Women Love Drumpf. Especially Now.

Drumpf says he cherishes women. Says he wants to help women. That he will be great for women. Women love him.

Today, Drumpf said something so remarkable about women, so unbelievably appealing, that he should have no problem winning them over in the general election. In an interview with MSNBC’s Chris Matthews, as reported by BloombergPolitics, here’s how he has officially locked up the female vote:

At a taping of an MSNBC town hall to be aired later, host Chris Matthews pressed Trump on his anti-abortion position, repeatedly asking him whether abortion should be punished if it is outlawed. “This is not something you can dodge.”

“Look, people in certain parts of the Republican Party, conservative Republicans, would say, ‘Yes, it should,’” Trump answered.

“How about you?” Matthews asked.

“I would say it’s a very serious problem and it’s a problem we have to decide on. Are you going to send them to jail?” Trump said.

“I’m asking you,” Matthews said.

“I am pro-life,” Trump said. Asked how a ban would actually work, Trump said, “Well, you go back to a position like they had where they would perhaps go to illegal places but we have to ban it,” Trump said.

Matthews then pressed Trump on whether he believes there should be punishment for abortion if it were illegal

“There has to be some form of punishment,” Trump said. “For the woman?” Matthews asked. “Yeah,” Trump said, nodding.

Trump said the punishment would “have to be determined.”

Yes. The punishment will have to be determined. Jail? Maybe. Flogging? Who knows. Stoning? Could be. How about the death penalty? To be determined.

Republicans should be very, very proud of their leader. As Drumpf says, he will be great for women. He loves women. Women love him.

The saddest thing about this whole thing is that Drumpf is only following the logic of the anti-choice position. He is actually being morally consistent. If abortion is intentionally killing a constitutionally-protected human being, then punishment should follow. Women seeking abortions aren’t victims, but accessories to murder. Hooray for Drumpf for making that ridiculous position clear to each and every woman out there: if you have ever had an abortion, or if you ever do, you are a murderer who should be punished.

If this doesn’t do in the Donald, nothing—nothing—ever will.

Previous Post

7 Comments

  1. Anonymous

     /  March 30, 2016

    Amen!! But all those right wingers have the same “regressive” attitude! Send them all packing!

    Like

  2. Logical consistency is actually impossible within anti-abortion. Logically for such people the sentence for murder is death, so women would be executed in vast numbers. They don’t want that, they want the handmaid’s tale. Women aren’t self-determining, they’re baby making machines.

    Like

    • Logical consistency is possible. The guy who killed George Tiller was being logically consistent. He believed Dr. Tiller was a baby-killer who needed to be taken down. Those who blow up clinics are also being logically consistent. To them, clinics are killing factories that need destroyed. Thankfully, though, most anti-choicers are not logically consistent.

      Like

      • Suggesting that someone with extreme mental illness is acting logically consistent or even capable of such a thing is insane in itself. The fact that a murder believes that murdering someone to prevent a delusional event is logical does not make it so.

        Murder has never been a logical solution to murder, but especially not to imaginary murder. And even if it was actually murder, the women seeking abortions would be guilty, far more than the hitman they hire do do the deed. Even the mere act of a woman going to an abortion clinic should be considered attempted murder. Meanwhile the doctor, as a contract killer, has the ability to plea bargain to testify against the real murderer who hired him, and a contract to perform an illegal act is invalid, if he doesn’t actually do the deed he’s immune from prosecution while the woman is still criminally guilty of attempt. Anti-abortionists don’t even examine the logic because doing so would damage their faith position, so it’s really not possible to form a logically consistent argument.

        Collectively these sorts of people are defined by what they will not see and therefore the logic of their arguments are fundamentally flawed due to the absence of critical components. This is easily discovered by asking an actual anti-abortionist any number of very simple questions.

        Politically at this point, anti-abortion activism has gone off the rails at maximum speed and those of us who actually use logic face having control thrust upon us and as usual expect to be blamed for not setting things right quickly enough or perfectly enough by those responsible for the disaster.

        I wonder if you’ve noticed how Scott Roeder made the exact same mistake into which Donald Drumpf “corrected” himself. Roeder merely carried out that which they all wish. That’s the only difference. Donald Drumpf was closer to logical consistency than any anti-abortionist ever, but only for a few hours. Drumpf’s fumbling and inexperience with a core fundamental of Republican policy are truly a sign of the times.

        Like

  3. Punishment of the unwilling mother is logical from the anti-abortion point of view. Doctors do not perform abortions on the unwilling, so the mother is complicit, so it’s strange to me that the Anti’s had an immediate negative reaction to this. Women should realize that this is exactly where the reasoning leads, but the conservative right knows that the majority have not yet made that deduction.

    Like

    • It is strange to me, also. That’s why I had to take a deeper look at it this morning. It bothered me all day yesterday and most of the night. It seems so damned obvious where the logic leads. But the right patronizes the women who seek abortions by essentially saying they don’t really know what they are doing. And they do that because they wouldn’t win many converts to their position if they advocated putting women in jail.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Republicans don’t patronize women. On their side of the looking glass, women are only baby making machines without any capacity for responsibility beyond the scope of maintaining their sexual purity. If a woman becomes pregnant, the child belongs to the man, in fact the woman belongs to the man as well. This is what is literally written in the Bible. The doctors are considered guilty of murder because they do not recognize this as fact, but their bigger crime in their minds is turning women into sluts as they really don’t consider murder a crime and commit it themselves with impunity. The Bible condones murder, but acts of sexual impurity are punishable by death, which means if Republicans could take this “logical” all the way, women would be stoned as adulteresses if they didn’t believe the white race was threatened with imminent extinction.

        Like

%d bloggers like this: