Trump cheats at golf - the ONE and ONLY politics thread

CNN's initial headline yesterday was that Trump said women who have abortions should be punished. Totally misleading. But now pretty much every TV outlet has joined the Internet in just framing things/writing headlines in whichever manner they think will get the most notice, context be damned.

 

Uh, no, IN PUBLIC a president (or candidate) should say catgorically, "no, we will never use nuclear weapons in Europe. Never. End of story."

If there's a war and through some circumstances are forced to do so: a) if we win, there'll be nobody left in any condition to bitch about it, and b), if we lose, WE won't be in any condition to care whether anybody bitches or not.

The "nuclear option" should be "taken off the table" by any POTUS because it needs to be understood as the "option beyond all options."

If using nukes is just another weapon in your grab bag of toys "sitting on the table," pretty quickly the burr-heads start thinking they have to figure out some reason/excuse/justification to use them.

 

I'm no political scientist, but I'm pretty sure we can safely rule out nuking Europe and killing hundreds of millions of people, the vast majority of whom are our allies.

 

Well that's a terrible SEO headline.

 

English, MFcker, do you speak it?

It's amazing the contortions people will go to scrub this pig's ass clean and argue that he didn't really say what he said.

 

Paul Ryan available for POTUS bet at +9000 today.

Great value.

 

The question was should it be punished if it was illegal. Not sure why that hypothetical even came up, but punishment necessarily follows an illegal activity. Unless we're talking about immigration.

The headline made it sound as if Trump arbitrarily decided that women should be punished for something that is legal.

And save your anger for those you pay to be near you.

 

For PR purposes, the anti-abortionists have always painted the mother as a peripheral victim of abortion, and spun the party line that they are almost universally haunted by burning guilt and remorse the rest of their lives, and as a result no further legal punishment would be necessary.

(Of course the huge majority of women undergoing abortions are not seized by lifetime guilt complexes.)

But now the pig Trump has dumped that fiction and joined the fetus-in-a-bottle screaming grandma brigade to demand legal punishments on the mother.

 

I only watched the Trump-Matthews exchange about the nuclear weapons, but Matthews did more talking in that interview than Trump did. Before Trump could even give something resembling an answer, Matthews was trying to either change the question, add to it or fire off another one.
Trump's "answer" was basically a non-answer -- "It'll always be an option, or else why have them?" is a good point -- for the simple fact that he probably didn't know which question he was answering by the end of it.

 

Matthews's question was whether there should be a punishment, "as a principle," though I can see where Trump would have assumed he meant in a context where abortion was illegal, since that was the line of questioning leading up to that question.

But really it's a half dozen of one, six of the other. Trump thinks abortion should be illegal and punishable. Hence, as a matter of principle, he does think that it should be punished.

 

I didn't say "the most important."

I said, "among the most important."

Try to keep up.

 

I've been told things. I've been instructed things. But I don't believe I've ever been told instructed. That's a new one for me.