I think the Donald's just mad that Charlie Sheen stole his thunder...

WINNING - with his Tiger Blood and two goddesses - need I say the Don be jealous?? lol.

So this publicity stunt for the next Apprentice is really disingenuous... whateva floats his boat/hair.

I guess the Palin narrative lost its punch, so they needed a new buffoon.

There is an ample supply of buffoons in the current republican field.

He certainly appears to be enjoying the attention.

I just miss the thorough Sarah Palin coverage that we used to get here at First Read.

Those were the days.

I used to feel I was always up-to-date on Palin...not sure anymore.

Are you sure she hasn't said or done anything today...this hour...the last ten minutes?

Oh, geez, once again the anti-Obama conservative tries to sell Trump as an Obama plant. I've read weak excuses to call Trump the fool he is but trying to claim Trump is part of a left-wing conspiracy with the media to re-elect President Obama truly takes first prize for cartoon fiction.

Trump is a front runner in the Republican primary polls. His views on abortion are a legitimate topic.

(If you believe abortion should be a political issue, which I do not, but which Republicans just loooove to discuss.)

Run Donald Run.

See Donald Run.

Watch Donald answer questions.

Watch Donald fall on his face.

Run Donald Run.

NoJoe: "His candidacy is a media driven dirty trick used to bolster Obama."

That's funny.....just yesterday you said it was "nothing more than a democratic dirty trick".

Couldn't possibly be that it's just another egomaniac looking to grab the spotlight and boost the ratings for his fading tv show or anything, though, could it? Nope, just part of that vast plaid sky unicorn conspiracy......

Spanky,

Dominico is a shill. He is not a jouralist.. He is like feisty, they got the POM POMs out now

If nothing else, the Donald could help the US navigate through bankruptcy... clear out our debt to China the rich American way

Yeah, but that's ok Steve, it'll make for some great fun and spin, what with all the actual news swirling around right now.

The more budget, deficit and Social Security is ignored around here, the harder the crack staff will have to squirm away to crud like stories on Trump, Bachmann, and of course Palin.

They can't help themselves. And that's entertainment for us.

hell hail from the trump towers, upon republicant/teabagger goons, your a liability and to dems, your a gift made in heaven.

trump + palin + ryan + newt + bachmann + huckabee + Koch brothers + walker = O reelection.

where's spanky.......

Jeff,

Why the nutless, punk stuff?

Can't debate her, she's out of your league, huh?

Trumps just like all the conservatives. Freedom and privacy until it doesn't comport with our ideology.

Mighty bold there Puis.

Me, I'm not prone to wild guesses. Too many variables. Like the debt ceiling, and debt, now that Ryan set the tone of the debate.

Plus you got your gas prices, and wars. And come on, just what silliness will Holder, Napalitano, or Biden get into in the next few months.

As we saw, campaigning is easy, running the country is tough. and really: Obama=Bush-haircut.

Silly Trump, the correct answer is that all pregnant women are to be sent to sanitarium rubber rooms and force fed prenatal vitamins and made to watch pro-life films with their eyes held open, alá Clockwork Orange.

Unless the girl in question is from a rich conservative family and may have gotten knocked up while blitzed at Cabo by a potentially non-white guy. Then there is a right to privacy.

So, here's what I don't understand.... If you're planning on running for President.... shouldn't you at least prepare for the job of campaigning and debating a little bit? Was GWB so bad at speaking/debating that the bar has dropped through the floor?

This was a very easy question for him to answer and show some semblance of the ability to debate. It was also a very easy question to expect given his position. The hallmark of the Roe v Wade decision was that the right to privacy was used to state that abortion is a private medical decision between a woman and her doctor. If you believe in the right to medical privacy but are anti-abortion, you should expect this type of question and have an answer for it if you're planning on running for office. Not expecting it and not having an answer ready for it shows a complete disregard for preparation and/or a complete lack of understanding of the supreme court decision. Both of which make you look like a buffoon or a celebrity seeking attention. Oh wait those are redundant terms....

Great. He doesn't even know the fundamentals of the law on an issue he wants to run on. He told George Stephanapolis he changed his mind from pro-choice to pro-forcing-teenagers-to-have-children-they-can't-take-care-of because some friends of his didn't want a pregnancy but went through with it for other reasons, and now they really love their kid. Really. That's his reason for now thinking no woman should have the right to choose if she wants to have a baby. What a complete ass.

Donald?

He isn't Pro Life and he doesn't believe the birther statements! He's Smart!

But Donald could TRUMP the Political establishment by choosing a Democratic vice president to run with. Even if he looses he sets a tone!

Donald don't be afraid to loose! Be the Patriot that isn't a political square! That is what America needs the bridging of the gaps!

Let me say as a person I probably wouldn't like him! He is a shark! But he's our shark!

bob-1805084

Jeff,

bob-1805084

Jeff,

Why the nutless, punk stuff?

Can't debate her, she's out of your league, huh?

no joe, no bo, nj

He is a fraud. Period.

His candidacy is a media driven dirty trick used to bolster Obama.

Bob how can any body debate her, when she says stuff like this, believe me, the media is not bolstering Obama they are making money off the rating and advertiseing from Trump!!!!!! he is a business man and anything he does is about Trump. i guess he is using this to sell million dollar comdos in his near empty Trump tower in chicago.

ok sorry i had to be deleted, but only a person not in their right mind would say this.

Anyone who takes Trump seriously as a candidate obviously doesn't care about America. This is a man (and I use the term loosely) who doesn't give a damn about anything but lining his pockets with money. He has no respect for women - having cheated on both former wives and is probably cheating on this one although why anyone would want to be with him, I don't know. He has had 3 or 4 bankruptcies for his companies - knows how to use the system to cheat. He is only after more attention for himself - doesn't care about anything else. Please let this pathetic excuse for a human being just fade away. What a joke our political system is becoming when we let people like Trump, Bachmann, Palin, etc., have so much press.

I wonder if he knows where Russia is?

spanky

i understand obama's got some mess but you know what, he's winning. check your economics fact and statistics. do you drive a GM or CHEVY car? how about your stocks? that's what am talking about.

you guys claim to have a solution in ryan's budget? that will increase and not decrease the national deficit, that keep transferring wealth to rich, end medicare as we know it, balancing state and national budgets on the back of hard working middle class.

above all you've got your uncles and aunties in trump + palin + ryan + newt + bachmann + huckabee + Koch brothers + walker problem.

hey yo, this ain't gonna be easy.

Nope, just part of that vast plaid sky unicorn conspiracy......

JoAnne, are you saying... NO... that there's NOT one? Isn't that in the Bible, forcing it to be true? : )

Made my day with that comment...

Jeff,

I agree with no joe, as evidenced by my comments in #1.14.

Having said that, your comments to me were a great rebutal.

Should have gone with that instead of the ad hominem.

I wonder how many of his mistresses had abortions that he paid for...

Truth -

And who will take care of all these unwanted children? Who will pay for them? Will you?

Are you willing to PAY MORE for the increase in welfare families? Are you willing to PAY MORE to take care of unwanted children? Are you willing to PAY MORE for the health care of all these new babies?

I sure as hell DO NOT want to pay more because other people did not "take care" of the problem. I don't want to pay more into welfare or health care because people decide to crap out kids.

So here's the deal. YOU pay for all of these increased costs. If you are registered Republican, YOU pay for all the unwanted kids, the increase in welfare families, and the health care costs for all these worthless babies. YOU WANT IT . . . YOU PAY FOR IT. Those unwanted kids are NOT my problem, and I do NOT want to pay for them. You want them, you take care of them. Deal?

Truth,

President Obama was a constitutional law professor - he could give a better explanation of Roe v Wade than anyone posting on this board. And why do pro-lifers seem to insist on painting people who are pro-choice as being pro-abortion? I'm not pro-abortion - but if a woman doesn't have the right to make her own medical decisions, or isn't qualified to do so, I'm certainly no better qualified to make them for her, and neither is anyone else.

Sick,

First, if you're going to slam liberals for attacking conservatives, be prepared to be called a hypocrite. A majority of Republicans can't even grant the simple idea that the President might be an American, and are so eager to make him subhuman that they call him Muslim as an insult (and an incorrect one).

Why shouldn't we give Trump attention? He's entertaining (in a buffoonish way), and the more Republicans listen to him, the better the prospects that our President will be re-elected.

I agree Robert. What about the right to privacy of the fetus?

Truth you've missed the point entirely.... This wasn't whether or not you agree with abortion being legal, this issue was with a candidate not being prepared for an easily expected question. This question could have been answered in an easy fashion the way you did in your post. But... instead of saying something the average person can think of in a few minutes, he bumbled his way to something that made very little sense. If you're planning on running for the highest office in the country you should at least hire a decent debate coach and spend an hour with them before the interview.

"What does that have to do with privacy?" was his answer.... For years anti-abortion activist have stated that there is no guarantee of privacy hence the Roe v Wade decision isn't valid. So either he wasn't prepared at all for this question or he didn't understand the foundation of the decision at all. And now, to many many people on the fence in 2012, he looks like a moron and celebrity that is trying to get attention. Great flagship you got there.... It'll be just like Palin all over again. Please select him in the primaries.

I'm tired of celebrities going on talk shows and expecting that a catch phrase and a recognizable face is all they need. Running for office and debating in front of the population is like a job interview. You should be well prepared to answer questions or at the very least by prepared to explain possible conflicts in your opinions. Changing your mind is perfectly fine on a position but you damn well better expect a question about it and provide a answer to it.

Finally, the average person doesn't need to know the foundations of the decision or even the ruling for that matter because they're not applying for a job that deals with any such things. I don't know the first thing about changing the transmission in a car so I shouldn't expect to get a job as a car mechanic. If I was planning on applying for such a job I should be ready to answer any questions that might arise about such things. Same thing for political office. The average person is made aware of the foundations and rulings when they're put on the news but the candidate should be ready with the answer to those questions BEFORE they start the talk.

