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

[Martin Eden Mercury]

The Circus Act that people have to engage in to defend Trump would be funny, if it weren't so pathetically transparent

 

[Pop23]

The Circus Act that people have to engage in to defend Trump would be funny, if it weren't so pathetically transparent

And your failure to back up your opinions is in the center ring of the circus

 

[Correll]

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.

No, he's right.

And "whine" is lib code for, "you are right, but I just doing to purposefully and actively be a dick and not care."

 

[asaratis]

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.

Thanks, Pop! We concur. However, as can be seen here and in various other threads on this topic, MEM has a mindset that precludes his understanding of hypothetical and out if context. He's among the mentally disabled that we call liberals.

 

[Correll]

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?'

Your op raised a valid issue, Trump's initial position was more hard line than most.

But it has been repeatedly and credibly pointed out that his position was based on ignorance of the way such laws are generally written and he has changed his position accordingly.

The inexperienced candidate flubbed a question.

This is a valid point, in that it speaks to his inexperience.

NOt that anyone is denying that he is inexperienced.


ButyYou seem to be interesting in nothing but an excuse to state his already repudiated statement over and over again as a form of propaganda in order to create the dishonest impression that his initial statement is still his position.

That is lying.

As before.

 

[Correll]

The Circus Act that people have to engage in to defend Trump would be funny, if it weren't so pathetically transparent

You are the one that is pathetically transparent.

The inexperienced candidate flubbed a question.

You are trying to make a mountain out of this molehill.

 

[Martin Eden Mercury]

The Circus Act that people have to engage in to defend Trump would be funny, if it weren't so pathetically transparent

And your failure to back up your opinions is in the center ring of the circus

Opinion? Donald Trump either did or did not say, what the op says hes said

 

[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?'

Your op raised a valid issue, Trump's initial position was more hard line than most.

But it has been repeatedly and credibly pointed out that his position was based on ignorance of the way such laws are generally written and he has changed his position accordingly.

So now it's Vote Trump. Vote the Ignorant!

There was nothing tricky or lawyerly being asked of Trump. It was all about 'if you are pro-life, what crime do you think is committed?' Then Trump was asked if there should be punishment for abortions. He was asked if he thought the women who have abortions should be punished.

Trump replied twice to the question of 'Should women be punished' and twice he answered in the affirmative. How in the world can you people now claim he was ignorant enough to not know what was being asked?

 

[Martin Eden Mercury]

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

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. If a fetus is a person, it becomes a citizen?

Please?

 

[Correll]

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?'

Your op raised a valid issue, Trump's initial position was more hard line than most.

But it has been repeatedly and credibly pointed out that his position was based on ignorance of the way such laws are generally written and he has changed his position accordingly.

So now it's Vote Trump. Vote the Ignorant!

There was nothing tricky or lawyerly being asked of Trump. It was all about 'if you are pro-life, what crime do you think is committed?' Then Trump was asked if there should be punishment for abortions. He was asked if he thought the women who have abortions should be punished.

Trump replied twice to the question of 'Should women be punished' and twice he answered in the affirmative. How in the world can you people now claim he was ignorant enough to not know what was being asked?

I have admitted that his blunder was caused by ignorance of that point of law.

Such minor failings is to be expected with a real outsider.

You have made the point that he is inexperienced. We all know that.

YOur dishonesty that we see here with you misrepresenting what I said, on this issue, is nothing but propaganda.

This interesting point here is that you are actively and purposefully lying in an attempt to attack Trump.

The unstated corollary to this is that you thus KNOW that you cannot successfully attack him based on the Truth.

 

[Martin Eden Mercury]

I have admitted that his blunder was caused by ignorance of that point of law.

Trump was asked his personal opinion. He was not asked a point of law. You keep dissembling in order to make it so

 

[Martin Eden Mercury]

YOur dishonesty that we see here with you misrepresenting what I said, on this issue, is nothing but propaganda.

Now you're unclear on what constitutes propaganda? Good lord! Are you representative of a Trump supporter?

 

[Correll]

I have admitted that his blunder was caused by ignorance of that point of law.

Trump was asked his personal opinion. He was not asked a point of law. You keep dissembling in order to make it so

His personal opinion on whether someone who broke a LAW should be punished.

WTF is wrong with you that you would dissemble on that minor quibble?

Oh, right.

 

[Correll]

YOur dishonesty that we see here with you misrepresenting what I said, on this issue, is nothing but propaganda.

Now you're unclear on what constitutes propaganda? Good lord! Are you representative of a Trump supporter?

Logical Fallacy of Begging the Question.

 

[Martin Eden Mercury]

Correll
could you please stop spamming the thread with trollish images? I am loathe to complain and report you, but you are attempting to push this thread into a Flame

 

[Pop23]

The Circus Act that people have to engage in to defend Trump would be funny, if it weren't so pathetically transparent

And your failure to back up your opinions is in the center ring of the circus

Opinion? Donald Trump either did or did not say, what the op says hes said

But I've never attempted to defend Trump, as if said, he was correct. And I've also indicated you are a circus clown and this is your Big Top.

 

[Martin Eden Mercury]

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]

 

[asaratis]

Correll
could you please stop spamming the thread with trollish images? I am loathe to complain and report you, but you are attempting to push this thread into a Flame

....which is where it belongs, you flaming idiot! All your attempts at op ed should be moved to Humor, The Rubber Room or The Flame Zone.

As an op ed writer, you really do suck.

 

[Martin Eden Mercury]

...

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

Then we got Vote Trump. Vote the Ignoramous!

and we end with
Vote Trump. Vote the Flubber! and Vote Trump. Vote the Blunderer!

Trump and his supporters -- "If it gets a little boring, if I see people starting to sort of, maybe thinking about leaving, I can sort of tell the audience, I just say, 'We will build the wall! and they go nuts."

 

[Correll]

Correll
could you please stop spamming the thread with trollish images? I am loathe to complain and report you, but you are attempting to push this thread into a Flame

You are doing nothing but trolling by your constant Logical Fallacy of Proof by Assertion.

If you keep saying the same thing over and over while ignoring my responses, I don't see why I can't spruce it up with humorous but completely appropriate memes that contain the proper response.

Any time you want to actually discuss the issue honestly and seriously I will be happy to have that discussion.