It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Ron Paul gets most of his money from the left?

page: 1

log in


posted on Nov, 15 2007 @ 09:56 AM
Ron Paul gets most of his money from the left?

I have noticed a handful of Ron Paul supporters on this site. My question to you people. Would you consider yourself a lefty or a righty. How conservative can the guy be if all of his money is coming from the other side? Are you a liberal and believe that Ron Paul is the best anti war candidate there is?

posted on Nov, 15 2007 @ 09:58 AM
Left or right is a artificial construct. If you like what a guy is saying, vote for him. Thats basically all there is to it.

posted on Nov, 15 2007 @ 10:43 AM

Originally posted by Copernicus

Left or right is a artificial construct. If you like what a guy is saying, vote for him. Thats basically all there is to it.

It is true, left versus right is an artificial construct diverting people from the true politics of the USA and the world that is "freedom versus tyranny." It was injected into the political scene as a typical "divide and conquer," strategy by big money. While each party ratchets up different forms of tyranny, their product persists in the form of laws never repealed, and firm convictions that politicians must attest no matter how false, dangerous, and wrong. One party comes in like a new Shark's tooth, becomes unpopular, then the cycle repeats.

Ron Paul gets most all of his support from ordinary people. The red States are the heart of contributions.

America’s Reddest States Raise Most Donors for Ron Paul -


A map of donations to the presidential campaign of Jeffersonian conservative Ron Paul (R-Tex) shows that the states with the most donors per capita are overwhelmingly the reddest of America’s traditional “Red States.”

A map of donor states can be seen here:

The states that have contributed the most to the campaign, per capita (4th Q), are colored in green on the map. And according to this analysis, as of November 11th , they include Montana, Idaho, Utah, Nevada, Colorado and Texas among others. In New England, the state of New Hampshire also glows bright green; indeed, this is where pundits say Ron Paul has a strong chance of finishing well in a primary.

Yet bright yellow states – also among larger Ron Paul contributors per capita – include Maine, New Mexico, Kansas and, surprisingly, California and Florida. States tending toward brown – low donors per capita to Ron Paul – include Illinois, New York and Ohio.


posted on Nov, 15 2007 @ 10:43 AM
in a general election i totally agree with you. In the primary, why would people give money to a person that they cannot vote for and probably won't win their own party's nomination.


posted on Nov, 15 2007 @ 10:50 AM
This is from and they list San Francisco as the 8th highest area that donated to Ron Paul. There could be one conservative area of San Francisco, but....

Contributions by Geography




Other States

Top Metro Areas:






Top Zip Codes:

75205 (Dallas, TX)

77566 (Lake Jackson, TX)

78212 (San Antonio, TX)

78731 (Austin, TX)

78746 (Austin, TX)

75206 (Dallas, TX)

85253 (Paradise Valley, AZ)

94117 (San Francisco, CA)

60614 (Chicago, IL)

75230 (Dallas, TX)

posted on Nov, 15 2007 @ 11:37 AM
At first mainstream media ignored Dr. Paul. On line polls where rigged, was the storeys at the time. But Dr. Paul's message begin to spread and has gotten to the point where he can't be ignored. So now they have moved to the mud slinging. Unfortunately Ron Paul's record speaks for it's self and can't be used against him.
Now today we see this FBI Raids "Liberty Dollar" Company Offices - Confiscates All "Ron Paul Dollars"

Paul, I think is starting to worry the people who want to keep the status quo.
Keep the people divided with left right wedge issues and they won't be any wiser, as the story goes.
I have even read that a few Demarcates are going Republican just to vote for him. Paul has the ability to cross party lines. I think he is the only one that can take America back for the people, by the people. (JMO)

There will be more slander of Dr. Paul to come or at lest they will try.

[edit on 15/11/2007 by Sauron]


posted on Nov, 15 2007 @ 11:48 AM
reply to post by Sauron

what issue(s) have the democrats/independents you know going over to become republicans?

posted on Nov, 15 2007 @ 11:59 AM
reply to post by DCP

I have no issues with anyone voting for Paul. I had read an article a few days ago I can't remember where, crooks and liars or raw story and there where a few people that had posted replys. Who said the had crossed over to be able to vote for him.

posted on Nov, 15 2007 @ 12:13 PM
How can anyone be more right than a strict Constitutionalist? If we have any chance at all of stopping our current circling of the drain we all need to stop the left/right, republican/democrat, red/blue, liberal/conservative, coke/pepsi BS that has undermined the country. We need to unite behind someone that can reverse --- as much as that is possible --- the direction that we've been heading the last several years.

Besides, anyone who endorses impeaching Cheney and has the stones to say it is my kinda guy.


posted on Nov, 15 2007 @ 12:57 PM
i understand about not liking labels but ignoring why there are labels is not realistic. There is always going to be two groups of people on totally opposite sides...if you don't like the terms right/left, democrats/republicans-fine but there will still be that divide. I would say the problem is with the middle. People should not be so polarized. i would say most people are basically the same, but the two party system makes them feel like they have to choose. I don't believe i have ever voted straight for my party, how many others can say the same? "Your side" is not always right or has the best person running.

