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



## Martin Eden Mercury

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.


----------



## Stephanie

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


----------



## Correll

Martin Eden Mercury said:


> *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 usmbmem@lookout.com




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.


----------



## Pop23

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.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

Yawn..and yawn


----------



## Martin Eden Mercury

Correll said:


> 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...*


----------



## SassyIrishLass

Ugh off to ignore with this troll


----------



## Correll

Martin Eden Mercury said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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...*
Click to expand...



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.


----------



## Martin Eden Mercury

Correll said:


> 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_​


----------



## Martin Eden Mercury

Stephanie said:


> 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?


----------



## Martin Eden Mercury

Pop23 said:


> 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_?"


----------



## Correll

Martin Eden Mercury said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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_​
Click to expand...



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.


----------



## Martin Eden Mercury

Correll said:


> 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.


----------



## Martin Eden Mercury

Correll said:


> 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.


----------



## Correll

Martin Eden Mercury said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...


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.


----------



## Pop23

Martin Eden Mercury said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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_?"
Click to expand...


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?


----------



## Correll

Martin Eden Mercury said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...


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.


----------



## Martin Eden Mercury

Correll said:


> 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.


----------



## Martin Eden Mercury

Pop23 said:


> Martin Eden Mercury said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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_?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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?
Click to expand...


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


----------



## Martin Eden Mercury

Correll said:


> 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?


----------



## MarathonMike

Are you paid in any way to post your non stop anti-Trump smears? A simple 'YES' or 'NO' will suffice. Thanks


----------



## Correll

Martin Eden Mercury said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...


Nothing in your post contradicts anything in my post. 

He has already changed his position. 

YOu are holding on to a minor incident.


----------



## Correll

Martin Eden Mercury said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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?
Click to expand...


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.


----------



## Pop23

Martin Eden Mercury said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Martin Eden Mercury said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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_?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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
Click to expand...


Nothing silly at all. It amazes me you think as much.

The real question is about courage of conviction.

If one seriously believes abortion is a crime, but that those who willingly participates in a crime can just walk.....

That is what's actually silly.

Now, name another law in which an active, willing participant in a crime is not in jeopardy of legal punishment.


----------



## Martin Eden Mercury

Correll said:


> 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.


 No one said Trump would be writing laws, so what are you talking about? and the Courts? Trump actually addressed that, and you happen to be making stuff up again. Trump thinks who gets elected will be the one who determines if the court is going to support women's rights or not.

MATTHEWS: I know, what should the law -- I know your principle, that’s a good value. But what should be the law?

TRUMP: Well, you know, they’ve set the law and frankly the judges -- I mean, you’re going to have a very big election coming up for that reason, because you have judges where it’s a real tipping point.

MATTHEWS: I know.

TRUMP: And with the loss of (Supreme Court Justice Antonin) Scalia, who was a very strong conservative...

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


----------



## Martin Eden Mercury

MarathonMike said:


> Are you paid in any way to post your non stop anti-Trump smears? A simple 'YES' or 'NO' will suffice. Thanks


----------



## Martin Eden Mercury

Pop23 said:


> Martin Eden Mercury said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Martin Eden Mercury said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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_?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nothing silly at all. It amazes me you think as much.
> 
> The real question is about courage of conviction.
> 
> If one seriously believes abortion is a crime, but that those who willingly participates in a crime can just walk.....
> 
> That is what's actually silly.
> 
> Now, name another law in which an active, willing participant in a crime is not in jeopardy of legal punishment.
Click to expand...

 What we choose to criminalize or not, is the issue at hand. Not one credible anti-abortion leader or group, came to Trump's defense on punishing the woman. 

So one question is, why would Donald Trump want to be so outside of the mainstream, or is he mainstream in the anti-abortion group, and was he the only that was honest -- honest before he did a complete 180, and said he didn't say what we heard him say?


----------



## MarathonMike

Martin Eden Mercury said:


> MarathonMike said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you paid in any way to post your non stop anti-Trump smears? A simple 'YES' or 'NO' will suffice. Thanks
Click to expand...

I didn't think I would get a yes or no answer, cute emoji tho. I interpret that as how effective Trump's wall would be with illegal immigrants.


----------



## Martin Eden Mercury

MarathonMike said:


> Martin Eden Mercury said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MarathonMike said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you paid in any way to post your non stop anti-Trump smears? A simple 'YES' or 'NO' will suffice. Thanks
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I didn't think I would get a yes or no answer, cute emoji tho. I interpret that as how effective Trump's wall would be with illegal immigrants.
Click to expand...

Donald Trump: 'Everything is negotiable' - CNNPolitics.com

The wall? The_ Everything is Negotiable_ Trump Wall? 

Trump Won’t Allow Release of New York Times Tapes on Immigration


----------



## peach174

It was a* hypothetical* question.
Everyone is having a fit over it.
Hypothetical questions have no real right or wrong answers.
Trump is not a politician. If he had been he would have known right away to avoid any hypothetical questions.
Mathews is a seasoned veteran at politics and he used Trumps ignorance.
Everyone needs to calm down.
The Supreme Court had declared abortions as legal. Has been since the 70's, so it will still be around for a very long time to come.

Once again Hypothetical - not real


----------



## Bruce_T_Laney

Martin Eden Mercury said:


> *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 usmbmem@lookout.com



That day Trump wanted the woman punished, the next day it was anyone that was involved and performed the abortion, and next year he will be pro-choice once again ( look over his past words ) and wanting everyone that is not a WASP and approved by him to have one...

There was no rookie mistake because Trump make no mistakes and calculated his response with hoping it would draw in more of the fringe right to vote for him, but it instead backfired and now he want to play it off as a " Rookie Mistake "...


----------



## Martin Eden Mercury

peach174 said:


> It was a* hypothetical* question.
> Everyone is having a fit over it.
> Hypothetical questions have no real right or wrong answers.
> Trump is not a politician. If he had been he would have known right away to avoid any hypothetical questions.
> Mathews is a seasoned veteran at politics and he used Trumps ignorance.
> Everyone needs to calm down.
> The Supreme Court had declared abortions as legal. Has been since the 70's, so it will still be around for a very long time to come.
> 
> Once again Hypothetical - not real


Then I guess Bernie Sanders is not going to try and make college education free. After all, the question is "_only a hypothetical - not real_."


----------



## peach174

Martin Eden Mercury said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was a* hypothetical* question.
> Everyone is having a fit over it.
> Hypothetical questions have no real right or wrong answers.
> Trump is not a politician. If he had been he would have known right away to avoid any hypothetical questions.
> Mathews is a seasoned veteran at politics and he used Trumps ignorance.
> Everyone needs to calm down.
> The Supreme Court had declared abortions as legal. Has been since the 70's, so it will still be around for a very long time to come.
> 
> Once again Hypothetical - not real
> 
> 
> 
> Then I guess Bernie Sanders is not going to try and make college education free. After all, the question is "_only a hypothetical - not real_."
Click to expand...



The Supreme Court has not ruled it unconstitutional to pass such a bill.
Abortion was.


----------



## Martin Eden Mercury

peach174 said:


> Mathews is a seasoned veteran at politics and he used Trumps ignorance.



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

Now you give us *Vote Trump. Vote the Ignoramous!

*


----------



## Martin Eden Mercury

Bruce_T_Laney said:


> That day Trump wanted the woman punished, the next day it was anyone that was involved and performed the abortion, and next year he will be pro-choice once again ( look over his past words ) and wanting everyone that is not a WASP and approved by him to have one...
> 
> There was no rookie mistake because *Trump make no mistakes *and calculated his response with hoping it would draw in more of the fringe right to vote for him, but it instead backfired and now he want to play it off as a " Rookie Mistake "...



Trump's history of deal making -- _the art of the deal_, grew out of his getting himself out of mistakes, he alone got himself into. Trump's history is one of mistakes


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Martin Eden Mercury said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...

And unfortunately that’s the way most on the right will respond, particularly on USMB: to spin, lie, and make things up.

It’s also typical of most on the right to blindly defend any republican in knee-jerk fashion regardless the facts of the issue, and regardless the fact that the republican is indeed wrong – strict adherence to the 11th Commandment.


----------



## Pop23

Martin Eden Mercury said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Martin Eden Mercury said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Martin Eden Mercury said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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_?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nothing silly at all. It amazes me you think as much.
> 
> The real question is about courage of conviction.
> 
> If one seriously believes abortion is a crime, but that those who willingly participates in a crime can just walk.....
> 
> That is what's actually silly.
> 
> Now, name another law in which an active, willing participant in a crime is not in jeopardy of legal punishment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What we choose to criminalize or not, is the issue at hand. Not one credible anti-abortion leader or group, came to Trump's defense on punishing the woman.
> 
> So one question is, why would Donald Trump want to be so outside of the mainstream, or is he mainstream in the anti-abortion group, and was he the only that was honest -- honest before he did a complete 180, and said he didn't say what we heard him say?
Click to expand...


Of course he was being honest before the 180. 

If abortion IS CRIMINALIZED then all the participants are criminals with the exception of the three reasons he eluded to because those fall under duress. 

I have many times asked the question. How, if you believe abortion is a crime, do you exclude the woman from any charges. That would go against the way our criminal justice system entirely.


----------



## Pop23

Martin Eden Mercury said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was a* hypothetical* question.
> Everyone is having a fit over it.
> Hypothetical questions have no real right or wrong answers.
> Trump is not a politician. If he had been he would have known right away to avoid any hypothetical questions.
> Mathews is a seasoned veteran at politics and he used Trumps ignorance.
> Everyone needs to calm down.
> The Supreme Court had declared abortions as legal. Has been since the 70's, so it will still be around for a very long time to come.
> 
> Once again Hypothetical - not real
> 
> 
> 
> Then I guess Bernie Sanders is not going to try and make college education free. After all, the question is "_only a hypothetical - not real_."
Click to expand...


Just as trump could not make abortion illegal, sanders could not make college free for all. 

Good Lord. 

What truly is silly is having to type that out.


----------



## Martin Eden Mercury

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Martin Eden Mercury said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And unfortunately that’s the way most on the right will respond, particularly on USMB: to spin, lie, and make things up.
> 
> It’s also typical of most on the right to blindly defend any republican in knee-jerk fashion regardless the facts of the issue, and regardless the fact that the republican is indeed wrong – strict adherence to the 11th Commandment.
Click to expand...


You do know the 11th commandment thing was all a big _yuuge_ bs game? Prior to 1980, Ronald Reagan trashed and challenged every Republican who was to the left of himself. And back then, Reagan was considered a right winger. Even at the 1976 GOP convention, Reagan was a hypocrite

_The Ford maneuver rests on the defense of state laws which require delegates to vote the way they were instructed. Principally this involves 19 states which held primaries and bound their delegates to vote at the convention for the candidate favored by the voters at home. Reagan's chances for nomination rely heavily on hopes of winning over delegates bound to Ford. If they don't switch immediately, it is hoped that they will at least sit out a ballot or two until their commitments have expired. This put Reagan's conservatives in the position of urging rock - ribbed states' righters to violate state laws. - _August 11, 1976 - The Daily Times-News from Burlington, North Carolina​


----------



## Martin Eden Mercury

Pop23 said:


> Of course he was being honest before the 180.
> 
> If abortion IS CRIMINALIZED then all the participants are criminals with the exception of the three reasons he eluded to because those fall under duress.
> 
> I have many times asked the question. How, if you believe abortion is a crime, do you exclude the woman from any charges. That would go against the way our criminal justice system entirely.


Of course you are wrong. Any law could make the woman exempt from any and all Earthly punishment.


----------



## Martin Eden Mercury

Pop23 said:


> Just as trump could not make abortion illegal, sanders could not make college free for all.
> 
> Good Lord.
> 
> What truly is silly is having to type that out.


Yet it is the lunatic right wingers that keep saying Sanders will do just that. And no one here has claimed Trump can make abortion illegal. So, good lordie, lord


----------



## peach174

Martin Eden Mercury said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mathews is a seasoned veteran at politics and he used Trumps ignorance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Great!!! First we had a Trump slogan of *Vote Trump. Vote the Rookie!*
> 
> Now you give us *Vote Trump. Vote the Ignoramous!
> 
> *
Click to expand...



Not even close to what I said.
Nice spin though.


----------



## Martin Eden Mercury

peach174 said:


> Martin Eden Mercury said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mathews is a seasoned veteran at politics and he used Trumps ignorance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Great!!! First we had a Trump slogan of *Vote Trump. Vote the Rookie!*
> 
> Now you give us *Vote Trump. Vote the Ignoramous!
> 
> *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Not even close to what I said.
> Nice spin though.
Click to expand...

your very own words
"Mathews is a seasoned veteran at politics and he used *Trumps ignorance.*" I understand there are people out there who think ignorance of an issue is a plus for a Presidential candidate. I just happen to believe that view is -- ignorant


----------



## peach174

Martin Eden Mercury said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just as trump could not make abortion illegal, sanders could not make college free for all.
> 
> Good Lord.
> 
> What truly is silly is having to type that out.
> 
> 
> 
> Yet it is the lunatic right wingers that keep saying Sanders will do just that. And no one here has claimed Trump can make abortion illegal. So, good lordie, lord
Click to expand...



It's Sanders who says that is what he wants. The right are just repeating it.
Pretty good chance that if the Dems pick up more in the House and Senate in the next 4 years, chances are pretty good that a bill for free tuition will be written and passed if Sanders becomes President.
Chances of a House, Senate and President becoming Republican and a bill passed to make abortion illegal,it will not be accepted by the Supreme Court.


----------



## Martin Eden Mercury

peach174 said:


> It's Sanders who says that is what he wants. The right are just repeating it.


And it was Trump who said 'twice' that women should be punished for having abortions. Some of us not part of the Cult of Personality/Trump, are only repeating what it is Trump actually said, before he later said he didn't say it, or that he didn't mean to say what he said, or that it doesn't matter because he was ONLY speaking hypothetically


----------



## Pop23

Martin Eden Mercury said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just as trump could not make abortion illegal, sanders could not make college free for all.
> 
> Good Lord.
> 
> What truly is silly is having to type that out.
> 
> 
> 
> Yet it is the lunatic right wingers that keep saying Sanders will do just that. And no one here has claimed Trump can make abortion illegal. So, good lordie, lord
Click to expand...


But the lunatic left think he can. 

So there's that

Anything to get a vote and create a wedge


----------



## peach174

Martin Eden Mercury said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Martin Eden Mercury said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mathews is a seasoned veteran at politics and he used Trumps ignorance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Great!!! First we had a Trump slogan of *Vote Trump. Vote the Rookie!*
> 
> Now you give us *Vote Trump. Vote the Ignoramous!
> 
> *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Not even close to what I said.
> Nice spin though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> your very own words
> "Mathews is a seasoned veteran at politics and he used *Trumps ignorance.*" I understand there are people out there who think ignorance of an issue is a plus for a Presidential candidate. I just happen to believe that view is -- ignorant
Click to expand...



Politicians know not to touch any hypothetical questions.
Business people like to challenge hypothetical questions.
That is the difference between the two.


----------



## peach174

Martin Eden Mercury said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's Sanders who says that is what he wants. The right are just repeating it.
> 
> 
> 
> And it was Trump who said 'twice' that women should be punished for having abortions. Some of us not part of the Cult of Personality/Trump, are only repeating what it is Trump actually said, before he later said he didn't say it, or that he didn't mean to say what he said, or that it doesn't matter because he was ONLY speaking hypothetically
Click to expand...


I am not a part of that cult.
I am stating that Trump can't nor will he make abortion illegal and it has been blown way out of proportion.
And if abortion did ever become illegal again then yes both parties needs to be involved.


----------



## Arianrhod

The thing everyone either forgets or didn't notice, is the follow-up question.

Yes, Donnie said women should be punished if they had abortions (then later walked it back), but when someone asked him "Should the man who got her pregnant be punished?" the Hero of the Great Unwashed said "No."

Those of you who are capable of thinking, give that a moment's thought.


----------



## Martin Eden Mercury

peach174 said:


> your very own words
> "Mathews is a seasoned veteran at politics and he used *Trumps ignorance.*" I understand there are people out there who think ignorance of an issue is a plus for a Presidential candidate. I just happen to believe that view is -- ignorant




Politicians know not to touch any hypothetical questions.
Business people like to challenge hypothetical questions.
That is the difference between the two.[/QUOTE]
I call out the bs. Trump answers hypotheticals every day. What is different here, ids that he got caught in an unguarded moment, where for once, he actually spoke the truth of what he and others believe. 

Your made up differences is at best, laughable


----------



## peach174

Arianrhod said:


> The thing everyone either forgets or didn't notice, is the follow-up question.
> 
> Yes, Donnie said women should be punished if they had abortions (then later walked it back), but when someone asked him "Should the man who got her pregnant be punished?" the Hero of the Great Unwashed said "No."
> 
> Those of you who are capable of thinking, give that a moment's thought.




That was what was the problem.
Matthews fired questions and deflected on his own Churches views and did not give Trump any chance to give a moments thought on his.
So yes a typical man raised in the time is was illegal would blurt something out like that under pressure without thinking.
If Trump got elected this would not be one of things on his agenda.
Legal abortion is not going to go away.


----------



## peach174

Martin Eden Mercury said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> your very own words
> "Mathews is a seasoned veteran at politics and he used *Trumps ignorance.*" I understand there are people out there who think ignorance of an issue is a plus for a Presidential candidate. I just happen to believe that view is -- ignorant
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Politicians know not to touch any hypothetical questions.
> Business people like to challenge hypothetical questions.
> That is the difference between the two.
Click to expand...

I call out the bs. Trump answers hypotheticals every day. What is different here, ids that he got caught in an unguarded moment, where for once, he actually spoke the truth of what he and others believe.

Your made up differences is at best, laughable[/QUOTE]

Made up differences?
I thought we were using debate (opposing points). My mistake.
Name the hypothetical questions he does every day.


----------



## peach174

I didn't think so.
You could not find any?


----------



## Martin Eden Mercury

peach174 said:


> I am stating that Trump can't nor will he make abortion illegal and it has been blown way out of proportion.


A man running for President has said women should be punished for having abortions, and you want to take the position that being flabbergasted, outraged, and horrified by his comments, is somehow blowing it all out of proportion? That is a text book definition of shill, hack, partisan tool, enemy within


----------



## Martin Eden Mercury

Arianrhod said:


> "Should the man who got her pregnant be punished?" the Hero of the Great Unwashed said "No."
> 
> Those of you who are capable of thinking, give that a moment's thought.


I was waiting to use THAT one. 

But it is no laughing matter. The man spoke what he truly believed and it horrified normal people.


----------



## Martin Eden Mercury

peach174 said:


> Matthews fired questions and deflected on his own Churches views


Yes, Trump tried deflecting by bringing up the religious beliefs of an interviewer. Terrible.

Chris Matthews is NOT running for President. I know that sounds a bit unfair to you. Your Big Daddy has feet of clay


----------



## Pop23

Arianrhod said:


> The thing everyone either forgets or didn't notice, is the follow-up question.
> 
> Yes, Donnie said women should be punished if they had abortions (then later walked it back), but when someone asked him "Should the man who got her pregnant be punished?" the Hero of the Great Unwashed said "No."
> 
> Those of you who are capable of thinking, give that a moment's thought.



I have, neither sex nor pregnancy is, nor would be illegal.

Crime involves an act, if the man does not participate in the illegal act, how would he be prosecuted?

Now if he paid for, arranged or participated in the ACT, then yes, he would be prosecuted.

Problem?

Reality can be such a buzzkill, aye?


----------



## Pop23

Martin Eden Mercury said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Should the man who got her pregnant be punished?" the Hero of the Great Unwashed said "No."
> 
> Those of you who are capable of thinking, give that a moment's thought.
> 
> 
> 
> I was waiting to use THAT one.
> 
> But it is no laughing matter. The man spoke what he truly believed and it horrified normal people.
Click to expand...


Why, specifically?


----------



## Martin Eden Mercury

peach174 said:


> Made up differences?
> I thought we were using debate (opposing points). My mistake.
> Name the hypothetical questions he does every day.


Most every question on policy is a hypothetical. But you may have a point there, Trump is rarely asked enough questions on policy, because he usually gets to pull a filibuster whenever he gets tough questions.


----------



## Martin Eden Mercury

peach174 said:


> I didn't think so.
> You could not find any?


Stop playing the fool. Your ego aside, others here are much better at it than you are.


----------



## peach174

Martin Eden Mercury said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am stating that Trump can't nor will he make abortion illegal and it has been blown way out of proportion.
> 
> 
> 
> A man running for President has said women should be punished for having abortions, and you want to take the position that being flabbergasted, outraged, and horrified by his comments, is somehow blowing it all out of proportion? That is a text book definition of shill, hack, partisan tool, enemy within
Click to expand...



Oh Brother !!
We are never going back to illegal backroom butchers, so drop the melodramatics.


----------



## peach174

Martin Eden Mercury said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't think so.
> You could not find any?
> 
> 
> 
> Stop playing the fool. Your ego aside, others here are much better at it than you are.
Click to expand...



You lost the debate the minute you started attacking.


----------



## Bleipriester

Martin Eden Mercury said:


> *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 usmbmem@lookout.com


Honestly, I don´t see a point here. Didn´t he say, he doesn´t know?

Let him abort the O at first and then look further.


----------



## Correll

Martin Eden Mercury said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> No one said Trump would be writing laws, so what are you talking about? and the Courts? Trump actually addressed that, and you happen to be making stuff up again. Trump thinks who gets elected will be the one who determines if the court is going to support women's rights or not.
> 
> MATTHEWS: I know, what should the law -- I know your principle, that’s a good value. But what should be the law?
> 
> TRUMP: Well, you know, they’ve set the law and frankly the judges -- I mean, you’re going to have a very big election coming up for that reason, because you have judges where it’s a real tipping point.
> 
> MATTHEWS: I know.
> 
> TRUMP: And with the loss of (Supreme Court Justice Antonin) Scalia, who was a very strong conservative...
> 
> In Context: Transcript of Donald Trump on punishing women for abortion​
Click to expand...


And now you are moving the goal posts.

Before you were focused on whether he would punish woman lawbreakers.

Now, that I pointed out that he would not be in a position to make that call regardless, now it is about whether or not the Court will be Pro-Life or Pro-Choice.

A very different question.

Without addressing the truth of the fact that your OP and the first two pages of your thread had been rebutted.

Revealing yourself to be nothing but a dishonest partisan.


----------



## Correll

peach174 said:


> It was a* hypothetical* question.
> Everyone is having a fit over it.
> Hypothetical questions have no real right or wrong answers.
> Trump is not a politician. If he had been he would have known right away to avoid any hypothetical questions.
> Mathews is a seasoned veteran at politics and he used Trumps ignorance.
> Everyone needs to calm down.
> The Supreme Court had declared abortions as legal. Has been since the 70's, so it will still be around for a very long time to come.
> 
> Once again Hypothetical - not real



Like I said, a Gotcha question designed to give ammo to dishonest partisan hacks like the OP.


----------



## Correll

Bruce_T_Laney said:


> Martin Eden Mercury said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *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 usmbmem@lookout.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That day Trump wanted the woman punished, the next day it was anyone that was involved and performed the abortion, and next year he will be pro-choice once again ( look over his past words ) and wanting everyone that is not a WASP and approved by him to have one...
> 
> There was no rookie mistake because Trump make no mistakes and calculated his response with hoping it would draw in more of the fringe right to vote for him, but it instead backfired and now he want to play it off as a " Rookie Mistake "...
Click to expand...



Normally Trump is very, very calculated.

But this did not work, was not going to work, and seems to be an actual real mistake.

And you can save your Race Card for some future date when people who aren't libs start caring again.


----------



## Correll

Martin Eden Mercury said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mathews is a seasoned veteran at politics and he used Trumps ignorance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Great!!! First we had a Trump slogan of *Vote Trump. Vote the Rookie!*
> 
> Now you give us *Vote Trump. Vote the Ignoramous!
> 
> *
Click to expand...


He was ignorant on this one point of the law. 

I didn't know that normally in such laws that only the provider is targeted, did you?

And with your partisan spin removed, it would be more like, 

*Vote Trump. Vote the Outsider!*


----------



## Correll

Martin Eden Mercury said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's Sanders who says that is what he wants. The right are just repeating it.
> 
> 
> 
> And it was Trump who said 'twice' that women should be punished for having abortions. Some of us not part of the Cult of Personality/Trump, are only repeating what it is Trump actually said, before he later said he didn't say it, or that he didn't mean to say what he said, or that it doesn't matter because he was ONLY speaking hypothetically
Click to expand...



He has already changed his position.

THe reasons for the change have been explained and are credible.

YOu are holding on to a minor incident.


----------



## Pop23

Martin Eden Mercury said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course he was being honest before the 180.
> 
> If abortion IS CRIMINALIZED then all the participants are criminals with the exception of the three reasons he eluded to because those fall under duress.
> 
> I have many times asked the question. How, if you believe abortion is a crime, do you exclude the woman from any charges. That would go against the way our criminal justice system entirely.
> 
> 
> 
> Of course you are wrong. Any law could make the woman exempt from any and all Earthly punishment.
Click to expand...




Martin Eden Mercury said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course he was being honest before the 180.
> 
> If abortion IS CRIMINALIZED then all the participants are criminals with the exception of the three reasons he eluded to because those fall under duress.
> 
> I have many times asked the question. How, if you believe abortion is a crime, do you exclude the woman from any charges. That would go against the way our criminal justice system entirely.
> 
> 
> 
> Of course you are wrong. Any law could make the woman exempt from any and all Earthly punishment.
Click to expand...

Not in this country. Do you understand our legal system?

A law that did that would not stand the most basic legal challenge.

But I will post my challenge to you again. And if you can answer it, then you have a valid point, if not, you prove yourself the hack we all think you are.

Name the law that allows an individual that willing participates in a criminal act to not face legal jeapordy. 

I'll wait


----------



## Martin Eden Mercury

Correll said:


> And now you are moving the goal posts.
> 
> Before you were focused on whether he would punish woman lawbreakers.
> 
> Now, that I pointed out that he would not be in a position to make that call regardless, now it is about whether or not the Court will be Pro-Life or Pro-Choice.
> 
> A very different question.
> 
> Without addressing the truth of the fact that your OP and the first two pages of your thread had been rebutted.
> 
> Revealing yourself to be nothing but a dishonest partisan.



Trump supporters are defending a man who believes women should be punished, by claiming Trump did not really say what we all heard him say. And you Correll first brought up the Court angle. You moved the goal post. I replied. Now like Trump, you attacks and shout and stomp. .

You people cannot deny what Trump said. He said twice, that he believed women should be punished for having an abortion


----------



## Martin Eden Mercury

peach174 said:


> Martin Eden Mercury said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am stating that Trump can't nor will he make abortion illegal and it has been blown way out of proportion.
> 
> 
> 
> A man running for President has said women should be punished for having abortions, and you want to take the position that being flabbergasted, outraged, and horrified by his comments, is somehow blowing it all out of proportion? That is a text book definition of shill, hack, partisan tool, enemy within
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Oh Brother !!
> We are never going back to illegal backroom butchers, so drop the melodramatics.
Click to expand...

Huh? Did Trump bring up backroom abortions? That's creepy


----------



## Martin Eden Mercury

peach174 said:


> Martin Eden Mercury said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't think so.
> You could not find any?
> 
> 
> 
> Stop playing the fool. Your ego aside, others here are much better at it than you are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You lost the debate the minute you started attacking.
Click to expand...

When dealing with anything to do with Trump or his supporters, there is always the whine.


----------



## Martin Eden Mercury

Bleipriester said:


> Martin Eden Mercury said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *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 usmbmem@lookout.com
> 
> 
> 
> Honestly, I don´t see a point here. Didn´t he say, he doesn´t know?
> 
> Let him abort the O at first and then look further.
Click to expand...

already addressed what the point is. The point is that now Trump and his supporters want it all to go away

"_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

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*_.​


----------



## Martin Eden Mercury

Correll said:


> He was ignorant on this one point of the law.


Trump was not discussing a 'point of law' 

Trump was asked his opinion. It was not a legal discussion, it was a discussion on abortion. Trump did not struggle or get sandbagged by a legal point. Trump was simply asked to say who he thought should be punished -- Trump twice said he thought there should be some form of legal punishment for the women. Framing that as a point of law, is just more deflection


----------



## Martin Eden Mercury

Pop23 said:


> Martin Eden Mercury said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course he was being honest before the 180.
> 
> If abortion IS CRIMINALIZED then all the participants are criminals with the exception of the three reasons he eluded to because those fall under duress.
> 
> I have many times asked the question. How, if you believe abortion is a crime, do you exclude the woman from any charges. That would go against the way our criminal justice system entirely.
> 
> 
> 
> Of course you are wrong. Any law could make the woman exempt from any and all Earthly punishment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Martin Eden Mercury said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course he was being honest before the 180.
> 
> If abortion IS CRIMINALIZED then all the participants are criminals with the exception of the three reasons he eluded to because those fall under duress.
> 
> I have many times asked the question. How, if you believe abortion is a crime, do you exclude the woman from any charges. That would go against the way our criminal justice system entirely.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course you are wrong. Any law could make the woman exempt from any and all Earthly punishment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not in this country. Do you understand our legal system?
> 
> A law that did that would not stand the most basic legal challenge.
> 
> But I will post my challenge to you again. And if you can answer it, then you have a valid point, if not, you prove yourself the hack we all think you are.
> 
> Name the law that allows an individual that willing participates in a criminal act to not face legal jeapordy.
> 
> I'll wait
Click to expand...

Your opinion on what could pass muster as a law is woefully ignorant, and I will ask you to NOT hijack this thread


----------



## Correll

Martin Eden Mercury said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> And now you are moving the goal posts.
> 
> Before you were focused on whether he would punish woman lawbreakers.
> 
> Now, that I pointed out that he would not be in a position to make that call regardless, now it is about whether or not the Court will be Pro-Life or Pro-Choice.
> 
> A very different question.
> 
> Without addressing the truth of the fact that your OP and the first two pages of your thread had been rebutted.
> 
> Revealing yourself to be nothing but a dishonest partisan.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trump supporters are defending a man who believes women should be punished, by claiming Trump did not really say what we all heard him say. And you Correll first brought up the Court angle. You moved the goal post. I replied. Now like Trump, you attacks and shout and stomp. .
> 
> You people cannot deny what Trump said. He said twice, that he believed women should be punished for having an abortion
Click to expand...


And now you ignore the fact that I have repeatedly responded to that point, and simply repeat your initial assertion.

THis is the Logical Fallacy of Proof by Assertion and more proof, as if any were needed that you are merely here to engage in propaganda.

This is for you.


----------



## Correll

Martin Eden Mercury said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> He was ignorant on this one point of the law.
> 
> 
> 
> Trump was not discussing a 'point of law'
> 
> Trump was asked his opinion. It was not a legal discussion, it was a discussion on abortion. Trump did not struggle or get sandbagged by a legal point. Trump was simply asked to say who he thought should be punished -- Trump twice said he thought there should be some form of legal punishment for the women. Framing that as a point of law, is just more deflection
Click to expand...



That post was pure nonsense.

He was asked his opinion on a hypothetical law, and was ignorant of the fact that normally such laws target the provider.

YOu are again engaged Proof by Assertion


And again, for you.


----------



## Pop23

Martin Eden Mercury said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Martin Eden Mercury said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course he was being honest before the 180.
> 
> If abortion IS CRIMINALIZED then all the participants are criminals with the exception of the three reasons he eluded to because those fall under duress.
> 
> I have many times asked the question. How, if you believe abortion is a crime, do you exclude the woman from any charges. That would go against the way our criminal justice system entirely.
> 
> 
> 
> Of course you are wrong. Any law could make the woman exempt from any and all Earthly punishment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Martin Eden Mercury said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course he was being honest before the 180.
> 
> If abortion IS CRIMINALIZED then all the participants are criminals with the exception of the three reasons he eluded to because those fall under duress.
> 
> I have many times asked the question. How, if you believe abortion is a crime, do you exclude the woman from any charges. That would go against the way our criminal justice system entirely.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course you are wrong. Any law could make the woman exempt from any and all Earthly punishment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not in this country. Do you understand our legal system?
> 
> A law that did that would not stand the most basic legal challenge.
> 
> But I will post my challenge to you again. And if you can answer it, then you have a valid point, if not, you prove yourself the hack we all think you are.
> 
> Name the law that allows an individual that willing participates in a criminal act to not face legal jeapordy.
> 
> I'll wait
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your opinion on what could pass muster as a law is woefully ignorant, and I will ask you to NOT hijack this thread
Click to expand...




Martin Eden Mercury said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Martin Eden Mercury said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course he was being honest before the 180.
> 
> If abortion IS CRIMINALIZED then all the participants are criminals with the exception of the three reasons he eluded to because those fall under duress.
> 
> I have many times asked the question. How, if you believe abortion is a crime, do you exclude the woman from any charges. That would go against the way our criminal justice system entirely.
> 
> 
> 
> Of course you are wrong. Any law could make the woman exempt from any and all Earthly punishment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Martin Eden Mercury said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course he was being honest before the 180.
> 
> If abortion IS CRIMINALIZED then all the participants are criminals with the exception of the three reasons he eluded to because those fall under duress.
> 
> I have many times asked the question. How, if you believe abortion is a crime, do you exclude the woman from any charges. That would go against the way our criminal justice system entirely.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course you are wrong. Any law could make the woman exempt from any and all Earthly punishment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not in this country. Do you understand our legal system?
> 
> A law that did that would not stand the most basic legal challenge.
> 
> But I will post my challenge to you again. And if you can answer it, then you have a valid point, if not, you prove yourself the hack we all think you are.
> 
> Name the law that allows an individual that willing participates in a criminal act to not face legal jeapordy.
> 
> I'll wait
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your opinion on what could pass muster as a law is woefully ignorant, and I will ask you to NOT hijack this thread
Click to expand...


Proof enough that you can't provide evidence for your OPINION. 

Your failure is noted


----------



## Bleipriester

Martin Eden Mercury said:


> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Martin Eden Mercury said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *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 usmbmem@lookout.com
> 
> 
> 
> Honestly, I don´t see a point here. Didn´t he say, he doesn´t know?
> 
> Let him abort the O at first and then look further.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> already addressed what the point is. The point is that now Trump and his supporters want it all to go away
> 
> "_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
> 
> 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*_.​
Click to expand...

That in bold does not necessarily imply legal persecution. "Some form of punishment" could mean that the woman involved would be banned from sex with a BAC of 0,2 %.
It does not necessarily imply any consequence and in combination with Trump´s statement that he doesn´t know what the law is going to be it rather turns out to be his personal opinion which he knows is likely not enforceable.
But what it implies in some way already is that he intents to punish the doctors that earn money with stabbing the unborn.


----------



## Martin Eden Mercury

Correll said:


> He was asked his opinion on a hypothetical law, and was ignorant of the fact that normally such laws target the provider.


What's next 'Trump was asked a question twice, and gave an answer that was not really an answer, because he didn't have time to check back with his handlers?'


----------



## Martin Eden Mercury

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


----------



## Pop23

Martin Eden Mercury said:


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



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


----------



## Correll

Martin Eden Mercury said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Martin Eden Mercury said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't think so.
> You could not find any?
> 
> 
> 
> Stop playing the fool. Your ego aside, others here are much better at it than you are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You lost the debate the minute you started attacking.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When dealing with anything to do with Trump or his supporters, there is always the whine.
Click to expand...


No, he's right.

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


----------



## asaratis

Pop23 said:


> Trump was correct the first time, it's simply how our criminal justice system works:
> 
> IF, abortion were made illegal, should the woman be punished?
> 
> There is no real question. Under our system, all who willingly participate in a criminal act are subject to state punishment. With the three exception, he answered absolutely correctly.


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


----------



## Correll

Martin Eden Mercury said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> He was asked his opinion on a hypothetical law, and was ignorant of the fact that normally such laws target the provider.
> 
> 
> 
> What's next 'Trump was asked a question twice, and gave an answer that was not really an answer, because he didn't have time to check back with his handlers?'
Click to expand...



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

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

The inexperienced candidate flubbed a question.

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

NOt that anyone is denying that he is inexperienced.


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

That is lying.

As before.


----------



## Correll

Martin Eden Mercury said:


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



You are the one that is pathetically transparent.

The inexperienced candidate flubbed a question.

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


----------



## Martin Eden Mercury

Pop23 said:


> Martin Eden Mercury said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Circus Act that people have to engage in to defend Trump would be funny, if it weren't so pathetically transparent
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And your failure to back up your opinions is in the center ring of the circus
Click to expand...

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


----------



## Martin Eden Mercury

Correll said:


> Martin Eden Mercury said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> He was asked his opinion on a hypothetical law, and was ignorant of the fact that normally such laws target the provider.
> 
> 
> 
> What's next 'Trump was asked a question twice, and gave an answer that was not really an answer, because he didn't have time to check back with his handlers?'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Your op raised a valid issue, Trump's initial position was more hard line than most.
> 
> But it has been repeatedly and credibly pointed out that his position was based on ignorance of the way such laws are generally written and he has changed his position accordingly.
Click to expand...

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

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

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


----------



## Martin Eden Mercury

Martin Eden Mercury said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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?
Click to expand...

Please?


----------



## Correll

Martin Eden Mercury said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Martin Eden Mercury said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> He was asked his opinion on a hypothetical law, and was ignorant of the fact that normally such laws target the provider.
> 
> 
> 
> What's next 'Trump was asked a question twice, and gave an answer that was not really an answer, because he didn't have time to check back with his handlers?'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Your op raised a valid issue, Trump's initial position was more hard line than most.
> 
> But it has been repeatedly and credibly pointed out that his position was based on ignorance of the way such laws are generally written and he has changed his position accordingly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So now it's _*Vote Trump. Vote the Ignorant!*_
> 
> There was nothing tricky or lawyerly being asked of Trump. It was all about 'if you are pro-life, what crime do you think is committed?' Then Trump was asked if there should be punishment for abortions. He was asked if he thought the women who have abortions should be punished.
> 
> Trump replied twice to the question of 'Should women be punished' and twice he answered in the affirmative. How in the world can you people now claim he was ignorant enough to not know what was being asked?
Click to expand...



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

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

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

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

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

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


----------



## Martin Eden Mercury

Correll said:


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


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


----------



## Martin Eden Mercury

Correll said:


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



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


----------



## Correll

Martin Eden Mercury said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have admitted that his blunder was caused by ignorance of that point of law.
> 
> 
> 
> Trump was asked his personal opinion. He was not asked a point of law. You keep dissembling in order to make it so
Click to expand...


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

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

Oh, right.


----------



## Correll

Martin Eden Mercury said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> YOur dishonesty that we see here with you misrepresenting what I said, on this issue, is nothing but propaganda.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now you're unclear on what constitutes _propaganda_?  Good lord! Are you representative of a Trump supporter?
Click to expand...


Logical Fallacy of Begging the Question.


----------



## Martin Eden Mercury

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


----------



## Pop23

Martin Eden Mercury said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Martin Eden Mercury said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Circus Act that people have to engage in to defend Trump would be funny, if it weren't so pathetically transparent
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And your failure to back up your opinions is in the center ring of the circus
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Opinion? Donald Trump either did or did not say, what the op says hes said
Click to expand...


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


----------



## Martin Eden Mercury

Now discussing something a candidate says is somehow propaganda? Donald Trump

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

After a *citizen* in the audience asked mister Trump:
"_What is your stance on women’s rights and their right to choose in their own reproductive health_?" Donald Trump answered "_I’m pro-life...with exceptions, with the three exceptions_." Matthews then asked "_What should the law be on abortion_?" and Trump answered "_Nobody knows what the law’s going to be_." Fair enough. 

MATTHEWS asked: "What should the law be on abortion?"  And this is where the shimmy shake dance began. Trump started squirming and had the unmitigated gall to ask the interviewer about his own religious faith. The interviewer is NOT running for President. 

Trump then mentioned the federal Courts, and again the Catholic Church. But that old tricky Matthews stuck with REAL journalism (damn him!). 


MATTHEWS: I’m asking you, what should a woman face if she chooses to have an abortion?
TRUMP: I’m not going to do that.
MATTHEWS: Why not?
TRUMP: I’m not going to play that game.
MATTHEWS: Game?

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

MATTHEWS: That means banning abortion. 
TRUMP: And so is the Catholic Church pro-life.



Martin Eden Mercury said:


> *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 usmbmem@lookout.com


----------



## asaratis

Martin Eden Mercury said:


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


....which is where it belongs, you flaming idiot!  All your attempts at op ed should be moved to _Humor, The Rubber Room _or  _The Flame Zone_.

As an op ed writer, you really do suck.


----------



## Martin Eden Mercury

...

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

Then we got *Vote Trump. Vote the Ignoramous! 
*
and we end with
* Vote Trump. Vote the Flubber!*  and *Vote Trump. Vote the Blunderer!

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


----------



## Correll

Martin Eden Mercury said:


> 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.


----------



## Martin Eden Mercury

asaratis said:


> ....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

Martin Eden Mercury said:


> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> Martin Eden Mercury said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *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 usmbmem@lookout.com
Click to expand...



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 said:


> Martin Eden Mercury said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...

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 said:


> Martin Eden Mercury said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...


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


----------



## Correll

Martin Eden Mercury said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Martin Eden Mercury said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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
Click to expand...


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

Correll said:


> 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

Martin Eden Mercury said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Martin Eden Mercury said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The op-ed was clear and my responses have been clear.
Click to expand...




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

Correll said:


> 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

Correll said:


> 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

Martin Eden Mercury said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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
Click to expand...


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

Martin Eden Mercury said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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
Click to expand...


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

Correll said:


> 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

Correll said:


> 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

Correll said:


> Martin Eden Mercury said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...


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

Martin Eden Mercury said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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."
Click to expand...



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

Martin Eden Mercury said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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
Click to expand...



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

Martin Eden Mercury said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Martin Eden Mercury said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...



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

Correll said:


> Martin Eden Mercury said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...

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


----------



## Martin Eden Mercury

Correll said:


> 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

Correll said:


> Martin Eden Mercury said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Martin Eden Mercury said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...

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

Martin Eden Mercury said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...

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


----------



## Martin Eden Mercury

DarkFury said:


> *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

Correll said:


> Martin Eden Mercury said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...

This one post and reply says it all.


----------



## Correll

Martin Eden Mercury said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Martin Eden Mercury said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I wrote an op-ed. You evidently are emotionally upset that Donald Trump got caught speaking his mind.
Click to expand...


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

Martin Eden Mercury said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Martin Eden Mercury said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This one post and reply says it all.
Click to expand...


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

Correll said:


> Martin Eden Mercury said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Martin Eden Mercury said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This one post and reply says it all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...

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 usmbmem@lookout.com


----------



## Correll

Martin Eden Mercury said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Martin Eden Mercury said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Martin Eden Mercury said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This one post and reply says it all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Discussing the issue, of abortion instead of Trump's statements? You do know you have just used a text book example of deflection?
Click to expand...


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

Martin Eden Mercury said:


> *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
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *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 usmbmem@lookout.com
Click to expand...


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

Correll said:


> 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

Correll said:


> 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

Martin Eden Mercury said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...

When you twist the 'report' with lies, it makes our decision much easier.


----------



## Correll

Martin Eden Mercury said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...


*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

Martin Eden Mercury said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...


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

asaratis said:


> Martin Eden Mercury said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When you twist the 'report' with lies, it makes our decision much easier.
Click to expand...

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

Correll said:


> 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.


----------



## jillian

Martin Eden Mercury said:


> *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 usmbmem@lookout.com



it doesn't take bravery to spout bigotry for people.

and it doesn't take bravery for a carnival barker to suddenly be anti-choice when he wanted his own girlfriend to have an abortion.


----------



## jillian

eagle1462010 said:


> 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.



no one is talking about late term abortion (although it's done to save women's lives or have her avoid giving birth to a severely damaged child)

but thanks for playing.


----------



## Martin Eden Mercury

eagle1462010 said:


> 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 question from Mathews was a set up HACK question as is the OP here doing the same.


 TRUMP WAS ASKED WHAT HE THOUGHT THE LAW ON ABORTION SHOULD BE

Really? Chris Matthews set Trump up?
Play the tape (transcript):

During the town meeting, a young woman from the audience asked Trump a question.

QUESTION:  Hello. I am (inaudible) and have a question on, what is your stance on women's rights and their rights to choose in their own reproductive health?

TRUMP:  OK, well look, I mean, as you know, I'm pro-life.  Right, I think you know that, and I -- with exceptions, with the three exceptions.  But pretty much, that's my stance.  Is that OK?  You understand?

MATTHEWS:  What should the law be on abortion?

TRUMP:  Well, I have been pro-life.

MATTHEWS:  I know, what should the law -- I know your principle, that's a good value.  But what should be the law?

 ----  T_RUMP starts jabbering about Judges, Scalia, the Court _-----

MATTHEWS:  I know.  I never understood the pro-life position.

TRUMP:  Well, a lot of people do understand.

MATTHEWS:  I never understood it.  Because I understand the principle, it's human life as people see it.

TRUMP:  Which it is.

MATTHEWS:  But what crime is it?

TRUMP:  Well, it's human life.

MATTHEWS:  No, should the woman be punished for having an abortion?

TRUMP:  Look...

*MATTHEWS:  This is not something you can dodge.*

TRUMP:  It's a -- no, no...

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

TRUMP:  Well, people in certain parts of the Republican Party and Conservative Republicans would say, "yes, they should be punished."

MATTHEWS:  How about you?

TRUMP:  I would say that it's a very serious problem.  And it's a problem that we have to decide on.  It's very hard.

*MATTHEWS:  But you're for banning it?*

TRUMP:  I'm going to say -- well, wait.  Are you going to say, put them in jail?  Are you -- is that the (inaudible) you're talking about?

MATTHEWS:  Well, no, I'm asking you because *you say you want to ban it. * What does that mean?
*
TRUMP:  I would -- I am against -- I am pro-life, yes.*

MATTHEWS:  What is ban -- how do you ban abortion?  How do you actually do it?

TRUMP:  Well, you know, you will go back to a position like they had where people will perhaps go to illegal places.

MATTHEWS:  Yes?

TRUMP:  But you have to ban it.

---- _TRUMP starts asking the interviewer about his own religious faith _ -----


MATTHEWS:  Do you believe in punishment for abortion, yes or no as a principle?

TRUMP:  The answer is that there has to be some form of punishment.

MATTHEWS:  For the woman?

TRUMP:  Yes, there has to be some form.

MATTHEWS:  Ten cents?  Ten years?  What?

TRUMP:  Let me just tell you -- I don't know.  That I don't know.  That I don't know.

MATTHEWS:  Why not?

TRUMP:  I don't know.

MATTHEWS:  You take positions on everything else.

TRUMP:  Because I don't want to -- I frankly, I do take positions on everything else.  It's a very complicated position.

MATTHEWS:  But you say, one, that you're pro-life meaning that you want to ban it.

------ _Trump again goes to question the religious faith of Matthews _----

TRUMP:  No, no, I am talking about your religion.  Your religion -- I mean, you say that you're a very good Catholic.  Your religion is your life.  Let me ask you this...



MATTHEWS: And secondly, I'm asking -- you're running for President.

TRUMP:  No, no...

MATTHEWS:  I'm not.

TRUMP:  Chris -- Chris.

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:  again goes after Matthews religious faith_ -----

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 does 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...

MATTHEWS:  OK, here's the problem -- here's my problem with this, if you don't have a punishment for abortion -- I don't believe in it, of course -- people are going to find a way to have an abortion.

TRUMP:  You don't believe in what?

MATTHEWS:  I don't believe in punishing anybody for having an abortion.

TRUMP:  OK, fine.  OK, (inaudible).

MATTHEWS:  Of course not.  I think it's a woman's choice.

---------- _TRUMP: again goes after Matthews religious faith _------.

MATTHEWS:  Can we go back to matters of the law and running for president because matters of law, what I'm talking about, and this is the difficult situation you've placed yourself in.

By saying you're pro-life, you mean you want to ban abortion.  How do you ban abortion without some kind of sanction?  Then you get in that very tricky question of a sanction, a fine on human life which you call murder?

TRUMP:  It will have to be determined.

MATTHEWS:  A fine, imprisonment for a young woman who finds herself pregnant?

TRUMP:  It will have to be determined.

*MATTHEWS:  What about the guy that gets her pregnant?  Is he responsible under the law for these abortions?  Or is he not responsible for an abortion?

TRUMP:  Well, it hasn't -- it hasn't -- different feelings, different people.  I would say no.

MATTHEWS:  Well, they're usually involved. * Anyway, much more from the audience here at the University of Wisconsin, Green Bay.  We'll be right back.

(APPLAUSE)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

FULL TRANSCRIPT: MSNBC Town Hall with Donald Trump Moderated By Chris Matthews​


----------



## asaratis

Martin Eden Mercury said:


> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Martin Eden Mercury said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When you twist the 'report' with lies, it makes our decision much easier.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...

I have already done that, you lying liberal.  You take Trump's words out of context.  You are a disingenuous prick.  Matthews set the stage for the conversation that followed...conversation about a HYPOTHETICAL SITUATION that did not exist.

Try as you may to whitewash the truth....you are a lying piece of dog squeeze.


----------



## Martin Eden Mercury

asaratis said:


> I have already done that, you lying liberal.  You take Trump's words out of context



So now, using a transcript and linking it both it and the video, is somehow taking it all out of context?

Please, somebody help this person???


----------



## asaratis

Martin Eden Mercury said:


> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have already done that, you lying liberal.  You take Trump's words out of context
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So now, using a transcript and linking it both it and the video, is somehow taking it all out of context?
> 
> Please, somebody help this person???
Click to expand...

One more time for the mentally handicapped:

You must pay attention to this line from your transcript:

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


Now try to grasp this:  ABORTION IS NOT CURRENTLY A CRIME.  Matthews' question was HYPOTHETICAL and RHETORICAL.  *At this time,* abortion is NOT A CRIME and should not be punished.  *If it is again made a crime, it should be punished in some fashion.*

In other words, *in the context* of the hypothetical question, Trump's answer was correct.  *You are taking it out of context* by refusing to recognize it as hypothetical.  Either that or you do not understand what _hypothetical _means. 

If something is a crime, committing that crime should be punished.  Whether it is speeding, crossing the solid yellow line, jaywalking, murder, robbery, libel, abortion or walking an alligator without a leash.


Trump's answer was the only answer that should be expected of a Presidential candidate.

With that, I am DONE with this idiotic thread.  You can come back and repost your asinine refusal to acknowledge logic and the definition of _hypothetical _all you want.  It will not change the fact that you are stupid.


----------



## Martin Eden Mercury

*Trump first said he was pro-life (in answer to a question from a woman at a town hall audience). Matthews then said, that means you want to outlaw abortion. Trump agreed, didn't he?*

*So if Trump wants to outlaw abortion, the obvious question is, should women be punished? Trump said yes, women should be punished for having an abortion, and clarified his answer with another yes. *

*Trump said women should be punished for having abortions, but also that men should walk away scot-free*

*Again, Trump twice said, women should be punished for having abortions*


----------



## The Great Goose

He should have given a sensitive response without being commital.

"I'm aware of the stigmatism women and girls used to face and still can with abortion.  It's a complicated issue and we are still processing it. I'll have to get back to you on the details"

This said in place of where he said they should be punished.


----------



## Martin Eden Mercury

The Great Goose said:


> He should have given a sensitive response without being commital.
> 
> "I'm aware of the stigmatism women and girls used to face and still can with abortion.  It's a complicated issue and we are still processing it. I'll have to get back to you on the details"
> 
> This said in place of where he said they should be punished.


But being pro-life he was asked a series of legitimate questions. And if being pro-life means one wants to ban abortions, what should the punishments be, and should the women be punished. 

It is not sufficient for politicians and policy makers to dodge questions on How they would implement things. We deserve to know. It isn't like Healthcare, where the devil was in the details. People who wanted to do something like Obamacare, said they wanted to reach as many people as they could (providing healthcare insurance). *Trump was NOT asked HOW women should be punished. Trump was asked IF women should be punished and he twice said , yes.*


----------



## JoeMoma

Pop23 said:


> 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.


I agree.  For some act to be illegal but with no consequences is in all practical effect to keep the act legal.


----------



## Martin Eden Mercury

JoeMoma said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> I agree.  For some act to be illegal but with no consequences is in all practical effect to keep the act legal.
Click to expand...

So pro-life politicians and groups, and religious figures who say they do not want to punish women?


----------



## JoeMoma

Martin Eden Mercury said:


> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> I agree.  For some act to be illegal but with no consequences is in all practical effect to keep the act legal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So pro-life politicians and groups, and religious figures who say they do not want to punish women?
Click to expand...

I am not a grammar Nazi, but that question needs some work.


----------



## Martin Eden Mercury

JoeMoma said:


> Martin Eden Mercury said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> I agree.  For some act to be illegal but with no consequences is in all practical effect to keep the act legal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So pro-life politicians and groups, and religious figures who say they do not want to punish women?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am not a grammar Nazi, but that question needs some work.
Click to expand...

Really? Not Unless one is entering an 8th grade essay contest, but putting aside conversational English...

See?

What do you say to and about, pro-life politicians and groups, and religious figures who say they do not want to punish women?


----------



## TemplarKormac

Martin Eden Mercury said:


> 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.



Life is intrinsic to our humanity. So if a "fetus" has life, it is therefore human. Even by the standards you put forth here.


----------



## Luddly Neddite

Stephanie said:


> 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




This from one of the most hate-filled people I've ever read. If you remember, I posted a link about the US having more children in poverty, hungry, than any other first world country and you posted, in essence, 'let the little blighters starve'. 

You're very typical of brainless RWNJs - You love fetuses but hate children. 

Good thing you're so darn funny, huh?


----------



## Luddly Neddite

Correll said:


> Martin Eden Mercury said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> Martin Eden Mercury said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *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 usmbmem@lookout.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> View attachment 70878
Click to expand...



Duh Donuld is NOT pro-life.

"pro-lifers" are actually anti-woman and anti-child. 

Duh Donuld doesn't give a fuck about fetuses. He's just pro-Donuld. 

He will gladly say he is anything that he thinks will get votes and screw you over and give your higher taxes to the 1%.


----------



## Luddly Neddite

TemplarKormac said:


> Martin Eden Mercury said:
> 
> 
> 
> Life is intrinsic to our humanity. 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.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So if a "fetus" has life, it is therefore human. Even by the standards you put forth here.
Click to expand...


_Life is intrinsic to our humanity._

No its not.

That actually has no meaning at all. And, its a lazy thing to say.

If it were true, people would not shoot/kill others over a television set. To many, *things* are much more valuable than *life*.


----------



## The Great Goose

Trumps official view on abortion:
if the parents are beautiful, then its illegal . if not, kill them.


----------



## playtime




----------



## Luddly Neddite

Drumpf's flip flops have flip flops. 

Literally. 

He can actually flip flop, mid-sentence. And then throw in a lie for good measure.

jHe's the perfect kkk, tee potty, RWNJ, traitor to the US Constitution candidate.


----------

