"Ron Paul is the choice of the Troops" - Washington Times

[Rizzo]

Ron Paul: The choice of the troops | Washington Times Communities

 

[rambone]

 

[hoosierdoc]

Ron Paul is the choice of most young people. BUT, this story is absurd to draw the conclusion based on the numbers of people there.

" More than 1,500 supporters showed up at the march on the White House in support of Congressman Paul.
Among them were over 400 active duty or retired military members participating in the rally"

Really, 400 active duty OR RETIRED people is enough for that headline?

Active Duty: 1.4 million or so
Former Military: Guessing maybe 20 million? (can't find good stats)

 

[rambone]

Ron Paul Military Donations Nearly Twice Those of His GOP Rivals and Obama

 

[hoosierdoc]

Right, so Paul averages $.104 per active duty military person in contributions. He runs on a platform to bring them all home. He's also who young people like best. I would expect them to donate mainly to him for both reasons. I would say our military is probably one of the lowest per capita political donor groups out there. They are focused on other things. That doesn't say that the majority of our troops want him as their commander in chief, it says that he raised more money from active duty personnel. A loud minority speaks with the voice of their pocket book.

Show me a poll of active duty and I'll listen.

 

[Rizzo]

Right, so Paul averages $.104 per active duty military person in contributions. He runs on a platform to bring them all home. He's also who young people like best. I would expect them to donate mainly to him for both reasons. I would say our military is probably one of the lowest per capita political donor groups out there. They are focused on other things. That doesn't say that the majority of our troops want him as their commander in chief, it says that he raised more money from active duty personnel. A loud minority speaks with the voice of their pocket book.

Show me a poll of active duty and I'll listen.

A poll would be a sample of LESS people than those who donate. You won't listen to campaign contributions but you will a poll?!?!?

The donations are like a poll only the votes are with dollars and costs you to vote and shows true intent and seriousness.

You don't want to listen to the 1500 soldiers who showed up? But you will listen to a poll, none of which will consist of over 1500 people.

You don't want to listen to the 1500 soldiers... Show me another candidate who got any soldiers to organize and march on their behalf? Where is the lets bomb Syria march? Where is the lets bomb Iran march. Where was the lets spend Billions to kill civilians with bombs to help put former Al Qaeda terrorists in charge of Libya so they can kill the non-arab blacks march?

There is a reason Ron Paul gets more money by far and a march on his behalf. He is the one more soldiers support. Most people in general don't donate to campaigns. This is true of military too. So if he is getting the most donations, it is an indication of his broad support in the military as a whole.

That is not to mention all the retired military and CIA experts who say he is right in his foreign policy too. And above all that, he is just right whether they supported him or not. It just so happens they do.

 

[88GT]

What's the point of posting this? Not being snarky, just not sure why it's relevant. All candidates have certain groups that prefer them. Is there any news in saying blacks prefer Obama, Mormons prefer Romney, or evangelicals prefer Santorum?

Who wouldn't support the guy who is promising to bring them home and stop putting them in harm's way for questionable reasons? Obama said the same thing his first time around. It didn't make him a better candidate or a better President.

Paul is the best candidate, but then hero-worship is disturbing.

 

[Rizzo]

Article from Ranger Magazine.

RON PAUL: YOU WANT HIM - Focus - Northwest Military - Ft Lewis Ranger - Military News, Events & Community

 

[Rizzo]

Obama made dozens of promises he didn't keep. Ron Paul is the ONLY candidate I know (Republican or Democrat) who has a consistent history of sticking with his positions, keeping his promises and not flip flopping on issues. So when Ron Paul promises something, it means something unlike all the others who have a history of switching stances. That alone makes him worthy of my vote.

I guess I am not sure what to say when you don't find any relevance to the overwhelming financial support of the Active Military for Ron Paul. It seems self-evident why that is relevant to me but to each their own I guess. Different people value different things.

I don't worship Ron Paul so don't be disturbed. In fact I disagree with him on some issues, like the death penalty. But I do respect him and think he is by far the best choice. I'll give him this, he follows the US Constitution. He actually has kept his oath of office, unlike the others.

What I find disturbing is how people who tout the 2nd Amendment (rightly so) and speak of following the wisdom of the founders and adhering to the Constitution will so quickly support republicans who flaunt their willingness to disobey that same Constitution's rules about declaring war and the limitation of the 10th Amendment. I find that disturbing.

What's the point of posting this? Not being snarky, just not sure why it's relevant. All candidates have certain groups that prefer them. Is there any news in saying blacks prefer Obama, Mormons prefer Romney, or evangelicals prefer Santorum?

Who wouldn't support the guy who is promising to bring them home and stop putting them in harm's way for questionable reasons? Obama said the same thing his first time around. It didn't make him a better candidate or a better President.

Paul is the best candidate, but then hero-worship is disturbing.

 

[steveh_131]

What's the point of posting this? Not being snarky, just not sure why it's relevant. All candidates have certain groups that prefer them. Is there any news in saying blacks prefer Obama, Mormons prefer Romney, or evangelicals prefer Santorum?

Who wouldn't support the guy who is promising to bring them home and stop putting them in harm's way for questionable reasons? Obama said the same thing his first time around. It didn't make him a better candidate or a better President.

Paul is the best candidate, but then hero-worship is disturbing.

A lot of people on this board feel very strongly about respecting and honoring our troops.

One could make the case that the best way to honor our troops is to respect their choice of Commander-In-Chief. I think that adds to its relevance.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

Obama made dozens of promises he didn't keep. Ron Paul is the ONLY candidate I know (Republican or Democrat) who has a consistent history of sticking with his positions, keeping his promises and not flip flopping on issues. So when Ron Paul promises something, it means something unlike all the others who have a history of switching stances. That alone makes him worthy of my vote.

I guess I am not sure what to say when you don't find any relevance to the overwhelming financial support of the Active Military for Ron Paul. It seems self-evident why that is relevant to me but to each their own I guess. Different people value different things.

I don't worship Ron Paul so don't be disturbed. In fact I disagree with him on some issues, like the death penalty. But I do respect him and think he is by far the best choice. I'll give him this, he follows the US Constitution. He actually has kept his oath of office, unlike the others.

What I find disturbing is how people who tout the 2nd Amendment (rightly so) and speak of following the wisdom of the founders and adhering to the Constitution will so quickly support republicans who flaunt their willingness to disobey that same Constitution's rules about declaring war and the limitation of the 10th Amendment. I find that disturbing.

I find it disturbing that people would blindly follow a leader that demonstrates such a clear misunderstanding of the roles and responsibilities of the Commander in Chief as delineated by the Constitution.

 

[steveh_131]

I find it disturbing that people would blindly follow a leader that demonstrates such a clear misunderstanding of [my personal interpretation of] the roles and responsibilities of the Commander in Chief as delineated by the Constitution.

When you consider that other people don't agree with your interpretation, it becomes less disturbing and blind and becomes a simple disagreement.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

When you consider that other people don't agree with your interpretation, it becomes less disturbing and blind and becomes a simple disagreement.

But when there are over 230 years of tradition, laws, treaties, and case law supporting my interpretation we are back to the original statement. Unless you choose to ignore reality that is.

 

[steveh_131]

But when there are over 230 years of tradition, laws, treaties, and case law supporting my interpretation we are back to the original statement. Unless you choose to ignore reality that is.

If you want to debate the merits of your interpretation vs. Ron Paul's, then that is a different discussion for a different time.

However, your statement was based upon the premise that people are knowingly supporting a candidate who doesn't understand the constitution, and that premise is false. I don't believe that he misunderstands it, and I support him because I personally find his interpretation to be more accurate.

 

[rambone]

But when there are over 230 years of tradition, laws, treaties, and case law supporting my interpretation we are back to the original statement. Unless you choose to ignore reality that is.

I'd hate to dishonor the status quo.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

If you want to debate the merits of your interpretation vs. Ron Paul's, then that is a different discussion for a different time.

However, your statement was based upon the premise that people are knowingly supporting a candidate who doesn't understand the constitution, and that premise is false. I don't believe that he misunderstands it, and I support him because I personally find his interpretation to be more accurate.

If I understand correctly you are saying he is your champion because he would ignore the traditional interpretation of the Constitution in favor of one of his own choosing upon which there is no legal foundation. What exactly is the difference between him and Obama?

 

[dross]

If I understand correctly you are saying he is your champion because he would ignore the traditional interpretation of the Constitution in favor of one of his own choosing upon which there is no legal foundation. What exactly is the difference between him and Obama?

Because the Constitution means exactly what it says, no interpretation is needed (and BTW the SC has no jurisdiction to interpret) and all you have to do is read it and you'll understand. Failure to read it and come up with the obviously correct meaning just indicates that you are part of the problem.

Just read it, it's as clear it can be on everything. There is no such thing as a reasonable difference of opinion on the meaning of the Constitution requiring arbitration.

That's why RP is right.

 

[rambone]

If I understand correctly you are saying he is your champion because he would ignore the traditional interpretation of the Constitution in favor of one of his own choosing upon which there is no legal foundation. What exactly is the difference between him and Obama?

Obama supports "the Bush Doctrine", the Patriot Act, aggressive wars, feeding the bankers and the Military-Industrial Complex.

Ron Paul doesn't. All those sh***y traditions would be lost.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

Because the Constitution means exactly what it says, no interpretation is needed (and BTW the SC has no jurisdiction to interpret) and all you have to do is read it and you'll understand. Failure to read it and come up with the obviously correct meaning just indicates that you are part of the problem.

Just read it, it's as clear it can be on everything. There is no such thing as a reasonable difference of opinion on the meaning of the Constitution requiring arbitration.

That's why RP is right.

The Constitution declares the President is Commander in Chief.

The Constitution grants the power to formally declare War to Congress.

The Constitution places no restriction on the Commander in Chief from engaging an enemy in the absence of a formal declaration of War.

That's why Ron Paul is wrong.

 

[steveh_131]

If I understand correctly you are saying he is your champion because he would ignore the traditional interpretation of the Constitution in favor of one of his own choosing upon which there is no legal foundation.

Once again, you are inserting a premise into this statement that is not necessarily true and is very much in dispute. Since we do not agree on that premise, this statement is false.