A Midweek Note on Biden

| July 29, 2020 | 30 Comments

Photo meme sent by Skippy.

In an article this morning from Fox News, Joe Biden wants “to do more for women”.

We girls don’t got no choices?  We-uns is just a buncha lost souls?

Really?  Since when????

This article from Fox News’ Patrice Lee Onwuka is worth your time.

The headline is somewhat understated:  Patrice Onwuka: Joe Biden’s ‘Women’s Agenda’ would not result in future women want

I will nitpick here for a moment:  If the title read “will not result” instead of “would not result”, I might consider it to be more germane to the issue and much more direct.

The difference is context: “would not” is the subjunctive, less direct and more tentative in this case.

“Will not” is direct: in your face, girls, and snap out of it, willya?? It’s also more attention-grabbing than the more humble and pliable “would not”. In her article, she is much less tentative and far more direct.  Perhaps Ms. Onuwaka is concerned about “offending” some unforeseen respondent…. but I digress.

From the article:  Former Vice President Joe Biden just released The Biden Agenda for Women, his plan for setting today’s American women free from the shackles of the patriarchy. Too bad for Biden that American women are already empowered enough to recognize that his plan is insulting: It relegates women to victim status suggesting we have no agency over our lives and careers and no personal responsibility for our outcomes.

Worse, the policies he advances are a mix of rehashed, one-size-fits-all government dictates and taxpayer-funded giveaways that women will recognize as a recipe for a stagnant economy and less opportunity and choice.

Biden’s campaign is in a tricky spot: He has to hold onto moderate Democrats whose affinity for him is nostalgia for Barack Obama, while also appeasing the far-left**. The end result is a mashup of warmed-over Obama-era policies and selections from the Squad’s wishlist.

This is ridiculously out of touch with reality.

If elected, the former vice president would force the Affordable Care Act’s birth control mandate on nuns like the Little Sisters of the Poor, beef up the collection of corporate gender and race data to unfairly target businesses for punishment, and revive the infamous 2011 Dear Colleague letter that stripped accused students of basic due process rights in campus sexual assault investigations.

On the far-left end of the spectrum, Biden would cancel student loan debt for high-income earners, force employers to hand over their employees’ private contact information to unions for harassment purposes, and move to stamp out freelance work.

This is not what women want, but it is what we would get. – article

The rest of the article is at this link:   https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/joe-bidens-womens-agenda-patrice-onwuka

**This phrase is important all by itself:  while also appeasing the far-left. Now, why does that matter so much? Appeasement is supposed to bring in votes, right?  Who says the Far Leftists vote?  Isn’t it about time that someone put together some sort of “census count” or “group member” count of the Far Lefterds who are useless twigs causing all the trouble we’ve been seeing lately? Haven’t we come across news items in which someone who escaped one of those riots declared that the Antifas have infiltrated the BLMs and made those “protests” more violent and destructive? And it isn’t just once, either. It seems to be constant now.

I don’t know which century Biden is living in. It’s quite possible that he’s not really living on this planet. I’m not completely certain that he is even a live hooman bean.

But at this point, after some of the peculiar things he has said and done, I’m not sure that I even vaguely care. But someone is telling him what to do all the time. That much is obvious. He is completely out of touch with reality, in my view. What happens when/if he manages to get voted into the White House? And just how long might he last before he had “a debilitating stroke” that leaves him unable to do anything except drool on his jammies?

Ask the women you know to read the article, too, and give you some feedback. I know that we had far more choices in the 1960s and 1970s than anything Biden, in his idiocy, has ever heard of. He’s more and more like something you might find in “The Twilight Zone”. This “plan” (if you want to call it that) seems to be aimed at repression, not advancement. It does not offer anything that We Girls do not already have. If he is getting it from his “handlers”, I suspect that they will throw him under the bus rather quickly. I may be over-reacting, but right now, that’s where it seems to be heading.

YMMV.

Thanks to Skippy for the meme photo up top.

Category: "Truth or fiction?", "Your Tax Dollars At Work", 2020 Election, Biden, Democrats, General Whackos

Comments (30)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Ret_25X says:

    I dunno EX…women in America have consistently voted for Marxist “solutions” to “problems” since 1920.

    In fact, by voting history, it appears that at least a simple majority of women voters in America want to be treated as victims without agency, unable to do anything for themselves and in need of daddy government to take care of them.

    They also want to be “stunning and brave”, “powerful” and “ambitious”….while not having any responsibility for such outcomes.

    So when I see the woman’s vote in America NOT break for the Marxist servitude, I’ll believe that women are not clamoring for daddy warbucks to solve all their “problems”

    • Ex-PH2 says:

      I haven’t. I don’t know anyone who has voted that way. The Civil Rights Act and the 20th amendment are not Marxist solutions, you know, and neither are the updates to the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

      Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Pub. L. 88-352) (Title VII), as amended, as it appears in volume 42 of the United States Code, beginning at section 2000e, prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex and national origin. The Civil Rights Act of 1991 (Pub. L. 102-166) (CRA) and the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009 (Pub. L. 111-2) amend several sections of Title VII. In addition, section 102 of the CRA (which is printed elsewhere in this publication) amends the Revised Statutes by adding a new section following section 1977 (42 U.S.C. 1981), to provide for the recovery of compensatory and punitive damages in cases of intentional violations of Title VII, the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, and section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.

