[TheRealThing]

Donald is no conservative according to Wisconsin radio legend Charlie Sykes, Ted Cruz, John Kasich and Rich Lowry. Really? where are all you guys at on abortion?

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/...ment-women

Listening to the clip of Chris Matthews and Trump speaking on abortion a couple of things become clear. First, is the fact that the conversation is built upon a hypothetical premise of having outlawed the practice of abortion. Second is the fact that Chris asking Trump if abortion were to be outlawed, should there be some form of punishment attached for women who do so illegally. Answer, after qualifying that lawmakers would have to "look at it," Trump says yes some form of punishment.

And there you have it. The sum total of the terrible gaffe which has supposedly brought down House Trump. I mean, is murder wrong or not? And we should defined at least one important fact here, God forbids the slaughter, murder, genocide pick your term, now known as women's health. Abortion or the killing of innocent babies, is murder by any sane definition. However, liberals and chicken-liver establishment Republicans seem to have lost good sense where the horror of abortion is concerned.

Green Peacers and earth lovers went totally ape when the Discovery Channel showed seal hunters club the little white pups on the ice of the north pole. The practice was soon outlawed under torrential public outcry. My question, where is the outcry for the untold millions of human babies slain in the name of unfettered sex?

Any body other than me find all of this to be unbelievable?

[Hoot Gibson]

Ted Cruz is a conservative. Cruz has always been opposed to abortion. Donald Trump has always been a social liberal but he is running as a conservative. Trump answers questions based on what he believes the response of a conservative should be.

If you think about Trump's explanation of his answer to Chris Matthews hypothetical question on abortion, his answer makes sense for one who is posing as a conservative.

BTW, I agree with Trump's response. I just do not believe Trump agrees with his response. If a behavior is illegal, then there should be a penalty for engaging in that behavior.

An honest opponent of abortion would not have given three answers to the question within a three hour period. Nor would they have admitted to giving an outdated conservative response, as Trump did:

"A question was asked to me. And it was asked in a very hypothetical. And it was said, 'illegal, illegal,'" Trump said. "I've been told by some people that was an older line answer and that was an answer that was given on a, you know, basis of an older line from years ago on a very conservative basis." - Donald J. Trump

More:

Donald Trump Says Abortion Laws 'Are Set,' Shouldn't Change

[WideRight05]

TRT, the only thing I really have to add is that the thing that alarms me is that he doesn't really put together a strong argument against it as has Rubio or Cruz. The interview you mentioned where he said that, yes, I agree Anderson Cooper was biased. I actually have no problem with a woman being punished for having an abortion. Trump has defended himself being pro-life, and who am I to say he's lying? The thing that I see is moreso, I do think he is pro-life in some scenarios as he says but it's not as big of a priority to him as compared to other Republicans. Thus, I don't know how much he would try to accomplish in eliminating this horrible practice.

Now, as to my main point in this thread. I was going to start a thread on conservative hypocrisy but you stole the idea from me, ha. Not to hijack your original point, TRT, but there are definitely some things I want to get off my chest. Not directed at you, not taking shots at Donald Trump or anybody else on the Republican side, but wanted to express how disappointed I am with how this whole thing has worked out.

First off, in 2008 one of the big things we were disappointed about with what Barack Obama used to get to the election was a media that went completely for him. We were disappointed with the bias and bent of the media to do anything and everything they could to get him in. We wanted fair reporting. I realize you have some outlets that lean more conservative or more liberal, but you would think the conservative outlets would report this election fairly considering that is one of the things that they pride themselves on compared to the liberal media.

Instead we are seeing media outlets take sides. Breitbart (Leaving the Michelle Fields situation out of this) has developed a reputation for having been pro-Trump in most of their articles, The Blaze for being mostly anti-Trump. I don't believe either has offered fair coverage and both are well-known conservative sources. Then you have reporters stirring up bickering, etc. amongst the conservatives on these and other websites. Isn't this the same thing we complain about liberals doing?

If I were a reporter for either of these websites or other conservative sites I would call the election straight down the middle. I would be mostly numbers-based and factual in reporting results while definitely taking the time to report any time Cruz, Trump, etc. got in a good shot at Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders.

That's part of what has contributed to this massive divide. Now you also have our analysts, many of whom claim objectivity and being factual as an alternative to the liberals . I'm greatly disappointed in the likes of Ann Coulter, Wayne Dupree, many others. Not to pick at one, but I take Ann Coulter for example. She has been completely blasting Ted Cruz all the time. A year ago, two years ago, she was always all about Ted Cruz - as was Wayne Dupree. Now all of a sudden, they have become another attack dog which is disappointing to watch. Glenn Beck has played a big role as well in his non-stop attacks on Trump, but I thought that was a big thing he did last week to step up and ask for forgiveness for the role he has played in this massive divide, admitting he has erred. I wish others would do the same.

Lastly, the thing we didn't like about Barack Obama supporters in 2008 was that they did not act rational in the least bit. Look what's happening now. The conservative base is losing it. When you tear something apart, the goal is to build it back stronger than before. We are at the point where the base is too torn down, I think, to really be built back up for the election.

I don't like to pull blame on one particular set of supporters, but I do put a lot of this on Trump's supporters. TRT, before I explain, know that I do agree that many of them are not the redneck racist bigots that the media is trying to make them out to be. I know you mentioned voting Cruz first, but even though you would support Trump should he win I definitely don't question you being rational or you lacking facts to back up your posts. From the beginning you have made lucid posts with substantive arguments. Regarding most of Trump's supporters I read posts from, I just see many of them on other websites and social acting like Barack Obama's supporters did in 2008 and 2012. Totally irrational, unable to bring up facts, and just goes off to attack anything that could be a threat to Trump.

I do think Trump has done some good things such as toughening up the Republican party, defeating political correctness, and making immigration a big issue. I am thankful for that. I just think that now it's getting to the point, however, where it's getting out of hand and we're really in a lot of trouble if we don't do something to straighten it up quick.

This may look sloppy, I just don't have the time to edit.

[TheRealThing]

TRT, the only thing I really have to add is that the thing that alarms me is that he doesn't really put together a strong argument against it as has Rubio or Cruz. The interview you mentioned where he said that, yes, I agree Anderson Cooper was biased. I actually have no problem with a woman being punished for having an abortion. Trump has defended himself being pro-life, and who am I to say he's lying? The thing that I see is moreso, I do think he is pro-life in some scenarios as he says but it's not as big of a priority to him as compared to other Republicans. Thus, I don't know how much he would try to accomplish in eliminating this horrible practice.

Now, as to my main point in this thread. I was going to start a thread on conservative hypocrisy but you stole the idea from me, ha. Not to hijack your original point, TRT, but there are definitely some things I want to get off my chest. Not directed at you, not taking shots at Donald Trump or anybody else on the Republican side, but wanted to express how disappointed I am with how this whole thing has worked out.

First off, in 2008 one of the big things we were disappointed about with what Barack Obama used to get to the election was a media that went completely for him. We were disappointed with the bias and bent of the media to do anything and everything they could to get him in. We wanted fair reporting. I realize you have some outlets that lean more conservative or more liberal, but you would think the conservative outlets would report this election fairly considering that is one of the things that they pride themselves on compared to the liberal media.

Instead we are seeing media outlets take sides. Breitbart (Leaving the Michelle Fields situation out of this) has developed a reputation for having been pro-Trump in most of their articles, The Blaze for being mostly anti-Trump. I don't believe either has offered fair coverage and both are well-known conservative sources. Then you have reporters stirring up bickering, etc. amongst the conservatives on these and other websites. Isn't this the same thing we complain about liberals doing?

If I were a reporter for either of these websites or other conservative sites I would call the election straight down the middle. I would be mostly numbers-based and factual in reporting results while definitely taking the time to report any time Cruz, Trump, etc. got in a good shot at Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders.

That's part of what has contributed to this massive divide. Now you also have our analysts, many of whom claim objectivity and being factual as an alternative to the liberals . I'm greatly disappointed in the likes of Ann Coulter, Wayne Dupree, many others. Not to pick at one, but I take Ann Coulter for example. She has been completely blasting Ted Cruz all the time. A year ago, two years ago, she was always all about Ted Cruz - as was Wayne Dupree. Now all of a sudden, they have become another attack dog which is disappointing to watch. Glenn Beck has played a big role as well in his non-stop attacks on Trump, but I thought that was a big thing he did last week to step up and ask for forgiveness for the role he has played in this massive divide, admitting he has erred. I wish others would do the same.

Lastly, the thing we didn't like about Barack Obama supporters in 2008 was that they did not act rational in the least bit. Look what's happening now. The conservative base is losing it. When you tear something apart, the goal is to build it back stronger than before. We are at the point where the base is too torn down, I think, to really be built back up for the election.

I don't like to pull blame on one particular set of supporters, but I do put a lot of this on Trump's supporters. TRT, before I explain, know that I do agree that many of them are not the redneck racist bigots that the media is trying to make them out to be. I know you mentioned voting Cruz first, but even though you would support Trump should he win I definitely don't question you being rational or you lacking facts to back up your posts. From the beginning you have made lucid posts with substantive arguments. Regarding most of Trump's supporters I read posts from, I just see many of them on other websites and social acting like Barack Obama's supporters did in 2008 and 2012. Totally irrational, unable to bring up facts, and just goes off to attack anything that could be a threat to Trump.

I do think Trump has done some good things such as toughening up the Republican party, defeating political correctness, and making immigration a big issue. I am thankful for that. I just think that now it's getting to the point, however, where it's getting out of hand and we're really in a lot of trouble if we don't do something to straighten it up quick.

This may look sloppy, I just don't have the time to edit.

Actually that was Chris Matthews. And the reason Trump answered as he did was because he was responding to a specific question, and one that was pointed and pressed home over and over. I'd say Trump decided to do more than lay his answer cleverly between the lines like the polished politicians of the preferred establishment ilk would have done. What would you have him say about it? At least he isn't glossing over the real problem which is sexual promiscuity on the part of women. Right? If he were to launch out into some preachy condemnation the media would eat him alive even though that is the true source of authority on the matter. We live in strange days. Murder and abortion are immoral and willful actions which will be punished by God, but we're not allowed to say that. The guile filled notion of the separation of Church and State has succeeded in thoroughly gutting the US legal system. And secular humanism, a debate based rationale based on current fads, has supplanted the law of God in the minds of our legislators.

But I have not heard Cruz or Rubio go into the matter with any degree of depth, where did you hear them do that?

On the media deal, main stream anchors first began what I would term suggestive news reporting, back during the late 60's early 70's, when they could not contain their contempt for our role in the Viet Nam conflict. After that things morphed continually more despicable until now, we see there is no longer any attempt at pretense. Republicans are routinely berated and Democrats are routinely given a free pass as we have seen with regard to the numerous scandals of the past 7 plus years. Today, the conservative media lacks the foundation of experience. Most are too young to remember the times before the days when liberals and media blamed everything on Republicans, when in fact, it was thanks to Reagan that the economy they grew up under even existed. Frankly, we've come to the point where true conservative media types are only to be had on an individual basis. One can certainly find a majority of liberal media on FOX for example. and they supposedly a right leaning outlet.

I agree with you. The election should be called down the middle, but then the Megyn Kelly's and the Charlie Gasparino's of this world would have to keep their narrow views to themselves. Which brings us to the point that offends me the most about the media. They see themselves more as pied pipers than reporters. You hear them say it all the time, so and so did thus and such and "we'll be right back to tell what that means to you." The believe they are supposed to tell us what to think, which makes them feel superior and gifted. They are not about to just let the people vote their consciences, no they'll tell them who they should vote for. And thus we see the huge stink they have stirred up in opposing Trump. You have to understand, this guy might be the one we need no matter what the oppositionists are saying. And which is why I have posted the following quote by George Washington: "If in the opinion of the people the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this in one instance may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed."

In my view, the media, be they conservative or liberal, are playing the role of the usurper, stirring up emotionalism in order to foment support for their intents to disenfranchise the voter. And you know that I predicted the present chaos and irrational mayhem.

All I can say about Trump supporters is you don't see them going around trying to shut down roads leading to political rallies, or disrupting political rallies and etc. and etc..

[RunItUpTheGut]

There are very few conservatives in the republican party.

They are 90% moderate democrats because the democrats have went full socialist.
True right win extremism almost died until Trump, (whether he is one or not) said the right things to show the country that there are millions out there that hold those beliefs.
That's why ive always said its about the message not the man when it comes to Trump.
Whether he believes what he says or not, the people following him do and that scares the hell out of liberals and they just can believe we millions exist.

The funniest thing ive seen lately is Killary talking about how she has a million more votes than Trump. The criminal doesn't mention that shes in a two person race with a socialist while the Repubs had, what, 17 people in at one time? lol. I hope they bury her so far in the ground even Bill has to disown her.

[TheRealThing]

There are very few conservatives in the republican party.

They are 90% moderate democrats because the democrats have went full socialist.
True right win extremism almost died until Trump, (whether he is one or not) said the right things to show the country that there are millions out there that hold those beliefs.
That's why ive always said its about the message not the man when it comes to Trump.
Whether he believes what he says or not, the people following him do and that scares the hell out of liberals and they just can believe we millions exist.

The funniest thing ive seen lately is Killary talking about how she has a million more votes than Trump. The criminal doesn't mention that shes in a two person race with a socialist while the Repubs had, what, 17 people in at one time? lol. I hope they bury her so far in the ground even Bill has to disown her.

Somebody probably needs to compile a comprehensive list of the known lies of which she is guilty. You start off with the miracle of the missing file that appeared on a White House coffee table. Then you have the sniper fire incident, and her having been named after Sir Edmund Hillary who was largely unknown until he climbed Mount Everest, Hillary was 6 at the time. Then there was the time she was turned down by the Marines, and of course the pièce de ré·sis·tance, the Benghazi affair.

I'm with you on the bolded. And BTW, does her campaign voice bother you as much as it does me? Sounds like a grand witch making her manifesto.

[RunItUpTheGut]

Somebody probably needs to compile a comprehensive list of the known lies of which she is guilty. You start off with the miracle of the missing file that appeared on a White House coffee table. Then you have the sniper fire incident, and her having been named after Sir Edmund Hillary who was largely unknown until he climbed Mount Everest, Hillary was 6 at the time. Then there was the time she was turned down by the Marines, and of course the pièce de ré·sis·tance, the Benghazi affair.

I'm with you on the bolded. And BTW, does her campaign voice bother you as much as it does me? Sounds like a grand witch making her manifesto.

Theres not enough supper computers and terabytes in the world to hold all of Clintons lies and emails.
Her voice and dog barking bothers everyone. I have no doubt I my mind that she is 100% pure evil and should be dealt with accordingly.

[WideRight05]

Actually that was Chris Matthews. And the reason Trump answered as he did was because he was responding to a specific question, and one that was pointed and pressed home over and over. I'd say Trump decided to do more than lay his answer cleverly between the lines like the polished politicians of the preferred establishment ilk would have done. What would you have him say about it? At least he isn't glossing over the real problem which is sexual promiscuity on the part of women. Right? If he were to launch out into some preachy condemnation the media would eat him alive even though that is the true source of authority on the matter. We live in strange days. Murder and abortion are immoral and willful actions which will be punished by God, but we're not allowed to say that. The guile filled notion of the separation of Church and State has succeeded in thoroughly gutting the US legal system. And secular humanism, a debate based rationale based on current fads, has supplanted the law of God in the minds of our legislators.

But I have not heard Cruz or Rubio go into the matter with any degree of depth, where did you hear them do that?

On the media deal, main stream anchors first began what I would term suggestive news reporting, back during the late 60's early 70's, when they could not contain their contempt for our role in the Viet Nam conflict. After that things morphed continually more despicable until now, we see there is no longer any attempt at pretense. Republicans are routinely berated and Democrats are routinely given a free pass as we have seen with regard to the numerous scandals of the past 7 plus years. Today, the conservative media lacks the foundation of experience. Most are too young to remember the times before the days when liberals and media blamed everything on Republicans, when in fact, it was thanks to Reagan that the economy they grew up under even existed. Frankly, we've come to the point where true conservative media types are only to be had on an individual basis. One can certainly find a majority of liberal media on FOX for example. and they supposedly a right leaning outlet.

I agree with you. The election should be called down the middle, but then the Megyn Kelly's and the Charlie Gasparino's of this world would have to keep their narrow views to themselves. Which brings us to the point that offends me the most about the media. They see themselves more as pied pipers than reporters. You hear them say it all the time, so and so did thus and such and "we'll be right back to tell what that means to you." The believe they are supposed to tell us what to think, which makes them feel superior and gifted. They are not about to just let the people vote their consciences, no they'll tell them who they should vote for. And thus we see the huge stink they have stirred up in opposing Trump. You have to understand, this guy might be the one we need no matter what the oppositionists are saying. And which is why I have posted the following quote by George Washington: "If in the opinion of the people the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this in one instance may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed."

In my view, the media, be they conservative or liberal, are playing the role of the usurper, stirring up emotionalism in order to foment support for their intents to disenfranchise the voter. And you know that I predicted the present chaos and irrational mayhem.

All I can say about Trump supporters is you don't see them going around trying to shut down roads leading to political rallies, or disrupting political rallies and etc. and etc..

Relating to your first paragraph, I really didn’t mind the answer he gave about punishing women who have an abortion. My issue on Trump relating to abortion is his inability to put together a strong defense when attacked by the media on it. Most of the time he just answers that he is pro-life, same as Reagan. The other, is that I don’t think it’s a very big issue of importance to him. His main issue is the economy and immigration. While both are certainly high on the list, the slaughter of millions of unborn babies, which you and I both heavily agree on, it’s an absolute must for it to come to a stop. I believe that Trump is taking it on just enough so that he doesn’t lose the votes from the pro-life groups.

Trump doesn’t have to go in-depth about the topic, but he should at least be able to give a consistent answer and get past the first couple of lines. There is a recent interview with Howard Stern that he did where Stern presses him in contending that he’s a social liberal. Trump doesn’t attempt to defend himself, he just keeps repeating that he’s pro-life and for traditional marriage. When you get outside of immigration and the economy, he honestly hasn’t put together very many good arguments for other issues. And again, I don’t expect him to go out and be a complete world beater. He’s nearly 70 years old and running on 3-4 hours sleep a night. But I do think he should be able to provide a solid defense.

You’re more wise and experienced than I am, and one way I’m sure you’ve seen in the past is a “pro-life” politician betray the voters in office. Take West Virginia, for example. Governor Earl Ray Tomblin ran as a pro-life candidate and was even endorsed by West Virginians for Life because of his record in the state legislature. He remained silent on the issue, mostly, when running. However, he got into office and did a complete reversal. He vetoed a 20 week ban as well as a dismemberment bill. While both were overrode by the state legislature, I learned from watching that scenario unfold. Tomblin will usually use “constitutionality” or “privacy” as an excuse. I fear a similar type situation with Trump.

The one thing with Cruz and Rubio is that they have been consistent and they have been passionate about doing what they can both through their voice and their vote to protect the unborn. Both were out front and center in the attempt to defund Planned Parenthood. When heckled about it by the media, they are instantly able to utilize their playbook and defend the pro-life movement. Rubio had an excellent response when being criticized by the media for being pro-life In cases of rape and incest, for example. He asked why the media didn’t question Hillary Clinton for being pro-choice in the case of partial-birth abortion.

Both Cruz and Rubio cover abortion heavily on their websites. The list examples of where they stood for life, they include videos showing where they stood for life, and they even include an op-ed or two where they have fought for defending the unborn or taking funds away from planned parenthood. The issue is not covered on Donald Trump's website.

You mentioned predicting the present chaos and irrational mayhem, I remember some of those posts and am honestly surprised you haven’t brought some of those posts from 2012 back yet. I never thought I would see people disrespecting our police officers or really, each other to the extent they are now. The divide is deep, but never did I think it would reach the conservative end. Never did I think you and Hoot Gibson would be fighting like this despite having peacefully debated drugs, etc. in prior years on this forum. I think it just goes to show how deep of a divide the Republican party is in right now. The sad thing is, this will probably be a picnic compared to the general election.

Regarding Trump’s supporters – yes, they have been pinned by the media as these backwoods racist, redneck bigots that you and I are supporting with our dollars. I do understand that this is certainly not reality with Trump’s supporters and that their major concern is (1) they feel betrayed by the Republican party, and (2) national security. They’re not going to political rallies and causing trouble, instead that mostly comes from Sanders’ or Clinton’s supporters. There is a video on YouTube of an African-American police officer describing his experience attending a Trump rally in Arizona. He described the experience in positive terms, but said that there were protesters for Sanders/Clinton attempting to stir trouble at the event.

Where I fault some of Trump’s supporters, is that they hold him in too high of orbit compared and are unwilling to admit any kind of fault that he has. I guess you could say, Ron Paul’s supporters on steroids. It’s Trump, only Trump, and Trump is the one and only answer in this election. When Trump mentions he could shoot someone and his supporters still have his back, he knows he has many of them in their back pocket. Look at how DeMarcus Ware responded to my posts, TRT. He couldn’t answer one single question I asked him and often dodged everything I mentioned. I like DMW – I really do – but that just goes to show the rationale of many Trump supporters which I think is going to come back to bite us.

I hope you don’t think I’m talking about you when I describe this scenario. I’m not.

And believe me, TRT, I try to avoid getting attached to the candidates and if I see something from Ted Cruz that strikes me in the wrong way, I’m done with him. If it actually is proven that he had an affair, I’m going third party. We saw how dangerous it was to have a bow to the master mentality with Barack Obama, and it will come back to bite both our party and our country if we do the same thing.

Like last time, I just don’t have time to edit. Big deadline coming up in a few days.

[RunItUpTheGut]

Personally I like that Trump doesn't have scripted answers and if anyone was on the trail answering the millions of questions asked to them daily, they would fumble here and there. The thing with politicians is there job is to rehearse there manufactured answers.

[WideRight05]

I don't mind Trump, or really, any politician, not having scripted answers. It's not the occasional gaffe that I'm after here. I actually defended Trump when he said "2 Corinthians" instead of Second Corinthians, for example. Some of it is just the media being the media and just looking for some little window to where they can pick at him or Cruz. As mentioned in the above post, we're talking about a nearly 70 year old man running on 3-4 hours of sleep per night. There is some room for flexibility when it comes to understanding gaffes.

Trump doesn't have these issues answering questions when it comes to immigration or the economy, regardless of if he gaffes on it or not. The issue I am after is that he always stutters and stumbles around when asked about abortion, often just repeatedly stating that he's pro-life with exceptions and holds the same position as Ronald Reagan. He rarely provides any argument or comeback to the reporter. Considering this happens consistently, it makes me thing either (1) he is holding the pro-life position so that he doesn't lose the votes of social conservatives, or (2) he may hold this position, but it's hardly an issue to him.

This will be big because wouldn't just nominate SCOTUS judges, he also names appeals and lower court judges. We always talk about the SCOTUS judges, but we don't talk about the appeals and district court judges that get get nominated. Out of the many judges Barack Obama has nominated, many of them have been placed on votes either sweeping the senate or only having less than a handful of negative votes. It's a big deal, and if Trump doesn't pay as much attention to this issue as he claims to then it will cost us in the district and appeals courts.

[RunItUpTheGut]

Most people don't see it or do not realize the way Cruz speaks.
He always opens up his answers with a breather to give him time to think and go for his scripted playbook.

Example....
"Well, let be really clear here"....then the answer after 5-10 seconds. He does that with every answer he gives or something similar to it. Hes to scared to come out and say what he wants.

[TheRealThing]

Relating to your first paragraph, I really didn’t mind the answer he gave about punishing women who have an abortion. My issue on Trump relating to abortion is his inability to put together a strong defense when attacked by the media on it. Most of the time he just answers that he is pro-life, same as Reagan. The other, is that I don’t think it’s a very big issue of importance to him. His main issue is the economy and immigration. While both are certainly high on the list, the slaughter of millions of unborn babies, which you and I both heavily agree on, it’s an absolute must for it to come to a stop. I believe that Trump is taking it on just enough so that he doesn’t lose the votes from the pro-life groups.

Trump doesn’t have to go in-depth about the topic, but he should at least be able to give a consistent answer and get past the first couple of lines. There is a recent interview with Howard Stern that he did where Stern presses him in contending that he’s a social liberal. Trump doesn’t attempt to defend himself, he just keeps repeating that he’s pro-life and for traditional marriage. When you get outside of immigration and the economy, he honestly hasn’t put together very many good arguments for other issues. And again, I don’t expect him to go out and be a complete world beater. He’s nearly 70 years old and running on 3-4 hours sleep a night. But I do think he should be able to provide a solid defense.


And believe me, TRT, I try to avoid getting attached to the candidates and if I see something from Ted Cruz that strikes me in the wrong way, I’m done with him. If it actually is proven that he had an affair, I’m going third party. We saw how dangerous it was to have a bow to the master mentality with Barack Obama, and it will come back to bite both our party and our country if we do the same thing.

Like last time, I just don’t have time to edit. Big deadline coming up in a few days.

Frankly, I thought Trump's answer was just about as pointed as any I have heard in memory. He did not dodge when Matthews turned up the heat on him. I don't know, now that Trump has blazed the path for the rest again we may hear Cruz get on board with the idea that women should not expect to break the law without repercussion.

The question I heard was 'IF' abortion was outlawed, should there be a punishment attached for women who do it anyway. Now, I know it's in vogue these days for Presidents to sidestep and maneuver around the law, but normally one would not expect to hear a candidate for President advocate for law breaking without "some form of punishment." I really don't get it, and if I were advising the Trump campaign, I'd have him go into depth on the matter. How it happened, exactly what Matthews asked him and then I'd point out that he is THE ONLY guy with big enough nads to call out the bad behavior of the women who have abortions with far less consideration than most people suffer when for reasons of failing health, they are forced to have their pet euthanized. I mean, when does it get serious enough to do something about it? We've slaughtered, depending on who you might ask, 60 million here in this country alone since 1973. BTW, according to the ruling Congress has barred the use of federal Medicaid funds to pay for abortions, except when the woman’s life would be endangered or in cases of rape or incest. Yeah, right.

If there is anything on Cruz, they're saving it for a nuclear strike. But, when you think about things for just a second, it's pretty clear that every possible effort is being made to dig up anything possible on Trump. The jerk down thing with Fields, the abortion answer to Matthews which Pastor Jeffress of the First Baptist Church of Dallas agreed with, it's a put on. There's no proof that Trump is a misogynist, but there certainly is ample for his being tagged with the tried but true war on women sign. The thing that is incredible to me is that it actually seems to be working for the anti-Trump forces.

[Hoot Gibson]

Frankly, I thought Trump's answer was just about as pointed as any I have heard in memory. He did not dodge when Matthews turned up the heat on him. I don't know, now that Trump has blazed the path for the rest again we may hear Cruz get on board with the idea that women should not expect to break the law without repercussion.

The question I heard was 'IF' abortion was outlawed, should there be a punishment attached for women who do it anyway. Now, I know it's in vogue these days for Presidents to sidestep and maneuver around the law, but normally one would not expect to hear a candidate for President advocate for law breaking without "some form of punishment." I really don't get it, and if I were advising the Trump campaign, I'd have him go into depth on the matter. How it happened, exactly what Matthews asked him and then I'd point out that he is THE ONLY guy with big enough nads to call out the bad behavior of the women who have abortions with far less consideration than most people suffer when for reasons of failing health, they are forced to have their pet euthanized. I mean, when does it get serious enough to do something about it? We've slaughtered, depending on who you might ask, 60 million here in this country alone since 1973. BTW, according to the ruling Congress has barred the use of federal Medicaid funds to pay for abortions, except when the woman’s life would be endangered or in cases of rape or incest. Yeah, right.

If there is anything on Cruz, they're saving it for a nuclear strike. But, when you think about things for just a second, it's pretty clear that every possible effort is being made to dig up anything possible on Trump. The jerk down thing with Fields, the abortion answer to Matthews which Pastor Jeffress of the First Baptist Church of Dallas agreed with, it's a put on. There's no proof that Trump is a misogynist, but there certainly is ample for his being tagged with the tried but true war on women sign. The thing that is incredible to me is that it actually seems to be working for the anti-Trump forces.

It took huge 'nads to say that women should be punished for having illegal abortions and then, reacting to criticism, take the opposite position, and then change that position again, all within a three hour period. That was a real profile in courage.

Trump panicked because he was asked a question that he had obviously not thought about before. If he was a man of principle and spoke truthfully from the heart or from the brain, then he would have shown some courage of conviction and not backed down.

Short of discovering that Trump is holding women as sex slaves chained to strip club poles in his home, what evidence is needed for Trump followers to understand that he is a misogynist? Misogyny does not require a man to hate sex and Trump's problems dealing with women did not start with this campaign.

Wide is right about Trump. He stumbles when he is asked for details on his abortion stance, because he is trying to give the "right" answer - not explaining any deeply held moral position against it. Morally, punishing women for having illegal abortions may be the right thing to do, but that position is not going to move this country closer to overturning Roe v. Wade and it is not going to save a single baby's life. But Trump's position of punishing women only lasted for an hour or two, so you cannot really give him much credit for voicing it, can you?

In a general election campaign, Trump will dodge the abortion issue as much as possible if he is the nominee. Cruz has never hesitated to defend his opposition to abortion to the pro-abortion zealots.

Trump, with his five draft deferments, and his steadfast refusal to debate Ted Cruz now that there are only two viable candidates in the race, is far from being courageous and the majority of Republicans have recognized that fact. That is why he has been unable to, as he so courageously puts it, dispose of the "left overs" of his campaign opponents. It is why he cannot afford to go to the convention with less than a majority of delegates pledged to him. And it is why he is whining so much about the rules that were already in effect at the time he entered the race.

