2016 US Presidential Race - Mod Warning in OP

Black Swan

InTheTrees wrote: »

Today there's a storm brewing over Trump's comments in an interview with Chris Matthews where he declares if abortion is made illegal then women should be punished if they're discovered to be seeking one. He hasnt clarified exactly how they are to be punished yet.

Matthews interviewing Trump:
MATTHEWS: Do you believe in punishment for abortion, yes or no as a principle?
TRUMP: The answer is that there has to be some form of punishment.
MATTHEWS: For the woman?
TRUMP: Yes, there has to be some form.

Once again Trump makes an "outrageous" statement, which in turn draws a reaction from the news media and web (per his 1987 playbook). But in this case he does not reaffirm his statement after being criticized, rather the Trump campaign has been in damage control, attempting to reinterpret what Trump said in a way that will not lose many women voters.

Overheal

Bernie is not on the DC Ballot due to an "Administrative Error". He filed the correct paperwork and paid the correct fees by the correct dates, but for some reason the DNC did not notify the election officials until the day after the deadline.

http://www.springfieldnewssun.com/news/news/national/bernie-sanders-left-dc-primary-ballot-due/nqwZk/

WASHINGTON, D.C. — Voters in Washington, D.C., who are planning to lend their support to Democratic presidential hopeful Bernie Sanders may have some trouble due to an error by the District of Columbia Democratic Party, according to a report from WRC.
>> Read more trending stories
As of Wednesday, Sanders' name had yet to appear to the ballot for the District's June 14 primary.
According to WRC, New Hampshire Sen. Sanders and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton submitted registration fees to appear on the ballot earlier this month. The D.C. Democratic Party, however, failed to notify the District's Board of Elections about Sanders' registration until the day after the deadline passed on March 16.
It was not clear why the D.C. Democratic Party was delayed. Party officials told WRC the situation boiled down to a “minor administrative dispute,” but it may take a special D.C. Council vote to fix.

This is just the latest in a string of amazing coincidences that have happened for the Senator this election cycle. Isn't it a surprise that none of these little hiccups have negatively affected the Clinton Campaign?

In Arizona, the mayor of Phoenix requested a federal investigation after a severe shortage of polling precincts forced voters to wait hours, deterring thousands of people from casting a ballot. A petition to do something about the voter suppression was sent to the White House with over 100,000 signatures, stemming from the decision of Maricopa County Recorder Helen Purcell to downsize the number of voting precincts to 60. Ms. Purcell initially blamed voters for long lines before retracting her statements and accepting the blame—although she refuses to resign over the scandal.

In Massachusetts, Bill Clinton broke election laws by entering precincts but inoculated himself from repercussions by attending with the Mayor of Boston. After his visits sparked backlash in Massachusetts, Mr. Clinton reserved himself to campaigning just outside of the polls in Illinois—where thousands of people were turned away in six counties thanks to a shortage of ballots. The same thing happened in Michigan, despite Mr. Sanders’ victory in the state.

In Nevada, where voter turnout was poor, Senator Harry Reid phoned in favors to ensure casino employees were sent to caucuses for Ms. Clinton.

And when voter turnout has been high, either Mr. Sanders won or voters were turned away and Ms. Clinton was victorious. At the same time, Republicans have seen record voter turnouts in their primaries.

“Party leaders (again, that’s code for Hillary supporters) have seemingly hosted fewer voter registration drives. Doing so, would, in essence, be drives for Bernie Sanders. In some cases, party leaders are just skipping them altogether in many states and at college campuses,” Shaun King wrote for The New York Daily News. “Hillary must know that low voter turnout actually favors her campaign to get the nomination. She and the political machine are not going to invest the time or money to beat the drums for voter registration because they know full well those are primarily votes she won’t receive.”

The efforts of the DNC to suppress the vote in order to ensure Ms. Clinton wins more delegates may help her win the Democratic nomination, but it will backfire in the general election in November.

The DNC has bent their own rules and regulations to assist Ms. Clinton. In December 2015, Vice News broke a story that the DNC was allowing Ms. Clinton’s campaign to share offices with the Carson City Democratic Party in Nevada—a key early primary state. In the summer of 2015, a top DNC official, Henry R. Munoz III broke DNC rules by organizing a fundraiser for Ms. Clinton in Texas. When news broke of the infraction, Ms. Wasserman Schultz ignored it.

Aside from an overt favoritism for Ms. Clinton—because Ms. Wasserman Schultz’s career depends on Ms. Clinton winning—under her leadership the DNC suffered significant losses in the House and Senate in 2014, and the party was virtually bankrupt heading into this year, as they have been significantly out funded by the Republican National Committee.

InTheTrees

Black Swan wrote: »

But in this case he does not reaffirm his statement after being criticized, rather the Trump campaign has been in damage control, attempting to reinterpret what Trump said in a way that will not lose many women voters.

They've been taking some hits today... with defending the campaign manager against his assault (sorry; Battery) on the female reporter and now trump wanting to punish women. Anderson Cooper telling him he's like a 5 year old has got lost in all the other noise.

Overheal

It doesn't matter. At this point people will vote for him purely because they want to and the other candidates left standing aren't palatable choices to them. There aren't really too many swing votes left at this current phase. The most Trump can do right now is basically shed supporters who snap out of the trance or bother to look at him.

Akrasia

K-9 wrote: »

Mod hat off.

That's some 180° turn from Trump.

It has repeatedly been reported that he had liberal views on abortion, including an interview with a construction manager who worked for him in New York.

To go to prosecuting a woman for even seeking one sounds like the zealous convert, the sanctimonious ex smoker type!

He'll have to do some spinning in Presidential debates on that one. An "I saw the light" moment!

It's obvious that he's targeting Cruz voters here. He's gonna go hardcore crazy pro-life in order to undercut the Cruz support because for these people, abortion is a deal breaker and they would never support any candidate who didn't say they were going to end abortion.

When Cruz is no longer a threat, he'll just deny that he ever wanted to punish women for seeking abortions.

This is his magic bullet. He can brazenly deny saying things that there are videos of him saying.

Akrasia

eire4 wrote: »

New York will be crucial in terms of the current phase of the Democratic race. Clinton looks favourite in Wisconsin but Sanders will likely close the gap and win Wyoming. The big question will be New York. If Clinton wins a big decisive victory then she is back in the box seat so to speak but if Sanders can repeat what he did in Illinois where he tehnically lost but it was by so small a margin it didn't really make any material difference. Then he is very much alive and in the race and with real momentum.

In terms of Sanders he has been getting a large chunk of his votes from independents in the primaries. Ultimately Independents will decide the election in November so if Clinton and or the Democratic party alienate independent voters they risk losing badly in November which is exactly what they have done in most elections other then presidential elections over the last decade or so with the result the Republicans control both the house and senate and the majority of state legislatures and governorships.

I would be very worried if Sanders didn't beat Clinton in Wisconsin.

I think he needs to do well in both Wisconsin and Wyoming so that he has the wave of positive media attention heading into NY

The latest poll just released this week has Sanders ahead by 4 points in Wisconsin amongst 'likely democratic voters'
http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2016/03/30/wisconsin-poll-shows-ted-cruz-ahead-of-donald-trump/

Wisconsin is a closed primary, so I think it is very important that Sanders wins on Tuesday so that he can begin to silence critics who claim he only does well in open primaries or caucuses. (That said, i still expect the narrative to continue that the states sanders wins are not 'real' victories because of reason x y or z)

oscarBravo

Akrasia wrote: »

This is his magic bullet. He can brazenly deny saying things that there are videos of him saying.

It's bizarre that this is a strategy that actually works, but - as we've seen on this very forum - there are many people who are so utterly committed to what he stands for that they are capable of deceiving themselves, never mind others.

The trick appears to be simple: you ignore what he says, and invent a meaning for his words that suits your agenda. Then, with brazen stubbornness, you insist repeatedly and loudly that what he means is what you want him to mean, and what he says is irrelevant.

When it's pointed out to you that this is basically stupid and illogical, go into full defensive whataboutery mode until the people arguing with you realise that they'd be better off shouting down a well and stop pointing out the inanity of your arguments. You internalise this as having "won" the argument, and prepare to repeat the process all over again the next time Trump says something offensive, stupid, inane, contradictory, inflammatory... in other words, the next time he opens his mouth.

Akrasia

oscarBravo wrote: »

The trick appears to be simple: you ignore what he says, and invent a meaning for his words that suits your agenda. Then, with brazen stubbornness, you insist repeatedly and loudly that what he means is what you want him to mean, and what he says is irrelevant.

