On eve of suffrage centennial milestone, RNC to feature speaker supporting policies barring women from voting

[laylalex 7,284]

This is so dumb, I can't even begin. And she spoke at the RNC!

Before the adoption of the 19th Amendment, and the 15th Amendment, which prohibits denying U.S. citizens the right to vote based on race, the right to vote was largely extended to White men who owned property and, in some cases, met certain religious criteria. Previously, some states had extended voting rights to Black men and White men who did not own property. Several had laws permitting women to cast ballots. One argument made against women’s suffrage was that their male husbands could vote on behalf of the household.

...

Head-of-household voting would permit only the head of a household — and not all household members who are citizens over 18 years of age — to cast a ballot. Johnson believes the male member of the household would be the de facto decision maker. 

“But what happens when the husband is a Republican and the wife is a Democrat or vice versa?” a Twitter user asked Johnson.

“Then they would have to decide on one vote. In a Godly household, the husband would get the final say,” she replied.

https://19thnews.org/2020/08/on-eve-of-suffrage-centennial-milestone-rnc-to-feature-speaker-supporting-policies-barring-women-from-voting/

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

She's a conservative. Republicans supposedly have conservatives. What's the shocker?

 

What else that isn't a shocker.. 

 

- "What are your most controversial views"

- *gives a controversial view*

- ERMAGERD SEE THIS IS HOW SHE IS HOW DARE SHE SPEAK AT THE RNC

 

Easy to see through the dishonesty of this. Her views in entirety aren't comprehensively decided by what her "most controversial views" are. And that's a general principle of logic without even knowing this person, we likely disagree on a lot. But it doesn't surprise me, this is where things are.

Edited August 26, 2020 by Burnt Reynolds

[Dashinka 24,494]

Yeah, she can support anything she wants, but just like the 2nd Amendment, it is not going to change.  As stated many times, there are radical ideas on both sides and most of them will not come into fruition, and then there is enabling of Marxist violence which is actually happening.

[yuna628 9,676]

She's been a fairly wacky nut job on a variety of issues for a while, but her belief in this regard does not surprise me. There are many of her sort that believe the same, and would delight if it came true. It will not of course. So she can babble on about whatever she wants, it's her free speech to. But that doesn't absolve her of ridicule and laughter.

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

4 minutes ago, Dashinka said:

Yeah, she can support anything she wants, but just like the 2nd Amendment, it is not going to change.  As stated many times, there are radical ideas on both sides and most of them will not come into fruition, and then there is enabling of Marxist violence which is actually happening.

That's the idea.. play down extremist actions occurring (torching buildings, throwing explosives at cops, rioting and looting), play up caricatures of viewpoints to try and make them on the same level to equalize viewpoints/dissent on par with violent extremism. This is actually the very tactics of Antifa and BLM and how they recruit. 

 

 

[laylalex 7,284]

Ummm, I know you guys love to talk about BLM and antifa wherever possible, but can we please stick to the topic? For clarity, that is: this woman thinks that the concept of one person, one vote is wrong, and that women should defer to their husbands or fathers in casting a single vote in a household. There are approximately 5,091,862 threads in CEHST right now that are covering those issues (I counted, that is a precise number), so can we please stick to topic?

[Ban Hammer 13,337]

7 minutes ago, laylalex said:

 women should defer to their husbands

how does alex feel about this? 

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

Everyone has controversial viewpoints.

 

What exactly is the problem here in that she answered a very distinct question of what her most controversial viewpoint is, and it's guess what, controversial. So?

 

All I'm doing is going one step ahead to understand why the attempt to paint this as who she is and prevent her from speaking at the RNC, when the DNC had people promoting the chaos going around the country. These very tactics are used as recruiting tools by BLM and Antifa, wedging people into extreme camps to make themselves look normal. 

 

Shall we discuss the specifically controversial viewpoints of those speaking at the DNC given its relevance to this? Or are we only going to discuss things you agree with and play along with the charade?

Edited August 26, 2020 by Burnt Reynolds

[laylalex 7,284]

1 minute ago, Burnt Reynolds said:

Everyone has controversial viewpoints.

 

What exactly is the problem here in that she answered a very distinct question of what her most controversial viewpoint is, and it's guess what, controversial. So?

 

All I'm doing is going one step ahead to understand why the attempt to paint this as who she is and prevent her from speaking at the RNC, when the DNC had people promoting the chaos going around the country. These very tactics are used as recruiting tools by BLM and Antifa, wedging people into extreme camps to make themselves look normal.

Can you rephrase without talking about BLM or Antifa? 

 

What I'm getting at here isn't where you're going. Do you think that the concept of one person, one vote is outdated like she does? 

 

Obviously she wasn't prevented from speaking at the RNC so why is that even an issue to raise? 

6 minutes ago, Ban Hammer said:

how does alex feel about this? 

Well I am the only citizen in this household. And he knows which battles are worth having, too.

[Dashinka 24,494]

19 minutes ago, laylalex said:

Can you rephrase without talking about BLM or Antifa? 

