The other question is can somebody explain this to me? I can't understand how any military person could possibly support Obama...
Because anyone with a shred of military education knows this war cannot possibly be won with the strategy this administration is pursuing?
I really wish we did have other options instead of McLame and Dr Ron Kook doesn’t qualify.
I think that, based on your research, there were fewer than 1000 contributions to the candidates combined might show that either your research was incomplete or not a real indicator of the military’s interest since it’s such a small sample.
Still, out of the small sample, Paul does appear to dominate didn’t he?
Now hold the phone just a minute. Paul having 372 military members contribute to his campaign makes him the military candidate?
Maybe it’s because people in the military have actually read the Constitution?
He’s still a candidate?
IMO, it's the age factor. The military for the most part is a young group and Obama looks like the young candidate. Also, maybe they see the war getting over soon and want someone who will take care of them.
Those two, and maybe the truth just isn't getting out over there.
Minorities in the military?
It matters not who contributes to his campaign, he's still a kook.
Do you have any idea of the total amount of people in the military?
Under 400?
Man, thats not even 1 battalion.
We have 150,000 in Iraq alone.
RP supporters are dedicated but I’d say the numbers are no big deal.
Did you control for the number of non-military people who would lie and say they are in the military?
$167000 / 372 contributors = about $450 per military person. Either my math is off or our current military heroes/heroines (and they are) have a lot more disposable income than I did - or they are very passionate about Dr No.
If your research is correct, no other conclusion is possible: when putting their money where their mouth is, a plurality, maybe even a majority, of the U.S. military are card-carrying Paultards.
They, with their world-wide first-hand experience with U.S. policy up close and personal, seem to disagree strongly with the neo-con keyboard brigades on the wisdom of pretending we can run the world.
I realise this is harsh but the criticism of Ron Paul on this site has often been petty, silly or faintly rediculous (about what many here would say of Paul’s foreign policy).
Consider the source and take it with a grain of salt.
Yes, there are people in the Military do like Obama. They are not obvious about it.
To follow up on #24, did you check the contributors individually to see if they are really in the military? Are are you just assuming, as I alluded in #24, that everyone is telling the truth?
Have in instituted an actual study of active duty military to see what the depth of support for Paul is?
I mean, that is quite a bold headline for such a shallow-assed study.
Did your study control for the number of veterans who are plumbers, doctors, lawyers, electricians, etc., who would report those occupations instead of, say, “former military”?
Did it control for reservists who put their full-time occupation, and not their part-time military status?
Didn’t think so.
Because they took an oath to defend the Constitution. That explains Paul's support.
Obama? Beats me. I guess theres' an irrational, emotionally dominated component in every population.
Also need to include the disclaimer that while the military is listed as their employer, it doesn’t mean all contributors are active duty soldiers.
Perhaps the assumption is being made that military people contribute and vote based entirely upon military issues. And perhaps the assumption is being made that the Iraq War soldiers/vets are contributing and voting mostly on the issue of the Iraq War.
What if these assumptions are incorrect? They could be way off base. What if military personal are much broader than that in their consideration of American national issues?
What if military people who do focus mostly on military issues also believe that there should be Constitutional declarations of war? What would be wrong if military people, who are willing to fight and die for our nation, also believe that the USA should not be involved in nation building?
What if military people believe that U.N.O. influence/dominance in U.S. policy is outrageous and wrong? What if military people believe that the US should ignore, or even get completely out of the U.N.O. ?
Who would suggest that our military personnel are so narrow in their education and understanding of our nation’s policies, issues and problems? Maybe they have come to understand that, as important as the U.S. Military is, there is much more than military issues on which to elect a president.
I could very easily understand military personnel voting for Congressman Paul. There are many and varied issues at stake.
This is being Posted by a 6-1/2 year longevity, Viet Nam era Air Force Veteran. I studied conservative politics while I was in the Air Force, and often found myself at odds with American military policy (including rules of engagement and nation-building). I voted absentee from my Air Force post overseas in 1976, and I voted in consideration of a much wider range of issues than military ones.
I would think that military personnel who contribute to Ron Paul are students of many varied issues confronting the United States today.