• Ghostalmedia@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    183
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    10 months ago

    Yes, I’m unapologetically pro-life. … I am fine with a federal law

    Ladies and gentlemen, this is your “moderate” Republican candidate.

    • admiralteal@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      65
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      10 months ago

      I mean, that IS moderate for a Republican. The more typical party view is Make America Handmaid’s Tale.

      • Ghostalmedia@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        24
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        10 months ago

        I don’t wish that pain and suffering on anyone. Ever her terrible ass.

        That said, she’s 100% the type of person that would get the medical care, and never mention it on the trail, and continue to try and win over the nuts who want a ban.

        She already lies to her base in order to get votes.

        • agitatedpotato@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          10
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          10 months ago

          Some people deserve bad things to happen to them no matter how unethical it is to wish for, or do. Unethical maybe, but justified entirely. Our society is up against the clock on ecological and social issues and being ethical in the current system will not save it.

    • thesprongler@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      I don’t like to play devil’s advocate, but there is a sliver of light between “I am fine with” and “I will push for” a federal law. Both terrible stances given the makeup of this country.

  • Maddie
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    117
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    9 months ago

    deleted by creator

    • AllonzeeLV@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      105
      ·
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      There were anti suffrage women’s groups.

      There were pro-Nazi Jewish people in Germany until they came for them too.

      There’s always some people within a population who just choose to side with power, even power that loathes them, in hopes they’ll become a favorite pet.

      The log cabin Republicans come to mind.

      • Ashyr
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        18
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        Famously, Mother Jones didn’t believe in women’s suffrage. She believed it was a distraction from class warfare.

        I tend to align more with Simone de Beauvoir who saw women as a disadvantaged class as well. I think it’s a helpful lens for how we consider gender dynamics and patriarchal structures.

        • BigWheelPowerBrakeSlider@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          10 months ago

          Agreed. And if I can just add as to point out the fluid dynamics of modern post-constructionalism as seen through the lens of and espoused by such pioneering women as Marjorie Jacqueline Bouvier-Simpson.

      • Ð Greıt Þu̇mpkin@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        The pro Nazi Jews are actually kinda funny in a horrifically dark way

        They even had a chant! “Down with us! Down with us!”

    • ArbitraryValue
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      37
      ·
      10 months ago

      Um, what about the belief that an unborn fetus has a soul? That’s a belief that tens of millions of American women sincerely hold…

      • Omnificer@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        33
        ·
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        Even allowing for the unproven assertion that souls exist, at no point does that soul obligate giving up bodily autonomy.

        You can’t use organs from corpses without permission, you can’t force a drunk driver to provide an organ to a kid they ran over, you can’t force a parent to donate an organ to their own child. All of these things would save “souls” but is hardly part of pro-forced birth platforms.

        And if fetuses have souls, that would surely make the Christian god the true murderer as 10 to 20% of all pregnancies end in miscarriages, but the Christian god is held to a lower moral standard than human beings by pro-forced birthers. And the governments that reject welfare programs are also held to lower moral standard for some reason, as well.

        • ArbitraryValue
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          15
          ·
          10 months ago

          You don’t need to agree with the women who oppose abortion because they believe a fetus has a soul in order to accept that these women do in fact oppose abortion because they believe a fetus has a soul. I’m not arguing that they’re right but only that they have their reasons, which they aren’t secretive about. People who wonder “how could women vote for Republicans” are ignoring the straightforward explanation that those women readily provide.

          • Omnificer@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            12
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            10 months ago

            If they can’t give a reason that’s internally consistent why should I believe them?

          • GardenVarietyAnxiety@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            18
            ·
            10 months ago

            This is the internet in 2024. You can only be “Right” or “Wrong” and that depends on which color flag the topic falls under, unfortunately.

            I’m slowly giving up on even trying to highlight any shades of grey. The goal on both sides seems to be “Shoot first, as questions later.”

            Just hoping cooler heads prevail.

      • jjjalljs@ttrpg.network
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        13
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        Religious beliefs are irrelevant outside of the personal life.

        Most people don’t even follow their religion RAW. Bunch of munchkins running bullshit homebrew rulings.

      • Ð Greıt Þu̇mpkin@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        It’s stupid and completely unfounded in any medical science regarding when the Fetus is actually a living human being.

        Show me a woman who claims she genuinely would see a fetus in a jar and an infant newborn as equally worth saving in a crisis and I will show you a woman who swears she’d have totally been a punk rock abolitionist if she was around in the South in the antebellum years.

        Also it literally isn’t sincere belief, the Bible has exactly one thing to say about abortion, and that’s how to perform one via medicine.

        God gaveth unto the Jews, the pill.

      • lolcatnip@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        10 months ago

        It’s a belief they have only because they were told to believe it. I can’t respect that.

  • taanegl@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    51
    ·
    edit-2
    10 months ago

    You ever get the feeling that certain people are anti-abortion simply because they want neglected, sad children to grow up and become ignorant, angry adults that will vote to give sociopaths, narcissists and psychopath power?

    The Dominionists say yes…

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      The anti-abortion sentiment is very tightly bound up in the white nationalist / supremacist narrative. A lot of the same folks who say they want to ban women from having abortions are the same ones who endorse sterilizations, harden their hearts toward public healthcare for minorities, and scream all the live-long-day about Anchor Babies.

      The theory of the anti-abortion activist is always that the wrong fetuses are getting terminated. This ties back to old blood libels against Jews, Satanic Panics, and other conspiracy theories that orbit the “Great Replacement” Theory of lower-than-average white replacement level procreation.

      And in the last decade, as domestic maternity rates have fallen and hysteria around Arabs, Latinos, Africans, and the Dreaded China Menace has peaked, we’re seen a lot more Scientific Racism that gears itself around the need for a revitalization of the White Race as a prelude to some kind of future apocalyptic global struggle for power.

    • AquaTofana@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      10 months ago

      Also, desperate, neglected, unwanted children have less of a chance of going to college and pursuing “better” career opportunities later in life. Theres just too much stress associated with the simple act of living. They’ll always have to rely on the state for assistance, which means they’ll always be driven to work the jobs no one wants for a pittance, just to be able to survive.

      Make no mistake, the anti abortion politicians aren’t doing this out of any “respect for life” or whatever, they just want to keep the working class populated, so they can keep making money off the backs of an uneducated, exploited population.

    • Phoenixz@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      10 months ago

      I’m pretty sure that is one of the biggest reasons for Republicans to be anti abortion.

    • archomrade [he/him]@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      10 months ago

      *anti-abortion

      But also those same people would like orphans to be raised by private Christian organizations (and limit adoption to Christian nuclear families), so I would say they would also like those children to be raised Christian to reinforce their religious theocracy

    • chingadera@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      10 months ago

      Ive seen this a bunch of times and always just assumed it’s content. I finally bit the bullet and read it. Thanks for posting. I really love how they ended it with positivity and growth.

  • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    45
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    10 months ago

    “Mrs. Haley, have you ever had an abortion? You have a daughter. Has she ever had an abortion?” – The press, if they had any balls.

    • hydrashok
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      10 months ago

      Seriously. The way they treat all the candidates with kid gloves is ridiculous.

    • Municipal0379@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      10 months ago

      Asking her is fine, leave all politicians kids out of the spotlight (unless they are campaigning).

      • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        10 months ago

        Sorry, that was thrown out the window when Rush Limbaugh went after Chelsea Clinton. And it really went out the window when the entire Republican media sphere went after Sasha and Malia Obama.

        • Municipal0379@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          10 months ago

          And it was wrong then and remains wrong now. Kids can’t help who their parents are, leave them out of it.

          • Aniki 🌱🌿@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            10 months ago

            But it’s not about the kid. It’s about the shameless double-standard. It’s about Nikki as a parent as well.

            • Wogi@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              10 months ago

              Listen the kids aren’t putting themselves in the spotlight, there’s no reason to drag them in to it. Drag the candidate all you want but leave the kids alone until they decide to join the circus on their own.

              • Aniki 🌱🌿@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                10 months ago

                She’s not a child and campaigns with her mother. Maybe focus on the single issue instead of making it about something it isn’t.

      • jj4211@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        Well, Trump is past the average life expectancy for this country. His particular situation probably puts him in a shorter lived cohort than average too.

        So he might die before the convention, and she would be the Republican candidate.

        Since people are gloom and dooming all over the place about economy and inflation, situation favors the challenger.

