Posted on 11/11/2019 10:31:07 AM PST by caww
Its because Trump hasn’t done jack $hit about the endangerment finding and the obama coal rules. Wtf is it going to take for Trump to drain the EPA swamp.
Steve, I understand people being upset about bump stocks. To be honest, I’d never heard of them before the Las Vegas mass shooting. Somehow I think we’ll be able to defend the nation without them. Does that mean Trump was right? I don’t think so.
As for Trump not meeting a minimum standard in 2016, who are you kidding? The guy put his platform out there and it was the best one I’d seen in my lifetime.
“But candidate Trump didn’t come close to meeting my minimum standard for support, and his actions as President sure haven’t changed that.”
Well, you just lost me right there.
We’re not going to agree. Take care.
You asked me a question (”As for Trump not meeting a minimum standard in 2016, who are you kidding?”). My answer: I’m not kidding anyone. Trump did not come close to meeting my personal minimum standard for support. I’m not a single-issue voter, but here’s one matter that by itself was enough to know that Trump didn’t measure up: abortion. Trump says he opposes abortion. That’s nice, but every day, thousands of these littlest persons are deprived of their lives without due process under color of law here in the US, despite the fact that our Constitution clearly states that no person shall be deprived of their life without due process. The candidate I supported, FReeper Tom Hoefling, laid out his plan to shut down the child-killing centers and the sale of abortifacient drugs, including actions he would take on his first day of office. Last Spring, Trump tweeted about a secret plan to end abortion. He added that he was the only one who knows how to do this. Well, that prompts me to ask similar question as you asked me: who’s fooling whom?
That figure of thousands of abortions a day here in the US is based on the reported number of surgical abortions. How many more abortions are due to use of abortifacient drugs and devices marketed as contraceptives? Well, we don’t know. The Guttmacher Institute was hired by the nation of India to estimate the number for that nation (Guttmacher estimated there were 13 times more abortifacient drug abortions than surgical abortions. The only other estimate I’ve seen was a doctor writing for American Life League - decades ago - who estimated that there were 72 times more abortifacient drug abortions than surgical abortions. I did the math when the 2017 surgical abortion tally was released: if 13 times more were aborted by pill, that means there’s been over a million abortions in the US since Trump took office.
I urge all of good will to set their own minimum standard for determine whether to support a candidate. Trump didn’t come close to meeting my minimum standard in 2016, so I helped raise up
a candidate who did. You’re free to characterize my actions as not bothering to vote for Trump, but those are your words, not mine. I chose to support a candidate who met my minimum standard for support. You seem resigned to act differently than me. Amongst your arguments is that judges would stand against presidential action to support and defend the Constitution when it comes to depriving persons of their life without due process. Well, judges are entitled to their opinions, but a President need not abrogate his or her oath just because a court disagrees. You say I’ve turned my back to President Trump. Again, those are your words, not mine. President Trump is our President.
One of the bills he signed into law included a provision that says no money can be spent under that law for abortions, except for some circumstances. Many folks who self-identify as pro-life praise this language. But the Constitution doesn’t allow for any such exceptions. No person shall be deprived of their life without due process. No judge made Trump sign that bill into law. Would you say that Trump has turned his back to the Constitution in this case?
My point Steve, and I’ve backed it up with links, is that Trump is far better than ANYONE has been to date in the Oval Office, when it comes to taking action that will reduce the numbers of abortions in the United States, and abroad.
To this you reply he doesn’t meet your standard.
Prior to this you mentioned you voted for a FReeper, who does meet your minimum standard.
How is that FReeper doing for you today?
How many bills has he signed to save one life. How many Planned Parenthood offices has he deprived of funding?
How many pro-life judges has he appointed and placed on the courts?
On this issue, at a time when you could have supported a man known to disapprove of Planned Parenthood and abortion, and has now become the best we have ever had on Abortion in the Oval Office, you are still proud you voted for a man without a chance of winning, and thereby enabling Hillary Clinton to come just that much closer to becoming president.
Not only did you not help, you helped bring “exponentially worse” even closer to reality.
