Ron Paul Money Bomb - Bitcoin donations?

[frycicle]

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.

[1714016504]

1714016504

[1714016504]

1714016504

[1714016504]

1714016504

[hugolp]

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.

[gigabytecoin]

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

+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.

[AaronM]

[..]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?

[AaronM]

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.

[tomcollins]

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

+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.

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.

[AntiVigilante]

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?

[Lynzoi]

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.

[BookofNick]

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.

[AntiVigilante]

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.

[Validatorian]

Getting back on topic -- I believe it could be legal if the facilitator formed a PAC, or Political action committee.

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.

[frycicle]

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

[hugolp]

Getting back on topic -- I believe it could be legal if the facilitator formed a PAC, or Political action committee.

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.

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.

[Fhtagn]

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

+1

[Zamicol]

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

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?

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

Amen! 

[Lynzoi]

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

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?

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

Amen! 

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.

[Zamicol]

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.

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. 

[Lynzoi]

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.

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.