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

[Martin Eden Mercury]

....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.

A most sincere form of flattery from you?

I am truly humbled
Mem

 

[Correll]

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.

 

[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

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.

Correll, the op-ed and the rest of the thread is NOT about me. Continually trying to call me a dick (with large images that derail the thread), may be how you post all over the site, but I respectfully and politely asked you to stop.

If you have issues with that, take it up with admin. You may not like the op-ed. You may not like my style. There is lots you may not like, but none of that gives you the right to hijack the thread.

I am aware of how emotional it can be to back a candidate, and see that candidate attacked using their own words. That is the world or politics and op-ed writing.

I respect your right to disagree and to voice your opinions.

sincerely
Mem

 

[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

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.

The op-ed was clear and my responses have been clear.

 

[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.

Correll, the op-ed and the rest of the thread is NOT about me. Continually trying to call me a dick (with large images that derail the thread), may be how you post all over the site, but I respectfully and politely asked you to stop.

If you have issues with that, take it up with admin. You may not like the op-ed. You may not like my style. There is lots you may not like, but none of that gives you the right to hijack the thread.

I am aware of how emotional it can be to back a candidate, and see that candidate attacked using their own words. That is the world or politics and op-ed writing.

I respect your right to disagree and to voice your opinions.

sincerely
Mem

I have addressed your point repeatedly.

YOu have been constantly been dishonestly misrepresenting my words, ignoring the fact that I have addressed your point, and then repeating it again, dishonestly as though it has not already been rebutted.

I repeatedly asked you to stop, politely. But you refused.

This is not "Style" that is you trolling and engaging in propaganda, not discussion or debate.

POInting out what you are doing is not hijacking the thread.

I am not emotional about my support of Trump.

I do get emotional when people are dicks to me and lie to me, repeatedly.

The emotion is anger.

 

[Martin Eden Mercury]

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.

Valid? The OP is an op-ed piece. It is my opinion that I am not blowing anything out of proportion, or misrepresenting what Trump was asked and actually replied. I have never denied he and his handlers quickly put something up on their web site and started a media blitz claiming Trump was ONLY being asked a hypothetical, as if that makes his answers ok to ignore.

As far as YOU claiming he reversed himself? That is a matter of opinion. What I said he did was run away as if his hair were on fire.

from the op

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.​

It is an op-ed

 

[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.

The op-ed was clear and my responses have been clear.

I respectfully, seriously and honestly addressed the points you raised in your OP.

You misrepresented them repeatedly, and when I kept calling you on your dishonesty, you simply repeated your initial assertion as though it had not been addressed.

That is disrespectful to me and to the very idea of rational debate.

 

[Martin Eden Mercury]

I have addressed your point repeatedly.

You have not addressed a point. What you have done is try and throw up a smokescreen that says, no matter what Trump said, it doesn't matter, because somehow, answers to hypothetical questions just don't count.

Donald Trump has been in the media for around 50 years. He is an expert at being interviewed, but he has almost always got to set the ground rules. It is the opinion of some of us out there beyond Trump-land, that Donald Trump got caught being honest and your defense just about makes that case. Only you want to say being honest should not count because of this, because of that, and because Trump is your Savior.

Now please, let us not make this thread all about you and I

 

[Martin Eden Mercury]

I respectfully, seriously and honestly addressed the points you raised in your OP.

You misrepresented them repeatedly, and when I kept calling you on your dishonesty, you simply repeated your initial assertion as though it had not been addressed.

That is disrespectful to me and to the very idea of rational debate.

Yes, you by your own admission, kept attacking me as being dishonest, simply because I disagreed with you.

thank you for your own unwitting honesty

Mem

 

[asaratis]

To be continued...and continued...and continued...and continued.....until it becomes continuous.

 

[Correll]

I have addressed your point repeatedly.

You have not addressed a point. What you have done is try and throw up a smokescreen that says, no matter what Trump said, it doesn't matter, because somehow, answers to hypothetical questions just don't count.

Donald Trump has been in the media for around 50 years. He is an expert at being interviewed, but he has almost always got to set the ground rules. It is the opinion of some of us out there beyond Trump-land, that Donald Trump got caught being honest and your defense just about makes that case. Only you want to say being honest should not count because of this, because of that, and because Trump is your Savior.

Now please, let us not make this thread all about you and I

I admitted that he flubbed the question.

That is not a smokescreen.

I pointed out that he was ignorant of the fact that such laws are normally targeted at abortion providers, not the women.

That is a matter of ignorance, not a smokescreen.

I admitted that that is a valid point to raise. But a failing to be expected of a true outsider.

YOU keep presenting his initial statement as though it is still his position.

That is dishonest on your part.

 

[Correll]

I respectfully, seriously and honestly addressed the points you raised in your OP.

You misrepresented them repeatedly, and when I kept calling you on your dishonesty, you simply repeated your initial assertion as though it had not been addressed.

That is disrespectful to me and to the very idea of rational debate.

Yes, you by your own admission, kept attacking me as being dishonest, simply because I disagreed with you.

thank you for your own unwitting honesty

Mem

That is in no way what I said, or what happened.

YOu are either being dishonest, again, or allowing YOUR emotional investment to cloud your reasoning.

 

[Martin Eden Mercury]

I pointed out that he was ignorant of the fact that such laws are normally targeted at abortion providers, not the women.

Trump was NOT asked what the laws say. He was asked whether abortion should be punished. He said women would have to be punished, and then he clarified his answer saying 'yes' women would have to be punished.

Then we all know he and his handlers ran over to his web site and put something new up saying something like "Trump did not say what everyone heard him say. Please ignore the truth."

 

[Martin Eden Mercury]

I admitted that that is a valid point to raise. But a failing to be expected of a true outsider.

YOU keep presenting his initial statement as though it is still his position.
.

Trump has been in the media spotlights for about 5 decades. He knows how to use it. He is no innocent, and he has toyed with running for President since at least 2000. Since at least 2000, Trump has held press events speaking about possibly running. He has been involved in inside politics all of his adult life as a money man and as a supporter of politicians.

It is no failing of a Rookie, to say women should be punished under the law for having an abortion. It is a failing of empathy and humanity

 

[Martin Eden Mercury]

I respectfully, seriously and honestly addressed the points you raised in your OP.

You misrepresented them repeatedly, and when I kept calling you on your dishonesty, you simply repeated your initial assertion as though it had not been addressed.

That is disrespectful to me and to the very idea of rational debate.

Yes, you by your own admission, kept attacking me as being dishonest, simply because I disagreed with you.

thank you for your own unwitting honesty

Mem

That is in no way what I said, or what happened.

YOu are either being dishonest, again, or allowing YOUR emotional investment to cloud your reasoning.

There is no emotional investment on my part. You are the one calling me a liar and more. You can twist and turn ala Trump, but I will not allow you to attack me personally and then go unscathed into your precious victim hood.

 

[Correll]

I pointed out that he was ignorant of the fact that such laws are normally targeted at abortion providers, not the women.

Trump was NOT asked what the laws say. He was asked whether abortion should be punished. He said women would have to be punished, and then he clarified his answer saying 'yes' women would have to be punished.

Then we all know he and his handlers ran over to his web site and put something new up saying something like "Trump did not say what everyone heard him say. Please ignore the truth."

We do not know that. YOu keep saying it, over and over again, without any support.

That is not debating, that is filibustering, as a form of dishonest propaganda related to Proof by Assertion.

 

[Correll]

I admitted that that is a valid point to raise. But a failing to be expected of a true outsider.

YOU keep presenting his initial statement as though it is still his position.
.

Trump has been in the media spotlights for about 5 decades. He knows how to use it. He is no innocent, and he has toyed with running for President since at least 2000. Since at least 2000, Trump has held press events speaking about possibly running. He has been involved in inside politics all of his adult life as a money man and as a supporter of politicians.

It is no failing of a Rookie, to say women should be punished under the law for having an abortion. It is a failing of empathy and humanity

It is obvious that Abortion is not one of his Hot Topic issues, and he has not researched it much.

You have still not dealt honestly with the fact that he has reversed his position on this and his reasons for doing so are credible.

Your conclusion is self serving partisan blather.

 

[Correll]

I respectfully, seriously and honestly addressed the points you raised in your OP.

You misrepresented them repeatedly, and when I kept calling you on your dishonesty, you simply repeated your initial assertion as though it had not been addressed.

That is disrespectful to me and to the very idea of rational debate.

Yes, you by your own admission, kept attacking me as being dishonest, simply because I disagreed with you.

thank you for your own unwitting honesty

Mem

That is in no way what I said, or what happened.

YOu are either being dishonest, again, or allowing YOUR emotional investment to cloud your reasoning.

There is no emotional investment on my part. You are the one calling me a liar and more. You can twist and turn ala Trump, but I will not allow you to attack me personally and then go unscathed into your precious victim hood.

Got it, it is the dishonest one.


Here is my above comment, which you lied about and thus deflected and dodged to avoid admitting that you were lying.



I respectfully, seriously and honestly addressed the points you raised in your OP.

You misrepresented them repeatedly, and when I kept calling you on your dishonesty, you simply repeated your initial assertion as though it had not been addressed.

That is disrespectful to me and to the very idea of rational debate.

 

[Correll]

Here is my first post in the thread. Nothing you have said has seriously challenged it, despite all your drama.



The politically inexperienced candidate flubbed a question.

His inexperience is a valid issue, especially compared to more experienced candidates with similar positions.

Your attempt to inflate this into something more significant reeks of desperation and dishonesty.

Everything else in your op is partisan filler.

 

[Martin Eden Mercury]

I pointed out that he was ignorant of the fact that such laws are normally targeted at abortion providers, not the women.

Trump was NOT asked what the laws say. He was asked whether abortion should be punished. He said women would have to be punished, and then he clarified his answer saying 'yes' women would have to be punished.

Then we all know he and his handlers ran over to his web site and put something new up saying something like "Trump did not say what everyone heard him say. Please ignore the truth."

We do not know that. YOu keep saying it, over and over again, without any support.

That is not debating, that is filibustering, as a form of dishonest propaganda related to Proof by Assertion.

I wrote an op-ed. You evidently are emotionally upset that Donald Trump got caught speaking his mind.