Rand Paul: 'I am Running For President'

124»

Comments

  • janklow
    janklow Members, Moderators Posts: 8,613 Regulator
    Maybe it's "unrealistic" that he will end or stop abortions but with a Republican Senate in charge AND him dodging questions on the subject, he needs to go on record and say he will NOT appoint Supreme Court judges who are not pro-choice. When he says these things publicly, people like myself will not be as alarmed and I'll cut him some slack.
    well, this presumes a scenario where he appoints enough justices to change the way the current court votes AND that new court gets a relevant case in front of them AND they consciously decide to break with prior precedent.

    and you know, even though anti-gun Democrats throw legislation that will go nowhere out there in front of a Republican House (and now Senate) ... what anti-abortion legislation did all these Republican senators constantly promote?

    i'm not saying that there aren't politicians in Congress who would vote against abortion if they could; i'm saying this "if the GOP wins the presidency GOODBYE ABORTIONS" is nonsense meant to scare you into voting a certain way.

    or, to look at it another way... remember when Republicans controlled the House and Senate for two years under pro-life President George W Bush and abortion got banned?
  • kingblaze84
    kingblaze84 Members Posts: 14,288 ✭✭✭✭✭
    janklow wrote: »
    Maybe it's "unrealistic" that he will end or stop abortions but with a Republican Senate in charge AND him dodging questions on the subject, he needs to go on record and say he will NOT appoint Supreme Court judges who are not pro-choice. When he says these things publicly, people like myself will not be as alarmed and I'll cut him some slack.
    well, this presumes a scenario where he appoints enough justices to change the way the current court votes AND that new court gets a relevant case in front of them AND they consciously decide to break with prior precedent.

    and you know, even though anti-gun Democrats throw legislation that will go nowhere out there in front of a Republican House (and now Senate) ... what anti-abortion legislation did all these Republican senators constantly promote?

    i'm not saying that there aren't politicians in Congress who would vote against abortion if they could; i'm saying this "if the GOP wins the presidency GOODBYE ABORTIONS" is nonsense meant to scare you into voting a certain way.

    or, to look at it another way... remember when Republicans controlled the House and Senate for two years under pro-life President George W Bush and abortion got banned?

    So basically you're saying Rand Paul likely will keep the status quo on most states being pro-choice, even if some justices die or retire? If so, he should say so and the media will probably get off his back on it.
  • Soloman_The_Wise
    Soloman_The_Wise Members Posts: 2,817 ✭✭✭✭✭
    janklow wrote: »
    Maybe it's "unrealistic" that he will end or stop abortions but with a Republican Senate in charge AND him dodging questions on the subject, he needs to go on record and say he will NOT appoint Supreme Court judges who are not pro-choice. When he says these things publicly, people like myself will not be as alarmed and I'll cut him some slack.
    well, this presumes a scenario where he appoints enough justices to change the way the current court votes AND that new court gets a relevant case in front of them AND they consciously decide to break with prior precedent.

    and you know, even though anti-gun Democrats throw legislation that will go nowhere out there in front of a Republican House (and now Senate) ... what anti-abortion legislation did all these Republican senators constantly promote?

    i'm not saying that there aren't politicians in Congress who would vote against abortion if they could; i'm saying this "if the GOP wins the presidency GOODBYE ABORTIONS" is nonsense meant to scare you into voting a certain way.

    or, to look at it another way... remember when Republicans controlled the House and Senate for two years under pro-life President George W Bush and abortion got banned?

    So basically you're saying Rand Paul likely will keep the status quo on most states being pro-choice, even if some justices die or retire? If so, he should say so and the media will probably get off his back on it.

    Rand Paul is in a lose lose with it, being against abortion but also against Legislating the act either way just leaves the Gemini Straw Twins plenty to feed on. What I think you miss fam is the set of circumstances that would have to occur for it to be up in the air and the historic precedence in the past Bush Presidency where they had a majority GOP appointed Supreme Court and senate.

    What should be a bigger concern to people is the everyday ? and big picture ? that actually directly impacts you. People are always so distracted and impassioned about ? that does not directly impact or is just a possibility that they allow it to distract from what does directly Manipulate their conditions. I guess the flip side is distraction from both positive and negative relevance means one does not have to hold accountability, take action or acknowledge the good and bad in their life.


    I swear politics is Religion even to the nonreligious...
  • janklow
    janklow Members, Moderators Posts: 8,613 Regulator
    So basically you're saying Rand Paul likely will keep the status quo on most states being pro-choice, even if some justices die or retire? If so, he should say so and the media will probably get off his back on it.
    all i am saying is:
    --abortion is very unlikely to be significantly affected by even a GOP president/senate/house combo
    --Paul wants votes from people who want to see a pro-life stance in their candidate

    the latter may not ultimately be worth as much as some people think, but you're unlikely to see a GOP candidate actively talk about being pro-choice.
  • kingblaze84
    kingblaze84 Members Posts: 14,288 ✭✭✭✭✭
    janklow wrote: »
    Maybe it's "unrealistic" that he will end or stop abortions but with a Republican Senate in charge AND him dodging questions on the subject, he needs to go on record and say he will NOT appoint Supreme Court judges who are not pro-choice. When he says these things publicly, people like myself will not be as alarmed and I'll cut him some slack.
    well, this presumes a scenario where he appoints enough justices to change the way the current court votes AND that new court gets a relevant case in front of them AND they consciously decide to break with prior precedent.

    and you know, even though anti-gun Democrats throw legislation that will go nowhere out there in front of a Republican House (and now Senate) ... what anti-abortion legislation did all these Republican senators constantly promote?

    i'm not saying that there aren't politicians in Congress who would vote against abortion if they could; i'm saying this "if the GOP wins the presidency GOODBYE ABORTIONS" is nonsense meant to scare you into voting a certain way.

    or, to look at it another way... remember when Republicans controlled the House and Senate for two years under pro-life President George W Bush and abortion got banned?

    So basically you're saying Rand Paul likely will keep the status quo on most states being pro-choice, even if some justices die or retire? If so, he should say so and the media will probably get off his back on it.

    Rand Paul is in a lose lose with it, being against abortion but also against Legislating the act either way just leaves the Gemini Straw Twins plenty to feed on. What I think you miss fam is the set of circumstances that would have to occur for it to be up in the air and the historic precedence in the past Bush Presidency where they had a majority GOP appointed Supreme Court and senate.

    What should be a bigger concern to people is the everyday ? and big picture ? that actually directly impacts you. People are always so distracted and impassioned about ? that does not directly impact or is just a possibility that they allow it to distract from what does directly Manipulate their conditions. I guess the flip side is distraction from both positive and negative relevance means one does not have to hold accountability, take action or acknowledge the good and bad in their life.


    I swear politics is Religion even to the nonreligious...

    Lol, yeah I take politics seriously, no debate about that. Some issues don't effect me directly but it would affect society, so in many ways it would eventually affect me, in ways I could write a book on. But in the end, I can have a disagreement with a candidate and still listen to what they have to say. So far, it's a mixed bag on this cat.

  • A Talented One
    A Talented One Members Posts: 4,202 ✭✭✭
    Rand Paul is a libertarian. Whatever he may say now, he is against things like the Civil Rights Acts; he believes that private businesses should be able to discriminate against blacks if they want.

    How any black person would contemplate voting for him is beyond me.
  • zzombie
    zzombie Members Posts: 11,280 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Rand Paul is a libertarian. Whatever he may say now, he is against things like the Civil Rights Acts; he believes that private businesses should be able to discriminate against blacks if they want.

    How any black person would contemplate voting for him is beyond me.

    Rand Paul is not against the civil rights act only certain provisions of it and how they are applied.

    Black people should embrace more aspects of libertarianism but the democrats have you enslaved to liberalism and looking to governments for help
  • janklow
    janklow Members, Moderators Posts: 8,613 Regulator
    Rand Paul is a libertarian. Whatever he may say now, he is against things like the Civil Rights Acts; he believes that private businesses should be able to discriminate against blacks if they want.
    however, i believe the position isn't just "let businesses discriminate" but more "businesses that discriminate will be punished by the free market"

    not that there aren't some issues with this position but still