Is Ron Paul being friendly with white supremicists not what was to be taken from the piece in the very first link in the list I gave you in that list? The entire article was nothing more than “hey look, here’s ron paul taking a picture with the director of a white supremicist group and his white supremecist son. Ron Paul is getting endorsed all over the place by extremists and racists, and he doesn’t disavow their support. Don’t look at us, we’re just supplying facts. You draw your own conclusions. The end.”
I never said he was actually friends with these people, my whole point is that any sort of association obviously does matter to plenty of people, and this idea that “Even the stupid sheeple public understand” logic and their opinion of someone isn’t negatively affected by him not only gaining but accepting the support of self-identified racists, is just crazy.
I mean, I don’t know who you associate with, but it can’t be much average general public. At the very least I would guess your real life interactions are either quite few, or largely made up of pretty highly educated people, or both. Outside of actual Ron Paul supporters, the view of Ron Paul is “kooky crazy old backwater uncle Ron from Texas with his old man racist anti-semite tendencies and racists associations/supporters. He’s crazy because x,y,z. The news and everyone else told me so.”
What’s even crazier is that you openly acknowledge and use the term “stupid sheeple public”, and yet allege that a mass of stupid sheep actually have and put in practice the intellectual capacity to say “just because this one guy happens to appeal to and gain the support of a bunch of white supremicists and extremists, and he put his own name on racists comments, and accepts money from various racist groups, and doesn’t disavow their support…that doesn’t mean he’s a racist or that I should in any way have even the slgihtest negative opinon of him because of any of this whatsoever…”
I mean really?
I though we was talking about overall public opinion. That was the whole point. I said it doesn’t look good when your ideas are already called crazy as it is, and then actual clinically crazy people come up with essentially the same ideas. Clayton challenged this idea (surprisingly enough) and suggested that “even the stupid sheeple public” don’t end up with any negative opinions of anyone just because he is supported by racists or people that are commonly aggreed on as “bad.”
This whole thing started cuz I made a comment about overall public opinion (which is usually based on little more than how things “look”). If all you were asking was why someone being racists should affect why one would support him in terms of policy prescription, then I’m not sure what made you even ask.
But to answer your question, obviously it shouldn’t matter. But people shouldn’t be murdered either. I was kinda talking in terms of what actually happens, ya know what I mean?