GOP Primary Debate #1

[Martinus]

I think Paul (or, more likely, Raz) is confusing two points on drugs. One is legalisation of soft drugs and removing the income therefrom from the hands of organised crime.

The other is decriminalisation of possession (but not selling) of hard drugs and national rehab programs - which, as Portugal example proves, indeed reduces drug consumption long term.

[Eddie Teach]

Mr. Trump, famously, is a "birther" — someone who has questioned whether President Obama was born in the United States. But is that any worse than Scott Walker's declaration that he isn't sure whether the president is a Christian?

Yes. It is a verifiable fact. Only Obama himself (and perhaps God) knows if Obama is a Christian

Is your point that Walker is crazier than Trump then? Because your explanation suggests Walker knows Obama's and God's mind - whilst Trump only knows some fact that could be wrong.

Walker doesn't know, as he said.

[Martinus]

yeah right. He is essentially calling Obama a liar - it is a classic loaded question.

[alfred russel]

Donald Trump commenting on tough questioning by a female panelist during the debate: "You could just see the blood coming out of her eyes. The blood coming out of her...wherever." 

I think this is the comment that really hurts Trump. If not, I guess nothing will, and I look forward to his AARs from summits involving Angela Merkel.

[Eddie Teach]

yeah right. He is essentially calling Obama a liar - it is a classic loaded question.

Presumably, someone else was asking the questions and Walker was answering them.

Anyway, one would expect a lawyer to recognize nuances like the difference between "I don't know if I believe him" and "He's lying." Not that those are the only options- If one expressed doubts about Mitt Romney's Christianity, it wouldn't be assumed to be an attack on his veracity.

[DGuller]

Donald Trump commenting on tough questioning by a female panelist during the debate: "You could just see the blood coming out of her eyes. The blood coming out of her...wherever." 

I think this is the comment that really hurts Trump. If not, I guess nothing will, and I look forward to his AARs from summits involving Angela Merkel.

I think that a Trump syndrome is much like a Ron Paul syndrome.  Once someone is hooked, then any negative evidence about their candidate only reinforces the belief that Trump is the right candidate, or just something to be swept up as "well, he's not a perfect human being, but he says what needs to be said".

[Razgovory]

I think Paul (or, more likely, Raz) is confusing two points on drugs. One is legalisation of soft drugs and removing the income therefrom from the hands of organised crime.

The other is decriminalisation of possession (but not selling) of hard drugs and national rehab programs - which, as Portugal example proves, indeed reduces drug consumption long term.

Your statement on Portugal is hard to verify.  Some of the statistics indicate the opposite of what you said, so it's more of mixed bag. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_policy_of_Portugal

There is little reliable information about drug use, injecting behaviour or addiction treatment in Portugal before 2001, when general population surveys commenced. Before that, there were the indicators on lifetime prevalence amongst youth, collected as part of the European School Survey Project on Alcohol and Other Drugs (ESPAD), and some other (less reliable) data available through the EMCDDA.[16]

Thorough studies on how the various efforts have been implemented were not conducted. Thus, a causal effect between strategy efforts and these developments cannot be firmly established.[11] There are, however, statistical indicators that suggest the following correlations between the drug strategy and the following developments, from July 2001 up to 2007:

    Increased uptake of treatment.[11]
    Reduction in new HIV diagnoses amongst drug users by 17%[17]
    Reduction in drug related deaths, although this reduction has decreased in later years. The number of drug related deaths is now almost on the same level as before the Drug strategy was implemented.[11][17] However, this may be accounted for by improvement in measurement practices, which includes a doubling of toxicological autopsies now being performed, meaning that more drugs related deaths are likely to be recorded.[18]
    Reported lifetime use of "all illicit drugs" increased from 7.8% to 12%, lifetime use of cannabis increased from 7.6% to 11.7%, cocaine use more than doubled, from 0.9% to 1.9%, ecstasy nearly doubled from 0.7% to 1.3%, and heroin increased from 0.7% to 1.1%[17] It has been proposed that this effect may have been related to the candor of interviewees, who may have been inclined to answer more truthfully due to a reduction in the stigma associated with drug use.[18] However, during the same period, the use of heroin and cannabis also increased in Spain and Italy, where drugs for personal use was decriminalised many years earlier than in Portugal [18][19] while the use of Cannabis and heroin decreased in the rest of Western Europe.[20][21]
    Drug use among adolescents (13-15 yrs) and "problematic" users declined.[18]
    Drug-related criminal justice workloads decreased.[18]
    Decreased street value of most illicit drugs, some significantly.[18]

[alfred russel]

I think that a Trump syndrome is much like a Ron Paul syndrome.  Once someone is hooked, then any negative evidence about their candidate only reinforces the belief that Trump is the right candidate, or just something to be swept up as "well, he's not a perfect human being, but he says what needs to be said".

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

Even so, Trump mania is based on him polling at 18% or something in a republican primary. When the other 82% is split between 15 other candidates, that looks good. But if he establishes/has established a ceiling less than 50%, that is going to look less good when the other candidates drop away. Ron Paul, for all the mania around him, ended up never being a factor.

[DGuller]

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).

[Eddie Teach]

Donald Trump commenting on tough questioning by a female panelist during the debate: "You could just see the blood coming out of her eyes. The blood coming out of her...wherever." 

I think this is the comment that really hurts Trump. If not, I guess nothing will, and I look forward to his AARs from summits involving Angela Merkel.

There's been some backlash. He got uninvited from some conservative forum event.
http://news.yahoo.com/gop-candidates-ride-debate-momentum-redstate-activists-065328361--election.html

[DGuller]

The backlash that counts is form the voters, not establishment.  Until then it's just establishment trying to bump Trump off.

[Eddie Teach]

Unless the polls have been asking questions like, "would you vote for Trump if he was the nominee" and "would you vote for Trump if your favored candidate dropped out of the race", it's gonna be pretty hard to measure if there's been any backlash, considering that would be found primarily among the 4/5 of voters who haven't already decided to vote for Trump.

[Fate]

When is the Maryland Republican primary? I need to switch my party registration so I can vote for Trump. Let's drive this turbo charged shit show SUV off the cliff.

I don't think the Megan Kelly comments will hurt Trump. Misogyny plays well with old white males.

[Norgy]

Misogyny plays well with old white males.

That's an original way of trying to get Seedy back.

[Zanza]

I look forward to his AARs from summits involving Angela Merkel.

She could handle Berlusconi who is pretty much an Italian Donald Trump. Maybe even sleazier.