The Problem with Trump (1 Viewer)

[grip]

I've got to start off with a semi-disclaimer. Donald Trump is probably not an evil bigot or complete misogynist, those are just politically charged labels.

Though there is something fundamentally flawed in his emotional makeup.

He, originally, for me got a lot of it right about trade deals, border security, the influence of lobbyists/ special interests, fighting terrorism, fixing healthcare etc but then he said he wanted to deport 11 million illegals. That's nutso and unrealistic. The he agreed to torturing people. That got me looking at him harder through a different spectrum, because there's something fundamentally wrong with that concept. Then he went off on several different women, Megyn Kelly, Heidi Cruz and Michelle Fields and I knew this guy was seriously flawed on an emotional level. Not that it's not ok to treat women equally if they've attacked in a similar manner than some men have in the campaign. But when Trump said, women should be punished for abortion, again I was validated in my assumption that he's not all mentally there, especially regarding his bullying of females.

I'm a registered Republican and southern conservative but if this guy ever treated my mom or sister the way he treats other women, I'd slap him silly. I don't know if he's overcompensating for a small tinky or what? I actually see him in the Oval Office, with his first crisis wetting his pajamas, sucking his thumb and saying, Mama. Not that he'll even win, because too many Republicans can't stand him, so he'll never come out of the Convention, more less the general election as a winner.

 

[Mycroft]

I've got to start off with a semi-disclaimer. Donald Trump is probably not an evil bigot or complete misogynist, those are just politically charged labels.

Though there is something fundamentally flawed in his emotional makeup.

He, originally, for me got a lot of it right about trade deals, border security, the influence of lobbyists/ special interests, fighting terrorism, fixing healthcare etc but then he said he wanted to deport 11 million illegals. That's nutso and unrealistic. The he agreed to torturing people. That got me looking at him harder through a different spectrum, because there's something fundamentally wrong with that concept. Then he went off on several different women, Megyn Kelly, Heidi Cruz and Michelle Fields and I knew this guy was seriously flawed on an emotional level. Not that it's not ok to treat women equally if they've attacked in a similar manner than some men have in the campaign. But when Trump said, women should be punished for abortion, again I was validated in my assumption that he's not all mentally there, especially regarding his bullying of females.

I'm a registered Republican and southern conservative but if this guy ever treated my mom or sister the way he treats other women, I'd slap him silly. I don't know if he's overcompensating for a small tinky or what? I actually see him in the Oval Office, with his first crisis wetting his pajamas, sucking his thumb and saying, Mama. Not that he'll even win, because too many Republicans can't stand him, so he'll never come out of the Convention, more less the general election as a winner.

I have a question for you...

In a hypothetical situation in which Congress makes it against the law to have or perform an abortion, why would you think it is a bad thing to punish anybody who violates that law?

 

[grip]

I have a question for you...

In a hypothetical situation in which Congress makes it against the law to have or perform an abortion, why would you think it is a bad thing to punish anybody who violates that law?

Let's see, a woman loses her own child, because of a difficult decision and you want to heap insult onto injury? Yea, that's humane.

 

[Henrin]

I'm still trying to figure out why you would ban abortion and not punish women for being party to it. If I hire someone to kill another person, is that illegal and do I get punished for it? Yeah, I do, so if abortion was illegal what is the reason that women wouldn't be punished for having one?

 

[imyoda]

I'm still trying to figure out why you would ban abortion and not punish women for being party to it. If I hire someone to kill another person, is that illegal do I get punished for it? Yeah, I do, so if abortion was illegal what is the reason that women would be punished for having one?

An issue outside the realm of logic..........

Because when you say/suggest/infer such a thing.......you lose elections.............


All sides of the issue .........PRO-LIFE and PRO-CHOICE HAVE COME OUT TODAY TO CONDENM TRUMP......................Try and fathom this: a vote for Trump is a vote for HRC..........:lamo

 

[Henrin]

Because when you say/suggest/infer such a thing.......you lose elections.............


All sides of the issue .........PRO-LIFE and PRO-CHOICE HAVE COME OUT TODAY TO CONDENM TRUMP......................Try and fathom this: a vote for Trump is a vote for HRC..........:lamo

Why would someone that is pro-life only be interested in punishing doctors? Doctors are the party being hired to kill by the woman. The woman is an accessory to the crime and the party that put it into motion.

