https://slowtowrite.com/should-pro-life-christians-vote-for-trump/
This is a pretty good piece about Trump and his pro-life positions. I agree that it seems obvious that Trump is not pro-life in any meaningful sense, regardless of whether his actions or policies might further the pro-life cause.
There are two different questions.
Is Trump pro-life? To which the answer seems to be not really.
Does that mean that pro-life voters shouldn't vote for Trump? No, I don't think it means that. Trump will likely be "better" than Biden on a number of issues, and those issues are important as well.
21 comments:
Thus, the only thing which matters is the full context of asking the question. That is, will things improve for those in utero with Biden still in office after Jan. '25? If anyone wants to insist they're absolutists about life, that is the question they need to consider. Trump gets us closer to the goal, as he will with most any goal of real significance for America and her people.
Should pro-life Christians vote for Trump? Only if they're really pro-life Christians. And by the way, that answer goes WAY beyond abortion because of all the unjustified death resulting from other issues on which Biden has been a total failure.
Here's another consideration. Trump will be a lame duck president just as Biden would be if America is stupid enough to allow him another term, and just as every other two term president was in their second term. What this means is Trump will have the liberty to push for anything and everything he believes is consistent with his vision of a better America. If he's wise, he can begin speaking about how the unborn ARE actual people endowed with the unalienable right to life of which pro-aborts believe themselves possessed.
It is telling that you couldn't help but put "better" in quotation marks in your last sentence. There are no "air quotes" necessary for such a blatantly obvious reality. How absurd to suggest such a thing isn't.
Finally, here's one more thing:
https://www.operationrescue.org/archives/pro-life-americans-must-give-president-trump-our-full-support-heres-why/
From ART. I thought this went somewhere else, and posted it there. Realized that it did go here and am posting it here.
This is a bit absurd. First of all, the dude doesn't really answer his own question. What he does is he makes any answer one might come up with OK. But the question alone is insufficient for any Christian who takes his faith seriously. I'll get to that later.
He does some condemnation here as well, which is a bit over the top given the circumstances. Trump's declared war on Jesus? WTF!!
Once again...Trump's as pro-life as you are. You both hold that there should be exceptions and the same exceptions. The only difference could be that while you allow those exceptions to reduce the number to near zero...assuming you actually believe pro-aborts can be convinced to accept such a deal...Trump may feel that those exceptions reflect a true conundrum for the mother and thus he, like many, would be willing to allow "choice" in those circumstances. That's not giving in to abortion supporters any more than you'd be, and I'd argue less so.
I don't know if Trump ever helped a girlfriend get an abortion. I wouldn't suggest that's anywhere outside the realm of possibility, given his womanizing ways. But neither of us is in a position whereby we can justly question his sincerity on the issue now. All we can do is take him at his word when he says he's pro-life. This should be quite easy for you given your penchant for using that excuse for buying a superficial understanding of things he's said which you regard as "stupid".
I've seen quite a few articles which appear to portray Trump as flip-flopping on the issue of life, but the following suggests a more linear..albeit with hiccups...path to his current position:
https://qz.com/1623437/trump-shifted-from-pro-choice-to-pro-life-as-he-planned-a-presidential-run
I'm not sure the intent was to honestly enlighten, but I think it does much to benefit Trump.
Sey dares to say, "Trump has betrayed pre-born babies, pro-life voters, and the Constitution." and then goes on to quote the 14th Amendment. This is my position in terms of the ultimate goal. But he no more betrayed any of those three than did Lincoln when he dealt with the slavery issue, and I think this is the major problem with criticisms of Trump on this issue:
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2024/04/defending_trump_s_abortion_stance.html
This is a very similar situation and dynamic, with one caveat: Life. As I said, I think the issue is covered by the 14th Amendment, but for the time being, it's the 10th which rationalizes the Dobbs decision. The reason is because too many refuse to respect the humanity and "personhood" of the unborn. That's where the battle has truly been since Roe, and little has been done to truly get the pro-aborts to defend against the facts. The issue was brushed aside when Roe was decided, as if the intelligentsia of that time was totally confused as to the reality even back then.
Art,
What you've done here, and in your calling me out on FB (FYI, I don't do politics and controversy on FB, never have never will. I've liked my last two jobs and have no desire to make trouble for myself), is demonstrate that there is a difference of opinion within the pro-life community on Trump. What you haven't done is demonstrate that your version is the only possible response. The reality is that there are compelling arguments on both sides.
I think part of your problem is that you aren't arguing against my actual point, but against something else.
"Once again...Trump's as pro-life as you are. You both hold that there should be exceptions and the same exceptions."
As I've pointed out repeatedly, this is not the case. I am pro-life because I have a commitment that all innocent life is valuable and should be protected. I am pro-life because science tells me that at conception as new, unique, human being is created and begins it's journey throughout all of the developmental stages of life.
The fact that I could accept a compromise politically to move the ball downfield, does not mean that I believe that there "should be" exceptions. I believe that proposing a bill which gives the pro-aborts what they claim they want is a good strategy, whether it passes or not. It forces the pro-aborts to acknowledge the reality that the I/R/M exceptions are not their main concern. Obviously, if such a bill was to pass, it would eliminate 99% of abortions.
"Trump may feel that those exceptions reflect a true conundrum for the mother and thus he, like many, would be willing to allow "choice" in those circumstances. That's not giving in to abortion supporters any more than you'd be, and I'd argue less so."
When you make arguments on what someone "may feel", you pretty much take away any chance of being taken seriously.
It's strange that you're willing to compromise on the status quo, which will allow thousands of abortions to continue indefinitely, and seem to believe that your strict abolitionism isn't actually a compromise.
As for the rest, it's obvious that Trump would be less hostile/more accepting of some/all pro-life positions. Thus, it's still a matter of Trump being (some indefinable amount) better than Biden. I can accept that, and don't disagree. I'm just honest enough to admit that it's a compromise and that I'm uncomfortable about it.
"This is a very similar situation and dynamic, with one caveat: Life. As I said, I think the issue is covered by the 14th Amendment, but for the time being, it's the 10th which rationalizes the Dobbs decision. The reason is because too many refuse to respect the humanity and "personhood" of the unborn. That's where the battle has truly been since Roe, and little has been done to truly get the pro-aborts to defend against the facts. The issue was brushed aside when Roe was decided, as if the intelligentsia of that time was totally confused as to the reality even back then."
The personhood argument is relatively new (at least as a significant talking point), and to some degree reflects the reality that the child isn't just a "blob of cells" and of the vast increases of knowledge we have regarding human genetic makeup.
The reality is that it's not really an argument as much as an obfuscation. It's a capitulation to the fact that science isn't on their side, while still arguing against the science. (which is strange and contradictory, and weird)
The notion of personhood is intentionally vague as to what personhood is, and when it begins. It is probably something that should be getting more attention legislatively, as it spills over into other areas of public policy. As we're seeing in Canada, their health system is essentially using a version of the personhood argument to advocate for killing people in various stages of life.
The "clump of cells" argument was originally based on ignorance, and now is just a rote response. All other arguments are simply acknowledging that there is a point when it is acceptable to end the life of a human being at the convenience of the parent.
The problem with the personhood argument, is that there is no defined point of personhood. Science tells us when life begins, personhood isn't a scientific question. It's where the battle will be fought, but it's intentionally vague, slippery, and undefined for a reason.
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2024/apr/18/bill-mahers-abortion-is-murder-comment-is-truth-wo/
Bill Maher at least has the courage to acknowledge that he's advocating "murder" and not trying to hide behind all the bullshit.
Art,
This notion that anyone who doesn't completely agree with you on everything is a "foolish moron" or whatever is getting old. The reality is that it is perfectly appropriate to agree on big picture goals, but to disagree on how to achieve those goals.
The reality is that the abolitionists in the pro-life movement hitched their wagon to Trump and are now learning that he wasn't what they thought he was. The fact that he's better on Biden on that issue is kind of a given, but he's still not what they thought he was. Now they'll have to choose. Do they compromise on a total ban with Trump? Do they stick to their principles and not vote because Trump isn't going to push for a total ban, or any national ban at all? If some sit out, will it hurt Trump's chances.
Obviously we don't know. What we do know is that berating people who have differences of opinion about politics isn't a good strategy.
I'll be clear. My current position is to (once again) hold my nose and vote Trump, because Biden is a failure. The more of this crap I hear from you has the potential of pushing me away from my current position. If I do move off Trump, it'll be almost 100% because of you and people like you. Do you want that responsibility? Or will you just hide behind more bullshit attacks.
"What you've done here is demonstrate that there is a difference of opinion within the pro-life community on Trump."
