Women: What happens in the voting booth, stays in the voting booth

[metis]

Too many Lefty women can be manipulated by fake new with lies.

This is why the Bible has the male leading the female, since the female can become linear; only abortion matters.

Trump will protect the bing bats on the Left from their over trusting nature.

Oh yes, you macho-men must tell those uppity women what's good for them.

 

[anna.]

OK, this is what I meant. I'll start by describing a mental game I play with advertising. Bear with me, it is relevant. I detest advertising, probably more than is totally reasonable, so when I can't avoid it (like during a TV program that I want to watch), I mute the sound. Another thing I do is criticize the ad on the basis of how effective it is likely to be, as if I were on a focus group.

When I watched this "ad" it rang a bell when the women seemed so smug about fooling their husbands. Not because she has no reason to feel so, but .... well imagine what I think could be a typical woman who is the intended demographic. She has been raised to think that God wants her to be submissive to her husband. If her husband is excessively overbearing, she will defy him as far as she dares on matters that she feels strongly about, and where she thinks she can get away with it. While doing so she feels a mixture of gratification (from doing the right thing), fear (of getting found out and hurt in some way) and guilt (from doing something that her conditioning tells her is wrong). An effective "ad" will strengthen the first while triggering the second two as little as possible. So, there should be no more than a little smile (to show that she feels good about doing the right thing, but not obvious enough for her husband to notice) and she should not appear to be too happy about defying her husband (and feel guilty about it).

The reactions of some of right-wing people, here and elsewhere, testify to this. "It's always wrong to lie to your husband"! That is the husband's view, and that voice is in her head too. "I shouldn't really be doing this".

I don't disagree with anything you said, but I'm trying to gauge the effectiveness of the message.

Definitely giving you the benefit of the doubt because you seem to really think things through, looking for the truth. So I'd like to share with you that the minute a man tells me how much I should smile, or how happy I should appear, I'm already gonna have my defenses up.

I'd be interested to know how the commercial came into being, how much input they had from women.

Edit: I've found some info to start:

Vote Common Good aims to provide an “exit ramp” for Evangelical and Catholic voters who “have been taught that to be faithful, they must vote for Republican candidates regardless of the candidate’s character or policy positions,” the organization explains on its website.

Julia Roberts Says ‘Women Still Have a Right to Choose’ in Voting Booths, Even if Their Husbands Support Trump: ‘No One Will Ever Know’ How You Vote

Julia Roberts says women have the right to choose any candidate in the voting booth, regardless of what their husbands think.

variety.com

Vote Common Good

Vote Common Good is inspiring, energizing, and mobilizing people of faith to make the common good their voting criteria. And, we train and support candidates to connect with Evangelical and Catholic voters.

www.votecommongood.com

But I haven't found anything on how the ad came together.

 

[Subduction Zone]

My wife's friend who is a republican, said she sees it as politics is already splitting America and now they are trying to split marriages.

I think that is taking it too harshly but to each their own.

How is it splitting marriages? You seem to be just confirming the ad when you say that.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I wouldn't marry anyone like that.

Now you wouldn't. But we all were "dumb" when we were rather young. Some people were lucky and married decent people and some did not. Hormones at a young age are much stronger and can overrule the intelligence of even otherwise brilliant people.

 

[Twilight Hue]

I hadn't heard of it until now. I'll check into it.

This is something I've done for years to build vocabulary. I have quite a few more similar lists some of which I can share here for those interested. I've always been a wordie:

primary
secondary
tertiary
quaternary
quinary
senary
septenary
octonary
nonary
denary.

duplicate
triplicate
quadruplicate
quintuplicate
sextuplicate
septuplicate
octuplicate
nonuplicate
decuplicate
undecuplicate
dodecuplicate
tridecuplicate
icosuplicate

[1] ultimate (last)
[2] penultimate (next to last)
[3] antepenultimate (third from the last)
[4] preantepenultimate (fourth from last)
[5] propreantepenultimate (fifth from the end).

