Dr. RON Paul's life at conception act

[itshappening]

They are going to call him fringe. So the question is if he can get out an attractive picture of who he is through the noise. If he can't they can define him, as they did Ron, to many who don't question media.

So its no use worrying about giving them ammunition, they make it up if they want it. They knew the truth of the newletters. They didn't care.

We know they're already going to do it and smear him with the CRA and wanting to legalize heroin, we don't need to give them a personhood bill to grandstand about and go to town on with the whole war on women thing.

 

[sailingaway]

We know they're already going to do it and smear him with the CRA and wanting to legalize heroin, we don't need to give them a personhood bill to grandstand about and go to town on with the whole war on women thing.

The war on women thing is drivel. I bet not a soul changed their vote over that. There are things people vote on and things people give as excuses, and that is one of the latter.

 

[Christian Liberty]

Romney and McCain became their parties nominee so they succeeded. They lost to Obama not because they flip flopped on issues which they used to win the primary with or whatever it was simply because Obama was a better campaigner who promised more goodies and was a more appealing candidate than them two idiots. McCain promised to bomb Iran and Romney made stupid comments about 47% of the nation.

I hated Romney even more than I hated Obama (Not by much, but I thought Obama was very marginally the lesser of two evils precisely because I think he would be less likely [Note: Does not mean "Unlikely] to invade or bomb Iran). However, I don't see what was wrong with Romney's 47% comment. All Romney said was that 47% of the country would vote for Obama no matter what. Which was true. So?

 

[itshappening]

There is polling of an extremely unlikely hypothetical and then there is reality. The reality is Ron would've been hammered on the issue by the media and his approval ratings would have suffered greatly.

Your claim that the pro-choice crowd doesn't really care about their beliefs runs directly counter to the results of the last election. The ridiculous "War on Women" narrative was extremely successful for the Dem-Op media. Nearly every women I talked to (and most left-of-center males) was taken in by it hook line and sinker. And all they had to go on was some uncouth statements from fringe candidates. Imagine how hard the push will be when the actual GOP nominee calls for a national ban.

Yeah and they'll start probing Rand... what if the woman's raped? RAPED? what if her life is in danger? does this mean every abortion clinic in America is going to have to close if you're elected president?

He will not be able to dodge this in a general, maybe in the primary but not if he's the nominee. They will hammer him on it for months on end.

 

[Christian Liberty]

We know they're already going to do it and smear him with the CRA and wanting to legalize heroin, we don't need to give them a personhood bill to grandstand about and go to town on with the whole war on women thing.

Even Ron only sort-of actually said this. I'm almost certain Rand never actually said this.

 

[sailingaway]

There is polling of an extremely unlikely hypothetical and then there is reality. The reality is Ron would've been hammered on the issue by the media and his approval ratings would have suffered greatly.

Your claim that the pro-choice crowd doesn't really care about their beliefs runs directly counter to the results of the last election. The ridiculous "War on Women" narrative was extremely successful for the Dem-Op media. Nearly every women I talked to (and most left-of-center males) was taken in by it hook line and sinker. And all they had to go on was some uncouth statements from fringe candidates. Imagine how hard the push will be when the actual GOP nominee calls for a national ban.

I completely disagree with you. Romney lost us, lost grass roots, and lost the election. He wasn't electable to begin with because he is a squish when conservatives wanted direction. The establishment just can't stand that meme.

 

[GregSarnowski]

The war on women thing is drivel. I bet not a soul changed their vote over that. There are things people vote on and things people give as excuses, and that is one of the latter.

People vote on emotion and the War on Women thing played right into that. It was an extremely successful tactic. Otherwise rational and intelligent women I talked to were up in arms about the fake threat to their gender. Imagine how bad the push back will be when the threat is actually real.

 

[Brett85]

You underestimate the power of CBS, ABC, NBC to define the narrative in a campaign. They do it every 4 years like clockwork and when they're finished with Rand will make him look absolutely crazy.

They would do that even without this bill. They would do that with the Civil Rights Act, End the Fed, his statement (joke) before he ever ran for office that the entire federal government should be abolished, etc. A federal ban on abortion might seem more mainstream to people than some of the other stuff they'll hit Rand with.

 

[Carlybee]

Yeah, the Rick Santorum who wants to legalize drugs and get the government out of marriage. But I guess people will just ignore those issues and focus solely on the abortion issue, since apparently that's the most important issue to people.

They will cherry pick just like they did with his dad.

 

[jmdrake]

I completely disagree with you. Romney lost us, lost grass roots, and lost the election. He wasn't electable to begin with because he is a squish when conservatives wanted direction. The establishment just can't stand that meme.

Exactly! Romney flip flpped on abortion. HE LOST THE ELECTION!

It seems after a little bit of success we are becoming the lemmings we criticized.



Anybody who went against Romney based on some "war on women" nonsense coming from non-presidential GOP candidates will not vote for Rand no matter what.

 

[GregSarnowski]

I completely disagree with you. Romney lost us, lost grass roots, and lost the election. He wasn't electable to begin with because he is a squish when conservatives wanted direction. The establishment just can't stand that meme.

Nothing says it can't be both. Romney lost people to his right because he's not a conservative, sure. But he also lost a lot of independents who bought into the narrative that he was somehow anti-female/minority. Independents bought into this narrative despite there being little to no evidence of it. The strategy will be 10x more effective if the media can show that the GOP nominee is an ACTUAL threat.

 

[jmdrake]

People vote on emotion and the War on Women thing played right into that. It was an extremely successful tactic. Otherwise rational and intelligent women I talked to were up in arms about the fake threat to their gender. Imagine how bad the push back will be when the threat is actually real.

A) I bet you a dime to a dollar they were already planning on voting for Obama. I know it's hard to fathom, but there are otherwise "rational" people who are still into hopey changey.

B) If you think there won't be a way to push the "war on women" meme in 2016 no matter what Rand does, you're kidding yourself. That's especially true since he voted against VAWA. Trying to shore up votes of people who aren't going to vote for him anyway by going against principle is not a winning strategy no matter what you say.

 

[TheGrinch]

Great, another thread of TC, itshappening and sock puppets trying to feed the wedge issue. This is not that huge of a deal, but be ready for the attacks from the left.

 

[Brett85]

Nothing says it can't be both. Romney lost people to his right because he's not a conservative, sure. But he also lost a lot of independents who bought into the narrative that he was somehow anti-female/minority. Independents bought into this narrative despite there being little to no evidence of it. The strategy will be 10x more effective if the media can show that the GOP nominee is an ACTUAL threat.

I'm just going to give up on politics if it's impossible to elect a President who opposes abortion and actually wants to do something about it. I don't want to win elections if we have to give up on trying to save the lives of innocent human beings.

 

[Brett85]

Great, another thread of TC, itshappening and sock puppets trying to feed the wedge issue. This is not that huge of a deal, but be ready for the attacks from the left.

It's not a wedge issue, it's a critical issue for those who believe in defending life, liberty, and property. I'm going to continue standing up for what I believe in regardless of how much you try to bully me around.

 

[itshappening]

A) I bet you a dime to a dollar they were already planning on voting for Obama. I know it's hard to fathom, but there are otherwise "rational" people who are still into hopey changey.

B) If you think there won't be a way to push the "war on women" meme in 2016 no matter what Rand does, you're kidding yourself. That's especially true since he voted against VAWA. Trying to shore up votes of people who aren't going to vote for him anyway by going against principle is not a winning strategy no matter what you say.

A vote against that unconstitutional joke called VAWA is easier to explain than a personhood bill BANNING abortions from California to New York. The media will go nuts as most of them are liberals from blue states anyway and are 90% Democrat. They don't need an excuse to start the war on women thing. The last thing they want to talk about is the economy. Give them a personhood bill and it's all we'll hear for months on end... and they will hammer Rand until his approval ratings are below water. Then what? President Clinton or Cuomo.

Good job, jmdrake.

I know you feel strongly about this issue but you dont understand how badly this will play and how costly it will be that's why if Rand is the nominee you will see him flip flop six ways until Sunday at the behest of his professional campaign people and GOP handlers.

 

[itshappening]

I'm just going to give up on politics if it's impossible to elect a President who opposes abortion and actually wants to do something about it. I don't want to win elections if we have to give up on trying to save the lives of innocent human beings.

The only thing you can do is try and push for a "leave it to the states" policy so red states who want to ban it can set a moral example to the nation.

That's all that will ever happen on abortion in our life time if anything at all.

Congress will not vote to restrict abortion even if every member was GOP and ran on it. They just wont do it. They didnt in 2001-2006 when they controlled everything and that's unlikely to happen again for a long time

 

[TheGrinch]

It's not a wedge issue, it's a critical issue for those who believe in defending life, liberty, and property. I'm going to continue standing up for what I believe in regardless of how much you try to bully me around.

Sure thing Mr. drama queen. The point is not yours or Ron or Rand's stance, it's your "you're either with us or the terrorists" schtick to those who disagree, as itshappening pushes "the sky is falling". You know good and well we're not all going to agree on this, just the opposite, but both of you in particular are only feeding the flames of division. Just stop already.

 

[itshappening]

If Hillary Clinton can flip on Gay marriage you can bet your bottom dollar Rand can flip on abortion and quietly drop his personhood bill if he succeeds at getting the nomination.

Flip flops are not new or uncommon.

 

[Christian Liberty]

Great, another thread of TC, itshappening and sock puppets trying to feed the wedge issue. This is not that huge of a deal, but be ready for the attacks from the left.

I'm definitely not a sock puppet... lol...

I'm just going to give up on politics if it's impossible to elect a President who opposes abortion and actually wants to do something about it. I don't want to win elections if we have to give up on trying to save the lives of innocent human beings.

Its impossible... Rand might try but he's got little to no support. The mass murderers in the GOP NEED the abortion issue to be debated forever, its the only way that actually decent pro-lifers continue to vote for them. Ron and Rand are different in that they genuinely oppose mass murder. So they actually do care about abortion. But the rest of the GOP does not...

A vote against that unconstitutional joke called VAWA is easier to explain than a personhood bill BANNING abortions from California to New York. The media will go nuts as most of them are liberals from blue states anyway and are 90% Democrat. They don't need an excuse to start the war on women thing. The last thing they want to talk about is the economy. Give them a personhood bill and it's all we'll hear for months on end... and they will hammer Rand until his approval ratings are below water. Then what? President Clinton or Cuomo.

Good job, jmdrake.

I know you feel strongly about this issue but you dont understand how badly this will play and how costly it will be that's why if Rand is the nominee you will see him flip flop six ways until Sunday at the behest of his professional campaign people and GOP handlers.

Seriously, the left cares, and would never vote for Rand anyway. I don't think that the center cares...