• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

President Trump - Meet the Press... "No I will not do any executive orders to limit abortion"

iamwhatiseem said:
Also - "I am not interested in it" (further action to stop abortions)
Of course not good enough for the liberal reporter - "will you guarantee you wont?" (after now saying he won't twice)
"I can't guarantee there will be a tomorrow, no one can guarantee anything. Will something change this, I don't think so... I am not interested in it - no"

Will this ease Democrats hysteria?



No

Click to expand...

Trump is a ****ing liar, why would anyone believe that fat ****?
 
Helix said:
Right. Just like his SCOTUS nominees won't overturn Roe v Wade.
Click to expand...

I for one am glad they did.

Courts are not supposed to MAKE Law, they are supposed to interpret it on a case-by-case basis.

No, it is up to the Legislative bodies to make law.

All SCOTUS did in the Dobbs case was to pass the issue back to where it should have been rightly determined, by State Legislative action.

So, if a majority of citizens in a State want some form of abortion law passed, then all they need due is work it through their own State Legislatures.

I simply don't see why people can't understand and accept this. Why is it such a problem to get the LAW a majority of a State's citizens want passed?

Is it because in some States a Majority prefer it NOT to be law?

Whatever happened to all this "save our Democracy" talk when an apparent Majority in some States prefer a different way?

Don't citizens still have choices? Like the choice to relocate to a State with laws more in keeping with their views?

Isn't that CHOICE?
 
Last edited:
Hari Seldon said:
He lies? You don't say. Lol 😆 😆 😆 😆 😆 😆
Click to expand...

  2. -Did Trump lie claiming he did not have sex with Stormy or was it when he said he did?
  3. -Or maybe when claiming no knowledge of $130,000 hush money or when he did know about the money.
  4. -Disgraced cadet bone spur reimbursed Mr. Cohen for the payment he was unaware of to the porn star he doesn't know for her silence about an affair that never happened!
  5. -Did he lie when he denied knowledge of Heritage Foundation's 2025 initiative or when calling them a "great group" that is "going to lay the groundwork and detail plans for exactly what our movement will do."
  6. -Did trump lie when he said he would take responsibility for the Dec-2018 shutdown (“take the mantle” ) or when he blamed the Democrats for the shutdown.
  7. -Did Trump lie when claimed to build a wall and Mexico was going to pay for it or when Trump asserted he never promised Mexico would directly pay for the border wall.
  8. -Did trump lie when he said “I know nothing about WikiLeaks,” or when he said “WikiLeaks, I love WikiLeaks,” he said at one such event.
    “This WikiLeaks is like a treasure trove,” he said at another.
  9. -Did trump lie when 'nobody told me about COVID' or when admitted was told on Jan 23 & again 28'th.
  10. -“I love reading those WikiLeaks,” he said at yet another event, relaying that he had been delayed in arriving because he had been reading the latest batch of emails that WikiLeaks had released.
  11. -Did he lie when he said he did not know Matthew G. Whitaker or when he said he did?
  12. -Did he lie when he was for gun control after Parkland/ El Passo or when he said he was against gun control.
  13. -Did trump lie when he said future attack by terrorist Soleimani was “planning an imminent attack (crime)”
    or when he said “for sometime or the other”
    or when he said “because of the bad things he did before”
    or when he said “he was about to attack an embassy”
    or when he said “four of them” ( embassies )
    or when he said “I speculate”
    or when he finally said “it doesn’t really matter”?
  14. -Did trump lie when he said wouldn't make cuts to Social Security, Medicare & Medicaid or when he said he would?
  15. Did trump lie when he said “We will cover preexisting conditions 100%” or when he said we will not?
  16. Did trump lie when he said COVID-19 was a left-wing hoax or when the COVID-19 a “deep state” plot to “bring down Trump
  17. Did trump lie when he claimed He Always Knew the Coronavirus Would Be a pandemic when he said it was not a pandemic.
  18. Did trump lie when he said COVID-19 was a Democratic hoax or a Chinese plot.
  19. Did trump lie when he said COVID will pass unnoticed or when he said will get worse before it gets better?
  20. Trump claimed that Hillary Clinton had destroyed some emails with acid — an assertion that is not only untrue but has also been debunked countless times over the past eight years. But it’s still lodged in his brain, somehow, and he is unable or unwilling to dislodge it.
  21. Did he lie when stating coronavirus was equivalent to the flu; or the situation was “totally under control”; or the the virus was “disappearing”.
  22. Did he lie when he would ban abortion or when he supported it?

