Donald Trump

Trump Calls 'Truly Weird' Rand Paul a 'Spoiled Brat' Without a Brain

Paul's effort to brand Trump a "fake conservative" earns angry Twitter tirade from "Trump," who has begun putting his own name in scare quotes.

|

@realDonaldTrump/Twitter

Republican presidential frontrunner Donald Trump turned his Twitter ire to fellow GOP candidate Rand Paul on Monday and Tuesday, calling the Kentucky senator "truly weird" and "a spoiled brat without a properly functioning brain." Trump's tirade is ostensibly in response to a piece Paul penned for IJReview calling Trump as a "fake conservative" and condemning Tea Party types for supporting him. 

"I honestly have no idea what Mr. Trump's real philosophy is," Paul wrote. "He was liberal before he was conservative, and has openly professed for decades that his views are those of a Democrat. …  How can a quarter of the GOP support a guy who was a Republican, then an Independent, then a Democrat, and then a Republican again?" 

Paul acknowledged Trump's appeal, but cautioned that it's all smoke and mirrors: 

It is refreshing to hear someone speak truth to power, to transcend Washington-speak, and cut through the staidness of our politically correct world but not when it is all blather, non-sequitur, and self-aggrandizing bombast. Donald Trump is showing he isn't suited to lead the country, and I think we all need to discuss why. … We don't need a bully, and we don't need another President who thinks he is King. 

(…) Voters are hungry for a plain-spoken critique of Washington. But I'm unsure how credible that voice is when it comes from the consummate insider, a man who buys and sells politicians like he does Lamborghinis.

Paul—who also held a press conference call yesterday "to discuss Donald Trump's problematic conservative record"—concluded his op-ed by calling it sad that the "Tea Party awakening could be hijacked or hoodwinked" by someone like Trump. "I was there at the first Tea Party in 2007 and I'll be damned if I'm going to stand passively by and watch the movement destroyed by a fake conservative," wrote Paul. "Unlike Trump, I have serious, specific proposals for the largest tax cut in American history and a five-year balanced budget. I offer real solutions to defeat the Washington Machine like ending corporate welfare, term limits and forcing Congress to read the bills." 

Trump responded thusly:

@realDonaldTrump/Twitter

@realDonaldTrump/Twitter

@realDonaldTrump/Twitter

Cruz is in Trump's good graces after calling it "foolish" for other GOP candidates to have gone "out of their way to smack Donald Trump with a stick." Today Trump told CNN that he plans to "keep whining and whining" until America is great again.  

NEXT: The Obama Administration's War on the Press Could Become a Touch More Literal

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. …calling the Kentucky senator “truly weird” and “a spoiled brat without a properly functioning brain.”

    Do people not know when they’re being trolled anymore?

    1. Fuck off, tulpa.

      1. +1 Ugly Stick?

      2. I’m actually his dad, which I now realize reflects very poorly on me.

        1. Fuck off, Bo.

          1. Hey Weigel

            1. Hey look, it’s MNG come back to taunt us!

              1. I see HERCULE TRIATHLON SAVIGNON [has] learned [BREVITY]

                1. I miss HERC…

                  1. Goddam, so do [I].

                    1. DONDERRRROOOOOOOOOOO

                    2. Fuck off, Mary.

                      Wait, we already did that one. Never mind.

                    3. Look at the loser Citizen X repeating my post. Do u even lift, bro?

                      We are WINNING!

                      Gotta run – date with my Morgan Fairchild poster.

                      SMOOCHES!

                      hth

                    4. Too transparent, Tony.

                    5. Shut your hole, John, i hadn’t scrolled down yet.

                    6. Fortunately, Joe has shown up for real to make you guys seem a little less crazy.

                    7. ALAN VANNEMAN, EVERYONE! Say hello to ALAN VANNEMAN!

            2. Totality of circs! Smooches!

              1. Wow – MOAR REPEATS.

                Well done, Whyte Injun

    2. Did they ever?

      1. John, this sock of your is getting tired.

        1. Get bent, Mary.

          1. ^^^^^Fucking KIZONE right here, bitches^^^^^

            1. DONDEROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!

    3. Absolutely. Every time I read one of Elizabeth’s pieces!

  2. Cash, grass, or ass – no one rides for free! TRUMP – 2016 MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN! USA! USA! USA! USA!

    1. There’s a guy in my ‘hood with one of those stickers. On a beautiful dark blue Nissan Z. Way to ruin a great-looking car.

      1. He should be driving a ’78 Trans Am with a huge chicken on the hood. Duh!

    2. If you lose the Almanian party nomination due to Gilmore’s inevitable and yet unexpected betrayal, will you support the nominee or will you launch an independent campaign?

      1. Yes. Yes, I will.

        1. Almanian for president. For the children. For proft.

          1. Besides, I knew he would betray be before I ever co-opted him to my cause. I’m like Jesus of Nazareth in that way….

            *looks around for lightning*

          2. Almanian for President – he cares not who’s blood is spilt, only that is flows.

            1. That’s to attract the neo-con vote.

              1. You’re good, Agammamon,

                Maybe

                too good…..

            2. Almanian for President, Blood for the Blood God

            3. So Megyn Kelly’s gonna be his press secretary?

  3. How many buildings have Rand Paul’s name on them?
    GOTCHA!

    1. Well, there’s St. Paul’s Cathedral, and there’s the old St. Paul building that used to be in New York. And there’s St. Paul the cities.

    2. How many card games recognize Rand Paul’s greatness?

  4. Unlike Trump, I have serious, specific proposals for the largest tax cut in American history and a five-year balanced budget.

    There’s your problem. No one has ever won on specific proposals. Ever.

    You want to up your poll numbers, Paul, you gotta go full Trump.

    1. No one wins trying save young Americans from being ravaged, crippled, maimed, and slaughtered by Middle-Eastern savages either, strangely.

      1. Time to discuss menstration?

        1. Oh, look who’s waving the bloody shirt…

          1. Well Trump supposedly waived the bloody rag….

    2. No one has ever won on specific proposals.

      President Hopenchange agrees.

    3. If anything, *specific* proposals will sink your campaign faster than a torpedoed submarine.

      Never give out the deets. That allows opponents to find weaknesses or mobilize groups that will lose if the status quo changes. If all your statements are airy-fairy gloss, light on details then you can pretend there’s no downside to what you want to do.

    4. He’s not your Paul, fiend.

    5. For that matter, no one has won in the last 100 or so years on the basis of anything rational.

      It’s all about:

      Fear-mongering that little lizard amygdala part of the brain that we all have
      Charisma
      Hair (or perky breasts)

  5. What’s wrong, Donald?don’t want to make fun of his hearing aid on Twitter?

    1. I had no idea Rand was hard of hearing. I took to Google to confirm and ran across this. Couldn’t help but chuckle. What a difference a year makes…

      Nonetheless, Paul remains an odd candidate. He appears resistant to all attempts to package him or make him media friendly ? which is refreshing. His television interviews are curt to the point of ill manners, even when being quizzed by the GOP mouthpiece Fox News. His hairline is a Donald Trump-like mystery. He is profoundly deaf and wears hearing aids in each ear.

      1. My wife wants to fuck him. I’d watch.

        1. He’s adorbs.

        2. Wait, Paul or Trump?

          1. …not Trump.

          2. Jesus Christ, PM. How is Trump remotely fuckable?

            1. Hey, each to their own. Who knows, maybe his dick is ‘uuuuuuge?

            2. He’s the only candidate who could afford a Doomcock

            3. Nikki’s been jillin’ to the thought of The Donald.

            4. AC, Jesus H. Robert O. Bork! You are brilliant yet I have to do this $ to splain it for ya?

            5. Ask Marla Maples. Apparently, Trump has a hell of a lot of money.

              -jcr

          1. Who said anything about a Golden Shower?

            1. Of course your mind went there.

              1. You’re the one “streamin’ live” on everyone

                1. Nah. I store my urine in wide-mouthed powerade bottles. Nothing live about it.

                  1. You stole that idea from “The Aviator”…..you magnificent bastard.

                    I’ll pee on you last, Playa…

                    1. You could probably pee in a standard 2 liter. Needledick.

                    2. +1 Norton Bombsight

                  2. +1 Guy de Maupassant

                    1. Guy de Mo Pissin’

        3. I’d put him up there among the best-looking men to ever run for Prez.

          1. Trump? Seems legit….

          2. I picture you as more of a Grant gal.

            1. Young Grant, deffo. He did not age well.

            2. Also, he’d have to bring his bathing routine up to modern standards.

              1. Both valid points.

            3. “The Young US Grant Chronicles.” Somebody get Joaquin Phoenix on the phone, stat!

              1. Grant had a hairlip?

              2. No! Nick Offerman, goddammit! Nick Offerman gets all the roles in all of my fantasy TV/movie productions. Ifuknowudimean.

                1. We can cast Offerman as Grover Cleveland.

        4. as would I. i imagine it would either be arousing or hilarious. it’s the in between bits you wanna avoid

    2. What??!

    3. He has the militant deaf vote locked up.

      1. WHAT???! GodDAMN will you people speak the motherfuck UP??!

        1. *facepalm and literally just laughed out loud*

        2. I guess you can find anything on the internet.

        3. A deaf surgeon who cures blind people no less. The entire disability vote is in the bag.

          1. “Crips for Paul”

            1. And Bloods for Trump?

              1. +1 time of the month

              2. You won the Internet today.

          1. Swiss, I know you’re still in recovery, but can we get a narrow gaze over here?

  6. “And look at this guy Rand Paul, he can’t even afford a good hair stylist. He’s a loser. A real loser.”

    1. “I get my suits from Savile Row. His look like they come from SKID row! Ohhhhh! The difference it ‘uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuge!”

      1. Rand Paul’s hair is like some goober in HS. The Donald brings Hell Toupee if anyone messes with America.

    2. Would it be better if he was bald?

  7. He can’t even buy pants, this Paul guy.

  8. Dichotomous Donald cascades madly like an EPA-ruined river through trenches and courses that offer the least resistance.

    1. It’s a little early in the day for this, dude. Go easy on me, bro. I got no neurotoxins in my system at all right now…

      1. Worst. Libertarian. Ever.

        1. I blame-uh myself

          *hangs head in shame*

        1. Is that the butterscotch flavor?

          1. Nope, sorry, that’s diacetyl.

            1. pterodactyls and….wha…??

          2. He’s talkin’ hangover juice.

            1. Hangovers put me an an unseemly good mood. I’m never sure why.

    2. This is the best sentence i’ve read in a dog’s age.

    3. Gosh, Mr. Cyborg, you use your tongue prettier than a 20 dollar whore!

  9. the Dems will be completely surprised when their retarded electorate gambit backfires.

  10. Which is worse? Paul elevating Trump to the same level of serious candidate or Trump elevating Paul to the same level of popular candidate.

    1. Yes….?

      /tentative

    2. Any media exposure Paul can get at this point isn’t going to hurt him politically. I don’t think he’s ever winning Trump supporters over anyway.

      1. If he could, that would be ‘uuuuuuuuuuge.

      2. I don’t think he’s ever winning Trump supporters over anyway.

        I don’t know, see the article I quoted upthread. They were saying a lot of the same stuff about Paul last year that people are saying about Trump now. The Rand Paul that caught shit for shushing a reporter probably tapped into some of the same sentiment as the Donald Trump that caught shit for suggesting Megyn Kelly is a hormone case. Paul’s actual policy acumen with a little bit of Trump’s “outsider” schtick might pick up some of the same crowd.

      3. Paul isn’t winning over any supporters who he hasn’t already won over

  11. “I am the most fabulous whiner”

    You know, for a long time I thought Donald Trump was Hillary Clinton’s troll on Republican politics.

