Skip to comments.Romney's top donor: Goldman Sachs, Ron Paul's top donor: US Army
Posted on 01/02/2012 10:06:05 AM PST by packback
Mitt Romney's top ten is made up of Goldman Sachs, followed by Credit Suisse (Switzerland), Morgan Stanley, Barclays (UK), Bank of America and JP Morgan. In contrast Romney's co-frontrunner in Iowa, Ron Paul, has a top three donor list made up of the US Army, US Navy and US Airforce.
(Excerpt) Read more at milwaukeestory.com ...
“Ron Paul, has a top three donor list made up of the US Army, US Navy and US Airforce”
That says a lot!
The fantasy that Paul is loved by active duty military personnel continues.
There are many liberal civilians that work for the armed forces. But it looks cool to those that are easily fooled.
It says he’s done a great job fooling a lot of good people, unfortunately.
Yeah. It says that there are retards who believe that paultards tell the truth when filling out their dollar donation cards.
People are in love with the idea of what Ron Paul says he represents. The basic problem is Ron Paul doesn’t represent conservatism. His foreign policy (such as it is) alone would get us all killed.
paul called Bradley Manning a HERO and a PATRIOT instead of the treasonous little $#$#^% he is. How do you suppose REAL military people feel about that one?
“Let’s see. Should I put down ‘busboy’? Nah. I’ll put down ‘Army Ranger.’ Sounds better.”
Somehow we need to delink The Goldman Sack from the US gov’t.
The media seems supportive of Ron Paul, so many people only know that positive side of him. The media knows it would be easy to destroy Ron Paul in the general election season, giving the win to BO.
Yeah, Paul donors claim to be service members on the form. The claims are unsubstantiated. We went through this four years ago. Notice how actual polling data never bears out this Paulestinian myth.
And welcome to Free Republic!
The people on this thread are fooling themselves. young military types really do like ron paul. I’ve seen it first hand. They do not pick a candidate that will benefit them personally. They pick one that they believe is best for the country. That is how military men think.
That was best for the country?
Why are you asking me? Ask the ron paul supporters, they are the ones that believe it.
Paul probably does get some support from them just like any other candidate. The reality is, some in the Military voted for the Zero. Crazy, but happens.
Why not mention in the article of the top ten for Perry, Gingrich, Santorum?
So why don’t polls of servicemembers even show Paul in the top 3? Perry way outpolls him.
Eh, it would be interesting to see an audited report of this, not that there will ever be one. Read ‘Stolen Valor’; it’s a great expository of (among other things) the number of folks who claim military service who never served or claim to have done things that just aren’t so.
you may be right, but the Foreign Policy we have been living under right now gives NO COMFORT, nor did it under Bush - no candidate is offering any rational improvements for the Defense of our country, just platitudes. Our troops are dying in Afghanistan for no good reason. They were never allowed to fight to win and the ROE is absurd on any level. The rot permeates all of our Institutions, and even though I do agree with Paul on a lot of his opinions, he would still just be another captain on the new Titanic.
Rhetorical question. You say they vote according to what’s best for the country yet they want a candidate who was against the War in Iraq?
...in many cases, precisely. There really is no way of knowing. As a regular conservative contributor from 1976 to the present, I never once indicated I was in the military even when I was...which was 28 years in total. The military demographics are changing though (for the worse in my opinion) so it would not surprise me if Paul is getting some support. A good study of overall military demographics would be interesting, but with the passing of Dr. Mosokos I don’t believe we’ll see one.
I did a little research on Ron Paul’s overwhelming support from military donors. At Open Secrets, you can search the data base on each politicians contributors. Turn’s out there are 71 donors who listed US Army as their employer. Contributed just over $20K to Paul. The active duty strength of the US Army is about 488,000. That means 0.0145% of the US Army contributed to Ron Paul. Not what I’d call overwhelming support. (You can do the same for Air Force and Navy. Should be about the same.)
Goldman Sachs and Romney? No Problem!
Republicans here have a real problem with the Constitution. It is too radical! Go to the Congress before starting another War! Radical! He will get us all killed!
MORE interventionism? Learn nothing from the waste in Iraq!
It does, the got $65m from the three branches, assuming the employer ids are correct, which says nothing. Which to a Paulian is a lot.
Lot of defence contractors on the list, he must be planning a war.
The Corps didn't make the Paulian list.
IMO anyone seeing political significance in this is stupid, but that's just me.
no, not “some support”. It appears to be a clear majority. I think its not so much the older career military guys, but the young ones that are just doing their 4-6 years and then moving on, and the ones that have already moved on.
Assuming no one lied. I’ve an acquaintaince who’s a dem donor who is a Dr., an attorney, and a corporate executive. Successful guy, but none of those. Who knows, this cycle maybe he’s an Air Force pilot. To say this is a weak arguement insults proponents of weak arguements. Note the USMC doesn’t turn up, someone might check?
The most important, crucial, significant, lifechangning thing the next president will do, is to pick probably 3 new Supreme Court Justices.
Which presidential candidate would nominate 3 Justices who would most protect our Bill of Rights, Right to Bear Arms, Freedom from Unreasonable Search, States Rights, limitations upon the Federal government, etc ?
Also, Paul has never pretended to be a conservative - he’s a libertarian who believes that the POTUS shouldn’t have that much control over your every day life. It looks like we are having a war in our own hearts whether we want to be a free people or a controlled people who have been promised that famous security that Ben Franklin referred to way back when - in which case we will get neither freedom nor security if we sell out to the power-hungry criminals that have taken over our society.
