Title: Anyone watching the debate? You can post thoughts here Source:
Fox News URL Source:http://n/a Published:Aug 6, 2015 Author:n/a Post Date:2015-08-06 20:56:58 by Rufus T Firefly Keywords:None Views:27763 Comments:185
File this under you can't make this stuff....Rand Paul attacking Trump for not pledging to support the REP nominee if not Trump or not pledging not to run 3rd party if Trump doesn't get the nomination. Really? I wonder if he has ever talked with his Dad about this, the Wizard Paul.
Rand Paul attacking Trump for not pledging to support the REP nominee if not Trump or not pledging not to run 3rd party if Trump doesn't get the nomination. Really? I wonder if he has ever talked with his Dad about this, the Wizard Paul.
Ron Paul did not run for the GOP nomination in '88. He went LP first. Nor did he run third-party when he could have after he lost the 2008 and the 2012 nomination fight, even though he was widely urged to do so and both LP and CP were ready to dual-nominate him.
Rand looked a little desperate to land a blow on Trump, admittedly. He didn't help himself. But his dad has nothing to do with it.
Nor did he run third-party when he could have after he lost the 2008 and the 2012 nomination fight, even though he was widely urged to do so and both LP and CP were ready to dual-nominate him.
He refused to say that he would support the REP nominee if it wasn't him. That's chicken sh*t then, now and always.
He refused to say that he would support the REP nominee if it wasn't him. That's chicken sh*t then, now and always.
True. But he steadily refused any urging to run third-party and explained it was futile, given the built-in advantages the two parties create for themselves to exclude third parties. A third party faces big hurdles just to get on all the state ballots and much of their money and time is spent on that while the bigwigs pour massive funding into the two parties, increasing their advantage further.
Not endorsing your party's nominee is not the same as running third party after participating in a party's nomination process.
And for all the whining over Ron Paul not endorsing the Stain or Romney, do you think it would have made any difference? Of course not. You're just whining to hear yourself whine over something you know full well would have made no difference in the 2008 or 2012 election.
Wrongo. There are things such as character, integrity, honor, decency, etc. that do matter very much - at least in my book.
Honor and decency? You're talking about endorsing the Stain.
If Stain was good enough for you to be included as a front runner in the party that you wanted to win over, yes honor and decency. If the Wizard had a problem with McCain or any of the front runners in the REP Party WTF is doing running in that party other than to use the party to gain national visibility and the money that comes with that?
If Stain was good enough for you to be included as a front runner in the party that you wanted to win over, yes honor and decency.
He wasn't good enough it was only his turn.
I believe we have now devolved into a One Party Nation,and the ruling class keep that a secret from the drones by making sure each branch of the ruling party gets it's turn in the WH.
The Dims have had it for 8 years now,so the next president will be an alleged Republican,regardless of who the nominee ends up being.
And the new president will be just one more in a long string go globalists that is no more Republican or Conservative than your pet dog.
It's just a shell game. McLunatic got picked to run because he was certain to lose. Everytime Palin fell off-program and started to talk conservative his poll numbers went up,and she had to be slapped back into line again lest he actually win.
