13 votes

Something fishy is going on here at the Daily Paul

I have noticed something very strange here at the Daily Paul. I have been visiting DP for a few years now and have been a member since around a year and a half ago. I haven't gotten into it as much as some of you others but I def. visit the site daily, judging the top posts myself by how many of them I am tempted to open up. This is a fun little game I like to play, I have even opened up all ten of the stories because they were so libertarianly juicy, but recently, and I mean very recently, I have noticed something way out of place.

Now I don't have any direct post to share with you and I apologize for that, I wish I could have seen the trend sooner to start keeping a list but I didn't. I think the DP is being hijacked. Someone or something is taking our philosophy and twisting it just enough to confuse you, redirect your focus, and tease your sonar like instincts for truth.

I have no worries here, because I feel we are smarter than they are, I feel that we don't just read an article here and walk away. For all the silly posts, and confused rhetoric I see on this site I also see people learning all the time and checking each others facts, that is the beauty of this format. But I urge you to pay attention to detail in the next coming months because I think that this has just started, This can not distract us, we have a race to win.



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

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

I'd argue the opposite:

Since the NSA/Snowden story has broken, this has dominated the Daily Paul, and it's been a healthy discussion.

After the endless Boston Marathon and Newtown conspiracy theories, it has been a welcome relief.

I have nothing against conspiracy theories in general, some have great merit, but it was a bit much.

The NSA leaks, individual liberty and personal privacy are definitely good Paulian issues to discuss!

I usually downvote Anne Coulter, Bill Kristol and Charles Krauthammer. If people love a neo-con rag like the weekly standard then go read it there, please don't bring that crap here.

Defeats the purpose of the Daily Paul if we link to the opinions of Ron Paul's biggest enemies constantly.

yes, but

>we have a race to save

fix'd

.ro

YOu can either confirm or reject based upon real evidence if

You search the NSA PRISM data base im sure you can find accurate data upon each person to come to a more accurate answer.

For me the Rand Paul endorsment of Mitt Romney was the begining of a split and I think a flood of Rand dupes from the GOP posting. Its got so I just ignore any Rand Paul post. Seems to have slowed down in the past month.

sovereign

You are correct, and I've been around a while...

There is certainly a new attitude at the DP, no doubt about it. Not sure if the regulars abandoned ship and this was the left overs, but some of the folks that have been here a little over a year seem to be running the place, and steering the conversation. Many posts I have read are not from the philosophy of Dr. Paul, and I have even read articles calling for violence. Not in my going on 6th year here have I ever read anything related to violence, and when you call them out in a post, you get hammered with down votes. I'm one that has never cared about the down votes, simply because until the last 6 months this site was comprised of like minded folks, but no more.

I think we just thought the worst of the trolls were around during the campaign, but now it is something different, like a group that has moved in with a different philosophy than that of the past and Dr. Paul's, and I'm not sure if it is paid shills, or ignorant kids, but there is something here that doesn't seem quiet right.

Always remember:
"It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds." ~ Samuel Adams
If they hate us for our freedom, they must LOVE us now....

Stay IRATE, remain TIRELESS, an

Maybe this post...

Maybe this post is a farce just to attract the trolls. You know, like fly paper. :)

Long live Daily Paul!

Yeah! The NSA is watching!

And trolling falsehoods while wearing tin foil hats so little green trolls from Mars, cannot intercept their thoughts before the thoughts are actually typed!

Yeah, you can tell.

I suggest a Heavy Duty type aluminium foil over the regular or a copper mesh hat.

Dude nobody is taking over anything.

And its okay to be paranoid, because that means you are actually learning the truth of how messed up things have become. By the way, the truth is there are more libertarians or constitutionalists than most think, and more people who don't realize that they are actually libertarians or constitutionalists.

http://rt.com/shows/crosstalk/national-security-state-survei...

Not a fair depiction

There are those here who advocate blatantly anti liberty positions and use accounts that always post together. I've noticed the pattern myself, just never bothered or cared enough to make a post about it.

I think the people here who believe in certain ideas will hold onto them if their understanding is good enough. Those that don't, probably didn't believe it in this first place.

Just what i think.

"Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty."

Click Here To See The Candidates On The Record

I agree...

They are also disappearing my posts! I just posted this:
http://www.dailypaul.com/289300/iran-to-send-4000-troops-to-...

It has no views or comments and that has happened to like my last 5 posts.

Washington’s decision to arm Syria’s Sunni Muslim rebels has plunged America into the great Sunni-Shia conflict of the Islamic Middle East, entering a struggle that now dwarfs the Arab revolutions which overthrew dictatorships across the region.

World Exclusive: US urges UK and France to join in supplying arms to Syrian rebels as MPs fear that UK will be drawn into growing conflict-

Robert Fisk Author Biography

Sunday 16 June 2013

For the first time, all of America’s ‘friends’ in the region are Sunni Muslims and all of its enemies are Shiites. Breaking all President Barack Obama’s rules of disengagement, the US is now fully engaged on the side of armed groups which include the most extreme Sunni Islamist movements in the Middle East.

