With all of the untruths spouted by, not only the POTUS himself, but several of his closest advisors, I cannot understand how others simply brush the lies aside as if they meant nothing. I never thought I'd see the day when such blatant acts would happen on a daily basis. Not only is the administration up to its neck in the Russia investigation, more lies are exposed as if there wasn't enough to begin with.
Feel free to join in the discussion if you can be reasonable and not use questionable sources to base your claims.
Why would anybody trust any politician, about any thing or at any time? Not a one knows the difference between truth and lie - that one of the people in the cabinet was caught is surely nothing new on the American political field.
It does make a great talking point, though - sure to increase divisiveness and hatred in people that don't like Trump. Very useful for tearing the people apart while claiming that Trump is doing it.
Hey Dan, are you saying all presidents and their cabinet tell as many lies on a daily basis as Trump's crowd? Where do you get this from? Seriously, people all over the world are laughing at him!
I'd be pleased to look at any evidence you have for your claims. By the way, it's just been reported Flynn has been caught in ANOTHER lie, Doh! A whistleblower received a text from Flynn saying the Russian sanctions would be dropped after Trump took office. Why so many lies if Trump and his cronies are innocent of wrongdoing, Dan? Inquiring minds an all that.....
I haven't kept count. Did you?
Do you think anyone on the hill is innocent of all wrongdoing, Randy? Or do you just pick on Trump because of a bad case of TDS?
(Have to say that the only "inquiring mind" here is the one desperately seeking anything that even might look muddy and can be thrown.)
Dan, you didn't say if you thought Trump and his cronies have lied more than other admins or are they simply the norm. If the latter, then explain why if you please?
I plainly said I hadn't bothered to count. I also asked if you had, but you seem to have refrained from answering that question.
I'll add that it is pretty normal for a politician to lie. Almost every time their mouth opens.
You honestly believe that the level of lying displayed by Donald Trump is on par with previous presidents? There are numerous articles to be found online about how his lying compares to other politicians and previous presidents. There is no need for Randy or anyone else here to count every lie. They are well documented online.
PP, if you've followed this sub-thread you've seen me say, not once but twice, that I haven't counted. There is no possibility of converting that statement into one saying I believe Trump does, or does not, lie more than other presidents. Not honestly, anyway.
No, I haven't researched whether other people think he lies more or less, either. I simply don't care as I find that all politicians lie, and lie on a regular basis.
As far as being documented: I will agree that a liberal press, and a severely divided country with a very angry liberal half, have documented every falsehood, intentional or not, that Trump has said.
If you absolutely insist on what I think (as opposed to know) I will say that Trump exaggerates badly (a lie), is often mistaken (claimed by many to be a lie) and is extremely careless about how he says what he says (again claimed to be a lie by a great many). I doubt that he has actually, intentionally lied any more than most politicians/presidents.
Of course, I consider telling half the story to be lying. I consider a slight spin to give the impression that something is true when it isn't to be a lie. Any time, regardless of the method, that something untrue is intended to be the conclusion drawn by a listener/reader it is a lie. Intent is king here, not methodology and not technicalities.
Excellence non-answer eh, PP? Like pullin' teeth to get a direct answer from a DT fan.
Yes, and I've been making a genuine effort to understand. Sigh....
Me too. It's like they've been hypnotized not to give a freakin' inch even though the evidence is right in front of them. I've never observed anything like it, even when Dubya was in office. Well, I take that back. There was one hubber named Lady Love who turned out to be a paid pro-Bush poster. Almost as bad as the real DT fans.
What more could you possibly want? I gave an opinion, along with a definition of "lie" when I can't give known facts. How could there possibly be more to the question?
And you don't try to learn if your opinion is fact based or not. Why even give one?
Because you demanded an answer even after being told I didn't have one. So you got an opinion without anything to support it...and now you gripe about that! Jeesh! What do you want?
Lying is not a crime. Lying to the FBI is. That's what got him in trouble.
Lying to Congress is a crime, too, but Hillary got away with it. We never heard even a squeak about her crime, let alone talk of jail time. Of course, Flynn doesn't have her power...
Oh that's what it is , the left has no memory of their lies compared to other lies ......?
Sadly you know , it is a left brain right brain issue.
Heck Dan, lock Hillary and Trump up for all I care. I'm not gonna make excuses for either of them if they've lied to the FBI, congress, and the people. But sexual predators are okay in Alabama and the White House. Do you agree or not.
I haven't found or heard of a reason to lock Trump up yet. Lots and lots of ridiculous claims and spewing of hate, but no actual reasons.
Hillary, on the other hand, absolutely committed crimes - crimes that other people paid for when they did similar things but that she got away with scott free. When that investigation started I said she would never be prosecuted, guilty or not, and that turned out to be correct. Trump I'm not so sure of - he simply does not have her extreme power base to help him out. Instead he's hated by both sides as a clear danger to their way of life.
You didn't address the last point I made about sexual predators but it was simply sarcastic at any rate. I do want to ask you a question I've asked other Trump advocates but they don't seem to want to answer, instead they want to go the old Hillary, Obama did this and that instead of answering. I hope you won't disappoint me by doing the same. I do agree with you on the religious forums most of time, just so you know I'm not being completely contrary.
The question is-If Trump is proven to have colluded with the Russians to affect the presidential election, will you still stick by him?
Define collusion. I think I've asked that before, and you declined to answer. Does it mean talking to a Russian citizen? Conspiring with Putin to re-program voting computers? I've seen everything between those two - what do you mean?
Not being difficult - it is an honest question and your reply will dictate my answer.
Accepting assistance during an election from a foreign government in violation of campaign finance laws.
I thought my questions was clear Dan, but I'll endeavor to simplify it even further. If it's proven Trump was involved in getting the assistance--in any manner for any quid pro quo-- of Russia to help him Sway the presidential election to his favor, will you still support him?
If it proves out that Clinton effectively paid for hers as is aledged , will you support charges of treason against her and the Obama administration for his supporting of that corruption cycle ?
I'll answer this one question from you, Horse. None of your cronies have answered my question and I certainly do not want to appear like you and ignore questions.
Certainly I would I would want those in the govt. who are proven to be guilty to be punished. Now leave me the hell alone with your nonsense!
Yep. Given your waffling and wide open definition, being given a wikileaks file classifies as collusion. So does being told, by a Russian, that the Dem's were planning to smear him. So does saying that he thought sanctions should be lessened, followed by unasked for ads on FB.
None of which I care about. Show me where Russia tampered with voting machines, at the request of Donald Trump, Sr. and he'll lose my support. Or that he took large sums of money, in violation of election laws, from the Russian government and used them in his campaign.
How would you have asked the question, Dan? Perhaps I can learn something from the master.
I wouldn't have asked it at all, but then I'm not desperate to find dirt on the President. After watching the shenanigans of the Democratic caucus, and the crap that went down with Trumps primary opponent, he could do almost anything and I would find him preferable to Hillary. I gave you two examples of what I would consider onerous and far out of line, though. So how about "If Donald Trump committed illegal acts, with Russian government help and proven in a court of law, resulting in his impeachment or jailing, would you still support him?"
See, I recognize that you aren't concerned about the law, only about demonizing Trump and raising irrational emotional objections. I'm not.
But allow ME a question: you have to recognize that there is almost no possibility of finding Donald Trump Sr. did anything wrong but the most minor of pecadillos. Why, then, the massive concern?
Your recognition abilities need more practice, Dan. I want everyone in the government to be held accountable for their actions. I recognize YOU only want those on the left accountable. See, we both can play that childish game if you like. Duh!
In the first quote you tell me what YOU recognize. In the second you tell me what I HAVE to recognize, like I have no choice in the matter.
What a load of horse hockey!
Wilderness, I'm wondering why you wouldn't want to know the truth of what happened during the election when it has been proved that the Russians interfered to help one candidate win. If that implicates Trump, so be it.
I'm also wondering why none of you want our politicians held liable when they lie so often on security forms. We have policies in place for a reason to help ensure our politicians are there for the right reason, the help the American people. You have to be willing to disclose things to serve, and there have been so many instances of Trump surrogates failing to do that accurately. How this does not concern you all is worrisome.
"it has been proved that the Russians interfered to help one candidate win"
Well, if that "interference" was to supply goons with baseball bats at the voting station I'd be interested. If they re-programmed the computers, I'd be interested.
And if they gave Trump some information, I really don't care. As the "interference" we've seen to date is that they promised information, but didn't deliver anything of value, I most certainly don't care at all.
I'm sorry, but the reason for disclosing things on a security form has deteriorated to the point that it is solely so the other party can deny them a job. The result is that only liars can work in political fields. Now if it could be made to work properly, as it is supposed to, it would be a different story.
Wilderness , don't forget , Trump drinks too much diet coke .........now there's something !
I'm glad you're not in charge of our security.
Careful , Wilderness could be in charge of Clinton Dossier security .
Probably best, for if I WERE in charge of national security the first point of attack would be our southern border, followed by additional steps to keep terrorists out. Then get rid of illegal aliens and people using private servers for official govt. business and/or classified material. Cyber crime would be a major point, both for infrastructure (dams, power plants, pentagon, etc.) and citizen protection (such as identity theft). Illegal voting, by those without the right to cast a vote, would be fairly high on the list, as would the flood of "leaks" from everything from the pentagon to the white house to congress. And way down at the bottom, if there were $10 left in the budget, would be to investigate whether some random Russian provided information to Donald Trump about Hillary Clinton.
You will, of course, have your own priority list, apparently with it being more important to scream about Russian "interference" than to protect our electric grid, or the twin towers.
Okay , I'll bite , So where is all of your proof of these daily Trump lies ? You need to awaken yourself to the fact that our news media is probably the most biased media industry in a hundred year recorded history including one that many here have long forgotten ,or never actually knew, The Russian , Pravda *,
I have to say , I don't blame anyone for believing what they read today , there is an element of our population , especially younger voters , who assume that if something is in print , it certainly HAS to be true. As to my supporting something with "sources", I will when the left does .
You make a statement " ..........up to it's neck in Russia....... " Because the very liberally slanted media say's it , doe that make it biblical fact ?
When you have a president who lies daily, then you can't believe anything he says. One of his current new fictions is that it isn't his voice on the Hollywood Access tape. Really. When the tape originally surfaced, he admitted he said those things and he apologized for it, now he expects us to believe it isn't his voice. Trump thinks his base is stupid. He thinks they will believe anything he says. Billy Bush, who lost his job for merely laughing with Trump on that tape, is coming out to say it most definitely is Donald Trump talking. This is just one example of the laughable, ridiculous falsehoods that emerge from his mouth on an almost daily basis.
If wilderness hasn't seen this already, there is nothing we can do to enlighten him.
"I cannot understand how others simply brush the lies aside as if they meant nothing." I have to ask all Hillary supporters the EXACT same question. SHE is the standard for Democrats. If you wanted her to be president, your standard for president is a person who lies. So, Donald Trump seems to meet YOUR standards. Why upset? Do you know the denotation of the word "hypocrisy?"
You probably just hit on the greatest hypocrisy known to a democratic voter , If Trump is an all out liar , a money grubbing thief in , has more ties to Russia than Lenin had himself , has lied to more people than anyone else in the world ,
WHY DID THEY WANT HILARY to begin with . They actually got two for the price of one , And still ....they are sore losers ?
HRC could not hold a candle to Trump and his daily lies. Gee, you guys cannot defend the p***Y grabber-in-chief without mentioning Obama or HRC eh?
NEVER forget Hillary is YOUR standard. I doubt you even know all the major lies that woman has told during her career.
You made my point for me, Mike. Thanks! :)You guys cannot defend Trump without blaming HRC or Obama. Defend him on his merits if you can.
Sure thing. He's the only president in decades that has made an honest effort to control our southern border. He's the only one in decades that has made an honest effort to enforce immigration laws passed by congress. He's the only one in decades that puts security over being PC, as in limiting travel from countries controlled by terrorists.
That enough "defense" for you?
Mike Flynn, Paul Manaford, Rick Gates, and George Papadopoulos, all associated with the campaign or administration of Trump, have been indicted on criminal charges. Four indicted in the first year. This is unprecedented in presidential history. Obama had zero indictments of any officials in eight years.
I wonder, too, how anyone can keep supporting him, but I believe it is not their belief in Trump and his criminal cohorts that they are supporting but their own decisions. It's sometimes hard to admit we've made a mistake.
He (Obama) was good, wasn't he? As in really, really good. I'm sure it helped to have the likes of Billy to run interference with the law and keep the guilty out of jail, but still, he has to have been good to go 8 years without even an indictment. Powerful, smart politicians can do wonders when it comes to burying facts and prosecutions.
What should Obama have been charged with, Dan?
You did imply people were somehow kept out of jail. Didn't you?
Ah yes. But that referred to Clinton, whom the FBI has reported to have committed over 100 crimes, not to Obama. But I'm sure you recognized that. Didn't you?
You mentioned Obama first. And a link to Clintons over 100 crimes would be helpful.
Read the FBI reports on her server. You will find them.
But you know that, too. Why are you asking for a list?
You don't have a link? And I didn't know which Clinton you were referring to since you mentioned Bill in the comment.
I'm sure you do now. Just as I'm positive you know about the +100 crimes. Which pretty makes it just trolling rather than discussing, now doesn't it?
I hadn't heard about the FBI reporting that Clinton had committed over 100 crimes. I just googled "FBI Clinton 100 crimes" and found nothing, though I confess I only looked through two pages of results. So, to be clear, are you saying that the FBI detailed out over 100 crimes committed by Hillary Clinton yet charged her with none of them?
It is a crime to put classified information on a private server. She did it over 100 times. Ergo, 100 crimes, as reported by the FBI. And no, after Billy talked to the AG there were no charges.
No trolling here, like Pretty Panther, I've never read or heard of such. That was the reason I asked for a link.
While I could be wrong, I'm pretty darned sure you know that the FBI found over 100 classified documents on Clintons private server. Pretty darned sure that it is a flat outright lie when you say you had never heard of it. Which once more takes us back to trolling, doesn't it?
You're too easy, Randy - you want fake discussions you're going to have to up the game considerably.
Wow, that's pretty harsh. You must have thought I was lying, too, but I assure you I wasn't.
I can never tell with you, Dan. Recently you gave an opinion without any facts and you reproved me because I asked for a link. I may just have to put you in the group with horse and colorful.
You demanded an answer without evidence. You got it. And now you're complaining that I satisfied your curiosity by giving you exactly what you wanted?
But you may put me anywhere you wish. The pile with JC himself would probably be more appropriate, but it's probably unrealistic to expect a liberal to understand such deep thinking.
Oh, okay. I thought that might be what you were referring to, but didn't want to assume. My memory is that there were three classified emails and that they weren't all properly marked so I googled it and found this: http://www.factcheck.org/2016/07/revisi … formation/
In any case, it seems your position is that Clinton committed multiple crimes but was not charged because she and Obama are "really, really good"; that they were able to avoid criminal charges because they are "powerful" and "smart." Is that a correct description of your position?
What you gonna do when she's investigated ,indicted by Mueller ?
Hmmm. I suppose it is, although perhaps a trifle simplified. The rich and powerful get away with many things (specifically including the crime of putting classified material on a private server) by using their money and power. So yes, I guess you could put it as you did, although I not positive that "smart" should be a part of it all - what do you think in that regard?
Well, "smart" is from your own words. You said (bold added):
"He (Obama) was good, wasn't he? As in really, really good. I'm sure it helped to have the likes of Billy to run interference with the law and keep the guilty out of jail, but still, he has to have been good to go 8 years without even an indictment. Powerful, smart politicians can do wonders when it comes to burying facts and prosecutions."
What do I think? I agree Obama and Clinton are both smart.
Did you read the link, and do you still think Clinton committed cover 100 crimes?
Comey said the FBI made a determination there was not enough evidence to bring charges. Given that Comey took great pains to share he was reexamining Hillary's emails just two weeks before the election, I have a hard time believing he would not bring charges if there was enough evidence. In other words, I believe him. Do you think he lied?
Similarly, if Mueller brings charges against, say, Trump or Kushner, would you believe him? Or, would you think the charges are fake and Mueller is lying about the evidence? Conversely, if Mueller had brought no charges at all against anyone, would you believe he did not find enough evidence? Or, would you believe Trump and his crew escaped charges because they are powerful and smart?
I know, a lot of questions, but I am trying to understand how you and other Trump supporters think. Why you continue to say Hillary is guilty, even though she was investigated and no charges were brought. And how that fits in with the insistence that the Mueller investigation is a political fabrication. Will you judge both investigations in the same way,?
The problem is many who voted for Trump now see they've been misled and now look for anyone to blame for their own poor judgement. They can only point to Obama and HRC to explain away Trump's poor decisions and constant lies. Many on the right have now been forced to blame Robert Mueller--a longtime trusted agent under several administrations--for the ills Trump and his cronies caused themselves.
My firm belief is Trump will be shown to be a traitor by being in the pocket of the Russians before he ran for POTUS. Imagine the shame of choosing such a person in the first place.....
I believe you are right about some people.
With regard to the investigation, Trump and crew are definitely trying to hide something.
"Comey said the FBI made a determination there was not enough evidence to bring charges."
I'm sorry, PP, but that is NOT why no charges were filed (It isn't the FBI's call anyway - it's the AG's). Comey recommended that nothing be done because it had never been done...even though it had and would, within months, be done again. So yes, he lied; he lied through his teeth after being told NOT to recommend charges by the AG. Some trumped up reason had to be found and he did the best he could. It wasn't good enough.
I say Hillary was guilty because the FBI said they had found classified emails on her server. Either they lied or they didn't; I choose to believe that they did not. And yes, the Mueller investigation is a political fabrication. It started with Trump (Sr) having personal ties with Putin. Then he had personal ties with the Russian govt. Then with individual russians. Then someone in his campaign had personal ties to Russian intelligence. Then to a Russian. It has gone on and on and on, continually changing with what was known to be true, and it has gone on to the point I don't believe any of it. It's a witch hunt, with the entire Democratic party desperately searching for some way to get their opponent, a man they hate beyond any reason, out of office. Truth isn't of any particular concern, honesty isn't relevant and neither is any form of ethics. All that matters is that Donald Trump not be in the presidency of the United States, no matter what the people have decreed. They will spend whatever tax money is necessary, continuing their "investigation" until they find that he rant a stop sign 40 years ago and they will then impeach him for it. (exaggeration, but I'm sure you get the gist of it).
Are you blind to the facts, Dan? Mueller's investigation has already uncovered meetings between Trump's own son and son-in-law and Russian agents. Hatred for Trump is long on the back burner, this is about people trying to manipulate our election system using help from our main adversary. Stand up for him and you'll be part and parcel of the entire tragedy.
So why don't one of you brilliant diplomats explain why a meeting or conversation with even a Russian is worthy of all the nonsensical Collusion charges , remember , you got a long long way to go ! Election / Trump / Russian collusion .
Got Collusion ?
Didn't think so .
I don't hate Trump. I wouldn't trust him with my dog, but that's because I think he is a disgusting, mentally unstable human being. I am disappointed in my fellow Americans who defend and support him no matter what he does.
I think it boils down to your last sentence, Jo.
Did you call out President Obama for all his lies in the 8 years of his administration?
~~~~NewsFlash to everyone , ~~~~~ Flynn hasn't worked for the administration since what day twenty or something ?
Oh no .......but the media is 100% accurate.
We have proof that the Democrats are conspiring with the Russians. The Russians are poised to start building nuclear plants in Arab nations. A bad idea, but one the DNC is clearly in favor of. Pro-Russian whistleblower attacked Flynn.
Like everything they do is shapeshift, cover or misdirect. Democrats in Congress are trying to gin up criminal penalties, when Congress does not, and cannot, prosecute crimes.
This should help you decide if you have doubts...
http://www.politifact.com/personalities … ants-fire/
By the way, apparently DT jr. is a chip off the ole buffoon with his testimony before the house intel committee. Like Sessions, he exerted privileges he wasn't entitled to and had a bad case of amnesia in the process. Jr. is up to his neck with his past lies and is trying hard to keep daddy out of it. Wait till Mueller gets hold of him. He'll squeal like a stuck hawg!
And trolling for what exactly, Dan? Are you accusing me of breaking forum rules?
Saw this quote on my facebook feed today, "Make the lie big, make it simple, keep repeating it, and eventually they will believe it" Adolph Hitler. "You tell people a lie 3 times, they will believe anything." Donald Trump in The Art of the Deal
Great minds think alike.
Faux News is in full attack mode against Robert Mueller. Even though Mueller is a Republican, the infamous network is trying their best to keep Trump's loyal base--now at the low rate of 32%--happy by trying to destroy Mueller's credibility. There's no curing the stupidity of those who watch and believe in this misleading network.
See the above post to realize I'm telling the truth about rabid Faux watchers.
Even as a liberal, I'd concede that it's nice to have the immigration laws enforced.
Faux News is in full attack mode against Robert Mueller. Just the opinion guys though. The real Fox journalists are staying out of it for the most part. Hannity is simply an ex carpenter with no journalistic qualifications the ignorant look to for what want they want to believe, not real news.
I really don't know if there are very many real journalists on the network at all. Perhaps a rabid Fox watcher can enlighten me on this.
I post about what I saw and heard on Faux News and some person tells me to listen to Faux once. No wonder there's a dearth of proper discussion with pro Trump apologists. Unbelievable!
Problem with the left is depth , you have no political depth . If media points aren't delivered to you on a conglomeration of puppet strings then you have no idea of the path to interpretation of these facts . Don't feel bad though , it's been that way since the sixties in America.
Problem with the right is that you believe the conspiracy theories spouted by your media sources. Seth Rich, Birther movement, Liberals coming for all your guns, it's socialism even though you paid into it and it should work to assist you, showing some humanity in regards to refugees puts the country at risk even though the body count is way higher for middle-aged white guys with guns, etc.
This Naive rant isn't even worth responding to .
And yet you did. With a party that can stand behind a potential child molester, there's not much credibility left there.
Where is the proof? The law is innocent until proven guilty...
Don’t fall for the political maniputions...
I'll always 'politically' remember the look on Bill Clinton's face at the Clinton /Trump debate looking at his rape and sexual accomplishments .
A perfect image of ALL your hypocrisy .
Let me quote a headline from the washington post. "Clinton campaign, DNC paid for research that led to Russia dossier." I wonder if clinton had been elected that the same people now would really be clamoring for any real investigation. After more than one year, and millions spent, we have solid proof of clinton and the russians.
Stephen, you do realize that the dossier was initially funded by someone in the GOP, running against Trump in the primary.
Second, regardless of the fact that BOTH parties contributed funding to the dossier, you haven't disproven it's facts just by tying it to the Clinton campaign. Your own feelings towards her honesty make you doubt its contents, but that's not real evidence that the claims made in the dossier are, in fact, false.
Third, it's the job of the FBI to investigate those kinds of claims. People like Comey and Mueller have obviously found merit to investigate further, to either prove or disprove the things held in there. During this process, Comey was removed in what many consider to be Obstruction of Justice because Trump admitted that the investigation was a consideration in the firing on two separate occasions. Once to Lester Holt on national television and the second time to the Russians in the Oval Office a few days later.
So your attempt to undermine the dossier just by linking it to Clinton holds no water here.
For some one so concerned about the Constitution...what about our Bill of Rights...?
So quick to condemn a man without due process.
It is about time someone in our government put God first.
We would have so much less problems.
The founders of our nation said “in God we Trust”
This is an OJ scenario. He did it, but not so much as to find him legally guilty.
Didn't the founders also provide for a separation of church and state?
Yes, but not the way the ACLU meant...check out my article on American Civics 101. It explains what the founders intended...
Putting God first is exactly why you have a separation. What about those who don't believe in God the way you do? Or those who don't believe in a God at all? There are so many forms of religion that to run a government based on how people adhere to their form of religion would be discriminatory, to say the least.
No body is imposing their religion or belief on anyone else. That is the first Amerndment.