    Now, I’m starting to think he’s Kim Jong Un’s troll on American politics.

    1. Well, Trump did bowl 10 straight perfect games the first time he tried. And he won 500-0 the first time he played in a Cricket dart tournament.

      Soooo – there are definintely some similarities in terms of skill level.

      1. Plus I hear he can speak French… in Russian.

  12. Donald Trump turned his Twitter ire to fellow GOP candidate Rand Paul on Monday and Tuesday, calling the Kentucky senator “truly weird” and “a spoiled brat without a properly functioning brain.”

    Project much? Maybe The Donald really is a progressive…

    1. Gazillionaires named Donald shouldn’t use social media.

      1. What about gazillionaires named “Scrooge”?

      2. Not even Donald Sutherland?

        1. You provoked a memory of “Ordinary People”. This will not be forgiven.

          1. Just listen to what’s in my SKULLION NOW!

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tClrD4Ax3MU

        2. I saw that dude at brunch a while back. Very, very creepy.

          1. I saw Jackson Browne walkin’ slowww down the avenue.

            You know….his part….was perfect.

            /Stand In The Fire

  13. Donald has done one good thing. He has taken staid and calcified republican voters and made them say things like:
    “Well, i aint voting for him but damn it is good to see some different folks.”

    1. It’s a sad commentary on how terrible the GOP establishment is at representing voters

      1. You said so much with that one simple statement. Right now, Rand Paul is the only one seems to going against the grain of the war mongers in the party. I guess that would make hi the biggest anti-establishment type!

  14. I think it’s time to start calling him Dolan Trump, given the level of childishness exhibited by him.

  15. I feel such hope for America. We are truly on the cusp of a new Enlightenment.

    1. Liber. Tarian. MOMENT.

      Bitchez

  16. I admit I’m really looking forward to Trump’s attacks on Christie.

    1. “You’re a towel!”

      “YOU’RE a towel!”

  17. ^^ I just want to point out for the record, that ^THIS^ is why I started visiting reason.com some years ago.

    Well, that, and SugarFree’s….literature.

  18. Rand has clearly not read his Sun Tzu: “When you enter battle with a clown, you have already lost.”

    1. +1 red nose

    2. “When you’re at the circus, go up to the biggest clown and kick him in the nuts.” Circus, Prison…whatever.

    3. I should have read his stuff when I was in a relationship with a drunk.

      1. “I’m sorry, Crispy the Clown has been cast. But I will hire you for Angry the Clown, Silly Sailor, and Doctor Clownius.”

  19. It pains me greatly to agree with Trump that Paul shouldn’t run for two offices at once.

  20. Tired of all the vicious, juvenile, petty name-calling by these other Freak, Weirdo, Goofball, Bad-Hair-Having Candidates?

    SO ARE WE

    ALMANIAN FOR PRESIDENT 2016
    He Doesn’t Shit on People – He Shits For People

    1. I’m Almanian, and I approve this message.

    2. Free Shits for everyone!

      1. My Shit – for You!

  21. I had no idea that Paul was deaf. Good for him for keeping it secret and not making it an issue. If Hilary wore a hearing aid, I’m sure she’d be claiming it’s her turn because a deaf woman has not been elected before.

    As for Trump, he’s a disaster and needs to be fired from the roster of candidates. Hasn’t this whole cult of personality thing already proved to be a way to get ever more awful, incompetent, and immoral people into power? What’s next, a Manson presidency?

    1. He shouldn’t make it an issue, but he should be more upfront about it. Deaf people can miss social cues and it could help explain why he might come across as rude sometimes.

      1. Nah, it’ll just give ACA supporters another angle to bash the guy.

        1. He’s never going to win with those guys anyway.

    2. Now I’m completely confused. Is Rand Paul deaf or is it some joke?

      1. WHAT?

        1. /l’il John

        2. Dammit

        1. I was visiting Chairman Mao’s mausoleum instead of watching the GOP debate. And now I’m out of the loop.

    3. “…he’s a disaster and needs to be fired from the roster of candidates.”

      Interesting comment, assuming you actually believe that, isn’t that what the neo cons say about libertarian candidates, even to the point to do what you want and restrict them from the public debate? I want people I disagree with to speak, it shows where they stand and gives us an open view of their stances on things. Only those who are afraid to confront, or are not confident in what they believe try to stifle the other side, liberals have made a science of stifling speech they cannot defend against.

      1. In other words, take his words, unlike the others we can be pretty sure he is actually saying what he means, and mount a defense as to why he’s wrong. The others can’t do that because they have no original ideas, they are just a bunch of sound bites with no real substance.

  22. Did I miss something?

    1. what?

      1. OK!

        /L’il John

  23. *Immediately after complaining about a lack of professionalism at the debate, Trump spends the next week insulting people on twitter.*

  24. To be fair, Paul is a bit weird. I mean, he like supports individual liberty and other quaint stuff that Constitutional nutters like to prattle on about. Next thing you know he’ll be taking away from women their right to vote and bringing back slavery and stuff, because that’s like in the old Constitution and stuff. Like, and stuff. You know?

    1. Yeah, and he’ll start treating cataracts by bleeding his patients.

  25. I’m glad Trump is in the race. He represents the economically clueless blowhard vote. 25% tariffs and a Great Wall of American is just what we deserve.

    1. I’d say an 8% tariff is about right.

    2. He represents the economically clueless blowhard vote.

      So he’s can count on your vote then?

      1. I’m for free trade, more exports, a strong dollar, and lower deficits.

        Obama policy – in a fewer words.

        China is crying UNCLE! now. Uncle Buck a winner! Oil down again!

        1. Effectively nationalizing a sixth of the economy is just so much details.

          1. Quit lying. Aetna, Anthem, Cigna and the rest of the health insurance industry have not been “nationalized” – they are thriving.

            You should call it “crony capitalism” and you wouldn’t look like such a Fox News idiot sloganeer.

            1. Nothing says free trade like economic fascism.

              1. You must have the same vapid slogan generator that Bratbitch.com uses.

                1. Shorter PBP: why trust the market when you can trust reams of unread regs.

              2. Fun fact: nationalized industries never, ever thrive. Why, just look at Saudi Aramco – ever on the brink of bankruptcy.

                1. Saudi Aramco was really nationalized.

                  Aetna, Cigna et al were not.

                  Fail.

                  1. Whoosh. Don’t ever change, shrike.

                    1. For your analogy to be apt you would have to show a thriving industry in the US that Obama has nationalized.

                      You can’t.

                      You fail.

                      The fact that Saudi Aramco generates vast profits is a non sequitur.

                      Now Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac are generating huge profits but Bush (really Paulson) nationalized those two. (fucking socialist bastards)

                    2. Sigh, you gibbering retard. You stated, Aetna, Anthem, Cigna and the rest of the health insurance industry have not been “nationalized” – they are thriving. Your assertion that the insurers are thriving is your proof that they have not been nationalized. You offered nothing to show that the industry itself has not been nationalized aside from this assertion, and this assertion cannot be used as a basis for verifying the nationalization of a company or industry.

                      Go back to blowing lines and reminiscing about a young Michael Stipe waving his junk in your face. It’s more productive than anything else you do.

                    3. You’re hiding behind the possibility that some dumbass doesn’t know that Humana, Cigna, Aetna are wholly owned by stockholders?

                      Only Fox News fans are that stupid.

                    4. It’s nationalism but it’s not like nationalism nationalism. It’s just a basically fascistic relationship between government and industry. Totes different.

                      Obama “fixed” healthcare like a card shark “fixes” the game.

              3. Good one.
                Wish there was an up button.

      2. Economically clueless. That’s about 80% of those who call themselves republican, and 100% of those who claim to be democrat.

    3. Yeah, he’s not a true free-market libertarian capitalist like Barack Obama is.

      1. Obama is no libertarian at all. But he is better than anyone the GOP has nominated.

        1. The GOP hasn’t nominated anyone yet.

          1. I’m going back to Goldwater.

          2. Oh, now you’re gonna insist that words mean things? Shriek ain’t play that game, homie.

        2. The sad fact is that, as bad as he had been, Obama is better than McCain would have been. Romney? I don’t know.

        3. So far the GOP hasn’t nominated any one for 2016.

    4. You and Trump have quite a bit in common. You’re both total fucking clowns who get off on pretending to be something you’re not. Furthermore, you both suck at it.

      1. We were doomed in 2008 either way, weren’t we?

  26. In a weird way, I’ve been enjoying the candidates’ twitter feeds. Never saw much reason for twitter before.
    Trump is fun, but Hillary’s is so un-selfaware.

    Latest:
    Hillary Clinton retweeted
    Hillary for NH ?@HillaryforNH 2h2 hours ago New Hampshire, USA
    “We love Hillary. Universal pre-k is important to us, especially since I’m a pre-school teacher.” – Jenn, Claremont

    https://twitter.com/HillaryClinton

    1. Yeah, I follow Herself for exactly that reason.

      And I was following The Donald? BEFORE he announced his canidacy, because he’s always projected such class and rationality! I love it! Like the rest of America that’s not the Republican leadership! And Megyn “Bloodbath” Kelly.

      1. Donald’s a dog?

        now it all makes sense.

    2. “We love Hillary. Universal pre-k is important to us, especially since I’m a pre-school teacher.” – Jenn, Claremont

      Oh, that is just awesome.

      We love Hillary because she promises to give us money!

    3. ” Universal pre-k is important to us, especially since I’m a pre-school teacher.””

      “Getting smooth, under-the-table State Department approval is important to us, I should know I’m a Russian Uranium dealer”

      1. The former is probably code for the latter

  27. “I for one don’t think you should run for President if you believe what Trump says about money in politics: ‘When you give, they do whatever the hell you want them to do.’ Isn’t this buying and selling what’s wrong with Washington?”

    Its laughable that Rand Paul would say that. Is it possible he is that na?ve? I wonder what he thinks the reason is that the Koch’s give so much money in politics. Because they don’t expect votes to be cast the way they like? Does he really think the Koch’s never made a phone call to a politician with demands of their own? OK, strong suggestions? Does he think Buffet doesn’t do the same? Please.

    Everyone on the right, including this webpage, loved when the federal government even increased that power when they supported the Supreme Court’s decision that money equals speech. Trump and his dollars always spoke loud and clear, and today they speak even louder thanks to that SC decision. What Paul is now realizing is just how harmful all that money can be…certainly harmful to his own campaign because no one is giving him any money, and Trump has enough of his own.

    No sympathy…Paul helped make that bed.

    1. KKKKKKKKKKKKOCHTOPUS!

      cool story, brah

      1. Hey, I did mention BBBBBBuffetopus as well, and Rand was complaining about TTTTTrumptopus, wasn’t he?

        1. So Trump is a stalking horse for… Trump?

          1. It’s turtles all the way down! ‘UUUUUUUUUGE turtles!

    2. It’s astounding how reliably you get things exactly backwards.

      1. Joe from lowell, gettin’ it backwards on some of the toughest websites in America.

    3. Hey Joe, remember how you supported Hugo Chavez for like 6 years?

      That was pretty sweet.

      Everyone on the right, including this webpage, loved when the federal government even increased that power when they supported the Supreme Court’s decision that money equals speech.

      Which of course is not what that decision said and is a complete and total strawman based on a willful misinterpretation by liberals who appear to have a difficult time reading.

      Personally, I would 100% support a hard cap on all donations to political candidates provided there was NO cap on the amount of money you could spend on, say, billboards, you could spend money on your own advertisements which said whatever you want, and you did not have to worry about the government putting you in jail for not filling out the proper forms before you engaged in political speech.

