Posted on 01/18/2016 2:16:20 AM PST by Cincinatus' Wife
When Ben Carson was rising in the polls, Donald Trump was quick to attack the former neurosurgeon for being "pro-abortion not so long ago."
The attack was more than a bit hypocritical because Trump himself was "very" pro-abortion not so long ago. In 1999, Tim Russert asked Trump if he would support a ban on "abortion in the third-trimester" or "partial-birth abortion."
"No," Trump replied. "I am pro-choice in every respect." Trump explained his views may be the result of his "New York background." Now that Ted Cruz has attacked Trump's "New York values," Trump's views on abortion will be getting a second look by many Republican voters.
During the first Republican presidential debate, Trump explained that he "evolved" on the issue at some unknown point in the last 16 years. "Friends of mine years ago were going to have a child, and it was going to be aborted. And it wasn't aborted. And that child today is a total superstar, a great, great child. And I saw that. And I saw other instances," Trump said. "I am very, very proud to say that I am pro-life."
When the Daily Caller's Jamie Weinstein asked Trump if he would have become pro-life if that child had been a loser instead of a "total superstar," Trump replied: "Probably not, but I've never thought of it. I would say no, but in this case it was an easy one because he's such an outstanding person."
That Trump could go from supporting third-trimester abortion--something indistinguishable from infanticide, something that only 14 percent of Americans think should be legal--to becoming pro-life because of that one experience is a bit hard to believe. If it's true, the story still indicates at the very least that Trump is not capable of serious moral reasoning.
The more important question is not what Trump said in the past but what he would do in the future. Trump says he's pro-life except in the cases when a pregnancy endangers the life of the mother or is the result of rape or incest, although it remains unclear if he thinks abortion should be generally legal in the first three months of pregnancy (a position that is more accurately described as "pro-choice").
Trump has said he'd sign a ban on abortion during the last four months of pregnancy, when infants can feel pain and are capable of surviving long-term outside the womb. But after undercover videos were released showing Planned Parenthood involved in the trafficking of aborted baby body parts, Trump said he wasn't sure if the Planned Parenthood should lose all of its federal funding. He later shifted, saying: "I wouldn't do any funding as long as they are performing abortions."
Even if the mercurial Trump followed through on his promises to sign pro-life legislation, it wouldn't matter if he appointed liberal justices to the Supreme Court. The Court is just one appointment away from a solid liberal majority that would likely find a right to taxpayer-funded and late-term abortion.
By the end of the next president's first term, four sitting justices will be over the age of 80. Originalist Antonin Scalia and "swing-vote" Anthony Kennedy will both be 84. Liberal activists Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer will be, respectively, 87 and 82. There's really no telling how far a lockstep-liberal majority would go on other issues like guns, immigration, national security, and the death penalty. If Trump appoints a liberal activist--intentionally or not--the rest of his domestic agenda doesn't matter much.
The more likely result of a Trump nomination, of course, would be a Clinton presidency and the certain appointment of liberal justices. But in the event that Trump actually wins, what kind of Supreme Court justices would he appoint? When a voter asked Trump in December if he'd defund Planned Parenthood and try to repeal Roe v. Wade, Trump wouldn't answer the question. "The answer is yes, defund," he replied. "The other, you're gonna need a lot of Supreme Court justices, but we're gonna be looking at that very, very carefully, but you need a lot of Supreme Court judges. But defund yes, we're going to be doing a lot of that."
In 2015, Trump said he thought his sister Maryanne Trump Barry, a federal appeals court judge who struck down New Jersey's partial-birth abortion ban, would be a "phenomenal" Supreme Court justice. "We will have to rule that out now, at least," he added.
The bigger problem is that Trump's general hostility toward limited government conservatism indicates that he would not want to appoint a constitutionalist to the Supreme Court. Trump still supports allowing the government to seize private property for commercial use, and a Supreme Court justice who shares this view will almost certainly be a liberal activist on issues across the board. Even if Trump wanted to appoint a constitutionalist, there's no reason to think he'd know how to pick one in the first place.
On Saturday, Trump floated former senator Scott Brown, who supports a right to abortion, as a possible vice presidential running mate. "I tend to agree with @AnnCoulter on priorities here. If Trump immigration plan implemented, doesn't matter," tweeted Breitbart.com Washington editor Matthew Boyle. "I don't care if @realDonaldTrump wants to perform abortions in White House after this immigration policy paper," Coulter wrote in August.
Anti-immigration obsessives may not care about Trump's views on infanticide and judges. But a strong majority of primary voters in a conservative, pro-life party surely will.
