Romney's top donor: Goldman Sachs, Ron Paul's top donor: US Army

Milwaukee Story ^ | 1.2.12 | Andy Booker

[packback]

Mitt Romney's top ten is made up of Goldman Sachs, followed by Credit Suisse (Switzerland), Morgan Stanley, Barclays (UK), Bank of America and JP Morgan. In contrast Romney's co-frontrunner in Iowa, Ron Paul, has a top three donor list made up of the US Army, US Navy and US Airforce.

[RobertClark]

I’ve worked with a lot of young National Guard types. They all say paul is nukken futz. Just sayin”

The only people I know personally that support the goofy old man are old hippies and young retards.

That is amazing?!? My business is a TSP and hold a DPM contract for my local bases, which encompasses all 5 services and all GS's within 300 miles of my location. I speak to several hundred service members and their families weekly in the course of business. The glaring trend that I have recognized over the past ten years is the the GS's tend to be liberal leaning, but a majority of the service members I speak with are independants or indifferent. I hear A LOT of support for Paul, particularly from the enlisted ranks.

[Siena Dreaming]

OMG that's been done ad nauseum.

If you can't already figure out why the US is better off without Saddam and his sons in power I can't help you.

[Sioux-san]

I have heard Paul say that he can see why Iran wants nuclear weapons - a bit different from what you are saying. I remember when Pakistan got its nukes following India getting hers. Everyone was sure that was going to result in a nuclear war.

Please send me the quote where Paul says that America should not defend itself. That sounds ridiculous on its face, and another likely misquote. There’s a difference between Isolationist and Non-Interventionist - would you agree?

There already is a power vacuum that started under Clinton and proceeds today with Barry Soetoro. Bush would have been more credible if he fought these last wars to win decisively and get the troops home. If you are going to occupy countries, you have to show them that you are the Victor and they are the Losers. We never did that.

[Proud2BeRight]

Where’s the “Not this crap again” picture.

If the Paul cult were told to write in “NFL quarterback” to the campaign donation form when they send Paul their allowance from mom and dad, they would. The campaign would have an 800% support of NFL QBs.

To think military people would support a wacko that wants to gut the military, allow nukes for enemies, and blame the US for 9/11 is as nutty as their candidate.

[mas cerveza por favor]

You cannot even think of one benefit?

[Skepolitic]

It’s really amazing how many busboys have APO addresses, as well as promotion announcements in Army Times.

If you guys bothered to check the FEC filings, and Google a few of the RP contributors — rather than just making stuff up — you’d find that they are genuine. But you’d rather discredit the facts about the political contributions by American military personnel because they conflict with your fantasies.

Here, I’ll make it easy for you:

http://query.nictusa.com/cgi-bin/qindcont/2/%28ppb|MATCHES|:US|ARMY*:%29|AND|%28tdate|%3E=|:01+01+2011:%29|AND|%28tdate|%3C=|:12+31+2011:%29

The FEC reports record political contributions, which is putting one’s money where his mouth is. Of course, all US military servicemen put far more than just money on the line regardless of their political opinions. That even includes those who vote for Obama.

No doubt there are a few fakes, but I’ve checked several on the Army list and confirmed the names match real soldiers. Perhaps some Freepers could crowdsource the FEC filings and identify the fakes. I doubt it would amount to much, but knock yourself out if you really believe your own BS.

[driftdiver]

The current govt in Pakistan has not made public statements threatening to bring a nuclear holocaust to America. They have not threatened America with total destruction.

The current govt in Iran has made those threats on numerous occasions.

[Siena Dreaming]

Of course... I can think of many. But it’s been done ad nauseum as I said and if you still take the position you appear to now take what’s the use of me going over the same ground?

[WOBBLY BOB]

Gave Dems 75% Of Its Campaign Donations In The 2008 Election Cycle
http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=d000000085
Goldman Sachs, one of Wall Street’s most prestigious investment banks was also among the many banks in 2008 and 2009 to receive billions of dollars in taxpayer money to help it stay afloat...
The firm tends to give most of its money to Democrats...
Cycle 2008 Total: $5,934,089. Democrats: $4,463,788 (75%). Republicans: $1,459,961 (25%)
Total contributions 1990-2010: Democrats 64%, Republicans 35%.

Obama-Dodd Financial Bill Would Further Enrich Goldman Sachs
http://www.openmarket.org/2010/04/16/obama-dodd-financial-bill-would-futher-enrich-goldman-sachs/
Important points:
1.) Under Dodd’s bill - if it comes to it - creditors of Goldman Sachs won’t have to go the route of bankruptcy court. They will get better than the normal deal that they would get in bankruptcy court.
2.) Dodd’s “resolution authority” would give better deals to creditors of failed large firms. The creditors of smaller failed firms get to go to bankruoptcy court where they will not get nearly as good a deal.
3.) Non-failed, stable businesses would have to pay into this “resolution authority,” with the money being used to pay the creditors of failed Big Banks, etc. The stable businesses will then pass on the cost to the consumers their having to contribute to this “resolution authority.”
4.) Obama was lying when he said that McConnell was being “deceptive and cynical.”

---

IIRC, Juan McLame was a distant 2nd from Obammmy in 2008 in Goldman Sucks donations.

[Sioux-san]

Iran has made these statement since they took over our embassy in 1979 - an act of war then, and nothing was ever done about it under five presidents since Carter. So just what is it that you would want Paul (or any other prez) to do that has or has not already been done? This all seems like a lot of theater to scare us peasants while the Global Elites do their dirty deeds.

[Skepolitic]

Here, I’ll make it easy for you.

http://www.fec.gov/finance/disclosure/advindsea.shtml
Just type in USMC in the Employer/Occupation box.

Ron Paul dominates the FEC report on USMC contributions as well: over 57% of USMC contributions went to Paul.

Some of you folks are libeling real active-duty US soldiers, airmen, sailors, and marines when you falsely claim they did not contribute to Ron Paul. You should be ashamed of yourselves. You have no right to libel a person because you disagree with him.

[Politics4US]

Ron Paul isn’t going to win any primary or caucus. He is a supporter of Occupy Wall St., and he said he would put Dennis Kucinich in his cabinet. He’s to the left of Obama on a lot of things.

[driftdiver]

What do I want Paul to do?

Sit down and shut up. Go home and attend to his private business.

[DugwayDuke]

21 listed USMC as employer. About ten donated to RPaul.

[SJackson]

Thanks, we just didn't make the Ron Paul top ten list. So be it.

As to the libel bull sh*t, having reread the comment you responded to, stick it where the sun don't shine. There's no libel there, I stand by every word of it. The dollar amount of the contributions are insignificant, and the USMC didn't make the Paulian top donors list. Facts, I know they inconvenience Paulistinians.

[SJackson]

I know. The entire thing is a silly arguement.

At the risk of raising another issue, wonder if Ron Paul believes the President should be elected by the military. Is the Paul campaign, to the extent they're responsible for their nutball supporters, in favor of eliminating civilian control? If not these silly arguements about what employers employees contributed $50,000 out of millions are rather silly.

Dare I raise the issue of Paul's hate based contributions. I know I can post about Obama's mideast and euro contributions from last cycle, how about the KKK and Stormfront links last time around?

[MSF BU]

..and of course that assumes they are all honestly filling out the form. Even then, you could work at an AAFES function and honestly put down you’re an Army employee.

[PieterCasparzen]

The glaring trend that I have recognized over the past ten years is the the GS's tend to be liberal leaning, but a majority of the service members I speak with are independants or indifferent. I hear A LOT of support for Paul, particularly from the enlisted ranks.

IMHO...

America is sliding off it's Christian foundation. This is a severe long-term problem for the military, especially the enlisted ranks, in being sure of the righteousness and value of a given war. A President who has the right foundational principles and can communicate them and set the whole of the military on a sure foundational footing enjoys wholehearted support from most citizens and service members. In the absence of such a President, one who is isolationist sounds more appealing than one who sounds adventurous. But this isolationism is, of course, a tempting falsehood, and any student of military history can't help but picture the clueless Chamberlain waving that stupid paper when they hear such talk.

Enlisted ranks are undoubtedly very turned off at the prospect of wars which appear more to do with protecting the interests of big business than securing American freedom. Of course, economic prosperity and freedom are inextricably intertwined, but this topic quickly gets too muddied for most people to confidently adopt an accurate perspective solely through their own ruminations.

This is why service members would do well for themselves to consider three other issues whilst contemplating the Republican primary field. First, a solid Christian candidate. Such a person is confined in the whole of their life by Scripture and is the only possibility for a military that is lead in obedience to it, the wellspring of Western morality. Second, a candidate who seeks to restrain government, in all aspects, to the confines of the Constitution. This is where Paul may appeal to them, but Bachmann has had Constitutional conservatism as a core part of her platform, not only during the campaign, but going all the way back to her entry into Congress. Third, a candidate who has the right business perspective. This is hard for almost all who have never run or worked in a small business, and it truly takes some serious thinking to analyze well. The right business perspective does not cater to the whims of large business, but forces them to get by on their own and holds them accountable for their infractions. It also does not create a boondoggle opportunity to cheat. It does, however, get off the back of business - both small AND large, creating a level playing field for all. Other than that, government actions are at best superfluous, and all too often contrary to the General Welfare.

Ron Paul is getting a lot of support from those who want to engage in drug abuse and immorality.

Any Christian - as well as any soldier - realizes in their heart that this is the path to more war, death and destruction.

Immorality can not save America.

There is NO easy way out of $15 trillion in debt. The only way out is long, slow and diffucult work and paying taxes.

Every government welfare check for a young, abled-bodied person and every unnecessary Federal bureaucrat paycheck is money that is not available to pay down Federal debt or buy military equipment if necessary - both of which would go much farther to preserve life and limb of Americans than having irresponsibility available to everyone.

I often wonder how supposed conservatives can be against abortion - but support the supposed "right" of fornication.

[MSF BU]

What is GS?

[RobertClark]

‘General Schedule’

Which refers more to pay grades for civilian government employees. There are GS1 through GS15.