Schweitzer (while in Iowa) says: Don't trust the Dems who backed the Iraq War

[Brewer]

What a hypocrite. He's against the Iraq War, yet he fully endorses gun rights, is opposed to gun control, and had a political video filmed before where he pulled a Manchin and dressed up in camo, grabbed his rifle, and called himself the "common guy." This is also the man who has a positive approval from the NRA, so Schweitzer has no room to talk.

I really don't care if Hillary voted for the Iraq War because you know what, a lot of Senate Democrats made the same mistake and regret having done it. That doesn't in any way make her the traitor to the Democratic Party that Schweitzer is implying she is and it's rather Schweitzer whose betrayed us, the real liberals who see Hillary as the much more progressive candidate. If these are the main two Democrats come the primary, not only will I endorse Hillary, but I may even donate a little to her campaign. I want to make sure that the establishment does whatever it takes to make sure Schweitzer or some other phony, very pro-gun Bluedog Democrat doesn't get the nomination.

He's not a Blue Dog.

What sets Schweitzer apart from, say, Mike McIntyre or Joe Manchin, is that he's much, much more economically liberal. Aside from being pro-gun and NRA-backed, he's made a career out of standing up to corporations. He's stood up to Big Pharma, advocating for single-payer healthcare and importing prescription drugs from Canada. He idolizes Paul Wellstone for fighting against the military-industrial complex and Teddy Roosevelt for breaking up trusts. He's stood up to Big Oil - during the Yellowstone River's oil spill, when ExxonMobil didn't tell him enough details, he cut them right off. He's stood up for our civil liberties when they've been under attack, and he's advocated for peace when others haven't.

As far as I'm concerned, when it comes to economics and civil liberties, he's far to Hillary's left. If you're going to throw away all of that over guns, then quite frankly, you're acting as ludicrous as the people who want to primary Pat Toomey for not being pro-gun enough (and trust me, these people exist - I have personal experience).

I'm not denying he's economically liberal, but I think I speak for a lot of members on the forum when I say we need to continue on with the progress we're making in the Presidency just like back in 2008. We got an African American President and it's only right we have a female President to who connects with voters a lot better and already has the name recognition advantage.

The thing about my endorsements though is that I won't support a candidate unless they're both economically or socially liberal (take Todd Portune for instance). Hillary not only supports some measures of gun control which is good enough for me, but she's received substantial social and economically liberal ratings from her time in the Senate. What's angering me here is that Schweitzer is arguing this attack on Hillary and other congressional Democrats at the time that voted for the Iraq War. However, if he were to take time to look at the facts, he would know that later on down the road, Hillary opposed a bill through 2007 that would have increased the number of troops in Iraq and supported a bill that required their withdrawal.

So it's not just because of the gun issue or his conservative view on the death penalty, but really just Schweitzer's ability to appeal to me as a voter is only average. I respect his left-wing views, but the Democratic primary is going to be packed and he's really going to need to step up his game if I'm going to vote for him over say, Joe Biden, Amy Klobuchar, or Elizabeth Warren.

Gah, I despise this argument. If someone is qualified for the Presidency, and they stand for the principles I hold and what I believe in, then why should it matter what gender or ethinicty they are? I think we are wayyyyy too concerned with breaking cultural barriers and not concerned enough with what's right for the country. BTW, last time I checked, we didn't invade Iraq so that at the end of the day we could eat Iraqis. That's what hunting is. I would much rather have a gun-totin' liberal than a warmongering liberal.

[Brewer]

Well, by making the clear connection of him opposing the Iraq War which killed thousands of U.S. soldiers to him supporting the rights of gun owners and hunting to which he himself does, it adds up to that. People say that the Iraq War was morally unjust and we had no thought out reason for being in there, yet what's hunting?

I hope that clears up  a resemblance for you, hypocritical libertarian.

I don't see the resemblance between a Congresswoman and a deer, no, nor do I see how that's relevant. For that matter, your link only redirects to French Google.

You oppose war because some people are killed. But you oppose gun control, and lack of gun control kills people. Do you understand?

What incredible logic you have.  I'm sure it's hard up there, with your fellow Rhodes Scholars to explain things to idiot libertarians from Florida.  I'm glad such thinking has gotten you this far on life on top of the Mountain of Enlightenment.  You completely and totally addressed SJoyce's actual point thoroughly about what the difference is between hunting and war.

. . . . . oh wait.

I'm sorry but I don't understand you Mechaman.
And I have said "hypocritical libertarian", not "idiot libertarian", there's a difference between the two.
I just find it hypocritical to see some libertarians like Sjoyce, who is staunchly against war because war kills people, but they are against gun control too. And it's the case of Sjoyce. That's all.

A lack of gun control does not kill people. That theory has been debunked countless times.

[Brewer]

Well, by making the clear connection of him opposing the Iraq War which killed thousands of U.S. soldiers to him supporting the rights of gun owners and hunting to which he himself does, it adds up to that. People say that the Iraq War was morally unjust and we had no thought out reason for being in there, yet what's hunting?

I hope that clears up  a resemblance for you, hypocritical libertarian.

I don't see the resemblance between a Congresswoman and a deer, no, nor do I see how that's relevant. For that matter, your link only redirects to French Google.

You oppose war because some people are killed. But you oppose gun control, and lack of gun control kills people. Do you understand?

What incredible logic you have.  I'm sure it's hard up there, with your fellow Rhodes Scholars to explain things to idiot libertarians from Florida.  I'm glad such thinking has gotten you this far on life on top of the Mountain of Enlightenment.  You completely and totally addressed SJoyce's actual point thoroughly about what the difference is between hunting and war.

. . . . . oh wait.

I'm sorry but I don't understand you Mechaman.
And I have said "hypocritical libertarian", not "idiot libertarian", there's a difference between the two.
I just find it hypocritical to see some libertarians like Sjoyce, who is staunchly against war because war kills people, but they are against gun control too. And it's the case of Sjoyce. That's all.

A lack of gun control does not kill people. That theory has been debunked countless times.

That theory has never been debunked.

Yes, actually, it has.

Think about Russia or Luxembourg (strict gun control) as opposed to Germany, France, or Norway (lack of strict gun control, high gun ownership rates). The former have skyrocketing murder rates, while the latter have much lower rates. I have seen no significant correlation between gun control and saving lives, but if you could provide me with some, that'd be great.