Read on Twitter
. @RameshPonnuru, former author of "The Party of Death," abandons the preborn.
I'm sorry, but there's no nicer way to say it. https://www.nationalreview.com/magazine/2020/11/02/trump-no/
I'm sorry, but there's no nicer way to say it. https://www.nationalreview.com/magazine/2020/11/02/trump-no/
"If Roe v. Wade is overturned in the next decade, his appointment of conservative justices will be a cause of a great advance in human rights [...] I’m still not voting for him."
Imagine still calling yourself pro-life after having written that.
Imagine still calling yourself pro-life after having written that.
One thing that's abundantly clear from the past four years is that a scandalous number of professionals have a moral conception of voting that is simply infantile. Hopefully this piece will provide at least the beginnings of an antidote: https://conservativestandards.com/2020/10/17/the-civic-negligence-of-third-party-voting/
Why does Trump’s failure to meet the “threshold conditions to be entrusted with the presidency” outweigh the immense net harm that will befall the American people if Biden replaces Trump? @RsmeshPonnuru doesn’t say. (That omission is a recurring pattern throughout the piece.)
This is rich. @RameshPonnuru has previously had no problem supporting candidates who may have *received* more trust, but certainly weren’t a bit more deserving of it. So what's the real goal here? The *illusion* of trust?
This is akin to saying a repeat drunk driver is like a guy who crosses on a double yellow because they both broke traffic laws. Both are wrong & dangerous, but by exaggerating the severity of the latter you’re also cheapening that of the former.
Regarding the passage about family separation at the border, simply read this and ask yourself if it sounds like it remotely justifies replacing the current administration with a Democrat one: https://cis.org/Arthur/Trump-Win-Decision-Family-Separations
It’s kind of stunning to see this passage un-ironically written now, as if recent events didn’t just demonstrate that an investigation was MORE than warranted.
“No way to justify” it? Let’s see. All four of the congresswomen in question were virulently un-American; two were also anti-Semites. Gee, turns out it's actually pretty easy to justify. All it takes is remembering ALL the facts of the incident.
1) “False”?
https://www.theblaze.com/conservative-review/new-study-flakes-daca-dream-arizonas-crime-nightmare
2) Where’s the racial component?
https://www.theblaze.com/conservative-review/new-study-flakes-daca-dream-arizonas-crime-nightmare
2) Where’s the racial component?
Translation: candidate Trump ignorantly endorsed a caricature of a sensible policy because he stupidly though it’s what we wanted to hear; President Trump implemented the sensible policy & not the caricature.
Quite a few missing steps between that & "let Democrats replace him."
Quite a few missing steps between that & "let Democrats replace him."
If you recognize Biden as a clear proponent of this “grave injustice” (on top of the countless ACTUAL threats he poses to the American people & the constitutional order), try to imagine if “I didn’t actively support the injustice!” will suffice at the Pearly Gates.
This passage is one of the most morally infantile things I have ever read. I already refuted its logic in my article linked near the top of this thread ( https://conservativestandards.com/2020/10/17/the-civic-negligence-of-third-party-voting/), so here I'll just make one more observation (continued...).
