Donald Trump Becomes First U.S. President to Speak at March for Life

[Cathoholic]

PattyIt . . .

Am I not allowed (in the Pro-Life movement) because I’m an agnostic?

Parenthetical mine for context.

Why would you think THAT Patty?

 

[Pattylt]

My question was to vz71. Read what he said then read what I asked.

 

[CradleRC58]

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[Cathoholic]

I did.

And now I went back and re-read it and came to the same conclusion.

It seemed to me anyways, that it was a rhetorical device aimed at no one in particular (but in general SOME who hate President Trump).

It was meant to highlight some leftists who REJECT President Trump’s baby-saving efforts because they see Trump as not pure enough.

So these leftists who SAY they are pro-life,
are willing to disparage baby-saving efforts,
because . . . . well because of their own Trump Derangement Syndrome.

Putting their own feelings ABOVE babies lives.

@vz71? Was I misreading that?

Here it is again.

.

@Horton . . .

and yet some will denigrate President Trump. . . .

@vz71 . . . .

Indeed. . . .

. . . Only the pure should be welcomed to support the pro life cause. All other support should be rejected.

 

[Pattylt]

It’s why I asked his to clarify…I couldn’t tell if he was being ironic or making a personal statement…at that point in the conversation we hadn’t gotten into Trump Derangement Syndrome…so, I was confused. I’m sure vz71 will clarify. I often have problems detecting irony from believed statements.

 

[gracepoole]

Care to elaborate on those problems?

I think the many, many other Trump threads have done a good enough job of that.

 

[gracepoole]

So anyone who disagrees with you suffers from “Trump Derangement Syndrome”?

 

[Cathoholic]

gracepoole. Why say something I never said?

I never said . . .

anyone who disagrees with me suffers from “Trump Derangement Syndrome”.

I quoted my interpretation of @vz71 (whom I agree with here by the way) and said some people put their feelings about President Trump, over the President’s baby saving efforts.

And THOSE people are exhibiting a mixed-up set of priorities.

Not that "anyone who disagrees with me suffers from “Trump Derangement Syndrome”.

 

[gracepoole]

gracepoole. Why say something I never said?

I never said . . .

anyone who disagrees with me suffers from “Trump Derangement Syndrome”.

Apologies. Here’s what you said:

It was meant to highlight some leftists who REJECT President Trump’s baby-saving efforts because they see Trump as not pure enough.

So these leftists who SAY they are pro-life,
are willing to disparage baby-saving efforts,
because . . . . well because of their own Trump Derangement Syndrome.

So it’s me who has “Trump Derangement Syndrome”? I only “say” I’m pro-life?

 

[Cathoholic]

No gracepoole.

It was seen as a “generalization”.
Not a “particular”.

There is MORE of what I said too.

Here it is again.

It seemed to me anyways, that it was a rhetorical device aimed at no one in particular (but in general SOME who hate President Trump).

Bold added.

I went out of my way to generalize. That’s the best I can do.

.

Apologies

Not necessary but accepted and not a problem gracepoole.

 

[vz71]

I am Pro-Life but there is no place for me at the March for Life.

Is there in the Democratic party?

 

[vz71]

Read what he said then read what I asked.

Actually, read his entire post.

 

[vz71]

Was I misreading that?

No, it would seem those that are misreading it are those that have only read half of the post.

I would call it dishonest, but I realize it is really just an attempt to skew the thread away.

 

[Horton]

I tried telling a couple of people about the march today. While that don’t necessarily align with the pro-life position they were interested in hearing about it until I mentioned that the President also spoke at it. To quote one of the people “I don’t want to hear anything he has to say.”

Then you need new pro-life friends. How can someone claim to be pro-life and filled with hate? It sounds as though they are afraid to listen directly to Trump without the msm filters. Who knows, they may start to agree with him if they heard a speech that wasn’t prefaced with some talking head at CNN or CBSN.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

How can someone claim to be pro-life and filled with hate?

I think it is a bit of a hasty conclusion to label them as “filled with hate.”

It sounds as though they are afraid to listen directly to Trump without the msm filters.

