The President runs the military + the military wants Ron Paul as President = Do you get it?

page: 4
76
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 04:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Blaine91555
 


You entirely missed the point.

I posted this because many like to say Ron Paul has no support, its just a internet fan base full of pro-drug hippies, and yes some of those assumptions have been from yourself.

If only you bothered to look into the facts of Ron Paul's entire support base as much as you try to look into facts about general military personnel figures
, you'd know.

I'm trying to show that Ron Paul has supporters of all ages, colors and professions. He even has DEDICATED support in the military, which of the other candidates have this much support from military service persons? getting out there to spread the word on their own without any foreign influence?



You say you're now again considering Ron Paul, who is your alternative choice? care to share with us so we can partake in considerations as well?




posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 04:53 PM
link   
reply to post by getreadyalready
 


I understand that, but he never made that clear in a debate or on any of his 50+ appearances on the MSM that I have noticed. That left it open in my mind until he was cornered on it by the Attorneys General in the unique Forum he participated in recently. In most Debates all we get are soundbites that to me leave questions unanswered. I far prefer a good interview to a Debate and I like that Forum Huckabee used very much. I hope it starts a trend and would hope that Obama gets backed into a corner and has to participate in something similar.

What we don't know that is pertinent to this thread is what percentage of active Military actually support him. I searched all the usual places for an actual Poll and found none. Do you know of any?

I avoid "Spin" whenever possible, whether it comes from supporters or a candidate. I take my voting decisions that seriously. In this case this thread seems to be using numbers that do not prove the assumption in the thread title.

Like I said, I'm neither hot or cold on Paul at the moment. Far to soon for me to do that at this stage in the campaign. As a person registered as "Undeclared" (the category you choose in Alaska if you are not a Party Member) the only thing relevant to me is my actual vote in the general election. It is not unusual for me to pick a person not on the ballot in fact.



posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 04:57 PM
link   
reply to post by eLPresidente
 


What I do look at are the national Poll averages taken from likely Primary voters. The only Polls that matter.

I do not base my vote on that however. I vote for who I like the most regardless of Party or even if they are on the ballot.

I find this thread interesting and would actually like to know something beyond assumptions. I'd like to see a real Poll of a sample of active military who are likely voters to see how much true support he has.

I think we all know or should know that many who support candidates do so only in conversations and don't actually vote. In the end, how many likely voters will be at the voting booths is all that matters.



posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 05:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by eLPresidente

You say you're now again considering Ron Paul, who is your alternative choice? care to share with us so we can partake in considerations as well?


I wanted to tackle this separately.

Right now another person I'm considering is Gingrich. Laying his personal baggage aside, he has an excellent record when it comes to things that lead to less spending and a balanced budget. He also has a more Moderate view of issues than most Republicans do.

To understand me, I see the great Presidents of my time to be: JFK, Reagan and Bill Clinton in that order. They were all effective leaders who were able to unite Congress and get things done.

I see that not as electing a person who exactly agrees with my ideology, but in a more pragmatic sense. I realize no such candidate exists and that leadership abilities are far more important, otherwise you get what we have now; a "Do Nothing Congress and Do Nothing White House".

When we vote based on pure emotion and become groupies, we set ourselves up for trouble. Look what the Obama Madness did to us?

edit on 12/7/2011 by Blaine91555 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 05:13 PM
link   


So people half a planet away, in a war zone, listening to state run media have an opinion on what is currently happening here right now? That seems quite anithetical to everything every ATS member stands for.
reply to post by LilithWon
 


As a matter of fact, they have more of a right to their opinion, than those arm-chair warriors sitting in front of their computers and Ipads, because those brave service people are risking their lives to give people like you the right to say the things you say, as disgusting as your words may be,



posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 05:14 PM
link   
Newt is the same ole same ... Meet the new boss same as the old..

youtu.be...
edit on 7-12-2011 by ker2010 because: (no reason given)
edit on 7-12-2011 by ker2010 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 05:23 PM
link   
reply to post by ker2010
 


I don't know about that. Have you actually researched his record or are you influenced by the madness generated by the current politics by character assassination?

Even Paul realizes that what he proposes means nothing unless he can get Congress to go along with him and only if he can unite a majority of Congress to his way of thinking. We do not have a Dictator which is truly the most important element in the Constitution.

His "Contract With America" for instance that even President Clinton embraced, if followed would mean right now we would be watching Europe implode as bystanders with no worries. I also like his Moderate views. Fringe views may at times change the tone, but only moderate views can and do accomplish anything.

