[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

"Trump Shows Demography Isn’t Destiny" "Democrats Get a Wake-Up Call about How Unpopular Their Agenda Really Is" Live Election Map with ticker shows every winner. Megyn Kelly Joins Trump at His Final PA Rally of 2024 and Explains Why She's Supporting Him South Carolina Lawmaker at Trump Rally Highlights Story of 3-Year-Old Maddie Hines, Killed by Illegal Alien GOP Demands Biden, Harris Launch Probe into Twice-Deported Illegal Alien Accused of Killing Grayson Davis Previously-Deported Illegal Charged With Killing Arkansas Children’s Hospital Nurse in Horror DUI Crash New Data on Migrant Crime Rates Raises Eyebrows, Alarms Thousands of 'potentially fraudulent voter registration applications' Uncovered, Stopped in Pennsylvania Michigan Will Count Ballot of Chinese National Charged with Voting Illegally "It Did Occur" - Kentucky County Clerk Confirms Voting Booth 'Glitch'' Shifted Trump Votes To Kamala Legendary Astronaut Buzz Aldrin 'wholeheartedly' Endorses Donald Trump Liberal Icon Naomi Wolf Endorses Trump: 'He's Being More Inclusive' (Washed Up Has Been) Singer Joni Mitchell Screams 'F*** Trump' at Hollywood Bowl "Analysis: The Final State of the Presidential Race" He’ll, You Pieces of Garbage The Future of Warfare -- No more martyrdom! "Kamala’s Inane Talking Points" "The Harris Campaign Is Testament to the Toxicity of Woke Politics" Easy Drywall Patch Israel Preparing NEW Iran Strike? Iran Vows “Unimaginable” Response | Watchman Newscast In Logansport, Indiana, Kids are Being Pushed Out of Schools After Migrants Swelled County’s Population by 30%: "Everybody else is falling behind" Exclusive — Bernie Moreno: We Spend $110,000 Per Illegal Migrant Per Year, More than Twice What ‘the Average American Makes’ Florida County: 41 of 45 People Arrested for Looting after Hurricanes Helene and Milton are Noncitizens Presidential race: Is a Split Ticket the only Answer? hurricanes and heat waves are Worse 'Backbone of Iran's missile industry' destroyed by IAF strikes on Islamic Republic Joe Rogan Experience #2219 - Donald Trump IDF raids Hezbollah Radwan Forces underground bases, discovers massive cache of weapons Gallant: ‘After we strike in Iran,’ the world will understand all of our training The Atlantic Hit Piece On Trump Is A Psy-Op To Justify Post-Election Violence If Harris Loses Six Al Jazeera journalists are Hamas, PIJ terrorists Judge Aileen Cannon, who tossed Trump's classified docs case, on list of proposed candidates for attorney general Iran's Assassination Program in Europe: Europe Goes Back to Sleep Susan Olsen says Brady Bunch revival was cancelled because she’s MAGA. Foreign Invaders crisis cost $150B in 2023, forcing some areas to cut police and fire services: report Israel kills head of Hezbollah Intelligence. Tenn. AG reveals ICE released thousands of ‘murderers and rapists’ from detention centers into US streets Kamala Harris Touts Mass Amnesty Offering Fast-Tracked Citizenship to Nearly Every Illegal Alien in U.S. Migration Crisis Fueled Rise in Tuberculosis Cases Study Finds "They’re Going to Try to Kill Trump Again" "Dems' Attempts at Power Grab Losing Their Grip" "Restoring a ‘Great Moderation’ in Fiscal Policy" "As attacks intensify, Trump becomes more popular" Posting Articles Now Working Here Another Test Testing Kamala Harris, reparations, and guaranteed income Did Mudboy Slim finally kill this place? "Why Young Americans Are Not Taught about Evil" Status: Not Logged In; Sign In politics and politicians See other politics and politicians Articles Title: Donald Trump: Actually, Now That I Think About It, Let's Leave the Abortion Laws As They Are [CBS] Source: Ace Of Spades URL Source: http://ace.mu.nu/#362525 Published: Apr 1, 2016 Author: Ace Post Date: 2016-04-02 09:46:31 by Tooconservative Keywords: None Views: 39781 Comments: 253 Donald Trump: Actually, Now That I Think About It, Let's Leave the Abortion Laws As They Are I'm changing, I'm changing. I'm softening that position. However, he then added that abortion is murder. Asked how he'd like to change the law to further restrict access to abortions, Trump replied, "The laws are set now on abortion and that's the way they're going to remain until they're changed." "I would've preferred states' rights," he added. "I think it would've been better if it were up to the states. But right now, the laws are set....At this moment, the laws are set. And I think we have to leave it that way." "Do you think abortion is murder?" Dickerson asked. "I have my opinions on it, but I'd rather not comment on it," Trump replied. "You said you were very pro-life," Dickerson followed up. "Pro-life means that...abortion is murder." "I mean, I do have my opinions on it. I just don't think it's an appropriate forum," said Trump. "But you don't disagree with that proposition, that it's murder?" Dickerson asked. "No, I don't disagree with it," Trump eventually replied. Okay. As long as you're giving the proper amount of thought to these issues. There was once a very intelligent man who said, "The moment Trump gets into trouble, he's going to start pandering like crazy to liberals, because he just doesn't know any better." Here we see Trump finally realizing the damage he caused to himself with Michelle Fields and Heidi Cruz, plus his own goal on abortion, so his response, to get back those women he cherishes so much, is to say "Hey, let's leave the abortion laws as they are. But privately, I think abortion is murder. FYI." I seriously can't think of a worse political position: On one hand, he's telling the pro-life people I'm not changing any abortion laws. Fine, okay, most presidents won't try, but few are as upfront in telling a key part of the conservative movement they're getting the goose-egg. Simultaneously, on the other hand, he pisses off the pro-choice people, by telling them that, while he won't be changing the abortion laws, that abortion is murder. It's lose-lose. With a bonus lose for it being dreadfully obvious that he simply hasn't given the issue a lick of thought and is now just basically button-mashing (as Allah puts it) in hopes that some combination of inputs gets him past the boss on this level. Posted by Ace at 07:27 PM Comments Donald Trump: About That Thing I Just Said A Few Hours Ago-- Nevermind —Ace The woman will, or rather will not be punished, and the laws will not, or rather will, be changed. .@realDonaldTrump spox Hope Hicks walks back Trump abortion comments to CBS. Says Trump WILL change law on abortion pic.twitter.com/1oedertZbC— Jeremy Diamond (@JDiamond1) April 2, 2016 Hey, by ten o'clock we might have another Trump position on abortion, so stay tuned. Posted by Ace at 09:03 PM Comments Poster Comment: The carnival barker executes another double-backflip on abortion. It takes real courage to confuse yourself with all these "hypotheticals" four times in less than four days. But it's only murder. Well, unless it isn't. Who really knows anyway? You keep thinking the rats will realize they're following the Pied Piper but ... Let the Trumpsplaining commence! Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread   Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Comments (1-128) not displayed.       .       .       . #129. To: ConservingFreedom (#127) (Edited) Take a reading course and a second course in logic to find an answer to your question. rlk  posted on  2016-04-04   12:40:22 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #130. To: rlk (#129) So what exactly were you referring to as "a pat on the head from the law of the land" if not the "legal punition" you mentioned? Take a reading course and a second course in logic to find an answer to your question. So your grandiloquent rhetoric was empty of meaningful content ... why am I not surprised? A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. ConservingFreedom  posted on  2016-04-04   13:12:57 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #131. To: misterwhite (#128) Federal civil rights laws were applied to the states because state discrimination laws had a substantial effect on interstate commerce. So you agree that use of the Interestate Commerce Clause was what the original intended and meant by the clause? My point is that de facto the activities that the Fed claims fall under the ICC have gone far beyond what the FFs intended it to be. But more to the point, within this expanded grab by the Fed it is entirely within the likely that the Fed will use the ICC to regulate abortion activities in general, the enforcement of consequences for the woman in particular. потому что Бог хочет это тот путь SOSO  posted on  2016-04-04   13:31:33 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #132. To: vicomte13 (#0) I seriously can't think of a worse political position: On one hand, he's telling the pro-life people I'm not changing any abortion laws. Fine, okay, most presidents won't try, but few are as upfront in telling a key part of the conservative movement they're getting the goose-egg. ARe you still are supporting Trump even though he will not change the abortion laws? потому что Бог хочет это тот путь SOSO  posted on  2016-04-04   13:38:15 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #133. To: SOSO (#132) ARe you still are supporting Trump even though he will not change the abortion laws? Yes. The President doesn't make abortion law. Neither does the Congress. The Supreme Court does. Trump will appoint three Scalias, and abortion law will change, in time, maybe. And I support Trump's foreign and military and health care policies. If anybody else is the nominee, the Republicans will lose the election, and then Hillary will name her justices. For all of the skulduggery on the Republican side to deny the nomination to Trump,. he's the only one who can win. Vicomte13  posted on  2016-04-04   13:58:53 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #134. To: SOSO (#131) "So you agree that use of the Interestate Commerce Clause was what the original intended and meant by the clause? " Yes. But in later applications of the Commerce Clause, Congress used the power of Article I, Section 8, Clause 18 (the Necessary and Proper Clause) to make laws allowing them to enforce other powers. For example, in the Shreveport Rate Cases, it was necessary for the government to regulate intrastate rates because they had an effect on interstate rates. misterwhite  posted on  2016-04-04   14:04:27 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #135. To: misterwhite (#134) Shreveport Rate Cases That rotten FDR!!!!! Roscoe  posted on  2016-04-04   14:05:39 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #136. To: Vicomte13 (#133) "If anybody else is the nominee, the Republicans will lose the election, and then Hillary will name her justices." Seems to me that if someone was really pro-life they'd vote for Trump. Otherwise they'll end up with pro-choice Hillary. misterwhite  posted on  2016-04-04   14:06:44 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #137. To: misterwhite, SOSO (#134) in the Shreveport Rate Cases, it was necessary for the government to regulate intrastate rates because they had an effect on interstate rates. The Shreveport Rate Cases ruling asserts the authority of Congress only with specific reference to shipping rates - and its only broader language is to limit the ends for which that authority is meant to be used, namely preventing state-versus-state battles (which does not include all nonuniformity among states): "Interstate trade was not left to be destroyed or impeded by the rivalries of local government. The purpose was to make impossible the recurrence of the evils which had overwhelmed the Confederation, and to provide the necessary basis of national unity by insuring 'uniformity of regulation against conflicting and discriminating state legislation.'" A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. ConservingFreedom  posted on  2016-04-04   14:10:46 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #138. To: ConservingFreedom (#137) The Shreveport Rate Cases ruling asserts the authority of Congress only with specific reference to shipping rates Imaginative. The power of Congress to regulate interstate commerce extended to matters having "a close and substantial relation to interstate traffic," Justice Charles Evans Hughes wrote for the majority. Roscoe  posted on  2016-04-04   14:14:34 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #139. To: misterwhite (#134) "So you agree that use of the Interestate Commerce Clause was what the original intended and meant by the clause? " Yes. Then why don't you believe that the Fed could use the ICC to regulate and enforce consequences on a woman having the abortion? потому что Бог хочет это тот путь SOSO  posted on  2016-04-04   14:16:07 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #140. To: Roscoe (#138) "The fact that carriers are instruments of intrastate commerce, as well as of interstate commerce, does not derogate from the complete and paramount authority of Congress over the latter, or preclude the Federal power from being exerted to prevent the intrastate operations of such carriers from being made a means of injury to that which has been confided to Federal care. Wherever the interstate and intrastate transactions of carriers are so related that the government of the one involves the control of the other, it is Congress, and not the state, that is entitled to prescribe the final and dominant rule, for otherwise Congress would be denied the exercise of its constitutional authority, and the state, and not the nation, would be supreme within the national field." [emphasis added] A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. ConservingFreedom  posted on  2016-04-04   14:18:37 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #141. To: ConservingFreedom, misterwhite, All (#137) "Interstate trade was not left to be destroyed or impeded by the rivalries of local government. The purpose was to make impossible the recurrence of the evils which had overwhelmed the Confederation, and to provide the necessary basis of national unity by insuring 'uniformity of regulation against conflicting and discriminating state legislation.'" AH, in other words to promote unnecessarily encumbered or regulated free trade among the states? потому что Бог хочет это тот путь SOSO  posted on  2016-04-04   14:20:23 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #142. To: SOSO (#139) "Then why don't you believe that the Fed could use the ICC to regulate and enforce consequences on a woman having the abortion?" What's the connection to interstate commerce? misterwhite  posted on  2016-04-04   14:22:39 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #143. To: Roscoe (#138) The full passage: "Its authority, extending to these interstate carriers as instruments of interstate commerce, necessarily embraces the right to control their operations in all matters having such a close and substantial relation to interstate traffic that the control is essential or appropriate to the security of that traffic, to the efficiency of the interstate service, and to the maintenance of conditions under which interstate commerce may be conducted upon fair terms and without molestation or hindrance." A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. ConservingFreedom  posted on  2016-04-04   14:24:33 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #144. To: SOSO (#141) "AH, in other words to promote unnecessarily encumbered or regulated free trade among the states?" "To regulate" does not mean "to promote". If the Founders meant "to promote" they would have written "to promote". misterwhite  posted on  2016-04-04   14:25:13 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #145. To: SOSO (#141) AH, in other words to promote unnecessarily encumbered or regulated free trade among the states? If you're suggesting that even Shreveport gave excessive leeway to the feds, I'm open to that argument - but it remains the case that Shreveport did not support Wickard v Filburn's sweeping "substantial effect" fabrication (though that Court pretended it did). A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. ConservingFreedom  posted on  2016-04-04   14:27:58 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #146. To: Roscoe (#143) Even your deceptive truncation, "a close and substantial relation to interstate traffic," would mean a narrower test - "close and substantial" is by definition less inclusive than "substantial." A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. ConservingFreedom  posted on  2016-04-04   14:30:25 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #147. To: ConservingFreedom (#143) in all matters having such a close and substantial relation to interstate traffic Nice foot shot! Roscoe  posted on  2016-04-04   14:34:52 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #148. To: ConservingFreedom (#145) Wickard v Filburn's sweeping "substantial effect" fabrication Without a substantial effect restriction, there's no restriction at all. Do you ever stop to think about what you're typing? Roscoe  posted on  2016-04-04   14:37:11 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #149. To: ConservingFreedom (#145) "but it remains the case that Shreveport did not support Wickard v Filburn's sweeping "substantial effect" fabrication (though that Court pretended it did)." So allowing each farmer to produce wheat in excess of their quota would have had no effect on the interstate commerce of wheat? misterwhite  posted on  2016-04-04   14:37:33 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #150. To: rlk (#122) Should you have a legal system which contradicts these counterbalances or attributes social acceptance to free expression of these undesirable capabilities, you increase increase probability of their occurrance as per Pavlovs dogs. That's complex psychological operant conditioning using a pat on the head from the law of the land as a reinforcer. So the government should make and enforce laws that prohibit actions arising from original sins? So the government be allowed to mandate the attributes and actions of parenthood and enforce consequences for failure of parents to comply with the government model and proscription of parenthood? So the government should define what actions are to be shamed and mandate that every person publically shame those actions? How Orwellian are you? It has always been, as with every law since the recorded history of man, that the Constitution meant nothing other than the enforcer of the law (in our case We The People) insist and defend that it does. The fault is not with the Constitution but with We The People. If We The People choose not to enforce the laws against slavery the practice of slavery, though technically illegal, would persist. If you contest this just look at what happened during Prohibition. As for the Pavlovian response of which you speak, that is more a consequence of brainwashing in the public schools, MSM, advertising, Hollywood and the entertainment industry, social media, and, yes, even our religious institutions. It has nothing to do with the corruption of our legal system. потому что Бог хочет это тот путь SOSO  posted on  2016-04-04   14:38:01 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #151. To: Roscoe (#147) More of your deceptive truncation. "all matters having such a close and substantial relation to interstate traffic that the control is essential or appropriate to the security of that traffic, to the efficiency of the interstate service, and to the maintenance of conditions under which interstate commerce may be conducted upon fair terms and without molestation or hindrance." A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. ConservingFreedom  posted on  2016-04-04   14:39:39 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #152. To: Roscoe (#148) Beat me by 22 seconds. misterwhite  posted on  2016-04-04   14:39:50 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #153. To: SOSO (#150) So the government should make and enforce laws that prohibit actions arising from original sins? So the government be allowed to mandate the attributes and actions of parenthood and enforce consequences for failure of parents to comply with the government model and proscription of parenthood? So the government should define what actions are to be shamed and mandate that every person publically shame those actions? How Orwellian are you? It has always been, as with every law since the recorded history of man, that the Constitution meant nothing other than the enforcer of the law (in our case We The People) insist and defend that it does. The fault is not with the Constitution but with We The People. If We The People choose not to enforce the laws against slavery the practice of slavery, though technically illegal, would persist. If you contest this just look at what happened during Prohibition. As for the Pavlovian response of which you speak, that is more a consequence of brainwashing in the public schools, MSM, advertising, Hollywood and the entertainment industry, social media, and, yes, even our religious institutions. It has nothing to do with the corruption of our legal system. Watching you try to post an intelligible thought is like watching a dog trying to dance on its hind legs. Roscoe  posted on  2016-04-04   14:40:39 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #154. To: Roscoe (#148) Without a substantial effect restriction, there's no restriction at all. What are you babbling about? Even the Wickard ruling acknowledged previous narrower restrictions: "questions of the power of Congress are not to be decided by reference to any formula which would give controlling force to nomenclature such as 'production' and 'indirect' and foreclose consideration of the actual effects of the activity in question