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

[betterdemsonly]

Ron Paul is right about that. I am a duer and I will vote for the party nominee, but most antiwar people will vote lesser evil. Hillary will definitely lose them, even though they are otherwise liberal, because they may think a war with Iran is worse than losing choice. They will probably vote for Paul or 3rd party. As I have stated in other posts, Hillary and the Liberal Interventionists were major enablers of the neocons and still are. She will probably get Bill Kristol's endorsements and the other neocons will support her as well. Maybe neocons will make up for losing the antiwar majority but I doubt it.

It is going to be a weird election.

[merrily]

1. Who are you calling liberal interventionists? The DLC types?

They are not liberals. Don't want to be; don't pretend to be.

[betterdemsonly]

4. Whatever floats your boat? N/t

[merrily]

5. I think it's important that words have meanings.

Otherwise, communication is a delusion.

[merrily]

8. P.S. The terms "Democrats" "liberals" and "New Democrats" do not share a single meaning.

Because of our so-called two party system, thos three groups may--for now, anyway---share a single voter base, but they do not share a single ideology.

[ReRe]

67. Your OP was vague/confusing

... and now when someone tries to ask a question, this is how you answer? What, exactly, is your MO here? Please help us understand your OP. OK?

[betterdemsonly]

83. I don't know who the question was posed to.

They call themselves liberal interventionists.

[ReRe]

98. "Liberal interventionist"

WTF is that? I have never heard the term before! Thanks.

[ieoeja]

177. Conservatives have called Liberals "interventionists" since time immemorial.

If you're xenophobic and have no empathy, then you're not likely to be much interested in engaging the outside world. As a result, Conservatives have long been isolationists. While Liberals are far more willing to intervene when they see someone needing help, even when those someones are not Americans.

[ReRe]

182. Wait a minute...

If you learned that from some political science or world history text, then you might want to keep an open mind and study on. Now, if you go far enough back in time, you might find that conservatives were isolationists, like WWI and before WWII. But when HST signed that National Security Act into law, creating the CIA, the conservatives have been gung-ho interventionists, as in itchin' for a fight overseas. Gung ho for globalization. Ever since 1947.

The conservatives are the hawks. The Democrats are the doves. Or at least that is the way it was before the tird-wayers came along.

Like I said above, keep studying. And be observant.

[ieoeja]

188. I'm old enough that I remember the GOP calling us "The War Party".

Republicans opposed Truman's entry into Korea. They didn't much care for his Cold War at the start either.

JFK went to Berlin as the first American president to step into Communist occupied Europe as very much an "in your face" activity.

How does 1968 fall into that? Humphrey was the Vietnam war candidate. While Nixon had a "secret plan" for ending the war as the supposed anti-war candidate (he lied).

Conservatives only became hawks because the Cold War lasted so long. They are Conservative. They don't like change. War became another constant for them.

They also don't like things they don't understand. How could Democrats support the Vietnam war while simultaneously supporting the rights of anti-war demonstrators? Since they supported the latter, they must oppose the war even though most of them supported the war. That is just too complex for Conservative black-and-white thinking.

Then there was the whole truthiness thing. They didn't accuse the news media of being too Liberal because they felt the news media supported Democrats. During Vietnam they accused the news media of being too Liberal because they felt the news media was too honest. They felt that in a "time of war" it was the news media's duty to support the war, right or wrong.

All of these things came to link Democrats with anti-war even though that was never really a Democratic, or Liberal, thing. Anti-war is a small "c" conservative value. War is far more of a small "l" liberal value.

I would argue, in fact, that US national security has largely been a mess since the Conservative take over of national security. Conservative as a value is a poor fit with national security. They do everything in small ways. And they are inflexible. Liberals are faster to adjust to changing conditions. And they enter these things, dare I say, very liberally (as in a big way).

[ReRe]

199. Well, yes, the conservatives sure did call the Liberals...

... "the war party." As it was FDR who took us into WWII. And FDR is/was the consummate Liberal Democrat. But just because that's what the conservatives said back then doesn't make it so today.

Truman? I hate that SOB. He had some pretty good quotes, but we would have become a totally different nation had that damn CIA never been created and we damn sure didn't need to kill all those innocent Japanese people with those bombs.

And I beg... Nixon was the anti-war candidate?

I don't want to argue today. I guess we just see a few things differently.

I respectfully digress.

[Enthusiast]

115. PLUS ONE, a whole bunch!

[JaneyVee]

2. He'll just start a war on the middle class and poor instead.

[betterdemsonly]

3. The war on the middle class is completely bipartisan

Remember Nafta? Remember the dismantlement of Glass Steagall? The Clinton's are full on participants in this process.

[pnwmom]

7. Rand Paul put forth a budget cutting FOOD STAMPS by 30% while lowering taxes of the 1%.

He's as right wing as it comes on economic issues.

Hillary's Senate record put her among the most progressive of the Senate. She and her husband are not twins, but even he was far more economically progressive than Paul.

[merrily]

9. Some Democrats, including some we consider liberal, never met a SNAP cut they

couldn't vote for either. Those cuts did not become law without Democratic votes and the signature of the President.

The Senate is a very conservative body, especially since the DLC gave us New Democrats. (Unlike the House, the Senate had no liberal caucus, but it did have a New Democrat caucus.) So saying someone is among the most progressive Senators is not saying much. Is she very pro-choice? Yes. Anti war? No.

[pnwmom]

142. But not Hillary. You are wrong to imply she is in that group. n/t

[merrily]

191. Are you wrong to imply that only Republicans favor SNAP cuts?

I don't even know what you think I implied about Hillary that was false, what group you think I placed her in.

[pnwmom]

221. Hillary never did. When did she ever vote for SNAP cuts? Link, please. n/t

[merrily]

228. Where do you imagine that I said Hillary voted for SNAP cuts? Link, please.

What I did was respond to your general comment linking cuts in SNAP to right wing policies by saying that Democrats voted for cuts too. (And Obama signed those cuts.) Then, I segued to Hillary specificially. That I said or implied that Hillary voted for SNAP cuts was your misreading of my post and how it related to yours.

[pnwmom]

229. You jumped into a thread about how there was a bipartisan war

on the middle class and specifically mentioned the Clintons. You supported the idea. Neither of the Clintons has ever supported economic policies remotely like those of Rand Paul.

[merrily]

230. Jumped? LOL! I responded to YOUR post connecting cuts to SNAP to right wing policies by pointing out

Demcs voted for SNAP cuts. Then I segued to Hillary. I never said either Clinton voted for SNAP cuts. That was a conclusion to which you leapt.

[merrily]

232. PS While I never mentioned Bill at all, since you brought him up, he bragged on

having ended "welfare as we know it," to this day has never expressed regret for repeal of Glass Steagall (not that expressing regret helps all that much when you talk regretting something like that) and touted NAFTA. So, I would not say Bill had no right wing economic policies.

Again I mention that only because your post to me brought him into it. It's too late to worry about his policies.

I am so sick of pretending that everything bad in this country is attributable only to the right. That pretense sure helps cover up for Democratic politicians, but it does diddly for Main Street.

[betterdemsonly]

11. Obama and Clinton have supported cuts to food stamps in the past, though

relatively less than Rand Paul.

[FarPoint]

37. Would you be referring to President Obama?

Just want to get an accurate assessment.

[betterdemsonly]

47. Obama signed on to food stamp cuts.

That is a fact.


President Obama signs $8.7 billion food stamp cut into law
02/07/14 03:40 PM—Updated 02/07/14 09:38 PM
facebook twitter like save share group discuss
By Ned Resnikoff

On Friday, President Obama added his signature to legislation that will cut $8.7 billion in food stamp benefits over the next 10 years, causing 850,000 households to lose an average of $90 per month. The signing of the legislation known as the 2014 Farm Bill occurred at a public event in East Lansing, Mich.

NewsNation with Tamron Hall, 2/7/14, 3:02 PM ET
Pres. Obama signs Farm Bill
The food stamp cuts are one component of a massive omnibus bill which also includes billions of dollars in crop insurance and various other programs and subsidies involving American agriculture. Before he signed the legislation, President Obama praised it as an example of bipartisan problem-solving that would help create jobs and move the American economy forward.

“Congress passed a bipartisan Farm Bill that is going to make a big difference in communities across the country,” said the president.

Obama’s remarks also focused heavily on economic inequality, which he has previously called “the defining challenge of our time.” The Farm Bill, he said, would “give more Americans a shot at opportunity.”............

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/obama-signs-food-stamp-cut

[blm]

77. Because GOP, including Paul, were holding the bill hostage - You just pulled

the typical disinfo trick of blaming the Democrats for bills FORCED THROUGH by GOP by holding the entire bill for ransom.

Only stupid, uninformed would be swayed by your posts - but - perhaps that is your intention. You just want your proRand Paul, anti-Dem posts showing up on Dem forums, dontcha. betterdems, my ass

[betterdemsonly]

84. He proposed a smaller cut as well and settled for the one he signed. n/t

[blm]

92. Who the f do you think you're trying to propagandize?

Try selling it at another Dem forum where you see more turnip trucks in the parking lot.

Your propaganda isn't working here.

[betterdemsonly]

94. You not my boss.

I can post where I want. If you don't like it, don't read it.

[blm]

109. LOL. I certainly am NOT your boss. I'd never carry water for Paul's fascist agenda

because, I know a stalking horse for BushInc's NWO when I hear one.

Paul's JOB is to keep the libertarian wing mollified.

In some cases, mole - ified.

LOL

[betterdemsonly]

112. Oh, so you think I am a member of NWO

What proof do you have?

[olegramps]

117. It is becoming increasingly obvious that you are Republican propagandist.

[betterdemsonly]

123. If it is so obvious that I am a republican, you should report me. n/t

[blm]

127. You're definitely a water carrier - duped or otherwise, makes no difference

does it?

Try taking some personal responsibility for yourself.

[betterdemsonly]

156. Try to view the world like a normal person and not a partisan hack n/t

[blm]

162. LOLOL. Advice from a duped Paulbot hack.

A lot of 'normal' people bought Bush's act, too. Same ones will buy Paul's and the fascist agenda will march on, eh, ?

[blm]

122. Most Paul watercarriers don't know Paul fronts for Bushes

There - I've done my civic duty and INFORMED you that Paul's job is to keep your wing in line.

Bushes will thank you later for your devotion - LOLOLOLOL.

[betterdemsonly]

126. I don't know what that has to do with anything

I don't support Paul. I guess you are talking to invisible people again.

[blm]

130. LOL - Your answers are getting funnier and funnier.

Guess you don't have a cheat sheet handy for that corner you're in now, eh?

[betterdemsonly]

131. Are you in a corner with your cheat sheet?

I am not into boxing anymore than I am into team sports.

[blm]

136. Don't need a cheat sheet - I'm not a water carrier. You outed yourself.

Your scrambling is a bit on the amusing side, though.

[Iggo]

200. Exactly.

It's the backpedaling that's hilarious.

[pnwmom]

147. How old are you, 10?

[Iggo]

198. "You're not the boss of me"?

Did you just go there?

[BlueCaliDem]

105. It's amazing how some "Democrats" on this board completely negate the unprecedented obstructionism

by Republicans in the House - you know? The body that holds the purse strings?.

Even though McConnell had publicly stated to make it a priority that President Obama is a one-term president, and Boehner suddenly implemented the "majority of the majority" rule in order to block any and all legislation that doesn't benefit Corporate America in a big way, some self-proclaimed Liberals continue to suffer myopia and relentlessly place all the blame of bad policy on Democrats and President Obama.

It never ceases to amaze me how shortsighted they can be, and how little they understand how our government works and that it CAN'T work without compromise.

[Marr]

201. There's *always* an excuse.

This is politics. What's done is all that matters.

[pnwmom]

146. Hillary Clinton has not.

And please show when President Clinton ever proposed or supported cuts to food stamps. Link, please.

[newfie11]

17. +1 Nt

[olegramps]

111. When NAFTA hit Clintons desk it was veto proof.

The Dems opposed it until they won a concession to assist minority families in getting home loans. The Republicans seized on this as the cause of the mortgage financial collapse even though it was proven to be baseless. I am not excusing the Dems for their eventual support of something that was definitely engineered by the Republicans and proved to be a disaster because the crooked bankers too advantage of the lack of regulation to enrich themselves.

[betterdemsonly]

149. He negotiated nafta, and had Rahm Emanuel lobby for it

A veto was never threatened or a possibilty. It would not have gotten a veto proof majority if Clinton hadn't supported it.

[merrily]

6. That war on the poor has been underway since we were colonies.

The middle class is disappearing.

[HereSince1628]

33. We'd recognize that war is over & we lost if we quit redefining middle class

so that label can be an opiate for the masses.

The middleclass owns at least some property/assets/business that produces income and/or has education that raises a person to a professional role, i.e. a role recognized for expertise and unlikely to be substitutable by part-time "contract" workers.

It's lamentably sad to think of roles taken over by adjunct professors, contract "agents", temp accountants, etc as middleclass.

[merrily]

41. I have no idea what "middle class" means. Most peope don't. Most just assume they are

middle class. The prior 3 sentences suit the PTB. That's how they want it.

[davidpdx]

118. I had a friend and former coworker here in Korea go back to the US

We are both teachers and she had an adjunct teaching position at a college and from what I understand it paid pretty poorly.

[TBF]

10. What is it with all the Ron Paul posts the past couple of days?

No, we don't want him. Women especially do not want him. We may have a problem in our party if young males are seriously considering his arguments (particularly legalizing marijuana and anti-interventionist issues). Look at his economic plans closely - capitalism is only going to be more brutal under someone who thinks free markets solve any and all problems.

[betterdemsonly]

13. Not all women view choice as being more important than all other issues.

Clintons love free markets too, and gave us welfare reform, nafta and the elimination of glass steagall.

It is happening because Paul called her out on her war hawkism, and the media are all talking about it too. Watch MSNBC.

[TBF]

15. You're presenting a false dilemma -

it is not as if Hillary Clinton is the only democrat in the country who could run for president.

The last thing I'm going to do is "watch MSNBC". No wonder the confusion ...

[betterdemsonly]

16. She is the only one that appears to be running.

What problem do you have with msnbc?

[TBF]

19. No one has announced yet.

I don't watch any of the mainstream media. I really don't care how the 1% views things - I am more interested in what the rest of us are doing. YMMV.

[ieoeja]

181. "She is the only one that appears to be running"?

Actually, several give an even greater appearance of running. The Hillary crowd keeps pushing the claim you cite, but it is simply untrue. Last go around "inevitable" kicked them in the ass. So this is how they push her as inevitable without using the "i" word. Instead of inevitable she is "the only choice" we have.

There are two major themes on that: (1) she is the only one running, and (2) if we don't run her, we will lose.

Both are silly claims. But far less condescending than the inevitable meme they used last time around. All that did was piss people off.

[blm]

82. LOL. You think Paul WON'T do what BushInc wants? He HAS been all along,

but, saying and doing what he has to say and do to keep YOUR libertarian wing on the GOP's side.

How many rodeos have been to that you think we are so easily duped here?

[pnwmom]

150. Women are far more likely to support Hillary Clinton than the loathsome Rand Paul

and to appreciate her stands on economic issues rather than that of the tea baggers and Libertarians.

[betterdemsonly]

152. Not all voters are women who make that their most imortant issue

and her record on economics is only marginally better than Paul.

[pnwmom]

166. Her Senate record on economic issues is VASTLY superior to the tea bagger Rand Paul

or any of the other tea baggers, Libertarians, or Repubs.

[betterdemsonly]

167. Vastly better is quit a stretch n/t

[pnwmom]

169. Not at all. His economic policies are as right wing as they come. When she was in the Senate,

her voting patterns consistently put her among the most liberal in the Senate -- and always on economic issues.

[blm]

12. Unsurprised at your proRandPaul post. He's duped plenty more than

just you. He's a con artist.

I am sure you'll next be rationalizing why his solid Republican voting record will be found more attractive to 'some' on the left, too, eh?

[betterdemsonly]

14. I am not pro-Paul

I am antiwar, and want a better candidate that Hillary. She is too conservative for most in the party. She alienates people who are otherwise liberal with right wing economic and foriegn policy. It is an insult to make her the nominee when she is so unrepresentative of most Americans.

[MohRokTah]

26. "I am not pro-Paul"

Funny, I don't get that from your posts.

[betterdemsonly]

46. You have Hillary in your icon

but for some reason you have a problem with her real views and are pissed at anyone that calls her on them.

My guess is you are sensitive because you know her views are unpopular with most dems and liberals here.

I don't support her in the primaries and want something different. I think nominating her would be a tragedy for the party and the country.

[MohRokTah]

70. Hillary Clinton is a liberal

My guess is you've been a Paulite for many years.

[betterdemsonly]

72. Well you would be wrong.

I am Kshema Sawant voter. Lefty. I hate the thirdway.

[MohRokTah]

74. .

[Scuba]

189. "Hillary Clinton is a liberal" Bwahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa.

[MohRokTah]

192. .

Demands of ideological purity are silly.

[Scuba]

193. I agree that demands for ideological purity are silly. So is calling Hillary a liberal.

[MohRokTah]

196. Hillary Clinton IS a liberal.

The silly thing is claiming she is not.

[Scuba]

197. Hillary is a hawk who is owned by Wall Street and supports the TPP. That DQ's her for "liberal".

[MohRokTah]

203. Hillary Clinton is a compassioinate person who supports women's reproductive...

freedom, a strong social safety net, the Affordable Cares Act, Marriage equality, civil rights for all, and many more items on the liberal agenda.

That makes her a liberal.

You know who else demands ideological purity from all politicians on their side of the aisle?

The TeaBaggers.

[cascadiance]

225. So, we should judge if someone is "liberal" or not ONLY on social issues?

That is what you are bringing up here. These issues the corporate uber party over both major parties doesn't care about! Because it doesn't hit their bottom line that they are paying so much BRIBERY money to keep the corrupted rules that tear down our middle class and boost the wealth inequality in this country in place.

The bottom line is that back to FDR's time, and in those days, being liberal wasn't only how you viewed socials issues, but how you stood on issues that affect the way that people in this society share the commons and our nation's wealth. When the only segment of society that has had their wealth increase over the last decade or so is the top 1%, elements of BOTH parties are responsible for that breakdown in that issue and the subsequent collapse of our economy as the middle class disappears.

What separates the "Third Way" and REAL progressives of this party is how we stand on issues that affect how the middle class is going to survive and thrive in this economy and that everyone has an opportunity to make to have a living wage and contribute to society, instead of living in fear of bankruptcy from a health issue, or being swamped with student debt, or being told your jobs are being sent off to other countries in the race to the bottom that elements of both parties have supported through so-called "free trade" deals.

I would argue that if Hillary Clinton REALLY supports a strong safety net that allows a middle class to be rebuilt (and not just survive on the "survival" bar of Maslow's pyramid), she'd NOT be supporting things like TPP and H-1B Visas, etc. and would be fighting to promote efforts to help more global union organization and preservation of our environment, stopping climate change, etc., to eliminate that "race to the bottom" so that even "free trade" deals wouldn't have the disastrous consequences they have today.

And the "Affordable Care Act" that she and Obama supports, is only a START to getting people health care they need in a way that is sustainable over time financially and practically. It was essentially the same plan that the likes of Nixon, the Heritage Foundation, and Mitt Romney in Massachusetts wanted to and did put in place in places, that preserves the big parasitic health insurance companies that continue to steal wealth from the rest of us in so many ways. A real "liberal" approach would be to get to single payer insurance at some point, and stop letting CEOs of these insurance companies and their executive buddies continue to syphon off and STEAL more of our wealth as a reward for their campaign finance bribery.

Wall Street and other corporate 1% entities are PAYING Clinton to "look" liberal, and to live under their corporate media "liberal" label, even though on the fundamental issues that need to be dealt with in a liberal fashion the way FDR did earlier to restore this economy, she fails miserably along with many other so-called "Third Way" (no longer wanting to call them the Koch infested DLC member) Democrats.

[qazplm]

202. yeah no she isn't

(and neither is Obama). Both are center-left politicians. And guess what, I'm just fine with that just like I'm just fine with Hillary as the next President. But calling her a liberal is just silly. She isn't.

[MohRokTah]

204. Yes, she is.

Obama is the most liberal president in US history.

[Scuba]

209. Obama may be "the most liberal president in US history" but that's a very low bar. The country ...

... is far left of where Washington thinks it is.

http://www.democracyjournal.org/arguments/2013/09/politicians-think-american-voters-are-more-conservative-than-they-really-are.php

Politicians Think Voters Are More Conservative than They Really Are


When we compare what legislators believe their constituents want to their constituents’ actual views, we discover that politicians hold remarkably inaccurate perceptions. Pick an American state legislator at random, and chances are that he or she will have massive misperceptions about district views on big-ticket issues, typically missing the mark by 15 percentage points.

What is more, the mistakes legislators make tend to fall in one direction, giving U.S. politics a rightward tilt compared to what most voters say they want. As the following figures show, legislators usually believe their constituents are more conservative than they actually are. Our attitude measurements are most accurate on the questions about same sex marriage and universal health insurance—and in both instances the legislators’ guesses about their constituents’ views were 15-20 percent more conservative, on average, than the true public support for same-sex marriage or universal health care present in their districts.

[MohRokTah]

210. .

[ChiciB1]

214. Liberal And Hillary Go Together As Much As OIL AND WATER!!! n/t

[sibelian]

236. Well, you need worry about what you "get" from betterdems only's posts

regarding his support for RP, as the poster has simply stated their position. You don't need to second guess their intent.

Perhaps it is time to respond to what people actually say?

[blm]

85. Stow it - Paul is a fascist wearing an anti-war jacket.

You're carrying his water, and this certainly isn't the first time.

Paul isn't antiwar - he IS BushInc just as they all are.

[betterdemsonly]

88. What time have I ever posted on Paul? n/t

[blm]

99. The 'no difference' postings fool some, but, not all of us.

Eventually they always come down to pushing the pro-Paul propaganda.

Now you want people to think Paul is even better on programs for the poor. That's utter horsesh!t that would only sell to the uniformed - PROPAGANDA - it's ALL you've got.

Disgusting.

[betterdemsonly]

102. I never said their were no differences

so I don't know who your talking too? Whether you are fooled by things I didn't say, isn't my problem.

[blm]

103. LOL - You've been pushing the Paul 'messaging for Dems forums'

regularly since you started here. You think it hasn't been done here before? You think you've been more covert than others who also failed?

[betterdemsonly]

108. What Paul messaging?

Be specific!

[blm]

113. Stow it - Paul is a fascist wearing an anti-war jacket. His water carriers

are apparent. Shall I be as 'specific' as you when you 'explained' how the food stamp cuts were all on Obama, sunshine?

Don't put the onus on us - you outed yourself, sunshine.

[betterdemsonly]

116. If you think it is so clear, why don't you report it? n/t

[blm]

132. LOLOLOL - Expected that whine, too.

Cornered dupes.

[SunSeeker]

106. "She is too conservative for most of the party." Bullshit.

When Dems are asked who they would like as their nominee, a solid majority have consistently named her. Why are you spreading misinformation here?

[betterdemsonly]

110. Because if they knew what she is been saying on foreign policy issues

They would probably want another candidate, just like they did in 2008.

[SunSeeker]

124. So Dems knew in 2008 but Dems don't know now? Bullshit.

Dems are not suffering massive amnesia. Nor are they unaware of Hillary's positions. That is why your bullshit does not and Will not fly with us.

[betterdemsonly]

129. I suspect you are pretty committed to Hillary and or

a liberal interventionists yourself, so I don't give a damn what flies with you. If people aren't bothered by these things then my post wouldn't bother you so much.

[blm]

140. We're just not stupid enough to believe that Paul won't do exactly what BushInc

wants the way 'some' dupes need to believe to push the pro-Paul propaganda at Dem forums.

No one here at DU fought against Clinton more than I did - the difference is that I never did it to carry water for BushInc and the fascist agenda. And I will STILL vote for her over ANY lying fascist asshole like Rand Paul.

[betterdemsonly]

144. I'll support her if she is nominated.

but I think she will lose to Paul because antiwar dems won't vote for her. It is a terrible tragedy to annoint her. She is not representative of the base and she will hurt the party if she gets the nod.

[SunSeeker]

171. You "don't give a damn what flies" with most Dems, not just me.

And I am neither a conservative nor an interventionist. Enough with the name calling.

[davidpdx]

128. I wouldn't say most of the party, but many in the party

She is too conservative for me and I know quite a few people who feel the same way. It is not going to be a cakewalk.

[olegramps]

134. Hillary Clinton is at the present overwhelmingly favored against any Republican in the running.

I can not help from concluding that your only purpose is to falsely accuse her of being a war hawk in the desperate hope that she doesn't run because if she does your Republican candidate, Rand Paul or Ryan will be trounced.

[betterdemsonly]

137. I would say that is extremely paranoid

She admits to being a hawk. Why are you so bent out of shape over her real views.

[olegramps]

148. It is obvious that you haven't read her book. Anyone who has would realize that you are ridiculous.

[pnwmom]

168. She has a Senate record and that record shows she is vastly more progressive on economic issues

than Rand Paul. It's ludicrous for you to even make the comparison.

[FarPoint]

38. Bingo....

[stonecutter357]

61. .

[greatauntoftriplets]

89. Well said!

[Ohio Joe]

18. oh well... Ron Paul said it, so...

Fuck Ron Paul and anyone who pushes his bullshit.

[betterdemsonly]

20. In real world people weight candidates as lesser evils

based on issues they support. Most people don't belong to a party. Fuck Ron Paul isn't going to persuade anyone.

[Ohio Joe]

22. In the real world...

People don't buy bullshit spouted by a lying sack of shit like Ron Paul and try to spread it as though it were fact on liberal websites.

It is obvious.

[betterdemsonly]

23. In the real world no-one would consider Clinton liberal n/t

[MohRokTah]

25. In the real world, Clinton is a liberal and people who do not understand the term...

say she isn't.

[betterdemsonly]

29. She is not a liberal in the FDR sense, though maybe in the classical liberal sense

but then so is Ron Paul.

[MohRokTah]

31. You really have a thing for Rand Paul.

[betterdemsonly]

35. No

I don't like interventionism. I don't like Hillary's views on this issue and want somebody else to run.

[MohRokTah]

68. So then you come on DU to promote Rand Paul. eom

[betterdemsonly]

76. Talking about the positions of the candidate

and another candidate calling them on it, is not promoting Ron Paul. It just makes you uncomfortable, because you know she is out of touch with most of the base.

[blm]

90. Then you segued into blaming Dems for cuts forced through by GOP.

Your tap-dancing is pure BS, imo.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

81. You're right...

Hillary would've been AGAINST the internment camps that FDR was for (seeing as she was against Gitmo).

Ron/Rand Paul are in NO WAY, SHAPE, NOR FORM liberal. Not even in the classical sense. Trying to conflate these asshats with Clinton is dishonest at best.

An important thing to remember is that DU is NOT representative of the Democratic party. Especially since we view former Dems through rose-tinted glasses (FDR, Byrd, LBJ). We remember the good, forget the bad, and then complain that our modern Dems aren't really Dems because (insert outrage of the day here) while ignoring all the good they've actually done.

[merrily]

49. The term is understood differently abroad than it is in the US.

[ReRe]

95. Whoa, whoa, whoa.........

..." I totally beg your pardon? Clinton is NOT a liberal and I most certainly DO understand the term! Now, I often misunderstand things, but did I understand your statement to be your actual belief with no sarcasm implied? (Sometimes people say things and leave out the thingy.) Thanks.

[MohRokTah]

97. Clinton IS A LIBERAL

No amount of denial from those who demand ideological purity will alter that fact.

[ReRe]

119. HRC used to be a Liberal...

... but how can you defend her as a liberal now when she supports the corporate takeover of our government and corporate globalization of the entire planet for that matter, and her pro-MIC stance, rather than national sovereignty and a return to domestic policy? Heck, I don't know why we are even thinking about this stuff right now when she hasn't even announced yet~!

If it walks like a duck.....

[MohRokTah]

133. She is VERY Liberal

How anybody can attempt to say she isn't is beyond me.

[ReRe]

145. OK, MohRokRah...

... we must respectfully disagree.

[Ohio Joe]

30. And that would make it ok to pimp someone even further right?

Even if that load of shit were true... Which it is not... That makes it ok to spout Paul bullshit?

Fucking Ronulans

[betterdemsonly]

36. What Paul bullshit

That she is more likely to start a war with Iran? How is that not true?

[Ohio Joe]

40. I'm certain being an open Paul supporter will end well for you...

Making a moronic assertion without any evidence other then 'ron paul said so' and then demanding someone prove it untrue is typical of their bullshit. Enjoy wallowing in it.

[betterdemsonly]

42. I am not a Paul supporter.

You're just pissed because you can't refute the plain facts so and you are killing messenger.

[Ohio Joe]

44. 'Because Ron Paul said so' is not a fact...

Of course with ronulans it often is... I'm sure you will offer some actual facts any moment now... I'll wait

[betterdemsonly]

50. That would be your strawman

She has infact made alot of neocon sounding statements on Iran. You just can't handle this fact.

[Ohio Joe]

60. ummm... OK, You don't know what a strawman is...

I should know better then to ask for facts from a ronulan.

The right has reached a level of stupidity that is simply staggering.

[betterdemsonly]

63. Just because someone points out that Hillary is a hawk

which she admits to, doesn't make the person a support of Ron Paul. Elections are team sports. They are about issues. It is really annoying that you are incapable of discussing this intelligently.

[Ohio Joe]

65. Asking for facts is an unintelligent thing to do?

Blindly taking the word of a known liar like Paul is intelligent?

heh..

hehehehe.....


bwahahahahahahahahaha... Fucking ronulans crack me up

Still waiting for facts...

[ScreamingMeemie]

51. You couldn't prove that by me...

...equating Minnesota to the entire U.S.

[blm]

101. Baloney - your propaganda efforts are failing here.

.

[betterdemsonly]

107. Maybe you should report me.

[olegramps]

143. Report you. No, its a lot more fun seeing you sliced and diced.

[blm]

157. Yep - knew if this one was given enough a rope.....

they'd do the job all on their own.

; )

[blm]

164. Yeah, it's well known that Bushes are NOT fascists, eh?

So why would any Paulbot be concerned about that, eh? LOLOLOL

Please proceed.

[JoePhilly]

21. Not. Happening.

1) Hillary will not be running on starting a war in Iraq. Not in the primary, not in the general.

2) Paul will be attacking choice, gay marriage, Social Security, Medicare, the ACA, the EPA, and every other useful government program. He'd have to if he wants to win the GOP's nutjob base.

Paul won't win the GOP nomination, or the general.

Not happening.

[MohRokTah]

24. So what third party ticket will Rand Paul be running on?

He sure as HELL won't be the Republican nominee.

[betterdemsonly]

27. He can get money for a republican run or an independent run as the case my be.

He is the only republican candidate that consistant beats her in opinion polls.

[MohRokTah]

28. Please post these polls.

He will NEVER be the Republican nominee.

Third party runs do not win.

You sure do love you some Rand Paul, though.

[betterdemsonly]

32. Third party liberals do not win

but several third party conservatives have. It is a matter of money.

[MohRokTah]

34. No third party has ever won any national election.

In the entire history of the United States, there has never been a third party that won a national election.

The Whigs were not a third party. They were a second party (Democratic Republicans had single party rule for many years).

The Republicans were not a third party. They were a second party because the Whigs died as a party.

[betterdemsonly]

39. One of the parties may die.

Also you forget people like Jesse Ventura, and Michael Bloomberg. Both were independents that were able to win, winner take all seats, by securing lot of campaign cash from the wealthy.

[ScreamingMeemie]

43. Neither one of those people ran for President and won...

So the "you forget" doesn't work here.

Never did I think I would see this Rand Paul drivel on DU. Ugh.

[merrily]

45. Ventura and Bloomberg never won the Presidency.

Third parties can cost one party or the other the Presidency, but cannot win it. The system is rigged that way.

[betterdemsonly]

48. Those are winner take all seats

so the dynamics are the same. Just on a smaller scale.

[merrily]

52. Sorry, but Governor and Mayor are NOT interchangeable with President.

A third party candidate currently has zero chance of winning the Presidency.

Like Perot, a well-funded third party candidate can be a spoiler, but not a winner. And Paul is no multi-billionaire.

[betterdemsonly]

53. That would be wishful thinking on your part. n/t

[merrily]

235. Rather than rebut my post on substance, you pretend to know my wishes?

BTW, how do you think Rand Paul's ideology differs from Libertarian ideology?

If there are no significant differences, why do you imagine Rand Paul ran as a Republican, rather than as a Libertarian?

[MohRokTah]

69. Now you are REALLY reaching.

Please, just stop promoting Rand Paul here.

[betterdemsonly]

73. I am not promoting Paul

I am pointing out that she is too Hawkish to be the democratic nominee, and you don't like it.

[MohRokTah]

75. That's all I've seen you do. eom

[betterdemsonly]

78. How cares! n/t

[MohRokTah]

79. You, apparently. eom

[demmiblue]

54. Pfffft... crazy talk.

[stonecutter357]

62. .

[liberal N proud]

55. Do believe everything Rand Paul says?

[betterdemsonly]

56. No but I believe what Hillary says

Rand Paul is repeating her views pretty accurately. She is a foreign policy hawk, and a neocon sympathizer. Read my journals.

[ecstatic]

57. Rand Paul is on the wrong side of 99% of the issues

Even though your headline might be true, I'd still take my chances with Clinton. I don't agree with her foreign policy but I'm more concerned about our domestic policies (and Rand Paul is extremely right wing on those issues).

[betterdemsonly]

58. but some issues are more important to people than others

and she is wrong on a lot of issues people weigh more heavily.

[ecstatic]

59. Whatever.

[a2liberal]

64. Wow, the smear brigade is out in full force this morning

I find it to difficult to believe that people can honestly fail to understand your point even after you re-explain it so many times. So I'm forced to conclude that they're being deliberately obtuse if they continue to believe that you're a Paul supporter rather than what you're trying to point out (that Clinton could lose a large chunk of traditional base votes to Paul).

P.S. I would tread carefully... I wouldn't be at all surprised if they're feigning misunderstanding in this thread as part of a deliberate attempt to get you labelled as a "Paul supporter" and banned... I wouldn't put it past the "Hillary no matter what" crowd... you questioned her as the inevitable and only possible choice so you must be punished...

[ScreamingMeemie]

71. "Brigade?"

I see one person doing this this morning...

[betterdemsonly]

80. If they seriously think I support Paul they should report me! n/t

[ecstatic]

87. Then stop mentioning his name as if he's a great alternative

He's smooth talking trash. That's it! When you have a democratic alternative in mind, get back to us!

[betterdemsonly]

91. I would rather Bernie or Liz

I am not talking about him as a great alternative. Hillary is alienating voters with her neocon beliefs and we need to encourage others to run and let her retire.

[Ohio Joe]

121. 'ron paul said so' is not a point...

It's right wing bullshit and a ronulan talking point. Supporting such crap should be a pizza.

[betterdemsonly]

139. Whatever

The truth hurts.

[Ohio Joe]

163. truth?

I doubt you would know truth if it bit you in the ass... How about offering one single fact besides 'ron paul said so'... anything?

[cpwm17]

180. The war mongers managed to get a number of anti-war DU members banned

a couple of years ago during a Ron Paul supporter witch hunt. I never found any of those Ron Paul supporters but the war mongers seemed to think DU was full of them.

betterdemsonly manage to get a post hidden so he won't be back in this thread.

[stonecutter357]

66. Hillary 2016...........

Ron Paul

[greatauntoftriplets]

86. FRP.

[TBF]

151. No kidding ..

I've seen a few of these yahoos the last few days.

Sorry but even Hillary is better than Ron Paul. She's not my favorite but I wouldn't hesitate to vote for her over any repug - and that includes the libertarian "branch" of the repug party. One look at Ron Paul's voting record tells the tale.

[greatauntoftriplets]

155. And junior's no better, IMO.

[TBF]

186. Agree 100%. nt

[Thinkingabout]

93. For the life of me, I do not understand why we are comparing anyone with Rand Paul.

He is a lying libertarian, he record on immigration is

Rand Paul on Immigration
Click here for 6 full quotes on Immigration OR background on Immigration. •Legal status, but not citizenship, for illegal immigrants. (Mar 2013)
•We will find a place for illegal immigrants in America. (Mar 2013)
•Replace de facto amnesty with bipartisan reform. (Mar 2013)
•See immigrants as assets, not liabilities. (Feb 2013)
•Obamacare treats illegal aliens because it's illegal to ask. (Oct 2010)
•No amnesty; respect the law. (Jul 2010)

then he runs to Guatemala and appears to be so compassionate. I guess he thinks this validates his foreign experience.

He will continue the war on the poor, he may decline to take action where needed but he will not overlook the poor, he is not the person to consider for president.

[betterdemsonly]

96. When a candidate runs for election against another candidate

comparison happens.

[Stellar]

175. Ron Paul is just a person I personally would NEVER vote for...EVER.

And if Hillary (under a Democratic ticket) is the last person standing, then I would vote for her.

[Thinkingabout]

217. Why should DU be a site to compare a Libertarian. When they declare then compare.

We have a midterm election first.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

100. On what do you base this assertion?

[betterdemsonly]

104. Well, she has echoed the neocon view that there can be no

Iranian enrichment of Uranium, even at levels that cannot be used for a bomb. Drawing a line in the sand on that is a pretext for War. She has also said other things that would indicate a very aggresive posture on the middle east. Read my journals.

[broadcaster75201]

114. Even if true, I don't care. Let this Liberal be clear

The Dems could run a goat and I would work for it, send it money, and GOTV on it's behalf.

Conservatism will kill an entire species, Humanity, if it is permitted to continue. The GOP, in all it's permutations, must be destroyed. Entirely.

I will work and vote for Hillary if she is the nominee. I will vote.

God help us if the 29 million Obama voters who pitched a fit in 2010 and sat out didn't learn their lesson by now.

[betterdemsonly]

120. I agree that conservatism kills but she is a conservative dem

and War kills, so if she gets us into one, don't be suprised if antiwar voters balk. You are irresponsible if you allow her to be annointed as our candidate.

[Noddleface666]

141. This is the problem

I am a long time reader i made an account to commit on this

The fact that you would indose for a goat is why the democratic party doesn't have better candidates

We need to aim a little higher guys

On an unrelated note Paul is crazy - the ending all foreign aid thing really gets me

[demwing]

125. Rand Paul is more likely to start a war on Minorities than Hillary

what else ya got?

[betterdemsonly]

135. I don't think the Clintons were great friends of minorities

They pushed welfare reform, nafta, and the three strikes law. Legalizing drugs and demilitarizing the police would be good for them, since it would lower male incarceration rates. She is better on choice, but people aren't one issue voters.

[demwing]

190. My point is that these comparisons are irrelevant

Unless you really think Rand Paul would be a better overall choice than Hillary

[SidDithers]

138. Is that the dameocrat opinion?...

Sid

[PeaceNikki]

154. he's an isolationist. that is not "more progressive". it's terrifying.

Shame on you for trying to sell his fucking snake oil.

Sure, he opposes military intervention in foreign wars, but not out of a sense of decency or pacifism; he would also withdraw from the UN (including humanitarian and peacekeeping operations, foreign aid would disappear, and if you think "unstable" regions are bad now, imagine what they would be like with the double-edged sword of multinational (read: US) corporate interests moving unchecked throughout the developing world AND an absence of monitored unilateral military involvement in those regions. Paul's position isn't one of altruism; it's one of isolationism. Not that I'm an advocate of First World military involvement in foreign problems, but look at what isolationism has netted in the past.

[betterdemsonly]

160. An isolationists is more progressive than an imperialists n/t

[PeaceNikki]

161. aPaulogists are icky.

Sure, he opposes military intervention in foreign wars, but not out of a sense of decency or pacifism; he would also withdraw from the UN (including humanitarian and peacekeeping operations, foreign aid would disappear, and if you think "unstable" regions are bad now, imagine what they would be like with the double-edged sword of multinational (read: US) corporate interests moving unchecked throughout the developing world AND an absence of monitored unilateral military involvement in those regions. Paul's position isn't one of altruism; it's one of isolationism. Not that I'm an advocate of First World military involvement in foreign problems, but look at what isolationism has netted in the past.

That is not 'more progressive'.

[betterdemsonly]

165. Hillary's position isn't decent or altruistic either

She is basically pandering to the MIC. Nobody said he was decent. He is awful but he is less likely to get us into a war with Iran. You don't like this truth so you are attacking the messenger like the others.

[PeaceNikki]

172. is it possible for you to criticize Hillary without claiming Paul is more progressive?

Yes, I think so.

Attack? You're being melodramatic, hyperbolic, even. It's laughable I'm not "attacking" you.

Stop claiming Paul is more progressive, even on that topic. He's simply not.

[still_one]

159. oh boy, another Hillary bashing thread. I imagine I will see some Obama bashing threads soon

[demmiblue]

170. This really isn't a Hillary bashing thread... it is a Rand Paul jerk off thread. n/t

[PeaceNikki]

173. it's both.

[demmiblue]

174. Awwwww, you are locked out of your own thread.

I give you a couple of hours before the ppr.

[Orsino]

176. Unless it turned out that Rand Paul were a corrupt liar...

...lacking the principle to stand against his party when so much money is at stake.

That might invaludate the thread's entire premise.

[Puzzledtraveller]

178. I can agree

either way we are screwed, the party is over in the good ole USA. I'm thinking of decamping for greener pasture.

[fadedrose]

179. How about the "other" war?

The mini-war within the Democratic Party? There's a deep difference in opinion among those who support HC and those who don't.

[FSogol]

183. Fuck Rand Paul

and screw the idiotic rubes that support him.

[stonecutter357]

185. .

[stonecutter357]

184. pretty embarrassing to get banned from your own op.

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

187. When has Hillary advocated war with Iran?

That's something I've only heard people like Grampy McSame or Darth Cheney advocate.

[JCMach1]

194. last time I checked this wasn't the Republican Libertarian Underground...

of course I could be wrong given all of the Paulista and anti-Clinton posts that have popped up recently...

[Iggo]

195. Clinton is more likely to be president than Rand Paul, so yeah I guess that's a true statement.

[Purveyor]

205. I believe this to be true however Rand will not be the GOP candidate.

Romney will be their candidate and we should best hope Rand does go off the rails and run as a 3rd party candidate.

Otherwise Romney will beat Hillary with ease, imo.

[zappaman]

206. Bwhahahahahahahahahahaahahahhahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Fuck Rand Paul and double fuck his daddy!

[JustAnotherGen]

207. Ron Paul

Will dismantle all civil rights legislation, what little civil liberties/right to property/right for self determination women have scrape, bled and sweated for, dismantle everything from the EPA to Public Education.

I'm right about that - and the choice is clear.

If Rand Paul was on fire I wouldn't piss on the racist to put it out.

[Stellar]

208. hear, hear!

I love the way you think.

He was the same one that told Rachel that he would fight for the right of a restaurant owner to keep blacks out of there restaurant, if they didn't want them there.

[JustAnotherGen]

212. I'm so sick and tired of hearing how filled with awesome sauce this guy is

Because he's against using the military for jack shit.

And the thing is - I don't think he REALLY believes that.

He's just saying it to get the doomsday prepper types moist.

I'm a pacificist. And this asshole holds ZERO appeal to me! It's a trick. At the end of the day he would have to keep Republicans happy if he was President - so we all know he's selling everyone a load of horse shit!

Want me to tell you how I REALLY feel?

[Stellar]

216. No more, no more....

you made me wet my clothes!

[samsingh]

211. she would only start a war if there was no other viable option

[ChiciB1]

213. OKAY, August 2014 & Coverage On Hillary Is A Daily Event!!!

While I've already admitted here and to others that my support of Hillary is minimal and not one who has jumped on the band wagon, I have a comment to make.

Given the date I've already mentioned, and given the numerous hiccups that are already getting MAJOR coverage, I feel as this stuff piles higher and higher, Hillary could possibly be "toast" by election day!

We have an election coming up THIS NOVEMBER and the laser focus is on HILLARY! Personally, I'm already SICK of it and when talking to my friends I tell them I have nothing to say. I've been a political activist since I was very, very young and I've NEVER seen anything like this!

Not only does it intensify certain negatives that some may have about her, it also seems to generate more differences between her and Obama! Not that Obama doesn't have enough crap being slung at him every single day. Must also admit that I've been more liberal than Obama from the get go, but these days I'm beginning to feel sorry for him!

I could go on and on but won't, just throwing in my 1/2 cent here. Of course, another war may wipe us all out anyway!! OK, that comment was a little off the wall, but who knows? Things seem to be going down hill faster than I've EVER seen in my life.

[Enrique]

215. i can't imagine her invading Rand Paul

so i think you might be right.

[ZombieHorde]

218. Hopefully the Democratic party

will nominate someone who is for peace, marijuana, privacy, etc.

[Initech]

219. Rand Paul is more likely to declare the poor and middle class invalids.

Although more war is definitely not the answer. Fuck war and fuck the military industrial complex.

[Rex]

220. BS. We have NO IDEA what Rand would do in office! He lies all the time

so why would anyone believe he would keep to whatever promises he makes before the election? Only someone stupid would vote for Rand.

[Vattel]

222. Paul's views on war are definitely better than Clinton's.

He is also better on NSA surveillance, executive authority, and NSA spying. Clinton has the advantage of not wanting the poor to go to hell. What a messed up choice if we have to pick between those two.

[LanternWaste]

223. Paul is certainly making the "concern rounds" on DU this week...

Paul is certainly making the "concern rounds" on DU this week...


Maybe it's coincidental... but I doubt that to be the case.

[AgingAmerican]

224. If you believe a word he says

...which I do not.

[SidDithers]

226. Kick for transparency...nt

Sid

[Rex]

227. Because the cheese wheel told you so!?

Rand will never be a nominee for POTUS! But I do thank you for the laugh!

[joshcryer]

231. Haha, no.

Clinton isn't starting WWIII and by that time we'll probably be on a lot better terms with Iran. ISIS is going to bring the US and Iran together.

[AgingAmerican]

233. If you believe a word Rand Paul says

Which I don't.

[Douglas Carpenter]

234. NO one less hawkish or more dovish than Hillary is going to win the Republican nomination in 2016!

That will NOT happen! I don't see ANY possibility of Rand Paul becoming the Republican nominee. But for the sake of argument, if he did it would ONLY happen if he swore his heart, mind and soul to the rightwing hawks of the Republican Party.

[quaker bill]

237. Only if you add "intentionally"

Hillary is more likely to start a war "intentionally"

Rand Paul is sufficiently dim to start plenty of wars, but just not "intentionally".