>To me that means he agrees with their positions...
I've highlighted the relevant words. "To me", your wearing red one day could mean you're a member of the Cripps. I can invent whatever meanings I want to based on your actions. That doesn't make them true.
I send Ron Paul $100. A "truther" sends Ron Paul $100. Give me one, solitary, rational reason why the $100 he sent him spends any differently than the $100 I sent. One. What, does his $100 jump out of Ron's hands and run over to the Klan or something? Does it burn in flames when he tries to purchase a billboard for liberty? Does Ben Franklin stare at him from it and whisper racist psyops in his ear?
That's like comparing a Volkswagon to an orange. Talk about bad analogies.
No, it's using nothing more than your logic taken to its conclusion. You could say the same things about me. "Well, you knew he was living there, you had it pointed out to you, and you refused to move or make him move." I'm trying to find out where the line between relevant "affiliation" for you begins and ends.
Do not take donations from nutballs, jerks or criminals.
Why? Aside from the unclear nature of such terms (I got a parking ticket last month. Am I a "criminal"? And how many people today aren't "nutballs" or "jerks" to someone else?), why? As Ron Paul correctly said, every dollar that someone gives me is one less dollar that they have to promote their agenda, and one more that I have to promote mine. Don't you understand that's the whole concept behind the "boycott"? If you don't agree with someone's agenda, you stop sending them money, because you know that if you do, you are supporting their values, not yours.
If you still disagree, try this mental exercise. Loudly send money to a Democrat, and make sure that Democrat knows where the money is coming from. See if they turn Republican.
Unlikely, since you are a Ron Paul fan.
Lazy thinking, ahoy. No, like you, I hold all politicians to the same standards. I wish there were more people taking the sane stand on this kind of thing that Ron is. The reason I'm a fan of him is that, as best as I can tell, he's the only one: you've got your cause and effect backwards.
And you might take Ron's solitary opposition to this kind of meaningless show as some "sign", but given that solitary opposition is often the role that he has to play in D.C., that's just one more bit of evidence to me reinforcing the high quality of character I see in him. He's being real. Everyone else is being political.
Oh, honey, I didn't call you stupid.
I know you didn't, just like I didn't call you "honey". That doesn't make it any less judgmental.
You're comparing Ronnie to a Hollyweird celebrity?
I'm comparing like phenomena, a practice I'm trying to impress upon you. When you are famous, no matter the reason, it's quite possible to have all sorts of things done "in your name" that you are only marginally aware of, if at all. Until you know for certain just how well this "newsletter" was even known to anyone, much less Ron Paul, this is an equation with two unknowns.
So you think the 'Truthers' and Code Pink are organizations that stand for things you don't find horrendously distasteful?
Your logic is getting worse and worse. I didn't say a word about what I thought about what I thought of those organizations. I simply stated that it doesn't matter. If they give Ron money, it gets spent on Ron's values, not theirs.
No, you call it lazy thinking because you don't agree with it.
No, I call it lazy thinking because it is, and the more I see of your responses, the more I stand by that assessment. You throw out the word "affiliation" like it has some hard, damning meaning that should be clear to everyone. I then take your own logic, move it to other areas, and your only response is "You compare X and Y? Wow, you're weird." You lump together what you want, keep separate what you don't want, and fail to apply any consistent logic to what falls into each category outside of, apparently, what most supports your conclusions.
That, is lazy thinking.
So you are equating a politician who can control the direction of this country with a guy working behind the counter at a 7-11?
And it gets lazier. The only distinction you are making here is scale. Is that what your principle is based upon? So, a councilman of a 100 person town can take money from racists and it's OK, but somewhere along the line between that and "control[ing] the direction of this country" it's not? And what about the other end of the analogy? Is it OK for, say, Microsoft to partner with Stormfront to do activst work? Or is this another case where it's OK on a small level, but not on a large one, and somewhere in between is the fuzzy line between the two?
Or do you just want to admit that you don't actually have a clear, consistent principle to apply across the board, in all situations?
Ron Paul does. It is this: if someone freely gives me money to promote my message, I am not beholden to them in any way except to be good to my word and promote said message in exactly the way I said I would. That is a clear, unambiguous principle. It doesn't rely on vague terms, shifting lines, what-if scenarios, or any of the unreality that typically makes politics so disgusting.
Either Ronnie is a liar and a racist, or he is stupid and lacks the ability to manage even his own newsletters and campaign money.
Well, I'm glad you finally gathered the gumption to say what you meant, even if I had to pull teeth to get you to say it.
