Ron Paul's donation base has EXPLODED!!

  • You are viewing Orangepower as a Guest. To start new threads, reply to posts, or participate in polls or contests - you must register. Registration is free and easy. Click Here to register.
Aug 7, 2006
1,326
2
668
#21
One more thing, what's pretty awesome is that I'm seeing several people on here that I would have thought to be liberal being big Ron Paul supporters. Just more proof that Paul can win the big election if he gets the nomination.
Gee that couldn't have been about me could it? ;)

I'm actually a registered libertarian, partly because I'm so liberal on social issues. (e.g. basic civil rights, drug laws, abortion) and so conservative on economic issues like welfare, public services, spending, etc. While Paul and I might disagree on a few of the particulars (for instance I believe he is anti-gay marriage), he is still much closer to the majority of my values than any mainline candidate from either party

Paul didn't have much work to do convincing me on the message. What i've been impressed with is how much character and charm he has. He seems like a genuinely good guy, which I can't say for most of the candidates in ANY party.
 

Poke4Christ

Federal Marshal
Aug 2, 2005
10,958
1,361
1,743
36
Edmond, OK
#22
Gee that couldn't have been about me could it? ;)

I'm actually a registered libertarian, partly because I'm so liberal on social issues. (e.g. basic civil rights, drug laws, abortion) and so conservative on economic issues like welfare, public services, spending, etc. While Paul and I might disagree on a few of the particulars (for instance I believe he is anti-gay marriage), he is still much closer to the majority of my values than any mainline candidate from either party

Paul didn't have much work to do convincing me on the message. What i've been impressed with is how much character and charm he has. He seems like a genuinely good guy, which I can't say for most of the candidates in ANY party.
Lots of people elect on social issues, but the truth is that most of the time the politicians ain't doing a dang thing about them. I mean, how much change to abortion are we going to get? Getting rid of partial-birth-abortion is obvious and will be gone soon if not already (I'm not sure what's happening with that bill). However, is Roe v Wade really ever going to be overturned? I'm pretty strict anti-abortion (not for religious reasons, just common sense to me), but I'm realistic to. I don't think anything is going to happen with it.

Also, Sorry PistolWhip, but I hadn't really noticed that you were specifically liberal (don't have the best memory). Plus, you not having an avatar makes it a little more difficult to remember you. I was thinking more Kaje, OUguru, and desertpoke. However, I could just be confusing posters. Hope I didn't screw that up.
 

OP 9000

Administrator
Staff
A/V Subscriber
Oct 13, 2003
38,345
26,865
1,743
45
Stillwater, OK
www.orangepower.com
#24
Question for Ron Paul supporters:

Let's say, by some miracle.. Ron Paul is elected president.

How does he get anything done? Most of his policies and plans are going to require the consent and passing votes from Congress. The president can propose bills.. but it takes Congress to turn them into law.

Despite running as a Republican, most Republicans will be set against his drastic policy changes. Between that and the Democrats... Ron Paul would never get ANYTHING passed.

So just as a topic of debate... how effective would Ron Paul be as president, when a lot of the changes he wants to make.. wouldn't be in his power to do so...
 

jaxdahl

administrator emeritus
A/V Subscriber
Feb 4, 2005
2,780
2,436
1,743
Tel Aviv, Israel
#25
So just as a topic of debate... how effective would Ron Paul be as president, when a lot of the changes he wants to make.. wouldn't be in his power to do so...
Too bad we won't be changing to a parliamentary government anytime soon. It'd take a major governmental crisis in order to overturn the status quo and bring in a new system where things will get done.
 

kaje

Let's Go Heat!
Nov 19, 2005
15,892
7,918
1,743
35
Stillwater, OK
www.maczealot.net
#26
Question for Ron Paul supporters:

Let's say, by some miracle.. Ron Paul is elected president.

How does he get anything done? Most of his policies and plans are going to require the consent and passing votes from Congress. The president can propose bills.. but it takes Congress to turn them into law.

Despite running as a Republican, most Republicans will be set against his drastic policy changes. Between that and the Democrats... Ron Paul would never get ANYTHING passed.

So just as a topic of debate... how effective would Ron Paul be as president, when a lot of the changes he wants to make.. wouldn't be in his power to do so...
I'd rather good stuff not get passed than bad stuff do get passed. Plus, there's always 2010, when the US could elect people into Congress that do want to do something.
 

Donnyboy

Lettin' the high times carry the low....
A/V Subscriber
Oct 31, 2005
22,930
21,669
1,743
#27
I'd rather good stuff not get passed than bad stuff do get passed. Plus, there's always 2010, when the US could elect people into Congress that do want to do something.
You mean Republicans that almost always vote down party lines like Ron Paul?????
 

Donnyboy

Lettin' the high times carry the low....
A/V Subscriber
Oct 31, 2005
22,930
21,669
1,743
#29
Care to back that up?

There's only 1 representative in congress that votes against his party more than Ron Paul. http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/110/house/party-voters/
And it is still 4 out of every 5 times (77.7%)........That's almost always.

Now do your homework on his past voting record not just this session. Throw the 5% of bills that get trounced regardless of put them in there and see what it looks like. A great deal of what is wrong with our system is blind party line voting......a lot Pauls followers are for a 3rd party......yet he is little better than staunch republicans (if at all when the entire body is considered) and votes down the lines almost always.....

Bartlett is correct he would accomplish nothing in office.......Kaje is correct that you should always vote what you believe and there is a hope for change.....
 
Jan 4, 2005
2,816
913
1,743
#30
And it is still 4 out of every 5 times (77.7%)........That's almost always.

Now do your homework on his past voting record not just this session. Throw the 5% of bills that get trounced regardless of put them in there and see what it looks like. A great deal of what is wrong with our system is blind party line voting......a lot Pauls followers are for a 3rd party......yet he is little better than staunch republicans (if at all when the entire body is considered) and votes down the lines almost always.....

Bartlett is correct he would accomplish nothing in office.......Kaje is correct that you should always vote what you believe and there is a hope for change.....
WOW! Maybe YOU should be in politics. Taking a fact that is right in front of your face and obvious and misconstruing it every possible way to try and make it support your ridiculous original statement, you'd be perfect.

Let me show you again, your comment
You mean Republicans that almost always vote down party lines like Ron Paul?????
Out of 435 representatives (who vote with their party on average 91.3% of the time), Ron Paul ranks 434th in voting along party lines, PURE AND SIMPLE.

But go ahead and make up your own silly statistics and ask everybody else to do your homework... it's a lot easier than saying your original statement was incorrect and made in haste.
 

OP 9000

Administrator
Staff
A/V Subscriber
Oct 13, 2003
38,345
26,865
1,743
45
Stillwater, OK
www.orangepower.com
#31
And to clarify, I have nothing against Ron Paul. I'm a moderate independent.. I haven't even decided who I'm going to vote for yet. I like Ron Paul's ideas.

But reforms like he's talking about don't start at the top and work down... they start at the bottom and work up. Paul as president would turn America into a Parkinson's patient. The head knows what it wants to do ... but the body just won't cooperate.

I like having him as a presidential candidate though. It gives him a great platform for getting his ideas out there. And as evidenced by this forum, it's working.

But again, if we REALLY want things to change, we need to start at the bottom.
 
Jul 22, 2005
2,552
1
666
54
Yukon
#32
He's similar to how I felt about Perot. You know Perot would want to walk up to some of those federal buildings and just send everybody home and board it up (rightfully so in a LOT of cases), but the reality of him actually getting that done was close to 0%.

NONE of those politicians on the hill want anyone to upset their apple cart$, on that they will universally agree & fight for.
 
Jan 4, 2005
2,816
913
1,743
#33
I think Greg's question as to whether he would be effective as a President is a legit question. I'm smart enough to know that I definately don't have that answer. But IF he were President, then I think there would have to first be a major shake up in the political parties, obviously beginning with Republicans. So IF we're assuming Dr. Paul is President, then we're also assuming that the political scene is completely different than what we see today, making it almost impossible to predict, IHMO.
 

Donnyboy

Lettin' the high times carry the low....
A/V Subscriber
Oct 31, 2005
22,930
21,669
1,743
#34
WOW! Maybe YOU should be in politics. Taking a fact that is right in front of your face and obvious and misconstruing it every possible way to try and make it support your ridiculous original statement, you'd be perfect.

Let me show you again, your comment Out of 435 representatives (who vote with their party on average 91.3% of the time), Ron Paul ranks 434th in voting along party lines, PURE AND SIMPLE.

