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 04-11-2015, 11:30 PM
 
Location: Las Vegas
5,886 posts, read 4,196,726 times
Reputation: 4161

Advertisements

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.
Perhaps he's tired of interviewers injecting their commentary into their questions to paint a narrative and he called her out on it? Maybe he's tired of the media framing questions on their terms and expecting everyone to roll over and take it. At least he'll fight for what he believes in when he believes he is right instead of rolling over and playing dead like so many other spineless politicians.

The fact of the matter though is this is part of an overarching media narrative to paint Rand Paul as "sexist." If the interviewer was named "Samuel Guthrie" we wouldn't have heard a peep about it other than, "that was a tense back and forth." These are supposedly "tough independent women" journalists who can hang in a man's world. Yet when an interviewee is tough with them it's "sexist" or Rand is "mainsplaining." Rand treated her has an equal and responded to her like he would have a male interviewer who he thought was editorializing. She tried to spin a narrative and then got called on it. All we have now is liberal tears.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-11-2015, 11:32 PM
 
Location: Pine Grove,AL
23,373 posts, read 11,578,723 times
Reputation: 4329
Quote:
Originally Posted by BentBow View Post
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.
Where did she lie ?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-11-2015, 11:36 PM
 
Location: Pine Grove,AL
23,373 posts, read 11,578,723 times
Reputation: 4329
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoCalbound12 View Post
Perhaps he's tired of interviewers injecting their commentary into their questions to paint a narrative and he called her out on it? Maybe he's tired of the media framing questions on their terms and expecting everyone to roll over and take it. At least he'll fight for what he believes in when he believes he is right instead of rolling over and playing dead like so many other spineless politicians.

The fact of the matter though is this is part of an overarching media narrative to paint Rand Paul as "sexist." If the interviewer was named "Samuel Guthrie" we wouldn't have heard a peep about it other than, "that was a tense back and forth." These are supposedly "tough independent women" journalists who can hang in a man's world. Yet when an interviewee is tough with them it's "sexist" or Rand is "mainsplaining." Rand treated her has an equal and responded to her like he would have a male interviewer who he thought was editorializing. She tried to spin a narrative and then got called on it. All we have now is liberal tears.
editorializing isnt spinning, at least not in this context. She was directly quoting him and it took 30 seconds, he then spent 3 minutes giving detailed answers in response. If she wanted to spin anything, she would have told him "we are out of time" and not let him respond at all.

And this has nothing to do with Liberal tears, heck, David Corn of all people defended Rand Paul and said it wasnt about sex, he(Paul) just doesnt like reporters.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-12-2015, 08:25 AM
 
Location: The Republic of Texas
66,574 posts, read 33,898,132 times
Reputation: 14286
Quote:
Originally Posted by dsjj251 View Post
Where did she lie ?

Didn't watch the entire interview, did you? Just what your handlers have fed you, eh?
He corrected her lies about all the editorializing, once she shut up.
Pretty much everything she said was a lie.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-12-2015, 08:33 AM
 
17,028 posts, read 9,574,569 times
Reputation: 5701
Quote:
Originally Posted by LexusNexus View Post
It's too early to start this nonsense again, isn't it? jesus christ

Paul won't even be the GOP nominee, not a chance in hell. 47-45, 3% MOE? Let's stick with reality.



Reality is that Hillary is running against Hillary and it's not looking good.
One of them has a bad ethical record it seems.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-12-2015, 09:27 AM
 
Location: Texas
26,827 posts, read 11,260,561 times
Reputation: 6164
Quote:
Originally Posted by dsjj251 View Post
He didnt say she misquoted him, he only said she editorialized him(and i would agree), but it wasnt a misquote.
She lied about what he said. Semantics. Sloppy research at best.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dsjj251 View Post
see, that wasnt hard(wish other posters would do that).