 

[Captain Adverse]

I'm going to play a bit of Devil's Advocate here.

Though there is something fundamentally flawed in his emotional makeup.

He, originally, for me got a lot of it right about trade deals, border security, the influence of lobbyists/ special interests, fighting terrorism, fixing healthcare etc but then he said he wanted to deport 11 million illegals. That's nutso and unrealistic.

How so?

If that number is true then we have a significant number of people breaking the law on several levels. Yet you say it is nutso to even consider that they should be deported, and unrealistic for the government to make a good faith effort to do so.

The he agreed to torturing people. That got me looking at him harder through a different spectrum, because there's something fundamentally wrong with that concept.

I don't agree with torture because it only really works on the weak. Even then you don't know if you are getting real information or just anything said to stop the torture. Still, I doubt he believes this, and is just making another off-the-cuff statement. Foolish perhaps, but of doubtful validity as a Presidential policy once elected.

Then he went off on several different women, Megyn Kelly, Heidi Cruz and Michelle Fields and I knew this guy was seriously flawed on an emotional level.

Why did he go off on them? I'm not asking you to assess his reasoning, I am asking what they did and have been doing to prompt his responses? That's what he does, respond in kind.

I'm a firm believer in equal rights for women. As such I don't buy the idea they are the "weaker sex" and should be treated the equal of men except when they want to be treated with special consideration as females. If you get into the boxing ring, expect to take a few punches in stride.

Not that it's not ok to treat women equally if they've attacked in a similar manner than some men have in the campaign. But when Trump said, women should be punished for abortion, again I was validated in my assumption that he's not all mentally there, especially regarding his bullying of females.

I'm Pro-Choice. But I also recognize that there are opponents who think abortion is murder. That group would agree with him completely.

In my case it is more defined. I think that the right to choose is absolute during the First Trimester. This extends partially into the Second Trimester, at least until it is clear that the fetus has developed a brain and central nervous system. After that, the only abortions should occur if the life of the mother is endangered, and even then efforts to save the unborn should be tried. So, how is punishing someone who tries to kill an unborn child in the Third Trimester absent that life-threatening exception a completely unreasonable proposition?

Do we not punish mothers who intentionally kill their children after they are born?

Now I appreciate your choice. That's no problem. But in each situation it depends on how one views what was said. With a knee-jerk reaction? Or otherwise.

 

[imyoda]

Why would someone that is pro-life only be interested in punishing doctors? Doctors are the party being hired to kill by the woman. The woman is an accessory to the crime and the party that put it into motion.

Don't ask me............. but when you search and find the answer in the news......get back to us................To be informed is always a good thing to do before asking basic questions

Let me guess............You're a man....................and therefore should go on the Chris Matthews Show.................:lamo

 

[OrphanSlug]

Fine... no "politically charged labels" as the OP suggests.

How about this?

Trump is a proper lunatic and would be extremely dangerous as President. That about sum up the problem with Trump?

 

[Henrin]

Don't ask me............. but when you search and find the answer in the news......get back to us................To be informed is always a good thing to do before asking basic questions

How would the news answer my question? It's a question looking for reasoning behind a position, which isn't going to be found in the news. I find it quite bizarre that pro-life people would just give the woman a pass when she played a part in the crime.

It's like saying, I'm against abortion and I think it should be illegal, but ladies when you go and have one just know that nothing will happen to you. Just go out and hire someone to kill your kid and be safe in the knowledge that we will just go after the person you hired. And what about the abortions that women do themselves? Is the state just going to ignore them entirely?

 

[imyoda]

How would the news answer my question? It's a question looking for reasoning behind a position, which isn't going to be found in the news. I find it quite bizarre that pro-life people would just give the woman a pass when she played a part in the crime.

It's like saying, I'm against abortion and I think it should be illegal, but ladies when you go and have one just know that nothing will happen to you. Just go out and hire someone to kill your kid and be safe in the knowledge that we will just go after the person you hired. And what about the ones that woman does herself? Is the state just going to ignore them entirely?

