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

[Subduction Zone]

If the female underground vote is based on emotion and gossip, it is not going to be beneficial to the country. Intelligent women with a good handle on the issues, and in a good relationship with her husband; friend, will not mind talking about these things. Her husband will understand her view and her passion and accept her uniqueness. Lock step is a DNC thing. The commercial assume woman are air head, who have to sneak around, since she never discusses issues that impact us of all, with her husband, but rather prefer stay shallow to the gossip, and therefore feels the need to sneak around and not stand up.

Problems in marriage occur due to poor communication and trying to second guess each other. Since divorce is more important in the DNC, they may be projecting the source of their communication problem; ignorance due to silence and gossip.

I was watching a "man in the street" news special, who was at a Harris rally, and he was walking around asking people nicely if they were voting for Kamala. About 90% said yes. He was polite and friendly, and followed up with the question, do they think Trump is a Fascist? They also agreed. Then, he asked, do you know what a fascist is? All the women become stumped, and could not answer the last question. Uninformed and emotional lockstep is more on the DNC side. Trump women can discuss the economy and fascism.

To the Left, it is more about belonging to a group, that feels good, and reciting the party line without understanding what it means. Such women may have to sneak around their husbands to avoid explaining, since they are not sure why they fundamentally agree with something without understanding; emotional thinker. This was often why men will try to help them become rational; pros and cons. The DNC does not have many men left, so many DNC women flounder, and the DNC takes advantage of the emotional thinkers.

There was one young woman, who was afraid to say anything or lie, but when politely pushed, she whispered, Trump. She was afraid to become ostracized, and after she admitted it, she realize who the reporter was working for; FOX. She asked if he would not use her in his report, to avoid the emotional nags who expect ignorance conformity, and may get angry is you are not in line.

I was reading something about Bezos, who owns Washington Post and him not endorsing any candidate for President. He said this decision was based on people no longer fooled or responding well to the old media model of biased disinformation. It no longer makes economic sense, with many people lookin for real information. People are more informed or wish to be. That industry is going to need a new business model to survive. The DNC impact on media, has run its course. Group lying is no longer profitable. Bezos was smart enough to change with the times. Although his editorial staff is stuck in the past; glory days of mass media manipulation. The main stream media is now also divided. FOX is gaining market share since is more balanced but still reports facts that usually benefit the RNC, since the total lie machine is still 90% Harris making it easy to fact check and report.

Man on the street interviews are not of any value. You interview twenty people and save only those answers that you want to hear. Both sides do it and one should not be convinced by either of them.

 

[Watchmen]

It's you're.

Corrected. Thanks.

 

[The Hammer]

Unfortunately, I suspect that some of the women in my life hide their vote from their husband.

Same.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I am curious about what they find condescending about it. Did they say?

Unfortunately, I suspect that some of the women in my life hide their vote from their husbands.

How dare they!!!??

 

[Watchmen]

Have you not noticed here that it is quite often impossible to have a rational conversation with a Trump supporter? No, that is at best a strawman argument on your part.

I have rationale conversations with Trump supporters all the time. I let them know how wrong they are. Are you not aware that it may actually be very possible to have such rationale conversations with Trump supporters, but the Left's tribal mentality and media machine and celebrities would have you believe otherwise?

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

Numbers 30:10-15

10 “If a woman living with her husband makes a vow or obligates herself by a pledge under oath 11 and her husband hears about it but says nothing to her and does not forbid her, then all her vows or the pledges by which she obligated herself will stand. 12 But if her husband nullifies them when he hears about them, then none of the vows or pledges that came from her lips will stand. Her husband has nullified them, and the Lord will release her. 13 Her husband may confirm or nullify any vow she makes or any sworn pledge to deny herself.[a] 14 But if her husband says nothing to her about it from day to day, then he confirms all her vows or the pledges binding on her. He confirms them by saying nothing to her when he hears about them. 15 If, however, he nullifies them some time after he hears about them, then he must bear the consequences of her wrongdoing.”

Ephesians 5:22-24 (and Colossians 3:18-19)

22 Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.

To be fair it also says this:

Eph 5:25 which you left off,

Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her,

 

[Watchmen]

You seem oblivious to the uber masculinity of many MAGA men. These are far right ideological attitudes that have adopted an obsolete yet traditional Christian belief that women are subservient to men.

And who says these couples aren't having intelligent conversations? If they disagree strongly it might be wiser to NOT discuss politics. In my large family we do not talk politics at all, and that is because it's known that there's a broad disagreement of beliefs and attitudes. We keep the peace by not discussing politics.

I find your interpretation here odd. That didn't occur to me at all. Why is it the woman who defaults into being weak? The adds reflect how the husbands are weak and unable to tolerate their wives disagreeing with them, and the women need to show their strength by not being intimidated, and asserting their rights privately if necessary. Why no criticism of men who believe their wives must agree with them?

Let's note it is conservative men who have taken away the reproductive rights of women, which suggests they need to impose their rules onto women.

No doubt, the men who don't/can't have intelligent conversations with their wives and who wrap themselves in the Christian ideology that "men are superior" are disgusting and weak.

 

[Quintessence]

You seem to have misunderstood me. My words were, "Now you seem to be approaching or have reached that attitude as well. I understand and appreciate your willingness to not merely disagree with those people, but also to express your disgust and contempt for such people."

Somehow, you read that as praise of the enslavement of women. I was praising your change in tone and relative intolerance of MAGA. How did you miss that? You must read my words through a filter such that even when we agree, you don't see that.

Sorry, I was running thoughts together and that caused a miscommunication.

What I'm saying is no, it's not a good thing to be changing tone.

At all.

It is a very, very bad thing.

Borne of my utter disgust and discontent with gross human rights violations.

That doesn't make it okay.

That doesn't make it okay to spit venom.

I hate spitting venom.

It takes a very, very high level of evil for me to do that. As it should.

I hate it. Intolerance is NEVER a good thing. And it is tragic when it becomes necessary, not something to praise!

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

Let's note it is conservative men who have taken away the reproductive rights of women, which suggests they need to impose their rules onto women.

it is not logical thinking to say because someone approves of one law that affects women that they want to impose more laws on them. Also, 33% of women are staunchly pro life and there are many pro-life women lawmakers. There are also liberal men that want to impose their rules onto women as well.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Unfortunately, I suspect that some of the women in my life hide their vote from their husbands.

Her vote is her private business, none of her husband's. You can tell this by the fact her husband is not allowed to accompany her into the polling booth.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Yes. And in reality they could and likely would vote for different candidates. I do believe that describes James Carville and his wife.

And George Conway and Kellyanne Conway, married until 2023. He's a democrat, she served as senior counsel to Trump.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Numbers 30:10-15

10 “If a woman living with her husband makes a vow or obligates herself by a pledge under oath 11 and her husband hears about it but says nothing to her and does not forbid her, then all her vows or the pledges by which she obligated herself will stand. 12 But if her husband nullifies them when he hears about them, then none of the vows or pledges that came from her lips will stand. Her husband has nullified them, and the Lord will release her. 13 Her husband may confirm or nullify any vow she makes or any sworn pledge to deny herself.[a] 14 But if her husband says nothing to her about it from day to day, then he confirms all her vows or the pledges binding on her. He confirms them by saying nothing to her when he hears about them. 15 If, however, he nullifies them some time after he hears about them, then he must bear the consequences of her wrongdoing.”

Ephesians 5:22-24 (and Colossians 3:18-19)

22 Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.

The world has changed in 2000 years. Some humans have grown up.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Excuse me...but that cannot be possible if the FLOTUS is from the opposite political party, right?

Why? Nobody votes for First Lady.

 

[Augustus]

She could choose to tell him, or she could choose not to tell him.

It is her choice.

Nothing to do with this advert, but I would personally find it very odd for someone in a healthy relationship (male or female) to choose to keep it secret from their spouse/partner who they voted for.

In an unhealthy relationship I can see the value though.

 

[anna.]

Not with me. With wonderful, strong women I know. Are you aware I’m a moderate who supports Harris’ efforts to reinstate Roe v Wade, or are you just engaging in Tribal think and making assumptions about those who don’t agree with you every jot and tittle?

As has already been pointed out to you, this isn't about you. Maybe it's you who needs to check your assumptions. It's not about whether *you* voted for Trump, or whether *you* are a moderate.* The OP is about women who, for whatever their reasons are, don't have a sense of safety in sharing their voting decision with their husbands. The ad is targeted at a particular demographic which is out there, which many women will recognize and identify with, and perhaps will empower them. I hope so.

And your initial response in this thread?

Ridiculous. It’s quite the opposite. They are strong women. Some are voting for Harris, some for Trump, and others third party. Some aren’t voting at all. The fact is they are strong and confident and have no problem whatsoever voicing their political opinions, even if the men in their lives disagree. We all get in lively discussions, yet remain friends at the end. Get out of the bubble and quit believing only what the tribe tells you!

Talk about seeing things only from your own tribal viewpoint. Just because you *assume* you know some women well enough to know who they'll vote for in the voting booth doesn't give you the wherewithal to apply your assumptions to the general population.

In short, you don't speak for all women. Check that.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Excuse me...but that cannot be possible if the FLOTUS is from the opposite political party, right?

Why? Nobody votes for First Lady. There is no mention of such a person in the Constitution.

 

[anna.]

it is not logical thinking to say because someone approves of one law that affects women that they want to impose more laws on them. Also, 33% of women are staunchly pro life and there are many pro-life women lawmakers. There are also liberal men that want to impose their rules onto women as well.

7 in 10 Women Who Have Had an Abortion Identify as a Christian - Lifeway Research

As the U.S. Supreme Court weighs the future of Roe v. Wade, many pastors may be surprised to learn how many churchgoers have had an abortion.

research.lifeway.com

 

[Watchmen]

As has already been pointed out to you, this isn't about you. Maybe it's you who needs to check your assumptions. It's not about whether *you* voted for Trump, or whether *you* are a moderate.* The OP is about women who, for whatever their reasons are, don't have a sense of safety in sharing their voting decision with their husbands. The ad is targeted at a particular demographic which is out there, which many women will recognize and identify with, and perhaps will empower them. I hope so.

And your initial response in this thread?



Talk about seeing things only from your own tribal viewpoint. Just because you *assume* you know some women well enough to know who they'll vote for in the voting booth doesn't give you the wherewithal to apply your assumptions to the general population.

In short, you don't speak for all women. Check that.

Never said it was about me.
Never said I speak for all women.
I've been an advocate for restoring Roe v. Wade.
We're on the same side, but the far Left's intolerance of any variation of belief is ridiculous and damaging to the party.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Promoting deceiving a spouse is unethical in my opinion.

If a spouse has something to fear from telling her husband how she wants to vote, then encouraging her to keep her vote secret is probably the most ethical option.

 

[crossfire]

Most men I know don't tell their wives how to vote. My wife did not vote for Trump in 2016 but did in 2020 and in 2024. My two daughters voted for a third party candidate in this election. We have conversations but we all ultimately decide for ourselves. People can do marriages however they want but my opinion is a husband and wife should not keep secrets and should be able to talk about who they voted for. Promoting deceiving a spouse is unethical in my opinion.

Would it be unethical for one spouse to not tell the other spouse how they voted in order to protect the other spouse from voter intimidation charges? It could apply to either spouse.
See the US code I quoted earlier below:

Here is the US Code regarding Voter intimidation for reference:

18 U.S. Code § 594 - Intimidation of voters

www.law.cornell.edu

​

Whoever intimidates, threatens, coerces, or attempts to intimidate, threaten, or coerce, any other person for the purpose of interfering with the right of such other person to vote or to vote as he may choose, or of causing such other person to vote for, or not to vote for, any candidate for the office of President, Vice President, Presidential elector, Member of the Senate, Member of the House of Representatives, Delegate from the District of Columbia, or Resident Commissioner, at any election held solely or in part for the purpose of electing such candidate, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.​

(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 720; Pub. L. 91–405, title II, § 204(d)(5), Sept. 22, 1970, 84 Stat. 853; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(1)(H), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147.)​

​