Rudy isn't performing abortions. He didn't make the law. He has said he'd appoint Justices that could overturn Roe. He has stated he hates abortion, would counsel against it and encourages adoption. You don't want a president, you want a dictator.
He had no problem defying federal law that required employers to cooperate with the INS about illegals. He sued all the way to the SCOTUS over this...and after losing, he defied the law anyway!
He has said he'd appoint Justices that could overturn Roe.
He thinks taxpayer-funded abortion for women is a Constitutional right, he has no problem calling for national gun control, and his record of appointing judges is abysmal...and yet you trust him when he says he'll appoint "strict constructionists?"
He has stated he hates abortion,
So does every other person who says they're "Pro-Choice."
would counsel against it and encourages adoption.
And yet he would have no problem paying for his grandaughter to have an abortion.
You don't want a president, you want a dictator.
If all of the current GOP candidates had gone to the same high school, Rudy would've been voted "Most Likely to Act like a Dictator." At least, compared to the rest of the Republicans running for President.
How many times do we have to point out that your talking point here is no longer valid?
Rudy has said a strict constructionist could uphold Roe. His words, not mine.
So you are being dishonest yet again in trying to spin a claim that Rudy's own words have undone.
Neither his Hillary, or John Kerry, or even Margeret Sanger (who Rudy praised as a great person).
He didn't make the law.
But he said he believes women SHOULD have the right to choose, and that Roe was a good law.
He has said he'd appoint Justices that could overturn Roe.
No, he did not. He's not said his judges would overturn Roe, he said he'd appoint "strict constructionists", which most people assume means people would would throw out Roe. But later when pressed to be honest, he had to admit that in HIS mind a strict constructionist could uphold Roe, which I think reveals the kind of "strict constructionist" he would be appointing. Makes sense because before he was running for President and trying to win the votes of the evangelicals he called Ruth Ginsberg the kind of judge he'd appoint. Then he dropped that, but now that his polls are up and he thinks he doesn't need the evangelicals (or that he has neutralised them) he's back to his old talk.
He has stated he hates abortion
Hillary says she hates abortion and wants them safe, legal, and rare. So does Planned Parenthood and NARAL, but not enough to not take millions of dollars for killing babies.
would counsel against it
What does that mean? He's going to set up a counselling center in the Oval Office? When did he ONCE as mayor give a speech telling women NOT to have abortions? Why didn't he even say one sentence about abortion being wrong when he spoke at NARAL praising them for their work keeping abortion legal? Why would he counsel against it if he doesn't think it's murder (and if he DOES think it's murder, how does a law-and-order candidate condone legalizing murder?)
and encourages adoption.
Along with 99.9% of the people living in the United States? He probably even encourages adoption by gay singles and couples.
You don't want a president, you want a dictator.
If I wanted a dictator, I'd be more favorably inclined to vote for Rudy Giuliani, who has shown streaks of dictatorial rule as Mayor. For example, he kicked Arafat out of a public building, calling it "his" building. When his police force was under attack, he leaked confidential information about a victim of a police assault to try to discredit him, in order to protect "his" administration. His actions were often capricious and self-centered. When Time magazine gave the police chief the credit deserved for taking a bite out of crime, Rudy fired him.
Heck, his finest hours as mayor have been when crisis has allowed him to operate under "martial law", such as on 9/11 when he was able to "dictate" to everybody what to do. Of course, eventually the rest of us got back to democracy, while Rudy tried to claim a 3-month "extension" of his mayorship.
Rudy thinks that liberty is giving in to authority. Rudy is an authoritarian. It worked well as Mayor because I guess NYCity needed a father-figure, a dictator, to get things turned around, assuming you believe he turned things around.
So, was he lying in his previous statements - or is he lying now?