MOST service folks political contributions go to... ANTI-WAR CANDIDATE RON PAUL

MOST service folks political contributions go to... ANTI-WAR CANDIDATE RON PAUL (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

farglebargle -> MOST service folks political contributions go to... ANTI-WAR CANDIDATE RON PAUL (7/21/2007 8:29:15 AM)
http://thespinfactor.com/thetruth/2007/07/17/ron-paul-leads-all-08-candidates-with-one-third-of-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%

farglebargle -> RE: MOST service folks political contributions go to... ANTI-WAR CANDIDATE RON PAUL (7/21/2007 2:13:13 PM)
That's voting for withdrawal with you POCKET BOOKS!

Lordandmaster -> RE: MOST service folks political contributions go to... ANTI-WAR CANDIDATE RON PAUL (7/21/2007 3:18:42 PM)
I didn't know these muffuckers were even running for president. Well, I knew Dodd was, but I thought he had pulled out long ago. Tommy Thompson? WTF? And I have to admit I didn't even know who John Cox is. But now that I've read about him, I wouldn't send him any of my money either. quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle Tommy Thompson 0% Chris Dodd 0% Jim Gilmore 0% John Cox 0%

farglebargle -> RE: MOST service folks political contributions go to... ANTI-WAR CANDIDATE RON PAUL (7/21/2007 5:12:29 PM)
I'm surprised Dennis Kucinich is up there, too! But he does always get that crucial Willie Nelson endorsement!

UtopianRanger -> RE: MOST service folks political contributions go to... ANTI-WAR CANDIDATE RON PAUL (7/22/2007 12:57:43 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle That's voting for withdrawal with you POCKET BOOKS! HAR! HAR! HAR! Where have all the pro-war hawks and wudy fans gone? How come they haven't come out to play in this thread? Looks to me like the military crapped all over the 9-11 hero--- at a measly 2.44% I think the folks in the military know full well that Ron Paul is closer to defining the military mission than anyone else in Washington. And granted they don't try to poison him or ''Wellstone'' his plane, I think Paul's numbes will get even better. I drove 500 miles today and saw three '' Ron Paul for President'' banners. Nada for McCain, Wudy and Billiary lol! - R

farglebargle -> RE: MOST service folks political contributions go to... ANTI-WAR CANDIDATE RON PAUL (7/22/2007 3:53:15 AM)
The internet really messes up the old ways of smearing people, doesn't it, when access to the facts is so easy?

Termyn8or -> RE: MOST service folks political contributions go to... ANTI-WAR CANDIDATE RON PAUL (7/22/2007 9:58:25 AM)
Ron Paul is the only candidate that would get my ass to the polls. The problem is his age. This is not mentioned much. He was a doctor, and married in the 60s. That means he is at least in his 60s, possibly 70s. Has 17 grandkids, from 5 kids. Doing the math, he is no spring chicken. It's a damn shame word didn't get out about him like 20 years ago. If Paul were President 20 years ago think of what would've happened. The problem is that now things have gone so far, he would have a very hard time. He would have to constantly watch his back. A CM member mailed me awhile back with a fairly apathetic attitude, that if anyone good got in he would be assasinated. Well I agree that they would try. The thing is to stop them. Luckily he's a doctor so they would have a hard time killing him that way. He could speciously avoid public appearances, and give a very valid reason why. All he'd have to say is "Look what happened to JFK". But by refusing to sign any bill that is not Constitutional, and repealing executive orders, he could do alot without alot of fanfare. Congree would know not to send him an unbalanced budget to sign, or get ready to override the veto. I would have some sage advice for President Paul, get your friends closer than your enemies. I know that seems to contradict, but no. If I were he, in that position, I would find some longtime friends to be around at all times. Perhaps even his sons. All armed at all times. And I would get the People ready. They must realize that he is not a dictator, and these changes are going to be slow torture, or at least seem so. What will happen to interest rates and the value of the dollar is scary, but necessary for our recovery. Many people would be financially devastated, hopefully the ATF agents first. Alcohol, tobacco and firearms are precisely what the government has no business with. The department of education would surely get the axe as well. Anyone who is dependent on the government for their livelyhood might be in trouble. People living beyond their means would be in trouble. If you realize how bloated the federal government is, that is one hell of alot of people. We would need enough voters to fight that. Alot of people would vote their wallet, and around 30-40% I believe are somehow dependent on the government, even working. All the research funded for who knows what, all the government contracts. Much of it would be gone. Amidst all this strife, afterward would come incentives for well monied people who have an ounce or two of patriotism to start businesses here. We could start making our own shit again. While generally against tariffs, I believe at least some temporary measures might be needed. It would be integral to the incentive. However once done, China will no doubt start dumping dollars. Some misguided people believe that the dollar falling is good for the economy because it makes our exports more desirable, price wise. What they do not realize is that we export so little now that this is incorrect. And you can't stop imports dead. None of us would have cars, phones, in some cases even houses. Forget the TVs, and therefore most of the entertainment industry, at least here. Yup, we export bombs, soldiers and movies. Not much else. Useless shit, except if you count the negative uses. Almost all of our major exports hurt people, either by killing them or dumbing them down. So even if we build most of our own shit, we can no longer make all the components effectively, at a reasonable cost. Therefore they need to be bought with a weak dollar, at a disadvantage, or made at a higher cost. With new factory construction costs amortized by the price of the components. All of these costs are paid by the end consumer, or there is no business next year. We would have to learn a new way. Become resourceful again. And if you think it's going to be fucking easy you're nuts. It will be hell for a time. But it is the right direction. Consider it like recovering from an addiction, becazuse that is exactly what it is. T

