|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On October 05 2024 01:23 Billyboy wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2024 01:15 oBlade wrote:
I'm not Chris Matthews but I'm pretty sure the wife of a president coming out against abortion would be the position that would result in less support from pro-choice/anti-baby women voters. You are wrong, everyone is against abortion, it is a horrible experience for everyone involved. It just just a choice that many people believe woman and doctors should have. Melania came out with the exact opposite position that her husband is currently saying he has.
You mean Melania wouldn't veto a national abortion ban?
|
On October 05 2024 01:40 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2024 01:23 Billyboy wrote:On October 05 2024 01:15 oBlade wrote:
I'm not Chris Matthews but I'm pretty sure the wife of a president coming out against abortion would be the position that would result in less support from pro-choice/anti-baby women voters. You are wrong, everyone is against abortion, it is a horrible experience for everyone involved. It just just a choice that many people believe woman and doctors should have. Melania came out with the exact opposite position that her husband is currently saying he has. You mean Melania wouldn't veto a national abortion ban?
I mean what I said and I'm not interested in your games.
|
On October 05 2024 01:46 Billyboy wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2024 01:40 oBlade wrote:On October 05 2024 01:23 Billyboy wrote:On October 05 2024 01:15 oBlade wrote:
I'm not Chris Matthews but I'm pretty sure the wife of a president coming out against abortion would be the position that would result in less support from pro-choice/anti-baby women voters. You are wrong, everyone is against abortion, it is a horrible experience for everyone involved. It just just a choice that many people believe woman and doctors should have. Melania came out with the exact opposite position that her husband is currently saying he has. You mean Melania wouldn't veto a national abortion ban? I mean what I said and I'm not interested in your games.
I believe you mean what you said, but also that you haven't been informed properly to know what Drumpf said, because he's said ever since the overturning of Roe v. Wade, which put him in a hard place with eternally unsatisfied social conservatives, that the decision should now be left to the states - meaning people can go back to passing laws about it.
And two days ago he reiterated he would veto a national abortion ban.
So while I physically understand what you mean, unless he said something different today which is what "currently saying he has" might imply, I have no idea what you're talking about. The guy was a Democrat for decades and alleged by this thread fucked everything that moves, he's not socially conservative.
|
On October 05 2024 01:53 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2024 01:46 Billyboy wrote:On October 05 2024 01:40 oBlade wrote:On October 05 2024 01:23 Billyboy wrote:On October 05 2024 01:15 oBlade wrote:
I'm not Chris Matthews but I'm pretty sure the wife of a president coming out against abortion would be the position that would result in less support from pro-choice/anti-baby women voters. You are wrong, everyone is against abortion, it is a horrible experience for everyone involved. It just just a choice that many people believe woman and doctors should have. Melania came out with the exact opposite position that her husband is currently saying he has. You mean Melania wouldn't veto a national abortion ban? I mean what I said and I'm not interested in your games. I believe you mean what you said, but also that you haven't been informed properly to know what Drumpf said, because he's said ever since the overturning of Roe v. Wade, which put him in a hard place with eternally unsatisfied social conservatives, that the decision should now be left to the states - meaning people can go back to passing laws about it. And two days ago he reiterated he would veto a national abortion ban.So while I physically understand what you mean, unless he said something different today which is what "currently saying he has" might imply, I have no idea what you're talking about. The guy was a Democrat for decades and alleged by this thread fucked everything that moves, he's not socially conservative. Hey remember when Kavanaugh said Roe V Wade was settled law?
Pepperidge farm remembers.
|
On October 05 2024 01:53 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2024 01:46 Billyboy wrote:On October 05 2024 01:40 oBlade wrote:On October 05 2024 01:23 Billyboy wrote:On October 05 2024 01:15 oBlade wrote:
I'm not Chris Matthews but I'm pretty sure the wife of a president coming out against abortion would be the position that would result in less support from pro-choice/anti-baby women voters. You are wrong, everyone is against abortion, it is a horrible experience for everyone involved. It just just a choice that many people believe woman and doctors should have. Melania came out with the exact opposite position that her husband is currently saying he has. You mean Melania wouldn't veto a national abortion ban? I mean what I said and I'm not interested in your games. I believe you mean what you said, but also that you haven't been informed properly to know what Drumpf said, because he's said ever since the overturning of Roe v. Wade, which put him in a hard place with eternally unsatisfied social conservatives, that the decision should now be left to the states - meaning people can go back to passing laws about it. And two days ago he reiterated he would veto a national abortion ban.So while I physically understand what you mean, unless he said something different today which is what "currently saying he has" might imply, I have no idea what you're talking about. The guy was a Democrat for decades and alleged by this thread fucked everything that moves, he's not socially conservative.
If you think Trump is telling the truth about that - that he would never sign a national abortion ban - you're even more gullible than I thought. He immediately switches his position - especially on abortion - whenever the opportunity benefits him. It would take two seconds for any Republican congressperson to play Trump like a fiddle:
Trump: I would veto a national abortion ban.
Any Republican Representative or Senator: If you sign this national abortion ban, I'll start spreading the word that you deserve a third term as president if you want (22nd Amendment be damned), or a special federal fund to give you more money and other influence after your second term has ended (legality and morality be damned).
Trump: I now support a national abortion ban.
|
|
|
On October 05 2024 01:53 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2024 01:46 Billyboy wrote:On October 05 2024 01:40 oBlade wrote:On October 05 2024 01:23 Billyboy wrote:On October 05 2024 01:15 oBlade wrote:
I'm not Chris Matthews but I'm pretty sure the wife of a president coming out against abortion would be the position that would result in less support from pro-choice/anti-baby women voters. You are wrong, everyone is against abortion, it is a horrible experience for everyone involved. It just just a choice that many people believe woman and doctors should have. Melania came out with the exact opposite position that her husband is currently saying he has. You mean Melania wouldn't veto a national abortion ban? I mean what I said and I'm not interested in your games. I believe you mean what you said, but also that you haven't been informed properly to know what Drumpf said, because he's said ever since the overturning of Roe v. Wade, which put him in a hard place with eternally unsatisfied social conservatives, that the decision should now be left to the states - meaning people can go back to passing laws about it. And two days ago he reiterated he would veto a national abortion ban.So while I physically understand what you mean, unless he said something different today which is what "currently saying he has" might imply, I have no idea what you're talking about. The guy was a Democrat for decades and alleged by this thread fucked everything that moves, he's not socially conservative.
Wrong again, I know what Trump has said and it is all over the map like with every issue because all he really cares about himself. So how I judge him is different than you, I don't just take the things he says I like and believe them, I look into his actions. He appointed SCJ who were all very socially conservative and the voted down Rowe.
The whole believing the parts you like part of MAGA and regular Republicans who have no jumped of the crazy train boggles my mind. Everything he says is basically meaningless and now a days pretty hard to even understand.
Like the other day he was talking about how you should vote for a President who doesn't need a teleprompter, while reading off a teleprompter. It is just really dumb shit.
