https://naminghisgrace.blogspot.com/2024/07/do-we-christian-have-choice.html
"This, I know, will seem simplistic but I felt the need to write it tonight.
Is
there a choice? Can we choose between the two candidates? Will we pick
the one who is so forceful about reproductive rights (the right to kill
the most defenseless little ones), or shall we pick the one who thinks
its okay to grab a woman’ genitals, if you are famous that is—or to
lessen it, if you must, to think its just men’s talk and that is okay.
Shall we pick the one who was willing to prosecute a journalist for
revealing Planned Parenthood’s business of selling baby parts. Or shall
we pick the one who encouraged a mob to attack Capital policemen with
flagpoles and bear spray, while watching on TV for several hours without
attempting to stop it.
Shall we vote for the
party that’s willing to let a sovereign state be attacked, its people
murdered, its children kidnapped, its women raped—willing to let Ukraine
disappear like they and the Baltic states did in the time of Stalin and
Hitler.
Shall we vote for a party whose
fringe is willing to let the bombs of Hezbollah, Hamas and others fall
constantly on a sovereign state, Israel. Who do little to prevent the
harassment of American Jews. Do we have any choice? What is our choice?
If
you are a Christian, no, in this matter, you can vote or not, but you
don’t really have a choice. You are doing the best you can as an
American citizen, but it isn’t a good choice whichever way you go in
political matters. Don’t let anyone tell you, “You are not serving
Christ if you don’t vote for this person or that one.” Know this, you
belong to Jesus and to His kingdom and nothing can separate you from His
love and care.
Yes, Jesus calls you to be
faithful, to love those about you, to care for those who have needs, to
stand for those who are being oppressed, to be in His word and in His
place of worship but you are not judged by Him for your vote. America is
not the Kingdom of God.
“What shall we say to these things? If God is for us who is against us?
He who did not spare His own Son, but delivered him over for us all, how will He not also with Him give us all things?
Who
will bring a charge against God’s elect? God is the one who justifies.
Who is the one who condemns? Christ Jesus is He who died, yes rather was
raised. Who is at the right hand of God, who also intercedes for us.
Who
will separate us from the love of Christ? Will tribulation, or
distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword?
Just as it is written,
“For your sake we are being put to death all day long; we are considered as sheep to be slaughtered.”
But in all these things we overwhelmingly conquer through him who loved us.
For
I am convinced that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor
principalities. Nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers,
Nor height, nor depth, nor any other created thing will be able to
separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.
(Romans 8: 31-39)."
Viola Larson is one of my favorit bloggers, and one who I wish would blog more often. She was a light in the darkness during the worst days of the PCUSA implosion, and a voice of grace and wisdom on denominational issues. I suspect that she and I differ politically on many issues, yet she is steadfast on the pro-life issue, and on Israel. Her post above is a needed antidote to folx like Dan who insist that anyone who votes against Biden/Harris/whoever they appoint, is somehow not a Christian, evil, and on the "wrong side of history". Her expression of grace to those who acknowledge the poor choices we have is appreciated. It'll be interesting to see what choice she makes. Given her staunch pro-life commitment as well as her staunch commitment to Israel, I can't see her voting for Biden/Harris/whoever, but I also can't see her being comfortable voting for Trump.
36 comments:
Gotta say, I was uncertain on which side of the divide the author you identify as Viola Larson stands. The concept that we can't be separated from Christ assumes we're connected, and it implies we can do anything if we are.
When it comes to politics, the most important thing to keep in mind is the general welfare and that our choice promotes it best by policies proposed and principles upheld. The character of a candidate suggests an answer, though a track record answers the question better. The choice is clear for those who dare call themselves "Christian". While those like Dan perversely insist on portraying Trump in the most negative way, more human suffering has been brought about by the Democrat Party with very little, if any, brought about by the Trump administration. Is one truly connected to Christ also one who supports the Democrat Party? I don't see how?
"Gotta say, I was uncertain on which side of the divide the author you identify as Viola Larson stands. The concept that we can't be separated from Christ assumes we're connected, and it implies we can do anything if we are."
Politically she leans liberal on many things but the DFL has disenfranchised her with it' positions on abortion and Israel. My sense is that she's politically homeless. The concept that those who are the "children of YHWH", "heirs" to the Kingdom of YHWH, who are part of The Church, and connected through Jesus' finished work on the cross seems pretty standard Christian theology. I don't see how you infer that our being part of the "Body of Christ" allows us to "do anything".
"When it comes to politics, the most important thing to keep in mind is the general welfare and that our choice promotes it best by policies proposed and principles upheld. The character of a candidate suggests an answer, though a track record answers the question better."
That is one thing that you value more highly than others might. Imposing your subjective hierarchy of what's important politically on others seems problematic.
"The choice is clear for those who dare call themselves "Christian"."
Yet somehow, it's clearly not that cut and dried. To suggest that one's salvation is in any way related to one's politics seems out of place at a very minimum.
"While those like Dan perversely insist on portraying Trump in the most negative way, more human suffering has been brought about by the Democrat Party with very little, if any, brought about by the Trump administration. Is one truly connected to Christ also one who supports the Democrat Party? I don't see how?"
Much like Dan, what you "see" or "think" or "suspect" isn't an actual measure of reality. Fortunately for us, you and Dan are not the ones who decide who is "truly connected to Christ". Even more fortunately, for those of us who are sinners, YHWH offers us forgiveness for our sins and mistakes. Equally fortunately for us sinners, it's YHWH who decides that stuff not you or Dan.
"I don't see how you infer that our being part of the "Body of Christ" allows us to "do anything"."
I don't. But there are many who believe so, and it's been expressed in a variety of ways. I'm well aware of Who has the final say regarding our eternal destination. That's irrelevant to my point. But if we shalyll know Christ's by their fruit, we can certainly get a sense of those who likely aren't truly connected in the same way. That knowing them by their fruit cuts both ways, doesn't it? Or don't you think so? In any case, it doesn't suggest we'd know either with absolute certainty, none of us being Christ and all. As such, my point stands: only those who are truly His cannot be separated from Him, and behaviors can be an indication if is or isn't regardless of any claim of "Christian". There's an unfortunate abundance of such people. I can think of one off the top of my head of whom I think the smart money would on on "I never knew you."
"That is one thing that you value more highly than others might. Imposing your subjective hierarchy of what's important politically on others seems problematic."
How so? I'm not voting for PastorOTUS. I'm voting for PresidentOTUS. As such, the important concern is doing the job according to the Constitution. Setting aside his actual policies, a lot of center-right people generally regard Jimmy Carter as a good man. But he was a totally shit president. Even stupider people regard Biden as a "decent" man, but he's clearly been the worst president in our lifetime, if not the worst of them all. If only I actually could "impose" my hierarchy of what's important, we'd not only never have suffered Obama, Biden and some others, we'd have markedly better primary choices from which to make our personal selections. But as things stand now, I'm not "imposing" shit. I'm stating the obvious. Good Christians don't choose from the Democrat pool, because most counter-Christian crap emanates from there.
"Yet somehow, it's clearly not that cut and dried."
It most certainly is if we're still talking about Larson's piece. The choice could not be more stark.
"To suggest that one's salvation is in any way related to one's politics seems out of place at a very minimum."
Depends on the politics, doesn't it? Why, yes. Yes it does. A true Christian doesn't vote for that which is clearly counter Christian. There are at least two planks of the Dem platform which boldly promotes and protects heinous behaviors. How does one vote for evil and not but one's salvation at risk? By pretending one didn't know the sinful behaviors aren't prohibited by the God the claim to revere? Tell me how that works. I might be expending too much effort resisting temptations.
Your last paragraph doubles down on that nonsense. You indict yourself presuming to compare me to Dan. It wasn't I who made up, you will know them by their fruits, was it? It's not a matter of suggesting I can read hearts. You need to pump the breaks here, or at least warn your readers when they're prohibited from critiquing your posts.
"How so?"
Well, when you demand that only your hunches about how to view the presidential race and criteria for president are the only logical views/criteria. When you ridicule those who disagree with your views.
"Depends on the politics, doesn't it?"
No. Drawing a direct connection between salvation and voting is simply absurd. To suggest that one's salvation hinges on who one votes for simply advocates for a righteousness based on works. Obviously our faith informs our vote, but our salvation isn't connected to our vote.
"How does one vote for evil and not but one's salvation at risk?"
Because, for those who are saved, their salvation is not at risk. Salvation cannot be lost for any reason, least of all because of who we vote for.
My last paragraph is simply pointing out the obvious. That you and Dan both make pronouncements for others based on what you "see/think/suspect" which are subjective at best and are not a basis to condemn others. That the similarity exists is pretty inarguable. You both literally criticize or condemn people based on what you "see/think/suspect". That you pretend that this isn't so isn't my problem. As I pointed out, it's not y'all who get to decide these things, it's YWHW.
Given that I freely allow you to "criticize" my posts with virtually zero attempt to prevent such criticism, I think you're getting your panties in a bit of a wad there at the end of your comment. That I push back against your criticism seems only right. Unless I'm just supposed to let you criticize without responding. Especially when my actions, approving your criticisms, directly refute your criticisms.
I think that your problem is that you have convinced yourself of the righteousness of your unwavering support for Trump and have convinced yourself that YHWH Himself agrees with you. Therefore you feel justified is going after anyone who isn't 100% on board with your hunches about Trump being the only person who can save the US.
Despite the fact that I've been quite clear that Trump is the better option of the two we have, despite my being clear that my most likely course of action will be to reluctantly vote for Trump, you seem intent on bitching about the fact that I'm doing what you demand that I do. You just don't seem to like the fact that I'm not a rabid supporter.
Weird, that.
Uh...your response to me is curious to say the least. I think you're confusing pointing out what I think is wildly obvious as somehow making a demand. You're also assuming I'm speaking of you in some way. Don't know what I've said to provoke that.
Tired of doing this on my phone and also really low on time, but I will say that my intention was to comment on Larson's post and the assumption that anyone who claims to be a Christian is to the extent their voting choices can't separate them. I mentioned Christ speaking of those who say, "Lord, Lord! Didn't we..." do this and that in Your Name, and Christ would reply, "I never knew you." That suggests those who believed themselves followers...possibly to the point where they believed themselves a lock and inseparable.
That we can't be separated is an assurance, but clearly implies we're living in a manner which reflects our devotion. Dems support murder and abominable sexual behaviors, among other unChristian things. How does one truly saved support such a vile agenda? How far can one stray from the Truth and still be worshipping God and not an invented god?
"Uh...your response to me is curious to say the least. I think you're confusing pointing out what I think is wildly obvious as somehow making a demand. You're also assuming I'm speaking of you in some way. Don't know what I've said to provoke that."
That's always possible. Perhaps it has to do with me responding to what you actually said as well.
"Tired of doing this on my phone and also really low on time, but I will say that my intention was to comment on Larson's post and the assumption that anyone who claims to be a Christian is to the extent their voting choices can't separate them. I mentioned Christ speaking of those who say, "Lord, Lord! Didn't we..." do this and that in Your Name, and Christ would reply, "I never knew you." That suggests those who believed themselves followers...possibly to the point where they believed themselves a lock and inseparable."
I'm not seeing that in her post at all. What I am seeing is her saying that "as a Christian" you have a choice between a party that she would say is wrong on Israel, Ukraine, abortion and antisemitism (causes that she feels very strongly about) or a party that "supported" J6 etc. For her as a strongly pro-life, pro-Israel, etc left leaning individual, it is a difficult choice. She seems quite clear that, as Christians, either choice we choose will conflict with our faith. I'm not seeing the problem. Even as a fervent Trump supporter, you have to acknowledge that there are things about him and the platform that don't align with your faith. Especially the new abortion platform.
"That we can't be separated is an assurance, but clearly implies we're living in a manner which reflects our devotion. Dems support murder and abominable sexual behaviors, among other unChristian things. How does one truly saved support such a vile agenda? How far can one stray from the Truth and still be worshipping God and not an invented god?"
Given your expressed views on abortion, the current GOP platform also supports "murder", just less "murder" and under different circumstances.
" Perhaps it has to do with me responding to what you actually said as well. "
What I actually said had no implication of a demand. So how could you respond to it as if there was?
As to what followed this in your last comment, I was referring only to the notion of being impossible to be separated from Christ if one is saved. My point, which I thought was quite clear until you implied it wasn't, was that it's possible for one to regard one's self as being connected to Christ, while based on Christ's own words, that's not necessarily the case. Thus, one might not have been connected like one had thought.
"Given your expressed views on abortion, the current GOP platform also supports "murder", just less "murder" and under different circumstances."
I don't believe you can make that case simply on the fact that they removed the issue from their 2024 platform. While I disagree that murdering one's own child is indeed a federal issue, given our founding documents prohibiting depriving one of the right to life, the proper ruling returning the issue to the states, where most murder cases are decided, also returns the obligation to fight against the legality of abortion to state level Republicans as well.
Also, as I think you favor, the GOP strategy of reducing allowance of abortion to the equally unjust "rape, incest, life of the mother" criteria isn't support for the practice, but support for eliminating as much of it as possible in the short term. So I favor the strategy so long as the moral character of the nation compels it.
"Thus, one might not have been connected like one had thought."
You are right, this wasn't clear to me.
"I don't believe you can make that case simply on the fact that they removed the issue from their 2024 platform."
Yet the de facto position of the GOP is now less clear on their opposition to abortion and that they will accept the decisions of those states that choose to expand access to abortion. The reality is that the current GOP position is one of acceptance of more abortion.
"While I disagree that murdering one's own child is indeed a federal issue, given our founding documents prohibiting depriving one of the right to life, the proper ruling returning the issue to the states, where most murder cases are decided, also returns the obligation to fight against the legality of abortion to state level Republicans as well."
