Fox News Host says women shouldn't vote or be on juries Video

[Oldstyle]

"ignorant" people .... typically people who disagree with you.
Yeah, don't let 'em vote.
This is the justification for all these voter suppression efforts?

I have no problem with informed people making a decision that I don't agree with, Nodog. What drives me crazy is people casting a vote for a politician they know nothing about because of the D or R after their names or voting for an issue that they really know nothing about based on some pundits rant on a slanted cable news channel.

And someone who disagrees with you can write you off the same way. Bottom line is that too many people have fought and died to secure the right to vote for EVERY American for us to piss on that sacrifice by claiming people who don't follow procedures that WE approve of, shouldn't be allowed to vote.

So Americans have fought and died so that people who don't even take the time to know the issues or the candidates can stand in a voting booth and vote for something or someone they know nothing about?

Who's really pissing on that sacrifice?

The people trying to deny the right to vote for people they disagree with are pissing on the sacrifices.

Anyone can claim that someone who disagrees with them is ignorant and doesn't know the issues. Egocentricity is nothing new and nothing to shape policy around.

I'm not denying anyone the right to vote because I disagree with them. I don't think people who are conservatives like myself who don't know the issues or the candidates should be able to stand in that voting booth either. It's about making an informed decision. If you haven't taken the time to learn the issues or the candidates and show up to vote because someone you met at a party said you should...then THAT person is pissing on the sacrifices of those that gave up their lives to give them that right!

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Fox seems to be having some kind of meltdown of late. More so than usual.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

They're not trying to compete with conservative talk radio are they? Saying stupid stuff to get more widely distributed coverage of it?

 

[Oldstyle]

They're not trying to compete with conservative talk radio are they? Saying stupid stuff to get more widely distributed coverage of it?

Wouldn't that be competing with MSNBC?

 

[Oldstyle]

Oh, that's right...nobody watches MSNBC any more...my bad!

 

[Delta4Embassy]

They're not trying to compete with conservative talk radio are they? Saying stupid stuff to get more widely distributed coverage of it?

Wouldn't that be competing with MSNBC?

MSNBC isn't their competition, they buried them long ago. Their only real competition is CNN and radio.

 

[Oldstyle]

They're not trying to compete with conservative talk radio are they? Saying stupid stuff to get more widely distributed coverage of it?

Wouldn't that be competing with MSNBC?

MSNBC isn't their competition, they buried them long ago. Their only real competition is CNN and radio.

If you compare the numbers it's hard to see CNN as competition either, Delta...

 

[bripat9643]

If people who "don't get it" shouldn't vote, there wouldn't be much need of voting booths in the USA.

True enough. Just one of the many reasons that democracy is a shitty system.

Yeah, very shitty, but then so too are dictatorships, absolute monarchies. What did Churchill say?

Monarchy was a better system than democracy. Under the monarchy, we paid the government 5% of our income in taxes. Under democracy we pay 50%. The taxpayers owed $0 under the monarchy. If the king borrowed money, it was his debt, not ours. On the other hand, the current amount owed by American citizens is almost $18 trillion.

 

[frigidweirdo]

I'm going to say something now that might strike you as completely unreasonable, Frigid but I'll say it anyways because I think it's true...

I believe there are a large number of "educated" people out there that are ignorant and it's because of the education that they've received. You can't teach someone one side of an issue and make them educated on that issue. For many of our educators these days...there is a belief that because they are standing in front of a classroom as a tenured professor that THEIR views have precedence over all others.

Oh, I totally agree.

I have big issues with education, especially an education that doesn't really teach but just goes through the motions. I've seen good education in say, Austria, where I worked for a bit in a couple of school and I've seen piss poor teaching with no aims, just doing it because that's what's done, you go to school an not much else.

One need only look on this board. I'm finding it very difficult to find people who can put a decent argument together. Of course I'm more on the left and I tend to disagree with those on the right, but have found very few, who can, but I'm making an assumption that many on the left also can't do this.

When I talk about education, I'm talking proper education that means something.

It's like when abstinence is taught, it tends to lead to more STDs and teenage pregnancies, it's education, but it's not the right education.

 

[Political Junky]

Kimberly Guilfoyle has come a long way since she was a lingerie model.

You know what I "love" about you liberals? You continually try to paint conservatives as being anti-women...but when a woman IS successful but happens to be a conservative...you do you level best to denigrate her.

Kimberly Guilfoyle graduated Summa cum Laude from UCal Davis...got a law degree from the University of San Francisco and studied at Trinity College at Ireland but what you find remarkable is that she once modeled bridal lingerie in a bridal magazine...a job that she used to help PAY for college! You liberals are right...there really IS a war on women in this country...it's being waged by liberals against conservative women on a daily basis!

