No, you haven't. You've tried to refocus the discussion on points that have nothing to do with my concerns or the points I've been making such as the claim the all money spends the same. (Of course it does, but that has nothing to do with the issues I have with taking money from unsavory groups.)
You've left mine dangling one after another.
Hogwash.
When you can actually address my concerns with 'objective reality' as you call it, let me know. Your efforts to try to misrepresent what I've said and reframe the argument to something silly like all money spends the same do nothing to sway anyone to your point of view - they only make you look ridiculous.
What you continually fail to see is that this is not a "refocusing", but a rebuttal. I'll take this as slow as I can for you, because you are simply not getting it.
You state over and over that if someone takes money from a group that they must agree with the views of that group. I said, no, I can prove that is wrong by showing you that there is another reason why someone might take money from a group with unsavory views. That reason is that the money they take can be used to support their (the acceptor's) cause, regardless of the views of who gave it to them.
That is the point of showing you how the money spends. By showing this to you, I present to you an alternate explanation for your hypothesis. Then I showed you that, given Paul's long history of fighting for individual freedom, and lack of history of proven racism, that this explanation is far more likely.
Therefore, it is related. It is related because it is the real explanation for why he takes this money (because it spends the same, and therefore supports his causes) that replaces the false one (because he agrees with them).
I don't see why this is so hard for you to understand.
>>You've left mine dangling one after another.
>Hogwash
I can compile a list if you like. But maybe if you can actually comprehend the above this time, I won't need to.