alternet(.)org/2020/01/trump-finally-declares-it-doesnt-really-matter-after-administration-spends-days-claiming-soleimani-posed-imminent-threat-to-us/?utm_source=&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=3480





Trumpis demonstrably a pathological liar, we can't believe anything hesays.

Whew!
 
Oxnard said:
  2. -Did Trump lie claiming he did not have sex with Stormy or was it when he said he did?
  3. -Or maybe when claiming no knowledge of $130,000 hush money or when he did know about the money.
  4. -Disgraced cadet bone spur reimbursed...

Trumpis demonstrably a pathological liar, we can't believe anything hesays.

Whew!
Click to expand...

I was going to respond, as much of what was posted is incorrect and/or challengeable. But I realized from experience that would make little difference. It is a DEFLECTION from the issue raised in the OP thread starter.

Suffice it to say that anyone, even the OP can change their minds about policy objectives, goals, beliefs. That one can make statements based on their knowledge of, belief in, or being assured of something.

That does not equate to a "lie." Otherwise, many people in this very Forum who have asserted things in good faith which turned out on investigation to be untrue can be labeled "Liars."
 
Captain Adverse said:
I for one am glad they did.

Courts are not supposed to MAKE Law, they are supposed to interpret it on a case-by-case basis.

No, it is up to the Legislative bodies to make law.

All SCOTUS did in the Dobbs case was to pass the issue back to where it should have been rightly determined, by State Legislative action.

So, if a majority of citizens in a State want some form of abortion law passed, then all they need due is work it through their own State Legislatures.

I simply don't see why people can't understand and accept this. Why is it such a problem to get the LAW a majority of a State's citizens want passed?

Is it because in some States a Majority prefer it NOT to be law?

Whatever happened to all this "save our Democracy" talk when an apparent Majority in some States prefer a different way?

Don't citizens still have choices? Like the choice to relocate to a State with laws more in keeping with their views?

Isn't that CHOICE?
Click to expand...

should abortion be a states issue? i think that's the issue that people can disagree with. or are you saying every issue should be a states issue?
 
ncguy said:
should abortion be a states issue? i think that's the issue that people can disagree with. or are you saying every issue should be a states issue?
Click to expand...

Yes, it should be a State's issue. I don't care that people may disagree. What kind of world must one live in to always require agreement regardless of personal belief, goals, views, etc.?

The fact is that we are a Union of 50 States, along with a Commonwealth in Puerto Rico, a Federal District of Columbia, a Compact of Free Association (Palau, Marshall Islands, Fed. States of Micronesia), and other territories. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territories_of_the_United_States

I cannot respond to an open-ended question regarding "every issue" other than to reiterate that Federal issues are handled at the Federal level, State issues at the State level, and so on.

Currently (if I recall correctly), when it comes to abortion SCOTUS has indicated it is a State issue. That is where things stand.

I agree with the decision. Recall, as I've said before, any American citizen has the right to live in any State of choice. If Abortion is the #1 issue then move to a place where it is lauded. Hell, for example we know that in Minnesota, the law allows abortion almost without limit.
 
Last edited:
iamwhatiseem said:
Also - "I am not interested in it" (further action to stop abortions)
Of course not good enough for the liberal reporter - "will you guarantee you wont?" (after now saying he won't twice)
"I can't guarantee there will be a tomorrow, no one can guarantee anything. Will something change this, I don't think so... I am not interested in it - no"

Will this ease Democrats hysteria?



No

Click to expand...

Lol, I had to laugh at the part about how saying it twice wasn't good enough for her. She's comically annoying in her relentless repetition of questions about some sort of guarantee signed in blood - often taken all the way to the "yawn" point.

I haven't watched the interview yet, but I recorded it and will watch it today.

The Dems had little choice but to dramatically lie about Trump and abortion because abortion and Trump supposedly wanting to be a dictator who would certainly destroy democracy - were all they ended up with as campaign narratives. Bidenomics didn't work so they ditched that one. The supposedly improved/fixed border certainly didn't work. Biden has always been feckless with foreign policy, so there was no hope of him running on that. So, abortion was it.

Yet, they just couldn't get Trump on that one because Trump had made it very clear he didn't want a thing to do with the topic and thought it residing in the states was exactly where it belongs. The lie that it would become some federal policy he was motivated pursue, was never believable. As is quoted, Trump was simply "not interested" in elevating it to the federal level.
 
ElChupacabra said:
It's what happens when you take a position at one point, take credit for ending a long standing legal precedent, then do all sorts of back pedaling when that position is no longer politically viable. People won't believe you, and want assurances to at least have you on the record. It's kind of like if Biden says he would never do something, I wouldn't believe him now because he did a major back pedal.
Click to expand...
Trump was clear with all his steps. He did want it back in the states. The back pedaling you are imagining - was simply a product of the Dems needing it to remain a front and center federal issue. That Trump wanted it to be a front and center federal issue was the lie and that one was on the Dems - because, again, they needed something/anything (Joe hadn't struggled or already failed with) to run on.

I saw this Dem problem way back in the spring and summer.

gbg3 said:
Just as I've been thinking and opining lately, abortion is disconnecting from Dem support. Lenient abortion measures in various states are popular and probably likely to pass, but that's not helping Biden. Also, as I've been thinking lately, Trump's views on abortion are problematic to the Dems trying so hard to keep the issue front and center.

Trump doesn't have strong views on the issue, prefers 15-week limits, but mostly feels the topic belongs in the states. And that really doesn't help the Dems keep the issue as a driving issue. About all they can do is gather signatures in states to pass measures and they are successfully doing both - getting the measures on ballots and getting them passed. But that's not helping their presidential candidate. Voters recognize they can have lenient abortion measures and have Trump as president. Literally no one thinks Trump has any desire to want to or try to pass some restrictive national ban, because that's nowhere on Trump's list or on his mind. The abortion topic is losing its steam as state by state gets it sorted out.

Meanwhile, in state polling, Trump is far exceeding Biden on the most important issues!

www.cbsnews.com

CBS News poll: Abortion access finds wide support, but inflation and immigration concerns boost Trump in Arizona and Florida

Is the issue of abortion offsetting the drag on President Biden stemming from inflation nationally and immigration in a state like Arizona?
www.cbsnews.com www.cbsnews.com
Click to expand...

gbg3 said:
He is certainly shaping the abortion issue. He just doesn't agree with the strong anti-abortion segment of the GOP. He thinks the topic belongs out of the federal government and as a state-by-state issue.

It will make it harder for Dems to run on a "Trump wants to ban abortion nationwide" stance. He has no desire to work toward a nationwide abortion ban. It's nowhere on Trump's list or on his mind.
Click to expand...
 
Captain Adverse said:
He did what he promised and got the issue of Abortion left to each State.

If the citizens of any State want to add or reduce access to abortions, they have the ability to lobby their own State Legislatures, and/or vote for members of said Legislatures who support their views.
Click to expand...
That's exactly right.
 
Captain Adverse said:
Yes, it should be a State's issue. I don't care that people may disagree. What kind of world must one live in to always require agreement regardless of personal belief, goals, views, etc.?

The fact is that we are a Union of 50 States, along with a Commonwealth in Puerto Rico, a Federal District of Columbia, a Compact of Free Association (Palau, Marshall Islands, Fed. States of Micronesia), and other territories. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territories_of_the_United_States

I cannot respond to an open-ended question regarding "every issue" other than to reiterate that Federal issues are handled at the Federal level, State issues at the State level, and so on.

Currently (if I recall correctly), when it comes to abortion SCOTUS has indicated it is a State issue. That is where things stand.

I agree with the decision. Recall, as I've said before, any American citizen has the right to live in any State of choice. If Abortion is the #1 issue then move to a place where it is lauded. Hell, for example we know that in Minnesota, the law allows abortion almost without limit.
Click to expand...

so you dont have any objective criteria for what is a "states issue"? just if scotus said it is? so it wasn't a states issue until just now? lol

no one said everyone was required to agree.
 
gbg3 said:
Trump was clear with all his steps. He did want it back in the states. The back pedaling you are imagining - was simply a product of the Dems needing it to remain a front and center federal issue. That Trump wanted it to be a front and center federal issue was the lie and that one was on the Dems - because, again, they needed something/anything (Joe hadn't struggled or already failed with) to run on.

I saw this Dem problem way back in the spring and summer.
Click to expand...
There was no imagined backpedaling, there is the actual change in how he described it when he first campaigned on the issue and where he found himself when the GOP was receiving a lot of blowback after the ruling in the Dobbs v. JWHO case. Saying that he wanted it back to the states doesn't change the issues created by what he campaigned on in 2016, which at one point he took credit for until he didn't and went on the more muted "send it back to the states" spiel. The Democrats were going to make it an issue because it was one, since the access women had before was now a problem based on where they lived, unlike before.
 
ncguy said:
so you dont have any objective criteria for what is a "states issue"? just if scotus said it is? so it wasn't a states issue until just now? lol

no one said everyone was required to agree.
Click to expand...

Non sequitur. If you don't know what that means, look it up.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PoS
Captain Adverse said:
Non sequitur. If you don't know what that means, look it up.
Click to expand...
stupid post. i know what it means, but which items are states issues and which are not is the issue.

can someone supply me an objective criteria which can determine exactly and correctly which are which? anyone? lol

one set of scotus justices said it was a federal issue. another said it was a states issue. If they can't decide consistently, then anyone who says they can had better show why they are more intelligent on the issue than scotus judges are.
 
PoS said:
QFT
Click to expand...
quantum field theory? that might apply to someone who thinks they can simultaneously read posts from the past and at the same time know exactly what they were thinking. lol
 
iamwhatiseem said:
Also - "I am not interested in it" (further action to stop abortions)
Of course not good enough for the liberal reporter - "will you guarantee you wont?" (after now saying he won't twice)
"I can't guarantee there will be a tomorrow, no one can guarantee anything. Will something change this, I don't think so... I am not interested in it - no"

Will this ease Democrats hysteria?



No

Click to expand...


He has sure come full circle on this.
He has had every stance in the book on this over time.

Back to the beginning now.
 
iamwhatiseem said:
Also - "I am not interested in it" (further action to stop abortions)
Of course not good enough for the liberal reporter - "will you guarantee you wont?" (after now saying he won't twice)
"I can't guarantee there will be a tomorrow, no one can guarantee anything. Will something change this, I don't think so... I am not interested in it - no"

Will this ease Democrats hysteria?



No

Click to expand...


He's really tossed evangelicals under the bus.

But they should relax. Trump's judges will do the dirty work.
 
noonereal said:
He has sure come full circle on this.
He has had every stance in the book on this over time.

Back to the beginning now.
Click to expand...
No
You have been told he has flipped, so you repeat it.
He hasn't flipped at all. He said 5 years ago that it should be left up to the states, 4 years ago, 3 years ago, 2 years ago, last year and now again.
He just keeps saying the same thing - but the left media keep ignoring it and telling you he believes something else.

Think for yourself
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom