freedom of self choice dont we that already ????/ o wait maybe not completely :P they both look bad to me their jsut puppets to bluntly say i lost faith in anything media related long time ago a bunch of greedy camera hungry PHONIES
Get this straight all of these people who have made a false claim that abortion is private also want abortion to be funded by taxes, and the truth is that there is nothing private about abortion, because of the fact that there is taxpayer funded abortion!
@Tocxica There is taxpayer funded abortion in the United States of America, and you have not done any research into this subject matter, so you do not need to question this matter!
@kjbhlogkh Actually, I have done research on it. A lot. My Senior thesis was on sexual education and contraception usage in America. I was just trying to see if you were seriously misinformed or just trolling. No, there are no legal abortions done with taxpayers money. The Hyde Amendment forbids it.
@kjbhlogkh You can't just rattle things like that off and call it fact. If it is true, give me contextual proof of it occurring within the last, let's toss out a number, 10 years. If you can provide a reliable source(i.e. not a religious or partisan news source) then I will drop this conversation. I'll still think you're wrong mind you, but I won't say anything about it.
@Tocxica There are people that have been lobbying Congress to stop taxpayer funding of abortion, and yes it is the truth that there has been funding for population control overseas, which is something that you may have been not informed about! Now I want you to explain to me the reason this just so happens to be the truth!
@kjbhlogkh First off, the reason there is lobbying going on for what I'm guessing you mean is H.R.3 is because the Hyde Amendment is a rider bill and not a permanent one that has to be renewed every now and then. Secondly, we're talking about America. The rest of the world's politics are not of my concern. Nor should it be any of yours since we are talking about taxpayer funding for abortions in the US. Stay on topic if you want any respect.
As for the final question I think privacy covers anything one does with his/her own body; including using contraceptives, birth control, the morning after pill, or abortion (the latter often being a difficult enough without government interference). Thus I think the government should stay out of the picture on the topic of allowing abortion.
To the average viewer, Trump looks bad, but not Guthrie. To those (like me) who are given an explanation by those who are more knowledgeable about law and the finer points of the Constitution and the more knowledgeable people themselves, Guthrie also looks bad.
The U.S. Supreme Court once ruled that the Constitution protected the right of one man to own another man. Just because a Supreme Court ruled doesn't make what they rule right. God does not give anyone the freedom to choose to murder. In fact, God forbids murder just as chattel slavery was and is a sin.
@JerkingForJesus Do you realize what you've just advocated. If the Bible makes exceptions to killing people, then you are advocating that it is always right for killing anyone. Such an argument if foolishness. Are you saying it is perfectly ok that I kill you? Of course not. We have to understand under what circumstances is killing of humans COMMANDED by God. Moreover, chattel slavery is not supported by the Bible, only indebted slavery as a means of restitution or when someone chooses it.
@JerkingForJesus Since the Bible, in your mind, supports slavery, are you saying you support slavery? It sounds like it. You see, you have an argument but it is not a very good one because you will contradict what you yourself believe. How foolish.
@peyton072904 no i'm just saying the bible has a lot of fucked up shit in it and people should stop taking it seriously because it was written by bronze age barbarians. try reading the bible without your retard blinders and see what a deplorable piece of garbage it is. blow me you fucking dumbass
@JerkingForJesus That was a real articulate and intelligent response. You should have a lot of credibility with a lot of people. Let me see if I understand you correctly, the Bible has a bunch of &$@! in it like slavery and that is bad even though it refers to slavery in reference to restitution, meaning you agree with the Bible on chattel slavery being bad. And you don't think I should be able to murder you whenever I feel like it so you agree with the Bible on that? You are confusing.
I am Pro life but I am also Pro choice. This may seem like a contradiction but it is indeed not. I would never take the life of an unborn child but GOD gives me the right to choose. If GOD gives me the right to choose, who am I to try and take that right from someone else. It seems like nonsense to me.
@Salvysahagun Actually, that sounds a lot like neo-liberalism, not liberalism.
Personally, I'd prefer my income handled by an elected administration rather than privately owned institutions that can have anyone handle my funds at any time they wish. That's what the majority of conservatives and neo-liberals that I meet don't understand; that "economic freedom"=/= social or proper freedom.
Either way, I'm in the intrestests of reasonable equality, fiscally and socially.
@Salvysahagun Apologies, I did mean classical liberalism.
In any aspect, I wouldn't consider myself particularly liberal in a fiscal sense, as my political quadrant is that of both a social and an economic left stance.
Where do you expect to get you income? From an employer or higher authority.
Already you don't have the kind of "freedom" you express. Taxes simply improve the quality of a country.
Anyway, your stance iis completely relative. There is only what is effective, no "should"s.
You realize if the US Government restored the the Armed Forces to what they where suppose to be and cut unnecessary welfare we could live with out an income tax.
As well We should nationalize the FED and use its profits to build infrastructure. Which was what Hamilton Believed.
@Salvysahagun Why would anyone be taxed at 91%???? Start making big corporation pay 20% taxes first. Why do you want to jump from 10%(if they pay) to 91%?? You're one of those "all or nothing" guys, aren't you?
@Salvysahagun But the liberal don't want 91% taxes. And even if the tax rates are at 35% they don't pay that 35%. Look at the numbers and you'll see the biggest of all corporations pay almost no taxes. even worst is the rich corporations that get more money (from people taxes) than they give. Those companies cost citizens money when they should help the society grow and flourish. I don,t care if we promote and help companies that create new jobs but it,s not realy the case right now.
@Salvysahagun Report from Congress shows that Two-thirds of U.S. corporations paid no federal income taxes between 1998 and 2005. I also think personal pay checks and buisnesses can have the same tax bracket. But right now citizens pay more taxes than corporations. Tax % should be very low for the lowest incomes and be higher for the one who make more money (that don,t mean 91%). Making the poor less poor is a good invesment in the long run.
Bull shit... your pissing out lies, you mean to tell me that a small business that is a registered corperation pays no taxes. and considering the fact that small business employ a majority of the USA. nice try.
@Salvysahagun Don,t put word in my mout! I'm for helping small business and entrepreneurship. I was shocked at the 2/3rd thing too. Maybe CNN rounded up the nubers of the report a little. I don,t have the report i can,t tell.
If small business have lower incomes than big ones they should have a lower tax %. It can only help them to compete with the big corporations. The problem is that, right now, the ultra rich corporations are more likely to not pay their taxes.
@MrG0TH1ER experience shows that having a financialy strong middle class is very healthy for the economy. Society divided in 2 very distinct class of poor and super rich is notsustainable in a long term.
Donald Trump has probably secured his place in history--as one of its biggest assclowns. It made Trump look bad. As to Gutherie, I can barely understand what you're even driving at. No, it didn't make her look bad. And a person informed about constitutional issues would have known what she was talking about. And, yes, even the 4th Amendment might be construed to permit choice, as seizure to prevent or due to an abortion is unreasonable.
Too bad that he injects false logic into a logical issue, where the law gives women the right to kill her own child. Which makes women murderers in every sense but the law. And if we got our morals from law, this country would have been gone long ago.
