Paul keeps white supremacist donation (paul just lost my vote and future donations )

I understand the drift of your question, and it is being used as a distraction away from the point.

Paulites simply can't deal with any of Paul's flaws, so they try to take any criticism and focus it on other candidates, try to minimize the issue by suggesting that everyone is bad, or that others are worse.

Typical.

This is the same M.O. we saw when we found with the neocons and Bush supporters when Bush was found to be authorizing torture and his other practices that on their own don't reflect anything but a "The end justifies the means" thinking. Suddenly in the name of "fighting terrorism" anything is okay to do. The comments from the Bush supporters immediately went to "But they cut off heads, our actions were like a frat house initiation in comparison" or "Ya, but what if you had someone who knew where an atomic bomb was hidden in New York wouldn't you torture them?" style rhetoric.

Look if Paul wants to be a whore and take money from any John, and if you view that as integrity, that's you deal.

This is not about any other politician, it is about what Paul did, and the thinking behind accepting money from any source as long as it advances their own personal political agenda.

That you may be a Paulite explains why you can so easily gloss over the inherent lack of integrity in Paul's actions.

I am also guessing that in the same way most people don't care much that if politicians are drunks or have DUI's on their record because they themselves are drinkers, or that they don't really care that much when politicians lie because they themselves are liars, or if they cheat on their spouses because they themselves are cheaters...Paulites don't seem to care much care what Paul does in the money raising arena as long as it advances their own personal political agenda of seeing Paul elected.

I have seen so much rationalizing the means to an end thinking here at ET as to be epidemic in proportion, which is why it is so easy for people to defend this "principle" in their favored candidates because they practice it so much in their own lives.

 

well, this little episode proves the mainstream media IS capable of covering ron paul - lol

just curious, are other candidates planning to return contributions from 'la Raza' (translated
'The Race')?

funny how the media forgot to mention this

there are legitimate criticisms of ron paul

but this isnt one of them

 

It was $500 from one guy. If it were $50,000 then I think it would be an issue. It looks like a weak attempt at marginalizing Paul. The status quo is scared.

 

Classic rationalization of a lack of integrity.

$500 or $50,000 same principle.

 

What if it were $1? Then would it be an issue worthy of a media story ? Honestly ZZZZ have you been following the media's treatment of Ron Paul?I have and this issue looks like a weak attempt to link Ron Paul with racism to scare away superficial voters. One of the reasons I became interested in Paul was that I noticed how the media was so biased against him. This led me to research him thoroughly. It made me a supporter. It also opened my eyes to what a fraud the mainstream media is.


"Right now, there is a whole, an entire generation that never knew anything that didn't come out of this tube. This tube is the gospel, the ultimate revelation; this tube can make or break presidents, popes, prime ministers; this tube is the most awesome goddamn propaganda force in the whole godless world, and woe is us if it ever falls into the hands of the wrong people........And when the 12th largest company in the world controls the most awesome goddamn propaganda force in the whole godless world, who knows what shit will be peddled for truth on this network? "

 

Here is how Paul handled the issue. A Fox news neocon shill tries to smear Paul.

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/QqPhrqllHzY&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/QqPhrqllHzY&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>


Transcript:

With us now, a GOP presidential candidate Texas congressman. He joins us now from Manchester, New Hampshire. And, to the best of my knowledge, the congressman has not run one warm and fuzzy ad.

Congressman, what do you think of this?

REP. RON PAUL (R-TX), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: What do I think of what, Neil? I don't quite get it.

CAVUTO: So, I can't see you doing these type of ads. Do you think they are a waste of time?

PAUL: Well, I have not made a judgment. It seems irrelevant. It seems to me I would rather talk about monetary policy and foreign policy in spending.

So, some of these ads, I — I don't think, are too important. But we have an ad about a merry Christmas ad, and I don't think it is necessarily bad.

CAVUTO: All right, well, because a lot of the people who know you very well, Congressman, say actually you are very funny and that you're a very warm guy yourself.

Now, most people exposed to you on the campaign trail know that you are the guy with the libertarian views and tough positions on taxes and Iraq.

Would it help those who don't you to know that — that warm and fuzzy side of Ron Paul?

PAUL: Well, I would hope so, but I have warm and fuzzy positions.

You know, I believe in freedom and limited government and let the people along. So, that is pretty warm and fuzzy, you know, allowing people to lead their own lives. So, I don't think the ad, just to deal with personalities, is not very necessary.

CAVUTO: Do you think they work, though, that these type — you have been around this before. You have been, you know, in Congress for many years. You have tried this presidential thing before.

Do you think that these type of ads register with people, just as someone who watches the process?

PAUL: No.

I would say that the people who are joining our campaign by the tens-of-thousands, if not hundreds-of-thousands, and those who are sending the money are not motivated by that. I mean, I think they like to know who I am, and they like — they want to know me and like me and know I'm a grandfather and like kids.

But I think what motivates them are my political beliefs and what I believe in the Constitution and monetary policy. That is what energizes people. But I don't think you can divorce it completely from the personality. But, if you have bad policies, and you think you can overcome bad policy with, you know, these fuzzy ads, and think that personality is going to overcome bad policy, won't work, no way.

But, if you can get good policies and a good personality, then I think it is great.

CAVUTO: Congressman, let me ask you. You talk about the amount of money you have raised over the Internet and for your campaign in general. And it is staggering, last Sunday alone, $6 million-plus.

There are reports, sir, that your campaign has received a $500 campaign donation from a white supremacist in West Palm Beach. And your campaign had indicated you have no intention to return it. What are you going to do with that?

PAUL: It is probably already spent. Why give it back to him and use it for bad purposes?

You know, I don't even know his name. I never heard of it. You know, when you get 57,000 donations a day, are we supposed to screen them and find out their beliefs? He sent the money for my beliefs. And if he is promoting my viewpoints and my attitudes, why give it back to him if he has bad viewpoints?

And I don't endorse anything that he endorses or what anybody endorses. They come to me to endorse freedom and the Constitution and limited government. So, I see no purpose for me to start screening everybody that sends me money. I mean, it is impossible to do it. It is a ridiculous idea that I am supposed to screen these people.

CAVUTO: All right.

So, Congressman, when you find out that it's this Don Black who made the donation, and who ran a site called "Stormfront, White Pride Worldwide," now that you know it, now that you're familiar after the fact, you still would not return it?

PAUL: Well, if I spent his money and I took the money that maybe you might have sent to me and donate it back to him, that does not make any sense to me. Why should I give him money to promote his cause? That doesn't make any sense to me.

CAVUTO: So, what do you think, Congressman, of the candidates who do this? Either they say, ah, we got money from a group now we're aware was - - was kind of sticky; we don't want to give it — Hillary Clinton has had to do this, a number of other candidates have had to do this. Do you think that just is a bad practice?

PAUL: I think it is pandering. I think it is playing the political correctness, so that they — when you quiz them, and then they can say, oh, Neil, yes, I did exactly what you are suggesting I should do, and brag about how pure they are.

You know. I think that is a bit of pandering. There's no way that I'm not going to institute a policy of looking at 100 — 200,000 of these donations and find out. What about the people who get donations, want to get special interests from the military industrial complex? They put in — they raise, bundle their money, and send millions of dollars in there. And they want to rob the taxpayers. That is the real evil.

I mean, it is the evil that buys influence in government. And this is, to me, the corruption that should be corrected, not to pick out one of my donors out of 100,000 donors and say, oh, Ron Paul is not doing the right thing because he has not sent the money back.

I mean, I think you are missing the whole boat — the whole boat, because it is the immorality of government, it's the special interests in government, it's fighting illegal wars...

CAVUTO: All right.

PAUL: ... and financing, and taxing the people, destroying the people through inflation, and undermining this prosperity of the country.

CAVUTO: OK.

PAUL: Now, there is a moral problem that we should be dealing with. And that should be the responsibility of the government. That is what I stand for.

And, if people send me money and I spend it for that purpose, I feel good about it.

CAVUTO: All right, Congressman.

And, to be fair, your campaign has raised well over $10 million in just a little more a week. Kind of hard to keep track of contributions as little as $500. Thank you very much.

PAUL: People — people believe in our message.

CAVUTO: All right. Thank you. Very good seeing you.

 

You are moving away from the simple point.

Is what Paul did right or wrong?

This isn't about the media, or other candidates, but what Paul did.

Goes to character, integrity, and an "end justifies the means" bottom line.

 

I think there is a very simple point here that ZZZ is ignoring. If there is a reasonable basis to believe the money was obtained illegally or immorally, then the recipient might be tainted by keeping it. Similarly, if the contribution was part of an implied quid pro quo, ie hedge fund managers contribute to Hillary and she squashes taxing them like everyone else, then it is immoral and unethical. If the contribution is clearly fraudulent or illegal, as the many suspicious chinese donations Hillary has received from people who clearly lack the resources to make such donations, then it should be returned.

But if a legal donation is made by someone with controversial views, I agree with Paul and see no reason it should be returned. This is a free country after all. People are entitled to their views. Merely accepting a small donation is hardly an endorsement of the donor's views.

This is typical leftwing political correctness, similar to demanding that a candidate or officeholder apologize for something one of their supporters says or does. Ron Paul doesn't play that game, and the more I see and hear him, the more I respect him.

 

Well, you have made it abundantly clear in the past that you support the principle of "the end justifies" the means, so no surprise in your position here. You have supported Bush multiple times when Bush has employed the rationalization of actions that are unprincipled. It seems to be the very foundation of all republican thought processes.

" Merely accepting a small donation is hardly an endorsement of the donor's views. "

Doesn't wash at all. If the guy donated $5 gazillion, and Paul was above being influenced by donation, the principle would be exactly the same if he donated $1.00.

That is unless you are suggesting that Paul is as corruptible as all the rest when the amount of money is larger...

See, that's the thing with principle, it is of no interest the size or amount involved, it is the principle that is the issue.

A $20 buck crack whore and a $5,000 a night Hollywood Hills sophisticated beauty are still whores...

 

AAA I agree with what you said, except it isn't "typical leftwing political correctness" both parties pander and pratice political correctness.