Before I would lend full support to Paul, I'd have to hear him say categorically he will not run third party and hand the White House back to Obama. Does he care enough to do that? You may disagree with me on that and that is OK also. It is just my thoughts and opinion.



posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 05:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blaine91555
reply to post by ker2010
 


I don't know about that. Have you actually researched his record or are you influenced by the madness generated by the current politics by character assassination?

Even Paul realizes that what he proposes means nothing unless he can get Congress to go along with him and only if he can unite a majority of Congress to his way of thinking. We do not have a Dictator which is truly the most important element in the Constitution.

His "Contract With America" for instance that even President Clinton embraced, if followed would mean right now we would be watching Europe implode as bystanders with no worries. I also like his Moderate views. Fringe views may at times change the tone, but only moderate views can and do accomplish anything.

Before I would lend full support to Paul, I'd have to hear him say categorically he will not run third party and hand the White House back to Obama. Does he care enough to do that? You may disagree with me on that and that is OK also. It is just my thoughts and opinion.


Unlike you I dont have a problem with character assassination if its based on fact. We should know this stuff if we are voting someone into the most powerful role in the world today.

Yes RP would need congress to back him to get what needs to be done ,, well done. It will be up to us to support him and vote those into congress who are backing RP and his bills.

www.youtube.com...
edit on 7-12-2011 by ker2010 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 05:34 PM
link   
oh look another Ron Paul ad from the OP.



posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 05:36 PM
link   
just taking a shot in the dark here, but seeing as most of these guys have fought in needless wars; im going to guess they support ron paul because the only war he would fight in is the one that brings a US invasion.



posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 05:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hardstepah
just taking a shot in the dark here, but seeing as most of these guys have fought in needless wars; im going to guess they support ron paul because the only war he would fight in is the one that brings a US invasion.


Are you saying the US is going to be invaded? If so by who LOL hahaha



posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 05:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by StarPeace
oh look another Ron Paul ad from the OP.


Oh look another RP troll



posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 05:43 PM
link   
reply to post by ker2010
 


The Congress he will be facing will be comprised of very few who hold his views. He will have to engage in compromise to move towards what he wants. Is his history indicative of him being willing to compromise to get things done? I don't know. That is the sort of thing I'm looking at and for.

The person who most agrees with my ideology could in fact be the worst choice for President. That is entirely possible.

Look at Obama and how even with his own Parties full control of Congress and the White House, he cannot get anything done. Why? Because he is a hard core Ideologue who even turns the stomachs of many in his own Party.

Paul also has very hardcore Libertarian views and he will find opposition from both of the main Parties in Congress. Is he the guy who can unite them? Does he have a track record of being able to unite people to his cause? Is he wise enough to use the art of compromise to start the process, realizing that he must do so to get anything done? That's what I'm asking myself.

As too Newt, I look at what he has been able to do in regards to the same questions. His track record is very good in that regard. We are not electing the "Pope" here, we need a CEO who does the job of a CEO well.

Right now I'm finding it hard to look at anyone other than Paul for ideological reasons and Newt for his leadership abilities and moderate stance on issues.
edit on 12/7/2011 by Blaine91555 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 06:53 PM
link   
Just skimmed the thread and I hope for the sake of sanity that this has been said before.

Even if Obama does control the military he only controls basic actions/manoeuvres, not the thoughts of individual soldiers. It shouldn't be a case of argument.



posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 07:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by EndGovtCorruption
reply to post by Ancient Champion
 


Yeah, I agree.............kind of like someone who makes worthless, repetitive threads about old information with out using the search feature.

If you don't like it, don't waste our time with your worthless post. If you don't like Ron Paul then start a thread about who you do like ( just be sure to use the search to make sure someone hasn't already said the same thing you have}


Nothing funnier on here than seeing someone whining all asshurt because someone they do not like is getting attention instead of posting facts as to why he likes or why he does not like a candidate.


lol it doesn't matter anyway because your worthless little messiah isn't going to win. It will be fun to watch him fail...again.



posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 07:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Blaine91555
 



What we don't know that is pertinent to this thread is what percentage of active Military actually support him.


Did you see my graphic from earlier. About $202,000 total donated, and more than half of that to RP. I don't think it matters how much of the military actually donated, I think it matters how much of the donations went to each candidate.

I bet the portion of military voters compared to military campaign contributors is similar to regular citizens. Not that many people actually donate money to candidates, but they will still vote at election time.

Maybe that softens the impact of the statistic a little bit, but I think the information we have is still significant.

