Where's Ron Paul's money going?

[Alonzo]

During this election I've seen 2 ron paul signs. 1 on a side street and one knocked over on a relatively busy street. Other than that the only other thing I've seen is one ron paul commercial but it said that it was not paid for or affiliated with his campaign.

So I'm left wondering, where did all those millions he raised go?

[Drocket]

Cue the Paulies to claim that his campaign isn't about actually winning, its about spreading "The Message" (cue heavenly choir of angels.) Except how much more effective would his spreading of "The Message" have been had he at any point been considered a viable candidate? He raised more funds than any of the other candidates: had he actually spent it on the campaign, not only would he have gotten the message out that way, he probably would have gotten a lot more votes, which would have lead to a lot more media coverage.

As it is, his spreading of "The Message" seems to be limited to some YouTube videos his followers spam on every message board. Whether you think hes running to win or to spread a message, either way: he failed.

[Truth_and_Power]

Cue the Paulies to claim that his campaign isn't about actually winning, its about spreading "The Message" (cue heavenly choir of angels.) Except how much more effective would his spreading of "The Message" have been had he at any point been considered a viable candidate? He raised more funds than any of the other candidates: had he actually spent it on the campaign, not only would he have gotten the message out that way, he probably would have gotten a lot more votes, which would have lead to a lot more media coverage.

As it is, his spreading of "The Message" seems to be limited to some YouTube videos his followers spam on every message board. Whether you think hes running to win or to spread a message, either way: he failed.


Jesus 'failed' too. I prefer to fail in a righteous cause rather than jump on a winning bandwagon to nowhere. Congratulations to all the adorers of the status quo, YOU WON. There, I said it. Now GROW UP AND STOP GLOATING.

[Alonzo]

Jesus won, just not right away.

But I'm of a different mindset. I'd rather accomplish one of my political goals, and none of the rest, as opposed to going down fighting and accomplishing nothing.

After all, do you want to be remembered as the heroic man who accomplished nothing?

[Truth_and_Power]

Jesus won, just not right away.


Do I need to link to the post where you are jeering about ron paul losing and his supporter is saying the ideas, the message, the revolution will go on?


But I'm of a different mindset. I'd rather accomplish one of my political goals, and none of the rest, as opposed to going down fighting and accomplishing nothing.

After all, do you want to be remembered as the heroic man who accomplished nothing?


I guess I have the audacity to hope. Ahh the irony is thick as butta in this thread.

Just be glad that the founding fathers did not try to make a deal with King George to accomplish one of their political goals.

[Alonzo]

Do I need to link to the post where you are jeering about ron paul losing and his supporter is saying the ideas, the message, the revolution will go on?

I do my best to keep it civil, but that doesn't mean I can't have some fun.

Just be glad that the founding fathers did not try to make a deal with King George to accomplish one of their political goals.

Maybe they should have. Not for themselves, but the native American population would have been much better off if they had.

[Alexander Hamilton]

So I'm left wondering, where did all those millions he raised go?
I've been wondering the same thing. I know he had 7 million left at the start of the year, meaning that he had spent about 25 million at that point. Surely he hadn't spent all of it on TV/radio ads and for his campaigners in Iowa and New Hampshire. I've been thinking the entire time that his campaign was extremely poorly managed. He didn't use his resources as wisely as he could have.

[Truth_and_Power]

Maybe they should have. Not for themselves, but the native American population would have been much better off if they had.
[/quote]

Yeah, the brits' respect for indigenous people is legendary.

[Alonzo]

With regards to the native americans it was better than ours.

[Truth_and_Power]

With regards to the native americans it was better than ours.


The result would have been the same. Are you going to argue that the brits would have let them keep half the continent or whatever they were orignally promised?

[Tsky]

Good question.

And I agree with Drocket.

[Drocket]

The result would have been the same. Are you going to argue that the brits would have let them keep half the continent or whatever they were orignally promised?