[1] maternal - motherly
[2] paternal - fatherly
[3] sororital, sororal - sisterly
[4] fraternal - brotherly
[5] filial - of an offspring
[6] avuncular - uncle-like
[7] materteral - aunt-like
[8] aval - grandparently
[9] novercal - stepmotherly
[10] nepotal - nephew-like
[11] uxorial - wifelike

Those all derive from the Latin:

pater - father
mater -mother
filia - daughter
filius - son
soror - sister
frater - brother
avus - grandfather
avia - grandmother
avunculus - maternal uncle
patruus - paternal uncle
matertera - maternal aunt
amita - paternal aunt
consobrinus - maternal cousin
consobrina - maternal cousin
patruelis - paternal cousin
socer - father-in-law
socrus - mother-in-law
vir - husband
uxor - wife
nepos - grandson
neptis - granddaughter
vitricus - stepfather
noverca - stepmother
privignus - stepson
privigna - stepdaughter
proavus - great-grandfather
proavia - great-grandmother
pronepos - great-grandson
proneptis - great-granddaughter

[1] vernal - related to spring
[2] estival - related to summer
[3] autumnal - related to autumn
[4] hibernal/hiemal - related to winter

[1] boreal - northern
[2] oriental - eastern
[3] austral - southern
[4] occidental - western

[1] Quibberdick - an unpleasant quibbler
[2] Mome - nitpicking critic
[3] Snoutband - one who constantly interrupts to contradict
[4] Breedbate - one looking for a fight
[5] Snool - to nag constantly to drive another into submission.
[6] Merry-andrew - public clown
[7] Daffsack -lazy glutton
[8] Knipperdollin - fanatical idiot
[9] Snivelard - excessive whiner
[10] Seeksorrow - one always looking for misery and vexation
[11] Cumberworld - a person so lazy as to be a burden on the world
[12] Gink - an insignificantperson
[13] Cockalorum - self-important little man
[14] Quakebuttock - coward


Cursorial - running birds (roadrunner, ostrich)
Raptorial - swoops and steals prey like an owl or pelican.
Insessorial - perching (jays)
Scansorial - climbing (woodpeckers).
Gressorial - walking (penguins)
Natatorial - swimming (ducks, penguins)
Piscatorial - fishing (pelicans)
Saltatorial - hopping (sparrows)
Rasorial - scratching (chickens).
Jaculatory - darting (hummingbirds)

Adjectives for specific birds:

accipitrine - falcon, hawk, kestrel (also falconine)
alaudine - skylark
alcidine - auk, puffin, or murre
alectorine - crane (also gruine)
anatine - duck, mallard
anserine - goose
aquiline - eagle
buteonine, cathartine - buzzard
cathartine - vulture, buzzard
charadrine - plover, snipe, woodcock (also scolopacine)
ciconine - stork
columbine - dove
corvine - crow, raven
coturnine - quail
cuculine - cuckoo
cygnine - swan
cypseline - swift
emberizine - bunting, sparrow
fringilline - finch
fulicine - coot
fuliguline - eider, sea duck
galline - domestic fowl, chicken
garruline - jay, magpie
gruine - crane
halcyonine - kingfisher (also dacelonine)
hirundine - swallow, martin
ibidine - ibis
icterine - blackbird, oriole, meadowlark
larine - gull
meleagrine - turkey
milvine - kite
mimine - mockingbird
pandionine - osprey
parine - tit, titmouse (also penduline)
passerine - sparrow and other perching birds
pavonine - peacock
perdicine - partridge
phalacrocoracine - cormorant
phasianine - pheasant
philomelian - nightingale
picine - woodpecker
psittacine - parrot, macaw
pullastrine - pigeon
pyrrhuloxine - bunting, cardinal
pyrrhuline -bullfinch
sittine - nuthatch
strigine - owl
struthine - ostrich, emu, rhea
sturnine - swallow, starling
sylvicoline - warbler
tetraonine - grouse
trigine - sandpiper
trochiline - hummingbird
troglodytine - wren
turdine - bluebird, robin, thrush
vulturine - vulture

I can't wait for somebody to call me a Quibberdick!

 

[Kenny]

That's kinda funny. You accuse me of misinterpreting the bible and yet you present one quote out of context to make your point. Both Ephesians 6:5 and Colossians 3:22 tells slaves to obey their masters. Just like how Ephesians 5:22 and Colossians 3:18-19 instruct wives to obey their husbands. The equality presented in Galatians 3:28 is by no means absolute, it doesn't entail the dissolution of social roles. This can also be observed in 1 Timothy 2:11-15: women can not teach men or hold authority over men, and must remain quiet during worship.

Yes… and I will continue to correct your misinterpretations as you select snippets instead of the Bible as a whole… Jesus was anointed to set the captives free, the year of Jubilee is to set free those in slavery, in the beginning God created man and woman - not slaves.

Happy to help you in any way you want.

I didn't say anything about dictatorship. Biblically, the man is supposed to hold the final say, but he must take into consideration the best interest of his wife. Yet, it is he who has the final say.

Again… no unless you give context. If a man is not a believer, it is the wife who leads spiritually. Perhaps you have a misunderstanding of what “submission” means and the scripture in Eph 5:21 it say “submit one to another”… that’s a two way street.

Hope that helps you.

Now you pick a verse that zilch to do with commanding wives to do... anything at all.

Cast out devils, heal the sick, preach the gospel and, in Proverbs 31, have a business if she so desires.

 

[Kenny]

As long as they are not disobeying God.



No, because there is a specific command for obeying the Emperor.

1 Peter 2:13-17

"13Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every human authority: whether to the emperor, as the supreme authority, 14or to governors, who are sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to commend those who do right. 15For it is God’s will that by doing good you should silence the ignorant talk of foolish people. 16Live as free people, but do not use your freedom as a cover-up for evil; live as God’s slaves. 17Show proper respect to everyone, love the family of believers, fear God, honor the emperor."

Again… you have to have context and see the Bible as a whole...

Acts 5:29
But Peter and the other apostles answered and said: “We ought to obey God rather than men.

And they were talking to those in authority.

Where is the verse that says anything about freedom of conscience?

​

1 Cor 10:28 (But suppose someone tells you, “This meat was offered to an idol.” Don’t eat it, out of consideration for the conscience of the one who told you. 29 It might not be a matter of conscience for you, but it is for the other person.) For why should my freedom be limited by what someone else thinks? 30 If I can thank God for the food and enjoy it, why should I be condemned for eating it?

Rom 14 Accept other believers who are weak in faith, and don’t argue with them about what they think is right or wrong. 2 For instance, one person believes it’s all right to eat anything. But another believer with a sensitive conscience will eat only vegetables. 3 Those who feel free to eat anything must not look down on those who don’t. And those who don’t eat certain foods must not condemn those who do, for God has accepted them

All of Romans 14 basically says let the conscience filled with faith be what you follow for if you violate your conscience it is sin because it is not of faith.

You are the one calling it a dictatorship.

It is if a husband dictates how a wife should vote. A rose is a rose no matter what you want to call it.

 

[We Never Know]

Yes, they have been given the right to vote for whomever they choose, but not the right to not be judged harshly if they choose Trump. If you vote for Trump, I can't respect you, man or woman, and I am sure that there are many who agree.

I also wouldn't trust your judgment in other areas, thus I wouldn't hire you as an employee or to house and dog sit for me, because you either don't know right from wrong or don't care.

And of course Trump voters can be condemned. This is no ordinary choice like chocolate or vanilla. It's like choosing a life of crime over an upright walk. It's a matter of moral bankruptcy that affects others. If these people get Trump elected, they will have torpedoed their county and their neighbors, and they should be castigated for doing that.

Speaking of castigate, many years ago I assembled a list of related words with their definitions to get a better sense of the meaning of them all relative to one another, which some here might enjoy seeing:

[1] Animadversion - an unfavorable or censorious comment, or the act of criticizing.
[2] Aspersion - a damaging or derogatory remark, or the act of slandering.
[3] Brickbat - a remark or comment which is highly critical and typically insulting.
[4] Calumny - false and malicious statement designed to injure a reputation
[5] Castigate - criticize or punish someone severely.
[6] Censure - strong or vehement expression of disapproval
[7] Contemn - treat or regard with contempt.
[8] Contumely - insolent or insulting language or treatment. Contumelious, contumeliously
[9] Declaim - forcefully protest against or criticize, or orate passionately
[10] Decry - publicly denounce.
[11] Defamation - unjustified injury of the reputation of a person, group, product, business, government, nation, etc.
[12] Derogate - disparage, belittle
[13] Deprecate - express disapproval; belittle
[14] Disparage - disesteem; represent as worthless
[15] Disprize - to disdain or scorn.
[16] Excoriate – flay verbally
[17] Ignominy - disgrace; dishonor; public contempt, shameful or dishonorable quality
[18] Impugn - question the truthfulness or validity of a statement.
[19] Invective - vehement denunciation, vituperation, an insulting or abusive word or expression
[20] Libel - written defamation
[21] Malign - to speak harmful untruths about; speak evil of; slander; defame
[22] Obloquy - censure, blame, or abusive language, especially by numerous persons; the resulting bad repute
[23] Objurgation - chiding: rebuking a person harshly
[24] Opprobrium - harsh criticism or censure, or the disgrace resulting from a shameful act.
[25] Oppugn - oppose with argument; criticize adversely; call in question
[26] Pejorative - disparaging or belittling.
[27] Reprehend - to disapprove or to reprimand.
[28] Reproach - find fault with; blame; censure, upbraid.
[29] Reprove - reprimand or censure someone. (n. reproof)
[30] Slander - spoken defamation
[31] Traducement - to speak maliciously and falsely of; slander; defame
[32] Upbraid - condemn or criticize severely.
[33] Vilification - abusively disparaging speech or writing.
[34] Vilipend - Regard as worthless or of little value; despise. Speak slightingly or abusively of; vilify
[35] Vituperate - use harsh or abusive language. (Vituperation - verbal abuse or castigation; violent denunciation or condemnation.)

Oh joy lol. You just proved my point with your personal attacks
For what its worth, I wouldn't pee on you if you were on fire.

 

[Koldo]

Yes… and I will continue to correct your misinterpretations as you select snippets instead of the Bible as a whole… Jesus was anointed to set the captives free, the year of Jubilee is to set free those in slavery, in the beginning God created man and woman - not slaves.

Happy to help you in any way you want.

You accuse me of selecting snippets and taking things out of context when I provide multiple references to the same idea. And yet you do worse than what you accuse me of doing: You are not even providing a biblical reference to what you claim.

Yeah, Jesus was annointed to free the captives, but this doesn't mean that Jesus set free the slaves. Through the New Testament, you can find even more references to this such as 1 Timothy 6:1 and Titus 2:9. It is a specific kind of slavery that people were set free from, through Jesus: slavery to sin.

Again… no unless you give context. If a man is not a believer, it is the wife who leads spiritually. Perhaps you have a misunderstanding of what “submission” means and the scripture in Eph 5:21 it say “submit one to another”… that’s a two way street.

Hope that helps you.

Completely taking the verse out of context. If you read the rest of Ephesians 5, you will notice that wives are supposed to submit to their husbands in everything while husbands have to love their wives as their own bodies. It is a different kind of submission for men and women.

Cast out devils, heal the sick, preach the gospel and, in Proverbs 31, have a business if she so desires.

What are you even talking about?
How does it relate to this conversation?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

What's amusing is the lefts view on women's rights to choose when it comes to voting but if a women chooses to vote Trump, she will be attacked, ridiculed, told how bad/ignorant she is, etc. So much for her right to choose lol

Her right to choose how she votes is only important to the left if she votes their way. (Probably the same with the right).

Man or woman, they both have the right to vote how they choose and shouldn't be attacked, ridiculed, told how bad/ignorant they are if you respect their right.

You have the right to keep how you vote secret.

You don't have the right to stop people from speaking their mind.

 

[Koldo]

Again… you have to have context and see the Bible as a whole...

Acts 5:29
But Peter and the other apostles answered and said: “We ought to obey God rather than men.

And they were talking to those in authority.

This doesn't contradict what I have stated. Obeying God is the priority. Did God command women to lie on their taxes?

1 Cor 10:28 (But suppose someone tells you, “This meat was offered to an idol.” Don’t eat it, out of consideration for the conscience of the one who told you. 29 It might not be a matter of conscience for you, but it is for the other person.) For why should my freedom be limited by what someone else thinks? 30 If I can thank God for the food and enjoy it, why should I be condemned for eating it?

Rom 14 Accept other believers who are weak in faith, and don’t argue with them about what they think is right or wrong. 2 For instance, one person believes it’s all right to eat anything. But another believer with a sensitive conscience will eat only vegetables. 3 Those who feel free to eat anything must not look down on those who don’t. And those who don’t eat certain foods must not condemn those who do, for God has accepted them

All of Romans 14 basically says let the conscience filled with faith be what you follow for if you violate your conscience it is sin because it is not of faith.

Romans 14 is specific to disputable matters of faith.

It is if a husband dictates how a wife should vote. A rose is a rose no matter what you want to call it.

In your opinion, which has no biblical support.

 

[Watchmen]

I also wouldn't trust your judgment in other areas, thus I wouldn't hire you as an employee or to house and dog sit for me, because you either don't know right from wrong or don't care.

What a simplistic view of 75 million Americans. Also, I hope you’re not an employer because what you’re suggesting is unlawful in many states.

 

[Kenny]

You accuse me of selecting snippets and taking things out of context when I provide multiple references to the same idea. And yet you do worse than what you accuse me of doing: You are not even providing a biblical reference to what you claim.

Yeah, Jesus was annointed to free the captives, but this doesn't mean that Jesus set free the slaves. Through the New Testament, you can find even more references to this such as 1 Timothy 6:1 and Titus 2:9. It is a specific kind of slavery that people were set free from, through Jesus: slavery to sin.

Jesus set the captives free… what man does, remains man’s fault. It is easy to project when Bible is clear from precedent that slavery was not on the docket.

Completely taking the verse out of context. If you read the rest of Ephesians 5, you will notice that wives are supposed to submit to their husbands in everything while husbands have to love their wives as their own bodies. It is a different kind of submission for men and women.

Not at all. It is the verse before it talks about marriage so the context.

Probably more your desire projected onto it.

What are you even talking about?
How does it relate to this conversation?

you asked what wives can do.

 

[Kenny]

This doesn't contradict what I have stated. Obeying God is the priority. Did God command women to lie on their taxes?

Then you have totally lost me on what you are trying to say.

Romans 14 is specific to disputable matters of faith.

and conscience - as it was quoted

In your opinion, which has no biblical support.

Au contraire… it was your position that had no support. Jesus is the example… did he dictate or invite? did he compel or teach?

 

[Kathryn]

Now you wouldn't. But we all were "dumb" when we were rather young. Some people were lucky and married decent people and some did not. Hormones at a young age are much stronger and can overrule the intelligence of even otherwise brilliant people.

Oh, I married someone who was abusive but I divorced him.

 

[Kathryn]

That is what people always say about women in bad relationships. Why do they stay?

I don't know the answer to that question. I don't know what it is like to be a woman in a bad relationship so I can't understand. And because I can't understand I don't judge or condemn.

Oh I can understand and I got out of it, totally. With four kids and I had not worked in years and years.

 

[crossfire]

Oh I can understand and I got out of it, totally. With four kids and I had not worked in years and years.

If only these women could understand the happiness that comes with getting out of a bad relationship!

 

[Koldo]

Jesus set the captives free… what man does, remains man’s fault. It is easy to project when Bible is clear from precedent that slavery was not on the docket.

How do you compatibilize the multiple cases I have already cited where Paul (and Peter) tells the slaves to obey their masters?

Not at all. It is the verse before it talks about marriage so the context.

Probably more your desire projected onto it.

The context is the whole of Ephesians 5. Different roles are clearly delineated to men and women. You are cherry picking the verse 21 and ignoring what comes after.

you asked what wives can do.

No, I didn't.

 

[Koldo]

Then you have totally lost me on what you are trying to say.

Biblically, wives ought to obey their husbands unless doing so contradicts God's commands.

and conscience - as it was quoted

Once again ignoring the context. Romans 14 revolves a dispute over proper diet. Paul says people should not fight over this. If one truly believes (as a matter of Faith) that they must or must not eat something then so be it. The equivalent here would be someone believing that they must vote in A or B candidate because God somehow commanded them to do so. This doesn't apply to the vast majority of situations where a husband might demand his wife to do something (nor there is a clear line on to what extent Romans 14 is even applicable in a marital relationship or even to what extent past dietary issues).

Au contraire… it was your position that had no support. Jesus is the example… did he dictate or invite? did he compel or teach?

Why do you keep ignoring Paul and Peter?

 

[Kenny]

How do you compatibilize the multiple cases I have already cited where Paul (and Peter) tells the slaves to obey their masters?

The fact that God initiated what should be and man messed it up. The reality is that one should take the Bible as a whole to bring full context ant not simply read into a statement and bring one’s own conclusion without precedent.

Take the scripture that you mentioned as an example.

1. God never created “slaves” from the beginning and in the end, when Jesus sets up his Kingdom in Jerusalem, there will be no slavery (sex slavery or otherwise. That is God’s will and in between is what man’s will is and God working through what man does. No different that when Jesus said in Matt 10, "He said to them, “Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, permitted you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so.” God’s desire - no divorce. Man’s creation - divorce.
2. Is the subject matter about supporting slavery or how to act if you happen to be a slave since the object of the Christian is to show love and win hearts for the sake of Christ. It isn’t about supporting slavery and doesn’t really say “Get yourself a slave because it is OK”. No, it is about how to act as a Christian - serve as if you are serving Jesus Christ and being dependent on the Lord in those cases
3. The actual correct word is “bondservant” and not slave and had more to do with Roman culture mixed with people paying their debts and other. The word for “slave” is actually a slightly different. The real “slave” is actually more in context being slaves to sin. In today’s society we are slaves to credit cards and our workplaces. Wasn’t God’s design, it is a world design created by man.

The context is the whole of Ephesians 5. Different roles are clearly delineated to men and women. You are cherry picking the verse 21 and ignoring what comes after.

Can’t cherry pick when it is included. It is you who is eliminating part of the picture whilst I am including it.

No, I didn't.

Well, you certainly came to a wrong conclusion.

Biblically, wives ought to obey their husbands unless doing so contradicts God's commands.

Again, you have to take the books as a whole. How can two walk together lest they be agreed? Is it a blind “obey” or is it a “loving agreement”. If the husband says, “I want you barefoot and pregnant”, which is what you make it sound like, that isn’t a marriage in the fulness of what God designed, it is a doormat which isn’t a design of God.

Once again ignoring the context. Romans 14 revolves a dispute over proper diet. Paul says people should not fight over this. If one truly believes (as a matter of Faith) that they must or must not eat something then so be it. The equivalent here would be someone believing that they must vote in A or B candidate because God somehow commanded them to do so. This doesn't apply to the vast majority of situations where a husband might demand his wife to do something (nor there is a clear line on to what extent Romans 14 is even applicable in a marital relationship or even to what extent past dietary issues).

You missed the bigger picture of “conscience”. He just happened to use what you eat as an example. He also used the day you rest. " 13 Therefore let us not judge one another anymore, but rather resolve this, not to put a stumbling block or a cause to fall in our brother’s way.” isn’t relegated to just eating, drinking and resting, it is about living which goes beyond the example.

Maybe you were taught wrong?

Why do you keep ignoring Paul and Peter?

Please see above - the concept of “submission” isn’t about dictatorship as you present it like you present slavery.