CuriousLord -> RE: MOST service folks political contributions go to... ANTI-WAR CANDIDATE RON PAUL (7/22/2007 10:39:57 AM)
Perhaps you can help me understand the numbers? I traced the provided sources. Lots of information, but I can't seem to find anything about US Armed Services contributions.

Termyn8or -> RE: MOST service folks political contributions go to... ANTI-WAR CANDIDATE RON PAUL (7/22/2007 10:49:07 AM)
CL, on the page in the link there is a source cited. http://query.nictusa.com/pres/2007/Q2/ It has a logo "Federal Election" something or other, but the URL doesn't make sense to me. Seems it should be a dot gov I would think. Would be a damn shame to find out someone is blowing smoke. I guess I'll look. T

thornhappy -> RE: MOST service folks political contributions go to... ANTI-WAR CANDIDATE RON PAUL (7/22/2007 4:05:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Termyn8or Ron Paul is the only candidate that would get my ass to the polls. The problem is his age. This is not mentioned much. He was a doctor, and married in the 60s. That means he is at least in his 60s, possibly 70s. Has 17 grandkids, from 5 kids. Doing the math, he is no spring chicken. Greetings T-- Looks like he's 71, and boy that's getting up there. Kinda like Reagan term 2. Too old for me, even if he was someone I'd otherwise vote for. thornhappy

FirmhandKY -> RE: MOST service folks political contributions go to... ANTI-WAR CANDIDATE RON PAUL (7/22/2007 5:43:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CuriousLord Perhaps you can help me understand the numbers? I traced the provided sources. Lots of information, but I can't seem to find anything about US Armed Services contributions. The blog "article" referenced by fargie: 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 by Phreadom 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. The Federal Election page referenced in the "article": Selected Presidential Reports For The 2007 July Quarterly Drill down for Ron Paul: CONTRIBUTIONS BY EMPLOYER Ron Paul 2008 Presidential Campaign Committee Selected data from drill down report: Employer Total Contributions US AIR FORCE ............... 1,000.00 US ARMY ........................ 6,375.00 US NAVY ......................... 6,265.52 USAF-ACTIVE DUTY ......... 2,300.00 USMC ................................. 500.00 Total Military Contributions: $16,440.52 Observations: 1. There is no way that the "article" author could factually make a statement that Ron Paul leads in contributions from the "US Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps and war veterans". There is no way to parse out "war veterans". Hyperbole at best, here. 2. $16,440.52! WAAAA-hoooo! Wow! In three whole months! 3. Assuming a maximum contribution of $1000 a person, we are talking a whole 16.4 military people here! 4. Assuming a maximum of $100 per person, we are talking about 164.4 military people here! 5. Assuming a maximum of $10 per person, we are talking about 1,644 military people here! 6. Current US active duty strengths: 2004 = 1,415,600 7. Best case, assuming each contribution is $10, then ... 1644 / 1,415,600 = 0.0011613450127154563435998869737214. Hell, lets round that off: 00.001% of the military has contributed to Ron Pauls campaign in the second quarter of this year. A frigging landslide I tell ya! A LANDSLIDE! FirmKY

