And in some brain numbing way, republican women will still vote for this piece of shit.
this post was submitted on 07 Mar 2024
82 points (91.0% liked)
AMUSING, INTERESTING, OUTRAGEOUS, or PROFOUND
598 readers
160 users here now
This is a page for anything that's amusing, interesting, outrageous, or profound.
♦ ♦ ♦
RULES
① Each player gets six cards, except the player on the dealer's right, who gets seven.
② Posts, comments, and participants must be amusing, interesting, outrageous, or profound.
③ This page uses Reverse Lemmy-Points™, or 'bad karma'. Please downvote all posts and comments.
④ Posts, comments, and participants that are not amusing, interesting, outrageous, or profound will be removed.
⑤ This is a non-smoking page. If you must smoke, please click away and come back later.
Please also abide by the instance rules.
♦ ♦ ♦
Can't get enough? Visit my blog.
♦ ♦ ♦
Please consider donating to Lemmy and Lemmy.World.
$5 a month is all they ask — an absurdly low price for a Lemmyverse of news, education, entertainment, and silly memes.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Let's not let the Republican men off the hook, either. They are just as smooth brained.
100% agree with you.
There is no longer a quiet thing. It’s all out loud now. This is trumps gift to America. The lights are on, but the roaches won’t scatter.
I'm not sure, but the context was a choice between lynching black people or women not voting. Still not the best way to handle the question, but his hedge was claiming that Republicans then were more progressive (not sure that is what he actually intended to say).
Who makes a choice between lynching black people or women not voting? It's never come up in my long life's conversations.
Politicians are confronted by crazy people asking crazy questions all the time, and in these cases politicians are going to try and not directly confront the questioner, for many logical reasons. I don't know this person, they may be terible, but this is definitely taken out of context to create rage bait.
What a stupid click bait headline. Here's the context of what he actually said:
Robinson said he would definitely return to the days in America when women were denied the right to vote “because in those days we had people who fought for real social change, and they were called Republicans.”
Totally reasonable to disagree with that take (I don't think it's accurate), but it is not at all what the headline implies.
"My party hasn't fought for people's rights since women's suffrage." There really isn't a good way to spin it.
Yeah, that's pretty much my point. You don't have to take the statement out of context for it to sound bad.
The headline is absolutely accurate. It would be like saying “We should go back to the days of slavery because that’s when states had rights,” and the headline read he said he wants to go back to the days of slavery.
He could have said “We should go back to the days when the republicans fought for people’s rights.” He didn’t.
Anti women’s suffrage rhetoric has been common from far right Americans for a while. I remember Ann Coulter saying explicitly that women shouldn’t be allowed to vote, because they tend to vote for democrats.
When you look at the actual data, though, you see that while women tend to skew more democratic then men, white women voters had their majority voting for Trump. Going off of memory, it was somewhere around 52%. It’s African American women voters who vote above 90% for the dems, and African American men have a slightly lower rate but still have the vast majority voting D. I think they were in the high 70s to mid 80s last time I checked.
White men, on the other hand, break about 65% R. Again, I’m going off of memory here but that shouldn’t be too far off at the national level. That’s who the republicans want voting.
I watched the video, and while it was stupid, he basically was saying he'd go back to when women couldn't vote so that they could give them the right to vote all over again. Also then continued to say if they want back to the days of lynching, they would end the lynching.
He was trying to say the Republicans should get credit for women's suffrage which is ridiculous, and is the weirdest way to do it, but it's not exactly as described.
Of course the headline is technically accurate. Click bait always is. He did in fact say those words, but the actual meaning of the statement is clearly not what the headline is trying to convey.
To be clear, I'm not saying what he meant is correct either. It's not corrrct to most people. Which is why I have a problem with the misleading headline--the statement doesn't need to be taken out of context to show how dumb it is. Miscontruing the actual meaning just muddies the water.
What I am saying is that the meaning of the headline is exactly what he said and meant. He and many other conservatives literally think women shouldn’t vote, because women don’t vote for them.
Did you even read the quote? He is clearly not saying he would go back to that time because women can't vote. Here is his stated reason:
"because in those days we had people who fought for real social change, and they were called Republicans.”
His actual reason is still dumb. You don't have to make up a false meaning to his statement to disagree with it. It's disagreeable all on its own.
I was on the fence about your take until I watched the video and he explicitly said the Republicans would give women the right to vote all over again because the Republicans were once the party that made womens suffrage happen, and also claimed they were the ones to send Jim Crow.
So fine, he awkwardly gave people a stupid quote in a way a more clever person would have made his point. His point then seems to become that the republican party is no longer that party, which seems pretty bad too. But you are right, he was trying to say he'd go back just so he could be a part of making it all better again.