Skip to comments.Ron Paul says he raised nearly $20 million in final quarter of 2007
Posted on 01/01/2008 12:39:23 PM PST by rfaceEdited on 01/01/2008 12:48:40 PM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]
Ron Paul said today his presidential campaign raised nearly $20 million in the last three months of 2007 from 130,000 donors.
Ron Paul brought in nearly $5.3 million that quarter.
Paul's campaign said that more than 107,000 donors were new and the average donation was about $90. More than half of the total came from two 24-hour online fund-raising events organized by supporters -- one on Nov. 5, and the second centered in Boston on Dec. 16.
(Excerpt) Read more at boston.com ...
Paul does not like the Ammendments - I wonder how safe votes for women would be with Paul? Obviously he did not like the ban on slavery either.
This is rather a lot of money for a fringe wacko.
In a year with a tight Democrat race, I do not believe this is Democrat money going to him. It is fringe wacko independent money. We sometimes forget that there are extremists on the Dem side and the GOP side, and that there is no reason that “independent” need be categorized as Moderate.
There are extremist independents too.
Going down that list I see many which should be handled by states. The federal government has no business whatsoever in local law enforcement, sentencing or punishment. IIhave no problem with voting against an expansion of federal power.
As for Bush’s Energy policy....it wouldn’t even make decent tp.
Benjamins = slang for money.
Ah, ordinary people who despise the status-quo are nutcases now. Nice snob elitism there. Many of these people are folks who are sick and tired of the BS being peddled by the other GOP and Democrat candidates.
Plus, those in the Marxist Dimocrat party that are giving to him to get him to win.
Don't post mindless allegations without proof.
This fool is NO republican and certainly NO conservative.
Being pro-life, pro-2nd Amendment, pro-border security is not conservative? Paul is certainly more conservative than Rudy, Romney, Thompson and Huckabee.
His statement was that many countries had slaves and ended the practice WITHOUT a civil war. Usually by banning it and buying existing slaves and freeing them.
Not going to happen. Analysts are quietly predicting Paul will place 3rd or higher. He doesn't have to worry about splitting the dwindling core GOP vote that's going to be carved up by Thompson and the other guys.
If Paul is in the top three, you can kiss the other candidates goodbye. Paul has the support and money to go the distance in the primaries while the other candidates besides Romney are going broke.
Treason isn’t conservative.
Ron Paul’s supporters - traitors all - are a cancer upon the Republican Party and, indeed, upon the American people as a whole. This cancer, like all other cancers, subtly damages healthy cells and metastasizes to other parts of the body if it is not detected early and destroyed.
The clear and proper course for all conservatives - and for this web-site - is to slash away the damaged tissue before it causes irreperable harm.
Conservative websites, including this one, should form a common front and purge all supporters of the traitor Ron Paul.
MR. RUSSERT: I was intrigued by your comments about Abe Lincoln. "According to Paul, Abe Lincoln should never have gone to war; there were better ways of getting rid of slavery."
REP. PAUL: Absolutely. Six hundred thousand Americans died in a senseless civil war. No, he shouldn’t have gone, gone to war. He did this just to enhance and get rid of the original intent of the republic. I mean, it was the – that iron, iron fist.
MR. RUSSERT: We’d still have slavery.
REP. PAUL: Oh, come on, Tim. Slavery was phased out in every other country of the world. And the way I'm advising that it should have been done is do like the British Empire did. You, you buy the slaves and release them. How much would that cost compared to killing 600,000 Americans and where it lingered for 100 years? I mean, the hatred and all that existed. So every other major country in the world got rid of slavery without a civil war. I mean, that doesn’t sound too radical to me. That sounds like a pretty reasonable approach.
His premise is completely wrong because it was already attempted in Virginia. The state of Virginia in 1832 rejected compensated emancipation for as the slaveholders claimed, they were property, the government had no place in buying them, the owners had to consent in the "taking," AND the government could never afford it because the slaveholder had a right to the increase (in esse) of the unborn slave! So, the most important state in the Union at that time debated what Paul wanted to happen, and they rejected it. The federal government buying the slave would represent a violation of federalism. Such a scheme would be too expensive. Buying slaves, violated property rights. Alexander Stephens said that the South would never consent to a life without slavery, and their objection was to the mere opinions of Lincoln which were opposed to slavery--in other words, the war was over the president's beliefs slavery was wrong. More Stephens: slavery was the cornerstone of the Confederacy.
From a moral perspective, Paul was also wrong because it would have justified continued trafficking in slavery. The fact is, we didn't ban slavery in the way England did (for example) and we split over it and it required a greater action for the greater good.
Let me ask again. Is being pro-life, pro-border security, and pro-2nd Amendment, and believing in a foreign policy that used to be a Republican Party tradition, Republican enough?
Good Lord, what do you have to do to be a Republican then if the above criteria doesn't suffice? Be Jesus Christ himself?
