For some reason the MSM, who's revered by those who worship real journalism, cannot seem to grasp the reality that Trump as disavowed any connection with Project 2025, and has rejected it. For example, I suspect that Trump's recent spate of language welcoming pro-abortion voters is not a part of the Project 2025 playbook, yet the MSM still parrots the narrative.
Meanwhile, they don't hold Harris to account for the actual policies she's actually endorsed over the years.
One wonders why.
5 comments:
Keep in mind welcoming pro-aborts isn't the same as welcoming abortion. Unless he's changed his tune on being pro-life, that's as vile a suggestion as any made by the typical Trump-hating Louisville progressive fake Christian of Jeff St. Indeed, it's not much different than those very same leftists suggesting Trump had courted racists and such because a few racists expressed a preference for Trump over Hillary. That's absurd, too. Good policy attracts all sorts of people. Bad policy...and few are worse than the marxist policies of the modern progressive favorites like Harris, Walz, Obama and the Dem Party in general...repels many among those whose favor we wouldn't seek. While some worry about the intention of single issue pro-life voters, there is a case that not all pro-aborts put abortion over feeding their families and keeping the born members safe.
What this all means is that regardless of what sick shit one might find personally appealing, there's still more reason to vote for Trump than what he has or hasn't in mind for one's personally preferred sick shit. It doesn't work that way in the other direction, unless one is a single issue voter who demands abortion for any reason at any time, or perverted sexual behavior of the LGBTQ+ crowd.
Except Trump has been clear that his administration will be more friendly to abortion and that he will not sign a national abortion ban. The problem I see is assuming that he's ever been pro-life in any meaningful sense. Assuming that he is committed to the notion that the unborn are fully human and have a right to life, when he's never been clear seems naive at best.
He's done well by the pro-life crowd, no question. He delivered what no other GOP president since Ford has been able to. He's obviously better than Harris/Walz on the issue, but as I've noted that's a low bar.
What this all means is much simpler than your rant. It means that Trump believes that he can, by being more accepting of abortion, convince some center-left voters to vote for him without losing significant numbers of pro-life voters.
If he's right, that could help him win. If he's wrong, you'll blame everyone except Trump.
No Craig. I blame who's most clearly at fault. Don't try to smear me as some lapdog for Trump. It's far more accurate you're a NeverTrumper who is still seeing him as a better candidate than Harris, which is what I'm saying he's looking for in some pro-aborts. You want to pretend he's "more friendly to abortion" on what basis? That he used a leftist expression of being protective of "reproductive rights"? Why when he says some things and those like you get their panties in a twist over it do we never see any follow up questions? This is what his campaign had said after his Truth Social comments:
"“As President Trump has consistently stated, he supports the rights of individuals in their respective states to determine their laws on abortion. President Trump also strongly supports ensuring women have access to the care they need to create healthy families, including widespread access to IVF, birth control, and contraception, and he always will,” said Karoline Leavitt, the campaign’s national press secretary."
While I'd say even that demands some clarification, it does reaffirm what he's already said. Clearly, the pants wetting over his statements means that only Dems are allowed to commandeer the language to their advantage.
It still comes down to winning the election and which of the two candidates/parties will legislate in a manner which results in the murder of more babies. Is it Trump and the GOP? Only a dumbass would be so stupid as to suggest such a thing. So whine about his comments all you like, and that reality doesn't change. This guy needs to get elected. Stop helping him lose by pretending what isn't true. Start speaking more truthfully about the consequences of him losing with regard to this issue.
Here's the bottom line on this issue which you and single issue voters need to grasp like the lives of the conceived depend upon it: While NO ONE is willing to propose legislation affirming the conceived are people endowed by their Creator with the unalienable right to life which demands as much protection and respect as is afforded to the born, only one party promises to cement in law the ability to murder one's own child...the Democrat Party. And by an incredibly wide margin.
Focus on that, not on every little fart and belch which emanates from Trump's orifices.
"No Craig. I blame who's most clearly at fault. Don't try to smear me as some lapdog for Trump."
Yet somehow Trump is never at fault. Strange.
"It's far more accurate you're a NeverTrumper who is still seeing him as a better candidate than Harris,"
If by "far more accurate" you really mean so inaccurate that it's more inaccurate than anything Dan has said, then you are correct. Otherwise that's bullshit. My support for Trump has had it's ups and downs, but the reality is that he's the candidate and Harris/Walz are worse. The fact that I'm not unwilling to look at Trump's actions realistically and through the lens of someone who hasn't totally drunk the Trump Kool-Aid, and support the good and criticize the bad seems like a pretty good place to be.
"You want to pretend he's "more friendly to abortion" on what basis?"
His words and actions. Are you seriously telling me that you still believe that he's committed to a pro-life position?
"That he used a leftist expression of being protective of "reproductive rights"?"
That's one example. When he starts to use the language of the pro-abortion left, I think we can glean some clues.
"Why when he says some things and those like you get their panties in a twist over it do we never see any follow up questions?"
Since my "panties aren't in a twist", I'm not sure what you point is. My point is that when Trump makes these sorts of unnecessary comments he takes an electoral risk, which he doesn't need to take. I don't care if he says that bullshit, but I also don't expect hardcore pro-life voters to ignore it. That might have electoral consequences, if so those fall on trump.
"While I'd say even that demands some clarification, it does reaffirm what he's already said. Clearly, the pants wetting over his statements means that only Dems are allowed to commandeer the language to their advantage. "
That's hardly a ringing endorsement of the pro-life position. Given the pro-life objections to IVF, and certainly isn't going to mollify some of the pro-life folks. My question remains. What "advantage" does he gain by the original statement? What advantage does he gain by the clarification?
It's almost like you aren't paying attention to what I've actually said. I'll try to make it simple.
1. Trump's statements and actions leaning away from the pro-life position will have two possible consequences.
A. He'll gain some center-left, soft pro-choice voters.
B. He'll lose some right pro-life voters.
If he loses more B, than he gains of A, that is what's called a net loss. Given the margins in swing states this net loss of voters could cause Trump to lose the election. IF that happens, THEN the responsibility lies with Trump. If it doesn't happen, then Trump should get the credit.
Of course there's no "pants wetting" here, just discussion about the potential repercussions of a campaign strategy choice made by Trump.
"It still comes down to winning the election"
Exactly, and if you piss off your base enough by chasing voters who are unlikely to vote for you, you just might lose. If Trump loses, then his choices will have had consequences, and those consequences will be on him.
"Focus on that, not on every little fart and belch which emanates from Trump's orifices."
1. Since I'm not a single issue voter, I'm confused as to why you've taken the Dan-like step of making shit up about me.
2. Who the hell are you to demand that people vote the way that you demand?
3. Interesting that you just acknowledged that Trump is not going to move the pro-life cause forward if he's elected.
4. It's a myth that Trump is philosophically pro-life in any significant sense.
5. It's a bold strategy to suggest ignoring what a candidate says, while still demanding that others vote for him.
It's strange that somehow, in your world, Trump is immune from criticism and that the only correct option is to ignore what he says and vote for him anyway. Principles, and scruples be damned.
After re reading the post, I'm gobsmacked that you completely missed the point.
Post a Comment