Paypal Freezes New Hampshire Recount Funds

reply to post by TrueAmerican


I thought that was my line .

Anyway, welcome to the big leagues. The grass roots need protection for the corporations they depend on.

I seem to recall mentioning this back when Richard Viguerie and company shot down an anti-astroturfing attempt by painting it as anti-grassroots.

We need a law that guarantees equal access to potential grass-roots resources such as MySpace, PayPal, etc, meaning that if one side can use it, all sides can use it, and any "malfunction" that does not impact all sides equally must be investigated and prosecuted.

Originally posted by krill
i did not know his chairman of finance was the ceo of ebay talk about a conflict of intrest (sp). and i understand paul not requesting a recount that would make him seem like a "sour grapes" person and the media would take advantage of it . but personaly i say recount that sucka lets see whats realy going on good thing kucinich orderd a recount but i wonder if they will just recount the dem's ballots or do a total recount .

Could you please explain to me how this situation poses a conflict of interest for Mitt Romney? If the Granny Warriors willingly opened a PayPal account (unless of course Mitt suggested it) then I do not see any conflict of interest, perhaps just a not very well thought out plan.

reply to post by The Vagabond




Very good idea you have there. Somehow I have a feeling Ron Paul would back that one too.

reply to post by The Vagabond

These are private entities you're talking about, not public. I may think they're complete scum, but that's where capitalism comes into play. PayPal pisses a lot of people off, so those people stop doing business with them. The last thing we should want is government to step in and try to "level the playing field."

The organizers screwed up. PayPal should never have been trusted. Should a big fat lawsuit be in order? If this was not a true computer error or legitimate account process, absolutely. Otherwise, stuff happens.

reply to post by stealthyone


"A conflict of interest is a situation in which someone in a position of trust, such as a lawyer, insurance adjuster, a politician, executive or director of a corporation or a medical research scientist or physician, has competing professional or personal interests. Such competing interests can make it difficult to fulfill his or her duties impartially. A conflict of interest exists even if no unethical or improper act results from it. A conflict of interest can create an appearance of impropriety that can undermine confidence in the person, profession, or court system. A conflict can be mitigated by third party verification or third party evaluation noted below—but it still exists."--- from wiki

seeing as it gives the appearance of impropriety it is a conflict of interest "even if no unethical or improper act results from it"

reply to post by InSanE1

It's called suppression. This evening on the ABC News they covered the Michigan Republican primary and showed every candidate's face EXCEPT Ron Paul. Not even a mention of him, even though he surpassed Giuliani and Thompson. I've said it before, MSM is a lie. Watch it to know where the shadow gov't wants the mass US consciousness to be.

Im sure paypal is being bought off by fellow campaigners

ridiculous that they would have to do that but believable

Interesting that ebay doesn't mind a bit making that used-to-be-almighty dollar though on Ron Paul:

search.ebay.com...

reply to post by TrueAmerican


now that is really funny. atleast we know there poltical affiliation dosent interfere with there love of the all mighty dollar. i use to run my fathers ebay store selling sports memorabilla and antiques, and i have to say i did not like dealing with ebay and pay pal at all. espicaly pay pal there was so many glitches and a few times when the account would be missing funds that my father was allways on the fone with them and the bank lol.

[edit on 1/16/2008 by krill]

Why would Mit Romney do Ron Paul a favor and get a recount stopped that Paul already declared he did not want to happen? Mit Romney was not even the winner in NH so why would he fear a recount? The core logic of this conspiracy is flawed and that is putting it kindly.

Here is more likely what happened imo. It took all of a few posts in this thread to google up Romney's election offical's ties to PayPal. Some Ron Paul fanatic who is internet savy did the same googling and screwed up the paypal account (which has already been posted how easy it is for anyone to do) so all the tin foil hats could parade around crying conspiracy.

Case solved move on and have a nice day.

I think it would have damaged Ron Paul's reputation if he had called for a recount, that's why he didn't do it, even if he thought there should be one. I'm sure he wouldn't object to members of the public calling for a recount on his behalf though.

Also, I've definetly noticed a bunch of people who seem to have created accounts for the sole purpose of Ron Paul bashing.

Originally posted by apc
These are private entities you're talking about, not public.

Consider it this way: Can Edison refuse to sell electricity to the campaign headquarters of candidates it opposes?

If I organize a grass roots campaign to elect someone to office, can AT&T shut off my phone because they don't want me using their services to support that person?

If Bank of America decides it's backing the Republican Party, can it refuse to process any checks or other transfers of funds from its customers to the Democratic Party?

The answers are clearly no.

And what would happen if there were convenient localized power outages and interruptions of phone service during one candidates events? What if every time Hillary Clinton had a rally, there was an accidental power outage? Do you think there might be an investigation and a lawsuit, possibly even a prosecution? I do.

So what makes Paypal, or any other service for that matter, different?

Originally posted by Pellevoisin
Meg Whitman -- CEO of Ebay which owns PayPal and a top member of Mitt Romney's team on finance.
She is the one who could pull the necessary strings to block the Granny Warriors in their effort to pay for the New Hampshire Republican recount.

You realize that Albert Howard has already paid for a recount? So whats the big deal? No one tried to stop him eh? Where the neo con hit squad to take him out?

We need to remember that everything that can be done will be done to deny Ron Paul and his supporters their Federal rights within each State's primary. The neo-cons are evil and will not let go of the Republican Party. Stealing votes is actually child's play compared to the assassinations of which they are capable.

Do you have any evidence that this has actually occured? PWhat federal rights have been violated? And for gods sake don't give me a link to some Ron paul 4ever blog.

Originally posted by Cthulwho
I think it would have damaged Ron Paul's reputation if he had called for a recount, that's why he didn't do it, even if he thought there should be one.

nah ive bene here for years

No recall was needed because he got what 8% of the vote. Thats really the bottom line

Not a strong showing AND why foot the bill for the recount, that one possibly two points he would gain (at best) would still leave him exactly where he is today.

reply to post by SectionEight


Ron Paul has got nothing to do whatsoever with the Republican recount. A candidate from Michigan named Albert Howard initiated the recount for the Republican side because of inconsistencies in the votes he received. He noticed his votes dropping everytime they updated the tally.

Since Ron Paul himself said he didn't want a recount, his supporters combined with the Granny Warriors to get the necessary funds for Howard to continue with the recount.

This isn't about whether or not Ron Paul maybe came in 3rd or 4th instead of 5th. It's about whether or not our election process and more specifically, the Diebold machines, can be trusted to provide accurate results.

I think the timing of the paypal freeze and the connection between it's founder and Romney is highly suspicious. If it weren't for an anonymous donor who came up with the funds at the literal last second, the recount woundn't be happening.

So again, this recount isn't about Ron Paul. It isn't about Romney. It's about being able to trust the voting system.

Originally posted by TrueAmerican
And the real odd thing here is that paypal would freeze the account based on a "suspicious" donation? Since when does paypal freeze accounts based just upon the spelling of someone's name? I dunno folks, something is stinking pretty bad here. Paypal better have a damn good reason, and be able to show that there was prior suspicious activity with that account.

what's odd about it ?? It's the patriot act at work.
cept granny warriors is now considered an accessory
to terrorism cuz they received money from a suspicious
arabic name on a threat list (at least on somebody high up
thought he was a threat).

LOL, now Granny Warriors is gonna get the feds showing up
and taking them off to gitmo to be with the other enemy combatants
in the war on granny .... errrr, I mean terror. Next thing you know
they will get the waterboard treatment ..... and guess what.
All because of their Ron Paul support.

reply to post by SimonSays


Irony. When they get there they can express their love for all the innocent harmless phony terrorists from around the world. Then they can tell them the good news that 9/11 never happened and their leader Osama is really dead. They will be a big hit.

The issue here isn't whether Ron Paul will get more votes or that you like or hate Ron Paul. The issue is that PayPal decided to freeze the granny warriors account right before the recount deadline was given.

We know that Albert Howard eventually got the money from a private donor but thats not the point the point is that PayPal froze the account because of a Muslim name as a donor. In addition the head finance guy in Romney's campaign is in charge at paypal.

So give up already on the RP has no chance crap we have all heard before because it won't make any of us vote for the other NWO tools running. Pay Pal is the criminal in this story and should be the only focus not Ron Paul.

Some people just seize any opportunity to attack Ron Paul even though he isn`t even involved in this recount. So go post that crap on a cnn blog they love it. You may even get your post read on air O.O

Originally posted by The Vagabond
Consider it this way: Can Edison refuse to sell electricity to the campaign headquarters of candidates it opposes?

If I organize a grass roots campaign to elect someone to office, can AT&T shut off my phone because they don't want me using their services to support that person?

If Bank of America decides it's backing the Republican Party, can it refuse to process any checks or other transfers of funds from its customers to the Democratic Party?

The answers are clearly no.

Your examples actually violate other existing laws (except for Edison...) which I believe PayPal might have done as well by denying access to funds. If they had a problem with what the money was to be used for, they should have denied the donations in the first place, which would have been within their right as they are not a bank.

But show me the law that says political discrimination is a crime for private enterprise. There isn't one. That's why you want to make one. Public departments are covered under the 1st Amendment. Not private.

If ATS decided to prohibit all discussions about Clinton, should the Government be able to step in and say, "Nuh-Uhh. You have to let people talk about her on your servers which you own and you pay to operate, potentially helping her claim her throne which would inevitably harm your business." There should be a law requiring that? I don't think so.

You're trying to say government should have more power to tell private business how to operate. Screw that. The government needs LESS power over private business. This may be an ideological difference we have here, but mine is how things should work under capitalism. Yours are how things work under socialism.

You want to make sure these companies don't make such choices? Don't cry to Washington. Just don't do business with them. It's really that simple.

I agree with apc on this one.

Introducing a prohibition against private political discrimination would be the final death knell for our republic.

How about figuring out how to divorce ourselves from private funding altogether for public elections? THAT would be much better, imo.