Obama and Hillary aren't progressive enough so let's support a Right Wing Racist like Rand Paul

[Cad Bane]

Last edited Tue Aug 26, 2014, 03:56 PM - Edit history (1)

Not only that. Let's try to sell one of the most rabidly right wing politicians in America as a "progressive" alternative to insufficiently "left" mainstream Democrats.

This is the message that Libertarians have been flooding Democratic / Liberal message boards and forums with for YEARS. Dating back to the early 2000's with Klansman Ron Paul's campaigns.

There is big money behind these efforts too.

It's hilarious watching people who pretend to be ideologically pure left wing gatekeepers twist themselves in knots to justify promoting a racist teabagger from the right wing swamps as a viable candidate.

For the last 6 years these people have taken giant shits on EVERYTHING President Obama has done, said or been involved in. Every policy isn't progressive enough. Every speech is just meaningless words. The porridge is always too hot or too cold. Goldie locks is never happy with Obama or Democrats.

These folks even have the nerve to mock and belittle Obama's supporters for combating racism. You know because they are just so progressive and can't be bothered with such insignificant issues.

Now here we are again and it's time for the stealth Libertarians to begin their election season anti-Democrat Paulite campaign. These folks claim to be so far to the left that mainstream Democrats disgust them. At the same time they are just compelled to heap praise on Rand Paul because he is just so awesome on "the issues". (just like his father)

But don't mention all the issues or these folks will angrily shout you down. And you better not ask them why they can't find an actual liberal or Democrat to promote who shares their "issues". That's being a party loyalist.

What's even funnier is watching them try to lecture REAL Democrats on why people should be willing to trade away all their Democratic ideals to support a neo-confederate Republican.

The bottom line is these Libertarians think we're all unbelievably dumb. They think we haven't noticed their agenda from the beginning.

Democrats need to stand up and be united against this stupidity. I'm not saying people need to support Hillary. Personally I have many issues with her.

But Democrats and Liberals need to be finding Democratic candidates to advance our ideas. Not peddling racist white supremacists and teabagger Republicans as "good" on issues when in fact they are just anti-government ideologues.

If you can't tell the difference then you aren't on our side.

PS: for the record I Support Elizabeth Warren. Apparently to divert attention away from the Paul pimping around here some folks in this thread wanna make it all about Hillary.

[ZombieHorde]

1. I think you have been misreading some of the posts here on DU.

Or perhaps you have seen posts/threads that I have not seen.

[arcane1]

3. I've seen more posts about posts than I've seen of actual posts when it comes to Rand Paul.

I couldn't think of a way to write that sentence where it would make sense

[ZombieHorde]

4. Ha! Your sentence made sense to me.

Now that I think about it, I may have to agree with you.

[L0oniX]

65. So this post is a post about posts that are posts about Rand Paul.

I like the concern posts about concern posts that concern posting a lot more.

[conservaphobe]

54. Then the authors of those threads should be less ambiguous.

And only post negative things about Paul to remove all doubt.

[1StrongBlackMan]

67. LOL ...

What about F Rand Paul, don't you understand?

Apparently, ending a page and a half missive about how wonderfully progressive his stated positions , er, ... terrible it is that he claims a position to the left of HRC (as if that is how he would govern), with that phrase proves their non-libertarian position!

[conservaphobe]

68. Rand Paul is so dreamy. I get morning wood as a result of fantasizing about the drug-induced

utopia he would usher in with his non-Hillary positions.

Oh, uh, I almost forgot: FUCK RAND PAUL!

*polishes Democratic Party membership card and sets in a highly visible spot*

---

Now when someone asks for proof of a Paul supporter, this post won't count and you'll be labeled a builder of straw men and a Bigfoot chaser...

Am I doing it right or do I need to order: Trolling Democrats: A Paulite Primer on Kindle?

[1StrongBlackMan]

97. No, I think you've got it down ...

the only improvement I could add is ... seek out a Person of Color and tell them the racism they experience will all go away, once the struggle against the 1% is won!

(I know that doesn't gush over paul ... but there seems to be a intersection of F paul (non) supporters and those promoting the glorious struggle.)

[FSogol]

2. Spot on. Welcome to DU. n/t

[Z_California]

5. I have never seen a DU'er recommend Rand Paul

It's kind of like Bigfoot. A lot of people are really convinced that Bigfoot exists yet....no evidence.

[TeeYiYi]

13. Well, you're just not looking hard enough...

Goggle images has plenty of evidence.