She also modeled for Victoria's Secret.

 

[frigidweirdo]

With all due respect, Frigid? If you took all of Barack Obama's foreign policy failures off of the table and made them disappear...his lack of a coherent strategy for the economy and jobs...his lack of a coherent strategy on energy...his lack of transparency and the sheer volume of scandals that have dogged this group would still have people rethinking their vote for Obama. I'm sorry but he hasn't been a competent President on many levels...not just on foreign policy decisions or lack there of.

I'm not sure I agree.

Let's put it this way. My view of Bush's foreign policy was to make a common enemy. In this he was extremely coherent. His attacking of Afghanistan on false pretenses, his attacking of Iraq on false pretenses, his messing up of the post war period that saw thousands of US soldiers killed and 10 times that number maimed and injured, his use of "war on terror" and "al-Qaeda" to vilify Islam while being allies with Egypt, Saudi Arabia and other Muslim countries, even then they were pouring money into the Taliban and al-Qaeda.

It's coherent if you look at it this way. It's all about oil. If you look at it from the fantasy point of view of the right that Afghanistan was to get bin Laden (when the Taliban said they would hand him over if the US gave them the evidence that showed bin Laden was responsible for 9/11) and that Iraq was not about oil, and that the US didn't mess up the post war period etc etc, then it looks rather incoherent.

Obama's foreign policy has been quite coherent. Libya I think was a massive balls up by him, he shouldn't have gone in but got pressurized by McCain. However most of his foreign policy has been aimed at undoing what Bush did. An impossible task, but he stopped with all the usage of language which suggested Islam is the common enemy, and he's been trying to contain situations in Iraq, Afghanistan and now Syria and other places.

As for the economy. What has happened is what should have happened. The economy was naturally going to come out of the recession, and he has led this natural process without much in the way of ballzing it up, which is what you want. Nothing much else to do. I don't see how this is incoherent.

Scandals have dogged Obama, he's ridden the storm, it's politics. It always happens. Scandals have been a part of almost every single presidency since time became (in the 1700s of course).
Lack of transparency. So, would telling the CIA to go make up information, then have Congress report twice that there was a complete cover up, a lack of transparency? Again, find a president who doesn't have a lack of transparency.


So, from my point of view he hasn't been a great president, he hasn't been a bad president. What has happened during his presidency has happened to just about every other president, some people found out about, others not. He's there, he's run the country.

The right hates him. Big deal? How many US citizens did he get killed? No where near the amount Bush got killed.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Imagine if Iraq hadn't happened, and then ISIS didn't happen. Then Obama got elected, and people felt safe because they didn't have much to be worried about. They'd vote Obama again.

Well they did happen. No amount of speculation on your part changes that.

And if you bothered to actually read with your eyes open, you'd have seen the point.

But no, you failed to see the point, but you still felt the need to write a worthless post in reply.

Thanks for that.

 

[Papageorgio]

Young women shouldn't be on juries, says Fox News host Kimberly Guilfoyle, because "they just don't get it." Young women also shouldn't bother voting, she added, because their opinions are bad and wrong, and only older people who have evolved into cranky conservatives should be allowed to participate in democracy.

Fox News Host Says Young Women Shouldn t Vote -- NYMag

Just go to Youtube and do a search: fox news women shouldn't vote

No wonder Republicans think women shouldn't get equal pay for equal work.

So you misquoted what a woman said? Why did you feel the need to do that? Is her opinion less than yours because she, formerly being a young woman, knows more on the subject than an old wrinkled fat guy?

 

[frigidweirdo]

"ignorant" people .... typically people who disagree with you.
Yeah, don't let 'em vote.
This is the justification for all these voter suppression efforts?

We need a literacy test.

I'll take a gun safety test in order to exercise my right to keep and bear arms, if we can have a literacy test for voters.

So illiterate people shouldn't be represented?

 

[Rikurzhen]

With all due respect, Frigid? If you took all of Barack Obama's foreign policy failures off of the table and made them disappear...his lack of a coherent strategy for the economy and jobs...his lack of a coherent strategy on energy...his lack of transparency and the sheer volume of scandals that have dogged this group would still have people rethinking their vote for Obama. I'm sorry but he hasn't been a competent President on many levels...not just on foreign policy decisions or lack there of.

I'm not sure I agree.

Let's put it this way. My view of Bush's foreign policy was to make a common enemy. In this he was extremely coherent.

We've already established that your view is not tempered by reality. RDEAN himself shut you down on your claims that Bush was whipping up anti-Muslim hysteria with his speeches. RDEAN, the friendliest ally any liberal nutter on this board could ask for, and even he pointed out that you're completely divorced from reality.

