• Current Events & Politics
    Welcome Guest
    Please read before posting:
    Forum Guidelines Bluelight Rules
  • Current Events & Politics Moderators: tryptakid | Foreigner

The One and Only Official CEP Ron Paul Thread

Hell yeah! What # was the 'goal', so to speak? <'as much as possible' doesn't really count lol, I mean was there any specific # that was the aim?>
 
last updated: 12/16/07 08:54 PM EST
total raised today: $4,946,122
total raised Q4: $16,496,128
average daily total: $214,235
projected Q4 total: $15,203,460
total donors today: 45,488
average daily donors: 2,355
total donors Q4: 181,315
days to end of quarter: 15

I really hope it cracks 5 million.
 
Ron Paul Loonies Raise ~6 Million in a Single Day

Washington Post
On Tea Party Anniversary, Ron Paul Raises Millions

Rep. Ron Paul, whose rock star status on the Internet has singlehandedly fueled his campaign, is poised to break another online fund raising record.

His own.

On Nov. 5, which was Guy Fawkes Day, a symbol of rebellion in British history, Paul hauled in $4.3 million in 24 hours -- the most money raised online by a candidate in a single day. Today, the 234th anniversary of the Boston Tea Party, the day that helped spark the American Revolution, Paul's Web-savvy, intensely loyal supporters planned another "money-bomb." And by 6 p.m. EST, the "Paulites" had raised $4.1 million from more than 30,000 donors, bringing the Texas Republican's fund raising total this quarter to $15.8 million. And counting.

"We'll definitely pass the 4.3 million [mark]" by midnight Monday, Jim Forsythe, the former Air Force pilot (and Bush supporter) who leads Paul's New Hampshire MeetUp group, told The Trail.

His opposition to the Iraq war sets Paul apart from the rest of the GOP field, the Paulites say, and his fiscal conservativism and fiercely libertarian, live-and-let-live views, have attracted independents, Republicans and Democrats. Though he's yet to break into double-digits in various national and state polls, he recently placed fifth among Republicans in a survey by the Concord Monitor, polling ahead of former senator Fred Thompson and behind former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee.

Paul's online popularity, to the surprise (and envy) of other Republican campaigns, proves to be one of the most fascinating fund raising stories of the year. He's the only candidate, Republican or Democrat, to increase his fundraising haul with every quarter, raising $640,000 in the first quarter, $2.4 million in the second, $5.1 million in the third. And more than two-thirds of the money, his aides say, has come from the Internet. In what was first seen as an overly ambitious goal, aides said they needed to raise $12 million by Dec. 31 to be able to stay competitive in the early primary states. With the money raised, campaign spokesman Jesse Benton said Paul bought television spots in Iowa and New Hampshire and radio ads in Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, Nevada and Florida. Benton added that the campaign has attracted 107,000 donors this quarter, with the median contribution of about $50.

"We're in a really good position, money-wise," Benton told The Trail.

-- Jose Antonio Vargas

The as yet to be confirmed total rests somewhere between 5.92 million and 6.2 million - depending on the source.

CNN has already reported on the fund raising - and got the news wrong.
http://s212.photobucket.com/albums/...view&current=CNNReportsonRonPaulMoneyBomb.flv

They reported the funds as "pledges" which isn't true - the total is cash pulled in online. (I do not know if this included phoned in pledges or not.)

Sources include
http://ronpaulgraphs.com
http://paulcash.slact.net/

And numerous people taking screen shots at midnight last night and midnight tonight and doing some math.

As the totals begin to be formally calculated, the videos from the Tea Parties around the world (France, England, Boston, Austin TX, Santa Monica CA, and others...) begin to be uploaded, and the media struggles to catch up with what happened today.

The blimp soared over South Carolina, just in case the 6 Million raised doesn't catch their interest...

Today was a good day to be a Ron Paul supporter.
 
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071217/ap_on_el_pr/paul_fundraising

COLUMBIA, S.C. - Republican presidential hopeful Ron Paul's supporters raised over $6 million Sunday to boost the 10-term Texas congressman's campaign for the White House.

ADVERTISEMENT

Called a "Money Bomb," the goal was to raise as much money as possible on the Internet in one day. The campaign's previous fundraiser brought in $4.2 million.

At midnight EST, donations were over $6 million, according to the campaign Web site. Those donations are processed credit card receipts, said Paul campaign spokesman Jesse Benton. Benton said the median donation is about $50 in the fundraiser, which was the idea of Paul supporters who are not officially connected to the campaign.

Trevor Lyman, a Paul supporter who is traveling the country following the Ron Paul blimp, said the date of the fundraiser coincides with the 234th anniversary of the Boston Tea Party.

The Ron Paul blimp is an aerial billboard emblazoned on one side with "Who is Ron Paul? Google Ron Paul." The other side reads "Ron Paul Revolution." The blimp, another grass-roots effort, was in Chester, S.C., on Sunday, and organizers hope to get it to New Hampshire before the Jan. 8 primary there.
And then there's this one...
The associated press is claiming more than 6 mil.
We'll see where it ends up.
 
Ron Paul and I fundamentally differ on the issue of abortion. I believe he grossly misinterprets 2nd Amendment rights, as it is important to remember that the 2nd Amendment should be interpreted as the right of citizens to a militia, not the unilateral right to own a gun. While I do not per se oppose personal gun ownership (except in the case of convicted felons or anyone who cannot pass a strict process including a background check) I believe the Second Amendment protects the rights of an inhabitant of a given state to voluntarily enter into service to protect the state's interests and, consequently, the interests of its inhabitants.

I agree with him on certain points that relate to immigration and tax. I differ from most Dems in that I support the opportunity for US citizens to invest their Social Security as they choose - a/k/a partial privatization. As to immigration, I believe the policies currently in place are clearly not working. I don't think building a physical fence on the Mexican border will solve anything and will only make those who are here or wish to be here (of any nationality) disinclined to follow the laws in place.

The supreme law of the land is the Constitution. Ron Paul wants to take away my right to choice, which was guaranteed me and all women under Roe v. Wade. Ron Paul cannot interpret the Second Amendment correctly. He is stepping all over the Constitution and the American people are paying him in his campaign to become Chief Executive. Did these people miss out on 6th grade civics?

If you are an American voter, I urge you to read the Constitution and interpret it as the flexible, adaptable document our Founding Fathers (and behind the scenes, our Founding Mothers) intended to last for our posterity. It is up to all of us to ensure that the most supreme law of the land, the Constitution, is upheld. The Constitution is meant to grant rights; not restrict them (although interpretations have involved both scenarios over time).

Ron Paul is blatantly attempting to exploit the Constitution. He is not the reformer he claims to be. Don't be duped.
 
I think his stance on abortion is more along the lines of states rights vs federal rights with regards to the issue. From a political perspective. On a personal level he's against abortion but I think what he wants is each state to be able to make its own choice on the issue. As far as I can tell he doesn't want to abolish abortion. That's just what his opponents are making it out to look like.

Everything about his campaign is about state's rights and reducing the size and influence of the federal government on all issues, especially spending and the economy. This is just another branch of that thinking process I think.

* Get the federal government out of abortion decision. (Nov 2007)
* Delivered 4000 babies; & assuredly life begins at conception. (Sep 2007)
* Sanctity of Life Act: remove federal jurisdiction. (Sep 2007)

* Nominate only judges who refuse to legislate from the bench. (Sep 2007)
* Save "snowflake babies": no experiments on frozen embryos. (Sep 2007)
* No tax funding for organizations that promote abortion. (Sep 2007)