 

What I'm getting at here isn't where you're going. Do you think that the concept of one person, one vote is outdated like she does? 

 

Obviously she wasn't prevented from speaking at the RNC so why is that even an issue to raise? 

Well I am the only citizen in this household. And he knows which battles are worth having, too.

Like I said, she can have whatever controversial views she wants.  It is no different than the controversial views of some in Congress.  Nothing is going to change, and no, I do not agree with them when it comes to general elections.  I do sometimes think that only property owners regardless of who that might be, should be allowed to vote for property millage proposals, but that isn't going to happen either.  I liken this to those that drone on about gun control or gun confiscation here in the US (ala Beeto), those are controversial views that also will not happen anytime soon.

 

Are you suggesting she should toe the line on her political views just because she is a woman?  

[Ban Hammer 13,337]

37 minutes ago, laylalex said:

Well I am the only citizen in this household. And he knows which battles are worth having, too.

so you're essentially the head of the household.........

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

44 minutes ago, laylalex said:

What I'm getting at here isn't where you're going. Do you think that the concept of one person, one vote is outdated like she does? 

 

Obviously she wasn't prevented from speaking at the RNC so why is that even an issue to raise? 

I know that's not where you're going. I know where you're going, and I don't have to go there. 😉

 

In what way is her controversial viewpoint meaningful? Is she actively campaigning to remove individual votes to the whims of a household decision maker? Has she elucidated on households that have no men in them?

 

Until there's some output of these "controversial viewpoints", that's all they are, and everyone has them. So I'm not the type to get squeamish about meaningless things when people can easily get that way about our own personal "controversial viewpoints", they don't matter until they're something more than viewpoints. I have friends who have controversial viewpoints, I think their ideas are flat out nutty, and they likely think that about my controversial viewpoints. Yet, they're good people, people who lead others. Who they are isn't decided by their most controversial viewpoints, except to the most shallow and pathetic people.

 

The idea of elevating this to some level of importance is pure dishonesty absent any self-awareness, especially when suggesting that the RNC should care about this when the DNC played down, ignored, and even supported real world extremism such as Antifa and BLM. 

 

This wedge tactic is done by Antifa and BLM themselves, the more people pitted in extremes against each other, the more it benefits them. If people were rationally approaching this circumstance, it's not even an issue, because who cares. There's no serious movement to revoke individual voting rights and delegate them to a household voter, so it wouldn't merit any shred of attention. So I look to those giving it attention on what their motivations are.

Edited August 26, 2020 by Burnt Reynolds

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

39 minutes ago, Dashinka said:

Like I said, she can have whatever controversial views she wants.  It is no different than the controversial views of some in Congress.  Nothing is going to change, and no, I do not agree with them when it comes to general elections.  I do sometimes think that only property owners regardless of who that might be, should be allowed to vote for property millage proposals, but that isn't going to happen either.  I liken this to those that drone on about gun control or gun confiscation here in the US (ala Beeto), those are controversial views that also will not happen anytime soon.

 

Are you suggesting she should toe the line on her political views just because she is a woman?  

Apparently Elizabeth Warren larping as a native and appropriating native heritage for her own personal gain, actions overwhelmingly considered heinous, is worthy of speaking at the DNC, but someone answering what their most controversial viewpoint is.. well, that person should be judged and barred from speaking at the RNC! How dare they! 👼

 

You see how these standards go and their completely one-sided application. It's only in this sudden bizarre inverted (and illiberal) polarized political world does the idea get anything more than mocked and dispensed with.

Edited August 26, 2020 by Burnt Reynolds

[Crtcl Rice Theory 2,432]

5 hours ago, laylalex said:

This is so dumb, I can't even begin. And she spoke at the RNC!

 

 

https://19thnews.org/2020/08/on-eve-of-suffrage-centennial-milestone-rnc-to-feature-speaker-supporting-policies-barring-women-from-voting/

She must be filling the vacancy for Fallwell Jr who is busy interviewing candidates for household positions.

 

"Then they would have to decide on one vote. In a Godly household, the husband would get the final say,” she replied"

The only place this line of thinking is leading to is a theocracy. 

 

Why stop there? why not bring back slavery and stoning of adulterous and gay people? /Sarcasm in the two lines above, if it needs to be said.

 

Edited August 26, 2020 by CanAm1980

[yuna628 9,676]

20 minutes ago, CanAm1980 said:

She must be filling the vacancy for Fallwell Jr who is busy interviewing candidates for household positions.

 

"Then they would have to decide on one vote. In a Godly household, the husband would get the final say,” she replied"

The only place this line of thinking is leading to is a theocracy. 

 

Why stop there? why not bring back slavery and stoning of adulterous and gay people? /Sarcasm in the two lines above, if it needs to be said.

 

Many of her sort would like to see a theocracy, and they are pretty bold in those wishes. And not to put a downer on your sarcasm, but there are some that would also find stoning and slavery appropriate.