President Trump's pro-life proclamation

[JSRG]

JSRG:

Maybe said proof does exist, but again it hasn’t been demonstrated. But you claim it is “fact”–so can you demonstrate it is a fact rather than a baseless supposition?

I can demonstrate it with basic math.

Jane has 10,000 a year. Her expenses are 8000 year including taxes. She gives the remaining 2,000 to charity.

Government raises taxes by 1,000/year.

Jane now has 1,000 available to give to charity.

It is a mathematical fact that the higher our taxes, the less money we have available to spend anywhere else.

I understand that human behavior is a little more complex than this. But it remains true that the higher they raise our taxes, the less is available in each person’s bank account for anything else.

This proves they have the ability to give more to charity if taxes are lowered. But do they donate every dollar of that thousand dollars to charity? That is the important question, and one you did not answer. You need to provide proof that in such cases, people would take all of that money–or at least a substantial amount of it–and give it to charity. Without that proof, the argument of “tax people less and they’ll give the money to charity” is null.

 

[JSRG]

The drafters of the Constitution did not necessarily intend for the electors to choose the president each and every time. The electors would choose a president if they could. If there were majority support for someone, then that man (and it would have been a man) would become president. Ditto for vice president. However, if nobody secured a majority, then the House/Senate procedure was “Plan B”, so to speak. The Constitution does not presuppose such things as popular voting, parties, or campaigns in selecting the president and vice president. All of those things morphed into being later.

What does that have to do with my point? Whatever their intentions were are irrelevant here–if the electors were proportionally allotted by state in the present, we would frequently end up with no one getting a majority and then the House of Representatives would end up deciding the election–with the Senate deciding the Vice President–and that would be controversial and disliked, especially with the possibility of the Senate and House being controlled by different parties and thus having a President and Vice President of opposite parties (at least our current electoral college, while controversial, avoids that possibility). To appease people there would either need to be a constitutional amendment to prevent that from happening (either by having a do-over election with just the top two candidates, or by just giving the presidency to whoever has the most electoral votes), or the states would just go back to the current system which some people don’t like either but would be less controversial, I expect.

And I have a feeling this could happen a decent amount. In the 2016 election, neither Trump nor Hillary would have won a majority of the electors due two electors being awarded to Gary Johnson and one to Ewan McMullin (or maybe it was the other way around, I can’t remember, the point is the same either way).

Where are you getting this from? Assigning electors proportionally from the national vote totals? And which states would they have come from? This sounds more like European-style proportional representation (which can be even more bizarre than the electoral college!).

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/2016-election/election-outcome-other-systems/

It came from that article; scroll down to “Proportional by State” to see the applicable section. If each state individually gave proportionate electors, then Clinton would get 268 votes, Johnson would get 2 (1 from Colorado and 1 from New Mexico), McMullan would get 1 (from Utah), and Trump would get 267. No one gets a majority, so it goes to the House–unless Hillary could persuade Johnson or McMullan to have their electors vote for her, or Trump persuades both Johnson and McMullan to have their electors vote for him. Though that would also require no faithless electors from either the Trump or Hillary camp, which is why I stated that would be unlikely.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

The drafters of the Constitution did not necessarily intend for the electors to choose the president each and every time. The electors would choose a president if they could. If there were majority support for someone, then that man (and it would have been a man) would become president. Ditto for vice president. However, if nobody secured a majority, then the House/Senate procedure was “Plan B”, so to speak. The Constitution does not presuppose such things as popular voting, parties, or campaigns in selecting the president and vice president. All of those things morphed into being later.

It may not. I was merely illustrating the theoretical framework behind how elections and the electoral college were designed to work. Contemporary Americans generally aren’t aware that parties, presidential campaigns, and even popular elections for president, with universal suffrage and use of the results of these elections to allocate electoral votes, weren’t part of the original plan. It was envisioned to be a way for state legislatures, one way or another, to select solons of a sort, wise men who would get together in a “college” (hence the name) and elect a president, much as the College of Cardinals elects a Pope. The president was, in a sense, an elected non-hereditary constitutional monarch with a fixed term of office (though no term limits — that came much later).

Needless to say, we’ve departed quite a bit from that paradigm.

Where are you getting this from? Assigning electors proportionally from the national vote totals? And which states would they have come from? This sounds more like European-style proportional representation (which can be even more bizarre than the electoral college!).

Okay, that makes sense. That breakout, and the source of the votes for Johnson and McMullin, is about the way I thought it would be, I just wasn’t clear where these figures were coming from. (Full disclosure: I voted for McMullin as a protest vote against both Hillary and Trump, though I do not live in Utah. I live in a safe state for Trump and reasoned that I could vote third party without injuring the pro-life cause.)

 

[Poet]

I have serious doubts that you’re presenting this in a way that fairly represents your friend’s opinion. Do they think the surgeon should write them a check, or do they think a social services safety net should exist?

Okay, are you suggesting that I’m lying? I’m reporting it EXACTLY as he said it to me. I quote his words exactly: “He makes a lot more than I do. Why shouldn’t I have some of his money?”

