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

"America Must Slash Red Tape to Make Nuclear Power Great Again!!"

"Why the DemocRATZ Activist Class Couldn’t Celebrate the Cease-Fire They Demanded"

Antifa Calls for CIVIL WAR!

British Police Make an Arrest...of a White Child Fishing in the Thames

"Sanctuary" Horde ASSAULTS Chicago... ELITE Marines SMASH Illegals Without Mercy

Trump hosts roundtable on ANTIFA

What's happening in Britain. Is happening in Ireland. The whole of Western Europe.

"The One About the Illegal Immigrant School Superintendent"

CouldnÂ’t believe he let me pet him at the end (Rhino)

Cops Go HANDS ON For Speaking At Meeting!

POWERFUL: Charlie Kirk's final speech delivered in South Korea 9/6/25

2026 in Bible Prophecy

2.4 Billion exposed to excessive heat

🔴 LIVE CHICAGO PORTLAND ICE IMMIGRATION DETENTION CENTER 24/7 PROTEST 9/28/2025

Young Conservative Proves Leftist Protesters Wrong

England is on the Brink of Civil War!

Charlie Kirk Shocks Florida State University With The TRUTH

IRL Confronting Protesters Outside UN Trump Meeting

The UK Revolution Has Started... Brit's Want Their Country Back

Inside Paris Dangerous ANTIFA Riots

Rioters STORM Chicago ICE HQ... "Deportation Unit" SCRAPES Invaders Off The Sidewalk

She Decoded A Specific Part In The Bible

Muslim College Student DUMBFOUNDED as Charlie Kirk Lists The Facts About Hamas

Charlie Kirk EVISCERATES Black Students After They OPENLY Support “Anti-White Racism” HEATED DEBATE

"Trump Rips U.N. as Useless During General Assembly Address: ‘Empty Words’"

Charlie Kirk VS the Wokies at University of Tennessee

Charlie Kirk Takes on 3 Professors & a Teacher

British leftist student tells Charlie Kirk facts are unfair

The 2 Billion View Video: Charlie Kirk's Most Viewed Clips of 2024

Antifa is now officially a terrorist organization.

The Greatness of Charlie Kirk: An Eyewitness Account of His Life and Martyrdom

Charlie Kirk Takes on Army of Libs at California's UCR

DR. ALVEDA KING: REST IN PEACE CHARLIE KIRK

Steven Bonnell wants to murder Americans he disagrees with

What the fagots LGBTQ really means

I watched Charlie Kirk get assassinated. This is my experience.

Elon Musk Delivers Stunning Remarks At Historic UK March (Tommy Robinson)

"Transcript: Mrs. Erika Kirk Delivers Public Address: ‘His Movement Will Go On’"

"Victor Davis Hanson to Newsmax: Kirk Slaying Crosses Rubicon"

Rest In Peace Charlie Kirk

Charlotte train murder: Graphic video captures random fatal stabbing of young Ukrainian refugee

Berlin in July 1945 - Probably the best restored film material you'll watch from that time!

Ok this is Funny

Walking Through 1980s Los Angeles: The City That Reinvented Cool

THE ZOMBIES OF AMERICA

THE OLDEST PHOTOS OF NEW YORK YOU'VE NEVER SEEN

John Rich – Calling Out P. Diddy, TVA Scandal, and Joel Osteen | SRS #232

Capablanca Teaches Us The ONLY Chess Opening You'll Ever Need

"How Bruce Springsteen Fooled America"

How ancient Rome was excavated in Italy in the 1920s. Unique rare videos and photos.


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: 52526
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  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

Comments (1-146) not displayed.
      .
      .
      .

#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  


#170. To: misterwhite (#166)

We just discussed the Shreveport Rate Cases.

Add I showed in posts 137, 140, and 143 that the Shreveport ruling was less broad than the Wickard ruling pretended.

A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them.

ConservingFreedom  posted on  2016-04-04   15:06:21 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#171. To: Roscoe (#168)

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.

In the course of so ruling the Court made statements that it worded broadly and that many subsequent rulings have interpreted broadly - notably, "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   15:11:38 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#172. To: ConservingFreedom (#170)

1. The Shreveport Rate Cases ruling asserts the authority of Congress only with specific reference to shipping rates

2. Add I showed in posts 137, 140, and 143 that the Shreveport ruling was less broad

So Wickard was broader and more restrictive, limiting a wider range of Congressional controls. By your "reasoning."

Roscoe  posted on  2016-04-04   15:12:46 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#173. To: ConservingFreedom (#171)

The appellee was suing to join the regulatory program.

Surprise!

Roscoe  posted on  2016-04-04   15:14:44 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#174. To: misterwhite (#169)

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?

Since that's a howling non sequitur as it stands, I'll try to move the conversation forward by guessing what you're really asking - feel free to clarify your meaning. Was the Wickard ruling broad? Yes, it was - much broader than the Shreveport ruling on which it pretended to (at least in part) be based.

A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them.

ConservingFreedom  posted on  2016-04-04   15:15:43 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#175. To: Roscoe (#172)

So Wickard was broader and more restrictive, limiting a wider range of Congressional controls. By your "reasoning."

No, that in no way follows from anything I've posted - but thanks for the fascinating albeit disturbing insight into what passes for "reasoning" in your fevered mind.

A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them.

ConservingFreedom  posted on  2016-04-04   15:17:49 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#176. To: Roscoe (#173)

The appellee was suing to join the regulatory program.

Bully for him - what would you have us conclude from that?

A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them.

ConservingFreedom  posted on  2016-04-04   15:18:19 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#177. To: misterwhite (#169)

So does he prefer Wickard or the Shreveport Rate Cases? It's hard to tell with all his wild thrashing about.

Roscoe  posted on  2016-04-04   15:18:28 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#178. To: ConservingFreedom (#171)

I am surprised that you are trying to piss up a rope. The guy is an incoherent ass.

потому что Бог хочет это тот путь

SOSO  posted on  2016-04-04   15:19:27 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#179. To: ConservingFreedom (#176)

Bully for him

Enter an agreement, abide by its rules.

Roscoe  posted on  2016-04-04   15:19:37 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#180. To: SOSO (#178)

And here comes the ankle biter.

Roscoe  posted on  2016-04-04   15:20:31 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#181. To: Roscoe (#177)

So does he prefer Wickard or the Shreveport Rate Cases? It's hard to tell with all his wild thrashing about.

If you want to know what I think, ask me, coward. Wickard was an appalling farce - Shreveport much more defensible. And I'm confident that you and maybe misswhite are the only ones willing to pretend I haven't already made that view crystal clear.

A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them.

ConservingFreedom  posted on  2016-04-04   15:22:19 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#182. To: SOSO (#178)

I am surprised that you are trying to piss up a rope. The guy is an incoherent ass.

I'm only in a formal sense addressing him - my real audience is anyone who might mistake his posts as in any way valid.

A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them.

ConservingFreedom  posted on  2016-04-04   15:24:06 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#183. To: ConservingFreedom (#181)

Shreveport much more defensible.

Even though it restricted a very narrow range of Congressional authority, at least according to you. So by your "reasoning," virtually all Congressional regulation of commerce should go unrestricted.

Logic ain't your long suit.

Roscoe  posted on  2016-04-04   15:25:27 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#184. To: ConservingFreedom (#182)

my real audience

Is the imaginary cheering throngs in your head.

Roscoe  posted on  2016-04-04   15:26:14 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#185. To: Roscoe (#183)

Even though it restricted a very narrow range of Congressional authority, at least according to you. So by your "reasoning," virtually all Congressional regulation of commerce should go unrestricted.

Not at all - for the Court to say that Congressional regulation of intrastate shipping rates is subject to certain limitations is not per se for it to say anything at all about other Congressional regulation. Wickard, by contrast, loosened limitations on Congressional authority and did so with broad language.

A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them.

ConservingFreedom  posted on  2016-04-04   15:29:45 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#186. To: ConservingFreedom (#185)

for the Court to say that Congressional regulation of intrastate shipping rates is subject to certain limitations is not per se for it to say anything at all about other Congressional regulation.

IOW, no restrictions.

I almost feel sorry for ya.

Roscoe  posted on  2016-04-04   15:31:17 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#187. To: ConservingFreedom (#182)

I am surprised that you are trying to piss up a rope. The guy is an incoherent ass.

I'm only in a formal sense addressing him - my real audience is anyone who might mistake his posts as in any way valid.

I can't imagine that anyone is interested in what the asshole has to say, even if on the surface he agrees with them for the moment. He reinforces the notion that there is no limit to the number and type of strawmen a moron can conjure. He is a master weasel. He is the poster boy for the Dunning Kruger effect.

потому что Бог хочет это тот путь

SOSO  posted on  2016-04-04   15:33:01 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  



      .
      .
      .

Comments (188 - 253) not displayed.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/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