"I'm an absolutist on the subject of abortion."
While this statement may be True, it's also True that this particular "absolutist" is willing to compromise their absolutism in order to elect a particular presidential candidate.
For the record, I have no problem with compromising a principle you hold absolutely to support a "lesser of two evils" presidential candidate. It literally happens in virtually every election.
What I'd hope for is honesty about the compromise being chosen. What I'd hope for is acknowledgement that the current, expressed, position of said candidate on abortion is less absolute than it has appeared to be in the past. What I'd hope for is the acknowledgement that said candidate is less absolute on abortion that they were in previous campaigns. What I'd hope for is the demonstration of grace that acknowledges that other absolutists are not as willing to compromise on their absolute principles, and that doing so is an equally principled position to take.
I doubt, my hopes will be realized, but I still hope.
60 comments:
Oh, stop it. Being an absolutist is not compromised by supporting the election of a candidate like Trump in any way, shape or form. Being an absolutist on abortion is with regard to the practice itself, not on the available means of reaching the end goal. It might be decades before a candidate comes along who is willing to run on the attempt to totally outlaw abortion in the United States...and get elected in the process.
But there are other deaths beyond those of the conceived yet unborn to consider by rejecting Trump and we've seen that without question play out when he was robbed of a second term in 2020. So for anyone to claim they're absolutists on the issue of pro-life to reject Trump for not being the purist they let themselves believe he is, only to have as the consequence the deaths of Americans due to illegal immigration, unjustified COVID policies and elevated crime rates, as well as massive deaths due to the disruption of negotiations between Russia and Ukraine, as well as the deaths of Israelis and Gazans due to the funding of Iran...all this belies the claim of being an absolutist on pro-life. If they don't care about those lives because they prefer to insist they're absolutists on ending abortion (rather than "pro-life"), they're "principles" are worthless given all the death resulting from denying Trump. And that's all setting aside the obvious fact that leaving the issue to Democrats doesn't get them to their goals. j
So yeah. I don't have much respect for the absolutist single-issue people you think are standing "principle" in light of all that. Their arguments are crap as are those who defend them against those like me.
Sure it is. It's less of a compromise than Harris, but Trump's current expressed position is not likely to bring the goal of abolition any closer.
No, clearly you don't. Yet you are, in a sense, just as "single issue" (insisting that Trump be elected) as they are.
Obviously, there are other factors. But, you claim to be an "absolutist" on abortion, as well as claiming that there is no substitute for abolition. Yet, you've hitched your wagon to someone who's unlikely to further either of those goals. I don't care, and I even understand, just stop pretending like you aren't compromising your position on abortion to support Trump.
https://www.operationrescue.org/archives/its-time-to-stop-blaming-president-trump-for-his-evolving-public-position-on-abortion/
Operation Rescue is one of the original Christian anti-abortion absolutist organizations in the nation. They realize their principles are not compromised by continued support for Trump in the next election. That's because the principle is working toward the abolition of abortion, not voting for candidates who aren't anti-abortion purists.
"Sure it is. It's less of a compromise than Harris, but Trump's current expressed position is not likely to bring the goal of abolition any closer."
That's debatable and certainly what you'd like to believe, given your negative feelings about Trump. But there's no bringing the goal closer with a Harris win, and given he has indeed done much to further the cause, it's far more likely he'll continue to do so than not, even with his having done what he said he'd do by getting the issue returned to the states. But the most important thing is preventing the baby killers from acquiring more power and opportunity. Anyone who claims to be an absolutist, single issue pro-life anti-abortion voter belies that claim by refusing to vote for Trump.
" Yet you are, in a sense, just as "single issue" (insisting that Trump be elected) as they are."
OK. I'll take it because insisting Trump elected instead of Harris means we'll likely have an improved state of the nation and more prosperity and security and peace. There's no legitimate argument against this most likely possibility.
I'm not compromising my position simply because he appears to be less devoted to abolishing abortion as I am. You seem to have an unreasonable understanding of what it means to be an absolutist on any given issue. As an absolutist on outlawing abortion, I'm not a single issue given how many other issues are important to our way of life, including those which also result in unjust death.
It's clear you're an absolutist on defending your positions. Fine. But you're wrong on this and greatly so.
Operation Rescue is doing exactly what I advocate. They have made their own decision, based on their own reasons, and should not be criticized or belittled for making a decision consistent with their principles.
Of course it's debatable. For those of us who realize that what we might project regarding future actions aren't reality, it's axiomatic that things could change. It's literally the point of some of what I've been positing recently, that Trump is theoretically more open to persuasion than Harris. But, the reality is that we don't know, no matter how much some might think they do.
Again, I've been clear that Trump's actions make him the most pro-life president since Ford and for that he should be complimented. If his words are any indication, it's unlikely he'll be the champion you think he will. But, even if he's not, he's more than paid back his part of any "deal" with pro-life voters. As long as he doesn't backtrack, he'll be fine.
I do find this notion that we shouldn't pay attention to what he says on the campaign trail as if misleading campaign promises are somehow a virtue.
The key word is "likely", and (as Dan correctly pointed out) POTUS doesn't have as much unilateral power as candidates like to pretend. So much of what will happen depends on congress, the Fed, and the regulatory state. Like it or not, the swamp is 4 years more entrenched than it was when Trump first promised to drain it. If he's lucky, he'll reverse some of what's happened with Biden/Harris (which is still a significant improvement), and not much more.
Interestingly enough, you praise yourself for being an absolutist in defending your position, yet criticism me for pointing out potential negatives.
To the extent that I have "a position" my position is that Trump is likely to be "better" than Harris (or at least not as bad), and that he is preferable to Harris. My position is that for an absolutist/abolitionist on abortion, Trump is more of a compromise than in 2020, but still better then Harris. My position is that for a principled conservative, that a vote for Trump is inherently a compromise on some issues. My position is that acknowledging areas where Trump is less conservative and criticizing him in the hopes of persuading, pushing, or prodding him to the right is a good thing. My position is that a vote for Trump is the best of two options.
I find it strange that you can't understand that not being 100% for everything Trump does or says, but still being prepared to vote for him does not indicate hatred of Trump or derangement of stupidity.
FYI, as with Dan, pointing out flaws or inconsistencies in other's positions is not taking a position. Nor is putting for the arguments for other's positions an indication that I agree with those positions.
" If his words are any indication, it's unlikely he'll be the champion you think he will."
Nothing I've ever said about this issue could be reasonably inferred I believe Trump will be THE champion on the issue. He already had been by getting enough justices on the Supreme Court to reverse Roe. He can say about the issue of abortion, "My job's done here" and concentrate on other pressing issues. Although, even with that, I would still prefer that he promote opposition to abortion. He doesn't need to craft national policy to be an advocate. That would be "champion" enough.
"I do find this notion that we shouldn't pay attention to what he says on the campaign trail as if misleading campaign promises are somehow a virtue."
I do find this notion that those who insist they pay attention to this man would take every little thing he says as gospel, as if he's somehow not the poor orator he's always been. It's amazing his supporters aren't so confused by the guy as are the sophisticates.
"The key word is "likely", and (as Dan correctly pointed out) POTUS doesn't have as much unilateral power as candidates like to pretend."
I think a president who is effective accumulates more power to get things done, provided his party isn't obstructive, as the GOP was during his first term. The more able we are to get seats flipped from marxist Dems to conservative alternatives, the more power Trump will have to get things done. I don't think we'll get a veto-proof majority in the Senate, for example, but an actual majority would help quite a bit.
I see these next four years as foundational for Trump's successor. But no...he can only do so much alone. He needs more help than he got the first time around.
"Interestingly enough, you praise yourself for being an absolutist in defending your position, yet criticism me for pointing out potential negatives."
No. I criticized you for criticizing me when I pointed out the stupidity of single issue pro-lifers insisting they're going to withdraw their support for Trump because he's not as pure as they demand he must be, as if the cause of life will somehow be improved. The counter-intuitive nature of that position is moronic, Craig. Absolutely moronic. Indeed, you criticized me for "pointing out potential negatives".
"My position is that a vote for Trump is the best of two options."
Grammatically, he's the best of several options (which include Green Party and Libertarian, as well as that weird Cornell West dude) and the better of two options (Trump or Harris). That aside, you've nailed the only principle which matters at this point regarding the current state of the nation.
" I find it strange that you can't understand that not being 100% for everything Trump does or says, but still being prepared to vote for him does not indicate hatred of Trump or derangement of stupidity."
No. Your disparaging remarks, however, do. Your jumping on his expressions where such jumping is unnecessary does. You're akin to one trying to teach an old dog new tricks, when the tricks he best performs are still what we need.
"...I believe Trump will be THE champion on the issue."
Well, that's good, because I clearly said that I doubt he'll be "the champion you think he will".
Again, the notion (especially coming from someone who's jumped on Biden for his gaffes) that we should have some secret code to determine when our presidential candidate is serious or just saying something stupid seems nuts. If Biden/Harris/Walz statements are fair game, then so are Trump's. In this case, it's not like he's made a one time statement about it, but instead has intentionally changed the GOP platform and made multiple statements. It's strange that you seem to think it's a good move to broaden his appeal by softening on abortion, while simultaneously suggesting that his statements indicating this softening on abortion be ignored.
While that may be true, in theory, the reality is that POTUS has very little power to unilaterally do significant things. Trying to not bash GOP legislators that don't 100% agree with him, might be helpful in this regard, no?
No, I completely understand, you believe that the best method of persuasion is to call those who disagree with you on matters of principle "stupid". Very effective way to win friends, influence people, and accumulate voters.
Of course the randos you mention aren't really options in the sense that they have a chance of winning, but sure.
Forgive me for thinking that the things a presidential candidate says publicly, and in his role as candidate, matter. Forgive me for thinking that a presidential candidate should be able to show a modicum of self control in what they say, and exercise control over what their staff says. Forgive me for thinking that moving away from a more pro-life position to a less pro-life position might negatively affect Trump's chances of winning. Forgive me for thinking that mild dissent was acceptable in the GOP.
I saw the Reagan movie the other night, and there's a scene where Reagan says something about hoe someone who disagrees with 20% of your positions is an 80% friend, not a 20% enemy. The fact that some of us don't agree with/make excuses for everything Trump says or does, doesn't make us enemies or stupid, it makes us people who have disagreements on certain issues.
"Again, the notion (especially coming from someone who's jumped on Biden for his gaffes) that we should have some secret code to determine when our presidential candidate is serious or just saying something stupid seems nuts."
No "secret code" has been necessary for those of us paying attention. I don't understand why you would need one.
"If Biden/Harris/Walz statements are fair game, then so are Trump's."
I agree, so long as one refrains for presuming he means what one hasn't been proved he means.
" In this case, it's not like he's made a one time statement about it, but instead has intentionally changed the GOP platform and made multiple statements."
If the GOP platform refers to the party's concerns on the federal level (and I'm not sure that it isn't), then intentionally focusing on that which on federal level the party can propose or resolve should not be problematic for anyone, nor should anyone read into the platform that which isn't clearly expressed, such as allegedly rejecting the pro-life position.
