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

[peach174]

I am stating that Trump can't nor will he make abortion illegal and it has been blown way out of proportion.

A man running for President has said women should be punished for having abortions, and you want to take the position that being flabbergasted, outraged, and horrified by his comments, is somehow blowing it all out of proportion? That is a text book definition of shill, hack, partisan tool, enemy within

Oh Brother !!
We are never going back to illegal backroom butchers, so drop the melodramatics.

 

[peach174]

I didn't think so.
You could not find any?

Stop playing the fool. Your ego aside, others here are much better at it than you are.

You lost the debate the minute you started attacking.

 

[Bleipriester]

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]

Honestly, I don´t see a point here. Didn´t he say, he doesn´t know?

Let him abort the O at first and then look further.

 

[Correll]

Let's keep it real. Trump will NOT be writing Abortion laws.

THe most he might do is appoint a Supreme Court Justice or two. He will have no control over them once appointed.

This is a non-issue.

No one said Trump would be writing laws, so what are you talking about? and the Courts? Trump actually addressed that, and you happen to be making stuff up again. Trump thinks who gets elected will be the one who determines if the court is going to support women's rights or not.

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

TRUMP: Well, you know, they’ve set the law and frankly the judges -- I mean, you’re going to have a very big election coming up for that reason, because you have judges where it’s a real tipping point.

MATTHEWS: I know.

TRUMP: And with the loss of (Supreme Court Justice Antonin) Scalia, who was a very strong conservative...

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

And now you are moving the goal posts.

Before you were focused on whether he would punish woman lawbreakers.

Now, that I pointed out that he would not be in a position to make that call regardless, now it is about whether or not the Court will be Pro-Life or Pro-Choice.

A very different question.

Without addressing the truth of the fact that your OP and the first two pages of your thread had been rebutted.

Revealing yourself to be nothing but a dishonest partisan.

 

[Correll]

It was a hypothetical question.
Everyone is having a fit over it.
Hypothetical questions have no real right or wrong answers.
Trump is not a politician. If he had been he would have known right away to avoid any hypothetical questions.
Mathews is a seasoned veteran at politics and he used Trumps ignorance.
Everyone needs to calm down.
The Supreme Court had declared abortions as legal. Has been since the 70's, so it will still be around for a very long time to come.

Once again Hypothetical - not real

Like I said, a Gotcha question designed to give ammo to dishonest partisan hacks like the OP.

 

[Correll]

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]

That day Trump wanted the woman punished, the next day it was anyone that was involved and performed the abortion, and next year he will be pro-choice once again ( look over his past words ) and wanting everyone that is not a WASP and approved by him to have one...

There was no rookie mistake because Trump make no mistakes and calculated his response with hoping it would draw in more of the fringe right to vote for him, but it instead backfired and now he want to play it off as a " Rookie Mistake "...

Normally Trump is very, very calculated.

But this did not work, was not going to work, and seems to be an actual real mistake.

And you can save your Race Card for some future date when people who aren't libs start caring again.

 

[Correll]

Mathews is a seasoned veteran at politics and he used Trumps ignorance.

Great!!! First we had a Trump slogan of Vote Trump. Vote the Rookie!

Now you give us Vote Trump. Vote the Ignoramous!

He was ignorant on this one point of the law.

I didn't know that normally in such laws that only the provider is targeted, did you?

And with your partisan spin removed, it would be more like,

Vote Trump. Vote the Outsider!

 

[Correll]

It's Sanders who says that is what he wants. The right are just repeating it.

And it was Trump who said 'twice' that women should be punished for having abortions. Some of us not part of the Cult of Personality/Trump, are only repeating what it is Trump actually said, before he later said he didn't say it, or that he didn't mean to say what he said, or that it doesn't matter because he was ONLY speaking hypothetically

He has already changed his position.

THe reasons for the change have been explained and are credible.

YOu are holding on to a minor incident.

 

[Pop23]

Of course he was being honest before the 180.

If abortion IS CRIMINALIZED then all the participants are criminals with the exception of the three reasons he eluded to because those fall under duress.

I have many times asked the question. How, if you believe abortion is a crime, do you exclude the woman from any charges. That would go against the way our criminal justice system entirely.

Of course you are wrong. Any law could make the woman exempt from any and all Earthly punishment.

Of course he was being honest before the 180.

If abortion IS CRIMINALIZED then all the participants are criminals with the exception of the three reasons he eluded to because those fall under duress.

