Regardless of your opinion of HRC, anyone here actually want to see Rand Paul win in a head to head?

[wyldwolf]

Based on some of the opinion express in this thread, if you think Rand Paul would be better for this country, many of us would be interested in knowing why.

[Thinkingabout]

1. This should be interesting, waiting to see the posts.

[The Magistrate]

2. The Straight Question, Sir, Is Unlikely To Get A Straight Answer....

[BillZBubb]

21. That's a strange comment. I'll give you a straight answer: NO!

[leftstreet]

3. Such laziness in your callout!

Can't you even bother to explain what you're talking about?

[Autumn]

4. Who in that thread thinks that Rand Paul would be better for this country? Link to the post please.

Either I have them on ignore or you are just being absurdly cute.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

5. I don't want to see either of them win. Which is why I won't vote for either of them.

[VanillaRhapsody]

13. Hello Independent....thanks for identifying yourself.....

I will now view every post from you with that discount!

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

19. I'm a Democrat who regards my vote as my own...not Hillary's or the Party's.

You?

[Autumn]

44. The only voice we have is our vote, and our voices are being ignored.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

64. Our voices are ignored only before the election. After, it's blame-the-left if it's lost.

The candidate runs to the right to get the "moderate" votes but abandons the left in doing so. Then the candidate blames the Left because the candidate failed to win their votes.

[emulatorloo]

69. We need to help extremist Republicans win

This will let the party know where we stand.

Yes the majority of American will truly suffer, but it is worth it

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

71. If you're convinced of that, then you should vote Republican.

If not, you should vote for the candidate you most favor. Like I will.

[emulatorloo]

82. No I will never vote Republican.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

84. Well, we have something in common.

Neither will I. Nor will I vote for anyone who follows or supports Republican policies. Like Hillary did with the IWR.

[emulatorloo]

86. I hope someone will challenge and defeat HRC in the Primary

[Autumn]

78. I can only say that is an ignorant reply. Our job as Democrats is to keep the

extremist Republicans out of power. We need our Democratic Party leaders to help us see that doesn't ever happen. That idiot Paul's third world surgery tour was all over the news and it was nothing more than a campaign against Hillary. And to any low information voter he would have looked good.

[emulatorloo]

90. I don't believe Paul can stand up to intense national scrutiny

Expect implosion similar to Palin, Sharon Angle, 'I am not a witch'.

Paul Ryan stands a better chance, as MSM seems extremely complicit with hiding the fact that the emperor has no clothes.

I am just angry today because I want to see a better candidate than HRC. I am doing GOTV for 2014.

[Autumn]

96. Our party leaders sit in their little mansions and send we, the Democratic base out to battle.

They sit, eat and drink and make merry with the very enemy we are fighting.

Doesn't it strike you as obscene that our best and brightest are used as fodder in an unending war for profit or are shot down like dogs in our American streets by those who are supposed to protect and serve us, their bodies left to lie there ? And our Democratic leaders are not out there submitting and fighting for dozens, (fuck dozens there are a hundred things they can do) of bills to stop the killing of our future, here at home and overseas? Nice speeches and statements are nothing more than empty words, the same pretty words they tell us to get us to vote. Isn't that obscene that we look at an American city and can't tell the difference between that and Syria?

Where is the fucking outrage by those who would lead us? Do they have no comfortable shoes or spine to stand with us?

Tell me, who is at fault when people stay home rather than betray their values and stay home rather than vote for the lesser evil ?

Embrace your anger and hold on to it because it will soon turn to despair and then disgust.

[Gothmog]

100. Just look at how well Paul handled the civil rights act issue

Paul is not up to the job. The way that Rand Paul is pretending that he never disagreed with the civil rights act is a good indication that he is not ready

[Autumn]

72. Funny how that works isn't it? But hey GOTV

because a puke is worse and it's your fault if Democrats lose blah blah blah. . We hear that over and over but it seems it has been overused and it just isn't working as a motivational speech any more.

Our vote is our voice and to toss it out there for nothing is a betrayal of Democracy.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

77. They have to have a convenient scapegoat when they fail to convince voters to vote for them.

Kinda like KFC and McDonalds complain about vegetarians when neither attract sales.

[Autumn]

89. This place just gets all "mavericky" sometimes.

[Puglover]

141. You can say that again.

All over the place.

[Autumn]

154. A whole lot of little mavericks . Except for at home,

where they ought to be.

[emulatorloo]

66. Yes, and we can send a message by helping elect Paul Ryan

[Broward]

85. The centrists hijack the party and then say you're not welcome here.

Funny how that works.

[Enthusiast]

151. PLUS ONE, a whole bunch!

[BlueCaliDem]

101. I've known that for a LONG time.

And that's how I've been viewing his posts and why I don't take him seriously or worth my while.

[6000eliot]

104. "I won't vote for either one" = "I'm voting for Paul."

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

108. No it doesn't.

I'll be voting for the candidate I choose, who will be neither of the above.

Who I'll not be voting for is a Republican or a Democrat who supports Republican policies. See Hillary's IWR vote and support for Bush's wars. Not to mention her support for the Drone wars and Netanyahu's atrocities.

[magical thyme]

124. don't forget her wall street ties and trade deals. nt

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

6. Hell no.

His being 'on the right side' of a few popular issues does not make him good, just dangerous, because far too many of the remaining people who still vote do so on superficialities. He's a nightmare for what's left of the social safety net. While HRC is happy enough to continue to keep funnelling money upwards, she'll still throw crumbs out to the poor. Paul would happily let them all starve en masse.

But to beat a populist candidate on the right, you need a real populist candidate on the left.

[Savannahmann]

9. Shhh.

Someone will think you're anti-Hillary which is apparently enough to get the blood boiling and demands for loyalty tests. Wait they're coming. The "Who do you want in the White House. Hillary or Rand Paul" polls will be posted anytime now.

[Savannahmann]

7. First, thanks for the link to my post. I'd link back but I doubt anyone would see it.

Second, I never said I wanted a Rand Paul presidency. I pointed out how I believe it could happen. Because Rand is on the populist side of several issues. If you like, I would run those issues down again, but since I covered them briefly in the thread you linked to, I'll leave it there.

[Tikki]

8. Those who will vote for rand are single issue voters. They will tell you they are not...

They are...

Tikki

[VanillaRhapsody]

16. Young people vote for Rand Paul because they think he will legalize pot...

that is the ONLY reason Rand Paul has a cult following!

When we all know....as long as RP is sporting that R after his name....That shit ain't gonna happen!

[Blue_Tires]

10. Oh, Rand has a huge fanclub on DU

they just pick their time and place to out themselves...

[Andy823]

111. I agree

They are not that hard to spot, even when they try and deny it!

[JaydenD]

11. No.

The other thread, at least to my understanding, is that Paul is talking about things that Hillary should be addressing, that he appears to be more progressive on some issues than she is and that is a truly dangerous situation. Where is she? Are we not allowed to dare ask this here?

It's not about Paul, it's about her and her steadfast warmongering stances, agreements with the Republicans more than the left and Paul is using that to his sour advantage and she is letting him do it - that is where the blame should lay, with her, not with people that are concerned about her republican traits of wars and protecting large money.

But nice try - make sure you snag that bait on real tight.

[VanillaRhapsody]

12. there are members of DU that admit to that?

serious?

that should be a violation of TOS if you ask me!

[JaydenD]

20. No, I didn't see any of that in that thread.

This top link poster is mad because some very good points were made about why Hillary is to the right of Rand Paul and how dangerous her silence on so many progressive issues is that might allow the calf licked hairdo scum Rand more toe hold than he deserves.

[VanillaRhapsody]

23. that is the stupidest thing I have heard on the Internet so far today!

we have THOSE kinds of morons on DU?

IF they think Hillary is to the Right of Rand Paul....THAT should be a violation of TOS too....

[JaydenD]

24. there is time for much more stupidty... I won't comment further on that but

yes, she is to the right of Paul on issues that matter. Now, I don't believe for a second his intentions are honorable or that he is telling the truth as I don't trust him one little bit - but he knows how to play the game.

[VanillaRhapsody]

30. ain't nobody got time for that much stupidity....

and not surprised that you are agreeing with this nonsense.....

by the way....what is RP stance on abortion rights? Is that an "issue that matters" ? Probably not to YOU though....

This is beyond ignorant....

[JaydenD]

31. I see you neglected taking advice from yesterday on Debating Skills 101

It's quite a pure waste of time conversing with you on the topic of Hillary's Brilliance and Intelligence or lack thereof - that she apparently is hiding from us all except you.

[VanillaRhapsody]

32. I don't take advice from Rand Paul supporters....

anyone that supports RP over Hillary Clinton is not a serious person....

Just someone who only cares about legalizing Pot....that is apparently the "only issue that matters"!!!

I am not impressed by you at all....trust me on this.

I am here to speak with Democrats.....not Libertarians!

[JaydenD]

33. Then you replied to the wrong post, because I am not a Paul supporter

but thanks for that very poor attempt of a smear and now I am completely exhausted with you.

