Trump's Rookie Mistake

[protectionist]

It was wise of you to drop the abortion issue. You might also be even wiser to reconsider your view that democrats should take ALL responsibility for the present influx of illegals. You can't easily dismiss the cheap labor Republicans enjoy via their surreptitious hiring of illegals. There are two motives involved in the illegal immigrant scheme.
The Republicans provide the incentive for them to come here and the Democrats give them sanctuary to harvest the Hispanic vote via sympathy. The losers are the native American workers regardless of party affiliation.

1. I don't ever "drop" any issue.

2. Nothing more tiresome than posters who have been completely squashed, pretending that they still have an argument. If there was anything to the idea of Republicans supporting illegal immigration (as you wish could be believed), they wouldn't have voted in favor of the Stop Sanctuary Policies and Protect Americans Act, with 96% of the yea votes being Republican. So yes, I can easily dismiss the cheap labor idea you cite. And motive or no motive, it OVERWHELMINGLY is Democrats who are supporting the illegal immigration, and Republicans who are opposed, and trying to stop it. Nice try though.

Only ONE Republican voted against the bill, and every Democrat voted for it, except 2. No issue has ever been more partisan. Democrats are the party of illegal immigration.

 

[protectionist]

Thank you for your opinion

You're welcome.

 

[protectionist]

Some time ago, Donald Trump declared that he could kill somebody and his supporters wouldn’t care. He might want to rethink that arrogant certainty. If the results of the Wisconsin primary are any indication, Trump really can’t just do anything at all and count on lots of people voting for him.

Last week, Trump was asked if abortion was illegal, what should happen to women who have abortions? Trump answered, the woman should be punished. It was a logical response: something is illegal, you get punished for doing something illegal. Trouble is, logic is not the right answer. Trump muffed a gotcha question. You might call it a rookie mistake. He’s not a seasoned politician, he doesn’t have ready answers to gotcha questions. We might even cut him some slack. Except that, a rookie is supposed to learn from his mistakes, not ignore them, not compound the mistake.

Yesterday, Priests for Life held a discussion session. Various media reported that Donald Trump had promised to participate by calling in. Trump did not call in, nor did he let the organization know he was reneging on his commitment. What really happened? According to the Priests for Life website, Trump blowing them off is untrue.

Meanwhile, the position of Priests for Life regarding women who have had abortions is that they are already being punished by guilt and regret. They need support, not more punishment. Priests for Life is open to speaking to Donald Trump and all candidates about abortion.
Donald Trump and the Pro-life Movement: It's an Open Door

So, what is Donald Trump’s stance on abortion? He needs to clarify it. It appears that some in the media are building on Trump’s goof-up on that illegal abortion question. They aren’t going to just let it go. Is Trump into punishing women? Is he Pro Choice? Pro Life? Pro Whichever way the wind’s Blowing? As of this morning, his official website does not mention abortion at all. Shouldn’t he put this fire out already?

That he hasn’t, makes you wonder. Could the talk that Trump really doesn’t want to be president and this whole thing has been an ego stroking lark, possibly be true? Could it be that Trump has discovered that running for president is rather hard work, is tired of it all, and is willing to scuttle his own campaign by inaction?

If Trump does want to be president, is it possible that his self-esteem is so enormous that he really thinks he can get away with saying anything and even not saying anything and still get elected?

We may never know what motivates Donald Trump. Many of his supporters are more concerned with immigration, national defense and the economy than they are about abortion. Even so, following his embarrassing bungle on the abortion question, surely his supporters, and potential supporters, would like to know what he really believes about abortion.

Trump needs to up his game if he plans to play to the finish.

He didn't make a "mistake" or "bungle" anything. He was right. If there isn't any severe reason for the abortion, the woman should be punished for going to get it. It is his advisors who made the mistake, by having him recant what he said.

 

[asaratis]

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

And Trump answered yes and when asked if women should be punished, he said yes -- twice

...and you STILL can't get the picture!

The only answer for a Presidential candidate to the question of "should someone be punished for breaking a law?" is YES.

The only answer to the follow up question "should the person who broke the law be punished for breaking the law?" is YES.

The only answer to "who can possibly break a law against having an abortion?" is PREGNANT FEMALES (women) and the DOCTORS (if any) that perform the abortion.


You are ONE DENSE, ILLOGICAL, LIBERAL IDIOT!!! But then, all liberals are dense and illogical, so you're attracting birds of a feather with your incessant lying and suspension of logic.

I can understand fully why you fail miserably as an op ed writer!!!

 

[JQPublic1]

It was wise of you to drop the abortion issue. You might also be even wiser to reconsider your view that democrats should take ALL responsibility for the present influx of illegals. You can't easily dismiss the cheap labor Republicans enjoy via their surreptitious hiring of illegals. There are two motives involved in the illegal immigrant scheme.
The Republicans provide the incentive for them to come here and the Democrats give them sanctuary to harvest the Hispanic vote via sympathy. The losers are the native American workers regardless of party affiliation.

1. I don't ever "drop" any issue.

2. Nothing more tiresome than posters who have been completely squashed, pretending that they still have an argument. If there was anything to the idea of Republicans supporting illegal immigration (as you wish could be believed), they wouldn't have voted in favor of the Stop Sanctuary Policies and Protect Americans Act, with 96% of the yea votes being Republican. So yes, I can easily dismiss the cheap labor idea you cite. And motive or no motive, it OVERWHELMINGLY is Democrats who are supporting the illegal immigration, and Republicans who are opposed, and trying to stop it. Nice try though.

Only ONE Republican voted against the bill, and every Democrat voted for it, except 2. No issue has ever been more partisan. Democrats are the party of illegal immigration.

1. You did drop the abortion issue we were discussing, you haven't said a peep about it since you were caught trying to slip a non sequitur into the mix.

2. The only squashing I see here is your squashing of the truth and your laughable attempts to recover some of your dignity by ignoring the prime reason illegal immigrants come here. Deflecting with talk of Sanctuary cities means you have no answer for the republican made incentive to come here. The Sanctuary city phenomenon occurs after the fact and is NOT the cause of it. But you knew that didn't you?

 

[protectionist]

1. You did drop the abortion issue we were discussing, you haven't said a peep about it since you were caught trying to slip a non sequitur into the mix.

2. The only squashing I see here is your squashing of the truth and your laughable attempts to recover some of your dignity by ignoring the prime reason illegal immigrants come here. Deflecting with talk of Sanctuary cities means you have no answer for the republican made incentive to come here. The Sanctuary city phenomenon occurs after the fact and is NOT the cause of it. But you knew that didn't you?

1. I am ready and willing to talk about any issue, at any time, so you can stop pretending that I'm being defensive. Trump was 100% CORRECT on the abortion thing. If abortion was illegal, then women who irresponsibly go out and get one SHOULD BE ARRESTED. What he originally said was right then, and it's right now.

2. I am not deflecting anything. That's what YOU are doing. I'm laughing at YOU right now in your pathetic attempt to save face, after I beat you to shreds, by pointing out how DEMOCRATS SUPPORT ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION AND REPUBLICANS ARE FIGHTING AGAINST IT.
The Sanctuary city vote proved it, as have dozens of congressional actions for decades. What a joke. Trying to have Democrats escape blame for illegal immigration. They have caused it, encouraged it, perpetrated it, supported it, and ought to be in jail for what they've done - every stinking one of the TRAITORS.

3. Getting low wage jobs isn't a Republican thing. If it was, you wouldn't have every Republican Senator except 1, voting for the bill to punish Sanctuary cities. And it doesn't matter what is after the fact or before it. And unlike me, who has provided EVIDENCE of my contention, you haven't presented one shred of evidence to support your supposed "before the fact" idea (which has been obliterated anyway by the Sanctuary City voting, as I just mentioned). But you knew that didn't you?

 

[Martin Eden Mercury]

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

And Trump answered yes and when asked if women should be punished, he said yes -- twice

...and you STILL can't get the picture!

The only answer for a Presidential candidate to the question of "should someone be punished for breaking a law?" is YES.

The only answer to the follow up question "should the person who broke the law be punished for breaking the law?" is YES.

The only answer to "who can possibly break a law against having an abortion?" is PREGNANT FEMALES (women) and the DOCTORS (if any) that perform the abortion.


You are ONE DENSE, ILLOGICAL, LIBERAL IDIOT!!! But then, all liberals are dense and illogical, so you're attracting birds of a feather with your incessant lying and suspension of logic.

I can understand fully why you fail miserably as an op ed writer!!!

spin, spin, spin, spin, spin, spin

 

[JQPublic1]

1. You did drop the abortion issue we were discussing, you haven't said a peep about it since you were caught trying to slip a non sequitur into the mix.

2. The only squashing I see here is your squashing of the truth and your laughable attempts to recover some of your dignity by ignoring the prime reason illegal immigrants come here. Deflecting with talk of Sanctuary cities means you have no answer for the republican made incentive to come here. The Sanctuary city phenomenon occurs after the fact and is NOT the cause of it. But you knew that didn't you?

