Trump Fans: Ban Women From Voting

[IMPress Polly]

So this week the famed political predictor Nate Silver tweeted out the following picture showing, based on current polling data, what the presidential election result would look like if the election were held right now if only women voted...

16396


...followed by this one showing what it would look like if held right now and only men voted:


16395

(Incidentally, you may notice that, unlike most states, Vermont's color is the same in both images. Just saying. Also, I apologize for the difference in the sizes of the above images. I'm not tech-savvy enough to know how to change them or to get rid of the damn surplus image that's attached to this post. :embarrassed:)

Trump supporters responded on Twitter by starting the hashtag #RepealThe19th to promote the idea of repealing the 19th Amendment (women's suffrage) so that their candidate would win for sure (http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/trailguide/la-na-trailguide-updates-trump-backers-tweet-repealthe19th-1476299001-htmlstory.html). "If women are the only thing stopping the Greatest President this country has ever seen- why not #RepealThe19th?", wrote one gentleman, for example. Some of the Trump women agreed. "@emmaroller men should never have given women the right to vote #RepealThe19th," wrote one for instance. (As if it were a free gift that didn't have to be fought for by women.) And there were plentiful others.

Up to now, for the duration of modern history, the idea of banning women from voting has been the exclusive territory of the so-called men's rights activist (i.e. openly male supremacist) movement. This is the first time I've seen it begin to enter the cultural mainstream and, frankly, I consider that an alarming development!

I would be interested in collecting the thoughts of our members on the idea of repealing the 19th Amendment, but especially those of the active American PF women: @Chloe (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=565) , @AeonPax (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1715) , @Dr. Who (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=612) , @PolWatch (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1099) , @FindersKeepers (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1881) (most especially FindersKeepers, in fact, given that she's been a Trump supporter) , @silvereyes (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1218) , and @sachem (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=974) . Are you liberal (by which here I mean permissive) enough to be cool with this idea entering the political mainstream or should are there some ideas that deserve the stigma they've traditionally had?

[Peter1469]

Both the communists and Fascists pushed the franchise for women because they understood that women would vote for more state control over people than men would.

In America we have a large percentage of women who reject this. They tend to be married and working.

[donttread]

So this week the famed political predictor Nate Silver tweeted out the following picture showing, based on current polling data, what the presidential election result would look like if the election were held right now if only women voted...

16396


...followed by this one showing what it would look like if held right now and only men voted:


16395

(Incidentally, you may notice that, unlike most states, Vermont's color is the same in both images. Just saying. Also, I apologize for the difference in the sizes of the above images. I'm not tech-savvy enough to know how to change them or to get rid of the damn surplus image that's attached to this post. :embarrassed:)

Trump supporters responded on Twitter by starting the hashtag #RepealThe19th to promote the idea of repealing the 19th Amendment (women's suffrage) so that their candidate would win for sure (http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/trailguide/la-na-trailguide-updates-trump-backers-tweet-repealthe19th-1476299001-htmlstory.html). "If women are the only thing stopping the Greatest President this country has ever seen- why not #RepealThe19th?", wrote one gentleman, for example. Some of the Trump women agreed. "@emmaroller men should never have given women the right to vote #RepealThe19th," wrote one for instance. (As if it were a free gift that didn't have to be fought for by women.) And there were plentiful others.

Up to now, for the duration of modern history, the idea of banning women from voting has been the exclusive territory of the so-called men's rights activist (i.e. openly male supremacist) movement. This is the first time I've seen it begin to enter the cultural mainstream and, frankly, I consider that an alarming development!

I would be interested in collecting the thoughts of our members on the idea of repealing the 19th Amendment, but especially those of the active American PF women: @Chloe (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=565) , @AeonPax (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1715) , @Dr. Who (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=612) , @PolWatch (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1099) , @FindersKeepers (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1881) (most especially FindersKeepers, in fact, given that she's been a Trump supporter) , @silvereyes (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1218) , and @sachem (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=974) . Are you liberal (by which here I mean permissive) enough to be cool with this idea entering the political mainstream or should are there some ideas that deserve the stigma they've traditionally had?

Without the ability to cause division among the people the donkephant would be exposed for the failed fraud it is and booted out of Washington. Men v women, white v black, white plus black v brown, rich v poor, etc. Once we stop allowing them to divide us politically we can regain control of our country. The problem is people seem to love division in sports and politics. It's not very functional though. In fact if you want to experiment try being devisive at work. There's a 99% chance you'll eventually get fired for it and a small chance they'll make you CEO, in which case you'll eventually get fired but with a much better severnce package.

[FindersKeepers]

I would be interested in collecting the thoughts of our members on the idea of repealing the 19th Amendment, but especially those of the active American PF women: @Chloe (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=565) , @AeonPax (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1715) , @Dr. Who (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=612) , @PolWatch (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1099) , @FindersKeepers (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1881) (most especially FindersKeepers, in fact, given that she's been a Trump supporter) , @silvereyes (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1218) , and @sachem (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=974) . Are you liberal (by which here I mean permissive) enough to be cool with this idea entering the political mainstream or should are there some ideas that deserve the stigma they've traditionally had?

First, it should be understood that taking a firm stance against Hillary does not make one a Trump "supporter."

