0 votes

Topics being pulled?!

Someone posts a link to a Politico article that has quotes in it from Dr. Paul's actual campaign manager for his congressional campaign and it's polled as spam and shouted down as troll material just because some people can't handle that it raises some questions?


I emailed Mr. Elam. I'll see what he says, if he responds, about the Politico quotes. I'm sure that there is a simple explanation.

But what's with the knee-jerk yanking of the thread? I see plenty of other stuff that doesn't get yanked that frankly deserves it a hell of a lot more.

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.


Why post was immediately flagged by all who read it...

1) The article you posted was an inaccurate hit piece; obvious by its misleading title and other inaccurate info. therein. You should not have posted it here--causing alarm --proof--(see people jumping ship below because of your post).

2) article did not contain 'quotes' by any campaign person--as you write here. The author casually alleged the campaign manager said a thing...then the author went on to link the next sentence claiming ads were already being run. There were no 'quotes.'

3) why would you recklessly post that hit piece, false article on the DP, cause chaos, then claim you were doing a grand thing?

4) next time you run across hit pieces...call the campaign FIRST...then, you will know the truth before spreading the lies here for all to see and react.

If this seems a bit strong, it is because this site has deteriorated to chaos with trolls or those who don't have the ability to think a thing through before spreading gossip and lies to thousands who read on DP.

God damnit

1) I didn't post it! I just thought it was totally unfair it got yanked because this board sees everything hinting at a problem/concern/negative as a troll post!

2) I'll give you it had spin, but the people on this board think anything that doesn't praise Ron Paul is a hit piece.

3) You are right it wasn't a direct quote. It was presented as a paraphrase of a conversation the reporter had with Mr. Elam. A paraphrase that implied strongly that he expressly said Dr. Paul was planning to use presidential campaign funds for the congressional campaign. This doesn't come out of thin air, no matter how much you think the MSM hates us. By Mr. Elam's accounts, I suspect it was precisely due to a disconnect in talking about what was possible and what was actually going to be done.

4) Again, I didn't post it! To suggest that I was reckless in demanding an explanation why threads were pulled when three people shout "troll" is beyond belief.

5) Give me the direct dial numbers of the campaign and I'd be more than happy to. As it happens, while the original thread was being pulled "so that the campaign could respond", I managed to contact the campaign, get a sensible response and post it here.

If you seriously think Politico.com reports with comments attributed by reporters to campaign staff of Dr. Paul amounts to gossip we live in two different worlds.

You forgot to tell us....

BigMikeDude, you forgot to tell us whether the Paul campaign denied the quote, or confirmed it but noted extenuating information. You did stay on long enough to find out?

It is legal to transfer leftover money from a federal campaign account to one's next campaign. The donors don't need to consent to the transfer; they are considered to have given the money in support, and if that turns out to be ongoing or delayed support, even if for a lesser office, so be it.

Refunding contributions is not required, nor even feasible, since to be fair to all donors each contribution would have to be pro-rated to cover the portion already spent, plus handling costs on receiving and refunding: Impossibly complicated. And the legal second and third alternatives are even less acceptable: give the money to a recognized charity, or lose it to the US Treasury.

You are presumed to know the laws about anything you are doing, including making political contributions. The ones about federal contributions are clearly published in the candidate's manual at www.fec.gov.

And if you didn't know that Ron had also filed to retain his congressional seat (always have a back-up plan), then you just weren't paying attention, because that's what everyone does. (And other stuff, too. Shucks, Hillary has been filing as a presidential candidate since 1992!)

But what would be so wrong in any of this? We're only talking about any surplus funds after the campaign is over. There may well be nothing left after all the primaries.

I'd think that the important question for politico.com is whether the quote was reported in context and complete. Was it that he would be spending presidential contributions on his congressional race, or that he would be spending presidential contributions on his congressional race after the presidential campaign has ended, if it turns out he has lost?

More simply, if the conversation did happen, were they talking about spending that would take place before or after the presidential campaign ends?

In the name of the same open discussion we want from the press, here's the link to the politico.com article:


Censor open discussion at your own peril.


Your Nexus to the Freedom Movement

Your Nexus to the Freedom Movement

I have to hand it to Mr. Elam

He's quite prompt in returning email.

He reassured me that (a) Congressman Paul has significant congressional campaign funds at his disposal and that that is what the congressional campaign is using (b) that it is quite possible the congressional campaign's fundraising will make it unnecessary for use of any money from the presidential campaign for the congressional race and (c) Ron Paul remains committed to the presidential race. The emphasis was meant to say that Ron Paul's not going to ignore his congressional race while in the presidential race and that he fully intends to defend his seat in the primary while continuing the presidential campaign.

I suspect the quotes come from the difference between talking about what is possible in the abstract and what the campaign will actually do, giving the benefit of the doubt to the reporter not to make up quotes and Mr. Elam's accounting of his intent to me.

Thanks Mr. Elam for clarifying. That type of prompt response is welcomed and fully appreciated!


That's good to hear.

FLAG........this one is

FLAG........this one is repeat of one flagged by all immediately before. STOP posting more. There are couple others on here backing him up too.

My goodness

you people are lame. I'm a large donor to the campaign not some troll. I just think that if we can't talk about the campaign with some honesty -- if group think must dominate -- then we are doomed.

There is no reason to question the quotes' legitimacy. Mr. Elam could clarify simply by saying that the campaign is merely spending something like 30K on some bio ads and everyone would say, okay, that puts it in perspective.

But for the rest of you to vote it off the island because it isn't another "ron paul is the frontrunner" post is just silly.

Of course topics are being pulled...

As movements grow wary of their own survival they become more dogmatic and purge anything beyond the fundamental assertions that the original position is still true. Religions do it all the time.

The original assertion is that Ron Paul will be President, while in reality Ron Paul may lose and walk away with nothing, and many people don't want to hear that -so they cast out the ideas- and shun the messenger.

It was voted off the island, i suspect.

This place is self policing at the moment.
I'd assume that we're not in the mood for negativity right now.

Try again tomorrow.

"I don't endorse anything they say"
~Ron Paul On the 911 Truth movement.


Well, for those who don't understand what a real troll is, a troll is not someone who posts an article from a professional news operation with quotes from Dr. Paul's actual campaign manager saying that Dr. Paul plans to spend money raised in the presidential campaign on his Congressional race. That's a post from probably a concerned support who wants to know what to make of that.

And it wasn't even me! But I'll defend the guy. Absolutely shameful the degree of group think that happens on this board at times.

In case you haven't been paying attention...

Here it is again.

"Paul campaign spokesman Mark Elam indicated that Paul was planning on spending money from his presidential campaign on his House reelection bid. He went up on the airwaves Tuesday with his first advertisement, a radio spot touting his biography and legislative accomplishments."

"The main thing that I learned about conspiracy theory is that conspiracy theorists actually believe in a conspiracy because that is more comforting. The truth of the world is that it is chaotic..." —Alan Moore