Mediaboss Marketing

Sophia Buono, Opinion Contributor Published 8:51 a.m. ET July 23, 2017 | Updated 7:54 p.m. ET July 23, 2017

March for Life in Washington on Jan. 27, 2017.(Photo: Saul Loeb, AFP/Getty Images)

Democratic organizer and activistAndrew Redlawsk wrote a column for USA TODAY arguing that progressives need to listen to and engage with Trump voters in order to get the country back on the right path. In an effort to advance that dialog, we asked Notre Dame senior Sophia Buono, a USA TODAY Opinion intern and Trump voter, to reply below and for Redlawsk to continue the conversation in another piece.

After the presidential election, I kept my mouth shut.

I knew of the reactions students had received when they revealed that they had voted for Donald Trump: Some experienced coldness from friends, others got more abusive responses. One friend told me that at a board meeting of a student clubshe sat on, leaders announced that any members who stated that they had voted for Trump would be dismissed.

Contained in all these reactions were the same questions: Dont you care about undocumented immigrants? Women? Muslims? Blacks? Hispanics? LGBTQ people?

I answer each of those questions with an emphatic yes. I see every human being as unique, preciousand beautiful. I enjoy engaging with people of all kinds that is one of my favorite things about college.

With that in mind, Mr. Redlawsks call to stop condescending and start listening means a lot to me. For that message, I am very grateful, and I will strive to live it, too.

Taking that opportunity to speak to the open ear, I would like to explain what motivated me to vote for Donald Trump. Its not that I want to return to a traditional America of the past. Its not that I see Trump as the real answer to all of Americas problems. And at least I sincerely hope its not that Im ignorant and bigoted.

The reason why I voted for Trump is simple: I could not, in good conscience, vote for Hillary Clinton.

My conviction surpassed a mere aversion to her personality or email habits. Rather, it stemmed from the fact that she was an actively pro-abortion candidate.

To win in Trump era, liberals must first listen to his voters

Trump voters and foes can seek common ground on life: Response to Buono

Why let one issue, which has been settled by the Supreme Court since 1973, dominate my decision? At the core of it lies the unchanging gravity of the issue.

With every ounce of logic within me, I am convinced that the small thing inside a pregnant woman is a human life. To directly undo that life is to kill. And because that life is defenseless and innocent, to kill it is always wrong. It is a direct attack on human life which, as I stated, is always unique, preciousand beautiful.

We could argue about the merit of my conviction, but what matters here is to establish it as a core value of mine and one that is not so unreasonable as to be immediately dismissed.

Therefore, I cannot without contradiction support a candidate who endorsedabortion, aidedits distribution, and pushedfor measures that would constrain those who oppose it.

Even so, why Trump instead? It is hard to paint him as an infallible crusader for life. Whats more, voting for Trump could imply that I cared about unborn fetuses more than the people who felt threatened by his words. That, I repeat, is untrue.

I say this to every human: If any candidate advocated a practice whose primary purpose was to make you helpless and kill you, I would never vote for such a candidate.

President Trump, to put it gently, has many flaws. Nevertheless, voting for him was the surest way for me to help prevent a presidency that would tighten the grip of abortion in America. I find that cause essential to help the whole nation: Without defending themost vulnerable and voiceless, I cannot consistently defend anyone.

Some of my fellow voters had similar convictions but decided to abstain or vote for a third-party candidate. For them, a vote for Trump would only constitute participation in a lesser evil, or it did not promote enough good to justify the decision. I understand and respect those decisions, but I concluded otherwise. I believe that participation in democracy is a vital responsibility, and I did not want to throw away my vote in any way. Furthermore, despite the ambiguity of his stance on the issue, Trump indicated that he could help protect pro-life values through actions such as the Supreme Court justice appointment and preserving the Hyde Amendment, which withholds certain federal funds from being used for abortion.

I know that to completely ground my voting decision, I must not be content with just voting. Especially becauseI do not agree with all of President Trumps ideas, I must work within society to help promote policies of justice and fairness. Along the way, I hope to connect with those who disagree with me and work with them to support this beautiful nation of ours.

I only ask that after being heard, my core value the protection of life may be respected and protected, not ignored.

Sophia Buono is a senior at the University of Notre Dame and a College Fix summer intern at the Editorial Page of USA TODAY. Read Andrew Redlawsk's original column here and his last word here.

You can read diverse opinions from our Board of Contributors and other writers on the Opinion front page, on Twitter @USATOpinion and in our daily Opinion newsletter. To submit a letter, comment or column, check our submission guidelines.