      That way you wouldn’t have to worry about quid pro quo (since people wouldn’t be giving directly to candidates) but you could have unlimited political speech. Deal?

      1. Pretty difficult to have a “hard cap” on donations and then have no cap. That’s not a hard cap at all, so no deal.

        By the way, I supported who? I did?

        1. trust memories joe

        2. Everyone on the right, including this webpage, loved when the federal government even increased that power when they supported the Supreme Court’s decision that money equals speech.

          Oh Joe. Google exists. Trust democracy.

          Pretty difficult to have a “hard cap” on donations and then have no cap. That’s not a hard cap at all, so no deal.

          Well it is if you’re retarded and don’t understand the point.

          1. Have a cap on DIRECT DONATIONS TO CANDIDATES including the elimination of PACs. I don’t see this as being a free speech issue since elections can be run however you want with whatever rules you want and it’s not really related to individual rights.

          2. Allow people to spend their own money on their own advertisements without coordinating with candidates.

          Therefore, there is no quid pro quo due to the lack of donations and coordination, but you don’t stifle political speech. What you’re arguing in favor of is the flat out elimination of personal political speech by making it illegal for citizens like me to spend money on advertisements.

          So you’re an authoritarian anti-free speech nitwit.

          1. “You can’t separate speech from the money that facilitates the speech. It’s utterly impossible.”
            -Justice Scalia

            Money equals speech.

            But thanks for clarifying what you originally penned like a sophomore in high school. So no deal again, because you still have no cap on money. Sure, your money on advertising is a trifle, but the Koch’s isn’t. Nor is Buffets.

            Keep trying.

            1. Yes, limiting the material resources free citizens can use to facilitate their speech is a limit on speech, which is constitutionally prohibited. It seems a staightforward conclusion. Why does that notion offend you so?

            2. How do you actually propose changing this in a way that doesn’t just consolidate the power of campaigning in the hands of news media corporations (and those rich enough to own them)?

            3. Maybe we need a blimp.

          2. 1. Have a cap on DIRECT DONATIONS TO CANDIDATES including the elimination of PACs. I don’t see this as being a free speech issue since elections can be run however you want with whatever rules you want and it’s not really related to individual rights.

            2. Allow people to spend their own money on their own advertisements without coordinating with candidates.

            Some people don’t have enough of their own money to afford having a commercial made and then paying to have it aired at a time slot where it might be effective. I hear that many such people can pool resources into things like PACs, which then have sufficient funds to make the desired advertisement happen.

            Or do I have it totally wrong?

          3. Those of us who think rationally, got it the first time.
            Those whose ideology prevents them seeing anything except that which they want to see, are immune to your consultations.

            My personal feeling: the amount of money currently spent, for even a minor position, dictates that only deep pockets have a loud enough voice to be heard over the din. Only those candidates with money, or access to those that do, can play. That narrows the field to a very select group, a group that almost by definition, will not represent the will of We The People.

            I don’t know the answers, but the source and trajectory of this disease is obvious.

        3. We get it, Joe, you’re against free speech. Dial it down.

    4. thanks micro man

      1. Welcs, lone.

    5. KKKOCHS!!!!!!!11!!!!!!11!!!!! … CITISENZ UNITED!!!!!111!!!!!!!!!11!!!!!!! OMGZ!!!!!11!!!!!!!

    6. Re: Jackass Ass,

      I wonder what he thinks the reason is that the Koch’s give so much money in politics.

      Probably for the very same reason the other rich dudes give money in politics.

      I don’t understand your point, though. Do you mean to say that the Koch brothers gave money to the Paul campaign and thus he should shut up about it? Because I don’t think the Koch brothers have done that, thus turning your point into a very obvious red herring. But what I am saying? ALL your arguments are red herrings! You’re Jackass Ass!

      Everyone on the right, including this webpage, loved when the federal government even increased that power when they supported the Supreme Court’s decision that money equals speech.

      Actually, I was very glad that the Supreme Court acknowledged that speech is speech. Unlike you, who seems to equate speech with speech from people I happen to like.

    7. I forget who said this, one of the commenters here.

      “When liberty arises it’s enemies rise to meet it.”

      Priceless.

      Fuck you, Joe.

    8. Actually, the court said speech was not money. That is, the government could not censor a documentary film on the theory that it was a donation in kind to a candidate’s (Hilary Clinton) opponents (Barack Obama, et al).

    9. There’s a difference between sending money to someone who supports the things you support and paying someone to change his position. I don’t care how much money is sent to Bernie Sanders or Rand Paul because they won’t change their positions to suit their benefactors. Other politicians not so much. They prefer “flexibility” which in practice means “I’m accepting bids”.

      It would be far more honest for politicians to auction off their votes in public:

      “I’ve got $50,000 bid for ‘Yes on gun control’, do I here $60,000 for ‘No’…$60,000 from the NRA … do I hear $75,000 from Brady? $60,000 going once…going twice… $100,000 from Tom Steyer…Going once, going twice….”

      That would be the ultimate “reality” show.

    10. OK, so I forgot everything you said once you got to “everyone on the right, including this webpage.” Once more, with feeling, libertarianism is NOT “THE RIGHT.” Are you really that incapable of non-binary thinking?

      “Hey, this green ice cream isn’t chocolate. It must be vanilla!”

      “Are we going south? No? Okay, then we must be going north!”

      “There’s a new guy at work named Jose. He’s not white, so he’s a black guy!”

      Now I remember the rest of what you said, and it’s not very insightful either. The whole point of the Citizens United decision was to allow lots of people who aren’t rich like the Kochs, Buffet or Trump to pool their money so that their voies can be heard. If you want to keep politics exclusively for the rich, then banning corporate speech is a great idea.

  28. You know who else was called a spoiled brat?
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KaSnswI53wk

    1. Pee Wee Hitler?

    2. Richy Rich?

    3. Joffrey Baratheon?

    4. Violet Beauregarde?

    5. Ariana Grande?

  29. What’s this shit?
    http://shop.donaldjtrump.com/p…..ood-nv.htm
    A “Trump – Make America Great Again!” hoodie costs $50!
    And no 3x size!
    .
    OK, I might still buy one – for the lulz.

