Trump flips his "strong pro life" stance because he wants dems to "like" him. I suspect the True believers will try to spin this somehow to pretend like this isn't Trumps True character. He's always been an amoral person who's primarily interested in winning.
I post this because one of the talking points of the Trump faithful is his pro life record. He absolutely nominated the justices that helped overturn Roe, and he talked a good game when he was in office. But this undermines one of the big reasons why some voters were able to stomach voting for him. Further, his answer sucked.
All he had to say is something like- (paraphrased from Dana Loesch?)
"If the representatives elected by the people of the US were to agree on legislation that set a 15 week limit on abortion, a restriction that has been favored by a majority of the US for quite some time, I would be very likely to sign it. It seems like signing a bipartisan bill which represents the consensus of our citizens would be a reasonable next step in this contentious nationwide dialogue."
It seems like Trump is reverting to type and is less concerned than ever with giving his opponents ammunition.
10 comments:
I've yet to dig deeply into this issue, but from what I've gleaned from a cursory look, his is an act of pragmatism. It doesn't seem he's flipped at all.
Of all the vile behaviors so vital to a good life in the morally bankrupt lives of the modern progressives, there is none that is more essential than the ability to get one's self off whenever one is so compelled to do so, in whatever manner one finds appealing at the time, with whomever one can find who feels so inclined. Abortion disrupts the ability to indulge at a moment's notice if it is not allowed by law that one can murder the product of their self-appeasement, rather than do what we rubes believe is the moral response to the natural and intended consequence of intercourse. As such, the modern progressive, who has convinced him/herself that the humanity of the conceived is somehow in question, and thus rationalizes the murder of the conceived when it's conception is inconvenient in any way, defends the practice with a fervor which ironically mirrors the defense of offspring by its mother in the animal world and among the less animal humans of the population.
For the conservative politician, or those who promote conservative ideals despite not being a perfect manifestation of conservatism in one's personal life, the hue and cry among the modern progressives at the thought of denying them the ability to murder their own children as they see fit stands as a decidedly difficult task. It sadly has become a situation of merely reducing as much as possible the out and out slaughter of the innocents. What's worse is the very real possibility that among the center-right are those who would avail themselves of this most heinous practice if the need was felt. (After all, the center-right are afflicted by their sin natures, too).
So sadly the goal is to content ourselves with pushing the ball toward the goal, while the other side does their damnedest to prevent it, preferring no limitations on the ability to abort whatsoever.
So here we have Donald Trump, whose personal life has been a fairly open book, and those who find him repellent choose to believe he's all about himself, when he's profited so poorly "pretending" to be working on our behalf. Among his many character flaws is his inability to articulate a stance with exactitude demanded by those who never demand such from anyone else. I don't know that there's ever been a time when he couldn't have expressed his positions in a better way, more eloquently and more diplomatically. More "presidentially". But as cringe-worthy as his manner always seems to be...even to a large segment of his supporters...never does it matter to those who see the bigger picture as it is. He's a crude son-of-a-bitch, but still the guy most likely to get the most done because he doesn't give a flying rat's ass about insignificant crap.
Trump should be unconcerned with "giving" his opponents ammunition, as his opponents are largely asshats who have no trouble digging up ammo whenever needed, especially if it serves to deny Trump another term.
Is what I've said "spin"? Only to those who choose to regard it as such. But in reality it is the reality of the situation.
As much as I would love perfection in a president or representative, I never expect it, and I don't judge the quality of their service by the lack of it.
More facts is that the recent SCOTUS ruling put abortion back on the plates of the 50 states, and as such no federal legislation would be in alignment with that ruling. So the answer you would have liked to hear couldn't be conveyed by him without it being a blatant rebuke of the SCOTUS ruling, which was correct given its results.
I would add that my position on the SCOTUS ruling...and perhaps they can't rule on this without someone bringing it to them for the purpose...is that they should at some point acknowledge the truth, that the conceived are people endowed like those of us born with the unalienable right to life, and because of this OBVIOUS and BLATANT FACT, the practice should be outlawed entirely.
But he wouldn't get far saying that, would he?
If you are right, then he did an absolutely shitty job of expressing his "pragmatic" views. The problem is that he admitted that his motivation was to be "liked". This pathetic attempt to be "liked" goes against his entire brand. His appeal is allegedly that he'll do what he thinks is right, regardless of how people feel about him. Yet now he's simply pandering to the pro abortion crowd in hopes of getting them to "like" him.
I agree that ultimately there will be a political compromise that bans abortions before a certain point, probably 8-15 weeks. While I oppose all abortions on moral grounds, I realize that some limitations on abortion are better than no limitations on abortion. I also realize that the issue really comes down to persuading individuals that they have a unique, living, separate, human child growing in their womb. This isn't going to happen through legislation, but through persuasion.
The bottom line is that Trump either flipped or is pandering to be "liked", either of these things isn't a good move.
I also don't expect perfection in my politicians. I do expect other things though. Consistency, honesty, self control, servant leadership, humility, decorum, respect, among others. So Trump doesn't score particularly high on my scale anyway.
You are correct that Roe sent the decision back to the states, where it should be. So the very fact that he is advocating for national legislation goes is, in itself, a flip of position.
You are also correct that SCOTUS can't rule on a case that they haven't heard and that doesn't exist. The problem you have is that you, just like the left, seem to be expecting SCOTUS to legislate the issue. Unfortunately that's not their role.
The proper sequence would be that a state passes legislation that defines the unborn in the terms you used. Then someone with legal standing would sue to overturn that law. At that point, it could end up in front of SCOTUS at some point to be rules on.
"But he wouldn't get far saying that, would he?"
That depends. If his goal was to be "liked" by people who don't currently "like" him, then no. If his goal was to articulate a consistent, holistic, position on the sanctity of life and the constitutional guarantees of the enumerated right to life, than it just might. The problem is that politicians who take principled stands like that rarely get far anyway.
What I expect is that SCOTUS not promote the lie that the conceived but yet unborn are less than people endowed by their Creator with unalienable rights. This is a Constitutional issue and WELL WITHIN their purview. So yeah, I expect them to rule that current legislation allowing abortion is counter-Constitutional, just as they do with so many other bad laws. Where's your problem with this?
As to being "liked", that's just Trump's inarticulate, non-politician way of speaking. There's not a politician or candidate out there who doesn't seek to be "liked" by enough voters to win an election. I know your negative side of the ledger on Trump isn't as long as you'd like it to be, but you can simply just dislike the guy if you can't find it within yourself to like him. You don't have to scrape the barrel for reasons.
And heck, if he wants to try and "con" me into voting for him by supporting and enacting the things I want to see accomplished, I'll "like" him enough to vote for him once again, just as I'd "like" any other candidate who does as well.
I have to say how curious I find it that those on the right who oppose Trump insist they don't require perfection, yet seem to reject him on the grounds he's not perfect or "perfect enough" to support.
"I do expect other things though. Consistency, honesty, self control, servant leadership, humility, decorum, respect, among others."
None of those things "trump" results. He got results in far more areas than not. That's what leaves him deserving of a second term. DeSantis got great results for Florida, but those who reject him find he "doesn't score particularly high on their scale", which subordinates his results in much the same way yours does. For me, it's results which make both most suitable for the job.
Again, SCOTUS cannot make that ruling absent a case that raises that issue working through the courts. As that doesn't appear likely, it's kind of a moot point and doesn't seem worth theorizing about.
You can spin Trump's "liked" comment however you want, but it's still just pandering for votes. Exactly like you just said.
That's a strange notion, I've never heard anyone say Trump isn't "perfect enough".
That might be True, if your ethic is "The ends justify the means" or "By any means necessary".
The problem with your "most suitable" is that it's "most suitable" out of an incredibly small pool of options. Hell, a python might be the "most suitable" snake for a pet when compared with rattle snakes, cobras, asps, and mambas. But it'll still kill you if it has a chance.
The problem is that the "most suitable" candidate is probably never going to run.
Obviously Trump is more suitable from a center-right, right perspective than Biden. But that is an incredibly low bar.
"Again, SCOTUS cannot make that ruling absent a case that raises that issue working through the courts. As that doesn't appear likely, it's kind of a moot point and doesn't seem worth theorizing about."
It could have been done during the Roe case (as well as the other from that time which I can never remember...Roe being the more well known), but they went out of their way to pretend we don't know when life begins and when one becomes a "person". Thus we had fifty years of federally sanctioned infanticide when it could all have been incredibly mitigated by an honest Court proclaiming the obvious. This particular point will never...should never be "moot" or it's incredible importance diminished or put to the side. EVER. It should always be on the table until it's reality is fully accepted and despised by all.
"You can spin Trump's "liked" comment however you want, but it's still just pandering for votes. Exactly like you just said."
The only "spin" is that pandering is unique to Trump. All candidates pander by promoting that which we as voters want to see done by them. I think this article expresses the issue very well:
https://amgreatness.com/2023/09/20/trump-is-an-abortion-realist/
"That's a strange notion, I've never heard anyone say Trump isn't "perfect enough"."
Not in so many words, no. But when confronted with the notion of perfection, the response is as I've said "I'm not looking for perfection", and then Trump is rejected for the lack of it despite his really good, if not perfect, track record. Indeed, when I speak of his record, you leap to its imperfections. Thus, you're saying he isn't perfect enough if you use the negatives while minimizing the positives.
"That might be True, if your ethic is "The ends justify the means" or "By any means necessary"."
This actually relates to the last bit just above. Results are all that matters in the long run, and you want to refer to his imperfections as "ends justify the means" or "by any means necessary". Yet his "means" are not worthy of such an expression, as if his means are evil or dangerous. They're not. They're just annoying. Buck up.
"The problem with your "most suitable" is that it's "most suitable" out of an incredibly small pool of options."
That's not a problem unless you regard the field of candidates as problematic. I don't...except for maybe Christie or Pence. And I think you're confusing "most suitable" with "THE most suitable". I said Trump and DeSantis are "most suitable" because of the results they achieved in governmental executive positions. Haley and Christie were governors, but I don't think either got results nearly as good as DeSantis has. It can be argued that because he held the position already, Trump stands as THE most suitable from among the field on the basis of experience and track record. That might not be the case, but I don't know that we can say otherwise without seeing how any of the others fare in that position. Thus, it's can be true and not true at the same time.
BTW, you weren't really comparing the GOP field to a group of snakes, were you? ;)
"The problem is that the "most suitable" candidate is probably never going to run."
I wonder who that could be. Any suggestions?
"Obviously Trump is more suitable from a center-right, right perspective than Biden. But that is an incredibly low bar."
Goes without saying. My shoe is more suitable than Biden. But Trump is more suitable than most of the field because of he's done it well already. A proven commodity is always better than the unproven. Mahomes will always be more suitable than anyone else for the same reason.
"It could have been done during the Roe case (as well as the other from that time which I can never remember...Roe being the more well known),..."
Well unfortunately, we are limited to history as it actually exists, not as we wish it would have been. The reality in 2023 is that SCOTUS in unable to simply promulgate a new policy on this matter.
"The only "spin" is that pandering is unique to Trump."
The problem with this excuse is that it undercuts one of the primary reasons people supported Trump in the first place, his steadfast commitment to his principles and refusal to compromise.
"Not in so many words, no"
Because no one has actually said it. You can equivocate all day long, and come up with imaginary interpretations of what people have said, but the reality is that no one is saying that. I'm simply hoping that Trump can acknowledge his faults, and make an attempt to address those faults. Hardly perfection.
The problem is that the ends don't always justify the means, if those means are unethical or worse.
No I wasn't. I was pointing out that all of those snakes are deadly, and to waste time arguing about which is "more deadly" or "less dangerous" is a ridiculous waste of time.
No suggestions. The reality is that the "most suitable" candidate is very likely too intelligent to get involved in politics as it currently is conducted. They're not going to expose themselves to evisceration by the left, let alone by Trump or his surrogates. Our political system as it is currently constructed chases the best and brightest away.
Yet my point remains, "more suitable than Biden" is an incredibly low bar. A low bar that any current GOP candidate exceeds handily. Call me crazy, but I'd prefer something more than the ability to minimally clear such a low bar.
1. It was pretty obvious to anyone watching that Mahomes was superior to any QB with the exception of Brady from his first few games. His suitability has grown since then, but he was more suitable before he had experience.
2. Mahomes suitability is, in large part, due to where he ended up. He landed on a team that was already successful, with a good/great supporting cast, and the perfect coaching staff to develop him. Had Chicago (or any of the teams that passed on him) taken him, he'd have gotten pretty much the same results as Trubisky.
3. But, by all means, let's compare Mahomes to Trump when it comes to character, temperament, maturity, humility, and those intangibles.
Post a Comment