My favourite example of this is the Mexico wall.

There are posters on here who insist that Trump means a metaphorical wall because it is obvious, even to them that an actual physical wall would be utterly impractical and ineffective

But Trump couldn't be more clear. he has been asked many times about the details of his wall, and he means a physical wall along the entire land border between the U.S. and mexico. not a fence, not a border patrol, not drones and cameras, a physical wall. And he has even said what it will be made out of (pre-cast Concrete)

Inquitus

Akrasia wrote: »

My favourite example of this is the Mexico wall.

There are posters on here who insist that Trump means a metaphorical wall because it is obvious, even to them that an actual physical wall would be utterly impractical and ineffective

But Trump couldn't be more clear. he has been asked many times about the details of his wall, and he means a physical wall along the entire land border between the U.S. and mexico. not a fence, not a border patrol, not drones and cameras, a physical wall. And he has even said what it will be made out of (pre-cast Concrete)

Begrudgers everywhere.......I feel it's high time we looked at a modern redesign of the Great Wall of China, and what better place to put it then between the Atlantic and the Pacific in the Great nation of America!

Pre-cast concrete and rebar from Ocean to Ocean, t'will be glorious!

BoJack Horseman

Akrasia wrote: »

I would be very worried if Sanders didn't beat Clinton in Wisconsin.

I'd be near certain that Bernie will take the badger state.

The Democrats there are very blue.

Igotadose

Manach wrote: »

Given how deep the Democratic party is in intertwined with the Abortion industry, with the near revolving door set up for Planned Parenthood at the WH, then at least Trump differentiates & distances himself from those established interests.

Revolving door versus any other vested interest (banking, brokerage, oil) that shuttles between K street and the WH?

A more evenhanded discussion (if such is possible) here, a bit dated: http://www.economist.com/node/1534731

Abstinence as advocated by that moron Bush was a failure. For a current example, cf. abstinence spokesdroid Bristol Palin...

JPNelsforearm

Billy86 wrote: »

So you did lie.

Before mentioning that 'yanked out of the way' is exactly what happened to her, you lied. And you knew you were lying. And now you're continuing with the lie. You said she had claimed to have been "assaulted and thrown to the ground."

Word search in that link for 'assault': 0
Word search in that link for 'thrown': 0
Word search in that link for 'ground': 2

The two uses of the word 'ground'
- "His role is to stay on top of the ground operations in various states — an area where the Trump campaign was widely regarded as weak before the first primary votes were cast."
- Clickbait link unrelated to the article, "This groundbreaking technology will soon let us see exactly what’s in our food"



So tell us all, why did you lie?

I was actually quoting/paraphrasing Trump, again, this is a non issue. Where did I lie?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qGZg3_Rw_Jc

BoJack Horseman

It's just missing a "Doc, will I ever play the piano again" gag.

Overheal

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

lol, get off your high horse, what century are you living in?

As for her not claiming what I said. She didnt cry, stumble nor was she yanked out of the way, nor could she have bruises, nor did she, in short, she is full of ****.

"stumbled", "yanked out of the way", "tears", "bruises"

"As security parted the masses to give him passage out of the chandelier-lit ballroom, Michelle Fields, a young reporter for Trump-friendly Breitbart News, pressed forward to ask the Republican front-runner a question. I watched as a man with short-cropped hair and a suit grabbed her arm and yanked her out of the way. He was Corey Lewandowski, Trump’s 41-year-old campaign manager.

Fields stumbled. Finger-shaped bruises formed on her arm.

“I’m just a little spooked,” she said, a tear streaming down her face. “No one has grabbed me like that before.”

She took my arm and squeezed it hard. “I don’t even want to do it as hard as he did,” she said, “because it would hurt.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/inside-trumps-inner-circle-his-staffers-are-willing-to-fight-for-him-literally/2016/03/10/4b2b18e8-e660-11e5-a6f3-21ccdbc5f74e_story.html?tid=a_inl

Do you just not appreciate how aliased the camera footage is?

Like just for instance, look at the guy in the foreground with the creme colored jacket. Suddenly his hand just appears on a table. Similarly this video only gives us about 3 brief frames of a physical altercation. That's enough discrepancy for example, to hide the entire sucker punch that went around the world if it was recorded by a security camera. Hell, people would be accusing the protester of shoving the old man, as unless you saw it at its regular framerate theres no way you would identify that as an assault.

And if you look at Michelle Fields' feet, its clear she well could have lost her balance. There is no indication how many times, from this low framerate footage, how often she had to shuffle her feet for instance in order to maintain her balance, or how much force it would require to bruise her, esp if you are yanked by a physically fit 42 yr old man still in his physical prime with a documented aggression problem. Which by the way, if you took that video at a security camera framerate again, you'd probably be unclear as to whether that kid lost his balance, either.

But hey, I'll let the lawyers figure it out; I'm just saying you should probably rethink trying to champion the guys innocence on the thread, given the particulars.

K-9

Black Swan wrote: »

Matthews interviewing Trump:
MATTHEWS: Do you believe in punishment for abortion, yes or no as a principle?
TRUMP: The answer is that there has to be some form of punishment.
MATTHEWS: For the woman?
TRUMP: Yes, there has to be some form.

Once again Trump makes an "outrageous" statement, which in turn draws a reaction from the news media and web (per his 1987 playbook). But in this case he does not reaffirm his statement after being criticized, rather the Trump campaign has been in damage control, attempting to reinterpret what Trump said in a way that will not lose many women voters.

I really think this is some crazy social experiment gone mad at this stage. Say the most controversial thing you can and see what the reaction is!

Trump is not that popular with women, this is hardly going to help. But what do I know, it'll probably double his vote or something!

Inquitus

Seems like the wheels are coming off a bit for Trump, he's had a pretty incendiary 24 hours there alienating women, the GOP establishment and doing some furious backtracking. Momentum seems to have shifted against him, it's hard to see how he gets enough delegates now before the convention. Looks like we'll end up with him the big delegate and popular vote winner, but short of the mark, and have what's sure to be a hell of a show at a contested convention. Trump, Kasich, Cruz, Ryan anyone could end up with the nomination!

ancapailldorcha

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

It's just missing a "Doc, will I ever play the piano again" gag.

Please try to make your posts more constructive than this.

Amazingfun

K-9 wrote: »

Mod hat off.

That's some 180° turn from Trump.

It has repeatedly been reported that he had liberal views on abortion, including an interview with a construction manager who worked for him in New York.

To go to prosecuting a woman for even seeking one sounds like the zealous convert, the sanctimonious ex smoker type!

He'll have to do some spinning in Presidential debates on that one. An "I saw the light" moment!

This was Trump last summer, Aug 2015:

Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump says his views on abortion have “evolved,” and that he hates the “concept” of the procedure

Trump asked at Fox News’ debate among top 10 GOP presidential candidates about his past pro-abortion-rights comments

“Since then, I’ve very much evolved,” in part because friend who was going to have an abortion didn’t and that child is now a “superstar”.

“I’ve evolved on many issues,” he says.

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-08-07/-superstar-child-helped-trump-s-evolution-on-abortion-he-says

I wondered if it might be Tim Tebow's case he is talking about, but it could be anyone.

http://jacksonville.com/sports/college/florida-gators/2012-01-07/story/fact-check-tim-tebows-birth-story

Suryavarman

Nate Silver has done some analysis on what Sanders needs to do to win the nomination. The short answer he needs to do a lot of highly unlikely things. He needs polls to swing by 20% in a number of states. So he needs to go from losing a couple of big states like New York and California by a few points to winning them by double digits.

Augme

The most interesting thing about the Republican nomination is the rabid and somewhat blind hate for Trump. The logic is that it should be anyone but Trump because he's racist, hates immigrants, and women don't like him. But the one person that's been pushed into the position as the saviour for beating Trump is Ted Cruz. I'm struggling to wrap my head around this logic.

So far Cruz has said on immigration:

Build a wall that works. The unsecured border with Mexico invites illegal immigrants, criminals, and terrorists to tread on American soil. I will complete the wall. Triple the number of Border Patrol agents. Securing the border is the federal government’s obligation. I will dedicate the force necessary to do that.

On Muslims:
- Wants increased patrols in muslim neighbourhoods.
- He's also has a lot of anti-muslim advisors in his team.

On Abortion:
- Wants it banned in all cases, including rape and incest.



So the logic seems to be 'In an attempt to stop Trump getting the nomination we are going to row in behind someone even crazier than Trump'. How, what, why? I just don't get it. You could write some very interesting psychological journals on this campaign and how people have responded to it.

Inquitus

Augme wrote: »

So the logic seems to be 'In an attempt to stop Trump getting the nomination we are going to row in behind someone even crazier than Trump'. How, what, why? I just don't get it. You could write some very interesting psychological journals on this campaign and how people have responded to it.

I would agree, I think Trump is probably slightly less dangerous than Cruz, though I wouldn't want to see either of them in the office of POTUS.

Amazingfun

The Michelle Field's ridiculous controversy seems to be getting a good run on this thread. However, she has made claims like this before. She has accused Allen West of groping her (later retracted), and once accused the NYPD of assaulting her.

https://dcgazette.com/2016/michelle-fields-accused-nypd-similar-shes-alleging-lewandowski/#

Mike Cernovich has been pretty good on her case so far, but Charles Johnson of gotnews.com has had some history with her and her antics already, including the Allen West incident:

http://gotnews.com/why-does-drama-always-follow-michelle-fields/

http://www.dangerandplay.com/2016/03/29/how-michelle-fields-conned-prosecutors-into-charging-corey-lewandowski-with-battery/

To me the video is ample evidence she is full of it. Plus, the fact Ben Shapiro quit Breitbart over this and is now a rabid anti-Trumper full time, ( as well as his website being funded by Pro-Cruz brothers Levi and Farris Wilks), smacks of nothing but dirty politics

http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2016/03/30/eric-errickson-website-resurgent-paid-by-pro-cruzanti-trump-our-principles-pac/

Akrasia

Augme wrote: »

The most interesting thing about the Republican nomination is the rabid and somewhat blind hate for Trump. The logic is that it should be anyone but Trump because he's racist, hates immigrants, and women don't like him. But the one person that's been pushed into the position as the saviour for beating Trump is Ted Cruz. I'm struggling to wrap my head around this logic.

So far Cruz has said on immigration:



On Muslims:
- Wants increased patrols in muslim neighbourhoods.
- He's also has a lot of anti-muslim advisors in his team.

On Abortion:
- Wants it banned in all cases, including rape and incest.



So the logic seems to be 'In an attempt to stop Trump getting the nomination we are going to row in behind someone even crazier than Trump'. How, what, why? I just don't get it. You could write some very interesting psychological journals on this campaign and how people have responded to it.

Most people don't know anything about Cruz's abhorent positions because the media is focused almost entirely on Trump, and they only even refer to the other candidates in the context of 'What do you think about Trump's latest comments'

BoJack Horseman

Augme wrote: »

The most interesting thing about the Republican nomination is the rabid and somewhat blind hate for Trump. The logic is that it should be anyone but Trump because he's racist, hates immigrants, and women don't like him. But the one person that's been pushed into the position as the saviour for beating Trump is Ted Cruz. I'm struggling to wrap my head around this logic.

You can hear the cogs in the GOP hive mind rotating into the cognitive dissonance that Teddy is the candidate for them.

As well as all that you have mentioned he's also the tea-party candidate.
The GOP are in danger of consumed by their own fringe.

Of the two, I've always felt more repelled by Cruz.
I find him slimy and a charm black-hole, where at least Trump has some amusement going for him.

Overheal

Amazingfun wrote: »

The Michelle Field's ridiculous controversy seems to be getting a good run on this thread. However, she has made claims like this before. She has accused Allen West of groping her (later retracted), and once accused the NYPD of assaulting her.

https://dcgazette.com/2016/michelle-fields-accused-nypd-similar-shes-alleging-lewandowski/#

Mike Cernovich has been pretty good on her case so far, but Charles Johnson of gotnews.com has had some history with her and her antics already, including the Allen West incident:

http://gotnews.com/why-does-drama-always-follow-michelle-fields/

http://www.dangerandplay.com/2016/03/29/how-michelle-fields-conned-prosecutors-into-charging-corey-lewandowski-with-battery/

To me the video is ample evidence she is full of it. Plus, the fact Ben Shapiro quit Breitbart over this and is now a rabid anti-Trumper full time, ( as well as his website being funded by Pro-Cruz brothers Levi and Farris Wilks), smacks of nothing but dirty politics

http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2016/03/30/eric-errickson-website-resurgent-paid-by-pro-cruzanti-trump-our-principles-pac/

Most adults have heard of Argumentum Ad Hominem but every child has heard about the boy who cried wolf.