The Army contributes to political candidates???
Rhetorical question. You say they vote according to whats best for the country yet they want a candidate who was against the War in Iraq?
Not a rhetorical question:
You think the world is composed of only clones of yourself that cannot think for themselves or form an opinion that would be unpopular on freerepublic?
This is horrific. I don’t think any other GOP candidate has EVER received money from an investment bank before.
“””no, not some support. It appears to be a clear majority. I think its not so much the older career military guys, but the young ones that are just doing their 4-6 years and then moving on, and the ones that have already moved on.”””
I’ve worked with a lot of young National Guard types. They all say paul is nukken futz. Just sayin”
The only people I know personally that support the goofy old man are old hippies and young retards.
“hes a libertarian who believes that the POTUS shouldnt have that much control over your every day life”
Ron Paul thinks Iran has a right to have nuclear weapons but America doesn’t have a right to protect itself.
Ron Paul thinks America can vacate the world, leaving a massive power vacuum, and it will make America stronger.
Could you articulate more clearly what in the world you’re trying to say?
How did the war in Iraq benefit the US?
Stand corrected. BTW, Houston is really putting on a clinic with Penn State.
Romney and Obama will be fighting it to see who gets more money from the bankers. The WH is owned by Goldman.
LOL Watching that game too.
“How did the war in Iraq benefit the US?”
The only people I know personally that support the goofy old man are old hippies and young retards.
That is amazing?!? My business is a TSP and hold a DPM contract for my local bases, which encompasses all 5 services and all GS's within 300 miles of my location. I speak to several hundred service members and their families weekly in the course of business. The glaring trend that I have recognized over the past ten years is the the GS's tend to be liberal leaning, but a majority of the service members I speak with are independants or indifferent. I hear A LOT of support for Paul, particularly from the enlisted ranks.
If you can't already figure out why the US is better off without Saddam and his sons in power I can't help you.
I have heard Paul say that he can see why Iran wants nuclear weapons - a bit different from what you are saying. I remember when Pakistan got its nukes following India getting hers. Everyone was sure that was going to result in a nuclear war.
Please send me the quote where Paul says that America should not defend itself. That sounds ridiculous on its face, and another likely misquote. There’s a difference between Isolationist and Non-Interventionist - would you agree?
There already is a power vacuum that started under Clinton and proceeds today with Barry Soetoro. Bush would have been more credible if he fought these last wars to win decisively and get the troops home. If you are going to occupy countries, you have to show them that you are the Victor and they are the Losers. We never did that.
Where’s the “Not this crap again” picture.
If the Paul cult were told to write in “NFL quarterback” to the campaign donation form when they send Paul their allowance from mom and dad, they would. The campaign would have an 800% support of NFL QBs.
To think military people would support a wacko that wants to gut the military, allow nukes for enemies, and blame the US for 9/11 is as nutty as their candidate.
You cannot even think of one benefit?
It’s really amazing how many busboys have APO addresses, as well as promotion announcements in Army Times.
If you guys bothered to check the FEC filings, and Google a few of the RP contributors — rather than just making stuff up — you’d find that they are genuine. But you’d rather discredit the facts about the political contributions by American military personnel because they conflict with your fantasies.
Here, I’ll make it easy for you:
The FEC reports record political contributions, which is putting one’s money where his mouth is. Of course, all US military servicemen put far more than just money on the line regardless of their political opinions. That even includes those who vote for Obama.
No doubt there are a few fakes, but I’ve checked several on the Army list and confirmed the names match real soldiers. Perhaps some Freepers could crowdsource the FEC filings and identify the fakes. I doubt it would amount to much, but knock yourself out if you really believe your own BS.
The current govt in Pakistan has not made public statements threatening to bring a nuclear holocaust to America. They have not threatened America with total destruction.
The current govt in Iran has made those threats on numerous occasions.
Of course... I can think of many. But it’s been done ad nauseum as I said and if you still take the position you appear to now take what’s the use of me going over the same ground?
Gave Dems 75% Of Its Campaign Donations In The 2008 Election Cycle
Goldman Sachs, one of Wall Street’s most prestigious investment banks was also among the many banks in 2008 and 2009 to receive billions of dollars in taxpayer money to help it stay afloat...
The firm tends to give most of its money to Democrats...
Cycle 2008 Total: $5,934,089. Democrats: $4,463,788 (75%). Republicans: $1,459,961 (25%)
Total contributions 1990-2010: Democrats 64%, Republicans 35%.
Obama-Dodd Financial Bill Would Further Enrich Goldman Sachs
1.) Under Dodd’s bill - if it comes to it - creditors of Goldman Sachs won’t have to go the route of bankruptcy court. They will get better than the normal deal that they would get in bankruptcy court.
2.) Dodd’s “resolution authority” would give better deals to creditors of failed large firms. The creditors of smaller failed firms get to go to bankruoptcy court where they will not get nearly as good a deal.
3.) Non-failed, stable businesses would have to pay into this “resolution authority,” with the money being used to pay the creditors of failed Big Banks, etc. The stable businesses will then pass on the cost to the consumers their having to contribute to this “resolution authority.”
4.) Obama was lying when he said that McConnell was being “deceptive and cynical.”
Iran has made these statement since they took over our embassy in 1979 - an act of war then, and nothing was ever done about it under five presidents since Carter. So just what is it that you would want Paul (or any other prez) to do that has or has not already been done? This all seems like a lot of theater to scare us peasants while the Global Elites do their dirty deeds.