More unscripted statements from Donald Trump, this time on “punishing” women for abortions
The latest is a doozy:
There must be “some form of punishment” for women who have abortions, Donald Trump said Wednesday afternoon during a pre-taped MSNBC town hall event. Asked…whether he believes abortion should be illegal, Trump agreed, noting that to actually ban the procedure, “you go back to a position like they had where they would perhaps go to illegal places, but we have to ban it.” Pressed further on whether he believes women would be specifically punished for abortion if it were illegal, Trump said yes, but added that the exact punishment would “have to be determined.” Asked whether men would be held responsible for abortions under the law as well, Trump replied, “I would say no.”
Following outcry over his comments, the Trump campaign issued a statement: “This issue is unclear and should be put back into the states for determination. Like Ronald Reagan, I am pro-life with exceptions, which I have outlined numerous times.”
This ties in quite nicely with my earlier post today. Trump’s remarks on abortion are somewhat similar, in that he seems to not really understand what he’s talking about—he’s making it up as he goes along, and with a very sketchy knowledge of history and law—and needs to be “cued” by his campaign advisors to re-anchor himself in something that makes a bit of sense. But when it’s just Trump alone thinking and then speaking, we get a confused mish-mash of stream-of-consciousness utterances.
I also wrote in that same post that, “In general, I’ve tended to err on the side of respect for Trump in guessing that he actually knows more than he seems to know but that he pretends not to know for his own rhetorical purposes. But over time I’ve become less and less sure of that.” And less and less and less.
One more thing—Hillary Clinton would eat him alive in the general. He’s starting to be the equivalent of a Todd Akin type of candidate.
[ADDENDUM: More here.]
He’d soon look like a sputtering, enraged, man-child — once the MSM turns their guns on him.
Indeed, it looks like they are (prematurely?) taking him to fools-town even as I type.
We may all love the Three Stooges… but can’t imagine them running the government.
Punishing women ?
Gag !
His epic negatives will zoom to -79 with the gals.
Trump is looking more and more like every family’s crazy uncle.
This all points to a man who has never thought deeply about these issues and who places no value in reasoned consistency. It is indeed a stream of consciousness, where he says whatever bubbles to the surface. Having no foundational principles, his stated views necessarily lack coherency.
Still better than the leftist goal driven democrats but a man reaching for an office, for which he is manifestly unqualified.
Dude is a total train wreck, a dumpster fire. He couldn’t be doing more to get Hillary elected if he was trying to. I think Ace has said Trump is running as a caricature of what he thinks knuckle dragging RWNJ’s want.
Let’s hope the Republican voters wake up before it is too late.
I see indications of a subconscious self-sabotage campaign.
A certain part of him would love to be ‘cheated’ out of the GOP nomination.
He wants an exit that does not involve self-humiliation.
His numbers in Wisconsin are plunging… essentially taking him out of contention for the nomination by the second ballot.
A new Marquette poll has it Cruz 40%, Trump 30%, Kasich 19% in WI. Best part is it was taken before Walker endorsed Cruz.
Maybe (hopefully) people are waking up.
It’s not just his utterances that are reminiscent of Akin, it’s also the playbook to get him elected.
Akin made utterly bizarre, stupid comments about women and everyone groaned. We begged him to leave the race while there was still time because it was obvious that he was compromised.
Claire McCaskill’s operatives funneled money to Akin (unbeknownst to Akin, that is). They commissioned flattering polls that coincidentally showed him only a couple of points behind McCaskill…why, he was breathing down her neck!!!!
Being an egotistical asshole, Akin believed what he wanted to.
He lost in a landslide, and McCaskill went on to inflict identifiable damage to the nation, most notably through her energetic support of campus kangaroo courts.
See the similarities to Trump?
“I think Ace has said Trump is running as a caricature of what he thinks knuckle dragging RWNJ’s want.”
Not to brag, I’ve said that also, here on neo’s site. Because I have many far-far-left FB friends (who are real-life people I know), I have been treated to countless “Trump said blah-blah-blah. Republicans are sooooo stupid!” memes and posts – and that started way back before he recently started going off the deep end of crazy/criminally unprepared. Knowing his lefty history and association with the Clintons, it seemed painfully obvious that he was either running on pure hubris (that was only going to take him so far) … or was running as a “pretend” Republican to disrupt the proceedings and/or make us look like complete idiots, for the betterment of Democrats during a weak election cycle.
The thing I’ve observed in recent years, as the left/right split becomes more painful and angry, is that far-lefties seem to not actually know any real conservatives, so everything they think they know about conservatives and what they believe is based on their own projection and fantasy. They actually seem to believe that all conservatives are fat, white people in trailer parks, who hate all non-white people for not being white; who have weekly meetings in which they pine for the good old days of burning heretics and make plans for Christian sharia; and dropped out of school after the third grade. Any attempt to discuss immigration law, or small government or “all people are equally capable of going to the DMV and getting a photo ID” is basically code for “I am a stupid racist and believe things that stupid racists believe.” By associating himself with the topic of immigration, Trump became a spokesman for all conservatives/Republicans/RWNJs and now his lack of preparedness and gaffes are a reflection of all of us.
We said this would happen. I’m just glad that it seems to be unraveling now, while we still have time to nominate somebody who might not destroy the GOP, the only thing that even hampers Democrats.
Too many gaffes are happening in the past few weeks that I have to wonder what is going on – is this just “Trump being Trump” or has the field now narrowed down so that the MSM are starting to attack so that Trump looks like a fool.
Based on the intensity of the pro-Trump as well as the Never Trump factions, the threats not to honor the no third party pledge and the closeness of the polls, is the MSM hoping that a second vote will have to take place? A splintered GOP would give the election to the Dems, though I suspect that some are hoping for a divided convention there in order to be able to select a “clean” candidate of their own.
Neo – you mentioned how the story headlines never seem to match what the story says. I seeing a lot that mention “assault” when the story is about “battery”. The back and forth of the commenters is exhausting to read.
I actually have some sympathy for him here. If your moral conviction is that abortion is murder, which for many pro-life proponents is the case, and two individuals participate in the death, how can only one be morally responsible?
But politically and societally speaking, that won’t fly. Most pro-lifers would willingly compromise on holding the woman accountable, viewing it as a much lesser moral issue, in order to achieve a far greater moral responsibility – that of saving the child.
I think this is possibly a rare case of genuine “unfairness” in media questioning, as Matthews clearly was looking for a “gotcha” moment (and got it), but in politics, you do have to be able to handle this kind of stuff, and he clearly did not handle it well.
Liz, someone on Bret Baier’s program spoke to the issue of whether he is getting tougher questions. No, there should is nothing tough about the questions. They are about pretty basic issues.
Charles Krauthammer mentioned that Trump was obviously befuddled in one of the debates about the concept of the “Nuclear Triad”. (I don’t know the context because it was apparently after I quit watching the clown shows.) But, CK said that it was even worse than a man who aspires to be CinC and doesn’t even recognized a widely used term for our nuclear strategy; he compounded it by fumbling again in a subsequent debate. In other words he does not bother to do his homework. Again, CK said it would have taken 30 seconds on Google to at least learn what the term meant. (Or he could have asked one of his top people, “the very best”, what it meant.) Couldn’t be bothered.
Ignorance compounded by arrogance. We have been down that road.
Off topic. I have begun to suspect that the “movers and shakers” in the GOP are propping up Kasich to dilute Cruz’s delegate count, and ensure an open convention–where anything is possible. It has become obvious that Trump will prevent himself from achieving a majority. There are only so many with a taste for Kool Aide.
If it’s any consolation to anyone, the dismay on the far left over the inevitability of Hillary is becoming an interesting factor. I don’t really ever recall anytime the left has been so divided.
The same demographic that voted for Obama twice and now is pro-Bernie to “take our country back!” (and doesn’t seem to see the irony) is fuming all over the social media about what they perceive as cheating and unfairness during the primary voting process, benefiting Hillary. Are we watching the beginning of a situation where Bernie peels off with his supporters after Hillary is selected, and Trump goes independent after the GOP nominates anyone-but-Trump? Four-way presidential race, anyone?
Kyndyll …
It happened in 1860 — and look how things turned out.
America didn’t fall into the two-party ‘system’ until after 1860.
LJB: considering that Trump used to be okay with partial birth abortion, I bet this was another instance of him trying to sound tough and far to the right.
Kyndyll G: nah, the Democrats always fall in line. The PUMAs went on to vote for Obama in 08.
And where’s the problem here?
The position is quite clear: he’s anti-abortion, the surgeon should be held responsible, and the woman should be punished someway (not necessarily criminalized, if could be like some kind of penalization in the future access to welfare, for example)
I don’t agree with him (I’m pro-abortion), but his position is quite clear.
Pro-choicers will never give up abortion rites. Liberals will never give up their opiates. Both will support reactive parenthood and defend planned parenthood as long as Democrats promise to sell indulgences that will pardon them for crimes committed against humanity.
I wonder how many people actually receive religious instruction from gods in the twilight zone and their liberal representatives on the supreme court, and accept the scientific consensus of spontaneous human conception.
Anyway, the “final solution” will not be overturned as long as there are “good Germans”.
KLSmith:
Every human being is conceived with a liberal outlook, that does not change until they are informed of the world, and discover a set of principles that are internally, externally, and mutually consistent. Unfortunately, some people, many people, fail to mature and realize their birthright.
If only someone would advocate for the dads of aborted babies to receive jail time. Spontaneous human conception is right. Women don’t just conjure up babies.
Yann:
His position is clear, except for two things:
(a) he walked the position back shortly thereafter (or someone who writes his statements on his website, which I don’t think is Trump himself, walked it back)
(b) it is an extreme one that’s not even common among pro-life activists, and it’s one that will tend to hurt him still further with women voters who already support him in ever-decreasing numbers
(c) it’s so vague that he didn’t even seem to have a clear notion of what that “punishment” would be
“I don’t care what Donald Trump says. He is an affront to rational thought and reasonable, thoughtful, humane discourse. I’m not going to waste time responding to any word that comes from his mouth. Period.”
blert Says:
March 30th, 2016 at 7:16 pm
“I see indications of a subconscious self-sabotage campaign.
A certain part of him would love to be ‘cheated’ out of the GOP nomination.
He wants an exit that does not involve self-humiliation.”
My thoughts exactly.
Trump is self-sabotaging his campaign? No, he is just expressing his inner Mother Albert:
Oh, I know what you’re going to say. “If you kill the mother, the fetus dies, too.” But the fetus is going to be aborted anyway, so why not let it go down with the ship?
It would be amusing if trump’s flip flop flipping were not a life death issue for the unborn. His new sincerity on abortion smells like the fumes from Auschwittz. Yet we have people who profess to be on the right shilling for this ‘man’. Yes, you know who you are. 5 ways and where the sun….
The scoundrel donald does not want to be POTUS, he wants to burn the fields and salt the earth for hrc or a surrogate. This was obvious from day one. Only the lonely (cue Roy Orbison) were attention deficit.
Yann,
Post your address when I need, as a fellow humanitarian, to express mail you a mirror and flashlight.
Is what Trump said, as quoted by Neo, bad? Or is the fact that his “campaign” subsequently modified his remarks bad?
Or is it bad to clearly state a position, as he did, that the MSM and the baby-killing Left despises?
Why should he have a position as to what the abortion penalty should be? An exceedingly tough issue, so he should have a pat answer? That is for legislators, unless we want a Ruler.
Is Trump’s brief comment a political No-No, the antithesis of Win At Any Cost? We sit here and are inundated by the constant lies and distortions of Bernie and Hillary, and we bitch about Trump oppo to abortion? We are nuts, and we deserve what we will get.
Akin, as I remember, was pilloried about one sentence (I do not and will never live in Missouri and may have missed some stuff). That’s all it took to re-elect that revolting Democrat female McCaskill. It was political murder by the MSM in bed with the Dems, IMO. I guess we here are OK with that because Akin did a No-No. Sheesh.
Abortion on demand is murder, pure and simple. So to win, Trump must be OK with that?
We deserve what we get.
Frog:
I’ll take it point by point.
Is what Trump said, as quoted by Neo, bad?
What’s bad is that it sounded like it was something he’d barely thought about before. He had never stated such a thing in previous discussions about abortion. And in fact, his abortion views have been poorly articulated this entire campaign. They have changed over the years, also, but that’s not necessarily a problem—people change. But they have not even been consistent, or consistently stated, or clearly stated, this particular election cycle (see this and this). And then, suddenly, this statement that expresses a thought that is so extreme that even most pro-life people don’t hold it.
Or is the fact that his “campaign” subsequently modified his remarks bad?
That is also bad and represents a complete muddle. What does Trump really think? Does even Trump know? Is he just constantly shooting from the hip?
Or is it bad to clearly state a position, as he did, that the MSM and the baby-killing Left despises?
No, that’s not a problem in the moral sense, nor is it a problem in terms of clarity of thought (although Trump clearly lacks such clarity of thought, see above). But it’s a practical problem in terms of whether people (especially women) will hold it against him if he’s the nominee, or in the primaries.
Why should he have a position as to what the abortion penalty should be? An exceedingly tough issue, so he should have a pat answer?
He needs to have a position on it because he stated they should be punished. A failure to even offer an idea as to how, or what the reasoning would be as to why they should be punished, is a huge failing. If you’re going to express a controversial position, give us some evidence that you’ve thought about it and thought about at least one detail, and what the consequences should be. Even a blog post or blog comment ought to have those basics in it, and Trump is running for the presidency, not just commenting on a blog.
That is for legislators, unless we want a Ruler.
But presidential candidates express opinions and make suggestions on legislative questions all the time. It’s only if they try to take over a legislative activity through executive action (or to negate one) that it is a problem. And anyway, Trump has already expressed an opinion on the legislative issue—that women should be punished.
Is Trump’s brief comment a political No-No, the antithesis of Win At Any Cost?
If this was Trump’s only problem or only poorly thought-out and poorly-expressed opinion, it would be much less important. But it is not.
We sit here and are inundated by the constant lies and distortions of Bernie and Hillary, and we bitch about Trump oppo to abortion?
No one is bitching about Trump’s opposition to abortion. That’s not even remotely the issue. By the way, other candidates (Cruz, for example) are also opposed to abortion.
Akin, as I remember, was pilloried about one sentence (I do not and will never live in Missouri and may have missed some stuff). That’s all it took to re-elect that revolting Democrat female McCaskill. It was political murder by the MSM in bed with the Dems, IMO. I guess we here are OK with that because Akin did a No-No. Sheesh.
Actually, Akin was a very poor candidate in lots of other ways, long before his rape remarks. That’s why McCaskill decided he should be her opponent in the first place, and assisted him in winning the GOP primary (if you don’t remember the story, read that post). And I don’t think anyone “was okay” with what happened in Missouri. But it wasn’t just one particular no-no, although that comment didn’t help his cause. He was a weak weak candidate from the start.
Abortion on demand is murder, pure and simple. So to win, Trump must be OK with that?
First of all, there are many people who don’t believe that abortion on demand is murder, so it’s not pure and simple, but let’s just say it is. But Trump himself has never stated that “abortion is murder” as his rationale; in fact, he has refused to state it that way. See this:
So Trump’s argument doesn’t appear to be based on a simple “abortion is murder” equation. He doesn’t state what it IS based on, or why, or how it should be carried out, and then he (or his campaign advisors) walked it back.
If you don’t see a problem with all of this, I really don’t know what else to say to you.
While campaigning in Wisconsin, Trump criticized Walker for cutting spending instead of raising taxes.
Cause he just wants to hide his conservatism, I guess.
The Wisconsin tallies figure to be a death stoke for one shot Trump.
He said that the woman should be punished someway. He still says it. How is that walking back?
So what? should he lie about his position? Would be that right?
I understand that the “punishment” is something lighter than a court conviction (otherwise it just would be considered as a crime), but that can discourage this behaviour. Those kind of policies are usual in governments in many areas, and no candidate uses to be specific about them during election time. You’re using a double standard.
If it is illegal to do something, then the people who do that thing should be punished. Somebody explain to me why that is wrong.
The decision whether and under what conditions a baby can be aborted is not a decision that should be made by the President of the United States. Nor is it an issue which should determine who holds the office.
This debate has raged for fifty years, and we are still no further to a universal answer. This is a matter that needs to be determined at a local, probably state level. If you are really against abortion, move to a state where you’ll be comfortable. If you’re really in favor of abortion, move to a state where you’ll be comfortable.
Yeah, it’s not an optimum solution, but it’s a solution.
Neo, I think your headline is disingenuous. You should insert the word “illegal” before the word “abortions.”
Yann, all you’re doing is constructing what might be a coherent position by extracting and putting meaning to selective portions of Trump’s blather. Problem is, he had a different position last week and he’ll have a different position next week — because he has no real position on this or any other issue. His position is “Whatever I can say today to get me nominated.”
Another sad part of this whole misbegotten situation is that Trump is really talented in some areas and could contribute a lot to this country. He is a great negotiator and would be a great Chief Trade Representative. He is an expert at bringing projects in on time and on (or under) budget; he would be great as Director of the Government Accountability Office or Deputy Secretary of Defense for Procurement. I think he really does love veterans (it’s not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt) and he would, in the words of General Patton, “grab the [VA] by he throat and kick them in the nuts.”
If only Trump were mature enough to say, “I’m really not suited to be President. Ted, give me one (or all!) of these jobs and I’m outta the race.” (Yeah, yeah, I know. But a guy can dream, can’t he?)
Yeah, if only…
Has Ted even tried making this offer? Could offer Donald a way out.
Yann:
Here’s another link about how Trump walked it back.
CapnRusty:
Most anti-abortion activists do not believe that women who have abortions should be punished even if abortions were made illegal. Most of them think the punishment should be meted out to the abortionists in that case. Even before Roe v. Wade, that had become the de facto legal position, anyway.
It also seems to be Trump’s position—at least it is, now, according to his most recent official statement on the matter, one that was issued shortly after the remarks I wrote about in the above posts:
I doubt Trump actually wrote that, but whether he did or didn’t it has now been released as his official position on the matter.
Why are we debating what this con artist did or didn’t mean about abortion. He is already on record supporting Planned Parenthood. What more needs to be said?
He walked it back immediately…
At least he doesnt stick with a bad idea fearing flip flop flipped out freaks finally framing for future forces…
on another note…
if Ms Dog wins her point, maybe they will have mental exams for all rights… want an abortion, get a mental exam, want to speak freely, lets make sure you dont say anythig crazy.
Given the lefts goals, practices, and solutions, and gaffs, please forgive me for not caring, and realizing that that statement was dead on arrival, regardless of what he wants as he is being elected president, not dictator, and we still have, despite Obama, checks and balances
but has anyone other than myself realized how many governors, and mayers are making executive order signing statements like crazy…
at what point will they be challenged by someone who violates theirs, and then tests in court wether governors and mayers or other officials can make law by issueing statements.
Gov. Hickenlooper (Democratic – had to look it up) signs Executive Order, issues signing statement related to SB13-252 “Renewable Energy Standard Retail Wholesale Methane”. He also signed an Executive Order related to the legislation and issued a signing statement addressed to the General Assembly
Since when did governors make law?
The authority for governors to issue executive orders is found in state constitutions and statutes as well as case law, or is implied by the powers assigned to state chief executives. Governors use executive orders–certain of which are subject to legislative review in some states–for a variety of purposes, among them to:
1) trigger emergency powers during natural disasters, energy crises, and other situations requiring immediate attention;
2) create advisory, coordinating, study, or investigative committees or commissions; and
3) address management and administrative issues such as regulatory reform, environmental impact, hiring freezes, discrimination, and intergovernmental coordination.
A signing statement is a written pronouncement issued by the President of the United States upon the signing of a bill into law
Looks like we now have a soviet government where powers are delegated to other officials and councils (soviets)…
and on another note…
Governor Brown Issues Proclamation Declaring César Ché¡vez Day
When it comes to Trump-hating, it is worse than conspiracy, it is consensus
http://netrightdaily.com/2016/03/comes-trump-hating-worse-conspiracy-consensus/
No candidate in modern times has been on the receiving end of more demonizing than Donald J. Trump. It spews from leftist publications and blogs, publications and blogs on the right and from the so-called main stream media. Second only to the hate directed at Mr. Trump is the demonizing directed to his supporters.
The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, National Review, Weekly Standard, The New Republic, The Nation, The Dailey Kos, The Huffington Post, and Red State all have joined in a huge spitting squad and the spit is all directed at Mr. Trump. As some of us used to say about during the Cold War about the U.S. Government aiding the Soviet Union, “it is worse than conspiracy, it is consensus.”
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
As Scott Adams of Dilbert fame and the Breitbart web site have observed, what the media, right, legacy and left is doing consciously or unconsciously is setting Mr. Trump up for assassination, there has already been one attempted assault on Mr. Trump in Chicago. It will be his fault. “He brought it on himself!” This will be loudly and incessantly repeated. The assassination will be a ratings bonanza for the media which will give them the opportunity to make a lot of money while pushing this message and excusing themselves.
“It was a complete misspeak during a conversation over a hypothetical concept and there was a clarification issued,” Katrina Pierson told CNN on Thursday morning.
“This is a state issue, that’s the point here, these are states’ issues,” she said.
“If Congress were to pass legislation making abortion illegal and the federal courts upheld this legislation, or any state were permitted to ban abortion under state and federal law, the doctor or any other person performing this illegal act upon a woman would be held legally responsible, not the woman,” the campaign said in the statement.
Pierson said Trump’s initial “misspeak” should not have become a “24-hour headline when we have things like terrorism going on in the world.”
Kyndyll G:
“If it’s any consolation to anyone, the dismay on the far left over the inevitability of Hillary is becoming an interesting factor. I don’t really ever recall anytime the left has been so divided.”
It’s not a consolation. I guess you haven’t volunteered for a Democrat or at least a Democrat-caucusing Independent. They normally fight in the mud in the Left-activist style among themselves. They don’t switch modes just for Republicans.
The difference is when they reach the next stage of Dem vs GOP, Democrat-front Left activists police up the constituency and rally around the flag. It’s SOP, they know the routine.
Keep in mind that unlike conservatives with the GOP, leftists don’t have all their eggs in one basket with the Democrats, so they can vote for a candidate who’s not their 1st choice with the understanding that their chief political power is based in participatory politics – their Gramscian-march activism – which they confidently control, rather than in electoral politics. The vote is just one enterprise for them, which makes for a different, more-resilient perspective from conservatives who choose to limit their political reach to the one political outlet that they only partially (and insufficiently) control.
Richard Saunders:
“Another sad part of this whole misbegotten situation is that Trump is really talented in some areas and could contribute a lot to this country.”
I volunteered for a presidential candidate who had an impeccable academic and strong professional background, but not as an elected official. Not unlike Ben Carson, he stumbled on issues the farther they ranged from his area of expertise. He tried to close the gap by analogizing the issues back to his area of expertise, which was unconvincing. That being said, he was also a Jim Webb type who was disfavored by the Left activists who were palpably seizing control of the Democrats, so his campaign was probably doomed, anyway.
All else being equal, it’s why some of us favor governors for the presidency who’ve exhibited the basic ability to grasp and manage the broad range of issues that go to government. Even a small-government model requires broad coverage by the executive.
Neo:
Point by point back to you.
“What’s bad is that it sounded like it was something he’d barely thought about before.” So it is not his position, but that he’d barely thought about it, in your judgment, that matters.
“That is also bad and represents a complete muddle. What does Trump really think? Does even Trump know?” Didn’t he say as plain as day that he opposes abortion?
“He needs to have a position on it because he stated they should be punished.” I don’t think you got my point about the Ruler versus the way America is supposed to work. Your saying so doesn’t make it so.
“No one is bitching about Trump’s opposition to abortion.” I guess the bitching is about his style of opposition, then. You are, I believe, not pro-life.
“Other candidates are also opposed to abortion.” There is only one other, Cruz, no plural.
“Akin was a very poor candidate.” But he did run against McCaskill, and she was in the enemy camp, not he. Reminds me of bad-mouthing Romney instead of Obama, is all. No biggie.
“But Trump himself has never stated that “abortion is murder” as his rationale”, yet you go on to quote this, “When asked if an abortion performed outside of those exceptions was murder, Trump emphasized three times, “it depends when.” So he is not denying it is murder, is he?
“So Trump’s argument doesn’t appear to be based on a simple “abortion is murder” equation.” Agreed. The simplicity is mine. Intentionally killing another human, no matter how small or big or old or young, is murder. I say this as a physician; you can and will debate that as a lawyer.
“If you don’t see a problem with all of this, I really don’t know what else to say to you.” Likewise and Amen. We don’t get together here simply to endorse one another’s views and beliefs!
Damn God, where’s the walking back?
Holding doctors responsible and doing some kind of punishment to women who abort is compatible. Who says that it should be one thing or another? Where has he said that because of doctor responsibility, women are not gonna suffer any consequence???
The Other Chuck: good point. This is one of the things that makes Trump so “special”. He believes one thing while vomiting up something contradictory in the next statement. He’s inconsistent, undisciplined, uninformed, unprincipled. This will kill him in the general, taint the party, and force all the down ballot candidates to be on the defensive.
HAHAHA.
Fail. Utter fail.
Q1: What was the question Matthews actually asked?
Q2: What was the point of the question Trump actually answered?
Q3: What would be the result of the point of the question that Matthews actually asked?
Re-listen, and parse carefully.
HINT 1: Those aren’t what you think (well, probably …and @artfldger excepted), and they’re mutually unintelligible if you miss the point (which – rather understandably – Trump did, in the case of Q3).
HINT 2: Did Trump actually change his position, as so many have interpreted?
HINT 3: What was that position you are positing Trump [may have] changed?
…jeezus …Matthew set Trump up by posing a hypothetical as a law-and-order question about an enacted LAW thatcannot plausibly happen in the early-21st century American political system.
And y’all just …missed then importance of that?
Heh …kind of like Trump did.
Aargh.
And, again, and “just in case” (because someone has previously lumped me into the “Trumpist” clan): I’m a Cruz supporter.
And that don’t make me an un-alert knuckle dragging idiot, unable to listen to what’s being said AND un-said either.
I support Cruz because I’m an ideological conservative (small “c”). Which, pretty damn obviously, and as should go without saying, Trump isn’t (which, actually, matters this go-round …especially when you listen to the guy without filtering it through your traditional ideological biases…which is how a lot of non-ideological VOTERS hear him).
I haven’t succumbed to TDS. A real thing. As seems way too obvious. Even here, sigh.
I’m too weary – or uncaring – at the moment to look it up, but why was Trump talking to Chris Matthews?
Doesn’t he know who Matthews is, what he is for, what he will likely come at him with, and whose crotch it is that Chrissy has been excitedly sniffing for Lo These Many Years?
Artfl – there’s not a conspiracy against the Donald. It’s just that most people here — and in the rest of the country — realize that he’s a complete asshole who hasn’t given a moment’s coherent thought to that issue or any other. He says whatever comes into his mind at the moment. He doesn’t even think about what he said yesterday.
The fact that you can’t see what a jerk the man is doesn’t mean you’re a visionary, it means you’re blind.
Frog:
My objection is to Trump’s position re punishment of women who have illegal abortions AND to the way he stated it, but in actuality I am much more critical of the way he stated it and his lack of thought about it, because that is a global problem with Trump that cuts across most topics and is a character flaw.
That shouldn’t be too hard to understand.
My position on Roe v. Wade is that decisions about abortion should go to the states. If abortion were to be outlawed on a federal level, it would take a constitutional amendment. My personal position on abortion itself is stated here.
Kasich is pro-life with exceptions for rape and incest. When I wrote “candidates” I was speaking not only of Cruz and of Kasich but of many of the other original candidates whom I supported, and who are pro-life.
You keep emphasizing this “lawyer” bit with me, perhaps because you don’t like lawyers. Let me remind you that I’m not and have never been a lawyer. I am a law school graduate and I have never practiced law, nor do I identify as a lawyer or claim to be one. However, I do think logically or make a huge attempt to do so, and I understand much more about law than the average person because I am trained in it. On this blog I don’t write or speak as a lawyer, however. I write for myself as a human being, and as you can see if you read that link I gave about my abortion views, they are not based on anything connected with being a a lawyer.
Artfldgr:
“Misspeak” is a word I find to be a copout, unless it’s used as I believe it should be used: a slip-of-the-tongue type of error. The definition in recent times—particular in politics—has been broadened to mean anything a politician says and later regrets. It’s a way to minimize an error and pretend it’s something meaningless.
Trump’s statement was not a slip of the tongue.
Definition of “misspeak” for Trump and so many others: the act of saying what you are thinking before your handlers and/or advisors get to you and revise it.
The actual transcript is a lot more interesting than the shallow reporting. There Chris Matthews, despite being a professional journalist for decades, states that he has never understood the pro-life position. There Trump asks Matthews about his being Catholic, and the Church’s position on abortion, and how he reconciles that.
The problem isn’t Trump. The real problem is a media that can’t report on complex issues. The real problem is the shallowness and petty-mindedness of the Left. The real problem is the flawed decision of Roe vs. Wade in 1973, which has made a mess of things.
This issue would have come up at some time, because it always does. And some Republican candidate could have given the most perfectly reasonable, concise, clear and compassionate answer ever, and he would still be attacked by the Left. I surmise that a plurality of this country’s citizens today have the mindset that they will never accept a situation where they do not have access to abortion.
As for individual women, some will never have abortions, out of principle. Some will have an abortion, and go on with their lives, and it will not concern them. And some may have an abortion, and come to regret it, if not immediately, then years later. (And let’s not forget the men whose lives are affected by this as well.)
neo-neocon Says: “Misspeak” is a word I find to be a copout…
yeah, but in our politically correct world where you cant make a stupid mistake and take the blame for it, well, thats that. on top of that, they know that admitting is worse than playing the game… we as people are taught otherwise, but then again, most of us are not the high level winners that the people that dont admit it are… (so its not really good advice, its moral advice in which the advantage goes to the one that doesnt listen to it)
I agree… it wasnt a slip of the tougue, nor did i claim it to be… but what i did say is that we have to allow the backing out of issues when we do reallys tupid things and everyone does really dumb stuff sometimes..
i never ever liked the flip flop thing as the point was not to hold a person to their word, but to hold a person to their mistakes and that was all defined by the left, so you can be really really sure its asinine and bad pretending to be good as they never do something good except by accident, and its alway self serving.
everyone here knows he didnt mispeak in the sense of making a odd turn of phrase, but we also all know that sometimes we say the opposite of what we mean and sometimes we just get it all wrong, and have to correct ourselves. which he did immediately…(but his campaign people are the same old politicos everyone has as those are who are available to be hired and they are going ot do the same old same old as they have no other education)
on another note – on the other side of the coin:
Ben Shapiro reveals sorry state of college students’ pro-abortion ‘logic’
http://liveactionnews.org/ben-shapiro-reveals-sorry-state-of-pro-abortion-college-students-logic/
Conservative pundit and Daily Wire editor-in-chief Ben Shapiro has done yeoman’s work in exposing the illogic of pro-abortion doctrine, and his latest work is no different. During the question session following a recent speech at Salisbury University in Maryland, a number of pro-abortion college students finally got an opportunity to try out the talking points that have so impressed them against a real, live opponent… and it didn’t go so well for them: [video and more text at link]
i think what we really should be doing is making a list of what we want and not play the bs game that has gotten us to a point where someone like Trump is up and compared to the opposition on the left, is the lesser of dysfunctional criminal wackos.
ie. the whole feild should be different, but its not cause we are not selecting the realistic right things.
whether he or another makes a mistake is not the problem, what would be the problem is not correcting it and who cares how the paranoid politico thinks it should be presented for optics. (where did THAT crap come from too?)
there are a ton of good things done too, but i bet no one can list three of them, and if they did they would say it doesnt count..
bombast, and bs doesnt count for anything.
actions and experience count more
and our system is not a dictatorship position, if it was, obama would be going to his third term, we would not have an election and would have lost everything years ago.
so lets get real…
a verbal gaff is not in the same league as other things
if it was, we would have crucified the vp, and most other presidents who made such extreme bs.
heck, LBJs ni**er quote has tarnished anything else he did and overshadows, it all.. and the outcome? irrelevant as it ended up affecting nothing.
Artfldgr:
As I’ve said before, I think that when Trump or anyone speaks off the cuff it’s a window into that person’s mind that’s more valuable than scripted comments for the purpose of knowing how he or she thinks.
Except for bona fide slips of the tongue.
I’d much rather a person just say it was an error. People make errors. “Misspeak” is a whitewash for an error or in some cases a lie (Trump’s statement was not a lie).
Frog,
Intentionally killing another human being is NOT under ALL conditions, murder. Murder is an unjustified killing. A cop who kills a rampaging, machete weilding fanatic, busily killing innocents in a mall… is not a murderer. There are valid reasons why a variety of words may be used; i.e. to kill, to murder, to execute, to slay, to terminate.
Much confusion exists on this subject, especially in regards to the death penalty and that confusion arises out of a mistaken perception that the state imposes the death penalty as ‘punishment’. Whereas it is actually that justice requires that consequence be proportionate to the offense. A murderer, in unilaterally denying their victim’s right to life, logically forfeits their own claim to a right to life. As no one can rightfully claim for themselves what they deny to another. The death ‘penalty’ for a proven murderer is thus NOT murder by the State. Instead it upholds the ‘standard’ that the murderer has, by their action chosen… with proportional consequence.
Is anyone still undecided on Trump?
At this point in the campaign it’s pretty clear what kind of president he would be, and I would imagine most have come to their own conclusions on whether he would be a greater or lesser evil than Hillary.
Who knows, maybe we’ll be discussing completely new Democrat and Republican POTUS candidates following each party’s convention.
Neo-neocon: All these months I’ve been reading your blog, and i never knew you had gone to law school. That explains why you think so clearly.
Artfldgr
“heck, LBJs… quote… has tarnished anything else he did and overshadows, it all..”
No it didn’t. The Vietnam War tarnished everything else he did. This was true then and it is true now. That said, the racial slurs he used were rather disturbing and an interesting snapshot into is mind. Especially so considering the fact that he built up The Great Society, which was designed to help move us beyond the pre- civil rights years. LBJ was a complex man full of contradictions for sure.
y81:
I try to keep it relatively quiet 🙂 .
It was a long time ago, right after college.
Thanks for the compliment on the logic.
GB:
As to abortions, it boils down to “justification” then?
I thought it implicit, indeed obvious, that killing the innocent is murder.
Frog:
I’m sure you’re at least familiar with the argument that abortion is not murder, even if you strongly disagree with it. I’m not sure, therefore, why you say the answer that it is murder is simple or obvious. It rests, of course, on the definition of when individual human life begins, and is a profound moral and philosophical question, as well as a religious and medical one.
neo…
You were born logical.
Your law school was merely polish… at best.
No, he didn’t.
Chris Matthews went after him, demanding to know what he would do IF ABORTION WAS ILLEGAL. Trump said, logically, that if it were illegal, then the women should be punished.
He didn’t just jump in there and say “Oh, I think anyone who has an abortion should be punished!” which is how it’s being noised abroad to whip up the War on Women hysteria.
Granted, he was foolish to give an interview to Chris Matthews, and was woefully unprepared for the machine-gun style attack. But you have to actually, you know, listen to the audio to hear what the man said.
Yeah, I know, hopeless to even mention this.
The War On Women [TM] will swivel like a turret gun and take out any and all opponents of the Left, of course, be they never so cringing and servile to the Left (see, e.g., John McCain). Joining in with this nonsense will only hurt Republican candidates overall.
Beverly:
I’ve already read the transcript carefully. I have no idea why you keep trying to defend what Trump clearly said, because the fact that the question was a hypothetical is irrelevant to what his answer was and what was wrong with it. Candidates (or anyone in the public eye) need to be aware of hypotheticals and able to answer them. And when they do answer them, their answers mean something and are a window into their thought processes. If abortion were illegal, it does NOT follow that women who had them would have to be punished—as Trump’s post-consultation revised version of his own answer made very clear.
How it is that some people can’t see that a guy who doesn’t think before he opens his mouth is not a good choice for President confounds me.
Meanwhile,. I’m practicing filling out a ballot while holding my nose.
I thought this was an intelligent forum, but I see I was mistaken. Chris Mathews asked Trump this question: “If abortion is illegal, should a women be punished for having one”. The answer is “Of course, what is the point of making something illegal and then not punishing it”.
Let’s ask the question this way “If heroin is illegal, should we punish someone for buying it”. Again “Of course”.
I read your blog.interested blog such as great blog Thanks……