Replies

For months, we’ve been hearing that, according to the FEC filings, Ron Paul leads the field in contributions from the military. Are you suggesting that not only are the occupations of the donors not verified (”circus clown”, “slacker-in-chief”, etc), but the names aren’t either?

If the FEC information is so unreliable that even the names of the donors can’t be trusted, why did Paul supporters make such a big deal out of the number of supporters who listed military occupations?

I dunno. It's actually just campaign trivia. Ron Paul's donation data is far more complete than the other candidates. Can I guarantee the identity of all persons on that list? Well, no. Who could? The same is true of all the other candidates too. How much checking the FEC does is an open question but their past performance but donations by the Hsu gang or the Indonesians or the Buddhists isn't especially inspiring.

In fact, if Paul had 100% support from active duty, that doesn't change anyone's reasons to vote for or against him. And if he had 0% military support, same thing.

The troops take orders and they do get to vote. They don't select the commander-in-chief. The voters do via the electoral college. Regardless of who is elected, the military will follow its lawful orders because that is their sworn duty.