* Embryonic stem cell programs not constitionally authorized. (May 2007)
* Voted NO on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines. (Jan 2007)
* Voted NO on allowing human embryonic stem cell research. (May 2005)
* Voted NO on restricting interstate transport of minors to get abortions. (Apr 2005)
* Voted NO on making it a crime to harm a fetus during another crime. (Feb 2004)

* Voted YES on banning partial-birth abortion except to save mother’s life. (Oct 2003)
* Voted NO on forbidding human cloning for reproduction & medical research. (Feb 2003)
* Voted YES on funding for health providers who don't provide abortion info. (Sep 2002)
* Voted YES on banning Family Planning funding in US aid abroad. (May 2001)
* Voted NO on federal crime to harm fetus while committing other crimes. (Apr 2001)
* Voted YES on banning partial-birth abortions. (Apr 2000)

* Voted NO on barring transporting minors to get an abortion. (Jun 1999)
* No federal funding of abortion, and pro-life. (Dec 2000)
* Rated 0% by NARAL, indicating a pro-life voting record. (Dec 2003)

Personally I'm pro-Choice but anti abortion. I don't like the idea of abortion but I recognize that regardless of my viewpoints on it, its going to happen whether its legal or illegal. I also recognize that since its not my body and hell, I'm not even a woman, my viewpoint is pretty much meaningless anyways. Furthermore, in countries and places where its illegal, there are still just as many abortions, but there is a much higher rate of bad shit happening like women dying trying to abort. So I see legalized abortion as not promoting abortion since its going to happen anyway but saving lives by making something that happens anyway safer for those involved. Anyway thats my view on it. With such a viewpoint I don't see anything wrong with Ron Pauls points above. The bolded ones are the ones I agree with although I don't think I completely understand the "harm a fetus while committing a crime" one or the legislate from the bench one. It seems like he wants to just limit federal government involvement in the process and to prevent partial birth abortions and genetic research on embryos. I don't see anything wrong with those things at all.
 
Last edited:
I believe in states' rights as well. I also believe that it is not the right of any state, at any time, to restrict a woman's right to choose.

See here the section of Paul's website entitled "Life and Liberty" wherein Paul explicitly states the "fact" that life begins at conception, as per his authorship of and support of HR 1094. This is inconsistent with both medical fact (did his "40 years as an OB-GYN" teach him nothing?) and accepted practice under the law.

Women and families and all people do not need to be dictated to as to a given moment where life begins which is by its nature speculative. It is, and must remain, a personal decision.

This is a direct quote from Paul's website:

As an OB/GYN doctor, I’ve delivered over 4,000 babies. That experience has made me an unshakable foe of abortion. Many of you may have read my book, Challenge To Liberty, which champions the idea that there cannot be liberty in a society unless the rights of all innocents are protected. Much can be understood about the civility of a society in observing its regard for the dignity of human life.

A doctor can choose to, or not to, perform abortions. That is a personal choice. Just like I have a personal choice as to whether I continue a pregnancy (note: I am not pregnant and never have been, so the abortion issue is not personal to me as anything other than a woman). I wonder what this "pro-life" doctor would say if he were to lose a paycheck by not performing abortions?

No, he's just running for President and getting an obscene amount of funding instead.

What if we held our politicians accountable for failure to uphold the law? Last I checked, that fell under the category of treason.
 
^ oh come on. This is the ONE issue you have with him so he's "trampling" on the consitution? he hasn't even said he'd try to illegalize it he merely says that he doesn't agree with it and thinks it should be the states right. Which you happen to agree with because - that's how the constitution would have it, no?

not to be a jerk but you are being a little hypocritical there. don't you think it would be ideal if each state had a pro-abortion stance but the federal government had no position in the matter? I think that's what the constitution would want personally. how does that make him anti-constitution?

oh and the treason thing just makes me wnat to lol.
 
aanallein said:
I think his stance on abortion is more along the lines of states rights vs federal rights with regards to the issue.

You made edits to your post while I was responding which edits include Paul's voting record as it pertains to the issue of abortion.