Let's go backwards and start with the second half. He has the "ability to manage his own money". He just does it under different principles than the ones you currently believe in. And we have established that there is no evidence to have call the newsletter "his own newsletter": it was a newsletter with his name on it, but like I said, I could make a newsletter with someone's name on it right now if I wanted to. We established in the other reply in this thread that the evidence about this is too lacking to draw any hard conclusions from.
Now the first half. Liar and racist. Go over his whole career outside of these highly disputed incidents. Do you see a lifelong pattern of this? I don't.
On the other hand, what I do see today is people calling each other "liars" and "racists" left and right (literally) because that is a convenient way to write them off. So they purposely scour their lives for the worst evidence, finding any little chink in the armor they can exploit, and hold it up like that tiny blemish is the whole person. Yes, I do so a pattern in this incident. But it doesn't come from Paul.
I came to my position on him because I did look at his whole life, not just one or two convenient items, the same as I do for everyone. The pattern I saw was a life of integrity (almost flawless voting record), morality (50-year marriage), values (all of his views are consistent with one another), and yes, honesty (simply from the lack of usual political BS that we get from everyone in office). And though I didn't know him as well then as I do now, I felt this way about him years before he ran for president.
Sorry. I can see that I'm not convincing you, but given that I think I'm making a simple proposition that you have no response to except, "Well, I disagree", I don't feel any shame for this. On the other hand, all I'm asking from you is a simple, clear rule that is equally applicable in all situations, doesn't rely on undefined terms, and doesn't lead to contradictions. If you can do that, as the last maverick I voted for one said, I'm all ears.
You certainly can. We all form opinions of people based on things they have done or haven't done.
Give me one, solitary, rational reason why the $100 he sent him spends any differently than the $100 I sent.
:::sigh::: You know perfectly well it has nothing to do with how the money 'spends'. It has to do with the reflection on the character of the person accepting the money once they know who they are accepting it from, particularly when the recipient of the donation wants to be put into a position to impact the direction of this country.
No, it's using nothing more than your logic taken to its conclusion.
Hardly. I've already pointed out to you why your analogy is flawed. See above. A man working a counter in a store is vastly different from someone wanting to be president (or even congress-critter).I'm trying to find out where the line between relevant "affiliation" for you begins and ends.
Already stated twice in this post alone, and at least once in my last one. (I'm not going to go back and count.) But just in case you still don't get it, let me say it one more time. There is a vast difference between some guy living in your neighborhood and someone who wants to be president or a congress-critter so they can directly impact the direction this nation is going.
Why?
Already answered, but let me state it again. Because it indicates that the person accepting the donation agrees with the stated positions and/or actions of the individual or group giving the donation. I'd have a real problem with a presidential candidate taking donations from organized crime. Apparently, that would be fine with you, as long as that politician verbally promised not to be swayed to provide any help or support to them.
Aside from the unclear nature of such terms. . .
Sure it is unclear. . .because it is a subjective term. Everyone bases who they vote for and which candidates they support on subjective criteria. . .even you.
As Ron Paul correctly said, every dollar that someone gives me is one less dollar that they have to promote their agenda, and one more that I have to promote mine.
Soros has a whole lot of dollars. ;)
If you don't agree with someone's agenda, you stop sending them money, because you know that if you do, you are supporting their values, not yours.
You DO realize this statement supports my case, right? Why would the 'truthers' and 'Code Pink' send money to Ronnie if they didn't think his agenda was somewhat consistent with theirs? Hint: They wouldn't.
No, like you, I hold all politicians to the same standards.
If Hillary Clinton were to accept money from organized crime, you'd not have a problem with that? Okay. I would.
No, I call it lazy thinking. .
When you can manage to pull together some real analogies and not compare volkswagons to oranges, then you'll have some room to talk about the lazy thinking of others.
The only distinction you are making here is scale.
If by scale you mean the size of the impact on the nation as a whole, yes. A person standing behind a counter in a store doesn't have the impact as the President or a Congress-critter.
So, a councilman of a 100 person town can take money from racists and it's OK
If it were my town, and he knew the money was coming from a publicly avowed racist, I'd be completely against him. But you didn't use that example - you used the example of a guy working in a store taking money from a racist. Two different things.
Is it OK for, say, Microsoft to partner with Stormfront to do activst work?
They can do whatever they want. Doesn't mean I wouldn't scream about it, and/or refuse to buy their products. Since Microsoft isn't running for office, I can't withhold my vote from them. (You know that, right?)
Ron Paul does.
Oh, he probably does. Doesn't mean he is being honest about it with the public. (And by the way, hopefully you've finally grasped the principle of what I have been saying. You may not agree with it, and that's fine, but you pretending not to 'get it' won't change my position.