TYY

[Tarheel_Dem]

23. They would never do it directly because that would be an immediate banning, but they've certainly...

walked right up to the water's edge on that subject. Rand Paul is dreamy for a certain contingent of DU.



There are many examples of this. Google is your friend.

[Cad Bane]

27. I almost forgot about this.

Beyond ridiculous.

But according to some this doesn't exist on the left.

[Tarheel_Dem]

56. Oh, it certainly does exist, and the Paulites are actually members here. The scary thing is they...

sit on juries, moderate forums, and probably participate in MIRT.

[Cad Bane]

62. When called on their bullshit they wanna play ignorant and innocent.

"There is nobody supporting the Pauls here blah blah blah."

Yet there are countless posts and comments about how we "need" a Rand Paul vs Hillary showdown to push Democrats to the "left".

They run around trying to convince people that Paul has earned support amongst valuable liberal voters and repeatedly claim that Democrats are losing ground to him because he's just so awesome.

When presented with evidence of who the Democratic base actually is, they get angry and try to dismiss all of the issues that are important to us.

They are playing games and think we're all too stupid to notice what their agenda is.

[Z_California]

87. Who is ignorant here? Who is full of Bullshit? (with a capital B)

Because if you're talking about my post you're lying.

I never said we "need" a RP/HRC showdown. That is dishonest.

I never said he has earned support amongst valuable liberal voters. That is also dishonest.

I'd REALLY like you to put up or shut up about anyone here saying Rand Paul is "awesome"

The only thing I'm angry about is people like you claiming I said things that I DID NOT SAY nor anyone else here has said that I've seen.

I'll try to explain some things here Cad Bane, not that I think you'll listen because I'm pretty sure of your purpose here at this forum. I'm copying the same reply I made to another HRC propaganda shill on another thread:

First of all, I am not a Rand Paul supporter. I think he is a racist douchebag along with everyone else in the cesspool that is the GOP. Have I said that clearly enough because I've said it enough times in the last two days to make me think some just don't want to hear it? I do not want him to be elected. If you think I do or you insist on saying that I have "heralded" him I have to believe that you're either 1) playing dumb and going on offense so you don't have to defend HRC's weaknesses on certain issues (in which case you're not a citizen of a message board but a propaganda shill for your chosen candidate) 2) you haven't really read my posts but are going off of headlines or other propaganda shills or 3) you just don't read well (in which case I apologize for taking you to task).

I never suggested that "liberals" or "progressives" or "leftists" would vote for him if you define those terms as someone who is fairly well rounded on the issues and stands for individuals over "The Man". He doesn't need liberals or progressives to vote for him because they only make up about 25-35% maybe? He's going to get the 35% racist/sexist/homophobic vote no matter what - they ain't voting for any "D". Who makes up the rest? A bunch of people who don't pay much attention to anything other than 30 second TV spots and probably won't ask many questions and may not make up their mind until Election Day. You know, the "undecided"s. How fucking stupid do you have to be to be "undecided"? Pretty fucking stupid and that's who will decide who the ruler of the universe is in a couple years.

If HRC can't come out and say "Hey I think a police state is a bad thing and we need to take steps to make sure 1st amendment rights are protected and summary executions are not carried out in the streets" then she might be vulnerable to any Republican who will say that. So why concede the issue? If she could just PRETEND like she's not a Wall Street crony and that she's against brutal authoritarian repression, then she would get more votes. That's all I'm saying.

She could conceivably lose both sides of the Ferguson "debate" (a term which I use loosely). Of course the racist haters on one side of the "debate" will vote GOP AND the "undecided"s (and remember, they are very stupid) who were on the other side of that "debate" Have you thought about that? A lot of people are fired up on both sides and a lot of them are stupid.

This was the point I was trying to make yesterday and many of those who attacked me as a "Paulbot" or "Concern Troll" know VERY well this was what I was trying to say. It's easier to attack than it is to defend on this issue.

To prove that I'm capable of accepting criticism, I'm going to take the advice of the best critical response I received yesterday. I'm going to stop talking about this until after we take care of business here in November.

After that, it's fucking on...

[LanternWaste]

31. I have however, seen DUers imply that Bigfoot is more liberal than candidate A

I have however, seen DUers imply that Bigfoot is more liberal than candidate A, would make a more progressive President than candidate A and would energize the Democratic base more than candidate A... all without actually stating a recommendation for Bigfoot as the candidate of choice.

It's a little difficult for me to allow for even the slightest of mental activities in anyone who can't see past the obvious.

[Half-Century Man]

49. In all honesty, If we could get an actual Sasquatch to run.....

We could probably lock down the environmentalist vote.

[geardaddy]

69. "Oh my fuck, boys! What if it's a Samsquanch?"

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

70. Then you must have missed this one from a thread you started.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025440997#post85

[Enthusiast]

92. I didn't start the thread.

[Tarheel_Dem]

102. Then why are you responding? The question was put to Z California. Are you him too?

What gives?

[Enthusiast]

113. You are welcome to have DU's security people check me out.

I'm an individual real person. I'm not an employee of anyone. I was responding to a post. Is that verboten?

[Tarheel_Dem]

119. But it's your response that made absolutely no sense. One is lead to believe that you might be both

"Enthusiast", and that "Z_California" might be your alter ego? Just seemed like a very odd reply to a response that wasn't directed at you. Or was it?

[Enthusiast]

122. What in the hell are you talking about?

What response? Where is this response I made that is so egregious?

[Enthusiast]

123. There is something very odd going on in this thread.

If I made a response it was because My Posts indicated someone had responded to a post I made. In this instance there doesn't seem to be a post. WTF?

You seem to think this is funny. If someone has co opted my identity I will insist that the individual is tomb stoned immediately.

[Tarheel_Dem]

124. Not so much funny, as curious.

[Enthusiast]

125. Why the wink?

I am mystified.

[freshwest]

112. LOL.

[underpants]

6. Great post

[leftstreet]

7. What nonsense!

No one on DU is endorsing or promoting Paul

But then you already know that

[Cad Bane]

9. So there are no post claiming Rand Paul is a viable candidate? Or that he is to the left of Hillary

and other Democrats.

I guess I just imagined all the posts claiming that Rand Paul is right on "the issues".

Not to mention all the other posts claiming that he was widely popular with young people (ridiculous).

What about all the comments saying that people would toss aside all their socially liberal ideals to support him against "Third Way" Democrats.

I guess I just imagined all that.

[leftstreet]

10. That's not support, that's raising the alarm. As you know. n/t

[Scuba]

15. +1

[Cad Bane]

18. Yes so verrrrry concerned.

From the same folks who can't find any issue to support or praise President Obama on. They even mock and harass his Democratic supporters.

Yet just can't help themselves and must inform everyone how awesome Rand Paul is.

All because they are just "raising alarm".

LMAO

[leftstreet]

19. You don't seem confident Hillary can win

Gosh, how hard can it be to 1) have her enormous brand recognition and 2) follow Obama?

Are you worried about a repeat of Gore/Bush? Are you afraid she isn't progressive enough?

Hmm

[Cad Bane]

25. I support Elizabeth Warren

I'm a Democrat and hope to see actual Democrats shift the landscape to the left. If Hillary runs I want her challengers in the Democratic field to influence her.

I don't need to run around peddling racist teabagger Libertarians as threats to her from the left.

If Hillary wins the nomination I would gladly vote for her to keep Republicans out of office and limit their control over the country.

I'm not white and privileged enough to play games with my vote and mock the disaster that was Bush vs Gore.

[leftstreet]

29. And yet you're posting on DU about Paul

Why not start a thread supporting Elizabeth Warren? Give members an overview of her positions, her experience, etc?

[BaggersRDumb]

84. Love your last line, i wonder if they will understand it.

The only thing dumber than voting for a mainstream Democrat, is even THINKING ABOUT not voting for them or actually voting for someone else in our fucked up and very broken system.

You see in our system, not voting or voting for ANYONE other than the Democratic candidate of any office, is a vote for FASCISTS...

not complicated

[Tarheel_Dem]

107. "I'm not white and privileged enough to play games with my vote and mock the disaster...."

That makes two of us.

[1StrongBlackMan]

85. That's called ...

"The patriot's duty to hold President Obama accountable/his feet to the fire" ... or something like that (on an anonymous message board).

[LanternWaste]

32. Where one may allege to see simple alarm, others may as validly, see concern trolls.

Where one may allege to see simple alarm, others may as validly, see concern trolls.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

127. Yup.

And I see a lot of concern trolling about how many people on the left 'love Rand Paul'. Especially from guys with a whole 31 posts to their name. Pop onto DU, sound like you know the place inside and out, and that's all you post about? Sounds like somebody's been here before. And is trying to stir up strife between the folks on the left and those more towards the center.

[BaggersRDumb]

80. They are more clever than that, they dont admit they support the fascist, they just

argue with you about Hillary's positions, past, etc.

And when you admit Hillary is not a liberal or even the candidate you would want, but is still FAR FAR FAR better than ANY rightwinger, they just go back to the talking points about how she is no better than the rightwingers.

My hope is these are not Democrats, but cons and so-called libertarians, the thought that actual Democrats could think like this scares the shit out of me especially after what happened in 2010.

All the whiners who didnt vote because Obama wasnt perfect.

[1StrongBlackMan]

89. Well heck ...

They've had 15 years of practice and the gop as a notch in their belt.

[rhett o rick]

96. How timely to disparage the left. By the way, it wasn't the left that stayed home

in 2010. If you were out there you would know. The Left are always the ones manning the phones, going door to door. Yes the Left were discouraged with the performance of Pres Obama. Not that he wasn't perfect, but because the "change" he promised was his change from a progressive candidate to a conservative president. The Left is always noisy and never satisfied, but always active. The Left knows that we need to work hard for the local candidates if we are ever going to dislodge the corporatists that run the Party.

The people that stayed home were the conservative democrats that were content with a conservative president.

Interesting how there is so much anti-Left posts surfacing now just before the election. But it won't work. Myself and my Lefty friends will be GOTV once again while the conservative Dems stay home.

[BaggersRDumb]

100. I didnt blame the left, I am the left, I blamed whoever didnt vote, but if you are saying

you voted for the Dem ticket then but might not now then I am confused.

[Tarheel_Dem]

104. +1

[rhett o rick]

83. This false meme seems to me to be intended to split Democrats, and right before an

election.

"So there are no post claiming Rand Paul is a viable candidate?" What a hoot. You claimed there were, now you don't know?

[1StrongBlackMan]

90. Yes ...

the activity that the OP mentions ARE false memes intended to split Democrats.

"So there are no post claiming Rand Paul is a viable candidate?" What a hoot. You claimed there were, now you don't know?

Maybe you should read that again?

[rhett o rick]

93. He made up the meme that there are Rand Paul supporters here. When someone claimed that was false,

instead of proving his allegations, he poses a question, "So there are no post claiming Rand Paul is a viable candidate?" If you don't know the answer, just ask a question. Those here that are claiming the left is supporting Rand Paul are trying to disparage the left. Now why would politically liberal posters here in DU do that? Especially right before an election.

[1StrongBlackMan]

98. Yeah Okay ...

just made it up.

Now why would politically liberal posters here in DU do that? Especially right before an election.

Perhaps one should parse out that sentence and look for the single unverified/unverifiable assumption ... The answer to your question, perhaps, lies within THAT analysis.

[rhett o rick]

103. Your are correct. They want a conservative victory in November. nm

[xchrom]

8. you first. nt

[Autumn]

11. You were missed.

[Rex]

41. LOL! Nothing like a 22 post newbie

showing up and pretending to be uber Dem!

GOSH...where have we seen that one from before? My my my...

[Autumn]

43. Thy think they are so cool.

We see it time and again.

[Rex]

45. Yeah easy come, easy go.

I hope they enjoy their stay! No really, I do!

[Autumn]

47. New posters can't fool MIRT.

[Rex]

53. I wonder how many are now coming from Discussionist?

[Autumn]

57. I think a lot of them.

Because they sure do read over here. I like watching the new sign up page.

[Rex]

58. BAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

[rhett o rick]

79. Well if you look up thread, apparently they can fool some. LOL. nm

[Rex]

88. We can assume that or we can assume something else.

Those silly birds of a feather! SO easy to spot.

[Autumn]

105. Shhh. Don't tell anyone

[rhett o rick]

106. Opps, did I step in some Meta? nm

[Vogon_Glory]

12. Good for you. Good post

Good post. Welcome to DU.

I learned a long time ago that despite Fibber-tarian screeds and polemics about the "evils" of "big government," fibber-tarian minds either go blank or they rush to change the subject whenever progressives (or not-so-progressives) remind them of the lessons their great-grandparents knew, that concentrated wealth and economic power can also be exploitive and oppressive, and that gerrymandered legislatures and packed courts offer no relief to the little guys being ground under by abusive wealth and private influence.

[Scuba]

14. Haven't seen that here. What I have seen here is DU members using ...

... a couple examples of how Paul's rhetoric might sway some ill-informed, traditionally Democratic voters, and to make a point that Democratic candidates have work to do to establish that they hold strong traditionally liberal positions to avoid ceding those positions to Paul's dishonest rhetoric.

I've also seen those members accused of promoting Rand Paul, which they clearly are not doing. It seems to me like those who accuse others of promoting Paul are unwilling to talk about how Democratic candidates need to take more, and stronger, traditionally liberal positions if they are to motivate the voters to the polls.

[Cad Bane]

21. Yes I'm sure you're doing your best to educate the "ill-informed" traditionally Democratic voters.

You're telling them all about how Rand Paul is a fraud and an anti-government ideologue. How he is a bigoted racist who would be perfectly fine if Jim Crow segregation returned and if elected as President would do all he could to stack the Supreme Court and put us on that path.

Right?

Or are you trying to use a racist teabagger as a weapon to smear mainstream Democrats who aren't in line with you ideologically?

[Autumn]

30. I have never met an "ill-informed" traditionally Democratic voter. Democrat are Democrats

because we are not stupid and are very able to see exactly what republicans do.

Are you trying to use a racist teabagger as a weapon to smear Democrats who aren't in line with you ideologically?

[Cad Bane]

34. Why are you responding to me?

"What I have seen here is DU members using ...

... a couple examples of how Paul's rhetoric might sway some ill-informed, traditionally Democratic voters..."

Posted by Scuba

[Autumn]

35. Because I can. So are you?

[Cad Bane]

38. So you attributed that phrase to me just for the hell of it.

Nice to see that some folks aren't even ashamed of using Fox News tactics.

The stupid burns here.

[Autumn]

42. You asked Scuba the same question I asked you. Or did you forget?

Your post # 21

Yes I'm sure you're doing your best to educate the "ill-informed" traditionally Democratic voters.
You're telling them all about how Rand Paul is a fraud and an anti-government ideologue. How he is a bigoted racist who would be perfectly fine if Jim Crow segregation returned and if elected as President would do all he could to stack the Supreme Court and put us on that path.

Right?

"Or are you trying to use a racist teabagger as a weapon to smear mainstream Democrats who aren't in line with you ideologically?

Do you have a problem with me attributing that question to you when it's in your very own post?

[Scuba]

33. People here on DU already know Rand paul is a fraud, so I don't need to tell them that.

As for the less-informed traditionally Democratic voters with whom I converse, that is exactly what I tell them.

In no case, however, am I trying to smear "mainstream" Democrats. I'm sure as hell trying to get them to move left though, there's no doubt about that.

If you think that pointing out, for example, that Hillary is a military hawk is a "smear", perhaps you should consider that her hawkishness is a less-than-desirable trait, not demean those who point it out.

[99Forever]

22. Great response.

Establishment Democrats are fighting hard not to take the needs and desires of The Democratic Wing of the party seriously. It leaves a door open for scum like Paul, pretending it ain't so, is whistling past the graveyard.

[m-lekktor]

24. yep, people howling about Rand Paul support on DU are

misrepresenting what is going on and apparently each one has this need to start a thread about it.

[JaydenD]

16. What nonsense.

[Exultant Democracy]

17. Where are you getting this from? Seems Absurd. Many wish HRC wasn't a corporate shill

who never saw a war she didn't like. However it is pretty hard to find a mainstream politician who isn't these days.

The left should be embarrassed when a right wing lunatics can be better on a number of key issues then our front runner. It doesn't change that he is a lunatics, it just makes Hillary that much more pathetic as our inevitable choice.

[truedelphi]

20. Oh for Pete's sake - you and your army are one memo

Behind on this.

Those of us opposed to Hillary Clinton are now planning on pooling our monies and having a Brazilian firm clone Mr Adolph Hitler.

The only fly in the ointment is that when the new Hitler wins in 2016, we will once again endure two or three years of "We wanna see the birth certificate" nonsense.

[octoberlib]

26. Who's supporting Rand Paul? Trashing this thread.

[colsohlibgal]

28. Those Are Not The Only Three Choices.

I state this fact, neither Obama or Clinton are close to progressive enough for me. Obama talked a liberal game running for office then headed straight to Wall Street land. It was like a shell game. Hillary makes some sounds like Bernie Sanders them floats off to take a $200,000 check speaking to big money types. She voted for the Iraq War.

So I see both two as third way nonsense, republican lite types. But Rand Paul - no thanks. Like a busted clock he's right a couple of times a day. But the rest of his mantra is alarming.

The real thing of it is that a lot of us would like a choice that reflects our populist progressive beliefs.

[Duval]

61. You said the magic words!

Bernie Sanders!! I would vote for him in a heartbeat and campaign for him, also. But, our MSM would likely print crap that people would believe.

[obxhead]

36. the only people I see twisting themselves into knots are the rabid

Hillary supporters trying to tell us how much different she is from Rand Paul.

[JDPriestly]

37. Ron Paul supporters are wasting their time.

The big issues for progressive Democrats are equal opportunity, equal pay, regulation of Wall Street, an end to privatization, supporting public education, doing more for the environment, raising taxes on the rich, getting a public option for health care and expanding the ACA, supporting labor unions, getting money out of politics, etc.

The only areas in which the Paulies and the Progressives agree are on war (and I seriously doubt that Ron Paul could hold back the war-mongerers in his party for long) and privacy. Maybe other human rights issues. But Democrats are not going to vote for Ron Paul because of his seriously offensive stands on economic and civil rights issues such as discrimination. Ron Paul is private property to an extreme that makes a civil society impossible.

Let Ron Paul waste his time. That's his problem.

[PatrynXX]

40. can't say that however Hilliary is a Republican.

Rand Paul is Tea Party. Ron Paul is to the left of Hillary. Rand isn't. I'd vote Libertarian over Hillary anyday. Unfortunately I won't vote Tea Party Libertarian. And it's clear from the Lib's own site that they've changed. taken about 6 of those tests. 5 said I'm Libertarian including Ron Pauls own Republican 2012 site. 2 weeks ago says I'm an extremist liberal. smh somethings changed with that party. the house that Ron Paul built is long gone Chris Christie has less problems than Hillary. The main reason I DO NOT TRUST hillary is her and Bill's longstanding ties to the UAE. Period.


Obama is still a Democrat .

[winter is coming]

44. Clearly this year's straw harvest is abundant. n/t

[broadcaster75201]

46. While I agree that Paul is a racist twit

I just don't see any Left surge toward him. Oh I see a handful of posters here saying they support him in various ways. And about half of those seem to be nothing more than "chain yankers". But this sure seems like a tempest in a teapot to me.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

48. I STILL say Rand Paul has an unknown fur bearing critter on his head.

[Cad Bane]

59. It was a gift from Sarah Palin

[Spitfire of ATJ]

60. Ewwwww!!!!

I just pictured a bikini wax.

[winter is coming]

77. I've always thought of it as an Irish Setter pelt.

Sooner or later, someone in Kentucky who chose to stuff a beloved pet will realize it has a bald spot...

...although Paul's toupee has a fake plasticky look to it, too. Maybe it was a Setter/nauga mix. This is what comes of letting your dog hump the couch.

[Wella]

51. Do you really think that a Democrat would vote for Rand Paul, even indirectly?

In the end, loyal Dems will pull the Dem lever. Nobody wants a Ryan presidency.

[wolfie001]

63. I'll hold my nose and vote for Hillary.

Walmart baggage and all.........sigh

[Wella]

66. We do what we have to do.

Our country's survival depends on not having wingnuts in charge.

[Robbins]

52. Listen

I am not a fan of hillary but i would never support rand paul for president or any republican.

I would support Biden for president even though I am to left of him.

For those who complain about Obama on foreign policy or ecoomic issues I don't see how anyone can call Hillary better than him.
Obama may be too friendly to wall street but she is in bed with wall street.There have been reports wall street likes her better than
Obama.

[HooptieWagon]

54. Straw man. No one here is supporting Rand Paul. nt

[Enthusiast]

64. Completely unrecommended.

I have never heard the first DUer promote or endorse Rand Paul.

Why are you posting this nonsense? Are you trying to sow derision?

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

75. See post #70 please

Not a lot of Ron Paul supporters on DU but the guy I linked to unpeeled like an onion.

[hopemountain]

71. "neo-confederate republican" - exactly

thank you! i cannot imagine voting for a bigoted racist such as rand paul. no matter how much he denies it and tries to be other than that, he is a bigot through and through. i can smell it from here.

[Enthusiast]

114. Me too.

[demmiblue]

72. The only people that I see going on ad nauseam about Rand Paul (pro and con) are, for the most part,

obvious trolls. [URL=http://www.sherv.net/][IMG][/IMG][/URL] It seems both types are reveling in keeping his name alive on DU.



Fuck Rand Paul.

[rickyhall]

74. I'd take Hillary over any right wing DICK!

[bullwinkle428]

76. I guess Rand Paul really IS the new Ralph Nader!

[allan01]

78. hem

first : paul isnt a democrat.2 untill he becomes a democrat, i wont even read these posts . 3: paul is not a democrat and this is a bord for democrats .

[pnwmom]

81. Excellent post. Welcome to DU, Cad Bane. n/t

[rurallib]

82. maybe we could genetically modify Hillary with an

anti-war gene from Randy Paul. Then we can hope and pray it doesn't infect the rest of the host (Hillary).
That should do it.

[BainsBane]

86. The problem with Warren's being an acceptable alternative are

1) she's a woman and therefore doesn't appeal to the Rand Paul set who resent everyone but middle- and upper-middle class white men.

2) She's said she isn't running. But really, I think that is less relevant for the Ayn Rand Paul apologists than number 1.

It makes perfect sense that people who think racism a joke would support Rand Paul. He articulates their white male supremacist views. That someone calls something leftist or progressive doesn't make it so. Make no mistake about it. His supporters are right-wingers to the core.

[Z_California]

94. Warren doesn't need to appeal to the "Rand Paul set"

That demographic will vote GOP no matter who the candidate is.

Elizabeth Warren is a legitimate person of the people and if she was allowed to survive a primary bid by the powers that be I think she would win in a landslide.

[BainsBane]

95. I don't know

Where is she on the key issue of pot?

I don't think she's down with abolishing the Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act, so can she really be a leftist? What about the "new ideas" of slashing corporate taxes and reverting all healthcare to private hands? How can she really be game changer if she doesn't want to deregulate big business and the environment while criminalizing women's healthcare?

[A Simple Game]

91. Interesting post.

You may be right about Libertarians flooding the boards for years. Way too many people starting threads complaining about Paul, why? It seems one reason could be to give him the exposure. That's all I get out of this entire thread, exposure for a Republican by blaming a bunch of straw men for doing what the OP has done. You claim there are threads supporting Paul but I have never seen one.

Link to a post that is

promoting a racist teabagger from the right wing swamps as a viable candidate.

and I may give you another listen.

People have complained about President Obama's policies when they are to the right of center. Tax cuts, offering to cut SS, supporting the NSA, etc. If we think President Obama is too far to the right why would you blame liberals for supporting Paul? We want someone on the left not another center right candidate like Hillary or Paul.

How can you blame "them" for lecturing "REAL Democrats" when you hint that you are one of "them" by saying you support Elizabeth Warren? By the way, nice touch with the bold, makes it so much more believable.

[Progressive dog]

99. Do you really believe that exposure on a Democratic

site could be a plus for Paul?

[A Simple Game]

109. No I don't think it is a plus for Paul.

But ask the OP they seem to think so. Word is if anyone posts about Paul and/or Hillary she automatically loses and Paul wins.

[AverageJoe90]

101. Amen to that. Also, a warm welcome to DU.

TBH, it seems that a good number of people who may want to give Rand Paul an occasional break.....are genuinely disappointed with Obama's administration and their shortcomings(which there has been a few), but I'd suspect that bonafide trolls are a bit rare, TBH.

However, though, there is indeed a legitimate concern about well-meaning progressives getting duped by slick operators like Rand Paul. And sadly, this is nothing new, either.

[TBF]

108. Welcome to DU -

[sendero]

110. Just because someone ..

.... cannot support a DINO neocon like HRC does not mean they support Paul. It's not either/or, it's neither.

[AgingAmerican]

111. This straw man is still going?

Doh!

[Calista241]

115. He's definitely adopted some positions that are very attractive to progressives.

He's far more progressive on the drug war, the MIC, and police brutality / militarization than Hillary or Obama.

I suppose he's an anti-abortion tax cutter, but what are some of his other positions we don't like?

[NCTraveler]

116. It is very clear.

It is very clear that there is a small group of individuals here who support Putin and Paul. These individuals are well known and attempt to support these two right wing extremists in a manner that shows they are progressives. It is nothing short of ignorant and disgusting.

[hatrack]

117. I met a traveler from an antique land, who said: Two vast and trunkless legs of straw . . .

Stand on the Internet. Near them on the strand,
Half sunk, a rotting straw bale lies, chopped down,
And stinking kelp, and beer cans full of sand
And rhetoric so tragically misread
Show that the author didn't know a thing,
The keys that clattered and the brain so dead:
And on the OP line these words appear:
"My name is Trolololo, Snark of Kings:
Look on my works, DUers, and despair!"
Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
Of that flatulent post, pointless and bare
A hundred-plus responses stretch far away.

[maxrandb]

118. Hey, it worked for the 2010 Elections!

Didn't it?

Bottom line is that power in the hands of the current GOP is infinitely more dangerous and damaging than the worst fucking Democrat you could find.

At least the Dems do a good job of keeping their nutcases locked up in the attic. The GOP puts them in charge of Committees!

[Exposethefrauds]

120. Sure they are not very progressive and I wonder why they are democrats

But they are like it or not

Will I vote for rand, nope nor will I vote for Hillary if runs, nor will I vote for a moderate or conservative or DLC or third way dem

If a democrat wants my vote they have to be a real liberal not a DINO

Yeah yeah yeah I know not voting for the Goldwater Girl means president Paul, oh well if that is what the majority wants then that is how it works.

No more lessor of 2 evils for me, I will no longer compromise my principals.

[Savannahmann]

121. I suppose I'll reply to this thread

Incredibly my post about the inevitability of HIllary leading to Rand Paul as President has been misunderstood by numerous people. I find this interesting, since most of my posts drop off the first pages with a rapidity that would take a hunk of lead over the Challenger Deep to duplicate.

I never said we should elect Rand Paul. I never said that I supported him for President. I'm in the habit of warning people when I see something approaching, as soon as I see it coming. My intent was not to advocate, but instead it was to alert.

Months ago I started to sound the alarm about the dangers of losing the Senate to the Rethugs. Dangers that are now so self evident that only an ostrich would deny them. Dangers that are listed on the New York Times page that tracks such things. The NY Times rates it as a 68% probability that the Senate will go to the Republicans. That may change, but I doubt it will drop to below 50% with just over two months remaining.

I called for a policy based approach to the election months ago, when there was time to do it. I called for an end to the election strategy that revolved around prayer to a deity that the Rethugs would screw up. It made our party little more than people dropping a dollar on the lottery with dreams of comfortable retirements if we get lucky. Our plan for this election was basically summed up like this. We suck, but we suck less than they do.

I was told that it was impossible. That the Rethugs would never take the Senate. I was told that the danger was in my mind, and I was accused of spreading Fear Uncertainty and Doubt. I think it is just about too late to save the Senate. Unless the party has October Surprises lined up, and really good ones, I think that the Senate is going to go Rethug. We wasted too much attention on Wendy Davis and her hopeless campaign to be Governor of Texas. We started the celebrations of taking Eric Cantor's seat in November after he was primaried.

We lost track of the goal, and I think it's probably out of reach now. Oh we can go down fighting, but going down I believe to be just short of certain at this point. I'd love to wake up the day after election day and find I was wrong in this estimate.

So let me ask you this. Do you think I sounded these warnings and pleaded with people to call on a national message from the party and to return to principle based party that worked so well in the past because I secretly wanted to see the Rethugs win? I mean, I've heard of reverse psychology, but this would take the cake. I'd have to be a genius of epic proportions able to manipulate people with a skill that machiavelli only dreamed of. It would be as if my plan to trap you was to build an obvious trap, put a sign up that said in a dozen languages trap here, danger. Then stand there and tell you that this is a trap and you should not enter. Now, apparently I'm doing this just so you'll walk into the trap, which I've baited with nothing, by warning you not to enter the trap.

One of the reasons I belong to the Democratic Party is because we're smarter. But according to those who think I'm really shilling for the RW by posting warnings that they're going to win the Senate if we continue on the path of doing nothing and imagine this, they want to win the White House, I'm some sort of incredible mastermind ala Moriarty or something.

I still want what I wanted months ago. I want a party that draws it's strength from it's policy positions. I want a party that is guided by principle, and recognizes opportunities like we used to in the good/bad old days. Now, it seems to me with thirty years of watching this, that we have become little more than rabid sports fans cheering our team because they're our team.

Now you decide. Am I a secret RW plant who is somehow planning on outsmarting everyone by warning them there is a trap right here marked trap in fifty languages and plainly visible? Because if I am that RW plant, then my plans are working perfectly. The Rethugs are probably going to win the Senate, and all I did to accomplish this was warn the Democrats that the Rethugs could win the senate if we (Democrats) didn't get serious about the election.

No, I am not pretending to be right all the time. I was wrong about 2012. I estimated that the racist antipathy towards President Obama would be greater than the disdain the Religious Right felt towards a Mormon. In other words I didn't think they would sit out in the numbers that they did. I was pleasantly surprised to be wrong about that. Happy to be wrong about it in fact.

As for my personal choices. I respect Congressman Grayson because he occasionally posts here. That alone would get my vote, a congressman who reads what his base is writing and uses this site to communicate to that base. Honestly it would be coin toss if offered the choice between Elizabeth Warren and Alan Grayson. I'd love to see them debating the issues, and bringing the attention to the homeless and hopeless and many other issues that I won't bother listing now.

[samsingh]

126. makes no sense to me. they are better than any repug will ever be

[clarice]

128. I'm not a "Paulie Girl" but where did you get the racist thing from ??? nt