 

[frigidweirdo]

With all due respect, Frigid? If you took all of Barack Obama's foreign policy failures off of the table and made them disappear...his lack of a coherent strategy for the economy and jobs...his lack of a coherent strategy on energy...his lack of transparency and the sheer volume of scandals that have dogged this group would still have people rethinking their vote for Obama. I'm sorry but he hasn't been a competent President on many levels...not just on foreign policy decisions or lack there of.

I'm not sure I agree.

Let's put it this way. My view of Bush's foreign policy was to make a common enemy. In this he was extremely coherent.

We've already established that your view is not tempered by reality. RDEAN himself shut you down on your claims that Bush was whipping up anti-Muslim hysteria with his speeches. RDEAN, the friendliest ally any liberal nutter on this board could ask for, and even he pointed out that you're completely divorced from reality.

What's the point of this post exactly?

 

[Rikurzhen]

With all due respect, Frigid? If you took all of Barack Obama's foreign policy failures off of the table and made them disappear...his lack of a coherent strategy for the economy and jobs...his lack of a coherent strategy on energy...his lack of transparency and the sheer volume of scandals that have dogged this group would still have people rethinking their vote for Obama. I'm sorry but he hasn't been a competent President on many levels...not just on foreign policy decisions or lack there of.

I'm not sure I agree.

Let's put it this way. My view of Bush's foreign policy was to make a common enemy. In this he was extremely coherent.

We've already established that your view is not tempered by reality. RDEAN himself shut you down on your claims that Bush was whipping up anti-Muslim hysteria with his speeches. RDEAN, the friendliest ally any liberal nutter on this board could ask for, and even he pointed out that you're completely divorced from reality.

What's the point of this post exactly?

No one should pay attention to your analysis of events because you're coming from a world where you believe what you want to believe, not what the rest of us see.

 

[frigidweirdo]

With all due respect, Frigid? If you took all of Barack Obama's foreign policy failures off of the table and made them disappear...his lack of a coherent strategy for the economy and jobs...his lack of a coherent strategy on energy...his lack of transparency and the sheer volume of scandals that have dogged this group would still have people rethinking their vote for Obama. I'm sorry but he hasn't been a competent President on many levels...not just on foreign policy decisions or lack there of.

I'm not sure I agree.

Let's put it this way. My view of Bush's foreign policy was to make a common enemy. In this he was extremely coherent.

We've already established that your view is not tempered by reality. RDEAN himself shut you down on your claims that Bush was whipping up anti-Muslim hysteria with his speeches. RDEAN, the friendliest ally any liberal nutter on this board could ask for, and even he pointed out that you're completely divorced from reality.

What's the point of this post exactly?

No one should pay attention to your analysis of events because you're coming from a world where you believe what you want to believe, not what the rest of us see.

My tolerance for morons who can't make an argument is very, VERY thin right now.

 

[FA_Q2]

"ignorant" people .... typically people who disagree with you.
Yeah, don't let 'em vote.
This is the justification for all these voter suppression efforts?

We need a literacy test.

I'll take a gun safety test in order to exercise my right to keep and bear arms, if we can have a literacy test for voters.

So illiterate people shouldn't be represented?

Not really. I could ask the same of a number of people. Shouldn't 10 year olds be represented? They don't get a voice. What about those that are severely retarded? Should we ensure that even those with the functional equivalent of a third grader get to the polls so they can be represented? A literacy test seems rather silly though as literacy has no real bearing on your current understanding of political hopefuls.

I would think that would be an obvious no - they do not have the capability of understanding who would represent them or how.

On that same concept, I don't see education or intelligence (beyond that of a normal functioning adult) particularly meaningful either. I know a lot of people that are VERY educated or VERY intelligent that are complete political morons. One of the smartest people I know is essentially a communist. Gates and Trump are both extremely intelligent people (you don't accomplish what they have without intelligence) but I would not hold any of their political views above that of my neighbor. Hell, I hold my neighbors view much higher than Trumps. There is nothing new there - if you had watched Einstein go about his day you would think him a child even though he very well might be one of the most intelligent people in modern history.

What I cant abide by is people voting that have not done due diligence in understanding the issues and/or platform of their chosen candidates. Most people vote along party lines or simply randomly select a name. How do you think that Alvin Green won the nomination for the democrat party against DeMint despite not even having a platform? How do we expect to have competent politicians that actually represent us if the electorate does not even bother to investigate those it is putting into office? The two parties FEED off this because they can continue to ignore the electorate altogether, fail to represent them at all yet still retain complete power over our political system.

Unfortunately, I do not support any kind of test or measuring stick to exercise the right to vote. I would LIKE to have a basic civics and platform test to vote BUT I don't think that is even remotely possible to implement. If you don't like the gerrymandering and current manipulation of the voting public then I dread to see what it would look like WHEN (because it is not a matter of if but a matter of when) one of the parties manages to gain influence over that 'test.' It WILL happen if there are tests or other such requirements on voting and it will likely end the right to vote entirely.

I would not mind requiring votes to essentially be cast on a blank sheet of paper though or a simple bubble sheet. At the very least, you would need to be able to write in the NAME of the candidate you were voting for. It would certainly take the steam out of those that keep voting a straight party line without ever bothering to see who those candidates even are. The presidential race would be almost identical but I guarantee that you would see massive differences in all other candidates. Most people have no idea who is running for the senate and congress let alone the local elections.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Not really. I could ask the same of a number of people. Shouldn't 10 year olds be represented? They don't get a voice. What about those that are severely retarded? Should we ensure that even those with the functional equivalent of a third grader get to the polls so they can be represented? A literacy test seems rather silly though as literacy has no real bearing on your current understanding of political hopefuls.

I would think that would be an obvious no - they do not have the capability of understanding who would represent them or how.

On that same concept, I don't see education or intelligence (beyond that of a normal functioning adult) particularly meaningful either. I know a lot of people that are VERY educated or VERY intelligent that are complete political morons. One of the smartest people I know is essentially a communist. Gates and Trump are both extremely intelligent people (you don't accomplish what they have without intelligence) but I would not hold any of their political views above that of my neighbor. Hell, I hold my neighbors view much higher than Trumps. There is nothing new there - if you had watched Einstein go about his day you would think him a child even though he very well might be one of the most intelligent people in modern history.

What I cant abide by is people voting that have not done due diligence in understanding the issues and/or platform of their chosen candidates. Most people vote along party lines or simply randomly select a name. How do you think that Alvin Green won the nomination for the democrat party against DeMint despite not even having a platform? How do we expect to have competent politicians that actually represent us if the electorate does not even bother to investigate those it is putting into office? The two parties FEED off this because they can continue to ignore the electorate altogether, fail to represent them at all yet still retain complete power over our political system.

Unfortunately, I do not support any kind of test or measuring stick to exercise the right to vote. I would LIKE to have a basic civics and platform test to vote BUT I don't think that is even remotely possible to implement. If you don't like the gerrymandering and current manipulation of the voting public then I dread to see what it would look like WHEN (because it is not a matter of if but a matter of when) one of the parties manages to gain influence over that 'test.' It WILL happen if there are tests or other such requirements on voting and it will likely end the right to vote entirely.

I would not mind requiring votes to essentially be cast on a blank sheet of paper though or a simple bubble sheet. At the very least, you would need to be able to write in the NAME of the candidate you were voting for. It would certainly take the steam out of those that keep voting a straight party line without ever bothering to see who those candidates even are. The presidential race would be almost identical but I guarantee that you would see massive differences in all other candidates. Most people have no idea who is running for the senate and congress let alone the local elections.

10 year olds ARE represented. They have very limited rights and very limited responsibility, the rest being in the hands of their family, who will then vote, you'd have thought, for their best interests.

Politicians do look to the family as an important issue.

Those people who have limited capacity to make decisions will have had their right to vote taken away by due process on an individual basis, along with other rights. An illiterate person has no reasons to have rights taken away from them.


The problem is, I think most people on this board don't really seem to understand how representatives will represent them, or not as the case seems to be a lot, seeing as big money seems to get a better representation.
How many people know what they voted for with Obama, Bush, Clinton? How many even cared what they were voting for?

Also you only have two viable choices, that's it. For many you don't need to understand much. The Republicans are the party of the rich, Democrats are the party of the poor. Are you poor? Sure, vote Dems. Are you rich? Sure, vote reps.

Who needs to know much else? The choice isn't there.
A monkey with a pencil is probably going to make a very similar choice to an intelligent person who knows what they's voting for.

Reagan managed to get elected without much of a platform but more of a personality based platform. It was more of a sales job than anything else. "There you go again" defined his first presidential win, it was a way of just ignoring any criticism of himself.

Your point about having a test and people controlling it is spot on.

However I still believe that Proportional Representation is the only way forwards, especially for the House and President. People are going to vote for parties, so let them vote for parties. You can have a German style system with people who are representatives of areas too, and then the rest of the make up of the House is PR. It works thee, you have 4 to 5 different parties, ie, far more choice.

Why expect people to think when there's not much to actually think about?