T Nation

Paul Fundraising


Well, today at the ripe old age of 27 I'm finally actually giving money to a campaign. I'm throwing a hundred into Dr. Paul's campaign and I'm damn tempted to throw a second hundred in Mick's name.

He's sitting on 3 million just today and it's only 2:30 Pacific. I certainly have my personal beefs with the man (particularly, re: Iraq), but he is a hell of a lot better than any man out there and one of the few truly dedicated to American liberty.

I think what finally got me to contribute was listening to this speech:


I could absolutely see those very words pouring from the mouth of Patrick Henry. Hell, if Paul had the oratory skills of Patrick Henry and gave that speech the people would be in open rebellion as we speak! laugh



That's alot of money in one day.
I don't understand it at all, but good for him.


I like his domestic stances also. Today's republicans merely slow the rate of growth of government spending, while the democrats refer to even that as "cuts that will starve children and the elderly." I would love to see someone take a chainsaw, not just a scalpel, to government programs, departments, and ultimately spending and taxation. He'd definitely be that kind of President, no doubt.

Also, he reflects my viewpoint as a Christian. Very traditional values, yet, opposed to policing victimless "crimes." Perhaps he draws this view from the same source I do. No, not from deistic fore-fathers, but from Christ. I differ greatly from the Conservative Christian right because of my views. Oh yeah, we pretty much hold of a lot of the same views on morality, but differ greatly on the federal (and even state) government's role.

But in the end, his foreign policy ideas differ too much from mine. But, it's tempting, if not only for the extreme trouncing he'd give to our grossly over-reaching government.


I guarantee when he becomes the GOP nominee people will become way more enthusiastic about supporting him. Many have a hard time dealing with his nerdiness, but frankly, its his best attribute.


Lifty, just because I gave him money doesn't mean I think he'll win. He'll probably pull 10% only. But much like in that fantastic speech posted, I just don't want to say that he didn't make it because I didn't do anything. He's the best man out there to champion our liberties and I can't sit there as he loses and shake my head without putting my money where my mouth is.



Mikey, let me put some perspective to some things. He just surpassed Mitt Romney in on line donations in one day. These are individuals just as yourself that have donated $100. Thats alot of support.


How close did he get to the $ 10 million goal?


Not even close according to the website. He did however set a record by gathering over 4 millions in 24hrs. If nothing else, he's making it in the Guinness book of records.


Hillary pulled in over $ 6 million in one day. His must be a record for the Republicans.

I am sure both records will be shattered before the general election.


Indeed. Goes to show that he's probably the only GOP candidate who can defeat her.


Not a chance in hell.


Spambots Don't Send Imaginary Cash
$4.2 Million In 24 Hours: Now Will The Establishment Be Forced to Admit Admit Ron Paul Is The Real Deal?
by Paul Joseph Watson
Tuesday, November 6, 2007

Ron Paul's presidential campaign received a whopping $4.2 million in donations over 24 hours yesterday, eclipsing any of the other Republican candidates and putting debunkers to shame who had attempted to discredit the campaign by suggesting Paul's support was imaginary, inflated and exaggerated as a result of Internet spamming.

Here's some news for the scoffers and the establishment talking heads who have engaged in a propaganda assault to try and hoodwink Americans into thinking Paul is not a frontrunner - $4.2 million doesn't grow on trees and it isn't plucked out of cyberspace without real people being behind it.

The Texas Congressman has now raised over $7 million since October 1st, putting him well on track to achieve a goal of $12 million by the end of the year.

"Paul's total deposed Mitt Romney as the single-day fundraising record holder in the Republican presidential field," reports the Associated Press. "When it comes to sums amassed in one day, Paul now ranks only behind Democrats Hillary Rodham Clinton, who raised nearly $6.2 million on June 30, and Barack Obama."

Paul�??s campaign raised over 5 million in the third quarter and had over 5 million cash on hand at the start of this quarter, figures that initially baffled those in the mainstream media who completely underestimated the reach and power Ron Paul's campaign of freedom and limited government had, before engaging in a deliberate smear policy in order to dismiss his chances.

The liars who claimed that Ron Paul's success was a result of "spambots", as was inferred by a recent article, or that his entire support base was a complete hoax, as was ludicrously announced by a Murdoch owned newspaper, are looking very stupid today as debunkers are forced to eat their words and accept the fact that Ron Paul's popularity is wildly accelerating.

The "spambots" claim took another battering today as it was confirmed that the source of the emails was not Ron Paul's office, and was most likely a deliberate attempt to discredit his campaign on behalf of a rival, according to PC World experts who analyzed the e mails.

