42
submitted 1 month ago by nekandro@lemmy.ml to c/worldnews@lemmy.ml
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] nekandro@lemmy.ml 13 points 1 month ago

The new platform softened language on abortion, excised old language referring obliquely to gay conversion therapy and culled a section about reducing a national debt that Mr. Trump had increased by nearly $8 trillion during his term in office.

Mr. Trump made clear to his team that he wanted the 2024 platform to be his and his alone. He wanted it to be much shorter and simpler — and, in some cases, vaguer. He was especially focused on the language about abortion, which he recognized was a potentially potent issue against him in a general election. He wanted nothing in the platform that would give Democrats an opening to attack him, and he made clear to aides that he was perfectly fine with bucking social conservatives, for whom he had delivered a tremendous victory by reshaping the Supreme Court with a conservative supermajority.

Mr. Trump also stressed that he did not want to define marriage as between one man and one woman. Instead, the document contains a vague statement open to interpretation: “Republicans will promote a Culture that values the Sanctity of Marriage.”

One person involved in the process recalled Mr. Trump saying privately: “Sanctity of marriage. Don’t define it.”

[-] nekandro@lemmy.ml 12 points 1 month ago

This is a huge paradigm shift. The Republican party went from being an evangelical Christian, tax-cut whackoparty into...

well, without the platform, nobody knows.

[-] MelodiousFunk@slrpnk.net 12 points 1 month ago

The Republican party went from being an evangelical Christian, tax-cut whackoparty into...

A vague blank slate that people can project their hopes onto with no accountability whatsoever.

[-] nekandro@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 month ago

I mean, yeah. It'll be interesting to see if that means that they'll still pursue those legislative ideals (just without a platform or unifying cry or whatever), or if they're happy to push the responsibility down to the states.

My opinion is that the Republicans see the writing on the wall: why make unpopular decisions federally when you can make popular decisions at the state-level? They can maintain a christofascist state in their home ground without having to project onto states that'll ignore their legislation anyway.

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (9 replies)
this post was submitted on 18 Jul 2024
42 points (88.9% liked)

World News

32027 readers
923 users here now

News from around the world!

Rules:

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS