President Trump's pro-life proclamation

[njlisa]

I am pro-life. Proclamations sound nice. But they won’t stop abortions. According to the pro-choice Guttmacher Institute, 75 percent of women who get abortions are poor or low-income. And 59 percent already have a child. A staggering 28 percent of abortion “recipients” are African American. That’s more than twice their representation in the overall population.

What if these women can’t afford to have another baby? What if their husbands or partners pressure these women to have abortions? Pro-choice is no choice for these women. It is the worst kind of human rights violation.

How can we address these issues to help these women avoid this horrible step?

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

@HomeschoolDad

I live in a relatively safe state for Trump, but I am voting for him in November nonetheless. One big reason, certain factions in our country make such a big deal out of the popular vote — this whole electoral college thing is disliked by liberals because it gives rural conservative states clout they otherwise wouldn’t have — and if we can turn out a popular vote victory for Trump in 2020, we force them to admit that maybe the popular vote wouldn’t be such a good idea after all (using their own reasoning against them). The same thing happened with GWB in 2004.

The electoral college isn’t a liberal issue.

Wyoming, population 579,000, has three electoral votes.
That means each electoral vote represents 193,000 people.

Texas, population 29.4 million, has 38 electors.
That means each electoral vote represents 774,736.

The Electoral College was established so that people could not vote for president. State legislators picked electors. And the electors voted for president.

We have a different system now.

The GOP would benefit from picking up more conservative popular votes in California and Texas.

The Constitution sets a fixed number of electors. So it’s impossible to reshuffle the deck by giving more electors according to population.

@HomeschoolDad

Not to nitpick, but neither Hitler nor Manson ever killed anybody. They got other people to do their “wet work” for them. Let’s just say that they had people skills — something that is as dangerous as a cocked cannon when it’s in the wrong hands.

Manson family member Bobby Beausoleil was tried and convicted of killing Gary Hinman. Beausoleil testified that Manson himself took part in the killing. Source: Oxygen. Manson was never tried. So we can’t be sure of his involvement.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

I am Pro-Life, but I am anti-Trump.
I will vote for the Democratic Party candidate in November.
Though abortion is an important matter, it is not the only issue.

I live in a relatively safe state for Trump, but I am voting for him in November nonetheless. One big reason, certain factions in our country make such a big deal out of the popular vote — this whole electoral college thing is disliked by liberals because it gives rural conservative states clout they otherwise wouldn’t have — and if we can turn out a popular vote victory for Trump in 2020, we force them to admit that maybe the popular vote wouldn’t be such a good idea after all (using their own reasoning against them). The same thing happened with GWB in 2004.

This isn’t common knowledge (or rather common consciousness), but the electoral college was not designed to be chosen by popular vote in a winner-take-all voting scenario in each state. The state legislatures were to choose electors, men regarded to have wisdom and discretion, and the electors would then vote for a president and vice president. It wasn’t meant to be something that the people directly took part in. (“People” here being white men, of course, not to say that I condone this.) It’s just kind of morphed into what we have today. It was meant to be a deliberative process in which a clear-cut choice might not be made the first time around, and then Congress would have to intervene. Obviously it turned out entirely differently.

I like the American Solidarity Party and I am probably in agreement with 95% of what they stand for, but I don’t have the luxury of throwing my vote away, and sad to say, that’s basically what I would be doing.

Actually (not relevant to your exchange with him), didn’t he talk about how he shifted because he realized someone aborted could be someone great (not that that reason could be the best since it can be flipped (the next villain like Hitler or Manson).

Not to nitpick, but neither Hitler nor Manson ever killed anybody. They got other people to do their “wet work” for them. Let’s just say that they had people skills — something that is as dangerous as a cocked cannon when it’s in the wrong hands.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

The electoral college isn’t a liberal issue.

Wyoming, population 579,000, has three electoral votes.
That means each electoral vote represents 193,000 people.

Texas, population 29.4 million, has 38 electors.
That means each electoral vote represents 774,736.

The Electoral College was established so that people could not vote for president. State legislators picked electors. And the electors voted for president.

We have a different system now.

The GOP would benefit from picking up more conservative popular votes in California and Texas.

I would say it actually is kind of a “liberal issue”, in that it is one step removed from popular sovereignty, and it smacks ever so little of a suppression of democracy. Liberals tend to cluster in large urban areas, and they would like for these urban areas to determine the outcome of every election, so they could get in power and stay in power forever. The electoral college, as originally conceived, is actually two steps removed from popular sovereignty — the people elect their state legislators, who then choose the electors, who then in turn choose the president. This scenario appeals to a paleo-conservative or someone who is comfortable with the concept of unelected statesmen and stateswomen, but not to a democrat (small letter D) who wants everything to be a matter of popular sovereignty and majorities of a fully enfranchised electorate.

I’m a poor one to ask. I am not only a paleo-conservative and a constitutional originalist — they could do away with the popular vote for president, and for senators, tomorrow and I’d be fine with that (neither was foreseen in the original constitution) — but I would not mind a monarchy. (And yes, I have considered moving to Canada, but I don’t have the wherewithal to do so, and they have no Second Amendment. You take the good with the bad. And Canadians have no realistic way to overturn abortion in their country — only moral suasion.)

