Abortion And The Day Donald Trump Ran Away From Honesty As If His Hair Were On Fire

[jillian]

Abortion And The Day Donald Trump Ran Away From Honesty
As If His Hair Were On Fire​

Let me start out with saying I consider Trump to be a political insider, as well as a celebrity. For over a few decades now, Donald Trump has publicly toyed with running for US President. He admits he himself is part of the corruption of our politics, by people with loads of money. Back in December of 2015 I wrote that "While Republicans and their allies, as well as their supporters in the media, continue to use the dog whistle of GOP politics, Donald John Trump, Sr., has bravely stepped forward and spoken out loud what others have merely suggested." I wrote Trump was "speaking to the thoughts people usually keep hidden." I added "and with good cause." I believe abortion has become one of those issues, where with good reason, people keep their true thoughts hidden, even from themselves. Enter the tongue-in-cheek, profile in courage: Donald J Trump.

During a public, town hall type of interview hosted by MSNBC, and conducted by Chris Matthews, a woman in the audience asked Donald J Trump, candidate for US President "What is your stance on women’s rights and their right to choose in their own reproductive health?" Donald Trump answered "I’m pro-life...with exceptions, with the three exceptions." Matthews then asked "What should the law be on abortion?" and Trump answered "Nobody knows what the law’s going to be." Fair enough. Donald Trump is pro-life (or anti-abortion/anti-women's rights), and none of us knows what any future laws governing abortion will look like.

After Matthews said "If you say abortion is a crime or abortion is murder, you have to deal with it under law. Should abortion be punished? This is not something you can dodge." Hell seemed to open up, and Donald Trump answered honestly with what I say many people on his side of the issue believe, yet haven't the moral courage to admit: there has to be some form of punishment for the woman involved. Since speaking the thoughts people usually keep hidden, Donald Trump and his supporters have been spinning so fast they should be offered entry into the, International Union of Whirling Dervishes.

The defense of Trump is that on March 30, almost immediately after the interview, Trump's handlers (the ones he's not supposed to have), put onto Trump's website: If Congress were to pass legislation making abortion illegal and the federal courts upheld this legislation, or any state were permitted to ban abortion under state and federal law, the doctor or any other person performing this illegal act upon a woman would be held legally responsible, not the woman. The woman is a victim in this case as is the life in her womb. My position has not changed - like Ronald Reagan, I am pro-life with exceptions. - Sweet, hiding behind the thin veil of Ronald Reagan.

Make no mistake about it. None of this is a "rookie" mistake. Not the statements Trump made, and not the tired, old, Reaganesque tactic of handlers coming out, and saying the candidate meant to say something different than from what they said. Reagan once said "All the waste in a year from a nuclear power plant can be stored under a desk." and I believe his handlers came out and told everyone Reagan did not say that, because he meant something else. One of Trump's on line defenders actually wrote that Trump's rookie mistake "was applying common sense to a question where he did not know the normal legal answer. Which is that women do NOT get punished. When informed of this he adjusted his position accordingly."

How has Trump gone from one who "bravely stepped forward and spoken out loud what others have merely suggested." to being exposed as another garden variety, politician caught in the headlights, like the proverbial deer? I don't know, maybe it was there all along, but this time his crass ambition slithered out into the limelight for even his most staunch defenders to see. Forget about what spin Trump's handlers put out on his web site. Just go to the transcript. And please, somebody call the fire dept. That burning hair has got to contain hazardous chemicals, or toxic substances.

to be continued

Martin Eden "Mem" Mercury

an invite for you to e-mail me at [email protected]

it doesn't take bravery to spout bigotry for people.

and it doesn't take bravery for a carnival barker to suddenly be anti-choice when he wanted his own girlfriend to have an abortion.

 

[jillian]

Geesh.........here we go again.

Mathews is a Liberal Hack...........who pushed a Hypothetical question of IF IT WERE BANNED should there be a punishment................

I don't know about you, but usually BANNING something usually has consequences, which is what Trump was trying to say. He refused to give an answer because he realized he walked into Mathews little BS trap................

Mathews badgered him during the whole exchange hardly ever letting Trump get a word in at all..........He had just been asked the question by the audience which BY NO MEANS was the one Mathews pushed forward.

The law is clear.............States have the right to ban late term abortion. The argument for States to ban was accepted by the Supreme Court...........at least 41 states currently have late term abortion bans.............which would make it illegal for doctors to perform the abortion.

The entire question is WHEN DOES LIFE BEGIN...........or WHEN IS BABY VIABLE..............In the 3rd trimester babies have a high survival rate and are fully formed in most cases.............so States across this country have passed laws to that time frame when the babies have higher survival rates.................

That is the law.

The question from Mathews was a set up HACK question as is the OP here doing the same.

no one is talking about late term abortion (although it's done to save women's lives or have her avoid giving birth to a severely damaged child)

but thanks for playing.

 

[Martin Eden Mercury]

Geesh.........here we go again.

Mathews is a Liberal Hack...........who pushed a Hypothetical question of IF IT WERE BANNED should there be a punishment................

I don't know about you, but usually BANNING something usually has consequences, which is what Trump was trying to say. He refused to give an answer because he realized he walked into Mathews little BS trap................

Mathews badgered him during the whole exchange hardly ever letting Trump get a word in at all..........He had just been asked the question by the audience which BY NO MEANS was the one Mathews pushed forward.

-------------------

The question from Mathews was a set up HACK question as is the OP here doing the same.

TRUMP WAS ASKED WHAT HE THOUGHT THE LAW ON ABORTION SHOULD BE

Really? Chris Matthews set Trump up?
Play the tape (transcript):

During the town meeting, a young woman from the audience asked Trump a question.

QUESTION: Hello. I am (inaudible) and have a question on, what is your stance on women's rights and their rights to choose in their own reproductive health?

TRUMP: OK, well look, I mean, as you know, I'm pro-life. Right, I think you know that, and I -- with exceptions, with the three exceptions. But pretty much, that's my stance. Is that OK? You understand?

MATTHEWS: What should the law be on abortion?

TRUMP: Well, I have been pro-life.

MATTHEWS: I know, what should the law -- I know your principle, that's a good value. But what should be the law?

---- TRUMP starts jabbering about Judges, Scalia, the Court -----

MATTHEWS: I know. I never understood the pro-life position.

TRUMP: Well, a lot of people do understand.

MATTHEWS: I never understood it. Because I understand the principle, it's human life as people see it.

TRUMP: Which it is.

MATTHEWS: But what crime is it?

TRUMP: Well, it's human life.

MATTHEWS: No, should the woman be punished for having an abortion?

TRUMP: Look...

MATTHEWS: This is not something you can dodge.

TRUMP: It's a -- no, no...

MATTHEWS: If you say abortion is a crime or abortion is murder, you have to deal with it under law. Should abortion be punished?

TRUMP: Well, people in certain parts of the Republican Party and Conservative Republicans would say, "yes, they should be punished."

MATTHEWS: How about you?

TRUMP: I would say that it's a very serious problem. And it's a problem that we have to decide on. It's very hard.

MATTHEWS: But you're for banning it?

TRUMP: I'm going to say -- well, wait. Are you going to say, put them in jail? Are you -- is that the (inaudible) you're talking about?

MATTHEWS: Well, no, I'm asking you because you say you want to ban it. What does that mean?

TRUMP: I would -- I am against -- I am pro-life, yes.

MATTHEWS: What is ban -- how do you ban abortion? How do you actually do it?

TRUMP: Well, you know, you will go back to a position like they had where people will perhaps go to illegal places.

MATTHEWS: Yes?

TRUMP: But you have to ban it.

---- TRUMP starts asking the interviewer about his own religious faith -----


MATTHEWS: Do you believe in punishment for abortion, yes or no as a principle?

TRUMP: The answer is that there has to be some form of punishment.

MATTHEWS: For the woman?

TRUMP: Yes, there has to be some form.

MATTHEWS: Ten cents? Ten years? What?

TRUMP: Let me just tell you -- I don't know. That I don't know. That I don't know.

MATTHEWS: Why not?

TRUMP: I don't know.

MATTHEWS: You take positions on everything else.

TRUMP: Because I don't want to -- I frankly, I do take positions on everything else. It's a very complicated position.

MATTHEWS: But you say, one, that you're pro-life meaning that you want to ban it.

------ Trump again goes to question the religious faith of Matthews ----

TRUMP: No, no, I am talking about your religion. Your religion -- I mean, you say that you're a very good Catholic. Your religion is your life. Let me ask you this...



MATTHEWS: And secondly, I'm asking -- you're running for President.

TRUMP: No, no...

MATTHEWS: I'm not.

TRUMP: Chris -- Chris.

MATTHEWS: I'm asking you, what should a woman face if she chooses to have an abortion?

TRUMP: I'm not going to do that.

MATTHEWS: Why not?

TRUMP: I'm not going to play that game.

MATTHEWS: Game?

TRUMP: You have...

MATTHEWS: You said you're pro-life.

TRUMP: I am pro-life.

MATTHEWS: That means banning abortion.

----- TRUMP: again goes after Matthews religious faith -----

MATTHEWS: I'm asking you. You want to be president of the United States.

TRUMP: You told me that...

MATTHEWS: You tell me what the law should be.

TRUMP: I have -- I have not determined...

MATTHEWS: Just tell me what the law should be. You say you're pro-life.

TRUMP: I am pro-life.

MATTHEWS: What does that mean?

TRUMP: With exceptions. I am pro-life.

I have not determined what the punishment would be.

MATTHEWS: Why not?

TRUMP: Because I haven't determined it.

MATTHEWS: When you decide to be pro-life, you should have thought of it. Because...

TRUMP: No, you could ask anybody who is pro-life...

MATTHEWS: OK, here's the problem -- here's my problem with this, if you don't have a punishment for abortion -- I don't believe in it, of course -- people are going to find a way to have an abortion.

TRUMP: You don't believe in what?

MATTHEWS: I don't believe in punishing anybody for having an abortion.

TRUMP: OK, fine. OK, (inaudible).

MATTHEWS: Of course not. I think it's a woman's choice.

---------- TRUMP: again goes after Matthews religious faith ------.

MATTHEWS: Can we go back to matters of the law and running for president because matters of law, what I'm talking about, and this is the difficult situation you've placed yourself in.

By saying you're pro-life, you mean you want to ban abortion. How do you ban abortion without some kind of sanction? Then you get in that very tricky question of a sanction, a fine on human life which you call murder?

TRUMP: It will have to be determined.

MATTHEWS: A fine, imprisonment for a young woman who finds herself pregnant?

TRUMP: It will have to be determined.

MATTHEWS: What about the guy that gets her pregnant? Is he responsible under the law for these abortions? Or is he not responsible for an abortion?

TRUMP: Well, it hasn't -- it hasn't -- different feelings, different people. I would say no.

MATTHEWS: Well, they're usually involved. Anyway, much more from the audience here at the University of Wisconsin, Green Bay. We'll be right back.

(APPLAUSE)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

FULL TRANSCRIPT: MSNBC Town Hall with Donald Trump Moderated By Chris Matthews​

 

[asaratis]

YOu misunderstand.

My point was NOT to start a discussion on abortion, but to point out that the reporter and you CHOOSE to create and then focus on a minor incident of a flubbed question, that has already been dealt with, INSTEAD OF A serious discussion of his Abortion Position, and likely actions and impact on the issue.

It's like you know that a serious and honest discussion will not serve your partisan purpose, so instead you decided to attempt to fearmonger by misrepresenting Trump's position and likely abortion law under Trump.

Somebody should clue you in to never, ever, use Trump's name in the same breath as fearmonger

Donald Trump created the 'incident' when he opened his big fat mouth. We report, you decide. And you have decided to attack the messenger. Okay. Move on.

When you twist the 'report' with lies, it makes our decision much easier.

If you want to suggest a transcript, and audio/video evidence of Trump saying what I said he said, is somehow a lie -- go for it.

I have already done that, you lying liberal. You take Trump's words out of context. You are a disingenuous prick. Matthews set the stage for the conversation that followed...conversation about a HYPOTHETICAL SITUATION that did not exist.

Try as you may to whitewash the truth....you are a lying piece of dog squeeze.

 

[Martin Eden Mercury]

I have already done that, you lying liberal. You take Trump's words out of context

So now, using a transcript and linking it both it and the video, is somehow taking it all out of context?

Please, somebody help this person???

 

[asaratis]

I have already done that, you lying liberal. You take Trump's words out of context

So now, using a transcript and linking it both it and the video, is somehow taking it all out of context?

Please, somebody help this person???

One more time for the mentally handicapped:

You must pay attention to this line from your transcript:

MATTHEWS: If you say abortion is a crime or abortion is murder, you have to deal with it under law. Should abortion be punished?


Now try to grasp this: ABORTION IS NOT CURRENTLY A CRIME. Matthews' question was HYPOTHETICAL and RHETORICAL. At this time, abortion is NOT A CRIME and should not be punished. If it is again made a crime, it should be punished in some fashion.

In other words, in the context of the hypothetical question, Trump's answer was correct. You are taking it out of context by refusing to recognize it as hypothetical. Either that or you do not understand what hypothetical means.

If something is a crime, committing that crime should be punished. Whether it is speeding, crossing the solid yellow line, jaywalking, murder, robbery, libel, abortion or walking an alligator without a leash.


Trump's answer was the only answer that should be expected of a Presidential candidate.

With that, I am DONE with this idiotic thread. You can come back and repost your asinine refusal to acknowledge logic and the definition of hypothetical all you want. It will not change the fact that you are stupid.

 

[Martin Eden Mercury]

Trump first said he was pro-life (in answer to a question from a woman at a town hall audience). Matthews then said, that means you want to outlaw abortion. Trump agreed, didn't he?

So if Trump wants to outlaw abortion, the obvious question is, should women be punished? Trump said yes, women should be punished for having an abortion, and clarified his answer with another yes.

Trump said women should be punished for having abortions, but also that men should walk away scot-free

Again, Trump twice said, women should be punished for having abortions

 

[The Great Goose]

He should have given a sensitive response without being commital.

"I'm aware of the stigmatism women and girls used to face and still can with abortion. It's a complicated issue and we are still processing it. I'll have to get back to you on the details"

This said in place of where he said they should be punished.

 

[Martin Eden Mercury]

He should have given a sensitive response without being commital.

"I'm aware of the stigmatism women and girls used to face and still can with abortion. It's a complicated issue and we are still processing it. I'll have to get back to you on the details"

This said in place of where he said they should be punished.

But being pro-life he was asked a series of legitimate questions. And if being pro-life means one wants to ban abortions, what should the punishments be, and should the women be punished.

It is not sufficient for politicians and policy makers to dodge questions on How they would implement things. We deserve to know. It isn't like Healthcare, where the devil was in the details. People who wanted to do something like Obamacare, said they wanted to reach as many people as they could (providing healthcare insurance). Trump was NOT asked HOW women should be punished. Trump was asked IF women should be punished and he twice said , yes.

 

[JoeMoma]

Trump was correct the first time, it's simply how our criminal justice system works:

IF, abortion were made illegal, should the woman be punished?

There is no real question. Under our system, all who willingly participate in a criminal act are subject to state punishment. With the three exception, he answered absolutely correctly.

I agree. For some act to be illegal but with no consequences is in all practical effect to keep the act legal.

 

[Martin Eden Mercury]

Trump was correct the first time, it's simply how our criminal justice system works:

IF, abortion were made illegal, should the woman be punished?

There is no real question. Under our system, all who willingly participate in a criminal act are subject to state punishment. With the three exception, he answered absolutely correctly.

I agree. For some act to be illegal but with no consequences is in all practical effect to keep the act legal.

So pro-life politicians and groups, and religious figures who say they do not want to punish women?

 

[JoeMoma]

Trump was correct the first time, it's simply how our criminal justice system works:

IF, abortion were made illegal, should the woman be punished?

There is no real question. Under our system, all who willingly participate in a criminal act are subject to state punishment. With the three exception, he answered absolutely correctly.

I agree. For some act to be illegal but with no consequences is in all practical effect to keep the act legal.

So pro-life politicians and groups, and religious figures who say they do not want to punish women?

I am not a grammar Nazi, but that question needs some work.

 

[Martin Eden Mercury]

Trump was correct the first time, it's simply how our criminal justice system works:

IF, abortion were made illegal, should the woman be punished?

There is no real question. Under our system, all who willingly participate in a criminal act are subject to state punishment. With the three exception, he answered absolutely correctly.

I agree. For some act to be illegal but with no consequences is in all practical effect to keep the act legal.

So pro-life politicians and groups, and religious figures who say they do not want to punish women?

I am not a grammar Nazi, but that question needs some work.

Really? Not Unless one is entering an 8th grade essay contest, but putting aside conversational English...

See?

What do you say to and about, pro-life politicians and groups, and religious figures who say they do not want to punish women?

 

[TemplarKormac]

While a fetus is life, no doubt about that, the debate is whether that life is a full human being with all that entails, such as protections under the laws.

Life is intrinsic to our humanity. So if a "fetus" has life, it is therefore human. Even by the standards you put forth here.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

can you imagine a political party trying to score points for winning an election off the backs of other people babies being killed with abortions. nothing as crass and sick

our society today will be going to hell

This from one of the most hate-filled people I've ever read. If you remember, I posted a link about the US having more children in poverty, hungry, than any other first world country and you posted, in essence, 'let the little blighters starve'.

You're very typical of brainless RWNJs - You love fetuses but hate children.

Good thing you're so darn funny, huh?

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Now discussing something a candidate says is somehow propaganda? Donald Trump

In Context: Transcript of Donald Trump on punishing women for abortion

After a citizen in the audience asked mister Trump:
"What is your stance on women’s rights and their right to choose in their own reproductive health?" Donald Trump answered "I’m pro-life...with exceptions, with the three exceptions." Matthews then asked "What should the law be on abortion?" and Trump answered "Nobody knows what the law’s going to be." Fair enough.

MATTHEWS asked: "What should the law be on abortion?" And this is where the shimmy shake dance began. Trump started squirming and had the unmitigated gall to ask the interviewer about his own religious faith. The interviewer is NOT running for President.

Trump then mentioned the federal Courts, and again the Catholic Church. But that old tricky Matthews stuck with REAL journalism (damn him!).


MATTHEWS: I’m asking you, what should a woman face if she chooses to have an abortion?
TRUMP: I’m not going to do that.
MATTHEWS: Why not?
TRUMP: I’m not going to play that game.
MATTHEWS: Game?

TRUMP: You have...
MATTHEWS: You said you’re pro-life.
TRUMP: I am pro-life.

MATTHEWS: That means banning abortion.
TRUMP: And so is the Catholic Church pro-life.

Abortion And The Day Donald Trump Ran Away From Honesty
As If His Hair Were On Fire​

Let me start out with saying I consider Trump to be a political insider, as well as a celebrity. For over a few decades now, Donald Trump has publicly toyed with running for US President. He admits he himself is part of the corruption of our politics, by people with loads of money. Back in December of 2015 I wrote that "While Republicans and their allies, as well as their supporters in the media, continue to use the dog whistle of GOP politics, Donald John Trump, Sr., has bravely stepped forward and spoken out loud what others have merely suggested." I wrote Trump was "speaking to the thoughts people usually keep hidden." I added "and with good cause." I believe abortion has become one of those issues, where with good reason, people keep their true thoughts hidden, even from themselves. Enter the tongue-in-cheek, profile in courage: Donald J Trump.

