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.
I see. So I say "It is immoral for presidential candidates to accept contributions from unsavory organizations" and your rebuttal is "all money spends the same." So from your perspective, it would be perfectly okay to take money from organized crime, from NAMBLA, from anyone, because hey. . .it all spends the same.
Obviously, our perspectives as so far apart, we'll never agree. And obviously, since that seems to be Ron Paul's view of the issue as well, I could never support him.
Have a nice day.