"What you haven't done is demonstrate that your version is the only possible response."
In exposing the flaws of the other versions of response, what other possibility is left but mine?
"The reality is that there are compelling arguments on both sides."
Perhaps in a vacuum, but not in the context of the wider implications of what a Trump loss will mean to the absolutist pro-lifer cause. Being an absolutist myself, I fully cognizant of those implications and fully oppose anything which might bring them to fruition. As was true for any who withheld their vote for Trump in the past over "conscience" or "serve the Lord" considerations, this requires looking at the big picture and in doing so, determine what leads to the best outcome, even if the ultimate outcome can't be had in the short term. Even your R/I/M compromise serves this short term preference.
Those "compelling" arguments also require accepting the "Trump betrayed us" lie.
"I think part of your problem is that you aren't arguing against my actual point, but against something else."
That may be. Here would have been a great place to restate your point in as specific a manner as possible to ensure that doesn't happen again.
"As I've pointed out repeatedly, this is not the case. I am pro-life because I have a commitment that all innocent life is valuable and should be protected. I am pro-life because science tells me that at conception as new, unique, human being is created and begins it's journey throughout all of the developmental stages of life."
Can you provide any evidence suggesting that his position is different than this?
"The fact that I could accept a compromise politically to move the ball downfield, does not mean that I believe that there "should be" exceptions."
Nor does it mean so for him without any evidence to support the contention. And again, you're allowing the compromise as a gimmick with the expectation that pro-aborts won't fall for it, while Trump may actually feel some compassion for women dealing with R/I/M concerns. That would make his position more sincere. What's important for the absolutist is that in either case, should pro-aborts buy in to the compromise, 99% of abortions will no longer happen. I'm not going to disparage either one of you (beyond the sincerity possibility) for both advancing these exceptions given the outcome should the compromise be accepted by the pro-aborts.
"When you make arguments on what someone "may feel", you pretty much take away any chance of being taken seriously."
Ironic given the following from you:
"I agree that it seems obvious that Trump is not pro-life in any meaningful sense..."
"Is Trump pro-life? To which the answer seems to be not really"
The difference is that what I "feel" is based on available evidence. Despite the unsupported claim Trump only acts out of self-interest are many stories from his past as well as what we've seen during his presidency that he cares greatly for his fellow Americans. Thus, to suggest the possibility his exceptions to a total ban reflect a concern for mothers in more extreme situations than merely the inflating size of their asses is justified by that evidence. Thus, at the same time, your "feels" lack any such evidence, but are merely buying into a narrative about Trump's character which rationalizes most any disparaging implication you might choose to make. Once again, my opinion of Trump is far more objective given pretty much any issue we might debate.
"It's strange that you're willing to compromise on the status quo, which will allow thousands of abortions to continue indefinitely, and seem to believe that your strict abolitionism isn't actually a compromise."
It's strange how you worded this statement. I'm not sure I know what you mean by it. I've not compromised on my ultimate goal. It remains total abolition of the practice of abortion. As I certainly can't enact laws which anyone is obligated to abide, I have to do what best serves that cause, even if it isn't absolute abolition yesterday. Trump's win in November serves that ultimate goal, even if things stay just as they are for the duration of his term. This is not the most likely outcome should he fail to win in November, and anyone who pays the least bit of attention knows this without any uncertainty. Abortion at any time for any reason is the end game of the left. Biden has stated a desire to return to Roe's rules on a national level. Am I compromising? OK. I can accept that term. But not on the ultimate goal, which I never believed would take place regardless of which side wins politically. There are way too many with a low regard of human life for that to happen in an instant.
So pretend you've scored a point here, if you must. It's a cheap one for sure.
"As for the rest, it's obvious that Trump would be less hostile/more accepting of some/all pro-life positions. Thus, it's still a matter of Trump being (some indefinable amount) better than Biden. I can accept that, and don't disagree. I'm just honest enough to admit that it's a compromise and that I'm uncomfortable about it. "
So am I...to both points. But aside from the fact that it's a given that Trump will be better for America in at least dozens of ways, and that honest people know that means far better given Biden incompetence and the great harm he's caused for so many, I'm still unwilling to give any slack to any who want to disparage him for his recent comments on the issue in such superficial and baseless ways.
"The personhood argument is relatively new (at least as a significant talking point), and to some degree reflects the reality that the child isn't just a "blob of cells" and of the vast increases of knowledge we have regarding human genetic makeup."
It goes back to at least the Roe decision when honest people knew that science already determined life begins at conception, and what that "blob of cells" was in reality. I would say that such an understanding goes back to ancient times and the Hippocratic Oath. The "blob of cells" argument was always a sham and those who made it, knew it.
"The notion of personhood is intentionally vague as to what personhood is, and when it begins."
Of course. As we see so routinely with Dan, ambiguity is essential to the leftist agenda. But again, it's sham argument given the reality of human biology and development. A person isn't a person by the criteria of those who invented criteria to deny the conceived of their right to life. The standard definition of "person" is "a human being".
"It is probably something that should be getting more attention legislatively, as it spills over into other areas of public policy."
This is something absolutists like myself wish to see happening now, but recognize the real battle must be won culturally before public policy protecting life becomes a reality. I won't require unanimity any more than did the slavery issue. It just requires an overwhelming majority who refuse to go back to barbarism in the quest to truly be a manifestation of an improved species of creature.
I'm not impressed with Bill Maher's seeming "enlightened" positions until he actually pushes for truth. If he's accepting the reality that abortion is murder, is he screaming for it to be abolished as he would see animal cruelty punished? I pay him no attention, so I wouldn't know. (I used to watch him somewhat when he was on late nights on ABC, where I heard him proudly defend the lives of animals.)
"This notion that anyone who doesn't completely agree with you on everything is a "foolish moron" or whatever is getting old."
But no less true.
"The reality is that it is perfectly appropriate to agree on big picture goals, but to disagree on how to achieve those goals."
But the issue here is more specific, provoked by the contention that Trump's abortion comments are pushing away absolutists who suggest Trump's betrayed them. That's wholly moronic and it needs to be said. Anyone who insists they won't vote for Trump because of that, or because he won't move for a federal ban are abject morons given how much harder their stupidity will make achieving the ultimate goal if their withholding of their support for Trump results in his loss. It's the perfection argument again and it's moronic. As in all other cases, the stakes are too high to worry about hurt feelings. While one can have whatever opinion one finds appealing, bad opinions when the stakes are so high preclude niceties. I want the morons to face their stupidity and I stand ready and willing to help them through it. Play nice and nothing changes because then it gets to other stupidity like "agree to disagree". I don't want people to disagree with me about serious issues. I want them to convince me I'm wrong for not agreeing with them. Indeed...prove that I'm the moron if you can.
"The reality is that the abolitionists in the pro-life movement hitched their wagon to Trump and are now learning that he wasn't what they thought he was."
The reality is they only have themselves to blame about believing what he never said to them. Your comments suggest he's at fault for not making sure every single person in America know with absolute certainty where he stands specifically and with great detail. The "own worst enemy" spin.
"The fact that he's better on Biden on that issue is kind of a given, but he's still not what they thought he was. Now they'll have to choose."
It's a crystal clear choice. On this issue alone, as with all others, it might not be what one wants, but it's far better than what one will get. If that means nothing given the stakes, they're morons.
"Do they compromise on a total ban with Trump?"
The correct answer is "YES". Biden and his kind are pushing for abortion for any reason at any time everywhere.
"Do they stick to their principles and not vote because Trump isn't going to push for a total ban, or any national ban at all?"
The correct answer is "NO". See my previous answer.
"If some sit out, will it hurt Trump's chances."
OF course it will. By how much is the question, but you've stated a concern that they will sit out and that it will hurt Trump's chances. Which is it? No one should be withholding their vote for Trump. NO ONE. Freakin' Biden should be voting for Trump!
"Obviously we don't know. What we do know is that berating people who have differences of opinion about politics isn't a good strategy."
Who's "we", Dan? It's not the berating. It's why one is being berated. If the berated aren't interested in knowing why they draw such criticism, it's unlikely they're worthy of concern because it means they'll be sticking with the positions and opinions which prove they're deserving of be berated. I don't simply label anyone as a moron. I point out what makes them a moron. It's that argument which matters and if they don't want to consider it...if they don't find a way to cement their moronic opinion and factual, truthful, better for America..."moron" is treating them better than they deserve given the stakes.