Don't ask me more questions ..........try first to understand the role of MSM........then use it............and there you'll find the truth to sett you free

 

[grip]

I'm going to play a bit of Devil's Advocate here.

Fair questions.

How so?

If that number is true then we have a significant number of people breaking the law on several levels. Yet you say it is nutso to even consider that they should be deported, and unrealistic for the government to make a good faith effort to do so.

The sheer logistics of locating and deporting that many people is unfeasible. And it doesn't take a college degree to figure that out.

I don't agree with torture because it only really works on the weak. Even then you don't know if you are getting real information or just anything said to stop the torture. Still, I doubt he believes this, and is just making another off-the-cuff statement. Foolish perhaps, but of doubtful validity as a Presidential policy once elected.

I thought the same that he was just spouting off and would realign his opinion to a more humane position but he keeps repeating this statement. And personally this is a s close to evil as I can think.

Why did he go off on them? I'm not asking you to assess his reasoning, I am asking what they did and have been doing to prompt his responses? That's what he does, respond in kind.

I'm a firm believer in equal rights for women. As such I don't buy the idea they are the "weaker sex" and should be treated the equal of men except when they want to be treated with special consideration as females. If you get into the boxing ring, expect to take a few punches in stride.

His responses have been overboard in retaliation, even if it were another male. If men can't give a physically weaker sex an equal consideration, then it's on them.

I'm Pro-Choice. But I also recognize that there are opponents who think abortion is murder. That group would agree with him completely.

In my case it is more defined. I think that the right to choose is absolute during the First Trimester. This extends partially into the Second Trimester, at least until it is clear that the fetus has developed a brain and central nervous system. After that, the only abortions should occur if the life of the mother is endangered, and even then efforts to save the unborn should be tried. So, how is punishing someone who tries to kill an unborn child in the Third Trimester absent that life-threatening exception a completely unreasonable proposition?

Do we not punish mothers who intentionally kill their children after they are born?

Now I appreciate your choice. That's no problem. But in each situation it depends on how one views what was said. With a knee-jerk reaction? Or otherwise.

I don't believe in abortion of a fundamentally developed fetus (3rd tri) but beyond that it's up to the mother especially, and father. These are the two people who will be responsible for raising and providing for the child. If anyone else wants a say, they should be willing to put up a financial and personal interest in the child's welfare or shut the heII up.

 

[Mycroft]

Let's see, a woman loses her own child, because of a difficult decision and you want to heap insult onto injury? Yea, that's humane.

So...a woman makes a conscious decision to terminate the life of her child, in violation of a law that was enacted by Congress and signed by the President, and you think she shouldn't be punished because she "lost" her own child???


"Your Honor, you shouldn't punish me for murdering that guy in cold blood because to do that I had to make a difficult decision and I don't think you should heap insult onto injury."


Tell me, grip...do you see how ridiculous your reasoning is?

 

[Casper]

I have a question for you...

In a hypothetical situation in which Congress makes it against the law to have or perform an abortion, why would you think it is a bad thing to punish anybody who violates that law?

Problem with your hypothetical question is that Congress will not attempt to pass a law that would be Unconstitutional and would be over turned by the SC, plus the President, no matter who they are would be unlikely to sign such a law and thirdly if it were Trump it would never be passed since he is a lifelong Democrat and believes in a woman's right to chose.
Abortion is not going to be outlawed and the sooner people wrap their brains around that fact the better off we will all be.

 

[Captain Adverse]

Fair questions.

Fair responses.

The sheer logistics of locating and deporting that many people is unfeasible. And it doesn't take a college degree to figure that out.

Perhaps. But that shouldn't be a reason for not trying. Few things are 100% successful. Besides, presidential candidates (and elected Presidents) are always making outrageous promises concerning what they hope to accomplish. The War on Drugs; Affordable Care; Peace in the Middle East. We don't usually succeed but that should not stop us from trying.

I thought the same that he was just spouting off and would realign his opinion to a more humane position but he keeps repeating this statement. And personally this is a s close to evil as I can think.

Really? I guess I haven't heard it that much. Still, I'm betting that will change eventually. I'd hope so anyway, but since I don't think it would happen even if he keeps saying it it's not a game changer for me.

His responses have been overboard in retaliation, even if it were another male. If men can't give a physically weaker sex an equal consideration, then it's on them.

Wait! Forgive me but I think his responses show he IS giving them the same consideration he has to male opponents. He talks to and about them the same. He says a number of stupid things, and I not sure if this is part of his old "Wow Factor" to inflate his ego, or just his off the cuff style showing some wear and tear. Again, not yet a game changer for me when it comes to a choice between him and Hillary.

I don't believe in abortion of a fundamentally developed fetus (3rd tri) but beyond that it's up to the mother especially, and father. These are the two people who will be responsible for raising and providing for the child. If anyone else wants a say, they should be willing to put up a financial and personal interest in the child's welfare or shut the heII up.

Well, I'm willing to wait and see how his abortion comment shakes out.

 

[grip]

I'm going to play a bit of Devil's Advocate here.



How so?

If that number is true then we have a significant number of people breaking the law on several levels. Yet you say it is nutso to even consider that they should be deported, and unrealistic for the government to make a good faith effort to do so.



I don't agree with torture because it only really works on the weak. Even then you don't know if you are getting real information or just anything said to stop the torture. Still, I doubt he believes this, and is just making another off-the-cuff statement. Foolish perhaps, but of doubtful validity as a Presidential policy once elected.



Why did he go off on them? I'm not asking you to assess his reasoning, I am asking what they did and have been doing to prompt his responses? That's what he does, respond in kind.

I'm a firm believer in equal rights for women. As such I don't buy the idea they are the "weaker sex" and should be treated the equal of men except when they want to be treated with special consideration as females. If you get into the boxing ring, expect to take a few punches in stride.



I'm Pro-Choice. But I also recognize that there are opponents who think abortion is murder. That group would agree with him completely.

In my case it is more defined. I think that the right to choose is absolute during the First Trimester. This extends partially into the Second Trimester, at least until it is clear that the fetus has developed a brain and central nervous system. After that, the only abortions should occur if the life of the mother is endangered, and even then efforts to save the unborn should be tried. So, how is punishing someone who tries to kill an unborn child in the Third Trimester absent that life-threatening exception a completely unreasonable proposition?

Do we not punish mothers who intentionally kill their children after they are born?

Now I appreciate your choice. That's no problem. But in each situation it depends on how one views what was said. With a knee-jerk reaction? Or otherwise.

So...a woman makes a conscious decision to terminate the life of her child, in violation of a law that was enacted by Congress and signed by the President, and you think she shouldn't be punished because she "lost" her own child???


"Your Honor, you shouldn't punish me for murdering that guy in cold blood because to do that I had to make a difficult decision and I don't think you should heap insult onto injury."


Tell me, grip...do you see how ridiculous your reasoning is?

No, I don't see how ridiculous it is for some authority to be wrong. That's why we have the ultimate choice in such matters.

 

[grip]

Fair responses.



Perhaps. But that shouldn't be a reason for not trying. Few things are 100% successful. Besides, presidential candidates (and elected Presidents) are always making outrageous promises concerning what they hope to accomplish. The War on Drugs; Affordable Care; Peace in the Middle East. We don't usually succeed but that should not stop us from trying.



Really? I guess I haven't heard it that much. Still, I'm betting that will change eventually. I'd hope so anyway, but since I don't think it would happen even if he keeps saying it it's not a game changer for me.



Wait! Forgive me but I think his responses show he IS giving them the same consideration he has to male opponents. He talks to and about them the same. He says a number of stupid things, and I not sure if this is part of his old "Wow Factor" to inflate his ego, or just his off the cuff style showing some wear and tear. Again, not yet a game changer for me when it comes to a choice between him and Hillary.




Well, I'm willing to wait and see how his abortion comment shakes out.

We're too close in opinion for me to sarcastically argue with you, even for entertainment.

Trump has married 3 times to ex models and doesn't seem to have a high opinion of women in general. Saying about Carly Fiorina, "Look at this face, who could vote for that." He's an a-hole.

The abortion comment will cost him the 'certain nomination' he was counting on, at minimum. In time, even the emotionally blinded will see thru his facade.

 

[Mycroft]

No, I don't see how ridiculous it is for some authority to be wrong. That's why we have the ultimate choice in such matters.

So, you would agree with the Obama school of thought, eh?

"I don't agree with a law, therefore it's okay to disregard it."

 

[Mycroft]

Problem with your hypothetical question is that Congress will not attempt to pass a law that would be Unconstitutional and would be over turned by the SC, plus the President, no matter who they are would be unlikely to sign such a law and thirdly if it were Trump it would never be passed since he is a lifelong Democrat and believes in a woman's right to chose.
Abortion is not going to be outlawed and the sooner people wrap their brains around that fact the better off we will all be.

See...that's the thing about hypothetical questions. They rarely deal with reality.

However, the question was asked and the answer given by Trump directly applied to the question. I'm just asking if anyone really disagrees with his answer, and if they do why they don't believe in the rule of law.

 

[grip]

So, you would agree with the Obama school of thought, eh?

"I don't agree with a law, therefore it's okay to disregard it."

I don't even like Obama but he'll probably go down in history as something akin to an Abraham Lincoln. The Law is what people of good conscious agree it is, not some litany written in stone. It's alive, both granite and flexible and until you understand that you need another refill on your drink.

 

[Mycroft]

I don't even like Obama but he'll probably go down in history as something akin to an Abraham Lincoln. The Law is what people of good conscious agree it is, not some litany written in stone. It's alive, both granite and flexible and until you understand that you need another refill on your drink.

I think you are confusing two different issues...kind of like Obama does. And like Obama, you do this deliberately because it suits your chosen bias. These issues are:

1. A law is something agreed upon by our representatives.

2. A law may be changed if our representatives choose to do so.

But the illogic in your position is that you think anyone can...or should be able to...violate a law without repercussions just because they don't like it. It doesn't work that way...not for you, not for women and not even for Obama. The problem we have now is that so many people have a disregard for the rule of law...usually for their own political expediency.


btw, I think you are quite wrong if you think history will treat Obama anything like Lincoln.

 

[grip]

I think you are confusing two different issues...kind of like Obama does. And like Obama, you do this deliberately because it suits your chosen bias. These issues are:

1. A law is something agreed upon by our representatives.

2. A law may be changed if our representatives choose to do so.

But the illogic in your position is that you think anyone can...or should be able to...violate a law without repercussions just because they don't like it. It doesn't work that way...not for you, not for women and not even for Obama. The problem we have now is that so many people have a disregard for the rule of law...usually for their own political expediency.


btw, I think you are quite wrong if you think history will treat Obama anything like Lincoln.

Tell us what you think the Law represents?

 

[Captain Adverse]

I think you are confusing two different issues...kind of like Obama does. And like Obama, you do this deliberately because it suits your chosen bias...

Tell us what you think the Law represents?

opcorn2:

 

[imyoda]

Don't lose your grip grip................

Donald Trump Destroys His Image And The Republican Party With Abortion Flip-Flop
Donald Trump Destroys His Image and The Republican Party with Abortion Flip-Flop


Donald Trump tried to "clarify" his remarks that women should be punished for having an abortion by lying and flip-flopping to a policy that had nothing to do with his original comments. All Trump managed to accomplish was the destruction of the Republican Party and his phony image.


“Donald Trump tried to “clarify” his remarks that women should be punished for having an abortion by lying and flip-flopping to a policy that had nothing to do with his original comments. All Trump managed to accomplish was the destruction of the Republican Party and his phony image…………..

…………….. In the MSNBC interview, Trump said that women should be punished. The campaign followed up the interview with a statement that is not even close to what the candidate was talking about. The statement by his campaign was evidence of cowardice. Trump has fashioned himself as a political truth teller who speaks his mind, but the reality is that Donald Trump is just a cowardly politician………….”

Donald Trump in a few words about a subject it seems he never thought about killed any chance of being nominated or for that matter elected in 2016……..
More so, in his “punish women” remark woke the minds of your average citizen of the consequences of banning abortion, birth control and women reproductive issues…………

And IMHO has sounded the death knell for the GOP RW money machine as a major force in national politics ………..

If Trump were to run against HRC………and with this blunder…….. and the current 70% negative approval with women the question becomes………..

……….not how many states will Trump win in 2016…………………to can Trump win any…………..

 

[grip]

opcorn2:

In a phrase, justice- based on fairness.