Part of why I say it is his age and his money, he has NOTHING TO GAIN financially, as most people would be really hard-pressed to spend 1% of his worth.
To believe your argument I’d have to think that Trump is filling arenas and FLAT-OUT LYING to those people. If so, so be it. I’m not able to get in his head, so I’ll take him at his word.
I also don’t see a path to victory for Cruz in November, he’s STILL not connected with anyone other than hard-core conservatives and he’s really painted himself into a corner now with Goldman and his Prayer Breakfasts, not to mention the birther cloud that can ONLY go away if the courts rule on it (i.e., your arguments and my arguments will accomplish nothing in that area...it’s way out of our hands).
Finally, if Trump is a liberal, I’d still take him just to STICK IT TO THE GOPe who think think they own us, just because they have money and we don’t. I’m not going to bend over and take it again.
By the way, I do remember Trump in 2012...I’d love to know what he was thinking, because I could explain it away, but I’d like to hear his words.
He’s highly over leveraged. First of all, he likes attention, so it’s not all about the money. But he could definitely use more than the $250-$350 million he has now.
Kind of like how McCain would stick it to the GOPe? How many time do you have to fall for the same trick?
First I’ve heard of that...but I’ll be careful doubting you after this morning...
Don’t follow - McCain is ONE OF THEM, in every damn way.
I just haven’t seen that number anywhere, and NY real estate is still worth a boatload if he does decide to liquidate somewhat.
Trump has gotten nothing done in the political world. Nothing. What he has gotten done in the business realm is to his credit, but that is not how government operates. In the past, his dealings with political figures has been in the form of using financial contributions to candidates that would benefit his ventures - the very thing that drives so many here crazy.
Trump employs 11,000 people. That’s a heck of a lot of Thanksgiving turkeys on the table.
OTOH Cruz has no accomplishments to speak of in his years in DC. No coalitions built, no significant legislative victories. Nothing. Beltway theater is not an accomplishment. Sorry.
Ted Cruz is a Natural Born Citizen.
Donald is lying. Does Donald have some internal polls which show how badly he is slipping. Is that why Donald is lying?
No, I don't think I'll be in for a rude awaking. I'm fully aware that, in big cities, nothing happens unless the proper people are happy.
The Dems, on the other hand, may be in for a rude awakening as to how few people will care. I won't. I'm long past caring. I'm done with the double standard.
So people who put their pursuit of wealth ahead of the law and ethics is a-okay with you.
And your position is that the left will be surprised the right no longer cares about ethics or corruption.
So when you become them that’s beating them you say. No, that’s becoming them.
Ya nothing, but perhaps some of the 2nd amendment rights you enjoy today.. But ya, to a liberal that isn’t much to gloat about.
How many people does Bill Gates employ? Trumps a piker in comparison. Let’s elect Bill Gates, he knows how to run a rail road...
Ya and Cruz failed to get the GOPe behind him and build a coalition, what a loser...
Do you ever think about what you say?
But the fact STILL remains:
“....his mother was born and raised in the United States. The law in effect then, and now, made Ted Cruz a U.S. citizen at birth.
Read more: http://nation.foxnews.com/sen-ted-cruz/2013/03/11/spokesman-senator-cruz-us-citizen-birth
Sweetheart, do you realize that you would not even be talking about this if Trump hadn’t brought it up?
Even Trump said awhile back that Cruz IS a NBC.
Furthermore, WHAT does this have to do with the topic of this thread?
Yes, grasshopper, Ted Cruz was an American from birth. He was also a Canadian from birth. In fact, since his father had become a naturalized Canadian citizen, Ted Cruz was a natural-born Canadian at birth. That is why he had to formally renounce his Canadian citizenship. You can’t be a natural-born citizen of the United States if you are also a natural-born citizen of another country.
Just being a citizen of the United States is enough for every office in the United States, except one: The President of the United States. Either Ted Cruz is a original-intent Constitutionalist and therefore ineligible to be President or he is a living-document constitutionalist and eligible to be President. It is one or the other, but it can’t be both.
CORRECTION: Cruz was a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN from birth, which is why he is eligible.
Even Trump said that awhile back. Was Trump lying?
Yes.
I agree...And Rubio is disqualified as well...No one seems to care...What’s with all these foreigners running for US President???
No doubt that if Cruz and Rubio are taken out, their supporters will flock to Bush...
So anyone with an American mother is a natural-born citizen. This include Winston Churchill and the Crown Princes of Jordan. Makes sense to me.
The evidence suggests that he may be an early-term pro-abort.
“It depends when.”
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.