" It's strange that you seem to think it's a good move to broaden his appeal by softening on abortion, while simultaneously suggesting that his statements indicating this softening on abortion be ignored."
Nice perversion of my comments.
"While that may be true, in theory, the reality is that POTUS has very little power to unilaterally do significant things."
The power lies in how much true support he has from his party in promoting the truth and logic of his positions and proposals.
"Trying to not bash GOP legislators that don't 100% agree with him, might be helpful in this regard, no?"
It's a two-way street in reality. Recall that his bashing of McCain led to McCain screwing the nation on Obamacare. But was Trump's criticisms of McCain justified? Would it have made any difference to McCain if Trump had "bashed" him more gently? McCain deserved bashing. Other members of the party deserve it, too. Yeah...he needs to figure out a way to bash them in a manner which compels a response beneficial the American people. Those bashed need to man up, too, and keep the welfare of the nation in mind, rather than their personal feelings about Trump. Ostensibly, they're all on the same side with the same concern for the people of America. And we the people can easily send our concerns to the "bashee" to stop being a dick and get with the program, or even do as much with Trump if we dislike his proposals...or "bashing" of party members.
" No, I completely understand, you believe that the best method of persuasion is to call those who disagree with you on matters of principle "stupid". Very effective way to win friends, influence people, and accumulate voters."
Yeah...sure, Craig. Clearly you prefer to believe it's my first move. Really nice.
At the same time, with time growing short until Nov 5th, gentle persuasion in cases of these noble people of principle is unlikely to get it done. They need to be grabbed by the scruff of the neck and have their noses rubbed into every one of the many manifestations of leftist stupidity we've already endured since Jan 20, 2021 and make it known how surely a Harris administration will only double down on it all. The welfare of my family, friends and nation is far more important to me than the tender feelings of these "people of principle" who would threaten them over their petulant response to Trump's abortion comments and the GOP platform.
"Forgive me for thinking that the things a presidential candidate says publicly, and in his role as candidate, matter."
Of course they do, but not in the isolated manner you're criticisms require. Context matters and an acknowledgement of a candidate's overall position and policies in reference to a particular issue is more important...especially with regard a guy like Trump who is not the orator we wish he was.
"Forgive me for thinking that a presidential candidate should be able to show a modicum of self control in what they say, and exercise control over what their staff says."
Yeah, whatever. If you're so willing to wet yourself over his perceived lack of self control, you're likely going to need more absorbent shorts. I don't see him correcting to your satisfaction any time soon.
"Forgive me for thinking that moving away from a more pro-life position to a less pro-life position might negatively affect Trump's chances of winning."
Can't, because it shouldn't and only can because people like you are unwilling to make any effort disabuse single-issue voters of their threat to reject his candidacy because you think you shouldn't have to. Way to love your family and country, Craig.
"Forgive me for thinking that mild dissent was acceptable in the GOP."
I haven't criticized your criticism of the platform changes, of Trump's manner or actions. I've criticized your insistence that it should make a difference to anyone given the alternative as well as the benign nature of what you're criticizing.
"I saw the Reagan movie the other night, and there's a scene where Reagan says something about hoe someone who disagrees with 20% of your positions is an 80% friend, not a 20% enemy."
That would imply that Trump's recent comments on abortion and the changes to the platform indict those single issue voters who now regard Trump as an enemy. So thanks for the assist.
Without a secret code how do you know which of Trump's comments or those of his campaign, are the one's to be ignored as irrelevant and which are to be taken seriously?
What a bizarre double standard. You insist on one level of "proof" from Trump, which sounds like an incredibly subjective and vague standard, and another for Biden/Harris/Walz.
Of course the platform isn't his only statement on the issue. Even if it was, it's a significant change from the solid pro-life platform plank of previous candidates. By all means, cherry pick and parse Trump's comments to fit your narrative.
I'm not even addressing, let alone perverting, your comments. I'm merely basing my conclusions based on everything Trump has recently said and done about abortion, and your making of excuses to act as if his comments are somehow not representative of his views.
Statutorily, POTUS has very limited powers to directly do much of anything. POTUS' power lies in his ability to persuade or mobilize support in the legislative branch.
Thank you for making my point. Regardless of why, the reality is that of Trump chooses to bash those in the GOP (especially legislators), then he should expect negative consequences. I guess you and Trump just ignore Reagan's 11th commandment at this point. Look, I don't care what Trump chooses to do, but I do care that his rabid supporters understand that his actions have consequences, that some of those might be negative, and that He alone is responsible for the consequences of his actions.
It seems as though Trump was not required to bash McCain (especially around his POW status). Trump had a choice, he could have chosen to "turn the other cheek", or "love his enemies", but he chose not to.
It may not be your first move, but It's one you go to often.
Again, you can use whatever means of persuasion/coercion you choose. Just don't be surprised when they don't work particularly well.
So, they do matter, as long as you or someone like you puts them in the proper context to fit your narrative.
Not wetting myself at all. Merely pointing out that expecting a presidential candidate to be able to exercise some small degree of self control. Are you suggesting that an inability to exhibit self control is a quality that makes a better leader? I do so appreciate your ad hom, personal attacks. Great persuasion tactic.
I've merely noted the reality that there is a % of people who would support Trump, who are publicly saying that they will not support him because of his multiple instances of softening on abortion. I'm merely pointing out the reality that Trump's modifying his position on abortion just might result in negative consequences, and the those negative consequences are Trump's responsibility. He could have avoided this whole issue, he chose not to. His choice, his responsibility.
OK, that doesn't explain you choosing to engage in attacks on those who mostly agree with you. FYI, choosing not to vote for someone who has changed their position on an issue which is very important to someone, isn't making an enemy of anyone.
"Without a secret code how do you know which of Trump's comments or those of his campaign, are the one's to be ignored as irrelevant and which are to be taken seriously?"
Are you freakin' kidding me? Consider your wife, or your mother, or your best friend and ask yourself that question about any of them? You have a sense of them based on long standing familiarity and their track record of behavior. What more is necessary? It's a similar dynamic. Add to that the actual issue on the table weighed against all else which determines their trustworthiness. A misunderstanding here or there won't alter your overall trust in any of the people I listed for the illustration, and it doesn't as regards Trump and anyone who's truly been paying attention to him objectively. I'm not married to the guy. I'm willing to reject his ass if circumstances call for it. There's been no such circumstances. He's said nothing so horrible which legitimately justifies rejecting him.
"You insist on one level of "proof" from Trump, which sounds like an incredibly subjective and vague standard, and another for Biden/Harris/Walz. "
So you clearly need to tell yourself. How freakin' sad!
"Of course the platform isn't his only statement on the issue. Even if it was, it's a significant change from the solid pro-life platform plank of previous candidates."
Based on a significant accomplishment which provokes turning attention towards that which is still in his purview.
"By all means, cherry pick and parse Trump's comments to fit your narrative."
Oh, gee, Craig! Thanks for the permission to do what I don't do. Nice projection here.
"I'm not even addressing, let alone perverting, your comments."
Uh...yeah...you kinda are. Quite a bit in fact.
" I'm merely basing my conclusions based on everything Trump has recently said and done about abortion, and your making of excuses to act as if his comments are somehow not representative of his views."
Actually, what you're doing is to "cherry pick and parse Trump's comments to fit your narrative."
The reality is that Trump's making it easy for you to do this by making comments he needn't be making on the subject. But like single issue voters, you're not without agency to resist doing such crap, yet you do it anyway. Fortunately for you, you've taken the "it's Trump's fault" angle for such a consequence.
" POTUS' power lies in his ability to persuade or mobilize support in the legislative branch."
But even this is not totally his responsibility alone. The legislature, and the voters, are obliged to know with whom they are dealing and act accordingly...not use his clumsy use of the language to pretend he's doing or intending what he's not.
Gotta step away. I'll return shortly.
"Regardless of why, the reality is that of Trump chooses to bash those in the GOP (especially legislators), then he should expect negative consequences."
Ah...here's another "absolutist" position! Do the names Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger mean anything to you? Are we to just roll with the bullshit of RINOs and GOP Trump-haters just to remain loyal to Reagan's 11th Commandment? I doubt even he would.
" I do care that his rabid supporters understand that his actions have consequences, that some of those might be negative, and that He alone is responsible for the consequences of his actions."
That would depend upon the actions and the consequences which actually are the result of those actions, assuming their negative. In this issue wherein you're defending those single issue voters who cut their own throats by rejecting Trump for his less than perfect stance on abortion, the "consequences" are on them, not Trump, regardless of how badly you want to believe otherwise. Again, there's far more at stake, and what's at stake would be that for which these "single issue voters" would be culpable for the sake of their so-called "principles". They'll not only not further their agenda, but they'll cause even greater problems by their rejection of Trump over their single issue not perfectly reflected in his actions and words.
"Look, I don't care what Trump chooses to do, but I do care that his rabid supporters understand that his actions have consequences, that some of those might be negative, and that He alone is responsible for the consequences of his actions."
Yeah...I get that's what you're trying to get across, but it's crap. It relies on Trump needing to be perfect so that no "single issue" voter is so offended as to reject him. It absolves the single issue voter from considering the consequences of HIS/HER actions, which are far more important, given the unborn aren't the only lives on the line.
"It seems as though Trump was not required to bash McCain (especially around his POW status). Trump had a choice, he could have chosen to "turn the other cheek", or "love his enemies", but he chose not to."
Boo-f**king-hoo! McCains' betrayal on Obamacare was a far worse action than anything Trump said about McCain, whose service was marred by quite a bit of bad behavior.
"It may not be your first move, but It's one you go to often."
MY "first move" has always been to question whether Trump's choices are worthy of such an insane degree of attention by those who pretend they don't care that he's imperfect. Clearly that's not true. It still comes down to whether or not one recognizes how much worse off we'll be if he isn't elected. And no, I do not pretend that it's all about him alone, and that increasing our majority in the House and actually having one in the Senate isn't essential. So don't go there. But the likelihood we'll be able to have a veto-proof majority in the Senate is not something on which I'd wager YOUR money. So we'll get more done with a slim majority and Trump in the White House, than a less than veto-proof majority without him. Go ahead...try to argue against that.
"Again, you can use whatever means of persuasion/coercion you choose. Just don't be surprised when they don't work particularly well."
Again, you presume that being blunt is my first method of rebuke. It must make you feel superior to criticize that straw man. Regardless, the degree of stupidity inherent in any single issue voter who petulantly rejects Trump due to a less than perfect alignment of the single issue voter is crystal clear when a full acceptance of all factors are considered. And again, when the future of my family and friends and nation is at stake...which it f**king is...I don't much care that some snowflake is offended by having their stupidity pushed in their face. What the hell has happened to our people that their so f**king sensitive. I don't like being called "stupid", but I'm far more concerned about why someone chose to call me that than the actual use of the word. That's how adults respond to name-calling. At least its how I've always responded. What's YOUR problem?
"So, they do matter, as long as you or someone like you puts them in the proper context to fit your narrative. "
Not "my" narrative, Nancy. The proper narrative, which is the state of the nation and which candidate best serves it.
"Not wetting myself at all."
Then what's with that damp spot on your crotch?
"Merely pointing out that expecting a presidential candidate to be able to exercise some small degree of self control. Are you suggesting that an inability to exhibit self control is a quality that makes a better leader?"
No. I'm pointing out that serious adults need to set aside the superficial and concentrate on what matters. Trump's oratory shortcomings don't. His record as president does.
"I do so appreciate your ad hom, personal attacks."
Says the guy who criticizes my concern for the good of the nation as mere "ad hom attacks".
"I've merely noted the reality that there is a % of people who would support Trump, who are publicly saying that they will not support him because of his multiple instances of softening on abortion."
No shit. That's the very thing I'm saying is stupid, because it is. It suggests there's nothing BUT "abortion" which is at stake in this election. It suggests that ONLY the lives of the unborn in utero are the only lives worthy one's compassion. For all the reasons that Biden's been a failure, and for which Harris will fail in greater, ONLY the unborn matter. So nice that these people of principle don't give a flying rat's ass about what happens to you or me.
"I'm merely pointing out the reality that Trump's modifying his position on abortion just might result in negative consequences, and the those negative consequences are Trump's responsibility."
I know you are. And you're wrong. His stances alone have no bearing on why anyone would allow a moron like Kamala Harris to win the presidency. OH SHIT!!! Is it OK that I referred to Harris as a moron? Is that somehow verboten?
" He could have avoided this whole issue, he chose not to. His choice, his responsibility. "
What about those like me who also dislike how he's handled this issue yet will still vote for him? How is it a less than Einstein-like person like me can still see him as the better choice between him and Harris and know with such certainty that abortion won't be impacted more negatively by his ascendancy to the presidency? Will you give him props for that?
"OK, that doesn't explain you choosing to engage in attacks on those who mostly agree with you."
Except that I've comprehensively explained my opposition to the notion of dropping Trump over a single issue which won't be improved by a Harris victory. Have you not been paying attention? Think again of all the suffering from Biden as president and then consider Harris in that position and if you truly want to pretend it might turn out better for us all, I'll need to know where you get your weed.
"FYI, choosing not to vote for someone who has changed their position on an issue which is very important to someone, isn't making an enemy of anyone."
It absolutely is. More to the point, it makes them my enemy, given what a Harris presidency will mean to me, my family & friends and my country.
"What more is necessary?"
Well, when I consider them, and I consider Trump, I notice a few things. Primarily that I have a long and intimate relationship with my family, we have history, we know things like facial expression and tone of voice. With Trump we have none of that. We have him as an entertainer, and a politician, neither of which are noted for transparency. With my family, I know that they love me and have my best interests at heart, I don't have that confidence with Trump. It's a shitty comparison.
"Actually, what you're doing is to "cherry pick and parse Trump's comments to fit your narrative."
Except I'm not. I'm taking his exact comments, placing them in the context of his overall actions regarding abortion, and taking them at face value. I'm not convincing myself that Trump doesn't mean what he's said and that he'll make a significant change if elected. Since my "narrative" is that Trump's change of position on abortion might have negative electoral consequences, and since we won't know until after the election if I'm correct, I fail to see your point. Or does me suggesting that Trump bear responsibility for his words and actions if they have negative consequences offend you?
"But even this is not totally his responsibility alone."
Thank you for agreeing that Trump does have responsibility for his choices in how he tries to persuade. Now if you'll just acknowledge that he has responsibility for the negative consequences of what he does, we'll get somewhere.
"Do the names Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger mean anything to you?"
Yes.
"Are we to just roll with the bullshit of RINOs and GOP Trump-haters just to remain loyal to Reagan's 11th Commandment?"
Is Trump required to attack those fringe people? Why not ignore them? Respectfully disagree? What about those who aren't that fringe, are they fair game for attacks instead of persuasion?
I'm beginning to think that this "defection" of republicans, more about the system defending itself than anything else.
" In this issue wherein you're defending those single issue voters who cut their own throats by rejecting Trump for his less than perfect stance on abortion, the "consequences" are on them, not Trump, regardless of how badly you want to believe otherwise."
1. I'm not "defending" them as much as pointing out the reality for Trump and the potential loss of votes in an election where he will need all the votes he can get.
2. This notion that a Harris presidency is some sort of national suicide pact is absurd. She'll likely be ineffective and accomplish little as her own caucus doesn't seem to support her extreme bullshit. Unless you assume that a Trump loss automatically means losing the legislature.
3. The event that might cause some number of Trump voters not to support him was Trump's change on abortion. While the voters might bear some responsibility, to suggest that Trump bears zero responsibility is absurd.
"It relies on Trump needing to be perfect so that no "single issue" voter is so offended as to reject him."
No, it relies on Trump not going out of his way to offend part of his base. Or at least for him to explain why he feels that this move is necessary and moves the conservative cause forward.
I've been clear repeatedly on this. All Trump had to do was NOT change the platform, and shut up about this administration being more abortion friendly. He didn't have to be "perfect", just silent on the issue. At most all he needed to say was, "I played a role in overturning Roe and I believe that abortion is not an issue to be decided at the federal level. I support states legislating abortion to express the will of their constituents.", that's it. NOT "perfection", just not pissing off his base.
Trump didn't bash McCain for his "bad behavior" he bashed him for being a POW. A POW in a war that Trump avoided. If Trump wants to talk about McCains policy actions and votes, that's fair game. But personal attacks aimed at the wartime service of someone seems out of line and counterproductive.
Look, you try to persuade however you want. I could care less. Just don't be surprised when the belligerent, blunt, personal attacks don't work like you think they should.
"The proper narrative," according to you.
Still no wet spot, but your focus on my crotch is a bit concerning.
"No. I'm pointing out that serious adults need to set aside the superficial and concentrate on what matters."
Interesting thought, self control is "superficial" and doesn't matter. Good to know.
"Says the guy" who bitches that everyone who doesn't agree with him 100% or ignore any concerns with Trump's policies is "stupid".
"That's the very thing I'm saying is stupid, because it is."
What you think and how derogatory you are to people who haven't drunk the Kool Aid is immaterial. The REALITY is that Trump's change of position abortion is likely to cost him votes. Now you can blame the voters for not giving up their principles, you can blame Trump, or you can blame them both. But the reality is that the CAUSE of this potential vote loss is 100% on trump for changing his abortion stance.
I know you''re slow and that you haven't picked this up earlier, so I'll try again. I fully support Trump's right to choose his positions and how he communicates them, I don't totally disagree with his attempt to lure some pro-abortion voters, I do object to thinking that his change isn't going to potential cost him votes.
" And you're wrong."
Again, this notion that Trump can do or say anything that might offend his voters and that he bears no responsibility for his words or actions. His voters are supposed to fall in lock step behind him no matter what he says or does. I may be wrong. But given that I've been clear that we won't know the extent of Trump's damage to his support until after the election, I'm not currently wrong. The problem you have is that you're so focused on coming up with excuses if Trump loses that absolve Trump of any responsibility for his words and actions.
"What about those like me who also dislike how he's handled this issue yet will still vote for him?"
What about voters like you? What about voters like me, who'll most likely vote for him? What about the folks who'll vote for him no matter what he says or does?
" How is it a less than Einstein-like person like me can still see him as the better choice between him and Harris and know with such certainty that abortion won't be impacted more negatively by his ascendancy to the presidency?"
Well, pet yourself on the back. Again, better is a subjective and vague standard. But, as I've said, I agree that Trump will be "better", maybe he'll even be good, or better than good. Unfortunately, I'm not as accomplished as you at telling the future.
"Will you give him props for that?"
Sure I guess he gets "props" for forging a group of voters who'll support him regardless of what he says or does, and regardless of their strongly held convictions on certain issues.
"Have you not been paying attention?"
Yes. At some point the belligerent attitude and air of superiority becomes counterproductive, but if you have evidence that you're persuading people to vote Trump with this shtick, go for it. Be your best self. If you think that attacking people who are allied with you on many issues is the best way to make friends and influence them, go for it. If you think that attacking those who disagree with Trump on certain issues is the best plan, then you have a blast.
"It absolutely is. More to the point, it makes them my enemy, given what a Harris presidency will mean to me, my family & friends and my country."
So, what's the appropriate response to your "enemies"? Are you saying that you need to prevail over your "enemies" by any means necessary? Burn? Loot? Seriously, what's your response to these "enemies"?
I'm pretty sure Jesus said something on the topic, maybe follow His example.
I have to compliment you on your opinion of your ability to predict the future with 100% accuracy. To know that the only factor in what happens for the next 4 years is who wins the presidency. To know that Harris will be able to implement every bit of her "agenda" regardless of her support in the legislative branch. To know that even with democrats saying that they don't support her, that she'll still prevail.
To think that adding more tariffs, and increase the deficit/debt will automatically benefit you and your family.
Yes, your ability to predict the future with such accuracy is impressive indeed.
"It's a shitty comparison."
No doubt you desperately need to believe that in order to absolve you of facing the facts objectively. It's not a "shitty" comparison simply because it's not an exact parallel. That's a shitty dodge. We can only go by the evidence we have, and that would suggest that there's enough of it to confidently rest assured he's not betrayed anyone on this issue simply because he's not as pure on it as if we don't have an election to win and seats to flip.
"Except I'm not. I'm taking his exact comments, placing them in the context of his overall actions regarding abortion, and taking them at face value."
Except you are. You're suggesting that these "overall actions" don't include putting people on the SCOTUS which resulted in the reversal of Roe and returning the issue to the states where these same single-issue voters contended was proper. You're suggesting the action of altering the platform language and subsequent unsatisfactory comments related to that somehow subordinate the significance of that reversal such that it can be set aside from "the context of his overall actions regarding abortion". To speak of "his overall actions" and come away with defending single issue voters is absurd. His "overall actions" do not justify such a response from them at all. Thus, the consequences of their actions are justly questioned as being of greater concern than to say that Trump "caused" those actions.
There's no disputing that the platform change and his comments were poorly chosen actions. I agree with all that. It's the nonsense that he must be held accountable for the freely chosen responsive actions by single issue voters, as if they can't freakin' help themselves. It's crap.
And before I forget, I want to clarify that despite my being an absolutist on the issue of abortion, that doesn't mean I'm a single issue voter, except that I vote...in great part...to deny power to the left for the sake of my family, friends and nation.
" I'm not convincing myself that Trump doesn't mean what he's said and that he'll make a significant change if elected. "
Neither am I, though you seem determined to portray me in that light by suggesting the contrary about yourself. I am convinced he's deserving of a bit more slack than you're willing to give him. He's had much to overcome and still has, including way too many who choose to take every belch and fart as of great significance despite knowing the limitations of his oratory prowess. Are you going to suggest that he actually intends to be a dictator?
"Since my "narrative" is that Trump's change of position on abortion might have negative electoral consequences, and since we won't know until after the election if I'm correct, I fail to see your point."
You're assuming a change. This is especially true, if my memory serves, given you don't believe he's truly pro-life or anti-abortion. Politically, though, I don't see how even the platform change or anything he's recently said constitute a change of his position on the issue specifically. And when one considers the first "act" was the change in platform wording, all subsequent comments were in response to the pearl clutching of single issue voters. That first "act" wasn't a change in his position on abortion, but a change on what he feels is necessary for the party to make gains come November. It's not on him if those pearl clutchers choose to act stupidly as a result.
" Or does me suggesting that Trump bear responsibility for his words and actions if they have negative consequences offend you?"
Not at all. It's simply wrong to suggest that these words and actions make him culpable. Unlike Dems, he...and truly any actual conservative...must think in terms of what's best for most, if not all, Americans. To give a full throated anti-abortion pronouncement...to appease those single issue voters...would also carry consequences, and more foolishly preventable consequences at that. It's not his fault that morons take the platform change to mean he's unconcerned about abortion when he's made it possible for Roe to be reversed. Now, he's the bad guy because a small segment of the base is pissed? That's moronic. THEY are the bad guys because their "principles"...which are in no way compromised by continuing to support his candidacy...are to be considered over the general welfare of the entire nation. And again, there are more than just the lives of the unborn to consider, as we've seen throughout the current administrative term.
" Thank you for agreeing that Trump does have responsibility for his choices in how he tries to persuade."
Thank you for ignoring the context in which my comment was made.
" Now if you'll just acknowledge that he has responsibility for the negative consequences of what he does, we'll get somewhere."
I never so much as hinted he doesn't. I'm saying he doesn't bear any responsibility for the stupid choices of the single issue voters you're defending as being incapable of acting on their own volition.
"Is Trump required to attack those fringe people? Why not ignore them? Respectfully disagree? What about those who aren't that fringe, are they fair game for attacks instead of persuasion?"
Trump is Trump. What's their excuse? To suggest Trump is an actual threat to this nation, especially on the basis of the lie that he tried to do something criminal in questioning the validity of the final election numbers makes them a greater problem than Trump, and a great example of what I've been saying about "adults" choosing to ignore that Trump is Trump when they act.
"I'm beginning to think that this "defection" of republicans, more about the system defending itself than anything else. "
Make up your mind. It's either a matter of the 11th commandment or it's not.
"1. I'm not "defending" them as much as pointing out the reality for Trump and the potential loss of votes in an election where he will need all the votes he can get."
That's great, and how candidates might cause they're own electoral demise is a legit concern (see: Ron DeSantis, George H. W. Bush). But in suggesting he bears all responsibility for how individuals decide is taking the notion too far, especially here with your single issue pro-lifers. By your logic, the alleged 81 million who allegedly voted for Biden are Trump's fault, too. His track record has absolutely nothing to do with it.
"2. This notion that a Harris presidency is some sort of national suicide pact is absurd. She'll likely be ineffective and accomplish little as her own caucus doesn't seem to support her extreme bullshit. Unless you assume that a Trump loss automatically means losing the legislature."
YOU'RE the one who repeated the DNC plans to push for an amendment protecting infanticide. We KNOW the left has moved where they could to enact abortion up until birth. Yet, you're suggesting a Harris win because of single issue voters rejecting Trump isn't a suicidal move for their "principles"? OK.
"3. The event that might cause some number of Trump voters not to support him was Trump's change on abortion. While the voters might bear some responsibility, to suggest that Trump bears zero responsibility is absurd."
What "change"? Altering the platform? That's nonsense. He isn't "pro-abortion" and that change nor subsequent comments since then are NOT proof of any change. To hold Trump responsible for the stupidity of others is absurd.
Put it this way. Trump made a decision (assuming the platform was totally his authoring) based on having succeeded in doing what was sought since 1973, yet he's responsible for those who don't pay attention? Uh, uh. That's not how responsibility works. Next thing you know you'll be demanding gun manufacturers be held responsible for the Georgia school shooting!
I don't like that the wording was changed. I think it was a bad move. But it how does that justify or rationalize rejecting Trump in November? HOW? Answer: it doesn't. Not at all, and I'm a hard core opponent of abortion for any reason. Rejecting Trump in no way furthers my goals and hope for the outlawing of the practice...not in any way. That's an unassailable fact.
"No, it relies on Trump not going out of his way to offend part of his base."
I'm still waiting for you to provide evidence his intention was to offend part of his base. That they took offense is not on him. At all. It's on their moronic attitude on the issue of abortion...an attitude which is now in conflict with the goal of all who claim to be pro-life.
"Or at least for him to explain why he feels that this move is necessary and moves the conservative cause forward."
What explanation is necessary for the obvious? He got the issue put back in the hands of the states. Why would it need to be addressed on the national level in writing, especially when the slightest hint of anti-infanticide expression inflames the lefty feminist hags to get out and vote?
And how the hell does the lack of explanation deny pro-lifers the right and ability to carry on the fight? Their energy in lambasting Trump over this crap is far better spent insisting that his actions won't have any negative effect on the battle to win hearts and minds. Because it won't unless they let it. And that's what they're doing by soiling themselves in their lamentations. The left sees their outcry, too, and will use it to steal themselves against any effort as they're doing already.
" I've been clear repeatedly on this. All Trump had to do was NOT change the platform,...."
Yeah. And that horse won't be any more dead than it is right now. But he DID change the platform and you do nothing to assure anyone they've nothing to fear about it, yet you've made no indication you're making any such effort at all. You're simply criticizing Trump.
"... and shut up about this administration being more abortion friendly."
He never said anything about being "more abortion 'friendly'". He spoke of defending reproductive rights. Honest people know that abortion takes place long after reproduction has occurred. Yet, some wish to take this rhetoric and insist that Trump's siding with the assholes who've been perverting that phrase since before 1973. Talk about stupid!
"At most all he needed to say was, "I played a role in overturning Roe and I believe that abortion is not an issue to be decided at the federal level. I support states legislating abortion to express the will of their constituents.", that's it."
He's tried that and he's repeated it after the single issue voters began their petulant whining about his imperfection on the issue. It's done no good. They still pretend he's betrayed them as if he owes them that perfection you claim no one seeks.
"Trump didn't bash McCain for his "bad behavior" he bashed him for being a POW."
A non-starter. McCain was a dick all his life, and his being a dick was referenced in his being shot down as well. And he didn't bash McCain for being a POW. He bashed the notion of being a POW as a positive thing. Sure, it's another thing about which he'd have been better off saying nothing, but the basic point isn't all that bad. He prefers winners in war. POWs aren't technically winners if they're POWs. This is another case of people choosing to ignore meaning which isn't at all hidden in order to disparage Trump. No decoder ring necessary for those who pay attention.
"Look, you try to persuade however you want. I could care less."
Well, at least you care.
" Just don't be surprised when the belligerent, blunt, personal attacks don't work like you think they should. "
How many single issue voters have you persuaded to recant their rejection and vote for Trump?
"Still no wet spot, but your focus on my crotch is a bit concerning."
But it's so prominent! How can I help myself?
"Interesting thought, self control is "superficial" and doesn't matter. Good to know."
Now you're being dishonest. Not every word for anyone's mouth matters...unless it's Trump, right? He says much which is superficial, but too many CHOOSE to pretend every fart and burp is significant. Honest people who pay attention don't do that.
" "Says the guy" who bitches that everyone who doesn't agree with him 100% or ignore any concerns with Trump's policies is "stupid"."
This is dishonest as well. I refer to that which is clearly stupid and you pretend I'm talking about perfect agreement on every little thing. Nice.
"What you think and how derogatory you are to people who haven't drunk the Kool Aid is immaterial."
That's funny. Rejecting Trump is suicidal (for the single issue abortion opponents). Disagreeing with him on particular points of a more personal interest is not. How is that "drinking the Kool Aid"?
"The REALITY is that Trump's change of position abortion is likely to cost him votes."
What "change", and why should it cost him any votes if people who claim to care about innocent life really do? It's a valid couple of questions.
"Now you can blame the voters for not giving up their principles, you can blame Trump, or you can blame them both."
But they are compromising their principles by rejecting Trump, both on the specific subject of abortion and the wider principle of life. I've explained this in detail a few times now. Trump didn't force them to ignore facts and reality. They're doing that all on their own.
"The problem you have is that you're so focused on coming up with excuses if Trump loses that absolve Trump of any responsibility for his words and actions."
The problem is that you've totally ignored the facts and logic I've presented which belie any decision by pro-lifers to reject Trump as total folly on their part. You prefer to blame Trump for the decisions they make which don't reflect those facts and logic. Why is that?
"What about voters like you? What about voters like me, who'll most likely vote for him? What about the folks who'll vote for him no matter what he says or does?"
There's two ways to indicate one of those three things aren't like the other two. The first and the last. I'm interested in the first, which isn't like the second and third. My point was that I don't like the platform change and as an anti-abortion absolutist, I can clearly see rejecting him because of it will be greatly harmful to the cause of life? Given life is the issue, why do you defend those who pretend Trump is a threat to it instead of defending him against the charge?
"Well, pet yourself on the back. Again, better is a subjective and vague standard. But, as I've said, I agree that Trump will be "better", maybe he'll even be good, or better than good. Unfortunately, I'm not as accomplished as you at telling the future."
That's funny. We've just had four years of evidence for what Harris is most
likely to bring about and you think you're being clever.
"Sure I guess he gets "props" for forging a group of voters who'll support him regardless of what he says or does, and regardless of their strongly held convictions on certain issues."
Isn't that what all effective elected politicians do? Why yes, Craig! That's exactly what they do! They do their jobs in such a way as to please their supporters such that even where they differ on an issue or two, the supporters know that in the aggregate their preferred candidates are deserving of that support. Good gosh! How dare Trump?
"
Yes. At some point the belligerent attitude and air of superiority becomes counterproductive, but if you have evidence that you're persuading people to vote Trump with this shtick, go for it. Be your best self. If you think that attacking people who are allied with you on many issues is the best way to make friends and influence them, go for it. If you think that attacking those who disagree with Trump on certain issues is the best plan, then you have a blast."
And yet more dishonesty. At least my "belligerence", such as it may be, is based on facts and evidence. And where lives hang in the balance, I'll get as belligerent as I feel necessary. Is it not to some degree "belligerent" to reject Trump for altering the platform in a manner of which they disapprove (and keep in mind, this rejecting of Trump was provoked by that one act...all else came afterwards). Is it not to some degree "belligerent" to purposely misrepresent my positions on this issue after having had those positions exhaustively explained repeatedly? Why, yes Craig. It IS belligerent!
"So, what's the appropriate response to your "enemies"? Are you saying that you need to prevail over your "enemies" by any means necessary? Burn? Loot? Seriously, what's your response to these "enemies"?"