1. I am ready and willing to talk about any issue, at any time, so you can stop pretending that I'm being defensive. Trump was 100% CORRECT on the abortion thing. If abortion was illegal, then women who irresponsibly go out and get one SHOULD BE ARRESTED. What he originally said was right then, and it's right now.

2. I am not deflecting anything. That's what YOU are doing. I'm laughing at YOU right now in your pathetic attempt to save face, after I beat you to shreds, by pointing out how DEMOCRATS SUPPORT ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION AND REPUBLICANS ARE FIGHTING AGAINST IT.
The Sanctuary city vote proved it, as have dozens of congressional actions for decades. What a joke. Trying to have Democrats escape blame for illegal immigration. They have caused it, encouraged it, perpetrated it, supported it, and ought to be in jail for what they've done - every stinking one of the TRAITORS.

3. Getting low wage jobs isn't a Republican thing. If it was, you wouldn't have every Republican Senator except 1, voting for the bill to punish Sanctuary cities. And it doesn't matter what is after the fact or before it. And unlike me, who has provided EVIDENCE of my contention, you haven't presented one shred of evidence to support your supposed "before the fact" idea (which has been obliterated anyway by the Sanctuary City voting, as I just mentioned). But you knew that didn't you?

This Sanctuary City phenomenon didn't start on Obama's watch it started back in1980 on Reagan's watch.





The Sanctuary movement wasn't meant make US cities safe harbors for illegal aliens, it was initiated by various diverse religious organizations which banded together to oppose the deportation or forced repatriation of refugees fleeing Civil war and persecution in their homelands.





Your Senate Republicans know the history even if you don't. And they also know that the Sanctuary Movement does NOT preclude ICE or any other federal immigration agency from apprehending illegal aliens in those cities you call Sanctuary Cities. They also know that municipalities , counties and states are not required to enforce federal law and, in this case, the courts have held that when the spheres of jurisdiction are abrogated in that way, the 4th Amendment is violated.





Some have confused “sanctuary city” policies with the notion that immigrants in these communities are insulated from any immigration enforcement action against them. In fact, nothing in a so-called sanctuary city policy prevent federal enforcement actions. Some cities and localities—including San Francisco—have used the term “sanctuary” in their community policing policies in solidarity with the movement of the 1980s.


So What is it about the Sanctuary Movement that drives Republican politicians to want to ban it? BUt banning isn't an option, so they want cut Federal law enforcement funding for so -called Sanctuary Cities that





Senate Democrats have temporarily blocked a measure that would deny federal law enforcement funds to so-called "sanctuary cities," where local authorities don't automatically report undocumented immigrants without a record of serious criminal offenses to federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents. The idea for the bill was raised and enthusiastically promoted by figures on Fox News, who urged Republicans to "starve" these cities of federal money, despite experts noting that defunding would hurt public safety and evidence showing that so-called "sanctuary cities" are not actually a "safe haven" for undocumented immigrants and, in fact, deter criminality.


Congress' Attempt To Cut Federal Funds For "Sanctuary Cities" Was Built On Fox News' Rhetoric





Immigrant advocates maintain that sanctuary cities are effective because they allow undocumented immigrants to report crimes that they otherwise would be hesitant to come forward to talk about. A 2015 National Latin@ Network for Healthy Families and Communities survey found that 41 percent of foreign-born Latinas interviewed reported that they were afraid to call the police or go to court because they feared they could be deported.








The Big Problem With The GOP’s Crusade Against ‘Sanctuary Cities’





I stand with the Democrats on this one. The Republicans are evil bastards who don't mind jeopardizing the safety of entire communities by defunding their local law enforcement agencies of "Sanctuary Cities."

 

[Correll]

if you disagree state why you disagree and what you believe instead.

What I believe? On abortion law?

Unlike Donald Trump, I am not running for President and asking to be elected in oder to appoint Justices to the Supreme Court. I am under no obligation to speak about my own personal views on abortion and the law.

It was painfully obvious from the portion of my post that you cut, that I was asking you to explain what you disagreed with in my post.

Don't play stupid. And don't cut relevant portions of my post to try to hide that you are deflecting and dodging.

Here is my post again, regarding Trump's statement.

1 He did not know that normally such laws only punish the abortion provider.

2 So he mistakenly tried to apply common sense and assume that a law breaker would be punished, if caught.

3. once informed of that this was not the case, he changed his position accordingly.

 

[Correll]

don't play games. my meaning was clear.

Now you act like the Fuhrer Trump. He also called discussing abortion, a game

As I rebut you time and time again, your level of discourse and honesty are both dropping dramatically..

This is appropriate for the level you have reached.

 

[asaratis]

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

And Trump answered yes and when asked if women should be punished, he said yes -- twice

...and you STILL can't get the picture!

The only answer for a Presidential candidate to the question of "should someone be punished for breaking a law?" is YES.

The only answer to the follow up question "should the person who broke the law be punished for breaking the law?" is YES.

The only answer to "who can possibly break a law against having an abortion?" is PREGNANT FEMALES (women) and the DOCTORS (if any) that perform the abortion.


You are ONE DENSE, ILLOGICAL, LIBERAL IDIOT!!! But then, all liberals are dense and illogical, so you're attracting birds of a feather with your incessant lying and suspension of logic.

I can understand fully why you fail miserably as an op ed writer!!!

spin, spin, spin, spin, spin, spin

If that's all you've got left, you might as well go haunt some other thread. You can't follow logic so you mock it. How very fucking liberal of you.

 

[asaratis]

T

don't play games. my meaning was clear.

Now you act like the Fuhrer Trump. He also called discussing abortion, a game

As I rebut you time and time again, your level of discourse and honesty are both dropping dramatically..

This is appropriate for the level you have reached.

Totally awesome! Thank you!

 

[Martin Eden Mercury]

Donald Trump said women should be punished for having abortions. End of story

 

[asaratis]

Donald Trump said women should be punished for having abortions. End of story

No. Donald Trump said women should be punished for having abortions if abortions are made illegal. That was the hypothetical scenario set up by Chris Matthews, the liberal turd who pees down his own leg when the asshole Obama smiles for the cameras.

Maybe you should study the word hypothetical.

...and I'm sure that with you, there is never an 'end of story'. Every piece of shit you post as an op ed ends with "To be continued."

You are a waste of time, albeit an amusing little pest.

 

[Correll]

Donald Trump said women should be punished for having abortions. End of story

THat has been repeatedly addressed and you are engaged in propaganda.

 

[Martin Eden Mercury]

Donald Trump said women should be punished for having abortions if abortions are made illegal.

And almost every single pro-life group swiftly claimed they all disagreed.

So how out of touch is Donald Trump? Is he speaking the hidden thoughts of his supporters? Was he telling the truth? Do he and his supporters want to make abortion illegal, by appointing Justices he and they hope will make abortions illegal?

 

[Martin Eden Mercury]

Every piece of **** you post as an op ed ends with "To be continued."

You are a waste of time, albeit an amusing little pest.

Bright bulb.

 

[Martin Eden Mercury]

Donald Trump said women should be punished for having abortions. End of story

Donald Trump said if he could help make abortions illegal, women should be punished for having abortions. End of story

to be continued

 

[protectionist]

This Sanctuary City phenomenon didn't start on Obama's watch it started back in1980 on Reagan's watch.

The Sanctuary movement wasn't meant make US cities safe harbors for illegal aliens, it was initiated by various diverse religious organizations which banded together to oppose the deportation or forced repatriation of refugees fleeing Civil war and persecution in their homelands.

Your Senate Republicans know the history even if you don't. And they also know that the Sanctuary Movement does NOT preclude ICE or any other federal immigration agency from apprehending illegal aliens in those cities you call Sanctuary Cities. They also know that municipalities , counties and states are not required to enforce federal law and, in this case, the courts have held that when the spheres of jurisdiction are abrogated in that way, the 4th Amendment is violated.

Some have confused “sanctuary city” policies with the notion that immigrants in these communities are insulated from any immigration enforcement action against them. In fact, nothing in a so-called sanctuary city policy prevent federal enforcement actions. Some cities and localities—including San Francisco—have used the term “sanctuary” in their community policing policies in solidarity with the movement of the 1980s.

So What is it about the Sanctuary Movement that drives Republican politicians to want to ban it? BUt banning isn't an option, so they want cut Federal law enforcement funding for so -called Sanctuary Cities that

Senate Democrats have temporarily blocked a measure that would deny federal law enforcement funds to so-called "sanctuary cities," where local authorities don't automatically report undocumented immigrants without a record of serious criminal offenses to federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents. The idea for the bill was raised and enthusiastically promoted by figures on Fox News, who urged Republicans to "starve" these cities of federal money, despite experts noting that defunding would hurt public safety and evidence showing that so-called "sanctuary cities" are not actually a "safe haven" for undocumented immigrants and, in fact, deter criminality.

Congress' Attempt To Cut Federal Funds For "Sanctuary Cities" Was Built On Fox News' Rhetoric

Immigrant advocates maintain that sanctuary cities are effective because they allow undocumented immigrants to report crimes that they otherwise would be hesitant to come forward to talk about. A 2015 National Latin@ Network for Healthy Families and Communities survey found that 41 percent of foreign-born Latinas interviewed reported that they were afraid to call the police or go to court because they feared they could be deported.

The Big Problem With The GOP’s Crusade Against ‘Sanctuary Cities’

I stand with the Democrats on this one. The Republicans are evil bastards who don't mind jeopardizing the safety of entire communities by defunding their local law enforcement agencies of "Sanctuary Cities."

1. What matter about the Sanctuary City phenomenon is that it is assisting lawbreakers to break US law, and that Democrats are currently doing this (where or when it started, or who was president, is all insignificant now)

2. Who the Sanctuary City phenomenon was initiated by is a moot point. What matters is what it is doing NOW. (boy, are you ever grasping at straws - )

3. Now you are supporting the idea of Sanctuary Cities. That is reprehensible, and shows the hypocrisy of liberals and democrats who purport to be champions if the US working class (like Hillary Clinton's campaign motto "Fighting for us" ..

....FALSE! She's fighting for illegal aliens who are robbing US workers of millions of jobs. (and so are you).
As for ICE or any other federal immigration agency being precluded from apprehending illegal aliens in Sanctuary Cities, that is done by the liberals in those cities, by not honoring the ICE detainers, and releasing the illegals before ICE can come and pick them up (as occured with Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez), the illegal dirtbag who killed Kate Steinle) the VICTIM >

< the murderer

4. You said >> "nothing in a so-called sanctuary city policy prevent federal enforcement actions" FALSE! As I just noted, the Sanctuary city policy of not holding illegal aliens, and releasing them before ICE can come and pick them up is doing just that. It is "preventing federal enforcement actions"

5. What kind of a moron would ask a question like this >> "What is it about the Sanctuary Movement that drives Republican politicians to want to ban it?" Duh! How about this dum dum >>

Harms of immigration

1. Americans lose jobs.

2. Wage reduction.

3. Tax $ lost (due to off books work + lower wages paid).

4. Remittance $$$ lost. ($123 Billion year).

5. Tax $$ lost to immigrants on welfare.

6. Increased crime.

7. Increased traffic congestion.

8. Increased pollution.

9. Overcrowding in hospital ERs.

10. Overcrowding in recreational facilities.

11. Overcrowding in government offices.

12. Overcrowding in schools.

13. Decrease in funds available for entitlements.

14. Cultural erosion.

15. Overuse of scarce resources (oil, gasoline, fresh water, jobs, electricity, food, etc)

16. Introduction of foreign diseases.

17. Influx of terrorists.

Yeah, you stand with the Democrats, AND Mexican imperialism, in its invasion and robbery of the USA, and the illegal invaders, and against the American people, especially American workers, as as such, you are a filthy, disgusting TRAITOR, who ought to be arrested for treason (along with all the other sanctuary city miscreants), tried, convicted, and executed.

And what ludicrous, twisted "logic" to claim that "sanctuary cities are effective because they allow undocumented immigrants to report crimes that they otherwise would be hesitant to come forward to talk about." I suppose it never occured to that if we just deported all these invaders, then we wouldn't even be talking about that right ?

Did it ever dawn on you how imbecile all these pro-illegal alien comments are ? Good grief. don't you ever get embarassed ? Sheeesh!

PS - to call an ILLEGAL ALIEN an "undocumented immigrant", is about equivalent to calling a bank robber an informal withdrawl agent.

Lastly, "experts noting" ? HA HA HA HA!!! And what "experts" might those be ?

LOL. THESE guys ? >>

 

[Correll]

Donald Trump said women should be punished for having abortions if abortions are made illegal.

And almost every single pro-life group swiftly claimed they all disagreed.

So how out of touch is Donald Trump? Is he speaking the hidden thoughts of his supporters? Was he telling the truth? Do he and his supporters want to make abortion illegal, by appointing Justices he and they hope will make abortions illegal?

It is obvious that Abortion is not a top issue with him and he was ignorant of this legal detail.

He was very much "out of touch" with the Pro-life groups.

Once informed of his mistake, he quickly corrected it, and reversed his position on this.

It is likely that he will try to appoint Justices that lean pro-life.

What part of this is confusing or surprising to you?