|
|
|
Canada11262 Posts
On October 03 2024 02:18 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2024 01:05 NewSunshine wrote:On October 03 2024 00:32 oBlade wrote:On October 02 2024 23:53 NewSunshine wrote:
Trump, getting convicted of fraud at 79? Turn his life around? Just imagine the inspirational success story of a felon who became so rehabilitated as to accede to the presidency of the US. It's been curious watching Republicans try to have their cake and eat it too in real time, when it comes to posturing as the "rule of law" party. Trump has been very open about the crimes he's committed, and finally capped it off with a conviction of 34 counts of fraud this summer. His buddy Vance showed last night that he also doesn't seem to understand how the law works, guess it doesn't seem to be a requisite for Republican leadership anymore. If there's one thing Republicans had been consistent on until Drumpf was convicted, it was their support of Democratic prosecutors in their application of the law. From Chesa Boudin to Andrew Warren to Kim Foxx to Kamala Harris to Merrick Garland and the Obama and Biden DOJs to the FBI and CIA... it's only when they finally convict Drumpf of fraud to influence an election that already happened that Republicans cry foul and take back their unconditional support. Show nested quote +On October 03 2024 01:43 Falling wrote:On October 03 2024 00:32 oBlade wrote:On October 02 2024 23:53 NewSunshine wrote:
Trump, getting convicted of fraud at 79? Turn his life around? Just imagine the inspirational success story of a felon who became so rehabilitated as to accede to the presidency of the US. I would expect such a person to at least confess their wrongdoing to know that they have truly repented and wouldn't simply be a repeat offender. Trump seems constitutionally incapable of doing that minimal but necessary action. Where's his come to Jesus moment? Come to Jesus? July 13th, there were some loud popping noises when Drumpf fell at a rally. Pretty sure the well is poisoned at that point, Drumpf could come out as FDR tomorrow with a weeping apology and be met with "so now apologize for lying about xyz, too bad can't trust someone who admits to lying." Show nested quote +On October 03 2024 01:43 Falling wrote:
How can we say he has rehabilitated when he continues to maintain the same lie that he never lost the election and he did nothing wrong with putting forth the false elector slate? Firstly because that wasn't any of the 34 counts, but for curiosity's sake when's the last time he continued to maintain that?
When was the last?
When did he stop???
https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/113098755955857290
CEASE & DESIST: I, together with many Attorneys and Legal Scholars, am watching the Sanctity of the 2024 Presidential Election very closely because I know, better than most, the rampant Cheating and Skullduggery that has taken place by the Democrats in the 2020 Presidential Election. It was a Disgrace to our Nation! Therefore, the 2024 Election, where Votes have just started being cast, will be under the closest professional scrutiny and, WHEN I WIN, those people that CHEATED will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the Law, which will include long term prison sentences so that this Depravity of Justice does not happen again. We cannot let our Country further devolve into a Third World Nation, AND WE WON’T! Please beware that this legal exposure extends to Lawyers, Political Operatives, Donors, Illegal Voters, & Corrupt Election Officials. Those involved in unscrupulous behavior will be sought out, caught, and prosecuted at levels, unfortunately, never seen before in our Country.
He has without ceasing argued the elections were rigged against him in 2016, 2020, and now in 2024. His whole basis of saying he didn't lose is by ignoring all evidence to the contrary, believing clipped lies (or maliciously spreading them in full knowledge that they are lies) of voter fraud. And it is on that basis that he tried to over-turn the election results of the citizens of America. He has not changed and has given no evidence of change. Rather, none of the patriotic constitutionalist Republicans are with him to stop him this time. Instead, he has JD Vance who said he would not have certified the vote.
But, sure. Never admit wrongdoing because the other side will always demand more. No more than a murderer should ever admit guilt as the system will always demand more. Go to the grave proclaiming your innocence and mock the very idea of your guilt! This is no the guilty by association gotcha play book that Democrats sometimes like to play where they string endless number of people you must disavow. Trump poisoned his own well. And now Trump defenders would have us believe we're the bad guys for saying he did so.
Your argument that people should support a Trump presidential run because Democrats believe in rehabilitating criminals is a rhetorical game without any merit. No more than anyone would ever argue to put someone who is guilty of embezzlement, who has never admitted that they did embezzle and further has stated he would do the same thing again... no one would consider putting that guy back in charge as a CFO of a corporation and hail it as a success story to rehabilitation. Not the most die-hard bleeding heart liberal (and I am far from one) would ever argue that. It a mockery of the idea and you know it.
|
|
|
On October 05 2024 02:12 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:His rhetoric on abortions has changed so frequently, that it's hard to pinpoint the last time he switched. Here was his position a few months ago, in March: "Donald Trump suggested Tuesday that he’d support a national ban on abortions around 15 weeks of pregnancy, voicing for the first time support for a specific limit on the procedure." https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/trump-says-he-will-support-national-ban-on-abortions-around-15-weeks-of-pregnancy "No abortions after 15 weeks, regardless of the states'/voters' preferences" is completely different from "letting the states decide". He was clearly fine with federally outlawing abortion earlier this year.