    1. Y’know, that is indeed SO tempting.

      But then I’d be a hipster, wearing it ironically….

      Approach. Avoidance. Approach. Avoidance….

    2. We all know how Trump feels about fatties..surprised he offers anything above a Medium!

  30. It is worth mentioning Donald Trump is probably only candidate with Twitter account who actually posts his own stuff to his Twitter account.

    1. Oh well then, that changes everything! USA! USA! USA! TRUMP 2016!!!!! /sarc

      1. The political industry speaks of having ‘rapid response’ teams and the five-minute news-cycle; but how can any operation for a candidate be faster than the candidates themselves?

        There is something to this observation; the speed of Trump’s campaign driving the news cycle faster than they – and especially his competitors – can keep up. Rand had his op-ed, obviously planned and agonized over it for a couple days of Rand Paul and his staff’s time, and Trump’s response rolled out before lunch next day and has everyone buzzing; not to mention probably ten times as many people read Trump’s reply as Rand’s op-ed.

        How does a ‘traditional’ stodgy campaign beat that operationally? So far, nobody has.

        1. Trump’s “success” has him down 15 points to Hillary while Rand Paul is only down 5. JEB has closed the gap to 4 points behind Hillary. Christie is down by 10 or 12.

          Trump is very popular with 30% of Republicans who constitute 30% of the electorate. That gives him a solid 9% of the country.

          If Trump gets the nomination Hillary’s replacement will pitch the first shutout in US history. (Hillary won’t be the nominee).

  31. But old Dim, as soon as he’d slooshied this dollop of song like a lomtick of red-hot meat plunked on your plate, let off one of his vulgarities, which in this case was a lip trump, followed by a dog howl, followed by two fingers pronging twice in the air, followed by a clowny guffaw.

  32. eh, they’re both sellouts

    http://www.mofopolitics.com/20…..n-insider/

  33. Is this right?

    he plans to “keep whining and whining”

    1. Yes. He said he will whine until he wins the election.

  34. Huh, global markets continue to slide, and in a ‘surprise move’ China devalued the yuan to try to shore up their flagging markets.

    Perhaps the U.S. could lower interest rates to help stimulate this situation.

    Oh wait…

    1. This has felt like a top to me for the past six months. Related: the company I work for (which is incredibly cyclical) just posted another substandard quarter. I honestly think we’re about to hit another textbook recession, which is just lovely considering how underwhelming the expansion was.

      1. Yep, and I just got a hot new job in a highly cyclical, downturn-sensitive company with manufacturing in China. I suspect hard times ahead. But yet everyone keeps looking at me like I’m an idiot and wondering why I’m losing money in the markets.

      2. By the way, it’s felt like a top to me for about a year… But that’s just me.

        1. Great, i’ll just continue to index and buy and hold. You guys keep jumping in and out of the market on the feelz.

          1. I wish I’d have jumped out. Unfortunately, I’ve stuck with it. And stuck… and stuck… and stuck some more. Then when things got really bad, I stuck harder. I’ve lost so much money, there’s no point in selling, so I shall stick yet harder. It’s sticking all the way down.

            1. What else can we do when they’ve got us by the short hairs, and we both know it.

    2. What, besides perception, is the difference between going from 1% to 0%, and from 0% to -1%? Nevermind inflation…

      1. About the amount of thermal energy you’d get from burning Paul Krugman’s college degree.

  35. OT: The Atlantic tackles trigger warnings and special little snowflakes.

    1. In other news, Greg Lukianoff and Jonathan Haidt are horrible misogynist racists and it’s so problematic UGH.

      1. And the delicate flowerhood of college students should be protected from such horrors! BURN ‘EM!

        1. In April, at Brandeis University, the Asian American student association sought to raise awareness of microaggressions against Asians through an installation on the steps of an academic hall […] But a backlash arose among other Asian American students, who felt that the display itself was a microaggression. The association removed the installation, and its president wrote an e-mail to the entire student body apologizing to anyone who was “triggered or hurt by the content of the microaggressions.”

          I’m praying this ends in an armistice in which racists and racialists agree to never, ever mention race again, and the rest of us can move on with our lives.

          1. The section on emotional reasoning is great.

          2. So….they were microagressed by microagressions? These idiots need to shut the fuck up.

          3. I wasn’t aware of this incident:

            Claims of a right not to be offended have continued to arise since then, and universities have continued to privilege them. In a particularly egregious 2008 case, for instance, Indiana University?Purdue University at Indianapolis found a white student guilty of racial harassment for reading a book titled Notre Dame vs. the Klan. The book honored student opposition to the Ku Klux Klan when it marched on Notre Dame in 1924. Nonetheless, the picture of a Klan rally on the book’s cover offended at least one of the student’s co-workers (he was a janitor as well as a student), and that was enough for a guilty finding by the university’s Affirmative Action Office.

            1. I remember that. He read the book during break. It’s not as though he read the book aloud to his coworkers. It reeks of someone trying to cash in on the grievance culture.

    2. the deans and department chairs at the 10 University of California system schools were presented by administrators at faculty leader-training sessions with examples of microaggressions. The list of offensive statements included: “America is the land of opportunity” and “I believe the most qualified person should get the job.”

      Nuke it from orbit!

      1. Not only is it the only way to be sure, it would also be terribly satisfying.

      2. I’m really hoping that when the one way Mars colony leaves they do exactly that on their way out of Earth’s orbit.

        1. They could just do as Douglas Adams suggested and send them all to crash-land on some distant rock.

          1. They already did. That’s why we’re here.

    3. So what if you were, say, a white male on campus and you refused to speak to anyone other than other white males (or anyone, period, for that matter) for fear of running afoul of campus administrators? Would you then be brought before an inquisition for not saying anything offensive? I can see this happening.

