Still think it's an internet conspiracy by the Paul campaign?

[MrMon]

You people are assuming that just because someone lists their employer as "U.S. Army", they are IN the U.S. Army. There are lots of civilian employees of the Army as well, and in fact when I was a civilian employee of the Army, I would list my employer as U.S. Army. That didn't make me a member of the military, except by certain people who didn't understand the difference.

[iron81]

[ QUOTE ]
There are lots of civilian employees of the Army as well, and in fact when I was a civilian employee of the Army, I would list my employer as U.S. Army. That didn't make me a member of the military, except by certain people who didn't understand the difference.

[/ QUOTE ]
Me too.

[elwoodblues]

I can't believe that anybody is making any sort of broad conclusions based on this. First, it is 1 quarter. Second, the monetary value is very insignificant (.8% of Paul's total contributions for the same time period.)

One of the only safe conclusions to reach here is that military employees didn't give a whole lot to Republicans in the second quarter.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
/insert gif of dancing bannanas and fireworks

[/ QUOTE ]

[ALawPoker]

[ QUOTE ]
You people are assuming that just because someone lists their employer as "U.S. Army", they are IN the U.S. Army. There are lots of civilian employees of the Army as well, and in fact when I was a civilian employee of the Army, I would list my employer as U.S. Army. That didn't make me a member of the military, except by certain people who didn't understand the difference.

[/ QUOTE ]

Also it's worth noting that Paul worked as a military doctor during his residency.

[Jeffiner99]

Check this out:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig8/haman1.html

[tolbiny]

[ QUOTE ]

Someone want to explain the numbers for me? Paul got 24,000 dollars from military in Q2? That seems pretty underwhelming, I guess they aren't big givers to politicians.

[/ QUOTE ]

When you consider that he got 50% of the total donations from the military its pretty significant. The total dollars are going to be higher since these numbers are from those who gave >$200 and recorded their military branch.

[owsley]

[ QUOTE ]
I can't believe that anybody is making any sort of broad conclusions based on this. First, it is 1 quarter. Second, the monetary value is very insignificant (.8% of Paul's total contributions for the same time period.)


[/ QUOTE ]

What broad conclusions do you see Borodog drawing in his post? I think that all he is trying to do is give another piece of evidence that Paul is not just some fringe figure who only appeals to libertarian college kid message board posters. This evidence is only postworthy because MSM chooses to totally ignore it, when in reality there is stuff like this everywhere.

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
The total dollars are going to be higher since these numbers are from those who gave >$200 and recorded their military branch

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know if this is true. Look at Brownback's numbers --- if it was only people who gave more than $200 how does he show $71? Also, assume that it is those who only gave $200 or more. Are you suggesting that it is somehow newsworthy that he got 120 military employees to give $200 or more to his campaign (and that's rounding up.) This is just complete non-news.

[GoodCallYouWin]

I would say it's newsworthy when a peace candidate receives more contributions from the military than any of the other war candidates; since the military is as a general rule pro war.