Here is the full quote which you and PBS both read what you want into:
“We’re going to come up with a time — and maybe we could bring the country together on that issue,” Trump said while calling into the “Sid & Friends in the Morning” show on WABC.
Trump went on to say: “The number of weeks now, people are agreeing on 15. And I’m thinking in terms of that. And it’ll come out to something that’s very reasonable. But people are really, even hard-liners are agreeing, seems to be, 15 weeks seems to be a number that people are agreeing at.”
At the same time, Trump seemed to suggest reluctance to a federal ban.
“Everybody agrees — you’ve heard this for years — all the legal scholars on both sides agree: It’s a state issue. It shouldn’t be a federal issue, it’s a state issue,” he said.
This is him observing while editorializing what he thinks the national conversation is, and looking for a deal.
There's 3 positions in this, he's unabashedly pro-choice until he decided to position as opposition to Democrats during the Obama administration, at which point he became pro life. Saying "overturn Roe v. Wade" and "nominating Neil Gorsuch" are not 2 separate, contributing to 20 separate, positions, the latter isn't even a position at all. Overturning Roe v. Wade is itself a compromise because it allows legislatures to go in either direction. It's also not a result he wanted because of the fallout.
During his administration he supported a 20 week ban which is a completely reasonable compromise and more than most of Europe has. If your worldview is anything outside of all 3 trimesters no excuse whatsoever is anti-choice anti-woman, then yes, for a time he was politically anti the choice of someone to terminate their fetus after 5 months with no reason. Now he's gone from 5 months nationally, to saying fuck it nationally, and if some states want 6 weeks and others want 9 months it's not his problem anymore. Which averages to about 5 months.
On October 05 2024 02:21 Falling wrote:
Your argument that people should support a Trump presidential run because Democrats believe in rehabilitating criminals is a rhetorical game without any merit. No more than anyone would ever argue to put someone who is guilty of embezzlement, who has never admitted that they did embezzle and further has stated he would do the same thing again... no one would consider putting that guy back in charge as a CFO of a corporation and hail it as a success story to rehabilitation. Not the most die-hard bleeding heart liberal (and I am far from one) would ever argue that. It a mockery of the idea and you know it.
Yes, that's on purpose because going "look, a criminal" when you have someone from one party elected to a position in the criminal justice system on the specific promise to prosecute the other party for something, to get them, and they get felony convictions that involve "falsifying business records" from 2017 to influence an election that happened in 2016, when NDAs are not illegal, when Hillary Clinton paid a mere SEC fine and escaped any felony justice for her finance trickery surrounding the Bullshit Dossier which was clearly bought to influence an election - that's not about crime and justice, it's third world bullshit that deserves to be mocked out of the country.
|
"But Trump said"
How the absolutely fuck are you trying to argue any point about anything anywhere by using Trumps word.
No one cares what Trump has said, his word is not a counter to anything.
Conservative Republicans and project 25 want to federally ban abortions, Trumps word does nothing to counter that.
|
On October 05 2024 02:42 Gorsameth wrote:
"But Trump said"
How the absolutely fuck are you trying to argue any point about anything anywhere by using Trumps word.
No one cares what Trump has said
1) It's a little more involved than that.
2) I trust him as a primary source more than what you think he said* (see below)
3) Nearly all you talk about is what Drumpf says.
On October 05 2024 02:42 Gorsameth wrote:
Conservative Republicans and project 25 want to federally ban abortions, Trumps word does nothing to counter that.
A federal abortion ban would never have the support to pass the Senate. They haven't even passed a symbolic one in the House, which is what they usually do when they know something has no consequence, like when they passed the 20-week ban when Obama was president (which by the way, does pick up a few Democratic votes, making it bipartisan - wow).
You can't be the same people going "Drumpf killed the border bill that paid $60 billion to Ukraine" also saying "The Republicans are banning abortion no matter what Drumpf does."
*You said Project 2025 wants to federally ban abortions. Not only do I get the honor of being the person to explain on this page that Drumpf isn't Project 2025, my search of Project 2025 is it wants to ban federal funding for abortions and undo approvals for abortifacient medication. Banning federal funding is different than banning abortion at the federal level - it's akin to arguing over Planned Parenthood that even if abortion is legal, maybe taxpayer money being spent on it is a bridge too far. Totally different things. They just both have the word "federal."
|
Regardless of what he's saying, if you didn't watch his first 4 years and conclude that he'll say whatever the fuck he wants while Republicans in Congress and in SCOTUS enact a hard right agenda with no opposition from Trump whatsoever, then you didn't see the same 4 years under Trump that the rest of America did. He will stand there and say whatever he thinks will play well, and he will let people smarter than him enact their agenda, and he will take no responsibility either way. That's literally exactly what he already did. So who gives a shit what his stated position is? Actions versus words.
They literally already have the full plan in Project 2025, all he's gonna do is stand there looking lost while his family members in his cabinet implement as much of it as they can, while he "opposes" it. Great, he's against it, but he's allowing it to happen, who gives a fuck? He's the president in this scenario. "The buck stops here."
|
On October 05 2024 02:27 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2024 02:12 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:His rhetoric on abortions has changed so frequently, that it's hard to pinpoint the last time he switched. Here was his position a few months ago, in March: "Donald Trump suggested Tuesday that he’d support a national ban on abortions around 15 weeks of pregnancy, voicing for the first time support for a specific limit on the procedure." https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/trump-says-he-will-support-national-ban-on-abortions-around-15-weeks-of-pregnancy "No abortions after 15 weeks, regardless of the states'/voters' preferences" is completely different from "letting the states decide". He was clearly fine with federally outlawing abortion earlier this year. Here is the full quote which you and PBS both read what you want into: Show nested quote +“We’re going to come up with a time — and maybe we could bring the country together on that issue,” Trump said while calling into the “Sid & Friends in the Morning” show on WABC.
Trump went on to say: “The number of weeks now, people are agreeing on 15. And I’m thinking in terms of that. And it’ll come out to something that’s very reasonable. But people are really, even hard-liners are agreeing, seems to be, 15 weeks seems to be a number that people are agreeing at.”
At the same time, Trump seemed to suggest reluctance to a federal ban.
“Everybody agrees — you’ve heard this for years — all the legal scholars on both sides agree: It’s a state issue. It shouldn’t be a federal issue, it’s a state issue,” he said. This is him observing while editorializing what he thinks the national conversation is, and looking for a deal. There's 3 positions in this, he's unabashedly pro-choice until he decided to position as opposition to Democrats during the Obama administration, at which point he became pro life. Saying "overturn Roe v. Wade" and "nominating Neil Gorsuch" are not 2 separate, contributing to 20 separate, positions, the latter isn't even a position at all. Overturning Roe v. Wade is itself a compromise because it allows legislatures to go in either direction. It's also not a result he wanted because of the fallout.
If he deserts a position and then goes back to it later, I counted it, because it warrants being counted as "switching his position". He's switched his position many times, and he lies all the time.
During his administration he supported a 20 week ban which is a completely reasonable compromise and more than most of Europe has. If your worldview is anything outside of all 3 trimesters no excuse whatsoever is anti-choice anti-woman, then yes, for a time he was politically anti the choice of someone to terminate their fetus after 5 months with no reason. Now he's gone from 5 months nationally, to saying fuck it nationally, and if some states want 6 weeks and others want 9 months it's not his problem anymore. Which averages to about 5 months.
That's. A. Ban.
Full stop.
I don't care if you think that a federal abortion ban after X weeks is a "reasonable compromise". That's not what we're talking about. We're talking about the fact that Trump has supported federal abortion bans in the past, and that obviously him saying that he wouldn't do it again means nothing.