Yet, the GOP platform is a national policy statement and the current GOP national policy is more accepting of more abortions that it was previously. As far as a national policy on abortion, I'd be more open to one if it was a result of the legislative process instead of by judicial fiat. I think that the real issue with the GOP platform is not so much the policy, as the message. The message being sent is that the GOP no longer has a principled stand against abortion in the party platform.
"Also, as I think you favor, the GOP strategy of reducing allowance of abortion to the equally unjust "rape, incest, life of the mother" criteria isn't support for the practice, but support for eliminating as much of it as possible in the short term. So I favor the strategy so long as the moral character of the nation compels it."
I favor the strategy that eliminates the greatest number of abortions in the shortest amount of time.
"Yet the de facto position of the GOP is now less clear on their opposition to abortion and that they will accept the decisions of those states that choose to expand access to abortion. The reality is that the current GOP position is one of acceptance of more abortion."
I may be wrong on this, but I believe the platform in question refers to upcoming federal elections. Or at least, it's the main focus. As the Dobbs decision returned the issue to the states, it is thus no longer a federal concern (sadly given the Constitutional protections regarding the sanctity of human life). I agree that it was a grave error to have no mention of it whatsoever (if that's truly the case---I only read it once and don't wish to insist I can recite it accurately).
But as the issue has been returned to the states, they must accept the decisions of those states as they would other state determined laws and decisions until such time as they are altered. That doesn't mean the GOP on any level must do nothing to affect change on the issue.
And given that some states tightened their restrictions on abortion, while others are frantically trying to expand them, I don't know that one can honestly assert that "the current GOP position is one of acceptance of more abortion." That's an unjust leap. Hearts and minds must first be changed and the concept of abortion must be made more objectionable than smoking in restaurants before the GOP can "get away" with truly defending innocent life. This is why I use terms such as "murder" and "infanticide" in discussions about abortion, because that's what abortion is and it must be boldly stated with every opportunity. I would also like to see more protests at traffic intersections where some used to hold up large pictures of aborted babies so feminists and those on the fence can see how the sausage is made.
"Yet, the GOP platform is a national policy statement and the current GOP national policy is more accepting of more abortions that it was previously."
Again, that's a most unjustified inference. You might want to cite for me where the platform states "we are now more accepting of more abortions than we used to be". That would help.
" The message being sent is that the GOP no longer has a principled stand against abortion in the party platform."
Again, that's a message you choose to infer. Given abortion is pretty much the only position the Dems have to generate concern against the GOP, I think there is wisdom in taking that away on the national level, where we need to have a greater majority determining what direction this nation moves. When the scumbags try to pretend the GOP is anti-woman intending to deprive women of their "right to choose", they can point to their platform and say "where does it say that?"
"I favor the strategy that eliminates the greatest number of abortions in the shortest amount of time."
So do I. You know what would help make that happen? Fewer Democrats in every level of American government, beginning on the federal level.
Yes, the GOP has gotten completely out of discussing a federal abortion ban. While this is consistent with Trump's position that the goal was to return the matter to the states, it's being seen a slap in the face to the pro-life crowd.
1. IMO this is a problem because of the message it sends to a group that Trump needs in order to win. There is no reason why they couldn't have left the plank in there and just not prioritized it.
2. The simple reality is that sending it to the states means that there is not going to be a meaningful decrease in abortion in the near term. Which is pretty much a natural consequence of allowing some states to legalize abortion at any time for any reason and to advertise of abortion tourism.
This has always been a "hearts and minds" issue, the problem is that we now have states expanding abortion access and encouraging abortion tourism. The reality is that it's entirely likely that there will not be much lowering of abortion numbers, and possibly an increase for the short term.
By not advocating for a national abortion ban/restrictions that national GOP is effectively saying that they've washed their hands of the issue and that if the states want unlimited abortion that they see no reason to interfere. This position is coherent, consistent, and reasonable for those who believe that abortion is not a national issue. The effective result is a de facto acceptance of whatever the states decide, which includes unlimited abortions.
Yes, the DFL position is basically "Taxpayer funded abortions any way, anywhere, any time" and their scare tactic is the lie that the GOP is taking away their "rights" (more accurately "right" but it's scarier if they make it sound like the GOP wants to take away multiple rights). The DFL's position is that abortion is a national issue, and should be enshrined in the constitution. The GOP position is to ignore the national implication and push for it to be decided at the state level. The GOP has essentially ceded the national debate to the DFL because they've simply decided not to participate in a national debate.
This notion that the way to fight the DFL effort to re enshrine abortion with a federal law or constitutional amendment is to say, "We've given that up entirely, and aren't going to oppose national abortion policy." seems like they're simply pushing the battle off onto the states and walking away from the national discussion. As if supporting abortion restrictions at the state level is going to immunize them from the discussion at the national level.
"While this is consistent with Trump's position that the goal was to return the matter to the states, it's being seen a slap in the face to the pro-life crowd."
Yeah, I know. But it's not and the pro-life crowd is wrong to take it that way. Due to the low national character at this point in time, the war can't be won by an all out offensive with no possibility of success. There are just too many pushing back against even the most reasonable tightening of abortion "rights" for that.
"1. IMO this is a problem because of the message it sends to a group that Trump needs in order to win. There is no reason why they couldn't have left the plank in there and just not prioritized it."
Again, I don't disagree. For my part, I'll keep watch for an opportunity to partake of a pro-life discussion on this to rhetorically slap some sense into these people. The first point of order right now is to continue to make the case that withholding one's vote from Trump will allow the situation to worsen. Infanticide is one of Harris' driving planks.
"2. The simple reality is that sending it to the states means that there is not going to be a meaningful decrease in abortion in the near term."
It's an unfortunate consequence of having properly addressed the unConstitutional Roe decision. And as you've acknowledged yourself, it was a major concern of the pro-life crowd. Perhaps they shouldn't have pushed for it? I would disagree.
My question right now would be, have we seen a marked increase in abortions since the Dobbs ruling? I've not seen data on that question, have you? If so, can you produce a link? I don't know if no meaningful decrease in abortions equates to a rush to get one ASAP. The same people who would have will still try if they feel it's what they want to do. Some might be denied because they're not in a blue state which tightened restrictions. But if they really want one, succeeding won't constitute an increase. Most of the blue states which were already hotbeds for infanticide won't necessarily see an increase as if folks were having more sex than they already were. I just don't see that that concern is necessarily likely.
So I can see that the Dobbs ruling won't result in a decrease. But I don't think it means an increase is likely as a direct result of the ruling itself. "Tourism" requires money and effort some might not have to expend. But assuming all do, they'd have been getting their abortions anyway in their own states if Dobbs never happened.
"By not advocating for a national abortion ban/restrictions that national GOP is effectively saying that they've washed their hands of the issue and that if the states want unlimited abortion that they see no reason to interfere."
No. This is a baseless inference. What's more, it ignores the main reason for it, which is to deny the Dems the opportunity to insist the GOP candidates for federal office are intent on doing away with abortion. Nothing can be accomplished without being granted the authority and power to try. No GOP wins...no possibility of doing away with anything so harmful as this. THAT is where the focus should be...not on this myth that leaving off the platform means the GOP doesn't care about it. It's ludicrous and politically suicidal to withhold one's vote because of it. Push hard to dispel this stupid notion. Yes. I said "stupid". Use the word of your choice, but a rose by any other name...
"The DFL's position is that abortion is a national issue, and should be enshrined in the constitution. The GOP position is to ignore the national implication and push for it to be decided at the state level."
So the Dobbs decision means the GOP won the debate as to whether or not it's a national issue. With the current SCOTUS lineup leaning toward the Constitutional, the Dems aren't going to be able to get it changed back. Because of Dobbs, there is no more national debate regarding abortion "rights".
But the GOP can if it pushes for the truth of what abortion is and what the unborn are. That can be done locally and is probably better accomplished that way. Think "purple" states. That's were the focus should be for our pro-life donations and support. Hit those states where it's most likely those hearts and minds can be altered toward truth and righteousness.
Moreover, it's always a national issue regardless. It's a matter of strategy. The idea that because there's no mention in the platform that federal level GOP politicians are unconcerned is nonsensical. It's an invented concern and requires some evidence that any of pro-life congressman, senator or president no longer cares.
Finally, if you know any pro-life person who thinks that way, particularly if they're attached to some pro-life organization, you need to disabuse them of this nonsensical notion. They're still closer to their goals with Republicans in the majority.
"Yeah, I know. But it's not and the pro-life crowd is wrong to take it that way. Due to the low national character at this point in time, the war can't be won by an all out offensive with no possibility of success. There are just too many pushing back against even the most reasonable tightening of abortion "rights" for that."
I'm glad that you can speak for the pro-life crowd that way. It's fine to speculate about how they "should" take something, but we live in the real world where Trump has to deal with how they ARE taking it.
" The first point of order right now is to continue to make the case that withholding one's vote from Trump will allow the situation to worsen. Infanticide is one of Harris' driving planks."
Given the GOP's abandonment of going on the offense on this issue, playing defense like this is the only strategy available to them right now. Obviously, Trump could take the opportunity to do a 180 in the issue and declare that Harris' position is so extreme that he has to back national abortion restrictions.
"It's an unfortunate consequence of having properly addressed the unConstitutional Roe decision. And as you've acknowledged yourself, it was a major concern of the pro-life crowd. Perhaps they shouldn't have pushed for it? I would disagree."
The repeal of Roe was the necessary first step. Unfortunately, the consequence of overturning Roe and sending it back to the states is states that go all in on abortion.
"My question right now would be, have we seen a marked increase in abortions since the Dobbs ruling? I've not seen data on that question, have you? If so, can you produce a link?"
It's probably too early to tell. However, when we have states like MN which are not only going all in on unlimited abortion, they're also advertising to get people to come here for abortions if they live in a state with a less extreme position. I suspect that the fear of "losing rights" will drive this to some degree as well.
"So I can see that the Dobbs ruling won't result in a decrease. But I don't think it means an increase is likely as a direct result of the ruling itself. "Tourism" requires money and effort some might not have to expend. But assuming all do, they'd have been getting their abortions anyway in their own states if Dobbs never happened."
Well, if you increase the circumstances where abortion is legal, then it follows that you'll see increases. But, even if you're right, I don't see the same number of abortions as some sort of big win.
"No. This is a baseless inference. What's more, it ignores the main reason for it, which is to deny the Dems the opportunity to insist the GOP candidates for federal office are intent on doing away with abortion. Nothing can be accomplished without being granted the authority and power to try. No GOP wins...no possibility of doing away with anything so harmful as this. THAT is where the focus should be...not on this myth that leaving off the platform means the GOP doesn't care about it. It's ludicrous and politically suicidal to withhold one's vote because of it. Push hard to dispel this stupid notion. Yes. I said "stupid". Use the word of your choice, but a rose by any other name..."
Not at all. The fact that the GOP has clearly said that a national abortion policy is not important enough to remain in the party platform sends a clear message as to the priority they put on the issue now. The rest is just semantics. So they say that they took it out, but everyone knows that they will fight unlimited abortion, and certainly will at the state level. They've already "taken away" the legal justification for the "right", now they should just play word games?
"So the Dobbs decision means the GOP won the debate as to whether or not it's a national issue. With the current SCOTUS lineup leaning toward the Constitutional, the Dems aren't going to be able to get it changed back. Because of Dobbs, there is no more national debate regarding abortion "rights"."
No it doesn't. It means that the past national abortion policy was struck down, but clearly a quick listen to DFL candidate campaign ads make it clear that they are obsessed with re enshrining abortion in federal law, if not in the constitution. The DFL is fighting a battle, you claim doesn't exist. When you ignore the battle at hand, or fight the wrong battle, you usually lose.
"But the GOP can if it pushes for the truth of what abortion is and what the unborn are. That can be done locally and is probably better accomplished that way. Think "purple" states. That's were the focus should be for our pro-life donations and support. Hit those states where it's most likely those hearts and minds can be altered toward truth and righteousness."
While I agree with this, the DFL is clearly pushing for a national solution to abortion policy. You're free to focus exclusively on the states, but while you do the DFL will trump whatever happens by pushing through a national policy, while the GOP thinks the issue is settled.
"Moreover, it's always a national issue regardless. It's a matter of strategy. The idea that because there's no mention in the platform that federal level GOP politicians are unconcerned is nonsensical. It's an invented concern and requires some evidence that any of pro-life congressman, senator or president no longer cares."
It's not that there's no mention as much as that there was a mention and it was removed. It is a national issue and if the strategy is to play defense or choose not to have a national abortion policy plank in the platform, then that sends a pretty clear message to the pro-life voters.
"Finally, if you know any pro-life person who thinks that way, particularly if they're attached to some pro-life organization, you need to disabuse them of this nonsensical notion. They're still closer to their goals with Republicans in the majority."
While that may be True, when you're primarily a single issue voter, and the party removes that single issue from the platform, that's a tough sell. Maybe I'll just tell them how stupid they are for taking a principled stand on an issue they feel passionately about, and that the GOP will stand strong for the status quo on abortion. Because the GOP has such a great track record of standing strong on various conservative positions.
"The fact that the GOP has clearly said that a national abortion policy is not important enough to remain in the party platform sends a clear message as to the priority they put on the issue now."
Well, you see, that's the thing...I've not found evidence they actually said any such thing. Are you just inferring that by its absence from the platform, or can you provide a link to someone involved in authoring the platform who said just that?
"The rest is just semantics. So they say that they took it out, but everyone knows that they will fight unlimited abortion, and certainly will at the state level. They've already "taken away" the legal justification for the "right", now they should just play word games? "
Not sure I'm understanding this. They've simply removed Roe and returned the issue from the states. There's no "word games" that I can see. Was Roe a proper ruling according to the Constitution? No. That's why it was overturned. THAT sends it back to the states. What happens now? Is it any less possible to fight the battle on 50 different fronts? It certainly wasn't happening on the national level.
" No it doesn't. It means that the past national abortion policy was struck down, but clearly a quick listen to DFL candidate campaign ads make it clear that they are obsessed with re enshrining abortion in federal law, if not in the constitution."
That's a far more difficult row to hoe if SCOTUS ruled it's a state issue. Wasn't Roe federal law already? How can they make what is unConstitutional Constitutional without first gaining control of SCOTUS by electing leftist morons to the presidency who will nominate more lefty morons for the Court? And even that requires a compliant Senate.
"The DFL is fighting a battle, you claim doesn't exist. When you ignore the battle at hand, or fight the wrong battle, you usually lose."
I never said the war doesn't exist. The war between good and evil is ongoing until He returns. This particular battle is over until such time a Dem president manages to tilt the Court back to stupidity and activism. Again, the Dobbs decision makes that tough as hell on the national level. Try to argue it doesn't. What happens between now and that possibility is what's important, and that involves fighting the fight at the state level.
"While I agree with this, the DFL is clearly pushing for a national solution to abortion policy. You're free to focus exclusively on the states, but while you do the DFL will trump whatever happens by pushing through a national policy, while the GOP thinks the issue is settled."
They can push all they want but now it'll tougher after SCOTUS ruled it to be a state issue and not a national one.
I will reiterate that there is still a better battle the GOP can wage, which is to focus on the fact the conceptus is a person endowed by its Creator with the unalienable right to life...a right which is deserving of absolute respect and protection as it is for everyone fortunate to have been allowed to be born. That's an issue separate from abortion and to win that battle makes the abortion issue totally moot.
"It's not that there's no mention as much as that there was a mention and it was removed. It is a national issue and if the strategy is to play defense or choose not to have a national abortion policy plank in the platform, then that sends a pretty clear message to the pro-life voters."
There's no such message sent. It's a "message" inferred without basis. Not mentioning the issue in a platform meant to promote candidates and policies on the federal level does not mean it has no importance. Those who infer that message are the ones playing games. Are they going to give up the fight against abortion? Are they not going to put any effort, support or money toward fighting on a more local level? And if you think that the Dems will continue to fight on the national level, how can anyone be so buffoonish as to think things will improve by withholding one's vote from the GOP or Trump in the upcoming national election? It's more than absurd. It's f**king politically suicidal and almost ensures abortion is cemented across the nation. Real nice. Real smart. Real mature and adult.
"While that may be True, when you're primarily a single issue voter, and the party removes that single issue from the platform, that's a tough sell. Maybe I'll just tell them how stupid they are for taking a principled stand on an issue they feel passionately about, and that the GOP will stand strong for the status quo on abortion. Because the GOP has such a great track record of standing strong on various conservative positions."
You're free to posture in such a smarmy manner, but don't try to assert your opposition to abortion is honest. Those single issue voters ARE stupid to suppose they're helping their own cause by withholding their support from the only party which provide them any hope of keeping abortion from being legalized in every way everywhere across the nation. Their "principled" stand ensures this. Their "protest" ensures this.
And then to lie and say the GOP is "standing strong on the status quo on abortion" is shameful, as succeeding in sending more Constitutionally minded jurists to the Supreme Court resulted in doing what those same "single issue, 'principled' voters" claimed was important...overturning Roe and sending the issue back to the states. The single most important victory for the pro-life movement since Roe was imposed upon the nation and now those chuckle-headed single issue voters are going to bail on the party that finally got that done? Before telling them how stupid they are, tell the man you see in the mirror how stupid he is for not getting what's so obvious.
Amazing!
"Are you just inferring that by its absence from the platform, or can you provide a link to someone involved in authoring the platform who said just that?"
Given that it has historically been important enough to have a platform plank, and that (I recall) Trump saying something to the effect that it's not as big a priority as other things, it seems safe to conclude. The problem is that we live in a world where perception is reality, and the reality is that people who feel strongly about abortion will perceive that it's now a secondary issue. I think this is important because it would have been easier to have left it in so there was less risk of annoying a significant voting bloc.
" It certainly wasn't happening on the national level."
Which, in this case is pretty much semantics. The pro-lifers see that DFL pushing for a national abortion policy, and they see the GOP retreating from the battle on the national stage and telling them to fight 50 state battles.
"That's a far more difficult row to hoe if SCOTUS ruled it's a state issue. Wasn't Roe federal law already? How can they make what is unConstitutional Constitutional without first gaining control of SCOTUS by electing leftist morons to the presidency who will nominate more lefty morons for the Court?"
Go check out Omar's ads. They make a huge point of pushing for a national abortion policy. The DFL doesn't see overturning Roe as a loss as much as a chance to do national abortion policy the right way. They are focused on legalizing abortion via a national policy. They don't want to fight 50 battles, because they know that can fight one battle. Of course they want control of SCOTUS and the senate, that's what they've always wanted. I'm not a legal scholar or anything, but since Roe was a SCOTUS decision imposed on the US instead of a law legislated properly, I don't think that it's proper to call Roe law.
"What happens between now and that possibility is what's important, and that involves fighting the fight at the state level. "
While you're focused on fighting at the state level (which is not a bad thing) the DFL is focused on fighting at a national level because they know that they can trump all 50 state battles if they can pass a federal law.
"They can push all they want but now it'll tougher after SCOTUS ruled it to be a state issue and not a national one."
That's not what SCOTUS specifically ruled. They only overturned Roe which then had the effect of returning abortion policy to the states as there was no federal abortion law in 1974. SCOTUS didn't say that abortion could never be legislated at the federal level, just that Roe was a bad decision and should have been overturned.
Absolutely focusing on the humanity of the unborn is the ultimate battle. Unfortunately that's not necessary a political battle, and not risking alienating potential Trump voters.
"There's no such message sent. It's a "message" inferred without basis."
Since this statement and the following comment are all based on you inferring things about others, It seems self refuting at best. Again, like it or not, we live in a world (especially in politics) where perception is reality. The GOP had the chance to shape perception in a way that would have kept single issue pro-life voters backing Trump. They chose something else.
I'm not suggesting that this choice is good/bad, right/wrong. I am suggesting that this choice may have electoral consequences, and of those consequences see Trump lose, then we'll need to be honest about that.
For better or worse, election polling allows us to dig deep in demographics. If we find out that this move cost enough pro-life votes to cost Trump the election, then those who made the change will bear responsibility for the consequences.
"You're free to posture in such a smarmy manner, but don't try to assert your opposition to abortion is honest."
What are you even ranting about. I'm seeing, watching, listening to staunch pro-life voters say publicly that this platform change will affect their vote. Who are you to make pronouncements on the "honesty" of what I'm seeing/responding to or of those who are affected?
"Those single issue voters ARE stupid to suppose they're helping their own cause by withholding their support from the only party which provide them any hope of keeping abortion from being legalized in every way everywhere across the nation. Their "principled" stand ensures this. Their "protest" ensures this."
I understand that you have the position that anyone who allows any deeply held principle to stand in the way of voting for Trump is "stupid". Personally, I think that calling people who are deeply committed to the pro-life cause "stupid" because the GOP made a stupid move in removing the pro-life plank from the platform is also stupid. Where I see the problem is in acknowledging the consequences of actions. You seem to be arguing that the GOP should face zero consequences for their action, while pro-life voters will be held responsible for their actions. Actions have consequences, and if we can't accurately and honestly asses those consequences and determine responsibility then we'll never learn anything.
"And then to lie and say the GOP is "standing strong on the status quo on abortion" is shameful, as succeeding in sending more Constitutionally minded jurists to the Supreme Court resulted in doing what those same "single issue, 'principled' voters" claimed was important...overturning Roe and sending the issue back to the states. The single most important victory for the pro-life movement since Roe was imposed upon the nation and now those chuckle-headed single issue voters are going to bail on the party that finally got that done? Before telling them how stupid they are, tell the man you see in the mirror how stupid he is for not getting what's so obvious. "
Except that it isn't a lie in any rational sense. The GOP is communicating that since Roe is overturned and it's now a state issue, that they're satisfied with that status quo (on a national level) and therefore will do little or noting on a national front. Meanwhile the DFL IS campaigning on abortion as a national issue.
Agree or disagree, the battle over abortion is going to be fought on the national stage because the DFL knows that it's easier to win one fight instead of 50. They also know that it's easier to defend a national abortion policy from being overturned than 50 state policies.
I think that you are confused about two things.
1. I think that you are confused about my presenting the position of others, and looking at the consequences of those positions, as if I was presenting my position.
2. I think that you are confused by my pointing out that the actions of the GOP might/will have consequences in the upcoming election. Those consequences might be good or bad, we don't know. Regardless, after the election the GOP needs to be held responsible for those consequences. Simply announcing that it's the fault of those who hold principled positions to compromise those positions isn't helpful.
I think I've been clear that the GOP could have avoided this entire conversation had they left the plank in, and chosen to focus on other things after winning. They didn't take the path of least resistance, so now there is more resistance.
To be clear, my position is a s follows.
I firmly believe that the unborn are fully humans and as such are endowed with (at a minimum) the right to life. As such, we should try to eliminate abortion to the maximum extent possible. This would be best accomplished by winning hearts and minds, although that is a long term goal. In terms of national policy I think that the goal would be to eliminate abortions with the exceptions of rape, incest, and life of the mother. That policy would eliminate 99% of abortions and allow a narrow focus to deal with the rest. Given that that is probably not realistic, I could support (politically) something along the lines of a Euro style 12(ish) week limit on abortions as a stepping stone to allow society to rethink abortion. Ultimately, the goal would be to eliminate abortion, but I can't see how that would be accomplished in the current climate, which leaves us to try to eliminate as many as possible.
One last thing.
I'm not attached to the "leave it to the states" position, it was the only possible consequence of overturning Roe and needed to be dealt with in that context. I see no reason why a national abortion policy is problematic as long as it's legislated properly or the result of a constitutional amendment.
"Given that it has historically been important enough to have a platform plank, and that (I recall) Trump saying something to the effect that it's not as big a priority as other things, it seems safe to conclude."
In other words, "yes, I'm just inferring that by its absence from the platform."
"The problem is that we live in a world where perception is reality, and the reality is that people who feel strongly about abortion will perceive that it's now a secondary issue."
They might, only so long as they are not put right by people who aren't single issue voters who see the bigger picture, which again is, should Dems maintain control, these one issue voters can kiss goodbye any hope they have of eliminating abortion, or even minimizing it.
"I think this is important because it would have been easier to have left it in so there was less risk of annoying a significant voting bloc."
I agree, but it's a moot point. Now, the problem is dealing with those so annoyed they're contemplating leaving the issue to the party which wants it expanded beyond birth. Good freakin' plan.
"The pro-lifers see that DFL pushing for a national abortion policy, and they see the GOP retreating from the battle on the national stage and telling them to fight 50 state battles."
If the pro-lifers, who have been pushing for a reversal of Roe due the issue being wrested from the states now have a problem with the fight being a series of individual battles of varying difficulty in each of the 50 states, then they have no right to pretend the GOP is "retreating" after having secured the very victory they've been seeking since 1973. It's absurd. I guess they've been fight the wrong battle if they expected that reversal to result in no abortions anywhere in the United States.
The reality is there had been two issues: States' rights trampled by Roe v Wade and whether or not the conceived is every bit entitled to its right to life respected under the Constitution. They won the least important of the issue and now that the GOP on the federal level has secured that victory, they're a problem because it's no longer in their purview? The "enemy" is themselves. But the war isn't over simply because it now takes place on the local level. Bu they're doing all they can to put it back in the hands of the greater enemy...the Democrats...because they didn't intelligently think through their demand for Roe's reversal.
Personally, as a national ban is a far tougher battle, a state ban here and there is less so, and as we're seeing with Constitutional Carry, other states will likely fall in behind those with the strictest laws. In time, total victory can be had.
" I'm not a legal scholar or anything, but since Roe was a SCOTUS decision imposed on the US instead of a law legislated properly, I don't think that it's proper to call Roe law."
The Dobbs v. Jackson decision states that the Constitution does not confer a right to abortion; and, the authority to regulate abortion is "returned to the people and their elected representatives." ---from an article from Cornell Law School entitled "Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization (2022)
So that's a big row to hoe for the Dems, to get around the fact that there is no "right" to abortion Constitutionally. And I would also argue that any true attempt to put it there would result in opposition from the GOP regardless of whether they feel the need to put it in a platform. Think of how long it would take for that attempt to really get any traction!
"While you're focused on fighting at the state level (which is not a bad thing) the DFL is focused on fighting at a national level because they know that they can trump all 50 state battles if they can pass a federal law. "
Every state where the battle is won is two senators and whatever amount of congressmen who are beholden to the will of their states. At least those of the GOP persuasion will likely be acting in opposition to the Dems attempts to legalize abortion through legislation. And of course, that legislation is still required to pass Constitutional muster. But before it gets that far, what makes you think they'll get a majority vote to pass any bill given states who care to keep that authority for their own?
"They only overturned Roe which then had the effect of returning abortion policy to the states as there was no federal abortion law in 1974. SCOTUS didn't say that abortion could never be legislated at the federal level, just that Roe was a bad decision and should have been overturned."
The reason why it was overturned had more to do with it merely being bad law. What made it bad, it seems to me as another non-expert, to have made any attempts to codify infanticide extremely difficult.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/dobbs_v._jackson_women%27s_health_organization_%282022%29
"Absolutely focusing on the humanity of the unborn is the ultimate battle. Unfortunately that's not necessary a political battle, and not risking alienating potential Trump voters."