severin37 -> RE: MOST service folks political contributions go to... ANTI-WAR CANDIDATE RON PAUL (7/22/2007 9:01:14 PM)
i love ron paul, he is the only man who knows whats going on and has the voting record to prove his principles dont worry about his age he is an exercise nut and his parents lived to their mid 90s

NeedToUseYou -> RE: MOST service folks political contributions go to... ANTI-WAR CANDIDATE RON PAUL (7/22/2007 9:25:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY quote: ORIGINAL: CuriousLord Perhaps you can help me understand the numbers? I traced the provided sources. Lots of information, but I can't seem to find anything about US Armed Services contributions. The blog "article" referenced by fargie: 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 by Phreadom 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. The Federal Election page referenced in the "article": Selected Presidential Reports For The 2007 July Quarterly Drill down for Ron Paul: CONTRIBUTIONS BY EMPLOYER Ron Paul 2008 Presidential Campaign Committee Selected data from drill down report: Employer Total Contributions US AIR FORCE ............... 1,000.00 US ARMY ........................ 6,375.00 US NAVY ......................... 6,265.52 USAF-ACTIVE DUTY ......... 2,300.00 USMC ................................. 500.00 Total Military Contributions: $16,440.52 Observations: 1. There is no way that the "article" author could factually make a statement that Ron Paul leads in contributions from the "US Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps and war veterans". There is no way to parse out "war veterans". Hyperbole at best, here. 2. $16,440.52! WAAAA-hoooo! Wow! In three whole months! 3. Assuming a maximum contribution of $1000 a person, we are talking a whole 16.4 military people here! 4. Assuming a maximum of $100 per person, we are talking about 164.4 military people here! 5. Assuming a maximum of $10 per person, we are talking about 1,644 military people here! 6. Current US active duty strengths: 2004 = 1,415,600 7. Best case, assuming each contribution is $10, then ... 1644 / 1,415,600 = 0.0011613450127154563435998869737214. Hell, lets round that off: 00.001% of the military has contributed to Ron Pauls campaign in the second quarter of this year. A frigging landslide I tell ya! A LANDSLIDE! FirmKY Generally I find your posts to be informative, but this post seems to be nothing. How come you wouldn't add all the military donations, I saw more military donations than in your partial list. Granted it wouldn't bump it to 100K or anything but it would be higher. And Two, even if the numbers are smaller, it's possible the other candidates are receiving less. It would seem more productive to add up the other candidates contributions and disprove the premise, than slam the donation numbers. I honestly expected more from you. Seriously. I mean the post was about ron paul collecting more from military people than other candidates not that military contributions are small in general. So, to disprove the premise all you'd have to do is show the percentages aren't accurate. Which may or may not be the case. It wouldn't take any more time, to do that. Instead you just partially add up his contributions without a comparison to the other candidates possibly more pathetic numbers. So, what was the point?

farglebargle -> RE: MOST service folks political contributions go to... ANTI-WAR CANDIDATE RON PAUL (7/23/2007 12:04:49 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CuriousLord Perhaps you can help me understand the numbers? I traced the provided sources. Lots of information, but I can't seem to find anything about US Armed Services contributions. I expect you summarize these subsets: ( for example.. ) US AIR FORCE 1,000.00 US ARMY 6,375.00 US DEPT OF HUD 250.00 US GOVERNMENT 1,201.00 US JUSTICE DEPT 350.00 US NAVAL RESEARCH LAB 2,300.00 US NAVY 6,265.52 US NAVY CIVILIAN 500.00 US POSTAL SERVICE 996.00 USAF 1,000.00 USAF-ACTIVE DUTY 2,300.00 USMC 500.00 USN 1,000.00 USPS 475.00 USPTO 250.00 UTHSCSA 200.00 UTMB 400.00 I'm sure I got some non-gov't entities in that cut/paste, but you get the idea. on edit: I think I'd need to pull the reports off the FEC site and do my own summary, if I ever get the time...

FirmhandKY -> RE: MOST service folks political contributions go to... ANTI-WAR CANDIDATE RON PAUL (7/23/2007 4:53:14 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NeedToUseYou quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY 7. Best case, assuming each contribution is $10, then ... 1644 / 1,415,600 = 0.0011613450127154563435998869737214. Hell, lets round that off: 00.001% of the military has contributed to Ron Pauls campaign in the second quarter of this year. A frigging landslide I tell ya! A LANDSLIDE! FirmKY Generally I find your posts to be informative, but this post seems to be nothing. How come you wouldn't add all the military donations, I saw more military donations than in your partial list. Granted it wouldn't bump it to 100K or anything but it would be higher. And Two, even if the numbers are smaller, it's possible the other candidates are receiving less. It would seem more productive to add up the other candidates contributions and disprove the premise, than slam the donation numbers. I honestly expected more from you. Seriously. I mean the post was about ron paul collecting more from military people than other candidates not that military contributions are small in general. So, to disprove the premise all you'd have to do is show the percentages aren't accurate. Which may or may not be the case. It wouldn't take any more time, to do that. Instead you just partially add up his contributions without a comparison to the other candidates possibly more pathetic numbers. So, what was the point? My point? My point is that the blog article's author - and fargle - are making mountains out of molehills to make a political point that is so insignificant that it doesn't qualifies as being worthy of mention. No matter how you want to parse the numbers, they are below mathematical bounds of significance. How come you wouldn't add all the military donations, I saw more military donations than in your partial list. Granted it wouldn't bump it to 100K or anything but it would be higher. And Two, even if the numbers are smaller, it's possible the other candidates are receiving less. It would seem more productive to add up the other candidates contributions and disprove the premise, than slam the donation numbers. I used his exact words to determine which numbers I added up. Since he didn't give the exact categories, how do you know I'm not right? If you go back and reread my post, I made a comment about how he reached a conclusion about "veterans", yet there is no category, or no data available that would give him that information. That fact alone throws all the rest of his conclusions in doubt. His other categories are "US Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps". Not DoD. Not US Postal Service, not US Navy Civilians, not US Justice Department, or any of the other categories that FB lists in his last post. So, which categories did it include, and why doesn't the original author specify? Because he's fudging the numbers, thats why. Look at his trumpeting of the percentages: " ... place Ron Paul on top at 49.5% ..." It looks significant. It's not. He is simply lying with statistics. I mean the post was about ron paul collecting more from military people than other candidates not that military contributions are small in general. So, to disprove the premise all you'd have to do is show the percentages aren't accurate. Which may or may not be the case. It wouldn't take any more time, to do that. And this is why he did it. Most people won't bother, or won't understand that all his numbers are meaningless, but just take away a "good feeling" about Ron Paul, if they are inclined to support him. The numbers aren't "small in general". They are statistically insignificant. Meaningless. The article is an exercise in mental onanism, done for strictly political purposes. Misleading at best, the term "fake" would be more accurate. Go ahead and pick any categories that you want to reasonably include. The percentages will still be insignificant. I showed my work, and what stats my work was based on. The original author didn't. My point would have been made regardless of which categories you choose, so why should I spend an extra hour working out all the permutations? If you don't get it, or understand it based on the example I provided, you won't be convinced regardless of the categories or examples I used, so why waste the time? FirmKY

farglebargle -> RE: MOST service folks political contributions go to... ANTI-WAR CANDIDATE RON PAUL (7/23/2007 7:37:05 AM)
Do the numbers say the same thing without the claim of retired vets? I haven't looked at them ( and they way things are shaping up, won't have the time to dump this shit into a database and analyze it myself... )

