[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
politics and politicians Title: Donald Trump: Actually, Now That I Think About It, Let's Leave the Abortion Laws As They Are [CBS] I'm changing, I'm changing. I'm softening that position. However, he then added that abortion is murder. "I would've preferred states' rights," he added. "I think it would've been better if it were up to the states. But right now, the laws are set....At this moment, the laws are set. And I think we have to leave it that way." "Do you think abortion is murder?" Dickerson asked. "I have my opinions on it, but I'd rather not comment on it," Trump replied. "You said you were very pro-life," Dickerson followed up. "Pro-life means that...abortion is murder." "I mean, I do have my opinions on it. I just don't think it's an appropriate forum," said Trump. "But you don't disagree with that proposition, that it's murder?" Dickerson asked. "No, I don't disagree with it," Trump eventually replied. Okay. As long as you're giving the proper amount of thought to these issues. There was once a very intelligent man who said, "The moment Trump gets into trouble, he's going to start pandering like crazy to liberals, because he just doesn't know any better." Here we see Trump finally realizing the damage he caused to himself with Michelle Fields and Heidi Cruz, plus his own goal on abortion, so his response, to get back those women he cherishes so much, is to say "Hey, let's leave the abortion laws as they are. But privately, I think abortion is murder. FYI." I seriously can't think of a worse political position: On one hand, he's telling the pro-life people I'm not changing any abortion laws. Fine, okay, most presidents won't try, but few are as upfront in telling a key part of the conservative movement they're getting the goose-egg. Simultaneously, on the other hand, he pisses off the pro-choice people, by telling them that, while he won't be changing the abortion laws, that abortion is murder. It's lose-lose. With a bonus lose for it being dreadfully obvious that he simply hasn't given the issue a lick of thought and is now just basically button-mashing (as Allah puts it) in hopes that some combination of inputs gets him past the boss on this level. Posted by Ace at 07:27 PM Comments Poster Comment: The carnival barker executes another double-backflip on abortion. It takes real courage to confuse yourself with all these "hypotheticals" four times in less than four days. But it's only murder. Well, unless it isn't. Who really knows anyway? You keep thinking the rats will realize they're following the Pied Piper but ... Let the Trumpsplaining commence! Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Comments (1-154) not displayed.
#155. To: misterwhite (#149) (Edited) So allowing each farmer to produce wheat in excess of their quota would have had no effect on the interstate commerce of wheat? Straw man. Each farmer producing wheat in excess of their quota would have not been in and of itself interstate commerce. A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. #156. To: ConservingFreedom (#154) it may still, whatever its nature, be reached by Congress if it exerts a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce You're running out of feet to shoot.
#157. To: ConservingFreedom (#155) Each farmer to produce wheat in excess of their quota would have not been in and of itself interstate commerce. You've never read the case, have you?
#158. To: misterwhite (#152) Beat me by 22 seconds. Yay me! They hate the Constitution and want to insert sub silentio restrictions in it.
#159. To: ConservingFreedom (#155) "Each farmer to produce wheat in excess of their quota would have not been in and of itself interstate commerce." Didn't say that. The ruling was that it would have an effect on interstate commerce. Producing their own means they don't purchase wheat interstate.
#160. To: Roscoe (#156) You'll never run out of idiocies to spew. I never disagreed that Wickard so ruled. A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. #161. To: ConservingFreedom (#160) What do you imagine that the Court ruled, given that you've never read the decision?
#162. To: misterwhite (#159) The ruling was that it would have an effect on interstate commerce. And - more significantly, and incorrectly - that this fact made their production properly subject to federal regulation. A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. #163. To: Roscoe (#158) "They hate the Constitution and want to insert sub silentio restrictions in it." Yeah. They do that sub silentio stuff with anechoic tiles.
#164. To: misterwhite (#163) Okay, I had to look up anechoic tiles. [grumble]
#165. To: Roscoe (#157) You've never read the case, have you? Opposite - I've read it closely enough to note its acknowledgment of previous narrower restrictions. A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. #166. To: ConservingFreedom (#162) And - more significantly, and incorrectly - that this fact made their production properly subject to federal regulation. Incorrectly? Sorry. There was Supreme Court precedent for intrastate regulations. We just discussed the Shreveport Rate Cases.
#167. To: Roscoe (#164) "Okay, I had to look up anechoic tiles. [grumble]" The "sub silentio" didn't give you enough? Thought it would. Sorry.
#168. To: ConservingFreedom (#165) (Edited) I've read it closely enough In other words, you haven't read it. I thought so. Roscoe filed suit because he wanted a federal marketing card guaranteeing limited liability for liens on the wheat sold to his buyers. The federal government told him if he wanted to join the subsidy program for protection against the prevailing "ruinously low prices resulting from excess supply" he would have to abide by the rules. No tickee, no washee.
#169. To: ConservingFreedom (#165) "Opposite - I've read it closely enough to note its acknowledgment of previous narrower restrictions." So if the next interstate case involves cabbages, Wickard v Filburn wouldn't apply?