They have their own party he can run in without slapping the Republican label on him.
He has been an elected Republican since 1976.
he said "every other," and he specifically blamed the Republican party and Abraham Lincoln, even though South Carolina had seceded 12/20/60, and several others had follwed before Lincoln was inaugurated 3/4 /61
Ron Paul says Lincoln should have bought the slaves and turned them loose, but will be unable to rationalize that the buying and selling of people is what started all the $#!t in the first place.
[Note: Since Ron Paul received an endorsement from the whore house in Nevada called the Bunny Ranch, it will be revealed that it is the same whorehouse that received a rave endorsement from Bill Clinton.]
If I am correct in calculation that's an average of $130 per donor.
Life MUST be good...
Just another asinine, pathetic comment.
If he had any true Republican support he be be over 2% of Republican backing.
If you had any understanding of the polls, that they are not polling the disgruntled Republicans, independents, libertarians, and Democrats crossing over to Paul, you'd know that the "low in the polls" is just BS.
The other support comes from the far left blame America first anti-Americans.
So people who oppose a war that's going on six years now and should have been finished within 2 are blame Americans now.
You really have no clue as to what's going on right now but I'll just let you remain in self-denial and not brief you on the fact that the election paradigm has completely changed.
That kinda' narrows the political field for true conservatives who tote the sense to come in when the rain starts.
for that he's owed nothing, having been elected in a safe Republican district where anybody else, or a series of anybody elses, could have been elected. There has been very little unfair criticism of him, it's just you Paul supporters are thin-skinned and object to people criticising him for taking the kinds of positions that Michael Moore, Cindy Sheehan and George Soros have been criticized for for years around here. And your election scenario is a hoot.
You keep posting that ridiculous Don Black pic as if it means something, but all you’re doing is preaching to the choir. You’re not going to change the minds of Paul supporters who already know that Paul is not a racist. Don Black himself has stated that he’s unhappy that Paul doesn’t support white supremacism, and none other than the New York Times have retracted a smear job associating Paul with them.
No sugar coating now EEE, tell us all how you really feel. ; )
If he was a wacko, he wouldn't be getting the support he's getting.
It is fringe wacko independent money.
It is money donated from people from all walks of life, sick and tired of pompous armchair pundits like yourself who believe that everyone should follow polls and mindlessly engage in petty bickering over cookie-cutter candidates who'll do little to address the status-quo.
We sometimes forget that there are extremists on the Dem side and the GOP side, and that there is no reason that independent need be categorized as Moderate.
The people who created this nation were extremists too.
Paul doesn't like this nation, he thinks it should be 2, at least, USA and CSA
Where has Dr. Paul advocated such talk that defines treason?
Ron Pauls supporters - traitors all - are a cancer upon the Republican Party and, indeed, upon the American people as a whole.
The real cancer of the GOP is people like Giualini, Huckabee, Arlen Specter etc, who are pushing the Republican Party into a replica of the Democrat one.
Conservative websites, including this one, should form a common front and purge all supporters of the traitor Ron Paul.
Oh no...what will I do with my time then...
“Conservative websites, including this one, should form a common front and purge all supporters of the traitor Ron Paul.
59 posted on 01/01/2008 1:59:42 PM PST by furquhart (John S. McCain for President) “
Are you serious? Not real fond of the first amendment? I do wish the Paul fans would get honest and look at his poor record, that would help. But we could do it your way....can we go after the handful of McCain supporters next?
The First Amendment neither binds private organization - nor is it so expansive as to cover words which aid the enemies of America in wartime. After all, I would point out to you that the Sedition Act was passed by a Congress consisting of many of the same people who voted for the First Amendment in the first place.
You know what is funny is that some Paul supporters here complain about some so called Paul purge, yet they are still here and they have more of a voice here than most other Conservative forums. Some, like Travis (courtesy ping) are actually decent apologists for their candidate’s platform and are a joy to debate.
To a lot, I think any challenge to their view is considered oppression to them.
Opposing a war in which American troops are fighting - taking up the cause of our enemies - is treason.
Of course, lately, the good Dr. Paul has shown himself to be more than that - admitting not only to being a modern-day Copperhead but an actual Copperhead as well.
It’s difficult to buy with a straight face the claim of Ron Paul’s supporters to be patriotic when they’ve rallied behind a man who has openly admitted that, if it had been up to him, the United States of America would not exist as a single country today.
Oh please, the moment he declared his candidacy, you guys and the elites in the GOP and Faux News have been howling like a pack of hyenas.
it's just you Paul supporters are thin-skinned and object to people criticising him for taking the kinds of positions that Michael Moore, Cindy Sheehan and George Soros have been criticized for for years around here.
When has Moore, Sheehan, and Soros all call for a non-interventionist foreign policy and no nation-building? Paul is not anti-war in the leftists sense.
And your election scenario is a hoot.
It's all backed by anecdotal evidence.
“AuntB, furquhart is right in that first amendment rights dont apply in a private forum. “
Please, save it. Only a fool doesn’t know that. Are you for booting the supporters of a candidate you don’t like? Really?
If they’re breaking rules, kick ‘em out. But I can’t believe you would advocate that. It could be your guy next.
“Non-interventionism” = support for the victories of our enemies = treason.
But none dare call it treason.
This is the problem. We allow this cancer to grow, instead of dealing with traitors in the only proper way.
We can, and should, draw very bright red lines.
This forum - and other forums - don’t tolerate Holocaust deniers? Do they? So why should we tolerate supporters of the candidate of the Holocaust denies?
Stormfront garbage ins’t welcome here. So why do we welcome Stormfront’s candidate?
Treason isn’t welcome here - so why do we welcome treason’s half-brother, in the form of Ron Paul and his supporters?
Of course forums should be open, to the degree that it’s possible. But you wouldn’t want a giant pile of stinking, rotting garbage sitting in the middle of your town meeting - would you? So why should we welcome Ron Paul’s worthless supporters?
They should, at the very minimum, be banished to the sewers, with the rest of the excrement.
Maybe I misread you initially, I just reread your post and I think we are agreeing.. I am for not booting anyone who is playing by the rules, no matter who they support.
Or should we expose them to the light of day? Show them for who they are so that anyone who is googling Paul will fall across the truth behind his Fraud. Heck, the whole Google Ron Paul campaign is starting to backfire on them as the first couple of pages of results have conspiracy websites and commentary on his relationship with Stormfront and Alex Jones.
That's a load of hog feces and you know it.
Saying “I’m against the war” is just another way of saying “I want the Islamists to win.”
Whatever your reasons for wanting the Islamists to win are - whether you’re an Islamist, whether you’re a soft-hearted fool, whether you think it will weaken the President, whether you’re just plain stupid - are irrelevant, since your views would lead to the same result.
Oooh! Me! Me! I wanna play the Guilt-by-association game!
This Forum doesn't support restrictions on the 1st Amendment. You support a candidate (McLoser) who did just that.
I bet Soros is behind this nutter’s fundraising.
EXACTLY- the so called 'non-interventionism' is actually giving our enemy moral authority over our allies and against treaties we have. We have a defense treaty with Israel (as part of the Oslo Accord) and it is unconstitutional to break that treaty outside proper congressional action. Our enemies say they attacked us because we are on 'their' land, and Paul agrees, yet that is giving our enemy authority over that land, authority they don't have. In Saudi Arabia (for example) where Mecca is, we are guests and Al Qaeda doesn't have any legal authority, so who do we listen to, those who have legal authority and say we are guests or those who don't have authority, are sworn enemies, and whose victory is our becoming 'non-intraventionist'?
People do pay attention.
No, I don't think Huck will get the nomination, but he's put on a solid performance, and Paul and his folk have performed too.
actually I had nothing to say about him until I found out he supported the Soviets in the cold war and spit in Lincoln's face.
His foreign policy is so out of whack with what I think is even remotely possible in the real-world geopolitical situation that it verges on the bizarre.
His domestic policy is a message that no other candidate is giving and that resounds with many people tired of the same duopoly party candidates for more, ‘better,’ government. I suspect a lot of his support is from this angle.
Let's get some things clear.
Nobody on this Forum, Paul supporters included, supports the Islamofascists.
We want terrorists dead just as much as you do.
We have killed thousands of terrorists over the past six years, brought new governments to two countries, etc.
Please explain to me, why we need to stay in the Middle East any longer than we should have, while our borders remain open and we're letting Muslims here radicalize and affect our policy.
Personally, we should have put a giant protective bubble over Israel, and turned the rest of the Middle East into a parking lot. But I know that's not practical.
For the most part, we have accomplished our goals and gotten our revenge. There ain't going to be any more hijackings or terrorist attacks HERE...
You want to remain in the Middle East, keep fighting, which will depreciate our military to the point that a draft will be needed, all the while devaluing our dollar to pay for the war and for unconstitutional domestic spending here at home.
“Who or what are the benjamins?”
Hundred dollars bills, in this case
sounds fun until your name is up there too.
“I wonder how safe votes for women would be with Paul? Obviously he did not like the ban on slavery either.”
You should refer to the constitution for methods of amending the constitution to make womens’ suffrage become unsafe.
Note that the President has no role in this.
Do you really believe a president could make any change on this topic at all?
“Ron Pauls supporters - traitors all - are a cancer upon the Republican Party and, indeed, upon the American people as a whole.”
I really think you would be happier under a system of government other than a Republic.
Based on what I have read of his interview on this topic, I don’t think he addresses the sectionalist issues in the united states in the early and mid-19th centuries at all. This was a much more complex topic than he is making it out to be, and I am not sure there was any logical reason to expect the southern states not to break away at some point, if not in 1860/61.