Trump knows wives should tell their husbands who they are voting for

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

How about...

Some men think that giving women the vote was a mistake.

Others think that teaching women to read was a mistake.

Personally?

I think teaching women to talk was the mistake.

WW

I haven't said a word to my wife in over two years. It's not like I haven't tried, but I don't want to interrupt her.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Given the propensity for Trump supporters for violence, like attaching the capital to prevent Congress from functioning.

It's a good recommendation so that the wives don't put themselves in danger.

WW

January 6th pales in comparison to the hundreds of riots caused by Ferguson. MO and the later George Floyd riots by liberals.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

It's not the MAGA women that need protection, it's the sane woman married to a MAGA male that are in danger.

WW

When did you become a turncoat and pledge your immortal soul to Kamala?

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

She dosen't get the target audiance. The commercial isn't aimed at MAGA Women, they are going to vote for Trump. Hence "MAGA woman".

The target audience is regular women married to MAGA males who want to not vote for Trump.

Those are two different groups.

WW

That number is likely in the hundreds if not even less.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

She will vote how she's told to vote, doesn't get a choice.

WW

How will you know, Herr WW?

 

[struth]

Wow. You fuckers have ZERO respect for women

We aren't the ones telling them not to speak to their husbands. Geez....like how out of touch with reality are you people? Heck you can't even define a woman, you think they should get beat up by men pretending to be a woman in the boxing ring, you say that men can get preg, and now you tell wives not to speak to their husbands?? geez you all are just sick people

 

[forkup]

Many things were done incorrectly. As I’ve already pointed out… the inclusion of an amendment process and a list of rights without a list of duties and responsibilities. I’m against the inclusion of “rights” at all but the lack or the expectations of the citizenry towards the government is a massive omission. Article I, Section 8’s wording is atrocious at best and that has lead to misunderstandings which have inflated the federal government’s power and budget like a hot air balloon. Additionally, the lack of an absolute isolationism clause was a major mistake.

Thst should be a good enough start for you.

No, it isn't. I'm asking you what in your opinion was "improper" about the 19th amendment?

Your argument so far seems to be that you don't like the original document because it doesn't list "expectations of the citizenry towards the government." Yet, at the same time you are using the original document as a justification to be against universal suffrage. It seems contradictory to me. Either you think the original Constitution disenfranchised woman and therefore this should be followed, or you believe the constitution erred, and you wanted a constitution that added certain conditions that woman don't meet in your opinion. Which is it?

I'm not trying to trap you, but I am trying to get your position into a solid argument

 

[struth]

What if the husband is misinformed and additionally doesn't believe he can be wrong, about anything? The wife should try to correct his misconceptions?

I mean this isn't the 1950s. Spouses should have the ability to talk about whatever's on their minds. On the other hand, they should respect the boundaries that each sets. If either one asks "what do think about this election? Have you decided yet who you're going to vote for" and the response is "I don't want to talk about it" then that should be the end of the conversation unless the significant other brings it up themself and wants to discuss it.

Then should't you encourage the husband and wife to communicate? Unlike what Harris and the Dembots are doing?

 

[JustAGuy1]

There ya go ladies

That’s how Trumpers feel

Don't be an ass, that's how THAT Rumper feels.

 

[Foxfyre]

It's not the MAGA women that need protection, it's the sane woman married to a MAGA male that are in danger.

WW

I'll put the MAGA men I know against ANY guys on the left as far as having intelligence, courage, good instincts, common sense and respect for women any day of the week and twice on Sunday.

MAGA men:

Leftist men:

 

[Mack Brazile]

All Hail Drumpf Lord of the Thundercats

 

[Rawley]

She will vote how she's told to vote, doesn't get a choice.

WW

Sad way you roll, but if she's happy with it ...

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I'll put the MAGA men I know against ANY guys on the left as far as having intelligence, courage, good instincts, common sense and respect for women any day of the week and twice on Sunday.

MAGA men:
View attachment 1037071

Leftist men:
View attachment 1037073

You live in a fantasyland of your own design. So bizarre.

 

[DStar777]

Wow. You fuckers have ZERO respect for women

Maybe ... or he's trolling you.

 

[DStar777]

She will vote how she's told to vote, doesn't get a choice.

No really.. are you just trolling?

 

[Lesh]

We aren't the ones telling them not to speak to their husbands. Geez....like how out of touch with reality are you people? Heck you can't even define a woman, you think they should get beat up by men pretending to be a woman in the boxing ring, you say that men can get preg, and now you tell wives not to speak to their husbands?? geez you all are just sick people

Actually you’re the ones saying that women have to get permission to vote (the way hubby wants)

 

[forkup]

Then should't you encourage the husband and wife to communicate? Unlike what Harris and the Dembots are doing?

the response is "I don't want to talk about it" then that should be the end of the conversation

That wasn't clear enough?

Why is the idea that people can vote and keep their votes to themselves such a hard concept? It never was before.

 

[Anathema]

No, it isn't. I'm asking you what in your opinion was "improper" about the 19th amendment?

Your argument so far seems to be that you don't like the original document because it doesn't list "expectations of the citizenry towards the government." Yet, at the same time you are using the original document as a justification to be against universal suffrage. It seems contradictory to me. Either you think the original Constitution disenfranchised woman and therefore this should be followed, or you believe the constitution erred, and you wanted a constitution that added certain conditions that woman don't meet in your opinion. Which is it?

I'm not trying to trap you, but I am trying to get your position into a solid argument

I’m not suggesting the Constitution is either a 100% good or bad document. Honestly, I think a lot of it has been misinterpreted over the last 160 years. However, there are a lot of things which the document is lesser because of. The fact that it’s allowed to be changed is one of them.

The fact that there are no mentions of women in the entire document, and no women involved in writing it suggests to me that for all intents and purposes it doesn’t apply to them any more than it applies to foreigners.

Does that clarify my position on the topic sufficiently?

 

[struth]

Actually you’re the ones saying that women have to get permission to vote (the way hubby wants)

who said that???? what a weird post, ignoring reality. Nobody has suggested a woman needs permission to vote.

 

[struth]

That wasn't clear enough?

Why is the idea that people can vote and keep their votes to themselves such a hard concept? It never was before.

It's not....never been an issue before Harris and the Dembots brought it up this year.