      Now, how are those things Marxist? They aren’t. There is a vast difference between “civil rights applies to all people, no exceptions” and Marxism, which takes away any and all rights, including freedom of choices (all kinds) and the right to think for oneself, denying the individuality of humans to think for themselves.

      I think you have it turned around, 25X.

      Besides, women don’t vote with their brains unless they are as bitchy as I am. 🙂 They vote with their hormones. Why do you think there were so many of them drooling over Clinton and Obama at their inaugurations? That isn’t Marxism, it’s being just plain horndogs.

      • FuzeVT says:

        >>>drooling over Clinton

        Never quite figured that one out.

      • Ret_25X says:

        No…but great society act, social security act, SNAP/food stamps, family law in the several states, child support laws, alimony laws, set aside laws, etc are ALL marxist concepts and those who enacted them were bouyed to office by the women’s vote.

        Or am I the only one who knows what “60% of the female vote goes to the democrats since 1926” means?

        Women vote for liberals. Period.

        Women vote for welfare. Period.

        Women vote for insane social experiments. Period.

        It is the female vote that has given the Democrats in Portland, Seattle, Minneapolis, and Chicago’s the power for over 50 years to make the problems possible.

        The truth is at FEC.gov.

        Remember, it only takes 49% of the female vote to be greater than the entire male vote in the USA.

        • OWB says:

          Seriously? Paint with a broad brush much there?? So what if something over half of some group does something – that means that nearly half do not do that something.

          Meanwhile, most of us hang with folks with whom we tend to agree about stuff. Unless we use other criteria to make the decision about where to spend our time and energy. It really doesn’t mean much at all that other people make other choices, until they expect you and me to pay for the results of their choices. Then they have made it our business.

      • Slow Joe says:

        Ex,

        Perhaps most women don’t vote for Marxist policies, but their majority definitively vote for Big Gruberment ™ policies.

      • Ex-PH2 says:

        Speak for yourselves, guys. I have NEVER voted that way. NEVER EVER. PERIOD.

      • CDR_D says:

        Limbaugh used to refer to it as the “arousal factor” re Clinton.

    • USAF E-5 says:

      My wife certainly didn’t. Her older sister, the MSgt, well she didn’t….one of my sisters didn’t. None of my cousins, they’re all Bible thumpers. Guess you have to meet a certain class. None of the nurses married to cops or firemen were even a hint of liberal.

  2. KoB says:

    FIRST! Oh…this isn’t a Midweek Open Thread? My bad…To quote Emily LaTella…Never Mind!

  3. Skippy says:

    All I can say is he’s still BAT SHIT CRAZY

  4. A Proud Infidel®™ says:

    I heard that Biden said in his latest statement that Women should MOT have to be afraid of the future if he’s elected because his Dad once ate breakfast wearing a Fedora.

  5. Forest Bondurant says:

    You can tell he’s lying because his mouth is moving.

    Speaking the obvious, he’s only saying what he thinks people want to hear to get votes (like any other politician would). He would never actually make any of those promises come true – and likely wouldn’t know how to even if he could.

  6. Great article Ex, and this mornings news had him possibly having a woman of color as his running mate. Pretty sad when one has to select a person by her/his color. I’ll just sit here and Biden my time to see what Biden does. If he gets a Woman in then it’s going to be the free cop a feel city if you know what I mean Jelly Bean. Later Alligator.

    • Ex-PH2 says:

      I’d guess he’ll take Lizzie Borden – er, um I mean Warren – Warren, that’s the ticket!– and she’ll run the whole thing while he slowly dribbles his life away into true senility.

      Oh, yeah, and if Biden went belly-up in a brain-dead fashion, guess who’d be the Veep after the Veep got crowned?

      Why, none other than – wait for it: NANCY.

      Is that scary enough for you to not want your supper tonight?

      • 11B-Mailclerk says:

        Actually, no.

        If there is a President and a vacancy of Vice President, the President picks a new one and sends the name to Congress for Confirmation.

        25th A, Section 2. Whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the Vice President, the President shall nominate a Vice President who shall take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both Houses of Congress.

        Only if both the Presidency and Vice Presidency are vacant does the Speaker become President. Only I’d nominated by the Pres would the Speaker become Veep.

        • Buckeye Jim says:

          Exactly right. That is how Jerry Ford became President. The highest office he was ever elected to was Congressman from a Michigan district (Grand Rapids area).

      • Anonymous says:

        Supposably it’s Kamela Harris… although now that Politico accidentally published that, Joe’s handlers may change it.

  7. 5th/77th FA says:

    Hey Groping Joe? Bull sh^t! Still pandering I see. Vote on this. You been there for 50 years. You are not only part of the problem, you and yours ARE the problem.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *