul is trying to do, I just question the movement behind him...

 

Alex Jones is a pathological spreader of misinformation, and on infowars.com you can see the bullsh*t he serves up (including 9/11 conspiracies) juxtaposed with tons of Ron Paul promotion

[Pangloss]

Paul has never said anything in favor of 9/11 conspiracy theories, right? How close has he come to actually bolstering their point of view? Just curious.

[ParanoiA]

It's interesting how republicans and democrats have turned compromise into all out "moving sales" for their principles. Oh sure, they disagree on the war and partisan politics pollutes an intellectually nil playing field; fighting over power and money. They just want to outspend each other. Both are so used to bending over for the other, neither of them have much distinction other than the "core" beliefs - which are also up for sale.

 

And anyone that advocates anything outside of this two party orgy is considered a quack or is idiotic. Really Pangloss? Hard money is idiotic? Printing money and over burdening the poor, which are already over burdened by definition is NOT idiotic? Over spending is NOT idiotic? You don't think printing money out of thin air is idiotic?

 

Ron Paul seems to be the only candidate that uses the word "constitution" when he speaks. He uses it alot because that's his JOB. They're job is to uphold the constitution - they are sworn by it. Yet, the word is bullied about like a relic of a bygone era. The constitution is where our laws and principles come from and it is fundamental to a nation of laws. In fact, most of our problems we're experiencing come directly from the lack of reverence to the constitution.

 

He's pro-life, yet he shucks the power at the federal level. This is because he's a man of principle and has this uncanny ability to partition his agenda from his sworn duty to operate within the confines of the constitution. This pro-life, ant-federal stance is exactly what I expect from EVERY legislator. Everyone of them should be following his lead. Your agenda does not trump the constitution. And he doesn't seem willing to make excuses to mangle it for his elitist whims.

 

And what's this business about his pursuit of a pro-life agenda? So, the ONE guy who actually comes right out and tells you his beliefs and intents and you are more fearful of him than ALL of the idiots the republicans and democrats have bought, buffed and displayed in their little showcases that keep all of their beliefs AS SECRET AS POSSIBLE.

 

Hell, they are actually criticized for NOT moving to the middle toward election time. Take that in for a minute. They are actually criticized for not lying and misrepresenting themselves so as to appear "middle of the road" - and they are criticized by the media for this! The media. The supposed "truth detectors". The precious free press.

 

Oh yeah, Ron Paul is the nut job. Yeah I get it. I'll happily jump on that bandwagon. Ron Paul scares the hell out of partisan compromisers that love the status quo.

 

It has nothing to do with Ron Paul himself. I like what Ron Paul is trying to do' date=' I just question the movement behind him...

 

Alex Jones is a pathological spreader of misinformation, and on infowars.com you can see the bullsh*t he serves up (including 9/11 conspiracies) juxtaposed with tons of Ron Paul promotion[/quote']

 

Maybe I'm being paranoid but I'm starting to worry that any momentum Paul gets will be thwarted by Alex Jones. Oh I wish he'd do Paul a favor and just shut up and not publicly support him in any way. The two party siege WILL use that against him - they WILL portray him as "their leader". They will make Ron Paul and Alex Jones synonymous.

 

He's opposed to gay marriage, supports "don't ask don't tell" and opposes gay adoption. All unrealistic positions in 2007.

 

I didn't know about the gay marriage bit, but I'll research that out. That isn't consistent with his other views. I'll wager it's going to hinge on the same principles that "don't ask, don't tell" hinges on - that it's not up to federal government to decide. And personally, I don't think it's for government to decide at all. How people hook up is none of the government's business - state or federal.

 

"Don't ask, don't tell" is based on the principle that sexual conduct or preference has no place in the military. I've heard him elaborate on this in several interviews. The idea is the military should not know or care or even consider anyone's sexual activities or preferences. Heterosexual relationships are just as forbidden and off limits as homosexual ones.

 

That's called principle. It may not be easily recognizable to those who wish to govern and legislate every little issue that pop culture latches on to. So yeah, it's probably unrealistic. But men of principles are like that...they don't allow seemingly insurmountable odds to rationalize selling out their beliefs.

 

We need guts Pangloss. Politicians with guts.

[bascule]

Paul has never said anything in favor of 9/11 conspiracy theories, right?

 

Not as far as I'm aware, no

 

How close has he come to actually bolstering their point of view? Just curious.

 

Well, Alex Jones is something of an anarchist, so you can see how he'd favor Ron Paul over the other candidates...

[ParanoiA]

Well, Alex Jones is something of an anarchist, so you can see how he'd favor Ron Paul over the other candidates...

 

Not to mention, Alex Jones is a complete joke. He has no call screener, or so he says, and what little I've heard of his show (it's entertaining, but worthless) he believes every caller that claims to have encountered "black ops" and government agents trying to silence the movement. Of course, none of these "black ops" seem to own a radio...