Gee, Craig! I would have thought it would be quite clear to you by now? I rebuke them for their foolish choices, letting them know in no uncertain terms how stupid it is to reject a guy under whom less death has occurred and demand they explain how rejecting him will nonetheless lead to saving more lives. No looting or burning necessary, Craig. How do YOU do it? How many times has your methods worked with regard to these single issue voters who insist they will reject Trump come November? I'm really keen on having you answer this question.
"I'm pretty sure Jesus said something on the topic, maybe follow His example."
Really? Shame on you. Why not just tell me to embrace grace and be a better man. That always works on you, doesn't it?
"I have to compliment you on your opinion of your ability to predict the future with 100% accuracy."
Well thank you, Craig! How kind of you to say so! It's not all that hard, especially since I can be 100% accurate in my prediction without predicting the exact details of 100% of the future. Now, certainly Trump could go insane and start pressing the nuclear buttons, but probability doesn't suggest such a thing. It does suggest significant improvement over the last four years to more closely resemble the four years prior to them. It also suggests that the last four years are likely to seem a cakewalk should Harris come to power. Now hopefully we can flip enough seats in the House and Senate to enhance the improvements over which Trump will preside and mitigate the harm Harris will seek to impose if God forbid she wins instead.
But you're free to be a snarky dick all you like and it won't change the facts that we'll be better off with Trump than Harris, even if nothing else changes.
Here's some more probabilities you pretend aren't in existence:
--There are still RINOs who will cave on Dem promoted bills and policies.
--There are still Dems who will say they don't support Harris and then will support her after all.
"Yes, your ability to predict the future with such accuracy is impressive indeed."
Thanks again. I'm rather proud of it.
--We've picked up a few Dems and the Dems have picked up NeverTrumpers.
It's interesting that you somehow consider my defending my position on this general topic and my reluctance to be pressured into changing to be a negative, while you consider your unwillingness to even entertain the thought that Trump's actions could be responsible for negative consequences to be a positive. Yet you keep on going.
"No doubt you desperately need to believe that in order to absolve you of facing the facts objectively"
Not at all. I'm not the one making unprovable claims of fact.
" You're suggesting that these "overall actions" don't include putting people on the SCOTUS which resulted in the reversal of Roe and returning the issue to the states where these same single-issue voters contended was proper. You're suggesting the action of altering the platform language and subsequent unsatisfactory comments related to that somehow subordinate the significance of that reversal such that it can be set aside from "the context of his overall actions regarding abortion". To speak of "his overall actions" and come away with defending single issue voters is absurd. His "overall actions" do not justify such a response from them at all. Thus, the consequences of their actions are justly questioned as being of greater concern than to say that Trump "caused" those actions. "
Tell me you don't actually read what I write or pay attention, without telling me.
"It's the nonsense that he must be held accountable for the freely chosen responsive actions by single issue voters, "
Again, tell me that you don't read what I write or pay attention to what I say, without telling me.
"There's no disputing that the platform change and his comments were poorly chosen actions."
Who chose those actions? Shouldn't the one who chose those actions be held responsible for those actions?
" I am convinced he's deserving of a bit more slack than you're willing to give him."
If by "a bit" , you mean infinitely more, then sure.
"He's had much to overcome and still has, "
Including himself, what he's said, what he's done, some of his policies, and some/many of his "best people" appointments. To pretend like Trump hasn't made things more difficult for himself, is to ignore the record you claim to revere. Further, noting his flaws and failures, and still choosing to vote for him as a "better" alternative seems like a reasonable goal. Not rhetorically bludgeoning those who slightly disagree with you.
"including way too many who choose to take every belch and fart as of great significance despite knowing the limitations of his oratory prowess. Are you going to suggest that he actually intends to be a dictator?"
No, but this notion that he's somehow absolved from being held responsible for what he says, especially when it's not spontaneous is absurd. You don't give Biden this much grace for his inability to speak.
You're assuming a change. This is especially true, if my memory serves, given you don't believe he's truly pro-life or anti-abortion."
As I've repeatedly addressed this, I fail to see why I should do so again. I don't believe that Trump is committed to the pro-life agenda in any meaningful sense. I believe that he made a wise decision, to portray himself as such and that helped get him elected. THEN (and this is important) he proceeded to give the pro-life folks almost exactly what he promised, and held up his end of the implicit deal he made. Now that he's done what he said, and running for a lame duck term, he's made the calculation that he'll gain more from luring a few pro-aborts over then he'll lose from pro-lifers. Which we'll see in November.
"Politically, though, I don't see how even the platform change or anything he's recently said constitute a change of his position on the issue specifically."
While this may be True, he could have accomplished the same thing by choosing not to do anything but repeat "Abortion is a state, not a federal issue, and I will not support any federal legislation on abortion.". Simple, direct, noncommittal, doesn't piss off the pro-lifers, and still counters the DFL "abortion ban" nonsense.
"Not at all. It's simply wrong to suggest that these words and actions make him culpable."
By all means, please explain under what moral or ethical system is someone absolved from responsibility for their words and actions?
" Now, he's the bad guy because a small segment of the base is pissed?"
Nope. He MIGHT BE the guy who loses an election against a non entity because he pissed off enough of his base." I guess we'll see what the post election polls tell us. Because waiting to see is such a stupid plan when foretelling the future is so much more fun.
"Thank you for ignoring the context in which my comment was made."
Except I haven't ignored the extensive context you've spewed.
"I never so much as hinted he doesn't. I'm saying he doesn't bear any responsibility for the stupid choices of the single issue voters you're defending as being incapable of acting on their own volition."
Strange, I've been suggesting the almost universal notion that Trump be held accountable for his own words and actions, while you somehow think I've suggested something I've never said, claimed, or thought.
"Trump is Trump. What's their excuse?"
Interesting perspective. Trump can do whatever he wants because he's Trump, but liberal GOP folks need an excuse? It's obvious that the DFL is so thrilled to have Cheney that they've ignored the fact that he was called a war criminal for years. But, here's a thought, FOCUS on what's important. Ignore the few RINOs, don't get distracted by irrelevant crap. FOCUS on Harris/Walz and their policies and policy failures. I know it's crazy to expect the president of the US to be able to ignore irrelevant distractions and focus on what's most important. Does anyone really think that bashing irrelevant ex republicans is going to win any new votes? But hey, if you think that the "sink to their level" is a winning hand, then go for it.
"Make up your mind. It's either a matter of the 11th commandment or it's not."
Is it, if they've gone off the reservation? The bigger question is why waste time over a bunch of has beens who have not power or clout?
"But in suggesting he bears all responsibility for how individuals decide is taking the notion too far, especially here with your single issue pro-lifers. By your logic, the alleged 81 million who allegedly voted for Biden are Trump's fault, too. His track record has absolutely nothing to do with it."
Since I've never suggested this, why should I waste my time with this straw man? Well, since a big chunk of those 81 million were going to vote DFL no matter what, that seems a stretch. However, it seems likely that some number of independent voters were turned off by Trump being Trump, which Trump likely bears some responsibility for.
"YOU'RE the one who repeated the DNC plans to push for an amendment protecting infanticide. We KNOW the left has moved where they could to enact abortion up until birth. Yet, you're suggesting a Harris win because of single issue voters rejecting Trump isn't a suicidal move for their "principles"? OK."
The fact that the left has been pushing unrestricted by anything until birth and are laying the groundwork for post birth abortion in the academy, is hardly a guarantee that it'll get passed in the next 4 years even assuming a DFL controlled legislature. Which is hardly the national suicide pact you present a Harris administration as.
FYI, we spend a lot of time in our business looking at economic trends and forecasts to prepare for future markets. Our internal experts have made their predictions for the next year or so and see no significant changes regardless of how the election comes out. Obviously, projections are projections, but I think that the 2025 economic results are pretty much set in drying concrete at this point.
"What "change"? Altering the platform? That's nonsense. He isn't "pro-abortion" and that change nor subsequent comments since then are NOT proof of any change. To hold Trump responsible for the stupidity of others is absurd."
The platform change, his adopting the language of the pro-abortion side. Again, I've never claimed (not even once, let along hinted at) Trump being "pro-abortion". Read what I write. To hold Trump responsible for his own actions (stupid or not) is normal.
"I don't like that the wording was changed. I think it was a bad move. But it how does that justify or rationalize rejecting Trump in November? HOW? "
If enough pro-lifers don't vote for Trump in November, who cares about the "HOW?", it's all about the WHAT (and that's who that % of Trump voters vote for, or don't vote). Who cares about "HOW?" if Trump loses? Like it or not, blame anybody but Trump or not, he's managed to piss off some unknown portion of his base. That fact is simply the reality we are faced with. Hopefully he can counterbalance those pro-lifers with pro-choicers or that he doesn't need to.
"I'm still waiting for you to provide evidence his intention was to offend part of his base."
Why would I provide evidence of something I've never claimed? I have suggested that it's likely that Trump, like you, believed that these pro-lifers would have nowhere else to go and decided that he could get away with pissing them off and still get their votes.
"What explanation is necessary for the obvious? He got the issue put back in the hands of the states. Why would it need to be addressed on the national level in writing, especially when the slightest hint of anti-infanticide expression inflames the lefty feminist hags to get out and vote?"
I know it's maybe a foreign concept to you, but for most people it's a matter of going out of one's way to placate those one has pissed off. Many people, will do things they find unpleasant if they believe that it's for a higher cause. Leaders can and do take the time to explain to their followers why a sacrifice might be beneficial. Good leaders don't simply assume that it's all "the morons" fault that they don't understand the great and powerful leader. If nothing else, it's about showing empathy.
"And how the hell does the lack of explanation deny pro-lifers the right and ability to carry on the fight?"
Again, who said that it does. I'm merely suggesting that it would be good leadership to make them feel like they're still on the team and that he understands them. Silence and cryptic Tweets aren't going to help.
" you do nothing to assure anyone they've nothing to fear about it, yet you've made no indication you're making any such effort at all. You're simply criticizing Trump."
Because it's not my f'ing job to reassure people of something that no one knows to be True. It's Trump's job to reassure them of that. Since when is trump immune from criticism?
"
He never said anything about being "more abortion 'friendly'". He spoke of defending reproductive rights."
Part of the problem is that, despite your valiant efforts, "reproductive rights" is DFL speak for abortion. So when Trump starts using the language of those who want unlimited abortion on demand, why would anyone be shocked if people misunderstood him or if he really meant what he said? Yes, he did tweet about being more friendly to abortion. So, someone came in and made an attempt to redefine "reproductive rights" after his use of the term set things off.
"Honest people know that abortion takes place long after reproduction has occurred. Yet, some wish to take this rhetoric and insist that Trump's siding with the assholes who've been perverting that phrase since before 1973. Talk about stupid!"
That's true, which makes Trump's use of the phrase, which means abortion as it's most often used, pretty stupid.
"He's tried that and he's repeated it after the single issue voters began their petulant whining about his imperfection on the issue. It's done no good. They still pretend he's betrayed them as if he owes them that perfection you claim no one seeks."
