Which one do you think holds to their promises, is honest and has integrity? I have watched Hillary lie through her teeth (snipers for example). Obama lied about prosecution for telco companies & campaign finance. McCain has a shady and hidden past. Yet Paul (who is seen as a loon) has shown honestly and integrity for over 20+ years in congress and throughout his two presidential runs. Yet people continue to vote for these dishonest and willing to say anything to get elected officials. I don't get it.
Obama, Hillary, McCain and Paul
- Thread starter NoStateofMind
- Start date
- Oct 30, 2000
- 42,589
- 5
- 0
yllus
Elite Member & Lifer
- Aug 20, 2000
- 20,577
- 432
- 126
This is correct, though to be more accurate it should be said that while many of his ideas were fantastic, many were horrifically bad.
That's the case for all politicians, but in Dr. Paul's case the problem is he appears too much the fanatic to drop the bad ideas and act more reasonably. In comparison, despite his campaign rhetoric, Senator Obama can be fairly well trusted not to pull troops out of Iraq immediately because of the disaster that would be imminent in that country. He lies, but he appears to be reasonable about it.
daniel1113
Diamond Member
- Jun 6, 2003
- 6,448
- 0
- 0
Then I'll send my crusader cat after it and launch a holy war to take over the holy land.
Funny, RPBs always miss the point.
In order of credibility:
Paul, Obama, McCain, Hillary.
Makes it rather tough to choose, since the most credible aren't grouped together by beliefs.
Paul, Obama, McCain, Hillary.
Makes it rather tough to choose, since the most credible aren't grouped together by beliefs.
ProfJohn
Lifer
- Jul 28, 2006
- 18,161
- 7
- 0
I am not sure you can rank Obama when it comes to credibility. He has too short of a record.
We can't go back and look at his previous positions and see where he changed his mind.
Voting for Obama is a big risk. He could turn out to be exactly what he claims he is, or he could turn out totally different.
At least with McCain we have a long record to look at and can guess and what he will be like as President.
We can't go back and look at his previous positions and see where he changed his mind.
Voting for Obama is a big risk. He could turn out to be exactly what he claims he is, or he could turn out totally different.
At least with McCain we have a long record to look at and can guess and what he will be like as President.
bamacre
Lifer
- Jul 1, 2004
- 21,029
- 2
- 61
I didn't say the vast majority of people were morons because they won't vote for Ron Paul. But thanks for twisting my words. They've been morons before Ron Paul ever decided to run for President. Think I am wrong? There's plenty of evidence to support my claim.
No, he doesn't pander, because he'd be pandering to 5% of the population, which includes tin foil hat'ers and wingnuts.
Paul lost for a number of reasons. Bad ideas being one of the Media themes circulated but wasn't the only one:
1. Media
- kept his name out wherever they could from any story or poll
- included him in stories or interviews designed to twist his words
- continually pushed key words in interviews and news stories that painted him as some sort of nut (Objective: if you hear it enough you will start to believe it or question even obvious things he says)
- started a media circus around McCain and filled the news with positive stories and mentioning his name everywhere at the exact time that McCain was about to drop out of the race due to lack of support and money and while support for Paul grew his news coverage shrank further as a mirror opposite of McCain
2. GOP
- change delegate venue rules last minute to keep out or minimize Paul's supporters
- force the closure of venues to keep Paul's supporters from gaining ground in the delegate selection process
- voter fraud with re-counts showing Paul's votes being disappeared
- allowing straw poll manipulation by rival candidates without so much as a mouse squeak
I wonder what someone would say if they objectively psychoanalyzed this charade you call the "voting process". In my observation this process is anything but geared towards the voter.
EDIT: Correction made with clarification
1. Media
- kept his name out wherever they could from any story or poll
- included him in stories or interviews designed to twist his words
- continually pushed key words in interviews and news stories that painted him as some sort of nut (Objective: if you hear it enough you will start to believe it or question even obvious things he says)
- started a media circus around McCain and filled the news with positive stories and mentioning his name everywhere at the exact time that McCain was about to drop out of the race due to lack of support and money and while support for Paul grew his news coverage shrank further as a mirror opposite of McCain
2. GOP
- change delegate venue rules last minute to keep out or minimize Paul's supporters
- force the closure of venues to keep Paul's supporters from gaining ground in the delegate selection process
- voter fraud with re-counts showing Paul's votes being disappeared
- allowing straw poll manipulation by rival candidates without so much as a mouse squeak
I wonder what someone would say if they objectively psychoanalyzed this charade you call the "voting process". In my observation this process is anything but geared towards the voter.
EDIT: Correction made with clarification
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 19K
-
-
-
Facebook
Twitter