Because Trump 2.0

[Josh]

54 minutes ago, BansheeOne said:

 

Considering that this was the Republican stance right until it was actually handed to them by the Supreme Court, at which point they promptly changed course by 180 degrees and started talking about a national abortion ban, this may be the most principled thing Trump ever said ...

I think it is simply a case of him never being prolife to begin with, which isn't surprising coming from New Yorker who regularly has mistresses. One images it was advantageous for him to be prochoice on several occasions. He has also stated he was "very pro choice" and "pro choice in every respect" in an interview from 1999. His prolife kick just seems to be something he adopted for the GOP nom in 2015. And I think after the disappointing Republican cycle in 2022, he is eager to blame the losses on Dobbs rather than himself. So I would not call it principled as much as perhaps logical or reversion to the mean, though I'm still surprised he's explicitly making statements about specific timeframes until primary season is over. Again, I think he's decided he's already won and pivoting to the general election, where his softer position might pick up some independents.

[BansheeOne]

Well, you could argue that Trump has a successful populist's proven gut instinct for voter sentiment, and it's telling him that even among famously purist primary voters, it's something which will not damage or possibly even help him.

[Skywalkre]

No principle involved... just the populist angle being played.  Election results have highlighted that R polls were misleading about their stance on abortion.  There appears to be a sizeable segment of the R bloc that is actually pro-choice when push comes to shove.  I shouldn't be surprised by this as outside my family every R woman I've come across has been pro-choice.

As for Iowa I don't think it'll hurt Trump.  I've mentioned this before but apparently there's polling showing many of these Evangelical supporters of him don't even believe in basic Evangelical principles.  (He's also had some flops in recent weeks struggling to articulate his faith... and that hasn't hurt him.)  It seems clear all that matters is unwavering loyalty to Trump above all else.  I can't even fathom what could possibly change that at this point.  The nomination is solidly in hand for him.

[DKTanker]

18 hours ago, BansheeOne said:

 

Considering that this was the Republican stance right until it was actually handed to them by the Supreme Court, at which point they promptly changed course by 180 degrees and started talking about a national abortion ban, this may be the most principled thing Trump ever said ...

Aside from Senator Graham, who exactly changed course and started talking about a national abortion ban?  Ohhh, you mean Trump and his desire to again make abortion a federal issue.  From where I sit here in the cheap seats within the US, Republicans are mostly good with abortion being a state's issue.  But yeah, keep parroting the Leftist trope you've been fed.

[17thfabn]

4 hours ago, DKTanker said:

Aside from Senator Graham, who exactly changed course and started talking about a national abortion ban?  Ohhh, you mean Trump and his desire to again make abortion a federal issue.  From where I sit here in the cheap seats within the US, Republicans are mostly good with abortion being a state's issue.  But yeah, keep parroting the Leftist trope you've been fed.

On abortion in this thread I keep hearing it is a big issue with evangelical Christians. All the people I know that are very serious about anti abortion issues are Catholics. I drive by Catholic Churches that have crosses in the lawns representing the numbers aborted. The walk for life, a big anti abortion event is I believe organized by Catholics. The Catholic Church is anti abortion.

And yet the two highest profile Catholic politicians in the U.S. , former Speaker of the House Pelosi and President Biden are pro abortion.

Edited September 20, 2023 by 17thfabn

[Sardaukar]

This probably fits into this topic:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/sep/20/veteran-group-senator-military-promotions-block-abortion

As a result of Tuberville’s block on Senate-confirmed promotions, more than 300 senior roles are being filled in an acting capacity. Military officials have bemoaned the effects of Tuberville’s blocks on officers’ families and finances.

Even the position of chair of the joint chief of staff stands to be affected, when the current occupant, Gen Mark Milley, steps down at the end of this month.

Source is what it is, but basically this one guy is seriously demeaning US military.

On the other hand, one could argue that US has already too many generals and admirals....

[Ivanhoe]

23 minutes ago, Sardaukar said:

Source is what it is, but basically this one guy is seriously demeaning US military.

He's seriously not. Unless you believe that enabling the CCP to make personnel decisions in DC is a good thing. 

How many more Milleys do we need in DC acting on behalf of the PRC? 

The Army in particular is overtly making it harder for junior enlisted personnel to obtain promotion points. HRC has concluded that they have a shortage of E3s and E4s, and a surplus of E5s and E6s. Their solution is to ensure that few E4s earn enough promotion points to make E5, which also ensures that most E4s now drop papers rather than make a career of the Army. 

The apparent surplus of junior NCOs is not real, it is a consequence of a broken personnel management system in which a single NCO appears on the roster of two different units. 

People in Washington that are complaining about Tuberville aren't complaining about the overall talent hemorrhage, which tells me they are just Beltway blue waffle types. 

https://www.military.com/daily-news/2020/08/28/army-now-has-most-4-star-generals-duty-world-war-ii.html

Quote

The Army now has more four-star generals serving on active duty than the Army and Air Force combined had during World War II.

 

[BansheeOne]

6 hours ago, DKTanker said:

Aside from Senator Graham, who exactly changed course and started talking about a national abortion ban?  Ohhh, you mean Trump and his desire to again make abortion a federal issue.  From where I sit here in the cheap seats within the US, Republicans are mostly good with abortion being a state's issue.  But yeah, keep parroting the Leftist trope you've been fed.

I know of course that a federal abortion ban is at best controversial in the GOP, and more likely supported only by a minority; at least since Dobbs cut off their momentum in the midterms. It was just a TankNet broadbrushism, as in "Democrats are commies who want to kill unborns right until birth, then change the gender of the survivors". 😉

[R011]

25 minutes ago, Sardaukar said:

This probably fits into this topic:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/sep/20/veteran-group-senator-military-promotions-block-abortion

As a result of Tuberville’s block on Senate-confirmed promotions, more than 300 senior roles are being filled in an acting capacity. Military officials have bemoaned the effects of Tuberville’s blocks on officers’ families and finances.

Even the position of chair of the joint chief of staff stands to be affected, when the current occupant, Gen Mark Milley, steps down at the end of this month.

Source is what it is, but basically this one guy is seriously demeaning US military.

On the other hand, one could argue that US has already too many generals and admirals....

The officers complaining of the lost salary from delayed promotion are already extremely well paid senior three and four stars.  Somehow, I'm finding it hard to be very sympathetic.  And if the Deputy or Acting commanders can't do the job in that capacity, they shouldn't get the permanent positions.

[Skywalkre]

6 hours ago, DKTanker said:

Aside from Senator Graham, who exactly changed course and started talking about a national abortion ban?  Ohhh, you mean Trump and his desire to again make abortion a federal issue.  From where I sit here in the cheap seats within the US, Republicans are mostly good with abortion being a state's issue.  But yeah, keep parroting the Leftist trope you've been fed.

Several candidates for POTUS have mentioned support for it - Pence and Scott for sure.  Haley hasn't stated she's against it but that it's unrealistic and would never happen and has argued for more limited measures.  That was all back in the first debate.  I think a few more may have come out in support since?  Regardless... there are definitely some in the R camp who are now pushing for it.  I think you don't see many on the Hill talking about it because it's currently not an option with the makeup of the Senate and given what the reality of several elections since the Dobbs decision has shown it's politically not a smart move to push for it (outside of primary season... which is why the POTUS nominees are discussing it).

[Skywalkre]

2 hours ago, 17thfabn said:

On abortion in this thread I keep hearing it is a big issue with evangelical Christians. All the people I know that are very serious about anti abortion issues are Catholics. I drive by Catholic Churches that have crosses in the lawns representing the numbers aborted. The walk for life, a big anti abortion event is I believe organized by Catholics. The Catholic Church is anti abortion.

And yet the two highest profile Catholic politicians in the U.S. , former Speaker of the House Pelosi and President Biden are pro abortion.

In my lifetime at least Catholics have historically been majority D and pro-choice.  The church may not be that way... but the actual US members leaned that way.

This page from Pew seems up to date and highlights this and some other interesting realities.  It's showing 44% of Catholics in the US are D, 37% R, and 19% Independent.

What's really interesting is the breakdown of who is pro-choice and pro-life (it's near the bottom of the page).  Even amongst Ds and Rs you have quite differing views on abortions.  For Catholic Ds you have 58% who think abortion should be legal in all/most cases and 37% who think it should be illegal in all/most cases.  For Catholic Rs that's basically flipped - 38% think abortion should be legal in all/most cases and 59% who think it should be illegal in all/most cases.  Independents are basically in the middle (44% for legal/49% illegal).  I would imagine if we looked at most religious groups in the country we'd probably see a similar, bizarre (as in compared to historically what we used to think both sides actually thought) breakdown.

[Josh]

13 minutes ago, Skywalkre said:

Several candidates for POTUS have mentioned support for it - Pence and Scott for sure.  Haley hasn't stated she's against it but that it's unrealistic and would never happen and has argued for more limited measures.  That was all back in the first debate.  I think a few more may have come out in support since?  Regardless... there are definitely some in the R camp who are now pushing for it.  I think you don't see many on the Hill talking about it because it's currently not an option with the makeup of the Senate and given what the reality of several elections since the Dobbs decision has shown it's politically not a smart move to push for it (outside of primary season... which is why the POTUS nominees are discussing it).

I think it would be more fair to say you don't see people in the *Senate* pushing for it because it would likely be the kiss of death in any purple state, along with the filibuster making it impossible there. I don't think there's a shortage of Reps in the House that have made statements backing a national ban.

As for Coach Tubers, I think eventually he's just going to force a senate rule change rather than get what he wants. Continue to be stupid and piss off your own party, win stupid prize.

[Skywalkre]

Just now, Josh said:

As for Coach Tubers, I think eventually he's just going to force a senate rule change rather than get what he wants. Continue to be stupid and piss off your own party, win stupid prize.

Have some finally stated they're annoyed by it?  Last I saw (granted, this was a few weeks ago) either other Rs were voicing support or had no comment.

The whole affair and how some are reacting to it is... interesting.  As we see in this very thread some have lamented we have too many high ranking officials so this is a good thing.  Problem with that line of thought is you don't address the problem through dysfunction... you address it through serious reform that would get rid of many positions and make those changes permanent.  Tuberville's effort is meant to inflict pain on the Pentagon so they change their position... yet defenders of him claim it's not causing any pain at all.  if that's the case... why is he doing it?

[Josh]

2 hours ago, 17thfabn said:

On abortion in this thread I keep hearing it is a big issue with evangelical Christians. All the people I know that are very serious about anti abortion issues are Catholics. I drive by Catholic Churches that have crosses in the lawns representing the numbers aborted. The walk for life, a big anti abortion event is I believe organized by Catholics. The Catholic Church is anti abortion.

And yet the two highest profile Catholic politicians in the U.S. , former Speaker of the House Pelosi and President Biden are pro abortion.

It varies greatly depending on who you are talking to, but in general people who identify as "Catholic" are more likely to want abortion with some restrictions compared to Evangelicals who tend to be more hard no in all cases. The case for no exceptions is based on the perception than any abortion, even chemically induced in non viable fetus, is a murder.

Some interesting polling on the subject - note that about 2/3s indicate the time window is a factor:

https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2022/05/23/like-americans-overall-catholics-vary-in-their-abortion-views-with-regular-mass-attenders-most-opposed/

 

[Josh]

4 minutes ago, Skywalkre said:

Have some finally stated they're annoyed by it?  Last I saw (granted, this was a few weeks ago) either other Rs were voicing support or had no comment.

I've been seeing stories about it for weeks. Hot off the presses with a google search:

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/4214354-republican-anger-grows-at-gop-holdouts/

The dilemma is that the Republican senate minority doesn't want to lose this power going forward but wants this situation to end now and has no way of enforcing that. But I think it is only a matter of time before it starts to create real physical problems in the DoD that can be laid at the GOPs feet.

 

4 minutes ago, Skywalkre said:

The whole affair and how some are reacting to it is... interesting.  As we see in this very thread some have lamented we have too many high ranking officials so this is a good thing.  Problem with that line of thought is you don't address the problem through dysfunction... you address it through serious reform that would get rid of many positions and make those changes permanent.  Tuberville's effort is meant to inflict pain on the Pentagon so they change their position... yet defenders of him claim it's not causing any pain at all.  if that's the case... why is he doing it?

IMO, the move is just like the Freedom Caucus move in the House: totally theatrical. They know they won't achieve anything, but it gives them ink in the papers, fires up the base, and lands them a future seat on Fox News or News Max. IMO, MAGA kabuki theater is more about the money you can make after office. Any damage done to government institutions on the way out is gravy, since all of the government besides your caucus is the enemy.

[17thfabn]

8 hours ago, Skywalkre said:

In my lifetime at least Catholics have historically been majority D and pro-choice.  The church may not be that way... but the actual US members leaned that way.

This page from Pew seems up to date and highlights this and some other interesting realities.  It's showing 44% of Catholics in the US are D, 37% R, and 19% Independent.

 

I read an article years ago talking about U.S.  Catholic's political leanings.

The conclusion was that their political leanings had more to do with their ethnic and economic group than their religion.

For instance. An economic middle class Catholic Mid Westerner of German decent would have similar political beliefs and affiliations to  some one with the same back ground who is Protestant. 

The largely Catholic Hispanic demographic swings heavily Democrat, except those of Cuban decent. That is a high percentage of the U.S. Catholics.

Most of the Catholics in my area are of German heritage and are fairly conservative. Most of the German Protestants in this area are fairly conservative. 

Edited September 21, 2023 by 17thfabn

[NickM]

3 hours ago, 17thfabn said:

I read an article years ago talking about U.S.  Catholic's political leanings.

. 

The large Catholic Hispanic demographic swings heavily Catholic, except those of Cuban decent.

 

I'm guessing you meant 'heavily Democratic, except those of Cuban descent'.

[rmgill]

5 hours ago, BansheeOne said:

I know of course that a federal abortion ban is at best controversial in the GOP,

And its not controversial for the DNC? 

[rmgill]

4 hours ago, Skywalkre said:

Have some finally stated they're annoyed by it?  Last I saw (granted, this was a few weeks ago) either other Rs were voicing support or had no comment.

 

The left has spent the past 20 years or more telling us there is no end to federal authority to regulate anything. Suddenly we find the bridge too far? 
 

I am unsympathetic. 

[17thfabn]

3 hours ago, NickM said:

I'm guessing you meant 'heavily Democratic, except those of Cuban descent'.

Yes. I'll change it in the original. Thanks.

[17thfabn]

7 hours ago, 17thfabn said:

I read an article years ago talking about U.S.  Catholic's political leanings.

The conclusion was that their political leanings had more to do with their ethnic and economic group than their religion.

For instance. An economic middle class Catholic Mid Westerner of German decent would have similar political beliefs and affiliations to  some one with the same back ground who is Protestant. 

The largely Catholic Hispanic demographic swings heavily Democrat, except those of Cuban decent. That swings the Catholic more towards the Democrats percentage wise.

Most of the Catholics in my area are of German heritage and are fairly conservative. Most of the German Protestants in this area are fairly conservative. 

 

[Josh]

4 hours ago, rmgill said:

And its not controversial for the DNC? 

Not that I'm aware of? It isn't really debated, to the best of my knowledge. Certainly not compared to Trump vs Prolifers. I think there some left wing progressives annoyed that Biden isn't attempting to do more, but compared to the GOP tearing itself apart over the issue, I think the simplest answer is "no".

[Josh]

Wow...Trump Organization found to use fraudulent valuations. I mean, I would have assumed that a decade ago long before he had political aspirations, but I never thought anyone would actually call him out on it. I had not even heard of this case before:

https://www.reuters.com/legal/judge-finds-trump-liable-fraud-new-york-civil-case-2023-09-26/

 

[rmgill]

A civil suit judge can declare that an entire corporate stack must be dissolved in a summary judgement. How does that work? 

Due process? Property rights?

 

Edited September 27, 2023 by rmgill

[glenn239]

2 hours ago, Josh said:

Wow...Trump Organization found to use fraudulent valuations. I mean, I would have assumed that a decade ago long before he had political aspirations, but I never thought anyone would actually call him out on it. I had not even heard of this case before:

https://www.reuters.com/legal/judge-finds-trump-liable-fraud-new-york-civil-case-2023-09-26/

 

Seems like a fun precedent with all sorts of growth opportunities.