Yes! #1: don't believe him. #2: don't believe him. #3: don't believe him. It might not be strategic [not his, but someone's in the campaign], but if it serves to make some folks believe, "oh, he is not that bad, I guess" it is extremely dangerous. Do not believe a word Trump says. Ever.
Simple response: “Trump is all in supporting Florida’s extreme abortion ban and also 27 other states’ extreme abortion bans! He takes all the credit for destroying Roe v Wade. Is that what you believe should govern America?”
It is eerie how this issue—and the way in which some politicians are trying to evade it—tracks the slavery issue in 1850s America.
And just as with the slavery issue then, while all the distraction of the “Right to Life” versus “Women's’ Rights” is occupying us, MAGA Republicans are working behind the scenes to make the debate moot by having SCOTUS find a case to declare fetal personhood. That would trump any Women’s Rights or Abortion Legalization efforts.
For all that much of their base are undereducated and easily led, the MAGA leadership are the slyest of schemers.
I wonder about this. I tend to believe that the Heritage Foundation and Cato Institute types are sly schemers, or at least their bankrollers think they are, but they're not the "MAGA leadership." Does MAGA even have a leader? To me MAGA looks like a stampede and Heritage, Cato, ALEC, and the gazillionaires are the cowboys trying to turn it. Fwiw, I'm not betting on the cowboys at this point.
I meant intellectual leader, but they are effective at corralling the crowd when they need them to vote on some new scheme. ALEC has been effective at pushing retrograde legislation from one state to another, Heritage has spread judicial gerrymandering in state courts, etc.
True, all true, but does MAGA itself have an intellectual leader? Trump is its leader -- or at least the magnet that pulls all the iron filings together -- but intellectual he's not. Either of the odious Steves -- Steve Bannon or Stephen Miller -- might qualify, however, if they've got a plan in mind. But I'm not seeing a Lenin or a Zhou Enlai or a Ho Chi Minh in the MAGA mix.
Given the backdrop of the last few years following Dobbs has entirely been a story of states passing extreme abortion bans or activating existing state laws to do this, surely the only way to cover Trumps position is that it’s either enabling extremism or is extreme in itself .
I love the "don't believe him" approach. Because it gives you a chance to also remind everyone that he wants to gut SS and Medicare. He already tried, so there's tangible evidence of what he'd do.
Also, I never understood the "leave it to the states" thing. The primary stated reason any anti-choice person wants to ban abortion is because he/she thinks it is murder. If you think it's murder, it can't just be illegal in some states but not in others. Murder has to be illegal in all states. You can't let states decide whether or not murder is legal. If an anti-choice person gets slick and says, well, it's not just the murder thing, it's that abortion leads to health issues for women (which has not be demonstrably shown). Well, then it's a matter of an individual assessing the risk of a medical procedure vs the benefits, just like having a knee implant, or hernia surgery. That is between her and her doctor. It's not a matter to be legislated. For those reasons, and others, "leave it to the states" is a total cop-out. Regardless of the practical implications, which, as we've seen, are many and terrible, it's logically dubious. Not that Trump/MAGA are very concerned with logic.
The big clue is the *stated* in "stated reason." Everyone I've known who's worked in a women's health clinic, whether as a paid pro or as a volunteer, has at least one story about the clinic picketer who came in to have an abortion. It seems anti-abortion women who have abortions think that they, and only they, have good reasons for doing so. Those "other women" are having abortions because they're promiscuous or careless or some other thing.
The Republicans have been pandering to the religious right since Roe was decided in 1973, and in the decades since it's become clear that the white evangelical tail is wagging the amoral elephant. So to speak. ;-)
You have made points here that I never considered - thank you for that!!! The best one IMO is that "murder can't just be illegal in some states and not in others" <---BRILLIANT!!!
Here is the headline the WaPo and other media *should* have used, but didn't, that explains the pile of nothing Trump "announced" today, along with a decently written piece on it.
While Bragging He Killed Roe, Trump Now Claims Abortion Should Be Left Up To States, While His Campaign Confirms Trump Supports All Statewide Abortion Bans [Gift Link]
Dan’s approach also has power for state & House elections, in blue states as well as red. Abortion is a truly vertical issue, and this from Trump makes it even easier to make this salient to marginally engaged voters.
Trump is making the rookie political mistake of trying not to take a position on a controversial issue in desperate hope of not alienating anyone. But it’s lose-lose because it gives his base nothing to rally around and gives us an opportunity to define his position. Also praising Dobbs and remind everyone it’s now up the states is now is just stupid.
As soon as I heard "let the states decide"... the tap dance was in full force.... not to mention the Supreme Court said the same thing a year ago. What a way to avoid taking a position, when we know full well what he intends to do.
I am curious how this will play with his Evangelical followers. Mike Pence denounced this as not sufficiently pro-life. Not that anyone listens to him, but... the evangelicals want a national ban.
Gee, maybe you could think of an idea. I seem to remember reading in an economics textbook that lowering a barrier to affordability improves supply over time. We currently are at capacity in residential construction and have fewer builders and skilled tradesman than before the 2008 recession. We need a bigger market to create more capacity.
It’s rare these days that Republicans support much. Yet somehow the Dems got a lot passed.
Yes! #1: don't believe him. #2: don't believe him. #3: don't believe him. It might not be strategic [not his, but someone's in the campaign], but if it serves to make some folks believe, "oh, he is not that bad, I guess" it is extremely dangerous. Do not believe a word Trump says. Ever.
Simple response: “Trump is all in supporting Florida’s extreme abortion ban and also 27 other states’ extreme abortion bans! He takes all the credit for destroying Roe v Wade. Is that what you believe should govern America?”
It is eerie how this issue—and the way in which some politicians are trying to evade it—tracks the slavery issue in 1850s America.
And just as with the slavery issue then, while all the distraction of the “Right to Life” versus “Women's’ Rights” is occupying us, MAGA Republicans are working behind the scenes to make the debate moot by having SCOTUS find a case to declare fetal personhood. That would trump any Women’s Rights or Abortion Legalization efforts.
For all that much of their base are undereducated and easily led, the MAGA leadership are the slyest of schemers.
I wonder about this. I tend to believe that the Heritage Foundation and Cato Institute types are sly schemers, or at least their bankrollers think they are, but they're not the "MAGA leadership." Does MAGA even have a leader? To me MAGA looks like a stampede and Heritage, Cato, ALEC, and the gazillionaires are the cowboys trying to turn it. Fwiw, I'm not betting on the cowboys at this point.
I meant intellectual leader, but they are effective at corralling the crowd when they need them to vote on some new scheme. ALEC has been effective at pushing retrograde legislation from one state to another, Heritage has spread judicial gerrymandering in state courts, etc.
True, all true, but does MAGA itself have an intellectual leader? Trump is its leader -- or at least the magnet that pulls all the iron filings together -- but intellectual he's not. Either of the odious Steves -- Steve Bannon or Stephen Miller -- might qualify, however, if they've got a plan in mind. But I'm not seeing a Lenin or a Zhou Enlai or a Ho Chi Minh in the MAGA mix.
Why does the media want Trump to win?
They've got a death wish? They're trying to prove how "objective" they are?
Given the backdrop of the last few years following Dobbs has entirely been a story of states passing extreme abortion bans or activating existing state laws to do this, surely the only way to cover Trumps position is that it’s either enabling extremism or is extreme in itself .
I love the "don't believe him" approach. Because it gives you a chance to also remind everyone that he wants to gut SS and Medicare. He already tried, so there's tangible evidence of what he'd do.
Also, I never understood the "leave it to the states" thing. The primary stated reason any anti-choice person wants to ban abortion is because he/she thinks it is murder. If you think it's murder, it can't just be illegal in some states but not in others. Murder has to be illegal in all states. You can't let states decide whether or not murder is legal. If an anti-choice person gets slick and says, well, it's not just the murder thing, it's that abortion leads to health issues for women (which has not be demonstrably shown). Well, then it's a matter of an individual assessing the risk of a medical procedure vs the benefits, just like having a knee implant, or hernia surgery. That is between her and her doctor. It's not a matter to be legislated. For those reasons, and others, "leave it to the states" is a total cop-out. Regardless of the practical implications, which, as we've seen, are many and terrible, it's logically dubious. Not that Trump/MAGA are very concerned with logic.
The big clue is the *stated* in "stated reason." Everyone I've known who's worked in a women's health clinic, whether as a paid pro or as a volunteer, has at least one story about the clinic picketer who came in to have an abortion. It seems anti-abortion women who have abortions think that they, and only they, have good reasons for doing so. Those "other women" are having abortions because they're promiscuous or careless or some other thing.
The Republicans have been pandering to the religious right since Roe was decided in 1973, and in the decades since it's become clear that the white evangelical tail is wagging the amoral elephant. So to speak. ;-)
You have made points here that I never considered - thank you for that!!! The best one IMO is that "murder can't just be illegal in some states and not in others" <---BRILLIANT!!!
Here is the headline the WaPo and other media *should* have used, but didn't, that explains the pile of nothing Trump "announced" today, along with a decently written piece on it.
While Bragging He Killed Roe, Trump Now Claims Abortion Should Be Left Up To States, While His Campaign Confirms Trump Supports All Statewide Abortion Bans [Gift Link]
https://wapo.st/4aLFzP7
Two things to keep in mind: (1) Trump will say anything he thinks will give him an advantage at the moment, and (2) Trump is misogynist AF.
Dan’s approach also has power for state & House elections, in blue states as well as red. Abortion is a truly vertical issue, and this from Trump makes it even easier to make this salient to marginally engaged voters.
Trump is making the rookie political mistake of trying not to take a position on a controversial issue in desperate hope of not alienating anyone. But it’s lose-lose because it gives his base nothing to rally around and gives us an opportunity to define his position. Also praising Dobbs and remind everyone it’s now up the states is now is just stupid.
As soon as I heard "let the states decide"... the tap dance was in full force.... not to mention the Supreme Court said the same thing a year ago. What a way to avoid taking a position, when we know full well what he intends to do.
I am curious how this will play with his Evangelical followers. Mike Pence denounced this as not sufficiently pro-life. Not that anyone listens to him, but... the evangelicals want a national ban.
Thanks, Dan, I'm sharing this piece with everyone!!
It’s the definition of mealy-mouthed and won’t fool anyone.
https://jessica.substack.com/p/trumps-abortion-announcement?utm_campaign=email-post&r=1metx&utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email
Biden is currently the underdog in this election and abortion won't save him. He needs solutions to the housing crisis
You must have some ideas. What are they?
How about an IRS rent deduction for some substantial portion of rent?
How will this address the root problem, which is that there isn’t enough housing?
Like any Republican in Congress would support that!
Gee, maybe you could think of an idea. I seem to remember reading in an economics textbook that lowering a barrier to affordability improves supply over time. We currently are at capacity in residential construction and have fewer builders and skilled tradesman than before the 2008 recession. We need a bigger market to create more capacity.
It’s rare these days that Republicans support much. Yet somehow the Dems got a lot passed.