ITripleDogDareYou! -

Obama has ALREADY been asked that question. You can find the video online.

His answer . . . "I think that most Americans recognize that this is a profoundly difficult issue for the women and families who make these decisions. They don't make them casually. And I trust women to make these decisions, in conjunction with their doctors and their families and their clergy, and I think that's where most Americans are."

Also . . . "A woman's ability to decide how many children to have and when, without interference from the government, is one of the most fundamental rights we possess. It is not just an issue of choice, but equality and opportunity for all women."

For Sickofbickering. People are attacking Trump because he left himself open in a very stupid fashion. People attacked Palin because it was also very easy and she was very very bad with interviews. What do you expect to happen? Republicans did it with Clinton, Gore, Kerry and Obama so you can't really complain about it. Republicans, Trump included, seem to want to question the citizenship of the president, a moronic attack that anyone with half a brain or more dismisses, but you're going to complain about Trump getting attacked when he screws up an easy question?

TO: zeroscout who wrote:

"If nothing else, the Donald could help the US navigate through bankruptcy... clear out our debt to China the rich American way."

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Donald sure has experienced Bankruptcy himself, at least twice, but make up your mind -- is America "rich" or bankrupt, in your view?

I'm going to need for the Republicans and Tea Baggers to come up with some nuttier choices to run for Prez. So far, all I've seen is your average Republican Nut Cases, Whackos and Birthers. Come on folks, I know you can think of at least one person to run on the GOP ticket that's at least seen a UFO or something.

MN, you beat me to the punch on that one. I'm positive Obama would give a better explanation than ANY of the rep candidates.

Sick of the Bickering? Are you kidding me??? EVERY day you cons bang up on Obama for every little move he makes. HE is running for office in 2012 and so far no other takers. On the other had, you guys have the biggest bunch of idiots running (or theatening to run) that I have seen since I started voting. If you had someone serious, we wouldn't be attacking. But when you get hit in the face every day birthers, reps, neo-cons, etc, why would you NOT think we would attack your candidates??? Fear alone, of having one of those whack jobs in office would make us fight. By the way, at least 48% of America is in that "lonely left-wing world" and quite happy to be there. To cross to the "dark side" is unimaginablel in my book.

And finally, the MAIN reason we have to attack these buffoons when they say stupid things is unfortunately, your uneducated or clearly uninterested party followers will pick up on these statements and claim them as fact and continue spreading the lies.

Thoughts from Cali (1.34) I agree with you wholeheartedly. I'm personally against abortion, but I've never had to deal with it. Things might change if I had had different experiences in my life. However, I, like you, don't feel we should be forced to pay more into welfare, etc. to raise these unwanted children!! I don't see an overflow of people adopting American children....they'd prefer to go overseas because there is less bureaucracy.....why don't we make it easier here in the U.S. to adopt a child rather than forcing them into foster homes (where they're abused, etc.) and then tossed on the street when they turn 18 with nothing? Once we figure out what to do about that.....THEN I might be more involved in the abortion question. However, there aren't any laws being talked about to address the problems that you listed, and until there are, the Republicans can "do away" with Planned Parenthood, etc. all they want, but it's going to cost YOU and I in the end!!

We need to revamp the welfare system totally......instead of allowing women to sit at home and have baby after baby and expecting the American taxpayer to support them all....we need to put a limit on how many illegitimate children we'll pay for before we call a halt to the purse strings!! I'd be more willing to spend welfare dollars to educate these women by putting them through a vocational school, helping them get jobs, and then getting them off of welfare. If they go to school and then continue to sit around.....they they forego the necessity of getting welfare. I bet it would stop a whole lot of women from having baby after baby. And, while we're at it, why doesn't the Welfare Dept. start going after the "baby's daddies?" But, no, they let them get away with it at our expense!! This is why we need to revamp welfare....it would save it you and I a bundle in the long run!!

Why the consistant abortion debate? If you listed America's problems, wouldn't abortion be at the bottom of the list?

I see the constitution as a barrier protecting us from ideological intolerance, TYRANNY! One for all, all for One!

Don't tread on ME! Then I can't tread on You! IDEOLOGICAL INTOLERANCE!

Can't break the cycle = Stuck on Stupid!

What the Trump has done is taken your time.

In less than 2 hours this blog has gotten around 300 comments.

Instead of finding solutions, we are talking about a "hairpiece" of an individual. He is the Ross Perot of 2012. Laughable.

Big bear you are right.

This showman selfish is more Democrat than Republican he is a populist looking for opportunity to be in the spot light and liberals help him. He just donate money for the political campaign of Rahm Emmanuel. He is not a conservative , however we all have right to free speech. This is just more meat to the lions, it fill their hatefully sentiment.

Truth - Yours is a strange name for someone who doesn't really know what the "truth" is. For your information a baby as you put it doesn't garner that designation until after they are born. Prior to being born the terminology is "fetus". The reason being is because the fetus is not yet a fully recognized human being. In fact, the Constitution doesn't recognize any rights to a "fetus" until after it is born. Therfore, the fetus has no rights to life until it is "born". Additionally, it can't even live autonomously outside the woman's body until at least 24 weeks gestation. So please get over your, "I have a religious view that I want to believe is the "truth" and therefore, I'm going to force my beliefs on everyone else", dogma.

Look no one really believes that Trump is anti abortion, or has any of the other conservative social positions in now espouses. Just go look at his political campaign donations. Most of his individual candidate donations have gone to Democrats, and with the exception of John McCain most of the GOP candidates he's donated to are pro-choice. But the issue isn't Trump's lie regarding abortion, he joins a long line of GOP candidates who have done the same. The issue is basic intellect. Trump claims to be so smart, and having gone to the "nations best schools." He did get a BS from Wharton (University of Pennsylvania's business school), which is one of the best Universities in the country (although ranked behind Columbia Obama's undergraduate university, and Harvard, where Obama graduated from law school). However, despite Trump's wealth (he isn't a self made man, his dad built a fortune in NYC real estate) Trump didn't go directly to Penn, but spent his first two years at Fordham. Fordham's a fine university, but it is not one of the nations best schools. If it were in the Big Ten it would be tied for the 7th according to US News and World Report's college academic rankings.

If Trump were as smart as he believes he is, he would have known why Savannah (a law school graduate) asked him about whether there's a right to privacy in the Constitution. And he either wouldn't have fallen into the trap, or would have said something like, the mother's right to privacy must to weighted against the babies right to life. Instead he showed his complete ignorance, and after stating twice that he "guesses" there is right to privacy, asked Savannah "And why, just out of curiosity, why do you ask that question?” Hello McFly- go ahead and announce your ignorance!!!

Stop right there he should have known why, and if he didn't (which clearly he didn't know why) he should have been smart enough not to show his ignorance on the issue by asking Savannah why she asked the question. Either Savannah's follow up question would show why she asked the question, or he could ask someone later why the question was asked, but don't announce your ignorance.

Trump doesn't stop there when asked how he can square his position on the right to privacy with his anti-abortion position, Trump doesn't respond by saying I believe the women's right to privacy must to weighed against human life, which anyone who truly was pro-life, regardless of intellect would say, or any reasonably competent politician who is really pro-choice, but professes to be "pro-life would respond. Instead Trump digs his hole deeper and states: “Well, that’s a pretty strange way of getting to pro-life. I mean, it’s a very unique way of asking about pro-life. What does that have to do with privacy? How are you equating pro-life with privacy? ” I don't know Donald could it be that was the basis of Roe v. Wade, what a moron!

Seriously how did such an ignorant man get into Penn, even with his family money? What a joke!

wivesfan,

You are way off base here...when was th last time someone walked up to you and asked about Obama's birht certificate? The only reason this is stil being discussed is because of stories like this one you are commenting on. If the media wasn't so gung ho about reporting shyte and began to focus on real issues without a slant we might just be in a better place. Journalists do not exist in todays world...everyone in the field now is a walking Op-ed piece nothing more!

Donald Trump, Sarah Pailin, Mike Huckabee and frankly pretty much the entire GOTP are poster childs for Charles Pierce's book, American Idiot, which I commend to you all. [For those of you who have read it, wouldn't it be funny if someone would ask the Donald whether he believes Adam named all the dinosaurs in the Garden of Eden, and which saddle he thinks would work best on a Tyrannosaurus Rex?] Many mainstream Republicans (if that is even possible), like the Tea Party extremists they court, scream about the Constitution yet know little to nothing about it as interpreted by the SCOTUS, whose Constitutional charge is to interpret the Constitution. For Trump to not know that Roe v. Wade (not exactly an obscure SCOTUS opinion) was premised on an implied right of privacy under the Constitution is, well, shocking for someone who thinks he is qualified (and implies that he might seek) the highest office in the land and claims to be very intelligent and knowledgeable, but not at all surprising to anyone who actually knows a thing or two about these issues.

And to those that think Trump's substantial bankruptcy experience would be an asset, um, have you bothered to check, or ask an attorney, if the United States can file a bankruptcy petition? No? Even if the law were somehow changed to allow a federal bankruptcy like Chapter 9 municipal bankruptcies, do you really think China and our other creditors would recognize such a proceeding?

Geez Louise, when will the right wing nuts recognize that anti-intellectualism and the Joe-6-pack mentality is what got us into the fix we are in in the first place!?

no joe, no bo, nj Comment collapsed by the community

His candidacy is a media driven dirty trick used to bolster Obama.

Thousands of right-wingers say they LOVE The Donald's candidacy. Paranoid much?

bloggit - Sounds to me like not only do you not oppose abortion, you favor mandatory abortion for those you don't like, such as those "Mexican cows" you so eloquently reference, or those who work hard for a living but don't make enough to raise their children according to your standards. It is also telling that you think the concept of a federal privacy right is obscure and that lawyers (those people actually trained in the law) are all whores and other vile things. Of course, the entire tenor of your post speaks volumes about what you are about. Wow!

I am grateful that i've gotten to a point where I just dont care that much anymore.

According to both parties, the opposite party is driving this vehicle over the cliff.

Im tired of the anticipation, can we just THELMA AND LOUISE it already?

I love how some of you reason things out... If republicans are all for right to privacy until a uterus is involved, then democrats are all against rights to privacy until a dead fetus is involved.

Abortion should be reserved for extreme cases such as rape or incest or if the life of the mother would otherwise be at risk carrying the child to term.

CHOOSE CONDOMS.

This subject is not a joke. Is Trump an uninformed huckster? Yes. Hell, yes! But the constant attacks on our privacy in general, and a woman's right to an abortion in particular, are under serious attack. Forget Trump. That ignoramus is not going to run. He will be badgered mercilessly by the press because he is such an idiot, and the public is going to demand that he show his tax returns. Trump will not do this as he will be exposed for the fraud he is. Real billionaires don't do reality shows. Come on, folks.

Here is what is really important about this story. It wasn't until 1891, that Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis first found a right to privacy. That's hard to believe given the thrust of the Bill of Rights, but that's the fact.

A great deal of law is built on that premise - the right to privacy - not the least of which is the Roe vs. Wade decision. Even as I write, a number of states have passed laws that clearly contravene that decision and trample a woman's right to control her own body. Unfortunately, given the make-up of this activist Supreme Court, no one is willing to challenge these laws for fear that Roe vs. Wade will be overturned.

This isn't just about women and reproductive rights. This is about the right to privacy. This is about asking "conservatives" who demand smaller government: If you want smaller government, why do you want it huge enough to invade virtually every aspect of our private lives?

Pay attention folks. As George Washington said, "Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."

Well said David. I agree with your thoughtful and accurate post. Thank you.

I don't believe we want the government to be able to invade every aspect of our private lives. I believe that the fetus is alive at conception and therefore has the right to life and the right to privacy as well, but for nine and a half months one woman has the right to determine whether or not that life will continue, not out of privacy, but out of convenience. The court failed to appropriately define the beginning of life. The fetus is felt as an inconvenience, a very human inconvenience, because if allowed to survive it would continue on to be very much human. I would argue that the woman able to have feelings about this thing becoming human means it has life at the point at which the woman knows she must end it out of convenience.

The woman's right to choose should end where the fetus's life begins.

CHOOSE CONDOMS.

Of course, the standard liberal line is that anyone who is a Republican must be stupid. Trump is an arrogant blow hard, but he is not stupid. Not sure if he should be President, but he is not stupid.

Trump is correct, and the media is wrong. Being pro life and pro privacy are not inconsistent positions. Roe V Wade was a huge mistake by an activist supreme court that used twisted "privacy" concerns to allow abortion on demand. Privacy is not mentioned in the constitution. Abortion is not mentioned in the constitution. Even pro abortion liberals will tell you that it was a terrible decision, using terrible logic .

Roe V Wade should be overturned and the issue turned over to the states. If you want abortion rights, go out and use the legislative process to attain them. The courts have no business twisting the constitution around to fit their own biases.

It's a child, not a choice.

You notice the media never tries to trump Obama. It's pretty sad.

Like on the The View today. Barbara Walters brought up Trump's financial records. She's wondering if he is going to release them. I thought well what about Obama? Why isn't Barbara asking, "why hasn't Obama released his college records or his medical records?"

Obama's been in office for almost 3 years and he has never been asked about his college or medical records.

Nope, I don't. Population control.

Any way the left leaning media can marginalize the right and/or split the right - they will.

Worked perfectly in 2008 didn't it?

Yeah, right. And it worked equally well in 2010, eh?

Why is it that the media is to blame for Democrat success in one case, but not the other? Could it be that, like truth, the loony right spins and filters reality for their own convenience? That corporate media that you claim is so liberal is the same media that bashes Dems all the time by proxy. How? By giving all kinds of air and print to GOP fairy tales while doing little to no fact checking, jumping on every criticism of DEM ideas or programs and their complete amnesia related to history. Save for 6 hours of liberal opinion on one network (MSNBC), almost the entire MSM is silent or conservative in their behavior. If that were not the case, I seriously doubt the GOP would be drooling all over themselves to get rid of funding for the CPB, and NPR in particular.

The business community, unlike people, tends not to vote against its own self interests. Corporate sponsorship of the MSM would be tenuous, at best, if said MSM were liberal and, therefore, acting against the interests of the corporate world. The notion of a "liberal" media is a fiction created by those who want to dominate it.

Abortion should be reserved for extreme cases such as rape or incest or if the life of the mother would otherwise be at risk carrying the child to term.

Really? I thought it was the RIGHT of the unborn to not be aborted. If you make an exception, then it is no longer a right. Where else does the Constitution say we have an unalienable right to [x] except in the case of {a}, {b} and {c}???? That line of reasoning is just another way of saying "you have the right to do anything you want, until that right insults my sensibilities." Law is principled. It's kinda like pregnancy; one is not "somewhat pregnant." A right is an absolute. Anything less is a privilege.

Wow, 2 hours later, and this is still the hottest blog out there.

You folks must love the "TRUMP"

Why would anyone be against abortion--there are a lot of people out there that don't need to reproduce.

Before you all say it--that probably includes me:)

I'd still vote for him simply because he knows how to manage bankruptcy! While most politicians these days only know how to spend us into debt, he knows how to spend, go into debt, AND make some money too! That's who we need in the whitehouse, someone who has been there!

Don't worry about the rest of his platform, as we've seen from past presidents, they don't really do anything they promise they will anyhow...might as well get someone with some financial experience in there because right now that (should be) the nation's biggest concern.

The inherent right to privacy was never a good hook to hang the pro choice hat on in the first place. Many pro choice legal scholars have claimed that for years. There are simply way too many publically accepted illegal acts that can use the same justification for their legality. Plural marriage is one I can think of right off the top of my head.

In many states you can be prosecuted for acts causing the death of a fetus but at the same time it is perfectly ok for the mother to do the same thing. Legally, that is unsustainable. And before you liberal whacks get your panties in a wad, I am not entirely pro life or pro choice. I am not one of you extremist nut jobs who think the day after pill is an abortion nor am I someone who thinks it is ok to end a fetus' life as long as the head has not passed the mouth of the vaginal canal.

I leave the extremes to you nutters....

Lu:

If you propose to make this a biological issue, so be it. Prior to the creation of a fetus, two living cells existed independently. One was a sperm, one an egg. Remember both of these are living cells. At some point they came together to form a zygote. Two independent LIVING cells now become a single living cell. This zygote is no more viable on its own than it was in its previous incarnation as two separate cells.

Viability is an issue according to the Supreme Court, and where that line is drawn during the pregnancy is purely arbitrary. Today's technology has re-defined viability. Courts have re-defined viability. YOU have defined viability - wrongly - but you have done so.

You cavalierly speak of abortions as matters of convenience. That is so ridiculously far from the truth, you should be embarrassed. Yes, in too many cases, abortion is used as a form of birth control. However, abortion is a solution to birth for many reasons, too varied to mention in this limited forum.

And your pat and incredibly simplistic answer to this problem? Use condoms. You have no business in a discussion of such complexity. Live your life as you see fit. Leave others alone to make their own choices in life.

So Laurie, just for clarification, where in the birth canal does the magic happen to transform the same group of well organized cells from in inanimate object to a life? This is the part I have a hard time reconciling. You're using medical terminology as your "out" to claim life begins at birth but there is nothing that says the fetus isn't alive. In fact I think most would agree that the fetus is very much alive in the womb- ask anyone getting kicked in the ribs or punched in the cervix how un-alive their fetus is. Then we have the part about common vernacular. We don't ask a woman when her fetus is due, we ask when her baby is due. Again, arbitrary set of words but points to the bigger issue, we've really never defined what "life" means in terms of an unborn child, we just use the words that are most convenient. The "truth" of the matter is we determine life based on want- if someone wants the collection of well organized cells, it's a baby. If not, it's a fetus. Again, not speaking in clinical terms, just common mind-set.

Can't wait until they ask OBAMA if he believes in the right to privacy.

"So how you pay for your medical care is a private thing between you and your doctor?"

Incorrect, Suzy. One inquires, 'When are you due?' to the expectant mother. One never inquires when the baby is due because it's impolite. Birth requires a labouring mother to bring forth the living child. Until modern times and modern medicine, 50% of the time, one or the other, or both died.

Now that Republicans are attempting to place the blame for the current deficit and failure of Social Security on women who've had abortions in the past (all aboard, guilt trip leaving the station), one must wonder: where these potential people would be living now? How much further would the natural resources of the planet be stretched to accommodate them? How many children would they already have had, further straining our clean water availability?

Suzy, the very first time you ask a woman when her baby is due to learn her fetus died inside her and that she's waiting for the commencement of normal labour, that will be the very last time you will be so inquisitive. A pregnant woman is none of your, or my, business.

BTW, 'life' has been defined for the purposes of turning off life support equipment. 'Common mind-set' is meaningless. Every single one of my friends who had abortions wanted to keep her baby. Every one of those women, you ask them how old that child would be now, and she will tell you. None of them did what they did lightly in spite of all the scorn that's heaped on her head now by all the self-righteous and holier-than-thou ranks who think they know how to live her life better than she did....

How does that thing in the Bible go? Get that 2x4 out of your own eye before you go worrying about the piece of dust in your neighbor's eye? That seems to apply here in this situation. Judge not, lest ye also be judged, that comes to mind, too.

Even God waits until we're dead before he brings us to judgment. Don't you think you're jumping the gun a little bit, Suzy? According to these little rules, seems like you might be making a bit of a mistake...

Wrong Chris: in no state does a zygote or fetus have status as a person (not that nut jobs haven't tried). Sure it would have been a settled question decades ago had the Equal Rights Amendment passed, but it didn't, so you've got the existing constitution and it's supreme court interpretation. The Right to Privacy applies to women. Don't that beat all.

MNWriter " A majority of Republicans can't even grant the simple idea that the President might be an American"

And about 25% of Democrats and 40% of Independents think the same way. Of course, a majority of Blacks think Bush conspired to allow 9/11, along with about 37% of Democrats.

Ignorance is not the sole property of any particular political affiliation.

David:

Prior to the two living cells becoming one there was a choice (obviously, there are exceptions) between two individuals to commit an act that is known to result in the creation of human life. There are ample choices that can be made other than to commit the act that sometimes results in creation of human life: one may choose to forgo copulation in favor of other methods of pleasure, one may choose to use birth control pills or other biological control, one may choose to wear a condom (there are both male and female condoms now, sexual activity is so accepted in our society), one may choose to use spermicides or sponges or IUDs, one may choose abstinence, or one may choose any combination of the above specifically to avoid the creation of human life. Choosing after the fact is not a legitimate choice--it's a take-back.

If I drink and drive and accidentally kill someone, the wold would say I made my choice. I might pay the doctor that brought my victim back to life, but that will not excuse me from my societal obligation to serve time for my criminal act of knowingly driving while intoxicated, and even the factual basis of impairment does not lesson my responsibility for knowingly committing that act. Why is the act of accidental creation regarded with any less importance?

Obviously accidents happen even to those of us with the best of intentions, so it would be a wise choice to make certain you choose to commit the act that is known to lead to human creation with someone with whom you might be willing to have an accident. That's not cavalier, that's calling for responsibility.

If Viability is to be determined by the courts, the court has a obligation to continuously reassess its rulings on the basis of constantly changing data taking into account all information, including all of the various options for avoiding pregnancy. As for viability, sperm, eggs and zygotes survive out of the womb all the time, and science gets better every day for assuring survivability of a child outside of the womb. Babies are able to be born earlier because of advancements in medicine--should, for the sake of keeping a determined viability date, we require medicine NOT to save a fetus that is born "viable" at 21 weeks, because that fetus has no right to life? Furthermore, a six month old is not viable on its own, but its right to life is protected, and if the mother and/or father failed to feed it, thereby starving the life out of it, they would be imprisoned, so choice on the basis of viability in itself is not justifiable or even rational.

To my knowledge, I did not define viability; I defined life itself as having been created upon conception, thereby avoiding the need to determine viability or survivability in the first place. The viability of the fetus should not be a question determined by the mother's convenience one way or another. Otherwise we would also consider whether or not there is a father that is also willing to have the child (because children with two parents are better off than children with one parent), yet fathers are given no choice (on the basis of the woman's right to privacy) and are forced (despite the man's right to privacy) to pay support for the child if the woman determines the fetus "viable" (read: convenient to her). The courts specifically avoided giving "life" status to fetuses, I believe wrongly, and determined the woman's right to abort fetuses as a right of privacy. Questioning the courts is not cavalier, it's a civic responsibility, especially when the data is continuously changing due to advancements in science, changing social mores, and availability of contraception.

How I defined that life is by the woman's choice itself (which the courts have given weight to). She is not aborting a cancer. She is not aborting excrement. She is aborting a fetus that would, if allowed, survive to become a human being. She is aborting it, not because it is a fetus, but because it is a potential person--a person she does not want to care for. Her relationship to that being is that of a person to a person. She may hate it as much as cancer. She may abhor it as much as excrement. That does not mean that the fetus is not a person. She is making her choice on the basis of that person's life. Prior to the creation of that person, the woman had the choice not to procreate (except in extreme cases like rape, of course). If the woman's right to choose is based on her right to privacy, should not the fetus's rights be determined by the value the woman places on the fetus? She is choosing to end a life because it is inconvenient to her that the person live. By her very relationship with the choice itself, she has determined that it is a living being, therefore it must have rights.

The fact of the matter is this is a question of convenience. I would hardly call my attitude cavalier. I am both a woman and a mother. Having actually felt life inside me, I'd say that I have more right to claim when the beginning of life occurs than you have, as you merely possess cells and have no choice in any matter (unless you're female, David), and by the way, you have given me much greater power than you by giving me this choice you claim I should have right to, yet now you want to silence my voice because it does not mimic you, when my say clearly matters more, is much less cavalier than your just go-with-the-courts-say-and-don't-question-that-authority attitude, and in fact is much better informed as to the circumstances involved merely by measure of my experience as a woman. If you will re-read what I wrote above, you will see that I believe abortion should be used in certain circumstances (rape, incest, when the life of the mother would be at risk, when the child would be diseased, etc). It should not be used as birth control for those who would be inconvenienced by the existence of a child. Self-control should be used as birth control. Again, choose condoms.

That's not pat and simplistic; that's common sense. You don't agree with me. We're allowed to disagree. I expect a certain level of respect from merely out of common courtesy, though. If you're unwilling to give that simply because our opinions differ, then you're hardly the sort of person who is level-headed and even-minded enough to be determining what laws should or should not be upheld in our society.

Peridot explained the science better than I could, so thank you.

From a sociological standpoint, not a single conservative has answered my question:

WHO WILL PAY FOR THEM?

LU - I am talking to you. Will you pay for them? Are you willing to pay for all of them?

Every single conservative, pro-lifer wants to cut off welfare and remove health care for everyone. So what happens to all these unwanted children? What happens after they are born? Who pays for their food? Who pays for their health care?

How can you conservatives justify cutting off welfare while pushing legislation to increase the welfare population? How can you justify removing health care for all, while forcing an increase in those who need health care?

Oh, let me guess. It's just easier not to think about it, right? You conservatives would rather base all your decisions purely on emotions . . . you want to think about the cute baby and ignore the blatant reality that someone has to pay for that thing. Use some logic, for once in your overly emotional life.

Don't even get me started on the rights of a woman to protect her body from a foreign parasite which feeds off her nutrients . . . vs. . . . the rights of a foreign parasite to use the body of a woman as food for growth.

[quote]Thoughts from Cali

ITripleDogDareYou! -

Obama has ALREADY been asked that question. You can find the video online.

His answer . . . "I think that most Americans recognize that this is a profoundly difficult issue for the women and families who make these decisions. They don't make them casually. And I trust women to make these decisions, in conjunction with their doctors and their families and their clergy, and I think that's where most Americans are."

Also . . . "A woman's ability to decide how many children to have and when, without interference from the government, is one of the most fundamental rights we possess. It is not just an issue of choice, but equality and opportunity for all women."[/quote]

Obama is about as bright as a burned out light bulb. He is so out of touch with what really goes on in America.

[quote]They don't make them casually.[/quote]

That comment is complete bullsh*t. I know someone whose daughter got pregnant at a young age. When the mother found out that her daughter was pregnant, there was no discussion, she made an appointment for her daughter to get an abortion.

[quote]A woman's ability to decide how many children to have and when[/quote]

It's called a condom.

Having actually felt life inside me, I'd say that I have more right to claim when the beginning of life occurs than you have, as you merely possess cells and have no choice in any matter

Lu - NO . . . your claim of "when life begins" is based purely on an emotional reaction to being a mother. In no way does your opinion, based solely on emotions, constitute proof of life.

Furthermore, a six month old is not viable on its own, but its right to life is protected, and if the mother and/or father failed to feed it, thereby starving the life out of it, they would be imprisoned, so choice on the basis of viability in itself is not justifiable or even rational. To my knowledge, I did not define viability; I defined life itself as having been created upon conception,

So, based on your analysis that life starts "at conception" and that parents are responsible for "starving" a 6-month old . . . what about miscarriage?

A 2008 study in the journal of science and medicine claimed that drinking caffeine in large amounts (more than a cup of coffee a day) significantly increases the chances of miscarriage. Thus, mothers are told to cut back on their caffeine intake. Shall we investigate every miscarriage to see if the mother drank too much caffeine? They should be held responsible if life starts at conception, right? If your actions while pregnant lead to a miscarriage, then how is that any different than the neglect of a born child? You neglect to cut back on your caffeine intake and the fetus dies. Do mothers get a pass for this form of neglect?

Of course you will defend these mothers (and probably yourself) by claiming that it was not their intention to have a miscarriage. Yet, according to your definition of "starts at conception", a life still ended . . . this is called manslaughter. Do you hold yourself and family members accountable for manslaughter when they have a miscarriage?

Matt -

That comment is complete bullsh*t. I know someone whose daughter got pregnant at a young age. When the mother found out that her daughter was pregnant, there was no discussion, she made an appointment for her daughter to get an abortion.

[quote]A woman's ability to decide how many children to have and when[/quote]

It's called a condom.

First, just because the supposed "person" you know made an appointment right away does NOT mean it was an easy decision. You have no idea what anyone else thinks, or what mental anguish they go through when making any decision. If you had any education on the subject you would know that it is a painful process, both mentally and physically. Her daughter was in physical pain for at least a week.

Second, that was probably the best decision her daughter ever made. Now she does not have to throw her life away, and flush all her dreams down the toilet. She can finish school, go to college, get a career, and live a good life . . . or she could have kept the baby, dropped out of school, moved to a trailer park, and lived off of welfare money coming from MY POCKET. Go thank her for me, for not adding another mouth to the welfare drain. You want to keep all these unwanted babies, then YOU PAY FOR THEM. Don't come asking for my help, I don't want them.

Third, "It's called a condom" . . . obviously you are unaware, but condoms are not 100% effective. If you ever find a women that is actually willing to sleep with you (doubtful), it would behoove you to know this.

Cali, by that very "who will pay for them" logic, you have answered your own question and placed the societal value on every life, including those who were aborted--because it's inconvenient to you that those people live as well, because of the burden they will be on society. Should it then be not the woman's choice but society's choice? By your logic it is not so much that every woman should have the right to choose, it's that you are grateful they have the right to choose not to burden you (eugenics).

The woman has the right to privacy until she chooses life, and then that life becomes everyone's responsibility but her own. I guess we could just print more money.

Give me until tomorrow afternoon, and I'll answer your questions more thoroughly. For now, perhaps society should re-examine whether or not it should be legal to procreate without a license. Much like that claim by the left that we force people to buy auto insurance, so we can force them to buy health insurance as well, one could claim that we can force people to get licenses to drive cars, therefore we can force them to get licenses before they make more people.

I really do have to cook dinner now.

A miscarriage is the same as an abortion because the fetus's unbaptized soul goes straight to Hell either way.

<<end sarcasm>>

Humanity is an experienced thing. A women has experienced human life, therefor she is a human. A fetus or embryo in the first trimester has not experienced life as a human, therefor it is not a human. Later, when a fetus turns into an unborn baby, this child experiences love from its mother. Being loved is a human experience, making the unborn child a human.

But more importantly than all this is the importance of the child after it is born. A child deserves proper nourishment and care. This is not only a responsibility of the parents, but for every other human within a ~12,000 mile radius.

[quote]Thoughts from Cali

[quote]Every single conservative, pro-lifer wants to cut off welfare and remove health care for everyone. So what happens to all these unwanted children? What happens after they are born? Who pays for their food? Who pays for their health care?[/quote]

Every single conservative? You really believe that crap. Remove health care for everyone? You really believe that crap too? I'm guessing you do.

[quote]Don't even get me started on the rights of a woman to protect her body from a foreign parasite which feeds off her nutrients . . . vs. . . . the rights of a foreign parasite to use the body of a woman as food for growth.[/quote]

So you consider a baby a foreign parasite? My god I don't know what to say about a comment as stupid as that.

Lu -

I thank you for your thoughtful and respectful post at 1.75; although I disagree with you on many issues, you have at least calmly and rationally explained where you are coming from. That deserves respect, not ridicule. I only wish those on the "right" recognized this basic concept (and it is clear to me that those on the right vilify the views of those on the left far more than the other way around, although I certainly concede that both sides contribute to vilification of the other).

I do offer a few thoughts from my side of the perspective. One is to suggest that you read, if you have not already done so, the SCOTUS's opinion in Roe v. Wade and the thoughtful balancing performed of the interests and rights of the state vs. the mother vs. the unborn. You may not agree with the outcome, but I think that you will appreciate the analysis, and that you can do so without ridicule unlike so many others. Second is the question at 1.76 - who will pay? This is not a facetious question. It seems to me that those in the so-called pro-life movement have little or no appreciation for the practical and realistic side of this issue. Related to that is the medical clinic vs. coathanger reality. Finally, there is a moral/religious component to all of this which determines, or at least influences, when a person believes that life, or at least life worth protecting, begins. I for one agree more with David's perspective on that subject, so we can respectfully agree to disagree.

Again, I thank you for presenting your views in a calm, thoughtful and largely rational way, even if we don't agree. We need far more respectful discourse and open-minded appreciation for the views of others if we are ever to solve the pressing problems of our times.

Matt - May I suggest that you try to articulate your thoughts respectfully rather than simply call someone stupid. You are more likely to be read, respected and considered seriously. Your post is not deserving of any of that.

Lu -

My point is simply that the conservative right does not want to pay for the health care of everyone, and does not want to pay for welfare. However, they want to increase the population all around by outlawing abortions . . . thus increasing those in need of health care and welfare. They argue about entitlements and cutting cost, but want to increase the number of people who need them.

You can take that to the extreme and claim, "well then society should decide" (in many cases we probably should), but that will never happen. So let's look at it logically (put your emotions aside).

There are long-term ramifications to exponential, unchecked population growth in any society. Natural resources are affected. The economy is affected. Social programs are affected. ALL of these things need to be taken into consideration.

The average cost of a child, from 0 - 17 years old, is $300,000. So who will pay for that? What about when they have more kids? What does that do to our budget? What happens to the family barely scrapping by that is forced to added another $300k bill? How many lives (brothers, sisters, mother, father) are affected when that family is forced to go on welfare because of the added expense? What about teenagers forced to drop out of school to have the kid? Statistics prove that children born to teenage mothers are 70% more likely (not likely, MORE likely) to be criminals, drug users, and teenage parents themselves. So do we force these teenage parents to continue this destructive cycle?

At some point you need to logically look back and ask "Can we afford it?" Most people get emotional around babies . . . but someone still has to foot the bill. I sure as hell don't want it to be me. Does that make me insensitive? Yes. Does that make me cruel? I don't care. All I know is it is not my responsibility to pay for the unwanted kids that get crapped out. YOU want to pay for them, do it.

BTW . . . how many unwanted children have you adopted?

[quote]

Thoughts from Cali

Matt -

That comment is complete bullsh*t. I know someone whose daughter got pregnant at a young age. When the mother found out that her daughter was pregnant, there was no discussion, she made an appointment for her daughter to get an abortion.

[quote]A woman's ability to decide how many children to have and when[/quote]

It's called a condom.

First, just because the supposed "person" you know made an appointment right away does NOT mean it was an easy decision. You have no idea what anyone else thinks, or what mental anguish they go through when making any decision. If you had any education on the subject you would know that it is a painful process, both mentally and physically. Her daughter was in physical pain for at least a week.

Second, that was probably the best decision her daughter ever made. Now she does not have to throw her life away, and flush all her dreams down the toilet. She can finish school, go to college, get a career, and live a good life . . . or she could have kept the baby, dropped out of school, moved to a trailer park, and lived off of welfare money coming from MY POCKET. Go thank her for me, for not adding another mouth to the welfare drain. You want to keep all these unwanted babies, then YOU PAY FOR THEM. Don't come asking for my help, I don't want them.

Third, "It's called a condom" . . . obviously you are unaware, but condoms are not 100% effective. If you ever find a women that is actually willing to sleep with you (doubtful), it would behoove you to know this.[/quote]

I'm very close to the family. I know for a fact it was a quick decision, and she didn't care afterward.

I know condoms aren't 100% affective, but they are still more affective than not wearing one. A woman also has the choice of keeping her legs closed, unless she is raped.

Don't get me started on "she would have messed up her life having or keeping the baby", living in a trailer park or on welfare. Each girls situation is different.

Some girls do mess up their life, but they could choose to stay in school and give the baby up for adoption.

There doesn't need to be more education about sex in school, there needs to be better education about sex.

I don't know what state you live in, but you do realize that public funds are used for abortions.

[quote]BTW . . . how many unwanted children have you adopted?[/quote]

None, but I was adopted.

@peridot, the reason I get hung up on where that magical transformation from organized group of cells that looks like a person, moves like a person, arguably senses light, dark, sound, you know, common things the living do, is precisely BECAUSE I've been the woman who had to answer the questions of when my baby was due after the utterly gut wrenching experience of a late term miscarriage. Having had a doctor tell me at 10am that my baby was alive and at 2pm that she died after the umbilical cord prolapsed, choked off her blood supply and killed her makes things a bit, shall we say, ambiguous, for me when it comes to defining life. Wanna know how old she would have been had i been a louse 2 weeks further along. 8 years, one month, 11 days and 22 hours. Precise enough for you? Which is really just to say don't make the mistake of assuming anyone else couldnt possibly have a life experience that defined their views the way yours were shaped by your experiences.

@Cali, I think you misunderstand the intentions of a majority of conservatives. We don't want to see more unwanted children brow into the world, we want to see them not conceived to begin with. And using current welfare babies is kind of a weak argument as there has been very little in the way of preventing the women who've brought them into the world from aborting them.

Louis:

This clown is such a buffoon that you just have to laugh at him. He will be President when pigs fly. Just goes to show how shallow of a bull pen the right really has.

Obama in 2012

This freak is the gift that keeps on giving for Democrats & rational Republicans (what's left of them anyway)!

Birther here - birther there - here a birther - there a birther - every where a birther - birther!

Who wants some *popcorn*?

I kind of like him for VP. Then he can say " I have been the president of vice and the vice president".

Fiesty, got my popcorn and diet Coke, and in the first round, the GOP becomes the DOP (deranged oblivious predators), round two, they nominate Trump, round three Trump picks Bachmann for his VP, and round four, the debates! This will be great!

I still say NBC should fire him, let him have his fun an run for President, and then put him in a dress and cast him on The Real Housewives of New York City and let Ramona go a few rounds with him and maybe then the Countance can teach him some manners. Don't you just love Ramona?

Fiesty, got my popcorn and diet Coke

I'm telling you GF - now's the time to invest in Orville Reddenbacher stock! ;o)

This is going to be a spectacle like we've never seen before with the insane clown posse!

I still say NBC should fire him, let him have his fun an run for President, and then put him in a dress and cast him on The Real Housewives of New York City

I don't know about Trump in a dress Victoria, but WHO can ever forget him kissing Rudy Guiliani in drag?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4IrE6FMpai8

If that's not creepy, I don't know what is!

HAHAAAHHHHH!!!!!!!

Man Feisty. That was pretty creepy. Darn you for sharing!!!!!

Giggidy

( (=^D)

That was pretty creepy. Darn you for sharing!!!!!

Will that make a GREAT campaign ad or WHAT? LOL

Hot Giggidy!

We finally stopped hearing about Palin every day and now we have to deal with Trump. This guy is not really going to run just like Palin. So it would be nice to put him on the back burner and deal with the serious candidates. Wait a minute are there any??

This guy knows how to rig a slot machine and file bankruptcy--that's about it. I hope he does get the nod from the GOP. Can you imagine him having to open those financial disclosures? Ouch!

Feisty Redhead Roselle, IL

Fiesty, got my popcorn and diet Coke

I'm telling you GF - now's the time to invest in Orville Redenbacher stock! ;o)

This is going to be a spectacle like we've never seen before with the insane clown posse!