No one, ever, promotes abortion as such. I am lucky (and probably less fertile than many women) that I have never been faced with that decision. I find it much more unconscionable to bring life into the world as a matter of policy - state or otherwise - than I do to provide individuals with the right to choose for themselves.

If Paul were to personally pledge to provide each of those "innocents" (see above website for citation) with a good life and enough resources to become healthy adults, I might flip my position and vote for him. In the meantime, he has put forth as part of his platform that he has introduced, and will continue to introduce, bills to step on my rights. That is absolute caca and I, for one, won't have it.
 
aanallein said:
^ oh come on. This is the ONE issue you have with him so he's "trampling" on the consitution? he hasn't even said he'd try to illegalize it he merely says that he doesn't agree with it and thinks it should be the states right. Which you happen to agree with because - that's how the constitution would have it, no?

not to be a jerk but you are being a little hypocritical there. don't you think it would be ideal if each state had a pro-abortion stance but the federal government had no position in the matter? I think that's what the constitution would want personally. how does that make him anti-constitution?

oh and the treason thing just makes me wnat to lol.

1. It isn't the only issue I have with him. And "illegalize" is a non-word attempt at euphemism for taking away the rights of the people.

2. I see nowhere in Paul's policy statement that he is for the states' rights to decide for themselves whether to continue to preserve a woman's right to choose.

3. It is not up to anyone but me (and, to an extent, the other party involved) to decide whether I should have a child or not. And the government has done a shit job so far in providing for what would might (and might most kindly) have been the product of an abortion. Paul utterly fails to state what we do with those otherwise aborted "individuals" once they are born. He then has the audacity to say that he wants to cut taxes. That is the hypocrisy here. Who is going to pay for all of these babies without a personal guarantee of appropriate and appropriately allocated funding?

4. Bill Clinton got impeached for getting a blowjob by an intern and then lying about it. We held our Chief to higher standards than that and it did constitute a "high crime/misdemeanor" under the Constitution, so it was right in that context that he was impeached. As such, any American who supported the impeachment of Clinton cannot, by definition, support Ron Paul.
 
^ but he hasn't. he hasn't tried to make it illegal he just wants to make it the state's choice. are you against him on the principal alone and the fact that he holds a different viewpoint than you? that's pretty juvenile if he's not planning to act on his feelings (ie, making abortion universally illegal - infact he would be AGAINST such an action considering his viewpoints on the constitution).

likewise i think its juvenile or atleast misinformed of you to claim he's "anti-constitution" when he clearly isn't any such thing at all.
 
aanallein said:
^ but he hasn't. he hasn't tried to make it illegal he just wants to make it the state's choice. are you against him on the principal alone and the fact that he holds a different viewpoint than you? that's pretty juvenile if he's not planning to act on his feelings (ie, making abortion universally illegal - infact he would be AGAINST such an action considering his viewpoints on the constitution).

likewise i think its juvenile or atleast misinformed of you to claim he's "anti-constitution" when he clearly isn't any such thing at all.

Read the legislative initiatives he himself initiated and weep.

Since it appears you need this spelled out more explicitly, read the bills in full your candidate authored and/or cited in the link I posted above, and then come back and tell me you have the same conclusions.
 
mariposa said:
1. It isn't the only issue I have with him. And "illegalize" is a non-word attempt at euphemism for taking away the rights of the people.

then name another and state how its ant-constitution.

2. I see nowhere in Paul's policy statement that he is for the states' rights to decide for themselves whether to continue to preserve a woman's right to choose.

it states specifically that he thinks each state should have the right to determine individually if abortion is legal or illegal there.

