Trump just announced that his administration will be very friendly to "reproductive freedom" or some such drivel. Strangely enough, he made his position on abortion quite clear when he had the pro-life plank removed from the platform. I also get that the DNC convention was full of lies about Trump's position on abortion and on a national abortion ban. But on a day when RFK endorses him, and following an unimpressive DNC, for him to choose to annoy a constituency that he probably needs to win, in the hopes of luring a few leftists who aren't abortion extremists seems like one more attempt to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
https://www.politico.com/news/2024/08/24/trump-abortion-reactions-00176276
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/23/us/politics/trump-abortion-truth-social.html
https://x.com/jake__traylor/status/1827010475378479216
"My administration will be great for women and their reproductive rights."
He's now using the language of the pro abortion/DFL.
5 comments:
This post would have been enhanced by a link to his actual words. We got the links to Walz' words.
I wasn't able to post the link until today. I usually assume that you have more ability to find things than Dan and are more aware of newsworthy events than Dan.
My bad.
But seriously, by all means, explain how this shift towards away from a pro-life position helps Trump win? What's the electoral math that leads you/him to believe that he'll potentially gain more pro-abortion votes than the pro-life votes he'll potentially lose? We just watched a DNC where unlimited, unrestricted abortion (hidden behind language of reproductive rights) was the single biggest "policy" issue discussed, and now Trump wants to sound like Harris on this issue?
WTH is his problem? The DNC gave him a gift with it's lack of policy, Harris is hiding from any unscripted press availability, and RFK just gave him a boost in swing states, and this is what he leads with.
I though the point was to differentiate himself from Biden/Harris/DFL, yet he's adopting their euphemistic language on abortion.
All he has to do is just shut the hell up on abortion. If he's asked questions about an abortion ban all he has to say is that he believes that it's a state issue and that the federal government shouldn't be involved.
Hell, if he was desperate to pander to women, why not talk about how his administration will be good for women's economic situation, instead of this pro-abortion euphemistic bullshit.
I want to make this very clear. I think Trump has given the pro-life voters what they wanted in helping overturn Roe, and I don't think he needs to do anything else. All he has to do is just say as little on the issue as possible, and be vague if he's forced to.
Addressing your snark, I, like you and Dan, have only so much time in the day. Some of it is used to peruse links you and Dan do provide when you two decide to provide them. Lately, you've posted many. That's fine. But original post here was vague. Vague means it's harder to find the source of the vagueness. Harder means it takes more time. You read it or heard it somewhere and then chose to post. Holding off long enough to provide as detailed a source as possible would simply be courteous.
As to the last comment, like the links you finally posted, you're choosing to suggest a shift from a pro-life position. You rely on his typical clumsy wording to suggest it..."adopting Dem language". You suggest he's seeking pro-abort votes, though I don't see that suggestion being voiced in his comments. He hasn't contradicted his stated pro-life position, so why would anyone suggest this is an example of him doing so, when it doesn't in itself confirm that notion? Also, he constantly reminds the nation it's now a states' rights issue, yet some demand everyone regard him as having reneged in some way. Where are those shocked at his word choices seeking clarification from him? Isn't that journalism?
And while all such people believe he's made a mistake with using this language, how stupid does one have to be to insist he's not still the better choice when it comes to defending life because of it? Such people are no better than the progressives who assume to be true that which is more than is said by their own. It's as if some are looking for reasons to reject Trump. Trump is Trump. When will people give him the same slack they give to whomever else they prefer?
It literally took me two minutes to Google this. It took me longer to find an image of the post than anything.
No, I'm concluding that Trump was never pro-life in any meaningful sense. That he does not have the same moral objections to abortion as you do. I've always believed that Trump's actions that benefited the pro-life cause were essentially a quid pro quo to get the support of the pro-life voters. Now, and most importantly, he delivered on his end of the bargain. Which is exceedingly rare in politics. He accomplished what no other GOP president since Ford has been able to accomplish, he appointed the justices that helped overturn Roe. I'm not at all minimizing that accomplishment.
I AM pointing out that he could have rested on his pro-life laurels but chose to publicly embrace softer versions and adopt the language of the pro-choice left presumably in a search for votes. All he had to do was nothing. He could have left the platform alone, not boasted about how pro-choice his next administration would be, and been a pro-life hero. He chose differently and we'll see how it works for him.
As someone who's much more of an absolutist on abortion policy than I am, the fact that you aren't offended by this move baffles me. Having said that, he's obviously the less bad option on the issue of abortion. I've never indicated otherwise. My objection is his determination to pander to some small slice of the pro-choice crowd, while potentially alienating the voters who got him elected in the first place.
It is possible, you know, to generally support a presidential candidate while still criticizing them when the do things that make no sense.
Post a Comment