Donald Trump: Actually, Now That I Think About It, Let's Leave the Abortion Laws As They Are [CBS]

Source: Ace Of Spades
Published: Apr 1, 2016
Author: Ace
Post Date: 2016-04-02 09:46:31 by Tooconservative
Views: 64995

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

#151: ConservingFreedom    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."

ConservingFreedom posted on 2016-04-04 14:39:39   Reply   Private Reply

#152: misterwhite    To: Roscoe (#148)

Beat me by 22 seconds.

misterwhite posted on 2016-04-04 14:39:50   Reply   Private Reply

#153: Roscoe    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   Reply   Private Reply

#154: ConservingFreedom    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.'"

ConservingFreedom posted on 2016-04-04 14:41:42   Reply   Private Reply

#155: ConservingFreedom    To: misterwhite (#149)

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.

ConservingFreedom posted on 2016-04-04 14:42:48   Reply   Private Reply

#156: Roscoe    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   Reply   Private Reply

#157: Roscoe    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   Reply   Private Reply

#158: Roscoe    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   Reply   Private Reply

#159: misterwhite    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   Reply   Private Reply

#160: ConservingFreedom    To: Roscoe (#156)

You'll never run out of idiocies to spew. I never disagreed that Wickard so ruled.

ConservingFreedom posted on 2016-04-04 14:47:02   Reply   Private Reply

#161: Roscoe    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   Reply   Private Reply

#162: ConservingFreedom    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.

ConservingFreedom posted on 2016-04-04 14:49:02   Reply   Private Reply

#163: misterwhite    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   Reply   Private Reply

#164: Roscoe    To: misterwhite (#163)

Okay, I had to look up anechoic tiles. [grumble]

Roscoe posted on 2016-04-04 14:50:52   Reply   Private Reply

#165: ConservingFreedom    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.

ConservingFreedom posted on 2016-04-04 14:51:38   Reply   Private Reply

#166: misterwhite    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   Reply   Private Reply

#167: misterwhite    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   Reply   Private Reply

#168: Roscoe    To: ConservingFreedom (#165)

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   Reply   Private Reply

#169: misterwhite    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   Reply   Private Reply

#170: ConservingFreedom    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.

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

#171: ConservingFreedom    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.'"

ConservingFreedom posted on 2016-04-04 15:11:38   Reply   Private Reply

#172: Roscoe    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   Reply   Private Reply

#173: Roscoe    To: ConservingFreedom (#171)

The appellee was suing to join the regulatory program.

Surprise!

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

#174: ConservingFreedom    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.

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

#175: ConservingFreedom    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.

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

#176: ConservingFreedom    To: Roscoe (#173)

The appellee was suing to join the regulatory program.

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

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

#177: Roscoe    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   Reply   Private Reply

#178: SOSO    To: ConservingFreedom (#171)

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

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

#179: Roscoe    To: ConservingFreedom (#176)

Bully for him

Enter an agreement, abide by its rules.

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

#180: Roscoe    To: SOSO (#178)

And here comes the ankle biter.

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

#181: ConservingFreedom    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.

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

#182: ConservingFreedom    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.

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

#183: Roscoe    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   Reply   Private Reply

#184: Roscoe    To: ConservingFreedom (#182)

my real audience

Is the imaginary cheering throngs in your head.

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

#185: ConservingFreedom    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.

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

#186: Roscoe    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   Reply   Private Reply

#187: SOSO    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.

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

#188: Roscoe    To: SOSO (#187)

Dunning Kruger

Dunning-Kruger

Roscoe posted on 2016-04-04 15:33:55   Reply   Private Reply

#189: ConservingFreedom    To: Roscoe (#186)

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.

No, silence does not imply no restrictions. Who here do you think is stupid enough to be fooled by your hamhanded nonsense?

ConservingFreedom posted on 2016-04-04 15:34:39   Reply   Private Reply

#190: Roscoe    To: ConservingFreedom (#189)

No, silence does not imply no restrictions.

Yes, silence imposes no restrictions.

Roscoe posted on 2016-04-04 15:35:58   Reply   Private Reply

#191: ConservingFreedom    To: Roscoe (#190)

The silence of the Court does not muzzle the Constitution, which does impose restrictions.

ConservingFreedom posted on 2016-04-04 15:41:32   Reply   Private Reply

#192: Roscoe    To: ConservingFreedom (#191)

The silence of the Court does not muzzle the Constitution.

Zero signal to noise ratio.

Roscoe posted on 2016-04-04 15:42:50   Reply   Private Reply

#193: Roscoe    To: ConservingFreedom (#191)

"which does impose restrictions." [Edit addition]

Quote.

Roscoe posted on 2016-04-04 15:44:06   Reply   Private Reply

#194: misterwhite    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   Reply   Private Reply

#195: ConservingFreedom    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."

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

#196: Roscoe    To: ConservingFreedom (#195)

The powers not delegated

Commerce clause

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

#197: ConservingFreedom    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.

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

#198: Roscoe    To: ConservingFreedom (#197)

Necessary and proper

Have you ever read it?

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

#199: ConservingFreedom    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.

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

#200: Roscoe    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   Reply   Private Reply