GOP Primary Debate #1

[Caliga]

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.

  I think it's the latter.

[DGuller]

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.

There aren't a lot of politicians who openly admit to having once courted racists, so categorical denials don't have much value.  Ron Paul doesn't really have a good plausible explanation for his newsletters;  it's either bigotry, extreme reckless aloofness, or cynicism.  I think cynicism is the most reasonable explanation in his case.

[Valmy]

Maybe. But he is retired now and his son wasn't involved with the newsletters. Paul's views are radical enough that I think one can attack him easily enough without that one incident.

[DGuller]

Maybe. But he is retired now and his son wasn't involved with the newsletters. Paul's views are radical enough that I think one can attack him easily enough without that one incident.

I agree, but we're talking about his coming across as a gentleman.  He may have outgrown these newsletters now, but they don't paint him in that good of a light regardless.

[alfred russel]

Maybe. But he is retired now and his son wasn't involved with the newsletters. Paul's views are radical enough that I think one can attack him easily enough without that one incident.

I agree, but we're talking about his coming across as a gentleman.  He may have outgrown these newsletters now, but they don't paint him in that good of a light regardless.

The newsletters became public after he was a national figure. My impression is that there was racist stuff under his name, he repudiated it and said he had no knowledge, since he has always been a sideshow I gave him the benefit of the doubt--I'm really only vaguely aware of the newsletters. Had he actually been a contender for the presidency I'm sure this would have been a significant issue and fully vetted.

[Berkut]

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.

There aren't a lot of politicians who openly admit to having once courted racists, so categorical denials don't have much value.  Ron Paul doesn't really have a good plausible explanation for his newsletters;  it's either bigotry, extreme reckless aloofness, or cynicism.  I think cynicism is the most reasonable explanation in his case.

I am not talking about Paul, but about the generalization that it is "reasonable" to paint libertarians in general as racists and supporting of apartheid.

[DGuller]

I am not talking about Paul, but about the generalization that it is "reasonable" to paint libertarians in general as racists and supporting of apartheid.

Okay, I see it now.  I was just commenting on the last sentence that concerned Paul.

That said, I do also agree with the other parts, especially if you pay attention to the tense.  Libertarians now may be associated with young males that overestimate their intelligence and understanding of the world, but until that became a big thing, a large portion of libertarians wanted less government because it began to infringe on their freedom to discriminate.

[Berkut]

I am not talking about Paul, but about the generalization that it is "reasonable" to paint libertarians in general as racists and supporting of apartheid.

Okay, I see it now.  I was just commenting on the last sentence that concerned Paul.

That said, I do also agree with the other parts, especially if you pay attention to the tense.  Libertarians now may be associated with young males that overestimate their intelligence and understanding of the world, but until that became a big thing, a large portion of libertarians wanted less government because it began to infringe on their freedom to discriminate.

Yeah, that is just as much bullshit as anything Raz has said.

"A large portion"? How large? Apparently large enough that you are ok with making conclusions about people who ONLY identify as "libertarian" and their views on race and racism.


Evidence? Survey? Data? Anything?

Absent some kind of actual evidence, I am pretty sure this is just your desire to believe something about those you don't agree with, and not much intellectual integrity on your part to constrain what you wish was true to just things that you actually have evidence for...

[Razgovory]

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.

There aren't a lot of politicians who openly admit to having once courted racists, so categorical denials don't have much value.  Ron Paul doesn't really have a good plausible explanation for his newsletters;  it's either bigotry, extreme reckless aloofness, or cynicism.  I think cynicism is the most reasonable explanation in his case.

I am not talking about Paul, but about the generalization that it is "reasonable" to paint libertarians in general as racists and supporting of apartheid.

I said there is there has been a strong element of racism in that ideology, and used a major luminary of libertarian thought and the position of the flagship magazine on apartheid to support that.  I didn't say that all libertarians are racist.  I said that some have been, and there probably still are.  I would say that racism is less a part of it now, but they still get a decent amount or racists.  Now, Rothbard is dead, but if you want a living libertarian writer I can suggest Charles Murray or Lew Rockwell.  Murray wrote the Bell Curve and Lew Rockwell is accused of writing that news letters for Ron Paul.

[Razgovory]

I am not talking about Paul, but about the generalization that it is "reasonable" to paint libertarians in general as racists and supporting of apartheid.

Okay, I see it now.  I was just commenting on the last sentence that concerned Paul.

That said, I do also agree with the other parts, especially if you pay attention to the tense.  Libertarians now may be associated with young males that overestimate their intelligence and understanding of the world, but until that became a big thing, a large portion of libertarians wanted less government because it began to infringe on their freedom to discriminate.

Yeah, that is just as much bullshit as anything Raz has said.

"A large portion"? How large? Apparently large enough that you are ok with making conclusions about people who ONLY identify as "libertarian" and their views on race and racism.


Evidence? Survey? Data? Anything?

Absent some kind of actual evidence, I am pretty sure this is just your desire to believe something about those you don't agree with, and not much intellectual integrity on your part to constrain what you wish was true to just things that you actually have evidence for...

Would you like those articles from Reason magazine?

http://www.unz.org/Pub/Reason-1976may-00032?View=PDF
http://www.unz.org/Pub/Reason-1977apr-00038?View=PDF
http://www.unz.org/Pub/Reason-1977apr-00038?View=PDF

Here's some stuff about Rothbard.

http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/2010/07/murray-rothbard-lew-rockwell-and.html

[Caliga]

*shrug* There are racists in both the Republican and Democratic parties too, but that doesn't make them 'racist' parties.

[DGuller]

Yeah, that is just as much bullshit as anything Raz has said.

"A large portion"? How large? Apparently large enough that you are ok with making conclusions about people who ONLY identify as "libertarian" and their views on race and racism.


Evidence? Survey? Data? Anything?

Absent some kind of actual evidence, I am pretty sure this is just your desire to believe something about those you don't agree with, and not much intellectual integrity on your part to constrain what you wish was true to just things that you actually have evidence for...

Ooh, it's Berkut in heat again.  I guess it's that time of the year where you build up yourself up by attempting to tear down other people.  Go fuck yourself, I refuse to dignify this with a substantive response.

[MadImmortalMan]

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.

  I think it's the latter.

All of the righties I know think he's a Clinton plant.

[alfred russel]

Yeah, that is just as much bullshit as anything Raz has said.

"A large portion"? How large? Apparently large enough that you are ok with making conclusions about people who ONLY identify as "libertarian" and their views on race and racism.


Evidence? Survey? Data? Anything?

Absent some kind of actual evidence, I am pretty sure this is just your desire to believe something about those you don't agree with, and not much intellectual integrity on your part to constrain what you wish was true to just things that you actually have evidence for...

There has been one candidate for president that was really libertarian--Barry Goldwater.

I ask you to review the states he carried, and the year of the election, and reflect if this was just a coincidence.

[MadImmortalMan]

Presumably, if you want to be a racist, you'll pick an ideology that allows you to do so. Whether that makes the one you pick a racist one is another question, but still.