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.
Jan 4, 2005
2,833
922
1,743
#41
I think your 5 reasons are pretty fair, I'd like to comment on them though.
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.
I've noticed him being a "contrarian" too. But since when is this new to politics. Look at the last congressional election, look at the changes that were made, look at the distance every Republican is trying to create between themselves and Bush, hell not one of them would tie themselves with him in the last debates, that's saying something. What's his approval ratings now? I don't follow that too close, but isn't it in the 30s right now? People are looking for changes, they want something else and/or something new. That very well could mean they want a Democrat, just like the last election indicated. And faced with having a Democrat or having a candidate from the Republican Liberty Caucus, registered Republicans might think that going with the latter might be the only way to keep the other party out of office.
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.
I think these perceptions are a tough battle for him. But if it's no way right, why don't we do something. Should we continue to let the coaxable public eat the bullshit that its fed? Even if you like sombody else, wouldn't you want the general public voting on something other than who wears the best tie, or who says the best lie on camera? Is it possible? I don't know, but I don't like it.
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.
What if there's a shift in registered Republicans. This could already be starting to happen, just by looking at the original article of this thread. Like I said in #1, if registered Republicans read the writing on the wall, and their options are Barrack, Clinton or Paul what would they choose. That could very well happen if the Dems build on the momentum they've created.
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.
Same as above. But even if the "bigwigs" don't endorse him, are the checkbooks of the few worth more than the votes of many? We all would like to believe they are not, but history tells us otherwise. If it's not how it should be, why do we accept it?
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.
History shows that's dead on. But the internet has formed into a new media. Nobody has seemed to ever have this kind of support from the new hi-techies. And the hi-tech demographic isn't teens and young 20s anymore. It's stretching into the mid to late 30s group. Of course that's not nearly enough votes by itself but we'll see what it leads to.[/QUOTE]
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.
If we all know it's not right then why do we accept it? Are we that insignifigant?
 

steross

he/him
A/V Subscriber
Mar 31, 2004
31,104
32,336
1,743
oklahoma city
#43
My answer to Greg's question would be that initially many of the things he represents would not get passed. But, like a slow turning ship, having a president with these ideas would change the midline of politics toward the point where they do not seem radical. If you look at our political history, it has happened before. These things take time. The end of slavery was not quick. The creation of the welfare state was not quick. Its dismantling (if it is to occur) will not be quick either. The abortion debate is shifting and I suspect that Roe will be overturned eventually if that shift continues. The flux and compromise that is politics will be altered toward libertarianism with Paul as president, even if his complete plan is not implemented.

Frankly, I am glad it is this way. Just think if each presidential election a country as vast as America had to shift to drastic immediate policy changes such as would have occurred from Carter to Reagan had the president had dictatorial powers. We could not survive that way. But, that does not mean that the change will not occur in due time.
 

Pokes28

Moderator
Staff
A/V Subscriber
Oct 26, 2003
13,666
1,457
1,743
50
Carl Junction, MO
facebook.com
#44
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.
There is a difference though. That is that Ron Paul actually has experience in government. Ventura had none from what I recall. He knows and understands politics. If he somehow wins this this thing, he will have shown himself very capable of getting through a lot of the hurdles.

David Harrell - Pokes
dwh
 

JoeHero

I don't say blah blah blah
A/V Subscriber
May 8, 2006
16,089
10,528
1,743
38
#45
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...

The greatest power he has is his veto pen. And looking at his voting record, there is not doubt he will use it anytime a bill comes across his desk that does not have the authorization of the constitution. No more riders, no more pork. It's gone. All of it.

Obviously he won't get everything he wants accomplished, but it will definitely be a start in the right direction. Would you rather a RINO in office so he can slowly give in to that Washington pressure to slowly erode our civil liberties and economic freedoms?
 

Donnyboy

Lettin' the high times carry the low....
A/V Subscriber
Oct 31, 2005
25,703
22,523
1,743
#46
I think your 5 reasons are pretty fair, I'd like to comment on them though.I've noticed him being a "contrarian" too. But since when is this new to politics. Look at the last congressional election, look at the changes that were made, look at the distance every Republican is trying to create between themselves and Bush, hell not one of them would tie themselves with him in the last debates, that's saying something. What's his approval ratings now? I don't follow that too close, but isn't it in the 30s right now? People are looking for changes, they want something else and/or something new. That very well could mean they want a Democrat, just like the last election indicated. And faced with having a Democrat or having a candidate from the Republican Liberty Caucus, registered Republicans might think that going with the latter might be the only way to keep the other party out of office.
I think these perceptions are a tough battle for him. But if it's no way right, why don't we do something. Should we continue to let the coaxable public eat the bullshit that its fed? Even if you like sombody else, wouldn't you want the general public voting on something other than who wears the best tie, or who says the best lie on camera? Is it possible? I don't know, but I don't like it.
What if there's a shift in registered Republicans. This could already be starting to happen, just by looking at the original article of this thread. Like I said in #1, if registered Republicans read the writing on the wall, and their options are Barrack, Clinton or Paul what would they choose. That could very well happen if the Dems build on the momentum they've created.
Same as above. But even if the "bigwigs" don't endorse him, are the checkbooks of the few worth more than the votes of many? We all would like to believe they are not, but history tells us otherwise. If it's not how it should be, why do we accept it?History shows that's dead on. But the internet has formed into a new media. Nobody has seemed to ever have this kind of support from the new hi-techies. And the hi-tech demographic isn't teens and young 20s anymore. It's stretching into the mid to late 30s group. Of course that's not nearly enough votes by itself but we'll see what it leads to.
If we all know it's not right then why do we accept it? Are we that insignifigant?[/QUOTE]

To your points.

1. Being a contararian is obviously part of politics but you have to come off as more than that alone otherwise it doesn't work in prez races and won't this time.....especially when one is of the same party. A presidential canidate has to preach change whether they can do it or not. Look at GW's wins.....Gore was going to be Clinton light.....no identity he lost (no election crap you see the point) Kerry-Never said I will do this just Bush has done that.....people didn't like it then and don't know. Paul has seperated from the party at times and has some progressive ideas.....but he isn't in the news for those. He is in the news assigning Rudy reading, more people know him for that than his thoughts at the debate......it isn't a conspiracy it's a better soundbite and that isn't going to win the election regardless of who would make a better prez.

2. He isn't battling a "good tie" ala Clinton who always came off smooth.....he is up against two guys the people in his party consider heroes.....he won't win that battle twice. He has to make it out of the primary. He would have a better chance against any of the Dems as he does War/9-11/Law and Order.

3-4. This won't happen in time for Paul. Paul will not carry enough Dems for one reason- HE IS A REPUBLICAN. The vast majority of the Rep. party is over 40 and that won't change before the primaries. Most of the young vote new registers Dem. because Paris and P.Diddy are Dems. There are obviously exceptions but in a general election the rule will apply.

5. Going back to 3-4.....the internet generation doesn't vote. The get on dispondantblog.com and rant but forget to vote because Whopper's are on sale for $0.99 and they are going to this killer party.....I am on the edge if not part of that generation myself (under 30) and it is upsetting. They have never voted in large enough numbers to move an election despite saying they were going to since the 60's. Besides Paul has to escape the primaries and get his party's nom.......and that ain't happening with the internet vote.

To your last statement..... who is "we"? We on this board.....We of a generation.....We the people.....? My folks and their folks may think that all this internet information is phony and dangerous......They may love status quo......so who is "we". You and I may see it as wrong others don't......it will be the voters who decide who was "right". "We" are no less significant than "they" are.
 
Feb 7, 2007
1,015
0
166
#47
@ Donnyboy

You say Ron is in the news for assigning reading, I say Ron is in the news as the only candidate who is talking about the constitution. I say Ron is in the news for winning every debate, and nearly every poll supports that. I say Ron is in the news for his campaign dollars increasing 10x in not even 3 months. Wherever you're getting your news from is marginalizing the effect Ron Paul is having. If Rudy could make these claims, these facts would be shoved down your throat 25 hours a day.

And you're also overlooking the many disenfranchised Republicans, Dems, and Indies. Now I'm not saying that there's millions in the wings right now, but people are jumping aboard fast and furious. There's no denying that. Ron Paul appeals to all points in the spectrum. He appeals to anybody that believes in Liberty and the Constitution which I believe crosses party lines. And I know 80 year old Reaganites that support Ron Paul and knew about him before I did.

But I am curious, who are you voting for?
 

Donnyboy

Lettin' the high times carry the low....
A/V Subscriber
Oct 31, 2005
25,703
22,523
1,743
#48
@ Donnyboy

You say Ron is in the news for assigning reading, I say Ron is in the news as the only candidate who is talking about the constitution. I say Ron is in the news for winning every debate, and nearly every poll supports that. I say Ron is in the news for his campaign dollars increasing 10x in not even 3 months. Wherever you're getting your news from is marginalizing the effect Ron Paul is having. If Rudy could make these claims, these facts would be shoved down your throat 25 hours a day.

And you're also overlooking the many disenfranchised Republicans, Dems, and Indies. Now I'm not saying that there's millions in the wings right now, but people are jumping aboard fast and furious. There's no denying that. Ron Paul appeals to all points in the spectrum. He appeals to anybody that believes in Liberty and the Constitution which I believe crosses party lines. And I know 80 year old Reaganites that support Ron Paul and knew about him before I did.

But I am curious, who are you voting for?
I haven't decided yet......you haven't either as the candidates themselves haven't been set. You may know who you are for in the primary but that is where it ends. Besides a voting booth is a private place......I might want to vote for Hillary and that would ruin my image.:rolleyes:

As to the polls saying he won the debates.....we discussed that online polls are useless regardless who they say won. And his most noteable news story is his reading assignment. He did a good job in the debates I will not argue that but if you asked Joe America who Paul is more would say the guy that told Rudy to read than the guy who raised good points in the debate.......and again it is soundbite not conspiracy. Have you seen the ratings for the debates......people aren't watching. Desert your tone is defensive of Paul and I am not attacking Paul I was saying why I think he is "harmless" in the race. You desert are abnormal in your passion.....the typical voter isn't going to give $2300 and they aren't researching Paul's thoughts on each and every issue. Thus my thoughts on his chances.
 

McalPoke

Territorial Marshal
Nov 12, 2006
6,199
1,626
1,743
McAlester, OK
#49
Now I'm not saying that there's millions in the wings right now, but people are jumping aboard fast and furious. There's no denying that.
Just some polls I've been able to find:

LA Times, June 7-10 0% after 3 debates
Fox, June 5-6 2% after 3 debates
AP, June 4-6 0% after 3 debates
USA Today, June 1-3 1% after 2 debates
ABC News, May 29-June 1 1% after 2 debates
McLaughlin, May 28-June 1 0% after 2 debates
Diageo, May 16-20 1% after 2 debates

But I don't put much stock in polls.
 

kaje

Let's Go Heat!
Nov 19, 2005
15,892
7,914
1,743
37
Stillwater, OK
www.maczealot.net
#50
Just some polls I've been able to find:

LA Times, June 7-10 0% after 3 debates
Fox, June 5-6 2% after 3 debates
AP, June 4-6 0% after 3 debates
USA Today, June 1-3 1% after 2 debates
ABC News, May 29-June 1 1% after 2 debates
McLaughlin, May 28-June 1 0% after 2 debates
Diageo, May 16-20 1% after 2 debates

But I don't put much stock in polls.
Mind linking to those? Doesn't make sense to have 2% on a Fox online poll after ending the 2nd debate with 27%.
 

CowboyOrangeFan

Mmmm, yeah.
A/V Subscriber
Jun 9, 2006
5,209
3,532
1,743
Florida
#57
That is why it didn't make any sense to you. The 2% value is from a scientific poll, the 25% is from a non-scientific poll on who won the debate. The non-scientific poll not really meaning anything, just who can send the most text messages.