Trump Thread

  • Thread starter Thread starter Robert_Bay
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Crossbones said:
Do you take into account their stance on abortion when you vote for them?
Click to expand...
Well, I’m here in MA, and have never seen a candidate, republican or democrat who wants all abortions banned. They’ve all been pro-choice.

Jim
 
Mary_Gail_36 said:
It’s because he really isn’t prolife, and apparently he doesn’t even need to prove it. He just says he is and people agree.

Oh well.
Click to expand...
They are just thankful he goes through the motions to give a green light to their supporting him. Gives them cover. I have no right to judge them - I voted for Obama.

But as for Trump, I know a fake when I see one - I am personally pro-life. I don’t think Planned Parenthood does great things, and this comment was made *after *the videos. (at least I admit what I did was wrong I might add, even a little doubt would be nice in a Trumper once in a while on this issue with him; I could respect and relate to that.)
 
JimR-OCDS said:
Well, I’m here in MA, and have never seen a candidate, republican or democrat who wants all abortions banned. They’ve all been pro-choice.

Jim
Click to expand...
Jim,
Do you ever have a candidate that wants some (even just a few) abortions banned?
If you’ll pardon the expression: baby steps. 😉
 
Luigi_Daniele said:
Jim,
Do you ever have a candidate that wants some (even just a few) abortions banned?
If you’ll pardon the expression: baby steps. 😉
Click to expand...
All, even Republican Scott Walker, ran as a pro-choice candidate twice.

The issue on whether they wanted some regulations, was never brought up in our local media.

Of course Walker lost his re-election to Elizabeth Warren who is definitely pro-choice.

Jim
 
Mary_Gail_36 said:
That’s assuming that all women are there voluntarily and without coercion and know for a fact what they are carrying is a baby and not a “product of conception” or any other euphemism. 30 something years ago my classmate had an abortion. She was 15 and her boyfriend was 24. He strung her along telling her his sister would adopt the baby. He then conveniently disappeared. A “friend” took her for an abortion. She had no clue about fetal development.

Weeks later in study hall she was sobbing like a wounded animal. And repeating the same phrase, “it had arms, it had legs.” Apparently she saw her baby after the procedure. I had never witnessed anyone grieve like that before. Lots of people failed her.

As I type this, I remember it was about 30 years ago. Not was right after Easter break. I will never forget. I wish at 16 I knew what to do to help her
Click to expand...
Most women getting abortions are not 15 year-olds.

I would propose the following, at a minimum.

Given the scenario you describe, all the others involved should at least be convicted of being accessories if abortions are made totally illegal.

For cases where the woman wants the abortion, she would also be treated as an accessory. So would whoever went with her to the procedure, anyone who took care of her afterwards, etc.

This is what we do to people who drive people in their cars that are carrying drugs, people who don’t call the police when they find out a family member committed a crime. If we are going to make abortion a crime, we should at least treat it as seriously as we treat involuntary manslaughter. You can still get a jail sentence even though you didn’t intend to kill someone.
 
JimR-OCDS said:
So the media isn’t suppose to ask questions ?

It wasn’t a trap, it was a direct question on what his position on abortion was.

BTW, it was asked by Chris Mathews who presented the same question to Bishop Tobin of RI, after he made public that Patrick Kennedy should not receive Holy Communion.

Mathews asked Bishop Tobin, if he had it in his power, would he write a law to ban all abortions? The Bishop answered “yes.” Mathews then asked what the penalty portion would be? Bishop Tobin tapped dance around the question then finally said he didn’t have the expertise in law to know. Mathews then said, you don’t have the expertise to answer question, yet you’re telling a member of Congress what to do. The interview was over.

Jim
Click to expand...
A lot of hypothetical questions are asked as a trap. That’s why many presidential candidates follow the rule never to answer a hypothetical question. Usually the press doesn’t want a conversation. They want a sound bite to use against the candidate.
 
JimR-OCDS said:
Most are pro-choice.

They say they’re pro-life to win the votes in their republican districts.

However, if they were truly pro-life and opposed to abortion, we would’ve seen legislation written and passed during Bush’s presidency.

It didn’t happen and wasn’t even proposed

Jim
Click to expand...
Lots of prolife things happened during his presidency. lifenews.com/2009/01/16/nat-4750/

But abortion could not have been “outlawed” even if congress passed such a ban and Bush signed it, because abortion on demand is a court-imposed law.

What could Bush do about that? He got the opportunity to appoint two justices, and he did; Roberts and Alito; both prolife. Obama, of course, appointed abortion-supporters, including supporters of partial birth abortion. Every Dem appointee voted against partial birth abortion bans. Every Repub appointee (even Kennedy) voted to support them.

If Roe vs Wade and its progeny arent’ reversed, don’t blame Bush. He did what he could. Blame his predecessor and his successor.
 
Ridgerunner said:
Lots of prolife things happened during his presidency. lifenews.com/2009/01/16/nat-4750/

But abortion could not have been “outlawed” even if congress passed such a ban and Bush signed it, because abortion on demand is a court-imposed law.

What could Bush do about that? He got the opportunity to appoint two justices, and he did; Roberts and Alito; both prolife. Obama, of course, appointed abortion-supporters, including supporters of partial birth abortion. Every Dem appointee voted against partial birth abortion bans. Every Repub appointee (even Kennedy) voted to support them.

If Roe vs Wade and its progeny arent’ reversed, don’t blame Bush. He did what he could. Blame his predecessor and his successor.
Click to expand...
In hindsight, George W. Bush is looking better and better and better and…better.
 
Ridgerunner said:
In reality, George Bush was the most “Catholic” president this country has ever had since Kennedy, and possibly even considering Kennedy.
Click to expand...
As evidenced by the intrinsic evils of unjust wars and torture that occurred under his watch. At least he kept us safe.
 
Abortion is illegal in Brazil, yet they have more abortions per-capita than in the United States, where it is legal. So some sort of consequence needs to be in place to curb the number of abortions.

There are already many states with laws that charge double-murder against anyone who kills a pregnant woman.

if someone asks what should be the penalty if abortion were to become illegal, the answer is simple:
Code: 
1) The woman should be given medical attention, being that abortion is not a medical procedure, but rather does violence to a woman's body.

2) The woman should be told the truth that abortion actually kills a human being. Women who have abortions are told that the conception is not a human life. Long term psychological counseling should also be made available for women who have had abortions. The realization of destroying one's own child is a painful experience.

3) Doctors who perform abortions should lose their "medical" license, fined severely, and tried for killing a human being. Fines should go directly to fund adoption agencies.
Furthermore, taxpayer money which currently funds Planned Parenthood abortion mills should be switched over to promote, fund and support adoption agencies. In the case of a conception resulting from rape, the woman should have full medical, psychological counseling and financial support through the birth of the little boy or girl, who would be given up for adoption.
 
Ridgerunner said:
In reality, George Bush was the most “Catholic” president this country has ever had since Kennedy, and possibly even considering Kennedy.
Click to expand...
I never voted for him, never really liked or hated him while he was in office. When the Iraq war thing went south and he became so insanely unpopular (people were throwing shoes at him at press conferences abroad), I got on the hate bandwagon - well, one thing, Katrina, really did upset me, where he just sat in the airplane and New Orleans basically sank.

In 2008 (actually a year or two earlier) I hopped right on the Obama bandwagon (largely because I sensed he could win; he had star, Kennedy-like appeal - that was pretty much it). But to be honest, I never really understood why we all hated Bush so much. We lost like 4500 people in Iraq, right? A tragedy, yes, of course. Do you know how many people we lost in Vietnam, Korea, WWII? My God. And we tried to re-build Iraq with peaceful men there - we tried so hard not to disrupt civilian life in Iraq or Afghanistan, even during bombing, invasion. Yet everyone acted like Bush was Attila the Hun. It was surreal, Emperor’s new clothes to me - all along - I rarely admit that though. Especially when you look at GOP candidates this time around - he looks pretty darn good.
 
Advocating the punishment of women for abortion has always been a tactic of the pro-abortion movement, not of the pro-life movement. Because advocating for punishing women works to make it easier to keep abortion legalized.

In fact, if Roe V Wade were reversed tomorrow, states would revert to the abortion laws in place before Roe. Those laws provided punishment for abortionists, not women.

Because Trump had not thought this through, and not been familiar with pro-life organizations, he fell into the trap.
 
JimR-OCDS said:
Trump knows that a law banning all previable abortions will never make it through Congress anyway.

He’s merely throwing meat to pro-lifers.

Jim
Click to expand...
And it turned out they were vegetarians (except for fish and chicken).
 
Just watched the Cruz said that he won’t support trump if he’s the nominee if. I hope he keeps his word.
 
chero23 said:
Just watched the Cruz said that he won’t support trump if he’s the nominee if. I hope he keeps his word.
Click to expand...
it will be easy for him to keep his word; first because he would be in the outer darkness with Trump anyway, and secondly because I don’t think his personality allows for forgiving and forgetting.
 
JimG said:
Advocating the punishment of women for abortion has always been a tactic of the pro-abortion movement, not of the pro-life movement. Because advocating for punishing women works to make it easier to keep abortion legalized.

In fact, if Roe V Wade were reversed tomorrow, states would revert to the abortion laws in place before Roe. Those laws provided punishment for abortionists, not women.

Because Trump had not thought this through, and not been familiar with pro-life organizations, he fell into the trap.
Click to expand...
Trump revealed his true feelings. This does not constitute a “trap” in any way, shape, or form.
 
Mulligan2 said:
Trump revealed his true feelings. This does not constitute a “trap” in any way, shape, or form.
Click to expand...
Given the fact that he reversed himself, I don’t know if he revealed his true feelings or not. He did seem to give the appearance that he had never considered the matter until being hit with an unexpected question. Had he been even somewhat familiar with mainstream pro-life organizations, he should have known that advocating punishment for women has always been a pro-abortion ploy, not a pro-life position.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top