Total Posts:12|Showing Posts:1-12
Jump to topic:

Drumpf is now pro-choice again

TN05
Posts: 4,492
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2016 1:36:45 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
In an interview, he now says federal laws on abortion should remain unchanged. Currently, only partial-birth abortion is illegal federally, and taxpayers fund abortion providers like Planned Parenthood as well as elective abortions through some federal government programs. Additionally, under the Mexico City Policy, NGOs are allowed to perform and promote abortion as birth control in other countries.
vortex86
Posts: 571
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2016 1:51:27 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/2/2016 1:36:45 PM, TN05 wrote:
In an interview, he now says federal laws on abortion should remain unchanged. Currently, only partial-birth abortion is illegal federally, and taxpayers fund abortion providers like Planned Parenthood as well as elective abortions through some federal government programs. Additionally, under the Mexico City Policy, NGOs are allowed to perform and promote abortion as birth control in other countries.

He personally doesn't believe in abortion (unchanged), but believes that the federal law is set as do the Supreme Court Justices that are conservative. It's a non-issue, and his stance on it is irrelevant. Prompted for a hypothetical in which the law is changed (which he and I believe won't be overturned) he made a comment to that regard albeit unwillingly as he said it's a complex issue.

I think we can get a few more of these threads to show how people that aren't going to vote for Trump care about non-issues.

=)
TN05
Posts: 4,492
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2016 2:11:21 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/2/2016 1:51:27 PM, vortex86 wrote:
At 4/2/2016 1:36:45 PM, TN05 wrote:
In an interview, he now says federal laws on abortion should remain unchanged. Currently, only partial-birth abortion is illegal federally, and taxpayers fund abortion providers like Planned Parenthood as well as elective abortions through some federal government programs. Additionally, under the Mexico City Policy, NGOs are allowed to perform and promote abortion as birth control in other countries.

He personally doesn't believe in abortion (unchanged), but believes that the federal law is set as do the Supreme Court Justices that are conservative.

False. Roe v. Wade held third-trimester bans constitutional, and Planned Parenthood v Casey extended that to week 24 or slightly earlier. Trump's position is a cop-out pro-choice position.

It's a non-issue, and his stance on it is irrelevant.

Lol. It's not an issue to Trumpons, but it is an issue to normal people.

Prompted for a hypothetical in which the law is changed (which he and I believe won't be overturned) he made a comment to that regard albeit unwillingly as he said it's a complex issue.

He flip flopped from a pro-life stance so radical pro-lifers reject it to his 1999 pro-choice stance in 24 hours. I think he needs to be checked. I'm seriously concerned he might be suffering from dementia.

I think we can get a few more of these threads to show how people that aren't going to vote for Drumpf care about non-issues.

=)

Trumpons like yourself are already devoted cultists. The only thing that will change your mind is when the cult leader dies - which will happen to his campaign. Then you'll go back to your previous stance of either not voting or supporting the Democrat.
vortex86
Posts: 571
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2016 2:29:46 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/2/2016 2:11:21 PM, TN05 wrote:
At 4/2/2016 1:51:27 PM, vortex86 wrote:
At 4/2/2016 1:36:45 PM, TN05 wrote:
In an interview, he now says federal laws on abortion should remain unchanged. Currently, only partial-birth abortion is illegal federally, and taxpayers fund abortion providers like Planned Parenthood as well as elective abortions through some federal government programs. Additionally, under the Mexico City Policy, NGOs are allowed to perform and promote abortion as birth control in other countries.

He personally doesn't believe in abortion (unchanged), but believes that the federal law is set as do the Supreme Court Justices that are conservative.

False. Roe v. Wade held third-trimester bans constitutional, and Planned Parenthood v Casey extended that to week 24 or slightly earlier. Trump's position is a cop-out pro-choice position.


Correct? Roe vs wade determined legal viability and PP vs Casey continued this viability discussion. The consensus is that viability is the legal standard. With technology that standard continues to decrease, and that is the only grounds that have changed in regards to this. The hypothetical posed to Trump involved strictly Roe vs Wade. I pointed out the justices stances on Roe vs Wade and it seems to be a reasonable one that there is no overturning of it as it's settled law.

It's a non-issue, and his stance on it is irrelevant.

Lol. It's not an issue to Trumpons, but it is an issue to normal people.

Prompted for a hypothetical in which the law is changed (which he and I believe won't be overturned) he made a comment to that regard albeit unwillingly as he said it's a complex issue.

He flip flopped from a pro-life stance so radical pro-lifers reject it to his 1999 pro-choice stance in 24 hours. I think he needs to be checked. I'm seriously concerned he might be suffering from dementia.

I think we can get a few more of these threads to show how people that aren't going to vote for Drumpf care about non-issues.

=)

Trumpons like yourself are already devoted cultists. The only thing that will change your mind is when the cult leader dies - which will happen to his campaign. Then you'll go back to your previous stance of either not voting or supporting the Democrat.

The use of ad hominem attacks and the immaturity of calling me and others that support Trump Trumpons shows your shortcomings not mine. I created a thread to discuss his policy positions and your candidate's policies that may or may not be better. No one has risen to the challenge.
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2016 2:49:08 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/2/2016 1:51:27 PM, vortex86 wrote:
At 4/2/2016 1:36:45 PM, TN05 wrote:
In an interview, he now says federal laws on abortion should remain unchanged. Currently, only partial-birth abortion is illegal federally, and taxpayers fund abortion providers like Planned Parenthood as well as elective abortions through some federal government programs. Additionally, under the Mexico City Policy, NGOs are allowed to perform and promote abortion as birth control in other countries.

He personally doesn't believe in abortion (unchanged), but believes that the federal law is set as do the Supreme Court Justices that are conservative. It's a non-issue, and his stance on it is irrelevant. Prompted for a hypothetical in which the law is changed (which he and I believe won't be overturned) he made a comment to that regard albeit unwillingly as he said it's a complex issue.

I think we can get a few more of these threads to show how people that aren't going to vote for Trump care about non-issues.

=)

vortex86,

Do you care about Clintons emails? Bengazzizzziizzi!!!!? Did you question Obama's religion?
TN05
Posts: 4,492
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2016 2:50:15 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/2/2016 2:29:46 PM, vortex86 wrote:
At 4/2/2016 2:11:21 PM, TN05 wrote:
At 4/2/2016 1:51:27 PM, vortex86 wrote:
At 4/2/2016 1:36:45 PM, TN05 wrote:
In an interview, he now says federal laws on abortion should remain unchanged. Currently, only partial-birth abortion is illegal federally, and taxpayers fund abortion providers like Planned Parenthood as well as elective abortions through some federal government programs. Additionally, under the Mexico City Policy, NGOs are allowed to perform and promote abortion as birth control in other countries.

He personally doesn't believe in abortion (unchanged), but believes that the federal law is set as do the Supreme Court Justices that are conservative.

False. Roe v. Wade held third-trimester bans constitutional, and Planned Parenthood v Casey extended that to week 24 or slightly earlier. Drumpf's position is a cop-out pro-choice position.


Correct? Roe vs wade determined legal viability and PP vs Casey continued this viability discussion. The consensus is that viability is the legal standard. With technology that standard continues to decrease, and that is the only grounds that have changed in regards to this. The hypothetical posed to Drumpf involved strictly Roe vs Wade. I pointed out the justices stances on Roe vs Wade and it seems to be a reasonable one that there is no overturning of it as it's settled law.

Viability is the standard and Trump opposes laws that would prohibit abortion to that point.

It's a non-issue, and his stance on it is irrelevant.

Lol. It's not an issue to Trumpons, but it is an issue to normal people.

Prompted for a hypothetical in which the law is changed (which he and I believe won't be overturned) he made a comment to that regard albeit unwillingly as he said it's a complex issue.

He flip flopped from a pro-life stance so radical pro-lifers reject it to his 1999 pro-choice stance in 24 hours. I think he needs to be checked. I'm seriously concerned he might be suffering from dementia.

I think we can get a few more of these threads to show how people that aren't going to vote for Drumpf care about non-issues.

=)

Trumpons like yourself are already devoted cultists. The only thing that will change your mind is when the cult leader dies - which will happen to his campaign. Then you'll go back to your previous stance of either not voting or supporting the Democrat.

The use of ad hominem attacks and the immaturity of calling me and others that support Drumpf Trumpons shows your shortcomings not mine. I created a thread to discuss his policy positions and your candidate's policies that may or may not be better. No one has risen to the challenge.

I'll stop using them when Drumpf does. :)
thett3
Posts: 14,349
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2016 3:23:09 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
I don't see the controversy. Why wouldn't he want to leave the laws unchanged after the party fixed them? Our last Republican president had congressional majorities for most of his term and most SCOTUS judges were appointed by Republicans. Surely they took care of the issue during that time?
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2016 3:25:50 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/2/2016 1:51:27 PM, vortex86 wrote:
At 4/2/2016 1:36:45 PM, TN05 wrote:
In an interview, he now says federal laws on abortion should remain unchanged. Currently, only partial-birth abortion is illegal federally, and taxpayers fund abortion providers like Planned Parenthood as well as elective abortions through some federal government programs. Additionally, under the Mexico City Policy, NGOs are allowed to perform and promote abortion as birth control in other countries.

He personally doesn't believe in abortion (unchanged), but believes that the federal law is set as do the Supreme Court Justices that are conservative. It's a non-issue, and his stance on it is irrelevant. Prompted for a hypothetical in which the law is changed (which he and I believe won't be overturned) he made a comment to that regard albeit unwillingly as he said it's a complex issue.

I think we can get a few more of these threads to show how people that aren't going to vote for Trump care about non-issues.

He's the leading candidate for the republican nomination for President of the United States. His complete lack of understanding of his own political positions is not a non-issue.
TN05
Posts: 4,492
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2016 3:30:31 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/2/2016 3:23:09 PM, thett3 wrote:
I don't see the controversy. Why wouldn't he want to leave the laws unchanged after the party fixed them?

The partial-birth abortion law was a great step forward. Like all liberal Democrats at the tine, Drumpf opposed it, but it passed overwhelmingly. It took until 2006 for SCOTUS to uphold it. Of course, by that time Dems had the Senate back. At the state level the GOP did even better.

Our last Republican president had congressional majorities for most of his term and most SCOTUS judges were appointed by Republicans. Surely they took care of the issue during that time?

He replaced Rehnquest (pro-life) and O'Connor (pro-choice) with two solid pro-life justices. Unfortunately, SCOTUS was 6-3 in favor of abortion before that, so it was still a minority. Bush had Senate majorities from 2002 to 2006 and passed the only federal pro life bill ever.
thett3
Posts: 14,349
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2016 3:37:30 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/2/2016 3:30:31 PM, TN05 wrote:

He replaced Rehnquest (pro-life) and O'Connor (pro-choice) with two solid pro-life justices. Unfortunately, SCOTUS was 6-3 in favor of abortion before that, so it was still a minority. Bush had Senate majorities from 2002 to 2006 and passed the only federal pro life bill ever.

Weird how both of those justices were appointed by Republicans. We need to keep voting Republican so that we can be rewarded with such conservative stalwarts as O'Connor, Souter, and Kennedy.

Not to mention John Roberts. It's almost as if Republicans are more interested in having issues to rile up their base with than they are with actually winning...

Hey TN05 do you ever wonder why your entire political life is nothing except one disappointing loss after another? Could it be that the emperor has no clothes? Or are you still banking on that congressional majority to actually do something....you know, besides passing Obama's $1.1 trillion omnibus
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
TN05
Posts: 4,492
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2016 3:54:06 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/2/2016 3:37:30 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 4/2/2016 3:30:31 PM, TN05 wrote:

He replaced Rehnquest (pro-life) and O'Connor (pro-choice) with two solid pro-life justices. Unfortunately, SCOTUS was 6-3 in favor of abortion before that, so it was still a minority. Bush had Senate majorities from 2002 to 2006 and passed the only federal pro life bill ever.

Weird how both of those justices were appointed by Republicans. We need to keep voting Republican so that we can be rewarded with such conservative stalwarts as O'Connor, Souter, and Kennedy.

Lol you're really desperate here. O'Connor wasn't a great pick, but fufilled a campaign pledge and was infinitely more conservative than Potter Stewart. Kennedy was only picked because Democrats had sabotaged two great conservative nominees (Robert Bork and Douglas Ginsburg). Souter was a strategic gamble in the wake of the Borking, but it failed spectacularly and there is a reason the 'stealth nomination' will ever happen again.

But of course President Drumpf will pick only the best judges, like his radical leftist sister.

Not to mention John Roberts.

Outside of Obamacare he's been pretty good. But the Obamacare thing is indefensible.

It's almost as if Republicans are more interested in having issues to rile up their base with than they are with actually winning...

You mean like how Republican nominees protected the first amendment (Citizens United) and second amendment (Heller) and overrode EPA violations? A more accurate statement would be GOP nominations have resulted in a moderately conservative court that tended to give more libertarian outcomes on social issues. I'd prefer, of course, a court of originalists. Trump wouldn't know what originalism is!

Hey TN05 do you ever wonder why your entire political life is nothing except one disappointing loss after another?

Not really, because that's not what it is. Of course, we're getting pretty close because of the Drumpf thing where he has alienated literally everyone (even the white working class) except a relatively small cult of Trumpons.

Could it be that the emperor has no clothes?

If by 'emperor' you mean 'Drumpf', then yes.

Or are you still banking on that congressional majority to actually do something....you know, besides passing Obama's $1.1 trillion omnibus

Ah, so we should have shut the government down. Because that always works!

The congressional majority is doing exactly what it should be - blocking Obama from appointing judges and preventing Democratic legislation from passing. Of course, given how Obama has abused his executive authority, there are a lot of things that the Congress can't touch... which is why we need a President. That's ultimately where you start to reverse the bleeding. Congressional majority stops the bleeding, a united government reverses it.