Figured it might be useful to have this somewhere...
-In 3rd quarter 2011, Ron Paul's top 3 PAC donors were U.S. Air Force, the U.S. Army, and the U.S. Navy. Mitt Romney's top 3 donors were Goldman Sachs, Credit Suisse Group, and Morgan Stanley.
Military
- In the year 2007, Ron Paul received donations from active duty military totaling nearly as much as all other candidates combined...including Obama and McCain. (Ron Paul - $249k, everyone else - $260k...a difference of 4%)
-By 3rd quarter 2008, Ron Paul had suspended his campaign, but in that year had received more than 4 times the amount received by McCain, and only 25% less than Obama (Remember, Obama was the other anti-war candidate back then...and Ron Paul still knew he was full of crap.)
-In 2nd quarter 2011, Ron Paul received nearly 2.5 times the amount received by all other Republican candidates combined, as well as 1.27 times the amount Obama received, from active military.
-In 3rd quarter 2011, Ron Paul received more than all other candidates combined, including Obama...at least 1.73 times what Obama got, and more than 3 times all other Republican candidates combined.
It is really surprising to me he receives as much support from the military as he does. I am in the Air Force and just about everybody I encounter has no idea who this guy is. To date I've met three individuals, in the last four years, who know who he is. Only one of them supported his policies.
Not surprising at all really. Most military folks would probably prefer first not to go to war at all, and then if they did go to war it would be for something meaningful - like the defense of their country. Nation-building, international police force, aggressive occupier - these aren't the missions that most would want to perform.
Democrat and Republican presidents going back to FDR have placed the military into harms way time after time after time. Ron Paul has consistently stated that the US doesn't need to do what we've done for 60+ years in order to defend the nation.
There are generally two camps in the military: one having the position I've stated above and another that is pretty much married to the government and aggression. This latter camp is more willing and gung ho to enter into one conflict after another. They're also more likely to latch onto the memories of those killed in action, and refuse to change course since to them it would be a betrayal to their fallen comrades. The fighting becomes personal; an act of vengeance.
If you're of the former camp, which I believe to be the majority of military personnel, then what candidate other than Ron Paul would you donate to? If you're of the latter camp, then you seem to have any number of candidate that support your view on the use of the military and war.
I'd agree most military personnel support the state, and obey their orders without question. Which is why the donation facts surprised me. To many people I work with have attempted to justify Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, or wars with China, Iran and even Russia.
I would be more worried about the civilian force employed by the DoD or any other state department, though. They are even more so enamored with the power of the state and their wish to grow it.
I respect Ron Paul, and will likely vote for him (not that it matters), but the US does not deserve to have him as a President.
They're also more likely to latch onto the memories of those killed in action, and refuse to change course since to them it would be a betrayal to their fallen comrades. The fighting becomes personal; an act of vengeance.
Sunk cost fallacy :D
ronpaulronpaul.com
This website has the above graphic and more. I especially like this one: