Lawrence O'Donnell says Rand Paul can ruin the US credit rating and cause

[Ilsa]

economic collapse all by himself in the Senate by standing against an increase in the US debt ceiling, filibustering against the increase.

[polichick]

1. Scary shit. nt

[Coexist]

2. lets see what he does once spray tan gets hold of him....

[devereaux]

3. He's a senator

That's McConnell's backyard

[Coexist]

17. lol, my bad..

too much rum

[Ilsa]

8. Who will be the minority whip in the Senate? That's where Paul will be. nt

[Toucano]

26. Paul's nemesis: Mitch McConnell.

Don't see why they'd change that now.

[Tansy_Gold]

16. Rand Paul Doesn't Care.

You have to wrap your head around that concept, and sometimes it's difficult, but you have to remember that

THEY

DON'T

CARE.


They do not care about anything. They do not care about jobs. They do not care about health care for the masses. They do not care about the environment. They do not care about public education. They do not care about fairness.

What all of you -- and I deliberately exclude myself -- need to do is read, or reread, Atlas Shrugged. Read it and understand it, and you will know then that They Do Not Care.

They want the failure. They want the destruction. They will happily leave us all like Eddie Willers, sobbing on the train tracks in the middle of the Arizona desert.

They want this, because they don't care.

Rand Paul doesn't give a fat rat's ass about congressional gridlock. He'd welcome it. He's work hard to create it. And he would pay no attention to anyone who tells him otherwise. Not John Boehner. Not Mitch McConnell. Not Ron Paul.

Read Atlas Shrugged. Understand that the followers of Ayn Rand, like the followers of Tim LaHaye, want to see the end of everything. They want the collapse, the economic apocalypse, when they will (they believe) emerge victorious over the rubble. . . .and the rabble.

Can they be stopped? Yes, they can, but not by spineless blue dems and dinos and unrepentent compromisers who kiss every rightwing ass they can find.

Rand Paul is rightwing evil personified. He is worse than Christine O'Donnell because he put himself into a state where he could win. She never had a chance, but he did.

Sharron Angle is evil, too, and she could very well join Rand Paul in the senate and make life hell for all of us, but at least she has some respectable opposition.

No one listens to me. I'm just this fruitcake old bat out here in the Arizona desert who rants on DU under a familiar pseudonym and who occasionally adds a pic of her "I.T.Y.S." rubber stamp. The problem with the Dems loss is that it was predictable, not because of the individual races they lost but because of the political strategy they embraced. They kept moving to the center, which meant they kept moving to the right, and eventually what was the center was to their left, and they had lost all sense of who they were and what they stood for. They were in hostile territory, lost and without a fucking clue. They attracted too many into their elected ranks who were more like the old enemy -- while the enemy kept moving in more and more and more familiar territory.

The Dems did this to themselves, and I'll go on record as saying, not for the first time, that Barack Obama lacks the spine to take the party back to its liberal FDR/LBJ platform. If Obama fails to grow some backbone he WILL LOSE in 2012, either through a primary challenge or through a loss to whichever fascist the "GOP" puts up. Palin? Paul? Could be. Could be. But Obama and the Dems will not achieve victory by becoming more like the enemy or compromising more and more with the enemy.

Oh, and by the way, it should be noted that the disparaging remarks posted on DU earlier about Kentuckians who marry their cousins need to be examined very closely. Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Eleanor Roosevelt were cousins, too.


Tansy Gold, who does care

[renate]

20. very well said

Causing a domino-effect collapse of the world economy would literally be his dream come true. Other Republicans would taunt others with this power and use it to get what they want before eventually caving in to corporate interests, if not the interests of everyone else in the world.... he really would stand firm.

:scared:

[nadinbrzezinski]

27. You get it

why these people SCARE ME.

[azmouse]

4. It's horrible.

[Blue Owl]

5. and he's just the weird little twirp who'd do it, too

what a POS in a toupee.

[Hawkeye-X]

6. He'll be sitting in the back

doing absolutely NOTHING. He'll be assigned to irrelevant committees and subcommittees.

Hawkeye-X

[Ilsa]

God, I hope you're right. nt

[Drale]

7. If that happens

he will probably be arrested on the senate floor as a traitor and I'm guessing both sides would support his prosecution.

[Hawkeye-X]

9. I predict an explusion within 90 days of the swear-in.

First Senator in 200 years to get his ass booted in under 90 days.

[Ilsa]

11. Don't Rethuglicans just crash them in airplanes? nt

[Ter]

29. The neo-con party bosses don't discriminate

They got Paul Wellstone several years back, and got Ted Stevens a few months ago. The Cheney/Rove/Poppi Bush wing are the mafia.

[bullwinkle428]

10. The screencap of Randy getting wrapped up in a strait-jacket will

make it all worth it!

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[Odin2005]

12. Rand is a FUCKING LUNATIC.

[Ilsa]

14. And yet a majority in KY thinks he's da man. God help us. nt

[originalpckelly]

13. Well, I think we all know what we have to do.

We all go to the Senate building, chase down Rand Paul, give him manflowers, and kiss him about 1,000 times.

[EC]

15. I suspect the little prissy will be like his father

cocky when speaking, but do nothing in action...


On edit: The money guys in the repub party do not like the Pauls - the disdain is quite visible...

[originalpckelly]

18. Yeah, his father is not a Senator.

This is going to be interesting. Someone needs to pop the bubble. Maybe he has the balls to do it. He will lose the next election if he does it, and he would seriously face danger to his life from the corporate interests if he did it.

[Orsino]

21. Do-nothing?

GOP in Congress are all do-nothings. That they do nothing in lockstep, though, is the reason they triumph.

Entitled Republicans? They're not here to work.

[Statistical]

19. well not "all by himself". It would take 41 to vote against cloture. So Rand + 40 others.

The reality is most Republicans love spending money just as much (if not more) than their Democratic colleges.

I doubt he will find 40 people to stand with him.

[LSK]

22. maybe a new Majority leader will actually make him filibuster

Instead of wimpy Harry.

[in_cog_ni_to]

23. And it would be the first time in U.S. history that this country

has ever defaulted on a loan. If that happens, the entire world's economy collapses. Let the Republicans/Teabaggers add that to their LONG list of destructive policies and votes. That will be one interesting day in the Senate. I can't imagine his life won't be threatened by sitting Senators though.

Leave it up to REPUBLICANS to not just destroy OUR country, but everyone else's too!

Can these people be any more dangerous?

[Tansy_Gold]

24. You do understand, don't you, that economic destruction is

Rand Paul's OBJECTIVE. And the caps are intentional, because Rand Paul is an Objectivist before he is a libertarian or a republican or anything else.

And more than anything else, true believer Objectivists want to destroy the unclean, regulated, imperfect socialist, altruistic global economy and make it safe for. . . . themselves.

The problem is that Atlas Shrugged ended with the destruction; Ayn Rand never wrote the sequel showing what they did afterward.



TG, NTY

[democrat2thecore]

28. The sequel could be her namesake destroying it all in the U.S. Senate -nt

[Toucano]

25. Jokes on Paul. There ain't gonna' be no filibuster in this congress.

Harry Reid basically said so himself.

[democrat2thecore]

30. It's not a traditional filibuster

From my understanding, all he has to do is be talking at the right time and prevent a vote at a certain moment. Maybe someone else can channel Robert Byrd and school us on this. I know a full-blown filibuster isn't really even necessary. One single senator has enormous power to prevent what was once a dire move.

[JVS]

31. Are we talking about a "hold"?

[Toucano]

32. As I understand it, the Senate decide on those rules - which are not law or in the Constitution

at the beginning of every session.

Simple majority sets the rules.

We're gonna' see NEW RULES.