When did people start buying Rand Paul's insipid facade of credibility?

[Orrex]

Honestly, it baffles me. How can anyone with a functioning brainstem support him in anything?

Even when he's not acting like an overtly unhinged, racist asshole, you know that it's still festering right beneath the surface. Sure, he's got the nominally correct attitude on some issues, but even an unhinged, racist asshole clock is right twice a day, in the same way that the clock's unhinged, racist asshole father was right on a few things, too.


I simply don't get it. Someone explain to me how he has any credibility among Progressives?

[leftstreet]

1. But...see...he makes Hillary look more progressive n/t

[Nye Bevan]

2. I'm no fan of his isolationist foreign policy

but unscientifically it seems to me that most DUers would prefer his approach to Hillary Clinton's. Of course, this in no way makes him a "progressive".

[Cali_Democrat]

3. The people praising him were never actually Progressives

They were always folks posing as Progressives.

[Peacetrain]

27. Bingo!!! NT

[Iliyah]

45. Ditto!

[TwilightGardener]

4. I don't know why he's prominent. I can only guess it's because he's Spawn of Ron.

I can't think of anything he's done that would compel anyone to take him seriously.

[FSogol]

5. 1. Those aren't Democrats or liberals and 2. Some have ODS and HRC-DS so severely

they fall for the nonsense spewed out of Rand's piehole.

[Frustratedlady]

6. Thank you for showing me I'm not alone. Dang!

Rand is a spoiled brat who is trying to act like a grown-up, but will never succeed. He has nothing to offer but rhetoric to fit the crowd of the day. There is a lot of ornery "boy" behind those eyes and anyone who would trust him has problems. All he wants to do is get the "job" and then you'll see the real Rand Paul.

[MohRokTah]

7. They're just like the Ron Paulites.

Vociferous, but at the end of the day they had nothing. Nowhere near enough to get a nomination, but loud enough to get attention.

[gordianot]

8. George W. Bush was selected twice they may be so desperate this time they will resort to Rand Paul.

Just remember some alleged functioning brainstems manage to vote for Romney. Rand Paul is another clown car act but his act is a little different.

[Orrex]

9. True, but...

I'm less concerned about the registered Republicans who consistently vote Republican and the nominal "Independents" who consistenly vote Republican than I am about the nominal Progressives who seem utterly charmed by Rand's bullshit.

I'm disappointed because I expect better of them, I guess...

[gordianot]

14. I think they are in shock when something almost rational comes out of a Republican mouth.

Rand Paul is a good crumb tosser when you eat it it is all gone. It does attract pigeons.

[KittyWampus]

10. I don't value his opinion on anything. Even if by an odd chance we may agree>>>>

We agree FOR DIFFERENT REASONS.

[Orrex]

12. Very well stated.

You've captured it exactly.

[gratuitous]

20. Yes, and . . .

Just because my liberal stance on an issue coincides with Rand Paul's, it doesn't mean he and I are bro-gressives, even if I point out that Rand Paul and I hold the same opinion on some issue (Charlie Pierce at Esquire, please take note).

[tazkcmo]

53. Exactly

And I would be willing to bet that when we do "agree" it's because he's a liar.

[winter is coming]

11. I'm not sure they have, hence the "need" for the current onslaught of speculation about

Rand Paul as a viable nominee.

[betterdemsonly]

13. Most liberals agree with his foreign policy more than

Hillarys. It doesn't mean they aren't liberals. It means Hillary is out of step. We really need a different nominee. She is extremely unrepresentative on many issues and will hurt us.

[Orrex]

15. Praising Paul seems hopelessly misguided, whatever the reason

HRC's not my ideal choice, but I'll vote for her ten times over before I'd vote for Paul--or any Republican, for that matter.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

33. Ew, no. It's 'superficial' agreement.

It's like Ron Paul and the war on pot. Everybody kept hyping Paul sr as being 'good' on the war on pot, but the reality was that he simply thought it was inefficient when done by the feds. He would have been perfectly fine with it being state run, with even more draconian penalties.

Ditto his son's 'foreign policy'. Liberals don't want endless war, but that's not really the same as Paulian isolationism.

[Rex]

16. Rand Paul is a fookin doofus deluxe, nobody likes him on DU.

He can't even put on a pair of fucking pants fer Christsake!

[conservaphobe]

17. His credibility among "progressives" is one of the many reasons to dislike him.

Everything they get wrong is where they overlap with Rand Paul.

[wandy]

18. Tanj, Orrex you summed that up nicely. n/t

[Scuba]

19. I haven't seen any progressives show support for Rand Paul, or suggest he has credibility.

I have seen it reported that he supports positions that are left of Hillary and other Third Way Dems. Is that what you meant? 'Cause that's way different than support.

[Orrex]

21. A statement along the lines of "he's better than our likely candidate" is a statement of support

[Scuba]

22. Haven't seen anything close to that. Do you have a link?

[Orrex]

25. You have demonstrated a habit of indignantly dismissing such links

And it seems that you and at least one other poster in this thread are convinced that any support of Paul is impossible on DU.

Why do you see it that way, and why I should I believe your interpretation, when others disagree with you?

[Scuba]

29. You're claiming that there's support for Paul, where there is only pointing out that Paul ....

... is to the left of Hillary on some issues.

You should either provide a link backing up your "better than" claim, or edit/delete the post. Otherwise some cynical member might come to believe that you're less than honest.

[Orrex]

35. The mistakes of cynical members are not my concern.

You should either provide a link backing up your "better than" claim, or edit/delete the post. Otherwise some cynical member might come to believe that you're less than honest.

Since it wasn't a direct quote, I'm under no obligation to provide an original quote. It was, in fact, a figurative summation of obliquely pro-Rand statements. Call them scare quotes, if it makes you feel better.

Additionally, a statement "in support of Rand" is not necessarly a declaration that "I will vote for Rand." Citing his perceived strengths in opposition to the Democratic nominee's perceived weakness is showing support.

A Rand Paul nomination could be a game changer

We need to learn to accept help in things even if it is from a libertarian.

Rand Paul is saying what Democratic politicians shoud be saying but they are hiding out trying to say nothing.

The inevitable Hillary will lead to President Rand Paul.

Hillary is more likely to start a war with Iran than Rand Paul

It's at this point that you typically guffaw or snort or express some similar sentiment of derision and declare that those aren't real statements of support or whatever. It's fine with me if you want to see them that way.

[leftstreet]

23. Where has that happened at DU?

[LondonReign2]

24. It hasn't

It's our resident "conservative Democrats" (wait, what??) failing reading comprehension again.

[m-lekktor]

50. i guess it just illustrates how fucking horrible

"our likely candidate" is. how about many support NEITHER of the two.

[Mojorabbit]

41. + a gazillion. nt

[Mojorabbit]

26. Why are there so many Rand Paul posts today? What is up with that?

Who cares about him? I don't get the hysteria.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

31. A lot of people have poor reading skills.

And they think that progressives warning them that Paul is potentially electorally dangerous are actually supporting Paul.

[Orrex]

36. Who are you calling out, exactly?

Interesting that you perceive a difference in interpretation as evidence of a failure of reading comprehension.

Such a preemptive ad hominem suggests that your own argument is poorly supported in spite of your purportedly magnificent reading skills.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

37. Interesting that you took offense.

Apparently, you think the shoe fits, and are feeling insulted. You weren't actually who I had in mind, but you can be, if you want to.

Am I allowed to 'call out' DUers by name? I'm still fuzzy on the rule there. I can mail ya, if you want.

[Orrex]

38. What makes you think that I took offense?

You made an accusation, and I asked for clarification. I don't believe that I expressed any offense or perceived insult.

Am I allowed to 'call out' DUers by name? I'm still fuzzy on the rule there. I can mail ya, if you want.

Well, if calling someone out by name is frowned upon, but calling someone out without naming them seems intellectually dishonest. YMMV.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

40. Ok, if you're not offended, no harm no foul.

I mailed you a list. Probably partial, but it was the list of folks reccing the OP that spawned my comment.

[Mojorabbit]

42. Yes, reading further I agree with your assessment. nt

[Gothmog]

28. Rand Paul is not going to be the GOP 2016 nominee

The GOP donor class hates Rand Paul. Rand Paul is not a progressive on any issue and I doubt that he will receive support from anyone who posts on DU

[oberliner]

39. Who will it be?

Jeb?

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

47. I'm hoping for anyone but Paul or Christie.

No one else seems potentially as dangerous in a general.

Paul might be dangerous if he truly does pull off his pretend populism, and christie seems to be weaseling past his various scandals, so he could still be dangerous. None of the rest of the potential field strikes me as having the wherewithal to fool enough low info Dems to weasel into the WH.

[oberliner]

52. You don't think Bush #3 poses a threat?

I mean he speaks Spanish and everything!

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

55. If he runs, out come the Terri Schiavo ads.

That particular abomination of religious and legislative overreach should sink him.

(Edit: I say legislative, although his part was executive. He just got all of the Republican legislators to rubberstamp his attempt at a bill of attainder.)

[Gothmog]

58. Mitt or Paul Ryan are my two best guesses

Paul Ryan has the benefit of being on the national ticket. The GOP is big on the next person in line and Paul Ryan may meet this criterion. Ryan is brighter than Rand Paul and would be more acceptable to the GOP donor class. I dislike Ryan and think that he budgets are jokes but he could be acceptable to the base and the donor class.

If Scott Walker can be re-elected and get his legal issues behind him, he could be the nominee. Jeb is a possibility but he would have to back track heavily on immigration.

I doubt that Rick Perry is viable in part because I am a Texan and I know how truly stupid Perry is. Even if Perry gets a boost from the indictment and the indictment is dismissed without trial, I do see Perry being the nominee. Perry would need for the indictment to be dismissed and not appealed and that he makes no dumb mistakes between now and the primaries. Neither of these contingencies are likely.

Mitt is still a strong possibility if Paul Ryan falters. The donor class knows Mitt and could support him.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

30. Half the voters voted for W.

You think they're any brighter now than they were then?

He's just as dangerous as W was. Yes, to most people who actually read much about him, he's a bad joke, but the reality is that most of the electorate votes on tiny soundbites, and a lot of his soundbites sound a lot more 'moderate' or even 'left' than the reality behind them actually is.

So no, he doesn't have 'credibility among Progressives'. Progressives simply recognize that he's co-opting the populist rhetoric that might make him electable given who the electorate is. And that to beat someone who SEEMS (not is, but seems) populist to the low info voters, you need someone who IS actually populist.

[Nay]

49. Thank you. It's distressing how many DUers have either intentionally or

unintentionally missed the point of the 2016 Rand vs. Hillary speculations. Everybody here hates him as he is a crazy Libertarian asshole who'd wreck the country even worse than Dimson did. But we're wondering if he can gain traction with the voters with certain of his selective progressive-sounding sound bites. I don't think it's wrong to ask ourselves how a sleazebag like him can be on the right side of some issues (even if for the wrong reason) while our side seems to be on the wrong side. That doesn't mean we support the asshole, ya hosers.

[NCTraveler]

32. Thought process of a Randian.

He won't go to war with Iran.
I don't want to go to war with Iran.
Therefore I agree with Rand on this one issue.

They have no clue how simplistic this type of thinking is. They don't seem to be able to understand the damage that he would bring to the world with his isolationist views. They truly don't agree with him yet are too dim to figure that out.

[abakan]

34. Someone is putting stupid in the water...

It is the only answer I can come up with to your question.

[Tikki]

43. After reagan retired..... Greed is good and all, godly and all, money is muscle....

...men are 'portant, women need guidance, psstt over here kid, wanna buy a gold Rolex, $50 bucks?


Tikki

[BlueJac]

44. He is the turd way!

[Orrex]

46. Win

[broadcaster75201]

48. People buy bridges. *shrug* nt

nt

[tazkcmo]

51. More BS

Have yet to see anybody on DU express support for Paul. Show me a thread where there are multiple posters posting something that says, roughly, "I support Rand Paul." I ask for multiple because the occasional post by a troll is hardly "progressives".

[JaydenD]

54. I get it.

it's all about protecting Hillary and her Silence of the Lambs so the snickering and mockery and accusations of calling people Paulbots is easier than explaining why Hillary hasn't spoken out on current issues, such as Ferguson or why Rand Paul speaks against wars and we would double over laughing hysterically in unbelievability if Hillary said that.

It's not that Rand is Right (I don't believe anything the jerk says) it's that Hillary is wrong. And when she looks bad compared to a Paul, oh my, that is pretty sad - therefore the snickering and accusations and mockery from her greatest defenders - that's all they got.

[Orrex]

57. I have a list of candidates I'd prefer instead of HRC

I'll vote for her if she's the candidate, but she's not my first or second pick.

[Iliyah]

56. K & R

Whats with the third way? Rand Paul is a GOPer, unless he has proclaim that he's going indie or something elese besides Libertarian (which are the GOP). Also, he is in the Bomb Iran group.