Too hot to fail? Tomi Lahren's fall from grace.

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • jamil

    code ho
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jul 17, 2011
    60,134
    113
    Gtown-ish
    I don't think I need to post links. There are any number of articles from most political commenters on the topic. But in case you didn't know, Tomi Lawren went on The View, and disgraced herself to Glen Beck by daring to say she's pro-choice. So Beck suspends her from The Blaze, and there's talk that she's going to be let out of her contract early, which currently extends to September.

    Does a credible news site suspend people who don't toe the ideological line?
     

    HoughMade

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Oct 24, 2012
    35,612
    149
    Valparaiso
    ...Does a credible news site suspend people who don't toe the ideological line?

    Was she suspended by a credible news site?

    Honestly, her explanation of "I'm a constitutional...you know..." has me questioning who has been loading her prompter up until now and why didn't they show up at the View?

    Whether you believe abortion should be legal or not, a true conservative cannot think that Roe v. Wade was correctly decided because it removes general police power from the states without anything in the federal constitution justifying it textually or historically. If she believes that abortion should be legal, a true conservative would believe Roe was wrongly decided, but that states should not outlaw it. She endorsed a federal power grab.

    Now I'm wondering how much she actually understands about conservatism and does she really believe it, or is conservatism a way for her to stand out from the blonde commentators and anchors which espouse different views.
     

    churchmouse

    I still care....Really
    Emeritus
    Rating - 100%
    187   0   0
    Dec 7, 2011
    191,809
    152
    Speedway area
    I don't think I need to post links. There are any number of articles from most political commenters on the topic. But in case you didn't know, Tomi Lawren went on The View, and disgraced herself to Glen Beck by daring to say she's pro-choice. So Beck suspends her from The Blaze, and there's talk that she's going to be let out of her contract early, which currently extends to September.

    Does a credible news site suspend people who don't toe the ideological line?

    Please list any "Credible" news sites.
     

    T.Lex

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    15   0   0
    Mar 30, 2011
    25,859
    113
    Whether you believe abortion should be legal or not, a true conservative cannot think that Roe v. Wade was correctly decided because it removes general police power from the states without anything in the federal constitution justifying it textually or historically. If she believes that abortion should be legal, a true conservative would believe Roe was wrongly decided, but that states should not outlaw it. She endorsed a federal power grab.

    I (respectfully, of course) disagree about the "true conservative" cannot defend Roe bit. That case, and its progeny, restrict government interference in people's most private decisions. That's a conservative principle. Perhaps even the foundation of conservativism.
     

    bwframe

    Loneranger
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    93   0   0
    Feb 11, 2008
    38,170
    113
    Btown Rural
    I'm on Tomi's side...



    635938305411796032-2054675757_odUqGLa.jpg


    ...we need to work on her grip a bit though... ;)
     

    HoughMade

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Oct 24, 2012
    35,612
    149
    Valparaiso
    I (respectfully, of course) disagree about the "true conservative" cannot defend Roe bit. That case, and its progeny, restrict government interference in people's most private decisions. That's a conservative principle. Perhaps even the foundation of conservativism.

    The principle may well be conservative (arguable in this case), but using federal overreach that ignores textualism and historicity, most decidedly, is not. Being an originalist is part and parcel of being conservative.

    The proper place for the fight about the underlying "freedom" principle is the states as the federal government should not have the power to create constitutional rights out of penaumbras formed by emanations. Conservatives believe that the Constitution is not changed and "rights" never contemplated by the drafters are not added through the courts. They can be added, but only by amendment.
     

    T.Lex

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    15   0   0
    Mar 30, 2011
    25,859
    113
    The principle may well be conservative (arguable in this case), but using federal overreach that ignores textualism and historicity, most decidedly, is not. Being an originalist is part and parcel of being conservative.
    My friend, the two are most definitely not linked. How many INGO conservatives would stretch the interpretation of the constitution to cover their own pet beliefs?

    The Vin diagram (love that joke, now) would show substantial overlap of the two groups; most conservatives are originalists and most originalists are conservatives.

    The proper place for the fight about the underlying "freedom" principle is the states as the federal government should not have the power to create constitutional rights out of penaumbras formed by emanations. Conservatives believe that the Constitution is not changed and "rights" never contemplated by the drafters are not added through the courts. They can be added, but only by amendment.
    And that's the crux of it, right? Was the Roe framework an interpretation or an addition? I respectfully submit that your answer depends on your view of abortion itself.

    Having said that, I don't disagree that states should have greater decision-making on all sorts of things.
     

    jamil

    code ho
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jul 17, 2011
    60,134
    113
    Gtown-ish
    Was she suspended by a credible news site?

    Honestly, her explanation of "I'm a constitutional...you know..." has me questioning who has been loading her prompter up until now and why didn't they show up at the View?

    Whether you believe abortion should be legal or not, a true conservative cannot think that Roe v. Wade was correctly decided because it removes general police power from the states without anything in the federal constitution justifying it textually or historically. If she believes that abortion should be legal, a true conservative would believe Roe was wrongly decided, but that states should not outlaw it. She endorsed a federal power grab.

    Now I'm wondering how much she actually understands about conservatism and does she really believe it, or is conservatism a way for her to stand out from the blonde commentators and anchors which espouse different views.

    My opinion of Lahren is that if she looked more like Amy Shumer, even saying mean things about progressives wouldn't have gotten her to where she is now. But it's kinda rare to see someone that easy to look at take up conservative talking points. And sometimes conservatives, maybe longing for a better looking mouthpiece, give her a bit more credit than she deserves. As a "conservative" political commentator, I just have had a hard time taking Tomi Lahren seriously.

    It's like when you hear a friend's kids say the same things the parents say. You know they've come to their belief more because they trust their parent's views as being right, rather than the kids having struggled with those beliefs personally, and reasoning them out for themselves. That's the feeling I get when I hear the typical Tomi Lawhren "takedown". Just seems scripted, and facile, like other person's belief and not her own earned belief.

    Her views as a constitutionalist are like that. She obviously needs to reason some things out for herself to get "constitutional" out of R v W. But she's young--probably too young to have that big of a microphone. I think she can evolve. And now that she's fallen from grace, I hope that Beck doesn't decide to Milo her. I don't think she deserves that.

    Please list any "Credible" news sites.

    It's a shame, but I can't name any news sources that I would just automatically believe because of their reputation for being honest. None.

    However, certainly, we can list traits that credible news sources would have. That's not one of them.
     

    HoughMade

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Oct 24, 2012
    35,612
    149
    Valparaiso
    ...It's a shame, but I can't name any news sources that I would just automatically believe because of their reputation for being honest. None...

    It's a shame, but we never should have. We need to be "good Bereans" (not Kentucky) when it comes to our news.
     

    jamil

    code ho
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jul 17, 2011
    60,134
    113
    Gtown-ish
    It's a shame, but we never should have. We need to be "good Bereans" (not Kentucky) when it comes to our news.

    There are Kentucky Bereans? I thought they were all from Acts.

    There's a point determined where the importance of news, controversial nature, benefit to lying, plus the difficulty in verifying it, that all converge to a decision to spend the effort or not, and believe it or not. For example, the news reports the death of Michael Jackson, I say, "Huh. Micheal Jackson died." I'll believe that without having to spend the time verifying it. No reason not to believe it. The press really doesn't have a reason to lie about it. Also too easy to verify. But the why and how? A little less objective, more controversial. More reasons to lie. More difficult to verify. But mostly, too hard to care enough to verify any of it.

    But when there's a report that Trump was into women peeing on him, based on the dossier. That's quite impacting. Controversial. Lots of reasons to lie. Dubious. Anonymous source. Ya. I'm not believing that one until there's much more reliable sourcing. But, many Americans believed it because they don't like Trump and it's anathema not to believe the worst about him, even if it's unsubstantiated. And it worked that way when Obama was in office as well.
     

    MarkC

    Master
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    2   0   0
    Mar 6, 2016
    2,082
    63
    Mooresville
    The principle may well be conservative (arguable in this case), but using federal overreach that ignores textualism and historicity, most decidedly, is not. Being an originalist is part and parcel of being conservative.

    The proper place for the fight about the underlying "freedom" principle is the states as the federal government should not have the power to create constitutional rights out of penaumbras formed by emanations. Conservatives believe that the Constitution is not changed and "rights" never contemplated by the drafters are not added through the courts. They can be added, but only by amendment.

    On this particular issue I have to agree fully; Jim said it before I did, in that I don't agree that constitutional rights are emanations of the penumbras of other rights.

    As a matter of policy, I do believe that privacy considerations are important. However, that is a matter for the voters, acting through either legislators (laws protecting privacy) or constitutional amendment.
     

    T.Lex

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    15   0   0
    Mar 30, 2011
    25,859
    113
    On this particular issue I have to agree fully; Jim said it before I did, in that I don't agree that constitutional rights are emanations of the penumbras of other rights.
    The post-Heller development of 2A interpretation could challenge that assertion. If we want there to be a constitutional right to carry (for example, or for hi cap mags, or zoning that allows for gun ranges), the mechanism will likely be along the lines of an "emanation of a penumbra."

    As a matter of policy, I do believe that privacy considerations are important. However, that is a matter for the voters, acting through either legislators (laws protecting privacy) or constitutional amendment.
    My quarrel was not with the notion that states should be free to decide. Rather, it is some sort of artificial labeling of a policy as "true conservative" or not. The doctrinal underpinnings of Roe can absolutely be defended by conservative principles.
     
    Top Bottom