Thread: Trump learns that thinking is hard

Trump learns that thinking is hard

By Kathleen Parker Opinion writer April 1 at 7:59 PM

Donald Trump is learning how hard it is to pretend to be something he’s not.

Case in point: Since deciding to run for president — and maybe before, but who knows? — Trump has insisted he is pro-life. America learned otherwise with his recent remarks that a woman should be punished were she to have an illegal abortion. Since abortion is legal, this is a circumstance that doesn’t exist, otherwise known as a hypothetical query.
The question posed to Trump by MSNBC’s Chris Matthews wasn’t hard even if it was irrelevant.

Abortion has been legal for 43 years and, though many Americans would be comfortable with limits, the law isn’t likely to be overturned. That is, unless a Republican president remakes the Supreme Court, which, speaking of hypotheticals, could happen.

With possibly four seats, including recently deceased Antonin Scalia’s, to fill in the next presidential term, an antiabortion president such as Trump pretends he would be, might choose pro-life justices and, voila, Roe v. Wade could conceivably be overturned.

Conceivably. Possibly. Potentially. But probably not.

This scenario was what Matthews was trying to explore with Trump, who, apparently, had never given any serious thought to how a Trump presidency might act or what the repercussions might look like. His answer betrayed a shallow consciousness. Yes, he said, there should be some punishment for a woman who has an abortion if the procedure became illegal. And, no, he said, a man (as in the father of the unborn child) should not face any punishment.

Spoken like a true generic numbskull, not to mention an ayatollah. Note to Trump: I know it’s slow reading that brand new Bible, but please do skip ahead to the New Testament.

If Trump were truly pro-life, which he apparently isn’t, given his lack of understanding of the antiabortion movement — no one in that world talks about punishing women. Even the craziest “pro-lifer” trains his fury on doctors rather than women seeking abortions.

Giving Trump the benefit of the doubt, he may well have changed his mind about abortion.

But to go from supporting partial-birth abortion, as Trump once did, to being antiabortion would suggest a Road-to-Damascus moment rather than a casual change of mind. Yet, Trump’s professed conversion seems to have all the depth of a breakfast menu change: I used to like waffles, but now I like pancakes.

The simple answer to Matthews’s question would have been to say, as smarter presidential candidates usually do: “I’m not going to entertain hypothetical questions about circumstances that don’t exist and may never exist. But I will tell you how I came to change my mind about abortion. It truly was a life-altering experience for me, as I know it has been for so many Americans.”

Such a response would have had the added benefits of conveying a rare sincerity from Trump and also, much to the pleasure of media-haters, of making Matthews seem like an off-base bully. But a truer answer — the pro-life answer that is, in fact, part of pro-life catechism — would have gone something like this:

“Chris, let me skip the hypothetical and just say that I have nothing but compassion for women who find themselves unable to welcome a child into the world. I can only imagine how painful it must be for a woman to find herself in such a situation. This is why, as president, I would do everything in my power to help women find quality prenatal health care and other support, as well as loving homes for their babies.”

This would have so flummoxed his interviewer while pleasing his conservative constituents that Trump could have backstroked to the convention and a likely nomination. Hypothetically speaking. It would have humanized him and revealed a depth heretofore in hiding.

Instead, he had to backpedal from his remarks, as he has countless other times. His retake was that only doctors should be punished in a world he has promised to help fashion — a conclusion he reached after half the world and most women went bat crazy.

Already unpopular beyond his base, Trump’s unfavorability rating among women has now hit 75 percent. Even among Republican women, his favorability has dropped about 25 points since last November.

One’s only conclusion: The man either can’t or won’t think before speaking. Shooting from the hip may work on reality TV, but it’s no way to run a country — or even to broker a deal, the art of which seems to have been lost on its author.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...cf6_story.html

Trump learns that thinking is hard

No, what Trump did was expose on all levels the hard issue of the pro-life movement. If pro-life is a legal agenda, then it is no longer a personal matter, but a matter of government policy. Being pro-life while the law is pro-choice, is a personal option, a personal choice, clearly allowed under the law. If gives people like you and certain well-paid groups the ability to call girls and women who have abortions "baby killers" and "victims". It affords people like you the freedom to call a doctor providing a perfectly legal and appropriate medical service to girls and women who need it, "murderers" and cut people like Ted Cruz loose to suggest upon conviction of their crime, sentences of capital punishment and death penalties. It even offers people in your profession like Matthews to admit on television they believe in the moral authority of the Catholic Church while arguing against it under the law and ask questions of politicians like "what about the man" implying a man should now be on the list somehow with baby killers, victims, and doctors. Trump's interview even reminded everyone of the "illegal situations" prior to the Roe V Wade court ruling.

Donald Trump whether intentional or not, exposed all the reasons why this issue has no resolution other than the one the US Supreme Court arrived at 43 years ago and with the "laws set" returns to his agenda which is to stop illegal immigration, fix our trade deals, rebuild our economy and Make America Great Again.

I am not sure which is more important here, 1. the abortion question, or 2. the learning curve required for a politician to not answer a hypothetical question or, 3. having a well-thought out policy on 10-12 of the pertinent issues. He clearly did not disturb his base on the answer, but he also did not reverse his unfavorability rating with republican women voters or the necessary additional voters he will need to move forward for different reasons. I don't appreciate those who see no wrong in whatever it is that Trump does or says. He is not perfect and the lessons learned on the trail will benefit him when in office and getting hammered by the press when he takes on a controversial issues down the road. There will be more questions like this regarding anything and everything in the future and he has to learn how to handle them especially if he has not given it much thought. At this point, he should have given every political subject possible a considerable amount of thought. Again, too far into the process to be so unprepared or unskilled at handling reporters like Chris Matthews. He should and will bounce back from these last tough two weeks on the trail. If he doesn't adapt and learn, he will face strong headwinds from here on.


This incident has certainly lead to a lull in Trumps campaign, but this is the point now where he must pivot strongly and demonstrate his resiliency. Move forward Mt. Trump with another valuable lesson presented in the campaign and have a standard response to any hypothetical question. When you answer, "I am pro-life" to Matthews question three or more times, the reporter will move on. The same with any question.

Donald Trump is learning how hard it is to pretend to be something he’s not.

I also believe the writer is unfair in her characterization of Trump because people do evolve over time and can change positions over a ten to twenty year period because of additional wisdom, personal experience or just plain circumstances and observations.

I also believe the writer is unfair in her characterization of Trump because people do evolve over time and can change positions over a ten to twenty year period because of additional wisdom, personal experience or just plain circumstances and observations.

I absolutely agree. This article is from the Washington Post....