No one demands perfection, and your continued prating about this straw man is getting extremely old. My point remains, had the above been his position from the beginning he wouldn't have this particular fire to put out.
" He bashed the notion of being a POW as a positive thing."
In order to be a POW, one has to serve their country in time of war. There's no way this was ever a win for Trump, given his lack of service. It's strange to think that flying warplanes against a US enemy during wartime, being shot down, and taken captive behind enemy lines as a non positive thing. Heaven forbid that someone risk their life, get shot down, and be taken captive. Maybe McCain should have just eaten his .45 or stayed with the plane. Who cares if McCain was a "dick"? MacArthur was a "dick". Patton was a "dick". Sherman and Grant were "disks". Since when does being a "dick" disqualify one from respect for their service?
"Sure, it's another thing about which he'd have been better off saying nothing, but the basic point isn't all that bad. He prefers winners in war."
Then the thousands of Allied POW, without whom WW2 would have been lost were "losers", gotcha. Being a POW, which only happens to service members at the pointy end of the spear (on or behind the front lines), which is already a minority of service members, I'm thinking that "losers' is a stupid way to describe them. I guess that makes the 13 dead service members he went to Arlington for "losers" too becasue they got killed.
"POWs aren't technically winners if they're POWs."
Strange that the US military doesn't think so. POW's got (for example) the WW2 victory medal, were promoted, remained in the military, were given command positions, and have always been obligated to continue the war from their POW camps.
It's another case of Trump saying something stupid and people giving him a pass for his stupidity because "Trump is Trump". Hundreds of thousands of US service members and civilians have been captured during wartime since 1900. I'm sure they're comforted by the fact that Trump considers them "losers" because they were in positions of maximum risk.
"How many single issue voters have you persuaded to recant their rejection and vote for Trump?"
No idea.
I kind of understand Dan's fixation with anal sex and male genitalia, but yours, not so much.
"Now you're being dishonest. Not every word for anyone's mouth matters...unless it's Trump, right? He says much which is superficial, but too many CHOOSE to pretend every fart and burp is significant. Honest people who pay attention don't do that".
I'm not being dishonest at all. I have no trouble pointing out stupid statements from Trump, Biden, Harris, Walz, P-BO, Bush, Clinton, etc. If stupid statements of gaffes are fair game for one side, then their fair game foe the other.
"you pretend I'm talking about perfect agreement on every little thing."
I follow the evidence where it leads.
" How is that "drinking the Kool Aid"?"
You literally just said that Trump losing is akin to a national suicide, and you still wonder this?
"Gee, Craig! I would have thought it would be quite clear to you by now? I rebuke them for their foolish choices, letting them know in no uncertain terms how stupid it is to reject a guy under whom less death has occurred and demand they explain how rejecting him will nonetheless lead to saving more lives."
That's your choice, I guess when it comes to politics Jesus' teachings get set aside. As long as you can destroy your enemies, you're all good.
" No looting or burning necessary, Craig. How do YOU do it? How many times has your methods worked with regard to these single issue voters who insist they will reject Trump come November? I'm really keen on having you answer this question."
At least not yet.
Don't waste a lot of time worrying about how others created in the image of YHWH choose to vote. I have conversations, and try to persuade, but forcing or browbeating someone isn't productive or Christlike. But, by all means, tell us how many people you've "converted" using your tactics? How's that working for you.
"Really? Shame on you. Why not just tell me to embrace grace and be a better man. That always works on you, doesn't it?"
Because Jesus spoke specifically and unambiguously to how we should treat our enemies, further we can see how He chose to deal with His enemies.
"Well thank you, Craig! How kind of you to say so! It's not all that hard, especially since I can be 100% accurate in my prediction without predicting the exact details of 100% of the future. Now, certainly Trump could go insane and start pressing the nuclear buttons, but probability doesn't suggest such a thing. It does suggest significant improvement over the last four years to more closely resemble the four years prior to them. It also suggests that the last four years are likely to seem a cakewalk should Harris come to power. Now hopefully we can flip enough seats in the House and Senate to enhance the improvements over which Trump will preside and mitigate the harm Harris will seek to impose if God forbid she wins instead."
That's quite to verbal gymnastics. To claim to be 100% right, without actually having to be 100% right is quite a claim. I'm impressed.
"But you're free to be a snarky dick all you like and it won't change the facts that we'll be better off with Trump than Harris, even if nothing else changes."
Well, I'm just following your example in a toned down manner. I've agreed that it is most likely that things will be "better" or at least less bad if Trump wins. But that's a low bar.
I see no reason to waste time on your straw men, so I won't.
"Thanks again. I'm rather proud of it.
--We've picked up a few Dems and the Dems have picked up NeverTrumpers."
Or, the DFL picked up someone they referred to as a war criminal for years, and Trump moved far enough to the left to pick up a couple of DFL candidates who were kicked out by their own party. But they couldn't be motivated by anything but the purest of selflessness, right?
You can keep going if you want, just like Dan I'll approve your comments, but I'm done with the made up, straw men, and you claiming I said things I haven't.
I'm going to note that if you're this vitriolic and combative with someone who is going to vote for Trump, and who's arrived at the same conclusion as you independently, then I'm guessing that you have very little success with those who don't agree with you.
If as Trump and you suggest, POW’s are “losers”, then what does that make the allied prisoners at Stalag Luft 3? They were “losers” when captured, winners when they escaped, then double “losers” when they got recaptured and/or executed. What a bizarre view.
September 9, 2024 at 12:38 PM
"It's interesting that you somehow consider my defending my position on this general topic and my reluctance to be pressured into changing to be a negative,..."
Only because it is. Your position is that the single issue pro-lifers who promote rejecting Trump in November over the alteration of the GOP platform are somehow justified. They are not. Your position that to call them out for their unjustified decision is to force them to compromise on their firmly held principles, which it in no way does. Your position is that this alteration of the platform suggests an acceptance of the practice in some way, and as such the acceptance of however many kids are murdered in utero as a result, which is not based on anything substantive whatsoever.
Is any of the above mistaken, and if so, how?
"...while you consider your unwillingness to even entertain the thought that Trump's actions could be responsible for negative consequences to be a positive."
This is far too general for the topic on the table. With regard to that, to the extent that it was totally up to him to alter the platform as regards abortion, he is not at all responsible for sanctimonious single-issue pro-lifers choosing against voting for Trump as a result. Given he succeeded in getting Roe reversed, why would he think that this alteration would compel such an illogical response regarding the Trump/GOP opposition to abortion, or worse, that it somehow suggests no such opposition any longer exists? It's absurd. But yeah...let's blame Trump for not foreseeing such a moronic response.
Yet you keep on going.
September 9, 2024 at 12:48 PM
"Not at all. I'm not the one making unprovable claims of fact."
I don't see Dan participating until way down at the end (as of this writing), so I don't know who you mean.
"Tell me you don't actually read what I write or pay attention, without telling me."
OK, but it isn't true.
"Again, tell me that you don't read what I write or pay attention to what I say, without telling me."
OK, but it won't be any truer than the first time you told me to tell you that.
"Who chose those actions? Shouldn't the one who chose those actions be held responsible for those actions?"
Sure, but not for every illogical consequence of those actions, such as single-issue voters refusing to vote for him because of those actions. I mean, it's great Monday morning quarterbacking on your part, but there's no true connection between his actions and their illogical response to them. They chose to infer, as you seem to as well, that altering the platform means things the alteration itself doesn't in any way imply. And again, where's the follow up questioning which supports the claims against him with regard to this issue.
" I am convinced he's deserving of a bit more slack than you're willing to give him."
"If by "a bit" , you mean infinitely more, then sure."
This is as illogical an inference as the claim that the platform change represents a betrayal.
"He's had much to overcome and still has, "
"Including himself, what he's said, what he's done, some of his policies, and some/many of his "best people" appointments. To pretend like Trump hasn't made things more difficult for himself, is to ignore the record you claim to revere. Further, noting his flaws and failures, and still choosing to vote for him as a "better" alternative seems like a reasonable goal. Not rhetorically bludgeoning those who slightly disagree with you."
First, this has been about a specific issue, not the entirety of his political performance. So it doesn't matter at what other times he's "made things more difficult for himself." The alteration of the platform, while unnecessary, can't be held as one of them simply because some well-intending people responded in an illogical manner. I've been scolded about how I speak of such people, yet somehow none of them are required to give him the benefit of the doubt when he acts imperfectly?
"including way too many who choose to take every belch and fart as of great significance despite knowing the limitations of his oratory prowess. Are you going to suggest that he actually intends to be a dictator?"
"No, but this notion that he's somehow absolved from being held responsible for what he says, especially when it's not spontaneous is absurd. You don't give Biden this much grace for his inability to speak."
First, there's no comparison between the two which is legitimate. Secondly, it's not about holding him responsible for what he says, but for suggesting he's responsible for how each and every person in American might take it. That's what you're demanding here, and in this case, there's no justification for the single-issue pro-lifers to suppose he's betrayed them. None.
September 9, 2024 at 1:00 PM
"As I've repeatedly addressed this, I fail to see why I should do so again."
Because of your apparent contradiction your own words seem to indicate. Excuse me for asking for clarification/confirmation of your position. I didn't know that wasn't allowed.
"I don't believe that Trump is committed to the pro-life agenda in any meaningful sense. I believe that he made a wise decision, to portray himself as such and that helped get him elected. THEN (and this is important) he proceeded to give the pro-life folks almost exactly what he promised, and held up his end of the implicit deal he made."
He has explained his position on abortion, though I don't believe he's a hard-core pro-lifer as I am. He explained what changed his mind in his becoming one. Not hearing any evidence indicating he was bullshitting the interviewer, I've chosen to take him at his word on the subject.
"Now that he's done what he said, and running for a lame duck term, he's made the calculation that he'll gain more from luring a few pro-aborts over then he'll lose from pro-lifers."
See, here's the thing: you've chosen to believe that he actually thought he'd lose pro-life voters by a less stringent anti-abortion stance, which was only to keep the Dems from suggesting abortion would be threatened on a national level should he win in November. Given it's the one issue which really fires up the more rabid members of the Death Cult Party, I fail to see how even a marginally intelligent single-issue pro-lifer can conclude it means he's gone soft on the issue, which is now the purview of the states rather than the federal government. And I'd be more willing to believe his actions were intended to keep the lazy baby killers from getting off their asses to go vote than to get those who always vote to change parties. But either works for me.
"While this may be True, he could have accomplished the same thing by choosing not to do anything but repeat "Abortion is a state, not a federal issue, and I will not support any federal legislation on abortion.". Simple, direct, noncommittal, doesn't piss off the pro-lifers, and still counters the DFL "abortion ban" nonsense."
And he's done that...did that initially and altering the platform doesn't do anything to mitigate that.
"Not at all. It's simply wrong to suggest that these words and actions make him culpable."
"By all means, please explain under what moral or ethical system is someone absolved from responsibility for their words and actions?"
