suffolkUniversity: Paul second in NH!!

[Larry]

I heard a lot of whacky **** from Paul supporters. A lot of them were pretty scary in their twist of conspiracy. I'm not big on conspiracies, too hard to keep quiet, impossible, actually.

But there were truthers and every other kind of conspiracy theorist together with anti-war people, end the fed people, end the war on drug group, the young professional, etc..

If you guys want some wild stories, pray that Ron Paul's momentum grows.

Yeah, used to be, if you were a libertarian, then that meant you were a loon who wanted to legalize drugs and prostitution.

Like me.

[PokerPacker]

Did you guys know that Ron Paul accepts campaign funds from openly racist and separtists groups and refuses to return them?

http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/11/the_ron_paul_campaign_and_its.html

yup; known for years. What difference does it make? He doesn't vote based on who funds his campaign, he votes his way with consistency. So if he gives the money back, what does it fix? Nothing except giving such group more funds to use the money for perhaps seedier reasons.

[SnyderShrugged]

In today's news roundup: Ron Paul forces 4000 babies into this cruel world, just to spite them

[PeterMP]

yup; known for years. What difference does it make? He doesn't vote based on who funds his campaign, he votes his way with consistency. So if he gives the money back, what does it fix? Nothing except giving such group more funds to use the money for perhaps seedier reasons.

1. I know that. I was generally just poking at people and the idea that Paul wasn't going to have to address old issues. The link I posted was old (though people seem to ignoring the new information and the general point I made).

2. I don't want to get into this too much, especially as I think I said everything I have to say about it last primary season. Though, I think the idea that these groups don't benefit from it doesn't hold much water w/o more information. Maybe they use Paul and the fact that they support him and doing so will allow them to achieve other long term goals in their fund rainsing/recrutiment process (i.e. Ron Paul supports doing X. If X is done, we will be able to do Y and longer term that will allow us to achieve Z). This give them concrete examples of what they want to do and how they are going to achieve it and how they are participationg in the process to achieve it, and maybe that increases support from members and others. Maybe they just get a sociological/psychological benefit for "belonging" to a larger group.

Generally, I find dismissing the idea that a group or person isn't benefiting from some action that they have voluntarily undertaken w/o knowing their decision making process in some detail is stupid, ignorant, and naive.

3. I think this is specifically an issue for Paul based on my understanding of the idea of market forces driven by socially concise individuals can eliminate/control things like racism. A racist group has voluntarily initiated an interaction with you, and you aren't racist. How are socially driven market forces influencing your decisions? How they are negatively affecting the group? This is a chance to actually demonstrate your beliefs in action with respect to your own situation (That you "taking" (that they've voluntarily given you) their money is not allowing them to do something else with is beyond weak (I'd almost call it garbage, but not quite).

4. Generally, if you lie down with dogs, don't be surprised if you get up with fleas, or in this case, if dogs come down and lie with you, don't be surprised if you get up with fleas.

[twa]

There is no negative interaction by simply taking money freely given....our sin taxes help a lot of people and I don't see ya'll refusing them

there are negative connotations.

[GibbsFactor]

It's true that if Paul's momentum continues to grow, his association with all of these anti-government groups will come out. Even if he's associated by simply taking their donations, a storm will come of it.

Again, very similar to Obama during the last election cycle with his ties to racists, hippy terrorists, his father's family and his church.

[PeterMP]

There is no negative interaction by simply taking money freely given....our sin taxes help a lot of people and I don't see ya'll refusing them

there are negative connotations.

Sin taxes are frequently supported on the idea that they will negatively affect the "bad" behavior (note the person that is commiting the "sin" isn't given a choice to "commit" the sina and NOT pay the tax. In that sense, it isn't voluntary) and some of the funds are normally used for previntion/recovery/health ("sins" cause bad health out comes) programs.

Those would be concrete examples of a social concise driving "market forces" (if we can consider our electoral process and therefore government actions a "market") in a manner to control/elimiante the behavior.

(Though I will say I don't at all understand things lotteries to fund schools. I'd even guess at the whole government level (i.e. federal, state, and local) such programs are really "losers" and ineffecient.)

[Prosperity]

It's true that if Paul's momentum continues to grow, his association with all of these anti-government groups will come out. Even if he's associated by simply taking their donations, a storm will come of it.

Again, very similar to Obama during the last election cycle with his ties to racists, hippy terrorists, his father's family and his church.

I don't think implications of being anti-government, or even a racist, would really hurt someone in the GOP primary. Ron Paul supporters won't believe them or won't care, and it may even persuade some of the substantial numbers of the "Base" to think that Ron Paul is really "One of Us"

[SnyderShrugged]

so ridiculously sad.

Roger Simon of Politico, "If Ron Paul wins Iowa, we just Take it out"

[SpacePenguin]

I don't think implications of being anti-government, or even a racist, would really hurt someone in the GOP primary. Ron Paul supporters won't believe them or won't care, and it may even persuade some of the substantial numbers of the "Base" to think that Ron Paul is really "One of Us"

That's an amusing point. Basically the people that already support Paul aren't going to believe anything the media tells them, with good reason, and the "non-crazy" conservatives in the heartland don't mind a little racism. Or being anti government. Well, at least the ones naive enough to take the corporate media campaign against Paul at face value..

Hehe...I think Ron Paul's "skeletons" seem pretty similiar to most GOP party republicans' red meat. They really must not have a whole lot to smear him with...

[FanboyOf91]

Tucker Carlson on Ron Paul: GOP Should Ask Themselves Why Does This 70-ish Weird Guy Have All This Support

If Ron Paul Wins Iowa, Antiwar Democrats and Independents Likely to Provide Margin of Victory

Must-read for political junkies: Ron Paul's Iowa Edge: A Rock-Solid Caucus Campaign

[SnyderShrugged]

Cavuto does a good interview and does go into the newsletter issue and on Trump.

[PokerPacker]

1. I know that. I was generally just poking at people and the idea that Paul wasn't going to have to address old issues. The link I posted was old (though people seem to ignoring the new information and the general point I made).

went right over my head :dunce:

2. I don't want to get into this too much, especially as I think I said everything I have to say about it last primary season. Though, I think the idea that these groups don't benefit from it doesn't hold much water w/o more information. Maybe they use Paul and the fact that they support him and doing so will allow them to achieve other long term goals in their fund rainsing/recrutiment process (i.e. Ron Paul supports doing X. If X is done, we will be able to do Y and longer term that will allow us to achieve Z). This give them concrete examples of what they want to do and how they are going to achieve it and how they are participationg in the process to achieve it, and maybe that increases support from members and others. Maybe they just get a sociological/psychological benefit for "belonging" to a larger group.

Generally, I find dismissing the idea that a group or person isn't benefiting from some action that they have voluntarily undertaken w/o knowing their decision making process in some detail is stupid, ignorant, and naive.

whether or not they "benefit" from his election or not doesn't change a thing. Whether he wins because of their donations or without wouldn't change that, so still a non-factor.

3. I think this is specifically an issue for Paul based on my understanding of the idea of market forces driven by socially concise individuals can eliminate/control things like racism. A racist group has voluntarily initiated an interaction with you, and you aren't racist. How are socially driven market forces influencing your decisions? How they are negatively affecting the group? This is a chance to actually demonstrate your beliefs in action with respect to your own situation (That you "taking" (that they've voluntarily given you) their money is not allowing them to do something else with is beyond weak (I'd almost call it garbage, but not quite).

again, taking money is not serving them. It is merely taking money. He's not providing them a service, or paying them for a service. He is merely receiving money. they have nothing to gain from it other than possibly helping to elect him, and if he's elected without their money, it makes no difference than if he were elected with their money (except that they still have their money)

4. Generally, if you lie down with dogs, don't be surprised if you get up with fleas, or in this case, if dogs come down and lie with you, don't be surprised if you get up with fleas.

Fortunately, we're dealing strictly in humans.

[Willy Wonka]

Please read:

http://regulatetheregulators.blogspot.com/2011/12/in-defense-of-ron-paul-newsletters-faq.html

http://www.scribd.com/doc/76280303/PaulNewslettersFaq-Tunk

[Hubbs]

Gotta say, I disagree with my fellow RP backers on the donations from unacceptable groups. He should refuse those.

I obviously don't think that such a thing should be the determining factor when it comes to who you're going to vote for, however. Hell, even if I did, I have major problems with accepting donations from corporations and unions as well, just for different reasons. Our campaign finance laws are so ****ed up.

[SnyderShrugged]

did newt make it?...heard he was struggling

Just heard that Newt didnt make it afterall. VA is now a 2 horse head to head race between Paul and Romney.

I am torn on this one, it may be bad for Paul.

The way I understand it is this...(VA folks, please correct any mistakes I may make in this, as its second hand info for me)

The way VA's primary works is that if the winner has a majority (51%) of the vote, it's a "winner-takes-all" for the 49 delegates. If the winner doesn't have a majority (51%) of the vote, then the delegates are SPLIT PROPORTIONALLY. So, the only way this benefits Paul is if he beats Mitt outright. If he were to lose, it is better to lose in a split field, as opposed to getting 0 delegates if you lose head-to-head.

So, if we have Mitt: 51% Paul: 49%, Romney gets all 49 delegates.

If it would have been Mitt: 40% Paul: 39% Newt 21%, then the delegates would be allotted proportionally. Even if Paul got 10%, and no other candidate got over 50%, he sill would have received more delegates than losing 51-49 to Romney.

---------- Post added December-24th-2011 at 09:17 AM ----------

Gotta say, I disagree with my fellow RP backers on the donations from unacceptable groups. He should refuse those.

I obviously don't think that such a thing should be the determining factor when it comes to who you're going to vote for, however. Hell, even if I did, I have major problems with accepting donations from corporations and unions as well, just for different reasons. Our campaign finance laws are so ****ed up.

I'm kind of in between you and the others on this one. I think he should have accepted the donations, and then re-donated the funds to a well known, worthy charity (like the Salvation Army or something). This way he isnt taking money from bad folks for use himself, yet they still are out the money and people in need still get help.

[PeterMP]

I'm kind of in between you and the others on this one. I think he should have accepted the donations, and then re-donated the funds to a well known, worthy charity (like the Salvation Army or something). This way he isnt taking money from bad folks for use himself, yet they still are out the money and people in need still get help.

I was actually thinking about this myself, and how I'd really handel this.

Would it be legal for him to do that? Or would that be against the campaign finance laws?

He could give it to a charity that helpe people that have fallen in with a hate groups and trying to escape or people that are at a high risk for falling into such groups.

[twa]

I like that idea SS,so it;s probably illegal

[SnyderShrugged]

I like that idea SS,so it;s probably illegal

Possibly, but I feel firm that a better thing could and should have been done.

All that said, I think they will stay on top of who is donating better this time so it shouldnt even be an issue.

[mojobo]

Gotta say, I disagree with my fellow RP backers on the donations from unacceptable groups. He should refuse those.

I obviously don't think that such a thing should be the determining factor when it comes to who you're going to vote for, however. Hell, even if I did, I have major problems with accepting donations from corporations and unions as well, just for different reasons. Our campaign finance laws are so ****ed up.

Two things have to occur to make it ok (in my view). One is the money that is donated has to come from a person or party that obtained it by legitimate means. The next is that the candidates position will not be influenced by the donation to the campaign.

I have no reason to assume the first one is not true, and unless I've been completely lied to about everything Ron Paul stands for I have no reason to assume the second one is not true as well. As far as I'm concerned the money went from people I have an extremely negative view on to support a campaign/message I have an extremely positive view on. Giving the money back would be taking money from something I have an extremely positive view of and giving it to people I have an extremely negative view on.

1. I know that. I was generally just poking at people and the idea that Paul wasn't going to have to address old issues. The link I posted was old (though people seem to ignoring the new information and the general point I made).

2. I don't want to get into this too much, especially as I think I said everything I have to say about it last primary season. Though, I think the idea that these groups don't benefit from it doesn't hold much water w/o more information. Maybe they use Paul and the fact that they support him and doing so will allow them to achieve other long term goals in their fund rainsing/recrutiment process (i.e. Ron Paul supports doing X. If X is done, we will be able to do Y and longer term that will allow us to achieve Z). This give them concrete examples of what they want to do and how they are going to achieve it and how they are participationg in the process to achieve it, and maybe that increases support from members and others. Maybe they just get a sociological/psychological benefit for "belonging" to a larger group.

Generally, I find dismissing the idea that a group or person isn't benefiting from some action that they have voluntarily undertaken w/o knowing their decision making process in some detail is stupid, ignorant, and naive.

3. I think this is specifically an issue for Paul based on my understanding of the idea of market forces driven by socially concise individuals can eliminate/control things like racism. A racist group has voluntarily initiated an interaction with you, and you aren't racist. How are socially driven market forces influencing your decisions? How they are negatively affecting the group? This is a chance to actually demonstrate your beliefs in action with respect to your own situation (That you "taking" (that they've voluntarily given you) their money is not allowing them to do something else with is beyond weak (I'd almost call it garbage, but not quite).

