Trump Says Abortion Ban Should Carry Punishment for Women

[Arganis]

This is what happens when you can't control your pandering anymore.

Trump is not pro-choice any longer.

Trump is pro-whatever he think gets him the nomination.

[Narwal]

This is what happens when you can't control your pandering anymore.



Trump is pro-whatever he think gets him the nomination.

Just like Hillary, he's evolving as he finds himself.. Wait I mean he's ALWAYS BEEN FOR GAY MARRIAGE. Wait, which changing positions politician were we talking about again?

[Felya]

Trump is pro-whatever he think gets him the nomination.

Which is why when there was a backlash to this, the reply is the usual blaming of media. Because after all, Trump speaks it like it is... at least the next day after checking the reaction...

[LilSaihah]

So uh.

I just read the first line and I assume it's a decent summary.

Man thinks laws should be enforced, liberals lose their minds?

[GennGreymane]

That says alot about her if she finds punishment for a crime "horrifying and telling"......then again she could be worried that Trump would seek to punish her for her wrong doings.....

The emails were leaked via wikileaks... im waiting for these emails.

[Felya]

Just like Hillary, he's evolving as he finds himself.. Wait I mean he's ALWAYS BEEN FOR GAY MARRIAGE. Wait, which changing positions politician were we talking about again?

If Trump is the same as Hillary, why create excuses for Trump, while claiming he is always pro-choice? Shouldn't you be using Trump as a pinical of political theater like Hillary is? Instead of using Hillary's bullshit to excuse Trump? Last I checked, unlike Trump, Hillary has not threatened to sue her rivals for showing her past nor suggest to change liable laws targeting the press.

[Narwal]

So uh.

I just read the first line and I assume it's a decent summary.

Man thinks laws should be enforced, liberals lose their minds?

You saw Endus post earlier, no? Laws were not meant to be followed to a T, each person upholding the law should use their own personal convictions to decide if the law applies and how to apply it. Apply the law to people and causes you don't like, ignore it for people or causes you like.

I believe Endus is wrong here, the courts exist for a reason. The enforcers of the law, the front line, are not there to make judgement calls. That is what a judge is for. And when it comes to laws being poorly written, and it's intent in question, again, the courts are there to work that out.

[Felya]

So uh.

I just read the first line and I assume it's a decent summary.

Man thinks laws should be enforced, liberals lose their minds?

Those laws usually target the doctor, because there is a hard to determine line between an abortion and a miscarriage. How do you determine if a miscarriage is just a miscarriage and not negligence intended to cause an abortion? Shouldn't it be 'conservative' minds exploding for their candidate proposing larger government?

[Draco-Onis]

I really hate to defend Trump trust me I do but I don't see the reason for this to be a big deal, he is no more extreme than any of the other republican candidates. All of them are against abortion some even in cases of rape and incest. Trump just says what republican politicians say to each other when they think no one is listening, all this feign outrage from his party is laughable.

[Narwal]

If Trump is the same as Hillary, why create excuses for Trump, while claiming he is always pro-choice? Shouldn't you be using Trump as a pinical of political theater like Hillary is? Instead of using Hillary's bullshit to excuse Trump? Last I checked, unlike Trump, Hillary has not threatened to sue her rivals for showing her past nor suggest to change liable laws targeting the press.

I'm not excusing his change in position on this. My only defense of him is around the level of scrutiny by the media over a hypothetical answer given that follows the basic rule of law, and they're intentional misleading context of his answer. If changing positions is such a crucial point to a candidate, they could highlight that on Hillary as well.

[Arganis]

So uh.

I just read the first line and I assume it's a decent summary.

Man thinks laws should be enforced, liberals lose their minds?

Liberals are losing their mind because saying stuff like that is akin to political suicide. When you already have a bad rap with woman the last thing you want to say is you think woman should be punished if they have an abortion, even if it is a hypothetical. The question was obvious bait and any smart politician would have side stepped it. This was really stupid and he did it because he thought it would sit well with the bloodthirsty Republican voter base, which it still might, but it's definitely poison to everyone else.

[Matchles]

Whoops. Looks like Trump didn't get the anti-choice memo. You can't take the enforcement of an abortion ban to its logical conclusion and suggest we punish women. Gotta keep the issue palatable to the general population.

[Narwal]

Those laws usually target the doctor, because there is a hard to determine line between an abortion and a miscarriage. How do you determine if a miscarriage is just a miscarriage and not negligence intended to cause an abortion? Shouldn't it be 'conservative' minds exploding for their candidate proposing larger government?

You're misleading already. The question was "if abortion was illegal, and a woman had an abortion... should there be a punishment". The hypothetical situation clearly states it is known she has an abortion when it's illegal. You changed the hypothetical question, which could change his answer.

[Deleted]

Here, Trump's statements cannot be taken in any way other than an agreement that women who want abortions should be punished. If he didn't agree with that, then he would have taken issue with the question (Option A, above), and/or expressed his own contrary opinion (Option B).

Sure... and then people would blame him for dodging the goddamn question. Even then Matthews didn't really let him dodge it anyways.

You get a question, you answer it! I hate it when people try to interpret some wierdass meaning into such things, like you did. Nowhere did he say that abortions should be punished, except in a hypothetical scenario where they're illegal.

[LilSaihah]

You saw Endus post earlier, no? Laws were not meant to be followed to a T, each person upholding the law should use their own personal convictions to decide if the law applies and how to apply it. Apply the law to people and causes you don't like, ignore it for people or causes you like.

I believe Endus is wrong here, the courts exist for a reason. The enforcers of the law, the front line, are not there to make judgement calls. That is what a judge is for. And when it comes to laws being poorly written, and it's intent in question, again, the courts are there to work that out.

Sorry; is your first line here paraphrasing Endus's position, or your position? If it's your position, you're contradicting yourself.

Those laws usually target the doctor, because there is a hard to determine line between an abortion and a miscarriage. How do you determine if a miscarriage is just a miscarriage and not negligence intended to cause an abortion? Shouldn't it be 'conservative' minds exploding for their candidate proposing larger government?

Whether a crime is difficult to solve or not doesn't really have any bearing on whether its perpetrators should be punished. The feasibility of the law is for the lawmakers to decide, not enforcement.

Liberals are losing their mind because saying stuff like that is akin to political suicide. When you already have a bad rap with woman the last thing you want to say is you think woman should be punished if they have an abortion, even if it is a hypothetical. The question was obvious bait and any smart politician would have side stepped it. This was really stupid and he did it because he thought it would sit well with the bloodthirsty Republican voter base, which it still might, but it's definitely poison to everyone else.

I am not sure whether it was the best move he could've made, strategically. I think the alternatives are;

He says no, they shouldn't be punished. DONALD TRUMP SOFT ON CRIME
He dodges the question. DONALD TRUMP DODGES QUESTION, POSSIBLY SOFT ON CRIME

I don't know. His answer does seem like it's dodging some of those bullets that could actually sour his supporters; being soft on crime would, I think, completely undermine his anti-immigration/deportation/WALL platform. I can't say with absolute certainty that it was the best option but it seems like the best of a bad job to me.

[Narwal]

Liberals are losing their mind because saying stuff like that is akin to political suicide. When you already have a bad rap with woman the last thing you want to say is you think woman should be punished if they have an abortion, even if it is a hypothetical. The question was obvious bait and any smart politician would have side stepped it. This was really stupid and he did it because he thought it would sit well with the bloodthirsty Republican voter base, which it still might, but it's definitely poison to everyone else.

The ones opposed to the procedure of dismembering and vacuuming out the bloodied body parts of a fetus are the bloodthirsty on this issue. If you're trying to use a descriptor that states they follow their position on this issue with passion, I'd choose another word... and I'd consider the fact that pro-choice use just as much passion.

- - - Updated - - -

Sorry; is your first line here paraphrasing Endus's position, or your position? If it's your position, you're contradicting yourself.

It is that of Endus. That law enforcement should use discretion when applying the law.

[Laerrus]

The more I hear John Kasich speak the more I like him.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KQ8rEWKGfMs

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/video/john...ments-38049621

[Endus]

It is that of Endus. That law enforcement should use discretion when applying the law.

Ever been pulled over, and let off with a warning rather than a ticket? That's officer discretion. Prosecutors deciding they don't have enough evidence to pursue a case? Discretion.

If you could enforce the law without discretion, we could let robots do it automatically.

[Arganis]

Sure... and then people would blame him for dodging the goddamn question. Even then Matthews didn't really let him dodge it anyways.

You get a question, you answer it! I hate it when people try to interpret some wierdass meaning into such things, like you did. Nowhere did he say that abortions should be punished, except in a hypothetical scenario where they're illegal.

You obviously know nothing about politics. Knowing when to answer and how to answer is what being a politician is all about. This is bad politics, plain and simple and Trump has given plenty of empty answers before, in fact most of his campaign is posturing without much, if any substance. He should have known better than to take the bait but he thought Republicans would love it. Maybe the voters do but the party hates it because it makes them look bad. Trump needs to remember there's a general election after the primary and saying stuff like this is kryptonite.

Sorry; is your first line here paraphrasing Endus's position, or your position? If it's your position, you're contradicting yourself.



Whether a crime is difficult to solve or not doesn't really have any bearing on whether its perpetrators should be punished. The feasibility of the law is for the lawmakers to decide, not enforcement.



I am not sure whether it was the best move he could've made, strategically. I think the alternatives are;

He says no, they shouldn't be punished. DONALD TRUMP SOFT ON CRIME
He dodges the question. DONALD TRUMP DODGES QUESTION, POSSIBLY SOFT ON CRIME

Nobody is outraged at a politician giving a bullshit answer, they do it all day. Picking his nose and eating it on national tv would have been a better choice than what he did.

The more I hear John Kasich speak the more I like him.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KQ8rEWKGfMs

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/video/john...ments-38049621

That man is a disgusting opportunist who thinks he might weasel his way to the nomination somehow.

Anybody who thinks he means anything he says is the definition of gullible and should fallow his "acts" in places like Ohio.

[derpkitteh]

If I thought marijuana should be legalised, and I were a cop, I wouldn't be busting anyone I suspect might be carrying. I'd use my discretion, and only try and enforce that law when my hand was forced.

This happens constantly. It's a major component to law enforcement. Blindly going by the letter of the law is a disavowal of your responsibilities and duties.

not busting someone because of your personal beliefs, is a dereliction of duty and you should be fired and maybe even fined for it.

i'm strongly pro-legalization for marijuana, but if i were a cop i would uphold the law like i swore to do when i became one.