Rand Paul Calls Out Stephanapo—whatever On Journalism

OP
RoshawnMarkwees

RoshawnMarkwees

Assimilationist
Joined
Dec 23, 2009
Messages
25,439
Reaction score
6,718
Points
280
Location
Middle class, suburban ghetto.
Paul's relationship with the truth is like every other Republican's relationship.

Some bastard child they only talk about in private.

That is why there is a term for when Republicans screw up in public.

It's called "TRUTHING."
No.
I'm a very good judge of character and Rand Paul is
a truthful person. The last Senator with his balls was Russ Feingold -- the only Senator to vote against the Patriot Act.
Bull on both counts.

If Paul were being honest he'd say:
"Honestly, we've got to do something to keep these Democrats from voting or Republicans are going to go the way of the Whigs.
Seriously, we've lost Virginia and Georgia, North Carolina and Florida are next and then Texas.
At that point any hope of a majority in either house or the presidency will be gone forever."


If he were being honest.

And, in truth, you most likely know this too. So your excusing his dishonesty shows your own.
He was being honest. This election was obviously corrupted and the lack of curiosity by democrats bears this out.
 
OP
RoshawnMarkwees

RoshawnMarkwees

Assimilationist
Joined
Dec 23, 2009
Messages
25,439
Reaction score
6,718
Points
280
Location
Middle class, suburban ghetto.
Rand Paul is never afraid to be honest, like his dad.

Stephanopoulos began by asking Paul to admit the "election was not stolen" - to which Paul responded by saying "The debate over whether or not there was fraud should occur. We never had any presentation in court where we ever looked at the evidence..."
Paul's relationship with the truth is like every other Republican's relationship.

Some bastard child they only talk about in private.

That is why there is a term for when Republicans screw up in public.

It's called "TRUTHING."
Do you have a response per the thread?
I responded to a post.
If you've a problem take it up with the person to whom I responded.
You’re right. My bad.
 

Pogo

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 7, 2012
Messages
122,553
Reaction score
22,098
Points
2,190
Location
Fennario
Rand Paul pushes back against Stephanopoulos narrative - American Thinker

sticks it to Boy George


Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) appeared on ABC's This Week with George Stephanopoulos. The latter tried to bully Paul into accepting the Democrat narrative that Joe Biden, a corrupt, debauched old man who periodically emerged from the basement to "campaign" for president, won more votes than any candidate in presidential history, including Obama, the first sort of Black president, and Hillary, the first genetically female presidential candidate. Sen. Paul not only refused to be bullied, but he pushed back, exposing to viewers the fact that Stephanopoulos is not a journalist but is, instead, a Democrat party activist.

Stephanopoulos entered politics early, working for Michael Dukakis's 1988 presidential campaign when Stephanopoulos was in his mid-20s. In 1992, he was back again working for Bill Clinton's campaign, making his name as a spokesman for Clinton both during and after the election. Beginning in 1996, Stephanopoulos left the White House for ABC, and he's been there ever since.

Although technically a "journalist," Stephanopoulos is famously partisan, routinely serving as an attack dog for the Democrat party. He certainly showed that side of himself in the interview with Sen. Paul.

What Stephanopoulos hadn't counted on is that Paul has an advantage compared to many of the elected officials, bureaucrats, and assorted famous people whom Stephanopoulos bullies...er, interviews on his show. Paul is a principled man. His values do not change depending on where he sees an advantage to himself. That gives him a moral clarity that makes it impossible to bully him, as Stephanopoulos discovered to his cost.


In the clip that's making the rounds on the internet, Stephanopoulos opened by demanding that Paul recite the current leftist catechism, which is that Slow Joe, AKA Basement Biden, won the election fair and square: "Ah, Sen. Paul. Let me begin with a threshold question for you. This election was not stolen. Do you accept that fact?"

The message behind that aggressive question is clear: in Biden World, we must all accept the party line. Dissent will not be tolerated.

Paul was not intimidated. Instead, he said something important: there has never been an evidentiary hearing about fraud. Instead, the courts shut fraud claimants out on procedural grounds without addressing the merits. Moreover, we know there was fraud, and we know that several secretaries of state unconstitutionally and unilaterally amended voting laws, something the courts may still consider.

Stephanopoulos wasn't going to let it go. He interrupted Sen. Paul to say Trump and his allies lost all 86 challenges, completely ignoring what Sen. Paul had just said about the lack of any substantive judicial review. Stephanopoulos then went over the same old evidence — state certification (irrelevant if it was covering for fraud), recounts (irrelevant if fraudulent ballots were simply recounted), and Bill Barr's fact-free assurance that everything was fine, followed by his running away from Trump.

And then, again, the insistence that Sen. Paul parrot the official line: "Can't you just say the words that this election was not stolen?"

Sen. Paul pointed to something important, which is that we need greater confidence in our elections. He noted that 75% of Republicans agree with him, only to have Stephanopoulos interrupt to say that's only because Trump fed them a "Big Lie" (note, please, the subliminal Nazi allusion). In fact, Trump-supporters figured out on their own that crazy things happened before, during, and after the election, all of which were inconsistent with election integrity or the victory of a corrupt, debauched, increasingly demented old man who didn't campaign.

It was at this point that Sen. Paul called out the fact that Stephanopoulos is not a journalist — he's a political shill:

George, where you make a mistake is people coming from the liberal side like you, you immediately say everything's a lie instead of saying there's two sides to everything. Historically what would happen if I said I thought there were fraud, you would interview someone who said there wasn't. Now you insert yourself in the middle and say the absolute fact is everything I'm saying is a lie.
The debate between the two men continued in this vein for a few more minutes. Stephanopoulos manifestly couldn't grasp that there could be a viewpoint different from his. The only truth was his truth. His religion — not Greek Orthodoxy, but leftist orthodoxy — left him incapable of contemplating the possibility that he might be wrong.

To take the religious metaphor farther, for Stephanopoulos, there's an Inquisition going on, and heresy (in this case, the claim that there was election fraud sufficient to change the outcome) cannot be examined. Instead, it must be snuffed out as brutally and completely as possible. If he could have, Stephanopoulos would have gathered the branches and lit the matches for the most extreme form of auto-da-fe.

Please cheer Sen. Paul's valiant stand for truth and journalistic integrity, but understand that he's the heretic and that, for the time being, American power is lodged with the doctrinal purists who will brook no dissent.
Already a thread on this. Apparently it's on the Rignt Wing Echobubble's Things To Do Today List.

Just watch the video --- Paul is intentionally garbling the question into a claim that was never made. A strawman argument. Stephanopolous calls him on it several times.
 

Natural Citizen

Platinum Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2016
Messages
13,610
Reaction score
6,705
Points
430
Just watch the video --- Paul is intentionally garbling the question into a claim that was never made. A strawman argument. Stephanopolous calls him on it several times.
Stephanopolous was clearly afraid of the discussion and kept trying to revert it back to the shallow narrative they've been selling to people. The problem was, as usual, the question. It was about as deep as a mud puddle. Intentionally so.

That won't work with principled people.
 
Last edited:

Pogo

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 7, 2012
Messages
122,553
Reaction score
22,098
Points
2,190
Location
Fennario
Just watch the video --- Paul is intentionally garbling the question into a claim that was never made. A strawman argument. Stephanopolous calls him on it several times.
Stephanopolous was clearly afraid of the discussion and kept trying to revert it back to the shallow narrative they've been selling to people.

That won't work with principled people.
Paul is presenting dishonest argument. He's trying to play the poor-me victim by restating the premise in a way it was never presented. It's not hard to see. Stephanopolous could see it in the moment. So could I.
 

Natural Citizen

Platinum Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2016
Messages
13,610
Reaction score
6,705
Points
430
Paul is presenting dishonest argument. He's trying to play the poor-me victim by restating the premise in a way it was never presented. It's not hard to see. Stephanopolous could see it in the moment. So could I.
Rand presented the only valid discription of the problem.

Stephanopolous, like others in cable news entertainment programming, avoid deeprr dialogue like the plague.

It's not in their interest.

But unfortunately for them, they don't have all of the control that they think they do.
 

Pogo

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 7, 2012
Messages
122,553
Reaction score
22,098
Points
2,190
Location
Fennario
Paul is presenting dishonest argument. He's trying to play the poor-me victim by restating the premise in a way it was never presented. It's not hard to see. Stephanopolous could see it in the moment. So could I.
Rand presented the only valid discription of the problem.

Stephanopolous, like others in cable news entertainment programming, avoid deeprr dialogue like the plague.

It's not in their interest.

But unfortunately for them, they don't have all of the control that they think they do.
It is never "valid" to argue a point your interviewer never made, just because you can't handle the one he did make.

At no point does Stephanopolous call Paul, or Republicans in general, "a liar". He refers to the specific lie from specifically Rump. The set "Rump" is not the set "Paul", is not the set "Republicans". Paul made all that up.

Somewhere Richard Nixon is laughing his ass off, going "see Checkers? They're still running my play".

Rand Paul has been pulling this exact same shit lately, going on Fox Noise and whining that Biden's call for decency declares " is thinly-veiled innuendo calling us white supremacists, callung us racists..." --- once again inserting himself as target-victim. Aqua Buddha is a dishonest hack. Biden never mentioned him, or his party.
 
Last edited:

dudmuck

Gold Member
Joined
Sep 4, 2017
Messages
7,587
Reaction score
2,265
Points
275
Location
Camarillo, CA
Rand will absolutely follow through on what he said there in the interview. The problem with the legislative bodies tht operated outside of their constitutional authority needs addressed first and foremost.

I was gonna say it's refreshing to see a representative get back in the faces of some of these obtuse talking heads, but with Rand and company it's expected.
Chris Christie calls him shameful


 
OP
RoshawnMarkwees

RoshawnMarkwees

Assimilationist
Joined
Dec 23, 2009
Messages
25,439
Reaction score
6,718
Points
280
Location
Middle class, suburban ghetto.
Rand will absolutely follow through on what he said there in the interview. The problem with the legislative bodies tht operated outside of their constitutional authority needs addressed first and foremost.

I was gonna say it's refreshing to see a representative get back in the faces of some of these obtuse talking heads, but with Rand and company it's expected.
Chris Christie calls him shameful


Christie is Vichy.
 

Penelope

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2014
Messages
50,197
Reaction score
8,004
Points
2,060
Paul explains journalism to an ABC democrat propagandist...
Rand Paul is a nut case. I don't understand the people of Kentucky, how they can vote in Paul and McConnell in one of the poorest states. Must be they are all drunk on whiskey.
 

Penelope

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2014
Messages
50,197
Reaction score
8,004
Points
2,060
Chris Christie is shit now, but he wasn't that long ago!!! You radical right wing nuts loved him.
 

Flash

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2014
Messages
41,006
Reaction score
19,608
Points
2,330
Location
Florida
Paul explains journalism to an ABC democrat propagandist...
Rand Paul is a nut case. I don't understand the people of Kentucky, how they can vote in Paul and McConnell in one of the poorest states. Must be they are all drunk on whiskey.

The real piece of shit is that Stephanopoulos asshole who did all the official lying for Slick Willy.
 

Natural Citizen

Platinum Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2016
Messages
13,610
Reaction score
6,705
Points
430
Yeah, fuck Chris Christie. He's one of theirs. He's not one of ours.
He isn't a Trump Humper anymore.
[/QUOTE]

Yeah, that's how people without principles do. Thuhprise!

Heh heh.

Nobody with an ounce of ethics cares what Chris Christie thinks about anything.

People like him only serve as fodder for a USA Today type of demographic.
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top