Given
the ridiculous number of men of all stripes in positions of power
who've been outed as abusive towards women, how 'bout a time out?
Following in the steps of the Abuser-in-Chief, why don't we have a
temporary ban on anymore men assuming positions of power?
The data is there: Power corrupts men. Absolute power corrupts men absolutely. Especially sexual corruption, the sense that they are entitled to sexual oppression, abuse and misuse.
Let's just elect women a while, just long enough to ensure some extreme vetting of men before they get in positions to be abusive on a larger scale?
If that is reasonable for the tiny percentage of foreigners who might potentially possibly maybe be possible terrorists or criminals, perhaps, then it's at least as reasonable if not more reasonable for men, given our track record.
Look, fellas, we've had a nice run in this country. For nearly 250 years, we've dominated the politics in our nation. But we just keep messing up. Let's surrender, at least for a while.
This is not to say that all men are dicks, like Trump, like Weinstein, like Judge Roy Moore, like Weiner, like Billy Bush, like... well, you get the idea. I'm quite sure that there are decent men out there in politics (Hey, that Obama fella seemed to be especially gentlemanly and above reproach! Hell, setting aside his politics and his perversity about LGBTQ matters, Pence seems like a straight arrow, sexually speaking!). But just for a while, just until we get some extreme vetting in place to keep out the perverts like our current "president," let's stand down.
Vote for Women, y'all. Let's start a movement.
#VoteForWomen2018, #VoteForWomen2019, #VoteForWomen2020
The data is there: Power corrupts men. Absolute power corrupts men absolutely. Especially sexual corruption, the sense that they are entitled to sexual oppression, abuse and misuse.
Let's just elect women a while, just long enough to ensure some extreme vetting of men before they get in positions to be abusive on a larger scale?
If that is reasonable for the tiny percentage of foreigners who might potentially possibly maybe be possible terrorists or criminals, perhaps, then it's at least as reasonable if not more reasonable for men, given our track record.
Look, fellas, we've had a nice run in this country. For nearly 250 years, we've dominated the politics in our nation. But we just keep messing up. Let's surrender, at least for a while.
This is not to say that all men are dicks, like Trump, like Weinstein, like Judge Roy Moore, like Weiner, like Billy Bush, like... well, you get the idea. I'm quite sure that there are decent men out there in politics (Hey, that Obama fella seemed to be especially gentlemanly and above reproach! Hell, setting aside his politics and his perversity about LGBTQ matters, Pence seems like a straight arrow, sexually speaking!). But just for a while, just until we get some extreme vetting in place to keep out the perverts like our current "president," let's stand down.
Vote for Women, y'all. Let's start a movement.
#VoteForWomen2018, #VoteForWomen2019, #VoteForWomen2020
19 comments:
Aside from you typo regarding who was perverse about LGBT matters (clearly Obamaa, not Pence), I am assuming this post is a bit tongue-in-cheek. However, it is absurd to suggest that women in power, with absolute power, would not also be prone to corruption. Hillary is the perfect example as evidenced by books about her by various people who would know.
To seriously suggest voting on the basis of sex is no different than suggesting voting on the basis of race.
Yes, it is tongue in cheek. To point out the hypocrisy of Trump's Muslim ban, for one thing.
How many women in power have abused women? Men? Children? Can you count more than one? This is just a basic morality issue.
Additionally, why NOT give a new, historically unrepresented groups a chance at representation? You think this is wrong?
Given a large population with many qualified people, if I choose to vote for a black, transgender, woman or Muslim candidate (underrepresented) over an old white guy, are you suggesting this is wrong?
If so, you don't understand the point.
Marshall made a comment with some ignorance-based attacks on a minority group who he clearly knows nothing about. Given that, but also given how well his arguments represent the sort of ignorant attacks of the factually-challenged and morally irresponsible, I'm posting his comment here, with the attacks removed...
Marshall...
As had been pointed out to you at Craig's blog, Trump did not institute any "muslim ban". This took me one click to find:
http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/28/politics/text-of-trump-executive-order-nation-ban-refugees/index.html
"How many women in power have abused women? Men? Children? Can you count more than one? This is just a basic morality issue."
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/female-sex-offenders-more-common-gender-bias-statistics-rape-abuse-a7839361.html
Also, many recent stories concern female teachers having sex with male students. That means, women abusing their authority. And again, it took less than a minute to find the above link.
"Additionally, why NOT give a new, historically unrepresented groups a chance at representation? You think this is wrong?"
If the most qualified happens to be of a historically underrepresented group, no. But then, the reason to "give them a chance" is not because they are of that group, but because the person is deemed the most qualified.
"Given a large population with many qualified people, if I choose to vote for a black, transgender, woman or Muslim candidate (underrepresented) over an old white guy, are you suggesting this is wrong?"
Yes, and for a number of reasons.
1. "Transgendered" people already are disqualified [attacks redacted... dt.] ...Only idiots would vote for such a person.
2. Muslim candidates are risky by virtue of their religious belief that puts sharia law above all other laws of men, including our own U.S. Constitution. If it can be made certain that a muslim is devoted to traditional American ideals, but I don't know how such certainty can be attained. After all, their religion allows and encourages lying if it serves islam.
[I'm letting that one stand in whole, just because it's so ignorant. I'll let the light of day shine on and destroy this sort of ignorance. dt]
3. Considering a candidate by race or sex is absurd and given that Obama was elected on the basis of his race (having no discernible qualifications...less than even Trump) and was a horrible president, and given that Hillary has also not distinguished herself in any way (as she was ginning up the notion of being the first woman prez...and many looked to make her prez on that basis above any actual qualification) and would have been equally horrible, such criteria have no relevance to thoughtful, intelligent voters.
4. You seem to have some bias against "old white guys", as if their age and race are disqualifying features, which makes you no better than a racist, ageist, and sexist buffoon.
Policy positions and track record (either in previous offices or public life) are the only credible and legitimate criteria for selecting an elected official. NEVER race, sex, religion (in most cases) or sexual dysfunction. Until you embrace this, don't ever vote again.
(One caveat: as in the last election, there was a distinct lesser of two evils criteria that overshadowed our choices. But Trump still was the better selection based on policy positions and track record in the private sector over Hillary or Bernie, and no one else had an ice cube's chance in hell of being elected.)
So, given all of this, in what way could I have possibly misunderstood the point?
1. Only idiots would say, "I have ZERO experience with or knowledge of transgender folks, but I won't vote for them and will disdain those who do, because, IN MY IGNORANCE, I guess I'm a little scared of it all and it makes me worried and wet my pants..."
Don't be an ignorant idiot.
2. Only an idiot would associate such religious biases against a whole group of people because, in their ignorance, they fear that "that religion" might not be safe to vote for.
Don't be an ignorant idiot. Learn a little bit. Meet some people. Open your mind.
There are certainly those who'd say the same sort of prejudiced things about fundamentalist Christians that you say about Muslims. Shall we ban fundamentalist Christians and Muslims from running for office because of those who hold these ignorant biases?
3. Voting for someone ONLY because they are white, male, female, black, whatever is not what I'm endorsing. I'm saying that, GIVEN QUALITY candidates and given a historic lack of representation amongst some groups, I'd choose a candidate from the unrepresented group over a candidate from an over-represented group. Why wouldn't anyone concerned about democracy and justice do this?
4. No, given that I'm an old white guy myself, I'm not prejudiced against myself. But, I AM concerned about even handed representation. IF all we have are old white guys (or old RICH Christian white guys) representing "We the people," we are not representing all the population. I'm against selective representation as it is fundamentally anti-democratic.
And it is just laughable your concern about our representatives having "policy positions" and "track record" when you keep endorsing the single MOST UNQUALIFIED president in our nation's history. He's just fundamentally unfit and ignorant to a degree as to be laughable, if he weren't actually elected. As it is, the man (and those who support him) are a disgrace to all that is good about our nation's better values.
So, again, to the point of this post, why don't we give the old rich Christian white guy representation a rest and let someone else have a chance to do better for a while. The old rich white guys have led to an almost entirely do-nothing congress. Even with control of all the gov't, the GOP still can't do anything.
Give someone else a turn, I say.
1. I could meet a person who thinks he's a dog born in a man's body, find him to be a relatively nice guy and still acknowledge that he's mentally dysfunctional and thus not what this country needs in leadership positions. This is the case with those who think they are one sex trapped in the body of the other. This belief is mental dysfunction. There is no science that supports your opposing position on the subject. None whatsoever. I'm not willing to risk what's best for the nation on some politically correct, but logic-free enabling of mental dysfunction, hoping that dysfunction won't manifest in harmful outcomes. Only an idiot cares more for such people than the population in general.
2. Only an idiot would ignore what is clearly known about the goals and teachings of a religion that has produced so many murderers, child molesters and women oppressors. That one can find those who reject the evil teachings does not mitigate the threat that is inherent in those who claim to be muslim. Again, I'm not willing to risk to security and safety of my fellow Americans simply to appease some nonsensical notion about "representation" that has no basis in American history or Constitutional understanding, but on wacky politically correct leftist lunacy.
