Posted on 03/31/2016 9:02:24 AM PDT by FiddlePig
The nation state historically demands a monopoly on violence and homicide… what’s illegal for the common citizen, is often OK for the government. Wars, executions, police violence against citizens, collection of taxes under threat of prosecution, imprisonment, forced labor and other acts of coercion (aka: laws) are exclusively reserved only for officials of the nation state. In the U.S.A., not since slavery has the private individual been given legal sanction to commit violence against fellow humans... outside of very few exceptions (self-defense… but even that is not universal). There is one lone modern exception: abortion on demand… as was with slavery, the state has sanctioned private sector and citizen violence/homicide against a class of fellow humans (the yet to be born). In fact it has become a multi-billion dollar industry, with legions of lawyers/lobbyists/media and a political party to guard against any proposed prohibitions.
So when Donald Trump or any other politician is asked "if abortion ever again becomes illegal, who gets punished?"… he(she) best not answer. It was of course, a media setup… and Trump ill-advisedly took the bait, giving an honest answer... that things declared illegal when violated, have by definition proscribed punishments (honesty, sadly, is NO LONGER a political virtue). The woman’s “right to choose” to have her progeny “executed” without trial or appeal is the only current case of private sector state sanctioned violence. I suspect “mercy” killing of the sick and old could be soon to follow.
Abortion was a serious crime in all 50 states prior to 1973.
That should become the norm again.
Crimes have punishments, and your gender shouldn’t absolve you.
The pro-life community has generally supported punishment for the doctors who perform those abortions, not the women who have them. That achieves the same result without offending as many voters.
Hannity on the street asked a young female trump protester some basic questions, “why are you protesting”? “Im protesting donald trump and his views on women” “Well what specifically dont you like”? CRICKETS FN CRICKETS!!!!!A DEER IN THE HEADLIGHTS! YOU COULD HEAR THE ECHO IN HER EMPTY HEAD!
It’s a two way street.
Nobody believes it’s a “fetus” anymore. Everyone understands it’s a small human, even if the ontongeny isn’t clear to them.
They just accept “What Is” because they think they can’t change it.
So Trump could take the fight to Clinton. Prove that you aren’t killing a person, Mrs. Wife of the Rapist. Tell us why murdering preemies is OK, and why the doctor doing it shouldn’t be prosecuted. If that’s true, then why is Kermit Gosnell in prison?
People want permission to talk about it and change it.
In murder for hire, do we prosecute only the triggerman?
No. But then you don't have huge chunks of the population who identify with the perpetrator, do you?
You can demand 100% purity on an issue if you want, but it does you little good if that purity offends so many people that you lose the issue.
Females gave us 0dunga. Females want to give us Hillary.
Females destroyed America.
Sure, there are "people" who would wish to change abortion law nationally so as to criminalize it and put women in jail.
Yes. That’s true. And the sun comes up every day for the last 4 billion years.
What’s your point?
Clear enough?
Yesterday, 3/30/16, was a turning point in Donald marketability as the front runner. 3/30/16 may be known in the future as the date of Trump’s March Meltdown.
It doesn’t matter if he was set up. Every republican should presume the main stream media is out for blood, hoping to make the republican look foolish and/or inept.
I am forever thankful for the causes that Donald has brought front and center for us all to discuss, but I think he has taken us as far as he is capable. There may be no
‘mulligans’ available after that discussion about abortion.
It’s being reported that he changed his position three times in a space of three hours. We need to see this objectively.
How would anybody react to any other candidate who did that?
With the patterns of uncertainty Trump has established, I don’t see him being the one who will lead us to the development of his ideals.
I can only wait for the passage of the next three months, and hope the GOPe comes up with someone less RINO than someone like Kasich or Jeb!
No. It wasn’t clear previously, and I don’t agree.
The Left has kept people muzzled for years by trying to define the debate with Politically Correct prohibitions on speech.
That’s called cultural marxism and you are a victim of it as well.
Trump’s great appeal is that he has been unafraid to say what he’s actually thinking. Many people say he’s verbalizing what they would like to say but are afraid to.
He’s not calibrating everything by “will I win”, as someone who depends on donations and careful threading of the needle. He perceives that he will get more respect - and votes in the end - by being forthright.
So have some faith baby. People are better then you think, even women.
Ah yes, the classic "everyone secretly agrees with me if only we give them the chance." Well, no they don't.
You are never, ever going to convince a majority of people, much less a majority of women, that women who have abortions should be jailed. You can say that I'm just a brainwashed victim of the mass media if you'd like, but if you go outside whatever echo chamber you're living in, you might think differently.
Not this female.
Your opinion. Nothing more.
When the Right learns to use the media the way the Left has, things like this will come to pass.
“You can demand 100% purity on an issue if you want, but it does you little good if that purity offends so many people that you lose the issue. “
Prove your assertion - with facts.
Prove your assertion - with facts.
Normally, I don't respond to rude feminine hygiene products, but I'll make an exception in your case.
My statement was an "if/then" conditional statement. So you assume the "if", and see if the "then" logically follows. That makes it more of a logical assertion than a factual one (because of that "if"), but I'll give it a shot. So, here's the statement you apparently want me to prove "with facts (and please note the bolded word):
"it does you little good if that purity offends so many people that you lose the issue
That "if" means that I don't have to prove that so many people were offended for my statement to be true. It was the conditional built into the statement. So, we take as a given that it "offends so many people that you lose the issue." Obviously, if it doesn't offend that many people, then you don't lose that issue. That's why I said "if". Capice?
The "then" part of what I said was "it does you little good". I personally think it is self-evident that "it does you little good" if "an issue is lost" because, well, it's lost. Right?
Oh, and if you think I've ducked your point, it is because you either 1) didn't read correctly the statement I made, or 2) phrased your question poorly. Neither is my fault.
Have a nice day, Sarge!
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.