A Petulant Kevin Williamson: Trump Deserves No Credit for the Dobbs Decision

 

Hoo-Boy. Roe v. Wade was overturned last week in no small part due to Trump-appointed Justices Comey-Barrett, Kavanaugh, and Gorsuch. If Hillary had prevailed in 2016 (as Never Trumpers would have preferred*), all three of those justices would have been replaced with ideological clones of Ruth Bader “Populations We Don’t Want to Have Too Many Of” Ginsberg. (Which, incidentally, means the gun rights and religious schools cases would have gone the other way as well).  The Babylon Bee brilliantly as usual captured the spirit of the thing.

As Nominee, Donald Trump Would Do Incalculable Damage to the Pro-Life Cause,” wrote French in 2016. “Get ready for a slow-motion pro-life train wreck if Trump’s the nominee.”

Never Trumpers have been a bit stung by the criticism they’ve gotten. “Well, we did like his supreme court picks but any other Republicans would have chosen the same type.” This ignores the salient point that there wasn’t another Republican on the presidential ballot to vote for in 2016, and they were really pulling for Trump’s defeat.

Anyway, Kevin D. Williamson isn’t going to take this lying down. He has produced one of his trademark screeds saying that Trump deserves no credit, and Never Trump deserves no blame, for the outcome of the Dobbs decision.

“A lucky or unlikely outcome, no matter how pleasing it is when it happens, does not retroactively redeem stupid and irresponsible decisions. The fact that something dumb worked out in a fortunate way does not mean that the thinking that went into it wasn’t stupid and irresponsible.” – Kevin D. Williamson (It’s behind the Wall of Shame, so Twitchy provides an excerpt.) 

So, no, the Dobbs decision does not make me regret opposing Donald Trump in 2016. If anything, it highlights exactly how shallow and dishonest Trumpist criticism of the conservative movement often has been.

Donald Trump was, until he decided he wanted the Republican presidential nomination, an across-the-board social progressive: not only pro-abortion but “very pro-choice” in his own words, a supporter of gay marriage, a supporter of left-wing gun-control proposals, etc.

Donald Trump is still a ridiculous buffoon, and those who supported him in 2016 were still fools to do so.

To be honest, this is a big reason I prefer Trumpism to Bush-Republicanism. The Bushies viewed elective office as a mandate to pursue their personal policy preferences even when they were at odds with what their voters wanted. George W. Bush’s focus on passing an amnesty for illegal immigrants is no doubt the premier example. Whereas Trump evidently pushed policies on gun rights, anti-abortion, and religious freedom that were at odds with his personal beliefs, because, unlike Bush, understood that he was obliged to represent the will of his voters in office and not his personal beliefs.

*Never mind their silly, desperate schemes to throw the election to the House of Representatives. Four years later, they declared that disputing the results of a presidential election was tantamount to sedition. 

Published in General
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 132 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. DrewInWisconsin, Unapologetic Oaf Member
    DrewInWisconsin, Unapologetic Oaf
    @DrewInWisconsin

    Calvin Freiburger unloads on KW in this thread here. I think he’s nailed every criticism I’ve ever had about KW.

    Why do so many conservatives always leap to his defense? “Owning the libs” is no replacement for a moral compass.

    • #1
  2. Victor Tango Kilo Member
    Victor Tango Kilo
    @VtheK

    DrewInWisconsin, Unapologetic … (View Comment):
    Calvin Freiburger unloads on KW in this thread here. I think he’s nailed every criticism I’ve ever had about KW.

    KW obviously has an enormous ego; a lack of humility that he, ironically, shares with Donald Trump. Neither man can ever admit being wrong. It is inarguable that the the election of Hillary Clinton in 2016 would have reversed every conservative gain of this Supreme Court session. But he cannot admit to that, so he deflects. “Never Trump won the lottery,” he declares, as though the selection of Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Comey-Barrett were mere chance occurrences…. even though Trump, as a candidate, promised to appoint those exact people.

    • #2
  3. Bryan G. Stephens Thatcher
    Bryan G. Stephens
    @BryanGStephens

    I have said it before, anyone who supported a plan that would have led to the selection of a president that over 90% of the nation did not vote for is someone who believes that he knows better than almost everyone else. 

    This is the height of hubris. It would have torn the nation apart. I would have supported Clinton over that scheme. I never would have supported any Republican again with that stunt. I don’t think I would have been alone.

    • #3
  4. Hugh Member
    Hugh
    @Hugh

    “The Bushies viewed elective office as a mandate to pursue their personal policy preferences even when they were at odds with what their voters wanted. George W. Bush’s focus on passing an amnesty for illegal immigrants is no doubt the premier example. Whereas Trump evidently pushed policies on gun rights, anti-abortion, and religious freedom that were at odds with his personal beliefs, because, unlike Bush, understood that he was obliged to represent the will of his voters in office and not his personal beliefs. “

    Yes!

    You are completely right.

    • #4
  5. David C. Broussard Coolidge
    David C. Broussard
    @Dbroussa

    There is an old saying I learned in the Army. “If it’s stupid and it works, it isn’t stupid!”. Perhaps the Williamson corollary should be “If you oppose the stupid plan that works, maybe you should reassess your opposition to the plan you said was stupid. If you cannot do that, then perhaps you are the truly stupid one.”

    • #5
  6. CarolJoy, Not So Easy To Kill Coolidge
    CarolJoy, Not So Easy To Kill
    @CarolJoy

    If Hillary had prevailed on Nov 2016, we might not even be here at all,  abortion issue or no abortion issue.

    Her favorite American general wrote a book about the plans he and Hillary held for our nation once she was victorious – bringing about  a major  war with Russia which was necessary to commence by Dec 2017.

    As bad as abortion is, thermonuclear war   trumps that issue  by a factor of billions. (Many officials of NATO representing a half dozen nation states are now using the “n” word as the only means left by which to curtail the evils of Putin.)

    • #6
  7. Bryan G. Stephens Thatcher
    Bryan G. Stephens
    @BryanGStephens

    CarolJoy, Not So Easy To Kill (View Comment):

    If Hillary had prevailed on Nov 2016, we might not even be here at all, abortion issue or no abortion issue.

    Her favorite American general wrote a book about the plans he and Hillary held for our nation once she was victorious – bringing about a major war with Russia which was necessary to commence by Dec 2017.

    As bad as abortion is, thermonuclear war trumps that issue by a factor of billions. (Many officials of NATO representing a half dozen nation states are now using the “n” word as the only means left by which to curtail the evils of Putin.)

    Excellent point.

    • #7
  8. Charlotte Member
    Charlotte
    @Charlotte

    Victor Tango Kilo: “As Nominee, Donald Trump Would Do Incalculable Damage to the Pro-Life Cause,” wrote French in 2016. “Get ready for a slow-motion pro-life train wreck if Trump’s the nominee.”

    I don’t care much about David French one way or the other, but this is kind of amazing.

    • #8
  9. CACrabtree Coolidge
    CACrabtree
    @CACrabtree

    Still waiting for KW to get his U-Haul and leave.  I believe that since the Atlantic told him to clean out his desk, he can’t figure out where he belongs.

    • #9
  10. DrewInWisconsin, Unapologetic Oaf Member
    DrewInWisconsin, Unapologetic Oaf
    @DrewInWisconsin

    Charlotte (View Comment):

    Victor Tango Kilo: “As Nominee, Donald Trump Would Do Incalculable Damage to the Pro-Life Cause,” wrote French in 2016. “Get ready for a slow-motion pro-life train wreck if Trump’s the nominee.”

    I don’t care much about David French one way or the other, but this is kind of amazing.

    And then he wrote a 2020 follow-up, insisting that Presidents have little affect on the abortion debate at all, so pro-lifers could feel okay voting for Biden.

    • #10
  11. Bryan G. Stephens Thatcher
    Bryan G. Stephens
    @BryanGStephens

    Charlotte (View Comment):

    Victor Tango Kilo: “As Nominee, Donald Trump Would Do Incalculable Damage to the Pro-Life Cause,” wrote French in 2016. “Get ready for a slow-motion pro-life train wreck if Trump’s the nominee.”

    I don’t care much about David French one way or the other, but this is kind of amazing.

    0 comments.  That seems unbelievable 

    • #11
  12. Bryan G. Stephens Thatcher
    Bryan G. Stephens
    @BryanGStephens

    DrewInWisconsin, Unapologetic … (View Comment):

    Charlotte (View Comment):

    Victor Tango Kilo: “As Nominee, Donald Trump Would Do Incalculable Damage to the Pro-Life Cause,” wrote French in 2016. “Get ready for a slow-motion pro-life train wreck if Trump’s the nominee.”

    I don’t care much about David French one way or the other, but this is kind of amazing.

    And then he wrote a 2020 follow-up, insisting that Presidents have little affect on the abortion debate at all, so pro-lifers could feel okay voting for Biden.

    LOL

    Total tool

    • #12
  13. Fake John/Jane Galt Coolidge
    Fake John/Jane Galt
    @FakeJohnJaneGalt

    The truth is that a lot on very conservative people thought up and executed a plan to reverse Roe.  An integral part of that plan involved a POTUS with a set of brass ones to put constitutional (not ideological) justices on the SCOTUS.  That POTUS was DJT.  There are many who voted him in despite his many flaws just for those brass balls and they paid off.  Credit goes to many people.  First and foremost the Justices that stuck to the law and did what was right.  Mitch McConnel get a bit of credit getting them through the process.  DJT get credit for taking the flack and doing what most GOP POTUS have not really done a lot of lately.  The conservative think tanks get the credit for formulating and executing the plan.  And mostly the grass roots activist get the credit and staying the course and holding those others to the goal.

    • #13
  14. Victor Tango Kilo Member
    Victor Tango Kilo
    @VtheK

    Fake John/Jane Galt (View Comment):
    Credit goes to many people. 

    But not to the Never Trumpers who supported Hillary. 

    • #14
  15. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    But don’t you see?  President McMuffin would have been even better!

    • #15
  16. DonG (CAGW is a Hoax) Coolidge
    DonG (CAGW is a Hoax)
    @DonG

    CarolJoy, Not So Easy To Kill (View Comment):

    If Hillary had prevailed on Nov 2016, we might not even be here at all,  abortion issue or no abortion issue.

    Her favorite American general wrote a book about the plans he and Hillary held for our nation once she was victorious – bringing about  a major  war with Russia which was necessary to commence by Dec 2017.

    Do you remember that time that Hillary as SoS invaded Libya?   That country has still not recovered. 

    • #16
  17. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    You know, I get the feeling that a lot of people may have never heard of David French before the Bee story.

    • #17
  18. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    DonG (CAGW is a Hoax) (View Comment):

    CarolJoy, Not So Easy To Kill (View Comment):

    If Hillary had prevailed on Nov 2016, we might not even be here at all, abortion issue or no abortion issue.

    Her favorite American general wrote a book about the plans he and Hillary held for our nation once she was victorious – bringing about a major war with Russia which was necessary to commence by Dec 2017.

    Do you remember that time that Hillary as SoS invaded Libya? That country has still not recovered.

    And Bill has never recovered from invading Hillary.

     

    • #18
  19. CACrabtree Coolidge
    CACrabtree
    @CACrabtree

    kedavis (View Comment):

    DonG (CAGW is a Hoax) (View Comment):

    CarolJoy, Not So Easy To Kill (View Comment):

    If Hillary had prevailed on Nov 2016, we might not even be here at all, abortion issue or no abortion issue.

    Her favorite American general wrote a book about the plans he and Hillary held for our nation once she was victorious – bringing about a major war with Russia which was necessary to commence by Dec 2017.

    Do you remember that time that Hillary as SoS invaded Libya? That country has still not recovered.

    And Bill has never recovered from invading Hillary.

     

    I believe it was more of an “incursion” than an “invasion”.

    • #19
  20. DrewInWisconsin, Unapologetic Oaf Member
    DrewInWisconsin, Unapologetic Oaf
    @DrewInWisconsin

    David French is still very, very disappointed in us. (Trigger warning: many straw men gave their lives for his column.)

     

    • #20
  21. Bishop Wash Member
    Bishop Wash
    @BishopWash

    CACrabtree (View Comment):

    Still waiting for KW to get his U-Haul and leave. I believe that since the Atlantic told him to clean out his desk, he can’t figure out where he belongs.

    Years ago he said he was moving to Switzerland. Did that ever happen?

    • #21
  22. Bishop Wash Member
    Bishop Wash
    @BishopWash

    DrewInWisconsin, Unapologetic … (View Comment):

    David French is still very, very disappointed in us. (Trigger warning: many straw men gave their lives for his column.)

     

    Wow. Poor guy can’t sit at the cool kid’s table and is mad at us. 

    • #22
  23. She Member
    She
    @She

    Well.  I read the whole thing on NR (not, I hasten to add because I subscribe, but I must somehow have had one of my very few free views for the month still left.  Funny how that works. And so:

    Dear Kevin,

    I’ve had occasion, over the past couple of days to think about ‘improving’ (adjective, not verb) children’s literature, and the effect it may have had on the development of my own moral compass.  Some of that literature came in the form of Aesop’s fables.

    Your column reminds me of one: The Dog in the Manger, the moral of which is “do not grudge others what you cannot enjoy yourself.”

    It’s a funny metaphor you start out with, that electing Trump was the equivalent of betting one’s retirement on winning the lottery (along with its concomitant insult directed towards his supporters who were so stupid as to think he’d come through for them).  I don’t know many Trump voters (and–trust me–I live in deep red territory, among people I consider dear friends) who thought that electing Trump in 2016 was their chance of a lifetime to put things right.  Most of them were simply so fed up with the status quo in the Republican party that they were willing to give him a shot.

    I don’t think, actually, that Trump voters were the “goddamned jackass[es]” in this scenario.  Maybe they were those who spent the next six years hamstringing his presidency while they chased the chimera of Russian collusion or Ukrainian quid-pro-quos.  (Or should that be “quids-pro-quo?” I defer to what I am sure is your superior knowledge, both of English grammar and Latin idiom.)

    You follow along by saying:

    “So, no, the Dobbs decision does not make me regret opposing Donald Trump in 2016. If anything, it highlights exactly how shallow and dishonest Trumpist criticism of the conservative movement often has been.”

    Sorry.  Wut?

    I completely agree with you that Donald Trump said some incredibly stupid things up to and including his run for the presidency, and even during his time in the Oval Office. (How does this distinguish him from any other US President of the modern era?  You tell me.)  I’ve written, many times, about my own discomfort with some of his more profound idiocies, his oafishness, and his general loutishness to the point that I’ve been blindsided by accusations of NeverTrumpism myself. And yet I presume (because I think he loves his sister) that his off-the-cuff remark that he might nominate her for the Supreme Court was a nod to his sister (who was almost 80 when he took office), and not something that you–or anyone else–should have gotten your hair on fire over.  Glory Be.  The fact of the matter is that Trump provided a list of the sort of people he’d nominate to the Supreme Court.  And he stuck to it.

    (Perhaps, in your fantasy world, Hillary would have nominated a rock-ribbed Conservative to replace the “dropped dead” (channeling Joe Biden) Antonin Scalia.  But it was left to Trump (with the able assistance of Mitch McConnell–who scored an almost infinite number of ‘get out of jail free’ cards in the process) to do that.  And he did.)

    “History belongs,” as Mark Steyn is fond of saying, “to those who show up.”

     

    Donald Trump, a narcissistic, oafish, lout, showed up.  And proved himself, over the course of four years, one of the most effective, and conservative, US Presidents in modern history.  How he got into office, or how stupid the people who put him there–in your estimation–must be, really isn’t the point.  It’s what he did when he was in office that is the point.

    And what he did, when the opportunity arose, was grab it with both hands and appoint three very smart justices whose presence on the Supreme Court resulted in the overturning, after five decades of a badly-decided opinion which invented a “penumbras formed by emanations” establishing a constitutional right to abortion without end.

    That you can’t muster the grace to say so is a sad reflection on you and those of your ilk.

    Don’t be a dog in the manger.

    Regards,

    Your occasional fan

    RicochetShe

    PS: I’m reminded of one of my favorite “Supreme Court” stories, that in which Justice Antonin Scalia would occasionally scrawl across an opinion with which he disagreed but could find no constitutional leg to stand on regarding an actual dissent, “Stupid, but Constitutional.”

    I just might, in the future, start countering your polemics on the “stupidity” and “irresponsibility” of the Trump years with a stamp saying, “Stupid and Irresponsible, but Effective.”

    It is that “effectiveness” which distinguishes Trump from the Romneys, the Collinses, the Murkowskis, the McCains, the Williamsons, and the Frenches of the world.

    Change my mind.

    • #23
  24. DrewInWisconsin, Unapologetic Oaf Member
    DrewInWisconsin, Unapologetic Oaf
    @DrewInWisconsin

    She (View Comment):

    Well. I read the whole thing on NR (not, I hasten to add because I subscribe, but I must somehow had had one of my very few free views for the month still left. Funny how that works. And so:

    Dear Kevin,

     . . . (lovely stuff deleted because I ain’t got privilege) . . .

    Wonderful. So well said.

    • #24
  25. Bryan G. Stephens Thatcher
    Bryan G. Stephens
    @BryanGStephens

    She (View Comment):

    Well. I read the whole thing on NR (not, I hasten to add because I subscribe, but I must somehow have had one of my very few free views for the month still left. Funny how that works. And so:

    Dear Kevin,

    I’ve had occasion, over the past couple of days to think about ‘improving’ (adjective, not verb) children’s literature, and the effect it may have had on the development of my own moral compass. Some of that literature came in the form of Aesop’s fables.

    Your column reminds me of one: The Dog in the Manger, the moral of which is “do not grudge others what you cannot enjoy yourself.”

    It’s a funny metaphor you start out with, that electing Trump was the equivalent of betting one’s retirement on winning the lottery (along with its concomitant insult directed towards his supporters who were so stupid as to think he’d come through for them). I don’t know many Trump voters (and–trust me–I live in deep red territory, among people I consider dear friends) who thought that electing Trump in 2016 was their chance of a lifetime to put things right. Most of them were simply so fed up with the status quo in the Republican party that they were willing to give him a shot.

    I don’t think, actually, that Trump voters were the “goddamned jackass[es]” in this scenario. Maybe they were those who spent the next six years hamstringing his presidency while they chased the chimera of Russian collusion or Ukrainian quid-pro-quos. (Or should that be “quids-pro-quo?” I defer to what I am sure is your superior knowledge, both of English grammar and Latin idiom.)

    You follow along by saying:

    “So, no, the Dobbs decision does not make me regret opposing Donald Trump in 2016. If anything, it highlights exactly how shallow and dishonest Trumpist criticism of the conservative movement often has been.”

    Sorry. Wut?

    I completely agree with you that Donald Trump said some incredibly stupid things up to and including his run for the presidency, and even during his time in the Oval Office. (How does this distinguish him from any other US President of the modern era? You tell me.) I’ve written, many times, about my own discomfort with some of his more profound idiocies, his oafishness, and his general loutishness to the point that I’ve been blindsided by accusations of NeverTrumpism myself. And yet I presume (because I think he loves his sister) that his off-the-cuff remark that he might nominate her for the Supreme Court was a nod to his sister (who was almost 80 when he took office), and not something that you–or anyone else–should have gotten your hair on fire over. Glory Be. The fact of the matter is that Trump provided a list of the sort of people he’d nominate to the Supreme Court. And he stuck to it.

    (Perhaps, in your fantasy world, Hillary would have nominated a rock-ribbed Conservative to replace the “dropped dead” (channeling Joe Biden) Antonin Scalia. But it was left to Trump (with the able assistance of Mitch McConnell–who scored an almost infinite number of ‘get out of jail free’ cards in the process) to do that. And he did.)

    “History belongs,” as Mark Steyn is fond of saying, “to those who show up.”

     

    Donald Trump, a narcissistic, oafish, lout, showed up. And proved himself, over the course of four years, one of the most effective, and conservative, US Presidents in modern history. How he got into office, or how stupid the people who put him there–in your estimation–must be, really isn’t the point. It’s what he did when he was in office that is the point.

    And what he did, when the opportunity arose, was grab it with both hands and appoint three very smart justices whose presence on the Supreme Court resulted in the overturning, after five decades of a badly-decided opinion which invented a “penumbras formed by emanations” establishing a constitutional right to abortion without end.

    That you can’t muster the grace to say so is a sad reflection on you and those of your ilk.

    Don’t be a dog in the manger.

    Regards,

    Your occasional fan

    RicochetShe

    PS: I’m reminded of one of my favorite “Supreme Court” stories, that in which Justice Antonin Scalia would occasionally scrawl across an opinion with which he disagreed but could find no constitutional leg to stand on regarding an actual dissent, “Stupid, but Constitutional.”

    I just might, in the future, start countering your polemics on the “stupidity” and “irresponsibility” of the Trump years with a stamp saying, “Stupid and Irresponsible, but Effective.”

    It is that “effectiveness” which distinguishes Trump from the Romneys, the Collinses, the Murkowskis, the McCains, the Williamsons, and the Frenches of the world.

    Change my mind.

    Good.

    Nicer than I would be.

    The man is a lout. 

    • #25
  26. Headedwest Coolidge
    Headedwest
    @Headedwest

    She (View Comment):

    Well.  I read the whole thing on NR (not, I hasten to add because I subscribe, but I must somehow have had one of my very few free views for the month still left.  Funny how that works. And so:

    Dear Kevin,

    Very well done. Bravo.

    • #26
  27. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    DrewInWisconsin, Unapologetic … (View Comment):

    She (View Comment):

    Well. I read the whole thing on NR (not, I hasten to add because I subscribe, but I must somehow had had one of my very few free views for the month still left. Funny how that works. And so:

    Dear Kevin,

    . . . (lovely stuff deleted because I ain’t got privilege) . . .

    Wonderful. So well said.

    KDW and David French are among those who are in it for the write, not the fight.

    • #27
  28. Cassandro Coolidge
    Cassandro
    @Flicker

    DrewInWisconsin, Unapologetic … (View Comment):

    David French is still very, very disappointed in us. (Trigger warning: many straw men gave their lives for his column.)

    What is French’s actual world view, anyway?

    • #28
  29. DrewInWisconsin, Unapologetic Oaf Member
    DrewInWisconsin, Unapologetic Oaf
    @DrewInWisconsin

    Cassandro (View Comment):

    DrewInWisconsin, Unapologetic … (View Comment):

    David French is still very, very disappointed in us. (Trigger warning: many straw men gave their lives for his column.)

    What is French’s actual world view, anyway?

    Luke 18:9–12

    I mean, it’s kind of funny he got dinged for celebrating the overturning of Roe when it’s due to the President he opposed (and even considered running against). But instead of pausing for self-reflection, he lashes out at the pro-life movement. “A movement animated by rage and fear isn’t ready to embrace life and love.”

    Wait a second, Davey. Did you not notice the way you’ve been raging against Christians for the last five years for daring to vote for the man you hate? I suppose you’re going to tell us you condemned them to hell out of love?

    I mean it when I say that his piece is filled with straw men. He paints the pro-life movement in the grossest of terms, but never gets specific regarding who he’s talking about. It’s just general slander. Though he does say nice things about Pro-life Pregnancy Centers.

    But what it really comes down to is that he’s still a sour-faced rat about so many on the right — especially Christians — unwilling to do what he believed was their duty to get jabbed by a “vaccine” that we are increasingly seeing doesn’t work, and causes serious health problems to large numbers of people. This is what’s really bothering him. They wouldn’t listen to him. He yelled at them to get vaxxed, and they refused. He sees the death toll of COVID, and he blames the right. In this way, he’s simply echoing the slander of the left that declared those backward red state residents were the reason COVID won’t go away.

    So he thinks that conservatives who opposed mandatory vaccines just don’t belong in the pro-life movement.

    • #29
  30. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    DrewInWisconsin, Unapologetic … (View Comment):

    Cassandro (View Comment):

    DrewInWisconsin, Unapologetic … (View Comment):

    David French is still very, very disappointed in us. (Trigger warning: many straw men gave their lives for his column.)

    What is French’s actual world view, anyway?

    Luke 18:9–12

    I mean, it’s kind of funny he got dinged for celebrating the overturning of Roe when it’s due to the President he opposed (and even considered running against). But instead of pausing for self-reflection, he lashes out at the pro-life movement. “A movement animated by rage and fear isn’t ready to embrace life and love.”

    Wait a second, Davey. Did you not notice the way you’ve been raging against Christians for the last five years for daring to vote for the man you hate? I suppose you’re going to tell us you condemned them to hell out of love?

    I mean it when I say that his piece is filled with straw men. He paints the pro-life movement in the grossest of terms, but never gets specific regarding who he’s talking about. It’s just general slander. Though he does say nice things about Pro-life Pregnancy Centers.

    But what it really comes down to is that he’s still a sour-faced rat about so many on the right — especially Christians — unwilling to do what he believed was their duty to get jabbed by a “vaccine” that we are increasingly seeing doesn’t work, and causes serious health problems to large numbers of people. This is what’s really bothering him. They wouldn’t listen to him. He yelled at them to get vaxxed, and they refused. He sees the death toll of COVID, and he blames the right. In this way, he’s simply echoing the slander of the left that declared those backward red state residents were the reason COVID won’t go away.

    So he thinks that conservatives who opposed mandatory vaccines just don’t belong in the pro-life movement. on the planet.

    There you go.

    • #30
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.