But keep in mind...shame is an effective weapon. That's why we don't see it much these days. These days, too many believe they've nothing about which they deserve to be ashamed. It's the notion that one isn't a sinner based on their own criteria of goodness. Now we have mothers calling their sons their daughter and other such perversions. We've tolerated bad behaviors and ideas for so long we really have no choice but to verbally slap them in the face to get their attention because WE are the morons in their fevered imaginings.
And even if you can persuade one who is diametrically opposed on a very serious issue, the result is that you've shown them just how moronic their original position was, so what's the difference? Instead of calling them a moron, you needed to demonstrate that they were a moron in order for them to abandon their moronic opinion. I prefer to waste as little time as possible, so I virtually slap them to get their attention to prevent their driving off the cliff.
"I'll be clear. My current position is to (once again) hold my nose and vote Trump, because Biden is a failure. The more of this crap I hear from you has the potential of pushing me away from my current position. If I do move off Trump, it'll be almost 100% because of you and people like you. Do you want that responsibility? Or will you just hide behind more bullshit attacks."
Pardon me, but this provokes a very ironic question: What kind of moron changes his vote because someone called him a moron? Do you care so little for your children that you would do such a thing? "I could have prevented the horrible deaths of my kids, but that guy called me a moron so I voted for Mickey Mouse instead of Trump! Now, I'm going to insist the responsibility for the deaths of my kids is on THAT guy!!! The bastard!! (I'm totally without blame. They'd still be alive if not for him.)"
Call me whatever you like or call me nothing at all. Your opinion of me doesn't matter if the facts compel me to vote for Trump...which they do, because they're facts and they leave me no choice.
"In exposing the flaws of the other versions of response, what other possibility is left but mine?"
Exposing what you subjectively consider "flaws" isn't quite the slam dunk you seem to think it is.
"Can you provide any evidence suggesting that his position is different than this?"
Well, Dan, without a clue as to when kind of "evidence" I could supply that documents either my or Trump's thoughts I'd have to say no. But given that I've seen absolutely zero evidence that Trump's "pro-life" position is based on any sort of deep convictions about the value of life, you'd probably want to provide evidence of what exactly his position is and why he holds it.
"I'm not impressed with Bill Maher's seeming "enlightened" positions until he actually pushes for truth."
I'm merely pointing out that Maher is presenting the most accurate summation of the pro-choice position I've yet seen. He accepts it a "murder", yet acknowledges that he is perfectly fine with that particular form of murder. It's the most honest version of the pro-abortion view I've yet heard. Dan doesn't have the guts to acknowledge this.
"It goes back to at least the Roe decision when honest people knew that science already determined life begins at conception, and what that "blob of cells" was in reality."
Because science hasn't advanced since '74. We don't know anything more about genetics, DNA, the information content in DNA, the makeup of the child at the early stages of development, or anything else.
"But no less true."
It's only True, if you are objectively 100% correct. Even if, by some miracle, you are that doesn't indicate that calling everyone else names is the best choice. Act like an adult.
"But the issue here is more specific, provoked by the contention that Trump's abortion comments are pushing away absolutists who suggest Trump's betrayed them."
If by contention, you mean fact, sure. The fact is that there are influential pro life conservatives who are publicly claiming that Trump has betrayed the pro-life cause and who are claiming that they will withhold their votes in Nov. Obviously, how this plays out is yet to be seen. But that's what's cynical about what Trump's strategy appears to be. He appears to have concluded that the abolitionists will suck it up and vote for him anyway because they have no other option, so he can move away from the pro-life positions he's claimed and try to appeal to at least a few pro-choice voters. Regardless, the evidence is out there, you just choose to ignore/minimize it.
"The correct answer is "YES"."
Which is the point I've been making all along. The abolition position IS a compromise, and will result in vast numbers of abortions in the near/mid term.
" By how much is the question, but you've stated a concern that they will sit out and that it will hurt Trump's chances."
How many times do I need to re state the obvious? I've repeatedly said that Trump's calculus seems to be that he can gain more pro-choice votes by swinging away from the pro-life position, than he'll lose by doing so. The current answer is that we don't know. If he's wrong, it'll be his fault for making the decision to adjust his position. I think it's a bad strategy because those pro-life voters he hopes to sway, are not going to ignore any other differences and switch their votes on one issue. But it's the strategy he's chosen and we'll see how it works. It's doubtful that we'll see you acknowledge that Trump is responsible for the potential failure of his choice.
"Who's "we", Dan?"