The separation of church and state has been perverted by the ACLU and our Supreme Court. The founders was trying to prevent the government from over reaching and establish a state religion...
Not the other way around. Down through our history, our officials have started their sessions with a prayer and in the distant past, many government affairs were conducted in local churches...
I can’t go into much detail here but please go read my article on American Civics... you may just learn something that should have been taught in schools.
Nobody would impose their religion or belief on anyone? I can think of two issues right off the bat where legislation is tied directly to religious beliefs - marriage rights and abortion. How legislators vote is a direct reflection on religious beliefs, so to say the issue wouldn't be compounded might not be accurate.
That is right. You picked two issues that were ruled by the Supreme Court, bypassing the American people. You wonder why we are so divided as a nation...
The question of marriage was religious based but not exclusively. Down through our history and with multiple civilizations, the marriage was understood to be between a man and a women for the purpose of producing off spings...and a family unit. It was established long ago that it was the best form for a society to organize and insure transition from one generation to the next, legally and morally.
With abortion, science has determined thst life begins at conception. How a fetus is viable outside the womb is debatable as to the time duration, 7, 8 or 9 months...
The Supreme Court originally ruled to legalize abortion but wanted it to be rare and as the last resort...
Today, we are debating on late term abortions and the right of the mother to choose in some cases at the point of delivery...That was never the intent of the original ruling.
"With abortion, science has determined thst life begins at conception."
Is a sperm cell then not living? An egg? It would seem that life begins long before conception...unless you refer to human life, but there science has nothing at all to say.
"The Supreme Court originally ruled to legalize abortion but wanted it to be rare and as the last resort..."
The SCOTUS does not, or at least never should, rule according to what it wants. Not a single judge on that court is supposed to rule according to his or her wants, but only according to the law.
That last statement IS what has effected many many court rulings in the last decade or two alone , especially the federal circuit courts , look at the travel ban alone . These judges are now as personally corrupted as is any politician .
Too isolated a lifestyle ?
No, not too isolated. Too powerful: absolute power corrupts absolutely, and their power is very nearly absolute. Couple that with a decided lack of ethics and you get just what we have.
But having said that I can certainly understand how a moral stance is going to affect a perfectly honest interpretation of the law. And I'm sure that happens...perhaps all of 1% of the time!
You can add prohibition (even today, hundreds of counties are "dry"), Sunday blue laws and preferential tax breaks for churches. Our nation has seen laws requiring church attendance, and Puritans (knowing that we are born on the same day of the week we were conceived) punished the parents of children born on Sunday.
Wilderness , Recently talked to a friend who went to a nuke plant for a work related visit , drove right in , right by the guards , went to the main buildings , asked someone ; "Was I really supposed to have just done that ?"
The official just looked down at the ground and said ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,",No "
How can you fix that ?
Fire the guards and hire someone that will do their job. Put a couple of MP's with assault rifles (real ones, not fake) at every entrance and roving guards around the perimeter. Flood the place with electronic eyes of various sorts. Electrify fencing with killing voltage.
Of which only the first one will be acceptable.
by ahorseback11 months ago
Trumps pick for a campaign chief has done more for shattering the glass ceiling , than Hilary Clinton could ever have done . Hilary would have remained an unknown entity to gender politics had...
by PrettyPanther5 days ago
Thought I'd share this link. I found it fascinating. "When it comes to Donald Trump, his campaign and their dealings with Russia past and present, sometimes it’s hard to keep track of all the players...
by marinealways248 years ago
With all of the political hidden agenda, we never truly know what politicians have our best interest in mind. Should all politicians be required to take lie detector tests before and during office?
by ahorseback22 months ago
Hillary or, ANY ONE OF THEM , why do we keep up the same insanity ?
by G. Diane Nelson Trotter8 weeks ago
Donald Trump is the president of the United States. The odds are in his favor to accomplish many of his objectives because of the trifecta.When his lies can easily be proven, does that impact1) public trust2)...
by Don W7 months ago
I'm struggling to keep up with all this. Is Trump really planning to attack North Korea if they do another nuclear test? Is it seriously being considered as a possibility? Or is it just sabre rattling? And is this type...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.