It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

Paul Campaign Flat Broke...How Can This Be?

page: 4
9
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 18 2012 @ 12:23 AM
link   


Dare I say that it’s because RP DOESN’T have that much support and much of this RP talk is nothing more than HYPE and wishful thinking on the part of Paulites?
reply to post by seabag
 


Dare you say? What.....just say it...all and i mean ALL of the US candidates are tossers. Morons and all liars and cheats.

But then again you have a kenyian with delusions of grandeur in power now so does it really matter. RP is a wolf in sheeps clothing.

American politics is so corrupt that it make the iranian system and the iraqi system seem completely fair.

Obama will stay in power because he is a black man doing what he is told.

You can;t out a black man...after all it would be racist....its not PC.

edit on 18-3-2012 by Six6Six because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 18 2012 @ 12:39 AM
link   
Ron Paul's support comes from the people, not businesses for one. corporations aren't lining up behind him because he lacks the corruption they need to further their goals .. that's one side of it ..

But also with the media not giving him proper coverage he's no doubt spent more than he would otherwise need to for air time .. commercial spots.. etc



posted on Mar, 18 2012 @ 01:19 AM
link   
reply to post by captaintyinknots
 


I think it's more of a here's your last chance view; for some Ron Paul supporters, as in this is there last chance to allow the fixation of current political and economic problems. If they don't take the chance I believe more drastic measures will be taken.



posted on Mar, 18 2012 @ 02:53 AM
link   
Correction. He's fiat broke.
2nd

edit on 18-3-2012 by FreedomXisntXFree because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 18 2012 @ 04:15 AM
link   
reply to post by Six6Six
 


Obama is bi-racial.

All presidents do what they're told but I don't recall anyone make a big huff about their race like people do about Obama.

If you're going to attack someone, please do it in a rational manner. I stopped attacking Ron Paul regularly when I proposed a ticket of Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich. It was time to move on and it didn't make sense to attack RP anymore.

seabag would probably vote for Santorum or Romney, two of the biggest putzes to ever run for the nomination of any party.

If we must compare candidates, Santorum would plunge this country into a theocracy. If you ask me, I'll take RP or Obama over any Republican candidate.


edit on 18-3-2012 by The Sword because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 18 2012 @ 05:50 AM
link   
Lol as if elections mattered...

Ron Paul? Controlled opposition, guys!



posted on Mar, 18 2012 @ 08:01 AM
link   
I do not even think if Paul
had more money then everyone else
that he would still win..
The support is just not there, money or no money..

One thing money can not do is actually cast a vote
itself..



posted on Mar, 18 2012 @ 10:10 AM
link   
reply to post by squidboy
 



Are you calling for a continuation of a failed program? The War on Drugs has cost the tax payer enough money, and has failed. The only successes that I see, are a steadily increasing prison population.... Portugal legalized all drugs a decade ago, and it's worked well, having almost an opposite effect of the fears people perpetrate in the media.


I’m simply talking about the legality of drugs. In Texas, we have Mexican gangs here such as MS13 who are here because of the illegal drug trade and these gangs are rapidly spreading across the country. Gangs don’t just bring drugs, they also bring violence. Drugs are a big business that benefits organized crime and legalizing drugs will only increase this problem. The argument that by legalizing drugs the organized crime, gangs and violence that accompany them will somehow disappear is ridiculous and dangerous. As long as there is money to be made they will be here, and the more people on LEGAL drugs means the more business they'll have. RP will simply be opening up new markets for them because they will deliver the drugs cheaper (tax free) than the 'legal' dealers.



Technically speaking, since when did "defending ourselves" involve having a military base in basically every country on earth? We don't have the funds to support such a lifestyle, the majority of American Citizens want the troops to come home, and there are countless theories that correlate our presence in other counties as a contributing factor to terror attacks, as people don't really like it when a military just shows up on their home soil.

A majority of our population wants out troops home. Obama ran on it in 2008 and basically continued Bush's policy. People still want the troops home. It's so funny how even the troops support Paul over Obama, but yet...


The majority of Americans (including me) want our troops to come home from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Those aren’t the bases overseas I’m talking about sir; you’re mixing two topics. We have bases in allied countries that do serve as a deterrent to aggression because it affords us the ability to project power (in our defense and theirs) on any country in the world that would seek to harm US or US interests. I’m in no way condoning or advocating engaging in unauthorized wars…I’m taking about having a presence globally. Those countries WANT us there and we need to be there. RP wants to close ALL military bases that are not on US soil; that is a BIG mistake IMO.

