Ron Paul for President

[SiliconJon]

http://www.nevadaappeal.com/article/...22/0/FRONTPAGE

[Smidley]

[jokostel]

That cnn guy tried to tear him apart...sad.
Too bad that nimrod McCain has got the nomination.
The more I look at it, Paul is our ONE shot at making this country do a 180... and get back to what we should be.

[embetsmeister]

Quote:

Originally Posted by jokostel

That cnn guy tried to tear him apart...sad.
Too bad that nimrod McCain has got the nomination.
The more I look at it, Paul is our ONE shot at making this country do a 180... and get back to what we should be.

Right on...although on the forums ("forums" encompassing pretty much any forum of competence on the internet), we're all just preaching to the choir...a big choir, mind you, but to the choir nonetheless. We've got to undo the work the mainstream media & the machine have done, and it's going to be exponentially more difficult, but we can start to sway the masses, starting in our homes, neighborhoods, classes, etc. Granted, easier said than done.

[Smidley]

Quote:

Ron Paul participated in what turned out to be an incredible interview tonight on the Bloomberg channel. This is well worth the watch.

[Toadman]

Why oh why can't this guy just give up and go away??

Ron Paul Revolution sees second wind

"His new book, "The Revolution: A Manifesto," has topped The New York Times best-seller list and the Amazon sales chart. It has also helped rally his grass-roots following long after John McCain clinched the GOP presidential nomination.

Can the Ron Paul movement make a difference in the Republican Party, especially in its current weakened state? A similar insurrection strategy helped Barry Goldwater's supporters take over and transform the GOP during the 1960s."

Plop down $20 for his book and read it. Even Pexter and MTA would probably nod their heads in agreement with over 90% of the Manifesto.

[Sarah L]

Ron Paul is the crazy ass uncle at the dinner table "Go ahead, pull my finger"

Takes a special kind to actually think he could be a leader.

[Toadman]

With all due respect maybe we should pay attention to the elephant in the room:

Why the military loves RP

Polls

Ron Paul leads ALL ‘08 candidates with over one-fourth of military contributions for Q2. Earlier, we reported military contributions among Republican presidential candidates place Ron Paul on top at 49.5%, with nearly as much as all Republicans combined.

A more complete compilation of statistics shows that presidential candidate Ron Paul leads all 2008 presidential candidates in military contributions from the US Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps and war veterans. Presidential candidate Ron Paul leads with an impressive one-fourth* of all contributions this second quarter according to newly released data from the FEC.

Ron Paul currently has more cash-on-hand than John McCain this quarter, and this new information is indicative of Ron Paul’s success. It appears that our soldiers and war veterans have an affinity to, or inclination for Ron Paul’s non-intervention principle - defending our homeland and pursuing terrorists, but no nation-building.

Military contributions for Q2

Ron Paul 26.23%
Barack Obama 24.02%
John McCain 18.31%
Hillary Clinton 11.08%
Bill Richardson 5.59%
Mitt Romney 4.05%
John Edwards 2.63%
Rudy Giuliani 2.44%
Mike Huckabee 1.84%
Tom Tancredo 1.63%
Duncan Hunter 1.05%
Joe Biden 0.84%
Mike Gravel 0.16%
Sam Brownback 0.07%
Dennis Kucinich 0.05%
Tommy Thompson 0%
Chris Dodd 0%
Jim Gilmore 0%
John Cox 0%

Don't confuse a non-interventionist policy with isolationism. Maybe it's time to lead again by example and not with an iron fist. Do some homework and read up on him. Ron Paul has already been elected POTUS. THe rest right now is all logistical detail and hacking off the limbs of neoconservativism one precinct at a time. The message cannot and will not be killed.

[Sarah L]

Quote:

This was, of course, a self-selecting vote of 5,440 Military.com readers, but no less startling for that.

PS this S4 has supplied more men than that.

[Toadman]

In the rear with the gear and a clipboard. My son(31B) thanks you everytime he goes outside the wire and so do I.

But don't let us stop you from quoting the rest of the article:

"Nearly 60 percent of readers who participated... said the United States should withdraw its troops from Iraq now or by the end of 2008. More than 40 percent of the respondents agreed the pullout should begin immediately because 'we're wasting lives and resources there.'" (A minority 41 percent voted to fight on "until the insurgency is totally defeated.") This was, of course, a self-selecting vote of 5,440 Military.com readers, but no less startling for that.

Add in another modest set of recent figures and perhaps you have a hint of a shift in the sentiments of a military that has, in the last decades, been increasingly supportive of the Republican Party and an imperial foreign policy. Recently, the Federal Election Commission released its July quarterly figures on contributions to presidential candidates--and Congressman Ron Paul of Texas modestly made the news because the libertarian candidate managed to pull in more money than the military icon (and war supporter) Senator John McCain for the quarter and so slipped into third place in the Republican presidential dollars sweepstakes. Since Paul garners but 2 to 3 percent of the vote in recent presidential opinion polls (up from 1 percent earlier in the year), this was certainly striking in itself--an effect perhaps of his exposure in the ongoing presidential TV debates where he manages, on Iraq among other subjects, to sound like neither a Republican Tweedledum, nor Tweedledee.

But hidden in Paul's poll figures was another story--possibly far more consequential--that's been noticed only by a few blogs and websites that actually bothered to sort out and add up the numbers. The candidate who (along with Dennis Kucinich and Bill Richardson in the Democratic column) simply wants the US out of Iraq, no ifs, ands, or buts--no "combat brigades" vs. advisors--got a higher tally of contributions from people who have "military employers" than any other candidate in the race, Republican or Democrat.[/i]

Present US forces are, of course, all-volunteer, not draftees (or not exactly anyway, given recent tour extensions in Iraq and stop-loss mandates), but why should they want to be endlessly re-deployed to a lost war in a lost land? By the time the Bush Administration is done, the Paul campaign may be swimming in military money.