Read or Share this story: https://usat.ly/2vN5LFq

Excerpt from:
I voted for Donald Trump to save lives: Response to Redlawsk - USA TODAY

President Trump will make a dummy visit to the United Kingdom this year, amid concerns that an official visit from the U.S. president could embarrass Queen Elizabeth, according to a report from The Daily Mail.

The trial visit, which will not include the traditional pomp and circumstance of an official visit, will include talks with Prime Minister Theresa May.

Trump will be invited by to the U.K. for an official visit only if the dummy run is a success, according to the British publication.

The trial trip is reportedly due to concerns that Trumps boisterous and untraditional behavior could embarrass the queen.

The Hill has reached out to the White House for comment.

A Guardian report surfaced in June saying Trump had expressed concerns during a phone call with May about protests should he visit, reportedly telling her he did not want to visit unless he had support from the British public.

However, Downing Street and the White House maintained that the visit was still on despite the Guardian report.

The president has tremendous respect for Prime Minister May, a White House spokesman told The Hill at the time.That subject never came up on the call."

The president caused controversy when he criticized Londons Mayor Sadiq Khans response to terror attacks in central London in June.

At least 7 dead and 48 wounded in terror attack and Mayor of London says there is "no reason to be alarmed!"

Khan responded in an interview with Channel 4 News, saying, I dont think we should roll out the red carpet to the president of the USA in the circumstances where his policies go against everything we stand for.

Continue reading here:
Donald Trump to make test run for UK visit : report - The Hill

When it comes to possible collusion with Russia, Donald Trumps most interesting defenders dont reside on the political right. They reside on the political left.

Sean Hannity and Newt Gingrich arent defending a principle. Theyre defending a patron. Until recently they were ultra-hawks. Now, to downplay Russias meddling in the 2016 elections, they sound like ultra-doves. All that matters is supporting their ally in the White House.

For left-wing defenders like Max Blumenthal and Glenn Greenwald, by contrast, ideology is king. Blumenthal and Greenwald loathe Trump. But they loathe hawkish foreign policy more. So they minimize Russias election meddling to oppose what they see as a new Cold War.

Its a genuinely principled position. The problem is that principles are blinding them to facts.

On Tuesday on the Tucker Carlson show, Blumenthal laid out the progressive case against Russia hysteria. His first point was that, by obsessing about the Russia scandal, Democrats are forfeiting the chance to outline a genuinely progressive alternative to Trump. For the corporate sellout establishment that cant agree on a big economic message, that doesnt favor single payer [health care], Blumenthal argued, this is just convenient because this gives them a way of opposing Trump without having to do anything remotely progressive.

This is wrong. While its true that Democratic politicians and liberal pundits have spent a lot of time discussing the Russia scandal, its not true that they havent done anything remotely progressive. To the contrary, Democrats in Congress have opposed Trumps agenda more militantly than did congressional Democrats during the Reagan and George W. Bush years. In 1981, 48 Democrats in the House and 37 in the Senate voted for Reagans tax cuts. In 2001, 10 Democrats in the House and 12 in the Senate supported Bushs. By contrast, every House Democrat opposed Trumps first big legislative push, repealing and replacing Obamacare. (Had a repeal bill come to a vote in the Senate, Democratic opposition would likely have been unanimous there too.)

Its the same with Supreme Court nominations. In 1986, every Senate Democrat voted to confirm Antonin Scalia. In 2005, half of Senate Democrats voted to confirm John Roberts. This year, only three Democratic Senators voted to confirm Neil Gorsuch. Part of this, of course, is partisan sorting. There are fewer Democrats from conservative states and districts than there were decades ago. But its also because Democratic members of Congress are more responsive to their liberal base. In 2001, Californias Dianne Feinstein voted for Bushs tax cuts. A California Democrat voting for a Trump tax cut would be inconceivable today.

Blumenthal is right that Democrats dont have a big economic message. But thats not primarily because of the Russia scandal. Parties that are out of power rarely have a clear agenda. Its hard to develop a clear message when you dont have a clear leader. Narratives emerge during presidential campaigns. And the early evidence is that the progressive themes Bernie Sanders pushed last yearsingle-payer health care, free college tuition, a $15 minimum wagewill carry more weight inside the Democratic Party in 2020 than they did in 2016.

Blumenthals second argument is that the anti-Moscow line Democrats are now pushing will come back to haunt them. It will be repurposed by the political establishment so that anyone on the left who steps out of line on the issues of permanent war or of corporate free trade will be painted as Russia puppets. Greenwald has made a similar argument. On Monday he savaged a new foreign policy group, the Alliance for Securing Democracy, which brings Clinton campaign veterans together with neoconservatives like Bill Kristol. The song Democrats are now singing about Russia and Putin, wrote Greenwald, is one the neocons wrote many years ago, and all of the accompanying rhetorical tacticsaccusing those who seek better relations with Moscow of being Putins stooges, unpatriotic, of suspect loyalties, etc.are the ones that have defined the neocons smear campaigns for decades.

Theres a basis to this fear. Democrats have unleashed dangerous forces by getting to the GOPs right on foreign policy before. In 1992, for instance, Bill Clinton criticized George H.W. Bush for not deposing Saddam Hussein. In so doing, he helped lay the foundation for the push for regime change that culminated a decade later in the Iraq War. (A war I mistakenly supported.)

But the problem with downplaying Russian election meddling because youre afraid it will fuel militarism is that it evades the central question: How worrisome is the meddling itself? When it comes to Russians interference in the 2016 election, progressives like Blumenthal are behaving the way many conservatives behave on climate change. Conservatives fear that progressives will use climate change to impose new regulations on the economy. And because they oppose the solution, they claim theres no problem.

As with climate change, the evidence that Russia interfered in last years election appears quite strong. The CIA, the FBI, and the NSA all believe with high confidence that Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 designed to undermine public faith in the US democratic process. The CIA and FBI also believe with high confidenceand the NSA believes with moderate confidencethat Putin was trying to elect Trump. They claim the Kremlin did this, in part, by stealing and leaking emails from the Democratic National Committee and top Democratic officials. It also obtained and maintained access to elements of multiple US state or local electoral boards.

Its easy to say that because Americas intelligence agencies were wrong about Iraqs weapons of mass destruction, progressives shouldnt believe them now. But there are critical differences. In 2002, the intelligence agencies faced intense pressure from the Bush White House and Pentagon to make Saddam Husseins weapons programs seem more menacing. They faced no similar political pressure to exaggerate the severity of Russias election meddling.

Whats more, officials in France and Germany say Russia has tried to subvert their elections too. And in his email to Donald Trump Jr., Rob Goldstone, who was arranging a meeting with a lawyer close to figures in the Kremlin, wrote about Russia and its governments support of Mr. Trump. Blumenthal can deride a bootlicking press and a bootlicking kind of liberal opposition that believes all intelligence agencies. But Special Counsel Robert Mueller and four congressional committees are investigating the intelligence agencies conclusions. By the end of their inquiries, Americans will have a much fuller picture of Russian involvement in last years election than they had about Iraqi WMD on the eve of the Iraq War.

Blumenthal and Greenwald have an ideological problem. On foreign policy, they are anti-interventionists, or what Walter Russell Mead calls Jeffersonians. They believe that Americas empire threatens not only peace and justice abroad, but liberty at home. They want the United States to stop defending its imperial borders in Eastern Europe, South and East Asia, and the Middle East, because they believe such efforts cost Americans money, cost American lives, and create a pretext for surveillance that makes Americans less free.

Thats a totally legitimate view. As Mead notes, John Quincy Adams, Walter Lippmann, and George Kennan were all, in different ways, Jeffersonians. Andrew Bacevich and Ron Paul are today. And American foreign policy, which is dominated by an interventionist bipartisan elite, can benefit from a Jeffersonian critique. How does it benefit ordinary Americans to continue an endless, almost certainly unwinnable, war in Afghanistan? Why is the United States considering expanding NATO when it means pledging American lives to defend countries that many Americans have never even heard of?

But its one thing to oppose defending the American empire. Its another to oppose defending the American homeland. By intervening in the 2016 election, Russia did not threaten American influence in Afghanistan or Ukraine or Syria. It threatened America itself.

Near the heart of American democracy lies the idea that Americansnot foreign governmentsshould choose Americas leaders. It appears Russia challenged that by mounting a widespread, largely clandestine, campaign to get a particular candidate elected. And to make matters worse, the candidate it helped elect himself poses a serious threat to the rule of law in the United States.

Already, American liberal democracy is weaker because of what Russia did. If Russia casts doubt on the legitimacy of future American electionsby hacking into voting machines or spreading disinformation to discredit the resultsit could do even greater harm. If Blumenthal and Greenwald are indignant about Kris Kobachs efforts to limit Americans ability to choose their leaders, they should be indignant about Vladimir Putins too.

In his interview with Carlson, Blumenthal attacked Maryland Democratic Senator Ben Cardin for calling Russias meddling a political Pearl Harbor. But in some ways, its an apt analogy. Until December 7, 1941, Americas conflict with Japan had been waged far from Americas shores. Tokyo wanted a sphere of influence in East Asia, its own Monroe Doctrine. The United States wanted to deny Japan hegemony over China, Indochina, the Dutch East Indies and the Philippines. It was a contest over imperial frontiers. Then, on December 7, Japan unexpectedly crossed the Pacific and attacked the United States itself. Suddenly, even Jeffersonians had to acknowledge that Japan constituted a threat.

Similarly, in recent years the United States has waged proxy battles against Russia in places like Ukraine, Syria, and Afghanistan, which are far from American shores. Jeffersonians can legitimately argue that Americas struggle for influence in those countries does more harm than good.

But last year, Russia unexpectedly attacked the United States itself in ways that genuinely harmed ordinary Americans. Trying to prevent Russia from doing so again doesnt make you an imperialist or a hawk. No matter how anti-interventionist you are, you need to protect your own country.

Blumenthal and Greenwald need not respond to Russias meddling by supporting NATO expansion or greater military intervention in Syria. But Jeffersonians should offer their own vision for how the United States protects its elections. If that involves treaties and international organizations rather than sanctions and arms sales, thats fine. If it involves American pledges to restrain its overseas cyber attacks, thats fine too. What America badly needs is a debate, across the ideological spectrum, about how to safeguard American democracy from the new foreign threats that technology enables.

Jeffersonians can play a crucial role in responding to that problem. But not if they are so afraid of the potential answers that they deny theres a problem at all.

See original here:
Donald Trump's Defenders on the Left - The Atlantic - The Atlantic

Jeb Bush campaigning in Iowa in 2016. (George Bennett/The Palm Beach Post)

Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, the first establishment Republican casualtyin Donald Trumps rise to the presidency, took some shots at President Trumpand the celebrification of American politics onSaturday at OzyFest in New York City.

Bush also accused some of his fellow Republicans of being inconsistent on Russia.

If Barack Obama did something as it related to Russia and you get, you say this is outrageous, all this stuff, then when your guy does the same thing, have the same passion to be critical, according to a video clip posted on Twitter by Business Insider politics reporter Maxwell Tani.

Bush told Trumps Democratic critics that Trump isnt a true Republican.

Hes not really affiliated with the party, just to be clear. Hes Trump, Bush said, according to an Associated Press account.

We may have really talented people that are really good on TV being our leaders for a while until we sort things outIdeas and policy really matter. Its not just about personality, said Bush.

While critical of the president, Bush said he wants Trump to be successful.

I find him deeply troubling in a lot of ways. But I pray for him every night. And I pray for our country every night, Bush said. I care about my grandkids.

Like Loading...

Previous

Trump shake-up: Sean Spicer, Anthony Scaramucci both have Palm Beach Countyties

View original post here:
Jeb Bush calls Donald Trump 'deeply troubling' - Palm Beach Post (blog)

While presiding over the official commissioning ceremony for the USS Gerald Ford aircraft carrier in Norfolk, Virginia on Saturday, President Donald Trump took a moment to make a brief political request.

Trump urged the crowd of about 6,500 people, including uniformed naval officers, to call Congress and ask lawmakers to pass the budget, in which he seeks an additional $54 billion for defense spending in 2018.

I dont mind getting a little hand, so call that congressman and call that senator and make sure you get it, he told the crowd, before plugging another item on his agenda. And by the way, you can also call those senators to make sure you get health care.

Trump also blamed numerous military setbacks on the budget caps on government defense spending, put in place by the 2011 sequester agreement.

The remarks above begin at 5:30 in the video below.

His political requests to the crowd were strange for a naval commissioning ceremony.

As the Washington Post pointed out, Trumps request for help in pushing his agenda could have been perceived by the military members in attendance, whom he commands, as an order.

Trumps speech followed his early morning Twitter rant in which he claimed that U.S. presidents have the complete power to pardon, in response to the Posts report speculating that Trump is considering pardons for his aides, family and potentially himself amid investigations into alleged ties between his campaign and Russia.

His series of tweets, which covered a number of topics, also included a call on Republican senators to vote to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act, declaring it dead.

Watch Trumps full speech below.

Go here to read the rest:
Naval Ceremony Turns Political After Donald Trump Asks Crowd To ... - HuffPost