Yes. It shows that he's not willing to sacrifice his principle of everyone's right to choose, just so that he can enforce his understanding of when 'life' begins..
? How does advocating that states all make all abortion illegal, rather than advocating that the federal government make all abortion illegal, amount to any kind of difference in that regard? Both the states and the federal government make laws through democratic means, right? So how is it that a federal ban is "enforcing one's will" but 50 state bans are somehow in some coercion-free zone of free will? This dichotomy doesn't map onto reality in any sensible way.
If Paul truly supports everyone's individual right to choose, then he should be, by definition, vehemently pro-choice. If abortion is totally legal everywhere, then nobody has anyone else's views forced on them - those who view it as murder are free to not get an abortion, and those who don't, are.
In fact, what Paul favors is having government - state or otherwise - make all abortion illegal, and so enforce the viewpoint that life begins at conception onto everyone.
He would allow any state to legalize abortion as they fit, however distasteful it may be to him.
States already have a certain leeway in that regard, I'd note.
But his approach to federalism doesn't cancel out his policy preference, which is that all 50 states make abortion illegal, of their own accords. That's the outcome he sees as ideal, no?
And let me rephrase your wording to something more correct: Specifically, he'd like the states to make their own choice about abortion.
And more specifically, he'd like the states to choose to make all abortion illegal. Right?
President's can't dictate to the State to make laws according to their liking.
That's correct. So why do you keep addressing this strawman that Paul is somehow distinguished by not wanting to do something that no President can do in the first place?
Not everyone is like you who wants to forcefully put on their belief on someone
I'm not the one who insists that life begins at conception, and that anyone who terminates a pregnancy at any point is, consequently, a murderer.
Again fucking stop the accusation, no one is asking to bring back segregation,
You have openly advocated bringing back segregation, repeatedly and energetically. I don't care that you don't want to be called on that. I'm not going to refrain from citing your policy preference in that regard, until you actually change it.
BUT Ron Paul has NOT said he would amend the CRA NOW. I said he would have THEN BUT NOT NOW. Read that again: NO CHANGES TO CRA NOW! NO PLAN ON AMENDING OR REPEALING IT. He was asked about what he would have done THEN, he'd have protected freedom of choice, but if you ask him about NOW, he says HE WOULDN'T DO ANYTHING because IT IS A SETTLED DEBATE that people think it should be part of our law. So HE HAS NO PROPOSAL TO CHANGE THAT.
So the fact that he's politician enough to recognize when one of his positions is a non-starter, and make the tactical decision not to pursue it energetically, is supposed to imply... what? That he's given up his actual position out of craven politics? I'm not seeing where this line of argument makes Paul come out any better.
Like I said, HE DOESN'T like to ENFORCE HIS VIEWS on YOU THROUGH FEDERAL FORCE.
The fact that the votes for exercising such force do not exist, doesn't not imply that Paul wouldn't like to use the federal government to enforce his views on everyone. It just means that he's unable to, because the federal government is a democractic one, and not enough people will support his ideas.
Get THAT through your HEAD. CRA will NOT CHANGE.
The reason the CRA will not change, is because the vast majority of Americans are happy with it. And not because Ron Paul wouldn't love to change it if he could. He's said exactly that. That he recognizes that he won't be able to change it - because the rest of us will prevent that - does not say what you seem to think it says about Paul.
Everyone knows that no one would support such a change, and NEITHER IS HE PROPOSING to change it.
The
only reason he doesn't propose such a change, is exactly that nobody (other than followers like yourself) would stand for such a proposal. Meanwhile, he's got his legions of internet minions working round the clock to convince everyone that they should support such a change. Like you are here. And somehow, we're supposed to ignore all of that, for the reason that the effort has, so far, been unsuccessful? Yeah, that's real compelling.
You'd rather spend talking about policies that won't change than what he'd actually try to do as President to fix current problems.
You asked why white supremacists like Paul - I told you. If you'd been content to simply accept the answer, this diversion wouldn't have taken up so much page space. That you were not so content, is no measurement of my priorities.
Secondly go fucking read his positions. In fact he is not against the morning after pill.
The fact that Paul's positions are alternatingly strongly categorical, and then vague and wishy-washy on details, is again not the sort of thing that speaks well for him. "Life begins at conception... so abortion is murder... except when it isn't! THE LOGIC IS CLEAR!"
I think the problem you are having is that this the first time you have come across a politician who doesn't want to enforce his beliefs on people,
The problem we are having, is that you are foolhardy and naive enough to imagine that there is such a thing as a politician who doesn't want to enforce his beliefs on people, and so you go around demanding these absurd double-standards be applied to analysis of Paul.
Do you see the very meaning of less federal regulations? That is HE DOESN'T WANT TO IMPOSE HIS VIEWS ON YOU!
Unless his view happens to be that whatever behavior is restrained by said federal regulations should be imposed on people. Like how he'd like to resurrect segregation, if he could get enough idiots to vote in favor of such.
Active federal interference is not the only way that political views can be imposed on people. The canard that it is, is just a cheap trick that politicians use to rally libertarians to support their efforts to force political views onto others, all while running an inane smokescreen of "individual freedom."
You propose resurrecting segregation, and considering first-term abortion as tantamount to murder. Those are both programs that involve heavy use of government power to force your views onto everyone (even if the one would involve getting rid of federal regulations).
I wonder if you could be tried for libel for deliberately construing his positions.
I'd love to see that lawsuit, frankly.
Doesn't matter WHAT he believes, so long as he doesn't enforce it through Federal Regulations
WHAT a candidate believes, turns out to be a very good guide to what sorts of things they'd pursue if empowered. The fact that the USA is a democracy, and that certain of Paul's positions are so extremely unpopular that no President could possibly impose them unilaterally, isn't an excuse for Paul. It's something the electorate is to be commended for.
YOU HAVE the option of legislating your views within your state. He might 'want' State's to ban abortion, BUT that is NOT what will happen. He is running for the Presidency, and the President has NO CONTROL over the State legislature.
The President doesn't have control over the federal legislature either. The fact that, if elected President, he wouldn't unilaterally create a bunch of wildly unpopular federal legislation, says nothing relevant about Paul. All that says, is that he wouldn't attempt a coup that would dissolve Congress and elevate the President to dictator.
But Ron Paul happens to be a member of the federal legislature
right now. He is actually in the business of making federal laws that are imposed onto the states. He gets paid by the taxpayers to do this.
And how do you not see the difference: If he imposed his view on abortion through Federal Government. Abortion WOULD BE ILLEGAL IN USA. But since he won't.
You mean he
can't. He's said that he'd like to do that, but doesn't have the political support.
There is a very high chance (especially in heavily Democratic states) that ABORTION WOULD BE LEGAL.
Only because his preferred policies are as unpopular in that context as they are in the federal context. The fact that Ron Paul doesn't plan to make himself dictator and impose sweeping changes at the federal level does not distinguish or excuse him. No candidate plans to do that.
Yes there is a HUGE difference. Go fucking check how many states vote Democrat, all those states could potentially legalize abortion! If Federal government makes it illegal none of them can! Yes there is a HUGE FUCKING DIFFERENCE!
And the federal government can't make abortion illegal - even if Ron Paul wants them to, and gets elected - exactly because all those blue states wouldn't support it. Your argument goes in a circle, and demonstrates nothing.
There is a HUGE difference between FORCING your views on the whole country than LETTING THEM CHOOSE by their local State governments.
Sure, but that difference is not relevant to anything, unless someone is proposing to make themselves a federal dictator. The federal government is just as much a democracy as any state government. The exact reason that Ron Paul has given up on pursuing such measures, is exactly that the people have already chosen - at the federal level - to do otherwise. There is no scenario in which he gets elected, and is somehow in a position to decide whether he's going to "let" people choose - the people choose whether they're going to let Ron Paul do anything, not the other way aruond.
I want you to keep reading those words. He doesn't want to enforce his morals on you. So he lets you make your own moral choices. This is WHY he doesn't want Federal Regulations..
The canard of equating "federal regulations" with "force" is just that - one can very easily force morals onto people by
removing federal regulations. Scrapping provisions of the Civil Rights Act would be a means of forcing racism onto minorities, for example.
And like I argued the question 'when life begins' is a totally subjective question, and no on should enforce his views on the other by force.
So you agree that the federal government should require that any and all abortion (right up to the moment of birth) must be legal in all states? Because otherwise, anyone who believes that life doesn't begin until birth, is having someone else's view forced onto them by the state.
And yet, that is not an outcome that Ron Paul would endorse.
If it's my subjective belief that everyone other than me is a soulless robot, and that there is no moral downside to me torturing and killing anyone, then is it immoral to enforce the view that such is wrong onto me, by arresting and imprisoning me?
Like talking about CRA when he won't even touch it.
Can't touch it, exactly because people like me steadfastly resist his bullshit, you mean. If we all went along with your way of thinking, there'd be no obstacle to Paul scrapping the CRA, and so he'd do it forthwith.
Excuse the language but I think its because I haven't slept yet and its 5 in the morning and I don't feel like correcting it.
You're going to have to actually apologize first, if you expect me to forgive all the open, vulgar insults. Excuses about how you're too lazy to bother actually addressing your offenses just compound them.
