[BillyBoy]

Well, obviously if he says it, then it must it be true. Its not like people running for office ever just say things to get elected and then don’t do them. No doubt a guy who was so pro-abortion that he supported partial birth abortion before running for President will appoint pro-life judges.

[dware]

Its not like people running for office ever just say things to get elected and then don’t do them.

You mean, the way every "Conservative" ever elected has done?

[Greetings_Puny_Humans]

Well, obviously if he says it, then it must it be true. Its not like people running for office ever just say things to get elected and then don’t do them. No doubt a guy who was so pro-abortion that he supported partial birth abortion before running for President will appoint pro-life judges.

Cruz was still telling media outlets that legalization of illegals was still on the table, despite telling people he had never supported legalization, but this does not bother you as much as a 14 year old position does.

[DannyTN]

The voters have weighed in. Trump was found to be the preferred candidate.

Your choice is now Trump. Unless you think Hillary is lying about being pro-choice just to get elected.

[showme_the_Glory]

Well you obviously know how Hillary stands. Who’s your choice?

[scouter]

You may be right, but then again, he may actually keep his promise. We know for a mathematical certainty that Clinton will appoint not only anti-life justices, but aggressively anti-life ones. While I don’t think the abortion issue is a hill to die on for Trump, it definitely is for Clinton. So while we can’t be certain we’ll get what we want from Trump, we know for sure we won’t get it from Clinton.

In any case, Trump is not only the lesser of two evils. He is by far the lesser of two evils. And the less certain of two evils.

Clinton and Sanders will aggressively use the DOJ to go after those who hold Judeo-Chrisian values. They have promised to do so and I believe it is a promise they will aggressively keep. At worst, Trump simply doesn’t agree with Judeo-Chrisian values, and he may or may not live by them while in office. But he’s not going to persecute Christians. Hillary and Bernie will most assuredly do so.

So to those who say #NeverTrump, I say think about that.

[RedWulf]

>Well, obviously if he says it, then it must it be true. Its not like people running for office ever just say things to get elected and then don’t do them. No doubt a guy who was so pro-abortion that he supported partial birth abortion before running for President will appoint pro-life judges.

Why not? Our pro-life presidents Bush, Reagan, and GWB appointment pro-choice justices over and over again. We might well have better luck with a former pro-choice candidate.

[FatherofFive]

No doubt a guy who was so pro-abortion that he supported partial birth abortion before running for President will appoint pro-life judges.

Is he lying now or lying before?

I hope he had a change of heart. He is on his 3rd wife, so we know promises don't mean much to this guy.

[winoneforthegipper]

So I guess you supported Roberts for the Bench huh?

[ConservativeWarrior]

Trump’s comment does not help his election chances.

It’s likely the dem crossovers and disenfranchised bernie supporters are gonna go Trump.

This statement does not help him get that vote.

[Mechanicos]

The timing says its real. He is on track to win the GOP nomination easy. He has no real opposition. He said it to a Democrat contingent knowing it will be widely disseminated to the baby-killers crowd. And knowing it will hurt him in the general with non-conservative voters. That to me gives it credibility not just election posturing talk.

[Dr. Sivana]

Well, obviously if he says it, then it must it be true. Its not like people running for office ever just say things to get elected and then don’t do them. No doubt a guy who was so pro-abortion that he supported partial birth abortion before running for President will appoint pro-life judges.

The more he gets on the record without weasel words, the less likely he is to bail on them later.

One thing that is refreshing about this, no more stealth candidates where we do everything we can to avoid "the question" coming up in hearings. I could see the Senate rejecting Trump choice #1, and then he brings up another one who is even tougher, just to make a point. I don't know if he would, I'm just saying he has the temperament so that he could.

I know he lacks the appreciation of judges applying the Constitution and relevant law and legal principles, but it may well be taht all actors were past that sometime ago, and he is just giving up the pretense that this is anything other than right-positivism vs. left-positivism.