U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Elections
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 04-10-2015, 10:12 PM
 
Location: Canada
5,881 posts, read 2,387,422 times
Reputation: 5341

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by dsjj251 View Post
There was no bias in that interview


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KL878fniK-s

She asked a question, he cut her off ( while saying she shouldnt cut him off ), and then when she asked the question he wanted, he dodged it.

This isnt about a like or dislike of Paul, he simply came off as an ahole in this and the other 2 interviews with CNBC and the local new Hampshire station

As for the Hillary comment, there isnt a single perfect candidate in the world who doesnt make gaffes. How would her making one be a worry to you or anyone???
While I know full well it's early like year and half before election..I've watched Rand Paul since he took office and his Daddy retired..BUT one thing Rand has not learned since 2010..He has never ever learned to be gracious..disagree with explanations an Lose ATTITUDE!! He should NEVER ever bash/ridicule whomever is interviewing you..He may well appeal to his base..BUT just like Christie..Calling people out or names just won't Cut it...

Oh Yeah..If Rand or Christie for that matter talks bold faced in front of camera's for the world to see..Can you imagine his conversations in delicate international behind closed doors talks??? Talk about Dysfunctional ability...SMH
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-11-2015, 06:59 AM
 
Location: Pine Grove,AL
23,348 posts, read 11,562,324 times
Reputation: 4322
Quote:
Originally Posted by shooting4life View Post
Stating opinion as fact without asking a question during an interview is bias.


Rand is a little rough around the edges, but at least his isn't a liar (at least that we know of yet).
First off, she wasnt stating opinion, she was quoting him, second, she was asking a question, but she was putting forth the basis of that question and then he cut her off.

And trying to qualify Paul's bad interviews with attacks on Hillary Clinton are just sad on your part, why is it so hard for you to just admit, he had a couple of bad interviews ?


Quote:
Hillary is almost as bad is biden in gafs, she lies as well to make thems sounds better or worse than they are, much like Brian Williams. It wasn't long ago she was telling people she was broke when leaving the White House. Before that is was the sniper fire comments. Not to mention the email cover up and the bs two phone stuff. She can't help herself. As more people watch, more people will find the holes in her stories.
She was broke, that isnt even an opinion, it was fact. No one actually disagree with the fact that they were broke. People like you are actually attacking her on the fact that her stature would later give her and bill the ability to make money. That isnt the same as saying they were broke at the time. They were. So you calling it a lie is intellectually dishonest on your part, not hers.

The sniper one was a lie.Hyperbole at best. I would love to see you call Republicans out on the same. You never will, but it is nice to dream.

There was no email cover up. You just believe in the default conservative theory that she has done something wrong. It is guilty until proven innocent in your mind.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-11-2015, 07:22 AM
 
Location: Texas
26,774 posts, read 11,241,401 times
Reputation: 6156
Quote:
Originally Posted by dsjj251 View Post
First off, she wasnt stating opinion, she was quoting him, second, she was asking a question, but she was putting forth the basis of that question and then he cut her off.
She was misquoting him. That is what caused the problem.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dsjj251 View Post
And trying to qualify Paul's bad interviews with attacks on Hillary Clinton are just sad on your part, why is it so hard for you to just admit, he had a couple of bad interviews ?
Agreed. And Rand could have come off better.


Quote:
Originally Posted by dsjj251 View Post
She was broke, that isnt even an opinion, it was fact. No one actually disagree with the fact that they were broke. People like you are actually attacking her on the fact that her stature would later give her and bill the ability to make money. That isnt the same as saying they were broke at the time. They were. So you calling it a lie is intellectually dishonest on your part, not hers.

The sniper one was a lie.Hyperbole at best. I would love to see you call Republicans out on the same. You never will, but it is nice to dream.

There was no email cover up. You just believe in the default conservative theory that she has done something wrong. It is guilty until proven innocent in your mind.
Isn't it worse what you are doing with Rand? Taking his policy out of context by believing what the interviewer said?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-11-2015, 08:16 AM
 
Location: SF Bay Area
12,289 posts, read 7,973,207 times
Reputation: 6464
Quote:
Originally Posted by dsjj251 View Post
First off, she wasnt stating opinion, she was quoting him, second, she was asking a question, but she was putting forth the basis of that question and then he cut her off.

And trying to qualify Paul's bad interviews with attacks on Hillary Clinton are just sad on your part, why is it so hard for you to just admit, he had a couple of bad interviews ?




She was broke, that isnt even an opinion, it was fact. No one actually disagree with the fact that they were broke. People like you are actually attacking her on the fact that her stature would later give her and bill the ability to make money. That isnt the same as saying they were broke at the time. They were. So you calling it a lie is intellectually dishonest on your part, not hers.

The sniper one was a lie.Hyperbole at best. I would love to see you call Republicans out on the same. You never will, but it is nice to dream.

There was no email cover up. You just believe in the default conservative theory that she has done something wrong. It is guilty until proven innocent in your mind.
She was taking him out of context to paint a narrative, which is bias.

