Trump is telling close allies that 'suburban women' could punish him for overturning Roe v Wade

[DaleCooper]

If they were really his close allies they would be warning him that his body will punish him for eating sticks of butter like candy and drinking 25 cans of Diet Coke each day.

I don't think he actually drinks the full 12 cans a day, he just has it with him.

That's even lamer than the "I didn't inhale" excuse.

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

Hopefully he is making excuses not to run so we can get President Ron DeSantis

Nominee DeSantis losing to Biden would be better

However, I said it already, I'm not sure Trump is actually going to run again. He'll tease a run till some time next years and then bow out.

Even if he does decide against running, he'll keep up the pretense as long as possible in order to keep grifting. When would he reach the point where he must file paperwork or admit he's lining his pockets with his cultists donations?

[Skill and Chance]

Why suburban women?  Why not rural women?  I hate this kind of thinking, women in all areas, in red states, like Oklahoma, Alabama, etc., want choices in their reproductive health.  The states that may have the largest backlashes over time might be very red states because that's where the legislatures are going to really go too far.

Women all over this country believe in healthy, safe childbirth and they believe in planned pregnancies, and they want access to birth control, contraception, to all forms of reproductive health.  Not just suburban women.

Because this isn't true. Women are only slightly more likely (52-43) to define as pro-choice vs. pro-life than men (45-50). https://news.gallup.com/poll/244709/pro-choice-pro-life-2018-demographic-tables.aspx It's tremendously funny how liberals have deluded themselves into believing that women are hugely pro-choice, but it's not true. (As can be seen, btw, from people like OP choosing to say "reproductive health" "all forms of reproductive health" rather than actually addressing what this debate is specifically about and mentioning abortion).

Fine: I'll say the word : A-B-O-R-T-I-O-N.  If I could be impregnated, I'd most certainly want the choice for myself.  I said choice.  Conservatives always assume the choice is going to be A-B-O-R-T-I-O-N... but I would want a choice, and I'd want conservative men to stick their noses out of it.  They do not get to control what I do.

And no, you're wrong.  Red state women are not 100% pro-life.  Maybe they're more pro-life than pro-choice, but there's still women living in those rural Republican counties that would like to have A-B-O-R-T-I-O-N-s if they want to.

Conservatives have yet to explain how the Big Government they constantly rail against could suddenly be magically okay when they want to control other people's lives.  H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-T-E-S.

There are also pro-life activists in NYC.  Do they swing any important elections?  Do they have any influence on statewide politics?

[progressive85]

Why suburban women?  Why not rural women?  I hate this kind of thinking, women in all areas, in red states, like Oklahoma, Alabama, etc., want choices in their reproductive health.  The states that may have the largest backlashes over time might be very red states because that's where the legislatures are going to really go too far.

Women all over this country believe in healthy, safe childbirth and they believe in planned pregnancies, and they want access to birth control, contraception, to all forms of reproductive health.  Not just suburban women.

Because this isn't true. Women are only slightly more likely (52-43) to define as pro-choice vs. pro-life than men (45-50). https://news.gallup.com/poll/244709/pro-choice-pro-life-2018-demographic-tables.aspx It's tremendously funny how liberals have deluded themselves into believing that women are hugely pro-choice, but it's not true. (As can be seen, btw, from people like OP choosing to say "reproductive health" "all forms of reproductive health" rather than actually addressing what this debate is specifically about and mentioning abortion).

Fine: I'll say the word : A-B-O-R-T-I-O-N.  If I could be impregnated, I'd most certainly want the choice for myself.  I said choice.  Conservatives always assume the choice is going to be A-B-O-R-T-I-O-N... but I would want a choice, and I'd want conservative men to stick their noses out of it.  They do not get to control what I do.

And no, you're wrong.  Red state women are not 100% pro-life.  Maybe they're more pro-life than pro-choice, but there's still women living in those rural Republican counties that would like to have A-B-O-R-T-I-O-N-s if they want to.

Conservatives have yet to explain how the Big Government they constantly rail against could suddenly be magically okay when they want to control other people's lives.  H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-T-E-S.

There are also pro-life activists in NYC.  Do they swing any important elections?  Do they have any influence on statewide politics?

Pro-life activists in NYC have the right to persuade women not to have abortions.  They are more than welcome to express that viewpoint.

They do not, unlike in other states, have the power to limit rights of other women and to mandate that all women give birth if they become pregnant.

There are women that have babies in NYC every day - in San Francisco, in Massachusetts, in every liberal town and city in America... the choice NOT to have an abortion is always there and in fact most women will not choose to have the abortion and that is wonderful.

All that pro-choice is is giving women freedom to make their own choices.  If that means that 100% of women do not have abortions, that is great.  But here is where the pro-life and pro-choice sides differ - one seeks to control the other, and that is what we do not want to happen.

You are free to believe abortion is murdering of an innocent baby - for many that is their true conviction, and they are always and should always be allowed to express that - but to have the Government of the state come in and dictate reproductive policies, that's taking away other women's choices - and it's what I oppose.

I don't oppose pro-life views, I oppose the state enforcing, in the way that Texas and other states have, that on every single pregnancy...  you can support it, but it is what it is: Big Government intrusion into an area of life that should be limited to the mother, the father, the family, their doctors.

