Donald Trump sent a message about his priorities to social conservatives Sunday on "60 Minutes”: On abortion, I'll keep fighting. On gay marriage, not so much.
But his justification was confusing — and likely will be to some of his biggest supporters in the evangelical community. Trump basically said that the Supreme Court's 17-month-old ruling legalizing gay marriage nationwide is over and done with, but its 43-year-old decision legalizing abortion — Roe v. Wade — shouldn't be. And he did all of this in the course of a few minutes.
Here's the exchange on gay marriage:
LESLEY STAHL: Do you support marriage equality?
TRUMP: It — it’s irrelevant because it was already settled. It’s law. It was settled in the Supreme Court. I mean it’s done.
STAHL: So even if you appoint a judge that —
TRUMP: It’s done. It — you have — these cases have gone to the Supreme Court. They’ve been settled. And, I’m fine with that.
Just prior, though, Trump said he would appoint “pro-life” judges in hopes of reversing Roe v. Wade and sending the issue back to the states:
STAHL: During the campaign, you said that you would appoint justices who were against abortion rights. Will you appoint — are you looking to appoint a justice who wants to overturn Roe v. Wade?
TRUMP: So look, here’s what’s going to happen — I’m going to — I’m pro-life. The judges will be pro-life. They’ll be very —
STAHL: But what about overturning this law —
TRUMP: Well, there are a couple of things. They’ll be pro-life, they’ll be — in terms of the whole gun situation, we know the Second Amendment, and everybody’s talking about the Second Amendment, and they’re trying to dice it up and change it, they’re going to be very pro-Second Amendment. But having to do with abortion if it ever were overturned, it would go back to the states. So it would go back to the states and —
STAHL: Yeah, but then some women won’t be able to get an abortion?
TRUMP: No, it’ll go back to the states.
STAHL: By state — no some —
TRUMP: Yeah, well, they’ll perhaps have to go, they’ll have to go to another state.
To put it mildly, these two positions are irreconcilable. Trump could make the case that the country favors gay marriage more than it does abortion. He could argue that one is simply more important to him because it involves issues of life. He could say it would be easier to overturn one than the other.
But those aren't his arguments. Instead, he props up a 17-month-old decision on gay marriage as settled law, but a 1973 decision on abortion as something that could be overturned. That's having it both ways.[...]
Ah stiras hoRashbo!
ReplyDeleteStop nit picking. Accept the way he presents his views. In a rather crude way, indeed. But we all understand that he can tolerate gay marriages better than he can tolerate abortion. Get it?
I never read The Washington Post, but lately you have brought several articles from there. So I'm starting to understand why some call it The Washington compost.
ReplyDeleteWhile I do not wish for any of these, it seems that DT has too much time on his hands due to a dearth of any news articles involving child molestation, messy divorces, or the Kamenetskys, which he usually thrives on. Why don't you find another sefer to index and we can all discuss Trump in a year after he has had a chance to govern. . .Until then, I think that we all know how to look up CNN.com if we need any anti-Trump opinions.
ReplyDeleteplease share some of your insights
ReplyDeletethat is not how he has presented himself and that is not why frum people were encouraged to vote for him.
ReplyDeleteYes it is obvious that he can tolerate gay marriage better than abortion. Maybe next week he will develop a tolerance of abortion also.
No, he said in the first debate he respects LGBTQ people. And he pointed out that hillary left out the Q.
ReplyDeleteWould you prefer that he go strictly Liberal as Hillary would have and support both gay marriage and unrestricted abortion? He's not a Jew and doesn't have Jewish values. He probably will be better than Hillary would have been in that he won't force gay junk down the throats of religious people as Hillary would have.
ReplyDeleteYou should probably rename your blog to Daas anti Trump. That seems to be the main emphasis of your articles lately.
respecting people is something we all are required to do. This issue was never whether they should be respected
ReplyDeleteMore silliness. As a frum person, I was encouraged by no one to vote for Trump; and, my own desire to so had nothing to do with Roe or LGBT marriage. A third Obama term - not to mention a return of the Clintons - were the key dangers to everyone...not these social concerns which are questionably relevant to the frum community.
ReplyDeleteMy main concern is Muslim immigration; secondary concern, Obamacare; other lesser but still real concerns: taxes; government regulation and the drag it creates on the economy; government corruption; identity politics; the undermining of the rule of law and of property rights.
ReplyDeleteHis position has always been pro LGBTQ. He just opposes gay marriage (which many gays oppose too; they oppose the commitment it requires.)
ReplyDeleteso why isn't he trying to act on that opposition?
ReplyDeletea) He cannot "try to act" since he is not yet president. b) He needs to pick his battles. He may feel this is a battle he cannot win. c) He may yet act. This might be a way of sending up a trial balloon. Or, maybe he'll think it through some more and change his mind. d) He won't act and he's being inconsistent, which is not exactly a new phenomenon in human nature.
ReplyDeleteConcern about "Muslim immigration" is identity politics. There are many types of Muslims. Islam is just one of many christian sects. St. Louis has a large Muslim population, who helped revitalize the town. But they are Bosnian (European) and don't "look or act Muslim".
ReplyDeletehttp://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-37663226
The key thing is to have a good immigration policy that quickly weeds out criminals and encourages hard working immigrants who are want to contribute and live up to the "high" ethical values of american society - irrespective of background.
true - but what is Trump going to do differently to ensure that?
ReplyDeleteIs the new "Progressive" just the old "Yehoshua" under a new name? I suspect he is.
ReplyDeleteNope, still here.
ReplyDeleteno they are two different people
ReplyDeleteNo, concern about Muslim immigration is concern about terrorism and Jew-hatred, notwithstanding your apologetics.
ReplyDeleteI assume you saw the article where the chief of Los Angeles police said they are not checking immigration status?
ReplyDeleteI assume you are aware of the many anti-Semites who are very happy that Trump won and that racial incidents etc have spiked in association with Trump's campaign?
I assume you are aware that Trump doesn't have a realistic plan of doing something different than Obama?
So it is cute to call my reality check "apologetics" but so far it looks like it is the Trump followers who are living in la la land.
Huh? I called Progressive's statement apologetics, not yours. My reply was to him.
ReplyDeleteMany anti-Semites are also unhappy that Trump won. They are in the progressive camp.
No idea how you know Trump's plans, especially since he has not yet assumed office and has been President-elect for a bit more than a week.
It doesn't really matter how long he is in office - the only question that matters is can he do anything substantially different than what is done now under Obama.
ReplyDeleteI would interested in what these "stages" are. Haven't heard about even stage one - do you know what it is?
Yeah, that's the question, and it's far too early to have decided he can't or won't do it, since he has not yet assumed office and won't for another two months. So far your record on Trump prognostication is not too great, given that you predicted 100% that he would not win election.
ReplyDeleteI don't claim to know the plans, but I heard him once talk about a first stage being deporting all the illegals with criminal records, of which there are many. Another stage, I imagine, would be a wall. Another, off the top of my head, might be going after employers who hire illegals, which would have a huge effect. Another might be letting ICE agents do their actual jobs. Another might be an increased presence at the border. There are any number of possibilties.
Nope. Yehoshua is not "Progressive", I am.
ReplyDeleteThere are muslims, christians and atheist anti-semites. Is there evidence that muslims are more likely to be anti-semitic than christians or atheists? What proportion of muslim terrorists are actually immigrants, as opposed to disgruntled american citizens? Should we simply deport all american muslims?
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately, traditional christian theology literally demonizes Jews. Should christian and atheist immigration be banned as well?!
But you also have to explain why there has been such an outburst of anti-semitic joy at Trump's victory and Clinton's defeat?! I would post links, only if DT permits. In the meantime you can do a search for yourself, with search strings like:"President Trump Nathanael" or "anti-semitic anti-zionist President Trump". These anti-semites were "praying" for Clinton's defeat! Why?
a guest post with links would be appreciated
ReplyDeleteHere is a report on muslim immigrants in germany desperate to integrate converting on mass to christianity. I guess the germans showed them some christian "love":
ReplyDeletehttp://www.ardmediathek.de/tv/Gott-und-die-Welt/Abschied-vom-Islam/Das-Erste/Video?bcastId=2833732&documentId=36873686
Sorry, It is in german, but the scenes speak for themselves.
Pardon my ignorance. I am new at using blogs. How do I do a guest post?
ReplyDeleteYou write up to a page regarding a particular topic and include relevant links. Send it to me by email and I will post it. It helps also if you give it a title
ReplyDeleteNeed to interject: Christian antisemitism has definitely a tradition and history, but for the most part, they have abandoned their religion. But Islam still has its fervent adherents and has it also in it's tenets and texts. Read the Koran (or should say Qur'ran). Read about the agenda of the "Ikhwan" or the Muslim Brotherhood. Read about the agenda of their front organizations such as CAIR, NAIS, ISNA, MPAC and statements made by their leaders. It's virtually a mafia, which brings me to suggest you read the book, "Muslim Mafia".
ReplyDeleteMany apologists point out to 'intolerance' in other religions, but Robert Spencer adeptly and articulately points out that their seem to be an overabundance of 'misunderstanders' that Islam is really a 'religion of peace' as George Bush was rushing to do in the wake of 9/11......why aren't there so many misunderstanding atheists, Hindus or Buddhists?
Your interjection is very welcome. The point I would like to make is that we should not take sides with christians or atheists against muslims or islam. Because they dispute islam on the basis that their respective ideologies are true and islam is false. But their ideologies are just as flawed as islam, if not more, from a Torah perspective. It would be intellectually dishonest to publically disrespect all muslims as a group or their religion, while disregarding the fallaciousness of christianity and atheism. We should try to live in "peace" with all groups until they come to know the "truth"- perhaps through the peace. As the Rambam expreses it so beautifully in the Laws of Megillah and Hanukah Ch. 4:14: "Peace is great, for the entire Torah was given to bring about peace within the world, as [Proverbs 3:17] states: "Its ways are pleasant ways and all its paths are peace.""
ReplyDeleteBut on a more selfish note, I have more of an incentive to build bridges with muslims because I and my family live in Israel with many of them. See the following link (its in hebrew) of a meeting between Israeli Rabbis and Israeli/Palisitnain muslim leaders:
בשם ה' אל עולם בשם אללה הרחמן והרחום
http://net-sah.org/audio/25132
I would lik to add that atheists have the potential to engage in massive violence WWII, for example,. Also Hindus in india, you will find that there has been massive anti-muslim violence. And budhists, well look at Thai and Burmese hsitory. Christian history of violence is also well known.
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately, this is exactly what apologists do - they point their finger on any type of violence - so they don't have to *confront* the real problem because it would be POLITICALLY INCORRECT.
ReplyDeleteEveryone knows that that Islam has tenets that call for battle and violence *as no other religion*.
Everyone knows that when we hear in the media of a terrorist attack, the media and various governments go out of their way to say that it didn't have to be a terrorist attack, although we soon find out that it was the 'religious inspiration' - from Islam that inspired the perpetrators to do so....
My reply to your comment right above this one would be applicable here too. ..
ReplyDeleteThe issue is not at all which religion is of true, the western countries could care less about that. The issue is Islam's agenda (and their past history) of violence, to which they have ultimately (and unfortunately) proven themselves in violence, murder and mayhem, etc. far more than any other religion. Just listen to the media - at least whenever you hear of a terrorist attack...