"we" In this case, is the vast majority of people who aren't clairvoyant and who can only determine the success or failure of Trump's choice of strategy after the votes are counted in November. "we" Are the people who wait for actual results before drawing a conclusion.
Much like Dan's contention that he's simply following Jesus' example when he engages in vitriol, your justification for your behavior is equally self serving. I'm merely pointing out that starting by calling anyone who disagrees with you on something subjective a "foolish moron" might not be the best persuasion technique, not particularly Christian. But you do you, just take responsibility if your tactics don't work the way you think they do.
"What kind of moron changes his vote because someone called him a moron?"
Excellent question, great job, what a persuasive argument. Why is irrelevant. If you are willing to accept that your actions might drive people away from voting for Trump, just acknowledge that you are OK with that. People do thing for their won reasons, and you aren't the arbiter of the correctness of those reasons. I've literally told you that your behavior could cost Trump my vote, and your choice is to double down on the behavior. It's a strategy...
"Do you care so little for your children that you would do such a thing? "I could have prevented the horrible deaths of my kids, but that guy called me a moron so I voted for Mickey Mouse instead of Trump! Now, I'm going to insist the responsibility for the deaths of my kids is on THAT guy!!! The bastard!! (I'm totally without blame. They'd still be alive if not for him.)""
Overreact much? Hysterical much? I realize that I am not the center of the universe, that I don't control what happens, that I am not responsible for the actions of others, that YHWH ordained events long before I came on the scene. I'm not going to lose a bit of sleep over something I don't control, that is a blip in history. I am going to find comfort in what scripture tells us about earthly rulers and who puts them in place and who removes them.
"Call me whatever you like or call me nothing at all. Your opinion of me doesn't matter if the facts compel me to vote for Trump...which they do, because they're facts and they leave me no choice."
The difference is that I look at the facts, and take into account the facts that aren't positive, I give those facts different weight than you do. I, however, am not going to criticize you or engage in name calling because I might not agree with your choice. I'm going to acknowledge that your choice, is exactly that, yours. It's not mine, nor do I have a claim on your choice. It's yours. It's really not that hard.
"Which is it? No one should be withholding their vote for Trump. NO ONE."
It's not my position to tell anyone what they "should" do when it comes to their vote. I control one vote, mine. How I choose to use that vote, and what goes into that decision is up to me.
If you want to keep up these repetitive comments, feel free. I see no reason to waste time with them any more. It's April, the election is in November, I'll vote how I vote on election day.
"Exposing what you subjectively consider "flaws" isn't quite the slam dunk you seem to think it is."
Really? You're going with the Dan argument and suggest I can't be objectively correct in my position, especially given the facts? Wow.
"But given that I've seen absolutely zero evidence that Trump's "pro-life" position is based on any sort of deep convictions about the value of life, you'd probably want to provide evidence of what exactly his position is and why he holds it."
I'm pretty sure I presented a link which provides some info on why he's now pro-life. But I'm not expert at knowing a man's heart like you evidently are, so from this distance, and based on his actions, I'll satisfy myself that he gets us in the proper direction in a way Biden doesn't and other GOP presidents haven't.
"I'm merely pointing out that Maher is presenting the most accurate summation of the pro-choice position I've yet seen."
Ah...I get it....let me tighten up my position. I'm not impressed that Maher admits to being cool with murdering infants. That kind of honesty is truly disgusting.
Funny thing, though...you seem to find his "honesty" tantalizing, while giving me crap for being honest as well. "He admits he's cool with infanticide! How refreshing!" "Art admits those who reject Trump are morons because they give Dems more liberty to protect infanticide. What a dick!"
"Because science hasn't advanced since '74. We don't know anything more about genetics, DNA, the information content in DNA, the makeup of the child at the early stages of development, or anything else."
But as my following sentence clearly reminds, the unborn had been recognized as people since ancient times. Thus, all advances of science only confirmed what was known. But even back then, the "blob of cells" argument was blatant bullshit even abortionists didn't believe.
"It's only True, if you are objectively 100% correct. Even if, by some miracle, you are that doesn't indicate that calling everyone else names is the best choice. Act like an adult."
I've been restraining myself. My true opinion of those who reject Trump in light of the many harms inflicted upon us...and the unborn...because of Dems justifies far harsher truths about the character of such people than "morons". And you want to bitch about name calling? How many dead and suffering is OK with you? Do you have a R/I/M percentage to rationalize whining about name calling? When you can point out where I'm objectively wrong, then perhaps your protests might be compelling.
"If by contention, you mean fact, sure. The fact is that there are influential pro life conservatives who are publicly claiming that Trump has betrayed the pro-life cause and who are claiming that they will withhold their votes in Nov."
Yes. The morons. They're publicly claiming that which is wholly untrue. I've yet to find anyplace where he's said what they insist he said but now rejects.
And my question still stands: What the hell have you done in response to hearing or reading such publicly professed falsehoods? Anything? Or do you simply sit on your ass blaming Trump for their misunderstanding of his stated position? That seems to be the case absent any response to this question.
"But that's what's cynical about what Trump's strategy appears to be. He appears to have concluded that the abolitionists will suck it up and vote for him anyway because they have no other option, so he can move away from the pro-life positions he's claimed and try to appeal to at least a few pro-choice voters."
Not only is this all baseless invention on your part, you're doing what you chide me for doing by saying "he appears to have..." You're being absurd.
"Regardless, the evidence is out there, you just choose to ignore/minimize it. "
Evidence for what? I don't ignore any of it and only minimize that which is insignificant. If you're referring to "influential pro-lifers" and how they insist they won't vote for Trump for going back on something he never said, you've not so much as suggested their numbers, which would be an important fact in pushing this narrative of yours.
"Which is the point I've been making all along. The abolition position IS a compromise, and will result in vast numbers of abortions in the near/mid term. "
This is moronic. He sought to place Constitutionalist jurists on the SCOTUS with Roe in mind as well as other conservative (constitutional) outcomes. With regard to abortion, overturning Roe was the goal. That got done and now, with the issue returned to the states, he's supposedly flip-flopped by leaving it to the states? You're nuts. So are these "influential pro-life absolutists". And now, unless Biden gets to pack the Court, it will remain a state issue until enough assholes are converted to the truth about the unborn. When we get enough of them, then the 14th will be better sold to America. It won't happen now, any more than getting pro-aborts to accept only R/I/M. Jeez.
"How many times do I need to re state the obvious? I've repeatedly said that Trump's calculus seems to be that he can gain more pro-choice votes by swinging away from the pro-life position, than he'll lose by doing so. The current answer is that we don't know. If he's wrong, it'll be his fault for making the decision to adjust his position."
How many time do I need to re-state the facts? He's not "adjusted" his position. He hasn't "swung away from the pro-life position" he always had. He's making sure those on the left who might set aside abortion due to Joey Farts' many grave errors will continue to leave it aside by taking the proper political position. That position buys time to change hearts and minds if those who pretend to give a shit choose to actually do something about those hearts and minds needing changing. You bitch about me calling hold outs morons, but you do nothing but whine about me. You're making great inroads, dude.
" It's doubtful that we'll see you acknowledge that Trump is responsible for the potential failure of his choice. "
It's far more doubtful you'll be able to confirm it has failed if it does. If Trump was to publicly campaign for a federal ban on abortions, it will fire up all those who want that option available to them. You see broads marching for it already in great numbers. If you want to dispute this as untrue in any way, you'll need to provide something which confirms such a campaign promise will generate an overwhelming number of pro-lifers who won't already be voting for him as is.
""we" In this case, is the vast majority of people who aren't clairvoyant and who can only determine the success or failure of Trump's choice of strategy after the votes are counted in November."
Ah. Not clairvoyant but can know Trump's heart perfectly. I'm not picking up on the distinction.
""we" Are the people who wait for actual results before drawing a conclusion."
Ah. The same "we" who ignore his many successes on behalf of the American people the first time around (somehow those are "results" of any concern for you sophisticates) to focus on the debt and COVID. Got it.
"Much like Dan's contention that he's simply following Jesus' example when he engages in vitriol, your justification for your behavior is equally self serving."
Bullshit. I'm not doing anything to "serve" only myself anymore than anyone else who supports a candidate who has proven himself to better serve all than will or has his opponent. I and my head lice call it "stating the freaking obvious". You prefer to pretend I'm acting like Dan. My justification is the harm already caused to so many, including people I know and love. I want it to stop. You want to talk about bullshit and pretend it's significant.
" I'm merely pointing out that starting by calling anyone who disagrees with you on something subjective a "foolish moron" might not be the best persuasion technique, not particularly Christian."
More bullshit because my use of epithets come long after the facts I presented when I started out. "Don't touch that fire! You'll get burned!" is where I started. "You moron!" is my response for ignoring a fact based warning. Those who ignore the facts I continue to present put my family and friends in harm's way. "Moron" is being nice to such people, but it's based on the harm their choices are causing or enabling. Stick your condescension.
"But you do you, just take responsibility if your tactics don't work the way you think they do."
Don't do you. How many have your brought over from the dark side so far? Exact numbers aren't necessary. How many have you even tried to persuade? Anyone?
"Excellent question, great job, what a persuasive argument. Why is irrelevant. If you are willing to accept that your actions might drive people away from voting for Trump, just acknowledge that you are OK with that."
Why would it bother me? They're already morons. Who the F**K makes decisions like that? How could YOU make voting decisions based on anything but the merits of the freakin' candidate? It was and is an excellent question and you're dodging like a Dan. IF you're being honest about my manner driving you to make a worthless write in vote, then you're a HUGE part of the problem with this country...and you want to blame me for your shortcomings. Real nice. And you dare demand I act like an adult? Your statement suggests true childishness regarding an incredibly important duty. You double down on it by blaming me. Real nice. "Great job!"
"People do thing for their won reasons, and you aren't the arbiter of the correctness of those reasons."
What possible reason could you have for casting a vote on any basis but the merits of the candidates? You'd basically be making the candidate pay for what you wrongly pretend is an act justifying it...and you'd be making everyone in America pay in various manner of suffering as well. Don't do you.
"Reasons" don't justify stupid actions. It's that simple. I don't know what reasons some have for abusing drugs. I don't know what reasons most have for murder. In many cases, I do know the reason for stupid actions. But you're all "you do you" and f**k the consequences because you aren't the arbiter of the correctness of those reasons? That's called "enabling bad behavior". Don't do you.
"Overreact much? Hysterical much? I realize that I am not the center of the universe, that I don't control what happens, that I am not responsible for the actions of others, that YHWH ordained events long before I came on the scene."
Nice dodge, buddy. You already know how bad Biden has made things. You talk about stupid leftist behaviors all the time. You don't need to be the center of the universe and YHWH expects that we serve others, so yeah...you're responsible and I am, too. "Adult" my ass.
" I am going to find comfort in what scripture tells us about earthly rulers and who puts them in place and who removes them."
Then what's the point of voting, Craig? God doesn't put anyone in any place without using us to get them there. I know this because no one becomes president without a majority of the votes or by cheating. That's how it works. This government is of the people and you clearly don't take it seriously. Thus, you are enabling the worst to come about. It happened in 2020 and it will happen to a worse effect if Biden is allowed to win again. Good people vote in a manner which will bring about the best consequences and they do that based on facts that matter, not on the basis of someone on a blog being a meanie! Good gosh!
"The difference is that I look at the facts, and take into account the facts that aren't positive, I give those facts different weight than you do. I, however, am not going to criticize you or engage in name calling because I might not agree with your choice."
Thus far, none of your reasons would justify criticizing me. The only facts that aren't positive which are significant in this election are the consequences of the outcome of the last election. But unlike you, I'm not afraid to be proven wrong when so much is on the line and a change of heart will work toward the best outcome. It's really not that hard.
"No one should be withholding their vote for Trump. NO ONE."
"It's not my position to tell anyone what they "should" do when it comes to their vote. I control one vote, mine."
It's the duty of all good people to tell anyone about to do harm what they "should" do to prevent it, especially when the harm they're about to do or enable impacts the nation. The contrast between the two candidates could not be more stark, especially in terms of likely consequences. And it's not a matter of "controlling" their vote. It's a matter of preventing them from supporting the obviously worst freakin' president in history from having a second term.
" If you want to keep up these repetitive comments, feel free. I see no reason to waste time with them any more."
The waste has all been yours, as you've brought nothing of substance to the table. Yet, I've been more than happy to have my time wasted for a good purpose. It seems you're worried most about being wrong in this discussion. I don't get that except that you actually hate Trump and are trying to pretend you're being forced to vote for him, rather than what is true: he provides more reasons to vote for him than not. It's an easy choice and you know it. It's the only choice and you know it. It's either him or Biden. Period. End of story. How much do you love your kids?
Again, if you want to keep posting these repetitive comments, go ahead. It's your time to waste. I'm not going to read them, nor respond.
Post a Comment