By all means, please explain under what moral or ethical system is someone responsible for how others choose to understand what was said or done? This is the same mentality which forces manufacturers to label their products so that customers don't do stupid things with their products, such as remembering hot coffee is hot, or don't eat the urinal cakes, or keep hands away from spinning lawn mower blades and a host of more obvious warnings no one should be held responsible for not making. There once was a guy name Charles Givens (now deceased) who started a foundation to help people learn how to better manage their money. After explaining about shopping for better, less expensive auto insurance, one of his conference attendees canceled his auto insurance and then went looking for a better deal, rather than the other way around like even people of average intelligence would do. He then got into a bad accident and sued Givens. Givens, being wealthy, was ordered to pay the moron for his damages as if Givens had told him to cancel first and take his chances. Just like with Givens, Trump did nothing to compel the actions of the single-issue pro-lifers. They made their stupid choice on their own based on some fiction about having been betrayed.
"Nope. He MIGHT BE the guy who loses an election against a non entity because he pissed off enough of his base.""
And still you demand he must be held responsible because others got pissed as if he's actually responsible simply because they got pissed. This makes him culpable for all people who chose not to vote for him, whether he lost an election because of it or not.
"Thank you for ignoring the context in which my comment was made."
"Except I haven't ignored the extensive context you've spewed."
Sure you have, to continue responding as you have. It's very much like you're telling me you don't actually read what I write or pay attention, without telling me.
"I never so much as hinted he doesn't. I'm saying he doesn't bear any responsibility for the stupid choices of the single issue voters you're defending as being incapable of acting on their own volition."
"Strange, I've been suggesting the almost universal notion that Trump be held accountable for his own words and actions, while you somehow think I've suggested something I've never said, claimed, or thought."
Bullshit. You're blaming him in advance for losing the election (should that happen) because single-issue voters inferred from his words that which isn't true...or at least not expressed as they chose to take it... yet now I've said something you didn't say? Explain where I've gone wrong.
No. I'm saying Trump will do whatever he wants but that folks need to make the effort to better understand when it matters what he says and when it doesn't. It's really no different from critiquing any other politician...or really anyone else. When Roger Ebert (Chicago Sun Times) and Gene Siskel (Chicago Tribune) reviewed movies together on TV, I came to understand that what Ebert liked would be shows I liked, but though he would give some movies only, say, two stars, I knew from experience whether or not his criticisms of the movie would mean I should or shouldn't go to see it. How much more important is it for the voter to pay attention in order to fully be in tune with how ANY politician speaks. Do we need to pay attention to each thing said, as if each thing said means the world? Hell, no.
Do I need Trump to rip on RINOs and other opponents in the manner he does? No. I do not. I don't believe it's necessary, though it does have great entertainment value, which is nice. But again, there's a matter of personal style which doesn't matter enough to disabuse me of my support because I've paid attention enough to know that, with regard to the Dems he faces, he's a worthy choice. And if he did indeed get more votes in 2020 than in 2016, it ain't hurting him as badly as you seem to believe it must.
September 9, 2024 at 1:25 PM
"Make up your mind. It's either a matter of the 11th commandment or it's not."
"Is it, if they've gone off the reservation? The bigger question is why waste time over a bunch of has beens who have not power or clout?"
So it's situation and/or person specific? Is that really what Reagan meant? But don't worry. Aside from the comedic value, I'm not especially supportive of spending too much time ripping on RINOs or any other GOP person.
" Since I've never suggested this, why should I waste my time with this straw man? Well, since a big chunk of those 81 million were going to vote DFL no matter what, that seems a stretch."
Not a straw man, but taking your argument to its logical conclusion. By what he says or doesn't say, does or doesn't do, he either draws support or rejection and the fact that some are hard-core Dems doesn't change that reality.
"However, it seems likely that some number of independent voters were turned off by Trump being Trump, which Trump likely bears some responsibility for."
To paraphrase Abe Lincoln...you can please some of the people all of the time, and you can please all of the people some of the time, but you can't please all of the people all of the time. But I again insist that to please people does also require the people to have an open mind and/or the intelligence to look beyond aspects one might find displeasing if the state of the nation hangs in the balance...which it most certainly does now. You can calm yourself by supposing Harris won't have support enough to get much done, or that Trump won't have enough, either. But given the last dozen years, I'm not willing to take that chance. And worse than the single issue voters are those who reject Trump for being Trump, as if by being Trump he made things worse, or will make things worse than Harris, Biden or any other Dem being considered. It's absurd.
"YOU'RE the one who repeated the DNC plans to push for an amendment protecting infanticide. We KNOW the left has moved where they could to enact abortion up until birth. Yet, you're suggesting a Harris win because of single issue voters rejecting Trump isn't a suicidal move for their "principles"? OK."
"The fact that the left has been pushing unrestricted by anything until birth and are laying the groundwork for post birth abortion in the academy, is hardly a guarantee that it'll get passed in the next 4 years even assuming a DFL controlled legislature. Which is hardly the national suicide pact you present a Harris administration as."
It is indeed for the single issue voter. And on top of that is all the other death resulting from Dem policies, as we've seen over the last four years. But you're going to have to decide if the push for a pro-abortion amendment nationally is an actual concern or not if you're going to rip Trump for changing the platform language because of it.
"FYI, we spend a lot of time in our business looking at economic trends and forecasts to prepare for future markets. Our internal experts have made their predictions for the next year or so and see no significant changes regardless of how the election comes out. Obviously, projections are projections, but I think that the 2025 economic results are pretty much set in drying concrete at this point."
What were they like prior to 2020? I bet they were upset pretty well after. I wouldn't necessarily crap on those projections given how poorly the economy was treated under Biden. It will likely take at least that first year to begin to turn it around. I hope not much longer.
"What "change"? Altering the platform? That's nonsense. He isn't "pro-abortion" and that change nor subsequent comments since then are NOT proof of any change. To hold Trump responsible for the stupidity of others is absurd."
"The platform change, his adopting the language of the pro-abortion side. Again, I've never claimed (not even once, let along hinted at) Trump being "pro-abortion". Read what I write. To hold Trump responsible for his own actions (stupid or not) is normal."
So what does "not pro-life in any meaningful sense" mean? How meaningful sense must it be in order to be actually pro-life?
"I don't like that the wording was changed. I think it was a bad move. But it how does that justify or rationalize rejecting Trump in November? HOW? "
"If enough pro-lifers don't vote for Trump in November, who cares about the "HOW?", it's all about the WHAT (and that's who that % of Trump voters vote for, or don't vote). Who cares about "HOW?" if Trump loses? Like it or not, blame anybody but Trump or not, he's managed to piss off some unknown portion of his base. That fact is simply the reality we are faced with. Hopefully he can counterbalance those pro-lifers with pro-choicers or that he doesn't need to."
Hopefully those who think are willing to push back against those who would reject Trump over this issue, given it is an absurd and selfish act on their part for no legitimate reason. Justification is essential for serious decisions. There is none for this one. If you think it risks the outcome of the election, you should take every opportunity presented to disabuse them of this nonsensical choice.
Your comments suggest intention. Your comments don't allow that he likely didn't feel anyone would get pissed over changing the platform after the issue was no longer a federal one after Dobbs. Yet, you insist that he pissed people off by doing so. If there's no intention, then to hold him responsible for pissing people off is unjust, particularly when the action doesn't justify the response in any way. "I can get away with pissing them off." Where did he say anything like this? You've inferred it based on nothing but the action, as if it was considered and ignored. That suggests some degree of intention...whether you intended that or not.
"I know it's maybe a foreign concept to you, but for most people it's a matter of going out of one's way to placate those one has pissed off."
First, again, if he didn't intend to piss anyone off, they chose to be pissed. Secondly, he reiterated that the issue is no longer the purview of the federal government, but that wasn't enough, evidently, for those who chose to be pissed on the false premise that he betrayed the cause.
It's absolutely absurd to insist that any candidate must account for any form or manifestation of misunderstanding or continue to clam irrational fears about his position. At what point exactly are voters to feel any obligation to do their own work? None of them can insist as they do by asserting what he's never said. "Trump said 'horse'. They're saying he said 'tree'. It's Trump's fault!"
"Because it's not my f'ing job to reassure people of something that no one knows to be True."
But you'll allow them to believe that for which there is no evidence and potentially allow the greater of two evils to prevail. You're a great American.
"It's Trump's job to reassure them of that."
I'd say it's the job of anyone who claims to care about the future of the nation. But that's just me.
"Since when is trump immune from criticism?"
Never. I think we've both criticized him for a number of things. I choose to only criticize that for which he's actually to blame. Single-issue voters rejecting him over the abortion issue is not one of them.
Part of the problem is that, despite your valiant attempt to portray him in the worst possible light, his use of the expression has not, to my knowledge, been clearly explained. And before you get all snarky in pretending I'm expecting you to provide any links...which would have helped your case...or that I've completed an investigation to get that explanation and it's not your problem I've as yet not found it, I'm simply saying that without one, it's lazy to insist he's talking like a radical feminist. And worse, it's dishonest to replace what he said with what he didn't. "Abortion friendly"? Really? Haven't you been whining that I've been attributing to you what you haven't said?
It should be remembered that as chief law enforcement officer of the nation, he's expected to see laws obeyed. Look up that term and you'll be given the AG of the US, but under Article II of the US Constitution, "he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,..." As such, as there are laws providing for the legal termination of people in utero, he does have some responsibility to see those laws are faithfully executed as well. That's not a betrayal, either, but his job.
And I have no problem with those words and phrases appropriated by the left to bullshit the nation being used by their proper and accurate meaning. Indeed, I'd love to see "gay" used more often to again refer to "lighthearted and carefree", "happily excited", "merry", "keenly alive and exuberant", "having or inducing high spirits", "bright, lively" instead of queer. "The War On Women" is also commonly understood to include, if not primarily mean abortion rights. How much better to use it to describe the consequences of Democrat policies, such as abortion, "trans" rights", men competing against women and inhabiting women's private spaces?
"That's true, which makes Trump's use of the phrase, which means abortion as it's most often used, pretty stupid."
Careful! I've been told that calling people "stupid" is no way to persuade them.
"No one demands perfection, and your continued prating about this straw man is getting extremely old."
Yet it's appropriate every time I see you criticizing him when he's not. It wouldn't be so bad if there was some balance. You're like freakin' CNN and MSNBC speaking only of him in negative ways, or far more than the few, almost token examples of positive ways. Didn't I just recently do a search for your blog posts regarding this disparity? Yes. I think I did. Didn't find too many such positives to balance out all the criticism. So rag on about this being a straw man if you like.
"In order to be a POW, one has to serve their country in time of war."
And here you go again. But one wonders why McCain took it so hard? Could it be that his being shot down was the result of his own choices, rather than just a typical downing by the enemy? I've read a few pieces which suggest just that, citing his known disregard for proper protocols when he didn't feel like abiding them. Regardless of all that, I don't disagree that Trump's choice of words was really stupid (OH SHIT! I DID IT AGAIN!). I'm saying that I get his point regarding what constitutes winners and losers in war. Certainly excellent soldiers get killed and taken prisoner. Does that make all killed and imprisoned excellent soldiers? "Winners"? I don't think so. The goal is to win. Getting killed or taken prisoner is not how wars are won. Those are just things that happen along the way. It happens when wars are lost, too. What of them? Are they still "winners"? It's useless bitching about the poor choice of words.