The Independent on Sunday has learned that a military decision has been taken in Iran – even before last week’s presidential election – to send a first contingent of 4,000 Iranian Revolutionary Guards to Syria to support President Bashar al-Assad’s forces against the largely Sunni rebellion that has cost almost 100,000 lives in just over two years. Iran is now fully committed to preserving Assad’s regime, according to pro-Iranian sources which have been deeply involved in the Islamic Republic’s security, even to the extent of proposing to open up a new ‘Syrian’ front on the Golan Heights against Israel.

... here's a tip...

Make friends with smudge pot and friends that hang out on the Daily Paul Liberty Forum.

If you think your post is an absolutely "must be seen by the community," log into the Liberty Forum and kindly (by kindly, I mean understanding that when you log into the Liberty Forum you make sure you don't abruptly interrupt their conversation) let the people know there that you have a very important post for the community to see... tell them what it is about and post it for them to view... if they like it, they will up vote.

I last did this when I found out there was like less than 2 days for us to do something about CISPA. After the post got traction I think either Michael or the mods kept updating my post for me regarding the time that was left to take action regarding CISPA and other updates on the topic.

The site is evolving and I am very confident that the quality level of the posts are only going to get better!

"We’ve moved beyond the Mises textbook. We’re running in the open market." - Erik Voorhees

Michael Nystrom's picture

Your post was not "disappeared"

It just so happens that no one looked at it.

There is a difference

He's the man.
bigmikedude's picture

That's likely because it was posted

at least two other times that I can see.

EDIT: Make that three, yours being a fourth.

I tend to agree. Seeing a lot

I tend to agree. Seeing a lot of "half-assed, pseudo libertarian statists" on this site recently. This is the 1st time I've even bothered to log in in god-knows-how-long!

Michael Nystrom's picture

First time you've bothered to log in in a long time

Just to complain.

Great. People like you really make my day.

He's the man.

hmmm

Just a week ago I was wondering why I felt so "push you-pull me" after reading some posts.. I'm still working to firm up my political stance and it get's a bit confusing when it is so conflicting.

Garnet
Daughter of 1776 American Revolutionists

Paid trolls are everywhere. I

Paid trolls are everywhere. I would not be surprised at all that some are here too. They do have a name, type 'PR Evangelist, Brand Evangilist, etc' in google for a sample.
These 'evangelists' are well organized and sometimes quite expert in steering discussions to their favor.

Michael Nystrom's picture

The site is just evolving

This is natural, since there aren't many Ron Paul 2012 stories for people to post or talk about any more.

There is an organic evolution going on here. People are leaving. I've definitely banned many people who are lacking in manners, as well as in common sense.

When the goal was Ron Paul 2012, we needed numbers. A lot of them. Numbers translated to votes, so I was pretty lenient. I suffered a lot of fools. But as long as everyone stayed focused on the mission, that was fine. But I banned even more people during the election cycle - people who were just here to stir up trouble. People that weren't here to support Ron Paul. They got the boot, and quick.

Now that the original mission has ended we are in a period of transition and evolution. My primary concern is that people show respect for one another, and have arguments that they can back up with facts. People who post wild speculation without anything to back it up ... well, there are other sites out there for them.

As for your final line, I'm a little confused.

This can not distract us, we have a race to win.

What race is it that you think we have to win? Ron Paul 2016?

He's the man.

thx so much

For your comment. I had to take a break because of some of the posters. Whenever I get to the point of yelling.. or being visceral its time for a deep breathe..

I agree too. The activists are beginning to show back up. :)

Rand is giving me hope. I dont know where you stand with him now... I remember a few comments that didn't suggest you would be behind him. He keeps rigoursly defending our rights and that is my number one issue.

Thank you for correcting the ship. It's gotta be frustrating dealing with so many people. Including me a few times. My heart is always in the right place but my mouth may have a short fuse when dealing with ignorance.

I believe we are all here to make America a better place. It's why I am here...

DailyPaul represents the struggle to right the ship that is our country. We reallywouldnt have accomplished nearly as much without your help.

I'm anxious to see what happens next.

In Liberty!!!

P.

'Peace is a powerful message.' Ron Paul

TwelveOhOne's picture

Before you ban someone

Do you warn them?

I love you. I'm sorry. Please forgive me. Thank you.
http://fija.org - Fully Informed Jury Association
http://jsjinc.net - Jin Shin Jyutsu (energy healing)

Michael Nystrom's picture

It depends

Fishy got plenty of warnings. (Furthermore, she wasn't banned.)

Sometimes yes, sometimes no. It is a judgement call. Posting history is a big factor.

In the early days, I used to be very patient, offer a lot of leeway. That resulted was long back-and-forths over email, which used to be interesting, and fulfilling, but then became very boring and repetitive. I just don't have the time or the patience for that anymore.