4. Generally, if you lie down with dogs, don't be surprised if you get up with fleas, or in this case, if dogs come down and lie with you, don't be surprised if you get up with fleas.

Let's say hypothetically 3 years into a Ron Paul presidency there was a person like Madoff in the financial industry who ended up ripping off a bunch of people and stole over a billion dollars from his customers. Before it was publicly known of what he was doing he was fundraising for Ron Paul's presidency and personally maxed out his contribution to the Ron Paul campaign and the Republican National Committee (assuming they support him now), and had many of his employees do the same. Not only that but he also raised $500,000 at various events through the year leading up to the re-election bid.

Assuming he returns only the donation that the guy made, and said he would return the rest of the money on a case by case basis would you believe that this is the appropriate way to handle the donations? If not, how do you think he should handle the donations made to his campaign and do you believe this would indicate there was some kind of corruption between Ron Paul and that individual?

[PeterMP]

As far as I'm concerned the money went from people I have an extremely negative view on to support a campaign/message I have an extremely positive view on. Giving the money back would be taking money from something I have an extremely positive view of and giving it to people I have an extremely negative view on.

So your opinion would be different if they were giving the money to Obama?

Let's say hypothetically 3 years into a Ron Paul presidency there was a person like Madoff in the financial industry who ended up ripping off a bunch of people and stole over a billion dollars from his customers. Before it was publicly known of what he was doing he was fundraising for Ron Paul's presidency and personally maxed out his contribution to the Ron Paul campaign and the Republican National Committee (assuming they support him now), and had many of his employees do the same. Not only that but he also raised $500,000 at various events through the year leading up to the re-election bid.

Assuming he returns only the donation that the guy made, and said he would return the rest of the money on a case by case basis would you believe that this is the appropriate way to handle the donations? If not, how do you think he should handle the donations made to his campaign and do you believe this would indicate there was some kind of corruption between Ron Paul and that individual?

I think, at least initially, I would be fine with that. I've known of some close groups where one person has been heavily involved in fraud and the others haven't.

If you start to find that a large number of those people were involved in the scheme or similar scheme, then I could see just returning it all. If the other people that gave the money felt like they had been "cheated" and wanted the money back (i.e. they felt like that had been duped into donating money by Madoff to accomplish one goal, but Madoff was using to for something else (e.g. to leverage political pressure to keep the SEC from investigating his investments)), then I would give it back.

I wouldn't assume any corruption necessarily based on the information provided any more than I assume Ron Paul is racist for taking and not returning money from openly racist groups.

[BRAVEONAWARPATH]

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/26/us/politics/ron-paul-disowns-extremists-views-but-doesnt-disavow-the-support.html?pagewanted=1&_r=2&hp

Paul Disowns Extremists’ Views but Doesn’t Disavow the Support

[rblgenius]

logged in just to post I've officially fallen in love with RP. Never really followed him. Went on his youtube channel today and watched his debate clips. Got me interested so I read his views.

I'm not a libertarian. I would say I'm socially liberal (pro choice, pro gay marriage, end the drug war, etc...) and fiscally conservative. I think taxes should be raised when economy is doing well and taxes should be cut when the economy is slumping.

That was before I read into RP's explanation of our current federal reserve. The man did see a lot of things coming... he saw through all the political propaganda bull**** of the wars and saw the housing bubble collapse. The man is a genius in the sense that he looked outside the box for answers to our collapse. We as Americans put too must trust and faith in our government. Just like we should always question our faith we should always questions government.

[Hubbs]

I would say I'm socially liberal (pro choice, pro gay marriage, end the drug war, etc...) and fiscally conservative.

More than anything else, this explains why I support Ron Paul. When it comes to the incredibly broad political labels that we use every day, I'm half-and-half, and therefore no candidate (from either party) is as attractive as Paul.

[Prosperity]

More than anything else, this explains why I support Ron Paul. When it comes to the incredibly broad political labels that we use every day, I'm half-and-half, and therefore no candidate (from either party) is as attractive as Paul.

This is not the only conceivable way to vote. You can view representation as voting for the best person, or voting for the one that mirrors your take on the issues the best. (course there are a million other ways to vote too...)

/tangent