https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1209234606484074498
( twitter | raw text )
He can obviously speak for himself, but my interpretation was that he was basically arguing for downplaying the issue by pivoting to “economic” issues instead of “social” ones. My response, among others, is that if “social” issues really are effective wedge issues for Republicans, then Republicans are never going to allow Dems to simply pivot away from them. They will force the fight by passing heartbeat bills and trap laws and everything else. Given that, Ds have to decide whether to push back or to keep pivoting.
If you want to pivot, fine, but just recognize that that has real life consequences for millions of people and don’t assume that Roe will prevent the bad outcomes, because it hasn’t and it won’t.
lol
2 Likes
The rhetoric is what matters for getting elected.
Then we just appoint judges that make Ginsburg look like Alito, ram through laws legalizing post birth abortion and precluding states from going below that floor, and fund NIH stem cell research with monies appropriated from shuttering ICE.
2 Likes
https://twitter.com/File411/status/1208527894546399233
Cliffs: Doesn’t even mention impeachment, just says she won’t vote for him next election LOL.
The public will appreciate actual action far more than words.
Apparently, there are those itt who believe that democrats don’t support abortion rights if they don’t lead with it and/or make it a huge part of their stump.
Something not even AOC does.
2 Likes
Republicans obviously don’t want to talk about abortion. It’s a huge political loser for them. They want to fight on THE RECORD SETTING ECONOMY.
I will let boredsocial speak for himself, but to your points, I think you’re mistaken to frame this as downplaying social issues. Including abortion.
Is there a way to be more effective that isn’t as obvious (and doesn’t require Dems to be as obvious)? To suggest that an indirect strategy might be more effective isn’t at all the same as saying downplay it and hope for the best.
that Guiliani piece is incredible.
His ex-wife had implied, in an interview with New York , that he was an alcoholic. Others anonymously question his mental state. “Oh yeah, yeah — I do a lot of drugs,” Giuliani said sarcastically. “There was one I was addicted to. I’ve forgotten what it is. I don’t know where the drug things come from — I really don’t. The alcohol comes from the fact that I did occasionally drink. I love scotch. I can’t help it. All of the malts. And part of it is cigars — I love to have them with cigars. I’m a partier.”
He proceeds to trip on his way to the bar and pretends like nothing happened. He downs two bloody maries during the interview and sounds like a lunatic and a drunk throughout.
The author paints a pretty gross scenary with details like this:
As he spoke, he fixed his gaze straight ahead, rarely turning to make eye contact. When his mouth closed, saliva leaked from the corner and crawled down his face through the valley of a wrinkle. He didn’t notice, and it fell onto his sweater.
and dry observations like this:
Back in the black SUV, Giuliani directed his bodyguard to drop him at home and then take me back to my hotel. “Oh, look at those poor people,” he said, glancing out the window to the park, where a man and a woman sat on a bench. “When I was mayor, by the time I was home, there’d be a call to the head of Homeless Services. Have somebody on Fifth between 70 — is that 75 or 76? A couple, they seem to be freezing. See if we can get them in a shelter. All my commissioners were trained to do that. And we got it down to almost nothing, zero.” The couple on the bench did not appear to be homeless.
Drunk Guiliani also fantasizes about cross-examining Biden in the impeachment trial. And I’m pretty sure Trump loves all this. How do you call a country that is ruled by senile shitheads?
3 Likes
Come testify and she will hold the trial on Christmas day
2 Likes
If the rhetoric is:
-R, “My opponent supports laws that allow doctors to murder new born babies and sell their parts for money”
D, “how about that minimum wage tho”
you aren’t gonna win many races. You need to be able to make a positive case in favor of the social issues you want to advance. Just playing defense let’s the Rs set the terms of the debate, and that is a recipe for disaster.
3 Likes
We criticize Republican senators for already announcing how they are going to vote instead of being impartial jurors. As long as she votes to remove him this is a fine line to take.
If she doesn’t then we know she has no principles and this was purely a ploy to get reelected. She needs to be replaced either way obviously.
1 Like
Have you seen prominent national Democrats respond so tone-deaf in that direct a manner?
If the specific topic is “abortion” and a GOPer says something bad, I’d demand (and expect) a direct response clarifying a strong pro-choice message replete with policy specifics.
What a disgrace.
All of that is happening because we’re losing elections. Taking strong stands on the matter isn’t helping us win states with large evangelical populations so that we can prevent these bills from even getting voted on.
But you’re right, what really matters is making sure everyone knows we are doing the right thing.
Correct answer is: my opponent knows that most of that was obvious bullshit so I’m not going to dignify it with a response. Let’s talk about something real now maybe instead of figments of his extremely overactive imagination.
Not without giving some practical ground on the actual issue. Republicans are smart and if they know that Ds desperately want to avoid having a fight on a particular issue, you can guarantee they will generate a scenario that calls the question, whether that is a trap law or a “conscience” provision or a bathroom bill, or a BDS ban.
There are three possible responses:
- avoid the debate, the R narrative wins the discourse
- have the debate and lose, the R narrative wins the discourse
- have the debate and win.