• 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

Matt Foley said:
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.
Click to expand...

If you can correlate campaign contributions to voting record, then you can make these claims. Paul, however, does not have such proof. Others do. It is not rare that politicians look out for those whom have heavily contributed to their campaigns. You do have to watch out for that and how they are voting. Someone just taking money from group X does not demonstrate a penchant for using their position to give X preferential treatment and government money. If someone takes money from group X, and has a voting record that prefers X over others and grants them privilege not seen by other companies in the field; then you can start to make the claim that they are bound to that donor.
 
Ikari said:
If you can correlate campaign contributions to voting record, then you can make these claims. Paul, however, does not have such proof. Others do. It is not rare that politicians look out for those whom have heavily contributed to their campaigns. You do have to watch out for that and how they are voting. Someone just taking money from group X does not demonstrate a penchant for using their position to give X preferential treatment and government money. If someone takes money from group X, and has a voting record that prefers X over others and grants them privilege not seen by other companies in the field; then you can start to make the claim that they are bound to that donor.
Click to expand...

LOL. So your point is that corporations just give money to certain politicians for the hell of it - because you believe that's what corporations do. They hate money so find anyway possible to throw it away and give it away.

And Ron Paul has made it perfectly clear he will take money and endorsements from anyone, including Neo-Nazis, bigots and white supremacists who also give him money and endorse him just for the hell of it.

I like how Ron Paul followers trip over and contradict themselves across time. But, then, that's what Ron Paul does himself more than any other candidate so I guess it fits.
 
Last edited:
joko104 said:
LOL. So your point is that corporations just give money to certain politicians for the hell of it - because you believe that's what corporations do.
Click to expand...

Major corporations tend to donate to everyone. Of course Ron Paul will take money from anyone; that's not the problem. The problem is if there is correlation between contributions and voting record. Is there such a correlation with Ron Paul? Can you produce ANY data to back your claims? You want to laugh at Ron Paul supporters; but thus far you've shown yourself unable to actually combat the argument without resort to insult.

Show me the data.
 
Ikari said:
Major corporations tend to donate to everyone. Of course Ron Paul will take money from anyone; that's not the problem. The problem is if there is correlation between contributions and voting record. Is there such a correlation with Ron Paul? Can you produce ANY data to back your claims? You want to laugh at Ron Paul supporters; but thus far you've shown yourself unable to actually combat the argument without resort to insult.

Show me the data.
Click to expand...

A corporation's only allegiance is to profits and the interests of its voting Board of Directors.

Therefore, it's impossible for a corporation to donate any money to a candidate unless its board of directors were certain that the candidate would help that corporation make money or serve its interests in some way.

Hence, if it's true that these military contractors have donated to Paul's campaign, it must imply that Paul intends to serve those contractors, and traditionally, the way to do that has been to keep the wars and military presence going in the ME.

Even otherwise, the fact that Paul is receiving attention from the mainstream press is sufficient to arouse suspicion about his motives. In the past, candidates possessing what appears to be a Libertarian streak have never gotten any attention from the likes of FOXNews, CBS, etc.

But IMHO the fact that he gets even a dime from Lockheed is an automatic disqualification to be President. It means he can't be trusted.

My advice to everyone who supports Paul's stated ideas (which, of course, do not necessarily reflect his real ideas) is to vote for Tiffany Briscoe for President. Unlike Paul, the mainstream press is ignoring her completely, and there's no evidence on the Internet she's receiving any funding from military contractors.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
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".
Click to expand...

Paul is defintely corrupt, or else he wouldn't be appearing in debates.

The major networks control all the debates and would never allow anyone who favored unfettered capitalism to participate, because a true free market system would be detrimental to the major networks' bottom line, i. e. Disney, Viacom, etc. would lose the special laws designed to protect their interests over the competition.
 
solletica said:
A corporation's only allegiance is to profits and the interests of its voting Board of Directors.

Therefore, it's impossible for a corporation to donate any money to a candidate unless its board of directors were certain that the candidate would help that corporation make money or serve its interests in some way.
Click to expand...

Many of the major corporations contribute to EVERYBODY. D's and R's a like. In the hope that maybe they'll be remembered. They don't have to win each election cycle, they just need to win every once in awhile with a candidate who will serve them. A win is major major profit and can sustain.

But did you look to see whom else these companies donated to? Or is this just a "Ron Paul is the devil...look!" sort of threads?
 
Ikari said:
Many of the major corporations contribute to EVERYBODY. D's and R's a like. In the hope that maybe they'll be remembered.
Click to expand...

No, they do not contribute to every candidate.

They only contribute to those candidates receiving mainstream media press coverage and only those they know (not hope) will fulfill their financial/ideological objectives. And parties are irrelevant to donors in modern politics, where "parties" are needed only to maintain the illusion of choice.

Ikari said:
They don't have to win each election cycle, they just need to win every once in awhile with a candidate who will serve them. A win is major major profit and can sustain.
Click to expand...

They will never contribute to a candidate that won't serve them.

Ikari said:
But did you look to see whom else these companies donated to? Or is this just a "Ron Paul is the devil...look!" sort of threads?
Click to expand...

They have contributed to some other of the mainstream candidates and so those candidates are also disqualified to be Pres. However, not all campaign contributions are published so we just have to rely on Websites like OpenSecrets to tell us the ones that have been disclosed.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
I really dont think Ron Paul is just another "charlatan". I strongly believe that he will hold to his believes.
Click to expand...

Obama supporters said the same thing about Obama 3 years ago.
 
solletica said:
No, they do not contribute to every candidate.
Click to expand...

Standard not the third parties. But the main parties candidates they do.

solletica said:
They only contribute to those candidates receiving mainstream media press coverage and only those they know (not hope) will fulfill their financial/ideological objectives. And parties are irrelevant to donors in modern politics, where "parties" are needed only to maintain the illusion of choice.
Click to expand...

They never know. In fact if there is knowledge with Ron Paul, it's knowledge that he won't play ball.

solletica said:
They will never contribute to a candidate that won't serve them.
Click to expand...

You've merely assumed that.

solletica said:
They have contributed to some other of the mainstream candidates and so those candidates are also disqualified to be Pres. However, not all campaign contributions are published so we just have to rely on Websites like OpenSecrets to tell us the ones that have been disclosed.
Click to expand...

But Paul's the one who is the Devil and can't be trusted? Please.
 
Ikari said:
Standard not the third parties. But the main parties candidates they do.



They never know. In fact if there is knowledge with Ron Paul, it's knowledge that he won't play ball.



You've merely assumed that.



But Paul's the one who is the Devil and can't be trusted? Please.
Click to expand...

They can all be trusted to do what their corporate sponsors want. And contrary to the views of the starry-eyed Paul-struck crowd, Paul is no exception.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom