Posted on 04/10/2015 10:44:23 AM PDT by Citizen Zed
Republican senator Rand Paul walked out of a live interview with the Guardian on Friday, in the third testy exchange he has had with a journalist since launching his campaign for president three days ago.
Paul, who said during his campaign launch on Tuesday he would like to see “any law that disproportionately incarcerates people of color is repealed”, responded awkwardly when asked which specific piece of legislation he would repeal.
In a live broadcast via the smartphone app Periscope, Paul said he had “a host of bills” that would amend or repeal part of the statute.
Midway through his answer, he added: “Let me answer the question, you complain I don’t answer the question … I am giving you the specifics.”
Paul spoke about the various pieces of bipartisan legislation he has brought to reform the criminal justice system, but did not point to a specific criminal law that he would repeal.
In his final question, he was asked about research showing that white Republicans do not agree with his view that the criminal law is applied in an unequal fashion.
“I think your premise is incorrect,” he said. “Actually I think I can take that message into a white evangelical church anywhere in Iowa and give exactly the same speech and be received well.”
When the reporter attempted a follow-up remark quoting a Washington Post-ABC poll about Republican views on criminal justice, Paul walked off camera.
(Excerpt) Read more at theguardian.com ...
His brilliance always left me breathless...
I bet it did, almost as though you were both of one mind.
Why did he promote a pro-choice view on abortion?
Trying to match to tone of the rest of the thread.
Or are you as thin skinned as everyone is claiming Rand is?
They didn’t win because they were un-electable despite what GOP-e types wanted everyone to think.
Cruz and Rand are THE best candidates we’ve had on the GOP ticket since before Reagan.
In 2012, Newt Gingrich’s best moment was when he attacked the media.
Believe the lies. I know you will anyway.
Too bad Newt didn’t pull this...
Rand turned it around to suggest that Debbie Downer approves of infanticide.
So you post a 2 year old article of him trying to clarify this pro-choice interview?
Even as we have new ones, even from this week, after he announced?
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.
Expect avoiding answering questions to be a continuing theme with Rand. He knows he won’t fare well with the scrutiny.
You are like one of those little dolls that says the same annoying little catch phrases over and over.
I still think you may be a badly written shell script running a forum bot.
http://theweek.com/articles/549007/lessons-rand-pauls-prolife-victory
http://www.ontheissues.org/social/Rand_Paul_Abortion.htm
That last one there puts Paul to the Right of Bush, McCain, and Romney. Not to mention Christy and Trump.
And here’s what your friends in the Conservatives enemy camp are saying about Paul...
http://thinkprogress.org/health/2015/04/09/3644895/abortion-policy-restrictions/
Shows me he’s on the right track.
But I know... Still not good enough for you. It never will be because you are a troll.
I will never understand why politicians pander this crap. The problem in black communities is the break down of their families , engineered by the Left. Responsible members of their own communities are telling them that they are committing more crimes than other races and will continue to have more arrests until they get that under control.
I’d like Rand to explain specifically what laws he identifies as discriminatory.
Presstitute, “Sen. Paul... Have you stopped throwing lives kittens into industrial meat grinders?”
Rand, “Um... I’m not going to let you get away with asking such a stupid question...”
Yeah... “Avoidance”. Gotcha...
I have a question he hasn’t answered. What specific laws do you want repealed that you say are discriminatory.
I’m waiting for an answer to that one too.
You seem confused, post 109 was a transcript of an interview asking him about his abortion position, and it came out as pro-choice.
A pro-choice position that he has restated in different ways since, including this week.
From Breitbart:
When Hannity asked him to clarify if he meant that he believes that life begins at conception, Paul answered, “I do truly believe that, but I also understand that there can be a range of opinions, and that to make life better, and to protect more life, I’m willing to go for all kinds of ‘in between’ solutions.
This week it was this:
“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.”
Well, okay, if your intent actually was to vomit out foreign Communist lies and talking points, then that's all good for you.
Maybe you should change your handle to "Foreign Communist," though.
He seemed prepared to me. Is your definition of being “prepared” to just be prepared to roll over for a bunch of lying Communist foreigners? No thanks.
That's what I get for believing the MSM: Guardian Caught Lying About Rand Paul Walking Out of Interview
Paul has a nasty temper.
Like John McCain.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.