Second, I think Nate Silver is just about as accurate with this prediction as he was with his GOP primary prediction, which is to say -- way off.

Third, if by some odd chance Silver was actually correct -- it would make me sad that my fellow sisters would be so shallow as to vote for a candidate simply because she had a vagina, as opposed to the fact that she presents a clear and imminent danger of war to the world. (See Jill Stein's comments on that.)

But, I live in KS, and I'm quite active in various circles where the topic of this sad election season keeps coming up. I've not yet heard a single conservative woman say she'd vote for Hillary. Nor, to be fair, have I heard a liberal man say he'd vote for Trump. Most people, in my opinion, are going to vote party line, which would mean Silver's conjecture is just that...

[Newpublius]

So this week the famed political predictor Nate Silver tweeted out the following picture showing, based on current polling data, what the presidential election result would look like if the election were held right now if only women voted...

16396


...followed by this one showing what it would look like if held right now and only men voted:


16395

(Incidentally, you may notice that, unlike most states, Vermont's color is the same in both images. Just saying. Also, I apologize for the difference in the sizes of the above images. I'm not tech-savvy enough to know how to change them or to get rid of the damn surplus image that's attached to this post. :embarrassed:)

Trump supporters responded on Twitter by starting the hashtag #RepealThe19th to promote the idea of repealing the 19th Amendment (women's suffrage) so that their candidate would win for sure (http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/trailguide/la-na-trailguide-updates-trump-backers-tweet-repealthe19th-1476299001-htmlstory.html). "If women are the only thing stopping the Greatest President this country has ever seen- why not #RepealThe19th?", wrote one gentleman, for example. Some of the Trump women agreed. "@emmaroller men should never have given women the right to vote #RepealThe19th," wrote one for instance. (As if it were a free gift that didn't have to be fought for by women.) And there were plentiful others.

Up to now, for the duration of modern history, the idea of banning women from voting has been the exclusive territory of the so-called men's rights activist (i.e. openly male supremacist) movement. This is the first time I've seen it begin to enter the cultural mainstream and, frankly, I consider that an alarming development!

I would be interested in collecting the thoughts of our members on the idea of repealing the 19th Amendment, but especially those of the active American PF women: @Chloe (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=565) , @AeonPax (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1715) , @Dr. Who (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=612) , @PolWatch (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1099) , @FindersKeepers (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1881) (most especially FindersKeepers, in fact, given that she's been a Trump supporter) , @silvereyes (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1218) , and @sachem (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=974) . Are you liberal (by which here I mean permissive) enough to be cool with this idea entering the political mainstream or should are there some ideas that deserve the stigma they've traditionally had?

Another contrived smear.

[IMPress Polly]

FindersKeepers wrote:
First, it should be understood that taking a firm stance against Hillary does not make one a Trump "supporter."

As a Jill Stein voter, I know that first-hand! But I seem to recall you having in the past said you planned to vote for Trump. Did I miss (or misunderstand) something?


Third, if by some odd chance Silver was actually correct -- it would make me sad that my fellow sisters would be so shallow as to vote for a candidate simply because she had a vagina, as opposed to the fact that she presents a clear and imminent danger of war to the world. (See Jill Stein's comments on that.)

You can see my thoughts on that subject on another thread I just created here (http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/71666-Jill-Stein-s-Tactical-Errors).

In any event, why not answer the question posed in the OP?

[Subdermal]

Leftists/Progs/Communists: all use the same strategy of division. None of any sense of humor, or any ability to laugh at themselves. This is the war which has been being waged for the past 40 years. We are losing the country to it.

[IMPress Polly]

Subdermal wrote:
Leftists/Progs/Communists: all use the same strategy of division. None of any sense of humor, or any ability to laugh at themselves. This is the war which has been being waged for the past 40 years. We are losing the country to it.

If I lacked a sense of humor, I wouldn't read your posts. :wink:

[FindersKeepers]

As a Jill Stein voter, I know that first-hand! But I seem to recall you having in the past said you planned to vote for Trump. Did I miss (or misunderstand) something?

I'm not a Trump fan but I will vote for him because I strongly oppose Hillary Clinton. If a decent democratic candidate were running, instead of Hillary, I wouldn't vote at all. Hillary, although I'm sure she'll win, poses an incredible danger to this nation. I couldn't live with myself if I didn't do the little bit afforded me to oppose her.




You can see my thoughts on that subject on another thread I just created here (http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/71666-Jill-Stein-s-Tactical-Errors).

In any event, why not answer the question posed in the OP?

I'll check out that thread.

I do not support any move to repel the 19th Amendment.

That said, I don't put much stock in tweets. You'll find a few backwoods types that might like women to lose the right to vote, for whatever reasons, just as you'll find a few like me that think it's a good idea to give voters a remedial test to see if he/she actually has a political clue.

We all know there will be no repeal, so that point is kind of moot. People make all sorts of "big talk" on social media that they wouldn't make in real life. I respect their opinions -- but I strongly disagree with them. Most of the replies I read would be considered tongue-in-cheek.

[IMPress Polly]

It definitely wasn't tongue-in-cheek, but that excuse aside, I found the above post (post #9) to be the first quality reply on this thread and would like to hold it up as an example for others. (Although Peter's was also...informative.)

