Posted on 09/22/2022 2:48:30 PM PDT by Michigan Bowhunter
A Michigan candidate for the US House backed by former President Donald Trump once railed against giving women the right to vote, arguing that America has “suffered” since women’s suffrage.
John Gibbs, who defeated in the primary an incumbent Republican who had voted to impeach Trump, also made comments in the early 2000s praising an organization trying to repeal the 19th Amendment which also argued that women’s suffrage had made the United States into a “totalitarian state.” Hosted on Gibbs’ personal page at Stanford in 2000 and 2001, the Society for the Critique of Feminism argued for a patriarchal society run by men, calling it “the best model for the continued success of a society.” Gibbs requested the website for the think tank be removed from the Internet Archive’s Wayback Machine in 2016, according to a spokesman for the Internet Archive. But CNN’s KFile reviewed it on a different archiving service.
On the site, Gibbs actively argued against women being granted the right to vote, saying it led to an enlarged federal government.
(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...
Show me the error.
I’ll say. Whatever might have been said about women’s suffrage, was said over 100 years ago. Did he really have to reopen the issue. Moronic.
Gibbs is a great choice. Push him over the top.
Women vote on emotions and feelings. Not substance. See Soccer moms.
No error ... just politically incorrect.
“A Michigan candidate for the US House backed by former President Donald Trump once railed against giving women the right to vote”
LOL. So much for this idiot. Next.
I know women who believe that women should not vote.
So? And? What's the problem here?
The Michigan 3rd is a strong Republican District that President Trump won by three points. My guess is that this story gets no traction and is forgotten about in a couple days.
No better a look than to claim the same re: the right for blacks to vote.
John Gibbs is right about the 19th amendment but if he wants to get elected he has to lie about his thoughts on the issue. Half of his constituents are women and he cannot afford to alienate them.
People who receive benefits (not pay) from the government should not vote. It’s a conflict of interest.
“Half of his constituents are women and he cannot afford to alienate them.”
Only if they vote.
I’ll less concerned about women voting than about non-property owners voting. If a woman owns property, fine, let her vote.
Oh really?
Do women stereotypically get angry?
I thought that was men (proven by criminal stats).
Or is it that anger is not an emotion?
If only men voted this would be a totally different country today. IMO much stronger and better.
I agree. In many ways, women voting is problematic to Western civilization. But agitating to take away their franchise is never going to happen....unless civilization itself collapses.
Correlation is not causation.
53% for the wrong side (these days) is not overwhelming evidence of predictable behavior.
Now that I can get behind. If it’s mostly females, so be it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.