Feisty, Orville Redenbacher's brand is made by ConAgra Foods, ticker symbol CAG. It's a pretty good company; they make dozens of popular brands. By the way, comparing Trump to the Insane Clown Posse is an insult to ICP. They might consider Trump to be a "juggalo."

Actually, there is a reason Trump is so high in the polls. One word, "Economy". With the economy tanked, people want to see the green and Donald has a lot of it. He knows how to turn a profit, and he could probably do the same for America.

The problem comes in when he starts talking about issues that don't have to do with the economy (a la Roe v. Wade). Granted I think he's okay to say there is a right to privacy while stil being Pro-Life, but I'll get to that later. People will tend to think Trump will run the country like he does any other business. Which could be very scary. But people also want to see jobs return and America make money again.

The biggest problem for Repubs is going to be how Trump may handle the Military. As of current, America's military is over extended and can be seen as a HUGE "money pit". Trump will most likely consider cutting the military back, pulling America out of areas where there seems to be no significant gains to be made, which will make repubs very unhappy. So he needs someone close to him that understand the Military. Someone closer than the usual who he may view as "it's just your job to tell me the military needs more money".

For the Dems, Trump will definately need a Democrat. But I don't expect that to happen. He may have plenty of Dems in his Cabinet (in fact, I wouldn't be suprised to see the Clintons come back), but he won't get the same 'points' he would if he had a Dem VP.

All in all, I think Trump may have a real chance to at least win the GOP nod. If not as Pres, he still has a real good chance of becoming someone's VP. It really depends on who we see him talk to in the coming months and how he's able to shake out his non-business political views.

Now as for the Pro-life == No Privacy.

The Pro-life v Pro-Choice debate has evolved. So much so that Roe V. Wade is more or less a toss out. Sure, the legal precident was set as a consideration to an inherent right to Privacy. But that really is no longer the case. The Question has, essentially become "When does a fetus become a 'baby'?" A question not simply answered. Religion goes so far as to theorize about when a fetus develops a 'soul'. Science gives us certain 'milestones' like when a fetus feels pain, or when it's heart starts beating, or when it developmentally 'looks like' a 'baby'. And they both tend to throw out the conception and birth guidelines.

So the Pro-lifers draw a line in the sand and say, you can't abort after this point. Not because of privacy, but because "The child is alive and abortion is killing the child."

And Pro-Choicers do the same and say, You can't stop an abortion before this point. Again, not because of privacy, but because "The child is still a part of the mother, so it's her choice what to do with herself."

The two views that most people view the conflict is about are the Pro-Choice 'birth' advocates and the Pro-Life 'conception' advocates.

Dammit, why the hell was comment 1.8 collapsed? You people on here are disgusting bigoted cowards. Can't let someone disagree with your liberal smear fest of Trump or Palin or anyone else who challenges your views can you. Disgusting.

He knows how to turn a profit, and he could probably do the same for America.

By doing what, filing Chapter 11?

Religion goes so far as to theorize about when a fetus develops a 'soul'.

Exactly; religion does this. For legal and scientific purposes, it cannot even be proven that human beings have a soul, nor what a soul is. See, we're pretty egotistical as a species. For that matter, it cannot be proven that if humans have a soul, other living things do not also posses them, in which case eating becomes an act of murder. This is not a slippery slope argument or a lame case for proving a negative, but an illustration of how theological argument is defective in issues of law.

Then again, we kill during war, including civilians. But for the convenience of waging war, whether the reasons for war are legitimate or not, we make every necessary exception. Ironically, conservative Christians seem to be the most ardent supporters of war and capital punishment here today.

Every woman who chooses abortion is fighting her own personal war between irreconcilable needs and limitations. I fail to imagine Trump, or any other man fully understanding the gravity of that. The least I would expect is for him to understand the rationale behind our current law.

We finally stopped hearing about Palin every day and now we have to deal with Trump.

That is because distraction and subterfuge remain more important than the real needs of the nation and the misdeeds of the plutocrats that run it. What would you really expect from the corporate controlled media?

The government is not a business, nor should it be. Likewise, it is not a church, synagog, temple or mosque. To run it like any of these would be to restore the reasons for the revolution that brought us into being in the first place.

His new show is called "So You Think You Can Be President" Whacky members of a conservative audience are invited to come up on stage and stump for the republican nomination.

If he gets elected, we could have "celebrity whitehouse." What a hit!

back me and nominate me or I will use my fame and fortune to split the Conservative vote.

Gotta LOVE the scent of extortion in the morning! lol

Are you talking about Trump or Romney?

Alan, NJ - yes.

Hey Dennis, I think most of his current wealth came through tax payer subsidies... AKA bankruptcy

Dennis ... there is an old adage that says "Behind every great fortune is a crime". Something to think about. Would be nice to get a "forced disclosure" from Ivana. For the most part, the Presidential Races at this point in time are nothing but "dog and pony shows". With our imaginatins running wild ... can you even begin to think of Palin or Trump as President! Although I am not an Obama fan ... he did inherit a very large can of worms from the "Bush Years". People thought that he had some sort of magic wand that would heal all of the wounds.

With regard to abortions ... for me it is a personal choice and the friggin' church should bow out. Nothing but a bunch of controllers who believe that their God talks to the polulace through them. I live in a predominately catholic country and am appalled at the power and influence of the church.

It's scarey to think Trump and shallow thinkers like him are even considered viable candidates and pushed by the media as such. When Meridith Viera (taken back by Bill Cosby's response to questions about Trump's comments) suggested that the media had to take Trump seriously in case he does run for President, Cosby responded that--no, he did not have to take him seriously. That next Sunday, Trump's TV show ratings dropped substantially. In my view, Bill Cosby made a fool of the Today Show that day by pointing out how completely ridiculous it was for them to give Trump any time at all because Trump did not (and still has not) had anything serious to say.

Ditto!!

IRA

Actually Trump said he wanted the oil wells in Libya for helping them. Bush said, the Iraq's would use

their oil money to "pay" us back for getting rid of Saddam. Guess who ended up with the Iraq's oil

contract......China! Keep watching for those payments?!

Guess who ended up with the Iraq's oil contract..... China!

Funny how the creditor manages to garnish the wages of the hopelessly indebted.

If it ever came to blows with China, I wonder if they'd sell us steel to make weapons to use against them, since our steel industry is now a shadow of its former self. Ahh, the blessings of globalization. The cheap wage has a scary cost in the long run.

The national image has been tarnished since Palin was nominated as VP. Then the gush of incoherent lies from even the so-called "leaders" of the Republican party, echoing death panels and birther notions. You are correct. What must other countries think. Whatever happened to criticism of an administration only on our own shores? That sure went down the tubes when the T_Pers and Republicants decided that only happens with white Presidents. Shades of the KKK - whether the Republicans and T-Pers want to admit it or not. They have trashed the President and Presidency, and in order to even get nominated or run for the Republican Party you must show your trashing creds, just like the Springer show, the nastier, the trashier, the better - they believe. But by god, they're patriots. It is really a sideshow, with monsters and clowns and everything else thrown in.

the current political environment probably has Bin Laden laughing so hard that his dialysis machine aches...

Our national image was tarnished after we re-elect W after his first 4 disasterous years.

Fool me once, shame on on you. Fool me twice, I won't be fooled again... but we were.

I think you got something there, with the current republican field maybe Jerry Springer could be head of the RNC.

Libs keep pushing for minor rights to abortion without parent consent. I think it's clear this isn't right .

John B, Des Moines, IA

The right to privacy is something that's very problematical for Conservatives.

I'll say it is. That is as long as the privacy belongs to a Conservative. These sap suckers are in everybody else's business... women, children, gays, other people religious and whatever and whoever freaks these suckers out .

"Chump" lives for these moments. Like Savannah said he'll be back. Of course he will; as long as the MSM gives him attention. He's all over, Fox, CNN, ABC, CBS, radio you name it.

Hey Chump let's see you tax returns.

Well said, John B.

leanderm. Ever think that a young girl is pregnant because of incest, pregnant because her father abuses her and the mother ignores, pretends or simply is ignorant of it? While I undestand your concern about parental consent, that young girl raped by her father should have the same right to privacy as others. Imagine the fear of that young girl.

This is all assuming that one human being's right to privacy trumps another human being's right to life. Should someone be killed for your right to privacy? This is exactly where the Supreme Court's decision is flawed.

leanderm - I don't believe "libs" as you put it are pushing for rights for minors to have abortions. Where did you get such drivel? They (we) do believe a minor should be able to get medical information when needed without parental consent. There are too many cases of incest, sexual abuse, etc., to force a minor to have parental consent to get help. And, if a parent has impregnated a child, I would be for allowing that child to get an abortion.

And BC - we're not talking about living person. We are discussing a fetus - not alive yet. And, of course, we'll disagree on that. When all the children waiting for adoption have been adopted by Republicans and when men are forced to be part of the woman's life during the 9 months she carries a child - then there may be an argument for no abortions. But, I believe a woman has the right to choose what happens with her body - not a court of law.

I don't see this or even Palin's response as illogical. What does being pro-life have to do with privacy? I don't think this is a debate about whether anyone has a constitutional right to murder in private, this is and always been a debate about when do our moral obligations for other humans begin with regard to the baby of a pregnant woman. And even that is semantic debate. When do we start calling it a baby? What are those moral obligations?

If he's "very strong in that area", a very business like phrase conjuring an image of a spreadsheet accounting of sound bytes on the subject, then he like other pro-lifers believe that human life starts at conception, and so do our moral obligations to protect human life. This a divine morality; it requires the presence of divinity to be a logical moral argument. I believe moral arguments are stronger without the presence of divinity as a necessity. Utilizing God simplifies moral arguments to basic commands; nothing is up for debate. Morality without God is not as simply organized in argument form, but the morality is quite strong because of it; the wide argument base creates a capacity to define a more universal morality. The moral arguments from that morality without God create the exceptions for cases of incest or rape, which a majority of people believe. The arguments flow on, and since the base structure is completely different, our moral obligations to another human do not being at that human's conception.

