Did anyone see what Ron Paul said in this press conference about third party candidate.? i don't know what was said any of you lot see it.?or hear what was proposed.!
At a news conference Wednesday with three third-party candidates, Paul said he had been urged by former Texas Sen. Phil Gramm to back Arizona Sen. John McCain. "Absolutely no," Paul said he told Gramm.Has rejected calls to endorse John McCain. A third-party candidate could play the role of spoiler.
So he backs a Green Party nominee a independent &Constitution Party candidate,all of which will have no chance ,Rons backing wont mean much .except that McCains team will be disappointed,from the lack of support.Third-party candidates tend to do best when there is significant dissatisfaction with the major-party nominees -- as was the case in 1992, when H. Ross Perot drew enough GOP votes to undercut George H.W. Bush, and in 2000, when Nader drew crucial votes from the Democratic candidate, Al Gore."It might diminish my credibility," said Paul, who was a distant also-ran in the GOP primaries and caucuses but inspired intense enthusiasm among his supporters and amassed a campaign war chest of almost $35 million, raised mostly via the Internet. "I don't like the idea of getting 2 or 3 million people angry at me."
It was a setback for McCain, who has been trying to unify the GOP with the selection of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, a darling of his party's conservative wing, as his running mate. But some analysts say there is little opening for any of the third-party candidates Paul urged voters to consider -- independent candidate Ralph Nader, Green Party nominee Cynthia McKinney and Constitution Party candidate Chuck Baldwin, who all appeared with Paul. Former Georgia Rep. Bob Barr, the nominee of the Libertarian Party, skipped the event and held his own news conference later.
You're one poor loser, aren't you?
Grumble, Grumble, Complain, Complain - Suck It Up Princess!
I love it when you resort to pathetic insults, because you can't think of anything intelligent to say. No wonder you vote the way you do.
Yes ... but he has dual citzenship so he can goof up twice....
Doesn't matter who gets in. They both work for unknown agendas. Can't be trusted.
Doesn't matter who gets in. They both work for unknown agendas. Can't be trusted.
Obama is a protectionist, which means NAFTA will come to an end. He wants GM to close the Canadian plants and bring them back into the United States for Michigan and Ohio Union workers.
The Alberta "Dirty Oil" he has no interest in..
Obama get elected, kiss Canada's economy good bye.![]()
Not to mention, he wants to reduce the U.S. military strength, which means Canada becomes more vulnerable as a nation on the world stage.
McCain is pro-military, pro-NAFTA.
Best for Canada... McCain/Palin 08
I really don't think anyone would outright scrap NAFTA .
Absolutely!!! Obama may actually be the best for America,,,but for Canada it's McCain all the way!! Canadians never seem to understand that it's the republican party that welcomes free markets welcomes Canada to bid on work and expects american companies to "just compete" while the democrats are a labour party, protect jobs for outside forces...meaning Canada stay away...You're wrong...
Obama, Jack Layton and Lou Dobbs (CNN talk show host) are all protectionist that want to see NAFTA go bye bye.
His own words; "Barack Obama, has proposed tax breaks for US corporations that invest at home rather than abroad."
He has clearly stated he wants GM to pull out of Canada and put the plants in Ohio and other U.S. border states.
read this somewhere....
Obama is for change....he asks the rhetorical question "Am I my brother's keeper?"
Meanwhile, his brother lives on $12 a year in a garbage dump in Kenya.......
I guess the answer isn't so rhetorical......