Pulled- Ron Paul's Presidential Campaign Now Accepts Bitcoins through Tradehill!

[OgNasty]

Bad TradeHole. Trying to act like Ron Paul would accept Bitcoins through your site.  He is in no way affiliated with you and stated that he doesn't accept Bitcoins.

"Ron Paul's Presidential Campaign Now Accepts Bitcoins through Tradehill!"

That quote is not in any way true.  Shame on you.  I'm a Ron Paul supporter, but I won't be using your exchange because doing things like this shows that you can't be trusted.

[1713526471]

1713526471

[1713526471]

1713526471

[MysteryMiner]

Does really Americas last hope for non-violent change is in old man who might die soon? And the dumb majority of voters still can wote some monkey-man as president again and again. I know about Ron Paul but he looks more like a false hope figure than real revolutionary.

[JoelKatz]

Please describe the difference between a "sort-of bundler" and a straw donor.

They're complete opposites.

A straw donor gives a small donation for which they are reimbursed by another person. The idea is to conceal the true source of the donation and it only makes sense if the actual donor could not donate for some reason. The straw donor makes possible a donation that would otherwise be illegal (and hence still is). The point of straw donors is that you have a lot of them, allowing one person to make an otherwise illegal large donation.

A bundler or "sort-of bundler" collects many small donations from a number of donors and bundles them into one large donation. The idea is to save the campaign from the hassle of collecting a large number of small donations. A bundler simply makes it more convenient for a large number of people to donate to a campaign. The point of a bundler is that you have few of them, allowing many people to make legal small donations efficiently.

Assuming it would be lawful for me to cash in my bitcoins myself and give the money to Ron Paul, it should be legal for me to employ TradeHill to do it for me. Note that I say "should be". Election law is a very complex beast.

[OgNasty]

Please describe the difference between a "sort-of bundler" and a straw donor.

They're complete opposites.

A straw donor gives a small donation for which they are reimbursed by another person. The idea is to conceal the true source of the donation and it only makes sense if the actual donor could not donate for some reason. The straw donor makes possible a donation that would otherwise be illegal (and hence still is). The point of straw donors is that you have a lot of them, allowing one person to make an otherwise illegal large donation.

A bundler or "sort-of bundler" collects many small donations from a number of donors and bundles them into one large donation. The idea is to save the campaign from the hassle of collecting a large number of small donations. A bundler simply makes it more convenient for a large number of people to donate to a campaign. The point of a bundler is that you have few of them, allowing many people to make legal small donations efficiently.

Assuming it would be lawful for me to cash in my bitcoins myself and give the money to Ron Paul, it should be legal for me to employ TradeHill to do it for me. Note that I say "should be". Election law is a very complex beast.

So you're implying that TradeHill will be verifying that all bitcoin donations are coming from US Citizens?

[DrYe5]

So you're implying that TradeHill will be verifying that all bitcoin donations are coming from US Citizens?

So you're implying the US recognizes bitcoins as legal tender?

[twobits]

Maybe the superpac would take them?  http://www.revolutionpac.com/


But yeah,  this thread title and action are more likely to do him more harm then good in the current legal climate.

[bitrebel]

I'll be donating to Ron with bitcoins and I suggest everyone here do the same. That will make a name for bitcoin, if Ron gets 1 million donations in bitcoin!

[BusmasterDMA]

So you're implying that TradeHill will be verifying that all bitcoin donations are coming from US Citizens?

That begs the question to what extent do traditional bundlers verify the identity and eligibility of donors.  Would they typically accept cash donations?

[ball4thegame]

Maybe the superpac would take them?  http://www.revolutionpac.com/


But yeah,  this thread title and action are more likely to do him more harm then good in the current legal climate.

This is probably the way to go. Individual donations to the campaign max out at $2,500, however SuperPAC's are not bound to maximum donations. The Revolution SuperPAC has a top-notch Board of Directors ready to hit the ground running. It shouldn't be a problem at all if someone like TradeHill collects donations and writes one check for the Revolution SuperPAC.

