Rand Paul vs Stephanopoulos on Sunday show -- entertaining
- Thread starter royboy
- Start date
I like how Rand just laughed at the end when little Georgie thanked him for coming on the show.Rand Paul tore him apart!
Yep. George ain't the smartest lightbulb in the room.
There is a reason why Paul’s neighbor beat the shit out of him.
Ha! George exposed him as the wingnut that he is... 🐑Rand Paul tore him apart!
What specific part or parts of what Rand said do you object to?
@PaoliLion will never, ever discuss the substance with you. All he has are ad hom attacks.
Disingenuous bullshit. The election (like all elections) had minor problems, but over all it was fair and clean. Over 80 lawsuits Trump election lawsuits failed. Perpetuating the myth of election fraud is harmful to our nation and is a root cause of the January 6 breach of the Capitol.
Calling out George for being on the left which he always has been but saying he is neutral in his questions.
Was the election stolen. Lol. What a biased set up question.
Then claims the doh said this and that. Lol
When it has nothing to do with the doj.
Paul brought up valid points about pansec of state and state legislatures and George couldn’t even say that is true or anything like that.
Was the election stolen. Lol. What a biased set up question.
Then claims the doh said this and that. Lol
When it has nothing to do with the doj.
Paul brought up valid points about pansec of state and state legislatures and George couldn’t even say that is true or anything like that.
Rand Paul isn’t dumb. He’s just crazy. No wonder he gets his ass kicked so frequently.
"beat the shit out of him"
In most circles, hitting a guy from behind is a sign of cowardice.
So the lefty response on here is EXACTLY what Paul was referring to.
He is a wingnut, a looney and is crazy.
What exactly did Paul say
. stolen? - didn't say that
. fraud? - yes but we do not know how much so let's look at it.
.
Lawsuits? almost all were dismissed on standing which is procedural - true
Certified - he voted to certify BUT felt irregularities should be investigated.-sounds reasonable
He said in Wisconsin there were thousands of votes cast with just a name and no address which historically would be tossed but weren't. Is this true or not?
He said in Pa they changed the voting rules without the state legislature voting for the change. Is this true?.
I am not a huge Paul fan but he sure seemed reasonable. I would like to know what he said that was looney or crazy?
You guys should channel your inner Jeff Bezos and understand mail in ballots without proper oversight bring inherent challenges.
I for one am beyond the election and having more fun counting the NHP's hypocrisy. My goal is to count 100 examples in 100 days.
He is a wingnut, a looney and is crazy.
What exactly did Paul say
. stolen? - didn't say that
. fraud? - yes but we do not know how much so let's look at it.
.
Lawsuits? almost all were dismissed on standing which is procedural - true
Certified - he voted to certify BUT felt irregularities should be investigated.-sounds reasonable
He said in Wisconsin there were thousands of votes cast with just a name and no address which historically would be tossed but weren't. Is this true or not?
He said in Pa they changed the voting rules without the state legislature voting for the change. Is this true?.
I am not a huge Paul fan but he sure seemed reasonable. I would like to know what he said that was looney or crazy?
You guys should channel your inner Jeff Bezos and understand mail in ballots without proper oversight bring inherent challenges.
I for one am beyond the election and having more fun counting the NHP's hypocrisy. My goal is to count 100 examples in 100 days.
The election was a good election. Focusing on inconsequential irregularities undermines public confidence in our election process for nothing more than partisan gain. In part, this is what led up to the January 6 insurrection.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought Paul is a big advocate of States rights. Elections are run by the states. Because Paul doesn't like the results he wants to usurp state election authority?
.
A good election? Because you liked the outcome for President?
Many, many people don't agree with you. Let's go for transparency and analyze what happened, and what improvements can be made in voting procedures.
Election integrity and the public's belief in fairly conducted elections is absolutely essential to our system.
"Elections are run by the states" close but not quite. Elections are run by the state legislatures would be more accuirate and the crux of part of his argument.
Well i don't want to speak for Paul but regarding states rights If the US constitution says state legislatures decide something, Paul's position would be LET THE STATE legislature decide. If the state legislature decided you could drive by a voting booth and holler out your window who you were for he might support that.[ might be against the idea and work to change it but be okay with the state deciding to do it that way]
I haven't paid close attention to the post election detail but if what he suggests in Wisconsin that you no longer need to provide an address and that was a CHANGE and the amount was in the thousands, wouldn't any reasonable person want to hear an explanation for that?
"Focusing on inconsequential irregularities helps undermine confidence." So the D's thought 2000 was crooked, the D's thought 2016 was crooked and the R's thought 2020 was crooked. that's 3 of the last 6.
i doubt the confidence level is very high.
The election was good because every state that certified their results and said it was good. Trump appointee Chris Krebs, the national director of election security, said it was good. 80 Trump election lawsuits went nowhere. AG Bill Barr said there was no significant election fraud.
Dems never said the 2000 election was crooked. The Presidency was decided by 300 votes in Florida. Remember the hanging chad? They were fighting about what ballots to count and which ballots to discard. The day after the SC decided the case, Al Gore conceded. Democrats thought there were problems with 2016, but Hillary conceded the next day and Obama had Trump the the WH the Thursday following the Tuesday election.
In the good old pre Trump days, the loosing party conceded the election quickly and wished the new President well. Trump, as always, put his own selfish interests ahead of the good of the country.
He's not interested in any of that. Really. You are wasting your time.
Irregularities have meaning and are often indicative of a larger problem.
George is a liar. The AG said he hadn't seen any fraud that would overturn the election "to this point". Without an investigation, you won't see the evidence. Really disgusting that George simply states what he wants to say instead of being a journalist
You are kidding right. Your side just spent 4 years saying Trump was not a legitimate President and for most Bush as well. Google was Bush a legitimate President and see what you get.
I am not kidding. You can find all kinds of people who say all kinds of things. We've never had a sitting President lead an insurrection claiming an election was not legitimate. Speaking for myself, I detest Trump both politically and personally. I believe that there were some problems with the 2016 election, but I never questioned Trump's electoral win.
Post election my problems with the Trump Presidency were his actions not the electoral process.
So you are saying that states like PA who illegally and unconstitutally changed the their election laws in the last week of their election is minor??? You'd be screaming like a stuck pig is the changes went against your candidate.
#Salute the Marine
#BIDENERASEDWOMEN
#IdontknowwhatImsigning
Last edited:
It is sad that Republican election strategy is to disenfranchise voters. As for Pennsylvania, the law was changed in the summer. The change was upheld by the State Supreme Court and the US Supreme Court declined to rule.
My issue especially in PA my birth state was how the rules were changed which as I understood was done not by the legislature but by election officials which is unconstitutional. It would not change the outcome of the election but I want the US Supreme Court to hear the case. I would think everyone would want that.
My personal opinion is that this was an exceptional year and things happened. The rules weren’t changed to cheat, but in response to a pandemic. It wasn’t done to steal the election. I don’t see this as a trend since last time it happened was 102 years ago. You wanna slap somebody’s hands, be my guest. The rule change was months before the election. It didn’t change the results.
Law was changed in the summer? The PA House and Senate are in recess from the end of June until the beginning of September
Jason is lying again.
Last edited:
My point is who changed the rules. The Constitution is very clear it is state legislature that can change the rule not unelected election officials.
Correct me. When was the rule changed?Law was changed in the summer? The PA House and Senate are in recess from the end of June until the beginning of September
Jason is lying again.
FWIW, state court and the US SC let it stand. How do you feel about the President and his Postmaster General sabotaging the USPS prior to the election with significant mail in voting that skewed Democratic?
Last edited:
No, the US Supreme Court didn't take up the case.
Were you this dishonest with your dental patients???
Gladly. You said the law was changed in the summer. Now you're blabbing about a rule.
The law wasn't changed
