Chris Christie, Rand Paul Not Invited to Address NRA Forum in Nashville

he is telling us what his true politics are

He sure is, by voting 100% Conservative.

Do you think he is opposed here because he is too conservative?

I could care less what the spiral eyed holier than thou purity brigade here on FR thinks or why.

So you don’t care that he calls to reduce the size of the military, and doesn’t help fight gay marriage and has switched to pro-choice and has come out against social conservatism?

In that case, of course you are a Paul supporter.

It is rino/libertarian politics, but I know that we have some of you here.

In that case, of course you are a Paul supporter.

You have a bad habit of using straw men and trying to put words into people mouths. I'm a Cruz supporter, until I have reason not to be. But I don't see any reason to tear down a solid conservative with a well earned 100% ACU rating.

I'll let Rand Paul speak for himself in the coming months.

It is easy to take someone for a supporter of a candidate that they so passionately fight for.

Do you think that Rand Paul is pro-life when he describes himself pro-life “in general”?
“The thing is about abortion—and about a lot of things—is that I think people get tied up in all these details of, sort of, you’re this or this or that, or you’re hard and fast (on) one thing or the other,” Paul told Elliott. “I’ve supported both bills with and without (exceptions), you know. In general, I am pro-life. ?

Rand reminds me so much of Mitt Romney, he can “evolve” instantly and frequently.

CNN:
BLITZER: So, just to be precise, if you believe life begins at conception, which I suspect you do believe that, you would have no exceptions for rape, incest, the life of the mother, is that right?

PAUL: Well, I think that once again puts things in too small of a box. What I would say is that there are thousands of exceptions. You know, I’m a physician and every individual case is going to be different, and everything is going to be particular to that individual case and what’s going on with that mother and the medical circumstances of that mother.

I would say that after birth, you know, we’ve decided that when life begins, we have decided that we don’t have exceptions for one- day-old or six-month-olds. We don’t ask where they came from or how they came into being, but it is more complicated because the rest of it depends on the definition of when life comes in. So, I don’t think it’s a simple as checking box and saying exceptions or no exceptions.

And there are a lot of decisions that are made privately by families and their doctors that really won’t — the law won’t apply to, but I think it’s important that we not be flippant one way or the other and pigeon hole and say, oh, this person doesn’t believe in any sort of discussion between family. And so, I don’t know if there’s a simple way to put me in a category on any of that.

BLITZER: Well, it sounds like you believe in some exceptions.

PAUL: Well, there’s going to be, like I say, thousands of extraneous situations where the life of the mother is involved and other things that are involved.

So, I would say that each individual case would have to be addressed and even if there were eventually a change in the law, let’s say, the people came more to my way of thinking, it’s still be a lot of complicated things that the law may not ultimately be able to address in the early stages of pregnancy that would have to be part of what occurs between the physician and the woman and the family.