[jetpilot]

Hoot you are as full of sh$t as a Christmas turkey. More lies in your posts than most of the Democrats I know, and I thought that was impossible. I believe more of what comes out of Obama and Hillary's mouths than your pathetic sh$t.

[Hoot Gibson]

Hoot you are as full of sh$t as a Christmas turkey. More lies in your posts than most of the Democrats I know, and I thought that was impossible. I believe more of what comes out of Obama and Hillary's mouths than your pathetic sh$t.

Yet, you are the one who is supporting a liberal Democrat in the campaign. Trump attracts some classless supporters, and you are a perfect example. When you cannot refute the points made in a debate, you resort to insults, just like the man you worship. nicker:

[jetpilot]

I will gladly vote for Cruz or Trump without trashing either to help the Democrats unlike you, you blithering idiot.

[Hoot Gibson]

I will gladly vote for Cruz or Trump without trashing either to help the Democrats unlike you, you blithering idiot.

Trump is a liberal. If that fact bothers you, then that is your problem, not mine. Trump has trashed every one of his Republican opponents because he couldn't care less about conservatives or Republicans. Trump is for Trump, and Trump is all that he has ever cared about. You have been sucked into a cult, which is why you cannot respond to my posts in a thoughtful or civil manner. Kinda like watching Trump outclassed by every other candidate in a debate. Sad.

[jetpilot]

Trump is a liberal. If that fact bothers you, then that is your problem, not mine. Trump has trashed every one of his Republican opponents because he couldn't care less about conservatives or Republicans. Trump is for Trump, and Trump is all that he has ever cared about. You have been sucked into a cult, which is why you cannot respond to my posts in a thoughtful or civil manner. Kinda like watching Trump outclassed by every other candidate in a debate. Sad.

You have been sucked into a cult, not me. I am sick of incompetent/corrupt politicians and prefer a successful businessman who answers to no one. Serious question, do you still work for the government? i.e. the taxpayer?

[Hoot Gibson]

You have been sucked into a cult, not me. I am sick of incompetent/corrupt politicians and prefer a successful businessman who answers to no one. Serious question, do you still work for the government? i.e. the taxpayer?

Trump boasts of having bribed politicians for favors through big donation to liberal Democrats. Is that the kind of corruption that you are tired of? By not answering to anyone, do you mean a man who owes hundreds of millions of dollars to his creditors? Including George Soros? What kind of knucklehead believes that a man like Trump, a man in the business of casinos and strip clubs, a man who carries debts of hundreds of millions of dollars, owes no favors?

Serious answer, what I do is none of your business, but I have never been a government employee and never plan to be one.

[jetpilot]

Trump boasts of having bribed politicians for favors through big donation to liberal Democrats. Is that the kind of corruption that you are tired of? By not answering to anyone, do you mean a man who owes hundreds of millions of dollars to his creditors? Including George Soros? What kind of knucklehead believes that a man like Trump, a man in the business of casinos and strip clubs, a man who carries debts of hundreds of millions of dollars, owes no favors?

Serious answer, what I do is none of your business, but I have never been a government employee and never plan to be one.

Hoot you make no sense. Serious question again do you derive any money from the federal or state government as a contractor?

[Hoot Gibson]

Hoot you make no sense. Serious question again do you derive any money from the federal or state government as a contractor?

You never answered my questions, which made perfect sense.

I have made it no secret that I support our military as a federal contractor. You knew that, or you would not have asked the question. So, I suppose you will now trash those of us who work as contractors. You debate like Trump. Always preferring personal attacks over logical arguments. So, go ahead with your next insult. nicker:

[jetpilot]

You never answered my questions, which made perfect sense.

I have made it no secret that I support our military as a federal contractor. You knew that, or you would not have asked the question. So, I suppose you will now trash those of us who work as contractors. You debate like Trump. Always preferring personal attacks over logical arguments. So, go ahead with your next insult. nicker:

:biglmao:What a true patriot. The rest of us support our military paying into the government (i.e. taxpayer) trough you feed off of. :biglmao:

[Hoot Gibson]

:biglmao:What a true patriot. The rest of us support our military paying into the government (i.e. taxpayer) trough you feed off of. :biglmao:

That's what I expected from you. I have always found that if you give stupid people an opportunity to make fools of themselves, they never disappoint. You have proven yourself to be as deep as a mud puddle. Trump prefers his disciples that way.

[jetpilot]

That's what I expected from you. I have always found that if you give stupid people an opportunity to make fools of themselves, they never disappoint. You have proven yourself to be as deep as a mud puddle. Trump prefers his disciples that way.

And a post like this has to come from none other than a genius, Hoot taxpayer tit Gibson. No wonder you fear Trump, he's going to cut fat. inglepar

I support the military as a government contractor lol....:hilarious:

[Hoot Gibson]

And a post like this has to come from none other than a genius, Hoot taxpayer tit Gibson. No wonder you fear Trump, he's going to cut fat. inglepar

I support the military as a government contractor lol....:hilarious:

I thought your were putting me on with your first few posts in this thread, but you really are this dumb, aren't you? No wonder you do not post in the political forum very often.

