Pro-life candidate allegedly paid for abortion

Yes, I know you're all shocked and deeply saddened, but it's true...the genius and magnificent Hershel Walker paid for an abortion.

He also held a gun to his girlfriend's (and son's mom) head, which isn't very pro-life either but you have to remember these people are only pro-life when it comes to fetuses. So in this case, it's OK.

And before you say it is fake news, there is the following evidence:

• A proven connection that this woman had relations with Walker.
• A receipt from the clinic
• A copy of the check from Walker, signed by Walker
• A "get well" card from Walker, again with signature (OK, that's a class act, not going to lie...)

Typical Republican stance: rules for thee, not for me.

Herschel Walker, the football legend now running for Senate in Georgia, says he wants to completely ban abortion, likening it to murder and claiming there should be “no exception” for rape, incest, or the life of the mother.

See? No exceptions except for him.

In a 40-minute phone call this June about one of his out-of-wedlock children, The Daily Beast pressed Walker repeatedly on whether he had ever knowingly had an abortion with any of his past partners. After dodging the question multiple times, he ultimately said he had not.

Still denying it.

-----------

So, for the sake of conversation, I have a couple questions:

1. What say you about this?

2. And do you think it will matter to voters?

I've recently (i know, only recently lol) come to the realization that folks that support far-right candidates are so far gone they wont be convinced otherwise. As they say, you can't unreason folks out of a position they didn't reason themselves into.

But this might shift some people that vote along religious lines, where pro-life stances matter.

1. These situations occurring under those flying the socially conservative banner have become cliche, so I'll only roll my eyes and respond, "Again?!"

2. It will not. Republicans who only support/tolerate social conservativism as a means to attain other goals won't be phased, and those who support social conservatism for it's own sake will find ways to rationalize this as they always do. The tiny subset of voters who might have been swayed by this who are themselves but a part of the tiny subset of voters that are true independents will have already been swayed by the overturning of Roe.

I don't think they're necessarily brainwashed or ignorant.

Some of them are very intelligent. They know they're voting for liars and hypocrites, and they don't care because it benefits them in some way.

I believe there are a fair number of exceptions, and of course you have the "lifers" that will vote GOP no matter what...but I think a good chunk of these folks are dumb and/or ignorant.

But to your point, my best friend voted for Trump. He is also one of the smartest people I know. We don't talk politics a lot, but he always has good counters to my stances and vice versa. For him it's always about the bottom line: finances, rights, and then a distant third the social stuff.

How are these not the same?

lol touche, I suppose they are.

I think what I was trying to say was like, I don't know, more moral outrage. Like I think people generally don't care, and if you silently gave LGBTQ+ folks all the same rights and so on, no one would really make a big deal out of it. A gay couple getting married in a church has no impact on anyone but the couple getting married, it's only when we are led to believe it's a big deal that we become concerned. I think that is what I meant by "social stuff".

I guess I meant more the theatrics of it all by "social stuff". But you're right, they are essentially the same.

Seems like the evidence is damning but few points missed. The check was written to the woman, not the clinic. The card said 3 words, really could have been for anything. I think it said something like "rest, relax, recover" or something. He denies it and suing the news outlet about it. If he's innocent in this, I hope he gets justice. If he's lying, I hope he gets exposed.

On that (bolded), we can agree. Things should always be fair.

I do think that taken on their own you could write those things off, but when combined it is pretty obvious. I'm also wondering if the dates line up as well (card, check, and receipt from clinic). If they all occur within a few weeks, that's pretty clearly

The problem right now though is that he did not do anything illegal (AFAIK) and therefore there really isn't anything to prove from his perspective; he can just deny up to the point of going to court. But if he does take it to court due to defamation or whatever, then we might actually see something happen.

I'm betting we won't see it taken to court.

If you want to take this to tinfoil hat land, I suppose you could make the argument that she was cheating on him, got pregnant, then blackmailed him into paying it. But the check was more or less for an amount of the abortion, and the point of blackmail is to profit.

@joshrmeyer: He shouldn't get just exposed, he should get justice too.

Yeah... I remember when you people were circulating a story claiming one of the opponents to student debt forgiveness was a benefactor of student loan debt forgiveness, which turned out to be false. And now the same circles are circulating a similar story about an opponent of abortion with very little evidence to actually support that? Anyone noticing a pattern?