I have many times asked the question. How, if you believe abortion is a crime, do you exclude the woman from any charges. That would go against the way our criminal justice system entirely.

Of course you are wrong. Any law could make the woman exempt from any and all Earthly punishment.

Not in this country. Do you understand our legal system?

A law that did that would not stand the most basic legal challenge.

But I will post my challenge to you again. And if you can answer it, then you have a valid point, if not, you prove yourself the hack we all think you are.

Name the law that allows an individual that willing participates in a criminal act to not face legal jeapordy.

I'll wait

 

[Martin Eden Mercury]

And now you are moving the goal posts.

Before you were focused on whether he would punish woman lawbreakers.

Now, that I pointed out that he would not be in a position to make that call regardless, now it is about whether or not the Court will be Pro-Life or Pro-Choice.

A very different question.

Without addressing the truth of the fact that your OP and the first two pages of your thread had been rebutted.

Revealing yourself to be nothing but a dishonest partisan.

Trump supporters are defending a man who believes women should be punished, by claiming Trump did not really say what we all heard him say. And you Correll first brought up the Court angle. You moved the goal post. I replied. Now like Trump, you attacks and shout and stomp. .

You people cannot deny what Trump said. He said twice, that he believed women should be punished for having an abortion

 

[Martin Eden Mercury]

I am stating that Trump can't nor will he make abortion illegal and it has been blown way out of proportion.

A man running for President has said women should be punished for having abortions, and you want to take the position that being flabbergasted, outraged, and horrified by his comments, is somehow blowing it all out of proportion? That is a text book definition of shill, hack, partisan tool, enemy within

Oh Brother !!
We are never going back to illegal backroom butchers, so drop the melodramatics.

Huh? Did Trump bring up backroom abortions? That's creepy

 

[Martin Eden Mercury]

I didn't think so.
You could not find any?

Stop playing the fool. Your ego aside, others here are much better at it than you are.

You lost the debate the minute you started attacking.

When dealing with anything to do with Trump or his supporters, there is always the whine.

 

[Martin Eden Mercury]

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]

Honestly, I don´t see a point here. Didn´t he say, he doesn´t know?

Let him abort the O at first and then look further.

already addressed what the point is. The point is that now Trump and his supporters want it all to go away

"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

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.​

 

[Martin Eden Mercury]

He was ignorant on this one point of the law.

Trump was not discussing a 'point of law'

Trump was asked his opinion. It was not a legal discussion, it was a discussion on abortion. Trump did not struggle or get sandbagged by a legal point. Trump was simply asked to say who he thought should be punished -- Trump twice said he thought there should be some form of legal punishment for the women. Framing that as a point of law, is just more deflection

 

[Martin Eden Mercury]

Of course he was being honest before the 180.

If abortion IS CRIMINALIZED then all the participants are criminals with the exception of the three reasons he eluded to because those fall under duress.

I have many times asked the question. How, if you believe abortion is a crime, do you exclude the woman from any charges. That would go against the way our criminal justice system entirely.

Of course you are wrong. Any law could make the woman exempt from any and all Earthly punishment.

Of course he was being honest before the 180.

If abortion IS CRIMINALIZED then all the participants are criminals with the exception of the three reasons he eluded to because those fall under duress.

I have many times asked the question. How, if you believe abortion is a crime, do you exclude the woman from any charges. That would go against the way our criminal justice system entirely.

Of course you are wrong. Any law could make the woman exempt from any and all Earthly punishment.

Not in this country. Do you understand our legal system?

A law that did that would not stand the most basic legal challenge.

But I will post my challenge to you again. And if you can answer it, then you have a valid point, if not, you prove yourself the hack we all think you are.

Name the law that allows an individual that willing participates in a criminal act to not face legal jeapordy.

I'll wait

Your opinion on what could pass muster as a law is woefully ignorant, and I will ask you to NOT hijack this thread

 

[Correll]

And now you are moving the goal posts.

Before you were focused on whether he would punish woman lawbreakers.

Now, that I pointed out that he would not be in a position to make that call regardless, now it is about whether or not the Court will be Pro-Life or Pro-Choice.

A very different question.

Without addressing the truth of the fact that your OP and the first two pages of your thread had been rebutted.

Revealing yourself to be nothing but a dishonest partisan.

Trump supporters are defending a man who believes women should be punished, by claiming Trump did not really say what we all heard him say. And you Correll first brought up the Court angle. You moved the goal post. I replied. Now like Trump, you attacks and shout and stomp. .

You people cannot deny what Trump said. He said twice, that he believed women should be punished for having an abortion

And now you ignore the fact that I have repeatedly responded to that point, and simply repeat your initial assertion.

THis is the Logical Fallacy of Proof by Assertion and more proof, as if any were needed that you are merely here to engage in propaganda.

This is for you.

 

[Correll]

He was ignorant on this one point of the law.

Trump was not discussing a 'point of law'

Trump was asked his opinion. It was not a legal discussion, it was a discussion on abortion. Trump did not struggle or get sandbagged by a legal point. Trump was simply asked to say who he thought should be punished -- Trump twice said he thought there should be some form of legal punishment for the women. Framing that as a point of law, is just more deflection

That post was pure nonsense.

He was asked his opinion on a hypothetical law, and was ignorant of the fact that normally such laws target the provider.

YOu are again engaged Proof by Assertion


And again, for you.

 

[Pop23]

Of course he was being honest before the 180.

If abortion IS CRIMINALIZED then all the participants are criminals with the exception of the three reasons he eluded to because those fall under duress.

I have many times asked the question. How, if you believe abortion is a crime, do you exclude the woman from any charges. That would go against the way our criminal justice system entirely.

Of course you are wrong. Any law could make the woman exempt from any and all Earthly punishment.

Of course he was being honest before the 180.

If abortion IS CRIMINALIZED then all the participants are criminals with the exception of the three reasons he eluded to because those fall under duress.

I have many times asked the question. How, if you believe abortion is a crime, do you exclude the woman from any charges. That would go against the way our criminal justice system entirely.

Of course you are wrong. Any law could make the woman exempt from any and all Earthly punishment.

Not in this country. Do you understand our legal system?

A law that did that would not stand the most basic legal challenge.

But I will post my challenge to you again. And if you can answer it, then you have a valid point, if not, you prove yourself the hack we all think you are.

Name the law that allows an individual that willing participates in a criminal act to not face legal jeapordy.

I'll wait

Your opinion on what could pass muster as a law is woefully ignorant, and I will ask you to NOT hijack this thread

Of course he was being honest before the 180.

If abortion IS CRIMINALIZED then all the participants are criminals with the exception of the three reasons he eluded to because those fall under duress.

I have many times asked the question. How, if you believe abortion is a crime, do you exclude the woman from any charges. That would go against the way our criminal justice system entirely.

Of course you are wrong. Any law could make the woman exempt from any and all Earthly punishment.

Of course he was being honest before the 180.

If abortion IS CRIMINALIZED then all the participants are criminals with the exception of the three reasons he eluded to because those fall under duress.

I have many times asked the question. How, if you believe abortion is a crime, do you exclude the woman from any charges. That would go against the way our criminal justice system entirely.

Of course you are wrong. Any law could make the woman exempt from any and all Earthly punishment.

Not in this country. Do you understand our legal system?

A law that did that would not stand the most basic legal challenge.

But I will post my challenge to you again. And if you can answer it, then you have a valid point, if not, you prove yourself the hack we all think you are.

Name the law that allows an individual that willing participates in a criminal act to not face legal jeapordy.

I'll wait

Your opinion on what could pass muster as a law is woefully ignorant, and I will ask you to NOT hijack this thread

Proof enough that you can't provide evidence for your OPINION.

Your failure is noted

 

[Bleipriester]

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]

Honestly, I don´t see a point here. Didn´t he say, he doesn´t know?

Let him abort the O at first and then look further.

already addressed what the point is. The point is that now Trump and his supporters want it all to go away

"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

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.​

That in bold does not necessarily imply legal persecution. "Some form of punishment" could mean that the woman involved would be banned from sex with a BAC of 0,2 %.
It does not necessarily imply any consequence and in combination with Trump´s statement that he doesn´t know what the law is going to be it rather turns out to be his personal opinion which he knows is likely not enforceable.
But what it implies in some way already is that he intents to punish the doctors that earn money with stabbing the unborn.

 

[Martin Eden Mercury]

He was asked his opinion on a hypothetical law, and was ignorant of the fact that normally such laws target the provider.

What's next 'Trump was asked a question twice, and gave an answer that was not really an answer, because he didn't have time to check back with his handlers?'