#170. To: misterwhite (#166) We just discussed the Shreveport Rate Cases. Add I showed in posts 137, 140, and 143 that the Shreveport ruling was less broad than the Wickard ruling pretended. A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. #171. To: Roscoe (#168) Roscoe filed suit because he wanted a federal marketing card guaranteeing limited liability for liens on the wheat sold to his buyers. The federal government told him if he wanted to join the subsidy program for protection against the prevailing "ruinously low prices resulting from excess supply" he would have to abide by the rules. In the course of so ruling the Court made statements that it worded broadly and that many subsequent rulings have interpreted broadly - notably, "even if appellee's activity be local and though it may not be regarded as commerce, it may still, whatever its nature, be reached by Congress if it exerts a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce and this irrespective of whether such effect is what might at some earlier time have been defined as 'direct' or 'indirect.'" A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. #172. To: ConservingFreedom (#170) 1. The Shreveport Rate Cases ruling asserts the authority of Congress only with specific reference to shipping rates So Wickard was broader and more restrictive, limiting a wider range of Congressional controls. By your "reasoning."
#173. To: ConservingFreedom (#171) The appellee was suing to join the regulatory program. Surprise!
#174. To: misterwhite (#169)
Since that's a howling non sequitur as it stands, I'll try to move the conversation forward by guessing what you're really asking - feel free to clarify your meaning. Was the Wickard ruling broad? Yes, it was - much broader than the Shreveport ruling on which it pretended to (at least in part) be based. A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. #175. To: Roscoe (#172) So Wickard was broader and more restrictive, limiting a wider range of Congressional controls. By your "reasoning." No, that in no way follows from anything I've posted - but thanks for the fascinating albeit disturbing insight into what passes for "reasoning" in your fevered mind. A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. #176. To: Roscoe (#173) The appellee was suing to join the regulatory program. Bully for him - what would you have us conclude from that? A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. #177. To: misterwhite (#169) So does he prefer Wickard or the Shreveport Rate Cases? It's hard to tell with all his wild thrashing about.
#178. To: ConservingFreedom (#171) I am surprised that you are trying to piss up a rope. The guy is an incoherent ass. потому что Бог хочет это тот путь #179. To: ConservingFreedom (#176) Bully for him Enter an agreement, abide by its rules.
#180. To: SOSO (#178) And here comes the ankle biter.
#181. To: Roscoe (#177) So does he prefer Wickard or the Shreveport Rate Cases? It's hard to tell with all his wild thrashing about. If you want to know what I think, ask me, coward. Wickard was an appalling farce - Shreveport much more defensible. And I'm confident that you and maybe misswhite are the only ones willing to pretend I haven't already made that view crystal clear. A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. #182. To: SOSO (#178) I am surprised that you are trying to piss up a rope. The guy is an incoherent ass. I'm only in a formal sense addressing him - my real audience is anyone who might mistake his posts as in any way valid. A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. #183. To: ConservingFreedom (#181) Shreveport much more defensible. Even though it restricted a very narrow range of Congressional authority, at least according to you. So by your "reasoning," virtually all Congressional regulation of commerce should go unrestricted. Logic ain't your long suit.
#184. To: ConservingFreedom (#182) my real audience Is the imaginary cheering throngs in your head.
#185. To: Roscoe (#183) Even though it restricted a very narrow range of Congressional authority, at least according to you. So by your "reasoning," virtually all Congressional regulation of commerce should go unrestricted. Not at all - for the Court to say that Congressional regulation of intrastate shipping rates is subject to certain limitations is not per se for it to say anything at all about other Congressional regulation. Wickard, by contrast, loosened limitations on Congressional authority and did so with broad language. A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. #186. To: ConservingFreedom (#185) for the Court to say that Congressional regulation of intrastate shipping rates is subject to certain limitations is not per se for it to say anything at all about other Congressional regulation. IOW, no restrictions. I almost feel sorry for ya.
#187. To: ConservingFreedom (#182) I am surprised that you are trying to piss up a rope. The guy is an incoherent ass. I can't imagine that anyone is interested in what the asshole has to say, even if on the surface he agrees with them for the moment. He reinforces the notion that there is no limit to the number and type of strawmen a moron can conjure. He is a master weasel. He is the poster boy for the Dunning Kruger effect. потому что Бог хочет это тот путь #188. To: SOSO (#187) Dunning Kruger Dunning-Kruger
#189. To: Roscoe (#186) for the Court to say that Congressional regulation of intrastate shipping rates is subject to certain limitations is not per se for it to say anything at all about other Congressional regulation. No, silence does not imply no restrictions. Who here do you think is stupid enough to be fooled by your hamhanded nonsense? A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. #190. To: ConservingFreedom (#189) No, silence does not imply no restrictions. Yes, silence imposes no restrictions.
#191. To: Roscoe (#190) (Edited) The silence of the Court does not muzzle the Constitution, which does impose restrictions. A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. #192. To: ConservingFreedom (#191) The silence of the Court does not muzzle the Constitution. Zero signal to noise ratio.
#193. To: ConservingFreedom (#191) "which does impose restrictions." [Edit addition] Quote.
#194. To: Roscoe (#190) "Yes, silence imposes no restrictions." Correct. The natural state of commerce is free and open. Any regulation of that commerce is a restriction.
#195. To: Roscoe (#193) "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. . . . Comments (196 - 253) not displayed. Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest |
||||
|
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|