3. This is not a demonstration of a concern for either democracy OR justice. It is a concern for the superficial over the substantive. Only merit matters in selecting a representative. If you can somehow find a legitimate way to insure that merit is absolutely equal, then perhaps selecting on such a weak criterion might be permissible. But there is no such way to determine such a thing with anything close to exactness. I personally have no problem casting a vote for a woman, a racial minority or a religious minority (with some exceptions due to the inherent evil of the teachings of a faith). But not as a primary qualifier ever. It didn't work out well at all the last time, especially with no merit at all on which to pretend race wasn't the sole factor.
4. You're an old white woman. "Old white guys" are people, and thus, "we the people" are represented well enough if the best prospects are all old white guys. For those of you so taken by class warfare, that's a hard thing around which to wrap your small minds. Your position is the definition of selective representation because you divide the population by categories, whereas real Americans see all citizens as Americans.
You insistence the Trump was the greater of two evils is still unsupported. You prefer a socialist, which is totally anathema to our nation's values, and a woman who enabled the type of behavior you now pretend to find so abhorrent in Trump. You supported for two terms another socialist who had no track record except for support for gang-bangers, failure to protect 2nd Amendment rights and worst of all, a clear and unrepentant disregard for human life. And you have the gall to try to posture yourself as aghast at Trump and those who voted for him. What a hypocrite you are! What a false Christian you are!
And by the way, one the major arguments for those who truly supported Trump was no different, and no less idiotic than your "give someone else a turn" crap. Those people found him worthy simply for not being a politician, while saying, "give someone else a turn." The irony is rich.
Again, Marshall chose to engage in attacks on a group of people that I won't let stand here. I'm doing him a favor by printing the part of his idiotic/ill-considered "argument" and just deleting the attack parts. Marshall, this is the last time I'm doing this. You print attacks on people, I'll just delete the whole thing. I don't have to clean up after your diaper dumps.
Marshall said all this:
1. [redacted, full of idiotic attacks on people. DT]
2. Only an idiot would ignore what is clearly known about the goals and teachings of a religion that has produced so many murderers, child molesters and women oppressors. That one can find those who reject the evil teachings does not mitigate the threat that is inherent in those who claim to be muslim. Again, I'm not willing to risk to security and safety of my fellow Americans simply to appease some nonsensical notion about "representation" that has no basis in American history or Constitutional understanding, but on wacky politically correct leftist lunacy.
3. This is not a demonstration of a concern for either democracy OR justice. It is a concern for the superficial over the substantive. Only merit matters in selecting a representative. If you can somehow find a legitimate way to insure that merit is absolutely equal, then perhaps selecting on such a weak criterion might be permissible. But there is no such way to determine such a thing with anything close to exactness. I personally have no problem casting a vote for a woman, a racial minority or a religious minority (with some exceptions due to the inherent evil of the teachings of a faith). But not as a primary qualifier ever. It didn't work out well at all the last time, especially with no merit at all on which to pretend race wasn't the sole factor.
4. You're an old white woman. "Old white guys" are people, and thus, "we the people" are represented well enough if the best prospects are all old white guys. For those of you so taken by class warfare, that's a hard thing around which to wrap your small minds. Your position is the definition of selective representation because you divide the population by categories, whereas real Americans see all citizens as Americans.
You insistence the Trump was the greater of two evils is still unsupported. You prefer a socialist, which is totally anathema to our nation's values, and a woman who enabled the type of behavior you now pretend to find so abhorrent in Trump. You supported for two terms another socialist who had no track record except for support for gang-bangers, failure to protect 2nd Amendment rights and worst of all, a clear and unrepentant disregard for human life. And you have the gall to try to posture yourself as aghast at Trump and those who voted for him. What a hypocrite you are! What a false Christian you are!
And by the way, one the major arguments for those who truly supported Trump was no different, and no less idiotic than your "give someone else a turn" crap. Those people found him worthy simply for not being a politician, while saying, "give someone else a turn." The irony is rich.
Only an idiot would ignore what is clearly known about the goals and teachings of a religion
Indeed. You are an idiot for ignoring what is clearly known about the goals and teachings of a religion. What is clearly known about Islam, for instance, is that the VAST majority are decent, moral people striving for basic good stuff. There ARE a large number (but still a tiny minority) who ignore what the majority thinks about their faith tradition and engage in harmful acts and beliefs. These are what we might rightly call the fundamentalists of Islam. And, like the fundamentalists of Christianity, they have embraced a harm-producing, ugly version of their religion.
