# Trump's Rookie Mistake



## Peony

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


----------



## Martin Eden Mercury

Good piece Peony. It is an interesting subject, and one that is a minefield for those who are afraid of taking an honest and open stand. Few people would be surprised by the answers to questions on abortion, from most of the professional politicians. We would not be surprised that moderates would love to straddle the fence, either. Abortion is often framed as an emotional discussion. But Mr Trump was not sandbagged with a  gotcha question. He was asked a probative question that goes to the heart of the abortion debate. He answered off-the-cuff as he always does.

Some of us who know a bit about Donald Trump, believe we know what he is doing. He has written and spoken about how he likes to be 'unpredictable.' In his book, Art of the Deal, Donald Trump says he uses a rhetorical tool he calls, “truthful hyperbole.” Trump does not write and boast so much about being a good businessman, as much as he writes and boasts about being a _Deal Maker_. The trouble is, most of the deals Trump has made involve getting himself out of terrible situations he alone, has gotten himself into.


----------



## Sizis

Trump, Clinton, Cruz...they're all dummies
America should have a "real tough guy" as a President
David Duke should be perfect for that: he knows what he wants and he's not a bankster's puppet


----------



## Martin Eden Mercury

David who? 

Sizis


----------



## Sizis

David Duke

The Official Website of Dr. David Duke PhD.


----------



## Maggdy

Sizis said:


> David Duke
> 
> The Official Website of Dr. David Duke PhD.



But, he is an trickster!! 

"Gifts over $100 will receive The Illustrated protocols of Zion, and will be tallied with any previous gifts for the lowest certified number. As special thanks those who give over $500, you will be invited to a personal phone conversation with me and a gift of $1000 will provide you with an invition to a personal visit with me! Thank YOU for your support." David Duke Online


----------



## Correll

Peony said:


> Some time ago, Donald Trump declared that he could kill somebody and his supporters wouldn’t care.  He might want to rethink that arrogant certainty.  If the results of the Wisconsin primary are any indication, Trump really *can’t* just do *anything* at all and count on lots of people voting for him.
> 
> Last week, Trump was asked if abortion was illegal, what should happen to women who have abortions? Trump answered, the woman should be punished.  It was a logical response: something is illegal, you get punished for doing something illegal.  Trouble is, logic is not the right answer.  Trump muffed a gotcha question.  You might call it a rookie mistake.  He’s not a seasoned politician, he doesn’t have ready answers to gotcha questions.  We might even cut him some slack.  Except that, a rookie is supposed to learn from his mistakes, not ignore them, not compound the mistake.
> 
> Yesterday, Priests for Life held a discussion session.  Various media reported that Donald Trump had promised to participate by calling in.  Trump did not call in, nor did he let the organization know he was reneging on his commitment.  What really happened?  According to the Priests for Life website, Trump blowing them off is untrue.
> 
> Meanwhile, the position of Priests for Life regarding women who have had abortions is that they are already being punished by guilt and regret.  They need support, not more punishment.  Priests for Life is open to speaking to Donald Trump and all candidates about abortion.
> Donald Trump and the Pro-life Movement: It's an Open Door
> 
> So, what *is* Donald Trump’s stance on abortion?  He needs to clarify it.  It appears that some in the media are building on Trump’s goof-up on that illegal abortion question.  They aren’t going to just let it go. Is Trump into punishing women?  Is he Pro Choice?  Pro Life?  Pro Whichever way the wind’s Blowing?  As of this morning, his official website does not mention abortion at all.  Shouldn’t he put this fire out already?
> 
> That he hasn’t, makes you wonder.  Could the talk that Trump really doesn’t want to be president and this whole thing has been an ego stroking lark, possibly be true?  Could it be that Trump has discovered that running for president is rather hard work, is tired of it all, and is willing to scuttle his own campaign by inaction?
> 
> If Trump does want to be president, is it possible that his self-esteem is so enormous that he really thinks he can get away with saying anything and even *not* saying anything and *still* get elected?
> 
> We may never know what motivates Donald Trump.  Many of his supporters are more concerned with immigration, national defense and the economy than they are about abortion.  Even so, following his embarrassing bungle on the abortion question, surely his supporters, and potential supporters, would like to know what he really believes about abortion.
> 
> Trump needs to up his game if he plans to play to the finish.



Trump did NOT say that he could kill someone and his supporters would not care. That was a liberal lie.


His answer on Abortion and punishing the women who broke the law was a "rookie" mistake and a gotcha question.

He admitted he was wrong about that, and has moved on. 

The rest of the OP is attempting to make a mountain out of a molehill.


----------



## Martin Eden Mercury

Correll said:


> Trump did NOT say that he could kill someone and his supporters would not care. That was a liberal lie.
> 
> 
> His answer on Abortion and punishing the women who broke the law was a "rookie" mistake and a gotcha question.
> 
> He admitted he was wrong about that, and has moved on.
> 
> The rest of the OP is attempting to make a mountain out of a molehill.


 Donald Trump doubles down on claim he could ‘murder’ someone and not lose voters

 We all know the Washington Times is such a liberal voice. 

Great campaign slogan: Vote The Rookie! 

Trump is a circus act, without the big tent.


----------



## Correll

Martin Eden Mercury said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump did NOT say that he could kill someone and his supporters would not care. That was a liberal lie.
> 
> 
> His answer on Abortion and punishing the women who broke the law was a "rookie" mistake and a gotcha question.
> 
> He admitted he was wrong about that, and has moved on.
> 
> The rest of the OP is attempting to make a mountain out of a molehill.
> 
> 
> 
> Donald Trump doubles down on claim he could ‘murder’ someone and not lose voters
> 
> We all know the Washington Times is such a liberal voice.
> 
> Great campaign slogan: Vote The Rookie!
> 
> Trump is a circus act, without the big tent.
Click to expand...



He was referencing how the media describes the determination of his supporters.

And "rookie" is just lib code for an outsider that you don't like.


----------



## sonic

Trump has been a liberal his entire life and is now trying to con the country into thinking he's a conservative. Just imagine how many rookie mistakes the completely unqualified, undisciplined, hotheaded Trump would make.


----------



## Correll

sonic said:


> Trump has been a liberal his entire life and is now trying to con the country into thinking he's a conservative. Just imagine how many rookie mistakes the completely unqualified, undisciplined, hotheaded Trump would make.



His public persona of bluster and temper is tool designed for use in negotiations and deal making.

There has been a LOT of campaigning. Can you name another rookie mistake or is this the first one?


----------



## Martin Eden Mercury

Correll said:


> Martin Eden Mercury said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump did NOT say that he could kill someone and his supporters would not care. That was a liberal lie.
> 
> 
> His answer on Abortion and punishing the women who broke the law was a "rookie" mistake and a gotcha question.
> 
> He admitted he was wrong about that, and has moved on.
> 
> The rest of the OP is attempting to make a mountain out of a molehill.
> 
> 
> 
> Donald Trump doubles down on claim he could ‘murder’ someone and not lose voters
> 
> We all know the Washington Times is such a liberal voice.
> 
> Great campaign slogan: Vote The Rookie!
> 
> Trump is a circus act, without the big tent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> He was referencing how the media describes the determination of his supporters.
> 
> And "rookie" is just lib code for an outsider that you don't like.
Click to expand...

Around here i sometimes think I stepped into an ESL forum.

And you are the one who called Trump's mistake a 'rookie' one. So, are you and the writer lib coders?
Great campaign slogan: *Vote Trump. Vote The Rookie! *


----------



## Martin Eden Mercury

Correll said:


> sonic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump has been a liberal his entire life and is now trying to con the country into thinking he's a conservative. Just imagine how many rookie mistakes the completely unqualified, undisciplined, hotheaded Trump would make.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> His public persona of bluster and temper is tool designed for use in negotiations and deal making.
> 
> There has been a LOT of campaigning. Can you name another rookie mistake or is this the first one?
Click to expand...



You've got to be a troll working to make Trump look worse than he is


----------



## cereal_killer

Trump has been more than clear on his stance on abortion. He's pro-life with exceptions (life of the mother, rape, incest)


----------



## Vigilante

Well we always have the Hildebeast to make ethical judgement calls!


----------



## Martin Eden Mercury

cereal_killer said:


> Trump has been more than clear on his stance on abortion. He's pro-life with exceptions (life of the mother, rape, incest)


Really? In which interview and in what year?


----------



## Vigilante

Martin Eden Mercury said:


> cereal_killer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump has been more than clear on his stance on abortion. He's pro-life with exceptions (life of the mother, rape, incest)
> 
> 
> 
> Really? In which interview and in what year?
Click to expand...


For the helpless.....and useless! all sorts of interviews on Youtube!


----------



## Martin Eden Mercury

Vigilante said:


> Martin Eden Mercury said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cereal_killer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump has been more than clear on his stance on abortion. He's pro-life with exceptions (life of the mother, rape, incest)
> 
> 
> 
> Really? In which interview and in what year?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For the helpless.....and useless! all sorts of interviews on Youtube!
Click to expand...

 In which interview, and in which year?


----------



## Vigilante

Martin Eden Mercury said:


> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Martin Eden Mercury said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cereal_killer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump has been more than clear on his stance on abortion. He's pro-life with exceptions (life of the mother, rape, incest)
> 
> 
> 
> Really? In which interview and in what year?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For the helpless.....and useless! all sorts of interviews on Youtube!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In which interview, and in which year?
Click to expand...


Now, try to get a 5th grader to take you to YouTube, put in TRUMP PRO LIFE INTERVIEWS, and you'll see many all DATED. I know this is hard for a jackass liberal, but a 5th grader might just be able to do it for you!


----------



## Martin Eden Mercury

Vigilante said:


> Now, try to get a* 5th grader* _to take you to..._



How very kind of you, but as sweet as your offer '_to take you to..._' is, I must decline.


----------



## cereal_killer

Martin Eden Mercury said:


> cereal_killer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump has been more than clear on his stance on abortion. He's pro-life with exceptions (life of the mother, rape, incest)
> 
> 
> 
> Really? In which interview and in what year?
Click to expand...

Everywhere he's been in 2016-- MSNBC, Fox, CNN, CBS, NBC, debates, Rallies, phone in's. It's no secret unless you get your news from headlines and pundits


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Peony said:


> Some time ago, Donald Trump declared that he could kill somebody and his supporters wouldn’t care.  He might want to rethink that arrogant certainty.  If the results of the Wisconsin primary are any indication, Trump really *can’t* just do *anything* at all and count on lots of people voting for him.
> 
> Last week, Trump was asked if abortion was illegal, what should happen to women who have abortions? Trump answered, the woman should be punished.  It was a logical response: something is illegal, you get punished for doing something illegal.  Trouble is, logic is not the right answer.  Trump muffed a gotcha question.  You might call it a rookie mistake.  He’s not a seasoned politician, he doesn’t have ready answers to gotcha questions.  We might even cut him some slack.  Except that, a rookie is supposed to learn from his mistakes, not ignore them, not compound the mistake.
> 
> Yesterday, Priests for Life held a discussion session.  Various media reported that Donald Trump had promised to participate by calling in.  Trump did not call in, nor did he let the organization know he was reneging on his commitment.  What really happened?  According to the Priests for Life website, Trump blowing them off is untrue.
> 
> Meanwhile, the position of Priests for Life regarding women who have had abortions is that they are already being punished by guilt and regret.  They need support, not more punishment.  Priests for Life is open to speaking to Donald Trump and all candidates about abortion.
> Donald Trump and the Pro-life Movement: It's an Open Door
> 
> So, what *is* Donald Trump’s stance on abortion?  He needs to clarify it.  It appears that some in the media are building on Trump’s goof-up on that illegal abortion question.  They aren’t going to just let it go. Is Trump into punishing women?  Is he Pro Choice?  Pro Life?  Pro Whichever way the wind’s Blowing?  As of this morning, his official website does not mention abortion at all.  Shouldn’t he put this fire out already?
> 
> That he hasn’t, makes you wonder.  Could the talk that Trump really doesn’t want to be president and this whole thing has been an ego stroking lark, possibly be true?  Could it be that Trump has discovered that running for president is rather hard work, is tired of it all, and is willing to scuttle his own campaign by inaction?
> 
> If Trump does want to be president, is it possible that his self-esteem is so enormous that he really thinks he can get away with saying anything and even *not* saying anything and *still* get elected?
> 
> We may never know what motivates Donald Trump.  Many of his supporters are more concerned with immigration, national defense and the economy than they are about abortion.  Even so, following his embarrassing bungle on the abortion question, surely his supporters, and potential supporters, would like to know what he really believes about abortion.
> 
> Trump needs to up his game if he plans to play to the finish.




USMB is such a fucking piece of crap Liberal Board these days.

Who the fuck would promote outright lies as Op-Ed?

Fucking morons


----------



## Vigilante

Martin Eden Mercury said:


> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now, try to get a* 5th grader* _to take you to..._
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How very kind of you, but as sweet as your offer '_to take you to..._' is, I must decline.
Click to expand...


The only thing that would take you, in the sense you seem to enjoy, would probably be AaronLeland!


----------



## Martin Eden Mercury

cereal_killer said:


> Martin Eden Mercury said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cereal_killer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump has been more than clear on his stance on abortion. He's pro-life with exceptions (life of the mother, rape, incest)
> 
> 
> 
> Really? In which interview and in what year?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Everywhere he's been in 2016-- MSNBC, Fox, CNN, CBS, NBC, debates, Rallies, phone in's. It's no secret unless you get your news from headlines and pundits
Click to expand...

I've followed Donald for ages. Couldn't help it. He insists on grabbing the spotlight and mic.
If indeed Donald had a position, it is confusing how he could have messed up such a simple question about _should women be punished for having an abortio_n. GW Bush had a position/slogan he used for years before he was elected "Uniter not a Divider' We all know how that worked out. Obama, had hope and change. Donald Trump has stumbled badly on an emotional issue for people on all sides. His positions before the question was asked are irrelevant. He said he thought there should be some punishment for women. During teh interview he was asked to clarify his statement -- and again he said _yes_


----------



## Vigilante

Martin Eden Mercury said:


> cereal_killer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Martin Eden Mercury said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cereal_killer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump has been more than clear on his stance on abortion. He's pro-life with exceptions (life of the mother, rape, incest)
> 
> 
> 
> Really? In which interview and in what year?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Everywhere he's been in 2016-- MSNBC, Fox, CNN, CBS, NBC, debates, Rallies, phone in's. It's no secret unless you get your news from headlines and pundits
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've followed Donald for ages. Couldn't help it. He insists on grabbing the spotlight and mic.
> If indeed Donald had a position, it is confusing how he could have messed up such a simple question about _should women be punished for having an abortio_n. GW Bush had a position/slogan he used for years before he was elected "Uniter not a Divider' We all know how that worked out. Obama, had hope and change. Donald Trump has stumbled badly on an emotional issue for people on all sides. His positions before the question was asked are irrelevant. He said he thought there should be some punishment for women. During teh interview he was asked to clarify his statement -- and again he said _yes_
Click to expand...


He didn't mess it up, That fag Mathews asked if abortion was ILLEGAL, and he answered it as such. Anyone that breaks the law,should be prosecuted, that includes the mother KILLING her unborn child....BUT unfortunately, with the SCOTUS fucking up again, and making abortion legal while letting stand the 2004 unborn victims of violence act, which let's abortion be the only EXCEPTION to MURDER, nothing will happen until we get 5 ETHICAL and MORAL judges on the court!


----------



## cereal_killer

It was a hypothetical Martin Eden Mercury about abortion being illegal (which he never should have answered) Rookie mistake.

He clarified those statements that same day and said the doctor or whoever did the abortion would be responsible/punished. Still, he messed up and he had to deal with it. Welcome to Politricks


----------



## DarkFury

cereal_killer said:


> It was a hypothetical Martin Eden Mercury about abortion being illegal (which he never should have answered) Rookie mistake.
> 
> He clarified those statements that same day and said the doctor or whoever did the abortion would be responsible/punished. Still, he messed up and he had to deal with it. Welcome to Politricks


*Islamics,illegals and economics should be center stage. Abortion does nothing either way to effect terrorists or budget. We need to have money BEFORE we talk about how to spend money.*


----------



## Martin Eden Mercury

cereal_killer said:


> It was a hypothetical Martin Eden Mercury about abortion being illegal (which he never should have answered) Rookie mistake.
> 
> He clarified those statements that same day and said the doctor or whoever did the abortion would be responsible/punished. Still, he messed up and he had to deal with it. Welcome to Politricks


Trump later called it a hypothetical. There was nothing hypothetical about it. He has won most over if framing it that way, but the facts are:
 Trump was asked if women should be punished for having abortions. He was not asked it in a hypothetical way. 

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: Yeah, there has to be some form. 

Play the video: Donald Trump: Abortion is a very serious problem - CNN Video


----------



## cereal_killer

Martin Eden Mercury said:


> cereal_killer said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was a hypothetical Martin Eden Mercury about abortion being illegal (which he never should have answered) Rookie mistake.
> 
> He clarified those statements that same day and said the doctor or whoever did the abortion would be responsible/punished. Still, he messed up and he had to deal with it. Welcome to Politricks
> 
> 
> 
> Trump later called it a hypothetical. There was nothing hypothetical about it. He has won most over if framing it that way, but the facts are:
> Trump was asked if women should be punished for having abortions. He was not asked it in a hypothetical way.
> 
> 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: Yeah, there has to be some form.
> 
> Play the video: Donald Trump: Abortion is a very serious problem - CNN Video
Click to expand...

You need to watch the entire interview. It was a hypothetical question. Even prior to that question, Trump talks abortions going back into the "dark alleys" and "basements" if it were illegal. Context MEM. It was in fact a hypothetical and Trump wasn't the one saying that. Anyone who watched it recognized that. Took a full day for the pundits to finally add that important piece of info in there (probably on purpose) but they eventually added context. 

Watch the entire UNEDITED interview and you'll see for yourself it was a hypothetical.


----------



## asaratis

cereal_killer said:


> Martin Eden Mercury said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cereal_killer said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was a hypothetical Martin Eden Mercury about abortion being illegal (which he never should have answered) Rookie mistake.
> 
> He clarified those statements that same day and said the doctor or whoever did the abortion would be responsible/punished. Still, he messed up and he had to deal with it. Welcome to Politricks
> 
> 
> 
> Trump later called it a hypothetical. There was nothing hypothetical about it. He has won most over if framing it that way, but the facts are:
> Trump was asked if women should be punished for having abortions. He was not asked it in a hypothetical way.
> 
> 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: Yeah, there has to be some form.
> 
> Play the video: Donald Trump: Abortion is a very serious problem - CNN Video
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You need to watch the entire interview. It was a hypothetical question. Even prior to that question, Trump talks abortions going back into the "dark alleys" and "basements" if it were illegal. Context MEM. It was in fact a hypothetical and Trump wasn't the one saying that. Anyone who watched it recognized that. Took a full day for the pundits to finally add that important piece of info in there (probably on purpose) but they eventually added context.
> 
> Watch the entire UNEDITED interview and you'll see for yourself it was a hypothetical.
Click to expand...

cereal_killer, It's a futile effort to attempt logical discussion with MEM.  I pegged him right in my first evaluation of his attempts to be a profound, intelligent op ed author.  He's little more than a liberal shill...and an adolescent one at that.  Don't waste too much of your time trying to convince him of the truth with logic and reason.


----------



## Toro

"Mistake?"

As in singular?

Did you buy your first TV this week?


----------



## Martin Eden Mercury

cereal_killer said:


> It was a hypothetical Martin Eden Mercury about abortion being illegal (which he never should have answered) Rookie mistake.
> 
> He clarified those statements that same day and said the doctor or whoever did the abortion would be responsible/punished. Still, he messed up and he had to deal with it. Welcome to Politricks


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

During the town meeting, a young woman from the audience asked Trump a question. Then Trump and Chris Matthews of MSNBC, who was moderating the event, got into a lengthy exchange that saw Trump try to turn the tables and press Matthews on how his own views jibe with teachings of the Catholic Church.

Here is the exchange and the seemingly straight-forward question that prompted it. The following text is based on a transcript and our viewing of the video. We’ll note there was quite a bit of crosstalk, making it difficult to hear some words. 


QUESTION: Hello. I am (inaudible) and have a question on, what is your stance on women’s rights and their right 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?

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.​*Using this as an excuse to say it was ONLY a hypothetical, Bernie Sanders saying he will make College tuition free, is only a hypothetical*


----------



## asaratis

Martin Eden Mercury said:


> cereal_killer said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was a hypothetical Martin Eden Mercury about abortion being illegal (which he never should have answered) Rookie mistake.
> 
> He clarified those statements that same day and said the doctor or whoever did the abortion would be responsible/punished. Still, he messed up and he had to deal with it. Welcome to Politricks
> 
> 
> 
> In Context: Transcript of Donald Trump on punishing women for abortion
> 
> During the town meeting, a young woman from the audience asked Trump a question. Then Trump and Chris Matthews of MSNBC, who was moderating the event, got into a lengthy exchange that saw Trump try to turn the tables and press Matthews on how his own views jibe with teachings of the Catholic Church.
> 
> Here is the exchange and the seemingly straight-forward question that prompted it. The following text is based on a transcript and our viewing of the video. We’ll note there was quite a bit of crosstalk, making it difficult to hear some words.
> 
> 
> QUESTION: Hello. I am (inaudible) and have a question on, what is your stance on women’s rights and their right 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?
> 
> 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.​*Using this as an excuse to say it was ONLY a hypothetical, Bernie Sanders saying he will make College tuition free, is only a hypothetical*
Click to expand...

You just don't listen well, do you.  I don't have the unedited version of the interview or the transcript of the unedited interview, but Chris set up the hypothetical by supposing that abortion is made to be illegal and THEN asked Trump whether there should be punishment for breaking the law.

Well.....DUH!!!  just fuckin' DUH!!  If any law is broken there should be punishment!  So Trump's answer was quite logically a YES.

Should the woman be punished?    DOUBLE DUH!  Only women have abortions!  (Therein was Chris' slick trick!)

I explained this shit to you in another thread and you still don't get the picture.  Why don't you take a breather and become educated before resuming posting?  You're making a fool of yourself.


----------



## Martin Eden Mercury

asaratis said:


> You just don't listen well, do you.  I don't have the unedited version of the interview or the transcript of the unedited interview, but Chris set up the hypothetical by supposing that abortion is made to be illegal and THEN asked Trump whether there should be punishment for breaking the law.
> 
> Well.....DUH!!!  just fuckin' DUH!!  If any law is broken there should be punishment!  So Trump's answer was quite logically a YES.
> 
> Should the woman be punished?    DOUBLE DUH!  Only women have abortions!  (Therein was Chris' slick trick!)
> 
> I explained this shit to you in another thread and you still don't get the picture.  Why don't you take a breather and become educated before resuming posting?  You're making a fool of yourself.


"_The following text is based on a transcript and our viewing of the video. We’ll note there was quite a bit of crosstalk, making it difficult to hear some words._" -- If you watch the video and read along
In Context: Transcript of Donald Trump on punishing women for abortion

And in all actuality, it was a woman in the audience who asked a question on abortion of Trump.

Trump said he was pro-life and then -- then MATTHEWS asked "What should the law be on abortion?"  Such trickery! Partisan attacks! Image Asking somebody who thinks abortion is murder, to say what they think the laws should be.

It's almost as bad as when people ask Bernie Sanders if he thinks college should be free!  Damn media!


----------



## asaratis

Martin Eden Mercury said:


> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> You just don't listen well, do you.  I don't have the unedited version of the interview or the transcript of the unedited interview, but Chris set up the hypothetical by supposing that abortion is made to be illegal and THEN asked Trump whether there should be punishment for breaking the law.
> 
> Well.....DUH!!!  just fuckin' DUH!!  If any law is broken there should be punishment!  So Trump's answer was quite logically a YES.
> 
> Should the woman be punished?    DOUBLE DUH!  Only women have abortions!  (Therein was Chris' slick trick!)
> 
> I explained this shit to you in another thread and you still don't get the picture.  Why don't you take a breather and become educated before resuming posting?  You're making a fool of yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> "_The following text is based on a transcript and our viewing of the video. We’ll note there was quite a bit of crosstalk, making it difficult to hear some words._" -- If you watch the video and read along
> In Context: Transcript of Donald Trump on punishing women for abortion
> 
> And in all actuality, it was a woman in the audience who asked a question on abortion of Trump.
> 
> Trump said he was pro-life and then -- then MATTHEWS asked "What should the law be on abortion?"  Such trickery! Partisan attacks! Image Asking somebody who thinks abortion is murder, to say what they think the laws should be.
> 
> It's almost as bad as when people ask Bernie Sanders if he thinks college should be free!  Damn media!
Click to expand...

Get this:

Abortion is NOT illegal at this time.

Chris said:

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

Chris knows damn well it is NOT A CRIME AT THIS TIME.  He sets up a HYPOTHETICAL QUESTION to which the only logical answer is YES, THERE SHOULD BE SOME PUNISHMENT FOR BREAKING A LAW!

God, you are dense!


----------



## Martin Eden Mercury

asaratis Wow! Trick questions

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?

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: Yeah, there has to be some form.


----------



## asaratis

Martin Eden Mercury said:


> asaratis Wow! Trick questions
> 
> 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?
> 
> 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: Yeah, there has to be some form.


I repeat my earlier conviction....you are dense.
It is patently obvious to intelligent people here that Chris was questioning Trump on the hypothetical condition wherein abortion is made* illegal*.

You disingenuously left out part of the conversation.

Donald Trump advocates punishment for abortion

Listen at 1:12 where Chris qualifies his scenario with "If you say that abortion is a crime..."

(Pay careful attention here: THIS IMPLIES THAT ABORTION IS AGAINST THE LAW.  A crime is something that is against the law.  If something is defined as a crime, it is AGAINST THE LAW.)

Currently, abortion is NOT AGAINST THE LAW.  It is legal.

It should be obvious to a glazed doughnut that Chris set the hypothetical with that "if" clause.)

You are a typical liberal.  You don't hesitate at all to alter the context of conversation to mislead readers into thinking your argument has merit.

You also have the typical liberal trait of having been proved wrong in one thread, you print the same old shit in another thread.  This is not the first time I have rebutted your bullshit on this topic.

Get a job.


----------



## protectionist

Martin Eden Mercury said:


> asaratis Wow! Trick questions
> 
> 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?
> 
> 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: Yeah, there has to be some form.


SO ?

I would agree. If abortion were illegal, then women who go get one (without any good reason) SHOULD be punished for doing that.  They would be taking a innocent healthy life, just to casually suit their temporary convenience.


----------



## JQPublic1

protectionist said:


> Martin Eden Mercury said:
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis Wow! Trick questions
> 
> 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?
> 
> 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: Yeah, there has to be some form.
> 
> 
> 
> SO ?
> 
> I would agree. If abortion were illegal, then women who go get one (without any good reason) SHOULD be punished for doing that.  They would be taking a innocent healthy life, just to casually suit their temporary convenience.
Click to expand...

Too bad that for many RW Pro-Lifers the concern for human life seems to dissipate after the chid is born and the mom has to go on welfare.


----------



## asaratis

JQPublic1 said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Martin Eden Mercury said:
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis Wow! Trick questions
> 
> 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?
> 
> 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: Yeah, there has to be some form.
> 
> 
> 
> SO ?
> 
> I would agree. If abortion were illegal, then women who go get one (without any good reason) SHOULD be punished for doing that.  They would be taking a innocent healthy life, just to casually suit their temporary convenience.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Too bad that for many RW Pro-Lifers the concern for human life seems to dissipate after the child is born and the mom has to go on welfare.
Click to expand...

You have the parties mixed up.  It's the liberals that care only for the votes they get from welfare SINGLE MOMS who keep on having babies just to increase increase the amount of their monthly checks.  Liberals perpetuate poverty in exchange for votes.


----------



## protectionist

JQPublic1 said:


> Too bad that for many RW Pro-Lifers the concern for human life seems to dissipate after the chid is born and the mom has to go on welfare.


To bad that for many LWers the concern for human life seems to dissipate after the child is born and they deprive him of a job, by encouraging foreigners to come here (legally or not).  And they also seem to have little concern for human life by allowing Syrian refugees to come here, thereby encouraging ISIS to come here with them.  Yeah, too bad.


----------



## JQPublic1

protectionist said:


> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Too bad that for many RW Pro-Lifers the concern for human life seems to dissipate after the chid is born and the mom has to go on welfare.
> 
> 
> 
> To bad that for many LWers the concern for human life seems to dissipate after the child is born and they deprive him of a job, by encouraging foreigners to come here (legally or not).  And they also seem to have little concern for human life by allowing Syrian refugees to come here, thereby encouraging ISIS to come here with them.  Yeah, too bad.
Click to expand...


But your analogy dissolves into a non sequitur in the context of the present conversation because the "LWers" would , as you opined, have favored an abortion in the first place. Furthermore, you seem to be rather naive if you think that Democrats alone are responsible for the immigration policies of the USA. I thought everyone knew that the GOP loves that cheap labor  immigrants provide, otherwise the alien hordes wouldn't come here. There would be no incentive.... Ok, your turn..


----------



## Correll

Martin Eden Mercury said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Martin Eden Mercury said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump did NOT say that he could kill someone and his supporters would not care. That was a liberal lie.
> 
> 
> His answer on Abortion and punishing the women who broke the law was a "rookie" mistake and a gotcha question.
> 
> He admitted he was wrong about that, and has moved on.
> 
> The rest of the OP is attempting to make a mountain out of a molehill.
> 
> 
> 
> Donald Trump doubles down on claim he could ‘murder’ someone and not lose voters
> 
> We all know the Washington Times is such a liberal voice.
> 
> Great campaign slogan: Vote The Rookie!
> 
> Trump is a circus act, without the big tent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> He was referencing how the media describes the determination of his supporters.
> 
> And "rookie" is just lib code for an outsider that you don't like.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Around here i sometimes think I stepped into an ESL forum.
> 
> And you are the one who called Trump's mistake a 'rookie' one. So, are you and the writer lib coders?
> Great campaign slogan: *Vote Trump. Vote The Rookie! *
Click to expand...


I do not deny that Trump does not have a history of public service, or political office.

It is a valid point.

But, in nearly every election there is someone trying to paint themselves as an "outsider" often someone who is a complete insider.

And my use of quotation marks should have been understood by you that I was reference his words, not agreeing with them.


----------



## Martin Eden Mercury

Correll said:


> Martin Eden Mercury said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Martin Eden Mercury said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump did NOT say that he could kill someone and his supporters would not care. That was a liberal lie.
> 
> 
> His answer on Abortion and punishing the women who broke the law was a "rookie" mistake and a gotcha question.
> 
> He admitted he was wrong about that, and has moved on.
> 
> The rest of the OP is attempting to make a mountain out of a molehill.
> 
> 
> 
> Donald Trump doubles down on claim he could ‘murder’ someone and not lose voters
> 
> We all know the Washington Times is such a liberal voice.
> 
> Great campaign slogan: Vote The Rookie!
> 
> Trump is a circus act, without the big tent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> He was referencing how the media describes the determination of his supporters.
> 
> And "rookie" is just lib code for an outsider that you don't like.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Around here i sometimes think I stepped into an ESL forum.
> 
> And you are the one who called Trump's mistake a 'rookie' one. So, are you and the writer lib coders?
> Great campaign slogan: *Vote Trump. Vote The Rookie! *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I do not deny that Trump does not have a history of public service, or political office.
> 
> It is a valid point.
> 
> But, in nearly every election there is someone trying to paint themselves as an "outsider" often someone who is a complete insider.
> 
> And my use of quotation marks should have been understood by you that I was reference his words, not agreeing with them.
Click to expand...

Would you agree Trump is an insider, maybe even a complete insider, posing as an outsider?


----------



## Correll

Martin Eden Mercury said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Martin Eden Mercury said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Martin Eden Mercury said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump did NOT say that he could kill someone and his supporters would not care. That was a liberal lie.
> 
> 
> His answer on Abortion and punishing the women who broke the law was a "rookie" mistake and a gotcha question.
> 
> He admitted he was wrong about that, and has moved on.
> 
> The rest of the OP is attempting to make a mountain out of a molehill.
> 
> 
> 
> Donald Trump doubles down on claim he could ‘murder’ someone and not lose voters
> 
> We all know the Washington Times is such a liberal voice.
> 
> Great campaign slogan: Vote The Rookie!
> 
> Trump is a circus act, without the big tent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> He was referencing how the media describes the determination of his supporters.
> 
> And "rookie" is just lib code for an outsider that you don't like.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Around here i sometimes think I stepped into an ESL forum.
> 
> And you are the one who called Trump's mistake a 'rookie' one. So, are you and the writer lib coders?
> Great campaign slogan: *Vote Trump. Vote The Rookie! *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I do not deny that Trump does not have a history of public service, or political office.
> 
> It is a valid point.
> 
> But, in nearly every election there is someone trying to paint themselves as an "outsider" often someone who is a complete insider.
> 
> And my use of quotation marks should have been understood by you that I was reference his words, not agreeing with them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Would you agree Trump is an insider, maybe even a complete insider, posing as an outsider?
Click to expand...


No, I think he is a genuine outsider, as evidenced by the hysterical reaction of the Establishment of both parties.


----------



## Martin Eden Mercury

cereal_killer said:


> It was a hypothetical Martin Eden Mercury about abortion being illegal (which he never should have answered) Rookie mistake.
> 
> He clarified those statements that same day and said the doctor or whoever did the abortion would be responsible/punished. Still, he messed up and he had to deal with it. Welcome to Politricks


He clarified his statements, or he walked them back and ended up denying what his words actually meant? We know he was asked if women should be punished and he replied, yes.


----------



## Correll

Martin Eden Mercury said:


> cereal_killer said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was a hypothetical Martin Eden Mercury about abortion being illegal (which he never should have answered) Rookie mistake.
> 
> He clarified those statements that same day and said the doctor or whoever did the abortion would be responsible/punished. Still, he messed up and he had to deal with it. Welcome to Politricks
> 
> 
> 
> He clarified his statements, or he walked them back and ended up denying what his words actually meant? We know he was asked if women should be punished and he replied, yes.
Click to expand...


His "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.


----------



## Martin Eden Mercury

Correll said:


> Martin Eden Mercury said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cereal_killer said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was a hypothetical Martin Eden Mercury about abortion being illegal (which he never should have answered) Rookie mistake.
> 
> He clarified those statements that same day and said the doctor or whoever did the abortion would be responsible/punished. Still, he messed up and he had to deal with it. Welcome to Politricks
> 
> 
> 
> He clarified his statements, or he walked them back and ended up denying what his words actually meant? We know he was asked if women should be punished and he replied, yes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> His "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.
Click to expand...


"Rookie mistake?" "Normal legal answer?" What is this?


----------



## Correll

Martin Eden Mercury said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Martin Eden Mercury said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cereal_killer said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was a hypothetical Martin Eden Mercury about abortion being illegal (which he never should have answered) Rookie mistake.
> 
> He clarified those statements that same day and said the doctor or whoever did the abortion would be responsible/punished. Still, he messed up and he had to deal with it. Welcome to Politricks
> 
> 
> 
> He clarified his statements, or he walked them back and ended up denying what his words actually meant? We know he was asked if women should be punished and he replied, yes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> His "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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Rookie mistake?" "Normal legal answer?" What is this?
Click to expand...


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

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

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


----------



## Martin Eden Mercury

Correll said:


> Martin Eden Mercury said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Martin Eden Mercury said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cereal_killer said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was a hypothetical Martin Eden Mercury about abortion being illegal (which he never should have answered) Rookie mistake.
> 
> He clarified those statements that same day and said the doctor or whoever did the abortion would be responsible/punished. Still, he messed up and he had to deal with it. Welcome to Politricks
> 
> 
> 
> He clarified his statements, or he walked them back and ended up denying what his words actually meant? We know he was asked if women should be punished and he replied, yes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> His "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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Rookie mistake?" "Normal legal answer?" What is this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1 He did not know that normally such laws only punish the abortion provider.
> 
> 2 So he mistakenly tried to apply common sense and assume that a law breaker would be punished, if caught.
> 
> 3. once informed of that this was not the case, he changed his position accordingly.
Click to expand...

You actually believe that? Or you desperately WANT others to believe that?


----------



## Correll

Martin Eden Mercury said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Martin Eden Mercury said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Martin Eden Mercury said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cereal_killer said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was a hypothetical Martin Eden Mercury about abortion being illegal (which he never should have answered) Rookie mistake.
> 
> He clarified those statements that same day and said the doctor or whoever did the abortion would be responsible/punished. Still, he messed up and he had to deal with it. Welcome to Politricks
> 
> 
> 
> He clarified his statements, or he walked them back and ended up denying what his words actually meant? We know he was asked if women should be punished and he replied, yes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> His "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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Rookie mistake?" "Normal legal answer?" What is this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1 He did not know that normally such laws only punish the abortion provider.
> 
> 2 So he mistakenly tried to apply common sense and assume that a law breaker would be punished, if caught.
> 
> 3. once informed of that this was not the case, he changed his position accordingly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You actually believe that? Or you desperately WANT others to believe that?
Click to expand...



don't play games. my meaning was clear.

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


----------



## protectionist

JQPublic1 said:


> But your analogy dissolves into a non sequitur in the context of the present conversation because the "LWers" would , as you opined, have favored an abortion in the first place. Furthermore, you seem to be rather naive if you think that Democrats alone are responsible for the immigration policies of the USA. I thought everyone knew that the GOP loves that cheap labor  immigrants provide, otherwise the alien hordes wouldn't come here. There would be no incentive.... Ok, your turn..


No, you don't away with trying to equate Republicans with Democrats on illegal immigration.  One look at the recent voting on Sanctuary City law (the *Stop Sanctuary Policies and Protect Americans Act*) puts that to rest.  Republicans wanted to punish sanctuary cities. Democrats voted against it almost 100%. Republicans for it almost 100%. I could mention other legislations too, buy there's no need. Just that most recent vote says it all.

A government report commissioned for Congress by the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement found that sanctuary cities released more than 9,000 illegal immigrants whom federal authorities were seeking to deport between Jan. 1 and Sept. 30, 2014. As of last year, 69 percent of those were still at large in the United States.

Of those still at large, 1,377 had another criminal arrest that resulted in the detainer. Of the 6,460 criminal aliens who were still at large during the time period studied, 3,802 (58 percent) had prior felonies or violent misdemeanors.  Democrats will do ANYTHING to increase their voting stock.

See How Your Senators Voted on Sanctuary Cities


----------



## protectionist

Correll said:


> 1 He did not know that normally such laws only punish the abortion provider.
> 
> 2 So he mistakenly tried to apply common sense and assume that a law breaker would be punished, if caught.
> 
> 3. once informed of that this was not the case, he changed his position accordingly.


FALSE!  The question had nothing to do with current law or _"such laws"_ (whatever that means). It was a hypothetical, asking IF abortion were illegal then >>>>>>>  

And YES, a lawbreaker WOULD Be punished if caught. You're saying they wouldn't ?    You're not making any sense.


----------



## protectionist

Martin Eden Mercury said:


> He clarified his statements, or he walked them back and ended up denying what his words actually meant? We know he was asked if women should be punished and he replied, yes.


And he was right. They should  be punished, unless there being a damn good reason for the abortion.


----------



## asaratis

Martin Eden Mercury said:


> cereal_killer said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was a hypothetical Martin Eden Mercury about abortion being illegal (which he never should have answered) Rookie mistake.
> 
> He clarified those statements that same day and said the doctor or whoever did the abortion would be responsible/punished. Still, he messed up and he had to deal with it. Welcome to Politricks
> 
> 
> 
> He clarified his statements, or he walked them back and ended up denying what his words actually meant? We know he was asked if women should be punished and he replied, yes.
Click to expand...

One more time, dufus:

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

That was the question.  It was a hypothetical question because abortion is not currently against the law.  The logical and correct answer is yes.  People who break a law should face whatever punishment is prescribed for breaking that particular law, whether it be a a warning ticket, a fine, community service, some jail time or a combination of the aforementioned.

Though I do not favor abortion, I don't really want abortion to be against the law.  It keeps down the number of liberals in the world.  That's a good thing.

However, making it illegal again would also open up the black market for backstreet abortion providers and endanger women more.  That's a bad thing.

What you can't seem to grasp is that Chris asked a hypothetical, rhetorical question.  He already knew what the answer should be.

No matter how many threads you start in your efforts to paint Trump as a woman hater, you will have to lie to fool people into thinking it is so.  I expect you to do just that. After all, that's what liberals do....lie repeatedly.


----------



## JQPublic1

protectionist said:


> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> But your analogy dissolves into a non sequitur in the context of the present conversation because the "LWers" would , as you opined, have favored an abortion in the first place. Furthermore, you seem to be rather naive if you think that Democrats alone are responsible for the immigration policies of the USA. I thought everyone knew that the GOP loves that cheap labor  immigrants provide, otherwise the alien hordes wouldn't come here. There would be no incentive.... Ok, your turn..
> 
> 
> 
> No, you don't away with trying to equate Republicans with Democrats on illegal immigration.  One look at the recent voting on Sanctuary City law (the *Stop Sanctuary Policies and Protect Americans Act*) puts that to rest.  Republicans wanted to punish sanctuary cities. Democrats voted against it almost 100%. Republicans for it almost 100%. I could mention other legislations too, buy there's no need. Just that most recent vote says it all.
> 
> A government report commissioned for Congress by the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement found that sanctuary cities released more than 9,000 illegal immigrants whom federal authorities were seeking to deport between Jan. 1 and Sept. 30, 2014. As of last year, 69 percent of those were still at large in the United States.
> 
> Of those still at large, 1,377 had another criminal arrest that resulted in the detainer. Of the 6,460 criminal aliens who were still at large during the time period studied, 3,802 (58 percent) had prior felonies or violent misdemeanors.  Democrats will do ANYTHING to increase their voting stock.
> 
> See How Your Senators Voted on Sanctuary Cities
Click to expand...



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


----------



## Martin Eden Mercury

asaratis said:


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



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


----------



## Martin Eden Mercury

Correll said:


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


What I believe? On abortion law?

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


----------



## Martin Eden Mercury

Correll said:


> don't play games. my meaning was clear.


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


----------



## Martin Eden Mercury

protectionist said:


> And he was right. They should  be punished, unless there being a damn good reason for the abortion.


Thank you for your opinion


----------



## protectionist

JQPublic1 said:


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


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

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

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


----------



## protectionist

Martin Eden Mercury said:


> Thank you for your opinion


  You're welcome.


----------



## protectionist

Peony said:


> Some time ago, Donald Trump declared that he could kill somebody and his supporters wouldn’t care.  He might want to rethink that arrogant certainty.  If the results of the Wisconsin primary are any indication, Trump really *can’t* just do *anything* at all and count on lots of people voting for him.
> 
> Last week, Trump was asked if abortion was illegal, what should happen to women who have abortions? Trump answered, the woman should be punished.  It was a logical response: something is illegal, you get punished for doing something illegal.  Trouble is, logic is not the right answer.  Trump muffed a gotcha question.  You might call it a rookie mistake.  He’s not a seasoned politician, he doesn’t have ready answers to gotcha questions.  We might even cut him some slack.  Except that, a rookie is supposed to learn from his mistakes, not ignore them, not compound the mistake.
> 
> Yesterday, Priests for Life held a discussion session.  Various media reported that Donald Trump had promised to participate by calling in.  Trump did not call in, nor did he let the organization know he was reneging on his commitment.  What really happened?  According to the Priests for Life website, Trump blowing them off is untrue.
> 
> Meanwhile, the position of Priests for Life regarding women who have had abortions is that they are already being punished by guilt and regret.  They need support, not more punishment.  Priests for Life is open to speaking to Donald Trump and all candidates about abortion.
> Donald Trump and the Pro-life Movement: It's an Open Door
> 
> So, what *is* Donald Trump’s stance on abortion?  He needs to clarify it.  It appears that some in the media are building on Trump’s goof-up on that illegal abortion question.  They aren’t going to just let it go. Is Trump into punishing women?  Is he Pro Choice?  Pro Life?  Pro Whichever way the wind’s Blowing?  As of this morning, his official website does not mention abortion at all.  Shouldn’t he put this fire out already?
> 
> That he hasn’t, makes you wonder.  Could the talk that Trump really doesn’t want to be president and this whole thing has been an ego stroking lark, possibly be true?  Could it be that Trump has discovered that running for president is rather hard work, is tired of it all, and is willing to scuttle his own campaign by inaction?
> 
> If Trump does want to be president, is it possible that his self-esteem is so enormous that he really thinks he can get away with saying anything and even *not* saying anything and *still* get elected?
> 
> We may never know what motivates Donald Trump.  Many of his supporters are more concerned with immigration, national defense and the economy than they are about abortion.  Even so, following his embarrassing bungle on the abortion question, surely his supporters, and potential supporters, would like to know what he really believes about abortion.
> 
> Trump needs to up his game if he plans to play to the finish.



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


----------



## asaratis

Martin Eden Mercury said:


> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> MATTHEWS:* "If you say abortion is a crime *or abortion is murder, you have to deal with it under law. Should abortion be punished?"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And Trump answered yes and when asked if women should be punished, he said yes -- twice
Click to expand...

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

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

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

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


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

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


----------



## JQPublic1

protectionist said:


> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was wise of you to drop the abortion issue. You might also be even wiser to reconsider your  view that democrats should take ALL responsibility for the present influx of illegals. You can't easily dismiss the cheap labor Republicans enjoy  via their surreptitious hiring of illegals. There are two motives involved in the illegal immigrant scheme.
> The Republicans provide the incentive for them to come here and the Democrats give them sanctuary to harvest the Hispanic vote via sympathy. The losers are the native American workers regardless of party affiliation.
> 
> 
> 
> 1. I don't ever _"drop"_ any issue.
> 
> 2.  Nothing more tiresome than posters who have been completely squashed, pretending that they still have an argument. If there was anything to the idea of Republicans supporting illegal immigration (as you wish could be believed), they wouldn't have voted in favor of the *Stop Sanctuary Policies and Protect Americans Act, *with 96% of the yea votes being Republican.  So yes, I can easily dismiss the cheap labor idea you cite.  And motive or no motive, it OVERWHELMINGLY is Democrats who are supporting the illegal immigration, and Republicans who are opposed, and trying to stop it.  Nice try though.
> 
> Only ONE Republican voted against the bill, and every Democrat voted for it, except 2. No issue has ever been more partisan.  Democrats are the party of illegal immigration.
Click to expand...


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

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


----------



## protectionist

JQPublic1 said:


> 1. You did drop the abortion issue we were discussing, you haven't said a peep about it since  you were caught trying to slip a non sequitur into the mix.
> 
> 2. The only squashing  I see here is your squashing of the truth and  your laughable attempts to recover some of your dignity by ignoring the prime reason illegal immigrants come here. Deflecting with talk of Sanctuary cities means you have no answer for the republican made incentive to come here. The Sanctuary city  phenomenon occurs after the fact and is NOT the cause of it. But you knew that didn't you?


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

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

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


----------



## Martin Eden Mercury

asaratis said:


> Martin Eden Mercury said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> MATTHEWS:* "If you say abortion is a crime *or abortion is murder, you have to deal with it under law. Should abortion be punished?"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And Trump answered yes and when asked if women should be punished, he said yes -- twice
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ...and you STILL can't get the picture!
> 
> The only answer for a Presidential candidate to the question of "should someone be punished for breaking a law?" is YES.
> 
> The only answer to the follow up question  "should the person who broke the law be punished for breaking the law?" is YES.
> 
> The only answer to "who can possibly break a law against having an abortion?" is PREGNANT FEMALES (women) and the DOCTORS (if any) that perform the abortion.
> 
> 
> You are ONE DENSE, ILLOGICAL, LIBERAL IDIOT!!!  But then, all liberals are dense and illogical, so you're attracting birds of a feather with your incessant lying and suspension of logic.
> 
> I can understand fully why you fail miserably as an op ed writer!!!
Click to expand...

spin, spin, spin, spin, spin, spin


----------



## JQPublic1

protectionist said:


> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. You did drop the abortion issue we were discussing, you haven't said a peep about it since  you were caught trying to slip a non sequitur into the mix.
> 
> 2. The only squashing  I see here is your squashing of the truth and  your laughable attempts to recover some of your dignity by ignoring the prime reason illegal immigrants come here. Deflecting with talk of Sanctuary cities means you have no answer for the republican made incentive to come here. The Sanctuary city  phenomenon occurs after the fact and is NOT the cause of it. But you knew that didn't you?
> 
> 
> 
> 1.  I am ready and willing to talk about any issue, at any time, so you can stop pretending that I'm being defensive.  Trump was 100% CORRECT on the abortion thing. If abortion was illegal, then women who irresponsibly go out and get one SHOULD BE ARRESTED.  What he originally said was right then, and it's right now.
> 
> 2.  I am not deflecting anything. That's what YOU are doing. I'm laughing at YOU right now in your pathetic attempt to save face, after I beat you to shreds, by pointing out how DEMOCRATS SUPPORT ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION AND REPUBLICANS ARE FIGHTING AGAINST IT.
> The Sanctuary city vote proved it, as have dozens of congressional actions for decades.  What a joke. Trying to have Democrats escape blame for illegal immigration. They have caused it, encouraged it, perpetrated it, supported it, and ought to be in jail for what they've done - every stinking one of the TRAITORS.
> 
> 3.  Getting low wage jobs isn't a Republican thing. If it was, you wouldn't have every Republican Senator except 1, voting for the bill to punish Sanctuary cities.  And it doesn't matter what is after the fact or before it.  And unlike me, who has provided EVIDENCE of my contention, you haven't presented one shred of evidence to support your supposed "before the fact" idea (which has been obliterated anyway by the Sanctuary City voting, as I just mentioned).  But you knew that didn't you?
Click to expand...


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





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





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





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


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





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


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





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








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





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


----------



## Correll

Martin Eden Mercury said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> if you disagree state why you disagree and what you believe instead.
> 
> 
> 
> What I believe? On abortion law?
> 
> Unlike Donald Trump, I am not running for President and asking to be elected in oder to appoint Justices to the Supreme Court. I am under no obligation to speak about my own personal views on abortion and the law.
Click to expand...


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

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

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

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

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

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


----------



## Correll

Martin Eden Mercury said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> don't play games. my meaning was clear.
> 
> 
> 
> Now you act like the Fuhrer Trump. He also called discussing abortion, a game
Click to expand...


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

This is appropriate for the level you have reached.


----------



## asaratis

Martin Eden Mercury said:


> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Martin Eden Mercury said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> MATTHEWS:* "If you say abortion is a crime *or abortion is murder, you have to deal with it under law. Should abortion be punished?"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And Trump answered yes and when asked if women should be punished, he said yes -- twice
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ...and you STILL can't get the picture!
> 
> The only answer for a Presidential candidate to the question of "should someone be punished for breaking a law?" is YES.
> 
> The only answer to the follow up question  "should the person who broke the law be punished for breaking the law?" is YES.
> 
> The only answer to "who can possibly break a law against having an abortion?" is PREGNANT FEMALES (women) and the DOCTORS (if any) that perform the abortion.
> 
> 
> You are ONE DENSE, ILLOGICAL, LIBERAL IDIOT!!!  But then, all liberals are dense and illogical, so you're attracting birds of a feather with your incessant lying and suspension of logic.
> 
> I can understand fully why you fail miserably as an op ed writer!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> spin, spin, spin, spin, spin, spin
Click to expand...

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


----------



## asaratis

T


Correll said:


> Martin Eden Mercury said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> don't play games. my meaning was clear.
> 
> 
> 
> Now you act like the Fuhrer Trump. He also called discussing abortion, a game
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As I rebut you time and time again, your level of discourse and honesty are both dropping dramatically..
> 
> This is appropriate for the level you have reached.
Click to expand...

Totally awesome!  Thank you!


----------



## Martin Eden Mercury

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


----------



## asaratis

Martin Eden Mercury said:


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


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

Maybe you should study the word _hypothetical._

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

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


----------



## Correll

Martin Eden Mercury said:


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




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


----------



## Martin Eden Mercury

asaratis said:


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


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

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


----------



## Martin Eden Mercury

asaratis said:


> Every piece of **** you post as an op ed ends with "To be continued."
> 
> You are a waste of time, albeit an amusing little pest.



Bright bulb.


----------



## Martin Eden Mercury

Martin Eden Mercury said:


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


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

_to be continued_


----------



## protectionist

JQPublic1 said:


> This Sanctuary City phenomenon didn't start on Obama's watch it started back in1980 on Reagan's watch.
> 
> The Sanctuary movement wasn't meant make US cities safe harbors for  illegal aliens, it was initiated by various diverse religious organizations which banded together  to oppose the deportation or forced repatriation of refugees fleeing Civil war and persecution in their homelands.
> 
> Your Senate Republicans know the history even if you don't. And they also know that the Sanctuary Movement does NOT preclude ICE or any other federal immigration agency from apprehending illegal aliens in those cities you call Sanctuary Cities. They also know that  municipalities , counties and states are not required to enforce federal law and, in  this case, the courts have held that when the spheres of jurisdiction are abrogated in that way, the 4th Amendment is violated.
> 
> _Some have confused “sanctuary city” policies with the notion that immigrants in these communities are insulated from any immigration enforcement action against them. In fact, nothing in a so-called sanctuary city policy prevent federal enforcement actions. Some cities and localities—including San Francisco—have used the term “sanctuary” in their community policing policies in solidarity with the movement of the 1980s._
> 
> So What is it about the Sanctuary Movement that drives Republican politicians  to want to ban it? BUt banning isn't an option, so they want cut Federal  law enforcement funding  for  so -called Sanctuary Cities that
> 
> _Senate Democrats have temporarily blocked a measure that would deny federal law enforcement funds to so-called "sanctuary cities," where local authorities don't automatically report undocumented immigrants without a record of serious criminal offenses to federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents. The idea for the bill was raised and enthusiastically promoted by figures on Fox News, who urged Republicans to "starve" these cities of federal money, despite experts noting that defunding would hurt public safety and evidence showing that so-called "sanctuary cities" are not actually a "safe haven" for undocumented immigrants and, in fact, deter criminality._
> 
> Congress' Attempt To Cut Federal Funds For "Sanctuary Cities" Was Built On Fox News' Rhetoric
> 
> Immigrant advocates maintain that sanctuary cities are effective because they allow undocumented immigrants to report crimes that they otherwise would be hesitant to come forward to talk about. A 2015 National Latin@ Network for Healthy Families and Communities survey found that 41 percent of foreign-born Latinas interviewed reported that they were afraid to call the police or go to court because they feared they could be deported.
> 
> The Big Problem With The GOP’s Crusade Against ‘Sanctuary Cities’
> 
> I stand with the Democrats on this one. The Republicans  are evil bastards who  don't mind jeopardizing the safety of entire communities  by defunding their local law enforcement agencies of "Sanctuary Cities."



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

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

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

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




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

 < the murderer

4.  You said >> "_nothing in a so-called sanctuary city policy prevent federal enforcement actions" _* FALSE! * As I just noted, the Sanctuary city policy of not holding illegal aliens, and releasing them before ICE can come and pick them up is doing just that. It is "_preventing federal enforcement actions"
_
5.  What kind of a moron would ask a question like this >> _"What is it about the Sanctuary Movement that drives Republican politicians to want to ban it?"  _Duh!  How about this dum dum >>

Harms of immigration

1. Americans lose jobs.

2. Wage reduction.

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

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

5. Tax $$ lost to immigrants on welfare.

6. Increased crime.

7. Increased traffic congestion.

8. Increased pollution.

9. Overcrowding in hospital ERs.

10. Overcrowding in recreational facilities.

11. Overcrowding in government offices.

12. Overcrowding in schools.

13. Decrease in funds available for entitlements.

14. Cultural erosion.

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

16. Introduction of foreign diseases.

17. Influx of terrorists.

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

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

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

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

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

LOL.  THESE guys ?  >>


----------



## Correll

Martin Eden Mercury said:


> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Donald Trump said women should be punished for having abortions *if abortions are made illegal*.
> 
> 
> 
> And almost every single pro-life group swiftly claimed they all disagreed.
> 
> So how out of touch is Donald Trump? Is he speaking the hidden thoughts of his supporters? Was he telling the truth? Do he and his supporters want to make abortion illegal, by appointing Justices he and they hope will make abortions illegal?
Click to expand...


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

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

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

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

What part of this is confusing or surprising to you?


----------



## Correll

Martin Eden Mercury said:


> Martin Eden Mercury said:
> 
> 
> 
> Donald Trump said women should be punished for having abortions. End of story
> 
> 
> 
> Donald Trump said if he could help make abortions illegal, women should be punished for having abortions. End of story
> 
> _to be continued_
Click to expand...


This has been repeatedly addressed and you are pretending that it has not.

YOu are a liar.


----------



## Martin Eden Mercury

Correll said:


> Martin Eden Mercury said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Martin Eden Mercury said:
> 
> 
> 
> Donald Trump said women should be punished for having abortions. End of story
> 
> 
> 
> Donald Trump said if he could help make abortions illegal, women should be punished for having abortions. End of story
> 
> _to be continued_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This has been repeatedly addressed and you are pretending that it has not.
> 
> YOu are a liar.
Click to expand...

Calling people a 'liar' simply they disagree with you?

You should run for Congress on a Tea Party ticket


----------



## JQPublic1

protectionist said:


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





1.The use of non federal agencies to enforce federal law is the issue here and An Appeals court has ruled that  States are not obliged to do so. That court decision drives the “don’t ask- don’t tell” immigrant status policies of some state and local Sanctuary jurisdictions.  Where  when and WHY this Sanctuary Movement started is relevant because that knowledge is crucial to putting this issue in the proper political perspective.  In the beginning, under Reagan, we were sending Latin American refugees back to their war torn countries to face the severe consequences that awaited them upon return. American religious leaders  of diverse faiths stepped up and started the Sanctuary Movement to preclude that horrible fate.  Again, nothing they have done abrogates federal immigration laws or the US Constitution according the the opinions handed down by an appeals court.



2. The weighted value of your insistence that proponents of the Sanctuary Movement  are assisting lawbreakers  barely shows movement on the scales of justice. You, and Politically Offensive Republican News Organizations ( PORNO) such as FOX, have been relentlessly spinning your wheels for naught.  Fox, it seems has taken the lead in calling for sanctions against Sanctuary entities; and indeed, the supercilious attitudes of their hosts have produced enmity between themselves and  law enforcement agencies of major cities that favor Sanctuaries. Proof?  Here we go!

*Law Enforcement Experts: Sanctuary City Policies Deter Crime.* According to an October 4, 2007 report in Salon, several law enforcement experts -- including "the chiefs of police of the 64 largest police departments in the United States and Canada" -- have found that sanctuary cities policies actually deter crime rather than exacerbate it. The criminal justice coordinator for the City of New York reportedly credited sanctuary city-style policies as "one of the reasons New York City is the country's safest big city"



protectionist said:


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


  Calm down. I don’t like the idea of illegal aliens getting a free pass via the Sanctuary Movement either. But experts on the  subject such as the CRS ( Congressional Review Service) and the Law Enforcement experts cited  in paragraph 2, have swayed my opinion. I now see that migrants who are not suspected of violating state or local law do not fall within the purview of State and local police jurisprudence. I don’t like it any more than you do but that conference of 64 Chief LEOs have posited several compelling benefits of Sanctuaries: a. lower crime and  more local cooperation in solving crime when immigrants are not afraid of local authorities.

 b. Limited police resources and assets are not used up by policing under and enforcing federal immigration laws, thus  police can focus on criminals, illegal or otherwise, who violate THEIR statutes and criminal codes.



protectionist said:


> She's fighting for illegal aliens who are robbing US workers of millions of jobs. (and so are you).



3.I can’t speak for Hillary Clinton but  here is my  POV: The people robbing US workers of jobs are the  businesses that hire illegals. I don’t hire any illegals so I ‘m not robbing any American citizen of a job. 

The term Sanctuary is being mis-used by people like you GOP types to give he impression that Sanctuary is being granted to illegal aliens when in  fact  it isn’t. Some states are just not asking for a person’s immigration status when individuals report crimes or are victims of crimes. I have already explained why in paragraph #2



protectionist said:


> As for ICE or any other federal immigration agency being precluded from apprehending illegal aliens in Sanctuary Cities, that is done by the liberals in those cities, by not honoring the ICE detainers, and releasing the illegals before ICE can come and pick them up (as occurred with Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez), the illegal dirtbag who killed Kate Steinle) the VICTIM >




4.Yes, the Stein shooting is a well publicized incident but it isn’t typical of illegal alien behavior, at least those from Latin countries, as you and TRUMP would have us believe. Granted there ARE SOME criminal elements to be expected in any group of people. illegal or not.

I agree, The culprit is an incorrigible border crosser and petty criminal. and he was released by the SFD months before the shooting occurred.  ICE had indeed asked them  to hold him for pickup but that really might not have prevented the shooting since Sanchez would likely have  made his way back across the border like he had numerous times before. But the SFD release does provide a political expediency for those who want to curtail or get rid of the Sanctuary Movement altogether.




protectionist said:


> *FALSE! *As I just noted, the Sanctuary city policy of not holding illegal aliens, and releasing them before ICE can come and pick them up is doing just that. It is "_preventing federal enforcement actions"_



5.And AGAIN, ICE did not bother to get a warrant that would have made it legal to detain a person beyond the  normal please time. Admittedly, that release  seemingly bordered on an inane principle in this case since illegal immigrants do not have Constitutional rights. And I suspect the SFD knew Sanchez was a chronic fence jumper. That might have been an additional motive for not holding him since his previous deportations didn’t work…so what is the use?




protectionist said:


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



6.The Sanctuary Movement is getting a  foul rap here and is still the only viable hope for those  who flee strife, persecution and civil war in their home countries pursuant to  seeking asylum in the USA. It was not designed to protect  people who are just coming over for jobs from countries that are not hostile to them. But at the same time,  state and local governments run the risk of violating the 4th and 10th Amendments of the Constitution if they detain people who are undocumented but haven’t committed any crime without warrants. Undocumented means you don’t have an I.D. on you. That isn't a crime but is  sufficient to suspect that persons an illegal. However, having no I.D.  is not proof that they are. And it could take days or even weeks to determine a person is illegal which, in effect, burns up local and state resources to find out as well as room and board expenses. That is some of the reasoning behind the 64 Chief LEO’s support of selective enforcement of Immigration laws.



protectionist said:


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



7.Those are harsh words. Still I will try to explain why my agreement with the Sanctuary Movement is limited to the conceptual vision of the religious leaders who virtually accomplished the impossible. I’ll make this short: It is because the real Sanctuary Movement has little to do with policing of illegals. Refugees are not classified as illegals  since they  are known to ICE and other immigration authorities. I am not certain about the vetting process of refugees but those are the people intended to take advantage of Sanctuary Cities, et..al…

However, differentiating between illegals and refugees can be burdensome to state and local law enforcement agencies, I understand their focus on their own criminal codes  rather than federal immigration laws.


----------



## protectionist

JQPublic1 said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. What matter about the Sanctuary City phenomenon is that it is assisting lawbreakers to break US law, and that Democrats are currently doing this (where or when it started, or who was president, is all insignificant now)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1.The use of non federal agencies to enforce federal law is the issue here and An Appeals court has ruled that  States are not obliged to do so. That court decision drives the “don’t ask- don’t tell” immigrant status policies of some state and local Sanctuary jurisdictions.  Where  when and WHY this Sanctuary Movement started is relevant because that knowledge is crucial to putting this issue in the proper political perspective.  In the beginning, under Reagan, we were sending Latin American refugees back to their war torn countries to face the severe consequences that awaited them upon return. American religious leaders  of diverse faiths stepped up and started the Sanctuary Movement to preclude that horrible fate.  Again, nothing they have done abrogates federal immigration laws or the US Constitution according the the opinions handed down by an appeals court.
> 
> 
> 
> 2. The weighted value of your insistence that proponents of the Sanctuary Movement  are assisting lawbreakers  barely shows movement on the scales of justice. You, and Politically Offensive Republican News Organizations ( PORNO) such as FOX, have been relentlessly spinning your wheels for naught.  Fox, it seems has taken the lead in calling for sanctions against Sanctuary entities; and indeed, the supercilious attitudes of their hosts have produced enmity between themselves and  law enforcement agencies of major cities that favor Sanctuaries. Proof?  Here we go!
> 
> *Law Enforcement Experts: Sanctuary City Policies Deter Crime.* According to an October 4, 2007 report in Salon, several law enforcement experts -- including "the chiefs of police of the 64 largest police departments in the United States and Canada" -- have found that sanctuary cities policies actually deter crime rather than exacerbate it. The criminal justice coordinator for the City of New York reportedly credited sanctuary city-style policies as "one of the reasons New York City is the country's safest big city"
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 3. Now you are supporting the idea of Sanctuary Cities. That is reprehensible, and shows the hypocrisy of liberals and democrats who purport to be champions if the US working class (like Hillary Clinton's campaign motto_"Fighting for us" .._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Calm down. I don’t like the idea of illegal aliens getting a free pass via the Sanctuary Movement either. But experts on the  subject such as the CRS ( Congressional Review Service) and the Law Enforcement experts cited  in paragraph 2, have swayed my opinion. I now see that migrants who are not suspected of violating state or local law do not fall within the purview of State and local police jurisprudence. I don’t like it any more than you do but that conference of 64 Chief LEOs have posited several compelling benefits of Sanctuaries: a. lower crime and  more local cooperation in solving crime when immigrants are not afraid of local authorities.
> 
> b. Limited police resources and assets are not used up by policing under and enforcing federal immigration laws, thus  police can focus on criminals, illegal or otherwise, who violate THEIR statutes and criminal codes.
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> She's fighting for illegal aliens who are robbing US workers of millions of jobs. (and so are you).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 3.I can’t speak for Hillary Clinton but  here is my  POV: The people robbing US workers of jobs are the  businesses that hire illegals. I don’t hire any illegals so I ‘m not robbing any American citizen of a job.
> 
> The term Sanctuary is being mis-used by people like you GOP types to give he impression that Sanctuary is being granted to illegal aliens when in  fact  it isn’t. Some states are just not asking for a person’s immigration status when individuals report crimes or are victims of crimes. I have already explained why in paragraph #2
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> As for ICE or any other federal immigration agency being precluded from apprehending illegal aliens in Sanctuary Cities, that is done by the liberals in those cities, by not honoring the ICE detainers, and releasing the illegals before ICE can come and pick them up (as occurred with Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez), the illegal dirtbag who killed Kate Steinle) the VICTIM >
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 4.Yes, the Stein shooting is a well publicized incident but it isn’t typical of illegal alien behavior, at least those from Latin countries, as you and TRUMP would have us believe. Granted there ARE SOME criminal elements to be expected in any group of people. illegal or not.
> 
> I agree, The culprit is an incorrigible border crosser and petty criminal. and he was released by the SFD months before the shooting occurred.  ICE had indeed asked them  to hold him for pickup but that really might not have prevented the shooting since Sanchez would likely have  made his way back across the border like he had numerous times before. But the SFD release does provide a political expediency for those who want to curtail or get rid of the Sanctuary Movement altogether.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> *FALSE! *As I just noted, the Sanctuary city policy of not holding illegal aliens, and releasing them before ICE can come and pick them up is doing just that. It is "_preventing federal enforcement actions"_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 5.And AGAIN, ICE did not bother to get a warrant that would have made it legal to detain a person beyond the  normal please time. Admittedly, that release  seemingly bordered on an inane principle in this case since illegal immigrants do not have Constitutional rights. And I suspect the SFD knew Sanchez was a chronic fence jumper. That might have been an additional motive for not holding him since his previous deportations didn’t work…so what is the use?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 5. What kind of a moron would ask a question like this >> _"What is it about the Sanctuary Movement that drives Republican politicians to want to ban it?" _Duh! How about this dum dum >>
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 6.The Sanctuary Movement is getting a  foul rap here and is still the only viable hope for those  who flee strife, persecution and civil war in their home countries pursuant to  seeking asylum in the USA. It was not designed to protect  people who are just coming over for jobs from countries that are not hostile to them. But at the same time,  state and local governments run the risk of violating the 4th and 10th Amendments of the Constitution if they detain people who are undocumented but haven’t committed any crime without warrants. Undocumented means you don’t have an I.D. on you. That isn't a crime but is  sufficient to suspect that persons an illegal. However, having no I.D.  is not proof that they are. And it could take days or even weeks to determine a person is illegal which, in effect, burns up local and state resources to find out as well as room and board expenses. That is some of the reasoning behind the 64 Chief LEO’s support of selective enforcement of Immigration laws.
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, you stand with the Democrats, AND Mexican imperialism, in its invasion and robbery of the USA, and the illegal invaders, and against the American people, especially American workers, as as such, you are a filthy, disgusting TRAITOR, who ought to be arrested for *treason *(along with all the other sanctuary city miscreants), tried, convicted, and executed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 7.Those are harsh words. Still I will try to explain why my agreement with the Sanctuary Movement is limited to the conceptual vision of the religious leaders who virtually accomplished the impossible. I’ll make this short: It is because the real Sanctuary Movement has little to do with policing of illegals. Refugees are not classified as illegals  since they  are known to ICE and other immigration authorities. I am not certain about the vetting process of refugees but those are the people intended to take advantage of Sanctuary Cities, et..al…
> 
> However, differentiating between illegals and refugees can be burdensome to state and local law enforcement agencies, I understand their focus on their own criminal codes  rather than federal immigration laws.
Click to expand...

We are talking about illegal aliens. There is no such thing as an illegal alien who has not violated the law.  ALL illegal aliens are law violators. Either they came across the border without being inspected by immigration authorities (A CRIME), or they overstayed a visa. Lawbreakers in either case.

Maybe you like writing books. I don't. And I'm not really interested in reading the ones you write either. I read your Post # 83, and have founds holes in it big enough to drive buses through.  Am I going to comment on all the false things you wrote ? No I'm not, because you are writing posts that are too long, and to exhausting to respond to meticulously.  If you want specific responses., you will just have to write shorter posts.


----------



## protectionist

Correll said:


> It is obvious that Abortion is not a top issue with him and he was ignorant of this legal detail.
> 
> He was very much "out of touch" with the Pro-life groups.
> 
> Once informed of his mistake, he quickly corrected it, and reversed his position on this.
> 
> It is likely that he will try to appoint Justices that lean pro-life.
> 
> What part of this is confusing or surprising to you?


He was not ignorant of any legal detail.

Who cares about pro-life groups ?  If they think women should casually get abortion without good cause, and not be punished for that, they're wrong.  (Trump was right)

He did not make a mistake.  His campaign people thought he did. They were wrong.


----------



## candycorn

Correll said:


> sonic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump has been a liberal his entire life and is now trying to con the country into thinking he's a conservative. Just imagine how many rookie mistakes the completely unqualified, undisciplined, hotheaded Trump would make.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> His public persona of bluster and temper is tool designed for use in negotiations and deal making.
> 
> There has been a LOT of campaigning. Can you name another rookie mistake or is this the first one?
Click to expand...

 
Skipping the last Iowa debate.
Saying he wants to nail his daughter
Making fun of a man with a birth defect
Stating a woman was on her period
mocking Christians
Calling Mexicans rapists

Its exactly as Dennis Hopper said in "Speed"; if you're poor and act like he does, you're crazy. If you're rich and act like he does, you're excentric.  As you can tell from the cooling poll numbers and Cruz's resurgence, the public is tiring of the act.


----------



## JQPublic1

protectionist said:


> We are talking about illegal aliens. There is no such thing as an illegal alien who has not violated the law. ALL illegal aliens are law violators. Either they came across the border without being inspected by immigration authorities (A CRIME), or they overstayed a visa. Lawbreakers in either case.



1.It was you who introduced Sanctuary Cities into this exchange as "proof" that democrats favored illegal immigration. I have shown that conservative news media has mis-used the term  and confused the Sanctuary Movement with State's prerogatives not to spend their time and effort chasing  and detaining  suspected illegals; especially since an appeals court decision, the CRS, and  large metropolitan area  police chiefs (64) have opined they have that option.. 

2. Of course illegal immigrants have broken federal immigration laws and it is the feds job to get them. It is NOT incumbent upon State and local police agencies to act  like federal agencies and to hold or detain anyone without a warrant  unless they are suspected of committing a crime within the purview of the arresting agency.  Civil lawsuits for unlawful detention can be devastating to  state and local budgets.





protectionist said:


> Maybe you like writing books. I don't. And I'm not really interested in reading the ones you write either. I read your Post # 83, and have founds holes in it big enough to drive buses through. Am I going to comment on all the false things you wrote ? No I'm not, because you are writing posts that are too long, and to exhausting to respond to meticulously. If you want specific responses., you will just have to write shorter posts.



1. My response to you was not solely for YOUR benefit. I couldn't care less if you read it or not; someone will..

2. If you found "holes" in my post you could have used the quote tool to address those "holes" one at a time. You needn't respond to the whole post at once.

3. Again, I don't care if you respond or not. However, I usually do write much shorter responses but you attacked my credibility  and behaved so rudely that I felt compelled to present a more thorough case. If it is too much for you to deal with,  OH WELL. I don't make special concessions to adversaries.


----------



## protectionist

JQPublic1 said:


> 1. My response to you was not solely for YOUR benefit. I couldn't care less if you read it or not; someone will..
> 
> 2. If you found "holes" in my post you could have used the quote tool to address those "holes" one at a time. You needn't respond to the whole post at once.
> 
> 3. Again, I don't care if you respond or not. However, I usually do write much shorter responses but you attacked my credibility  and behaved so rudely that I felt compelled to present a more thorough case. If it is too much for you to deal with,  OH WELL. I don't make special concessions to adversaries.


I reject the notion that you have shown ANYTHING about Sanctuary Cities. Your Post # 83 was TOO LONG, and I did not read it, and I'm not going to. From my perspective, it doesn't exist. If you want to be taken seriously about the Sanctuary city issue, you state your position here now, briefly, without writing a whole book about it, but no matter what you say, you can't defend the disregard for US law. You are just being a common criminal, like all the other supporters of this despicable insult to our ancestors, who created these immigration laws, to protect us from the long list of harms of immigration.

Harms of immigration

1. Americans lose jobs.

2. Wage reduction.

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

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

5. Tax $$ lost to immigrants on welfare.

6. Increased crime.

7. Increased traffic congestion.

8. Increased pollution.

9. Overcrowding in hospital ERs.

10. Overcrowding in recreational facilities.

11. Overcrowding in government offices.

12. Overcrowding in schools.

13. Decrease in funds available for entitlements.

14. Cultural erosion.

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

16. Introduction of foreign diseases.

17. Influx of terrorists.


----------



## protectionist

candycorn said:


> Skipping the last Iowa debate.
> Saying he wants to nail his daughter
> Making fun of a man with a birth defect
> Stating a woman was on her period
> mocking Christians
> Calling Mexicans rapists
> 
> Its exactly as Dennis Hopper said in "Speed"; if you're poor and act like he does, you're crazy. If you're rich and act like he does, you're excentric.  As you can tell from the cooling poll numbers and Cruz's resurgence, the public is tiring of the act.


Cruz DOESN'T have a resurgence. He's is getting delegates against the will of the American people.  He lost the vote in Louisiana, yet he got most of the delegates. Similar situation exist in Virginia, Kentucky, et al states.  He got all the delegates in Colorado, where Trump was overwhelmingly the favorite to win in an election that was not permitted to be held.  That's not a resurgence. that is Cruz taking advantage of an unAmerican, despicable desregard for the American voter, by GOP party bosses, who are selecting the candidates of THEIR choice, in back rooms with locked doors, and bribing delegates with all-expenses paid vacations and similar goodies.

This isn't the FREEDOM that 400,000 US military members sacrificed their lives for in World War II, to defend.  This is the big (huge) issue of this campaign, not Trump's trash-talking, or his relative political inexperience (which actually is probably a good thing)

Do We Really Have FREEDOM, in America ?


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro

Stick to the topic of the thread, please.  It's not about immigration or sanctuary cities.  Thanks


----------



## JQPublic1

protectionist said:


> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. My response to you was not solely for YOUR benefit. I couldn't care less if you read it or not; someone will..
> 
> 2. If you found "holes" in my post you could have used the quote tool to address those "holes" one at a time. You needn't respond to the whole post at once.
> 
> 3. Again, I don't care if you respond or not. However, I usually do write much shorter responses but you attacked my credibility  and behaved so rudely that I felt compelled to present a more thorough case. If it is too much for you to deal with,  OH WELL. I don't make special concessions to adversaries.
> 
> 
> 
> I reject the notion that you have shown ANYTHING about Sanctuary Cities. Your Post # 83 was TOO LONG, and I did not read it, and I'm not going to. From my perspective, it doesn't exist. If you want to be taken seriously about the Sanctuary city issue, you state your position here now, briefly, without writing a whole book about it, but no matter what you say, you can't defend the disregard for US law. You are just being a common criminal, like all the other supporters of this despicable insult to our ancestors, who created these immigration laws, to protect us from the long list of harms of immigration.
> 
> Harms of immigration
> 
> 1. Americans lose jobs.
> 
> 2. Wage reduction.
> 
> 3. Tax $ lost (due to off books work + lower wages paid).
> 
> 4. Remittance $$$ lost. ($123 Billion/year).
> 
> 5. Tax $$ lost to immigrants on welfare.
> 
> 6. Increased crime.
> 
> 7. Increased traffic congestion.
> 
> 8. Increased pollution.
> 
> 9. Overcrowding in hospital ERs.
> 
> 10. Overcrowding in recreational facilities.
> 
> 11. Overcrowding in government offices.
> 
> 12. Overcrowding in schools.
> 
> 13. Decrease in funds available for entitlements.
> 
> 14. Cultural erosion.
> 
> 15. Overuse of scarce resources (oil, gasoline, fresh water, jobs, electricity, food, etc)
> 
> 16. Introduction of foreign diseases.
> 
> 17. Influx of terrorists.
Click to expand...


The OP is long and it is painfully apparent that you didn't read that either.


----------



## protectionist

JQPublic1 said:


> The OP is long and it is painfully apparent that you didn't read that either.



I read it , and refuted it, in Post # 38.  Ho hum.


----------



## JQPublic1

protectionist said:


> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The OP is long and it is painfully apparent that you didn't read that either.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I read it , and refuted it, in Post # 38.  Ho hum.
Click to expand...

No you didn't and you didn't read post #90 either!


----------



## protectionist

JQPublic1 said:


> No you didn't and you didn't read post #90 either!


I read both, and you have one consistency. Consistent NONSENSE.  
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Ho hum.


----------



## JQPublic1

protectionist said:


> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No you didn't and you didn't read post #90 either!
> 
> 
> 
> I read both, and you have one consistency. Consistent NONSENSE.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ho hum.
Click to expand...

Mission accomplished... I've got you hallucinating. Let the record of our past conversation speak for itself and let any interested readers decide who they want to  believe. See ya on the next battlefield..heh heh heh!


----------



## protectionist

JQPublic1 said:


> Mission accomplished... I've got you hallucinating. Let the record of our past conversation speak for itself and let any interested readers decide who they want to  believe. See ya on the next battlefield..heh heh heh!


I forgot what got us talking in the first place.  Wasn't the thread about abortion ?  I remember saying something about that.


----------

