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

Martin Eden Mercury

VIP Member
Nov 2, 2015
897
107
80
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.
4075-1460218440-4ac02603069ebffa4062021c591c2170.jpg

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.
 
Last edited:
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
 
3814-1446489654-0ffae1b357109eb2a80203a9a59840ef.jpg

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 just 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 substances.

to be continued

Martin Eden "Mem" Mercury

an invite for you to e-mail me at [email protected]


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

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? MATTHEWS: You said you’re pro-life. TRUMP: I am pro-life.

MATTHEWS: That means banning abortion.

MATTHEWS: I’m asking you. You want to be president of the United States.

TRUMP: You told me that...

MATTHEWS: You tell me what the law should be.

TRUMP: I have -- I have not determined...

MATTHEWS: Just tell me what the law should be. You say you’re pro-life.

TRUMP: I am pro-life.

MATTHEWS: What’s that mean?

TRUMP: With exceptions. I am pro-life. I have not determined what the punishment would be.

MATTHEWS: Why not?

TRUMP: Because I haven’t determined it.

MATTHEWS: When you decide to be pro-life, you should have thought of it. Because...

TRUMP: No, you could ask anybody who is pro-life...
 
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.
In Context: Transcript of Donald Trump on punishing women for abortion

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? MATTHEWS: You said you’re pro-life. TRUMP: I am pro-life.

MATTHEWS: That means banning abortion.

MATTHEWS: I’m asking you. You want to be president of the United States.

TRUMP: You told me that...

MATTHEWS: You tell me what the law should be.

TRUMP: I have -- I have not determined...

MATTHEWS: Just tell me what the law should be. You say you’re pro-life.

TRUMP: I am pro-life.

MATTHEWS: What’s that mean?

TRUMP: With exceptions. I am pro-life. I have not determined what the punishment would be.

MATTHEWS: Why not?

TRUMP: Because I haven’t determined it.

MATTHEWS: When you decide to be pro-life, you should have thought of it. Because...

TRUMP: No, you could ask anybody who is pro-life...


nothing in your post challenged any of my points.


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

Everything else in your op is partisan filler.
Desperation and dishonesty? Why would I be desperate, and I can assure you, I am not being dishonest. And op-eds are by their very nature, partisan. I am a partisan independent. , who happens to lean Democratic much of the time.

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. - Martin Eden "Mem" Mercury's Introduction
 
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?
 
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.
The Whirling Dervish act is not cutting it. Do you say Trump was asked "If abortion were made illegal, should the woman be punished?"
 
Your attempt to inflate this into something more significant reeks of desperation and dishonesty.

Everything else in your op is partisan filler.
Desperation and dishonesty? Why would I be desperate, and I can assure you, I am not being dishonest. And op-eds are by their very nature, partisan. I am a partisan independent. , who happens to lean Democratic much of the time.

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. - Martin Eden "Mem" Mercury's Introduction


he flubbed a question. that's all it is.

if not desperation, then why would you focus your attack on such a small matter?

why not attack him on the issues?

lol, we both know why.
 
nothing in your post challenged any of my points. The politically inexperienced candidate flubbed a question.
Trump's own words challenge your points. There is no question that Trump was asked a question, and as a follow up was asked to clarify his answer. Flubbing a question implies you believe he should not have said what he actually believed.
 
Last edited:
nothing in your post challenged any of my points. The politically inexperienced candidate flubbed a question.
/QUOTE]
Trump's own words challenge your points. There is no question that Trump was asked a question, and as a follow up was asked to clarify his answer. Flubbing a question implies you believe he should not have said what he actually believed.

no, flubbing the question, as i stated in the other thread where we discussed this, means he was unfamiliar with the way such anti-abortion laws are generally written.

he made the "rookie" mistake of applying common sense to a legal matter and mistakenly assuming that a law breaker would be punished.

which is not the case.

once informed of his error, he changed his position.


like i said, the inexperienced politician, flubbed a question, nothing more.
 
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.
The Whirling Dervish act is not cutting it. Do you say Trump was asked "If abortion were made illegal, should the woman be punished?"

That was the question and he answered it correctly.

Read your own OP. If abortion were to be made illegal.......

The real question is, why back away from it?
 
Last edited:
why not attack him on the issues?

I don't know what planet you are living on, and what language they speak on your planet, but I am attacking Trump on an issue -- on the issue of abortion.

no, you're not.

you're attacking based on a flubbed answer to a gotcha question.

he has already changed the position you are attacking him on. i don't know if he explicitly admitted he was wrong, but he certainly implicitly admitted it by changing his position.

if anything this incident shows that his ego does NOT get in the way of him responding appropriately to constructive criticism and advice.
 
no, flubbing the question, as i stated in the other thread where we discussed this, means he was unfamiliar with the way such anti-abortion laws are generally written.
Stop spinning. Trump was asked to clarify and he did. Trump said he believe women should be punished for having abortions. He was never asked about the way abortion laws are written. You are making things up.
 
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.
The Whirling Dervish act is not cutting it. Do you say Trump was asked "If abortion were made illegal, should the woman be punished?"

That was the question and he answered it correctly.

Read your own OP. If abortion were to be made illegal.......

The real question is, why back away from it?

Because he is a liar? Because he is a fraud?

The question was asked honestly, and Trump answered it honestly. Your opinion that it was the 'correct' is silly. Laws could be written that would punish everyone, but the woman. The legal team of anybody being prosecuted, would challenge that law
 
you're attacking based on a flubbed answer to a gotcha question.

he has already changed the position you are attacking him on. i don't know if he explicitly admitted he was wrong, but he certainly implicitly admitted it by changing his position.

if anything this incident shows that his ego does NOT get in the way of him responding appropriately to constructive criticism and advice.

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?
 

Forum List

Back
Top