Another GOP Candidate Changes His Stance on Abortion

[Luce]

Have a nice day

Sorry for not letting you get away with being intentionally dishonest.

 

[choiceone]

Kinda like Barack Obama and Bill Clinton saying that marriage was between a man and a woman?

Yeah, no vote hunting there when they flipped on the issue ..................................right?

So, the answer to your question is yes.................................Democrats rely on their imbecile base also.

No, different. For example, Obama did not win office by supporting same-sex marriage. Whether that was popular with some people or not, he did not throw his hat in the ring on the issue. But while he was president, someone explained the issue to him in a way that made him publicly change his mind. When that happened, he sincerely said he had changed his mind. He never tried to cover up his previous position because he publicly changed it.

The Republicans are different. They publicly gave support to draconian anti-abortion laws, sometimes so draconian they were absolutely Satanic, and they did this in primaries that they are likely to have lost if they hadn't done so. Then, when this turned out to be a likely general election loser, they scrubbed their websites to hide what they had said and presented closer to pro-choice stands as if they had always had them.

No one in their right mind would trust these Republicans, because they weren't forthright about changing their minds after seeing that their previous view was a mistake. Republicans ordinarily don't even admit mistakes, just try to hide the commitments they previously made.

Democrats are not imbeciles. However, from the vote on the referendum related to abortion in red Kansas, it appears as if a lot of Republicans aren't either.

 

[Stealers Wheel]

Kinda like Barack Obama and Bill Clinton saying that marriage was between a man and a woman?

Yeah, no vote hunting there when they flipped on the issue ..................................right?

So, the answer to your question is yes.................................Democrats rely on their imbecile base also.

So you're saying that they changed their positions right before they had to face the general electorate? That they were foursquare against same-sex marriage until the primaries were over? And then when they had to court a different demographic they changed their position just like that? Is that what you're saying? Because if you are, you're lying. It was an evolutionary process. It started with "Don'task, don't tell" in the military. It was a small victory, but a victory nonetheless. Because it proved that our mission readiness did not collapse if a gay person were serving. Then it went to same-sex unions. Again, a small victory. It continued from there. Eventually, everyone who was gay was coming out and no one could come up with a valid argument as to why two consenting adults could not be in a marital relationship. The best they could do was dust off the same piss poor arguments they used to fight interracial marriage. Didn't work then, didn't work now.

Because that is what theses asshole Republicans are doing. They are scrubbing their websites of their positions held during the primaries and now they think we are just going say "Oh, never mind. I can vote for this guy because he's no longer supporting extreme anti-abortion policies or laws." We're not that ****ing stupid.

 

[Rawley]

Sorry for not letting you get away with being intentionally dishonest.

No you are not You explicitly said that prosecuting women for abortion was this candidate's bedrock principle. I made the mistake of calling you on it and you ran away from your post. Don't worry, I won't make that mistake again.

Now, true to form, you resort to personal insults.

We're done.

Have a nice life.

 

[Luce]

No you are not You explicitly said that prosecuting women for abortion was this candidate's bedrock principle.

It was.

I made the mistake of calling you on it and you ran away from your post.

Except that's not what happened. Your gas lighting is weak.

 

[Lursa]

You consider prosecuting women for abortion to be a bedrock principle? Got any support for that nonsense?

Agreed...why would anyone have considered prosecuting women for having abortions?

No good reason, right? What was their reason again? Please remind me.

 

[Rawley]

No, different. For example, Obama did not win office by supporting same-sex marriage. Whether that was popular with some people or not, he did not throw his hat in the ring on the issue. But while he was president, someone explained the issue to him in a way that made him publicly change his mind. When that happened, he sincerely said he had changed his mind. He never tried to cover up his previous position because he publicly changed it.

The Republicans are different. They publicly gave support to draconian anti-abortion laws, sometimes so draconian they were absolutely Satanic, and they did this in primaries that they are likely to have lost if they hadn't done so. Then, when this turned out to be a likely general election loser, they scrubbed their websites to hide what they had said and presented closer to pro-choice stands as if they had always had them.

No one in their right mind would trust these Republicans, because they weren't forthright about changing their minds after seeing that their previous view was a mistake. Republicans ordinarily don't even admit mistakes, just try to hide the commitments they previously made.

Democrats are not imbeciles. However, from the vote on the referendum related to abortion in red Kansas, it appears as if a lot of Republicans aren't either.

Were the primaries before or after Dobbs came out? Can't you see them changing their websites after the Dobbs decision came out? It changed what the law is.

 

[Stealers Wheel]

They flipped for votes and you know it.....and your premise is bullshit.

Nope, because they didn't "flip" in the first place. They openly admitted they were convinced to change their positions, AND THEY NEVER WENT BACK. These GOP assholes are hoping we won't notice they have changed their positions "Oh, no! I've always felt abortion should be left to the states. I wouldn't support a national ban on abortion." They are full of shit and the people know it. They will return to their old positions as soon as they have to face their MAGA primaries again.

 

[Rawley]

So you're saying that they changed their positions right before they had to face the general electorate? That they were foursquare against same-sex marriage until the primaries were over? And then when they had to court a different demographic they changed their position just like that? Is that what you're saying? Because if you are, you're lying. It was an evolutionary process. It started with "Don'task, don't tell" in the military. It was a small victory, but a victory nonetheless. Because it proved that our mission readiness did not collapse if a gay person were serving. Then it went to same-sex unions. Again, a small victory. It continued from there. Eventually, everyone who was gay was coming out and no one could come up with a valid argument as to why two consenting adults could not be in a marital relationship. The best they could do was dust off the same piss poor arguments they used to fight interracial marriage. Didn't work then, didn't work now.

Because that is what theses asshole Republicans are doing. They are scrubbing their websites of their positions held during the primaries and now they think we are just going say "Oh, never mind. I can vote for this guy because he's no longer supporting extreme anti-abortion policies or laws." We're not that ****ing stupid.

?? Do you have some examples of REpublican changing their positions from pro-life to pro-abortion? I think most moderated their positions after Dobbs due to a change in the law. Isn't that a good thing?

Graham seems to be the exception. He went from "this is a states rights issue" to "national abortion ban" That's nutz and I have no problem with people calling him out on it.

But Repubs that moderate their positions because of a change in the law, or go more towards the center after the primaries and before the general election is a good thing. Not sure why you are calling them assholes.

 

[AGENT J]

what makes it EXTRA funny is these batshit insane nutters had antirights and anti-choice stances as part of their PLATFORMS
the anti-choice talking points claiming they are about family and language was all over their websites then POOF!!!! it magically disappeared BWHAHAHAHA

imbeciles

 

[Hari Seldon]

Kinda like Barack Obama and Bill Clinton saying that marriage was between a man and a woman?

Yeah, no vote hunting there when they flipped on the issue ..................................right?

So, the answer to your question is yes.................................Democrats rely on their imbecile base also.

 

[NatMorton]

Gosh, it's almost like these issues are being worked out democratically.

 

[choiceone]

So you're saying that they changed their positions right before they had to face the general electorate? That they were foursquare against same-sex marriage until the primaries were over? And then when they had to court a different demographic they changed their position just like that? Is that what you're saying? Because if you are, you're lying. It was an evolutionary process. It started with "Don'task, don't tell" in the military. It was a small victory, but a victory nonetheless. Because it proved that our mission readiness did not collapse if a gay person were serving. Then it went to same-sex unions. Again, a small victory. It continued from there. Eventually, everyone who was gay was coming out and no one could come up with a valid argument as to why two consenting adults could not be in a marital relationship. The best they could do was dust off the same piss poor arguments they used to fight interracial marriage. Didn't work then, didn't work now.

Because that is what theses asshole Republicans are doing. They are scrubbing their websites of their positions held during the primaries and now they think we are just going say "Oh, never mind. I can vote for this guy because he's no longer supporting extreme anti-abortion policies or laws." We're not that ****ing stupid.

No, no. Democrats experienced the evolution. Only a small minority of Republicans went along. As a result, guys like Obama could be converted, and when they were, it was public and forever.

But most GOP candidates have no values at all. They'd do anything to win, just like Trump. Trump went after a GOP nomination because Republicans are easier to con, probably because so many of them would in fact do anything to win, too.

These guys went after the family values votes, the traditional, old-fashioned, Bible-thumping votes because they wanted low taxes and couldn't dupe enough up-to-date, educated, secular people. To do it, they had to be anti-gay and anti-abortion, but anti-abortion was also a kind of newspeak sign for tax-free Evangelically founded segregated private school vouchers. Eventually, anti-abortion worked on its own.

But there are people in the US who are REALLY anti-abortion - 9-10% are against abortion to save a woman's life, and about 20% are against abortion in a case of rape. So they had to appeal to these people in competition with other primary candidates. But their stances have to be so disgusting that they can lose people in a general election. Women go for this. There are many reasons so many married women often go for the GOP. But they can't do it with extreme anti-abortion commitments.

Before this year, this GOP approach did work, because, as long as Roe v Wade was valid, you didn't really have to worry. But now, no one knows whether these GOP candidates will actually enact these anti-abortion laws, because they're already doing it. And this not only insults the dignity of women. It threatens them with possible death, permanent disablement, permanent illness, and pregnancy-long rape and its consequences.

That's why the candidates are scrubbing their websites. But if you ask me, I think women will not believe them.

 

[choiceone]

Were the primaries before or after Dobbs came out? Can't you see them changing their websites after the Dobbs decision came out? It changed what the law is.

Agreed. With Roe and Casey, all sorts of GOP women felt safe, and so did a lot of Independent women. But after Dobbs, they knew they weren't safe. Actually, Alito basically implied that 14th A protections of personal rights didn't apply to women, which itself implies they don't really have a right even to life. I hope those GOP women are scared s--tless. They deserve it.

 

[choiceone]

?? Do you have some examples of REpublican changing their positions from pro-life to pro-abortion? I think most moderated their positions after Dobbs due to a change in the law. Isn't that a good thing?

Graham seems to be the exception. He went from "this is a states rights issue" to "national abortion ban" That's nutz and I have no problem with people calling him out on it.

But Repubs that moderate their positions because of a change in the law, or go more towards the center after the primaries and before the general election is a good thing. Not sure why you are calling them assholes.

The Republicans don't change "from pro-life to pro-abortion," because your wording is wrong.

Pro-choice means letting women and doctors decide on the issue of abortion and not letting the national or state government do it. Many people are only partly pro-choice - e.g., the government can make restrictions after viability, or after 15 weeks, or after 12 weeks, or the government has to make exceptions, for the woman's life, her health, cases of rape, fetal anomaly, etc.

Pro-life has two meanings. One is anti-abortion and again can be partial: against abortion in all cases, or with exception to save the woman's life/major health functions/fetus incompatible with life, etc.

The other meaning is government supportive of life and welfare, e.g., no capital punishment, government provides adequate health care, sometimes only for children, sometimes for pregnant women, postnatal women, etc., adequate housing, etc.

Some people are both pro-life in the sense of personally anti-abortion and politically pro-choice, in the sense of no anti-abortion law or liberal abortion law. Some are pro-life and pro-choice in the sense of support for both liberal government life/welfare policies and politically pro-choice policies. Etc.

The term pro-abortion is rare, because it implies favoring abortion over continued pregnancy and childbirth. I don't know anyone who is pro-abortion in that sense, though I know some exist.

What I have meant here is taking a really extreme anti-abortion position for the primaries and then, seeing that most people in the general election will be repulsed by this, changing their position to a more moderate one without ever acknowledging the change, just scrubbing their websites. They're pretending that they never took the public position they did. It's slimy and dishonest.

 

[choiceone]

Gosh, it's almost like these issues are being worked out democratically.

It would almost be like that, but it's a slimy way to do it. If you change, you should admit it right out loud - say, I made a mistake, but I'm trying to do better. That's honest.

 

[Rawley]

Agreed. With Roe and Casey, all sorts of GOP women felt safe, and so did a lot of Independent women. But after Dobbs, they knew they weren't safe. Actually, Alito basically implied that 14th A protections of personal rights didn't apply to women, which itself implies they don't really have a right even to life. I hope those GOP women are scared s--tless. They deserve it.

Wow. Really? Dobb means we can kill women with impunity? Interesting take.

 

[Rawley]

The Republicans don't change "from pro-life to pro-abortion," because your wording is wrong.

Pro-choice means letting women and doctors decide on the issue of abortion and not letting the national or state government do it. Many people are only partly pro-choice - e.g., the government can make restrictions after viability, or after 15 weeks, or after 12 weeks, or the government has to make exceptions, for the woman's life, her health, cases of rape, fetal anomaly, etc.

Pro-life has two meanings. One is anti-abortion and again can be partial: against abortion in all cases, or with exception to save the woman's life/major health functions/fetus incompatible with life, etc.

The other meaning is government supportive of life and welfare, e.g., no capital punishment, government provides adequate health care, sometimes only for children, sometimes for pregnant women, postnatal women, etc., adequate housing, etc.

Some people are both pro-life in the sense of personally anti-abortion and politically pro-choice, in the sense of no anti-abortion law or liberal abortion law. Some are pro-life and pro-choice in the sense of support for both liberal government life/welfare policies and politically pro-choice policies. Etc.

The term pro-abortion is rare, because it implies favoring abortion over continued pregnancy and childbirth. I don't know anyone who is pro-abortion in that sense, though I know some exist.

What I have meant here is taking a really extreme anti-abortion position for the primaries and then, seeing that most people in the general election will be repulsed by this, changing their position to a more moderate one without ever acknowledging the change, just scrubbing their websites. They're pretending that they never took the public position they did. It's slimy and dishonest.

Interesting. You believe there is an anti-abortion position, but no contrasting pro-abortion position. Want to think about that?

 

[choiceone]

Wow. Really? Dobb means we can kill women with impunity? Interesting take.

Technically, it may very well mean that. It's a raunchy decision.