The problem is there are 50,000+ users, and only a few moderators, and only one of me. And in the end, the buck stops with me.

The house rules are here.
http://www.dailypaul.com/guide

In summary, I expect people to be respectful to one another, to the site, and to have and exercise some critical thinking skills.

In other words, I expect people to behave like adults. (I realize that might be too much to ask :)

p.s. If I ban someone, and they write me an email of confusion, I will ask them, "Do you know why you got banned?" and send them the guide. If they have no idea, or they want to yell at me and tell me what a piece of shit I am, then they're not coming back. I don't put up with a lot of bullshnitzel from people in real life. Like I said, when we were trying to get Ron Paul elected, we needed the numbers.

It was a quantity thing. These days I'm going for quality, and if I wouldn't put up with someone's BS in real life, I'm not going to put up with it here.

He's the man.

"Furthermore, she wasn't banned."???

I don't mean to stir the pot but, I'm confused. From your comment below:

"There was a reason fishy was banned. She thought she had some kind of an 'in' with me that gave her special privileges. She was mistaken."

So, was she or wasn't she?

“It is the food which you furnish to your mind that determines the whole character of your life.”
―Emmet Fox

Michael Nystrom's picture

You're right, I misspoke.

She says she was banned. She emailed me complaining about being 'banned.'

She was actually demoted, so she can post comments, but can't create new threads.

So, according to her, she was. But she could post a comment right here and now if she wanted.

He's the man.

Thanks for clearing that up.

Good to know she's still around, if she wants to be.

“It is the food which you furnish to your mind that determines the whole character of your life.”
―Emmet Fox

bigmikedude's picture

"bullshnitzel"

It's a keeper.

YES,

Ron Paul 2016!!!

Where can I get the bumper stickers?

"It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere".
--Voltaire

It's hard not to be a menace to society when half the population is happy on their knees. - unknown

I agree

A lot of the posts have been misleading & down right outrageous!I would guess we have a lot of trolls in here,trying to confuse the liberty movement with misinformation

I've noticed carp

droppings on me keyboard as of late. this may surely be a sign.
I'll keep ya'll posted

So be it...

Here's a good Rothbard quote for this occasion from The Six Stages of the Libertarian Movement":

"...for Libertarians, the goal of a political party is not getting patronage but rolling back the state, any Libertarian Party should be delighted to find themselves begin co-opted, so to speak, their program stolen by the major party. That's great. Then you advance, up the ante, as we say in poker, and start making greater demands and let them steal that until finally the state is wiped away."

Libertarians by nature are difficult to steer towards statism beyond the limits of that allowed by self-defense through government endorsed by minarchists. This is because libertarian philosophy is rooted in the very simple to understand non-aggression principle. Since everything in the political philosophy is derived from NAP, it is very consistent in its diagnosis of issues (with some shades of gray between minarchism and anarchism).

On the other hand, democratic socialism professes to seek equal freedom (equality of results rather) for everyone through the use of force by government - which is a self-contradiction. Therefore, democratic socialists only need to be convinced that whatever policies the state is pursuing is in the interests of the "public good."

Modern Republicans are even easier than democrats because their political philosophy is even more confused. Republicans profess to be "small government conservatives" while in reality they are imperialistic socialists - which is quite contradictory. They wish to expand the influence of the government over the entire world through military might (a very expensive endeavor) and at the same time profess desires to cut spending - but instead, expand socialist policies to "benefit" their constituents. Accordingly, modern Republicans can be convinced that nearly anything the state does is satisfactory. In reality, their political philosophy consists of an "all of the above" approach - in practice anyway.

But the question is, which group is most malleable

The Imperialist GOP professing small government or the democratic socialist seeking equality through force?

I choose the former. Further, I would add that the practical difference in the realm of foreign policy is minimal. See Vietnam, Bosnia, Libya, Syria.. and Afghanistan as examples of Democratic Imperialism.

It become very difficult for the imperialist to maintain wild eyed "patriotism" in support of foreign adventure when one realizes that the encroaching state here at home is the greatest threat to prosperity,security, and personal liberty. Far more likely is the democratic statist to cling to government
as their salvation, when facing tougher personal circumstance.

I am not referring to the elites of either party, but the common man so to speak. And the common man of the GOP is but one step away from becoming libertarian. That step is the repudiation of a patriotism founded in something other than reverence for the constitution. Once this wild eyed counterfeit patriotism is overcome, then you have someone you can deal with.

And that, in a nut shell, is why the Dr. Paul chose the GOP in the first place.

Republicans are certainly more "malleable" than democrats

That's why they've been so easily led by the state. Of course, the tendency for them to be more easily steered also works to our advantage.

Democratic socialists are harder to convince for the primary reason that they are openly big government (something an R would be ashamed to admit).

I agree.

I don't post here very much any more because of

the moderator. Lots of people who contributed a lot to this site don't post, have been banned from posting, or were just outright banned.