[VanillaRhapsody]

35. Oh yes you are...IF you support HIM over ANY Democrat....

then you are not really a Democrat at ALL! That is not a smear...THAT is a FACT!

[BlueCaliDem]

102. + 1000

But to admit to that would be a ToS violation and grounds for pizza delivery. Then they'd have to make a whole new identity, not be taken seriously because of a low post count and recent sign-up, and can't spread smears against Democrats with any credibility. Oh vey.

[zappaman]

105. Hahahaha!

+100!

[VanillaRhapsody]

110. OOOOOH the Humanity!!!!!

[War Horse]

116. I think a lot of folks here (and elsewhere)

don't realize just how extreme right Paul is (or are, as in both of them).

[VanillaRhapsody]

117. they don't care...they think suddenly the Libertarians like they are welcome in the Democratic Party

and on Democratic Underground now!

They like the Teabaggers are very full of themselves....they think they number quite more than they are! Delusions of Grandeur

[TwilightGardener]

14. No.

[tularetom]

15. Of course not, but I'm not voting for the lesser of 2 evils again

I've voted in every presidential election since Johnson v. Goldwater in 1964. Recently, I've held my nose and voted for Clinton (96), Gore (2000), and Obama (2012).

No more. In this case, the lesser of two evils isn't nearly lesser enough for me to consider voting for her.

Rand Paul isn't going to win an election because I sit this one out. Instead of blaming fed up Democratic voters like me if he wins, maybe the party needs to come up with better candidates.

[VanillaRhapsody]

17. Hello Independent Voter.....

thanks for outing yourself.....now your posts will be discounted accordingly!

[leftstreet]

18. Wrong. The poster said s/he wouldn't vote

Not that s/he is an 'independent' voter

[VanillaRhapsody]

37. Yes it is.....

if you cannot support whom your fellow Democrats selected in a Democratic Primary election....YOU are not really a member...YOU are now an Independent!

[leftstreet]

40. No. That would be a 'non voter'

People who don't vote aren't 'independents'

[VanillaRhapsody]

45. If you support a Republican like Rand Paul over ANY Democrat.....

also if you are hanging out at Democratic Underground and you DON'T vote.....You are an independent.


That is why I say that.....

[leftstreet]

48. You are smearing the poster above

What is your problem?

The poster claimed s/he WOULD. NOT. VOTE.

There was no declaration of support for Paul

[VanillaRhapsody]

51. I don't care....if you spend your time on a Democratic Political Forum and don't vote...

because you don't like who your fellow Democrats selected in the Democratically elected Primary.....same result....

That's how Democracy works....it doesn't always work they way YOU want it to!

[leftstreet]

53. You 'don't care' that you're violating TOS

Okay then

[VanillaRhapsody]

57. No I am accusing them of violating TOS...

which states the purpose is to ELECT MORE Democrats!

dissuading other Democrats of voting for the Democrats....is a violation of TOS.

[leftstreet]

59. Did you alert on the poster?

ALERT!!! ALERT!!! This member claims s/he might not vote!!!1111

I'd be interested in seeing what happens with that

[VanillaRhapsody]

61. why am I under obligation to do so?

does it require it in the TOS?

I am merely pointing out that this is not the forum to carry out a campaign to discourage other voters from voting for WHOMEVER is the Democratic Candidate running against a Republican.

[leftstreet]

68. Does TOS require voting?

Have I missed where we send in proof of our votes in local and national elections?

If so, you are definitely obligated to do more than just publicly smear a fellow member

[VanillaRhapsody]

74. It REQUIRES electing more Democrats....so yeah I think so....

I am not smearing if I am stating a fact. IF they claim they refuse to vote for whom was democratically elected...in the Democratic Primary election.....

then they must not understand Democracy at all. You can't always get what you want....but if you try sometimes...you get what you need.

Democracy isn't always pretty...and you don't always get to have it YOUR way!

[leftstreet]

79. You lied

You called the poster in question a Paul supporter

Now you're claiming your focus is the member's statement about not voting

Which is it?

You need a nap

[VanillaRhapsody]

80. No I haven't called anyone that.....I said IF they claim they would vote for Paul over Hillary

if they said that....then I stand by it...

I never claimed anyone did or didn't say it....unless THEY did.

If you are saying I did...then you are the one lying....

[leftstreet]

81. LOL n/t

[tularetom]

121. Oooooh, scary, my posts will be discounted accordingly

When Hilarity Clinton comes out and trashes the foreign policy of an elected Democratic president, she has forfeited any claim she has to unconditional support from Democratic voters. She's obviously attempting to appeal to republicans so regardless of what label she may attach to herself, she is a republican. And she fucking well ought to come out of the closet and run as one. That's what she should do.