@mrbojangles25: Could also be that the girlfriend never told him she was pregnant. Said she was sick (maybe she was), and was short on cash and needed $700. He gave her the money and a card (the check was placed in the card). He may have never known she had the abortion or pregnant to start with. This thread just kinda irritated me because it said he was guilty of paying for an abortion, and should have said allegedly paid for it.

updated title

If true, I wouldn't vote for him. But I'm not a Georgian, so...

What a spin.

https://www.politico.com/news/2022/10/04/walker-campaign-abortion-midterm-election-00060312

I don't think it's false. The receipts are in. You have to spin facts away to believe that.

He also had 4 kids out of wedlock he didn't raise.

A receipt that isn't in his name, being linked to a check that wasn't written to the clinic. This is not evidence. This is no "bombshell." The media is connecting those dots, not the evidence. And the fact his "team" knew of the allegations months in advance tells me the person making the allegations was most likely threatening him with publicizing it in advance. Which shows a clear motive.

You lack integrity. Keep spinning. I wasn't talking to you. You excuse everything the GOP does.

Helping a woman abort an unwanted pregnancy is probably the best thing that I've found out about Herschel since he began his senate campaign.

I'm not spinning. I am pointing out there lacks any actual evidence to back up the claims made. A check not written to an abortion clinic, and a receipt not in his name is proof of exactly nothing. This isn't excusing some action, there's no evidence there was even an action to excuse in the first place.

It's possible that this is all a misunderstanding and that Herschel fully intended on this lady having a child that he would refuse to support, make death threats to, etc.

Wow, it's almost like a pathological liar and serial abuser wasn't being honest! Typical GOP scumbag. Run on pro-life and pro-family slogans, while being a hypocritical piece of sh*t that is even being disowned by his own (conservatives) son now. And of course eoten is in here defending him. I love it.

Walker isn't an anomaly either. He's the status quo for Republicans.

Walker is a scumbag whether or not this particular event is true.

Gets called out and absolutely trashed for his lying/fake values by his son who is a known conservative activist....and yet people still want to defend this piece of human garbage.

It's a boatload of evidence. You are spinning. But to be honest, so are we. We are just spinning a whole lot less because a.) Walker is a terrible person, and b.) the evidence is pretty obvious. It would be a huge, ginormous push for the opposite to be true.

Also, go watch his response when asked about it. Pretty hilarious "Oh I send out so many cards to people..."

I mean this is all pointless; he didn't do anything legal, it won't go to court, and Walker is a dipshit either way you slice it. This is just shit icing on the shit cake that is the Walker campaign.

If it did end up going to court, for whatever reason (let's just debate the hypothetical that it does), I think it'd be easy enough to prove. All you would need is like one or two witnesses to corroborate it all and tie it together. The woman, the doctor, and maybe some more paperwork from the bank.

Tax dollars go to funding abortion clinics. If you think about it, all of us are paying for abortions whether you like it or not. 🤔

I think he's taken one too many heavy blows to his head in his NFL career. I mean, I think the guy could possibly lose in a battle of whits to KanYe...

I can just see him taking office and telling his constituents "I told y'all I'd help you find good paying jobs, I found a website the other day says you can make $10,000 a week working from home I'll put the link up on my Senate site. Also, there's this new thing called phone cards..."

This talking point again?

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2021/jun/30/derrick-van-orden/van-orden-mischaracterizes-what-dropping-hyde-amen/

https://thehill.com/policy/finance/597469-democrats-lose-fight-to-strip-abortion-funding-restrictions-from-spending/

The Hyde Amendment is still around in 2022.

It's not. If it was a receipt for him, and a check made out to the clinic, then it'd be a "boatload" of evidence. But neither of those things are true. YOU are connecting the dots, not the evidence, and you're connecting them in a manner that supports your bias, not because that's where the evidence actually points.

When you do that, you're engaging in a conspiracy theory, and do not really care about the truth. This is why you people believed the Stormy Daniels nonsense, why you believed the allegations against Roy Moore, and why you believe Trump called people in the military "losers." Not because there was ever any actual evidence to support any of this, merely allegations you desperately wanted to believe, and it's become a very predictable pattern. You people are easy.

And Walker didn't do anything illegal, but printing a slanderous story against him without evidence is called libel, and that is illegal. Walker isn't going to court to defend himself against baseless accusations, he's taking others to court where they will be forced to back up their claims with hard evidence, or have to pay out.

More garbage from the right. So if someone hires another to kill their spouse but pays them cash, they can't be held accountable. That's just nonsense and even troll farms know it.

1. I generally don't like the dredging up the past politcal tactic that both sides do as people can learn from their mistakes and change options (fequent changes however is concerning as it does look like weak character). Like a person can be against underage drinking even if they had done so in the past. I would like to know how long ago this was (sorry not doing my own research), if it was long ago I think it would have been better if he admitted his mistake and explained why he sees things differently (if true), and if more recent... well that looks bad.

2. I think it would only matter if the voter is voting based off the canadate's character. If being pro-life is a big issue for the voter then it is still better to vote in somebody stating they will get rid of abortion (even if they are a hypocrite) than to vote in somebody that would have abortion legal (assuming that is the opposition's views, again no research).

Gotta love how most republicans openly don't give a shit, and the few who do will find their way to giving him a second chance come November, less than a month away.

@OmegaBlueUp: Yeah I don't care if people have evolved and change their stances in light of learning things, or in the case of representing their constituents better, but the issue here is he is so hardline against abortions, it's a pretty radical view even among his party (well, not really...).

Walker clearly stated no exceptions, and that abortions are "murder" in the literal sense.

You would think someone that had an abortion would hedge their bets a little bit and be like "Well abortion is bad but extenuating circumstances exist from time to time" or something like that. But that would mean Walker had some sort of intelligence and this dude does not.

I agree. I was just being diplomatic.

I want to yell at people how wrong they are, but I want them to feel welcome while I do it 😊

Yeah it's pretty bad. Would love to be a fly on wall at some of the old-timer "GOP Classic" meetings to hear what they think of their current direction, where the far-right crowd is going.

There doesn't seem to be any overall strategy except extremism and that won't last long.

It's not "garbage from the right." It's how facts work. Facts aren't some right wing conspiracy to thwart leftwing delusionism. And guess what? If you beleive someone hired someone else killed their spouse, and the evidence you had was a check not written to the killer, and a confirmation note from him, not directed towards the suspect, you're not going to win that trial, as that evidence is known as "circumstantial" at best.

You want people to believe something without any actual evidence proving what you want them to believe because in your own paranoid conspiracy theorist mind, you've connected the dots as they best work for you.

You're ignoring the facts. Again.

Quite the contrary. You have a receipt not written out to him, and a check, not written out to the clinic. Where is the link that proves that the check was for an abortion. There's a missing link there that you are completely fabricating yourself.

You people did that shit with several accusations against Trump, Roy Moore, Kyle Rittenhouse, Nick Sandman. You people CONSTANTLY draw connections that aren't there and then act surprised when it you get proven wrong.

So the woman has come forward to refute Walker. What a surprise, the lying liar with "12 personalities, some of them extremely violent ' (his words) was lying. The fact that he has a real chance of landing in the senate is terrifying.

What's terrifying is how gullible some of you are over this crap that comes out less than a month before an election, and convince yourselves it has nothing to do with said election... Again, remember how y'all believed the Roy Moore allegations? That didn't really age well, did it?

The missing link is the lady who had the abortion claiming that she was paid by Herschel Walker. And really, who cares? I don't. Pro-life people don't, either. It's hypocritical on their side, but there is nothing wrong with deciding to abort an unwanted pregnancy.

There is a whole lot wrong with threatening the life of one of the many mothers of your children, forcing them to relocate multiple times to get away from you because you are psychotic, though. Glad he decided to not put yet another child through that experience.

It has everything to do with the election because Walker is beyond unqualified to be on the senate, and these are the reasons why. Gullible? Have you heard this man speak? It's called reality, you should come back to it sometime.

What didn't age well about the Roy Moore allegations?

Reminds me of Republican Scott dejarlais. Cheated on his wife and got his girlfriends a few abortions. Haha. It's amazing how gullible Republican voters are.

More like they're hypocrites.

@tjandmia: So what alternative would a pro-life Republican have, vote for an openly pro-choice Democrat? It's not always about being gullible, sometimes it's voting for the (perceived) lesser of two evils.

It seems that candidates (for each party) are chosen by money and power, usually resulting in people with not the best character.

Well, they could always find a different issue that they actually care about and the candidates don't agree on. Or vote for the candidate who isn't clearly a psychopath.

I'm not sure how anyone can call themself pro-life if they support legislation that can cause the death of women.

I think you're making my point. Alleged pro life Republicans who don't actually practice being pro life, aren't actually pro life. I guess you could make the argument that you could continue voting for backwards Republicans because that candidate will probably vote backwards with Republicans, however. That is if you're a backwards Republicans, as well. Not that there is a difference between backwards Republicans and Republicans, anyway.