You would have to ask HIM if he expects his neighbor to write him a check. I expect, thought, that he thinks the answer is ‘wealth re-distribution.’ Exactly what’s being discussed here. Wealth re-distribution.

 

[Dan123]

I expect, thought, that he thinks the answer is ‘wealth re-distribution.’ Exactly what’s being discussed here. Wealth re-distribution.

That’s not how wealth redistribution works. You don’t take someone’s money, you implement tax policies that work to correct severe imbalance. I doubt there’s a severe imbalance between a surgeon and a professor.

I have no way of knowing if you’re lying. You may be providing the information precisely as you understand it, but that doesn’t tell me whats in your friend’s head.

 

[Poet]

This proves they have the ability to give more to charity if taxes are lowered. But do they donate every dollar of that thousand dollars to charity? That is the important question, and one you did not answer. You need to provide proof that in such cases, people would take all of that money–or at least a substantial amount of it–and give it to charity. Without that proof, the argument of “tax people less and they’ll give the money to charity” is null.

The ABILITY is what I was talking about. What is the point in talking about choices when we’ve already stripped away the ABILITY to make those choices in the first place.

Here’s what YOU need to prove: Prove to me why you or anyone has the right to FORCE other people to give to charity. Prove to me why you or the government or anyone has the right to say, “Hm…so and so won’t give to charity unless I force them to, and therefore, I have the right to use the power of government to FORCE them to help other people.”

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

The problem with being the most pro-life president is that the bar wasn’t high to begin with.

 

[Poet]

you implement tax policies that work to correct severe imbalance. I doubt there’s a severe imbalance between a surgeon and a professor.

I have no way of knowing if you’re lying. You may be providing the information precisely as you understand it, but that doesn’t tell me whats in your friend’s head.

Thank you for your kind consideration in thinking maybe it’s only how I ‘understand’ it. No, I’m reporting exactly what the professor said. He clearly felt that it was unfair his neighbor made more money than he did. No mistake in my understanding.

My friend certainly feels there’s an imbalance between a professor and a brain surgeon and I’m sure their incomes are NOT equal. HIS PERCEPTION is that there’s an imbalance. Why is his perception more important than your perception?

And this goes to my point: what IS imbalance? Define ‘severe imbalance.’ Why does that imbalance exist?

I posit that the imbalance in many cases exists because of our own choices. Yes, some people are born into more privilege, but so what. We live in a country where we all have public education and the opportunity to earn good grades and go to a good college and become a brain surgeon. Some people choose to work hard and become brain surgeons. Some choose to smoke pot and work at a gas station and go into debt.

I made my choice to stay home with my kids and work only part time. My friend chose to earn a Ph.D. and become a professor. Does he owe me money to correct the ‘imbalance’ in our incomes? What do you, Dan123, do for a living? Do you earn more than I do? Do you owe me some money?

 

[JoeShlabotnik]

From the time he was 18 to the time he was in his 60s, he was Pro-Choice, but a few years before deciding for President, he claims he is Pro-Life. Just in time to launch a political career. That is my whole point. He changed his stand in order curry favor with Pro-Life folks.
If he thought it would help him in 2020, I am sure he would switch back to Pro-Choice.

 

[Dan123]

He clearly felt that it was unfair his neighbor made more money than he did. No mistake in my understanding.

Okay, well good news that isn’t what people are generally talking about, so his thoughts don’t represent the actual issue. Not sure why you mentioned your outlier friend as if he represents the norm.

I posit that the imbalance in many cases exists because of our own choices.

What do you, Dan123, do for a living? Do you earn more than I do? Do you owe me some money?

Actually this is a good point. Then again are we sure this isn’t happening already?

You said you have kids, do you take a tax deduction for having dependents? That shifts the tax burden onto others like myself who didn’t make the decision to have kids. Why should i have to pay a larger share in taxes because of your decision to have children?

You live in a house. Do you have a mortgage and deduct mortgage interest? I didn’t decide to buy something I couldn’t pay for in cash, why are you getting a tax deduction, shifting the burden onto others, because you decided you wanted a house?

Do your kids use public schools? If so those schools are paid for by everyone’s taxes, not just those with kids. Why should I have to pay for a system I don’t have kids in?

I realize not all the above apply to you, but I bet some do, and if somehow they don’t such as you being outside the US then they apply to MANY parents in the US. THAT is wealth distribution, tax policies and systems that make it feasible to have children, perpetuate families, educate clothe and feed our young, provide adequate housing and so on. And we do that by applying the tax burden according to ones needs because most of us worked out that when a society flourishes, we all benefit.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

From the time he was 18 to the time he was in his 60s, he was Pro-Choice, but a few years before deciding for President, he claims he is Pro-Life. Just in time to launch a political career. That is my whole point. He changed his stand in order curry favor with Pro-Life folks.
If he thought it would help him in 2020, I am sure he would switch back to Pro-Choice.

I’ve wondered the same thing. Wealthy nominal Protestants with a history of libidinous habits typically don’t wake up one morning and say to themselves all of a sudden “hey, I’m pro-life!”. Successful parents with 17-year-old daughters who have been “out messing around”, on the cusp of going off to college to prepare to be just as successful as their parents were, often spirit the daughter out of town for a couple of days, doctor takes care of things, then they come back home and nobody’s the wiser. If rumors have gotten started, they say “oh, I was never pregnant”. I have known of at least three such cases (in my small town growing up where there was no publicly advertised abortion access), and in one of these three cases, the family were well-regarded Catholics in town.

My point is, far too often, people “with something to lose” just quietly get their daughter the abortion, and this is typical behavior where those people are fabulously wealthy. Put another way, how often do you hear of affluent families admitting “yes, our daughter messed up, but we’re sticking together as a family, and no, she’s not going to get to start college right now, but it’s okay, we’ll deal with the situation as it happens”. It would be nice, but how often do you hear of it? (In all fairness, giving the child up for adoption is always an option, but on the other hand, not everyone “feels right” about giving up their flesh and blood because the pregnancy is inconvenient. That’s their prerogative.)

 

[Elf01]

on the other hand, not everyone “feels right” about giving up their flesh and blood because the pregnancy is inconvenient. That’s their prerogative.)

I find it strange if those same people have no trouble killing a baby because he or she is inconvenient

 

[Vanny]

I have no idea if he’s “sincere” or not. Only God knows what’s in his heart. Many former pro-choice people have converted to pro life, and not all are religious, either. Dr. Bernard Nathanson former abortion doctor converted to pro-life while still an atheist in the early '80’s.
But think of it this way, folks- Whether sincere or not:
He has set the precedent for all future Presidents who run their campaigns as Pro Life.
They can’t just “phone it in.” anymore. They have to walk the walk.
Further, he has ripped the masked off the Democrats “safe legal and rare” schtick.
They are for abortion all the time, any time through all nine months and beyond for any reason.
That alone is something Trump has shown us, whether intentional or not.

 

[goout]

I don’t know if the man is authentic in these beliefs or not, but taking the statement at face value it is an explicit and passionate defense of vulnerable human life.

Based on the man as a whole, I doubt his integrity. But if he is making policies and putting people in positions that protect the most vulnerable among us (and he is), that is primary and I have to exercise my civic responsibilities accordingly.
( I could easily vote for a Democrat, no problem…if they would advocate for an end to this slaughter)

 

[Jeanne_S]

Again,whatever he embraces in his heart,is between him and God.That he is actually taking action re pro life is what matters.Which do you prefer,Trump who walks the talk,or a Nancy Pelosi,an avowed ”devout Catholic”,yet supports abortion,any time any where any reason?

 

[HomeschoolDad]

on the other hand, not everyone “feels right” about giving up their flesh and blood because the pregnancy is inconvenient. That’s their prerogative.)

I was referring to people who are opposed to abortion and urge their daughter to have the baby, but cannot bear the thought of their own grandchild being taken away after two or three days and placed with another family. Quite frankly, I could not bear that thought myself — I think I would say “no, these circumstances aren’t the best, but what’s done is done, this is not the end of the world, people deal with this sort of thing every day, this baby is part of our family, he is our blood, he is part of us, and we will just soldier on and deal with the situation as it is, not as we might like it to be in an ideal life”. Others might choose to give the baby up for adoption. Both options are virtuous, or rather, making the best of a bad situation.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

I don’t know if the man is authentic in these beliefs or not, but taking the statement at face value it is an explicit and passionate defense of vulnerable human life.

Based on the man as a whole, I doubt his integrity. But if he is making policies and putting people in positions that protect the most vulnerable among us (and he is), that is primary and I have to exercise my civic responsibilities accordingly.
( I could easily vote for a Democrat, no problem…if they would advocate for an end to this slaughter)

I pray to Almighty God that He would raise up a virtuous, pro-life Democrat to challenge their party and rally the troops — “look, I know you fellow Democrats are good people, we’ve got the best plan for this country, and many, many of you are pro-life — so vote for me, give me the nomination, I’m your man (or woman), let’s rally together, appeal to all Americans who value the right to life of unborn children, and send Orange Man back down to play golf at Mar-a-Lago”. But the Democratic Party, not being the most tolerant institution on the face of God’s green earth, would squash this candidate like a bug. It’s just how they roll.

 

[bassmansteiny]

I agree, total difference between killing an innocent life and executing a person convicted of murder. However, for this pro-life guy, I don’t support capital punishment either. I think it should end. We have the ability to remove a person who is deemed a threat to society from society, without ending their life. Plus what if we find out that person was actually innocent of the crime? It has happened in the past. So for me when I say Pro-Life from Conception to Natural Death, that’s just what I mean. However, like I said, agree there is a difference in the two. One is totally innocent.

 

[bassmansteiny]

Thank you for sharing this with us. I am happy to read that!

 

[upant]

I pray to Almighty God that He would raise up a virtuous, pro-life Democrat to challenge their party and rally the troops

it isn’t only abortion anymore

the democrats would have to change a good portion of their party platform to comply with the teachings of the church.