Bitcoin Forum

Can we get somebody to accept Bitcoins, then sell them and donate them to the campaign?

http://www.ronpaul2012.com/

I'd rather not support Ron Paul. While I agree with a few of his ideas, he is mostly a nutcase.

What about him makes him a nutcase?


This is illegal.  You cannot make donations for other people.  If you want to play with fire, go for it, though.  Sell yourself and donate yourself if you really want to, though.

"Boy, it sure burns me to have a national holiday for Martin Luther King. I voted against this outrage time and time again as a Congressman. What an infamy that Ronald Reagan approved it! We can thank him for our annual Hate Whitey Day."

"opinion polls consistently show only about 5% of blacks have sensible political opinions".

I doubt it would be a problem for the person at the end who actually made the donation.  The limit is $2,500 a person I believe, so the person collecting could do up to that amount.  I suppose people who had already contributed the max and used bitcoins as a method to get more money in would be violating some FEC rules, but I can't see anything coming of it because you can't prove who the money came from. I doubt people would really go through so much trouble just so they could give more money to politicians.  And as far as anyone is concerned all the money came from you.  

Citation please?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul

Also:

"even in my little town of Lake Jackson, Texas, I've urged everyone in my family to know how to use a gun in self defense. For the animals are coming."

"Homosexuals, not to speak of the rest of society, were far better off when social pressure forced them to hide their activities."

Over the years Karl Denninger has done a good job of pointing out all the opportunities (http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=187537) Ron Paul has had to make a real difference but has so far passed on.

Lame.

Also from said page.

Newsletter controversy
Further information: Ron Paul newsletter controversy

Controversial claims made in Ron Paul's newsletters, written in the first person narrative, included statements such as "Boy, it sure burns me to have a national holiday for Martin Luther King. I voted against this outrage time and time again as a Congressman. What an infamy that Ronald Reagan approved it! We can thank him for our annual Hate Whitey Day." Along with "even in my little town of Lake Jackson, Texas, I've urged everyone in my family to know how to use a gun in self defense. For the animals are coming."[134] Two other statements that garnered controversy were "opinion polls consistently show only about 5% of blacks have sensible political opinions". In an article titled "The Pink House" the newsletter wrote that "Homosexuals, not to speak of the rest of society, were far better off when social pressure forced them to hide their activities."[135]

At the end of 2007, both the New York Sun and the New York Times Magazine reprinted passages from early 1990s publications of Paul's newsletters, attacking them for content deemed racist.[14] These were the same newsletters that had been used against Paul in his 1996 congressional campaign.

On January 8, 2008, the day of the New Hampshire primary, The New Republic published a story by James Kirchick quoting from selected newsletters published under Paul's name.[52][136]

Responding to the charges in a CNN interview, Paul denied any involvement in authoring the passages. Additionally, Paul's campaign claimed through a press release that the quotations had come from an unnamed ghostwriter and without Paul's consent. Paul again denounced and disavowed the "small-minded thoughts," citing his 1999 House speech praising Rosa Parks for her courage; he said the charges simply "rehashed" the decade-old Morris attack.[137] CNN anchor Wolf Blitzer said that the writing "Didn't sound like the Ron Paul I've come to know."[138] Later, Nelson Linder, president of the Austin chapter of the NAACP, also defended Paul.[139]
“    “Everybody knows in my district that I didn't write them and I don't speak like that... and I've been reelected time and time again and everyone knows I don't participate in that kind of language. The point is, when you bring this question up, you're really saying 'you're a racist, or are you a racist?' The answer is no, I'm not a racist. As a matter of fact, Rosa Parks is one of my heroes, Martin Luther King is a hero, because they practiced the libertarian principle of civil disobedience and nonviolence. Libertarians are incapable of being a racist because racism is a collectivist idea: you see people in groups. A civil libertarian as myself sees everyone as an important individual.    ”
     
— Ron Paul, CNN, Jan 10, 2008[140]

Reason republished Paul's 1996 defense of the newsletters,[141] and later reported evidence from "a half-dozen longtime libertarian activists" that Lew Rockwell had been the chief ghostwriter.[52] Although Rockwell denies this charge, and "has characterized discussion of the newsletters as 'hysterical smears aimed at political enemies.'"[142]

Paul had given his own account of the newsletters in March 2001, stating the documents were authored by ghostwriters, and that while he did not author the challenged passages, he bore "some moral responsibility" for their publication.[143]

He wrote them or approved them. Don't act like he didn't.

And

The Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian yet religiously tolerant America, with churches serving as vital institutions that would eclipse the state in importance. — Ron Paul

Through perverse court decisions and years of cultural indoctrination, the elitist, secular Left has managed to convince many in our nation that religion must be driven from public view. The justification is always that someone, somewhere, might possibly be offended or feel uncomfortable living in the midst of a largely Christian society, so all must yield to the fragile sensibilities of the few. The ultimate goal of the anti-religious elites is to transform America into a completely secular nation, a nation that is legally and culturally biased against Christianity. — Ron Paul

He is not someone I want to put in the White House.

This is correct. I donated this morning, and before donating you have to agree that you're not donating on behalf of someone else.

Somebody's on a mission. I wonder what it is. What's really touching is you still hold on to the idea there's power in the White House. Ron Paul is the only one who won't mess with the laws and measures are passing, including Vermont's single payer system. For all the drama, you'd think you'd be offering some solutions.

How many blacks are in prison due to the drug war that Paul seeks to end? *crickets*

I'm going back to code.

No thanks.

what about helping /other/ parties?

Isn't he a politician?

And lol@ giving my coins to someone to convert to dollars to give to someone who won't sully their hands with actual bitcoins.

Ron Paul did not say or write this things. Its there in the wikipedia page.

He's still the only candidate who speaks the truth. Regardless of soundbytes taken out of context over the last 25 years. 

Stop lying. He did not write them and he did not managed the Ron Paul newsletters. Lew Rockwell was the one managing his newsletters and some have accused Lew of writting some of those because of the writing style but nothing is confirmed. So please stop, what do you gain from lying about Ron Paul?

Im an atheist and I would be happy to have Ron Paul in the White House.

At least we know who the real nutcase is.

Whatever the case, I don't like him. He is best best Republican candidate right now (not saying much, I can't remember a time it has been this weak), but I don't think he has a chance over Obama, even though I'm not thrilled with how he has done so far.

Ron Paul is the republican candidate that polls higher against Obama.

+1,000,000

All you ron paul fanatics in this forum really make me think bitcoin is doomed to fail.

Ron Paul is an Americunt's "green party" as we have here in Canada. They are used to remove anybody that doesn't fit nicely into "republican" or "democrat" molds from the polls. They will never win, and anybody who votes for them is wasting a vote.

If the two-party system here in the USA is broken, if both Democrats and Republicans have loathsome policies, wouldn't we be throwing our vote away whatever we do?

Decision tree for BTC -> Ron Paul:

Does he have a Bitcoin address? No? Then does he have an email and a public key?

If so, email him a wallet.dat encrypted to his public key, along with an explanation of Bitcoin and its value.

If no public key, just send it unencrypted.

But why would voting for ANYONE not be a waste of a vote?  It's not like your vote will matter there either.  Voting is a waste of time.

Why do we vote for these people?

Why not hire them and fire them?

I just read an article claiming Ron Paul wants to return to the gold standard. Then I looked into and found that he actually wants to remove all laws on legal tender, so people can freely choose their own monetary standards. Sounds like someone who might support Bitcoin.

We should try to convince well-known people like this to accept Bitcoin, even if we don't agree with their views. The more people use it, the better.

Ron Paul may be the best candidate, but even if did have a chance of winning, what a waste of money and resources.  When we try to work within the system (i.e. voting) we are validating, endorsing, and supporting the existing, corrupt system.

Bitcoin is working outside the system. Don't hand it over to the politicians, however well-intentioned they might be. This is our money.

Democracy is nothing more than a suggestion box for slaves.

Who is handing anything over?

We wouldn't be handing it over to him. We would giving street Paulers a fighting chance.

Getting back on topic -- I believe it could be legal if the facilitator formed a PAC, or Political action committee (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_action_committee#Non-connected_PACs).

By forming a non-connected PAC, you should be able to accept $5000 per individual, and give up to $5,000 per candidate per election. Elections such as primaries, general elections and special elections are counted separately.

Or a Super PAC. I'm giving Bitcoins to Stephen Colbert.

But if I am not mistaken a PAC can not directly support one candidate, so you would not be giving yor money to Ron Paul.

+1

You know, 'cause Thomas Jefferson wasn't religious at all.  Libertarian principles have no problem with religious references in state documents or by officials as long as the state is not forcing those views on the populace.  What's wrong with a "God bless American" or "...endowed by their creator..."?  Separation of church and state is not saying religion can have no influence on the state, it's that the state must not be permitted influence on your religious activities.  If Iraq became a libertarian state, I would not expect it to be void of Islamic references.  Based on the USA's western roots, it would be unreasonable to expect it to be void of western religious references/philosophy. 

I imagine a place mature enough where poeple do not become inflamed by a passing "May you be blessed by Allah",  "God Bless", "May you be touched by His noodily Appendages."  It's ok, it's not a threat to you personally, you just have to be more open minded and accepting.  Could you just take the goodwill at face value?

Amen!  ;D

The word god is not a threat to me personally if it comes from a random person, but it is a threat if it is printed on a dollar, or federally funded in any other manner.

During the cold war, the United States changed their motto from some latin phrase, to "in god we trust." The only reason they did this was to separate themselves from "godless communists."

As for the founding fathers, many were Diest. That is a religion that does not really exist today, it's a faith that combines god with science, and rejects the importance of institutionalized religion. Jefferson himself was Diest and did not believe Jesus was the son of god, although he followed the teachings of Jesus.

I hope that one day that the cultural climate in the USA changes to the point where you no longer see this as a threat under a banner of liberty. 

Why, exactly? I never voted in favor of Christians controlling what religion gets printed on my dollar bills. Why shouldn't I feel threatened that they forcefully ceased control over this issue? I admit it's a small issue, and it amounts to nothing more than an annoyance, but it is a threat. The thing I don't like about it is that it can't be removed, because there are very few people in this country who believe in secularism.