3. It is not up to anyone but me (and, to an extent, the other party involved) to decide whether I should have a child or not. And the government has done a shit job so far in providing for what would might (and might most kindly) have been the product of an abortion. Paul utterly fails to state what we do with those otherwise aborted "individuals" once they are born. He then has the audacity to say that he wants to cut taxes. That is the hypocrisy here. Who is going to pay for all of these babies without a personal guarantee of appropriate and appropriately allocated funding?

edit: k you are right - he's proposed anti-abortion legislation. I didn't know that. as president he wouldn't even be able to do that would he? there's no way he can legitimately impact abortion legislation in america so why would you base your entire like/dislike of him on this one issue? he can't possibly make it illegal, the president isn't that powerful. and this has nothing to do with taxes.. why are you mixing issues.

4. Bill Clinton got impeached for getting a blowjob by an intern and then lying about it. We held our Chief to higher standards than that and it did constitute a "high crime/misdemeanor" under the Constitution, so it was right in that context that he was impeached. As such, any American who supported the impeachment of Clinton cannot, by definition, support Ron Paul.

you can't be serious.8)
 
Ron Paul said:
The right of an innocent, unborn child to life is at the heart of the American ideals of liberty. My professional and legislative record demonstrates my strong commitment to this pro-life principle.

In 40 years of medical practice, I never once considered performing an abortion, nor did I ever find abortion necessary to save the life of a pregnant woman.

In Congress, I have authored legislation that seeks to define life as beginning at conception, HR 1094.

I am also the prime sponsor of HR 300, which would negate the effect of Roe v Wade by removing the ability of federal courts to interfere with state legislation to protect life. This is a practical, direct approach to ending federal court tyranny which threatens our constitutional republic and has caused the deaths of 45 million of the unborn.

I have also authored HR 1095, which prevents federal funds to be used for so-called “population control.”

Many talk about being pro-life. I have taken direct action to restore protection for the unborn.

See citation above for reference. If he takes away my Federal rights, what good are the rights my state guarantees me? It is not an issue of split or separation. If Roe v. Wade was good enough to bring to the Supreme Court (a Federal entity) then it's good enough to ask a candidate for the Presidency to stop trying to take away my rights under the guise of protecting the Constitution.
 
^ ya I edited.

but again I'll just state it like so:

Ron Paul seems to be one of hte ONLY legit candidates that actually has a moral compass and wants to FIX whats wrong with America. If the only thing you disagree with is his Pro-Life stance and that would convince you to vote for any of the other candidates (who are all shite), then I really just have to wonder about people in this country. He can't change shit as president with regards to abortion. It would never happen. What he could do though is get this country running the way it should be running financially and stop all the BS that's ruining a perfectly good thing. Nobody else wants to actually fix anything they are all just puppets.

He'll never win anyways though so this whole discussion is pretty pointless.
 
aanallein said:
^ ya I edited.

but again I'll just state it like so:

Ron Paul seems to be one of hte ONLY legit candidates that actually has a moral compass and wants to FIX whats wrong with America. If the only thing you disagree with is his Pro-Life stance and that would convince you to vote for any of the other candidates (who are all shite), then I really just have to wonder about people in this country. He can't change shit as president with regards to abortion. It would never happen. What he could do though is get this country running the way it should be running financially and stop all the BS that's ruining a perfectly good thing. Nobody else wants to actually fix anything they are all just puppets.

He'll never win anyways though so this whole discussion is pretty pointless.

I didn't attack Ron Paul's legitimacy as a candidate, just his credentials. We're all (well, most of us) granted suffrage under the Constitution. Specific to the office of the President of the United States, Ron Paul is over 35 and a native-born citizen, so he can run if he likes. I have the right to vote in the US (born/bred here and over 18) and I would not vote for him under any circumstances.

As chief of the Executive Branch of the US, the President has powers to veto or endorse a bill presented to him or her. Again, 6th grade Civics.

If you think Ron Paul can offer our country that, then vote for him. I don't think he can do so fairly, and I don't trust the principles he authored. I agree that overall reform is needed. I don't think that will ultimately happen with Paul as President, and I'll vote accordingly. It is your right as an American to do the same.
 
Top