Trump abortion flip flop

[Abbey Marie]

I realize the board has mostly economic conservatives, but I'm still surprised no one is discussing his immediate turnabout on the issue of women being punished for an illegal abortion, and about abortion in general. (Albeit Chris "tingle" Matthews was trying hard to trap him).

I have expressed here a couple of times that I trust Trump on trade issues, but not so sure about social issues. I no longer wonder- I am convinced now that he has virtually no interest in those. How this would play out in a SC nominee is concerning to me.

[Kathianne]

I realize the board has mostly economic conservatives, but I'm still surprised no one is discussing his immediate turnabout on the issue of women being punished for an illegal abortion, and about abortion in general. (Albeit Chris "tingle" Matthews was trying hard to trap him).

I have expressed here a couple of times that I trust Trump on trade issues, but not so sure about social issues. I no longer wonder- I am convinced now that he has virtually no interest in those. How this would play out in a SC nominee is concerning to me.

He may have misspoke. He released written statement. He doesn't think women should be punished, only the providers. He really is, really, a great conservative.

[Abbey Marie]

He may have misspoke. He released written statement. He doesn't think women should be punished, only the providers. He really is, really, a great conservative.


I saw the clip. He seemed fairly clear to me. But he does seem like a guy who just hasn't given it any real thought. It's just not on his radar.

[indago]

He is saying that lawbreakers should be punished.

transcript (http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/article/2016/mar/30/context-transcript-donald-trump-punishing-women-ab/)

[Kathianne]

I saw the clip. He seemed fairly clear to me. But he does seem like a guy who just hasn't given it any real thought. It's just not on his radar.


Unlike Cruz or the others that ran against him, all that there is to judge him on is what he says. As for his 'positions' there is what is written-by him?-and what he says. Everyone has to decide where he stands today.

I found it very difficult to believe that a guy in his 70's, was 'very pro-abortion' less than 20 years ago, suddenly becomes 'pro-life' without a single understanding of what those who've long held that position really feel about women, the unborn, Roe v Wade...

At this point in time though, none of those things seem to matter to many. It's just one of the many things that have bothered me from the beginning. I'm one of those 'economic conservatives' in the main, but have social issues that I've always been conservative about-abortion being but one.

[Abbey Marie]

He is saying that lawbreakers should be punished.

transcript (http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/article/2016/mar/30/context-transcript-donald-trump-punishing-women-ab/)

Yes, we know; and not the point of the thread.

[Kathianne]

Yes, we know; and not the point of the thread.

Exactly. Some are 'pro-life' for religious reasons alone, haven't given it much thought.

If one is seriously 'pro-life' one has to consider all of the ramifications to Roe-the toll taken on women, the unborn, those born to those too young, too mentally unable to parent, without the means to raise a child, etc. It causes one to think about 'should the state provide for those really in need?' 'Should private charities?' 'Adoption?' 'Birth control?'

What about the death penalty? What about those found to have been sentenced to it, later found not guilty for the crime?

Now many of us are not running for office, so our thoughts deep or shallow, are not put under a microscope by those who agree or not-except perhaps here. ;) It does seem though that many 'average folks' have given more thought to this one issue, not to mention nuking other countries or ending NATO or attacking women that don't agree with us, than at least one person that is running for office.

[Abbey Marie]

I did think it was cool that Trump turned it around on Matthews (whom I loathe). But the bottom line for me is that if one cares deeply about this issue, Trump is not solid on it. Unlike some, I am not a 1-issue voter, but if I was, this would be it. It is why I harp on SC nominations so much.

[Kathianne]

I did think it was cool that Trump turned it around on Matthews (whom I loathe). But the bottom line for me is that if one cares deeply about this issue, Trump is not solid on it. Unlike some, I am not a 1-issue voter, but if I was, this would be it. It is why I harp on SC nominations so much.

As you and others here know, I tend to stay out of religious discussions, but personally pro-life is what I've always been. I was raised to be and the more we learn about life in the womb, the more I know that the lessons were right.

Those same lessons learned while young are the basis for why I'm perhaps more 'social issues moderate' than many here. Some of it is just consistency of thought-can't be pro-life and also 100% consistent with a flawed death penalty outcome. It causes some problems of thought.

[Abbey Marie]

As you and others here know, I tend to stay out of religious discussions, but personally pro-life is what I've always been. I was raised to be and the more we learn about life in the womb, the more I know that the lessons were right.

Those same lessons learned while young are the basis for why I'm perhaps more 'social issues moderate' than many here. Some of it is just consistency of thought-can't be pro-life and also 100% consistent with a flawed death penalty outcome. It causes some problems of thought.

A complex discussion for another thread. I get the problem, and I am certainly not strongly pro-death penalty. But I will just say that when a fetus commits premeditated murder in the womb, I will consistently support the death penalty for them as well.

[gabosaurus]

As always, Trump will say exactly what he thinks people want to hear.
Unless you are a woman. In which case, Trump doesn't care about you at all.

[fj1200]

I realize the board has mostly economic conservatives, but I'm still surprised no one is discussing his immediate turnabout on the issue of women being punished for an illegal abortion, and about abortion in general. (Albeit Chris "tingle" Matthews was trying hard to trap him).

I have expressed here a couple of times that I trust Trump on trade issues, but not so sure about social issues. I no longer wonder- I am convinced now that he has virtually no interest in those. How this would play out in a SC nominee is concerning to me.

I have no idea why you'd trust him on trade issues either but be that as it may it's great when a candidate can have three different positions in like two hours and have people defend him on talk radio. And getting tripped up by Chris Matthews is about as bad as getting tripped up by Katie Couric.

[Gunny]

I realize the board has mostly economic conservatives, but I'm still surprised no one is discussing his immediate turnabout on the issue of women being punished for an illegal abortion, and about abortion in general. (Albeit Chris "tingle" Matthews was trying hard to trap him).

I have expressed here a couple of times that I trust Trump on trade issues, but not so sure about social issues. I no longer wonder- I am convinced now that he has virtually no interest in those. How this would play out in a SC nominee is concerning to me.

Trying my butt. He DID trap him. The fact is the question was prefaced with "If abortion was illegal ...." We don't punish people for violating the law? I don't get that. I don't to pick and choose which laws I wish to obey. Why should anyone else?

Abortion is a scare tactic hotbed topic the Dems have used for decades. I wouldn't have responded to the question, myself.

[tailfins]

I realize the board has mostly economic conservatives, but I'm still surprised no one is discussing his immediate turnabout on the issue of women being punished for an illegal abortion, and about abortion in general. (Albeit Chris "tingle" Matthews was trying hard to trap him).

I have expressed here a couple of times that I trust Trump on trade issues, but not so sure about social issues. I no longer wonder- I am convinced now that he has virtually no interest in those. How this would play out in a SC nominee is concerning to me.

I support Trump's original position on abortion. What I don't support is the ham-handed way he handled the issue. He's not a winning candidate.

[jimnyc]

I don't necessarily agree with how it all went down either. But I have zero issue with him wanting punishment for illegal abortions. I believe the women SHOULD be punished, and he should have stayed with his original BELIEF and not changing things up over whiners. I think his position is 100% within a conservative line, so yes, I do think it also makes him a "really great conservative" for having spoken up on what I would have loved to have said myself. I'm tired of millions of babies being aborted and used as birth control.

[jimnyc]

Reread my comment, didn't mean to come off snarky, just pointing out that I honestly don't take issue with his original comments.

[Gunny]

I don't necessarily agree with how it all went down either. But I have zero issue with him wanting punishment for illegal abortions. I believe the women SHOULD be punished, and he should have stayed with his original BELIEF and not changing things up over whiners. I think his position is 100% within a conservative line, so yes, I do think it also makes him a "really great conservative" for having spoken up on what I would have loved to have said myself. I'm tired of millions of babies being aborted and used as birth control.


Reread my comment, didn't mean to come off snarky, just pointing out that I honestly don't take issue with his original comments.

I took issue with the setup. But this should be a wake-up call for Trump. No more clear sailing from the left/MSM/Dems. He needs to think before he opens his mouth.

IMO, IF abortion is illegal, than ALL participants should be punished. The fact is, no one at this point going to overturn Roe v Wade. It's only a couple of years younger than I am and hasn't happened yet. As previously stated, overturning Roe v Wade has been a scare tactic used by the left since the 64 election. It keeps working so they're going to use it until it doesn't. Hell, I would. Everything the left says and does are nothing more than scare tactic issues. "If you don't do this, the GOP is going to take this or that away from you."

[Drummond]

It won't surprise anybody to know that the BBC has tried to use this issue to beat Trump over the head with it ...

An example of their propagandist hostility, designed to paint Trump as a maverick wrecker (excerpt from link) - get a load of this --

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-35931103


Donald Trump, as he is wont to do, just trampled through this carefully constructed conservative political dance with all the grace of a rhinoceros at a tea party. Thanks to his assertion, after prodding, that women should face "some form of punishment" for having an illegal abortion, the conservative pro-life movement is going to be forced to defend their beliefs on uncomfortable ground. Republican candidates will be asked, again and again, to defend or denounce Mr Trump's comments.

This is exactly the kind of scenario that terrifies Republican politicians about Mr Trump as their party's nominee. His ill-considered remarks and shoot-from-the-hip approach to media interviews could be a political minefield for their candidates in the autumn.

In all likelihood it's just a taste of things to come.

... No bias there, then :eek: ...

[DLT]

I realize the board has mostly economic conservatives, but I'm still surprised no one is discussing his immediate turnabout on the issue of women being punished for an illegal abortion, and about abortion in general. (Albeit Chris "tingle" Matthews was trying hard to trap him).

I have expressed here a couple of times that I trust Trump on trade issues, but not so sure about social issues. I no longer wonder- I am convinced now that he has virtually no interest in those. How this would play out in a SC nominee is concerning to me.

I'm a conservative on every issue, actually. Which is why I think Trump would be a terrible president. Just...not as bad as Hillary or Sanders. That said, the abortion comment isn't one that I take issue with. He essentially stated the effing obvious....that if abortion was made illegal, there would need to be "punishment" for those breaking that law. Where he went wrong is singling out the women only, not the doctors or medical staff performing the ""illegal"" procedures. It's a moot point anyway, since I don't see abortion ever being made illegal in America. Just like the Fields "assault"...much ado about nothing.

[Gunny]

It won't surprise anybody to know that the BBC has tried to use this issue to beat Trump over the head with it ...

An example of their propagandist hostility, designed to paint Trump as a maverick wrecker (excerpt from link) - get a load of this --

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-35931103



... No bias there, then :eek: ...

If I was to consider letting Chris Matthews interview ME, I'd be in cammies, face paint and ready for war and taking apart his every word before I said a thing. This was a setup and Trump walked into it like an IED. And THAT is going to hurt him. It's a weapon to use against him and I would exploit it. I sure as Hell wouldn't be doing an interview with Ayatollah Matthews on MSNBC Tehran.

[jimnyc]

Where he went wrong is singling out the women only, not the doctors or medical staff performing the ""illegal"" procedures.

The question posed was: "No, should the woman be punished for having an abortion?"

So he didn't single anything out, he merely answered the question.

Then when asked again about punishment, Matthews asks: "For the woman." and then Trump addresses that. He wasn't asked about doctors and staff. He did state he thought the entire thing should be banned, and that there should be punishments then for abortions - and it was Matthews who continually prodded solely about women.

[DLT]

I did think it was cool that Trump turned it around on Matthews (whom I loathe). But the bottom line for me is that if one cares deeply about this issue, Trump is not solid on it. Unlike some, I am not a 1-issue voter, but if I was, this would be it. It is why I harp on SC nominations so much.

Well if this is the 'one' issue that you were going to base your support on, keep in mind that Trump said his pro-partial-birth-abortion sister would be great on the USSC. He later said he was kidding, of course. But was he? Really?

[DLT]

The question posed was: "No, should the woman be punished for having an abortion?"

So he didn't single anything out, he merely answered the question.

Then when asked again about punishment, Matthews asks: "For the woman." and then Trump addresses that. He wasn't asked about doctors and staff. He did state he thought the entire thing should be banned, and that there should be punishments then for abortions - and it was Matthews who continually prodded solely about women.

Yeah, Matthews is/was/always will be an @ss. I have no issue with what Trump said on this. Which is unusual.

[jimnyc]

Yeah, Matthews is/was/always will be an @ss. I have no issue with what Trump said on this. Which is unusual.

He probably has the tingling feeling running up his leg again. :laugh:

My knowledge and airtime of Matthews is about as long as that clip of him tingling.

[Gunny]

He probably has the tingling feeling running up his leg again. :laugh:

My knowledge and airtime of Matthews is about as long as that clip of him tingling.

Chris Matthews is the male version Rachel Maddow. You heard about cloning? They probably used the same DNA to do it. He's a leftwingnut moron and any and everything he says has a left-biased slant. He set Trump up and Trump took the bait.

ANYONE on the right that is interviewed by someone on the left, and/or accused by Demdong needs to get a clue .... DON'T ANSWER. Don't bite on THEIR inflammatory topics. Now we all know ME, I'd go on the attack. Trump was trying to play nice. This is once I'd have loved him to have given Matthews the same treatment he gave Megyn Kelly (don't like her either, BTW). What's he going to do? Turn the leftwing MSM against him? There's something new.:rolleyes:

He should be lighting Matthews up all over the media like he did Kelly. He seems to not know who his enemy is. He thinks it's Cruz and/or Kasich. No. It's the MSM and the Dems. I've wanted to punch Matthews in his big old piehole for years. He's a piece of garbage and Trump should never have let him interview him.

[PixieStix]

Trying my butt. He DID trap him. The fact is the question was prefaced with "If abortion was illegal ...." We don't punish people for violating the law? I don't get that. I don't to pick and choose which laws I wish to obey. Why should anyone else?

Abortion is a scare tactic hotbed topic the Dems have used for decades. I wouldn't have responded to the question, myself.

:clap:

[jimnyc]

Chris Matthews is the male version Rachel Maddow. You heard about cloning? They probably used the same DNA to do it. He's a leftwingnut moron and any and everything he says has a left-biased slant. He set Trump up and Trump took the bait.

ANYONE on the right that is interviewed by someone on the left, and/or accused by Demdong needs to get a clue .... DON'T ANSWER. Don't bite on THEIR inflammatory topics. Now we all know ME, I'd go on the attack. Trump was trying to play nice. This is once I'd have to hive have given Matthews the same treatment he gave Megyn Kelly (don't like her either, BTW). What's he going to do? Turn the leftwing MSM against him? There's something new.:rolleyes:

He should be lighting Matthews up all over the media like he did Kelly. He seems to not know who his enemy is. He thinks it's Cruz and/or Kasich. No. It's the MSM and the Dems. I've wanted to punch Matthews in his big old piehole for years. He's a piece of garbage and Trump should never have let him interview him.

Uggghh, Maddow was another one I was only able to stomach for a few soundbytes and never wanted to listen to ever again. Same as the chair or whatever the hell she is of the DNC, Debbie Wasserman Schhultz.

Truth is - you can go to Fox and see the various news folks and pundits, taking turns beating up on ALL of the candidates from the beginning. I know they lean right, but at least they make an attempt to be fair.

[Gunny]

Uggghh, Maddow was another one I was only able to stomach for a few soundbytes and never wanted to listen to ever again. Same as the chair or whatever the hell she is of the DNC, Debbie Wasserman Schhultz.

Truth is - you can go to Fox and see the various news folks and pundits, taking turns beating up on ALL of the candidates from the beginning. I know they lean right, but at least they make an attempt to be fair.

I have listened to about 10 seconds once or twice of each. Wasserman-Schultz needs a lobotomy.

Rule of thumb: know your enemy and beat him where he lives. From Tsun Tzu, The Art of War.