[del]

First, it should be understood that taking a firm stance against Hillary does not make one a Trump "supporter."

Second, I think Nate Silver is just about as accurate with this prediction as he was with his GOP primary prediction, which is to say -- way off.

Third, if by some odd chance Silver was actually correct -- it would make me sad that my fellow sisters would be so shallow as to vote for a candidate simply because she had a vagina, as opposed to the fact that she presents a clear and imminent danger of war to the world. (See Jill Stein's comments on that.)

But, I live in KS, and I'm quite active in various circles where the topic of this sad election season keeps coming up. I've not yet heard a single conservative woman say she'd vote for Hillary. Nor, to be fair, have I heard a liberal man say he'd vote for Trump. Most people, in my opinion, are going to vote party line, which would mean Silver's conjecture is just that...


i love the idea that a vote for trump isn't really supporting trump and what he stands for.

it's so.........principled

lol

[Peter1469]

People who equate criticism of the Clinton crime family with support for Trump are on the far left of the IQ bell curve. We can't use the word retarded against members. But hard left of the bell curve is OK.

[Newpublius]

Silver writes the story and Democrats posing as Republicans looking to score points trying to evoke the fear of last century's woman's liberation issues being roled back to score at least some points for those who think that the Republican Party would reimpose outdated archaic gender roles, the 'barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen' meme.

This is laughable from the get go not the least of which is that conservative high income families are reliant on their households being TWO income households. Because we don't want women who are 'barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen', we want smart, assertive, well educated women who are banking 150k with medical and dental, cause that-s hot and the other shit we can just pay for.

[del]

People who equate criticism of the Clinton crime family with support for Trump are on the far left of the IQ bell curve. We can't use the word retarded against members. But hard left of the bell curve is OK.

people who think they're fooling anyone by claiming a vote for trump isn't really a vote for trump are pretty fucking stupid.

people who defend them are moreso

[FindersKeepers]

i love the idea that a vote for trump isn't really supporting trump and what he stands for.

it's so.........principled

lol


You miss a lot, don't you?

[IMPress Polly]

There is such a thing as being a reluctant supporter of a candidate. That's where I was during the summer before Clinton proved where she stood to me by her choice of running mate. Still...I honestly do not understand how anyone can think that anything is worse than what a Trump presidency would represent.

[FindersKeepers]

people who think they're fooling anyone by claiming a vote for trump isn't really a vote for trump are pretty $#@!ing stupid.

people who defend them are moreso


Being unable, or unwilling, to see all integral factors of an issue is a sign of limited passive thinking. And, that, of course, is diametrically opposed to critical thinking.

We're seeing the same type of thing from ISIS, a radical group that dismisses any thought that does not conform to their my-way-or-the-highway agenda. That type of thinking exists in a world of extremism. Thankfully, most people are able to see more than one side of any given issue.

When something is explained numerous times, and yet you do not comprehend what is being said, perhaps -- just perhaps -- the problem doesn't lie with someone else.

[FindersKeepers]

There is such a thing as being a reluctant supporter of a candidate. That's where I was during the summer before Clinton proved where she stood to me by her choice of running mate. Still...I honestly do not understand how anyone can think that anything is worse than what a Trump presidency would represent.



I firmly believe war on a large scale is worse than four years of listening to a big orange, but relatively harmless, doofus. The latter might be annoying and embarrassing, but the former is unthinkable.

Just my two cents.

[IMPress Polly]

And you don't think that "war on a large scale" is more likely with Trump than it is with Clinton? Honestly?

[maineman]

I firmly believe war on a large scale is worse than four years of listening to a big orange, but relatively harmless, doofus. The latter might be annoying and embarrassing, but the former is unthinkable.

Just my two cents.

when a candidate repeatedly asks why we even have nukes if we can't use them? when all he needs to do is to appoint a like minded SecDef, and it's launch time with no oversight from anyone? THAT is "relatively harmless"?

[Peter1469]

people who think they're fooling anyone by claiming a vote for trump isn't really a vote for trump are pretty fucking stupid.

people who defend them are moreso

Don't be a
https://images.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.funnybonz.com%2Fclown.jpg&f=1

[IMPress Polly]

To be fair to our rightists, this is a tPF thread, to which end I would ask Del to post actual contributions going forward instead of just trying to start a flame war. Conversely, I would ask the same of Subdermal.

[Peter1469]

To be fair to our rightists, this is a tPF thread, to which end I would ask Del to post actual contributions going forward instead of just trying to start a flame war.

I concur.

[FindersKeepers]

when a candidate repeatedly asks why we even have nukes if we can't use them? when all he needs to do is to appoint a like minded SecDef, and it's launch time with no oversight from anyone? THAT is "relatively harmless"?

I don't see that as being so strange -- as a world community, we are striving to keep from using nukes. So, why should we have them? That doesn't sound like a call to war to me. Hillary's comments about China and Syria do, however.

[FindersKeepers]

And you don't think that "war on a large scale" is more likely with Trump than it is with Clinton? Honestly?

Honestly -- no, I don't. I don't even think it's close.

He's talked about taking more of a non-interventionist position.

As I said before -- it's impossible to know for sure, but I think Clinton is the warmonger here.

Hands down.

[maineman]

I don't see that as being so strange -- as a world community, we are striving to keep from using nukes. So, why should we have them? That doesn't sound like a call to war to me. Hillary's comments about China and Syria do, however.

to me, as someone who has signed for, loaded into my magazines, and effectively had custody of nuclear weapons, the answer as to why we have them if we can't use them is abundantly clear.

[Peter1469]

to me, as someone who has signed for, loaded into my magazines, and effectively had custody of nuclear weapons, the answer as to why we have them if we can't use them is abundantly clear.

I expect the Joint Chiefs would box Hillary up fast so she would not be a danger. She would probably pass out and not remember it.

[Standing Wolf]

I would be interested in collecting the thoughts of our members on the idea of repealing the 19th Amendment... Are you liberal (by which here I mean permissive) enough to be cool with this idea entering the political mainstream or should are there some ideas that deserve the stigma they've traditionally had?

If someone isn't sufficiently cool with an idea "entering the political mainstream", what do you think that person should do about it? Let me ask it this way: what would you do about it? I can see arguing against an idea - and in this particular case, that would not be difficult - but how does one go about actually keeping an idea out of "the political mainstream"?

I ask the question for two reasons. One, it has been my observation and experience that when many people disagree with an idea, their instinctive response is to insult and demonize the person(s) who presented it. (Reference just about any thread on this forum that has gone beyond two pages.) I don't mean to imply that taking that tack is what you would propose, but when I hear the question being asked, my first thought is, "If not, what are you going to do about it?"

Second...is there a "political mainstream" any more? Seriously, haven't those lines been pretty well eradicated at this point? Think about some of the things said in the very recent past by sitting Governors, Senators and Representatives of Congress. Think about some of the political campaign ads you've seen on the television lately. Think about the polls you've seen wherein sizeable percentages of the American public believe or agree with something that is clearly bats**t crazy. Finally, think of the incredibly diverse, fragmented and ubiquitous flood of information and opinion coming at us from all directions every second of every day. What is "mainstream" these days, and what is outside of it?

[FindersKeepers]

to me, as someone who has signed for, loaded into my magazines, and effectively had custody of nuclear weapons, the answer as to why we have them if we can't use them is abundantly clear.


I understand your point -- as a deterrent. The problem is that we are only as safe from their use as the integrity and agendas of our leaders. This is why Stein said we're closer to a nuclear war with Hillary -- because Hillary is already planning war in Syria (against Russia and Assad) and strong-arming China with our military power. That ups the stakes of war. And, war against China or Russia would not be a little skirmish like the ones we get into now in the Middle East. In a war against either of those entities, we'd be much closer to using nukes than in any war in the past few decades.

So, while we probably DO need nukes to balance out the bad guys -- their existence makes the world a more dangerous place.

[maineman]

I understand your point -- as a deterrent. The problem is that we are only as safe from their use as the integrity and agendas of our leaders.

I find Trump devoid of integrity, and I find his thin skin and egomania ripe for the option of responding using nukes. YMMV

[The Xl]

And you don't think that "war on a large scale" is more likely with Trump than it is with Clinton? Honestly?

The one insinuating conflicts with Russia, Syria, China, is Clinton. The one with a massive history of warmongering is Clinton.

I completely understand where FindersKeepers is coming from, as I may cast a Trump vote for identical reasons.

[FindersKeepers]

I find Trump devoid of integrity, and I find his thin skin and egomania ripe for the option of responding using nukes. YMMV

Perhaps -- but we have actual evidence of Hillary's past warmongering and we have her current comments as well.

Since Hillary will be sitting in the Oval Office, I hope you're right -- but I don't think you are.

[IMPress Polly]

FindersKeepers wrote:
He's talked about taking more of a non-interventionist position.

He's also proposed to sink Iranian ships over "gestures" (http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/09/politics/donald-trump-iran/). I'll let you judge the mental stability.

[AZ Jim]

First, it should be understood that taking a firm stance against Hillary does not make one a Trump "supporter."

Second, I think Nate Silver is just about as accurate with this prediction as he was with his GOP primary prediction, which is to say -- way off.

Third, if by some odd chance Silver was actually correct -- it would make me sad that my fellow sisters would be so shallow as to vote for a candidate simply because she had a vagina, as opposed to the fact that she presents a clear and imminent danger of war to the world. (See Jill Stein's comments on that.)

But, I live in KS, and I'm quite active in various circles where the topic of this sad election season keeps coming up. I've not yet heard a single conservative woman say she'd vote for Hillary. Nor, to be fair, have I heard a liberal man say he'd vote for Trump. Most people, in my opinion, are going to vote party line, which would mean Silver's conjecture is just that...Actually voting against Hillary is supporting Trump, like it or not. Silver's projections are the same as the voting odds so if it is way off, the gambling outfits take a bath. Kansas is one, if not the most backward state in the nation.

[Peter1469]

Nonsense. Bernie supporters are not fools.

[IMPress Polly]

The XL wrote:
The one insinuating conflicts with Russia, Syria, China, is Clinton. The one with a massive history of warmongering is Clinton.

I completely understand where FindersKeepers is coming from, as I may cast a Trump vote for identical reasons.

Trump is on record supporting every single war that we've been involved in this century, despite his current lies about that. Also, see post #33. And his threats to use nuclear weapons. And his proposal for the largest military build-up possibly in American history.

[IMPress Polly]

I wanted to highlight this post by Standing Wolf as a model reply:


Standing Wolf wrote:
If someone isn't sufficiently cool with an idea "entering the political mainstream", what do you think that person should do about it? Let me ask it this way: what would you do about it? I can see arguing against an idea - and in this particular case, that would not be difficult - but how does one go about actually keeping an idea out of "the political mainstream"?

I ask the question for two reasons. One, it has been my observation and experience that when many people disagree with an idea, their instinctive response is to insult and demonize the person(s) who presented it. (Reference just about any thread on this forum that has gone beyond two pages.) I don't mean to imply that taking that tack is what you would propose, but when I hear the question being asked, my first thought is, "If not, what are you going to do about it?"

Second...is there a "political mainstream" any more? Seriously, haven't those lines been pretty well eradicated at this point? Think about some of the things said in the very recent past by sitting Governors, Senators and Representatives of Congress. Think about some of the political campaign ads you've seen on the television lately. Think about the polls you've seen wherein sizeable percentages of the American public believe or agree with something that is clearly bats**t crazy. Finally, think of the incredibly diverse, fragmented and ubiquitous flood of information and opinion coming at us from all directions every second of every day. What is "mainstream" these days, and what is outside of it?

Well anyway, my answer to the question posed in the first paragraph would be that the alternative to just tolerating the free-flow of what I'd consider monstrous ideas like these would involve exactly what happened outside of Trump world after the hashtag was started: protests (in this case online an online protest movement) and public shaming thereof (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2016/10/13/yes-repealthe19th-trended-but-not-for-the-reasons-you-think/). Stigmatization of the idea by its opponents. That reaction so far has successfully contained the repeal movement. I think that's exactly how it should be when it comes to ideas like abolishing women's suffrage.

[Peter1469]

people who think they're fooling anyone by claiming a vote for trump isn't really a vote for trump are pretty fucking stupid.

people who defend them are moresoVote 3rd party if you have a soul.

[Peter1469]

There is such a thing as being a reluctant supporter of a candidate. That's where I was during the summer before Clinton proved where she stood to me by her choice of running mate. Still...I honestly do not understand how anyone can think that anything is worse than what a Trump presidency would represent.

I don't like Trump. But Hillary is as unacceptable as a candidate could be for me. I would vote for del over that traitorous bitch.

[Peter1469]

I find Trump devoid of integrity, and I find his thin skin and egomania ripe for the option of responding using nukes. YMMV


And Clinton?

lol

nothing you will respond with will be truthful. Forget it.

[IMPress Polly]

I find both candidates to be highly corrupt, though Trump distinctly more so than Clinton. In Hillary Clinton, you have the candidate most popular with corporate America who is now on record admitting that she has a "private position" on any given issue. In other words, she will do whatever her corporate donors want her to in all likelihood. She's bought and paid for! On the other hand, in Trump you have something far more dangerous still: someone who actually is part of corporate America directly and not only that, but specifically a part of its criminal section! Mr. Trump has been involved in everything from business fraud to bribery to tax evasion to housing discrimination to Mafia connections (yes!) to inciting violence at his rallies to seeking campaign contributions from foreign governments to an ever-growing string of sexual harassment and assault charges and seemingly every other possible immoral and illegal act short of personally murdering someone. Trump is the more awash in illegalities and corruptions than any other presidential candidate possibly in American history! How can I in good conscience vote for either of these?

Some might say "choose the lesser evil". The problem there is that it's precisely the kind of neoliberal politics that Hillary Clinton is advancing that gave us the rise of the alt-right and a candidate like Trump in the first place. Will voting for Clinton then actually solve the problem or just see us revisit this same dilemma again four years from now? No, I prefer to support an actual alternative to this whole trajectory, even if it's more of a symbolic vote than one that will determine the outcome.

Anyway, we're straying pretty far from the topic at hand by getting into a standard "who's the better candidate" dialogue. The question at hand for this thread is how permissive should we be concerning the spreading of ideas like repealing the 19th Amendment? Should they be stigmatized or given space in the cultural mainstream? Let's try and get back to that if we can!

[Peter1469]

Clinton has been corrupt in office. Trump has not- yet.

Clinton ought to be in jail. Trump likely will follow.

[del]

You miss a lot, don't you?

i know bullshit when i read it, toots

[AZ Jim]

Clinton has been corrupt in office. Trump has not- yet.

Clinton ought to be in jail. Trump likely will follow.Put some ice on that!

[del]

Don't be a
https://images.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.funnybonz.com%2Fclown.jpg&f=1


take your own advice, bozo

[del]

Nonsense. Bernie supporters are not fools.

that's why none of us would consider a vote for trump to be anything other than a vote for trump.

[del]

Vote 3rd party if you have a soul.

save your advice for someone who wants it.

[Ethereal]

And you don't think that "war on a large scale" is more likely with Trump than it is with Clinton? Honestly?

The most likely flashpoint for a large scale war is US-Russian relations. Trump is eminently reasonable on that front whereas Hillary Clinton is bat-sh*t insane. It's not even a question who is more likely to start WWIII.

[Ethereal]

when a candidate repeatedly asks why we even have nukes if we can't use them? when all he needs to do is to appoint a like minded SecDef, and it's launch time with no oversight from anyone? THAT is "relatively harmless"?

We've already used nukes. We dropped them on two Japanese cities during WWII. So, yes, we have nukes in case the need arises.

[Ethereal]

to me, as someone who has signed for, loaded into my magazines, and effectively had custody of nuclear weapons, the answer as to why we have them if we can't use them is abundantly clear.

Yea, except we've already used them. And not all nuclear weapons are the same. The payloads and blast radii can vary substantially. Here is a tactical nuke being detonated:


https://youtu.be/eiM-RzPHyGs

As you can plainly see, its destructive power is comparable to a conventional bomb. And something tells me the dead do not much care if they're blown up in a nuclear explosion versus a conventional one.

[Ethereal]

He's also proposed to sink Iranian ships over "gestures" (http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/09/politics/donald-trump-iran/). I'll let you judge the mental stability.

A very stupid and reckless statement, but hardly one that evinces a foreign policy ideology that would precipitate a large scale military conflict. Unless you think Iran is somehow comparable to Russia?

[Peter1469]

If this was tPF tread a lot of trash would have been avoided.

[Dr. Who]

If this was tPF tread a lot of trash would have been avoided.
It is tPF.

[Dr. Who]

So this week the famed political predictor Nate Silver tweeted out the following picture showing, based on current polling data, what the presidential election result would look like if the election were held right now if only women voted...

16396


...followed by this one showing what it would look like if held right now and only men voted:


16395

(Incidentally, you may notice that, unlike most states, Vermont's color is the same in both images. Just saying. Also, I apologize for the difference in the sizes of the above images. I'm not tech-savvy enough to know how to change them or to get rid of the damn surplus image that's attached to this post. :embarrassed:)

Trump supporters responded on Twitter by starting the hashtag #RepealThe19th to promote the idea of repealing the 19th Amendment (women's suffrage) so that their candidate would win for sure (http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/trailguide/la-na-trailguide-updates-trump-backers-tweet-repealthe19th-1476299001-htmlstory.html). "If women are the only thing stopping the Greatest President this country has ever seen- why not #RepealThe19th?", wrote one gentleman, for example. Some of the Trump women agreed. "@emmaroller men should never have given women the right to vote #RepealThe19th," wrote one for instance. (As if it were a free gift that didn't have to be fought for by women.) And there were plentiful others.

Up to now, for the duration of modern history, the idea of banning women from voting has been the exclusive territory of the so-called men's rights activist (i.e. openly male supremacist) movement. This is the first time I've seen it begin to enter the cultural mainstream and, frankly, I consider that an alarming development!

I would be interested in collecting the thoughts of our members on the idea of repealing the 19th Amendment, but especially those of the active American PF women: @Chloe (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=565) , @AeonPax (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1715) , @Dr. Who (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=612) , @PolWatch (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1099) , @FindersKeepers (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1881) (most especially FindersKeepers, in fact, given that she's been a Trump supporter) , @silvereyes (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1218) , and @sachem (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=974) . Are you liberal (by which here I mean permissive) enough to be cool with this idea entering the political mainstream or should are there some ideas that deserve the stigma they've traditionally had?
Given that the female population slightly exceeds the male population and certainly would not support a repeal of the 19th and the male population is comprised of a significant number of liberals who would also not entertain such a notion, I don't see how a minority of the most extremist conservatives could make it happen, but even if it became a mainstream conservative goal, male conservatives in general just don't have the numbers.

[IMPress Polly]

Thanks for getting us back on track, Dr. Who!

[maineman]

A very stupid and reckless statement, but hardly one that evinces a foreign policy ideology that would precipitate a large scale military conflict. Unless you think Iran is somehow comparable to Russia?

but you'd vote for a man who made stupid and reckless statements. that's fabulous.

[decedent]

"Repeal the 19th" was all over twitter on Friday - fueled by the Alt-Right. I often find that misogyny accompanies racism.

[PolWatch]

The idea of repealing the 19th leaves me speechless! Women fought too long to be recognized as full citizens to easily give up those rights. I'm sorry to say that those who are willing to accept Trump and his misogynists views are the logical supporters of something like this. (sorry Finders).

[Green Arrow]

As a man, I want to make my personal response to calls to repeal the 19th amendment abundantly clear.

Hell no. I'll march arm-in-arm with my American sisters against repeal if that dark day ever comes.

[Peter1469]

people who think they're fooling anyone by claiming a vote for trump isn't really a vote for trump are pretty fucking stupid.

people who defend them are moreso

Who claims that? I claim that a vote for Johnson is not a vote for Hillary.

I also claim that calling Hillary a crook is not supporting Trump.

Is that clear?

[Peter1469]

There is such a thing as being a reluctant supporter of a candidate. That's where I was during the summer before Clinton proved where she stood to me by her choice of running mate. Still...I honestly do not understand how anyone can think that anything is worse than what a Trump presidency would represent.

Because Hillary misused her public office. She didn't safeguard our secrets and likely got people killed. She also used her office for personal gain.

She ought to be in jail.

[Bethere]

It is tPF.
Your gif is cool!

[FindersKeepers]

The idea of repealing the 19th leaves me speechless! Women fought too long to be recognized as full citizens to easily give up those rights. I'm sorry to say that those who are willing to accept Trump and his misogynists views are the logical supporters of something like this. (sorry Finders).

I don't think anyone on this forum supports repealing the 19th.

And, to be fair, I haven't heard that sentiment come from anyone except a handful of very vocal misfits. And for those few, it seems more joking than anything. We'll never go back to the way it was before the 19th, but neither need we be on constant alert that we might lose those rights.

Trump...yes, he makes misogynistic comments. No, I don't like it. Not even a little bit. But, I also see that he hires women to some of the top positions in his companies. Still, I do not like the talk.

But then, I have to put the two major candidates into perspective. Trump the big mouth or Hillary the jingoist. I don't have to like Trump as a person -- I have no constitutional right not to be offended. What he says is offensive but there is nothing forcing me to take it personally.

When it comes to the most powerful person in the world, there is simply no comparison between a history of being offensive and a history of warmongering.

Those character aspects exist in two completely separate worlds of importance. The first is offensive. The latter ends lives.

[FindersKeepers]

A very stupid and reckless statement, but hardly one that evinces a foreign policy ideology that would precipitate a large scale military conflict. Unless you think Iran is somehow comparable to Russia?

This is correct.

It was stupid and reckless, but doesn't rise to Hillary's threat to "obliterate" the entire nation of Iran.

[Chris]

Interesting thread against who...or what, a hashtag? #RepealThe19th

The OP identifies no one but Trump who is guilty by some vague association, along with anyone who votes for him, and then calls out some of the women of the forum and promises to stigmatize anyone who disagrees with, what, stopping a hashtag?

That is made evident in posts like "I honestly do not understand how anyone can think that anything is worse than what a Trump presidency would represent." And the thread drifts off into an anti-Trump hit piece and a lot of nastiness.

OP warns about the nastiness but it continues.

Till a serious question is asked and it return to stigmatizing any who disagree with the OP's view:


...Well anyway, my answer to the question posed in the first paragraph would be that the alternative to just tolerating the free-flow of what I'd consider monstrous ideas like these would involve exactly what happened outside of Trump world after the hashtag was started: protests (in this case online an online protest movement) and public shaming thereof (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2016/10/13/yes-repealthe19th-trended-but-not-for-the-reasons-you-think/). Stigmatization of the idea by its opponents. That reaction so far has successfully contained the repeal movement. I think that's exactly how it should be when it comes to ideas like abolishing women's suffrage.

This aim is reinforced in another post, this aim of not tolerating but shaming and stigmatising and not permitting ideas:


...The question at hand for this thread is how permissive should we be concerning the spreading of ideas like repealing the 19th Amendment? Should they be stigmatized or given space in the cultural mainstream? Let's try and get back to that if we can!

The nastiness continues. It's pointed out such nastiness wouldn't occur if the thread was tPF. It's pointed out it is.

Some post do argue against the idea of repealing the 19th.

But that's not really the topic.

The topic is should some ideas be permitted or should the people who express them be shamed and stigmatized, along with anyone associated by guilt.


This is PC run amok. It's not enough to argue against those who hold a different idea. They need to be shut down. This is what politics in 'murica is becoming. Politics is failing.

[Green Arrow]

Interesting thread against who...or what, a hashtag? #RepealThe19th

The OP identifies no one but Trump who is guilty by some vague association, along with anyone who votes for him, and then calls out some of the women of the forum and promises to stigmatize anyone who disagrees with, what, stopping a hashtag?

That is made evident in posts like "I honestly do not understand how anyone can think that anything is worse than what a Trump presidency would represent." And the thread drifts off into an anti-Trump hit piece and a lot of nastiness.

OP warns about the nastiness but it continues.

Till a serious question is asked and it return to stigmatizing any who disagree with the OP's view:



This aim is reinforced in another post, this aim of not tolerating but shaming and stigmatising and not permitting ideas:



The nastiness continues. It's pointed out such nastiness wouldn't occur if the thread was tPF. It's pointed out it is.

Some post do argue against the idea of repealing the 19th.

But that's not really the topic.

The topic is should some ideas be permitted or should the people who express them be shamed and stigmatized, along with anyone associated by guilt.


This is PC run amok. It's not enough to argue against those who hold a different idea. They need to be shut down. This is what politics in 'murica is becoming. Politics is failing.

Thanks for the play-by-play, John Madden.

[Cletus]

And you don't think that "war on a large scale" is more likely with Trump than it is with Clinton? Honestly?

The actions of Obama and Clinton during her tenure as SecState made the world a far more dangerous place than it was before they were in power. It is largely because of their actions that we are now being forced to even consider the possibility of war with Russia and/or China becoming a reality.

Trump had nothing to do with creating this mess. Clinton was instrumental in it.

[Cletus]

to me, as someone who has signed for, loaded into my magazines, and effectively had custody of nuclear weapons, the answer as to why we have them if we can't use them is abundantly clear.

Really?

What is it?

[Cletus]

Given that the female population slightly exceeds the male population and certainly would not support a repeal of the 19th and the male population is comprised of a significant number of liberals who would also not entertain such a notion, I don't see how a minority of the most extremist conservatives could make it happen, but even if it became a mainstream conservative goal, male conservatives in general just don't have the numbers.

Male Conservatives are far more likely to fight to protect the rights of women to vote than male Liberals. That said, neither side is or ever would seriously consider repealing the 19th Amendment.

You really don't know who your friends are.

[The Xl]

Considering just about every woman and the vast majority of men have no desire to repeal the 19th Amendment, I'd say there is little to worry about.

[maineman]

Really?

What is it?

I have no desire to be the country that opens Pandora's box. Apparently you do.

[Bethere]

Interesting thread against who...or what, a hashtag? #RepealThe19th

The OP identifies no one but Trump who is guilty by some vague association, along with anyone who votes for him, and then calls out some of the women of the forum and promises to stigmatize anyone who disagrees with, what, stopping a hashtag?

That is made evident in posts like "I honestly do not understand how anyone can think that anything is worse than what a Trump presidency would represent." And the thread drifts off into an anti-Trump hit piece and a lot of nastiness.

OP warns about the nastiness but it continues.

Till a serious question is asked and it return to stigmatizing any who disagree with the OP's view:



This aim is reinforced in another post, this aim of not tolerating but shaming and stigmatising and not permitting ideas:



The nastiness continues. It's pointed out such nastiness wouldn't occur if the thread was tPF. It's pointed out it is.

Some post do argue against the idea of repealing the 19th.

But that's not really the topic.

The topic is should some ideas be permitted or should the people who express them be shamed and stigmatized, along with anyone associated by guilt.


This is PC run amok. It's not enough to argue against those who hold a different idea. They need to be shut down. This is what politics in 'murica is becoming. Politics is failing.

#lulz

[Peter1469]

#lulz


An example of a bad member.

WTF. Toss that into the Hole and add enhanced moderation.

[Cletus]

I have no desire to be the country that opens Pandora's box. Apparently you do.

That box was opened decades ago.

What you are saying is that you really can't articulate a legitimate reason. It would save a lot of time to just admit that.

[maineman]

That box was opened decades ago.

What you are saying is that you really can't articulate a legitimate reason. It would save a lot of time to just admit that.

we were quite fortunate to be the only country at the time with the terrible power of nuclear weapons the last time the box was opened, and it has stayed closed since then. I do not want to have the next president blithely think that opening it again and - again - being the only country who has ever used nukes against their enemies is a reasonable idea to entertain.

And don't you dare put words in my mouth, you little gnat. What I am saying is what I am saying... what you are saying I am saying is not. got it?

[Cletus]

we were quite fortunate to be the only country at the time with the terrible power of nuclear weapons the last time the box was opened, and it has stayed closed since then. I do not want to have the next president blithely think that opening it again and - again - being the only country who has ever used nukes against their enemies is a reasonable idea to entertain.

And don't you dare put words in my mouth, you little gnat. What I am saying is what I am saying... what you are saying I am saying is not. got it?

Oh, get over yourself. You were asked for a reason not to use nuclear weapons and all you could come up with is "I don't want to". That tells me you are just talking for the sake of talking and really have nothing to say.

[Bethere]

An example of a bad member.

WTF. Toss that into the Hole and add enhanced moderation.

#lulz

[IMPress Polly]

FindersKeepers wrote:
I don't think anyone on this forum supports repealing the 19th.

And, to be fair, I haven't heard that sentiment come from anyone except a handful of very vocal misfits. And for those few, it seems more joking than anything. We'll never go back to the way it was before the 19th, but neither need we be on constant alert that we might lose those rights.

Trump...yes, he makes misogynistic comments. No, I don't like it. Not even a little bit. But, I also see that he hires women to some of the top positions in his companies. Still, I do not like the talk.

But then, I have to put the two major candidates into perspective. Trump the big mouth or Hillary the jingoist. I don't have to like Trump as a person -- I have no constitutional right not to be offended. What he says is offensive but there is nothing forcing me to take it personally.

First off, given everything that's happened this last week, I think you and I both know that Trump's problems with women are definitely more than just verbal! There are more than just words to take issue with here: there are actions!

Yeah he hires women. And look how he treats them! He treats them like dirt! And even if that weren't the case, in my book you don't get a trophy just for doing what you're supposed to be doing anyway (in this case hiring women).

Now as regards the repeal of the 19th Amendment, there most certainly is a social base for that idea. The articles advocating the idea look like this (http://www.returnofkings.com/77373/hillary-clintons-socialist-manifesto-shows-why-women-shouldnt-be-involved-in-politics). This ideology DOES exist! But it has up to now been confined to the fringes. What I have proposed here in this thread is that we should make sure it stays that way and take the current (so far thankfully unsuccessful) attempt to bring it into the cultural mainstream seriously.


When it comes to the most powerful person in the world, there is simply no comparison between a history of being offensive and a history of warmongering.

Those character aspects exist in two completely separate worlds of importance. The first is offensive. The latter ends lives.

I'm tired of pointing out the various ways in which we can gather that Mr. Trump is probably at least as dangerous a militarist in reality, so let me just make an even easier point here very succinctly: Hillary Clinton isn't the only other candidate you can vote for, you know?