It is significant for certain in one area. Which GOP candidate can raise campaign funds to rival Obama's?" The only answer is RP. No other GOP candidate will generate the funds, and the excitement, and the turnout at the polls. A few people have claimed RP to be racist because of some old letters, but if he goes head to head with Obama, there is no way Obama can play that card. The same goes for the Jim Crow laws. The very few little scandalous rumors about RP are far too controversial to be used in an Obama campaign, so RP is bullet-proof when it comes to facing off with Obama. They are absolute opposites in every way, it will be the election of the century! It will be good vs. evil, socialism vs. extreme conservatism, empire building vs. laissez-fairre, it is a political pundits dream of an election!



posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 08:08 PM
link   
reply to post by getreadyalready
 


You did read my first post one page back?

What I'm curious about is what percentage of the military supports him without regard to the donations which work out to the numbers I posted earlier. I cannot find a Poll of active military anywhere on the topic. I'd like to see one.

I do find what you posted meaningful and was just trying to carry the topic a little further.


Ron Paul is still on my list. He only angered me once when he resorted to an attack ad. Like I said at first, I'm neither hot or cold on him right now. I do wonder if he is a person who can lead Congress to compromise to end this gridlock caused by both Parties equally. We have an Ideologue now who has the whole government frozen because he is not a leader and only cares about his personal ideology and cares nothing about the country. Presidents once elected represent all of us.

Simply doing my part to Deny Ignorance



posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 08:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Blaine91555
 



I do wonder if he is a person who can lead Congress to compromise to end this gridlock caused by both Parties equally.


See, I hope he demand that Congress STOP compromising! The last compromise fiasco was the debt ceiling debate. Both sides were correct, we needed deep cuts, and we also needed to let tax loopholes expire. The compromise hurt the country. We needed Obama to stand strong on his demands, and we needed the Tea Party to stand strong on their demands. Instead, both sides gave a little, and Obama gave a lot, and we got a worthless compromise that hurt our nation.

I hope we get a President, and a Congress that will recognize we have compromised ourselves right out of superpower status. We have compromised education far below standards of Europe and even Cuba. We have compromised our innovation in industry by bailing out and subsidizing losing models. We've compromised our infrastructure, we've even compromised our own personal responsibilities as individuals.

I hope RP gets in office and refuses to compromise. He was once known as the "no" man, because he won't vote for anything that isn't specifically authorized in the Constitution. As president, he may be known as the veto man, and that is fine with me. 4 years of no action at all by government would be an improvement over all the constant bad decisions and compromises.



posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 08:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by ker2010

Are you saying the US is going to be invaded? If so by who LOL hahaha

America will be invaded and destroyed by Russia and Iran; China will destroy Russia and Iran, and then turn on Israel.



posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 09:06 PM
link   
reply to post by getreadyalready
 


Without compromise how do you get past Gridlock?

Our government represents us all and not just a single ideology. When an elected leader will not compromise, nothing gets done. That is just the way it is.

The idea is to not let one ideology Dictate to all others. We would all like to call the shots, but this is a diverse country and part of being Free is compromise. The alternative is in fact a Dictatorship.

We see examples all over the world of this. As messed up as we are at times, it's vital that our system of checks and balances protect us from each other. We see the result of having an Ideologue in office now. Total nothing. Even when Obama's own Party had complete control he could get nothing done because not all Democrats agree with his Alinsky style Progressive agenda.

I could easily cite many examples of cases in history where one ideological group wreaked havoc on peoples Freedoms while shoving their own idea of government down everyone's throats. The Nazi's under Hitler and Communism / Marxism under Stalin and Mao.

We need leaders who can work together to make this place functional again. The beauty of the Constitution is it ensures no single minded group can control everyone else. At least that is how it is supposed to work; unlike now under the iron fist of hard core President who see the Constitution as a roadblock to him acting as a Dictator.

....and yes I do see Obama in that light. We are stupid things to be controlled and pitied in his mind. None of us know how any person we elect to the Presidency will act after they have that kind of power. The real Obama is nothing like the Candidate Obama. All of them are unknowns the first time they lay their hands on that kind of power. That power corrupts is indisputable.

I imagine that when Obama was elected his supporters thought he was very different than he is.

If we end up with another Ideologue who acts the same coming from the other side, it will be just as bad. I'm more comfortable about Paul now though since he has been more expansive recently. Still nobody on the planet has any idea how he will react if he become President. At best it's a guessing game.

Compromise is a rational act unless the intent is total domination and a Dictatorship where one group controls everyone else.
edit on 12/7/2011 by Blaine91555 because: (no reason given)





new topics
top topics
 
76
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join