Paul Raises More Than $3.5M in One Day

Why wouldn't you vote for him? Don't agree with him on the issues?

If the race was between Paul and any Democrat other than Hillary, I would feel secure that the US, no matter who wins the general election, was headed back away from the brink of fascism that the Neo-cons have been creeping this country toward ever since Nixon.

yeah - he and I don't match up on a few things - I'm more of a Kucinich woman.

If the race was between Paul and any Democrat other than Hillary, I would feel secure that the US, no matter who wins the general election, was headed back away from the brink of fascism that the Neo-cons have been creeping this country toward ever since Nixon.

Exactly! I don't support all of his policies, but if he becomes the GOP presidential nominee, the only thing I'll worry about is the possibility of Hillary Clinton's nomination.

I wouldn't vote for him because I think his foreign policy (or lack thereof since he advocates something akin to isolationism) would be disastrous for the United States and because I think there are some problems so large that only government can gain access to the tools to solve them and Paul wants to remove the US govt from everything he possibly can. I do like the fact that the Republicans are considering a candidate that isn't Bush Lite since Bush is the fellow that convinced me being a conservative Democrat rather than a moderate Republican was the way to go. I also like the fact that Paul is going to be able to get into the mix more in debates and gain more attention. The Republican Party has to look in a mirror every time Ron Paul opens his mouth and I think that's a very healthy thing given how they have governed since 9-11.

Scott,
Isolationism would be a wrong choice of words for Dr. Paul.
He's a strict non-interventionist, but that's vastly different from an isolationist.

To be honest, the reason I said "something akin to isolationism" is because I'm not precisely sure how to describe Paul's views on foreign policy. Could you describe his view and perhaps give some examples?

Essentially, it would be free, open and unrestricted trade with everyone in the world, but we wouldn't be using our military as the world's police force like it is now.

Granted, that's a very rough overview.

we wouldn't be using our military as the world's police force like it is now.

We'll be using Blackwater and the armed forces of poorer countries.

We'll be using Blackwater and the armed forces of poorer countries.

But that wouldn't be non-interventionist, which is what Ron Paul is.
I think you're confused.

I think Ron Paul will look the other way. He's only saying the US military will be non-interventionist. Face it: as long as there is capitalism, there will be some sort of imperialism. Paul's all about letting the corporations themselves do it. I'm sure it will be great for the GDP.

I think Ron Paul will look the other way. He's only saying the US military will be non-interventionist.

You think incorrectly. He is non-interventionist because he doesn't want to waste the money policing other nations and end up weakening our security.

He is non-interventionist because he doesn't want to waste the money policing other nations and end up weakening our security.

Exactly. Now, what am I incorrect about?

Listen Ron Paul fans (1984 fans): Paul is the most Orwellian candidate running.

are you kidding me?

What makes him Orwellian? Capitalism?

Capitalism is part of it. I'll try to write an article about it this week. I've been meaning to.

RevEvolution

Well, for instance, he's got all of you believing that Ron Paul has no business with corporations or imperialism.

It's right under your nose. You're just to fanatical to see it.

It sounds to me like Paul is simply going to free companies to hire whomever they want to do whatever they want, like Blackwater. And, trust me, mercenaries will kill anybody if you pay them the right price. At least when our military intervenes, they've taken an oath to defend and protect the Constitution. When a private military company intervenes, they've taken an oath to protect the people paying their salary.

I think you're mostly right, Scott.

Ron Paul People: Remember the history of the American Revolution in relation to taxation, Britain, settling in the New World, Native Americans, slavery etc.

Consider:

What is imperialism?

With the U.S. war against Iraq raging, more and more people are talking about imperialism. Scenes of U.S. troops patrolling the streets of an Arab country, U.S. diplomats handpicking "leaders," and U.S. corporations earning billions of dollars from Iraqi resources bring to mind the most blatant examples of colonialism from the past 100 years. The slogan "No war for empire" is common at anti-war protests throughout the United States.

Marxists use the term imperialism in a particular way. It is not just a description of a particular policy of a particular government. Imperialism refers to a specific stage of economic development of capitalist relations.

Russian revolutionary Vladimir Lenin described the outlines of this analysis in 1916, in the bloodiest days of World War I, in a pamphlet called "Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism." He wrote this not just to describe the forces that were driving the major capitalist countries into war. He aimed to analyze it in order to fight against it.

The major capitalist countries—the United States, Germany, France, Japan and Britain—have certain common economic features. Major corporations in these countries have merged and conglomerated to such an extent where there are really only a few monopolies that dominate national and even international economies. Through a process known as combination or vertical integration, one corporation owns many layers of production. A steel corporation may own mining companies and smelting companies as well as companies producing finished steel goods like cars or tanks. This may be done directly or indirectly, such as through stock ownership or interlocking boards of directors.

Capitalism's "free market" roots are replaced by monopoly. A handful of banks and other financial industries dominate the economy by virtue of their ability to manage and organize money among different sectors of the economy.

The process of transforming free market, industrial-based capitalism to monopoly finance capitalism has been completed in the major capitalist countries for close to a century. What changes is the international relationship between these monopolies in terms of markets and "spheres of influence." During the first great imperialist war, World War I, each of the major European powers needed more resources and more markets than were available. The competition for the domination of these markets led to war on an international scale between the imperialist powers.

Governments—what Marx called the "executive committees of the bourgeoisie"—act in the interests of the centrally organized monopolies. The tendency to war is a reflection of the natural capitalist tendency to constantly conquer new markets and resources. In order to continue to expand economically, an imperialist combine must overcome all resistance from every quarter: workers resistance, resistance from smaller independent capitalists, and competition from imperialist rivals. The drive to war is not a policy—it is a natural tendency of capitalism.

Of course, this drive to war is always hidden under flowery phrases like "solving a humanitarian crisis" or "fighting terrorism." When the true aims of imperialist war become clear to millions—as they did in World War I—the ruling classes can face revolution.

To say that the U.S. war in Iraq is an imperialist war means that it is not a "mistaken policy" or the "wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time." It means that the U.S. ruling class was driven to invade Iraq and control that country's natural resources—not just for the sake of the profits of U.S. oil companies but for its dominant position relative to other imperialist powers.

It also means that the fight against imperialist war cannot be limited to ex­posing the criminal acts of U.S. imperialism in Iraq. It points to the solution: taking power out of the hands of the banks and monopolies and turning it over to the working class. That is the task of socialists in the anti-war movement.

Exactly. Now, what am I incorrect about?

You are incorrect to think that he would pay Blackwater to run wars. That would waste the same amount of money and have the same PR disaster as going in ourselves.

What are you right about is a better question?

You are incorrect to think that he would pay Blackwater to run wars.

I didn't say that. I think it's clear that I said that he wouldn't pay them. I said he would let them do whatever they want.

I didn't say that. I think it's clear that I said that he wouldn't pay them. I said he would let them do whatever they want.

If they didn't have government contracts, what could they do? Can American Citizens fight other wars not declared by congress? Can American citizens hire ten thousand mercenaries?

I guess it's feasible. If I ever get famous, I'm going to need that many bodyguards.

Can American Citizens fight other wars not declared by congress? Can American citizens hire ten thousand mercenaries?

I don't see why not. Corporations, the global ruling class elite and mucho capital would flood to the US if it were tax free. Check this out:

Of the world's 100 largest economic entities, 51 are now corporations and 49 are countries.

Yikes! Those Sprint security guards are going to get mighty intimidating. I may switch to CanAndString Cellular.

Allan, no offense, but I think you are missing the point. The US will continue to have the need for a military which would ensure that we trained new soldiers on a timely basis. After their hitch was up, they would leave for Blackwater where they get paid 5 times as much. Blackwater would then be hired by Corporation X to break up strikes in a supplier country to Corporation X or kill people straight away for money. If you look back to what was done by corporations before there was any government regulation by Teddy Roosevelt, what makes you think they would act any differently if Ron Paul came into office and took off the chains of government again?

That's a problematic question covering different times and different laws. I can't see that happening. It will go the other way first. Blackwater will be the strong arm of the establishment which is operating as a dictatorship. Martial law will save Blackwater, not integration in a peaceful administration. But there's no way to tell, especially if they have the cool cell phones and we have the cans.

Martial law will save Blackwater? I'm not terribly concerned about Blackwater being used here, at least not at first. They'll build their power by accumulating money for operating overseas in locales that have governments too weak to stop them. Over several years they might acquire the ability to go head to head with the government. Either way I don't want a President that will enable their growth which is why I'll be voting for a Democrat rather than a Republican because any Republican, including Paul, is going to grease Blackwater's path to growth.

because any Republican, including Paul, is going to grease Blackwater's path to growth.

I beg to differ, but the answer lies in their constitutionality. Also, with all the other troops coming home and the military budget being downsized, I don't see how they would be needed. How would Paul, just being Republican, help Blackwater?

Paul would help them by removing most, if not all, government regulation from business. That will free Blackwater from govt regulation but, most importantly, it will free other corporations to hire Blackwater to do their bidding with force. That's the biggest problem a Paul presidency would create.

What sort of bidding? Do you mean foreign or domestic? I still can't picture a scenario where Blackwater is hired by a corporation in any large endeavor.