During a public, town hall type of interview hosted by MSNBC, and conducted by Chris Matthews, a woman in the audience asked Donald J Trump, candidate for US President "What is your stance on women’s rights and their right to choose in their own reproductive health?" Donald Trump answered "I’m pro-life...with exceptions, with the three exceptions." Matthews then asked "What should the law be on abortion?" and Trump answered "Nobody knows what the law’s going to be." Fair enough. Donald Trump is pro-life (or anti-abortion/anti-women's rights), and none of us knows what any future laws governing abortion will look like.

After Matthews said "If you say abortion is a crime or abortion is murder, you have to deal with it under law. Should abortion be punished? This is not something you can dodge." Hell seemed to open up, and Donald Trump answered honestly with what I say many people on his side of the issue believe, yet haven't the moral courage to admit: there has to be some form of punishment for the woman involved. Since speaking the thoughts people usually keep hidden, Donald Trump and his supporters have been spinning so fast they should be offered entry into the, International Union of Whirling Dervishes.

The defense of Trump is that on March 30, almost immediately after the interview, Trump's handlers (the ones he's not supposed to have), put onto Trump's website: If Congress were to pass legislation making abortion illegal and the federal courts upheld this legislation, or any state were permitted to ban abortion under state and federal law, the doctor or any other person performing this illegal act upon a woman would be held legally responsible, not the woman. The woman is a victim in this case as is the life in her womb. My position has not changed - like Ronald Reagan, I am pro-life with exceptions. - Sweet, hiding behind the thin veil of Ronald Reagan.

Make no mistake about it. None of this is a "rookie" mistake. Not the statements Trump made, and not the tired, old, Reaganesque tactic of handlers coming out, and saying the candidate meant to say something different than from what they said. Reagan once said "All the waste in a year from a nuclear power plant can be stored under a desk." and I believe his handlers came out and told everyone Reagan did not say that, because he meant something else. One of Trump's on line defenders actually wrote that Trump's rookie mistake "was applying common sense to a question where he did not know the normal legal answer. Which is that women do NOT get punished. When informed of this he adjusted his position accordingly."

How has Trump gone from one who "bravely stepped forward and spoken out loud what others have merely suggested." to being exposed as another garden variety, politician caught in the headlights, like the proverbial deer? I don't know, maybe it was there all along, but this time his crass ambition slithered out into the limelight for even his most staunch defenders to see. Forget about what spin Trump's handlers put out on his web site. Just go to the transcript. And please, somebody call the fire dept. That burning hair has got to contain hazardous chemicals, or toxic substances.

to be continued

Martin Eden "Mem" Mercury

an invite for you to e-mail me at [email protected]

If you want to discuss the fact that he is pro-life that would be valid.

YOur constant return to his blowing this one question and misrepresenting it as though he has not already reversed himself on that is dishonest propaganda.

Please do not play dumb by pretending not to understand what I mean.

View attachment 70878

Duh Donuld is NOT pro-life.

"pro-lifers" are actually anti-woman and anti-child.

Duh Donuld doesn't give a fuck about fetuses. He's just pro-Donuld.

He will gladly say he is anything that he thinks will get votes and screw you over and give your higher taxes to the 1%.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Life is intrinsic to our humanity. While a fetus is life, no doubt about that, the debate is whether that life is a full human being with all that entails, such as protections under the laws.

So if a "fetus" has life, it is therefore human. Even by the standards you put forth here.

Life is intrinsic to our humanity.

No its not.

That actually has no meaning at all. And, its a lazy thing to say.

If it were true, people would not shoot/kill others over a television set. To many, things are much more valuable than life.

 

[The Great Goose]

Trumps official view on abortion:
if the parents are beautiful, then its illegal . if not, kill them.

 

[playtime]

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Drumpf's flip flops have flip flops.

Literally.

He can actually flip flop, mid-sentence. And then throw in a lie for good measure.

jHe's the perfect kkk, tee potty, RWNJ, traitor to the US Constitution candidate.