Rand Paul himself didnt say he was misquoted.
In his own words, "the world has changed".
Right before he said she editorialized he was saying "you said I changed on" meaning she misquoted him or is falsely testifying. Just like he explained, his policy has been, "stop foreign aid everywhere but don't start with Israel, start with those burning our flag".

And with Iran yes things have changed. Although I still don't agree with us being over there at all. Advisors? Ok. If one wants a dog and pony show to apease the control freaks I can see that at least.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-12-2015, 09:29 AM
 
Location: Texas
26,827 posts, read 11,260,561 times
Reputation: 6164
Quote:
Originally Posted by dsjj251 View Post
editorializing isnt spinning, at least not in this context. She was directly quoting him and it took 30 seconds, he then spent 3 minutes giving detailed answers in response. If she wanted to spin anything, she would have told him "we are out of time" and not let him respond at all.
She wasn't directly quoting him. She took 2+2 and ended up with 7.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dsjj251 View Post
And this has nothing to do with Liberal tears, heck, David Corn of all people defended Rand Paul and said it wasnt about sex, he(Paul) just doesnt like reporters.
lol He doesn't like reporters who lie about his position is more accurate. She wasn't the first to lie about foreign aid to Israel. He has said many times don't cut off Israel first.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-12-2015, 09:34 AM
 
777 posts, read 2,467,297 times
Reputation: 637
3% ?.........Are you sure it was wasn't 30%......Hillary eats bigger things than Rand Paul for breakfast.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-12-2015, 11:09 AM
 
Location: Pine Grove,AL
23,373 posts, read 11,578,723 times
Reputation: 4329
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loveshiscountry View Post
She wasn't directly quoting him. She took 2+2 and ended up with 7.

lol He doesn't like reporters who lie about his position is more accurate. She wasn't the first to lie about foreign aid to Israel. He has said many times don't cut off Israel first.
As I stated Earlier, He is just like his father, He says those lines and then expects us to read his mind.

He indeed said cut aid to Israel, and he didnt put the qualifiers you claim on it of "cutting off everyone else first, then Israel"

Did Rand Paul propose cutting off aid to Israel? | PolitiFact

Quote:
" While this budget proposal does eliminate foreign aid to Israel, it is not meant to hurt, negate, or single out one of Americaís most important allies. This proposal eliminates all foreign aid to all countries. Israelís ability to conduct foreign policy, regain economic dominance, and support itself without the heavy hand of U.S. interests and policies, will only strengthen the Israeli community. The elimination of all foreign aid, including provisions to Israel, is not necessarily a new idea. In 1996, during an address before the U.S. Congress, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu declared that his nation would eventually wean itself from dependence on U.S. foreign aid. Prominent Israeli politicians and economists alike have called for the end of foreign aid. Among them is economist Amon Gafney, who served as governor of the Bank of Israel from 1970 to 1981. He pointed out that foreign aid has caused Israel to suffer from ―Dutch Disease, a situation in which a generous gift brings short-term benefits but impairs a countryís long-term competitiveness."
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-12-2015, 11:29 AM
 
Location: Texas
26,827 posts, read 11,260,561 times
Reputation: 6164
Quote:
Originally Posted by dsjj251 View Post
As I stated Earlier, He is just like his father, He says those lines and then expects us to read his mind.
His Dad was worse in that one has to follow Ron to get the full meaning because too many just scratch the surface.

The easy answer is don't cherry pick his quotes. Which is what you are doing here. Many times he has said don't cut off aid to Israel first and the time he doesn't, even though the overall picture of what he said backs up his previous statements, you still cherry pick it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dsjj251 View Post
He indeed said cut aid to Israel, and he didnt put the qualifiers you claim on it of "cutting off everyone else first, then Israel"
Did Rand Paul propose cutting off aid to Israel? | PolitiFact
sigh....He never said cut aid to Israel alone and you just backed up what I said. From your link

This proposal eliminates all foreign aid to all countries. Would it be better to say wait 1 day then cut off Israel?
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 02:53 AM.

© 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