At 66% the pro-dope, cheap sex, pro abortion, let it all hang out, wacky left has never done better than they did among under 30s, as they did in 2008.
“There’s no law against it” is the easiest rationalization of the amoral and immoral.
However, the minority libs in a rogue SCOTUS in the 70's hijacked the abortion issue making an end run around the Constitution and the majority of the American people.
I don't agree that there's nothing we can do about this slaughter of the innocents.
1) The next POTUS MUST put in Justices and judges who mean what they say in tier oath of office to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution and overturn unconstitutional precedent including the legal heresy of Roe v. Wade
2) The next POTUS should also use the "bully pulpit" to tell the states to nullify federal ruling and law in favor of abortion and ban abortion state by state. Calls for impeachment would rise but would br lost I think because most still believe abortion is murder and is wrong. Either way, the risk of impeachment is worth stopping or significantly slowing the slaughter of 50 million plus unborn babies.
I don’t think this will be well received by the folks who wanted him to legalize heroin.
Given my tag, I think you can figure out that I at least was a Ron Paul supporter until recently. I do not know if I am or not right now, but I can tell you I am not one of those radical libertarian nutjobs or the cultists that follow Ron Paul no matter what he says or does.
As an unswerving supporter for nearly four years, until recently (his book did made go like “huh?” on a lot of things) that Ron Paul is mixed bag. Sometimes, as a social conservative, going like “YEAH!!!!” and other times you are like “What were you thinking?” He says this now, but six months ago he voted to repeal DADT. He says abortion equals murder and that allowing murder is a violation of the provision to maintain a republican form of government in the Constitution, but he refuses to take the next logical step that abortion is no longer a tenth amendment issue. He also says that marriage be allowed to be defined by each couple entering into a contract. Imagine the consequences of such a notion...
I think the problem is that he has been infected by radical libertarianism. I think, at heart, there is a conservative in there, and it comes out on these occasions. However, in order to avoid base in his base of LewRockwell.com fiends and his extremely close personal association with Lew Rockwell (he recommended that LewRockwell.com be read by Liberty Defined readers) he can say the most stupid, radical, inane comments at times. The whole speech referenced was great, but I just don’t think I can continue to support him when he can be so comprising with the radical libertarianism, to the point I think he might be one of them. Either he needs to come out and publicly denounce the anarchist/radical wing of his base, and express his profound patriotism, or else he needs to come out and identify himself as one of them.
In any event, I think his association with Lew Rockwell, his promoting of their ideas, and his inconsistent stands on social issues show a lack of judgment. I could go on about all the nonsense that goes on in the Paul campaign that I know about, but that is irrelevant to the core issues here.
Traditional Judeo/Christian morality and worldview are under attack daily using tax money under the banner of 'education' and 'information'.
The United States historically had laws which worked to preserve our law and our culture against the cesspool of the left, until leftwing activist judges (many times appointed by Republicans) reinvented the Constitution by ignoring all history and precedent.
The attack is from the left, not the right.