Pimpin' Ron Paul

#2
#2
Where was the funny part? Obviously, a brothel owner will support a more libertarian candidate. :ermm:
 
#3
#3
Sorry. I guess you find no humor in a brothel owner and employees supporting a Pro-Life and very religious candidate for President.
 
#4
#4
CSpindizzy said:
Sorry. I guess you find no humor in a brothel owner and employees supporting a Pro-Life and very religious candidate for President.
Click to expand...

If you are only given 2 choices for president (or 2 parties), you are going to find a lot of situations like this. Tell me, what other candidate out there are they supposed to be endorsing? Hillary on the Dem side? Rudy or Mitt on the GOP side?

The issue that they would care the most about would obviously be prostitution... not even close. Just as the major issue with Christian conservatives would obviously be prayer in schools or a union worker would be keeping jobs here at home. Yet we find people everyday that compromise a few of their lesser political goals for achieving a major issue all the time. Nobody agrees with a candidate on every issue. It would be hard to do in a 4 or 5 party system. It is nearly impossible to find an ideal candidate in a 2 party system.

That may explain the large amount of voter apathy. Not enough "niche" candidates that are running.
 
#5
#5
Well since prostitution is not a federal level issue what other reason would they support him?
 
#6
#6
CSpindizzy said:
Well since prostitution is not a federal level issue what other reason would they support him?
Click to expand...
A subtle nuance, but they probably hope that a Paul presidency (or strong showing) could lead to future coattails/bandwagoners on the libertarian movement at the state/local level? :dunno:
 
#7
#7
Sort of like the Reform Party? Anyone remember them? I'm thinking more likely just a chance to get some free advertising and print and camera time. Nothing better for business than making a showing like that. Kind of like Mary Carey running for CA governor.
 
#8
#8
Paul doesn't care who endorses him as long as they throw money his way (David Duke, Alex Jones). While that is true for most candidates (if not all) there are a few who will stand on principle and not accept such support (by returning the money) or endorsements.
 
#9
#9
I just read where he is working on his next online donation fundraising bomb. It seems the record breaking $9 million wasn't enough so he is working on the next one. I look forward to seeing his disclosure report and seeing who these people are unless they are untold numbers of donations under $200. Keep in mind the brains behind this is a huge bundler...didn't we recently see bundlers get in trouble for massive donations with little scrutiny?
 
#10
#10
CSpindizzy said:
I just read where he is working on his next online donation fundraising bomb. It seems the record breaking $9 million wasn't enough so he is working on the next one. I look forward to seeing his disclosure report and seeing who these people are unless they are untold numbers of donations under $200. Keep in mind the brains behind this is a huge bundler...didn't we recently see bundlers get in trouble for massive donations with little scrutiny?
Click to expand...

In the first money bomb, he raised $4.2 million from roughly 37,000 donors, which averages less than $120/donor. Not exactly your typical Hollywood/$2300 per plate dinner circuit.
 
#11
#11
Rasputin_Vol said:
In the first money bomb, he raised $4.2 million from roughly 37,000 donors, which averages less than $120/donor. Not exactly your typical Hollywood/$2300 per plate dinner circuit.
Click to expand...

Nope. Never said it was either. Hence my point that we'll never know who they are. And my other concern was with them being through a bundler. These people have a history of shady operations. Perhaps someone should make a move and call for full disclosure of all donors. Those who argue against that have something to hide.
 
#12
#12
CSpindizzy said:
Nope. Never said it was either. Hence my point that we'll never know who they are. And my other concern was with them being through a bundler. These people have a history of shady operations. Perhaps someone should make a move and call for full disclosure of all donors. Those who argue against that have something to hide.
Click to expand...

You can go to his webpage and see the names of donors in real time. :ermm:

Paul will have full disclosure on Dec. 31st the moment they have to file at the end of this quarter.
 
#14
#14
CSpindizzy said:
Link to the donors page?
Click to expand...

The front page has a real time scrolling display of the donors.

Besides, are you suggesting that there could be a cabal being perpetrated by the Paul campaign? :ermm:

Do you realize how much trouble someone would have to go through to create enough phony donors to raise $4.2 million in roughly $100 increments in a single day? Wouldn't be a lot easier for some shrewd conspirator to have just a handfull of maxed out $2300 contributors? You would need an unbelieveable amount of networking, coordination, and staffing to pull off that kind of stunt.

It would be understandable to be suspicious if you had 2000 maxed out $2300 contributions. That would draw immediate red flags, as well it should. But that isn't what happened.
 
#15
#15
Wow. Nope. Just questioning bundlers not the campaign. Boy, did I touch a nerve.

As to the scrolling donors, do you expect me or anyone else to sit there all day to get those names? I will say that every one of the names I checked have no GOP affiliation whatsoever. A few had Dem affiliations though.

It's actually not much trouble at all. Why do you think the bundlers who have recently been scrutinized are bringing in bundles of $500K a piece? Obviously you're not up on campaign finance laws or loopholes and the history of people cheating those laws. Someone with a decent database of names could easily apply smaller donations which throw less flags than maxed out contributors. That's how the CHinese guy got caught bundling for Hillary. Donors living in rundown areas of town giving $2300 throw up red flags faster than had they given $100 or even $25.

You may not realize it but this is a norm in politics. That's the issue with bundling. Before filing became electronic it was so easy to bring in a bag of cash and just apply it to various names. Before many volunteered full disclosure you could just say you raised $1 million and apply it to the "Unitemized" column on the FEC report.

There's no conspiracy theories here. It happens much more frequent than you realize. And it is very easy to do.
 
#16
#16
Another attempt to marginalize Ron Paul. The mainstream media has become a sad and pitiful propaganda machine.
 