No, but there probably would have been fewer smallpox infected blankets...

[Truth_and_Power]

The result would have been the same. Are you going to argue that the brits would have let them keep half the continent or whatever they were orignally promised?

No, but there probably would have been fewer smallpox infected blankets...


Because the brits are immune to smallpox or because they don't give out free blankets?

[preservanation]

Gingivitis inoculates smallpox.

[micfranklin]

With regards to the native americans it was better than ours.


Not really.

[PatrickHenry]

Massachusetts is not a meaningful location for the Paul campaign.

Why would he put any money into a failed socialist utopia?

[Alonzo]

Massachusetts is not a meaningful location for the Paul campaign.

Why would he put any money into a failed socialist utopia?


I didn't see him on the NH channel when I watched it.

But whatever MA is (and it's not socialist), calling one of the richest states, with top rated health care, education etc. a failure is bizarre.[hr]

With regards to the native americans it was better than ours.


The result would have been the same. Are you going to argue that the brits would have let them keep half the continent or whatever they were orignally promised?


The brits were playing a role in blocking American expansion at the time, and the louisiana purchase may not have taken place.

I'm willing to bet the treatment of native americans would have been better, though it's anyones guess as to what would happen in the end.

[Mark L Hamburger]

I've been thinking the entire time that his campaign was extremely poorly managed. He didn't use his resources as wisely as he could have.


Yeah, Giuliani spent nearly $20 million/delegate, and Romney spent $1.16 million per delegate. On top of that, these guys got a ton of free media exposure that Ron Paul hasn't been getting, and they STILL spent way more per delegate. To put this in prospective, his spending is only slightly higher per delegate than McCain or Huckabee, who get large amounts of free media coverage.

RP has to spend a large amount of money on TV, radio, and print ads because he is not getting any of the media exposure that is given to other candidates. Seems to me that his campaign is extremely efficient, considering that the other campaigns are effectivly bankrupt at this point, whereas RP still has massive amounts of money in the bank.

[Drocket]

RP has to spend a large amount of money on TV, radio, and print ads because he is not getting any of the media exposure that is given to other candidates.

You're right in that he had to spend a lot on advertising if he wanted to compete with the big boys. I haven't seen an actual evidence that he's spent, well, ANYTHING on advertising. He raised almost as much as the rest of the Republican field combined, and I can't find any evidence that he's so much as sent out fliers. His entire campaign outlay seems to have been some Youtube videos. That's, what, $500 for a DV camcorder and $40/month for an internet connection?

He had the money to blanket primary states with TV ads before Super Tuesday. He didn't. Huckabee managed 10 times the advertising, and that was just from spare chance he found in his sofa. The question of where Ron Paul's money went/is going is a fair one, and one so far unanswered.

[Mark L Hamburger]

He did spend quite a bit on Super Tuesday states. There were a lot of TV and radio ads here in Colorado, and in many states that were basically blown off by the other candidates. There were also many meet-and-greet, rallies, press events, and other voter-outreach type functions in many of the states. The spending that has been happening has been fairly targeted and conservative.

[Osborn F. Enready]

Alonzo said:
But I'm of a different mindset. I'd rather accomplish one of my political goals, and none of the rest, as opposed to going down fighting and accomplishing nothing.

Gaining support for a message, consistently, year after year does not constitute accomplishing nothing. What doesn't compute for you?

Alonzo said:
After all, do you want to be remembered as the heroic man who accomplished nothing?

Better than being remembered as a corrupt scumbag who accomplished a lot.(fill in your choice of names from the selection: Hillary, Obama, McCain, Huckabee)

You are consistent though Alonzo, I'll give you that. :shame:

Patrick said:
Massachusetts is not a meaningful location for the Paul campaign.

Why would he put any money into a failed socialist utopia?

Agreed, it would be like him opening a campaign headquarters in New Harmony, Indiana.


Also, I notice a lot of the conservative parrots talking about how McCain and Huckabee are more conservative than Paul..... they fail to notice Pauls campaign operates on a BALANCED BUDGET with NO DEBT.

I guess seeing isn't believing for some..... :dizzy:

(Gee, I wonder if that's because his campaign money is being used to PAY THE BILLS?!)

[Alonzo]

Better than being remembered as a corrupt scumbag who accomplished a lot.(fill in your choice of names from the selection: Hillary, Obama, McCain, Huckabee)

You are consistent though Alonzo, I'll give you that. :shame:

Why? If you accomplishments are consistent with your values and benefit the people you want to benefit, why? It's not about who's the nicest, it's about who's the most effective.

Certainly have a legacy of corruption isn't a good thing, I'm not saying it is. But neither is being a failure, which is what most people who accomplish nothing are, at least in that particular field.[hr]Gaining support for a message, consistently, year after year does not constitute accomplishing nothing. What doesn't compute for you?

Like Nader? Not many revolutions peak below 5%, but his did. Paul is no different.

[PatrickHenry]

The movement to outlaw human slavery started as a minority opinion.

Later became a constitutional principle.

Don't denigrate small beginnings.

Paul's message is important.

[Osborn F. Enready]

Alonzo said:
Why? If you accomplishments are consistent with your values and benefit the people you want to benefit, why? It's not about who's the nicest, it's about who's the most effective.

Obviously integrity, honor and respect play second fiddle to subjective desire?

Alonzo said:
Certainly have a legacy of corruption isn't a good thing, I'm not saying it is. But neither is being a failure, which is what most people who accomplish nothing are, at least in that particular field.

I would rather fail with respect, honor and integrity, than succeed by becoming that I (CLAIM) to fight against. Hypocrisy is an ugly thing, so I avoid it.

Alonzo said:
Like Nader? Not many revolutions peak below 5%, but his did. Paul is no different.

Your opinion, and you're entitled to it as wrong as it may be.

[Alonzo]

Obviously integrity, honor and respect play second fiddle to subjective desire?


You need a balance. At the end of the day you'll need more than that to improve things.

[Osborn F. Enready]

Are you going to post anything of substance, or just continue the one line jabs that make little sense at all?

[Alonzo]

Are you going to post anything of substance, or just continue the one line jabs that make little sense at all?


My responses have been as long as yours for the most part.

But you go on and on about words, sincerity etc. and seem to disregard the end results. I keep restating that point because you keep ignoring it.

[Osborn F. Enready]

Alonzo said:
My responses have been as long as yours for the most part.

Do you determine post quality by the number of characters?

Alonzo said:
But you go on and on about words, sincerity etc. and seem to disregard the end results.

How so, please elaborate?

The end result is Rons message got out more by his running, than by his not running. He offered the Republican party one more chance to reclaim its original intent, and they haven't. He ran for office to determine the strength of his message in OFFICAL PARTY FOLLOWERS, and has succeeded in getting both Democrats and Republicans to his platform.

I don't see anything but success, but, I would love to hear your logic.
I keep restating that point because you keep ignoring it.

[Alonzo]

Do you determine post quality by the number of characters?

I determine the validity of the "one line jabs" comment by number of lines.

How so, please elaborate?

The end result is Rons message got out more by his running, than by his not running. He offered the Republican party one more chance to reclaim its original intent, and they haven't. He ran for office to determine the strength of his message in OFFICAL PARTY FOLLOWERS, and has succeeded in getting both Democrats and Republicans to his platform.

I don't see anything but success, but, I would love to hear your logic.
I keep restating that point because you keep ignoring it.


And how many people did that help? How many families have health care, how many children have quality schooling, how many run down roads are repaired, how many businesses turned green, how many workers got benefits and how many families got assistance to get out of poverty due to Paul's words?

Paul's words have let to some good parties and rallies. I'm not sure what else they've done, and I don't think most of his supporters know either.

[Osborn F. Enready]

Alonzo, I don't think I am going to waste time debating you much anymore, since you bring no debate. Thanks for wasting my, and the readers time.

[bishop]

And how many people did that help? How many families have health care, how many children have quality schooling, how many run down roads are repaired, how many businesses turned green, how many workers got benefits and how many families got assistance to get out of poverty due to Paul's words?

Paul's words have let to some good parties and rallies. I'm not sure what else they've done, and I don't think most of his supporters know either.

likewise, hillary and obama haven't done any of that themselves... but, they have helped the continuation of the war in iraq, and they have helped to pile on billions in new debt for future generations to deal with. but, far be if from me to insinuate that a hillary/obama supporter doesn't already know about these great contributions and accomplishments.

back to the topic, it's amazing what you can find if you just try looking for yourself rather than waiting for it to be handed to you.. i guess that's the difference between people who look for nanny to solve the nation's problems vs. those who look within. ;)

http://query.nictusa.com/pres/2007/YE/C00432914.html

[Osborn F. Enready]

Great link, and thanks for posting that Bishop.

Notice, Ron is the only candidate with a balanced budget for his campaign....

[Alonzo]

likewise, hillary and obama haven't done any of that themselves... but, they have helped the continuation of the war in iraq, and they have helped to pile on billions in new debt for future generations to deal with. but, far be if from me to insinuate that a hillary/obama supporter doesn't already know about these great contributions and accomplishments.

You spend money to make money. A healthy, educated population provides a larger tax base.

Essentially, you often get a good return for your dollar.

back to the topic, it's amazing what you can find if you just try looking for yourself rather than waiting for it to be handed to you.. i guess that's the difference between people who look for nanny to solve the nation's problems vs. those who look within. ;)

http://query.nictusa.com/pres/2007/YE/C00432914.html


What does this have to do with anything?

Alonzo, I don't think I am going to waste time debating you much anymore, since you bring no debate. Thanks for wasting my, and the readers time.

Is this your way of saying you don't like me? http://www.allemoticons.com/Avatars/crying3.gif

[bishop]

You spend money to make money. A healthy, educated population provides a larger tax base.

Essentially, you often get a good return for your dollar.

oh yeah.. so that's where all those billions have been going. let's just forget democrat/republican sponsored wars, military aid to every country that will invite us over for dinner, pork projects as far as bridge to nowhere... at any rate, it's good to see that all the money spent on education hasn't helped us keep up with foreign students - and good to see that the money spent on healthcare has only lead to higher costs and uninsured people.. damn good return for our monopoly money.

What does this have to do with anything?

you asked this question: "So I'm left wondering, where did all those millions he raised go?"

i gave you a link showing you exactly where all those millions went...

[Alonzo]

oh yeah.. so that's where all those billions have been going. let's just forget democrat/republican sponsored wars

War itself is not always bad. The action by Clinton to prevent genocide in the former Yugoslavia was a good thing, and military action should have been used in Rwanda, and should be used in Darfur.

It's about choosing your wars.

military aid to every country that will invite us over for dinner, pork projects as far as bridge to nowhere...

Military aid can be good or bad, and bringing up one republican senator is a red herring.

it's good to see that all the money spent on education hasn't helped us keep up with foreign students- and good to see that the money spent on healthcare has only lead to higher costs and uninsured people.. damn good return for our monopoly money.

It's about proper spending. The money and programs in education isn't handled like it should be, but cut funding significantly and you'll have a total disaster on your hands.

As for health care, its kind of strange you say that since a good chunk of that money is treating emergency cases who didn't have health insurance and didn't go to the doctor until its extremely expensive to treat.

you asked this question: "So I'm left wondering, where did all those millions he raised go?"

i gave you a link showing you exactly where all those millions went...


Ah, forgot the point of the thread. :dork:

But it doesn't tell me what they were actually used for. I was looking more for evidence and products of that spending (ads and such), not just figures.