"Who cares if McCain was a "dick"? MacArthur was a "dick". Patton was a "dick". Sherman and Grant were "disks". Since when does being a "dick" disqualify one from respect for their service?"
There are different reasons one can be regarded as a dick by others. Tampon Tim is regarded as a dick and he served 14 years. If one is considered a dick because of an unrelenting drive to win the war, and thus suffers no fools among his troops, that person isn't so much a dick, but called one by those who must respond as demanded in order to win. Those who regarded McCain as a dick (others who served with him or were aware of him during that time), claim he's the type of dick for which there is little to commend. A careless hot dog who flaunted his pedigree. A dick. And because Trump didn't worship him for his service, McCain acted like a dick in a manner which guaranteed the massive increase in health care costs known as ACA/Obamacare...just to stick it to Trump. A dick of the highest order, as if his "record of service" means more than what's best for the nation. What a dick!
"Then the thousands of Allied POW, without whom WW2 would have been lost were "losers", gotcha."
You clearly mean to cling to this as a reason to rationalize your dislike for the man. But I'm just guessing here, but of all those thousands, how many were taken prisoner during battles won? Asking for a friend.
"I'm thinking that "losers' is a stupid way to describe them."
I don't. I fully confident it is. But let's all focus on that and not do a fucking thing to understand why he thinks so. Why, it's almost as if he doesn't give a flying rat's ass about our soldiers dying or being taken prisoner! Let's go with that because it can't possibly be anything else. I just wish I could read hearts like you can! What a gift. All I can do is see the future!
"Strange that the US military doesn't think so."
Of course they don't, and I wouldn't expect them to.
"POW's got (for example) the WW2 victory medal, were promoted, remained in the military, were given command positions, and have always been obligated to continue the war from their POW camps."
All of them?! Every damned one of them?!
You didn't have to go through all this shit. But despite how stupid it was to say...and I know I'm taking a big risk in saying he was stupid for saying it, given how calling people stupid when they do stupid things is just such a bad idea...this, too, would be a stupid (damn!) reason to reject him for president in November. I wonder, though...who wouldn't also prefer that no soldier of ours ever be taken prisoner? Seems to me that would fall under the heading of "mission failure".
I would also point out that I recall he simply said he preferred those who weren't taken prisoner. I don't believe he referred to them as losers, though he may have said so in some context about McCain, who was a dick. Have you bought into the unproven "suckers and losers" narrative? So, if he simply said he prefers those not taken prisoner, I would say again that I also prefer none be.
"How many single issue voters have you persuaded to recant their rejection and vote for Trump?"
"No idea."
Let me rephrase the question: How many have you "attempted" to persuade to recant their rejection of Trump to instead renew their support for him? As I stated in the appropriate thread, I went through all the tweets of the single-issue people and made my pitch (didn't call anyone "stupid", because I don't do that straight away). I didn't go through all the comments following each tweet. Would I have found any pleas from you encouraging them to reconsider?
Stupid statements aren't just fair game. They must be dealt with fairly. You don't do that. You're clearly regarding each as rationalization for your low opinion of the guy. That's OK. You're not required to love him at all. But when speaking of his positions on issues, it's a good idea to refrain from injecting your personal biases against him, which shows up in suggestions that I indulge in "giving him a pass" when I'm simply presenting a perspective which is at least just as likely the case.
"I follow the evidence where it leads."
I'm sure you like to believe you do, but I don't think you're coming anywhere near and accurate representation of what I've been saying. You have no problem saying the same of me, but with far less evidence.
As to "drinking the Kool Aid", that is indeed an expression signifying a suicidal act. But more accurately, it refers to suicide based on false information or a false premise. The Jonestown folk believed what they believed and died for it, but it wasn't true. The same holds for those who think Trump betrayed them and to allow him to lose as a result is suicidal in the same way the Jonestown folks were.
"That's your choice, I guess when it comes to politics Jesus' teachings get set aside. As long as you can destroy your enemies, you're all good."
In the meantime, it seems quite clear that YOUR choice is to allow any and all manner of harm to impose itself on your family, friends and nation while satisfying yourself that you're doing Jesus a solid by not calling a spade a spade. Good luck with that. Jesus will do what Jesus will do. But we're supposed to do good by our fellow man and that sometimes require a slap in the head...sometimes rhetorically (hopefully most times) and sometimes physically...in order to correct serious error. I contend that it's a matter of probability that things will worsen under Harris as we have no more reason to suspect we'll get a more conservative Congress than not. Given she...until she had to start campaigning in earnest...insisted she was involved with every stupid policy and act of the Harris/Biden administration, it's far more likely we'll get more of the same should she win than not. It's absurd to leave it to chance and lazily profess God's sovereignty as an excuse for not acting more aggressively to promote the better candidate. I don't give a crap how low the bar is. It's equally crap to suggest that the difference in governance won't be markedly superior under Trump, rather than simply slightly so.
"Don't waste a lot of time worrying about how others created in the image of YHWH choose to vote."
Yeah...as if it has no possible affect on the lives of those I love. What a cheap dodge! But hey...thanks for insulting me by presuming this crap has any meaning in the here and now...more so than encouraging those in the image of YHWH to act responsibly with the lives of their countrymen in mind. That's so compelling.
"I have conversations, and try to persuade, but forcing or browbeating someone isn't productive or Christlike. But, by all means, tell us how many people you've "converted" using your tactics? How's that working for you."
Three for sure, though there may be more. It works quite well, unless you wish to continue believing I begin such attempts with "Hey, dumbfuck!" which I don't. I speak of the stupidity of their choices by explaining how those they support or reject actually bring about harm or benefit, and then speak to the stupidity of their positions by using analogies and pointing out what they believe isn't true. Then, the stupidity of their positions may become clear to them. It doesn't always work. It sure hasn't with Dan, who remains a moron. But when someone sees how wrong they are, one needn't call them stupid, as they feel stupid for having believed it. But stupidity is not off the table entirely, and the use of the word has it's place. No one wants to be stupid or regarded as such. But if the stupidity of their positions isn't made clear to them, they will more than likely continue to cling to those positions, believing them to be intelligent.
That's a very loose explanation of how I go about things. But there is a point where I let loose, because they're stupidity (any choice of or allowance of Dem victory is demonstrably stupid---I don't think I should have to provide an actual demonstration for you in order for you to know it's true) is harmful in so many ways and I care about those harmed...very much so.
I don't know. Maybe you've had it easy during the Biden years. I know too many who haven't, and it ain't necessarily been a picnic for me now that I'm on a fixed income. Worse are all those about whom we constantly see in the news who've suffered really serious shit. I don't know if it will continue or worsen under Harris. But given she's been a partner in the proliferation of all it over the last four years, one would have to be STUPID to suppose it can't be one or the other. I'm unwilling to take the chance. If my Lord has a problem with me pointing out stupidity where the suffering of others is likely because of it, I'll take my chances with Him. I don't believe He's good with us ignoring the real probability of human suffering as subordinate to "being nice" to those enabling it.
"Because Jesus spoke specifically and unambiguously to how we should treat our enemies, further we can see how He chose to deal with His enemies."
You call Trump stupid, I call those who reject him over nonsense stupid. But to your again cheaply citing Christ to pretend you're on more solid ground, I'll offer Ecclesiastes 3:1. There's a time to take off the kid gloves and deal with the underlying truth of a matter in a way that leaves no mistaking of it.
" That's quite to verbal gymnastics. To claim to be 100% right, without actually having to be 100% right is quite a claim. I'm impressed."
Don't be a McCain. Are you really suggesting that I need to be 100% accurate on every detail in order to be 100% accurate that Trump will improve things and Harris will worsen them? Really? You're that desperate? Good golly!
"Well, I'm just following your example in a toned down manner. I've agreed that it is most likely that things will be "better" or at least less bad if Trump wins."
If this is so, then I don't see the problem with doing whatever necessary...including calling stupid people stupid...to help ensure that things will be at least "less bad". Keep in mind all the deaths beyond the unborn since Biden took over and then act like "less bad" is only a matter of inches rather than miles. Talk about gymnastics! You're quite limber in your work to defend single-issue voters!
Straw men? You're playing both sides of the issue here. I've erected no straw men at all!
I don't think Trump was the reason he picked up a couple of notable former Dems (though Kennedy certainly remains one). Bobby and Tulsi left of their own accord and recognize the party is so destructive that they are now working with the only guy who stands in their way. Trump didn't actively court them specifically, though he may have let them know they were welcome. And besides the false notion that he's betrayed the single-issue pro-lifers, where has he moved to the left? Maybe I've missed something.
"You can keep going if you want, just like Dan I'll approve your comments, but I'm done with the made up, straw men, and you claiming I said things I haven't."
Wow! Just think of how bad it would be if I had actually done either of those things!
"I'm going to note that if you're this vitriolic and combative with someone who is going to vote for Trump, and who's arrived at the same conclusion as you independently, then I'm guessing that you have very little success with those who don't agree with you."
If I've gone as long in a discussion as I have on this issue with you, then at some point beyond it's beginning I'll likely have gotten a lot worse. There comes a time when it's apparent that success is unlikely, and from then, if I choose to continue, I'll get aggressive in my argumentation. But it's crystal clear that those single-issue voters aren't as pro-life as they think they are, if letting Harris win the election constitutes a standing on their principles. I've listed all the ways lives have been lost since Jan 2021. Like you, they seem willing to ignore it as if it's meaningless compared to abortion. So as I continue to consider the probabilities of either outcome, I'm convicted in my belief that their "principles" aren't as "pro-life" as they would have us believe and their rejection of Trump as a result of something which should not in any way provoke such a rejection affirms my low regard for them. I love how convicted they are in opposition to abortion. But they've allowed that to ignore all other lives which are also on the table. That you've chosen to defend them against my rational and fact based objections to their decision. or attack me for daring to object, is beyond the pale.
Lives are at risk and I'm the bad guy for referring to this choice as stupid. It is THAT which has compelled what you regard as vitriol. By your logic, you're totally responsible for that.
As promised, I posted your comments. Also as promised, I'm not wasting the time.
I'll simply note that a quick scan didn't show me any effort to deal with the "POW's=losers" issue.
I'll follow up with this. One of the most significant POW captures of WW2 was early in the war after Torch around the time if Kasserine pass. For many reasons, poor leadership being one, a significant number of untried US units facing veteran Afrika Corps units were defeated and captured. Are you really telling me that the individual troops who were captured were "losers", when they were sent into battle less prepared than they should have been? Wouldn't that have really made Eisenhower, FDR, Marshall, Fredenhall, and Anderson were the "losers"?
It's possible that I accidentally deleted a comment on this. I apologize for that.
Post a Comment