GOP Primary Debate #1

[alfred russel]

Except that bleeding eyes is known as metaphor for angry disgust (as we have here). Someone bleeding from eyes, nose and ears isn't a sign of a psychotic person - more just a person suffering from internal hemorraghing.

Which is why I find it plausible he got stuck and wasn't referring to what people think he was referring to. He was on some rant on CNN and this was in the middle of the rant. Maybe he said she was bleeding from her eyes, and then wanted to add to it, but when he got to the point to add the next body part realized the metaphor he was going for really stopped with the eyes, so he just said "wherever" and moved on.

[DGuller]

Except that bleeding eyes is known as metaphor for angry disgust (as we have here). Someone bleeding from eyes, nose and ears isn't a sign of a psychotic person - more just a person suffering from internal hemorraghing.

Which is why I find it plausible he got stuck and wasn't referring to what people think he was referring to. He was on some rant on CNN and this was in the middle of the rant. Maybe he said she was bleeding from her eyes, and then wanted to add to it, but when he got to the point to add the next body part realized the metaphor he was going for really stopped with the eyes, so he just said "wherever" and moved on.

That's what I think happened, it sounds like it if you listen to the recording in context.

[Valmy]

I initially heard the Kasik impressed but it probably speaks volumes that nothing is being said about him since the debate. He probably impressed the George Wills of the world or something.

'You need LASIK to find coverage of Kasik'

[Valmy]

That comment was really crass. Ron Paul always came across as something of a gentleman.

Except for the racist screeds written under his name.  But in any case, the point is that whatever the faults are, and they don't have to be the same, they do not cause existing adherents to drop their support (at least not right away).

Well he didn't say them in a debate. I do not think something written decades before by possibly somebody else would stick quite as much as saying something live on TV. Is there something else that should have caused everybody to drop their support? This drum sure gets beaten enough though as if there was alot more out there.

I know once somebody says something objectionable at some point in their lives they are evil forever and...wait isn't that the very thing you are usually on my side about?

[DGuller]

I know once somebody says something objectionable at some point in their lives they are evil forever and...wait isn't that the very thing you are usually on my side about?

I don't really think negatively of Ron Paul because of the racist writings, though maybe I should.  There are other reasons why I have much disdain for him, chief among them his willingness to adopt Putin's propaganda talking points in order to advocate isolationism.  That's pretty despicable, even if he's dumb enough to actually believe it.

But back to newsletters, I just find it very hard to believe that Ron Paul knew nothing of the filth being published under his name.  And it's not exactly a bad joke or two posted on Twitter;  it was calculated race-baiting to promote his political fortunes.  And he never took real responsibility for it, he was just brushing it off every which way until people just moved on.  This kind of behavior is a lot more difficult to forgive.

[Monoriu]

I don't get one thing.  What exactly is Donald Trump's plan to make the US great again?  I am too lazy to dig it up and I must have missed it.

[DGuller]

I don't get one thing.  What exactly is Donald Trump's plan to make the US great again?  I am too lazy to dig it up and I must have missed it.

He's not going to share it.

[Monoriu]

I went to his campaign site and read his wiki entry but I was not able to find much.  Granted, I did not dig very deep.  I am beginning to form a theory that his plan is to put a man as smart as himself at the head of the US administration.

[DGuller]

I'm still convinced that Trump is not serious about this.  I don't know what his angle is, whether it's a practical joke or a Clintons' trojan horse, but it's something other than a serious campaign.

[Razgovory]

I know once somebody says something objectionable at some point in their lives they are evil forever and...wait isn't that the very thing you are usually on my side about?

I don't really think negatively of Ron Paul because of the racist writings, though maybe I should.  There are other reasons why I have much disdain for him, chief among them his willingness to adopt Putin's propaganda talking points in order to advocate isolationism.  That's pretty despicable, even if he's dumb enough to actually believe it.

But back to newsletters, I just find it very hard to believe that Ron Paul knew nothing of the filth being published under his name.  And it's not exactly a bad joke or two posted on Twitter;  it was calculated race-baiting to promote his political fortunes.  And he never took real responsibility for it, he was just brushing it off every which way until people just moved on.  This kind of behavior is a lot more difficult to forgive.

There has been a strong element of racism in libertarian ideology.  Murray Rothbard was a racist and the flagship magazine of Libertarianism in the US, Reason, was pro-apartheid.  I can't say in Ron Paul himself was a racist, but he had no problem courting them.

[Duque de Bragança]

I was in Colombia again last week.  The Colombians call Trump "El Maduro de Los Estados Unidos."

He should try to win the Hispanic vote with that: Donald Trump un caudillo norteamericano

Donald Trump
Un pueblo, una patria, un caudillo
Better.

[DGuller]

There has been a strong element of racism in libertarian ideology.  Murray Rothbard was a racist and the flagship magazine of Libertarianism in the US, Reason, was pro-apartheid.  I can't say in Ron Paul himself was a racist, but he had no problem courting them.

I think that's a reasonable take on it.

[Valmy]

There are other reasons why I have much disdain for him, chief among them his willingness to adopt Putin's propaganda talking points in order to advocate isolationism.  That's pretty despicable, even if he's dumb enough to actually believe it.

That's fair.

[derspiess]

There has been a strong element of racism in libertarian ideology.  Murray Rothbard was a racist and the flagship magazine of Libertarianism in the US, Reason, was pro-apartheid.  I can't say in Ron Paul himself was a racist, but he had no problem courting them.

I think that's a reasonable take on it.

Nah, just a Raz crackpot theory.  You can't support limited government without being raciss.

[Berkut]

There has been a strong element of racism in libertarian ideology.  Murray Rothbard was a racist and the flagship magazine of Libertarianism in the US, Reason, was pro-apartheid.  I can't say in Ron Paul himself was a racist, but he had no problem courting them.

I think that's a reasonable take on it.

No it isn't.

It isn't even a little bit reasonable.

It is, in fact, almost exactly the opposite of reasonable. It is demonizing, dishonest, and basically exactly what is wrong with political discourse - the attempt to define those who disagree with you as having views they categorically deny and in fact are almost exactly the opposite of the views they actually do have.