It's "going against the grain" alright. Paul is still balancing (1) whether the fedral gov't should have intervened to end rampant, long-standing, immoral discrimination when the southern states clearly wouldn't do it themselves against, (2) the right of a few bigots to refuse to serve people who looked different than them. All but the most extreme have long ago balanced those two interests. This whole mess with Paul -- started by his own words -- is embarrassing for Ky. But, I suspect Paul will be elected.

 

You know where I stand and I know where you stand, but his positions IMO are no worse than Obama's friends that are known terrorists.

You know where I stand and I know where you stand, but his positions IMO are no worse than Obama's friends that are known terrorists.

 

Wow, that's a leap.

Wow, that's a leap.

 

I don't think much of a leap. Have you read Obama's own book? Read it please, and then let me know what you think.

Edited May 21, 201016 yr by History
grammer

I'm not overly familiar with where Rand Paul stands on individual issues so I'm asking those that are.

 

What are his positions on same-sex marriage and abortion?

 

I am no expert on Paul and/or Libertarians but here is my input.

 

Abortion - Paul says he is strong pro-life and was endorsed by one of the state Right to Life organizations. There was dispute over this in the primary as Paul apparently failed to complete the questionaire of one RTL group, and if you don't complete the questionaire completely and exactly as they want, they will not endorse you. Paul says he did complete the questionaire and the RTL group produced a copy from Paul that was not completed. Paul then produced a copy of the completed form but this dispute carried on through the campaign. I believe Libertarians are labeled as pro-chice by RTL because they believe in no government intervention in the issue, which would allow someone to get an abortion if they decide to. So this would be an issue where Paul's beliefs differ from a true Libertarian.

 

Same sex Marriage - I do not know Paul's position. Libertarians again are "hands off" so they would say if someone wants to have a same sex partnership, that is their choice. I am not sure how they reconcile enacting laws that extend to same sex partners the same rights as heterosexual partners.

 

As to the subject at hand - the Civil Rights dispute - I see Paul's position on pro-life as somewhat contradictory to his view on civil rights. On abortion, he says the government should over ride individual choice and enact laws against it completely versus on civil rights the government should only go to a certain level in any legislation against discrimination. I believe he would reconcile his positions by saying the taking of a human life any time after conception is a higher level offense than discriminating against someone so the government should get involved in protecting babies from abortion. That is the only way I can see him rationally validating his stance on both issues.

 

Finally, I think another part of the problem here is what some others have mentioned on BGP. Paul's evasive and unpolished answers to the civil rights question have made him look either unknowledgable on his position or very establishment, slick politician-like as he eluded answering the questions directly. It was (fittingly?) a very Sarah Palin like interview.

I

 

As to the subject at hand - the Civil Rights dispute - I see Paul's position on pro-life as somewhat contradictory to his view on civil rights. On abortion, he says the government should over ride individual choice and enact laws against it completely versus on civil rights the government should only go to a certain level in any legislation against discrimination. I believe he would reconcile his positions by saying the taking of a human life any time after conception is a higher level offense than discriminating against someone so the government should get involved in protecting babies from abortion. That is the only way I can see him rationally validating his stance on both issues.

 

.

 

That's why I asked about his stance on abortion. To be consistent, he would have to say the govt has no right to tell a woman what to do - just like he believes the govt has no right to tell a business owner who he has to accept as customers.

That's why I asked about his stance on abortion. To be consistent, he would have to say the govt has no right to tell a woman what to do - just like he believes the govt has no right to tell a business owner who he has to accept as customers.

The murder of innocents and a private business owner's decisions are very different subjects... For those on the pro-murder side if you agree with abortion, then to be "consistent" you would have to agree that a woman could murder any innocent she chooses...

The murder of innocents and a private business owner's decisions are very different subjects... For those on the pro-murder side if you agree with abortion, then to be "consistent" you would have to agree that a woman could murder any innocent she chooses...

 

Only to people that can't think about the actual point when they hear the word abortion.

The murder of innocents and a private business owner's decisions are very different subjects... For those on the pro-murder side if you agree with abortion, then to be "consistent" you would have to agree that a woman could murder any innocent she chooses...

 

I don't think abortion is murder.

That's why I asked about his stance on abortion. To be consistent, he would have to say the govt has no right to tell a woman what to do - just like he believes the govt has no right to tell a business owner who he has to accept as customers.

 

Add to that (1) he isn't in favor of legalizing pot or cocaine; and (2) would support federal drug laws. So, the federal gov't can tell you what to do despite what the voters in your state decide. But he's still torn on whether private individuals and businesses should be able to discriminate.

 

He is in favor of reducing spending, increasing the retirement age, and abolishing the Dept of Education. Oh, but he is against cuts to Medicare payments to physicians. Go figure.

I don't think abortion is murder.

And I don't think that whom a business owner decides to do business with no matter what color or sexual preference,etc. is racism... And again to be "consistent", If you think a woman has that right, then why can't the business owner decide what is best for his business??

Add to that (1) he isn't in favor of legalizing pot or cocaine; and (2) would support federal drug laws. So, the federal gov't can tell you what to do despite what the voters in your state decide. But he's still torn on whether private individuals and businesses should be able to discriminate.

 

He is in favor of reducing spending, increasing the retirement age, and abolishing the Dept of Education. Oh, but he is against cuts to Medicare payments to physicians. Go figure.

 

I think Rand Paul will be going through a thorough self evaluation over the summer. He is going to be challenged with many philosphical confrontrations as those you listed above. I will say it again - it was a mistake to not nominate Trey Grayson. Trey ran a terrible, terrible campaign. If he would have brought these issues and Paul's conflicted positions to the forefront during the primary, I think there is a good chance he could have won. It is the candidates job to bring his opponents beliefs to the voters and Grayson failed miserably at that.

It made it crystal clear. Regardless of how strong a candidate is if he/she is not pro-life they're not getting your vote.

Correct

That's why I asked about his stance on abortion. To be consistent, he would have to say the govt has no right to tell a woman what to do - just like he believes the govt has no right to tell a business owner who he has to accept as customers.

 

Really, gov't has no right to tell a woman what to do?

Can a 18 year old woman buy alcohol or beer in this state?

Can a woman shoot up drugs or snort cocaine into her body in this state?

Should EMT's/Police not stop a woman from committing suicide?

Can a woman prostitute her body?

Can a woman sell her organs to the highest bidder who might need a new kidney or liver?

 

That argument of govt not being able to tell a woman what to do with her body is the biggest load of crap because the govt does it every single day, all the time. THE ONLY TIME it is brought up is on this one issue.

Really, gov't has no right to tell a woman what to do?

Can a 18 year old woman buy alcohol or beer in this state?

Can a woman shoot up drugs or snort cocaine into her body in this state?

Should EMT's/Police not stop a woman from committing suicide?

Can a woman prostitute her body?

Can a woman sell her organs to the highest bidder who might need a new kidney or liver?

 

That argument of govt not being able to tell a woman what to do with her body is the biggest load of crap because the govt does it every single day, all the time. THE ONLY TIME it is brought up is on this one issue.

 

Your knee-jerk reaction to anything abortion related has caused you to lose focus.

 

None of what you list is specific to her being a woman.

I don't think abortion is murder.

 

Then, pray tell, what is it? Life begins at conception so if you take a life it is murder, period.