:::sigh:::: I've provided what I consider proof in other posts. If you don't think it's enough proof, that's up to you. It is enough for me.
No you didn't. You have two items. The second one (newsletter) we have already established is inconclusive, at best. And the first item (donations) is the point in question. Using a fact as its own proof is called circular logic. Here, let me take it out of context to show you:
"You bought a red car: you're a member of the Cripps!"
"Uhh... no I'm not"
"Well that's what that means! Red means Cripps!"
"No, it could mean a lot of other things, like maybe, I just like this car."
"Well, that's just what I think, and the evidence proves it."
"What evidence? I've never even known a gang member in my life! What is all of this evidence?
"Well... you bought a red car! That's enough proof for me!"
Circular reasoning is no proof.
I repeat, show me his racist voting record.
Show me his lifelong affiliations with racist organizations.
Show me his long, uninterrupted history of racist statements, statements that we know came from him.
Show me his long history of racist actions.
Show me his long history of racism, in any way.
I don't think you can. But I can show you his long history of fighting for individual freedom, which is exactly the reason he said he took said donations. Fess up. You've got nothing.
Taking money from a group does not mean agreeing with that groups goals, and this example proves it, because Paul has taken their money, and is clearly not a racist. Unless you have clear, undisputed items that disprove the second half of that statement, your point is proven wrong.