#17
#17
MG1968 said:
Paul doesn't care who endorses him as long as they throw money his way (David Duke, Alex Jones). While that is true for most candidates (if not all) there are a few who will stand on principle and not accept such support (by returning the money) or endorsements.
Click to expand...

:lolabove:
 
#18
#18
CSpindizzy said:
Wow. Nope. Just questioning bundlers not the campaign. Boy, did I touch a nerve.

As to the scrolling donors, do you expect me or anyone else to sit there all day to get those names? I will say that every one of the names I checked have no GOP affiliation whatsoever. A few had Dem affiliations though.

It's actually not much trouble at all. Why do you think the bundlers who have recently been scrutinized are bringing in bundles of $500K a piece? Obviously you're not up on campaign finance laws or loopholes and the history of people cheating those laws. Someone with a decent database of names could easily apply smaller donations which throw less flags than maxed out contributors. That's how the CHinese guy got caught bundling for Hillary. Donors living in rundown areas of town giving $2300 throw up red flags faster than had they given $100 or even $25.

You may not realize it but this is a norm in politics. That's the issue with bundling. Before filing became electronic it was so easy to bring in a bag of cash and just apply it to various names. Before many volunteered full disclosure you could just say you raised $1 million and apply it to the "Unitemized" column on the FEC report.

There's no conspiracy theories here. It happens much more frequent than you realize. And it is very easy to do.
Click to expand...

Well first off, organizing a few maximum donations in Chinatown is far cry from having an organized spamming where you make an effort to have 37,000 small donations. Show me a case where you have any campaign that is accused of having anywhere near that many "phony" donations in the $100-200 range and I might reconsider my stance. But until then, I think it would be a very inefficient exercise to try to orchastrate something of that magintude.
 
#19
#19
Again, I think you clearly miss my point and clearly think I am grouping this entire operation as fraud. I never said this was fraud. I said it could happen. And who's to say it has not? It is easy to pull off and hide. It would take a full scrutiny of calling a mass of donors to confirm they did in fact give. No one has that means to verify. I am just pointing out that it can be done and anyone bundling in this manner should get a little more scrutiny.

As for his donors, as I said, the ones I've looked up have no Republican ties whatsoever. Many had Dem ties. I'm sure those have alterior motives in their giving as well. At the end of the day this exercise means nothing. Paul cannot break double digits in the polls and there will always be questions to his supporters when as was already pointed out some have ties to white supremacists and those longing for the days of the Confederacy.
 
#20
#20
CSpindizzy said:
Again, I think you clearly miss my point and clearly think I am grouping this entire operation as fraud. I never said this was fraud. I said it could happen. And who's to say it has not? It is easy to pull off and hide. It would take a full scrutiny of calling a mass of donors to confirm they did in fact give. No one has that means to verify. I am just pointing out that it can be done and anyone bundling in this manner should get a little more scrutiny.

As for his donors, as I said, the ones I've looked up have no Republican ties whatsoever. Many had Dem ties. I'm sure those have alterior motives in their giving as well. At the end of the day this exercise means nothing. Paul cannot break double digits in the polls and there will always be questions to his supporters when as was already pointed out some have ties to white supremacists and those longing for the days of the Confederacy.
Click to expand...

And again, I'm not saying it CAN'T be done. I'm just saying it would be very impractical, inefficient, and be way too much trouble to go through.
 
#21
#21
Regardless of this whole debacle with the one's who support Ron Paul, I think the man is the most sincere of all the current presidential candidates. He is one of the few true and honest congressmen in America. The man should not be marginalized because of his supports, plain and simple.
 
#22
#22
Rasputin_Vol said:
And again, I'm not saying it CAN'T be done. I'm just saying it would be very impractical, inefficient, and be way too much trouble to go through.
Click to expand...

Again, it's happened before and it will keep happening. This sort of thing has always occurred at some level of operation. Technology actually makes this much more easy now.
 
#23
#23
Volunteer_Kirby said:
Regardless of this whole debacle with the one's who support Ron Paul, I think the man is the most sincere of all the current presidential candidates. He is one of the few true and honest congressmen in America. The man should not be marginalized because of his supports, plain and simple.
Click to expand...

You don't think Huckabee or McCain are sincere?

You are judged by the company you keep. If he is attracting these types of supporters there has to be something drawing them. What would draw these types? Seeing that his former CoS on his blog rattles off this sort of ideology and is a driving force behind Paul's campaign, it's hard to ignore.
 
#24
#24
CSpindizzy said:
You don't think Huckabee or McCain are sincere?

You are judged by the company you keep. If he is attracting these types of supporters there has to be something drawing them. What would draw these types? Seeing that his former CoS on his blog rattles off this sort of ideology and is a driving force behind Paul's campaign, it's hard to ignore.
Click to expand...

Huckabee is sincere. McCain... not so sure.

Interesting you would bring up the company you keep argument. Huckabee tonight openly announced that he wouldn't mind the support of the Log Cabin Republicans, even though he disagrees with their lifestyle. Does that make Huckabee anymore pro-gay than if he came on and said he wouldn't take their support?

And if a Log Cabin Pub did happen to support Huckabee, would you begin to question Huckabee and ask what issues he may have that would attract openly gay voters to a devout Christian minister?

Bill Clinton considered J.W. Fulbright (a devout supporter of segregation) a mentor. Should we begin to question Clinton on racial issues? :no:

I'm sure American Communists will be forced to choose the lesser of 2 evils and vote for Hillary. Will you come out and ask what is it in her platform that attracts them? I could go on and on... in a 2 party system, the fringe elements in our society will gravitate towards people... even candidates that are not in any way looking for their vote. Surely, you realize this.
 
#25
#25
I understand what you are saying, but like CSpin said, at some point it's hard to ignore the fact that Ron Paul is attracting more than his fair share of the kooks.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top