Rand Paul makes Primitives antsy

[landofconfusion80]

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025440997

Z_California (222 posts)

A Rand Paul nomination could be a game changer

 The eventual Democratic nominee will be clobbered in a general election if she doesn't get on the correct side of these issues:
 
Civil Liberties and the Surveillance State
War and National Security
Oppressive Sentencing Laws
Cannabis Decriminalization

Paul will benefit from significantly more crossover voters than ANY Democratic nominee - the Racist/Redneck wing of the GOP will not vote D period. A lot of progressives will vote for Paul if these are "their" issues.
 
To beat Rand Paul, we will need a nominee from the Democratic wing of the party.

It's good to see the primitives worry about this.  If Rand makes a big enough splash, it could be '84 again with all the crossover voters.
(Full disclosure: voted for Rand during his Senate race. Huge fan)

MohRokTah (3,719 posts)

1. So now we're at RandPAulUnderground?

So many people posting how great Rand Paul is.

Z_California (222 posts)

75. I've noticed a lot of DU'ers with low reading comprehension

It's chilling how intelligent progressives completely ignore the point of the post and simply attack at the mere mention of the name. I've been called a Paulite and a Right-Winger, been reminded of terms of service, etc.
 
Are we only allowed to toot some party line here or are we allowed to come up with original thoughts? The "Thought Police" seem to rule the roost here.

betterdemsonly (951 posts)

72. Frankly his pitch to them on demilitarizing the police and ending drug wars

 has gotten a good reception in the black media, particularly black men. What is so scarey is that I see the right evolving to create new coalitions, where as the dems are stuck in the 90s mode of hippy punching.

woo me with science (27,832 posts)

16. Unfortunately, that won't be a very effective debate response

when the Republican candidate is campaigning on ending the drug wars and spying and warmongering, and we have a Democratic candidate with a record complicit in all of them.

BainsBane (28,631 posts)

148. The Democratic Party doesn't have a candidate

You might, but Democrats do not. Some have erected a bête noire that they invoke to justify their politics of narcissism.
 
Here are some debate points. Paul supports slashing the corporate tax rate in half, repealing regulation of business and the environment, banning abortion and gay marriage, and repealing the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Act. He wants the end of all public healthcare so that it is entirely under corporate control. www.ontheissues.org/senate/Rand_Paul.htm
 
He is a homophobe, a racist, and a misogynist and will be supported by right-wingers who share his contempt for the majority of Americans. He will be promoted by those who share his view that the business elite are over regulated and that the rights of privileged white men of means are all that matter. But hey, it's all about your pot stash. Why worry about anything as trivial as other human beings?
 
I have no doubt he will be supported by the same people who regularly promote the interests of the privileged few over the many. It is perfectly in keeping with their reverence for great men and hostility toward everyone else.

[BlueStateSaint]

There's one more thing, purely coincidental.  Every time in, well, a while (since WWII, IIRC) a left-handed candidate has faced a right-handed candidate in the General Election, the lefty has won.  The current occupier of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue is a lefty.

Of all of the current hopefuls, all of the Dems are right-handed.  So are all of the Republicans . . .

. . . except one.

Rand Paul.  

[USA4ME]

Z_California

It's chilling how intelligent progressives...

No such animal.

.

[GOBUCKS]

Ron Paul Junior.

Recommended by Gator.

[dutch508]

Ron Paul Junior.

Recommended by Gator.

No shit. Here we are again. The Paulistinians will be flooding us with the worshipping of the Paul

[landofconfusion80]

No shit. Here we are again. The Paulistinians will be flooding us with the worshipping of the Paul

Hey, if you don't want to audit the fed, you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem 

[67 Rover]

Z_California (222 posts)

A Rand Paul nomination could be a game changer

 The eventual Democratic nominee will be clobbered in a general election if she doesn't get on the correct side of these issues:
 
Civil Liberties and the Surveillance State
War and National Security
Oppressive Sentencing Laws
Cannabis Decriminalization

Paul will benefit from significantly more crossover voters than ANY Democratic nominee - the Racist/Redneck wing of the GOP will not vote D period. A lot of progressives will vote for Paul if these are "their" issues.
 
To beat Rand Paul, we will need a nominee from the Democratic wing of the party.

Anyone catch this?  Hillary or the Chief?

[El Jefe]

Anyone catch this?  Hillary or the Chief?

You know its coming, its a females turn. Policy or quality of candidate be damned, the Dems are going to nominate a woman.

[zeitgeist]

Ron Paul Junior.

Recommended by Gator.

I am no fan of the Paulbots (Ronulans as I more commonly call them), but, should the sins of the father necessarily be visited on the son?  I begin to wonder when both liberal and conservative are afraid of the same candidate with nary a primary in sight.

If it is to be, I will be at ground zero as the Ronulans are very prevalent here in the Granite State, many coming with the Porcupine Contingent.  They are almost as nutty as Algore disciples and those folk are hard core insane. 

We are already under siege here from our upcoming primary (Sept. 9).     I am hoping we can replace a do nothing governor, representative, and, senator.  My choices, in that order, are: Havenstein, Innis, and Smith; replacing incumbents: Hassan, Che-Porter, and Shaheen. 

I am thinking of getting my long suffering mailman a truss for Christmas. 

[miskie]

I'm not a big Rand Paul fan -

However -

I do find amusement that just the thought of a Rand Paul candidacy is giving the primitives fits of angina - especially if their nominee turns out to be the Hildebeast.

[zeitgeist]

I'm not a big Rand Paul fan -

However -

I do find amusement that just the thought of a Rand Paul candidacy is giving the primitives fits of angina - especially if their nominee turns out to be the Hildebeast.

I can just see the ticket "Paul / Carlson" the Republican prescription for what's ailing America.  It would write itself.
 "Paging Dr. Paul. / Paging Dr. Carlson.  You are needed in the Oval Office.  Stat!"  The DUmmies wouldn't know whether to $hit or go blind.

[diesel driver]

No such animal.

.

I was thinking the same thing.  It's the ultmate oxymoron, rates up there with "government efficiency" and "democrat morals".

[Big Dog]

No shit. Here we are again. The Paulistinians will be flooding us with the worshipping of the Paul

If he earns the Republican nomination, will you vote for him in November?

[DumbAss Tanker]

Z_California (222 posts)

A Rand Paul nomination could be a game changer
...
Paul will benefit from significantly more crossover voters than ANY Democratic nominee - the Racist/Redneck wing of the GOP will not vote D period. A lot of progressives will vote for Paul if these are "their" issues.

Well, you blundered onto an accurate bottom line there, my new little DUmmie, since the entire field of Democrat nominees that has been booted so far all range from being well to the left of 'Center left' authoritarians to being complete Commie wack-jobs.

[67 Rover]

If he earns the Republican nomination, will you vote for him in November?

Unless Romney runs again I would vote for anyone on the Republican ticket. I probably will not be happy about it but I would pull the lever.

[dutch508]

If he earns the Republican nomination, will you vote for him in November?

No.

[DumbAss Tanker]

If he earns the Republican nomination, will you vote for him in November?

He's pretty much a total dumbass on foreign relations, which means that while he is still better than Obama or Hitlery, he's dangerously ignorant and headstrong about remaining so.  I'm not sure where he is exactly on immigration and the border, since his Kentucky voters are pretty conservative on that but the Libertarians he courts are open-border nut-jobs, so he's been kind of tap-dancing around it while pretending to not tap-dance.  I've noticed he likes to cut off any questions about the logic behind his positions by making some jump-the-tracks conclusory comment that generally works flummox dim-witted journalists and get them to stop pressing him about how he expects any details about how the parts of anything he supports are actually supposed to work.

I wouldn't feel good about it, but if he was the nominee, I'd vote for him.  Romney would be pretty iffy, I don't know what his chances of getting on the ticket would really be, though.  The Second Amendment/RKBA matter would be a big stumbling block in voting for Romney, and a total stopper on that fat bastard from New Jersey.  I don't think Romney, Paul, or Christie would really do that much positive for the main street economy as opposed to the Wall Street one, but they couldn't be worse than any of the likely Democrats on that one.