This topic is about you being gullible and believing that what Trump says won't change, not what the ideal abortion laws ought to be.
|
I mean, since when anyone cares about what Trump says on a subject like that? It’s kind of obvious he has no opinion and doesn’t care, and is ready to change his mind the minute it serves him.
I would look more closely at Project 25 to get an idea of what society Americans are aiming at by voting him into office again.
|
On October 05 2024 04:06 Biff The Understudy wrote:
I mean, since when anyone cares about what Trump says on a subject like that? It’s kind of obvious he has no opinion and doesn’t care, and is ready to change his mind the minute it serves him.
I would look more closely at Project 25 to get an idea of what society Americans are aiming at by voting him into office again.
Exactly. Trump says whatever. He is a serial liar and bullshitter. Nothing that comes out his mouth is worth anything. This should be very obvious. Trumps troubled relationship with the truth makes any word he says effectively worthless.
First he says whatever the last guy talking to him told him. The he says whatever random fart his brain spouted in the moment.
Then he will do whatever he thinks will make him personally the most money or make his cult like him more.
|
This is just another case of folks on the right trying to make an appeal to the good faith of others, knowing full well that they're not bringing good faith themselves, and that they plan to abuse it. "Oh, well Trump is saying this and I believe him, you just have to take him at his word." Like fuck I do. He's too stupid to know what he's talking about 90% of the time, and the other 10% he knows better and is lying his ass off.
The difference with Vance is that it's a 90/10 split the other way. He knew he was lying through his teeth when he spread the venom about Haitian immigrants, and during his debate with Walz. It's the difference between someone who always bigs himself up because he's a narcissist vs. someone who deliberately schemes and who knows better.
|
Norway28553 Posts
yeah trump isn't trustworthy on anything and doesn't give a shit about the socially conservative /religious stuff he's just pandering and thus he's liable to pander if that's politically expedient.
But tbh when you guys are talking about 'federal abortion ban' I imagine something that bans abortion, not something that bans abortion after 20 weeks unless the life of the mother is threatened or whatnot. I mean I still don't support that and I think women should be allowed to choose because it is my experience that virtually nobody frivolously has a late term abortion and punishing 97%+ of women who end up being forced to have one through making them jump through a bunch of hoops and making it all the more traumatizing because of some tiny fraction is imo kinda abhorrent - but even Norway - a pretty progressive country by most counts - only allows for abortions during the first 12 weeks entirely at the woman's discretion. If someone in Norway wants to have an abortion after 13 weeks they need to argue their case in front of a medical board.
* Now in 2022 97.3% of those cases were approved, and more than 96% of abortions happen before 12 weeks. Also we're likely to increase 12 weeks to 18 weeks in the coming years, for the reasons stated. But I still don't think 'trump would sign a federal abortion ban' is the same as 'trump would sign a federal abortion ban on 20 week old fetuses'.
|
On October 05 2024 04:24 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2024 04:06 Biff The Understudy wrote:
I mean, since when anyone cares about what Trump says on a subject like that? It’s kind of obvious he has no opinion and doesn’t care, and is ready to change his mind the minute it serves him.
I would look more closely at Project 25 to get an idea of what society Americans are aiming at by voting him into office again. Exactly. Trump says whatever. He is a serial liar and bullshitter. Nothing that comes out his mouth is worth anything. This should be very obvious. Trumps troubled relationship with the truth makes any word he says effectively worthless. First he says whatever the last guy talking to him told him. The he says whatever random fart his brain spouted in the moment. Then he will do whatever he thinks will make him personally the most money or make his cult like him more.
I mean, that’s kind of why on the one hand what people around him say is that much more worth listening to - hence the reason that Project 25 is so terrifying - but it also means that it’s unlikely anything will really be done unless it’s out of spite.
Virtually everything Trump did in his first term was motivated by pure spite and consisted in undoing whatever Obama had done. Very little was ideological, because Trump doesn’t have an ideology other than himself.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
