General Question

elbanditoroso's avatar

What's your take on the Trump supporters's initiative to repeal the 19th Amendment to the Constitution so women couldn't vote? If women couldn't vote, Trump would win big.

Asked by elbanditoroso (28860points) October 13th, 2016

link

One of the surveys published yesterday noted that if women didn’t have the right to vote, then Trump would win in a landslide. This gave rise to the #RepealThe19th movement.

Of course, amending the constitution is a multi-year effort, so it can’t happen to in any way affect the November election.

But what does this say about the Republican party that considers disenfranchising half the population in America to achieve a partisan goal?

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

72 Answers

imrainmaker's avatar

Will Hillary win if only women are allowed to vote?

Seek's avatar

I’m shocked. Shocked I say. Also amazed, to hear that the party who drools and slobbers all over the second amendment like it’s Jesus’s own cock would consider repealing another amendment in order to take away someone else’s constitutional right to vote.

Shocked.

MrGrimm888's avatar

@Seek . Is it really that shocking? Is it more shocking than Trump really being the Republican candidate for president?

elbanditoroso's avatar

@imrainmaker – yes if only women could vote, Trump loses big-time.

see this
about half way down the page.

Seek's avatar

@MrGrimm888 – recalibrate your sarcasm detector.

MrGrimm888's avatar

Calibrating

imrainmaker's avatar

Wow.. that’s amazing.

MrGrimm888's avatar

If all women who can vote DO vote, Trump will lose.

Many won’t though. It’s a shame that many fought for women to have that right, and it won’t be utilized.

Mariah's avatar

Many men won’t vote also. Many people don’t vote.

I should stop being surprised by Trump supporters at this point, but somehow they just keep out-shitty-ing themselves.

Seek's avatar

In the last 12 years, more American woman have voted than men.

zenvelo's avatar

Any elected official that floats a bill to amend the Constitution by repealing the 19th Amendment will not be in office for long. And neither will its supporters.

There are 20 current senators that would filibuster any such move.

imrainmaker's avatar

If that happens in any circumstances that would be the most unfortunate day in American history!!!

Seek's avatar

It won’t happen.

Even the cries about this stuff add up with their paranoia about second amendment repeal to show how little these people understand the Constitution.

Changing the Constitution is a massive deal. You have to get ⅔ of Congress to agree, get the President to ratify, AND get ⅔ of the States to agree, too.

We can’t get that many people to agree that the sky is blue and the sun rises in the East.

ARE_you_kidding_me's avatar

So a few twitter trolls tweet this and the left is quick to point out that this is how the right wing thinks? Pfffft. Who is even listening to this?
Most second amendment supporters are not afraid of repeal, they are afraid of draconian, nonsensical laws that both obfuscate the legalities and effectively neuter their second amendment rights. It has already happened to a degree so their fears are justified. We are not against reforms, hell most of us want reform. It just needs to make sense.

MrGrimm888's avatar

True. Many men don’t vote either.

I don’t vote,I guess you’d say,out of protest.

Unless you love Hillary, and some do,and that’s fine, it must be hard to find motivation to vote this time.

To me, it’s like I’m being forced to eat shit. But I get to choose how it’s served.

In an odd way. I’d love to see Bill back in the Whitehouse.

To the question, the entire concept is indeed ridiculous .
Why in God’s name would any sane person even table this idea? Has the world gone mad?

It seemed like we were heading in the right direction in regards to civil rights,and equality. Yes. There was/is still a lot of work to be done. But people, at least most young people, were “getting it.” We’re all really the same. Gender, race or sexual identity doesn’t change our intelligence, or value.

But now there are talks of race wars, cop vs citizens wars, and now I hear this….Uugh. WTF?

In my 36 years on this planet it seems we have regressed in many ways.

20 years ago, nobody could have convinced me there would be lawyers (ambulance chasers ) on TV commercials.

We’re going backwards here. Even cockroaches can’t go backwards. (Food for thought…)

MrGrimm888's avatar

Reform? Yes. But the system is pretty broken, and the monkeys are running the zoo.

ARE_you_kidding_me's avatar

@MrGrimm888 the effects we are seeing from #blacklivesmatter and protests from police shootings are real to a degree. I know police often have racial prejudice. In a way many can’t help it, they have to make judgements on people as part of their job. Depending on the environment the work in it can easily turn into racial profiling. While wrong the real problem lies in what has caused them to think this way, not in the fact that they do. What has stirred people up to a frenzy is the fact that the media is out of control and has lost any decency or sense of responsibility it once had. Keeping people stirred up seems to be the name of the game and it is ruining this country.

