so, we are defending bigotry now?

[Perd Hapley]

As far as I'm concerned, the whole argument lies around the notion that it is a tacit approval/conflict of interest. With other candidates, I might agree. Taking money from corporations, for example, might be a conflict of interest. But I'd only believe that if the person has a record of being influenced by the source of their money. Since I'm particularly convinced Ron Paul can't be bribed and isn't racist, it seems like nothing but an attempt to smear him (unless the people who are turning this into a big issue do believe he can be bribed or is racist, and we can discuss that). The only reason such things are seen in a negative light (and the reason politicians tend to give this kind of money back), is because of what I stated earlier. It looks like a conflict of interest or an approval of that person. In many cases, it is, and that's why we perceive it as bad. But that is not always the case.

In other words, if some other candidate got money from StormFront, you would expect them to refuse it/give it to charity.  But this one time it was OK, because it was your candidate and you trust him.  Paul's not getting special treatment, here.  He's being held to the same standard as other candidates. 

I believe on THR there was a thread about the Brady Campaign handing out free pamphlets, and someone suggested taking all of them to dispose of them. Are you going to argue that those people are really anti-gunners in disguise because they're taking Brady pamphlets?

If someone gave you an MP40 that was used to kill Jews in concentration camps during WWII, would it make sense if I called you an anti-semitic Nazi? After all, you are accepting that object that came from some very unfriendly people.

Those situations have nothing to do with campaign contributions.  They don't compare at all.

Those situations are in principle, the same. So what if your money came from a white supremacist? So what if your gun came from a Nazi who used it for evil purposes? So what if you accepted a pamphlet or information from the Brady Campaign? Unless it's going influence you to do bad things, it's not a big deal.

The principle is not one of being influenced to do bad things.  It's one of whether a candidate will associate himself with white supremacists.  Buying a former NAZI weapon?  That doesn't associate you with anyone.  Taking a bunch of Brady pamphlets, so you can waste their money and quash their message?  No association there, either. 

[TwitchALot]

As far as I'm concerned, the whole argument lies around the notion that it is a tacit approval/conflict of interest. With other candidates, I might agree. Taking money from corporations, for example, might be a conflict of interest. But I'd only believe that if the person has a record of being influenced by the source of their money. Since I'm particularly convinced Ron Paul can't be bribed and isn't racist, it seems like nothing but an attempt to smear him (unless the people who are turning this into a big issue do believe he can be bribed or is racist, and we can discuss that). The only reason such things are seen in a negative light (and the reason politicians tend to give this kind of money back), is because of what I stated earlier. It looks like a conflict of interest or an approval of that person. In many cases, it is, and that's why we perceive it as bad. But that is not always the case.

In other words, if some other candidate got money from StormFront, you would expect them to refuse it/give it to charity.  But this one time it was OK, because it was your candidate and you trust him.  Paul's not getting special treatment, here.  He's being held to the same standard as other candidates.

Well, in this case, unless the other candidates have a record of racism somewhere, I wouldn't see a problem with accepting money from StormFront.   

But if, for example, one candidate had a record of pushing bills favorable to one company over others, and they got a donation from that company, THEN there would be a problem, IMO. Same standard for everyone. 

I believe on THR there was a thread about the Brady Campaign handing out free pamphlets, and someone suggested taking all of them to dispose of them. Are you going to argue that those people are really anti-gunners in disguise because they're taking Brady pamphlets?

If someone gave you an MP40 that was used to kill Jews in concentration camps during WWII, would it make sense if I called you an anti-semitic Nazi? After all, you are accepting that object that came from some very unfriendly people.

Those situations have nothing to do with campaign contributions.  They don't compare at all.

Those situations are in principle, the same. So what if your money came from a white supremacist? So what if your gun came from a Nazi who used it for evil purposes? So what if you accepted a pamphlet or information from the Brady Campaign? Unless it's going influence you to do bad things, it's not a big deal.

The principle is not one of being influenced to do bad things.  It's one of whether a candidate will associate himself with white supremacists.  Buying a former NAZI weapon?  That doesn't associate you with anyone.  Taking a bunch of Brady pamphlets, so you can waste their money and quash their message?  No association there, either. 

Why the first and not the latter? What is the logical distinction between the two?

In the case of accepting money, you seem to contend that it associates you with white supremacists, presumably because you accepted money that came from a white supremacist. But if you accept a weapon that came from a Nazi, you are not associated with Nazi's? What's the objective reasoning behind the difference?

And then you say that when you take a bunch of Brady pamphlets, so you can waste their money and quash there message, there is no association. But when you take a bunch of money from a white supremacist, so you can essentially quash their message, there is an association? Where's the distinction there?

[Perd Hapley]

Twitchalot, what you're suggesting is pretty odd, and doesn't really need refuting.  You implied that I'm making some kind of assertion all on my own here, but that's not true.  I'm simply agreeing with the majority view, because it happens to make sense.  I'll give it a go, anyway. 

When a group like Stormfront donates to a candidate, it looks for all the world like the candidate is sympathetic to their mission.  This is because their views are well-known and controversial, so their political donations have a definite message.  The message is not that Stormfront is pro-liberty or anti-war.  The message is that they believe Ron Paul will be friendly to their White Power nonsense.  To demonstrate otherwise, the candidate should refuse the money up-front, or give it to a charity or other third party, where it will neither benefit Stormfront, nor the candidate.  This communicates that he does not sympathize with Stormfront.  And it is very important that he do so. 

The same would apply to an anti-abortion candidate that got a donation from NARAL.  Or an anti-gun candidate that got a donation from the NRA.  At the very least, keeping that money would make such a candidate look soft on the issue. 

Buying weapons or other equipment that was used by NAZIs or other disreputable sorts simply doesn't mean anything in and of itself.  I suppose it could have a similar meaning if Stormfront gave Ron Paul a Mauser used by the Wehrmacht.  But most NAZI weaponry is sold by gun dealers just trying to make a buck, and purchased by those who like the guns for what they are, or enjoy history, or want an inexpensive rifle.  And most people understand that.  There's no message being sent. 

And then you say that when you take a bunch of Brady pamphlets, so you can waste their money and quash there message, there is no association. But when you take a bunch of money from a white supremacist, so you can essentially quash their message, there is an association? Where's the distinction there?

In the first situation there, I admit I was wrong.  There is definitely an association - with the pro-gun cause.  The Brady's haven't donated anything.  They didn't send you, by mail, stacks of pamphlets for the purpose of destroying the nice-looking, persuasive propaganda they worked so hard on and paid for.  But you're comparing that to a monetary, political donation to a candidate?  And talking as if the candidate was using the money to quash the message?  If he wanted to do that, he would give the money to an anti-racist group, as has already been stated.  But you think he should just keep it and hope no one takes offense. 

[TwitchALot]

Twitchalot, what you're suggesting is pretty odd, and doesn't really need refuting.  You implied that I'm making some kind of assertion all on my own here, but that's not true.

First of all, Id like you to point out where I implied that.

I'm simply agreeing with the majority view, because it happens to make sense.  I'll give it a go, anyway. 

When a group like Stormfront donates to a candidate, it looks for all the world like the candidate is sympathetic to their mission.  This is because their views are well-known and controversial, so their political donations have a definite message.  The message is not that Stormfront is pro-liberty or anti-war.  The message is that they believe Ron Paul will be friendly to their White Power nonsense.  To demonstrate otherwise, the candidate should refuse the money up-front, or give it to a charity or other third party, where it will neither benefit Stormfront, nor the candidate.  This communicates that he does not sympathize with Stormfront.  And it is very important that he do so.

You know what? Ive been unclear, so let me go one question at a time. Ive been trying to hit too many things at once and the real question has gotten lost in my answers, so allow me to clarify.

The questions at hand are, should Ron Paul give the money back, and, does accepting money from a white supremacist logically imply that you will be friendly, supportive, or in any way sympathetic to racism? My answer to these two questions is, no, and no. And let me explain why using what you said here:

The same would apply to an anti-abortion candidate that got a donation from NARAL.  Or an anti-gun candidate that got a donation from the NRA.  At the very least, keeping that money would make such a candidate look soft on the issue.

First of all, the comparison is not valid (Ill explain why later). An accurate comparison would be if a pro-choice individual gave money to a pro-life candidate. Does this mean that there is a conflict of interest, and should the pro-life candidate give the money back? If the candidate kept the money, would it imply that he supports abortion? Again, I say no.

The reason is simple: individuals have many preferences. Now sure, the donor may be pro-choice and may be a member of the NARAL. But maybe this donor thinks,  yeah, I am pro-choice and want a pro-choice candidate, but I dont want my kids to starve to death because of a bad monetary policy. So even though this person is pro-choice, he may donate to a pro-life candidate because other issues are more important to this person at the moment. Simply because an individual is pro-choice, and donates money to a candidate, does not mean he is donating to the candidate because he believes that it will influence the candidate to be pro-choice.

Another example: suppose an NRA member gives a donation to an anti-gun candidate. Does this mean that the anti gun candidate is really pro gun, or endorses the views of the NRA member? Of course not. Maybe the NRA member gave the donation to an anti-gun candidate because he cares more about restricting abortion, and the anti-candidate happens to be the toughest on the abortion issue. Maybe the NRA member gave the donation because he cares about environmental issues more, and the anti-gun candidate wants to impose tough emission restrictions.

The point is this: simply because a white supremacist gave money to Ron Paul does not mean, from a logical standpoint, that Ron Paul endorses, sympathizes, or supports racism in any way, shape, or form. It does not mean he is racist in any way.

Maybe the white supremacist is worried about the economy and feeding his kids. Maybe the white supremacist is worried about his civil liberties because he is part of an unpopular group that many would like to censor. There are any number of very good reasons as to why a white supremacist would donate to Ron Paul, but either way, the donation does not mean that Ron Paul is racist or sympathizes with racism. The notion that the white supremacist donated to Ron Paul because he believes Ron Paul will be friendly to their White Power nonsense is logically false. The reasons I gave above are very good reasons to vote for Ron Paul, and Id be willing to bet those reasons are it (especially the civil liberties one).

Accepting money from a white supremacist does not necessarily mean the white supremacist believes the candidate is racist, or is sympathetic to racism. It can just as well mean that he likes the other views of the candidate, and finds them more important. If I had said the guy was a father working hard to pay for his daughters surgery, would you still be arguing? Would you have an objection to that and demand that Ron Paul return the money? I doubt it.

The reason there is an objection is because people illogically believe that because the guy is a white supremacist, he must be donating to Paul because Paul is racist, or the white supremacist believes he can influence Paul. But Ill let you in on a secret- you can be a father working hard to pay for your daughters surgery AND be a white supremacist. And maybe, just maybe, being able to pay for her daughters surgery is more important to this white supremacist than the issue of race is. Who knows.

Given Ron Pauls record, there is absolutely no reason to believe that there is an impropriety going on here. I have no reason to believe Ron Paul is racist, I have no reason to believe Ron Paul will become racist because of this donation, or sympathize with racism in any way, and given the fact that it was a donation from an individual, I see no reason to suspect impropriety.


Now I said your comparison isnt valid, and that Id elaborate, so here it is. Individuals have many preferences. Organized lobbying groups with specific purposes do not. An organized lobbying group with the specific purpose of say, banning guns, donating to a candidate, is not the same as an individual, with many topics to weigh and consider, donating to a candidate. An individual can say, yeah, Im pro-life, but I believe that the issue of gun control is more important, so even though this candidate is pro-choice, Ill vote for him because he is a strong defender of the Second Amendment.


But should Ron Paul return the money anyway just because the public thinks that there is impropriety going on (even though from a logical standpoint, there isnt)? I say no again, and heres why:

It would certainly be a smart political move to donate the money to charity, but Ron Paul is about honesty and sticking to his message, not political moves that will benefit him. To me, it shows integrity. 99% of the public can say, we dont want to follow the Constitution, and hell stick to his guns and follow the Constitution because thats the oath he took. He may lose the next election because of that, but I applaud him for having the audacity to put his principles, and the oath he took, above his own personal desires and ambitions.

Furthermore, if a candidate refuses money, or donates it to a charity group every time they get a donation from a controversial person, how do we know they arent just doing it for show? How do we know that they arent just giving the money away to look good in front of the camera (while getting deals behind the stage)? After all, such people bend over backwards for poll numbers. How do we know that they REALLY arent racist, for example, when theyre willing to flip their position around in a heartbeat if the polls say that their current position is unpopular?

[SteveS]

if stuff written by an aide getss sent out unveted somene has organizational shortcomings


though as some one spent 20 years in and around dc hes not that wrong  off by maybe 7-10 percent is all

Or, there may be something more to this.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2008/01/the_rockwell_files.cfm

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

sadly if mr pauls supporters are unable to see this as an issue it further marginalizes them.more the pity that the paul campaign seems to attract the lunatic fringe so much.

[Perd Hapley]

The point is this: simply because a white supremacist gave money to Ron Paul does not mean, from a logical standpoint, that Ron Paul endorses, sympathizes, or supports racism in any way, shape, or form. It does not mean he is racist in any way.

Of course it doesn't mean he's a racist.  I think most of us have agreed to that.  That was never the point at all.  It means that he doesn't mind being associated with racists, or being thought of as their favored candidate.  That is the message sent by his acceptance of Black's money.  You can holler all you want about Ron Paul telling the truth, and standing up for his priniciples, and not being swayed by Stormfront's money.  Those are fine things, but they are only a part of what a politician needs to do.  In order to accomplish anything, he also needs to be able to work with his opponents to get things done.  And before that even happens, he needs to appeal to a broad enough voter base to get elected.  And no, I'm not suggesting that compromise on first principles.  I'm suggesting that he not shoot himself in the foot by taking money from prominent figures in the White Power movement. 

The above are common knowledge in the world of politics.  But the Ron Paul campaign (like a lot of idealistic third party and independent movements) thinks it can re-invent the wheel, and do politics in some radical, scorched-earth fashion.  Thus do they doom their ideas to failure.  There's one person you should be annoyed with in this situation, and it's Ron Paul.  Had he given the money to charity, immediately, he could at least have taken the opportunity to distance himself from racism.  Instead, you can thank him for making you all look like Klan members.  No one should make that logical leap, but you know, and Ron Paul knows, that they will, despite all his protest to the contrary.  And you don't care.  Enjoy the next four years, under a President with marginal respect for the Constitution.  It's as much your and Ron Paul's doing as those of us who will be voting for the major parties. 
 

Now I said your comparison isnt valid, and that Id elaborate, so here it is. Individuals have many preferences. Organized lobbying groups with specific purposes do not. An organized lobbying group with the specific purpose of say, banning guns, donating to a candidate, is not the same as an individual, with many topics to weigh and consider, donating to a candidate. An individual can say, yeah, Im pro-life, but I believe that the issue of gun control is more important, so even though this candidate is pro-choice, Ill vote for him because he is a strong defender of the Second Amendment.

Thanks again, Captain Obvious.  Don Black is not just some citizen who happens to be a white supremacist.  He is the owner of a webpage dedicated to that movement.  If you refuse to understand the difference between a donation from the leader of a movement, and a donation from a no-name foot-soldier, and the fact that one sends a message and the other is just numbers in a bank account, then by all means continue to support your losing candidate.  You can only help him to fulfill his destiny. 

Furthermore, if a candidate refuses money, or donates it to a charity group every time they get a donation from a controversial person, how do we know they arent just doing it for show? How do we know that they arent just giving the money away to look good in front of the camera (while getting deals behind the stage)? After all, such people bend over backwards for poll numbers. How do we know that they REALLY arent racist, for example, when theyre willing to flip their position around in a heartbeat if the polls say that their current position is unpopular?

And how do we know that Barney Rubble isn't sleeping with Paris Hilton?  None of that makes any difference.  Besides, if a candidate wants to get secret monies from racist groups, the above charade would be a stupid way of doing it.  He would just take the back-stage deals, with no connection being reported at all.  Refusing money from kooks isn't an unvarnished positive for the candidate, anyway.  He still has to deal with the suspicions raised by the endorsement of the kooks.  But giving the money away is at least one way of controlling the damage. 

[GigaBuist]

There's one person you should be annoyed with in this situation, and it's Ron Paul.  Had he given the money to charity, immediately, he could at least have taken the opportunity to distance himself from racism.  Instead, you can thank him for making you all look like Klan members.  No one should make that logical leap, but you know, and Ron Paul knows, that they will, despite all his protest to the contrary.

Fistful is right.

The overwhelming majority of people in this country aren't going to set down and try and get to the root of the matter.  They just suck down the 30-60 second sound bites and make their decisions based off those.

The Ron Paul campaign took money from a white supremacist and did nothing about it when it was brought to their attention.  They've been entirely reactive on this, only addressing it when questioned on it.  Too little too late.

[TwitchALot]

Of course it doesn't mean he's a racist.  I think most of us have agreed to that.  That was never the point at all.  It means that he doesn't mind being associated with racists, or being thought of as their favored candidate.  That is the message sent by his acceptance of Black's money.

The message is incorrect, and though many people may buy into it (logically false as it may be), I dont have an issue with that, and I dont think Ron Paul does either. More on that below.

You can holler all you want about Ron Paul telling the truth, and standing up for his priniciples, and not being swayed by Stormfront's money.  Those are fine things, but they are only a part of what a politician needs to do.  In order to accomplish anything, he also needs to be able to work with his opponents to get things done.  And before that even happens, he needs to appeal to a broad enough voter base to get elected.  And no, I'm not suggesting that compromise on first principles.  I'm suggesting that he not shoot himself in the foot by taking money from prominent figures in the White Power movement.

The above are common knowledge in the world of politics.  But the Ron Paul campaign (like a lot of idealistic third party and independent movements) thinks it can re-invent the wheel, and do politics in some radical, scorched-earth fashion.  Thus do they doom their ideas to failure.  There's one person you should be annoyed with in this situation, and it's Ron Paul.  Had he given the money to charity, immediately, he could at least have taken the opportunity to distance himself from racism.  Instead, you can thank him for making you all look like Klan members.  No one should make that logical leap, but you know, and Ron Paul knows, that they will, despite all his protest to the contrary.  And you don't care.  Enjoy the next four years, under a President with marginal respect for the Constitution.  It's as much your and Ron Paul's doing as those of us who will be voting for the major parties. 

No, we dont care. And the reason we dont care is because neither of us believe in, do whatever it takes to win. Ron Paul is not interested in compromising on his principles, or saying or doing whatever it takes to get votes. Thats why Im voting for him.

You can try to blame Ron Paul, or the people who vote for him, if someone else is elected and doesnt follow the Constitution. But that too, would be logically false. The collectivists, who think that since 9/11 truthers support Ron Paul, all Ron Paul supporters must be crazy, will pay. This country, and a lot of people in it (myself included), will pay, if Ron Paul doesnt win.

And itll suck, of course. But wed have it coming. 

Thanks again, Captain Obvious.  Don Black is not just some citizen who happens to be a white supremacist.  He is the owner of a webpage dedicated to that movement.  If you refuse to understand the difference between a donation from the leader of a movement, and a donation from a no-name foot-soldier, and the fact that one sends a message and the other is just numbers in a bank account, then by all means continue to support your losing candidate.  You can only help him to fulfill his destiny.

He is a citizen, and individual citizen at that. Thats all that matters (as far as the principle goes). We live in a republic and if Ron Paul doesnt win, well pretty much suffer the consequences together. Itll suck, since I voted for Ron Paul, but hey, nothing is free.

And how do we know that Barney Rubble isn't sleeping with Paris Hilton?  None of that makes any difference.  Besides, if a candidate wants to get secret monies from racist groups, the above charade would be a stupid way of doing it.  He would just take the back-stage deals, with no connection being reported at all.  Refusing money from kooks isn't an unvarnished positive for the candidate, anyway.  He still has to deal with the suspicions raised by the endorsement of the kooks.  But giving the money away is at least one way of controlling the damage.

As Ive said- if America isnt ready to follow the Constitution and Ron Paul, so be it. But when I go to vote, my conscience will be clear. Itll suck if he doesnt win, but like I said- wed have whatever is coming, coming. 

[Perd Hapley]

Twitch, that was a great post.  For starters, I like how you changed your mind and decided to agree with me that Ron Paul's actions indicate he doesn't mind being seen as the White Power candidate.  You said it yourself.

It means that he doesn't mind being associated with racists, or being thought of as their favored candidate.  That is the message sent by his acceptance of Black's money.

The message is incorrect, and though many people may buy into it (logically false as it may be), I dont have an issue with that, and I dont think Ron Paul does either. 

you can thank [Ron Paul] for making you all look like Klan members....you know, and Ron Paul knows, that they will...And you don't care.

No, we dont care.

And I found this one pretty funny, once I got the joke.

Ron Paul is not interested in compromising on his principles, or saying or doing whatever it takes to get votes.

At first, I didn't know why this came up in the discussion, as no one suggested that he compromise his principles or do "whatever it takes."  Then I realized that you were kidding me.  As if giving five hundred dollars to a charity organization could compromise his principles, or be some sort of cynical, under-handed gutter-politics move to secure the election.     Oh Twitch, you kidder, you. 

But my favorite part was how, toward the end, you just gave up on any sort of reasonable response, and kept repeating that Ron Paul is great, and if he doesn't get elected - that's pretty funny in itself.  I mean, you know he won't. - and if he doesn't get elected your conscience will be clean, having done ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to keep Barak or Hillary or Edwards out of office.   


But to this part,

He is a citizen, and individual citizen at that. Thats all that matters (as far as the principle goes).

I can only re-iterate:

If you refuse to understand the difference between a donation from the leader of a movement, and a donation from a no-name foot-soldier, and the fact that one sends a message and the other is just numbers in a bank account, then by all means continue to support your losing candidate. 

[TwitchALot]

Twitch, that was a great post.  For starters, I like how you changed your mind and decided to agree with me that Ron Paul's actions indicate he doesn't mind being seen as the White Power candidate.  You said it yourself.

If you're only going to read the parts you bold, please bold everything. Ron Paul is not a White Power candidate, accepting money from a white supremacist (or a working father if you'd like, since you can actually be both) does not mean he is a white supremacist, supports white supremacists, or is associated with white supremacists.

If the public wrongly and illogically believes the above is the case, so be it. I'm not making the case that people don't see it that way- I'm making the case that it is logically ridiculous and doesn't make any sense.

At first, I didn't know why this came up in the discussion, as no one suggested that he compromise his principles or do "whatever it takes."  Then I realized that you were kidding me.  As if giving five hundred dollars to a charity organization could compromise his principles, or be some sort of cynical, under-handed gutter-politics move to secure the election.     Oh Twitch, you kidder, you.

You most certainly did suggest it (under the pretense of not suggesting it). You said he should return the money to look good, even though there is no logical connection between accepting an individual donation and believing in the same things as that individual. Maybe he should say what the people want him to say to look good too, huh? Honesty is overrated anyway.

But my favorite part was how, toward the end, you just gave up on any sort of reasonable response, and kept repeating that Ron Paul is great, and if he doesn't get elected - that's pretty funny in itself.

I can make up stuff too, but Im not going to.

I mean, you know he won't. - and if he doesn't get elected your conscience will be clean, having done ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to keep Barak or Hillary or Edwards out of office.

He might, he might not- either way, hes getting my vote. See, Im not a, do whatever it takes kind of guy. Something about integrity just seems appealing to me. Strange I know, but its a strange world we live in.