For those saying that private organizations shouldn't be involved in the political process...why wouldn't a company, such as a Bitcoin exchange, want to support a candidate who endorses and actively supports competing currencies and the elimination of legal tender laws? That just sounds like good business to me

[frozen]

Does really Americas last hope for non-violent change is in old man who might die soon? And the dumb majority of voters still can wote some monkey-man as president again and again. I know about Ron Paul but he looks more like a false hope figure than real revolutionary.

The US doesn't have any hope for non-violent change. The best, I believe, RP could do is delay the day of reckoning by 8 or 10 years - and this isn't really an ideal scenario. The worst RP could do is be in office during the collapse: "Economy collapses under libertarian president" - the statists would love this. The single greatest opportunity to eliminate libertarian philosophy for the next several generations. I think they are willing to trade 4-8 years for another 50.

RP's age is not the reason to be against him. The fact that he "might die" is also irrelevant. as many not-so-old presidents have died while in office for a variety of reasons.

I don't support RP (I used to), but I do support the libertarian philosophy that he espouses.

The state is institutionalized force, and libertarianism is a philosophy of non-violence. These are mutually exclusive concepts. They are not compatible. You cannot infiltrate the state and turn it into a something virtuous. If this were possible, start with something small, like the mafia and try turning it into a charity. Libertarianism has historically been a failure because all libertarians have done is trim the leafs and branches of the tree of statism, and not the root: the belief that the state is moral; the belief that violence can achieve good, and that social problems can be solved with bullets.

He too often uses the constitution as an appeal to authority, rather than first principles. Maybe he does this because, for the general public, the constitution is more palatable, but I've never heard him admit this.

RP is a great educator, but he doesn't apply his conclusions about the state to all fictitious institutions (namely religion).

[BusmasterDMA]

RP is a great educator, but he doesn't apply his conclusions about the state to all fictitious institutions (namely religion).

I also was a fan of RP until I watched an interview in which he denied evolution.  (And I might point out that he is a medical doctor.)

[Bitcoin Swami]

RP is a great educator, but he doesn't apply his conclusions about the state to all fictitious institutions (namely religion).

I also was a fan of RP until I watched an interview in which he denied evolution.  (And I might point out that he is a medical doctor.)

To disreguard everything else someone says because they don't believe in evolution is pretty lame.

I'm not religious at all but I don't even know if I believe in evolution.  Its a nice theory.

As far as this thread, I think the title is misleading and should be changed. 

[JoelKatz]

So you're implying that TradeHill will be verifying that all bitcoin donations are coming from US Citizens?

I'm hardly an expert in US election finance law, but my understanding is that this is not TradeHill's responsibility. When you write a check to a candidate to donate to their campaign, does your bank ensure you can legally donate to the campaign? If you FedEx the donation, does FedEx check that? TradeHill is just acting as the donor's agent, just like other bundlers do.

[BusmasterDMA]

So you're implying that TradeHill will be verifying that all bitcoin donations are coming from US Citizens?

I'm hardly an expert in US election finance law, but my understanding is that this is not TradeHill's responsibility. When you write a check to a candidate to donate to their campaign, does your bank ensure you can legally donate to the campaign? If you FedEx the donation, does FedEx check that? TradeHill is just acting as the donor's agent, just like other bundlers do.

But the simple fact that the money is being delivered to the bundler in the form of a check gives the bundler some clue as to the identity of the donor, or at the least in what nation they bank.  Could a bundler accept a cash donation?

[frozen]

RP is a great educator, but he doesn't apply his conclusions about the state to all fictitious institutions (namely religion).

I also was a fan of RP until I watched an interview in which he denied evolution.  (And I might point out that he is a medical doctor.)

To disreguard everything else someone says because they don't believe in evolution is pretty lame.

I'm not religious at all but I don't even know if I believe in evolution.  Its a nice theory.

I don't think BusmasterDMA is rejecting everything he says. He is merely stating that he was an RP fan up until that point. When RP arbitrarily rejects evolution, he rejects the scientific method. But then he uses the scientific method when explaining economics and the morality of the state.  

The general public throws the word "theory" around as if it means the same thing as opinion or personal preference. It does not. Theory has a very strong meaning scientifically, and has a very high barrier to entry. So when people say that something is "a nice theory," or is "just a theory" it's an attempt to undermine science and the scientific method.

[Littleshop]

RP is a great educator, but he doesn't apply his conclusions about the state to all fictitious institutions (namely religion).

I also was a fan of RP until I watched an interview in which he denied evolution.  (And I might point out that he is a medical doctor.)

To disreguard everything else someone says because they don't believe in evolution is pretty lame.

I'm not religious at all but I don't even know if I believe in evolution.  Its a nice theory.

I don't think BusmasterDMA is rejecting everything he says. He is merely stating that he was an RP fan up until that point. When RP arbitrarily rejects evolution, he rejects the scientific method. But then he uses the scientific method when explaining economics and the morality of the state.  

The general public throws the word "theory" around as if it means the same thing as opinion or personal preference. It does not. Theory has a very strong meaning scientifically, and has a very high barrier to entry. So when people say that something is "a nice theory," or is "just a theory" it's an attempt to undermine science and the scientific method.

+1

[BusmasterDMA]

To disreguard everything else someone says because they don't believe in evolution is pretty lame.

I'm not religious at all but I don't even know if I believe in evolution.  Its a nice theory.

I don't think BusmasterDMA is rejecting everything he says. He is merely stating that he was an RP fan up until that point. When RP arbitrarily rejects evolution, he rejects the scientific method. But then he uses the scientific method when explaining economics and the morality of the state.  

The general public throws the word "theory" around as if it means the same thing as opinion or personal preference. It does not. Theory has a very strong meaning scientifically, and has a very high barrier to entry. So when people say that something is "a nice theory," or is "just a theory" it's an attempt to undermine science and the scientific method.

TY, well said.  I still share many common philosophies with Paul.  I just don't hold him quite as high in esteem as I did prior to having seen that interview.

[Bitcoin Swami]

RP is a great educator, but he doesn't apply his conclusions about the state to all fictitious institutions (namely religion).

I also was a fan of RP until I watched an interview in which he denied evolution.  (And I might point out that he is a medical doctor.)

To disreguard everything else someone says because they don't believe in evolution is pretty lame.

I'm not religious at all but I don't even know if I believe in evolution.  Its a nice theory.

I don't think BusmasterDMA is rejecting everything he says. He is merely stating that he was an RP fan up until that point. When RP arbitrarily rejects evolution, he rejects the scientific method. But then he uses the scientific method when explaining economics and the morality of the state.  

The general public throws the word "theory" around as if it means the same thing as opinion or personal preference. It does not. Theory has a very strong meaning scientifically, and has a very high barrier to entry. So when people say that something is "a nice theory," or is "just a theory" it's an attempt to undermine science and the scientific method.

I don't tend to put all my faith in science.  Lots of things that were "facts" when I was a kid have been proven wrong and replaced with a new "fact", how many things that you believe as fact today will be proven wrong tomorrow?  Is there even a scientific method when it comes to the theory of evolution? or is it just darwins little drawing? <-- this is a serious question actually.

Peace
MIke

EDIT: I probably wont reply to anyone who answers for the simple fact that I don't want to keep bumping this thread.

[BusmasterDMA]

I don't tend to put all my faith in science.  Lots of things that were "facts" when I was a kid have been proven wrong and replaced with a new "fact", how many things that you believe as fact today will be proven wrong tomorrow?  Is there even a scientific method when it comes to the theory of evolution? or is it just darwins little drawing? <-- this is a serious question actually.

Peace
MIke

EDIT: I probably wont reply to anyone who answers for the simple fact that I don't want to keep bumping this thread.

I'm going to let this go too, since a discussion on the merits of evolution and science in general is well outside the scope of this thread.

I'm still interested in determining whether or not a US political candidate or PAC can legally receive anonymous contributions.  To me this seems no trivial matter, either way.

[Sukrim]

I'll be donating to Ron with bitcoins and I suggest everyone here do the same. That will make a name for bitcoin, if Ron gets 1 million donations in bitcoin!

He'll get 0 Bitcoins in donations, all he gets is some USD. He won't ever know/care they came from bitcoin donations.

Can we please get back to topic here?!

It's not about any political views, votability or anything else - this thread is about tradehill LYING and saying you can donate for some Republican candidate via BTC while all they (maybe) do is collect BTC, cash them in and send a check claiming it's just from them (everything else would be illegal) which is lying.