Hillary is something else entirely.

This is a forum for all Dems.

It's also true that all Dems are not enamored of Hillary. Nor should they have to be.

I don't think Rand Paul gives a crap about DU.

Rand Paul may not give a crap about DU but his exact word/phrases and talking points sure show up here quite often concerning Hillary.

Hope that is simple enough to understand.

I don't care who you support or who you do not. It isn't any of my business. What is my business is those on DU who use age, character, sexism etc.. to bash another Dem. Those things are Republican talking points right out of the Rove playbook. Got it?

Her character is debatable, but her politics and the fact that she never met a corporation she didn't like are the real issue.

religion or non religion. I care about where they stand on policies. And Hillary is way too far to the right and way to Wall St friendly for me to think of her as a democrat.

I objected to the ageism aimed at McCain also, there was more than enough to go after him on policies. And that is all that should matter regarding elected officials.

Gun control and gun rights are not mutually exclusive positions to take.

I'm for gun control, we should control sales and ownership by criminals by enforcing existing laws and creating stricter penalties, for example.

I could give you 88 more reasons, here are just a few:

Sanders:
Voted YES on allowing firearms in checked baggage on Amtrak trains.
Voted YES on prohibiting foreign & UN aid that restricts US gun ownership.
Voted YES on prohibiting product misuse lawsuits on gun manufacturers.
Voted YES on prohibiting suing gunmakers & sellers for gun misuse.

Warren:
"I grew up around guns & gun owners, and I will work to protect the rights of law-abiding citizens. But the law must reflect the reality that, in the wrong hands, guns can be used for violent crimes, making neighborhoods less safe."

"work to protect the rights of law-abiding citizens"

As indicated in a different post, with evidence offered after you suggested that I was a liar.

All that aside, I clearly posted four ways in which Sanders is not an utter hoplophobe and included a quote from Warren indicating her support for the second amendment.

It is true that she supports a silly AWB and doesn't like big magazines, but there are enough sensible senators to prevent her from acting.

Further, I think that she just needs additional information to see how those two ideas are just plain wrong.

Be well! Here's are two analogies to solve:

PENURY : MONEY :: STARVATION : _______________
A. sustenance
B. infirmity
C. illness
D. care

POPULAR VOTE : ELECTORAL COLLEGE :: DEMOCRACY : _____________
A. republic
B. dictatorship
C. communism
D. socialism

Offered as an alternative to taking the Graduate Records Exam, the MAT takes 60 minutes and includes 100 questions, most of them more challenging.

If you 66 correct answers you're in Mensa territory.

No cheating!

Nothing personal with me how could it be ever personal with cyber folks?

By the way I did not call you a liar, you raised the issue of scope of your own intellect, it is undeniably immense, but on the issue of gun control you are as wrong, in my opinion, as the flat Earthers.

Call it what you like. And get over it.

You poor thing, already left with nothing but name calling and misdirection?

The Sanders statements? I pulled them from "ontheissues", the same place Hillary supporters often get their statements.

I know, it's not fair. Empty rhetoric from you versus solidly factual rebuttal from me, sans ad homina.

Every day an education.

You're welcome.

Cut and pasted, not edited and omitted as you did.

Voted YES on banning high-capacity magazines of over 10 bullets. (Apr 2013)
Voted YES on allowing firearms in checked baggage on Amtrak trains. (Apr 2009)
Voted YES on prohibiting foreign & UN aid that restricts US gun ownership. (Sep 2007)
Voted YES on prohibiting product misuse lawsuits on gun manufacturers. (Oct 2005)
Voted YES on prohibiting suing gunmakers & sellers for gun misuse. (Apr 2003)
Voted NO on decreasing gun waiting period from 3 days to 1. (Jun 1999)
Rated F by the NRA, indicating a pro-gun control voting record. (Dec 2003)

Rates F by the NRA, left that out also, that is bad form, would you not say?

"While widely recognized today as a major political force and as America's foremost defender of Second Amendment rights, the National Rifle Association (NRA) has, since its inception, been the premier firearms education organization in the world. But our successes would not be possible without the tireless efforts and countless hours of service our nearly three million members have given to champion Second Amendment rights and support NRA programs.
The following ratings are based on lifetime voting records on gun issues and the results of a questionaire sent to all Congressional candidates; the NRA assigned a letter grade (with A+ being the highest and F being the lowest)."

Like I said, gun rights and gun control are not mutually exclusive values.

I provided evidence that Sanders and Warren support gun ownership.

Prove to me that they don't support the legal ownership of guns as an individual right.

Is everything in your world black and white?

Are you serious?

You DO realize that other members can see what you write here, don't you?

Yanno, ya got me dead to rights!





Now seriously, I hope you have a merry holiday.

I've been making presents and wrapping them up this week, I really need to get some work done.

Progressive but I oppose members attacking other Dems unless they are DINOs. So I agree, people need to stop attacking her personally. That's what Discussionist is for.

just get out?

i am not a fan of hillarys. i will vote for her if she runs, but i hope someone else is in there. but, it is the language we use. we know what is being done using the word worship. i wish we could use other language when discussing this.

personally, i am not in a battle with any of the dems running against each other yet.

and i would really really prefer it not be hillary.

used way too often here to bludgeon and label people with extremist opinions that simple are false equivalencies. Seems to stifle and NOT encourage open discussion. It's infantile and not much better than name calling.

damn near approach what could be considered 'worship'. Anyone that hasn't been on the 'my turn', 'inevitable' train for the past year and a half needs to stfu and get in line behind her. Sorry, but I won't. I don't think that at this point, I have to do anything in regards to Clinton. What I have done is sent letters encouraging Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders to run. There is a group of Sanders supporters in my town that have met up.

How would you respond if someone equated your support for Warren and/or Sanders as "worship"? Would you be OK with that?

I have been told here that I'm not welcome in the 'big tent' any more. I have been told I need to make pledges, that Clinton doesn't need my help, I'm infantile, a dumb extremist.....
Why would 'worship' bother me.

that word, I am wondering at the vociferous response to it. Possibly the Hillary supporters need to reflect also. I was told some of those things without using that word. The OP is referring to those that don't support her as 'Rand Paul' types. Why is that okay?

Seriously there seem to be a lot of people who hate Hillary that seem to ALSO want to divide the Dem party by insulting others.
I am giving those people a serious side eye, because it is both a hostile and foolish approach.

Sick of being ASSUMED to be a Hillary supporter (just because I do not like the constant hatred here, OR have questions about Warren) when I am actually hoping for better too. But congrats on alienating as many Dems here as possible.

Like my pathetic damn posts are alienating thousands.

I have ASSUMED nothing about you whatsoever, but don't let that stop you from assuming a bunch of crap about me.

has been stinking up GD for many months now. Just commenting on it's usage here, but now that I see your combative attitude, I'll put you down as not giving a shit about alienating people. Thanks!

has been stinking up GD for many months now. Just commenting on it's usage here, but now that I see your combative attitude, I'll put you down as not giving a shit about alienating people. Thanks!

As far as combative goes, you decided to jump my shit over this. I hope you are combing DU to jump on everybody that dislikes Clinton.

Buhbye, now.

LOL. Aren't you the sensitive soul? So sorry I "jumped on your shit". *scraping shoe and walking away*

If I was excusing Warren or Sanders even when actions went against my usual ideals, then yes, I would be then be putting love of candidate over logical and rational thinking.

I think that is one of the big problems in politics. People act like it is a sporting event. Defending their favorite team, favorite player with much venom. We need to focus on issues in my opinion.

Our politicians should sway to our ideals instead of out ideals mutating to fit a politician.

but because Warren/Sander went against some of your ideals, promoted others, would your continued support be putting love of the candidate over logical and rational thinking?

I doubt anyone agrees with everything a candidate/politician does; but, those that support do so not out of love for the candidate/politician, but rather after a weighing of the candidate/politicians positions and or potential.

Also the wieght I put on the ideals they differ from me on. Also, I feel I can still say "I think X is the best candidate in the race, but I really think they are wrong on Y issue."

I don't ever give blind support. My ideals are to important to me.

But as long as this is DEMOCRATIC underground, we should not be attacking potential DEMOCRATIC candidates. I wish people would stop trying to pick fights for no reason.

I'm not a Hillary supporter at this juncture but I don't like the demonizing, either.

I said that since it is a DEMOCRATIC website, we should not be personally attacking her. If you want to do that go to Red State or Discussionist. That's what they are for.

Are you trying to pick a fight for some reason?

I'm critical of the republican-ish pronouncements of one of the potential Democratic presidential candidates.

I'm still allowed to do that aren't I?

Holy shit! Is Rand Paul posting to DU now? [View all]
He must be because I keep seeing posts referring to Hillary and her age, Hillary and her lack of creds, Hillary who has never done anything important, Hillary who as never really battled for an election. The quotes in these posts are almost verbatim to Paul's He by god better not go after Liz Warren or Bernie Sanders on their age, lack of creds, or relevancy. Leave NOW, Senator Paul!

And many of us just said we didn't believe it was right to attack any Dem running personally or to use Rand Paul's talking points to do it. I don't think anyone accused you of personally attacking anyone did they?

Hence, the criticism of her age?

She just doesn't meet the purity standard of DU.

... some of the things said here about her is disgusting and ridiculous.

Some are getting personal here and going places they should not.

It would not be tolerated if it was said about Warren or Sanders so it shoukd not be tolerated about Hillary.

People needto stick to issues.

personally.

dumb extremism is killing your opinon.

i could just as easily question your membership at DU because of your adoration of everything Paulite and hate for everything Hillary.

Are you a Paulite? likley not, but you are drawing the same stupidly drawn equivalency.

I'm not a libertarian. I'm somewhere between Progressive Democrat and Social Democrat, I guess, if you want to start throwing around labels.

By the way, it was a long hard road to come to this conclusion because I'm a strong feminist (yes, I'll own that label, too) who really wants to see the first female President of the United States in my lifetime.

as i said elsewhere. i would prefer a different democrat. but, damn straight i will vote for any dem, over not voting or going another party.

Then I will vote for her to vote for a Democrat.

But I really don't want to, and her Presidency will make me apathetic in politics for the remainder in her terms. Her policies will continue to favor Wall Street and the extremely wealthy and treat the poor like they just need to "get a job" - completely ignoring the plight of people on fixed or no incomes (the disabled, the elderly, victims of abuse in flight, people "falling through the cracks&quot . She will ignore people need the stability of a regular place to live under them before they can even THINK about doing anything else. She will be scheming about how SHE can get the Nobel Peace Prize or something rather than how she can help people like me.

I am ready for a Free For All, with Sanders being Independent I don't expect anything less.

Buckle your seatbelts, folks. It's going to be a bumpy ride !! wheeeeeeeeeeeeeee .....

I live in California, where it's unlikely that my vote will make a difference in the electoral college count.

If she is the Democratic nominee, I will cast a vote for someone else as a protest.

I'd rather a left-leaning third party have a reasonable showing that to compromise my values.

Were I in a different state, I might have to rethink that.

keep doing this for the next two years.

I RULE!

you RULE!

We, hey, you ever try to belly flop on a frozen over pool?

Either age is an issue or it's not.

The presidency is a grueling job. The ability to do it is a legitimate issue.

Hillary is very accomplished and seasoned politically. I'm not sure how those arguments could possibly be made seriously.

I just roll my eyes.

What the hell is wrong with people? Politics is not a religion.

Please post the name of who is doing this. I have missed it. Would be glad to respond! Will watch.

but yeah, Secretary Clinton is an obsession for some.

I'm willing to bet that a lot of people wish they had voted for her in 2008.

and no I don't wish that I had.

Because apparently supporting Hillary is equivalent to accommodating Adolf Hitler.

Dumbass comment, eh?

Sid

Hi, I'm Rand Paul.

--Hillary and her support of Keystone XL, Hillary and her hawkish foreign policy?