SDGOP delegate-alternate William Beal repurposes for his Facebook readers conservative Allen Ginzburg’s provocative thought experiment from last July: “If Donald Trump was actively trying to hand Hillary the election, what would he be doing differently?”
The argument that Trump is really a Clinton plant is as tantalizing yet only slightly more evidenced than the claim that Annette Bosworth was a plant for Mike Rounds in the 2014 GOP Senate primary. It’s dramatically tantalizing but unnecessarily complex. The far simpler explanation is that Trump is what his former Trump super-PACker Stephanie Cegielski says he is: a narcissist who wanted to run as a protest candidate to boost his reputation and business (wow, again, just like Annette Bosworth). If that play-acting scenario doesn’t satisfy our impulse for drama, I’d rather believe that Trump the showman is really remaking The Wave and plans to cap his convention acceptance speech by shouting “That’s your leader!” as he cues the AV Club to display a video of Adolf Hitler.
But I would respond directly to Mr. Beal’s question by contending that a Trump determined to sabotage the GOP nomination on behalf of Clinton (or Sanders! Think about the possibility: think about which Democrat is in more need of a Hail Mary to rise from impossibility to contender) would not have backtracked from his “punish the woman” statement on abortion. If Trump were running real protest-sabotage on the Republicans, he’d have stuck with that statement to press Republicans to the logical conclusion of equating a fetus with a human being:
- Abortion is murder.
- Murderers deserve life in prison or the death penalty.
- Women having abortions are murderers.
- Women having abortions deserve life in prison or the death penalty.
Nothing could more effectively destroy the ability of the GOP to distract a big chunk of voters from every other policy consideration by shouting “Baby-killer!” at Democrats than Donald Trump sticking to his guns and pointing out every day from his national podium the fundamental fallacy in the anti-abortion lobby’s rhetoric. Yet Donald Trump, who does not fear making provocative statements, surrendered that disruptive rhetorical position before the evening news came on.
That’s not the move of a Democratic saboteur. That’s the move of a candidate who hasn’t thought through the issues, who is winging a campaign based on ego and celebrity.
Trump: I’d pick justices who would look at Clinton’s email scandal (from Politico)
His justices would prolly legislate (from the bench) death penalties for all women who had, are having and are contemplating having abortions.
I think this latest comment shows that Trump has just been winging it in his campaign. He makes it up as he goes along. He has not bothered to think out his position on issues and off the cuff is beginning to wear thin.
There is a reasonable chance the campaign effort has taken a toll on the big fella and he is losing his edge despite his “incredible” physical and mental condition. Peggy Noonan speculated that he is trying to lose on a Freudian level.
Perhaps he hopes to get out before he has to release his (also incredible) income taxes.
He no longer can win in November.
A month ago I thought he was a near lock for the nomination, I now think the Republicans will nominate someone else rather than this man who would force them to confront the logical inconsistencies of their platform.
Jeff, was there a point when Trump could win in November?
Nick, you are right that Trump is holding a mirror up to the GOP. But if they are committed to not looking in that mirror, then guys like Thune and Ryan need to get serious about saying they won’t support Trump…
…though maybe that’s what the “I’ll support the nominee” rhetoric is all about. They are confident that their backroom and convention-floor machinations will strip Trump of his delegates and install a nominee the party finds tolerable, so they can say “I’ll support the nominee” without blanching.
Drumpf clearly has no idea how the Scotus operates. Mayhaps he believes he can anoint hisownself dictator.
I’ve decided I can’t vote for Hillary in November since she’s really a republican. I’ll probably leave it blank since I can’t stand her and the establishment doesn’t want Bernie on the ballot.
If the leaders of that party had any guts they would announce their refusal to support a Trump candidacy. Looking at you John Thune. If enough did so maybe the rank and file would come to their senses.
This still doesn’t address the fact that the Republican policy of “if Obama’s fer it I’m agin it” is illogical and makes governing a complex nation with three separate but equal branches of government impossible. They have sown the wind and are now reaping the whirlwind.
I think you are making a mistake Jenny. Hillary is not the same as a Republican. There are huge issues like the future of the Supreme Court that have long range consequences.
If you lived in a state like South Dakota that will support the Republican nominee no matter what you might have the luxury of not voting for the President, but you live in Minnesota where the outcome of the presidential election is actually in doubt.
Nick, if Trump were doing satire, he’d be able to move on to serious “If Obama’s fer it, I’m agin it” hilarity now that he has so many delegates locked up. He could say, “Barack Obama has shrunk federal government employment, so we Republicans are for expanding federal government jobs!” He could say, “Obama protected the private health insurance industry with the ACA, so I’m going to eliminate private insurance companies!”
Actually, that sounds like a lot of fun. Basically, that would be Stephen Colbert running for President in character.
If Hillary is not a republican she’s sure making it look like she wants to be one. Her record is conservative and I hugely dislike any Congress person that voted for authorization for war in Iraq back in 2002.
Jenny, I’m inclined to agree with Nick. Clinton may be a pro-corporate Blue Dog (and how many Wall Street execs has President Obama put in jail?). She may even be a Nixon Republican. But she’s not a 2016 Cruz-Trump Republican, and she would not be the crushing disaster that a President Cruz-Trump would be.
That said (and sure, we’ll go wheeeeeee! off on a tangent here), I’m curious about the moral tenability of your position. It would be a grave moral error to support fascism by forsaking a nominee Clinton and actively campaigning for Trump (see also Lynn betraying the Democratic Party over her misperception of marijuana politics and vowing to make phone calls to help Al Novstrup get elected). But you’re talking about still supporting other Democratic candidates and issues down the ticket (right?), still telling people that Trump is a fascist whom we must not elect, but simply declining to mark your X for the fascist’s opponent (or maybe marking a third-party choice?). Is taking the Swiss position sufficient in the face of the Trump threat?
Come on you guys, you’re smarter than that. Trump is not really as conservative as he claims to be. He’s not religious at all, he’s pro-choice and he has ideas that are liberal-leaning like people making up to $50000 should not pay any income taxes at all. He was vocal that the Iraq war was going to be a disaster.
He is just playing the staunch racist conservative to get votes, nothing more.
cory, Hillary put Nixon in jail so-to-speak. I was there.
While attempting to forecast the future positions of some unnamed future Supreme Court justice nominated by a president to be named later is a fools errand, I am much more content to leave that task of nominating to a future President Hillary Clinton than a future President Donald Trump.
Jenny: “Hilary… really a republican”
I’m fairly neutral between Bernie and Hilary (and honestly, I don’t expect our votes here in SD will make much difference in the primary, given our late placement in the primary calender), but the above quote isn’t a true statement, and its apparently acceptance by the 10-20% of the Democratic electorate (1/3rd of the ~40% that support Bernie…) that says it wouldn’t vote for Hilary is a little scary.
By any quantitative measure you want, Hilary is pretty liberal. Bernie and Hilary voted identically during their shared tenure in the Senate 93% of the time. She’s also pretty liberal based on other measures, too; FiveThirtyEight’s Harry Enten is better at explaining it than I am:
http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/hillary-clinton-was-liberal-hillary-clinton-is-liberal/
Trump’s about face withdrawing his statement that women who obtain illegal abortions should be punished reminds me a bit of our own SD legislators. The newest restriction signed into law prohibits punishing any woman who obtains an illegal late term abortion (my argument that this would not apply to the homicide states was rejected by the governor).
Thinking this through, here is where we apparently now stand. Any woman may attempt a self abortion at any time in their pregnancy without fear of prosecution. She can use coat hangers, drugs, violence upon herself, or any one of the known unsafe and dangerous means that women used before Roe v. Wade.
The only people subject to punishment under the view of Trump and the SD legislature and Governor, is the person or medical personnel that tries to help the woman. As long as they leave her alone, they are safe, but if they try to provide a safe and effective method for the woman to terminate then they are criminals.
And this makes sense as a pro-life, pro-woman position?
All I can say to those who say, “Well, if Bernie isn’t the candidate, I won’t vote for anyone,” or those who say, “Well, Hillary isn’t pure enough”, my response is RALPH NADER. The purity police voted for Ralph Nader in 2000, and we ended up George W. Bush as President. I hate to say it, but we have a strong likelihood of once again shooting our country in the foot if that same thinking holds all the way to the polls…
Huff Po writer David Grimes describes the circumstances that our SD legislators have decided is best for women who intend to terminate their pregnancies without legal medical help. Since only the woman will not be prosecuted, our legislators have decided it is best that she do it herself without medical help. Here is how it used to be done before doctors could legally help the women seeking an abortion:
” Surveys in New York City in the mid-1960s revealed the variety of methods used. Treatments women took by mouth included turpentine, bleach, detergents and a range of herbal and vegetable teas. Quinine and chloroquine (malaria medicines) were ingested, and potassium permanganate was placed in the vagina, often causing chemical burns. Toxic solutions were squirted into the uterus, such as soap and turpentine, often causing kidney failure and death. This was the technique used by Vera Drake, the protagonist of Mike Leigh’s 2004 award-winning movie. Insertion of foreign bodies was common and more effective than oral agents. Objects included a coat hanger, knitting needle, bicycle spoke, ball-point pen, chicken bone and rubber catheter. Some women threw themselves off of stairs or roofs in an attempt to end a pregnancy. As a young doctor, I removed a rubber catheter from the uterus of a woman with fever of 106 degrees. A dietitian in a nearby city had inserted the catheter through her cervix to induce an abortion. Physicians younger than me have not encountered these tragedies.
Dr. Daniel Mishell, Jr., of Los Angeles, remembers conditions before Roe:
They jabbed into their uteruses with knitting needles and coat hangers, which Mishell sometimes found still inside them. They stuck in bicycle pump nozzles, sometimes sending a fatal burst of air to the heart. They’d try to insert chemicals — drain cleaner, fertilizer, radiator-flush — and miss the cervix, corrode an artery and bleed to death. Mishell once put a catheter into a woman’s bladder and ‘got a tablespoon of motor oil.’
I’m telling you, it was really an awful situation. It touched me because I’d see young, [otherwise] healthy women in their 20s die from the consequences of an infected nonsterile abortion. Women would do anything to get rid of unwanted pregnancies. They’d risk their lives. It was a different world, I’ll tell you.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-a-grimes/the-bad-old-days-abortion_b_6324610.html
I am a bit surprised that this state of affairs appears to be what our legislators and governor want our young women to return to.
RU-486 is now easier and cheaper to get,can be used later in pregnancies than before and some wingnut states are changing statute law to make users use the old rules. Dems find solutions,wingnuts manufacture complications.