We are now one hundred years into women' suffrage, and what has it meant? The very existence of today's Democrat Party depends on the irrational, illogical, fact-free support of millions of women (not ALL women, of course, but too many). The most recent and memorable example of their political hysteria came courtesy of the Pussy-Hat demonstrations of 2017, when much of that demographic manifested a self-induced hissy-fit for all the world to see, because their favored Presidential candidate fell on her face.
And what was the biggest single issue in this whole clown show? The fictitious "right" of American women to kill their babies in the womb. And how can one not notice that within the Pussy-Hat brigades there is no room for backsliding, compromise, or - God forbid - disagreement. To support, or even consider, the right of unborn children to EXIST is considered a Cardinal Sin, resulting in immediate excommunication.
Is this the position of a rational movement? I submit that it is not. It not only ignores but DENIES the universal moral and ethical consensus of virtually every society in the history of mankind. But that is only one manifestation of the irrationality of the demographic in question. Their positions on education, healthcare, immigration, the environment, energy, global warming, and almost every other issue is based on a reflexive emotional reaction to a quick impression of reality - often a mis-impression, as in the case of "fracking," nuclear power, and climate change. Remember that homely little twat from Sweden, totally lacking in knowledge, logic, or insight, and she was feted like the Dalai Lama...largely because women found her so compelling.
As Melvin Udall, the novelist portrayed in the film, "As Good as It Gets" describes the female personality, "I think of a man, and I take away reason and accountability.” Truer words were never spoken.
Seriously: What is the benefit of having women vote? Does it outweigh the cost of allowing important local and national elections to turn on emotional twaddle?
For every rational woman who bases her votes on tangible, well-considered factors, there are two or three whose vote will be impacted by everything from what she might have seen in a 5-second news clip, to what she heard on The View, to whether she has a good relationship with her Significant Other. Seriously.
And not to mix the message, but what about giving The Vote to people between 18 and 21 years old? The ONLY reason this was done was collective guilt because BOYS who were too young to vote were fighting and being killed in Vietnam. While that was a regrettable thing, it was hardly sufficient cause to give one of our most valuable rights to CHILDREN, the vast majority of whom have never paid any taxes, supported themselves, owned anything of value (that was not handed to them), or made any life-decision more significant than deciding what courses to take in high school.
It is fortunate that few of them bother to vote, because those votes are so likely to be purchased by the illicit, unreal promises of a charlatan (e.g., Senator B. Sanders (D-VT)) that they are worse than worthless - they are insidious.
One will never hear any Democrat mention the concept of the QUALITY of a vote. We give equal weight to the votes of captains of industry, professors, doctors, skilled craftsmen, and unemployed ignorami, irrational women, and children of a certain age. Here's a question to ponder: How many voting, born-in-America citizens could pass the written test required for naturalization? https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/document/questions-and-answers/100q.pdf
Not many, I suspect. We are suffering greatly because we have, in the interest of fairness, given The Vote to too many people who are too disfunctional and/or immature to handle it.
And what was the biggest single issue in this whole clown show? The fictitious "right" of American women to kill their babies in the womb. And how can one not notice that within the Pussy-Hat brigades there is no room for backsliding, compromise, or - God forbid - disagreement. To support, or even consider, the right of unborn children to EXIST is considered a Cardinal Sin, resulting in immediate excommunication.
Is this the position of a rational movement? I submit that it is not. It not only ignores but DENIES the universal moral and ethical consensus of virtually every society in the history of mankind. But that is only one manifestation of the irrationality of the demographic in question. Their positions on education, healthcare, immigration, the environment, energy, global warming, and almost every other issue is based on a reflexive emotional reaction to a quick impression of reality - often a mis-impression, as in the case of "fracking," nuclear power, and climate change. Remember that homely little twat from Sweden, totally lacking in knowledge, logic, or insight, and she was feted like the Dalai Lama...largely because women found her so compelling.
As Melvin Udall, the novelist portrayed in the film, "As Good as It Gets" describes the female personality, "I think of a man, and I take away reason and accountability.” Truer words were never spoken.
Seriously: What is the benefit of having women vote? Does it outweigh the cost of allowing important local and national elections to turn on emotional twaddle?
For every rational woman who bases her votes on tangible, well-considered factors, there are two or three whose vote will be impacted by everything from what she might have seen in a 5-second news clip, to what she heard on The View, to whether she has a good relationship with her Significant Other. Seriously.
And not to mix the message, but what about giving The Vote to people between 18 and 21 years old? The ONLY reason this was done was collective guilt because BOYS who were too young to vote were fighting and being killed in Vietnam. While that was a regrettable thing, it was hardly sufficient cause to give one of our most valuable rights to CHILDREN, the vast majority of whom have never paid any taxes, supported themselves, owned anything of value (that was not handed to them), or made any life-decision more significant than deciding what courses to take in high school.
It is fortunate that few of them bother to vote, because those votes are so likely to be purchased by the illicit, unreal promises of a charlatan (e.g., Senator B. Sanders (D-VT)) that they are worse than worthless - they are insidious.
One will never hear any Democrat mention the concept of the QUALITY of a vote. We give equal weight to the votes of captains of industry, professors, doctors, skilled craftsmen, and unemployed ignorami, irrational women, and children of a certain age. Here's a question to ponder: How many voting, born-in-America citizens could pass the written test required for naturalization? https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/document/questions-and-answers/100q.pdf
Not many, I suspect. We are suffering greatly because we have, in the interest of fairness, given The Vote to too many people who are too disfunctional and/or immature to handle it.