Id point out the logical fallacy of your statement, but itd gotten rather tiresome. As a quick hint, Ill just point to the fact that voting for the person I perceive to the best qualified for the Presidency (who doesnt happen to be any of the three you mentioned) means I most certainly did do something to keep them out of office. At the same time, I didnt have to compromise and pick the candidate who sucked the least.

Maybe I didnt vote the status quo, and maybe I didnt vote for the person the media wants me to vote for, but whose problem is that? You should ask yourself why people may split the Republican party by voting for Paul. Why on Earth would they do that if Paul is such the bad guy you think he is? It must really say something, after all, to split the Republican vote and vote for Paul, knowing full well that it could mean one of the three candidates you mentioned could win. How desperate must the circumstances be if thats what voters are turning to?

If you refuse to understand the difference between a donation from the leader of a movement, and a donation from a no-name foot-soldier, and the fact that one sends a message and the other is just numbers in a bank account, then by all means continue to support your losing candidate.

I shall also reiterate: if you cant tell the difference between an individual and an organization with a specific, stated, goal, why bother having this discussion? Hell, you cant seem to understand the difference between being a former leader and being a current leader, or being a founder and webmaster of an internet forum and being an actual modern leader of a movement.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

and the reasons why paul's ideas will sadly be relegated to the fringe are once again illustrated by one of those who aspire to support him. he might do better with less support

[freakazoid]

If you refuse to understand the difference between a donation from the leader of a movement, and a donation from a no-name foot-soldier, and the fact that one sends a message and the other is just numbers in a bank account, then by all means continue to support your losing candidate.

What at is the difference? They both believe the same thing. Would it not matter if it came from a "foot-soldier"?

It means that he doesn't mind being associated with racists, or being thought of as their favored candidate.

What does it matter if other people associate him with racists? That is there problem for not really thinking it through, not Mr. Pauls. Are you saying that he should just do what makes him look good and forget about his principles?

[Tecumseh]

I am thinking of joining the KKK so that I can donate to Fred Thompson's campaign.  And McCains as well.

[Perd Hapley]

If you refuse to understand the difference between a donation from the leader of a movement, and a donation from a no-name foot-soldier, and the fact that one sends a message and the other is just numbers in a bank account, then by all means continue to support your losing candidate.

What at is the difference? They both believe the same thing. Would it not matter if it came from a "foot-soldier"? 

No, it would not matter.  Seen any stories in the news about "foot-soldiers" donating to politicians?  No?  There's your difference. 

It means that he doesn't mind being associated with racists, or being thought of as their favored candidate.

What does it matter if other people associate him with racists? That is there problem for not really thinking it through, not Mr. Pauls. Are you saying that he should just do what makes him look good and forget about his principles?

No, it is Paul's fault.  Again, you can thank him for screwing over whatever it is you both believe in. 

Tell me what principle he sacrifices by giving away some money.  Please. 

I am saying he should do whatever is moral and reasonable, that will keep him from looking like a bad guy.  Giving away the money is not hard, nor is it unusual in these cases. 

[Perd Hapley]

I'm still waiting to know which of Ron Paul's principles prevent him from giving away some money. 

[freakazoid]

Tell me what principle he sacrifices by giving away some money.  Please.

Doing something to only make himself look good even though not doing it doesn't mean anything bad?
What morals and principles prevent him from keeping it and using it to fund his campaign?

No, it would not matter.  Seen any stories in the news about "foot-soldiers" donating to politicians?  No?  There's your difference.

Just because it isn't in the news doesn't mean it didn't happen. On 11/5/07 there was a record of 4.3 million dollars donated, wonder how many came from "foot-soldiers". Should he just assume that a certain amount did come from then and just donate that amount to appease the masses to make himself look good?

edit -

Ever heard of the Greensburg tornado? Did you know that the National Socialist Movement, bunch of neo-nazis, donated money to help, http://www.nsm88.org/press/kansas_greensburg_tornado.html Should the town just donate the money to some organization to look good, because everyone knows that accepting a donation automatically means you support the ones who donated  , or should they use the money to help the town?