Your links don’t make much of a case for the point you claim, even though the point you claim (”that Trump is far better than ANYONE has been to date in the Oval Office, when it comes to taking action that will reduce the numbers of abortions in the United States, and abroad”) seems pretty weak to begin with. I recall folks urging me to support Romney by saying the GOP candidate was 10,000 times better than Obama. Well, 10,000 x 0 = 0. Thousands of persons are deprived of their lives without due process on every typical day here in the US under color of law. That was true before Trump was elected, and it remains true today. Trump has failed miserably in this important matter.
Your questions correctly note that the candidate I supported for President in 2016 was not elected. I respectfully point out that President Trump doesn’t fare too well with those questions even though he was elected. For example, you ask how many Planned Parenthood offices has our fellow FReeper deprived of funding? One of your links reported that Planned Parenthood closed two offices in Ohio due to Trump administration’s recent Title X funding restrictions. Neither of the two facilities performed abortions.
My minimum standard for supporting candidates is pretty simple. I don’t support any of the Democratic Party candidates, nor any of the Republican Party candidates this year.
That’s laughable Steve.
Go ahead and vote for whoever you like. That’s your right of course. Just know that you won’t be chipping in to save one kid with that vote.
Planned Parenthood is all over Trump for his actions against them, and yet you found no reason to think Trump has been good on this topic.
A number of politicians promise something. They give it a cosmetic go. Then at the first sign of resistance, they drop it and say, “Well, I tried...”
Trump has appealed things the the Supreme Court and prevailed there.
He’s following through on most of his promises.
How many of those promises would have been met if ten million Republicans would have joined you voting for someone who couldn’t win?
How many of those promises would Hillary Clinton have incorporated into her action plan?
As it is, we have someone in there who is working to make things better.
What other president pushed to defund Planned Parenthood?
How many took action to reduce US funding for abortion overseas?
Did you help make that a reality? Ah no!
It’s true enough that Planned Parenthood describes President Trump as a threat to abortion. One of those three links you provided was an example of their arguments. You seem to agree with Planned Parenthood’s assessment. I don’t. You seem quite willing to accept that thousands of persons are deprived of their lives without due process by surgical abortion and abortifacient drugs on a typical day here in the US, despite the Constitution’s clear language that no person shall be so deprived.
I urge all of good will to set their own minimum standard for supporting a candidate and to apply that standard when considering if any announced candidate is even minimally acceptable. If none are, please consider raising up one who does meet your standard.
Your minimum standard caused you to take a pass on Trump, arguably, the best president on the topic ever. Instead you voted for a well meaning man that didn’t change one government policy on the topic.
When it is pointed out to you what the people say who have been the main focus of Trump’s efforts, they disagree with your views about Trump. So does the record.
Go ahead an prattle about your standards, which wind up allowing you to avoid really helping, but feeling ever so good about yourself and rather humorously high and mighty related to others.
We’re doing something. You’re avoiding doing something, as it relates to elections.
It's true enough that Planned Parenthood excoriates President Trump. And it's true enough that you and Planned Parenthood, and Donald Trump too, promote the concept of judicial supremacy. You're not alone. These matters are worthy of discussion now.
Steve, believe it or not everyone against abortion grasps that thousands are dying per day. Repeating that isn’t winning you any points.
The point is, Trump has impacted those death downwards.
Your actions at the polls didn’t.
By withholding your vote from Trump, you made it one vote closer to voting in a woman who would back abortion up to one year after birth if she could. And you brag about that here.
Don’t preach to me about thousands dying each day, when it’s crystal clear you refused to vote to reduce that number.
I believe that is definition of irony. Or is it hypocrisy? Meh, close enough.
I agree with you, but there’s nothing wrong with not being satisfied with the gains we have made. I can understand that.
To your point though, I think you are spot on target.
Trump is the kind of guy that goes to court to get the things we need done. When he meets resistance at the state level, he goes to the Supreme Court. If he loses there, he looks for another work-around, and tries that.
He’s not shirking his duty, and frankly, you don’t find a bull-dog for our causes much these days.
Saying Trump just isn’t up to our standard, is confirming that you’d rather see nothing done, than have Trump do it.
That’s just sad,... and self-defeatist. No doubt about it.
You seem to agree that Trump is a judicial supremicist, as are you.
I don’t endorse any federal incumbents for reelection.
You know Steve, you continue to exhibit an inability to grasp the subject matter.
Trump has once again stopped federal funds for abortions overseas. Bush did it. Obama restored it. Trump did it again.
More abortion clinics are closing. Planned Parenthood blames it on Trump. Fewer abortions are taking place. Sorry that bothers you so much.
Would you please contact them for us, and explain how he isn’t responsible for it. I’m sure they’d appreciate it.
Go ahead and toss your vote away in 2020. If you can get enough folks to, the Left can implement the plans that express your desires better than Trump has.
You assert that fewer abortions are occurring. Does your assertion include both surgical and abortifacient drugs? As best I understand it, there is no reliable estimate of how many abortions result from the abortifacient effects of various pills. So I respectfully request you to back up your assertion.
The so-called Mexico City policy actually began during Reagan administration. Dr Alan Keyes, who was very involved in negotiating at that Mexico City meeting, was the first candidate I helped raise up when it became clear to me that none of the existing candidates came close to representing my views. Ever since then, Dem presidents have toggled the policy off, and Republican presidents have toggled it back on. To his credit, President Trump went beyond merely toggling it back on.
Every day that President Trump fails to stand up for the clear language of the Constitution, thousands of persons are deprived of their lives without due process.
Steve, each new post from you is more detached from reality.
We live in a Constitutional Republic. The president can’t edict what takes place and what doesn’t in most instances.
Abortion is one instance where he can’t simply change things to the way you and I wish he could.
REALITY sucks, but it is still reality.
Trump can take measures to defund abortion providers. He has done so. You also concede that Trump went beyond merely stopping US Government funding for abortions overseas.
You mention Alan Keyes. Who did Alan work for? Who sent him? Who directed him to do what he did? Who would actually sign anything coming out of that Mexico event? Alan?
You are great at picking losers who can’t affect or implement policy themselves. They have no chance of winning, but there you are so proud of the support you give to people who in the end turn out to be nothing burgers.
I’m sure Alan meant well. The FReeper you mentioned probably did too. Did they get a chance to devise and implement policy? Ah, no.
Not willing to concede there are fewer abortions due to Trump defunding Planned Parenthood, you branch out to include oral day after medications.
Trump cannot wave a wand and get those drugs pulled off the market. He can’t pass an edict to eliminate all abortions.
He has done what he can, and that’s all we can ask of him.
Just go back to supporting the people you do and be proud of yourself. Never mind they haven’t done nearly as much as Trump to reduce abortions.
Our neighborhood bobcats have done as much as your candidates to reduce the number of abortions.
I’ve repeatedly pointed out that our Constitution is quite clear where it says no person shall be deprived of their life without due process. The 14th Amendment even explicitly extends that provision to every state. President Trump could have vetoed instead of signing into law a bill that states it’s ok for federal funds to be used to pay for abortion in some types of situations, including cases of rape and incest. You say he’s done everything he can? No he hasn’t, and that failure to veto is an example that even you should be able to understand.
Alan Keyes was a federal employee at the time you ask about. As best I recall, Jeane Kirkpatrick urged that he be given more responsibility in Reagan administration after seeing his work as a National Security Council staffer. My mention of Reagan era in last post was to point out that Mexico City Policy did not start with GW Bush administration.
I have never criticized President Trump’s Mexico City Policy. How do you imagine I’m conceding anything in acknowledging what President Trump has in fact done? That President Trump has failed miserably does not mean everything he’s done is wrong.
I continue to be grateful to God that Hillary Clinton is not President. Too bad the Republican majority House didn’t impeach her when they had majority in House and Senate.
If Hillary Clinton had instituted the Trump administration’s bump stock ban, I suspect the Democrats would be facing the same kind of voter response as occurred during Bill Clinton administration.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.