Past transgressions don't make her wrong nor does Lewandowski's past transgressions make him guilty. Leave it for the courts.

oscarBravo

Trump or Cruz? I'm with Lindsey Graham: it's like a choice between being shot in the head or poisoned.

Amerika

Black Swan wrote: »

Matthews interviewing Trump:
MATTHEWS: Do you believe in punishment for abortion, yes or no as a principle?
TRUMP: The answer is that there has to be some form of punishment.
MATTHEWS: For the woman?
TRUMP: Yes, there has to be some form.

Once again Trump makes an "outrageous" statement, which in turn draws a reaction from the news media and web (per his 1987 playbook). But in this case he does not reaffirm his statement after being criticized, rather the Trump campaign has been in damage control, attempting to reinterpret what Trump said in a way that will not lose many women voters.

I don’t see how it was an outrageous original statement on Trump’s part. If abortion is to be made a crime then common sense dictates the people perpetrating the crime should face charges... the illegal abortionist, the mother of the unborn baby seeking the illegal abortion, and the father of the unborn baby if he is complacent in an illegal abortion. Only punishing the abortionist would be akin to having a law against prostitution, but only the hooker can be charged, not the person seeking the prostitute. Or someone seeking to hire a hit-man to commit murder. Should only the hit-man be charged, and not the person seeking someone to commit the murder? Or should it be that we need accept that we live in a society where womanhood is simply victimless by design?

Christy42

Amerika wrote: »

I don’t see how it was an outrageous original statement on Trump’s part. If abortion is to be made a crime then common sense dictates the people perpetrating the crime should face charges... the illegal abortionist, the mother of the unborn baby seeking the illegal abortion, and the father of the unborn baby if he is complacent in an illegal abortion. Only punishing the abortionist would be akin to having a law against prostitution, but only the hooker can be charged, not the person seeking the prostitute. Or someone seeking to hire a hit-man to commit murder. Should only the hit-man be charged, and not the person seeking someone to commit the murder? Or should it be that we need accept that we live in a society where womanhood is simply victimless by design?

Well those examples are relevant. You are putting a horrible situation then. What if the back street abortion goes wrong? How many women will be too scared to go to a hospital for fear of prison.
Paramedics have enough issues getting people to tell them what drugs they have taken. This strategy of punishing the person who needs help hasn't worked in the past and it won't work now.

oscarBravo

Amerika wrote: »

I don’t see how it was an outrageous original statement on Trump’s part. If abortion is to be made a crime then common sense dictates the people perpetrating the crime should face charges... the illegal abortionist, the mother of the unborn baby seeking the illegal abortion, and the father of the unborn baby if he is complacent in an illegal abortion. Only punishing the abortionist would be akin to having a law against prostitution, but only the hooker can be charged, not the person seeking the prostitute. Or someone seeking to hire a hit-man to commit murder. Should only the hit-man be charged, and not the person seeking someone to commit the murder? Or should it be that we need accept that we live in a society where womanhood is simply victimless by design?

You're getting dangerously close to the realisation that criminalising abortion is an epically stupid thing to do.

Overheal

Amerika wrote: »

I don’t see how it was an outrageous original statement on Trump’s part. If abortion is to be made a crime then common sense dictates the people perpetrating the crime should face charges... the illegal abortionist, the mother of the unborn baby seeking the illegal abortion, and the father of the unborn baby if he is complacent in an illegal abortion. Only punishing the abortionist would be akin to having a law against prostitution, but only the hooker can be charged, not the person seeking the prostitute. Or someone seeking to hire a hit-man to commit murder. Should only the hit-man be charged, and not the person seeking someone to commit the murder? Or should it be that we need accept that we live in a society where womanhood is simply victimless by design?

I think the obvious outrage is that we're going from Roe v Wade where abortion is illegal and offered safely, to TRAP laws (Targeted Regulation of Abortion Providers (May as well be Against Providers)), to abortion is illegal again and you'll be criminally punished for doing it. It's that whole "Gee everything was great during the cold war let's go back to that" philosophy.