Since I defined what it "needed" to accomplish I can say "yes, it did."
We're clearly not going to agree that you're wrong about your assertions on Trump's position.
So go ahead and fire off one final volley. And to make you feel better, I won't respond. You can pretend you had a great retort that I couldn't answer, and then you can put another imaginary notch in your "told ya so" belt.
bye.
It is disappointing that your attitude has devolved into “I win. you lose.” My attitude was that we have more, and newer data to add to the mix of trump’s alleged “pro-life” stance. i was thinking perhaps you, my correspondent, had more recent data, especially a possible explanation of trump’s egregious January 2015 interview, where he states “I’m pro-life,” bit then seems to slip back into the pro-baby-murder remark about timing.
Your point was “people change.” I AGREED with your point. I merely pointed out that since the alleged “change” in 2011, there is evidence in 2015 that he may have changed again. And there is justifiable concern whether he’s truly pro-life now, or, if he is, whether he will be in the future.
You didn’t respond to the fact in any of your posts to the newer data that he seemed to backtrack in the 2015 interview and is possibly still a pro-abort.
But you don’t seem to be concerned with new facts, as is your right. your opinion is your own, and you have every right to close yourself to new facts.
Thank you for the opportunity for the “last word.” I understand. Sometimes you go back and forth with a poster, and you just tire of the ping pong nature of the discussion, or the other guy writes big, long treatises (like I’m verging on, here) that you don’t feel are worth the time to rebut them. Been there. Done that.
Well, in conclusion. I wish you peace, but trump is, at best, an unreliable pro-lifer, and at worst, a pro-life fraud.