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

if you and the paul campaign really don't/can't understand what the problem is you should all just move off to the side and let the reall players continue without the sideshow

[Tecumseh]

So if Obama, Clinton, or Edwards wins the presidency against a Republican candidate who was not Ron Paul, do we get to blame the rest of the Republicans who voted for someone other than Paul in the GOP primary?

[Perd Hapley]

Doing something to only make himself look good even though not doing it doesn't mean anything bad?
What morals and principles prevent him from keeping it and using it to fund his campaign? 

Not doing it does mean "something bad."  Which I've already covered.  Giving away the money does not make him look good.  It's simply the smart thing to do - dispelling association with racist groups.  Now, what principle does he sacrifice by giving away the money?   

No, it would not matter.  Seen any stories in the news about "foot-soldiers" donating to politicians?  No?  There's your difference.

Just because it isn't in the news doesn't mean it didn't happen.

In this case, it does.  Again, the money is not the issue.  The message sent by the contribution is the issue.  The foot-soldier donations have no message; they are simply donations from people no one has heard of.  Therefore, they don't make the news, and no message happens. 

Ever heard of the Greensburg tornado? Did you know that the National Socialist Movement, bunch of neo-nazis, donated money to help, http://www.nsm88.org/press/kansas_greensburg_tornado.html Should the town just donate the money to some organization to look good, because everyone knows that accepting a donation automatically means you support the ones who donated  , or should they use the money to help the town?

You're talking about a charitable donation, not a campaign contribution.  I think I've said several times that Ron Paul should give the money to charity.  There's an answer in there somwhere. 

[roo_ster]

It violates the principle of Paulian Infalibility and the belief that everything he touches turn pure as the driven snow.

And wags call Huck the candidate of the faithful...

[TwitchALot]

No, it would not matter.  Seen any stories in the news about "foot-soldiers" donating to politicians?  No?  There's your difference.

Actually, I recall hearing something about him getting the most donations from active duty servicemen (and women) in the US military. You know, the "foot soldiers."

Not doing it does mean "something bad."  Which I've already covered.  Giving away the money does not make him look good.  It's simply the smart thing to do - dispelling association with racist groups.

And I've already covered that the association is illogical and doesn't make any sense any more than guns are bad in the eyes of many people. So what if most people believe in more gun control? Are they right simply because they are in the majority?

It's simply the smart thing to do - dispelling association with racist groups.  Now, what principle does he sacrifice by giving away the money?

The association with racist groups is, as I've pointed out, illogical and irrational. There is nothing wrong with accepting the contribution (from a logical standpoint), and he's not going to give it back just because the media tells people that it associates him with racists. It doesn't, no matter how many people believe it does. And you're confused- you're mixing up "the smart political thing to do" with the "smart principled thing to do."

As for your question, Ron Paul is not the kind of guy who will bend over backwards to please the masses. I don't expect him to start now. He'll speak his mind and the American people will either vote for him or they won't. And if he doesn't win, because people don't know crap about US foreign policy, or because they think following the Constitution is crazy, or because people think having 9/11 conspiracy supporters = Ron Paul believes 9/11 was a conspiracy, that's too bad for America.

From your perspective, he'd screw over the country, so you vote for your candidate and I'll vote for mine. Or do you have a problem with that. 

[Perd Hapley]

I'm still waiting to know which of Ron Paul's principles prevent him from giving away some money. 

[Sergeant Bob]

It's really fun watching people twist themselves into pretzels trying to convince everyone how Mr. Paul's taking money from a racist organization like Stormfront proves how much he deserves to be president.

If he really wanted to convince us, he'd take money from Osama Bin Laden.

[Perd Hapley]

Twitch,

If I agreed with Mr. Paul's foreign policy, I'd vote for him.  And I don't think this little controversy, all by itself, means that you shouldn't vote for him, or that he wouldn't make a good president. 

The point being, you can admit that Paul was wrong on this one item, without selling out to the Guliani campaign.