How do you reconcile those two constructions of morality? How do you govern that? Those are the questions to be asking, not some bogus rat trap questions.

I think Donald got into it for self promotion and now he's buying his own sales pitch. If he really fills out the financial disclosure forms, then he'll run for sure.

I agree with all your assessment ... a woman's right to privacy trumps the fetus if the 'fetus' is not alive, as you call it. But that is an interesting argument: the fetus is not alive?? Biologically, it is very much alive. I'm assuming that you mean a few other things here: like maybe 1) size, 2) level of development, 3) environment, or 4) degree of dependency. But there are problems with all of these. Size and level of development: toddlers are smaller and less developed than adults - should we kill them when it creates problems for us? Environment: The unborn is in a different location than a toddler, but a toddler can change location without changing its value. Degree of dependency: a baby can no more sustain itself on its own than a fetus can? But we protect one and kill the other.

As for your other arguments about support and adoption, I want all children to be taken care of. (My family is in the process of adopting a child now.) But it sounds like you only advocate introducing children into a perfect world, and if that world doesn't exist, they don't get a chance to live. Does that logic hold for children who are victims of sexual abuse and other horrible crimes -- should social services come in and kill the children because they aren't being loved by their family? I'm betting you agree they should be protected by government, and that the parents are the ones at fault in this scenario. Why don't the unborn deserve the same privilege?

I think the right to privacy (perhaps implied but definitely not spelled out, by the by) is a catch-22 for both sides. For the left, it means stay out of my bedroom but let me come into every other room of your home and decide what you can eat, what you can pack for your kids lunch, where you can smoke, what kind of bag you can take to the grocery store, what kind of fuel you put in your car, what kind of car you can buy, and on an on. The argument, of course, is that you're fighting for the common good, but you are still infringing on my right to personal freedom and pursuit of happiness.

Equal time applies to candidates for political office - until he declares his candidacy, equal time doesn't apply. That's why he's not announcing until after his show finishes (and why you don't see several Republicans on Fox anymore).

"Equal time" is basically a relic of the past. The GOP wanted in the worst way to do away with the Fairness Doctrine, so the media can lie, or be complicit in lying by not providing counterpoint opportunities. Equal time is not the issue. It's all the non-officeholders that are the real problem.

Did Obama really pull ANOTHER Bush?

Think Progress at the end of their article:

Currently, Trump is the one who is creating “excitement,” doing “wonderful promoting,” generating “all kinds of press,” and testing the theory of how long you can “con people.” After promoting “birther” conspiracy theories about President Obama, recent polls show him leading the Republican field.

_____________________________________

As far as I am concerned the entire Republican Party is one big con game, and they have quite a few of the media in on it.

I keep hearing how elected officials con their way into position... HAH!!!! If Donnie gets the nom that would be a job well done.

Giggidy

( =^))

Hi Pat, Boston, MA

But in his bestselling book, Art of the Deal, published at the conclusion of the Reagan presidency, Trump cited Reagan as an example of someone who could “con people” but couldn’t “deliver the goods.”

It takes a con artist to know another con artist.

That slumlord still hasn't given Gaddafi his money back he screwed him out.

Donald Trump has doubled down on his revisionist claim that he “screwed” Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi in 2009 when the embattled despot tried to pitch a tent on one of Trump’s properties in New York. Now, he’s telling CNN that his plan, all along, was to rook Gaddafi out of a small fortune, and give the money to charity. Unfortunately, Trump’s story is so full of holes, he could build several golf courses on it.

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/donald-trump-piles-it-on-now-claims-he-gave-gaddafi-tent-rent-money-to-charity/

Where does this con get on wanting to take Iraq and Afghanistan's oil?

Yea, that's the way. The world would swoon all over us if Chump was prez.

Chump is just as daffy and treacherous as gaddafi!!!

Pat, Boston, MA

As far as I am concerned the entire Republican Party is one big con game, and they have quite a few of the media in on it.

It kills me that they are so stuck on stupid; especially the media.

Oh the irony, YES, it’s true these are the people getting paid to bash our President.

Beverly, Trump is the latest "Sarah Palin" for the press. They love people with zero character, zero ideas...just being angry is all that is required.

Even though the Republicans, without a single doubt, created what all we are facing now. The media was a part of it this as well, by first drooling all over Reagan, and then GWB when he lied us into war. A war that is breaking our back.

Trump reminds me of McCain, he doesn't remember what he said previously and doesn't realize that video, printed words, tapes all are instantly replayed. Many Reagan fans ignore the fact that Reagan was a "darned, good actor."

That is one thing I agree on. I liked President Regan as a person. However, I was not a big fan of him being a President.

Beverly, thought you might enjoy this if you haven't seen it already:

www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-march-22-2011/back-in-black---trump-2012

I bet Hannity never followed up on that question.

WarhammerThree

Beverly, thought you might enjoy this if you haven't seen it already:

www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-march-22-2011/back-in-black---trump-2012

Thanks WarhammerThree

That Chump Bird was flying high.

Hilarious!!!

Especially the part where Louis Black said we tried all kinds of Presidents; why not a dictator? I swear Chump would make a good dictator.

Did you this

George W Bush

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/themes/chimpy/images/@!$%#edyouall.jpg

Again thanks

Until FR crew puts up another recession blues thread I'm going back to my Eric Clapton and Buddy Guy folder

No Eric, right to life does not trump right to privacy. Stick your noses out of people's lives. Pathetic.

Feel free to run your own uterus as you see fit, Eric.

If you think that Abortion is murder, then there is no right to privacy. If I kill my spouse, is it my right to keep it private?

The problem is whether you think Abortion is murder. When is a fetus a life that can be murdered? Most "right to life" people are making this assessment on religious grounds. Government can't dictate a religion, there's the rub.

This issue will never be resolved.

I see and empathize with the pro-life argument; but I think this issue is a matter of the Church, the individual, and God.

It is pretty telling that the vast preponderance of "leaders" and advocates of both sides do such a poor job articulating the issue, and probably because they do such a poor job of understanding the other sides reasoning.

Eric....life is defined very differently by the various religions in this world. Some believe it begins on the 8th day. others sooner but AFTER birth. Would you take away people's freedom of religion and right of privacy? What next, freedom of speech or establish a STATE religion. BTW...if you believe in saving all the unborn you should support the excellent work of Planned Parenthood in PREVENTING pregnancies that are unwanted.

That's a real catch-22, Eric-W. You have a right to privacy but to ensure a right-to-life, you give up your privacy - except you'd have to give up ALL PRIVACY so the government would know you weren't violating right-to-life. Are you willing to let the government know every detail of your life? Or is that just for women?

"Right to life trumps right to privacy" Of course it does. You need to go back to your old argument that it's not a Life at all, just some sort of tissue growth. And a woman's tissue growth is her own business. Now that was a better argument.

Do any of you anti-choice people really know what the Roe v. Wade decision says? It is really quite simple:

1) The state has absolutely no rights or interest in the mother's choice during the first trimester,

2) The state only has limited rights during the second trimester and,

3) The state has the most rights during the third trimester.

Period.

Now, the question about when life begins has not been settled, no matter what you "Christians" say. All of you "Christians" saying it starts at inception, that is not historically consistent with the churches teachings. Do a little research on 'quickening'. And all of you insisting that everyone else believe the way you do, that is definitely not an American value.

To this day, there has never been a foetus that was viable at less than 20 weeks (only anecdotal, nothing proven or repeatable) and the first trimester is at just under 13 weeks ( (9 * 4.3)/3 ).

Great post, Matthew, thanks. Everyone needs a reminder of what the decision actually says.

Conservatives constantly declare they want government out of their lives, leave us alone; yet they are perfectly willing to accept Government intervention in a woman's very personal and very private decision made by her with her doctor. There are states passing legislation that would require a woman to prove that a miscarriage was unintended--seriously, how do they propose they go about implementing that? How many government workers will they hire to verify and investigate every pregnancy to see it goes full term? How much private medical information will doctors be required to provide those government miscarriage and pregnancy investigators? How much money will that cost taxpayers? Conservatives support small, nonintrusive government EXCEPT....

A fetus is viable and can be born in as little as 4-5 months nowadays. A second trimester birth is viable every day in this country. All that they recieve from mom is Food and water. How can something that gets food and water to stay alive not be alive in the first place?

As soon as all the children in America that are up for adoption are taken care of [adopted] then you might have a very shaky leg to stand on .it is a womans choice, that has been the law for what, 40 years now ?.If you want a child have a child if you don't then don't sit on your religious high horse and preach to woman that do not want a child.Basically mind your own damn business

If you want to go with a strict constitutional interpretation, Eric is exactly right- the right to life is clearly defined in the Bill of Rights. The right to privacy is an interpretation and not spelled out in the language of the 14th amendment or anywhere else. Extending the right to privacy to abortion is a stretch but one that the SCOTUS interpreted into it decades ago and aren't likely to change any time soon. Take away the lunatic fringe from either side of the argument and I think we could reach a consensus on the issue but that seems about as likely as the SCOTUS overturning Roe v Wade.

To me it's obvious. 1st trimester, it's clearly the woman's own decision. 2nd trimester... grey. Definitely woman's decision in cases of woman's health, incest, or rape. Third trimester, I'd tend to argue that woman's health is the only legitimate reason at that point.

I also think the "morning-after" pill should be readily available so the whole abortion to remove unwanted pregnancy becomes a less likely occurrence. It's frustrating that the right to lifers also thwart birth control measures.

...the right to life is clearly defined in the Bill of Rights.

No, it is named, but by no means defined. The right to privacy can be culled from several passages, among them the 4th Amendment's language:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated..."