I don’t think it’s fear. They have no problem expressing the issues that they see with his behaviour over the decades. For them his actions are mostly seen as self serving.

Who knows, they may start to agree with him if they heard a speech that wasn’t prefaced with some talking head at CNN or CBSN.

They’ve expressed some grievances about CNN also. CBSN has never come up in conversation so I can’t speak on that.

One of the two people has a PoliSci degree and has a much better understanding of politics than I do. She is trying to make a career out of helping people andcurrently volunteers helping the elderly through programs like “Meals on Wheels” and sometimes just stopping by since they welcome a social outlet. She also is involved in some program for reading to under privileged kids . Juxtaposed to the “filled with hate” label it is all the more unfitting and just gives me the impression that there is a gulf of misunderstanding between who these people are and how you think them to be for not wanting to grant the president audience.

 

[dvdjs]

I don’t imagine his presence will sway those who are soft or undecided.So what?

The idea of pro-life marches and such is, presumably, to sway public opinion and to change the culture.

What a strange article, so the bulwark thinks it is better to vote for dismemberment abortions as the Democrats support.

I am having trouble finding any such thinking in the Bulwark article. Perhaps you can find quote a passage that suggests as much.

So, Trump speaking at a prolife event is a bad thing? Fascinating.

I think that the article, rather than the paraphrase, speaks for itself.

If people can be swayed against the Pro-Life movement merely because President Trump speaks at the March for Life, then there is something inherently wrong with them.

Perhaps. But the narrative has been that there is something inherently wrong - even irrational - with the Trump “haters”.

That Catholics (and therefore pro-lifers) refuse to support a huge messaging system such as the March for Life due to one speaker, President Trump,

I am nost sure where you get the idea that there is a refusal to support the March for Life.

The logical conclusion is that they do not want the pro life platform supported by the President.
Since this would actually weaken the platform…

No. that is not the logical conclusion. Nor is it an idea advanced in the article.

Apparently in order to support the prolife movement, they probably will support a candidate who supports unlimited abortion up to birth.

How is that “apparent”?

He can’t hurt the movement

The idea advanced in teh article is taht he is apt to hurt the success of the movement.
What are your answers to the two questions from the article?

 

[Theo520]

Some are arguing that the pro life position will somehow end up tainted with the President of the United States supporting it.
The logical conclusion is that they do not want the pro life platform supported by the President.
Since this would actually weaken the platform…

lol, TDS is the only explanation that makes their logic work.

He can’t hurt the movement which is pure in it’s motive. At most the cynical can say he is drafting off it, basking in it’s glow.

 

[redal]

Which I suspect is why most people are tuning out the Schumer Schiff sham show.

Perhaps those who think like you…but, talk about not tuning into any part of the hearings, today is going to be interesting…cartoons will draw more of an audience than the Trump defense team.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

Nevertheless, he has done more for the pro life position then any president in history.

If he can do so much without it being a goal, it must make him very effective.

I frankly think he probably is pro-life in his personal views, and that he furthermore has nothing to lose by publicly being the historic first President to come out and speak publicly at the March. Half the March already shows up in MAGA hats or Trump shirts anyway, the opposition to the March is the p-hat brigade that already hates Trump, and Pence spoke at the rally last year, so between that and the Supreme Court nominations, the views of this administration are pretty clear.

Plus, Trump is the kind of guy who would rather make a “historic first” in front of a wildly supportive crowd than worry about his “political career” going forward.

It was a good strategic move for him and it wasn’t any big change for the March for Life.

 

[PaulinVA]

I’m with the people who think Trump taints the prolife movement. How can a person accused of sexual assault by so many women, who commits adultery, who brags of assaulting women, be good for the prolife cause?

I am truly baffled. When asked during the campaign, he told Chris Matthews he thought women who had abortions should be punished. His campaign walked that back and told him what he should have thought. He’s just an opportunist.

Republicans have been in power at the national level many times since Roe, but have done nothing to outlaw abortion. Abortions are down, but only because twenty somethings aren’t having sex, and, when they do, they use birth control. Not because of Republicans at the national level.

Now, at the state and local level Republicans are causing clinics to close, etc. That is good.