Life is hard; it's harder if you're stupid. - Anonymous

FYI, "Anonymous" is not a person's name. It means that the name of the person is not known.

FYI, "FYI" is an acronym for "For your information."

FYI, an acronym is an abbreviation for a phrase that usually consists of the first letter of each word.

I apologize for not taking time to dumb down my earlier posts for you. Unlike Trump, I do not usually speak on a fourth grade level. I will keep things simple for you in the future.

[jetpilot]

No need to apologize, your posts are more than dumbed down.

What's your position if it's Hillary vs. Trump in the general election? Please be direct and brief as I am having a hard time grasping your posts. (Other than you feeding at the taxpayer money trough of course wink wink.)

[Hoot Gibson]

No need to apologize, your posts are more than dumbed down.

What's your position if it's Hillary vs. Trump in the general election? Please be direct and brief as I am having a hard time grasping your posts. (Other than you feeding at the taxpayer money trough of course wink wink.)

Don't worry, I have noticed your difficulty in comprehending full sentences.

If Trump is the nominee, then I will vote for the most conservative candidate on the ballot who is not a liberal Democrat. I will do so because I am a conservative.

Thank you for the entertaining posts and for demonstrating how Trump and many of his supporters are ensuring that he will never become president.

Good night.

[jetpilot]

Don't worry, I have noticed your difficulty in comprehending full sentences.

If Trump is the nominee, then I will vote for the most conservative candidate on the ballot who is not a liberal Democrat. I will do so because I am a conservative.

Thank you for the entertaining posts and for demonstrating how Trump and many of his supporters are ensuring that he will never become president.

Good night.

And thanks for not answering a very simple question. Good luck sleeping tonight with foam coming out of both sides of your mouth and Trump on your mind 24/7. But oh yeah you don't have to sleep, you can take the day off tomorrow and the gub-ment will still pay you with my money.hh:

[64SUR]

The title of this thread conservative Hypocrisy keep me away from posting anything. nicker:

[TheRealThing]

It took huge 'nads to say that women should be punished for having illegal abortions and then, reacting to criticism, take the opposite position, and then change that position again, all within a three hour period. That was a real profile in courage.
Trump panicked because he was asked a question that he had obviously not thought about before. If he was a man of principle and spoke truthfully from the heart or from the brain, then he would have shown some courage of conviction and not backed down.

Short of discovering that Trump is holding women as sex slaves chained to strip club poles in his home, what evidence is needed for Trump followers to understand that he is a misogynist? Misogyny does not require a man to hate sex and Trump's problems dealing with women did not start with this campaign.

Wide is right about Trump. He stumbles when he is asked for details on his abortion stance, because he is trying to give the "right" answer - not explaining any deeply held moral position against it. Morally, punishing women for having illegal abortions may be the right thing to do, but that position is not going to move this country closer to overturning Roe v. Wade and it is not going to save a single baby's life. But Trump's position of punishing women only lasted for an hour or two, so you cannot really give him much credit for voicing it, can you?

In a general election campaign, Trump will dodge the abortion issue as much as possible if he is the nominee. Cruz has never hesitated to defend his opposition to abortion to the pro-abortion zealots.

Trump, with his five draft deferments, and his steadfast refusal to debate Ted Cruz now that there are only two viable candidates in the race, is far from being courageous and the majority of Republicans have recognized that fact. That is why he has been unable to, as he so courageously puts it, dispose of the "left overs" of his campaign opponents. It is why he cannot afford to go to the convention with less than a majority of delegates pledged to him. And it is why he is whining so much about the rules that were already in effect at the time he entered the race.

^^Ridiculous and not true. But still better than the profile in delusion that you present in your daily frothing tirades with regard to Trump. Trump changed his mind from his pro-choice stance to pro-life, and he hasn't wavered since. The Matthews interview was basically designed to give Trump's detractors an opportunity to manufacture an appearance of inconsistency and tag him with it. A band wagon you are more than eager to ride on for as long as it suits your purpose.

Trump didn't panic, and the answer he gave wasn't bad at all and neither were his pointed questions to Matthews, who is supposed to be a Catholic. Matthews pushes abortion on TV while straddling the Church fence in his private life and Trump burned him for it. Right now Cruz is speaking in categorical terms on things which require the Congress to act. IF elected, he can't do a darn thing on his own to overturn Roe. He can try and work with Congress and the SC, but that's about all. By the time Cruz gets to the Oval Office, 535 Congressmen will have so many axes to grind he'll be lucky to get anything at all accomplished. Maybe you should consider addressing a joint session of Congress to point out all of Cruz's glowing attributes. The way I hear it McConnell and Ryan aren't all that impressed and that's who he'd have to work with because it is extremely unlikely that Republicans will lose the House or the Senate this time around.

Trump doesn't dodge issues, likely he is the most forthcoming candidate I have heard since Reagan. It doesn't matter though cause Trump's leading in every remaining state primary poll.