I don't understand what you mean here.
"Since this statement and the following comment are all based on you inferring things about others, It seems self refuting at best."
I don't see anywhere in this or the following comments of mine which suggest I inferred anything. Feel free to point it out if you think you can. I'm interested in seeing what you think compelled your response.
" I am suggesting that this choice may have electoral consequences, and of those consequences see Trump lose, then we'll need to be honest about that. "
That may be. My question is "why should it?" if we're all discussing these things among ourselves. As "upsetting" as the lack of a mention of abortion in the platform be, it doesn't justify withholding support for the party which needs to be in power if those single issue voters expect to ever see their goals achieved. If I was to infer anything at all, the saddest inference would be that these single issue voters aren't all that concerned about ending the practice after all. How could they be if they're going to hand over the issue to the party most likely to expand the practice by legalizing it on a national level?
"For better or worse, election polling allows us to dig deep in demographics. If we find out that this move cost enough pro-life votes to cost Trump the election, then those who made the change will bear responsibility for the consequences."
Not at all. They bear no responsibility for the stupidity of voters. I'm sorry...make that rank stupidity.
"Who are you to make pronouncements on the "honesty" of what I'm seeing/responding to or of those who are affected?"
I'm the guy to whom you said:
"Maybe I'll just tell them how stupid they are for taking a principled stand on an issue they feel passionately about, and that the GOP will stand strong for the status quo on abortion. Because the GOP has such a great track record of standing strong on various conservative positions."
When I suggested that it's too important to allow single issue voters to make this stupid decision to withhold their votes over this situation. Your response was smarmy and condescending. And yes, telling them in not so many words how stupid their choice of withholding their vote from Trump or the GOP is the duty of every pro-lifer who dares speak of "standing strong" on this issue. I'm sorry if you don't like to hear that.
" I understand that you have the position that anyone who allows any deeply held principle to stand in the way of voting for Trump is "stupid".---snip---Actions have consequences, and if we can't accurately and honestly asses those consequences and determine responsibility then we'll never learn anything."
This is all nonsense. First, it's not about standing in the way of Trump. It's about permitting the win for the party intent on preventing us from achieving the pro-life goals. Trump just happens to the GOP nominee for president. He's not the whole party, but his winning the presidency means the baby killers will need a veto-proof majority to pass any legislation of the type you insist they'll attempt to get passed. Are single issue voters ignorant of this fact? Are single issue voters of the belief that all or most GOP Senators and Congressmen are now all of a sudden pro-choice because the party didn't keep pro-life language in the platform for the 2024 election? Does this sad reality also result in single issue voters losing their right, ability and agency to control their own actions? If any of this is so, they're far worse than merely stupid. And it is THEY who bear the responsibility for how they vote, not the GOP for not making sure each of the various and sundry single issue voters are appeased. It is THEY who need to consider consequences since despite what the GOP chooses to do, the consequences ultimately are decided by THEIR votes. If I'm not mistaken, there's no pro-traditional marriage language either. OH MY FREAKIN' GOSH! WHAT THE HELL ARE WE GOING TO DO? Just as in 2020, the responsibility of all that resulted in suffering is the result of those who chose not to vote for Trump...not because of Trump, but because of the policies and philosophies which are promoted by supporting the party he would head.
"Except that it isn't a lie in any rational sense. The GOP is communicating that since Roe is overturned and it's now a state issue, that they're satisfied with that status quo (on a national level) and therefore will do little or noting on a national front."
Of course it's a lie and in a real and actual sense. The status quo changed with the Dobbs ruling. It's not a matter of a single entity deciding for the nation anymore. How can that be and the status quo not be changed? And again, what you insist is being communicated requires more than just the inference of such a communication. Again, who's saying the issue isn't important? It's of lesser importance on a national level for the time being, while things like inflation, the national debt and spending, immigration are all still federal issues needing attention. The fight's not over on abortion. The battle ground is changed. That's it. The single issue voters would have it on the tougher national terrain. I like it this way. If I wish to get involved, I need only drive to the state capitol an hour away, not DC.
There's nothing that commends the single issue voters' nonsensical response to this issue. It's immature and petulant.
"Agree or disagree, the battle over abortion is going to be fought on the national stage because the DFL knows that it's easier to win one fight instead of 50. They also know that it's easier to defend a national abortion policy from being overturned than 50 state policies."
They will never stop fighting for their perversions. They are the Death Cult Party, after all. But its seems single issue voters haven't the stomach or spine for fighting and nothing will make the fight easier for the baby killers than a Dem majority in Congress and a dumb bitch like Kamala Harris in the White House. Just the Dobbs decision alone makes their efforts far more difficult. A GOP majority and Trump in the White House makes it an impossibility. At least for the next four years. It's that simple.
And keep in mind...just because the Dobbs decision allowed the party to set this issue aside in order to concentrate on that which is still in their jurisdiction, it doesn't mean that can't take it up again in 2028 or even 2026.
"1. I think that you are confused about my presenting the position of others, and looking at the consequences of those positions, as if I was presenting my position."
Not confused at all. I've only been addressing those lame positions. Insofar as I spoke of you, it was in relation to comments which suggested the possibility that you had some direct contact or relationship with one or more of those single issue voters who are suggesting they now can't vote for Trump or the GOP as a result of this unfortunate change in the party platform.
Since moving here to SC 2.25 years ago, I've yet to establish many contacts or close friendships. Not that I've avoided doing so, I've just still been busying myself with strictly personal things I'd like to get done. My next door neighbor and I talk politics now and then, but we haven't hit this issue yet. But I'm game to disabuse any single issue pro-lifer I might meet who meets the description of those you reference in this thread. I will not necessarily be kind if they're adamant in withholding their vote from Trump and/or the GOP on account of this unfortunate and unnecessary platform alteration.
"2. I think that you are confused by my pointing out that the actions of the GOP might/will have consequences in the upcoming election. Those consequences might be good or bad, we don't know. Regardless, after the election the GOP needs to be held responsible for those consequences. Simply announcing that it's the fault of those who hold principled positions to compromise those positions isn't helpful."
But it absolutely, distinctly and unquestionably would be the fault of those single issue voters for daring to suggest their "principled position" (one I hold as well) justifies an expanded pro-abortion environment. If it could be determined that their voting choices were the reason for a Trump/GOP loss, it is ONLY their fault as they have the choice for whom they will cast their vote. They are NOT in any way forced to withhold their support. The are NOT in any way absolved of thinking through the consequences of doing so and thus not absolved of responsibility if their voting choice resulted in the Death Cult Party winning anything, because they could've stopped it.
The worst part of all this is that it suggests they now believe Trump and/or the GOP is now pro-choice. That's moronic. It also suggests there's no way to carry on the fight against abortion because of it. That's worse than moronic, it's freakin' surrender. So much for "principled positions".
"I think I've been clear that the GOP could have avoided this entire conversation had they left the plank in, and chosen to focus on other things after winning. They didn't take the path of least resistance, so now there is more resistance."
I don't disagree with this. I just disagree that it makes them responsible should we lose as a result of it. That's just crap.
"To be clear, my position is a s follows."
That's my position, too, pretty much word for word
Art,
I admire your commitment to beating the dead horse, but I really see no value in repeating myself, by responding to you repeating yourself.
The fact that you feel the need to criticize others deeply and firmly held beliefs as "immature and petulant" along with calling those who disagree with you "stupid", isn't a good look for you. I understand that you're committed to your position, and that you're committed to blaming anyone who doesn't share your position (except, strangely, for Trump) for a potential Trump loss.
The fact that you feel the need to obsess over my suggesting that Trump should not have gone out of his way to remove the abortion plank from the platform, and to antagonize a % of his potential voters, is bizarre. That you somehow think that Trump tinkering around the edges of abortion policy will make liberals forget that he was instrumental in overturning Roe seems naive and childish.
Art,
Essentially your message to those who are hard core pro-life voters is that they should simply bend over and accept whatever they get because them giving up their principles will be better. I'm not sure how this is any different from the church being "asked" to incrementally give up it's history of opposition to homosexuality, or any number of progressive positions. We've watched biblically faithful Christian denominations fall into apostasy, one small step at a time. Now you demand that pro-life conservatives give up their commitment to their pro-life cause, stay silent when the GOP removes that plank from the platform, and stop bitching and vote for Trump.
That's an inspiring message, sure to win the hearts and minds of the pro-life voters who've been so important to GOP victories since the 70s.
What's the strangest about your position is that it ignores the fact that the pro-life complaint is a REACTION to what Trump/the GOP did with the platform. A move that was made without involving these voters in the conversation in any meaningful way. You're quick to assign responsibility to those who REACT, while not assigning responsibility to those who ACTED first.
The reality is that it was a stupid move that is unlikely to have any significant positive benefit to offset the negative response.
I don't particularly care about their calculus, I care about acknowledging that any negative consequences are the responsibility of the GOP and Trump.
Perhaps you should address what I've actually said in a more accurate manner. That would help.
I am just as committed to the abolition of abortion as anyone. I would say that my continued support for Trump and the GOP despite the unfortunate removal of a pro-life expression in the 2024 GOP Platform means an even greater commitment, since refusing to vote for Trump makes a greatly worsened abortion situation more likely. THAT is the point you fail or refuse to address, preferring to scold me for being such a meanie to single issue voters who are so attached to their principles that they're willing to give it up to the baby killer party.
So I'll say it again and again so long as you consciously intend to pervert my point as if you're fucking Dan Trabue:
--I disapprove of the GOP removing the pro-life message from the platform. I've said this repeatedly. Did you really fucking miss it, or are you stupid?
--Single issue voters,regardless of their saintly, sanctimonious embrace of their principles, do not serve the cause for life by pretending the unfortunate act by the GOP justifies withholding their votes from Trump or the GOP.
--To suggest that losing the election because enough of these people withheld their votes is the "fault" of the GOP is ludicrous, as nothing can force the hand of these people but their own selves.
--It is moronic to dare suggest I expect them to give up their commitment to the pro-life cause, when I've stated clearly and unambiguously this platform changed does nothing to alter their acting on that commitment to see the war won. The contrary is true. I expect them to step up their efforts on the state level. I expect them to step up their efforts regardless of where the battle must be fought. Are you giving it up? Are YOU not longer committed to the fight now that the GOP took it off the platform? I've demanded nothing of the kind of them! What the FUCK!!
"That you somehow think that Trump tinkering around the edges of abortion policy will make liberals forget that he was instrumental in overturning Roe seems naive and childish."
I don't give a flying rat's ass what lefties think or remember. All I need concern myself is what I will do to push toward a moral outcome. I'm not going to make a big deal out of minor mistake like this, regardless of how pissed I am that they did it. I'm not going to presume that the platform change suggests any willingness to allow abortion to continue, nor that no effort will be made on the national level to block the efforts of the left. That anyone actually thinks in this manner is far more upsetting to me than the mistake made about the platform. It's evidence that we're infected with stupid people. Yeah. Be pissed. That's as far a reaction as one should have. Rejecting the party because of it is as stupid as stupid can be. I don't care who cries over that truth. It's a fact.
"You're quick to assign responsibility to those who REACT, while not assigning responsibility to those who ACTED first."
You're quick to pretend that one's vote is anyone's responsibility beyond the voter himself...that one's negative opinion of a move by the GOP compels them beyond their ability to resist to vote or not vote in a manner that will hurt the cause of life. No. That's not on the GOP, or Trump, no matter how hard you try to make it so. That's on the voter alone.
"The reality is that it was a stupid move that is unlikely to have any significant positive benefit to offset the negative response."
Assuming there actually is one. These folks might be more bluster due to their reaction to the platform change. I'm hoping that by the time they choose to vote they'll have come to their senses and realize how they'll be hurting the cause of life by withholding support for the GOP. Again, that's on them...not the GOP.
"I care about acknowledging that any negative consequences are the responsibility of the GOP and Trump."
Then you're acknowledging an obvious falsehood. I acknowledge the agency of each individual in thinking through the issue to its proper conclusion, which is that the GOP still is their best hope in furthering the pro-life cause politically.
And by the way, you've still left unaddressed the issue of your relationship to any of these people. I've asked if you've had direct contact with any single issue voter who's responded as you've reported them responding. I also asked if any of them are part of a pro-life group or organization where you could possibly address more of them. I would love to have the opportunity to explain to any of them...one at a time or as a group...why they still need to support the GOP and why doing so is not in any way, shape or form "bending over and accepting" abortion. And yeah...I'll tell them straight up how stupid that is...because it is.
"I am just as committed to the abolition of abortion as anyone."
Which is strange considering your defense of Trump removing the pro-life plank from the platform.
"I would say that my continued support for Trump and the GOP despite the unfortunate removal of a pro-life expression in the 2024 GOP Platform"
So you agree with me that the decision was a bad move and that it's likely to affect the Trump reelection efforts. Probably negatively. Yet you continue to argue despite our essential agreement.
"means an even greater commitment, since refusing to vote for Trump makes a greatly worsened abortion situation more likely. "
While that's likely True, it's not the rousing call to arms you seem to think it is. Getting excited because Trump likely won't make things worse, seems a low bar.
"THAT is the point you fail or refuse to address, preferring to scold me for being such a meanie to single issue voters who are so attached to their principles that they're willing to give it up to the baby killer party. "
Yet, I've been quite clear that Trump has accomplished more for the pro-life cause, despite not being pro-life, than any GOP president in history and clearly noting that he'll likely continue to lean pro-life despite the fact that his actions are driven by political expediency not commitment to the cause. It's not that you're being mean, so much as acknowledging that telling people that they're "stupid" for being committed to their principles is a shitty way to persuade them to agree with you.
Post a Comment