Hillary wasn't broke, you are not broke when you own multiple homes and have hundred thousand dollar speaking engagements lined up in the coming months from leaving office. Not to mention the millions coming into the Clinton foundation.

I call reoublicans out all the time, it just so happens we have a democrat in the White House right now so he gets the majority of my time. It also doesn't help you have what in effect would be a one person race for the den nominee.

I have also said Paul did a bad interview in this very thread and that he needed to work on how he comes accross.

You really need to stop carrying water for Hillary.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-11-2015, 11:43 AM
 
Location: Pine Grove,AL
23,348 posts, read 11,562,324 times
Reputation: 4322
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loveshiscountry View Post
She was misquoting him. That is what caused the problem.
He didnt say she misquoted him, he only said she editorialized him(and i would agree), but it wasnt a misquote.

Quote:
Agreed. And Rand could have come off better.
see, that wasnt hard(wish other posters would do that).

Quote:
Isn't it worse what you are doing with Rand? Taking his policy out of context by believing what the interviewer said?
Rand Paul himself didnt say he was misquoted.

In his own words, "the world has changed".
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-11-2015, 12:00 PM
 
Location: Pine Grove,AL
23,348 posts, read 11,562,324 times
Reputation: 4322
Quote:
Originally Posted by shooting4life View Post
She was taking him out of context to paint a narrative, which is bias.
No she didnt. As Paul said himself, the world has changed and that is why his view on Iran did. As for Israel, he said to do it over time, not over night. It is the same argument his father uses on Welfare, the problem is, when they make these type of comments, they never say "over time". They make that comment later on.


We arent mind readers, we can only take them at their words, so no it wasnt out of context.

Quote:
Hillary wasn't broke, you are not broke when you own multiple homes and have hundred thousand dollar speaking engagements lined up in the coming months from leaving office. Not to mention the millions coming into the Clinton foundation.
A couple of websites actually made timelines to this for people like you. in the specific time frame Hillary laid out, she had not signed up for any speaking engagements, nor written a book yet. They were indeed broke.

The Clinton Foundation didnt even exist until 2001

Quote:
I call reoublicans out all the time, it just so happens we have a democrat in the White House right now so he gets the majority of my time. It also doesn't help you have what in effect would be a one person race for the den nominee.
No problem with the bold, but to the specific point of embellishments, this is a discussion forum that does have threads on when Republicans do it(and you usually are absent). Those threads get outright ignored by Republicans. And in viceversa, i make it a point to visit ones about Democrats.

Quote:
I have also said Paul did a bad interview in this very thread and that he needed to work on how he comes accross.
You did it in the context of attacking Hillary. You should be able to simply say the man gave a bad interview and leave it at that.

Quote:
You really need to stop carrying water for Hillary.
I dont carry water for Hillary, I have stated multiple times that Governor Cuomo is my guy. In fact, i will be working against her in the primaries for another Democrat who has not announced his candidacy yet(no, it isnt Cuomo).

You however are so anti Democrat(or Pro Paul) that when Paul flounders, you needed to attack Hillary. Would it not make more sense to talk about Lindsey Graham who attacks Paul every chance he gets ?????
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-11-2015, 12:47 PM
 
Location: Lebanon, OH
5,915 posts, read 6,340,450 times
Reputation: 12617
The only advantage that Hillary has is the people who work for a living are out numbered by those who vote for a living.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-11-2015, 05:58 PM
 
Location: The Republic of Texas
66,574 posts, read 33,860,210 times
Reputation: 14284
Quote:
Originally Posted by dsjj251 View Post
There was no bias in that interview


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KL878fniK-s

She asked a question, he cut her off ( while saying she shouldnt cut him off ), and then when she asked the question he wanted, he dodged it.

This isnt about a like or dislike of Paul, he simply came off as an ahole in this and the other 2 interviews with CNBC and the local new Hampshire station

As for the Hillary comment, there isnt a single perfect candidate in the world who doesnt make gaffes. How would her making one be a worry to you or anyone???

She may have asked him a question, but before letting him answer, she went on and on editorializing it, trying to answer it for him, in her biased opinion.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-11-2015, 08:53 PM
 
Location: Pine Grove,AL
23,348 posts, read 11,562,324 times
Reputation: 4322
Quote:
Originally Posted by BentBow View Post
She may have asked him a question, but before letting him answer, she went on and on editorializing it, trying to answer it for him, in her biased opinion.
She was putting her question into context and was about to be done right when he started talking over her. When he asked her to simplify, she did. And he then told her not to talk over him

You can call her biased all you want, the fact is, it was a bad interview on his part, not hers.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-11-2015, 10:01 PM
 
Location: The Republic of Texas
66,574 posts, read 33,860,210 times
Reputation: 14284
Quote:
Originally Posted by dsjj251 View Post
She was putting her question into context and was about to be done right when he started talking over her. When he asked her to simplify, she did. And he then told her not to talk over him

You can call her biased all you want, the fact is, it was a bad interview on his part, not hers.
Oh, no doubt. It wasn't handled as I would have but, some people act much differently when they start telling lies about you, right in front of your face. You are going to stop her immediately. How that gets done takes tact quick thinking.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Elections
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:33 PM.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top