The concept for the November 5th "money bomb" which was responsible for the surge in donations yesterday originates from the movie V For Vendetta, the 2005 cult dystopian hit which grasped the imaginations of many with its extreme relevance to modern day politics in America. It was organized in large part through a specially constructed website at http://www.thisnovember5th.com/

Another donation day is scheduled for Veterans Day, this Sunday, November 11.

The meteoric success of Ron Paul's campaign thus far is also reflected in figures we highlighted this weekend, revealing the websites of all the other presidential candidates to be flat and floundering, attracting no new visitors whatsoever. In contrast www.ronpaul2008.com has seen an 80+% rise in hits over the past three months.


No one man is Caesar.

I certainly like many of Dr. Paul's ideas. I hope he wins. But I suspect that either (a) Americans' addiction to big government will defeat him or (b) powerful people with a lot to lose under his presidency won't allow such a presidency to happen.

You can't turn back the tide of history.


I believe Ron Paul's most challenging obstacle isn't Hillary Clinton but rather attaining enough of the primary votes to become the Republican nominee president. To this reader, the former obstacle appears somewhat easier than the current one.

Though my position has become more optimistic regarding Dr. Paul's chances in relation to his chances in the Republican primaries the likelihood of his campaign achieving victory probably isn't very significant. We'll see. In any event it's interesting to witness a campaign that proposes a significant politico-economic change as opposed to listening to a given number of clones spout largely similar to identical positions on any number of issues.


Wait, you think Caesar was good?

Very likely.

Yeah, in the event he became the president-elect, he would be assasinated before he took office. All you have to do is convince one good-hearted Nazi ahem I mean ATF agent that it is in the best interests of the country that Paul dies and he'll never see the White House. Fortunately for them, A will happen long before B does.



Your defeatism is shameful. Whatever happened to the "government of the people, by the people, for the people"?

If you guys (a free and democratic society with armed citizenry) just bend over and let the "powerful people" screw you, what chances do the Chinese or Egyptians have? And if you (an educated politically-aware person) give up, do you think single mums working three jobs, college kids, or brainwashed religious fanatics are going to do something about it? I don't use the term loosely, but your attitude seems un-American to me.


Some overlooked considerations:

1) The only indication that MSM has of Ron Paul's chances of winning are mathematically inaccurate unscientific polling. They are incorrect and highly erroneous because they only include previous Republican primary voters with landlines. There are not many people who vote in primaries as it is...this number is going to significantly change on Primary Day in NH in Paul's favor.

2) Ron Paul has taken first place in 17 Straw polls out of 37; he has placed second in 6 of 37; he has placed third in 7 of 37 -- that is 30 top 3 finishers out of 37. This number is way more significant than the unscientific straw polls (I'll debate the scientific-ness of the MSM polls with anyone who cares to).

3) Ron Paul is pulling more money in fund-raising than any of the other candidates polling at less than 3%. He has now pulled in more money than John McCain who is considered a "top-tier" candidate among polled GOP primary voters. This is not the funding of a candidate with "no chance in hell" of winning. Chances are, people who paid money to Paul's campaign will take the time to register as a Republican or attend a caucus and vote in the primary.

4) Ron Paul has won every post phone in debate text-poll and internet poll. These of course are self-selecting and hence unscientific but measure quite well the motivation of people who are asked to make a choice. These polls are unhackable because they track IP addresses and phone polls only allow one call per voter. They are dismissed because they do not reflect what the MSM thinks they should -- such as the unscientific MSM polls.

5) The net-roots for Paul are quite substantial. He ranks higher than any other candidate on internet rankings (website hit rates) -- this is expected because MSM doesn't substantially cover Paul so the "open source" nature of the internet will fill the gap in information created thereby.


Its very fine to say this or that but really, what can an individual do, Lixy? Our voting system is somewhat like Iran, only here its money that decides who runs. George Soros backs Hillary or Barack and they have a tremendous advantage. If you're buddies run ABC or the NY Times, guess who moves to the front.

It would be great if an honest person of high integrity was able to run. How long would they survive the Republicans or Democrats media attack-machine?

Our Founding Fathers tried to set up a system that would be impervious to evil machinations. The trouble is that a crisis allows the system to be altered ---- decreasing civil rights, instituting fiat currency, and so on. Those are now powerful forces within our system and until the system utterly collapses (like the Ming Dynasty), its logic will be played out.

Hence the saying: no one man is Caesar.


He won't lose because of some grand conspiracy. He'll lose because he won't get anywhere near enough votes. It's like folks are already making up excuses for why he will lose. I have no hate at all for the guy. I really don't. In fact, there's a ton of things we agree on.



This is why you and I could be friends in real life.

You practice what you preach.

Even though I think ron paul isn't worth a dime, I admire you putting your money where your mouth is.

In real life, I think I could put down my "Mike is a subversive element." Further, I think you could keep from looking for "Big Brother" in the corner, long enough for us to have a decent conversation.