RON PAUL HAS RAISED OVER 3 MILLION 3$ TODAY!

[qwerty]

BE PART OF THIS AND DONATE NOW!!!

:ecstatic:

:clapper:

[Interrested]

Is there any discussion to this topic..?

[AlonzoMourning23]

Well, inter, you can look at this as 3 millions dollars that could have gone to poor and needy children that was instead wasted on a guy who is on a campaign destined to fail.

[PatrickHenry]

Well, inter, you can look at this as 3 millions dollars that could have gone to poor and needy children that was instead wasted on a guy who is on a campaign destined to fail.
My, alonzo! So sentimental!

You don't approve of the candidate and so we shouldn't let our political speech be so free? Heh!

Think about the poor! Raid Hillary's treasury and Rudy's too! Heh!

[Interrested]

Heh, you could say the same about any political candidate's campaign.

[Elrathin]

Impressive? Yep, but the Republican spin machine won't allow Ron Paul to be considered. He doesn't have a chance in hell for the primaries and there are going to be a lot of tears when he loses it.

[Interrested]

I agree with a lot of his main principles, but his opinions are even too far to the right for me, and a lot of his Libertarian ideals don't settle with me.

[AlonzoMourning23]

Well, inter, you can look at this as 3 millions dollars that could have gone to poor and needy children that was instead wasted on a guy who is on a campaign destined to fail.
My, alonzo! So sentimental!

You don't approve of the candidate and so we shouldn't let our political speech be so free? Heh!

Think about the poor! Raid Hillary's treasury and Rudy's too! Heh!


The thing is that candidates, when elected, can make a real difference. So you are investing in the future when you donate to those who hold your views and have a legitimate shot to win.

Donating to Kucinich, Paul, Richardson etc. doesn't seem much better than throwing money out the window.

[NortheastCynic]

Zo, it's exactly that kind of sentiment that will ensure that the one party...errr...'two-party' system will continue to be as effective as it is today. What does one call a liberal who is resistant to change? Also, it is entirely possible to donate to the poor AND to Ron Paul...I recommend it.

-NC

[Drocket]

The thing is that candidates, when elected, can make a real difference. So you are investing in the future when you donate to those who hold your views and have a legitimate shot to win.

Donating to Kucinich, Paul, Richardson etc. doesn't seem much better than throwing money out the window.

I both agree and disagree:

I disagree with your assessment that donating to anyone other than a frontrunner is a waste. That's because donating is - or at least can be - about more than just helping a specific candidate: it's about helping a position. Donating to a second-tier candidate who takes a strong position on an issue can help shift the debate by forcing the frontrunners to address the issue. Dodd, for example, has taken an extremely hard-line stance against the Bush administration and their claims of imperial power (executive privilege, whatever.) Support that he's gotten for that position has helped force Clinton and Obama to take harder stands as well. Even though Dodd doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of winning, donating to him can make the Democratic frontrunners into better candidates.

Where I agree with you is that donating to Ron Paul is flushing money down the toilet. He has no chance of shifting the debate on the Republican side because the Republican frontrunners have already taken completely opposing viewpoints on most of the issues. No matter how much Ron Paul criticizes the imperialistic actions the Bush administration has taken in the middle-east, he's not going to be able to shift the frontrunner's positions on that because they've already declared that the war in Iraq is really super great thing, and invading Iran will be even better.

The battle lines have already been drawn on the Republican side. Ron Paul not only doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of winning, he doesn't even have a snowball's chance in hell of shifting the debate.

[AlonzoMourning23]

Zo, it's exactly that kind of sentiment that will ensure that the one party...errr...'two-party' system will continue to be as effective as it is today. What does one call a liberal who is resistant to change? Also, it is entirely possible to donate to the poor AND to Ron Paul...I recommend it.

-NC


Northeast, there's no point in change for change sake. There should be a reason for that change, and a reason to change it in the manner proposed.

[AlonzoMourning23]

The thing is that candidates, when elected, can make a real difference. So you are investing in the future when you donate to those who hold your views and have a legitimate shot to win.

Donating to Kucinich, Paul, Richardson etc. doesn't seem much better than throwing money out the window.

I both agree and disagree:

I disagree with your assessment that donating to anyone other than a frontrunner is a waste. That's because donating is - or at least can be - about more than just helping a specific candidate: it's about helping a position. Donating to a second-tier candidate who takes a strong position on an issue can help shift the debate by forcing the frontrunners to address the issue. Dodd, for example, has taken an extremely hard-line stance against the Bush administration and their claims of imperial power (executive privilege, whatever.) Support that he's gotten for that position has helped force Clinton and Obama to take harder stands as well. Even though Dodd doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of winning, donating to him can make the Democratic frontrunners into better candidates.

Where I agree with you is that donating to Ron Paul is flushing money down the toilet. He has no chance of shifting the debate on the Republican side because the Republican frontrunners have already taken completely opposing viewpoints on most of the issues. No matter how much Ron Paul criticizes the imperialistic actions the Bush administration has taken in the middle-east, he's not going to be able to shift the frontrunner's positions on that because they've already declared that the war in Iraq is really super great thing, and invading Iran will be even better.

The battle lines have already been drawn on the Republican side. Ron Paul not only doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of winning, he doesn't even have a snowball's chance in hell of shifting the debate.


I basically agree. The point I'm trying to make is that donating millions to people who can't win, and can't influence the viable candidates, is wasteful. All it will amount to is a very expensive publicity campaign for that individual, and it money better spent elsewhere is being used to fund it.

I think the thing that gets me is that this is money people give because they want to do something good. It's not like they went out and bought a 72 inch tv for 10,000 dollars just for themselves, where the goal is only personal enjoyment. It's money that people give to help the nation as a whole, and it's nothing instead.