JD Vance Catch-all | (Merged with newest JD Vance stand-alone thread)

  • Thread starter Thread starter nycfan
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 799
  • Views: 17K
  • Politics 
wmheel1287 said:
Agreed. I think by and large those without children are FAR more likely to be concerned about the future of society than those who raised children that have now left home. I completely resent the characterization of childless people as somehow being disinterested in societal good through public policy.
Click to expand...
Uninterested, not disinterested.

Nobody was saying that all childless people aren't interested in public policy. Read what I wrote more carefully. Also, don't take everything personally. Public policy is about the average case, not the exceptional case. Again, people tend to vote their self-interest. People who spend time on a politics message board are perhaps more interested in policy than the average person, and more likely to support societal good.
 
Callatoroy said:
Your assumption is that trump and vance speak for everyone in the pub party and that their views on abortion, IVF, etc. represents the entire party because almost all of the comments on this board are targeted at the pub party, not trump / vance. They don't represent millions of republican views. trump didn't win 100% of the pub vote in the primary. Literally millions of republicans see trump for what he is and only support him as a means to an end. These people are not this
But for everyone of those I can show you this
I don't assume, as you seem to, that this represents the entire democratic party.

Vance's comments don't reflect my views on women and kids. That doesn't mean we don't share the same views on the border or other topics. I think I'm pretty damn good at looking at what politicians say and propose and believe in on the campaign trail because I know what campaign rhetoric is and I know what is actually doable within our checks / balances. I never believed trump was going to build a wall and mexico was going to pay for it but it sure did tell me that he was going to put effort into having a secure border. I don't believe trump is going to round up 11 million illegals and deport them but it tells me he is going to try to identify the bad ones and get them out and secure the border. I don't believe trump is going to pull out of NATO but I do believe he is going to get those countries to carry more of the load. None of that makes me what you perceive me to be, or millions of others but it is easier to make us boogeymen because it fuels the hatred.
Click to expand...
Trump pulled out of the Iran nuclear deal and now Iran is closer to having the bomb than ever. Why wouldn’t he pull out of NATO? He’s a lunatic.
 
superrific said:
Uninterested, not disinterested.

Nobody was saying that all childless people aren't interested in public policy. Read what I wrote more carefully. Also, don't take everything personally. Public policy is about the average case, not the exceptional case. Again, people tend to vote their self-interest. People who spend time on a politics message board are perhaps more interested in policy than the average person, and more likely to support societal good.
Click to expand...
I read exactly what you said and vehemently disagree with the characterization. I am not contending that only I am more likely to vote for what's best for the future. I am contending that overall childless people are far more likely to vote for solid future policy. That is my lived experience and I believe it to be true.

I find it to be those with children who are often more absorbed in the here and now. The voucher/charter school movement in NC is the perfect embodiment of this. Who is killing public schools in NC? It's primarily those with public school aged children and those who had children who have already finished public schools. Who is fighting tooth and nail to save the public school system and fund it appropriately? It's primarily people who don't have children. I think there are lots of reasons for that but mostly the people with children in schools now don't want to wait for the investment to pay off. They want whatever they think might be the best outcome for the handful of years their kids are in school now.
 
Callatoroy said:
Your assumption is that trump and vance speak for everyone in the pub party and that their views on abortion, IVF, etc. represents the entire party because almost all of the comments on this board are targeted at the pub party, not trump / vance. They don't represent millions of republican views. trump didn't win 100% of the pub vote in the primary. Literally millions of republicans see trump for what he is and only support him as a means to an end. These people are not this
But for everyone of those I can show you this
I don't assume, as you seem to, that this represents the entire democratic party.

Vance's comments don't reflect my views on women and kids. That doesn't mean we don't share the same views on the border or other topics. I think I'm pretty damn good at looking at what politicians say and propose and believe in on the campaign trail because I know what campaign rhetoric is and I know what is actually doable within our checks / balances. I never believed trump was going to build a wall and mexico was going to pay for it but it sure did tell me that he was going to put effort into having a secure border. I don't believe trump is going to round up 11 million illegals and deport them but it tells me he is going to try to identify the bad ones and get them out and secure the border. I don't believe trump is going to pull out of NATO but I do believe he is going to get those countries to carry more of the load. None of that makes me what you perceive me to be, or millions of others but it is easier to make us boogeymen because it fuels the hatred.
Click to expand...
What do you think happens to Ukraine if Trump is reelected? And what does Trump do if Putin goes after a Baltic State next?
 
CFordUNC said:
Why is Kamala Harris a "low IQ black woman" in your mind? You don't graduate from law school, become a successful attorney, become a successful prosecutor, become Attorney General of the largest state in the nation, become Vice President, and become at worst 50/50 odds to become the next POTUS, by having a "low IQ." That you continue to believe this, much less say it, is quite an indictment on your character. I hope you'll reconsider your choice of words moving forward.
Click to expand...
It’s a blatantly racist comment.
 
Wheels81 said:
Click to expand...

I posted this earlier but folks really should listen too how creepy the hypothetical that Vance suggests in this clip really is — he asks people to suppose that after an Ohio abortion ban, George Soros sends a 747 to Ohio every day to take black women to California for abortions and how that would be celebrated for diversity, which makes him “really sympathetic” to unspecified federal action to prevent it.
 
superrific said:
For the record, giving extra votes to people with children is not a lunatic idea, in my opinion at least. Matty Yglesias has also toyed around with the idea. I would prefer to lower the voting age to 12 or 14 or something like that, but the principle is similar. Don't get me wrong -- I don't wholeheartedly endorse the idea, but there is some merit to it if you strip away the insults and culture-war BS that Vance brings to it.

Basically, the idea is that it's pretty hard to convince old people to support long-term investments. Here I am talking about a) physical infrastructure like a better electricity grid, federally funded research for new technologies, b) education, both in terms of breadth and depth, and c) long-term fiscal solvency. It's not hard to see why -- they won't be around to enjoy them! It's not too different in kind from the problem often facing publicly traded companies -- that the investors, who are often around for only the short- or medium-term, want to slash R&D to juice current earnings, or who judge managers by their ability to hit earnings estimates multiple quarters in a row over their ability to build strong organizations for long-term growth.

Giving additional voice to the people whose interests are more aligned with the long-term health of the country is likely to promote, over time, better management for long-term prosperity. That is the idea, in a nutshell.

The downsides of the plan are evident to all and do not require elaboration. I am personally agnostic about the idea, as I see the advantages and disadvantages. Maybe this is the corporate law professor in me talking, but bad things tend to happen to institutions over time when you give power to people who don't really care about the success of those institutions. It's the main reason why equity grants became such an important part of executive compensation.
Click to expand...
It’s still a bad idea.
 
Callatoroy said:
trump's IQ has been estimated to be between 120 and 130. some sites claim closer to 130. who knows?
Click to expand...
"People are saying..." Yeah, but around here we like know WHICH people are saying (or in this case estimating). I'm not weighing in one way or the other on your claim, I'm just noting that you didn't provide a link to your original source so we couldn't evaluate the trustworthiness of that source. If you want to be taken seriously around here, providing primary sources will help get you there. Leaving them out will allow us to blow off your claims.
 
Bigs23 said:
It’s still a bad idea.
Click to expand...
I vehemently oppose giving extra votes to parents of children. If you're bound and determined to solve that problem, then it should be done by increasing the voting power of voting age youths relative to the olds (like me).
 
Last edited:
hndrx222 said:
What do you think happens to Ukraine if Trump is reelected? And what does Trump do if Putin goes after a Baltic State next?
Click to expand...
I believe Trump already said publicly he will allow Putin to do whatever he wants. And he has most of the GOP congresspeople behind him.
 
Ddseddse said:
I vehemently oppose giving extra votes to parents of children. If you're bound and determined to solve that problem, then it should be done by increasing the voting power of voting age youths relative to the olds (like me).
Click to expand...
Yea But you and I are "wise" lol
 
uncgriff said:
He actually argued for higher taxes for people without kids as well. Nutjob. Parents with kids already get a tax break.

abcnews.go.com

Vance argued for higher tax rate on childless Americans in 2021 interview

Republican vice presidential candidate JD Vance advocated for higher taxes on Americans without children in a 2021 interview unearthed by ABC News.
abcnews.go.com abcnews.go.com
Click to expand...
As you point out, childless couples already pay a higher tax rate (effectively). Increasing their marginal rate is not economically different than giving additional tax breaks to couples with kids (which happened during Covid and which Biden was pushing to make permanent). Our tax code very much discriminates against childless couples.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top