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

[forkup]

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?

So to be clear. This is what I got from your responses. Feel free to correct me if I get your positions wrong.

-Woman shouldn't be allowed to vote because the founders didn't account for woman voting.
-These same founders were wrong in putting out provisions out to allow it to change.

So, what it comes down to is, that you have the original Constitution. You like the misogynistic part of the 18th century. Since you don't like it being changed, I presume you also like the even less savory bits. (slavery.) What you don't like is that these same founding fathers realized that their view on morality wouldn't be that of people living in the 20th and 21st century, and therefore some mechanism should be added to allow for changes that are carried by the overwhelming majority of the populace.

Is this correct? So, I can give my counterargument instead of keeping bombarding you with questions.

 

[forkup]

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

Harris isn't railing against private ballots. That's you and people of your ilk.

 

[struth]

Harris isn't railing against private ballots. That's you and people of your ilk.

Show me anyone railing against private ballots?

Harris and the dembots are rallying against husbands and wives talking to one another about politics for some odd reason.....

 

[forkup]

Show me anyone railing against private ballots?

What if the woman is misinformed? If the husband realizes this, he can correct the mistake she is about to make. Let's put our country first!

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

Literally topic and first post of the OP.

 

[struth]

Literally topic and first post of the OP.

what does that post have to do with ballots?

what the F are you talking about? Nowhere did he mention ballots.

The topic of the thread is Harris and the Dembots telling wives they shouldn't talk to their husbands about politics for some odd reason.

What they should be doing is encouraging husbands and wives to communicate....and if either feels they can't to the other about politics, then maybe they should be getting a divorce or counseling .

 

[Mac1958]

Harris isn't railing against private ballots. That's you and people of your ilk.

Y'know, as outlandish as this seems, I wouldn't be shocked if they went for it, if they get the power.

This is their chance. They're saving America from Satan 'n stuff.

 

[forkup]

what does that post have to do with ballots?

what the F are you talking about? Nowhere did he mention ballots.

The topic of the thread is Harris and the Dembots telling wives they shouldn't talk to their husbands about politics for some odd reason.

What they should be doing is encouraging husbands and wives to communicate....and if either feels they can't to the other about politics, then maybe they should be getting a divorce or counseling

Oh so you are arguing that the ballots should be private but who you vote for should be public?

 

[forkup]

Y'know, as outlandish as this seems, I wouldn't be shocked if they went for it, if they get the power.

This is their chance. They're saving America from Satan 'n stuff.

I'm just thinking about this in the future.

Republicans game plan for about the last thirty years is to try to limit the franchise as much as possible to parts of the demographics that favors them. And it has worked to a certain extent. In fact, it has caused people to do some self-sorting. (less and less swing-states).

Now what seems to be emerging is a massive gender-gap which I presume will persist long after Trump is gone, since that's abortion driven and can only by disavowed by scorning the evangelical vote. That's going to be a lot less easy to self-sort. I imagine the MAGA crowd being very happy about dealing with only likeminded people. A lot less when those likeminded people have a 65-35-woman men disparity. It will be interesting.

 

[Anathema]

So to be clear. This is what I got from your responses. Feel free to correct me if I get your positions wrong.

-Woman shouldn't be allowed to vote because the founders didn't account for woman voting.
-These same founders were wrong in putting out provisions out to allow it to change.

So, what it comes down to is, that you have the original Constitution. You like the misogynistic part of the 18th century. Since you don't like it being changed, I presume you also like the even less savory bits. (slavery.) What you don't like is that these same founding fathers realized that their view on morality wouldn't be that of people living in the 20th and 21st century, and therefore some mechanism should be added to allow for changes that are carried for the overwhelming majority of the populace.

Is this correct? So, I can give my counterargument instead of keeping bombarding you with questions.

Pretty close. My disagreement with women being equal to men or allowed to act as equals to men far predates the US Constitution. The lack of any discussion of women in simply verification of women’s proper status in society.

I am in favor of slavery under certain circumstances. Not so much based on race, but definitely in other circumstances. In fact I may be related to an Irish woman who came to this country as an indentured servant to a British infantry officers wife in the 1750s.

I do not believe that Right and Wrong (aka Morality) are either changeable or related to religion. I believe they are the same as the moment the first human being existed (however it happened). An opinion being in the majority doesn’t make it Right.

 

[forkup]

Pretty close. My disagreement with women being equal to men or allowed to act as equals to men far predates the US Constitution. The lack of any discussion of women in simply verification of women’s proper status in society.

I am in favor of slavery under certain circumstances. Not so much based on race, but definitely in other circumstances. In fact I may be related to an Irish woman who came to this country as an indentured servant to a British infantry officers wife in the 1750s.

I do not believe that Right and Wrong (aka Morality) are either changeable or related to religion. I believe they are the same as the moment the first human being existed (however it happened). An opinion being in the majority doesn’t make it Right.

I hate to ask more questions, but I have one.

My disagreement with women being equal to men or allowed to act as equals to men far predates the US Constitution. The lack of any discussion of women in simply verification of women’s proper status in society.

Can you elaborate here?

I do not believe that Right and Wrong (aka Morality) are either changeable or related to religion.

I don't think morality is changeable or religiously based either. I always thought slavery was wrong. Because by definition it says that some people have so much value that they have the right to other people's lives, the same goes for your woman's argument. Something I vehemently disagree with. Feel free to tell me why I'm wrong.


There are certain things I didn't address because I want this to remain focused. If you want me to respond to a particular argument, just say so.

 

[Mac1958]

I'm just thinking about this in the future.

Republicans game plan for about the last thirty years is to try to limit the franchise as much as possible to parts of the demographics that favors them. And it has worked to a certain extent. In fact, it has caused people to do some self-sorting. (less and less swing-states).

Now what seems to be emerging is a massive gender-gap which I presume will persist long after Trump is gone, since that's abortion driven and can only by disavowed by scorning the evangelical vote. That's going to be a lot less easy to self-sort. I imagine the MAGA crowd being very happy about dealing with only likeminded people. A lot less when those likeminded people have a 65-35-woman men disparity. It will be interesting.

I can imagine the self-sorting process playing out geographically, i.e., a more European-like contrast from state to state, where there is a clear and much more pronounced socio-cultural demarcation as you move from State A to State B. All red or all blue, period.

It's a goddamn shame, of course, but they would much rather be isolated than collaborate with those who don't think exactly like they do. Especially ironic that they claim to revere the Constitution, a masterful product of communication, collaboration and innovation.

 

[Anathema]

Can you elaborate here?

I am an extreme believer in gender roles. Extremely traditional ones. Men have court place in society and women have theirs. They are not the same. Not even on the same level. The Rights and Privileges of Men as well as our Duties and Responsibilities are not the same as women’s. Men exist to Lead, to Build, to Protect and Provide for the family. Women exist to serve and support the Men and the family structure.

I don't think morality is changeable or religiously based either. I always thought slavery was wrong. Because by definition it says that some people have so much value that they have the right to other people's lives. Something I vehemently disagree with. Feel free to tell me why I'm wrong.

I do not believe that Life itself has value by itself. Only Innocent Life have value, and no human being past age 4 or 5 (and most far earlier) is innocent. It’s not that the owners life has extra value, but that the slave’s life has lesser value. That’s why I see the proper form of slavery as a form of punishment or consequence for decisions or actions of the enslaved individual., not based on race, ethnicity or religion.

 

[forkup]

I can imagine the self-sorting process playing out geographically, i.e., a more European-like contrast from state to state, where there is a clear and much more pronounced socio-cultural demarcation as you move from State A to State B. All red or all blue, period.

It's a goddamn shame, of course, but they would much rather be isolated than collaborate with those who don't think exactly like they do. Especially ironic that they claim to revere the Constitution, a masterful product of communication, collaboration and innovation.

It's already playing out. What I'm talking about that now we aren't talking about a minority, however big. We are talking about a huge part of the electorate voting for a single party. Solely pushed by a single policy issue (abortion). A policy issue Republicans can't really disarm without pissing off one of their if not the most loyal voting base (evangelicals).

Think about it. Take Trump and the cult out of it. What is left without evangelicals. White, non-college, male voters. That doesn't seem like a winning coalition.

 

[struth]

Oh so you are arguing that the ballots should be private but who you vote for should be public?

Haha are you this dumb? Or are you twisting yourself in pretzels just to try and defend these weird messages by harris and dems about wives not talking to their husbands about politics?

what I am stating clearly is that it’s weird for dembots to tell wives not to speak to their husbands about any topic.

If you are married or any relationship and don’t feel comfortable talking about something like politics then you really shouldn’t be in the relationship. Maybe dems should be encouraging that message.

It has nothing to do with ballots being made public or private…moreover that wouldn’t matter since nobody puts their names on ballots…duh

 

[forkup]

That’s why I see the proper form of slavery as a form of punishment or consequence for decisions or actions of the enslaved individual., not based on race, ethnicity or religion.

Here's where you lose me the most.

You omit a particular group that have lesser value... woman. Who according to you are there to simply serve men, and have no say in what laws they are governed by because it's not their place to lead, just follow. Not because of actions or decisions but simply because their gender. Do you realize how f-ucked up that is. In fact, there are places that agree with you. It's those were woman have to wear hijabs.

 

[forkup]

Haha are you this dumb? Or are you twisting yourself in pretzels just to try and defend these weird messages by harris and dems about wives not talking to their husbands about politics?

what I am stating clearly is that it’s weird for dembots to tell wives not to speak to their husbands about any topic.

If you are married or any relationship and don’t feel comfortable talking about something like politics then you really shouldn’t be in the relationship. Maybe dems should be encouraging that message.

It has nothing to do with ballots being made public or private…moreover that wouldn’t matter since nobody puts their names on ballots…duh

ou make a point to state that voting is a "minuscule" thing. And as someone who's been happily married for over 15 years now, I can tell you that there's any number of subjects me or her avoid talking about for tranquility reasons. Either because it tends to irritate the other party with each other or makes the other party sad or mad in general. Things that in the grand scheme of things are a hell of a lot more important than voting preferences. It's bullshit to assert that a wedded couple will speak about anything and everything in order to prove their love. And even bigger bullshit that refusing to talk about who you voted for in an election somehow means you don't have a good relationship.

I'm pretty sure that there are plenty of happily married couples who aren't all that politically engaged and honestly don't care.
There will be others who do care, but not enough to want to start a fight.
And still others who feel that who the other person voted for is a private thing and that it doesn't require an identification, explanation or justification.

 

[big deluxe]

In fact, it has caused people to do some self-sorting. (less and less swing-states).

There are now more swing states.

 

[forkup]

There are now more swing states.

There might be. For this election, because the voting coalitions are massively shifting. This in my view solely driven by Trump as a personality. What do you think will be left without him?

 

[struth]

forkup if it’s such a tiny thing, you got to wonder why harris thought it was so important to tell women not to talk to their partner about it

Strange really, weird

 

[big deluxe]

There might be. For this election, because the voting coalitions are massively shifting. This in my view solely driven by Trump as a personality. What do you think will be left without him?

What do you mean without him?