|
On June 13 2010 04:54 Chuiu wrote:
I love this guy, I would vote for him. He doesn't see the need to manipulate media or people with money to win the election and he doesn't understand the need to run against someone - he only knows how to show people what he's for. The reason why the interview is so awkward is because the person interviewing him is doing it as if he were a normal politician, which he obviously isn't.
What the hell are you talking about? The questions asked are extremely basic. The reason it was the most awkward interview ever is because the interviewee is unable to speak. He sounds like a fourth grader who just got thrown into the role. Clearly there is something off about him. I don't know if it is a matter of very low intelligence or mental illness, but there is something wrong here. Clyburn may very well be right that he was planted by Republicans.
|
that was one awkward interview
|
he was planted by republicans. theres no other explanation
|
That is the dark side of democrazy - The most qualified people are rarely elected.
|
This is almost as bad as the Kentucky election (The democrats nominated a guy who is in charge of the votes to keep Rand Paul out of office). I can't decide which is more pathetic...
I haven't looked into this one though, perhaps this guy is legit.
Edit: How come they never questioned Obama about how he grew up poor and then after high school took a tour around the world then attended prestigious schools including Harvard (Though I have never seen anyone confirm he attended two other than Harvard). Seems unfair.
|
On June 14 2010 07:30 tryummm wrote:
This is almost as bad as the Kentucky election (The democrats nominated a guy who is in charge of the votes to keep Rand Paul out of office). I can't decide which is more pathetic...
when did this happen?
|
On June 14 2010 07:33 zeppelin wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2010 07:30 tryummm wrote:
This is almost as bad as the Kentucky election (The democrats nominated a guy who is in charge of the votes to keep Rand Paul out of office). I can't decide which is more pathetic...
when did this happen?
...lol Rand Paul...I am for anyone who isn't part of that good ole boy network in Kentucky. Funny how the populace tends to forget that KY's government infrastructure was involved a pretty large gun-running, drug-running ring during the 70s and 80s with Columbians.
Sorry Conway's duties as Attorney General includes proper protocol of voting?
|
...lol Rand Paul...I am for anyone who isn't part of that good ole boy network in Kentucky.
Sorry Conway's duties as Attorney General includes proper protocol of voting?
Is there any proof that he was nominated specifically because of the purpose to make rand paul lose or is this a completely baseless conspiracy theory?
|
Nope. If anything I would be betting for Rand Paul with some kind of dirt, because he's partially of that good ole boy network.
|
On June 14 2010 07:42 Judicator wrote:
Nope. If anything I would be betting for Rand Paul with some kind of dirt, because he's partially of that good ole boy network.
I'm just trying to wrap my head around the fact that voting for an attorney general to hold elected office is "pathetic" and represents a grand conspiracy against the electorate, especially since attorney general is often an elected position to begin with
|
|
|
United States12235 Posts
That's mentioned in the OP and several times throughout this thread already.
|
On June 14 2010 08:26 Excalibur_Z wrote:That's mentioned in the OP and several times throughout this thread already.
The main point of that post was the cnn interview. If that's been posted, my mistake.
|
|
|
On June 14 2010 07:40 zeppelin wrote:Show nested quote +
...lol Rand Paul...I am for anyone who isn't part of that good ole boy network in Kentucky.
Sorry Conway's duties as Attorney General includes proper protocol of voting?
Is there any proof that he was nominated specifically because of the purpose to make rand paul lose or is this a completely baseless conspiracy theory?
Absolutely none, just a baseless conspiracy theory. The links he posted above do nothing to substantiate it.
|
On June 14 2010 07:56 Pandain wrote:
For the people who would vote for him, this should change your mind.
In a society where people are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty, someone being "charged with a crime" should not be equivalent with them being guilty of it and should certainly not be a disqualification for elected office.
This is not a defense of Green specifically, just a general remark on how frighteningly authoritarian americans seem to be with regards to crime and justice issues.
|
On June 14 2010 12:10 Lefnui wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2010 07:40 zeppelin wrote:
...lol Rand Paul...I am for anyone who isn't part of that good ole boy network in Kentucky.
Sorry Conway's duties as Attorney General includes proper protocol of voting?
Is there any proof that he was nominated specifically because of the purpose to make rand paul lose or is this a completely baseless conspiracy theory? Absolutely none, just a baseless conspiracy theory. The links he posted above do nothing to substantiate it.
that's basically the point
it's completely ludicrous to imagine that suddenly a plurality of democrats all across kentucky spontaneously decided that the only way that they could stop the juggernaut of rand "criticizing BP is un-american" paul was to nominate the only person on the ballot who was capable of rigging an election
even though if this person was capable of rigging an election and was only doing so to defeat rand paul (as opposed to his own personal gain), it stands to reason that he could also rig the election in favor of whoever else the democrats nominated instead of himself
winning the primary doesn't affect his ability to rig the election should he for some idiotic reason choose to do so
|
This is sooo funny. For someone who is cynical (and yes I sometimes enjoy seeing politics fail) about the system I find it hilarious that something like this can happen. I mean how does a complete no name get elected? Someone who spent literally $0 on campaigning held no formal rallies or meetings, I mean how does he get elected? I think these are the likely things that happened (in order of likelihood):
1. He was chosen by pure luck fueled by the ignorance of the voters.
2. He has a very generic political name Alvin Greene lol, it just sounds like a senator
3. He is a plant, Republicans planted him because they knew he would fail (how they got him to win the primaries is a completely different story)
4. There is just a massive mistake and really he only got like 20 votes.
Edit: Also I forgot to mention I think this guy is straight up baller status, he doesn't fuck around when answering questions he is just like 'yes', 'no' or gives a 1 line response haha. I'm interested to see what he says in political debates or when asked about his stance on particular issues.
|
Democrats elect someone strange in their own primary .. and they blame the Republicans. If he was a plant all you had to do was not vote for him, jesus
|
On June 14 2010 13:28 MamiyaOtaru wrote:
Democrats elect someone strange in their own primary .. and they blame the Republicans. If he was a plant all you had to do was not vote for him, jesus
First of all, people are not blaming the Republicans. They are suspecting that he is a Republican plant, which isn't a ridiculous suspicion at all considering the circumstances. South Carolina Republicans have done far worse in the past.
Secondly, voters wouldn't have been aware he was a plant if he truly is. That's the entire concept of a plant you idiot, that it's not known.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