The one helpful thing in that link is left blank, the expenditure per state. I was looking for info such as that as well.

[bishop]

War itself is not always bad. The action by Clinton to prevent genocide in the former Yugoslavia was a good thing, and military action should have been used in Rwanda, and should be used in Darfur.

It's about choosing your wars.

riiight... it's more about horrible foreign policy that produces wars for us to fight in the future. we helped early al-qaeda in afghanistan, we gave saddam wmd's, we even helped reignite the balkan wars.. let's have a little history lesson to show the wisdom of meddling where our imperial, 2-party, nose doesn't belong..

our establishment purposely sought to split yugoslavia up into multiple countries - each split on ethnic/cultural lines. the smaller they were, the more they would depend on ol' uncle sam (and the easier it would be for us to control/influence them). the 1991 foreign operations appropriations act (passed in 1990) provided loads of arms shipments as well as "military advisors" into each of these separate ethnic/cultural regions. it also stated that any region that tdid not declare independence from yugoslavia within 6 months would have its funding cut off (this extended to the IMF and world bank as well). a proverbial death sentence for yugoslavia, and a region with a long history of ethnic/cultural conflict. we also trained the croatian army, which was quite engaged at the outset of the wars.

so yeah... great war to choose - especially since we had such a heavy role in creating it. a big thank you to the establishment for this waste of money and life. people wonder why we got involved there rather than africa and it's simple - our foreign policy was a big part of the reason why the balkan wars erupted. yet when paul supporters speak out against this sort of meddling, they're labeled as goofy isolationists.. i guess dealing with our own blowback is the preferred option for pro-establishment types.

It's about proper spending. The money and programs in education isn't handled like it should be, but cut funding significantly and you'll have a total disaster on your hands.

i completely disagree, but if you can give some teeth to your opinion (re: total disaster), it'll be interesting to hear. otherwise, this would be nothing more than debating hollow opinion.

But it doesn't tell me what they were actually used for. I was looking more for evidence and products of that spending (ads and such), not just figures.

The one helpful thing in that link is left blank, the expenditure per state. I was looking for info such as that as well.

there is no such thing as "expenditures by state"... a candidate doesn't go to 50 different distribution companies when mailing out brochures/flyers - they go to a single company. their staff moves along with the campaign by plane, bus, etc., rather than having individual staffs for each state. you should've thought through your question a bit more thoroughly... the information you're looking for doesn't exist for any of the other candidates either.

[bishop]

the silence is deafening. ;)

[Alonzo]

No bishop. Between forum issues and participating in dozens of debates sometimes I miss things, and sometimes I simply forget that I'm still debating an issue, as the little asterisk doesn't tell me whether I've made recent posts in a thread, only that I made one at some point.

riiight... it's more about horrible foreign policy that produces wars for us to fight in the future. we helped early al-qaeda in afghanistan, we gave saddam wmd's, we even helped reignite the balkan wars.. let's have a little history lesson to show the wisdom of meddling where our imperial, 2-party, nose doesn't belong..

First we didn't exactly aid al-qaeda, we aided people who would go on to form it.

Afghanistan is tricky, we aided people fighting off occupation. That war helped lead to the collapse of the soviet union. At the same time we didn't really pay close enough attention to who we were aiding. But there are pros and cons to aiding and not aiding that conflict.

Aiding Iraq was stupid then and stupid now.

Either way, neither example has anyting to do with preventing and stopping genocides. One size doesn't fit all.

our establishment purposely sought to split yugoslavia up into multiple countries - each split on ethnic/cultural lines. the smaller they were, the more they would depend on ol' uncle sam (and the easier it would be for us to control/influence them). the 1991 foreign operations appropriations act (passed in 1990) provided loads of arms shipments as well as "military advisors" into each of these separate ethnic/cultural regions. it also stated that any region that tdid not declare independence from yugoslavia within 6 months would have its funding cut off (this extended to the IMF and world bank as well). a proverbial death sentence for yugoslavia, and a region with a long history of ethnic/cultural conflict. we also trained the croatian army, which was quite engaged at the outset of the wars.

Did the u.s. encourage the break up? Yes. Would the country still have had conflicts due to the separatism of many areas? Yes. The ethnic conflict was there anyway. We supported the separatists, morally solid because if the majority of a people want freedom from a state they should be allowed to do so, barring extenuating circumstances (forming racist or militant states for example).

And when NATO entered fully it was to put an end to a genocide that was starting, hardly the wrong way to use a military.

so yeah... great war to choose - especially since we had such a heavy role in creating it. a big thank you to the establishment for this waste of money and life. people wonder why we got involved there rather than africa and it's simple - our foreign policy was a big part of the reason why the balkan wars erupted. yet when paul supporters speak out against this sort of meddling, they're labeled as goofy isolationists.. i guess dealing with our own blowback is the preferred option for pro-establishment types.

You work with what is there. Bush and Reagan created the situations you are talking about, and I didn't support them and I don't support those actions (afghanistan was borderline without hindsight though, so I can't say what I would have thought at the time) or presidents.

Clinton is some I do support and he worked to clean up that mess and keep it from getting worse.

You seem to be missing all sorts of gray here. Because one action is bad does not mean all are. Pauls view would have opposed reagan and H.W. bush's adventures, that's good. He would have opposed preventing genocide in the former Yugoslavia, in Darfur, in Rwanda and in so many other places. That's extremely bad.[hr]
i completely disagree, but if you can give some teeth to your opinion (re: total disaster), it'll be interesting to hear. otherwise, this would be nothing more than debating hollow opinion.

Here's date for education quality:

http://www.msubillings.edu/caer/quality_rankings_of_education_in.htm

and education spending per pupil (with rank):

http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=14818

There's a general trend between increased $ per pupil and education quality. There are many factors that go into it, but without the money there to provide schools with what they need (pay to keep teachers away from private schools, computers, books etc.), then it becomes increasingly difficult to provide quality education.

It's not about simply throwing money at the situation. Think of yourself, money won't buy you happiness, but there are less obstacles to that if you make 90k a year vs. 15k. At the same time, whether you make 500k and 90k a year probably won't be a major factor. The reason being the lack of funds is causing problems in your day to day life.

[bishop]

First we didn't exactly aid al-qaeda, we aided people who would go on to form it.

a distinction without any meaningful difference.

That war helped lead to the collapse of the soviet union.

the ussr's collapse was inevitable, with or without afghanistan. they couldn't even heat their own schools, and were being grossly outspent by washington due to the cultural corruption in russian politics (not to mention their unsustainable economic system).

Either way, neither example has anyting to do with preventing and stopping genocides. One size doesn't fit all.

and what a great record we have in both preventing and stopping them...

The ethnic conflict was there anyway. We supported the separatists, morally solid because if the majority of a people want freedom from a state they should be allowed to do so, barring extenuating circumstances (forming racist or militant states for example).

And when NATO entered fully it was to put an end to a genocide that was starting, hardly the wrong way to use a military.

we supported the KLA - an organization we listed as a terrorist organization due to its close ties with al-qaeda. maybe it's okay to ally ourselves with terrorists so long as a democrat's doing it? plus, our bombing campaign crippled serbia's civilian infrastructure. we bombed their bridges, oil refineries, civilian airports, railway lines, and over 20 hospitals... most outstanding use of a military. go get those hospitals!

You work with what is there. Bush and Reagan created the situations you are talking about, and I didn't support them and I don't support those actions (afghanistan was borderline without hindsight though, so I can't say what I would have thought at the time) or presidents.

you should undestand by now that i don't buy into any of this republican vs. democrat b.s.. these situations are the product of a political establishment that transcends hollowed "mainstream" parties.