Savannah is told what to ask. She has no sway in her words on that show, unless she decides to act on her own, in which case she no longer has a job on the show.
Even if the discrepancy there was brought up in the debate, it could be easily put to rest by bringing up the note YOU just did, if anyone thinks to.
Question two: Quite simply, yes. When and whether to have or risk having children is a choice that individual women (with input from the potential fathers) must be able to make for themselves, even if by ill luck, misfortune, accident or poor judgement they get pregnant before they are ready. Abortion is unfortunate. Forced motherhood is -cruel-.
First question: I think Trump came off that interview looking like he was full of hot air and didn't know what he was talking about, but Savannah appeared calm, collected, and very professional. Her question could, and should have been worded more accurately as "Does the Constitution protect a citizen's right to privacy?", or "Are citizens legally entitled to a right of privacy?", but the ill wording is a small mistake, and her intent and meaning seem perfectly clear to me.
I'm pro-choice, have known Trump is a racist idiot for at least 2 decades (due to comments about mixed Black Native Americans), but I think the journalist did a poor job, especially when considering her credentials. I knew which direction she was moving the conversation as soon as I heard the question, but the phrasing was poor, and in a way misleading. A scholar or decent politician would've corrected her mistake. I wish that privacy were explicit in the constitution.
NO! NBC should've fired trump for spewing out racism, and the question savannah should've asked was... "why are u spewing racism"? but some of the chickens already came home to roost for trump and their going to continue too. Nbc as well. Evil never prosper
That was a gotcha question. No doubt about it. It made both Trump and Savannah look bad. But, it probably made Trump look worse. And, that's probably what Savannah, MSNBC, and liberals (in general) wanted...in my view (as an Independent).
We, the citizens of this country, need a right to privacy. In this age of computerization, where every transaction and phone call and message is being tracked and analyzed, by the governemnt and by corporations for THEIR benefit, not ours, we need to have the power to view information about us, control information about us, and take ownership of the information about us.
If we don't control informaiton about us, IT WILL BE USED AGAINST US.
Both. Obviously Trump always speaks in the jackass idiom, but it seemed like a loaded question anyway. She had to have known Trump wouldn't know the specifics of Roe v. Wade. I personally get sick thinking about any man being a staunch pro-lifer. Seems they should only have so much sway in this argument.
Both, but mainly Trump looked bad. And everyone should have the right to choose what they do with their own bodies which includes popping out babies. With millions of kids waiting to be adopted around the world , and overpopulation, I think we should be more responsible with popping out babies every 9 months. Especially religious group trying to out breed everybody else....that makes me sick and it is wicked to do so.
@seankenny08 Well honestly, I don't think it should be legal to kill unborn babies. But in today's society it would be pretty stupid to outlaw it, people are going to do it. I would prefer that the people who chose to do it at least have somewhere safe to go and get it done. No need in risking more life.
Technically, the Constitution is not a private entry, the Bill of Rights are. So in theory, the Bill of Rights explicitly protect the right to property, citizenry, house, etc(Third Amendment). So your theory claims that in essence, the right to private citizenry is the same as the right to abort? It doesn't make sense.
Reality is the right to abort is in more correlation to free speech--or expression. If it makes sense. After all, the Left does talk about abortion as an expression and a right
i believe that we are being too harsh on trump, while he MAY OR MAY NOT know about roe v wade IT IS NOT THAT DIFFICULT TO LEARN! trump was not deflecting because 1. it WAS an odd was of phrasing a question on the interviewers part, 2. when asked if privacy is part of the constitution and he responded "I guess so" it DOES NOT MEAN HE DOES NOT KNOW THE CONSTITUTION!! he was not asked HOW it is supported in the constitution, and he was not obligated to answer unnessisarily
@Ronnie3vil when is abortion happening inside of ANYONES bedroom? i would hate to see the bloody mess that the owners of the bedroom would have to clean up!
Mainly it makes Trump look bad. While she might have phrased the question poorly, it was at least clear enough that he should have had an idea what she was driving at.
If Trump actually understood the issue and had any idea what the right to privacy was/how it has been interpreted, the phrasing if the question wouldn't have thrown him. Had he said "well, it isn't explicitly mentioned, but I believe the liberty component of the 14th Amendment implies that such a right exists", then I would at least give him credit for understanding the issue (though I guess if he understood the issue, he would have said, no right to privacy, not even implicit)
I think that she might be fundamentally asking, "Does the constitution support the a right to privacy". There's a difference between asking, "Is there a right to privacy in the constitution" and, "Is there a right to privacy explicitly stated in the constitution." Either way though, poor phrasing.
Both! Ahhhh we need to move to a system that removes charismatic, self interested, dim time wasters from the process. More leaders of goodwill are needed. Democracy Mk2 that has a leader selection process were relevant life experience, character reference & qualification come first, as opposed to - selecting leaders via a popularity contests for the wealthy.
First, why are so many "journalists" so easy on Trump? Trump has made a mockery out of the Republican Party, and no one seems courageous enough to address it. When Trump said, "That's a very strange way of getting to pro-life," it was obvious that he was not educated about basic U.S. constitutional law.
@cstrosser Yep, he was buying time to think of a way to dodge the question. I think we can expect to see much much more of this as Trump is given more air time.
On the first question, I think most American's don't know the constitutions so well that they would recognize faults in Guthrie's question therefore I think it only made Trump look bad. He certainly didn't spot any problem with her question (or he would have attacked her) and I think he looked like he felt cornered.
On the second question: I most certainly think the Constitution should protect the right to privacy including birth control and abortion decisions.
Justice Scalia is on record saying there is no right to privacy in the Constitution. Now, I COMPLETELY disagree with that (for the reasons you wisely pointed out), but the point is if there is an influential school of legal thought that believes there is no right to privacy, then not only does Guthrie not look bad, it shows she is a very probing reporter and not just trying to getting into soundbite politics. Gold star for her.
Your second question: The Constitution ought not (and does not) include a right to privacy that implies the right to abortion on demand.
Justice Blackmun himself conceded that the state could still outlaw abortion if it could be demonstrated (legally or otherwise) that a 1st trimester fetus is a person. Since such knowledge (he says) does not exist, we should side with the woman's right to privacy.
I'm not sure about your first question because the issue of Roe V. Wade and how the majority argued to abortion-on-demand from the 5th amendment is an extremely complicated issue. Americans, I think rightly so. dismiss this argument because abortion involves the killing of a person.
Furthermore, it is important to note that the consensus of legal scholars, including justice Ruth Bader-Ginsburg agree that Blackmun's argument, for various historical reasons, is totally unsound in Roe V. Wade.
@jshowa2 Carlin didn't have grades when he was in school, it was sort of an experimental school. Too bad they didn't keep doing it.
In the school system in my country I feel that in many classes (religion and ethics, history, norwegian and more social studies classes) critical thinking isn't rewarded, or it very much depends on the teacher. So only cramming knowledge matters and not reflecting on it, so in that sense, at least in my country, grades do not always accurately reflect knowledge
Well considering she could have asked him any question.... she asked a question in a noob fashion, then trying to pounce on him for not knowing it. He would have to know the consitutation inside and out to be able to answer that. I don't agree with hsi stance on pro life! but you can't fault him on answering the question how he answered it. I think considering he didnt know wtf she was on about, he handled it well
Uuuh, Sarah Palin never said that she or anyone could see Russia from her house, that's a stupid Saturday Night Live quote from one of their commedy skits about her. Sarah Palin said that you can see Russia FROM LAND in Alaska, a fact. If Liberalviewer doesn't want to end up looking like a no-spin flip version of Bill O'reilly then I suggest he get the facts straight and stick to them. No, I am not a Palin fan nor am I a Repulican, I am a Libertarian supporting Ron Paul for President.
I would say that the Constitution should protect the privacy of the decision to get an abortion or use birth control. Birth control especially. Roe v Wade did a good job looking at the available scientific information. Abortions aren't allowed at just any point in time during the pregnancy, Roe V Wade specifically states that it is only allowed so long as the fetus is not "viable," i.e. the point it can be scientifically considered a separate entity and thus protected as such.
There's no doubt it makes Trump look bad, he clearly knows nothing about the Constitution or US law in general. I wouldn't say it makes Savannah look bad, but it definitely shows a lack of understanding of the Constitution - specifically that the writers knew they lacked the ability to think of everything that needed to be included, and thus left room for future generations to make decisions as to what needs to be protected or changed.
The republicans never look bad, they always adapt to shove their propaganda down the throats of the masses then attack and/or blame the liberals and it always works. They use their ignorance to their advantage and we will always be subject to their decapitating the constitution while telling everyone they are supporting the constitution. As long as you control people by telling them they control themselves the system will never be questioned AND what is bad to the educated is good for the right.
To me it seems obvious that Savannah worded herself very carefully to se if Trump would be able to see the link between privacy and abortion. She was hoping to make him look uninformed, and the answer he gave was exactly what she wanted.
It made Trump look bad, it seems as though she knew what she was doing to test if Trump REALLY knew anything at all - Liberal Viewer did a great job in picking out the inherent 'flaw' in the question asked by miss Guthrie - though I think her wording was intentional - and it worked on more than one level. It demonstrated that Trump is an idiot in more ways than one. I, in part, came to this conclusion on the presupposition that NBC is more liberal than conservative.
I'd say it makes Trump look bad, obviously, but not so much the other. She probably realized who the idiot she was talking to was and tailored the question for his understanding.
whats the most pathetic is Obama actually cares about what these birthers think. They are in all reality a small minority and by indulging them he has not changed a single one of their minds and made himself look like a fool imo
@AntiFaithNY - a wise statement in a world of insanity... THANK YOU for showing that ONE AMERICAN actually understands how their rights work!!!!! I have LONG given up hope that there was any SANE AMERICAN left in our society. The people have NO CLUE what their rights are or where they come from from, it is no wonder they are being taken away so easily and the people say nothing. Very GOOD!
Any 1st year law student KNOWS that the Constitution gives NO rights. Rights come from YOUR CREATOR as outlined in the Declaration of Independence. They are yours at birth and laws RESTRICT these rights you already have. So ANY document or law that "assigns" rights is fundamentally flawed from the on-set of the idea. The purpose of the U.S. Constitution is to PROTECT the people from the government from infringing on particular rights through legislation.
Making laws that cannot be enforced in a consistent and equitable manner leads to a contempt for the law. Rather than seeking to fight Roe verses Wade the Congress should be working to codify the right to privacy. Abortion is ugly work, but the correct way to confront it is to promote the benefits of life with tax deductions, good schools, healthcare, and other programs that support the family structure. Donald Trump is out of his league to imply that he is presidential material.
@BlakeBarbieDoll No.. The Constitution DOES NOT GIVE RIGHTS! Read the Declaration of Independence. Your rights come from your "creator". You are born with rights... ALL RIGHTS, to do ANYTHING!.. LAWS restrict those rights! The Constitution protects certain rights... the term "God Given Right" is an accurate statement for those that believe in God... for those that do not... your Parents can suffice.
It made them BOTH look bad, but Savannah looked worse because we expect for her to know what is in the constitution, but Donald is an idiot, so he gets 2 points just for being able to pronounce constitution! In this clip, they both looked like ''Know-Nothings".
Well done once again, LiberalViewer, for pointing out the subtle as well as the obvious flaw in this footage! In response to your last question I agree with Trump in a sense. Abortion rights should be protected, but directly and not via the circuitous route of privacy considerations (which might not protect this right in a stable way).
Trump didn't look bad. It's just a poor attempt by an amateur reporter to try and get trump in a "gotcha" type scenario who additionally got caught asking a stupid question which made no sense one so ever. It wasn't lack of knowledge you seen on Trumps face. It was confusion brought on by Savannah's question which made no sense and had no context.
". . . the right to be secure in your houses, person, papers and effects . . ."
I know it's long-winded and what-not, but it's the 4th Amendment of the Constitution. It was worded that way because - in those times - when one referred explicitly to "privacy", they were talking about the privy. You know . . . the loo . . . the john . . . the bathroom. They didn't want the Bill of Rights (the first 10 Amendments of the Constitution) to be ruined with potty talk.
Both, and good catch. Second question's answer is yes. The right keeps trying to push the government into all of our business. It should just stick to looking after our economic, defense, and health well being. Although one could argue maintaining an army is looking out after our health.
This "is X right protected by the constitution" question reveals a fundamental flaw in relying on a piece of paper rather than a concience;
If you believe in an idea like Freedom, you will apply that freedom to EVERYTHING and EVERYONE.
When you have a Paper Concience, you can claim that, since it's impossible for an anti-torture law to list every single imaginable method of torture, that makes the death-of-a-thousand-cuts OK.
lmao nah there is still some true fiscal conservatives, ron paul has always bashed both parties for spending, and he even wants to cut miltray lmao, the republicans butt buddies..... either way nader all the way lmao trump is a fuck, servanna made a mistake but she isnt actually a fucktard. and i should be able to do what i want knowing full well the reprecussions so fuck the government lmao
Both. a reporter should know better and so should he. i shake my head when i think of this man in control of our military... well our country for that matter
The gov has no place in interfering with the choices I make with my hooha! I am pro choice, and I chose not to have an abortion. I happen to be pregnant, right now. I got pregnant before I married, but my husband and I were planning on getting married even before I became pregnant, it just made us marry faster. If I hadn't gotten pregnant by someone like my husband, I don't know if I would keep it. The gov has no place in that decision, because its far to sensitive for them to make.
@alexandervlad privacy is the most sketchiest and debated issues of the constitution. The debate surrounds that it claims we are(n't) entitled to it, (or correctly put, the government can(not) intrude our right of privacy) and it is implied (I believe A4 contains the main context). Personally, I think it's BS to base everything on precedent law, and these issues from abortion, to wire taping, etc need to be judged individually.
I think it makes them both look bad but it matters more with Trump. I can forgive a reporter's poorly phrased question, but I want my presidential candidates to know about important issues. And YES, I DO believe that the government should protect our privacy - ESPECIALLY in situations involving individual health decisions and general relations between people and their doctors. If privacy is protected AT ALL, it should be protected in the extremely intimate setting of the doctor's office.