That being said, how many times have you ever seen some one on the far side of the political spectrum get MONEY from someone on the other side? Either Ron Paul is an amazing unifier or they are giving Ron Paul money to "jerk around" his real supporters. Can anyone see his true supporters getting so mad with the process that they don't vote in the general election if ron paul isn't running. I would say most of his 3% support in polls are coming from some pretty hard core Republicans so if the Democrats can keep a percentage of that away from the Republican Candidate then that helps whomever the Democrats run

posted on Nov, 15 2007 @ 01:40 PM
reply to post by DCP

The fact is, the ron Paul movement won't even slow down after the Republican Convention. If we have to, we'll write him in. People on all sides are getting fed-up with the lies and deception. These same people are looking to RP for change.


posted on Nov, 15 2007 @ 01:48 PM
How? I know you cannot get anywhere close to the floor during a convention and this was pre 9-11. i thought all the delegates are picked by the how can Ron Paul Supporters do anything except protest at the RNC?

[edit on 15-11-2007 by DCP]

posted on Nov, 16 2007 @ 07:21 AM
reply to post by DCP

Well... this is complicated.

I like a lot of what Ron has to say and he's the only candidate I've ever sent money to.

I could never be a Republican...

I would never... EVER ... vote for Hillary, Edwards or Obama.

Seeing as I'm a 9/11 conspiracy believer, Guiliani in the White House is my WORST NIGHTMARE... Mit Romney? Dude strapped a dog to the top of his car for 12 hours... I thought Mormons were "Family Values" people?

Abortion and Gay Marriage are petty things. I don't think we should even be establishing laws about them - people should be independent enough (old enough?) to decide for themselves what's right or wrong. I view them as religious matters, not legal ones.

People should be allowed to freely own guns. 'Nuff said.

I'm an Atheist.

Whatever label you want to give .. go for it.


posted on Nov, 16 2007 @ 10:10 AM
reply to post by Angry Danish

thank you for sharing

posted on Nov, 16 2007 @ 12:02 PM
It doesn't matter what party or what you want to call his views. Democrat, liberal, independent, republican, communist - they're just titles. They're just generalizations. When you use those to define the man and his message, you start to really blur what he stands for and what he means for this country.

Pretend you have never looked at what Ron Paul stands for. Someone comes up to you and says: "Ron Paul is a republican conservative"

Well so is George Bush. So now, if you buy into the titles, you're assuming Ron Paul and George Bush have the same views.

See how distorted the titles make the whole situation? Ron Paul and George Bush probably couldn't be any further opposite than they are.

Titles mean nothing. As Copernicus said, listen to what the man says and study what he's about. I don't care who gives him money, who supports him, what people call him, none of it. All I care about is his message and him delivering his promises if elected.

posted on Nov, 16 2007 @ 09:54 PM
My entire family called themselves "Republican".

I understood the terms to mean this:

Republican - Someone who advocates that people who work hard should be allowed to keep most of their money. In other words, the side of the government that is for lowering taxes on the above-average income earners in the country.

Democrat - Someone who advocates that tax money be spent on them or their programs. This is big government hand-out types. The ones not smart or industrious enough to make their own money, they depend on laying their burdens on those who do.

This is what I was taught growing up. All my family worked, and worked hard. Most had above average incomes.

Today I see these stereotypes as grossly inaccurate.

Today I think that "republicans" are really just selling a message to the masses in order than they can enact legislation to help their wall-street friends, and really don't care at all about anybody but their friends, no matter what economic class they are in.

Democrats are the group intentionally created by Republicans to fool the public into believing they have a choice.

The conflict today isn't between democrats and republicans, it's between the people who own everything of value in this world and those who don't.

Today, to me a Republican is just a label for the very wealthy. The 600 billionaires of the world, and the other 600 people whose wealth is so great that they keep it a secret. A democrat means someone who believes the interests of corporate profits and wealth do not trump the interests of the good of humanity at large.

I do not consider Hillary Clinton to be a democrat.

We need new words for these people.

posted on Nov, 16 2007 @ 10:11 PM
reply to post by dionysius9

Brilliant. An entirely accurate outline of reality. So what are we going to do about it? Our very best. What else can we do? Ron Paul currently represents our very best.

posted on Nov, 16 2007 @ 11:08 PM
I support Ron Paul. I'm most closely described as a paleolibertarian or paleoconservative, would have voted for Barry Goldwater. The Old Right, really. I'm quite conservative in terms of the scope of government.

posted on Nov, 17 2007 @ 04:53 AM
I have conservative views, I have libertarian views, primarily of the latter but with that said, Labels are labels, and though we all may have different views, One who sticks to a Constitutional view is on the high ground imho, You can have any views you want you don't have to leave your liberal views behind, nor your conservative views behind, just accept the fact we all have different opinions on different things, But when we FORCE those opinions on others through law, the problems arise, accept that unless some one violates your individual rights protected by the Constitution, then what they say, do, or own, is really non of your business and no one has any right to prevent a free man from being free, you don't have to like it, but as stated unless they are violating you individual rights, leave them alone.

The party system is just a distraction as many of the things each party represents cant even be applied Constitutionally...

I think most Paul supporters would agree.

Some people may be weary of some votes Ron Paul has made, but the thing they don't realize is that Ron Paul understands the powers of Congress, his votes reflect that, so if you see a vote he has made you may not agree with or don't understand, ask yourself, is it a vote Congress even has the authority to vote on?
There have been many issues Ron Paul has taken an odd vote on, Which would lead some to believe he was against a good thing, when in reality he was very much for it, but the fact is it wasn't something Congress has the Constitutional power to decide as it was a State issue...

The powers an limitations of Congress are clearly defined in the Constitution.. they regularly votes on things they don't have the power to vote on, which are supposed to be left to the state to decide upon...

[edit on 17-11-2007 by C0le]

top topics


log in