BloggeRhythms

Much is being made of the new POTUS’s continuing to infuse his communication in person, or still active Twitter account, with references to those individuals or groups he finds unfriendly. At the same time, however, factions such as the mainstream media continue to spew whatever disparaging items become available in support of their open hostility towards him, prompting the reaction.
       
An example of typical media bias appears today in an article by Susan Chira and Yamiche Alcindor @nytimes.com, regarding the progressive movements organized anti-Trump marches on Saturday. In their quest they’ve “broadened the platform beyond longstanding women’s issues such as abortion, equal pay and sexual assault to include immigrant rights, police brutality, mass incarceration, voter suppression and environmental protection."

Early on in their treatise the authors state that the marchers “were confronting a president who has appointed just a handful of women to his cabinet and inner circle, and who has pledged to nominate a Supreme Court justice who opposes abortion rights and to dismantle a health care act that covers contraception.”

Yet, in the 21 combined cabinet posts and cabinet rank positions, Trump has named 5 women. That compares to a total of 7 women in the two terms of his predecessor. One of which was Bill Clinton’s wife and another, Kathleen Sebelius, oversaw Obamacare's creation while serving as Secretary of Health and Human Services.

What's more, the article also says: “Yet women did not protest — or vote — as a bloc. About 53 percent of white women voted for Mr. Trump, according to exit polls, and many said his demeaning comments about women mattered less to them than their belief that he had the independence and business experience to bring about change, restore well-paying jobs and protect America’s borders.”

On a similar premise, Alex Smith, the national chairwoman of the College Republicans, said in an email: “The women’s march clearly doesn’t represent all women,”  noting the exclusion of anti-abortion women’s groups from the event. “It is precisely this type of dogmatic intransigence that voters rejected.” 

And although celebrity performers attended, some had appeared at campaign events for Clinton, including Madonna, who gave a speech and said toward the end of of the march. “I have thought a lot about blowing up the White House. But I know that this will not change anything.” Which is something all the attendees should be quite proud of. 

As a result, the detail presented above was remindful of the two businessmen mentioned here yesterday who were totally unaware of Trump’s platform, intentions, or how beneficial he’ll most likely be to their own enterprises in the future. Because, while these marchers were protesting vehemently against him, Trump’s position seems to indicate far less rigidity on abortion than their vitriol indicated.    

Debate excerpts posted @ontheissues.org do indeed confirm his position as strongly anti-abortion, however, he also feels the subject should be determined by the courts and not himself. And despite his intention to appoint like-minded Supreme Court justices, he believes the issue ultimately belongs at the state level and closer to the people themselves. 

Here are some excerpts from the debates: 

“Q: Do you want the court, including the justices that you will name, to overturn Roe v. Wade, which includes -- in fact, states -- a woman's right to abortion? 

“TRUMP: Well, if that would happen, because I am pro-life, and I will be appointing pro-life judges, I would think that that will go back to the individual states. If we put another two or perhaps three justice on, that's really what's going to be. That'll happen automatically, in my opinion, because I am putting pro-life justices on the court. I will say this: It will go back to the states, and the states will then make a determination. 

“CLINTON: [On partial-birth abortion]. Roe v. Wade very clearly sets out that there can be regulations on abortion so long as the life and the health of the mother are taken into account. The kinds of cases that fall at the end of pregnancy are often the most heartbreaking, painful decisions for families to make. I do not think the US government should be stepping in and making those most personal of decisions. 

“TRUMP: If you go with what Hillary is saying, in the ninth month, you can rip the baby out of the womb of the mother just prior to the birth of the baby. Now, Hillary can say that that's OK. But it's not OK with me, because based on what she's saying, you can take the baby and rip the baby out of the womb in the ninth month on the final day. And that's not acceptable.

“Q: Is it the government's business to be in that decision? 

“TRUMP: Honestly, nobody has business doing what I just said, doing that, as late as one or two or three or four days prior to birth. Nobody has that. 

“TRUMP: As far as Planned Parenthood is concerned, I'm pro-life. I'm totally against abortion, having to do with Planned Parenthood. But millions and millions of women -- cervical cancer, breast cancer -- are helped by Planned Parenthood. So you can say whatever you want, but they have millions of women going through Planned Parenthood that are helped greatly. And I wouldn't fund it. I would defund it because of the abortion factor, which they say is 3 percent. I don't know what percentage it is. They say it's 3%. But I would defund it, because I'm pro-life. But millions of women are helped by Planned Parenthood.”

As a result, what we have here is not an outright rejection of Planned Parenthood, but instead a concern over one issue that seems negotiable with some concession by the other side. Whereas Trump told Bloomberg News in January that “he believes abortion should be banned at some point in pregnancy, with exceptions for rape, incest or life of the mother.”

In addition, in 2011 “he explained to the Christian Broadcasting Network that he had changed his mind on the issue. In "The America We Deserve," Trump then wrote that he supported a woman's right to choose.” 

So, once again, with Trump in the White House only a day and a half, it seems somewhat early for protestors to rant, rave and carry on before even having a discussion. Yet, with Soros probably paying $50.00 a head plus expenses for those who showed up to support Madonna’s desire of “blowing up the White House,” it must have been quite a profitable afternoon for them.  

That’s it for today folks. 

Adios