The abortion issue is more about genocide, and less about privacy. Liberals contend a woman has a right to kill her fetus. People of moral character contend it is not a right to kill your fetus. Liberals argue we should have a right to decide what we do with our bodies, yet hypocritcally work to enact legislation limiting what you can eat, how much income you can keep, or where you can smoke. It seems "rights" are ok so long as liberals decide what the "rights" should be.
@RightWingTV The smoking one is a bad comparison since it actually affects other people around the smoker, people who might not even know who the smoker is.
Also, you don't seem to realize the hypocrisy in Conservatives wanting the government to stay out of peoples' lives. Except when it comes to abortion and gay people.
I agree, when I first saw this clip on the news I thought that was a really poorly formed question, OR she phrased it that way in order to try to expose his lack of knowledge on Roe v. Wade.
A schmuck interviewing a moron. They both make me sick.
marley54fd 6 days ago
They both look bad.
scottandrewhutchins 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I'm undecided about abortion.
On one hand I support it as it is killing children.
On the other hand, it gives women a choice.
Morepork360 3 months ago
freedom of self choice dont we that already ????/ o wait maybe not completely :P they both look bad to me their jsut puppets to bluntly say i lost faith in anything media related long time ago a bunch of greedy camera hungry PHONIES
Nav0nod 3 months ago in playlist More videos from LiberalViewer
both
maketimmycry 6 months ago
Savannah is pretty smart and i didnt even catch this when i watched it on tv. im kind of surprised that she asked it that way
metallicafannick 6 months ago
Get this straight all of these people who have made a false claim that abortion is private also want abortion to be funded by taxes, and the truth is that there is nothing private about abortion, because of the fact that there is taxpayer funded abortion!
kjbhlogkh 6 months ago
@kjbhlogkh I kind of hope you're joking around about this. But I gotta ask, where is there LEGALLY taxpayer supported abortions?
Tocxica 5 months ago
@Tocxica There is taxpayer funded abortion in the United States of America, and you have not done any research into this subject matter, so you do not need to question this matter!
kjbhlogkh 5 months ago
@kjbhlogkh Actually, I have done research on it. A lot. My Senior thesis was on sexual education and contraception usage in America. I was just trying to see if you were seriously misinformed or just trolling. No, there are no legal abortions done with taxpayers money. The Hyde Amendment forbids it.
Tocxica 5 months ago
@Tocxica There people who have been finding many ways to circumvent the Hyde amendment, and that is a fact that you are in denial about!
kjbhlogkh 5 months ago
@kjbhlogkh You can't just rattle things like that off and call it fact. If it is true, give me contextual proof of it occurring within the last, let's toss out a number, 10 years. If you can provide a reliable source(i.e. not a religious or partisan news source) then I will drop this conversation. I'll still think you're wrong mind you, but I won't say anything about it.
Tocxica 5 months ago
@Tocxica There are people that have been lobbying Congress to stop taxpayer funding of abortion, and yes it is the truth that there has been funding for population control overseas, which is something that you may have been not informed about! Now I want you to explain to me the reason this just so happens to be the truth!
kjbhlogkh 5 months ago
@kjbhlogkh First off, the reason there is lobbying going on for what I'm guessing you mean is H.R.3 is because the Hyde Amendment is a rider bill and not a permanent one that has to be renewed every now and then. Secondly, we're talking about America. The rest of the world's politics are not of my concern. Nor should it be any of yours since we are talking about taxpayer funding for abortions in the US. Stay on topic if you want any respect.
Tocxica 5 months ago
As for the final question I think privacy covers anything one does with his/her own body; including using contraceptives, birth control, the morning after pill, or abortion (the latter often being a difficult enough without government interference). Thus I think the government should stay out of the picture on the topic of allowing abortion.
jjmblue7 6 months ago
To the average viewer, Trump looks bad, but not Guthrie. To those (like me) who are given an explanation by those who are more knowledgeable about law and the finer points of the Constitution and the more knowledgeable people themselves, Guthrie also looks bad.
jjmblue7 6 months ago
You do offer fair and balanced news!
LuxuryBarrage 7 months ago
The U.S. Supreme Court once ruled that the Constitution protected the right of one man to own another man. Just because a Supreme Court ruled doesn't make what they rule right. God does not give anyone the freedom to choose to murder. In fact, God forbids murder just as chattel slavery was and is a sin.
peyton072904 7 months ago
@peyton072904 except if you read the bible God makes a lot of exceptions to the rule about killing people
also a bonus just for you slavery is condoned in the bible
JerkingForJesus 7 months ago
@JerkingForJesus Do you realize what you've just advocated. If the Bible makes exceptions to killing people, then you are advocating that it is always right for killing anyone. Such an argument if foolishness. Are you saying it is perfectly ok that I kill you? Of course not. We have to understand under what circumstances is killing of humans COMMANDED by God. Moreover, chattel slavery is not supported by the Bible, only indebted slavery as a means of restitution or when someone chooses it.
peyton072904 7 months ago
@JerkingForJesus Since the Bible, in your mind, supports slavery, are you saying you support slavery? It sounds like it. You see, you have an argument but it is not a very good one because you will contradict what you yourself believe. How foolish.
peyton072904 7 months ago
@peyton072904 no i'm just saying the bible has a lot of fucked up shit in it and people should stop taking it seriously because it was written by bronze age barbarians. try reading the bible without your retard blinders and see what a deplorable piece of garbage it is. blow me you fucking dumbass
JerkingForJesus 6 months ago
@JerkingForJesus That was a real articulate and intelligent response. You should have a lot of credibility with a lot of people. Let me see if I understand you correctly, the Bible has a bunch of &$@! in it like slavery and that is bad even though it refers to slavery in reference to restitution, meaning you agree with the Bible on chattel slavery being bad. And you don't think I should be able to murder you whenever I feel like it so you agree with the Bible on that? You are confusing.
peyton072904 6 months ago
I am Pro life but I am also Pro choice. This may seem like a contradiction but it is indeed not. I would never take the life of an unborn child but GOD gives me the right to choose. If GOD gives me the right to choose, who am I to try and take that right from someone else. It seems like nonsense to me.
clgrayson1 7 months ago
No, yes, and yes
jerico641 8 months ago
Liberal Viewer,
If you support privacy, do you support the income tax?
Salvysahagun 8 months ago
@Salvysahagun This is social privacy being discussed, not economic privacy,
ThisHaloFan 8 months ago
@ThisHaloFan
Its the same thing.
Salvysahagun 8 months ago
@Salvysahagun Quite on the contrary, fiscal and social politics are different things.
ThisHaloFan 8 months ago
@ThisHaloFan
Thats the mentality in America. But Freedom is Freedom.
Real liberalism understands that you cannot have one with out the other.
Look into Mises
Salvysahagun 8 months ago
@Salvysahagun Actually, that sounds a lot like neo-liberalism, not liberalism.
Personally, I'd prefer my income handled by an elected administration rather than privately owned institutions that can have anyone handle my funds at any time they wish. That's what the majority of conservatives and neo-liberals that I meet don't understand; that "economic freedom"=/= social or proper freedom.
Either way, I'm in the intrestests of reasonable equality, fiscally and socially.
ThisHaloFan 8 months ago
@ThisHaloFan
Fool,
look up classical Liberalism.
Ludwig Von Mises began the liberal movement over 100 years ago. And guess what?
He's a member of the Austrian School of Economics.
Answer this question, where do you get better service Starbucks or the DMV?
The only person that should handle my income is me.
Salvysahagun 8 months ago
@Salvysahagun Apologies, I did mean classical liberalism.
In any aspect, I wouldn't consider myself particularly liberal in a fiscal sense, as my political quadrant is that of both a social and an economic left stance.
Where do you expect to get you income? From an employer or higher authority.
Already you don't have the kind of "freedom" you express. Taxes simply improve the quality of a country.
Anyway, your stance iis completely relative. There is only what is effective, no "should"s.
ThisHaloFan 8 months ago
@ThisHaloFan
You realize if the US Government restored the the Armed Forces to what they where suppose to be and cut unnecessary welfare we could live with out an income tax.
As well We should nationalize the FED and use its profits to build infrastructure. Which was what Hamilton Believed.
Salvysahagun 8 months ago
@Salvysahagun I don't live in the US, therefore I give my best efforts on not giving a fuck. :D
ThisHaloFan 8 months ago
@ThisHaloFan
OH and I doubt Blll Gates would have had the money to invest in Xbox if his taxes where high "halo fan"
Salvysahagun 8 months ago
@Salvysahagun You doubted wrong. He would have had the money to invest in Xbox.
MrG0TH1ER 8 months ago
@MrG0TH1ER
Doubt it.
Actually if it wasn't for the Reagan tax cuts I 100% sure Silicon Valley wouldn't be where it is today.
Do you really think any one getting taxed at 91% would invest in something as crazy as a PC for regular people?
Salvysahagun 8 months ago
@Salvysahagun Why would anyone be taxed at 91%???? Start making big corporation pay 20% taxes first. Why do you want to jump from 10%(if they pay) to 91%?? You're one of those "all or nothing" guys, aren't you?
MrG0TH1ER 8 months ago
@MrG0TH1ER
Most libtards always use the high marginal rates in 50s-60s.. and the corporate tax rates are at 35%.
91% is what reagan cut taxes down from
Salvysahagun 8 months ago
@Salvysahagun But the liberal don't want 91% taxes. And even if the tax rates are at 35% they don't pay that 35%. Look at the numbers and you'll see the biggest of all corporations pay almost no taxes. even worst is the rich corporations that get more money (from people taxes) than they give. Those companies cost citizens money when they should help the society grow and flourish. I don,t care if we promote and help companies that create new jobs but it,s not realy the case right now.
MrG0TH1ER 8 months ago
@MrG0TH1ER
Do you have the statistic that proves that.
Just because GE didn't pay there Taxes doesn't mean every Fortune 500 company did not.
The problem is that most business owners pay both personal income tax and an income tax on their company.
tell me.. is that fair?
Personally I think pay checks should have the same tax brackets as businesses
Salvysahagun 8 months ago
@Salvysahagun Report from Congress shows that Two-thirds of U.S. corporations paid no federal income taxes between 1998 and 2005. I also think personal pay checks and buisnesses can have the same tax bracket. But right now citizens pay more taxes than corporations. Tax % should be very low for the lowest incomes and be higher for the one who make more money (that don,t mean 91%). Making the poor less poor is a good invesment in the long run.
MrG0TH1ER 8 months ago
@MrG0TH1ER
2/3rd?
Bull shit... your pissing out lies, you mean to tell me that a small business that is a registered corperation pays no taxes. and considering the fact that small business employ a majority of the USA. nice try.
Salvysahagun 8 months ago
@Salvysahagun Don,t put word in my mout! I'm for helping small business and entrepreneurship. I was shocked at the 2/3rd thing too. Maybe CNN rounded up the nubers of the report a little. I don,t have the report i can,t tell.
If small business have lower incomes than big ones they should have a lower tax %. It can only help them to compete with the big corporations. The problem is that, right now, the ultra rich corporations are more likely to not pay their taxes.
MrG0TH1ER 8 months ago
@MrG0TH1ER experience shows that having a financialy strong middle class is very healthy for the economy. Society divided in 2 very distinct class of poor and super rich is notsustainable in a long term.
MrG0TH1ER 8 months ago
Donald Trump has probably secured his place in history--as one of its biggest assclowns. It made Trump look bad. As to Gutherie, I can barely understand what you're even driving at. No, it didn't make her look bad. And a person informed about constitutional issues would have known what she was talking about. And, yes, even the 4th Amendment might be construed to permit choice, as seizure to prevent or due to an abortion is unreasonable.
newdarnaccount 8 months ago
3:24 LV jumped too soon.
Too bad that he injects false logic into a logical issue, where the law gives women the right to kill her own child. Which makes women murderers in every sense but the law. And if we got our morals from law, this country would have been gone long ago.
Savannah is told what to ask. She has no sway in her words on that show, unless she decides to act on her own, in which case she no longer has a job on the show.
Abortion is murder. Logic.
RememberForThePeople 8 months ago
Even if the discrepancy there was brought up in the debate, it could be easily put to rest by bringing up the note YOU just did, if anyone thinks to.
Question two: Quite simply, yes. When and whether to have or risk having children is a choice that individual women (with input from the potential fathers) must be able to make for themselves, even if by ill luck, misfortune, accident or poor judgement they get pregnant before they are ready. Abortion is unfortunate. Forced motherhood is -cruel-.
SerpentStare 9 months ago
First question: I think Trump came off that interview looking like he was full of hot air and didn't know what he was talking about, but Savannah appeared calm, collected, and very professional. Her question could, and should have been worded more accurately as "Does the Constitution protect a citizen's right to privacy?", or "Are citizens legally entitled to a right of privacy?", but the ill wording is a small mistake, and her intent and meaning seem perfectly clear to me.
SerpentStare 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Man became a living soul only after God breathed into his nostrils the breath of life - Homeless Christ watch?v=71ltN5meyGY
Colloquium2011 9 months ago
Both and are we suprised?
TSavage1953 9 months ago
I'm pro-choice, have known Trump is a racist idiot for at least 2 decades (due to comments about mixed Black Native Americans), but I think the journalist did a poor job, especially when considering her credentials. I knew which direction she was moving the conversation as soon as I heard the question, but the phrasing was poor, and in a way misleading. A scholar or decent politician would've corrected her mistake. I wish that privacy were explicit in the constitution.
ThePurpleSeahorse 9 months ago
NO! NBC should've fired trump for spewing out racism, and the question savannah should've asked was... "why are u spewing racism"? but some of the chickens already came home to roost for trump and their going to continue too. Nbc as well. Evil never prosper
LiLrick258 9 months ago
That was a gotcha question. No doubt about it. It made both Trump and Savannah look bad. But, it probably made Trump look worse. And, that's probably what Savannah, MSNBC, and liberals (in general) wanted...in my view (as an Independent).
jayb2k11 9 months ago
We, the citizens of this country, need a right to privacy. In this age of computerization, where every transaction and phone call and message is being tracked and analyzed, by the governemnt and by corporations for THEIR benefit, not ours, we need to have the power to view information about us, control information about us, and take ownership of the information about us.
If we don't control informaiton about us, IT WILL BE USED AGAINST US.
SailingMonsoon 9 months ago
Both. Obviously Trump always speaks in the jackass idiom, but it seemed like a loaded question anyway. She had to have known Trump wouldn't know the specifics of Roe v. Wade. I personally get sick thinking about any man being a staunch pro-lifer. Seems they should only have so much sway in this argument.
Zero11zero1zero 9 months ago
Both, but mainly Trump looked bad. And everyone should have the right to choose what they do with their own bodies which includes popping out babies. With millions of kids waiting to be adopted around the world , and overpopulation, I think we should be more responsible with popping out babies every 9 months. Especially religious group trying to out breed everybody else....that makes me sick and it is wicked to do so.
machngunjoe 9 months ago 5
Both.
And yes it should protect a right to privacy. That right is almost required to maintain the other enumerated rights.
realityhack 9 months ago 4
I am ok with birth control but, I honestly have a moral objection to abortion. Just my opinion that it shouldn't be done.
restinghope 10 months ago
@restinghope Yeah but should your opinion be the rule for everyone in our country.
seankenny08 9 months ago
@seankenny08 Well honestly, I don't think it should be legal to kill unborn babies. But in today's society it would be pretty stupid to outlaw it, people are going to do it. I would prefer that the people who chose to do it at least have somewhere safe to go and get it done. No need in risking more life.
restinghope 9 months ago
BTW, if you believe that hate speech should be censored, then abortion is not? Of course abortion is legal now but I have to say...
Sounds like you might as well give rights to Earth...oh right, I forgot, you want to.
Going way over @liberal viewer. Stick to something, like pro-choice, it makes more sense.
Spread you the wealth later.
conservativesaiyan 10 months ago
Technically, the Constitution is not a private entry, the Bill of Rights are. So in theory, the Bill of Rights explicitly protect the right to property, citizenry, house, etc(Third Amendment). So your theory claims that in essence, the right to private citizenry is the same as the right to abort? It doesn't make sense.
Reality is the right to abort is in more correlation to free speech--or expression. If it makes sense. After all, the Left does talk about abortion as an expression and a right
conservativesaiyan 10 months ago
an uninteligent answer for an uninteligent question
ginadab11 10 months ago
i believe that we are being too harsh on trump, while he MAY OR MAY NOT know about roe v wade IT IS NOT THAT DIFFICULT TO LEARN! trump was not deflecting because 1. it WAS an odd was of phrasing a question on the interviewers part, 2. when asked if privacy is part of the constitution and he responded "I guess so" it DOES NOT MEAN HE DOES NOT KNOW THE CONSTITUTION!! he was not asked HOW it is supported in the constitution, and he was not obligated to answer unnessisarily
ginadab11 10 months ago
Bolth
MrLatta 10 months ago
The government has no business in the bedrooms of it's citizens.
Ronnie3vil 10 months ago
@Ronnie3vil when is abortion happening inside of ANYONES bedroom? i would hate to see the bloody mess that the owners of the bedroom would have to clean up!
ginadab11 10 months ago
Mainly it makes Trump look bad. While she might have phrased the question poorly, it was at least clear enough that he should have had an idea what she was driving at.
DreamGranules 10 months ago
If Trump actually understood the issue and had any idea what the right to privacy was/how it has been interpreted, the phrasing if the question wouldn't have thrown him. Had he said "well, it isn't explicitly mentioned, but I believe the liberty component of the 14th Amendment implies that such a right exists", then I would at least give him credit for understanding the issue (though I guess if he understood the issue, he would have said, no right to privacy, not even implicit)
dak879 10 months ago
deflect much trump?
tknick90 10 months ago
If questions she asked is the wrong one, then what is the right one?
thecomputergurukid 10 months ago
Technocratic government under the influence of Anonymous is the only real privacy solution.
jadlerhalofan 10 months ago
I think that she might be fundamentally asking, "Does the constitution support the a right to privacy". There's a difference between asking, "Is there a right to privacy in the constitution" and, "Is there a right to privacy explicitly stated in the constitution." Either way though, poor phrasing.
Stairc 10 months ago 7
Great Channel.. Just Great... Keep it up... Thank you for your hard work...
kevincolmergmail 10 months ago
both
jayross3 10 months ago
one government class = you won't be/appear as stupid as both of these ppl -,-
MrDeathIncorporated 10 months ago
i am pro life, and Trump an idoit.
jcn35 10 months ago
both
TyRafferty 10 months ago
both
huelink300 10 months ago
Both! Ahhhh we need to move to a system that removes charismatic, self interested, dim time wasters from the process. More leaders of goodwill are needed. Democracy Mk2 that has a leader selection process were relevant life experience, character reference & qualification come first, as opposed to - selecting leaders via a popularity contests for the wealthy.
eyes21st 10 months ago
First, why are so many "journalists" so easy on Trump? Trump has made a mockery out of the Republican Party, and no one seems courageous enough to address it. When Trump said, "That's a very strange way of getting to pro-life," it was obvious that he was not educated about basic U.S. constitutional law.
cstrosser 10 months ago
@cstrosser Yep, he was buying time to think of a way to dodge the question. I think we can expect to see much much more of this as Trump is given more air time.
kineo 10 months ago
On the first question, I think most American's don't know the constitutions so well that they would recognize faults in Guthrie's question therefore I think it only made Trump look bad. He certainly didn't spot any problem with her question (or he would have attacked her) and I think he looked like he felt cornered.
On the second question: I most certainly think the Constitution should protect the right to privacy including birth control and abortion decisions.
kwb70652 10 months ago
To quote the great 21st century philosopher, Charlie Brooker, 'Donald Trump Is A Bellend'.
FreindlyRanger 10 months ago
Abortion = every woman's right. Period. No compromise.
juliewashere88 10 months ago 2
Justice Scalia is on record saying there is no right to privacy in the Constitution. Now, I COMPLETELY disagree with that (for the reasons you wisely pointed out), but the point is if there is an influential school of legal thought that believes there is no right to privacy, then not only does Guthrie not look bad, it shows she is a very probing reporter and not just trying to getting into soundbite politics. Gold star for her.
Oh, and Trump is a total fraud.
csaver 10 months ago
Your second question: The Constitution ought not (and does not) include a right to privacy that implies the right to abortion on demand.
Justice Blackmun himself conceded that the state could still outlaw abortion if it could be demonstrated (legally or otherwise) that a 1st trimester fetus is a person. Since such knowledge (he says) does not exist, we should side with the woman's right to privacy.
migkillertwo 10 months ago
I'm not sure about your first question because the issue of Roe V. Wade and how the majority argued to abortion-on-demand from the 5th amendment is an extremely complicated issue. Americans, I think rightly so. dismiss this argument because abortion involves the killing of a person.
Furthermore, it is important to note that the consensus of legal scholars, including justice Ruth Bader-Ginsburg agree that Blackmun's argument, for various historical reasons, is totally unsound in Roe V. Wade.
migkillertwo 10 months ago
Tina Fey said she could see Russia from her house, not Sarah Palin.
thereprieve 10 months ago
@thereprieve Ha ha revisionist comedic history.
golden454 10 months ago
both
stuffisgd 10 months ago
@jshowa2 Carlin didn't have grades when he was in school, it was sort of an experimental school. Too bad they didn't keep doing it.
In the school system in my country I feel that in many classes (religion and ethics, history, norwegian and more social studies classes) critical thinking isn't rewarded, or it very much depends on the teacher. So only cramming knowledge matters and not reflecting on it, so in that sense, at least in my country, grades do not always accurately reflect knowledge
cl1mbat1ze 10 months ago
LOL! He's a fucking clown! I learned this shit in political science 1.
jsmith224455 10 months ago
Well considering she could have asked him any question.... she asked a question in a noob fashion, then trying to pounce on him for not knowing it. He would have to know the consitutation inside and out to be able to answer that. I don't agree with hsi stance on pro life! but you can't fault him on answering the question how he answered it. I think considering he didnt know wtf she was on about, he handled it well
moleman124 10 months ago
Uuuh, Sarah Palin never said that she or anyone could see Russia from her house, that's a stupid Saturday Night Live quote from one of their commedy skits about her. Sarah Palin said that you can see Russia FROM LAND in Alaska, a fact. If Liberalviewer doesn't want to end up looking like a no-spin flip version of Bill O'reilly then I suggest he get the facts straight and stick to them. No, I am not a Palin fan nor am I a Repulican, I am a Libertarian supporting Ron Paul for President.
BloodTar 10 months ago
BOTH & yes it should !!!
kingangis999 10 months ago
I would say that the Constitution should protect the privacy of the decision to get an abortion or use birth control. Birth control especially. Roe v Wade did a good job looking at the available scientific information. Abortions aren't allowed at just any point in time during the pregnancy, Roe V Wade specifically states that it is only allowed so long as the fetus is not "viable," i.e. the point it can be scientifically considered a separate entity and thus protected as such.
TheMasalaBalla 10 months ago 2
There's no doubt it makes Trump look bad, he clearly knows nothing about the Constitution or US law in general. I wouldn't say it makes Savannah look bad, but it definitely shows a lack of understanding of the Constitution - specifically that the writers knew they lacked the ability to think of everything that needed to be included, and thus left room for future generations to make decisions as to what needs to be protected or changed.
TheMasalaBalla 10 months ago
The republicans never look bad, they always adapt to shove their propaganda down the throats of the masses then attack and/or blame the liberals and it always works. They use their ignorance to their advantage and we will always be subject to their decapitating the constitution while telling everyone they are supporting the constitution. As long as you control people by telling them they control themselves the system will never be questioned AND what is bad to the educated is good for the right.
i2v2s 10 months ago
To me it seems obvious that Savannah worded herself very carefully to se if Trump would be able to see the link between privacy and abortion. She was hoping to make him look uninformed, and the answer he gave was exactly what she wanted.
Oppvaskhanske 10 months ago 23
@Oppvaskhanske nailed it
carlo88moe 9 months ago
I think Donald Trump came off looking very uninformed and biased.
terwigel 10 months ago
@terwigel well he IS American.
cpufightclub 10 months ago
Both. In an effort to dumb down the question for the Donald, she misconstrued the Constitution.
Donald, is, as Monty Python would say, an upper class twit.
naithom 10 months ago 2
@naithom
agreed...
Bennybombomable 10 months ago
it made trump look bad. all tho, he's doing a great job! at doing that him self.hehe!
AmbrosiusVanllin60 10 months ago
Alright if you're conservative and you don't think Trump is a major /facepalm to all conservatives, something's wrong with you.
arthereld 10 months ago
savannah is hot
gmorfinz 10 months ago
It made Trump look bad, it seems as though she knew what she was doing to test if Trump REALLY knew anything at all - Liberal Viewer did a great job in picking out the inherent 'flaw' in the question asked by miss Guthrie - though I think her wording was intentional - and it worked on more than one level. It demonstrated that Trump is an idiot in more ways than one. I, in part, came to this conclusion on the presupposition that NBC is more liberal than conservative.
StephenWebb1980 10 months ago
I'd say it makes Trump look bad, obviously, but not so much the other. She probably realized who the idiot she was talking to was and tailored the question for his understanding.
AbonZel3 10 months ago 2
I'd care if it wasn't so obvious that the President was just a puppet and that he has next to no power in anything.
Asmusei 10 months ago
fuck ur voice bra
painfulstorm1 10 months ago
fuck ur voice bra
painfulstorm1 10 months ago
whats the most pathetic is Obama actually cares about what these birthers think. They are in all reality a small minority and by indulging them he has not changed a single one of their minds and made himself look like a fool imo
Amakisongs 10 months ago
@AntiFaithNY - a wise statement in a world of insanity... THANK YOU for showing that ONE AMERICAN actually understands how their rights work!!!!! I have LONG given up hope that there was any SANE AMERICAN left in our society. The people have NO CLUE what their rights are or where they come from from, it is no wonder they are being taken away so easily and the people say nothing. Very GOOD!
BikerBry 10 months ago
Any 1st year law student KNOWS that the Constitution gives NO rights. Rights come from YOUR CREATOR as outlined in the Declaration of Independence. They are yours at birth and laws RESTRICT these rights you already have. So ANY document or law that "assigns" rights is fundamentally flawed from the on-set of the idea. The purpose of the U.S. Constitution is to PROTECT the people from the government from infringing on particular rights through legislation.
BikerBry 10 months ago
It made Trump look bad. :-/
MoarSugarcubes 10 months ago
Making laws that cannot be enforced in a consistent and equitable manner leads to a contempt for the law. Rather than seeking to fight Roe verses Wade the Congress should be working to codify the right to privacy. Abortion is ugly work, but the correct way to confront it is to promote the benefits of life with tax deductions, good schools, healthcare, and other programs that support the family structure. Donald Trump is out of his league to imply that he is presidential material.
Zyworski 10 months ago
he is so dum I am so sick of Trump i mean i am over him
chrismarc207 10 months ago
They both need to put their noses to the wall!
Trump is an idiot, Savannah just got confused.
BlakeBarbieDoll 10 months ago
i dont know . lets ask god
SKIPPERDUDEL 10 months ago
both and yes
AnUglyAmerican 10 months ago
Come on, give Trump a break. After all, he did single-handedly get to the bottom of Obama's birth certificate controversy! LOL
cablepanos 10 months ago
@cablepanos LOL
BlakeBarbieDoll 10 months ago
@AntiFaithNY It GIVES and PROTECTS rights!
BlakeBarbieDoll 10 months ago
@BlakeBarbieDoll No.. The Constitution DOES NOT GIVE RIGHTS! Read the Declaration of Independence. Your rights come from your "creator". You are born with rights... ALL RIGHTS, to do ANYTHING!.. LAWS restrict those rights! The Constitution protects certain rights... the term "God Given Right" is an accurate statement for those that believe in God... for those that do not... your Parents can suffice.
BikerBry 10 months ago
It made them BOTH look bad, but Savannah looked worse because we expect for her to know what is in the constitution, but Donald is an idiot, so he gets 2 points just for being able to pronounce constitution! In this clip, they both looked like ''Know-Nothings".
BlakeBarbieDoll 10 months ago
Well done once again, LiberalViewer, for pointing out the subtle as well as the obvious flaw in this footage! In response to your last question I agree with Trump in a sense. Abortion rights should be protected, but directly and not via the circuitous route of privacy considerations (which might not protect this right in a stable way).
RacingDamon 10 months ago
Donald Trump has a little mouth.
Nate2203 10 months ago
Donald Trump makes me lol
Nate2203 10 months ago
Having the option is sane and denying the option is insane.
People don't like to be limited. At least I don't.
civwarfan 10 months ago
Trump didn't look bad. It's just a poor attempt by an amateur reporter to try and get trump in a "gotcha" type scenario who additionally got caught asking a stupid question which made no sense one so ever. It wasn't lack of knowledge you seen on Trumps face. It was confusion brought on by Savannah's question which made no sense and had no context.
politicalpresident 10 months ago
@politicalpresident ...Except he had no idea what Roe V Wade was about...
SocialDissimulation 10 months ago
It made Donald Trump look bad.
Shrinkynuts 10 months ago
". . . the right to be secure in your houses, person, papers and effects . . ."
I know it's long-winded and what-not, but it's the 4th Amendment of the Constitution. It was worded that way because - in those times - when one referred explicitly to "privacy", they were talking about the privy. You know . . . the loo . . . the john . . . the bathroom. They didn't want the Bill of Rights (the first 10 Amendments of the Constitution) to be ruined with potty talk.
vcdaniels 10 months ago
Both, and good catch. Second question's answer is yes. The right keeps trying to push the government into all of our business. It should just stick to looking after our economic, defense, and health well being. Although one could argue maintaining an army is looking out after our health.
Rathelm 10 months ago
Summary of Griswold v Connecticut: "Roll 'em up kids"
ctastrophe 10 months ago
Does anyone else think Trump might be a POE??
jimrbsn 10 months ago
@jimrbsn
Will he die of rabies then? please say yes!
robinsonruiz86 10 months ago
I hope The Donald gets the Republican nomination. I need some good laughs for the next 18 months.
y2knoproblem 10 months ago
This "is X right protected by the constitution" question reveals a fundamental flaw in relying on a piece of paper rather than a concience;
If you believe in an idea like Freedom, you will apply that freedom to EVERYTHING and EVERYONE.
When you have a Paper Concience, you can claim that, since it's impossible for an anti-torture law to list every single imaginable method of torture, that makes the death-of-a-thousand-cuts OK.
dechha1981 10 months ago
he is a fool.
Silverandblack95 10 months ago
lmao nah there is still some true fiscal conservatives, ron paul has always bashed both parties for spending, and he even wants to cut miltray lmao, the republicans butt buddies..... either way nader all the way lmao trump is a fuck, servanna made a mistake but she isnt actually a fucktard. and i should be able to do what i want knowing full well the reprecussions so fuck the government lmao
zaneybaney420 10 months ago
Both. a reporter should know better and so should he. i shake my head when i think of this man in control of our military... well our country for that matter
southpawOO7 10 months ago
Conservatives love when the government interferes in your life. "YOUR" being the operative word there.
If they didn't want the government in "your" life, drugs would be legal and the Patriot Act would never have passed.
VesusSheist 10 months ago
The gov has no place in interfering with the choices I make with my hooha! I am pro choice, and I chose not to have an abortion. I happen to be pregnant, right now. I got pregnant before I married, but my husband and I were planning on getting married even before I became pregnant, it just made us marry faster. If I hadn't gotten pregnant by someone like my husband, I don't know if I would keep it. The gov has no place in that decision, because its far to sensitive for them to make.
Amaizying 10 months ago
both, and the gov't has NO PLACE interfering in matters of birth control or abortion.
eire138 10 months ago
both, and yes.
dsdougharty 10 months ago
damn liberal viewer. you really nailed the facts straight on both parties. Wow.. good video :)
newdoom3 10 months ago
If the gorvernment can't protect individual privacy, the government must be removed. That is all.
alexandervlad 10 months ago 36
@alexandervlad A countries ability to protect it's citizen is a requirement for sovereignty.
snowbaordguru 10 months ago
@snowbaordguru We don't have Sovereignty anymore though, especially since the "Patriot Act" has been enacted.
LordAvoc 10 months ago
@alexandervlad privacy is the most sketchiest and debated issues of the constitution. The debate surrounds that it claims we are(n't) entitled to it, (or correctly put, the government can(not) intrude our right of privacy) and it is implied (I believe A4 contains the main context). Personally, I think it's BS to base everything on precedent law, and these issues from abortion, to wire taping, etc need to be judged individually.
burneden 10 months ago
Both look bad.
ocelotecpatl 10 months ago
I'd rather be aborted than unloved.
I've been having lots of Donalds the past few days; too many beans.
NormanAngle 10 months ago 31
I think it makes them both look bad but it matters more with Trump. I can forgive a reporter's poorly phrased question, but I want my presidential candidates to know about important issues. And YES, I DO believe that the government should protect our privacy - ESPECIALLY in situations involving individual health decisions and general relations between people and their doctors. If privacy is protected AT ALL, it should be protected in the extremely intimate setting of the doctor's office.
MacyJH 10 months ago
Great Vid!! now im going to buy a Chevy
The306 10 months ago
Both looked bad, but mostly Trump. I don't think the majority of Americans would pick up on the reporters mistake.
And yes, the constitution should protect rights to privacy and a woman's right to choose aside from merely privacy.
madk777 10 months ago
The abortion issue is more about genocide, and less about privacy. Liberals contend a woman has a right to kill her fetus. People of moral character contend it is not a right to kill your fetus. Liberals argue we should have a right to decide what we do with our bodies, yet hypocritcally work to enact legislation limiting what you can eat, how much income you can keep, or where you can smoke. It seems "rights" are ok so long as liberals decide what the "rights" should be.
RightWingTV 10 months ago
@RightWingTV The smoking one is a bad comparison since it actually affects other people around the smoker, people who might not even know who the smoker is.
Also, you don't seem to realize the hypocrisy in Conservatives wanting the government to stay out of peoples' lives. Except when it comes to abortion and gay people.
gimmethegepgun 10 months ago
1) both
2) yes
and I agree with mtheory85
Elaina43 10 months ago
Great point that was very underminded
Mystery207 10 months ago
It makes the fact that we are still having such a ridiculous debate in the 21st century look bad.
mtheory85 10 months ago
Yes and no.
kvj1989 10 months ago
I agree, when I first saw this clip on the news I thought that was a really poorly formed question, OR she phrased it that way in order to try to expose his lack of knowledge on Roe v. Wade.
WiredStreet 10 months ago