upon interstate commerce. [...] But even if appellee's activity be local and though it may not be regarded as commerce, it may still, whatever its nature, be reached by Congress if it exerts a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce and this irrespective of whether such effect is what might at some earlier time have been defined as 'direct' or 'indirect.'" A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. ConservingFreedom  posted on  2016-04-04   14:41:42 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #155. To: misterwhite (#149) (Edited) So allowing each farmer to produce wheat in excess of their quota would have had no effect on the interstate commerce of wheat? Straw man. Each farmer producing wheat in excess of their quota would have not been in and of itself interstate commerce. A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. ConservingFreedom  posted on  2016-04-04   14:42:48 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #156. To: ConservingFreedom (#154) it may still, whatever its nature, be reached by Congress if it exerts a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce You're running out of feet to shoot. Roscoe  posted on  2016-04-04   14:43:13 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #157. To: ConservingFreedom (#155) Each farmer to produce wheat in excess of their quota would have not been in and of itself interstate commerce. You've never read the case, have you? Roscoe  posted on  2016-04-04   14:43:48 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #158. To: misterwhite (#152) Beat me by 22 seconds. Yay me! They hate the Constitution and want to insert sub silentio restrictions in it. Roscoe  posted on  2016-04-04   14:45:49 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #159. To: ConservingFreedom (#155) "Each farmer to produce wheat in excess of their quota would have not been in and of itself interstate commerce." Didn't say that. The ruling was that it would have an effect on interstate commerce. Producing their own means they don't purchase wheat interstate. misterwhite  posted on  2016-04-04   14:46:27 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #160. To: Roscoe (#156) You'll never run out of idiocies to spew. I never disagreed that Wickard so ruled. A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. ConservingFreedom  posted on  2016-04-04   14:47:02 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #161. To: ConservingFreedom (#160) What do you imagine that the Court ruled, given that you've never read the decision? Roscoe  posted on  2016-04-04   14:48:40 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #162. To: misterwhite (#159) The ruling was that it would have an effect on interstate commerce. And - more significantly, and incorrectly - that this fact made their production properly subject to federal regulation. A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. ConservingFreedom  posted on  2016-04-04   14:49:02 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #163. To: Roscoe (#158) "They hate the Constitution and want to insert sub silentio restrictions in it." Yeah. They do that sub silentio stuff with anechoic tiles. misterwhite  posted on  2016-04-04   14:49:24 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #164. To: misterwhite (#163) Okay, I had to look up anechoic tiles. [grumble] Roscoe  posted on  2016-04-04   14:50:52 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #165. To: Roscoe (#157) You've never read the case, have you? Opposite - I've read it closely enough to note its acknowledgment of previous narrower restrictions. A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. ConservingFreedom  posted on  2016-04-04   14:51:38 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #166. To: ConservingFreedom (#162) And - more significantly, and incorrectly - that this fact made their production properly subject to federal regulation. Incorrectly? Sorry. There was Supreme Court precedent for intrastate regulations. We just discussed the Shreveport Rate Cases. misterwhite  posted on  2016-04-04   14:58:09 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #167. To: Roscoe (#164) "Okay, I had to look up anechoic tiles. [grumble]" The "sub silentio" didn't give you enough? Thought it would. Sorry. misterwhite  posted on  2016-04-04   14:59:41 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #168. To: ConservingFreedom (#165) (Edited) I've read it closely enough In other words, you haven't read it. I thought so. Roscoe filed suit because he wanted a federal marketing card guaranteeing limited liability for liens on the wheat sold to his buyers. The federal government told him if he wanted to join the subsidy program for protection against the prevailing "ruinously low prices resulting from excess supply" he would have to abide by the rules. No tickee, no washee. Roscoe  posted on  2016-04-04   15:01:34 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #169. To: ConservingFreedom (#165) "Opposite - I've read it closely enough to note its acknowledgment of previous narrower restrictions." So if the next interstate case involves cabbages, Wickard v Filburn wouldn't apply? misterwhite  posted on  2016-04-04   15:01:38 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply         .       .       . Comments (170 - 253) not displayed. Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register]  Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com