The story underscores how transactional Trump was. He doesn’t have sincerely held beliefs against abortion, he just said and did what he needed in order to get elected.
No other politician ever does that, nosirree
The story underscores how transactional Trump was. He doesn’t have sincerely held beliefs against abortion, he just said and did what he needed in order to get elected.
No other politician ever does that, nosirree
The story underscores how transactional Blair was. He doesn’t have sincerely held beliefs about anything, he just said and did what he needed in order to get elected.
Well, Maggie Haberman said it so it must be true.
No other politician ever does that, nosirree
Oh come on, next you’ll be saying that Obama was outspokenly in favour of gay marriage, then against it while he positioned and ran for president, then in favour again once he acquired the presidency.
“Toeing the party line on abortion helped get him elected and, in the fall of 2020, Trump knew he was on the precipice of getting to nominate a third Supreme Court justice, a move that he hoped would carry him to re-election, even amid his disastrous handling of the pandemic.”
If you’re trying to help the USA and want conservative votes, it’s a slam-dunk to support whatever gets rid of Roe vs Wade.
There are expensive ways to get votes (like promising tax cuts) but ending Roe vs Wade is basically free. This isn’t 1973. Much of the USA has a different view now, and many of the states are going to legalise it anyway. So, net effect zero for those. And for the remaining states, it’s no more than a tank of gas to get to where it’s legal.
It’s like I thought the Cameron gay marriage thing was such an easy win. Yeah, there’s a few people who didn’t like it, but who else were they going to vote for? So, you don’t lose their votes. And maybe you get a few gays who like it. And it was just a rebadge. Gay marriage gave no more rights to gay people than civil partnerships did.
Disastrous handling of the pandemic? I’d agree that Trump felt it politically necessary to give in to at least some of the screams of the panic merchants. But as you point out, that’s just the way things work.
And as for the Holy Constitutional Right to an abortion, Ginsberg could surely have resigned during Barmy’s reign if she felt she wouldn’t last. But no doubt she was sure that Puke’s sinister conspiracy against Heavenly Hillary would fail.
Yes, what we anti-abortionists need is a Roman Catholic in the White House. They would come out unequivocally against, and probably even legislate against it.
Wouldn’t they?
Yes, what we anti-abortionists need is a Roman Catholic in the White House.
Are there any anti-abortionists left in the Vatican? Hard to tell these days.
Trump Was Basically Giddy at the Prospect of RBG Dying, According to New Book
“Please God. Please watch over her. Every life is precious,” Trump sarcastically said, according to Maggie Haberman’s forthcoming book.
Don’t worry, Ruth, it’s a dry heat lol
he just said and did what he needed in order to get elected
ACKSHUALLY, the big difference is that, after being elected, Senor Tromp tried keeping the promises he made to his voters. That is why he’s dangerous.
There will be a need for higher taxes on the well-off. Wealth will need to be taxed considerably more. This is not for revenue …….
Well that answers the question I asked here the other day. Equality by hurting the rich instead of helping the poor. Perhaps he reads this blog? Ok Richard, next question, and one which I would normally ask a good accountant. How can I convert/move my wealth so it can’t be stolen, or more to the point how could you stop me?
And it was just a rebadge. Gay marriage gave no more rights to gay people than civil partnerships did.
And one wonders why people see the Tories as just a member of the LibConLab Blob.
No, it was not a fucking rebadge. It totally overturned a fundamental principal. A marriage is the uniting of two families in the persons of a male & a female with a view to producing children. That the families become jointly responsible for the offspring. That’s the only reason we had the custom. There would be no reason for it otherwise. OK, some marriages don’t last. Death or divorce. Some are childless. Some families don’t discharge their obligations But that’s the assumption. And why society let couples accrue certain benefits denied to others. And why the members of the wider society were willing to accept the obligations to provide the benefits.
And then one wonders why the family is failing to survive as an institution?
But you’re right. Who could you vote for opposed it.
Taking time off from watching the remainer coup on the telly, I’m minded to point out Nick Boles as a perfect example of the above.
Got a safe Tory seat in a leave area; campaigns for remain. Lied at his selection.
The is up for re-election, pens an article saying the vote is over, that’s it, we must listen and leave and not remain in the single market/ customs union, clean break, etc. Get re-elected. Is part of the reverse Brexit / Soft leave remain in the single market customs union brigade.
Looses his seat. Needs a job.
Writes an article months ago about how the Tory’s are so horrible now, he has voted labour for the first time.
Months pass, and here he is again, apparently prepared to vote Labour for the first time because the Tory’s are so awful etc etc.
These guys will do and say anything to get the chance to promote the remainer project.
Wonder if she ever looked into Biden’s history in government?
Man was for sale from the first day, and his owners liked him because he stayed bought.
Well then, isn’t that some convenient phrasing. Can you kindly decipher what our wives are thinking too?
Did Trump claim to be Native American to get ahead in his career? Did he do an impression of a black mammy for votes? Did he tell a black church that his opponent will “put y’all back in chains”?
And @bobby b, get this, Biden’s father was a used car salesman.
Given that the D defence of Roe was based less on abortion and considerably more on its usefulness in imposing Washington rule on red states, getting rid of it was sound R policy
All it took to get rid of RvW was a Supreme Court that considered the decision as a matter of law, rather than politics. Which is what such a court is supposed to do, isn’t it Lady Hale?