Their bidding would start out foreign. I know that Chiquita, from my hometown in Cincinnati, got in trouble for hiring mercs in Honduras to murder the leaders of striking banana pickers so that the pickers would go to work and stop demanding higher wages. That was on the front page of The Cincinnati Enquirer a couple of years ago. If there weren't regulations here in the US, the stuff would go on much more often with better quality mercs like those of US companies like Blackwater. If you unleash being able to use force to improve profits, this is something that will grow tremendously if unchecked and, IMO, it would be morally wrong.

I can't see that happening in a Paul administration. It's to dirty not to stop. The political environment wouldn't allow it. We'll see. I hope. I would like to see that article. Sounds like Columbia. Jesuits get a bad deal sometimes. I'm not eating Chiquita stuff anymore. I will still visit Cincinnati though.

What kind of regulations do you think we have on Blackwater now?

I haven't checked.

Perhaps you should do so before assuming there are any.

Perhaps you should do so before assuming there are any.

When did I assume there were any? I mentioned Contracts.

The original comment was targeted at Schroeder. He seems to think that Blackwater will somehow be much more powerful due to removed regulations if Paul is in office. I want to know which regulations he thinks will be removed and why - if there are any.

Likely, he is just playing into the politics of fear. Quite the neoconservative tactic.

Like I said, I'm clueless about the regulations they may or may not be under. I would worry about the contracts being cut off. Like a drowning things thrashes, Blackwater would be. Scary.

Ron Paul Group here at Newsvine

I think the fact that Fox is trying to sweep paul under the carpet proves that Paul is the only true conservative running on the republican ticket this fall.

that is their modus operandi... make fun of Democrats, hide real Conservatives, promote neo-con fascists.

I don't know about FOX, but Wolf said a blurb about the money raised earlier this afternoon. He said something along the lines of 'now we can't confirm any of this money, we'll have to wait until the end of the quarter to see the real count'....

so is this just some kind of fake internet money? just like they said that it was people spamming the online polls and such? The media is still hesitant to back Dr. Paul, its sad.

See while he has his raving, roving band of supporters, I think there are a huge number of people like us Bodhi, that think america could do a lot worse than Ron Paul. Just like it is hard to find a Hilary supporter, it is just as hard to find someone that absolutly hates Ron Paul.

uh-oh. I don't like Ron Paul one bit. It's hard to like someone that would let corporations do whatever they want.

Looks like my prediction is coming true. Better start writing that article...

J.S. - Based on what you've said, I would think that corporations would really like Ron Paul then. Funny how none of the corporations give donations to the Ron Paul campaign, instead they contribute to Hillary, Rudy, Mitt, etc.

Why is that do you think?

Think about it and formulate an answer.

They would rather spend their money on things that will generate a profit than propping up a candidate that can't raise his own money. Perhaps corporations will start donating to Ron Paul's campaign now that they know he can inspire this kind of fundraising.

BTW, letting corporations do whatever they want is what a Libertarian believes. Markets correct themselves and factor in social costs when they do business so they don't need govt regulation. I think that's false, but Libertarians believe it.

Republicans and democrats have been beating this anti-corporate drum for eons! Have government regulations made an iota of difference? The truth is, regulations don't work. They establish false price floors and ceilings and the only thing affected in the end is competition. The big boys keep winning while the small ones lose out. Government fails at everything!

Yes, clearly regulations don't work. That's why the Ohio River is completely polluted and the Yangtze River is sparkling clean. ;-) For thinking you understand economics, you skipped over what the point of a business is. A BUSINESS' SOLE JOB IS TO MAKE A PROFIT. They will do whatever the market will bear and that includes selling children's toys with high lead content in the paint, having their waste disposal policy consist of dumping it in the local river and using insider knowledge to defraud the average investor, stealing his money by proxy. We had laissez faire economic policy in this country and it produced about the same thing that is going on in China now. Would you like to trade your life here for one in China where there aren't any bothersome economic regulations on business? You could be the CEO of a company in the land of the smothered sun... I say smothered because, in certain cities in China, you can barely see the sun because of the fumes in the air.

So, tell me again about how responsible free markets are about policing themselves?

Government fails at everything!

Don't be so negative. Governments are great at making war!

Scott, I think the idea of private property addresses your concerns. I'm not so sure China is a good example of a laissez faire system.

J.S. - Based on what you've said, I would think that corporations would really like Ron Paul then. Funny how none of the corporations give donations to the Ron Paul campaign, instead they contribute to Hillary, Rudy, Mitt, etc.

Why is that do you think?

Think about it and formulate an answer.

