Posted on 01/05/2016 10:55:57 AM PST by conservativejoy
That is great. Kudos to your dad.
I might add that I've personally been through several family situations involving estates, infighting, sibling rancor, and the problems inherent in having a relative with a chronic addiction to alcohol and a long history of selling out their families in favor of the bottle. These are very thorny issues and addiction experts come down on both sides of whether or not relatives should take the "tough love" approach to allowing the addicted family member to experience his or her own consequences, or whether to go on "enabling." The political forces of destruction are also involved in what is reported here; so I want to know more before forming an opinion about this story.
Thanks for your input. That is a very valid point about the different state laws. Unfortunately, my child passed away, and we were many years in debt for medical bills. That is another reason this situation is so deeply offensive to me.
yep. people change.
Yep, since January in the case of trump. What will be his politics next January, after the election? Will he be “getting along” with pelosi, reid, mcconnel, and ryan?
Thank you for your kindness. Folks like you make me love FR.
( ( hugs ) )
For the benefit of those who might believe your false statement that Trump's change came "since January", I will summarize the statements on the aforementioned web page.
December 1999: Trump says in an interview w/AP that he favors abortion but respects those who think otherwise.
July 2000: Trump says that after being asked about partial birth abortion by Tim Russert on "Meet the Press", he consults a couple of doctors. What he learns convinces him that a ban on partial birth abortion is appropriate.
February 2011: Trump gives a speech at CPAC and tells the attendees he is now pro-life.
April 2011: During an interview with David Brody of CBN, Trump reveals that a personal experience with an unnamed friend helped convince him to adopt a more conservative pro-life position.
April 2011: Lifenews.com's Steven Ertelt reports that Trump's pro-life stand (announced the previous February) was hinted at several months before the CPAC announcement.
This is just stupid. Nobody cares about this. Sounds like gossip.
Give it up. This is gossip. Mind your own family business.
Good grief....just when we thought National RINO review could stoop no lower.
And, to think someone actually posted this, as a thread.
Telling.
The name should be changed to “The National Limbo Review”
After all, how low can you go?
There was a video clip posted on FR in the past few days of trump being interviewed. In it, he asserted his pro life assertion, and the exceptions to which he admits. Then, the reporter asks him, so other than those exceptions, you’d ban all abortions. trump answered, it depends on how far along. The interview was from January 2015.
I saw it. I played it a few times to make sure I saw what I saw.
see post 69
Your post 69 (which discusses events into 2011) seems superseded by the video posted January 2015 from the Iowa Freedom Summit held January 24, 2015.
According to the NYT article, from which this distorted hit piece was scribed... Trump and the nephew came to an amicable agreement... and there was no death of a child due to any acts taken by D. Trump.
This nephew apparently has no cause to trash Trump all these many years later... The author of this hit piece has lost all credibility among others..... To be conservative means one is responsible for their own acts or lack there of... I am calling you out for your own added distortions. Put up or shut up!!!!!
the post 69 accomplished its purpose: refuting your false assertion that Trump’s pro-life position is brand new.
To quote cankles- “what does it matter”
Your post 69 doesn’t accomplish the purpose which it needs to accomplish. My assertion is that trump has a long history of being pro-baby-murder, his “conversion” is relatively-new (2011), and as recently as JANUARY 2015, he appears to waver on his pro-life stance.
Thus, in light of his long and inglorious history being in favor of baby murder (apparently until he was 65 years old), and the most recent evidence of being other than pro-life, it is most appropriate to consider him as unreliable on this issue, and to require of him something more recent and thoroughly categorical.
Without that, he can’t be trusted to be anywhere near an actual pro-lifer upon which to be relied.
Oh, and by the way, the 2000 date is meaningless. He claims he changed his mind on the form of infanticide called “partial birth abortion,” but there is no evidence on the record that he did so, and there is no logical reason to take the word of someone with such an awful previous record on life.
Gov. Romney tried almost the identical tactic. I held my nose and credited his fairy tale. I won’t be fooled again.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.