• The next President - who's good enough?
    366 replies, posted
[QUOTE=person11;34365714]People thought that Perry had a chance at the nomination for a while[/QUOTE] we all knew he was a democrat-turned-neoconservative who attempted to hijack the tea party movement (e.g. tried to give the appearance of a libertarian), but again hes fucking retarded and fooled nobody.
[QUOTE=Hayburner;34366066]we all knew he was a democrat-turned-neoconservative who attempted to hijack the tea party movement (e.g. tried to give the appearance of a libertarian), but again hes fucking retarded and fooled nobody.[/QUOTE] I can assure you he is smarter than you think. These people don't get to where they are by being "fucking retarded". Have some common sense!
[QUOTE=person11;34365337]They don't donate to Paul because they know he won't win, and that no amount of money would get him teh support of 51% of the population.[/QUOTE] No one (even the media kept repeating and saying it) thought Jon Huntsman had a chance at winning the nomination (which turned out to be true as he dropped out) and he still got more donations from billionaires than Ron Paul. Heck even Rick Santorum got a donation from a billionaire, and so far Ron Paul has won more delegates (what you need to win the Presidential nomination) than Santorum.
[QUOTE=GoodStuff;34367418]No one (even the media kept repeating and saying it) thought Jon Huntsman had a chance at winning the nomination (which turned out to be true as he dropped out) and he still got more donations from billionaires than Ron Paul. Heck even Rick Santorum got a donation from a billionaire, and so far Ron Paul has won more delegates (what you need to win the Presidential nomination) than Santorum.[/QUOTE] No billionaire donations doesn't mean that your campaign is unfunded.
[QUOTE=SystemGS;34367912]doesn't mean that your campaign is unfunded.[/QUOTE] is that supposed to be bad or something? [editline]23rd January 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Glitchman;34367272]I can assure you he is smarter than you think. These people don't get to where they are by being "fucking retarded". Have some common sense![/QUOTE] if you had social skills you would understand the context of what i meant.
Anyway, campaign donations are half making the candidate more likely to win, half telling the candidate what to do once he wins, which is why it is safer to donate to candidates with actual chances of winning. As much as I am for Obama, I bet we will not see him do that much more to limit the scope of the powers of the rich, same for Mitt Romney. Ron Paul would be a lot better for the rich, but they wouldnt donate to someone with such a small chance at winning [B]or[/B] being accepted into the White House in a smaller political position. Jon Huntsman was always a more viable candidate than Ron Paul, despite his low poll numbers, because of the possibility that the Republican nominee will appoint him to some high office.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.