The Times reported that Trump favors a national ban at 16 weeks in part because it is “a round number.”
You know...
I realize nothing should surprise me about this man anymore... but...
I mean technically 16 is a round number, but it's also a square which makes it sound less round and more pointy.
A real square peg in a round hole.
Somebody's been watching in my my bedroom window at night.
16 is a round number
I don't remember that episode of Number Blocks.
Right? 112 days is hardly round
the numbers were always arbitrary
A national abortion ban will bring people out protesting that have never protested before. Would probably also mean states ignoring federal law. Would lead to a lot of chaos honestly, never thought abortion ban could be the trigger for a civil war, but it might. Scary stuff.
I agree with national unrest and protests, but imo a civil war would be over before it began. America as a country hasn't been pumping billions into the industrial war complex for no reason; anyone on the other side of the people who control the military are fucked.
anyone on the other side of the people who control the military are fucked.
That's how it generally goes. But in a civil war, the loyalties of the military are often divided as well.
fair point tbh, but I've seen (from my personal experience) the military and it's leaders are mostly conservative. idk much about civil wars and how they begin though; I'd assume we need people in strong political positions to lead a concerted opposition, no? otherwise it's less civil war and more rebellion/revolution?
the military and it’s leaders are mostly conservative.
The very last poll that Star & Stripes published before Trump shuttered it (due to that poll) showed that 1/2 of the enlisted & most of the officers didn't like Trump at all.
My experience is hardly exhaustive, but I've known a lot of military folks who hate Trump. I couldn't say what their political leanings are (certainly not far left, you know?), but I think even among conservative soldiers and particularly among the leadership, you'd find people unwilling to go along with Trump.
That being said, I sure as fuck don't want to find out.
Yeah, same. I don't really want to find how such a scenario would play out, but we are very much approaching such a situation. It really sucks that there are external actors that are trying to stoke the flames of this, but it's our own doing really. We didn't deal with this shit back during the first Civil war, and now we're dealing with the consequences. I don't know that I'd stay in the country if a civil war erupted, but you bet your ass I'd be out there picketing for the first time in my life if a national abortion ban went into effect.
I feel like there will be "support" for a civil war until those people actually experience it. They imagine a bunch of other people will do the fighting and they get to sit back as only the "other side" will suffer. Once they start realizing the consequences, support will quickly wane.
Only people low in the intelligence department think a civil war won't affect them at all.
Approx 1/3 of the populace is absolutely paste-eating stupid.
Yeah, I figured that out when we couldn't wear a piece of fabric over our face during covid bcz mUy FrEedum..
I mean maybe, the military isn't one big uniform blob of people. I know plenty of liberal folks who've been a part of the military, and plenty of conservative people. It wouldn't be fun for anyone.
I really wish we would just live by the motto live and let live. Just fucking leave people alone, how hard is that? Apparently very...
I also think current service members are significantly more progressive than veterans. I got out shortly before dip shit took office in 2016 so I'm not sure how much has changed though.
The officer force is definitely more progressive and generally better informed. One of the worst parts of living next to a military base is the maga conservative bullshit from retirees, vets, and the enlisted workforce. I have a high confidence in our uniformed officers. That’s not to say they don’t have their own crazies but as a general rule I don’t see the officers toeing the line to support bringing up arms against their friends, family, and communities who are protesting their rights being stripped away. It would be a mess in so many unpredictable ways.
You're vastly overestimating the US military's ability to deal with an insurgency. Did we quickly "win" in Iraq? Did we quickly "win" in Afghanistan? There may be some quick quelling of fighting, but we've proven to be terrible at managing insurgencies.
And there's the matter of just how many guns are present in the US. We have more guns than people. Over 400 million guns and growing. There are times where a lone gunman in Afghanistan was able to occupy an outpost for hours just by taking a few shots, moving position, taking a couple more shots, and then leaving.
Any civil war will be long, messy, and involve a LOT of different factions.
All according to the plan then? You guys going in civil war would be perfect for other interests…
“People will die of preventable illness but I like this number because it’s shaped round” motherfucker.
None of the mainstream media are reporting this leak. That tells me it must be a really bad news for repubes.
Why?
Well obviously because States' Rights.
he understands
Doubt
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Prior to the report, the former president and 2024 GOP frontrunner had repeatedly stressed to advisers that he wants to avoid announcing specific abortion policy positions, at least during this stage of the election cycle, sources close to him say.
In recent months, President Joe Biden‘s team has determined that campaigning on abortion rights, including by elevating highly personal experiences of specific women willing to tell their stories, has been particularly powerful and effective.
While Democrats and their allies were hastily working to draw attention to the Times report, operatives at the hardline anti-abortion political action group Students for Life — who supported Trump in 2016 — were fuming.
Though it is common for the notoriously mercurial Trump to endorse policies then later adjust or reverse himself, a source with direct knowledge of the situation confirms to Rolling Stone that this month, the ex-president privately expressed enthusiasm for a 16-week federal prohibition, claiming this is a position that most Americans share.
Trump and his team’s irritation at the leak isn’t that surprising, given how much he and his lieutenants have been working to thread a needle that at first glance seems nearly impossible for him — as the self-described “most pro-life president ever” and the man most responsible for destroying the federal right to an abortion.
At the same time, his quiet support for some form of national ban has been driven by his desire to keep influential pro-life figures firmly in his corner during a general election, even though they were largely powerless to pressure him to publicly commit to their wish lists in the GOP primary.
The original article contains 1,414 words, the summary contains 266 words. Saved 81%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
Party Democrats love it when the right goes too far. That encapsulates a lot of our electoral woes at the moment.
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
