Okay, I'll admit this is flaming rhetoric from outside the happy campers of Ron Paul, but since it has been reported, I wanted to see if it bothers anyone . . .
Ron Paul's organization has accepted AND SPENT the money donated to his campaign by an admitted and open Neo-Nazi.
One must wonder how that is considered to be a good thing.
When someone supports a candidate's ideology with their money, shouldn't the candidate consider the ideology of the person who is supporting them?
Or is that just not a consideration since it's all about the money anyway?
I have seen reports of other candidates returning or donating to charity money that had unsavory connections.
Mr. Paul said that he wouldn't do either because it "wasn't possible to screen the backgrounds of every donor" and that the donor was supporting him (Ron Paul) and the things he stands for. . .
Since it is evident that some of our governmental officials answers to lobbyists and takes money from special interest groups to push forward specific agendas and legislation, one might ask the question if the Neo-Nazi movement leader who gave the donation might come at some future time to 'put the touch' on Mr. Paul for a favor in kind. . . afterall it would sure come in handy to say that they and/or their organization had donated to his rise to power.
I honestly believe this matters.
Those who openly declare warfare on segments of our population like white supremacist organizations do don't represent the way that I believe. But in taking their money, it does raise a couple of warning flags regarding Mr. Paul.
Mr. Paul SHOULD return the money now that he knows the source. It matters!!
And I don't believe it is pandering to suggest that he do so. He will forever be tied to this donor by implication and the imprecation of this money that will most certainly follow in a lot of people's minds. . .
You're critical of other politicians that have received donations from sources you deem questionable, but if it's Ron Paul, then it's OK?
There is a difference between recieving donations to support freedom and actual solicitation to gays and selling votes. If Romney uses funds for preservation of liberty thats fine, if a candidate or their official campaign solicits nazis, white supremisists, or any group seeking special privelages then I believe there is reason for concern.
hiddentreasuredotws wrote:There is a difference between recieving donations to support freedom and actual solicitation to gays and selling votes. If Romney uses funds for preservation of liberty thats fine, if a candidate or their official campaign solicits nazis, white supremisists, or any group seeking special privelages then I believe there is reason for concern.
Using 'bad guy' money is ok, as long as it's used for a cause you support?
Hmmm...
__________________
And I'd discuss the holy books with the learned men, seven hours every day. That would be the sweetest thing of all.
Candidates shouldnt be required to do full background checks and niether should they need have paralel views. I dont think Romney should need to return his money to gays, either.
Candidates shouldnt be required to do full background checks and niether should they need have paralel views. I dont think Romney should need to return his money to gays, either.
Then what was the purpose in even bringing it up other than to besmirch the character of the candidate?
Paul's campaign was really big on showing that he received the endorsement of the dude who started the Minuteman Project, but the people who make up that organization were quick to publicly point out that their organization does not endorse or support him because of Paul's stances on issues. In other words, the endorsement was nothing but fluff and his campaign was trying to make something there that did not exist.
So, it is okay to accept campaign contributions from anyone as long as: 1. the contributor is pc; 2. the agenda / pc'ness / criminal background of the contributor is not known or the candidate can claim plausible deniability concerning the agenda / pc'ness / criminal background; and/or 3. the donation was not solicited (what exactly is considered solicited and unsolicited then)?
__________________
It seems to me the only thing you've learned is that Caesar is a "salad dressing dude."
that's an almighty comfortable position to accept money from people representing causes and ideologies that you are not in favor of simply to get the money.
and I DO believe someone wishing to be MY PRESIDENT would rise above that sort of pandering.
if you take someone's money, YOU ARE BEHOLDEN to them to the degree that you have accepted opinion money from them. they may support you in the sense that they like some of your ideas, but they WILL expect something in return for their investment in YOU.
In the passsed Mitt Romney recieved more financial support from gays t han other candidates.
The Bush family came into wealth via a Nazi Banking scheme (well documented and evidence is in library of congress).
Any money used for the cause for freedom is better spent than left in the hands of a Nazi.
Maybe, but one has to wonder what the motivation is behind a neo-nazi donating a large amount of money to a political campaign. What makes you think he's interested in "a cause for freedom?"
Poncho: Don't be hatin'! After all, you had no problems with Al Gore receiving money from Chinese Nationals posing as Bhuddist Monks a few elections past, right!?
--Ray
__________________
I'm not slow; I'm special. (Don't take it personally, everyone finds me offensive. Yet somehow I manage to live with myself.)
yeah, rayb! everybody knows the erstwhile Bhuddist Monk Chinese Nationals will bring eggrolls with their donations . . . and you know what they say, With six, you get eggroll" . . .
I accept Ron Paul's campaign's explanations of this: They can use the $500 for good, the person in question can't then use that $500 for evil, and so they'll keep the money. It's better than what Hillary did; announce that she'd return money, but keep it anyway. Even the person giving the money admitted that Ron Paul is not a white supremacist. I know a liberal who is for gay marriage who is considering voting for Ron Paul. If he were to give money to Paul's campaign, I would not feel that Paul is beholden now to support gay marriage. He could then, as he did with the money of the white supremacist, use it for good.
__________________
If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom, go from us in peace. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen! - Samuel Adams
Yes, DoubleD, I wouldn't get on any other candidate's case for not returning unsolicited money from someone they find politically repugnant. Now, if they solicit it specifically from that group or person, that's another matter entirely.
__________________
If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom, go from us in peace. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen! - Samuel Adams
Yes, DoubleD, I wouldn't get on any other candidate's case for not returning unsolicited money from someone they find politically repugnant. Now, if they solicit it specifically from that group or person, that's another matter entirely.
Thank you, That is what I was trying to point out, but not as articulate of a job.
Like one candidates flyers sent to gay log house republicans. That is different when there is specific solicitation to a specific group for votes. Its called vote selling, and RON PAUL has not sold votes but promises to support the constitution, which his record clearly shows that he walks the walk. The record of the others show that there is reason to question at least of they are not just talking the talk.
-- Edited by hiddentreasuredotws at 10:35, 2007-12-30
