SnyderShrugged Posted May 5, 2011 Author Share Posted May 5, 2011 Donated some. Awesome man! You just helped him pass the $700k mark for the day so far! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted May 6, 2011 Share Posted May 6, 2011 Almost persuaded to donate just by his opposition.....the night is still young. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted May 6, 2011 Author Share Posted May 6, 2011 Almost persuaded to donate just by his opposition.....the night is still young. He's about to hit 800k jump on board! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
addicted Posted May 6, 2011 Share Posted May 6, 2011 Awesome man! You just helped him pass the $700k mark for the day so far! That's it? No offense but he should donate that to someone else who will run that he agrees with. 700k won't buy you must publicity will it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted May 6, 2011 Author Share Posted May 6, 2011 That's it? No offense but he should donate that to someone else who will run that he agrees with. 700k won't buy you must publicity will it? That's it for less than a day? Its quite a lot. Btw check drudge Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
addicted Posted May 6, 2011 Share Posted May 6, 2011 That's it for less than a day? Its quite a lot. Btw check drudge I assume you mean this headline "CNN SHOCK POLL: RON PAUL HAS BEST CHANCE VS OBAMA" That's not "shocking" at all to me. If I were going to enter a contest and I knew that if you were my opponent it would be a close contest, but also knew that if say I had another opponent it would be easy to win, who do you think I would want to run against? The same reason I think that poll shows Paul ahead of Obama I actually see with Trump leading the Republican party polls. The enemy is manipulating the opposition. And lets be real. Pauls supporters are hugely active online. This reminds me of a Redskins poll on nfl.com. If you post it they will come. I can't take any online Poll seriously And I actually think that if say Clinton or one of the other candidates did a fund raiser based on popularity they would raise more in this same amount of time. Money is a huge reason we still haven't seen a push for a third party candidate. The establishment has the money and the power now and want to hold it. So they use funds to weed out other competition from the race. In my opinion if a third party candidate is going to fight the power they need to have at least 100 million to blow to even stand a chance. I want Paul to do well. I want this freaking establishment taken over with new blood with new ideas and tolerance towards man but I don't think that will ever happen in my lifetime. My orginal post was saying why doesn't he take the generous money and put it behind someone else with money who could actually win? Sorry just my opinion Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted May 6, 2011 Author Share Posted May 6, 2011 It wasnt an online poll. It was a poll conducted by a national research company for CNN. You think it was fixed? Really? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
addicted Posted May 6, 2011 Share Posted May 6, 2011 It wasnt an online poll. It was a poll conducted by a national research company for CNN. You think it was fixed? Really? Fixing is in the eye of the beholder but a strong case can be made I believe against the validity of the poll. Think about it in terms of football.... We are one game away from the playoffs top seed. Due to some scheduling glitch the deciding opponent isn't known and we the fans are asked who we want to play for the home field advantage. Our choices are: 1. The top seed in the AFC 2. The bottom seed in the AFC who has a chance for the top spot in the draft with a loss The fans are asked which do they prefer. On one hand you want to say the top AFC team because winning that game means to you that we are really the top seed overall. On the other hand a cake walk game you know we will win by the third quarter would be nice for lots of reasons. You'd likely put your ego aside and go with the safer choice because you love your team. So if a Democrat or Republican was asked who they want to run against ask yourself, do you think that they would pick the tougher opponent or the easier one? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hubbs Posted May 6, 2011 Share Posted May 6, 2011 Fixing is in the eye of the beholder but a strong case can be made I believe against the validity of the poll. Think about it in terms of football.... We are one game away from the playoffs top seed. Due to some scheduling glitch the deciding opponent isn't known and we the fans are asked who we want to play for the home field advantage. Our choices are: 1. The top seed in the AFC 2. The bottom seed in the AFC who has a chance for the top spot in the draft with a loss The fans are asked which do they prefer. On one hand you want to say the top AFC team because winning that game means to you that we are really the top seed overall. On the other hand a cake walk game you know we will win by the third quarter would be nice for lots of reasons. You'd likely put your ego aside and go with the safer choice because you love your team. So if a Democrat or Republican was asked who they want to run against ask yourself, do you think that they would pick the tougher opponent or the easier one? Soooo, just to be clear, your theory is that in a poll taken more than half a year before the primaries, a bunch of Democratic respondents: - Decided to not say they'd vote for Obama, thereby giving him the biggest possible margin and making him look as strong as possible - Decided to lie and say that they'd vote for a weak Republican candidate, but not the weakest Republican candidate, or even the second- or third-weakest, like Gary Johnson or John Bolton. - All came up with the same plan independently of each other - All came up with this plan in the span of time between answering the phone and whenever the pollster finished asking the questions - All thought that this elaborate exercise was worth their time even though a poll in May isn't going to change the outcome of, well, anything Because, other than that, it sounds totally plausible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted May 6, 2011 Author Share Posted May 6, 2011 Soooo, just to be clear, your theory is that in a poll taken more than half a year before the primaries, a bunch of Democratic respondents:- Decided to not say they'd vote for Obama, thereby giving him the biggest possible margin and making him look as strong as possible - Decided to lie and say that they'd vote for a weak Republican candidate, but not the weakest Republican candidate, or even the second- or third-1weakest, like Gary Johnson or John Bolton. - All came up with the same plan independently of each other - All came up with this plan in the span of time between answering the phone and whenever the pollster finished asking the questions - All thought that this elaborate exercise was worth their time even though a poll in May isn't going to change the outcome of, well, anything Because, other than that, it sounds totally plausible. gosh the way you describe it I almost believe its possible! ! Lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DRSmith Posted May 6, 2011 Share Posted May 6, 2011 This is complete misunderstanding of Jesus's words. But I suppose that is for another thread. And why is that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted May 6, 2011 Author Share Posted May 6, 2011 And why is that? because this thread was for the fundraiser and other posters requested it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted May 8, 2011 Author Share Posted May 8, 2011 He ended up with over a million for the day. Average donation was about $25. That kind of money combined with the February take of over $700k puts him way ahead in fundraising over the other candidates. This early in the game is a big deal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DRSmith Posted May 8, 2011 Share Posted May 8, 2011 Money does not mean votes Already seeing on the right wing forums people trying to sway the religous to vote for him Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted May 8, 2011 Author Share Posted May 8, 2011 Money does not mean votesAlready seeing on the right wing forums people trying to sway the religous to vote for him I'd assume those who donated will vote for him so yes in this case money does equal votes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DRSmith Posted May 8, 2011 Share Posted May 8, 2011 Saw the same thing in 2008 and how did he do then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted May 8, 2011 Author Share Posted May 8, 2011 Saw the same thing in 2008 and how did he do then? Please show me where I have predicted a win. You said money didn't equal votes and I corrected you for this scenario. Those who donated will vote for him Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DRSmith Posted May 8, 2011 Share Posted May 8, 2011 Please show me where I have predicted a win. You said money didn't equal votes and I corrected you for this scenario. Those who donated will vote for him If money equals votes then he who raises the most should get the most votes but 2008 and showed that to not be so, many young people donated to him and not only did that not equal a win for him but if the Pubs are going to make it harder to vote for young people in state after state it means even less votes for him Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hubbs Posted May 8, 2011 Share Posted May 8, 2011 If money equals votes then he who raises the most should get the most votes but 2008 and showed that to not be so, many young people donated to him and not only did that not equal a win for him but if the Pubs are going to make it harder to vote for young people in state after state it means even less votes for him Okay? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted May 8, 2011 Author Share Posted May 8, 2011 If money equals votes then he who raises the most should get the most votes but 2008 and showed that to not be so, many young people donated to him and not only did that not equal a win for him but if the Pubs are going to make it harder to vote for young people in state after state it means even less votes for him Do you even read the posts you respond to? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DRSmith Posted May 9, 2011 Share Posted May 9, 2011 Do you even read the posts you respond to? Yes and I know why you posted it and now you have your reality check, do not get upset with me because I pointed out to you that when reality sets in RP is not going to be the Republican nominee Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hubbs Posted May 9, 2011 Share Posted May 9, 2011 Yes and I know why you posted it and now you have your reality check, do not get upset with me because I pointed out to you that when reality sets in RP is not going to be the Republican nominee Who the hell said he was? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DRSmith Posted May 9, 2011 Share Posted May 9, 2011 So people should be encouraged to give money to a person who they feel has no chance to be the nominee Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted May 9, 2011 Author Share Posted May 9, 2011 So people should be encouraged to give money to a person who they feel has no chance to be the nominee Yes, if people feel as was explained to you and others ad nausium already in this thread. Personally, I dont think anyone can or will beat Obama for a second term. Does that mean that we should give ourr money to Obama or another candidate who doesnt match our views at all as opposed to the one who matches almost perfectly? I dont vote for popularity contests, I understand the immaturity and lack of thought from the average voter. Everyone wants to support the winning side out of pride. Some of us actually prefer voting and supporting our beliefs, morals, and societal views instead. You can choose which course better suits an adult who uses thought. ---------- Post added May-9th-2011 at 07:15 AM ---------- Who the hell said he was? No one at all, but that doesnt stop our Canadian friend (who's focus on American politics is more than a little strange btw) from inserting made up points and ignoring our actual statements on the subject in an effort to seem more important and thought provoking than he really is. Its for attention, just like my kids do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hubbs Posted May 10, 2011 Share Posted May 10, 2011 So people should be encouraged to give money to a person who they feel has no chance to be the nominee Where to begin.... 1) If you don't know the difference between a small chance and no chance, you don't understand politics. Scott Brown had a small chance running as a Republican in perhaps the bluest state in the country. Hell, Barack Obama had a small chance in 2007. Hillary was already the Democratic nominee, remember? She was going to win because she was going to win. Until "the guy with the funny name" (whose middle name was Hussein) suddenly took the country by storm in his quest to become the first black president ever. You want to talk long odds? (And just to be completely clear, the "funny name/Hussein" point is about those who would mistrust Obama just because he seemed "different." While I disagree with many of his policies, just as I disagreed with many Bush policies, I'm happy that Obama's victory seems to reflect a step forward in the American consciousness. Hence one of my favorite political cartoons of all time, posted below.) 2) If you think that the only possible objective of a presidential campaign is to win the White House, then, again, you don't understand politics. 3) I have no illusions about Ron Paul's chances of winning. They're minute. That's not why I'm donating. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.