Corporations can't legally lend to campaigns since the McCain/Feingold campaign finance reform act was passed. However, people from corporations (from the board, managers, working class) can donate. Here is where Ron Paul's loot is coming from:

Google Inc $22,750
US Army $21,148
US Navy $14,132
Microsoft Corp $12,863
Huffines Communities $11,850
US Air Force $11,350
Cisco Systems $8,900
Verizon Communications $8,496
Ford Motor Co $7,650
General Dynamics $7,100
Andres Properties $6,900
General Motors $6,351
US Postal Service $6,109
US Dept of Defense $6,100
Apple Inc $5,860
Glen A Schuberg Inc $5,300
Verax Chemical $5,244
Raytheon Co $4,814
Helio Llc $4,800
ITT Industries

There are a myriad of reasons why the ruling class chooses the others before Paul. They don't see him as a viable candidate. Many consider him a kook. Corporations like illegal immigrants, because they don't have to pay them much and they are really easy to exploit.

Anyway, nothing here negates the fact that President Ron Paul would let big and dirty corporations do whatever they want. Ponder that and formulate an answer.

Anyway, nothing here negates the fact that President Ron Paul would let big and dirty corporations do whatever they want. Ponder that and formulate an answer.

Except the hiring of illegal immigrants (people that are simply trying to make a decent living too).

And of course eliminating corporate welfare. Don't forget that little bit.

Corps do not want Ron Paul in because he will destroy the nexus between them and the government, forcing them to fend for themselves in the legal world.

Without accountability and regulations -- corporation will have no trouble fending for themselves in the legal world. No taxation and other benefits from Libertarians = no need for corporate welfare.

Ron Paul does have anti-regulatory views, true. That can be a positive or a negative depending on your point of view. He is against any regulation of the internet, for example. I seeded a link this morning that has his policy positions on a mumber of issues that don't normally get addressed, "Facing the Music: Will the Real Ron Paul Please Stand Up?"

You also need to remember that the president is not a dictator, when the system works properly there is a balance of power. It is unlikely that Paul could single-handedly repeal every environmental and consumer-protection law on the books.

You also need to remember that the president is not a dictator, when the system works properly there is a balance of power.

Two things.

1. His nickname is Dr. No. That could mean a high amount of vetoes on essential spending like the post office, roads and health care.

2. He swears complete allegiance to the constitution -- so which branch of power will be able to stop him when he decides to act to eliminate the unconstitutional IRS? No branch. His ideology combined with the presidency would justify his ripping things apart for being unconstitutional. He will be a constitutional dictator. He's too fundamentalist for my taste.

The good things about Ron Paul are not worth the bad things.

The IRS is an executive agency so he is within his right to stand them down.

What exactly is a constitutionalist dictator? one who follows the laws of the land and forces other to do so as well? What are you... right out of 1984? What a Neo-con thing of you to say really.

Behind My Screen:

What exactly is a constitutionalist dictator? one who follows the laws of the land and forces other to do so as well? What are you... right out of 1984? What a Neo-con thing of you to say really.

A constitutionalist dictator would be a leader that derives ultimate power from the Constitution which, if Paul acts unilaterally to eliminate agencies and other things as some have said he would, he would essentially be.

What are you... right out of 1984? What a Neo-con thing of you to say really.

That's funny.

Abolishing income taxes would require the repeal of the 16th amendment, the president couldn't do this on his own. Come on kids, this is 7th grade. I know it's a boring exercise, but honestly, the entire constitution, amendments and all, is a 33 page paperback book.

A constitutional dictator? This is just getting silly.
It seems we're talking about the constitution like it's some abstract religious document that we can choose to believe or not. It is the rulebook limiting the power of government. If we wish to change it, we can. I stress, WE. Often we choose to ignore our responsibility to be vigilant at our own peril. Just for kicks, look up the 15th amendment, see how long it took us to enforce it.

Abolishing the Income tax is something he can not do, but firing everyone at the IRS is something he CAN do.

No IRS workers, not income taxes being collected.

and Scott... as the head of the Executive branch, the president can do a lot of things to that branch that will mess up a whole lot of stuff. That does not make him.her a dictator at all.

Good comment.

What day did Neo take the Red Pill? That drive would make even Bill'O shut up.

I hope it does. It is sad to see other conservatives still spinning the results.

Please don't. Keep it on line. We have political things to do. There are too many events already, it's hard to do petition drives and such. It has to turn political now, there's not much time.

I was thinking about something similar. The date I was thinking of was December 16, 2007. It is the anniversary of the Boston Tea Party. That act of defiance and patriotism is known to every American, much more than Guy Fawkes. It would bring home Ron Paul's message about the large oppressive state.

I know Money Bombs are overrused but having a fundraiser coincide with rallies or people signwaving on that day would garner a lot of notice. It is worth consideration, Paul does need to get notice from somewhere besides the internet. This could do it.

I think Miles has the best idea. I didn't even know this was going on until it showed up in the news that Ron Paul made $4M in one day. Furthermore, I didn't know the significance of the day until I read it a few paragraphs into the story. Yes, it worked well for the crowd that it was playing to, but if he wants a broad consensus of people to take a look at him he needs to use at least an American anniversary to plan an event on.

I did, my first political donation ever.