And what you should do is go take a cold shower. You're a little overstimulated.

[VanillaRhapsody]

125. Yeah.....I have no interest in talking to Independent voters.....their opinions mean nuts to me....

If I want the opportunity to discuss with "Independents" I would go to Independent Underground...

[Alittleliberal]

134. Ohh come on

This is a fucking ridiculous response.

[VanillaRhapsody]

136. It is?

If I wanted to talk to Teabaggers I would go to Red State or one of those....

[Autumn]

26. We are at a tipping point. More of the same will no longer work.

The party will have to throw a bone if they want Democrats to get out there and vote, and this isn't going to do it.

[VanillaRhapsody]

126. Got a candidate that can beat ANY Republican....got polls to prove it?

[Autumn]

128. We don't have ANY candidate yet, so no need to prove a damn thing to you.

How's yer Granny?

[Puglover]

142. All I can say is someone......

needs some "schoolin"..... on the proper use of ellipses........

Autumn!

[Autumn]

153. Puglover! How goes it?

Yes someone needs something desperately.

I just love these threads, they are always so interesting.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

22. Of course, I do not want to see him win! This is not either/or.

[JaydenD]

27. Would you rather burn in hell for eternity or have a strawberry ice cream cone?

Numbers are still coming in.

[woo me with science]

25. I think the Third Way does.

I think that's what all this is about...setting him up to win. Let's not forget who we are dealing with and what the Third Way IS.

It is a deliberate infiltration of the party by the very same corporatists that already own the Republican Party. They have no investment in Democratic principles. Their goal is and always has been to further the corporate agenda of those who fund them, and they will use both parties to advance it.

Running Rand Paul to the left of Hillary Clinton is a corporate wet dream.

It kills two birds with one stone. It not only ensures continuation of the corporate agenda (since either candidate would implement it).....But it also could give the illusion to a large group of cynical and disgusted people that something radically different was being offered. It could dupe a whole lot of people into remaining passive about what is being done to us for one more election cycle....by making them believe, one more time, that merely voting is going to be enough.

Gonna repost my final paragraph of the post in that thread:

So corporate Democrats will threaten and bully that we must support Hillary in order to avoid Paul, and they will claim to be vindicated when Paul is a disaster for human beings. But the truth is that The PTB will pursue their agenda under either one of them. Hillary's ostentatiously Third Way/neocon/neolib campaign is designed and backed by corporatists to enable or even ensure the coming of Paul and the continuation of the corporate takeover of this nation.

They're the same people. They work for the same people. As Jimmy Carter said, "America no longer has a functioning democracy."

[wyldwolf]

28. I just want to be sure I understand what you're saying here

The Third Way wants to see Rand Paul defeat Hillary Clinton. That is your contention?

[emulatorloo]

36. Yes, can't you understand the obvious?

[woo me with science]

107. It is obvious if you just think a moment.

Why do investment banker infiltrate a party? Why the massive corporate backing of groups like the Third Way and the pouring of billions into running corporate candidates and establishing a strong corporate presence in the party?

It's because the Democratic Party *was* the opposition party standing in their way. Now they own it.

They didn't buy it because of some perverse affection for the Democratic Party or the color blue on the Democratic Party pom poms. They did it to advance the corporate policy agenda that rakes in billions in wealth and power.

They don't give a rat's ass what party actually wins, as long as the winning accomplishes the goal for which they spent billions running candidates to infiltrate the party in the first place. They are the same people backing corporatists in both parties. They will work together and USE the parties to ensure the victory of whichever party or candidate can best serve their interests at the moment.

Running HIllary to the right of Paul pretty much locks in that agenda either way, and Paul has the added benefit of possibly appealing to those who are disgusted with both parties. It would give the illusion that something radically different was being offered. And it could dupe a lot of people into remaining passive about what is being done to us by making them believe, one more time, that merely voting is going to be enough.

[VanillaRhapsody]

38. hahahahahaha OMG we are infiltrated by some "brightness" today!

[Jackpine Radical]

70. I imagine the Third Way could live fairly happily with either outcome.

[leftstreet]

29. Hmm

It certainly IS odd how 3rd Wayers are giving Paul so much publicity

Hadn't really thought about it before

hmm...

or maybe they're just hoping to give him enough brand recognition so he can follow Hillary 4 yrs later?

strange days

[emulatorloo]

39. Or perhaps some DU'ers are detached from reality, or are conspiracy theorists, or are

paid by the Koch Brothers and their ilk to stir up trouble on liberal progressive sitesand encourage non-republicans to stay home

[QC]

41. It's always the conservative fringe here that accuses others

of being in league with the conservatives.

Ever notice that?

[leftstreet]

46. true enough n/t

[woo me with science]

67. That's a thought.

The beautiful thing for the corporatists, is that they win either way. Either Paul gets in and does his Paul thing to all of us, or we get four more years of escalating Third Way nightmare, giving Paul plenty of time to "prove" that Democrats are even more dangerous than libertarian Republicans in time for his next election bid.

[Doctor_J]

58. rand Paul would be the third way dream president

No regulations at all.

[woo me with science]

63. Yup. He would run on the "libertarian" promise of scaling back wars and the police state.

He would govern on the corporate wet dream of privatizing and deregulating the hell of of everything and taking a sledgehammer to social services.

And the bombing and conflict that the corporatists are ramping up in the Middle East right now will provide the convenient rationalization for abandoning all the antiwar, anti-police state, anti-surveillance election promises.

What more could a good corporatist want?

[sendero]

135. I have "hated" the libertarian philosophy for 15 years..

.... but I'm getting to the point to where I'm not so sure the "bad" (economic policy) really outweighs the "good" (anti war, no foreign entanglements, no pointless laws against victimless crimes, etc). The Democrats have managed to make their economic policy so close to the libertarians (free trade agreements, deregulate everything, never saw a bankster initiative they didn't like) that what do we get for our vote? Not bloody much I will tell you that.

I just don't know if I can vote for HRC, a Democrat in name only, regardless of who she's running against. My memories of her past and maybe unfairly what Bill did to the country (free trade with China with no quid pro quo, NAFTA, the repeal of Glass-Stegall (an action right on par with the second Iraq war in its cost to Americans), the Commodity Futures Modernization Act, the end of "welfare as we know it" (if this is a friend to Dems who needs enemies?).

Even though it might not be fair to blame her for Bill's errors, she seems to the right of him so how could she be any better?

[BlueMTexpat]

34. No. Just no.

In fact, I will go further and state that I do not want to see ANY GOP candidate for the Presidency win in a head to head with ANY Dem.

I will go even further than that. Considering the state of today's GOP, anyone here at DU who would even consider voting for ANY GOP candidate for President over ANY Dem candidate - or NOT voting at all or voting for a third party - is no true Dem.

It is THAT black-and-white. There are NO grays. Not in today's political situation. This is NOT the time to waste a vote.

[VanillaRhapsody]

42. Exactly...IF they cannot commit to voting for ANY Dem over ANY Republican....they are no

longer a Dem....they are by very definition...an Independent!

[BlueMTexpat]

138. In my experience,

any third party candidate, designated as "Independent" or whatever, has more often worked out to benefit the GOP candidate. IMO, it's a cop-out. You need not agree with me, but that is my opinion, formed over a long life.

People like Bernie Sanders (I-VT) are exceptions. Even where these exceptions occur, they are definitely not the rule, and never at the national level.

So long as the US does not have a multi-party political system - and we do not now have one, nor will we by 2016 - the choice is either GOP or Dem.

Frankly, I wish we did have a multi-party system, like most of the truly civilized political world. But we do not.

Right now, however, my focus is on 2014 and not letting the GOP take over the Senate or increase its power in the House. Let's get past 2014 first.

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

43. Amen

I'm just waiting for the "There's no difference between the two" meme that was so prevalent in 2000 to be repeated. Someone's going to slip up and say it.

[emulatorloo]

47. Not a Hillary fan, and Rand Paul will destroy the US

However I do not beleive he can survive natl scrutiny.

[Dems to Win]

49. No. I hope to collect Social Security one day.

[uppityperson]

54. FRP. eom

[greatauntoftriplets]

73. Another FRP!

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

52. I'm concerned about the effect Clinton would have on the other races

Of course I'd prefer Clinton to Paul overall as President, even though Hillary Clinton might be more hawkish than Rand Paul on foreign policy. I'd like to see what experts think about Clinton's coattails. To me, keeping the Senate and getting the House is as important as the Presidency. Would Clinton mobilize the GOP nuts in the down races more than a Democratic newcomer like Elizabeth Warren?

[Gothmog]

55. I would never vote for Rand Paul

The man is an idiot.

[daleanime]

56. Hell no....

so let's get some better alternatives.

[sadoldgirl]

60. Of course not, but

here in the West he would have considerable support.

[MannyGoldstein]

62. "Who the #%^* else ya gonna vote for, chumps?!"

The fabulous DLC/Third Way rallying cry.

20+ years of that has worked out so well. Just see the great progress we've made!

[MannyGoldstein]

91. "Romney/Ryan would be a Hell unlike anything we've known in the history of our country."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=1160909

Would it really be so hard to do a search before launching your disgusting personal attack?

[Marr]

95. +1

[woo me with science]

99. +1

Just wait for what's in store!

[hifiguy]

118. Eeyup.

"Sit down, shut up and eat your shit sandwich, peons" is the DLC/Turd Way mantra.

[Douglas Carpenter]

65. No, in a game of good cop versus bad cop, I guess I'll have to choose the good cop

But Rand Paul has only slightly more of chance of winning the Republican nomination in 2016 than I do.

[woo me with science]

88. I used to think that...

but Rand Paul is not the LIbertarian his father was. He is an ostensibly libertarian-leaning *Republican,* IMO fully capable of making deals with the right wing and being embraced by them.

Last year he wowed the most right-wing elements of the party at CPAC by filibustering against Brennan and drones:

Rand Paul wins the first day of right-wing confab
http://www.salon.com/2013/03/14/rand_paul_wins_the_first_day_of_cpac/

The warm reception for Paul’s anti-interventionist foreign policy ideas is a stark contrast to the CPACs of years past, when neoconservatives ruled the day, like when Dick Cheney had a keynote spot just two years ago. Supporters of Ron Paul heckled the former vice president from the audience, but now one of their own is on the stage and getting only love from the crowd....

And what *really* disturbs me and makes me think this scenario is utterly possible, is that the right-wing propaganda/brainwashing machine is showing signs of lining up behind him:

Rush Limbaugh Stands With Rand Paul: 'The Neocons Are Paranoid'
The most popular conservative demagogue in America signals that hawkish foreign-policy dogma may be losing its hold on the GOP.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/03/rush-limbaugh-stands-with-rand-paul-the-neocons-are-paranoid/273938/[/blockquote

.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

76. Seems like a straw man argument./nt

[QC]

137. As well as a very lame call out. n/t

[LWolf]

83. Of course not.

I don't want either one of them. Not wanting one doesn't mean that I want the other.

[conservaphobe]

87. Their silence on a host of issues tells us all we need to know about them.

They disappeared when Ferguson was the topic of discussion and returned only to bash Clinton and promote Rand Paul.

Transparent.

[XRubicon]

93. +1

[Marr]

94. Who is "they"?

[Autumn]

97. It's an imaginary "they" used against those who want better than Hillary.

No one here supports that fucking Rand Paul and no one in that thread did.

[conservaphobe]

113. I'm not a Clinton supporter. I will support whomever has the backing of OFA.

If that happens to be Clinton, I will not be disappointed.

[BlueCaliDem]

112. I've noticed that same thing, conservaphobe.

Very transparent, indeed.

[Marr]

92. Right-wing Democrats are what has ALLOWED the GOP to go so far right.

You might even say they've forced the GOP to the right. I've heard self-described "centrists" brag about this point many times themselves. They seem to think it's very clever strategy. And I suppose it is-- if your concerns are limited to the careers of certain politicians and the promotion of pro-1% policies.

Keep settling for corporate Democrats and this is the dynamic you will always have. Lunatic right-winger or corporate Dem. Your only prize will be a victory party every four years and a slower descent into poverty than the right-winger would've delivered.

[woo me with science]

98. +1 The goal is the corporatism, money into the pockets of the oligarchs.

The PURPOSE of the Third Way infiltration of the party was to make sure that both parties serve the interests of the same wealthy elite. They talk a good partisan game, but let's be real. They don't give a damn what party actually wins, as long as the winning accomplishes the goal for which they spent billions to infiltrate the party in the first place.

They are the same people. They and their Masters don't give a rat's behind which *party* wins. They will work together and USE the parties to ensure the victory of whichever party or candidate can best serve their interests at the moment.

[hifiguy]

119. Exactly.

This is the whole thing in a nutshell. A Great Post.

We get to choose between the Slightly Less Oppressive wing of the Money Party or the REALLY Oppressive wing of the Money Party. Which is a choice only at the outermost margins. The corrupt system roll merrily along whomever "wins" at the polls,

[BlueCaliDem]

109. A Democratic president is only as "left" as their Party members in Congress.

Why is that so hard for so many self-proclaimed politically astute people to understand? An Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders presidency would be four years of deadlock because not only would they get all Republicans against them, but they'd get moderate Dems (the majority in Congress) and conservative Dems in both the House and the Senate against them, too.

Result? DEADLOCK and a lameduck president for the duration of her/his presidency that won't see a second term the moment the a-political in this country (the majority of voters) are made to be convinced that yet another Dem president is "too weak" to lead.

You can bet corporate media will exacerbate that lie and publicize this wrong narrative far and wide as much as they can since they won't have that racial fine-line to worry about as they do with President Obama - and yet, still, President Obama is being obstructed nearly 100% and he gets the least positive coverage from U.S. media than the Republicans do. Can you imagine what they'll do to a President Warren or a President Sanders? It will be a bloodbath for them and the country.

The president is not a dictator. S/He isn't even the most powerful branch of our government. Congress is. When voting, we need to see the bigger picture, beyond our one-issue and beyond the presidency. We need to understand that the entire country isn't as left and liberal as we'd like them to be, and proof of that is the makeup in Congress.

For me, I'd prefer a President Warren. I like her and her ideas for national policy. And should she change her mind and be on the ballot for the primaries, I'll definitely vote for her. But whichever Democrat wins the primaries, s/he will be the one I'll cast my vote for in the general even if I have to hold my nose doing it (as I've had to do with Diane Feinstein), because I don't believe our country and our social safety net can survive another Republican president and Congress.

[Marr]

129. If the president is so ineffectual, what are you worried about?

Unless you're saying that our Democratic representatives in Congress aren't willing to block extreme right-wing policies from a Republican president. Is that what you're saying?

I mean, the Republicans actually dominated policy making when they were the minority in Congress under Obama's term, to hear centrists tell it.

You seem to want it both ways. You want Congress to be a deadly potent, focused group when we're talking about the GOP promoting corporate policy, and shambling mess that can't get anything done when we're talking about Democrats stopping it, or promoting something better. You want the presidency to be an all-powerful dictatorship when that's convenient, and a powerless nothing when that's convenient.

[BlueCaliDem]

130. Never claimed that the president is "ineffectual". That's all you.

And because you opened your response with that farfetched analysis, the rest of your post, your rants, are not even worth responding to. Then again, trying to have a productive and educational discussion with frustrated Extremists on either side of the political spectrum who live in this fantasy world that has never and will never exist, is such a monumental waste of your and, more importantly, my time.

Have a good one.

[Marr]

131. Who's ranting?

I was pointing out an inconsistency in your position. But if you'd prefer to ignore it and disengage on the pretense that I'm "ranting", that's fine.

The fact of the matter is that "centrist" Democrats have largely created today's extremist GOP, by moving rightward themselves. It's no secret. They seem pretty proud of it.

So to cite those same extremist right-wingers as a reason why they, the centrist Democrats, deserve our votes... well, let's just say it seems awfully convenient.

[on point]

103. I want to vote for dem. Repuke extreme and DLC republican lite isn't a dem

She sold out the US people on the Iraq war to burnish her tough guy image (self promotion over good of country) conned craven or corrupt? Answer corrupt and disqualified from office of president for me

She continues to be a war hawk. Disqualified

She espouses DLC financial deregulation against the people. Disqualified

She has been too craven to step forward on the pipeline. No leadership. Disqualified

She continually waffles and hides on numerous issues (Ferguson?). Disqualified

I forgot to mention her support of GMO food industry against wishes of people. Disqualified

The list just goes on and on as to why she should not be elected.

The rank and file dems, especially us progressives, want a real dem to vote for and we are tired of the lesser of two evils being used to move the country ever further right to serve the corporate masters that own the dlc

I am from the democratic wing of the Democratic Party

[tazkcmo]

106. No

But if that turns out to be our choice, I'm moving.

[SidDithers]

114. There's a school of thought among the delusional left...

that believes that things must crash and burn completely, so that a better world can rise from the ashes.

People on the left who live in the real world know this is absolute crap. But there are deluded fools who think that it has to get worse before it can get better, and the surest way for that to happen would be for a Republican to be elected again.

A classic post from DU 2011 spelled that out pretty clearly:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=439&topic_id=1779365

And yes, maybe a jerk like Rick Perry will become president because of people like me, but I'll tell you right now, we are headed in that direction sooner or later on this crash course, and I would rather have it be sooner, so that we can hit bottom quickly and rise back up. So, to be blunt, right now I don't give a fuck about party politics. I want the whole goddamned system changed. To paraphrase Peter Finch in the movie "Network," I'm mad as fucking hell, and I'm not about to play this fucking game anymore."

If that attitude was there in 2011 for Obama's re-election, is anyone really going to argue that it's not there with the prospect of a Hilary candidacy in 2016?

Sid

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

132. This ^ ^ ^

[hifiguy]

115. NO. But I have no love for Wall Street lovin' neocon lite Hillary whatsoever.

[calimary]

120. To those who decide they just can't vote for either one, or Hillary isn't perfect or whatever -

Yep, that's the ticket. Stay home on Election Day. Stay home and pout or something.

Or - my personal favorite - "SEND 'em a MESSAGE!!!"

(Message will be read by the victorious bad guy as "Hey! THANKS, CHUMPS!!!&quot


Don't vote. And rest assured - all the folks who want the rand pauls or paul ryans to win - WILL go out and vote. Holding their noses if they have to. But they'll make damn sure to get there on Election Day.

And you then will feel plenty vindicated and be MOST satisfied with the next Cabinet and Supreme Court nominees, too, I guarantee you.

[RedstDem]

122. running paul against clinton is the easiest way for

me to vote green party...lol
i wish you luck picking between those two sacks...

[samsingh]

123. no

[ZombieHorde]

127. I would rather see HRC as President than Rand Paul.

I don't care for HRC, but I care for Paul even less.

[Hippo_Tron]

133. I'd think about it if I believed Rand would be libertarian on crime and national security in office

But I don't think there's a chance in hell of that. Libertarians will prioritize their libertarianism on economic issues and cave on everything else, every time.

[Le Taz Hot]

139. Booga booga!

Thinking people know that Rand Paul will not be the nominee so I must assume you're addressing the Rush crowd. Not sure you're going to find a lot of those here. If you're addressing the Progressives, please see the first two sentences in this post. This same fantasy scenario didn't work with "President Bachmann" in 2012 I'm not sure why you think "President Paul" would work any better in 2016. But I am always amused at the desperate tactics, old and tired and ineffective though they be, that are pulled out of that old, worn-out trunk every election cycle to try and "guide" Progressives through election "strategies."

[wyldwolf]

140. there are 'progressives' here claiming Rand Paul is more 'progressive' than Hillary...

... and, thus, a better choice.

Nope, not addressing the 'Rush' crowd. Addressing the progressive Rand crowd on DU.

[Le Taz Hot]

143. No, a few progressives

have pointed out that Paul's views on a few topics are well to the left of Hillary's and they are correct That seems to upset The Party Faithful so much they feel the need to throw up straw-man threads going full-tilt booga booga with dire threats of "President Paul" if everyone doesn't follow the Third-Way party line playbook. The efficacy of that tactic is pretty much nil.

[wyldwolf]

144. So, your contention is that no progressives here have said Paul is more progressive than Hillary?

[Le Taz Hot]

145. So, you didn't actually read

my first sentence?

[wyldwolf]

147. sure, so let's review our conversation

Me: There are 'progressives' here claiming Rand Paul is more 'progressive' than Hillary...

You disagreed: No, a few progressives have pointed out that Paul's views on a few topics are well to the left of Hillary's.

I asked you clarify: So, your contention is that no progressives here have said Paul is more progressive than Hillary?

You avoided the question: So, you didn't actually read my first sentence?

So, yeah, I did read your first sentence. I just want make sure you're aware of what you're disagreeing with. So your contention really is that no progressives here have said Paul is more progressive than Hillary?

[Le Taz Hot]

148. The key word here is

"few," as in, "a few progressives," That's the point you seem to be missing. A few progressives does not equate to President Paul.

[wyldwolf]

149. the only key word is the one you used - 'no.'

Again -

Me: There are 'progressives' here claiming Rand Paul is more 'progressive' than Hillary...

You disagreed: No, a few progressives have pointed out that Paul's views on a few topics are well to the left of Hillary's.

Note: you denied my contention there are 'progressives' here claiming Rand Paul is more 'progressive' than Hillary and instead pretended to know what these "progressives" actually mean. NOW you're want to make a distinction between "progressives" and "a FEW progressives."



An isolationist is more progressive than an imperialist n/t.

he looks more progressive on some current issues than the Anointed One.

If I were an uninformed voter (who are usually more progressive than not, according to dozens of polls), I'd vote for Paul

...just took 5 minutes.

So, your contention is that no progressives here have said Paul is more progressive than Hillary?

You avoided the question: So, you didn't actually read my first sentence?

[yurbud]

146. It's not a question of wanting it, but of activists feeling so defeated

That they have a hard time opening their wallets, making calls, and remembering to vote for another candidate who will take a dump on them as soon as they ate inaugurated.

I didn't want a president Romney, but as a college instructor, I wasn't happy about voting for a candidate who is pursuing a Republican, Wall Street driven, privatization of public education agenda.

At some point, people realize getting a five percent milder beating is still a beating.

[davidpdx]

150. I hope neither of them are the nominees

[Enthusiast]

152. 1981 views and 4 recommendations.