Title: BREAKING HARD: RON PAUL SUPPORTS OBAMA Source:
CNN URL Source:[None] Published:May 2, 2008 Author:CNN Post Date:2008-05-02 18:28:55 by a vast rightwing conspirator Keywords:None Views:8887 Comments:534
First, he told Blitz that he can't endorse McCain.
Then, Blitz asked him which one he prefers, of the 2 Demos. RP said that he picks Obama because he's slightly better which is EXACTLY what I've been saying for quite a while.
No, it's funny as hell to watch you folks grovel for RP votes.
Ron Paul is to Obama as Iraq is to 9/11. If you repeat it enough times, no matter how unrelated they are, in the same sentence then soon people will draw a connection between the two.
Ron Paul is to Obama as Iraq is to 9/11. If you repeat it enough times, no matter how unrelated they are, in the same sentence then soon people will draw a connection between the two.
Ron Paul is to Obama as Iraq is to 9/11. If you repeat it enough times, no matter how unrelated they are, in the same sentence then soon people will draw a connection between the two.
that's the objective here
The fact is that Ron Paul did express a preference for Obama. It happened and it is documented. I am personally not surprised that he prefers Obama, given the reality of Hillary and McCain bidding for the same job but I do find it surprising and refreshing that he actually publicly stated his preference while he is still, in theory, still running for the same position. This is quite unprecedented.
Can anyone name ANY other presidential candidate expressing a preference for another candidate FROM ANOTHER PARTY while he was still in the running? I don't believe that it ever happened but... maybe I am wrong.
Given the circumstances - Ron Paul technically running against Obama - his expressing a preference for Obama should be viewed as an implicit endorsement of Obama. That's how I interpret it.
The fact is that Ron Paul did express a preference for Obama.
"even Barack Obama has VOTED to support the war and the spending...you have to give McCain some credit...at least he's honest about it....it would be a tough choice because i see them all as about the same.....i would think the one most likely to keep us from expanding the wars is obama, but that doesn't mean it's an endorsement because he'd spend the money somewhere else but his voting record isn't all that great, but you asked me the question and i would say he might be slightly better on the foreign policy..." ~Ron Paul
i don't interpret that as expressing a preference.
I think it was a "Who would you rather have in your home, a person with severe acne or a deranged arsonist with a blowtorch and a head full of meth?" type question.
I think it was a "Who would you rather have in your home, a person with severe acne or a deranged arsonist with a blowtorch and a head full of meth?" type question.
I believe there are a few folks on here--not to call any names--who would choose the meth head in your scenario. Admittedly, of the three there is NO good choice, in fact not what I would call a choice at all. But I just don't understand why people who CLAIMED to be for Ron Paul are now so strongly attached to Obama and the two of them couldn't be much different.
But I just don't understand why people who CLAIMED to be for Ron Paul are now so strongly attached to Obama and the two of them couldn't be much different.
I take them at their word, they don't see third party candidates as having a chance, and Obama is the only one not preaching the gospel of more war.
I take them at their word, they don't see third party candidates as having a chance, and Obama is the only one not preaching the gospel of more war.
Nor of much less war that I can tell. He will do what those in charge tell him to do just like Bush has, just like Hillary would or McCain. Not a nickel's worth of difference in the three.
"I would think the one who would most likely keep us from expanding the war is probably Obama, but that doesn't mean that's an endorsement....He would be slightly better on the foreign policy".
Wolf Blitzer asked him of the 3 which would he pick.
You folks pushing this bs that Ron has somehow "endorsed" the idiot you support other than the other two seem to have a bit of a problem with understanding or accepting words you wish weren't there. Can you not see that Ron, being diplomatic and measured (as he always has been for as long as I have known him), damned Obama with faint praise? Do you not know the difference between that and an endorsement? If not then maybe you should take up another hobby.
The point is when asked, Ron Paul did pick one and stated why (foreign policy)!
Remember, no one was forcing Dr. Paul to make a choice, but he managed to make a choice anyway. He could have said it's impossible to make a choice.
You're beginning to sound just like vast. There was no choice made, no endorsement made. Ron Paul simply made a statement that he thinks maybe obama would be different than the other two twits in relation to the war.
Have you been mentally tested lately? Maybe you need to be. Some people on here couldn't win a buck on the show Smarter Than A Fifth Grader. I know vast couldn't!
Wrong, he managed to select one of the 3 because he was "slightly bettter" on foreign policy. The video and transcript are there. Yes, he qualified his choice but he made it when asked. Again, no one claims he made an endorsement, we have stated all over this thread that this is NOT an endorsement.
Again, Dr. Paul was not required to make any choice when asked by Wolf Blitzer.
More importantly his choice was entirely about the war in Iraq, "foreign policy".
"I would think the one who would most likely keep us from expanding the war is probably Obama, but that doesn't mean that's an endorsement....He would be slightly better on the foreign policy".
Wolf Blitzer asked him of the 3 which would he pick.
Again, Dr. Paul was not required to make any choice when asked by Wolf Blitzer.
Oh,! Now I get it. Dr. Paul made a choice to answer the loaded question and made a statement so that bugwits and blockheads through distortion could argue that he made a choice and endorsed obama.
Do you deny that Ron Paul could have simply said, "I cannot make any choice, they are all exactly the same" or "I cannot pick one, they are all horrible choices" ?
#302. To: robin, a vast rightwing conspirator (#295)
Do you deny that Ron Paul could have simply said, "I cannot make any choice, they are all exactly the same" or "I cannot pick one, they are all horrible choices" ?
I respect him for giving an honest opinion, although I disagree with the spin AVRC has put on it. Youm know what I'd like to see? Tim Russert (Chris Matthews? never could tell them apart) asking Hillary if she prefers Ron Paul over John McCain. Now that would make for some Must See Tee Vee.
Obama said that he prefers Hillary to McCain and McCain to Bush. By the standards that started this thread, that must mean that Obama has "endorsed" Hillary for President.
Yes, it is fair to expect that Obama will be endorsing Hillary for prez. if he loses to Hillary.
So you think Ron Paul should endorse McCain, or are you just making excuses for Obama. I said earlier, to Cynicom, that I doubt he will be riding her train (someething to that effect), and I meant it. If he's to keep the respect he's garnered in a crazy-ass hick like me he'd do best to tell her to shove it.