The Constitution sets a fixed number of electors. So it’s impossible to reshuffle the deck by giving more electors according to population.

But doesn’t this kind of happen every ten years, when they reapportion congressional seats after the decennial census?

Manson family member Bobby Beausoleil was tried and convicted of killing Gary Hinman. Beausoleil testified that Manson himself took part in the killing. Source: Oxygen. Manson was never tried. So we can’t be sure of his involvement.

I did not know that. He was one bad guy.

 

[njlisa]

@HomeschoolDad: As far as the Electoral College, the Founding Fathers did not trust the whims of the mob. You’re in good company.

But doesn’t this kind of happen every ten years, when they reapportion congressional seats after the decennial census?

Yes, it does. If would could get rid of gerrymandering, the system would be perfect.

I did not know that. He was one bad guy.

I read “Helter Skelter” multiple times in my youth. shivers

I would not mind a monarchy.

I’m with you on that. If would be wonderful if we had a constitutional monarch who would stand above politics. I love Queen Elizabeth.

++++++++++

@(name removed by moderator)

The haughtiness of large states out in the… occidental direction… can be quite infuriating.

We have secret meetings where we practice our haughtiness. I needed a lot of training when I moved to Babylon 30 years ago.

 

[JSRG]

This isn’t common knowledge (or rather common consciousness), but the electoral college was not designed to be chosen by popular vote in a winner-take-all voting scenario in each state. The state legislatures were to choose electors, men regarded to have wisdom and discretion, and the electors would then vote for a president and vice president. It wasn’t meant to be something that the people directly took part in. (“People” here being white men, of course, not to say that I condone this.) It’s just kind of morphed into what we have today. It was meant to be a deliberative process in which a clear-cut choice might not be made the first time around, and then Congress would have to intervene. Obviously it turned out entirely differently.

I believe this is only partially true. It’s true that the electoral college wasn’t designed with the intention of every state doing a winner-take-all popular vote. But it also does not seem to have been designed with the intention of every state having the electors chosen by their state legislature. The idea was to just let each individual state figure out how they wanted to handle it (though I assume they figured state legislature appointment or popular election would be the most likely models). This is why the Constitution says “Each state shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors…” rather than “Each state’s legislature shall appoint a Number of Electors…” The former says each state figures it out themselves, whereas the latter has the state legislatures do it directly.

Though I should note that it is not true that the electoral college is winner-take-all in each state. Nevada and Maine actually have it set proportionally.

 

[VeryBlessed]

This is all for show to get the Republican white Evangelical /Catholic vote.

Proof is he was pro-choice all his life till he ran for president. You all so easily fooled.

I am afraid that you might be quite right, except for that last sentence. I am dismayed by the thought that the Republicans (perhaps) keep a pro-life stance in their platform just to keep Christian voters in their camp, and that they really have very little intention of changing much of anything other than a few judges. However…! A vote for the other side is a vote to advance abortion, and from what they say, as vigorously and as extremely as they can. And so despite my doubts about the Republicans doing anything very significant against abortion, I keep voting for them, because a vote for the other side is unthinkable. I cannot even conceive of appearing before the God of hosts and trying to justify a vote that advances the death of countless innocent people. I just can’t do it. Maybe all the republicans are hypocrites! But I cannot support the other side. It’s just unthinkable.

So I’m not at all fooled.

 

[Poet]

This sounds very much like our previous president.

Agreed. It also sounds like many on the left who are whipping their followers into a frenzy of emotions. We have Antifa and other thugs attacking conservatives and Trump supporters, literally assaulting them, we had the whole debacle of the Covington kids being vilified up to the point of some cartoonist drawing and a paper publishing, pictures of these kids being fed into a wood chipper with blood spewing out the other side; and just recently, a 28 year old stabbed his boss to death because his boss supports Trump.

I 've seen videos of people throwing drinks in the faces of kids because the kid is wearing a MAGA hat; people stealing other people’s MAGA hats; some woman going on a verbal rampage against a complete stranger in a coffee shop because she didn’t like his MAGA hat and trying to get him fired from his job—honestly, the list of attacks against Trump supporters is very, very long. I’ve watched a little old lady using a walker blocked by four young, strong liberals because they thought she shouldn’t go hear a conservative speaker.

And it’s because those doing the assaulting have been whipped into a frenzy of emotion such that they actually believe they’re fighting Nazis.

There’s demagoguery going on alright, but it’s not Trump who’s the demagogue.

 

[7_Sorrows]

I refuse to vote for Donald Trump, just because has made a pro-life proclamation. Trump has a reputation for being a liar.

Boy, that is some proclamation about our president
being a liar. You must really take issue with Schumer, Pelosi, Nadler and others that not only are NOT pro-
life, but are also telling lies.

@JoeShlabotnik

 

[Paddy1989]

To get a speech like this from the president of United States in today’s culture is impressive. I may not agree with him on many things but on this i applaud him

 

[HomeschoolDad]

I believe this is only partially true. It’s true that the electoral college wasn’t designed with the intention of every state doing a winner-take-all popular vote. But it also does not seem to have been designed with the intention of every state having the electors chosen by their state legislature. The idea was to just let each individual state figure out how they wanted to handle it (though I assume they figured state legislature appointment or popular election would be the most likely models). This is why the Constitution says “Each state shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors…” rather than “Each state’s legislature shall appoint a Number of Electors…” The former says each state figures it out themselves, whereas the latter has the state legislatures do it directly.

I see what you are saying. Can you imagine the blowback there would be, if a state said “we’re not going to have a presidential election in our state this year, our legislature is going to appoint electors”? The civil rights consequences alone would make this the story of the century!

Though I should note that it is not true that the electoral college is winner-take-all in each state. Nevada and Maine actually have it set proportionally.

Actually, that is Nebraska and Maine, and such a solution is absolutely constitutional. I would have no difficulty whatsoever with this for all 50 states.

I am dismayed by the thought that the Republicans (perhaps) keep a pro-life stance in their platform just to keep Christian voters in their camp, and that they really have very little intention of changing much of anything other than a few judges.

I think it’s entirely possible that for some Republicans, being pro-life is a political calculation to play to their base. However, if the Republican party ever became pro-choice, they would cease to exist. A third party would emerge, and it would be yuge.

I have always viewed Trump as basically an independent populist candidate running on the Republican ticket, kind of like Bernie Sanders is running for president as a Democrat even though he’s not one.

we had the whole debacle of the Covington kids being vilified up to the point of some cartoonist drawing and a paper publishing, pictures of these kids being fed into a wood chipper with blood spewing out the other side; and just recently, a 28 year old stabbed his boss to death because his boss supports Trump.

Trump Derangement Syndrome. That’s all it is.

Back in the day, I always tried to see the good both in Clinton and in Obama. Democrats tend to freeze and polarize their opposition as though it were evil incarnate. This is straight from Saul Alinsky’s playbook. If you care the least little bit about politics, you should read Rules for Radicals. It is a handbook to show how they think. Is it ever!

 

[HomeschoolDad]

Can you imagine the blowback there would be, if a state said “we’re not going to have a presidential election in our state this year, our legislature is going to appoint electors” ?

Replying to oneself might be a bit gauche, but I just have to add, upon re-reading this, that this is somewhat like what happened in Florida in 2000. There was an election, but there might as well not have been. The legislature certified the Bush electors, and from there, it was game over.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

And I just noticed — my very own slice of birthday cake! One year today!

“What a long, strange trip it’s been…”

 

[upant]

And I just noticed — my very own slice of birthday cake! One year today!

happy birthday

 

[Rau]

I think that eliminating government programs that supposedly help the poor would be a great thing for Christian churches in the U.S.

Yes, I do. Because it would force us to abandon all our “church stuff” like planning Spring Banquets and Fall Chili suppers and “Bible on Tap” and all those activities that basically are “Christian Entertainment”–nothing wrong with it–but if the poor were no longer getting their government handouts, WE CHRISTIANS would hopefully have no choice but to step up and do what Jesus told us to do

We Christians don’t need the government to stop doing anything to do as you suggest. There is immense unmet need.

 

[Kindnessmatters]

You fail to understand that Trump is respected despite, not because of, how he speaks. His supporters align with what he does. We grin and bear his coarseness.

If you want some attempted demagogory, check out the shifty Schiff show this week in the Senate. There’s some long winded, attempted emotional manipulation for you.

 

[Peeps]

We Christians don’t need the government to stop doing anything to do as you suggest. There is immense unmet need.

And Christians should step up and meet it, but as long as the government is doing our job, we can be at ease, eat, drink, and be merry, and assuage our guilt by claiming that our taxes are paying for the government’s attempts to help the poor become poorer–oops, I mean self-sufficient.

 

[Peeps]

Might be just me, but I’m having no success whatsoever in Googling up the pro-life proclamation made by his predecessor…

Well, First Lady Obama rammed through a lot of regulations about healthier school lunches, which helps people to stay alive–that’s pro-life, isn’t it? (And those regulations are probably going to end soon, as schools can’t afford it and the kids don’t eat it.)

And Pres. Obama was a champion for researching and reversing climate change–that keeps people alive, and so he was pro-life, right? (And Pres. Trump withdrew the U.S. from the Paris agreement, which means that he wants people to die, right? So he’s not really pro-life, right? )

 

[debgab]

He might not be the most eloquent, tactful, gifted/skilled orator, but the very fact he even
published this speech and put his name on it, and as one who holds the highest office in the land, to me, is a very stark contrast to any other president in recent years, who makes no bones about what he’s aligning himself to. I can’t see this as a case of demogoguery, he’s willing to put himself on the line as to where he stands on abortion.

Deb

 

[JoeShlabotnik]

We all have told lies.
But Trump lies so much that it is a rare exception when he tells the truth!
But I pray for him, nonetheless.

 

[JoeShlabotnik]

Where was Donald Trump five years ago on this issue?
Where was he 10 years ago?
Where was he 20 years ago?
He never was Pro-Life until he decided he wanted to run for President.
Total phony!