Rand Paul: Go Ask the DNC About Abortion

  • Thread starter Thread starter _Abyssinia
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Video of Rand Paul’s response at following link.
Wasserman Schultz quickly responded, saying Paul should explain whether he believes abortion should ever be legal.
Click to expand...
“Here’s an answer,” she said in an emailed statement. “I support letting women and their doctors make this decision without government getting involved. Period. End of story. Now your turn, Senator Paul.”
Click to expand...
Then, she posed some questions of her own, saying: “We know you want to allow government officials like yourself to make this decision for women – but do you stand by your opposition to any exceptions, even when it comes to rape, incest, or life of the mother? Or do we just have different definitions of ‘personal liberty’? And I’d appreciate it if you could respond without ‘shushing’ me.”
Click to expand...
But Paul wasn’t fazed — or impressed — by Wasserman Schultz’s answer. In an interview with CNN’s Wolf Blitzer, the senator said it seemed to him like she wasn’t opposed to late-term abortions.
Click to expand...
“Sounds like her answer is yes, that she’s okay with killing a seven-pound baby,” he said.
Click to expand...
Paul went on to say that “even most of my friends who are pro-choice” are opposed to such abortions, but acknowledged that “there’s a bit of doubt and discussion [about abortions] earlier in the pregnancy.”
Click to expand...
“But Debbie’s position, which I guess is the Democrat Party’s position, that an abortion all the way up until the day of birth would be fine, I think most pro-choice people would be really uncomfortable with that,” he added. “So I don’t know – I really think she’s got some explaining to do.”
Click to expand...
edition.cnn.com/2015/04/08/politics/rand-paul-abortion-democrats/
 
“Here’s an answer,” said Wasserman Schultz. “I support letting women and their doctors make this decision without government getting involved. Period. End of story. Now your turn, Senator Paul.”
Click to expand...
That is, no government involvement except for the contraception mandate, and government funding for Planned Parenthood. Other than that, no government involvement…Period! End of story. :rolleyes:

***Peace, Mark ***
 
SWolf said:
If Paul gets the GOP nomination, this will be fun.

Republicans get attacked for their views on abortion that amount to a smidgen of the cases, while Democrats get a pass from the media on being okay with ripping a baby to pieces at almost full term.

Many in the media need to be derided and laughed at.
Click to expand...
The media deserve to be ridiculed (along with wasserman Schultz ). They are like the Pharisees - trying to trip up Rand Paul with gotcha questions, when they are not interested in the truth at all.

Ishii.
 
Hugh Hewitt was indicating that Wasserman Schultz may have made a mistake; if she emailed what she did, she was basically making the Democratic Party endorse late term abortion. If one is interested in this take, I do see there are stories aplenty on this that you can find in a news search.

Tip of the hat to Rand Paul on this.
 
This next election might be one of the few windows we have to get a pro-life candidate voted in.
 
Mark121359 said:
That is, no government involvement except for the contraception mandate, and government funding for Planned Parenthood. Other than that, no government involvement…Period! End of story. :rolleyes:

***Peace, Mark ***
Click to expand...
👍
 
Path_Finder said:
Hugh Hewitt was indicating that Wasserman Schultz may have made a mistake; if she emailed what she did, she was basically making the Democratic Party endorse late term abortion. If one is interested in this take, I do see there are stories aplenty on this that you can find in a news search.

Tip of the hat to Rand Paul on this.
Click to expand...
The standard bearer for the Democrat party - Obama - endorsed late term abortion, aka infanticide, in the Illinois state senate. And I don’t think he ever renounced that vote. So of course the Democrat party is sympathetic to that view. Also, Barbara Boxer refused to renounce infanticide in a famous debate with Rick Santorum a few years ago.

youtube.com/watch?v=ZoTjb9rzyEo

youtube.com/watch?v=gjEGIlZ7Us0

Of course there can be no limits or restrictions on abortion, or the whole house of cards that legal abortion is built on comes tumbling down.

Good for Rand Paul. He is a fighter - and we will need one to prevent the coronation of Queen Hillary the 1st. I cannot imagine Jeb Bush doing something like this with all his talk about civilized discourse and partisanship, etc.

Ishii
 
This man will never be President. He’ll be eaten alive in the primaries.
 
EmperorNapoleon said:
This man will never be President. He’ll be eaten alive in the primaries.
Click to expand...
Agreed. Jeb Bush, Chris Christie or Bobby Jindal would make more appropriate candidates for the Republican Party in my opinion. Regardless of his Pro-Life views, which are admirable, Rand Paul’s views on economic (basically economic Darwinism) and foreign policy (isolationism) should preclude him from consideration.

Plus, his comments seemingly supporting segregation while running for Senator are simple inexcusable.
 
Johann_du_Toit said:
Agreed. Jeb Bush, Chris Christie or Bobby Jindal would make more appropriate candidates for the Republican Party in my opinion. Regardless of his Pro-Life views, which are admirable, Rand Paul’s views on economic (basically economic Darwinism) and foreign policy (isolationism) should preclude him from consideration.

Plus, his comments seemingly supporting segregation while running for Senator are simple inexcusable.
Click to expand...
Jeb bush is an establishment guy who has no clue as to the threat posed to our country by the left. Jindal is not running. Christie is good except he’s low in the polls. Not sure america has the stomach for another protracted middeast war, moreover maybe the threat to America is more from within ? so maybe Rand Paul’s foreign policy is just what we need. He is worth considering anyway.

Ishii
 
Johann_du_Toit said:
Agreed. Jeb Bush, Chris Christie or Bobby Jindal would make more appropriate candidates for the Republican Party in my opinion. Regardless of his Pro-Life views, which are admirable, Rand Paul’s views on economic (basically economic Darwinism) and foreign policy (isolationism) should preclude him from consideration.

Plus, his comments seemingly supporting segregation while running for Senator are simple inexcusable.
Click to expand...
The biggest issue with Rand Paul as a candidate is that his views and positions are like the shifting sands and he refuses to answer questions about it. He doesn’t want to be interviewed or asked challenging questions; he wants a soap box. He can’t respond to questions in a debate by refusing to answer and demanding that someone else be asked a question and expect to be taken seriously.
 
EmperorNapoleon said:
The biggest issue with Rand Paul as a candidate is that his views and positions are like the shifting sands and he refuses to answer questions about it. He doesn’t want to be interviewed or asked challenging questions; he wants a soap box. He can’t respond to questions in a debate by refusing to answer and demanding that someone else be asked a question and expect to be taken seriously.
Click to expand...
He also might run into problems with the federal investigation into his father’s 2012 campaign. One of Rands staffers is reportedly a subject of the investigation, having allegedly been involved in emails regarding a plot to buy a state senator’s endorsement. That staffer is also married to his niece.
 
ishii said:
Jeb bush is an establishment guy who has no clue as to the threat posed to our country by the left. Jindal is not running. Christie is good except he’s low in the polls. Not sure america has the stomach for another protracted middeast war, moreover maybe the threat to America is more from within ? so maybe Rand Paul’s foreign policy is just what we need. He is worth considering anyway.

Ishii
Click to expand...
Not exactly sure why you would say that about Bush, but I’m not sure it matters for the present discussion. Jeb Bush will get the Republican nomination in the end. Jindal isn’t running yet (and I doubt he would win anyway), but he may run to position himself for the VP’s office or some other role in a Republican administration. Christie has already had his 15 minutes. He may be in the same position as Jindal. Surprised you didn’t mention Cruz, but he’s also past his sell by date. I don’t see how Rand Paul can win, but he can be a spoiler if he plays his cards right. I think he’s attempting to make himself a kingmaker if not a king. As the year progresses we’ll see Bush tracking right, but not too far. He’ll attempt to make allies on the right and may court Paul. Paul will probably spurn him, which really wouldn’t be too bad for Bush’s image. It would make him look like someone in the middle, which is where any candidate has to be to win the general election. The Republicans have it tough this year. The Democrats will select H. Clinton after playing around with a few names and the final contest will be a rematch of Bush Vs. Clinton. Bush will win the final outcome, but not before he receives a few serious bruises. That’s my two cents worth . . . but I’ve been wrong a lot of times.
 
EmperorNapoleon said:
The biggest issue with Rand Paul as a candidate is that his views and positions are like the shifting sands and he refuses to answer questions about it. He doesn’t want to be interviewed or asked challenging questions; he wants a soap box. He can’t respond to questions in a debate by refusing to answer and demanding that someone else be asked a question and expect to be taken seriously.
Click to expand...
Savannah Guthrie couldn’t have said it better:thumbsup:
 
ishii said:
Jeb bush is an establishment guy who has no clue as to the threat posed to our country by the left.
Click to expand...
imo, neither is he a conservative.
Not sure america has the stomach for another protracted middeast war, moreover maybe the threat to America is more from within ? so maybe Rand Paul’s foreign policy is just what we need. He is worth considering anyway.
Click to expand...
I might be able to go along with this.
 
EmperorNapoleon said:
This man will never be President. He’ll be eaten alive in the primaries.
Click to expand...
EmperorNapoleon said:
The biggest issue with Rand Paul as a candidate is that his views and positions are like the shifting sands and he refuses to answer questions about it. He doesn’t want to be interviewed or asked challenging questions; he wants a soap box. He can’t respond to questions in a debate by refusing to answer and demanding that someone else be asked a question and expect to be taken seriously.
Click to expand...
It is interesting that your comments do not address the issue of abortion altogether.

Paul’s views don’t change. That is what he was discussing in the interview.

Win or lose, morally, at least, he doesn’t believe that a 7 pound baby should be aborted immediately before birth. This that the DNC seems to abide by is untenable to many Americans.
 
SeannyM said:
He also might run into problems with the federal investigation into his father’s 2012 campaign. One of Rands staffers is reportedly a subject of the investigation, having allegedly been involved in emails regarding a plot to buy a state senator’s endorsement. That staffer is also married to his niece.
Click to expand...
Really, especially if he runs against someone squeaky clean like Hillary Rodham Clinton.
 
Path_Finder said:
Really, especially if he runs against someone squeaky clean like Hillary Rodham Clinton.
Click to expand...
Do kidding, that’s the smallest of small fry stuff.

I can’t see Hillary getting the nomination, as she’s too corrupt for even the Democrats to handle.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top