Doug Wilson and his schtick

[Wesleyb]

Yes it is far-fetched. The presidency has enormous power in this country but amending the Constitution is not one of them.

Do you think the current administration is adhering to the constitution? Or the previous one for that matter?

In any event, we would likely be far better off if men lost the franchise, not women. We would see far fewer wars to start with. And the world would probably be a much better place.

You could be right about that!

[Ken]

Yes it is far-fetched. The presidency has enormous power in this country but amending the Constitution is not one of them.

Do you think the current administration is adhering to the constitution? Or the previous one for that matter?

In any event, we would likely be far better off if men lost the franchise, not women. We would see far fewer wars to start with. And the world would probably be a much better place.

You could be right about that!

I think violating the constitution by doing things like seizing and jailing people without due process, or refusing to spend funds lawfully allocated by Congress is fundamentally different from changing the constitution to remove the franchise for women.

Think about it. There are no Federally-run elections in this country. There are only state and local elections overseen by the secretaries of state in each individual state and by county clerks across the country. How does Donald Trump get say the State of California to change its election laws to disenfranchise women? And then how does he get California (and each county in California) to purge its voting rolls of women and then bar them from polling places? Or in the case of California, how does Trump manage to get California to stop sending mail-in ballots to women voters and only send them to male voters? There are over 100,000 polling places in the US. How does Donald Trump prevent women from voting? By sending federal agents to every single one of them to bar women from the door? Think about it. And voter registration records do not contain sex or gender flags. So you can't just purge them that way.

It is a ridiculous notion and not something Trump has ever even suggested he is interested in doing. It is just the few nut cases like Doug Wilson who grovel up to Trump who advocate that sort of nonsense. In fact, the only words I can find where Donald Trump ever spoke on the topic were from 2020 when he issued a proclamation celebrating the 100th anniversary of the passage of the 19th Amendment. Which is the exact opposite of wanting to see it repealed: https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/br ... amendment/

[barnhart]

I think the danger Doug Wilson poses is primarily to the church, not Washington.

[Wesleyb]

I think violating the constitution by doing things like seizing and jailing people without due process, or refusing to spend funds lawfully allocated by Congress is fundamentally different from changing the constitution to remove the franchise for women.

Yeah, I know. If it ever got to that point we would have lost lots of other major freedoms already.

[Ken]

I think the danger Doug Wilson poses is primarily to the church, not Washington.

I think he is just like Trump in that he is a mirror that tells us more about his followers than the man himself. People have agency and if they follow Wilson or Trump it is because they willingly choose to.

[JohnH]

In any event, we would likely be far better off if men lost the franchise, not women. We would see far fewer wars to start with. And the world would probably be a much better place.

Do you have any actual evidence this is the case? Some of the most notorious warmongering empires have been ruled by women.

[R7ehr]

In any event, we would likely be far better off if men lost the franchise, not women. We would see far fewer wars to start with. And the world would probably be a much better place.

Do you think trans-women be just as effective?

[Ken]

In any event, we would likely be far better off if men lost the franchise, not women. We would see far fewer wars to start with. And the world would probably be a much better place.

Do you have any actual evidence this is the case? Some of the most notorious warmongering empires have been ruled by women.

Men are more violent by nature. For example, Men are about 9-times more likely to commit murder and violent crime than women. That's a fact.

And as for heads of state and war? There are at present 31 female heads of state around the planet today. For example, Italy, Denmark, Iceland, Latvia, Lithuania, Mexico, Greece, Peru, and Slovenia. How many of them have launched wars of aggression? Or conversely, of the existing wars today:

Ukraine
Syria
Gaza
Sudan
Myanmar
Yemen
Israel-Iran
India-Pakistan
etc.

How many of them are being driven by female heads of state?

[Ken]

In any event, we would likely be far better off if men lost the franchise, not women. We would see far fewer wars to start with. And the world would probably be a much better place.

Do you think trans-women be just as effective?

I think trans-women are men. If they want to live as women I think they should be free to do so. That is no business of mine. In a free society people should have the right to find their own way in life. But I don't think they are biological women. But I also don't think we are in any danger of being ruled by a trans-ocracy of some sort.

[R7ehr]

Men are more violent by nature. For example, Men are about 9-times more likely to commit murder and violent crime than women. That's a fact.

I'm not sure that measuring murder and violent crime rates and comparing them, really can be extended to heads of state and war. Just because heads of state are not personally wielding a weapon, but instead sending others.