Mariah's avatar

It’s not hard to find motivation to vote without loving Hillary, one merely needs to hate Trump (which is the easiest thing I’ve ever done).

ARE_you_kidding_me's avatar

What if you hate both so bad you just don’t give a shit who wins? That’s where I’m at.

MrGrimm888's avatar

Yeah. The media stirs the shit. But there’s some shit going down.

I hate them both. But I can’t even imagine the US with Trump at the wheel. It reminds me of Back to the Future 2 ,in the alternate timeline where Biff ran everything.

ARE_you_kidding_me's avatar

^^see this is exactly it. Would shit be going down if things were not stirred up? I don’t think they would, not nearly to this degree anyway.

Seek's avatar

@ARE_you_kidding_me – There was a small period of time where I felt like that, but I have a child who I’m trying to raise to be a decent human being, and I’d like his future children to know what a blue sky and animals look like. So basically I’m voting to avoid nuclear winter.

Seek's avatar

Avoid Bladerunner 2016.

MrGrimm888's avatar

If you shot someone I knew to death,for no reason, I’d still be mad. Maybe madder if the media didn’t show people what’s going on.

ARE_you_kidding_me's avatar

@Seek my vote is still up in the air but I don’t believe Trump is going to cause nuclear winter. Either could easily do that with tensions high between us and russia. If we don’t handle the mid east very carefully it could happen in isolated areas too. What I would like to know is who the candidates will pick for their team of advisors. Hillary has been bought so hers will likely be corporate inserts. Trump will probably have the same but perhaps there is room to get some good folks in there. I’m very pessimistic though. If Trump wins I see him being pushed aside by the people who are running things anyway. Hillary would be status quo which at this point is just as bad as having an oafish clown as our figurehead. As far as personality Sanders was my favorite even if I did not support him politically.

ARE_you_kidding_me's avatar

@MrGrimm888 yeah, you would be mad. I would too but once the media tells everyone else why they should be mad misguided people show up with bricks and baseball bats looking for a fight.

Seek's avatar

@ARE_you_kidding_me – There’s also the next 20 years’ worth of Supreme Court seats to consider.

ARE_you_kidding_me's avatar

Yeah, I have though of that too. I have moved pretty close to the center of the isle in the past 10 years or so. I would just want to see those appointments go to people with high integrity, not so much what their political leanings may be. Status quo has not been good for normal folks. I have a hard time trusting both candidates here.

stanleybmanly's avatar

I would love to tar the Republican party with this particular asinine idea. But the people behind this one are just too stupid to be considered conscious. I mean when you consider that better than half the people voting to disenfranchise women would be women themselves, even the Republican party on it’s most glorious day cannot field enough stupid women to carry such an idea.

Coloma's avatar

Poppycock, would never happen but still shocking to even, remotely, think it would be considered.

Pandora's avatar

I say all those women who would support such and idea should show me how it’s done by not voting November 8th.
They do have a point, about themselves needing to never vote. Never, ever vote. They don’t have to wait for a repeal. They really should start with themselves.
This is what happens when people aren’t educated.

MrGrimm888's avatar

One could argue that the supreme Court seats are as important as the presidential election.

ARE_you_kidding_me's avatar

I think moreso.

Pandora's avatar

@ARE_you_kidding_me Trump has said that he admired Justice Scalia. http://www.advocate.com/election/2016/10/10/donald-trump-vows-appoint-supreme-court-justice-mold-scalia

He will appoint justices who wouldn’t know what justice was unless it can give them a BJ.

ARE_you_kidding_me's avatar

A good supreme court will have a uniform mix of many different political and ideological views. The end result should be that all of the partisan bullshit is filtered out. Keeping it balanced is in everyones best interest.

ucme's avatar

Why stop at the female vote?
Take out blacks, latinos, people with sense…etc…etc…etc…

Coloma's avatar

^^^ and return to men owning their wives and children, women being forbidden to own property and make it legal again to beat your wife as long as the stick isn’t bigger than 2 inches in circumference. Oh, and make it easy to have women committed to insane asylums based on their sleazy husbands desire to get rid of them so they can move on without a divorce. haha

Soubresaut's avatar

From what I saw on Twitter, the hashtag is only trending because people are reacting so strongly against it—it’s a small handful of idiots, and a frenzy of reaction (or I didn’t scroll far enough, but then it’s effectively stomped out anyway). So like @ARE_you_kidding_me said, it’s a few trolls—not the GOP.

It’s frustrating to remember this sort of fringe is out there, but it’s not surprising. In this country, we’ve got someone who believes and/or wants anything virtually anything that is utterable—and they’ve got the interwebs at hand as much as anyone else to hash-eminate their 140 character quip. Of course, this type of fringe seems to collect around Trump a whole lot more than any other candidate, which says something about Trump as a figurehead…

Darth_Algar's avatar

For what it’s worth only one amendment to the US Constitution has ever been repealed – the 18th, which prohibited alcohol nationwide.

filmfann's avatar

This reminds me of Shirley Chisolm, who ran for president in 1972. She said she ran into more opposition because she was a woman, than because she was black.

JLeslie's avatar

It’s just stupidity. Just like only letting land owners vote. That comes up sometimes too.

Espiritus_Corvus's avatar

Oh, man. If they only could outlaw women voters. Goddamned nuisance. We could even repeal the 18th Amendment!

olivier5's avatar

If what the OP’s linked article says is true, a solid majority of US male voters are either dirt stupid (if they positively like and support Trump) or hateful enough of Cliton that they’d vote for a clown instead.

Thank Gode that Trump has all this bagage with women. Otherwise, this election would be a form of national suicide à la Brexit.

Espiritus_Corvus's avatar

FIRST, I don’t believe the male voter map looks like that. That is a piece of badly conjured statistics toward god knows what kind of propaganda objective. I personally find it insulting and untrue.

SECOND, it takes a full two thirds of Congressional votes to repeal a constitutional amendment. It will never happen. It is the wish of madmen—a wish of the Australopithecus who follow Trump.

Setanta's avatar

It cannot happen, the courts would not allow it.

Amendment XIV

Section 1.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

stanleybmanly's avatar

Yes, but the 14th amendment was in place for 50 years while women were denied the vote.

Espiritus_Corvus's avatar

It is the 19th Amendment, ratified in 1920, specifically giving women the vote that these idiots are talking about. It’s all bullshit like the proposed amendments banning all guns and the one to prevent the burning of the flag. It’s bullshit. Just move on. The 19th is not under threat.

If anything, this is propaganda to get women to the polls, which is fine, but somebody has to be awfully stupid to actually think Congress, especially this Congress, could do this. These guys haven’t had a two-thirds consensus since the Patriot Act and that took the destruction of the World Trade Center and an attack on the Pentagon..

cazzie's avatar

And Trump talked about putting Hillary in jail when he wins. You know who does shit like that? Despots. Dictators.

JLeslie's avatar

@cazzie I think Trump is referencing the federal level policians and people like General Petreaus who have been convicted of crimes and sentenced to imprisonment, or at least probation.

Seek's avatar

@JLeslie – um, when Trump said, to Hillary, ”[if I were in charge] you would be in jail”, he was absolutely talking about her.

JLeslie's avatar

@Seek Yes, of course. But, what he has said is other people are in Jail for less. @cazzie said he wants to do the work of despots and dictators, and I do think to some extent he will have some of those characteristics, but he hasn’t said he will immediately throw Hillary in Jail, that’s twisting it a little. He talks about getting her investigated and prosecuted just like people in our government who were under Obama, and other of our Presidents. We do have people in Jail now who some people feel did less than what Hillary is accused of.

I don’t think he will throw her in Jail at all, Trump just says that to rile up his crowd. So many of them hate her it plays well.

Seek's avatar

I will never understand why you continue to defend that man. And I use that term very loosely.

olivier5's avatar

Don’t worry Leslie, he won’t be in a position to throw her in jail any time soon. However, she could throw HIM in jail.

JLeslie's avatar

@Seek I defend Hillary the same way. I’m critical of all the spin in the media, and how people who hate a candidate see them as all black or all white. Moreover, I’m always interested in the perception of the “other side” because if you want to understand them or change minds you can’t be telling them they’re idiots. They won’t listen.

@olivier5 I’m not worried. I feel pretty confident Hillary will win, but not overconfident.

Darth_Algar's avatar

@JLeslie

There’s no spin there, the man flat-out said he’d imprison Hillary if elected. His own party called him out on it for fuck’s sake.

Zaku's avatar

Sounds like a great argument to remove the vote from men for a while.

Taking away men’s gun rights while allowing women to carry concealed might also have some positive effects.

Setanta's avatar

The courts would not allow it, as i’ve already pointed out. It would violate the 14th amendment. That there was no court challenge for women to vote based on the 14th amendment does not mean it has no force.

ARE_you_kidding_me's avatar

Of course Trump is just working up the crowd. He has no intention of throwing his golf buddies wife in jail.

Darth_Algar's avatar

@Setanta

Repealing an amendment can be done, and has been done. The Constitution itself lays out the process by which it can be altered and such alterations done via this process cannot be overruled by the courts.

Mariah's avatar

I have no concerns that the amendment is actually going to be overturned, of course. Only the total lunatic fringe is calling for it. I’m just outraged that anyone in this day and age is even suggesting women shouldn’t have the right to vote. That shouldn’t even be on the table.

Setanta's avatar

@Darth_Algar If you’re familiar with the constitution, then you know that only Congress and the states can amend the constitution, including the repeal of amendments. Mr. Trump has no power nor even input into the process. It takes two thirds of both houses of Congress to propose an amendment or to convene an amending convention. I seriously doubt that there will ever be sufficient loons in the Congress for such a two thirds vote. If, in fact, it were to happen, it would precipitate a judicial crisis, as any woman could sue any state which did not permit her to vote, at which point it would it would be a question of her rights under the 14th amendment. Let the loons cackle, it ain’ta gonna happen.

Espiritus_Corvus's avatar

I still haven’t seen the whole debate and I hate defending Trump. But they use zoom lenses on those TV cameras and a zoom will distort the depth of field. A zoom will make things in the background look much closer than those in the middle or foreground and this might be the cause of the illusion of Trump hovering threateningly behind Clinton when in fact he may be quite a safe distance away if viewed with a “normal” lense, such as the human eye.

Darth_Algar's avatar

@Setanta

If you’re familiar with the subject at hand you’ll know that Mr. Trump isn’t talking about doing anything. A few of his supporters are suggesting repealing the 19th.

Setanta's avatar

I don’t pay much attention to the teabaggers and their rants, so it was not a matter of knowing about “the subject at hand,” but rather the appalling ignorance of so many Americans about the powers of office, the mechanisms of government and the constiution. As I’ve already pointed out, it’s not going to happen.

stanleybmanly's avatar

There are supposedly rational sensible people out there in the Trump column. But the point is behind us when it was possible to endorse Trump and remain in the club of rational sensible people. This is why the wholesale destruction of the Republican party is all but assured. There are only 2 issues remaining in the upcoming election. The first is the number of secret hidden Trump voters lurking among us, and the second is how many House and Senate seats the leviathan ego will suck down with it on its plunge to the depths. As it is, even the slow witted have come to appreciate that open enthusiasm for the Donald amounts to the kiss of death for their political ambitions, and the rats stumble over themselves as they dessert the SS Trump in droves. The panic of the stampede increases as Captain Ryan screams “every man for himself”, his voice barely audible over the loud eruptions as the bloated hulk noisily self destructs.

Darth_Algar's avatar

@Setanta

Ah, so you choose to falsely presume upon, and argue about, the ignorance of others while remaining ignorant to the topic as is. Good job.

cazzie's avatar

@Setanta We KNOW it isn’t going to happen, but the fact that they are going on about this is pissing many people off. We shouldn’t be surprised, though. I thought @Seek ‘s response was perfect. Of course asshats are going to say the kind of stuff asshats say.

Also, I just want to put this out here… Trump may look slightly gilded in some light, but he’s still a piece of human excrement. He’s a piece of gold-foiled human excrement.

Setanta's avatar

Well, Darth, that was pretty snotty. I’m not ignorant of the topic, i’m just pointing out how improbable such an initiative is, and how likely it is that those who propose it, who don’t even represent 50% of the electorate, don’t actually know what is entailed in repealing an amendment. Like Trump, they don’t really know how the government works.
But enjoy your contempt, i guess that’s important to you.

Darth_Algar's avatar

@Setanta

By your own admission you’re not paying attention to the subject at hand. And if you had, or if you had at least bothered to pay attention to this thread at least, you’d understand that none of us here are under any misunderstanding as the how the process of amending the Constitution works. That has not at all been under question, but you just had to jump in without knowing the thread to attempt to make yourself look smart. Again – good job.

Setanta's avatar

That is utterly false. I said I don’t pay attention to the rants of teabaggers. That is exactly what I wrote. I also did not say that anyone here does not understand how the constitution works, unless you allege that this is a congregation of teabaggersk That would be news to me.

Straw man much?

Setanta's avatar

This is exactly what i wrote:

I don’t pay much attention to the teabaggers and their rants, so it was not a matter of knowing about “the subject at hand,”

Darth_Algar's avatar

@Setanta

You came in here firstly, and ignorantly in regards to the topic and the ensuing conversation, under the mistaken idea that Mr. Trump had proposed something to deny women their vote (he did nothing of the sort). Then you presume to lecture me about how to amend the Constitution, which never was in question here (again, you would have known this had you paid a little attention to the conversation at hand). Now you accuse me of strawmanning you? I don’t think you understand that term.

Answer this question

Login

or

Join

to answer.

This question is in the General Section. Responses must be helpful and on-topic.

Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
or
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther