"But if you agree with Coulter that abortion doesn’t matter until immigration is fixed, it’s just another example of conservatives adopting liberal views in order to support a liberal (Trump)...now, shamefully, even to the point of trying to minimize abortion.That view is completely incompatible with conservatism."
You fail on logic as well.
All the (R) nominees are pro-life, thus all the ones elected President are always pro-life. And what has it got us? What can a perfect Presidential candidate's opinion on abortion ever get us?
You need to come to grips with the reality - no candidates' opinion on Abortion means anything in light of Roe v Wade, and a country more than half full of narcissists and evil, near-Nazi-like stooges. It has as much real bearing on policy and change of heart that anything else might. You might as well worry about what football team they root for or how they wear their hair.
I don't want to call you insane but the classic definition is doing the same thing over and over expecting a different result. Yet here you are obsessing over this "conservative" litmus test, but one that will NEVER EVER get a chance to be utilized even *IF* that candidate could get to the White House in the first place.
Furthermore, there are foot soldiers in the war on the Nazi Abortion cult who are actually doing stuff - successfully as we speak. These folks with the videos, and the dripping releases, who clearly learned from O'Keefe and others, are *really* making progress. They are thinking outside-the-box. You however, are NOT.
You are laboring under the misconception that we elect a tyrant for four years who will singlehandedly make everything alright. However, that belief-system or argument has a fatal flaw. It literally means that whatever wonderful results we get in "our" President can simply be undone by the election of "their" President in the next cycle. It promotes an oscillating nation with a set of values based on majority rule.
"And you know what you can do with your “Trump Derangement Syndrome.” That term more accurately describes conservatives who are falling all over themselves for a self-described Democrat."The label fits your postings here, but if you truly hate it then I will refrain. However, Reagan actually was a (D)emocrat, of the FDR variety no less, and Trump is far more party agnostic than any other to come before him. But why the obsession with the (D) label? Are you saying that is significant? What about Zell Miller (D) versus Romney (R) or any almost any other (R)epublicrats?
That was about the most long-winded strawman I’ve seen.
We weren’t discussing candidates’ positions on abortion; the issue was your agreement with Coulter that abortion doesn’t matter until the border is closed.
You can call me insane, or whatever else you want...I really don’t give a damn. But I will note that the accusation of insanity is leveled at me because I advise upholding conservative principles instead of trashing them...including the sanctity of life.
I also note that a socially conservative, pro-life president is termed a “tyrant” by you.
A glance at your posting history tells me where you’re coming from, though. A longtime Freeper recently posted about signups who are largely silent until election time; they crawl out of the woodwork to advocate for the lesser evil, preaching about the folly of holding to conservative principle, and then slink away after the election-—the loss-—is over with.
You signed up in 2006. Your first post was made in 2014. Then, after that single post, you were quiet until this month, when you suddenly remembered you were a Freeper and started to push Trump.