We should not be idiots and ignore the fundamentalists of either religion, at least those who are advocating harm.
But this is not a post on Islam or idiots who try to abuse the group based on ignorance of the majority's beliefs. So don't bother posting further idiocies on the off topic idea.
This is not a demonstration of a concern for either democracy OR justice. It is a concern for the superficial over the substantive.
Fortunately, YOU don't get to tell ME what I believe or what my motivations are. Or those like me. Only an idiot would presume to be able to speak for other people when they are disagreeing with your idiotic hunches.
Don't be an idiot.
Now, THIS is on topic, you can comment on this, if you like, but truly, you're just embarrassing yourself...
"Old white guys" are people, and thus, "we the people" are represented well enough if the best prospects are all old white guys.
No, no, we're not. IF our only representatives are old rich white Christians who do not understand the concerns, needs or beliefs of vast enclaves of Others... and indeed, if they actively act AGAINST the concerns, needs or beliefs of these Others, then rationally speaking, the Others are literally NOT being represented.
A straightforward Democracy (50% + 1) might work that way, the tyranny of the bare majority, but that's one of the reasons why we had the foresight to institute a Republic, where there's a greater chance to have better representation of at least many groups, other than just the one.
I wonder if you'll feel this way when old rich Christian white guys are no longer present in sufficient numbers to have the voice and control they have today? The wise person would want a gov't to be organized in such a way that they would still have a voice, even when they aren't a majority. To do that, they'd want to see others have their voice.
If they weren't idiots or hypocrites.
teachings of a religion that has produced so many murderers, child molesters and women oppressors
You DO know that the vast majority of murderers, child molesters and women oppressors in our history have come from Christian backgrounds, right? (I believe I've read this, I'd have to check to be sure...)
Are you making an argument in favor of removing Christians from office/not voting for Christians? Because, quite literally, that is what you just did.
"No, no, we're not. IF our only representatives are old rich white Christians who do not understand the concerns, needs or beliefs of vast enclaves of Others... and indeed, if they actively act AGAINST the concerns, needs or beliefs of these Others, then rationally speaking, the Others are literally NOT being represented."
If the needs or beliefs of these "vast enclaves of others" are beyond the what is addressed in the Constitution (be it a federal or state Constitution, or both), then those needs and beliefs are irrelevant to the duties of an elected representative. Our government and laws are meant to deal with Americans, not hyphenated Americans. Thus, a whine by one "enclave" must be shared by all...must be an issue of concern to all. Even if a group feels it has a legitimate gripe, I would agree or disagree based on my own experience as it relates to what I can reasonably expect of my government toward me. An example would be, say, people with striped skin being denied access to libraries. As I see such people as Americans regardless of their markings, I can see no legitimate reason to hold those markings against them, and thus their situation is affront to all. I clearly don't need to have stripes to see the injustice and thus, not having stripes would in no way mitigate my ability to be a legitimate rep for this "enclave".
YOU, on the other hand, are merely engaging in class warfare like any good lefty.
"Are you making an argument in favor of removing Christians from office/not voting for Christians?"
Based on the words of our founders where the subject is addressed, choosing a candidate based on his Christian faith is a legitimate criteria for a voter. This isn't the same as requiring one be Christian by law, so don't try to play that angle. However, the founders in general were more concerned about denying that one must be of a particular denomination of Christian when they inserted the litmus test.
But then, your question suggests that my comment referred to Christianity, as you double-down on your lie that Christianity teaches its adherents to murder or oppress women. It does not. islam does. So get it right: it is not the teachings of Christianity that has produced evil people. It's the rejection of those teachings that has. This is not the case with islam.
Marshall, attacks on people will not be allowed to stand. You should know that, once I see the attack, I'm deleting the comment. I won't even bother reading the rest. Do not do it. I insist. If you can't comment without attacking people, then don't comment. Again, I insist.
And, in case you don't understand what an attack is: Saying that people you have never met and have quite literally zero experience with first hand are somehow impaired is, itself, delusional and an offense. Don't do it. Don't be an idiot.
I went ahead and deleted the attack on Muslims, too. I let some slide by earlier, giving you some leeway, but you're abusing it.
Muslims are not evil. Quit acting like they are. Don't be an idiot.
I'll let your final idiotic comments sit as an example of the sort of "argument" you offer, but really, there's nothing more for me to say in response.
Idiocy is as idiocy does.
You may be fine with a one class ruling system. I and many others find that to be a recipe for, well, Trump-like results. That is, a disaster. No thanks.
Again, you're a liar as well as a hypocrite as you take great delight in attacking politicians and those who support them. I did not attack muslims. I attacked the religion that drives so many of them to kill other muslims, to kill homosexuals for being homosexual, for mutilating their women (especially their daughters), for killing their own daughters to preserve their evil idea of honor, for wishing to see the complete and total extermination of all Jews. islam teaches their adherents to do all of these things, and the fact that not all of them abide does not mitigate the fact that it does.
So don't be an idiot and lie about what I've said so incredibly clearly. Borrow a spine and let all my comments stand. Should anyone object, let them do so directly in response to them and explain why. You have no credibility with regard to speaking truthfully about what cannot be seen because you've disposed of it.
As to my final argument, there is one more thing you could say. It would be along the lines of, "Yeah. I really don't have a freakin' clue about how our government was set up, nor what it hoped to accomplish with regards to what we should expect of our representatives."
But yeah, I do support a "one class" ruling system. That class would be any American who garners support enough to be elected. Such a person would then be a legitimate representative as his higher vote totals would prove.
As to Trump, you couldn't, on your best day (whatever the hell that would look like) explain how Trump's presidency has been a disaster thus far.
I'm letting this one remain, for now, just because it demonstrates your idiocy and mistaken reasoning.
I attacked the religion that drives so many of them to kill other muslims
1. You're presuming that "the religion" is what is driving the violent extremists to be violent extremists. This ignores the reality that the vast majority of Muslims are not violent extremists.
2. By this reasoning, you'd object to all of Christianity because of the violent behavior of violent extremists within Christianity (this segment is a far greater threat to safety of people in the US than Muslims).
3. That a tiny minority within a religion embrace violence and oppression (of, for instance, gay folk and women, as religious fundamentalists OFTEN do, Christian or Muslim or otherwise) is not a sign of a problem with the whole religion.
Read and understand: YOU WILL NOT ATTACK THE WHOLE GROUP BASED ON THE ACTIONS OF A TINY MINORITY ON MY BLOG.
Don't try it. You'll just be deleted. My blog, my rules.
Don't you do it you god-damned motherfucker. Do you understand?
If you want to attack innocent people (and defend those who do, you sick pervert), you won't do it here.
Now, on THIS post, you will not comment at all, unless it begins with, "Dan, I apologize. I made mistakes and I realize it now and I'm sorry..." Just that. No more. Don't even try.
Repent.
And, lest you misunderstand my harsh words to you: I am not saying that in any kind of anger at you. I suspect you're just too blind to see your perversity and irrationality. I use those harsh words advisedly, to let you know the deep disgust I have with those who defend perversity, as you do; who attack innocents, as you do; who defend those who attack innocents, as you do; who ignore basic human communication decencies, as you do.
You don't go to someone's place, make comments they find disgusting and perverse and who then tell you not to comment further in that vain, and then return like an ill-mannered and obtuse toddler and keep trying to do what you've been told not to do. This is not acceptable behavior in adult conversations, nor is making attacks on innocent people.
It is perverse and loathsome to do so.
Now, I'm sure you don't even understand that you're doing it, but you are. Regardless of whether you understand, you'll just have to stop it here.
I do insist.
Embrace grace.
I do embrace grace. I just tend to embrace grace for victims of oppression, pedophiles, sexual assault, etc, over unrepentant defenders of oppression, etc.
First things first. Defend the innocent over the oppressors. Won't you join us in taking a strong stand against those who cause harm?
Dan
Not a problem, I do. You just have a strange way of expressing grace.
Dear readers, unfortunately I have a troll - "Marshall Art" who keeps attacking innocent people, even when I've specifically asked him to not do that here, and who keeps defending sexual perverts and child molesters. For instance, he says things like "girls who are 14 and 16 are not children, you're a liar" kinds of comments in his defense of child molesters.
If he wishes to attack innocent people and defend perverts and molesters on his own blog, that's up to him. God have mercy on his soul. But I will not let him do it here. For that reason, I'm ending comments on this post, in hopes he'll behave. If you have some comment you'd like to make, on topic, just let me know and I'll post it here.
Too bad that, even if he wishes to engage in the ugly sort of attacks he engages in, that he can't at least respect my request to not post that perverse garbage here. I'd hope that he'd be more mature than that.
Peace. And hey y'all, let's defend the innocent out there, embrace grace, but in doing so, not give a pass to those who'd attack innocents. We must begin by defending the innocent. Then, once they're safe, we can try to work for the sake of the sick perverts who'd attack them, to try to see if they can't be redeemed. But first, protect the innocent.
Post a Comment