Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: The inevitable Hillary will lead to President Rand Paul. [View all]stevenleser
(32,886 posts)153. That does not apply to this situation. The OP presented his opinions as fact.
The available facts completely contradict his opinion. If he has an opinion that HRC wouldnt be a good President, we can discuss that.
If he suggests that she would lose to Rand Paul, there are multiple series of facts that contradict that and OP has no facts of his own that support him even though his OP asserts that his opinion is factual.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
290 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Rand Paul, Sir, Will Not Even Get The Republican Nomination, Let Alone Win The General Election
The Magistrate
Aug 2014
#1
indeed. Has this utter disdain for HRC blinded some on DU to electoral reality?
wyldwolf
Aug 2014
#33
I'm thinking: Maybe "principles" were never real enough to sacrifice to begin with...
2banon
Aug 2014
#164
What get me is the sure audacity of thumbing noses at the plight of the lower classes
rhett o rick
Aug 2014
#185
He still has not taken his running shoes off when confronted with the question..
busterbrown
Aug 2014
#94
Paul will collapse under national scrutiny, as did Bachmann, Palin, etc etc.
emulatorloo
Aug 2014
#133
You are right about Rand Paul in this regard (as well as with regard to other things):
JDPriestly
Aug 2014
#175
Yes, they will (re: Rand Paul stances preventing him from winning the GOP nomination)
stevenleser
Aug 2014
#173
And Hillary's nomination could rip our party in two, if not in 2016, in 2020.
JDPriestly
Aug 2014
#184
Great point. A H. Clinton-Sachs win will solidify the Conservative takeover of our Party.
rhett o rick
Aug 2014
#190
Good points. But partisanship just for the sake of partisanship does not get things
JDPriestly
Aug 2014
#289
The only thing inevitable about Hillary is that she will do Wall Street's bidding.
InAbLuEsTaTe
Aug 2014
#253
Sadly typical. We must end the discussion because we don't have any good reasons
rhett o rick
Aug 2014
#187
Who in their right mind would ever support someone who made such a boneheaded decision to support the invasion of Iraq?
InAbLuEsTaTe
Aug 2014
#254
In your opinion, who will get the Repub nomination? Don't leave us in suspenders. nm
rhett o rick
Aug 2014
#182
EXACTLY!! Get out of my head. I literally just posted the same point.
Liberal_Stalwart71
Aug 2014
#236
Unless you're part of the 1%, it's YOUR STRUGGLE TOO. It's both RACE AND CLASS Struggle together
2banon
Aug 2014
#248
I think a more accurate and useful way to conceptualize the situation
woo me with science
Aug 2014
#269
And you have a vested interest in maintaining the racial status quo; ...
1StrongBlackMan
Aug 2014
#271
Mischaracterizing what you are being told does not help your argument.
woo me with science
Aug 2014
#275
OH, please! Don't lecture us. We know where we are, were, and will always be. You see, we never
Liberal_Stalwart71
Aug 2014
#234
Very well said. I've noticed that tactic in the pro-corporate posting:
woo me with science
Aug 2014
#241
The Powers That Be ran a representative of the statis quo Democrats against
rhett o rick
Aug 2014
#192
The way some anti-Clinton folks heap praise upon Paul, they probably hope you're right.
conservaphobe
Aug 2014
#4
Obama is The Annointed One? That sounds like racist dribble that right wingnuts said about him...
Liberal_Stalwart71
Aug 2014
#67
Your "lazy logic". First you say, "nuh-huh, that didn't happen". Then, you say...
Liberal_Stalwart71
Aug 2014
#225
People mistake their opinions for facts and statistical analysis of the voters.
stevenleser
Aug 2014
#41
DU is as much a hall of mirrors as Free Republic or any other wingnut forum
emulatorloo
Aug 2014
#80
There is a LOT wrong with it. Opinions do not carry the weight of facts or statistical analysis.
stevenleser
Aug 2014
#110
That does not apply to this situation. The OP presented his opinions as fact.
stevenleser
Aug 2014
#153
Deeply held beliefs do not change in two years. Polls are never fantasy. They are either
stevenleser
Aug 2014
#107
"People mistake their opinions for facts and statistical analysis of the voters"
Veilex
Aug 2014
#116
I didn't change the subject. The entire OP is about Rand Paul vs Hillary. You changed the subject.
stevenleser
Aug 2014
#191
Romney has nothing to do with whether Rand is electable. Again, Romney is part of your strawman.
stevenleser
Aug 2014
#196
No, it's not, because I am talking about something completely different than your straw man.
stevenleser
Aug 2014
#200
Yep! Looks like it did in 2006 and 2007 when Hillary the Inevitable, the Annointed One,
Liberal_Stalwart71
Aug 2014
#238
oh, yeah, a wild 4 - 5 point swing in a +/- 4% error sample. All it takes is 50% + 1
wyldwolf
Aug 2014
#53
According to you. Not according to professionals like Nate Silver who accurately predict elections.
stevenleser
Aug 2014
#64
but yet some of his ideas are more progressive than Hillary's - on matters of war, for example.
JaydenD
Aug 2014
#136
No, they are not "progressive," they all stem from his anti-government views.
SunSeeker
Aug 2014
#144
Actually I think the George McGovern defeat was pretty bad. Ironically, McGovern would have been a
still_one
Aug 2014
#28
And....to those who claim so confidently that Rand Paul would never even get out of a primary...
woo me with science
Aug 2014
#18
Paul will implode in national spotlight, as Sharon Angle, "I am not a witch," Sarah Palin, etc.
emulatorloo
Aug 2014
#87
Rand is a "true-believer" who cannot STFU. Shrub was a suit who did what he was told
emulatorloo
Aug 2014
#201
Progressives are going to vote for a man who said he would have opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964
DemocratSinceBirth
Aug 2014
#106
You're making an argument for Democratic Party to take Anti-War and Anti-Wall Street positions
2banon
Aug 2014
#181
Sister to you please. No, they're connected. it's all connected. peel off that onion.
2banon
Aug 2014
#264
The thread is being very rapidly swarmed by the resident Third Way crew.
woo me with science
Aug 2014
#12
no swarming. This is a discussion forum. If you want a place where only your opinion is allowed...
wyldwolf
Aug 2014
#57
Oh come on now ...just as we are all warming up to the third way corporatist war hawks.
L0oniX
Aug 2014
#61
You and OP must have skipped out on politics 101. First, ensure you have support of your base.
stevenleser
Aug 2014
#25
Good point. They won't say anything, they just won't donate money or set up PACs and that is a big
stevenleser
Aug 2014
#174
All other analysis of the subject says otherwise. Rand would alienate 30-40% of the GOP base
stevenleser
Aug 2014
#21
+1 "...the rest of us can look out and see what is really happening..."
woo me with science
Aug 2014
#63
Can't wait until he allows businesses to discriminate based on race, can you?
emulatorloo
Aug 2014
#90
I just can't wait to see the status of women and minorities in this country
woo me with science
Aug 2014
#197
Rand Paul is a lightweight. I have no idea why anyone thinks he will be President.
TwilightGardener
Aug 2014
#24
Indicting Perry sure didn't add any "gravitas" to the status quo neocon crowd.
woo me with science
Aug 2014
#37
I really don't know. Probably Jeb. It was supposed to be Christie, but
TwilightGardener
Aug 2014
#45
I should also add, I think Paul Ryan will run and is less of a lightweight than Rand Paul.
TwilightGardener
Aug 2014
#75
you raise some good points, more likely Bush versus Clinton, as the elite battle it out
whereisjustice
Aug 2014
#43
besides money polluting politics, congress is basically same size as 1914 in spite of fact that
whereisjustice
Aug 2014
#209
His trip to do surgery on poor blind people in Nicaragua is his campaign in action and idiots
Autumn
Aug 2014
#65
Watching the tape of him weasel out of those questions by that woman in the resaurant was.....
wolfie001
Aug 2014
#88
Why not Eric Holder? Someone must have asked "why not Obama" about this time, 2006.
Fred Sanders
Aug 2014
#118
I prefer Warren or Sanders but nominating Hillary will not lead to Paul or the Apocolypse
pampango
Aug 2014
#207
"Either way, the Base of the Democratic Party will find themselves agreeing with Paul ..."
Scuba
Aug 2014
#211
The base of the Democratic Party includes black folk. Black folk are not persuaded
Liberal_Stalwart71
Aug 2014
#239
Hate To Say It But If Hillary Doesn't Clean Up Her Act...It's Rand Paul As Our Next President
iloveObama12
Aug 2014
#215
You said: Either way, the Base of the Democratic Party will find themselves agreeing with Paul
Liberal_Stalwart71
Aug 2014
#240
Excuse me. I didn't assert that black voters are the only Democratic voters.
Liberal_Stalwart71
Aug 2014
#249