        So she’s got a real chance at becoming the next president, if Trump dies in the next couple of months. Looking at actuary table, seems to be in the ballpark of 3-4% chance…

  • silverbax@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    43
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    10 months ago

    “I am going to step on this rake again and again, harder and harder, until the rake no longer slaps me in the face when I step on it.”

    • admiralteal@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      If she weren’t a degenerate buffoon, she wouldn’t be campaigning as a Republican.

      Anyone who still identifies themselves with the ® in this day and age can be written off as an idiot and bigot…

      • somethingsnappy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        10 months ago

        She can put coherent sentences together, and I would love to elect a woman, but we are even more misogynistic than racist. Also, I’m waaaay far to the left of democrats, so nope.

    • ArbitraryValue
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      What else can they do? They have to win the primary before they can compete in the general election.

  • Pohl@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    44
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    10 months ago

    The only difference between Haley and trump is that I am slightly more confident that Haley will leave the office when her term ends. Beyond that, same shit.

  • The Menemen!@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    35
    ·
    edit-2
    10 months ago

    What is mind boggling is that either her or Trump will be the next candidate and it still isn’t a sure win for the democrats.

    But, tbh, looking at politics in the EU nowadays and I feel ashamed of making fun of the USA in the past. We are outfascisting you again, it seems.

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      19
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      Well, that’ll at least going to earn her the respect and appreciation of every conservative voter

      It isn’t, because this is table stakes. If anything, her status as a mother of a daughter will raise serious concerns that she’ll backpeddle if her own daughter has an unwanted pregnancy or miscarriage.

      That’s the big hurdle that conservative women have. Voters just reflexively see them as more-liberal than their male peers, because the conservative mode of politics is inherently patriarchal. How can you be a True Believer when you’re acting against your own best interests?

      She needs to be even more sinister.

      She needs to be a TV personality with 40 years of accumulated history and its simply too late for that to happen.

      There’s nothing Haley can do to turn her campaign around. She was doomed from day one, shy of Trump having a sudden cardiac event on the campaign trail. No matter how cruel she behaves, she’ll always be seen as a conformer rather than the Real Deal because of who she is and where she comes from.

      • frezik@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        Let’s face it: all GOP challengers this year are banking on Trump going behind bars or having a heart attack. Maybe, maybe, trying to get the VP nomination, but you don’t do that in fascism by trying to be more popular than the boss.

        • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          10 months ago

          all GOP challengers this year are banking on Trump going behind bars or having a heart attack.

          Vivek definitely. I think some of them were just campaigning to get a high enough profile to try again in 2028. Nikki Haley, more than the rest of them, feels like she’s playing for the runner-up spot like McCain received in '00 and Romney managed in '08.

          Maybe, maybe, trying to get the VP nomination

          No way Trump’s giving her the VP slot. She brings nothing to the ticket that Trump considers valuable. He’d sooner re-nominate Pence. There’s a line out the door of people who endorsed Trump earlier in the election cycle who are going to be ahead of her on the short list.

      • jj4211@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        10 months ago

        Trump having a sudden cardiac event

        So you’re saying there’s a chance…

        Unlike the meme though, given Trump’s general situation, that’s not a crazy low chance.

        • Mirshe@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          10 months ago

          Don’t wish too hard. Trump dying or being hospitalized on the campaign trail will definitely make him a martyr.

        • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          10 months ago

          So you’re saying there’s a chance…

          I’m still holding out on The Year Of Four Presidents, in which Biden loses in November and has a cardiac event later that month. Then Kamala is sworn in for a meager two months. Then Trump is sworn in and, shortly thereafter, has his own heart attack. And then his VP becomes President. All within a 12 month period.

    • Cosmic Cleric@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      9
      ·
      10 months ago

      deep down they know that the only reason they’re here is because abortion wasn’t easily available. Gotta keep the garbage coming.

      This kind of rhetoric doesn’t help resolve anything.

        • Cosmic Cleric@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          10 months ago

          deep down they know that the only reason they’re here is because abortion wasn’t easily available. Gotta keep the garbage coming.

          This kind of rhetoric doesn’t help resolve anything.

          I wasn’t trying to solve anything. You can’t fix stupid.

          That much is obvious. ‘Opinion masturbating’ in a public square is a thing, apparently.

            • Cosmic Cleric@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              10 months ago

              This kind of rhetoric doesn’t help resolve anything.

              It helps identify individuals who don’t care about making the world a better place, via resolving issues.

                • jordanlund@lemmy.worldM
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  10 months ago

                  Removed, rule 3:

                  Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (perjorative, perjorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (perjorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect!

        • Cosmic Cleric@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          10 months ago

          deep down they know that the only reason they’re here is because abortion wasn’t easily available. Gotta keep the garbage coming.

          This kind of rhetoric doesn’t help resolve anything.

          Talking on the Internets won’t solve much no matter what you say.

          Societies self-monitor the people in them.

          Even if you don’t win, pushing back against hatred is always the right thing to do.

          • gapbetweenus@feddit.de
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            10 months ago

            Even if you don’t win, pushing back against hatred is always the right thing to do.

            Depends: if something did not get any attention - than push back is contra-productive, since it might just create more attention. If something is already getting than pushing back might be helpful in the bigger picture.

            • Cosmic Cleric@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              10 months ago

              It’s not a matter of getting attention or not, it’s a matter of challenging the commenter and their opinion on the subject.

              The assumption is that it will get attention since it’s on/in a public forum.

              • gapbetweenus@feddit.de
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                10 months ago

                There is almost no way to convince people with radical opinions in a written discussion. So the push back is not really useful to challenge the opinion of op but of people less radical or neutral who are also reading the comment. But if the comment did not get any traction, there might be a downside in engaging by getting more attention to the comment. And you don’t know which side of the argument people in the end will chose - so I would just leave it alone. If I’m not in mood for some flaming.

                • Cosmic Cleric@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  10 months ago

                  There is almost no way to convince people with radical opinions in a written discussion.

                  That is an assumption, and not a fact.

                  Also, pushing back sends a signal to others in the same Society that there are others that believe the same way as they do, and invites them to push back as well. A society self signals to the members inside of it as a method of forming the meta opinions of that Society.

                  Hatred should always be pushed back against, no matter how effective the pushback ends up being, and regardless of the aggravation/cost of doing so.

    • aidan@lemmy.worldM
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      10 months ago

      I wouldn’t say it’s against a rule, but kinda messed up to imply someone was basically garbage since birth.

      • Cosmic Cleric@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        I wouldn’t say it’s against a rule

        Seems like a razor’s edge that they’re walking on.

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      the only reason they’re here is because abortion wasn’t easily available

      Meh. I think a lot more of it is Republicans seeing their children failing to have a sprawling brood of children to perpetuate the Family Line and falling back on this being some kind of conspiracy against white people.

      These are people who get exposed to Reality TV families with twelve kids and yearn for the kind of extended families that they shamed their own kids out of when they freaked out about teen pregnancy during the 90s/00s.

    • OneWomanCreamTeam
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      I mean, most of the upper level Republicans come from wealthy families that would’ve had access to abortion regardless.

    • netwren@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      26
      ·
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      You’re saying kids born because abortion wasn’t available are pieces of garbage. What the fuck. think about what you said.

      Since I was down voted into oblivion. I’ll reconsider your statement.

      Deep down Republicans believe that the only reason they’re here is that they weren’t aborted.

      So I guess that’s similar to conservatives thinking that the only way people can act morally is because they read it in a thousand year old book.

      I guess the logic checks out but all I could think about with a gut check was that kids who’s parents wanted to abort them but couldn’t probably ended up in a hostile environment.

            • urist@lemmy.blahaj.zone
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              10 months ago

              Apologies for the late reply.

              Actually I didn’t, which is why I asked that question. Your writing is unclear (which is why multiple people seem to be concerned about it), and you’re assuming the reader will understand your comment in specific context.

              Why would I assume republicans (who are anti abortion) get enough abortions to influence how many of them there are? Can we even assume that having access to abortion influences population size when sterilization exists, and is something people get when they’ve had enough children? These are hypothetical questions, I don’t expect you to answer them. I’m just pointing out that without being clear, you can’t assume folks will read your post under the context you feel is obvious.

    • FenrirIII@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      17
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      With Republican bills going the way they are, we might see her publicly inspected to confirm it.

    • Empricorn@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      10 months ago

      And if she’s never gotten an abortion I guarantee she would if the pregnancy were inconvenient. The rules are never for them, silly!