But go ahead and make up your own silly statistics and ask everybody else to do your homework... it's a lot easier than saying your original statement was incorrect and made in haste.

DUDE!!! I didn't make up my own stats I quoted yours.....I clearly labled 77.7 percent. Which is essentially 4 out of 5 times. So I guess all those evil Republicans vote party lines 9 of 10 times and the revolutionary does 8 out of 10????? Did you look at his entire record? It doesn't matter if he 435 out of 435 if the difference is 1.3 votes out of 10.......10%of the time he is different from the average Republican yet he is labled as revolutionary.

I don't have a big problem with Paul and even if I did I view him as harmless in this election, be that right or wrong. But to all those that think the face of American politics could change.....maybe the face he has shown over his terms isn't really that different as for years now has been part of forming said face essentially down party lines.
 

Pokes28

Moderator
Staff
A/V Subscriber
Oct 26, 2003
13,618
1,432
1,743
49
Carl Junction, MO
facebook.com
#35
For those wondering how a politician that doesn't have the same views as most of congress can get anything done.

First remember that if Paul were to win (still highly unlikely, but you just never know), that he's still a Republican and in general, the party will follow those in power. You very well could have some GOP folks switch to the opposition, but generally, whoever is President is the face of the party.

As far as making wide sweeping changes that go against the grain of congress, just look back to Reagan. He was very much the minority when he won the Presidency. He won by a landslide due to facing the most ineffectual President of the 20th century, but congress was still very much controlled by the Democrats. But when RR wanted something that he didn't think congress would give him, he used the bully pulpit. He would get in front of the cameras and in calm clear logic tell the American people why he was right and why he was doing something. He forced congress to his will by bringing the masses to his side in the argument.

There hasn't been a President since that had the charisma and conviction combination to make things happen.

Do I think that Ron Paul is the man that can do that? I haven't a clue. The good news is that we will have at least 6 more months for everybody to learn who he is. This is a marathon and not a sprint. It doesn't do a candidate a lot of good to take the lead so far before the first primary. All that does is make a bigger target.

David Harrell - Pokes
dwh
 
Aug 7, 2006
1,326
2
668
#37
But reforms like he's talking about don't start at the top and work down... they start at the bottom and work up.

But again, if we REALLY want things to change, we need to start at the bottom.
Which would work just fine if we had an open ballot or a multi-party system like in Europe.

But as the 2 parties have complete control of our political system there isn't much way to get those changes by starting at the bottom. You need a strong charismatic figure like Paul to get power and help create a situation conducive to those changes. Yes, it requires congress as well, but I don't see how we can start from congress and work up. 1 or 2 libertarian minded congressmen are going to do little to no good. A libertarian minded president has veto power and the public platform to enact a real revolution in American politics.
 

OKCPoke

Territorial Marshal
Dec 19, 2006
5,570
6
668
#38
Paul reminds me of Jesse Ventura a little. He has some great ideas and he may get some of them done initially but just like Ventura was finally shown the door, he'll get frustrated by the "status quo" in Washington and become a figure head. I really get bummed when someone finally gets in that really wants to make some great changes only to get drug into the crap of reality in our federal government...too many with literally jobs for life kicking every stumbling block they can in the way.
 
Jan 4, 2005
2,816
913
1,743
#39
DUDE!!! I didn't make up my own stats I quoted yours.....
This is the statistic which was made up
Throw the 5% of bills that get trounced regardless of put them in there and see what it looks like.
I never mentioned him as revolutionary, I never called Republicans evil. You assume too much. His debates, views, principals, background and voting record has really peaked my interest. So I'm taking an active roll in researching him (which I'm impressed with so far but have not formed my final opinion on him).

None the less, my point was to show you that he does not vote strictly along party lines like you said. If you could not see that then you're just ignoring facts.

You ask if I've looked at his entire record, and yes I have (which is not that exciting btw). What I've seen is not that he votes with the Republicans, not that he votes with the Democrats, not that he votes with this President's agenda or against that ones. What I've seen is exactly what everybody else is seeing, he's voting the same principles time after time no matter which party favors it. That's his intrigueing aspect.

Isn't that what we should want as a representative? Somebody who clearly states their principals, their goals, their agendas so we can decide if that is the person who should be representing us, and then goes out and actually backs it up. Wouldn't that be the ultimate dream as a voter, whether it be him or some other candidate, to have a candidate with transparent agendas and be able to match those up with your own preferences?

I don't agree with everything he says by any means. But if I agreed with 77% of what I know he truly believes (which according to Donnyboy is "almost always" agreeing with him), is that better than agreeing with 80% of some other candidate's B.S. views that could switch at any moment depending on who writes the bigger check? That's what I'm going to figure out.

DB, why do you or anybody else for that matter just percieve him as harmless? Is it just b/c the media says so? Or does it have to do with his sometimes contradicting stance with his own party or some other element? Honest question.
 

Donnyboy

Lettin' the high times carry the low....
A/V Subscriber
Oct 31, 2005
22,930
21,669
1,743
#40
This is the statistic which was made up I never mentioned him as revolutionary, I never called Republicans evil. You assume too much. His debates, views, principals, background and voting record has really peaked my interest. So I'm taking an active roll in researching him (which I'm impressed with so far but have not formed my final opinion on him).

None the less, my point was to show you that he does not vote strictly along party lines like you said. If you could not see that then you're just ignoring facts.

You ask if I've looked at his entire record, and yes I have (which is not that exciting btw). What I've seen is not that he votes with the Republicans, not that he votes with the Democrats, not that he votes with this President's agenda or against that ones. What I've seen is exactly what everybody else is seeing, he's voting the same principles time after time no matter which party favors it. That's his intrigueing aspect.

Isn't that what we should want as a representative? Somebody who clearly states their principals, their goals, their agendas so we can decide if that is the person who should be representing us, and then goes out and actually backs it up. Wouldn't that be the ultimate dream as a voter, whether it be him or some other candidate, to have a candidate with transparent agendas and be able to match those up with your own preferences?

I don't agree with everything he says by any means. But if I agreed with 77% of what I know he truly believes (which according to Donnyboy is "almost always" agreeing with him), is that better than agreeing with 80% of some other candidate's B.S. views that could switch at any moment depending on who writes the bigger check? That's what I'm going to figure out.

DB, why do you or anybody else for that matter just percieve him as harmless. Is it just b/c the media says so? Or does it have to do with his sometimes contradicting stance with his own party or some other element? Honest question.

First off I never said he voted strictly down anything.....your words not mine. To the 5% that is a very conservative estimate of bills that get introduced and then morph or get ridered until they are killed by all sides regardless of the sponsor......the 5% would apply to "most" all.

I guess I find it dubious that your research has found he votes his convictions......yet he is not mainstream when he votes down party lines ALMOST all the time. If we won 8....7.8 for fairness..... out of every ten games you would say we win almost everytime......you would expect a win. I mean after all the average is 9....so why is 8 so different.

I guess I just don't see the same when I look at his voting record. He does branch out from time to time.....2.2 out of ten to be exact.

You see I don't have a big issue with Paul if you like him great......cast your vote that way. But he isn't the revolutionary he is speaking as today.......at least not on his voting record.

Why don't I take him seriously.......first off I am not saying this is right or the way it needs to be, and second it has nothing to do with what the media "tells" me to think. I don't take Paul seriously for several reasons:
1. He is playing the contrarian more than he is playing the part of someone who wants to make things better....my source isn't Fox it's his interviews on Real Time, Daily Show etc. He has ideas and at times voices them but he is coming off like the guy who wants to tell you whats wrong but not how to fix it......people don't like that guy.
2. He is up against a war hero and a 9/11 hero and maybe a TV star.....the squirrelly looking doctor from Texas (a state with a negative image now) doesn't beat those folks in America.....is it right NO WAY but it is true.
3. He is isolating his party. There are many Republican voters who aren't voting for anyone but a Republican and they aren't going to vote for the guy who is running down the rest of his Grand Ol' friends before it is mud throwing time.
4. He is isolating his party Part Deux - He will be endorsed by few if any Rep elected officials if he is a leader going into the big primaries.
5. Media coverage of the wrong kind - I don't buy the "Vote Rudy" conspiracy theories but Paul is going on all the shows that his party constituents hate....Daily Show, Real Time, YouTube clip-esque productions etc. It may win points with Kaje but it costs points with "Republican dad and mom ages 40+" and there is a lot more of those than there are Kaje's.

Just some of the reasons.....and you know what not one of them is why he wouldn't make a good President, they are the reasons he will never get the chance. Again it ain't right.....but it is the way it is.