[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: 52388
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 (1-193) not displayed.
      .
      .
      .

#194. To: Roscoe (#190)

"Yes, silence imposes no restrictions."

Correct. The natural state of commerce is free and open. Any regulation of that commerce is a restriction.

misterwhite  posted on  2016-04-04   15:50:49 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#195. To: Roscoe (#193)

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

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

ConservingFreedom  posted on  2016-04-04   16:03:36 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#196. To: ConservingFreedom (#195)

The powers not delegated

Commerce clause

Roscoe  posted on  2016-04-04   16:17:54 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#197. To: Roscoe (#196)

Commerce clause

The power to regulate commerce among the several states is delegated - while the power to regulate that which is not commerce among the several states, but substantially affects commerce among the several states, is not.

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

ConservingFreedom  posted on  2016-04-04   16:20:57 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#198. To: ConservingFreedom (#197)

Necessary and proper

Have you ever read it?

Roscoe  posted on  2016-04-04   16:23:03 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#199. To: Roscoe (#198)

Necessary and proper

Relevant only upon establishing that regulating that which is not commerce among the several states, but substantially affects commerce among the several states, is both necessary and proper for regulating commerce among the several states.

Feel free to so establish.

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

ConservingFreedom  posted on  2016-04-04   16:29:03 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#200. To: ConservingFreedom (#199)

Relevant only upon establishing that regulating that which is not commerce among the several states, but substantially affects commerce among the several states, is both necessary and proper

Backwards. Until proven otherwise. The power was explicitly given to Congress to make those decisions.

Roscoe  posted on  2016-04-04   16:30:53 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#201. To: Roscoe (#200)

The power was explicitly given to Congress to make those decisions.

Quote.

The idea that the Constitution gives Congress the authority to determine the limits on Congress' authority is ludicrous even for you - and that's saying something.

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

ConservingFreedom  posted on  2016-04-04   16:36:28 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#202. To: ConservingFreedom (#201)

Quote.

"To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;"

"To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."

Now you quote the provision requiring Congress to "establish" an exercise of those explicit powers to your satisfaction.

At least try.

Roscoe  posted on  2016-04-04   16:41:12 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#203. To: Roscoe (#202)

"To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."

A swing and a miss by you. The authority to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper does not include nor imply the power to declare whether a given law is necessary and proper.

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

ConservingFreedom  posted on  2016-04-04   16:45:16 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#204. To: ConservingFreedom (#203)

The authority to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper does not include nor imply the power to declare whether a given law is necessary and proper.

Of course it does.

"Congress is empowered to regulate -- that is, to provide the law for the government of interstate commerce; to enact "all appropriate legislation" for its "protection and advancement..." Houston E. & W. Tex. Ry. Co. v. United States 234 U.S. 342 (1914)

Now you quote the provision requiring Congress to "establish" an exercise of those explicit powers to your satisfaction.

At least try. Don't be such a coward.

Roscoe  posted on  2016-04-04   16:47:39 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#205. To: misterwhite (#194)

The natural state of commerce is free and open.

"PIRACY, n. Commerce without its folly-swaddles, just as God made it." --Ambrose Bierce

Roscoe  posted on  2016-04-04   16:49:49 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#206. To: ConservingFreedom, roscoe, Y'ALL (#203)

ConservingFreedom (#203) ---- The authority to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper does not include nor imply the power to declare whether a given law is necessary and proper.

Of course it does.-- roscoe

The authority to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper does not include nor imply the power to declare whether a given law is necessary,proper, and/or CONSTITUTIONAL.

As usual, roscoe doesn't have a clue...

tpaine  posted on  2016-04-04   17:14:09 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#207. To: Roscoe (#204)

"Congress is empowered to regulate -- that is, to provide the law for the government of interstate commerce; to enact "all appropriate legislation" for its "protection and advancement..." Houston E. & W. Tex. Ry. Co. v. United States 234 U.S. 342 (1914)

No help for you there - it wasn't ruled that Congress had the power to declare whether a given law is appropriate for the protection and advancement of interstate commerce, either.

Here's just one example of the Court rejecting a government claim of power under the clause: "The Government's first argument is that the individual mandate is a valid exercise of Congress's power under the Commerce Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause. [...] the individual mandate cannot be sustained under the Necessary and Proper Clause as an essential component of the insurance reforms." NFIB v Sebelius

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

ConservingFreedom  posted on  2016-04-04   17:28:10 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#208. To: Roscoe (#204)

requiring Congress to "establish" an exercise of those explicit powers to your satisfaction.

Yet another of your straw men - I never said a word about "to my satisfaction."

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

ConservingFreedom  posted on  2016-04-04   17:29:25 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#209. To: ConservingFreedom (#207)

it wasn't ruled that Congress had the power to declare whether a given law is appropriate

to enact "all appropriate legislation"

Roscoe  posted on  2016-04-04   17:37:20 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#210. To: ConservingFreedom (#208)

"to my satisfaction."

You have failed to identify any other party.

Roscoe  posted on  2016-04-04   17:38:16 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#211. To: Roscoe (#207)

[CF:] Here's just one example of the Court rejecting a government claim of power under the clause: "The Government's first argument is that the individual mandate is a valid exercise of Congress's power under the Commerce Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause. [...] the individual mandate cannot be sustained under the Necessary and Proper Clause as an essential component of the insurance reforms." NFIB v Sebelius

Which, to chew your food for you, disproves your claim that "The power was explicitly given to Congress to make those decisions" as to what was necessary and proper.

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

ConservingFreedom  posted on  2016-04-04   17:41:15 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#212. To: ConservingFreedom (#211)

disproves your claim that "The power was explicitly given to Congress to make those decisions"

"To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;"

"To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."

Poor you.

Roscoe  posted on  2016-04-04   17:45:30 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#213. To: Roscoe, Y'ALL (#209)

ConservingFreedom (#207 --- it wasn't ruled that Congress had the power to declare whether a given law is appropriate

to enact "all appropriate legislation" --- Roscoe

To enact 'all constitutionally appropriate legislation'.

tpaine  posted on  2016-04-04   17:53:52 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#214. To: Roscoe (#212)

Cling fiercely to your moronic disinterpretations - maybe you'll fool somebody besides yourself.

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

ConservingFreedom  posted on  2016-04-04   20:57:48 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#215. To: ConservingFreedom (#214)

The powers in the constituion are delegated powers.

Who else was that power delegated to in the constitution.

Do you believe the constitution to be the valid basis for all law in the United States of America?

A K A Stone  posted on  2016-04-04   21:02:27 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#216. To: A K A Stone (#215)

The powers in the constituion are delegated powers.

And the point of enumerating delegated powers is nullified if the delegatee gets to decide their extent.

Who else was that power delegated to in the constitution.

If you think judicial review is constitutionally grounded - do you? - then quite plausibly the Supreme Court has the power to determine whether a law is "necessary and proper."

Do you believe the constitution to be the valid basis for all law in the United States of America?

No, only of federal law - state laws exist and have their validity independent of the federal constitution (which was ratified by the states).

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

ConservingFreedom  posted on  2016-04-04   21:11:45 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#217. To: ConservingFreedom (#214)

moronic disinterpretations

Actual language of the Constitution. Of course, you Constitution-haters prefer judicial activism.

Roscoe  posted on  2016-04-04   23:13:30 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#218. To: Roscoe (#217)

Your moronic disinterpretation is "The power was explicitly given to Congress to make those decisions".

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

ConservingFreedom  posted on  2016-04-05   11:37:01 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#219. To: Roscoe (#217)

"disinterpretations"

Is that a word?

misterwhite  posted on  2016-04-05   11:41:32 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#220. To: ConservingFreedom (#216)

"And the point of enumerating delegated powers is nullified if the delegatee gets to decide their extent."

So who should decide their extent?

misterwhite  posted on  2016-04-05   11:43:13 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#221. To: misterwhite (#219)

Is that a word?

The well-read will catch the parallel with disinfomation - ignoramuses won't.

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

ConservingFreedom  posted on  2016-04-05   11:55:17 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#222. To: ConservingFreedom (#218)

The power was explicitly given to Congress to make those decisions

Yep

Roscoe  posted on  2016-04-05   11:56:35 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#223. To: misterwhite (#220)

So who should decide their extent?

That would be ConservingFreedom, silly. Just as the Constitution clearly says in a penumbral emanation.

Roscoe  posted on  2016-04-05   11:58:26 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#224. To: misterwhite (#219)

Is that a word?

It's a malapoop.

Roscoe  posted on  2016-04-05   11:59:21 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#225. To: misterwhite (#220)

"And the point of enumerating delegated powers is nullified if the delegatee gets to decide their extent."

So

Are we agreed on that point?

who should decide their extent?

As a matter of process, the other two branches exercising their checks - and as a matter of principle, every Constitutional conservative.

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

ConservingFreedom  posted on  2016-04-05   12:01:01 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#226. To: ConservingFreedom (#225)

exercising their checks

Quote the "check."

[crickets]

Roscoe  posted on  2016-04-05   12:03:38 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#227. To: Roscoe (#222)

[DECEPTIVELY OMIITED BY ROSCOE: Your moronic disinterpretation is "]The power was explicitly given to Congress to make those decisions".

Yep

For the record, you're a liar and a clumsy stupid one to boot - not that anyone on this forum doesn't already know it.

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

ConservingFreedom  posted on  2016-04-05   12:04:59 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#228. To: ConservingFreedom (#227)

Quote the "check."

[crickets]

Roscoe  posted on  2016-04-05   12:06:13 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#229. To: Roscoe (#226)

Quote the "check."

"Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it" - Article 1 Section 7

"It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases, must of necessity expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the courts must decide on the operation of each. So if a law be in opposition to the constitution: if both the law and the constitution apply to a particular case, so that the court must either decide that case conformably to the law, disregarding the constitution; or conformably to the constitution, disregarding the law: the court must determine which of these conflicting rules governs the case. This is of the very essence of judicial duty.

"If then the courts are to regard the constitution; and he constitution is superior to any ordinary act of the legislature; the constitution, and not such ordinary act, must govern the case to which they both apply." - Marbury v Madison

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

ConservingFreedom  posted on  2016-04-05   12:17:08 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#230. To: ConservingFreedom (#229)

1. "Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it" - Article 1 Section 7

2. "If then the courts are to regard the constitution; and he constitution is superior to any ordinary act of the legislature; the constitution, and not such ordinary act, must govern the case to which they both apply." - Marbury v Madison

1. Every bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a law, be presented to the President of the United States; if he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the objections at large on their journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the bill, it shall be sent, together with the objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a law.

Poor you.

2. And the Constitution explicitly authorizes Congress to determine what the laws should be regarding commerce among the states, and to enact all laws necessary and proper for carrying those laws into execution.

Another nice foot shot.

Roscoe  posted on  2016-04-05   12:32:42 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#231. To: ConservingFreedom, roscoe, Y'ALL (#229)

Article 1 Section 7

Every bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a law, be presented to the President of the United States; if he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the objections at large on their journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the bill, it shall be sent, together with the objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a law.

Poor you.-- roscoe

Poor roscoe, attempting to prove that the legislative power to override a presidential veto negates the checks and balances inherent in our constitution..

Weird fella.

tpaine  posted on  2016-04-05   13:05:30 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#232. To: tpaine (#231)

Weird fella.

It must be some sort of compulsive behavior - he can't possibly think his posts fool anyone (although his little buddy is at least willing to pretend).

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

ConservingFreedom  posted on  2016-04-05   13:09:17 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#233. To: ConservingFreedom (#232)

Not only is Congress authorized to determine the laws necessary, it may do so without the President's signature.

Another epic fail for CF.

Roscoe  posted on  2016-04-05   13:17:57 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#234. To: ConservingFreedom, roscoe, Y'ALL (#232)

It must be some sort of compulsive behavior ----

Obsessive compulsive, as we see in his grandiose 'epic fail' howler.

tpaine  posted on  2016-04-05   13:22:31 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  



      .
      .
      .

Comments (235 - 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