|
Charles Cooke calls this an ideological Turing test, i.e. a question whose answer reveals how plausible it is that Trump really is who he claims to be. The standard answer from nearly all serious pro-lifers is that its the abortionist, not his patient, who should be sanctioned if and when abortion is banned. The March of Life explains why:
Ted Cruz, when hes inevitably asked about this now, will give some variation of that same response. Trump, whom his conservative critics suspect of being an opportunist on abortion rather than committed to the cause, went a different route. You can almost see the wheels turning in his head here: He knows, as a political matter, that he cant let Cruz get to his right on abortion. Republicans will let him slide on a lot a lot but if he gives them reason to think hes BSing them on an issue at the very core of social conservatism, it could give Cruz the break he needs to take off. And so, when he gets the question from Matthews about what to do with women who insist on having abortions in a hypothetical future where the practice is banned, he goes with his gut and his gut is stay to the right. So sure, lets punish women for abortion. This is the message the partys carrying into the general election against the first woman major-party nominee, huh? By a guy whos already having major problems polling among women, no less. Its easy to understand how an amateur would stumble into this answer, writes Matt Lewis, but why would you want to nominate an amateur?
Trumps already trying to walk it back even though the townhall with Matthews from which this was clipped hasnt aired yet:
Hillarys already attacking him over it. So is Team Cruz, as youll see in the second clip below. Trump can run from it but its on tape and every down-ballot Republican will wear it now if hes the nominee. And the best part, as one Twitter pal said, is that Trump will eventually (eventually as in probably within the next few hours) deny that he ever said it to begin with. Still think this is all part of a master strategy or could it be that he really is winging it?
|
Poster Comment:
The next Trump scandal.This will keep Vannity and Coulter and the other Mini-Me's busy Trumpsplaining it away for the next few days.
#38: Tooconservative To: A K A Stone (#36)
You like to whip yourself up into a fury of false accusations if someone says something you disagree with.
Oh, yeah, and Free Sneaky.
Tooconservative posted on 2016-03-30 19:13:49 Reply Private Reply
#39: misterwhite To: TooConservative (#34)
My problem IS you and people like you. Trump corrects his mistake and, like a dog gnawing on a bone, you just won't quit the criticism.
misterwhite posted on 2016-03-30 19:14:30 Reply Private Reply
#40: Vicomte13 To: TooConservative (#21)
The Catholic Church is pretty pro-life. They have me. But guess what, I can't become one of THEIR leaders, because in the end I prefer sex and childbearing with a woman than being a eunuch for God - and that means that I don't get to be a leader in that institution. Only those who sacrifice their sexual lives to follow Christ wholly get to be.
You don't like that. But it acts as a very effective barrier to those of us who are fleshly enough to prefer the carnal company of the opposite sex over a life of prayer, and who are therefore likely to favor our families - as we would be expected.
There are very few Catholic parents who would obey God if they were in the position of Abraham, asked to sacrifice their son. They would say "No, Lord, I will not." Or they would say "You are not really God - you are a demon to demand such a thing!" I know I would.
And therefore, the fact of celibacy MEANS that Catholic parents and spouses aren't put in the position of having to choose between God and family. The rule avoids it.
So, I AM already a part of the world's largest and most consistent pro-life organization. They're happy to have me as a member. And no, I will never be in any position of leadership, and shouldn't be. And it is all designed that way, quite wisely I believe.
People like you don't understand us.
Vicomte13 posted on 2016-03-30 19:15:31 Reply Private Reply
#41: Deckard To: A K A Stone, hondo68 (#5)
Your views are firmly in line with those of radical muslims.
Saudi government wants to EXECUTE gay people who show their sexuality in public & online'
You may just get this with Trump as president.
Deckard posted on 2016-03-30 19:15:48 Reply Private Reply
#42: Vicomte13 To: TooConservative (#37)
GOOD! He's RIGHT.
Vicomte13 posted on 2016-03-30 19:16:00 Reply Private Reply
#43: Vicomte13 To: Deckard (#41)
No way. Trump doesn't care about the gays. He lives in NYC, a very tolerant place. He's tolerant. I am too.
Baby murder is a different thing altogether. No sane person should tolerate baby murderers walking around in our midst. Abortion needs to be stopped, and those hellbent on murder anyway should be dispatched to hell where they belong.
Men who want to bugger men? Seriously, do you really care? I don't. God does. He'll take care of that. I DO care about people killing other people, though. And babies are people.
Vicomte13 posted on 2016-03-30 19:17:59 Reply Private Reply
#44: A K A Stone To: Deckard (#41)
Let the record show that Decktard thinks that it is ok to murder babies and the mother shouldn't be punished.
You are the one who is in line with Muslims.
They think the same as you do about the great country the United States of America.
Why shouldn't someone who kills their kid be punished.
So Decard thinks you can drown your kid in a bath tub and you shouldn't be punished for it. That is sick decktard.
A K A Stone posted on 2016-03-30 19:18:32 Reply Private Reply
#45: goodnessmarlok To: Vicomte13 (#42)
goodnessmarlok posted on 2016-03-30 19:19:27 Reply Private Reply
#46: Tooconservative To: misterwhite (#39)
You've got much bigger problems than being offended that someone makes a few posts on an obscure forum with 20 active posters.
Tooconservative posted on 2016-03-30 19:19:31 Reply Private Reply
#47: A K A Stone To: Vicomte13 (#43)
Did you teach that to your kids? Hopefully not.
A K A Stone posted on 2016-03-30 19:19:36 Reply Private Reply
#48: goodnessmarlok To: A K A Stone (#44)
goodnessmarlok posted on 2016-03-30 19:20:22 Reply Private Reply
#49: Tooconservative To: goodnessmarlok (#45)
Don't worry, he'll change his mind as often as he likes.
And he can just as easily change his mind once he's president too.
Tooconservative posted on 2016-03-30 19:20:30 Reply Private Reply
#50: A K A Stone To: TooConservative (#46)
19 I got rid of sneak a peter.
A K A Stone posted on 2016-03-30 19:20:44 Reply Private Reply
#51: misterwhite To: TooConservative (#37)
Sure it was. All Matthews said was that "abortion is illegal". What does that mean? Does that mean "If a woman has an abortion she is breaking the law"?
If so, doesn't it follow that a woman be punished if she breaks the law?
"And Trump answered YES, women must be punished for abortion."
Within hours he corrected that and said no. Did you read it? Are people not allowed to correct their mistakes?
misterwhite posted on 2016-03-30 19:22:34 Reply Private Reply
#52: Deckard To: A K A Stone (#44)
Please post one link to where I ever said it was OK to murder babies.
What, you mean you can't find one single instance?
Then shut your dick-holster you lying POS.
You are the one who is in line with Muslims.
I'm not the one who wants to kill the faggots.
So Decard thinks you can drown your kid in a bath tub and you shouldn't be punished for it.
More lies.
Typical insanity from the site owner.
Deckard posted on 2016-03-30 19:24:55 Reply Private Reply
#53: A K A Stone To: Deckard (#52)
A K A Stone posted on 2016-03-30 19:27:03 Reply Private Reply
#54: misterwhite To: goodnessmarlok (#45)
But he can't do that! He can't! He can't! He can't!
He said yes. Did you hear him? He said yes. He can't change his mind. He's not allowed. He said yes.
Crucify him for saying yes. Stone him! Didn't you hear him say yes? Oh, we got him now. He said yes. Wanna hear the YouTube? I've got the YouTube where he said yes. Wanna hear it?
misterwhite posted on 2016-03-30 19:28:18 Reply Private Reply
#55: A K A Stone To: Deckard (#52)
Murder is murder. No matter how you do it.
You support murder.
Or you sure made it sound like you did with your abortion muslim comment.
So unless you're saying your views are in line with radical muslims. It is a legitimate conclusion.
A K A Stone posted on 2016-03-30 19:29:07 Reply Private Reply
#56: goodnessmarlok To: misterwhite (#54)
goodnessmarlok posted on 2016-03-30 19:29:34 Reply Private Reply
#57: Deckard To: A K A Stone (#53)
Post ONE LINK that backs up your spurious claims.
The fact is that you can't.
That makes you a liar.
I just don't want to join you in waging a jihad on "faggots".
Deckard posted on 2016-03-30 19:32:43 Reply Private Reply
#58: Hondo68 To: TooConservative, Vicomte13, A K A Stone, redleghunter, tomder55 (#32)
My guess is that they want to avoid the 800 lb gorilla in the room, many abortions are traditionally paid for by the baby's father, or a relative of the mother.
Then you have to decide if the person who paid the hitman should get the death penalty too?
Hondo68 posted on 2016-03-30 19:34:13 Reply Private Reply
#59: Tooconservative To: A K A Stone (#44)
Muslims are pretty strictly anti-abortion. I know of no pro-abortion Muslims. None.
Tooconservative posted on 2016-03-30 19:34:47 Reply Private Reply
#60: Deckard To: A K A Stone (#55)
If there was a way to determine that an unborn child will be homosexual, would you be in favor of aborting that child?
Deckard posted on 2016-03-30 19:36:18 Reply Private Reply
#61: A K A Stone To: Deckard (#57)
I don't agree with gay marriage but I don't support murdering anyone.
I support the death penalty for abortion.
If it is a life then it is murder. That is science.
You sound like you come from the dark ages.
A K A Stone posted on 2016-03-30 19:36:54 Reply Private Reply
#62: A K A Stone To: Deckard (#60)
That is a stupid question. No on is born queer.
A K A Stone posted on 2016-03-30 19:37:29 Reply Private Reply
#63: Deckard To: TooConservative (#59)
Don't confuse him with facts - he's on a roll.
Deckard posted on 2016-03-30 19:37:42 Reply Private Reply
#64: Tooconservative To: hondo68 (#58)
Won't you have to go after the bank or credit card company that paid for the transaction as well?
We're gonna need a lot more execution chambers.
Tooconservative posted on 2016-03-30 19:38:01 Reply Private Reply
#65: A K A Stone To: TooConservative (#59)
Well you have to respect that about them. They get something right.
A K A Stone posted on 2016-03-30 19:38:04 Reply Private Reply
#66: Deckard To: A K A Stone (#65)
Along with the faggot killing too, right?
Deckard posted on 2016-03-30 19:39:27 Reply Private Reply
#67: Tooconservative To: misterwhite (#51)
And what if he decides to correct his "mistake" of being pro-life 4 hours after he is sworn in as prez? You'll be okay with that too?
Tooconservative posted on 2016-03-30 19:39:41 Reply Private Reply
#68: misterwhite To: goodnessmarlok (#56)
Trump came out with a written statement clarifying his position. I would think that would settle the issue.
But Too Conservative doesn't want to let it go.
misterwhite posted on 2016-03-30 19:41:39 Reply Private Reply
#69: A K A Stone To: Deckard (#66)
Wrong.
A K A Stone posted on 2016-03-30 19:41:50 Reply Private Reply
#70: A K A Stone To: TooConservative (#67)
There you go making stuff up again.
A K A Stone posted on 2016-03-30 19:42:58 Reply Private Reply
#71: Tooconservative To: A K A Stone (#70)
Not at all.
Trump just flipped from punish-the-woman to punish-the-abortionist in less than 4 hours. He has a track record of major flipflopping on this and many other issues.
You just don't like it when someone notices this and points it out.
Tooconservative posted on 2016-03-30 19:46:43 Reply Private Reply
#72: misterwhite To: TooConservative (#67)
Are you concerned that he might?
All right. I'll play your stupid game. What if he did? He calls a press conference and says he's pro-choice. What changes? Nothing.
Obama was pro-choice. What changed? Nothing.
Hey, Bush was pro-life. What changed? Nothing.
Take your "issue" and slink away. Nothing will change without Roe v Wade being overturned, and no President has that power.
misterwhite posted on 2016-03-30 19:48:03 Reply Private Reply
#73: A K A Stone To: TooConservative (#71)
Trump 2016
Ok, I'll admit it I can be an asshole too.
I dish it out to you and you take it.
I guess you're ok.
We're all just passionate about our beliefs.
A K A Stone posted on 2016-03-30 19:51:33 Reply Private Reply
#74: A K A Stone To: tooconservative (#73)
Oh well.
A K A Stone posted on 2016-03-30 19:52:06 Reply Private Reply
#75: A K A Stone To: misterwhite (#72)
All the president has to do is start prosecuting.
They do have the power.
Appoint a pit bull pro life attorney general.
A K A Stone posted on 2016-03-30 19:53:21 Reply Private Reply
#76: A K A Stone To: misterwhite (#72)
Is abortion murder?
A K A Stone posted on 2016-03-30 19:53:48 Reply Private Reply
#77: goodnessmarlok To: Vicomte13 (#76)
goodnessmarlok posted on 2016-03-30 20:18:06 Reply Private Reply
#78: Vicomte13 To: goodnessmarlok (#77)
He didn't. He changed what he said in haste, to make it more reasonable-sounding.
Vicomte13 posted on 2016-03-30 20:23:29 Reply Private Reply
#79: goodnessmarlok To: Vicomte13 (#78)
goodnessmarlok posted on 2016-03-30 20:31:02 Reply Private Reply
#80: Vicomte13 To: misterwhite (#72)
The next President will have that power.
There is a vacancy on the Supreme Court. Three of the sitting justices, two liberal Democrats and the most liberal Republican, are over 80.
If Trump is elected, he will have the opportunity to appoint a pro-life justice to the Supremes. He can assure that the justice by applying a LITMUS TEST to each nominee. Democrats do. Republicans can.
No appointments to the Supreme Court who are not passionate pro-lifers.
So, if Scalia is replaced with a passionate pro-lifer, what do you have?
You have Thomas, who is pro-life. You have Alito, who is probably pro-life. You have Kennedy, who is not, but who is over 80. And you have Roberts, who is a treasonous crapweasel we can assume is not pro-life. that will make three pro-lifers on the court, one of them certain.
Ginsburg, Breyer or Kennedy will go next, either in death, or retirement. Litmus tedst. Now you have two certain pro-lifers (the new one and the Scalia replacement), and two probably (Thomas and Alito).
We know that Roberts can be bought and turned by pressure, and at that point, he'll be on a Republican court in a Republican-run country. He may decide to move back. There's your five.
But if not, then the next of the aged trio goes, and one more sure pro-life vote comes on. Now you have three certains, two probables and Roberts. That's 6-3.
The last of the aged fogeys goes. Litmus test. Now you have FOUR certains, two probables, and Roberts. 7-2.
That pretty much guarantees Roe is overturned during the next President's two terms, if the President is Trump, and if he applies a litmus test.
The President can control this process because of the ages and states of health of three ancient supremes, plus a vacancy.
Vicomte13 posted on 2016-03-30 20:31:40 Reply Private Reply
#81: Vicomte13 To: goodnessmarlok (#79)
Vicomte13 posted on 2016-03-30 20:32:38 Reply Private Reply
#82: Vicomte13 To: hondo68 (#58)
Of course.
Vicomte13 posted on 2016-03-30 20:34:30 Reply Private Reply
#83: Vicomte13 To: TooConservative (#67)
Then he'll be like every other fucking Republican since Nixon, won't he?
Vicomte13 posted on 2016-03-30 20:35:49 Reply Private Reply
#84: Tooconservative To: Vicomte13 (#83)
Tooconservative posted on 2016-03-30 20:45:46 Reply Private Reply
#85: A K A Stone To: Vicomte13 (#80)
Hopefully Trump delivers. It isn't a sure thing. You know that right?
A K A Stone posted on 2016-03-30 20:55:26 Reply Private Reply
#86: A K A Stone To: TooConservative (#84)
Who works harder you or Trump?
I say Trump does. You sit and play on the internet. Trump does things like build sky scrapers. Businesses.
It is a joke that you think he is a joke. You're not being honest. Another lie.
It is ok to disagree. But why do you have to make stuff up/lie?
A K A Stone posted on 2016-03-30 20:57:01 Reply Private Reply
#87: Fred Mertz To: Stoner (#10)
I'm trying to think of that Vermont guy that was crucified a number of years ago.
It wasn't Sanders. I guess I'll look it up now.
Howard Dean...the media made him out to be a lunatic with his maniacal laugh at a rally. Look it up.
This could be Trump's moment now.
Fred Mertz posted on 2016-03-30 21:47:45 Reply Private Reply