• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Ron Paul is another charlatan

solletica

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 5, 2011
Messages
6,073
Reaction score
926
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Paul claims he supports a non-interventionist foreign policy. But look at his campaign sponsors. . .

Lockheed Martin $23,425
Boeing Co $22,434
Northrop Grumman $16,907
.
.
.
Top Contributors to Ron Paul | OpenSecrets

In other words, if Ron Paul is president, he'll just continue the same idotic neocon policies of leaving troops in the ME and bombing Arab countries, because if he didn't, his sponsors would lose money.

So if you support freedom, don't vote for Ron Paul.

Thank you.
 
That's not a lot from those jerks. Check out what the other politicians make. These huge R&D places contribute heavily to all campaigns, this isn't a surprise. Ron Paul will not deny donors, but he also will not hold himself to their whims either. If this is all you got, it's pretty weak. Try harder.
 
The problem is in the system. No one makes any run without these donations today. I won't go so far as to say he won't be somewhat beholden. But he, like other politicians, can also use this as leveage for more money later on. The system is flawed. And money is the huge fly in the ointment.
 
That's not a lot from those jerks. Check out what the other politicians make. These huge R&D places contribute heavily to all campaigns, this isn't a surprise. Ron Paul will not deny donors, but he also will not hold himself to their whims either. If this is all you got, it's pretty weak. Try harder.

First Law of Politics - A candidate's allegiance is to their sponsors

Second Law of Politics - A candidate's words have no bearing on their actions in office

Corporations only care about profits, so no corporation would ever give money to anyone if doing so would compromise their profits or wouldn't make them any additional money.

So in order to believe that Paul would actually abide by his words (which itself is silly since politicians have no incentive to do that--Second Law above), you'd have to believe that those military contractors gave money to Paul simply because they were nice.

Ultra :lol:
 
The problem is in the system. No one makes any run without these donations today. I won't go so far as to say he won't be somewhat beholden. But he, like other politicians, can also use this as leveage for more money later on. The system is flawed. And money is the huge fly in the ointment.

Whether the system is considered "flawed" is a subjective moral judgement.

Love it or hate it, the US is just a plutocracy, and plutocracies have certain rules. One of them is that a vote for a candidate is merely a vote for their sponsors.
 
First Law of Politics - A candidate's allegiance is to their sponsors

Second Law of Politics - A candidate's words have no bearing on their actions in office

Corporations only care about profits, so no corporation would ever give money to anyone if doing so would compromise their profits or wouldn't make them any additional money.

So in order to believe that Paul would actually abide by his words (which itself is silly since politicians have no incentive to do that--Second Law above), you'd have to believe that those military contractors gave money to Paul simply because they were nice.

Ultra :lol:

No, they want Paul to remember them and to throw them a bone when possible, as they mean to do with contributing to all campaigns. They are not contributing to only Paul's campaign. Ron Paul, however, has very different ideas on how to run the government including the military which may not work out to the advantage of the big R&D places; which is why their contributions to Paul's campaign are so low. Paul has already been in office and has proven to abide by his word. He also will not deny contributions to his campaign, but explicitly says that it will not influence his decisions; and they haven't. Ron Paul is an exception to the rule.

BTW, did you check out how much money those firms contributed to other campaigns?
 
Whether the system is considered "flawed" is a subjective moral judgement.

Love it or hate it, the US is just a plutocracy, and plutocracies have certain rules. One of them is that a vote for a candidate is merely a vote for their sponsors.

I see it as a flaw because there is no candidate without the sponsors. Sorry. But I like the idea I saw in a cartoon once, make them all wear NASCAR jump suits with their sponsiors on them. ;)
 
Paul claims he supports a non-interventionist foreign policy. But look at his campaign sponsors. . .



In other words, if Ron Paul is president, he'll just continue the same idotic neocon policies of leaving troops in the ME and bombing Arab countries, because if he didn't, his sponsors would lose money.

So if you support freedom, don't vote for Ron Paul.

Thank you.

individuals that work for those companies donated money. so what? this has to be one of the dumbest threads ever started. congrats!
 
That's not a lot from those jerks. Check out what the other politicians make. These huge R&D places contribute heavily to all campaigns, this isn't a surprise. Ron Paul will not deny donors, but he also will not hold himself to their whims either. If this is all you got, it's pretty weak. Try harder.

If this were any other candidate the Paulbots would be claiming it's 100% proof the candidate is a Warmonger, bought and payed for by the Military Industrial Complex Corporate Lobby of Satan's Underworld.
 
Paul claims he supports a non-interventionist foreign policy. But look at his campaign sponsors. . .



In other words, if Ron Paul is president, he'll just continue the same idotic neocon policies of leaving troops in the ME and bombing Arab countries, because if he didn't, his sponsors would lose money.

So if you support freedom, don't vote for Ron Paul.

Thank you.

If you support freedom, don't vote for anybody. They are all bad.

I'd say that if you vote for any of these degenerate ideologies you are signing your name and giving your approval for them.
 
If this were any other candidate the Paulbots would be claiming it's 100% proof the candidate is a Warmonger, bought and payed for by the Military Industrial Complex Corporate Lobby of Satan's Underworld.

guilt by association is not something "paulbots" typically cling to.
 
I really dont think Ron Paul is just another "charlatan". I strongly believe that he will hold to his believes. Someone who has been this contestant over the years is just not another "corrupt politician".
 
They'll cling to anything as long as the word "Ron Paul" is in a sentence.

I support Ron Paul and find what you to be saying to be false. maybe you can climb down off your soap box long enough to get to know some of us?
 
Total hatchet job there solletica about his 2008 contributions. You exclude the seven groups above Lockheed, and, most notably, the top three organizations. The Army, Navy, and Air Force, meaning the people who serve in these branches are those to which Paul would have the most allegiance. In other words, his allegiance would be first to those who have to fight the wars rather than those who merely profit from them. Of course one could also look at the Top Industries and notice that the top "industry" is "Retired" followed by Computers/Internet and Health Professionals. One may also notice that, when looking at the various sectors, Defense is only ahead of Labor with Energy and Agribusiness being tied for third-lowest contributions.

As has been noted, Paul's donors have always been mostly small, individual donors so even those figures prove little, except that Paul gets support from people who work in these areas.
 
Defense contractors don't make donations to be nice. They expect stuff in return, and peace is bad news for them.
 
Defense contractors don't make donations to be nice. They expect stuff in return, and peace is bad news for them.

you have no idea what you are talking about. employees make up that donation amount. If you are a janitor at Lockheed, and donate to the campaign, you get lumped in with that company.
 
you have no idea what you are talking about. employees make up that donation amount. If you are a janitor at Lockheed, and donate to the campaign, you get lumped in with that company.

bull****.

if I make a donation to a candidate, it doesn't show up as a donation made by the City of New York.
 
bull****.

if I make a donation to a candidate, it doesn't show up as a donation made by the City of New York.

if you lie when making the contribution it doesn't.
 
republican politicians destroyed the party

Though I agree with you, I think the important point is that we all agree the party is destroyed. The question is, what avenue do we take to restore the faith in the party?

I'm personally a Libertarian at the National level and a Republican at the state and local levels. I have the same beliefs as a Republican, generally. I just don't believe I should be able to push those beliefs at that national level. Let each state make such decisions. It wasn't the Libertarians that destroyed the party. But electing libertarians at the national level will save the party.
 
Though I agree with you, I think the important point is that we all agree the party is destroyed. The question is, what avenue do we take to restore the faith in the party?

I'm personally a Libertarian at the National level and a Republican at the state and local levels. I have the same beliefs as a Republican, generally. I just don't believe I should be able to push those beliefs at that national level. Let each state make such decisions. It wasn't the Libertarians that destroyed the party. But electing libertarians at the national level will save the party.

The only way faith is restored is through actions.

Republicans have always said the right thing, but as of late, that is all it is. Talk.

Now that they lost power, they are back to talking a good game. To restore the party, they have to follow up the talk with action.

I don’t believe they will succeed. The majority still think policing the world amounts to limited government conservatism.
 
Ron Paul voted for the war in Afghanistan before he voted against it.
He voted against federal abortion laws as strictly unconstitional before he voted for federal laws claiming the Bible circumvents the Constitution.
He declared that he is a strict constitutionalist until he declared the Bible can make the Constitution null and void.
Ron Paul declared against earmarks while declaring his job is to get earmarks for his district - him in the top 10% of how much earmark money he put into legislation.
Ron Paul was against gays adopting before he was for the government staying out of gay issues.

.... could go on and on like that. None are more hypocritical across their history or more a career Washington DC politicians than Ron Paul.
 
Back
Top Bottom