Gray area exists because it refers to government interest in criminal matters. Again, the question arises as to whether the Constitution is a living document. Why? Because so much we take for granted in today's society was unimaginable in 1789. One has to either have a dense skull or believe the Constitution is arcane and irrelevant to the world we live in now to believe (as justice Scalia does) that it is a dead, inflexible document.

It seems to me that the most ardent opponents of a privacy right in the Constitution are those who object to the loss of profit opportunity if such a right does exist.

So true, sk. The ploy of taking custody of the Constitution is really just a way of taking control of the conversation, claiming that whatever they want to do or say is correct and anyone who disagrees is by definition wrong.

Your hatred for everything Obama is greater than your reasoning ability: Donald Trump is STABLE??? You may want to ask the people who know this egomaniac...

I love the smell of ignorance in the morning!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

leanderm,

Your threshold for stability is very low. Trump stable? Be careful what you wish for because I think you might be buying into the whole celebrity thing. In that case how about Charlie Sheen? Any old celebrity will do.

run Trump run

Ditto! Run Trump Run! And when you hit the border . . . keep on running!

Bruce, that's why you're not a supreme court justice...

Bruce,

Personally, I don't think abortion should be considered a political issue. Politics should be for things you can argue different positions on, using facts, like how best to create jobs, where to invest tax money, etc. Nobody, on either side, thinks having an abortion is a good outcome. Nobody is arguing "for" abortions.

When you consider the bond between a mother and child, and the drive in each of us to procreate, you have to wonder how desperate women are, to subject themselves to that procedure, to take that step. What is going on in this country, that so many women are having unprotected sex with men they do not care to help reproduce? The number of abortions performed is appalling, and so is the number of cervical cancers and other STDs in young women. Our current culture pushes young people to have sex without being in a relationship, and doesn't address or support the psychological process of becoming a mother, or the vulnerability of young women in sexual situations.

Women, such as myself, who support keeping abortion legal, and hoping to make it rare, remember when abortions were illegal and women risked their lives to have them anyway. Making abortion illegal is not going to stop it from happening. What we need to do in this country is have an honest discussion about men, sex, child rearing, and the need to protect young women.

To add to Amy's remarks, we need an honest discussion about birth control and about teaching honest sex education to young people not abstinence only which is unrealistic however much we want it to be true. If we want fewer abortions, we must address the cause: poverty, lack of affordable birth control to those who live at or near poverty levels, lack of good paying jobs for many, undereducation. Making abortion illegal did not, does not and will not eliminate abortion. If we want abortions to be few, then defunding Planned Parenthood will not solve the problem, it will add to it.

Amy,

That is the best response I have ever heard or could have hoped to form into words myself. Thank you. And I may vut and paste this and will credit you by name.

funnystuff888

Thanks! THis is something I've been thinking about for awhile, as I'm sure you have too.

The whole issue of Roe vs Wade is about a woman's right to live an immoral lifestyle and to avoid unintended consequences by killing the unborn child. When the case went before the Supreme Court, it was legal to get an abortion in Texas (where the case originated) for rape and incest. "Roe" actually tried to claim that she was raped so she could get an abortion but was not allowed to because there was no police report proving that she really was raped (because she really wasn't raped). Now we have had millions of abortions over the years all because people want to live a hedonistic lifestyle. At the very least, they should have to see their unborn child before they have an abortion.

I am appalled at how callous people can be toward innocent children like that. When I went to my first sonogram, of my son after only 6 weeks, you could already see his little heart beating away! I agree that we have the right to privacy, but that right stops when we are doing something illegal. Killing an unborn child just because you were having unprotected sex was, and should still be, illegal. To link the right to privacy to abortion rights is a stretch even for a Supreme Court justice.

The argument that women are compelled to have their babies and so are subjected to involuntary servitude is absurd. If they did not want to get pregnant, then have protected sex or none at all. I have to agree with Justice White when he asserted the the Court "values the convenience of the pregnant mother more than the continued existence and development of the life or potential life that she carries." The Court overstepped it's bounds on this one.

You are sooo clueless it isn't even worth the thought of responding. guess you never got raped and pregnant...oh yes...you have no uterus and no clue. YOU overstepped your bounds by drawing conclusions based on ignorance.

Amy, I thought it worth noting that I agree pretty much whole-heartedly with you on this one.

While as a general rule and for purely personal (non-religious I mean) reasons, I'd prefer abortion weren't legal unless in the case of incest or rape, I understand and accept that returning to the days where it was illegal does more harm than good. The goal NEEDS to be education and prevention. There will never be perfect prevention but if we could get the instance of unintended pregnancies on level with the actual birth control failure rate, I think we'd be doing quite a bit better than we are now.

Adjust your tin hat--we have a very important message for you!

Where do you buy your Kool Aid?

more of "liberal fantasies" coming soon

Did the Democrats plant Sarah Palin too? and Bachmann, and Newt, and Huckabee, and Paul and "the witch" etc etc?

They all make you look stupid.

Dude, you are in LA LA land.

Another conservative trying to blame their goofball "Trump problem" on President Obama and a democratic conspiracy to steal the 2012 election.

Actually, this one smells a lot like the McCain nomination. Won't necessarily say it's the liberals planting him, but I have a hard time believing it's the conservatives who will nominate him. The fault will lie somewhere in the middle- the RINOs who are too scared to elect a true conservative, the Blue Dogs who think it's better than keeping Obama in for a 2nd term and some of the fence riders who are disgruntled with the change they got but don't want to go too far from center either.

the joke is Obama and I keep waiting for the punchline. country gets worse and worse. Thanks Obama for the $4 gas

Why don't you thank those bank and wall street speculators that your party wants to deregulate further. So thank you Repubs for deregulating the stock market scammers of the last decade. Do you ever read any actual news or facts?

Why don't you ever put forth your party's policies to be debated, rather than berating the President with every post!

@leanderm your a joke!!!! $4 dollar gas is Obamas fault. Where you been during Bush in a hole I was paying well over 4 when that donkey was in office not to mention loose my job among other things and besides we all you fox news people only believe what they tell you instead of using common sense lol

@ leanderm.....So there is no such place as Libya?? Really??

leanderm, if I say commodity speculation, what is the first thought comes to mind - Obama? Yup, a Trumb voter...

I personally think the gas price hike and the stock market fall is all part of a vast republican conspiracy. You see nothing else is working for them, so they figure if they jack up gas prices and drop the market (S&P's warning) that everyone will blame Obama (like they do for everything else), thus causing him to lose in 2012. We know the republicans are on wall street, and the oil companies are republican. Funny how it all started to go up (gas) and down (stock market) ever since Obama said he would raise taxes on the rich (oil and wall street). Donald is right about one thing. Consipiracy theories are fun and so easy to make up.

I guess Bush's $4.25 gas was way better

Care to cite an example? or do you just enjoy reading your words?

Jimbo,

The President was a constitutional law professor - unless you are also one, he knows it better than you do. The fact that he interprets it differently than you do in no way indicates that he is "ignoring" it - in fact, when an expert interprets something differently than you, it might serve to an intelligent person as a hint that you might be reading it wrong.

Jimbo, please share with us just ONE example...

Jody, the blank stare he gave told it all. Total disconnect between the two subjects. The fact he needed to ask why she would ask about the two in the same question says that he either is totally out of touch with us down here on the ground or that he is just playing a game with the people. To be the supposed intellectual he is made out to be, there is no way he shouldn't have known the connection.

Trump is a dumb ass, the best thing he knows how to do is use money to make money. You can call him successful, but the reality is this guy wouldn't be able to make it a day in world in which skills, knowledge, personality and merit were king. That's because he's a user of people, a cunning deceiver, talented at one thing only, playing the money markets. Without this I don't he'd be successful at wiping his own ass. He probably fails at that even now.

Yet, people seem to gravitate to this moron from all angles. Capitalist ass kissing if you ask me. All trying to get a favor or what not, which is what he thrives on. Stupid you if you see this jackal as a success.

Stupid us if we elect this guy to run our country. He's just in it to win it, the cash flow that comes after having manipulated our government, our markets and our financial system in his favor. If you can't see this as being the case now, I don't think you'll ever see through his smoke and mirror tactics. His main tool in making money. Being rich doesn't really equate to being successful. This guy is no Bill Gates that's for sure. For Bill Gates I will bow in his direction, for Donald Trump I'd bow in the opposite direction so he can kiss my a........

Very well said Texas Liberal!

I agree Texas Liberal but will add that President Obama has a long-term vision, he has passed progressive and liberal legislation but if Congress, including those blue dog dems, can't think beyond tomorrow and the next election, it isn't the President who failed. FDR could not achieve today what he did during the 30's and 40's; Congress has been gridlocked and partisan for 15 years. We need to stop re-electing politicians whose policies are repeating the same mistakes in the hope that those politicians have learned their lesson, will change and do better this time (2010 midterms comes to mind). The problem isn't the presidency, the problem is we have a dysfunctional Congress, particularly the Senate.

wish there were more liberals in Texas

That is one tough job being a liberal in Texas, you deserve combat pay brother!

You're wrong. Republicans want to finance tax cuts for the wealthy by cutting Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. Democrats don't.

You're blind.

Sam, you continue to draw distinctions between Dems and Repubs. They are both two sides of the same coin. Neither party has the courage to do what is needed for America. Behind the scenes, they are both on the same side. It is truly the Government vs. the American people. It is sad how basically 555 people can tell 325 million other people how they are going to live their lives. If you took a broader view at what is best for the entire country, and stopped focusing on this or that entitlement (which no one is entitled to anything in this life) you would see we are all being hoodwinked by the greatest con artists of all time.

funny, i feel that same about nobama

Well I'm sure you work for Koch Bros too!

Id love that ticket. Bachmann thought the American revolution starting in New Hampshire....

GIGI-DY!

And it seems you think everything he does is wrong because of his skin color.