 

[choiceone]

Interesting. You believe there is an anti-abortion position, but no contrasting pro-abortion position. Want to think about that?

Yes, that is what I believe. Yes, I've thought long and hard about that.

 

[Rawley]

Technically, it may very well mean that. It's a raunchy decision.

Raunchy? Do you happen to have handy the portion of Dobbs that you believe supports the killing of women?

 

[Fearandloathing]

The Republicans don't change "from pro-life to pro-abortion," because your wording is wrong.

Pro-choice means letting women and doctors decide on the issue of abortion and not letting the national or state government do it. Many people are only partly pro-choice - e.g., the government can make restrictions after viability, or after 15 weeks, or after 12 weeks, or the government has to make exceptions, for the woman's life, her health, cases of rape, fetal anomaly, etc.

Pro-life has two meanings. One is anti-abortion and again can be partial: against abortion in all cases, or with exception to save the woman's life/major health functions/fetus incompatible with life, etc.

The other meaning is government supportive of life and welfare, e.g., no capital punishment, government provides adequate health care, sometimes only for children, sometimes for pregnant women, postnatal women, etc., adequate housing, etc.

Some people are both pro-life in the sense of personally anti-abortion and politically pro-choice, in the sense of no anti-abortion law or liberal abortion law. Some are pro-life and pro-choice in the sense of support for both liberal government life/welfare policies and politically pro-choice policies. Etc.

The term pro-abortion is rare, because it implies favoring abortion over continued pregnancy and childbirth. I don't know anyone who is pro-abortion in that sense, though I know some exist.

What I have meant here is taking a really extreme anti-abortion position for the primaries and then, seeing that most people in the general election will be repulsed by this, changing their position to a more moderate one without ever acknowledging the change, just scrubbing their websites. They're pretending that they never took the public position they did. It's slimy and dishonest.

Excellent work!
".....What I have meant here is taking a really extreme anti-abortion position for the primaries and then, seeing that most people in the general election will be repulsed by this, changing their position to a more moderate one without ever acknowledging the change, just scrubbing their websites. They're pretending that they never took the public position they did. It's slimy and dishonest."

Yeah.....

But that too is American politics.

I have been saying since I first went on line in the 90's that Americans have lost their way in dealing with politics. Your politicians do not fear you enough.

You have an either this shit head or that piss-ant. Take your pick. And most in the solid color states know they only have to fool a small percentage of 'registered voters' in a primary. And that is a matter of price, usually.

So why bother? Why tip the apple cart if apples are selling? Who gives a shit if a black kid gets shot by white cops, I want mine!

To make them fear you, you need an alternative. A place to park your vote for a term, and teach the dickheads a lesson in humility. "You want to 'represent me' what's in it for me?" Like that. And then dump their ass for a third, non binary, non binding alternative. You can kick HIS ass out the next election. And you guys are ALWAYS in election mode! You've got that working FOR you already!

But since god got kicked out of schools and all public buildings, politics has become your new religion. Once baptized a conservative, you are Republican in all ways! Once enjoined by Democrats you vote anti-right no mater what. No argument is too inane, nothing can be proven, responses are entirely predictable.

That's why they don't fear you. You're predictable. You don't bother with the fine print. Which is what the likes of Trump etc. DON'T want you to do. They know you're busy making a life, they know details don't work on the net and so they put on a play of many parts; the script of which is being written in real time, no "dress rehearsal."
But you're being screwed and they won't even pay for the condom.

Finally, when Covid hit, Americans began arguing whether it was real. Your leaders made it a political issue to "wedge" the opposition. Here, they knew how to keep the masses from storming the castle. Before anyone could say 'help' they were shoving money at everyone, especially the elderly, new Canadians and working stiffs. It's the Canadian way! "Tax me, I'm, Canadian!"

Am I saying our politicians buy votes? Yes. Am I saying you should make your politicians buy yours? Damn right!

Stop giving it away free!

 

[choiceone]

Were the primaries before or after Dobbs came out? Can't you see them changing their websites after the Dobbs decision came out? It changed what the law is.

Dems supported the right to choose before, they supported it after.
Republicans were against abortion before, then they were even worse after, until they saw the poll numbers and got scared.

 

[phoenix2020]

Kinda like Barack Obama and Bill Clinton saying that marriage was between a man and a woman?

Yeah, no vote hunting there when they flipped on the issue ..................................right?

So, the answer to your question is yes.................................Democrats rely on their imbecile base also.

Medium quality whataboutism, 6/10. You get points for jumping in quick, but the random font size / bolding of the word 'yes' in your post draws eyes away from the actual whataboutism, diluting the message. Overall this is still bronze MAGA caliber but with more careful attention to formatting I believe you can make it to silver-status.

 

[CaughtInThe]

Liars