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

[Martin Eden Mercury]

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.

What? So the only legitimate questions Trump should be asked are ones he's thought about ahead of time? Every new defense of him by you, makes the case that Trump is a lightweight unfit to occupy ANY political office, let alone the Oval Office.

Trump reversed his opinion? Why? In the matter of a few hours? Now that's deep thinking, eh?

Partisan? In which way? I am a partisan political person. I detest people entering politics and trying to make it a joke. It is not a joke. Whoever gets elected, represents us.

 

[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.

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.

There you go again with calling me a liar. And my crime? Highlighting what Trump said in a town hall meeting?

'Donald Trump's words are used against himself? He like you, goes around calling others 'liar'

Donald Trump twice said that, women ought to be punished for having an abortion. Later that same day Trump and his handlers put a NEW thing up on their web site. I guess it would have been easier to just shout "pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!"

 

[DarkFury]

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.

What? So the only legitimate questions Trump should be asked are ones he's thought about ahead of time? Every new defense of him by you, makes the case that Trump is a lightweight unfit to occupy ANY political office, let alone the Oval Office.

Trump reversed his opinion? Why? In the matter of a few hours? Now that's deep thinking, eh?

Partisan? In which way? I am a partisan political person. I detest people entering politics and trying to make it a joke. It is not a joke. Whoever gets elected, represents us.

Your argument has more holes in it then osama bin laden at a Seal Team Six party.

 

[Martin Eden Mercury]

Your argument has more holes in it then [sic] osama bin laden at a Seal Team Six party.

Please, learn how to spell before you start lecturing people. Every single post you make has 6th grade level, errors in them. It's embarrassing to even respond to you. But I'm a nice person. I believe somebody has to be brave enough to offer the school yard bully some compassionate advice

 

[TNHarley]

Lefties want to make special rights for mentally ill people so mentally ill grown men can piss beside little girls,
But unborn life doesn't have rights?
I am pro-choice myself, but the inconsistencies for ideologues is worth mentioning..

 

[Martin Eden Mercury]

Because YOU do not like the answers he gave, you consider the questions 'gotchas?' Why are you being so adamantly, disingenuous? The questions Matthews asked, were logical extensions of what Trump answered starting with the question from the audience member.

Why would an interviewer NOT ask a pro-life candidate those questions?

I have no opinion on how he answered the question.

I consider the question a gotcha, because it was a setup to get an inexperienced candidate to give a gotcha clip that could be used to attack the candidate instead of having a debate on the issues.


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.

This one post and reply says it all.

 

[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.

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

That is nothing but your unsupported and very self serving assumption.

YOur attempt to make me the topic is noted as some more dishonest propaganda techniques from you.

 

[Correll]

Because YOU do not like the answers he gave, you consider the questions 'gotchas?' Why are you being so adamantly, disingenuous? The questions Matthews asked, were logical extensions of what Trump answered starting with the question from the audience member.

Why would an interviewer NOT ask a pro-life candidate those questions?

I have no opinion on how he answered the question.

I consider the question a gotcha, because it was a setup to get an inexperienced candidate to give a gotcha clip that could be used to attack the candidate instead of having a debate on the issues.


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.

This one post and reply says it all.

If you disagree, then explain WHY you disagree. Just being snide is not an argument.

I note that, as I stated in the post, that you are doing this INSTEAD of discussing the issue, of abortion.

 

[Martin Eden Mercury]

Because YOU do not like the answers he gave, you consider the questions 'gotchas?' Why are you being so adamantly, disingenuous? The questions Matthews asked, were logical extensions of what Trump answered starting with the question from the audience member.

Why would an interviewer NOT ask a pro-life candidate those questions?

I have no opinion on how he answered the question.

I consider the question a gotcha, because it was a setup to get an inexperienced candidate to give a gotcha clip that could be used to attack the candidate instead of having a debate on the issues.


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.

This one post and reply says it all.

If you disagree, then explain WHY you disagree. Just being snide is not an argument.

I note that, as I stated in the post, that you are doing this INSTEAD of discussing the issue, of abortion.

Discussing the issue, of abortion instead of Trump's statements? You do know you have just used a text book example of deflection?

 

[Martin Eden Mercury]

There appears to be some nonsense being spread around USMB as to what I did and did not post in my introduction to USMB. That I would have to reiterate it, and have to defend my honor, never crossed my mind. I guess we all learn new things here.

"This independent voice is not proposing voting for or against any particular candidate based on their party affiliation alone. Candidates who do form their own message deserve attention and close scrutiny. I hope to stay true to judging candidates on their own individual message, if indeed they offer up one."

I believe that I have lived up to this pledge, so far. I should add one caveat, and that is this; come the general election what changes is I would back a candidate and by extension, their party. I have been forced to mostly be one-sided as far as parties go, because the only other op-ed writer up until now was not only a party partisan, but a partisan of one candidate alone.

I am a Democratic-leaning, independent, liberal. I make no bones about this fact. But I believe I have been fair and honest in my assessments and arguments.

Mem LINK TO: Martin Eden "Mem" Mercury's Introduction

And then there appears to be some nonsense being spread in this thread as to what I did and did not post in Op-Ed op. That I would have to relink to it, and have to defend my honor, never crossed my mind. I guess we all learn new things here. I've also learned that some people are unclear on what an op-ed is and isn't.

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]

 

[Correll]

Because YOU do not like the answers he gave, you consider the questions 'gotchas?' Why are you being so adamantly, disingenuous? The questions Matthews asked, were logical extensions of what Trump answered starting with the question from the audience member.

Why would an interviewer NOT ask a pro-life candidate those questions?

I have no opinion on how he answered the question.

I consider the question a gotcha, because it was a setup to get an inexperienced candidate to give a gotcha clip that could be used to attack the candidate instead of having a debate on the issues.


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.

This one post and reply says it all.

If you disagree, then explain WHY you disagree. Just being snide is not an argument.

I note that, as I stated in the post, that you are doing this INSTEAD of discussing the issue, of abortion.

Discussing the issue, of abortion instead of Trump's statements? You do know you have just used a text book example of deflection?

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.

 

[Correll]

There appears to be some nonsense being spread around USMB as to what I did and did not post in my introduction to USMB. That I would have to reiterate it, and have to defend my honor, never crossed my mind. I guess we all learn new things here.

"This independent voice is not proposing voting for or against any particular candidate based on their party affiliation alone. Candidates who do form their own message deserve attention and close scrutiny. I hope to stay true to judging candidates on their own individual message, if indeed they offer up one."

I believe that I have lived up to this pledge, so far. I should add one caveat, and that is this; come the general election what changes is I would back a candidate and by extension, their party. I have been forced to mostly be one-sided as far as parties go, because the only other op-ed writer up until now was not only a party partisan, but a partisan of one candidate alone.

I am a Democratic-leaning, independent, liberal. I make no bones about this fact. But I believe I have been fair and honest in my assessments and arguments.

Mem LINK TO: Martin Eden "Mem" Mercury's Introduction

And then there appears to be some nonsense being spread in this thread as to what I did and did not post in Op-Ed op. That I would have to relink to it, and have to defend my honor, never crossed my mind. I guess we all learn new things here. I've also learned that some people are unclear on what an op-ed is and isn't.

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]

This is page 13 of this thread. We have been discussing your op for 13 pages.

For to re post it NOW without any adjustment or addressing of the many challenges to your position on this incident, is the Logical Fallacy of Proof By Assertion.

You are obviously using it as a form of dishonest propaganda.

As a Logical Fallacy is an error in logic, your argument is revealed to be flawed and without merit.

 

[Martin Eden Mercury]

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.

 

[Martin Eden Mercury]

This is page 13 of this thread. We have been discussing your op for 13 pages.

For to re post it NOW without any adjustment or addressing of the many challenges to your position on this incident, is the Logical Fallacy of Proof By Assertion.

You are obviously using it as a form of dishonest propaganda.

As a Logical Fallacy is an error in logic, your argument is revealed to be flawed and without merit.

Yep, obviously. Move long.

 

[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.

 

[Correll]

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.

NOthing in your post addressed my point.

Please try again.

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.

 

[Correll]

This is page 13 of this thread. We have been discussing your op for 13 pages.

For to re post it NOW without any adjustment or addressing of the many challenges to your position on this incident, is the Logical Fallacy of Proof By Assertion.

You are obviously using it as a form of dishonest propaganda.

As a Logical Fallacy is an error in logic, your argument is revealed to be flawed and without merit.

Yep, obviously. Move long.

YOu admit your argument is flawed and without merit?

Well...

I am impressed. Good for you.

It is a very rare person, that when presented with clear evidence that their reasoning was flawed will admit it.

Do you want to ask the mods to close this thread down, then?

I will revise the low opinion I HAD been been building of you, upwards.

 

[Martin Eden Mercury]

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.

 

[Martin Eden Mercury]

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.

Flubbed? He answered honesty and then he and his handlers went and threw something to deflect, up on his web site. Trump's position is amateur, unclear, and ever changing depending on when and how he is asked a question

 

[eagle1462010]

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.