• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Would you vote for Rand Paul for president?

Would you vote for Rand Paul for president?

  • Yes

    Votes: 33 37.1%
  • No

    Votes: 56 62.9%

  • Total voters
    89
Abortion is here to stay, at least for the foreseeable future. But it may be like the old public schools, the SCOTUS had ruled numerous time that separate but equal was constitutional until hey ruled it wasn't. But personally, I think it is up to the woman, it is after all her body and she can do with it as she pleases. I believe in this in more ways than abortion also.

as long as I have a breath in my body I will fight unecessary butchering in the womb........Just give me one more Conservative justice and I will show you.
 
as long as I have a breath in my body I will fight unecessary butchering in the womb........Just give me one more Conservative justice and I will show you.

With Obama as president for the next four years, you will not get that conservative judge. In fact one or two of the conservative judges just might retire during the next four years and when they do, they will be replaced by a more liberal judge for sure.

But like I said in my earlier post, like the separate but equal verdicts handed down the SCOTUS, it was constitutional until it wasn't.
 
Abortion is far-far ahead of guns as far as no middle ground.
I rarely if ever here of these folks talk of being pro-adoption.
Nor do you hear about them adopting a young pregnant girl and helping her to term.
What you'll here is a lot of moralizing about her not getting pregnant, as if he owns her life.
Then you'll here that contraception is mental abortion.
How many abortions were there in the 40 years before Roe v. Wade ??
How many babies were routinely destroyed when they came out with "special needs" before the modern world kicked in ??
Why do Repubs cut off the money as soon as the baby is born ?? Yes, it's back to their moralism.
How do the Thais and other SE Asians deal with this issue.
I know, it's not an issue, it's a baby.
Abortion is here to stay, at least for the foreseeable future. But it may be like the old public schools, the SCOTUS had ruled numerous time that separate but equal was constitutional until hey ruled it wasn't. But personally, I think it is up to the woman, it is after all her body and she can do with it as she pleases. I believe in this in more ways than abortion also.
 
With Obama as president for the next four years, you will not get that conservative judge. In fact one or two of the conservative judges just might retire during the next four years and when they do, they will be replaced by a more liberal judge for sure.

But like I said in my earlier post, like the separate but equal verdicts handed down the SCOTUS, it was constitutional until it wasn't.

You are probably right but the good thing is most othe conserveatives judges are younger.......Hope fully we can hold out until Rand Paul is president in 2016;)
 
You are probably right but the good thing is most othe conserveatives judges are younger.......Hope fully we can hold out until Rand Paul is president in 2016;)

Rand Paul has zero appeal outside the corn and Bible belts.......................
 
Last edited:
Worldwide after 1980, there have been 1.3 billion abortions.
Any guess how many children they would have had ??
Why are India and China in the business of limiting female children ??
With Obama as president for the next four years, you will not get that conservative judge. In fact one or two of the conservative judges just might retire during the next four years and when they do, they will be replaced by a more liberal judge for sure.

But like I said in my earlier post, like the separate but equal verdicts handed down the SCOTUS, it was constitutional until it wasn't.
 
Abortion is far-far ahead of guns as far as no middle ground.
I rarely if ever here of these folks talk of being pro-adoption.
Nor do you hear about them adopting a young pregnant girl and helping her to term.
What you'll here is a lot of moralizing about her not getting pregnant, as if he owns her life.
Then you'll here that contraception is mental abortion.
How many abortions were there in the 40 years before Roe v. Wade ??
How many babies were routinely destroyed when they came out with "special needs" before the modern world kicked in ??
Why do Repubs cut off the money as soon as the baby is born ?? Yes, it's back to their moralism.
How do the Thais and other SE Asians deal with this issue.
I know, it's not an issue, it's a baby.

Abortion is legal without the moralizing. Not too sure about Vietnam and Laos since the commies took over.
 
You are probably right but the good thing is most othe conserveatives judges are younger.......Hope fully we can hold out until Rand Paul is president in 2016;)

Time will tell.
 
and may not get reelected in Kentucky in 2016----good time for him to run away Bonz
Rand Paul as zero appeal outside the corn and Bible belts.......................
 
at this point, I would consider casting for him.... depends on who my party puts up there.... status quo-ers and welfare statists would eat his lunch though... freedom , liberty.. pfft, those things are passe ...we deal in gifts and benefits to select demographics now...we deal in identity politics.... we deal in perpetual debt and war.
thats' what the public wants, so that's what they get.

there are no Democrats I would vote for( way to controlling, way too anti-gun, way too anti-business, way too pro-poverty) and very very few Republicans I would consider.
 
Worldwide after 1980, there have been 1.3 billion abortions.
Any guess how many children they would have had ??
Why are India and China in the business of limiting female children ??

Culture and tradition. For centuries women had no standing or very little standing in those countries. With China limiting each family to one child, most of the families want a son. Hence you get four or five times the abortions to a female fetus than a male one.
 
There is a good chance he is running in 2016. Would you vote for him?
quick research on him

there are some things I like about him fiscally, gun rights etc

BUT


he is against equal rights
he is against AA/EO
not only is he against equal rights but he is fighting to prevent them
not only is he against abortion he is fighting to ban it

the latter two especial, because he is actively fighting against those two makes it impossible to get my vote.

If he simply was against them or didnt agree with them thats one thing but trying to actively stop them will guarantee you never get my vote because you simply do not understand america.
 
Rand Paul has zero appeal outside the corn and Bible belts.......................

We might just find out. Looking at him and a haggard old Hillary could make the difference.
 
Are Americans immune from this logic ??
Culture and tradition. For centuries women had no standing or very little standing in those countries. With China limiting each family to one child, most of the families want a son. Hence you get four or five times the abortions to a female fetus than a male one.
 
We might just find out. Looking at him and a haggard old Hillary could make the difference.

He only preaches to the converted. He's totally played out already........................
 
nor will it get the vote of Republican women
quick research on him

there are some things I like about him fiscally, gun rights etc

BUT


he is against equal rights
he is against AA/EO
not only is he against equal rights but he is fighting to prevent them
not only is he against abortion he is fighting to ban it

the latter two especial, because he is actively fighting against those two makes it impossible to get my vote.

If he simply was against them or didnt agree with them thats one thing but trying to actively stop them will guarantee you never get my vote because you simply do not understand america.
 
he is against AA/EO

Yup, because they are violation of property rights. You already knew that though. :D

not only is he against abortion he is fighting to ban it

He sure is. I'm not sure how I feel about that really.
 
Are Americans immune from this logic ??

If the same regulation of limiting a family to one child became the law in the states, I think not. There are a lot of countries in this world where having an heir meant having a son. By the way, the Chinese government is trying to stop abortions due to the sex of their child. In other words having an abortion just because of the sex of the child, that aborted child would still count as the one child that family could have.
 
If the same regulation of limiting a family to one child became the law in the states, I think not. There are a lot of countries in this world where having an heir meant having a son. By the way, the Chinese government is trying to stop abortions due to the sex of their child. In other words having an abortion just because of the sex of the child, that aborted child would still count as the one child that family could have.

Most likely because the Chinese government is becoming concerned by a growing lopsided demographic..........................
 
He only preaches to the converted. He's totally played out already........................

Of course any politician is only able to pick up those that agree with them.
 
Most likely because the Chinese government is becoming concerned by a growing lopsided demographic..........................

Howdy Bonz, glad you made the switch. Yes that is a big part of it, also there is a lot of outside pressure to put a stop to just aborting females.
 
nor will it get the vote of Republican women

Nor will he likely get the vote of anyone except the fanatics, which is why Republicans keep losing the elections. They're not interested in getting into the White House, they just want to appeal to the fanatical base.
 
Howdy Bonz, glad you made the switch. Yes that is a big part of it, also there is a lot of outside pressure to put a stop to just aborting females.

I think we would be reading China incorrectly if we think it responds to "outside" pressures...........................
 
I think we would be reading China incorrectly if we think it responds to "outside" pressures...........................

your probably right, it might be coincidence that China started to put forth the effort of stopping female abortions as the U.S. and other countries were at their height in the condemnation of it. The government of China usually doesn't give a rats darn about what other countries think of their practices. It was probably more internally driven.
 
your probably right, it might be coincidence that China started to put forth the effort of stopping female abortions as the U.S. and other countries were at their height in the condemnation of it. The government of China usually doesn't give a rats darn about what other countries think of their practices. It was probably more internally driven.

I think so. I also think we're a little naive to not realize that many of the more draconian Chinese laws are an unspoken acknowledgement of the failure of other draconian policies , ie "one child"...........................
 
Back
Top Bottom