Example – The ONLY reason N. Korea hasn’t invaded S. Korea, a move that would destabilize the region and likely trigger China taking Taiwan, is because of our presence overseas. That, sir, is the type of deterrent I’m taking about.




The only critiques I hear from the Anti-Paul gang is recycled sound byte blurbs we hear on the MSM... Can't you people come up with your own reasons not to like the man? Even Paul bots are media creation.

So, check your glass.


The only sound bite blub is coming from you. The fact that you think “bring the troops home” means that people support closing overseas bases in allied countries rather than ending the wars we’re in is proof that you’re just repeating what you hear.



posted on Mar, 18 2012 @ 10:15 AM
link   
reply to post by MrSpad
 


Where have you been, the National Parks were handed over about 70 years ago...we just manage them now. And Student Loans...please, go back and do your homework.

You make generalized statements without anything backing them up...out of context and general statements do not equal truth.

All RP says is that it is not the Federal Governments place to do these things. Where do you think they get the money....from the States and the people...he's saying to keep these at the State level where they belong. WTH is so bad about that?

If you like government control on everything, then I get your point. If so, just say it...YOU LIKE THE GOVERNMENT TO CONTROL YOUR LIFE....quit hiding and come out & say it!



posted on Mar, 18 2012 @ 10:22 AM
link   
reply to post by Qemyst
 



That's another argument people like to use against Ron Paul.

Having our military forces stretched out all over the Earth makes it easier to defend ourselves?

If you were going to attack a castle, would you want to do it when:
A) Most of the soldiers are in far off lands waging wars, and thus, the castle doesn't have as many in it as a result?
B) ALL of the soldiers are IN THE CASTLE?

....Hmmm....Seems to me like the castle would be much more well defended when all of the soldiers are in it, the walls are patrolled constantly, archers at the ready.

....I'm no expert war general...but uhhh.... I just facepalmed a little.


Sounds like all of your military strategy was acquired playing medieval role playing games!

You’re right! You’re no general.

The reason we haven’t been attacked is because of our presence overseas. If a country launched an all-out attack against US, one of the first things we would want to do is take out their air force and long range missiles so they could stop bombing us. How do you propose we do that quickly if all of our planes are parked thousands of miles away in America? That is logistically impossible. However, having many assets conveniently parked in various parks of the globe (in their backyard) gives us the ability to quickly respond and force the enemy to act defensively rather than offensively. It really doesn’t take a general to figure this out.

Stop drinking the RP isolationist Kool Aid and getting your military strategy from World of Warcraft and this might make sense.



posted on Mar, 18 2012 @ 10:33 AM
link   
reply to post by knightsofcydonia
 



seabag looks like your the only one who ended up without stars?


If that’s all I cared about I surely wouldn’t throw up so many threads against RP and Iran, would I?


Maybe that’s why you Paulites are always out in force patting each other on the back?? You guys are ATS Star-whores!! You’re more worried about looking cool on ATS than fixing the country!


You'd better get to work because your star count is ridiculously low, sir!



posted on Mar, 18 2012 @ 10:45 AM
link   
reply to post by seabag
 


Well with a a little thought you could have answered your own question. The other candidates get the majority of their money from billionaires and corporations that can afford to spend massive amounts. Paul raises millions and millions from his supporters. I would love to see how much actually citizen supporters give other candidates in comparison to Paul.

If he is in fact broke, it isn't because he doesn't have support like you are supposing. It is actually a reflection on the state of the economy, and the ridiculous cost of campaigning for president. He has raised tens of millions from his supporters.



posted on Mar, 18 2012 @ 10:50 AM
link   
reply to post by seabag
 





I’m simply talking about the legality of drugs. In Texas, we have Mexican gangs here such as MS13 who are here because of the illegal drug trade and these gangs are rapidly spreading across the country. Gangs don’t just bring drugs, they also bring violence. Drugs are a big business that benefits organized crime and legalizing drugs will only increase this problem.


You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. If drugs were decriminalized/legalized, the problem wouldn't get worse it would get better. You would not longer have MS13 where you live. You really need to do some deeper thinking on these subjects. Use common sense. I mean what you are saying here makes absolutely zero sense. What makes you think it would get worse? Where is the place for violence and illegal gangs if the activity they are involved in isn't illegal? Yeah exactly. You are making no sense. The crime comes from the illegality. Remove the illegality, capitalists move in and make business's and the criminals are out of a job.

It is honestly infuriating to see such ignorance displayed so arrogantly. Please do some reading and critical thinking on subjects before presenting your misguided opinions as facts.
edit on 18-3-2012 by GogoVicMorrow because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 18 2012 @ 11:00 AM
link   
reply to post by seabag
 


Sorry to butt in, but couldn't help myself....

First, the name calling game is so very childish...why do adults reduce their mentalities to that of a child, enough of that please!

Second, if you knew more about history you'd know that the reason for the deployment of all our troops in "allied" countries were to protect them from the "Commies" during the cold war and of course the troops from WWII.

WWII & The Cold Wars are over...no need to have troops there any longer. The only place we haven't ended the status of "War" is Korea, which we could leave now without any future problems, given the tech we've supplied the South Koreans. Just countries labeled as our Allies alone is enough...who would be stupid enough to attack them knowing the US will come full force to their aid?

Yes, RP is correct...we do not need to have all these troops & bases. We can hit anywhere on this planet within 24 hours. And if you think we can't, then you are very uneducated in Modern Warfare. Using your justification every country around the globe would have bases in each others back yards....last time I checked we don't have any here?



posted on Mar, 18 2012 @ 11:05 AM
link   
I don't know why Paul supporters are questioning this...it is easily verifiable information.

www.opensecrets.org...

And, besides Romney...all the campaigns are broke. The difference is that Romney, Santorum, and Gingrich all have huge Super PACS supporting them...and Paul doesn't.

It doesn't really matter about the small/large contributions...the fact is that Ron Paul is having to spend a lot of money per vote and he is running out of money.

And Paul has raised more money than both Santorum and Gingrich...and has also spent more than they have.



posted on Mar, 18 2012 @ 11:15 AM
link   
reply to post by GogoVicMorrow
 



You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. If drugs were decriminalized/legalized, the problem wouldn't get worse it would get better. You would not longer have MS13 where you live. You really need to do some deeper thinking on these subjects. Use common sense. I mean what you are saying here makes absolutely zero sense. What makes you think it would get worse? Where is the place for violence and illegal gangs if the activity they are involved in isn't illegal? Yeah exactly. You are making no sense. The crime comes from the illegality. Remove the illegality, capitalists move in and make business's and the criminals are out of a job.

It is honestly infuriating to see such ignorance displayed so arrogantly. Please do some reading and critical thinking on subjects before presenting your misguided opinions as facts.


What is ignorant is that you are asking me why I think that when in the post you responded to I explained WHY. You cut off your quote right before the explanation.


What I said was:

The argument that by legalizing drugs the organized crime, gangs and violence that accompany them will somehow disappear is ridiculous and dangerous. As long as there is money to be made they will be here, and the more people on LEGAL drugs means the more business they'll have. RP will simply be opening up new markets for them because they will deliver the drugs cheaper (tax free) than the 'legal' dealers.


Stop with the insults and stop purposely ignoring my points. I’ll be glad to debate ANY issue we disagree on but at least read what I’ve written so I don’t have to keep repeating myself.



edit on 18-3-2012 by seabag because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 18 2012 @ 11:17 AM
link   
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 


I agree with what you're saying, but when comparing RP to NG & RS, remember RP has been in the campaign longer. And he doesn't get 1/2 the MSM media time as the other 3. Even during the debates, he received very little time in comparison.

So yeah, you're correct each vote is costing RP more....I understand Freedom, Liberty, Responsibility and taking care of our own seems out of date. But, to some....we long for it.

Forgive the abbreviations, just a lil lazy today, lol.



posted on Mar, 18 2012 @ 11:20 AM
link   
reply to post by HereAgainGoneTomorrow
 



Yes, RP is correct...we do not need to have all these troops & bases. We can hit anywhere on this planet within 24 hours. And if you think we can't, then you are very uneducated in Modern Warfare. Using your justification every country around the globe would have bases in each others back yards....last time I checked we don't have any here?


Foolish! As a former Marine (America’s 911 Force – First To Fight) who has deployed twice, I can assure you that the only reason we have the capability to respond anywhere in the world within 24 hours is BECAUSE we are FORWARD DEPLOYED…not sitting at the barracks in N. Carolina!!

Dream ON!!



posted on Mar, 18 2012 @ 11:25 AM
link   
reply to post by seabag
 


Once again, he NEVER said legalize drugs. He said to get the Federal Government out of the issue, "End the War on Drugs", and let STATES deside what course to take, as each seems fit. As unpopular as it may be, that is how the Country was designed to operate.

And after reading the posters reply, I didn't see them call you any names? Please highlight those for me.



posted on Mar, 18 2012 @ 11:31 AM
link   
reply to post by seabag
 


Oh the old I'm a former Marine card, lol...Well I'm former Spec Ops...US Army 10th Special Forces, so we can argue this til the cows come home, lol!

From one Vet to another, I Salute you, thanks for your service!



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join