      But in 2013, the Departments of Justice and Education greatly broadened the definition of sexual harassment to include verbal conduct that is simply “unwelcome.” Out of fear of federal investigations, universities are now applying that standard?defining unwelcome speech as harassment?not just to sex, but to race, religion, and veteran status as well. Everyone is supposed to rely upon his or her own subjective feelings to decide whether a comment by a professor or a fellow student is unwelcome, and therefore grounds for a harassment claim. Emotional reasoning is now accepted as evidence.

      1. The accusation is the evidence.

        We really haven’t come far from public lynchings. Maybe I’ll suggest that during class.

  36. “Donald Trump is showing he isn’t suited to lead the country, and I think we all need to discuss why.”

    I don’t agree. If one is too stupid to understand why Donald Trump is not suited to lead the country, he’s too stupid to engage in discussion. Pearls to swine.

  37. A punk band called The Presidents of the United States plus the genius that is Weird Al inspired me to write a song for the commentariat:

    He’s Trump, he’s Trump
    He’s not too bright
    He’s Trump, he’s Trump, he’s Trump
    He just ain’t right
    Is this Trump out of his head?
    I think so
    Is this Trump really brain dead?
    I think so
    Does this Trump make lots of bread?
    I think so
    And that’s all I have to say about that

    1. The Pres of the USA are “punk”? Huh.

      I do not think that word means what you think it means.

  38. Republican leaders and prez candidates are assuming that Trump gives a crap about the party, its ideals, or the “conservative” movement in general. This is dangerous because Trump doesn’t care about these things. He cares about Trump only. The party is convenient to him at the moment but he is capable of ditching it in a heartbeat… and likely taking many is his supporters with him (people who seem not all that fond of the party establishment).

    It’s tricky to attack Trump; indeed, it’s probably better to just ignore him.

    1. Jesus Christ – The Donald just gave Paul more attention by attacking him then Paul has managed to get by anything he has himself done. You don’t think Paul knows attacking Trump isn’t the “newsworthy” part of the story, it’s The Donald’s response? If Trump had an ounce of sense he would ignore Paul, not the other way around. But Trump is far too thin-skinned and egocentric not to take the bait. (Maybe that’s a bad analogy, I don’t think Trump reacts like a bear being poked with a stick but more like a dead bear reacting to a high-voltage wire poked up its ass. There’s a lot of twitching and jerking going on but the bear’s neuromotor system’s got nothing to do with it.)

  39. So, Paul gives specifics and Trump replies with “You’re Stupid!”.

    I am sure in the land of imbeciles this will up Trump’s ratings.

    1. I’m unaware how Paul (or any candidate) is doing himself a favor by engaging Trump like this. The veracity of his argument nothwithstanding, it just seems like a poor political move.

  40. Any Hayek fans out there?

    HILARIOUS! As Coffey said, it’s the “best” on so many levels.

    http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/212282/

    1. I saw this the other day and all I could think was that I really don’t want to live on this planet any more. (Well, after I figured out that the picture was not of the author of the post as I assumed but of somebody named Selma Hayek that I have no idea who that is.)

      1. The comments make you want to live on some other planet. The picture reminds you that only this planet has Salma Hayek.

  41. “When both parties hate you, America Loves You!”

    As a libertarian, I can say that statement is utterly false.

    1. + Ron Paul

    2. As I understand Obama, making common cause in your hatred with the other side makes you just like the other side. Kinda like how Hitler and Churchill making common cause in fighting WWII made them both the same.

  42. Cruz is in Trump’s good graces after calling it “foolish” for other GOP candidates to have gone “out of their way to smack Donald Trump with a stick.”

    That’s because Cruz is smart enough to realize that he’s going to need Trump’s supporters and their “go fuck yourself” attitude during the general, and that it’s not a good idea to bash voters who are mad enough to make your party lose to Hillary next year out of sheer spite if they see another Bush, Romney or McCain is going to be pushed on them. He and Paul are the only GOP candidates I’ve seen so far who have said, “Yeah, these people have a right to be pissed at us, but I want to represent their concerns and I hope they can bring that energy to my campaign.”

    Cruz also appears to be the only one who understands that Trump loves these attacks (and why wouldn’t he? They do nothing but solidify his numbers) and knows that he has more to gain by treating Trump as an actual candidate with a platform rather than a celebrity interloper.

    1. You think this doesn’t help Paul? He makes a substantive criticism, and gets attacked by a clown with nothing of substance. He gets free publicity, looks like the good guy, and may persuade a few Trump supporters to snap out of their cake-induced trance.

      1. You think this doesn’t help Paul? He makes a substantive criticism, and gets attacked by a clown with nothing of substance.

        As if that’s had any effect on Trump’s numbers so far. You think it’s any coincidence that Paul went after Trump? It’s the only way at this point for him to get any sort of media exposure whatsoever.

        He gets free publicity, looks like the good guy, and may persuade a few Trump supporters to snap out of their cake-induced trance.

        I like Paul, but he’s a dead campaign walking. He’s not getting big-money donors, he doesn’t have Trump’s deep pockets to make up for that, and any hopes of him siphoning off those supporters are limited to Trump dropping out of the race before he does–and it’s a lot more likely that those people will go to Cruz because he isn’t dumb enough to condescend to them or treat them like the plague, unlike idiots like the NRO neocons. Just because the establishment right is comparing Trump voters to “Paulbots” doesn’t mean they’ll go to a guy whose supporters think they’re retards, even if he does have the same last name.

      2. Trump’s base is solely about telling the GOP to go fuck themselves. That’s all it boils down to. They don’t care if Trump says nice things about single-payer systems, has two divorces, openly buys candidates, has fluid party loyalties, or blasts Fox’s Primetime Princess, because their sole motivation is to crowbar the GOP into pushing a candidate who’s not a “go-along to get-along” type. Paul doesn’t have the charisma, Fiorina couldn’t even win a Senate seat during a Republican wave year, and other than Cruz the rest are milquetoast wimps afraid of negative media attention.

        Paul needs Trump supporters right now a lot more than the other way around, and you’d do well to remember that before calling them idiots or retards–unless you REALLY want to see President Hillary, because don’t think they won’t be willing to live with that just for the cheap satisfaction of giving you the finger.

        1. You make a good point in your last paragraph. Instead of trying to realize why Trump is hitting a nerve with the people, those who are of the elite just brush it off and say those who are fed up with the same group of idiots who were ushered in in the mid terms who promised things they had not intention of delivering are stupid. They prove they are elitists who think they know better than those who they want to blindly put them in office so they can be the powerful in the politburo, while they don’t really do anything but make sure they stay in power.

          Republican conservatives cry about the “libertarian vote” if not cast for the neo con will cost “us” the election and give it to the democrats. The problem isn’t that we vote our conscience, or even those who would vote for Trump that will cause them to lose the election, but that they cannot put up a viable candidate. Republicans are the reason they lose elections, not those who will not vote for them, but they will never see that because they, like the democrats, think they are smarter than us.

          1. There’s an obvious contempt not only in the NRO/Fox crowd, but in the commentariat and writers here. “Those stupid fucking rubes! Why won’t they get behind our guy?” It’s like they have no clue that the rubes might be listening to them.

  43. Here is the reason Rand is complaining so loudly now. Public Policy Polling issued their newest poll in Iowa after the debate, and it was a disaster for Paul.

    “The biggest loser in the poll is Rand Paul. He now has a negative favorability rating at 31/45. That gives him the worst numbers of anyone in the field, outdistancing even Chris Christie on the unpopularity front. Paul’s 3% standing represents a drop all the way down from 10% in April. Paul’s been foundering anyway…”

    http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/polls/

    He needed a strong performance in the debate, and he had anything but. He might want to keep an eye on what is occurring in the Rick Perry campaign…its probably coming to a theater near Rand soon.

    1. Rand was smart enough to keep his day job. Underperforming Ron is a poor showing.

    2. I is sad 🙁

    3. Really a bad idea to roll your eyes when someone is describing himself hugging 9/11 survivors.

      The fact that Fox news gave him the least talk time doesn’t help either. Honestly a horrible move by Fox to try to knock Paul out early. Like his father in 2012 Paul has the potential to be the rock by which all the other candidates break leaving the way open for the establishment candidate (Romney in 2012, Bush in 2016) to squeak by unscathed.

      OT: Lots of cunts involved in that debate but I want tot take the time to point out specificly that Megyn Kelly is a huge cunt if only to piss off Hamster, Playa and little miss house on the prairie.

      1. The fact that Fox news gave him the least talk time

        Paul not using all of his time when he was asked questions is not Fox News’ fault

        1. Yes. Not only did he give real short answers, but he kept looking down, like he didn’t want to look at those who were watching in the eye. He already was performing poorly in fund raising, and I would be surprised if it isn’t even worse now.

    4. Re: Jackass Ass,

      Here is the reason Rand is complaining so loudly now.

      Does that make his point meaningless or unimportant, or off-subject? I don’t understand your point.

      Why is it that Marxians never seem to get away from throwing red herrings at everybody? The fish stink.

    5. *pictures Joe furiously masturbating to polls*

      *decides to kill himself*

    6. Paul’s campaign is over, a media assisted suicide. It’s not that he does badly against Hillary. In head to head polls he did the best of anyone for the last three months. Paul’s strongest positions were on NSA spying, sentencing reform, the economy and avoiding more Middle East wars. The media / political establishment succeeded in changing the priorities to immigration and ISIL. Most Republicans simply took the simple, populist positions especially when Trump saw the pattern and capitalized on it first.

      Paul wasn’t able to counter this move so he started going downhill.

      America has chosen nativism over immigration, security over privacy, protectionism over economic freedom and an expanded Middle East war over withdrawing from the continued insanity of not knowing who to support and who to kill.

      Freedom is not in the offing for presidential politics. The Bush-Obama road to serfdom will see higher speed limits with the next president.

    7. If he stayed true to libertarian ideology, then maybe he would be doing better. But he continues to prove he’s just another republican who occasionally leans libertarian when it benefits him. So instead of being a libertarian republican, or a different republican, he is just showing himself to others as a liberal republican. He comes across as a “republican” first and not a libertarian who is in the republican party.

  44. Only one thing needs to be said: shut the fuck up, Donny.

    1. I might be hard-of-hearing like Rand, everything Trump says sounds to me like he’s just saying “Muff cabbage!” Weird, isn’t it?

    2. I am the walrus.

  45. Start making cash right now… Get more time with your family by doing jobs that only require for you to have a computer and an internet access and you can have that at your home. Start bringing up to $8596 a month. I’ve started this job and I’ve never been happier and now I am sharing it with you, so you can try it too. You can check it out here…
    http://www.jobnet10.com

  46. Donald Trump certainly know how to put his foot in it, as in; “Open mouth, insert foot.” He would be better off saying nothing rather than dissing others and making himself out to be a foolish ass. Obviously, he is a moron trying to impersonate someone of intelligence. He does not do it well.

    1. And yet the more stupidity he reveals of himself, the higher his poll numbers go.

      1. Maybe people realize the alternatives, Rubio, Santorum, Christie (I shudder to think of this fat hitler being in office), Walker….

  47. Trump calling someone a “spoiled brat” is like Rosie O’Donnell calling someone a “loudmouth fat-ass”.

    -jcr

  48. As a former TeaPartier, mySELF: This is just SAD!!

  49. Dr Carson’s opinion?

  50. Trump is right : Rand Paul is an idiot and a really big liar who makes a stupid argument

  51. Oh man. What were you thinking, Rand?
    With the countless targets of opportunity to attack Democrat failures, you pick a a stick and whack the hornets nest?
    How’s that working for you?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.