Anyway back to the original topic - Trump is probably pro-choice when it suits him personally, and Lord knows how many abortions he's actually paid for or told a woman/mistress she should have.  He's totally the wrong man to be the face of the pro-life movement in America and the clown knows it.

[Badger]

Hopefully he is making excuses not to run so we can get President Ron DeSantis

Yes, all the fascism light and gross democracy crushing instincts in a more electable form, because tax cuts and Auntie regulation Uber Alles. Besides, if progressing towards the direction of a modern-day hungry means fewer Democrats in office, what's to worry about in the long-term health of the country? 

[GeorgiaModerate]

Hopefully he is making excuses not to run so we can get President Ron DeSantis

Yes, all the fascism light and gross democracy crushing instincts in a more electable form, because tax cuts and Auntie regulation Uber Alles. Besides, if progressing towards the direction of a modern-day hungry means fewer Democrats in office, what's to worry about in the long-term health of the country? 

Hungary?

[OSR stands with Israel]

Hopefully he is making excuses not to run so we can get President Ron DeSantis

Yes, all the fascism light and gross democracy crushing instincts in a more electable form, because tax cuts and Auntie regulation Uber Alles. Besides, if progressing towards the direction of a modern-day hungry means fewer Democrats in office, what's to worry about in the long-term health of the country? 

Nah I don’t want more tax cuts , I want the reins act to be passed along with the educational reforms DeSantis put in place in Florida to hopefully go national

[Libertas Vel Mors]

Why suburban women?  Why not rural women?  I hate this kind of thinking, women in all areas, in red states, like Oklahoma, Alabama, etc., want choices in their reproductive health.  The states that may have the largest backlashes over time might be very red states because that's where the legislatures are going to really go too far.

Women all over this country believe in healthy, safe childbirth and they believe in planned pregnancies, and they want access to birth control, contraception, to all forms of reproductive health.  Not just suburban women.

Because this isn't true. Women are only slightly more likely (52-43) to define as pro-choice vs. pro-life than men (45-50). https://news.gallup.com/poll/244709/pro-choice-pro-life-2018-demographic-tables.aspx It's tremendously funny how liberals have deluded themselves into believing that women are hugely pro-choice, but it's not true. (As can be seen, btw, from people like OP choosing to say "reproductive health" "all forms of reproductive health" rather than actually addressing what this debate is specifically about and mentioning abortion).

And what, exactly, is your point, given that all that the poster to whom you were responding merely claimed is that there are "women in all areas, in red states, like Oklahoma, Alabama, etc., [who] want choices in their reproductive health"? Unless you're capable of proving that there are literally 0 women in any of those states who care about abortion access, your response to the OP is wholly irrelevant as to whether or not Trump should only be concerned about suburban women.

That was clearly not the posters implication, considering that he was saying there is a significant enough number of pro-choice women in these areas to result in a "large backlash" to the banning of abortion.

The Gallup numbers which you literally linked to above show that the South, the nation's most pro-life region, is still 44% pro-choice. In what sane universe does 44% of a region's population not constitute a politically significant portion thereof? Seriously, do you just like always digging your own argumentative grave? If you want somebody who actually knows what they're talking about to articulate what you can't on the matter of abortion's gender gap, then let Skill and Chance or Harry do so.

 

Taking my words out of context makes my point for me. I didn't say that there wasn't a significant number of pro-choice voters in the South: I said there wasn't a significant enough portion to result in a large electoral backlash. Two different things.

[Libertas Vel Mors]

Why suburban women?  Why not rural women?  I hate this kind of thinking, women in all areas, in red states, like Oklahoma, Alabama, etc., want choices in their reproductive health.  The states that may have the largest backlashes over time might be very red states because that's where the legislatures are going to really go too far.

Women all over this country believe in healthy, safe childbirth and they believe in planned pregnancies, and they want access to birth control, contraception, to all forms of reproductive health.  Not just suburban women.

Because this isn't true. Women are only slightly more likely (52-43) to define as pro-choice vs. pro-life than men (45-50). https://news.gallup.com/poll/244709/pro-choice-pro-life-2018-demographic-tables.aspx It's tremendously funny how liberals have deluded themselves into believing that women are hugely pro-choice, but it's not true. (As can be seen, btw, from people like OP choosing to say "reproductive health" "all forms of reproductive health" rather than actually addressing what this debate is specifically about and mentioning abortion).

Fine: I'll say the word : A-B-O-R-T-I-O-N.  If I could be impregnated, I'd most certainly want the choice for myself.  I said choice.  Conservatives always assume the choice is going to be A-B-O-R-T-I-O-N... but I would want a choice, and I'd want conservative men to stick their noses out of it.  They do not get to control what I do.

And no, you're wrong.  Red state women are not 100% pro-life.  Maybe they're more pro-life than pro-choice, but there's still women living in those rural Republican counties that would like to have A-B-O-R-T-I-O-N-s if they want to.

Conservatives have yet to explain how the Big Government they constantly rail against could suddenly be magically okay when they want to control other people's lives.  H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-T-E-S.

Again, if you can't be honest about what your opponent is saying, you should ask yourself why. No where did I make the obviously absurd statement that 100% of women in red states are pro-life. I live in a red state, and I know that that's not true. But even if some women in red states may be pro-choice, these women are also already disproportionately likely to vote Democrat. While it is entirely possible that some voters do exist who will switch their votes if Republicans pass abortion bans in states like Oklahoma or Alabama, I am quite willing to bet that this will not be a significant enough number to result in a large scale backlash. Furthermore, I think it is entirely possible that any switches that do occur will cancelled out by swings right among currently Democratic voters or increased turnout among current non-voters.

[brucejoel99]

Why suburban women?  Why not rural women?  I hate this kind of thinking, women in all areas, in red states, like Oklahoma, Alabama, etc., want choices in their reproductive health.  The states that may have the largest backlashes over time might be very red states because that's where the legislatures are going to really go too far.

Women all over this country believe in healthy, safe childbirth and they believe in planned pregnancies, and they want access to birth control, contraception, to all forms of reproductive health.  Not just suburban women.

Because this isn't true. Women are only slightly more likely (52-43) to define as pro-choice vs. pro-life than men (45-50). https://news.gallup.com/poll/244709/pro-choice-pro-life-2018-demographic-tables.aspx It's tremendously funny how liberals have deluded themselves into believing that women are hugely pro-choice, but it's not true. (As can be seen, btw, from people like OP choosing to say "reproductive health" "all forms of reproductive health" rather than actually addressing what this debate is specifically about and mentioning abortion).

And what, exactly, is your point, given that all that the poster to whom you were responding merely claimed is that there are "women in all areas, in red states, like Oklahoma, Alabama, etc., [who] want choices in their reproductive health"? Unless you're capable of proving that there are literally 0 women in any of those states who care about abortion access, your response to the OP is wholly irrelevant as to whether or not Trump should only be concerned about suburban women.

That was clearly not the posters implication, considering that he was saying there is a significant enough number of pro-choice women in these areas to result in a "large backlash" to the banning of abortion.

The Gallup numbers which you literally linked to above show that the South, the nation's most pro-life region, is still 44% pro-choice. In what sane universe does 44% of a region's population not constitute a politically significant portion thereof? Seriously, do you just like always digging your own argumentative grave? If you want somebody who actually knows what they're talking about to articulate what you can't on the matter of abortion's gender gap, then let Skill and Chance or Harry do so.

 

Taking my words out of context makes my point for me. I didn't say that there wasn't a significant number of pro-choice voters in the South: I said there wasn't a significant enough portion to result in a large electoral backlash. Two different things.

LMAO I did no such thing. I rightly asked you, "(i)n what sane universe does 44% of a region's population not constitute a politically significant portion thereof?" Note the emphasis on politically, since adverbs mean something. Do you seriously think that 44% of the population isn't a significant enough portion thereof to politically turn 44% into 45%, & then 46%, & etc.? If so, then the point remains & the question stands: do you just like always digging your own argumentative grave?

[Libertas Vel Mors]

Why suburban women?  Why not rural women?  I hate this kind of thinking, women in all areas, in red states, like Oklahoma, Alabama, etc., want choices in their reproductive health.  The states that may have the largest backlashes over time might be very red states because that's where the legislatures are going to really go too far.

Women all over this country believe in healthy, safe childbirth and they believe in planned pregnancies, and they want access to birth control, contraception, to all forms of reproductive health.  Not just suburban women.

Because this isn't true. Women are only slightly more likely (52-43) to define as pro-choice vs. pro-life than men (45-50). https://news.gallup.com/poll/244709/pro-choice-pro-life-2018-demographic-tables.aspx It's tremendously funny how liberals have deluded themselves into believing that women are hugely pro-choice, but it's not true. (As can be seen, btw, from people like OP choosing to say "reproductive health" "all forms of reproductive health" rather than actually addressing what this debate is specifically about and mentioning abortion).

And what, exactly, is your point, given that all that the poster to whom you were responding merely claimed is that there are "women in all areas, in red states, like Oklahoma, Alabama, etc., [who] want choices in their reproductive health"? Unless you're capable of proving that there are literally 0 women in any of those states who care about abortion access, your response to the OP is wholly irrelevant as to whether or not Trump should only be concerned about suburban women.

That was clearly not the posters implication, considering that he was saying there is a significant enough number of pro-choice women in these areas to result in a "large backlash" to the banning of abortion.

The Gallup numbers which you literally linked to above show that the South, the nation's most pro-life region, is still 44% pro-choice. In what sane universe does 44% of a region's population not constitute a politically significant portion thereof? Seriously, do you just like always digging your own argumentative grave? If you want somebody who actually knows what they're talking about to articulate what you can't on the matter of abortion's gender gap, then let Skill and Chance or Harry do so.

 

Taking my words out of context makes my point for me. I didn't say that there wasn't a significant number of pro-choice voters in the South: I said there wasn't a significant enough portion to result in a large electoral backlash. Two different things.

LMAO I did no such thing. I rightly asked you, "(i)n what sane universe does 44% of a region's population not constitute a politically significant portion thereof?" Note the emphasis on politically, since adverbs mean something. Do you seriously think that 44% of the population isn't a significant enough portion thereof to politically turn 44% into 45%, & then 46%, & etc.? If so, then the point remains & the question stands: do you just like always digging your own argumentative grave?

Right. And since I didn't say that 44% wasn't a significant portion, you took my words out of context.

And no, I don't. But I

A. Am skeptical of any sub 400 person sample of a national poll

B. Am skeptical of definitions of the South that include Maryland and Delaware

C. Don't believe that support for abortion will rise

D. Don't believe the result

E. Believe that most of the people defining as pro-choice here already vote Democrat

F. Don't believe a significant enough portion of the people defining as pro-choice here and voting Republican currently will switch to voting Democrat if abortion bans are put in place to have a significant electoral effect, especially when counteracted by other factors.

[brucejoel99]

Why suburban women?  Why not rural women?  I hate this kind of thinking, women in all areas, in red states, like Oklahoma, Alabama, etc., want choices in their reproductive health.  The states that may have the largest backlashes over time might be very red states because that's where the legislatures are going to really go too far.

Women all over this country believe in healthy, safe childbirth and they believe in planned pregnancies, and they want access to birth control, contraception, to all forms of reproductive health.  Not just suburban women.

Because this isn't true. Women are only slightly more likely (52-43) to define as pro-choice vs. pro-life than men (45-50). https://news.gallup.com/poll/244709/pro-choice-pro-life-2018-demographic-tables.aspx It's tremendously funny how liberals have deluded themselves into believing that women are hugely pro-choice, but it's not true. (As can be seen, btw, from people like OP choosing to say "reproductive health" "all forms of reproductive health" rather than actually addressing what this debate is specifically about and mentioning abortion).

And what, exactly, is your point, given that all that the poster to whom you were responding merely claimed is that there are "women in all areas, in red states, like Oklahoma, Alabama, etc., [who] want choices in their reproductive health"? Unless you're capable of proving that there are literally 0 women in any of those states who care about abortion access, your response to the OP is wholly irrelevant as to whether or not Trump should only be concerned about suburban women.

That was clearly not the posters implication, considering that he was saying there is a significant enough number of pro-choice women in these areas to result in a "large backlash" to the banning of abortion.

The Gallup numbers which you literally linked to above show that the South, the nation's most pro-life region, is still 44% pro-choice. In what sane universe does 44% of a region's population not constitute a politically significant portion thereof? Seriously, do you just like always digging your own argumentative grave? If you want somebody who actually knows what they're talking about to articulate what you can't on the matter of abortion's gender gap, then let Skill and Chance or Harry do so.

 

Taking my words out of context makes my point for me. I didn't say that there wasn't a significant number of pro-choice voters in the South: I said there wasn't a significant enough portion to result in a large electoral backlash. Two different things.

LMAO I did no such thing. I rightly asked you, "(i)n what sane universe does 44% of a region's population not constitute a politically significant portion thereof?" Note the emphasis on politically, since adverbs mean something. Do you seriously think that 44% of the population isn't a significant enough portion thereof to politically turn 44% into 45%, & then 46%, & etc.? If so, then the point remains & the question stands: do you just like always digging your own argumentative grave?

Right. And since I didn't say that 44% wasn't a significant portion, you took my words out of context.

...

lol, ok, now you've just gotta be kidding me. You literally said it's not true that "women in all areas, in red states, like Oklahoma, Alabama, etc., want choices in their reproductive health" in response to what you explicitly perceived as OP's "implication... that he was saying there is a significant enough number of pro-choice women in these areas to result in a "large backlash" to the banning of abortion." In light of the fact that, according to the very polling statistics which you provided, the nation's least pro-choice region is still 44% pro-choice, concluding on the basis of the aforementioned that you think that 44% isn't a politically significant portion of the population isn't taking your words out of context; it's using context clues to fill in the logical gaps that your deficient argumentation is & continues to prove incapable of articulating.

[Libertas Vel Mors]

Why suburban women?  Why not rural women?  I hate this kind of thinking, women in all areas, in red states, like Oklahoma, Alabama, etc., want choices in their reproductive health.  The states that may have the largest backlashes over time might be very red states because that's where the legislatures are going to really go too far.

Women all over this country believe in healthy, safe childbirth and they believe in planned pregnancies, and they want access to birth control, contraception, to all forms of reproductive health.  Not just suburban women.

Because this isn't true. Women are only slightly more likely (52-43) to define as pro-choice vs. pro-life than men (45-50). https://news.gallup.com/poll/244709/pro-choice-pro-life-2018-demographic-tables.aspx It's tremendously funny how liberals have deluded themselves into believing that women are hugely pro-choice, but it's not true. (As can be seen, btw, from people like OP choosing to say "reproductive health" "all forms of reproductive health" rather than actually addressing what this debate is specifically about and mentioning abortion).

And what, exactly, is your point, given that all that the poster to whom you were responding merely claimed is that there are "women in all areas, in red states, like Oklahoma, Alabama, etc., [who] want choices in their reproductive health"? Unless you're capable of proving that there are literally 0 women in any of those states who care about abortion access, your response to the OP is wholly irrelevant as to whether or not Trump should only be concerned about suburban women.

That was clearly not the posters implication, considering that he was saying there is a significant enough number of pro-choice women in these areas to result in a "large backlash" to the banning of abortion.

The Gallup numbers which you literally linked to above show that the South, the nation's most pro-life region, is still 44% pro-choice. In what sane universe does 44% of a region's population not constitute a politically significant portion thereof? Seriously, do you just like always digging your own argumentative grave? If you want somebody who actually knows what they're talking about to articulate what you can't on the matter of abortion's gender gap, then let Skill and Chance or Harry do so.

 

Taking my words out of context makes my point for me. I didn't say that there wasn't a significant number of pro-choice voters in the South: I said there wasn't a significant enough portion to result in a large electoral backlash. Two different things.

LMAO I did no such thing. I rightly asked you, "(i)n what sane universe does 44% of a region's population not constitute a politically significant portion thereof?" Note the emphasis on politically, since adverbs mean something. Do you seriously think that 44% of the population isn't a significant enough portion thereof to politically turn 44% into 45%, & then 46%, & etc.? If so, then the point remains & the question stands: do you just like always digging your own argumentative grave?

Right. And since I didn't say that 44% wasn't a significant portion, you took my words out of context.

...

lol, ok, now you've just gotta be kidding me. You literally said it's not true that "women in all areas, in red states, like Oklahoma, Alabama, etc., want choices in their reproductive health" in response to what you explicitly perceived as OP's "implication... that he was saying there is a significant enough number of pro-choice women in these areas to result in a "large backlash" to the banning of abortion." In light of the fact that, according to the very polling statistics which you provided, the nation's least pro-choice region is still 44% pro-choice, concluding on the basis of the aforementioned that you think that 44% isn't a politically significant portion of the population isn't taking your words out of context; it's using context clues to fill in the logical gaps that your deficient argumentation is & continues to prove incapable of articulating.

Again, you're taking my words out of context. I was clearly speaking in the electoral context of being enough votes to result in significant political change: I am quite confident that Oklahoma will not elect a Democratic state legislature because of its opposition to abortion bans.

[brucejoel99]

Why suburban women?  Why not rural women?  I hate this kind of thinking, women in all areas, in red states, like Oklahoma, Alabama, etc., want choices in their reproductive health.  The states that may have the largest backlashes over time might be very red states because that's where the legislatures are going to really go too far.

Women all over this country believe in healthy, safe childbirth and they believe in planned pregnancies, and they want access to birth control, contraception, to all forms of reproductive health.  Not just suburban women.

Because this isn't true. Women are only slightly more likely (52-43) to define as pro-choice vs. pro-life than men (45-50). https://news.gallup.com/poll/244709/pro-choice-pro-life-2018-demographic-tables.aspx It's tremendously funny how liberals have deluded themselves into believing that women are hugely pro-choice, but it's not true. (As can be seen, btw, from people like OP choosing to say "reproductive health" "all forms of reproductive health" rather than actually addressing what this debate is specifically about and mentioning abortion).

And what, exactly, is your point, given that all that the poster to whom you were responding merely claimed is that there are "women in all areas, in red states, like Oklahoma, Alabama, etc., [who] want choices in their reproductive health"? Unless you're capable of proving that there are literally 0 women in any of those states who care about abortion access, your response to the OP is wholly irrelevant as to whether or not Trump should only be concerned about suburban women.

That was clearly not the posters implication, considering that he was saying there is a significant enough number of pro-choice women in these areas to result in a "large backlash" to the banning of abortion.

The Gallup numbers which you literally linked to above show that the South, the nation's most pro-life region, is still 44% pro-choice. In what sane universe does 44% of a region's population not constitute a politically significant portion thereof? Seriously, do you just like always digging your own argumentative grave? If you want somebody who actually knows what they're talking about to articulate what you can't on the matter of abortion's gender gap, then let Skill and Chance or Harry do so.

 

Taking my words out of context makes my point for me. I didn't say that there wasn't a significant number of pro-choice voters in the South: I said there wasn't a significant enough portion to result in a large electoral backlash. Two different things.

LMAO I did no such thing. I rightly asked you, "(i)n what sane universe does 44% of a region's population not constitute a politically significant portion thereof?" Note the emphasis on politically, since adverbs mean something. Do you seriously think that 44% of the population isn't a significant enough portion thereof to politically turn 44% into 45%, & then 46%, & etc.? If so, then the point remains & the question stands: do you just like always digging your own argumentative grave?

Right. And since I didn't say that 44% wasn't a significant portion, you took my words out of context.

...

lol, ok, now you've just gotta be kidding me. You literally said it's not true that "women in all areas, in red states, like Oklahoma, Alabama, etc., want choices in their reproductive health" in response to what you explicitly perceived as OP's "implication... that he was saying there is a significant enough number of pro-choice women in these areas to result in a "large backlash" to the banning of abortion." In light of the fact that, according to the very polling statistics which you provided, the nation's least pro-choice region is still 44% pro-choice, concluding on the basis of the aforementioned that you think that 44% isn't a politically significant portion of the population isn't taking your words out of context; it's using context clues to fill in the logical gaps that your deficient argumentation is & continues to prove incapable of articulating.

Again, you're taking my words out of context. I was clearly speaking in the electoral context of being enough votes to result in a significant political change: I am quite confident that Oklahoma will not elect a Democratic state legislature because of its opposition to abortion bans.

Again, that's not me taking your words out of context. That's just the delivery of your argumentation being so deficient as to require multiple clarifications from you so as to discern what it is that your words actually mean. Not only should you please disabuse yourself of the notion that you've actually been "clearly speaking" to pretty much anything discussed so far ITT, but in any event, if what you "actually" mean is that "Oklahoma will not elect a Democratic state legislature because of its opposition to abortion bans," then you're just shifting the goalposts, because that's a particular degree of political significance & not the actual concept of political significance in & of itself, & in no sane universe does 44% of people thinking anything about a political issue not make their existence significant enough to electorally result in political change, given that - again - such a 44% is always capable of organizing to become 45% & bring the opposition down to 51%, etc.

[Libertas Vel Mors]

Why suburban women?  Why not rural women?  I hate this kind of thinking, women in all areas, in red states, like Oklahoma, Alabama, etc., want choices in their reproductive health.  The states that may have the largest backlashes over time might be very red states because that's where the legislatures are going to really go too far.

Women all over this country believe in healthy, safe childbirth and they believe in planned pregnancies, and they want access to birth control, contraception, to all forms of reproductive health.  Not just suburban women.

Because this isn't true. Women are only slightly more likely (52-43) to define as pro-choice vs. pro-life than men (45-50). https://news.gallup.com/poll/244709/pro-choice-pro-life-2018-demographic-tables.aspx It's tremendously funny how liberals have deluded themselves into believing that women are hugely pro-choice, but it's not true. (As can be seen, btw, from people like OP choosing to say "reproductive health" "all forms of reproductive health" rather than actually addressing what this debate is specifically about and mentioning abortion).

And what, exactly, is your point, given that all that the poster to whom you were responding merely claimed is that there are "women in all areas, in red states, like Oklahoma, Alabama, etc., [who] want choices in their reproductive health"? Unless you're capable of proving that there are literally 0 women in any of those states who care about abortion access, your response to the OP is wholly irrelevant as to whether or not Trump should only be concerned about suburban women.

That was clearly not the posters implication, considering that he was saying there is a significant enough number of pro-choice women in these areas to result in a "large backlash" to the banning of abortion.

The Gallup numbers which you literally linked to above show that the South, the nation's most pro-life region, is still 44% pro-choice. In what sane universe does 44% of a region's population not constitute a politically significant portion thereof? Seriously, do you just like always digging your own argumentative grave? If you want somebody who actually knows what they're talking about to articulate what you can't on the matter of abortion's gender gap, then let Skill and Chance or Harry do so.

 

Taking my words out of context makes my point for me. I didn't say that there wasn't a significant number of pro-choice voters in the South: I said there wasn't a significant enough portion to result in a large electoral backlash. Two different things.

LMAO I did no such thing. I rightly asked you, "(i)n what sane universe does 44% of a region's population not constitute a politically significant portion thereof?" Note the emphasis on politically, since adverbs mean something. Do you seriously think that 44% of the population isn't a significant enough portion thereof to politically turn 44% into 45%, & then 46%, & etc.? If so, then the point remains & the question stands: do you just like always digging your own argumentative grave?

Right. And since I didn't say that 44% wasn't a significant portion, you took my words out of context.

...

lol, ok, now you've just gotta be kidding me. You literally said it's not true that "women in all areas, in red states, like Oklahoma, Alabama, etc., want choices in their reproductive health" in response to what you explicitly perceived as OP's "implication... that he was saying there is a significant enough number of pro-choice women in these areas to result in a "large backlash" to the banning of abortion." In light of the fact that, according to the very polling statistics which you provided, the nation's least pro-choice region is still 44% pro-choice, concluding on the basis of the aforementioned that you think that 44% isn't a politically significant portion of the population isn't taking your words out of context; it's using context clues to fill in the logical gaps that your deficient argumentation is & continues to prove incapable of articulating.

Again, you're taking my words out of context. I was clearly speaking in the electoral context of being enough votes to result in a significant political change: I am quite confident that Oklahoma will not elect a Democratic state legislature because of its opposition to abortion bans.

Again, that's not me taking your words out of context. That's just the delivery of your argumentation being so deficient as to require multiple clarifications from you so as to discern what it is that your words actually mean. Not only should you please disabuse yourself of the notion that you've actually been "clearly speaking" to pretty much anything discussed so far ITT, but in any event, if what you "actually" mean is that "Oklahoma will not elect a Democratic state legislature because of its opposition to abortion bans," then you're just shifting the goalposts, because that's a particular degree of political significance & not the actual concept of political significance in & of itself, & in no sane universe does 44% of people thinking anything about a political issue not make their existence significant enough to electorally result in political change, given that - again - such a 44% is always capable of organizing to become 45% & bring the opposition down to 51%, etc.

Uh, you're the only person here requiring "clarification." And that was absolutely what was being discussed here: "The states that may have the largest backlashes over time might be very red states because that's where the legislatures are going to really go too far." What's the point of mentioning red state backlash if there's no significant electoral effect? Flipping the legislature may be a slight exaggeration, but it's not much of one.

[brucejoel99]

Why suburban women?  Why not rural women?  I hate this kind of thinking, women in all areas, in red states, like Oklahoma, Alabama, etc., want choices in their reproductive health.  The states that may have the largest backlashes over time might be very red states because that's where the legislatures are going to really go too far.

Women all over this country believe in healthy, safe childbirth and they believe in planned pregnancies, and they want access to birth control, contraception, to all forms of reproductive health.  Not just suburban women.

Because this isn't true. Women are only slightly more likely (52-43) to define as pro-choice vs. pro-life than men (45-50). https://news.gallup.com/poll/244709/pro-choice-pro-life-2018-demographic-tables.aspx It's tremendously funny how liberals have deluded themselves into believing that women are hugely pro-choice, but it's not true. (As can be seen, btw, from people like OP choosing to say "reproductive health" "all forms of reproductive health" rather than actually addressing what this debate is specifically about and mentioning abortion).

And what, exactly, is your point, given that all that the poster to whom you were responding merely claimed is that there are "women in all areas, in red states, like Oklahoma, Alabama, etc., [who] want choices in their reproductive health"? Unless you're capable of proving that there are literally 0 women in any of those states who care about abortion access, your response to the OP is wholly irrelevant as to whether or not Trump should only be concerned about suburban women.

That was clearly not the posters implication, considering that he was saying there is a significant enough number of pro-choice women in these areas to result in a "large backlash" to the banning of abortion.

The Gallup numbers which you literally linked to above show that the South, the nation's most pro-life region, is still 44% pro-choice. In what sane universe does 44% of a region's population not constitute a politically significant portion thereof? Seriously, do you just like always digging your own argumentative grave? If you want somebody who actually knows what they're talking about to articulate what you can't on the matter of abortion's gender gap, then let Skill and Chance or Harry do so.

 

Taking my words out of context makes my point for me. I didn't say that there wasn't a significant number of pro-choice voters in the South: I said there wasn't a significant enough portion to result in a large electoral backlash. Two different things.

LMAO I did no such thing. I rightly asked you, "(i)n what sane universe does 44% of a region's population not constitute a politically significant portion thereof?" Note the emphasis on politically, since adverbs mean something. Do you seriously think that 44% of the population isn't a significant enough portion thereof to politically turn 44% into 45%, & then 46%, & etc.? If so, then the point remains & the question stands: do you just like always digging your own argumentative grave?

Right. And since I didn't say that 44% wasn't a significant portion, you took my words out of context.

...

lol, ok, now you've just gotta be kidding me. You literally said it's not true that "women in all areas, in red states, like Oklahoma, Alabama, etc., want choices in their reproductive health" in response to what you explicitly perceived as OP's "implication... that he was saying there is a significant enough number of pro-choice women in these areas to result in a "large backlash" to the banning of abortion." In light of the fact that, according to the very polling statistics which you provided, the nation's least pro-choice region is still 44% pro-choice, concluding on the basis of the aforementioned that you think that 44% isn't a politically significant portion of the population isn't taking your words out of context; it's using context clues to fill in the logical gaps that your deficient argumentation is & continues to prove incapable of articulating.

Again, you're taking my words out of context. I was clearly speaking in the electoral context of being enough votes to result in a significant political change: I am quite confident that Oklahoma will not elect a Democratic state legislature because of its opposition to abortion bans.

Again, that's not me taking your words out of context. That's just the delivery of your argumentation being so deficient as to require multiple clarifications from you so as to discern what it is that your words actually mean. Not only should you please disabuse yourself of the notion that you've actually been "clearly speaking" to pretty much anything discussed so far ITT, but in any event, if what you "actually" mean is that "Oklahoma will not elect a Democratic state legislature because of its opposition to abortion bans," then you're just shifting the goalposts, because that's a particular degree of political significance & not the actual concept of political significance in & of itself, & in no sane universe does 44% of people thinking anything about a political issue not make their existence significant enough to electorally result in political change, given that - again - such a 44% is always capable of organizing to become 45% & bring the opposition down to 51%, etc.

Uh, you're the only person here requiring "clarification." And that was absolutely what was being discussed here: "The states that may have the largest backlashes over time might be very red states because that's where the legislatures are going to really go too far." What's the point of mentioning red state backlash if there's no significant electoral effect? Flipping the legislature may be a slight exaggeration, but it's not much of one.

So you're incapable of counting too, since my posts critiquing your argument & the argumentation thereof ITT have twice as many recommendations as yours that, unlike yours, are bipartisan? Not to mention, states experiencing backlash overtime is literally indicative of a politically significant percentage of the population politically campaigning to receive more & more support, which is something that you somehow still seem to not understand, but I digress. Take a hint, quit while you're behind, & maybe take a class that teaches you how to properly deliver an argument.

[brucejoel99]

LMAO I love how the edits that I didn't notice 'til now make your argumentation ITT more of a meme than it already was:

And no, I don't. But I

A. Am skeptical of any sub 400 person sample of a national poll

B. Am skeptical of definitions of the South that include Maryland and Delaware

lol you're the one who brought the poll ITT up to defend your arg. Wow, you need to be taught how to properly deliver one.

C. Don't believe that support for abortion will rise

That's a fine, albeit unsupported belief, & one that wasn't functionally articulated by anything that you said ITT up 'til now. If anything, you inherently contradicted that belief insofar as your earlier statement that there isn't a significant enough number of pro-choice women in aforementioned areas to result in a "large backlash" to the banning of abortion necessarily implies that there nevertheless is an insignificant enough number of pro-choice women in those areas to result in an existent, if insignificant backlash to the banning of abortion.

D. Don't believe the result

Of what? That the leaked Dobbs result isn't actually gonna be the final Dobbs result? If so, then again, that's a fine, & even potentially supportable(!) belief to hold, but it wasn't functionally articulated by anything that you said ITT up 'til now now & I quite frankly don't see how it's at all supposed to be relevant to any of the arguments that you've been trying to make.

E. Believe that most of the people defining as pro-choice here already vote Democrat

The poll that, I remind you, you cited to support your argument says that 23% of Republicans are pro-choice. That's 1 out of 4 Republicans. You may dispute that (although I don't see how you'd do so statistically), & in any event, "most" is still technically true, but don't act like 23% of self-identified Republicans being pro-choice isn't at all a thing in this context.

F. Don't believe a significant enough portion of the people defining as pro-choice here and voting Republican currently will switch to voting Democrat if abortion bans are put in place to have a significant electoral effect, especially when counteracted by other factors.

Once again a fine, but unsupported belief that wasn't functionally articulated by anything that you uttered ITT up 'til now. Also once again a belief that's inherently contradicted by something else that you've said ITT, & this time in the very same quoted post to boot: you can't both "believe that support for abortion will rise" & not "believe a significant enough portion of the people defining as pro-choice here and voting Republican currently will switch to voting Democrat if abortion bans are put in place to have a significant electoral effect, especially when counteracted by other factors" since the latter lack of belief nevertheless still necessarily implies the literal existence of an insignificant portion of people defining as pro-choice & voting Republican that will switch to voting Democrat if abortion bans are put in place, even if to an insignificant electoral effect.

[Badger]

Hopefully he is making excuses not to run so we can get President Ron DeSantis

Yes, all the fascism light and gross democracy crushing instincts in a more electable form, because tax cuts and Auntie regulation Uber Alles. Besides, if progressing towards the direction of a modern-day hungry means fewer Democrats in office, what's to worry about in the long-term health of the country?  

Nah I don’t want more tax cuts , I want the reins act to be passed along with the educational reforms DeSantis put in place in Florida to hopefully go national

Oh. Well that changes everything. That's totally not completely stupid and blinder vision. How can I been so mistaken.

Needless to say, like most things you post, it merely reinforces my point.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Isn't that what Jeb said in 2015. "Republicans care more about tax cuts, then immigration and trade".

The tax cuts were always more a paying back the donors kind of thing then what motivated Republicans to show up to the polls in most cases.

This also is a playbook that largely dates back to the 1870s in terms of the relationship with business and the relationship with the bulk of the voters.

"Vote for us and we will pass the policies that make you richer" - for the tycoons

"Vote for us and we will protect you from the agrarian menace coming to shut down your factory/make our hard earned money worthless, or the catholic menace coming to subject you to popery".

[BlueSwan]

So far, the evidence we have suggests that the Roe v Wade debacle hasn't moved the polls AT ALL. Democrats have yet to find an effective way to campaign on this.

[Dr. MB]

Trump supports abortion. What is the shock here?

[TiltsAreUnderrated]

It's a longterm losing issue. Once Rs have had a year or two to gloat people will start realizing how extreme these abortion bans are. Abortion is the type of issue that people don't often care about until it hits close to home.

For most people, this decision will not immediately hit home. Those directly affected are women of childbearing age who are too poor to take a trip out of state and who happen to live in states with “trigger” abortion restrictions. These tend to be quite red states to begin with, and poorer women in safe states aren’t the most prolific voters.

If more abortion restrictions are rolled out, federal Republicans will face some backlash for state policy, but how much remains an open question.

[Person Man]

Overturning Roe will probably make a big difference in swing states that will have very conservative abortion law. For example, it could have been effective as telling either that Democrats that abortion has become unpopular or would have gotten Whitmer re-elected. It will definitely make the election an up and down vote in Pennsylvania, Arizona, and Minnesota. Perhaps eventually  North Carolina and Virginia. I don’t think Georgia is there yet but that is one state that I can see becoming pro-choice if that viewpoint doesn’t collapse due to not being status-quo.

I think this is an opportunity. It could go the way Gay Marriage did where it’s unpopular for a while and becomes more popular as people get distracted by other issues. Maybe between now and the aftermath of the 2024 election, like 30 states come under the jurisdiction of strong personhood laws only for several of them to repeal them with the minimum pro-choice position in the cycles that become the backlash against Trump II/DeSantis.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Overturning Roe is just gonna keep the blue and red states the same, I remember the Atlas forum freaked out about Kennedy retirement and then it was a non issue


The red states are gonna ban late term abortions  BECAUSE they use embroyos and fetus for medical reasons and they have no use for Late term abortion live births,  33 year lady paid part of her Students Loans off a 50K donation of her eggs it's that simple

They still haven't develop the cure for Parkinson's or Paralysis or Altimerzers diseaa that they promised when Reagan died using embroyos stem cell research ..

But, do females regret having abortion yes they do adult kids are helpful but raising kids especially newborn are expensive

That's why people become Foster parents which has been going on I'm the 80s to skip the newborn stage

But, in rape and incest or life of mom it's should be abortions Clinton said safe, legal and rare I'm the 1990s due to teenage pregnancy, that's gone down since then

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Why suburban women?  Why not rural women?  I hate this kind of thinking, women in all areas, in red states, like Oklahoma, Alabama, etc., want choices in their reproductive health.  The states that may have the largest backlashes over time might be very red states because that's where the legislatures are going to really go too far.

Women all over this country believe in healthy, safe childbirth and they believe in planned pregnancies, and they want access to birth control, contraception, to all forms of reproductive health.  Not just suburban women.

He is generalizing because he is talking about what makes a difference politically.    It's like how saying that Democrats' support for gun control harms them with rural voters does not mean that no suburban or urban voters are against gun control. 

This is a way of talking that has always been very normal on this forum so it's weird seeing people get upset about it all of a sudden.