FirmhandKY -> RE: MOST service folks political contributions go to... ANTI-WAR CANDIDATE RON PAUL (7/23/2007 8:06:21 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle Do the numbers say the same thing without the claim of retired vets? I haven't looked at them ( and they way things are shaping up, won't have the time to dump this shit into a database and analyze it myself... ) Do the numbers say the same thing without the claim of retired vets? Dunno. shakes head How could you know? There is nothing to base any claim about "veterans' on, in any of the data, that I could find. Maybe you can find something. I think he just threw in the term "veterans" to give his words greater impact, trusting that no one would go and actually look at the basis of his claims. Feel free to import and play with all the figures, but I think you'll still come out with ... not much of anything that means anything. FirmKY

farglebargle -> RE: MOST service folks political contributions go to... ANTI-WAR CANDIDATE RON PAUL (7/23/2007 8:51:26 AM)
So, what does analyzing just the active duty people? If a survey of the active duty servicemembers shows the same hypothetical distribution of contributions inclusive of this uncomfortable issue of vets, then... Well, it would say the same thing. Nowadays, we grade the horserace based on the amount of gold the horses can carry. This has disturbing consequences for the Republic, but that aside, Who raised how much money is the gold standard of participation. I don't know if that's exactly clear. I had a job way down in Sullivan county last night, and am pretty burnt out from the ride home.

philosophy -> RE: MOST service folks political contributions go to... ANTI-WAR CANDIDATE RON PAUL (7/23/2007 8:58:56 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle Nowadays, we grade the horserace based on the amount of gold the horses can carry. This has disturbing consequences for the Republic, but that aside, Who raised how much money is the gold standard of participation. .....if true, then it is truly troubling. i have heard it said by people who see no good in the US that America worships the green god, Dollar. Having lived there for a while i don't agree with it as far as the population goes, however it is much easier to argue that it is true as far as the political system goes.

Lordandmaster -> RE: MOST service folks political contributions go to... ANTI-WAR CANDIDATE RON PAUL (7/23/2007 9:49:32 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY [snipped because it's so long] The Federal Election page referenced in the "article": Selected Presidential Reports For The 2007 July Quarterly Drill down for Ron Paul: CONTRIBUTIONS BY EMPLOYER Ron Paul 2008 Presidential Campaign Committee Selected data from drill down report: Employer Total Contributions US AIR FORCE ............... 1,000.00 US ARMY ........................ 6,375.00 US NAVY ......................... 6,265.52 USAF-ACTIVE DUTY ......... 2,300.00 USMC ................................. 500.00 Total Military Contributions: $16,440.52 Observations: 1. There is no way that the "article" author could factually make a statement that Ron Paul leads in contributions from the "US Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps and war veterans". There is no way to parse out "war veterans". Hyperbole at best, here. 2. $16,440.52! WAAAA-hoooo! Wow! In three whole months! 3. Assuming a maximum contribution of $1000 a person, we are talking a whole 16.4 military people here! 4. Assuming a maximum of $100 per person, we are talking about 164.4 military people here! 5. Assuming a maximum of $10 per person, we are talking about 1,644 military people here! 6. Current US active duty strengths: 2004 = 1,415,600 7. Best case, assuming each contribution is $10, then ... 1644 / 1,415,600 = 0.0011613450127154563435998869737214. Hell, lets round that off: 00.001% of the military has contributed to Ron Pauls campaign in the second quarter of this year. A frigging landslide I tell ya! A LANDSLIDE! Firmhand, you didn't have to do all that. You can find all the numbers right here: http://phreadom.blogspot.com/2007/07/ron-paul-is-most-financially-military.html Maybe that just means people in the military aren't contributing much money to presidential candidates. quote: The numbers aren't "small in general". They are statistically insignificant. Meaningless. You obviously don't understand what the term "statistically significant" means. It's all right; most people don't. Don't feel too bad. But don't go using terminology you haven't mastered.

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125