Whatever you do do not vote this man for president.

a reply to: Greathouse

What question did I not answer?

You had asked me who I would trust completely and I told you no one, there is a clear track record of people saying one thing and doing another once in office.
Can you tell me why Rand would not or could not do the same thing? Or are you going to respond with a why not for the umpteenth time
And yes I am going to vote, I'll most likely right a name in.
Just haven't decided who yet, usually vote for my self.

a reply to: pyramid head

You are free believe in and vote for a man who turned on his own father. If he wins which I doubt there is much chance of then you will get what you deserve. He does not have my vote and will not have my vote. He crossed a line that there is no going back from. I have zero respect for any person that would do what he did. If you choose to believe in someone like him then you are naive.

Rand isn't his father and he isn't a Reagan even if you think he is.

a reply to: Sremmos80

And yes I am going to vote, I'll most likely right a name in.

Yup that was the question.

And given your reply a" write in vote."

The only thing you stand for in politics is the futility of the vote. So instead of discuss actual political topics, you prefer to tell everybody about how futile voting is? ( a quitting attitude like that should get you very far in life)

You've shown this position on other threads of mine. One suggestion of mine is rallying all disenchanted voters.

You claimed futility.

I suggested vetting candidates earlier at the local level and more participation in local politics before they reach federal office.

Your basic reply again was it was futile.


Any time any politician makes a promise or gives a position.


Your reply is they are crooks and liars.

Believe it or not we're all well aware of your position on the political system. It's just that some of us are not as naturally inclined to give up as you are.

a reply to: Sremmos80

I just think it's funny that every politician lies ... except when they don't because their interests are sympatico to your own.

For the record, I don't know who I want, only who I don't. Rand Paul hasn't made the "DO NOT WANT" list yet.

I am sorry but does anyone still believe that anyone TPTB allow to run is not completely bought and paid for? Its all theater to give us the illusion there is a political process, when the only political process is the one you can afford with bribes. I am sorry but IMHO thats where we are at this point. No one who really stands for the people will ever be allowed to run.

I thought this thread was going to be about Hillary....my bad.

originally posted by: openminded2011
I am sorry but does anyone still believe that anyone TPTB allow to run is not completely bought and paid for? Its all theater to give us the illusion there is a political process, when the only political process is the one you can afford with bribes. I am sorry but IMHO thats where we are at this point. No one who really stands for the people will ever be allowed to run.

Well it's nice to have pipe dreams, but yeah the deciders have already hand picked and groomed Jeb Bush to win the election, the rest is just the Circus side show for the herds on both sides. Whoever Goldman Sachs backs usually wins the election. They did however back Romney in 2012, but they got Obama elected in 2008.

Their influence failed in 2012 because Obama was backed by foreign donations. Pretty sure Sachs will back Jeb Bush this time around cause they supported his brother GWB. Prior to that they supported Bill Clinton. Beginning to see a pattern here? So Obama in 2012 was the exception to the rule, but they usually get their Man into the Oval office.

It's important to mention that both Clinton and Bush have very, very close ties to Goldman Sachs. Goldman chief executive Lloyd Blankfein has already recently stated that he would be fine with either a Bush or Clinton Presidency, LMAO! it's business as usual either way.

I doubt Hillary will even get the Democratic nomination when it's all said and done though, and even if she does, Rubio as Jeb's VP will steal most of the Hispanic votes, which will offset Hillary's female voter numbers. So it's on with the Bush Monarchy. Then like I have said many times before, The march to Tehran begins. ~$heopleNation

originally posted by: Greathouse
I've read repeatedly how much people hate Rand Paul on this site.

Campaign promises are fun. Is he just saying it to get votes or does he really mean it?

I wonder what he would have done if he was a Senator when 911 happened. Hindsight is 20/20.

a reply to: CryHavoc

I believe him. thread stated it much simpler. I have given my reasons throughout the thread why.

I can't remember the last time a candidate gave a promise of action on the first day in office.


Bottom line is if he doesn't get elected we won't find out.

Lol.

You said doodoo

a reply to: Greathouse

Prove? Probably not, but -- based on every politician throughout history over the entire earth (and likely beyond!) -- it feels about 99% likely.

a reply to: reldra

Poppycock. If he runs, and continues to make his bones by insinuating poor people don't know how to be fathers, his relationship with his own children is fair game.

Look for the fruit on the tree.

originally posted by: BrianFlanders

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: Greathouse

And we should believe his promises because?

Would he never lie to get elected?

Exactly. Someone should look back at all the promises Mr Honesty (Obama) made.

Well

He did say CHANGE was the goal. Never said what change or if we would like it.

My main issue with Ron Paul is his foreign policy stance.

He basically wants the US to draw back to its boards and sit on its hands.

Now I was in the military and work for the DoD, so I'm NOT a hugh fan of wars. (Despite the popular idea, most soldiers aren't.) I believe in fighting when you have too. But I also believe that a strong foreign policy does act as a deterrent.

I agree that we DO need to have some force projected around the world in areas of interest.

BUT

I also think we need to cut the foreign aid program by a large amount. And in conjunction with this expand our oil and gas production in the north as well as expand our nuclear and alt energy power production. This would cut the ties with the Middle East. Unfortunately Israel would still be an issue, but I think with the oil issue out of the way we would be in a more favorable position to support them.

That evil lying man is currently keeping a promise and filibustering the patriot act!!!!

originally posted by: dismanrc
My main issue with Ron Paul is his foreign policy stance.

He basically wants the US to draw back to its boards and sit on its hands.

Now I was in the military and work for the DoD, so I'm NOT a hugh fan of wars. (Despite the popular idea, most soldiers aren't.) I believe in fighting when you have too. But I also believe that a strong foreign policy does act as a deterrent.

I agree that we DO need to have some force projected around the world in areas of interest.

BUT

I also think we need to cut the foreign aid program by a large amount. And in conjunction with this expand our oil and gas production in the north as well as expand our nuclear and alt energy power production. This would cut the ties with the Middle East. Unfortunately Israel would still be an issue, but I think with the oil issue out of the way we would be in a more favorable position to support them.

I'm actually cool with him drawing back. I think we should cut the foreign aid program completely and use those funds at home. Start with the countries that hate us but include allies that can stand on their own. Keeping A handful of our current military bases abroad and our carrier groups would be more than enough force projection. Put troops on the border and close it. We can deal with the existing immigrants path to citizenship after that. If the US exercised protectionism for a presidential term or two it wouldn't hurt or weaken us a bit.

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: Greathouse

And we should believe his promises because?

Would he never lie to get elected?

We believed Obama's promises twice. Or are you saying we shouldn't believe him because we learned our lesson from the mountain of lies we just voted on?

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: Greathouse

And we should believe his promises because?

Would he never lie to get elected?

Hopefully by being raised by Ron Paul, who has more than proven himself, will weigh more gravity than the other candidates who have well proven their evil sides. If we gave 2 Bushs' a chance...certainly we could give this guy 1 chance. (On the other hand) If it turned out that Ron Paul was devilishly working for the Illuminati all these years and roped in the trust of remaining few constitutionalists, Him or his son became President.....that would pretty much sink the American ship. The Illuminati would essentially be unchallenged then.

I won't vote for anyone who promises to do anything on their "first day in office", except for Hillary Clinton.

She's the only candidate running so far who knows her way around the White House well enough to not still be looking for the bathroom on her first day in office.

On her first day in office, Hillary and Bill Clinton will simply be moving back into an old home.

Is Bill going to be known as "First Gentleman" ?

originally posted by: babybunnies
I won't vote for anyone who promises to do anything on their "first day in office", except for Hillary Clinton.

She's the only candidate running so far who knows her way around the White House well enough to not still be looking for the bathroom on her first day in office.

On her first day in office, Hillary and Bill Clinton will simply be moving back into an old home.

Is Bill going to be known as "First Gentleman" ?

A note to *MEN* - »Hilary is a Feminists, which means if you vote for her, and you are NOT female......you will soon be forgotten....even moreso than now.

I have a slightly different point of view about this monster called Hillary. I will not vote for her like most women will....simply because she is a woman, and the next `flavor` on the menu to make America look like it has accomplished something...like Obama was. She is not worthy to be President of our country...or maybe she is if we are to add another criminal to our list of Presidents. I will not be voting for her...reasons why? (Just to name a few, because no one will want to read a larger list)

P.S.- I am no government shill, our government is run by a bunch of mentally ill criminals I think. Let`s face it...she really does have her finger in her nose on national TV there. It is something a child would do. Do we really want our country controlled by the mind of a child?

1) Whitewater scandal - `This was the fraudulent land scheme, masterminded by Hillary and key witness Jim McDougal (who also mysteriously died in prison), while Hillary was a partner of the Rose Law Firm – also the firm of Vince Foster and Webster Hubbell, who later moved to D.C. with the Clintons to infest the White House Counsel’s office with their “legal expertise.” Hubbell was later indicted, tried and convicted for tax fraud. Foster turned up dead in Fort Marcy Park, as he was a material witness for then independent counsel Ken Starr’s Whitewater criminal investigation.
Read more at` Source:


2) Travelgate - Hillary's `friends, Harry and Susan Thomas's, both Hollywood “beautiful people,” Hillary had the head of the White House Travel Office, Billy Dale, fired on trumped-up claims of tax irregularities and then put the Thomases in charge to personally reap the profits of this government travel business. Dale, who was my client, was ultimately cleared, but not after his life was virtually ruined.` Source:


3) Filegate - Outted by the House Government Reform and Oversight Committee, which had been investigating the Clintons’ Travelgate caper. What was learned is that more than 900 FBI files had been ordered up by a former bar bouncer, Craig Livingstone, whom Hillary had hired to work in the White House Counsel’s Office, on the first lady’s orders and without proper legal justification. Source:


4) Chinagate – Clinton-Gore presidential campaign of 1996 took bribes from communist Chinese banks and their government to bankroll the president’s and the Democratic Party’s re-election efforts when it appeared, due to their low standing in the polls, that all the stops needed to be pulled out. Source:

5) EmailGate - Where the Clinton`s had covered up, and suppressed more than a million potentially incriminating emails that should have been produced to the lawyer Ken Starr, and Congress over a variety of the duo’s crimes. This was the basis of Judge Lamberth’s ruling that President Clinton had committed a crime. Source:


5) Benghazi - She knew well in advance the attacks were going to happen, and there has recently been found proof of this, and reported in the main stream media. She let the American diplomats get murdered anyway.

6) It was also recently reported that every year her Clinton Foundation reports (un-taxed) earnings of approximately $140 million to her charity, however only 6%...or 9 million goes to the actual charity. This is called a slush fund....or preying on the generosity of others, so that her family wealth increases on the broken backs of people who care about others. Source: Breitbart

7) Her recent email scandal, where she lied about keeping classified emails on her personal server, and then claims that all of the emails disappeared somehow when she was asked to turn them over. Many of these emails were of the Benghazi attack.

8) speculative (because these high profile figures cannot be prosecuted somehow), but here is a link to the body count of `mysterious deaths` that surround the Clintons, most of which had dirt on them, or were about to testify against them. The page is really quite long actually.

Clinton Body Count


For those of you who don`t care to read the above and learn more by audio....here you go.



Why you NOT vote for this female devil...because she lies....even when the truth sounds better!